So You Just Lost Your Virginity To A Man And Feel Horrible

Rob Banks

Pelican
Also, @SolitaireZeta, you're claiming that a man (both under the old and new covenants) would urge his daughter to marry her rapist solely for material reasons, despite how obviously disgusting and spiritually damaging you claim this is.

So in other words, you're claiming that in ancient ttimes (both under the old covenant and the new), fathers would urge their recently-raped daughters to essentially reduce themselves to prostitution.

If (God forbid) your daughter was raped and no good man wanted to marry her, would you advise her to sell herself to the highest bidder in this manner?

What kind of barbarians do you think these people were?

What kind of person do you think God was in allowing and encouraging this kind forced prostitution?

Or maybe, just maybe, a woman may have been advised to marry her (repentant) rapist not merely for material reasons but rather because it was the best thing for her spiritually.
 
Except that I've now said multiple times that I'm not advocating an old covenant way of dealing with things. And I'm not even saying rape victim should marry the rapist. I'm simply taking issue with many of your arguments that imply that somehow the way thibgs were done in Medieval times is "outdated" and that we know better now.

But keep putting words in my mouth.

All I am saying is that the notion that modern social values are somehow better than Medieval Christian values (and even inspired by God, as you claim) is ludicrous.

You're the one who is stuck on the idea of a rape victim marrying her rapist. It's like when a feminist points at you and screams "rape advocate!" and then ignores you when you try to say you do 't support rape, all while claiming her feminist conclusions are "common sense" and therefore do not need to be justified.

Now you're putting words in my mouth: that I'm "advocating for modern social values that are inspired by God" with all of the baggage and implications that entails.

What is modern, degenerate and Godless, as you seem to imply, about a woman not marrying her rapist, or about court systems handling manslaughter cases instead of honor killing/blood feuds? I could understand if I had advocated for modern social values like hookup culture, or "all religions are basically the same", or some other such nonsense.

Slavery ultimately started disappearing from the modern West via men's hearts being changed by the Holy Spirit. The process of this can be seen in such scripture as Paul's letter to Philemon, or his admonition for slaves to become free if they can (1 Corinthians 7:21.) Changes are not just the product of "modern degeneracy."

Also, @SolitaireZeta, you're claiming that a man (both under the old and new covenants) would urge his daughter to marry her rapist solely for material reasons, despite how obviously disgusting and spiritually damaging you claim this is.

So in other words, you're claiming that in ancient ttimes (both under the old covenant and the new), fathers would urge their recently-raped daughters to essentially reduce themselves to prostitution.

If (God forbid) your daughter was raped and no good man wanted to marry her, would you advise her to sell herself to the highest bidder in this manner?

What kind of barbarians do you think these people were?

What kind of person do you think God was in allowing and encouraging this kind forced prostitution?

Or maybe, just maybe, a woman may have been advised to marry her (repentant) rapist not merely for material reasons but rather because it was the best thing for her spiritually.

God also allowed men to have multiple wives and harems, even though He specifically instituted marriage as between a man and a woman in Genesis. He also allowed looser divorce in the Old Covenant because of the hardness of men's hearts. But with the New Covenant and our new hearts via the Holy Spirit, He raised the standards. Only allowing divorce under the strictest terms, and even declaring looking at a woman with lustful eyes just as damning as the actual act of fornication.

Yes, he condescended to our baser natures because of our irreconciled and unregenerate state before the atonement of His Son could give us even a shot at a higher nature.

Even marrying off a woman to her rapist for reasons of her practical safety and security that may be lost if no man wanted her. As for possible reasons for her spiritual health, that could be possible. Either in forgiveness or in enduring through suffering. Possible, but realistically not too common.
 
Last edited:

Rob Banks

Pelican
Now you're putting words in my mouth: that I'm "advocating for modern social values that are inspired by God" with all of the baggage and implications that entails.

What is modern, degenerate and Godless, as you seem to imply, about a woman not marrying her rapist, or about court systems handling manslaughter cases instead of honor killing/blood feuds? I could understand if I had advocated for modern social values like hookup culture, or "all religions are basically the same", or some other such nonsense.

Slavery ultimately started disappearing from the modern West via men's hearts being changed by the Holy Spirit. The process of this can be seen in such scripture as Paul's letter to Philemon, or his admonition for slaves to become free if they can (1 Corinthians 7:21.) Changes are not just the product of "modern degeneracy."



God also allowed men to have multiple wives and harems, even though He specifically instituted marriage as between a man and a woman in Genesis. He also allowed looser divorce in the Old Covenant because of the hardness of men's hearts. But with the New Covenant and our new hearts via the Holy Spirit, He raised the standards. Only allowing divorce under the strictest terms, and even declaring looking at a woman with lustful eyes just as damning as the actual act of fornication.

Yes, he condescended to our baser natures because of our irreconciled and unregenerate state before the atonement of His Son could give us even a shot at a higher nature.

Even marrying off a woman to her rapist for reasons of her practical safety and security that may be lost if no man wanted her. As for possible reasons for her spiritual health, that could be possible. Either in forgiveness or in enduring through suffering. Possible, but realistically not too common.
I can't get on board with the notion that modern technologically-advanced societies are somehow more enlightened than so-called primitive societies because of slavery being "abolished" or because we have a dominant police force and criminal juatice system.

We are less free and less enlightened now than we were during pre-Industrial times.

Also, you tend to use modernist language and framing when you talk about these things. For example, you describe women in ancient times as being "married off" by their fathers. And you attempt to contrast our modern justice system with supposedly-barbaric "honor killings and family feuds."

Not to mention, you claim that it is "common sense" that a woman would never want to marry her rapist (regardless of whether he repents, commits to her, etc.).

These are leftist/modernist viewpoints, and you are taking them for granted as if they were simply common sense.

Christianity is not great because of modern technology, criminal justice, anti-slavery advocacy, capitalism, and democracy. It is great in spite of these things.
 
Last edited:
I can't get on board with the notion that modern technologically-advanced societies are somehow more enlightened than so-called primitive societies because of slavery being "abolished" or because we have a dominant police force and criminal juatice system.

We are less free and less enlightened now than we were during pre-Industrial times.

Also, you tend to use modernist language and framing when you talk about these things. For example, you describe women in ancient times as being "married off" by their fathers. And you attempt to contrast our modern justice system with supposedly-barbaric "honor killings and family feuds."

Not to mention, you claim that it is "common sense" that a woman would never want to marry her rapist (regardless of whether he repents, commits to her, etc.).

These are leftist/modernist viewpoints, and you are taking them for granted as if they were simply common sense.

