- This topic is empty.
- Posts
What is right in the eyes of people is not always right in the eyes of God.
“every man did what was right in his own eyes.” (Judges 17.6)
“as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage,” (Matthew 24.37)
“Marrying and giving in marriage”.
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,
“Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”Matthew 5.32,
“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.”Luke and Mark have Jesus telling us that anyone who marries a divorced person commits adultery.
Matthew words it slightly different, but is only giving a reason for divorce (sexual immorality), NOT necessarily an exclusion for remarriage, like many claim. It seems that the ONLY exception for remarriage is the death of a spouse, or ex spouse.A church Pastor would not be popular if he taught what Jesus actually commanded regarding this, would he?
Romans 7:1-3
“Or do you not know, brothers ….. 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.”Miaa,
Jesus was speaking to those he assumed were believe about divorce between believers. Paul has different opinion about a believer married to an unbeliever.
Miia,
I a have trouble with the words “makes her commit adultery” in Matthew as they imply another actions can make you guilty of sin which disagrees with Jesus’ words elsewhere. Some versions take in account my concern but I am not sure how justified they are to do so by the letter. I am confident he did mean that she would be the victim of adultery.
New International Version
But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.GOD’S WORD® Translation
But I can guarantee that any man who divorces his wife for any reason other than unfaithfulness makes her look as though she has committed adultery. Whoever marries a woman divorced in this way makes himself look as though he has committed adultery.Thanks Kerwin.
The word for sexual immortality in Matthew is Porneia; that is, fornication. People assume it means unfaithfulness. However that is a different word altogether.
http://biblehub.com/text/matthew/5-32.htm
The correct word ‘fornication’ = sexual intercourse between two people who are not legally wed to each other.
Therefore, ‘whoever divorces his wife (unless they are unwed), causes her to commit adultery, and if a divorced woman marries, she commits adultery.’
Now look again at Luke and Mark:
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,
“Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”
The word porneia changes it completely, and it fits in with Luke and Mark’s clearer statements.
Jesus is saying something very clear here. The only allowance for remarriage is the death of a spouse.
Miia,
The Koine Greek words are different and the one translated adultery it a direct translation literally means adultery. The other one translates to sexual uncleanliness that literally is equivalent to sexual immorality. Fornication may have literally meant sexual impurity at one time and the meaning changed over time or someone may have seen it as the opposite of virgin.
The Pulpit Commentary from Bible Hub seems to agree with this view.
Verse 9. – And I say unto you. Our Lord here enunciates the law which was to obtain in his kingdom, which, indeed, was simply the reintroduction and enforcement of the primitive and natural ordinance. Except it be for fornication; εἰ μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ: nisi ob fornicationem (Vulgate). This is the received reading. Tregelles, Tischendort; Westcott and Hort omit εἰ. The parallel passage in St. Mark (where Christ is stated to have made the remark to his disciples “in the house”) omits the clause altogether. Lachmann, following some few manuscripts, has introduced παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας, “saving for the cause of fornication,” from Matthew 5:32. The interpretation of this verse has given occasion to acute controversy. There are some questions that have to be considered in expounding this matter.
(1) What is here meant byπορνεία? Does it bear its usual meaning, or is it equivalent toμοιχεία, “adultery”? These who affirm that the sin of married persons is never expressed by the word porneia, hold that it here signifies ante-nuptial unchastity, which would make the marriage void ab initio; post-nuptial transgression would be punished by death, not by divorce. In this view, our Lord would say that no divorce is allowable except where the wife is proved to have been unchaste before marriage. In such a case, the union being void from the first, the man is free to marry again. But there are difficulties in this interpretation. Why, at the end of the verse, is it called adultery to marry the divorced woman, if she was never really and lawfully married? Again, it is not correct to say that porneia denotes solely the sin of unmarried people. All illicit connection is described by this term, and it cannot be limited to one particular kind of transgression. In Ecclus. 23:23 it is used expressly of the sin of an adulteress. We may also remark that metaphorically idolatry is often called by this name, whereas, since Israel is supposed to be married to the Lord, the breaking of this bend by the worship of false gods might more strictly be named adultery. And yet again, there is no proof that the discovery of previous immorality in a wife did ipso factovitiate the marriage (see Hosea 1:2, etc.). The passages that are thought to bear on this matter areDeuteronomy 22:13-21 and Deuteronomy 24:1-4. In the former there is no question of divorce, – the offender is to be stoned; in the second passage the ground of divorce is “some uncleanness,” or some unseemly thing, whether immorality or personal defect is meant cannot be decided, the rival schools taking different sides. But it is quite certain that adultery is not intended, and ante-nuptial unchastity is not even hinted. The interpretation, therefore, given above cannot be maintained.
