Did Jesus say that adultery is grounds for divorce? - Nope.

[VictoryinJesus]

You can see that it is a form of the word “porneia” which is used elsewhere in the Scriptures to indicate sexual immorality of any description.

The words “strange flesh” (“heteros”) carry the meaning of...

1. “another: i.e. one not of the same nature, form, class, kind, different”

There is so much to consider and research here. First, I wanted to share a few of my own thoughts which might be nothing. Then I’ll respond again later, showing hopefully, why in the Word I don’t think it is what we claim it is, regarding Lot and the two angels.

I’ve heard “porneia” as proof God meant porno. I did look up on Google regarding the men asking for Lot to send the two men out, so they could have relations with them. It’s unanimously decided they wanted sex with the men. I can’t fight that. I did look up “pornography” to see where the word comes from, it said the word comes from the Greek word you quoted. Here are my thoughts though. Just because mankind assigned it to the action they decided it conveys, doesn’t mean it is the undisputed intention of “porneia” : God’s word for porn. Yes, it a vivid imagery. Same as sodom becomes the connection to anal? (Sorry, but considering we say God’s word speaks of raw and highly sexual content, I’m only saying what the word Sodom has become.”
To me that still isn’t proof for what evil the men, old and young wanted to do to the men. I could think of other evils. When they wanted to do evil to Jesus….It wasn’t sex they wanted out of knowing Him, but to rule over Him. To make Him subjected and bowed down before them. That is the only thing I’m trying to bring out…yes rape is grotesque, yes people are abused sexually BUT I still think that all comes out from an overall evil mind that encompasses more than ..what we say is all that is meant there. Saying the only choice for the meaning of the evil they wanted to do in knowing them, was homosexual. I’m only stating that may be what we want it to only be about. So most men don’t fall under that category of desiring to do evil.

The Greek word used there for “gross immorality” is “ekporneuō” it is used only once, and it carries the meaning of...

Again, all the words …even the one below “to go a whoring” have multiple meanings. You get this.

“to go a whoring”, "give one's self over to fornication"......

What is the larger picture being shown in “to go a whoring” ? You shared the larger meaning. What if other told you it only means to be a whore working the streets exchanging sex for money? Does one exclude the overall bigger picture?

So this is definitely conveying something that produced children, which can only mean sex.....and in this case the “strange flesh” was that of materialized angels mating with human women.

Later from the passage regarding: Lot, those young and old that ask to have relations with the two angels. You said “materialize”. I do think “materialize” has to do with to “manifest in sackcloth”. Is this not what you are saying…the (Angels) can appear is flesh?

So this is definitely conveying something that produced children, which can only mean sex.....and in this case the “strange flesh” was that of materialized angels mating with human women. Their offspring would therefore be the product of that “strange” union....and the Bible indicates that these children grew into gigantic bullies who terrorised the general population. It was their fathers who produced them by taking any woman for his own pleasure.

In other Scripture it is also used for “other” or “different”....so the “flesh” of the one committing the act is different to that of the women who were raped.....and it is why their offspring were grotesque.

children of a “strange union” Mark 2:21-22 No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment. If he does, the patch tears away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear is made. [22] And no one puts new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the wine will burst the skins-and the wine is destroyed, and so are the skins. But new wine is for fresh wineskins."

“Another” “different” “other” “flesh”
one not of the same nature, form, class, kind, different”
You nailed it, I think. And you might not even know you nailed it. Jesus Christ spoke this
John 8:23 And he said unto them, You are from beneath; I am from above: you are of this world; I am not of this world.
Also; speaking of one not of the same nature:
1 Corinthians 15:44-45 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. [45] And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
Also, regarding not of the same nature:
John 3:31 He that comes from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaks of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all.


Remember where Paul said he had no other “likeminded” to send that would naturally care for their state. All had gone (a whoring) after their own things and not the things of Christ’s. So I still think what Paul said is relevant to
“Another” “different” “other” “flesh”
one not of the same nature, form, class, kind, different”

I don’t think “sex” was added, but in reference to Sodom and Gomorrah, the inhabitants of those cities were on God’s radar because of the grossness of their perversion. Any male that came into the city was fair game for gang rape....even angels. This is why Lot offered his daughters as a distraction....he knew that they were not interested in sex with women.