Christianity is not great because of modern technology, criminal justice, anti-slavery advocacy, capitalism, and democracy. It is great in spite of these things.

Good job setting up that titanic strawman and taking him down. Poor fellow never had a chance.
 

Perolroosh

Chicken
Woman
I think the only reason to feel horrible about it is when a woman thinks the man is not worth her virginity, which is oftentimes. Curiosity strikes but when it actually does happen, there's always a question of was it worth it?
 

Pilgrim

Pigeon
The fact that adulterers/adulteresses aren't stoned or burned to death anymore, Jesus Himself personally literally stopping one such occasion, says it all.

You're no doubt referring to the pericope in John 8.

A case built on that particular text is liable to be rather weak, since it one of the few passages in the Gospels whose authenticity is questionable, being absent from the earliest manuscripts.

But even if one accepts it as entirely authentic, the account simply shows Jesus ensuring that the Law was kept.

Jesus was the Messiah of Israel: He did not do away with the Law. ...As He Himself pointed out.

Sexual morality is indeed not obsolete, but the way it's handled clearly changed within the Bible through Jesus Himself.

He did not change its handling substantively --- His teaching on sexual morality was essentially the same as that in the Torah, with the exception that the carrying out of executions was no longer possible under Roman rule. This is why Jesus permitted a man to divorce a wife for sexual sins which carried the death penalty in the Torah --- viz. fornication (i.e. if a man married a wife and found she was not a virgin, as described in Deuteronomy 22) and adultery --- and only for those sins. He gave no other grounds besides these for men to divorce their wives, and He gave no grounds whatsoever for women to divorce their husbands.
 
But even if one accepts it as entirely authentic, the account simply shows Jesus ensuring that the Law was kept.

Jesus was the Messiah of Israel: He did not do away with the Law. ...As He Himself pointed out.

Of course, He did not do away with the Law - He fulfilled it. By fulfilling it, He liberated us from it, and elevated us to a higher Law written on our hearts rather than on stone tablets.

The Pericope lines up pretty neatly with many of Jesus' encounters with the testing Pharisees or those sent by or associated with them, and has probably survived for a good reason. Like other similar Pharisaical encounters, it follows this basic pattern:

A) Pharisees, etc. attempt to test/entrap Jesus by putting Him in a rock or hard place by trying to either force Him to choose between the Mosaic Law or His preaching on mercy and forgiveness, or choose between loyalty to the Hebrew people vs. lawfulness to the Roman State, or sometimes a complicated mixture of both.

B) Jesus responds in a manner that is unexpected and leaves His accusers dumbfounded and helpless. Whether it be exposing their rank hypocrisy and legalism, or fulfilling the Law through it's elevation, or showing an unexpected middle way between the two extremes they set up ("Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's")

In the case of the Pericope, they essentially try to either get Him to look soft on adultery and the Mosaic Law via mercy and forgiveness, or uphold the Mosaic Law and appear compromised regarding His preaching on mercy and forgiveness in the eyes of the public, as well as implicate Him for violating Roman law. Of course Jesus sees through them. Knowing simply by the fact that the man was not brought with her, according to the law, something was up. Having caught her in the act, and thus having clearly seeing the man, their witness is tainted. But how does Jesus get out of this conundrum? By convicting them in their hearts and minds with their very own law. By saying "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," He even causes them to fall into the very trap the dug for Him. Whoever casted the first stone, would take responsibility for the act rather than Jesus Himself. Even beyond that, the stones drop one after another, as all are convicted of the sin of impure testimony they would bring to bear upon themselves upon taking part in the act. Ultimately there are no witnesses to convict, thus she is free to go. But more than that, Jesus knows full well what she has done. He could possibly have done a lot more to her in terms of punishment. Instead he forgives her, and sternly commands her to go and sin no more.

The seeds of this ruling by our Lord bear much more blatant fruit through His declaration in Matthew 18:15-18, in which He directly prescribes excommunication after a three strike system, that also makes use of the 2 to 3 witness system from the Old Covenant, as a standard of punishment for sin in the church.

His voice on this matter is further amplified in the epistles of the New Testament. Remember 1 Corinthians 6: 9-11: "And such were some of you." That long list of those who would not enter the Kingdom of Heaven includes various forms of sexual immorality including adultery. The readers are clearly told that they were once amongst those various categories of sinners, and yet rather than put to death, it says "And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God." Rather than being put to death, they are forgiven and renewed and restored under the New Covenant brought about by Jesus' death, resurrection and glorification.

Further examples from the epistles attest to this new standard. 1 Corinthians 5:1-13 deals with a church member sleeping with his stepmother and the discipline that ensues. Rather than capital punishment, he is excommunicated in the hopes that being outside of the fellowship and protection of Christ's body, and under the domain of Satan will bring him to repentance. Just as Jesus Himself prescribed in Matthew 18. Paul further discusses turning over shipwrecked believers, Hymenaeus and Alexander, to Satan to teach them not to blaspheme in 1 Timothy 1:20.

In fact throughout the New Testament Acts and epistles, the only examples of capital punishment carried out against church members is by God Himself. First against Ananias and Sapphira as an example to the early church to demonstrate the graveness of lying to the Holy Spirit. The other instance to demonstrate the consequences of treating the Lord's Supper in a vulgar and unworthy manner.

There are other examples by Jesus, and beyond the gospels, of the Law being fulfilled not by continuing it, but by Jesus' Atonement making it unnecessary in the face of the New Covenant written in His blood. When He visits the Samaritan woman at the well, He is going beyond all kinds of Old Covenant Laws. Associating not only with a non-Jew, which is highlighted as a hurdle for Peter himself to overcome in Acts, but an especially despised Samaritan. Not only that, but a serial adulteress. Not only that, but being a man speaking to a woman alone. The sinning woman who crawled to Him in the Pharisee's house and washed his feet with her tears and ointment, was more than likely a prostitute or some other kind of sexual sinner, judging from the Pharisee's indignant reaction. Peter's hang-up with non-Jews being unclean to associate with (as well as non-kosher foods)? A dream from God and an encounter with Cornelius took care of that. Burning accursed cities to the ground? The apostles were behind this 100%, but Jesus clearly came to preach another way that was simultaneously more merciful if said city repented, but also stated elsewhere that it will be better for Sodom and Gomorrah on the Day of Judgement if they don't (Luke 9:51-56; Matthew 10:15; Matthew 11:24.) That is the pattern of the New Covenant: greater mercy and grace, but also more horrifying consequences if this great grace is rejected and trampled upon. To whom much be given....

