• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Matthew 19:9 Adultery in unjustified divorce and remarriage

I think the concept derives from Exodus 21:10-11

"10 If he takes another wife, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marriage rights. 11 And if he does not do these three for her, then she shall go out free, without paying money."

-NKJV

We see that in both instances the man is taking an additional woman while unjustly depriving the other of what is rightfully hers. It seems to be an "if-and" combination. The two scenarios are contrasted in the Exodus passage: on the one hand is a scenario where he takes the additional woman but continues to provide for the other as he is commanded. The other one is highlighted as wrong here and in the Matthew passage... rightly calling out a man's unfaithfulness as it is his covenant obligation to render these to her. He cannot simply rob her of these things and pass them on to the latest hot thing to walk across his path. It is her due.

Thus, if he does the one AND the other, it constitutes a problem. We see many "if-and" promises and conditional statements in the text. Why should this one be treated any differently besides personal bias?
 
I was discussing this earlier in regards to adultry and divorce. It's pretty clear in scripture, but now we live in a Godless society that justifies our desires by adjusting scripture and or who God is as his character to be able to do as we please. Remember when God gives Israel a certificate of divorce? He didn't do that because he was pleased with her. When you divorce your wife out of any reason but adultry your breaking your bond with her, one flesh, this makes the man an adulter, if she already broke it than your not committing adultry she has.

In regards to re marriage:
No where in the bible does it give permission for a divorced woman to re marry, it discusses a woman who is divorced and marries another, but it does not permit it. There is no allowance in the Word for a woman to divorce her husband, it doesn't matter what her reasons are, a "wife shall not separate from her husband" 1 Corinthians 7:10.

Simply divorce isn't permitted Except in what jesus said. " If a woman has an believing husband, and he is willing to live with her, she MUST NOT divorce him" 1 Corinthians 7:13.

Wives, in the same way submit your selves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see your pure and reverent demeanor" 1 Peter 3:1-2

Matthew 5.32. "But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and ANYONE who marries the divorced woman commits adultery".

The reason divorce causes her to become an adulteress is because it's making her break wedlock, which is the Hebrew original meaning of the word "adultery" in the Old Testament. So, that's pretty clear teaching that marrying a divorced woman is not permitted, that was Jesus speaking. These are not my opinions, it is scripture. I've thought about it myself, marrying a divorced woman, but I can not do it with a clear blessing from God. Following his lead means following his Word, we can not follow the spirit if we won't follow the scriptures.
 
I wonder if there is anything to the notion that gameeho in Matt 19:9 could possibly mean "to lead into marriage", as in, he is leading his wife into marriage to another.
 
Sean Miller said:
In regards to re marriage:
No where in the bible does it give permission for a divorced woman to re marry, it discusses a woman who is divorced and marries another, but it does not permit it.
Click to expand...

Deut. 24:1-2
1When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. 2And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.

I have read a few articles on the subject, that brought out some good points, like
The fact that if Jesus is changing the law in Mathew 19 Christians have more serious issues to worry about then divorce.
The law written in Deut. was very clear.
If the man has not completed all steps, but just kicks his wife out, they are not divorced. "Putting away" is the final step.
Until all three are done he is 'breaking the marriage' by sending her out and taking another, and any man marrying her in her "put away" (but not lawfully divorced) state is also committing adultery.
Properly done according to God's law a divorce terminates a marriage. If the woman later marries someone else her first husband can not ever take her back.

The woman at the well that Jesus spoke to was according to Jesus married many times before. If divorce and remarriage were never authorized, then she would have been an adulteress many times over, and it probably would not read that those men were husbands.
 
Asforme&myhouse said:
We read in Matthew 5:17-19 KJV
[17] “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. [18] For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. [19] Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them , the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

Jesus isn’t changing the law. So what’s happening in Matthew 19?

Matthew 19:3-9 KJV
[3] “The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? [4] And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, [5] And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? [6] Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. [7] They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? [8] He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. [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.”

The G-d of the Old Testament and the G-d of the New Testament are one and the same. Jesus said he wasn’t changing the law. G-d doesn’t misspeak. So how are these in harmony? I think the key is where Jesus didn’t say the Law he said “Moses”. That is important. Moses apparently gave them latitude with the Law of G-d that wasn’t what G-d was permitting. Look at Deuteronomy 24.

Deuteronomy 24:1 KJV
[1] “When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.”

It would seem that the “uncleanness” spoken of by G-d in Deuteronomy is sexual immorality. In the New Testament Jesus clarifies it. He doesn’t change the Law.

Adultery carried the death penalty under the law so no divorce necessary, right? But wait, there had to be witnesses for that to happen. This statute is to provide a husband with a remedy in the case that he found out his wife had committed adultery but he couldn’t prove it in a court of law, so to speak.
Click to expand...

Adultery is not the only form of fornication that a wife can commit.

