An Interview with a Pastor Who Affirms Same-Sex “Marriage”; Thoughts on “Gay Christianity”; and Four Hyper-Grace Fallacies

[Download MP3]

Dr. Brown interviews Methodist pastor Frank Schaefer (not Frankie Schaefer) who was defrocked for performing the homosexual “marriage” of his son, then he shares some insights about “gay Christianity” and talks about his latest article on “Four Hyper-Grace Fallacies.” Listen live here 2-4 pm EST, and call into the show at (866) 348 7884 with your questions and comments.

 

Hour 1:

Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: Deception is very deceiving! Will we allow circumstances or relationships to trump the Word when we’re in trouble?

Hour 2:

Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: Regardless of our feelings, regardless of our desires, God’s Word remains eternally unchanged!

 

SPECIAL OFFER! THIS WEEK ONLY!

This week you can order a special combination, created by Dr. Brown, on the subject of Grace. When you order, you’ll receive a copy of his controversial new book, “Hyper Grace: Exposing the Dangers of the Modern Grace Message”, plus a CD message containing the sermon, “God’s True Grace”. Order this special combo today for only $20! Postage Paid! (US ONLY)

Call 1-800-278-9978 or Order Online!

Other Resources:

Dr. Brown and Frank Turek Interact with Gay Activist Mitchell Gold

Dr. Brown Interviews One of the “Preachers from L.A.” and a Gay Activist from Charlotte

Dr. Brown Debates Homosexuality with Prof. John Corvino and Then Discusses Mean-Spirited Communication in the Body (and More)

203 Comments
  1. I meant to also say “Though I did err in referring to Nehemiah as a prophet. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.”

  2. Bo, if you were there at the time of Nehemiah, what do you think you would do? Would you start talking about how he was wrong in your opinion and maybe start a revolt or something against him, or would you simply be willing to put away your wife and children, and keep quiet, still believing he was wrong?

    Do you think you would man up against him or go along because he was someone in charge?

  3. Ray,

    I think that I would confess my sin for having married a foreign woman and graciously explain that I could not go back on my marriage covenant according to YHWH’s instructions and then I would leave with my wife and children to where ever would be peaceful for us…and serve YHWH the best I could there. I would also tell others that if they were going to stay in Jerusalem, that they should obey the authorities and that they would have to answer to YHWH for their decision one way or the other. What I would not do is start a new church and be the leader of it.

    Shalom

  4. Hi Benjamin,
    I can see how from the Gibeonites point of view all may be well in that situation, but not so if you look at Israel’s side of it. God told Israel to make no covenant with them, but they did. God said that punishment would come on Israel for making such a covenant. So, when Israel found out that the Gibeonites were of the Canaanites, then in order to repent of that covenant they should have gone ahead and wiped them out… unless keeping the covenant once made becomes more important than the original command against that covenant. This fits perfectly with Psalm 15. Israel swore to the Gibeonites, which was against God’s command, and brought “a snare” upon them. So, they had sworn to their own hurt, and yet (at least until Saul) they changed not!

    In the same way, the men who made marriage covenants with pagan wives in Nehemiah’s time had sworn to their own hurt (they are going to be cut-off for it). Yet, even so, in order to be the righteous men that Psalm 15 describes, they would need to NOT change! In fact, Paul says that “those who provide not for their own house” are worse than infidels! And in sending their own children away as they did, they are acting by that score worse than infidels!

    The context of the Malachi passage seems to me to be very important here. Both before and after, he is reprimanding the priests/leaders for corrupting what the law says and calling evil good. The thing is, in the story of the divorces in Nehemiah, the ruling that they make on the law is that they should divorce the women, so if we take the context of the passage, it implies that the ruling they made was corrupted and called something good that was actually evil.

    If polygamy is tolerated under the law (which would be hard to argue against), how is marrying a second (pagan) wife a violation of the first marriage?

    I’m still not quite clear on your position as to what actually made the marriage covenants with the pagan women revocable. Was it because they were made against the command? Or because they were (as you hold) second wives? Or would both have to be true in the situation in order for a divorce to be the right course?

    You said, “If I married an unbeliever today, I would have a valid covenant with her as she is my valid wife.” Unless your position is that it being a second wife is the actual problem in Nehemiah, I don’t see the difference between the two cases. If the marriage is made against God’s commands in both cases, then the marriages should be equally valid or invalid.

  5. Bo, I guess you would tell the others to obey whoever was in charge, and if they could not abide by their rule, then it would be best for them to leave, and live alone as you do, but that those that leave should not worship God together because they would then be starting a splinter group. (If not by word, at least by action)

    But if a man is convinced someone is leading others in a wrong direction, he should speak up and make his case, shouldn’t he? (in hopes that the leader would repent, unless this is such a small and unimportant matter, that it really wouldn’t make any difference in the lives of people and how they live, isn’t that it?)

    But this doesn’t seem to me to be a small matter.

    I remember reading this from Nehemiah, how they put away their wives and children, and I was surprised. I thought it was a bit extreme, but then I was not raised as a Jew under the law.

    I then began to realize that the covenant they made together to keep the law, that that vow carried more weight than their marriage covenant or vows, and that the effects of being a mixed people would have opened the door to much corruption, and falling away from the law.

  6. Thanks Joshua:

    “Unless your position is that it being a second wife is the actual problem in Nehemiah, I don’t see the difference between the two cases. If the marriage is made against God’s commands in both cases, then the marriages should be equally valid or invalid.”

    One marriage was legal, that being the wives of thy youth. The other marriage was illegal, that being the daughters of a strange god. It was illegal because it was against God’s commands since these women were idolaters and were leading the men into idolatry (which is adultery against God) and sinning against the marriage covenant they had with YHVH.

  7. Benjamin, I think you misunderstood my comparison that you quoted in your last post (#107). Let me see if I can explain better. I was saying that I see no difference between: 1) The illegal marriages in Nehemiah to strange women, and 2) An illegal marriage when a modern believer marries an unbeliever. Both 1 and 2 are against God’s commands so shouldn’t both be equally valid or invalid?

  8. Joshua, sorry I misunderstood.

    To that point, they are different because one was given to Israel to separate them from the nations. Today most of us are of the nations and we are given guidelines for what is proper in believing marriages, and unbelieving marriages.

  9. And to be clear. I advocate believing marriages. But I do not see scripture calling it a sin to marry an unbeliever in the NT (illegal). But it does give good reasons why it is not a good idea.

  10. Hello Benjamin,
    At this point, we may not have enough common ground to discuss this further if you think that we as believers are not grafted into Israel with full citizenship and adoption.

    1) The New Covenant is only for the “house of Israel and the house of Judah” (thus we must be adopted in through accepting the Messiah in order to take part). Jer 31:31, Heb 8:10
    2) We are grafted into Israel’s olive tree. Rom 11:24
    3) We are “no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints.” Eph 2:19
    4) That we were previously “without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise” but have now been “made nigh by the blood of Christ.” Eph 2:12-13
    5) “But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart.” Rom 2:29
    6) And “Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the LORD, speak, saying, The LORD hath utterly separated me from his people.” Isa 56:3

    Supposing for a moment, however, that we as believers are a separate entity entirely. I would contend that it is just as important for us to keep our families and churches separated from the world as it was for the nation of Israel! Can light have any fellowship with darkness and not be diluted or or even quenched?

    As far as it not being sin against the commands of God in the NT to marry an unbeliever (albeit unwise). God says “Be not unequally yoked together with unbelievers.” Wouldn’t it be just as valid to argue that it is not sin (although unwise) to advertise our fasting, alms giving and prayers even though God says “Be not ye therefore like unto them?”

  11. Ray,

    Are you saying that Martin Luther, John Huss, the Waldensians, the Anabaptists, the Wesleys, etc. were wrong to separate from the standard religions of their day? I said nothing of starting a splinter group, but don’t you think that the above splinter groups have caused some good to come down to us and have restored lost truth?

    Now if a Jew has, in effect, become a gentile by being cut off from the congregation, it does not prevent Him from serving YHWH as a righteous gentile such as Cornelius. That the said Jew ruined his and his children’s rights to come into the congregation is bad, but it is worse to forsake those children to utter paganism. A man that was very distant from the temple of YHWH or was in captivity could still worship Him in his personal life. The same is true of a man that had been kicked out of the congregation.

    Nehemiah and Ezra should not have allowed the option of putting away the wives to get back into the congregation. They should have simply judged the offenders as out of the congregation until such time as the spouse died. This would have kept the congregation pure and would have kept the one flesh relationships intact. No law would be broken instead of choosing one or the other or one over the other.

