Comment/question
The Mark 10 account is a repeat of Matthew 19 account. For whatever
reasons the exception was not recorded in Mark but clearly exists in
Matthew. We cannot excuse away these verses in Mat 5 and Mat 19 merely
by wishing them away. It is clear that the other verses that do not
mention adultery are the general case and the Matthew verses give
specifics.
Response
Yes, in Mark 10 Jesus speaks to His disciples IN PRIVATE........no mention
of the ability to marry another after a divorce. I agree that Mt. gives
an "allowance", but how you interpret that allowance doesn't "expand"
the other teachings, your interpretation contradicts the clearer
passages. Those clearer passages show a marriage BINDING even in the
face of adultery (
Comment/question
When the marriage covenant is abandoned by even one spouse, it is broken
and dissolved.
Response
Again, your viewpoint is disproven by Scripture. As is shown even in the
Matthew 19:9 passage, the INNOCENTLY put away spouse is NOT
FREE............the "bond" is NOT dissolved---even though the other has
married again. If the bond were dissolved, then the "left" one would be
free to marry another. We see the same teaching in Romans
7:2-3............even if a woman DOES marry another (making her an
adulteress), she will not be free from the bond of marriage until her
1st husband dies.................THEN, and only then, will she be 'free'
to marry another. Paul never, in ANY of his writings/teachings, says
that divorce or adultery DISSOLVES the "one flesh" that endures until
death----quite the opposite.
Comment/question
KJV) 9And 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.
In this case - if she has been appropriately put away - she was
unfaithful. Otherwise, the man is in adultery because he divorced her
frivolously.
Response
You still don't really address the divorced woman and the man who
marries her. Jesus says that whosoever marries this divorced woman
commits adultery (even though the husband is married to another). Are
you saying that the guilty woman is still BOUND to her husband and
unable to marry another?
Comment/question
Please don't misquote the Bible.
And please get an English primer and understand the use of semicolons
and compound sentences.
This is not a personal attack. This is an observation on all the quoting
of scriptures where you have ignored the connection of the semicolon to
join the compound sentence and that the woman in the first part was the
woman in the second part.
Response
I quoted Matthew 5:32 in that way to show that the woman Jesus is speaking about
who is put away, is INNOCENT. The husband is charged with CAUSING her to
commit adultery. If, as you believe, a woman is rightly discharged for
adultery, and taking what you say in many other threads that the
marriage is now dissolved, how then can she be charged with adultery
(and the next husband) for marrying her?
If a
man puts away his wife FOR Porneia, then he ISN'T guilty of causing her
to commit adultery..............she is already guilty of that.
As to
your problem with the semicolon and the verses I give, they are straight
off of Crosswalk.com and other websites in which I found some of the
other translations. They are correctly posted.
Comment/question
If he divorces his wife for immorality/adultery and marries again he
does NOT commit adultery. This is a clear indication that divorce for
immorality/adultery is not only allowed, but it indeed dissolves the
covenant of marriage because there is the clear evidence that you can
marry again without being in sin.
Now
in the second part of the verse, the closing part of the compound
thought, Jesus identifies the woman as the one who was "put away" from
the first part. The first part was a woman put away (i.e. divorced) for
immorality/adultery. So if you marry this woman divorced for immorality,
you too commit adultery.
Response
How can a marriage be dissolved, but the wife charged with adultery
AGAIN and the man who marries her charged with ADULTERY???
Comment/question
The marriage can be dissolved legally for the immorality of the wife.
The
wife, as unrepentant after the dissolution, causes a subsequent husband
to be charged with immorality as well because she is in sin and he
willingly binds himself to an unrepentant sinner.
Don't
quibble over the word adultery or immorality or lewdness. Those
differences are modern things. Jesus considered it immorality.
Response
Your reasoning of the Word makes absolutely no sense. If a marriage IS
DISSOLVED, it is dissolved. There are no more ties to the previous
partner. You say that a woman who is "put away" for adultery has left
the marriage covenant, therefore the divorce of her dissolves the union.
Then in the same breath you say that this same woman commits adultery
AFTER she is no longer joined to anyone?? I don't think that's handling
God's Word in a consistent way..........
Comment/question
It is also problematic for you given that Jesus called marriage to an
immoral person, immoral, and NOT adultery. Jesus NEVER said marrying the
innocent spouse caused adultery. Jesus said that marrying the immoral
person (i.e. that committed adultery) knowingly, caused them to be
immoral also. You use a post-modern concept for adultery, and not Jesus'
definition, which was sexual immorality, and indeed, immorality carried
further, as Jesus Himself described when He declared lustful thoughts to
be immorality (also translated as adultery).
Response
So, what you are saying is that if someone commits adultery, are
divorced by their spouse, repent of their adultery, they are STILL
considered an immoral person, therefore whoever marries them next, is
now immoral too? How do you justify this belief based upon the message
of Grace?
Jesus
DID say the "third party" is guilty of adultery (#3429, Moichao---adultery).
The Greek word is not "immorality", it is defined by Strong's as:
adultery. Jesus charges the "third party" with committing adultery. The
definition of adultery has ALWAYS been: unlawful relations with
another's spouse. You continue to have a problem showing scripturally
how it is that one can commit adultery if the previous marriage is
dissolved by a divorce.............
Comment/question
Is this true even for the person who was not in adultery (the one left
behind) and did not want the divorce, i.e. when a supposed "believer"
divorces another believer for a non-Biblical reason?
Response
I think Matthew 19:9 addresses this: the "innocent" woman is NOT free to
remarry and a person is NOT free to marry her without committing
adultery. Some want to twist and turn this passage into something it is
not, but the fact remains Jesus NEVER allowed for the innocently
divorced woman to remarry----even when her own husband is now committing
adultery through a remarriage. He addresses the case where her husband
does NOT marry again (Matthew 5:32) AND the case where a husband DOES marry
again (Matthew 19:9). In both cases the woman would commit adultery if she
remarries, as would the man who marries her.
Paul
shows that adultery does not free one from a marriage bond in Romans
7:2-3. In this case a woman has remarried (committed adultery), yet her
1st marriage is still in tact---in God's eyes, until her 1st spouse
dies.
With
that in mind, when we go back to the supposed "allowance" of Mt. 19:9 we
see some problems with translating it in such a way. For one, the
allowance was for "porneia----unchastity, fornication", not adultery. As
some of the other posters have said, I believe that allowance has to do
with unchastity before the wedding bed. In OT Jewish times the betrothal
period was binding and only a writ of divorcement could get one out of
the "marriage"............see Matthew 1:18-24. That is what Joseph was going
to "put away" Mary for---unchastity. None of the other gospels even hint
at an allowance.
Interesting to note that the other gospels were not directed towards
Jewish audiences, but to Gentiles, who had no such betrothal custom.
Married was married.
That
is a rendering which does not conflict with Paul's teachings in Romans
7:2-3. There is however another rendering of Matthew 19:9 which allows a
divorce/separation, but not a remarriage. In that interpretation, say
the husband wrongly puts away his wife (not for fornication). He marries
another (commits adultery). What does Jesus say about the innocent one
who was wrongly put away? She is prohibited from remarriage----EVEN
though her husband is in adultery (a remarriage)? In that case also,
adultery does not free one to remarry without them also committing sin
before God
Comment/question
Scripture says woman.
You've added "no one"...
Men/women were treated differently in both the NT/OT......
Response
I Corinthians 7:10-11 speaks of this as well. Paul does say a "woman" must
remain UNMARRIED or be reconciled. He also says a man is not to divorce
his wife.
Do
you then think because Paul only references women when giving the
command they must remain UNMARRIED or reconcile..........that this only
pertains to women staying UNMARRIED after a divorce? I know there are
some out there who teach a man can get remarried while his wife still
lives, but a wife cannot. Are you of that camp? If so, what do you make
of Mark 10 where Jesus addresses a woman divorcing her husband (showing
that it was not just MEN who were doing the divorcing)?
Comment/question
But Fornication is Adultery
Response
Concerning fornication, some people here seem to use that term for
adultery interchangeably when scripture does not appear to. Fornication
can encompass adultery, but in the Matthew 19:9 both words are used, not
just one. Usually when we see fornication (porneia) used in scripture,
it relates exclusively to UNMARRIED sexual sin. Matthew 19:9 teaches that
someone guilty of Fornication (unchastity) can be 'put away'. That was
exactly what Joseph was going to do to Mary IN THE BETROTHAL period. He
didn't want her stoned---he was a JUST man.
It
does make perfect sense that the book of Matthew is the only one which
contains this "allowance"----because the audience was Jew. Mark and Luke
were directed at Gentiles who had no such betrothal custom. When they
were married, they were married----there was no year before they "came
together" as husband and wife. That may also explain since Paul was an
Apostle to the Gentiles, why he NEVER gave an allowance for remarriage
due to adultery. The Gospels aimed at a Gentile audience never gave an
allowance. ANY remarriage was considered adultery because the previous
marriage was still intact----to God. This is why Paul used the
permanency of marriage as an illustration in Romans 7:2-3. In that
illustration we have a woman in adultery----she remarried. What does
Paul say? He tells his Roman readers that this woman will still be
married to her first husband until he dies.............He didn't
say.........until he divorces her for her unfaithfulness.......until the
first husband doesn't want her anymore, etc......there were no
conditions given. If there were other conditions, Paul's analogy
wouldn't have made any sense to the hearers.........
If
freedom from the marriage bond is attained in other ways besides death,
then in the same breath there are other ways besides Christ to escape
the penalty of the law..................Paul used the perfect example
that death gives freedom from the marriage bond.........as Christ gives
freedom from the law of death...........
Comment/Question
And just like with Herod and Herodias, she was BOUND by the law as long
has he lives. What would break that bond? Adultery. Something serious
like defiling the marriage bed.
Wives
in the New Covenant are BOUND to their husband all his days.
EXCEPT for defiling the marriage bed.
She
is no longer his wife if she commits adultery and he puts her away as
Jesus permitted.
If
say they just separated or even divorced, but neither of them cheated,
then they legally would be married in Gods eyes.
God doesn't permit frivolous divorce.
Response
The problem you have which you cannot explain away is that Paul does
indeed show a woman who has committed adultery (remarriage), yet she has
not been freed from the marriage bond. She has defiled the marriage bed.
However, she remains married to her first husband until he dies----Paul
doesn't say "until your lawful husband divorces you". No, he says 'until
he dies'. As I said in a prior post, in Romans 7:2-3 Paul is not just
randomly without purpose using the word "law" in relation to marriage,
he uses it again in I Corinthians 7:39----in both cases he is speaking to
Gentiles who are not under the Mosaic law---so this law must be
something different---a law which pertains to all of mankind---something
binding.
Comment/Question
God, Jesus, made known God's will for marriage that His will in both
cases hadn't changed. It is God's desire that marriage is for life. It
is His mercy that allows divorce because of the hard heartedness of
mankind. And Jesus clearly gives an exception clause for adultery.
Response
The only thing we do know for sure that Jesus allowed a separation of a
wife due to her PORNEIA (what that word means is debatable). What is
also debated is whether Jesus gave an allowance for remarriage. What is
clear is that an innocent wife commits adultery if she marries
another----as would the man who marries her, even if the woman's lawful
husband remarried(commits adultery) (Matthew 5:32, 19:9).
As
for His mercy that allows for divorce, do you also believe that mercy
applies to remarriage? If so, could you share any NT passages in which
we see that His mercy changes what He has called adultery into a lawful
relationship, joined by Him as "one flesh"?
Comment/Question
Hummm, you asked me something I have never given much thought or study
too. I for some reason always took it in my mind that the guilty would
probably "continue" to go on in their sin. I believe that scripture
teaches, that when we enter into a marriage it is "until death do we
part".
I
believe that God in his mercy does allow the "innocent" party to go free
but I believe the guilty party is very guilty if they don't try to
reunite with their spouse. They are simply guilty.
