Divorce

[DeaconDean]

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)

All that still does not negate the fact that if a woman commits adultry, then according to Jesus (Mt. 5:31-32) and according to Deut. 24:1-4) a divorce is the exception to the rule.

1. The Old Testament (OT) regulation of divorce. Scripture: Deut.24:1-4.
2. The potential events in a marital relationship are: marriage, divorce, and remarriage.
3. This passage shows what God allowed, regulated, and prohibited in OT times.
4. In vss.1-3 we have a protasis: a five-fold IF situation, followed by the apodosis statement of resultant action in vs.4.
5. In other words, IF the things of vs.1-3 happen, THEN the principle of vs.4 must be applied.
6. The five-fold IF.
   1. Marriage: when a man marries a woman, from the divine viewpoint he is assuming the responsibility of headship, authority, and leadership in her life; he is not to be a bully.
   2. Sexual Indecency: she proved to be sexually undesirable because of "some indecency"; not including adultery, since death was the prescribed punishment.
   3. Divorce: his unwillingness to forgive has driven him to secure this document, acceptable in the courts of Israel, formalizing the termination of the marriage. In practice, the legal document had its positive points: first, it protected her from a charge of adultery if she remarried; secondly, the necessity of obtaining the legal document before the divorce was final served to preclude hasty and rash divorces. God Himself is pictured as having given the Northern Kingdom a certificate of divorce when He sent them into exile, Jer.3:8; Isa.50:1. Under the law, divorce was permitted because of hardness of heart.
   4. Remarriage: in vs.2 she leaves and remarries, indicating the first marriage is terminated. According to Mt.19:7-9 and Mk.10:4,5, divorce was only a part of God's permissive will, because of the hardness of man's heart, to avoid the continuation of unbearable and unnecessary suffering.
7. Divorce #2: in vs.3, if the woman is divorced by husband #2, she is not free to remarry husband #1.
8. The apodosis forbids remarriage under any circumstances to the first husband, vs.4. She is unclean in respect to her first husband, so that she is forever off limits to him. The second marriage terminated the first in God's eyes. Bringing "sin on the land" is the multiplication of the sins of a nation until the fifth cycle of discipline is administered.
   1. Once someone has gone as far as divorce and remarriage there is to be no looking back. No regrets, past bridges are to be burned.
   2. To remarry the former mate is a thing of disgust in God's eyes.
   3. Such a sin brings cursing to the nation.
   4. A woman was free to marry a third husband.
9. Conclusions.
   1. Divorce is neither mandatory nor encouraged, even for sexual indecency.
   2. The Old Testament does not institute divorce, but rather tolerates and regulates it to protect against greater wrong.
   3. No one has a right, independent of Biblical reasons, to divorce his or her partner.
   4. Divorce should never be considered an option until every attempt at reconciliation has failed.
   5. The relatively liberal permission of divorce under the Mosaic Law was simply a stopgap measure. Christ nullified this measure.
10. Christ's first teaching on divorce.
11. Scripture: Mt.5:31,32.
12. Jesus, fully aware of the stopgap measure, teaches the original intent of God's design for marriage, cp. Mt.5:17. Usually the man initiates the divorce, but Mk.10:12 envisages a wife taking the initiative, as in 1Cor.7:11 with regard to separation.
13. Jesus clarifies exactly when one has grounds for a divorce. The emphasis is to maintain the marriage, even if one partner is unfaithful. This is NOT a command to go out and get a divorce, but rather the only basis for a legitimate divorce.
14. The words "except for immorality" define the only bona fide basis for divorce in God's eyes.
15. But divorce is still not commanded; the couple should forgive and try to keep the marriage together, even if sexual unfaithfulness is involved.
16. Christ presents legal divorce as the exception, not the norm.
17. Christ teaches that anyone who gets a divorce and remarries under any other circumstances commits adultery.
18. Marriages arising from non-biblical divorces are to be regarded as legitimate, even though an act of adultery was committed initially.
19. Christ's second teaching on divorce.
20. Scripture: Mt.19:1-12.
21. The background to His teaching is vs.1-3. They hope to put Jesus on the spot, knowing His position and knowing the popular viewpoint. They hope to discredit Him before the people. These Pharisees (school of Hillel) held to a liberal interpretation of Deut.24:1-4, which emphasized the "out" of marriage.
22. Christ's response to the question emphasizes the permanence of the marriage union, vs.4-6; vs.5 "leave behind":
    1. It refers to dying. Application: when two people marry, they die to parental authority; they are no longer obligated by the plan of God to be obedient to parents.
    2. The word is used of going away to a far country. The couple is to physically separate from their parents and establish their own independent home.
    3. The word is used for "forsaking and abandoning" something. The application is that the new couple abandons all previous family goals and ambitions and takes on new goals.
    4. The word is used of leaving one in a certain state of affairs; that is, when two people leave home to marry, their parents are still their parents and are to be respected. Obedience has ceased, but honor remains.
23. The Pharisees' response indicates confusion between the permissive and directive will of God, vs.7. After Jesus had taken their thinking back to the main issue of God's design for marriage (i.e. permanence being God's directive will), the same question crossed their minds and they blurted out this second question in unison. Since they were leaning so heavily on a super liberal interpretation of Deut.24, they were all on the same mental wavelength.
24. Because the Jews were negative to doctrine, it meant that they were inevitably negative to right man/right woman. Therefore, they rejected doctrine through their volition, thus developing scar tissue on the soul. This caused rejection of the Lord's directive will. In the face of such insubordination and negative volition to the plan of God, and because of the suffering, heartache, and even greater abuse to the plan of God, Moses permitted it. Christ corrects them, cp. vs.7. Immorality gives a bona fide legal basis for divorce in God’s eyes, but is not commanded. When a mate divorces for a non-biblical reason and remarries, that individual has committed adultery and the other is free to remarry without sin.
25. The disciples' response to Christ's teaching, vs.10.
    1. The disciples make an unbiblical statement which contradicts Gen.2:18 "The Lord said, 'It is not good for a man to be alone.'"
    2. Their thinking is fuzzy and they do not immediately adjust to the Lord’s doctrine.
    3. So they make a false conclusion that celibacy should be the norm if a man cannot get an easy divorce.
    4. They say "it is better not to marry" if adultery is the only loophole.
    5. The Lord points out that they do not understand what they have said.
26. Christ's teaching on the disciples' response, vs.11,12.
    1. The disciples' statement had limited application, since very few do not marry.
    2. "Can accept" means to make room for someone as a guest, and here refers to accepting celibacy into one's thinking.
    3. Single status is not the norm but the exception. (Idiots make the exception the norm.)
    4. The disciple's seek to make the exception the norm as the Pharisees did with the stopgap provision.
    5. For those who accept the exception, God has some very special blessings.
    6. Jesus says "not so fast" with your conclusions, since every man does not have the capacity to live happily single.
    7. Vs.12 lists those to whom it has been given.

That is how I understand it, and that is how I take it.

Plain and simple.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

All that still does not negate the fact that if a woman commits adultry, then according to Jesus (Mt. 5:31-32) and according to Deut. 24:1-4) a divorce is the exception to the rule.

1. The Old Testament (OT) regulation of divorce. Scripture: Deut.24:1-4.
2. The potential events in a marital relationship are: marriage, divorce, and remarriage.
3. This passage shows what God allowed, regulated, and prohibited in OT times.
4. In vss.1-3 we have a protasis: a five-fold IF situation, followed by the apodosis statement of resultant action in vs.4.
5. In other words, IF the things of vs.1-3 happen, THEN the principle of vs.4 must be applied.
6. The five-fold IF.
   1. Marriage: when a man marries a woman, from the divine viewpoint he is assuming the responsibility of headship, authority, and leadership in her life; he is not to be a bully.
   2. Sexual Indecency: she proved to be sexually undesirable because of "some indecency"; not including adultery, since death was the prescribed punishment.
   3. Divorce: his unwillingness to forgive has driven him to secure this document, acceptable in the courts of Israel, formalizing the termination of the marriage. In practice, the legal document had its positive points: first, it protected her from a charge of adultery if she remarried; secondly, the necessity of obtaining the legal document before the divorce was final served to preclude hasty and rash divorces. God Himself is pictured as having given the Northern Kingdom a certificate of divorce when He sent them into exile, Jer.3:8; Isa.50:1. Under the law, divorce was permitted because of hardness of heart.
   4. Remarriage: in vs.2 she leaves and remarries, indicating the first marriage is terminated. According to Mt.19:7-9 and Mk.10:4,5, divorce was only a part of God's permissive will, because of the hardness of man's heart, to avoid the continuation of unbearable and unnecessary suffering.
7. Divorce #2: in vs.3, if the woman is divorced by husband #2, she is not free to remarry husband #1.
8. The apodosis forbids remarriage under any circumstances to the first husband, vs.4. She is unclean in respect to her first husband, so that she is forever off limits to him. The second marriage terminated the first in God's eyes. Bringing "sin on the land" is the multiplication of the sins of a nation until the fifth cycle of discipline is administered.
   1. Once someone has gone as far as divorce and remarriage there is to be no looking back. No regrets, past bridges are to be burned.
   2. To remarry the former mate is a thing of disgust in God's eyes.
   3. Such a sin brings cursing to the nation.
   4. A woman was free to marry a third husband.
9. Conclusions.
   1. Divorce is neither mandatory nor encouraged, even for sexual indecency.
   2. The Old Testament does not institute divorce, but rather tolerates and regulates it to protect against greater wrong.
   3. No one has a right, independent of Biblical reasons, to divorce his or her partner.
   4. Divorce should never be considered an option until every attempt at reconciliation has failed.
   5. The relatively liberal permission of divorce under the Mosaic Law was simply a stopgap measure. Christ nullified this measure.
10. Christ's first teaching on divorce.
11. Scripture: Mt.5:31,32.
12. Jesus, fully aware of the stopgap measure, teaches the original intent of God's design for marriage, cp. Mt.5:17. Usually the man initiates the divorce, but Mk.10:12 envisages a wife taking the initiative, as in 1Cor.7:11 with regard to separation.
13. Jesus clarifies exactly when one has grounds for a divorce. The emphasis is to maintain the marriage, even if one partner is unfaithful. This is NOT a command to go out and get a divorce, but rather the only basis for a legitimate divorce.
14. The words "except for immorality" define the only bona fide basis for divorce in God's eyes.
15. But divorce is still not commanded; the couple should forgive and try to keep the marriage together, even if sexual unfaithfulness is involved.
16. Christ presents legal divorce as the exception, not the norm.
17. Christ teaches that anyone who gets a divorce and remarries under any other circumstances commits adultery.
18. Marriages arising from non-biblical divorces are to be regarded as legitimate, even though an act of adultery was committed initially.
19. Christ's second teaching on divorce.
20. Scripture: Mt.19:1-12.
21. The background to His teaching is vs.1-3. They hope to put Jesus on the spot, knowing His position and knowing the popular viewpoint. They hope to discredit Him before the people. These Pharisees (school of Hillel) held to a liberal interpretation of Deut.24:1-4, which emphasized the "out" of marriage.
22. Christ's response to the question emphasizes the permanence of the marriage union, vs.4-6; vs.5 "leave behind":
    1. It refers to dying. Application: when two people marry, they die to parental authority; they are no longer obligated by the plan of God to be obedient to parents.
    2. The word is used of going away to a far country. The couple is to physically separate from their parents and establish their own independent home.
    3. The word is used for "forsaking and abandoning" something. The application is that the new couple abandons all previous family goals and ambitions and takes on new goals.
    4. The word is used of leaving one in a certain state of affairs; that is, when two people leave home to marry, their parents are still their parents and are to be respected. Obedience has ceased, but honor remains.
23. The Pharisees' response indicates confusion between the permissive and directive will of God, vs.7. After Jesus had taken their thinking back to the main issue of God's design for marriage (i.e. permanence being God's directive will), the same question crossed their minds and they blurted out this second question in unison. Since they were leaning so heavily on a super liberal interpretation of Deut.24, they were all on the same mental wavelength.
24. Because the Jews were negative to doctrine, it meant that they were inevitably negative to right man/right woman. Therefore, they rejected doctrine through their volition, thus developing scar tissue on the soul. This caused rejection of the Lord's directive will. In the face of such insubordination and negative volition to the plan of God, and because of the suffering, heartache, and even greater abuse to the plan of God, Moses permitted it. Christ corrects them, cp. vs.7. Immorality gives a bona fide legal basis for divorce in God’s eyes, but is not commanded. When a mate divorces for a non-biblical reason and remarries, that individual has committed adultery and the other is free to remarry without sin.
25. The disciples' response to Christ's teaching, vs.10.
    1. The disciples make an unbiblical statement which contradicts Gen.2:18 "The Lord said, 'It is not good for a man to be alone.'"
    2. Their thinking is fuzzy and they do not immediately adjust to the Lord’s doctrine.
    3. So they make a false conclusion that celibacy should be the norm if a man cannot get an easy divorce.
    4. They say "it is better not to marry" if adultery is the only loophole.
    5. The Lord points out that they do not understand what they have said.
26. Christ's teaching on the disciples' response, vs.11,12.
    1. The disciples' statement had limited application, since very few do not marry.
    2. "Can accept" means to make room for someone as a guest, and here refers to accepting celibacy into one's thinking.
    3. Single status is not the norm but the exception. (Idiots make the exception the norm.)
    4. The disciple's seek to make the exception the norm as the Pharisees did with the stopgap provision.
    5. For those who accept the exception, God has some very special blessings.
    6. Jesus says "not so fast" with your conclusions, since every man does not have the capacity to live happily single.
    7. Vs.12 lists those to whom it has been given.

