It's sad how many will be going to hell, because of misunderstanding of the Bible. And people only make assumptions of what is said and what they want it to mean.
BTW, the best verse I know of that seems to speak against pornography is in Ezekiel 23, where it talks about a woman (Judah personified) lusting after pictures drawn on a wall: 14 But she increased her promiscuity when she saw male figures carved on the wall, images of the Chaldeans, engraved in bright red, 15 wearing belts on their waists and flowing turbans on their heads; all of them looked like officers, a depiction of the Babylonians in Chaldea, their native land. 16 At the sight of them she lusted after them and sent messengers to them in Chaldea. 17 Then the Babylonians came to her, to the bed of love, and defiled her with their lust.
To better understand what Jesus was referring to, we need to consider their culture at that time and their language. The Aramaic word used there meant “illegal union “ like the one of an incest. Also, the culture requires the bride to be virgin as promised in the moment he pays the price for her. If he doesn’t take her for no being Virgen, she had to be stoned to dead. Same with the issue of adultery. Therefore, after much going around thinking if a person is free to divorce and remarriage The Word of God is unmovable: what the Lord has joined together, let no man put asunder. In God’s eyes, they are one flesh until one of them died even if they don’t leave together anymore.❤
IF THE BETROTHAL DOES NOT FIT, YOU MUST ACQUIT. Of course, you are quoting the King James Version of the Bible, for the use of the word "fornication." The New King James version is a better translation, which uses the word "immorality," instead, of "fornication". Jesus never spoke English upon the earth, neither did his disciples. The King James Version was translated more than one thousand five hundred years AFTER THE BIBLE (original text) was written. The original text (I hope that we agree) was divinely inspired. If there is a disagreement on a particular word, we MUST look at the original text for truth. The original text is divinely inspired. King James, the translator, was a worldly king, living in sin, not a Christian, who commissioned a bunch of worldly scholars, who were educated in their day, but none ever received the Holy Ghost, to translate the original text. Generally, KJV is a good and an accurate translation, and I love it and use it on occasion, but "fornication" was not used in the original text, which was πορνεία porneía, (pronounced por-ni'-ah) which means "porn." In Jesus' day, "porn" meant "immorality." "Immorality" covers both single and married unlawful sex, which defiles any marriage, and makes it unclean in the sight of God. God expects marriage to be holy amongst believers, not adultery. “Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy, saith the Lord.” 1 Peter 1:16 Think about this, to say that the betrothal must be holy, but the marriage need not be, simply does not make any sense. If "betrothal does not fit, you must acquit." Blessings to you, brother. This is why Jesus gave us the two great exceptions found in Matthew.
So the Jewish culture in Matthew was totally overlooked especially when stoning was the only way to remarry in the Old Testament, and if they had a betrothed period, why is that ignored in the test as well.
There are a few common mistakes being made here: 1. "Lust" is not a good translation in Matthew 5. It should be "covet". The word in Greek in Matthew 5 is the same word as in the "do not covet" passage in the Greek Septuagint. Jesus' sermon is dealing with the 10 Commandments one after another, and there is no commandment not to lust, but there is a commandment not to covet. "You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor’s." And then Jesus is tying not coveting your neighbor's wife into not committing adultery with your neighbor's wife. And I'm not exactly sure that looking at pictures on the internet relates exactly to coveting your neighbor's wife, or could actually lead to actual adultery because where would you ever meet that woman? 2. Today we tend to see a man's pornography or actual adultery as a sin against his wife. That's nowhere in view in the 10 Commandments. The sin of adultery was a sin against another married man. Man A (married or unmarried) sleeping with Man B's wife. Man A and Man B's wife were the adulterous sinners. If Man A had a wife, he wasn't committing adultery against her, he was committing adultery against Man B. We can clearly comprehend this from the story of King David. He had multiple legitimate wives including Michal, Abigail, Maacah, Ahinoam, Abital, Haggith, and Eglah. God never said anything to him about any of those wives, and never punished him for adultery against his first wife Michal; because it wasn't adultery. God sent the prophet Nathan and punished David only when David took Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah. Then it was adultery. 3. You fail to note, or care, that the Torah and Jesus state a man can divorce his wife legitimately and remarry for the case of porneia. Nowhere is it said that a woman can divorce her husband. That was simply not allowed in God's Law. Jesus recognizes it can happen when he talks about a woman divorcing her husband (perhaps referring to the case of Herodias who applied to Rome to divorce her husband Philip and then married Herod who later killed John the Baptist). But that is under Roman law and not under Torah Law or Church Law. Paul likewise in 1 Corinthians 7 says that a woman *must not* divorce her husband. 1 Peter 3 tells wives even of unbelievers not to leave their husbands but to submit to them. So the whole question from a woman asking when she can divorce her husband or separate from him should be thrown out. The fact that you even countenance it shows how influenced you've become by the prevailing feminist and egalitarian culture.
