The Minefield of Virgins, Harlots, Marriage, Adultery and Divorce – Parts 1, 2 & 3

Why do I call this subject a minefield? Here’s why. This is what a commentator said on my web page recently:

“You say marriage and divorce is a minefield? Why minefield………because “man” makes it that way; or would you hold the position that Scripture is not complete/unclear?”

Now this comment is not as straight forward as it looks, and that’s because it’s hiding an agenda. What kind of agenda you may ask? A Pharisaical agenda is the answer to that. How do you work that out? Easy, it’s all there within his comment and encapsulated in his phrase: “because “man” makes it that way.”

He then follows that with: “or would you hold the position that Scripture is not complete/unclear?” Can you spot the give away Pharisaical terminology? If not, here it is: “or would you hold the position.” How is this term a give away, once more, I hear you ask? It’s a give away because it’s the classic logic based Bible intellectual’s gobbledegook retort or the classic Spiritually dead reply to a Spiritually alive subject that he really knows nothing about. You see, dear readers, men and women of The Truth never ‘hold positions’. ‘Holding a position’ literally means a position amongst numerous other meaningless positions, so which position is right and which position is wrong? Answer, both!! The Truth of the matter is this, The Truth is always right and never wrong – The Truth IS and has NO position whatsoever.

So let’s deal with his first expression: “You say marriage and divorce is a minefield, why minefield?” This question alone tells us immediately how his mind works i.e. legalistically or in a Law based mode – Graceless. Later on in our exchange he says this:

“Who is the unmarried? The Virgin. Simple. No complications. No Mosaic legality (whatever that means)”

No Mosaic legality he says and yet that is EXACTLY his stance on this whole subject. Everything is all very black and white, virgins or non-virgins, or do this and don’t do that, with no mercy, compassion or justice involved in his words at all. Never mind that a repentant and saved harlot, a daughter of God, would be equally eligible for marriage as would a widow and neither women being physical virgins. Here alone we can see that this blind man of error has much to learn about Grace, Mercy and Forgiveness.

I would suggest that he studies this story of the woman at the well who Yashua Messiah engages in conversation and to the surprise of His Learners (Disciples):

John 4:16-18 (KJV) Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither. 17 The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband: 18 For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly.

Now whatever this woman’s marital history and situation happens to be, for we are not given all the details, we have to assume that not all her previous husbands are dead and even with regard to the man she is currently living with, Yashua Messiah declares to her that he is not her husband.

However, this is not the point I am endeavouring to make. The point I am making is that Yashua Messiah did not jump straight in with a tirade of do’s and don’t’s or a severe admonition against her for her wicked past sinful lifestyle, even if that was the case. On the contrary, He immediately engaged her on the subject of the Living Water He was offering her rather than the water she was offering Him from the well. Here He behaves consistently and backs up what He said elsewhere:

Matthew 18:11 (KJV) For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

John 12:47 (KJV) And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

So here we have the REAL reason for Yashua Messiah’s conversation with the woman with five husbands plus one who is not her husband i.e. to save her, not judge her or admonish her or lay down The Law about virgins being the only women eligible for marriage LOL.

Let’s have a look at his next statement: “because “man” makes it that way.” Err, well, yes man does make it that way, but isn’t that why Yashua Messiah came to save us? If man was dotting all the ‘i’s and crossing all the ‘t’s and behaving correctly and marrying virgins only, would there have been any need for Yashua Messiah to come? I don’t think so. So what is matey’s point? because he answers himself without even realising he’s done so. He certainly doesn’t understand what Yashua Messiah was saying when He said this:

Matt 5:27-28 (KJV) Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: 28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Here we have the best example of: “man making it that way” there is, in The Holy Scriptures. Man does not even have to touch a woman in order for adultery to have taken place – he can do it in his mind and, more importantly, in his heart and the sinful deed is done. So what chance does a man have? Answer none, other than in Yashua Messiah’s saving GRACE. Can a man stop doing this of his own strength? Not if he’s a hot blooded male he can’t. In order to stop he must be Born of God and be gifted with the Power of God – The Holy Spirit. So where does this leave us where my commentator is concerned?

Well, he will probably deem all my comments rhetorical as he said here:

“Please just re-state the question/point. Again…I thought you were asking rhetorical questions for the most part.”

He will also say we must obey The Law because The Holy Scriptures are complete and clear and Paul makes it clear, too, but does he? Let’s deal with the virginity issue first, because matey said this:

“Since I came to this understanding, it has opened my eyes to another important aspect, which is the necessity of Virginity in marriage. (Deut 22:14)”

So here we see his Pharisaical credentials on display once more by quoting an Old Covenant Scripture to make a New Covenant point. Here is the Scripture:

Deut 22:14 (KJV) And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:

OK, so who are we dealing with here? Are these people saved or are they under The Law? Under The Law is the answer, so that means The Law must be adhered to. The thing is, is Paul dealing with people under The Law? No way, so what has Deut 22:14 got to do with Paul and his Grace filled teaching? Nothing, absolutely nothing, so why is matey quoting Deut 22:14? Answer, because he’s a 21st century Pharisee.

Here is the New Covenant version of the above scenario. A Born Again man meets a Born Again woman and they develop a loving relationship and plan to marry. Whilst dating she confides in him that before she repented and was baptised she had been somewhat promiscuous in her old life and he admits to the same kind of sinful lifestyle and their openness with one another binds them more strongly together. How is this OK? Forgiveness and Grace in action.

1 Cor 7:25 (KJV) Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.

Notice first of all that Paul has NO COMMANDMENT regarding virgins, but he gives his valued opinion as one who had been granted mercy by The Father who called him to be faithful. So in the verses that follow he states his advice of what he feels would be the best course of action i.e. to stay single if at all possible.

1 Cor 7:27 (KJV) Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.

Now what is he saying here? 1) If a man be bound to a wife then seek not to be separated from her, which is all very natural and good. 2) If a man be loosed from his wife then seek not another wife. This point, though, is purely what he would do in that situation himself and advises accordingly, but it’s not written in stone and we’re all different.

Elsewhere he says this:

1 Cor 7:7-9 (KJV) For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. 8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. 9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

Here he clearly states that he would prefer it if all men were single like himself but fully understands that men are not all the same and the same for women and it is better to marry than burn with lust and become susceptible to temptation and sin. All this is very straight forward and gracious – not burdensome. Notice, too, that there is no mention of virgins here, just healthy men and women who should marry rather than burn with lust.

OK, that’s it for Part 1, in part two I will deal with harlots and adultery.

The Minefield of Virgins, Harlots, Marriage, Adultery and Divorce – Part 2

Moving on from part 1 we must now deal with the topics of harlots and adultery with regard to New Covenant teaching. I say this, because my misguided commentator got into all kinds of confusion over this issue. To prove it I will post one or three of his deceptive erroneous comments.

Talking of the union between a man and a woman he says this:

“Simple: A virgin woman has sexual relations with a man and she becomes joined to that man by way of her flesh becoming one with the man’s flesh. Paul calls it a mystery. I believe this joining is both Spiritual and Biological. I believe you hold the same position. This union is only breakable via death.”

Notice here that he makes no mention of the man having to be a virgin as well as the woman – in true Pharisaical tradition. He then says that the union is only breakable by death, but is that true? Nowhere in all his comments does he deal with the issue of divorce or the annulling of marriages for whatever reasons. So entrenched is he in his Pharisaical rigidity and legalism he displays it thus:

“I believe Paul is pretty clear in his directives that only virgin women and widows have the right to take a husband. Why widows? Because ‘death’ breaks the one flesh union. Why Virgins? Because they are not joined to any man.”

But does Paul actually say this, for I can find no Holy Scripture where he does and he uses the widow example for another reason altogether:

Romans 7:1-4 (KJV) Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know The Law,) how that The Law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? 2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from The Law of her husband. 3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that Law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. 4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to The Law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to Him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

These verses, although using the analogy of a widow regarding her dead husband and being free to remarry without the stigma of being an adulteress, have nothing to do with marriage and adultery but, rather, the issue of being free from the condemnation of The Law and living free under Yashua Messiah’s Glorious Grace.

