Does Romans 7:1-3 affirm different rules for women and men regarding adultery?

Flaminggg

BANNED
Banned
In the Love of person, are you extending it to self and ALL humanity?


Sent from my iPad using TOL ~Jesus is the Theology and the Counselor is the Commentary

Love Jesus with Your Heart + Love Your Person as Your Marriage to Jesus .......... God is talking about receiving the "Hearing of his Word" through the chastisement of the scriptures, and our application of it keeping our Person as a Holy Temple ............... this is not possible if we are not divided from humanity by the Impersonal Nature of the Written Law, and the exercise of "Due Process of the Law", this is our Good Will towards Humanity (To Love Humanity in the New Testament is to afford them the Division that Protects our Walk of Faith as the New Testament Sees it .......... you are not obligated, nor can you, mend a person that does not receive Jesus into their Hearts, nor can you correct such a person that by consequence has not kept their Person as a Holy Temple).

The Church is the Trumpet of this Division for the Nations, in expressing this Division of the New Testament, God gives his Allowance of Grace for the Churches according to his Will (the Church as a Body may not be in sin because of this allowance, but it is still not capable of providing intercession since God poured his Wrath into it).

(This New Testament Activity, leads to the Events of Revelation, in the Blood Sacrifices that Solicit the "Sign of Divorce" as the Parable of the Unclean Animals God commanded Peter to kill in order to complete the mercy afforded to the nations .... maybe by the end of this week).
 

Ben Masada

New member
Love thy neighbor as thy self. Love the Lord your God with all your heart. What evil can Love do? And Ben, you are not negative. You are the perpetually stubborn Jew that is as stubborn as me. How could anyone get upset with you.

Okay Nameless, it is always very nice to speak about love but, I expected your follow up from the Pauline allegory against the Law in Romans 7:1-6. I wonder if you are aware, his point with that allegory was to promote his policy of Replacement Theology. In other words, trying to hurt the Jews by putting down their love for the Law.
 

Nameless.In.Grace

BANNED
Banned
Does Romans 7:1-3 affirm different rules for women and men regarding adultery?

Okay Nameless, it is always very nice to speak about love but, I expected your follow up from the Pauline allegory against the Law in Romans 7:1-6. I wonder if you are aware, his point with that allegory was to promote his policy of Replacement Theology. In other words, trying to hurt the Jews by putting down their love for the Law.

Ben,

If you read Romans 9 - 11, Paul says he would trade his salvation, if his brothers could see who Jesus really was. He then warns the followers of Messiah to not be proud and scorn the Jews as lost.

He explains that Yeshewa isn't done with the Jews that reject Him, and that Yeshewa will reveal everything in full when the full number of Gentiles has arrived.

I won't bore you, but this is a major preoccupation of my studies.

I don't share it lately, because the anti-Zion Spirit corrupts and shows itself the second I reveal the scriptures that prove this.


Sent from my iPad using TOL ~Jesus is the Theology and the Counselor is the Commentary
 

Ben Masada

New member
Ben, If you read Romans 9 - 11, Paul says he would trade his salvation, if his brothers could see who Jesus really was. He then warns the followers of Messiah to not be proud and scorn the Jews as lost.

Do you happen to know who Jesus really was? I read the NT and can't believe that Jesus really was the way he was depicted to be by the Hellenist former disciples of Paul who wrote it.

He explains that Yeshewa isn't done with the Jews that reject Him, and that Yeshewa will reveal everything in full when the full number of Gentiles has arrived.

Nameless, the Jews did not reject Jesus. They accepted him and we still do for what he really was and not for what the NT paints him to have been.

I won't bore you, but this is a major preoccupation of my studies.

That's a good study but, looking at your avatar, it seems to me you converted to Christianity from being a Muslim rather than a Jew. Aren't you aware that the symbol is Muslem?

I don't share it lately, because the anti-Zion Spirit corrupts and shows itself the second I reveal the scriptures that prove this.

How about sharing it with me? I don't understand how the anti-Zion spirit would react so negatively.
 

Nameless.In.Grace

BANNED
Banned
Does Romans 7:1-3 affirm different rules for women and men regarding adultery?

