"except" for fornication - a Matthew 19:9 revisit

Carl Emerson · Jul 31, 2020

PeterDona said:
Yeah, that is more a question about the Bible verse of 1 Cor 7:15, which I can see that William Heth touched upon. I feel that that verse contains a very different set of issues, and maybe we can start another thread on it if you desire?

Personally I feel the two issues are deeply linked, your conclusions are judging me as an adulterer. That is a very serious position to take.

PeterDona · Jul 31, 2020

Carl Emerson said:
Personally I feel the two issues are deeply linked, your conclusions are judging me as an adulterer. That is a very serious position to take.

I am not well studied in 1 Cor 7:15. I used to think it was not about freedom to remarry, but the RCC treats it as such, since John Chrysostom interpreted it like that in the 4th century. The RCC considers baptism the mark of distinction between a believer and an unbeliever. If a person is baptized he is a believer.

It must be seen that Paul was here dealing with the problem of people converting to christianity, and a spouse deciding that they did not marry a christian in the first place, and that they do not want to continue in that marriage.

I can hardly think of anyone today having such a situation. Honestly. I think personally, that the present day application has almost nothing to do with such a situation. When is the last time you heard about someone divorcing a person for the specific reason that she was a believer?

But then again, I am not well studied in this passage.

Kilk1 · Jul 31, 2020

PeterDona said:
It is my belief, that the whole passage of Matthew 19:3-12 is constructed as a discussion of the much debated passage of Deuteronomy 24:1-4. I believe that the wording “except” in Matthew 19:9 is a mistranslation since the original greek says “mey epi inappropriate contenteia”, which translates as “not over inappropriate contenteia”. In my understanding, there were 2 kinds of validation for divorce in rabbinic teaching, (1) the sexual ones, which required a death penalty on the incontinent spouse, and (2) the non-sexual ones, using Deuteronomy 24:1-4 for their blueprint.

So when Jesus says “not over fornication” in Matthew 19:9, he is not suddenly introducing an “exception” into the debate, he is simply referring to Deuteronomy 24:1-4 using different language. So in effect he says, whosoever divorces his wife using arguments based on Deuteronomy 24:1-4, and marries another, is committing adultery. This means that the first marriage has NOT been ended by the divorce paper, and the man is still married to his first wife. Also, his cohabiting with the new woman is an act of adultery, an ongoing act for that.

So to reiterate my main point: “not over fornication” is simply a technical term to distinguish different kinds of divorce. It does not introduce an exception.

If you take out the "he is not suddenly introducing an 'exception' into the debate" part of your post, I agree with everything. As for that part, I think I need clarification on your application: Since He specifies that the non-sexual divorces of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 lead to adultery when one marries a second wife, wouldn't He be implying that the sexual ones are excepted? Otherwise, why specify "not over inappropriate contenteia"?

SANTOSO · Jul 31, 2020

Carl Emerson said:
This is the point at which theology does not always serve us well...

The hub of truth is the Resurrection of Jesus and hence the Father heart of God.

It is so easy to be to taken up by technical issues of language and principle and Law that the reality of the Love of of Jesus and His Father's Heart gets lost.

We saw this when He wrote on the sand.

He so wonderfully led me to a second wife after 10 years of singleness since I was divorced against my will by an unbeliever.

My new marriage of 35 years and 5 children bares testimony of His great love and faithful fruitfulness.

What theology demands is not always His Living Word - this is obvious given that what passes for good theology has driven believers to hideous crimes of hatred against brothers and sisters down through history.

This continues to this day - some demand that I am in adultery and refuse fellowship.

Forgive them Lord, for they know not what they do...

It is true that some know not what they do.
I was also given to light about this when a brethren in Christ share about this:

But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace. -1 Corinthians 7:15

Thank you for opening your heart.

I understand that Jesus Christ have given His steadfast love for you when He writes on the sand.

He does not condemn you, neither do I .
Yes, He has called you to peace.