I’m not sure how you summarized Lot offered his daughters as a distraction.(because) He knew they were not interested in sex with women. I don’t know if it’s true because I haven’t read it yet…My husband said something about Lots daughters trying to have relations (sex) with him? I need to look that up.

God himself used sexual immorality to describe the unfaithfulness of his people

Exactly. I’m not disputing that. But i am only saying God’s message seems to be the immorality again Him.

Are we to assume then that Sodom and Gomorrah were just treating others unkindly? That they had “no natural affection” for one another? Why then did God single them out for utter destruction, if they were just like all the other nations?
Why did God bring about a global flood to address what happened in Noah’s day? Pretty drastic measures to address something that was seen in every nation on earth that have ever existed.....

You’ve downplayed “without natural affection” but then go into “the love of the greater number would grow cold” ….

How true his words are, as we see all of the above, manifesting on a global scale!
Jesus said that in this time of the end, “the love of the greater number would grow cold”.....love of neighbor has almost disappeared in today’s world, along with love of God......the two greatest Commandments. But like the days of Noah, (Matt 24:37-39) violence and immorality are rife at a time in history that allows no room for such ignorant behavior. In civilized society, reason and intelligence should govern human conduct, but all we see is the same thing repeated time and again in every generation.

Then go from, I think, saying “without natural affection” isn’t so bad, to “love growing cold” to below you finish with “Humans have never learned what God has been trying to demonstrate to them all this time....that humans cannot rule other humans, because it always corrupts them.”
And they never will learn if people keep saying it only speaks of homosexuality as the gross evil that can be done.

Humans have never learned what God has been trying to demonstrate to them all this time....that humans cannot rule other humans, because it always corrupts them. We are designed to be ruled by an incorruptible God, who will take his place again, when he has fulfilled his purpose to cleanse the earth of all who want to disobey him, and restore peace to all life upon it. (Rev 21:2-4)

 

[Davy]

The position of the church and society at large is mistaken as to what Jesus was quoted as saying in the gospels. IMHO
Let's discuss.

Questions:
1) What did Jesus actually say?
2) Why did he say it?
3) If we got this wrong, where do we go from here?

The position of the church and society at large is that adultery (sexual immorality) is grounds for divorce.
And they will quote Jesus as an authority on this. But is Jesus being misquoted? Yes, I believe so.
The biggest problem is the disconnect we have with the culture that Jesus was speaking to.

The church teaches that the only grounds for divorce is adultery. (sexual immorality)
But that is not what Jesus actually said.

The basis for this teaching is found in Matthew 19:9
See the NIV translation below, taking note of verse 10 as well as verse 9. (at the very bottom of this post)
Then compare the KJV below that. Note the use of the word "fornication" which matches the NT Greek.

This makes a HUGE difference, especially when considering the cultural setting of the Israelites under the law.
Jesus was saying that the only grounds for divorce is fornication, which is sexual intercourse before marriage. (not after)
What does this mean? Both in the historical context and to the misinterpretation assigned by the church today. ???

For the Israelites, a bride's parents presented her as a virgin to her husband-to-be. The law of Moses made a provision for this.
If the husband-to-be discovered that he had been given a bride that was not a virgin, he could divorce her. (for fornication)
Unfortunately, some new husbands were making false claims in order to divorce their new brides. The fornication loophole.
Parents were allowed to challenge this claim if it was false. See Deuteronomy 22:16-18

Therefore, the KJV translation is correct and the church got it wrong.
Jesus said there is no grounds for divorce except for fornication. Now read verse 10 again.
Better not to marry? Indeed. Not if you have ANY plans to divorce.

Matthew 19:8-10 NIV
Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.
9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”

--- COMPARE ---

Matthew 19:8-10 KJV
He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives:
but from the beginning it was not so.
9 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.
10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

/

Nah... you are way... off base with what Jesus said.

The idea of "fornication" means sexual intercourse ALWAYS OUTSIDE A MARRIAGE!

If either spouse commits fornication, it means they went OUTSIDE THE MARRIAGE!