That is how I understand it, and that is how I take it.

Plain and simple.

God Bless

Till all are one.

This interpretation has Matt. 19:9 directly contradicting Matt. 19:1-6 and everything that Mark, Luke, and Paul taught about the permanence marriage; therefore I reject it as a false and dangerous teaching that has been the basis for literally millions of adulterous second marriages and that expressly contradict the words of Jesus in Luke 16:18,

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.”

Should we believe what Matthew wrote in 19:1-6, or should we believe a contradictory teaching in Matthew 19:9 in which we find an exception clause that does violence to the Biblical principle that in the act of marriage, the two become one flesh and the marriage bond can be broken only upon the death of the spouse?

Should we believe an exception clause that directly contradicts Matt. 19:1-6 and everything that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul taught about the permanence marriage; or should we reject as spurious the exception clause and believe everything that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul taught about the permanence marriage?

I do not believe that Matthew, in the original text of his gospel, had Jesus contradicting what He had just said in Matt. 19:1-6 and what He is recorded in Mark and Luke to have said.

Only one of these two teaching can be correct because they are mutually exclusive:

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.”

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

The solution is very simple, strike out the spurious exception clause with the following result:

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.”

Matthew 19:9. “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery.”

 

[PrincetonGuy]

1. The potential events in a marital relationship are: marriage, divorce, and remarriage.
2. This passage shows what God allowed, regulated, and prohibited in OT times.
3. In vss.1-3 we have a protasis: a five-fold IF situation, followed by the apodosis statement of resultant action in vs.4.
4. In other words, IF the things of vs.1-3 happen, THEN the principle of vs.4 must be applied.
5. The five-fold IF.
   1. Marriage: when a man marries a woman, from the divine viewpoint he is assuming the responsibility of headship, authority, and leadership in her life; he is not to be a bully.
   2. Sexual Indecency: she proved to be sexually undesirable because of "some indecency"; not including adultery, since death was the prescribed punishment.
   3. Divorce: his unwillingness to forgive has driven him to secure this document, acceptable in the courts of Israel, formalizing the termination of the marriage. In practice, the legal document had its positive points: first, it protected her from a charge of adultery if she remarried; secondly, the necessity of obtaining the legal document before the divorce was final served to preclude hasty and rash divorces. God Himself is pictured as having given the Northern Kingdom a certificate of divorce when He sent them into exile, Jer.3:8; Isa.50:1. Under the law, divorce was permitted because of hardness of heart.
   4. Remarriage: in vs.2 she leaves and remarries, indicating the first marriage is terminated. According to Mt.19:7-9 and Mk.10:4,5, divorce was only a part of God's permissive will, because of the hardness of man's heart, to avoid the continuation of unbearable and unnecessary suffering.
6. Divorce #2: in vs.3, if the woman is divorced by husband #2, she is not free to remarry husband #1.
7. The apodosis forbids remarriage under any circumstances to the first husband, vs.4. She is unclean in respect to her first husband, so that she is forever off limits to him. The second marriage terminated the first in God's eyes. Bringing "sin on the land" is the multiplication of the sins of a nation until the fifth cycle of discipline is administered.
   1. Once someone has gone as far as divorce and remarriage there is to be no looking back. No regrets, past bridges are to be burned.
   2. To remarry the former mate is a thing of disgust in God's eyes.
   3. Such a sin brings cursing to the nation.
   4. A woman was free to marry a third husband.
8. Conclusions.
   1. Divorce is neither mandatory nor encouraged, even for sexual indecency.
   2. The Old Testament does not institute divorce, but rather tolerates and regulates it to protect against greater wrong.
   3. No one has a right, independent of Biblical reasons, to divorce his or her partner.
   4. Divorce should never be considered an option until every attempt at reconciliation has failed.
   5. The relatively liberal permission of divorce under the Mosaic Law was simply a stopgap measure. Christ nullified this measure.
9. Christ's first teaching on divorce.
10. Scripture: Mt.5:31,32.
11. Jesus, fully aware of the stopgap measure, teaches the original intent of God's design for marriage, cp. Mt.5:17. Usually the man initiates the divorce, but Mk.10:12 envisages a wife taking the initiative, as in 1Cor.7:11 with regard to separation.
12. Jesus clarifies exactly when one has grounds for a divorce. The emphasis is to maintain the marriage, even if one partner is unfaithful. This is NOT a command to go out and get a divorce, but rather the only basis for a legitimate divorce.
13. The words "except for immorality" define the only bona fide basis for divorce in God's eyes.
14. But divorce is still not commanded; the couple should forgive and try to keep the marriage together, even if sexual unfaithfulness is involved.
15. Christ presents legal divorce as the exception, not the norm.
16. Christ teaches that anyone who gets a divorce and remarries under any other circumstances commits adultery.
17. Marriages arising from non-biblical divorces are to be regarded as legitimate, even though an act of adultery was committed initially.
18. Christ's second teaching on divorce.
19. Scripture: Mt.19:1-12.
20. The background to His teaching is vs.1-3. They hope to put Jesus on the spot, knowing His position and knowing the popular viewpoint. They hope to discredit Him before the people. These Pharisees (school of Hillel) held to a liberal interpretation of Deut.24:1-4, which emphasized the "out" of marriage.
21. Christ's response to the question emphasizes the permanence of the marriage union, vs.4-6; vs.5 "leave behind":
    1. It refers to dying. Application: when two people marry, they die to parental authority; they are no longer obligated by the plan of God to be obedient to parents.
    2. The word is used of going away to a far country. The couple is to physically separate from their parents and establish their own independent home.
    3. The word is used for "forsaking and abandoning" something. The application is that the new couple abandons all previous family goals and ambitions and takes on new goals.
    4. The word is used of leaving one in a certain state of affairs; that is, when two people leave home to marry, their parents are still their parents and are to be respected. Obedience has ceased, but honor remains.
22. The Pharisees' response indicates confusion between the permissive and directive will of God, vs.7. After Jesus had taken their thinking back to the main issue of God's design for marriage (i.e. permanence being God's directive will), the same question crossed their minds and they blurted out this second question in unison. Since they were leaning so heavily on a super liberal interpretation of Deut.24, they were all on the same mental wavelength.
23. Because the Jews were negative to doctrine, it meant that they were inevitably negative to right man/right woman. Therefore, they rejected doctrine through their volition, thus developing scar tissue on the soul. This caused rejection of the Lord's directive will. In the face of such insubordination and negative volition to the plan of God, and because of the suffering, heartache, and even greater abuse to the plan of God, Moses permitted it. Christ corrects them, cp. vs.7. Immorality gives a bona fide legal basis for divorce in God’s eyes, but is not commanded. When a mate divorces for a non-biblical reason and remarries, that individual has committed adultery and the other is free to remarry without sin.
24. The disciples' response to Christ's teaching, vs.10.
    1. The disciples make an unbiblical statement which contradicts Gen.2:18 "The Lord said, 'It is not good for a man to be alone.'"
    2. Their thinking is fuzzy and they do not immediately adjust to the Lord’s doctrine.
    3. So they make a false conclusion that celibacy should be the norm if a man cannot get an easy divorce.
    4. They say "it is better not to marry" if adultery is the only loophole.
    5. The Lord points out that they do not understand what they have said.
25. Christ's teaching on the disciples' response, vs.11,12.
    1. The disciples' statement had limited application, since very few do not marry.
    2. "Can accept" means to make room for someone as a guest, and here refers to accepting celibacy into one's thinking.
    3. Single status is not the norm but the exception. (Idiots make the exception the norm.)
    4. The disciple's seek to make the exception the norm as the Pharisees did with the stopgap provision.
    5. For those who accept the exception, God has some very special blessings.
    6. Jesus says "not so fast" with your conclusions, since every man does not have the capacity to live happily single.
    7. Vs.12 lists those to whom it has been given.

Where was this copied from?

 

[DeaconDean]

This interpretation has Matt. 19:9 directly contradicting Matt. 19:1-6 and everything that Mark, Luke, and Paul taught about the permanence marriage; therefore I reject it as a false and dangerous teaching that has been the basis for literally millions of adulterous second marriages and that expressly contradict the words of Jesus in Luke 16:18,

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.”

Should we believe what Matthew wrote in 19:1-6, or should we believe a contradictory teaching in Matthew 19:9 in which we find an exception clause that does violence to the Biblical principle that in the act of marriage, the two become one flesh and the marriage bond can be broken only upon the death of the spouse?

Should we believe an exception clause that directly contradicts Matt. 19:1-6 and everything that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul taught about the permanence marriage; or should we reject as spurious the exception clause and believe everything that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul taught about the permanence marriage?

I do not believe that Matthew, in the original text of his gospel, had Jesus contradicting what He had just said in Matt. 19:1-6 and what He is recorded in Mark and Luke to have said.

Only one of these two teaching can be correct because they are mutually exclusive:

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.”

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

The solution is very simple, strike out the spurious exception clause with the following result:

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.”

Matthew 19:9. “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery.”

I stick by what I said earlier and with this:

Perspectives of Various Interpreters

1.No divorce, no remarriage. (Ryrie, Gothard, Robert Thomas, Carl Laney)
· Believes that they are not possible
· Marriage is indissoluble
· Covenant relationship forever or until one partner dies.

2. Divorce in some cases, but no remarriage (John Stott) Heth & Wenham (“one flesh” = kinship view), bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh, John Piper is another proponent – he wrote a paper dated July 21, 1986 and gave “Eleven Reasons believe all remarriage after divorce is prohibited while both spouses are alive”
· Can lump with first view
· Least popular

3. Divorce and remarriage in a wide variety of circumstances (held by a wide variety of people – many liberals)
· Larry Richards (always sin yet God forgives – this is an option, no one but couple has authority to decide)
· James Dobson – in cases of abuse (emotional, physical, verbal)
· Pragmatic churches: Don’t want to tell people something that they don’t want to hear!

4. Divorce and remarriage in very limited circumstances (Grace Church)
· (John MacArthur, Jay Adams, John Murray, William Luck, Guy Duty, Lorraine Boettner, Westminster Confession – Reformed Theologians)
· Unrepentant sexual sins (Matt. 19:9)
· Unbeliever leaves (1 Cor. 7:15)
· One party forsakes his/her covenant obligations & the other is unable to keep them. In those cases divorce & remarriage would be permitted.
· “Divorce in the Scripture is permitted as an accommodation to man’s sin for the protection of the faithful partner by releasing him or her from the oppressive bondage of covenant duties that he or she cannot fulfill.” (Elders’ perspective)
· Divorce in the Scriptures is permitted only because of man’s sin. Since divorce is only a concession to man’s sin and is not part of God’s original plan for marriage.

C. Passages Specifically Addressing Divorce and Remarriage

1. Old Testament

a)Deuteronomy 24:1-4
· Divorce itself is not condemned but it is regulated. In this passage it is viewed as a fait accompli over which Moses exercises regulation rather than the forbidding of divorce. At the same time this does not imply that God just blinks at divorce.
· There is no command to divorce
· Moses just mentions the process one is to take “he writes her a bill of divorce”
· Marriage is not indissoluble (“former” husband ≠ her husband now)
· “Indecency in her” or “nakedness of a thing” (erwath dabar). Two Hebrew words literally mean “a matter of nakedness”
· “Something indecent” or “something shameful” or “some indecency”
· It seems to mean something indecent, disgusting or repulsive.
· Habitual indulgence in sexual sin, just short of adultery. John Murray says, “…there is no evidence to show that erwath dabar refers to adultery or an act of sexual uncleanness… We may conclude that erwath dabar means some indecency or impropriety.

Read Study Bible notes and Deut. 23:14. Here erwath dabar has no reference to sexual sin. The idea of repulsiveness or repugnancy seems uppermost.
· Please note the woman is defiled by unbiblical divorce & remarriage. Her divorce from the first man could not have been biblically acceptable even though it may have been formally valid. If it had been proper, and not sinful, that divorce would have freed her to marry the second man without sin.
· However the second divorce defiled her
b)Ezra 9-10 Here we find the Israelites returning after the first deportation to the land of Israel. Ezra reads the law and it says that they cannot marry foreign wives.
· Need of wholesale national repentance!
· Part of it was to get rid of foreign wives
· This is a unique and special moment in history
· Ezra 10:2-3, “According to the law” = sanctioned and blessed by God!
· Had to be done through a legal divorce, then marry Jewish women = the concept that a legal divorce dissolves the marriage bond!
· 2 alternatives
1)Allow nation to remain defiled through mixed marriages. This would have been the greater evil since the intermarriage would have polluted the chosen people.
2)Purify the nation by commanding divorce to dissolve those forbidden unions (Deut. 7:1-5) and preserve the generation from idolatry. This would display a renewed heart of the people to follow God’s law and to obey and seek the mercy of their sovereign God.

c)Jeremiah 3:6-10
Metaphorical – used later for Jewish teaching
· Divorce for “sexual sin” (harlot)
· “Adulteries of faithless Israel” v. 8. Israel was divorced for her adulteries.
· Context for Matt. 5, 19
· Not always a sin to be involved in a divorce – where we get the idea of “innocent party” – God was involved
· Not always a sin to initiate a divorce
· Involvement in and initiating a divorce are sometimes encouraged with unrepentant sexual sin. (She did not return.”) Therefore it is Preferred.
· God was unable to keep His side of the covenant because Israel forsook her side (Implication – God didn’t want a divorce!)

d)Malachi 2:13-16
· God hates divorce
· Covenant breaking is condemned!
· Implies repentance = a return to the covenant
· Because God hates divorce doesn’t mean both parties are sinning

2. New Testament
a)Matthew 5:31-32
· Jesus’ point: The law of God was much more demanding than the Jewish tradition had made it out to be
· The exception clause applies to both divorce and remarriage. If divorced for unchastity, then remarriage is not adultery. Everyone agrees Jesus was saying that except in one type of situation, divorce and remarriage are sinful!
· Unchastity = unrepentant sexual sin as understood by the Jews (not referring to betrothal context; adultery is a term used in reference to marriage)
· Some say the word “adultery” is used by Jesus for those who are not married anymore so it does mean marriage is indissoluble.
· Cf. vs. 28 “Right eye offends…” – exaggeration hyperbole, the term relates to marriage. “Lusting” doesn’t equal marriage. Christ makes His point that this is very serious!
· Sexual sin does not break the marriage bond. Divorce and sexual sin are 2 different things. The sexual sin is the thing that occasions the divorce. They are not synonymous. The divorce breaks the marriage bond.
· Betrothal view = Gothard, Ryrie
-Not engagement
-“Adultery” is not used prior to marriage (fornication)

b)Matthew 19:3-12
· “Is it lawful to divorce for any cause at all?” NO!!!
· This is a twisted version of what Moses said in Deut. 24. Moses never commanded divorce.
· (Response, vv. 4-6)
· Not a command, but a regulation. Clearly divorce is an accommodation to man’s sin that violates God’s original purpose for the intimate unity and permanence of the marriage bond. Legal divorce was a concession for the faithful partner due to the sexual sin of the sinning partner so that the faithful partner was no longer bound to the marriage.
· Although Jesus did say that divorce is permitted in some situations, we must remember that His primary point in this discourse is to correct the Jews’ idea that they could divorce one another “for any cause at all” and to show them the gravity of pursuing a sinful divorce.
· Because of sexual sin (porneia) the New Testament allows for divorce. Porneia is a general term that encompasses sexual sin such as adultery, homosexuality, bestiality, and incest. When one partner violates the unity and intimacy of a marriage by sexual sin—and forsakes his or her covenant obligation—the faithful partner is placed in an extremely difficult situation. After all means are exhausted to bring the sinning partner to repentance, the Bible permits release for the faithful partner through divorce (Matt. 5:32; 1 Cor. 7:15).
· In answer to the disciples question, Jesus explained that God allowed Moses to permit divorce only because of His peoples’ “hardness of heart” and that it was permissible only in the case of adultery.
· Vs. 8: Different views on “hardness of heart”
-Could be “unrepentant sexual sin,” cf. Deut. 24:1-4
-Moses tolerated divorce
Deut. 24 discusses the illegitimate basis
O.T. – permission – not overtly stated lest people hurry to that passage to justify themselves. Somewhere along the line God in His tolerance spared life and allowed divorce (David, Solomon). God allowed for divorce in the case of hardhearted adultery – Jer. 3:8.


c)Mark 10:2-12 and Luke 16:18
· Why do they not mention exception clause?
· Neither passage contains the question that was discussed in Matt. 19:3ff. (deals with abuse of Deut. 24) Christ’s purpose was the same as above to make a polemic point that you should not divorce, contrary to what you are thinking! Since the question wasn’t asked there was no qualifier necessary to say what is the one exception.
· The exception clause is in Matthew:
“In Matthew 5 and 19, it was necessary to include the clause not as an addition to God’s law, but to reaffirm the original and correct the Pharisees’ misrepresentation of God’s law regarding adultery. Frequently in the New Testament general statements are made that could in their immediate context be mistaken as absolute, but when seen in the broader context of full revelation they are recognized as an element within a larger sphere of truth. The exception clause providing divorce on the grounds of adultery fits into the body of truth.” (John MacArthur, The Family.)God only needs to say something once.

d)1 Corinthians 7 – Most extensive passage on divorce and remarriage Paul could have said no divorce – no remarriage. He didn’t answer simply that way: (At this time the average number of marriages for the men was six times). This is the second reason permitting a divorce where an unbelieving mate does not desire to live with his or her believing spouse (12-15).
· Vs. 8: “unmarried” – impossible not to include divorced people. Used with virgins and widows. See vs. 11 – includes divorced people: the word ___________ (cf. widows, vss. 39, 40. Virgins, vss. 25, 28)
· Vs. 10-11 both partners of the marriage in view here are Christians since Paul is giving instructions to them both and from the fact that in verses 12-16 Paul gives instruction in marriages where only one partner is a believer.
· In this case of the believer seeking or having already received an unbiblical divorce they are instructed to remain unmarried “or else be reconciled to her husband. If a Christian does divorce another Christian, except for adultery, neither partner is free to marry another. They must stay single or rejoin their former mate.” John MacArthur from 1 Corinthians Commentary.
· Vs. 12-13: Mixed marriages
· Vs. 14: Gives the reason to stay in the marriage. Fulfills covenant obligations.
· Vs. 15: In God’s sight the covenant bond between a man and woman is disbanded by death, adultery (Matt. 19:9) and an unbeliever leaving. These are the only cases in which a Christian can legitimately be remarried.
· Vs. 15: Not bound to marital obligations. Because “God has called us to peace” divorce is allowed and may be preferable in such situations. When an unbeliever desires to leave, trying to keep him or her in the marriage may only create greater tension and conflict. The implication for remarriage comes from Rom. 7:2-3 where a widow or widower is given permission to remarry in the case of death of the partner. Therefore the “not under bondage” to the unbelieving spouse who leaves.
· Vs. 16: Do I wait for them to get saved? No. Issue is God’s providence – using wisdom from God’s Word (cf. vs. 9 & 1 Tim. 5:14, person who was left alone.)
· Vs. 17-24: Most commentators don’t think it has anything to do with divorce & remarriage.
-Echoes the issue of contentment
-What was your state when you got called (saved)? Vs. 20,24
-Paul is answering the question about what they should think of their marital state at the time they were called. (Vs. illus. Of circumcision & slavery)
-Speaks to pre-salvation marriages!
-If you were called while “free” (or divorced) you are now to live as a free man. You are free to marry. Vss. 27-28.
-Vs. 39 – Summary statement – Omits exceptions or paragraph before.
· “Covenantal Continuance View”
· It is always wrong for either partner to forsake the covenant they have made.
· But, sometimes one partner cannot keep his side of the covenant because the other partner has forsaken it through unrepentant sexual sin or desertion! Divorce was a concession for the faithful partner due to abandonment by the sinning partner so that the faithful partner was no longer bound to the marriage (1 Cor. 7:12-15).

D. Proposals Regarding the Scriptural Teaching on Divorce & Remarriage

1.Because of the sacredness of marriage and the seriousness of covenant vows, all biblical means should be exhausted to keep any marriage together (cf. 1 Cor. 7:12; 1 Pet. 3:1-2; Matt. 18:15-17). The believer should never consider divorce except in specific circumstances and even in those circumstances it should only be pursued reluctantly because there is no other recourse.

2.If sexual immorality, other sin, or even separation occurs in a marriage, but reconciliation to a monogamous, cohabitant relationship is possible, then the faithful partner should forgive and reconcile (cf. Luke 17:3-4; Matt. 5:23-24). Reconciliation after divorce is not possible when one partner remains an unbeliever (cf. 2 Cor. 6:14ff; 1 Cor. 7:39), but it is a necessary fruit of repentance when two believers have been divorced (cf. Mal. 2:13-16; Matt. 5:32).

3.If the unbeliever leaves the marital relationship permanently but is not willing to file for divorce, perhaps because of lifestyle, irresponsibility, or to avoid monetary obligations, then the believer is in an impossible situation of having legal and moral obligations that he or she cannot fulfill. Because “the brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases” (1 Cor. 7:15) and is therefore no longer obligated to remain married, the believer may file for divorce without fearing the displeasure of God.

4.When one partner resists all means of reconciliation and refuses to maintain a monogamous, cohabitant relationship (through unrepentant sexual sin or desertion), then the faithful spouse cannot fulfill his or her covenant obligations and is released from the moral responsibility to do so (cf. Jer. 3:6-10; Matt. 5:32; 1 Cor. 7:15). When that marriage bond is severed through divorce, the faithful spouse is then free to marry another Christian (cf. 1 Cor. 7:8-9, 27-28).

5.One married and divorced prior to his identification with Christ and the church should be considered to be “abiding in that condition in which he was called,” meaning that he is free to remain single or marry another believer (1 Cor. 7:20, 24; cf. 2 Cor. 5:16-17). Such a person cannot reconcile to an unsaved former spouse, nor is he obligated to make restitution for every sin committed prior to his conversion.

6.In cases where an unbiblical divorce has taken place in a single believer’s past, then the leaders of the church should help that person to repent and “unscramble the egg” according to biblical principles (cf. Heb. 13-17; Matt. 18:18). If true repentance has taken place and no reconciliation is possible with the former spouse, then the forgiven believer could pursue another relationship under the supervision of the church.

7.In cases where a married person has divorced and remarried unbiblically, the answer is confession and repentance and then continuing in his current marriage according to biblical principles. He is bound to the obligation of the covenant made with the new spouse.

8.Remarriage is permitted for the faithful partner only when the divorce was on biblical grounds. In fact, the purpose for a biblical divorce is to make clear that the faithful partner is free to remarry, but only in the Lord (Rom. 7:1-3; 1 Cor. 7:39).


Like I said many, many times before, you have your version, I have mine.

I think I'll stick to mine.

Unfaithfulness
Under the Mosaic Law adultery carried the death penalty by stoning for the woman.

In Jesus' day, confusion prevailed about the grounds for divorce. Even the rabbis could not agree on what constituted the "uncleanness" of (Deut. 24:1). Followers of Rabbi Shammai felt adultery was the only grounds for divorce. Those who followed Rabbi Hillel accepted many reasons, including such things as poor cooking.

The gospels record four statements by Jesus concerning divorce. In two of these He allowed divorce in the case of adultery. In (Mat. 5:32) Jesus commented on the situation of both the woman and her new husband:

"Whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery."

In another statement, Jesus says "Whoever divorces his wife except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery" (Mat. 19:9).

Two other statements of Jesus appear to make no provision for divorce (Mk. 10:11-12; Lk. 16:18).

Jesus' statements in Mark and Luke were made in conversations with Pharisees about the Mosaic Law, which they believed allowed divorce on grounds other than adultery (Deut. 24:1-4). Jesus' main point in these statements was that divorce is contrary to God's plan for marriage and should never be taken lightly.

In the case of sexual unfaithfulness, the decree of divorce simply reflects the fact that the marriage has already been broken. A man divorcing his wife for this cause does not "make her an adulteress," for she already is one. Thus, divorce on the grounds of unchastity frees the innocent partner to remarry without incurring the guilt of adultery (Mat. 19:9). See (Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary)(Copyright (C) 1986, Thomas Nelson Publishers)

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[98cwitr]

God does change and God is variable.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Do what? God does not change and is not variable. More scriptural evidence is found in:

Numbers 23:19
1 Samuel 15:29

Malachi 3:6 is quite blunt:

"I the LORD do not change. So you, O descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed.

Hebrews 6:17 (New International Version)

17Because God wanted to make the unchanging nature of his purpose very clear to the heirs of what was promised, he confirmed it with an oath.

Actually the NT justifies the OT scriptures in this:

Mark 10

They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away."

5"It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. 6"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'[a] 7'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8and the two will become one flesh.'[c] So they are no longer two, but one. 9Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

 

[PrincetonGuy]

1.No divorce, no remarriage. (Ryrie, Gothard, Robert Thomas, Carl Laney)
· Believes that they are not possible
· Marriage is indissoluble
· Covenant relationship forever or until one partner dies.

See (Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary)(Copyright (C) 1986, Thomas Nelson Publishers)

God Bless

Till all are one.

This is also the view of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul. Therefore, it is also my view.

Thank you for sharing with us. May God bless you.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Do what? God does not change and is not variable. More scriptural evidence is found in:

Numbers 23:19
1 Samuel 15:29

Malachi 3:6 is quite blunt:








Actually the NT justifies the OT scriptures in this:

Mark 10

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,”

 

[DeaconDean]

SAy what you want, but scriptures are clear and Jesus Himself, the Lord, said that if you divorce for a reason except that of adultry, you make the woman an adulter.

According to Jesus Christ, God in the flesh, divorce was acceptable on the grounds of adultry if reconcilation was not possible.

Nuff said.

Done debating.

Unsubscribing.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[98cwitr]

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,”

I don't see or read it as modification, it seems to me more like clarification. For example, if you send your wife away, for whatever reason, a certificate of divorce should be issued...has this been changed or nullified even today? Certainly not...Jesus is just explaining it to all those who listen not just the "what" but the "why," which surely I appreciate. The jews had twisted even the word 'work' into something that was nothing of the sort. People took "an eye for an eye" bit as a means of justifying their acts of revenge, but I don't believe this to be God's position, even then at all. And again, Mark 10, is clarifying why Moses allowed divorce to take place, it doesn't mean that God had a change of heart. Grantly, I surely acknowledge the old covenant versus the new covenant, but these covenants are in place for man's sake, not God's own.

