quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

quote:

Yes, that is what the certificate was for under the law of Moses. However, Jesus clearly indicated that certificate was of no effect when he said in Matthew 5:31"It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 32But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."

Again, where is it in the New Testament that that divorce (certificate or not) ended the marriage, when Jesus says the seond marriage after a divorce is adultery, and by your own definition,

I do believe that Jesus indicated here that simply giving a certificate of divorce was not sufficient BY ITSELF to dissolve the marriage; however, he did indicate that when there was sexual infidelity that giving a certificate of divorce did end the marriage.

Jesus did not abolish the law given by Moses, he corrected the invalid interpretation of that Law that had become popular among the Jewish people. Jesus himself said that he did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Showmethetruth

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

quote:


Do you think Jesus would ask her to stop living with a man she was not married to?

I do not believe anyone is questioning whether or not Jesus would ask a woman to stop living with a man to whom she was not married, what we are questioning is YOUR definition of "not being married" because it does not align with what we see taught by Jesus in Scripture. We do not believe Jesus would ever ask a woman to divorce the man she is married to even if her choice to marry that man was a reflection of her own sinfulness.

I believe gm asked me if I thought, and I quote, "Do you think Jesus would ask her to stop living with a man she was not married to?" Those are gmspice's words, and her direct question to me. Whatever definition is to be used, it is how she defines it. I do think He would expect the woman at the well to stop living with a man to whom she was not married. I am NOT discussing at this time if that question is aimed at a remarriage situation (although that is a valid issue). My point is that Jesus DOES expect us to change how we are living if we are become His followers. In the question she asks, it appears that she does not think Jesus would ask such a thing. She portrays the woman at the well to be totally forgiven regardless of whatever her past was (and I agree that much is true), but that He would not expect her lifestyle to change (at which point our agreement stops).

So would it be correct to speculate that your answer to gmspice when she says:
quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: gmcspice
Divorce ends the marriage, Show. God says it does.

would be, "Not every time"?

quote:

quote:

benelchi Date 7/26/2010 6:54:59 PM
quote:

quote:

Benelchi sees this...

quote:

I do believe that Jesus indicated here that simply giving a certificate of divorce was not sufficient BY ITSELF to dissolve the marriage;

If Mike divorces Juanita and marries Lisa then Jesus tells us that Mike is committing adultery. It doesn't matter how much younger Lisa is, how much prettier Lisa is, or how much more Mike is "in love" with Lisa. It is never a sin to end an adulterous relationship. It is not a sin for Mike to end the relationship with Lisa.

But if Mike sinfully chooses to marry Lisa, he through this adulterous act has broken his previous marriage covenant and formed a new one and it would now be a sin to end this MARRIAGE, no matter how difficult this marriage became, because it is now more than simply a "relationship," it is a marriage. Additionally, it would be sinful for him to reconcile with his previous wife because this is something God also forbids.

quote:

ORIGINAL: hnt

I'm curious about something.

The woman at the well? It would seem to me if all future marriages are adulterous Jesus would not have spoken to her the way he did.

If he felt her living circumstances of the past were sinful? Why not say some about it like he did the woman that was going to be stoned...Along the lines and go and sin no more? Jesus didn't call out this woman's sin, nor did he mention the adulterous marriages after her first.

Was he just being polite? He didn't say to her that you aren't living with your original spouse, and have been living in adultery with other men when you married them ... along with the one you aren't married to presently but I guess living with presently.

When he said she had no husband - do we assume that is because he is dead?

He didn't call it out at all, and yet talked about the living water instead.

Something just doesn't jive here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: huckfinn327

quote:

ORIGINAL: hnt

I'm curious about something.

The woman at the well? It would seem to me if all future marriages are adulterous Jesus would not have spoken to her the way he did.

If he felt her living circumstances of the past were sinful? Why not say some about it like he did the woman that was going to be stoned...Along the lines and go and sin no more? Jesus didn't call out this woman's sin, nor did he mention the adulterous marriages after her first.