(2) Omitting for the moment the limiting clause, may we say that the general teaching of Christ makes for the indissolubility of the marriage bond? The majority of the Fathers from Hermas and Justin Martyr downwards affirm this. Those who admit that divorce is permissible in the case of the wife’s adultery are unanimous in asserting that, by Christ’s ordinance, remarriage is prohibited to the husband during the culprit’s life; so that, practically, if divorce a mensa et toro is allowed, divorce a vinculo is refused. All Christ’s utterances on the subject, saving the apparently restrictive clause (Matthew 5:32) and here, absolutely and plainly forbid divorce, on the ground of law and nature. The words in Mark 10:11and Luke 16:18 are given without any limitation whatever. St. Paul draws from such his conclusion of the indissolubility of the marriage tie, as may be seen in 1 Corinthians 7:10, 11, 39; Romans 7:2, 3. There could never have been a doubt about this subject had it not been for the difficulty in interpreting the parenthetical clause.
(3) Are we, then, to suppose that Christ, by those words, modifies his general statement, and allows absolute divorce in the case of a wife’s misconduct? Such is the view taken by many theologians, and practically endorsed by the civil law of many countries. Neither the Roman nor the Anglican Churches support this laxity. Ecclesiastical and civil laws are here antagonistic. It is said that Christ allows the wronged party to marry again. If so, if the oneness of the parties is wholly destroyed by the sin of the woman, why is it not permitted to a man to marry a divorced woman? This cannot be called adultery unless she is still one flesh with her husband, although separated. We must argue from this that divorce in such a case does not destroy the vinculum matrimonii, the marriage bond. and if not under this circumstance, surely under no other; for any other ground must be always less serious than adultery. If the clause in question enunciated an exception to the absolute rule elsewhere given, Christ would seem to stultify himself, to give two opposite decisions, and to introduce uncertainty in a most important verdict. The principle on which he based his dictum would be overthrown, and his hearers might have accused him of inconsistency. The solution offered for this difficulty is this – that Christ is contemplating merely what we call judicial separation; he considers that no trivial cause justifies this, in fact, nothing but fornication, and that this modified divorce does not free the man so that he may marry again; he is bound by the Law as long as his wife lives. Our Lord seems to have introduced the exceptional clause in order to answer what were virtually two questions of the Pharisees, viz. whether it was lawful to “put away a wife for every cause,” and whether, when a man had legally divorced his wife, he might marry again. To the former Christ replies that separation was allowable only in the case of fornication; in response to the second, he rules that even in that case remarriage was wholly barred. And whosoever marrieth her which is put away (ἀπολελυμένην, without the article); her, when she is put away (Revised Version); or, a divorced woman. The clause is wholly omitted by א and some other manuscripts, and some modern editors, as Westcott and Hort. But it has very high authority in its favour. Alford renders, “her, when divorced,” and restricts the application to a woman unlawfully divorced, not extending it to one separated for porneia. But the language is too indefinite to admit of this interpretation as certain (see Luke 16:18, and the note on Matthew 5:32, where the popular view is expressed). The clause, pondered without regard to foregone conclusions, surely contains an argument for the indissolubility of the marriage tie, as we have said above. Marriage with a divorced wife can be rightly termed adultery only in consideration of the continuance of the vinculum. Doth commit adultery. The binding nature of marriage does not depend on the will or the acts of the persons, but on its primal character and institution. By the repeal of the Mosaic relaxation and the restoration of marriage to its original principle, Christ not only enforces the high dignity of this ordinance, but obviates many opportunities of wickedness, such, for instance, as collusion between husband and wife with a view to obtain freedom for marriage with others.
