Permanency of Marriage

[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

[bearbear]

Some notes I jot down after meditating on the marriage law given by Jesus (Luke 16:18, Mark 10:11-12):

We are now no longer under the law of Moses but the law of Christ which includes his commandments (Galatians 6:2, 1 Cor 9:17)

Jesus said heaven and earth will pass away but not one dot will pass from the law until all is fulfilled (Matthew 5:18, Luke 16:17).

We can now eat pork because the food laws were fulfilled when God showed Peter the unclean animals and said it was okay for him to eat and then told him to share the gospel with a gentile Cornelius. The unclean foods were a symbol of Israel not associating with the gentiles and its end and fulfillment meant the gospel could now go to the gentiles.

So when Jesus gave the marriage law in Luke 16:18 he may have been implying this law was not yet fulfilled "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery."

Paul then says that marriage is actually a symbol of the union of Christ & the church (Eph 5:31-32). So as Christians, one of our major obligations is to observe Jesus' marriage laws until it is fulfilled in the resurrection when Christ & the church are wedded in the marriage supper of the lamb (Rev 19:7-9, 21:4) and where marriage is no longer a thing for the saints in heaven (Matt 22:30).

This is also consistent with the consensus in the Acts 15 council where the Gentiles were told to abstain from sexual immorality as one of the required things to observe.

If marriage is a symbol of Christ and the church, then allowing divorce and remarriage due to abandonment & adultery communicates that Christ will divorce her bride if she is unfaithful even after the wedding. However scripture says that God will never leave us or forsake us and nothing can separate us from the love of God (Romans 8:38–39).

It makes sense then that husbands are commanded to love their wives as Christ loved the church (Ephesians 5:25). You can imply the marriage law from this verse because Christ will not abandon us even when we are unfaithful to him (Romans 8:38-39, 2 Timothy 2:13, Luke 15:11-32).

[Raptor]

Full and exhasutive teaching on divorce and remarriage by Mike Winger.

https://youtu.be/N2pC6ZikbYo?si=dR45Ut2iSr-DNPgN

0:00 Intro to topic
#1 10:07 What you need to know about the Jewish backdrop of Jesus’ teaching on divorce.
#2 25:53 Why you should be open to exceptions to Jesus’ rule about not divorcing.
#3 37:15 What all four Gospels have in common on this topic.
#4 39:00 Jesus’ teaching on divorce in Mark 10.
#5 46:54 Jesus’ teaching on divorce in Luke 16.
#6 48:42 Jesus’ teaching on divorce in Matthew 5.
#7 50:16 I’ve been taught that marriage is literally unbreakable; that it is ontologically impossible to end unless your spouse dies. What about that?
#8 54:26 What did Jesus mean by “sexual immorality”.
#9 1:11:00 Jesus’ teaching on divorce in Matthew 19.
#10 1:21:22 Jesus’ teaching on divorce in Romans 7.
#11 1:28:17 Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 7 vs. 10-16.
#12 1:37:54 Does “not enslaved” allow remarriage after divorce in 1 Corinthians 7 vs. 15?
#13 1:51:19 When can a Christian spouse be treated like a non-Christian?
#14 2:00:49 What about abuse or extreme situations?
#15 2:08:25 If you divorce for abuse or extreme situations can you get remarried?
#16 2:10:51 Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 7 vs. 17-40.
#17 2:19:05 Who are we to disagree with the church fathers?
#18 2:31:46 God said, “I hate divorce”, doesn’t that mean you can’t get divorced?
#19 2:33:53 What about those who will abuse the exceptions and wrongly divorce?
#20 2:36:28 What about alcoholism, gambling, drug use, etc.?
#21 2:37:29 What about a marriage that was entered sinfully? Should it be broken up?
#22 2:44:05 What about David Instone-Brewer?
#23 2:57:06 Should a pastor marry someone who is wrongly divorced?
#24 2:58:53 Summary of all 16 biblical principles.
#25 3:02:45 What are bad reasons for getting a divorce?
#26 3:03:16 Final thoughts.