    They had another option. They were commanded by YHWH to totally wipe out all the pagan cultures in the land. They could have killed the foreign wives and been justified by YHWH in a sense. This would have fixed most of the problem…except Nehemiah was the governor/Tirshatha appointed by Artaxerxes. He was a subject of a foreign nation. He was not a free man. Word would have gotten back to his king. Who knows what would have happened then?

    The problem they found themselves in was because they had not obeyed YHWH in the first place. (Nehemiah recognized this in Neh. chapter 1.) They would not have had those strangers in the land to marry, they would not have gone into captivity, Jerusalem would not have been destroyed and in need or rebuilding, they would have still been free instead of under foreign rule. So who were they to force unlawful, and they were unlawful, divorces? They should have simply applied either the law of removing the offenders from the congregation or of killing the foreigners. The law does not allow divorce after covenant and consummation no matter who the wife is. Malachi warned them not to break the law by supposedly keeping the law.

    Here is what Malachi said of the priests of Ezra’s time and it was concerning this incident:

    Malachi 1
    1 And now, O ye priests, this commandment is for you.
    2 If ye will not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart, to give glory unto my name, saith the LORD of hosts, I will even send a curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings: yea, I have cursed them already, because ye do not lay it to heart.
    3 Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your solemn feasts; and one shall take you away with it.
    4 And ye shall know that I have sent this commandment unto you, that my covenant might be with Levi, saith the LORD of hosts.
    5 My covenant was with him of life and peace; and I gave them to him for the fear wherewith he feared me, and was afraid before my name.
    6 The law of truth was in his mouth, and iniquity was not found in his lips: he walked with me in peace and equity, and did turn many away from iniquity.
    7 For the priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts.
    8 But ye are departed out of the way; ye have caused many to stumble at the law; ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the LORD of hosts.
    9 Therefore have I also made you contemptible and base before all the people, according as ye have not kept my ways, but have been partial in the law.

    In vs. 3 YHWH promised to corrupt their seed. It was happening because they had married foreign women. They had caused many to stumble at the law by their example of marrying foreign women and then by divorcing them which was also unlawful. (vs. 8)

    You wrote:
    “I then began to realize that the covenant they made together to keep the law, that that vow carried more weight than their marriage covenant or vows, and that the effects of being a mixed people would have opened the door to much corruption, and falling away from the law.”

    You are only partially correct. It was a serious situation that had the potential of ruining the holiness of Judah. Covenants do not carry more weight than another in the sense that you explain.

    If I promise my life to YHWH and then go against that by marrying an unbeliever, I am responsible for both promises. My rebellion in marrying an unbeliever changes what my life entails. Now I have things that I can never, as long as my wife lives, partake of.

    For example: I cannot be a leader in the assembly for my wife is not a believer and it is yet to be determined if my children will follow YHWH or the ways of my wife. I have limited the ways that I can serve YHWH by placing myself in an unequal yoke. I may not divorce her according to Paul and Malachi and Moses and Messiah. I will now live a life of more limited service to YHWH. As a matter of fact, any marriage does this according to Paul. Marriage to an unbeliever is simply more limiting.

    Another example: If I rebel against my life promise/covenant to YHWH and enter into a contract/covenant/slavery to the NFL to work on Sabbath, I am responsible to live up to my word. According to Paul, I should try to get my freedom so that I can be YHWH’s servant, but If they will not let me out, I am to fulfill my contract…doing my work heartily as unto YHWH.

    The same would apply to those in the days of Nehemiah. By entering a covenant that is opposition to their life covenant to YHWH, they are expelled from participating in temple worship and fellowship and maybe even living in Israel until the death of the spouse. They can still serve YHWH with what is left of their freedom and options. They are not allowed to divorce. If they do, they are covenant breakers, liars, have taken YHWH’s name in vain…but they get to be a part of temple worship and fellowship. What good is that?

    1Ti 5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

    Shalom

  12. Benjamin,

    Does not walking against wisdom become sin when it harms, or has great potential to harm, other people? Is it not sin, if it reduces our effectiveness for YHWH? Is it not sin if it produces a stumbling block to our children? Millstones, necklaces and deep water come to mind.

    It is not commanded not to blaspheme or to not eat people in the “New Testament,” so is it just unwise to do so?

    Please be careful not to look for loopholes as excuses to sin or to say something is not sin or to prop up a belief that is shaky, or that is solid for that matter.

    Shalom

  13. Joshua and Benjamin,

    The terms “be not” and “let us” are commands. They are actually the commands concerning continuous action instead of statements about singular actions. It is the difference between saying “Thou shalt not kill” and “Be not killing/killers.”

    Shalom

  14. Great points. Where I am actually in agreement with almost all that was said.

    “if you think that we as believers are not grafted into Israel with full citizenship and adoption.”

    – This made me smile as about two years ago I began witnessing to a Jewish friend of mine and they told me that they were adopted as an infant into a Jewish family. I respond with “I was adopted into a Jewish family as well.” to which they got very curious and I explained to them how it was that I was adopted into a Jewish family through Yeshua the Messiah. So I affirm adoption. But I am a gentile and not an Israelite and that law was given to Israelites. In the OT there was Jew and Gentile, heavily stressed, in the NT there is neither Jew nor Gentile because the partition was torn down.

    “Can light have any fellowship with darkness and not be diluted or or even quenched?”

    – Yes, very true, and that is why the NT urges us not to yoke ourselves with unbelievers.

    “to advertise our fasting, alms giving and prayers”

    – If we do the above, we lose our future reward since we claim our reward in the here and now by seeking the praise of men and not God.

  15. Joshua and Benjamin,

    I must add:

    Exodus 20
    13 ‘Thou dost not murder.

    The above is from the Young’s Literal translation. We see that what we call a commandment not to kill is also a description of who we are or a blessing spoken over us when we are in covenant with YHWH.

    They really are the “10 words” spoken over us more than “the 10 commandments” to restrict us. Nevertheless, we sin when our actions do not line up with them.

    Shalom

  16. Benjamin,
    I am happy that you see yourself as part of Israel, although gentile. I think you may be stopping a little short of the fullness of the adoption though when you say that you are not Israelite. If I, ethnically Mexican, become a citizen of the US am I not then an American with the full rights that status gives? I think that the analogy works well with here. I, ethnically gentile, am a citizen of true Israel, an Israelite, with full access to the blessings that were promised by God.

    In case you haven’t noticed already, I am passionate about having a consistent theology and doctrine. I find it pretty much impossible to believe that a moral issue like marriage and divorce could have changed over time. If God’s morality changes from generation to generation, then what grounds do we have for saying that it hasn’t changed since the NT was written?

    Once again you stop short of saying that marrying an unbeliever is a sin according to the NT. Would you say that we are “urged” to “Be not bitter against our wives,” to “be not conformed to this world,” to “Be not drunk with wine” and “Be not forgetful to entertain strangers” (among others things), but that it if we decide to go ahead and get drunk, hold a grudge against our wife and be conformed to the world that we are not actually sinning?

  17. Benjamin,

    The NT does not “urge” us to not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers, it is a command. Read it in other English translations that do not use archaic language.

    Rsv-2Co 6:14 do not be mismated with unbelievers. for what partnership have righteousness and iniquity? or what fellowship has light with darkness?

    Phillips-2Co 6:14 Don’t link up with unbelievers and try to work with them. What common interest can there be between goodness and evil? How can light and darkness share life together?

    ESV-2Co 6:14 Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?

    As far as no Jew or Gentile:

    Eze 37:19 Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand.

    The house of Israel was scattered to all the nations of the earth. They have become gentiles. They are put back together as one stick called Israel along with Judah. We are grafted into Israel, not Judah. Judah, though their identity has mostly been maintained has also been broken off its own olive tree and must be grafted back into Israel.

    There is not Jew or gentile. There is Israel. And yes the law was given to Israel. And we are no longer gentiles according to Paul. We are not Jewish either…and all the laws that Judah made for itself are not ours.

    All the laws of Israel are for Israel. Judah, through Nehemiah and Ezra, and others following, made a law to not marry outside of Judah for Judah. They are not allowed to even marry foreigners that are not of the specific ones mentioned in scripture. They added this wall of partition. But Israel is not to marry unbelievers.

    Boaz could marry Ruth, though she was a foreigner…because she was a believer. Rahab, though she was of nations under the ban could be married into a man of Israel…because she was a believer.

    We are now included, as Paul says, in the “commonwealth of Israel.” It is sin for us to marry an unbeliever, but once we have done so we are not allowed to divorce them.