Adultery is based on the marital status of the woman, not the man. Biblically speaking which is what Christian’s are supposed to follow. NOT what culture has changed it to. The passage where Jesus says “if you have lusted after a woman, you have committed adultery”, the word “woman” is actually supposed to be a “married or betrothed woman”. Culture has us so brainwashed about what that scripture means, no one even takes the time to realize that even in todays culture, adultery requires one person to be married. That verse makes no sense with how it’s being taught to us in the context of 2 single people of the opposite sex. Nowhere was porneia ever used, to mean “sex outside of marriage” in the way it’s described here. It’s regarding incest, sex involving idolatry, bestiality, sleeping with a prostitute(someone who sells their body for money). This wife trying to divorce her husband over watching porn…. Sounds like she’s looking for a reason to divorce. It should NOT be grounds for divorce and by the way, if you really understand what Jesus and the New Testament says about divorce, if this lady divorces her husband, she is NOT to remarry. And last last thing, the exception for divorce is only in regards to Husbands divorcing wives. Wives have no exception. Another lie from the church. That’s why a woman is supposed to stay married or be reconciled. I know women will be upset with me, don’t. You can’t take it up with God instead of twisting scripture to your benefit.
Another interpretation of Matthew's Jesus saying no divorce "except on the ground of pornea" is that he was talking about the betrothal period where the couple were considered married, but not really married yet. They lived apart for one year, but were called husband and wife by everyone who knew them. If the "husband" suspected his "wife" during this time of pornea (perhaps he sees her flirting with another guy), then he would issue her a certificate of divorce as though they were married, even though the marriage hadn't been consumated yet. This easily fixes the problem of some people interpreting pornea to be grounds for divorce (even decades after the marriage) in its broadest terms, which would lead to situations where a divorce could occur over trivial sexual indiscretions like lusting after another person (how would that even be proven?) or the ones who interpret pornea as only referring to adultery (when Jesus could have simply said adultery) even though adultery was already a stoning offense, not a reason to divorce.
one of the issues when using porneia as a blanket term is a lot of what people say is porneia (homosexuality,bestiality,adultery) are all crimes at that time deserving of death. You wouldn't need a divorce because you would be in widowhood in order to remarry. Jesus is speaking to jewish scholars here, particularly in reference to what we know as Deut 24. But this scripture follows Deut 22 with its laws concerning virgins, betrothals, and seductions. Deut 22:28 states if a man "seizes" a woman unbetrothed (despite the NIV versions translation to "rape," no, that's not the word) it is his responsibility to marry her "if they are discovered" Well, what if this discovery happens after a new betrothal. That girl can't be stoned if she is discovered pregnant. The only way she could be stoned is if she messed around during the betrothal, or she makes it to the marriage bed, and her non-virginity is discovered then. If she is found out to be pregnant the only option for the betrothed man is the divorce. The girl marries her seducer(remarries-because betrothals count as marriage,not mere engagement) . The betrothed man can find another and marry her. It flows with Deut 24, and it flows with Matthew 19.
