Deuteronomy 22:28-29

That is not my viewpoint.

Culture does not determine the meaning of the Bible. At least it shouldn't. There are probably instances in which people rely on their culture rather than the Holy Spirit to interpret the Bible. Such I believe to be the error of denominations who would presume to "marry" practicing homosexuals or who would ignore God's view of homosexual practice and elevate a practicing homosexual to the position of overseer in their church.

My viewpoint is that God gave the Jews of the time so much of His Truth as He in His omniscience believed they would be able to accept, given their culture.

In Matt 19:8-9, Jesus states, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.

 

You said,

Remarriage after divorce is adultery. Adultery is a sin. So is theft. So is coveting my neighbor's wife or anything that is my neighbor's. There are plenty of sinners in churches everywhere. I'm one of them.

I haven't married and divorced specifically, but anyone who is guilty of one sin is guilty of them all. And I have certainly sinned.

Another interesting question here is whether divorce/remarriage is a sin of "ongoing adultery" so long as you continue to "know" your second wife if you did not divorce your first wife for marital unfaithfulness (according to the standard set forth in Matthew).

If it is the person without sin who is to throw the first stone in cases of adultery, I am not qualified to throw that stone.

CalvinG

 

God could have commanded that she still be considered a virgin. Or perhaps God could have commanded the man to support her for the rest of her life and to be forced to marry her if she wanted it.

I don't see the need to force the marriage. </font>[/QUOTE]Your first idea is just pie in the sky. It's one thing for the law to command what one should do, but quite another to command what one should think.

And as far as your second solution, it means that the man can never repent and have a family (assuming he can't support two women) and the woman can never have a family (she's still "damaged goods" in that culture). By forcing them to marry (and when, in that culture, did women get to choose whom they married, anyway?) there was at least a chance of salvaging an intact home and family out of the crime.

I admit, on first reading our 21st century minds revolt, but after getting past that it's not obviously the wrong solution for that time and place.

 

Elandor said

Not exactly. To expel the immoral brother, one must first know that his actions are immoral. I don't think it is general practice to inquire as to the nature of one's divorce when a remarried person joins the church. At least it isn't in my church. If the first divorce was on grounds of adultery, the divorced person would be allowed to remarry according to the standard stated in Matthew.

There aren't trials for adultery anymore in this "advanced" culture of no-fault divorces. So how is the church to know?

 

I don't know. People believe that homosexuality is wrong simply because the Bible says it is. </font>[/QUOTE]You mean homosexuality meets with universal approval in the non-Christian world?

 

No, I mean those who are God's. The Bible is meant for these people, not the general population.
</font>[/QUOTE]My point was that non-Christian societies also believe homosexuality is wrong, even though they know nothing of the biblical proscription.

How did I get this far into this thread anyway?!