    We will be put in places of authority in the Messianic kingdom according to how faithful we are to obeying and teaching others to obey YHWH’s commandments…that do not pass away until heaven and earth do.

    Mt 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

    The body of Messiah is the group that will rule with Messiah. They are the cream of the crop so to speak of Israel. They must be Israelites to rule in Israel. It is the law. They must be part of the one stick and must not continue to be, or act like, gentiles.

    Ephesians 2
    11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
    12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
    13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

    Eph 4:17 This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind,

    Shalom

  18. Thanks Joshua, Dr. Brown talked about this issue just yesterday (I think) when he spoke of Laws that were specifically given to Israel which the Church is not under today. So the real topic would then be the differences between the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ.

    But a man who helped light my fire for God quickly summarizes my position on marriage today:

    Dr. J Vernon McGee:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89QLwbMr-14

  19. Benjamin,

    Messiah knows better than Dr. Brown what laws the body of Messiah are under. It is His body. The law of Messiah is not different than the Law of His Father.

    Mt 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

    Shalom

  20. Bo:

    “The house of Israel was scattered to all the nations of the earth. They have become gentiles.”

    – What? I have never heard this. So the Hebrews in Babylon were no longer Hebrews? You may need to explain this one.

    “Boaz could marry Ruth, though she was a foreigner…because she was a believer. Rahab, though she was of nations under the ban could be married into a man of Israel…because she was a believer.”

    – Very great point which shows that the daughters of a strange god were not legal. I used both Ruth and Rahab in my prior evidences.

  21. Benjamin,

    It was Judah that was taken to Babylon. The northern tribes of Israel, know as Israel, Ephriam or the house of Jacob, were scattered to all the nations (same word as gentiles) of the earth. These cannot prove their ancestry. The have assimilated and become gentiles. But YHWH promises to gather them from all those nations if they will repent, return to Him, and begin to obey His law. We cannot tell if we are some of those long lost tribes. YHWH can. He is the one that puts the two sticks back together. He is the one that grafts us in.

    You wrote:
    “- Very great point which shows that the daughters of a strange god were not legal. I used both Ruth and Rahab in my prior evidences.”

    Actually they are not lawful to marry, just like unbelievers are not. They are the same thing. And the law applies to us as well as to those of Nehemiah’s day. The problem is that, the law also says that we cannot divorce a woman with which we have a covenant and have consummated the marriage. Paul agrees with Malachi on this.

    Your concept that the sin of marrying someone against YHWH’s instructions is therefore not really a marriage is flawed. Marriage was instituted to all of humanity. It is a man binding his soul. If he does it in a way that he should not, he cannot get out of it. He must be faithful to that vow.

    Nu 30:2 If a man vow a vow unto the LORD, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth.

    Jud 11:31 Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD’S, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering…
    34 And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she was his only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter.
    35 And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and said, Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very low, and thou art one of them that trouble me: for I have opened my mouth unto the LORD, and I cannot go back.
    36 And she said unto him, My father, if thou hast opened thy mouth unto the LORD, do to me according to that which hath proceeded out of thy mouth; forasmuch as the LORD hath taken vengeance for thee of thine enemies, even of the children of Ammon.

    Sad that we vow things rashly and/or against the will of YHWH, but we are accountable to keep our words as free men. The freedom of will and choice that YHWH has given us, He does not take away. He honors our words. He instructs us about His will, but we have the choice to go against it. The law of YHWH tells us not to do certain things. If we do them, there are consequences. If we bind our souls with an vow or oath, we do not get to undo the consequences.

    The consequences in Nehemiah were supposed to be excommunication and loss of property. It is not the right judgment that the vows can be undone. The marriages cannot be annulled once consummation has taken place.

    Shalom

  22. Benjamin,

    I like J Vernon McGee and I listened. I once was a dispensationalist, but there is too much that it does not take into consideration. I will read the article. Dispensational theology is at the root of replacement theology. I cannot go for that at all.

    Shalom

  23. Bo,

    “We cannot tell if we are some of those long lost tribes.”

    The apostle Paul didn’t seem to think there were any lost tribes.

    Philippians 3:5
    5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;

    “Dispensational theology is at the root of replacement theology.”

    – Very interesting since Dispensationalists are the chief most opponents of Replacement/Covenantal theology and the most ardent defenders of Israel today. Dispensationalists are the most anti-replacement that I know of. So I am at a loss to see where the above quote comes from.

  24. Thanks Benjamin,
    I don’t have the time available to fully discuss the law of Christ versus the law of God. I had hoped that on a moral issue like marriage we could start with a common belief that the moral aspects of marriage and divorce are constant through time.

    I listened to the video you posted. I still think that you ought to say that it is sin to marry a non-believer. You’ve already admitted that it is “not a good idea.” and James has something to say about sin and knowing what is good.

    Thanks for the good discussion. I’ve appreciated the opportunity to “Sword drill” with you.

  25. Bo and Benjamin,

    I’ve been quite busy over the past week with school matters so I haven’t had much time to sit down and write out my responses. Now that I have some free time though I’ll be happy to interact further with your responses to me.

    Bo,

    “You are writing to a believer in Messiah that still accepts all of scripture the way it was intended to the original audiences. My wife veils and does not teach in the assembly, etc. As you know, I am not the average Christian, but hopefully you can see me as a Biblically consistent one.”

    Bo, as I said before, your strict adherence to the scripture is admirable for its consistency, but it’s not one that I or the vast majority of Christians today embrace. The people who are trying to convince me the most of the sinfulness of homosexuality are people like Michael Brown and other conservative Christians who reject homosexual unions while also rejecting the practices I listed earlier.

    Without getting into the details, I think your views on the regulations and practices described in scripture are theologically unnecessary, and in some cases, potentially even harmful. If I don’t share your views on following “all of scripture” then it shouldn’t come as a surprise that I’m less inclined to share your views on homosexuality and scripture either. I’ll grant that a stricter adherence to scripture such as yours makes homosexual unions and practice necessarily impossible to affirm; but this is not the perspective I’m coming from, and it’s not one that I particularly care to interact with given its irrelevancy to Christianity today.

    “You did not present a passage of scripture that says that any type of homosex is good or any passage that says that it is not wrong. You obviously know that the passage in Gal. 3 has nothing to do with civil reality but is explaining that there is no difference between the ranking of the said parties in the body of Messiah.”

    The same can be said for slavery or women’s rights, and yet that didn’t stop people like William Wilberforce and others from using this very passage to oppose slavery. While you’re correct on the context of this passage, many people would still nevertheless argue that there can meanings and principles that go beyond the plain sense understanding of scripture.

    Benjamin,

    “I would not concede that marriage was polygamous since never in scripture does God ever recognize multiple wives. He only recognizes one wife even though fallible men marry more than one.”

    The practice of polygamy is regulated in scripture so how can it not be thought of as something recognized by God? It would be a strange thing indeed for an early Jew at the time to practice polygamy while simultaneously believing that God didn’t recognize or sanction the practice.

    Specifically, polygyny is regulated in Deuteronomy 21:15-17 for inheritance rights of the first born, in Deuteronomy 17:17 for kings acquiring too many wives, in Leviticus 18:18 concerning marriages with two sisters concurrently and in Leviticus 20:14 concerning marriages to a woman and her mother concurrently. The last two passages mentioned are especially noteworthy given that the author here is alleged to be God himself. If God didn’t accept or recognize polygamy then why is he issuing commands against polygamous marriages with close kin? Why not just ban polygamous marriages altogether? The very fact that Leviticus 18 and 20 specify restrictions on certain forms of polygamy shows not only that the practice was accepted but also that it was seen as divinely sanctioned by God. In addition to this, we even have a passage in 2 Samuel 12:8 describing God giving, among other things, the wives of Saul into David’s arms, and that amazingly, if it hadn’t been enough for him, he would have given him more.

    When you take all these passages into consideration, along with the fact that great men of God such as Abraham, Gideon, Jacob, Saul, David, Solomon, Moses etc were all polygamists, the picture on polygamy in this time period becomes unambiguously clear: the practice was seen as morally and religiously acceptable.

    “When God was conducting Adam’s coronation as the federal head of mankind by letting Adam express his dominion over the earth by naming all living creatures in it, God was not looking to see which animal would be a companion to Adam, but was proving to Adam that nothing but his Wife would suit him, he would need nothing but her.”

