Updated: 26th 4:01pm
Introduction to McFall’s Research Paper
Leslie McFall has written an interesting 43-page paper called The Biblical Teaching on Divorce and Remarriage. In his paper, he discusses an addition that Desiderius Erasmus added to his Greek-Latin New Testament (1516 1st ed) that [he claims] changed the way Matthew 19:9 has been translated.
McFall [offers evidence he says] shows how Erasmus’ addition of the Greek word εἰ in Mat 19:9 has lead to the incorrect translation of this verse. What should be translated as an exclusion to divorce, “not even for fornication” (McFall Translation), is seen by most to be a exception to divorce and remarry, “except it be for fornication” (KJV).
While the other scriptures (Mar 10:11, 12; Luk 16:18, Rom 7:2, 3; 1Cor 7:11, 39) are very clear on divorce and remarriage, many people find that Mat 5:32 and Mat 19:9 leaves them puzzled and uncertain as to what the Word of God teaches concerning divorce and remarriage.
The purpose of this article is to introduce you to the concepts that McFall discusses at length in his research paper. I have been in communication with McFall concerning his paper, and have made a number of suggestions to him. He has reviewed this introduction to his paper and has given me a number of suggestions, which I have implemented.
The concepts outlined by McFall clearly show that the so-called ‘exception clause’ in Mat 19:9 is an exclusion to divorce, not an exception to divorce and remarry. This will bring an understanding that Mat 5:32 is an exception to blame, not an exception to divorce and remarry; hence the divorce and remarriage issue fits together like a puzzle, and people can get peace for this difficult question.
History of the Textus Receptus
Many people that hold to the KJV and the Textus Receptus (TR) Greek manuscript are not even aware of the history of the Greek manuscript. They are surprised when you tell them that, for the most part, it was the work of a Roman Catholic priest. Let me give you a short history.
Erasmus (1466-1536) was a Dutch humanist who was ordained to the Catholic priesthood in 1492, and stayed loyal to the Roman Catholic Church until his death. He became very popular in Europe for his satirical writings like “The Praise of Folly” (1509), which poked fun at the church and state. He also wrote many scholarly works, and held a debate with Luther on the freedom of the will.
Erasmus’ Greek New Testament (3rd ed) was the basis for the 1st edition of the Robert Stephens’ 1546 Greek New Testament. Stephens’ 1550 edition (3rd ed) was the well known “Royal” edition. Theodore Beza published a Greek New Testament in 1565 that was basically the same as Stephens’ 4th edition of 1551.
Then, in 1565, Bonaventure Elzevir reproduced the 1st edition of Beza’s Greek Manuscript – which is now known as the Textus Receptus (TR). The 1611 King James version of the Bible was based on this Greek manuscript and other translations from this historical era of manuscripts.
The Greek Manuscripts that Erasmus Used
When Erasmus put together his Greek-Latin New Testament, he used 7 manuscripts. Only 3 of them contained the Gospels. Using the Gregory-Aland numbering system, these manuscripts were MS1 (1200s), MS2 (1200s), and MS69 (1500s).
It is important to note Erasmus’ position on divorce and remarriage. Erasmus published his view of divorce in “Annotationes” (1519), which was that the remarriage of a divorced person was legitimate. He later developed a more elaborate defense of this position, which he published in the 1522 and 1527 editions of “Annotationes”.
Erasmus added the Greek word εἰ (if) before μὴ (not) into Matt 19:9, thus changing the text to read from “not” to “except”. There is no information on why Erasmus added εἰ. None of the manuscripts he used support this addition, and the marginal reading from manuscript MS69 with this reading appears to have been added post-Erasmus.
If you are interested in the Erasmus’ Greek-Latin New Testament is can be purchased for $34.69 or downloaded in PDF (296MB) for free.
Erasmus Changed the Latin Also
Erasmus’ New Testament was a Greek and Latin translation. He not only added this addition to the Greek manuscript, but his Latin translation was different from the Latin Vulgate, in that it included the exception clause and broadened the exception from “fornication” to “disgrace”.
The Latin word in the Vulgate was “fornicationem” and the Latin word Erasmus used in his Latin New Testament was “stuprum”, which is defined in the Oxford Latin Dictionary as “dishonour, disgrace, defilement, unchastity, debauchery, lewdness, and violation”
Vulgate and Erasmus Latin Compared
The following is a comparison of Matthew 19:9 in the Latin Vulgate and in Erasmus’ Latin New Testament (3rd ed). The Latin to English translations are from McFall’s paper.
Mat 19:9 Latin Vulgate: dico autem vobis quia quicumque dimiserit uxorem suam nisi ob fornicationem et aliam duxerit moechatur et qui dimissam duxerit moechatur
Mat 19:9 Erasmus Latin NT in English: And I say to you that whosoever shall repudiate his wife, unless it be for disgrace, and shall marry another, committeth adultery.
Mat 19:9 Erasmus Latin NT: Dico autem uobis quia quicunque repudiauerit uxorem suam, nisi ob stuprum, et aliam duxerit, is comittit adulterium.
Mat 19:9 Erasmus Latin:
Comparing McFall/KVJ and NA27/TR
The following is McFall’s translation of Matthew 19:9 with the Nestles-Aland (NA) Greek, and the KJV translation with the Textus Receptus (TR) Greek. Compare the Greek texts and you will see that εἰ is not in the NA Greek text.
Nestle-Aland’s 27th edition, the most popular Greek manuscript, has rejected Erasmus addition of εἰ to Matthew 19:9. However, translations continue to translate the Greek “except for fornication”, even though they reject the Greek word εἰ that Erasmus inserted.
McFall’s translation is based on the the Majority Greek. He has done a Greek-English Harmony of the four Gospels, but it is currently unpublished. In Appendex B of his paper The Biblical Teaching on Divorce and Remarriage, he explains his process for translating Mat 19:9.
Mat 19:9 (McFall Simplified): And I say to you that who, say, may put away his wife—not even for fornication—and may marry another commits adultery; and he who did marry her that has been put away commits adultery.
Mat 19:9 (NA27): λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην μοιχᾶται
Mat 19:9 Alfred Marshall Interlinear Translation:
Mat 19:9 (KJV): 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.
Mat 19:9 (TR): λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ εἰ μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην μοιχᾶται καὶ ὁ ἀπολελυμένην γαμήσας μοιχᾶταιμοιχᾶται
Mat 19:9 Erasmus Greek 3rd ed:
Jewish Betrothal Explanation
I have never felt comfortable with explaining the so-called ‘exception clause’ of Matthew 19:9 with the Jewish betrothal explanation, but I had never found anything better. Even though I have done a lot of research on this passage, I had not been aware of the addition of εἰ to Mat 19:9 or of its implications.
I had looked at the position of removing the exception clause completely based on the Vatican manuscript (MS03), but as this is not supported by the majority of Greek texts, I stuck with the Jewish betrothal interpretation until I read McFall’s article.
In my view the Jewish betrothal interpretation has a serious issue that creates more questions than they answer. The Jewish betrothal interpretation takes Mat 19:9 and gives it a completely different meaning than Mar 10:11. Those that hold the Jewish betrothal interpretation would teach that Mar 10:11 is talking about marriage, not Jewish betrothal. Then when they go to Mat 19:9, they say that the same words that Jesus spoke now mean something else, as Matthew is written to the Jews.
If you hold that Mat 19:9 is dealing with Jewish betrothal, then you must hold that the same account in Mar 10:11 is teaching that same thing. But the problem is that there is no so-called ‘exception clause’ in Mar 10:11. With no ‘exception clause’ you now have Mar 10:11 teaching that Jewish betrothal cannot be broken even for fornication, and Mat 19:9 teaching that it can be broken.
As far as I can see, the Jewish betrothal interpretation raises more questions than it answers. For honest souls that are seeking truth, all scriptures (Mar 10:11, 12; Luk 16:18; Rom 7:2, 3; ICor 7:11, 39) other than Mat 19:9 are very clear that there are no exceptions for divorce and remarriage.
So, what we need is a clean way to deal with Mat 19:9 that does nott raise more questions that it tries to answer. Leslie McFall’s correction of the Greek gives us a clear way, and I see no reason not to take it.
What This Means to You
In closing, what McFall’s article provides us with is a proper way to explain the so-called ‘exception clause’ that Erasmus created by adding εἰ to Matthew 19:9. There is no information on why Erasmus added εἰ. None of the manuscripts he used support this addition, and the marginal reading from manuscript MS69 with this reading appears to be added post-Erasmus.
This addition changed the information phrase of “he may not have divorced her for fornication” into a conditional clause “except it be for fornication”. This introduced an allowance for divorce into the Bible translations that used Erasmus’ Greek. This addition has caused people to believe that if anyone divorces his wife for marital unfaithfulness, they are free to remarry and they are not committing adultery.
This means we need to warn those who are thinking of divorcing and remarrying that there is no exception (allowance) for remarriage. Those who are currently remarried who have a living spouse from a previous lawful1 marriage are in the state of adultery, and copulation in that union is adultery.
Those that are in an adulterous remarriage need to repent of this sin and separate and seek restoration with their rightful spouse, or remain single.
It would also be good if you bring this up with the leaders in the congregation you attend. When God shows us light and understanding from his Word, we are responsible to share it with others around us.
____________________________________
1The use of lawful is in respect to the New Covenant law (the law of liberty, the royal law), and is not referring to the law of Moses or the current marriage laws of any nation.
2Written on November 15, 2008.
November 17th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Interesting paper, but I would have to see how it stacks up to the Ante-Nicene Fathers textually. The early church did universally forbid remarriage after a divorce, but the reality is that there is some disagreement among them in that some did allow a separation from an adulterous companion, but never remarriage.
I also have had a problem with the Jewish espousal view, and have come to believe that “except for fornication” is referring to the fact that divorce IS permitted is a couple are living in fornication, i.e. fornication is its broad sense of any illicit sexual activity. In other words, the man is 1 Co. 5 was in fornication for taking his father’s wife (incest). In this case he was permitted, in fact demanded, a divorce from Paul. The same would apply to remarriages while the first spouse still lives. The second marriages is an illicit sexual activity (adultery) and hence a divorce is permitted from the 2nd spouse.
I have written a paper on this, but it is not on my Primitive Christianity website. I would be glad to send it to anyone for examination.
Mike
November 17th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Hi Mike; It is my understanding that addition of ει that Erasmus added is not found in any of the quotes of Mat 19:9 in the every church fathers. There is no reason to seek divorce instead of separation unless one of the parties wants to remarry.
>>>The second marriages is an illicit sexual activity (adultery) and hence a divorce is permitted from the 2nd spouse.
If we take Mat 19:9 with the exception clause “except for unchastity” then we are going to have to take what the exception clause is applied to. The exception clause is applied to remarriage in the case of divorce.
I think applying the Mat 19:9 except clause to people in a double marriage is going to be more difficult to maintain than the Jewish espousal view.
If you look at the same account in Mar 10:11, 12 it is not dealing with double marriage at all.
The problems of both of these ways to deal with the exception clause is done away when ει is removed which changes “not” to “except”.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
Thank you Bob, you have written a great summation of McFall’s article. I can recommend other books including those written by Dr. Joseph Webb, and John Tarwater.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Hi Michael; Thanks! I was very excited to find a better way to dead with Matthew 19:9 than the Jewish espousal.
November 21st, 2008 at 2:59 pm
That is interesting; however, this article begs the question of why you aren’t disturbed by the variations and contradictions and changes in the Biblical texts. I can only assume that you don’t believe that the Bible is the perfect word of God; and then I would have to ask, if you don’t believe that, why worry about what the Bible says in the first place? Even if it is inspired, it is still two thousand years old. Surely we have had more inspirations since then.
Also, to clarify, would you interpret this passage to say that divorce itself isn’t as bad as re-marriage?
November 21st, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Hi Alice; Thank you for your comments. No the variations don’t bother me. Greek textual criticism has rejected Erasmus’ addition but the English translations have left the results of it in their translations. As far as contradictions I feel like they are apparent contradictions and you can always find an explanation if you want one.
I would hold that the Bible texts when original given were the inerrant Word of God. Also I would hold that there have not been more inspirited scriptures produced since the Bible.
I hold the Bible teachings there is grounds for separation due to unfaithfulness or verbal, emotional, or physical abuse but no grounds for divorce as that opens up the way to remariage.
November 21st, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Greetings:
I had noted in my comment above that the article I wrote about the The Fornication Puzzle of Matthew 19:9 was not on my Primitive Christianity site. I had forgotten that I had put it on there some months ago. I find that this view makes all the various verses fit together without any straining, at least in my own mind.
Peace, Mike
November 22nd, 2008 at 12:54 am
Hi Mike; I will take a look at it and perhaps get back to you.
November 22nd, 2008 at 10:12 am
Dear Bob
Thanks for this summary - it makes Leslie’s position very clear.
The Greek at Mt.19.9 is not easy, as you can see from Leslie’s literal translation: “Now I say to you that who, for example, may have divorced his wife-he may not have divorced her for fornication-and may have married another woman, he becomes adulterous by marrying her.”
It is not clear whether the ‘not’ is an elipsis (as Leslie assumes) or an exception (as Erasmus assumed).
The decisive verse for me is Mt.5.32 where Matthew translates the original Aramaic of Jesus sightly differently. He says “… who divorces his wife except for..” - the Greek here is ‘parektos’, which is unambiguously means ‘except’. This solves the ambiguity in Mt.19.9.
Hope this is helpful.
David
November 22nd, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Hi David; I am not sure why you would feel that the way the Greek is in Mat 5:32 would solve the ambiguity in Mat 19:9 unless you are applying the exception in Mat 5:32 to the second clause “and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery”. The second clause of Mat 5:32 is grammatically independent from the exception and states that the person marrying the divorced person is committing adultery no matter why the person was divorced.
In these two scriptures the so-called exception is being applied to two different issues. In Mat 5:32 the exception is applied whether or not the one divorcing is causing the one divorced to commit adultery (if they remarried). In Mat 19:9 the so-called exception is applied to where the one divorcing is themselves guilty of adultery when remarrying.
I think you would have a point if the Greek construction of the exception clause from Mat 5:32 was for example in Mar 10:12. Then the exception would then be applied to the same issue as Mat 19:9. But this is not the case.
You can see clearly what the so-called exceptions are being applied to when you remove them from both scriptures. In Mat 5:21 the exception is being applied to “put away his wife… causeth her to commit adultery” where the so-called exception in Mat 19:9 is being applied to “put away his wife… and shall marry another, committeth adultery”.
Have you read the article Divorce and Remarriage: Another Look at the Matthean Exception Clauses by Andrew S. Kulikovsky where to puts forth that the so-called exception clause of Mat 19:9 is a parenthetical clause? Kulikovsky holds that the clause is an editorial addition which functions as an explicit prohibition against divorce for sexual sin and translates it “(he may not divorce for sexual sin)”.
I personally found both McFall’s and Kulikovsky’s articles a very interesting way to look the so-call exception clause of Mat 19:9.
November 23rd, 2008 at 1:58 am
Just a further note on Erasmus’ addition of ei in Matt 19:9, Metzger’s Textual Commentary lists 2 textual differences for this verse (1) the use of parektos as in Matt 5:32, and (2) the addition of “and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery” ie. there are NO manuscripts that support Erasmus’ emendation. Erasmus obviously made the addition with a view to clarifying the text-but of course, the clarification was made in accordance with his understanding of what the text was trying to say. But Erasmus was not a theologian and would not have been familiar with the historical theological debate that had occurred between the Shammai and Hillel rabbinic schools. In other words, his view was not informed and counts for nothing.
November 23rd, 2008 at 2:45 am
Hi Andrew; I guess some have felt that a marginal reading of Mat 19:9 in MS 69 which had ei was used by Erasmus. Leslie McFall has gotten from Leicester Record Office scans for all the marginal corrections in MS 69. He will be going though the 200 scans to see if he can find another example of the same writing or ink color so he can determine if the margin reading of Mat 19:9 is post-Erasmus.
Here is a scan of the margin reading with ei from Mat 19:9 in MS 69.
November 23rd, 2008 at 4:59 am
Thanks Mike (Atnip) for sharing your article, pretty straightforward.
Thanks Andrew for clarifying that there are NO manuscripts that support Erasmus’ emendation/addition or the Erasmus’ Trap as Les McFall refers to it.
I want to consider the consequences of the Erasmus’ Trap, as many have read it in good faith as truth, and have based decisions on this addition. If we examine this closely this addition has produced what sort of fruit?
For the Fruit Inspectors amongst us I can recommend - Marriage and The Public Good: Ten Principals download free at http://www.wisereaction.org
November 24th, 2008 at 7:56 am
Bob said, “There is no reason to seek divorce instead of separation unless one of the parties wants to remarry.”
This misunderstands (historical) family law. Divorce allowed a man out of his marital duties of support and cohabitation with his wife. Even in this country until into the 20th cent., divorce, where it was available, only meant a release from marital (legal) obligations, but was not a pure divorce that would allow remarriage. That would still have been considered polygamy, a crime.
So there certainly was a reason to seek divorce even if that act did not empower one to remarry. To permit remarriage is to forever bar the possibility of reconciliation. This is contrary to the Christian model of Christ as groom and His church as bride. We have a God who will never bar reconciliation by finding a new spouse, nor One who would recognize our (occasional) finding of a new “spouse” as barring reconciliation. If we find a new thing to love, it would be illicit, and the permanent union with God would be our continuing duty.
Peace in Christ,
Tom
November 24th, 2008 at 9:16 am
Hi Tom Brown;
>>>Divorce allowed a man out of his marital duties of support and cohabitation with his wife.
Legal separation will allow this also. You can get a legal separation in Canada with out getting a divorce where the issues of support and dividing of property are dealt with. I expect the case is the same in the US.
>>>To permit remarriage is to forever bar the possibility of reconciliation.
I wouldn’t agree with this but reconciliation is certianly going more difficult when one or both of the separated parties remarry. Personally I feel that divorce is the first step toward remarriage and as God hates divorce and doesn’t recognize it I still don’t see any reason for a Christian to want to get one.
November 24th, 2008 at 9:17 am
Several have mentioned a hesitancy to accept the espousal interpretation. I had similar concerns until I read Tarwater’s book as well as the excellent and compelling article by David Jones, “The Betrothal View of Divorce and Remarriage,” which someone has scanned and posted here: http://www.wisereaction.org/ebooks/betrothal_jonesd.pdf. While I find McFall’s article plausible, and perhaps even compatiable with the espousal reading, the awkwardness of his translation, as well as the need to deal more thoroughly with the issues with Matt. 5:32 raised by Instone-Brewer above, make it a bit cumbersome to me. In this light, given the simplicity and cultural/conetextual support for the espousal reading, I don’t think I am ready to abandon it yet.
November 24th, 2008 at 10:00 am
Hi Gustav Swen; I have a number of issues with the espousal interpretation. First if the Jewish espousal was a contract of marriage and was the same as being married then there would be no allowance for divorce or remarriage. Even if a marriage is not consummated it is still a marriage.
The second issue I have with the Jewish espousal interpretation is it takes Mat 19:9 and gives it a completely different meaning that Mar 10:11. Those that hold the Jewish espousal interpretation would teach that Mar 10:11 is talking about marriage not Jewish espousal. Then when they go to Mat 19:9 they say that the same words that Jesus spoke now mean some thing else as he is addressing Jewish espousal.
If you hold that Mat 19:9 is dealing with Jewish espousal then you must hold that the same account in Mar 10:11 is teaching that same thing. But the problem is there is no so-called exception clause in Mar 10:11. Leaving out the so-called exception clause now is a serious issue as now we have Mar 10:11 teaching that Jewish espousal can not be broken even for fornication and Mat 19:9 teaching that it can.
So in my mind the Jewish espousal interpretation raises more questions than it answers. I feel to an honest soul the scriptures we have (Mar 10:11, 12; Luk 16:18; Rom 7:2, 3; ICor 7:11, 39) we have besides Mat 19:9 are very clear there is no exceptions to divorce and remarry.
So what we need is a clean way to deal with Mat 19:9 that doesn’t raise more questions that it tries to answer. Both Leslie McFall’s correction of the Greek and Andrew Kulikovsky parenthetical clause give us a clear way and I see no reason not to take it.
November 24th, 2008 at 11:55 am
David wrote:
The decisive verse for me is Mt.5.32 where Matthew translates the original Aramaic of Jesus sightly differently. He says “who divorces his wife except for..” - the Greek here is “parektos”, which is unambiguously means “except”. This solves the ambiguity in Mt.19.9.
David is correct in that parektos unambiguously means “except”. But what is it an exception to?
The whole verse reads: “but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the cause of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery” (NASB). Does this verse imply that a person may divorce on the grounds of marital unfaithfulness and remarry without committing adultery? In order to correctly understand the implications of this verse it is helpful to restate its propositions in a clearer form:
1. Anyone who divorces his wife for any reason other than marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress.
2. Anyone who divorces his wife for marital unfaithfulness, does not cause her to become an adulteress.
3. Any man who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.
Proposition (1) clearly states that the practice of divorcing one’s wife has the ultimate effect of turning her into an adulterer, given that she would inevitably remarry. Proposition (2), on the other hand, states that if a man divorces his wife because she has committed adultery, then he would not cause her to become an adulteress because she would already be an adulteress! Thus, her moral status would not change if she married again.
This is the reason why Matthew specifies an exception at this point. If the exception was not present, Matthew’s statement that the divorced woman would subsequently be made into an adulterer given that she would inevitably remarry, becomes superfluous because her adultery was the reason for the divorce in the first place.
Moreover, the second conjunctive clause in 5:32 (“and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery”), is grammatically independent of the exception (proposition (3)), and states that a man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery, regardless of the reason for her being divorced. This implies that any man who marries a faithful but divorced woman (i.e. a woman who was divorced for any reason other than marital unfaithfulness) commits adultery.
Therefore, if Matthew 5:32 teaches that marital unfaithfulness is valid grounds for divorce, then it also teaches that a faithful but divorced woman who remarries, does not commit adultery, even though the man who marries her does! This is clearly absurd, and seriously calls into question the understanding that marital unfaithfulness is valid grounds for divorce.
In other words, Matt 5:32 clarifies 19:9 by strengthening the argument that it is NOT a true exception and that sexual sin/marital unfaithfulness is not a valid grounds for divorce.
November 24th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Hi Andrew Kulikovsky; It was not clear to me What David mean by “This solves the ambiguity in Mt.19.9.” I am guessing you have read David’s books where he may go over what he means. I did email my reply to him and I expect he will respond.
I completely agree with you that the exception clause in Mat 5:32 addresses whether putting a lawful spouse away causes them to commit adultery if they remarry and has nothing to do with the second clause which is grammatically independent from the exception and states that the person marrying the divorced person is committing adultery no matter why the person was divorced.
However I wasn’t able to follow your logic that “if Matthew 5:32 teaches that marital unfaithfulness is valid grounds for divorce, then it also teaches that a faithful but divorced woman who remarries, does not commit adultery, even though the man who marries her does”.
While I agree that the teaching that the innocent party can but the guilty party can’t remarry is wrong and not logical, I wasn’t able to follow your jump from if Mat 5:32 is held to allow divorce that it also teachings “that a faithful but divorced woman who remarries, does not commit adultery, even though the man who marries her does”.
Did you want to post a comment on what you hold the position of the Bible is when it comes to repentance and forsaking of the sin of adultery in the case of divorce and remarriage?
November 24th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
After teaching on this subject for over thirty years I am amazed at all the confusion being spread because of; I think, or I believe phrases. The true acid test of truth is what did Jesus and Paul really teach? What did all of the earliest Church fathers teach? Who changed the teaching and when; and who wrote all of our theology books that have led the present-day Church astray?
Paul clearly said to Timothy; “I received my revelation directly from Jesus Christ, and in that day we will be judged by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel. If anyone teaches anything any different from what I have taught you, let him be accursed. If even an angel teaches something different; let him be anathmatized.” Once we find out today’s Church is not teaching what Jesus and Paul taught, healing and order can be restored.
My newest book; “Divorce and Remarriage, The Trojan Horse Within the Church.” reveals all of these historic facts with direct quotations of all the persons involved in the original teaching and the actual quotations of those involved in changing the message.
Bill Gothard said of this book: “O have been pleased to receive and review your manuscript…You have done an outstanding job on presenting the Biblical view on divorce and remarriage. The readers cannot help but be impressed with the scholarly research you have done on this subject…for those who sincerely want the truth, your book will be a valuable resource.”
The book can be obtained through Xulon Press and Spring Arbor at any bookstore, or at Christian Principles Restored.
November 24th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
We cover the Matthew exception clause in our FAQ about Marriage Divorce & Remarriage.
Hope this helps anyone studying this issue.
Cheryl
My testimony: Why I Repented of A Marriage God Called Adulterous!
November 24th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Hi Cheryl; Thanks for the links. I have been on your site but have not taken the time to read much. I did go over the exception clause in your FAQ a few days back and noticed you hold to the Jewish Betrothal interpretation for the Mat 19:9 so-called exception clause. Have you looked at either of McFalls or Kulikovskys papers on the Mat 19:9 so-called exception clause?
This thread you are posting on is McFall’s review. I plan on doing a review of Kulikovsky’s paper after I finish my review on Considerations On Divorce A Vinculo Matrimonii.
November 24th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Dear Bob,
You had said in interpreting the passage in discussion: “There is no reason to seek divorce instead of separation unless one of the parties wants to remarry.”
I replied: “This misunderstands (historical) family law. Divorce allowed a man out of his marital duties of support and cohabitation with his wife.”
You replied to me: “Legal separation will allow this also.” This is an anachronism that presupposes the Jews at the time of Matthew’s writing had a construct known as ‘legal separation.’ I am aware of no such legal notion. My understanding of legal history is that the concept of a legal separation, and the concept of a kind of divorce allowing remarriage are very modern. I do not believe these concepts were present for the Jews of Matthew’s day.
So my point remains, that there was a reason for what the Jews would have called ‘divorce’ other than seeking remarriage.
You said in a separate comment: “First if the Jewish espousal was a contract of marriage and was the same as being married then there would be no allowance for divorce or remarriage.”
This is a non sequitur, unless perhaps you believe that the Jewish marriage is a mere contract. But the Jewish marriage was a covenant, an exchange of persons (bodies). As such, and like all covenants God made with His people, it was permanent, irrevocable. So you could have a narrowly revocable contract to marry that, once consummated into a covenant, is no longer revocable under any condition. The two shall become one flesh. If a man bargained with a woman’s father to marry her, and he then discovers that she is not a virgin (because of porneia; i.e., she is not what he ‘bargained’ for), the contract to enter the covenant of marriage would have been broken.
It seems that any interpreting of the Scripture on marriage should be founded on an understanding of Jewish law and the covenantal nature of their marriages. Otherwise we would be viewing an historically-based issue through modern lenses and definitions of very particular terms.
Peace in Christ,
Tom
November 24th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Hi Tom; I think I missed what you were meaning by historical family law. You are thinking 1st century. My comments to Mike were referring to 20th/21th century. His view is that the so-called exception clause of Mat 19:9 is applicable to today for people have remarried (if I understood him correctly).
>>>But the Jewish marriage was a covenant, an exchange of persons (bodies). As such, and like all covenants God made with His people, it was permanent, irrevocable.
Perhaps in the beginning but Moses gave an exception in Deut 24:1-4 that allowed them to put their wife away and be remarriage. Now this changed with the teaching of Christ but still I am not sure what context you are saying the Jewish marriage was permanent and irrevocable?
Also while you made a comment on the first point I made to Gustav Swen which I need to look into further, what was you take on my 2nd objection to the Jewish Betrothal interpretation?
Here is my second objection:
“The second issue I have with the Jewish espousal interpretation is it takes Mat 19:9 and gives it a completely different meaning that Mar 10:11. Those that hold the Jewish espousal interpretation would teach that Mar 10:11 is talking about marriage not Jewish espousal. Then when they go to Mat 19:9 they say that the same words that Jesus spoke now mean some thing else as he is addressing Jewish espousal.
If you hold that Mat 19:9 is dealing with Jewish espousal then you must hold that the same account in Mar 10:11 is teaching that same thing. But the problem is there is no so-called exception clause in Mar 10:11. Leaving out the so-called exception clause now is a serious issue as now we have Mar 10:11 teaching that Jewish espousal can not be broken even for fornication and Mat 19:9 teaching that it can.
So in my mind the Jewish espousal interpretation raises more questions than it answers. I feel to an honest soul the scriptures we have (Mar 10:11, 12; Luk 16:18; Rom 7:2, 3; ICor 7:11, 39) we have besides Mat 19:9 are very clear there is no exceptions to divorce and remarry.
So what we need is a clean way to deal with Mat 19:9 that doesn’t raise more questions that it tries to answer.”
Also can you give provide me with a couple of links where I can get up to speed on Jewish family law at the time of Jesus. I have read some about the betrothal period but according to your statements it appears I am missing some principles.
Thanks!
November 24th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
I agree with the way Andrew Kulikovisky has refuted the opinion that Matthew 5:31,32 has evidence for divorce and remarriage. The D&R crowd is grabbing for the proverbial straw, by forcing their pet scriptures, to agree with their presupposition ie., the bible allows for D&R in certain circumstances.
What they fail to recognize (whether ignorantly or intentionally I know not) is their complete abandonment of the harmonistic principle, and the inductive method of investigation. They dogmatically presuppose the idea of D&R, and then abandon all the laws of investigation, to arrive at their predetermined conclusion, which also happens to be their premise; a mere begging the question.
The accounts in Matthew do not outweigh, or correct, any perceived ‘incompleteness’ or ‘hidden implication’ in the other texts of scripture, on the subject of marriage. Jesus Himself gives the interpretation of His own teaching, when responding to His disciples in private. His words in Matthew 19 and Mark 10, are in perfect agreement with His own description of the marriage institution ie., (Creational one flesh for life).
None of the ensuing discussions on the issue of marriage, can be interpreted in a way, that would overthrow the revealed model of marriage for all mankind. To do so, would create more than one standard, which is no standard at all. One simple example is this; If any marriage can cease to exist, (completely be dissolved) by any other means than death, we have 2 emphatically clear texts that are null and void, of their unequivocal meaning whatsoever, (Rom 7:2, 3; and 1 Cor 7:39).
If one would assert that it is certainly Gods ‘ideal’ that all marriage is until death, but their are additional qualifications that would dissolve the marriage union, they clearly force an outright contradiction. We are right back where we started from; marriage is ‘not until death’ when another perceived qualification, has an equal effect on the marriage, as death does.
But Jesus says that marriage is until death, which is the creational model that He revealed in the clearest terms. You can’t have it both ways, which proves the inference to be invalidated. If anyone wants to defend the imaginations of people in ’self-preservation’ mode, then stop appealing to the scriptures.
The Word is the only way to the Kingdom of God, and that includes obedience to Jesus standard of Holiness. Jesus will not conform to our image, we must conform to Him, or perish.
Jim II
November 25th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Bob wrote:
While I agree that the teaching that the innocent party can but the guilty party can’t remarry is wrong and not logical, I wasn’t able to follow your jump from if Mat 5:32 is held to allow divorce that it also teachings “that a faithful but divorced woman who remarries, does not commit adultery, even though the man who marries her does”.
1. You agreed that “the second clause which is grammatically independent from the exception and states that the person marrying the divorced person is committing adultery no matter why the person was divorced.”
2. We know that those in favor of divorce and remarriage argue that divorce is allowable where marital unfaithfulness is involved.
Therefore, those who favor divorce and remarriage in the case of unfaithfulness are forced to admit that-if their view is correct-a woman divorced for some reason apart from marital unfaithfulness is not committing adultery if she remarries, but-according to the Matt 5:32b-a man who marries her DOES commit adultery (as you rightly acknowledge)!
cheers,
Andrew
November 25th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
David Instone-Brewer’s response above is the key one. David is an expert scholar on the topic of marriage and divorce in the Bible and in antiquity, knows Jewish backgrounds inside and out and can read Greek and Hebrew better than most on the planet!
If you take Matthew 19:9 as McFall does then Matthew and Jesus contradict themselves between 5:32 and 19:9. The Erasmian epi merely clarifies what is already implied in the text without it. McFall fails to observe that a me by itself can have exceptive force. A look at the earliest textual variants confirms that this is the oldest interpretive tradition, as scribes regularly changed me to parektos to make the exception clause unambiguously exceptive.
November 25th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Bob,
“Also can you give provide me with a couple of links where I can get up to speed on Jewish family law at the time of Jesus.”
Try here: Jewish Marriage Customs.
I can’t speak to the overall repute of this website, but the historical content on the marriage process seems to be based upon a well-studied source. Their use of the term covenant is interesting. They are saying the covenant existed throughout the betrothal period (the “engagement”) but was not yet consummated until the wedding day and intercourse.
My understanding is that a Jewish covenant is not complete until it is consummated. This Jewish source notes that the “old” way to create covenants was to “cut” a covenant. From the Bible, we learn that this happens by cutting a sacrificial animal in two, with the covenanting parties passing between its carcass parts. Jeremiah 24:18 and Genesis 15 ff. Jesus is this dissected lamb for us, that we, God’s people, can be in covenant with God.
So even if one uses the term covenant early in the betrothal process, I think all can agree that the covenant is at least incomplete (inchoate) until it is “cut” (this is where the expression “cut a deal” comes from, I believe). This passing between the animal, which could only occur when the animal had given up its lifeblood, symbolizes a permanent union of the parties to each other (in whatever their deal or venture or promise was). They would then eat the meat together (see the same Jewish Encyclopedia source) to commemorate their union which was made official through the sacrifice of the animal. “Originally the covenant was a bond of life-fellowship, where the mingling of the blood was deemed essential.” To break a consummated covenant required death, this source explains…
Sorry if I diluted your conversation with Mike by jumping into 1st century family situations. I thought since all were handling and attempting to interpret the word “divorce”, it was important to keep it close to its contextual roots.
I think this view of permanent covenants is not inconsistent with Deuteronomy 24:1-4. You can read it as “allowing” remarriage after marriage, but that is not the only way to read it. You’re viewing it as permissive language, but I view it as prohibitive language. It says *IF* a man divorces his wife and then she subsequently is taken to the marriage bed of another man, the first husband would commit an abomination to have her back. The passage is not permissive, but seems to make some concession for (i.e. a recognition and acceptance of) the weakness of the people.
This matches what Christ later had to say (‘Moses said that because you were weak’). So it did not okay “X” (divorce), but said if you do “X” you certainly may not do the abominable “Y” later. Why was this an abomination if divorce and remarriage were permissible? How was wife defiled, even if husband 2 simply died? Well, that’s because with a covenant obligation to husband 1 permanently in place, she (illegally) broke it to be bonded to another man.
Would it make sense if she could marry husband 3 after husband 2 died, but could not be reconciled to husband 1? I say not, which tells me any relationship subsequent to the covenant marriage with husband 1 is sinful (as long as husband 1 is alive). In this passage, I believe the post-consummation bill of divorce meant the husband ended his obligations of support and cohabitation with the wife. You would have to identify some other permissive language from Moses on remarriage.
I think your comparison between Matthew 19:9 and Mark 10:11 needs more consideration. Matthew says “no divorce except in porneia” and Mark says “no divorce.” So we have “no A except when B,” and “no A.” You say there is a problem for those who think we’re talking about the same “A” when only one has the exception, “B”.
You effectively read them this way: Matthew, “no A except when B” and Mark, “no A even when B” (“serious issue as now we have Mar 10:11 teaching that Jewish espousal can not be broken even for fornication and Mat 19:9 teaching that it can.”). But this is not what Mark says. Mark does not say “no divorce even when porneia.” Because Mark omitted the exception does not mean the Bible can’t give us that exception in another place.
So to create the conflict for the Jewish espousal view, you are effectively adding exclusivity to Mark. Your opponent can simply say “I interpret scripture with scripture, and if an exception is only noted in one of two instances, I believe it applies to both.” If the exception applies to both, then it can easily be referring to the betrothal period.
Ergo, the Jewish espousal interpretation does not raise any more questions than the opposite raises. Also, I disagree that a “clean” way to handle Matthew 19:9 is our duty. Sometimes Scriptures are hard and don’t yield easy answers.
Peace in Christ,
Tom
November 25th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Hi Craig Blomberg; In what way would McFall’s translation of Mat 19:9 contradict Mat 5:32. The exception clauses are related to two different things. Mat 5:32 is related to “whosoever shall put away his wife… causeth her to committeth adultery” where Mat 19:9 it is related to “Whosoever shall put away his wife…and shall marry another, committeth adultery:”
The exception in Mat 5:32 is related to causing the wife to commit adultery if she remarries where the exception in Mat 19:9 is related to the man remarrying and committing adultery.
I don’t see your reasoning that when the exception clause in Mat 19:9 is changed to a parenthetical clause that this causes a contradiction between Mat 19:9 and Mat 5:32.
November 25th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Thanks for the clarifying question, Bob. Yes, there are those who have taken the approach that the adultery occurs only if there is remarriage. Thus Bill Heth, for example, in his book with Gordon Wenham, argued for years (before changing his mind) that divorce was acceptable in the case of adultery but not remarriage. But interpreters have usually taken the two as a package deal, especially since remarriage was uniformly permitted in Jewish and Greco-Roman backgrounds after a legitimate marriage.
You can see my fuller views in my commentaries on Matthew (NAC from Broadman & Holman) and on 1 Corinthians 7 (NIVAC from Zondervan) as well as in my detailed article in Trinity Journal in 1990. Craig Keener’s and Bill Luck’s volumes on divorce and remarriage also give full details of the kind of view I would endorse. Put briefly, though, it is that the “adultery” that divorce creates is metaphorical for all wrongly divorced persons (just like in the OT, Israel’s infidelity spiritually is often likened to adultery against God) even before it becomes literal for those who remarry (after all not everyone did remarry, but Jesus says “whoever” divorces commits adultery or causes their spouse to commit adultery, depending on which passage you are looking at).
In other words, each passage singles out one possible situation out of a total four to which the teaching would equally apply: (a) a man improperly divorcing his wife; (b) a woman improperly divorcing her husband; (c) a man remarrying an improperly divorced woman; and (d) a woman remarrying an improperly divorced man.
Sorry I don’t have the time to go into all the detail here, but hopefully my fuller treatments elsewhere will make clear my views.
Blessings on all of you wrestling with this tortuous issue!
November 25th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Hi Tom Brown;
>>>Matthew says ‘no divorce except in porneia’ and Mark says ‘no divorce.’
I would see the so-called exception in Mat 19:9 to be a parenthetical clause not an exception clause. This way we don’t have Matthew saying one things and Mark another.
>>>Because Mark omitted the exception does not mean the Bible can’t give us that exception in another place.
Keep in mind that the Gospels had different authors, were written at different times and different places, they didn’t reference each other, and they were written to stand alone and to be used by congregation and convert with out being comparing to each other. When Mat 19:9 is translated as a exception clause instead of a parenthetical clause then it teachings something different than Mar 10:11.
Mar 10:2-12 is the same historical account as Mat 19:3-12. My point was that when you take Mat 19:9 and put it into the context of Jewish betrothal you will have to do the same for Mar 10:11. You can’t say “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery” (Mat 19:9) refers to the Jewish betrothal and then turn around and say “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery” (Mar 10:11) is referring to marriage not betrothal. If one is referring to Jewish betrothal then they both are. If they both are then Matthew gave an exception to break the betrothal in the case of fornication and Mark didn’t.
>>>So to create the conflict for the Jewish espousal view, you are effectively adding exclusivity to Mark. Your opponent can simply say ‘I interpret scripture with scripture, and if an exception is only noted in one of two instances, I believe it applies to both.’
I am translating the clause in Mat 19:9 as a parenthetical clause. My opponent should feel free to move the parenthetical clause from Matthew to Mark as it doesn’t change anything only provides further information.
>>>If the exception applies to both, then it can easily be referring to the betrothal period.
I think you have missed my point. It is more than the exception clause that has to do with the betrothal period but it is also the clause you are applying it to. When you hold that the exceptional clause has to do with the betrothal period you must do the same to the clause you are applying it to. So now the phrase “Whosoever shall put away his wife” (Mat 19:9) must be read as “Whosoever shall put away his betrothed wife”.
Your problem is that what ever you do with “Whosoever shall put away his wife” in Mat 19:9 you must do with “Whosoever shall put away his wife” in Mat 10:11. So when you change the meaning of wife to betrothed wife in one you must do the same in the other as they are historically the same accounts. When you do this you end up with an exception in one and no exception in the other.
This is the problem with applying the Jewish betrothal interpretation to Mat 19:9.
November 25th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Hi Craig Blomberg; So are you saying that while Mat 5:32 only states “whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication” that it means “whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, and shall marry another” as divorce and remarriage should be seen as a “package deal”?
November 25th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Well, this helps to shed a lot of light on a subject in which I have great interest. I am so satisfied to know that the person trying to speak to me about his marriage in a way that might have been more “acceptable” to God than mine because his wife’s divorce was based on a cheating spouse, where mine was not, is really just as misled as he said I was. It’s interesting.
This article also brings me to a further conclusion-until we are face to face with God, and we ask him for full understanding of his word, we will never know exactly what he’s saying. We, as humans, claim to be intelligent beings, but, truthfully, we all fall short of understanding the glory of God…we are too dense to understand his word and its true intention, and we are always going to put our self-centered spin on the interpretations of the Bible because we have free will…because we are human.
Thanks for the article!
November 25th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Correct!
November 25th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Hi Craig Blomberg; So back to where we originally started.
>>>If you take Matthew 19:9 as McFall does then Matthew and Jesus contradict themselves between 5:32 and 19:9.
To that I would then answer only if you choose to add “and shall marry another” to Mat 5:32 which is not there. Just kind in mind when you do that in my view you are completely changing what the verse means.
Would you feel that when you add the clause “and shall marry another” to Mat 5:32 you are changing the literal meaning of the verse to mean some completely different? And further do you think that it is possible to translate the so-called exception clause of Mat 19:9 as a parenthetical clause in the way that either McFall or Kulikovsky do?
Also as a teacher whose views have a lot of influence over what others do has this issue weighed heavy on your mind or do you feel it is pretty cut and dry?
Thanks for dropping in and sharing your view! I think it is important that we hear the best from both sides. In that way we can, with the help of the Lord, make a decision and not be tossed back by by hearing positions that we hadn’t heard or considered before.
November 25th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Hi Shandar7;
>>>Well, this helps to shed a lot of light on a subject in which I have great interest.
I am glad to hear that. I have a resource on Divorce and Remarriage and the plan is to do reviews of the top articles and books on this subject and to make them available to the public.
November 25th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Dear Bob,
How is whether an exception is parenthetical or non-parenthetical relevant?
“Keep in mind that the Gospels had different authors, were written at different times and different places, they didn’t reference each other, and they were written to stand alone and to be used by congregation and convert with out being comparing to each other.”
Not that this settles our discussion, but this view seems contrary to the classical Protestant position which holds that Scripture, our sole inerrant authority, is to be interpreted with Scripture. We can discuss what certain texts were “written to” do, but that is a subordinate hermeneutic tool to the broader truth that the texts are Divinely inspired and form a seamless whole. So if Matthew says “no divorce (except in porneia)” and Mark says “no divorce” the classical hermeneutic would be to interpret Matthew with Mark and vice versa. To interpret Mark by Matthew in a way that says ‘no divorce is ever permissible’ is to call Mark into question as containing error, which would violate the Christian belief that Mark is infallible. To interpret Matthew by Mark in a way that says ‘there is one exception which Matthew simply did not list’ does not necessarily involve a Matthian error. And it is another interpretive method that says we should not find a contradiction in two related texts where another reading is plausible.
I do think that Matthew and Mark are speaking of the same historical account. I do take Matthew in the context of Jewish betrothal and Mark in that same context. So I have no contradiction there. Perhaps you saw from the links I sent you (that you had requested) that “wife” was used to refer to a betrothed bride, not just a consummated-marriage wife.
“You can’t say “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery” (Mat 19:9) refers to the Jewish betrothal and then turn around and say “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery” (Mar 10:11) is referring to marriage not betrothal. I agree, they both are speaking of the same context, but I think you misquoted Mark there.
Matthew 19:9: “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
Mark 10:11: “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.”
So as I said before, we have ‘don’t do A (except for B)’ in one and ‘don’t do A’ in the other. At this juncture, you say to me, “If they both are then Matthew gave an exception to break the betrothal in the case of fornication and Mark didn’t.”
Correct. One noted the exception (whether it was parenthetical or not is irrelevant), and the other didn’t.
At this juncture, you seem to be saying to me: “So now the phrase “Whosoever shall put away his wife” (Mat 19:9) must be read as “Whosoever shall put away his betrothed wife”.”
Again, there is only a problem here if we misunderstand the meaning of the word “wife” to the Jewish audience. If we called fiancees “wives” in the modern tongue, we wouldn’t be having this confusion. If the word equally meant married bride and betrothed bride in its original writing, then I am adding nothing — wife refers broadly to a betrothed AND a married woman simultaneously.
“Your problem is that what ever you do with “Whosoever shall put away his wife” in Mat 19:9 you must do with “Whosoever shall put away his wife” in Mat 10:11.”
I think you said this three times or so, though I have not disputed the point. I have merely said that there is no contradiction between Matthew and Mark even when these verses are read in the same historical context.
“When you do this you end up with an exception in one and no exception in the other.”
Agreed, but more carefully would I say, when you do this, you end up with a stated exception in one and no stated exception in the other.
“This is the problem with applying the Jewish betrothal interpretation to Mat 19:9.”
This is not a problem, and this is your error. You did not address my analysis of how *the non-statement of the exception does not exclude the possibilty of an exception* in the previous comment, so I’m hesitant to repeat too much of it here. Maybe an example would clear things up. If I stated to my young son, “Do not touch the stove!” at one minute and “Turn the stove light off for me” in the next, would I be contradicting myself? No. My non-statement of an exception in the first command does not exclude the possibility of an exception existing (in this case, that son can touch stove under supervision). If I had said in the former instance “Do not touch the stove under any circumstance,” or “Never touch the stove without exception!” then my second instruction would be a contradiction of the first.
Let me apply my hermeneutic which *avoids reading contradictions where an alternate reading is possible* to another set of verses.
James 1:13: “When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone;”
Mark 1:12-13: “At once the Spirit sent [Christ] out into the desert, and he was in the desert forty days, being tempted by Satan.”
I think you can read this as evidence of contradiction (i.e., error) within Scripture, or you can avoid the contradiction two ways: by saying Christ was not God (which contradicts other Scripture and the Christian message in general), or by saying that the use of “temptation” has a broad and narrow meaning in these two verses (the narrow sense something of a ‘mere’ testing, and the broader sense being more of a general inclination to give in to desire).
Peace in Christ,
Tom
November 25th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
Hi Bob, or whoever:
I have not read all these comments for the lack of time. But I think I see what you are saying about a parenthetical clause, something I did not understand before.
Would the following be an example of how Jesus might have said Mt 5:32, were he speaking in modern English:
“But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife - Don’t be a cause of fornication! - causes her to commit adultery.”
Mike
November 25th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
Hi Thomas Brown; I have decided to just respond to one issue for now and that issue is that I would feel that when a person holds that Mat 19:9 has to do with a betrothal wife instead of a married wife it takes causes all of verse 9 to do with betrothal. To me it is clear the issue was about a married wife and the issues of divorce and remarriage. Not about a betrothed wife.
For now perhaps it will be best to deal with that issue and we can get to the other issues later as the posts are getting to long to deal with more than one issue in my view. I have tried to keep this one short and to the point.
>>>How is whether an exception is parenthetical or non-parenthetical relevant?
My point was that the clause is not exception but was parenthetical and that it is descriptive and not excepting.
>>>To interpret Mark by Matthew in a way that says ‘no divorce is ever permissible’ is to call Mark into question as containing error, which would violate the Christian belief that Mark is infallible.
Well I have not done that so I am not sure how that is related here. I have maintained that there is no exception and that the so-called exception clause is a parenthetical clause that is descriptive and not excepting.
>>>And it is another interpretive method that says we should not find a contradiction in two related texts where another reading is plausible.
That is what I am suggesting.
>>>I do take Matthew in the context of Jewish betrothal and Mark in that same context. So I have no contradiction there.
So if you feel that both Mat 19:9 and Mar 10:11 are referring to Jewish betrothal do you feel like they are also referring to regular marriage? I would hold that it can’t be both. Either ‘Whosoever shall put away his wife” refers to the betrothed wife or to a married wife but not to both. And if the first clause in Mat 19:9 is concerning a betrothed wife then the second clause must be also.
I hardly think the issue that the Pharisees were bringing up was completely concerning where one could put away a betrothed wife if she committed fornication. Nor do I think the disciple’s reaction “If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry” is referring to Jesus noting that you can only put your betrothed wife away for fornication.
This is the problem with applying the Jewish betrothal interpretation to Mat 19:9. It makes the whole conversation to be about something that it is not about. In my opinion the issue is divorce and remarriage of a married wife not a betrothed wife and the same with Mar 10:11,12.
November 26th, 2008 at 12:17 am
Hi Mike;
>>>But I think I see what you are saying about a parenthetical clause, something I did not understand before. Would the following be an example of how Jesus might have said Mt 5:32…
I think that with Mat 5:32 there is a exception clause but it is not dealing with “and shall marry another” as in Mat 19:9 but with “causeth her to commit adultery” (if she remarries). The Greek is different in Mat 5:32 than in Mat 19:9.
In Mat 19:9 the Vulgate is “such as for fornication” and Erasmus’ Latin was “unless it be for disgrace”. Here he both changed a parenthetical clause that was descriptive and not exceptional to an exception clause and also lowered the exception that he did make from fornication to disgrace.
Erasmus did the same thing with the Greek text in Mat 19:9 when he with no support added εἰ (if) before μὴ (not), thus changing the text to read from “not” to “except” thus making a clause that could be seen as parenthetical clause into a exceptional clause that has been used to make the exception for remarriage in the case of marriage unfaithfulness.
There is not one known manuscript that supports this besides a 1500’s manuscript (MS69) that has this reading in the marginal and this marginal reading is in non-scribe writing and some hold it is post-Erasmus.
McFall has exposed this and shown how Mat 19:9 should be translated as a parenthetical clause that is descriptive not exceptional.
Now I say to you that who, for example, may have divorced his wife-he may not have divorced her for fornication-and may have married another woman, he becomes adulterous by marrying her.
You can read McFall’s method in translating the above in An Explanation For McFall’s Literal Translation Of Matthew 19:9.
Others leave the exception clause as it is in Mat 19:9 but apply the exception to put away a betrothed wife. But when this is done it hijacks all of Matt 19:9 and makes the whole issue of divorce and remarriage to be about a betrothed wife instead of a married wife which is what it is clearly dealing with.
November 26th, 2008 at 7:01 am
Craig Blonberg wrote:
“David Instone-Brewer’s response above is the key one. David is an expert scholar on the topic of marriage and divorce in the Bible and in antiquity, knows Jewish backgrounds inside and out and can read Greek and Hebrew better than most on the planet!”
This sounds rather like an appeal to authority ie. trust me-I’m an expert!
I have no doubt that David knows a great deal about this topic, but he is not the only one, nor is he the only one familiar with the Jewish background, or the only one who can read the Greek and Hebrew.
How about we stick to substantive arguments about the text?
David argues that Matt 5:32 determines/clarifies the meaning of Matt 19:9. However, as I pointed out previously, these verses say different things and the exception in Matt 5:32 is not an exception that allows divorce and remarriage for “innocent” parties.
Neither you nor David have responded to this point.
And speaking of Jewish backgrounds, I’d be interested to hear anyone’s thoughts on the following:
In Matthew 19:9, Jesus was responding to the religious leader’s question about why Moses commanded that a certificate be given to a divorced woman. This command is given in Deuteronomy 24:1-4, and specifies a case law relating to the handling of a woman who had been divorced and remarried, and who’s second husband had either divorced her or died. The meaning of this passage had been hotly debated among the Rabbis, and at the time of Christ, two main schools of thought had emerged: (1) The school of Shammai taught that if a man discovered some (sexual) indiscretion concerning his wife he must divorce her. (2) The school of Hillel taught that if a man simply disliked his wife for any reason, he could divorce her. It appears the Shammaites emphasized the “something indecent” of v. 2, while the Hillelites emphasized the “dislike” of v. 3.
Matthew makes it clear the Pharisees were not merely seeking Jesus’ opinion on the legality of divorce, but were actually testing Him. In light of the current Rabbinical debate, it appears they were trying to force Him into taking sides. In v. 3 kata pasan aitian can be taken as “for every reason whatever” (i.e. Hillel’s position) or “for any reason at all” but the context suggests the first alternative.
As was His custom, Jesus did not answer their question directly, but appeals to Genesis 2:24, in order to deny the presupposition on which their question is based: that divorce is permissible in some circumstances. Jesus’ response could not have been more clear, or more absolute: His answer is an emphatic NO. God specifically created men and women for each other, and it had always been His intention, right from the beginning, for married couples to stay together. Divorce is completely contrary to His will.
Note that if an exception is present in Matthew 19:9 then Jesus would have effectively been agreeing with the Shammaite view of divorce which he had just implicitly condemned.
Craig Blomberg has argued in his paper on this topic that Jesus did go beyond the teaching of Shammai in that Jesus only permitted divorce for sexual sin, whereas Shammai commanded it. But the context makes it clear that Jesus was primarily responding to Moses’ teaching (see vv. 7-8) not Shammai’s. This means that an exception would imply that Jesus was actually agreeing with Moses’ teaching in Deuteronomy 24, which is not possible, considering His response in v. 8. Jesus pointed out that Moses allowed divorce and remarriage because of hard-heartedness, but this was not God’s original intention. Therefore, in vv. 8b-9, Jesus actually over-turns Moses’ concession.
- McFall fails to observe that a me by itself can have exceptive force. A look at the earliest textual variants confirms that this is the oldest interpretive tradition, as scribes regularly changed me to parektos to make the exception clause unambiguously exceptive.-
Although I don’t accept McFall’s position, I would take issue with your claim that mh by itself can have exceptive force. mh is a negative particle.
It is generally rendered as “not” when it negates a verb, but the phrase mh epi porneia contains no explicit verb. In order to determine how mh should be rendered in this context, we must first determine what the author intended to negate when he wrote these words.
According to BAGD (sv. mh III.6), in “abrupt expressions without a verb” mh can have “a prohibitive sense in independent clauses, to express a negative wish or a warning.” An example of this use can be found in Rom 14:1, where mh negates a prepositional phrase as is the case in 19:9. Thus, my translation of 19:9 is as follows (2 options):
(1) Instead of assuming an ellipsis of ei/ean which is not found anywhere in the immediate context, it would be more appropriate to assume an ellipsis of the third person singular aorist subjunctive verb apolush mentioned in the preceding clause. Indeed, when mh is used with the aorist subjunctive, it often denotes a prohibition (see eg. Luke 1:15, 8:12). Therefore, 19:9 may be translated as follows:
I tell you that any man who divorces his wife, ([he may] not [divorce] for sexual sin), and marries another woman commits adultery.
(2) Even if the ellipsis of apolush was not a possibility, the negated phrase epi porneia would still convey a similar meaning. The phrase epi porneia communicates the possibility of divorce “on the basis of sexual sin,” which is then negated by mh. In other words, the possibility of divorce on the basis of sexual sin is being denied. This could be rendered as follows:
I tell you that any man who divorces his wife, ([divorce] on the basis of sexual sin is not allowed), and marries another woman commits adultery.
In addition, most of the textual variants containing parektos aren’t that early or that numerous. B and min. 33 are the only representative of the Alexandrian text type, but min. 33 is quite late and B is well known for its many corrections. The other witnesses (fam 1, fam. 13, and D) are late and all Western or Caesarean which are well known for the way tendency to harmonise similar texts. Therefore, the harmonisation of 19:9 with 5:32 is better understood as simply some (late) scribes attempts to clarify or simply a difficult passage, rather than reflecting “the oldest interpretive tradition.”
cheers,
Andrew
November 26th, 2008 at 7:02 am
Craig Blomberg wrote:
“You can see my fuller views in my commentaries on Matthew (NAC from Broadman & Holman) and on 1 Corinthians 7 (NIVAC from Zondervan) as well as in my detailed article in Trinity Journal in 1990. Craig Keener’s and Bill Luck’s volumes on divorce and remarriage also give full details of the kind of view I would endorse.”
My paper deals in detail with both Craig Blomberg’s Trinity Journal article and Craig Keener’s book. Suffice to say I disagree with them both.
cheers,
Andrew
November 26th, 2008 at 10:29 am
Dear Bob,
“I have decided to just respond to one issue for now”. Fair enough.
“and that issue is that I would feel that when a person holds that Mat 19:9 has to do with a betrothal wife instead of a married wife it takes causes all of verse 9 to do with betrothal.” In thinking about it, I’m not sure I would say “instead of” but you get to this later, so I’ll take it up there.
“To me it is clear the issue was about a married wife and the issues of divorce and remarriage. Not about a betrothed wife.” It may seem clear to you, but you have not made it clear to me. Consider this, which calls into question whether it is “clear” that the issue is about a married wife:
“The verb for “divorce” in Matthew 19:9 is the same as that used when Joseph intended to put Mary away quietly, apoluo. We know they were not married [at that time], but betrothed. By way of distinction, 1 Cor 7:27 (“Are you married? Do not seek a divorce.”) . . . uses the different verb lusis for “divorce”.
“The verse more literally says something like ‘whosoever shall release his woman, except in the case of fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery’.”
We both agree that divorce is not permitted. I think changing the “except” here to “as” still leaves us with a betrothed wife, not a married wife. Under Jewish law, the penalty for marital porneia (adultery) was death. Deuteronomy 22:22. Therefore, if a man released (apoluo) his wife in the case of porneia, she would be stoned to death, meaning he could not commit adultery (because she was no longer alive).
“Well I have not done that so I am not sure how that is related here.”
I was going through the logical possibilities, not trying to put words in your mouth. Sorry for any confusion.
“So if you feel that both Mat 19:9 and Mar 10:11 are referring to Jewish betrothal do you feel like they are also referring to regular marriage?”
I think they may be referring to no divorce of betrothed *or* married wives.
“I would hold that it can’t be both. Either ‘Whosoever shall put away his wife” refers to the betrothed wife or to a married wife but not to both. And if the first clause in Mat 19:9 is concerning a betrothed wife then the second clause must be also.”
The second clause can refer to an occasion that is only possible with some of the women categorized in the first clause, so I disagree with your “must be also” conclusion. Consider a hypothetical: a sign at an amusement park says “all adults may ride this roller coaster except those who are pregnant.” Under your logic, it seems the first clause could only be referring to female adults, as the second clause is only applicable to female adults. In our case, there is no logical problem with Matthew 19:9 saying “no divorcing [married wives or betrothed wives] except in porneia,” and simultaneously maintaining that the porneia scenario is only possible with the betrothed wives (since the married wives would be stoned).
“Nor do I think the disciple’s reaction “If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry” is referring to Jesus noting that you can only put your betrothed wife away for fornication.”
I think I am prepared to maintain that the wife refers to both married and betrothed wives, so I agree with your point here without contradicting my above comments on apoluo and on the death penalty for adulterous wives.
Peace in Christ,
Tom
November 26th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Thank you so much for the clarification. I am a woman who, over a year ago, left a second marriage having been convicted by the Spirit that it was adultery. Bringing these historical facts to light has helped me in my understanding … I knew it was wrong but the evidence seemed weak in the KJV. I am glad to know that it was not always so.
I am grateful for God’s grace and mercy even to one such as I.
November 26th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Hi Tracy; Well may the Lord bless you for that. Lord willing you should feel free to share your testimony how the Lord lead you that way. I would be happy to post it here.
Also there are other articles on this site that I would encourage you to read. Especially the concept of freedom from sinning and practical holy living. Check back from time to time on this article as I am updating it regularly and adding new material.
Today I have added a facsimile of Mat 19:9 showing Alfred Marshall’s Interlinear translation and the NA21 Greek text. This clearly shows the εἰ not inserted and the interlinear translation is “not of (for) fornication”.
I am working not on getting another well known Interlinear translation with the TR Greek text where the translation is “if not for fornication”. This “if not” is taken as “except” and what should be a exclusion to divorce “not even for fornication” (McFall Translation) has been changed to a exception to divorce “except it be for fornication” based on Erasmus’ addition of the Greek word εἰ.
Another thing that is good to keep in mind is the difference between Mat 5:32 and Mat 19:9. Mat 5:32 has an exception clause but it is an exception to blame not an exception to divorce and remarry.
While the other scriptures (Mar 10:11, 12; Luk 16:18, Rom 7:2, 3; 1Cor 7:11, 39) are very clear on divorce and remarriage, to most people Mat 5:32 and Mat 19:9 leave them puzzled. But once you are clear that Mat 19:9 is an exclusion to divorce not an exception to divorce and remarry as it appears to me in the KJV and Mat 5:32 is a exception to blame not an exception to divorce and remarry it all fits together like a puzzle and people can get peace in this difficult question.
November 30th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
One reader of this blog commented to me that…
I wondered why no one had referred to Michael W. Holmes, “The Text of the Matthean Divorce Passages: A Comment on the Appeal to Harmonization in Textual Decisions,” Journal of Biblical Literature 109 (1990) 651-64. His is the most thorough discussion of the variants in all the divorce texts, and he fairly conclusively shows that the “shorter” reading in our critical texts (UBS4 and NA27) for 19:9 is in error, and “that the original text of 19:9 . . . is found today almost exclusively among MSS of the Byzantine and (to a lesser degree) secondary Alexandrian traditions” (663).
November 30th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Greetings from Sydney Australia, the land ‘down under’.
This dialoge has been good reading, very interesting and very helpful.
To those who have contributed, thanks for standing Gods right and only way.
It would be good to have a summary and conclusion.
As a pastor’s wife I firmly believe and stand for marriage God’s way, married for life.
Bob, keep up the good work. May God continue to bless you.
December 5th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
I have to say this discussion of Erasmus is irrelevant. Jesus did say this in Greek anyway. He said it in Aramaic. And the historical context has to do with incest. Jesus is probably commenting on the cause celebre of his day- the marriage of Herod Antipas to his brother’s wife, Herodias. In other words Jesus is ruling out divorce except on grounds of incest. This comports nicely with what Paul tells us was Jesus’ teaching (and the earliest evidence we have for it- in 1 Cor. 7), namely Jesus permitted no divorce of couples joined together by God.
Lastly, porneia is not the technical term for adultery (that’s moixeia as the context in Matthew shows, see Mt. 5), nor is it a term normally used of fornication as a specific sexual sin. When it is used as a technical term it means incest, or when it is used more broadly it means all sorts of sexual abberations, not just fornication. The context of the discussion in Mt. 19.1-12 suggests that Jesus was offering a more restrictive view of things than normal, hence the disciples explosive reaction- “if that’s how it is between a man and a woman…”
BW3
December 6th, 2008 at 2:35 am
Hi Ben Witherington;
>>Jesus did[n't] say this in Greek anyway. He said it in Aramaic.
Yes but it was written in Greek.
>>>And the historical context has to do with incest.
I don’t think you can prove that.
>>>Lastly, porneia is not the technical term for adultery (that’s moixeia as the context in Matthew shows, see Mt. 5), nor is it a term normally used of fornication as a specific sexual sin.
Most people that are deal with this issue know that fornication is translated from porneia not moichao and that porneia has the meaning of porneia“1) illicit sexual intercourse a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc. b) sexual intercourse with close relatives;”
>>>When it is used as a technical term it means incest
I don’t think you can provide support for that.
>>>The context of the discussion in Mt. 19.1-12 suggests that Jesus was offering a more restrictive view of things than normal, hence the disciples explosive reaction– “if that’s how it is between a man and a woman…”
I would agree with that.
December 9th, 2008 at 7:24 am
1. Human behavior in terms of sexuality, partnerships and love has its origins in the chemicals and hormones released in the body. The urges are often overwhelming to the extent that the some individual are unable to control themselves. These hormones and chemicals’ purpose is to ensure the existence of the human species creating the urge to procreate.
Many individuals find it almost impossible to exist in solidarity and even though their initial judgment was flawed resulting in a divorce, it is impractical to expect such a person to continue his or her life in misery. If forced to live a life of solidarity such an individual will either fall into depression or engage in an illegitimate relationship as defined by the Bible.
Despite the understanding of Matt 9:19 many people remarry a different partner both turning out to be well adjusted, stable individuals and loving parents. Often the second marriage is a great success.
It is not clear if Erasmus made a mistake or corrected a mistake however despite his best intentions similar additions were made to other parts of the Bible e.g Mark 16:9-20. It is therefore not a unique case of additions made to the Bible and it is quite possibly not the last time it will occur.
Finally and most importantly, one would expect that God will inspire the correct translation of the Bible to ensure His followers follow the true and correct path. Considering both Matt 9:19 and mark 16:9-20 one can ask why God waited until the late 1400’s before inspiring a correction of the this verse, if indeed it is a mistake.
Or one could ask if Erasmus made a mistake (for what ever reason) why God has not inspired an immediate correction preventing many Christians from committing adultery in the past 500 years?
December 10th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Thanks-not read all; I always questioned that verse and felt the coma placement in KJ Eng. precluded even divorce, far less remarriage-to say nothing of all the others precluding divorce and certainly remarriage. Not knowing Greek and finding no one who could tell me, I typed into Google: “divorce except for fornication-Scripture” and this came up. Thanks! h
December 17th, 2008 at 5:08 am
Ok… I’m zooming past the comment here to simply note: “And I saw that for all the adulteries of faithless Israel, I had sent her away and given her a writ of divorce…’ [Jer 3:8 NASB].
Interesting that divorced His wife and yet some people still want to try to prove that divorce is always a sin and that God never really allows it. It’ll be interesting when we stand before a divorced God to give account for what we taught on earth about divorce. You’d think the thought of such would give some people pause. Apparently, it doesn’t.
December 17th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Thanks for this article.
I’m not convinced the removal of ει changes the actual meaning of the text, especially since there is no verb in the prhase in question.
For instance, I could say “You kids can play outside when it rains, NOT floods, and have fun.” Or I could say “You kids can play outside when it rains, except when it floods, and have fun.”
The meaning is the same.
As for Mark 10:11 and Matthew 19:9 not being in agreement with each other - I disagree. When two people report the ame thing, one will include details the other leaves out. This does not mean they contradict each other. For example, I could tell two of my children, “You can not go outside, except to take the trash out, until I come home.” One child might recount this to his sister (who never takes out the trash) as, “Dad said we can not go outside until he comes home”. The second child could recount this to his other sibling (who DOES occasionally take out the trash) as, “Dad said we can not go outside, except to take the trash out, until he comes home.’ Both are correct, but one is more accurate in the details, and this accuracy enhances understanding. But it does not change the overall meaning of the message.
In this case under discussion, the audience of Mark would not know of the ‘not for pornea’, but this does not mean the qualifier was not present when stated by Jesus.
January 13th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
I am a simpleton, in fact not worthy of being a student of Scripture; I say that to qualify myself for offending anyone here.
Here is my point. In V8 of chapter 19 of Matthew, Jesus answers the Pharisees with this speaking of Moses:
“8He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.”
then he gets into the meat of this blog topic:
” 9″And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
for the sake of my argument, I will agree here and move on.
Then the disiples say:
10The disciples said to Him, “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.”
Good point, but still not my piont:
Jesus then says:
11But He said to them, “Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given”
Hhmm, one must stop to think of how a conversation is built and verbally how we speak to one another, moreso, how Jesus would speak of this in leu of the ultimate picture parable, Christ and the Church. Marraige is to be the magnificent glorification of Christ and the Church.
Walk with me as I attempt to write what is in my mind:
Christ address this first: “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.”
Looking at this verse and looking at the others right after it, one must draw the connection of hearts being hard. This is profound, stay with me here for a minute: Moses understood his culture in that not everyone could show uncondition forgiven love; Jesus draws this conclusion as well, with the culture in His time, He too understood not everyone could show unconditional forgiving love, and He too gave an escape clause, something He knew no one could forgive…. fornication. Even in today’s society and inside of Christiandom today, there is no room for forgiving this sin against God and reconsile a marriage.
Again I am no scholar, it is evident, but I am one who does not beleive divorce is acceptable between to beleivers. Here is why, even with the fornification clause excuse! Because if we apply the simple truth of two things:
1. No sin is unforgivable by King Jesus
2. Marriage is the glorification of Chrsit and the Church
point one is self explanitory, point two might need some explination:
How many times have we “whored” ourselves to things unclean in the sight of God or done the things Jesus says not to;but then we quickly run back to Him for forgivness, if He is the husband of the church and we are turning to anything other than God, then we too are an adulteress. But yet God still accepts us not based on us, but on the premise of Christ’s finished work on the Cross!
So how much more should we hate divorce and only understand that Jesus was only talking to the Pharisees, understanding that they concept of forgivness based on furture grace of the cross would not be something they would embrase.
Enough of my confusion, bottom line, inside Christiandom, forgiveness and reconsiled marriages is what it is about. This verse though, I would argue, as I did above, is for the unbeliving.
Thank you for youe time and I beg of you to reproof if thisis incorrect.
Respectfully
Thomas
January 17th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
Dear sir,
While I admit I have not read all of the items on this post (which is a lot of information), it seems that there is a concesus as to the Scripturalness of divorce and remarriage. Here is my issue: Legally, I had been married for a little over 6 years (1995-2002), until our divorce in about 2002. I then remarried in 2004, and am still married. My question is, how can someone come to the conviction that the second marriage is wrong? I had problems with it from the start, but did it anyway. My 1st marriage was not for adultery. There was an adulterous situation, but that was forgiven earlier on (but there was no assumption that I would have put her away upon finding out of the adultery). Now is a different situation altogether. For some reason, I still feel that I shouldn’t have filed for divorce (I never repented of it-or the remarriage).
I understand that this post deals mainly with the textual aspects of the Bible verses used concerning divorce/remarriage, but where does someone go from realising (or even not having arrived at that conviction yet) that marriage/divorce is wrong. The church we attend has a different view of the remarriage part of it (do not seek reconcialiation with former spouse if they have not remarried-but I think she is remarried now anyway). I am sorry if this is a lot information here but you have hit something that I have been going through for few years. I’m not sure if this automatically posts (I guess I’ll find out after submitting this comment), but if not, you don’t have to post it since it doesn’t deal directly with this discussion.
thank you
allen f.
January 19th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
I greatly appreciate the principle behind this thread[i.e. truth over convenience]. I will not weigh in on the overall discussion at hand but will comment on one particular aspect. I find it a bit of a stretch to interpret Deuteronomy 24:1-4’s “uncleaness” as ‘previous marriage.’ I agree with Bob’s definition of the Greek equivelant. The Hebrew word here means “shameful disgrace.” It would seem to me that it should be more likely that this should be interpreted as any sexual deviance.
