Scenario for your input please...

[DrRay777]

A couple of more scriptures that would apply to this guy...

I Corinthians 5:9-13 -

9I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. 10Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner not even to eat with such a person. 12For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? 13But those who are outside God judges. Therefore put away from yourselves the evil person.
The Holy Bible, New King James Version, (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, Inc.) 1982.

II John 9-11 -

9Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. 10If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; 11for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds.
The Holy Bible, New King James Version, (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, Inc.) 1982.

Be blessed,

Dr. Ray

 

[Tlaloc]

I've already said that DJ had it from a strictly abstract standpoint, Marks works on Government marriage is probably the only hard counter to that.

But most of us know this technical discussion gets cyclical, thats why it has been repeatedly locked. While what is good in general can help us get an idea of what is good for her, what is good for her personally in this situation is more important. The practical.

Should she be with him? no, no one at all is saying that. The topic really comes down too asking if she should be with someone else. It isn't can she be with someone else, because of course she is able too.

The first big question is does she want to be with someone else? After such a situation there is no guarantee that a woman is thinking about relationships, or eros, at all for quite a long time. If she is hesitant she should certainly be concerned with other things and feel no obligation to get into a relationship for any reason. In time that will pass, but in time situations change and would need to be re-assessed anyway.

If she does want to be with someone else right away it is a bigger concern. Primarily because a lot of women in bad relationships go from one bad relationship to another, she very much needs to be advised to take things extra slow and extra carefully. Its the exception that a woman would go from a bad relationship to a good one, and I think the propensity to repeat bad relationships is part of why re-marriage is advised against.

Then, if she does find a good man there is a very high chance that the previous will go out of his way to cause a great deal of trouble for her and her family. He is usually vindictive enough when she is by herself, he is often borderline dangerous in this situation. The man she is with does not only have to be a good one, but one of strength and fortitude to deal with these issues.

I believe in most cases she would save herself a lot of trouble by staying single, and that is the reason for the rules about staying single. Nonetheless, if she needs a man she needs a man, and its possible that that relationship could turn out to be a great thing. She should in every case take things slowly and carefully and let him know what he is getting into. Knowing what she needs is going to be paramount to giving her the best advice.

 

[CecilW]

"Then, if she does find a good man there is a very high chance that the previous will go out of his way to cause a great deal of trouble for her and her family. He is usually vindictive enough when she is by herself, he is often borderline dangerous in this situation. The man she is with does not only have to be a good one, but one of strength and fortitude to deal with these issues. "

Yeah. That's our story, regarding my wife's ex. Well past borderline. And past it before I came into her life. SOME MAN OF GOD NEEDED TO STEP UP AND HELP HER. I'll contend that is often the case.

"I believe in most cases she would save herself a lot of trouble by staying single ..."

Well, yeah, she coulda done that in the first place instead of marrying the first guy! But since she didn't, and the situation being what it is, and Genesis NOT saying, "It isn't good to be alone EXCEPT if there's a psychopathic ex around -- then it's highly advisable", the only one in her family who ISN'T happy that she actively married someone else (that would be ME), is said psychopathic ex.

I maintain that these ladies' Father is happy to arrange future marriages for them if He can find men willing to accept the responsibility and reap the benefits. For myself, regardless of the considerable cost and trauma we've endured, I personally have benefited beyond measure!!!

 

[ravmoshe]

Paul, Shalom, Very simple bottom line. Adultery, +++ violence+++unfaithfulness etc. etc = cessation of the covenant. No man yet hated his own flesh.

Solution-She has to wash that man right out of her hair and a state divorce is fine, seeing the state gave them the marriage in the first place. If he were my husband I'd buy him a 1 way ticket to Stalingrad. Shalom

 

[Anonymous]

Adultery, +++ violence+++unfaithfulness etc. etc = cessation of the covenant.

I have a simple solution to this quandary. We just need to make a few slight adjustments here...

"whoever marries a woman who has been put away DOES NOT COMMIT adultery" (Matthew 5:32)

"whoever marries her who has been put away DOES NOT COMMIT adultery" (Matthew 19:9)

"if a woman puts away her husband and marries another, she DOES NOT COMMIT adultery" (Mark 10:12)

"everyone marrying her who is put away from her husband DOES NOT COMMIT adultery" (Luke 16:18)

"for the married woman has been bound by Torah to the UNADULTEROUS husband, but if the husband COMMITS ADULTERY, she is released from the Torah concerning her husband. So then, while her husband is UNADULTEROUS, she shall be called an adulteress if she becomes another man's. But if her husband COMMITS ADULTERY, she is free from that part of the Torah, so that she is not an adulteress, having become another man's" (Romans 7:2-3)

"a wife should not separate from a husband. But if she is indeed separated, let her FIND A BETTER MAN TO MARRY" (1 Corinthians 7:10-11)

"a wife is bound by the Torah as long as her husband IS UNADULTEROUS, and if her husband COMMITS ADULTERY, she is free to be married to whom she desires" (1 Corinthians 7:39)

There. Problem solved. Now we can be at peace with God's Word and do as we please. :roll: Feel free to insert "violent", "faithless", "kicks the dog", etc. as needed to justify said remarriages. I'm sure it's all good with God, since we're acting in love.

In His amazement,
David

P.S. Incidentally, if we're going to disregard all the NT passages about divorce and remarriage being adulterous, what justification do we still have against sodomy? Are we also willing to accept sodomy as being righteous in His eyes as well, just as long as both men get married? A covenant is a covenant, I guess... :|

 

[Mark C]

...if we're going to disregard all the NT passages about divorce and remarriage...

Speaking of amazement, I can't help but notice that you have NEVER responded to the obvious claim that what the State creates, the State can destroy, David...

...but have certainly managed to ignore EVERYTHING in either testament about slavery and wives, two masters, service to Caesar, who a marriage "submits itself to obey" or any of the other witnesses which teach so clearly about God's Authority as opposed to the world's!

And if you CONTINUE to ignore that obvious issue, don't be at all surprised when Statan, er - the State, not only LICENSES sodomy, but criminalizes objection to it!

 

[Anonymous]

Brother Mark,

I can't help but notice that you have NEVER responded to the obvious claim that what the State creates, the State can destroy

I didn’t mean to ignore the comment. I just didn't see any reason to respond, as I have no interest in what the state chooses to define or permit. That's a completely different issue than what Scripture has to say on the matter. I do not see the state as creating another form of "marriage" in any sense. They can create and annul licenses until they're blue in the face if they like, but it changes nothing regarding what God permits and what God forbids. They could completely outlaw man-woman marriages while at the same time only license man-man marriages and it would make no difference to me. God's Word states that marriage is between a man and a woman. If a man and a woman agree to be married, they are married. Whether the state also agrees is irrelevant.

but have certainly managed to ignore EVERYTHING in either testament about slavery and wives, two masters, service to Caesar, who a marriage "submits itself to obey" or any of the other witnesses which teach so clearly about God's Authority as opposed to the world's!

Again, I'm not ignoring any of these things. I simply don't agree with your interpretations. I know the correlation between marriage and slavery, I know nobody can serve two masters, I know we are to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, etc. That doesn't mean I think marriage belongs to Caesar, however. Marriage belongs to God, not the state. Who cares what the state thinks? It changes nothing.

If a man and an unmarried woman agree to marry, then they are married. I don't need to know whether the state was involved or not, as it neither adds nor removes anything at all to the fact that they are still just as married. They may not know the difference, but I do. If the state says they're "divorced" and they unwittingly go along with it, it only shows they don't know God's Word. Their marriage is not dependent on what the state says. The state can no more annul a marriage than it can create one. The state can license sodomy and criminalize objections to it if they like. It still changes nothing as to what is right, what is wrong, and what God's Word actually says on the matter.

In His love,
David

 

[Mark C]

Marriage belongs to God, not the state. Who cares what the state thinks? It changes nothing.

Wrong...

...at least for those who SUBMIT THEMSELVES TO OBEY the State! (as is presumably, and almost certainly, the case in this case and in any other where the word "divorce" is commonly used.)

Why do you persist in ignoring the clear message of Scripture that we are to HONOR our vows, oaths, and contracts? You cannot make a contract before Caesar, or take his license, without submitting yourself to his terms!

Marriage is all about Authority. A "husband" who surrenders that authority to the State, rather than God, will eventually learn which master he really serves. And Yeshua was unequivocal: no man can serve two!

Blessings in Him,

Mark


-----------------------
* Romans 6:16

 

[Anonymous]

Why do you persist in ignoring the clear message of Scripture that we are to HONOR our vows, oaths, and contracts? You cannot make a contract before Caesar, or take his license, without submitting yourself to his terms!

If this is the case, and we are to uphold all of our oaths, regardless whether they are lawful according to Scripture, then we have no right to tell two sodomites that were married before the state, that they should separate. After all, they are to HONOR their vows, oaths and contracts, right? :roll:

The truth is that we are not to make an illegal oath, and in any cases where we do (as in Ezra), we are to walk away from that illegal oath. Scripture demonstrates that they were to walk away from those illegal marriages, not maintain them so as to maintain their illegal oaths! You are obligated to fulfill any oaths you make, EXCEPT WHERE SUCH AN OATH IS PROHIBITED IN GOD'S WORD. That's the point I'm trying to make. Our oaths CANNOT override God's Word on a subject. If something is prohibited, you cannot simply make an oath to do it anyway and be justified in doing it.

In His love,
David

 

[Mark C]

If this is the case, and we are to uphold all of our oaths, regardless whether they are lawful according to Scripture, then we have no right to tell two sodomites that were married before the state, that they should separate. After all, they are to HONOR their vows, oaths and contracts, right? :roll:

You have NO AUTHORITY to command them to separate, David. They obviously serve another master, and a jealous one at that. (Which is not at all the same thing as sounding a shofar, or issuing a warning. But have no doubt that to attempt to do EITHER will soon be a crime in this nation which has turned from God.)

The truth is that we are not to make an illegal oath, and in any cases where we do (as in Ezra), we are to walk away from that illegal oath. Scripture demonstrates that they were to walk away from those illegal marriages, not maintain them so as to maintain their illegal oaths! You are obligated to fulfill any oaths you make, EXCEPT WHERE SUCH AN OATH IS PROHIBITED IN GOD'S WORD.

Thank you for such a succinct explanation of exactly why I reject State licensing of marriage. In fact, having recognized that Truth, I long ago "voided" (my preferred term) any such contracts (and properly notified the State) that serve "another master" than Him.

But the point remains. A woman who was MARRIED by Caesar, on Caesar's terms, with Caesar's license, under Caesar's law, and then was put away, and given a certificate of divorce, in Caesar's court, under Caesar's law - is eligible for remarriage. She met Caesar's terms, and (check Deuteronomy 24:1 and 3 -- there is no doubt!) God's as well!

It is ALSO true that such a marriage may be every bit as "illegal" and voidable, as those described by Ezra. Even if they were carried out in Caesar's licensed church, they still demonstrate obedience to another master! But most 'put away' women would want a certificate of divorce anyway. And in this case, I don't blame them.

Blessings in Him,
Mark

 

[Anonymous]

A woman who was MARRIED by Caesar, on Caesar's terms, with Caesar's license, under Caesar's law, and then was put away, and given a certificate of divorce, in Caesar's court, under Caesar's law - is eligible for remarriage. She met Caesar's terms, and (check Deuteronomy 24:1 and 3 -- there is no doubt!) God's as well!

Have a man and an unmarried woman, who are married by Caesar, on Caesar's terms, with Caesar's license, under Caesar's law, still met the qualifications for God's definition of marriage? Or are you saying that by involving Caesar in any aspect, they are not truly married according to God? And if they ARE, in fact, married according to God, how exactly does Caesar hold any influence over God's views? By this reasoning, marriage effectively ended with the Old Covenant, since almost all marriages have involved some kind of registering process for thousands of years, regardless who wore the "Caesar" hat at the time. Were the Romans of Jesus' day deluded into thinking they were marrying one another, when in fact they were never REALLY married? Regardless what Caesar might say, who would God say marriage belongs to?


Love in Him,
David

 

[Tlaloc]

Cecil,

Thats a great testimony, I do love it when it turns out for good. In the cases of women I know it is by far most often that either she moves into another abusive relationship or she is with someone that cannot effectively stand up for her, though I know of at least one other case that ended well like yours. A lot of it comes down to what's more common, and I don't see you as common in any light Cecil.

I completely agree that it is allowed, and that it can be a great thing, but I think it is always good to advise caution in situations like this.

 

[Mark C]

Have a man and an unmarried woman, who are married by Caesar, on Caesar's terms, with Caesar's license, under Caesar's law, still met the qualifications for God's definition of marriage? Or are you saying that by involving Caesar in any aspect, they are not truly married according to God? ...
...since almost all marriages have involved some kind of registering process for thousands of years...
...Regardless what Caesar might say, who would God say marriage belongs to?