Was he just being polite? He didn't say to her that you aren't living with your original spouse, and have been living in adultery with other men when you married them ... along with the one you aren't married to presently but I guess living with presently.

When he said she had no husband - do we assume that is because he is dead?

He didn't call it out at all, and yet talked about the living water instead.

Something just doesn't jive here.

The Samaritan woman at the well is a “wonderful” story.

The most striking statement by Christ is: Thou hast well said, I have no husband:
For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly.

The most striking statement by the woman is: Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ?

This is similar to Nathanael in John 1:45-51.

Christ says to Nathanael: When thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.

Nathanael said: Rabbi, Thou are the Son of God; thou are King of Israel.

Both Nathanael and the Samaritan Woman have been 100% exposed. What they understood about being “exposed” only they know. What I am saying is that neither Biblical story reveals their whole story of these two and of their personal secret life that Christ with a few words left them spell-bound.

Nathanael who is terrified to know that Christ saw him under the fig tree. Why was that so significant? What took place under that tree to drive Nathanael to total “worship”.

There are a few things we must think about:

1. The woman’s casual statement, “I have no husband.” Those words leave a lot unsaid. If she really was married five times … One would think her answer would be different. In that day and age she had many things she could have said being we know her past to some degree.

2. Jesus said, For thou has’t had five husband’s, and he whom thou now hast is not thy husand.

During the encounter the woman just says: Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet. But down deep she was literally floored. Later she would confess to her community … “He told me all that ever I did.”

I believe we will never know what caused Nathanael to fall to the ground in worship … and we will never know what the woman meant when she said: He told me ALL that ever I did; then she worshipped.

So what I am saying is that I do not believe that we know enough of what really happened in either story … Nathanael or the Samaritan Woman. Just a point that we must keep in mind.

quote:

1. The woman’s casual statement, “I have no husband.” Those words leave a lot unsaid. If she really was married five times … One would think her answer would be different.

quote:

In that day and age she had many things she could have said being we know her past to some degree.

quote:

If Mike divorces Juanita and marries Lisa then Jesus tells us that Mike is committing adultery. It doesn't matter how much younger Lisa is, how much prettier Lisa is, or how much more Mike is "in love" with Lisa. It is never a sin to end an adulterous relationship. It is not a sin for Mike to end the relationship with Lisa.

quote:

1)But if Mike sinfully chooses to marry Lisa, he through this adulterous act has broken his previous marriage covenant and formed a new one and it would now be a sin to end this MARRIAGE, no matter how difficult this marriage became, because it is now more than simply a "relationship," it is a marriage.
2)Additionally, it would be sinful for him to reconcile with his previous wife because this is something God also forbids.

quote:

Bryan, I agree with what Ben is saying.

I am just wondering why you believe that Jesus abolished the law?

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

quote:

1. The woman’s casual statement, “I have no husband.” Those words leave a lot unsaid. If she really was married five times … One would think her answer would be different.

Why? We know that she was currently not married i.e. she currently did not have a husband, and she was answering Jesus' request to "Go, call your husband and come back." (Joh 4:16 NIV) Here answer is entirely what would have been expected.

quote:

In that day and age she had many things she could have said being we know her past to some degree.

Really?

What do you believe her other options would have been? (please provide historical information to support this claim)

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

quote:

ORIGINAL: huckfinn327

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

quote:

Yes, that is what the certificate was for under the law of Moses. However, Jesus clearly indicated that certificate was of no effect when he said in Matthew 5:31"It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 32But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."

Again, where is it in the New Testament that that divorce (certificate or not) ended the marriage, when Jesus says the seond marriage after a divorce is adultery, and by your own definition,

I do believe that Jesus indicated here that simply giving a certificate of divorce was not sufficient BY ITSELF to dissolve the marriage; however, he did indicate that when there was sexual infidelity that giving a certificate of divorce did end the marriage.

Jesus did not abolish the law given by Moses, he corrected the invalid interpretation of that Law that had become popular among the Jewish people. Jesus himself said that he did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it.

