Does the "fornication" exception for divorce not apply today?

[Dave L]

Why Matthew 19:9 fails to justify remarriage. The innocent wife divorced by the adulterous husband also commits adultery along with her new husband when she remarries. The "except clause" does not work for her or her new husband.

 

[Radagast]

Find Matthew 19:9.

Find Matthew 19:9 in the NT? Oh, that is difficult.

Somebody has their wires crossed, I think.

 

[Dave L]

Find Matthew 19:9 in the NT? Oh, that is difficult.

Somebody has their wires crossed, I think.

Why you cannot find it? It's not there.

 

[Radagast]

Why you cannot find it? It's not there.

Is this some kind of joke?

 

[Dave L]

Is this some kind of joke?

If you had anything to prove your point you would have used it by now.

 

[chilehed]

He then says in Matthew 19:9 not to divorce one's wife and marry another except for sexual immorality/fornication, as doing so makes you guilty of adultery.

"Fornication" is an inaccurate translation. The word inappropriate contenteia indicates an incestuous relationship, and includes those between persons of certain blood and/or legal relationships. (Lv 18:6–18). It has nothing to do with adultery.

 

[Gregorikos]

"Fornication" is an inaccurate translation. The word inappropriate contenteia indicates an incestuous relationship, and includes those between persons of certain blood and/or legal relationships. (Lv 18:6–18). It has nothing to do with adultery.

inappropriate contenteia can refer to an incestuous relationship. But it is in no way limited to that.

Here is Mounce's Expository Dictionary:


Noun: πορνεία (inappropriate contenteia), GK 4518 (S 4202), 25x. The word group to which inappropriate contenteia belongs generally relates to any kind of illegitimate sexual intercourse—that is, sexual immorality or fornication (KJV). This word is found most frequently in the writings of Paul. His overarching conviction is this: “It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality” (1 Thess. 4:3). inappropriate contenteia is the product of the sinful nature (Gal. 5:19). Paul’s understanding resonates with the teachings of Christ, who says, “For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander” (Mt. 15:19; cf. Mk. 7:21). Thus, inappropriate contenteia is completely improper for God’s holy people, among whom “there must not even be a hint of sexual immorality” (Eph. 5:3).
In light of this, Paul strongly exhorts the Corinthian church to deal with the issues of sexual immorality among them (1 Cor. 5:1). His argument is clear: since the body belongs to the LORD, it must not be used for inappropriate contenteia 6:13). And since the believer’s body is the temple of the Holy Spirit 6:19), Paul commands: “Flee from sexual immorality” 6:18). Paul’s fervent stand against this sin calls for its eradication from one’s life. He concludes to the Colossians: “Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desire and greed, which is idolatry” (Col. 3:5).

inappropriate contenteia is also well known for its inclusion in Jesus’ teaching on divorce and remarriage. Jesus’ simply states in Mt. 19:9, “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness [fornication, KJV], and marries another woman commits adultery” (cf. 5:32). Jesus appeals to Gen. 2:24 when the Pharisees ask him for his position on divorce, stating that God intended from the beginning that a man has one wife, joined together as one flesh in covenant with God (Mt. 19:4-6). In response to Jesus, the Pharisees invoke Moses’ teaching on divorce from Deut. 24:1-4. But Jesus’ response to this is that Moses allowed divorce because the people’s hearts were hardened, “but from the beginning it was not so” (Mt. 19:8). Finally, Jesus states that divorce is only permissible if inappropriate contenteia (sexual immorality) has been involved. Since inappropriate contenteia denotes a general sense of sexual immorality and not merely adultery, this is a significant text that enters the discussion of what the Bible permits for divorce and remarriage.

Finally, inappropriate contenteia occurs seven times in Revelation. The great prostitute Babylon (see prostitute) intoxicates the nations with the “wine of her adulteries” (Rev. 17:2; cf. 17:4). The kings of the earth commit adultery with her, and in John’s vision, “all the nations have drunk the maddening wine of her adulteries” (Rev. 18:3; cf. 14:8). This usage of inappropriate contenteia probably refers to a religious or spiritual adultery against God. All who align themselves with the great prostitute Babylon stand in opposition to God and will face justice and punishment along with her 19:2) in the last day. See NIDNTT-A, 485-86. (MED)

 

[Radagast]

"Fornication" is an inaccurate translation. The word inappropriate contenteia indicates an incestuous relationship, and includes those between persons of certain blood and/or legal relationships.

That's complete nonsense. The repeated NT exhortations to "flee inappropriate contenteia" would make no sense on that translation.

Lv 18:6–18

The LXX for that chapter doesn't use the word "inappropriate contenteia."

In fact, "inappropriate contenteia" in the LXX refers to adultery, fornication, and prostitution.

 

[com7fy8]

By that logic, Satan is absolved of blame.

I have offered how we are to blame for not being able to tell the difference.

But if Satan takes advantage of us in our failure, he is wrong, too.

