Hi Ken,

Thanks for your reply. I agree that Hesedken is one of the leading authorities (the most important of course being the Holy Scriptures) related to issues about Gods commands concerning marriage, fornication, adultery etc., which is precisely why I posted this here. It is a real situation which I described, not an hypothetical one.

Clearly from scripture if an unmarried man (one who has never taken the virginity of any woman previously) copulates with a non-virgin whose first partner is still living that would be adultery, otherwise it would be fornication. In such a case this man would still be marriageable before The Lord, since he had never taken the virginity of any woman, providing he truly repented of his sin. This sin can be forgiven by God if there is true repentance, and no repetition of this sin. However, the children referred to are not from this first incident of sin.

This man (legally unmarried) then married a woman who proved not to be a virgin, she having previously given her virginity to another man at her university whilst a student whom it happens was a rake and a lecher, before she became a believing Christian. However, in scripture and in the analyses on the Hesedken site she would still be joined in flesh, to that man who had taken her virginity, before The Lord, and not in fact married to her supposed legal husband? So my point was that she and her now supposed legal husband are not married before The Lord, but have been living in serial adultery? [I believe this is what Jesus referred to in Matthew 19, v 9. It may seem surprising at first sight that Jesus referred to "fornication" rather than "adultery", since the two were married. What I believe Jesus was referring to here was under the law of Moses, that where a wife was found by the husband not to be a virgin, having herself committed fornication before the marriage, the husband could immediately put her away, since she was not in fact marriageable.]

Therefore, and presumably from what you state in your post here you agree, they should now repent and separate. The woman cannot return to her original one flesh partner because he has adulterously married another, so she must remain celibate either until the man with whom she became one flesh dies or for the rest of her life? However the man, before The Lord, has never yet been married, but has now committed serial adultery it would seem. He must therefore now separate himself from this woman, although he is legally married to her. Presumably he should therefore divorce her legally also?

However, then it seems that if the man truly acknowledges his serial adultery with the woman as sin and repents, he may marry a virgin or a widow, without further committing adultery or fornication? He would still of course have the legally legitimate children resulting from this adulterous situation of supposed legal marriage.

The issue of any supposed miscegenation I believe must be considered completely separately. The whole issue is an extremely difficult one I believe now in the world today, particularly since there is hardly anyone left of any race which can be said to be completely pure and original, and possibly no-one at all. The outcome of Genesis Chapter 6 must be taken into account for a start. It is also a matter of great conjecture as to how the currently markedly different races (black, brown, red, yellow and white) came about, since all originated from Noah. For example the original European settlers that went to the Americas were not of pure stock. They were of much mixed blood, and no doubt with some of the blood of the original lost 11 tribes of Israel (Ephraim), taken into Assyrian captivity, who never returned to Israel. Since that there has been much more mixing of races generally to the point where now it is even difficult to recognize for example pure Caucasian stock. We all know that it is now possible due to past miscegenation for two supposedly Caucasian individuals to marry and suddenly they have a black baby, although they are both supposedly white!

So in any case I believe that it is extremely difficult to define what miscegenation in reality is today amongst believers. It is generally clear that for black and white or markedly different skin colored races to intermarry is not acceptable. Where two supposed Caucasians marry and produce a black baby however it is in reality the same situation; so would you state that in such a situation they should separate from a marriage in all other respects righteous before The Lord, as if it were serial fornication? I do not think that should be so.

With regard to Ezra Chapter 10 etc. these prohibitions referred to the intermarrying of Israel with non-Israelites. This was not so much a matter of race as a matter of belief and worship of God. In other words if a person of a different race, but broadly of the same stock, was a proselyte Israelite marriage was not prohibited, if in all other respects it was honorable before The Lord. For example, Moses married a Midianite woman, Zipporah. God never condemned him for this nor required him to separate himself from her. In fact we can see just how genuine his wife's obedience to God was in Genesis Chapter 4, v 24 to 27. It seems that Moses had neglected to circumcise his firstborn son. This had made God so angry that although He had instructed Moses to go back to Pharaoh He met him on the way to slay him. Yet Zipporah saved the day, since she recognized at once what the problem was and she herself circumcised their son with a sharp stone, and The Lord let them go. Thus she was obedient in belief and religious practice before God although a Midianite.

Solomon was condemned by God not so much because he took foreign wives but because they were non-believing foreign wives, who led him astray to their false gods. Then of course we have the example of Hosea, whom God commanded to take a whore as a wife, and to have children by her, subsequently serially joining to whores to demonstrate the whoredom of Israel.

In the New Testament it seems there is no prohibition of marrying relative to

…[Message Truncated]

View full message.