Divorce

[98cwitr]

there is only one unforgivable sin and I think we all know what that one is. Where are the bastard children of rape victims left? Jesus is going to do serious damage to people that do not follow Him, you got a problem with that idea too? Liberalism is seriously killing the Christian community.

The Law provides us acknowledgement of sin, nothing more. If we do not acknowledge sin how can we repent of anything? Are we then to consider ourselves blameless? Free of sin? Apparently not.

Legalism? No. Seeing right and wrong in Scripture and adopting that into our own lives? Yes, that's how I see it. It's by Grace that we are saved from our sins given that we are repentant and genuine in our relationship with the Lord. Jesus's words are plain and simple in Matthew. I don't see how we can twist them out of context, dies-l.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

You can keep quoting the same Scriptures back to me, but the point remains that you are not interpreting consistently with their context. But, for the sake of argument, let's accept your legalism as biblical and address the following questions:

FTR, when do believe a marriage occurs (i.e., when do man and woman become one flesh)? When a man and woman have sex for the first time (arguably, Paul's view)? When the man and the woman exchange vows (the modern view)? Or when when the man and woman have sex after having exchanged vows (an variation on the modern view)?

Also, what do you recommend for the person who divorced and remarried before becoming a Christian and who wants to do right? Suppose, for the sake of argument, that this person did not have children with the first, but did with second? Is that person then obligated to divorce his or new spouse in order to seek reconciliation with the first?

It is very easy for you to say that I am not interpreting the Scriptures consistently with their context, but it is impossible for you to show that such is the case. I am interpreting the Scriptures not only in the context in which they are found in the New Testament, but also in the context of first century Judaeo-Christian beliefs and practices.

Believing that Jesus is the Son of God and that His teachings are true and binding is not legalism—it is the very heart of Christianity.

Marriage occurs when a man and a woman come together and consummate any formalities leading up to that act. This is true regardless of the religious beliefs of the man or the woman. The man and woman have become one flesh and they continue to be one flesh until one of them dies—the surviving partner is then free to remarry.

Doing the right thing NEVER includes the sin of adultery. If a man or a woman finds himself or herself in a second marriage and chooses to be obedient to Christ, that person must immediately cease committing adultery with his/her second spouse. A second divorce is not necessary, and in some cases unwise, but the adultery must stop.

This sounds a bit harsh to some people, but very many Christian couples find it necessary to begin abstaining from sex because of illness or injury and yet maintain a very rich and satisfying marriage. If a man or a woman truly loves his or her spouse, that man or woman will make every effort necessary to make certain that he or she does not engage in adulterous acts against his or her new spouse.

 

[dies-l]

One question: Is adultery an unforgivable sin?

Of course not. But the question above doesn't really address the corner that the legalists want to paint us in. The question really is, does God's grace allow a divorced person to move on with his or her life? The legalists would answer that it does, so long as that person chooses to remain celibate for the rest of his or her life. The problem is that they are interpreting Jesus' teachings in a way that puts them at odds with (a) Jesus' own treachings (as PrincetonGuy has artfully pointed out that the "adultery exception" seemingly contradicts other teachings of Jesus, thus bringing into question, in PG's opinion, the authenticity of Matthew's Gospel) and (b) Paul's teachings (who says that, at least in the case of abandonment by a non-Christian as a result of a Christian conversion, it is permissible for the abandoned spouse to move on with his or her life).

Frankly, I am not content with interpretations of Scripture that place one passage Scripture in contradiction with another. Nor am I content to dismiss those passages of Scripture as invalid that disagree with one's preferred interpretation of a different passage.

I've heard of teaching which encourages those who have divorced and remarried to divorce their new partner and seek reconciliation with their first spouse. A little thought should show the tremendous upheaval that would cause, to children of second marriages, families, and the lives of spouses who did not divorce anyone when they married a divorced person. Where does that leave them? Such teaching has its roots in blind legalism, and does serious damage to people.

I agree. I doubt that the legalists among would or at least I doubt that they would agree that there is anything wrong with legalism, even when it tears families apart.

I am divorced and remarried myself. I waited 14 years between my divorce and remarriage, while my ex-wife waited 13 months. Reconciliation? Not even remotely possible, nor would I want to be reconciled to her. She's not even the same person I married, psychologically, and we have about as much in common as a whale and a tap dancer, with the sole exception of our 3 grown children, and our grandkids.