I came to know from the story of Mary Magdalena that she is one of the persons who love Jesus much.
For her repentance is a source of great love for Jesus.

May your love toward Jesus grow much !
We are called to one in Christ.
The only thing matter is faith expressing itself through love.

Your forgiveness toward others is exemplary !

Lord Jesus, continue Your steadfast love and strength to Carl Emerson and his family;
For He put his trust in You.
Thank you, Lord for You who have given him an upright heart.
Amen

GBU, Carl.

PeterDona · Aug 1, 2020

Kilk1 said:
If you take out the "he is not suddenly introducing an 'exception' into the debate" part of your post, I agree with everything. As for that part, I think I need clarification on your application: Since He specifies that the non-sexual divorces of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 lead to adultery when one marries a second wife, wouldn't He be implying that the sexual ones are excepted? Otherwise, why specify "not over inappropriate contenteia"?

As I stated, I believe that there were 2 categories of ways to get out of marriage in rabbinic teaching
- the non-sexual ones, using deut 24:1-4 (a matter of nakedness - which was extended to become almost any matter, hence the wording in matthew 19:3)
- the sexual ones, using deut 22:13-21 (the woman not being a virgin) and leviticus 20:10 (adultery)

And it is my observation, that in Matthew 19:8-9 Jesus is answering a specific question regarding the Deuteronomy 24:1-4 passage. Therefore the categorization "not over fornication" is completely appropriate.

I would encourage you to be aware of the structure of the whole passage
It is question-answer, question-answer, question-answer
in 19:3-6 Jesus goes back to the genesis account for his doctrine on marriage
in 19:7-9 Jesus answers a specific question on the Deuteronomy 24:1-4 passage
in 19:10-12 Jesus lays out principles of how to live, given that marriage is unbreakable

dqhall · Aug 1, 2020

PeterDona said:
It is my belief, that the whole passage of Matthew 19:3-12 is constructed as a discussion of the much debated passage of Deuteronomy 24:1-4. I believe that the wording “except” in Matthew 19:9 is a mistranslation since the original greek says “mey epi inappropriate contenteia”, which translates as “not over inappropriate contenteia”. In my understanding, there were 2 kinds of validation for divorce in rabbinic teaching, (1) the sexual ones, which required a death penalty on the incontinent spouse, and (2) the non-sexual ones, using Deuteronomy 24:1-4 for their blueprint.

So when Jesus says “not over fornication” in Matthew 19:9, he is not suddenly introducing an “exception” into the debate, he is simply referring to Deuteronomy 24:1-4 using different language. So in effect he says, whosoever divorces his wife using arguments based on Deuteronomy 24:1-4, and marries another, is committing adultery. This means that the first marriage has NOT been ended by the divorce paper, and the man is still married to his first wife. Also, his cohabiting with the new woman is an act of adultery, an ongoing act for that.

So to reiterate my main point: “not over fornication” is simply a technical term to distinguish different kinds of divorce. It does not introduce an exception.

In reality they may divorce for other unfaithful behavior such as alcoholism, addiction, gambling, theft, assault and battery, etc. It happens all the time.

If a couple is in love, they will not do so much damage to each other. Love thinks of others and not only oneself.

I did online dating and wrote to a woman. I got her phone number and called her. She told me her husband was in prison for having child inappropriate content on his computer. She had a life insurance policy on him. He had a medical condition that would not receive special treatment in prison and she thought he might die in prison. She wanted a boyfriend in the mean time. I told her I was not interested.

PeterDona · Aug 1, 2020

dqhall said:
In reality they may divorce for other unfaithful behavior such as alcoholism, addiction, gambling, theft, assault and battery, etc. It happens all the time.

In reality yes, people do many things, but I am thinking about how to stay within the confines of what Jesus taught, to "stay in His teaching". I find that Jesus' teaching was radically family oriented, and I believe that the reason was, that family was created to show who God is. In the verses of Genesis 1:26-28, try reading "husband and wife" instead of "male and female", and there you have it, family in the image of God.