Here Yashua Messiah makes it very clear:

Matthew 19:9 (KJV) And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Except it be for fornication!! Now matey makes no mention of Yashua Messiah’s words here. Why would that be? Because it doesn’t fit in with his Pharisaical rigid, black and white, paradigm and it means he would have to admit that the marriage thing is a minefield – which it is – it’s a no brainer. So let’s ask a few questions about these verses:

1) What if a man commits adultery and his wife sues for a divorce? Is the woman now bound to a single unmarried life because of her husbands sins?

2) Likewise, what if the woman commits adultery and the husband puts her away and divorces her, is he then bound to a future life of enforced bachelorhood? Where would be the justice in that?

3) What if a man commits adultery and his wife forgives him?

4) What if a wife commits adultery and the husband forgives her?

In both the latter cases the covenant of marriage has been broken so are they both now committing adultery by staying together after one or the other has sinned by going astray and committing adultery?

5) What if the man takes a second wife which appears to be the case in the first century, because Paul says that if any man aspires to be a bishop (an overseer, not a ruler) he will be the husband of ONE wife only, not two, three or more.

1 Timothy 3:2 (KJV) A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach. (Emphasis mine)

I think that covers the subject of adultery, but what of these harlots that my commentator ‘friend’ seemed to obsess about?

“Question — would Paul have allowed a man to take the woman of 1 Cor 6:16 as a wife?”

OK, so who is the woman of 1 Corinthians 6:16:

1 Corinthians 6:16 (KJV) What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith He, shall be one flesh.

Well as we can see she’s not any particular woman but, rather, any woman that happens to be a harlot – a whore, but what is the context of the verses surrounding 1 Cor 6:16 and what point was Paul making here?

1 Corinthians 6:15-20 (KJV) Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. 16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith He, shall be one flesh. 17 But he that is joined unto The Lord is one spirit. 18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. 19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of The Holy Ghost (Spirit) which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? 20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your Spirit, which are God’s.

First and foremost, we can plainly see that it is single men that Paul is addressing here because he is using the word fornication, not adultery. So what are these men doing? They are most likely attending pagan religious gatherings where temple prostitutes would be making their services available and these new converts were back sliding big time by fornicating with these whores. Paul explains that to do this means that they were making their bodies ONE FLESH with harlots or as a married man would with his wife. How many men were these whores one flesh with? Probably thousands is the answer to that.

Paul points out that this is a sin against their bodies which are now Temples of the Holy Spirit so they were sinning against their brothers and sisters as well through their bodies being members of the WHOLE BODY OF CHRIST. This is how serious their sins were, but has it anything to do with a man or woman who are already married committing adultery? Yes and no is the answer, because both will be Born of God (Born Again) whereas the whores will not. So we have a very different situation.

How’s that you ask? Quite simply because Born of God Christians can and will repent and be forgiven whereas whores will not. This also means that the whores have an excuse of sorts being ignorant of The Truth, but the new converts who have been back sliding with those whores have no excuse at all which Paul makes very plain and they need to repent forthwith and cease from their evil ways or else. This was the back drop of the situation Paul was having to deal with and yet matey comes up with this:

“Question — would Paul have allowed a man to take the woman of 1 Cor 6:16 as a wife?”

As we can see it’s a loaded and irrelevant question, because no man in the congregation in Corinth wanted to take the harlots for wives. Some wanted to lay with them and in doing that became one flesh with them, but they would not have wanted them on a permanent basis as wives. These new converts may not have known what they had done until Paul explained it to them – we are not told the outcome, so we must assume they repented and were forgiven. If not, then they would have been thrown out of the congregation.

Then I got this from my Pharisee ‘friend’:

“Paul warns the Corinthians to not have sex with the woman of 1 Cor 6:16. Well……….would Paul have allowed a man to take this same woman for a wife if she had repented?