Your explanation about divorce implies that Jesus changed the law of Moses which he didn’t. He clearly stated Matthew 5:17 he didn’t come to change the law. Then we teach he made changes to the law. The problem is we don’t know the law of Moses regarding adulterous marriage. Adultery was punishable by death, and adulterous marriages was mandatory divorce. But the woman could remarry. In Matthew 5:32 Jesus isn’t describing a couple that’s divorced. The word divorced (apostasion) isn’t used. Jesus used it in verse 31. But in verse 32 he used the word apoloyo twice. The KJV and NIV all added the word divorce. Look at the original text. The woman isn’t divorced but “put away” which means separated. Moses required 2 parts which Jesus said in verse 31 and the Pharisees said in Matthew 19:7. During their time men would leave for work or war. If he never returns the woman could not remarry. She was Agunah, which means chained woman. She would die in that state. But if 2 or witnesses provided proof of death she could remarry. But then if the man turns up alive she was now married to 2 men. The second marriage was considered the adulterous marriage. She would then have to be divorced by both men. The first husband couldn’t take her back because he would be defiled (Duet 24.) Her children in the second marriage took on the status of bastard (mamzer) and loss any rights to inheritance and were put out of the congregation. Once divorced she was free to be another man’s wife but was forbidden for life from both previous husbands. Fornication was the exception to the rule because adultery was punishable by death and acts of porneia was mandatory divorce with the woman losing her ketubah. Btw, every marriage had a divorce agreement called a ketubah. It was the marriage agreement that spelled out what the woman would receive if the husband died or how much he’d pay her if he divorced her. It was usually the equivalent of the dowry which was in many cases 10% the net worth of the fathers wealth. First born sons got double portions, sons got a portion, and daughter received dowries. And this was not done when father’s died. Issac died 50 years later after giving Jacob and Esau their inheritance.
@@DivorcedChristianPodcast False we are not under Mosaic law. There is only 2 options after divorce remain " single" or reconcile. Jesus is for reconciliation there is no such thing that a wife or husband cannot go back to there first spouse. There is only 1 spouse period only death allows remarriage.
This specifically referred to the woman being married, whether she came to the man as a virgin or not. This would primarily mean what the woman did during the betrothal period, though alternately it might refer to what she'd done prior to betrothal. That would be porneia (illicit sex). Examples in the bible exist for "porneia" being: prostitution, incest, adultery, (homosexuality?). What is NOT given as an example of porneia, is "vanilla heterosexual premarital sex"; thus when translated into the English word "fornication", it is misused. The OT law has a man committing adultery only when he has wronged another man (taken what was owned by another man). Women were owned in the OT. Women could not divorce their husbands, only the man could initiate divorce. In the NT, Jesus seemed to raise the law to a higher level. But I don't think he literally meant adultery when a man lusted in his heart, otherwise we'd all be gashing our eyes out. And no, I don't think Jesus wanted to make divorce easier as compared to the OT. So I'm going to nix the pornography as a reason for divorce.
This isn’t accurate. What women did prior to betrothal… Women got married at 13. It was shameful for a man to touch a woman he was not married to. Once betrothed the woman was off limits to all men including her husband until their nuptials was exchanged about a year later. Once the ketubah was signed beginning the betrothal period the man could not hold hands, kiss or even wink at her. This was considered lewd. We teach adultery and divorce through a western American point of view and not from Jewish culture. And women weren’t owned. Jacob didn’t own Rachel and Leah. The virtuous woman did commerce and trade. Jewish women held the status of their husbands. And was given 10% of their fathers wealth as part of their dowry. They owned land and could keep it separate from their husband. This was recorded in their ketubah (marriage agreement.) The bridal payment made to the Father wasn’t a payment of ownership. Women couldn’t initiate divorce but could ask the court to compel their husband to divorce. She was granted a divorce for just cause such as if the man was sterile, had a disease like leprosy or worked certain jobs where the smell was unbearable. Look into chabad.org, Jewishvirtuallibrary.com or Jewishencyclopedia.com and learn Jewish culture. We have taught a lot of things wrong about the Bible in the church.
I believe you guys have important people in your life and probably a lot in your curch who have divorced and probably remarried and entered into adultery. Marriage is permanent. No loopholes you guys are making divorce esy and god hates divorce. And your leading people in a direction that will lead to a bad eternity.
