Matthew 19:9 Adultery in unjustified divorce and remarriage

[rockfox]

No, saying only prostitution was fornication would make no sense, I completely agree. However, the word "porneia" is based on the root word "porn" which means "prostitute". So the two words are related, and it is helpful to consider this relationship when understanding the meaning of the word. However the word is not limited to prostitution.

For instance, a man taking his father's wife is referred to as fornication (1 Co 5:1). That's not prostitution, but it IS something that is banned in Torah. The simplest understanding of "porneia" is that it is "illicit", ie "unlawful", sexual intercourse. In other words, sexual intercourse that is prohibited in Torah (because if it were not prohibited in Torah, it would not be unlawful).

The translation fornication, which in English means sex outside of marriage, confuses the matter. A better translation is sexual immorality. My understanding of the Greek here is that the word originally meant 'temple prostitute' but came to be used as a general term for immoral sex.

So immoral sex, i.e. sex God has prohibited.

 

[rockfox]

I just posted this thought in this thread http://www.biblicalfamilies.org/forum/threads/independent-contractor-or-servant.14240/ I’m not certain that I have the answers, but I think when I do it will be somewhere down this train of thought.

Along the lines of that same Shepherd/Steward metaphor, what does a Shepherd/Steward do when the Master entrusts him with a wounded sheep? What if this wounded sheep was wounded by the neglect or abuse of another Shepherd/Steward that was in His service? Does the Master have the right or authority to entrust this sheep to another shepherd/steward? If he doesnt have that right, does that mean that the wounded or abused or neglected sheep is doomed to be alone for the rest of their life? No protection, no provision, no care, and exposed to the wolves and the wild until they are emaciated and dead with no possibility to be fruitful and fulfill their Master’s will for their lives.

It’s easy to determine what the Master would do if one of His Shepherd/Stewards were to die. He would appoint another Shepherd or merge that flock with another flock. What’s more difficult to determine is what happens when one of His Shepherd/Stewards is a poor leader or steward or just downright abusive or neglectful with those entrusted to him. I think the answers to these questions are indicated in passages like Ezekiel 34 and Jeremiah 23 among others.

More emotional rhetoric there than anything. The problem with this line of argument is it can be and is used to justify pretty much any marriage by a divorced woman. But this flatly contradicts 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 and undermines the sanctity of marriage.

"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."

The Master's will for His sheep won't contradict His revealed will in scripture.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

It seems to me that the Masters will is that his sheep are cared for and protected and covered. Obviously any man who is considering a divorced woman had better consider all the ramifications of those actions including having to stand before the Master and being accountable for this. This is precisely why it behooves us to thoroughly understand this issue of covenant breaking from both the man and the woman.

 

[The Revolting Man]

For the same reason that there are so many blanks in family law in Scripture. Like the rest of Christ’s life, the only parts that were pertinent to the gospel or good news of the Messiah were the beginning and the ministry portions and even portions of that are not recorded. I’m certain that God has his own reasons for limiting the information contained in the canon and that’s His right as the Almighty. The why is not really important to me and is no doubt above my pay grade. What is important to me is to recognize that some issues are just not dealt with thoroughly within the canon and to figure out how to compensate for that lack of information. Fortunately He has also, by whatever means, preserved additional historical information about the cultures before and after the time of Christ about family law. Not that I believe that it has the same authority of Scripture, but it is a fairly reliable witness to the culture of the day and provides a much better perspective to understand Scripture than from those who refuse to approach Scripture from anything other than their own western cultural bias.

It's all interesting but for any of it to be applied to our lives we first have to find away to establish it was God's Will. I don't know how to do that without adding to the canon and that I simply will not do. If God thought it was important He would have clearly laid it out for me. If He didn't than it isn't. Remember how many of the cultures existent at the time the scriptures were being written were condemned and marked for judgement and destruction, even the Israelites fell in to this category. I would be very careful about treating anything as Godly just because it was practiced at the time the Bible was written. There was a lot of wickedness going on at the time.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

It's all interesting but for any of it to be applied to our lives we first have to find away to establish it was God's Will. I don't know how to do that without adding to the canon and that I simply will not do. If God thought it was important He would have clearly laid it out for me. If He didn't than it isn't. Remember how many of the cultures existent at the time the scriptures were being written were condemned and marked for judgement and destruction, even the Israelites fell in to this category. I would be very careful about treating anything as Godly just because it was practiced at the time the Bible was written. There was a lot of wickedness going on at the time.