We know this EASILY simply because GOD blesses a marriage with a man and a woman joined together to become ONE, producing children. God even told Israel to be FRUITFUL in that! That's why it is EASY to know when Jesus said "fornication" in Matthew 19:9 He was OBVIOUSLY referring to sexual intercourse OUTSIDE THE MARRIAGE WITH ANOTHER BESIDES ONE'S SPOUSE.

Thus today's LAW on adultery is CORRECT.

 

[St. SteVen]

If a husband or a wife changes for the worse over the years, would their spouse have the right to file for divorce on the grounds that the person is no longer the person they married?

'til death do us part.
What God has put together let no person tear apart.

[

 

[Aunty Jane]

I’ll tackle your post a bite at a time as there is a lot to address....

Here are my thoughts though. Just because mankind assigned it to the action they decided it conveys, doesn’t mean it is the undisputed intention of “porneia” : God’s word for porn. Yes, it a vivid imagery. Same as sodom becomes the connection to anal? (Sorry, but considering we say God’s word speaks of raw and highly sexual content, I’m only saying what the word Sodom has become.”
To me that still isn’t proof for what evil the men, old and young wanted to do to the men. I could think of other evils.

I am curious as to why you need to downplay the sexual aspect of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah? Sexual crimes were given a lot of space under God’s law, and he was very specific about the kinds of immorality that could be committed, and this is an indication of how important it was not to abuse the gift of marital intimacy, which was given for one reason, and one reason only.....to produce children in a committed family relationship, where the two partners valued fidelity like God does. There was no way to illustrate the kind of fidelity that he required of his people, than to use the marriage arrangement and the procreative process he gave to all living things. Life is sacred to God and we are empowered with the reproductive process in the transmission of life, that must be respected.

yes rape is grotesque, yes people are abused sexually BUT I still think that all comes out from an overall evil mind that encompasses more than ..what we say is all that is meant there. Saying the only choice for the meaning of the evil they wanted to do in knowing them, was homosexual. I’m only stating that may be what we want it to only be about. So most men don’t fall under that category of desiring to do evil.

The inhabitants of these cities were so engrossed in their sexual deviation that they could think of nothing else. God did not target any other cities for this disgusting behavior. If it was just like everyone else, remembering that it was a time of violence and nations were frequently at war. Remember that the city of Nineveh was likewise condemned, not for its sexual immorality, but for its complete disregard for human life. God sent Jonah to preach repentance to these people and they did....why did he not send prophets to Sodom and Gomorrah? Ecause he knew they were incorrigible....too set in their immoral thinking.
Why else would God have responded so drastically in demonstrating his abhorrence for these two cities if not for their specific sexual deviation?

What is the larger picture being shown in “to go a whoring” ? You shared the larger meaning. What if other told you it only means to be a whore working the streets exchanging sex for money? Does one exclude the overall bigger picture?

It is true that “whoring” can be used in a spiritual sense, but these were not God’s people. Lot moved to Sodom because things we’re getting a bit crowded where he was sharing an area with his uncle Abraham, and it was causing friction.
Lot was given the choice of where to move and he chose Sodom because of the fertile land, not the practices of the people. He kept himself and his family separated from them, (in much the same way as I imagine Noah did in his day) which is why God sent his angels to rescue them before the scheduled destruction.

Later from the passage regarding: Lot, those young and old that ask to have relations with the two angels. You said “materialize”. I do think “materialize” has to do with to “manifest in sackcloth”. Is this not what you are saying…the (Angels) can appear is flesh?

If the angels in Noah’s day could produce children, then they had to have been able to transform themselves into fully functioning humans....the angels who visited Abraham were in human form and enjoyed a banquet that Sarah prepared for them. Faithful angels continued to appear to God’s servants, but the demons apparently had that ability taken away from them because they could not materialize any more. They could only inhabit a body that they gained access to by spiritistic means. They still do so to this day.

children of a “strange union” Mark 2:21-22 No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment. If he does, the patch tears away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear is made. [22] And no one puts new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the wine will burst the skins-and the wine is destroyed, and so are the skins. But new wine is for fresh wineskins."

Not sure how this scripture fits....? This was in reference to the old covenant, verses the new one.....this was part of Jesus’ answer as to why his disciples did not practice fasting. Jesus implied that the truth he was teaching was too powerful and energetic to be retained by the old system of faithless Judaism, which was about to get the boot. You could not blend the old with the new.

