Marriage question

[presidente]

Keep in mind that God's law applies to the people of Israel, not to Gentiles. Christians are subject to the law of the land. You can play with semantics, but if a couple divorce, they are divorced.

According to the 'law of the land.' But the US does not require you to divorce your spouse. If it did, you may have to decide to obey God rather than men.

But that does not mean that God recognized all divorce paperwork or marriage paperwork. That does not mean that the church should recognize such things. If gay marriage is allowed by 'the law of the land' do you really think two men can really be married... for real in the Biblical sense?

If God is the only one who can recognise divorce, then He is the only who can recognise marriage.

What does that mean? In the Old Testament, the father could give the virgin daughter in marriage. God did not have to come down Himself and do that for everyone who got married.

So there are could be countless Christians living in sin, even though they are legally married. I don't accept that.

Why would that be the case? What does this statement have to do with the statement right before it, quoted above?

 

[presidente]

@JohnDB

I saw some posts from you still on my phone, but I do not see them here on the computer, so I don't know if you (or someone) deleted them. If men could just kill women left and right with no punishment in Rome, that would not shake or change my theology, and it has little or nothing to do with the interpretation of Matthew 19.

I also never agreed that women were cattle or property in the first century. Slave men and women were property, not everyone else. The Romans oppressed the Jews and people of other provinces extracting taxes including food to feed their own. Women were in a subordinant position, dependent on men financially, but God had men inherit in the Old Testament, so I do not see that as necessarily unjust, and being subject to husbands and fathers is not the same as being property. I consider your attitude to be ethnocentric. I am not agreeing with you.

But I have been doing a bit of digging with Co-Pilot, asking for searches, and it pretty much debunks some of your assertions. Based on this, it would seem the restriction on the Jewish courts exercising the death penalty was a long-standing restriction under the empire, even though they did it anyway at times. You can look up the sources. I don't know those who wrote them really could know for sure if Roman law was consistent all throughout the period, but the idea that the Romans retained the ius gladii, the right of the sword, throughout the period seems likely.

Women also had legal protection, both from Rome and within Judaism.

1) Roman ban on Jewish executions (the ius gladii)
When Judea became a Roman province in A.D. 6, the governor held the ius gladii (“right of the sword”), so formal executions required Roman authorization. This is reflected in John 18:31—“We are not permitted to execute anyone”—and fits the provincial practice that reserved capital sentences to the governor.
URL: https://biblehub.com/q/John_18_31_Jewish_legal_limits_under_Rome.htm
2) Why Jesus needed Pilate’s authorization
The Sanhedrin condemned Jesus for blasphemy, but Roman law required the prefect’s ratification for any execution.
URL: https://lawshun.com/article/could-jeewish-people-execute-their-own-under-roman-law
Further context on the Sanhedrin’s competence and Rome’s ultimate control:

URL: https://www.britannica.com/topic/sanhedrin
Narrative/legal framing for the trial under Roman provincial administration:
URL: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/jesusaccount.html
3) Why Stephen was stoned anyway
The stoning of Stephen (Acts 7) is best understood as extra‑legal mob violence during a lapse in Roman oversight, not a lawful, sanctioned execution.
URL: https://bibleask.org/how-was-stephen-killed-without-romes-permission/
A concise comparison of the Jesus and Stephen cases:
URL: https://www.gotquestions.org/stoning-of-Stephen.html

A close historical parallel appears in Josephus, Antiquities 20.9.1: High Priest Ananus had James stoned while the procurator was absent; when Roman authority resumed, the act was condemned and Ananus was removed—evidence that capital acts without Roman consent were unlawful.

URL: https://www.sefaria.org/The_Antiquities_of_the_Jews.20.9
(Alternative text editions: https://ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-20.htm ; https://lexundria.com/j_aj/20.9/wst)
4) Was the ban long‑term or temporary?
It was a long‑term imperial policy from A.D. 6 until the Jewish Revolt (A.D. 66). Rome allowed local adjudication in religious/civil matters but reserved capital punishment to imperial officials.

Historical overview of Sanhedrin/Judea under Rome:

URL: https://www.heritage-history.com/index.php?c=read&author=morrison&book=romanjew&story=sanhedrin
Policy synthesis emphasizing Roman control of executions across the province:
URL: https://lawshun.com/article/were-jews-under-roman-law-allowed-to-execute-their-own
5) Did the restriction apply outside Jerusalem?
Yes. The governor’s ius gladii covered the whole province; local courts elsewhere (lesser sanhedrins) could try cases but could not execute without Roman approval.