Kerwin,
Some translations use the term sexual immortality.NLT, NASB, God’s Word Translation, NAS and Weymouth wrongly use the word unfaithfulness.
Aramaic, Jubilee, King James 2000, AKJV, ASV, Douay-Rheims, Darby, and ESV, correctly use the word fornication.
Nevertheless, Jesus is plainly stating that all first marriages are binding until death, even if there is a divorce. Remarriage is clearly forbidden, so long as the spouse/ ex spouse is alive, as affirmed by Luke, Mark and Paul.
miia,
Marriage is forbidden except for the reason of sexual immorality. Why Mark and Luke did not mention that exception is beyond me but in Mark the question he was addressing is whether divorce should be allowed for any and every reason.
An incestuous relation is called fornication so Scripture’s definition differs from Googles.
Paul addresses the matter of a believer married to an unbeliever and states a believer is not bound if the non-believer chooses to depart.
Miia and kerwin…..IT’S not complicated to understand, a marriage is a “covenant”, a man and a women enter into. So it makes no difference, who ever moves to destory that covenant is the cause that breaches the covenant, if it is the man then he causes the adultery to take place, because he or the women cannot continue to keep the covenant, he is an adulter because he no longer keeps the covenant, she is an adulteress also, because she can’t no longer keep the covenant either, so both are adulterers. As far as the blame goes it is whoever caused it in the first place.
Now if the women who is now an adulteress, and if she, say because the husband devorced her marries another man, she being an adulteress (no matter who caused it to happen) enters into another covenant with a man, he also becomes and adulter with her,”WHY”, because when they marry each other they “BECOME ONE” SO THE MAN EVEN IF HE HAS never been married he is still becomes an adulterer. This applies either way for a man or a women.
There is a difference though in the marriage process, the women losses her “seperate” idenity, and takes on the spouses idenity, she becomes his domain, and he has the responsibility to be a husband and provide for her, as long as they both shall live.
But a breach is a breach, and both sides can no longer keep the covenant, so both break covenant, no matter whos fault it is, both walk away as adulterers., and whoever marries them, becomes one with thenand share the effects of the breach
The only exception is if a man is married and the women commits fornication with another man, the man will not be considered a adulter, because the women has given up he “seperate idenity” in the marriage, shecannot have another husband, but a man does not give up his seperate idenity in a marriage covenant and can have as many wives as he chose to but he must be able to carry out his husband responsibilites to ever wife he has. He will not be considered a adulter unless he marries a devorced women.
But we must all remember we can all be forgiven of any sin , except blasphemy aginst the holy spirit.
peace and love to you and yours………gene
Gene,
It is not the English definition but it may be close to what the Koine Greek means.
Lexicon at Blue Letter Bible.
- to commit adultery
- to be an adulterer
- to commit adultery with, have unlawful intercourse with another’s wife
- of the wife: to suffer adultery, be debauched
- A Hebrew idiom, the word is used of those who at a woman’s solicitation are drawn away to idolatry, i.e. to the eating of things sacrificed to idols
I have doubts as I find the same word having opposite meanings is doubtful unless there is a modifier in the context.
Nevertheless, the evidence I presented and and as I said earlier it is my opinion of the actual meaning of the words Jesus uttered.
Kerwin…..I TEND TO take most of my means from texts written in ou bibles, and try to sum them up to get a true understanding of there meanings from the context of how they are used. For instance GOD SAID HE WAS ISRAELS HUSBAND, AND HE DEVORCED HER, BECAUSE OF HER IDOLATRY AND FORNICATIONS AND HE CAST HER OUT OF THE LAND HE GAVE HER. IT WAS ALL BECAUSE OF HER UNFAITHFULNESS TO HIM, SHE BROKE THERE COVENANT SHE MADE WITH GOD. It wasn’t because of her MINOR sins and iniquites that he devorced her, but because of her comitting ADULTERY by fornicating around with other nations and saying that there IDOLS is what gave them all they had, it provked God to anger and made him jealous and he devorced her and took away all he had given her and cast her out, because she was a unfaithfull wife. But he still loves her as many do even if their wife was unfaithful to them and they devorce them.
