Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: That marriage divorce adultery thing

  1. #1

    That marriage divorce adultery thing

    No one is disputing the divorce thing, it’s the RE-MARRYING that is the problem. IT SIMPLY ISN’T ALLOWED for a woman to re-marry if she has been cut off , dis-inherited, put away, disenfranchised, divorced PERIOD.

    I for one have never said you can’t divorce your wife particularly (and only we are told ) for adultery. Where people simply fail to see the problem is that she cannot re-marry. Her husband is free to re-marry divorced or not. But she isn’t unless he dies. They seem to conveniently skip over the re-marriage aspect every time and continue with the rote argument about divorce which no one is disputing any way. Divorce has ONE provision in the Bible. WE KNOW THAT ALREADY!!.

    The writ of divorce was naught but a mere safeguard to protect someone, individual or household, male or female who took the divorced woman under their protection or coverture lest they be accused of living with or screwing around another mans wife.
    It did not however give them leave to marry her or she to marry them.

    Under traditional English common law for example, an adult unmarried woman was considered to have full legal status as a feme sole, while a married woman had the status of feme covert. literally a “covered woman”.

    A feme covert was not recognized as having legal rights and obligations distinct from those of her husband. Instead, through marriage a woman’s existence was incorporated into that of her husband, so that she had very few recognized individual rights of her own. Under English law without sexual intercourse which is natural and complete there is no marriage, and any such union may be lawfully and formally annulled. A marriage ceremony is merely a formal witnessing of the betrothal and a public celebration of the union. The marriage ceremony does not constitute the act of marriage, only to ratify the existence of it. This is also the basis of Anglican Church Cannon law concerning what constitutes marriage.

    A woman put away in divorce was no longer under the coverture of her husband and could not re-assume the title of feme sole with any of the concomitant rights, such as to her own property etc. In other words she had no independent means and was to all intents and purposes vagabond and destitute.

    In Hebrew culture it was unacceptable for a woman to continue to live such a ‘loose’ existence for a multiplicity of valid reasons and it was a societal obligation for either the family or a friend or relative to take such a woman in and place her under their coverture.
    The writ of divorce was a formal declaration by way of a legal document stating that the woman was no longer to be considered the chattel property of her husband, thereby protecting her benefactors from legal sanction or public scandal. Scripture is VERY clear on this point.

    It did not absolve her from the law which states that she remains bound by blood until her husband dies. The blood covenent cannot be broken unless by death. As Yahweh demonstrated as our blood sacrifice on the cross.

    A covenent is a legally and lawfully binding commitment with the promise of an outcome or manifestation of substance. A covenant can be reciprocal or singular. It can be made by one person to another, or two persons to each other but it can only considered a covenant between at least two parties.

    One person can make a covenant toward another person or persons, whilst two people can make a mutual or reciprocal covenant with each other. A covenent unlike a formal contract (undertaking) is unconditional and mutually binding. It is an unbreakable promise if you will. Only nullified unless satisfied by DEATH.

    Bottom line is this…. I would rather be wrong from my perspective than from theirs. If I am wrong I have nothing to loose and I loose nothing. It will at least be accounted as righteousness that I tried. For them however the outcome for being wrong and leading others into egregious error such as this is quite literally damnable.

  2. #2
    Obadiah 1:18

    Re: That marriage divorce adultery thing

    Still on your anti-Bill Finck kick, I see, Dave. Full points for persistence.

    By the way, loose should be lose. I'm surprised a pompous pedant like you would have let that one slip past the keeper. Ah well, none of us is perfect.

    P.S. I'm still waiting on that irrefutable proof that SwordBrethren is racially impure. Do you think I will receive it any time this decade?

Similar Threads

  1. Marriage of the Lamb
    By in forum CPM Sermon Specific (2015)
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-26-2020, 11:02 AM
  2. The Biblical Marriage
    By Archivist in forum Older Sermons (1998-2013)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-11-2020, 01:39 AM
  3. Israel's Marriage, Divorcement, Remarriage
    By Erik in forum Bible Tools & Teachers
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-10-2019, 06:58 PM
  4. a thing to think about when debating your brother
    By stew88 in forum New Testament
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-23-2016, 07:21 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts