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

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,576
6,063
EST
✟992,249.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Matthew 16:4
4 A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but [
ει μη] ]the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.
Matthew 11:27
27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save [
ει μη] the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.
Matthew 12:24
24 But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but [
ει μη] by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.
John 3:13
13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but [
ει μη] he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
Romans 7:7
7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except [
ει μη] the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
Galatians 1:19
19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save [
ει μη] James the Lord's brother.
Matthew 5:13
13 Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but [
ει μη] to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.
Mark 6:5
5 And he could there do no mighty work, save [
ει μη] that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them.
Acts 21:25
25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save [
ει μη] only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.
1 Corinthians 7:17
17 But [
ει μη] as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches.
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,576
6,063
EST
✟992,249.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Again the question of relevance in communication. You have posted this "the greek speaking people must be the authority" I think at least 3 times now, and I think it is such a loose argument that I did not bother to answer it. Sorry, that may sound arrogant, but with a lot already going on in the thread, one has to pick his focus.
I suggest that YOU read the 200 page preface, link to it, and then explain exactly what is in there that you find relevant for our conversation / discussion. That way we will all be better edified.
All the best wishes
I have posted my evidence. If you wish to be edified read my source. As I said Greek was and for 2000+ has been the language of the Eastern Greek Orthodox church. I consider the native Greek speaking scholars who translated the EOB to be the best qualified to translate Greek. All the other scholars I have seen quoted learned Greek as a second language. I don't recall you quoting any sources. If you wish to disprove my post you have the link, have at it.
 
Upvote 0

Eloy Craft

Myth only points, Truth happened!
Supporter
Jan 9, 2018
3,132
871
Chandler
✟386,808.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Yes but what options are left for the believer when this is refused - and the unbeliever cohabits with another partner and files for divorce?
If it can be ddetermined whether or not the matrimonial bond formed, if it did then the marriage is valid and not inappropriate contentea. The faithful party in that case has a challenging Christian witness to commit to.
 
Upvote 0

Carl Emerson

Well-Known Member
Dec 18, 2017
14,667
9,977
78
Auckland
✟376,644.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If it can be ddetermined whether or not the matrimonial bond formed, if it did then the marriage is valid and not inappropriate contentea. The faithful party in that case has a challenging Christian witness to commit to.

Please explain what you are saying in a little more detail - thanks.
 
Upvote 0

nolidad

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 2, 2006
6,762
1,269
69
onj this planet
✟221,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Well there you have it in one sentence of yours. We want this to make sense, and we need to add a word to the text to do so! I think, with all intellectual honesty, you can see how that will not work.

Well it makes it more grammatically smoother, but you can translate it just as written,

9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, not over fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

That is the transliteral translation of mey epi inappropriate contentaea. Writng it as except for fornication is the same meaning, just in smoother English and writing it as a positive instead of negative.

If you wish to remove sexual sin as grounds for divorce and remarriage then Jesus would have had to say in this part of this passage (not even for for fornication) which is written far different. Sorry but that is just the way it is.

Here is what Jesus would have said in Greek "oúte kan gia inappropriate contentaea" if he meant not even for teh cause of adultery! What he did say was a carve out for immorality!
 
Upvote 0

PeterDona

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 13, 2010
742
181
Denmark
✟348,585.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
If you wish to remove sexual sin as grounds for divorce and remarriage
There is, as I have mentioned an exception in the Law of Moses, namely for sex before marriage - Deuteronomy 22:13-21 - which is actually inappropriate contenteia. However that required the death penalty. So there you have your "exception" if you want to categorize it as an exception.

So how are we to deal with those cases of sexual sin, which required death penalty under the law. I believe we can take the gospel of Mark as authoritative on that. Written under the direction of Peter, an adaptation of the gospel of Matthew for the gentile believers, what do we find? No exception, so basically the ruling is, that now there is no exception. Not hard to understand.

A further point. You must take into account that the gospel of Matthew was written for jeiwish believers. And therefore you must know if matters mentioned in that gospel apply to you. I will, to underscore this point, make one quote from the gospel of Matthew, and then you can consider for yourself if this also applies to you:

Matthew 23:1-3
Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do

Remember, you are a disciple of Jesus right? So will you follow this command of Jesus?
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
First, I think it's clear that the reason for prohibiting remarriage is because the original divorce is invalid. If the divorce is invalid, you're still married to the first person, and sex with a second person is adultery. It makes no sense to say that remarriage is adultery after a divorce that is valid.

As to when divorce is valid. It seems likely that Mark reports what Jesus said. But Jesus generally doesn't take a legalistic position. He is willing to make exceptions when it is for people's good. Matthew adds one exception, Paul a different one. They are perfectly valid. That understands Matthew's exception as a parenthetical comment, as several translations show, and not as part of the actual quote. There's no reason to think that there can't be others.

Jesus was responding in a situation where one major Jewish opinion was that a husband could divorce his wife if she burned his soup. Thus he emphasized the principle that marriage is permanent. But just as the sabbath is made for mankind, so is marriage, and where a marriage has become harmful, or one partner abandons it, there no reason to think Jesus would take a legalistic position.
 
Upvote 0

Carl Emerson

Well-Known Member
Dec 18, 2017
14,667
9,977
78
Auckland
✟376,644.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Matthew 23:1-3
Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do

Remember, you are a disciple of Jesus right? So will you follow this command of Jesus?

Not so fast...

They forbade healing on the Sabbath - Jesus did not comply with their requirement to respect the Sabbath in this way.
 
Upvote 0

PeterDona

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 13, 2010
742
181
Denmark
✟348,585.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
Matthew adds one exception,
"so says my tradition"
or how do you know? Did you read what this thread is all about? That the "exception" in Matthew 19:9 s really not an exception.
And how do you account for the fact that the tradition of the Catholic Church is different than your tradition. Do you believe you know better? Do you think the Church Fathers did not know the Scripture?
 
Upvote 0

nolidad

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 2, 2006
6,762
1,269
69
onj this planet
✟221,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
There is, as I have mentioned an exception in the Law of Moses, namely for sex before marriage - Deuteronomy 22:13-21 - which is actually inappropriate contenteia. However that required the death penalty. So there you have your "exception" if you want to categorize it as an exception.

So how are we to deal with those cases of sexual sin, which required death penalty under the law. I believe we can take the gospel of Mark as authoritative on that. Written under the direction of Peter, an adaptation of the gospel of Matthew for the gentile believers, what do we find? No exception, so basically the ruling is, that now there is no exception. Not hard to understand.

A further point. You must take into account that the gospel of Matthew was written for jeiwish believers. And therefore you must know if matters mentioned in that gospel apply to you. I will, to underscore this point, make one quote from the gospel of Matthew, and then you can consider for yourself if this also applies to you:

Matthew 23:1-3
Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do

Remember, you are a disciple of Jesus right? So will you follow this command of Jesus?

So are you saying that the Church can remarry after divorce for any circumstance then?

the synoptics are divided into two parts, the birth and presentation ot Israel of Jesus as their Messiah, then after Israel (through their leadership) rejected Jesus and accused Him of demon possession, He goes into preparing the apostles to begin the mystery form of the kingdom --the church!

So no I do not do what the Rabbis tell me to do, but as Matt. 19 was after jesus withdrew the offer of teh Kingdom after proving beyond doubt He was Messiah- it is a binding.

I care not what OT exception there was, which by the way made the offended a widow and thus free to remarry). What matters is what Jesus said in Matthew 19. If He wasn't making an exclusionary clause to permit remarriage after unfaithfulness- Jesus < being God and the author of language, would have simply said:

9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Then I would agree 100% with you! But because he made that clause in between commas "except it be for fornication" or more transliterally "not for fornication" . Immorality is singled out as a cause for remarriage after divorce!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Carl Emerson

Well-Known Member
Dec 18, 2017
14,667
9,977
78
Auckland
✟376,644.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This seems pretty clear also from 1 Cor 7.

Baring in mind that Paul is addressing these issues due to the circumstances of persecution that prevailed. V 26

V 15 states a believer is no longer bound, but released, when an unbeliever leaves a marriage for any reason.

V 17 states that Paul expects individual believers will be led in these matters according to God's assignment. This is important because Paul recognizes that the right course of action is not a 'one size fits all' directive, but rather an individual matter between the believer and God.

V 27 Clearly gives advice to those released from a wife and his best advice because of the prevailing persecution is to stay single.

V 28 However again this is not a binding directive as he goes on to say but if you should marry you have not sinned !!! But because of persecution it will likely not be easy.

I dont claim to have the technical background other posters seem to have but from the viewpoint of accepting scripture at 'face value' Paul is wonderfully understanding and leaves room for folks to make choices before God without condemnation which is a far cry from the legalistic demands of many posters on this topic.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Eloy Craft

Myth only points, Truth happened!
Supporter
Jan 9, 2018
3,132
871
Chandler
✟386,808.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Please explain what you are saying in a little more detail - thanks.


Sure, thanks for asking. Human bonds form within particular environments. Combat provides an environment that very powerful and unique bonds form. Members of societies form bonds and nations and religions etc. The maternal environment or it's possibility is necessary for the matrimonial bond to form. Vows of permanence and commitment to the maternal environment are necessary because the souls of human children are immortal.. The vows and commitment force behaviours governed by intellect by the parents. The vows and commitment introduce a characteristic of obedience of the spirit over the flesh. A maternal environment fitting for human children to be raised.`That is in a nutshell the environment necessary for the matrimonial bond to form.The spouses must have the mental capacity to understand offer and receive their vows and have the ability to live up to them. If the union of man and woman lack the vows and commitments of permanence to a maternal environment or it's possibility it is impossible for a marital bond to form. I would say that those couples have not entered the state of matrimony and no marital bond formed. Those imo are the cases of inappropriate contenteia Jesus mentioned. Ifr it's not inappropriate contenteia then the bond is permanent. Remarriage would be adultery. I hope that is what you meant or if what I wrote raised other questions I would be glad to answer them the best I can.
 
Upvote 0

PeterDona

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 13, 2010
742
181
Denmark
✟348,585.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
Then I would agree 100% with you! But because he made that clause in between commas "except it be for fornication" or more transliterally "not for fornication" . Immorality is singled out as a cause for remarriage after divorce!
You have it 180 degrees reverse of what is intended with the "not over fornication". The point of the text is, "whosoever divorces his wife quoting a non-fornication issue, and marries another commits adultery".

If you are in doubt, just read the rendering of Peter/Mark in the gospel of Mark 10. No exception. Not difficult. Unless of course you want to believe something else.

I think what is the problem here, is that (1) protestantism have discarded the teaching authority of the Catholic Church (2) now every protestant will pick any verse they want, and interpret it any way they want.
 
Upvote 0

nolidad

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 2, 2006
6,762
1,269
69
onj this planet
✟221,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
You have it 180 degrees reverse of what is intended with the "not over fornication". The point of the text is, "whosoever divorces his wife quoting a non-fornication issue, and marries another commits adultery".

If you are in doubt, just read the rendering of Peter/Mark in the gospel of Mark 10. No exception. Not difficult. Unless of course you want to believe something else.

I think what is the problem here, is that (1) protestantism have discarded the teaching authority of the Catholic Church (2) now every protestant will pick any verse they want, and interpret it any way they want.

So because MAtthew , as I have shown you > does not agree with you, you cite Mark which excludes the exception?

Are you implying Mrk is more inspired than Matthew? or that Matthew is in error? UNderstanding proper hermeneutics shows you that teh synoptics while similar were inspired to different mindsets, and that only ba takin all three together does one get a full picture ofa n event or scenarion. The most classic example is the Olivet Discourse.

As for the teaching authority of the Catholic church, that depends on how do define that! If it defined as the prevatican 2 way- Yes I totally reject that authority!

Thie church still has in its laws and canons legion of volumes the fact they say only the roman Catholic church through her bishops has the authority to interpret Scripture! So if you are not a Bishop- all your writing is not representative of them and you are now protesting!

BTW I am not a protester. Iwas asked to leave or face a Dominican tribunal for heresy!
 
Upvote 0

PeterDona

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 13, 2010
742
181
Denmark
✟348,585.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
So because MAtthew , as I have shown you > does not agree with you, you cite Mark which excludes the exception?
If you feel you have shown me something, then I might have not observed it or I just did not find your arguments convincing.
The argument of translators having better authority or what, I think that is a weak argument, if they can not be shown to have directly dealt with the question of the meaning of "not over fornication" in Matthew 19:9, which has been the issue at stake in this thread. You would be most welcome to come back if you should find information on their dealings with this very specific issue.

BTW I am not a protester. Iwas asked to leave or face a Dominican tribunal for heresy!
I am not well versed enough in the catholic church yet to know what that implies, and a google search took me to the Dominican reṕublic :)
I am new to the RCC since 15 months. I am very strict in my beliefs on marriage, probably would be right wing in RCC if the church had wings.

I might get back with another thread on the Bible verses on marriage maybe within a year or two, depends on my smaller daily motivations.

God bless to all who were in on the conversation.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Carl Emerson

Well-Known Member
Dec 18, 2017
14,667
9,977
78
Auckland
✟376,644.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If you feel you have shown me something, then I might have not observed it or I just did not find your arguments convincing.
The argument of translators having better authority or what, I think that is a weak argument, if they can not be shown to have directly dealt with the question of the meaning of "not over fornication" in Matthew 19:9, which has been the issue at stake in this thread. You would be most welcome to come back if you should find information on their dealings with this very specific issue.


I am not well versed enough in the catholic church yet to know what that implies, and a google search took me to the Dominican reṕublic :)
I am new to the RCC since 15 months. I am very strict in my beliefs on marriage, probably would be right wing in RCC if the church had wings.

I might get back with another thread on the Bible verses on marriage maybe within a year or two, depends on my smaller daily motivations.

God bless to all who were in on the conversation.

Peter before you go could you comment on my post #91 if you have time...
 
Upvote 0

PeterDona

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 13, 2010
742
181
Denmark
✟348,585.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
This seems pretty clear also from 1 Cor 7.

Baring in mind that Paul is addressing these issues due to the circumstances of persecution that prevailed. V 26

V 15 states a believer is no longer bound, but released, when an unbeliever leaves a marriage for any reason.

V 17 states that Paul expects individual believers will be led in these matters according to God's assignment. This is important because Paul recognizes that the right course of action is not a 'one size fits all' directive, but rather an individual matter between the believer and God.

V 27 Clearly gives advice to those released from a wife and his best advice because of the prevailing persecution is to stay single.

V 28 However again this is not a binding directive as he goes on to say but if you should marry you have not sinned !!! But because of persecution it will likely not be easy.

I dont claim to have the technical background other posters seem to have but from the viewpoint of accepting scripture at 'face value' Paul is wonderfully understanding and leaves room for folks to make choices before God without condemnation which is a far cry from the legalistic demands of many posters on this topic.
Yes Carl, I will make a comment on your observations, although I will admit that I do not feel I understand this passage in the depth yet, which I would want to. Especially I do not understand how an appeal to peace in v 7:15 could supersede the appeal to "what God has joined together". And also I am not sure I understand the digression into a talk about slaves conditions in 7:17-24.

That being said,
on 7:26 there is an appeal to a present distress. This seems to be mentioned only in the context of the subtopic of virgins (7:25) which is the rest of the chapter. Virgins would be people never married, and so there is a discussion what virgins must do if espoused (v27-28) and what parents to virgins should consider (v36-38).
on 7:27-28, I reiterate that I see this in the context of "virgins". There also seems to be a slightly different wording, using "luo" (loose) rather than "apoluo" (divorce), however the "bound" is the standard word "deo" used normally for binding as in marriage.
The most commentators I have heard believe that this is in reference to the practice of espousal, which was very binding in jewish society (you could only get away if the woman had committed inappropriate contenteia), but seems to be not equally binding in a gentile context. Anyway, maybe a bit surprising, Paul opens here the possibility of loosening an espousal, and that people would still be free to pursue marriage when freed from an espousal.

7:15 is the most hotly debated verse in this chapter. The debate centers around whether the believer married to an unwilling unbeliever is "not bound" or "not under bondage". If "not bound", that would clearly imply that the believer is free to take the divorce and find a new partner. If "not under bondage", that would imply that the believer does not have to fulfil the slavery of her marital obligations but can remain alone.
So what should I say? The word is "dedoulotai" which is a past tense of the word "douloo", which means "to enslave". This is not the same word as "deo" which means "to bind".
However, some have pointed out that the 2 words are closely related, "douloo" being simply a stronger form of "deo".
For the first 400 years the Church Fathers were unison on the permanence of the marital bond, holding the one flesh union in high regard, and then came John Chrysostom who is considered a doctor of the Church, and he advocated that this passage really gives the believer permission to divorce the unbelieving and hostile partner, and find a new one. However, he interpreted it in such a way, that the context was a pagan society, where baptism would be the mark of a believer, and so the decisive issue was whether people were baptized or not (!)

Carl, I hope this is helpful. As you have stated that your personal life could be affected, may Jesus grant you to know the truth in love.

I will certainly consider that we could have a discussion on the 1 cor 7:15-24 passage some time, but I will need to study for that.

Blessings
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
So because MAtthew , as I have shown you > does not agree with you, you cite Mark which excludes the exception?

Are you implying Mrk is more inspired than Matthew? or that Matthew is in error?
Neither needs to be the case. Jesus tends to give general principles. That's Mark. That doesn't mean there are no exceptions. Matthew gives one.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

nolidad

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 2, 2006
6,762
1,269
69
onj this planet
✟221,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Neither needs to be the case. Jesus tends to give general principles. That's Mark. That doesn't mean there are no exceptions. Matthew gives one.

Wrong! Jesus made it clear that divorce and remarriage was not allowable except in the case of immorality! Unless someone can empirically prove that Matthew is in error both in grammar and adding that clause! This is not a general principle but a specific instruction! It is very easy to discern generalities from specifics.
 
Upvote 0