Marriage, Divorce, & Remarriage

[SealedEternal]

SealedEternal, why don't you simply wait until you can bar those who violate this principle from entering the pearly gates? Your word will have more authority then.

I don't have that authority to bar anyone and don't desire to. Quite the opposite actually. I am presenting God's Word to people before the judgment while there is still time to repent and turn to Christ as Lord. I do it because I don't want them to be barred from the Kingdom of God:

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.


I Corinthians 6:9-10 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

SealedEternal

 

[HuntingMan]

I don't have that authority to bar anyone and don't desire to. Quite the opposite actually. I am presenting God's Word to people before the judgment while there is still time to repent and turn to Christ as Lord. I do it because I don't want them to be barred from the Kingdom of God:

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.


I Corinthians 6:9-10 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

SealedEternal

It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
(Mat 5:31-32 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)

Deuteronomy 24:1-4 cannot be about sexual sin.

 

[HuntingMan]

I am presenting God's Word to people

AS you have interpreted it.
The problem is that even MOST of the scholars who condemn remarriage while the former spouse lives do NOT agree with your interpretation of Deut 24:!-4.
Even these understand that Moses was regulating frivolous putting away of a spouse and mostly simply to marry another.
PRECISELY what Jesus came in to and PRECISELY why He was going around preaching about divorcing and marrying another.

before the judgment while there is still time to repent and turn to Christ as Lord. I do it because I don't want them to be barred from the Kingdom of God:

SealedEternal

I wouldnt worry yourself to death over that one

 

[angelmom01]

When they asked Him about "any cause divorce He said this:

Matthew 19:4-6 And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,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'?"So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."

Clearly Jesus was saying that divorce was never part of God's plan for marriage. Then the Pharisees asked why the Law of Moses commanded divorce, and He responded saying this:

Matthew 19:8-9 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."And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

Are you claiming that God didn't KNOW that man wouldsin? That God didn't have A PLAN OF REDEMPTION for those who WOULD sin?

Men are not perfect and just because God commanded them NOT to partake of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil didn't mean that he didn't KNOW that they would or that He didn't EXPECT them them to do so.

Likewise, just because God HATES divorce doesn't mean that he didn't know that men WOULD divorce their spouses (and for ANY cause, not just for the cause of fornication).

Jesus corrected themand stated that the Law of Moses permitted a type of divorce for premarital fornication in Deuteronomy 24, but from the beginning even that was not part of the intent of God. Then He condemns them saying that those who had divorced their wives for causes other than premarital fornication and subsequently remarried were now in adulterous affairs because they were still bound by Law to the original spouse that they divorced unlawfully.

Moses permitted DIVORCE for ANY CAUSE because of the hardness of their hearts.

Under the Old Covenant these Pharisees who had done so should have been stoned to death which was the penalty for adultery. This was a harsh condemnation by Jesus against the practice of divorce and remarriage. Unfortunately many "Christians" completely miss the point and try to use these very verses to divorce and remarry themselves, when that is what Jesus was condemning.

If the penalty for adultery is DEATH then there is no need for a divorce at all, is there? You are not looking at the whole picture here, IMHO.

You're not reading the passage carefully. Deuteronomy 24, which is the topic that Jesus and the Pharisees are discussing there, stated that a man could "divorce" his wife if "when he married her" she was discovered to have committed fornication. That means she had committed the sin some time prior, and now when he married her he realized that she had lied about her virginity. According to the Old Covenant Law the man could divorce her for this sin or essentially dissolve the marriage covenant he had made earlier.

You are reading that into the text; that is not what it says.

The Law of Moses never allowed divorce of fully married couples once the two came together, which is why Jesus said that everyone who divorced apart from fornication and then remarried was committing adultery.

Untrue. Moses allowed them to DIVORCE for ANY CAUSE because of the hardness of their hearts. The penalty for adultery was DEATH not DIVORCE. So any divorce that took place took place for reasons OTHER THAN adultery.

Therefore a type of "divorce" was recognized by God, but it was never the divorce of fully married people as we know it. This practice has been adultery under both covenants which was the point of Christ's condemnation against the Pharisees there.

Where do you get this "type" of divorce?