Do you happen to know who Jesus really was? I read the NT and can't believe that Jesus really was the way he was depicted to be by the Hellenist former disciples of Paul who wrote it.



Nameless, the Jews did not reject Jesus. They accepted him and we still do for what he really was and not for what the NT paints him to have been.



That's a good study but, looking at your avatar, it seems to me you converted to Christianity from being a Muslim rather than a Jew. Aren't you aware that the symbol is Muslem?



How about sharing it with me? I don't understand how the anti-Zion spirit would react so negatively.

I changed it to Hebrew. I'll find a better image.


Sent from my iPad using TOL ~Jesus is the Theology and the Counselor is the Commentary
 
Last edited:

Nameless.In.Grace

BANNED
Banned
Does Romans 7:1-3 affirm different rules for women and men regarding adultery?

Do you happen to know who Jesus really was? I read the NT and can't believe that Jesus really was the way he was depicted to be by the Hellenist former disciples of Paul who wrote it.



Nameless, the Jews did not reject Jesus. They accepted him and we still do for what he really was and not for what the NT paints him to have been.



That's a good study but, looking at your avatar, it seems to me you converted to Christianity from being a Muslim rather than a Jew. Aren't you aware that the symbol is Muslem?



How about sharing it with me? I don't understand how the anti-Zion spirit would react so negatively.

I will explain the passages of scripture to you, but that will be a specific thread that I will open for that specific purpose. You may not care, but there are things you need to know.

And about your reference to my past. No, Jew by birth (blood heritage) born under the Law.

I have studied Islam and ironically, if you want me to share the passages with you, I have warnings for you that must be understood first.

I wouldn't do it this way, but Islam eludes to a possible misunderstanding of the passages.

I want to spiritually equip you.

I know that you do not accept Jesus as God, but there are things that are a possibility that you need to know.

Please forget about it for today.

I will tag you when I start the thread in a few days.

Ok?


Sent from my iPad using TOL ~Jesus is the Theology and the Counselor is the Commentary
 
Last edited:

Interplanner

Well-known member
No, the Law is not a being with consciousness but the law-giver is. So what exercises the authority over a married woman is not the law but her husband.



Again, my answer is negative. It is not the Law of Moses that has a say over me but the Law-Giver aka HaShem. As in the case of the married woman who achieves freedom from the law that keeps her subject to her husband with his death, we would be free of the Law only at the death of the Law-Giver which is HaShem but, since HaShem is immortal, the Law, as Jesus reminded us with, will stand until Heavens and earth pass away. (Matthew 5:17-19)Besides, the token of the Covenant at Sinai was the Law. That Covenant we made it with HaShem, not with Moses who was only the "go-between" aka the prophet at his work speaking for HaShem.



But in the NT teaching, another party was actually there and completed the covenant, which was Christ. See the 'two men' analogy of Gal 3, which explains that Christ was there, not Israel. Since believers are in Christ, there has been a death of the law.

But in hope of getting the discussion back on target, does Sonnet realize yet that it never was about polygamous marriage; that the analogy was about serial marriages?
 

Nameless.In.Grace

BANNED
Banned
But in the NT teaching, another party was actually there and completed the covenant, which was Christ. See the 'two men' analogy of Gal 3, which explains that Christ was there, not Israel. Since believers are in Christ, there has been a death of the law.

But in hope of getting the discussion back on target, does Sonnet realize yet that it never was about polygamous marriage; that the analogy was about serial marriages?

Interplanner,

I think you tagged me, but Ben's quote is showing up as my words. It's all good though.

I believe Sonnet wants us to evaluate the matter and he is looking at our ideas.

As far as I know, he is still mulling the matter over.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using TheologyOnline mobile app
 

Sonnet

New member
But in hope of getting the discussion back on target, does Sonnet realize yet that it never was about polygamous marriage; that the analogy was about serial marriages?

I merely make an inference based on:

But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress if she marries another man.

which implies that if her husband were still alive, then she would be an adulteress - and she would also be guilty of polyandry.

I've always thought this was obvious. Perhaps I am mistaken, but it still looks this way to me.
 