I
"do" know that divorce and remarriage is not the unforgivable sin. But I
don't know that we can "undo" what we have done. I can't find scripture
to show me that we can?
Response
I am a bit confused on your stance. Maybe you can clarify it for me. You
say in the first part that marriage is til death------then you say you
believe that adultery allows a spouse to be free of the marriage. Do you
believe marriage is til death or til someone commits adultery and a
divorce takes place? Do you believe this freedom grants a right to
remarry, or do you believe that a spouse is "free" in the sense of I
Corinthians 7:10-11 (remain UNMARRIED or be reconciled)?
One
of the reformers (Luther) believed that once a spouse committed
adultery, they were "dead"(per OT practice, yet in a "spiritual sense")
and the "innocent" one was free to remarry. As to whether the guilty one
could remarry, he said he thought it ok, for since they were destined
for hell, they might as well have as happy a life here as
possible...."oh My!!" was all I could think when I read that!!! Surely
that type of mindset works in opposition to the Lord's who, when put in
a position to condemn an adulteress, refused to do so, but instead
applied His mercy to her and said "go and sin no more". In other words,
there was repentance available as well as restoration. Not so in the OT.
We see this 'picture' in Hosea. There was repentance after adultery and
then restoration of the marriage.
Personally, I don't think it's God's "mercy" that allows a divorce to
occur in the case of adultery. I think it's God's GRACE that gives the
offended the ability to forgive and then stand in the gap for their
erring spouse-----no matter how long it takes. Just my view.
Comment/Question
Matthew 19:9 9 And I tell you, whoever divorces his wife, except for
sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery."
I
take this to mean that the innocent party if free from the marriage as
if the other was dead. Yes, I believe God allows that person to remarry.
(I need to look up 1 Cor. 7:10-11 before I respond to that - I would
hate to discuss another passage by mistake
Response
You believe God, in His mercy, allows us to divorce the offender----as
if they are dead? That does not sound like NT Christianity as taught by
Jesus and I believe that rendering of the exception clause conflicts
with the rest of Matthew 19:9----"and whosoever marries her that is put away
commits adultery".
In
the above verse, the put away woman is the INNOCENT woman whose husband
has remarried (committed adultery). We see Jesus saying, that SHE is NOT
free to remarry----even though her husband has remarried. For those who
believe the woman is the GUILTY woman (the innocent is free to marry
after adultery, but not the guilty), then this answer needs to be given:
if the marriage is DISSOLVED in God's sight due to the adultery,
allowing the "innocent" to remarry, then why is the "guilty" forbidden
to remarry? The "bond" is dissolved, right? Does not the Lord forgive
those who have sinned and repented? Why must the guilty remain alone the
rest of their lives if their previous marriage bond is dissolved?
Comment/Question
This deals with unequally yoked believers. I do not see "permission" to
remarry here like I do in the passage where Jesus said "except for
adultery". Especially when I begin reading from the "top" of the chapter
down. Our focus is to be on bring the lost or straying spouse to Christ
not what we believe will give us personal happiness. "Seek ye FIRST the
Death
or adultery are the only reasons I find in scripture that God dissolves
the "one flesh" so that the innocent party is free to remarry and not be
in sin.
What
God has joined together let no man put asunder......to me that mean that
I "must" follow God's instructions otherwise I am violating this
command.
Response
I agree with you in that I don't see any permission to remarry given to
the believer of I Corinthians 7:15.............and the reason you give, I
completely agree with..........however, I don't understand how you can
believe that adultery gives the right to remarry, if your mindset is
this: "Our focus is to be on bringing the lost or straying spouse to
Christ not what we believe will give us personal happiness. "Seek ye
FIRST the
Don't
you think that adultery can be repented of(like Hosea and Gomer) and a
marriage restored to a place of incredible blessing?
Concerning adultery and a divorce taking place because of
it...........what do you make of Romans 7:2-3? In that passage Paul shows
a woman who remarries (commits adultery), yet he tells that only the
death of HER HUSBAND will dissolve their "bond". In that very passage we
see that neither adultery (within a marriage) nor adultery (through a
remarriage) will dissolve a marriage bond----only death
will..............and that explains what Jesus spoke in Mt. 19:9
concerning the "put away" woman. She cannot marry again because she is
still bound to her husband----even though he is remarried(committing
adultery).
Comment/question
9 "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality,
and marries another woman commits adultery."
Jesus
was speaking to limit divorce to the reason of porneia, and that the
marriage after the unjust divorce was adultery. I do not see prohibition
of remarriage for the innocent spouse, but rather in this text, He is
speaking of the hard-hearted spouse and divorce/remarriage for "any"
reason.
Looking at Jesus' words in context.
Response
Where is the second part of Matthew 19:9? .............."and whosoever
marries her that is put away commits adultery".............
Jesus
very clearly did address the "innocent" woman and she was NOT free to
remarry. Whoever takes her to wife is guilty of adultery (because she is
not free to marry).
Comment/question
Matthew 19:9 Jesus speaking:And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away
his wife and shall marry another, except it be for fornication [porneia],
committeth adultery:..
A man
whose spouse committed porneia can divorce her and remarry. This is what
Matt 19:9 says... yes?
Response
There are varying ideas on what the exact meaning of Matthew 19:9 is. What
we do know is that it is the ONLY exception ever mentioned in NT
teachings on divorce/remarriage........and we know that this was written
to a Jewish audience who had binding betrothals. The other two gospels
(Mark 10, Luke 16), which give NO exception for divorce, was spoken to
Gentile believers (Greeks and Romans). They had no such binding
betrothal custom.
Personally, I lean towards the opinion that the "porneia" has to do with
fornication PRIOR to the marriage bed as we see in Matthew 1:18-24. Joseph
thought to put Mary away BEFORE she even left her father's house to
become His wife. She was called his wife prior to that betrothal
custom), but she had not left her parents yet and had not been joined to
him. In a case where the man did not want to marry his betrothed, a
certificate of divorce needed to be given, because lawfully, though the
"marriage" had not yet been consummated, they were husband and wife.
There's another thing I have pondered lately too and that's that Jesus
only allowed for UNLAWFUL marriages to be forsaken: adulterous,
incestuous, homosexual, etc----all those marriages which God does NOT
join.
In
either case, I do not believe that Jesus was allowing for divorce AND
remarriage due to unrepentant adultery by a LAWFUL spouse. The reason I
don't believe this has to do with what Paul teaches in
In
Comment/question
I do not wish to get into a translation debate, but it needs to be noted
that not all translations have the last phrase.
Response
Most do contain that last part in Matthew 19:9.......and that last part
agrees with Matthew 5:32.
Comment/question
This argument keeps "stumbling" over the Word Jesus said - the exception
clause. You can't get past it, because it is there. And ordinary folk
who do not have Master's Degrees read it and accept it as Jesus said it.
They then "trust in Him" and the same word says "They will never be put
to shame."
Response
Rules of interpretation apply here. Never do we take one UNCLEAR passage
and allow it to interpret all the other passages which ARE very clear.
Never do we take one unclear passage and allow it to clearly contradict
the clearer passages in scripture. That is what people are doing with
Matthew 19:9. Mark 10:12 is VERY clear that ALL remarriages after a divorce
are adultery. Luke is very clear that ALL remarriages after a divorce are
adultery. Paul is very clear that adultery does not dissolve a marriage
(
Never
in Paul's whole discourse on marriage do we see him indicating that
divorce dissolves a lawful marriage, that desertion dissolves a lawful
marriage, or that another marriage contracted while one already has a
living spouse dissolves a lawful marriage. So now we have multitudes
resting in the hopes that they are rightly interpreting Matthew 19:9---the
one UNCLEAR passage, otherwise if the clearer passages really DO MEAN
what they are saying, there are a whole lot of people living in a state
of adultery----most of them completely ignorant to what the Lord has
said on the matter. It's a scary thing to rest one's hope on one passage
of scripture........
Comment/question
IF, in Matthew 19 she is put away as you say, WITHOUT ADULTERY, it is
THE SAME as in Romans 7. Neither of them are free to remarry without it
being adultery, in that situation.
Response
Yes, Jesus says the husband is guilty of adultery through remarriage
and............in the same breath explains that whosoever(the second
husband) marries her that is put away(innocently) commits adultery. If
the "innocent" wife was free to remarry again due to her husband's
adultery (remarriage), why would the man who marries her be charged with
adultery?
Do
you see this in terms of the "whens" of the divorce as affecting which
innocent party can remarry or which cannot? ex: man commits adultery
within the marriage---the INNOCENT files for divorce and can get
married. You believe that type of divorce/remarriage is ok, right?
Jesus' example is that the GUILTY files for divorce---committing
adultery through remarriage. The "innocent" in His scenario cannot marry
lawfully without the sin of adultery occurring.
Just
for the record again: I do not believe "porneia" is adultery within a
lawful marriage and that is why I think you are having trouble
understanding how I see this. I believe 'porneia' can refer to two
different things: one, in regards to betrothal marriage (Matthew 1:18-24).
Secondly, it can refer to illicit marital relationships that the Lord
DOES allow to be put away because He never joined them together to begin
with: adulterous marriages(one married another's spouse), homosexual
marriages, incestual marriages.
Comment/question
You cannot get around the fact that Jesus says in Matthew 5 & 19 that
divorce is a sanctioned option if your spouse commits sexual sin.
Response
I don't read Matthew 19:9 as you seem to. I do not read Matthew 19:9 as a
permission to dissolve a marriage joined by God due to sexual sin WITHIN
the marriage. I see this passage as possibly pertaining to two
scenarios: first, Jesus is speaking about fornication(pre-marital sexual
relations, Matthew 1:18-24) OR Jesus is speaking about putting away those
marriages which are NOT joined by Him, therefore unlawful unions in His
sight (adulterous remarriage, homosexual marriage, and incestual
marriage). There is no evidence that God joins ANY of those type
relationships, nor will ever. That also takes care of the
"hard-heartedness" issue.
See,
with your scenario reconciliation is situational.............meaning
some cannot get over it, thus reconcile with their lawful spouse (in my
viewpoint this is hardheartedness), while others do exactly that
(forgive and reconcile, if reconciliation is possible----this I view as
not being hardhearted). Some even wait/pray/love while their partner is
continuing in sin..........as Hosea did. One group can be viewed as
"hard-hearted" because they refuse to wait for repentance, pray for
repentance, and long for the relationship which God joined together.
Instead, they MOVE ON because their flesh wants to. You may say, "well,
I don't view it as hard-hearted because many have forgiven and moved
on", yet why is there a difference in people's reactions to sin against
them and the marriage covenant? Can both situations be God ordained? I
don't believe so as I don't' believe God is a God of situational ethics
when it comes to morality, faithfulness, and covenant keeping. I believe
ALL of us are held to the same standard and where standards deviate,
flesh is involved.
Comment/question
If someone leaves their wife or husband for wrong (sinful) reason ...
their marriage bond is still intact before God ... Adultery, death and
an unbelieving spouse leaving a believer are the only things that break
the marriage bond.
Response
You say adultery breaks the marriage bond, yet we see that remarriage
adultery does not (herod/herodias). Why is it you believe that
extramarital adultery breaks a marriage bond, but remarriage adultery
does not? That is a very confusing stance to me and one I think you
would have an impossible time proving with scripture.
Comment/question
Once adultery has occurred the marriage bond is broken and ... hopefully
the marriage can still be worked on and salvaged ... but divorce is an
option at that point.
Response
I'm still really confused on what you consider a broken bond? Is the
marriage dissolved, injured, what? I think Romans 7:2-3 shows that the
marriage bond is NOT broken by adultery (extramarital OR remarriage
adultery). Only death dissolves that bond and frees one to join another
person without sinning.
Comment/question
if adultery happens the innocent spouse has the option of divorce not
the guilty one.
Response
So, if the innocent one stands for the restoration of their marriage, is
their marriage dissolved or not if the guilty one divorces the innocent
and gets married to a different person? In other words, the innocent
determines whether the guilty STAYS in a sinful state or is released and
is able to "move on" with another person? Do you really believe the Lord
gives us that power?
Comment/question
In all cases, the divorced woman was divorced because she had been
unfaithful - She was NOT an innocent spouse.
Response
How so? If we go back to Matthew 5:32, we can see the woman put away is NOT
the guilty, but the INNOCENT..........and whoever marries her is guilty
of adultery, as is the woman and the 1st husband for CAUSING her to
commit adultery by wrongly divorcing her.
Here
are many more translations which contain the LAST part of Matthew 19:9 which
you did not post (with the exception of KJV):
American Standard Version (ASV)
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for
fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that
marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery.
2.
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
9`And I say to you, that, whoever may put away his wife, if not for
whoredom, and may marry another, doth commit adultery; and he who did
marry her that hath been put away, doth commit adultery.'
3.
Darby Translation (DARBY)
9But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, not for
fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery; and he who
marries one put away commits adultery.
4.
Amplified Bible (AMP)
9I say to you: whoever dismisses (repudiates, divorces) his wife, except
for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery, [a]and he who
marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
5.
New Life Version (NLV)
9And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sex sins, and
marries another, is guilty of sex sins in marriage. Whoever marries her
that is divorced is guilty of sex sins in marriage.'
6.
King James Version (KJV)
9And 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.
7.
New King James Version (NKJV)
9And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual
immorality,[a] and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever
marries her who is divorced commits adultery."
8.
21st Century King James Version (KJ21)
9And 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 who is put away doth commit adultery."
9.
Worldwide English (New Testament) (WE)
9But I tell you this. No man may send his wife away unless she has
committed adultery. If he does, and if he marries another woman, he
commits adultery. And if a man marries a woman who has been sent away by
her husband, he commits adultery.'
10.
English: Douay-Rheims Version Matthew 19
9. And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it
be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he
that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.
11.
English: Webster's Bible Matthew 19
9. And I say to you, Whoever shall put away his wife, except for
lewdness, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoever
marrieth her who is put away, committeth adultery.
12.
Hebrew Names Version of World English Bible
9 I
tell you that whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality,
and marries another, commits adultery; and he who marries her when she
is divorced commits adultery."
13.
Wycliffe 1385 NT
9 And Y seie to you, that who euer leeueth his wijf, but for
fornycacioun, and weddith another, doith letcherie; and he that weddith
the forsakun wijf, doith letcherie.
Comment/question
it is CLEAR as CRSTAL that CHRIST did ALLOW for Divorce.... MATT 19:9.
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. and did not call
those or imply they were Sinners if they could not accept what the last
part of his response...
All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
12. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's
womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and
there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of
heaven's sake. (like Paul... not everyone has this gift) He that is able
to receive it, let him receive it. He DID NOT IMPLY THEY ARE SINNERS IF
unable to live as EUNUCHS!
Careful now. Don't call folks SINNERS, where its not explicitly
so????????????
Response
Do you honestly believe that Jesus was giving permission for weak
flesh-----giving permission to sin because of the flesh?
I
believe (name deleted) is correct in his understanding of that passage.
In Jesus' day there were two dominant trains of thought on
divorce----one was only allowable due to adultery (though truly in the
OT the guilty were stoned to death, not divorced). The other camp
believed in divorce for any cause. Some of Jesus' followers had been
followers of John the Baptist----who charged Herodias and Herod with
sin. Herod and Herodias had divorced their covenant spouses to marry
each other, yet John said that Herodias was PHILIP's Wife. Their
divorces and subsequent remarriage(adultery) did not dissolve their
previous marriages. Obviously, John had a VERY strict stance on
divorce/remarriage. Those who followed him probably were of the same
mindset. When Jesus gave this supposed "exception"..........the
disciples were not of the "liberal" mindset. They knew for adultery a
man could marry again, for his adulterous wife would be dead---freeing
him, so they could not have viewed this as an exception in the case of
adultery.
What
Jesus proposed was SHOCKING to them---something different. This was
because there was NO allowance for divorce/remarriage after they were
married. He brought marriage back to the creation intent. No
hardheartedness was permissible any more. This rendering does not
contradict Romans 7:2-3 (which shows that neither adultery nor a
remarriage will dissolve a previous marriage), nor I Corinthians 7:39 which
also reaffirms the permanency of an original marriage until the death of
one of the spouses.
Comment/question
Keep in mind that remarriage comes into play because if you are divorced
on biblical grounds, as (name deleted) mentioned, the divorce dissolves
the marriage bond.
I
don't see how you can say you are upholding the Word of God and yet
continue to say that divorce and remarriage are prohibited. So now here
is my yes/no question. Do you believe a Christian can get divorced if
scriptural grounds are present and be remarried? Yes or No.
Response
I believe the only "biblical" grounds of divorce are 'porneia'............that's
it. What is 'porneia'..........that is the question, isn't it? We have
gone round and round on that one (name deleted)-----all through this
thread. Porneia can mean two different things to me----both based upon
scripture---it either means fornication prior to marriage during the
betrothal period(Matthew 1:18-24) or it means the putting away of an
UNLAWFUL relationship (Herod and Herodias---Philip's wife). If one is in
an unlawful relationship (adulterous, homosexual, incestual, etc), then
it is not a "marriage" in the eyes of God anyways---it is sin.
When
one looks at Romans 7:2-3 and I Corinthians 7:39, one will see that marriage is
spoken of as lifelong----even adultery does not dissolve the bond of
marriage as seen in Rom. 7:2-3----nor does a remarriage nullify a
previous one. Paul calls the one involved in such, "an adulteress". This
great preacher of God's grace does not appear to label such a sin as a
"one time offense"---happening only at the point of entry into a new
marriage. It appears from the text that Paul is saying that she shall be
called an adulteress as long as her husband LIVES---not until he
divorces her, not until she confesses her sin. Death ends the marriage
allowing for a remarriage to take place.
I
have seen how many insist that 'porneia' means adultery within a
marriage, yet when they are asked about the significance of Rom. 7:2-3
and I Cor. 7:39, they are glossed over as not really relating or that
Paul is using a "faulty" analogy. I contend that Paul's analogy is
PERFECT. DEATH is the ONLY thing which dissolves a marriage joined by
God and DEATH to the law is the only thing that allows us to be married
to Christ. If divorce, adultery, remarriage, or desertion dissolved
marriages, then Paul's analogy to the Christians in
Comment/question
(name deleted) has already explained this scripture.
I
Cor. 7:39 - (name deleted) has already explained this scripture. I
concur with the explanations of both these passages.
Response
I didn't ask you for (name deleted)
understanding of the passage. I am hopeful that he has studied this out
for himself by reading the Word and praying on it. Have you--- and can
you explain this for yourself without going to commentaries? If you are
unable to quote and expound the Word of God on this, how can you be
confident that you are correct in your views?
I have posted no commentaries, have I? I have prayed, studied (the Word
with a concordance).........and after coming to the view I now hold went
back to the ECF's teachings on divorce and remarriage to see what they
taught. What I found was that they overwhelmingly saw and taught that
marriage was lifelong---even if one partner committed
adultery.........and that if the "innocent" was to marry while the other
was still living, they too would be found guilty of adultery.
If you are interested in what the Church taught prior to the inception
of the Roman Catholic Church, you should read the writings of the Early
Church Fathers. You will see how far we have come from the early
teachings/practices of the Church. If you want a good link to the site
which contains these historical writings, I will be glad to provide it
to you.
Comment/question
Side Note - Since there is great room for
doubt how can you be sure that when someone says there are other
grounds, they are not right? You yourself cannot even clearly define
Porneia because the only information you have to go on is what has
already been written long ago and even the biblical scholars are not in
agreement.
Response
As I said, I did not post any commentaries.
The examples I gave you came right from scripture (Joseph/Mary,
Herod/Herodias). Joseph was going to put Mary away (divorce her). They
were betrothed to each other, not married yet. She was still in her
father's house.
John labeled Herodias as Philip's wife, not Herod's wife. He
acknowledged that she did not belong to Herod----in spite of a marriage.
The previous marriage was intact.
There is not great room for doubt for me. It is clear that Jesus was not
talking about adultery in Matthew 19:9 in reference to the "exception"
clause. If he were, then there would be a great contradiction in what
Paul preached. We know that when there is a seeming contradiction,
either we don't have all the facts or we are taking one or more passages
out of their intended context. If you believe I am taking Romans 7:2-3 out
of context, can you explain to me why you believe Paul used a faulty
analogy?
Comment/question
Surely your not trying to say that because the
early church fathers seem to agree with your view that they were
absolutely correct? They were men just like you and I and were subject
to error as well. If you choose to use the writings of the ecc's to
support your stand, then everyone else is entitled to use commentaries
and any other reference material to study the Bible with.
Response
The thing is (name deleted), I don't use
anything to "support" my beliefs outside of scripture. I merely stated
that AFTER I had studied quite in-depth and came to my present
understanding, I found out my understanding lined up with the teachings
of the early church. For me, it was affirmation that what I was seeing
was what the early church taught as well. I am not holding to
"unorthodox" views, except by today's standards.
I'm not against commentaries per se, but one should not rely upon them
to interpret scripture. The Holy Spirit and the Word is all one really
needs.
Comment/question
You are mistaken in this because Joseph would
have had to appear to a court in order to put Mary away because a
betrothal could only be dissolved by divorce. While they had not had the
formal ceremony, if you will. Their status was the same as if they were
"married".
Response
That's what I just said, (name deleted).
Joseph was going to dissolve his betrothal through divorce---a private
one, not public. Those who are adamant about Matthew 19:9 not being about
pre-marital relations prior during the betrothal period are ignoring
scripture which shows this practice. (Matthew 1:18-24).
Comment/question
"Everyone who divorces his wife and marries
another commits adultery..."(Luke 16:18). It seems to me that there is
only one way to interpret that statement.
Or "For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is
living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning
the husband. So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to
another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies,
she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is
joined to another man." (Romans 7:2-3)
Or "But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that
the wife should not leave her husband (but if she does leave, she must
remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the
husband should not divorce his wife." (I Corinthians 7:10-11)
These statements among many others are extremely straightforward and can
only be interpreted in one way. The question therefore is not how one
interprets but whether they can accept God's statements or not.
Response
Absolutely.......the only supposed
"contradictions" can be easily explained when one studies scripture
further and does comparisons. It's interesting to me as I've said
before, that the early church had no raging debate on this issue. There
were extremely outspoken defenders of the faith and exposes or false
doctrines/practices in the early church, yet we see NOTHING written in
regards to the disputed practices then. They believed and practiced
lifelong covenant marriage---even if there was adultery in the marriage,
they did not believe that entitled them to marry again---until their
spouse died.
Now, it seems that the supposed "adultery" clause is used all the time
to justify not only divorce, but remarriages that the Word of God calls
adultery. If we are to examine ourselves in comparison to the early
church's practices in marriage, would you say that we are MORE like the
Pharisee of Jesus' day (trying to find "outs" in their marriages) or
were the early church believers more like the Pharisees? I think the
answer to that is very clear if one is to look around them and read the Barna polls on Christian marriage.
Comment/question
The innocent wife is guilty of sin.
I'm amazed you cannot see injustice in this. What sin did she commit if
her husband left her for another woman? How in the world is a woman
guilty of adultery if she is innocently put away? Her husband divorcing
her does not make her guilty!
Response
Again, it was not I who stated Matthew 5:31-32, but it was the Lord Himself.
If you think His assessment/judgment is unjust, I cannot change your
view on that. He says, one who is "innocent" of an action wrongly taken
against them, CAN later be guilty of responding inappropriately to the
sin committed against them. The third parties in such marital unions
will also find themselves guilty as well. The (innocent) become guilty
by their response to the sin against them. We who call ourselves by His
name must be careful not to throw aside His commands , instead doing
"what is right in our own sight". We cannot be trusted to "discern" the
course of action in what we deem to be unjust, but must rather rely upon
the Lord's assessments/judgments, knowing that even if we suffer for
doing what's right in His sight in the here and now, there is great
reward, eternally and much fruit for the kingdom will result in our
obedience...............
Comment/question
It is very obvious that Jesus made the case that adultery breaks the
marriage bond. The innocent spouse is free to remarry.
Response
What do you make of Hosea and Gomer then?
Comment/question
Porneia was used because the Lord intended that the hearers and readers
would understand that any sex sin outside of the marriage by an
offending spouse would break the bond of marriage, not just sexual
intercourse with someone who is married, but any sexual defiance outside
of your marriage partner.
As
far as Marry and Joseph. The betrothal (engagement) was a far more
binding contract than it is today in western societies. If a woman was
engaged to a man and had sex with another man it was tantamount to
having sex with another man when she was married.
Response
Do you wonder why the "exception" is not found in other passages? You do
know that the gospel of Matthew's audience was Jewish and the other two
Gospel teachings (Mark and Luke) were to Gentiles? The Gentiles had no
such custom as betrothal (which was a binding agreement to Jews), so
they would not have understood the Mary/Joseph situation and that a
"divorce" can take place BEFORE the actual wedding should the bride be
found to have fornicated.
Here's another thought concerning porneia----not only can it be relating
to premarital relations, but it also can be used in reference to illicit
marriages/unions (adulterous, homosexual, incestual). It is thought by
some that no only was Herodias another man's wife (she committed
adultery by marrying Herod), but that she was also committing incest by
marrying her uncle (though Philip was her uncle as well). Notice when
you read the accounts of John's interaction with Herod that it appears
John believes her STILL to be Phillip's wife----in spite of the adultery
through a remarriage. In other words, those marriages the Lord deems
"illicit" are unlawful, therefore to divorce is merely putting away that
which is prohibited/unlawful in the sight of God. In my opinion, those
two situations(betrothal marriages and illicit marriages) in regards to
"porniea" are the only things that Jesus could have been talking about.
I'm
not really understanding your take on adultery=permission to dissolve a
marriage as you spoke below. You say that the ones who WANT to stay
together---their marriages are not dissolved. How then would you label
those who do not want their marriages to be healed, but rather move on
to another person because they believe they are entitled to? Are they
hardhearted more than those who either work it out or those who stand in
faith believing they are married for life and are praying for their
spouse's repentance from adultery? Does the Lord give a choice to
forgive and reconcile or not forgive and move on? It seems to me that
the argument that a person cannot get past a sin committed against them
is not acceptable for a Christian. Jesus said to forgive 70x7 times. We
do not have the choice to "not get past it"............unless we are
hardhearted towards those the Lord has joined us to in marriage.
Comment/question
What is the one truth found in all of them? That a man who puts his wife
away and marries another commits adultery. Matthew says that and so
does Mark and Luke.
Response
Do you believe the adultery is continuous and must be forsaken then? Do
you believe that a remarriage dissolves a covenant marriage? If one of
the partners is standing for their spouse to repent of their adultery,
do you see them as being faithful or foolish---biblically speaking of
course?
Comment/question
You say that all the other accounts "contradict" Matt 19. How? They all
say the exact same things and Matt 19 says it as well
Response
No, I didn't say Matthew 19 contradicts all the other accounts. I said that
the popular interpretation of today contradicts all the other passages
which show that the marriage bond lasts until the death of one of the
spouses and any relationship entered before that time is adultery.
I
still would like to address Romans 7:2-3. I don't really think you got
what I said. Do you disagree with it? If so, do you believe that the
adultery the woman Paul spoke of dissolved her marriage to her lawful
husband? Do you believe that it would be a divorce, not death as Paul
stated, that would sever the tie between the original husband and wife?
Thanks for taking the time to respond to me.
Comment/question
I do realize that Matthew is directed more to a Jewish audience. However
to say as you seem to say ... that God gives Jews the option of
divorcing for sexual sin and does not give that option to the rest of us
doesn't make much sense to me. Marriages are covenants whether Jewish or
Gentile.
If
the Jewish betrothal was just as binding as the marriage and God allows
for divorce in the event of infidelity ... what is the difference? What
He says stands for both the betrothal and the marriage.
Certainly the Lord did not allow for divorce when sex sin has happened
only for the Jews ... that would make no sense.
Response
I believe He did allow it due to the binding nature of the betrothal.
Matthew 1:18 is the perfect example of such. Joseph had not yet taken Mary
to be wife (she had not yet left father and mother), and he had the
option then to divorce her.
Comment/question
Just because the exception is not found in other passages does not make
it invalid. It is found in the Bible and taught crystal clear. That is
enough is it not?
What
Paul taught in 1 Corinthians 7:15 is not found anywhere else in the New
Testament (not that I found anyway) ... Does that make what he said
invalid? No it does not.
Response
No, absolutely not. It's not that I believe certain scriptures are
invalid. What I have issue with is how those obscure passages are
interpreted in light of other more clear passages to the contrary. I
also have issue with those viewpoints that discount an interpretation
when even in the same gospel there is evidence that could be exactly
what Jesus was saying--------and it would flow, not contradict the other
teachings on marriage (mt. 19 and mt. 1).
Comment/question
Of course we are to forgive 70x7 and more. However to be hurt in this
way is the most profound and deepest hurt a human can inflict on another
human. It is a betrayal of everything you held most sacred and most
honored in this life next to your relationship with the Lord.
I
agree with you that we should forgive our spouses for an act of sexual
sin. When I said they may not be able to get over it ... what I had in
my mind when I said that was the idea that the offending spouse may not
be willing to repent or to show remorse or to make amends.
If
that is the case it makes it very difficult to move forward in the
marriage.
Response
Adultery is something that has been around in marriages since after the
fall. However, it appears in this day, it is the sin that people will
not/can not get beyond. What changed? The thing is that many, many
people have forgiven their spouses, even unsaved peoples have extended
forgiveness and wanted their families reconciled, yet many "Christians"
say they can't do such a thing.........nor are they willing to wait for
their spouse to come to repentance. If they DO forgive, they have to see
repentance right away. I just have a hard time with reconciling that
with scripture in light of Ephesians 5 and I Corinthians 13 (the passage read at
many, many weddings).
Comment/question
Also Lets say that a man cheats on his wife ten different times with
different women over ten years of their marriage. She stumbles onto it
somehow and he is exposed.
That
kind of hurt may be so great and so big to that poor woman that she may
not be able to carry on with the relationship with that man as her
husband.
I
believe this is why the Lord has "allowed" for divorce under this
circumstance. The hurt may be to much, the wound to deep and the
betrayal to harsh to keep the intimacy needed in a marriage.
Response
Again, the one who can't get beyond their spouse's sin, wouldn't that be
considered hard-heartedness, since there are many who CAN get beyond
their spouse's sin? I know of many right now who are standing for their
marriages to be restored----and their spouses are STILL in
sin................they are faithful to their marriage covenant and
faithful to continue lifting their wayward spouses up to the Lord,
asking Him to grant them repentance. Is this not the heart of Jesus?
(Jeremiah 3)
Comment/question
First off you are wrong that Joseph had the option to divorce Marry. She
had done nothing wrong. The Lord was conceived by a miracle when Marry
was still a virgin. So she never committed adultery. For you to suggest
and say "he had the option to divorce her" suggests that she had
committed sexual sin.
Response
I never said that Joseph would take the option to divorce Mary. I simply
meant that in Jewish law he COULD divorce her for
fornication..........and he did think to do so until an angel of the
Lord revealed Mary's state to him.
Comment/question
If he would have divorced her he would have been wrong because she was
innocent.
Response
According to Jewish law, he would have been justified. The Jews would
not have believed that Mary conceived her baby in a miraculous way. You
are right though, that in God's sight he would have been guilty since
the truth was revealed to him.
Comment/question
Yes Jewish people had the option to divorce their fiancées. The Jewish
culture viewed the engagement as one and the same as marriage. They had
the option to divorce if sexual immorality happens while they are
engaged and while they are married ... they are both a binding and
sacred bond between a man and a woman. Sexual sin breaks that bond.
Response
Sexual sin injures a covenant, but it does not negate
it...........Otherwise, ALL sins within the covenant would have the same
power to dissolve, and they don't. In the same vein, those who believe
some can reconcile, some may not, have a hard time explaining the
"breaking the covenant" issue if they are of the mindset that the
covenant is dissolved due to sexual sin. There is no evidence that a
sexual act dissolves a marriage joined by God. Maybe we are just not on
the same page with the terms. Do you believe that "breaking" is the same
thing as dissolving?
We
can bring forth Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19 all we want, but you and I interpret
them in very different ways. You believe they stand on their own----even
though there are passages which contradict your interpretation. I
believe that Mt. 19 and Mt. 5 are to be taken with the other passages on
marriage. Your view that sexual sin dissolves a covenant does not agree
with the other passages that prohibit remarriage after a divorce and
those passages which show even in sexual sin, a couple is married for
life (Romans 7:2-3, and Herod/Herodias/Philip). In the case of Herod/Heriodias
we see that new vows do not supersede the original covenant. She is
STILL referred to as Philip's wife even though she obtained a "writ of
divorcement" and married Herod---legally in the eyes of the law.
However, in God's sight Herodias did NOT belong to Herod. So you see,
sexual sin does not negate the original marriage covenant, nor does a
divorce obtained have the power to dissolve what God joined together.
Comment/question
however just because a man or a woman decides that it would not be wise
or good to take back their unfaithful spouse for whatever reason does
not mean they are wrong.
Response
If their spouse is continuing in adultery, then Paul has given an
admonishment FROM THE LORD: "remain unmarried or be reconciled to your
husband/wife" (I Corinthians 7:10-11)
Comment/question
It was the Lord who gave them the okay to way out the situation and to
make a judgment call what to do with it.
Response
I do not believe the Lord gave a "way out", so to speak except in
regards to the admonishment from Paul above. I believe because there was
no "way out" in regards to divorcing a spouse and obtaining another one,
the disciples responded as they did----with the thought that it's better
NEVER to marry. If one knew they could divorce for unfaithfulness and
then find another spouse, that would not have been their reaction. The
conservative Jew of Jesus' day already believed they could have another
spouse in the face of unfaithfulness. Jesus' teaching was something
completely new to them and difficult to accept...........and Jesus said
that not all would.
Comment/question
Forgiveness is not an option it is a command .... reconciliation is not
a command it is encouraged.
Response
I agree with both parts. I believe the 2nd part in connected to I Cor.
7:10-11. Reconciliation is the heart of God, yet for some, that will not
be possible. In such cases, the Lord does NOT open the door for other
relationships to occur----without sin.
Comment/question
Each broken marriage has different circumstances, different emotions,
different abuses, different challenges, different personalities,
different dynamics, different acts of unfaithfulness and different
number of sexual sin encounters.
The
people on the outside (you and me) are not in a very good position to
cut through all of those issues and sore spots to figure out what a
particular person should do.
Response
God's Word is what should lead us, not personal
circumstance/differences. God would not have one person do something in
opposition to His Word while having another abide by it. We are all
called to the same standard of holiness/righteousness concerning moral
issues.
Comment/question
Please study the translation-- for example we have looked at the word "
porneia"-- we know what that means ,right all? In Matt 19:9 the modern
translation--especially the NIV-- says " I tell you that anyone who
divorces his wife, except for 'marital unfaithfulness', and marries
another woman commits adultery" The NIV translated it WRONG
Response
Good catch! The NIV translators translated it that way because of their
own assumptions, not because they were rightly looking at the Greek. The
truth is that "porneia" means fornication. It "can" be speaking of
marital unfaithfulness, but it also can be pre-marital relations,
incest, homosexuality, etc.