I can identify. No kids yet, but I can say that my first marriage was a mistake. Nonetheless, I was more than willing to continue in it. She, however, was not. Unfortunately, we married young and against the advice of our parents, and naively believed that we knew that being "in love" was all it took to make a marriage work.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

One question: Is adultery an unforgivable sin?

I've heard of teaching which encourages those who have divorced and remarried to divorce their new partner and seek reconciliation with their first spouse. A little thought should show the tremendous upheaval that would cause, to children of second marriages, families, and the lives of spouses who did not divorce anyone when they married a divorced person. Where does that leave them? Such teaching has its roots in blind legalism, and does serious damage to people.

I am divorced and remarried myself. I waited 14 years between my divorce and remarriage, while my ex-wife waited 13 months. Reconciliation? Not even remotely possible, nor would I want to be reconciled to her. She's not even the same person I married, psychologically, and we have about as much in common as a whale and a tap dancer, with the sole exception of our 3 grown children, and our grandkids.

Jesus was neither blind nor legalistic. Although married couples remain one flesh for life, one or both of them may make cause problems in the marriage that are irreconcilable without mutual cooperation. That is no excuse, however, for anyone to commit adultery by having sex with a second spouse.

 

[dies-l]

It is very easy for you to say that I am not interpreting the Scriptures consistently with their context, but it is impossible for you to show that such is the case. I am interpreting the Scriptures not only in the context in which they are found in the New Testament, but also in the context of first century Judaeo-Christian beliefs and practices.

Likewise, it is easy for your to say that. I, however, have explained my viewpoint if you care to read it. I am not interested in repeating the same argument over and over again, so if you don't want to address what I have already argued on the topic, then there is no point in discussing it any further.

Believing that Jesus is the Son of God and that His teachings are true and binding is not legalism—it is the very heart of Christianity.

What a great example of rhetorical nonsense! Nobody is saying that it is legalism to seek to follow Jesus' teachings or to believe that He is the Son of God. What I am arguing is that you are not correctly understanding His teachings. Generally speaking, intellectually dishonest rhetorical flourishes are not all that effective in proving your case to reasonably well educated person.

Marriage occurs when a man and a woman come together and consummate any formalities leading up to that act. This is true regardless of the religious beliefs of the man or the woman. The man and woman have become one flesh and they continue to be one flesh until one of them dies—the surviving partner is then free to remarry.

Actually, according to Paul, a man and woman become one flesh when they have sex, regardless of what formalities may have preceded the act. Thus, if we extend your argument logically, anyone who has ever had sex prior to marriage with someone other than their current spouse is in a perpetual state of adultery so long as they continue to have relations with their spouse. If we are going to be legalistic in our misguided and incoherent literalism, let's at least try to be consistent.

By the same token, no one has pointed a Scripture out to me that states that when a woman divorces her husband (we still have to settle what it means "to divorce" someone, but that is another issue) that he is not free to remarry. So, I assume that this is an additional exception to the general rule. As I said, let's at least be consistent in our legalism.

Doing the right thing NEVER includes the sin of adultery.

Once again, a disingenuous jab at my position by imputing a position to me that I have never taken. I believe the logicians among us would call that a straw man. The question is not whether adultery is ever right. The question is whether remarriage is inherently adulterous.

If a man or a woman finds himself or herself in a second marriage and chooses to be obedient to Christ, that person must immediately cease committing adultery with his/her second spouse. A second divorce is not necessary, and in some cases unwise, but the adultery must stop.

This sounds a bit harsh to some people, but very many Christian couples find it necessary to begin abstaining from sex because of illness or injury and yet maintain a very rich and satisfying marriage. If a man or a woman truly loves his or her spouse, that man or woman will make every effort necessary to make certain that he or she does not engage in adulterous acts against his or her new spouse.

