"Look at the legalized adultery we call divorce.
Men marry one wife after another and are still admitted into good
society; and women do likewise. There are thousands of supposedly
respectable men in American living with other men's wives, and thousands
of supposedly respectable women living with other women's husbands."
- R. A. Torrey From R.A. Torrey's book How to Pray, pages 94-95
R.A. Torrey (1856-1928) was a very well-known Christian writer,
evangelist, pastor, graduate of Yale University, and was also the
superintendent of Moody Bible Institute for 19 years.
TRINITY BARS THE
DIVORCED.; No Remarriage in the Church or Any of the Chapels.
The clergy of Trinity Church announced yesterday that under no
circumstances will divorced persons be married by any of the clergy of
that Episcopal parish, nor will such marriages be permitted either in
the church at Wall Street and Broadway or in any one of the parish's
eight chapels. The announcement was as follows:
View full article New York Times
December 7, 1904, Wednesday
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 anot