Permanency of Marriage

[bearbear]

I am reading a book on the permanency of marriage by the late renowned preacher David Pawson titled "Remarriage is Adultery Unless ..." and after reading it, I feel like I've been deceived on this topic my whole life.

Currently the permanency of marriage is the minority view in evangelical Christianity but it was actually the unanimous view for the early church continuing for 1500 years until the reformation.

This view says that marriage is permanent until the death of a spouse just like the words of the common wedding vow "until death do us part" and that abandonment, abuse and adultery are only grounds for divorce or separation but not remarriage.

A major point of confusion in modern interpretations of Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 is the assumption that porneia (sexual immorality) includes adultery.

Matthew 19:9
“And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality [porneia], and marries another, commits adultery [moicheia].”

But this fails linguistically and logically. Greek has a distinct and precise word for adultery: moicheia. In the same sentence, Jesus says remarriage results in moicheia, thus distinguishing it from porneia. If porneia meant adultery, the sentence would be needlessly repetitive:

Matthew 19:9
"Whoever divorces his wife, except for adultery, and marries another, commits adultery."

Such redundancy would make no sense, especially in a legal context with Pharisees present so clarity matters. Rather, Jesus likely meant for porneia to refer to premarital or unlawful sexual unions, such as fornication during betrothal (see Matthew 1:18-19, where Joseph considers divorcing Mary for suspected porneia) or incestuous marriages prohibited in Leviticus 18.
Further, the exception clause appears only in Matthew—a Gospel written to a Jewish audience familiar with betrothal practices. The stricter teachings in Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18 omit any exception, reinforcing the interpretation that porneia is not general adultery but something unique to Matthew’s context.

Interestingly, the King James Version is closer to this interpretation by rendering porneia as "fornication" (premarital relations).

Also if Jesus had intended porneia to include adultery, then presumably a man looking at a woman with lust would qualify for divorce and remarriage according to Matthew 5:28 in the context of giving the same prohibition against divorce and remarriage four verses later in Matthew 5:32.

Yet Jesus’ teaching on divorce and remarriage was so shocking that His disciples responded, “If such is the case… it is better not to marry” (Matt. 19:10). It makes more sense in this context that Jesus only allowed for divorce and remarriage if the original marriage was invalid to begin with. In this scenario, a man whose wife left him would therefore be forced into celibacy rather than remarry while the spouse was still alive and this is exactly what Jesus goes on to describe in Matthew 19:10-12.

The Apostle Paul also had the same understanding of the permanency of marriage according to the following verses:

Romans 7:2-3:
“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.. if she marries another man while her husband is alive, she shall be called an adulteress.”

1 Corinthians 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.

1 Corinthians 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.

For those interested in doing more research, I recommend Pawson's book. I also came across a website with testimonies and more scripture related to marriage permanency:

https://cadz.net/olga.html

https://cadz.net/Final%20Booklet%20SEPT%202017.pdf

[Nell]

What did Jeremiah have to say about divorce in the Old Testament? Does this mean that God himself divorced the Northern Kingdom?

Israel's and Judah's Unfaithfulness

6The LORD said also unto me in the days of Josiah the king, Hast thou seen that which backsliding Israel hath done? she is gone up upon every high mountain and under every green tree, and there hath played the harlot. 7And I said after she had done all these things, Turn thou unto me. But she returned not. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it. 8And 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. 9And it came to pass through the lightness of her whoredom, that she defiled the land, and committed adultery with stones and with stocks. 10And yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah hath not turned unto me with her whole heart, but feignedly, saith the LORD.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by Nell

What did Jeremiah have to say about divorce in the Old Testament? Does this mean that God himself divorced the Northern Kingdom?
... (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;

This could be a good argument for why separation or divorce could be permitted. However, Jesus seemed to be more focused on forbidding divorce and remarriage together rather than divorce itself.

Luke 16:18
Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Paul also seemed to strictly oppose remarriage much more so than separation.

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

Even after divorcing Israel, God remains faithful to Israel and calls for Israel's return in Jeremiah a few verses later.

Jeremiah 3:12 (ESV)
“Go, and proclaim these words toward the north, and say, ‘Return, faithless Israel, declares the LORD. I will not look on you in anger, for I am merciful, declares the LORD; I will not be angry forever.”

Jeremiah 3:14 (ESV)
“Return, O faithless children, declares the LORD; for I am your master; I will take you, one from a city and two from a family, and I will bring you to Zion.”

In Hosea, God declares that one day Israel will call God "My Husband". So God never "remarried" another and Israel will be reconciled to God.

Hosea 2:16 (ESV)
“And in that day, declares the LORD, you will call me ‘My Husband,’ and no longer will you call me ‘My Baal.’”

[Nell]

Bearbear,

I think this topic may lend itself to a closer look at "logos" and "rhema". This was helpful to me:

https://search.brave.com/search?q=lo...77e9a79dd0dee2

Logos vs Rhema
In Christian theology, logos and rhema are two Greek terms often discussed in the context of understanding the Word of God. While both are translated as "word" in English, they carry distinct meanings and applications.

Logos: This term refers to the universal, written Word of God. It encompasses the entirety of Scripture and is often associated with divine reason or the person of Jesus Christ, who is described as the Word (Logos) made flesh in John 1. Logos represents the foundational truths of the Bible that are applicable to all believers.

Rhema: This term denotes a specific, living application of the Word to an individual or situation. Rhema is often described as a "spoken word" or a divine insight that the Holy Spirit imparts to a person's heart, making the general truth of the logos personally relevant and actionable. For example, while the logos may contain the promise of salvation, the rhema might be the moment an individual feels the assurance that this promise applies directly to them [3]. Some theologians emphasize that logos is like a well of water, representing the complete Scriptures, while rhema is like a bucket of water drawn from that well, representing a specific truth made alive in a believer's life.

Others argue that the distinction between logos and rhema is not always clear-cut, as both terms can overlap in meaning depending on the context in which they are used.

In summary, logos is often seen as the objective, written Word of God, while rhema is understood as the subjective, living application of that Word through the Holy Spirit.

Key: Living application of the word through the Holy Spirit. It's important to have a living relationship with the Lord, i.e., the Holy Spirit. That is, the written word does not cover all life situations. Much has been written about divorce, but still the Holy Spirit has something to say to your heart. This is why Paul prayed, in Phillipians 3, "that I may know him". It's likely that at the time Paul spoke this, there was no "Logos" but the believers relied on rhema until there was logos.

Just my thoughts--
Nell

[bearbear]

Jesus said in John 12:47-48 that his words will judge us in the day of judgment:
“If anyone hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge that person. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world. There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; the very words I have spoken will condemn them at the last day.

And that heaven and earth will pass away but his words will not (Matt 24:35). And it was in this context (Matt 5:18) that Jesus gave his prohibition on remarriage (Matt 5:32) also warning that not many would receive this word because it would imply forced celibacy if the other spouse left (Matthew 19:11-12).

There are a lot of testimonies where this rhema word was active in divorced and remarried couples where verses like Luke 16:18 would not leave them alone "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery." and they were driven to repent of remarriage adultery and make efforts to return to their covenant spouse. (Source: https://cadz.net/olga.html)

One reason remarriage while the first spouse is alive is not allowed is because the marriage covenant is sacred. The common wedding vow today contains the words "til death do us part" not "til divorce do us part". A remarriage vow would contradict the first wedding vow while the first is still active and hence would be invalid.

God takes covenants seriously just like he did with Joshua and the Gibeonites. When Saul killed the Gibeonites, God would not heal the land until seven of Sauls sons were hanged. It was not enough for the Israelites to feel sorry (2 Samuel 21).

In Malachi 2:14, God speaks to Israelites who divorced and remarried as if they were still married to the their original wife, referring to her as the "wife of your covenant". If this is the case then someone in a second marriage would be living in adultery in God's eyes since God still views the husband as married to their first wife.

Malachi 2:14-16 [Amiplified]
But you say, “Why [does He reject it]?” Because the*Lord*has been a witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously. Yet she is your marriage companion and the wife of your covenant [made by your vows]. But not one has done so who has a remnant of the Spirit. And what did that one do while seeking a godly offspring? Take heed then to your spirit, and let no one deal treacherously against the wife of your youth. “For I hate*divorce,” says the*Lord, the God of Israel, “and him who covers his garment with wrong*and*violence,” says the*Lord*of hosts. “Therefore keep watch on your spirit, so that you do not deal treacherously [with your 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.

Dr. Joseph Webb writes in more detail on the seriousness of the marriage covenant in his book "Til Death to us Part?" and in this video series:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeXF...OEYPBH5LeSXL6G

[PeterG]

Originally Posted by Nell

Bearbear,

I think this topic may lend itself to a closer look at "logos" and "rhema". This was helpful to me:

https://search.brave.com/search?q=lo...77e9a79dd0dee2

Logos vs Rhema
In Christian theology, logos and rhema are two Greek terms often discussed in the context of understanding the Word of God. While both are translated as "word" in English, they carry distinct meanings and applications.

Logos: This term refers to the universal, written Word of God. It encompasses the entirety of Scripture and is often associated with divine reason or the person of Jesus Christ, who is described as the Word (Logos) made flesh in John 1. Logos represents the foundational truths of the Bible that are applicable to all believers.

Rhema: This term denotes a specific, living application of the Word to an individual or situation. Rhema is often described as a "spoken word" or a divine insight that the Holy Spirit imparts to a person's heart, making the general truth of the logos personally relevant and actionable. For example, while the logos may contain the promise of salvation, the rhema might be the moment an individual feels the assurance that this promise applies directly to them [3]. Some theologians emphasize that logos is like a well of water, representing the complete Scriptures, while rhema is like a bucket of water drawn from that well, representing a specific truth made alive in a believer's life.

Others argue that the distinction between logos and rhema is not always clear-cut, as both terms can overlap in meaning depending on the context in which they are used.

In summary, logos is often seen as the objective, written Word of God, while rhema is understood as the subjective, living application of that Word through the Holy Spirit.

Key: Living application of the word through the Holy Spirit. It's important to have a living relationship with the Lord, i.e., the Holy Spirit. That is, the written word does not cover all life situations. Much has been written about divorce, but still the Holy Spirit has something to say to your heart. This is why Paul prayed, in Phillipians 3, "that I may know him". It's likely that at the time Paul spoke this, there was no "Logos" but the believers relied on rhema until there was logos.

Just my thoughts--
Nell

If the Logos is the eternal Christ, he is more and greater than the written word. In the Bible, God speaks to us, explains his plan and instructs us on what we should do. Therefore, the Bible is rather rhema.

[bearbear]

Came across a very interesting PDF on the history of divorce and remarriage in the church:

http://www.danielrjennings.org/ThisH...Remarriage.pdf

Conclusion from the paper:

A. Our journey through 2000 years of Christian teaching regarding marriage, divorce and remarriage can be summarized as follows:

1. The Christians who lived closest to the time of the New Testament understood Jesus teachings on D&R to mean that remarriage after a divorce was a sinful lifestyle.

2. When Roman emperors started going to church they passed legislation that contradicted what Jesus taught regarding D&R.

3. Those Christians/Churches in the eastern empire who were most under the sway of the emperors bowed to accept this legislation. Those Christians/Churches in the western empire and outside of the influence of the emperors, more or less, maintained the early Christian interpretation.

4. The Reformation brought with it a new reevaluation of the early Christian interpretation in this western area of nations.

5. The latter half of the 20th century in the United States brought about a renewed reevaluation that led to most churches seeking an accommodating position, rather than a Scriptural one when it came to dealing with D&R.

6. This renewed reevaluation has opened the door for churches to reevaluate same-sex marriage.

It is an example of culture and the world changing and influencing the church. Yet God does not change and the words of Jesus will never pass away.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by bearbear

Jesus said in John 12:47-48 that his words will judge us in the day of judgment:
“If anyone hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge that person. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world. There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; the very words I have spoken will condemn them at the last day.

I feel you are touching an important point on the marriage covenant.
Question I have, why in the local churches is the marriage covenant considered secondary to loyalty to Lee's ministry?
I'm sure there are many cases of divorce in the local churches that occurred because one spouse was absolute for Lee's ministry and the other spouse wanted no part of it any longer.
If the marriage covenant is truly regarded as sacred, a husband and wife would place their marriage above Lee's ministry.
How many elders in the local churches have you known that were divorced? If they were elders, I had known three.

[bearbear]

Interestingly, the recovery version has the more accurate translation of porneia in Matthew 19:9 just like the KJV and older bible translations:

Mt 19:9 But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except for fornication, and marries another, commits adultery; and he who marries her who has been divorced commits adultery.

Fornication is defined as pre-marital sex which is different than adultery which means sex outside of marriage.

Yet in the life study of Matthew, Witness Lee allows for divorce on the grounds of adultery. It seems like Witness Lee did not grasp the difference between fornication and adultery in his own bible translation and thought they were interchangeable!

https://bibleread.online/life-study-...of-matthew/19/

According to the word of the Lord Jesus, the only cause for divorce is fornication. Only two things can break the marriage tie: either the death of one of the parties or fornication, adultery. If either party commits adultery, the marriage tie is broken. This is the principle. Therefore, the Lord Jesus said that there must be no divorce except in the case of fornication. But you should not take advantage of this as an excuse to remarry simply because an act of fornication has been committed. This also is a matter of motive. If possible, the offending one should be forgiven. However, it is different if the guilty party refuses to repent and lives in that kind of sin or marries someone else. In such a case as this, the marriage tie is broken, and the other party is free.

This is evidence that Witness Lee was not qualified to be a bible scholar.

Here is an example of an exhaustive study on the exception clause in Matthew 19:9 by a real bible scholar:

https://www.danielrjennings.org/exce..._version_1.pdf

[Raptor]

I see lots of errors with this view. First of all, you erroneously define fonrication as,

"Fornication is defined as pre-marital sex which is different than adultery which means sex outside of marriage."

What constitutes fornication is to have s.r. (sexual relations) with a person you are not married to. It´s sex between people that are not married to each other. Each one is commiting the sin of fornication. Obviously pre-marital sex is fornication, but that is just one way or type of fornication. If you introduce this idea of "pre-", the element of time, you just confuse the matter, and will apply it wrongly.

Let´s say someone has been married for 20 years, then the spouse dies. Later, the remaining one has s.r. with someone he´s not married to. That´s fornication, because they had s.r. and are not married.

Let´s say someone is married for 10 years. He has s.r. with someone other than his spouse. That´s fornication, because they are not married. Each one is commiting the sin of fornication. And in addition since he is married to his spouse, it is adultery. He commits both fornication and adultery. He commits fornication with "the other" (because he is not married to her), and in addtion, adultery against his spouse (because he is married to her and was unfaithful).

Adultery includes fornication. Adultery is worse than fornication alone. So obviously, if you are married and you commit fornication, you are commiting adultery. So everyone that is married and commits fornication is commiting adultery. And everyone that is married and commits adultery commits fornication. But not everybody that commits fornication commits adultery.

[PeterG]

Raptor: Well explained!

[bearbear]

You could be right about the English definition of fornication & adultery. I was looking at it from the lens of the Adultery vs Fornication debate of Matthew 19:9 where the terms are more tightly defined.

But the NT was written in Greek so let's bring back the discussion to that. Porneia can be an umbrella term to include all kinds of sexual immorality but it can take on a specific meaning depending on the context that it's used as explained in other threads. This interpretation of porneia to include adultery in Matthew 19:9 is popular among evangelicals but it originated from a Catholic priest and a Christian humanist by the name of Erasmus in the 16th century.

Prior to that, the early church always interpreted the exception to be relevant to the bethrothal period of a Jewish wedding. This explanation would be consistent with Jesus not giving an exception for remarriage in Luke and Mark which were written to Gentiles.

Luke 16:18
Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Mark 10:11-12
He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”

Matthew also appeared after Luke and Mark so there was a period of time in the early church where the exception was not known.

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

[bearbear]

Chapter 5 of "Til Death do us Part?" by Dr Joseph Webb

The Historic View/Erasmian View The fifth historic view, not written until the 16th century, is called the Erasmian View (or Traditional Protestant View). It teaches that the innocent party is allowed to divorce and subsequently permitted to marry another in the case of adultery, desertion, or any “moral uncleanness.”

Today this view is called the Matthew and Pauline Exception Theory or the Traditional Protestant View. Disiderius Erasmus (1467-1536), after whom this doctrine was named, was otherwise known as Erasmus of Rotterdam. Today he is recognized in our university libraries as the prince of humanists. This same man was declared a heretic by the early Roman Church, and most of his writings were banned or burned. The Protestant Reformation occurred under the leadership of Martin Luther, who declared justification was by faith alone.

Erasmus, translated the Latin New Testament into English and at first welcomed and encouraged the Reformation. When Luther studied Erasmus’ writings, he adopted some of his positions but eventually disfellowshipped Erasmus and declared him to be a skeptic and a rationalist. Later, Luther learned the truth about this very intelligent and talented man’s aberrant lifestyle. Upon Erasmus’ death Luther said: “He did so (died) without light and without the cross...I curse Erasmus, and all who think contrary to the Word...Erasmus is worthy of great hatred...I warn you to regard him as God’s enemy...He inflames the baser passions of young boys, and regards Christ as I regard Klaus Nerr (the court fool).”

In his treatise, Erasmus introduced the idea that any marriage was capable of being dissolved. It seemed monstrously cruel to him that a couple should be compelled to stay together in the flesh when they no longer and perhaps never were united in their spirits. In his notes on the New Testament, he introduced long excuses for divorce from such texts as I Corinthians 7 and Matthew 5 and 19, saying that Jesus approved of divorce due to the hardheartedness of the people and that those whose marriages are already on the rocks should be granted divorces, and be permitted to marry again. These were his conclusions regardless of what the other clear scripture verses taught.

[PeterG]

Dr. Joseph Webb: Erasmus translated the Latin New Testament into English

Certainly not, since Erasmus didn't speak any English. He translated the then-known Greek text into Latin.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by PeterG

Certainly not, since Erasmus didn't speak any English. He translated the then-known Greek text into Latin.

Nice sleuthing, indeed Tyndale was the first to translate the bible into English, however he used Erasmus' Greek NT edition as the basis for translation. Hence some have said "Erasmus gave us the English bible" which may have led to the author's mistake.

Here's another source on Erasmus by Daniel Jennings:
https://www.danielrjennings.org/This...Remarriage.pdf

3. The first Western Christian to publicly question Western Christianity’s prohibition of D&R during this time appears to have been Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536).
a. Erasmus was a personal friend of More and helped him to edit his book Utopia.
b. Unlike More, he was an ordained priest.
c. As a student, Erasmus sat under several Eastern Christian teachers who had relocated to Western Europe to include Demetrios Chalkokondyles (1423-1511), George Hermonymus (b. & d. unk.), and Marcus Musurus (1470-1517).
d. Like the Eastern Christians Erasmus began teaching that remarriage was possible after a divorce.
e. He went on record indicating that adultery ended a marriage (and therefore justified the innocent person in remarrying), even if the married couple did not want it to.
f. Erasmus also reconfirmed Pope Innocent III’s interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7:15 to indicate that abandonment by an unbeliever justified a believer in remarrying.

[Raptor]

Quick note. This whole idea that Matthew (or portions of Matthew) was written for Jews only is nonsense, confusing and dangerous. There is no Scriptural basis for this teaching.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by Raptor

Quick note. This whole idea that Matthew (or portions of Matthew) was written for Jews only is nonsense, confusing and dangerous. There is no Scriptural basis for this teaching.

Matthew is of course intended for everyone including Gentiles to read as is the book of James which was addressed to the twelve tribes of Israel. However the original intent of the author may have been to demonstrate to a Jewish audience that Jesus is the Messiah.

Matthew frequently quotes the Old Testament to prove that Jesus fulfilled messianic prophecies and he uses Jewish terminology and customs without explanation (Sabbath laws, phylacteries, ritual purity), assuming his readers are familiar.

Matthew uniquely uses "kingdom of Heaven" instead of “kingdom of God,” likely to respect Jewish reverence for God's name.

And there's a some evidence that Matthew or at least an earlier draft of it was originally written in Hebrew.

Papias (c. 110–130 AD)
Quoted by Eusebius in Ecclesiastical History 3.39.16:

“So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able.”

Irenaeus (c. 180 AD)
From Against Heresies 3.1.1:

“Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome…”

Origen (c. 200–240 AD)
As cited in Ecclesiastical History 6.25.4 (by Eusebius):

“First was written according to Matthew … who published it for the believers from Judaism, composed in the Hebrew language.”

Epiphanius (c. 350–403 AD)
In Panarion 30.13.1–30.22.4:

“They have the Good News according to Matthew in its entirety in Hebrew … in the Hebrew alphabet, as it was originally written.”

Jerome (c. 380 AD)
From Lives of Illustrious Men (chapter 3), also reported in Dialogue Against Pelagians & letters:

“Matthew … first of all composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters … while things which were eloquently written in Hebrew were more eloquently turned into Greek.”

[Nell]

This discussion has also strayed, not only from the topic, but from forum principal Local Church Discussions. Both will soon be closed to further posting.

Nell and UntoHim
Admins/Moderators

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by Nell

This discussion has also strayed, not only from the topic, but from forum principal Local Church Discussions. Both will soon be closed to further posting.

Nell and UntoHim
Admins/Moderators

You barely have anybody logging in the LCD site anymore and less and less participation. Now you want to close an interesting discussion that does actually have a main point about WL´s interpretation of verses in Matthew about divorce and re-marriage. If anything was off-topic was your own reply about Logos and Rhema....

[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

[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.