a challenge for those who believe Jesus allows divorce after adultery

[Jason0047]

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.

No, there is one Word of God that is perfect and without error that exists thru out all points in time (For each chosen or world language). You either believe God's Word or you don't believe it. There is no such thing as textual variants as you would define it. Now, there are other translations thru out history which attempt to corrupt the Word of God. Maybe that is what you are talking about. In other words, I believe every word within the Holy Scriptures is true and should be taken by faith. For faith comes by hearing and hearing the Word of God.

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.

Sorry, you are playing musical chairs. The clause of exception cannot be ignored for that person in the text it is referring to. That is called context.

 

[Jason0047]

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).



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:



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.

First, there are no contradictions in God's Word.

Second, Yes, a person can remarry if their spouse dies. But nowhere in Scripture does it say that this is the only case to remarry. One has to make that assumption in order for that idea to work. No verse in the Bible actually says that. Jesus says divorcing for any reason (Besides for the cause of fornication, i.e. a cheating spouse) is sin. In other words, you can't divorce for ANY reason except when it comes to that spouse being unfaithful. It is the clause of exception. When a man divorces their wife because of her unfaithfulness, she is no longer her wife. Hosea did the same thing, when his wife cheated on him (by becoming a prostitute), he divorced her and said that she was no longer his wife (Hosea 2:2).

 

[Jason0047]

First, there are no contradictions in God's Word.

Second, Yes, a person can remarry if their spouse dies. But nowhere in Scripture does it say that this is the only case to remarry. One has to make that assumption in order for that idea to work. No verse in the Bible actually says that. Jesus says divorcing for any reason (Besides for the cause of fornication, i.e. a cheating spouse) is sin. In other words, you can't divorce for ANY reason except when it comes to that spouse being unfaithful. It is the clause of exception. When a man divorces their wife because of her unfaithfulness, she is no longer her wife. Hosea did the same thing, when his wife cheated on him (by becoming a prostitute), he divorced her and said that she was no longer his wife (Hosea 2:2).

The same thing works with God. If a believer backslides into a life of sin, and never comes back to the Lord, they will not be married (metaphorically speaking) to Christ in the Pre-Trib Rapture. In other words, a person's unfaithfulness proves they are not a part of that marriage anymore. For a man is not going to marry a woman if he knows he is constantly sleeping around with a bunch of guys all the time. It's the same in marriage. If the covenant is broken, by one becoming unfaithful in that marriage, then they are no longer abiding by the covenant agreement anymore and they are in danger of their covenant being broken for good.

 

[Jason0047]

First, there are no contradictions in God's Word.

Second, Yes, a person can remarry if their spouse dies. But nowhere in Scripture does it say that this is the only case to remarry. One has to make that assumption in order for that idea to work. No verse in the Bible actually says that. Jesus says divorcing for any reason (Besides for the cause of fornication, i.e. a cheating spouse) is sin. In other words, you can't divorce for ANY reason except when it comes to that spouse being unfaithful. It is the clause of exception. When a man divorces their wife because of her unfaithfulness, she is no longer her wife. Hosea did the same thing, when his wife cheated on him (by becoming a prostitute), he divorced her and said that she was no longer his wife (Hosea 2:2).

In this example: Only Hosea can remarry because he was faithful, while she was not faithful.
Gomer is not allowed to remarry another man because she was unfaithful in her first marriage.

Now, if Hosea divorced Gomer because she no longer was pretty to him anymore, then Hosea would have been in the wrong and would have committed sin by doing so. Only unfaithfulness is the clause of exception that Jesus mentions.

For marrying her that is put away (or divorced) is in reference to the legal right to divorce on the grounds for fornication. Jesus does not endorse divorce for any other reason. So divorce is ONLY speaking of fornication.

 

[Jason0047]

In this example: Only Hosea can remarry because he was faithful, while she was not faithful.
Gomer is not allowed to remarry another man because she was unfaithful in her first marriage.

Now, if Hosea divorced Gomer because she no longer was pretty to him anymore, then Hosea would have been in the wrong and would have committed sin by doing so. Only unfaithfulness is the clause of exception that Jesus mentions.

For marrying her that is put away (or divorced) is in reference to the legal right to divorce on the grounds for fornication. Jesus does not endorse divorce for any other reason. So divorce is ONLY speaking of fornication.

The only clause of exception to marry a divorced person is if that divorced person was faithful to their spouse (within that previous marriage) while their spouse was not faithful to them. ANY other reason in marrying a divorced person is not allowed.

 

[AVoice]

I'm not following the argument. QUOTE]

That is the problem. I cannot discuss it with you as long as that is the case.
I suggest that you read more carefully.

 

[AVoice]

First, there are no contradictions in God's Word.

Second, Yes, a person can remarry if their spouse dies. But nowhere in Scripture does it say that this is the only case to remarry. One has to make that assumption in order for that idea to work. No verse in the Bible actually says that. Jesus says divorcing for any reason (Besides for the cause of fornication, i.e. a cheating spouse) is sin. In other words, you can't divorce for ANY reason except when it comes to that spouse being unfaithful. It is the clause of exception. When a man divorces their wife because of her unfaithfulness, she is no longer her wife. Hosea did the same thing, when his wife cheated on him (by becoming a prostitute), he divorced her and said that she was no longer his wife (Hosea 2:2).

I asked you some really good questions. You appear to be ignoring them.
If it is, that you have no intention of actually discussing this responsibly, then it is better that you not show up here.
Ask me questions, I will answer. Show the same respect.

 

[AVoice]

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.

Then why is the sentence literally self contradictory?
Will you answer my questions that serve to identify the literal convolution?

 

[Nick01]

I'm not following the argument. QUOTE]

That is the problem. I cannot discuss it with you as long as that is the case.
I suggest that you read more carefully.

Or you just have trouble explaining things clearly and succinctly. There was actually quite a bit that I responded to in my last post where I DO understand your argument, or at least parts of it. Instead you seemed to fixate on essentially the last thing I said in my post, in reply to where you seem to argue that because the exception clause is not grammatically necessary for the syntactical flow of the sentence, therefore it cannot be an exception (which, obviously, is not true, basically by definition).

The other parts of my post are still awaiting your reply, if you want to give it.

 

[Jason0047]

I asked you some really good questions. You appear to be ignoring them.
If it is, that you have no intention of actually discussing this responsibly, then it is better that you not show up here.
Ask me questions, I will answer. Show the same respect.

To be honest (and not to be mean), your original post was vague and confusing. I have no idea where you stand on this issue. Please be simple and short and to the point. If you have questions. Please keep them brief and to the point of the passage. Please let me know where you stand on this issue. As for the respect issue, not really sure I showed any disrespect. It is more like a lack of proper communication from where I am standing. Please clarify.

But while you are re-clarifying, what is your thoughts on Hosea 2:2?

Does Jesus allow divorce for any reason besides fornication?

If a man puts away (divorces) his wife for her fornicating (cheating), which is his legal right to do, then is the man loosed from that marriage or not? Is it the man that is spoken about or the woman after they are divorced?

 

[Nick01]

Then why is the sentence literally self contradictory?
Will you answer my questions that serve to identify the literal convolution?

It's not. Obviously, you don't see a contradiction when the exception clause is not there. When it is there, I don't see how that can possibly introduce a contradiction, when it is an exception to the situation already under discussion by the rest of the sentence.

 

[AVoice]

Does Jesus allow divorce for any reason besides fornication?

If a man puts away (divorces) his wife for her fornicating (cheating), which is his legal right to do, then is the man loosed from that marriage or not? Is it the man that is spoken about or the woman after they are divorced?

Jesus does not allow divorce from a joined marriage for anything. What God has joined man is not to put asunder. To divorce and remarry is adultery as Jesus identified 5 times and Paul twice.
You have misunderstood the exception of fornication. It is not talking about adultery.
You cannot understand unless you read the OP.

 

[AVoice]

To be honest (and not to be mean), your original post was vague and confusing. I have no idea where you stand on this issue. Please be simple and short and to the point. If you have questions. Please keep them brief and to the point of the passage. Please let me know where you stand on this issue. As for the respect issue, not really sure I showed any disrespect. It is more like a lack of proper communication from where I am standing. Please clarify.

But while you are re-clarifying, what is your thoughts on Hosea 2:2?

Does Jesus allow divorce for any reason besides fornication?

If a man puts away (divorces) his wife for her fornicating (cheating), which is his legal right to do, then is the man loosed from that marriage or not? Is it the man that is spoken about or the woman after they are divorced?

Jason, go back to post 73. There are some really good questions there.

1) You say the last clause in Matt 19:9 is identifying the woman divorced for adultery; that whoever marries her commits adultery, right?
2) Since she still has to have a living lawful husband, in order for the man who marries her to be able to be charged with committing adultery by marrying her, then that means her husband who divorced her is still married to her, right?
3) The man who divorced her for her adultery can get married afterward to someone else and it is not adultery, right?

4) Since if he gets married afterward and it is not adultery, does that mean he then has two wives that are bound to him by God's law according to Matt 19:9 by the way you interpret it?

That is because whoever marries her commits adultery, which has to mean she is still married to him even after he divorces her.
Please explain so that it is NOT contradictory.

 

[AVoice]

It's not. Obviously, you don't see a contradiction when the exception clause is not there. When it is there, I don't see how that can possibly introduce a contradiction, when it is an exception to the situation already under discussion by the rest of the sentence.

I asked you a simple question:

Will you answer my questions that serve to identify the literal convolution?

You ignored the question. You appear to have no intention of engaging appropriately in this discussion.
If you ask me questions I will answer. Please show the same respect.
If it is true, as you say, that there is no contradiction then you have an opportunity to prove it by answering my questions.

 

[Agricola]

What will happen if a Christian gets divorced simply because he has grown apart from his wife , then married another Christian, who is also divorced for same reason?

 

[Jason0047]

Jesus does not allow divorce from a joined marriage for anything. What God has joined man is not to put asunder. To divorce and remarry is adultery as Jesus identified 5 times and Paul twice.
You have misunderstood the exception of fornication. It is not talking about adultery.
You cannot understand unless you read the OP.

Well, it wasn't so much of anything that you said that convinced me. But I do have to thank you for starting the thread (Even though I did not truly understand your position fully). Anyways, I decided to research the topic again a little more closely, and I ran into a really good article that convinced me that remarriage is not possible unless the spouse is dead. So yes. I have changed my position on this. It reminds me of a conversation I had with an old Christian friend of mine and his life story.

Now, it is not wrong to divorce under certain circumstances, though. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7 that you can let a person depart (i.e. divorce) if they are an unbeliever and they want to leave the marriage. But yes, they cannot remarry. The only case a person can remarry is if their spouse in their previous marriage is dead. The article that convinced me is this one.

Can a believer divorce and get remarried? | Verse By Verse Ministry International

Although divorrce for infidelity was probably in reference to early courtship of a fiance before getting married, such a rule does not apply in our culture. Being unfaithful is the only grounds for divorce; And one cannot remarry again (If their previous spouse is still alive).

 

[phil112]

.........................If you ask me questions I will answer. .........................

1 Corinthians 7:15 "But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases"

Simple question: Why do you dismiss what Paul said here?

 

[Nick01]

I asked you a simple question:


You ignored the question. You appear to have no intention of engaging appropriately in this discussion.
If you ask me questions I will answer. Please show the same respect.
If it is true, as you say, that there is no contradiction then you have an opportunity to prove it by answering my questions.

I'm not being disrespectful at all. I simply can't answer a question such as "Then why is the sentence literally self contradictory?" or "Will you answer my questions that serve to identify the literal convolution?" any way other than I have already done: I DO NOT SEE A CONTRADICTION.

Your questions are loaded questions, that assume what we are discussing (whether the traditional reading of the passage is inherently and plainly self-contradictory), and it is an assumption I simply don't agree with at this point. If there is another question that does not carry that assumption, I am happy to answer. However, it's simply wrong to assume I'm being 'disrespectful' for not essentially agreeing with your argument I'm not, nor am I trying to be, so I'd appreciate it if you do not insinuate that I am.

Perhaps we can wind back a little bit, and try to clarify the respective positions. Can you please reiterate why you think there is a contradiction, and try to do it in less than a paragraph? So far, when I have attempted to interact with parts of your argument, you have told me I've either misunderstood, or am responding to things that aren't your actual argument. I am not the only person in this thread who appears to have that problem.

Now, I'm willing to accept that I've simply misunderstood, and the problem is all me, but if you're genuinely interested in a discussion, and bringing people to new understanding, it would be helpful if you could restate why you believe there is a logical contradiction in the sentence if we take the exception clause to be pertaining to marital divorce.

 

[AVoice]

It's not. Obviously, you don't see a contradiction when the exception clause is not there. When it is there, I don't see how that can possibly introduce a contradiction, when it is an exception to the situation already under discussion by the rest of the sentence.

This is very clear evidence you have not even taken the time to read the OP.
It is wrong for you to hijack this thread by not responding with regard to what it is about.
Read the OP and respond appropriately or please stay off.

 

[SolidGround]

This is very clear evidence you have not even taken the time to read the OP.
It is wrong for you to hijack this thread by not responding with regard to what it is about.
Read the OP and respond appropriately or please stay off.

I think he was actually right, and refuted the basic premise of the OP.
It was a very appropriate response.