Difference between revisions of "Translations:Didn't the law under the Sinai Covenant allow divorce for any cause?/6/en"

Latest revision as of 02:00, 2 December 2020

Information about message (contribute)

This message has no documentation. If you know where or how this message is used, you can help other translators by adding documentation to this message.

Message definition (Didn't the law under the Sinai Covenant allow divorce for any cause?)

# Biblical marriage is a lifetime covenant, not a contract. It cannot be broken, except by a sinful act (like adultery) which is often serious enough to merit a death penalty (if witnessed and proven) under Biblical law.
# Biblical law nowhere requires a spouse who has their marriage covenant broken [by their spouse's fornication] to seek separation from that spouse. There can be forgiveness and reconciliation with a repentant spouse, and the broken marriage covenant thus can be restored.
# The act of giving a "writ of divorcement" (mentioned in Deut. 24:1) did not break the marriage covenant. It simply documented (legally) the claim of the husband that a covenant-breaking act had taken place. This protected the wife from future accusations of adultery from hard-hearted former husbands.
# The act of giving a "writ of divorcement" did not require the involvement of a civil judge. It could be done privately (e.g. Matt. 1:19).

# Biblical marriage is a lifetime covenant, not a contract. It cannot be broken, except by a sinful act (like adultery) which is often serious enough to merit a death penalty (if witnessed and proven) under Biblical law.
# Biblical law nowhere requires a spouse who has their marriage covenant broken [by their spouse's fornication] to seek separation from that spouse. There can be forgiveness and reconciliation with a repentant spouse, and the broken marriage covenant thus can be restored.
# The act of giving a "writ of divorcement" (mentioned in Deut. 24:1) did not break the marriage covenant. It simply documented (legally) the claim of the husband that a covenant-breaking act had taken place. This protected the wife from future accusations of adultery from hard-hearted former husbands.
# The act of giving a "writ of divorcement" did not require the involvement of a civil judge. It could be done privately (e.g. Matt. 1:19).

Translation# Biblical marriage is a lifetime covenant, not a contract. It cannot be broken, except by a sinful act (like adultery) which is often serious enough to merit a death penalty (if witnessed and proven) under Biblical law.
# Biblical law nowhere requires a spouse who has their marriage covenant broken [by their spouse's fornication] to seek separation from that spouse. There can be forgiveness and reconciliation with a repentant spouse, and the broken marriage covenant thus can be restored.
# The act of giving a "writ of divorcement" (mentioned in Deut. 24:1) did not break the marriage covenant. It simply documented (legally) the claim of the husband that a covenant-breaking act had taken place. This protected the wife from future accusations of adultery from hard-hearted former husbands.
# The act of giving a "writ of divorcement" did not require the involvement of a civil judge. It could be done privately (e.g. Matt. 1:19).

Biblical marriage is a lifetime covenant, not a contract. It cannot be broken, except by a sinful act (like adultery) which is often serious enough to merit a death penalty (if witnessed and proven) under Biblical law.
Biblical law nowhere requires a spouse who has their marriage covenant broken [by their spouse's fornication] to seek separation from that spouse. There can be forgiveness and reconciliation with a repentant spouse, and the broken marriage covenant thus can be restored.
The act of giving a "writ of divorcement" (mentioned in Deut. 24:1) did not break the marriage covenant. It simply documented (legally) the claim of the husband that a covenant-breaking act had taken place. This protected the wife from future accusations of adultery from hard-hearted former husbands.
The act of giving a "writ of divorcement" did not require the involvement of a civil judge. It could be done privately (e.g. Matt. 1:19).