There is no reasonto make it complicated, the botton line is A DEVORCE IS SIMPLY, BREAKING OF A COVENANT, NO MATTER WHICH PARTY IS AT FAULT, THE RESULTS ARE THE SAME. THE COVENANT VOWS ARE BROKEN. A seperation takes place and what was one, now becomes two. IMO
peace and love to you and yours. ……..gene
Marriage is forbidden except for the reason of sexual immorality. Why Mark and Luke did not mention that exception is beyond me but in Mark the question he was addressing is whether divorce should be allowed for any and every reason.
Exactly – The question Jesus was answering was “whether divorce should be allowed for any and every reason”. Nothing to do with a reason to remarry. In fact He made it known that remarriage is not allowed, regardless of a persons innocence.
Matthew 5.32,
“But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of fornication, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”We find the qualifying verses in Luke and Mark.
IT’S not complicated to understand
Of course it isn’t, unless one makes it complicated, or has been taught wrong.
a marriage is a “covenant”, a man and a women enter into. So it makes no difference, who ever moves to destory that covenant is the cause that breaches the covenant, if it is the man then he causes the adultery to take place, because he or the women cannot continue to keep the covenant, he is an adulter because he no longer keeps the covenant, she is an adulteress also, because she can’t no longer keep the covenant either, so both are adulterers.
Agree, and a marriage covenant is as long as they both live, even if they divorce. But they are adulterers only if they find somebody else after the divorce. If, after divorce they remain alone, they are not adulterers.
Now if the women who is now an adulteress, and if she, say because the husband devorced her marries another man, she being an adulteress (no matter who caused it to happen) enters into another covenant with a man, he also becomes and adulter with her,”WHY”, because when they marry each other they “BECOME ONE” SO THE MAN EVEN IF HE HAS never been married he is still becomes an adulterer. This applies either way for a man or a women.
Agree Gene. That’s what scripture says.
There is a difference though in the marriage process, the women losses her “seperate” idenity, and takes on the spouses idenity, she becomes his domain, and he has the responsibility to be a husband and provide for her, as long as they both shall live.
Agree.
But a breach is a breach, and both sides can no longer keep the covenant, so both break covenant, no matter whos fault it is, both walk away as adulterers., and whoever marries them, becomes one with thenand share the effects of the breach
Again, I don’t think they are adulterers until they enter a sexual relationship with somebody else after the divorce. Otherwise, all divorced people will suffer eternal consequences, because adulterers and fornicators will not inherit heaven, as scripture says. Obviously, a person cannot be an adulterer simply by divorcing, according to Jesus and other scripture, but they become an adulterer if they remarry, or fornicate, (have sexual relations with someone other than their original husband/ wife) after they divorce, according to scripture.
But we must all remember we can all be forgiven of any sin , except blasphemy aginst the holy spirit.
All sin is forgiven, but we cannot continue sinning.
The woman caught in adultery was told by Jesus that her sins were forgiven, but to ‘Go, and sin no more’.
The only exception is if a man is married and the women commits fornication with another man, the man will not be considered a adulter, because the women has given up he “seperate idenity” in the marriage, shecannot have another husband, but a man does not give up his seperate idenity in a marriage covenant and can have as many wives as he chose to but he must be able to carry out his husband responsibilites to ever wife he has. He will not be considered a adulter unless he marries a devorced women.
Interesting. I was wondering about that myself, with the scriptural ‘more than one wife’ clause.
Guess that goes with what Paul said.
Romans 7:1-3
“Or do you not know, brothers ….. 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.”——————–
You’re losing me with the below bold bits though, Gene.
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,
“Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”
It looks like the same applies to the husband as well. If he divorces his wife and marries another he commits adultery (against her).
Or what am I missing here?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