The fish symbol stands today as a testimony to history, and the fact that many first-century believers in Yeshua refused to incorporate before Caesar. Many, if not most, of the believers around the time of this nation's founding knew about, and would have refused, both licensed 'churches' and licensed marriage; indeed, the practice [of licensing before Caesar] did not become at all widespread in these united States until less than a hundred years ago.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I neither tell any woman that she is not fit to be re-married, nor define marriage for anyone else.

What I can do is 'blow the shofar', try to teach what Scripture says, and then give the same advice that the apostles did - search out the Scriptures FOR YOURSELF, and "see if these things be true".

But the question that He asked is still relevant, and should be answered by each man for his own house, his own wives, his own family:

"Who do you serve?"

And I answer as Yohoshua did, "as for me and my house, we will serve YHVH".

In His service,

Mark

 

[Anonymous]

This will be my final post, as after this message, I am closing my account here on Biblical Families. I know I wouldn't stop from correcting gross errors regarding adulterous remarriages when I come across them, yet neither do I see any viable fruit in pursuing this particular discussion any further. Besides, it's about time for this subject to get banned again. :lol: But seriously, nothing anyone can say will ever make me change my mind regarding Mt. 5:32, Mt. 19:9, Mk. 10:11-12, Lk. 16:18, Rom. 7:2-3, 1 Cor. 7:10-11, 1 Cor. 7:39, etc. and I will continue to speak the truth against adulterous remarriages to anyone who has ears to hear. Anyone can read what Jesus and Paul said, and the truth is, in most cases, divorce and remarriage will result in adultery. No certificate of ANYTHING will change that. But I can no more effectively debate adultery on a divorce-believing forum than I can effectively debate polygyny on a monogyny-believing forum. People are going to believe whatever they're going to believe and most people want to believe that divorce and remarriage is just fine with God.

Brother Paul, I pray everything works out for the best for those couples you mentioned. My wife and I will be praying for their marriage as well. I appreciate the many good discussions and insights into various views that everyone has presented thus far. Those of you who have written me privately know how to contact me in the future. I wish you all the best and I pray that God continues to do amazing things here at Biblical families. I love you all. Stay blessed in Him!

Always in His love,
David

 

[sadanyagci]

This will be my final post, as after this message, I am closing my account here on Biblical Families. I know I wouldn't stop from correcting gross errors regarding adulterous remarriages when I come across them, yet neither do I see any viable fruit in pursuing this particular discussion any further. Besides, it's about time for this subject to get banned again. :lol: But seriously, nothing anyone can say will ever make me change my mind regarding Mt. 5:32, Mt. 19:9, Mk. 10:11-12, Lk. 16:18, Rom. 7:2-3, 1 Cor. 7:10-11, 1 Cor. 7:39, etc. and I will continue to speak the truth against adulterous remarriages to anyone who has ears to hear.

I don't like hearing this very much. One who seeks truth would not say that nothing would ever change their mind about what they believe is true. This is how those who reject truth respond. I know there has been a lot of arguing on this topic, and I personally know how hard it is. But you have to admit that this is a more complex issue than what you make it out to be. I deal with it myself... argument after argument in my own head. I see the arguments everywhere and I search out the scriptures, but it's a confusing mess. It's not as simple as you make it out to be. It's a tiresome mess. So please do not give up. You shouldn't have to part ways with other truth seekers.

I believe this arguing is going about it all wrong. This topic will not be solved this way. Everyone must admit that we simply do not understand well enough to make a full 100% judgment on cases. We must all be given understanding in order to do so. God gives this understanding. So let us beg Him for it. Take a look at my two posts that I've linked below. This is not the time for believers to divide because of disagreement, but instead to pray and to seek out together to gain understanding. It is the only option.

http://biblicalfamilies.org/forum2/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=562&p=5053#p5053
http://biblicalfamilies.org/forum2/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=562&p=5066#p5066

Sadan

 

[steve]

i agree that we have way too much acceptence of divorce in this culture.

but dj, your position is so black and white that YHWH would have been forced to stone david if He agreed with you

of course, you already closed your account if you did what you said you would do and will not see this

 

[Paul not the apostle]

I would like for nobody to leave Biblical Families because of disagreement on a topic. I have learned greatly from these posts and will continue to learn from everyone's experience and knowledge. David, I do think that you have much to contribute and would not want to miss out on what you have to say about feasts, prayer, marriage, baptism, or whatever the topic happens to be.

