-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Divorce question...specifics...
- Thread starter 3John2
- Start date
Daniel David
New Member
I cast no stone at you. I didn't know why you called Craig's view legalism.
Two of my closest friends are in remarried situations. I have no animosity.
Charles Meadows
New Member
Touchy Touchy!
I agree that the best place to start is Jesus' words on the subject. He clearly is against divorce and except for the single reference to "porneia" He says that we shouldn't divorce!
That being said the issue of divorce involves multiple situations:
2 lost people with selfish goals
2 Christians who live as though they were lost
1 Christian who thought (wrongly) that he/she could "win" his/her lost mate.
2 Christians, one of whom decides he/she wants out
And the list goes on!!!!!!
Boiling it down Jesus is basically saying marriage should be a bond. Two become one. We should enter into marriage with no conceivable contingencies!! As such Jesus is not just giving a list. Moses said you could divorce because of these things but I'm giving you a new shorter list of things for which divorce is permissible. He is saying that true marriage should never consider it an option!!
Now being human we all tend to drop the ball...
I think the best summary of Jesus' and Paul's comments is thus:
Concentrate on a Godly marriage; divorce should not be thought of as an option - unless there is adultery - and even then reconciliation is likely best. I don't think Paul is allowing divorce for unbelief. He is likely saying that it is OK to separate - but that does not sanction remarriage. His statement about it being OK to get married refers to those who were previously unmarried.
I agree that the best place to start is Jesus' words on the subject. He clearly is against divorce and except for the single reference to "porneia" He says that we shouldn't divorce!
That being said the issue of divorce involves multiple situations:
2 lost people with selfish goals
2 Christians who live as though they were lost
1 Christian who thought (wrongly) that he/she could "win" his/her lost mate.
2 Christians, one of whom decides he/she wants out
And the list goes on!!!!!!
Boiling it down Jesus is basically saying marriage should be a bond. Two become one. We should enter into marriage with no conceivable contingencies!! As such Jesus is not just giving a list. Moses said you could divorce because of these things but I'm giving you a new shorter list of things for which divorce is permissible. He is saying that true marriage should never consider it an option!!
Now being human we all tend to drop the ball...
I think the best summary of Jesus' and Paul's comments is thus:
Concentrate on a Godly marriage; divorce should not be thought of as an option - unless there is adultery - and even then reconciliation is likely best. I don't think Paul is allowing divorce for unbelief. He is likely saying that it is OK to separate - but that does not sanction remarriage. His statement about it being OK to get married refers to those who were previously unmarried.
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
Amen!
You should post more often! 
There is no exception. If there was an exception Jesus would not have used the word "porneia," he would have used the word for adultery, a completely different word. There was a reason that he used "porneia." He wasn't referring to adultery. The two words are used in the same verse and translated differently (Mat.5:32). Porneia, at least in this verse, means illicit sex before marriage, as demonstrated in the lives of Mary and Joseph in Mat.1. Joseph was willing to "divorce" Mary his "wife" before they were even married for the reason of fornication, because she was found with child.
These are simply opinions with no Scriptural backing. The Bible does not allow for divorce anywhere in Scripture, at least not with the direct approval of God.
You have contradicted yourself and pretty much called Jesus a liar. You said that "Jesus is basically saying marriage should should be a bond. Two become one." He didn'n just "basically" say it. He came right out and said "What God therefore hath joined together let no man put asunder. That leaves no room for divorce right there.
But then you contradict yourself by saying: "Jesus in not just giving a list. Moses said you could divorce because of these things..." Jesus never gave a list, and Moses only gave the permissive will of God for the Israelites to divorce because of the hardness of their hearts. It was never God's will, and it still is not God's will. Christ never sanctioned it while on this earth. He never gave permission for anyone to divorce. In fact he in no uncertain terms called divorce and remarriage adultery.
You are right: divorce is not an option.
You are wrong: there in no "unless there is adultery" exception. That is man's justification, and distortion of Scripture.
I am in agreement with the rest of what you say.
DHK
Charles Meadows
New Member
DHK,
I'm calling Jesus a liar????
Your tone is a bit harsh - not to mention presumptious, given your highly questionable interpretation of "porneia".
Why Matthew used porneia and not moicheia is not certain, the former being obviously much broader and conveying the idea of ANY sexual immorality. Porneia certainly can mean adultery and makes sense as such given the nature of the question (a Pharisaic set-up).
Evidence from Qumran (Damascus document) suggests that perhaps He was referring to incestuous marriage (Lev 18:13) - although I favor the former rendering.
Your suggestion of a marriage voided by prior porneia is certainly not "ruled out" but is certainly less likely.
By the way, if you read correctly, my whole point of my post was that Jesus was completely anti-divorce, the Matthean exception not withstanding.
I'm calling Jesus a liar????
Your tone is a bit harsh - not to mention presumptious, given your highly questionable interpretation of "porneia".
Why Matthew used porneia and not moicheia is not certain, the former being obviously much broader and conveying the idea of ANY sexual immorality. Porneia certainly can mean adultery and makes sense as such given the nature of the question (a Pharisaic set-up).
Evidence from Qumran (Damascus document) suggests that perhaps He was referring to incestuous marriage (Lev 18:13) - although I favor the former rendering.
Your suggestion of a marriage voided by prior porneia is certainly not "ruled out" but is certainly less likely.
By the way, if you read correctly, my whole point of my post was that Jesus was completely anti-divorce, the Matthean exception not withstanding.
As my wife says (1st wife, 24 years next Monday, 2 kids now out on their own [USCG] - sorta) as she teaches women regurally - If you marry the wrong man, he becomes the right man, then and there.
This can go both ways, genderly.
To many people condemn divorced people. Their wrong choice here was divorce (we all have wrong choices). I would encourage you to trust God through the problems, put the past behind you and be obedient to God.
You are brave to come here and share and ask what you did. I applaud your honesty in trying to find peace. Most people who chastize the divorced, can't help it. Saying dicorce is sinful and God hates it is one thing, saying you are living in sin because of such is another.
Are there problems divorced people face? You bet - but that's a topic for another day. re there things in mionistry divorce keeps people from doing? I believe so but there is so many ministries (ways to serve the Lord) that the one or two with clear qualifications against divorce people serving there are not worht making serving the Lord somewhere, somehow an issue.
You are in my prayers.
Witness
Charles Meadows
New Member
3John2,
I think jle is right. Certainly your wife's circumstances are unfortunate, and yes not ideal for a Christian. But we are human.
The past is behind you and your sins ARE covered by the blood. Make THIS marriage the perfect union Christ envisioned.
I think jle is right. Certainly your wife's circumstances are unfortunate, and yes not ideal for a Christian. But we are human.
The past is behind you and your sins ARE covered by the blood. Make THIS marriage the perfect union Christ envisioned.
Online Bible Lexicon
Main Entry: for•ni•ca•tion
Pronunciation: "for-n&-'kA-sh&n
Function: noun
: consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other
(Mirriam Webster on-line Dictinary)
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=fornication
Main Entry: adul•tery
Pronunciation: &-'d&l-t(&-)rE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ter•ies
Etymology: Middle English, alteration of avoutrie, from Middle French, from Latin adulterium, from adulter adulterer, back-formation from adulterare
: voluntary sexual intercourse between a married man and someone other than his wife or between a married woman and someone other than her husband; also : an act of adultery
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=adultery
(Bible Dictionary, by Tenney)
Fornication:
"Voluntary intercourse between an unmarried man an an unmarried woman."