If you say “yes”………….how does one do that? How would a man take the woman of 1 Cor 6:16 for a wife?”

This is like saying would it have been OK for Mary Magdalene to have gotten married after she became a member of The Body of Christ? (I am basing this on the story that prior to her calling she had been a whore – not that, that makes any difference) Why not? How total is our body of sin death in the Baptismal pool? Does it deal totally with our OLD MAN/WOMAN OF SIN OR NOT?

The answer to his Pharisaical question, therefore, is YES and “ONE CAN DO THAT” because the harlot would no longer be a harlot, she would be a new woman, a new creation, a virgin daughter of God, Born Anew from above and Born Of God – the harlot would be no more – gone forever – just like Mary Magdalene!!

I think this has covered all the main points, so will leave it here for now.

---

The Minefield of Virgins, Harlots, Marriage, Adultery and Divorce – Part 3

At the end of part two I said I would leave it there because, as far as I was concerned, the matter was finished, but OH NO! Life is never that simple when we’re dealing with Judaising Law based Graceless blasphemers. In their unbalanced one dimensional obsessive minds they can never let go of their false ideas and errors. Why is that? It’s like that, because they are, first and foremost, Spiritually dead, and because they are in this wretched state, the Devil and his demons enter them and become the driving force behind them – hence the negative obsession.

OK so let’s start with his latest satanic offering:

“Regarding Romans 7 as an “analogy”….. Paul, writing to the Corinthians in response to their questions regarding marriage…”

Notice how matey jumps from Romans to Corinthians in one sentence in order to hopelessly attempt to make his case – never mind the totally different contextual matters at play in these two very different Scriptural accounts. So let’s deal with Romans 7, first, which I did cover in part one so I won’t copy it all here, just verses one and five:

Romans 7:1 (KJV) Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know The Law,) how that The Law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?

You see, he has not grasped what Paul has said here in his opening gambit nor why he is saying it. So what has Paul said? He has told us that if we are people OF THE LAW, THE LAW then has dominion over us as long as we live. Now to whom is he addressing this statement? Why, he’s addressing it to the Canaanite Jews who were THE experts in The Law and who lived under The Law, not under Yashua Messiah’s saving Grace.

Moreover, these opening verses of Romans were aimed at believers and Judaising Law experts alike, for both were present at that time and this event most likely took place in a synagogue. Without any doubt, Paul was making a strong point about Grace and its enemy The Law. Notice verse five:

Romans 7:5 (KJV) For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. (Emphasis mine)

Read it dear people – over and over and over again until it sinks in, especially if you’re being tempted or led astray by a Judaising illegitimate like matey.

“For WHEN we were in the flesh!!” Can you see it? I do hope so. Paul is saying it loud and clear that if we’re Born of God we’re now no longer in the flesh, no longer living in live bodies of sin, but in The Spirit – in the flesh is past tense – the flesh has gone for good apart from our DEAD bodies of sin that died and were buried with Yashua Messiah at Baptism!!

So is this issue literally about marriage and widowhood or just a useful analogy for the meaty subject of Grace versus The Law and how we’re not bound and condemned by The Law now we’re under Grace? I know what the answer is, but unfortunately matey the 21st century Pharisee, doesn’t. Or maybe he does, but being the one dimensional legalistic obsessive rebel he is, he is more interested in virgins and marriage than being saved by Yashua Messiah’s Glorious Grace. Let’s be very clear, because all he can see is this FLESHY ISSUE and NOT the more crucial and mega-important SPIRITUAL ISSUE of these verses in Romans 7. Matey, sadly, is a FLESH focused blind Pharisee gnat strainer!