Genesis 1:26-28
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

A_Thinker · Aug 1, 2020

PeterDona said:
In order to see what Jesus would say to those adultery divorces, you should then go into the account of Mark 10, where the "exception" is simply not there, meaning, the same ruling applies to adultery divorces, which also are not valid.

Matthew and Mark record the same discussion.

Mark leaves out the exception.

Matthew (one of the twelve) was present for the discussion.

Mark (a follower of Peter) ... was not present and recorded Peter's testimony on the discussion. Mark is the shortest (and is thought to be the first) gospel ... and his gospel is presumed to have served as a framework ... to which Matthew and Luke added detail which was left out ...

A_Thinker · Aug 1, 2020

Carl Emerson said:
He so wonderfully led me to a second wife after 10 years of singleness since I was divorced against my will by an unbeliever.

My new marriage of 35 years and 5 children bares testimony of His great love and faithful fruitfulness.

An example of the God's graciousness ...

Carl Emerson said:
This continues to this day - some demand that I am in adultery and refuse fellowship.

Sounds like Pharisees ...

A_Thinker · Aug 1, 2020

PeterDona said:
I find that Jesus' teaching was radically family oriented, and I believe that the reason was, that family was created to show who God is.

How odd then that He didn't marry ...

dqhall · Aug 1, 2020

PeterDona said:
In reality yes, people do many things, but I am thinking about how to stay within the confines of what Jesus taught, to "stay in His teaching". I find that Jesus' teaching was radically family oriented, and I believe that the reason was, that family was created to show who God is. In the verses of Genesis 1:26-28, try reading "husband and wife" instead of "male and female", and there you have it, family in the image of God.

Genesis 1:26-28
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

The two who marry should stay together. Children need support. People should not be desperate to marry, for this might lead to choosing an unstable and immoral mate.

Jesus was single, nor did he withhold his friendship from women. He liked Mary Magdalene who he healed. He liked Martha and Mary; the sisters of Lazarus who he raised from the dead.

Paul was celibate. He was able to take risks some married people would refuse.

The world population is growing faster than the fish population in the sea.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/...29_L5N11M1UO_RTRMADT_0_ENVIRONMENT-OCEANS.XML

nolidad · Aug 1, 2020

PeterDona said:
It is my belief, that the whole passage of Matthew 19:3-12 is constructed as a discussion of the much debated passage of Deuteronomy 24:1-4. I believe that the wording “except” in Matthew 19:9 is a mistranslation since the original greek says “mey epi inappropriate contenteia”, which translates as “not over inappropriate contenteia”. In my understanding, there were 2 kinds of validation for divorce in rabbinic teaching, (1) the sexual ones, which required a death penalty on the incontinent spouse, and (2) the non-sexual ones, using Deuteronomy 24:1-4 for their blueprint.

So when Jesus says “not over fornication” in Matthew 19:9, he is not suddenly introducing an “exception” into the debate, he is simply referring to Deuteronomy 24:1-4 using different language. So in effect he says, whosoever divorces his wife using arguments based on Deuteronomy 24:1-4, and marries another, is committing adultery. This means that the first marriage has NOT been ended by the divorce paper, and the man is still married to his first wife. Also, his cohabiting with the new woman is an act of adultery, an ongoing act for that.

So to reiterate my main point: “not over fornication” is simply a technical term to distinguish different kinds of divorce. It does not introduce an exception.

Hi Peter dona. Actually what jesus was introducing was a cancellation for divorce and remarriage except for illicit sex! When you cited the Greek you left out a very important conditional preposition.

εἰ μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ This is translated as "if it not be for fornication" (inappropriate contenteia). what Jesus is saying here is that divorce and remarriage for every other cause except illicit sex causes adultery!

dqhall · Aug 1, 2020

nolidad said:
Hi Peter dona. Actually what jesus was introducing was a cancellation for divorce and remarriage except for illicit sex! When you cited the Greek you left out a very important conditional preposition.

εἰ μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ This is translated as "if it not be for fornication" (inappropriate contenteia). what Jesus is saying here is that divorce and remarriage for every other cause except illicit sex causes adultery!

If a man becomes abusive and strikes his wife repeatedly and states he is going to kill her, is the sin of her committing adultery by divorcing him less severe than the sin of him murdering her because she stayed?

Carl Emerson · Aug 1, 2020

dqhall said:
If a man becomes abusive and strikes his wife repeatedly and states he is going to kill her, is the sin of her committing adultery by divorcing him less severe than the sin of him murdering her because she stayed?

How about neither...

nolidad · Aug 1, 2020

dqhall said:
If a man becomes abusive and strikes his wife repeatedly and states he is going to kill her, is the sin of her committing adultery by divorcing him less severe than the sin of him murdering her because she stayed?

Both are sin! This is not saying she cannot leave an abusive husband. She should! First there should be every attempt to reconcile the marriage. If this cannot happen and they divorce, she is not free to marry again ! Unless the husband, dies, or commits adultery.

But we need to remember we are talking about believers here! Unbelievers are not known by God and they are dead in their trespasses. Adding sin unto sin, doesn't make them more lost.

PeterDona · Aug 1, 2020

A_Thinker said:
Matthew and Mark record the same discussion.

Mark leaves out the exception.

Matthew (one of the twelve) was present for the discussion.

Mark (a follower of Peter) ... was not present and recorded Peter's testimony on the discussion. Mark is the shortest (and is thought to be the first) gospel ... and his gospel is presumed to have served as a framework ... to which Matthew and Luke added detail which was left out ...

It can become a long discussion which gospel was the first. I will only say, that church tradition has it that Matthew was the first and originally was in hebrew. For the last hundred years many have accepted the hypothesis that Mark or some "Q" was first. But that goes with your scientific preference not with written history.

It would make sense that Matthew was the first, since he was the only among the disciples who could write. Make came later, although I believe that the guy fleeing naked in Mark 14:51-52 is a self-portrait.

It would also make sense, that Mark was a redacted version of the gospel, more useful when the other nations who knew not the hebrew history started coming into the church.

But those are my reasons for thinking otherwise.

PeterDona · Aug 1, 2020

nolidad said:
Hi Peter dona. Actually what jesus was introducing was a cancellation for divorce and remarriage except for illicit sex! When you cited the Greek you left out a very important conditional preposition.

εἰ μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ This is translated as "if it not be for fornication" (inappropriate contenteia). what Jesus is saying here is that divorce and remarriage for every other cause except illicit sex causes adultery!

Very scholarly of you

but you must know, that the "ei" in that sentence is a personal addition of Erasmus to the Textus Receptus. In none of the 6 greek manuscripts that he had on his table was there an "ei".

This is the whole basis for this thread. The speculation about and solution to, what means the phrase "not over fornication".

Here are 2 resources on the Erasmus addition:
Except for Fornication Clause of Matthew 19:9
https://lmf12.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/critique_of_david_pawson.pdf (only page 1 is relevant)

dqhall · Aug 1, 2020

Carl Emerson said:
How about neither...

I avoid local news much of the time, too much crime scene reporting.

Carl Emerson · Aug 1, 2020

dqhall said:
I avoid local news much of the time, too much crime scene reporting.

?

As nolidad said - both are sin...

dqhall · Aug 1, 2020

Carl Emerson said:
?

As nolidad said - both are sin...

I have been reading the Talmud Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin were judges who tried people for crimes. Caiaphas was described as a chief priest. Elsewhere he was described as presiding over the Sanhedrin. Jesus was accused of blasphemy, a crime punishable be death. They used false witnesses against him. In the NIV version Jesus was tried by the Sanhedrin.

Adultery, incest, inappropriate behavior with animals and homosexuality were punishable by death. They used to cast people down from high places then stoned them where they landed, if they were not dead already.

It is better for spouses love each other. It is better for people do not kill each other.

"except" for fornication - a Matthew 19:9 revisit

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads