Permanency of Marriage

[bearbear]

During the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, the Gentile believers were given just a few essential instructions- among them, to abstain from sexual immorality and from food sacrificed to idols. You might think, “Wow, that’s simple—we only had a couple of things to follow!” Yet, according to Jesus’ letters to the churches in Revelation 2, it seems we didn’t keep even those.

Rev 2:20-21
“Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols. I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling.”

Rev 2:14
But I have a few things against you: you have some there who hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, so that they might eat food sacrificed to idols and practice sexual immorality

If you look at church history we compromised on divorce and remarriage starting in the 4th century when Christianity became a state religion in Rome and especially in the 15th century with Erasmus' re-interpretation of divorce & remarriage which was adopted in the reformation.

It’s possible Erasmus is a type of Balaam that Jesus warns about. Erasmus was a genius and Greek scholar and the first English NT is based on his Greek edition. But he later was revealed to be a skeptic, possible practicing homosexual according to Luther and false Christian, the prince of humanists. The majority of evangelical churches today hold to Erasmus’ teachings and interpretations of scripture regarding divorce & remarriage without realizing their origin.

https://www.danielrjennings.org/This...Remarriage.pdf

[bearbear]

On the subject of translations, this video covers evidence that Erasmus corrupted his Greek NT edition which the first English Tyndale bible is based on to allow for remarriage due to adultery in Matthew 19:9.
Later Greek scholars caught Erasmus' mistake but modern translations still reflect his corrupted version of the Greek NT:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30lozGs3Zsc

Interestingly, the Darby bible translation of Matthew 19:9 is consistent with Dr. Leslie McFall's research

"But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, not for fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery; and he who marries one put away commits adultery."

Thus, Jesus is condemning a particular case of divorce while allowing for divorce when there is fornication but he does not give permission to remarry even if one divorced for fornication.

Also found another article here that talks about Dr. Leslie McFall's research:
https://www.christianforums.com/thre...upted.8316408/

The good news is that Theologians of the past, have been debating this error for five hundred years, and it is evident that they have formed a consensus and they are currently in the process of correcting this error in editions of the Greek New Testament.

The bad news is that this error is not being corrected in English Translations of the New Testament, nor have Pastors and Preachers corrected their errant interpretation of Matthew 19:9.
...
Going to the other extreme, in the spirit of friendly debate, Doctor Leslie McFall suggests an alternative interpretation. He suggests that instead of '[except] for fornication', this phrase should be interpreted as 'not [even] for fornication', arguing that there is no such thing as 'even' in Greek, therefore it is not impossible to include it as a clarification. It is enclosed in square brackets to show that 'even' is not in the Greek text but merely added as a clarification.

[bearbear]

Matthew 19:9 [DARBY]

But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, not for fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery; and he who marries one put away commits adultery

Perhaps another way to interpret the verse via the "not for" translation is that Jesus does not permit marrying the divorced woman-- why? Because she is still married to the husband she is divorced from whether or not it was due to fornication.

However the husband is free to divorce his wife due to fornication but not to remarry.

You can go to bible hub to see the Greek interlinear for Matthew 19:9:

https://biblehub.com/text/matthew/19-9.htm

And see that the latest accepted Greek manuscripts contain "μή ἐπί" instead of Erasmus' corruption "εἰ μὴ ἐπὶ". Then google "μή ἐπί" to see that that the consensus is that "except for" is an incorrect translation and that it should be translated to "not for" or "not upon"

https://timothysparks.com/2015/03/27...slated-except/
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.c...in-matthew-199

Or click on each word:

μή means not: https://biblehub.com/greek/3361.htm
ἐπί means upon: https://biblehub.com/greek/epi_1909.htm

[PeterG]

“Not for” (μὴ ἐπὶ) and “if not for” (εἰ μὴ ἐπὶ) make no difference in meaning. And both want to say: "except for". New Testament exegesis is no longer based on Erasmus anyway. And the biblical statements on fornication, adultery, divorce, and remarriage simply allow for slightly different interpretations, which Pawson, for example, mentions.

[bearbear]

It's clear Matthew 19:9 is controversial. My question is why do evangelicals base their doctrine of divorce and remarriage based on this controversial verse when there are so many other clear verses which directly forbid divorce and remarriage with no exceptions? Why not use the clear verses to understand the unclear verse and not the other way around?

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

Mark 10:11-12
And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

1 Cor 7:10-11
To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.

Romans 7:2-3
For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.

1 Cor 7:39
A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by PeterG

“Not for” (μὴ ἐπὶ) and “if not for” (εἰ μὴ ἐπὶ) make no difference in meaning. And both want to say: "except for". New Testament exegesis is no longer based on Erasmus anyway.

Yes, Dr. McFall's point is that we have moved off of Erasmus Greek text for English translation with the exception of Matthew 19:9 which is inconsistent.

1. μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ = “not for fornication”
μὴ is a negative particle meaning “not.”

This phrase limits or qualifies an action:

“Whoever divorces his wife, not for fornication, and marries another, commits adultery.”

It excludes fornication as a valid reason to remarry:

Even if you divorce not for fornication (i.e., for any other reason), remarriage is adultery.

εἰ μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ = “except for fornication”
εἰ μὴ means “if not” or “except.”

This creates an exception clause, meaning:

“Whoever divorces his wife, except for fornication, and marries another, commits adultery.”

This reading permits divorce and remarriage if the divorce was because of fornication.

And the biblical statements on fornication, adultery, divorce, and remarriage simply allow for slightly different interpretations, which Pawson, for example, mentions

It's important to get this right depending on your soteriology because Paul says adulterers will not inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Corinthians 6:9–10
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

[PeterG]

Originally Posted by bearbear

Yes, Dr. McFall's point is that we have moved off of Erasmus Greek text for English translation with the exception of Matthew 19:9 which is inconsistent.

1. μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ = “not for fornication”
μὴ is a negative particle meaning “not.”

This phrase limits or qualifies an action:

“Whoever divorces his wife, not for fornication, and marries another, commits adultery.”

It excludes fornication as a valid reason to remarry:

Even if you divorce not for fornication (i.e., for any other reason), remarriage is adultery.

εἰ μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ = “except for fornication”
εἰ μὴ means “if not” or “except.”

This creates an exception clause, meaning:

“Whoever divorces his wife, except for fornication, and marries another, commits adultery.”

This reading permits divorce and remarriage if the divorce was because of fornication.



It's important to get this right depending on your soteriology because Paul says adulterers will not inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Corinthians 6:9–10
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Again:
μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ = "except porneia" and the same as: εἰ μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ
"even for porneia" would be: ἐάν τε ἕνεκα πορνείας

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by PeterG

Again:
μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ = "except porneia" and the same as: εἰ μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ
"even for porneia" would be: ἐάν τε ἕνεκα πορνείας

I think McFall's argument is that μὴ ἐπὶ would mean that the exclusion clause only applies to divorce and not remarriage whereas εἰ μὴ ἐπὶ would broaden the exclusion clause to both divorce and remarriage.

If we take the most literal translation another meaning comes to light. The translation reads: “Now I say to you that who, for example, may have divorced his wife—not over fornication which was punished by death—and may have married another woman, he becomes adulterous by marrying her. And the man having married a divorced wife, he becomes adulterous by marrying her.”

Jesus and the lawyers knew that for capital offences, such as fornication, divorce was out of the question. So why did Jesus mention ‘fornication’? He was asked if it was lawful to divorce ‘for every cause.’ So it was a case of what did the law say, not what did tradition say, or what did expediency demand under Roman rule. Now, the language of law is very precise. Jesus appeared to lay down one limitation on a universal provision for divorce, and that was that a man could not divorce his wife for fornication (‘not over fornication’), but we know this cannot be the case. The solution is simple. By using the negative Jesus was positively identifying everything else as grounds for divorce. We can amplify what Jesus meant in the following paraphrase: “Now I say to you that who, for example, may have divorced his wife—not over fornication which was punished by death, but over a non-‐‑fornication cause—and may have married another woman, he becomes adulterous by marrying her.” We can then reduce this paraphrase to read: “Now I say to you that who, for example, may have divorced his wife—not over fornication, but over a non-‐‑fornication cause—and may have married another woman, he becomes adulterous by marrying her.” This is exactly what Jesus said in the parallel teaching accounts in Mark 10 and Luke 16.

https://timothysparks.com/wp-content...appendix-b.pdf