URL: https://biblehub.com/q/John_18_31_Jewish_legal_limits_under_Rome.htm

Broader provincial context:
URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_the_Roman_Empire
6) Did it apply to women as well?
Yes. Roman capital jurisdiction did not distinguish by sex; women could be executed by Roman authority (including crucifixion), though less frequently than men. Discussions and examples (general surveys; rarity noted):

URL: https://girlsourced.com/did-romans-crucify-women/
URL: https://divinenarratives.org/crucifixion-practices-women-and-roman-citizens-in-history/
7) Household authority and homicide under Roman law
Roman patria potestas gave the paterfamilias symbolic and legal authority over the household, described in early sources in terms of theoretical “life and death” power. By the classical period, however, these extreme powers were curtailed and increasingly subject to public criminal law. Britannica’s survey notes that the father’s power had “shrunk to that of light punishment,” with significant limits on property and discipline; by Justinian’s era the powers were further reduced.
URL: https://www.britannica.com/topic/patria-potestas
Introductory overview of the institution and its evolution:
URL: https://www.historyskills.com/classroom/ancient-history/patria-potestas/
Scholarly context on constraints and public prosecution of household violence:
URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/book...an-household/FAC8D62279E78D2EC4DC23B0C51A5288
URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/300809

Under emperors of the Principate, notably Hadrian, imperial policy and jurisprudence further criminalized arbitrary private violence, including the killing of slaves by masters; such acts fell under public law rather than private household right. The general trajectory of Hadrianic and later reforms curbed household absolutism and reinforced prosecution of intra‑domus homicide.

Legal context and reforms:
URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/297053
Primary‑source dossier on Hadrian’s administration:
URL: https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/ancient/aelius-hadrian1.asp
Biographical overview:
URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadrian
8) Practical implications for Jewish householders in Roman Judea

Given the province‑wide ius gladii and the public character of homicide in Roman law, Jewish householders did not possess a legal, standing right to kill women, infants, slaves, or other dependents as “honor killings” or household discipline. Capital punishment required Roman authorization, and killings within the household were prosecutable. The few recorded capital killings by local authorities without Roman sanction—James (Josephus) and Stephen (Acts 7)—occurred outside lawful procedure and were either punished by Roman officials (James) or understood as mob violence, not recognized executions (Stephen).

Core provincial rule:

URL: https://biblehub.com/q/John_18_31_Jewish_legal_limits_under_Rome.htm
Policy synthesis:
URL: https://lawshun.com/article/were-jews-under-roman-law-allowed-to-execute-their-own

 

[jchristian]

And I have pointed out that nowhere in scripture does it say that a woman may divorce her husband.

Deuteronomy
24 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.
3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;

This was the passage the Pharisees asked Jesus about when He said that Moses because of the hardness of their hearts allowed divorce, but from the beginning it was not so.



Two men want to marry. The county clerk considers it legal. Judges up to the state supreme court there in Illinois consider it legal. The Supreme Court considers it legal. Is it legal according to God's law? Is that a real marriage? Does God subject Himself to the state of Illinois and change His morals and His laws to conform with theirs?

Where did God say women could divorce men?

Orthodox Judaism does not consider it legitimate, even if the state does. Roman Catholics don't acknowledge divorces just because states do either. Why is it that so many Protestants think this type of documentation is valid before God if it is not based on anything in scripture?

What if the state decreed that your dad is no longer your dad? Are you going to agree with that? What if they said you are no longer a human being, that you, and everyone else born the year you are born are ducks or chickens (depending on even or odd days?) What if the trans movement evolved a bit more, and the state declared you to be of the opposite sex, and 'identified' you as a woman. Does that make you a woman?

Do you think God actually __requires__ you to go demand something of her? If not, why would this be a problem?

It is in an allegory, but this presents a woman lusting after someone who is not her husband as a corrupt thing.


Ezekiel 23:11 (English Standard Version)
"Her sister Oholibah saw this, and she became more corrupt than her sister in her lust and in her whoring, which was worse than that of her sister."

I'm neither an Orthodox Jew or a Catholic. Not sure why their religion is supposed to matter to me. One of them follows the Talm*d which teaches that Jesus is burning in the afterlife in boiling excrement for leading Jews astray, and the other thinks we should pray to saints. I don't share those convictions. Not sure why you do.

If the authorities who validate marriage in the world have no authority to invalidate it (on her behalf), then why are you making such a big deal about their authority to validate it?

Here's what Scripture says: 1 Corinthians 7:4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

So, based upon the actual Scripture, not my interpretation, my wife does not possess a Scriptural justification for the 5.5 years she has denied me of sex, nor does she have authority over her own body - I do. Yet, the same authorities you believe have no power to invalidate our marriage are the same authorities who will come and throw me in jail if I try to make claim to my Biblical marital fulfillment.