Is it the case that people under the Law had more grace? That does not make sense to me. It seems that proponents of both sides of this discussion must have found some innovative ways of interpreting Deuteronomy or at least you have found a way to reconcile a problem of God giving instruction thorough Moses that is completley against his will. That seems problematic and confusing…
I am interested in getting feedback about this from anyone. You guys do an excellent job of articulating your points and you’re always considerate; very refreshing. Mike Atnip…..great article
January 31st, 2009 at 6:18 am
I think that if you spent the time to openmindedly look at the Jewish betrothal view you would find that there are no contradictions to other scriptures at all. People of who have defended this point of view may not have always presented a perfect explanation of it but I beleive that it is the truth. All I can do is point you to the truth which is here http://www.ndtime.net/different_views_points_theories_put_away_porneia.htm
I am not being proud or trying to make myself better than anyone else I just love the truth and hope you do too.
March 15th, 2009 at 5:25 am
New articles links added at http://www.WiseReaction.org
Les McFall has done a critique on an article of William Heth.
No-Divorce, No-Remarriage easy theology.
Michael
March 29th, 2009 at 8:53 am
I was so excited to find this site and this article! Just last November, when this article appeared, I was finishing up a term paper on the “exception clauses” here at the John Paul II Institute on Marriage and the Family in Washington DC. I had judged that as the exception clauses were only Matthean, thus either added by Matthew or from Jesus but included only by Matthew, they were there because they were something that would only make sense to Matthew’s Jewish audience. The Hebrew or Aramaic word which would have been used, which the Greek “porneia” translates, is “zenut.” “Except fot zenut.” It could mean a whole slew of sexual misdeeds. But what we learned from the Dead Sea scrolls is that the word at the time was being used to refer to marriages which, according to Jewish law, weren’t really valid marriages…that of a king to his niece, for instance. Jesus was saying that a “divorce” of people who weren’t really validly married anyway…was an exception from his “no divorce” ruling. I didn’t take the time to read your blog comments…maybe someone else said the same thing. I think the thought process everyone needs to follow is the one Augustine finally came to: Jesus clearly condemns divorce in the other gospels, and this gospel therefore can’t be in disagreement…..there is something else about Matthew that we just don’t understand! The “erasmus lecture” was very interesting! God bless you…your work is blessing the Lord! Anne Cherney
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:46 am
Hi to the owner and commenators of this Discusiion
As a person who is in the midst of the questions at hand.
I in no way find any of this Helpful.Divorce through relationalproblems,violence,and others Including sexual activity outside the Lawful marriage by either parties .
IS AN EXTREMELY EMOTIONAL,hurtful,gut renching,violent experience of the Human Phycy.
And to me to be argueing over two word s with 2 letters which may or may not have been introduced by a writter /interpretor of scripture several centuries ago is to me a work of futility.
For Jesus was not about the action but the repentance of that action.
And if we study the Word with regard to the word GRACE we will find that to repent of any action is to have that action to be forgiven of
AND REMEMBERED NO MORE
In other words If I repentand ask for the cleasing of the filthiness of the action I am to be be whiter than snow
AND MOST importantly If I was to go to GOD and Repent again HE(GOD) would say “I (GOD) do not remember what you are talking about.
For God Never repents on what he has forgiven .
The Futility of the arguement is to forget what has been left behind not just in divorce and remarriage but any sin
And it seems to me that this subject is being held up as a sin worse than any other.
If I remember correctly James says If you say you are without sin then you are a liar
Isnt Lying a sin in fact no different to any other Sin including Adultery!!!
Are we not as the Pharasee’s sitting in the Temple argueing who is right and who is wrong.
who is the most learned of this subject or another subject
“With Tears” while all around us there are people are suffering from the results of thier sin regardless of what it is/was
The Gospel is JESUS AND HIM CRUCIFIED by which we ,no matter what we’ve done may be Reconcilled to God in spite of Ourselves.And know the true Freedom that he gives us and declares us to be Saints,dearly Beloved,Sons of God By which we Call him
ABBA FATHER my Father,My Father.
I there fore exhourt you to Preach the gospel instead of arguing about the gospel
May I finally say this in and with LOVE
STOP being as Gnostics!
In God s Love an the experience of being forgiven of what you argue about BecauseJesus Shed HIS BLOOD that I may walk and enter int the Holy of Holies with him
Trevor From Down Under
May 17th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
Thank you for posting this. This is very helpful. I pray that this article receives wide circulation and will help many see the necessity of remaining married for life.
Do keep up the good work Bob!
DW
May 19th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
I have been looking into this for a few months because I recently found myself in this situation (remarried after divorce). I have looked at many views of the “exception clause”, and think the betrothal view makes sense except for one aspect. The no remarriage supporters frequently reference the early church fathers’ nearly universal ban on remarriage, yet the early church mostly seems to allow for divorce in cases of adultery. The “betrothal exception” would seem not to support that.
I can see Dr. McFall’s rendering as a very real possibility, but again, that would not be supported by the ECF stand on the issue. The same can be said for the “incestuous marriage” explaination.
There has to be a way to explain what Matthew, Mark and Luke said that doesn’t cause a contradiction, eith with Jesus Himself, or the other Gospel writers. I am definately not a Greek scholar, but have tried my best to make sense of this and look at the Greek. I know there is debate on whether or not the “exception” refers to the divorce alone, or the divorce and remarrige together. I can only see the harmonization with Mark, Luke, and the early church by placing it on the divorce only.
Here is my thinking on the subject: The sin of adultery (in remarriage applications at least) is committed in the remarriage, not the divorce. Matthew 5:32 implies that divorcing a wife without her committing adultery will cause her to commit adultery due to the fact that she would most likely have to remarry to survive. If she had already committed adultery against her husband, his divorcing her would not make her an adulteress because she has already done so. Either way, a man marrying a divorced woman committs adultery, because she is another man’s “one flesh” covenant wife, whether she has committed adultery or not. I see Matthew 19 as a little bit more complicated, unless you see the exception as only applying to the reason of divorce, and not allowing remarriage. This is what gave me the most trouble, until I mentally constructed similar sentences in my mind, and then it became clear. I believe that is what is intended. For example, “A married man who goes to a motel, not for a business trip, and meets another woman commits adultery. This would clearly say that a man is wrong to go to a motel and meet up with another woman (Think Mark 10:11 and Luke 16:18). It also says that while going to a motel for business purposes is acceptable, it doesn’t make it okay to meet another woman while on his business trip; his motive for going to a hotel is justified, his resulting actions are certainly not. Again, the sin is in the resulting action.
Seeing the exception this way makes it clear to me in Matthew’s Gospel he is not making Jesus is contradict himself regarding the permanancy of the one-flesh relationship, it is the same message as Mark and Luke recount, and the early teachings of the church support it.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Wonderful article… Thanks for the resources.
August 1st, 2009 at 6:20 pm
I don’t understand any of this. (I am slow). I didn’t want to divorce my wife…she divorced me, she was the guilty party…did Jewish Women divorce thier men at all? And because I had no choice in the matter, did I make her an adulterer when she was one already, especially because she divorced me?
It was 20 years ago…I was a young man…she is remarried. Should I stop dating?? Would I be an adulterer if I remarried? Should I still try to get back with her even though she is married?
Sorry about all the questions.
Jeffy
August 12th, 2009 at 7:50 am
I have a few thoughts here. I believe that remarriage is wrong. I also believe it is wrong to break up a new marriage, so that you can go back to the first marriage.
What do you think though about Esther in the Bible, she was “raised up for such a time as this” to save her people and obviously was doing God’s will in marrying a divorced man.
I do not believe that God would Ever guide us to do something that although helping save some lives, would be against His Holy ordained law. God would never lead us into sin. So what is the answer here?
Also I believe that God says He will always protect His inspired Word, and that it will always be maintained until He comes again. I cannot find this scripture reference right away.
Are you saying though that only the original Greek and Latin manuscripts where the inspired Word of God? Is so, is it ever possible to make an inspired translation of the Bible?
I would be afraid to attempt this myself! Rev. 22:18-19 It is not wise to Add to or Minus from God’s Word!
August 12th, 2009 at 11:31 pm
Lisa,
To be sure remarriage while one has a living spouse is wrong. Jesus and Paul both called the new relationship, not a lawful marriage joined by Him, but adultery (having unlawful relations with one who is not your spouse). To break up a “new marriage” as you say, is to REPENT from adultery……….to turn from an illicit relationship and to turn back to the Lord. Nowhere in God’s Word do we ever find where this relationship defined as adultery turns into a lawful marriage, joined by God as ONE FLESH. We do have evidence given us in the example of Herod/Herodias—neither a divorce, nor remarriage, nor adultery dissolves the original marriage. John told Herod that he had PHILIP’s wife (she didn’t belong to Herod no matter that she was “legally” his wife). New vow taking does not magically turn an adulterous/incestuous relationship into a God joined marriage.
In regards to ANY OT practice with marriage, all bets are off. Jesus brought marriage back to the ORIGINAL creation intent for marriage—one man/one woman for life. Polygamy is no longer tolerated (which is a form of adultery against the original spouse), nor is divorcing one’s covenant spouse and marrying another—-again, a relationship Jesus deemed adulterous.
You are correct in that the Lord said He would protect His Word. In Lk. 16:16-18 we find: 16 “Until John the Baptist, the law of Moses and the messages of the prophets were your guides. But now the Good News of the Kingdom of God is preached, and everyone is eager to get in.[a] 17 But that doesn’t mean that the law has lost its force. It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the smallest point of God’s law to be overturned.
18 “For example, a man who divorces his wife and marries someone else commits adultery. And anyone who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.”
See, Jesus said that to divorce and remarry is adultery, as is marrying a divorced person, yet much of the church today is practicing adultery—-they have “taken away” from the Word of God. They have joined themselves to other people’s spouses or have forsaken those God joined them to and have entered into adulterous relationships—-condoned by man and man’s laws. The days we are living in are very sad.
August 13th, 2009 at 11:57 am
Hi Cindy,
Thank you for your well thought out post. Sadly, it seems few take Jesus’ words seriously about divorce and remarriage. But Jesus’ words still stand for today.
August 13th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
In response to Lisa, a couple of clarifications, with support for Cindy’s response;
1. Queen Vashti was unjustly judged for maintaining her modesty and decency. She was not divorced but reduced to the level of a common wife, and replaced by Esther, who was never asked to present herself for the sake of men lusting after her like Vashti was. The opinion that the King was a ‘divorcee’ is an unfounded assumption made popular by the opponents of creational marriage.
2. The common error of talking about an adulterous and unlawful “re-marriage” in the same context of an existing covenant marriage, is what leads to false conclusions. One has to assume that a divorce decree actually dissolves a one-flesh union. Scripture everywhere plainly shows that it does not. A divorce does show that one or both spouses are doing what Jesus commanded them not to do ie,. (put space between themselves). Cindy’s posting of Luke 16:18 is a perfect example. Look at the facts that are revealed in this verse alone;
Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery. (Luke 16:18)
We have in the above verse the example of a man that “putteth away” (divorce, repudiate) his wife. The same man then “marries another”, stop right there. So far it is perfectly clear that the man in the verse has taken the necessary civil & legal steps to get rid of his wife, and “marry” another woman. However, Jesus calls this mans condition “adultery” not a marriage that is approved by God. Man calls it a marriage because the majority of mankind are living and judging according to the flesh (soulishly) and not the Spirit, which is “according to godliness.” The man in this verse would need to legally forsake this immoral union for the sake of the public, but not in order to reconcile to his wife. Even though he put her away, she is still called his “wife.” The divorce did not dissolve his marriage, and God will not be mocked by mans own inventions.
The latter half of this verse when taken in it’s literal sense, literally forbids any man (whosoever) from marrying any woman that has been divorced from her husband. This makes perfect sense with the first part of the verse. Whoever would attempt to legally “marry” the mans wife in the verse would have to be entering into the sin of adultery because Jesus shows that she remains the mans wife in spite of his treachery (divorce).
The same could be said of Romans 7 and 1 Corinthians 7. In both instances, the parties are still refereed to as the husband or wife of the one that has departed or been put away. That being said, it is impossible to conclude that Jesus would sanction the transgression of His own holy law. When Jesus says that marrying another is committing adultery against the covenant spouse, then His explanation forbids the possibility of recognizing a civil ‘re-marriage’ as anything but adultery. Jesus can’t contradict His own standard of holiness and purity.
Lastly, and for the sake of illustration, please consider the outcome of justifying an ‘exception’ to the permanency of marriage other than the death of the spouse. For example, if Lisa is in a true covenant marriage, but believes that there is an exception to her marriage outside of death, then the necessary implications are as follows;
1. Her marriage is a temporary agreement based on prudence and the current agreement between her and her husband to continue with the benefits of staying together.
2. If Lisa’s husband walked into sin with another woman, and subsequently pursued the legal requirements to make the immoral woman his “wife”, Lisa would have to uphold and support the new “marriage” or she is guilty of the sin of partiality, which is excercising unjust judgment.
3. Lisa cannot defend her own marriage based on the truth of Gods word. The fact that she and her husband are continuing faithful to each other, and committed to stay that way, doesn’t mean that you have bound yourself to obedience to the truth. Many can conform to things when there is no persecution that is beyond what they are able to endure, but when people turn toward evil, that’s when you find out what ground you are standing on.
4. If Lisa doesn’t believe that marriage is binding til death regardless of the actions of one or both of the spouses, then no marriage is literally bound until death. In other words, every marriage could be dissolved (with Gods approval it is asserted) as long as one or both of the parties perform the proper legal requirements. This very idea self destructs when it’s really taken to it’s obvious conclusion. If a man divorces his covenant wife whom he vowed “till death do us part..”, how can he make the same vow to a 2nd woman? He is contradicting himself in word and deed while he is taking the vow with a living spouse as a witness. Living for the sake of righteousness is not based on happiness by this worlds standards, but by doing the will of God, even if it requires death.
August 16th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
What are the legal requirements? I don’t read it in the Bible that says vow’s to oneaother is the legal requirements.
August 20th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
Thank you Bob. I really enjoyed Andrew Kulikovsky’s paper. The issues are very clearly presented. I was going to ask Andrew for his translation of Matthew 19:9, but I just saw two renderings in one of his posts above.
Andrew, (or Bob or anyone out there) is there any other “me epi” occurence in the New Testament. If so, how are they translated into English. (Please bear with me. I don’t have a greek concordance with me.) Would appreciate very much the answer to my question. Thank you. Ray
September 3rd, 2009 at 5:51 pm
We know Erasmus added the exception clause in Matthew 19:9 and that his work was edited several times by others before they published their work. Does anyone know what manuscripts were used to edit his work or how the Erasmus text was edited? It would seem that if the work of Erasmus was edited so many times, someone would have caught the addition of the exception clause.
I want to thank all of you who have posted questions and answers. I have learned more from this website than anyother source. Thank you.
Mike
October 4th, 2009 at 11:57 pm
Can anyone tell me where I can find documentation where Nestle-Aland rejected the exception in Matt. 19:9? I can’t find anything on the rejection and nobody believes me. Thanks.
Mike
October 5th, 2009 at 12:04 am
You need to consult Bruce Metzger’s Textual Commentary on the GNT. It gives the NA27 ranking a B grade (second from top) ie. realtively firm. All other variants appear to be assimilations to Matt 5:32.
Andrew
October 5th, 2009 at 12:24 am
Please refer to Les McFall’s website, go down to the section unpublished articles and click on link (1) DivorceMcFALLview.pdf
within this article you will find further help on this matter under the
APPENDIX D TEXTUAL NOTES ON MATTHEW 5:32 & 19:9
Regards
Michael http://www.WiseReaction.org
October 5th, 2009 at 12:27 am
Les McFalls website http://www.btinternet.com/~lmf12/
October 18th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
Good discussions here. The early church allowed for no remarriage after divorce. Not one Father, who spoke the Koine Greek as his native language, understood MT as an “exception” for remarriage. The exception is for divorce in unrepentant adultery, Works like the “Shepherd of Hermas” require divorce to seperate from a unrepentant spouse, but requite remaining unmarried in hopes of reconciliation. It says that in these regards “men and women are to be treated in the same way.” This explanation of Erasmus’ error seems to be the best of why there has been confusion in the English translations. Mark and Luke are clear- no remarriage. Whatever Mathew says, it cannot be contradicting them.
October 19th, 2009 at 9:56 am
Thank you for all your comments.
Mike
December 21st, 2009 at 5:59 pm
The real killer is this - if the remarriage is an act of adultery, who is that adultery against? It must be the first spouse. Then, in Gods eyes, even though there was a civil divorce, the two are still married. So, if the civil divorce doesn’t break the marriage in Gods eyes, is the second marriage a continual state of adultery? Are all the re-married people in our churches adulterers that will not inherit the kingdom of God?
December 29th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
RE: early church…
Since I could find no recent author that finds the same intrepretation of the original greek (e.g. with out the EI the meaning is essentially reversed as McFall states), I did a little search on early church positions on divorce and remarriage and found the following:
The early church’s view on divorce and remarriage
Myron Horst
http://www.biyn.org/divorce/earlychurch.html
‘Clement of Alexandria writing around A.D. 194 on the exception clause states that the only exception for divorce is for remarried couples to end their sinful marriage: “Now that the Scripture counsels marriage, and allows no release from the union, is expressly contained in the law, ‘Thou shalt not put away thy wife, except for the cause of fornication;’ and it regards as fornication, the marriage of those separated while the other is alive.”‘
If this and similar such discussions in that article are accurate, I think it’s safe to conclude that in whatever early texts these authors were quoting, those texts were intrepreted completely differently than McFall’s position AND, since those quotes precede Erasmus’ work by many centuries, McFall’s claim that Eramsmus is responsible for mistranslation of the “exception clause” is without merit.
After all, how could have someone “written on the exception clause” if such a clause did not at that time exist?
I wonder if any of the scholar’s here can verify or deny the validity of such early church writings?
December 29th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Hi David,
I think you have a good point. Can someone that has good experience with what the early church taught address this issue please?
Thanks!
Bob.
December 29th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Hi Chris,
Some would hold that all
persons[Christians] that are in a second marriage are lost. I think a more balanced view would be that sin is rated by light. If they don’t know it is wrong it is not sin.Thanks!
Bob.
[Bob: Comment changed to clarify original meaning.]
December 29th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Bro. Dean Taylor has a Booklet on Divorce/Remarriage in which he quotes extensively from the early church writings on the subject. This booklet is made of a series of articles that originally appeared in The Heartbeat of the Remnant.
Mike
[Editor: I fixed the link and deleted the other post.]
December 29th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
Thanks Mike. The article in the link you provided also contains (what appears to be the same) discourse by Clement, and I found similar quote attributed to him on another web page.
Presuming these are valid quotations, the evidence strongly indicates that McFall’s attempt to blame Eramsmus for creating the exception cause and his alternate translation of the original text are both competely without merit.
As to the proper interpretation of that clause, that is a completely different debate.
But, it seems to me, if McFall has unjustly slandered Eramsmus while putting forth an unjustifiable mis-quoting of Mathew, he has commiteed a rather serious offense and he should withdraw his paper and issue an apology imediately.
December 29th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
“I think a more balanced view would be that sin is rated by light. If they don’t know it is wrong it is not sin.”
This statement should be rejected outright. The scripture states that the grace of God … has appeared unto all men, teaching us to say ‘no to ungodliness’. God has not left Himself without a witness. The view above is not balanced unless we assume that a person could be committing a sin which damns the soul and be excusable as an infant. Jesus said that the one that didn’t know that masters will is beaten with few stripes, which clearly shows they are rejected. It doesn’t state that such a person could not possibly have known, just that he didn’t. The scripture also states explicitly that all men will be without excuse, but according to the above opinion, some adulteres will in fact have an excuse ie. ignorance. There is no exception found among the sins of the flesh that are found all over Gods Word. They plainly state that “those who do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God.” There are Bibles available within reach of nearly all ‘westernized’ nations, so that removes any plea of ignorance for those nations. The rest of the world can be sure that they will be called by the gospel effectually and in such a way that Jesus will be vindicated when He judges, and we know that “the Judge of all the earth shall do right.” This type of fleshly reasoning above is what opens the door, or rather hinders the door of genuine repentance. I am curious how Bob would reprove a man that was found defiling the wife of someone he knew and the man pleaded ignorance based on his belief that the woman said she “loved” him. Would Bob confirm the fact to this same man that he is not presently sinning, but will be after he informs him of his adultery? Couldn’t such a man claim to have a legitimate covenant, since he wasn’t sinning before he knew about it and “married” another mans wife? Taken to it’s inevitable conclusion, you could not truly reprove anyone for any sin unless you could show unequivocally that the person knew beforehand that they were sinning in the way that God describes sin. This isn’t possible without applying the standard of God holy commandments to the past conduct of every person. If ignorance were a legitimate excuse, what would an ignorant person repent of, their sins, or their ignorance about sinning? Jesus says that all souls belong to Him, and “the soul that sinneth it shall die.” That is the balanced view of sin.
December 29th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
Just wanted to confirm the fact that a legal divorce does not dissolve a covenant marriage, and a “re-marriage” cannot be binding in light of the fact that God will not confirm a sinful oath. He would have to nullify His own commandment to do so. Luke 16:18 is just one of the clear examples about the binding nature of the covenant marriage. That text clearly shows the probable case of a husband that divorces his wife. As far as society is concerned, he had the signed pieces of paper that showed him divorced and subsequently “married” to his pretend wife. Nonetheless, he “is continually committing” adultery, which shows he must necessarily still be married. The latter part of the verse literally forbids the marriage of any divorced woman by any man at all.
December 29th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
BTW, a competely different greek textual analysis and intrepretation of Mathew 19:9 and 5:32 is available here for those interested:
http://www.bibletruths.net/archives/BTAR260.htm
I assume most here will disagree with it’s conclusions :D
dvc
December 30th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
Hi Jim II,
I post that you think the following position should be rejected outright — “sin is rated by light” and “if they [Christians] don’t know it is wrong it is not sin”
Just to clarify I was speaking about a Christian couple that were in a second marriage. I made that a bit clearer by striking out
personsand adding [Christians] to the original comment.It now reads as follows.
Some would hold that all
persons[Christians] that are in a second marriage are lost. I think a more balanced view would be that sin is rated by light. If they don’t know it is wrong it is not sin.Let me first answer your direct questions and then put together a list of your objections to the position I take and try to answer them.
In response to your questions:
I don’t think a woman telling a man that she loved him as anything to do with the position that I take that for a Christian sin is rated by light and understanding. Nor do I think telling a person that they are sinning when they are ignorantly disobeying a scripture mean now that they are sinners. Where something is sin to you is rated by your light not my light.
No a man can’t claim to have a legitimat covenant since he didn’t know he is disobeying the scriptures when he took a second wife. I would disagree that you can’t reprove a person for sin unless you can show they knew what they were doing is sin. I don’t think ignorance is a legitimate excuse to sin and I have not implied that. If a person finds themselves breaking a commandment in the scriptures they should repent both for their ignorance and for the act they have committed.
Here is a list of your objects:
1. Jesus said that the one that didn’t know that masters will is beaten with few stripes, which clearly shows they are rejected.
2. The scripture also states explicitly that all men will be without excuse, but according to the above opinion, some adulteres will in fact have an excuse ie. ignorance.
3. There are Bibles available within reach of nearly all ‘westernized’ nations, so that removes any plea of ignorance for those nations.
I will address these objections later. I need head off to Wed night Bible study.
Christian love and prayers,
Bob.
January 1st, 2010 at 11:17 am
David,
This is what McFall actually said:
“Who was the first to add EI to the inspired Word of God? We do not know who did it, but the earliest Greek manuscript to contain the addition does not date earlier than a thousand years after Christ.
How did it get into the Reformers’ Bibles? This we do know. It was through Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536), the Dutch humanist3. He was not a Reformed Christian. He was brought up in the Catholic Church but, like the Reformers, he became disillusioned with the Catholic Church’s teaching on a number of issues, one of which was their insistence that Jesus did not permit divorce or remarriage.”
Contra your claim, McFall did not say that Erasmus created the exception. In fact he clearly states that we do not know this! The oldest and most reliable manuscripts do not contain EI, and it is only found in very late manuscripts known for their scribal editing. The editors of the UBS4 GNT gave MH EPI PORNEIA a B rating (very reliable). The only evidence we have for EI being there is indirect like the quote from Clement. But note that Clement was the founder of the Alexandrian school which was well known for eccentric interpretations, and the the allusion to Matt 19:9 is not a direct quotation anyway so we have little idea of what the text actually said or where it came from.
What we do know is that Erasmus added it to his published Greek Text. That is clearly McFall’s point.
May I suggest that it is YOU who needs to immediately apologise for unjustly slandering McFall by attributing to him something he did not say. This is, may I suggest, a rather serious offence.
Andrew
January 1st, 2010 at 2:33 pm
Andrew,
I did not say that McFall’s claim that EI was added by Erasmus was the point of slander. It is, rather, the claim that Erasmus’ actions caused a mis-translation of the Reformers bible as well as the following confusion and contention over the meaning of Mathew 19:9, along with the strong inference, by focusing so much attention on Erasmus’ sympathy for an alternate interpretation of that clause, that Erasmus must have done so on purpose.
McFall claims that MH EPI PORNEIA (without EI) translates to an EXCLUSION, not an exception … however, this is not supported either by other modern translators, nor, apparently by Clement of Alexandria writing around A.D. 194, over 800 years prior to the claim of the earliest known manuscript to contain EI.
It’s easy to see that Clement could not have interpreted his text to mean an EXCLUSION, as did McFall, since his comments would no longer make any sense with McFall’s translation …. E.G.:
“Now that the Scripture counsels marriage, and allows no release from the union, is expressly contained in the law, ‘Thou shalt not put away thy wife,
except for the cause ofeven in the case of fornication;’ and it regards as fornication, the marriage of those separated while the other is alive.”So, McFall sure seems to be guilty of trying to do exactly that which he is implying Erasmus did purposefully and successfully: change the translation to suit his belief of what the meaning SHOULD be.
Apparently, the addition of EI is simply a red herring that had essentially no impact in the translation of the reformer’s bible (or any others.) It certainly could not have impacted Clement’s interpretation unless Clement’s text of around 194 A.D. also contain EI.
dvc
January 1st, 2010 at 3:10 pm
Hi David,
I took the corrections from you last post and added them to your second last post. Please check your last post and verify that the corrections were added correctly.
Thanks!
Bob.
January 1st, 2010 at 7:00 pm
David,
You said:
McFall claims that MH EPI PORNEIA (without EI) translates to an EXCLUSION, not an exception … however, this is not supported either by other modern translators, nor, apparently by Clement of Alexandria writing around A.D. 194, over 800 years prior to the claim of the earliest known manuscript to contain EI.
:
Apparently, the addition of EI is simply a red herring that had essentially no impact in the translation of the reformer’s bible (or any others.) It certainly could not have impacted Clement’s interpretation unless Clement’s text of around 194 A.D. also contain EI.
No! The addition of EI is everything! If EI was in the original text then there is definitely an exception. Case closed.
However, there is virtually no evidence that EI was in the original text! Clement’s reference/translation is not a direct quote so this is indirect evidence at best.
The reformers used Erasmus’ text as the basis for their translations so the presence of EI MH made it clear that this was an exception and so they translated it as such. If MH by itself was in the text then it is likely that they would have translated it differently. Admittedly, the the use of MH by itself is most unusual and is not specifically discussed in the standard grammars. Smythe’s classical Greek Grammar has the most comprehensive discussion and it offers no support for an exception. It suggests a prohibition (my view).
Modern translators-unless the project has a specific translational goal-always tend to favour traditional renderings. Most modern translators assume that there has been an ellipsis of EI so they always translate it as an exception. The ellipsis view has a number of problems which I have discussed in my paper.
Andrew
January 1st, 2010 at 8:37 pm
Andrew,
RE: Smythe’s classical Greek Grammar has the most comprehensive discussion and it offers no support for an exception. It suggests a prohibition (my view).
I am more inclined to accept a view that the evidence indicates, which is that either a) scholars of greek text of AT LEAST A.D. 194 translated MH EPI PORNEIA as ‘except…” or b) EI must have existed in an greek text accepted by church elders as early as A.D. 194, which would therefore give inclusion of EI far greater authority than ANY currently existing text that does not.
Regardless of that, NO current english translation of the bible that I can find, including those that claim to have used texts other than, or in addition to Erasmus’ translation contain text that agrees with McFall’s translation.
http://www.biblegateway.com contains the full text of 22 english translations, only one of which is remotely close to McFall’s .. The Wycliffe New Testament:
And I say to you, that whoever leaveth his wife, but for fornication, and weddeth another, doeth lechery [doeth adultery]; and he that weddeth the forsaken wife, doeth lechery [doeth adultery]. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mathew%2019:9&version=WYC
Further, of the discussions of on the translation of MH EPI PORNEIA I have found on the internet, most find the exception clause as a reasonable translation. For example, Don Martin’s very detailed translation which I posted previously (http://www.bibletruths.net/archives/BTAR260.htm)
I don’t see you posting any supporting evidence to your arguments, btw.
dvc
January 1st, 2010 at 11:24 pm
Some additional comments…
RE: But note that Clement was the founder of the Alexandrian school which was well known for eccentric interpretations, and the the allusion to Matt 19:9 is not a direct quotation anyway so we have little idea of what the text actually said or where it came from.
Actually, in what I quoted, there IS a (claimed) direct quote by Clement of (the first part of) Matt 19:9. As to what he is quoting, where the text came from or how eccentric or mainstream his position might be, I see that as insignificant compared to the DATE from which this quote comes.
But, let’s look further at the claim of eccentric intrepretation. Note that the view expressed in that quote is essential the same as the current official RCC church stance on marriage and divorce… eg. no divorce, no remarriage, any time, for any condition.
How similar this stance is to the current position is particularly obvious when one looks at the current (and very recent) english translation of the bible that is officially accepted by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops … the New American Bible (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/index.shtml) which translates Matt 19:9 as:
I say to you, 7 whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.”
So, apparently, at least this particular position of Clement’s is not quite so controversial.
I can (and will) provide further evidence to support my claims if you wish to continue this debate, btw. But ONLY, if you provide compelling evidence to support your claims, otherwise I see not point in bothering.
Saying “Case Closed” is hardly a compelling argument.
dvc
January 2nd, 2010 at 12:17 am
David,
1. I checked the quote in Schaff’s ANF, and yes, the first part is a purported quotation. Nevertheless, this is still indirect evidence. We don’t know what manuscript was used and what it actually said. If it did contain EI (or EAN) then that rendering was clearly not deemed worthy enough to be preserved in copied manuscripts since no other early manuscripts (from any of the 3 text types) contain EI/EAN.
2. Re Clement’s view matches RCC position, I’m not so sure. Clement could be taken to mean that one could divorce/separate for sexual sin, but separated people could not remarry. But alternatively, it could be taken to mean no divorce and no remarriage UNLESS one partner commits sexual sin.
3. I cannot see how the NAB translators can get “unless the marriage is unlawful” from MH EPI PORNEIA. Theology is driving this that translation, not the Greek text.
4. My reference to “case closed” was in relation to the translation “except…” If the Greek text said EI MH (or more likely EAN MH) then the translation “except…” is absolutely correct. Case closed. If you don’t believe me check any intermediate Greek Grammar (Wallace, Young, BDF, Robertson, Smythe) or the lexical entry for EI/EAN in a standard lexicon (BAGD, BDAG).
5. I haven’t made any claims apart from defending McFall’s original propositions. YOU are the one claiming that McFall slandered Erasmus. I don’t think you have any grounds for doing so. McFall has made a fair proposition and has put forward a reasonable argument in support. He may be right, he may be wrong, but he has NOT acted dishonestly or slandered anyone.
Andrew
January 2nd, 2010 at 12:55 pm
On this web site only some people have to see great thing close to this good topic. Thanks to you the the best sides of make an order are evident. We think that now used to be easy to have well composed buy custom essay at essay writing service.
[Editor: More comment spam from primewritings.com, I removed the links.]
January 2nd, 2010 at 1:29 pm
So to recap your argument then: in the hundreds of years since Erasmus did his translation, EVERYONE prior to McFall has got it wrong, including all those RCC defenders who viciously attacked Erasmus during his lifetime and all those people and groups that went back and re-translated the bible, including those who do or did not support the view that Mathew 19:9 allows for divorce and/or remarriage.
And, ALL people who claim that a translation that allows that MH EPI PORNEIA (literally “not for fornication/whoredom/lewdness/whatever”) can be reasonably intrepreted as an exception MUST be either uniformed or are purposely mis-translating the greek, because thier translation does not fit your (and McFall’s) opinion?
Hardly convincing.
As per Clement (and similar statements attributed to early church elders), the evidence certainly appears to exist and should be checked by reputable scholars on BOTH sides of the debate, since it may offer the only hope of actually answering this question.
Further, McFall should publish his paper to jurried journal, so that it is properly scrutinized and debated publicly by other scholars.
As for apologizing… I said ….
But, it seems to me, IF McFall has [done the things my analysis seems to indicate he did] THEN he should apologize.
In my opinion, the evidence casts McFall’s conclusions in grave doubt. But, regardless, I have nothing to apologize for.
dvc
January 2nd, 2010 at 3:13 pm
Thank you Chris for asking the following critical question on the 21st of December…”Are all the re-married people in our churches adulterers that will not inherit the kingdom of God?”
Personally I can see that scripture is very clear on this, and the answer is yes. Much has been written and debated on this very topic. All I can recommend is that each person continues to seek, read, pray and ask God for help on this topic, as their eternal destination depends on it.
January 2nd, 2010 at 3:18 pm
Thankyou Mike (Primitive Christianity comment on 29th December) for recommending the booklet written by Bro. Dean Taylor. It is the best booklet I have read on the topic of Marriage, Divorce & Remarriage (Adultery) it has been an answer to my prayers..
January 2nd, 2010 at 3:39 pm
David,
I have read articles written by Les McFall and Andrew Kulikovsky, I am very impressed with both men and the efforts they have made and what they have written. They are both extremely knowledgable, and extremely gracious men.
It would be great if you too David can share with us any work you have done in this area. Do you have a website, or can you provide links to your work?
Thanks
Michael
January 2nd, 2010 at 5:30 pm
In the exchange between David & Andrew, I wanted to make one fact perfectly clear; The clearly defined model and standard of marriage, accoding to Jesus Himself, is the creational example of Adam & Eve, not the 5 word phrase found in Matthew 19. Even if Les or Andrew were 100% wrong on thier conclusions, we can be sure that whatever it means, it does not have a meaning that would permit the overthrow and repeal of Gods own law concerning marriage. We know that the ‘word of fornication’ phrase does not and cannot be applied in such a way that would modify the latter part of the vers. Context forbids it, language construction forbids it, and non-contradiction forbids it. All this debate over this seemingly difficult phrase has the appearance that one is searching for the secret key of knowledge concerning Gods will on marriage, but not so. Jesus said “therefore they are no longer two but one flesh.” He clearly delivered this revelation while knowing that this command, along with various others, would be despised, profaned, and made of none effect by mans traditions. God respects no mans person, and that which is highly esteemed among men, is an abomination in the sight of God. Would anyone knowingly venture the destiny of their soul and body to even a doubtful interpretation? I think not. If the rioghteous scarcely be saved, where will the ungodly and sinner appear? The 5 word phrase is plausibly explained by either Les McFalls view, or betrothal. Any other interpretation violates the unchangeable decree of God with regard to marriage. Why not just accept Jesus own commentary where He explained His teaching in private to His followers? His words clearly allow no release from the vow except by death, which is a reasonable ending of a marriage, even to the ungodly.
January 2nd, 2010 at 7:33 pm
Micheal,
I have claimed no expertise in any particular subject area. I simply see holes in the arguments put forth by McFall on this particular subject that, as of yet, have not been accounted for.
Einstien’s expertise and intelligence has never been questioned either, however he was still completely wrong in his discussions about Quantum Physics. Expertise and a body of correct writings in any particular subject do not prove the correctness of any particular writing.