As for sexual mores, don't forget about Jesus speaking through Paul. Whether it be introducing voluntary chastity as a higher calling than "be fruitful and multiply," for those who have the gift to undertake this (1 Corinthians 7:1-8,) or whether it's Jesus speaking through Paul when He allows women to divorce unbelievers who abandon them (1 Corinthians 7:15.) Not to mention since male adulterers were put to death as well in the Old Testament, if the New Covenant is a fulfillment and completion of the Old Covenant it would make no sense for men to be able to divorce adulterous wives, while women could only sit around twiddling their thumbs while their husbands ran around being unfaithful. Also, Matthew 5:31-32 and Matthew 19:8-9 in their full context has nothing to do with execution. Exegetically, it's about Jesus restricting divorce, due to the looser Old Covenant Law being abused to divorce wives for any old frivolous reason. In the Old Covenant, men could divorce women for reasons beyond just sexual immorality. Jesus once again elevated the Law, rather than merely enforce it.

Jews attempted to execute Jesus for "blasphemy" multiple times, whether by attempting to push Him off a cliff, or pick up stones and attempt to stone Him after His proclamation that He was the I AM before Abraham was (John 8:58.) However, the longer His ministry and miracles and reputation went on, the more support from the people He gained. Eventually, to the point where the Pharisees were literally afraid to touch Him for fear of repercussions from the crowd (Matthew 21:46; Mark 11:18; Luke 22:2) when initially Jesus had to withdraw from them until it was His time (Matthew 12:14.) Moreover, the stoning of Stephen in Acts 7 (who had not obtained nearly the level of fame of Jesus by that point,) combined with the earlier attempts on Jesus' life, along with the Pharisees' brazen attempt to stir up a public execution of an adulteress in order to entrap Jesus, infers that in carrying out capital punishment, their hands were not so tied when it came to random unknowns that Rome would not care about or overlook for bigger fish to fry. This also possibly explains why in John 8, the man was not drug out along with the adulteress in accordance with the law. It was likely that he was a man of importance who could've drawn even more commotion to the situation than the accusers wanted. This further cements the point that they cared more about finding any way to hook Jesus than they did about truth, justice or holiness.

Thus the Pharisees difficulty in trying to arrest and kill Jesus had less to do with Roman law stopping them, but rather Jesus' fame and the attention such an act might draw from both the populace and Rome itself. Because of this, they needed to legitimize their execution of Him via support of the Roman Government, as well as find a way to turn the crowds against Jesus. Thus, at God's appropriate time and will, the betrayal of Judas by night kicked things into motion, and the presentation of Jesus and Barabbas fell right into their lap as a golden opportunity to whip the crowd into a furor against our Lord.

Given all this, I doubt the Hebrews couldn't get away with executing a random cheating wife if they went about it the right way. Paul's exploits after Stephen's death seem to indicate that there were no major repercussions to the executioners in that incident. It's clear that Jesus was more interested in reeling in the ancient Hebrew's rough equivalent of no-fault divorce, rather than merely setting restrictions based on Rome's laws.
 

Pilgrim

Pigeon
Of course, He did not do away with the Law - He fulfilled it. By fulfilling it, He liberated us from it, and elevated us to a higher Law written on our hearts rather than on stone tablets.

Unfortunately this (the writing of Paul that you quote here) is more often than not used as a means of allowing Christians to circumvent the moral requirements of the Law --- particularly when it comes to questions of sex, marriage, divorce and so on --- yet the moral teachings of Jesus (particularly on sex, marriage and divorce) are no less stringent than the Laws in the Torah. If anything, Christ's teachings are more restrictive. But Christians today interpret it as the opposite, saying, "Christ fulfilled all that" and "We're all under Grace now".

The Pericope lines up pretty neatly with many of Jesus' encounters with the testing Pharisees or those sent by or associated with them, and has probably survived for a good reason. Like other similar Pharisaical encounters, it follows this basic pattern:

A) Pharisees, etc. attempt to test/entrap Jesus by putting Him in a rock or hard place by trying to either force Him to choose between the Mosaic Law or His preaching on mercy and forgiveness, or choose between loyalty to the Hebrew people vs. lawfulness to the Roman State, or sometimes a complicated mixture of both.

They asked Him to judge a case. A case in which they thought they'd put Him in an impossible position: their thinking was that if He acquitted the woman, then He would violate God's commandment to stone an adulteress and thereby discredit His claim to be the Messiah; whereas if He ordered her to be stoned, then the Romans would deal with Him and He'd be out of their hair.

But He knew God's Law far better than they did.

Knowing simply by the fact that the man was not brought with her, according to the law, something was up.

Correct. The Law stipulates that both the man and the woman should be brought to trial.

Having caught her in the act, and thus having clearly seeing the man, their witness is tainted.

It's not merely that their witness was tainted. They had "shown partiality in judgement" --- this itself is a direct violation of Torah. ...See, for example, Deuteronomy 16:19 (although it's mentioned in a number of passages, since it is so important a principle).

They had transgressed the Law themselves.

But how does Jesus get out of this conundrum? By convicting them in their hearts and minds with their very own law. By saying "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone,"

...Quite possibly the most abused verse in the Bible. This verse has been used by unrepentantly wicked people the world over (many within churches, sadly) to silence any criticism of their ungodly and evil deeds. And sadly it has worked.

If --- as so many have argued --- Christ was teaching that one must be sinless in order to carry out a sentence of punishment then He was teaching that punishment and justice must effectively cease. We must thus live in a completely lawless society, and just put up with it, because one has to be sinless to enact justice. That is not only a stupid teaching, it is an immoral one.

Of course, Jesus Christ taught no such thing.

He was adverting to the fact that the mob who'd brought the adulteress before Him had done so in violation of the Law.

Most people don't realise that the reference to "casting the first stone" is a reference to one of the stipulations of the Law itself (Deuteronomy 17:7). He was addressing the witnesses themselves. ...And alluding to their failure to comply with the Law.

He even causes them to fall into the very trap the dug for Him. Whoever casted the first stone, would take responsibility for the act rather than Jesus Himself. Even beyond that, the stones drop one after another, as all are convicted of the sin of impure testimony they would bring to bear upon themselves upon taking part in the act.

It is more serious than that --- they would be transgressing the Law itself. The elders there, being more familiar with the Law than the younger men, would have realised this first. One often hears conjecture (some of it wild) about what Jesus was writing upon the ground (people usually think it was a long laundry-list of sins of those present); but the obvious answer would be that having been asked to judge a case, He was quite simply writing the verses from the Law which related to this particular case. The elders present would have instantly recognised Torah when they saw it, and grasped that they'd been outwitted --- hence we see them leave first, followed by the other men in descending order of age.

Ultimately there are no witnesses to convict, thus she is free to go.

Exactly.

This is a crucial point, yet so few people actually understand this.

God's Law prohibits conviction at this point: Jesus was legally forbidden from condemning her now.

But more than that, Jesus knows full well what she has done. He could possibly have done a lot more to her in terms of punishment.

No He couldn't!

At this point He could do precisely nothing to her. The case had collapsed with the departure of the witnesses.

If He had condemned her or punished her, then He would Himself have been transgressing the Law.

Instead he forgives her,

No He doesn't.

He simply tells her that He does not condemn her (a judicial term) because He cannot legally condemn her without witnesses.

Note carefully what He says: He asks her if anyone condemns her, and when she replies that no-one condemns her, He says "then neither do I". The "then" is the crucial word --- ὀυδέ in the original, which has the sense that if what preceded is false, then what follows is a fortiori false also.

and sternly commands her to go and sin no more.

Correct.

He is no fool: He knows she is guilty as charged and therefore that she should be stoned to death. Hence the parting rebuke.

But He was the Messiah of Israel. As He Himself declared, He had to keep Torah (the Law).

Which He did. Perfectly.

The seeds of this ruling by our Lord bear much more blatant fruit through His declaration in Matthew 18:15-18, in which He directly prescribes excommunication after a three strike system, that also makes use of the 2 to 3 witness system from the Old Covenant, as a standard of punishment for sin in the church.

Yes.

All Jesus' teaching was grounded on God's Law. ...His teachings on mercy, included.

Most Christians today seem sadly oblivious of this: they think that God's Law was merciless and that Jesus abolished it.

His voice on this matter is further amplified in the epistles of the New Testament. Remember 1 Corinthians 6: 9-11: "And such were some of you." That long list of those who would not enter the Kingdom of Heaven includes various forms of sexual immorality including adultery. The readers are clearly told that they were once amongst those various categories of sinners, and yet rather than put to death, it says "And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God." Rather than being put to death, they are forgiven and renewed and restored under the New Covenant brought about by Jesus' death, resurrection and glorification.

This is because their sins were committed while they were outside the Covenant --- before they were "grafted in" to Israel --- and so they were "without the Law" at that time they did these things.

Doing such things while within the Covenant is a different matter, as we'll see in the next passage you mention...

Further examples from the epistles attest to this new standard. 1 Corinthians 5:1-13 deals with a church member sleeping with his stepmother and the discipline that ensues. Rather than capital punishment, he is excommunicated in the hopes that being outside of the fellowship and protection of Christ's body, and under the domain of Satan will bring him to repentance.

This always overlooks the fact that Paul could not order the execution of anybody --- Jesus Himself did not, because, like I said, the early believers, like the Jews of Judea were under Roman rule and Rome reserved that right to themselves.

The man in the Corinthian church had been accepted into the body of Christ, and despite this had slept with his stepmother. Thus Paul commanded that he be ejected from the fellowship and to "deliver him to Satan for the destruction of the flesh", which is essentially the language of capital punishment. ...Like the man going to the gallows, His soul may indeed be saved, but his body was to be destroyed for the sins he had committed in it.

Just as Jesus Himself prescribed in Matthew 18. Paul further discusses turning over shipwrecked believers, Hymenaeus and Alexander, to Satan to teach them not to blaspheme in 1 Timothy 1:20.

Correct. ...Since they were no longer heathen, but had been brought into the body of Messiah, and yet were apparently blaspheming God publicly (a capital crime in God's Law). Hence the similarity to the sentence passed on the Corinthian.
 

Pilgrim

Pigeon
In fact throughout the New Testament Acts and epistles, the only examples of capital punishment carried out against church members is by God Himself.

Exactly.

Because God's people were under Roman law, and were prohibited from carrying out executions.

...Just as Christians are today.

There are other examples by Jesus, and beyond the gospels, of the Law being fulfilled not by continuing it, but by Jesus' Atonement making it unnecessary in the face of the New Covenant written in His blood.

But the Law does continue --- no, we don't sacrifice animals and so forth, as Jesus offered Himself as the perfect sacrifice --- but the Law forms the basis of all Jesus' moral teachings and thus lives on.

When He visits the Samaritan woman at the well, He is going beyond all kinds of Old Covenant Laws. Associating not only with a non-Jew, which is highlighted as a hurdle for Peter himself to overcome in Acts, but an especially despised Samaritan. Not only that, but a serial adulteress. Not only that, but being a man speaking to a woman alone.

These were violations of the social taboos of the day, but they are not violations of the Law.

The sinning woman who crawled to Him in the Pharisee's house and washed his feet with her tears and ointment, was more than likely a prostitute or some other kind of sexual sinner, judging from the Pharisee's indignant reaction.

That is church tradition (Pope Gregory promoted this idea 1400 years ago, and identified the woman as Mary Magdalene), but whether it is true or not, we don't really know.

She could have been a prostitute, or she could have been a drunkard or a thief --- the Pharisees looked down on all sinners.

Even if she was a prostitute, there is no Law which demands that a harlot be put to death, though the Law does prescibe death for a woman who "plays the harlot". There is clear recognition in God's eyes of the difference between a woman who offers sex in exchange for money, perhaps out of desperation to feed her family (as may have been the case with Rahab) and a woman who engages in sexual sin for her own carnal gratification.

As for sexual mores, don't forget about Jesus speaking through Paul. Whether it be introducing voluntary chastity as a higher calling than "be fruitful and multiply," for those who have the gift to undertake this (1 Corinthians 7:1-8,) or whether it's Jesus speaking through Paul when He allows women to divorce unbelievers who abandon them (1 Corinthians 7:15.)

That is not what that verse says.

There is no mention of divorce at all in that verse. Paul simply says, "let him/her depart".

Unfortunately most modern Christians cite this verse as licence for a woman to divorce and remarry.

There isn't a verse in Scripture which permits a woman to divorce her husband.

As mentioned in my previous post, the only grounds for divorce given in the New Testament are sexual sins on the wife's part which carry the death penalty in God's Law. God commands such women to be put to death, but since this is not possible with Israel under Roman rule, divorce is permitted.

Not to mention since male adulterers were put to death as well in the Old Testament, if the New Covenant is a fulfillment and completion of the Old Covenant it would make no sense for men to be able to divorce adulterous wives, while women could only sit around twiddling their thumbs while their husbands ran around being unfaithful.

This argument is based on a misunderstanding of what constitutes adultery in Scripture.

Adultery is not simply "cheating". Biblically speaking, adultery is the specific crime where a man (whether single or married) has sex with another man's wife.