“Another” “different” “other” “flesh”
one not of the same nature, form, class, kind, different”
You nailed it, I think. And you might not even know you nailed it. Jesus Christ spoke this
John 8:23 And he said unto them, You are from beneath; I am from above: you are of this world; I am not of this world.
Also; speaking of one not of the same nature:
1 Corinthians 15:44-45 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. [45] And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

Yes, the Scriptures do speak of different kinds of flesh as we see in nature on this planet, but outside of the earthly realm there is another realm, which is not visible to human eyes, where the inhabitants of this realm are not visible creatures. This is why angels had to materialize to deliver their communications from God....

Because of what the demon angels did back in Noah’s day, God had to step in and prevent them from doing that again. So angels, who are invisible beings, need to allow humans to see them.
Because the demons still lurk in the invisible realm, God forbade his people to communicate with spirits and any form of dealing with them. (Deut 18:9-12)

 

[Aunty Jane]

Remember where Paul said he had no other “likeminded” to send that would naturally care for their state. All had gone (a whoring) after their own things and not the things of Christ’s. So I still think what Paul said is relevant to
“Another” “different” “other” “flesh”
one not of the same nature, form, class, kind, different”

For Sodom and Gomorrah, the “whoring” was sexual....in other parts of the Bible this “whoring” is spiritual....both are equally abhorrent to God.

I’m not sure how you summarized Lot offered his daughters as a distraction.(because) He knew they were not interested in sex with women. I don’t know if it’s true because I haven’t read it yet…My husband said something about Lots daughters trying to have relations (sex) with him? I need to look that up.

Why else would he offer his daughters to a mob intent on only one thing? He was trying to protect his visitors by distracting the Sodomites.....but the angels could take care of themselves by making the mob blind. They didn’t get to carry out their attack. And the angels got Lot and his family out of the city in time.

The only reason why Lot’s daughters decided to get their father intoxicated was to preserve his family name. They were living in a cave away from human society, and there were no males who could furnish offspring for Lot’s daughters to carry on the family line. Keep in mind that this was before the nation of Israel existed and before any laws were made concerning the sexual union of close relatives. It was common for siblings to marry back then, as Abraham had married his half sister, Sarah.....and Lot’s daughters had to get their father drunk before he would have relations with them. He would not have done so willingly. God did not condemn the daughters because they had good motives.

You’ve downplayed “without natural affection” but then go into “the love of the greater number would grow cold”

Then go from, I think, saying “without natural affection” isn’t so bad, to “love growing cold” to below you finish with “Humans have never learned what God has been trying to demonstrate to them all this time....that humans cannot rule other humans, because it always corrupts them.”
And they never will learn if people keep saying it only speaks of homosexuality as the gross evil that can be done.

I’m not sure I understand your interpretation of my response....?
As part of the description of the way the world would be in this “time of the end”, “having no natural affection” and “the love of the greater number growing cold” are plainly evident in our everyday situations.
Have governments made our lives more secure and enjoyable? Have those who have voted them into office been proud of their achievements and fulfilled promises? Who in all honesty, could say that those in politics are really interested in the people they are supposed to serve? Is the world a better, safer place because of them? Human rulership is a complete failure, despite all the different forms that have been tried.

Neighbourhoods in our day are not the same as they were in my childhood. Everyone knew their neighbors and interacted with them socially, often. People trusted one another. As children we looked forward to those times spent with our neighbors...but in the world of today many people do not even know who lives next door to them....and because it’s a time of deception and suspicion, trust has vanished and people keep to themselves. As children we played out in the street and only came home for dinner. Today’s parents are so paranoid because of abductions, that they won’t let their children out of their sight.....it’s a very different world.....but not a better one, morally or spiritually.

It’s nice to have an actual discussion ViJ.....thank you for your responses.

 

[VictoryinJesus]

I am curious as to why you need to downplay the sexual aspect of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah?

I’m not trying to downplay the sexual aspect. I’ll admit reading again the passage regarding lot and the angels …I can’t deny men wanting to have sex with men/angels is how it sure sounds

But something else stood out to me. It may not make any sense and I don’t push it has to be right. It was only a thought. But it’s something to consider. Have we ever once considered who the two angels/men are? What do they foreshadow?
————————————————-
Two Angels came to Sodom in the evening, as Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. Genesis 19

Revelation 11, I will grant (Authority) to my two witnesses, and they will prophesy twelve hundred and sixty days, clothed in sackcloth. (This is why I asked you if to appear clothed in sackcloth, is to manifest clothed in the flesh?)

