Matthew 19:9 Divorce and Remarriage loophole?

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:
Does Matthew 19:9 provide grounds for divorce and remarriage on grounds of adultery?

Not to the one who committed the adultery, but the victim, yes.

Thanks for your reply. I invited any who thought divorce and remarriage was permissible on ground of adultery from the Logos General Forum discussion to discuss their view in depth here. https://community.logos.com/forums/t/168966.aspx So thanks for kicking things off to a good start. I hope others will join us.

My position is that death alone breaks the marriage bond. And that divorce only separates. So any who remarry for any reason including adultery, end up living in adultery when they remarry.

In Matthew 19:9 Jesus says the innocent wife would commit adultery along with the man she marries, even though her first husband committed adultery by re-marrying and divorcing her.

The "except Clause" did not work in this case when according to all it should have.

Another way to translate "except" is the word "if". In this case the verse would read “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [IF] it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” (Matthew 19:9) (KJV 1900)

So either way, any divorcing and remarrying is adultery according to Matthew no matter the reason.

There is no evidence that is the best translation of that clause.

Even if so. In the most simple reading, divorce for any reason other than adultery (fornication) is itself adultery. And in Mosaic law, fornication meant the death penalty. So in this situation, the State did not recognize the adulterous husband's sin as a capital crime, so each of the 4 ended up committing adultery.

The Westminster recognizes this, but says it is OK to remarry on grounds of adultery, since the State drops the ball, so to speak. But here in Matthew they also dropped the ball and Jesus says it is adultery.

Except that isn't the most plain reading and isn't what Jesus said.

Jesus said: if a husband divorces his innocent wife and marries another, he (and his new wife by implication) commit adultery.

He then says, if the innocently divorced wife should remarry, both she and her second husband commit adultery.

Something to consider is: how can you forgive, in order to be forgiven, if you divorce your spouse on grounds of adultery? And, when Jesus abolished the Old Covenant, divorce went with it. Meaning all divorce is pure fiction and man made. Not recognized by God. But Paul says if an unbeliever "divorces" (deserts) a believer, let them go. But we also read, only death breaks the marriage bond.

Except the passage does not say that.

If the "except clause" permitted divorce and remarriage on grounds of adultery, why does Jesus say the innocent woman, divorced from an adulterous husband, also commits adultery along with husband #2 when she remarries?

@Dave_L said:
Adultery was a capital sin punished with death. So of course one could remarry if the State killed the adulterer. Because only death breaks the marriage bond. Since the Jews and the Westminster think otherwise, Jesus says it is still adultery when any of the 4 marry or remarry.

Here is what is ACTUALLY said: And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

The exception is sexual immorality. If your wife committed adultery and you divorced her, you are allowed to remarry because of the circumstances of the divorce. That is what Jesus ACTUALLY said.

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:
Does Matthew 19:9 provide grounds for divorce and remarriage on grounds of adultery?

Not to the one who committed the adultery, but the victim, yes.

Thanks for your reply. I invited any who thought divorce and remarriage was permissible on ground of adultery from the Logos General Forum discussion to discuss their view in depth here. https://community.logos.com/forums/t/168966.aspx So thanks for kicking things off to a good start. I hope others will join us.

My position is that death alone breaks the marriage bond. And that divorce only separates. So any who remarry for any reason including adultery, end up living in adultery when they remarry.

In Matthew 19:9 Jesus says the innocent wife would commit adultery along with the man she marries, even though her first husband committed adultery by re-marrying and divorcing her.

The "except Clause" did not work in this case when according to all it should have.

Another way to translate "except" is the word "if". In this case the verse would read “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [IF] it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” (Matthew 19:9) (KJV 1900)

So either way, any divorcing and remarrying is adultery according to Matthew no matter the reason.

There is no evidence that is the best translation of that clause.

Even if so. In the most simple reading, divorce for any reason other than adultery (fornication) is itself adultery. And in Mosaic law, fornication meant the death penalty. So in this situation, the State did not recognize the adulterous husband's sin as a capital crime, so each of the 4 ended up committing adultery.

The Westminster recognizes this, but says it is OK to remarry on grounds of adultery, since the State drops the ball, so to speak. But here in Matthew they also dropped the ball and Jesus says it is adultery.

Except that isn't the most plain reading and isn't what Jesus said.

Jesus said: if a husband divorces his innocent wife and marries another, he (and his new wife by implication) commit adultery.

He then says, if the innocently divorced wife should remarry, both she and her second husband commit adultery.

Something to consider is: how can you forgive, in order to be forgiven, if you divorce your spouse on grounds of adultery? And, when Jesus abolished the Old Covenant, divorce went with it. Meaning all divorce is pure fiction and man made. Not recognized by God. But Paul says if an unbeliever "divorces" (deserts) a believer, let them go. But we also read, only death breaks the marriage bond.

Except the passage does not say that.

If the "except clause" permitted divorce and remarriage on grounds of adultery, why does Jesus say the innocent woman, divorced from an adulterous husband, also commits adultery along with husband #2 when she remarries?

@Dave_L said:
Adultery was a capital sin punished with death. So of course one could remarry if the State killed the adulterer. Because only death breaks the marriage bond. Since the Jews and the Westminster think otherwise, Jesus says it is still adultery when any of the 4 marry or remarry.

Here is what is ACTUALLY said: And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

The exception is sexual immorality. If your wife committed adultery and you divorced her, you are allowed to remarry because of the circumstances of the divorce. That is what Jesus ACTUALLY said.

But, if it means what you say, why did Jesus say the innocent wife, divorced from the adulterous husband, also commits adultery along with the man she marries?

This alone proves your interpretation is incorrect and you should begin looking for a solution. I'm providing a couple of solutions, and there are more I'm also aware of.

Show me how he actually said that based on what is actually written in the text. That is not at all what he said. And, to note, the wife is not the innocent one in the text, the husband was. In Jesus' example, the wife committed adultery. The husband, in that instance was free to remarry after the divorce.

@Dave_L said:
“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.” (Matthew 19:9) (KJV 1900)

Notice first, a husband would commit adultery if he put away his wife "except for fornication" (punishable by death under Moses), and married another. He would commit adultery along with his 2nd wife. Because only death breaks the marriage bond.

No, read it again, it is not the husband committing adultery in this passage. The husband is doing the divorcing. If that man marries another, unless the divorce was because of adultery, then and only then does he commit adultery by the remarriage.

“For a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of the marriage.So then, if she is joined to another man while her husband is alive, she will be called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she is joined to another man, she is not an adulteress.” (Romans 7:2–3) (NET)

And, the innocent divorced wife in Matthew would also commit adultery, even though divorced by an adulterous husband, along with the man she marries. Because, as Paul says, only death breaks the marriage bond.

The wife was the guilty one in the passage, not the man. Read more carefully.

And the Westminster and the Jews do not realize that if the State dropped the ball in each case, not recognizing adultery and punishing it with death, all 4 people in the scenario end up committing adultery.

No, flat wrong. Read the text carefully.

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:
“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.” (Matthew 19:9) (KJV 1900)

Notice first, a husband would commit adultery if he put away his wife "except for fornication" (punishable by death under Moses), and married another. He would commit adultery along with his 2nd wife. Because only death breaks the marriage bond.

No, read it again, it is not the husband committing adultery in this passage. The husband is doing the divorcing. If that man marries another, unless the divorce was because of adultery, then and only then does he commit adultery by the remarriage.

“For a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of the marriage.So then, if she is joined to another man while her husband is alive, she will be called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she is joined to another man, she is not an adulteress.” (Romans 7:2–3) (NET)

And, the innocent divorced wife in Matthew would also commit adultery, even though divorced by an adulterous husband, along with the man she marries. Because, as Paul says, only death breaks the marriage bond.

The wife was the guilty one in the passage, not the man. Read more carefully.

And the Westminster and the Jews do not realize that if the State dropped the ball in each case, not recognizing adultery and punishing it with death, all 4 people in the scenario end up committing adultery.

No, flat wrong. Read the text carefully.

“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.” (Matthew 19:9) (KJV 1900)

Your entire scheme falls apart. Here's why: If he doesnt divorce her for fornication and marries another, he commits adultery. Correct?

Correct.

And being divorced from this adulterous husband, the woman and her second husband also commit adultery. Even though she was divorced from an adulterous husband.

You are describing a different scenario than what we are talking about. We are talking about whether or not someone who divorced their spouse because their spouse committed adultery is allowed to remarry. That is not the scenario you just described.

Now, had the State killed the adulterous husband, the innocent wife would be free from the charge of adultery along with husband #2.

This is irrelevant because you are describing a different scenario than what is in the text and the text does not allow.

@Dave_L said:
Jesus said the adulterous husband divorced his innocent wife and married another. Making the "except clause" irrelevant.

No, that is not what he said. Nowhere did he say the husband was the offender. Your whole interpretation is wrong because it is based on something the text does not say.

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:
Jesus said the adulterous husband divorced his innocent wife and married another. Making the "except clause" irrelevant.

No, that is not what he said. Nowhere did he say the husband was the offender. Your whole interpretation is wrong because it is based on something the text does not say.

Is this a true statement? In Matthew 19:9 Jesus said the innocent wife, divorced by an adulterous husband would also commit adultery if she remarried? Also the innocent man would commit adultery by marrying her?

Except, Dave, grammatically that is not what he said. The wife was the one who was caught in fornication and the reason for the divorce in Christ's example. Not the other way around.

Let's look at some other reasons Christians cannot divorce. Jesus says we must forgive in order to be forgiven. How can you divorce your spouse for any reason if you forgive them? Divorcing = a crystalized act of unforgiveness.

Also, divorce was part of the Old Covenant, replaced by the New. It is not an option for the NT believer. Although an unbeliever might divorce a Christian. But the divorce is as worthless as the paper it's written on. There is no such thing as divorce in God's sight.

More later...........

Yet Jesus allotted for it in this circumstance, you have to reconcile that somehow with your theology and misinterpretation of the text.

@Dave_L said:
Regardless, Jesus said a wife, divorced from an adulterous husband, would commit adultery along with her new husband if she remarried. There is no way around this. The "except clause" does not work as you think it does.

Dave, break each sentence down and tell me what Jesus actually said. You have it all wrong it is BASIC GRAMMAR.

Also, God does not allow for Christians to divorce in the NT. It was a provision for wicked unbelievers under the now defunct Old Covenant.

How do you arrive at this?

Even though an unbeliever might divorce a believer, this involves the unbeliever in damnable sin because it is a legal act of unforgiveness. And only reconciliation will reverse it. And especially so, if a believer divorces another believer.

What in the world are you talking about here?

@Dave_L said:
All of the grammar in the world will not support your position. Here are four points to consider.

• Jesus said the woman divorced from the adulterous husband, also would commit adultery along with her second husband, if she remarried.

Ok, please show how the grammar says the husband was the adulterer.

• Divorce was part of the Old Covenant. Jesus abolished it on the cross replacing it with the New Covenant.

Evidence?

• Divorce is pure fiction today, nowhere permitted by God. People are married until death separates them.

Evidence?

• Divorce locks a person into a legal state of unforgiveness. Which is a damnable sin. Because we must forgive so we can be forgiven.

What are you basing this on?

@Dave_L said:
Jesus said IF the husband divorced his wife except for fornication and married another he would commit adultery. And If this took place, the innocent wife would also commit adultery along with her new husband when they married. But IF this were to happen, why would the "except clause" not work for her, being divorced from an adulterous husband?

Ok your first sentence, yes if he divorces his wife except for fornication he would commit adultery. The Except clause doesn't work because that is what God said. We don't make the rules, He does.

And so on. If Divorce was an Old Testament allowance, And Christ abolished the Old Covenant, replacing it with the New, where does divorce come from? It is purely a sinful man made custom without any divine sanction.

What do you think the Old Covenant is? Not everything in the OT was abolished if you believe that, what is your biblical support for it? You can't say it doesn't have divine sanction in certain situations because it has allotments in the NT which blows your theory of the Old Covenant and divorce being abolished with it out of the water.

And how can a Christian divorce and forgive at the same time? You cannot be forgiven if you do not forgive.

I think you should probably do a study on what forgiveness is and what it is not. Being forgiven doesn't mean there are not consequences.

So we can argue all day and night about divorce that doesn't exist in God's sight. Why should we be so foolish?

Except it does exist, Jesus even gave a reason why it could exist. So the only logical conclusion is that your interpretation isn't in line with the whole of Scripture, therefore it is a wrong interpretation.

@Dave_L said:
It remains, IF this happened, as it does every day not only in the world, but in churches too. Adultery would result. Do churches send more to hell than they do to heaven in today's divorce for any reason climate?

Divorce is unforgiveness, and that too sends people to hell.

First, churches do not send people to hell.
Second, you did not answer any of my points.
Third, I don't believe divorce and unforgiveness are synonyms. And I don't believe there is Scripture to back that unforgiveness sends people to hell.

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:
It remains, IF this happened, as it does every day not only in the world, but in churches too. Adultery would result. Do churches send more to hell than they do to heaven in today's divorce for any reason climate?

Divorce is unforgiveness, and that too sends people to hell.

First, churches do not send people to hell.
Second, you did not answer any of my points.
Third, I don't believe divorce and unforgiveness are synonyms. And I don't believe there is Scripture to back that unforgiveness sends people to hell.

How many divorces do you have in your church? Are you divorced?

Why are you now trying to point fingers instead of actually answering the questions that have shown flaws in your interpretation? Your questions are neither relevant to this discussion or appropriate for a public forum.