 

[nobdysfool]

This interpretation has Matt. 19:9 directly contradicting Matt. 19:1-6 and everything that Mark, Luke, and Paul taught about the permanence marriage; therefore I reject it as a false and dangerous teaching that has been the basis for literally millions of adulterous second marriages and that expressly contradict the words of Jesus in Luke 16:18,

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.”

Should we believe what Matthew wrote in 19:1-6, or should we believe a contradictory teaching in Matthew 19:9 in which we find an exception clause that does violence to the Biblical principle that in the act of marriage, the two become one flesh and the marriage bond can be broken only upon the death of the spouse?

Should we believe an exception clause that directly contradicts Matt. 19:1-6 and everything that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul taught about the permanence marriage; or should we reject as spurious the exception clause and believe everything that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul taught about the permanence marriage?

I do not believe that Matthew, in the original text of his gospel, had Jesus contradicting what He had just said in Matt. 19:1-6 and what He is recorded in Mark and Luke to have said.

Only one of these two teaching can be correct because they are mutually exclusive:

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.”

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

The solution is very simple, strike out the spurious exception clause with the following result:

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.”

Matthew 19:9. “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Therefore you set one scripture against another, and nullify one with another. Biblical interpretation doesn't work like that.

Sorry, I'm not buying it. DD has presented a very thorough and well supported viewpoint.

 

[spiritwarrior37]

As I have read this thread I see that no one has made a atatement that I think should be made. You can be forgiven for adultery, if in fact you believe that there is no grounds for divorce in any circumstance. It is not an unpardonable sin. And who are we to judge anyone who divorces and remarries. What did Jesus say to everyone who was standing there ready to stone the woman caught in adultery? I understand divorce is not a good thing, and I know this from experience. But I know God can forgive me for this. So I can see that this thread will never come to an end. I do however believe DD has brought out good points in his post. I have said my piece and I will now bow out of this discussion. God bless.

 

[blood_pardon]

my wife is so sweet.
my wife is so mean.

 

[nobdysfool]

As I have read this thread I see that no one has made a atatement that I think should be made. You can be forgiven for adultery, if in fact you believe that there is no grounds for divorce in any circumstance. It is not an unpardonable sin. And who are we to judge anyone who divorces and remarries. What did Jesus say to everyone who was standing there ready to stone the woman caught in adultery? I understand divorce is not a good thing, and I know this from experience. But I know God can forgive me for this. So I can see that this thread will never come to an end. I do however believe DD has brought out good points in his post. I have said my piece and I will now bow out of this discussion. God bless.

I tried to steer the discussion in that direction, and it was ignored. There are a lot of churches who treat divorce as an unpardonable sin, even though they don't say that it is. Divorcees are treated as second-or third-class Christians, and in essence made to do perpetual penance for something over which they may have had no control.

In my case, I had scriptural grounds, as my first wife did commit adultery against me while we were married. I pulled the plug on the marriage, and believe it was scriptural, and necessary. I tried to make it work, but ultimately saw that it was beyond hope, and ended it. I did not rush into another marriage, but waited 14 years, until I found a good woman, who I did marry, and we have been happily married now for 4 years.

There are some here who would think to judge me, and declare that I am an adulterer, and all I can say is, may such accusations perish with the accuser. My sins are forgiven, and what God has forgiven, let no man hold against me, as no man has the right or the authority to do so.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

As I have read this thread I see that no one has made a atatement that I think should be made. You can be forgiven for adultery, if in fact you believe that there is no grounds for divorce in any circumstance. It is not an unpardonable sin. And who are we to judge anyone who divorces and remarries. What did Jesus say to everyone who was standing there ready to stone the woman caught in adultery? I understand divorce is not a good thing, and I know this from experience. But I know God can forgive me for this. So I can see that this thread will never come to an end. I do however believe DD has brought out good points in his post. I have said my piece and I will now bow out of this discussion. God bless.

This has already been discussed in this thread. Adultery cannot be forgiven unless it is repented of. In second marriages, adultery is seldom committed only once and then repented of. Instead, it is almost always an ongoing sin, and that is the issue that is expressly dealt with by Jesus as recorded in Luke’s gospel,

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.”

The Greek word translated here as “commits adultery” in both parts of the verse is not in the Greek aorist indicative indicating a single act of adultery; it is in the Greek present indicative which stresses the continuance of the sin.

Furthermore, let us not forget that Luke wrote his gospel after Matthew wrote his, and Luke introduces his gospel with these very important words,

Luke:1:1. Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us,
2. just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word,
3. it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus;
4. so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.


I see that in some posts, the following logic is being applied,

There are no contradictions in Bible; therefore, there is no contradiction between Luke 16:18 (which agrees with Matt. 5:32, Matt. 19:1-6, Mark 10:11-12, Rom. 7:1-3, and 1 Cor. 7:10-11) and Matt. 19:9 (which disagrees with Matt. 5:32, Matt. 19:1-6, Mark 10:11-12, Rom. 7:1-3, and 1 Cor. 7:10-11).

The problem with this deductive logic is that the premise is incorrect—there are many contradictions in the Bible as it has come down to us. It is linguistically impossible to reconcile Luke 16:18 with Mark 19:9 in the form that they have come down to us.

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.”

Matt. 19:9. “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Matt. 19:9 also expressly contradicts what we have in Matt. 5:32, Matt. 19:1-6, Mark 10:11-12, Rom. 7:1-3, and 1 Cor. 7:10-11.

Should we base our understanding of divorce and remarriage upon a single verse in the New Testament that includes a highly dubious exception clause; or should we base our understanding of divorce and remarriage upon what we have in Matt. 5:32, Matt. 19:1-6, Mark 10:11-12, Rom. 7:1-3, and 1 Cor. 7:10-11? I chose to base my interpretation upon the preponderance of evidence.

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

 

[mlqurgw]

This has already been discussed in this thread. Adultery cannot be forgiven unless it is repented of. In second marriages, adultery is seldom committed only once and then repented of. Instead, it is almost always an ongoing sin, and that is the issue that is expressly dealt with by Jesus as recorded in Luke’s gospel,

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.”

The Greek word translated here as “commits adultery” in both parts of the verse is not in the Greek aorist indicative indicating a single act of adultery; it is in the Greek present indicative which stresses the continuance of the sin.

Furthermore, let us not forget that Luke wrote his gospel after Matthew wrote his, and Luke introduces his gospel with these very important words,

Luke:1:1. Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us,
2. just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word,
3. it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus;
4. so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.