These are the two Olive trees /!: the two lamp stands that stand before the LORD of the earth.

Genesis, when Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed down to the ground.

Genesis, Lot says “My lords, please turn aside unto your servants house, and Spend the night and wash your feet, then you may rise early and go your own way.

They said however, “No, but we shall spend the night in the square.” This stands out to me that the two know where they are to spend the night. “In the square”. I don’t think of “night” as literal night, but instead I think of the “night” Jesus spoke of in “you are not of the night, but of the day. Those of the night (dark) are drunk in the night(dark) and sleep.” That is what makes this stand out to me…”night” the time of trouble or the time of darkness …or when it is “night” these two angels sent from the LORD said “No, we shall spend the night in the square.” As two Witnesses?

‘and their dead bodies will lie in the street” The Septuagint often employs cognate language for city “squares” Isaiah 59:14, and broad places. Where injustice or Idolatry is practiced, reinforcing the association of width with moral laxity.

Genesis “where are the men/angels who came unto you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.

Revelation, regarding the two witnesses ‘If anyone harms them, fire flows out of their moth and devours their enemies , so if anyone wants to harm them, he must be killed in this way.

Genesis, Lots says “please my brothers, do not act wickedly

The men/angels tell Lot “we are about to destroy this place. the outcry has become great before the LORD, that the Lord has sent us to destroy it.

Revelation 11:7-8 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendout of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them. [8] And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.

Sounds ridiculous now that I think about it. It is strange though that they said “no, we shall stay in the square”. Maybe it is just about Sodom, where men; young and old desired to have sex with the who angels/men. And the angel/men simply meant they were going to get a room for the night, in the square.

 

[VictoryinJesus]

It’s nice to have an actual discussion ViJ.....thank you for your responses.

Thank you for your responses. It does seem clear it’s regarding sexual relations. I’m sorry I didn’t answer your other responses. I just feel like it’s time for me to surrender to the meaning.

 

[Treeline]

A Christian friend of mine got married but it was a disaster, it was as if Satan had used her as an innocent pawn to insert her into his life to disrupt and distract him, does Satan do things like that?
(They split up after several years and she sadly died of diabetes complications and now he's back to his old self)

 

[Aunty Jane]

I’m not trying to downplay the sexual aspect. I’ll admit reading again the passage regarding lot and the angels …I can’t deny men wanting to have sex with men/angels is how it sure sounds

I’m sure it is why Sodom got its name and reputation. God didn’t just punish them...he obliterated them!
Not something you’d think reasonable, for just being a sinner.

But something else stood out to me. It may not make any sense and I don’t push it has to be right. It was only a thought. But it’s something to consider. Have we ever once considered who the two angels/men are? What do they foreshadow?

Sometimes when we look for types and anti-types, we can get a lot of things confused, so better to take Scripture at face value rather than constantly looking for hidden meanings......it’s a rough ride when there might be no hidden meaning at all.

Since it was three angels who came into Abraham, and only two who went on to Sodom to rescue Lot, perhaps it has reference to the future law of Moses, which stated that a matter could only be established as a crime deserving of the death penalty “at the mouth of two or three witnesses”. This was before Israel became a nation, but the principles behind the law have always existed. These two cities had been given the death penalty. (Just a suggestion)

Two Angels came to Sodom in the evening, as Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom.

when Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed down to the ground.

Genesis, Lot says “My lords, please turn aside unto your servants house, and Spend the night and wash your feet, then you may rise early and go your own way.

They said however, “No, but we shall spend the night in the square.” This stands out to me that the two know where they are to spend the night. “In the square”. I don’t think of “night” as literal night, but instead I think of the “night” Jesus spoke of in “you are not of the night, but of the day. Those of the night (dark) are drunk in the night(dark) and sleep.” That is what makes this stand out to me…”night” the time of trouble or the time of darkness …or when it is “night” these two angels sent from the LORD said “No, we shall spend the night in the square.” As two Witnesses?

Peter sheds some light on the story here...

2 Pet 2:6-9....
“and if he turned to ashes the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah when he condemned them to destruction, having appointed them to serve as an example to future generations of the ungodly, and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man in anguish over the debauched lifestyle of lawless men, (for while he lived among them day after day, that righteous man was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)”. (NET)

God has used past events to picture future ones, but I don’t think the the angels appearing to Abraham and Lot were anything but messengers, sent to give important news to Abraham and his wife, as well as to execute judgment on two very wicked cities.

Revelation 11, I will grant (Authority) to my two witnesses, and they will prophesy twelve hundred and sixty days, clothed in sackcloth. (This is why I asked you if to appear clothed in sackcloth, is to manifest clothed in the flesh?)

Sackcloth was a coarse cloth used in making sacks, or bags, such as those for containing grain. It was usually woven from dark-colored goat’s hair, and was the traditional garment of mourning. ”Sackcloth and ashes” were mentioned often in the Bible as a sign of deep grief or repentance. (Gen 37:34)

Lots says “please my brothers, do not act wickedly

The men/angels tell Lot “we are about to destroy this place. the outcry has become great before the LORD, that the Lord has sent us to destroy it.

The outcry over the city’s wickedness was great before God....so one wonders from whom the outcry came?
Was it the angels perhaps?

Revelation 11:7-8 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendout of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them. [8] And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.

Sounds ridiculous now that I think about it. It is strange though that they said “no, we shall stay in the square”. Maybe it is just about Sodom, where men; young and old desired to have sex with the who angels/men. And the angel/men simply meant they were going to get a room for the night, in the square.

Apparently, because it was a fine tradition among God’s people to offer hospitality to travellers, they would go to the city square and wait for an invitation to stay the night. Perhaps this is what the angels were alluding to...?

Thank you for your responses. It does seem clear it’s regarding sexual relations. I’m sorry I didn’t answer your other responses. I just feel like it’s time for me to surrender to the meaning.

No worries, thanks for the exchange....it’s good to dig and find some answers....the Bible has answers for all our questions.

 

[VictoryinJesus]

Sometimes when we look for types and anti-types, we can get a lot of things confused, so better to take Scripture at face value rather than constantly looking for hidden meanings......it’s a rough ride when there might be no hidden meaning at all.

Agree.

Since it was three angels who came into Abraham, and only two who went on to Sodom to rescue Lot, perhaps it has reference to the future law of Moses, which stated that a matter could only be established as a crime deserving of the death penalty “at the mouth of two or three witnesses”. This was before Israel became a nation, but the principles behind the law have always existed. These two cities had been given the death penalty. (Just a suggestion)

Interesting. I hadn’t backed up…thank you for pointing out there were three.

Peter sheds some light on the story here...

2 Pet 2:6-9....
“and if he turned to ashes the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah when he condemned them to destruction, having appointed them to serve as an example to future generations of the ungodly, and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man in anguish over the debauched lifestyle of lawless men, (for while he lived among them day after day, that righteous man was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)”. (NET)

God has used past events to picture future ones, but I don’t think the the angels appearing to Abraham and Lot were anything but messengers, sent to give important news to Abraham and his wife, as well as to execute judgment on two very wicked cities.

Interesting.

Sackcloth was a coarse cloth used in making sacks, or bags, such as those for containing grain. It was usually woven from dark-colored goat’s hair, and was the traditional garment of mourning. ”Sackcloth and ashes” were mentioned often in the Bible as a sign of deep grief or repentance. (Gen 37:34)

Interesting again…’sacks, or bags, such as those containing grain’.

The outcry over the city’s wickedness was great before God....so one wonders from whom the outcry came?
Was it the angels perhaps?

Maybe. or maybe the people like when God humbled Paul?
2 Corinthians 12:19-21 Again, think you that we excuse ourselves unto you? we speak before God in Christ: but we do all things, dearly beloved, for your edifying. [20] For I fear, lest, when I come, I shall not find you such as I would, and that I shall be found unto you such as you would not: lest there be debates, envyings, wraths, strifes, backbitings, whisperings, swellings, tumults: [21] And lest, when I come again, my God will humble me among you, and that I shall bewail many which have sinned already, and have not repented of the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness which they have committed.

Lot did plead with them to do no evil to the men, as we discussed offering his daughters.

Apparently, because it was a fine tradition among God’s people to offer hospitality to travellers, they would go to the city square and wait for an invitation to stay the night. Perhaps this is what the angels were alluding to...?

I thought it was interesting the messengers said, No, they will stay in the square. But they did end up going in to Lots house. Correct?

No worries, thanks for the exchange....it’s good to dig and find some answers....the Bible has answers for all our questions.

 

[VictoryinJesus]

'til death do us part.
What God has put together let no person tear apart.

[

Just an observation…Wouldn’t death part them? Or have I misunderstood “til death do us part”? That implies death parts what God has joined together? Shouldn’t it be what God has joined together let no person tear apart, where not even death can separate what God has joined together. For example
Romans 8:38-39 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, [39] Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

I still think this is what God has joined together: which neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, now powers, nor things present, nor things to come, now height, nor death, nor any creature, shall be able to separate …us from the love of God
Ephesians 4:16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplies, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, makes increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.

1 Corinthians 6:17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

 

[Treeline]

if I married, she'd have to be a Christian like me.
As for the "til death us do part" bit, we'd refuse pointblank to have that in our vows because we'd know we'd NEVER be parted because death kills only the body, not the soul.
When Christians are dying, they say to family and friends "See you later", but when nonchristians are dying they say "Goodbye forever".

 

[Aunty Jane]

2 Corinthians 12:19-21 Again, think you that we excuse ourselves unto you? we speak before God in Christ: but we do all things, dearly beloved, for your edifying. [20] For I fear, lest, when I come, I shall not find you such as I would, and that I shall be found unto you such as you would not: lest there be debates, envyings, wraths, strifes, backbitings, whisperings, swellings, tumults: [21] And lest, when I come again, my God will humble me among you, and that I shall bewail many which have sinned already, and have not repented of the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness which they have committed.

The background to this statement by Paul is a sad one. Men had arisen in this congregation as self appointed “super apostles”, but they were imposters, boasting that they were more to be regarded as apostles than the genuine ones, like Paul. They claimed that Paul and the other apostles had taken the people in by deceit! He observed that if this continued then the disputes and debates created by these men would cause spiritual ruin, because they had created expectations in the people that Paul would not meet, such as being supported financially, which missionaries had a right to expect, but Paul always supported himself so as not to become a financial drain on the congregation. He was a tent maker by trade.
His boasting was not like theirs, because it was boasting in Christ. He was humble because of his past and ever mindful of carrying out his ministry with love, not judgment. He lamented the fact that he would “bewail many” who had been influenced by these wicked boasters, and were sinning without repentance.

I always like to get a feel for the situation around which a Bible quotation is made, because context is everything in Bible study....

 

[Aunty Jane]

if I married, she'd have to be a Christian like me.

This is a recommendation in Scripture to “marry only in the Lord”.

As for the "til death us do part" bit, we'd refuse pointblank to have that in our vows because we'd know we'd NEVER be parted because death kills only the body, not the soul.

Then you would NOT be united in a God ordained marriage, but adding your own terms, not God’s.
We do not have the right to changed the terms of a contract. It was Jesus himself who said “what God has joined together, let no man put apart”.....and the apostle Paul who said that “death” ends a marriage in order to allow the widowed partner the freedom to marry again.

1 Cor 7:39-40...Paul wrote...
“A wife is bound as long as her husband is alive. But if her husband should fall asleep in death, she is free to be married to whomever she wants, only in the Lord. 40  But in my opinion, she is happier if she remains as she is; and I certainly think I also have God’s spirit.”

As a single man, Paul was free of the responsibilities of a wife and his ministry stayed focused on his work in the Lord.
Can you imagine the chaos if one was to be widowed a few times and remarried a new partner every time? The Sadducees tried to trap Jesus with that scenario.....brother in law marriage was an expectation in Jewish circles for inheritance purposes.

Matt 22:23-30....
“On that day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came and asked him: 24  “Teacher, Moses said: ‘If any man dies without having children, his brother must marry his wife and raise up offspring for his brother.’ 25  Now there were seven brothers with us. The first married and died, and having no offspring, he left his wife for his brother. 26  The same thing happened with the second and the third, through all seven. 27  Last of all, the woman died. 28  So in the resurrection, of the seven, whose wife will she be? For they all had her as a wife.”

29  In reply Jesus said to them: “You are mistaken, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God; 30  for in the resurrection neither do men marry nor are women given in marriage, but they are as angels in heaven.”

Those who come back in the resurrection will not be married....but rather, they will be like the angels, who do not marry and produce children.....it doesn’t mean that people will stop loving their former mates, because love will survive death...it’s just not the romantic kind of love...but something much higher, deeper and more abiding.

When Christians are dying, they say to family and friends "See you later", but when nonchristians are dying they say "Goodbye forever".

Yes, it is a “see you later”, but first you have to prove that you are a genuine Christian, by living your life on God’s terms, obeying the teachings of his Christ in all things...not dictating your own terms.

That is the challenge for all who profess to be disciples of Jesus.

 

[VictoryinJesus]

The background to this statement by Paul is a sad one. Men had arisen in this congregation as self appointed “super apostles”, but they were imposters, boasting that they were more to be regarded as apostles than the genuine ones, like Paul. They claimed that Paul and the other apostles had taken the people in by deceit! He observed that if this continued then the disputes and debates created by these men would cause spiritual ruin, because they had created expectations in the people that Paul would not meet, such as being supported financially, which missionaries had a right to expect, but Paul always supported himself so as not to become a financial drain on the congregation. He was a tent maker by trade.
His boasting was not like theirs, because it was boasting in Christ. He was humble because of his past and ever mindful of carrying out his ministry with love, not judgment. He lamented the fact that he would “bewail many” who had been influenced by these wicked boasters, and were sinning without repentance.

I always like to get a feel for the situation around which a Bible quotation is made, because context is everything in Bible study....

Thank you for sharing the setting. 2 Corinthians 12 and 13 are favorites.

 

[VictoryinJesus]

and the apostle Paul who said that “death” ends a marriage in order to allow the widowed partner the freedom to marry again.

Whose “death”? Significant:
The apostle Paul said “death” ends a marriage.
To allow the widow
Freedom to marry again

Romans 7:4 Wherefore, my brothers, you also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that you should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

 

[VictoryinJesus]

Those who come back in the resurrection will not be married....

Are you sure? Romans 7:4 Wherefore, my brothers, you also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that you should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

1 Peter 2:24-25 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. [25] For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.

 

[Aunty Jane]

Whose “death”? Significant:
The apostle Paul said “death” ends a marriage.
To allow the widow
Freedom to marry again

Romans 7:4 Wherefore, my brothers, you also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that you should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

Who is the one “raised from the dead” to whom they should be “married”? Is Christ spoken of as having a bride? And in this union, were there not to be children who would become fruitage of that union? Spiritual children....adopted as “sons of God”.

There is obviously physical marriage.... as well as the spiritual kind. Types and shadows....

 

[soberxp]

Who is the one “raised from the dead” to whom they should be “married”? Is Christ spoken of as having a bride? And in this union were there not to be children who would become fruitage of that union?

There is obviously physical marriage.... as well as the spiritual kind. Types and shadows....

The mystery of the kingdom of heaven may not be something we can fully understand and understand, the marriage of the secular world, not entirely based on true love, Maybe that's why Jesus Christ said there was no marriage in heaven, Because maybe he's going to destroy those fake marriages, or maybe we're all going to be kids in heaven, so we don't need marriage anymore, But either way, God is sure to give us the best plan.

 

[VictoryinJesus]

Who is the one “raised from the dead” to whom they should be “married”? Is Christ spoken of as having a bride? And in this union were there not to be children who would become fruitage of that union?

There is obviously physical marriage.... as well as the spiritual kind. Types and shadows....

Ok. But Which are the types and shadows? Which is most important? What are the types and shadows which point to what is profitable and freeing? There is one way I can see “til death do us part” and it’s what Paul speaks of here: Galatians 2:19-20 For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. [20] I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

Till death do us part…for through the law I died to the law, so I might live unto God?

I’m trying to help. For example men get offended if you suggest the proverbs 31 woman includes them. It’s shunned anytime gender comes into it. Please don’t dismiss it by saying there are types and shadows, instead I think it was helpful to why Paul says “death” makes the woman free to marry another.