    Yes, he was “looking”!! The second part of Genesis 2:20 says “But for Adam no suitable helper was found.” Something not found necessarily entails that someone was looking for the thing that was not found. The structure of Genesis 2:18-23 is pretty straightforward. Verse 18 begins with God declaring a problem about man being alone. God then tries to remedy the problem by creating the animals. When the problem is still not remedied then he finally creates the woman. The point in all of this is that God didn’t just jump to option B and declare the problem solved, which he certainly could have if he wanted to make a bold statement on who Adam’s companion must be. Now I don’t want to suggest that this view offers a defeater to the whole man-woman paradigm that people on your side love to push against us gay people. I’m simply expressing the important point that many different interpretations can be applied to the opening of Genesis.

    “As above, God was proving to Adam that no creature thus created was suitable for him. By doing this he was also teaching Adam that Eve was special and of a completely different class than the beasts of the field, etc. All animals were created from the dust of the earth, but not Eve. She was created from Adam himself and not the dust. She was special and in a class of her own, exalted above the animals.”

    Was Eve also inferior to Adam because she was created second? Because that’s the view that Paul appears to argue in 1 Corinthians 11:7-9 using similar reasoning from the creation account. Must all women be submissive to men and under their authority because the woman came after (1 Timothy 2:11-14)? Again, all of this shows how easily the creation accounts can be interpreted in various ways in order to support one interpretation over another. Trying to make a special point about Eve’s status based on her lack of origin with dust particles seems no more better than what Paul did.

    “It was God who stated that it was not good for man to be alone…”

    And yet you and others like you are asking gay people to be precisely that…”alone”. If we aren’t (according to you) allowed to be intimate with people of the same sex but find ourselves unable to be intimate with people of the opposite sex then being “alone” is exactly what results. Of course violating Genesis 2:18 though is perfectly acceptable in this case.

  26. Bo,

    “James said that there are rules/laws that are changed and/or replaced in scripture. One he brings up is the difference between Exodus 21:1-11 and Deuteronomy 15:12-18. He uses this to try to basically prove that scripture is only binding until we know better. He also lists things like that Christians now believe that the universe was not created in 6 literal days and that Jews and Christians used to believe that woman was inferior to man. I think that he does not understand what he reads in scripture.”

    My understanding of scriptural passages mostly comes from critical scholarly commentaries. If my understanding of scripture is problematic, then so too are the views of many scholars.

    “James, please explain the differences that you see between Exodus 21 and Deuteronomy 15.”

    Sure. In Exodus 21 male slaves are allowed to go free at the end of 6 years while female slaves can’t (Exodus 21:7). In Deuteronomy 15, male and female slaves are on the same footing. “Hebrew” now means simply “Israelite” and both male and female slaves can go free at the end of 6 years (a perfect illustration of cultural changes influencing scripture).

    “There may have been a cultural concept that woman was inferior to man, but the scripture does not proclaim that. It says that the man was to be the ruler/final decision maker in the marriage and that the wife was not the teacher of or in authority over the man. It says that the woman is physically weaker. Everything I see in scripture is for the protection of the woman…because of her great worth.”

    How do prohibitions on women teaching and speaking in church “protect” them? If you want to advance some argument for why women should behave in a particular way based on actual safety concerns then fine, but it can’t be unreasonable and unrealistic. I see absolutely no reason why women should be prohibited from being pastors, ministers and teachers in the church. It’s such a waste of talent, and clearly has nothing whatsoever to do with their personal safety. While you may not see the inferior status of women in the scriptures, I can’t help but see it throughout the scriptures. I see it in the creation account (Gen 3:16), in the polygamy that allows men to have multiple wives but not women, in Lot’s treatment of his daughters at Sodom (Gen 19:8), in the 10th commandment that seems to imply that wives are property (which essentially they were back then), in the treatment of male vs female slaves mentioned earlier (Exodus 21), in the unequal ritual impurity in the birth of a male child vs a female child (Leviticus 12:1-5), in the unequal monetary value of males vs females in votive offerings (Leviticus 26:3-7), in the slanted view of adultery toward women, in the fact that men could divorce women but not vice versa (Deuteronomy 24:1), or the forcing of a virgin woman who is raped to marry her rapist (this one I find particularly reprehensible; Deuteronomy 22:28-29). I could go on and on with examples. This isn’t to say that all passages on women are negative. Of course not. Still, the passages that do reflect positively on women don’t resolve any of the other problematic passages about women, nor did such passages change their typical lowly status in a male dominated society.

    “How can you read Proverbs 31 or 1 Peter 3 and get the Biblical concept of woman was that she is inferior?”

    By reading the passages and more listed above. Go read them and you’ll see what I mean. I’d also refer you to the works of extra Biblical writings that give incredible insight into the minds of early Jews on women (ie. Jubilees, Josephus, Philo, The Damascus Document, the book of the watchers etc etc).

    “Even in 1 Corinthians 11 she is not listed as inferior in value. She is subordinate to her husband…not all men. Messiah is subordinate to YHWH according to the same passage. Messiah is not inferior to YHWH. He is YHWH..they are one. The wife is one with her husband according to scripture.”

    The Messiah is a male though, and 1 Corinthians 11 doesn’t seem to give men lowly restrictions based on the creation account as appears to be done with women. Consider, for example, how Paul wants men not to wear a veil since men are to him the image and reflection of God (1 Cor 11:7). Paul wants his audience to see a higher status for men by connecting their image directly with God. When it comes to women, however, he doesn’t do that. He instead connects their image to men rather than God, and then proceeds further to draw out their secondary status to men by placing their purpose and value in creation directly in men themselves, rather than God (1 Cor 11:7-9). Paul is obviously trying to paint a picture of women here that sees them as beneath the value and authority of men in general. In other words, they’re inferior to men. This point seems even more obvious when you consider how Paul cherry picked and interpreted parts of the creation narrative to suit his argument here. He could have just as easily argued that women are also the image and reflection of God like men are and therefore ought not wear a veil while praying. After all, stating that women are the image and reflection of God is directly supported in Genesis 1:27 explicitly. Paul never did that though because he just doesn’t see women as equal in social status to that of men. Why is that? The reason seems pretty simple to me: the Greco-Roman world and culture of his time saw women in more or less the same way. Once again, the connection of culture to what we see in scripture cannot be removed.

    “I see no where that Paul or any writer of scripture changed the definition of marriage or the laws regarding it. You will have to post chapter and verse for me if you want me to understand your idea.”

    They didn’t change the definition of marriage. Their perception of marriage changed. As I stated earlier, polygamy was widely accepted and practiced in ancient Israelite society. This was not the case, however, in 1st century Palestine under Roman occupation. Polygamous marriages as this time had come to be widely looked down upon in society. As a result very few marriages were polygamous. Monogamous marriages were simply assumed. In the New Testament we can see this assumption whenever the subject of marriage is brought up. Passages on marriage aren’t structured on the assumption that polygamy is acceptable. Indeed, some passages may even be intended as anti-polygamy in certain circumstances (ie. “the husband of one wife” passages: 1 Timothy 3:2, 12 and Titus 1:6) Moreover, some Christians like Dr. Brown, James White, or anti-gay scholar Robert Gagnon like to argue that Jesus closed off polygamy in his discussion about divorce in Matthew 19 (cf Mark 10). If this is true (which for the record I don’t think it is) then this goes to prove my point even more about the changing concept of marriage.

    “I and many others believe in 6 literal days of creation with YHWH resting on the seventh…You may be able to accuse other believers as inconsistent in this area, but your accusation toward me is unfounded.”

    That’s fine if you believe that. I, and increasingly many other conservative Christians, however, don’t accept 6 literal days of creation. Modern cosmology is greatly in conflict with this simplistic view of creation, as is evolutionary theory. Since I accept both I again am less inclined to embrace the arguments against homosexuality based on the creation account in Genesis.

    “James and Benjamin,

    1 Corinthians 7
    15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

    Where is the change you speak of, James? Paul does not give a new reason for remarriage. He says that the believe is not allowed to force the nonbeliever to stay with them if they want to leave. He does not say that the believer can divorce the nonbeliever. He does not say that the believer can get remarried if the unbeliever departs.”