[fr. L. fornicare (fornicatus) fr. Fornix, brothel]
Adultery:
"Voluntary sexual intercourse of a married man with a woman other than his wife or of a married woman with a man other than her husband [M.E. audutrie fr. O.F., altered after L. adulterium]"
(The New Lexicon Webster's Lexicon Encyclopedic Dictionary, 1988)
Fornication:
Voluntary sexual intercourse between unmarried persons. (The World Book Dictionary, Volume 1)
The English word "fornication" has always meant "illicit sex before marriage" for as long as I can remember. It is the common meaning of the English word. In English it rarely refers to anything but sex before marriage. This is the common meaning of the word. I didn't have to read my Bible to know the definition of this word. It is common enough.
Admittedly, as has been shown in the Lexicon, porneia has some other menings other sex before marriage. But they are not the normal and most common meanings of the word. I believe the scholars of the KJV rightly translated the word fornication. I believe the dictionaries are right in their definitions, and not what the posters on this board are trying to say by redefining the word.
Joseph was going to put away his wife for the cause of fornication. He assumed that was the case because he saw that his wife was with child. However he knew not that she had conceived through the Holy Spirit, until it was revealed to him by an angel. Then he took Mary to him as his wife and knew her not until Christ was born. This fits in with the exception clause of Mat. 5:32. "Except it be for fornication." He could have divorced her (during their betrothal period) for the cause of sex before their actual marriage. It is significant that this exception clause is found only in the book of Matthew, a book that is written to a primarily Jewish audience. Matthew had in mind the Jews and their culture.
In the other gospels there is no exception clause and there is no exception for divorce or remarriage.
DHK
"Voluntary intercourse between an unmarried man an an unmarried woman."
[fr. L. fornicare (fornicatus) fr. Fornix, brothel]
Adultery:
"Voluntary sexual intercourse of a married man with a woman other than his wife or of a married woman with a man other than her husband [M.E. audutrie fr. O.F., altered after L. adulterium]"
(The New Lexicon Webster's Lexicon Encyclopedic Dictionary, 1988)
Fornication:
Voluntary sexual intercourse between unmarried persons. (The World Book Dictionary, Volume 1)
The English word "fornication" has always meant "illicit sex before marriage" for as long as I can remember. It is the common meaning of the English word. In English it rarely refers to anything but sex before marriage. This is the common meaning of the word. I didn't have to read my Bible to know the definition of this word. It is common enough.
Admittedly, as has been shown in the Lexicon, porneia has some other menings other sex before marriage. But they are not the normal and most common meanings of the word. I believe the scholars of the KJV rightly translated the word fornication. I believe the dictionaries are right in their definitions, and not what the posters on this board are trying to say by redefining the word.
Joseph was going to put away his wife for the cause of fornication. He assumed that was the case because he saw that his wife was with child. However he knew not that she had conceived through the Holy Spirit, until it was revealed to him by an angel. Then he took Mary to him as his wife and knew her not until Christ was born. This fits in with the exception clause of Mat. 5:32. "Except it be for fornication." He could have divorced her (during their betrothal period) for the cause of sex before their actual marriage. It is significant that this exception clause is found only in the book of Matthew, a book that is written to a primarily Jewish audience. Matthew had in mind the Jews and their culture.
In the other gospels there is no exception clause and there is no exception for divorce or remarriage.
DHK
Charles Meadows
New Member
DHK,
We know quite well that "porneia" means wrong sex and not just sex before marriage. The LXX translates incestuous marriage as "porneia". In this case I think the NIV translation is better.
You don't seem to like that Jesus made an "exception" - but he did!!
And considering the point of His speech, namely that divorce should not be considered an option, how do you find reason to see the only valid exception as a girl who had sex before marriage. If she had made a mistake as a young girl and now was happily devoted in marriage would Jesus sanction putting her away because of a past sin? I think not. This sounds a little, well, Pharisaical!!
And you can spare me the dreadful Strong's Greek pronunciations which would be unintelligible to any real speaker of Greek!
We know quite well that "porneia" means wrong sex and not just sex before marriage. The LXX translates incestuous marriage as "porneia". In this case I think the NIV translation is better.
You don't seem to like that Jesus made an "exception" - but he did!!