Lastly, since the Scriptures do not provide for a situation like mine, in which a wife divorces her husband, and instead only provides for the situation in which a man divorces his wife - and that I am not guilty of doing - then I'm obviously free from any condemnation IF I were to remarry.

 

[JohnDB]

I'm neither an Orthodox Jew or a Catholic. Not sure why their religion is supposed to matter to me. One of them follows the Talm*d which teaches that Jesus is burning in the afterlife in boiling excrement for leading Jews astray, and the other thinks we should pray to saints. I don't share those convictions. Not sure why you do.

If the authorities who validate marriage in the world have no authority to invalidate it (on her behalf), then why are you making such a big deal about their authority to validate it?

Here's what Scripture says: 1 Corinthians 7:4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

So, based upon the actual Scripture, not my interpretation, my wife does not possess a Scriptural justification for the 5.5 years she has denied me of sex, nor does she have authority over her own body - I do. Yet, the same authorities you believe have no power to invalidate our marriage are the same authorities who will come and throw me in jail if I try to make claim to my Biblical marital fulfillment.

Lastly, since the Scriptures do not provide for a situation like mine, in which a wife divorces her husband, and instead only provides for the situation in which a man divorces his wife - and that I am not guilty of doing - then I'm obviously free from any condemnation IF I were to remarry.

The Law is to love thy neighbor as thyself.
All the Law and prophets hang upon this and the most important commandment. (Love God)

In Matthew 19 Jesus was speaking to people in a completely different cultural setting than what exists today. Women today have equal access to the court systems. They did not during Jesus's ministry tour. Women could not just divorce their husband's for any reason.

So....
Going back to the LAW....
Why should a husband be punished with celebacy and lonliness when his wife divorced him for frivolous reasons and broke faith with God?

This doesn't seem like justice and goodness on any scale anywhere in the world except for legalistic people somehow.

Jesus was ALWAYS kind and good. And this sort of legalistic approach is not kindness. It's harsh, arbitrary and dictatorial.

Some people just need a spouse. We were wired that way by God. It's not a defect to be desiring a spouse. God gives good gifts. Marriage is just such a gift. It's good. But some people can only be good for a while....their hearts are set on evil and deceiving themselves and others.

So....
Not everyone loves God. They reject God's love. People reject the love of a spouse after accepting it for a time too. Should the rejected person pay a price other than a broken heart? Because that's what the legalists are demanding.

We ALL seek love and affection. It's a basic, hardwired human need. No one is advocating the giving away of your heart frivolously. A woman is designed to be a man's helper....an equal helper of his goals and dreams and works.
(Mine is)

I am very reluctant to speak for God on any subject that I'm not sure about. This one I am. And I am also confident that people are always seeking a way to lord power over others whenever possible.
Especially when a possible injustice in social norms is available to them.

 

[presidente]

I'm neither an Orthodox Jew or a Catholic. Not sure why their religion is supposed to matter to me. One of them follows the Talm*d which teaches that Jesus is burning in the afterlife in boiling excrement for leading Jews astray, and the other thinks we should pray to saints. I don't share those convictions. Not sure why you do.

That was not an appeal to authority. It was more of an appeal to history.

Do you think gay marriage is valid because the state issues certificates? What if the state allowed a man to marry a goat? Would that be valid? What if the state issued decrees that your child was not yours, even when your child is an adult? Should your child not honor you as a father?

If the authorities who validate marriage in the world have no authority to invalidate it (on her behalf), then why are you making such a big deal about their authority to validate it?

Doesn't part of your argument come from the fact that you have a certificate from the state that doesn't match anything in scripture? Did you sign agreeing to the divorce? If so, you divorced your wife, and in that case, let's get back to Matthew 19.

Here's what Scripture says: 1 Corinthians 7:4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

So, based upon the actual Scripture, not my interpretation, my wife does not possess a Scriptural justification for the 5.5 years she has denied me of sex, nor does she have authority over her own body - I do. Yet, the same authorities you believe have no power to invalidate our marriage are the same authorities who will come and throw me in jail if I try to make claim to my Biblical marital fulfillment.

This is another issue. There are men in a similar situation whose wives didn't divorce them. The wife doesn't sleep with the husband for three months. Do you think he should be able to force himself on her? Why don't you start another thread expressing your opinion about that.

Lastly, since the Scriptures do not provide for a situation like mine, in which a wife divorces her husband, and instead only provides for the situation in which a man divorces his wife - and that I am not guilty of doing - then I'm obviously free from any condemnation IF I were to remarry.

Does 'he that marries her that is divorced commits adultery' apply to you? Is the mail carrier divorced? If so, your technicality above would be a moot point.