    You’re simply incorrect here. The issue here isn’t about “force”. You can no more force an unbeliever to stay with a believer than you can a believer with another believer. In 1 Cor 7:10-11 Paul says “…A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried…”. For Paul, the concern here isn’t about having one spouse force the other who wants to leave to stay with them. It’s about a believing spouse who leaves being bound by the Lord to stay unmarried or else be reconciled back to the other believing spouse. It’s about keeping the boundaries, not enforcing them on others. Verses 12-15, however, is the exception introduced by Paul to verses 10-11. They are not a separate set of instructions meant to be read independently of the previous verses. The exception can be seen by how Paul prefaces verse 12 with the words “To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord)”. Such words in verse 12 are meant to be contrasted with the words in verse 10 that say “To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord)”. What Paul is doing is contrasting the command from the Lord in verse 10-11 with what he (and not the Lord) is now saying in verses 12-15. Making verse 15 about force makes little sense if verse 10-11 aren’t about that, which I already showed they weren’t. Moreover, it doesn’t make sense of Paul’s statement in verse 15 that the “brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances”. Clearly Paul is using the words “not bound” here because he sees this as an exception to the boundaries given in verses 10-11. Thus for all these reasons, I think your explanation and interpretation of this passage is flawed. It also happens to run contrary to all of the scholarly commentaries on this passage that I’ve read (mainstream critical scholarship that is).

    “The truth is that homosexual acts are sin whether there is such a thing in YHWH’s eyes of “homosexual orientation.” These supposed flawed views of creation that the early Jews and Christians supposedly had are moot if scripture is inspired also. You argument is not with history or wrong views and explanations, but with scripture”

    As I said earlier, I don’t subscribe to Biblical inerrancy. Thus the views and attitudes of the writers of scripture are naturally going to be very important to me since, as I’ve already argued, culture shapes the attitudes and beliefs of individuals, and individuals wrote scripture that often reflected their culture.

    Your high view of scripture is problematic to the extreme in my opinion. How exactly do you defend passages like Deuteronomy 22:28-29? On your view of scripture, God would have to literally be on board with such a horrendous legal instruction. You’d also have to defend and explain how other passages like those regulating polygamy could be possible on your view. Again, on your view, God would literally have to be on board with such regulations even though he is supposed to be against the practice. This is one of the main reasons why I gave up such a high view of scripture. It reflects very poorly on God’s character.

    “Very interesting. I suspect that you started finding these things out when you went looking for justification for you views on and desires for homosexual relationships. Have you really done a fair and thorough search of the scholarship?”

    Actually I found out about many of these things even before I started taking up Biblical scholarship. The difference now is that I readily accept them. Before I just glossed over these problems, not knowing how the answer to them. After coming into contact with critical scholarship (first from a Catholic perspective) it then became even more apparent to me that these problem passages couldn’t be explained away with some fancy, contrived or ad hoc interpretation of them; interpretations designed solely for the intent of denying or underplaying their plain sense meaning.

    ” I see nothing in scripture that keeps rights back from women. I think that what you are actually saying is that the scripture is against women rebelling and that it is holding them back from being able to suffer many abuses at the hands of society that they were used to being immune to.”

    Again, how does prohibiting a woman from teaching or talking in church protect them from abuse? Why can’t a women have authority over a man sometimes? What relevance do these things actually have to the message of the gospel?

    “And I do not see the Bible ever approving of and sex outside of marriage. Your assertion that the Israelite slave owners had free access to their female slaves is ludicrous. We see a few examples of unrighteous actions in this regard, but it is not sanctioned in scripture.”

    Leviticus 19:20-22 sanctions the practice. And common, what did you think concubines were for anyways back then? Were Solomon’s 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:3) simply there to provide friendship to him?

    We can see in Genesis that Abraham’s wife Sarah encouraged him to have sex with her slave Hagar (Genesis 16:1-6). Same with Jacob’s wives Rachel and Leah, who each gave him their slaves Bilhah and Zilpah, respectively (Genesis 30:1-11).
    Also, contrary to what some Bible translations suggest on these passages, these slaves did not become wives before engaging in sexual relations. Their status was more properly that of a concubine, but lower.

    Other ancient writings confirm the practice of men having sexual access to unmarried women in their household. For example, the Damascus Document contains fragmentary remains of a legal section discussing, among other things, three elements: sex with another’s slave, sex with one’s own slave, and sex with a captive woman (CD -4Q270 4 13-19). In general, it was forbidden for Jewish men to have sexual access to another man’s slaves, just as it was for another man’s wives, but not his own slaves.

    “Contrary to the modern conception, the real definition of adultery is a man having sex with a married woman.”

    That’s basically what I said. Again though, this did not include a married man having sex with unmarried women such as his slaves or concubines.

    ” There is no such thing as engagement in scripture. The betrothal was entering into a marriage covenant and thus the couple was husband and wife from then on.”

    That’s not true. Deuteronomy 22 verses 23 and 25, for example, clearly describe situations of engaged or betrothed women. These women aren’t considered married yet. They’re seen as women who will be. The betrothal process was never simultaneous with the marriage covenant. It represented the gap between the agreement of the fathers and the actual wedding, which usually took place many days later. In ancient society, like today, you became married on the day of your wedding.

  27. Benjamin,

    Just because Paul knew that he came from Benjamin does not prove that he didn’t think that there were lost tribes of Israel. That would be like saying that because I know my great, great, great,great, great, great,great, great, great grandmother that every body else knows theirs too.

    I assumed that you knew that the northern kingdom was scattered to all the nations of the earth, as scripture says, and that Judah, which was made up of Judah, Levi and Benjamin were considered the southern kingdom and they remained in the land until Babylon and also returned.

    The tribes of the northern kingdom, called Ephraim, have lost their identity and are still scattered. What we call the Jews are not just from the tribe if Judah. Paul could trace his identity to Benjamin. A descendent from one of the northern tribes cannot trace their ancestry.

    Isa 7:8 For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin; and within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people.

    What I do not get is that you respond to this aspect of my post, but do not deal with the more substantial aspects.

    Paul uses references to the book of Hosea also. Hosea is about those that have been cast off (Israel becoming not a people) and ultimately being brought back to being a people with Judah. Read the first chapter of Hosea. Read the whole thing.

    If you could respond to the more direct parts of my posts concerning vows and such, it would be great.

    Shalom

  28. Hello Bo,

    I addressed the points I did because they are likely to be underlining issues which lead us to our conclusions, such as the Mosaic Law and the Law of Christ. Also belief in the 10 lost tribes is a very fringe concept which worried me.

    But the idea of lost tribes is off topic so I will only link to an article:

    http://shalommessianiccongregation.weebly.com/were-the-tribes-of-israel-lost.html

    Regarding vows.

    In the NT Jesus tells us that you may not divorce unless it’s a result of fornication (unfaithfulness/adultery). In that case you may divorce your spouse. That is the exact thing that is taking place in Nehemiah’s day. The daughters of a strange god were committing and influencing the men of Israel to commit fornication against the true God by worshiping false gods. They were leading the men into adultery against God (profaning His Holiness which He loves). That was the grounds for chasing away the strangers. This was the reason God calls the marriage Abomination. Also the reason Solomon was given as a bad example.

  29. Judges 2:17

    “…but they went a whoring after other gods…”

    I just wanted to throw that in there to show how God views idolatry, he see’s it as whoredom/fornication/adultery/unfaithfulness.

  30. Benjamin,

    You still did not answer about vows. And nowhere does the Bible say that adultery is cause for divorce…only fornication…which has to come before the consummation. Adultery is always cause for death at the mouth of 2 of 3 eye witnesses, which if done releases the spouse to remarry. But as long as the husband lives, even x-husband, the woman must remain single or be reconciled.

    Do you understand that the northern tribes are now not a people…maybe lost is a religiously incorrect word to you? They are indistinct as far as we are concerned. They will be regathered and joined together with Judah if they repent and begin to keep YHWH’s commandments.

    Shalom

  31. If you read the article I posted it will show how the Northern and Southern tribes inter migrated. There are references in the NT to people from the northern tribes. I have no problem with the word lost, it’s just an inaccurate statement.

    Luke 2:36
    “And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity;”

    I disagree with your views on fornication and adultery. So what is a NT believer to do in the case their spouse commits adultery? Kill them if there are 2 or 3 witnesses?

  32. Benjamin,

    You still have not answered my post about vows. I will repost it a the end of this one for your convenience.

    You do not know your Biblical history very well. You do not believe the prophesies about Israel being made to be not a people and scattered or becoming one stick with Judah after being totally dispersed. The Assyrians did not send the northern tribes back to the land. If there are a few people from every tribe that happen to be able to know their ancestry, it does not prove that Israel was not scattered and assimilated into the nations. There is a good reason why the Jews are called the Jews instead of the whole house of Israel.

    What is a believer to do if his spouse commits adultery…Forgive them and admit you sin in the matter in helping them to stumble. If you just can’t stand to be around them there is allowance to separate and remain single.

    Neither Paul nor Messiah nor Moses not Malachi say that it is alright to divorce for adultery. Messiah makes a very exact distinction between adultery and fornication. He uses both words in the same sentence to mean different things. It is in the context of discussing Deut 24.