Not only is it harsh, it is impossible to reconcile with Scripture, because Paul has made it very clear in 1 Cor. 7 that married persons have a right to enjoy conjugal relations with one another. If a couple stays married, but one of them chooses to remain celibate because of a perceived duty to his or her prior spouse, he or she is sinning against the new spouse. I guess it really is a no win situation for the remarried person.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Of course not. But the question above doesn't really address the corner that the legalists want to paint us in. The question really is, does God's grace allow a divorced person to move on with his or her life? The legalists would answer that it does, so long as that person chooses to remain celibate for the rest of his or her life. The problem is that they are interpreting Jesus' teachings in a way that puts them at odds with (a) Jesus' own treachings (as PrincetonGuy has artfully pointed out that the "adultery exception" seemingly contradicts other teachings of Jesus, thus bringing into question, in PG's opinion, the authenticity of Matthew's Gospel) and (b) Paul's teachings (who says that, at least in the case of abandonment by a non-Christian as a result of a Christian conversion, it is permissible for the abandoned spouse to move on with his or her life).

Jesus was not a legalist and believing in Him and obeying Him is not legalism—it is being an obedient Christian. God’s grace is the dynamic action of God by and through which He saves us from sin and its consequences through faith. The grace of God gives us the ability to stop sinning; it does not allow us to continue sinning. The grace of enables a divorced person to have a happy and fulfilling life while having the strength to abstain from adultery with a second spouse.

The exception clause in Matt. 19:9 is virtually for certain a very early addition to the text (see posts 6 and 7 above).

Paul explicitly taught the same thing as did Luke,

Luke 16:18. “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.”

Rom. 7:1. Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives?
2. For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband.
3. So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man.
4. Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God.

1 Cor. 7:10. But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband
11. (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.

The only contradiction is between what the Bible teaches and what many of today’s celebrity preachers are teaching.

 

[dies-l]

Jesus was not a legalist and believing in Him and obeying Him is not legalism—it is being an obedient Christian. God’s grace is the dynamic action of God by and through which He saves us from sin and its consequences through faith. The grace of God gives us the ability to stop sinning; it does not allow us to continue sinning. The grace of enables a divorced person to have a happy and fulfilling life while having the strength to abstain from adultery with a second spouse.

The exception clause in Matt. 19:9 is virtually for certain a very early addition to the text (see posts 6 and 7 above).

Frankly, I am not content with dismissing any portion of Scripture on the basis that it happens to disagree with one's chosen theology. Either we can trust Scripture or we cannot. To say that we can do away with a word or phrase because it creates a seeming contradiction is to say that we cannot ultimately trust Scripture. If we are going to accept that such significant errors have made their way into Scripture, one could just as reasonably argue that the other passages inadvertently left this phrase out. Or, we could accept that the alternative possibility that there is no error in the text, only in a given interpretation thereof. I find it kind of amusing to see "the Bible contains a mistake" as a defense of an ultra-conservative position. This type of reasoning is usually more associated with liberal theology and scholarship.

Paul explicitly taught the same thing as did Luke,

Luke 16:18. “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.”

Rom. 7:1. Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives?
2. For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband.
3. So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man.
4. Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God.

1 Cor. 7:10. But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband
11. (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.

The only contradiction is between what the Bible teaches and what many of today’s celebrity preachers are teaching.

1 Cor 7:15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. 16How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

Is this also a "very early addition." Seems that Paul is clear enough here that there is at least one recognized exception to the once bound, always bound rule that you attribute to Jesus.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

The question is whether remarriage is inherently adulterous.

One of the fundamental principles of the science and methodology of interpreting literature in all genres and all languages is that inexplicit statements and teachings are governed by explicit statements and teachings. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul explicitly answered your question; Luke the most succinctly.

Luke 16:18. "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.

Not only is it harsh, it is impossible to reconcile with Scripture, because Paul has made it very clear in 1 Cor. 7 that married persons have a right to enjoy conjugal relations with one another. If a couple stays married, but one of them chooses to remain celibate because of a perceived duty to his or her prior spouse, he or she is sinning against the new spouse. I guess it really is a no win situation for the remarried person.

Paul never taught that anyone has the right to commit adultery, and he never taught that married persons have a right to enjoy conjugal relations with one another. Conjugal relations are a privilege, and that privilege does not extend to a relationship with a second spouse while the first spouse is still alive.

The very recent interpretations of the divorce and remarriage passages in the New Testament are not a consequence of recently discovered data pertaining to the subject; they are a consequence of selfishness and lust and a preoccupation with the carnal pleasures of the present life rather than the eternal life to come.