If you did not sign the divorce certificate, then if you marry a woman, do not divorce her, then marry another, what's that?

 

[aChristian2]

Excuse me, I better run over and tell the other girls! ‍


.

the subject matter is serious, yet

too funny with the little running women, I have laughed a few times at that!

 

[presidente]

The Law is to love thy neighbor as thyself.
All the Law and prophets hang upon this and the most important commandment. (Love God)

[/quote]

And if we love God, don't we obey Him? Jesus said that He who loves Him keeps His commandments.

In Matthew 19 Jesus was speaking to people in a completely different cultural setting than what exists today. Women today have equal access to the court systems. They did not during Jesus's ministry tour. Women could not just divorce their husband's for any reason.

How does this build your argument. I noticed you backtracked. The women did not have the same access as men to the court system... okay... that seems true. That's not the same as implying they had no access to the courts and that they could be killed in the streets without the Romans caring at all. But how does this contribute to your argument. Women NOT being able to divorce their husband's for any reason. It was likely that with the Jews, the men COULD divorce their wives for any reason or many were pushing for that. Divorce was a matter of having a certificate, not state approval, and the Sanhedrin and smaller sanhedrins would have had to actively enforce Shammai's opinion if they were to have outlawed following Hillel's.

So....
Going back to the LAW....
Why should a husband be punished with celebacy and lonliness when his wife divorced him for frivolous reasons and broke faith with God?

That's a loaded question, which reminds me of bad questions for surveys. You throw in 'broke faith with God.' The husband and wife aren't getting along, the wife leaves him, so he claims her to be an unbeliever. They were just separated when he started dating that girl, so she claims he's the unbeliever. They can both justify remarriage. It's so easy. Of course, that scenario reminds me of how the Pharisees argued doctrine.

Let's take that bit out of it. Let's ask if God requires His people to suffer in order to do what is right? Does that ever happen? Let's think of those three Hebrews thrown into the fiery furnace for not worshipping an idol, or Daniel in a lion's den, or John the Baptist's death and beheading for speaking out against illegitimate marriage, or Christ pronouncing a blessing on those who die for righteousness' sake, or Christ being beaten and tortured then crucified, or the imprisonment of apostles, the stoning of Stephen, servants beaten for doing good and Peter telling servants if any suffered as a Christian it is commendable before God, Peter's death which glorified God.

If being imprison, beaten, whipped, and scourged for righteousness sake is commendable... then do you think God is 'punishing' Christians if they go without some sex and companionship?

What about men who are married and their wives cut them off, don't have sex with them for a year, six months, or shut off the spigot to just once a week, or just three times a week? Does the _punishment_ that this man has to endure justify divorcing his wife and marrying another?

What about couples who do not get along? What about a man who has to endure a wife who speaks to him in a disrespectful manner? What about a woman who endures her husband speaking to her without love? Should they be _punished_ by this, or should they divorce? Or should they work it out?

This doesn't seem like justice and goodness on any scale anywhere in the world except for legalistic people somehow.

I was once tasked with teaching a class on American Culture. In the textbook, it said that Americans (or many Americans... I hope the latter) thought of marriage as something to bring happiness, so if they were not happy in a marriage, they would divorce and marry another. This seems true of a lot of people.

And a lot of the doctrinal arguments I read in favor of divorce are based on the idea that the individual deserves happiness, fulfillment, etc., and this justifies divorce and remarriage. Another perspective is to focus on holiness and sanctification. Ephesians 5 teaches that there is a mystery in marriage, in two being one flesh, that speaks of Christ and the church.

Jesus was ALWAYS kind and good. And this sort of legalistic approach is not kindness. It's harsh, arbitrary and dictatorial.

And you want to judge people's motives... but they are judgmental. My heart grieves for church people who take Christ's teachings lightly.

And the whole reason we are having this conversation is because Jesus, after referencing Moses allowing putting away wives with a certificate, taught that he that puts away his wife, ('not fornication') and marries another commits adultery and he that marries her that is divorced commits adultery.

Was anyone every so strict about marriage in history before Jesus? Even Shammai?

Was Jesus more concerned with teaching people to have comfort, happiness, and fulfillment in this life, or in obeying God and being holy?

 

[JohnDB]

@JohnDB

I saw some posts from you still on my phone, but I do not see them here on the computer, so I don't know if you (or someone) deleted them. If men could just kill women left and right with no punishment in Rome, that would not shake or change my theology, and it has little or nothing to do with the interpretation of Matthew 19.

I also never agreed that women were cattle or property in the first century. Slave men and women were property, not everyone else. The Romans oppressed the Jews and people of other provinces extracting taxes including food to feed their own. Women were in a subordinant position, dependent on men financially, but God had men inherit in the Old Testament, so I do not see that as necessarily unjust, and being subject to husbands and fathers is not the same as being property. I consider your attitude to be ethnocentric. I am not agreeing with you.