He then confirms what I have said above re the mixing of the content of Romans 7 with 1 Corinthians 7. This is a pathetic trick to attempt to play and holds no provenance whatsoever, but let’s copy the Holy Scriptures here so that we’re not confused by his satanic ideas:

1 Cor 7:39 (KJV) The wife is bound by The Law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.

So what is Paul saying here? Well, we have to write verse 40 so that we fully understand where Paul is coming from on this subject. First of all, is he laying down The Law? God forbid. He is just stating what The Law says, that’s all, and if we read what he says next it will become abundantly clear:

1 Cor 7:40 (KJV) But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God. (Emphasis mine)

After Paul’s judgement, not after Yashua Messiah’s judgement. This is Paul’s own idea about remaining single, if at all possible which is sound advice as it’s from Paul as a Spirit filled believer. However, Paul was not married, and preferred this arrangement, so that he was free to do Yashua Messiah’s work without let or hindrance. In contrast, Peter was married and took his wife and daughter with him wherever he went on his mission journeys. They assisted him in his work for Yashua Messiah. Am I saying it’s better for a man to marry than remain single if Born of God? No way, but if, as Paul says a man cannot overcome his sexual impulses it is much better if he marry rather than burn with lust.

Furthermore, we must look at verse 39 where it says if her husband dies she can remarry, but only in The Lord is Paul’s advice, which means she should only marry a brother in Yashua Messiah if she is wise, but nothing here is being laid down with an iron Judaic fist. If we are Born of God, we love God’s Law because it is now written on our hearts, so we will willingly follow Yashua Messiah and do what He thinks would be best for our welfare. Marrying an unbeliever would not be wise and in our best interests but there is no Law that says we must not.

Let’s be very clear on this. We can marry who we like as long as it’s a clean living member of the opposite sex, but some unions are not going to be as beneficial to us, as sons and daughters of God, as others, nor to our future offspring which, as free people living under Grace, we now have a responsibility to and to make wise decisions for them. Again, nothing here is written in stone as matey would have us believe – we are free to make our own decisions and learn our own lessons. Wisdom is a gift of The Holy Spirit and we should ask for it. The thing is, matey still doesn’t get it because he says this:

“This is a direct answer to questions regarding the mechanics of marriage. This is not an analogy. This is a real instruction.”

A real instruction he says, but is this true? In 1 Corinthians 7:6 Paul lets it be known:

1 Cor 7:6 (KJV) But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.

So clearly he is not laying down The Law but, rather, his own views.

In verse 10 he changes his message:

1 Cor 7:10 (KJV) And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband.

Here Paul makes The Law clear regarding marriage, but to whom? Who are these Corinthian people? Are they Born Again, or are they lost and unsaved being potential converts? If they are Born of God do they not know The Law already, do they not know that they should be loving their partners and not leaving or separating themselves from them? Of course they would have known this simple basic of The Law and with it, already written on their hearts. This means Paul is not addressing them, but those not conversant with The Law.

OK, what does he say next?:

“A woman is bound to her husband for the duration of his life. Only death breaks this union. Paul the Apostle’s words, not mine.”

He says these are Paul’s words, but are they? Are they per-chance just his interpretation of Paul’s words or could it be that they are not Paul’s words at all? Now notice what Paul actually says:

1 Cor 7:39 (KJV) The wife is bound by THE LAW as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord. (Emphasis mine)

But matey says:

“A woman is bound to her husband for the duration of his life. Only death breaks this union. Paul the Apostle’s words, not mine.”

As we can see, this not what Paul says. He says the wife is bound by The Law, not bound to or by her husband. Matey says a wife is bound to her husband until death, but is this true? No way, because Yashua Messiah says this:

Matthew 19:9 (KJV) And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

So what does this mean? It means if either husband or wife commits fornication they can divorce and it also means that if either commit fornication the innocent party can remarry. So as we can see, death being the only way to bring an end to a union is plainly not true. Unless you are a 21st century Pharisee of course.

Finally he says:

“If a man wishes to take a wife, make sure she is not ‘joined’.”

Well, as we can see if the woman is the innocent party from a broken union she is free to marry, because she is no longer joined to her wayward ex-husband. Likewise if a husband has divorced his wayward unfaithful wife he is also free to remarry because the previous union has been broken by fornication.

I trust this has now put this subject to bed – pardon the pun. LOL