You make two invalid points:

(1) That N.T. marriage is dissoluble.

2) That Deut. 1-4 is a Law of Divorce. It only regulated an Old-Evil-Custom.

So, who exactly told Moses to write this passage of Scripture?

quote:

Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time..............but I say unto you..........

quote:

It must be admitted that any woman who had five legal husbands would have been the "talk of the town"... tabloid gossip is nothing new.

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

quote:

It must be admitted that any woman who had five legal husbands would have been the "talk of the town"... tabloid gossip is nothing new.

Divorce in the first century Roman empire was very rampant and a woman who had had five legal husbands wouldn't have been astonishingly unusual; this would have been a more common common occurrence in the first century than it is today.

quote:

ORIGINAL: huckfinn327

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

quote:

It must be admitted that any woman who had five legal husbands would have been the "talk of the town"... tabloid gossip is nothing new.

Divorce in the first century Roman empire was very rampant and a woman who had had five legal husbands wouldn't have been astonishingly unusual; this would have been a more common common occurrence in the first century than it is today.

I know of a seasoned Bible teacher who disagrees with you:

Cooper P. Abrams III writes this:

The woman honestly replied that she did not have a husband because she had not been married. The Greek word "aner" is translated each time in this verse "husband." However, it is used also to mean "an individual, a man, a fellow or a Sir." Like many Greek words the context interprets the correct meaning or use of the word. She correctly said she did not have husband, which would be a man she was legally married to. Jesus replied that she had stated the truth, because you have had five "men" (not legal husbands) and the one you are now living with is not your husband. The verse can be properly translated "The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband: For thou hast had five men; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly. The context tells us that the woman had not had five legal husbands, but had lived with five men or fellows.

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

quote:

ORIGINAL: huckfinn327

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

quote:

It must be admitted that any woman who had five legal husbands would have been the "talk of the town"... tabloid gossip is nothing new.

Divorce in the first century Roman empire was very rampant and a woman who had had five legal husbands wouldn't have been astonishingly unusual; this would have been a more common common occurrence in the first century than it is today.

I know of a seasoned Bible teacher who disagrees with you:

Cooper P. Abrams III writes this:

The woman honestly replied that she did not have a husband because she had not been married. The Greek word "aner" is translated each time in this verse "husband." However, it is used also to mean "an individual, a man, a fellow or a Sir." Like many Greek words the context interprets the correct meaning or use of the word. She correctly said she did not have husband, which would be a man she was legally married to. Jesus replied that she had stated the truth, because you have had five "men" (not legal husbands) and the one you are now living with is not your husband. The verse can be properly translated "The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband: For thou hast had five men; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly. The context tells us that the woman had not had five legal husbands, but had lived with five men or fellows.

Well he either has a very poor understanding of the biblical languages (Greek or Hebrew), or he is plane dishonest. Neither Greek nor Hebrew have explicit words for husband or wife, they use an indication of possession to indicate those marital relationships i.e. "My man" is "my husband", "your man" is "your husband", "to have a man" is "to have a husband", etc... When ever possession is shown it refers to a husband/wife relationship.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RYNODOG


Which I can say "THANK YOU LORD!!!!!" because had he not... I would definitely not be here having this conversation with you!!!!
"If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." 21 Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death."

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

quote:

ORIGINAL: gmcspice


They thought they could get divorced for ANY REASON and this was what Moses allowed- the 'for any reason' divorce.
But Jesus said that was NOT what God intended in Duet 24. He intended divorce only for fornication.

So, to agree with the NO MDR crowd, Christians should NOT be divorcing. If they are committing fornication, they are not Christian.

If they want to divorce, let them go. They have severed the one flesh covenant by becoming one flesh with someone else. The Christian is set free from the bond in such cases.

quote:

Interestingly enough, It says that Matthew was given for the people in general and that Mark and Luke were given specifically for the church.

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

quote:

ORIGINAL: huckfinn327

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

quote:

It must be admitted that any woman who had five legal husbands would have been the "talk of the town"... tabloid gossip is nothing new.

Divorce in the first century Roman empire was very rampant and a woman who had had five legal husbands wouldn't have been astonishingly unusual; this would have been a more common common occurrence in the first century than it is today.

I know of a seasoned Bible teacher who disagrees with you:

Cooper P. Abrams III writes this:

The woman honestly replied that she did not have a husband because she had not been married. The Greek word "aner" is translated each time in this verse "husband." However, it is used also to mean "an individual, a man, a fellow or a Sir." Like many Greek words the context interprets the correct meaning or use of the word. She correctly said she did not have husband, which would be a man she was legally married to. Jesus replied that she had stated the truth, because you have had five "men" (not legal husbands) and the one you are now living with is not your husband. The verse can be properly translated "The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband: For thou hast had five men; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly. The context tells us that the woman had not had five legal husbands, but had lived with five men or fellows.

Well he either has a very poor understanding of the biblical languages (Greek or Hebrew), or he is plane dishonest. Neither Greek nor Hebrew have explicit words for husband or wife, they use an indication of possession to indicate those marital relationships i.e. "My man" is "my husband", "your man" is "your husband", "to have a man" is "to have a husband", etc... When ever possession is shown it refers to a husband/wife relationship.

quote:

ORIGINAL: huckfinn327

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

quote:

ORIGINAL: huckfinn327

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

quote:

It must be admitted that any woman who had five legal husbands would have been the "talk of the town"... tabloid gossip is nothing new.

Divorce in the first century Roman empire was very rampant and a woman who had had five legal husbands wouldn't have been astonishingly unusual; this would have been a more common common occurrence in the first century than it is today.

I know of a seasoned Bible teacher who disagrees with you:

Cooper P. Abrams III writes this:

The woman honestly replied that she did not have a husband because she had not been married. The Greek word "aner" is translated each time in this verse "husband." However, it is used also to mean "an individual, a man, a fellow or a Sir." Like many Greek words the context interprets the correct meaning or use of the word. She correctly said she did not have husband, which would be a man she was legally married to. Jesus replied that she had stated the truth, because you have had five "men" (not legal husbands) and the one you are now living with is not your husband. The verse can be properly translated "The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband: For thou hast had five men; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly. The context tells us that the woman had not had five legal husbands, but had lived with five men or fellows.

Well he either has a very poor understanding of the biblical languages (Greek or Hebrew), or he is plane dishonest. Neither Greek nor Hebrew have explicit words for husband or wife, they use an indication of possession to indicate those marital relationships i.e. "My man" is "my husband", "your man" is "your husband", "to have a man" is "to have a husband", etc... When ever possession is shown it refers to a husband/wife relationship.

You always require an accusation to support your opinions (poor understanding, dishonest). The good man here Pastor C.P. Abrams is saying that the word ( aner ) can be translated as: husband, fellow, man, or Sir ... depending on the context. He belives that the context supports his exposition.

As I said, We are certain of one thing regarding Nathanael, and the Woman ... they both came to full Repentance and Faith in Christ ... both had the secrets of their heart made manifest; and so falling down on their face worship GOD.

Pastor C. P. Abrams is not an MDR advocate.

quote:

aner

quote:

You always require an accusation to support your opinions (poor understanding, dishonest).

quote:

(gmc Quote) I think it upsets a lot of no MDR folks because it flies in the face of what they are trying to promote.
If the woman at the well was married 5 times about their stance?

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

quote:

Benelchi sees this...

quote:

I do believe that Jesus indicated here that simply giving a certificate of divorce was not sufficient BY ITSELF to dissolve the marriage;



If Mike divorces Juanita and marries Lisa then Jesus tells us that Mike is committing adultery. It doesn't matter how much younger Lisa is, how much prettier Lisa is, or how much more Mike is "in love" with Lisa. It is never a sin to end an adulterous relationship. It is not a sin for Mike to end the relationship with Lisa.

