The Narrow Path Ministries

PROVE to me that 'except for fornication' was meant only for Jews.

This nonsense is spread by a few erroneous doctrines out there who make the claim but in 3+ solid years of debate on marriage, Ive yet to see ONE single person actually PROVE that the exception clauses (Matt 5:32 and 19:9) were ONLY meant for the Jewish betrothal period.


PROVE to me that 'except for fornication' was meant only for Jews.
*IF* you can prove it from Gods word and historical evidence, I will change my views immediately...

And please bear in mind that Ill need more than "Matthew was written to the Jews"...a LOT of the bible was written to Jews.

aaaaaaaannndd.....go...

Hi foc,

Who are you addressing this to? I was not aware that anyone on this forum had espoused the idea you are asking to see proved. Can you clarify whom you are responding to?

Hi FoC
I had a quick peruse of one of the links (http://truthinheart.com/EarlyOberlinCD/ ... rriage.htm) you mentioned in another post. I thought this was a good point:

If we consider that Corinth was perhaps one of the most promiscuous cities ever, and that the church itself was faced with members at least severely tempted with adultery, why would Paul fail to mention the "only" grounds for divorce (if there was in fact any) as people believe Matthew's Gospel allows for? Even further, why did he not mention adultery was grounds for remarriage when these people claim that Jesus did? It becomes obvious that it was for the same reasons that Luke omitted it. His leaving this unmentioned under their circumstances, while he says the only ground for being free to marry was the death of the spouse, leaves any fair mind to see that there was clearly no grounds for remarriage while the other legitimate spouse lived.

This comes at your question from a slightly different angle. That is, if 'except for fornication' meant adultery and applied to everyone everywhere then most people would expect it to be mentioned in this context. To me its absence is very surprising. Thus, its absence suggests that it doesnt apply to this church and so may be particular to Matthew's audience. Not the absolute proof as you requested. But it adds another straw to the camel's back
Andrew

foc wrote:...and historical evidence, I will change my views immediately...

As i understand it, the early church fathers did not allow remarriage under any circumstances. i have collected a few of the quotes from their writings here: http://rogers.ag.googlepages.com/divorc ... rchfathers

Again, it is not a direct answer to your question. Rather, the fact that the early church teaching did not allow remarriage even after adultery suggests to me that the 'except for fornication' was primalrily intended for Matthew's audience.

Here is a quote from Hermas in 80AD:

"What then shall the husband do, if the wife continue in this disposition [adultery]? Let him divorce her, and let the husband remain single. But if he divorce his wife and marry another, he too commits adultery" (The Shepherd 4:1:6 [A.D. 80]).

I understand that some people place little value on the teachings of such men. And they undoubtedly got it wrong in places. But it is 'historical' as you requested.

Reading the context of the quote of Hermas, he indicates the husband is not to remarry because he must wait for the adultrous wife to repent, and take her back when she does so, but not repeatedly, as he maintains "...there is only one repentance to the servants of God". He is mistaken about repentance; how credible is he regarding divorce?

agrogers wrote:Hi FoC
I had a quick peruse of one of the links (http://truthinheart.com/EarlyOberlinCD/ ... rriage.htm) you mentioned in another post. I thought this was a good point:

If we consider that Corinth was perhaps one of the most promiscuous cities ever, and that the church itself was faced with members at least severely tempted with adultery, why would Paul fail to mention the "only" grounds for divorce (if there was in fact any) as people believe Matthew's Gospel allows for? Even further, why did he not mention adultery was grounds for remarriage when these people claim that Jesus did? It becomes obvious that it was for the same reasons that Luke omitted it. His leaving this unmentioned under their circumstances, while he says the only ground for being free to marry was the death of the spouse, leaves any fair mind to see that there was clearly no grounds for remarriage while the other legitimate spouse lived.

