Sins of the flesh

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

useful,

another example showing that God accepted remarriage and doesn't believe the first husband has any remaining bond to the remarried woman:

Dt 24
 1 “If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, 2 and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, 3 and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, 4 then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. “

So, God does recognize divorce and remarriage, which is why Jesus was NOT nullifying divorce or calling the remarried “perpetual adulterers”, as if somehow the Law of Moses promoted “perpetual adultery”.

[opebo]

haha, 'right to'.

[ilikeverin]

Sorry af but in all the genealogical research my wife has done the situation you talk about was extremely rare. Families have always helped out, at least we agree on that. But broken families were rare with a few exceptions and many times when you find a broken family it was when one spouse died.

The situation is one that likely differed across times, places, and families.  afleitch is right in that often family records lie about what the family situation was like, but your wife has probably also used official records, which as every genealogist knows are a lot more accurate than "recollections" (though not always... my great-grandfather's two ex-wives (!!!) in Arkansas in the early 1900s (!!!!!!!!!) never revealed their first marriages in their subsequent census records).  Still, your family tree is only an anecdote, and afleitch has statistics, though probably on European families, rather than Americans, which were different in a lot of ways...

Oh dear, there really doesn't seem to be any answer to this, is there?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

useful,

again, when Paul addresses the married:

1Cor 7:10 "To the married:...a wife must not divorce her husband.  11But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. "

he makes no distinction between those who are on their first marriage and those who have remarried.  In fact he says:

1Cor 7:27 "Are you married? Do not seek a divorce."

obviously, if you've broken rule 7:10 and have divorced and remarried, Paul is not telling you to again violate 7:10 & 7:27 by dissolving your second marriage.  Rather, Paul's statement applies to those who are on their first marriage AND to those who have remarried.  Otherwise, if you're going to argue Paul is not speaking to the remarried, then what you are saying is that the NT gives no instructions to the remarried who have come to Christ.  But if the NT doesn't address the remarried, then you again have no basis to impose on the remarried that they should dissovle their second marriage and either live a life of celebacy or be reconciled to their first spouses.

[??????????]

We're probably both right in ways Verin. But we have found evidence of decent family structure in many families we have looked into. I actually agree with him about everyone being involved. I don't know why he would assume I believe in the idea of the nuclear family. It's certainly better for children to be raised with family as opposed to having some paid employee watch your child at what is basically an orphanage.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

jmfcst, why are you assuming that following God's will must be easy?  If the marriage was not validly entered into in God's view, it's not valid religiously, altho celibacy within the civil marriage that has been contracted should be sufficient to satisfy Jesus' requirements.

useful,
Dt 24
 1 “If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, 2 and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, 3 and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, 4 then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. “

So, God does recognize divorce and remarriage, which is why Jesus was NOT nullifying divorce or calling the remarried “perpetual adulterers”, as if somehow the Law of Moses promoted “perpetual adultery”.

It is strange given how you insist that the Law of Moses is not applicable to the New Covenant that you use the Law of Moses to defend a practice allowed under it and yet condemned by Jesus.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's a pretty clear statement that marrying someone who is divorced is the same as adultery in Jesus' opinion.

[Derek]

No Jesus would not be favorable towards divorce at all. That's something I like about Catholicism.

[Barnes]

No Jesus would not be favorable towards divorce at all. That's something I like about Catholicism.

The Catholic Divorce:

Get a divorce. Get marriage annulled and act like a whole part of your life never happened. Then get remarried. Repeat.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Dt 24 1-4…
So, God does recognize divorce and remarriage, which is why Jesus was NOT nullifying divorce or calling the remarried “perpetual adulterers”, as if somehow the Law of Moses promoted “perpetual adultery”.

It is strange given how you insist that the Law of Moses is not applicable to the New Covenant that you use the Law of Moses to defend a practice allowed under it and yet condemned by Jesus.

Matthew 19:3-9...

That's a pretty clear statement that marrying someone who is divorced is the same as adultery in Jesus' opinion.
 

NEWS FLASH:  In Mat 19:3-9 Jesus is giving an expository on Dt 24:1-4, which is why I brought up Dt 24:1-4.  

It is no different than Jesus taking the letter of the commandment “do not commit adultery” and espousing that the spirit of the commandment means that lusting after other women is adultery committed in the heart.  

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's a pretty clear statement that marrying someone who is divorced is the same as adultery in Jesus' opinion.

Agreed, but it does NOT say it is “perpetual adultery” and this can EASILY be proven by Jesus’ statement:

Mat 19:9 “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery”

Case A:  Tom and Sue are married, but their marriage is troubled and Tom reacts by committing adultery with 5 other women while still being married to his wife Sue.  Sue finds out about the affairs and divorces Tom. Both Sue and Tom eventually remarry other people.

Case B: Tom and Sue are married, but their marriage is troubled and they divorce without ever cheating on each other.  Both Sue and Tom eventually remarry other people.

The way you and useful interpret Mat 19:9, you make the remarriages of Case B into “perpetual adultery” even though the first marriage didn’t involve cheating, while making Case A legitimate remarriage.  Basically, you are saying that you can sanctify your next marriage by being a cheat in your current marriage (i.e. “let us do evil so that good may result”), but if you’re honest in your current marriage than your next marriage will not be acceptable to God.  

Obviously, making Case A out to be better than Case B is NOT a correct interpretation and doesn't dovetail with anything in scripture.

But, the way I interpret Mat 19:9 is that regardless of whether sex with another person happens within the first marriage or at the honeymoon of the second marriage, it breaks the sexual vows of first marriage and results in adultery, but NOT “perpetual adultery” which is why the NT doesn’t command those who are remarried to dissolve their remarriage.  

Jesus is simply saying:  don't think a certificate fo divorce removes the fact that you're breaking your previous vow, for you became one flesh with your spouse and at the point of time you join your body to another, you have committed adultery and have broken your vow.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The Catholic Divorce:

Get a divorce. Get marriage annulled and act like a whole part of your life never happened. Then get remarried.

yeah, I don't know how anyone believes in annullments, kind of makes a mockery out of the whole concept of marriage. Talk about making things up out of whole cloth.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Agreed, but it does NOT say it is “perpetual adultery” and this can EASILY be proven by Jesus’ statement:

Mat 19:9 “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery”

Case A:  Tom and Sue are married, but their marriage is troubled and Tom reacts by committing adultery with 5 other women while still being married to his wife Sue.  Sue finds out about the affairs and divorces Tom. Both Sue and Tom eventually remarry other people.

Case B: Tom and Sue are married, but their marriage is troubled and they divorce without ever cheating on each other.  Both Sue and Tom eventually remarry other people.

The way you and useful interpret Mat 19:9, you make the remarriages of Case B into “perpetual adultery” even though the first marriage didn’t involve cheating, while making Case A legitimate remarriage.  Basically, you are saying that you can sanctify your next marriage by being a cheat in your current marriage (i.e. “let us do evil so that good may result”), but if you’re honest in your current marriage than your next marriage will not be acceptable to God.  

Obviously, making Case A out to be better than Case B is NOT a correct interpretation and doesn't dovetail with anything in scripture.

But, the way I interpret Mat 19:9 is that regardless of whether sex with another person happens within the first marriage or at the honeymoon of the second marriage, it breaks the sexual vows of first marriage and results in adultery, but NOT “perpetual adultery” which is why the NT doesn’t command those who are remarried to dissolve their remarriage.  

Jesus is simply saying:  don't think a certificate fo divorce removes the fact that you're breaking your previous vow, for you became one flesh with your spouse and at the point of time you join your body to another, you have committed adultery and have broken your vow.

No, in Case A, the only way for Tom to end his adultery is to stop seeing those 5 other women and return to Sue.  Now if one assumes that the Biblical rules of marriage are symmetrical, then in Case A Sue, but not Tom could remarry after their divorce since she was not the adulterer who had broken their marriage.  However, marriage in the Bible is not symmetrical.  Husbands are permitted more than one living wife, but wives are not permitted more than one living husband.

The injunction in Matthew 19 is quite clear.  Marriage is not to be treated as a thing of convenience, ended whenever one likes.  It is intended by God to be a perpetual union.

However, there is the question of whether civil divorce and religious divorce are always equivalent.  One could make a case that when a husband pays alimony as a result of a civil divorce that it is not equivalent to having been put away as Matthew 19:9 expresses it, and thus a second marriage by a husband in such a case is Biblically an acceptable case of polygyny, even if civilly it viewed as a monogamous marriage. Of course, that assumes that the first wife does not still desire her husband be more than a provider.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

It is strange given how you insist that the Law of Moses is not applicable to the New Covenant that you use the Law of Moses to defend a practice allowed under it and yet condemned by Jesus.

Again, I want to this to be clear:  Jesus was expounding upon Dt 24:1-4 when asked about why Moses allowed certificates of divorce and Jesus said the reality of it all was that the remarried have committed adultery because they have broken the sexual link of becoming one flesh mentioned in Genesis ch 1.

Paul makes the EXACT same statement in REFERENCING THE LAW OF MOSES:

Rom 7:1 “Do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to men who know the law—that the law has authority over a man only as long as he lives? 2For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. 3So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man.”

And Paul’s teaching in 1Cor 5:39 is EXACTLY the same: “A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord. 40In my judgment, she is happier if she stays as she is—and I think that I too have the Spirit of God.”

So, both Jesus and Paul are on the EXACT same page, and they are both expounding upon the Law of Moses and pulling that teaching into the NT era.  Therefore, what they are saying is NOT new doctrine, it does NOT contradict Dt 24:1-4 in any way shape or form, rather it simply expounds on it.  

Therefore Jesus and Paul did NOT introduce a new concept of divorce!  Rather they simply expounded upon the reality of divorce that was already laid out in Genesis and the Law of Moses and allowed those segments of doctrine from Genesis and the Law of Moses to remain the standard.  

---

No, in Case A, the only way for Tom to end his adultery is to stop seeing those 5 other women and return to Sue. …Sue, but not Tom, could remarry after their divorce since she was not the adulterer who had broken their marriage.  

Again, need I remind you that Jesus recognized all FIVE of the previous marriages of the woman at the well?!

There is not a single passage of scripture, NT or OT, that comes anywhere close to stating that the adulterer in a marriage has more restrictions on them than the spouse who did not cheat.

There are ZERO instructions “to the REmarried” in the bible because the remarried simply fall under the instructions given “to the married”.  To say the instructions in the NT “to the married” only applied to those who are on their first marriages is idiotic, for there is no way to take the passage “husbands, love your wives” and say that only applies to a first marriage but not a second marriage.

There are numerous examples in scripture of converts who were already married, and in no case is the new convert asked, “Now, this woman here, is she the legitimate wife of your first marriage, or is she your illegitimate wife of a subsequent marriage?”  Rather, what you see in scripture is the simple acceptance of the marriage of those who claimed to be married.


What church do you go to, BTW?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Ernest,

Setting the NT church aside - Do you believe a Jewish woman was allowed under the Law of Moses to remarry after being divorced by her first husband?  

Because, if she was allowed to remarry under the Law of Moses in 20A.D. and had children with her 2nd husband, it is inconceivable to believe that if she converted to Christianity in 35A.D. the Apostles would instruct her that her marriage and children were illegitimate.

Therefore, there is no functional way the NT could further restrict the definition of marriage given under the Law of Moses, for doing so would force upon conversion to Christianity the dissolution of many marriages that were legitimate under the Law of Moses.  Again proving your interpretation is faulty.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It is strange given how you insist that the Law of Moses is not applicable to the New Covenant that you use the Law of Moses to defend a practice allowed under it and yet condemned by Jesus.

Again, I want to this to be clear:  Jesus was expounding upon Dt 24:1-4 when asked about why Moses allowed certificates of divorce and Jesus said the reality of it all was that the remarried have committed adultery because they have broken the sexual link of becoming one flesh mentioned in Genesis ch 1.

...

Therefore Jesus and Paul did NOT introduce a new concept of divorce!  Rather they simply expounded upon the reality of divorce that was already laid out in Genesis and the Law of Moses and allowed those segments of doctrine from Genesis and the Law of Moses to remain the standard.

Let me make certain that I understand you correctly. If I am interpreting you correctly, you are saying that the Mosaic law agrees with the doctrine expounded by Jesus in Matthew 19 that divorce is permissible only in the case of adultery,  (Which incidentally is not the current interpretation followed by rabbinic Judaism.)

Also, as you know I consider Paul's epistles to be only historical documents, not holy writ.  Now while not directly on point, let me mention that Paul himself admits that the Pauline privilege at best can be considered a personal interpretation by him, but I would consider it as a broadening the scope of divorce beyond Jesus' intent so as to make it easier for Paul to hold onto his converts.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, in Case A, the only way for Tom to end his adultery is to stop seeing those 5 other women and return to Sue. …Sue, but not Tom, could remarry after their divorce since she was not the adulterer who had broken their marriage. 

Again, need I remind you that Jesus recognized all FIVE of the previous marriages of the woman at the well?!

I presume you are referring to this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, I ask you to take a look at the plain language here.  She is in her fifth marriage, yet Jesus says directly that her fifth husband is not her husband.  Jesus here is recognizing that she has had five persons that she has called husband, but stating that in the eyes of God she is not married and has no husband.

There is not a single passage of scripture, NT or OT, that comes anywhere close to stating that the adulterer in a marriage has more restrictions on them than the spouse who did not cheat

It appears to me that you are trying to make the Bible conform to what you wish it to say on the topic of marriage and divorce rather that listen to its plain language.  For what you just said is directly contradicted by Matthew 19:9.  A husband who divorces an adulterous wife is free to remarry, but if another should "marry" that adulterous wife they themselves are committing adultery, i.e., that marriage is invalid in the eyes of God, for if it were valid, how could a husband be committing adultery with their own wife?

There are numerous examples in scripture of converts who were already married, and in no case is the new convert asked, “Now, this woman here, is she the legitimate wife of your first marriage, or is she your illegitimate wife of a subsequent marriage?”  Rather, what you see in scripture is the simple acceptance of the marriage of those who claimed to be married.

Given the brevity of the accounting of individual incidents in the New Testament, I would not expect that there would be an accounting of such an inquisition as you are wanted as proof except if it had been desired to include it as an additional example of how remarriage after divorce is generally disfavored in the eyes of God. 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Ernest,

Setting the NT church aside - Do you believe a Jewish woman was allowed under the Law of Moses to remarry after being divorced by her first husband?  

Because, if she was allowed to remarry under the Law of Moses in 20A.D. and had children with her 2nd husband, it is inconceivable to believe that if she converted to Christianity in 35A.D. the Apostles would instruct her that her marriage and children were illegitimate.

Therefore, there is no functional way the NT could further restrict the definition of marriage given under the Law of Moses, for doing so would force upon conversion to Christianity the dissolution of many marriages that were legitimate under the Law of Moses.  Again proving your interpretation is faulty.

I suppose I should rephrase what I said as saying that Jesus' teachings on divorce differ from those held under the Law of Moses as interpreted by Judaism today.

There were two major schools of Jewish thought concerning divorce (and many other topics) at the time of Jesus. Some followed the teachings of the House of Hillel (which allowed for divorce for any reason and with liberal allowances for remarriage)  other the teachings of the House of Shammai (which allowed for divorce only if there was adultery).

Hence, Jesus' teaching upon this subject was certainly not novel or unique to him as it echoes that of the House of Shammai.  As I mentioned previously, modern Judaism follows the House of Hillel on this topic as well as most others on which Hillel and Shammai differed.

However, let me point out that you seem to be insisting that Jesus should expound his rules in accordance with what would be easiest for people to follow.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Again, need I remind you that Jesus recognized all FIVE of the previous marriages of the woman at the well?!

I presume you are referring to this:

John 4:16 He said to her, "Go, call your husband and come here."  17 The woman answered and said, "I have no husband." Jesus said to her, "You have correctly said, 'I have no husband'; 18 for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; this you have said truly."

Again, I ask you to take a look at the plain language here.  She is in her fifth marriage, yet Jesus says directly that her fifth husband is not her husband.  Jesus here is recognizing that she has had five persons that she has called husband, but stating that in the eyes of God she is not married and has no husband.

If she was still in her fifth marriage, she would NOT have responded, "I have no husband.”

Your interpretation is obviously just plain wrong.  Case closed.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Again, need I remind you that Jesus recognized all FIVE of the previous marriages of the woman at the well?!

I presume you are referring to this:

John 4:16 He said to her, "Go, call your husband and come here."  17 The woman answered and said, "I have no husband." Jesus said to her, "You have correctly said, 'I have no husband'; 18 for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; this you have said truly."

Again, I ask you to take a look at the plain language here.  She is in her fifth marriage, yet Jesus says directly that her fifth husband is not her husband.  Jesus here is recognizing that she has had five persons that she has called husband, but stating that in the eyes of God she is not married and has no husband.

If she was still in her fifth marriage, she would NOT have responded, "I have no husband.”

Your interpretation is obviously just plain wrong.  Case closed.

If she were not still in her fifth marriage, Jesus would not have said, "the one whom you now have is not your husband".  Do you truly think that she would have been living with a sixth man who was not her husband and not have run afoul of the local intolerance for such behavior?  And why should she live with a man outside marriage since getting marriage and divorce was so easy that she had been married five times?

Even if my interpretation were wrong, that still doesn't address Matthew 5:31-32, Matthew 19:9; Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18, or even 1 Corinthians 7:10-11.  Jesus clearly does not approve of remarriage after divorce, and only in Matthew is an exception given for the case in which a wife is adulterous.

Edit: While preparing to quote this, I discovered that I had overlooked that exception for an adulterous woman is given in both places in Matthew instead of just Matthew 19:9 as I had originally written.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Again, need I remind you that Jesus recognized all FIVE of the previous marriages of the woman at the well?!

I presume you are referring to this:

John 4:16 He said to her, "Go, call your husband and come here."  17 The woman answered and said, "I have no husband." Jesus said to her, "You have correctly said, 'I have no husband'; 18 for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; this you have said truly."

Again, I ask you to take a look at the plain language here.  She is in her fifth marriage, yet Jesus says directly that her fifth husband is not her husband.  Jesus here is recognizing that she has had five persons that she has called husband, but stating that in the eyes of God she is not married and has no husband.

If she was still in her fifth marriage, she would NOT have responded, "I have no husband.”

Your interpretation is obviously just plain wrong.  Case closed.

If she were not still in her fifth marriage, Jesus would not have said, "the one whom you now have is not your husband".  Do you truly think that she would have been living with a sixth man who was not her husband and not have run afoul of the local intolerance for such behavior? 

It is precisely due to the fact that she was considered at the very bottom of society (Samaritan woman…five failed marriages…now living with someone out of wedlock) that Jesus picked her to witness for him.  Society had ridden her off, but Jesus found value in her, the lowest of the low, and used her testimony to save many:

John 4:39 ‘Many of the Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman's testimony”

And since even the Law of Moses recognized remarriages and forbid a remarried woman to return to her first husband, there would have been no reason for this Samaritan woman to say “I have no husband” if she was still in her fifth marriage.

This should be obvious, which makes this argument exceedingly futile.  You’re simply going to believe what you want to believe, just like you believe Paul was a false apostle.  I am not going to waste my time on someone who has played so many games with scripture, that they have to corrupt even a simple passage such as this.  So, have a nice life.

[Derek]

The flesh in and of itself is sinful as it is a result of temptation or appetites from the soul's time in the spiritual realm. Therefore, any sin is a sin of the flesh regarding this thread. However, I believe that we're redeemed through Christ and therefore it was acceptable for Jesus to have a bodily resurrection.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It is precisely due to the fact that she was considered at the very bottom of society (Samaritan woman…five failed marriages…now living with someone out of wedlock) that Jesus picked her to witness for him.  Society had ridden her off, but Jesus found value in her, the lowest of the low, and used her testimony to save many:

John 4:39 ‘Many of the Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman's testimony”

One problem with your interpretation of John 4, as touching as it is, is that it fails to give a necessary reason for the Samaritans to have listened to this lowest of the low as you put it.  They'd have been at least as willing, and perhaps even more willing to listen if she was suddenly declaring to them that her fifth husband was not really her husband and this stranger was the reason she now believed that to be the case.

And since even the Law of Moses recognized remarriages and forbid a remarried woman to return to her first husband, there would have been no reason for this Samaritan woman to say “I have no husband” if she was still in her fifth marriage.

As I pointed out before, during the time of Jesus there were two major schools of interpretation concerning under what circumstances the Law of Moses allowed for divorce and remarriage, one of which was quite liberal in when it was allowed, and the other of which was most strict.  Clearly the woman at the well had lived her life up until that time in accordance with that liberal belief.  A shift by her to the strict interpretation, which Jesus clearly espoused based on what he said elsewhere in the Bible on the subject, would certainly be a reason for her to suddenly proclaim that she has no husband.

I try to avoid mixing personal life and the internet, but your vehemence on this subject makes me wonder if you or your wife was previously married.  If so, I can certainly see where my interpretation that remarriage is not permitted after divorce (and it is not my interpretation alone, as it is essentially the same as that held by the Catholic Church and the early leaders of the church, such as Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian) would be personally distressing for you.  Such distress is exactly why Paul introduced his Pauline privilege concerning the dissolubility of marriage between a convert and a non-believer, why the Catholic Church tries so hard to provide ways to find that a marriage can be annulled for never having been valid in the first place, and why Henry VIII formed the Church of England.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I try to avoid mixing personal life and the internet, but your vehemence on this subject makes me wonder if you or your wife was previously married.  If so, I can certainly see where my interpretation that remarriage is not permitted after divorce would be personally distressing for you.

my wife and I are on our first marriage and we were not even engaged to anyone else nor have we ever separated at any time, nor have either of us been unfaithful to the other.  I have no skin in the interpretation of this subject, thank you very much.  My "vehemence" is in response to your idiotic hackery, which now has stooped to unfounded innuendos regarding my marriage, but speaking against my marriage doesn't compared to your opposition to the word of God..  

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If nothing else, I've proved why I should stay away from personal matters on the internet. Doing so almost always leads to heat but not light.  It's just that since my interpretation of Jesus' views on divorce and remarriage are hardly novel, unique or fringe (save where they touch upon the Pauline privilege), I could conceive of no other reason why you found the issue one to be so vehement on.  Disagreeing with me was understandable, since a number of Protestant churches take a more liberal approach to divorce than the one I put forth, but did not explain the vehemence.

However, if Jesus does not hold that remarriage after divorce is objectionable, how could the possibility of having been divorced be considered innuendo?  Even if he does, how can that possibility be considered innuendo, for not once did I imply that even if my mistaken conjecture were true that either you or your wife acted with anything other than good faith on the issue in accordance with your belief on this issue.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

If nothing else, I've proved why I should stay away from personal matters on the internet. Doing so almost always leads to heat but not light.  It's just that since my interpretation of Jesus' views on divorce and remarriage are hardly novel, unique or fringe (save where they touch upon the Pauline privilege), I could conceive of no other reason why you found the issue one to be so vehement on.  Disagreeing with me was understandable, since a number of Protestant churches take a more liberal approach to divorce than the one I put forth, but did not explain the vehemence.

However, if Jesus does not hold that remarriage after divorce is objectionable, how could the possibility of having been divorced be considered innuendo?  Even if he does, how can that possibility be considered innuendo, for not once did I imply that even if my mistaken conjecture were true that either you or your wife acted with anything other than good faith on the issue in accordance with your belief on this issue.

John 4:16 He said to her, "Go, call your husband and come here."  17 The woman answered and said, "I have no husband." Jesus said to her, "You have correctly said, 'I have no husband'; 18 for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; this you have said truly."

1)   Any “reasonable” person would understand that “I have no husband” means the woman is NOT married.
2)   Any “reasonable” person would understand that “you have had five husbands” means the woman has been married five times.
3)   Any “reasonable” person would understand that “and the one whom you now have is not your husband”, in the context of what was already said, means the woman had five previous marriages and she is now living with someone outside of marriage.

Regardless of how one views second marriages, the above interpretation of this passage can NOT be corrupted to mean something else.  The fact they you see fit to hack it means that you are NOT an honest broker or that you are way over your head.  In either case, you shouldn’t even be discussing this topic.

And although there are sects within Christianity that view second marriages are “perpetual” adultery, I highly highly doubt they have hacked up John 4:16-19 the way you have, proving that even they are not as blind as you.

On top of all of that, you’re not even a NT Christian for you reject large portions of the NT.  I want nothing to do with you.

[ilikeverin]

I disagree, jmfcst, on #3.  I can understand how you get your interpretation (to you, "one" means "man" in that context), but I also find Ernest's interpretation ("one" is a pronominal replacement for the noun phrase "husband" in that context) just as plausible.  Maybe using different words would make more sense.  In a part of a sentence like "...for you have had five purple orangutans, and the one you have now...", "one" clearly means "purple orangutan"; it's pointing backwards to the previous noun phrase.  That would, in a sense, force the interpretation that Ernest has, invalidating #1.

I'm not trying to cast judgment on which interpretation is correct; that's impossible without seeing the source material and knowing the language (some languages would be less ambiguous, I think), or at least looking at some other translations.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I disagree, jmfcst, on #3.  I can understand how you get your interpretation (to you, "one" means "man" in that context), but I also find Ernest's interpretation ("one" is a pronominal replacement for the noun phrase "husband" in that context) just as plausible.  Maybe using different words would make more sense.  In a part of a sentence like "...for you have had five purple orangutans, and the one you have now...", "one" clearly means "purple orangutan"; it's pointing backwards to the previous noun phrase.  That would, in a sense, force the interpretation that Ernest has, invalidating #1.

how can you say "one" in "the one you have now" means "husband" when both she and Christ just got through saying, "I have no husband" and "You have correctly said, 'I have no husband'"?!

If Jesus thought she still CURRENTLY had a husband, then both the following statements are false: "I have no husband" and "You have correctly said, 'I have no husband'"

Yet Jesus stated she woman had spoken CORRECTLY:  

 16Jesus said to her, "Go, call your husband, and come here." 17The woman answered him, "I have no husband." Jesus said to her, "You are right in saying, 'I have no husband'; 18for you have had five husbands, and the one you now have is not your husband. What you have said is true."

She did not currently have a husband because she had had five husbands and the ONE she had currently was NOT her husband.

So here are the facts that Jesus himself said were TRUE (“correct”):
1)   She has no current husband
2)   She has had five husbands in the past
3)   She currently has a person who is not her husband.


Basic Reading Comprehension 101