I also haven’t put forth any view as to the proper intrepretation of God’s law concerning marriage or divorce. While Jim II’s view may be correct, there are very many that disagree with his analysis. But, until such time as one can prove a particular point beyond a reasonable doubt, no one will ever know for sure and the arguments will continue. Contray to the claims of this article, I don’t believe that McFall has done so.
dvc
January 2nd, 2010 at 9:12 pm
Agree totally with what Jim II has written.
With the thousands of books articles and sermons produced about Marriage, Divorce & Remarriage it can be seen that confusion exists, exactly what satan wants! If we all had a covenantal attitude rather than a contractual attitude (Good Shepherd verses a Hireling attitude) we would fight to uphold marriage as a moral absolute, and not look for justification for people to separate and divorce. Two become one in marriage, one spirit, one body, one flesh an analogy of Christ and the Church. Satan wants to destroy the analogy by confusing us.
May I recommend a brillant book titled Covenantal Relationships by Asher (Keith) Intrater http://www.revive-israel.org/books.php
What is our attitude towards the marriage covenant? What value do we put on marriage? Can will liken divorce to abortion, that is marriage and life are disposable? I certainly make a stand against divorce and abortion. I also make a stand against same-sex marriage, in the same way I also make a stand against adultery (remarriage of divorced persons).
We always over complicate matters, the Gospel and God’s requirements must be simple and straightforward so that even children can understand…
January 2nd, 2010 at 11:10 pm
I must correct one assertion from David that attempts to marginalize my last post, which I don’t believe was intentional. Although I can’t entirely discredit the charge of my last post being “my analysis”, I can address the valid context of my post, along with the issue of ‘reasonable doubt’ in the sense that David uses it ie, the issue still stands within the bounds of reasonable doubt.
Firstly, my ‘analysis’ is not a personal opinion that would seem to enrich my own life in the eyes of the world. I came to the knowledge of the truth about 2 weeks after my conversion in 2004. At that time I recognized the childlike faith that was working in me by grace, and I believed wholeheartedly that Jesus standards, (the spirit if the law) were immovable, and at the same time loved and esteemed by His sheep. One fact that struck me with a sense of the wisdom which is from above is that Jesus doctrine is “according to godliness”, which I have never let go of, and by grace never will. The point I made in the last post about the model and standard of marriage (as expressed by Jesus Himself) is irrefutable regardless of how many multitudes can be assembled in concenses against it. The reason being is that creational marriage, which is indissoluable except by death, is in fact “according to godliness.” Now we know that whatever God says cannot and will not be abrogated or repealed in order to accomodate the violation of that very same word. All other opinions, that would allow for the dissolving of a marriage by sin, do in fact imply the establishment of a sin tolerant standard, that virtually overthrows the pure standard set forth by God Himself. That is the wisdom of man and the basic principles of fleshly centered philosophy. By this type of wisdom “man knew not God” for the simple reason that it always accomodates the flesh instead of deny it. God set forth all His standards of holiness with the understanding that most would violate them through their love of pleasure rather than God, and to thier own destruction. Nonetheless, the holiness of the moral laws of God have not been altered, but shown to be eternal and unimpeachable by those that disobey, as well as by those that “continue in well doing.” The contrary consequences show that the law is upheld in the strictest sense. If the conclusions are inconsistant with godliness, we must necessarily reject them as being opposed to true righteousness and holiness.
On the issue of reasonable doubt, the very statement is missing the essential perspective that it deserves from scripture. Paul said that even doubting the lawfulneess of a rightful act, or something that would fall under things of indifference, (foods, holy days), should not be done when the conscience is accusing. Thus the statement that “blessed is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he allows…” Now to assert that a marriage can somehow be dissolved by the refusal of one or both parties to glorify God through this one flesh covenant, does not bring the truth about their accountability before God into any doubtfulness whatsoever. ONe or both of the spouses are sinning against and violationg their vow before God, and the unchangeableness of the standard continues to hold them accountable to it. There is not only the absense of reasonable doubt through Gods decree, there is no doubt to be found whatsoever, if we maintain the standard of godliness as the scale of measurement and judgment. Wha I seem to hear within this discussion is the idea that a secondary and subprime standard exists that God will affirm and uphold, even though it defiles His holy standard entiresly, and especially the thing it typifies. That is mans invention, and always will be. It goes without saying that all the world will see whose word will prevail in the end. Now that we have taken all doubt away, we can talk about the plausibleness of what Matthew 19 is saying, as long as it doesn’t seem to repeal the standard set forth in verse 6, unless one wants to imply that Jesus overstated the case in the first place, a frightening proposition indeed.
January 3rd, 2010 at 1:58 pm
I apologize to Jim II if I marginalized his post. That wasn’t my intention. I certainly realize that there are many who hold to the same point of view.
My point was simply that there are many different, sometimes commpletely opposing viewpoints held by differing peoples and each of those people justify thier beliefs with as much conviction and strength, also quoting scripture to show how the gospel supports what ever that view is.
RE: We always over complicate matters, the Gospel and God’s requirements must be simple and straightforward so that even children can understand…
Only if God chose to make these matters so simple and straightfoward. Unfortunately He chose not to do so. If things were so simple and straightforward, there would only exist on Christian church. Indeed, if it was so clear and obvious, there would be only one religion in this world. However, that is not the case.
A simple clarity of Mathew 19:9 would help matters greatly. Unfortunately, any such clarity must actually be undeniably true, or it is worthless, regardless of what we wish for.
dvc
January 3rd, 2010 at 10:40 pm
You wrote:
——-
So to recap your argument then: in the hundreds of years since Erasmus did his translation, EVERYONE prior to McFall has got it wrong, including all those RCC defenders who viciously attacked Erasmus during his lifetime and all those people and groups that went back and re-translated the bible, including those who do or did not support the view that Mathew 19:9 allows for divorce and/or remarriage.
——-
Wrong! You don’t seem to have much idea at all about what what McFall is actually arguing.
McFall’s point has nothing to do with the translation of the text. McFall contends that Erasmus added EI to his published Greek text, against all the manuscript evidence. Thus, assuming that EI was in the original text the translators were quite right to translate “EI MH” as “except”. But the point is that EI was NOT apparently in the original text. And NO ONE, I might add, including those who advocate that Matt 19:9 allows for D&R for sexual sin, argues that it did!!!
——
And, ALL people who claim that a translation that allows that MH EPI PORNEIA (literally “not for fornication/whoredom/lewdness/whatever”) can be reasonably intrepreted as an exception
——
Wrong again. MH does not literally mean “not”. MH is a negating particle. It only means “not” when it negates a verb which is not the case here.
——
MUST be either uniformed or are purposely mis-translating the greek, because thier translation does not fit your (and McFall’s) opinion?
——
Wrong again. They mistranslate the Greek because their translation does not fit:
1. Established Greek grammar.
2. The teaching of Luke.
3. The teaching of Mark.
4. The teaching of Paul.
5. The teaching of the OT.
6. The immediate context in Matthew.
7. The wider context of Matthew.
—-
Hardly convincing.
—-
Agree or disagree, David, but at least do McFall the courtesy of getting his position (and mine) right!
——
As per Clement (and similar statements attributed to early church elders), the evidence certainly appears to exist and should be checked by reputable scholars on BOTH sides of the debate
——
It already has been. The results are in the NA27/UBS4 and the accompanying textual commentary by Metzger. These results (at least in relation to the texts in question) are not controversial and are not disputed by anyone that I know of. No one seriously believes EI was in the original text.
——
In my opinion, the evidence casts McFall’s conclusions in grave doubt. But, regardless, I have nothing to apologize for.
—-
You should apologise for going off half-cocked without even bothering to understand McFall’s argument.
January 3rd, 2010 at 11:03 pm
David wrote:
——-
I am more inclined to accept a view that the evidence indicates, which is that either a) scholars of greek text of AT LEAST A.D. 194 translated MH EPI PORNEIA as ‘except…” or b) EI must have existed in an greek text accepted by church elders as early as A.D. 194, which would therefore give inclusion of EI far greater authority than ANY currently existing text that does not.
——-
Textual criticism doesn’t work like that. It is a much more sophisticated process. See Metzger’s Text of the New Testament or David Alan Black’s introductory work on textual criticism. We have many early manuscripts and NONE contain EI.
——
Regardless of that, NO current english translation of the bible that I can find, including those that claim to have used texts other than, or in addition to Erasmus’ translation contain text that agrees with McFall’s translation.
——
Indeed, beacuse the earliest ones used Erasmus’ or derivative texts, later ones were mere revisions of the earlier translations, and modern translations in 20th century that used the WH and NA critical texts adopted the traditional renderings and rationalised the translation in the ways I discuss in my paper.
——-
Further, of the discussions of on the translation of MH EPI PORNEIA I have found on the internet, most find the exception clause as a reasonable translation. For example, Don Martin’s very detailed translation which I posted previously (http://www.bibletruths.net/archives/BTAR260.htm)
——-
His translation follows all the other modern translations, but like them, it is grammatically dubious not mention contextually dubious as well. He doesn’t even discuss the grammatical problems. Is he even aware of them?
——
I don’t see you posting any supporting evidence to your arguments, btw.
——
That’s because I haven’t posted any of my arguments, btw.
If you want to look at my view and the problems with the “exception” in Matt 19:9, then please read my paper which is linked above on this discussion board.
January 8th, 2010 at 1:50 am
Well, this discussion is getting boring so this will probably be my last post. Heck, I don’t even really care all that much about this issue, I just happened upon this while doing some research for a friend.
But I sure am surprised how quick people here have been to just accept what is essentially a major re-write of history (and your divine writings of God), founded on claims of what could only be considered some kind of vast conspiracy created by one man. A man who didn’t even support the side that supposedly benefited by his duplicity and was viciously attacked by both conservative Catholics AND reformers alike. Geez, he must have been the devil incarnate!
For a nice brief history of this man, wikipedia has a good page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desiderius_Erasmus
Personally, I think anyone who could write something like “The Praise of Folly” back in those days is hero to me :D
Anyway, I’ll just finish up with the following notes…
Andrew said:
Wrong again. They mistranslate the Greek because their translation does not fit:
1. Established Greek grammar.
2. The teaching of Luke.
3. The teaching of Mark.
4. The teaching of Paul.
5. The teaching of the OT.
6. The immediate context in Matthew.
7. The wider context of Matthew.
Twice you criticized translations as based on theological ideology. Now you are stating theological ideology as 6 of the seven points above? Really?
RE: On checking early church quotes / Clement It already has been. The results are in the NA27/UBS4 and the accompanying textual commentary by Metzger. These results (at least in relation to the texts in question) are not controversial and are not disputed by anyone that I know of. No one seriously believes EI was in the original text.
That wasn’t the issue.
RE: Indeed, beacuse the earliest ones used Erasmus’ or derivative texts
Not quite …
Wycliff New Testament, translated from the Latin Vulgate and published in 1380:
And I seye to you that whoever levith his wyf but for fornicacioun and wed ditli an oother doth leccherie and he that wed dith the forsaken wyf doth leccherie
McFall also provides a slightly different text for Wycliff (from a later revision, I suppose) in a section, which claims “The object of this section is to show that while the majority of English translations are based on a Greek text which has thrown out Erasmus’ unsupported addition of EI in Matthew 19:9, they have not thrown out his unbiblical teaching on divorce and remarriage.”
…
“JOHN WYCLIFFE BIBLE (1395) (Wycliffe) 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.”
And also McFall’s claims (earlier): “And that is exactly what happened in the case of Matthew 19:9, where a scribe in the 15th century added to his copy of the Greek text …”
But… Erasmus’ first translation was performed in 1516, 163 years AFTER the Wycliff translation was published.
Also, McFall says: “Everyone took on trust that Erasmus had been faithful to the handwritten Greek copies that he used to produce the first published edition of the Greek New Testament in 1516.” Really?? I don’t think so!
According to many sources, Erasmus’ work was intently scrutinized and often criticized, for example:
“James Lopez de Stunica, the editor of the forthcoming Complutensian Polyglot, criticized Erasmus’ text for various faults, and for the omission of the clause in 1 John 5:7-8. The influential scholars of France followed Stunica in denouncing the edition, although most of their criticism was directed not against the Greek text, but against the innovative Latin translation.” http://www.bible-researcher.com/bib-e.html
I’m sorry, but this article should be properly published in an appropriate journal and given the full evaluation of respected biblical scholars before any of its conclusions can be accepted, if at all.
And, no, I don’t apologize.
January 9th, 2010 at 4:14 am
oh, gosh, one more thing….
Since I’ve been referred to Metzger so many times, might as well include his take on the subject as well…
As quoted from: http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/biblical-prophecy/BP0909W1.htm …
“The ‘excepting clause’ in the Matthean account of Jesus’ teaching on divorce occurs in two forms… parektos logoi porneias (‘except on the grounds of unchastity’), and me epi porneia (‘except for unchastity’). It is probable that the witnesses… which have the former reading have been assimilated to 5:32 where the text is firm” (Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, United Bible Societies, London, 1971, pp. 47-48).
So…. Metzger translates me epi porneia as ‘except for unchastity’? How very interesting!
January 12th, 2010 at 4:57 am
Oh, one more (hopefully minor) issue …
RE: Bob’s comment
19. Bob Mutch Says:
November 24th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
It was not clear to me What David mean by “This solves the ambiguity in Mt.19.9.” I am guessing you have read David’s books where he may go over what he means. I did email my reply to him and I expect he will respond.
I do hope everyone realizes I am NOT the same Dave as refered to above?
Just wanted to make this very clear.
While I’m at it, I guess I should make very clear why I have this interest in this paper.
Fundamentally it’s simple. I thought this was the MOST unChristian paper I’ve read recently. It accuses a long dead person (Erasmus) of being just a horrible Christian (to say the least!!), but also, EVERY BIBLICAL TRANSLATOR who followed (and apparently up to and beyond 163 years prior) of being either incompetent (e.g. didn’t really understand how to intrepret me epi porneia because they were apparently too stupid) or (worse) PURPOSELY mistranslated it to further a theological idealogy-based goal. Excepting only a small number (4 to be precise) of recent translators, of which McFall (the author of this paper) is included… oh my :O :D
McFall says this rather clearly in his paper.. read it.
I find this paper highly offensive. I find this paper very unChristian. I find this paper poorly researched and undefensible. I find this paper just plain badly written.
That’s me and my position.
Bob:
I really would like to encourage you to re-cast your review of this article in a bit more neutral light, such as including phrases such as the author “claims such and such” and “presents evidence that may show” and so one. For example…
“In his paper, he discusses an addition that Desiderius Erasmus added to his Greek-Latin New Testament (1516 1st ed) that he claims changed the way Matthew 19:9 has been translated.”
.. and …
“McFall offers evidence he says shows how Erasmus’ addition of the Greek word εἰ in Mat 19:9 has lead to the incorrect translation of this verse.
… and so on …
thanks
[Editor: Edited out a slang term.]
January 12th, 2010 at 10:21 am
Hi David,
Thanks for those points on “he claims” and “offers evidence he says”. I have added both of them.
Thanks!
Bob.
February 4th, 2010 at 9:21 am
Hi Jeff Hildebrand,
>>>It was 20 years ago…I was a young man…she is remarried. Should I stop dating??
If it was your and her first marriage then yes you should stop dating as you are still married to her in God’s eyes.
>>>Would I be an adulterer if I remarried?
Yes you would be an adulterer if you remarry.
>>>Should I still try to get back with her even though she is married?
I am not sure how to answer this one. I would hold that the scriptures teach that she is your wife and you are married for life.
Perhaps instead of working on trying to get your wife back the Lord may want you to work on your walk with him.
Thanks!
Bob.
February 4th, 2010 at 6:12 pm
In Matthew 5 & 19, if what Jesus said was interpreted by the Pharisees and others as saying that adultery was a legitimate grounds for divorce and remarriage, doesn’t it seem like they would have jumped at the chance to make a case that Jesus was contradicting Moses by His apparent disregard that the law said the adulterers were to be stoned rather than just divorced?
February 5th, 2010 at 8:56 am
Hi to Everyone
Trevor Here
My First Comment Is This
Good grief ….are you Fellows still on this Subject???
To Jeff,I can understand Your Concern and I Feel Great Compassion For You.
Jeff You need to understand This
Its for Freedom that Christ Has Set You Free
Yield not again to the Bonds Of Slavery.
I.E If Christ has set you Free You are Free Indeed.
Jeff in the light of This. You Now Must Go by and Trust The Holy Spirit
For It is only The Holy Spirit That CAN Convict us of Sin
and When HE does and not the arguements of Men
He brings us to TRUE Repentance…..Only the Holy Spirit Can Do That
Jeff You need only to Yield unto God and In His Time He Will Exalt You
i.e Bring you into the Freedom and Liberty That is OURS/YOURS JEFF, IN CHRIST
So in Answer to Your Questions
Draw near to God and I promise You He WILL Reveal To You At The Right Time
The Answers You Need
God Bless You Jeff
Simply the Fact You are seeking is the Most Important
Brcause God Will Reward You For That By Answering You
Trev
trvmcnamee3@gmail.com
- Show quoted text -
February 10th, 2010 at 2:47 am
The logical fallacies in this thread are out of control. But, pressing on… David is right (not I-B), the McFall paper does seem to lean on a grand conspiracy theory. Has it been peer-reviewed yet?
I do have some other questions though:
What do we make of grace in light of the remarried? Must they divorce from an “invalid” marriage? Why doesn’t grace cover them IN their new marriage?
What about haggadic (is that right?) commands? Are they absolute? Is Matthew 5 and 19 part of them?
What about the legalism that we are supposed to free from?
I am just an immature Christian, people. Please don’t crush me! Just info gathering. Or is this the wrong place for these questions?
February 26th, 2010 at 12:04 pm
Stephen D,
Those are all valid questions. I think one point that many pastors today do not take to heart is: there are multitudes now who are the so called “innocent” ones in a divorce and are praying for the restoration of their marriages—even after the wayward one remarries (enters into adultery). Most pastors have nothing to say to them. If they take a stand, they will be called to the matt to provide scripture for such stand—which they do not possess. Usually what happens (that I have seen/heard about) is that pastors will say “grace abounds” for the couple living in adultery, yet they will say nothing about God’s Grace towards the faithful one praying for repentance of their wayward spouse and the restoration of their marriage. The reality is that one party will be in sin—-the couple who Jesus and Paul said are in adultery…………or the faithful one because they are now praying to have someone else’s “spouse”.
April 10th, 2010 at 10:35 am
I don’t know if anyone’s mentioned this yet but the particle “me” does not require “ei”. Standing alone it can and often does mean “except for”. It can mean “except”. If it meant “not even” we would expect “ou kai” + dat. Also, the translation given above of the Vulgate is wrong. “Nisi ob fornicationem” does not mean “such as for fornication” but “except for fornication.” I didn’t really read much else because the author doesn’t seem to know what he’s talking about.
April 15th, 2010 at 12:56 am
I have a question for anyone here who would be kind enough to respond.
After reading the Scriptures and all that has been written here, I think I have my own answer, but confirmation from some of you is what I’m looking for.
I have been married twice; now I’m divorced.
It’s obvious to me that I cannot remarry, however, I’d like to know where I stand with my two previous husbands.
Husband #1: He was previously married to a woman who had been divorced. Therefore, I was his second wife.
Husband #2: He had never been married.
I’d like to know where I stand, Biblically, so that in the event an opportunity arises to reconcile, which one should it be with? The one who had been previously married, or the one who had never been married?
I am thinking it should be the first husband. He had been married previously, but his first wife had ALSO been married previously. At first, I thought because he had been married that my marriage to the second husband was the marriage that was recognized by God. But now, considering that my first husbands first wife also had had a husband prior, that would have made his first marriage an adulterous one, would it not?
Any advice on this would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks in advance!
Lisa
April 15th, 2010 at 2:19 am
Hi Lisa,
You would need to find out if Husband #1 first marriage was lawful according to the Bible. If it wasn’t then he is not your husband.
If Husband #1 marriage was lawful according to the Bible then Husband #2 is your husband.
To find out if Husband #1 had a lawful marriage according to the Bible you will need to find out if the other women he married was a lawful marriage or not. If she had be lawfully married before then her marriage to your Husband #1 was not lawful and your marriage to him was lawful.
So you have to trace it back. Say Husband #1’s first wife had been married before you will need to find out if her husband was married before and whether his married was legal.
Here is an example.
Lisa
Bill - Sue
- - - - Joe - Ann
- - - - - - - - Jim - Eve
- - - - - - - - - - - - Bob - Kay
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Tom - Avy
-If Bill and Sue’s marriage were legal then Lisa and Bill marriage was unlawful.
-If Joe and Sue’s marriage was legal then Sue and Bill’s marriage wasn’t legal and then Bill and Lisa’s marriage was legal.
-If Ann and Joe’s marriage was legal then Joe and Sue’s marriage wasn’t legal then Sue and Bill’s marriage was legal and then Bill and Lisa’s marriage wasn’t legal.
-If Jim and Ann’s marriage was legal then Ann and Joe’s marriage wasn’t legal then Joe and Sue’s marriage was legal then Sue and Bill’s marriage wasn’t legal and then Bill and Lisa’s marriage was legal.
-If Eve and Jim’s Marriage was legal then Jim and Ann’s marriage wasn’t legal then Ann and Joe’s marriage was legal then Joe and Sue’s marriage wasn’t legal then Sue and Bill’s marriage was legal and then Bill and Lisa’s marriage wasn’t legal.
-If Bob and Eve’s marriage was legal then Eve and Jim’s marriage wasn’t legal then Jim and Ann’s marriage was legal then Ann and Joe’s marriage wasn’t legal then Joe and Sue’s marriage was legal then Sue and Bill’s marriage wasn’t legal and then Bill and Lisa’s marriage was legal.
-If Kay and Bob’s marriage was legal then Bob and Eve’s marriage wasn’t legal then Eve and Jim’s marriage was legal then Jim and Ann’s marriage wasn’t legal then Ann and Joe’s marriage was legal then Joe and Sue’s marriage wasn’t legal then Sue and Bill’s marriage was legal and then Bill and Lisa’s marriage wasn’t legal.
-If Tom and Kay’s marriage was legal then Kay and Bob’s marriage wasn’t legal then Bob and Eve’s marriage was legal then Eve and Jim’s marriage wasn’t legal then Jim and Ann’s marriage was legal then Ann and Joe’s marriage wasn’t legal then Joe and Sue’s marriage was legal then Sue and Bill’s marriage wasn’t legal and then Bill and Lisa’s marriage was legal.
-If Avy and Tom’s marriage was legal then Tom and Kay’s marriage wasn’t legal then Kay and Bob’s marriage was legal then Bob and Eve’s marriage wasn’t legal then Eve and Jim’s marriage was legal then Jim and Ann’s marriage wasn’t legal then Ann and Joe’s marriage was legal then Joe and Sue’s marriage wasn’t legal then Sue and Bill’s marriage was legal and then Bill and Lisa’s marriage wasn’t legal.
So you can see from the above that if Tom and Avy had a legal marriage then Bob/Kay, Jim/Eve, Joe/Ann, and Bill/Sue had good marriages. But if Tom and Avy marriage was not legal then Bob/Kay, Jim/Eve, Joe/Ann, and Bill/Sue massages were not legal either.
So your marrage to Husband #1 is not legal if his other marriage was legal, but if Husband #1’s others marrage was unlegal then your marriage to him was legal.
So you can see you have to trace it all the way back to know what you standing is. It can get really confusing where some people had more than one unlawful marriage.
So find out if your Husband #1’s first wife was ever married before, and if she was, was the person she was married to ever married before, and if he was, was he ever marriaged, and if he was, was she ever marriaged before, and on it goes.
All the best!
Thanks!
Bob.
April 15th, 2010 at 8:33 am
Listen to Dr. Leslie McFall - Debunking the Mat 19 “Exception Clause” via the Greek!
Recorded with interviewer Jason Smith.
Link to the interview can be found at http://www.WiseReaction.org
May 13th, 2010 at 7:08 pm
Why make it complicated at all?
What do other verses say about the matter?
1) There is not such thing as divorce…it is a man made institution:
Moses “allowed” divorce due to their hardness of heart. It is never sanctioned by God, although God himself uses the analogy of divorce because they would understand the serious nature of it.
Matthew 19:8 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.
2) Erasmus seems to have missed this verse…Jesus gives NO exception here.
Luke 16:18 “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.
Last time I checked, everyone meant EVERYONE.
3) Marriage IS a covenant between a man and woman before God as their witness (either that or Adam and Eve were fornicators and are in Hades). What did Paul have to say about covenants:
Gal 3:15 To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified.
4) Betrothal can only be revoked if a man finds sexual immorality in his wife while they are betrothed and before the covenant is ratified. Once you take her to bed…she’s yours until one of you dies.
Matthew 1:18-19 … Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly.
Really nothing too difficult to figure out…the real problem is the Roman law and culture that became incorporated into the early Christian (Roman Catholic) church and eventually became codified as doctrine by the sixth century. The flawed theology of both the modern Christian and Catholic churches lives on and is enforced with a vengeance…anybody smell anything Satanic about that?
June 15th, 2010 at 3:07 am
I would love to hear someone address why Clement used the word “except” himself.
Was he referring to Mat 5 or 19 ?
Also, there is no problem with the betrothal view when you look at Mat 19:9 as a parenthetical.
We speak like this all the time when our audience knows the subject.
“Any pilot who uses maximum thrust for takeoff (not for hot days)…”
We all know what the parenthetical means.
Same with Mat 19.
“Any man who divorces his wife (not for fornication)…”
The writer is saying. In effect, “This doesn’t apply to a betrothal so relax.” This in no way contradicts Mark.
June 15th, 2010 at 3:26 am
Sorry for the typos. Blackberry keyboards are too small!
I wish the text said “except.” My wife hates me and is determined not to come back… But I don’t see how Mat 19 authorizes a remarriage without contradicting the entirety of the NT teaching on MDR.
June 15th, 2010 at 7:56 am
Also…could Clement have been referencing the corrupt Egyptian Sinaiaticus (sp?) Text that had “EI MH” in it?
As McFall has noted, this text was highly localized and riddled with errors. Clement could have cited this one not realizing its limitations.
July 8th, 2010 at 9:44 am
http://morechristlike.com/except-for-fornication-clause-of-matthew-19-9/#comment-1610
This post [*above comment 1610 by Bob] alone shows the ludicrosity of interpreting Jesus’s word on divorce and remarriage as referring to contiunous adultery. The adultery, on plain reading, is an overstatement for treachery in divorce and remarriage, which, like lust, breaks the spirit of the law.
If one comes to Christ in a situation where they may have been married many times before, and their first spouse was a divorcee married to a divorcee, but we cannot trace back their history (depending on where they live), does it not sound odd and convoluted that this person would have to do all this running around to determine whether their marriage was ‘adultery’ or not? Adultery is a frame of mind as well as extramarital sex;marriage is not sin in itself. What leads up to a marriage may be. Again, would you counsel someone to wreck their marriage if they had come from a mixed up marriage history, even though they could well be in a legitimate marriage? Would Paul counsel that? (1 Cor.7:10) No! Where does Paul address this kind of situation? He does not; he simply says to those who are presently married not to leave their spouse. He also says to those married to unbelievers not to leave them, but never tells those married to previously divorced unbelievers to leave their spouse.That’s telling. These people had come from a very crazy, immoral background most likely, but Paul never does expessly tell remarried people (no doubt there were, including those with unknown and untraceable marital histories) to separate.
John 4 gives us a clue: Jesus absolutely recognises that she has had five husbands…not lovers and one husband..five husbands. Now, lets think about this for a moment. At the time Jesus spoke, there will have been men and women remarried under the law of Moses. Was Jesus saying that they were living in adultery at that time and needed to split, even though the very law of Moses said they were married?? Jesus could not have been dismissing the law in Deuteronomy 24 as that would be blasphemy (as it is blasphemy today when people deny that the law in Deuteronomy was from God, and that Moses made it up).Any theology that rests on positing that Jesus was opposing the Deuteronomy law of divorce and remarriage, thereby saying it was an evil law which meant that those then remarried weren’t any longer married, is a very shaky and damaging theology. I have read it in Joseph Webb’s book, and other materials which claim that remarried couples must split. It all comes down to a strange assertion that Jesus was doing what Pharisees would have killed him for, which is denying that Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is the law of God.
Any theology that, by implication, puts all legitimately remarried (though the motives for the divorce and remarriage were wrong) people at the time of Jesus into an adulterous situation in a matter of 24 hours or less after hearing the words of Jesus,is wrong.
Any theology that puts many times divorced and remarried people (or people who have married previously divorced with difficult to ascertain history) into a position of unrelenting confusion and bondage and fear is very, very suspect.Just look at the post I quoted,which actually is exactly what came to my mind in thinking about how this would impact others from the other aspect, if they could not trace former divorcees and know who they were divorced from and whether their divorce was a ‘repentance’ divorce and so on.
*Note: added by editor
July 8th, 2010 at 10:02 am
Lisa,
I’m so sorry that you have to be put into such terrible fear, confusion and bondage; your case is exactly the kind of case that gives the perpetual adultery teachers issues to confront. As your first husband was married and his first wife was married and divorced, if it was impossible to find out whether her first divorce was ”righteous’ or not, then you would certainly be uncertain. If you could ascertain whether your previous marriage was ‘lawful’, then these teachers might actually be guilty of causing you to stumble, which carries a very severe warning to them from the Lord (Luke 17:2) by telling you to dissolve a legitimate and God honouring marriage, or to go back to a ‘non lawful’ one. Daft, isn’t it?
In my view, they are wrong and on shaky ground, and I feel for you. I know that whatever you decide about this issue, your conscience will be forever hurt by these people. I personally believe that Paul doesn’t take into account what happened before our conversion, nor does he hold believers to marriages which unbelievers end. I don’t believe God does either, and that we are at moral liberty to decide to marry or not marry as a Christian no matter our history. (1 Corinthians 7:8, 27, 28).
However, you are free in good conscience to remain single and devote yourself to the Lord’s work. I’m here for you, no matter what.
July 8th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
Some ethical issues to ponder:
If Jesus says that adultery occurs when someone divorces and remarries (two actions which result in adultery), what if there is no sex in the following marriage, say, it was a convenience marriage of no love? Doesn’t that seem to point to the concurrent acts of divorcing and remarrying being the adultery, not the thereafter?
Why is the woman an adulteress if she is divorced by a treacherous husband, even if she doesn’t remarry, on the plain reading of the text? Who says she had to remarry? Even if she does, couldn’t the ‘adultery’ be the covenant breaking which should have been avoided (by her husband not divorcing her), as she can’t return to her husband now, as per Deut.24?
If a person marries someone who has been divorced, either against their will or of their own will, the adultery could refer to the act of making the former marriage irreparable, as per Deut.24, it is covenant breaking in a passive sense. If no one had hard hearts and we all loved our spouses, this imperfect situation would not need to arise.
What does someone do who remarried 25 years ago after being abandoned, and later becomes a Christian but cannot trace their former spouse? What if that spouse HAS died, leaving them theoretically ‘free’ to remarry? Is it right to counsel them to dissolve their marriage ‘just in case’ (fear), contrary to 1 Corinthians 7:10 and enforce celibacy
( (Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, 2 through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, 3 who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.)?
1 Timothy 4:1-5
People who have been widowed have the right to remarriage!
Would it be ethical to counsel someone in Lisa’s situation to leave a spouse if it was unclear and impossible to work out who was married to whom? What if you are enforcing celibacy upon a woman who may be legitimately married according to this rigid theology? If she is counselled to dissolve any present marriage, wouldn’t this be sin? It would be based, not on wisdom, liberty, and love, but fear and doubt.It wouldn’t even be based on common sense. For children to be damaged for the sake of a ‘what if’, and a person’s peace to be destroyed and life limited for the sake of a ‘what if’?
Shouldn’t Paul’s counsel to abide where one is be heeded? The past is irreparable, as it was for the woman at the well. Shouldn’t Paul be obeyed when he says that all marrieds (no qualification or discussion of ‘unless you were divorced, and your previous spouse was divorced,and so on and so on, go and check the census!) should stay together?
Shouldn’t the prior divorced be offered grace and the priviledge that seems to be given to them amongst the ‘unmarried’ if reconciliation is not possible any longer or their former spouse/s have disappeared, or if there is no way to tell who was married to who?
I wrestled with these things long before I came across Lisa and bobs’ posts, and reading them confirmed my concerns about legitimate real life problems this doctrine can’t apply grace to correctly. If the fruit is bad, the root is bad, to me.
July 8th, 2010 at 1:02 pm
Well, I keep coming back to this page as I can’t help but mull over seriously this issue of whether marriage is an ontic, indissoluble union, or an ethical one.
Here is another possible scenario.
A man has been married before. He divorces his wife, and moves to another country where records are not as well kept as other places, or some remote area.
He wants to marry a woman there, and she marries him. She divorces him. She then later comes to Christ. She has remarried since, and the minister finds this out. He does not know, nor does she, that her former husband lied to her and did not disclose a marriage in his previous history(which happens, like bigamy). Now, this minister, if he holds to asbolutely indissoluble union, will tell her she must divorce from this current fellow. Actually, she IS married to him, because she was never really joined with the first guy, though she is still unaware of that.
So, the minister has advised her to dissolve her marriage and stay single forever more.Sin has occurred on his part (unwittingly) because he told her to do that.
Now, lets assume that she was divorced from this first fellow ( who was dishonest, never told her he had been married before), but they had decided to remarry at some point. The whole time, she would be ‘living in adultery’! Come on! She doesn’t even know about his first marriage. Any divorce from him would, as far as the minister is concerned, mean she had to stay single and not remarry, though in fact she would be right to not be married to him!
This is why marriage cannot be an ontic union, and why the adultery in the gospels is probably not referring to sex, to my mind, but betrayal.
Thanks for reading my thoughts, and I would appreciate any response, as I’m not satisfied that the permanence doctrine is right.
July 8th, 2010 at 3:25 pm
Margaret, I only wish the scriptures up front, directly addressed the issue of remarriage after divorce. But after searching diligently, it’s not addressed. Not even once. (Remarriage after a divorce). I have searched and searched.. read it, and re-read it. It’s just not there. There are only two instances that even come close.
1. Herod Philip married a woman called Herodias. When Herod Antipas visited his brother, he wanted Herodias for a wife for himself. So Herod Antipas divorced his own wife, and married Herodias. She, of course, had to divorce Herod Philip first. The Jewish law does not permit such behaviour (Leviticus 18:16 and 20:21). John The Baptist said this was wrong. When he did this, he made Herodias very angry. So Herod Antipas ordered John’s arrest.
Then, shortly thereafter, he had John the Baptist executed.
2. The woman at the well: Jesus told the woman all about her past. The “woman at the well” is a woman whose sins are apparent. If this woman was married and divorced five times, then five men divorced her. (back then, men could divorce women, but women couldn’t divorce men) This woman was “put away” five times. And the man she is now living with is NOT her husband. She isn’t even married this time, but just living with (or sleeping with) a man, perhaps another woman’s husband. In the end, Jesus tells the woman: “Go, and sin no more”. He doesn’t in detail address any issue of marriage, divorce, and remarriage. He simply says: “Go, and sin no more”. So… what does that mean? My initial thoughts are to do as Paul says… and remain single. What else could it mean? Because the scriptures don’t even deal with the question of remarriage, except to state that it’s wrong.
Paul never addresses remarriage. It IS telling. Could it be, that this is a subject that doesn’t need to be addressed, because it’s obvious that it’s not even supposed to occur? I only WISH he HAD discussed it in detail. Paul only states what is right and wrong in relationships. He says not to leave your spouse. He does state you can separate, but he emphatically states that you are to remain single after that point. So my question is.. why WOULD he address the subject of remarriage when he’s already stated that you are to remain single if you DO separate? This leads me to the only conclusion I can possibly come to: If you MUST separate / divorce your spouse, to be right in the eyes of God, you MUST remain single, or either reconcile. There are no other instructions regarding this. I’ve looked high and low.. I was all stressed out at first, but I’m now content that this is the way it’s supposed to be.