 

[dies-l]

One of the fundamental principles of the science and methodology of interpreting literature in all genres and all languages is that inexplicit statements and teachings are governed by explicit statements and teachings. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul explicitly answered your question; Luke the most succinctly.

Luke 16:18. "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.

As you have stated, if we read this as a moral commandment, then Jesus is contradicting himself when, in another passage (Mt. 5, I believe), he makes an exception for adultery. Also, as I have pointed out, there is no instance where Jesus said that a man whose wife has divorced him is not free to remarry. Both of these facts point toward an alternative interpretation that Jesus was not making a moral pronouncement about remarriage, but rather pointing out why the social attitudes towards divorce in His day run afoul of the Great Commandment.

Paul never taught that anyone has the right to commit adultery, and he never taught that married persons have a right to enjoy conjugal relations with one another. Conjugal relations are a privilege, and that privilege does not extend to a relationship with a second spouse while the first spouse is still alive.

Paul stated that husbands are not to deprive their wives and vice versa. This cannot be reconciled with the hypothetical situation we were discussing (ie., staying married, but not having sex).

The very recent interpretations of the divorce and remarriage passages in the New Testament are not a consequence of recently discovered data pertaining to the subject; they are a consequence of selfishness and lust and a preoccupation with the carnal pleasures of the present life rather than the eternal life to come.

Not only is it not a terribly recent interpretation, it is the only one that I have found that is consistent with the actual text.

All in all, it seems we will just have to agree to disagree. I don't seem to be convincing you, and you are certainly not convincing me (which is not at all helped by the fact that you totally ignore my stronger arguments). Oh well. You are free to believe as you will, and I am free to disagree. That is the great thing about freedom. One day, perhaps, we will know who was right, eh?

 

[PrincetonGuy]

1 Cor 7:15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. 16How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

Is this also a "very early addition." Seems that Paul is clear enough here that there is at least one recognized exception to the once bound, always bound rule that you attribute to Jesus.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul all attribute to Jesus the teaching that the marriage bond lasts till the death of the spouse. Now let us take a look at 1 Cor. 7:8-16,

1 Cor. 7:8. But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I.
9. But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
10. But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband
11. (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.
12. But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her.
13. And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away.
14. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.
15. Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace.
16. For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?

Notice especially v. 11. Even after a separation, remarriage to a new spouse is expressly forbidden. Verse 15 only gives the believing spouse permission to let the unbelieving spouse leave. This is merely a separation—there is no divorce followed by remarriage.

1 Cor. 7:27. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife. (NASB, 1995)

Two commands (Greek present tense, imperative mood) are given in this verse,

1. Do not seek to be released from your wife if you are married.
2. Do not seek a wife if you have been released (Greek perfect tense, passive mood) from your wife.

Neither spouse can remarry after a separation because both spouses, although separated from each other, are still married to each other in the sight of God. Adultery is NEVER permitted in the New Testament.

Compare Paul in Romans 7,

Romans 7:1. Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives?
2. For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband.
3. So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man.

(All quotations from Scriptures are from the NASB, 1995)

 

[dies-l]

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul all attribute to Jesus the teaching that the marriage bond lasts till the death of the spouse. Now let us take a look at 1 Cor. 7:8-16,

1 Cor. 7:8. But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I.
9. But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
10. But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband
11. (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.
12. But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her.
13. And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away.
14. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.
15. Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace.
16. For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?

Notice especially v. 11. Even after a separation, remarriage to a new spouse is expressly forbidden. Verse 15 only gives the believing spouse permission to let the unbelieving spouse leave. This is merely a separation—there is no divorce followed by remarriage.

1 Cor. 7:27. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife. (NASB, 1995)

Two commands (Greek present tense, imperative mood) are given in this verse,

1. Do not seek to be released from your wife if you are married.
2. Do not seek a wife if you have been released (Greek perfect tense, passive mood) from your wife.

Neither spouse can remarry after a separation because both spouses, although separated from each other, are still married to each other in the sight of God. Adultery is NEVER permitted in the New Testament.

Compare Paul in Romans 7,

Romans 7:1. Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives?
2. For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband.
3. So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man.