But I have been doing a bit of digging with Co-Pilot, asking for searches, and it pretty much debunks some of your assertions. Based on this, it would seem the restriction on the Jewish courts exercising the death penalty was a long-standing restriction under the empire, even though they did it anyway at times. You can look up the sources. I don't know those who wrote them really could know for sure if Roman law was consistent all throughout the period, but the idea that the Romans retained the ius gladii, the right of the sword, throughout the period seems likely.

Women also had legal protection, both from Rome and within Judaism.

1) Roman ban on Jewish executions (the ius gladii)
When Judea became a Roman province in A.D. 6, the governor held the ius gladii (“right of the sword”), so formal executions required Roman authorization. This is reflected in John 18:31—“We are not permitted to execute anyone”—and fits the provincial practice that reserved capital sentences to the governor.
URL: https://biblehub.com/q/John_18_31_Jewish_legal_limits_under_Rome.htm
2) Why Jesus needed Pilate’s authorization
The Sanhedrin condemned Jesus for blasphemy, but Roman law required the prefect’s ratification for any execution.
URL: https://lawshun.com/article/could-jeewish-people-execute-their-own-under-roman-law
Further context on the Sanhedrin’s competence and Rome’s ultimate control:

URL: https://www.britannica.com/topic/sanhedrin
Narrative/legal framing for the trial under Roman provincial administration:
URL: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/jesusaccount.html
3) Why Stephen was stoned anyway
The stoning of Stephen (Acts 7) is best understood as extra‑legal mob violence during a lapse in Roman oversight, not a lawful, sanctioned execution.
URL: https://bibleask.org/how-was-stephen-killed-without-romes-permission/
A concise comparison of the Jesus and Stephen cases:
URL: https://www.gotquestions.org/stoning-of-Stephen.html

A close historical parallel appears in Josephus, Antiquities 20.9.1: High Priest Ananus had James stoned while the procurator was absent; when Roman authority resumed, the act was condemned and Ananus was removed—evidence that capital acts without Roman consent were unlawful.

URL: https://www.sefaria.org/The_Antiquities_of_the_Jews.20.9
(Alternative text editions: https://ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-20.htm ; https://lexundria.com/j_aj/20.9/wst)
4) Was the ban long‑term or temporary?
It was a long‑term imperial policy from A.D. 6 until the Jewish Revolt (A.D. 66). Rome allowed local adjudication in religious/civil matters but reserved capital punishment to imperial officials.

Historical overview of Sanhedrin/Judea under Rome:

URL: https://www.heritage-history.com/index.php?c=read&author=morrison&book=romanjew&story=sanhedrin
Policy synthesis emphasizing Roman control of executions across the province:
URL: https://lawshun.com/article/were-jews-under-roman-law-allowed-to-execute-their-own
5) Did the restriction apply outside Jerusalem?
Yes. The governor’s ius gladii covered the whole province; local courts elsewhere (lesser sanhedrins) could try cases but could not execute without Roman approval.

URL: https://biblehub.com/q/John_18_31_Jewish_legal_limits_under_Rome.htm

Broader provincial context:
URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_the_Roman_Empire
6) Did it apply to women as well?
Yes. Roman capital jurisdiction did not distinguish by sex; women could be executed by Roman authority (including crucifixion), though less frequently than men. Discussions and examples (general surveys; rarity noted):

URL: https://girlsourced.com/did-romans-crucify-women/
URL: https://divinenarratives.org/crucifixion-practices-women-and-roman-citizens-in-history/
7) Household authority and homicide under Roman law
Roman patria potestas gave the paterfamilias symbolic and legal authority over the household, described in early sources in terms of theoretical “life and death” power. By the classical period, however, these extreme powers were curtailed and increasingly subject to public criminal law. Britannica’s survey notes that the father’s power had “shrunk to that of light punishment,” with significant limits on property and discipline; by Justinian’s era the powers were further reduced.
URL: https://www.britannica.com/topic/patria-potestas
Introductory overview of the institution and its evolution:
URL: https://www.historyskills.com/classroom/ancient-history/patria-potestas/
Scholarly context on constraints and public prosecution of household violence:
URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/book...an-household/FAC8D62279E78D2EC4DC23B0C51A5288
URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/300809

Under emperors of the Principate, notably Hadrian, imperial policy and jurisprudence further criminalized arbitrary private violence, including the killing of slaves by masters; such acts fell under public law rather than private household right. The general trajectory of Hadrianic and later reforms curbed household absolutism and reinforced prosecution of intra‑domus homicide.