And considering the point of His speech, namely that divorce should not be considered an option, how do you find reason to see the only valid exception as a girl who had sex before marriage. If she had made a mistake as a young girl and now was happily devoted in marriage would Jesus sanction putting her away because of a past sin? I think not. This sounds a little, well, Pharisaical!!
And you can spare me the dreadful Strong's Greek pronunciations which would be unintelligible to any real speaker of Greek!
Charles,
I am sorry to offend you or bore you with pronunciations but I simply copied straight out of dictionaries and lexicons. They weren't my own.
What Jesus would sanction would be the breaking off of a marriage, or a would-be marriage because of the unfaithfulness of the bride. This is what Joseph was thinking before he got reassurance from the Lord. If I was engaged to my fiance, and found her unfaithful, having an affair with another man, do you not think that would be grounds to break off the engagement? That is all that Jesus was teaching. That is what the "divorce" was referring to. A knowledge of Jewish culture in this case is very helpful.
Yes Jesus made an exception. I agree. But it is you that doesn't like the exception that he made. It was an exception to the engagement, the betrothal period. If Jesus was making an exception to marriage, then why didn't he use the word that clearly defined adultery as adultery, and is translated as adultery all 26 times it is used in the New Testament--moichao. He didn't. He used a word that commonly is used for sex before marriage. It is a common word in the English language, and has the same meaning in the Greek. This is not a difficult case. It is so easy. There is only one meaning for moichao: adultery. But Jesus didn't say that. He said porniea. He obviously meant something else. As you point out the word porneia in the Greek took on a variety of meanings other than sex before marriage, but those meanings were secondary. But for sake of argument let's look at them:
Except for the cause of homosexuality??
Except for the cause of bestiality??
Except for the cause of idolatry??
What was Jesus referring to? I choose "except for the cause of fornication--which the text says. Any dictionary will tell you that fornication means sex before marriage. If you don't understand the word look it up for yourself. I have known the definition of this word for years. It is common knowledge. Why do you want to redefine it?
Tell that to the dictionaries.
Are you a revisionist?
DHK
Charles Meadows
New Member
DHK,
If you look at Mt ch 19 we see the Pharisees asking Jesus if it be lawful to put away a wife for every cause? They were likely trying to draw him into the Hillel/Shammai debate.
Notice He didn't say a betrothed but rather a wife - and since when would putting away a betrothed and marrying another constitute adultery? Your example of Joseph shows only a pious Jew living under the Law of Moses.
Why did He not say moichaw? Likely because the verse already speaks of adultery! If a man put away his wife but for adultery he commits adultery. The porneia fits better stylistically with the references to adultery already in the verse and is more encompassing! The two are to become one flesh. If a woman becomes one flesh with another man (or a woman or animal ) then the husband and wife are no longer one flesh!
Again, your interpretation is not ruled out but is less likely than either 1. marital infidelity or 2. incestuous marriage.
If you look at Mt ch 19 we see the Pharisees asking Jesus if it be lawful to put away a wife for every cause? They were likely trying to draw him into the Hillel/Shammai debate.
Notice He didn't say a betrothed but rather a wife - and since when would putting away a betrothed and marrying another constitute adultery? Your example of Joseph shows only a pious Jew living under the Law of Moses.
Why did He not say moichaw? Likely because the verse already speaks of adultery! If a man put away his wife but for adultery he commits adultery. The porneia fits better stylistically with the references to adultery already in the verse and is more encompassing! The two are to become one flesh. If a woman becomes one flesh with another man (or a woman or animal
) then the husband and wife are no longer one flesh!Again, your interpretation is not ruled out but is less likely than either 1. marital infidelity or 2. incestuous marriage.
Baptist in Richmond
Active Member
3John2:
First of all, I am very sorry to hear that you had to endure the painful experience of having your wife bear the child of another man. I cannot imagine how devastating this betrayal must have been, and my heart goes out to you. For what it’s worth, you are in my prayers.
With respect to your marriage, that is between you, your wife and God. I cannot help but shake my head in disbelief that someone would preach to you after what transpired.