(All quotations from Scriptures are from the NASB, 1995)

Like I said, at this point, I guess we will have to agree to disagree, as this discussion appears to be going nowhere. God bless.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

As you have stated, if we read this as a moral commandment, then Jesus is contradicting himself when, in another passage (Mt. 5, I believe), he makes an exception for adultery. Also, as I have pointed out, there is no instance where Jesus said that a man whose wife has divorced him is not free to remarry. Both of these facts point toward an alternative interpretation that Jesus was not making a moral pronouncement about remarriage, but rather pointing out why the social attitudes towards divorce in His day run afoul of the Great Commandment.

The exception clause in Matt. 5:32 is in a very different context,

32. but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Here, the exception is in the case of a woman who has already committed adultery.

As for your argument that “there is no instance where Jesus said that a man whose wife has divorced him is not free to remarry,” Jesus based his teaching that remarriage (to a different spouse) after divorce is adultery upon the Biblical teaching that in marriage the two become one flesh,

Matt. 19:3. Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?”
4. And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,
5. and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’?
6. “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

Mark 10:2. Some Pharisees came up to Jesus, testing Him, and began to question Him whether it was lawful for a man to divorce a wife.
3. And He answered and said to them, “What did Moses command you?”
4. They said, “Moses permitted a man TO WRITE A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY.”
5. But Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.
6. “But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE.
7. “FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER,
8. AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh.
9. “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”
10. In the house the disciples began questioning Him about this again.
11. And He *said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her;
12. and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.”

Therefore, remarriage (to a different spouse) after a divorce is adultery whether the one remarrying is the wife or the husband. The only exception is in the event of the death of the spouse.

(All quotations from Scripture are from the NASB, 1995)

 

[dies-l]

The exception clause in Matt. 5:32 is in a very different context,

32. but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Here, the exception is in the case of a woman who has already committed adultery.

As for your argument that “there is no instance where Jesus said that a man whose wife has divorced him is not free to remarry,” Jesus based his teaching that remarriage (to a different spouse) after divorce is adultery upon the Biblical teaching that in marriage the two become one flesh,

Matt. 19:3. Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?”
4. And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,
5. and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’?
6. “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

Mark 10:2. Some Pharisees came up to Jesus, testing Him, and began to question Him whether it was lawful for a man to divorce a wife.
3. And He answered and said to them, “What did Moses command you?”
4. They said, “Moses permitted a man TO WRITE A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY.”
5. But Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.
6. “But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE.
7. “FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER,
8. AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh.
9. “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”
10. In the house the disciples began questioning Him about this again.
11. And He *said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her;
12. and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.”

Therefore, remarriage (to a different spouse) after a divorce is adultery whether the one remarrying is the wife or the husband. The only exception is in the event of the death of the spouse.

(All quotations from Scripture are from the NASB, 1995)

The same problem persists. You seemingly look at the conflict created by your interpretation of Scripture and say, there must be something wrong with the Scripture. I look at it and say that there must be something wrong with your interpretation. You persist in holding on to your interpretation. That is fine, but please understand why, in this case, I feel that there is no benefit in continuing to discuss. It is sufficient to say that I profoundly disagree with your hermeneutic approach in general and with your application in this instance. As such, we're not likely going to get very far in this discussion.

Thank you for sharing your opinions. God bless.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

The same problem persists. You seemingly look at the conflict created by your interpretation of Scripture and say, there must be something wrong with the Scripture. I look at it and say that there must be something wrong with your interpretation. You persist in holding on to your interpretation. That is fine, but please understand why, in this case, I feel that there is no benefit in continuing to discuss. It is sufficient to say that I profoundly disagree with your hermeneutic approach in general and with your application in this instance. As such, we're not likely going to get very far in this discussion.

Thank you for sharing your opinions. God bless.

We have many ancient manuscripts that include Matt. 19:9, the verse in which the exception clause is found in our Bibles, and there is very much variation in the readings of these manuscripts at Matt. 19:9, demonstrating that this particular verse was copied incorrectly time and again with numerous mistakes being made by the scribes who copied it. Therefore, it is not at all unlikely that the exception clause was inserted into the text by mistake at a very early date by a scribe who believed that the teaching without it was excessively severe, perhaps because he misunderstood Matt. 5:32.

