An obvious contradiction?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

NOV25

Active member
Nov 23, 2019
211
116
43
#21
That is not what it is saying.

("technically")

Consider:

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.

Keep in mind that this verse is describing a scenario that does not include the 'exception'.

Now, pay close attention to the colon and the phrase 'which is put away' - specifically referring to the just-described scenario.

In the context of this verse/passage, the last part of the verse is not generally referring to any woman involved in any divorce.

Because of the way it is worded, the 'exception' applies to the whole verse; the last part of the verse does not "stand alone" in such a way that decribes a separate 'unconditional' scenario.

I hope this explanation makes sense.

Yes - it still leaves a lot "wide-open" for/in that scenario - it is referring to any scenario where the husband divorces his wife "without a good-enough reason" -- but, it does not include the 'exception'.

Therefore, I do not believe that there is a contradiction with Deuteronomy 24:1-2.
I agree with everything you said.

Does this verse from the ESV imply that Jesus voids the law?

"Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery. - Luke 16:18

It clearly does. Why? Because they’ve replaced the phrase put away with the word divorce. That’s the key, the term put away Jesus used in all verses is not interchangeable with the word divorce.
 

Dave-L

Well-known member
Jan 17, 2020
4,495
683
113
#22
Matthew 19:9 is not part of the New Covenant and does not permit divorce and remarriage on grounds of infidelity. When it did apply under the OT, it meant any any woman not a virgin when married was subject to capital punishment if her husband divorced her for that reason. She was then stoned to death and the husband was free to marry. Marriage is for life.

But Jesus taught against remarriage for any reason other than that. He showed what happened if capitol punishment was not administered to the adulter.

1) a husband divorces his innocent wife and marries another. = these commit adultery.
2) the innocent wife then marries her second husband. = she and he also commit adultery, even though divorced from an adulterous husband. (the except clause does not mean what most think).
3) four people end up committing adultery as a result of the State not killing the adulterous husband # 1.
 

garee

Senior Member
Mar 28, 2016
14,095
1,329
113
#23
Umm no. I find it humorous when people point to Jesus’s words, Moses allowed for the hardness of heart but it wasn’t that way from the beginning. Like Moses made a law that was against God’s intention and God just says meh, not what I wanted Moses but we’ll go with it 🤦‍♂️
Also, you’re implying Jesus changed the law when he clearly did not.
The law is not subject to change.

I think part of the confusion is how we hear. In the old testament God divorced the Israel that was not born again or called a outward Jew pertaining to the courruted flesh and blood.. The letter of the law the divorcement certificate is the whole Bible. God's witness.

Isaiah 50:1Thus saith the Lord, Where is the bill of your mother's divorcement, whom I have put away? or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves, and for your transgressions is your mother put away.

Jeremiah 3:8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also

He re- named the born again Israel, "Christian" in the new testament .A befitting name . Christina literally meaning. His bride as residents of the eternal city not seen named after her husband Christ.

In the new testament the law is to the believers (unbelievers have no law)

Its not a law that regulates who gets saved. There is no condemnation in new creatures. no retrial .But a law to protect his own law. Two working together as one . Loving authority and willing submissiveness. The peace of God. Not of us . His understanding.

Matthew 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

What therefore God hath joined together "whatever it is" let no man separate.And whatever it is that he calls separate let not man call it one. The Motive of Operation of the father of lies.

In that way not on title or jot will be removed till the last day When the letter of the law death will be cast into the judgment fire of God. . .never to rise and condemn another entire creation.
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
11,026
4,341
113
#24
Umm no. I find it humorous when people point to Jesus’s words, Moses allowed for the hardness of heart but it wasn’t that way from the beginning. Like Moses made a law that was against God’s intention and God just says meh, not what I wanted Moses but we’ll go with it
That is not the way that the words of Christ should be interpreted. Moses only wrote down what he received from God. He did not insert his own ideas into the Torah, and every word in the Torah is a word of God. So we have to go all the way back to chapter 4:1,2 in Deuteronomy to see that what Moses was commanding were indeed the commandments of the LORD God.

Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your fathers giveth you. Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

So Moses was just an instrument in God's hand, yet Moses said that he was teaching and commanding Israel. And it is in this context that Jesus said: Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered [allowed] you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. It was God who anticipated the hardness of hearts, but it was Moses who spoke and wrote those commandments.

God made only one exception for divorce in both Deuteronomy and Matthew. But the Jews had extended the meaning of Deuteronomy 24:1 far beyond what God intended, so Jesus brought the Jews back to the correct understanding of that commandment. Even his disciples felt that that was too strict, since they had been exposed to the common Jewish understanding of divorce (which may have been similar to the common understanding of divorce in the Western world today).
 

stonesoffire

Poetic Member
Nov 24, 2013
10,150
1,565
113
#25
I know this isn’t popular today to think, but I believe the first assemblies understood that the revelation of Paul concerning the body of Christ formed at Pentecost, is seperate from the law.

Grace which is the power of Holy Spirit working within us....is drastically superior to following logos, or the written Word. At times the rhema may even be harder for the goal is to put flesh to death experientially, even though the Cross has performed this for the world.

So what will you do with one who has had 5 wives and about to take a sixth?

Thank God for the 5 fold ministry.

(say what?). Lol
 

Aerials1978

Well-known member
Dec 10, 2019
1,131
669
113
#26
I know this isn’t popular today to think, but I believe the first assemblies understood that the revelation of Paul concerning the body of Christ formed at Pentecost, is seperate from the law.

Grace which is the power of Holy Spirit working within us....is drastically superior to following logos, or the written Word. At times the rhema may even be harder for the goal is to put flesh to death experientially, even though the Cross has performed this for the world.

So what will you do with one who has had 5 wives and about to take a sixth?

Thank God for the 5 fold ministry.

(say what?). Lol
I had a friend who very much adhered to the 5 fold ministry. We did have some interesting conversations to say the least.
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
11,026
4,341
113
#27
So what will you do with one who has had 5 wives and about to take a sixth?
But polygamy is illegal in the USA. So you would recommend that this person move to Saudi Arabia. :cool:

The Mormons practiced polygamy, then outlawed it. But recently some Utah legislators wish to make it legal again.

Some of the Old Testament patriarchs did have several wives, but the New Testament teaches one wife for one husband. That was God's original plan in Eden.
 

UnoiAmarah

Junior Member
Jul 28, 2017
439
72
28
#28
Some of the Old Testament patriarchs did have several wives, but the New Testament teaches one wife for one husband. That was God's original plan in Eden.
And that may well be the reason that after the men began to multiply upon the face of the earth and daughters were born unto them that the males who were formed by the LORD God saw that the daughters of men were fair and took unto them wives of all whom they choose that the LORD said that his word shall not always strive with man, for that he is also is flesh, yet his days in the flesh shall be 120 years.

I find it ironic that these sons of Gods in Genesis 6 are not considered to be those written of in John 1:13 being described "Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." but
are interpreted as 'Nephilim' being imagined by some as demonic beings. So sad.
 

Kolistus

Active member
Feb 3, 2020
184
90
28
#29
I agree with everything you said.

Does this verse from the ESV imply that Jesus voids the law?

"Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery. - Luke 16:18

It clearly does. Why? Because they’ve replaced the phrase put away with the word divorce. That’s the key, the term put away Jesus used in all verses is not interchangeable with the word divorce.
Just tell us what you want to tell us. What does it mean what are we not getting from the english translations?
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
11,026
4,341
113
#30
I find it ironic that these sons of Gods in Genesis 6 are not considered to be those written of in John 1:13 being described "Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." but are interpreted as 'Nephilim' being imagined by some as demonic beings. So sad.
Well the fact remains that none of the OT saints were called "sons of God". That term in the OT applied only to angels. So your reference to Genesis 6 is really to fallen angels who had intercourse with human women. And because this was unacceptable to God, they are called "the angels which kept not their first estate" or "the angels which sinned". As a result they are kept imprisoned in Tartarus. They are also mentioned in the context of sexual immorality.

And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. (Jude 1:6)

For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to [Tartarus], and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; (2 Peter 2:4)
 

crossnote

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2012
28,276
2,324
113
#31
Umm no. I find it humorous when people point to Jesus’s words, Moses allowed for the hardness of heart but it wasn’t that way from the beginning. Like Moses made a law that was against God’s intention and God just says meh, not what I wanted Moses but we’ll go with it 🤦‍♂️
Also, you’re implying Jesus changed the law when he clearly did not.
Moses did not make up laws but wrote what the mediating angel had him write. (Acts 7:38). Jesus gave us God's original intention. Take it or leave it. Most liberal theologians strive to find and seek out contradictions, I hope you are not one of them.
 

massorite

Junior Member
Jan 3, 2015
475
97
28
#32
I agree with and am in awe of the perfection of God’s word, it’s the translation I have a problem with.

Look at the text guys, try forget what you think you know about the exception clause and answer the question solely based on the text.

Whosoever marries her that is divorced committeth adultery.

If the Duet. 24 law allowed a woman guilty of ervah (uncleanliness) to be divorced and remarry then why does the KJV and ESV claim Jesus says it’s adultery to marry any divorced woman?

Again, I’m not tying to argue for the sake of argument. I’m trying to reveal a largely overlooked problem with the translation. The translation is what causes false understanding of these verses and sadly some very bad doctrine.
So based on a proper interpretation of the text and simply put. You are wrong. There is not one single contradiction in the Word of God. Yesterday not only did I gave you exactly what the word "uncleanness" means according to well researched and developed Bible study tools, I gave you the exact meaning of the word "uncleanness" is talking about.
 

massorite

Junior Member
Jan 3, 2015
475
97
28
#33
Well the fact remains that none of the OT saints were called "sons of God". That term in the OT applied only to angels. So your reference to Genesis 6 is really to fallen angels who had intercourse with human women. And because this was unacceptable to God, they are called "the angels which kept not their first estate" or "the angels which sinned". As a result they are kept imprisoned in Tartarus. They are also mentioned in the context of sexual immorality.

And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. (Jude 1:6)

For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to [Tartarus], and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; (2 Peter 2:4)
Yes Nehemiah6 is correct. The Hebrew word "Niphilim" means "Fallen Ones" and the fallen ones are in fact fallen angels and they were giants compared to men. Goliath of Gath and his off spring were of those who not only had the blood of the fallen angels running in his vains, was over 9 feet tall and his family had six fingers and six toes.
2Sa 21:19 And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.
2Sa 21:20 And there was yet a battle in Gath, where was a man of great stature, that had on every hand six fingers, and on every foot six toes, four and twenty in number; and he also was born to the giant.
2Sa 21:21 And when he defied Israel, Jonathan the son of Shimea the brother of David slew him.
2Sa 21:22 These four were born to the giant in Gath, and fell by the hand of David, and by the hand of his servants.
 

CS1

Moderator
May 23, 2012
4,659
1,128
113
#34
Deuteronomy 24 allows for divorce and remarriage. When we turn to
Luke 16:18 we see the opposite

Using the ESV version because it’s the most obvious.

17 But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of the Law to become void.
18 "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery. - Luke 16:17-18

I know this is a hot topic for some. Many will say God hates divorce and I agree. Many will say Moses allowed for the hardness of your hearts but it wasn’t that way from the beginning and I agree. But trying to stay on track here I’d like to discuss the obvious contradiction. The take away from Deuteronomy 24 is that divorce and remarriage is allowed and then according to the ESV Jesus states it’s easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of the law to become void and then he voids the law.

First I respectfully say Luke quote of Jesus is not a contradiction . You quote Jesus saying in the ESV

" it’s easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of the law to become void and then he voids the law."

please provide the actual chapter and verse. That will be needed.

Secondly if you read the full chapter of Luke 16 where Jesus said that, he was speaking to Pharisees this is seen in verse 14-17.

This is no contradiction. Jesus was bring truth to the part of the Law the pharisees love to change to get money and divorce and remarry. Jesus not only reenforced the marriage Law HE raised it.
A law can be changed by greater LAW. Jesus raised the LAW of Adultery and you can see this in Matthew 5:27-28.

Jesus always says "IT is written" or He clarified so there was no doubt as to what th standard is. Jesus said
in Matthew 5:27
"You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’"

The "you" he was speaking to were the Pharisees. They heard it was said Jesu wanted to make no assertion so HE Jesus said

" BUT I SAY UNTO YOU"

The Law has just been raised BY Jesus who is the authority .
"But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

When Jesus quotes the Law as HE did to the devil HE did not say I say unto you HE said it is written
When HE spoke to the pharisees HE said BUT I say unto you. HE is making very clear You may have thought this or that about the law I will tell you what it is now.
 

p_rehbein

Senior Member
Sep 4, 2013
25,746
3,142
113
#35
Well, there’s a problem with some translations bud and I’m using the fact that the law cannot be voided to show that.
Jesus fulfilled the law and we’re all thankful He did but he never changed a law to mean the exact opposite of the original.
Duet. 24 allows a woman guilty of uncleanliness to remarry, seemingly as many times as she wants just not to the original husband. But according to English translations Jesus states anyone who marries a divorced woman is guilty of adultery. That’s a problem.
Hey bud, IF you desire to follow the Law of Moses, then that is surely your choice. Sadly, Scripture says no one can be saved through the Law, so I would think long and hard about stressing the Law for today's Church.
 

JohnRH

Junior Member
Mar 5, 2018
288
117
43
#36
Does this verse from the ESV imply that Jesus voids the law?

"Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery. - Luke 16:18

It clearly does. Why? Because they’ve replaced the phrase put away with the word divorce. That’s the key, the term put away Jesus used in all verses is not interchangeable with the word divorce.
So are you saying that the ESV (a version) has the contradiction, or that the Bible itself has the contradiction?
 

NOV25

Active member
Nov 23, 2019
211
116
43
#37
First I respectfully say Luke quote of Jesus is not a contradiction . You quote Jesus saying in the ESV

" it’s easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of the law to become void and then he voids the law."

please provide the actual chapter and verse. That will be needed.

Secondly if you read the full chapter of Luke 16 where Jesus said that, he was speaking to Pharisees this is seen in verse 14-17.

This is no contradiction. Jesus was bring truth to the part of the Law the pharisees love to change to get money and divorce and remarry. Jesus not only reenforced the marriage Law HE raised it.
A law can be changed by greater LAW. Jesus raised the LAW of Adultery and you can see this in Matthew 5:27-28.

Jesus always says "IT is written" or He clarified so there was no doubt as to what th standard is. Jesus said
in Matthew 5:27
"You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’"

The "you" he was speaking to were the Pharisees. They heard it was said Jesu wanted to make no assertion so HE Jesus said

" BUT I SAY UNTO YOU"

The Law has just been raised BY Jesus who is the authority .
"But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

When Jesus quotes the Law as HE did to the devil HE did not say I say unto you HE said it is written
When HE spoke to the pharisees HE said BUT I say unto you. HE is making very clear You may have thought this or that about the law I will tell you what it is now.
"Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery. - Luke 16:18 ESV
 

NOV25

Active member
Nov 23, 2019
211
116
43
#38
So are you saying that the ESV (a version) has the contradiction, or that the Bible itself has the contradiction?
Yes, I’m saying the ESV has the contradiction/flaw not God’s word.

"Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery. - Luke 16:18 ESV
 

Dave-L

Well-known member
Jan 17, 2020
4,495
683
113
#39
Yes, I’m saying the ESV has the contradiction/flaw not God’s word.

"Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery. - Luke 16:18 ESV
This is what scripture teaches, buggy translation or not.
 

NOV25

Active member
Nov 23, 2019
211
116
43
#40
Hey bud, IF you desire to follow the Law of Moses, then that is surely your choice. Sadly, Scripture says no one can be saved through the Law, so I would think long and hard about stressing the Law for today's Church.
I think your reading comprehension’ometer might be busted. 😂
How could you possibly deduce that I have a desire to live or teach the law from any of my statements? 🤦‍♂️