I see that in some posts, the following logic is being applied,

There are no contradictions in Bible; therefore, there is no contradiction between Luke 16:18 (which agrees with Matt. 5:32, Matt. 19:1-6, Mark 10:11-12, Rom. 7:1-3, and 1 Cor. 7:10-11) and Matt. 19:9 (which disagrees with Matt. 5:32, Matt. 19:1-6, Mark 10:11-12, Rom. 7:1-3, and 1 Cor. 7:10-11).

The problem with this deductive logic is that the premise is incorrect—there are many contradictions in the Bible as it has come down to us. It is linguistically impossible to reconcile Luke 16:18 with Mark 19:9 in the form that they have come down to us.

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.”

Matt. 19:9. “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Matt. 19:9 also expressly contradicts what we have in Matt. 5:32, Matt. 19:1-6, Mark 10:11-12, Rom. 7:1-3, and 1 Cor. 7:10-11.

Should we base our understanding of divorce and remarriage upon a single verse in the New Testament that includes a highly dubious exception clause; or should we base our understanding of divorce and remarriage upon what we have in Matt. 5:32, Matt. 19:1-6, Mark 10:11-12, Rom. 7:1-3, and 1 Cor. 7:10-11? I chose to base my interpretation upon the preponderance of evidence.

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

Once again you seem to be teaching a salvation by works. To unequivocally say that any sin is unforgivable if it isn't repented of is to make forgiveness depend on repentance. The fact is that I have been forgiven all my sins, even the ones I haven't repented of. I don't know all my sins and therefore can't repent of each of them. One thing I do know is that I am a sinner whose natural heart is evil in every thought and deed. I thank my God in Christ that He put away my sin by the sacrifice of Himself. He put away all my sin not just the ones that I recognize and repent of. That is why John says that in Him is no sin. He isn't talking about the sinlessness of Christ but of all believers in Him. 1John 3:5

 

[nobdysfool]

Once again you seem to be teaching a salvation by works. To unequivocally say that any sin is unforgivable if it isn't repented of is to make forgiveness depend on repentance. The fact is that I have been forgiven all my sins, even the ones I haven't repented of. I don't know all my sins and therefore can't repent of each of them. One thing I do know is that I am a sinner whose natural heart is evil in every thought and deed. I thank my God in Christ that He put away my sin by the sacrifice of Himself. He put away all my sin not just the ones that I recognize and repent of. That is why John says that in Him is no sin. He isn't talking about the sinlessness of Christ but of all believers in Him. 1John 3:5

Amen, Brother!

 

[FreeinChrist]

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,”

I always understood this passage as something Jesus was saying to those still under the Law, and that he was addressing the "thought" aspect of sin rather than being so legalistic as Pharisees were at that time. You have lust for another - it is the same as actually committing adultery. (And doesn't that made ALL of us adulterers? It does as we are all human) In other words - it's the heart and mind as well as our actions that count.

And do you really think that Jesus was advocating that people tear out their eyes or cut off an arm? Is that REALLY what He wanted?

We are under His grace, and not under the OT Law. As believers, we have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit who is praying for us:
Rom 8:26Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

Our righteousness is because of Christ and His sacrifice, not our own efforts. Yes, we are to try to be like Christ, and to have the mind of Christ. But we live in a human body and fail. Our Father will discipline us and bring us to repentence, but we are not saved on our efforts.

I have seen churches persecute those who have been divorced or - gasp - had a child out of wedlock despite how regretful the person is or the circumstances. It is truly a shame that some (those churches) choose to be the ones with sin who pick up stones to throw at others.

 

[desmalia]

As I have read this thread I see that no one has made a atatement that I think should be made. You can be forgiven for adultery, if in fact you believe that there is no grounds for divorce in any circumstance. It is not an unpardonable sin. And who are we to judge anyone who divorces and remarries. What did Jesus say to everyone who was standing there ready to stone the woman caught in adultery? I understand divorce is not a good thing, and I know this from experience. But I know God can forgive me for this. So I can see that this thread will never come to an end. I do however believe DD has brought out good points in his post. I have said my piece and I will now bow out of this discussion. God bless.

This reminds me of something I had in my siggy a while back:

Sin is the best news there is, the best news there could be in our predicament.
Because with sin, there's a way out. There's the possibility of repentance. You can't repent of confusion or psychological flaws inflicted by your parents- you're stuck with them. But you can repent of sin. Sin and repentance are the only grounds for hope and joy.
~John Alexander, "And That's That: Sin, Salvation, and Woody Allen," The Other Side, Jan-Feb 1993, 55
​

I think it's so vital to remember this when we discuss such personal issues. Divorce and remarriage are SUCH personal issues and many who engage in these discussions are not just talking hypothetically. They've been through it or at least considered it at some point. I think that is much of why discussion on this topic can become so heated. It's so easy to become defensive instead of facing a past failure and taking responsibility for it. But when we do take responsibility for our sins and repent we have freedom in Christ here and now.

 

[98cwitr]

Once again you seem to be teaching a salvation by works. To unequivocally say that any sin is unforgivable if it isn't repented of is to make forgiveness depend on repentance. The fact is that I have been forgiven all my sins, even the ones I haven't repented of. I don't know all my sins and therefore can't repent of each of them. One thing I do know is that I am a sinner whose natural heart is evil in every thought and deed. I thank my God in Christ that He put away my sin by the sacrifice of Himself. He put away all my sin not just the ones that I recognize and repent of. That is why John says that in Him is no sin. He isn't talking about the sinlessness of Christ but of all believers in Him. 1John 3:5

hey...go one more verse 1 John 3:6-10...what's your take on that? Jesus teaches repentance in Luke 13-17 quite thoroughly. You may also reference Acts 2-5, and Rev. 2-5. I like the letters in Revelations, because even a church needs to be told to repent of their ways sometimes. How can you not know all your sins? Are you not aware of your own actions and thoughts?

 

[nobdysfool]

hey...go one more verse 1 John 3:6-10...what's your take on that? Jesus teaches repentance in Luke 13-17 quite thoroughly. You may also reference Acts 2-5, and Rev. 2-5. I like the letters in Revelations, because even a church needs to be told to repent of their ways sometimes. How can you not know all your sins? Are you not aware of your own actions and thoughts?

There are sins we have committed long ago that we may not remember. That's what is being referred to. Add to that things that we may not know, or did not know at the time, were sins. Repentance is not the active cause of our forgiveness, it is the result of God opening our eyes to awareness of His Holiness which reveals our sinfulness before Him. We do not repent to obtain forgiveness, we repent because we are forgiven. Any Christian who is a true Christian has already had every sin they have committed, and will commit, forgiven by the work of Christ on Calvary. Our repentance is the answer of our conscience to our sins.