Today, the large majority of scholars of the synoptic gospels believe that the exception clause was not included in the teaching of Jesus. The more conservative of these scholars attribute the words to a scribal gloss; the more liberal scholars attribute the words to either a scribal gloss, a redaction of the words of Jesus in the oral tradition with which Matthew was familiar, or a redaction by Matthew himself. Whatever the case may be, the exception clause is sharply at variance with the teaching of Jesus as recorded by Mark, Luke, and Paul, as well as Matthew himself in 19:1-6; and even at variance with the basis of the teaching of Jesus on divorce and remarriage, that in marriage the man and his wife become one flesh until one of them dies.

Thank you for sharing your views with us. May God bless you also.

 

[98cwitr]

I think we all are trying to understand your interpretation deis-l, but I am failing to see how you can refute, or change the meaning of Matthew 19:9. What I am ultimately hearing from you is that you believe that the Bible is fallible.

 

[spiritwarrior37]

I have a question. Matt. speaks of the woman, and a man who marries a divorced woman committing adultry. What I haven't seen, which could be a possible oversight on my part, is if a divorced man marries a woman who has never been married, does he committ adultery? And does she as well for marrying a divorced man?

 

[DeaconDean]

I have a question. Matt. speaks of the woman, and a man who marries a divorced woman committing adultry. What I haven't seen, which could be a possible oversight on my part, is if a divorced man marries a woman who has never been married, does he committ adultery? And does she as well for marrying a divorced man?

Brother, I can't answer you right away.

I'm trying to figure out how a woman can fornicate inside or outside of marriage.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

I have a question. Matt. speaks of the woman, and a man who marries a divorced woman committing adultry. What I haven't seen, which could be a possible oversight on my part, is if a divorced man marries a woman who has never been married, does he committ adultery? And does she as well for marrying a divorced man?

Luke 16:1818. “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.”

Everyone (there are no exceptions) who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery. Whether the woman has been divorced or not is irrelevant.

Adultery is committed because the man and his first wife have become one flesh (Matt. 19:5; Mark 10:8), a bond that is broken only by the death of the spouse (Rom. 7:1-3).

Everyone (there are no exceptions) who marries a divorced person commits adultery.

Adultery is committed because the man and his first wife have become one flesh (Matt. 19:5; Mark 10:8), a bond that is broken only by the death of the spouse (Rom. 7:1-3).

 

[DeaconDean]

If the Torah had provisions for divorce:

"
Deuteronomy 24


1When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
2And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.
3And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;
4Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance."

Why then is it expressly forbidden in the NT?

That would make several passages of scripture a lie. (Spec. Mal. 3:6; Jas. 1:17)

God does change and God is variable.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

If the Torah had provisions for divorce:

"
Deuteronomy 24


1When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
2And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.
3And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;
4Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance."

Why then is it expressly forbidden in the NT?

That would make several passages of scripture a lie. (Spec. Mal. 3:6; Jas. 1:17)

God does change and God is variable.

God Bless

Till all are one.

In every instance in the gospels where Jesus introduces His teaching with the words, “I say to you,” He is introducing a teaching that goes beyond or modifies the teaching of the Old Testament, giving us a more strict teaching. We find over fifty examples in the Gospel According to Matthew alone. Here are some examples from the Beatitudes:

Matt. 5:22. “But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.
26. “Truly I say to you, you will not come out of there until you have paid up the last cent.
27. “You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY’
28. but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
29. “If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.
30. “If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell.
31. “It was said, ‘WHOEVER SENDS HIS WIFE AWAY, LET HIM GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE’;
32. but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
33. “Again, you have heard that the ancients were told, ‘YOU SHALL NOT MAKE FALSE VOWS, BUT SHALL FULFILL YOUR VOWS TO THE LORD.’
34. “But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God,
38. “You have heard that it was said, ‘AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.’
39. “But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.
40. “If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.
41. “Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two.
42. “Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.
43. “You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.’
44. But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,”

Christians have been blessed with the promise of the Father, the Holy Spirit, and consequently God demands much more of us than he did of the Jews.

Matt. 19:8. He *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.”

Ezek. 36:26. “Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh”

After the fall of man in the garden, God, because of the hardness of the heart of man, permitted divorce and remarriage and even polygamy. But for the Christian, with a new heart and a new spirit, God has reinstituted His teaching that,

Gen. 2:23. The man said, “This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.”
24. For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.

Matt. 19:4. And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,
5. and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’?
6. “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

(All quotation of Scripture are from the NASB, 1995)