    In Deut. 24 the woman that is allowed to be divorced is the newly married one that has not been gone into. The uncleanness that the man finds is the same word used for incest in Leviticus. He finds it when he first sees that she is not a virgin. Once the two are one flesh, man may not put the relationship asunder. Only YHWH can unjoin them by death whether of natural causes or by just capital punishment. And you will find that the overwhelming stance of the Church until about 100 years ago was to disallow remarriage after divorce for any cause. If you could read posts 25 and 26 and show how the statements there are misapplied it would be good. I will not hold my breath.

    Actually they are not lawful to marry, just like unbelievers are not. They are the same thing. And the law applies to us as well as to those of Nehemiah’s day. The problem is that, the law also says that we cannot divorce a woman with which we have a covenant and have consummated the marriage. Paul agrees with Malachi on this.

    Your concept that the sin of marrying someone against YHWH’s instructions is therefore not really a marriage is flawed. Marriage was instituted to all of humanity. It is a man binding his soul. If he does it in a way that he should not, he cannot get out of it. He must be faithful to that vow.

    Nu 30:2 If a man vow a vow unto the LORD, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth.

    Jud 11:31 Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD’S, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering…
    34 And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she was his only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter.
    35 And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and said, Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very low, and thou art one of them that trouble me: for I have opened my mouth unto the LORD, and I cannot go back.
    36 And she said unto him, My father, if thou hast opened thy mouth unto the LORD, do to me according to that which hath proceeded out of thy mouth; forasmuch as the LORD hath taken vengeance for thee of thine enemies, even of the children of Ammon.

    Sad that we vow things rashly and/or against the will of YHWH, but we are accountable to keep our words as free men. The freedom of will and choice that YHWH has given us, He does not take away. He honors our words. He instructs us about His will, but we have the choice to go against it. The law of YHWH tells us not to do certain things. If we do them, there are consequences. If we bind our souls with an vow or oath, we do not get to undo the consequences.

    The consequences in Nehemiah were supposed to be excommunication and loss of property. It is not the right judgment that the vows can be undone. The marriages cannot be annulled once consummation has taken place.

    Shalom

  33. Bo, you are transplanting many idea to me that are not mine.

    “You do not know your Biblical history very well. You do not believe the prophesies about Israel being made to be not a people and scattered or becoming one stick with Judah after being totally dispersed.”

    I believe the prophesies in totality. The kingdom of Israel was scattered and dispersed, I never said it wasn’t. So if there is no northern kingdom there can be no people. I agree. Where I do not agree is that they were lost or lost their identity.

    ***The Abrahamic Covenant promised a seed, land, and blessings among its many provisions. The seed was to develop into a nation, and so it did at the foot of Mount Sinai.
    Today, Israel is a scattered nation but still a nation. Just as Israel remained distinct in Egypt, the Jewish people have remained distinct throughout the Church Age. No other nation that lost its national homeland and was dispersed for centuries survived as a distinct entity. On the contrary, where they scattered they intermarried and disappeared into a melting pot. Not so the Jews, whose distinctive history is easily traceable throughout the years of Jewish history. The fact that Jews have continued to survive as a people in spite of so many attempts to destroy them shows that this covenant has continued to operate.***

    – The above is to say that when they were dispersed into other nations they remained an identifiable entity. The apostle Paul found synagogues in almost all the foreign countries he went to.

    So the northern kingdom stopped being a people but the tribes scattered remained identifiable.

    You wrote, “The Assyrians did not send the northern tribes back to the land.”

    – I never said they did. I was just giving evidence that the Ten Tribes are not lost.

    “…it does not prove that Israel was not scattered”

    – I did not say they were not. I agree that they were.

    “There is a good reason why the Jews are called the Jews”

    – I agree and I’m sure the woman Anna from the northern tribe of Aser called herself a Jew.

    You attempted to answer one of my questions with, “Forgive them and admit you sin in the matter in helping them to stumble.”

    – That is an acceptable scenario indeed, but it’s an exception since not always is the faithful spouse guilty of being a stumbling block. If one spouse is completely faithful without causing the other to stumble, what then? But you just backed yourself into the corner on this one and you had to work in a specific scenario to try to answer. But your scenario demonstrates a change in the Law which you were trying to avoid previously and then you came up with a new reason to divorce.

    The change was that you no longer kill your spouse for adultery (amen). And the new reason to divorce was because you can’t stand to be around them anymore.

    If talking about sexual adultery, usually what constitutes adultery is sex outside of the covenantal marriage. And what is that called? Fornication. Fornication is sex outside of marriage. So when you are married and you fornicate with someone outside of your marriage, you commit adultery. The grounds upon which Messiah says you may divorce. (this in response to your posts 25,26)

    You wrote, “the Church until about 100 years ago was to disallow remarriage after divorce for any cause.”

    – I too would remain single and unmarried for the rest of my life so I am in agreement with the Church from ages past. That is except for death or fornication. But even then I think I would remain a widower and devote myself to the Lord fully without distraction.

    You wrote, “He must be faithful to that vow.”

    – Consider this, there are three vows here, or three covenants. One with YHVH, one with the ‘wife of thy youth’, and one with the ‘daughters of a strange god’ (just reduce this scenario to two if you don’t allow for three, it matters not). Which covenant do you break? and which do you keep? By their marriage covenant with the daughters of a strange god they break their covenant with God and with the ‘Wife of thy youth’. So no matter what, a covenant is broken, no matter what. But God says “Because you have married these daughters of a strange god, I am going to cut you off.” Whoa, not good. And it doesn’t just mean from inheritance of the land, it means eternal damnation. The evidence of this is found in Malachi 2, verse 13:

    “13 And this have ye done again, covering the altar of the Lord with tears, with weeping, and with crying out, insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, or receiveth it with good will at your hand.”

    – That’s not good. Not good at all. So in keeping the covenant with the daughters, they are consigning themselves to the bad half of Sheol.

    You quote, “Nu 30:2 If a man vow a vow unto the LORD”

    – Were these vows unto the LORD? “Lord I vow to break my marriage to you by marrying this idolater.” Does that sound like a vow unto the Lord? I don’t mean to sound sarcastic, i’m just trying to point out the importance of this situation, they are breaking their covenant with God.

    Your quotation of Judges 11:31 fits superbly with Numbers 30:2. And as I pointed out above, the marriages in Malachi are much different for many reasons.

    You ended with, “but we are accountable to keep our words as free men.”

    – Are we to remain married to another man if we were previously gay?

    – If I make a covenant with Satan, is there no way for me to repent and break my covenant with Satan and follow Jesus?

    I know our last few posts have been a little more direct, and we don’t see eye to eye on a few issues, but I want you know you are my brother I hope you can say the same about me.

    Grace and peace,
    -Benjamin

  34. I study of the word fornication quickly reveals that it has a meaning far different from what you understand it to mean Bo.

    πορνεία porneia is the Word used by Jesus.

    “But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication[porneia], causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.”

    Does it mean sex before consummation?

    Not according to the Bible.

    1 Corinthians 5:1
    “It is reported commonly that there is fornication[porneia] among you, and such fornication[porneia] as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife.”

    I’m sure his father consummated the marriage. And as we both know, this fornication with a consummated married woman, is adultery. So the definition of fornication you are using is inaccurate .

  35. My take on whether there are many/any people today that are descendants of Israel, but are not “Jewish” according to the definition of born to a Jewish mother. First off, through the years this leaves at least a few people who were born to Jewish fathers, which would also make them descendants of Israel according to Biblical guidelines. Plus there are always a few people in any people group that split or choose to no longer identify with their ancestry because of persecution etc.

    So, I’ll start from the time of the destruction of the temple in ~70 AD and do a little math. Lets say there were 3 men that were of Israelite descent that for whatever reason, left Israel without preserving their heritage. (That would be an extremely low estimate considering that many were sold as slaves, ran off because the country was overrun etc.) For the sake of a story line, one headed towards Africa, one towards Asia and one towards Europe. Allowing for hardships and eventual intermarriage among their descendants, lets give them a conservative average of 1.5 children per generation. Also, we’ll say that on average they had their children around age 38 which is once again being very conservative to the point of unrealistic. From there it is just an exponential math problem.

    So to recap my suppositions:
    1) At least 3 Israelites left or were carried off (without maintaining their identity) when Jerusalem fell to the Romans.
    2) They averaged 1.5 children per generation
    3) They had their children on average at age 38

    The math:
    3 X (1.5^50): Over 1.5 Billion non-Jewish people in the world today are descendants of Israel without knowing it.

    I used conservative estimates and the number is still staggering, so regardless of whether there was or is a group of people that are “lost tribes,” the math dictates that there are a whole lot of people in the world today that are Israelite by descent, but not Jewish by definition.

  36. Benjamin,

    In the following passages, if fornication and adultery are the same or if adultery is included in fornication, why are they both listed in in the same list instead of just listing fornication that covers both?

    Mt 5:32 But 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.

    Mt 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

    1Co 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

    Ga 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

    I will grant that fornication can include adultery when the context allows it. But in scripture they are used as two separate things to distinguish one thing from another when spoken in the same breath. Context is the key.

    By your definition, the above passages are redundant or have no purpose in using different words. But if the idea being explained required two different words with 2 different definitions, we have a good reason for their side by side use.

    Messiah does not say that there is a lawful divorce in the case of adultery, but in the case of fornication. To the Israelite, because of what scripture says, there was a difference. A woman that was found to be defiled on her wedding day, was not considered to be an adulteress. That could only be proven by witnesses. But if she was not a virgin, it could have happened before the betrothal and without witnesses as to when it happened, it is considered to be fornication and probably incest as per Leviticus since it uses the same word as in Deuteronomy 24.

    In Leviticus 18 and 20 it is translated “nakedness” over and over for incestuous relations. In Deut 24 the same word is used for the “uncleanness” that is found in the newly married woman. Messiah is explaining the meaning of Deut. 24 to those that asked Him about it. Messiah is using words very precisely to put the Pharisees to silence. He is defining what the uncleanness must be to constitute a lawful divorce. (Many of them believed that virtually anything was grounds for divorce.) Adultery is not what Messiah says constitutes such a thing, but fornication. (His statement is even narrower than the most conservative Rabbi.) After consummation, there is no finding uncleanness/incest/unvirginity in her. It is to late to discover this for the husband has humbled her. But the wife could be found lying with a man and that would be called adultery not fornication.

    In the case of a wife only being suspected of adultery (no witnesses) after the covenant was in place, there was the law of jealousy that could be set in motion. (Num. 5) Joseph having found Mary to be with child could have done this making her a public spectacle. He could not have her stoned to death without 2 or more eye witnesses and also bringing the man with her. He could have also divorced her since the marriage was not consummated. He was a righteous man and was going to do just that until the truth was revealed to him.

    Messiah said that there was no separating a one flesh relationship by man. Once covenant and consummation is accomplished, the two are one flesh. Sex by itself does not do it. Covenant by itself does not do it. If there is a covenant/betrothal and no consummation there can be a certificate of divorce. If a man and woman lie with one another they are not married. It is fornication.

    The father of the woman can annul any promises she has made to such a man on the day he hears of a supposed covenant between them. So if this were done by a father, there is no one flesh relationship in YHWH’s eyes. If the father does not annul her vows to the man on the day he hears of her vows, there is a covenant in place and by virtue of them lying with one another, they are one flesh in YHWH’s eyes and cannot divorce.

    The only place the “fornication” clause is mentioned is in Matthew…the gospel to the Jews. The other scripture writer’s audiences would not be accustomed to practicing scriptural betrothal. To them the statements are related:

    Mr 10:4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
    5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
    6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
    7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
    8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
    9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
    10 And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.
    11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
    12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

    Lu 16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

    1Co 7:10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
    11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

    Paul, Mark and Luke simply say that divorce is not allowed to a man and woman that are one flesh…married. Anyone for any reason is not allowed to divorce once they are one flesh. If they do, they are to remain single. To those that practice the Biblical pattern, if they are betrothed and the woman is found to be defiled there can be a divorce and she can be married to another man that will have her.

    Please read the following posts.

    Shalom

  37. Did Messiah disagree with Moses?

    Luke 16
    31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

    Matthew 5
    17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

    What does Moses say?

    A woman can be betrothed, and not be taken.

    Deuteronomy 20
    7 And what man is there that hath betrothed a wife, and hath not taken her? let him go and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man take her.

    A woman can be taken, and not gone in unto.

    Genesis 20
    3 But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, Behold, thou art but a dead man, for the woman which thou hast taken; for she is a man’s wife.
    4 But Abimelech had not come near her: and he said, Lord, wilt thou slay also a righteous nation?

    Going/coming in unto and lying with are the same thing.

    Genesis 19
    31 And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:
    32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

    Going in unto/lying with is not the same as being married.

    Deuteronomy 21
    13 and turned aside the raiment of her captivity from off her, and hath dwelt in thy house, and bewailed her father and her mother a month of days, and afterwards thou dost go in unto her and hast married her, and she hath been to thee for a wife:

    Deuteronomy 22
    22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

    The woman above was married to one man but was found lying with another. She was not considered married to the one she was found lying with.

    What does theMoses teach about divorce?

    The background:

    Deuteronomy 22
    13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,

    14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:
    15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel’s virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:
    16 And the damsel’s father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;
    17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.
    18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;
    19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.
    20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
    21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

    If the husband goes in unto his virgin bride and then wants out some time later, he may not put her away. (Vs. 19) If the husband goes in unto a woman that has been a harlot in her father’s house, he can have her stoned to death. (Vs. 21) It does not say that he may divorce her. The man would have to be quite hardhearted to use the woman for his pleasure and then have her killed. I would also be hardhearted to hold the possibility over her head to get his way.

    Deuteronomy 22
    22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.
    23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
    24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
    25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:
    26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:
    27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.
    28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
    29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

    If the woman was found with another man while she was married or betrothed, she was to be stoned to death along with the man she was found with, except in the case of rape. (Deut.22:22-27) If she was found with a man before she was betrothed, she was to be married to him and, once again, there is no divorce allowed. (Deut. 22:28-29)

    To be continued.

  38. Continued from above.

    When can a Husband divorce his wife?

    Deuteronomy 24
    1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
    2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife.

    The man may give the woman a bill of divorcement if he finds “uncleanness” in her when he marries her. The word for “uncleanness” is the word used in Leviticus 18 and 20 for incest. If the man cannot bring himself to accept her (she find no grace/mercy/favor in his sight…he is hard hearted toward her) once her condition is known, he may dissolve the marriage…before it is consummated.

    If the man finds that his bride has been defiled, he may divorce her even if the marriage “ceremony” has taken place, as long as it is before he goes in unto her. The only option he has after he goes in unto her is to have her stoned to death if he wants out. And that would be very hard heated.

    Summing up the instructions in Torah:

    From the above we find that in all cases but one the defiled woman must die if the husband is to be free of marriage relationship. So, the only case that is different is the one where the marriage is not consummated. It is only if the man and woman never became one flesh. There is no divorce allowed in any instance when there is a marriage and the man has gone in unto his wife…even when the going in unto came before the marriage covenant. YHWH ratifies the one flesh relationship and joins the two together once there is covenant and consummation.

    Did Y’shua say anything different?

    Matthew 19
    3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
    4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
    5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
    6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
    7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
    8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
    9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
    10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
    11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
    12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

    Y’shua says that it is not lawful to divorce a wife “except it be for fornication.” “Fornication” is used in the specific sense here. He could have said “except if be for adultery” but chose to use the word that means unchastity outside of wedlock. (Adultery, which is unchastity within wedlock, is grounds for stoning not divorce.) The woman, once she is betrothed, is in a state of wedlock. So Y’shua is stating emphatically that the term “uncleanness” in Deuteronomy 24 is limited only to defilement before wedlock. He is also restating that once the couple has been joined by YHWH, via covenant and consummation, there is no option for divorce. Man may not put this one flesh relationship asunder. “They are no more twain.”

    Y’shua carries this to its logical conclusion by saying that the only way to gain the kingdom of heaven, if a man has divorced his wife, after they were one flesh, and subsequently is married to another or his first wife has married another, is to remain celibate; because to continue to go in unto the subsequent spouse would cause him to be in a continual state of adultery. And we know that no adulterer can inherit the kingdom of heaven. (1 Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:19-21) This is why it is adultery for the woman to remarry…except the divorce be for fornication or her first husband dies. (Rom. 7:2, 1 Cor. 7:39)

    There is no difference between the full teaching of Torah and Y’shua’s summary. Messiah answered the temptation of the Pharisees with precision and accuracy. His stance is more stringent than the oral law, but exactly what Torah stipulates.

    The second man:

    Deuteronomy 24
    3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;
    4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

    In light of all the discussion above, we are reading into the text to assume that the second husband in Deuteronomy 24 can give a legitimate divorce certificate if he has become one flesh with the woman…and there is no indication, either that he has or hasn’t. (It only says that he “took her.”) We only know that YHWH considers it an abomination for the legitimately divorced wife, once she has entered wedlock with another man, to return to the man that divorced her in the first place.