There are two reasons: Abandonment and Adultery, both by the other spouse. Marriage is meant to be permanent but humans are hard-hearted. No one is making divorce easy. It is never easy and is seen by God as an act of violence. The flaw is that you are assuming that any other marriage (other than the two examples above) is perpetual adultery and there is nothing in the Bible that says that. Nowhere. It's an assumption by those who believe in works-based theology. There are so many people who aren't even believers, are divorced from other people, and then marry each other. They go to a church and are told that they must divorce now if they want to be believers, instructing them to break their vows to their marriage. It doesn't say to do that in the Bible. Nowhere do Paul and/or Jesus say, "Ok. some of you have been married before and now you're married to someone else. Your first spouse is living and you are in perpetual adultery so unless you want to go to hell, divorce each other and stay single for the rest of your lives." The flaws are here: 1) People assume that there are no exceptions. It would be better if divorce didn't exist but it isn't realistic when dealing with humans. There are two exceptions so every second marriage isn't necessary adulterous. 2) That the second marriage is perpetual adultery. Again, that isn't stated in the Bible, much to the chagrin of works-based theologists. The act of remarrying may be adultery, depending on the circumstance. If so, confess that...confess that you committed this and remain in the vow that you took. It's still a vow. When talking to the woman at the well, Jesus refers to her relationships as "husbands," thereby saying that each one of them was a valid marriage and that she should have been faithful in each circumstance. Works-based theologists state that no second marriage is ever recognized by God and there is Biblical proof otherwise. 3) Works-based theologists believe that the only ones in any perpetual sin are the ones in second marriages and claim that they will all go to hell....some say that the first spouse that dies will, as if theology is a math problem. They assume that they, works-based theologists, can sin and ask forgiveness for it and live on whereas one in a second marriage is in perpetual sin until they leave the marriage. This is incorrect. As far as eternity is concerned, everyone is a sinner and Paul described all of those sins. No one is exempt. Saved go to heaven, unsaved do not.
@@marklaronde6614mark, does your version of the Bible say this? 1Cor 7:12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. 13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. 15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such [cases]: but God hath called us to peace. If so, you can see clearly that this gives no license at all for a believer to divorce in these situations. And the words of Jesus still ring true, Matthew 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. Let's believe all the words in the Holy Bible.
It's sad how many will be going to hell, because of misunderstanding of the Bible. And people only make assumptions of what is said and what they want it to mean.
BTW, the best verse I know of that seems to speak against pornography is in Ezekiel 23, where it talks about a woman (Judah personified) lusting after pictures drawn on a wall:
14 But she increased her promiscuity when she saw male figures carved on the wall, images of the Chaldeans, engraved in bright red, 15 wearing belts on their waists and flowing turbans on their heads; all of them looked like officers, a depiction of the Babylonians in Chaldea, their native land. 16 At the sight of them she lusted after them and sent messengers to them in Chaldea. 17 Then the Babylonians came to her, to the bed of love, and defiled her with their lust.
To better understand what Jesus was referring to, we need to consider their culture at that time and their language. The Aramaic word used there meant “illegal union “ like the one of an incest. Also, the culture requires the bride to be virgin as promised in the moment he pays the price for her. If he doesn’t take her for no being Virgen, she had to be stoned to dead. Same with the issue of adultery. Therefore, after much going around thinking if a person is free to divorce and remarriage The Word of God is unmovable: what the Lord has joined together, let no man put asunder. In God’s eyes, they are one flesh until one of them died even if they don’t leave together anymore.❤
That’s the way I’ve always understood it.
IF THE BETROTHAL DOES NOT FIT, YOU MUST ACQUIT. Of course, you are quoting the King James Version of the Bible, for the use of the word "fornication." The New King James version is a better translation, which uses the word "immorality," instead, of "fornication". Jesus never spoke English upon the earth, neither did his disciples. The King James Version was translated more than one thousand five hundred years AFTER THE BIBLE (original text) was written. The original text (I hope that we agree) was divinely inspired. If there is a disagreement on a particular word, we MUST look at the original text for truth. The original text is divinely inspired. King James, the translator, was a worldly king, living in sin, not a Christian, who commissioned a bunch of worldly scholars, who were educated in their day, but none ever received the Holy Ghost, to translate the original text. Generally, KJV is a good and an accurate translation, and I love it and use it on occasion, but "fornication" was not used in the original text, which was πορνεία porneía, (pronounced por-ni'-ah) which means "porn." In Jesus' day, "porn" meant "immorality." "Immorality" covers both single and married unlawful sex, which defiles any marriage, and makes it unclean in the sight of God. God expects marriage to be holy amongst believers, not adultery. “Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy, saith the Lord.” 1 Peter 1:16 Think about this, to say that the betrothal must be holy, but the marriage need not be, simply does not make any sense. If "betrothal does not fit, you must acquit." Blessings to you, brother. This is why Jesus gave us the two great exceptions found in Matthew.