This comes at your question from a slightly different angle. That is, if 'except for fornication' meant adultery and applied to everyone everywhere then most people would expect it to be mentioned in this context. To me its absence is very surprising. Thus, its absence suggests that it doesnt apply to this church and so may be particular to Matthew's audience. Not the absolute proof as you requested. But it adds another straw to the camel's back
Andrew

Except that there is no necessity to repeat what would be common knowledge.
Also, if you read the very first verse there in 1 Cor 7, you see that Paul is addressing direct, specific questions that were obviously asked of him.
In that, there is no need to give a response to something that wasnt asked.
And as you say, these folks were very clearly sexually immoral so it would have been nuts for Paul to tell these immoral people who were clearly looking for a reason to divorce "if you cheat on your spouse then you can divorce"..dont you think?

Homer wrote:Reading the context of the quote of Hermas, he indicates the husband is not to remarry because he must wait for the adultrous wife to repent, and take her back when she does so, but not repeatedly, as he maintains "...there is only one repentance to the servants of God". He is mistaken about repentance; how credible is he regarding divorce?

Hermas and the other ECFs were in such clear disagreement on so many areas of doctrine that personally, nothing they teach is of any consequence, in my opinion.

The man Tertullian believed that allowing divorce and even remarriage for adultery was a given....his views evolved over a period of time to later in life even perverting the scriptures to say that not even the widow could remarry.

I dont take anything taught by any early church 'father' as gospel....not even remotely.
From my own studies those men were just as fallible and confused as anyone today is.

agrogers wrote:

foc wrote:...and historical evidence, I will change my views immediately...

As i understand it, the early church fathers did not allow remarriage under any circumstances. i have collected a few of the quotes from their writings here: http://rogers.ag.googlepages.com/divorc ... rchfathers

Not entirely accurate.
Tertullian early on was definitely a voice of reason who did allow for remarriage after divorce when adutlery was the reason for that divorce.
It was mainly his contact with the Montanists that drove him into unscriptural nonsense.

Also, many of those ECFs taught outright heresies, such as pennance and confession to a priest...not to mention a that at least one major ECF was a Universalist who believed that even demons might be reconciled to God.

YOu'll have to forgive me if I dont trust a single thing from these 'fathers' in any matter of doctrine.

Again, it is not a direct answer to your question. Rather, the fact that the early church teaching did not allow remarriage even after adultery suggests to me that the 'except for fornication' was primalrily intended for Matthew's audience.

That group of men you trust for marriage doctrine also taught pennance and confessing to priests, among other abominable doctrines...do you agree with those as well?

Here is a quote from Hermas in 80AD:

And I can give you a list of horrid quotes from some of these same men who said detestable things about women and about sex even within the confines of a lawful marriage...their words are meaningless to me in matters of doctrine.

I understand that some people place little value on the teachings of such men. And they undoubtedly got it wrong in places. But it is 'historical' as you requested.

No, they got it wrong in a LOT of MAJOR places....not just a few minor ones.
Ill be eventually adding to this page....
Heresies of the Early Church "fathers”
When I do finally finish that particular study, Im sure that no one who reads it will be able to trust the doctrines of those men who could not even agree among themselves about many critical areas of doctrine.

Steve wrote:Hi foc,

Who are you addressing this to?

Actually, the original intent was hopefully for someone to offer up something Ive not seen before to help me in my own studies.
The only thing that people really offer, tho, is things Ive already seen and refuted elsewhere.
- Matthew is to Jews (not relevant..that one is very easy to refute )
Matthew written to Jews, do the differences matter ?

- or that the ECFs believed such and such..which I dealt with already in my previous posts.

- and an extention of the first one is that 'except for fornication' applies to the betrothal period because the Jews used betrothal but supposedly the gentiles did not.
Refuting "only during betrothal"

I was not aware that anyone on this forum had espoused the idea you are asking to see proved. Can you clarify whom you are responding to?

It seems that Arogers 'may'....I cant tell yet...but no, no one in particular...thats why it was left vague.
Im in a state of perpetual study and Ive found when there is a challenge to do something that human nature usually takes the challenge.
I was hoping for new information, but so far in all the forums elsewhere that I posted this there was nothing new brought up.
Im just making sure I havent missed anything. I hope that there was no offense taken

How long have you been at this in regards to this particular question? I've seen you post this at numerous sites over the past year? How many boards have you posted it on? How long have you been researching this specific question?

Just curious.