In the Garden, yes Adam and Eve were wrong, but so was Satan.

 

[Running2win]

Is this some kind of joke?

Really. Oh boy.

So, here is the place where it is taught. Paul teaches just what Jesus did but with added info. He goes through being joined with a prostitute in chapter 6, then teaches we should each have a wife or husband in order to avoid fornication in 7, -unless we have the gift of being single, like he did.

If people are unequally yoked Paul (not the Lord) said it was ok to remain together if they agreed. He then goes onto a list of things and says to remain in the condition in which they were called.

Jesus taught not to be unequally yoked (a big downfall) and to remain married until death as the ideal and what God intended. Because God is merciful and people not perfect because of sin, He allowed Moses to let them get divorced. (Remember, he is talking to the Pharisees who were testing Him) That God did grant Moses request (as Paul does here) with the exception of adultery, is seen in both Mat. 5:31, 19:3-9. This is still not ideal.

That was the point, they could not just keep divorcing a woman, pass her down the line. They took advantage of the exception. The sermon on the mount shows we are all sinful, even if we just think something bad.

IMO, and from studying this out and living it, if the unbeliever departs, let them depart, is an exception for today. It is not ideal, but is better to remarry than to go sleeping around and just live together..

My wife and I for example. We both went through a divorce. My wife has been a follower of Jesus since childhood, went astray for awhile and married a non-believer. This non-believer wanted her to accept him cheating around on her. She divorced him, he remained a non-believer and she even found out he was shot dead later-by a jealous husband probably.

I, on the other hand, was not a believer until after I married my first wife. She said she was a believer, was since childhood (same as my second wife but reversed), I went to Church with her and acted the part, heard the word and started to read the Bible, got convicted of my sin and turned to Jesus! I was a new believer and she did not like that. No more sneaking around behind her parents back and going to the bars. It lasted about 2 years and she just took all her stuff and left one day, waiting for Gods will-she said. Oh, boy.

Anyway, she divorced me and did not want to reconcile our differences. In my mind, she is the unbeliever who left. In my wives case, we have the husband committing adultery. Are we clear according to Paul? I don't know.

So we are both in a pickle and both damaged goods, but is it better to remarry or sleep around or live together? This is a bad testimony. Of course this sealed my fate of any leadership position in the Church, so there are consequences for not doing it Gods way.

Just wanted to share that divorce, even when no children are involved is messy and not in Gods original plan.




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

12But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away. 14For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. 15Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace. 16For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?

17Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. And so I direct in all the churches.

 

[RDKirk]

Really. Oh boy.

So, here is the place where it is taught. Paul teaches just what Jesus did but with added info. He goes through being joined with a prostitute in chapter 6, then teaches we should each have a wife or husband in order to avoid fornication in 7, -unless we have the gift of being single, like he did.

If people are unequally yoked Paul (not the Lord) said it was ok to remain together if they agreed. He then goes onto a list of things and says to remain in the condition in which they were called.

I'm not disputing you, but there is a point I'd like to add to, because people often bring this up to drive a wedge between Paul and the Lord.

Paul is speaking to three distinct groups of people:

1. Unmarried believers
2. Believers married to believers
3. Believers married to pagans.

The reason Paul specifies "I, not the Lord" when speaking to believers married to believers is because in that case, he was able to directly quote Jesus (from what we now know as Matthew 19).

Jesus had not spoken specifically about pagans married to pagans or believers married to pagans. As you said, Jesus had told the believing Jews that they should not be unequally yoked in the first place.

Preaching in the pagan world presented Paul with the situation of one spouse having accepted Jesus while the other had not.

Jesus Himself had not spoken to that situation, thus, as Paul spoke to that situation, he could not directly quote Jesus.

However, Paul also asserted, "...but I, too, have the Holy Spirit." Because we believe that Paul's letter is scripture, and that all scripture is God-breathed, then we accept Paul's God-breathed scripture to the same degree with accept Matthew's God-breathed scripture.

 

[Running2win]

I'm not disputing you, but there is a point I'd like to add to, because people often bring this up to drive a wedge between Paul and the Lord.

Paul is speaking to three distinct groups of people:

1. Unmarried believers
2. Believers married to believers
3. Believers married to pagans.

The reason Paul specifies "I, not the Lord" when speaking to believers married to believers is because in that case, he was able to directly quote Jesus (from what we now know as Matthew 18).

Jesus had not spoken specifically about pagans married to pagans or believers married to pagans. As you said, Jesus had told the believing Jews that they should not be unequally yoked in the first place.

Preaching in the pagan world presented Paul with the situation of one spouse having accepted Jesus while the other had not.

Jesus Himself had not spoken to that situation, thus, as Paul spoke to that situation, he could not directly quote Jesus.

However, Paul also asserted, "...but I, too, have the Holy Spirit." Because we believe that Paul's letter is scripture, and that all scripture is God-breathed, then we accept Paul's God-breathed scripture to the same degree with accept Matthew's God-breathed scripture.