So the Jewish culture in Matthew was totally overlooked especially when stoning was the only way to remarry in the Old Testament, and if they had a betrothed period, why is that ignored in the test as well.
There are a few common mistakes being made here:
1. "Lust" is not a good translation in Matthew 5. It should be "covet". The word in Greek in Matthew 5 is the same word as in the "do not covet" passage in the Greek Septuagint. Jesus' sermon is dealing with the 10 Commandments one after another, and there is no commandment not to lust, but there is a commandment not to covet. "You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor’s." And then Jesus is tying not coveting your neighbor's wife into not committing adultery with your neighbor's wife. And I'm not exactly sure that looking at pictures on the internet relates exactly to coveting your neighbor's wife, or could actually lead to actual adultery because where would you ever meet that woman?
2. Today we tend to see a man's pornography or actual adultery as a sin against his wife. That's nowhere in view in the 10 Commandments. The sin of adultery was a sin against another married man. Man A (married or unmarried) sleeping with Man B's wife. Man A and Man B's wife were the adulterous sinners. If Man A had a wife, he wasn't committing adultery against her, he was committing adultery against Man B. We can clearly comprehend this from the story of King David. He had multiple legitimate wives including Michal, Abigail, Maacah, Ahinoam, Abital, Haggith, and Eglah. God never said anything to him about any of those wives, and never punished him for adultery against his first wife Michal; because it wasn't adultery. God sent the prophet Nathan and punished David only when David took Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah. Then it was adultery.
3. You fail to note, or care, that the Torah and Jesus state a man can divorce his wife legitimately and remarry for the case of porneia. Nowhere is it said that a woman can divorce her husband. That was simply not allowed in God's Law. Jesus recognizes it can happen when he talks about a woman divorcing her husband (perhaps referring to the case of Herodias who applied to Rome to divorce her husband Philip and then married Herod who later killed John the Baptist). But that is under Roman law and not under Torah Law or Church Law. Paul likewise in 1 Corinthians 7 says that a woman *must not* divorce her husband. 1 Peter 3 tells wives even of unbelievers not to leave their husbands but to submit to them. So the whole question from a woman asking when she can divorce her husband or separate from him should be thrown out. The fact that you even countenance it shows how influenced you've become by the prevailing feminist and egalitarian culture.
Pornea is very broad. It means anything unfaithful to the marriage covenant. Not just sex.....
I guess divirce for spending money without asking is for divorce. Everyone at one time or another thinks adulteress thoughts. So divorce is a go
fornication, in the tradition, has been sex, out of marriage.....any sex, out of the covenant relationship is adultery....not immorality...
This is how we use fornication now, however fornication in the time of KJV it was more of a general term for different sexual immoralities.
Fornication comes from the word fornix which is a vault.Men would wait for women and pay for sex. It means whoredom, prostitution
Adultery is based on the marital status of the woman, not the man. Biblically speaking which is what Christian’s are supposed to follow. NOT what culture has changed it to.
The passage where Jesus says “if you have lusted after a woman, you have committed adultery”, the word “woman” is actually supposed to be a “married or betrothed woman”.
Culture has us so brainwashed about what that scripture means, no one even takes the time to realize that even in todays culture, adultery requires one person to be married. That verse makes no sense with how it’s being taught to us in the context of 2 single people of the opposite sex.
Nowhere was porneia ever used, to mean “sex outside of marriage” in the way it’s described here. It’s regarding incest, sex involving idolatry, bestiality, sleeping with a prostitute(someone who sells their body for money).
This wife trying to divorce her husband over watching porn…. Sounds like she’s looking for a reason to divorce. It should NOT be grounds for divorce and by the way, if you really understand what Jesus and the New Testament says about divorce, if this lady divorces her husband, she is NOT to remarry.
And last last thing, the exception for divorce is only in regards to Husbands divorcing wives. Wives have no exception. Another lie from the church. That’s why a woman is supposed to stay married or be reconciled. I know women will be upset with me, don’t. You can’t take it up with God instead of twisting scripture to your benefit.
Another interpretation of Matthew's Jesus saying no divorce "except on the ground of pornea" is that he was talking about the betrothal period where the couple were considered married, but not really married yet. They lived apart for one year, but were called husband and wife by everyone who knew them. If the "husband" suspected his "wife" during this time of pornea (perhaps he sees her flirting with another guy), then he would issue her a certificate of divorce as though they were married, even though the marriage hadn't been consumated yet. This easily fixes the problem of some people interpreting pornea to be grounds for divorce (even decades after the marriage) in its broadest terms, which would lead to situations where a divorce could occur over trivial sexual indiscretions like lusting after another person (how would that even be proven?) or the ones who interpret pornea as only referring to adultery (when Jesus could have simply said adultery) even though adultery was already a stoning offense, not a reason to divorce.
Excatly💯
one of the issues when using porneia as a blanket term is a lot of what people say is porneia (homosexuality,bestiality,adultery) are all crimes at that time deserving of death. You wouldn't need a divorce because you would be in widowhood in order to remarry. Jesus is speaking to jewish scholars here, particularly in reference to what we know as Deut 24. But this scripture follows Deut 22 with its laws concerning virgins, betrothals, and seductions. Deut 22:28 states if a man "seizes" a woman unbetrothed (despite the NIV versions translation to "rape," no, that's not the word) it is his responsibility to marry her "if they are discovered" Well, what if this discovery happens after a new betrothal. That girl can't be stoned if she is discovered pregnant. The only way she could be stoned is if she messed around during the betrothal, or she makes it to the marriage bed, and her non-virginity is discovered then. If she is found out to be pregnant the only option for the betrothed man is the divorce. The girl marries her seducer(remarries-because betrothals count as marriage,not mere engagement) . The betrothed man can find another and marry her. It flows with Deut 24, and it flows with Matthew 19.
Your explanation about divorce implies that Jesus changed the law of Moses which he didn’t. He clearly stated Matthew 5:17 he didn’t come to change the law. Then we teach he made changes to the law. The problem is we don’t know the law of Moses regarding adulterous marriage. Adultery was punishable by death, and adulterous marriages was mandatory divorce. But the woman could remarry. In Matthew 5:32 Jesus isn’t describing a couple that’s divorced. The word divorced (apostasion) isn’t used. Jesus used it in verse 31. But in verse 32 he used the word apoloyo twice. The KJV and NIV all added the word divorce. Look at the original text. The woman isn’t divorced but “put away” which means separated. Moses required 2 parts which Jesus said in verse 31 and the Pharisees said in Matthew 19:7. During their time men would leave for work or war. If he never returns the woman could not remarry. She was Agunah, which means chained woman. She would die in that state. But if 2 or witnesses provided proof of death she could remarry. But then if the man turns up alive she was now married to 2 men. The second marriage was considered the adulterous marriage. She would then have to be divorced by both men. The first husband couldn’t take her back because he would be defiled (Duet 24.) Her children in the second marriage took on the status of bastard (mamzer) and loss any rights to inheritance and were put out of the congregation. Once divorced she was free to be another man’s wife but was forbidden for life from both previous husbands.
Fornication was the exception to the rule because adultery was punishable by death and acts of porneia was mandatory divorce with the woman losing her ketubah.
Btw, every marriage had a divorce agreement called a ketubah. It was the marriage agreement that spelled out what the woman would receive if the husband died or how much he’d pay her if he divorced her. It was usually the equivalent of the dowry which was in many cases 10% the net worth of the fathers wealth. First born sons got double portions, sons got a portion, and daughter received dowries. And this was not done when father’s died. Issac died 50 years later after giving Jacob and Esau their inheritance.
@@DivorcedChristianPodcast False we are not under Mosaic law. There is only 2 options after divorce remain " single" or reconcile. Jesus is for reconciliation there is no such thing that a wife or husband cannot go back to there first spouse. There is only 1 spouse period only death allows remarriage.
This specifically referred to the woman being married, whether she came to the man as a virgin or not. This would primarily mean what the woman did during the betrothal period, though alternately it might refer to what she'd done prior to betrothal. That would be porneia (illicit sex). Examples in the bible exist for "porneia" being: prostitution, incest, adultery, (homosexuality?). What is NOT given as an example of porneia, is "vanilla heterosexual premarital sex"; thus when translated into the English word "fornication", it is misused.
The OT law has a man committing adultery only when he has wronged another man (taken what was owned by another man). Women were owned in the OT. Women could not divorce their husbands, only the man could initiate divorce. In the NT, Jesus seemed to raise the law to a higher level. But I don't think he literally meant adultery when a man lusted in his heart, otherwise we'd all be gashing our eyes out. And no, I don't think Jesus wanted to make divorce easier as compared to the OT. So I'm going to nix the pornography as a reason for divorce.
This isn’t accurate. What women did prior to betrothal… Women got married at 13. It was shameful for a man to touch a woman he was not married to. Once betrothed the woman was off limits to all men including her husband until their nuptials was exchanged about a year later. Once the ketubah was signed beginning the betrothal period the man could not hold hands, kiss or even wink at her. This was considered lewd. We teach adultery and divorce through a western American point of view and not from Jewish culture.
And women weren’t owned. Jacob didn’t own Rachel and Leah. The virtuous woman did commerce and trade. Jewish women held the status of their husbands. And was given 10% of their fathers wealth as part of their dowry. They owned land and could keep it separate from their husband. This was recorded in their ketubah (marriage agreement.) The bridal payment made to the Father wasn’t a payment of ownership. Women couldn’t initiate divorce but could ask the court to compel their husband to divorce. She was granted a divorce for just cause such as if the man was sterile, had a disease like leprosy or worked certain jobs where the smell was unbearable.
Look into chabad.org, Jewishvirtuallibrary.com or Jewishencyclopedia.com and learn Jewish culture. We have taught a lot of things wrong about the Bible in the church.
I believe you guys have important people in your life and probably a lot in your curch who have divorced and probably remarried and entered into adultery. Marriage is permanent. No loopholes you guys are making divorce esy and god hates divorce. And your leading people in a direction that will lead to a bad eternity.
There are two reasons: Abandonment and Adultery, both by the other spouse. Marriage is meant to be permanent but humans are hard-hearted. No one is making divorce easy. It is never easy and is seen by God as an act of violence. The flaw is that you are assuming that any other marriage (other than the two examples above) is perpetual adultery and there is nothing in the Bible that says that. Nowhere. It's an assumption by those who believe in works-based theology. There are so many people who aren't even believers, are divorced from other people, and then marry each other. They go to a church and are told that they must divorce now if they want to be believers, instructing them to break their vows to their marriage. It doesn't say to do that in the Bible. Nowhere do Paul and/or Jesus say, "Ok. some of you have been married before and now you're married to someone else. Your first spouse is living and you are in perpetual adultery so unless you want to go to hell, divorce each other and stay single for the rest of your lives."
The flaws are here:
1) People assume that there are no exceptions. It would be better if divorce didn't exist but it isn't realistic when dealing with humans. There are two exceptions so every second marriage isn't necessary adulterous.
2) That the second marriage is perpetual adultery. Again, that isn't stated in the Bible, much to the chagrin of works-based theologists. The act of remarrying may be adultery, depending on the circumstance. If so, confess that...confess that you committed this and remain in the vow that you took. It's still a vow. When talking to the woman at the well, Jesus refers to her relationships as "husbands," thereby saying that each one of them was a valid marriage and that she should have been faithful in each circumstance. Works-based theologists state that no second marriage is ever recognized by God and there is Biblical proof otherwise.
3) Works-based theologists believe that the only ones in any perpetual sin are the ones in second marriages and claim that they will all go to hell....some say that the first spouse that dies will, as if theology is a math problem. They assume that they, works-based theologists, can sin and ask forgiveness for it and live on whereas one in a second marriage is in perpetual sin until they leave the marriage. This is incorrect.
As far as eternity is concerned, everyone is a sinner and Paul described all of those sins. No one is exempt. Saved go to heaven, unsaved do not.
Adultery is the only biblical reason for divorce.
Not even close.....1 Corinthians 7:12-15.....
@@marklaronde6614mark, does your version of the Bible say this? 1Cor 7:12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such [cases]: but God hath called us to peace.
If so, you can see clearly that this gives no license at all for a believer to divorce in these situations. And the words of Jesus still ring true, Matthew 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
Let's believe all the words in the Holy Bible.