samir
Well-Known Member
You're forgetting the exception clause found in Matthew 5:32.
I'm aware of Matthew 5:32 but it was written to Jewish believers about a unique situation that didn't need to be mentioned when Luke wrote to Gentile (non-Jewish) believers. Regardless of what you believe about it, scripture can't contradict scripture so you can't use Matthew 5:32 to overrule Luke 16:18.
Another poster already explained Matthew 5:32 very well:
Kersh,
The unchastity as the exception thingy is only discussed in the gospel of Matthew 5:32, which is a gospel directed at the jewish people. You would be very careful to interpret that exception clause, but anyway, it seems likely, that before the marriage, during the betrothal, if you found that your to-be wife was not a virgin, you could legally dismiss her. But after the marriage, all doors were closed until death.
A man and a woman seem to have equally no open doors when we look at Mark 10:11-12.
And likewise, Luke 16:18 seems to slam the door at the "innocent party" interpretation. The one who is divorced against his will still will have to remain celibate until reconsolation happens. Even if the partner starts living in a remarriage, which is not a marriage but an adultery, according to the same passage.
And, by the way, the original hebrew meaning of adultery is most like the word "pollution", so if you go into adultery, you pollute your marriage, but by no means you break it or end it. Such is not possible.
Upvote
0