On the blog Dalrock Feminism is criticized. Especially Christian Feminism.
For example the author takes to task this deplorable practice:
In the Christian world we find:“That the wife brings her husband to heel (and to God) by filing for divorce and taking up with a new man.”
My comment on this is: Doing that makes her forbidden to her husband. [Besides the fact that it is adultery and gets the death penalty if done in front of a witnesses with a warning.]
A comment on my comment comes from Lyn87:
I answered to Lyn87 this comment
Lyn87. Sorry I did not make it clear.The reason she is forbidden to her husband comes from some verse about the Sota. I admt I forget the verse. But what comes out of that verse is כשם שהיא אסורה לבועל כך היא אסורה לבעל. Just like she is forbidden to the adulterer so is she forbidden to her husband. It is from a verse in numbers right I think right before the sacrifices of the princes of the tribes. It has nothing to do with her being forbidden to her first husband after being remarried to someone else. It is a totally different issue.
To Lyn 87: As for your quotes from the NT my feeling is that as Rav Yaakov Emden said that Jesus was being more strict than the Mosaic Law. That means in plain English that he was not defining Mosaic Law but rather being more strict. So People following Jesus would certainly not be allowed to remarry because of that statement of Jesus--but not because it is adultery, We find this often in the Old Testament of things not being desirable even though they might not be forbidden from the strict letter of the Law. That is around every mitzvah and every prohibition there is grey area. For example idolatry. Some things are straight forward idolatry and get the death penalty. No problem there. But other things like service not in its way but in a way of honor is forbidden but does not get the death penalty. [I think.]
For example the author takes to task this deplorable practice:
In the Christian world we find:“That the wife brings her husband to heel (and to God) by filing for divorce and taking up with a new man.”
My comment on this is: Doing that makes her forbidden to her husband. [Besides the fact that it is adultery and gets the death penalty if done in front of a witnesses with a warning.]
A comment on my comment comes from Lyn87:
- The words of Jesus in Matthew 19:9 are as follows: “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.”I think it does make her forbidden to her “husband” – because he is not her husband. If we really believe what Jesus said, a woman divorced for anything other than fornication (a general term for illicit sex) is guilty of adultery (aspecific term for having sex with another man’s wife), if she remarries. It makes no sense to say that a woman is committing adultery with her own husband since that defies the very definition of the word – you can no more commit “adultery” with your own wife than you can steal your own wallet – yet Jesus classifies the sex within those “marriages” as “adultery” (again, a very specific term that means “sex with another man’s wife”). The ONLY possible explanation is that not only is the man she is acting as a wife toward not her husband… but another man is.Other than the exceptions provided for in Matthew 19, any “marriage” subsequent to the first one is not a marriage in the eyes of God, but is simply an adulterous union given sanction by the state and, now, the church. There is really no other way to ready Matthew 19 – most of the “couples” in churches today that are the second marriages of the wives are actually just two people shacking-up with a piece of paper that falsely claims otherwise. The county clerk that issues the license doesn’t care, and Kim Davis doesn’t care, and most pew-sitters and pastors don’t care, but God certainly seems to care. There are exceptions: when my dad was a pastor he flatly refused to perform several wedding ceremonies, including ones that would result in an adulterous union as defined by Matthew 19. He would tell them, “I can’t marry you – you’re already married to someone else.”My current pastor is a generally very straight guy, but he has a few blind spots and this is one of them. I told him that he’s allowing open adultery to exist in the pews and even in the leadership by considering adulterous unions to be valid marriages. I see no way to read the words of Jesus in Matthew 19 without concluding that those women are married to other men in the eyes of God.I asked him a rhetorical question: “What if the former husband of one of the divorced-and-remarried women in the congregation came to you, pointed out the words of Jesus in Matthew 19, and demanded that you take action to have his wife return to him (like Hosea did with Gomer). His response was that the church’s stance was to “help the marriage that (currently) exists.” My response, of course, is that Jesus was very clear that the “current marriage” is not a marriage at all, or else Jesus would not have called it “adultery” – again, a very specific term for when a married woman has sex with someone who is not her husband.He wouldn’t agree to it – like I said, he’s a pretty straight guy with a blind spot. It’s a dangerous trend to tell people that they are legitimately married when God has unambiguously defined such relationships as being adulterous. It’s dangerous for the church leaders who accept “the current marriage” and will answer to God for calling adultery “marriage,” and for the couples themselves, who are committing adultery and being told they are not.
I answered to Lyn87 this comment
Lyn87. Sorry I did not make it clear.The reason she is forbidden to her husband comes from some verse about the Sota. I admt I forget the verse. But what comes out of that verse is כשם שהיא אסורה לבועל כך היא אסורה לבעל. Just like she is forbidden to the adulterer so is she forbidden to her husband. It is from a verse in numbers right I think right before the sacrifices of the princes of the tribes. It has nothing to do with her being forbidden to her first husband after being remarried to someone else. It is a totally different issue.
To Lyn 87: As for your quotes from the NT my feeling is that as Rav Yaakov Emden said that Jesus was being more strict than the Mosaic Law. That means in plain English that he was not defining Mosaic Law but rather being more strict. So People following Jesus would certainly not be allowed to remarry because of that statement of Jesus--but not because it is adultery, We find this often in the Old Testament of things not being desirable even though they might not be forbidden from the strict letter of the Law. That is around every mitzvah and every prohibition there is grey area. For example idolatry. Some things are straight forward idolatry and get the death penalty. No problem there. But other things like service not in its way but in a way of honor is forbidden but does not get the death penalty. [I think.]