Don’t misunderstand me, I’m not advocating adding anything to the Canon. God has that collected as is for his own reasons. I’m just saying that there’s a lot of additional information available that does deal with the lacking info, sometimes in a less than inspired but still historically accurate medium.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Don’t misunderstand me, I’m not advocating adding anything to the Canon. God has that collected as is for his own reasons. I’m just saying that there’s a lot of additional information available that does deal with the lacking info, sometimes in a less than inspired but still historically accurate medium.

Except that nothing is lacking. If you start with that premise then yes there is some interesting stuff out there. But if you're trying to fill percieved holes then no matter you find it will be wrong.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Except that nothing is lacking.

I can think of several topics where information is lacking. For instance,

1. a Melchizedek priesthood: how to define it, what it looks like, boundaries and expectations, who is qualified to participate and officiate. The differences between it and the Levitical system
2. Paul’s letter to the Laodiceans
3. The doctrine of laying on of hands Heb.6
4. Mentions of Polygamy in the New Testament
5. Who were the Nicolaitans and the Jezebel in Revelations
6. What was in the other book Daniel wrote
7. What was in the other book John wrote
   
8. What were the silent Apostle’s perspectives on the life and death of Christ and why do we have nothing written by them.
9. How did James the brother of Jesus come to have such a prominent position in the Jerusalem church hierarchy when prior to Christs death he is always presented as antagonistic to Christ’s ministry.
10. Who did Adam and Eve’s sons marry?
11. Where did Christ spend his silent years and what was he doing?
12. What happened to Joseph
13. What did all of the other prophets books referred to in the Old Testament as scripture have to say and why aren’t they still included in the canon?
14. What are the tribal affiliations of all of the Apostles and why don’t we have this knowledge? (I realize that we have about half)

Some of these aren’t all that important, Some of them I believe to be incredibly important. All of them are lacking in the Canon. I’m sure if I put my mind to it I could think of more.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

I can think of several topics where information is lacking.

For whatever reason God chose not to include those things, but i have a hard time saying that scripture is “lacking”.

2 Timothy 3:15-17 KJV
[15] And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. [16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: [17] That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

The scriptures Paul is referring is mostly the Old Testament, which means we have bonus scripture in the New Testament! :bible:

 

[rockfox]

A lot of people find the idea that the Bible left something out offensive. That reaction has more to do with recent history than what the Bible says.

That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Don't take that too far; what does it literally say? We have enough scripture from God to act righteously and do all the good works He has for us. That doesn't mean the Bible is not lacking any information at all; there are several books/letters referenced in the Bible which are lost to us. There are several concepts not well, or at all, explained in scripture. So too do some things not make a lot of sense if we don't know extra-Biblical history or geography. Even worse, we can't even translate the scriptures into modern English without a whole host of extra-Biblical information that allows us to understand the meaning of the ancient words and idioms used.

It seems to me that the Masters will is that his sheep are cared for and protected and covered.

Indeed, and God's will is that this be accomplished by the man He joined her to. Hence, "what God has joined together, let no one separate" and "A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband." and "And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery."

Most of the time the solution to an unprotected woman isn't 'find another husband' but 'go back to your husband'.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

A lot of people find the idea that the Bible left something out offensive. That reaction has more to do with recent history than what the Bible says.



Don't take that too far; what does it literally say? We have enough scripture from God to act righteously and do all the good works He has for us. That doesn't mean the Bible is not lacking any information at all; there are several books/letters referenced in the Bible which are lost to us. There are several concepts not well, or at all, explained in scripture. So too do some things not make a lot of sense if we don't know extra-Biblical history or geography. Even worse, we can't even translate the scriptures into modern English without a whole host of extra-Biblical information that allows us to understand the meaning of the ancient words and idioms used.

Yep, I’m definitely not saying that every detail of every topic is in there, just that we have what we need to follow Christ

Indeed, and God's will is that this be accomplished by the man He joined her to. Hence, "what God has joined together, let no one separate" and "A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband." and "And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery."

Most of the time the solution to an unprotected woman isn't 'find another husband' but 'go back to your husband'.

Yes, most of the time, but not in every situation.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Indeed, and God's will is that this be accomplished by the man He joined her to.