My thoughts:
1. Jesus used the word porneia. He could have used any word, but He chose this one. As someone has already pointed out, this word essentially is an all-encompassing word for sexual impurity. As much as I love the Authorised Version, I think that the usage of the word “fornication” does not adequately reflect the true meaning of the Greek word. I believe that the word porneia was used to convey that any sexual impurity is grounds for divorce. That would include adultery, homosexuality, pedophilia, beastiality, and any other act of sexual perversion. For example, if the husband was molesting children, that too would be grounds for divorce. I have never seen anyone make a legitimate case that would compel me to reconsider this opinion.
2. Everyone seems to have forgotten that one would not have to worry about divorcing an adulterer/adulteress. Does everyone remember that the punishment for adultery was death? As a result of this fact, the spouse would be free to remarry by virtue of the fact that their spouse would now be dead, and widows/widowers were allowed to remarry. Perhaps that is why Jesus used the word porneia: He knew that adultery would not be a capital offense in the twenty-first century. I don’t know about you, but I do not want to see this punishment reinstated for those who commit adultery.
3. Divorce is clearly allowed if the unbeliever departs. How can anyone dispute that? If the unbeliever wants a divorce, exactly what recourse does the Believer have? Are they supposed to fight the proceedings? That is completely nonsensical. As Paul said, let them depart.
There are several books available on this subject, and readily available at Lifeway and Family Christian Stores. My prayer for you is that you can deal with the emotional/psychological issues that can accompany such incredible betrayal, and honor God in your marriage. There is only one unpardonable sin, and it IS NOT divorce. Nor is sin any more or less wicked than lying, stealing, or any other sin. I hope that you and your wife study the Word and pray together. I hope that you serve God in your local church, and if either of you have children, that you are raising them in the church.
The best advice I could possibly offer is to forget about the divorces the two of you have encountered. God forgave my sins, and if you believe that either divorce was a sin, He can forgive that as well. As you were the victim in your former marriage, I hope that you can truly forgive your former spouse (that can’t be easy), and move on with your life. Life is far too short to harbor bitterness and hold grudges. This will also allow you to concentrate on your marriage, and ensure that you stay married to one another. I am sure everyone would agree that the guidelines in Chapter 7 of I Corinthians absolutely apply to your new marriage. If you want to PM me to discuss further, I am always here for you.
First of all, I am very sorry to hear that you had to endure the painful experience of having your wife bear the child of another man. I cannot imagine how devastating this betrayal must have been, and my heart goes out to you. For what it’s worth, you are in my prayers.
With respect to your marriage, that is between you, your wife and God. I cannot help but shake my head in disbelief that someone would preach to you after what transpired.
My thoughts:
1. Jesus used the word porneia. He could have used any word, but He chose this one. As someone has already pointed out, this word essentially is an all-encompassing word for sexual impurity. As much as I love the Authorised Version, I think that the usage of the word “fornication” does not adequately reflect the true meaning of the Greek word. I believe that the word porneia was used to convey that any sexual impurity is grounds for divorce. That would include adultery, homosexuality, pedophilia, beastiality, and any other act of sexual perversion. For example, if the husband was molesting children, that too would be grounds for divorce. I have never seen anyone make a legitimate case that would compel me to reconsider this opinion.
2. Everyone seems to have forgotten that one would not have to worry about divorcing an adulterer/adulteress. Does everyone remember that the punishment for adultery was death? As a result of this fact, the spouse would be free to remarry by virtue of the fact that their spouse would now be dead, and widows/widowers were allowed to remarry. Perhaps that is why Jesus used the word porneia: He knew that adultery would not be a capital offense in the twenty-first century. I don’t know about you, but I do not want to see this punishment reinstated for those who commit adultery.
3. Divorce is clearly allowed if the unbeliever departs. How can anyone dispute that? If the unbeliever wants a divorce, exactly what recourse does the Believer have? Are they supposed to fight the proceedings? That is completely nonsensical. As Paul said, let them depart.