Sonnet

New member
3 So then, if she has sexual relations with 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 if she marries another man.

Sexual relations would include marrying another man whilst still married to her current husband.
 

Torah is very clear in it’s Mitz’vot concerning marriage, divorce and sexual relations.

First of all, let’s clear up a few words that have been used in this thread. Polygyny is multiple woman; Polygamy is multiple wives; and Polyandry is multiple husbands. Both polygamy and polygyny are allowed according to Torah, however polyandry is definitely forbidden.

Yes Solomon had 700 wives and 300 Piyl’gashot, which is usually translated concubines, but literally means non-contract wife, but the only Mitz’vah that he violated was “No king shall multiply for himself too many wives or too many horses.” David had around 40 wives, and that was perfectly fine. Most of the Patriarch’s had more than one wife.

According to Torah Mitz’vah, only the High Priest is limited to having only one wife, and she must be of native Israeli descent, and not a gentile convert.

There are two types of wives in the Hebrew Scriptures: the contract wife, and the Piylegesh, or sex wife. The only real difference between the two is the method in which they are dispatched. A piylegesh can be sold, traded or simply sent away. A contract wife can only by dispatched by means of a certificate of divorce.

Nearly anything can be grounds for divorce: she can’t cook; she snores; she has foul breath or body odor; they are not sexually compatible; numerous things; but adultery is not one of them. Adultery is a capital crime, punishable by death.

If a man divorces his contract wife he is required to support her until she becomes the wife or piylegesh of another man. If she does not marry another man, her husband is allowed to remarry her. If she does marry another man her first husband is no longer allowed to remarry her.

The definition of adultery is very specific, and it has to be because it is a death penalty offense. If a legally married woman has sexual relations with any man other than her husband, she is guilty of adultery and by proxy makes her partner guilty of adultery as well. Both guilty parties are to be put to death. The only way that any man, either married or single, can be guilty of adultery is by having sexual relations with another man’s legal wife. Having sexual relations with another man’s piylegesh counted as theft or trespassing. If a married man has sexual relations with a single woman that is not adultery; and it is in fact the only way to acquire a piylegesh, or an additional contract wife for that matter.

There is no Mitz’vah against premarital sex for either males or females. There is no Mitz’vah against extramarital sex for men, as long it is not with the legal wife of another man The entire list of prohibited sexual acts is found at Leviticus 18:5-30; and the penalties for committing any of them are found in Leviticus 20:10-22.

Just for the record, David could not have committed adultery with Bat-Sheva because she was a daughter of Israel, and therefore could not have been married to Uriyyah because he was a Hittite, and Torah forbids the marriage of any child of Israel to Hittites, among others. Without a legal contract of marriage, a woman cannot commit adultery. One of the problems probably lies in translation, but newsflash, the word – אֵשֶׁת ʾéshet is the construct form of – אִשָּׁה ʾishah, and means “woman of,” “wife of,” “ mother of,” maidservant of,” etc; it does not exclusively mean “wife of,” no matter what chr-stian translators want you to think.

David did not commit murder either. Uriyyah the Hittite was a general in the army of Israel; King David was the Commander-in-Chief of the army of Israel. He deliberately disobeyed a direct order from his commander and King, and was punished for doing so. David’s sin with Bat-Sheva was theft, as is clearly evident in the Prophet Nathan’s parable about the little ewe lamb to King David in 2 Samuel chapter 12.

Both adultery and murder are punishable by death, and no one is exempt from that including a King.

But to summarize: According to Torah, as it is written, a man can have as many wives and sex servants as he wants; but a woman is only allowed one husband at a time.

A wife is not allowed to serve her husband with a certificate of divorce, but she may petition the local council of Shof’tiym, which would be called a Rabbinical Council today, into investigating her reasons for wanting a divorce. If they discover the reason is verified, they first try to solve the problem and save the marriage. If the problem can’t be fixed, they will ask the husband to serve her a certificate of divorce. Basically it works the same way when the husband makes the petition for divorce, they always try to solve the problem first.