In God's scheme of things, woman is subordinate to man: woman was made from man, for man. There is no "gender equality". Thus God permitted a man more than one wife (polygyny) but did not permit a woman more than one husband (polyandry). And so if a married man had sex with an unmarried woman, this was not adultery --- but God would expect him to marry her and to stay married to her until death. But a married woman who had sex with a man other than her husband was in adultery, and God commanded the death penalty for both her and the man.

Also, Matthew 5:31-32 and Matthew 19:8-9 in their full context has nothing to do with execution.

The "full context" of these verses is the debate over divorce between Shammai and Hillel, the two rabbinic giants of the day --- Shammai held that divorce was permissible only for serious transgressions, whereas Hillel took the opposite position, arguing that a man could divorce his wife if, for example, she spoiled the dinner. Given what a burning issue this question had become, it is not surprising that the disciples wanted Jesus to weigh in on this and give a definitive answer.

Jesus went back to Torah, permitting divorce only in the case where the Law called for the execution of the wife.

So, in their full context, these verses have absolutely everything to do with execution.

Divorce is equated with death.

Exegetically, it's about Jesus restricting divorce, due to the looser Old Covenant Law being abused to divorce wives for any old frivolous reason. In the Old Covenant, men could divorce women for reasons beyond just sexual immorality.

You will not find any verse in the Law giving men permission to divorce women for frivolous reasons.

It was hard-hearted Israel that interpreted a concession given by Moses as carte blanche to divorce their wives on a whim.

Their situation was the reverse of the situation now, where women initiate the vast majority of divorces, most of them frivolous.

Jesus once again elevated the Law, rather than merely enforce it.

It couldn't be enforced, anyway!

Israel was under Roman rule --- itself a judgement from God for their unfaithfulness --- and so Israel's adulterous wives had to be dealt with via other means.

Jews attempted to execute Jesus for "blasphemy" multiple times, whether by attempting to push Him off a cliff, or pick up stes and attempt to stone Him after His proclamation that He was the I AM before Abraham was (John 8:58.)

These incidents were not judicial executions held in accordance with the Law --- they were the criminal acts of a lynch mob.

However, the longer His ministry and miracles and reputation went on, the more support from the people He gained. Eventually, to the point where the Pharisees were literally afraid to touch Him for fear of repercussions from the crowd (Matthew 21:46; Mark 11:18; Luke 22:2) when initially Jesus had to withdraw from them until it was His time (Matthew 12:14.) Moreover, the stoning of Stephen in Acts 7 (who had not obtained nearly the level of fame of Jesus by that point,) combined with the earlier attempts on Jesus' life, along with the Pharisees' brazen attempt to stir up a public execution of an adulteress in order to entrap Jesus, infers that in carrying out capital punishment, their hands were not so tied when it came to random unknowns that Rome would not care about or overlook for bigger fish to fry. This also possibly explains why in John 8, the man was not drug out along with the adulteress in accordance with the law. It was likely that he was a man of importance who could've drawn even more commotion to the situation than the accusers wanted. This further cements the point that they cared more about finding any way to hook Jesus than they did about truth, justice or holiness.

Yes, I think that's fair comment.

As Jesus observed, these people weren't interested in keeping the Law, but in the outward appearance of keeping the Law.

Thus the Pharisees difficulty in trying to arrest and kill Jesus had less to do with Roman law stopping them, but rather Jesus' fame and the attention such an act might draw from both the populace and Rome itself.

Yes, I think I agree with that, too.

Given all this, I doubt the Hebrews couldn't get away with executing a random cheating wife if they went about it the right way.

If the Romans found out that they were carrying judicial executions out on their own authority, they would certainly ensure that the Hebrews regretted it. And very few of them would have been willing to risk crucifixion. ...Quite understandably.

Paul's exploits after Stephen's death seem to indicate that there were no major repercussions to the executioners in that incident.

Luke doesn't tell us what happened to the mob that stoned Stephen.

And again, this wasn't a judicial execution: Stephen had not transgressed the Law. But the mob who lynched him did.

Moreover, to argue that Hebrews could go around stoning people whenever they wanted is to argue that the occupying power did not enforce their own law.

It's clear that Jesus was more interested in reeling in the ancient Hebrew's rough equivalent of no-fault divorce, rather than merely setting restrictions based on Rome's laws.

This is a false dichotomy: He did both.

Jesus put divorce back on a sound Biblical foundation, allowing it only in cases where the Law demanded the death of the wife (and thereby the annulment of the marriage covenant). It's why His disciples observe that it's better for a man not to marry: should a man happen to pick a wife who makes his life a living Hell, then unless she actually cheats, he's stuck with her for life. The disciples understood Christ's doctrine on marriage and divorce --- even if most of the churches today don't...
 
Yes, I agree with you that Christ's teachings regarding the Moral Law are more restrictive and do not condone an antinomian view of Grace and Mercy. That's literally what I've been arguing this whole time. My point is that a big part of the New Covenant is the changed nature of our hearts bearing a good chunk of the weight of obeying the Moral Law (i.e. we take up Jesus' yoke and follow his lead, rather than the heavy yolk of the law.) Of course we are not without church discipline as well as secular law. However, your argument appears to be "if the secular law were taken out of the way, we'd go right back to to punishing sin with stoning, burning, etc." This is a very low and practical view of the New Covenant. Rather than our new ways of handling sin being the product of Jesus' sacrifice changing the fundamental nature of those who walk with Him, this seems to reduce the New Covenant to nothing more than "Well, the secular authorities won't allow stoning anymore, so we've gotta excommunicate them instead." This seems to fly in the face of Jesus when as he was being literally tortured and murdered he cried out "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do." Or even Stephen, crying out to God that the stoners sin not be held against them. A lot of the Old Covenant Law served two primary purposes: 1. To set apart, purify and prepare the Hebrew people as the bearers of the coming Messiah, and 2. To enforce Moral Law, by harsh measures if necessary, because of the hardness of men's hearts while not having the indwelling Holy Spirit. Without Christ's sacrifice and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that can bring about true repentance and growth, it was necessary to hurl rocks at people until they died to keep the tribe in line.

Regarding the Pericope: no, I'm not arguing for "thou must be sinless and pure in order to judge or punish." I know Jesus wasn't going for that. He indeed knew the unlawful shenanigans the accusers had gone through in order to set up what they did. At the same time, He was going for something more profound than just merely upkeep of the Law. Even back in the Old Testament it is hinted at that God ultimately values heart and intention over sacrifices and rituals, though those things had to be done as well as a foreshadowing of things to come. As for Him not forgiving the adulteress. Then what is the use of Him saying "go and sin no more?" If you're argument is correct, He might as well have said "Go and sin no more; sure, you're still not forgiven, so you're going to Sheol and then Gehenna anyway, so there's no point in avoiding sin at this point, but sure, go and sin no more." He even tells others He heals and forgives about the dangers of returning to one's sin. Whether he tells the formerly blind man not to return to "the village." or the parable of the homesick demon who comes back with seven more wicked demons and makes things worse.