There are several books available on this subject, and readily available at Lifeway and Family Christian Stores. My prayer for you is that you can deal with the emotional/psychological issues that can accompany such incredible betrayal, and honor God in your marriage. There is only one unpardonable sin, and it IS NOT divorce. Nor is sin any more or less wicked than lying, stealing, or any other sin. I hope that you and your wife study the Word and pray together. I hope that you serve God in your local church, and if either of you have children, that you are raising them in the church.
The best advice I could possibly offer is to forget about the divorces the two of you have encountered. God forgave my sins, and if you believe that either divorce was a sin, He can forgive that as well. As you were the victim in your former marriage, I hope that you can truly forgive your former spouse (that can’t be easy), and move on with your life. Life is far too short to harbor bitterness and hold grudges. This will also allow you to concentrate on your marriage, and ensure that you stay married to one another. I am sure everyone would agree that the guidelines in Chapter 7 of I Corinthians absolutely apply to your new marriage. If you want to PM me to discuss further, I am always here for you.
"for every cause" The Jewish society then, was much like the Muslim society today. I have lived in a Muslim nation. Muslim divorce is easy. A man only has to stand up and say "I divorce you--I divorce you--I divorce you," And that is it. A woman has no rights. For this reason divorce is common, and so is having more than one wife or mistresses. One can divorce their wife over the most minor thing. I believe this to be the case in NT times. Divorce was common, and it was done frequently and for the most minor reasons. Like:
Burn the toast and your divorced, for example.
Thus Jesus answers as he did. Not for every cause.
Matthew 19:4-6 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 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? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
The conversation should have stopped there. Christ made it clear. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.
That is because he was a Jew living under the law. So was Matthew the writer of the Gospel. So was Jesus himself. Matthew's intended audience were Jews. Context is everything here.
Matthew 1:18-20 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
According to Jewish culture, Mary and Joseph were called husband and wife, during their espousal period even before they were married. This was their culture. Matthew was not writing to American culture with MacDonald's cheeseburgers in mind.
No, I disagree, and I think that you would have to agree with me that if moichao had been used instead of porneia, then there would much more agreement on this verse and on this subject. But our Lord chose to use porneia in order to make a difference between adultery and another type of sexual sin--sex before marriage (IMO).Why did He not say moichaw? Likely because the verse already speaks of adultery! If a man put away his wife but for adultery he commits adultery. The porneia fits better stylistically with the references to adultery already in the verse and is more encompassing! The two are to become one flesh. If a woman becomes one flesh with another man (or a woman or animal
The exception is fornication. Not adultery, desertion, abuse, financially irresponsible, etc. It says fornication--sex before marriage.
You seem to be saying that you want the Lord to use a word that is different then adultery, but means the same as adultery, so it would fit your preconceived ideas about divorce. Words have meanings. Different words are used for good reasons.
Galatians 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
If both words have the meaning of adultery why use both words in the same verse? It doesn't make sense. They have different meanings and are therefore included in the same verse. One means adultery--sex with a married person, and the other,
fornication--sex with an unmarried person.
DHK
Thanks Baptist in Richmond. I HAVE forgiven my wife & pray her & her family (husband & baby) every day. Her husband is NOT a christian & I pray for his salvation every day. Most people don't understand how I can do this but I simply say it's because I AM a new creation in Christ. As for my current wife we are doing everything to avoid the problems of the first marriage & putting God first in EVERYTHING. I look forward to a blessed union with God's hand on it. Thanks for your response. I NEVER thought about what you said about adultery being punishable by death. Makes a LOT of sense now.
We on this board can't agree on whether women are forbidden from wearing pants, or are required to cover their heads, whether we're required to observe the Sabbath, what color Jesus' robe was, what day Jesus died on, whether it was three literal 24-hour days between Jesus' death and resurrection, how many angels were present at Jesus' empty tomb, or even when the stone of Jesus' tomb was rolled away. These are not doctrinal matters.