Chr-stians treat divorce as if it were a curse, when in fact it was a gift from God. The “certificate of divorce” is a Mitz’vah given by God to the Nation of Israel. God wants His people to be happy, and you can’t possibly be happy in a bad marriage. A large part of chr-stianity would rather see a couple who can’t even stand each other be miserable for 50, 60, 70 years, than to have them part ways early and find someone they can be happy with.

I would also like to stress that several places in the chr-stian text have the hero of the chr-stian story adding to, subtracting from and changing Torah; which is a death penalty offense. The fact that he is altering Torah in any way, and teaching others to follow him, he is the official definition of a false prophet. All of this is described in Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32; 13:1-5. God’s Torah is eternal – It does not change because He does not change. God dictated all of Torah to Mosheh and ordered him to write it word for word and letter for letter. And Mosheh did as God commanded. And God’s very own words in numerous places throughout Torah verify His Mitz’vot are eternal, and if anyone tries to change them they are to die.

So just to clarify: Matthew chapter 5 and 19 have the hero of chr-stianity changing the rules and definitions of both divorce and adultery. You figure it out.
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
I merely make an inference based on:

But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress if she marries another man.

which implies that if her husband were still alive, then she would be an adulteress - and she would also be guilty of polyandry.

I've always thought this was obvious. Perhaps I am mistaken, but it still looks this way to me.


Nope, consorting is not another marriage. She's not married (on paper, formally) to two at once. She's having an affair.
 

Sonnet

New member
Yoḥanon-benYaʿăqov;4772206 said:

Torah is very clear in it’s Mitz’vot concerning marriage, divorce and sexual relations.

First of all, let’s clear up a few words that have been used in this thread. Polygyny is multiple woman; Polygamy is multiple wives; and Polyandry is multiple husbands. Both polygamy and polygyny are allowed according to Torah, however polyandry is definitely forbidden.

Yes Solomon had 700 wives and 300 Piyl’gashot, which is usually translated concubines, but literally means non-contract wife, but the only Mitz’vah that he violated was “No king shall multiply for himself too many wives or too many horses.” David had around 40 wives, and that was perfectly fine. Most of the Patriarch’s had more than one wife.........



Very interesting thanks. Will come back....
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
Yoḥanon-benYaʿăqov;4772206 said:

Torah is very clear in it’s Mitz’vot concerning marriage, divorce and sexual relations.

First of all, let’s clear up a few words that have been used in this thread. Polygyny is multiple woman; Polygamy is multiple wives; and Polyandry is multiple husbands. Both polygamy and polygyny are allowed according to Torah, however polyandry is definitely forbidden.

Yes Solomon had 700 wives and 300 Piyl’gashot, which is usually translated concubines, but literally means non-contract wife, but the only Mitz’vah that he violated was “No king shall multiply for himself too many wives or too many horses.” David had around 40 wives, and that was perfectly fine. Most of the Patriarch’s had more than one wife.

According to Torah Mitz’vah, only the High Priest is limited to having only one wife, and she must be of native Israeli descent, and not a gentile convert.

There are two types of wives in the Hebrew Scriptures: the contract wife, and the Piylegesh, or sex wife. The only real difference between the two is the method in which they are dispatched. A piylegesh can be sold, traded or simply sent away. A contract wife can only by dispatched by means of a certificate of divorce.

Nearly anything can be grounds for divorce: she can’t cook; she snores; she has foul breath or body odor; they are not sexually compatible; numerous things; but adultery is not one of them. Adultery is a capital crime, punishable by death.

If a man divorces his contract wife he is required to support her until she becomes the wife or piylegesh of another man. If she does not marry another man, her husband is allowed to remarry her. If she does marry another man her first husband is no longer allowed to remarry her.

The definition of adultery is very specific, and it has to be because it is a death penalty offense. If a legally married woman has sexual relations with any man other than her husband, she is guilty of adultery and by proxy makes her partner guilty of adultery as well. Both guilty parties are to be put to death. The only way that any man, either married or single, can be guilty of adultery is by having sexual relations with another man’s legal wife. Having sexual relations with another man’s piylegesh counted as theft or trespassing. If a married man has sexual relations with a single woman that is not adultery; and it is in fact the only way to acquire a piylegesh, or an additional contract wife for that matter.