1 Corinthians 7:2-5 KJVS
Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. [3] Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. [4] The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. [5] Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency

Withholding sex is another form of fornication and I am sure there are many other sexual sins as well that would not include adultery... Just my opinion on it. But I don't see any contradiction Jesus was simply clarifying Deuteronomy 24 when he spoke about it in Mathew 19
 
Sean Miller said:
I was discussing this earlier in regards to adultry and divorce. It's pretty clear in scripture, but now we live in a Godless society that justifies our desires by adjusting scripture and or who God is as his character to be able to do as we please. Remember when God gives Israel a certificate of divorce? He didn't do that because he was pleased with her. When you divorce your wife out of any reason but adultry your breaking your bond with her, one flesh, this makes the man an adulter, if she already broke it than your not committing adultry she has.

In regards to re marriage:
No where in the bible does it give permission for a divorced woman to re marry, it discusses a woman who is divorced and marries another, but it does not permit it. There is no allowance in the Word for a woman to divorce her husband, it doesn't matter what her reasons are, a "wife shall not separate from her husband" 1 Corinthians 7:10.

Simply divorce isn't permitted Except in what jesus said. " If a woman has an believing husband, and he is willing to live with her, she MUST NOT divorce him" 1 Corinthians 7:13.

Wives, in the same way submit your selves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see your pure and reverent demeanor" 1 Peter 3:1-2

Matthew 5.32. "But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and ANYONE who marries the divorced woman commits adultery".

The reason divorce causes her to become an adulteress is because it's making her break wedlock, which is the Hebrew original meaning of the word "adultery" in the Old Testament. So, that's pretty clear teaching that marrying a divorced woman is not permitted, that was Jesus speaking. These are not my opinions, it is scripture. I've thought about it myself, marrying a divorced woman, but I can not do it with a clear blessing from God. Following his lead means following his Word, we can not follow the spirit if we won't follow the scriptures.
Click to expand...

I disagree that scripture never allows for a woman to divorce.

Exodus 21:10-11 KJV
If he take him another wife ; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. [11] And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.

Failure to provide for her is scriptural grounds for her to divorce.
 
Pacman said:
I disagree that scripture never allows for a woman to divorce.

Exodus 21:10-11 KJV
If he take him another wife ; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. [11] And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.

Failure to provide for her is scriptural grounds for her to divorce.
Click to expand...

For a slave wife.
 
Asforme&myhouse said:
For a slave wife.
Click to expand...
So what part of scripture gives a slave wife more freedom than a free wife? Your assertion that this only applies to a slave wife is yours to defend. I am interested in why you say that?
 
FollowingHim said:
@Pacman, the passage you posted says that depriving each other of sex is wrong. It does not say that depriving each other of sex is "fornication". That's a large jump.
Click to expand...

Maybe my definition of fornication is off.... I have always defined fornication as sexual sin. My view on the passage is that depriving your husband or wife is a sexual sin. Therefore it's fornication.
 
I see how you got there now. Still don't agree! :)

Fornication in the NT is the Greek word "porneia", from the root word "porn" meaning "prostitute". As I understand it, it essentially means "the sort of things a prostitute would do". So it is refers to active sexual activity, that is wrong. I don't see the lack of sexual activity as having anything to do with the word "porneia", if anything it sounds like the opposite.

That's my take on it anyway. But this is to a large extent a pointless debate about words. We agree that depriving sex is wrong, whether we label it one thing or another really doesn't matter much.
 
FollowingHim said:
I see how you got there now. Still don't agree! :)

Fornication in the NT is the Greek word "porneia", from the root word "porn" meaning "prostitute". As I understand it, it essentially means "the sort of things a prostitute would do". So it is refers to active sexual activity, that is wrong. I don't see the lack of sexual activity as having anything to do with the word "porneia", if anything it sounds like the opposite.

That's my take on it anyway. But this is to a large extent a pointless debate about words. We agree that depriving sex is wrong, whether we label it one thing or another really doesn't matter much.
Click to expand...

OK I understand where you are coming from. Thank you for explaining yourself rather than using one line passive aggressive responses. I am here to learn and honest discussions are much more condusive to that... My disagreement would be if you take your definition of fornication to its logical conclusion you are saying that only prostitution is fornication and I don't see that making logical sense in several of the passages where that word is used.
 
Pacman said:
I am here to learn and honest discussions are much more condusive to that... M
Click to expand...
Then you need to change the way in which you communicate.
Continual definitive statements do not enhance discussion. They force the other parties to argue if they cannot accept your statement.
 
steve said:
Then you need to change the way in which you communicate.
Continual definitive statements do not enhance discussion. They force the other parties to argue if they cannot accept your statement.
Click to expand...

In the post in question here I stated that its my opinion. That's not a definitive statement. Of course if it's my opinion then I generally believe it's correct but I was not aggressive in any way with my original statement.

That being said I will be more careful in the future to not state my opinion as if it's definite fact.
 
Pacman said:
So what part of scripture gives a slave wife more freedom than a free wife? Your assertion that this only applies to a slave wife is yours to defend. I am interested in why you say that?
Click to expand...
Because the context of the passage in question is giving specific instructions on a specific type of situation. If it applied to all situations, God could have said that it did, but it doesn’t say that.
 
Asforme&myhouse said:
Because the context of the passage in question is giving specific instructions on a specific type of situation. If it applied to all situations, God could have said that it did, but it doesn’t say that.
Click to expand...

I understand your point. I will study it deeper. At this point I have a hard time believing that this would not be a moral principle applicable to all wives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top