However, I can do what I want. I can remarry if I like. (For the third time).. I can find a nice man at a nice church, and no one I know of will condemn me for it. Preachers this day and time, don’t bat an eye at this. Most that I know will marry two people who have lived in adultery for years, while cheating on their spouses. I was just recently witness to this. For this is how our society lives…. but my heart and soul will always know that this is wrong.
The words of Jesus are so clear and concise for me here.. when he says ” if you marry another you are guilty of adultery”. And he’s simply stating plain facts. I’ve looked at it every possible way it can be looked at. I’ve taken it back to the Hebrew / Greek, trying to make something else out of it. But when it all comes down to it.. it’s so simple, so easy to understand.. and so … well… “blunt”.
Every man who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and a man who marries a woman divorced by her husband commits adultery.
Luke 16:18 How much clearer could he have been?
Of course this is repeated in Mark, word for word. Matthew is the only “exception”.. and this is the main thing that has puzzled me.. However, after long, tedious hours of looking into this, I did find the answer, and it has to do with the customs of the day, (and Matthew having been written TO and FOR the Jewish people).
I film weddings for a living. So you can imagine.. I have listened to the vows over and over. Catholic churches, Protestant churches… I’ve heard them all. They all say the same thing. You are making a covenant with another person. This is a binding covenant.
“Till Death Do Us Part”. What is that saying?
“For Better or For Worse”… What is that saying?
I’ve never been in a ceremony, where an “out” is given as an option. “If this person doesn’t turn out to be what you expected, this is the way you get out of this contract”… I’ve never heard that one. It’s always the same.. and the couple always agrees. Do they really know and understand what they are agreeing to? I don’t think they do. Our society is a “throw away” society, to the point, of now making our own spouses disposable at the drop of a hat.
“I don’t like you anymore, so I think I’ll find a new one”.
And it always happens that the one seeking the divorce can come up with all sorts of rationalizations as to “why” this is OK.. why in “their” case, it’s all A-OK. For some reason.. (usually a really good one).. the “Till Death Do Us Part”, and “For Better or For Worse” just doesn’t seem to matter any longer. Is it really so easy to dissolve a marriage, and call it “wrong” if the other person doesn’t believe the way you do, or if the other person constantly hurts your feelings, or even if the other person is a violent person, and has physically hurt you? There are answers to all of these.. and Paul states you can leave that person.. but he emphatically states that you must remain single. There is simply no other way to see this, unless you are trying to read between the lines, and create something that’s not there.
As for the Mosaic Law, Jesus told how he felt about that also, just as plainly as could possibly be stated.
Jesus answered those who had asked about the divorces allowed by Moses, and he said to them: “Moses allowed you to divorce your wives because your hearts were so hardened. But this is not how it was at the beginning. ”
note that it says only that “Moses” permitted them to divorce their wives. It doesn’t say he permitted a wife to divorce her husband, nor that he permitted a divorced person to marry someone else during the life of their spouse.
Right after this, one line that REALLY caught my eye was what the disciples said to Jesus right after he told them this: “If that is how things are between husband and wife, it would be better not to marry!” 11 He said to them, “Not everyone grasps this teaching, only those for whom it is meant.
So what do you make of THIS?
If that is how things are, then this is really a hard saying.. we will have a hard time doing this… and then, Jesus tells them.. that “not everyone grasps this.. only for those it is meant”.
Obviously.. what he had just told them about marriage and divorce was not easy to hear. It was not obviously that the Law of Moses was a good one.. and everything is just A-Ok.. go get your divorces if you feel the need to do so, and then go get another wife.
Malachi 2:14, says: Because ADONAI is witness between you and the wife of your youth that you have broken faith with her, though she is your companion, your wife by covenant. And hasn’t he made them one flesh in order to have spiritual blood-relatives? For what the one flesh seeks is a seed from God. Therefore, take heed to your spirit, and don’t break faith with the wife of your youth. “For I hate divorce,” says ADONAI the God of Isra’el, “and him who covers his clothing with violence,” says ADONAI . Therefore take heed to your spirit, and don’t break faith.
He states how much he hates divorce. It’s allowed but He HATES it.
———————————————————————————-
I hope and pray, that those who have been divorced and remarried, against what Jesus taught will be OK in the end. But as for myself, after reading and studying for hours, weeks, and months, I would not have a bit of comfort in remarrying, and knowing all of this. I have asked for peace with my life, as well as guidance, wisdom, knowledge and understanding. When I began to pray this, the scriptures started opening up to me and coming alive on the page.. speaking to my heart and soul like never before. I did not need to ask anyone any longer.. for the answers were in black and white, right in front of my eyes.
What people have searched for, is an “out”. An “out” to do what their flesh wants to do. A way to get around what the Word says. A way to do what “they” want, and not what God wants. A way to rationalize to themselves and those around them, that this is OK. God doesn’t mind…he’s a forgiving God.
But all through the Scriptures, He says: If you love me, keep my commandments. .. and then.. you will know them by their fruit. (speaking of His people).
Are they following His commandments and going by His guidelines, or are they following a set of rules they created for themselves? Rules that allow them to satisfy their flesh….?
These are the things that are most important to me. That I satisfy God. Not myself. That my actions will separate me from the heathens who surround me on all sides. That I will truly be set apart. That others will see what I stand for, beyond any shadow of a doubt.
After all, these are the children of God, are they not? A peculiar people. A people not of this world, only travelers through it.
July 8th, 2010 at 5:10 pm
Lisa,
I understand your convictions on this, and if my husband left me I would probably stay single myself, but I do take Paul’s concession that the spouses who are abandoned in 1 Corinthian 7:15 are not morally bound to their marriages.
See, I married a divorced man. He was married to a woman divorced, and it was their first marriage. Therefore, based on the permanency argument, my husband and I are lawfully married. However, this topic has had me so fearful and confused at times, that I’ve been very close to separating from him until his former wife dies.The traditional teaching causes so much confusion that anyone caught up in remarriage ends up thinking they are in sin when they may not be…or are we?
Maybe God does expect everyone married to a divorcee to just split, suck it up and live singly? That doesn’t sound like it’s fair to me, but the fear and doubt has been put there, and I don’t know if I’ll ever be able to shake it.We have 4 kids, too, plus 2 from his former marriage.If I left him based on a ‘what if’ I would be between a rock and a hard place: guilty over wrecking a marriage and hurting my kids, and feeling as if I then had to consign myself to singleness too, just in case. If I am truly married, I would wreck my marriage because of fear and a ‘doctrine of demons’ I’ve embraced.If not, then I’m living in sin right now and going to hell (even though, rationally, I know that if the permanency thing is true, then I’m technically ok). I prayed and fasted about this,and I couldn’t come up with a good reason for leaving…guilt and fear seized me either way I went. If permanency isn’t absolute, then I still sinned in marrying a divorced man who had a chance to be reconciled to his adulterous wife; if permanency is absolute, then I’m ok but there is still that worrying tome….whoever marries a divorced person commits adultery.I wasn’t counselled from the scriptures on this before I got married and I was ignorant of them; had I known about this controversy I would never have married my husband, purely because I have a tender conscience.
As I said, though, the weight of the NT seems to point to a new start in Christ; Paul does seem to say ‘’stay where you are” whether married or unmarried.He also seems to allude to former divorcees before conversion, in 1 Corinthians 7:27-28, but some would say he was talking only to virgins. I’m not convinced about that. He switches back and forth, the primary theme being ‘’stay as you are” but you don’t sin if you marry.
Based on Jesus not abrogating the clause in Deuteronomy 24, I would say that it strongly suggests that one cannot go back to a former spouse,which would imply that remarriage precludes reconciliation with a former spouse.Jesus never abrogates that clause. I also cannot see Jesus meaning that everyone was suddenly living in adultery who had remarried then.Where is this imaginary line where their marriage stopped being okay?
I personally think that when Jesus speaks of the saying that not everyone can receive, it is referring to being a eunuch (never marrying). His disciples were shocked because no man had ever been seen as an adulterer for marrying another woman.I think Jesus was pointing to an ideal, in hyperbolic style (like when he says gouge your eye out if it causes you to sin), not saying that divorce does not end a marriage.
July 8th, 2010 at 5:21 pm
Re your question about why Paul said that the woman who has separated from her husband should stay single. I think it is to promote reconciliation, clearly. These are two believers who should be able to work out their differences, and stay together. Paul is not expecting this reconciliation NOT to happen.A remarriage would preclude reconciliation.
Paul addresses a different situation for the believers married to those not willing or likely to obey Christ in their marriage. He knows there would be nothing the believer could do once the other one has made their mind up; he can’t tell the unbeliever to reconcile or remain unmarried!
I personally think that the idea that Paul is exonerating the believer from the marriage is implicit in his use of words: he uses the imagery of slavery to refer to marriage throughout by saying that we should remain where we are and not become slaves of men…probably a reference to marriage in some way, though he knows marriage isn’t evil per se. The same terminology is used in 2 Peter 2:19, in contrast to the word ‘liberty’. It is another context, but the contrast between ‘liberty’ (which the widow has to marry again or stay single) and being ‘enslaved’ is there. By saying the believer is not ‘enslaved’ he is implying the opposite: their liberty.
However, I feel that it is somewhat confusing when he says that marriage is a binding for life…yet that word ‘bound’ can refer to an ethical duty in a general sense, not a literal tying to someone inseparably.
I also think, based on Paul’s admonition that a believer cannot marry an unbeliever, that it would be wrong to try to reconcile with a former spouse who is not a believer. It violates two commands:
to not marry an unbeliever
to let an unbeliever go if they are not willing to be with you. That seems to give weight to Paul’s statement the believer is not under bondage. It seems wrong and contrary to scripture to ’stand’ for a marriage which cannot be because the other is not saved and may never be…probably never will if they have remarried or emigrated.
It just doesn’t sit right with me.
July 10th, 2010 at 7:51 am
Hello to all and especially Margaret and Lisa,
I knew it would come to this point where there is a lot of confusion and hurt bought about by, as the word says the tickler of ears.Thrown around by every wind of doctrine.
Margaret and Lisa.
My heart goes out to You.
As a born again Christian the over riding principle is this
And I para phrase Romans 6,7 and 8
You are righteous in the sight of God NOW.
Your sins have been forgiven
You are dearly beloved of God
You can cry out ABBA Father for He is Your Father
You can claim Your position at the Right hand of the Father
How???….Because Christ is in You the HOPE of Glory and
You are in Christ.
Now where is Christ Jesus…..Seated at the right hand of His father.
So if Christ is In You and you in Christ then Positionally speaking
You Lisa and Margaret and anyone else who is born Again are
SEATED AT THE RIGHT HAND OF THE FATHER
You have been made white as Snow
Your sins Your Father Remembers NO MORE
The Principle of Being Washed by the BLOOD of Jesus over ride any
debate over words that may or may not be relavant to any subject of Sin.
Sinners and thats all of us are as Christians WASHED CLEAN.
Why are these people arguing like this and treating this subject as if it were the
Worst sin of all.
SIN is SIN is SIN no matter what form it takes.
And I say this very strongly if We say we have no Sin Then we tell a Lie
and Guess what Lying is a SIN
So why dont the doctrine so called start atacking yhe issue of lying as they are attacking the current issue of the rights and wrongs of divorce,adultry etc
Lisa and margaret and any one else reading this.
I WILL SEE YOU ALL IN HEAVEN ONE DAY
How can I say that so Confidently.
Because My Salvation WAS Determined by the Work of Jesus on the CROSS
He Shed His BLOOD for You and Me
And It FULFILLED ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW
Past ,Then, Now and Forever MORE
We have A GOOD God Dont We
Bless You all and Ill see You In Heaven
Trev
trvmcnamee3@gmail.com
PS go and Read Romans 6,7 and 8 and let the LOVE of God Fill Your Heart and Mind and Give You rest in this situation
.
July 10th, 2010 at 9:07 am
Lisa,
I’ve just re-read your comments regarding the woman at the well with the five husbands. She is not the one he told to ‘go and sin no more, as that was the woman who had been caught in the very act of adultery (not remarriage).
I imagine she wouldn’t be living with the man any more after she was saved, but one thing is certain: she had no husband. If both she and Jesus affirmed that she had no husband, and her first husband was her true husband, or even her second if the first had died (there’s very little likelihood that they’d all died, probably been some remarriage in there, seeing as Jesus tells her everything she ‘ever did’), then why isn’t she recognised as having a husband? I thought the permanency- without -possibility -of -dissolution -doctrine teaches that Jesus was saying anyone remarried with a living spouse still had as their spouse the first one who is still alive?? Hmmm. I see the pernanency laws referring to the intention, morally, for the marriage to be permanent, not an ontic permanency.
Any more thoughts yet? I’m just wondering whether you’ve had any success finding out who your former husband’s wife was married to. I did some research like this myself, to find out for sure that my husband’s former wife was married to a never married man. They were married young, so it was a first for both of them. I don’t believe the Bible commands us to go and look at marriage records at the registry office to find out if we are married or not, it just states that we are to stay married when we come to Christ.
Blessings.
As for Herod, their marriage was disgusting on two counts: she was his brother’s wife, and I believer his niece, too? Not good. It wasn’t really about the remarriage, that is just a commentary on what happened to facilitate this unlawful union, as far as I can tell.
July 10th, 2010 at 9:12 am
Trevor,
Hi..,yes, I agree that there is confusion sown when we try to unscramble the egg so legalistically. It is not possible without more sin ensuing, which points to the teaching as bad, not good.
Either way you turn if you’re in a situation like Lisa’s (let’s say she was still married to #2), if you heed this doctrine, you end up either loaded with guilt by staying in your marriage, or if you divorce the person out of fear, you could be sinning by violating Matthew 19, and Matthew 5 in putting that put away spouse in a position whereby they MAY be in an adulterous remarriage, according to the literalistic interpretation of Jesus’ sayings.That would only put the put away spouse in confusion and fear if they got saved, and then they would be bound to a life of enforced celibacy from abject fear.
A doctrine of demons, possibly?
July 11th, 2010 at 7:20 am
Absolutely Margaret,
Doctrine of Demons indeed.
For God has NOT given a Spirit of Fear but of Power and Love and a Sound Mind
Timothy
Its for Freedom We have been set free yield not again to the Bonds of slavery
Doctrines as discussed through people in situations of which they have no control
are being sold into slavery again.
I would exhort those who are discussing this issue to start bringing a message
of Gods Grace, the Unreserved Forgiveness of ALL SIN instead of leaving people in a state of Fear and Uncertainty.
God Bless All
Trev
July 11th, 2010 at 10:28 am
I very much think and agree that Christians must strive to holy as God is holy, and take an extremely high view of marriage.
However, all doctrine must not be just academic assent, it must also be rightly applied to real life in such a way as to not break other commands which are just as important. Good doctrine must not put a person into sin, and must not restrict someone’s conscience so much that they are condemned.
Any law that God gives may have exceptions, depending on the ethics of a situation. It is wrong to lie, but I would tell a lie to protect fellow believers from being slaughtered. It is wrong to kill, but it is not wrong if it is for the sake of justice (the government).
It is wrong to divorce and remarry, but there may be times when it is even more wrong to do it again. I believe a second or more marriage fits this principle.
When Jesus said that anyone who marries a divorced person is committing adultery, I would see an inference that the person marrying a divorcee had something to do with the divorce. This is implied from the previous principle of lust.
Adultery is not something one does without knowing about it.
Perpetual adultery is a self refuting doctrine. It leads to a dead end of sin in too many cases, and cannot apply in all cases, so is therefore wrong.
Joe and Paula marry. Joe leaves Paula and divorces her. Paula, being aggrieved, marries Tom. Tom later divorces Paula, which in effect means he is free to marry a non divorcee (in spite of his treacherous mindset, this will be viewed as some sort of repentance by perpetual adultery teaching).
Tom, however, marries Lola, who is divorced from her husband. Tom is not really married to Lola, either, unless her husband was divorced too previously, but it would depend on whether he was in a wrong marriage.
Later, Tom marries a third time, to Suzanne. This time, as far as we know, his marriage to Suzanne is valid as he wasn’t ‘really’ married to Paula or Lola. A remarriage adultery teacher will probably tell Tom upon coming to the Lord that he MUST divorce Suzanne as he was divorced from Lola.However, Tom was never married to Lola as far as we know, and she is no longer traceable. She lives in a far away country and could be deceased.
We cannot ascertain whether Lola is (i) alive (ii) his true wife (iii)willing to reconcile (iv) deceased.
If Tom divorces Suzanne and tries to find Lola, he may discover that he was never married to her anyway, as she was divorced wrongly. He will violate the synoptic texts on not divorcing, as he will have divorced his true wife, Suzanne, so as to be reconciled to an unbeliever, violating another scripture to not marry an unbeliever, and to ‘let them go’.
If he stays with Suzanne, he will be lead to believe he is hellbound and will suffer irreparable and inescapable guilt. If he divorces Suzanne, who COULD be his wife based on the literal perpetual adultery model, he will be wracked with guilt and will sin by ‘causing her to commit adultery’ literally, should she also remarry.
If Suzanne is an unbeliever, by divorcing her he will violate yet another scripture which commands not to divorce an unbeliever who is willing to stay with the Christian spouse. She will be heartbroken and not understand what is happening or why.
If she is a Christian, she will now also be affected and be wracked with guilt and fear, wondering whether she is free to marry. She may be told she must stay celibate, just in case, which violates yet another scripture and accounts sin to the perpetual adultery teachers.If she marries, and it is adultery (which it would be, accoring to the teachers) they will be accountable to God for her sin, along with poor Tom, who is supposed to be forgiven and cleansed, walking in joy and forgiveness.
Enforced celibacy and forbidding to marry is a doctrine of demons, according to the scriptures. If Suzanne did not know that Tom was divorced before she married him, she is further vicitimized and is sinned against by the church.Tom is also victimized and a doctrine of demons enforced upon him, though all along he should have stated with Suzanne and any children in that marriage.
Self refuting logic. We must understand Jesus the way he meant, which is not an absolute law, it is a higher principle, and the adultery is not in sex in the next marriage, but in the treachery of divorce and not reconciling.
I believe that this is why God, in His wisdom, instituted the no-return clause of Deuteronomy 24, for times such as these. I believe that this is why the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write that we should abide as we are and not try to undo the past, because it only leads to sin and bondage, especially in this case.
Truth applied never leads to sin or confusion.Never.
July 11th, 2010 at 11:33 am
‘truth applied’ does lead to “Taking up the cross” and “denying yourself” though. Your opinion inevitably does lead to sin, because it supports the dissolving of marriages by a number of different ways except death. If you continue to cite Deut 24, please attach this caveat; it’s for the “hard hearted” which is a disposition that precludes one from inheriting the Kingdom of God. Jesus said that those that love Him, “keep His commandments” and He also stated that those who DO NOT love Him, do not obey
July 11th, 2010 at 12:38 pm
I don’t believe you have considered what I was saying. I clearly showed you how the perpetual adultery doctrine applied to those who were divorced and remarried before conversion, leads to sin on the part of those who teach it, as it would cause *actual marriages* to be dissolved, and lead to further adultery…surely a terrible sin.Did you see that? How can you deal with that? Teachers who teach that remarrieds must split are leading people into sin, and they sin themselves by doing so. It is very serious. That is why the 7th chapter of 1 Corinthians must be read very carefully.
I never argued that Deuteronomy 24 gives encouragement to divorce, never argued that. What I did argue, and I feel you missed, is that the caveat that a remarried woman cannot go back to her former husband was never abrogated by Jesus. Those remarried under the law of Moses could not have been required to divorce as that would have been Jesus saying that the law against returning to a former spouse was sin.That is God’s law we’re talking about!
Do you think hard heartedness has disappeared off the earth? People without Christ are still divorcing; the Deuteronomic law is to regulate the damage from that. Of course sinners are going to divorce from hard heartedness, that will not change, never has changed. How can they undo what they have done? If you force them to try to, you wickedly cause them to sin and end up in terrible confusion and guilt, even if they were an innocent victim to start with. Madness.
Yes, we are called to deny ourselves, but only when it is placed on us to do so, not for the sake of asceticism or self punishment, or a false sense of guilt,nor out of fear.
Romans 7 is just not *possible* to adhere to retrospectively, if you have to apply it to all who divorced and remarried before conversion. I also do not think it has anything to do with divorce and remarriage in the concessions given, as it speaks of a woman who has a husband. She marries again, bigamously.Or, she simply sleeps with another man; the word used is ambiguous and can refer to marriage or living with.
July 11th, 2010 at 1:02 pm
Other ethical problems which would be easily solved if we simply adhered to Paul’s express commands and concessions in 1 Cor.7 (for the married to stay married, regardless of history, and the unmarried to stay as they are but can marry if need be):
A man and woman are married for 30+ years. One was previously divorced, but the former spouse may be dead. Would Paul, based on his own stated counsel in 1 Cor.7, counsel that couple to split? The former spouse could be dead, anyway! It is nonsense.
A woman was married to a man before knowing the Lord. This man was divorced, so the woman is counselled to stay with current spouse, as the whereabouts of the former man is not known. We don’t know who he was divorced from. Would Paul counsel this woman to dissolve her marriage, contrary to his counsel in 1 Cor.7:10? if she stays married, she may be committing adultery if this former man was actually free to be married to her, according to the bizarre ‘literal binding’ theory of marriage.
When Paul speaks of a bond in marriage, he is talking of an ethical bond, not a literal, inseparable one with no concessions. An example is the one where he does not hold a believer ethically to an unbeliever who abandons them. The two cannot be reconciled after divorce if the former unbelieving spouse is an unbelievr still, as Christians are not permitted to marry unbelievers. This is the major mistake exegetes seem to make with understanding that Paul was definitely giving different counsel and concessions to those married to unbelievers who are hard of heart.
If they are not under bondage after 10 years of being abandoned, what does it mean? Not under bondage to keep the spouse there? Nonsensical, they have already left. Not under bondage to feel bad they left? Nonsensical, why should they? Not under bondage to go with them? Just silly, how can they when that person has already left? If one is not under bondage, then one is at liberty, its opposite. By extension, a believer is not enslaved to a former spouse who will almost certainly be an unbeliever.
Christians are called to a higher principle in their marriages to one another.
July 11th, 2010 at 1:35 pm
Not so Margaret. Your argument is simply begging the question due to a number of false assumptions;
1. marriages of the unregenerate are recognized as covenant marriages, and this is a universal truth that is plainly evident to mankind in general ie. (Abimilech, Potiphar)
2. The divorec that God hates in Malachi, is seperating oneself form a covenant spouse (the wife on ones youth.) Divorcing an unlawful spouse would be good, as it is consistent with forsaking sin, and publicly denouncing what God says is an abomination. Are you implying that the ungodly of this world are not truly married, and would necessarilly be cmmitting fornication until they are converted, at which point they would then need to get legitimately ‘married’ for the first time? Joseph said that touching Potiphars wife (a heathen) would be a great sin against God.
3. Staying in the place that you are is a reference to civil duties and circumcision, and have nothing to do with advocting a state of sin that this very chapter warns against.
4. To say that Romans 7 is not applicable ‘retrospectively’, is nothing more than torturing the scriptures to make them say what we want. Based on this assumption, any divorce that has taken place prior to a subsequent unlawful marriage, would not be subject to the judgement of Romans 7. That would be all divorces Margaret, since they all happen at a point in time, before the next ‘union’ can take place. Therefore, according to your opinion, this verse has no application whatsoever, and cannot even apply to one that claimed to be a christian, since they would cease to be so, if they sought to “work ill toward their neighbor”, of which a spouse is certainly a part.
5. David took his wife back after she was with another man. David is the example of the priciple that says, “And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.”
(Act 13:39)
6. Jesus commanded that when one is born from above, they are to “live for the sake of righteousness”, and follow Him. Jesus doesn’t lead anyone into even a “hint” of immorality, but enables them to persevere through many sufferings and afflications.
It’s not Gods doing that we fall under the consequences of living a loose and immoral life. The primary desire of the saints is the rescuing a soul from death, even at the expense of out physical life. As Paul said; “how do you know O wife, weather you will save your husband..” Notice that the man who obstinately departed is still referred to as her husband. Why, because they are ‘no longer two, but one flesh.”
Your reasoning is based on a private interpretation Margaret. The scriptures are not subject to equivocation, but conform strictly to godliness. You essentially have Jesus authorizing the transgression of His own law, by the very sin that He forbids! Nonsense.
July 11th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
I don’t believe that marriage IS permanent, literally. You are the one arguing in circles, and, ironically, advocating divorce, not me.
This whole notion of indissoluble marriage is refuted by Jesus’ very own statement: that man *should not* put asunder. To say that man *cannot* put asunder is contrary to that statement.
In Malachi, God hates the frivolous divorce of a man who divorces his Jewish wife under covenant with God,who was commanded NOT to marry a non Jewish woman. There is a huge difference in that divorce, and the woman actually being divorced (what crime has she committed?).God Himself divorced, metaphorically, for adulteries. To call that sin is dangerous ground; you are attributing a sinful action to the Lord.
I completely disagree that Paul’s reference to staying as you are cannot refer to marriage; the entire chapter is in response to questions about marriage and singleness, and Paul merely intercepts that discussion with another ‘by the way’ thought on the status of slaves. Paul uses language throughout which implies a ’stay as you are’ mentality (abide wherein you are called? Echoes that, doesn’t it?). ”Are you bound to a wife?Do not seek to be loosed”…and so on, all have to do with exactly what Paul says in application to the position of a slave. Paul also says not to be ’slaves of men’ and implies that being married is a form of enslavement in the sense that it involves being burdened with extra responsibilities in life. Surely Paul was not referring to someone wanting to become someone’s latest slaveboy when he said ‘do not become slaves of men’ ! He was referring to marriage.Your position is untenable.Marriage is NOT a state of sin. Where does Paul say anything about remarrieds needing to split? Why does he not address this if it is so important?
Romans 7, according to *your* view of it, cannot apply retrospectively, because you cannot answer for *what you would do with Suzanne in her case*, or Tom. How can you possibly advocate wrecking a marriage? How can you advocate a doctrine of demons, by contrast, to a free man and woman, by enforcing celibacy? The only doctrine of demons here is not *allowing marriage* it is forbidding it…and also promoting divorce I would add. Who is sinning here?
David was not divorced from the woman, so this law has nothing to do with that at all.
Paul refers to the ‘husband’ and the ‘wife’ simply because he isn’t going to call them by specific names! What else should he call them? It is from the perspective of the current status quo, before divorce is final.
I’ve heard all the arguments, but they make no sense and come across as fearfully legalistic, they victimise the innocent, and they bring sin (as I showed you, scripturally) if you counsel someone to go one way or the other, in the case of a complex past.
Again, Jesus recognised the marriages under the law of Moses, for if not, that would have meant many women would have, once again, been cast out on the orders of Jesus (the very thing he despises). You can’t fool me with hardline, repetitive statements.
It just doesn’t make sense at all in the real world, and disproves the logic of the perpetual adultery proponents. I think anyone who teaches this is in serious error.
July 11th, 2010 at 2:37 pm
“I don’t believe that marriage IS permanent, literally. You are the one arguing in circles, and, ironically, advocating divorce, not me.”
Irrelavent. Your opinion does not nullify what Jesus said, and the apostles repeated, ie, death alone parts the husband and wife.
This whole notion of indissoluble marriage is refuted by Jesus’ very own statement: that man *should not* put asunder. To say that man *cannot* put asunder is contrary to that statement.
My wayward wife used the same excuse Margaret. This is equivalent to saying that Jesus is actually supporting the sin of violating His command, rather than stating the fact as a revelation of His will, which He knows will be transgressed. Let’s apply this to all sins forbidden by Jesus, including lust, and you implicitly nullify and make void every express prohibition that Jesus uttered. You make void the law, which is contrary to grace which establishes the law. Your own words show the danger of what you believe, at least implicitly, ie, no marriage is binding until death, unless it be a happenstance. This type of reasoning is consistent with the oldest lie “you won’t surely die.”
By the way Margaret, all reasoning is necessarily ‘circular’ based on an assumed premise that one believes is infallibly true. The conclusion that I am making agrees with Jesus own words and the Spirit of His commands, which is consistent with godliness. Your reasoning is consistant to subjectivism, which is the same as a ‘private interpretation’ based on the individual. Your opinion therefore is erroneous becasue it is mixed with error. As to advocating sin, thsoe that believe in the necessity of forsaking all sin, and adhereing to the ‘ministry of reconciliation’ can judge for themselves. It is never unlawful to break a promise that requires unlawfulness in order to fulfill it ie. Herod. Cherry picking the law is also very telling Margaret. If you live by Deut 24, then you must also bring in stoning of those that committ adultery, which would preclude the possibility of those very persons to attempt to sanction their uncleanness through a civil marriage license. You clearly believe that Jesus advocates perpetual divorce & ‘re-marriage’ simply because He does not forcibly bind a husband & wife to the point that they cannot transgress His command. Jesus said that “he who doubts is damned if he eats…” The saints are commanded to forego things that are doubtful, and even lawful things for the sake of a brothers conscience for whom Christ died. I can’t stop you from twisting 1 Cor 7, but you violate non-contradiction by doing so. If something is expressly commanded, then nullified at the same speaker, then no command is binding except by chance. Jesus forbids me to lust in my heart after a woman, so how do you make the leap from this revelation to actually indulging in the act, as long as I have a licensed permit from the state to do so? This is your opinion of the holiness that Jesus speaks of, and wtihout whcih “no man will see the Lord”?
July 11th, 2010 at 2:49 pm
This is insane. I am going to go crazy. I think some of you enjoy putting burdens on people secretly. Thanks Trevor, I will do it that way…at least you took the time to give me some hope instead of some short formulaic answer. This is too much. I have been so alone all my life since my divorce (20 years)…it is unbearable and yes I have asked to be helped through this and sought Godly counsel. I really have the feeling that some people on here enjoy telling me that I can’t get remarried and you don’t speak out any love, but just a cold hard intellectual ascent to what might be doctrinal truth. Who knows?!?
July 11th, 2010 at 2:58 pm
Like I said, if you tell Tom and Suzanne they must divorce, you will be guilty of causing either the dissolution of a marriage, and the enforced celibacy(doctrine of demons for married or single people) of both when they ought to stay married to one another, or you will cause Tom to cause Suzanne to sin by divorcing her, BECAUSE they are married. That would violate Matthew 5:32.
So, what do you do? You sin by counselling them one way, and you may sin by counselling them to stay together, based on your tortuous, bondage-making doctrine.
I’m sorry your wife excused whatever she did by stating that marriage can be broken. Like you, I do believe that divorce is wrong, but I don’t deny that it sunders a marriage. Murder is wrong, God hates it, but it does happen and it does kill a person. If a murderer said,”I know that once I kill this person, I can be forgiven if I ask forgiveness” that wouldn’t mean it was okay. It would be a presumputous sin, right? Just because murder is evil and God doesn’t accept it in principle, doesn’t mean that a person isn’t dead. God allows it, but it is still sin.
You have to think about how this theology applies to people in real life, like the situation Lisa was in. There are others with much more complex cases, with even more divorce histories. To write them all off, and say ”well they’d all better just lump it and stay single, it’s their own fault” is ridiculous and unbiblical.God is not like that.
How can you not understand Paul to be saying that the believer is not bound to a marriage, and accept that the marriage principle is a higher principle with exceptions, such as when someone kills someone accidentally they are not to blame? He uses the same exact terms to describe one bringing themself into bondage (slavery) by getting married (not in a negative way). Peter uses the same contrasting words of ‘bondage’ and ‘liberty’ in 2 Peter 2:19, as those terms Paul uses in regard to liberty of a widowed woman, and the one not under ‘bondage’ in 1 Cor.7:15. It’s nonsensical to understand it any other way.
July 11th, 2010 at 3:07 pm
Personally what I read in the scriptures leads me to believe that Biblical divorce is man made and not sanctioned or recognized by God. If God recognized divorce as being legitimate the scriptures would not refer to it as adultery (the breaking of a covenant)
Malachi 2:14 But you say, “Why does he not?” Because the LORD was witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your [i]wife by covenant[/i].
Galatians 3:15 To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, [i]no one annuls it or adds to it[/i] once it has been ratified.
What usually gets me into trouble is that I have been unable to find a prohibition in the scriptures against a man taking more than one wife.
July 11th, 2010 at 3:25 pm
JimII says that anyone who is unfortunate enough to be caught up in a web of divorce and remarriage should lump it and live singly, wreck their marriage and damage their children for a’ what if’. That’s rather different, and has bigger things at stake, than deciding whether to eat pork or not.
Lets say Suzanne didn’t know Tom was divorced before she married him (this sort of dishonesty goes on, people). Is she to be consigned to celibacy, being further wronged, not only by her husband, but by the church? How did she do wrong or commit adultery in marrying him? Why ought she pay for his sin?
July 11th, 2010 at 3:29 pm
She simply becomes his second wife by covenant if they are believers. If not then it is a civil union and biblical principals do not apply.
July 11th, 2010 at 5:40 pm
Comment:
Like I said, if you tell Tom and Suzanne they must divorce, you will be guilty of causing either the dissolution of a marriage, and the enforced celibacy(doctrine of demons for married or single people) of both when they ought to stay married to one another, or you will cause Tom to cause Suzanne to sin by divorcing her, BECAUSE they are married. That would violate Matthew 5:32.
False. The forced celibacy that is warned against in scripture has nothing whatsoever to do with forsaking an unlawful union, that God calls adultery. It’s the popish doctrine, that claims it to be a holier state than legitimate marriage, which would contradict the express will of God.
So, what do you do? You sin by counselling them one way, and you may sin by counselling them to stay together, based on your tortuous, bondage-making doctrine.
Here we have a conundrum, which means that the premises you have put forth are erroneous, on account of the fact that the scripture cannot, and does not contradict itself. An appeal to emotion is falacious as you know. I can give countless examples of situations where a covenant spouse and children are stand for the righteousness of Gods command regarding marriage, but that would not necessarily prove the truth of their position, as is the case with your hypothetical or real life scenarios.
I’m sorry your wife excused whatever she did by stating that marriage can be broken. Like you, I do believe that divorce is wrong, but I don’t deny that it sunders a marriage. Murder is wrong, God hates it, but it does happen and it does kill a person. If a murderer said,”I know that once I kill this person, I can be forgiven if I ask forgiveness” that wouldn’t mean it was okay. It would be a presumputous sin, right? Just because murder is evil and God doesn’t accept it in principle, doesn’t mean that a person isn’t dead. God allows it, but it is still sin.
I’m more sorry for my wife for the fact that she believes your opinion, which implicitly allows one to ‘marry’ their paramour, with Gods blessing. The example above is apples to oranges, and does not justify the commission or continuance of any sin. Can the murderer keep killing on the bases that he can’t bring back his dead victimes? Adultery can be forsaken, and reconciliation can be made, though it is so rare that God says “none that go into her, return to the paths of life. Amazing Margaret; neary 1/3 of the wisdom in Proverbs warns of the danger of going near the hous eof an immoral wife, and it is talking about a wife, yet you have Jesus literally sanctioning that which He says is a cause for astonishment in the Heavens, and saw fit to like the Idolator to a ’spiritual harlot’. Surely you make Christ the minister of sin, at least implicitly. The opinion that a divorce dissolves a marriage is so clearly opposed by Jesus, that a child can see it. ie;
(Luke 16:18) Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
Here is what is illustrated;
1. The man puts away (divorces) his wife, and subsequently marries another woman. The result is that he is committing adultery, which shows he is still bound to his wife, whom he ‘divorced’.