Most of the time the solution to an unprotected woman isn't 'find another husband' but 'go back to your husband'.

I do agree with the solution mentioned, most of the time. I’ll just point out that the metaphor that I used with the shepherds is predicated upon the man He entrusted her to failing to or refusing to care for her as God intended. It is further predicated that the succeeding shepherd is not culpable in the separation between them and that God as Master can replace a horrible shepherd with one according to his heart (Jer 3:15) because they had transgressed against God (Jer 2:8) and become brutish and scattered their flocks, and destroyed the vineyard, trodden God’s portion underfoot and made His pleasant portion a desolate wilderness. (Jer 10:21 & 12:10). In some cases this may be visible by God physically removing him permanently as in the case of Nabal. In most cases, however, He has ordained a method that doesnt require the death of the man thats worse than an infidel.

 

[Patricia C]

"9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”

-NKJV

Recently had this verse brought back to me. Now, I have my ideas on what this means and why it says what it says, but I would like to hear from you all.

Why do you think it says he commits adultery?

I had to read this several times befor I read "9 not 9 inches! LOL!

Ok now my real serious reply...

The man commits adultery by unlawful divorce. He may have released his wife from the marriage but he is still bound to her. Unless she commits adultery. Moses allowed that concession for men of hard hearts. But Yahweh never intended for man to be separated from his wife.... vs 6 says what God has brought together let no man break apart. Therefore if the husband is allowing a man to break apart the marriage then he to has broken the law thus allowed his wife to sin against him.

 

[Joleneakamama]

The big problem here is that the shepherd metaphor isn't the one that applies to "marriage". It's Christ and the church. And the Master will always follow His own guidelines. I know wounded sheep elicit a reflexively emotional desire to protect them but that doesn't mean we can take charge of another shepherd's flock.

Totally agree here. One would be wise to just wait for God to free the woman by other means then to try and figure out when her hubby had crossed the unspecified line into neglect or abuse.
This subject reminds me of the "wife reassignment" done by the flds when the leaders would determine that a man wasn't taking proper care of his family. They would reassign the kids too!
My observation is that the temptation to covet, take, and justify doing so is too much for at least some men.

I'm not at all thinking that VV76's shepherd analogy suggested wife reassignment, it was more asking questions about the ultimate end of the poor sheep, and what options might best provide what the sheep need.

My real life experience with sheep would not work for the analogy at all! Some injured sheep here are treated, and some because they are sheep sheep (not metaphorical ones) are made freezer pets or even dog food! Mostly because sadly we are limited in what we can do to heal the animals....and partly because it isn't wrong to end their suffering....when they are.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

Yes. 1 Cor 7: v12 and v13.



He is attributing verses 10 and 11 to Jesus. Verses 12 on are the teaching of Paul and not directly of Jesus.

Why do you find this significant? What point are you making about this?

Further, the issue in debate here seems to be verses 10 and 11 (married Christians) which are the ones reputed to Jesus, which adds even more authority to them I would think.



First of all you are making a hypothetical argument from the 1st century or something. No one starves to death in this country. I have a sister in law who has not worked in 20 years and they give her a nice little apartment and foodstamps. Again it seems like you are trying to find a legal loophole to get what you want instead of worrying about actual starving women.

Secondly, I have never heard of anyone who is persuing women who have left their husbands if they have verified that the man stopped either food, clothing, or sex. If they did, did they take her word for it, or did they verify it with the husband or witnesses? I am not saying I agree with this, I am just saying that those who hold this position do not seem to live it, which indicates to me that again it is a position held simply for debate and not an actual alternative.

Lastly, what is she supposed to do? She is supposed to do what is required of all of us whether easy or difficult: she is supposed to obey, Jesus in particular.

Are there other commands from the Lord that we get a pass on if they are hard?

Are verses 10 and 11 binding only to men and not to women, or do men get a pass too and can divorce their wives if the wife is not up to standard?



I am not sure what you are getting at. These verses are written to different categories of people:

v8-9 - To the unmarried Christians

v10,11 - To the married Christians

v12-14 - To the married to unbelivers who are willing to stay

v15 - To the married to the unbeliever who is not willing to stay = the only one who is permitted to separate, which is just common sense since there is nothing else you can do about it anyway.

Note: According to this passage the only person that gets an out is the unbeliever in the last category. The Christian is always supposed to support their marriage if their partner is willing according to the teaching of Paul.