But if Mike sinfully chooses to marry Lisa, he through this adulterous act has broken his previous marriage covenant and formed a new one and it would now be a sin to end this MARRIAGE, no matter how difficult this marriage became, because it is now more than simply a "relationship," it is a marriage. Additionally, it would be sinful for him to reconcile with his previous wife because this is something God also forbids.

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

quote:


Do you think Jesus would ask her to stop living with a man she was not married to?

I do not believe anyone is questioning whether or not Jesus would ask a woman to stop living with a man to whom she was not married, what we are questioning is YOUR definition of "not being married" because it does not align with what we see taught by Jesus in Scripture. We do not believe Jesus would ever ask a woman to divorce the man she is married to even if her choice to marry that man was a reflection of her own sinfulness.

quote:

Based on your bolded words above, do you believe that John the Baptist was wrong to tell Herod and Herodius that it was not lawful for them to be together, even though, using your viewpoints, the adulterous act had broken their previous marriage covenants and formed a new one and it would now be a sin to end their MARRIAGE, or ever ask a them to divorce the person they are married to even if their choice to marry was a reflection of their own sinfulness?

quote:

ORIGINAL: gmcspice

quote:

Based on your bolded words above, do you believe that John the Baptist was wrong to tell Herod and Herodius that it was not lawful for them to be together, even though, using your viewpoints, the adulterous act had broken their previous marriage covenants and formed a new one and it would now be a sin to end their MARRIAGE, or ever ask a them to divorce the person they are married to even if their choice to marry was a reflection of their own sinfulness?

Show, do we really have to go through this AGAIN ?

You know the reason WHY John the Baptist told them it was sin.

Herodias went against the law and filed for divorce from her husband. It was SIN to go against the law and the law back then was ....... a woman could not file for divorce. Only men could.

Sheesh!

quote:

ORIGINAL: gmcspice

quote:

Based on your bolded words above, do you believe that John the Baptist was wrong to tell Herod and Herodius that it was not lawful for them to be together, even though, using your viewpoints, the adulterous act had broken their previous marriage covenants and formed a new one and it would now be a sin to end their MARRIAGE, or ever ask a them to divorce the person they are married to even if their choice to marry was a reflection of their own sinfulness?

Show, do we really have to go through this AGAIN ?

You know the reason WHY John the Baptist told them it was sin.

Herodias went against the law and filed for divorce from her husband. It was SIN to go against the law and the law back then was ....... a woman could not file for divorce. Only men could.

Sheesh!

quote:

ORIGINAL: gmcspice

why was she astonished, huck. well she says WHY. because Jesus told her all she had done. I said Jesus gave us all we NEED TO KNOW about her... what was important. but noooo, you have to add and assume to support your strawman arguement by saying Jesus doesn't tell us enough. come on dude, what more do you need?

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoyalGypsy
That in like manner since the day of John the Baptist = means afterwards....
Luke 16:16 The law and the prophets [were] until John: “since that time” = means afterwards....or NOW the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.
See the word presseth
Strong's G971 - biazô

quote:

ORIGINAL: Showmethetruth

quote:

ORIGINAL: gmcspice

quote:

Based on your bolded words above, do you believe that John the Baptist was wrong to tell Herod and Herodius that it was not lawful for them to be together, even though, using your viewpoints, the adulterous act had broken their previous marriage covenants and formed a new one and it would now be a sin to end their MARRIAGE, or ever ask a them to divorce the person they are married to even if their choice to marry was a reflection of their own sinfulness?

Show, do we really have to go through this AGAIN ?

You know the reason WHY John the Baptist told them it was sin.

Herodias went against the law and filed for divorce from her husband. It was SIN to go against the law and the law back then was ....... a woman could not file for divorce. Only men could.

Sheesh!

Are you referring to civil law (a), or biblical law (b). If it is (a), then I highly doubt John the Baptist was worried about enforcing it and losing his life over it. If it is (b), you and ben say how the relationship started doesn't matter. Once there is a wedding, it is wrong to end it.