Your argument of "The New Covenant church being more merciful towards sin is just them not being able to execute under Roman law," and only merciful to major sinners who were initially outside of the New Covenant, makes no sense in the light of Jesus' teaching of forgiving a man seventy seven times seven times, as well as the parable of the merciless servant. Part of the point of the New Covenant is the opportunity for repentance, even in the face of willful sin (as the Old Covenant could allow forgiveness of unwitting sin, but not willful sin.) You're basically saying that when Paul said "to teach them not to blaspheme," he was teaching them not to blaspheme by not even giving them an opportunity to eventually repent and come back to the church.

This logically means, that if you yourself have ever committed a willful sin or what was considered a major sin worthy of execution under the Old Covenant, while a Christian in your entire life, you should be kicked out of the church and not allowed in ever again. Yet in early church history, part of the Donatist uproar was over the fact that even Christians who had denounced Christ under torture or otherwise renounced Him were allowed to make amends to eventually be allowed back in the church. Can you honestly say with a straight face that you've never ever committed a sin worthy of you being permanently excommunicated in your entire life as a New Covenant Christian, under your logic? Since the the early church itself clearly allowed for a way back in, this can't be waved away with "Roman laws." Even with Roman laws in place, the church could've perma-banned all they wanted.

Also, a Jew not coming into contact with non-Jews was a big enough deal to not only be a major issue for Peter, but even the Roman Centurion with great faith, in one variation of the account, recognized this and did not feel worthy of Jesus even coming into his house.

As for the divorce issue. The wording of "let him/her depart" is not some sort of "well, he didn't directly say put away, or divorce, so it's not divorce." This is getting pedantic.

Polygamy was tolerated in the Old Testament for practical reasons, and men having multiple wives was obviously more logically in terms of efficient human reproduction, as well as it being more advantageous for multiple women to share one rich man, than have a poor man all to themselves. Not to mention female infidelity tends to be more emotional and thus a graver treachery. Yet from Genesis 2:24, marriage was to be between a man and a woman. There's a reason why 1 Timothy 3:2 is adamant about an overseer being the husband of one wife. God's original purpose of sacred bond in marriage, that was tarnished in The Fall, was restored via our new hearts in the New Covenant. Plus, if you want to argue from a purely practical perspective, it's common knowledge that societies with one husband, one wife pair bondings function much better in terms of motivating and directing men, in contrast to having a mass of men with nobody, while the top 20% or so of men in terms of status and wealth hoard the rest (i.e the Middle East.) There's a reason why there's a lot of men in that region that are more than happy to kill themselves for a imaginary harem of virgins in their version of heaven.

As for the verses from Matthew dealing with divorce, they are clearly not about execution. Matthew 19:8-9 specifically starts out with: "He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way." Jesus specifically references divorce in the Old Covenant as a concession to the hardened hearts of men not lead by the Holy Spirit. But then goes, "but from the beginning it has not been this way." Clearly referencing His reference to Genesis 2:24 earlier in the chapter: the state of marriage as it was meant to be before The Fall. Thus divorce in the first place being a concession to the fallen state of man. Specifically restricting it to just sexual immorality is not just Jesus going "well, sorry guys, you can't stone them, so here's your consolation." As you yourself said, even the disciples are shocked by his ruling, saying in verse 10: “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.” This is not the statement of men who are merely responding to divorce merely being made an official substitute for execution. They respond as if it's a mind-blowing revelation that never even occurred to them before.

In Matthew 5:31-32, He simply states the commandment on divorce, but then restricts it to only in cases of sexual immorality. Stating a commonly understood commandment, and then elevating it further, exegetically bears itself out by the rest of the chapter. "Don't make false vows, but fulfill your vows to the Lord" becomes "Don't even make any vows at all, period!" "Eye for eye; tooth for tooth" becomes forgiveness and intelligent measured resistance (i.e. turning the other cheek forces them to slap you open handed and thus socially acknowledge you as their equal, etc.) "But that's just getting around Roman law!" you say? Exegetically, what does no longer making oaths have to do with getting around Roman restrictions? Even in pagan lands like pre-Christian Norther Europe, oaths were a form of keeping a man in line with his word, with serious consequences if broken, such as a de facto death sentence by being kicked out of the tribe. But if the church would adopt something like that with no way back in through repentance, we wouldn't be any better than the pagans, would we? Rather God is once more elevating the Law, by having men acknowledge their own powerlessness in the face of an Almighty Sovereign God, and thus to humble themselves to simply letting their yeses be yes and their noes be no, God willing. Even loving your neighbor is elevated to "loving your enemy." A pretty big deal, especially in light of the imprecatory Psalms. Imprecatory is basically synonymous with 'curse." Elsewhere, we are clearly commanded to bless and not curse (Romans 12:4.)

In short, if the New Covenant handling of the Moral Law is nothing more than obsequence to Roman or secular laws, it's not really anything special, Holy or life-changing. It's not even really "Good News" at all either.
 

MBell

Sparrow
Woman
Orthodox
The writing in this article was really impactful, and I actually teared up because I was reliving my close friend's experience and it touched my heart. I wish she had this resource when she was undergoing this very situation. Her parents were very heartless and did not extend any forgiveness, so she found it hard to believe that she could be forgiven by God and overcome her mistake. She actually conceived a child and is now raising the child with a supportive, Godly man. Her son is so blessed to have a father figure that will raise him in a Christian home. Her testament is both heartbreaking and uplifting, and the lessons from the entirety of the situation are echoed strongly in this article.
 

Pilgrim

Pigeon
This is a very low and practical view of the New Covenant. Rather than our new ways of handling sin being the product of Jesus' sacrifice changing the fundamental nature of those who walk with Him, this seems to reduce the New Covenant to nothing more than "Well, the secular authorities won't allow stoning anymore, so we've gotta excommunicate them instead."

Christ's teaching was an adaptation of the Law to new circumstances: He Himself stated He was not doing away with the Law, because He knew that people would think that He was abolishing it --- which is exactly what people did think, and still do think.

The Law lives on in His teachings, albeit in modified form. For example, He never commands His followers to stone anybody, but that does not mean that He no longer views capital crimes worthy of such punishments.

Neither Christ nor any of the New Testament authors argue that there should be no capital punishment.