July 11th, 2010 at 5:50 pm
2. The woman that was divorced from her husband, is considered to be off limits to any man on earth, which shows she is still the wife of her husband, who divorced her.
You have to think about how this theology applies to people in real life, like the situation Lisa was in. There are others with much more complex cases, with even more divorce histories. To write them all off, and say ”well they’d all better just lump it and stay single, it’s their own fault” is ridiculous and unbiblical.God is not like that.
“some are eunuchs for the kingdom of Heaves sake”. Grace enables one to bear the cross with joy unspeakable, becasue even though we don’t see Jesus, we love Him. Sin is our fault Margaret. If I live the life of a thief and then invest my stolen money into legitimate business, can I keep the rewards after I am regenerated, or must I ‘bring forth fruit worthy of repentence’ like Zaccheaus did and return all that I stole, even if it leads to poverty?
How can you not understand Paul to be saying that the believer is not bound to a marriage, and accept that the marriage principle is a higher principle with exceptions, such as when someone kills someone accidentally they are not to blame? He uses the same exact terms to describe one bringing themself into bondage (slavery) by getting married (not in a negative way). Peter uses the same contrasting words of ‘bondage’ and ‘liberty’ in 2 Peter 2:19, as those terms Paul uses in regard to liberty of a widowed woman, and the one not under ‘bondage’ in 1 Cor.7:15. It’s nonsensical to understand it any other way.
It’s nonsensical according to your presupposition only, not the truth which is according to godliness. The bondage that I am not under in 1 Cor 7 would be the duties that I cannot perform due to my wifes immorality ie. defrauding her of my body, dwelling with her according to knowlege, etc. I am commanded to live according to righteousness, and not return evil for evil, in hopes that she will come to repentance and a knowledge of the truth. The doctrine Jesus taught makes “mo provision for the flesh” which you implicitly do with your opinion. The saints are called to make the good confession, like Stephen did when being stoned. I know I have to be living in righteousness and true holiness in order to be found among the sheep at the last day. My wife believes that grace enables one to sin and confess, but not forsake, which the Bible defines as “covering you sins.” If I am permitted to find a girlfriend, since my wife ‘dissolved’ her vows of purity and faithfulness, then no person is bound to stand and live for the sake of righteousness at all. That is a mind set on this present age, and not the age to come. At least 1/3 of the wisdom in Proverbs, warns against going near the door of an immoral wife, yet you have Jesus actually sanctioning the very thing He considers to be unclean, and a cause for astonishment in the Heavens! I won’t concede any point that implies the right to sin under a so called ‘grace’ that denies the power of godliness. It’s a small cross to bear for me to continue faithful to my vow to God and my wife, in hope that she may come to a knowledge of the truth. I knew with the first 30 days of being born from above that I could not be involved with any woman while my wife is living, unless I willingly forfeit my soul.
July 11th, 2010 at 6:33 pm
Well, Jesus does not mention anything at all about sex in a remarriage. That is an error. On plain reading, and in the context of hyperbolic statements which were intended to point out the true standard we should be striving for, which the Pharisees were not, Jesus says that whoever divorces his wife and marries…and marries…two acts which constitute adultery. Jesus is talking about marriage. He was asked about divorce, but he brought it back to what was the real issue. He was saying ”You know, instead of using the law to support your treachery, why not actually look to being faithful to your marriage”? What if there IS no sex in the next marriage? Certain exegetes try to say that Jesus was talking of an adultery which happens AFTER a second marriage, but Jesus plainly says that the adultery is constituted by divorce and another marriage.It is betrayal. Even gramatically, it is not tenable that Jesus was pointing to some sort of persistent sexual adultery, as the two verbs ‘divorces’ and ‘marries’ are both one time actions. Any verb following that is most likely a ‘punctiliar’ or one time act.
No, friend, I disagree. A wife who has been abandoned and is standing for a marriage to deny herself is not the same as a person destroying a valid marriage to deny themselves. That is an oxymoron. They are destroying a valid marriage which is *sin*. Staying single and hoping a spouse comes back is not sin.That doesn’t harm anyone else.That’s their choice.
In the situation I gave, there is sin either way, which cannot be right.
It’s not just about an appeal to emotion,it is an appeal not to heap sin upon sin by causing someone else to stumble and then someone else linked to them.If Tom divorces, and he is married to Suzanne, he destroys a marriage. He will ’cause’ Suzanne to passively commit adultery by divorcing her (or to stay celibate even though she is actually free to marry), based on the perpetual adultery idea, if she happens to be an unbeliever.
If Tom never disclosed to Suzanne that he’d been divorced before, and she married him in good faith, then it later came to light that he was divorced with the same question marks over his history, why should Suzanne suffer a life of celibacy because of him? That doesn’t add up.
Even if that were true, this union may not be unlawful!! That is what I’m trying to tell you. You can’t tell someone to sever a union that is possibly lawful, especially for an unbeliever who has no interest in reconciliation, and who may not even be his wife! That is wrong, wrong, wrong!
We must abide where we are when called. There is no command in this detailed teaching on marriage for ANYONE to divorce their spouse. Paul, dealing with people such as the Corinthians, would have had to mention it to them. I believe he gives permission for those divorced prior to conversion to marry in verses 27-28. He is not talking to virgins, as he switches back and forth. He is clearly referring to those who are married and those who have been ‘released’. How could Paul forget about those divorced, if they are not included in the ‘unmarried’?
July 11th, 2010 at 6:38 pm
Jim,
do you truly believe that Jesus wanted all those remarried at the time of his ministry to divorce and speak of the prohibition of remarriage to the first spouse as an obsolete and sin-enabling law? Did Jesus want all those women who had been divorced and remarried to be kicked out? Was Jesus really saying that they should disobey the law of Moses? Remember, Jesus had to keep that law perfectly; he could not speak against it.
July 11th, 2010 at 6:45 pm
To Jeff;
brother, I’m so sorry for your situation. I’m sure you’ve read and heard all the debate under the sun about this topic (I’ve studied and prayed, even fasted in anguish about this for many months now), and it is personal for you. I sense anguish and confusion, and, yes, loneliness. If your conscience is hurt, you’re not going to be able to remarry without the doubt and fear that has been infused into you by the hardline traditional teaching. I would never tell someone to remarry because of what I thought; I’m simply pointing out the logical and ethical fallacies of the perpetual adultery teaching.
I believe that our past, is the past. I believe that Paul says a believer is not under bondage to an unbeliever, and by extension that would include anyone from the past. However, not everyone agrees, and so it’s for you to decide. If you stay single and give your all for Jesus, you don’t do any wrong.
Peace to you
July 11th, 2010 at 7:36 pm
We are at an impass here. You believe that Jesus teaching allows the very sin it forbids. God respects no mans person, and Jesus doesn;t need to specifically detail how to forsake every instance of sin. Jesus sayd nothing directly about how to abandon a homosexual ‘marriage’ but the implication is is there based on the standard of Gods holiness. It’s futile to contend against raw calvanism, which essentially subjects every command to the subjective reasoning of the carnal mind. These links have already soundly refuted every scenario, and ‘what if’ that you have brought up Margaret. The saints at Corinth would have gladly forsaken their unlawful ‘marriage’ upon the revelation that God in times passed ‘winked’ (passed by) these transgressions. but now commands all men everywhere to repent (confess and forsake)… You see things from a soulish perspective, which is what we are commanded to deny, if ever we are going to enter into eternal life. Here you are;
http://wisereaction.org/ebooks/considering_divorce.pdf
http://trueconnection.org/DivorceAndRemarriageBook.com/index.html
July 11th, 2010 at 8:33 pm
Jeff if you are still reading this,Man I feel the Hurt ,the pain,the anguish,the confusion,the loneliness.
This is the Bottom line as it is for all sin.
If You have repented You are Forgiven
If You keep going to God and continue to repent about the same particular sin
You know what Jeff…..God does not Remember what You are talking about.
He does not remember sins that are repented.
Again I say to The legalistic,Pharisaical .He who is without sin,let him cast the first stone.
Again….Not one of those accusing men picked a stone up.
Which is more than i can say about what is going on here in this unrelenting
discussion.
That in my humble opinion Give absolutely No place to the FINISHED worl of the Cross
It should be remembered that in the OT the act of sacrifice and the shedding of Blood bought the children of Israel back into a right relationship with God.
And as Paul says….How MUCH MORE the shedding of GODS OWN SON
does that for Us and our sins.
White as snow
We have a Great God….For Goodness sake people,focus on the Grace of God,council the Grace of God and I tell You,People will be drawn into the relationship with God that will lead them into the Truth for thier own situation.
For If I be Lifted Up i will DRAW all men to Me Says The Lord.
Jeff and all those who are in this situation being discussed.
Take delight in Your God,Your Father in heaven who LOVES YOU SO MUCH HE GAVE HIS OWN SON FOR YOU AND ACCEPTED HIS OWN SON AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR YOU AND YOUR SINS.
Look up the word Propitiation….Thats what Jesus was
Bless You All
Trev
Jeff God Loves You
July 11th, 2010 at 10:00 pm
Propitiation;
A mercy-seat - כפרת capporeth, from כפר caphar, to cover or overspread; because by an act of pardon sins are represented as being covered, so that they no longer appear in the eye of Divine justice to displease, irritate, and call for punishment; and the person of the offender is covered or protected from the stroke of the broken law. In the Greek version of the Septuagint the word ιλαστηριον, hilasterion, is used, which signifies a propitiatory, and is the name used by the apostle, Heb_9:5. This mercy-seat or propitiatory was made of pure gold; it was properly the lid or covering of that vessel so well known by the name of the ark and ark of the covenant. On and before this, the high priest was to sprinkle the blood of the expiatory sacrifices on the great day of atonement: and it was in this place that God promised to meet the people, (see Exo_25:22); for there he dwelt, and there was the symbol of the Divine presence. At each end of this propitiatory was a cherub, between whom this glory was manifested; hence in Scripture it is so often said that he dwelleth between the cherubim. As the word ιλαστηριον, propitiatory or mercy-seat, is applied to Christ, Rom_3:25, whom God hath set forth to be a Propitiation (ιλαστηριον) through faith in his blood - for the remission of sins that are past; hence we learn that Christ was the true mercy-seat, the thing signified by the capporeth, to the ancient believers. And we learn farther that it was by his blood that an atonement was to be made for the sins of the world. And as God showed himself between the cherubim over this propitiatory or mercy-seat, so it is said, God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself; 2Co_5:19, etc.
Notice that it is for PASt sins that are repented of, which would exclude any sin that is not forsaken. The calvanistic creeds that Trevor quotes are self refuting, and have nothing to do with what Jesus said. He also is recommending a false grace, that is not the grace of the bible, defined by the apostle so clearly here;
For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ; Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. (Titus 2:11-14)
Adam Clarke does as good as can be done on the truth of the atonement, while refuting the error of the lawless.
This doctrine of the imputed righteousness of Christ is capable of great abuse. To say that Christ’s personal righteousness is imputed to every true believer, is not Scriptural: to say that he has fulfilled all righteousness for us, or in our stead, if by this is meant his fulfillment of all moral duties, is neither Scriptural nor true: that he has died in our stead, is a great, glorious, and Scriptural truth: that there is no redemption but through his blood is asserted beyond all contradiction; in the oracles of God. But there are a multitude of duties which the moral law requires which Christ never fulfilled in our stead, and never could. We have various duties of a domestic kind which belong solely to ourselves, in the relation of parents, husbands, wives, servants, etc., in which relations Christ never stood. He has fulfilled none of these duties for us, but he furnishes grace to every true believer to fulfill them to God’s glory, the edification of his neighbor, and his own eternal profit. The salvation which we receive from God’s free mercy, through Christ, binds us to live in a strict conformity to the moral law; that law which prescribes our manners, and the spirit by which they should be regulated, and in which they should be performed. He who lives not in the due performance of every Christian duty, whatever faith he may profess, is either a vile hypocrite, or a scandalous Antinomian. (Calvanism and most organized religion today advocate lawlessness as being consistent with a state of justification/sanctification.)
As to God loving a person that is continuing in sin, that too is deceiving, as indicated by the following;
The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth.(Psalms 11:5)
The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.
(Psalms 5:5)
For certain it is not a wicked revengeful hatred, but a righteous hatred against those that continue to reject the means of salvation and live by the power of godliness (grace) which is of infinite price. Don’t take the broad road of justifying the flesh friend. Need I state the obvious, and remind everyone that Hollywood and the entertainment world have the science of adultery down to an art. The divorce and unlawful marriage is vile, but not nearly so much as those that play the hypocrite, and use religion to cloak their sins. These present sufferings are not worthy to be compared to the glory of Jesus eternal kingdom. The ‘re-marriage’ crowd supports my wife entirely as she joins herself to whoever she please under grace. Therefore, either she is correct in believing that she is not obligated to honor her vows and reconcile to her husband, or I am correct in believing that my wife is bound to me as long as I am living (have the vitality of breath), and must continue to uphold the truth of the Word, in thought and deed, as long as I am living. I won’t concede to a doctrine that is opposed to genuine godliness and holiness. Remember the apostle James exhortation;
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
(James 2:24)
July 11th, 2010 at 11:00 pm
Well I think we should just read scripture in context
So I have included eph 1: 9 and 10
Salvation is through Faith Not Works
Romans 6 through 8
And will just say after Paul goes through the struggle of life in chapt 7
His statement He concludes with:
7:24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?
7:25 Thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with my mind I myself serve the law of God, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin
Who will rescue me from this struggle,Thanks God through our Jesus Christ OUR Lord
Then onto the Magnificent Statement of our Position in Christ
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast. 10For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do
ROMANS Chapt 6 through 8
.6:1 What should we say, then? Should we go on sinning so that grace may increase?
6:2 Of course not! How can we who died as far as sin is concerned go on living in it?
6:3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into union with Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
6:4 Therefore, through baptism we were buried with him into his death so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the Father’s glory, we too may live an entirely new life.
6:5 For if we have become united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his.
6:6 We know that our old selves were crucified with him so that our sinful bodies might be rendered powerless and we might no longer be slaves to sin.
6:7 For the person who has died has been freed from sin.
6:8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him,
6:9 for we know that Christ, who was raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has mastery over him.
6:10 For when he died, he died once and for all as far as sin is concerned. But now that he is alive, he lives for God.
6:11 In the same way, you too must continually consider yourselves dead as far as sin is concerned, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.
6:12 Therefore, do not let sin rule your mortal bodies so that you obey their desires.
6:13 Stop offering the parts of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness. Instead, offer yourselves to God as people who have been brought from death to life and the parts of your body as instruments of righteousness to God.
6:14 For sin will not have mastery over you, because you are not under law but under grace.
6:15 What, then, does this mean? Should we go on sinning because we are not under law but under grace? Of course not!
6:16 Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey-either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?
6:17 But thank God that, though you were once slaves of sin, you became obedient from your hearts to that form of teaching with which you were entrusted!
6:18 And since you have been freed from sin, you have become slaves of righteousness.
6:19 I am speaking in human terms because of the frailty of your flesh. Just as you once offered the parts of your body as slaves to impurity and to greater and greater disobedience, so now, in the same way, you must offer the parts of your body as slaves to righteousness that leads to sanctification.
6:20 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free as far as righteousness was concerned.
6:21 What benefit did you get from doing those things you are now ashamed of? For those things resulted in death.
6:22 But now that you have been freed from sin and have become God’s slaves, the benefit you reap is sanctification, and the result is eternal life.
6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in union with Christ Jesus our Lord.
7:1 Don’t you realize, brothers-for I am speaking to people who know the law-that the law can press its claims over a person only as long as he is alive?
7:2 For a married woman is bound by the law to her husband while he is living, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning her husband.
7:3 So while her husband is living, she will be called an adulterer even if she lives with another man. But if her husband dies, she is free from this law, so that she is not an adulterer if she marries another man.
7:4 In the same way, my brothers, through Christ’s body you also died as far as the law is concerned, so that you may belong to another person, the one who was raised from the dead, and may bear fruit for God.
7:5 For while we were living in the flesh, sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies to bear fruit for death.
7:6 But now we have been released from the law by dying to what enslaved us, so that we may serve in the new life of the Spirit, not under the old written code.
7:7 What should we say, then? Is the law sinful? Of course not! In fact, I wouldn’t have known sin if it had not been for the law. For I wouldn’t have known what it means to covet if the law had not said, “You must not covet.”
7:8 But sin seized the opportunity provided by this commandment and produced in me all kinds of sinful desires. For apart from the law, sin is dead.
7:9 At one time I was alive without any connection to the law. But when the commandment came, sin sprang to life,
7:10 and I died. I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.
7:11 For sin, seizing the opportunity provided by the commandment, deceived me and used it to kill me.
7:12 So then, the law itself is holy, and the commandment is holy, just, and good.
7:13 Now, did something good bring me death? Of course not! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it used something good to cause my death, so that through the commandment sin might become more sinful than ever.
7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am mere flesh, sold as a slave to sin.
7:15 I don’t understand what I am doing. For I don’t do what I want to do, but instead do what I hate.
7:16 Now if I do what I don’t want to do, I agree that the law is good.
7:17 As it is, I am no longer the one who is doing it, but it is the sin that lives in me.
7:18 For I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but I cannot carry it out.
7:19 For I don’t do the good I want to do, but instead do the evil that I don’t want to do.
7:20 But if I do what I don’t want to do, I am no longer the one who is doing it, but it is the sin that lives in me.
7:21 So I find this to be a law: when I want to do what is good, evil is right there with me.
7:22 For I delight in the law of God in my inner being,
7:23 but I see in my body a different law waging war with the law in my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin that exists in my body.
7:24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?
7:25 Thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with my mind I myself serve the law of God, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.
8:1 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in union with Christ Jesus.
8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and death.
8:3 For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to deal with sin. He condemned sin in the flesh
8:4 so that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
8:5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit.
8:6 To set our minds on the flesh leads to death, but to set our minds on the Spirit leads to life and peace.
8:7 That is why the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile toward God. For it refuses to submit to the authority of God’s law because it is powerless to do so.
8:8 Indeed, those who are under the control of the flesh cannot please God.
8:9 You, however, are not of the flesh but under the control of the Spirit, since God’s Spirit lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to him.
8:10 But if Christ is in you, your bodies are dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
8:11 And if the Spirit of the one who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, then the one who raised Christ from the dead will also make your mortal bodies alive by his Spirit who lives in you.
8:12 Consequently, brothers, we have an obligation-but it is not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh.
8:13 For if you live according to the flesh, you are going to die, but if by the Spirit you continually put to death the activities of the body, you will live.
8:14 For all who are led by God’s Spirit are God’s children.
8:15 For you have not received a spirit of slavery that leads you into fear again. Instead, you have received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, “Abba! Father!”
8:16 The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children.
8:17 Now if we are children, we are heirs-heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if, in fact, we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.
8:18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed to us.
8:19 For the creation is eagerly waiting for God to reveal his children,
8:20 because the creation was subjected to frustration, though not by its own choice. The one who subjected it did so in the hope
8:21 that the creation itself would also be set free from slavery to decay in order to share the glorious freedom of God’s children.
8:22 For we know that all creation has been groaning with the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.
8:23 However, not only creation groans, but we who have the first fruits of the Spirit also groan inwardly as we eagerly wait for our adoption, the redemption of our bodies.
8:24 For we were saved with this hope in mind. Now hope that is seen is not really hope, for who hopes for what can be seen?
8:25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it with patience.
8:26 In the same way, the Spirit also helps us in our weakness, for we do not know how to pray as we should. But the Spirit himself intercedes with groans too deep for words,
8:27 and the one who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, for the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to God’s will.
8:28 And we know that he works all things together for the good of those who love God, who are called according to his purpose.
8:29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
8:30 And those whom he predestined, he also called; and those whom he called, he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified.
8:31 What, then, can we say about all of this? If God is for us, who can be against us?
8:32 The one who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for all of us-surely he will give us all things along with him, won’t he?
8:33 Who can bring an accusation against God’s chosen people? It is God who justifies them!
8:34 Who can condemn them? Christ Jesus, who died-and more importantly, who has been raised and is seated at the right hand of God-is the one who is also interceding for us!
8:35 Who can separate us from Christ’s love? Can trouble, distress, persecution, hunger, nakedness, danger, or a sword?
8:36 As it is written, “For your sake we are being killed all day long. We are thought of as sheep to be slaughtered.”
8:37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through the one who loved us.
8:38 For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers,
8:39 nor anything above, nor anything below, nor anything else in all creation can separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Now I put it to You All.
Regardless of our position on the subject being discussed.
Does these scriptures Lift you up and Place You in aposition that You want to Please God in all that You Do.
And in this light would seek God With Regard to your present position in Life what ever it may be.
Into wanting to do things For His Good Pleasure
So Its From Our position of Grace that we work,rather than from a position of Condemnation.
Regardless of all the arguements Each of us have to appropriate the Word of God according to the light that He Given to Us.
As we are all at different stages of our walk with God.
We need to be seen to building and encouraging each other in faith
That way we are not Condemning People but encouraging them to walk according to The leading Of the Spirit of God who leads us into ALL truth.
The Truth Will Set You Free
And if you are convicted of any Sin by the Holy Spirit and It Is ONLY Him that can Truely Convict and Therefore lead Us To True repentance.
Regardless of The Sin.
In the Truth of Conviction and The Truth of repentance
You Will Be Set FREE.and be able to Walk according to His Word
We Have an Awesome,Loving and Compassionate Lord
Bless You All
Trev
July 12th, 2010 at 3:55 am
Joseph A Webb…are you trying to sell me a book our help me/us? Who is Bob Gothard??? Why should you need any man to approve your work if it is from God? This all stinks….excuse me for not being polite….this is ridiculous. I can see both sides very clearly….but it’s not helping me at all……it’s like being at a stinking high school debate club meeting….it’s everyone trying to one-up the next guy. Some of these responses…whether right or not…..the ain’t Godly…and I am not sure why…..they just aren’t.
July 12th, 2010 at 4:06 am
Jim,
yes, we are at an impasse, because I don’t think you can see the absurdity and folly of trying to unscramble egg without causing more damage. As I said, you would be responsible for the wreckage of a marriage, and the binding of the conscience of a woman who should not be in that position.
To deny oneself doesn’t involve denying others a husband or wife, or children a father. I reject this notion that I am the one who is arguing for the condoning of what God hates; remember, you are the one advocating divorce for every and any marriage, even if it hurts others who don’t deserve it,and who would be ‘damned if they do’ and’ damned if they don’t’. That is not a work of the Holy Spirit.
It is the most bizarre thing. I heard of an elderly man on his deathbed being told by a Church of Christ minister that to go to heaven he had to divorce his elderly wife of more than 50 years, and he did so in panic, leaving her broken hearted and with nothing.
Absurd! You do as you see fit, but please do not tell others to dissolve their marriages.
July 12th, 2010 at 4:23 am
By the way, to argue that I’m coming from a soulish standpoint is just ad hominem, and is incorrect.
To argue that someone should not dissolve what may well be a legitimate marriage (and is, from God’s perspective in Tom and Suzanne’s case), is not soulish. It is based on the very teaching of Christ.
To argue that one should not be placed into a position of condemnation, or pushing someone else to sin, or to diovrce an unbeliever against Paul’s express command, is not soulish. It is based on scriptural principles and common sense.
I’m not a stranger to repentance, as I’ve been a believer for 13 years; I have faced a situation where I needed to repent and forsake, involving a relationship. I left that relationship and the home I shared with the person, within a couple of hours. I am not ’soulish’. I do fear God..however, I also understand his mercy and I do not see truth causing one to come to a dead end, or cause someone else to stumble. Truth never does that.
That is why I see the adultery that Jesus refers to as simply a *violation* of the command ‘thou shall not commit adultery’, and not literal adultery, in the same way lust comes short of actual adultery.
If we try to see it as perpetual, sexual adultery (even if there is no sex in the next marriage) we take away the force of what Jesus was saying, which is that divorce and remarriage, though legal, is a violation in principle of the command against adultery.
Paul applies this principle in 1 Corinthians 7:15 for the abandoned believer. The believer is not to break the principle (initiate divorce) but if offended is not held in guilt and is exonerated. There is nothing they can do about an unbeliever’s heart. There has to be an honest examination of Paul’s intention when he says ‘To the rest, I say, *not* the Lord’. This is an apostolic concession, and application of the principle he just taught to two believers.
There is clearly a dichotomy between the end result of the divorce between two believers and that between an unbeliever (who initiates) and the believer. Paul does not forbid the believer from remarrying.To say Paul wasn’t talking about remarriage when he WAS regarding the believers is just nonsensical.If he needed to, he would have said so.
July 12th, 2010 at 5:31 am
To those arguing the pros and cons of adultery/divorce/remarriage which started out about whether( i think) 2 greek letters were omitted in translations of scripture or not
and then further what the true meanings are
then even further the context
.
To You I same Shame on You.
You Dont deserve to be “teachers of the Gospel”.
Can You Not see what You are doing to some of these readers.
Especially Jim at this stage.
You have and are alienating Him from the very One he should be Turning to
God His Loving Compassionate Father in Heaven.
For it is there He will find the answers He needs
Not the teachings of doctrines,FALSELY SO CALLED
He as a person like any person Who is a Born Again person has
THE RIGHT AND PRIVILEGE TO ENTER THE THRONE ROOM OF GRACE
Hebrews 4:15-16 (King James Version)
15For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
16Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need
Full stop,no questions asked Not by God at Least.
But it would seem,you People think You have the right to determine as to whether that Right and Privilege should be extended to the people Like Jim or Not.
How Dare You assume the Position of Juror and Judge
It would appear that there are some sins to be repented of and its got nothing to do with Adultery od Divorce Remarriage.
Jesus said of us all (refering to us as Children) to come unto Him.
And to anyone who Prevented it,it would be better if a milestone was put around there neck and thrown into the depth of the sea.
Matt 18….
1 At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”
2 Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them, 3 and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.
6 “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
7 Woe to the world because of offenses! For offenses must come, but woe to that man by whom the offense comes!
Should you not also have had compassion on your fellow servant, just as I had pity on you?’ 34 And his master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him.
35 “So My heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother his trespasses.
Its about time we accept The People as they come and LET (as i have been saying
)
Let the Holy Spirit Do His Work
As Margaret has Bravely Revealed
The Holy Spirit Is Quite capable of doing that
Thank You very Much
and if We/You allowed that Holy Spirit Work to happen in the Lives who dont Live upto OUR expectations(whether based on Thier interpretation of scripture or Not)
We would Find there being a far Greater Crowd in Glory than not.
Because let me tell you,You fellows it arguements like this of doctrine Falsely so called that cause people to leave the Church in thier droves.
Its this sort of thing that the world looks at and Says what a Bunch of…
Jim and any one who is reading this,who are grappling with these issues in yours or others lives.
Go Back and Read Romans Chapt Eight and see what Is RECKONED TO YOU BECAUSE OF THE FINISHED WORK OF THE CROSS.
And again If any of you think I am Watering down or giving liscence to people to continu e in thier Sin.
Absolutely NOT.
Youn Teach the Gospel in it entirety and You Will see people repent of thier Sin before YOU EVEN THINK ABOUT whether You should point it out to them.
Hows That….Because When you Lift HIM higher HE will Draw Men/Women Unto Himself
Note Not lifting the sin higher for a person to see
Gut Lifting Jesus Higher
Again if You have at any time in Your Life Given Your Heart To The LORD
I’ll see You in GLORY
Trev
Jim if you want or anyone else I am willing to talk to You
The Internet is amazing and we can do Video calls for Nothing
July 12th, 2010 at 5:41 am
I do apologise if I’ve come across as harsh or mean; I don’t intend to. I feel strongly that the perpetual adultery for pre conversion especially, doesn’t hold up. As I said, the man in the hypothetical would be between a rock and a hard place. If he stayed with his wife, he would be looked at with suspicion and condemnation from those who think he should divorce ‘just in case’. If he divorced his wife, he would then find himself loaded with guilt at the thought of whether it was right to do so, as she could be his wife. His condemnation would never end; everywhere he turns there is a violation of scripture.
It is self refuting, and not in accord with the forgiveness of God, so I do feel upset about it all. I’ve cried and fasted about this, asking God to show me the truth and whether it is truly right to ostracise remarried people, and whether it is right to demand they separate. I can’t find a basis for that in the NT, or the OT, at all. That means there’s something wrong with the perpetual adultery understanding of the NT teachings on divorce and remarriage.
I’m not advocating divorce, not even for adultery. If it were me, I’d want to make sure I’d done what I could. I’d rather the other spouse divorced me before I divorced them. However, I can’t advocate separation of people for the ‘fait accompli’, as it just isn’t there.
I almost left my husband over this, because some teach that even single people who married a divorced person should stay single after they ‘repent’ from marrying them, by leaving them.It gets so crazy and fear-drenched. No one escapes.
July 12th, 2010 at 6:02 am
Dont worry about the Video Just listen to the words
Not keen on the video either but i couldnt find song any where else
Trev
July 12th, 2010 at 6:23 am
I also think the paper in question is suspect without proper peer review, as this is a novel way of looking at it, even for the traditional side.Even the earliest writers didn’t see it that way.
I don’t put mucn stock in what the early writers said anyway, as they got a lot wrong on other important things. Some forbid marriage to widows, most taught some sort of baptismal new birth.Tertullian claimed that those who were born again before baptism were ‘miscreants’.
July 12th, 2010 at 7:09 am
Ok that didnt work
Go to http://YouTube.com
Search these 2 songs
or just copy and paste the links below into your browser and hint the send
Chuck Girard……dont shoot the woundedNot keen about the video,just close your eyes and let the word speak to you by the HS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NepFhl2ngU8
Chuck girard…….lay your burden down
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrTyrzaAktE&feature=related
Let Holy Spirit speak to your heart
Then You will be able to sing with this old Hymn which
by the way I sung at my mothers funeral last year.
I dont know how i did it except to say it Was a Glorious Day sad Yes
but I knew Where Mum was Going and I knew i would see her again One Day.
JIm You need to have the same confidence in Your Lord and savior
The Hymn is
Then sings my soul with Elvis singing it(that may not go down to well but other than George beverly Shae at Billy Graehams) its My favourite
Hope these songs bring Peace to Your Hearts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEeqAgbCMwg&feature=related
and One more Praise and Worship from Chuck Girard
Bless You All
Trev
July 12th, 2010 at 7:25 am
Margaret,You didnt address your last 2 entries to any one so I am assuming you may be thinking You as being harsh.
Nothing could be further from the Truth in fact
i believe You have bought some sanity and insight into the whole debate.
Here is another song to listen to
Bless You Margaret
You are Dearly beloved of God
And for every ones Info I have gone Through all this in My life as Well.
and you Know What it doesnt matter to me any more because I took it To the Cross and Lay it Down.
I AM FREE and how Good It Is
He has Forgiven Me and he will if You need it Forgive You also
AND WILL NOT REMEMBER IT ANY MORE.
He will not Hold You To Account For it Any More
In Fact as We Speak He chooses to Forget and doesnt Know what we are talking about.
I know You are going to say god Knows Every Thing
Yes He Does But He CHOOSES TO FORGET
He Sovriegn So He Can
Oh I could Go on so Much about the Freedom We Have In Christ
lol
Trev
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlhU8CVjrFI
Trev
July 13th, 2010 at 8:16 am
Jim,
just reading over some of your comments again; I have to say, you appear to be labelling me as ‘Calvinist’. I’m actually not a Calvinist, and I don’t believe in licentiousness. I think most Calvinists disbelieve grace is a licence to sin, actually, to be fair. To most, holiness is the mark of the truly born again believer.
I sense that the discussion has come to an end, but the more I think on this the more the assertion that doing something wrong to try to right a previous wrong, seems untenable. No matter how we look at this, God IS concerned with our wellbeing, and not just with a law. There are times when laws can be broken, to effect greater good.
Paul has this heart towards believers when he intimates that if an unbeliever is ‘pleased’ to dwell with the believer, they should not divorce. He has in mind the wellbeing of the believer AND the possible salvation of the unbeliever.
He later reiterates his concern for the wellbeing of the believer by telling them that God has called them to ‘peace’..a further comment on his introduction to his counsel to mixed marriages. To assert that God is only concerned with holiness, and not our wellbeing, is imbalanced.That would be like saying a virgin who was then raped could not marry, to fulfill the higher principle that one must be a virgin when one marries.
July 13th, 2010 at 5:55 pm
quote: To assert that God is only concerned with holiness, and not our wellbeing, is imbalanced.That would be like saying a virgin who was then raped could not marry, to fulfill the higher principle that one must be a virgin when one marries. (end quote)
Well, she can marry according to Deuteronomy, a virgin who is raped is to marry the rapist after the rapist gives her father fifty sheckles, and he can never divorce her.
22:8 If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.
This is absurd in today’s society, and nobody (including christians) would force a raped women to marry her attacker.
So, for those of you who cling to the Deuteronomy 24 quotes about not being able to go back to the original spouse if you or the other spouse have been remarried, I challenge you to uphold the above Deuteronomy laws….and many, many more that Deuteronomy states. You can’t pick and choose.
Margaret, you seemed to have hijacked this comment section to get your point across. Your point has been taken. You don’t believe marriage is necessarily permanent and that God doesn’t expect us to remain with our original spouses or remain single if that marriage fails. And that there are “special circumstances” that allow for remarriage, even if the previous spouse is still alive.
I don’t need to post my responses since Jim and others have already posted what I would say. The allowances that you speak of are just not there. They are only there because you want them to be.
I know you won’t agree and that’s okay. I hope you have worked out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
Lisa and Jim,
God bless you and stay close to God.
July 14th, 2010 at 6:33 am
Chelle, you know, I could argue that you are seeing a no exception basis in Romans 7, which never mentions a divorcee, because you want it to be so.
That you would say I’ve ‘hijacked’ the comment section to put an opposing view across is unfair.Do you know how many websites and pages have had this link posted to them in a ‘drive-by’ manner? I’ve noticed a real censure towards people who do not take the traditional view, and have first hand experience of it. I won’t go into that.
I have said all I wanted to say, and no one has anything to say to the possibility of causing sin in the man and woman in the hypothetical; to stick to a hardline rule and not see how it cannot account for real life situations acceptably, and how it contradicts Paul’s express commands and advice, is somewhat odd to me. If Paul had wanted to separate remarried couples, he would have explicitly addressed that. There were no doubt couples like that; his letter was the perfect platform to address it.
As it stands, I would have difficulty fellowshipping with someone who counsels others to divorce their spouses, I’m sorry to say. Only one side can be right.The other is in error, serious, life-destroying error.The traditional theology is based on a blasphemous claim that Jesus was disowning part of his own word as from him, even though he pointed to the higher ideal of no divorce…shaky ground to start with.
July 14th, 2010 at 6:34 am
Just for the record, I wouldn’t marry again if my Christian spouse left me. I don’t see an allowance for two Christians to divorce or remarry.That’s because they shouldn’t have hard hearts.
July 14th, 2010 at 7:00 am
I meant to wrie ‘censorship’ not ‘censure’ in my first response…I must slow down a little when I write, lol.
July 14th, 2010 at 7:42 am
I,m out of here.
I cannot any more and will not continue to give some sort of assent to this argument any more.
To do do so is to keep people in bondage one way or another.
As it seems that No One is or will address the fact of forgiveness,
which as I have said before is appalling.
Do you exhort a women or a man for that matter to remain in a Violent,Abusive marriage?
Do you require a victim of rape to marry that person….because they have in fact no matter how it happened had intercourse, to Marry that person who raped them?
Oh no i’m getting involved again!!!!
These are some of the REAL LIFE situations that are No where addressed in the Bible.
We have to be real.
We have to give hope to people not take it away from them.
We need to bring people into and understanding of the Forgiveness that MY GOD affords us.
