From the Beginning it Was Not So [PART 2]

Welcome, brothers. Here is Part 2 of more replies to professed Christians who argue that you can divorce your spouse and take a new one, and somehow not be living in adultery. People will come up with nearly any reason to justify sin, especially if it is their own. If you want the people to repent of their sins and for the Lord to heal your land, repent of the wicked divorce and adulteries that curse the Church. Then trust in the Lord for deliverance.
This video deals with:
1. The "loosed" may remarry
2. Context of Matthew 19
3. Jesus taught the SAME as Moses
4. Only the woman is bound for life
5. I wasn't a believer when I married
6. But David stayed married to Bathsheba
I’ve been working for holiness and reform in the Church at this website: www.holinessofthebride.com/
You can read the entire text of Part 1 and Part 2 of this video here: www.holinessofthebride.com/wp...
You can find my marriage book Get Married and Save the World right here: www.amazon.com/Get-Married-Sa...
My book Pain, on the meaning of suffering and God's solution to it, is right here on paperback and e-book: www.amazon.com/Pain-Thomas-Ac...
Contact me anytime at: [e-mail]
Peace in Messiah

[@AnnulmentProof]

"Put away except for fornication" ... What do you say that means

[@holinessofthebride1935]

Hello, Thanks for visiting me here. My understanding is that "fornication" refers to premarital sex here. That would be an exception for fornication during the betrothal period, which would allow for ending the betrothal (essentially a divorce) and marrying another. It could also refer to discovered fornication on the wedding night, as mentioned in the Torah, and allow for what is essentially an annulment, since the man had been tricked into marriage on the promise his bride was a virgin.
That is not the historical approach, but I think it makes the most sense, and ties together with the fact the exception clause only appears in Matthew, which is focused on a Jewish audience. I've seen this view presented no earlier than around four centuries ago, but it's possible it is older.

[@AnnulmentProof]

@@holinessofthebride1935 no. It means you can only separate from your spouse if they cheat on you (c1152). You can also separate from your spouse if they're out of control (c1153). But because it's only by but because let no man put usunder, said putting away is only by ecclesiastical decree. This has nothing to do with annulment.

[@holinessofthebride1935]

That is the Roman Catholic approach. However, the word itself is not the word for adultery. The Greek porneia is used most often in reference to either premarital sex or prostitution. It refers to a divorce, but I say it is "in essence" an annulment if used for discovered fornication on the wedding night. That would be a result of deception before the marriage took place.
I don't see anything anywhere in the New Testament about divorce for being "out of control," but surely if a spouse were very dangerous, you could separate from them until reconciliation became possible. Either way one interprets it, remarriage is not an option, and the union is truly only ended by death.