There is no Mitz’vah against premarital sex for either males or females. There is no Mitz’vah against extramarital sex for men, as long it is not with the legal wife of another man The entire list of prohibited sexual acts is found at Leviticus 18:5-30; and the penalties for committing any of them are found in Leviticus 20:10-22.

Just for the record, David could not have committed adultery with Bat-Sheva because she was a daughter of Israel, and therefore could not have been married to Uriyyah because he was a Hittite, and Torah forbids the marriage of any child of Israel to Hittites, among others. Without a legal contract of marriage, a woman cannot commit adultery. One of the problems probably lies in translation, but newsflash, the word – אֵשֶׁת ʾéshet is the construct form of – אִשָּׁה ʾishah, and means “woman of,” “wife of,” “ mother of,” maidservant of,” etc; it does not exclusively mean “wife of,” no matter what chr-stian translators want you to think.

David did not commit murder either. Uriyyah the Hittite was a general in the army of Israel; King David was the Commander-in-Chief of the army of Israel. He deliberately disobeyed a direct order from his commander and King, and was punished for doing so. David’s sin with Bat-Sheva was theft, as is clearly evident in the Prophet Nathan’s parable about the little ewe lamb to King David in 2 Samuel chapter 12.

Both adultery and murder are punishable by death, and no one is exempt from that including a King.

But to summarize: According to Torah, as it is written, a man can have as many wives and sex servants as he wants; but a woman is only allowed one husband at a time.

A wife is not allowed to serve her husband with a certificate of divorce, but she may petition the local council of Shof’tiym, which would be called a Rabbinical Council today, into investigating her reasons for wanting a divorce. If they discover the reason is verified, they first try to solve the problem and save the marriage. If the problem can’t be fixed, they will ask the husband to serve her a certificate of divorce. Basically it works the same way when the husband makes the petition for divorce, they always try to solve the problem first.

Chr-stians treat divorce as if it were a curse, when in fact it was a gift from God. The “certificate of divorce” is a Mitz’vah given by God to the Nation of Israel. God wants His people to be happy, and you can’t possibly be happy in a bad marriage. A large part of chr-stianity would rather see a couple who can’t even stand each other be miserable for 50, 60, 70 years, than to have them part ways early and find someone they can be happy with.

I would also like to stress that several places in the chr-stian text have the hero of the chr-stian story adding to, subtracting from and changing Torah; which is a death penalty offense. The fact that he is altering Torah in any way, and teaching others to follow him, he is the official definition of a false prophet. All of this is described in Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32; 13:1-5. God’s Torah is eternal – It does not change because He does not change. God dictated all of Torah to Mosheh and ordered him to write it word for word and letter for letter. And Mosheh did as God commanded. And God’s very own words in numerous places throughout Torah verify His Mitz’vot are eternal, and if anyone tries to change them they are to die.

So just to clarify: Matthew chapter 5 and 19 have the hero of chr-stianity changing the rules and definitions of both divorce and adultery. You figure it out.



And there we have at (at the end). The real intention of your post. There are some interesting points, but you sure know how to miss the upshot of an account, don't you? I once heard a wise rabbi declare that all the 10 commands are actually about theft. Very true. SO THAT'S WHY WHAT DAVID DID WAS ALL THREE, GET IT!!! Adultery, murder and theft. You make it sound like it was hardly one of them because it was only addressed by analogy by a prophet. So now who is the false prophet?

It is inexplicable to me that you would praise a rabbinnic council for trying to save things and then blast Christians for 50 years of misery, when there are like a kabillion books out there by Christians on rescuing things. Just recently the most eloquent of these books/counsels by Emerson Eggritts was mentioned on the same rabbi's talk show, and showed the inestimable wisdom embedded in Ephesians 5 about the wife's respect. That is, the solution is often assymetrical; there is no counterpart in the male relationship tools that compares with the woman's verbalizing respect, for starting a positive cycle.

I'll let you respond to those points. I don't see any way for you to grasp the significance of Christ in Mt 5 and 19 about adultery at this point. What you have declared may as well put Judaism in the same category as Islam and women, but that's up to you. You have also decimated the gift of virginity; way to go.

And you wonder why Paul declares the Law to be 'the weak and miserable elements of the world' that are 'powerless against restraining indulgence.'--Col 2?
 

Sonnet

New member
Nope, consorting is not another marriage. She's not married (on paper, formally) to two at once. She's having an affair.

The second sentence continues with the subject of the first sentence and implies what I have said - surely?

So then, if she has sexual relations with 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 if she marries another man.

Her marrying after her husband's death is not adultery. But Paul says 'if' - if her husband dies - so if he doesn't and she marries another it is adultery - that would be the implied meaning of this other case.
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
The second sentence continues with the subject of the first sentence and implies what I have said - surely?

So then, if she has sexual relations with 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 if she marries another man.

Her marrying after her husband's death is not adultery. But Paul says 'if' - if her husband dies - so if he doesn't and she marries another it is adultery - that would be the implied meaning of this other case.


Yes, like Christ, he is saying that such remarriage is adultery. The Pharisee system thought it had this tidy legal process which assured them it was not adultery, and Christ blew it out of the water.

In primitive Africa, you can find tribes that have a single day each year when married people can have sex with anyone else, and the tribal council says IT IS NOT ADULTERY. The same thing would be adultery any other day!!! So much for the great wisdom of the Shammai school!!! (which is the one Christ was opposing for 'any and every'; the Hillel school was strictly divorce for adultery.)
 
Interplanner, I am simply stating what is written in the Hebrew Scriptures, in black and white for all to see. Aside from that, I am a Jew and of course putting up the Jewish perspective... isn't that self explanatory? And everything I posted is found in Torah and is The Very Words of The God of Israel Spoken directly by God to His Prophet Mosheh. It's in your Bible too, either accept it or give us back out Holy Writtings... You can keep your own, just give us back ours.
 

Sonnet

New member
Yes, like Christ, he is saying that such remarriage is adultery. The Pharisee system thought it had this tidy legal process which assured them it was not adultery, and Christ blew it out of the water.

Christ did so, yes - but you still appear to be denying the case of polygamy - in your use of 'remarriage'. Paul's words allow for the implied interpretation of her being married to two men. 'If' her husband dies then no adultery - but what if not?
 

Nameless.In.Grace

BANNED
Banned
Yoḥanon-benYaʿăqov;4772286 said:
Interplanner, I am simply stating what is written in the Hebrew Scriptures, in black and white for all to see. Aside from that, I am a Jew and of course putting up the Jewish perspective... isn't that self explanatory? And everything I posted is found in Torah and is The Very Words of The God of Israel Spoken directly by God to His Prophet Mosheh. It's in your Bible too, either accept it or give us back out Holy Writtings... You can keep your own, just give us back ours.

To get the Hebrew perspective is always helpful.

Gratitude.


Sent from my iPad using TOL ~Jesus is the Theology and the Counselor is the Commentary
 

Nameless.In.Grace

BANNED
Banned
Does Romans 7:1-3 affirm different rules for women and men regarding adultery?

Nope, consorting is not another marriage. She's not married (on paper, formally) to two at once. She's having an affair.

I merely make an inference based on:

But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress if she marries another man.

which implies that if her husband were still alive, then she would be an adulteress - and she would also be guilty of polyandry.

I've always thought this was obvious. Perhaps I am mistaken, but it still looks this way to me.

Interplanner,

You opened up a new thread based on this one in ECT.

Link Here

You said;

Over in Religion at:
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...rding-adultery&p=4772242&posted=1#post4772242

a person very familiar with the vocabulary of the Law on marriage and sex has weighed in on Rom 7, polygamy, etc.

I have responded at #214 because this is about why Paul would regard the Law as 'the weak and miserable elements of the world' that is 'powerless to stop sensual indulgence.' Who needs enemies of purity and restraint when you've got 'pals' like this?

I'm slow on the uptake sometimes. What did you mean?
Sent from my iPad using TOL ~Jesus is the Theology and the Counselor is the Commentary
 
Top