Paul

 

[Mark C]

I am sorry that David has decided to leave; I have heard from others that even though our disagreement has at times been intense, there have been benefits from much of the discussion. As for me, while I continue to believe in the strongest possible terms that such "forbidding to marry" is very much what Paul called a "doctrine of demons", God's Word remains true, and "iron sharpens iron". Responding to his arguments has forced me to examine those objections in more detail, and provided a much better understanding of Covenant and separation than I had initially.

With that in mind, I will add one more correction, whether David chooses to read it or not. I pray that it will be a blessing for others here, and that by correction of such errors from Scripture, the Truth may be made more clear. As always, please be "like the Bereans", and search out the Word for yourself, to "see if these things be True".

You are obligated to fulfill any oaths you make, EXCEPT WHERE SUCH AN OATH IS PROHIBITED IN GOD'S WORD.

[emphasis in the original]

This is a VERY subtle and unfortunate misunderstanding!!!


(It is literally a prohibited "addition to" God's Word, much as Eve did in Gen. 3:3!)

God "chastens those He loves". He ALLOWS us to make mistakes! He gave us free will! He "laid before us" both life and blessing, or death and cursing! We can CHOOSE, whether to obey Him, or to obey Caesar -- and He warns that we cannot do both!

Please re-read the story of Joshua and the Gibeonites, in Joshua chapter 9. God told the people of Israel to "make no treaties with the inhabitants of the land". And they were DECEIVED, and entered into that treaty with those people by fraud. And yet still, God held them to the terms of that contract; not only them, but their descendants long after them! (Even past the time of David and Solomon, this treaty was, and arguably remains today, a continuing issue!)

Do not think for a minute that we can enter into a contract before 'another master' -- EVEN a FRAUDULENT one! -- and not be held to that agreement! We, too, have been warned to "choose this day Whom we will serve", and to make no such agreements!

David asked, if this is true, then why did the Savior have to die? That is the key point of the whole story! "For there is no one righteous, no not one." We are all guilty of sin, and deserving of death. Our Kinsman-Redeemer (and indeed, this is what He HAD TO BE, in order to DO WHAT He DID for us!) had to take our place, "become sin" for us, and ultimately to die for us!

How do we -- any of us -- get OUT of such contracts of death that we have literally made before Satan? (Indeed, a favorite theme of literature for centuries remains the "contract with the Devil".) Can a woman (Ruth) from Moab EVER be redeemed? Can a whore (Rahab) ever be redeemed? (See Acts 10:15 for the moral.)

Why do you think both of those examples are in the very LINE of MESSIAH?

Some sacrifice had to be made. Some One literally had to die. But, by His blood, our sins have been washed 'whiter than snow'. It is our "reasonable service" to be bondservants to Him, in gratitude for that supreme Sacrifice, by His grace.

Our Master showed us (Matthew 4, among others) that, while He recognized Satan's claim over the earth, He would not yield to him, or bow down to him. "For it is Written, 'you shall worship YHVH your Elohim, and Him only shall you serve."

He gives us a choice, and we must choose carefully. When we serve "another master", there are always "strings attached".

Once we know Who we serve, it is important that we serve Him ONLY.

 

[CecilW]

It is Sunday, and David is presumably and regretably gone. But y'all know me. Gotta weigh in...

David's position seems to be that once a woman has married, no matter what else happens, that man is her only husband until his death. Regardless. So any subsequent marriage is full blown adultery.

Mark's position seems to be that once a divorce is properly executed, for whatever reason, she is effectively without a husband and is free to remarry. Whether the divorce should have taken place or not is a different matter, and may have other ramifications. Did I get that right Mark?

Btw, this seems to answer David's appeal to Romans 7:1-3 rather nicely. If her husband has properly divorced her, she is no longer married to him, and has no living husband, so these verses do not apply!

However, I think that we all agree that a woman can have but one husband at a time, do we not? Due to headship and "no-one can serve two masters", etc.

Now, let's evesdrop on Jesus talking to the Samaritan woman by the well ... "Yup. I know. Yer not married. Ya done had (5) different husbands and yer current squeeze ain' married up wi' ya! " (Cecil's Barefoot Paraphrase) (Don't have the reference to hand, but we all recognize the passage, right?)

According to the testimony of Jesus, 5 different men had accepted the responsibility of husband-headship of this woman. Validly. Which means that the first 4 had given it up in a manner which Jesus recognized as valid, and so had the 5th, because Jesus included him in the "past tense" reference. The 6th guy ... *shrug* who knows? (Unless, of course, we want to contend that she rode or nagged all of the first 5 to death ...)

Further, Torah describes (Deu 24, first verses) a woman who is divorced by her first husband, remarries, and loses her 2nd husband through divorce or death. Her first husband isn't 'posed to take her back. This implies a) That the 2nd marriage was indeed valid, and b) That it wasn't a temporary adultery for which she could and should repent and return.

So, while I applaud David's earnest desire to do right, I can't agree with his "black and white, hang 'em on a hook to dry the rest of their lives" approach.

There's a new movie out, Dance Flick. Haven't seen it, but the trailer has a scene where a high school girl takes her baby in it's carry chest-pack thing, hang's it on a hook in her locker, tells her friend, "Of ccourse I bring my baby to school! You can't just leave your kid ANYwhere!", tells the baby, "Mommy loves you, Punkin", and closes the locker door. Baby makes some small baby sound, as it hangs there in the dark waiting for Mommy to return after class.

Of course, it was sorta funny, but it made me think of this theology -- You made a mistake. Now your life is over. God is just gonna hang you on a hook where you will spend the rest of your miserable life alone, breathing in and out, waiting to die and praying that it might be sooner rather than later, as the loneliness is too much to bear, not to mention the endless question of "Oh God! Why or How wasn't I good enough to rate a loving relationship in this life? And will Heaven be any better?"

Funny thing. I don't hear David arguing that if a man is divorced inappropriately by his first wife (because she found herself a "better deal", for instance), that he's not free to remarry. Doesn't God love women as much as He loves men? I do, and I'm a messed up, mixed up human being.

Remember, the law was made for man(kind), not man(kind) for the law. Jesus defended David who took the shewbread from the temple, an unlawful act.

If we have to error, let's error on the side of humanity, of saving grace, of "what's past is past; I don't condemn you; don' do dat no more! Now go and be happy!"

Please.

 

[Mark C]

Mark's position seems to be that once a divorce is properly executed, for whatever reason, she is effectively without a husband and is free to remarry. Whether the divorce should have taken place or not is a different matter, and may have other ramifications. Did I get that right Mark?

Very good, Cecil. And an excellent summary overall, I would add. The other ramifications, of course, are also that the failed husband "bears her guilt" for ANY improper "putting away". (And that should rightfully keep more than a few "men" awake at night!)

Btw, this seems to answer David's appeal to Romans 7:1-3 rather nicely. If her husband has properly divorced her, she is no longer married to him, and has no living husband, so these verses do not apply!

Also exactly correct. I could never get David to recognize that distinction.

To continue the pattern, I concur with your understanding of 'the woman at the well', also.

Deuteronomy 24 seems to be so clear that I have difficulty understanding how one cannot accept what it says - twice. (It has, however, been asked how God could ever remarry one of His unfaithful, yet 'put away' wives. There are several possible answers, all consistent with Scripture. Most obviously, even though backsliding Israel committed whoredoms, she could be forgiven following repentance, and especially following rebirth and cleansing via the blood of the Lamb. She also never married another -- no other husband would be worthy of course. Note as well that her guilt was borne by her Husband, even though He was not guilty!)

Lastly, the conclusion referencing the "David and the shewbread" example of Yeshua is excellent. It demonstrates the principle that people who "wrest" the words of Paul (and particularly Galatians, "to their own destruction") miss the point that King David clearly understood LONG before any possible claim that the "Law was done away with":

God's Torah (teaching and instruction) is about LIFE! David "broke" the "law" to PRESERVE LIFE -- so he was in fact KEEPING it, in love. And THAT is why a burden-imposing, legalistic "forbidding to marry" is not merely a violation of His Torah, but rightfully called a "doctrine of demons". (I Tim. 4:1-3)

"...therefore choose life, that you and your descendants might live!" (Deut. 30:19)

L'chayim!

Mark