If we
are to look at the WHOLE Word of God, we can see that pre-marital
relations (fornication) as well as incestual, adulterous, homosexual
marriages all fit the Mt. 19:9 clause without contradicting Jesus' other
teachings as well as Paul's teachings on the indissolubility of covenant
marriage (til death).
Comment/question
Life in Christ is not a list of do's and don'ts that we check off as we
live. It is our very being. And if you think living by your own
interpretation of legal codes is correct for you, go for it. Just stop
telling others that they are adulterers because they disagree with your
own brand of adherence to codes in lieu of adherence to Christ.
But
hey, if nothing you are persistent. Albeit persistently incorrect and
misleading. I hope nothing you misquote and twist causes someone to
stumble and do something amazingly stupid, like immorally divorcing one
spouse because they were married and divorced before. Because if they do
that, their sin is shared by you.
Millstones.
Think
about.
Response
I do think about that.........all the time. Concerning the Millstones,
the thing is that many pastors ARE causing their people to sin. By NOT
teaching what the scriptures say on remarriage=adultery, they are not
only encouraging sin to occur, but are encouraging people NOT to repent
of that which the LORD (not Cindy) calls sin. I truly do fear for those
who do not teach the Love of Christ towards their covenant spouses, but
encourage others to seek and join with one in a new relationship the
Lord has spoken of as sin. It appears you and I are at opposite sides of
the spectrum on who we view as guilty of causing the "little ones" to
sin.
You
may choose to believe I "leave out" portions you and I disagree on, but
if you were really being honest, you know that I have addressed Mt. 19:9
more times than I can count. You just do not like my conclusions because
they are not in line with yours. You think as long as someone has a
piece of paper, that makes their marriage dissolved in the eyes of God.
THAT is what the Pharisees taught/practiced and that is what Jesus
rebuked (you have to have that "writ of divorcement", then your marriage
will be legally dissolved. The thing is that Jesus never taught such a
thing. Instead He AND Paul taught that marriage is lifelong -----and no
piece of paper will dissolve what GOD joins together.......just as no
piece of paper will join in lawful marriage what God calls adultery.
Comment/question
Then Cindy, do you admit that Jesus said "except for porneia/adultery/immorality/marital
unfaithfulness" as written in Matthew 5:31 and 19:9, or are you saying
that didn't really happen?
To
put it more simply, do you disagree with Jesus at those two points?
Response
No, I don't disagree with Jesus. I disagree with your assertion that
ADULTERY occurring within a covenant marriage gives an "out" to the
innocent and allows them to join with a different spouse. I do NOT
believe what the Lord spoke here was a permission to swap spouses and
families due to sin on a spouse's part.................that "hard"
teaching of Jesus' was the reason for His disciples astonished reaction.
I
believe "moving on" is what the "world" will do(as well as Christians
who do not know God's Word and heart on the matter) in regards to those
who sin against them (because they cannot see their own sin and need for
mercy as well----they look at other's sins as "worse" somehow). I do not
believe that is what a Christian is called to and I believe Paul
uplifted Jesus' teaching on the permanency of covenant marriage(Rom.
7:2-3, I Cor. 7:39----EVEN when adultery takes place).
I
also don't believe that a piece of paper is what Jesus was
addressing............and I think, deep down, you know it too.
Comment/question
It is interesting then that you call the one who has done nothing but
try their very best to love their spouse as best they can, in all ways,
in a Christian marriage, a guilty adulterer merely because their spouse
has sinned against them and God and has destroyed their marriage and the
innocent person's life. Yet you condemn them. Please tell us all why
that is.
Response
I condemn no one. Jesus called remarriage adultery (Mt. 5:32, 19:9, Mk.
10:10-12, Lk. 16:16-18,
It's
very hard for me to understand how many confessing Christians speak the
passages on loving one's enemies, suffering persecutions/tribulations,
blessing those who despitefully use you, etc............yet for some
reason those things do not apply towards a spouse who has
offended/sinned against us---the one the Lord joined them to........
Comment/question
Under the Old Covenant, one could kill a wayward spouse, thus being free
to remarry. Following the laws of the land today we do not have that
option. Can someone explain to me why God would have given His servants
a way out then, but not give His children a way out now? Could there not
be a point where the marriage is spiritually dead but legally valid? God
alone knows our hearts. According to the Bible there is only one
unpardonable sin and it is neither divorce or remarriage.
I
have been on both sides of this issue and continue to study it.
Response
Can you explain His disciples response to His teaching in Mt. 19? (Mt.
19:10). They knew of the ability of the innocent to remarry in the case
of adultery? Why are they shocked and now saying that it's better to NOT
ever marry, if in fact Jesus was still allowing them to remarry after a
spouse sinned against them?
Comment/question
In regards to the disciples responding as they did, you want very much
for this to mean that they understand Jesus as saying no divorce ever
but that is not true. They were very aware of the Hillel/Shammai
controversy and chances are, based on their reaction, they also believed
that a Hillelite divorce was fine.
Response
You think so? You think that many of those who followed Jesus (who
followed John the baptist before that) were of the "liberal" mindset? I
beg to differ.
Comment/question
Matthew 5:32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except
for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and
anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.
I
understand except for marital unfaithfulness is referring to the fact
that a woman who is already an adulteress can’t be made an adulteress
again.
Response
Did you ever read the Message's translation of Mt. 5:32? One of the
posters put up part of the verse. When I looked up the entire verse, it
was quite interesting how they translated it out. Very much like you
say:
"Matthew 5:32 (The Message)
The Message (MSG)
Copyright © 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 2000, 2001, 2002 by Eugene H.
Peterson
31-32"Remember the Scripture that says, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let
him do it legally, giving her divorce papers and her legal rights'? Too
many of you are using that as a cover for selfishness and whim,
pretending to be righteous just because you are 'legal.' Please, no more
pretending. If you divorce your wife, you're responsible for making her
an adulteress (unless she has already made herself that by sexual
promiscuity). And if you marry such a divorced adulteress, you're
automatically an adulterer yourself. You can't use legal cover to mask a
moral failure. "
Comment/question
I understand except for marital unfaithfulness is referring to the fact
that a woman who is already an adulteress can’t be made an adulteress
again.
I
understand this to mean this too, and when reading it plainly, and
holding it in harmony with the other gospels' teaching on this subject,
I believe this is why Matthew brought this out. The emphasis was on
divorce creating an atmosphere, opportunity that is ripe for adultery.
How
could divorce lead to adultery if they were spiritually/rightfully
divided? Divorce leads to adultery because Jesus teaches that marriage
is for life. If we think this is a hard saying, then we are in agreement
with the disciples who stepped back from this basic teaching saying it
is better not to marry.
Response
I agree. The part I bolded above to me, is a stumbling block for those
who say that after adultery, then divorce, the marriage is dissolved in
the sight of God. I see Jesus saying here exactly the opposite. The
married are STILL bound together, hence anyone who marries the
adulterous wife is committing adultery. Can't be possible if the bond of
marriage is severed by a divorce as some teach.
Comment/question
Having TBI is not sexual immorality. How is this useful to the reasons
for divorce and remarriage we have been talking about?
Response
Well, for one, I do not believe sexual immorality allows for a spouse to
remarry after separation. I still believe they are to "remain unmarried
or be reconciled" as the Lord commands---otherwise, they too will be
guilty of adultery as their spouse is.
However, the reason I bring up that family situation is that MOST people
who believe a divorce dissolves a marriage, believe that there are MORE
reasons than adultery to allow for the dissolving of a
marriage(abuse--physical or emotional, mental instability,
failure to provide for the family, addictions, etc). Many who use the so
called "exception clause" to justify remarriage while a spouse is still
living, do not truly believe in just the "exception clause".
I can
see how a person could come to the conclusion that adultery gives
allowance for divorce and possibly remarriage, if they haven't really
looked at the WHOLE Word of God and are resting on 1 verse. I
used to believe that as well. However, for those who believe MANY
reasons are permitted for the dissolution of what God joined together,
there is NO biblical support(not even 1 verse) which can be used to
support such an idea/belief.
Comment/question
What about the person that did the adultery? If that person got divorced
(but the spouse asked for the divorce) are they free to remarry even
though they committed the sin? You wouldn't think that their sin could
"free" them from the marriage....are they supposed to remain single?
Sorry if you all know this and I am just being dumb.
Response
That is the question.. Some say adultery frees one to divorce and marry
again. I think scripture is pretty clear that this is NOT the case. I
believe scripture to clearly teach that only DEATH frees one to marry
again----not because one's spouse sins against them.
Jesus
actually did deal with separation(Mt. 19:10) and Paul again addressed
it, giving the Lord's command: They are to remain unmarried or be
reconciled (I Cor. 7:10-11, 39). Noone wants to think that applies them.
Instead, they will say a sinning spouse is an unbeliever, so they can be
free to move on to another person (I Cor. 7:15). The problem is that
Paul NEVER told a divorced person they could marry again outside of the
husband's death. "not under bondage" relates to servitude, not what God
joined together. Different greek words used in
If
God joins a couple together until death, He is NOT surprised by the sins
that occur in the marriage............He knew them ALL BEFORE He ever
joined them together.........we think because WE find out about the sins
of our spouses, THEN God gives us an "out"?
In
any case, sister, study this out for yourself. We here are not all in
agreement on this issue. To me, it's important to work out what one
believes for themself........it will make a difference on how one lives
out their marital life!
Comment/question
I believe God made this exception so one would not be sorrowful their
whole life.
God
wants us to have joy.
I
feel some of these people who have left their spouses over this feel
they have to push this belief on other people because they don't want
anyone else to be happy in marriage because they feel that they can
never be either.
Response
Do you believe God wants "some" to be happy, but not others? Do you
believe He holds SOME to their vows to an original marriage partner, but
not others to their vows? I'm speaking of those who fit I Cor. 7:10.
Paul never tells us WHY these women may depart, but he does tell them
that the Lord commands they remain unmarried OR they be reconciled with
their husbands. There is no provision to marry another man while she has
a living husband. What if she is miserable alone? Still, there is no
provision to marry again. If she does, she is in disobedience to the
Lord.
On
another note, I find it quite interesting that people say unbelievers
are allowed a different route in regards to divorce/remarriage. In the
so called exception clause passage and all the other passages spoken by
Jesus in Mark 10 and Luke 16, who was Jesus mainly dealing
with----believers?
Comment/question
(In the Matthew exception clause) If she has been put away and the
"except" applies to her. How can Jesus say that whoever marries her
commits adultery if she is free?
Response
I personally don't believe the "except" is speaking of remarriage. I
believe it only refers to the putting away. As I said, in the example
Jesus gave, He speaks of a husband who puts away an INNOCENT wife and
then he remarries. Whosoever marries that INNOCENTLY put away wife
commits adultery. He covered the man's guilt in that passage, yet STILL
said whoever married the put away wife would commit adultery. So, if her
husband's adultery FREED her to marry another, why did Jesus say the
exact opposite? If adultery FREED the innocent to marry again (as in OT
law through stoning), why are the disciples SHOCKED at Jesus' teaching
on this?
You
will find very few differences of opinion in the Early Church Father's
(Ante-Nicene----the oldest)writings on this issue. I believe they taught
and practiced marriage til death because it aligns with ALL of scripture
on the issue of divorce/remarriage. They too believed that the marriage
bond endured until death----even in the face of an adulterous
mate-----this IS what Paul taught in Rom. 7:2-3. ONLY death dissolves
what God put together---not adultery (that's why Paul used that example)
and not divorce (putting asunder)...............
For
those who teach the "adultery" only occurs upon entrance into an
adulterous marriage, I would like to see scripture to prove that such
relationships go from adulterous to approved and joined by God......I
have yet to see such biblical evidence in the more than 3 years I have
been dialoguing on this issue (before I was convinced of the permanency
of marriage AND after I came to this belief).
People teach that all one has to do is confess their adultery and
somehow magically the relationship the Lord says is adultery (because
obviously they are still "bound" to another mate in the eyes of the
Lord), turns into a lawful union and the previous union dissolved. With
no other sexually explicit relationship does this work(confession turns
it into a lawful relationship). If one is free to marry, they need to
marry and if they are not free to marry, they need to forsake the
relationship they are in. For me, if God says what He joins together is
bound until death, that is all I need to know. Man can and does twist
what the Lord has spoken, trying to justify every act of disobedience.
Blessings.........
Comment/question
The way I see it, also , is this: the verses in Matthew 5 say that one
who marries the cheating spouse is committing adultery. It doesn't say
that if the one that had not cheated remarries is committing adultery.
God doesn't give consequences to an individual for another's sin.
I've argued this point before, I don't expect it to change your mind.
Response
Ok, I understand your point and it is one I use to believe, yet when I
studied ALL the passages in scripture dealing with divorce/remarriage, I
plainly could see that sexual relations did NOT give cause/allowance for
a remarriage to take place. We can also clearly see that in I Cor. 7:10
that Paul did address divorce/separation, and that in some cases it may
be necessary or at least feel necessary to the one departing. Since Paul
also made it clear that his words were the LORD'S commands
(to remain unmarried or be reconciled), I believe this directly relates
to Jesus' teachings in Mt. 5 and Mt. 19---where there is NO permission
to remarry (hence the disciple's strong reaction to His words on the
matter). As a matter of fact, Jesus shows the INNOCENT one who
remarries, being guilty of adultery---as is the one who marries the
innocent one.
Also, if one truly wants to look at
Comment/question
One specifically is that some are saying the verse in Matthew 5 is
referring to fornication only, and that is not true. I mentioned it
before, I had looked it up in Strong's concordance, and the word used is
"porneia", which is referring to sexual immorality other than
fornication (but could also include).
Response
I don't see that definition of porneia in Strong's. It does not say
"other than fornication". In many translations it uses the word
"fornication"............some use sexual immorality, some use marital
unfaithfulness. Porneia DOES include adultery in it's definition, but
one has to wonder if adultery is what Jesus was talking about, why does
He use a different word, porneia, instead of moichea (which is the word
He uses when speaking of those who marry again and the person who
marries a divorced person).
I personally do not hold strongly to the pre-marriage sexual
unfaithfulness (betrothal doctrine), yet it COULD be that is what Jesus
was speaking to since the other gospels were directed towards Gentile
believers who held no such a binding betrothal custom in regards to
marriage. There is also another view out there which deals with
unbiblical unions and that may be what Jesus is speaking to (incestual
marriages, homosexual marriages, and adulterous marriages). THOSE are
the ones that are not binding and are able to be dissolved because God
never put them together to begin with.
In any case, after quite a few years of study on this issue if
divorce/remarriage, I cannot see where any marriage that was joined by
God (believer/believer, believer/unbeliever, unbeliever/unbeliever) can
be dissolved prior to the death of one, irregardless of what sins are
committed in the marriage. In other words, covenant marriage is for
LIFE. Blessings..............
Comment/question
I'm not sure who your referring to but when one spouse is abandoned by
another and the spouse who has left goes on and marries another, you
cannot say the above and be correct because the issue was not about how
much they loved but rather what their spouse did that severed the
marriage.
Response
Yes, I can be correct in what I stated because Jesus said it in Mt.
19:9. The EXACT scenerio is presented by Him: a man forsakes his wife,
marries another. Jesus said he is committing adultery. Jesus also states
that whosoever marries the woman (the forsaken one) commits adultery. It
can't be adultery if she is free due to her husband's adultery, can it?
Jesus teaches she is not free, otherwise the other man would not be
guilty of joining himself to another man's wife (adultery). The divorce
did not dissolve his covenant marriage, nor did his adultery with the
second woman. We see Paul saying the very same thing in
Comment/question
There are those who left, and rightly so, by divorce after unrepentant
acts of adultery. They can love them and pray for their repentance but
they are not required to remain "bound" to these people in marriage.
That is not Scripture.
Response
You are wrong. It is in scripture.........as I pointed out, in Mt. 19:9
the woman is NOT free to remarry, though her husband is in adultery.
Same goes in Rom. 7:2-3, DEATH dissolves and allows for remarriage---not
adultery, nor divorce. Notice Paul did not speak of the death of the
GUILTY one, but of the innocent. I have a feeling I know why that
is----because if it were spoken about the "guilty" one dying, then many
would do as Luther did: say that an adulteress/adulterer is to be looked
at as dead, therefore the "innocent" one can remarry per the OT law.
That is far from what Paul taught and far from what the Lord taught on
repentance from adultery and forgiveness.
Comment/question
Pardon me but divorce is allowed in Scripture and the Lord placed
regulations on it. He regualted it because it was a reality of life as a
result of sin.
Response
Yes, He acknowledged that it would occur and also commanded how it was
to be regulated----if one DID depart, they were to remain
UNMARRIED OR BE RECONCILED. To marry another was/is to commit
adultery---an ongoing sin as the One flesh is still bound until the
death of one of them.
Comment/question
That doesn't mean He commands men to do it but He certainly understands
the depths of sin and how that affects marriages. If the Lord gives a
way out then we should feel no shame in taking it and blessing the Lord
that He understands what has gone on.
Response
Do you think if you say it enough, that will make it true? The Lord did
give a way out, but He did not open the door for the offended to find
another. He plainly teaches that joining with another before the death
of one's spouse is adultery---to HIM.
Comment/question
Jesus
talked about divorcing for a reason other than unfaithfulness and
marrying another. That Scripture and none in the NT regarding this issue
say anything about while the spouse is still alive. It talks about the
reason for divorcing not whether the spouse is alive or dead. That is a
prooftext taken out of Romans and Corinthians.
Response
Hmm, what do you suppose Paul was speaking of then in I Cor. 7:10-11?
Was the "command" of the Lord something that just came to him then, or
was it a reaffirmation of Jesus' teachings while on the
earth---something Paul was making sure the church understood concerning
Jesus' teachings?
Let me ask you something else,
Let's say a man divorces his wife for reasons OTHER than adultery(the
wife was faithful in the marriage) and then he marries another woman.
His first wife is praying for him to come to repentance for his adultery
and return to the marriage...........is he presently "IN" adultery? Does
he still belong to his first wife?
Comment/question
Once
that unfaithful spouse has formed a new unbiblical marriage, he HAS
committed adultery, thus giving the faithful spouse grounds for
remarriage. Thank you for asking.
Response
You didn't answer my question: if an UNBIBLICAL divorce takes place, is
the marriage dissolved in God's sight? If not, how is it that you then
go on to say that a new union (which the Lord calls adultery), is valid,
thus should not be "broken apart".
I asked you what if the abandoned one WANTS the marriage............THEY
were not the one who did the divorcing.............is the first marriage
then still valid in God's sight and the second marriage invalid and the
two involved are committing adultery with each other----children or no
children?
Comment/question
I
should have followed my first instincts and not posted, as it is obvious
how this game is played. I actually make a good living communicating
with others, but somehow the "no remarriage ever" camp seem to not
comprehend what I am saying, and choose to twist my words, which I find
dishonest. It's a waste of time when you pretend I am saying things I am
not, and ignore what I actually do say.
I'll stick to other threads and pray that you all don't suceed in
breaking up even more homes than the devil already has.
God knows my heart and He knows that I believe in forever marriages. He
knows I have no need to loook for excuses out, since I am in a forever
marriage (as far as I know!)
But I pity the sincere Christian who would be bound by your (in my
opinion) manmade doctrine.
No need to go in circles, so good night, all!
Response
I don't mean to come down hard on you, but your reaction is one I have
seen time and time again. When "hard" questions are asked, they are
sidestepped and then the one doing the sidestepping gets mad and bails
the conversation. I've seen quite a few pastors/church leaders do the
same exact thing concerning this topic. Is that helpful for the person
who is really struggling with what they see in scripture and then what
they see going on in society and the churches? People need answers for
very real situations. I'm not trying to trip you up. I'm asking
questions based upon very real circumstances for many people.
To me, it seems that many want to justify those who have entered into
adulterous marriages and decry the "tearing" apart of such
relationships, yet they will not stand as ferociously for the mate who
is deserted and WANTS their family-----praying for the repentance of the
wayward spouse and also as Blessed said, what about the covenant
children who are abandoned? Why do many seem to focus on the
relationship that God Himself called sin and want that relationship to
stay together, yet they do not exert near the efforts at calling a
wayward person from their sin and trying to be a vessel to bring healing
to the One Flesh God joined together?
Comment/question
One other thing that struck me today is that Jesus said if the man
divorces her except for adultery, he causes her to commit adultery. I
thought how is that possible. Well, what came to mind is that it was
accepted that divorce carried with it the right to remarry and once this
woman was divorced, it was understood that she would remarry. The reason
I bring this up is to make it clear that this was always understood.
Response
How is it always understood? That passage basically states that unless
you divorce your wife for fornication, will cause her to be an
adulteress(because divorce does not dissolve the marital bond in such
cases and she is NOT free to be married to another----in spite of a
divorce).
Comment/question
So the question is, if the woman never remarries, has the husband who
divorced her still cause her to commit adultery?
Response
No. (I Corinthians. 7:10-11).
Comment/question
Matthew 19:9
Anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and
marries another commits adulter.
What is being said here?
The person is not commiting adultery because they divorced for marital
unfaithfulness.
Response
Why are you resting all your doctrine on ONE translation of "porneia"?
Porneia means: fornication. Fornication CAN include adultery, but it
doesn't always. The fact that Jesus used moichea AND porneia in the same
passage should clue one in that maybe, just maybe porneia is something
DIFFERENT than adultery.
That is why, in Rom. 7:2-3, we see Paul using an adulterous woman/wife
and still maintaining that the bond of marriage is BINDING until death.
Was he contradicting Jesus' supposed adultery clause? No. You are
wrongly interpreting what Jesus meant by including adultery in "porneia".............
Comment/question
Sometimes someone never admits to adultery, because they figure they
weren't "caught in the act". Or, they never truly repent. We still need
to forgive, but God has the verse that I see being refuted about
divorcing in cases of sexual immorality (which would include adultery).
I gave my thoughts on why I think that verse wouldn't exist if it wasn't
even allowed, but I don't see anyone responding. I don't want to repeat
it, I think others have brought it up, too.
Response
If someone wasn't caught in the act, doesn't confess, but the other has
suspicions, do you believe it ok to divorce such a person? What if the
"innocent" one is wrong and then they themself enters into an adulterous
union in the sight of God? As far as Mt. 19:9 (part a) existing, it has
been ordained by God to be there in His Word. However, Jesus did not
speak the English words to us which are commonly found in various
translations: adultery, marital unfaithfulness, etc. However, we do have
the greek word "porneia"............a word that "can" mean adultery, but
can also mean other forms of sexual immorality such as pre-marital
relations (which was a BIG deal to the Jew in regards to the Betrothal
custom (Mt. 1:18-24). The significant thing is that Jesus used both
words in that passage----the one for fornication(as an allowance to put
one's spouse away) and the one for adultery (speaking of what happens
when one remarries a divorced person).
Many believe that since this passage is ONLY found in the gospel aimed
at Jews, that is why this is inserted---because the Jews has betrothal,
unlike the Gentiles. Others believe that unrepentant adultery is cause
for divorce, but the permission does not then extend to remarriage
(divorce in such cases is separation of bed/board----as is spoken of in
I Cor. 7:10-11, which I believe directly relates back to Jesus'
teachings. We see NO permission to marry again given by Paul---which
would explain the disciples' reaction to Jesus' teachings (Mt. 19:10)).
Personally, one would have to be able to reconcile ALL of scripture to
"fit" this teaching that divorce dissolves the marriage, but it is not
possible. The HUGE stumbling block passage is Rom.7:2-3. If Paul would
have used a "regular" marriage as an example, then we might truly have a
hard time aguing that adultery does not allow for
remarriage.............but Paul DID use the example of an adulterous
woman in that illustration and STILL maintained that the original
marriage would endure until one of the spouses died----THEN the other
would be free to marry again.
