"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 America 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
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.
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 (
When the marriage covenant is abandoned by even one spouse, it is broken and dissolved.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
How can a marriage be dissolved, but the wife charged with adultery AGAIN and the man who marries her charged with ADULTERY???
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.
quibble over the word adultery or immorality or lewdness. Those
differences are modern things. Jesus considered it immorality.
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..........
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).
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.............
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?
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
Scripture says woman.
You've added "no one"...
Men/women were treated differently in both the NT/OT......
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)?
But Fornication is Adultery
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...........
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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"?
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.
"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?
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.
Matthew 19:9 9 And I tell you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery."
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
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?
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.
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
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).
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.
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).
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:..
whose spouse committed porneia can divorce her and remarry. This is what
Matt 19:9 says... yes?
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.
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
I do not wish to get into a translation debate, but it needs to be noted that not all translations have the last phrase.
Most do contain that last part in Matthew 19:9.......and that last part agrees with Matthew 5:32.
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."
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........
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
if adultery happens the innocent spouse has the option of divorce not the guilty one.
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?
In all cases, the divorced woman was divorced because she had been unfaithful - She was NOT an innocent spouse.
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.
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.'
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.
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.
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.'
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."
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."
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.'
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.
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."
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.
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????????????
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
(name deleted) has already explained this scripture.
Cor. 7:39 - (name deleted) has already explained this scripture. I
concur with the explanations of both these passages.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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".
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).
"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.
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.
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!
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...............
It is very obvious that Jesus made the case that adultery breaks the marriage bond. The innocent spouse is free to remarry.
What do you make of Hosea and Gomer then?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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).
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.
that is the case it makes it very difficult to move forward in the
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).
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
If he would have divorced her he would have been wrong because she was innocent.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
Forgiveness is not an option it is a command .... reconciliation is not a command it is encouraged.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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).
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.
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.
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.
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?
put it more simply, do you disagree with Jesus at those two points?
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.
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.
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........
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.
have been on both sides of this issue and continue to study it.
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?
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.
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.
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.
understand except for marital unfaithfulness is referring to the fact
that a woman who is already an adulteress can’t be made an adulteress
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. "
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.
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.
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.
Having TBI is not sexual immorality. How is this useful to the reasons for divorce and remarriage we have been talking about?
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.
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.
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.
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!
I believe God made this exception so one would not be sorrowful their whole life.
God wants us to have joy.
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.
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?
(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?
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.........
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.
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
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).
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..............
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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!
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?
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.
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).
So the question is, if the woman never remarries, has the husband who divorced her still cause her to commit adultery?
No. (I Corinthians. 7:10-11).
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.
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".............
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.
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).
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.
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.
To be one with your spouse is no longer happening when one is committing adultery.
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...............
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.
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........
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?
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......
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.
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).
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.
How long must the adultery last before one is "free".............1 month, 10 months, 10 years?
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.
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?
Why did you not quote Matthews 19 verse nine also or does it not count, because it has the words except for.
(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.
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.
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.
The innocent one only commits adultery in a remarriage when divorced on grounds other than adultery.
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?
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.
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?
I think your reading something in to the text that simply is not there.
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.
I think your reading something in to the text that simply is not there.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Jesus related the innocent one as the one to whom adultery was “committed against”.
"and whosoever marries her that is divorced, commits adultery"............
The question is: the 'whosoever' above----who is he committing adultery against?
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.
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???
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.
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.
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.
"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).
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.
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.
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.
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?
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...
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.
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
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".
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.
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.
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.
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?
If a couple is separated for reasons other than adultery and one remarries then the one who remarries has committed adultery and the remaining spouse is NO LONGER MARRIED. There is NOTHING in scripture that prohibits the remaining spouse from remarriage. The adulterers "marriage" is in question and invalid however.
where in scripture can you find that the "innocent" is no longer joined to the covenant spouse, but the covenant spouse's new "marriage" is invalid? If the "innocent" is free, so is the guilty. There either IS a marital bond or there is not...........The simple fact concerning Herod/Herodias is that their marriage was NOT lawful/legal. They were not "married", they were committing adultery. Herodias' adultery did not dissolve her marriage to Philip..........it was still intact according to John..........she STILL belonged to Philip, though she divorced Philip and married Herod. I would be very interested if you can find something in scripture to verify your stance because I have looked and looked hoping to find evidence that what is being practiced today, in the church and out, is A-OK with God and that remarriage is NOT adultery. I could not find any such evidence. You say the remaining spouse can remarry, but Jesus says otherwise. He says in Mt. 19:9 (check out other translations)..............whosoever marries her that is divorced (the forsaken wife whose husband has remarried) commits adultery. It sure doesn't appear that Jesus in any way, shape or form gives the OK for an abandoned wife to remarry. Paul relates back to us that the wife who is separated from her husband is NOT permitted to remarry, but must remain unmarried OR be reconciled to her husband (when he repents of course).
The Testimony of J.M Humphrey
Sermons & Radio Broadcasts on marriage, divorce, remarriage & more.
Fellowship, Support & Discussion Forum
Theological Foundations has an online fellowship and discussion forum for those who are standing for their covenant marriages and for those who have repented of adulterous remarriages.
The Hosea Project is an international, nondenominational effort by volunteers to contact each Pastor and leader of the Christian Church worldwide with this message of repentance and restoration.
Listen to the Hosea Project message
Looking for a church that teaches the permanency of marriage?
I do NOT in any way endorse the entirety of a number of these sites below, nonetheless, they may contain useful information and/or resources.
By Dr. Leslie McFall
Former lecturer in Hebrew and Old Testament. Now a full-time researcher in Biblical Studies.
Former Research Fellow at Tyndale House Library (Cambridge, England).
**More MDR links at