Thanks! That makes a lot of sense. Yeah, I don't question that Paul was not speaking in line with what God says about the matter. Divorce sucks for sure.

 

[Kilk1]

The stoned adulterers. If not, remarriage constituted adultery too.

I'm not understanding what you meant by "The stoned adulterers." Do you mean that some could be stoned without being executed, maybe, and that such could be divorced in the OT? I apologize for not following what you meant.

 

[Kilk1]

"Fornication" is an inaccurate translation. The word inappropriate contenteia indicates an incestuous relationship, and includes those between persons of certain blood and/or legal relationships. (Lv 18:6–18). It has nothing to do with adultery.

It refers to "illicit sexual intercourse in general" and is said to refer to "adultery" in Matthew 5:32; Matthew 19:9:

Strong's Greek: 4202. πορνεία (inappropriate contenteia) -- fornication

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

No passage in the OT law of Moses teaches divorce as the punishment for sexual immorality; instead, the punishment was execution. In Matthew 19:7-8, Jesus even contrasts His position with Moses' teaching in Deuteronomy 24:1, which permitted the divorce certificate.

Deuteronomy 24:1 permits a man to give his wife a divorce certificate if he has found "uncleanness" in her. Jesus is saying that "uncleanness" means sexual immorality, in contrast with religious leaders that interpreted the term more broadly.

 

[Dave L]

I'm not understanding what you meant by "The stoned adulterers." Do you mean that some could be stoned without being executed, maybe, and that such could be divorced in the OT? I apologize for not following what you meant.

Those convicted were executed after the law became established.

 

[Kilk1]

Deuteronomy 24:1 permits a man to give his wife a divorce certificate if he has found "uncleanness" in her. Jesus is saying that "uncleanness" means sexual immorality, in contrast with religious leaders that interpreted the term more broadly.

I see how that could make sense, especially at first read. However, notice in Matthew 19:7-8 that Jesus says the religious leaders are correct that Moses permitted the divorce certificate. But what does He do? He speaks against using the passage today, saying Moses permitted the certificates "because of the hardness of your hearts" (NKJV). He then says in Matthew 19:9 not to divorce one's wife except for sexual immorality, implying as far as I can see that one can divorce for sexual immorality.

In addition to Jesus speaking against Deuteronomy 24:1, also note that Jesus' punishment for sexual immorality—divorce—is different than the Old Testament's punishment for sexual immorality—execution by stoning. For these reasons, Jesus isn't merely explaining what the Old Testament already meant; instead, His teaching differs from it, and is therefore in effect after the Old Testament.

 

[Kilk1]

Those convicted were executed after the law became established.

Since they were executed, they weren't divorced, right? Death dissolves a marriage without a divorce having to happen. If so, we have a difference between the old law and what Jesus taught in Matthew 19, proving the latter is different from the former.

 

[RDKirk]

I see how that could make sense, especially at first read. However, notice in Matthew 19:7-8 that Jesus says they're the religious leaders are correct that Moses permitted the divorce certificate. But what does He do? He speaks against using the passage today, saying Moses permitted the certificates "because of the hardness of your hearts" (NKJV). He then says not to divorce one's wife except for sexual immorality, implying as far as I can see that one can divorce for sexual immorality.

In addition to Jesus speaking against Deuteronomy 24:1, also note that Jesus' punishment for sexual immorality—divorce—is different than the Old Testament's punishment for sexual immorality—execution by stoning. For these reasons, Jesus isn't merely explaining what the Old Testament already meant; instead, His teaching differs from it, and is therefore in effect after the Old Testament.

I would note along with what you've said that when Jesus prevented the stoning of the woman caught in adultery (proving the Mosaic execution provision was still in force at that time), that did not prevent the husband from divorcing her. Yes, Jesus did do a new thing in that situation, because there was no requirement in the Law for the person throwing the first stone to be without sin, nor was there a requirement in the Law to have taken both parties in the sin. Jesus did a new thing.

But if the husband did divorce her (presuming she showed her intent to "sin no more"), it would be a matter of his hardness of heart, rather than mercy and forgiveness.

 

[Kilk1]

I would note along with what you've said that when Jesus prevented the stoning of the woman caught in adultery (proving the Mosaic execution provision was still in force at that time), that did not prevent the husband from divorcing her. Yes, Jesus did do a new thing in that situation, because there was no requirement in the Law for the person throwing the first stone to be without sin, nor was there a requirement in the Law to have taken both parties in the sin. Jesus did a new thing.

But if the husband did divorce her (presuming she showed her intent to "sin no more"), it would be a matter of his hardness of heart, rather than mercy and forgiveness.

Yeah, the story of the woman taken in adultery would only serve as further evidence that Jesus' teaching differed from the Old Law. If everything He taught was just what the OT was already saying, she should've been executed. However, as you pointed out, that isn't what the passage said happened. Another good point!