A lot of the Old Covenant Law served two primary purposes: 1. To set apart, purify and prepare the Hebrew people as the bearers of the coming Messiah, and 2. To enforce Moral Law, by harsh measures if necessary, because of the hardness of men's hearts while not having the indwelling Holy Spirit. Without Christ's sacrifice and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that can bring about true repentance and growth, it was necessary to hurl rocks at people until they died to keep the tribe in line.

Yes, I understand that --- and as I say, I don't believe that we are called to establish a theocracy, with stoning to death etc..

As for Him not forgiving the adulteress. Then what is the use of Him saying "go and sin no more?"

So that she might "go and sin no more"? ...That she might repent, and be forgiven?

Jesus spoke plainly. If He'd forgiven her, then He would have said so --- just as He said to the repentant woman in Luke 7, who was clearly grieved over her sins and contrite, and who sought Him out and humbled herself before Him, ministering to Him.

The woman in John, however, was an adulteress caught in the very act and dragged before Him to be judged.

And so He did not say "your sins are forgiven, go in peace".

The meaning of "go and sin no more" is quite clear.

He even tells others He heals and forgives about the dangers of returning to one's sin. Whether he tells the formerly blind man not to return to "the village." or the parable of the homesick demon who comes back with seven more wicked demons and makes things worse.

Yes. I'm not sure what your point is in mentioning these...

Your argument of "The New Covenant church being more merciful towards sin is just them not being able to execute under Roman law," and only merciful to major sinners who were initially outside of the New Covenant, makes no sense in the light of Jesus' teaching of forgiving a man seventy seven times seven times, as well as the parable of the merciless servant.

This is speaking of personal forgiveness between brethren.

We're wandering away from the original topic --- what Jesus said specifically about divorce.

Part of the point of the New Covenant is the opportunity for repentance, even in the face of willful sin (as the Old Covenant could allow forgiveness of unwitting sin, but not willful sin.) You're basically saying that when Paul said "to teach them not to blaspheme," he was teaching them not to blaspheme by not even giving them an opportunity to eventually repent and come back to the church.

No, I'm merely pointing out the similarity of Paul's treatment of this case and the case of the Corinthian adulterer --- that transgressions which would have been capital crimes under God's Law receive similar penalties. ...Stiff penalties.

In fact, that's all I've been pointing out since my first response.

Hymenaeus and Alexander may well have repented after Satan was done with them, and Paul may have received them back into the fold with great joy. ...But we don't know what happened to them: the text doesn't tell us.

Also, a Jew not coming into contact with non-Jews was a big enough deal to not only be a major issue for Peter, but even the Roman Centurion with great faith, in one variation of the account, recognized this and did not feel worthy of Jesus even coming into his house.

But it's not a capital crime under the Law!

Polygamy was tolerated in the Old Testament

Yes...

Yet from Genesis 2:24, marriage was to be between a man and a woman.

It is the ideal, yes. But God clearly does not forbid polygyny.

And before you say it, I am not advocating polygyny --- I am simply pointing out a fact.

There's a reason why 1 Timothy 3:2 is adamant about an overseer being the husband of one wife.

Overseers were in a position of authority and thus had to be exemplary --- in particular, they had to be in control of their tempers and of their appetites. Hence a man who was too fond of wine was ineligible. ...As was a man who was too fond of women.

But you'll search in vain for any proscription on polygyny in the Bible. New Testament or Old...

God's original purpose of sacred bond in marriage, that was tarnished in The Fall, was restored via our new hearts in the New Covenant. Plus, if you want to argue from a purely practical perspective, it's common knowledge that societies with one husband, one wife pair bondings function much better in terms of motivating and directing men,

I don't disagree. The Bible itself shows that polygyny doesn't really create peace in the home. ...Look at poor Jacob.

But the fact remains that God allows it, yet forbids polyandry. God is not an egalitarian.

As for the verses from Matthew dealing with divorce, they are clearly not about execution.

Yes they are! As I pointed out in my original comment, the grounds --- the only grounds --- for divorce are those where the wife has committed a capital offence under God's Law. It's as simple as that.

Clearly we disagree on this, and so rather than wrangle over it endlessly (something Paul warns against), I'll leave this thread, and you (no doubt) shall have the last word...

Matthew 19:8-9 specifically starts out with: "He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way." Jesus specifically references divorce in the Old Covenant as a concession to the hardened hearts of men not lead by the Holy Spirit. But then goes, "but from the beginning it has not been this way." Clearly referencing His reference to Genesis 2:24 earlier in the chapter: the state of marriage as it was meant to be before The Fall.

Absolutely!

Thank Heaven! Something on which we agree!
 
Last edited:
With all due respect, we weren't wandering away from the ultimate original topic at all. Whether you intended it or not, your overarching driving argument is that the overall more merciful and less execution minded New Testament treatment of sin is nothing more than Christians having to kowtow to local civil authorities. That divorce and their excommunication treatment of sinners were nothing more than "well, we can't execute them like we really want to, so we'll have to make due with this instead." Also deeply implying that willful sin after conversion was essentially worthy of execution, and that excommunication was a passive-aggressive form of a death sentence, in the manner of pagan societies banishing oath breakers to be outside the protection of the law/culture and to be subject to murder by their enemies without said enemies having repercussion. I get the feeling that you realized that you had unwittingly painted yourself into this theologically untenable corner and wanted out of this corner as quickly as possible, and so shifted the discussion back to the particulars of divorce.

But this argument does not hold up. It does not hold up to church history, in which the excommunicated could sit outside of churches for a period, praying, asking for prayers and begging to be allowed back in until they were deemed to have been disciplined enough (which partially led to the Donatist controversy.)

It does not even hold up to scripture itself. 1 Corinthians 5:1-13 detailed the excommunication of a man in unrepentant sexual immorality. Yet in 2 Corinthians 2:6-11 we see an example of one who has been punished by the Corinthian church to the point where Paul himself tells them to reel it back. That the one disciplined has been punished enough, and to ultimately restore him in love; to reconfirm their love for him, lest he be overwhelmed by sorrow and an advantage be taken by Satan. Given what is said in 2 Corinthians 2:1-5, as well as the fact that the punishment on this individual is said to be inflicted on him by the majority to the point of Paul being compelled to tell them to take it down a notch, which strongly indicates at least shunning if not excommunication, it's very strongly implied that this individual is the one excommunicated from 1 Corinthians 5:1-13. At the very least, it is more than likely an individual being restored after a period of punishment via excommunication, which still counters the argument of excommunication as a passive indirect death sentence.

