Divorce and remarriage

[james34]

Originally Posted by Originalist

So how would yu know the "espousal fornication" occurred?

As this is written to the Jews, I have to consider the context of time.
One way would be if the bride comes up in a family way before the wedding. Another would be if she claims to be a virgin and it was found out she was not.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by james34

As this is written to the Jews, I have to consider the context of time.
One way would be if the bride comes up in a family way before the wedding. Another would be if she claims to be a virgin and it was found out she was not.

So, you say the exception clause means one thing, but that one thing was only an exception clause for Jews? If that is true, then the whole thing was for Jews and does not apply t Gentile Christians.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Originalist

So, you say the exception clause means one thing, but that one thing was only an exception clause for Jews? If that is true, then the whole thing was for Jews and does not apply t Gentile Christians.

Bump.

[james34]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Bump.

If in a pre marriage situation such as an “engagement”, like in our western civilization, an individual is found to have committed (fornication/porneia) the engagement May bd called off.
The Jews required a writing of divorcement to “put away” an espoused bride.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by james34

If in a pre marriage situation such as an “engagement”, like in our western civilization, an individual is found to have committed (fornication/porneia) the engagement May bd called off.
The Jews required a writing of divorcement to “put away” an espoused bride.

Now you have opened up another can of worms, but first things first.

1. Are you saying the betrothal stage ends at consummation? If so, if it is discovered at consummation is about to happen that the betrothed woman was having sex with another man, does the exception clause apply? If not, why?

2. If you are likening this to western style engagement, then are you saying it is only legal in the eyes of God to break an engagement over fornication? In other words, if a young man breaks an engagement over incompatibility issues, is he free to enter into another relationship?

Do you see the problem here? If you say that he is free to pursue another relationship, you have just tossed out any relevance of Matthew 19:9 for anyone but Jews under the Law. If you say that the young man cannot enter into a new relationship if he breaks the engagement for any reason than fornication, then you are invalidating many current marriages. What if a guy simply tells a girl he's engaged to, "I changed my mind. See ya!" is she free to pursue a new relationship?

Remember, you are claiming that the exception clause in Matthew 19:9 refers to betrothal. Thus, you are saying Christ forbids even breaking off an engagement for any other reason than fornication.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Now you have opened up another can of worms, but first things first.

1. Are you saying the betrothal stage ends at consummation? If so, if it is discovered at consummation is about to happen that the betrothed woman was having sex with another man, does the exception clause apply? If not, why?

2. If you are likening this to western style engagement, then are you saying it is only legal in the eyes of God to break an engagement over fornication? In other words, if a young man breaks an engagement over incompatibility issues, is he free to enter into another relationship?

Do you see the problem here? If you say that he is free to pursue another relationship, you have just tossed out any relevance of Matthew 19:9 for anyone but Jews under the Law. If you say that the young man cannot enter into a new relationship if he breaks the engagement for any reason than fornication, then you are invalidating many current marriages. What if a guy simply tells a girl he's engaged to, "I changed my mind. See ya!" is she free to pursue a new relationship?

Remember, you are claiming that the exception clause in Matthew 19:9 refers to betrothal. Thus, you are saying Christ forbids even breaking off an engagement for any other reason than fornication.

1. If the exception clause only relates to betrothal/engagement, then a married couple who later discover they are actually siblings are not allowed to end the incestuous and forbidden marriage.

2. Personally, I don't think any of this matters if it is based on the assumption that Jesus just unilaterally declared a part of God's Law to be voided or repealed. Nobody would have listened to Him and His disciples would have left. The discussion must be contained within the box of "Do not think I am come to destroy the Law". Anything else doesn't make sense and creates unlimited contradictions.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Esaias

1. If the exception clause only relates to betrothal/engagement, then a married couple who later discover they are actually siblings are not allowed to end the incestuous and forbidden marriage.

Meant to add "and remarry someone else."

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by james34

As this is written to the Jews, I have to consider the context of time.
One way would be if the bride comes up in a family way before the wedding. Another would be if she claims to be a virgin and it was found out she was not.

Still waiting to hear from you.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by james34

As this is written to the Jews, I have to consider the context of time.
One way would be if the bride comes up in a family way before the wedding. Another would be if she claims to be a virgin and it was found out she was not.

James? Where did you go?