NOTE TO BYSTANDERS: What I write is a minority opinion and not that of most Christians. I am simply defending my reading of scripture and is not meant as judgement of you or your situation personally. You only have to please God, not me, so if I am wrong you can safely ignore this. If you are a current wife talk to your husband about it if you have questions. Lastly, if for some reason I have convinced you and now you feel convicted that you may have done something wrong in the past, I do not advocate breaking up any current marriages to return to an ex-spouse or anything along those lines. The thing to do is to try to do better going forward with your current understanding to the best of your ability.

Whoa there! You might want to unbutton that top button and let that vein in your forehead subside a bit.

If you are confident enough in what you just said that you are willing to accuse me of sin, then why give a disclaimer?

Here’s my point: Just because someone claims to be a believer doesn’t make it so. If a man claims he is a believer but stops providing for his wife (food, clothes, and sex) Verses 12-16 are the ones that apply. He has essentially said, I’m done with you and abandoned her. It doesn’t matter that he claims to be a christian, his actions have shown otherwise. A woman isn’t required to chase after a husband who has abandoned her just because he gives lip service to Christ.

If I was going to break God’s Commandments and go take someone else’s wife, I would just do it. I wouldn’t be standing here trying to justify it to YOU.

 

[Cap]

Whoa there! You might want to unbutton that top button and let that vein in your forehead subside a bit.

If you are confident enough in what you just said that you are willing to accuse me of sin, then why give a disclaimer?

Here’s my point: Just because someone claims to be a believer doesn’t make it so. If a man claims he is a believer but stops providing for his wife (food, clothes, and sex) Verses 12-16 are the ones that apply. He has essentially said, I’m done with you and abandoned her. It doesn’t matter that he claims to be a christian, his actions have shown otherwise. A woman isn’t required to chase after a husband who has abandoned her just because he gives lip service to Christ.

If I was going to break God’s Commandments and go take someone else’s wife, I would just do it. I wouldn’t be standing here trying to justify it to YOU.

There are lots and lots of "Christians" that really worship their own heart.

 

[cnystrom]

Whoa there! You might want to unbutton that top button and let that vein in your forehead subside a bit.

Not emotional at all about it.

If you are confident enough in what you just said that you are willing to accuse me of sin, then why give a disclaimer?

I am not familiar with your story and if I have heard it before I have mixed it up with all of the stories I have heard. The point of the disclaimer was especially that. That it is not personal to you or anyone else who may be reading.

If something that I wrote applies to you then really it is between you and God. If you think what I am saying that the scripture is saying is wrong, whether or not you win an online debate does not matter a hill of beans. It only matters what God thinks.

Here’s my point: Just because someone claims to be a believer doesn’t make it so. If a man claims he is a believer but stops providing for his wife (food, clothes, and sex) Verses 12-16 are the ones that apply. He has essentially said, I’m done with you and abandoned her. It doesn’t matter that he claims to be a christian, his actions have shown otherwise. A woman isn’t required to chase after a husband who has abandoned her just because he gives lip service to Christ.

Irrelevent. If SHE is a Christian she is still supposed to stay with him. Even if your argument is correct she would be in the category of a believer with an unbelieving spouse in which case she is still required to stay with him. There is nothing in what Paul teaches in 1 Cor 7 that justifies a Christian terminating a marriage.

If I was going to break God’s Commandments and go take someone else’s wife, I would just do it. I wouldn’t be standing here trying to justify it to YOU.

You do not have to justify yourself to me brother. Jesus said if you marry a divorced women that it is equivalent to adultery. I am not going to do it. If you feel justified before your maker to do it then that is between you and him. I just feel that it is my obligation as a Christian to say Jesus said not to do that. I will leave it at that.

P.S. I do apologize for deleting my previous post. I wrote it late last night, but when I got up this morning I deleted it because I grew weary of telling people things they do not want to hear. When I deleted it it appeared that there were no responses. Apparently you already had in in your edit butffer or something.

 

[Joleneakamama]

P.S. I do apologize for deleting my previous post. I wrote it late last night, but when I got up this morning I deleted it because I grew weary of telling people things they do not want to hear. When I deleted it it appeared that there were no responses. Apparently you already had in in your edit butffer or something.

Thanks for explaining. I was wondering what page he was quoting you off of.

 

[Cap]

Some injured sheep here are treated, and some because they are sheep sheep (not metaphorical ones) are made freezer pets or even dog food!

Now that's funny. Sad, but funny.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

I am not familiar with your story and if I have heard it before I have mixed it up with all of the stories I have heard. The point of the disclaimer was especially that. That it is not personal to you or anyone else who may be reading.


If something that I wrote applies to you then really it is between you and God. If you think what I am saying that the scripture is saying is wrong, whether or not you win an online debate does not matter a hill of beans. It only matters what God thinks.

My “story” really is irrelevant here, but to clarify that i am not interpreting this passage in a way to shield myself, i will tell you. I’ve never been in a relationship with a woman who was previously married, my wife was a virgin till our wedding night, I have 4 sons and no daughters and I don’t have any divorced women on my radar, so I have no pony in this race.


I could turn your suspicions back on you and say that the only possible reason for you to see this passage differently than me is because maybe you are seeking a way to abandon the care of your wife and still keep her so that you can marry another without violating the law. Which, Ironically, is kind of what Jesus was addressing with the Pharisees. If the shoe fits brother.


Obviously i am being facetious here and I’m not accusing you of that.

Irrelevent. If SHE is a Christian she is still supposed to stay with him. Even if your argument is correct she would be in the category of a believer with an unbelieving spouse in which case she is still required to stay with him. There is nothing in what Paul teaches in 1 Cor 7 that justifies a Christian terminating a marriage.

Oddly, I think we are agreeing here. I’m not arguing that a woman can terminate the marriage, I’m saying that it is already terminated by the husband in such a case and the woman is free.

P.S. I do apologize for deleting my previous post. I wrote it late last night, but when I got up this morning I deleted it because I grew weary of telling people things they do not want to hear. When I deleted it it appeared that there were no responses. Apparently you already had in in your edit butffer or something.

Ah ha! Haha i almost responded with out quoting you, but thought no i better do it for context.

 

[Cap]

The man commits adultery by unlawful divorce. He may have released his wife from the marriage but he is still bound to her. Unless she commits adultery. Moses allowed that concession for men of hard hearts. But Yahweh never intended for man to be separated from his wife.... vs 6 says what God has brought together let no man break apart. Therefore if the husband is allowing a man to break apart the marriage then he to has broken the law thus allowed his wife to sin against him.

A man divorcing his wife, for whatever reason doesn't commit adultery, it just might be hardness of heart, as you say. He only commits adultery if he marries a woman who is not properly divorced. But, he can cause a woman to commit adultery if he doesn't properly divorce her and she remarries, and also the man she marries. The man is not committed to a woman, but the woman to the man, but there are rules.

I agree that God never intended for men and woman to separate after marriage, (a marriage that God himself ordains, Mark 10:9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.) All this talk about sex creating marriage, and walking up to a justice of the peace and signing a peace of paper, doesn't make one married in the eyes of God, as far as I'm concerned. It's when He says you're married, then you are married. Now, even though He never intended to facilitate the idea of divorce He did create a Law,

“When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency (not necessarily adultery) in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house, 2 and if she goes and becomes another man’s wife, 3 and the latter man hates her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter man dies, who took her to be his wife, 4 then her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled, for that is an abomination before the Lord. And you shall not bring sin upon the land that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance.” (Dt 24:1-4)

That's the Law. And within that Law is the idea that divorce, under certain grounds other than adultery, but not necessarily, can be done because of hardness of heart. And also within that Law is the idea of remarriage, for the woman. The end result of this Law, and all that is included in it, is the fact, and the major concern, that the man can not remarry a woman who goes and gets married to someone else. So if a man divorces a woman he better make damn sure he knows what he is doing.

Matthew 19:9 is being taken out of context and it is based on the question being asked of the Son of God by those who know the Law to trap Him, because they wanted to divorce women for whatever reason. Which men, in those days, and today, divorce or abandon women at will and that is the context.

As far as believers and unbelievers staying together, or just being forced into living in a relationship that is pure hell, I believe, 1 Corinthians 7:15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace, is the supreme command. No where in that does it say YOU MUST REMAIN MARRIED. Besides, Paul is mixing his view with God's view in all the preceding text.

Nevertheless, in the story if the woman at the well and her five, no six husbands, she was never condemned by the Son of God as an adulterer, why should we condemn those around us who are in tragic relationships, when the point is, we are all screwed up and we need a Savior, in the first place.