a challenge for those who believe Jesus allows divorce after adultery

[Nick01]

This is an example of what it SHOULD have looked like if it had been competently and literally expressed as you assume was the intended meaning:
Matt 5:
A) It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
B) But I say unto you,
1) That whosoever shall put away his wife,
2) unless she is already an adulterous
3) causeth her to commit adultery:
4) and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Even then the sentence is not literally competent. The last clause identifies the man who marries her as committing adultery, while the effect of the exception says she is NOT caused to AFTERWARD commit adultery if divorced for adultery. So his divorcing her did not effect her becoming vulnerable to another man marrying her after the divorce?

Please modify the text further to deal with this inconsistency concerning the last clause and how it clashes with that she was NOT caused to commit adultery by being divorced for adultery. Let me help you by also modifying the 3rd clause so there is created a reasonable flow of coherency:
Matt 5:
A) It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
B) But I say unto you,
1) That whosoever shall put away his wife,
2) unless she is already an adulterous
3) will not be charged with causing her to commit adultery:
4) and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Notice what happened? The contradiction has been eliminated. It can now be acknowledged that, yes, she does in fact commit adultery by remarriage after being divorced for adultery, but even though the man's choice to divorce her plays a role in her remarriage afterward, he is not charged with causing her to commit adultery. In other words, the change of text has contradicted he original text.

I think these are the two most important sections of what you have written to the present discussion. Again, I think I can boil down your argument to two simple principles.

You are arguing that:

a) fornication (πορνεία) cannot mean adultery (μοιχεύω)
b) clauses 3 and 4 relate directly to the scenario created by the exception clause, not to the scenario that would be at play WITHOUT the exception clause.

The first point is easily responded to: fornication in the Greek is usually used as a catch all for sexual immorality, whether in marriage or outside of marriage. It's hard to make a hard and fast rule about the use of terms, but porneia tends to focus on the act itself, while moicheuo tends to emphasis the covenantal/legal transgression. However, porneia will often include moicheou, or give rise to moicheuo, even in marriage (cf Jeremiah 3:9 LXX). There is not need to, on the basis of the terms, see the two terms as describing seperate contexts.

As to your second point, it seems obvious to me that clause 3 and 4 are addressing the primary subject, while the exception clause functions exactly as it should - an exception to the otherwise discussion scenario. You however, seem to read 3 and 4 as addressing the exception clause, when they are obviously not, and there is no grammatical reason why they should be.

In other words, the plain reading of the text is:

But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife,

(except on the ground of sexual immorality)​

makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

 

[4enlightment]

The Challenge


Make a sentence like this:

Matt 5:
31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Let us break it down and identify what the sentence does on a very basic level:

A) It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: [Something the listeners are familiar with is brought to their attention, which identifies the topic of the sentence]
B) But I say unto you, [An enlightenment or clarification or correction of some sort is forthcoming]
1) That whosoever shall put away his wife, [if a particular act is done)
2) saving for the cause of fornication, [unless done for a reason or under certain circumstances]
3) causeth her to commit adultery: [causes whoever or whatever has been the recipient of that action to do something negative]
4) and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. [a third party becomes involved and thereby becomes guilty of the same thing the recipient of the original action was caused to do.]

Now let us isolate what the parallel is supposed to do:

A) [Something the listeners are familiar with is brought to their attention, which identifies the topic of the sentence]
B) [An enlightenment or clarification or correction of some sort is forthcoming]
1) [if a particular act is done)
2) [unless done for a reason or under certain circumstances]
3) [causes whoever or whatever has been the recipient of that action to do something negative]
4) [a third party becomes involved and thereby becomes guilty of the same thing the recipient of the original action was caused to do.]

Now an example of a parallel that sufficiently performs after the manner required:
A) You have heard it said, that students, whose families own orchards, should be allowed to leave apples on the hoods of their cars at the beginning of harvest time in thankfulness to God.
B) but I say to you:
1) whosoever shall leave his apple on the hood of his car,
2) saving for the cause of rottenness,
3) causes a passing child to commit theft:
4) and whosoever takes an apple found sitting on the hood of another's car, committeth theft".

Another example:
A) You have heard it said that if you need something at home, go ahead and take it, the boss won’t even know it’s gone
B) but I say to you
1) that whoever takes something
2) except with permission to borrow
3) causes their employer monetary loss
4) and whoever urges an employee to pilfer is an accomplice in the crime.

Another example:
A) You have heard it said that the spacesuits of our older comrades should be taken from them:
B) but I say to you that
1) anyone who takes a space walking spaceman’s spacesuit from him,
2) except in the case where he’s already dead,
3) will cause him to die
4) and anyone using the spacesuit taken from a spaceman will be deemed an accomplice.

The kind of sentence that Matt 5:32 is, doing what it has been shown to do on a very basic level, cannot make sense while having an exception clause that provides partial allowance of what the sentence is addressing, as established by A). In the first example about apples, the topic is obviously about apples in good condition. The exception clause does not give partial permission to put good apples on the hoods of cars. Rather, the exception clause jumps to what was not under consideration or even hinted at; rotten apples. In the second example, pertaining to a culture of pilfering by employees, the exception clause also does not give partial permission to take what is needed at home without permission. The exception clause jumps to something other than what the topic of the sentence is as established by A). In the third example, as well, the exception clause jumps to taking from a dead spaceman when the topic of discussion was about taking from a live spaceman. In these cases, if attempts are made to make the exception clause provide partial allowance concerning what the topic of discussion is, as established in A), then the sentence becomes literally non coherent. That is because such an attempt is in reality an attempt to force a sentence that can only accommodate a “nonessential” exception clause, (that jumps to a side point not under discussion) to accommodate an “essential” exception clause (that provides partial allowance of what is under discussion). It is impossible for this kind of sentence to have an exception clause that provides partial allowance for what is being discussed, as established in A), and at the same time to make literal sense.

Notice how the sentences in the three examples above have a reasonable flow of comprehension. They are coherent. It is not necessary to read and reread numerous times and speculate what the author was trying to convey and devise different theories concerning what was the intended meaning. But if the exception clause of these parallels were changed to possess an essential exception clause, providing partial allowance of what is being discussed, then there would be good reason to start speculating because there would not be a flow of comprehension. For example, in the last parallel; if the exception clause were to provide partial allowance by saying, “unless the astronaut is over 60 years old”, then the sentence becomes convoluted. So it is with Matt 5:31,32; the entire sentence makes no literal straightforward sense and is convoluted when it is assumed that Jesus is providing partial allowance to do what he is addressing, which is the post marital divorce. He is speaking of post marital divorces as per Matt 5:31 (referencing Deut 24:1), and the exception clause is assumed to be providing partial allowance of that kind of divorce; for her having committed adultery. Notice the convoluted mess it is when fornication is assumed to mean adultery:

Matt 5:
A) It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
B) But I say unto you,
1) That whosoever shall put away his wife,
2) saving for the cause of fornication [read as adultery]
3) causeth her to commit adultery:
4) and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

If whosoever marries her that is divorced commits adultery as per 4), then how can the mechanics of the sentence simultaneously say that she that was divorced for adultery was not caused to commit adultery if divorced for that reason? If she that was divorced for stinky feet is caused to commit adultery, obviously because she becomes vulnerable to other men after being put out of her husband’s house, then isn’t the woman divorced for adultery likewise not caused to commit adultery, similarly, that she is not made vulnerable to other men after being put out of her husband’s house? The whole long sentence cannot be taken literally and make sense. Interjecting phrases and making complex deductions becomes necessary to arrive at theories what the author must have intended.


Now read the exception clause as NOT providing partial allowance, but rather as a nonessential exception clause that jumps away to touch on something other than what the sentence is centrally addressing, as established in A):

Matt 5:
A) It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
B) But I say unto you,
1) That whosoever shall put away his wife,
2) saving for the cause of fornication [read as the premarital kind of divorce Joseph was about to do with Mary while only engaged, as revealed in Matt 1:18-24]
3) causeth her to commit adultery:
4) and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

The wife divorced after this manner is not caused to commit adultery. That makes perfect sense, since she is still single, not having cleaved to her husband, from which status if she had entered, and thereby becoming joined together by God, only death could part. All divorces not after this manner, all post marital divorces, are wrong because they cause the wife to commit adultery. A frightful crime to be charged with in judgment before a jealous God. This reading, taking the exception clause as not providing partial allowance of what is under discussion, (the nonessential kind, the only kind of exception clause the sentence can accommodate), makes perfect sense and is in line with the rest of Matt 5 where Jesus is establishing kingdom commandments and identifying things derived from the law that under the new testament were to be no longer allowable. This particular prohibition in effect declares that the only way a man can divorce his wife is if it is a betrothed wife, which kind of divorce was identified for the common reason it was done, for “fornication”, not adultery. The exception clause, creating a comparison between the two different kinds of divorces, postmarital and premarital, completely eliminated the former on the grounds that it causes the wife to commit adultery, as well as identifying the man who marries that divorced woman as committing adultery with another man’s wife. That other kind of divorce, done premaritally, is not an offense to God. In their culture the man and woman who were engaged possessed the titles of “husband” and “wife” and the termination of the engagement was called a ‘putting away’, the same term used for divorce. The exception clause jumped to that other kind of divorce just like the 3 parallels above, whose nonessential exception clauses jumped to what was not the topic of discussion. The nonessential exception clause, the kind that jumps to something other than what is being addressed, is the only kind that can work in this kind of sentence. This kind of clause can also be omitted altogether from a sentence containing it and no damage occurs since it touches on a point the sentence is not directly addressing.

It is fitting that we give Jesus the last word on this. Notice how the straightforwardness of his words in Mark and Luke, which authors did not include the exception clause, fully agree with the understanding that the exception clause of Matt 5:32; 19:9 is “nonessential”, and therefore can be left out without disturbing the central thrust of the sentence, and therefore does not give partial allowance of what is under discussion. These easy to understand words, spoken in the context of a one-man-one-woman first time marriage, are to be taken at face value:

Mark 10:
11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

Luke 16:
18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

Matthew 19:9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

So God has said that their is no reason for an divorce unless the other (Non-believer) decide to be with another, then it is permissible, because God want us to live in peace, not chasing after a non-believer.

 

[seekingknowledge1225]

Wow... Let those without sin cast the first stone. Oh wait that would be none.. We all sin and fall short.. I mean is that not why Jesus/God came in man form and bared "our" sins on the cross? I pray for our churches, because we have become no better than the unbeliever. The thou are better then you type of so called Christians. The pharisses of this generation. Ask yourself why there are so many that do not believe? Then take a look in the mirror and you will have your answer. Where a house is divided it will not stand. Unfortunately it goes way beyond our own houses outwardly being divided. The most important one is "His House"!