As for Jesus not being able to do anything during the Pericope, I think it is most telling and enlightening what takes place in the verses immediately following it; strongly indicating that it's particular placement may be no accident. Notice what He says in John 8:12-18 right after the Pericope:

"Again therefore Jesus spoke to them, saying, “I am the light of the world; he who follows Me shall not walk in the darkness, but shall have the light of life.” The Pharisees therefore said to Him, “You are bearing witness of Yourself; Your witness is not true.” Jesus answered and said to them, “Even if I bear witness of Myself, My witness is true; for I know where I came from, and where I am going; but you do not know where I come from, or where I am going. “You people judge according to the flesh; I am not judging anyone. “But even if I do judge, My judgment is true; for I am not alone in it, but I and He who sent Me. “Even in your law it has been written, that the testimony of two men is true. “I am He who bears witness of Myself, and the Father who sent Me bears witness of Me.”

As Jesus also says in John 16:32:

"Behold, an hour is coming, and has already come, for you to be scattered, each to his own home, and to leave Me alone; and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with Me."

Thus it is well established that He is at least two witnesses in one: the bare minimum for a judgement under the Law. But in actuality, we know He is three witnesses in one of course, as the Holy Spirit descends upon Him at His baptism, and then proceeds to lead Him into the wilderness for His fasting and trials against Satan.

The point being, that as being three witnesses in one, being the Triune God that He is, Jesus would have been in the right to cast harsher judgement on the adulteress if He so wished, even while avoiding direct execution. In the same manner as he judged the Pharisees with Woes, so He could have still said to the adulteress "Woe to you, defiler of the covenant of marriage!" Yet He didn't. Some variation of "Go and sin no more" is a common thing He says to many people throughout the gospel whom He heals, redeems and forgives, to answer your earlier question of why I brought up those portions of scripture. He even says that He does not condemn her. There is also the fact that, after her accusers had left, she could have easily just bolted out of there as quickly as possible to avoid further humiliation or worse. Instead, she stays: awaiting His judgement and acknowledging Him as Lord. It is likely that He saw a guilty and repentant heart in her.

You can sardonically sneer at me with attempts at reverse psychology like "and you (no doubt) shall have the last word..." all you want, but the fact is that the central argument of the greater mercy of the New Covenant being nothing more than the product of the Christian church being hamstrung by civil law from performing executions simply does stand up to scrutiny.
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
...
[Jesus] did not change its handling substantively --- His teaching on sexual morality was essentially the same as that in the Torah, with the exception that the carrying out of executions was no longer possible under Roman rule. This is why Jesus permitted a man to divorce a wife for sexual sins which carried the death penalty in the Torah --- viz. fornication (i.e. if a man married a wife and found she was not a virgin, as described in Deuteronomy 22) and adultery --- and only for those sins. He gave no other grounds besides these for men to divorce their wives, and He gave no grounds whatsoever for women to divorce their husbands.
My understanding is that Jesus did not allow divorce at all, for any reason.

The only divorce He allowed, as you said, was when fornication occured, which by definition must have occurred prior to getting married. My priest explained to me that this mainly referred to just the situation you describe: When a man marries a woman and then discovers she lied about her virginity.

But that wouldn't really be a divorce. It would be more like an annulment (i.e. the marriage was never valid in the first place).

EDIT: I just reread your post and noticed you're also claiming a man can divorce his wife if she commits adultery.

If you think about thay for a minute, you will realize it makes no sense.

Imagine a conversation between a modern huaband and wife who find themselves living in a society where Christian morality is strictly enforced:

Man: I want a divorce.

Wife: I want a divorce too. But the Church won't allow it.

Man: I want you out of my house, but you can't legally move out unless we get divorced.

Wife: Actually, I have gone on a few dates with my boss from work. I will just sleep with him tonight. That way, I will have committed adultery, and the Church will grant us our divorce!
 
Last edited:

Pilgrim

Pigeon
You can sardonically sneer at me with attempts at reverse psychology like "and you (no doubt) shall have the last word..." all you want,

I did not "sardonically sneer" at you. I simply stated a fact; namely that you would no doubt have the last word.

And you proved me right. (And very likely will again.)

But as I say, since you keep making the same points (which I've already addressed), there is no point in continuing this.

My priest explained to me that this mainly referred to just the situation you describe: When a man marries a woman and then discovers she lied about her virginity.

But that wouldn't really be a divorce. It would be more like an annulment (i.e. the marriage was never valid in the first place).

Call it what you like (the word Jesus used is typically translated as 'divorce'): it doesn't matter. The result's the same.

If you think about thay for a minute, you will realize it makes no sense.

Imagine a conversation between a modern huaband and wife who find themselves living in a society where Christian morality is strictly enforced:

The example is invalid because the couple clearly are not Christian: Christ's teachings were addressed to His followers --- those "who have ears to hear", rather than to those who want to find a pretext for a frivolous divorce or to commit adultery.
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
...
Call it what you like (the word Jesus used is typically translated as 'divorce'): it doesn't matter. The result's the same.



The example is invalid because the couple clearly are not Christian: Christ's teachings were addressed to His followers --- those "who have ears to hear", rather than to those who want to find a pretext for a frivolous divorce or to commit adultery.
So you're agreeing that if a woman goes and cheats on her husband, that is adultery. But if the husband abandons her for this, she is then free to "marry" this new man and it will no longer be adultery?
 

JohnQThomas

Woodpecker
My understanding is that Jesus did not allow divorce at all, for any reason.

The only divorce He allowed, as you said, was when fornication occured, which by definition must have occurred prior to getting married. My priest explained to me that this mainly referred to just the situation you describe: When a man marries a woman and then discovers she lied about her virginity.

But that wouldn't really be a divorce. It would be more like an annulment (i.e. the marriage was never valid in the first place).

EDIT: I just reread your post and noticed you're also claiming a man can divorce his wife if she commits adultery.

If you think about thay for a minute, you will realize it makes no sense.

Imagine a conversation between a modern huaband and wife who find themselves living in a society where Christian morality is strictly enforced:

Man: I want a divorce.

Wife: I want a divorce too. But the Church won't allow it.

Man: I want you out of my house, but you can't legally move out unless we get divorced.

Wife: Actually, I have gone on a few dates with my boss from work. I will just sleep with him tonight. That way, I will have committed adultery, and the Church will grant us our divorce!
That’s exactly the kind of scheme many people used so they could legally divorce, in the days before “no-fault divorce”. When both parties wanted to end the marriage, one would commit (or pretend to commit) adultery. A third party “co-respondent” or “witness” was sometimes hired to give false testimony. Scenes of “intimacy” were sometimes staged so that one spouse could pretend to catch the other “in the act”.
 
Top