Those who are speaking for marriages to be dissolved due to adultery
have 1 passage they try to rest on...........there are no
others. Those who teach/believe marriage is for life have a multitude of
passages to rest their beliefs on. That is the big difference. See, we
have Jesus' very words that divorce was "tolerated" due to men's
hardheartedness. So, we know that divorce is a result of
hardheartedness. Does a Christian want to take part in that? Are we
ministers of reconciliation or are we "quitters" on sinners----those who
NEED the Jesus we have? See, the divorce and moving on mentality is just
not of God. One may have had a divorce forced on them, but they do have
the option of praying/working for reconciliation in such
cases.........praying that their marriage/family is healed and
restored(and I say their because Jesus clearly teaches that divorce does
not dissolve what HE joins together, hence it is adultery to join with
another).
Comment/question
To me, children and parents are a relationship on a different level. God
said we are to leave and cleave and become one with our spouse. When a
spouse cheats, the bond is broken. They are the one that has not kept
the vow. I see that as different than if a child offends you. We are not
one with them, we are to care for and discipline them.
Response
A spouse can repent and the marriage can be better than it ever was
before. Do you deny this? When we marry, we take MANY vows, and I think
there probably is not one of us who has not broken at least 1 of those
vows. I think we can clearly see through scripture that adultery does
not "dissolve" the marriage, but injures it for sure. We see that in
Hosea with Gomer, we also see that in Mal. 2 in which the priest
remarries, yet God calls his first wife, his companion, the wife of the
covenant. Even though he is remarried (committing adultery), he is still
ONE with his covenant wife-----same with Gomer and Hosea. Jesus taught
this same thing----the ONENESS of the original marriage partners, even
in the face of adultery.
As for our children, has God made them ONE with us? No. The marriage
relationship is even more binding than the parent/child relationship in
God's eyes.............because one day they too will "leave and
cleave"........and that is how God made it to be.
Comment/question
To be one with your spouse is no longer happening when one is committing
adultery.
Response
It does not change being "one" with your spouse. The issue is of mixing
another in with the ONE. The second needs to be purged from the ONE. The
ONE is not now TWO because of an act of adultery. Nowhere in scripture
will we find that adultery dissolves the ONE flesh, making what God
joined together now two again. If that were the case, there would be
many who are "two" who still think they are ONE.........those who do not
know about their spouses' infidelity...............
Comment/question
To me, it almost seems like someone that remarried is regarded as more
sinful than one committing adultery within a first marriage, under this
doctrine. That's something I wouldn't know, but it does come across that
way.
Response
No, I don't think so. At least I don't look at it that way. Both are
adultery. Remarriages I can understand more though and see how they are
more accepted-----because that is how society has changed. It used NOT
to be acceptable. Many divorced persons, grew old and died as divorced
persons. Now, fewer and fewer divorced "remain
unmarried".............some of those choosing rather to sin and commit
adultery than obey the Word of God (those who actually know what God's
Word says, I'm speaking of). Many do not know what God says and rest
their understanding on what others tell them or what they see happening
around them. For them, that is why these discussions are good.
Hopefully, those who are divorced will be spurred on to get into God's
Word and see if what we say is so.................. Blessings........
Comment/question
If I were to summarize this whole passage, what I see is that the focus
of the Pharisees had come to the point where they were looking for every
possible way to “biblically” get out of a marriage i.e. “What will God
permit?”, but Jesus was trying to change the focus to “What does God
desire?” The difference between these questions where our heart is. Is
it hard i.e. selfishly looking to its own desires first, or is it
looking to submit to God’s will regardless of the cost. Like you, I to
believe that far too often when I hear this debate, it seems to me that
the heart of the issue resembles more closely that of the Pharisees
rather than the heart of Christ. Yes, I do think that remarriage is
permitted in the case of adultery, but far too often this seems to be
viewed as the “Free ticket” out of a marriage, and I find it hard to
believe that it is really God’s desire that we abandon our spouse
because they committed adultery. In Eph. 5:25 God calls husbands to
“love your wives, just has Christ loved the church and gave himself up
for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water
through the word, …”, something to think about is that Christ
“gave himself up” for a people who had already rejected him. Some
food for thought is that the marriage God used to give us a picture of
his love for his people was the marriage of Hosea and Gomer.
Hosea endured many years of infidelity, separation and maybe even
divorce, and yet he was called by God to reconcile. If this is the
picture God has given us of how he loves his people, and he has told us
that we are to love our wives in the same way, do we really look at
divorce with the same heart as God does?
Response
I agree with your conclusions highlighted above. I however, must ask you
this: Given you believe Gomer/Hosea is a picture for a Christian on
marriage principles, how do you then say you believe remarriage is
permittable for a Christian? If it is, God is saying that we CANNOT love
as Christ loves........then we are back to the Pharisee's
hard-heartedness.
For me, either God allows ALL Christians to divorce/remarry for adultery
or He does not. If He does allow this, then that must mean the original
bond HE joined together is now dissolved, freeing BOTH parties to pursue
other relationships.
I have heard it said many times that for some the Lord calls them to
stand for marriage restoration and for others, the Lord releases them to
pursue another marriage with a different partner. I personally do not
believe the Lord binds SOME to the mate they were joined to, yet frees
others to join with a different mate. How do we reconcile such teachings
with scripture? Romans 7:2-3 shows that even in the face of adultery,
Paul teaches the marriage bond endures---til death. I believe this is
what we see with Hosea and Gomer. The bond endured, even in spite of her
adulteries. God wanted Hosea to endure to...........being faithful to
his wife and walking in forgiveness towards her. This is what I believe
ALL Christians are called to. If a man is free to marry another woman
due to her adultery, then is he walking out the "gave himself up for her
to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the
word"? Just a thought. Blessings......
Comment/question
In the 1st century this word was used to represent a very broad range of
illicit sexual conduct that included adultery, prostitution,
fornication, etc... In this text the word is used within the context of
a marriage so "Marital unfaithfulness" is a reasonable translation.
Response
Ah, but the thing is, the first century Christians did not believe
sexual immorality gave right to remarriage----even long term unrepentant
adultery. They viewed/taught that any remarriage, even in the case of
unrepentant adulterous spouse, would also be adultery----because the
bond of marriage continued after divorce (which actually was nothing
more than separate bed/board).
Comment/question
I said that I believe that remarriage may justified by only the innocent
one, and even in that case I believe that the requirement is a
continuous unrepentant adultery.
Response
How long must the adultery last before one is "free".............1
month, 10 months, 10 years?
Comment/question
There is an easy and a difficult answer to this. The easy answer is when
the spouse involved in adultery consummates that adultery through a
remarriage. The one that is tougher to define is when the
continuous adultery of a spouse who has not remarried causes the
covenant to be irrevocably broken. My personal opinion here is
that this is something that would almost always be much closer to 10
years, then 10 months, but I don't think there is a magic number that
works for every case. The reason I hold this view is that I don't ever
see divorce being a right choice when it is used to escape from a
marriage, but only when it irreconcilable despite every effort being
made to reconcile. Because of my view here I never ever counsel any
couple to divorce, in some cases, I will counsel them to separate, and
in very extreme cases I might console a legal separation as long as the
goal was to work toward reconciliation.
Response
I'm having a very hard time wrapping my mind around what you are saying,
(name deleted). In the first part I underlined, it makes no sense that
you see one type of marriage that GOD joined together as "irrevocably
broken" due to adultery, but yet you do not see the other as so. Can you
explain how you would counsel someone BIBLICALLY on when enough is
enough.........and feel very confident that you were giving the Lord's
heart on the matter?
Comment/question
Why did you not quote Matthews 19 verse nine also or does it not count,
because it has the words except for.
Response
(name deleted), as has been stated, we do not ignore Mt. 19. It is very
clear to see that Jesus did not mean adultery freed one to remarry
again. He gives the example of a wife put away wrongly. Her husband is
now committing adultery (through remarriage). Jesus says that anyone who
marries this woman commits adultery. If adultery dissolves or gives
ability to dissolve, why is this woman not free to remarry without the
man who marries her being charged with adultery?
If adultery frees one from the bond of marriage, why did Paul teach
otherwise in Rom. 7:2-3? In that passage he even gives the example of an
adulterous wife, and still maintains that DEATH dissolves what God has
joined together. In a sister passage (I Cor. 7:39), he uses the same
wording and again says that DEATH dissolves what God joined together and
allows for a remarriage to take place.
Comment/question
No, porneia used here has a very broad semantic range and includes the
idea of adultery, this is not disputed by most Greek scholars. Your
statement here is misleading.
Response
It "can" include adultery, yet Jesus did not choose to use that word.
Saying it has to include adultery causes great confusion because other
passages which ARE clear that adultery does NOT dissolve what God joined
together refute that concept.
Comment/question
The innocent one only commits adultery in a remarriage when divorced on
grounds other than adultery.
Response
I thought you are teaching that adultery gives the open door for the
offended to marry again. If the husband is committing adultery (through
a remarriage), don't you believe that the innocent wife then is freed to
marry, since the laws of the land may view the original couple as
divorced? You do know that many pastors teach that if one of the couple
in a divorce remarries that automatically frees the "left" one to get
remarried as well. Are you disagreeing with this stance?
Comment/question
If a divorce happens for irreconcilable differences for instances, I do
not believe that the innocent party is then free to remarry; however, in
the circumstance you stated above, I don't believe remarriage to the
original spouse is any longer a biblical option, and at that point the
innocent spouse would be free to marry another.
Response
No, the original question was "why does Jesus NOT allow for the
"innocent" wife to remarry since her husband is now in adultery"?
You seemed to be in agreement that when the DIVORCE was for reasons
other than adultery, then the one left can NOT marry again. In Mt. 19:9,
Jesus is giving the example of a divorce NOT for "porniea", and also
tells us even though the husband has joined with another woman, the
"left" wife is NOT free to marry again. What do you make of that?
Comment/question
I think your reading something in to the text that simply is not there.
Response
I think you are ignoring what is plainly spoken by Jesus. He does NOT
give permission for the "innocent" party in a divorce to remarry---even
though their spouse is committing adultery. It seems to me, and I could
be entirely misreading/misunderstanding you, but you seem to desire to
lift up the right to remarriage due to adultery and you will not even
consider any view which may challenge that-----even Jesus' own words.
For me, when I studied this out, I could NOT discount the fact that in
Jesus' own illustration, He denied the "innocent" right to
remarriage........as did Paul in I Corinthians 7:10-11.
Comment/question
I think your reading something in to the text that simply is not there.
Response
I
don't mean to be offensive (name deleted), because I have very much
appreciated your posts in the past. However, I do not think YOU are
viewing this as deeply in the spiritual as the Lord wants you to. You
say the enemy always loses. Hmmm, take the belief that there are God
given allowances to give up on a person who is wayward and ok to move on
with a different person---perhaps another person who is divorced as
well. Do you think God is glorified in such? Do you think the enemy has
lost in such cases? I do not. I think he has won that particular battle
because the one giving up instead of seeking to be like the Lord Jesus
Christ who dwells within them, wants to satisfy their flesh in the here
and now-----they look at some "exceptions/allowances" as something God
gives WEAK mankind to sustain them through this life. The problem is
this: It is the Lord Jesus Christ who sustains us and is our "husband"
when our flesh husband goes astray. As I said, your husband, biblically,
is in a STATE of adultery. Why? Because he is BOUND to you. You do not
get to "choose" to be unbound.....none of us do. The "innocent" wife of
Mt. 19:9 didn't get to choose to be unbound. WHOEVER marries her commits
adultery. That is what Jesus said.
