Sonnet
New member
It would seem to justify scepticism.
Does Romans 7:1-3 affirm different rules for women and men regarding adultery?
- Thread starter Sonnet
- Start date
It would seem to justify scepticism.
Interplanner
Well-known member
There were other forces at work in the ancient days that legitimized polygamy--the loss of men in war being the main problem. An unmarried woman was in a real bind.
Sonnet
New member
You have said as much before I think. Jesus is pretty black and white in his assertion - I wonder why, considering the special case you allude to, He didn't add a proviso.
Interplanner
Well-known member
He didn't add one about polygamy, but he did about divorce. The point being to create a net for the women involved, either way.
The way he quoted Genesis on marriage, it would seem clear that one wife was meant.
Sonnet
New member
I believe we have debated on this before (Romans 7) but I don't think we resolved the interpretation.
v.3
So then, if she has sexual relations with another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress.
That is categorical is it not? It's polygamy (polyandry) - and Paul explicitly forbids it.
Sonnet
New member
Genesis 29:15-30 doesn't fit such a predicament.
Not one of you has mentioned the fact that this was the time of 'Kings', a royal head, which God never wanted in the first place. Men of the time of King Saul, who cried out for a King and leader they could 'see', & God let them have what they cried for, except, God announced David, over and above man's poor choice of Saul.....These men were under the Law, a law God knew they could never fulfilled. And, so Man in his sin, did sin, and the Law God gave could only judge them, by their deeds, which is 'seen' if only you lot would look into properly if you read the 'whole' stories of these Kings, instead of cherry picking out of context, just to debate in vain.
Sorry, 'annointed' David. God's choice over man's insistence .
Even though David was a man after God's own heart, ( desired to do Gods will, and knew that he could NEVER match up to it, God honoured him for his heart towards God.)
Sorry, but I just couldn't resist joining you on this. Perhaps no more for me. So much in The Old Testement is Not being taken into account, THROUGH the Cross, and New Covenant of fulfilment of the Law, which only Jesus could do for us. We now have a better thing in Christ Crucified.
You addressed the KingShip! Excellent point!
Do you care for humor? I have a sarcastic reply, but it isn't in insult, just simple jest.
It appears [MENTION=5868]chair[/MENTION]'s answer to this is "no" towards #452
I'm not sure where Sonnet is. I'm sure he'll reply in the future.
Last edited:
There's no such thing as divorce (Rom. 7:2, 3). :dizzy:
See:
Divorce & Re
marriage: A Position Paper by John PiperThere's no such thing as divorce (Rom. 7:2, 3). :dizzy:
See:
Divorce & Re
Too, too much of the religious spirit gets involved in this matter. First of all, the New Covnant in Christ Jesus doesn't have our God pour out anger on His bride, (church). Second He is not an a Father who punishes His children, like human parents do. When the woman who committed adultery was brought to Jesus, what did He say? He said; " He among you, who is without sin, cast the first stone." Not one of them could, and Jesus, (The Lord), said, "If no-one here condemns you, nor do I, but sin no more."
He didn't say, whether she was the wife of another, or if she slept with a married man, but Jesus did not say anything of a condemning word to her, except, " I don't condemn you, sin no more." This may not be about divorce, or remarriage, but I'm pointing out a God,(Jesus), that is Love, and forgiveness, and whom I don't believe would not allow a man, or woman to remarry, if their spouse walked and abandoned them, whether through adultery, or otherwise.
It's simple.[Divorce & Re
oly: Jesus made it clear again for the Pharisees linger: who had looked to justify themselves (Mt 19:8). God gives you a portion of his spirit (lit. fire of life [Mal 2:15]). The two become one flesh (Matt. 19:5, 6). If some infidel (1 Ti 5:8) :banana: wishes to approach the Great White Throne without his fire of life, he is left with--a consuming fire. :burnlib: Good luck with that (Mal 2:16). opcorn:
Last edited: