Marriage

[Richard_oti]

(FoC;51921)
One thing I wonder about is the fact that in Ezra 10 we see that the Jews put away these wives that they were not to take in the first place.
If I may ask, what is it that you wonder about?The reference, which I am confident you are aware of isevarim 7:1 When YHVH Eloheynu shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and shall cast out many nations before thee, the Hittite, and the Girgashite, and the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; 2 and when YHVH Eloheynu shall deliver them up before thee, and thou shalt smite them; then thou shalt utterly destroy them: thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them; 3 neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. 4 For he will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of YHVH be kindled against you, and he will destroy thee quickly.IMO: The command is pretty clear. For us in this day and age, it would possibly be near impossible to positively identify these peoples.My sincere condolences with regard to other things you mentioned.

 

[Richard_oti]

(FoC;51918)
This is supposedly to mean that 'one flesh' is some unbreakable bond, I suppose...maybe that is why it is highlighted ?*IF* that were the case, then what does that say about Moses and his allowing divorce and remarriage ?Some godly prophet, eh
A word of caution here. I would be careful of making such statements as I have made bold above. For if perchance you are in error, you compound that error by such.As for 'one flesh', it appears from my POV you have yet to come to a complete understanding of it. Perhaps I am mistaken. However, in the case that "*IF*" I am not mistaken, you would do well to heed the warning.(FoC)
Paul conclusively proves that 'one flesh' is sex in 1 cor 6:16...not some mystical, unbreakable bond.Within marriage it is where the God created it to be.Outside marriage it is fornication and sin.
Yes, Paul does demonstrate that to become 'one flesh' comes from the act. However, it does not 'prove' that it is broken or that it can be broken accept by death.(FoC)
As a side note, SE continually complains about people using the two exception clauses, but then he presents verses like the above.Apparently we are not permitted, in his view, to present any counter evidence
If I may: You would be far more credible in my opinion to leave out statements such as "SE continually complains" and altering peoples names to such as "Davey". Neither address the issues and the altering of anothers name as such is disrespectful.(FoC)
Secondly, notice how he has highlighted the part about making false vows?See, he seemingly presumes that if you end up divorced that your vows were given falsely to begin with.But see, what apparently hasnt been taken into account here is Numbers 30 that shows that Vows CAN be made that ARE absolutely sincere, and it is possible for someone else to cause those vows to be taken out of the way and forgiven by God.
This is only applicable with regard to father/daughter and husband/wife relationships it is not unilateral.(FoC)
Firstly this 'law' doesnt exist anywhere in the written word. I spent quite a long time trying to track down this 'law' that says the wife is bound to the husband until his death and it simply doesnt seem to exist in the written law at all.
So, in conclusion, you are in a manner of speaking saying that Paul didn't know what he was talking about?How long does the law, whether biblical or secular, have power over a person? (FoC)
So we conclude that either scripture is lying about it....or....or that it is an unspoken law that was set into motion with the very first couple in the garden.Perfect place to get the ground rules down, no?
Perhaps one would do well to consider the 'blessings' and 'curses' set forth in Torah.(FoC)
Jump forward a few hundred years with the newly liberated Hebrew people following Moses around in the desert.This man Moses was called by God to lead Israel out of Egypt and to teach them His law before they would go into the promise land.What we find peculiar here is that supposedly Moses took it upon himself to trash this 'law' of marriage given by God by actually allowing men put away their wives.And not only that, Moses literally writes down law detailing out HOW to do it !And then to top it off, Moses shows that the woman can go and remarry and once she does she can NEVER return to her former husband.
Again, a word of warning. Now, with regard to the 'law', again, how long does it have dominion?(FoC)
It takes more than parroting off 9 verses to understand Gods WHOLE word
Indeed. However, to be taken seriously, it requires respect.

 

[FoC]

If I may ask, what is it that you wonder about?
Oh, its nothing too major, nothing Id base doctrine on.But lets say God had forbid a man to marry someone and he did anyway.I wonder if the situation wouldnt be the same on an individual level that Ezra 10 shows more broadly where they had taken wives they werent supposed to.I wonder if God had literally forbidden someone to marry a person if they wouldnt be required to put them away ?Of course, the question I ask as well is that scripture seems to show that God was a bit upset with Davids marrying the wife of Uriah, yet did not require a divorce there.Again, its nothing Id base doctrine on (otherwise my opponents would eat me alive

) but it is something that I am interested in.Your Thoughts?

 

[Richard_oti]

(Alpha and Omega;51972)
There are plenty of marriages that are unhealthy particularly for women who are beaten by their spouses. Why would God say "no, you chose to marry him, tough luck if he beats you" That is not very merciful is it?
As has been pointed out in MalachiMalachi 2:16 For I hate putting away, saith YHVH, the Elohim of Israel, and him that covereth his garment with violence, saith YHVH of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously....covers his garment with violence is right up there with divorce. It is also a form of unfaithfulness.

 

[FoC]

(Richard_oti;51998)
A word of caution here. I would be careful of making such statements as I have made bold above. For if perchance you are in error, you compound that error by such.
Im pretty sure I covered my bases on that one
As for 'one flesh', it appears from my POV you have yet to come to a complete understanding of it. Perhaps I am mistaken. However, in the case that "*IF*" I am not mistaken, you would do well to heed the warning.
Im quite comfortable with my view of 'One Flesh'

Thanks for the concern, Rich I used to have the more mystical New agey view of it, but Paul changed my mind about that
Yes, Paul does demonstrate that to become 'one flesh' comes from the act. However, it does not 'prove' that it is broken or that it can be broken accept by death.
Actually it proves that it isnt anything that can be 'broken' at all. That is a fallacy added by men with agendas.Eve was the ONLY woman literally made of her husbands own flesh.And even if it were more than what Paul clearly shows.... if a mans arm turned gangrenous, can we assume that some here would demand he not amputate it?
This is only applicable with regard to father/daughter and husband/wife relationships it is not unilateral.
Complete nonsense.Are you claiming that if I made a vow to God then was imprisoned by the govt for being a christian and NEVER was able to fulfill that vow that God would NOT forgive me ?Preposterous ! Numbers 30 shows us that God CAN forgive a vow we were kept from fulfilling.No agreement is required
So, in conclusion, you are in a manner of speaking saying that Paul didn't know what he was talking about?
how about this, Rich...Can YOU show this written law ?You seem to think Ive not studied the matter out or something.After more than 5500 (five thousand, five hundred) hours on this one single topic, I assure you I researched it
How long does the law, whether biblical or secular, have power over a person?
What on earth does that have to do with this 'law' not being contained in the law.Did you even understand what I said in that quote?
Perhaps one would do well to consider the 'blessings' and 'curses' set forth in Torah.
Which part ?Give me chapter and verse for this 'law'In the Torah ?When was that written ?By whom ?ARe you claiming that this 'law' was not in existance until the Torah came to be ?
Again, a word of warning. Now, with regard to the 'law', again, how long does it have dominion?
Again, read the actual point and respond to THAT

 

[Richard_oti]

(FoC;51948)
We show in this writing that ;1) "some uncleaness" (ervah dabar) isnt refering to sexual sin or bodily nakedness (as ervah alone means) but is refering to a much broader range of 'uncleaness' instead.Here is "ervah dabar" in Deut 24:1 :
In Devarim KD:A-D it is `ervat davar [ayin-resh-vav-tav dalet-veit-resh]. It varies from the root ervah. What is the difference?Also, even if the second husband dies, the first husband may not take her again as a wife. Why?(FoC)
Hebrew and Greek are just alike in the aspect that a word can have a meaning that is modified by the wording and context around it.
Hebrew and Greek are vastly different. Greek is a more specific langauge in it's declensions, etc. and has a greater vocabulary than Hebrew.Hebrew has fewer words, those words have a greater range of meaning depending upon context, conjugation, suffix, prefix, there are verbal nouns, etc...`Ervah [ayin-resh-vav-he] is used within the context of Leviticus 18 and 20, that alone teaches us some about it.We also find such as `ervatah, `ervatan, `ervatka, `ervato However, `ervat as we see in Devarim KD is the predominate usage.Can you explain to me the differences between `ervatah, `ervatan, `ervatka, and `ervato?I will give you a hint: `ervato has an 'o' suffix which is the possessive pronoun 'his'. Now it's your turn.(FoC)
So if we wanted to get technical, it says "he has found unclean speech" in her. If we want to say it has to be sexually oriented, then what is actually said is "he has found sexual speech in her".If we take the wording literally and precisely it shows that he has found some indecent (sexual?) speech in her or "has found her speaking indecently" as the case might be.
Your first instance is not only questionable, but impossible in that you are using an adjective where a noun occurs in the Hebrew text.Your second instance is impossible again in that you are using an adjective in the place of a Hebrew noun.The latter is completely impossible, for davar in Devarim KD is a noun and not the verb form. The noun form is readily an 'act/manner/thing'. You are attempting to change two nouns into a verb and adverb.BTW: Is 'ervat masc. or fem.? Sing. or Plural?I would suggest leaving the 'interpreting' alone until you are better familiar with the language and text.(FoC)
The phrases "some uncleaness" (Deut 24:1) and "unclean thing" are "ervah debar" in Hebrew.
See above.(FoC)
We see this very same use of "ervah debar" used just one chapter before in Deut:23 in the phrase "unclean thing" (ervah debar). From our studies, the phrase 'ervah dabar only occurs twice in the Old testament. Once in Deut 24:1 above and once here in verse 23:14. When trying to understand the meaning of the phrase in Deut 24:1, we look to see how it is used elsewhere, Deut 23:14 being the only other occurance we have to determine its exact use.
We can also look them independantly. It is not that hard.(FoC)
The main thing is that the phrase used in Deut 24:1 has nothing to do with her sexual sin but just a general uncleaness that has caused her to find no favor in his eyes...
Of which it remains that it could refer to any improper behavior, including exposing herself to others and more. It could be any improper behavior that occurs later in the marriage.

 

[FoC]

In Devarim KD:A-D it is `ervat davar [ayin-resh-vav-tav dalet-veit-resh]. It varies from the root ervah. What is the difference?
The difference is that the phrase does not indicate a sexual sin but instead an ambiguous 'uncleaness' as supported by it use in Deut 23 where the same phrase ERVAH DABAR (readers see below) means some sort of "uncleaness" which, whether you agree or not, could be even something such as taking a dump inside the camp, or any other ritual uncleaness
Hebrew and Greek are vastly different.
White......Now you say 'black'

I think you went right past the point yet again, Rich.I will be ignoring any responses from you from here on out where it is clear that you are dismissing or ignoring MY point to build some strawman.see this....THIS was MY point..."Hebrew and Greek are just alike in the aspect that a word can have a meaning that is modified by the wording and context around it.THAT was MY point...get it ?The rest of your response there was irrelevant to MY point.
I would suggest leaving the 'interpreting' alone until you are better familiar with the language and text.
I would suggest that you actually study what the real scholars of Hebrew have to say...which is pretty conclusively that "some uncleaness' is NOT about sexual sin in Deut 24 or Deut 23.That I dont speak Hebrew is irrelevant.What IS relevant is that when 'ervah' appears with "H1697 דּבר dâbâr daw-bawr'" (Taken DIRECTLY from the Strongs, btw) the word presented by SCHOLARS of Hebrew (namely Stongs and Thayers)does not indicate sexual immorality but an ambiguous 'uncleaness' instead.What I think is that you could not refute the content of the article, what it is showing, so you attacked anything you possibly could find...which doesnt do a thing to REFUTE the claims presented in the article.I have Deut 23 to support my claim of the intent of 'ervah dabar'.I will be editing that article since the only part you seemed to zero in on is actually not even remotely needed there.For you readers, you discern whether my spelling was inaccurate or not.These were taken directly from the STrongs.

H6172ערוה‛ervâher-vaw'From H6168; nudity, literally (especially the pudenda) or figuratively (disgrace, blemish): - nakedness, shame, unclean (-ness).H1697דּברdâbârdaw-bawr'From H1696; a word; by implication a matter (as spoken of) of thing; adverbially a cause: - act, advice, affair, answer, X any such (thing), + because of, book, business, care, case, cause, certain rate, + chronicles, commandment, X commune (-ication), + concern [-ing], + confer, counsel, + dearth, decree, deed, X disease, due, duty, effect, + eloquent, errand, [evil favoured-] ness, + glory, + harm, hurt, + iniquity, + judgment, language, + lying, manner, matter, message, [no] thing, oracle, X ought, X parts, + pertaining, + please, portion, + power, promise, provision, purpose, question, rate, reason, report, request, X (as hast) said, sake, saying, sentence, + sign, + so, some [uncleanness], somewhat to say, + song, speech, X spoken, talk, task, + that, X there done, thing (concerning), thought, + thus, tidings, what [-soever], + wherewith, which, word, work.​

Huh.."ervah dabar"Guess in ENGLISH I didnt do too bad

 

[FoC]

Of which it remains that it could refer to any improper behavior, including exposing herself to others and more. It could be any improper behavior that occurs later in the marriage.
Agreed

 

[FoC]

There ya go, Rich.

Since it was bothering you so much, I removed the part you zoomed right in on to find fault with in that articleREADERS SEE->Click->>> Deuteronomy 24:1-4 cannot be about sexual sinHowever the Strongs and the Thayers BOTH use 'ervah' and 'dabar', so you will have to forgive this backwater hillbilly if I choose to use the words from the Hebrew dictionaries I can see with my own eyes here

if you want to get hyper technical, my interlinear says the exact words are 'oruth dbr' and it means 'nakedness of thing'....so there ya go....someone is clearly wrong in how this is being spelled.And frankly its irrelevant The POINT of the article is the INTENT of the phrase...not a grammar lesson or a spelling bee

 

[Richard_oti]

(FoC;52001)
Im pretty sure I covered my bases on that one
Then it shall remain upon your own head if you are wrong.(FoC)
Actually it proves that it isnt anything that can be 'broken' at all.
Exactly, it remains.(FoC)
Complete nonsense.Are you claiming that if I made a vow to God then was imprisoned by the govt for being a christian and NEVER was able to fulfill that vow that God would NOT forgive me ?Preposterous ! Numbers 30 shows us that God CAN forgive a vow we were kept from fulfilling.No agreement is required
Not according to BeMidbar L [Numbers 30]. BeMidbar L states that even a widow or a divorced woman if she makes a vow will be held responsible. BeMidbar L allows for a father/husband to negate the vow of his daughter/wife. Beyond that, one is held too and must keep their vow.If the event of extenuating circumstances I am confident that YHVH would make exception or understand, however, not according to BeMidbar L. OTOH: It could very well be that YHVH allowed/placed one in prison for that very reason.(FoC)
how about this, Rich...Can YOU show this written law ?You seem to think Ive not studied the matter out or something.After more than 5500 (five thousand, five hundred) hours on this one single topic, I assure you I researched it
I am quite sure that you have indeed studied the matter out. However, Paul was learned in the TaNaKh, the basis of most of what Paul writes is found within the TaNaKh.Can I show it, indeed I can.(FoC)
What on earth does that have to do with this 'law' not being contained in the law.Did you even understand what I said in that quote?
Indubitably, I do understand it. What is the opposite of death?Now, read Devarim YB:A [Deut 12:1].(FoC)
Which part ?Give me chapter and verse for this 'law'
Try reading Devarim K:Kh and K:T [Deut 28&29]. However, I have already answered you above.(FoC)
In the Torah ?When was that written ?By whom ?
Oy vey.(FoC)
Again, read the actual point and respond to THAT

Devarim YB:AYou are mistaken if you continue to assume that such does not exist. Take heed FoC.

 

[Richard_oti]

(FoC;51999)
I wonder if the situation wouldnt be the same on an individual level that Ezra 10 shows more broadly where they had taken wives they werent supposed to.I wonder if God had literally forbidden someone to marry a person if they wouldnt be required to put them away ?
It is indeed possible. At the very least, it could make for a miserable life together.(FoC)
Of course, the question I ask as well is that scripture seems to show that God was a bit upset with Davids marrying the wife of Uriah, yet did not require a divorce there.
Yet, Solomon was born from this relationship. It would seem to have served His purpose in that regard. In this case, perhaps it is the weightier matters of the law that prevailed. For we both know and understand the fullness as well as the penalty(s) in this matter.Consider Hosea, who was told to take a prostitute for a wife.

 

[Richard_oti]

(FoC;52010)
(Richard_oti)
Of which it remains that it could refer to any improper behavior, including exposing herself to others and more. It could be any improper behavior that occurs later in the marriage.
AgreedYou do realize that "sexual" sin(s) are inclusive in my former statement.

 

[Richard_oti]

(FoC;52011)
There ya go, Rich.

Since it was bothering you so much, I removed the part you zoomed right in on to find fault with in that articleREADERS SEE->Click->>> Deuteronomy 24:1-4 cannot be about sexual sin
The article still contains some problematic areas which are unresolved.(FoC)
However the Strongs and the Thayers BOTH use 'ervah' and 'dabar', so you will have to forgive this backwater hillbilly if I choose to use the words from the Hebrew dictionaries I can see with my own eyes here

Ummm, Thayers? I thought Thayers was Greek definitions?Strong's? Perhaps it is time to learn the Ivrit Aleph-Beit in so that you might make avail of some "stronger" works.I'll give you another hint: `ervatka; the ka suffix is the possessive prounoun 'your'. I'll even go a step further, it is masc. sing..-ke would be fem. sing.-kem is masc. pl.-ken is fem. pl.Now it's your turn.(FoC)
if you want to get hyper technical, my interlinear says the exact words are 'oruth dbr' and it means 'nakedness of thing'....so there ya go....someone is clearly wrong in how this is being spelled.
Actually no. There is no set standard for transliteration, thus we have many possible variations. However, those who are familiar with such usually have no problem regardless of the transliteration used. We could always standardize and use the Michigan Claremont standard between you and I.In my previous reply, I included the spelling [letters] for you [ie: `ervat ayin-resh-vav-tav; `ervah ayin-resh-vav-he] (FoC)
And frankly its irrelevant The POINT of the article is the INTENT of the phrase...not a grammar lesson or a spelling bee

How can you claim to understand the intent of a phrase without understanding the grammar and spelling of the word(s) in question? One can not make a noun into verb and claim to understand the word. Let alone a phrase.Please, elaborate upon 'oruth alone and how it differs from `ervah.

 

[FoC]

Ive ignored any irrelevance.please keep ON TOPIC.The TOPIC HERE is 'marriage'.Thanks for you cooperation
Not according to BeMidbar L [Numbers 30]. BeMidbar L states that even a widow or a divorced woman if she makes a vow will be held responsible. BeMidbar L allows for a father/husband to negate the vow of his daughter/wife. Beyond that, one is held too and must keep their vow.
And do you think I hold this BeMidbar L as an authority ?There are a great MANY things taught in Gods word that are precepts that show Gods heart in a matter.Its pretty sad that if you were in the scenario I laid out that youd die in prison thinking all the while that God was holding you accountable to a vow you could not possibly then keep thru no fault of your own.Frankly, I want no part of your religion.
Exactly, it remains.
Hardly...and learn to understand what you read.It doesnt remain because it was nothing beyond sex to begin with, as Paul himself proves.It is a COVENANT that makes a marriage...not sex.
I am quite sure that you have indeed studied the matter out. However, Paul was learned in the TaNaKh, the basis of most of what Paul writes is found within the TaNaKh.Can I show it, indeed I can.
Then Im sure to find something in the rest of your posts here before I finish responding to you that is a clear law directed to the married couple that they are bound for life. Please dont give me something that isnt exactly that.
ndubitably, I do understand it. What is the opposite of death?Now, read Devarim YB:A [Deut 12:1].
Forgive me, I must have passed over the part that says:"wives are bound to their husbands until death"Can you pinpoint it for me?Chapter AND verse, please.
You are mistaken if you continue to assume that such does not exist. Take heed FoC.
you are mistaken if you think Im going to accept anything other than CLEAR scripture in the matter.And please, lay off the drama.
Consider Hosea, who was told to take a prostitute for a wife.
Key words there...'told to'

 

[FoC]

(Richard_oti;52014)
You do realize that "sexual" sin(s) are inclusive in my former statement.
No, I hadnt realized that.That would make either you incorrect or the law entirely contradictory.The content of Deuteronomy was given in speeches by Moses over about 40 at the end of the wilderness years to this younger generation of Hebrews...many of those who had come out of Egypt were dead at this point.Deut 22 lays out a very clear law about what is to happen to a betrothed wife who is found to not be a virgin when she is firstly with her husband. The punishment is clear.Given the VERY short period that this was all given is is virtually impossible that God decided to AMEND Deut 22 13-21 or so by adding that the man could just divorce her instead.Added to the fact that ERVAH DABAR clearly shows an intent that is more about some ambiguous 'uncleaness', it is beyond simply being questionable and pretty much fact that it isnt sexual sins being referred to in Deut 24:1-4.I personally cant think of a single real scholar who says that 'some uncleaness' in Deut 24 is about sexual sin because they also know that it was already covered just two chapters prior.My God has it a bit more together than to REPEAT that this married woman is to be put to death only to turn around and forget that He issued that penalty about what...a week later tops ?

 

[FoC]

(Richard_oti;52015)
Ummm, Thayers? I thought Thayers was Greek definitions?
My bad, I use a few of those.It was the Brown-Driver-Briggsirrelevance snipped.
Actually no. There is no set standard for transliteration, thus we have many possible variations.
And again this is off topic.How the words were spelled is irrelevant and you know it.Im not usually writing for students of Hebrew but people like myself who use a STRONGS or a THAYERS.I have to use the forms of the words THESE people have access to.If you have something a bit more detailed, good for you.Im not changing how I do things to suit the Hebrew student

Again, lets keep this on the topic of MARRIAGE or we need to simply ignore each other.irrelevance snipped.

 

[tim_from_pa]

(FoC;51989)
Disagreeing with your unscriptural theories isnt judging YOU...so dont even go there

If you mean Zechariah 11, that is not my interpretation per se. Anyone into British-Israel and lost tribes teaching uses that passage to explain the broken brotherhood between Judah and Israel, and how they will be rejoined in the end times (Ezek 37). Look that up on the Internet. Heck, even the book I've mentioned Judah's Sceptre/Joseph's birthright comments on that passage. Not really my interpretation at all, although I agree that it is the proper interpretation. I'm not alone in this.(FoC;51989)
If you mean 'haughty' instead...I can live with that...Ive had far worse said about me over the last few years.
I think I can see why. I am not really hard to get along with. And I don't think many other posters being shot at are, either. At least a lot of us are married to the same spouse yet, and that in itself says something, and we trust in the Lord to keep us.

 

[FoC]

(tim_from_pa;52036)
If you mean Zechariah 11, that is not my interpretation per se. Anyone into British-Israel and lost tribes teaching uses that passage to explain the broken brotherhood between Judah and Israel, and how they will be rejoined in the end times (Ezek 37). Look that up on the Internet. Heck, even the book I've mentioned Judah's Sceptre/Joseph's birthright comments on that passage. Not really my interpretation at all, although I agree that it is the proper interpretation. I'm not alone in this.
Dont get me wrong, Tim...I not entirely against your theory... at least not every detail.It could very well be that these descendants have a special place in prophecy...Im entirely for that concept.However, when I see the word 'all' and in the same passage 'Judah and Israel' both, Im sorry, but I have no choice but to believe that if the author wasnt too tired to write them out individually the second time, that surely if he MEANT them individually the first time he would have made it clear.But all this is irrelevant.For the most part Zechariah is just one of those passages I use when someone has seemed to show that God NEVER ends a covenant He has made (how some people can even make that claim is beyond me..hello).-snipped-Trying to keep on topic from here on out.
At least a lot of us are married to the same spouse yet, and that in itself says something, and we trust in the Lord to keep us.
Actually it says that most likely you havent faced what many of us have in our own marriages.Lets see if you use that 'trust' to keep in your marriage when your spouse is trying to "accidentally" kill you while you sleep

 

[GmamaZ]

Why do some people take a scripture that is speaking of the old and new covenant and say this is for marriage?Rom 7:1 Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives? Rom 7:2 For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. Rom 7:3 So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man. Rom 7:4 Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. Rom 7:5 For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death. Rom 7:6 But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

 

[FoC]

(GmamaZ;52038)
Why do some people take a scripture that is speaking of the old and new covenant and say this is for marriage?Rom 7:1 Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives? Rom 7:2 For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. Rom 7:3 So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man. Rom 7:4 Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. Rom 7:5 For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death. Rom 7:6 But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.
Are you asking why they use that passage to argue marriage?If so, I agree with the question.Romans there isnt about marriage itself and if it is, since Paul is speaking to those who 'know the law' it would seem that he's forgotten that in the law there WAS means to leave the marriage given without the death of the husband.Paul isnt that forgetful, I dont believe, he had to have known full well about Deut 24:1-4 and this writ of divorce, being a 'pharisee, son of a pharisee'.It is clear in the context of Romans that marriage is not the topic.