 

[fredjames]

The Challenge


Make a sentence like this:

Matt 5:
31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Let us break it down and identify what the sentence does on a very basic level:

A) It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: [Something the listeners are familiar with is brought to their attention, which identifies the topic of the sentence]
B) But I say unto you, [An enlightenment or clarification or correction of some sort is forthcoming]
1) That whosoever shall put away his wife, [if a particular act is done)
2) saving for the cause of fornication, [unless done for a reason or under certain circumstances]
3) causeth her to commit adultery: [causes whoever or whatever has been the recipient of that action to do something negative]
4) and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. [a third party becomes involved and thereby becomes guilty of the same thing the recipient of the original action was caused to do.]

Now let us isolate what the parallel is supposed to do:

A) [Something the listeners are familiar with is brought to their attention, which identifies the topic of the sentence]
B) [An enlightenment or clarification or correction of some sort is forthcoming]
1) [if a particular act is done)
2) [unless done for a reason or under certain circumstances]
3) [causes whoever or whatever has been the recipient of that action to do something negative]
4) [a third party becomes involved and thereby becomes guilty of the same thing the recipient of the original action was caused to do.]

Now an example of a parallel that sufficiently performs after the manner required:
A) You have heard it said, that students, whose families own orchards, should be allowed to leave apples on the hoods of their cars at the beginning of harvest time in thankfulness to God.
B) but I say to you:
1) whosoever shall leave his apple on the hood of his car,
2) saving for the cause of rottenness,
3) causes a passing child to commit theft:
4) and whosoever takes an apple found sitting on the hood of another's car, committeth theft".

Another example:
A) You have heard it said that if you need something at home, go ahead and take it, the boss won’t even know it’s gone
B) but I say to you
1) that whoever takes something
2) except with permission to borrow
3) causes their employer monetary loss
4) and whoever urges an employee to pilfer is an accomplice in the crime.

Another example:
A) You have heard it said that the spacesuits of our older comrades should be taken from them:
B) but I say to you that
1) anyone who takes a space walking spaceman’s spacesuit from him,
2) except in the case where he’s already dead,
3) will cause him to die
4) and anyone using the spacesuit taken from a spaceman will be deemed an accomplice.

The kind of sentence that Matt 5:32 is, doing what it has been shown to do on a very basic level, cannot make sense while having an exception clause that provides partial allowance of what the sentence is addressing, as established by A). In the first example about apples, the topic is obviously about apples in good condition. The exception clause does not give partial permission to put good apples on the hoods of cars. Rather, the exception clause jumps to what was not under consideration or even hinted at; rotten apples. In the second example, pertaining to a culture of pilfering by employees, the exception clause also does not give partial permission to take what is needed at home without permission. The exception clause jumps to something other than what the topic of the sentence is as established by A). In the third example, as well, the exception clause jumps to taking from a dead spaceman when the topic of discussion was about taking from a live spaceman. In these cases, if attempts are made to make the exception clause provide partial allowance concerning what the topic of discussion is, as established in A), then the sentence becomes literally non coherent. That is because such an attempt is in reality an attempt to force a sentence that can only accommodate a “nonessential” exception clause, (that jumps to a side point not under discussion) to accommodate an “essential” exception clause (that provides partial allowance of what is under discussion). It is impossible for this kind of sentence to have an exception clause that provides partial allowance for what is being discussed, as established in A), and at the same time to make literal sense.

Notice how the sentences in the three examples above have a reasonable flow of comprehension. They are coherent. It is not necessary to read and reread numerous times and speculate what the author was trying to convey and devise different theories concerning what was the intended meaning. But if the exception clause of these parallels were changed to possess an essential exception clause, providing partial allowance of what is being discussed, then there would be good reason to start speculating because there would not be a flow of comprehension. For example, in the last parallel; if the exception clause were to provide partial allowance by saying, “unless the astronaut is over 60 years old”, then the sentence becomes convoluted. So it is with Matt 5:31,32; the entire sentence makes no literal straightforward sense and is convoluted when it is assumed that Jesus is providing partial allowance to do what he is addressing, which is the post marital divorce. He is speaking of post marital divorces as per Matt 5:31 (referencing Deut 24:1), and the exception clause is assumed to be providing partial allowance of that kind of divorce; for her having committed adultery. Notice the convoluted mess it is when fornication is assumed to mean adultery:

Matt 5:
A) It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
B) But I say unto you,
1) That whosoever shall put away his wife,
2) saving for the cause of fornication [read as adultery]
3) causeth her to commit adultery:
4) and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

If whosoever marries her that is divorced commits adultery as per 4), then how can the mechanics of the sentence simultaneously say that she that was divorced for adultery was not caused to commit adultery if divorced for that reason? If she that was divorced for stinky feet is caused to commit adultery, obviously because she becomes vulnerable to other men after being put out of her husband’s house, then isn’t the woman divorced for adultery likewise not caused to commit adultery, similarly, that she is not made vulnerable to other men after being put out of her husband’s house? The whole long sentence cannot be taken literally and make sense. Interjecting phrases and making complex deductions becomes necessary to arrive at theories what the author must have intended.


Now read the exception clause as NOT providing partial allowance, but rather as a nonessential exception clause that jumps away to touch on something other than what the sentence is centrally addressing, as established in A):

Matt 5:
A) It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
B) But I say unto you,
1) That whosoever shall put away his wife,
2) saving for the cause of fornication [read as the premarital kind of divorce Joseph was about to do with Mary while only engaged, as revealed in Matt 1:18-24]
3) causeth her to commit adultery:
4) and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

The wife divorced after this manner is not caused to commit adultery. That makes perfect sense, since she is still single, not having cleaved to her husband, from which status if she had entered, and thereby becoming joined together by God, only death could part. All divorces not after this manner, all post marital divorces, are wrong because they cause the wife to commit adultery. A frightful crime to be charged with in judgment before a jealous God. This reading, taking the exception clause as not providing partial allowance of what is under discussion, (the nonessential kind, the only kind of exception clause the sentence can accommodate), makes perfect sense and is in line with the rest of Matt 5 where Jesus is establishing kingdom commandments and identifying things derived from the law that under the new testament were to be no longer allowable. This particular prohibition in effect declares that the only way a man can divorce his wife is if it is a betrothed wife, which kind of divorce was identified for the common reason it was done, for “fornication”, not adultery. The exception clause, creating a comparison between the two different kinds of divorces, postmarital and premarital, completely eliminated the former on the grounds that it causes the wife to commit adultery, as well as identifying the man who marries that divorced woman as committing adultery with another man’s wife. That other kind of divorce, done premaritally, is not an offense to God. In their culture the man and woman who were engaged possessed the titles of “husband” and “wife” and the termination of the engagement was called a ‘putting away’, the same term used for divorce. The exception clause jumped to that other kind of divorce just like the 3 parallels above, whose nonessential exception clauses jumped to what was not the topic of discussion. The nonessential exception clause, the kind that jumps to something other than what is being addressed, is the only kind that can work in this kind of sentence. This kind of clause can also be omitted altogether from a sentence containing it and no damage occurs since it touches on a point the sentence is not directly addressing.

It is fitting that we give Jesus the last word on this. Notice how the straightforwardness of his words in Mark and Luke, which authors did not include the exception clause, fully agree with the understanding that the exception clause of Matt 5:32; 19:9 is “nonessential”, and therefore can be left out without disturbing the central thrust of the sentence, and therefore does not give partial allowance of what is under discussion. These easy to understand words, spoken in the context of a one-man-one-woman first time marriage, are to be taken at face value:

Mark 10:
11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

Luke 16:
18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

Please do not interpret in false ignorant revelation and lead others towards that false direction. Read again Matthew 5; 32:

"But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery. And whoever marries a divorced women commit adultery."

i also know and remember that JESUS also said somewhere in the Gospel that, if i am not mistaken; 'that whoever can forgive his wife, guilty based on that 'ground' and able to live on together, may do so.

A man who divorces his wife without based on this 'ground', but because of his lust for another and marries her, commits adultery against his former wife. (Luke 16;18)

This man who divorced his former wife unjustly due to lust, causes her to commit adultery, if she remarries another man and also causes that man who marries her to commit adultery as well.

 

[Stephen63]

a mistake-----

The only mistake I've seen is good people falling for the scheme of a little troll who is taking advantage of their feelings.

 

[JackH]

I think these are the two most important sections of what you have written to the present discussion. Again, I think I can boil down your argument to two simple principles.

You are arguing that:

a) fornication (πορνεία) cannot mean adultery (μοιχεύω)
b) clauses 3 and 4 relate directly to the scenario created by the exception clause, not to the scenario that would be at play WITHOUT the exception clause.

The first point is easily responded to: fornication in the Greek is usually used as a catch all for sexual immorality, whether in marriage or outside of marriage. It's hard to make a hard and fast rule about the use of terms, but porneia tends to focus on the act itself, while moicheuo tends to emphasis the covenantal/legal transgression. However, porneia will often include moicheou, or give rise to moicheuo, even in marriage (cf Jeremiah 3:9 LXX). There is not need to, on the basis of the terms, see the two terms as describing seperate contexts.

As to your second point, it seems obvious to me that clause 3 and 4 are addressing the primary subject, while the exception clause functions exactly as it should - an exception to the otherwise discussion scenario. You however, seem to read 3 and 4 as addressing the exception clause, when they are obviously not, and there is no grammatical reason why they should be.

In other words, the plain reading of the text is:

But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife,

(except on the ground of sexual immorality)​

makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

You nailed it.

Fornication is a difficult word to define totally, biblically speaking. But we have a real good idea of what it includes but is not limited to.

Adultery is included. What about bestiality? I don't see that it is specifically included in the verses pertaining to sexual immorality in the NT.

I'm wondering if AVoice would believe there was sufficient grounds for divorce, biblically speaking, if AVoice's spouse had sex with a horse.

I think I know what Phil would say. Not to mention, if I was that horse I would be real worried about that chainsaw. Phil would say, "Would you like some horse with that radish?"

 

[newbirth]

I don't know what kind of penalty voice is attaching to divorce, but that old testament law is not for us. Paul laid out clearly how we should behave. The jews Christ spoke to had a covenant relationship with God. The gentile never had such a thing, and that is why it was necessary for Paul to detail how that aspect of our lives should be managed in respect to God's wishes.

1 Corinthians 6:9
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

we can use gentile interpretation of what a fornicator is and what an adulterer is or we can use Christ interpretation .... if we are following Christ my guess is we use Christ interpretation

 

[phil112]

1 Corinthians 6:9
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

we can use gentile interpretation of what a fornicator is and what an adulterer is or we can use Christ interpretation .... if we are following Christ my guess is we use Christ interpretation

Since you quoted me, your post must have something to do with me. Mind explaining just what you're trying to say?

 

[notuptome]

So I wonder what is the real motive behind a thread like this one? To create excuse for those who are divorced? Perhaps to crush the hope of those who have been wounded by divorce?

How do we edify and not condemn through this subject? Where does compassion and forgiveness enter into the picture?

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Jason0047]

First, just to to be clear to anyone who is reading here: I am against a sin and still be saved type life style because the Bible not only teaches against it, but basic morality teaches against it, too.

Second, before I get into explaining Matthew 19:9, I have to let you know that I am not emotionally attached to this issue one way or the other on this passage (Like some might be here). There is nobody in my family or close friends that I am trying to give an excuse for or to condemn. I am currently engaged, and plan to marry, so there is no personal interest in me wanting to justify any type of remarriage or not. What I am concerned for is what the passage actually says. What I am after is the truth; Which I believe can be illustrated using real world examples like Jesus had illustrated spiritual truth with his parables (real life situations).

Now, let me ask a question: In Matthew 19:9, is the "Whosever" (that puts away his wife) the same man or husband that is the "whoso" that marries her that is put away? No, it is not. Is the "her" some generic woman that is put away? No. It is the woman that is put away for fornication. Yet, the common mistake is that people play musical chairs with this passage and assume that the "her" that is put away is just any woman that is divorced. When in reality it is in reference to the fact that she was put away because of fornication (Which was the exception for her husband to divorce her). So this passage should be broken up into two parts to help you to understand it.

Alright, to begin to inform any new readers here: Well, the only way you can remarry is if your wife cheated on you or if she is deceased. It's what the Bible says. If not, then it is adultery or sin and such a relationship would be wrong.

Matthew 19:9
"And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."

Part 1.

"And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery:​

Part 1 explained:
A husband commits adultery if he divorces her wife and remarries another unless she cheated on him. Meaning, the husband can only remarry if she is unfaithful to him. It's a clause of exception. She is the transgressor and she is to be blamed. The man is innocent of divorce and remarriage only if she cheats on her husband. In other words, if your wife divorced you because she was cheating on you with another man, then you have the Biblical right to re-marry because she is the guilty party of being unfaithful to you (i.e. fornication). However, if she divorces you for any other reason, you cannot re-marry. Your wife cheating on you or her dying are the only two clauses of exception to re-marry.

Part 2.

"and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery"​

Part 2 explained. - Any man who marries a woman who is divorced because she cheated on her previous husband commits adultery. In other words, you can only marry a divorced woman if she was the innocent party and her husband was the guilty party in the fact that he cheated on her. Marrying a divorced woman for any other reason would be considered adultery. For why was the woman put away in the first place within this passage? It was because of her fornication (or cheating) (Please refer back to the first part of the passage).

To put it to you another way, cheating or fornication is the breaking of that covenant. And only the innocent party can re-marry. If both the husband and the wife are cheating on each other while married, then none of them can divorce and remarry.

Now, let's look at the moral issue: Why should the innocent party be punished for being faithful? Yes, Christ desires us to sacrifice our life in doing that which is good, but we have to understand that marriage is representation of Christ and His bride (The church). God would never want us to be punished in being faithful to Him. Tested? Yes. Punished? No. For if the guilty party sins in the marriage by being unfaithful by cheating, they are breaking their covenant or promises of faithfulness. My God is a fair God and a good God. His justice is true and perfect. So while God hates divorce, He understands that some people will never turn or repent of their wicked ways and be faithful to Him. Which of course is a parallel of marriage. However, will God punish us if we desire to be faithful to our partner's in marriage?

For will not the Judge of the Earth do right?

 

[Nick01]

Now, let me ask a question: In Matthew 19:9, is the "Whosever" (that puts away his wife) the same man or husband that is the "whoso" that marries her that is put away? No, it is not. Is the "her" some generic woman that is put away? No. It is the woman that is put away for fornication. Yet, the common mistake is that people play musical chairs with this passage and assume that the "her" that is put away is just any woman that is divorced. When in reality it is in reference to the fact that she was put away because of fornication (Which was the exception for her husband to divorce her). So this passage should be broken up into two parts to help you to understand it.

Just a quick couple of points. The first thing to note is that there are textual variants in Matthew 19:9 that influence the above. In many of the oldest manuscripts, the clause "and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery" does not appear. The text makes more sense as an addition in order to harmonise the reciprocal teaching with 5:32 than as an omission. Just so everyone's aware that there's a variant.

But in any case, dealing with the text as you've posted it, again, the clause about the 'whoso' who marries her functions in the same way that the clause in 5:32 does - the scenario in which the man who marries a put away woman commits adultery is the one in which the woman is put away for reasons OTHER THAN FORNICATION (i.e, all the subject matter in this verse except for the exception clause itself deals with a scenario where the exception clause does not apply).

Now, it may well be that a man who marries a woman put away for adultery commits adultery anyway, but that's not what Jesus is addressing - he is saying that a certificate of divorce is not enough to ensure adultery does not occur, and in fact not only do YOU commit adultery in a divorce, whether legal or not, but you actually make the woman commit adultery, and any man who subsequently remarries commit adultery as well.

 

[Kerry]

Paul gave reasons for divorce as spiritual adultery, Meaning that if one gets saved and the spouse refuses it is grounds for divorce. But recommends that they stay in that bondage for hopes that the spouse will get saved at a later date and also, that the children are protected from demonic influence.

 

[AVoice]

First, just to to be clear to anyone who is reading here: I am against a sin and still be saved type life style because the Bible not only teaches against it, but basic morality teaches against it, too.

Second, before I get into explaining Matthew 19:9, I have to let you know that I am not emotionally attached to this issue one way or the other on this passage (Like some might be here). There is nobody in my family or close friends that I am trying to give an excuse for or to condemn. I am currently engaged, and plan to marry, so there is no personal interest in me wanting to justify any type of remarriage or not. What I am concerned for is what the passage actually says. What I am after is the truth; Which I believe can be illustrated using real world examples like Jesus had illustrated spiritual truth with his parables (real life situations).