It abhors us to be the one who can be the instrument that God uses to Bring
the person or persons into the Freedom and Liberty that God wants for us to enter into.
You cannot do it by debating points of so called Doctrine….Doctrine so called
You can only do it by Pointing people to The Cross and the Shed Blood of Christ
For the Remission of Sin/s
Bless You all
I will see You all in Heaven,including the Women caught in the act of Adultery
if She Repented
Trev
July 14th, 2010 at 9:14 am
Trevor,
I do have respect for those who would not marry a divorcee against their conscience, but where I have trouble is the damage that would be done by trying to undo past damage. I don’t believe the Bible, especially not the NT, gives a precedent for that. If they want to use Ezra 9 to condone it, then they contradict their assertion that we shouldn’t use Old Testament principles to guide decisions; it appears that an obscure, irrelevant text in Ezra has more clout than a specific command with a caveat, including an abomination (very strong language from the Lord), in Deuteronomy. As Chelle said, we can’t pick and choose, yet those who disagree will indeed choose what suits.
As yet, I have not heard an admission that to counsel Tom to divorce Suzanne would lead to sin on the counsellor’s part and on Tom’s part.The same mantra is repeated instead. This is why we must heed Paul when he says to stay where we are.I offered scriptural principles, not my own conjecture, as to why dissolving that marriage would be wrong.We must agree to disagree.
Blessings, Trev.
July 15th, 2010 at 1:49 pm
I apologize to you Margaret for the comment about hijacking. You’re right, it was unfair of me to say that. We are obviously viewing this topic with an interest in seeking truth, or learning what is truth, even though our opinions and interpretations may differ, we are still seeking….which is a good thing.
Trevor…I am most certainly not advocating a raped victim to marry her attacker. I was quoting scripture from Deuteronomy. Are you aware of this scripture? This was just a point I was making to those who quote Deuteronomy 24 as a basis or excuse for not going back to their original spouse. My point being that if you pick out (one) of the laws of Deuteronomy as something you must abide by, then you must abide by all. And there are MANY….including the scripture regarding the rapist and the victim. You may want to re-read Deuteronomy.
Margaret. Besides the obvious scriptures against doing it…I don’t condone divorce, and I don’t condone re-marriage as it is a product resulting from divorce (unless the spouse has died). Neither I, or anyone else can unscramble the marital messes that some have made of their lives, believers and unbelievers alike. Which I why Jesus kept it simple and took it back to the beginning. Stay with your husband/wife, don’t divorce, and if you do, remain single or be reconciled. God can change hearts, ya know. We choose our spouses and they choose us. We say the vows for better or worse til death do us part in front of God and witnesses. Some years pass and things are not as great as they used to be. Maybe some infidelity or too much drinking, or abuse.. or we feel they just don’t “do it” for us anymore. So we choose the ever popular way out of divorce instead of forgiveness and prayer and move on to the next one, forgetting the vows we made to the first…kind of like kids in high school breaking up and finding new boyfriends and girlfriends. And we say the exact same lifelong commited vows to another person in front of God and witnesses, but this time we mean it, right? Well, sometimes not even then. Some go on to number 3 or even number 4! Does this sound like something God would advocate? Not to me. God left us a very wise book with instructions to learn how to live righteously and have a happy and healthy life and still get to see Heaven. Unbelievers choose to be unbelievers. They are not ignorant of His possible exsistance, they just choose not to believe, or to ignore His exsistance. If they do things that while in an unbelieving state that they later find out is not acceptable to God when they become believers, then like any other sin, it would require repentance. At least, here in this country, I would guess that most homes have a bible somewhere, whether it be sitting on a table or in a dusty closet, and as yet unread for many. There are many sins we commit as unbelievers and as believers. But believers, at least believers who want to please God and follow His way, will not do what we know is unpleasing and sin to God. Converts will have to read, study and repent, just like John The Baptist told those in his day. Contrary to popular current day church belief, repentance is more than just saying sorry…I’m sure you know it requires turning from the sin. Sin never, ever becomes Un-sin if you do it long enough. If it was sin when you did it, it will remain that way until you stop and turn away.
I don’t have anwers for your hypothetical situations Margaret, and not many will. My advice to them would be to read and study the scriptures and let the holy spirit guide. We are to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. Fear and trembling….that’s a little scary. It suggests that some who think they may have salvation, may not. Jesus says, there a two roads, one is wide (that’s the one that most will take which leads to death) and a narrow, harder to travel road (that’s the one that leads to Life). Then He says FEW there be that find it. So apparently we are not all going to heaven in a little row boat. In otherwords….isn’t it safer for the sake of one’s salvation to accept clear scripture and then weigh the unclear, more ambiguous scripture against that? Ruining lives as you call it, may just be saving souls. There is no sin in doing what the Bible says if you divorce….remain single or be reconciled. But it’s a whole new ballgame if you end up marrying someone else’s husband or wife. I choose the narrow road.
I’m not sure what you are talking about in Romans 7 that doesn’t mention divorcees.
By the way, your way suits my situation better as my husband left me after 17 years of marriage after he met a woman (twice divorced and apparently looking for husband number 3.) He moved out and moved in with her. He refused reconciliation, divorced me and married the other woman. This woman coveted my husband. Now how would you council them if they came to you seeking answers if they are okay to remain together? Would you tell them they are fine and stay where they are? Maybe just say sorry? What happens to me as I stand in the gap and pray for my husband to be saved and come back home to his covenant wife? Can I just go eat dirt? Should I start shopping for husband number 2 when I don’t want another husband? There are 2 sides to look at.
blessings
July 15th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
I realize I am not telling you something you don’t already know as you seem to be a compassionate and loving person who loves God and knows her Bible. I’m simply stating things from the heart and from spiritual knowledge of my studies on this subject as you have done in some of your posts.
Chelle
July 15th, 2010 at 4:23 pm
I would like to share a poem I wrote that I believe to be inspired and given to me by God on a very painful and prayful night 2 days after Christmas of 07. I am not a writer and have never written anything before this.
This is what The Lord gave me…
The Tearing of the Flesh
It was all very beautiful the day we were Wed
We stood before God and our vows had been said
For richer or poorer, for better or worse
Til death do us part, what a beautiful verse
We meant what we vowed and started our life
With him as my husband and I as his wife
We felt very blessed with the life that we had
The trials and triumphs, both happy and sad
And as the years passed, what we both didn’t know
Is love can’t be felt if you don’t let it show
You settle for comfort instead of life’s joy
Then in roars the lion to steal, kill and destroy
You’re not sure what happened, you try at all cost
To win back his heart, but your loved one is lost
His soul has been stolen, one flesh torn apart
You cry out to God for his soul and your heart
Then God whispers softly, “My child, come here
Put on your full Armor, for battle is near
Pray and have faith that the devil’s been beat
Go wait in the light, lay your pain at My feet
This battle is mine, your prayers have been heard
My victory is certain, you know by My Word
So walk by your faith, and not by your sight
My Word is my promise, all wrongs will be right
It may take some time, our ways not the same
Keep love in your eyes and try not to blame
Satan will shoot you with fiery darts
To try to confuse you and harden your hearts
Don’t let him fool you with lies and deceit
Keep your eyes fixed on Me and don’t think of defeat
For I AM the Lord, there’s none stronger than Me
And I will build hedges your eyes cannot see
So fear not my child and take up your Sword
And walk right with Me, your Savior and Lord
His hearts’ like a river that turns in My Hand
Just wait for My Promise while taking your stand
Remember Beloved and rest while you sleep
Your tears in a bottle forever I’ll keep
I AM the Restorer, I’ve spoken, it’s done
The Flesh torn apart will again become One”
God is a God of reconciliation…..He always has been.
blessings
July 15th, 2010 at 5:16 pm
The following is a snippet from a treatise by William Gladstone that defends the permenance of the marriage covenant. This analogy solidly refutes the common error of trying to use the ‘5 words’ found in Matthew as support for the right to marry another person while ones spouse is still living. The Greek language forbids this application. The example he uses is a perfect apples to apples comparison.
(William Gladstone - 1857)
It would be surely enough to throw the burden of reply on those whose construction of St. Matthew would place him in conflict with two other Evangelists and with an Apostle. But we need not shrink from adducing positive ground to show that no permission of re-marriage is here given.
In the first place, the exceptive words ” saving for the cause of fornication” (chap, v.), and “except it be for fornication” (chap, xix.), are in both the passages of St. Matthew connected by the laws of syntax with the putting away, and not with the re-marriage. Let us illustrate this by a parallel case. Suppose we found this precept: ” Whosoever shall flog his son, except it be for disobedience, and put him to death, shall be punishable by law.” What should we think of the interpreter who founded upon this sentence the position that a father might, for disobedience, flog his son to death ? If the lawgiver intended to give this Draconic permission, the rules of speech would inevitably lead him to a different arrangement of his words ; and he would say, ” Except it be for disobedience, whosoever shall flog his son and put him to death shall be punishable by law;” or else, “Whosoever shall flog his son and put him to death, except it be for disobedience, shall be punishable by law.” And yet St. Matthew, avoiding (on the showing of these torturing expositors) both these natural and regular modes of expression, adopts a method which, by the laws of syntax, defeats his own intention, and this not on one only, but on both the occasions when he deals with the subject.
July 15th, 2010 at 6:08 pm
Chelle (and anyone else in a similar situation),
I didn’t mean to come across as harsh; this is a very difficult subject and what you have been through is so distressing to read. I know that, were my husband to leave me for another, the pain would be unbearable after all the love we’ve shared.
Marriage is not something to take lightly, or for granted; it has to be worked at, as we have found out. I’m so sorry your husband didn’t want to do the right thing and value your marriage as it should have been. I believe this is what Jesus was hitting out at when he talked so strongly about the wrongness of divorcing to marry another especially.
Your situation does bring up questions of ethics which show one thing at least: there are sometimes no black and white answers. Is/was your husband a Christian? I’m astonished and sad that he would leave a 17 year marriage for what he thought was the greener grass.If he was not a Christian, and you were not at the time, or you were a Christian and he was not, then I admit that my understanding is that Paul does not wish believers to be tied to their past in such a way that they are enslaved, in the case of a marriage which is rejected by an unbeliever, or one from the past which failed. I understand that you feel strongly against that view, but I do see it as a concession from Paul.I believe that a Christian should, within reason, obey their conscience if they are not limiting another. You are well within your rights to remain single, and I don’t judge you for that.You sound like a courageous and loyal lady!
The way I see Paul’s approach is that whatever happened before salvation, whether undoable or not, we are in a position to know better. Now, we can live in such a way as to not surrender to the sad hardness of heart that pervades our society. Our marriages can be conducted according to God’s will, through the power of the Holy Spirit.
As regards allowing someone who has divorced in the past to remarry; are they truly, now they are born again, going to presume upon God’s grace and repeatedly violate their marriage? All of us sin again after conversion, sometimes knowingly. Does this mean we should not teach that God’s mercy and forgiveness is available? The way I see Paul’s command to the believers who are married, and especially to the woman who has wrongly left her husband, is that there is just no room for a serious Christian to walk out on their spouse and call it quits! We are to love one another, and how much more so in the arena of marriage! A true believer will respond to discipline in this area, as any other.Paul just doesn’t anticipate that the woman in question will NOT reconcile. He’s trying to stop it going any further, precluding reconciliation.
My comment about Romans 7 is that it doesn’t mention divorce. It seems to allude to a woman who has a husband and marries another (bigamously). Women under the law of Moses could not divorce so that was not an option. Divorce would not fit into the analogy of something good, which is that the Christian marriage is meant to be for life. That is the norm. Paul’s rule for remarriage after widowhood is that she can marry again, but only to a believer; does that mean unbelievers are under that law to only marry a believer?This is specific counsel for believers, the higher principle.
Paul only seems to allow a concession for when an unbeliever is the aggressor.I think this is the key; the believer is not to be the aggressor.
As I said, I would not presume to tell someone to remarry; that is up to their conscience. However, I do see that God requires us to to start fresh from where we are,and not try to undo the past.I think this is part of the heart of Deuteronomy 24’s caveat about not returning.
I know that not all of the specific laws of the OT are binding in a specific sense, but their principles are helpful and wise, and especially some of the ethical principles.I don’t see Jesus specifically abrogating that aspect of the law, so I approach the idea of counselling returning to a former spouse who has remarried in the intevening time with great caution.
Just on this note, I read an interesting interpretation of Jesus’ words on divorce, which has crossed my mind before. When Jesus says that whoever marries a divorced woman, he may be intimating at someone who, like the divorcer, has coveted another woman.Even though he is technically able to marry the divorced woman, Jesus knows the motive, and says it is heart adultery even if he legally marries her. The woman who marries him may have wanted that, and got the ‘out’ from the husband divorcing her, even though she had not committed adultery physically necessarily.In a sense, he is causing her and the new lover to commit adultery, because the motives are wrong even though it is legal. I’m not sure I agree completely with that analysis, but it does fit the flow of the Sermon on the Mount, which is all about true, inward integrity.
What else can I say? May God bless and help you as you walk with Him.Thank you for sharing some of your story, it gave me something to ponder.
Jim, I will look into that further.
Thanks to the blog owner for allowing me to post my musings.
July 15th, 2010 at 6:42 pm
Chelle,
Here is the counsel of God Himself concerning your battle (and mine). I trust that you often sense that “joy unspeakable and full of glory’, thogh now you see Him not, yet you rejoice that you have been counted worthy to suffer with Him, knowing this, that if we suffer with Him (for righteousness sake) we shall also reign with Him. Here you are;
That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed. (Tit 2:4-5)
Your testimony prevents the Word from being blasphemed, and prevents the enemies of God from speaking reproachfully.
For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously: Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls. Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement. (1Pe 2:21- 3:6)
Your husband cannot condemn you for being unclean like he is at this time, when you continue to walk after the Spirit, in righteousness and true holiness.
But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife? (1Co 7:15-16)
While you walk in the “peace that is beyond expression” you may save your husband, who in the verse above, is an unbeliever that has ‘departed’. The world can take away your life and that is as far as it can go. They can’t take away your love for Jesus, who was “despised and rejected of men” and was obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Who will render to every man according to his deeds: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: For there is no respect of persons with God. (Rom 2:6-11)
Continue to seek for glory, honor, and immortality, Chelle. Keep building up yourself on your most holy faith, and after having done all to stand, stand therefore with the whole armor of God. Run that you may obtain. God gives strength to run, but we must use that strength and keep running. Farewell friend, and the Lord give you a prosperous journey.
Jude 4
July 16th, 2010 at 12:50 am
I know I am not real smart…but why is this and other things so hard…one guy says
he knows it God’s will for this or that and another equally smart brilliant guy says the same thing. And with no disrespect towards God, why isn’t the bible more concise or rather, why doesn’t he give us better tools for interpreting it? I am very tired….one man tells me one thing and says if I don’t believe like him I am probably not not born again….another says the same. If his sheep hear his voice…are half of you wrong or a third of you or….I am not trying to be disrespectful at all,,,but I have been alone a long time…I have sought God too…maybe not the right way…but the best I know how…and I am so confused. One of the only things I had hoped for in this life besides a relationship with God was a family…and now..because I have read all this stuff(and being divorced for 20 years) I am truly vexed. Things like this shouldn’t be so hard….really. Help me…..God help please help us.
July 16th, 2010 at 12:51 am
another says the opposite is what i meant to say twice….sorry…
July 16th, 2010 at 5:20 am
Jim,
Paul is not saying that the spouse will save their husband or wife if they leave, by waiting for them. He is actually posing the opposite;let them go (that is the command). He is not requiring the Christian to be responsible for saving their spouse if they leave, hence his comment that they are not enslaved. We shouldn’t speculate either way, but that should not be taken as a *command* from Paul to be enslaved to the unbeliever who has left when he has just said they are not enslaved.
As I said, I believe anyone in this situation is free to not marry according to their conscience.
Jeff, I can understand why you would feel tired and frustrated, and I too wish that some statements were more simple and addressed different situations directly and concisely.We have to use principles given to us to do what is wise. Paul prayed a prayer for the Phillipians:
‘And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight, 10so that you may be able to discern what is best and may be pure and blameless until the day of Christ, 11filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ—to the glory and praise of God.’
Phil.1:9-11
I read this the other day when I was thinking over and praying about this issue again, along with others.
I don’t believe that you’re in the wrong if you stay single,so don’t worry about what people say about that. I don’t want to say anything that would cause you to stumble, but I do pray that you will be greatly encouraged and just know God’s nearness right now.
I honestly believe that the only sense we can get out of 1 Cor.7:15 is that those abandoned are at liberty (which is the very opposite of bondage). The only liberty that makes sense is the liberty which is denied the believing woman who leaves her husband, being told to reconcile, in the previous group Paul addresses, seeing as Paul does not put the same limitations on the believer wo is abandoned by an unbeliever.
Likewise, Paul addresses the unmarried and widows; how come he forgets to mention those who are single through divorce prior to conversion? Could it simply be that they are amongst the unmarried? Why would he forget to tell them to stay unmarried if that was essential, no matter how long they had been single, no matter whether their former spouse could be dead or not? it makes no sense that he is not including them here.
That’s my conviction, as I pointed out; trying to undo damage is impossibly fraught with absurdities,and I don’t believe that’s the mind of God.It really is awful that this brings such a division in the body of Christ. If people would simply heed Paul and have people start fresh from where they are when they get saved, things would be simpler, to my mind.
Peace to you,
a sister in Christ.
July 16th, 2010 at 9:43 am
Margaret said: “Paul is not saying that the spouse will save their husband or wife if they leave, by waiting for them. He is actually posing the opposite;let them go (that is the command). He is not requiring the Christian to be responsible for saving their spouse if they leave, hence his comment that they are not enslaved. We shouldn’t speculate either way, but that should not be taken as a *command* from Paul to be enslaved to the unbeliever who has left when he has just said they are not enslaved.
As I said, I believe anyone in this situation is free to not marry according to their conscience.”
The above is an example of wresting the text to fit ones presupposition. It’s being ‘wise beyond and against what is written’. It is indisputably clear that the Apostle refers to the departed spouse as the “husband/wife” of the one left behind. There is no evidence whatsoever in this verse that Paul is saying to the one called to peace ‘Let your spouse go and move on with their life. There is nothing you can do about it. They divorced you and they don’t love God, so you can either stay single. or go find someone else to replace the one that left, that will hopefully want to stay and not depart. If the next partner does the same, then simply apply the foregoing instructions all over again with number 3 etc.’ Thus you have effectively nullified the command that marriage is indissoluable until death, and the creational model is simply an idealistic goal to shoot at, but is optional in the strictest sense of the terms. Paul even confirms the creational order of marriage in this chapter with the words in v. 39. The idea that this text is a permission to contract another ‘union’ during the life of ones spouse, is bizzare at best. The implication is that Jesus overstated Himself when He referred to the first pair as the model for marriage that must be followed, although He knew that most will refuse to obey the command. The opinion above essentially does away with all marriage until death, unless it be by chance, not because it is a positive command.
Adam Clarke on 1 Cor 7:16)
You that are Christians, and who have heathen partners, do not give them up because they are such, for you may become the means of saving them unto eternal life. Bear your cross, and look up to God, and he may give your unbelieving husband or wife to your prayers.
I could post more evidence from some of the esteemed observers of scripture, but it is most likely lost on Margarets opinion. This is for those with a heart and mind that is firmly convinced of the necessity of godliness and holiness.
July 16th, 2010 at 1:20 pm
Well, Jim, that last comment was a nice ad hominem attack. I have never questioned the sincerity of those who take the view that remarried couples should divorce, but you would not return that courtesy.I’ve been saved for years, I love the Lord and desire to grow in holiness.Your attitude is what really causes me to question the other side.
Paul said that the unbeliever is ’sanctified’ in the case they *stay* with the believer. That is the hope of salvation. If they go, it is not possible to force their conversion nor to feel responsible for it. It would be trite of Paul to tell a woman with several children, abandoned by a husband, that she is only not under bondage to feel bad that he left.
July 16th, 2010 at 1:23 pm
By the way, Jim, you might want to consider that demanding remarried couples to divorce upon conversion is going beyond what is written.
July 16th, 2010 at 1:30 pm
Re Adam Clark…I’ve read his commentery on this, as I have many others. They do not all agree.It makes sense that a sinless perfectionist would understand the text in such a way, in any case.
And, yes, many scholars understand Jesus to have overstated himself somewhat, as he did when he recommended gouging out eyes for sin.You go beyond the word when you assume that Jesus refers to sex in a marriage, rather than reading the Matthean text as it is. What to do with someone who divorces his wife and marries another so he can have a political advantage, but never has sex with the next one? Is it still a sin which breaks the spirit of the law against adultery, or is it not adultery? Jesus said it is, sex or not.That should tell us something.
July 16th, 2010 at 2:31 pm
I think it is best if I withdraw completely from this discussion, and I wish you the best.
Take care everyone.
July 31st, 2010 at 2:43 pm
Bob, thank you for posting this … I will pass it on to a few brothers here. Maybe one or more of them has read this paper already?
I’d like to have time to read through all the comments, however I don’t! Maybe some day soon.
Lord bless you,
Joanne in MO
July 31st, 2010 at 2:55 pm
Hi Joanne,
Ya, I think it brought up interesting discussion that I have enjoyed reading.
Bob.
August 18th, 2010 at 9:27 pm
I don’t have a commitment to a particular position, but I wanted to posit that I don’t think ει makes a significant difference in the meaning of Matthew 19:9:
1. With ει, you get a parenthetical insertion: “So I tell you that whoever divorces his wife, except for fornication, and marries another commits adultery.”
2. Without ει, I would translate it like this: “So I tell you that whoever divorces his wife for something besides fornication and marries another commits adultery” (more literally, “… whoever divorces his wife not on [grounds of] fornication…”).
There’s a rhetorical difference between the two, but they’re pretty much in meaning:
1. Unless for reason Y, whoever does X commits Z.
2. Whoever does X without reason Y commits Z.
The first is worded as an exclusion to the rule, and the second is worded as an exclusion from membership to a hypothetical group of people (the rule itself narrows the group it applies to).
Analogous grammar is found in Romans 14:1 (pardon the Modern-leaning punctuation):
τόν δέ ασθενούντα τή πίστει προσλαμβάνεσθε μή είς διακρίσεις διαλογισμόν
“Welcome the weak in faith without arguments of opinion” (more literally “not in arguments of opinion”). The negation of μή only has scope over the prepositional phrase in both cases.
August 19th, 2010 at 1:54 pm
Hi AJ,
Could you provide us with a link to your language degrees please.
Bob.
August 19th, 2010 at 5:47 pm
I’m not pretending to be an authority in the field, but I’m definitely qualified to at least challenge the translation that has been put forward. I graduated in May with a BA in Linguistics from Yale, and I had Ashwini Deo as my advisor for my senior thesis on a topic in Koine Greek semantics.
So I wasn’t posting as the final word on the subject, rather I wanted to challenge the idea that ει makes or breaks the meaning.
As another example of μή negating a prepositional phrase, take 1 Cor 5:8:
ώστε εορτάζωμεν μή εν ζύμη παλαιά μηδέ εν ζύμη κακίας και πονηρίας αλλ’ εν αζύμοις ειλικρινείας καί αληθείας
“Therefore, let’s celebrate not with the old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.”
This verse, like Romans 14:1, is an instance of μή only having scope over the prepositional phrase, not over the verb phrase (the celebrating and the welcoming aren’t negated… coincidentally, I used a similar construction in this sentence). Since these are syntactically parallel to Matthew 19:9, I think the most straight-forward way to interpret Matt 19:9 is as an non-negated verb and a negated prepositional phrase: “whoever divorces his wife not on grounds of fornication.”
September 23rd, 2010 at 9:31 pm
I’ve been struggling w/ this issue for months now. I broke up w/ my fiance because of this dilemma. I’m so fed up w/ all these arguments and w/ the bible scholars/pastors/theologians’ opposing interpretations.
After months of reading articles written by people, I came up to one conclusion. It was my reading/listening to mortals’ words that made so confused. Instead of listening to these things, I suggest that we should just read our bible,pray and pray and listen harder to the holy spirit talking to us.
I stand firm on my decision not because of what others say but because of what I feel is right based on my understanding of the bible as I ask for God’s guidance.
December 4th, 2010 at 6:46 pm
I don’t see why Jeff can’t get remarried. There is no law against a man having more than one wife. His first wife left him and remarried so she is now off limits to him acording to law. So what’s the problem? I am in the same predicament by the way.
December 6th, 2010 at 10:53 am
Thanks for your article. I agree completely that there is no exception to Jesus’ and Paul’s clear teaching that remarriage is only possible after the death of one’s spouse and NOT when the spouse commits adultery. How can my spouse’s sin be a justification for me to sin in adultery?
We also wrote an article about this question based on the Bible passages which cover this topic. The Biblical Perspective of Divorce
We’d be glad to hear from others who want to follow Jesus without compromise.
December 16th, 2010 at 11:16 pm
Thank you, Bob. Great points made.
Sent following to a leading theologian for his reivew. Perhaps he will provide feedback on this important matter:
Subject: Tiny Word “If”: Cause of 16th Century Evangelical Divorce Scandal?
Dear Dr Mohler,
In your excellent “Divorce — The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience”
[http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/09/30/divorce-the-scandal-of-the-evangelical-conscience/]
you mentioned, “[Dr. Mark A.] Smith makes a compelling case that evangelicals began their accommodation to divorce even before [the 1970s no-fault divorce] laws took effect.”
Didn’t the inadvertent Evangelical accommodation to divorce and remarriage start with Erasmus’ (16th Century) erroneous Bible translation/interpretation of Matt 19:9?
In it, he apparently added the Greek word “if” to “not” in his manuscript, changing the text to read “except” instead of “not.”
Then, didn’t the Reformers inadvertently copy this error into their Bible(s)?
To correct the error, shouldn’t his erroneous “if not”/”except” be cut out of my Bible?
Also, if removed, wouldn’t this impact our understanding of and doctrines (i.e., adultery, abandonment, divorce and remarriage) related to Matt 19:9?
The following message from Pastor Richard C. Caldwell Jr of Founders Baptist Church clarifies these concerns regarding Erasmus’ error:
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1200312549
Thank you.
In Christ,
Allan
January 17th, 2011 at 12:43 pm
Including even the possibility offered by AJ, I found that these two well reasoned papers by John Piper, have resolved all my ambivalences about the two passages in question: from Jan 1, 1986 -
http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/articles/on-divorce-remarriage-in-the-event-of-adultery
and from Jul 21, 1986 -
http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/articles/divorce-remarriage-a-position-paper
To extract a apt phrase from Bob Mutch “…you can always find an explanation if you want one.”
February 14th, 2011 at 11:45 am
I have two comments regarding Dr. McFall’s article.
1) Dr. McFall seems to be making the assertion that a forgiven, repented Christian spouse who has committed adultery is beyond the redemption of Christ and will not be allowed into heaven. I find this distressing.
2) I am personally grateful for the paper; there is much foundational truth here that could be a significant part of renewing a relationship that was considered, for all intents and purposes, dead as a doornail.
February 17th, 2011 at 6:11 pm
Hi Chris,
>>>Dr. McFall seems to be making the assertion that a forgiven, repented Christian spouse who has committed adultery is beyond the redemption of Christ and will not be allowed into heaven.
Could you post the quote that makes you think he holds his view. I am very sure he doesn’t.
Bob.
February 17th, 2011 at 9:35 pm
“But once such ignorant Christians have been fully informed (by someone speaking the truth in love) of the grave danger that they are in;namely, that no adulterer will enter heaven, then they have a decision to make, which is tobreak off the remarriage relationship immediately as regards its sexual side. Not to do so would grieve the spirit of Christ within him, and His subsequent withdrawal from abiding in him, because he no longer loves Him.”
-McFall, Page 15
I took this by extrapolation that *all* adulterers would lose their Salvation and that goes against nearly every understanding of His grace, mercy, and forgiveness for my sins.
February 21st, 2011 at 9:46 am
Hi there,
I also got from the McFall article that he believes that knowing, willful sin means no forgiveness ever.
”However, if the marriage with the non-Christian is done in full knowledge of the teaching of
Jesus, and against the explicit warning by the Church, it is a deliberate sin which requires a second
crucifixion of Jesus to atone for it (Heb 6:4-6), But Scripture teaches that “it is impossible for those
who were once enlightened . . . if they shall fall away, to renew them again to repentance seeing they
crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put Him to an open shame” (Heb 6:4-6).” (under section 2:6)
This is referring to those who knowingly marry an unbeliever. He believes they cannot receive forgiveness, based on a faulty view of the context of Hebrews 6. It should follow that he must believe that all knowing sin is unforgivable for the Christian, and he assumes that no forgiveness is possible. I cannot take this man’s teaching seriously because he ignores many scriptures which address the forgiveness of even willfull sinners in the church who do repent.
Mr. McFall is teaching falsehood, and an extreme ‘Novatian’ view of sin and the Christian.
February 21st, 2011 at 10:11 am
awww. isnt that sweet.
The owner is afraid someone might see the truth and so theyve set it up so we can post without their approval.
If the coward wasnt afraid of the truth he’d let us say what we wanted to.
February 21st, 2011 at 1:15 pm
Hi WmTipton,
>>>The owner is afraid someone might see the truth and so theyve set it up so we can post without their approval.
I pretty well approve all link drops on matter which side of the argument they come out on. If you took time to read over the comments you would have seen that.
The reason most blogs set up post approval is to stop spammers from doing link drops that are not relevant to the subject of the blog post.
>>>If the coward wasnt afraid of the truth he’d let us say what we wanted to.
However it’s the above comment that caused me to delete your first post and remove the link out of this one. If the “truth” you claim to have produces the mocking attitude that you have shown in your post (ie. calling me a coward because your posted didn’t get displayed with in the same hour) — I have no interest in that kind of “truth”.
Christian love and prayers,
Bob.
February 23rd, 2011 at 12:47 am
I’ve been staying out of this, since I felt my point was made and needed to make no further argument, but, I have to take exception to WmTipton’s attack against Bob..
I have posted (as you can surely see above) harsh disagreements with McFall’s article and, one must suppose, am therefore in sharp disagreement with Bob on this issue, yet, Bob has not EVER, even once, censored or restricted my postings in any way.
I may not be in agreement with Bob or others in this discussion or this web site, but they have been very generous in allowing me to voice my concerns and opinions. And for that, I hold the greatest respect and admiration for them.
Indeed, as you may note above, I challenged Bob to modify his blog on McFall’s paper to at least reduce the implied acceptance of McFall’s conclusions by including statements such as “the auther claims” other than restating those conclusions as fact, until such time as a reasonable panel of experts can study and verify / deny his claims. And Bob, in fact, did do exactly that! Bravo Bob!
For these reasons, I believe WmTipton is totally off-base and wrong in his negative comments against Bob and this web site and general.
Thanks and love to everyone with an open, tolerant mind and a willingness to consider opinions that may be contrary to your own. THAT is the true Christian spirit! Christ would have gotten nowhere without it :)
dvc
March 2nd, 2011 at 6:23 am
Hello,
I do think that the blog author has been gracious in allowing the discussion to flow as it has, and I’m going to ask that a link I’d like to post be permitted, for reflection and prayer. It’s a short, non-scholarly book written by a pastor Mark Bullen, a very conservative brother whom I feel has a few pertinent things to say about this topic of MDR, and in particular the status of remarried people. He does disagree of course, by default, with Leslie McFall and all those who hold to the traditional view of marriage, divorce and remarriage, because he does not hold that remarried couples should have to separate in order to be a part of the body of Christ.
As my previous posts show, I take the same position, though I’m not for divorce if it is avoidable. I think that the perpetual adultery view leads to absurdities in practice, as I pointed out, and multiplies sin and injustice if taken to its logical conclusions. I believe this is an important issue for the churches to think through carefully, before we condemn those we shouldn’t or condone that which we shouldn’t.
http://www.thefaithoncedelivered.info/Divorce.htm
Many thanks for letting me participate.
March 3rd, 2011 at 8:59 pm
Well, I’ve stated my piece, so I have little to add, except, perhaps, it’s time to say where I’m coming from and why:
As I’ve stated previously, my main reason for involvment in this convversation is that I believe that McFall (and some others) have unfairly and unjustly attacked a person whom I can only admire: Erasmus. Erasmus, from all I’ve read (some conflicting on both sides, but overall), *tried* to take a middle view between the Lutherans and the Catholics and find points of agreement, ways to settle differences amicably … a VERY christian attitude I do believe.
For this attempt at mediation, it seems, Erasmus was critisized harhly by BOTH sides. Not very Christian, IMHO! And, it seems to me, McFall is simply trying to revive that harsh critisim from the Luthern perspective. I don’t like that.
However, why should I care? My wife is a good christian catholic and I love her. I’m divorced for exactly the reason in the exception clause, hence why I found this (via google). Personally, I wouldn’t care if not for my wife. I am an atheist.
However, I DO have great respect for Jesus and his teachings; I do believe that Jesus was one of the great philosphers and moralists of all time; I do love Jesus, but I don’t believe he was (nor anyone else) THE great savior / prophet / son of god.
I’m sure that will make a huge difference to many reading this, but, quite frankly, what *I* believe should make little difference. Either McFall makes a reasonable and compelling case, or he doesn’t.
I’m completely convinced he does not. Further, I believe he simply makes a vindictive, self-serviing attack upon an inocent believer of the same faith he professes to adhere to. I beileve he offers hypocritical views that Jesus would have been horrified to read if he were around today to read them.
But, that’s just the views of this heritc (me).
Love and best wishes to all,
dvc
March 11th, 2011 at 2:40 pm
I have a question relating to whether Leslie McFall is correct or not, based on his idea that all our translations are basically wrong and misleading, because of a correction by Erasmus.
The writings of the Shepherd of Hermas seem to reflect an understanding of the ‘exception’ to be just that; an exception…or at least, it is alluded to, because he recommends divorcing as a discipline for adultery. Obviously, one could speculate that he understood Jesus’ words to mean an exception, or perhaps he simply had a disgust for a man staying with an adulterous wife while she continued in such behaviour.
However, does it not lend credence to the idea of an early understanding of the Matthean text to contain an ‘exception’, whether one believes it is only for divorce for adultery/immorality, not remarriage, or only for betrothal/unclean marriages?
I don’t really buy into the idea that it has never been understood to be an exception of some sort.
March 11th, 2011 at 4:32 pm
Exception Clause Wrecking Havoc
Because most Evangelical leaders assume the “exception” clause allows divorce if one’s spouse has been engaged in sexual immorality (pornea), isn’t this a leading cause for the divorce tsunami flooding every denomination?
By this reasoning, when a Christian husband is guilty of sexual immorality through Internet pornography use (or even by his inadvertent exposure to a pornographic pop-up), doesn’t it follow that his Christian wife may divorce him and marry another?
How many Christian homes and pulpits are being wrecked – even this very moment – by this scenario?
Who will stem this devastating riptide and save the little ones hurt by divorce?
“Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it would be better for him if, with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he had been cast into the sea.” (Mark 9:42).
ATTENTION ALL TRANSLATORS AND PASTORS:
Therefore, if by illogic, production of faulty translations, misinterpretation or misapplication of the Greek or English texts, you have thereby allowed divorce and remarriage, you are complicit in the injury of these little ones (regardless if by the sin of commission or omission), you are guilty and repentance is required.
This IS the issue of our day in the Church.
Who has the guts to fix this defect in forthcoming English translations?
Perhaps in generations to come they will refer to our “exception” clause English Bible as the “Divorcer’s Bible”: A translation that’s permitted a reported 50% divorce rate in the church.
Meanwhile, the “exception” clause will continue to wreck havoc.
Christ have mercy upon us.