    There are some more nuances to this discussion that could still be hashed out, I’m sure. But for sake of brevity and cohesiveness, this should answer most of the bigger and more necessary questions.

    In conclusion:

    Matthew 5
    19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

    Messiah did not change anything or contradict anything that Moses commanded. He taught the Law perfectly and completely. He had to or He would not be the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven…He also would have been guilty of being a false prophet. (Deut. 13:1-5) If He broke the law, He is a sinner and cannot be our savior.

    He summarized the Law of YHWH concisely and fully clarified/confirmed that the uncleanness spoken of in Deut. 24 was fornication, not adultery, and that this is the only valid reason and timing for a divorce.

    Messiah covered all the bases. Marriage is only between male and female because YHWH made them and it that way. The man shall leave his parents and cleave to his wife…not to another man. YHWH ratifies the covenant and consummation by making the man and woman one flesh. They are no longer twain. They may not divorce after this. It is adultery, if they divorce, for the man or woman to remarry unless the divorce is before consummation. The hardheartedness of man is the reason that a divorce is allowed for the woman’s sake. Those that are married after being unlawfully divorced are to live as eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.

    Shalom

  39. Benjamin,

    You wrote:
    “1 Corinthians 5:1
    “It is reported commonly that there is fornication[porneia] among you, and such fornication[porneia] as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife.”

    I’m sure his father consummated the marriage. And as we both know, this fornication with a consummated married woman, is adultery. So the definition of fornication you are using is inaccurate.”

    The fact that fornication is used in the above passage is proof for my definitions. It is incest, uncovering his father’s nakedness, whether the father is dead or alive. It is incest/nakedness if it his mother and not his step mother whether his father is dead or alive. It is an aspect of the general use of fornication that covers all types of sexual sin including adultery.

    Paul is discussing all types of sexual sin when he refers to the fornication that is among them and the gentiles. This specific case may be adultery, but it is included in the broad category that Paul is referring to.

    Shalom

  40. Benjamin,

    The simple study of the word fornication that you did is simple, but not accurate or all inclusive. I did an exhaustive study before I came up with my conclusions.

    Shalom

  41. Bo: You’re missing the point and redefining the definitions.

    I have always maintained different meanings for the words Fornication and Adultery. But I can prove to you both from the OT and the NT that they are interlinked.

    Fornication: The act of unlawful sex. In or out of marriage.

    Adultery: The result of unlawful sex which is called fornication in Scripture.

    So in order to commit adultery you must unlawfully fornicate.

    And never is it redundant Bo when Scripture includes both fornication and adultery in the same verse. An unmarried man can fornicate with an unmarried woman and that is not adultery since neither is married, it’s just an unlawful act of sex, though I will discuss that more in a bit. And adultery can be listed right in harmony with that since adultery is the result or consequence of unlawful sex when one or the other, or both are married. So there is no issue whatsoever when both are back to back in the same verse. Absolutely no redundancy.

    “But in scripture they are used as two separate things to distinguish one thing from another when spoken in the same breath. Context is the key.”

    – Exactly Bo and you are ripping them out of context.

    Let’s look a little further into Fornication.

    Old Testament fornication against YHVH:

    2 Chronicles 21

    11 Moreover he made high places in the mountains of Judah and caused the inhabitants of Jerusalem to commit fornication[zanah], and compelled Judah thereto.

    13 But hast walked in the way of the kings of Israel, and hast made Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem to go a whoring[zanah], like to the whoredoms[zanah] of the house of Ahab, and also hast slain thy brethren of thy father’s house, which were better than thyself:

    What does Zanah mean?

    ‘Outline of Biblical Usage’
    -to commit fornication, be a harlot, play the harlot.
    (Qal)
    -to be a harlot, act as a harlot, commit fornication.
    -to commit adultery.
    -to be a cult prostitute
    -to be unfaithful (to God) (fig.)
    (Pual) to play the harlot
    (Hiphil)
    -to cause to commit adultery
    -to force into prostitution
    -to commit fornication

    So here we have God telling Israel that they have played the harlot, gone into prostitution, committed adultery against Him, and are unfaithful to him. I think all of the above are fitting, though I think the primary two are adultery and unfaithfulness in the context. So we see that God views fornication as adultery.

    More:

    Ezekiel 16:26,28-32

    26 Thou hast also committed fornication[zanah] with the Egyptians thy neighbours, great of flesh; and hast increased thy whoredoms[taznuwth], to provoke me to anger.

    28 Thou hast played the whore[zanah] also with the Assyrians, because thou wast unsatiable; yea, thou hast played the harlot[zanah] with them, and yet couldest not be satisfied.

    29 Thou hast moreover multiplied thy fornication[taznuwth] in the land of Canaan unto Chaldea; and yet thou wast not satisfied therewith.

    30 How weak is thine heart, saith the Lord God, seeing thou doest all these things, the work of an imperious whorish[zanah] woman;

    31 In that thou buildest thine eminent place in the head of every way, and makest thine high place in every street; and hast not been as an harlot[zanah], in that thou scornest hire;

    32 But as a wife that committeth adultery[na’aph], which taketh strangers instead of her husband!

    -na’aph: To commit adultery, or idolatrous worship.
    -taznuwth: Fornication, harlotry.

    Was Israel committing incest with the nations? Or fornication by playing the harlot with them? God calls them a whore and a harlot, fornicators. Then He seals the deal in verse 32: But as a wife that committeth adultery, which taketh strangers instead of her husband!

    Israel had a marriage contract with YHVH, and Israel committed adultery many times against the Lord. So from the above we see that this fornication with the nations and other gods is an act of adultery against YHVH.

    More from the New Testament:

    Acts 15:19-20
    19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

    20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication[porneia], and from things strangled, and from blood.

    As a Gentile I suppose I am now free to committ adultery since I am not to be troubled with it? But to refrain from unlawful sex since it seems that they aren’t connected since adultery is not included in the prohibition? No of course not. Fornication is the root of adultery, but an unmarried person may fornicate as well which does not result in adultery and that is why they are both listed many times in the same verses. But below I will show how Jesus Christ now calls unmarried lusts ‘adultery’.

    I could continue, but let’s now look at another aspect.

    Matthew 5:27-28

    27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

    28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman[gynē] to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

    gynē:
    Outline of Biblical Usage:
    -a woman of any age, whether a virgin, or married, or a widow
    -a wife
    -of a betrothed woman

    The context of this passage is ‘any woman’. Hence why we are to be sober minded. But lets say we used the third meaning of ‘a betrothed woman’ which would seem to mean a woman who is engaged but not consummated. Christ still calls that Adultery, not some form of incestuous fornication.

    So the New Testament writers, Jesus Christ, the Old Testament writers all agree with each other. They just don’t agree with the definitions you are giving to the terms.

    You concluded with, “I did an exhaustive study before I came up with my conclusions.”

    – So have Bible scholars through the centuries and they came to the conclusion that adultery involves the act of fornication.

    Grace and peace,
    -Benjamin

  42. Bo: Now I’m confused since after all this discussion you concede to my position when you said,

    “It is an aspect of the general use of fornication that covers all types of sexual sin including adultery.

    Paul is discussing all types of sexual sin when he refers to the fornication that is among them and the gentiles. This specific case may be adultery, but it is included in the broad category that Paul is referring to.”

    Amen! That is what I have been saying all along. And if fornication is a very broad categoried term, that explains why Jesus uses it to describe the grounds for divorce.

    “…fornication … covers all types of sexual sin including adultery…”

  43. Bo:

    “How can a married woman commit anything except adultery? How can she fornicate?”

    Very easily. She can fornicate by sleeping with a man who is not her husband. And when she does that, she commits adultery. Fornication is the root.

  44. Benjamin,

    There are different uses of the word fornication. We cannot take one definition and apply it to all uses. I have not conceded to your definition, I have shown the contextual definition in Messiah’s statement and in Paul’s.

    Please answer: How can a married woman commit anything except adultery? How can she fornicate?

    Shalom

  45. Benjamin,

    The married woman always commits adultery if she fornicates. So why did Messiah distinguish between the two? Why did He not simply say that except for adultery?

    Shalom

  46. Bo:

    “Why did He not simply say that except for adultery?”

    – Jesus did as you conceded a few posts ago. I have shown from both the OT and NT that fornication is the cause of adultery. So it is quite clear what Jesus is talking about. Adultery is an act of fornication when marriage is involved.

Comments are closed.