I think you missed the whole point of that conversation. He was condemning her as a sinner to encourage her to repent.

WHERE? He said she spoke CORRECTLY!! And it was by her testimony (of Him) that many believed.

He stated that she had five husbands who are not really her husband including her current lover.

That is NOT what was said. He acknowledged ALL FIVE of her HUSBANDS and acknowledged that the man that she was currently with was not her husband, as she so stated (because they were NOT MARRIED). Did that prevent him from offering her LIVING WATERS? Did he even tell her to go and kick her "lover" OUT of her home first (or after)? Did he even mention him at all after he acknowledged her truthful reply?

Both she and Jesus knew that she was doing wrong which was why Jesus brought it up. Jesus was telling her if she wants to drink of the living water she needs to repent of her sin and stop committing adultery. That is exactly what I am telling the adulterers of our day.

Where did he say that?

 

[HuntingMan]

Where do you get this "type" of divorce?

Ive seen this one only a couple times now.
They create a second 'divorce' to account for the inconsistencies in the overall doctrine so that it seems more palatable, but again, this leaves them having to REdefine terms and words ALREADY defined for us in Gods word.
Its just distraction from the facts, honestly.

 

[HuntingMan]

Ive seen this one only a couple times now.
They create a second 'divorce' to account for the inconsistencies in the overall doctrine so that it seems more palatable, but again, this leaves them having to REdefine terms and words ALREADY defined for us in Gods word.
Its just distraction from the facts, honestly.

Addtionally, in the past the one thing about sealedeternal that I could respect was that he didnt play this particular sort of game with words like this.
His basic error is the faulty understanding of Deut 24:1-4, but I could understand that GIVEN the details as he believes them, even tho they do not line up logically or with the facts, at least it was somewhat understandable how he was arriving at his conclusions.

But with this new twist of a PREmarital divorcement its easy to see that he HAS understood that there are some major problems with his doctrine and in trying to do anything to keep from having to re-evaluate his overall views, I believe, like others have, he simply is trying to alter the details just enough to keep some sort of believability in what he presents.

But anyone who spends more than an hour studying the matter will easily conclude that it is completely inconsistant with the actual facts and mindnumbingly illogical that Deut 24:1-4 be about sexual sins of the wife.

Deuteronomy 24:1-4 cannot be about sexual sin.

 

[LJSGM]

That is NOT what was said. He acknowledged ALL FIVE of her HUSBANDS and acknowledged that the man that she was currently with was not her husband, as she so stated (because they were NOT MARRIED). Did that prevent him from offering her LIVING WATERS? Did he even tell her to go and kick her "lover" OUT of her home first (or after)? Did he even mention him at all after he acknowledged her truthful reply?

It's an assumption that the man she was with that was not her husband, was her lover. She could have been taking up residence with this man for a while because she was kicked out of her home by her last husband for all we know. It could have been her brother for all we know. It's more "likely" that he was her "lover," but isn't factual, but an assumption. In fact, even though it is the culture today to live with a man before legal marriage, was it common in those days that no one would do or say anything about it? Even in Samaria? Could it be more likely that he was a relative? Just some thoughts.

 

[HuntingMan]

well, my WIFE Laura (or should I say 'adulterous affair' instead ) and I are going to the theater for a movie of some sort
See everyone in a couple hours

 

[LJSGM]

well, my WIFE Laura (or should I say 'adulterous affair' instead ) and I are going to the theater for a movie of some sort
See everyone in a couple hours

I don't believe remarriage is a blanket sin. Repent of it and God reconciles us. I don't believe that God wants to break up marriages (second or third marriages) that are already formed, and I know that he considers it an abomination to go back to your former spouse. But I do not condone anyone becoming divorced or remarried either. If we love the Lord, we will do what he commands and what his will is. This is what seperates us from the rest of the world in that we try to obey Him, and love Him and love others.

 

[SealedEternal]

Are you claiming that God didn't KNOW that man wouldsin? That God didn't have A PLAN OF REDEMPTION for those who WOULD sin?

No. No. I've never said either of those things.

Men are not perfect and just because God commanded them NOT to partake of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil didn't mean that he didn't KNOW that they would or that He didn't EXPECT them them to do so.

Likewise, just because God HATES divorce doesn't mean that he didn't know that men WOULD divorce their spouses (and for ANY cause, not just for the cause of fornication).

Partaking of the fruit got Adam and Eve thrown out of the garden. In the same way we are descendents of Adam inheriting his wicked rebellious hearts. The Gospel is that God sends His Spirit into our hearts to regenerate them and reconcile us back to Him. This means we are freed from our enslavement to sin and cleansed of all unrighteousness.

Moses permitted DIVORCE for ANY CAUSE because of the hardness of their hearts.

No, that's not what Jesus said. When the Pharisees asked about divorce for any cause, His answer was this:

Matthew 19:4-6 And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,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'?"So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."

Moses on the other hand permitted divorce for fornication as Jesus stated

Matthew 19:8-9 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."And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

Here's the Old Covenant Law He was referring to:

Deuteronomy 24:1 "When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house

Moses taught that a man could divorce his wife if she was sexually indecent "when he married her." This is referring to fornication which is what Jesus said:

Matthew 19:9"And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for (porneia)fornication, and marries another woman commits adultery."

If the penalty for adultery is DEATH then there is no need for a divorce at all, is there? You are not looking at the whole picture here, IMHO.

You are reading that into the text; that is not what it says.

I'm not the one advocating divorce here so I don't know what you're talking about. The Pharisees who Jesus was speaking to in this passage were divorcing their wives for all sorts of causes other than premarital fornication. That is why Jesus condemned them stating that doing so is to commit the sin of adultery, or in other words they were still bound to their original spouse who they illegally divorced and therefore their subsequent marriages were adulterous affairs. According to the Old Covenant Law adultery was punishable by death, so this point was a strong condemnation against them.

Untrue. Moses allowed them to DIVORCE for ANY CAUSE because of the hardness of their hearts.

That's untrue. Show me the Old Covenant Law that states that. There aren't any and neither Jesus nor the Pharisees claimed there was. You're not reading the passage carefully. Jesus answered the question about divorce for any cause saying this:

Matthew 19:4-6 And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,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'?"So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."

Jesus didn't say "Yes Moses did allow divorce for any cause." He said NO! He didn't agree that divorce was for any cause. He absolutely refuted their claim.

The penalty for adultery was DEATH not DIVORCE. So any divorce that took place took place for reasons OTHER THAN adultery.

Any legal divorce took place because a woman was found to have fornicated prior to the marriage when the man married her. All other divorces were illegal and therefore subsequent remarriages would actually be adulterous affairs.

Where do you get this "type" of divorce?

From the Law of Moses which is what Jesus and the Pharisees specifically said they were discussing there. You're ignoring the context.

WHERE? He said she spoke CORRECTLY!! And it was by her testimony (of Him) that many believed.

Yes, He said she spoke correctly about her latest relationship not being her husband because she was an adulterous woman who had divorced and remarried repeatedly.

That is NOT what was said. He acknowledged ALL FIVE of her HUSBANDS and acknowledged that the man that she was currently with was not her husband, as she so stated (because they were NOT MARRIED). Did that prevent him from offering her LIVING WATERS? Did he even tell her to go and kick her "lover" OUT of her home first (or after)? Did he even mention him at all after he acknowledged her truthful reply?

Where did he say that?

John 4:29 "Come, see a man who told me all the things that I have done; this is not the Christ, is it?"

He was convicting her of her sin. That's why He brought up the issue of her husband right after she asked for the living water. He was not telling her how nice it was that she had so many husbands, He was convicting her of her sin and need for a Savior.

SealedEternal

 

[SealedEternal]

I don't believe remarriage is a blanket sin. Repent of it and God reconciles us. I don't believe that God wants to break up marriages (second or third marriages) that are already formed, and I know that he considers it an abomination to go back to your former spouse.

He says they are not marriages at all. He calls them adultery which is the sin of having sexual relations with someone who is not your spouse while married.

Encarta® World English Dictionary
a·dul·ter·y [ə dúltəree] n. extramarital sex: voluntary sexual relations between a married person and somebody other than his or her spouse

Therefore here's what He's actually saying:

Luke 16:18"Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another is engaging in extramarital sex or voluntary sexual relations with somebody other than his spouse, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband has extramarital sex or voluntary sexual relations withsomebody elses spouse.


I don't understand why people have difficulty understanding what adultery means.

As far as going back to a former spouse, you are comparing apples and oranges. That was written in the context of legal divorces under the old covenant law which were for premarital fornication. That has nothing to do with forsaking what Jesus defines as an adulterous affair. He says one must do that in order to enter His Kingdom.


SealedEternal

 

[LJSGM]

He says they are not marriages at all. He calls them adultery which is the sin of having sexual relations with someone who is not your spouse while married.

Encarta® World English Dictionary
a·dul·ter·y [ə dúltəree] n. extramarital sex: voluntary sexual relations between a married person and somebody other than his or her spouse

Therefore here's what He's actually saying:

Luke 16:18"Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another is engaging in extramarital sex or voluntary sexual relations with somebody other than his spouse, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband has extramarital sex or voluntary sexual relations withsomebody elses spouse.


I don't understand why people have difficulty understanding what adultery means.

As far as going back to a former spouse, you are comparing apples and oranges. That was written in the context of legal divorces under the old covenant law which were for premarital fornication. That has nothing to do with forsaking what Jesus defines as an adulterous affair. He says one must do that in order to enter His Kingdom.


SealedEternal

You might be right in some respect, but what about those that who were divorced and remarried before they come to know christ? Does God then want to break up their marriage after they come to Christ? Even if they have ten children together?

 

[LJSGM]

Matthew 19

4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[b]? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

7"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"
8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
10The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry." 11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage[c]because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

Perhaps in these last words, he is saying that those that have already entered into another marriage, this word was not given to them, but to those that have not remarried.

I feel as if we're "straining out a gnat but swallowing a camel" here. What's important to God? Are children important? Is a good home for the children important? Perhaps this is why God hates divorce in the first place?

Malachi 2
10 Have we not all one Father [c] ? Did not one God create us? Why do we profane the covenant of our fathers by breaking faith with one another?

11 Judah has broken faith. A detestable thing has been committed in Israel and in Jerusalem: Judah has desecrated the sanctuary the LORD loves, by marrying the daughter of a foreign god. 12 As for the man who does this, whoever he may be, may the LORD cut him off from the tents of Jacob [d] —even though he brings offerings to the LORD Almighty.
13 Another thing you do: You flood the LORD's altar with tears. You weep and wail because he no longer pays attention to your offerings or accepts them with pleasure from your hands. 14 You ask, "Why?" It is because the LORD is acting as the witness between you and the wife of your youth, because you have broken faith with her, though she is your partner, the wife of your marriage covenant.
15 Has not the LORD made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his. And why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring. [e] So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth. 16 "I hate divorce," says the LORD God of Israel, "and I hate a man's covering himself [f] with violence as well as with his garment," says the LORD Almighty.
So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith.

 

[SealedEternal]

You might be right in some respect, but what about those that who were divorced and remarried before they come to know christ? Does God then want to break up their marriage after they come to Christ? Even if they have ten children together?

What you're asking is does God want them to stop committing adultery when coming to Him, and my answer would be yes. As I said previously you could give the exact same scenario with two homosexuals rather than adulterers and most people would have no problem understanding that the sinful relationship would need to be forsaken. Sometimes our sin has severe consequences and creates difficult situations, but that can't be used as an excuse to continue in sin.

SealedEternal

 

[LJSGM]

What you're asking is does God want them to stop committing adultery when coming to Him, and my answer would be yes. As I said previously you could give the exact same scenario with two homosexuals rather than adulterers and most people would have no problem understanding that the sinful relationship would need to be forsaken. Sometimes our sin has severe consequences and creates difficult situations, but that can't be used as an excuse to continue in sin.

SealedEternal

You are comparing homosexuality to marriage, but homosexual acts do not result in marriage, so they can not be compared.

John 4


Jesus said to her, "You are right when you say you have no husband. 18The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true."

Is he saying that she entered into marriage with five different men (why he said "husbands"), but now she has no husband, meaning they are no longer her husband, what can you make of this if the marriage bond can not be broken with adultery. I'm not saying that adultery is ok either though.

 

[4Christ2]

What are your thoughts on this commentary?

In both Matthew and Mark the Pharisees come to Jesus and test him by asking him whether it is lawful for a man to divorce his wife. They evidently have in mind the passage in Deuteronomy 24:1 which simply describes divorce as a fact rather than giving any legislation in favor of it. They wonder how Jesus will take a position with regard to this passage.
3.2 Jesus' answer is, "For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives" (Mt. 19: .
3.3 But then Jesus criticizes the Pharisees' failure to recognize in the books of Moses God's deepest and original intention for marriage. So he quotes two passages from Genesis. "God made them male and female. ...For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh" (Genesis 1:27; 2:24).
3.4 From these passages in Genesis Jesus concludes, "So they are no longer two, but one." And then he makes his climaxing statement, "What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder."
3.5 The implication is that Jesus rejects the Pharisees' use of Deuteronomy 24:1 and raises the standard of marriage for his disciples to God's original intention in creation. He says that none of us should try to undo the "one-flesh" relationship which God has united.
3.6 Before we jump to the conclusion that this absolute statement should be qualified in view of the exception clause ("except for unchastity") mentioned in Matthew 19:9, we should seriously entertain the possibility that the exception clause in Matthew 19:9 should be understood in the light of the absolute statement of Matthew 19:6, ("let no man put asunder") especially since the verses that follow this conversation with the Pharisees in Mark 10 do not contain any exception when they condemn remarriage.

 

[ShermanN]

Hello everyone,

I'm glad to see that the thread reopened after being closed for things getting a little out of hand.

SealedEternal,

You said in one of your last replys to me that you did not want to discuss individual scriptures because you've seen how I pervert them so badly, or something like that. I ask you to reconsider, because I don't like to just throw scripture back and forth at one another. The reality is that we understand scripture very differently. You and I read the same scripture and yet hear very different messages because of our personal contexts; biblical knowledge, personal experiences, traditions (those inherited and those developed personally), subconcious and conscious values and assumptions.

I appreciate your passion for truth and would really like to discuss things with you. But I'm very methodical and do not like to get into just throwing things back and forth, arguing.

In your last post concerning one of my few broad ranging (not topical) posts, you disagreed with almost every observation, interpretation, or point that I made; so we have a lot of things to discuss.

For example, I mentioned that in the Mark 10 passage, the words apoluo (put away) and gameo (marry) are both in the subjunctive mood. You correctly replied that the subjunctive mood is the mood of conditionality, if this, or this might happen if, etc. That is true as any Greek grammar will point out. But it is also true that when two verbs are used together in a scentence, one after the other, and they are both in the subjunctive mood, that it not only implies conditionality, but it can also imply purpose or intent - any Greek grammar or linquist can verify this. Thus, a viable interpretation of Mk. 10.11-12 is, "He (Jesus) said to them, 'Whoever divorces his wife in order to marry another commits adultery against her. And if a woman divorces her husband in order to marry another, she commits adultery.'" Of course, this is "assuming" that apoluo means divorce, though it could also mean "illegal seperation." I believe that apoluo means "divorce" in this passage because Mark was writing to a Gentile audience, who would not have understood the nuances of Jewish civil law, that divorce entailed both the "putting away" or expulsion of a wife, and the giving of a legal "bill of divorce". Mark's Roman audience would likely have not understood Jesus' words as quoted by Matthew without interpretation. Of course, when Paul quoted Jesus, he interpreted his words to apply to his Gentile audience. But whoa, let's not get off into that yet. My point was to simply explain why I believe Mk.10.11-12 is best interpreted the way it is in The Message and in other commentaries that note it as a viable translation. As you noted, of course if someone divorces his/her spouse in order to marry another, that's adultery; but you would prefer the traditional translation, or that you believe that's the only viable interpretation.

I'll have to say, I haven't read all of your posts, but skimmed several. If I understand you correctly though, you believe that Duet.24.1, where Moses legislates the bill of divorce, you believe that the bill of divorce could only be given in the case of a man taking a wife and finding that she was not a virgin. Is that correct? If so, how do you arrive at that conclusion? What biblical and extra-biblical evidence do you have to support that foundational belief? I've never heard that before and am really interested in your reasoning behind that vital interpretation. If it's correct, it effects how one understands what Jesus said. I'll gladly present what I believe concerning that scripture and why later (assuming that your evidence isn't so compelling that it changes my understanding of the passage). But first, I'd like to hear from you and prayerfully consider why you believe as you do.