Scripture shows that we are NOT called to forsake the one He has joined
us to for life. We are called to LOVE---I Cor. 13. This notion that we
can "choose" to move on is just not a biblical concept. We can either
CHOOSE to forgive and stand firm in LOVE, or we can choose to forsake
and walk in unforgiveness, showing our children that if they mess up big
time, we just may extract them from our lives and "move on"..........and
if they ever come to a place of repentance, we can tell them, "sorry, my
life is good right now, I don't have any place for you."
This is the message we send to our children.........and this is how we
are representing, falsely, the Love of Christ---towards those who are
JOINED to Him, yet fall into error.
Yes, I know many will say they have forgiven their spouse. Usually it is
because they have found someone new, someone MORE wonderful, so the pain
is not great anymore in regards to their loss. In such cases, it is
quite easy to say such a thing. However, not "feeling" unforgiveness
does not mean one is not walking in unforgiveness towards the one God
joined them to.
Comment/question
Yes I would take her (ex-wife) back no
matter what she does because I know how much I have sinned and I know
that God should send me straight to Hell everyday but because of Grace
and mercy I get to go to heaven instead. That is what I Corinthians 13
is all about-real love forgives no matter what is done to it.
Response
Absolutely. You are right on the money. Those that rest in the so-called
"exception" clause do PERMANENTLY shut the door for reconciliation to
the one God joined them to, many times do not REALLY understand how
great a salvation was offered to them, a SINNER, hence they cannot
fathom how they can ever love(with God's kind of love--I Corinthians 13)
the one who has sinned against them. It's not easy, for sure. However,
when we are struggling to LOVE as Jesus loves (which every believer is
called to do), we need to ask the Lord to bring back to our rememberence,
how WE felt the day we were born again----the WEIGHT of our sin in His
presence, the thankfulness of His forgiveness to us!!! When we remember
what we have been forgiven of, it makes forgiving others and the idea of
reconciliation, not so difficult. Blessings brother.
Comment/question
Okay - I said all that to say this - Why should the
innocent one suffer the rest of their lives for the things that their
former spouse did? In other words, if a husband commits adultery,
divorces his wife, and lives with another woman in sin or marries
another woman, why should his first wife be alone and lonesome and
without companionship the rest of her life because of his sin?
Response
Well, all we have to do is look towards Jesus' own words in
Matthew 19:9-----"whosoever marries her that is put away commits
adultery". This is the INNOCENT woman who is put away so her husband can
marry another. She is the victim of abandonment and adultery against
her----yet Jesus says that anyone who takes her commits adultery. Why,
if Jesus believed the "innocent party" can remarry? It is because that
is not what Jesus taught. He taught that what He joins together is bound
for life. Paul taught the same exact thing. Jesus' disciples understood
EXACTLY what He was speaking to them, hence their shock.
Comment/question
Jesus related the innocent one as the one to whom adultery
was “committed against”.
Response
"and whosoever marries her that is divorced, commits
adultery"............
The question is: the 'whosoever' above----who is he committing adultery
against?
Comment/question
I know what the scripture is saying, however there are 2
points that we should be keeping in mind.
The phrase above uses the words "is divorced" meaning in context as
Jesus presented it, that the women was on the receiving end of a divorce
by those words "is divorced" meaning that someone divorced her, and that
is not suggesting that the women or man divorced the other, "and
whosoever marries her that "is divorced", is saying that the women who
is divorced can only be divorced on the ground of sexual immorality.
therefore whosoever marries her that is divorced, commits adultery"
The second point is Jesus was speaking of the same matter, where He
first raised that allowance for sexual immorality, ....so on that ground
the women/man is not divorced, the women/man divorced the other.
Response
Yes, I agree Jesus is speaking of a woman who is
divorced---meaning she is on the receiving end, not the seeking end. We
also have Jesus telling us that the husband who puts her away is now
committing adultery. You say that in cases where sexual immorality takes
place, the divorced CAN marry again. Jesus gives us the example in
Matthew 19:9, this is not the case----that whoever marries such a woman
(who was put away innocently by a husband who afterwards commits
adultery by marrying another) is committing adultery. Again, who is the
new man committing adultery against if the wife is truly free from her
adulterous husband???
Comment/question
Yes but what was the reason?, Jesus defined the reason and
the cause, so telling us that the husband who puts her away is now
committing adultery….the only way that could be in that scenario was
because than man had no cause to divorce… and is now committing adultery
against her.
And in the same matter when someone marries her who was divorced because
that man had no cause to divorce….then they both are still married,
which now causes” the her and him to commit adultery.
This was the flaw in Moses allowance that Jesus was telling the
Pharisees that was not that way since the beginning.
Response
Jesus didn't say there was a "flaw" in Moses' allowance of
divorce to take place. Jesus made it very clear that divorce was not
instituted by God---it was instituted by man due to man's
hard-heartedness. Jesus was not trying to make it "fair" for the wife
who wasn't permitted to remarry. He was making it clear that adultery
did not give permission for ANY to marry without committing adultery.
Comment/question
Paul uses the word "loosed" Greek for G3089 ,"from" a
wife... meaning the wife was still living, and to be loosed in the first
place the divorce in order to be loosed has to be proven as SI, and not
for any reason.
That was the flaw in Moses allowance for divorce that Jesus was telling
the Pharisees which was not that way since the beginning, because it was
causing a lot of adultery that no one was aware of until Jesus came to
tell them.
Response
"loosed" means nothing of the sort, (name deleted). That is
YOUR insertion of what you believe it means based upon your
interpretation which allows people with living spouses to be joined with
others. I do not read I Corinthians 7:27 that way and though I don't care about
"popular" opinion, most all of the commentaries I've read on that
passage believe Paul is speaking about NEVER been married men or
widowers, NOT the divorced as you assume.
There was NO provision for divorce due to
adultery in the law. The LORD commanded death!! While Jesus walked
the earth, the law was still in effect----the thing was that the Jew was
not abiding in the law, but many had gone their own way (much like the
church of today). There were to be no "living moms/dads" in the picture.
There were no conflicts between living parents and the step parent
situation as we see it today.
Jesus, when He came upon the woman caught in adultery, did not offer
divorce as a solution to the sin, He offered mercy and forgiveness
through REPENTANCE..........this is the "new" thing........LIFE instead
of death. Not divorce instead of death.............not unforgiveness
instead of forgiveness, not hardheartedness instead of mercy. He brought
marriage back to the creation intent for marriage---NO LONGER TWO, but
ONE FLESH---joined by God---until death does part (Romans 7:2-3, I
Corinthians 7:39).
Comment/question
But just as so many of the moral principles of the Old
Testament do still apply i.e. lying, steeling, coveting, are all still
prohibited, there is no reason to believe that God changed his mind
regarding divorce and remarriage. In the Sermon on the mount (Mt. 5)
where Jesus was addressing the misinterpretation of many of the OT Laws
and how they apply to us who are under the NT, he specifically addressed
the issue of adultery as a exception.
Response
We don't have to guess whether Jesus "changed His mind"
about divorce/remarriage. Jesus tells us what His expectations are----He
brought us back to the creation intent for marriage.....in the beginning
there was no divorce/remarriage. His disciples understood exactly what
Jesus spoke to them.
As for Matthew 5, Jesus said that to LOOK upon a woman with lust was
adultery. Do you tell women who have husbands that "look", that they are
adulterers and in such cases, the woman are free to rip their families
apart to seek another man who may not be guilty of that sin (but has
other sins, some worse)? Also, there is NO permission implied or
outrightly stated that the divorced due to adultery can then remarry.
Comment/question
The way this serious, tragic, awful ways of someone harden
heart and go away from the Lord is a serious matter. Even the offended
one if not position themselves and not forgive will reap consequences of
it, as the one who was faithful and put away for adultery does not have
the same standing before the Lord as the one with harden heart.
Response
Yes, I very much agree with you that a hardened heart is a
VERY serious matter in the Lord's sight---as it not only takes us away
from each other, but above all else, causes us to depart from the Lord.
The thing is that we attribute hardheartedness only to the offender in a
divorce situation. But the truth is that many times the offended ALSO
gets a hard heart, yet theirs is not seen for what it is. When one walks
away from LOVE in regards to the erring spouse, one IS being hardhearted
and is not walking in the ways of the Lord which is longsuffering,
patient endurance (love NEVER fails). In many of these cases love DOES
fail on the part of the offended, hence they "move on" looking for
another to love them as their covenant spouse should have. Many say this
is an "allowance" the Lord gives, but why if that allowance is not
practiced by all---but some in fact remain faithful, praying for their
wayward spouses to come home and to have their families restored as is
the Lord's heart in the matter?
As for the same standing, I will agree with you IF the
offended one is guiltless before the Lord. I think there are VERY FEW
who are guiltless before the Lord. Some of the ones who have committed
adultery, repented and still have been forsaken, are the ones in right
standing before the Lord----not the one who put the guilty party
away----in hardheartedness. We must be very careful about how we weigh
sin because even the Lord expanded his view on adultery (even LOOKING in
lust at another is adultery in His sight)! How many of the so called
"innocent" are guilty of this type of adultery?
Comment/question
One did not departed from walking with the living God, the
other did and sure the Faithful and Just Lord knows who are those
walking with Him. As it is very clear the Scriptures says when one
remarries and was defiled is abomination to go back to ex-spouse and the
cases in question were not even because they were put away by adultery
just any reasons put away, as adulterous caught was put to death...
Response
David took Michal back AFTER she joined in marriage with
another man. Did he sin? Is is not true that Michal was NOT free to be
wife to another man and that is why David took her back to himself? So
it is with the divorces that take place today. God says He does not
recognize them as dissolving what He joined together---hence these
relationships are called adultery. The peoples involved do NOT belong to
each other---they belong to the one God joined them to---whether they
want the one God joined them to or not is not the issue. We all want
"different" things when life is not pleasant, yet wanting does not then
give us right to take what does not belong to us and abandon that which
has been entrusted to us by the Lord Himself.
Comment/question
The Scriptures says clearly that is sin to harden ones
heart: "harden not your hearts", in Hebrews at least 3...its great
rebellion before God must of all above all. Now a Child of God is to
choose to forgive as to reconciliation happens if both have soft hearts
Response
There is no "if" with God. We either forgive and love--even
those who do not "love" us back or we walk in hardheartedness. There is
no "option" of "if".
Comment/question
When Scriptures and Lord Himself says is abomination to do
it (be reconciled) after marriage to another because of defilement, well
sure there is a provision, as to choose not receive the defiled one
back.
Response
Absolutely there is a provision: "remain unmarried OR be
reconciled" I Corinthians 7:10-11. That is the provision Jesus gave to
those who care to follow Him. Most do not like that provision, believing
it to be too hard, so they go and join themselves with others who are
not approved by God.
Comment/question
I find it sad that there are those who wish to usurp the
authority of Jesus Christ Himself , who gives adultery as permission for
divorce. It's mind-boggling that some people are so caught up in their
extra-Biblical beliefs that they put more stock in their own pet
theories than in the words of Christ.
I choose to give the same grace as He has.
Response
If this is true, (name deleted), then would a spouse NOT
give grace to an adulterous spouse in the same way Jesus Christ also
gives grace to the adulterer telling them to "go and sin no more"? Would
they be excused from loving like Jesus loves (I Corinthians 13)? The
problem we see in those who say adultery gives right to divorce and then
remarry----Jesus gave the example of the "innocent' in Matthew
19:9----and she is NOT given permission to remarry. Whoever takes her as
wife would commit adultery (because she is not free to marry). So in the
so called "permission" passage, we see a prohibition to marry for the
same sin.
It must also be acknowledged that MOST people who divorce end up
marrying other divorced persons ("whosoever marries one divorced from
her husband commits adultery")...........so the cycle of adultery just
goes on and on. You can't possibly think this is what Jesus envisioned
when He gave such a supposed "permission"? Also, we can not forget that
Jesus expanded the definition of adultery to include LUSTING with the
eyes/heart. Are ANY of us innocent of adultery? Shouldn't then ALL of us
be divorced?