Legal context and reforms:
URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/297053
Primary‑source dossier on Hadrian’s administration:
URL: https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/ancient/aelius-hadrian1.asp
Biographical overview:
URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadrian
8) Practical implications for Jewish householders in Roman Judea

Given the province‑wide ius gladii and the public character of homicide in Roman law, Jewish householders did not possess a legal, standing right to kill women, infants, slaves, or other dependents as “honor killings” or household discipline. Capital punishment required Roman authorization, and killings within the household were prosecutable. The few recorded capital killings by local authorities without Roman sanction—James (Josephus) and Stephen (Acts 7)—occurred outside lawful procedure and were either punished by Roman officials (James) or understood as mob violence, not recognized executions (Stephen).

Core provincial rule:

URL: https://biblehub.com/q/John_18_31_Jewish_legal_limits_under_Rome.htm
Policy synthesis:
URL: https://lawshun.com/article/were-jews-under-roman-law-allowed-to-execute-their-own

It's amazing that you can write what you wrote which substantiated everything I've said but somehow claim that you were right all along and that I've been debunked somehow.

See, this is a debate. You are supposed support your side and not mine of the arguments.

The mob killings of prostitutes/adulterous women were never prosecuted. You held up Stephan....ummmm....he was male. How much less would authorities care if the victim was female!

Women could not access the courts for a divorce no matter how much they may have wanted one. And even though there is TONS of evidence of "Put Away " wives different from divorced and even mentioned in Malachi right next to the passage so often quoted "God hates divorce" and discusses the practice of "putting away" as violence and bloodshed but worse because it's actually tantamount to Abuse which God hates more than Divorce.

 

[aChristian2]

sister

I was reading your posts you have strong opinions, I thought I read you say, something like....

not sure why your posting on this forum, your hell bent on marrying this postal worker".

although your probably reading the situation correctly, the power of connection is strong, especially once the feelings have been established.
Adam it seems choose women over G-D, and women her station over G-D
pretty tough scenario all around, if he should not marry her based on scripture, ( I certainly cannot say, I was too close to the subject perhaps, or I tend to lean on the side of caution, if I can). either way perhaps you gave him some things to think about.


I believe it would be a pleasure to be your friend, and I laughed as I have posted, on another comment of yours saying... about the women running over to tell the other girls,, and you have this little women running.. too funny...haha

when you said your hell bent on marrying this women, a poor choice of a word hell bent ( I would suggest) I assume I am taking it out of context, and you do not mean to imply judgement.

like I said, you seem like a strong Christian Sister, and I am sure it would be a pleasure to know you & converse with you.

remember to love, and I hope to see you on that day

in love & peace
your brother in Christ
Bruce

 

[Karlon]

I have a question for those who may be able to share their wisdom.

My first wife divorced me. Because of her actions, I was scripturally permitted to remarry. (That's all I need to say).

My second wife divorced me and there was no evidence of infidelity. She literally left and never spoke to me again. There was not even a conversation in which I was allowed to process this decision with her. I had to do so alone. I am unaware of her ever moving on or being with anyone else afterwards. For four years, I waited for her to see if she would repent and reconcile our Biblical marriage and she never did. I eventually gave up waiting and believing that she ever would.

I started a Bible study in my home two years ago and I invited my mail carrier. She showed up every week, and we became close friends. She has a daughter in the same grade of high school as my daughter. I became very close to her and her daughter and helped them through some difficult times and vice versa. Even though she grew to love me, I refused to get into a relationship with her because I wasn't sure if it was right given the circumstances surrounding my second divorce (i.e. there were no scriptural grounds for divorce per our Lord Jesus Christ.)

My second wife left me in a position in which she abandoned me and divorced me without infidelity. Am I scripturally free to marry this other woman?

hold on: are you sure that she didn't cheat? what evidence do you have she didn't cheat? spouses who leave suddenly without a word spoken or clue of any kind leave the other spouse waiting & wondering. why should a spouse wonder & wait. & wait for years? wow! that puts the one left behind to suffer any wait. that's not fair, right or compatible in any way. although there are 2 reasons to divorce: adultery & spousal death, a situation like yours, God understands. how long is a spouse suppose to wait; 5 years, 8 years, 20 years? God will honor a new marriage, i believe, for the one who didn't do anything wrong.

 

[jchristian]

That was not an appeal to authority. It was more of an appeal to history.

Do you think gay marriage is valid because the state issues certificates? What if the state allowed a man to marry a goat? Would that be valid? What if the state issued decrees that your child was not yours, even when your child is an adult? Should your child not honor you as a father?



Doesn't part of your argument come from the fact that you have a certificate from the state that doesn't match anything in scripture? Did you sign agreeing to the divorce? If so, you divorced your wife, and in that case, let's get back to Matthew 19.



This is another issue. There are men in a similar situation whose wives didn't divorce them. The wife doesn't sleep with the husband for three months. Do you think he should be able to force himself on her? Why don't you start another thread expressing your opinion about that.




Does 'he that marries her that is divorced commits adultery' apply to you? Is the mail carrier divorced? If so, your technicality above would be a moot point.

If you did not sign the divorce certificate, then if you marry a woman, do not divorce her, then marry another, what's that?

It seems to me that you're just here to argue. Based upon your posts, you have no love for God or concern for others' well-being. It seems you only care about Scripture when it supports your point of view and YOU HAVE TO BE RIGHT. I won't be responding to you anymore.

 

[jchristian]

hold on: are you sure that she didn't cheat? what evidence do you have she didn't cheat? spouses who leave suddenly without a word spoken or clue of any kind leave the other spouse waiting & wondering. why should a spouse wonder & wait. & wait for years? wow! that puts the one left behind to suffer any wait. that's not fair, right or compatible in any way. although there are 2 reasons to divorce: adultery & spousal death, a situation like yours, God understands. how long is a spouse suppose to wait; 5 years, 8 years, 20 years? God will honor a new marriage, i believe, for the one who didn't do anything wrong.

I was being obedient to God and patiently waiting for Him to reconcile our marriage.

As I stated before, based upon my experience, she had mental health problems. I never had the impression she was a cheater, but she had other issues. I have no evidence she cheated on me from her or anyone else who knew her, so I kept on keeping on. I can only speculate on this, but she was so consumed with paranoia and unforgiveness that it's possible she divorced me in the manner she did just to cause me the harm she did, knowing I the kind of person I am. After all these years, I don't understand it.

 

[presidente]

It seems to me that you're just here to argue. Based upon your posts, you have no love for God or concern for others' well-being. It seems you only care about Scripture when it supports your point of view and YOU HAVE TO BE RIGHT. I won't be responding to you anymore.

What an awful judgmental thing to say, 'have no love for God or concern for others' well being. You really need to check your heart.

I want you to follow Christ. Why would you ask the question if you don't want people to answer you?

 

[JohnDB]

It seems to me that you're just here to argue. Based upon your posts, you have no love for God or concern for others' well-being. It seems you only care about Scripture when it supports your point of view and YOU HAVE TO BE RIGHT. I won't be responding to you anymore.

He is using a contorted hermeneutics to promote an unjustifiable position. Similar Hermeneutics were used to license wars, genocides, abuses, and slavery. No different from the Pharisees from scriptures.

He worships his laws more than God's.
Described by Paul as "Having a form of Godliness but denying its power"

The Gospel is Latin for "Good News" but guys like him make it a reason to stay away from God as he makes God out to never forgive divorce and remarriage as if it's an unforgivable sin.

 

[presidente]

It's amazing that you can write what you wrote which substantiated everything I've said but somehow claim that you were right all along and that I've been debunked somehow.

You seem very focused on proving yourself right and me wrong, trying to paint me as knowing little and your knowing something, spouting half-baked historical theories. And of course none of this is relevant to the issue.

My article showed that women had access to the courts. I'll not bother to show what you said about it. If your memory is fuzzy, you can look it up. There is no need to posture for this meager audience, so why not go back on topic? How does any of this support the idea that men can dump their wives freely if they give them a piece of paper... according to Jesus as opposed to the Hillel Pharisees?

See, this is a debate. You are supposed support your side and not mine of the arguments.

I thought this was a discussion on divorce and remarriage, not a debate of whatever meandering half-accurate comments you want to make about the ancient world.

The mob killings of prostitutes/adulterous women were never prosecuted.

A lot of what you write is just irrational How much time did you live in the ancient Roman world? Did you live in first century Judea or some other province?

Are you claiming divine revelation for this? Aren't you a cessationist. Your post is irrational. If there is no specific evidence of Romans cracking down on Jews executing women at local or national Sanhedrins, that does not mean it never happened. We have bits and pieces of information that survived that was written or carved, not detailed accounts of everything that ever happened. Apart from divine revelation, you cannot know that it never happened.

Also, here are some comments and quotes I put together with some AI research on the rarity of execution:

Rabbinic sources explicitly state that executions were extremely rare in Jewish courts. The Mishnah (Makkot 1:10) famously says: “A Sanhedrin that executes once in seven years is called a destructive court.” Eleazar ben Azariah adds: “Once in seventy years.” This reflects the rabbinic view that capital punishment was almost never carried out in practice.

Mishnah Makkot 1:10
- Declares that a Sanhedrin executing even once in seven years was considered excessively harsh.
- Tarfon and Akiva went further, saying: “If we had been in the Sanhedrin, no person would ever have been executed.”

It could be they were leaving out local elders or synagogue judges in the villages executing adulterers, Sabbath breakers, witches, and blasphemers that escaped Roman attention. We don't know. There could have been lots of executions going on that were extra-legal from a Roman perspective as the local communities sought to obey Torah, but that is not what this record says.

Do you have any evidence for wide spread execution of married prostitutes?

And of course, the Torah commanded that adulterers be executed, also. Jesus may have been showing a woman who deserved to die some mercy in John 8.

But that has very little to do with the issue in Matthew 19, which is not about executing adulteresses. And as far as care for women go, the traditional view would have been very strong in that regard. Christian men would not have been able to divorce their wives, no matter what (assuming the marriage were deemed legitimate and was not to divorced woman for example), to remarry another, and were required to provide for them.

The idea that Jesus was just forbidding divorcing without a certificate unless the wife had cheated would make it easy for men to dump their wives left and right like some of the Pharisees were advocating who were more liberal on this issue. That view is vary low on the dimension of care for women.

But, I tell you what, unless you actually want to discuss the issue, let's drop this. If your goal is just to say some half supported facts and imply you know all kinds of stuff and the other poster knows little, while avoiding the topic, and not offering any evidence for your inaccurate representation of the facts, lets just not discuss anything.

You held up Stephan....ummmm....he was male. How much less would authorities care if the victim was female!

Give me some historical quotes that indicate that widespread killing by Jewish judges and mini-sanhedrins or the national Sanhedrin was an issue.

Women could not access the courts for a divorce no matter how much they may have wanted one.

Moses did not allow women to divorce men. There were some niches where women could approach the courts, but otherwise they might go through a male relative. Read what I posted. Courts had some power to try to compel men to obey Torah. But what does this have to do with Matthew 19.

If you have a problem with no provision for women to divorce men in the Torah, take that up with God.

Easy peasy divorce is NOT a good thing. I get the impression that you think our morally bereft culture of easy no-fault divorce with few legal or social ramifications is a good thing.

And even though there is TONS of evidence of "Put Away " wives different from divorced and even mentioned in Malachi right next to the passage so often quoted "God hates divorce" and discusses the practice of "putting away" as violence and bloodshed but worse because it's actually tantamount to Abuse which God hates more than Divorce.

Show me in Malachi where it says that the put away wives did not have divorce certificates.

The ones with certificates were put/sent away also. Jesus describes them as such, referring to Moses who described them as such. It is in the passage we are discussing. Jesus said that Moses allowed the putting/sending away of their wives because of the hardness of their hearts. What Moses allowed was with a certificate, the passage the Pharisees had just referred to.

And so is all of this talk on your end supposedly to defend the idea that a man can dump his wife for any reason if he gives her a piece of paper? And you think women should be able to do the same, and that God is okay with it? Is that what you are getting at? If so, how does anything you are arguing lead to that opinion/

 

[presidente]

He is using a contorted hermeneutics to promote an unjustifiable position. Similar Hermeneutics were used to license wars, genocides, abuses, and slavery. No different from the Pharisees from scriptures.

This is typical of your content-- no substance-- posturing, accusations, vague statements, no exegesis or hermeneutics-- judgments, accusations, and unnecessarily obtuse disagreeableness, while pretending like you are saying something of weight.

He worships his laws more than God's.

Every idle word... on the day of judgment.

The Gospel is Latin for "Good News" but guys like him make it a reason to stay away from God as he makes God out to never forgive divorce and remarriage as if it's an unforgivable sin.

It's Old English, btw (more inaccurate 'facts' from you). But we call these books like Matthew, Mark, and Luke that have these statements about divorce remarriage and adultery 'gospels.'

I never said divorce and remarriage is the 'unforgivable sin.' But what do you care if you lie or slander someone?

 

[Gideon300]

According to the 'law of the land.' But the US does not require you to divorce your spouse. If it did, you may have to decide to obey God rather than men.

But that does not mean that God recognized all divorce paperwork or marriage paperwork. That does not mean that the church should recognize such things. If gay marriage is allowed by 'the law of the land' do you really think two men can really be married... for real in the Biblical sense?



What does that mean? In the Old Testament, the father could give the virgin daughter in marriage. God did not have to come down Himself and do that for everyone who got married.

Why would that be the case? What does this statement have to do with the statement right before it, quoted above?

Obviously logic is not your strongest point. If God is the only one who recognises divorce then it stands to reason that He alone recognises marriage. "What God has joined together let no man separate". You can twist that to mean that some relationships were never put together by God in the first place.