March 11th, 2011 at 7:12 pm
AJR wrote:
“By this reasoning, when a Christian husband is guilty of sexual immorality through Internet pornography use (or even by his inadvertent exposure to a pornographic pop-up), doesn’t it follow that his Christian wife may divorce him and marry another?”
Indeed. I made this very point in my paper on the so-called exception clauses. See the link to my paper at the top of this page: Divorce and Remarriage: Another Look at the Matthean Exception Clauses[1] (PDF) by Andrew S. Kulikovsky
Editor: [1]Link added.
March 12th, 2011 at 10:22 am
Hi Margaret,
Let me address your question which I think is a good one.
>>>Your Question: However, does it not lend credence to the idea of an early understanding of the Matthean text to contain an ‘exception’, whether one believes it is only for divorce for adultery/immorality, not remarriage, or only for betrothal/unclean marriages?
There are two exception clauses in the TR/KJV new testament. One in Mat 19:9 and one in Mat 5:32. In Mat 19:9 Mr McFall maintains that the current TR/KJV conditional clause “except it be for fornication” should be a parenthetical or information clause which he translates “he may not have divorced her for fornication”.
While both McFall and Kulikovsky dispute whether the Mat 19:9 is an exception clause, neither dispute whether there is an exception clause in Mat 5:32.
McFall disputes the exception clause in Mat 19:9 based on what he considers the unsupported addition to Erasmus’ Greek text. Kulikovsky takes the Mat 19:9 Greek text as it is and disputes the exception clause through exegesis by considering grammatical options, context of the verses, and Matthew’s redaction[1] of the Mat 19:9 text.
In Mat 5:32a TR/KJV the exception clause “saving for the cause of fornication” refers to the main clause “That whosoever shall put away his wife… causeth her to commit adultery”. In Mat 19:9a TR/KJV the exception clause “except it be for fornication” refers to the main clause “Whosoever shall put away his wife… and shall marry another, committeth adultery.
In Mat 5:32a reading it the way it stands in the KJV translation the conditional cause is dealing with whether a husband is responsible for causing his divorced wife to commit adultery. If he put his wife away for fornication (immorality) he is is not responsible as she has already committed adultery. If he puts her away for anything other than immorality and she commits adultery by having relations with another man, the husband is responsible for causing her to commit adultery.
As the text reads in Mat 19:9a KJV the conditional cause appears is be dealing with whether a husband commits adultery if he remarries. If he put his wife away for fornication (immorality) he can remarry with out committing adultery. If he puts his wife away for any other reason that fornication (immorality) he commits adultery when he remarries.
The early church fathers in general allowed for divorce but not remarriage. They would all have had access to the Mat 5:32a exception clause.
You may want to read Kulikovsky’s article Divorce and Remarriage: Another look at the Matthean “exception” clauses. Kulikovsky takes a fresh look at both Mat 5:32 and 19:9 and presents grammatical options that many times are not considered, he re-evaluated the context of the verses, and gives Matthew’s redactional[1]
concerns due weight.
I hope this helps some.
Bob.
[1] Redaction — “In the study of literature, redaction is a form of editing in which multiple source texts are combined (redacted) and subjected to minor alteration to make them into a single work.”
Wikipedia: Redaction
March 12th, 2011 at 11:09 am
>>>In Mat 19:9a TR/KJV the exception clause “except it be for fornication” refers to the main clause “Whosoever shall put away his wife… and shall marry another, committeth adultery.[1]
Bob, could you explain what you mean by the above statement? Are you coming from the context of betrothal? If not, explain how the fornication of a wife, would dissolve a covenant marriage, and subsequently allow both parties to legally commit adultery. Thanks in advance.
[1] Edited.
March 12th, 2011 at 11:52 am
Hi Jude4,
>>>Are you coming from the context of betrothal?
No.
>>>If not, explain how the fornication of a wife, would dissolve a covenant marriage, and subsequently allow both parties to legally commit adultery.
I don’t hold that fornication by the wife will dissolve a covenant marriage or allow either to remarry.
>>>Bob, could you explain what you mean by the above statement?
First let me provide the context of my comment you asking about.
In my comment to Margaret I was addressing her question that as the Shepherd of Hermas appears either to quote from or be aware of the exception clause in Mat 19:9 TR, wouldn’t this stand against McFall’s efforts to prove that Mat 19:9 “except it be for fornication” shouldn’t be a exception clause but a information clause as he translates it “he may not have divorced her for fornication”.
My answer short answer was that there is an exception clause in Mat 5:32 that McFall doesn’t dispute.
Then I when on to note what the main clauses were that the exception clauses in both Mat 5:32 and Mat 19:9 refer to. The reason I did this as some people seem to think that because Mat 5:32 makings an exception clause for divorce that this same scripture makes an exception clause for remarriage in the case of fornication
With the above context now let me explain the following statement you are asking about.
>>>In Mat 19:9a TR/KJV the exception clause “except it be for fornication” refers to the main clause “Whosoever shall put away his wife… and shall marry another, committeth adultery.
If we accept the TR Greek text as it stands and the KJV translation of that text and we don’t consider any other scriptures and just apply English grammar rules we have a main clause and a exception clause.
The reason I pointed this out is to clearly show the difference between the Mat 19:9 exception clause and the Mat 5:32 exception clause.
Sorry if my purpose was not clear.
Bob.
March 12th, 2011 at 6:25 pm
Hi Jude4,
Your post is not clear to me.
>>>I just wanted to clarify a common misapplication of the “saving for a word of fornication’ phrase, where it is erroneously asserted that the phrase actually modifies the words “and shall marry another” because of the English word “and”.
I think if we leave all other scriptures off and just look at the English in Mat 19:9a that it is very clear that you can divorce and remarry for fornication.
“And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery:” — Mat 19:9a
But I don’t think the Greek scriptures means that as the Greek Mat 19:9a has either be translated incorrectly as Kulikovsky holds or that the Erasmus modified the Greek leading to such an English translation as is maintained by McFall.
Bob.
March 12th, 2011 at 5:34 pm
I think I am clear on your meaning Bob. I just wanted to clarify a common misapplication of the “saving for a word of fornication’ phrase, where it is erroneously asserted that the phrase actually modifies the words “and shall marry another” because of the English word “and”. If such a meaning were applied to Matthew 19, then you would have Jesus advocating the dissolving of a marriage, by the very sin that He mentions. This would essentially remove the very definition of fornication, or even adultery if one insists upon it. The foundation of immorality is the ‘desire’ to committ an act which God forbids. Jesus calls this an unclean heart, and states unequivocally that such a person is “defiled.” If we approve of not only the thought, but the act that reveals the thought, then the sin itself becomes non-existant. We need to remember that obedience is better than sacrifice. Jesus calls all men to repent and live for His will from that moment on. Gods grace, through the gospel, is able to save even a wayward spouse, and also give a faithful spouse the strength to use self-control, while the wayward spouse is doing all they can to torment and deceive. It comes down to either living for Jesus by following after the Spirit, or living for the so-called benefits we might receive in this present world. Jesus said that we must “deny ourselves”, which sometimes requires standing for the purity and exclusiveness of covenant marriage.
March 12th, 2011 at 7:42 pm
Bob,
If you hold the position that the ‘fornication’ being spoken of is referring to the betrothal practice, then you would be correct in stating that one could marry another. I don’t know how to word it in clearer terms. I suppose I could simp[ly say that they ‘fornication’ referred to in Matthew, cannot mean ‘adultery’, due to the blasphemous implications that I mentioned in the post that you are referring to.
March 16th, 2011 at 6:01 am
Even Tertullian, long before Erasmus, was aware of an exception to at least divorce.
Tyndale also translated the Bible with the exception ‘clause’.
What we are looking at here are three unlikely hypotheses:
that the clause was never an exception (in spite of the understanding of very early writings), and Erasmus is responsible for meddling with the Bible.
that the sayings were never even uttered
that it is for ‘betrothal’ fornication (which does not fit at all with the context of Deuteronomy 24, a wife who was living in the house of the man who divorced her)
This is starting to look like grasping at straws to cling to the traditional view, instead of perhaps considering whether Jesus was misunderstood, and he was overstating the issue, and that there is an exception clause, actually. Could it simply be that the woman improperly divorced only commits adultery in the same way the woman in the lustful man’s imagination’ commits adultery’ with him as he thinks of her?Is she actually complicit? No. It’s not ideal, but she’s not really sinning.
The traditional view looks less and less ethical the more it is examined, with all its crazy implications.
March 16th, 2011 at 10:24 am
What even is the traditional view?
Doesn’t it allow the following?:
(A.) Violation of God’s overarching precept: He hates divorce (Malachi 2:16).
(B.) Violation of Jesus command to forgive (Matthew 6:15): Millions of Christian spouses not forgiving one another.
(C.) Violation of God’s command to not sue each other (1 Cor 6:7): Millions of Christian spouses sue out a divorce in secular court.
(D.) Breaking of the “one flesh” bond of holy matrimony: Handing the “keys of the kingdom” to the civil magistrate to “put asunder” Christian marriage?
(E.) Violation of Jesus’ command to protect “the least of these” (Mark 9:42): Millions of covenant children in great spiritual peril.
(F.) Through divorce one becomes a disciple of schism and scandal: Divorce is communicable — it leads others into divorce (Luke 9:23).
Why has Jesus left us confused about divorce putting millions of dear children in harm’s way?
Who will lead us out of this pit?:
(A.) Pastor Voddie Baucham (No divorce or remarriage).
(B.) Pastor John MacArthur (Divorce and remarriage permitted by “sexual immorality or desertion”).
(C.) Pastor Richard Caldwell Jr (Exception clause in error: No divorce or remarriage).
Perhaps OPC Pastor and leading broadcaster, Kevin Swanson, summarizes it best:
“Divorce puts a bullet in the head of the family.”
March 16th, 2011 at 12:12 pm
Hi Jude4,
>>>If you hold the position that the ‘fornication’ being spoken of is referring to the betrothal practice, then you would be correct in stating that one could marry another.
The betrothal theory never ever sat well with me. While McFall’s and Kulikovsky’s positions produce some objections their position is more believable and their objects much easier to answer. I hold that the betrothal theory will give people a reason to reject the conservative divorce and remarriage position and stay or go into a second marriage which is adultery.
Here are a few of issues with translating porneia in Mat 19:9 to fornication alone and applying it to Jewish Betrothal.
1. Can Todays Formal Engagement Be Broken — This position creates a pre-marriage relationship in which is adultery to break and marry anyone else. If this is the case with Jewish Betrothal then this may also mean today when a formal engagement is made, broke, and one of the two parties marries they are in adultery.
2. Two Account Of The Same Discussion Can’t Mean Two Different Things — It appears that the Mathew 19 and Mark 10 are two accounts of the same occurrence. With the Jewish Betrothal theory we now have Matt 19:9 teaching on an engagement issue and Mark 10:11 dealing with a marriage issue. It can’t be both, it must be one or the other.
Clearly Mark 10 is dealing with marriage. If Mark 10 and Matthew 19 are the same accounts then Matthew 19 must also be dealing with the very same issue that Mark 10 was dealing with. You can’t take two accounts that are the same and make one mean one thing and the other mean something different.
3. Out Of Context — The context of Matthew 19:9 is found in Mathew 9:3-12. The context of the first question Jesus is asked (vs3) was about marriage not about Jewish Betrothal. The reasoning Jesus uses in his answer (vs4-6) is concerning marriage not Jewish Betrothal. The second question (vs7) that Jesus was asked deals with Deut 24:1-2 which has nothing to do with betrothal. To apply his answer (v8-9) to Jewish Betrothal is to take verse 9 completely out of context.
4. Creates Insurmountable Objections — While the Jewish Betrothal theory is one way to try to bring Mat 19:9 into agreement with Mark 10:2-12 , Luke 16:18, Rom 7:1-3, and 1Cor 7:11,29; it also creates additional difficulties of its own as does McFall’s and Kulikovsky’s positions. I would hold that the difficulties created by either McFall’s or Kulikovsky’s position are easier to overcome than the objections that the Jewish Betrothal theory presents.
Further I would hold that the Jewish Betrothal theory creates insurmountable objections to the degree that it will cause people to reject what the new covenant scriptures on divorce and remarriage in Mark 10:2-12 , Luke 16:18, Rom 7:1-3, and 1Cor 7:11,29. They will instead add the exception clause from Mat 19:9 to all the other scriptures. Both McFall’s and Kulikovsky’s positions bring all new covenant scriptures into agreement and the objections to their positions are fewer and easier to explain.
5. Porneia Translated Immorality Not Fornication — As the KJV has become less used and less relevant the Jewish Betrothal theory has taken on a second object to overcome. Most new translations translate Porneia in Mat 19:9 as immorality (NIV, NASB, NKJV) or unchastity (AMP). Out of 22 modern English translations that Bible Gateway offers only 4 (KJV, ASV, NJ21, DT) translate porneia as fornication.
The King James Only position is very hard to maintain and the position to translate porneia in Mat 19:9 as fornication is equally difficult to maintain. This has made the Jewish Betrothal theory much more difficult to maintain as the KJV translation is used less.
If there are other objects or article that deal with other objects to the Jewish Betrothal theory could some one please post them.
Bob.
March 16th, 2011 at 12:41 pm
I thought I would mention this. Margaret is right that the Early church Fathers such as Clement of A, and Tertullian. quote an exception clause. But what is interesting is, to my knowledge, they never quote it Matt 19:9 style, but always, to my knowledge, it is quoted Matt 5:32 style, which obviously never specifically allows remarriage.
I said that to say this.
There is another theory on 19:9 about mistranslation. I do not know all the facts on this, but here is what I know. Some people think that the read of 19:9 should be a repeat of 5:32 because of some ancient Greek manuscripts reading this way. This is mentioned in the footnotes of the RSV, NRSV, and ESV. I think this would line up with the early church fathers teachings and quotes, such as Justin Martyr, as well as Mark and Luke.
—————————————-
Another view similar to the betrothal view is the incestuous marriage view (Lev 18). Matthew was written to Jews and addressed Jewish law, Mark was written to Romans and addressed Roman law, a woman being able to divorce. When considering this view, a big thing is to look at John B condemning Herod for unlawfully marrying his brother Philip’s wife (unlawful incestuous marriage, etc).
Some thoughts.
March 16th, 2011 at 2:31 pm
Margaret,
>>>Even Tertullian, long before Erasmus, was aware of an exception to at least divorce.
As noted before there is an exception in Matt 5:32 that no one is contesting.
>>>Tyndale also translated the Bible with the exception ‘clause’.
Tyndale used Erasmus Greek text.
>>>What we are looking at here are three unlikely hypotheses: that the clause was never an exception (in spite of the understanding of very early writings), and Erasmus is responsible for meddling with the Bible.
You have not made a case for “in spite of the understanding of very early writings”. As noted there is a exception clause in Mat 5:32 that is NOT referring to divorce and remarriage being adultery.
There are three ways it can be view.
1. It is an exception to divorce and remarriage in the case of immorality.
2. It is an exception to break off a betrothal in case of fornication.
3a. The translation of the Greek is incorrect and it should read as a information clause instead of a exception clause. The Kulikovsky Position.
3b. The translation of the Greek is incorrect due to Erasmas changing the Greek and it should read as a information clause instead of a exception clause. The McFall View.
March 16th, 2011 at 3:44 pm
Margaret,
>>>Even Tertullian, long before Erasmus, was aware of an exception to at least divorce.
As noted before there is an exception in Matt 5:32 that no one is contesting. I noted this in my last post to you.
>>>Tyndale also translated the Bible with the exception ‘clause’.
Tyndale used Erasmus Greek text.
>>>What we are looking at here are three unlikely hypotheses: that the clause was never an exception (in spite of the understanding of very early writings), and Erasmus is responsible for meddling with the Bible.
You have not made a case for “in spite of the understanding of very early writings”. As noted there is a exception clause in Mat 5:32 that is NOT referring to divorce and remarriage being adultery.
There are five main ways Matthew 19:9 is viewed.
1. It is an exception to divorce and remarriage in the case of immorality.
2. It is an exception to break off a betrothal in case of fornication.
3. The translation of the Greek is incorrect and it should read as a information clause instead of a exception clause. The Kulikovsky Position.
4. The translation of the Greek is incorrect due to Erasmas changing the Greek and it should read as a information clause instead of a exception clause. The McFall View.
5. The complete exception in Matthew 19:9 is an addition to the text.
March 16th, 2011 at 6:21 pm
Bob.
It may be the way I worded my last comment, but you miss the point I attempted to make. I am only maintaining the logical fact which is; whatever the ‘except for…’ phrase means, it cannot in any way modify the portion that states ‘and marries another’ unless you conclude either of the following;
1. The betrothal view (which you don’t prefer)
2. The unlawful union view (you are legally married to a sister, daughter, near of kin, another mans wife etc..)
Both of these position do not end up in a contradiction with Jesus command that all covenant marriages are binding upon both parties until one physically dies. As you stated in your response to me; Jesus points to creation as the model that is binding upon everyone in these ‘last days.’ That is all I was tring to point out. The whole focus of those that attempt to excuse a ‘remarriage’ based on some imaginary interpretation of the phrase imn Matt 19, is fatally flawed. You bind yourself until death when you marry your covenant spouse. The death clasue in scripture can only be voided by death. It is noble to attempt a clear and plausible definition of the ‘escept for’ phrase, but the death clause binds both parties to conform themselves with the creational model. Could anything but death, dissolve the union of Adam and Eve? No. There you go.
By the way Bob. Although I am not a stauch adherent to the betrothal view, you made a number of assumptions that are questionable, and you omitted important facts that pertain to this positon. Jeremiah 2 & 3 is most certainly applicable to any discussion about marriage. Both positions above are consistant with the binding nature of covenant marriage. If one can find a justification for a divorce from a covenant spouse, it won’t have the effect of dissolving the marriage as long as both spouses are living. The divorcing of an unlawful partner is only a public necessity and formality. Your not truly ‘married’ to the degree that you are one flesh, which is why Jesus calls it adultery and fornication. Thanks for responding.
March 16th, 2011 at 7:35 pm
Has anyone looked at codex families which do not depend upon the Greek, such as the Aramaic?
The Aramaic is supposedly dated to at least 165AD and has the exception clause.
March 16th, 2011 at 8:46 pm
Jude4,
>>>I am only maintaining the logical fact which is; whatever the ‘except for…’ phrase means, it cannot in any way modify the portion that states ‘and marries another’ unless you conclude either of the following;
How did you come to that conclusion?
“And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery:” Mat 19:9a
I think it is pretty clear that if for a moment set aside the other verses (Mark 10:2-12 , Luke 16:18, Rom 7:1-3, 1Cor 7:11,29) that refer to the issue what the meaning of the Mat 19:9a is.
Anyone that puts away his wife for any other reason than immorality and marries someone else commits adultery.
Ask a English teacher and they will tell you the same thing.
>>>1. The betrothal view (which you don’t prefer)
2. The unlawful union view (you are legally married to a sister, daughter, near of kin, another mans wife etc..)
I reject both these views and I posted 5 reasons above whey I reject them. In my blog post Divorce And Remarriage And Jewish Betrothal I came up with one more.
>>>Although I am not a stauch adherent to the betrothal view, you made a number of assumptions that are questionable, and you omitted important facts that pertain to this position.
Again there is no sense telling me that I am making questionable assumptions and omitting facts if you don’t tell me what they are.
March 16th, 2011 at 9:08 pm
“A Christian marriage racked by divorce devastates like a reactor in melt-down.”
March 16th, 2011 at 10:03 pm
Bob,
Did I not make it clear, that I reject the notion that a covenant marriage can be finally dissolved based on an interpretation of “except it be for fornication? It is not wise to give so much weight to our English translations. They are certainly an imperfect representation (though sufficient) of a perfect language which God Himself has authorized. The suggestion to set aside all the verses that you listed, only results in an erroneous conclusion. You cannot ‘fragment’ and isolate a text when there are seemingly unclear statements within that text. We can confidently assert that Paul had the wisdom from the Holy Spirit, which provided the inspiration of his letters. Paul has come to the conclusion, based on Jesus doctrine, that “the wife is bound to her huiband as long as he liveth.” Now we know beyond all doubt, that Paul had full and complete knowledge of the doctrine of marriage, which he unequivocally states to be until death.
All I am maintaining, with the full revelation of scripture as my support, is that the phrase under consideration, cannot, and does not, allow for the divorce of a COVENANT spouse, with the subsequent right to marry another person. The apostles made it crystal clear that a lawful marriage is bound and indissoluable until the death of one of the spouses. In this sense, ‘it doesn’t matter what the pharse in Matthew 19:9a means. It is just as valid and applicable to point out what the phrase does not mean. Whatever your explanation is, I can accept it as plausible, aslong as it does not contradict the ‘death clause’ which is binding upon the spouses while they are physically alive. Hope this helps.
March 17th, 2011 at 3:18 pm
>>>Did I not make it clear, that I reject the notion that a covenant marriage can be finally dissolved based on an interpretation of “except it be for fornication?
No not at all.
Bob.
March 18th, 2011 at 1:55 pm
Like a thief’s cutting torch on a bank vault lock is the “exception clause” on the iron bond of holy matrimony.
March 18th, 2011 at 4:28 pm
I have an honest question.
According to my research, I am informed by several reliable sources that the “earliest manuscripts” of Matthew 19:9 read:
“And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, MAKES HER COMMIT ADULTERY, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery”
Thus, Matt 19:9 reads almost identically to Matt 5:32 in the Sermon on the Mount. The conclusion to both being that the “exception clause” refers only to the husband’s guilt-worthiness in regards to CAUSING THE WIFE to commit adultery (presumably when she remarries). In other words, if the wife is already an adulteress, the divorcing husband is not responsible for making her an adulteress (when she remarries). Otherwise, he not only bears his own guilt, but some of hers as well. In either case, remarriage would be viewed as adultery. It is just a matter of the divorcing party being responsible for only his own gulit, or for the guilt of both parties should remarriage occur (and it was presumed that it would).
I did not see this addressed here (or did I miss it?) and what do you think?
April 1st, 2011 at 11:15 pm
Inreference to ‘JW’s point, I thought it wise to re-affirm (and I’ll continue to often, Lord willing) the foundational principle of covenant marriage.
God holds every man & woman personally accountable to uphold and affirm the righteousness and purity of marriage as defined by the creational record. Paul uses the perfect analogy of the indissoluble bond of marriage, in Romans 7, to show that you can’t be joined to the law, and also be ‘married to Christ’. One must die in reference to the law, in order to be married to another; Christ Jesus. The principle isupheld with the law of the husband, that the wife is bound to, as long as the husband remains alive. We might refer to this as the ‘death clause’. This ‘law of the husband’ precludes the possibility of any ‘exception’ (whatever it means) of dissolving the covenant marriage. If the husband is physically alive, the ‘law’ remains in effect. This is perfectly consistant with Jesus repeatedly saying that ‘whoever marries a woman divorced from her husband, committs adultery.’ If we consider Adam & Eve, the picture is clear; For a strange man to have joined himself to Eve, (literally impossible of course), he would, be lying with Adam also, since she was taken form him literally; (woman - from or out of the man). God does not continue to put males to sleep, and perform the same creational miracle, but He does perform the same ‘one flesh’ bond with every covenant marriage, just as if the same procedure was performed again. That is why death alone will dissolve the one flesh bond. Only death ended the union of our first parents, and Jesus says that the same principle is in effect for all subsequent covenant marriage in these ‘last days’. As a side note; the wife of a man is said to be the mans ‘own body’, and Paul even states that the spouse do not retain exclusive rights over their own body, but they do have exclusive claims to each others body. The distinguishing priciple of the woman being taken from the man is also maintained during the time preceeding Jesus coming. When God tolerated some men having multiple wives, He never tolerated a woman multiplying husbands to herself. A king may have 3 wives, but they were his wives exclusively, and no other man could defile any of them, for that would be an obvious violation of the law against coveting, which includes ‘thy neighbors wife.’ Just some thoughts. In conclusion; take a look at the way the EMTV renders Romans 7, and keep in mind the idea of crational marriage.
Or do you not know, brothers (for I speak to those knowing the law), that the law rules over a man as long as he lives? For the woman who is under a man has been bound by law to the living husband. But if the husband should die, she is released from the law of the husband. So then, while the husband is living, she will be called an adulteress if she becomes married to a different husband; but if her husband should die, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress, having become married to a different husband. (Rom 7:1-3)
April 1st, 2011 at 11:57 pm
JW, the “makes her commit adultery” clause appears in a few early witnesses but they are mainly of the Western text type which is well known for harmonising parallel passages. Thus, Matt 19:9 has been edited to match 5:32 (where the text is firm). No serious text critic considers the harmonised reading of 19:9 to be genuine.
May 23rd, 2011 at 4:44 pm
I think the scripture should be interpreted as “no man shall divorce his wife except for marital unfaithfulness.” Any other interpretation just doesn’t make sense. If clergy told those getting married that under no circumstances would they be able to divorce, who would marry? Marriage is love, adultery is the farthest thing there is from love. It’s easy to sit in an Ivory Tower and force false doctrine on people, but how many of you have been subjected to an adulterous marriage? I’d like to see how you would interpret the scripture? It says what it says. It’s as simple as that. The covenant was broken. If your spouse committed adultery, they did not live up to the agreement. It was broken. The person is biblically entitled to remarry. As far as I know it is an agreement to live by the vows, it’s a 2 way street. If one person decides to not live up to the agreement, then by their selfishness, it’s over. Jesus would never tell someone they were stuck with an adulterer because they didn’t read the fine print. Look at these broken lives, these people are hurting and when the Lord gives them the gift of a second chance, “high and mighty so-called Christians” condemn them for a for a crime against them and make them feel like they are in a constant state of sin. It’s ridiculous and absurd. If what people are saying here is true, then it’s better to murder your ex then divorce them, forgive them, find peace, and move on. As least the murder would be a one-time sin that could be forgiven, but the remarriage would be a sin that goes on comtinually until the biblically unlawful marriage was dissolved. How is being in a biblically unlawful marriage any different than blasphemy of the Holy Spirit or taking the “Mark of the Beast.”. I know many people’s intent here is to save marriages and thus protect the family unit at all costs, but if even one person feels hopeless and loses their chance at salvation because of your judgement, isn’t there blood on your hands? I believe God is more merciful than anyone could comprehend and wants all to return to his ever-loving hands. I’m glad he will be on the throne on Judgement day and not any of you folks.
May 24th, 2011 at 10:46 am
Hi MichaelWon,
How do you feel about John telling Herod post-marriage that it was not lawful for him to have his brothers wife (Mk 6) or when the Israelis according to the counsel of Ezra (Ezra 9 and 10) put away there unbiblical wives.
>>>I think the scripture should be interpreted as “no man shall divorce his wife except for marital unfaithfulness.”
This was the law in the Old Testament (Deut 24) and God allowed this because of the hardness of their hearts but from the beginning it was not so and Jesus told them that a man was not to put away his wife. Mk 10:2-12, Lk 16:18, Rom 7:2-3, and 1Cor 7:11, 39 clearly state that if you divorce and remarry it is adultery. So the question at hand is what does Mat 19:9 teach.
>>>I know many people’s intent here is to save marriages and thus protect the family unit at all costs, but if even one person feels hopeless and loses their chance at salvation because of your judgement, isn’t there blood on your hands?
This of course goes both ways. If there is no allowance for divorce and remarriage and you teach people it is okey then isn’t there blood on your hands also?
>>>It’s easy to sit in an Ivory Tower and force false doctrine on people, but how many of you have been subjected to an adulterous marriage? I’d like to see how you would interpret the scripture?
Many that have a spouse that has left them hold to this view of the scriptures and have not remarried.
>>>I’m glad he will be on the throne on Judgement day and not any of you folks.
Here we agree, AMEN!
Bob.
May 25th, 2011 at 12:08 am
Hello every one,as the Apostle Paul would say
“To the church of God , to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be his holy people, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours:
3 Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.”
To those arguing the pros and cons of adultery/divorce/remarriage which started out about whether( i think) 2 greek letters were omitted in translations of scripture or not
and then further what the true meanings are
then even further the context
.
To You I same Shame on You.
Can You Not see what You are doing to some of these readers.
You have and are alienating them from the
very One they should be turning to
God Their Loving, Compassionate Father in Heaven.
For it is there they will find the answers they need
Not the teachings of doctrines,FALSELY SO CALLED
They as people like any person Who is a Born Again have
THE RIGHT AND PRIVILEGE TO ENTER THE THRONE ROOM OF GRACE
Hebrews 4:15-16 (King James Version)
15For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
16Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need
Full stop,no questions asked Not by God at Least.
But it would seem,you People think You have the right to determine as to whether that Right and Privilege should be extended to the people who find themselves in a dilemma that brings confusion,conflict into
their lives.
Surely it is at such a time, when a person is confused,conflicted and unsure of their position that they should take God up on His Promise.
After all,He knows all about what it is that we/you are struggling with cause he was tempted in all points as we are,Yet without Sin.
So I say to all…
BOLDLY GO INTO THE THRONE OF GRACE and Find and receive the Help
Your Father has for You.
Allow your High Priest (JESUS) intercede for YOU and RECEIVE THE MERCY and GRACE You Deserve.
Jesus said of us all (refering to us as Children) to come unto Him.
And to anyone who Prevented it,it would be better if a milestone was put around there neck and thrown into the depth of the sea.
Matt 18….
1 At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”
2 Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them,
3 and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.
4 Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
5 Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.
6 “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
7 Woe to the world because of offenses! For offenses must come, but woe to that man by whom the offense comes!
Should you not also have had compassion on your fellow servant, just as I had pity on you?’
34 And his master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him.
35 “So My heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother his trespasses.
Its about time we accept The People as they come and LET (as i have been saying)
Let the Holy Spirit Do His Work
The Holy Spirit Is Quite capable of doing that
Thank You very Much
and if We/You allowed that Holy Spirit Work to happen in their Lives ,
who dont Live upto OUR expectations(whether based on Thier interpretation of scripture or Not)
We would Find there being a far Greater Crowd in Glory than not.
Because let me tell you, its arguements like this of doctrine Falsely so called that cause people to leave the Church in thier droves.
Its this sort of thing that the world looks at and Says what a Bunch of…
Any one who is reading this and are grappling with these issues in yours or others lives.
Go Back and Read Romans Chapt Eight and see what Is RECKONED TO YOU BECAUSE OF THE FINISHED WORK OF THE CROSS.
And again If any of you think I am Watering down or giving liscence to people to continue in thier Sin.
Absolutely NOT.
You Teach the Gospel in it entirety and
You Will see people repent of thier Sin before YOU EVEN THINK ABOUT whether You should point it out to them.
Hows That….Because When you Lift HIM higher HE will Draw Men/Women Unto Himself.
Note Not lifting the sin higher for a person to see
But Lifting Jesus Higher
If You have at any time in Your Life Given Your Heart To The LORD
I’ll see You in GLORY
Trev.
Reckon Your Rightful place in the Throne Room of God
Sitting at the right hand of the Father with Jesus
May 31st, 2011 at 7:42 pm
David Pawson has just released his new book
REMARRIAGE IS ADULTERY UNLESS…
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Remarriage-Adultery-Unless-David-Pawson/dp/B0050B5KVS
Scroll down in the link to the Divorce & Remarriage video
http://www.ihop.org/Publisher/Article.aspx?ID=1000104085
June 3rd, 2011 at 11:19 pm
who was God,s first love left becauce of what, and went were
June 9th, 2011 at 2:06 pm
While I disagree with this pastor’s opinion on what to do if one is in a remarriage situation, this teaching series is one of the best I have heard on this subject.
http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?sourceonly=true&currSection=sermonssource&keyword=smbconline&subsetcat=series&subsetitem=Divorce+and+Remarriage
July 5th, 2011 at 11:14 pm
Hi,
The following is a response from Leslie McFall to what AJ had said in blog entry 188 and 190.
*****************************************************************************************
In reply to your query concerning the objection of “AJ” to my literal English translation of Mt 19:9, which does away with the “exceptive clause,” his two examples in Rom 14:1 and 1 Cor 5:8 actually support my view that the verb “put away” must be repeated after the negative MH in Matt 19:9. My translation reads, “Now I say to you that who, for example, may have divorced his wife—(he may) not (have divorced her) for fornication—and may have married another (woman), he becomes adulterous (by marrying her). And the (man) having married (a) divorced (wife), he becomes adulterous (by marrying her).” The words in italics (in brackets) are not in the Greek, but are required to bring out the sense of the Greek.
You will notice that it is necessary to repeat the verb “have divorced” after the negative MH to capture the significance of the negative. AJ has brought forward two texts from Rom 14:1 and 1 Cor 5:8 in which he claims the negative MH does not relate to the preceding verb, but this is incorrect. I give below the correct way he should have translated these two texts.
Rom 14:1, “And the one weak in the faith receive you—not [receive you] in determinations of reasonings.” By adding “receive you” after the negative, this brings out the force of the postive imperative. But there is a negative imperative implied after the particle MH, so the verb should be repeated to bring out the sense Paul intended his hearers/readers to get.
1 Cor 5:8, “. . . so that we may keep the feast—not [we may keep] with old leaven, not [we may keep] with the leaven of evil and wickedness, but [we may keep] with unleavened food of sincerity and truth.” To get the full sense of what Paul wrote we need to re-supply the verb “we may keep” three times in this one verse. There is a positive and a negative “keeping.” This AJ has overlooked.
*******************************************************************************************
July 5th, 2011 at 11:31 pm
Hi Mathew,
Thank you for posting Leslie McFall’s take on Rom 14:1 and 1Cor 5:8 as it relates to the way he has translated Mat 19:9!
Bob.
September 22nd, 2011 at 7:10 pm
Please find at this link a critique that Les McFall has written on David Pawson’s new book “Remarriage is Adultery unless…”
http://www.wisereaction.org/ebooks/mcfall_pawson_critique.pdf
October 5th, 2011 at 4:58 pm
The liguistic case is certainly interesting and has been thoroughly explained. It seems obvious that the clause in question is at best ambiguous. The word ‘MH’ in similiar constructions is never rendered ‘except’. The word ‘EI’ would certainly clean this up, but it is not found in any manuscripts before the life of our friend Erasmus. Context, then, should be used to clear up ambiguity. No where else does Jesus appear to give an out for remarriage. The verse in chapter 5 is a different issue. “Anyone who divorces his wife, except for unfaithfulness, causes her to commit adultery.” Yes, because if she was unfaithful she was already an adulteress. This phrase by Jesus seems to have been intended to show the men in his audience how important their decisions were. To take the exception clause from chapter 5 and photocopy it into chapter 19 is bad Bible.
I would like to point out a thematic issue. Jesus is not in the habit of lowering standards. In fact, he teaches quite the opposite. He places a charge of murder on any one who hates and a charge of adultery on anyone who lusts. Jesus is the great standard raiser. Thus, it makes no sense that Jesus would would make such an eloquent case for men to honor their wives and then throw in an exception clause. Further, the Disciples’ reaction is interesting. They react by declaring that it would be better not to marry. Why would they react so strongly if Jesus had just given them an exception?
Translating the clause as an inclusion clause makes more sense. So, the phrase becomes, “…anyone who divorces his wife, not (even) for sexual unfaithfulness…”. This would explain why the 12 reacted so sharply.
This also fits more with the testimony of Jesus’ life. Christians’ don’t have rights. If my spouse wrongs me by be unfaithful I do not then have the right to marry someone else. I may need to leave her, but I do not have the right to marry another. I will wait for her in case she changes her ways and comes back to me. If she never changes, I will still be waiting. That happens to be what God through Jesus does for all of us.
October 6th, 2011 at 4:22 am
Jeremy, I basically came to exactly the same conclusions as you in my detailed exegetical paper:
http://morechristlike.com/documents/mdr_kulikovsky.pdf