Now, let me ask a question: In Matthew 19:9, is the "Whosever" (that puts away his wife) the same man or husband that is the "whoso" that marries her that is put away? No, it is not. Is the "her" some generic woman that is put away? No. It is the woman that is put away for fornication. Yet, the common mistake is that people play musical chairs with this passage and assume that the "her" that is put away is just any woman that is divorced. When in reality it is in reference to the fact that she was put away because of fornication (Which was the exception for her husband to divorce her). So this passage should be broken up into two parts to help you to understand it.

Alright, to begin to inform any new readers here: Well, the only way you can remarry is if your wife cheated on you or if she is deceased. It's what the Bible says. If not, then it is adultery or sin and such a relationship would be wrong.

Matthew 19:9
"And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."

Part 1.

"And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery:​

Part 1 explained:
A husband commits adultery if he divorces her wife and remarries another unless she cheated on him. Meaning, the husband can only remarry if she is unfaithful to him. It's a clause of exception. She is the transgressor and she is to be blamed. The man is innocent of divorce and remarriage only if she cheats on her husband. In other words, if your wife divorced you because she was cheating on you with another man, then you have the Biblical right to re-marry because she is the guilty party of being unfaithful to you (i.e. fornication). However, if she divorces you for any other reason, you cannot re-marry. Your wife cheating on you or her dying are the only two clauses of exception to re-marry.

Part 2.

"and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery"​

Part 2 explained. - Any man who marries a woman who is divorced because she cheated on her previous husband commits adultery. In other words, you can only marry a divorced woman if she was the innocent party and her husband was the guilty party in the fact that he cheated on her. Marrying a divorced woman for any other reason would be considered adultery. For why was the woman put away in the first place within this passage? It was because of her fornication (or cheating) (Please refer back to the first part of the passage).

To put it to you another way, cheating or fornication is the breaking of that covenant. And only the innocent party can re-marry. If both the husband and the wife are cheating on each other while married, then none of them can divorce and remarry.

Now, let's look at the moral issue: Why should the innocent party be punished for being faithful? Yes, Christ desires us to sacrifice our life in doing that which is good, but we have to understand that marriage is representation of Christ and His bride (The church). God would never want us to be punished in being faithful to Him. Tested? Yes. Punished? No. For if the guilty party sins in the marriage by being unfaithful by cheating, they are breaking their covenant or promises of faithfulness. My God is a fair God and a good God. His justice is true and perfect. So while God hates divorce, He understands that some people will never turn or repent of their wicked ways and be faithful to Him. Which of course is a parallel of marriage. However, will God punish us if we desire to be faithful to our partner's in marriage?

For will not the Judge of the Earth do right?

Jason, thank you for responding.
I notice no one dares take the challenge presented by the OP. It appears they do not understand its implications. Or what is obvious by not taking it.

If you have read some of my responses you will understand that I repeatedly assert that the texts, Matt 5:31,32 and 19:9, contradict themselves and each other WHEN interpreted that Jesus allows divorce for adultery. I’m thankful for what you have written because I could almost not have wished for a better example to vindicate my assertion.

First let me quote Matt 19:
[SUP]9 [/SUP]And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Let us break it down into its 6 parts.

A) And I say unto you,
1) Whosoever shall put away his wife,
2) except it be for fornication,
3) and shall marry another,
4) committeth adultery:
5) and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

As you might discover, if you continue to pursue digging into this topic; the last clause, clause 5, is the killer for the divorce-for-adultery explanation of the exception clause. Let me illustrate:
You say above, that the last clause, clause 5, pertains only to the woman who was divorced for adultery (under the divorce for adultery explanation).

Any man who marries a woman who is divorced because she cheated on her previous husband commits adultery.

Then answer my question:
1) If the man who marries her that was divorced for adultery, commits adultery with her by marrying her, against what husband is the adultery being done? She has to have a living lawful husband who she is still bound to, in order for the man who marries her (and thus has sex with her) to be able to be charged with committing adultery.

In Part 1 of your post you said this:

Meaning, the husband can only remarry if she is unfaithful to him.

So you are asserting that while the man who marries the woman who was divorced for adultery, commits adultery: at the same time, he who divorced her is free to get married again and it is not committing adultery.

So answer my second and third questions:

2) Does the man who divorced her now have two wives who are by God’s law both bound to him by marriage?

3) Can you show how this can be explained to make the literal text of Matt 19:9 not conflict with itself?

Perhaps you can try saying the last clause pertains only to the innocently divorced wife, that whoever marries her commits adultery. Try that and see what happens.

 

[AVoice]

1 Corinthians 6:9
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

we can use gentile interpretation of what a fornicator is and what an adulterer is or we can use Christ interpretation .... if we are following Christ my guess is we use Christ interpretation

Thanks newbirth,

The word fornication is both very flexible and very rigid, depending on the context it is used. It has more than one definition. Words that have more than one definition can sometimes be misunderstood and supposed that the author meant one definition when in reality he meant another definition. Normally this will manifest by the sentence not functioning correctly until the correct definition of the word is used. That is what has happened to Matt 5:31,32 and Matt 19:9. The one usage of "fornication" which includes adultery was assumed to be what Jesus was referring to in his exception clause. As illustrated, this causes both sentences to not function properly. So if a person will exhaust the usages of the word fornication, they will discover that only one definition fits the particular context, both in Matt 5 and 19. That is its exclusive premarital definition. A sentence that can demonstrate this rigid definition is:
"Jane and John, both 15, were caught fornicating."
By virtue of their ages, it is reasonably assumed as a fact that neither are married to anyone.
Notice the word adultery would be impossible to use in that context.

newbirth, the verse you use is very helpful for those who do not understand how the word fornication is used. There are at least two other NT references where the words fornication and adultery are listed side by side, indicating a difference. The 2 verses in Matt that have the exception clause also have the two distinct words in the same sentence.
Since adultery is exclusively a post marital sexual offence, it is natural to identify the word fornication in that context of being listed side by side, to be the exclusive premarital offense. Even many pagans had some qualms about committing adultery because it trespasses against another person's spouse, while mere fornication in their eyes was almost completely justified without any sense of guilt because no third party was trespassed against. By the NT both adultery AND fornication are sins that will lead to not inheriting eternal life.
The divorce they practiced while still single and hence for fornication, not adultery, fits perfectly within the context of Matt 5:31,32 and Matt 19:9. The exception clause then becomes "non essential" because it jumps off to a side point as the parallels in the OP demonstrate. A "non essential" clause can be omitted without effecting the central points the sentence makes. That is why Mark Luke and Paul were able to leave it out altogether, with no concern whatsoever, since it did not pertain to post marital divorce anyway.

 

[AVoice]

So I wonder what is the real motive behind a thread like this one? To create excuse for those who are divorced? Perhaps to crush the hope of those who have been wounded by divorce?

How do we edify and not condemn through this subject? Where does compassion and forgiveness enter into the picture?

For the cause of Christ
Roger

One honest motive is to bring liberty to those who have the God given conviction that the way Mark wrote it is the unmoving solid truth of the matter:

Mark 10:
[SUP]2 [/SUP]And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.
[SUP]3 [/SUP]And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?
[SUP]4 [/SUP]And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
[SUP]5 [/SUP]And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
[SUP]6 [/SUP]But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
[SUP]7 [/SUP]For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
[SUP]8 [/SUP]And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
[SUP]9 [/SUP]What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
[SUP]10 [/SUP]And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.
[SUP]11 [/SUP]And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
[SUP]12 [/SUP]And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

The motive is to break the bonds of Satan that have led people to believe that they cannot accept the straightforward wording in Mark Luke 16:18 and Paul's writings in 1 Cor 7:39 and Rom 7:2,3.
All these establish the ancient solemn phrase, "till death do us part".
Like it or not, in this adulterous and sinful generation, that phrase represents what the NT establishes as TRUTH.

 

[AVoice]

Please do not interpret in false ignorant revelation and lead others towards that false direction. Read again Matthew 5; 32:

"But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery. And whoever marries a divorced women commit adultery."

i also know and remember that JESUS also said somewhere in the Gospel that, if i am not mistaken; 'that whoever can forgive his wife, guilty based on that 'ground' and able to live on together, may do so.

A man who divorces his wife without based on this 'ground', but because of his lust for another and marries her, commits adultery against his former wife. (Luke 16;18)

This man who divorced his former wife unjustly due to lust, causes her to commit adultery, if she remarries another man and also causes that man who marries her to commit adultery as well.

Will you commit to answer every question on this topic I ask you, in return that I will answer every question you ask me?
Both Matt 5:31,32 and Matt 19:9 contradict themselves under your assumption that the word fornication means adultery in that context. They also contradict each other. If you believe you can defend the divorce-for-adultery explanation of the exception clause, then please agree to the terms above.

 

[AVoice]

Please do not interpret in false ignorant revelation and lead others towards that false direction. Read again Matthew 5; 32:

"But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery. And whoever marries a divorced women commit adultery."

i also know and remember that JESUS also said somewhere in the Gospel that, if i am not mistaken; 'that whoever can forgive his wife, guilty based on that 'ground' and able to live on together, may do so.

A man who divorces his wife without based on this 'ground', but because of his lust for another and marries her, commits adultery against his former wife. (Luke 16;18)

This man who divorced his former wife unjustly due to lust, causes her to commit adultery, if she remarries another man and also causes that man who marries her to commit adultery as well.

You can vindicate the divorce-for-adultery interpretation of the exception clause by accomplishing what the challenge requires of you.
By not accomplishing what is required in the challenge, you are basically admitting that Jesus did not make adultery a grounds for divorce.

 

[Agricola]

As I said before, you commit adultry just by thinking naughty thoughts about someone, its not a problem getting divorced and re-marrying, it is only a problem for the legalistic and religious. I have told you of a number of examples of Christians who were divorced being blessed and brought together by God and told to get married with his blessing, one couple were even blessed a son within a year of marriage, she was 52 and he was 68

 

[AVoice]

I think these are the two most important sections of what you have written to the present discussion. Again, I think I can boil down your argument to two simple principles.

You are arguing that:

a) fornication (πορνεία) cannot mean adultery (μοιχεύω)
b) clauses 3 and 4 relate directly to the scenario created by the exception clause, not to the scenario that would be at play WITHOUT the exception clause.

The first point is easily responded to: fornication in the Greek is usually used as a catch all for sexual immorality, whether in marriage or outside of marriage. It's hard to make a hard and fast rule about the use of terms, but porneia tends to focus on the act itself, while moicheuo tends to emphasis the covenantal/legal transgression. However, porneia will often include moicheou, or give rise to moicheuo, even in marriage (cf Jeremiah 3:9 LXX). There is not need to, on the basis of the terms, see the two terms as describing seperate contexts.

As to your second point, it seems obvious to me that clause 3 and 4 are addressing the primary subject, while the exception clause functions exactly as it should - an exception to the otherwise discussion scenario. You however, seem to read 3 and 4 as addressing the exception clause, when they are obviously not, and there is no grammatical reason why they should be.

In other words, the plain reading of the text is:

But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife,

(except on the ground of sexual immorality)​

makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

You are not following my argument.

Matt 5:
A) It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
B) But I say unto you,
1) That whosoever shall put away his wife,
2) unless she is already an adulterous
3) will not be charged with causing her to commit adultery:
4) and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

This version was corrupted by the changing made necessary by virtue that it was nonsensical BEFORE those changes: when "fornication" was assumed to mean adultery. The corrupted version above now makes sense but at the cost of directly contradicting part of what it said before being changed.

You are arguing that:

a) fornication (πορνεία) cannot mean adultery (μοιχεύω)
b) clauses 3 and 4 relate directly to the scenario created by the exception clause, not to the scenario that would be at play WITHOUT the exception clause.

You are wrong on both points unless you begin to write more coherently.
a) Did you mean I take it that porneia cannot mean adultery in that particular context? To that I agree. But that is not what you wrote.
b) That is not at all what my position asserts. My position asserts that the correct explanation of the exception clause functions the same way as all sentences that can be produced that parallel Matt 5:31,32.

Take the parallel about the apples from the OP:

A) You have heard it said, that students, whose families own orchards, should be allowed to leave apples on the hoods of their cars at the beginning of harvest time in thankfulness to God.
B) but I say to you:
1) whosoever shall leave his apple on the hood of his car,
2) saving for the cause of rottenness,
3) causes a passing child to commit theft:
4) and whosoever takes an apple found sitting on the hood of another's car, committeth theft".

Clauses 3 and 4 interact with clause A, clause B and clause 1 and behave as if clause 2 is not there.
That is how every single parallel that can be produced behaves. That proves that the correct interpretation of putting away for fornication ALSO has to behave that way.
The divorce in betrothal explanation behaves that way.
The divorce for adultery explanation does NOT behave that way. The divorce for adultery explanation is false.

 

[Nick01]

You are not following my argument.

Matt 5:
A) It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
B) But I say unto you,
1) That whosoever shall put away his wife,
2) unless she is already an adulterous
3) will not be charged with causing her to commit adultery:
4) and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

This version was corrupted by the changing made necessary by virtue that it was nonsensical BEFORE those changes: when "fornication" was assumed to mean adultery. The corrupted version above now makes sense but at the cost of directly contradicting part of what it said before being changed.

I don't see how the corrupted version is different to the actual version, apart from more precisely spelling out the implication of the exception clause. 2) is the outcome of the actual exception clause (if the exception to no-divorce is if the woman has committed adultery, then logically one could also say "unless she is an adulteress"), unless you argue that fornication cannot include adultery. You haven't argued why that should be the case on the basis of the context or of the actual meaning of the word - only on the basis that the exception clause cannot mean that for other reasons. In other words, it appears that you're begging the question - using your belief that the exception clause is not an exception (A) as an argument that adultery is not under consideration by porneia (B) in order to prove that the exception clause is not an exception (A). A+B cannot prove A.

You are wrong on both points unless you begin to write more coherently.
a) Did you mean I take it that porneia cannot mean adultery in that particular context? To that I agree. But that is not what you wrote.
b) That is not at all what my position asserts. My position asserts that the correct explanation of the exception clause functions the same way as all sentences that can be produced that parallel Matt 5:31,32.

a) So we're clear, you agree then that fornication can include adultery in terms of the semantic range of the words? You just agree that, for whatever reason, it cannot do so in the specific context of v32, correct?

b)This is what you said previously:

Your assumption that divorce for adultery has to be a reasonable understanding of Jesus' intention, has already necessitated the changing of clause 2 as demonstrated above. Please modify the text further to deal with this inconsistency concerning the last clause and how it clashes with that she was NOT caused to commit adultery by being divorced for adultery. Let me help you by also modifying the 3rd clause so there is created a reasonable flow of coherency:
Matt 5:
A) It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
B) But I say unto you,
1) That whosoever shall put away his wife,
2) unless she is already an adulterous
3) will not be charged with causing her to commit adultery:
4) and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

It would seem to me that you here argued that the third clause must be linked to the exception clause. Now, I don't know whether you argued that simply to be facetious, or not. But that's what you said, and what you did. If you don't actually believe or argue that, I'd appreciate it if you can clarify which arguments you are actually arguing, and which you aren't. It would help in following your argument

Take the parallel about the apples from the OP:

A) You have heard it said, that students, whose families own orchards, should be allowed to leave apples on the hoods of their cars at the beginning of harvest time in thankfulness to God.
B) but I say to you:
1) whosoever shall leave his apple on the hood of his car,
2) saving for the cause of rottenness,
3) causes a passing child to commit theft:
4) and whosoever takes an apple found sitting on the hood of another's car, committeth theft".

Clauses 3 and 4 interact with clause A, clause B and clause 1 and behave as if clause 2 is not there.

Agreed. But Clause 2 obviously still applies, even if the rest of the sentence makes grammatical sense if it were to not be there. That's what makes it an exception clause. If it was intrinsically required for the rest of the scenario under discussion to make coherent sense, it would not be an exception clause - it would be a part of the conditional situation that Jesus is arguing against.

That is how every single parallel that can be produced behaves. That proves that the correct interpretation of putting away for fornication ALSO has to behave that way.
The divorce in betrothal explanation behaves that way.
The divorce for adultery explanation does NOT behave that way. The divorce for adultery explanation is false.

I'm not following the argument. In 32, if I take the fornication-as-adultery in the exception clause view, I can still take out the exception clause, and it will still make grammatical sense. I don't see how my view is at odds with your apples analogy.