Thanks,
Sherman

P.S. Please don't get off into arguing over Mk.10 passage. First, let me say that the traditional interpretation of that passage is a viable and possible translation. Second, the traditional translation is the translation that you believe most accurately conveys what Jesus meant.

 

[LJSGM]

What are your thoughts on this commentary?

In both Matthew and Mark the Pharisees come to Jesus and test him by asking him whether it is lawful for a man to divorce his wife. They evidently have in mind the passage in Deuteronomy 24:1 which simply describes divorce as a fact rather than giving any legislation in favor of it. They wonder how Jesus will take a position with regard to this passage.
3.2 Jesus' answer is, "For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives" (Mt. 19: .
3.3 But then Jesus criticizes the Pharisees' failure to recognize in the books of Moses God's deepest and original intention for marriage. So he quotes two passages from Genesis. "God made them male and female. ...For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh" (Genesis 1:27; 2:24).
3.4 From these passages in Genesis Jesus concludes, "So they are no longer two, but one." And then he makes his climaxing statement, "What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder."
3.5 The implication is that Jesus rejects the Pharisees' use of Deuteronomy 24:1 and raises the standard of marriage for his disciples to God's original intention in creation. He says that none of us should try to undo the "one-flesh" relationship which God has united.
3.6 Before we jump to the conclusion that this absolute statement should be qualified in view of the exception clause ("except for unchastity") mentioned in Matthew 19:9, we should seriously entertain the possibility that the exception clause in Matthew 19:9 should be understood in the light of the absolute statement of Matthew 19:6, ("let no man put asunder") especially since the verses that follow this conversation with the Pharisees in Mark 10 do not contain any exception when they condemn remarriage.

you know, I've looked up this work "fornication" and the strong's says "harlot" Now what does harlot mean??? I believe it means being sexually permiscuiss, or having sex without marriage. Could it be the theory that he was speaking of how a man found a woman to be on the night of their marriage? It seems that way to me. In Matthew, Joseph had to get a certificate of divorce even though they were only bethrothed, not married yet. I wonder

 

[HuntingMan]

He says they are not marriages at all. He calls them adultery which is the sin of having sexual relations with someone who is not your spouse while married.

Encarta® World English Dictionary
a·dul·ter·y [ə dúltəree] n. extramarital sex: voluntary sexual relations between a married person and somebody other than his or her spouse

Therefore here's what He's actually saying:

Luke 16:18"Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another is engaging in extramarital sex or voluntary sexual relations with somebody other than his spouse, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband has extramarital sex or voluntary sexual relations withsomebody elses spouse.


I don't understand why people have difficulty understanding what adultery means.

As far as going back to a former spouse, you are comparing apples and oranges. That was written in the context of legal divorces under the old covenant law which were for premarital fornication. That has nothing to do with forsaking what Jesus defines as an adulterous affair. He says one must do that in order to enter His Kingdom.


SealedEternal

And what WE dont understand is your apparently lack of comprehending "EXCEPT for fornication" whereby ADULTERY is NOT committed to begin with

Not to mention that:

-Jesus made NO comment about this adultery being 'ongoing'

-Deut 24:1-4 CANNOT be about sexual sins as it MUST in order for your views to work

-There WERE remarried believers IN fellowship IN the church in Pauls lifetime

-Marrrige is a CONDITIONAL covenant

I really dont understand why people have such a hard time understanding those

 

[HuntingMan]

What you're asking is does God want them to stop committing adultery when coming to Him, and my answer would be yes. As I said previously you could give the exact same scenario with two homosexuals rather than adulterers and most people would have no problem understanding that the sinful relationship would need to be forsaken. Sometimes our sin has severe consequences and creates difficult situations, but that can't be used as an excuse to continue in sin.

SealedEternal

The incessant repetition is absolutely staggering

Gay ‘unions’ are incomparable to remarriages