Husband of one wife.....

Hi npetreley . Thank you for your reply. I appreciate your follow up. You said; " First as to the fact that the second word for divorce is passive, it must be." I'm glad that you now see it.

You said; " The question is, is this the same woman in the first part of the verse?" Yes. (see my prior post).

You said; " Note that the NASB says, "he who marries one who is divorced".." This is fine. My previous comments still apply. Any man who marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery. This confirms that GOD does not recognize the divorce, and that He still recognizes the first marriage (otherwise the remarriage would not be called adultery). It also confirms that the "exception clause" as commonly understood fails. Otherwise, the divorced "first wife" in Luke 16: 18 would be free to remarry. But Luke 16: 18 say's that she is NOT free to remarry, referring to such remarriage as "adultery."

You said; " Note the NIV. It says, "and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery"..." Same answer as above.

You still haven't told me what you think the exception clause means to you. Please cite chapter and verse too. Thanks nPetreley.

 

Hi JohnWells. You said; " Please answer my question in my 9:58pm post above and this one which I repost.." Where is it? I don't see where you posted at 9:58 pm. Do you mean 8:58pm? I already responded and await your response to that post. Thanks! latterrain77

 

latterrain77,

Yes, I meant 8:58pm; my mistake.

John Wells: "In Deut 24:1-4 did Moses disobey the will of God, or did Moses act upon the will of God by proclaiming and allowing these things to be carried out? Please comment!"

Let me see . . . I'm looking for the answer to:

1. Did Moses disobey the will of God?
2. Did Moses act upon the will of God by proclaiming and allowing these things to be carried out?

I'm sorry latterrain77, but I don't see that you've answered these questions, yet you just claimed you did. Maybe this is why debating with you is a never ending story and about as much fun as trying to nail jello to a wall!

 

I wish I could post in crayon for you latterrain! Jesus said,

“I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." Matt 19:9

Do you understand simple sentence structure? EXCEPT means that this statement does not apply to the object of "except." I.E. "Anyone who divorces his wife for marital unfaithfulness does not commit adultery." Now I lay my crayon down!

 

I 100% disagree with this statement.

Can you provide scripture supporting this? </font>[/QUOTE]There is no scripture that says that a divorced man cannot be a Pastor. To get scripture to say that, a person must take select verses from here and there and put them into a 'scripture blender', so to speak, and lo and behold it says just what they want it to say. The most vague qualification for a pastor or deacon is "the husband of one wife", and I find it interesting that it is the only qualification that seems to matter to some of my baptist brethren. My belief is that "husband of one wife" means just what it says "husband of one wife", meaning married to one woman or, not a poligamist.

 

Hi npetreley . Thank you for your follow up. I appreciate your thoughts. You said; "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and any woman who divorces her husband and marries another man also commits adultery." But the Bible does not word it the way you have above. The language (both English and Greek as previously mentioned in my earlier post) are straightforward. The Bible says;

Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery. Luke 16: 18"

You said; " there is no provision for the woman to divorce her husband..." Yes, that is correct. Such was true in the Deuteronomy OT era and it remains true in NT era today too. Regardless of how one understands the "exception clause," Matt. 19: 9 does not apply to woman. It is directed at men only. It says;

"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." bold is mine.

Furthermore, the Matt. 19: 9 text (like the Luke 16: 18 text) plainly states that whoever marries this divorced woman commits adultery. If divorce frees a person for remarriage, then this woman should be FREE to remarry. However, her second marriage is referred to as adultery (which the text above as well as Luke 16: 18 shows).

Also, Matt. 5: 32 says; "But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." Matt. 5: 32"

Remarkably, Matt. 5: 32 shows that a man who divorces his CHASTE wife causes HER to commit adultery even though she has done nothing wrong! Read it slowly and see that this is so. Does this mean that the UNCHASTE wife has more rights than the CHASTE one? Obviously not. Yet, if the common understanding of the exception clause were correct, then the unchaste wife would be in a BETTER position than the chaste wife. Thankfully, this common understanding is wrong.

As double emphasis, Matt. 5: 32 concludes exactly the same as Luke 16: 18 and Matt. 19: 9 which says that whoever marries this divorced woman commits adultery. Again, if she were FREE to remarry (as the exception clause proponents insist she would be) then the Bible would not refer to the remarriage as adultery. So, Matt. 5: 32 shows that a man who divorces even his CHASTE wife, makes her an adulteress nonetheless.

You said; "Now -- let's add in that "exception clause" (emphasis mine)." and you quoted Matt. 19: 9 which says; [/b]

"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." Matt. 19: 9

Even if the exception clause as commonly understood were true (and it's not), this would only allow a man the exception against his wife. It would NOT allow the woman any exception, because Matt. 19: 9 is speaking to men only as the verse shows (comments above). Fortunately, the Bible also makes it very clear that men cannot divorce their wives for any cause either. So the justice scale is perfectly balanced. Ironically, the incorrect common understanding of the "exception clause" may be unknowingly promoting the idea that a man has the right to divorce his wife by virtue of the exception, but they cannot provide Biblical support to show the right of a woman to divorce her husband by virtue of the exception.

You said; "Why would Jesus make marital unfaithfulness an exception?... Did He? Could the phrase be referring to something else? Luke 16: 18 shows this to be so. Otherwise, the first wife in Luke 16: 18 (the victim of an unfaithful husband) would have been free to remarry. But she was not, as the text shows her remarriage was referred to as adultery. The Matt. 19: 9 exception references "fornication" (porneia) which can only occur prior to marriage. By contrast, a cheating spouse in marriage commits adultery (moichao).

You said; "...How does that fit with the Mosaic law? Let's look at the relevant section of Deuteronomy:" You may not have noticed that Mosaic law and Deuteronomy speak of marriage as well as "betrothal" issues. Furthermore, it should go without saying that Deuteronomy should be read in context of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, etc, not the other way around. For example, Deuteronomy must be read in the context of the LORD's statement in Matt. 19: 5-6 which says;

"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." (bold is mine).

This plainly teaches that mankind is strictly prohibited from tearing apart marriage through divorce. There is nothing at all ambiguous about this verse. Only the death of a spouse can end the marital relationship.

We read;

"The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord." 1 Cor. 7: 39

"For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man." Rom. 7: 2-3

"And unto the married I COMMAND, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife." 1 Cor. 7: 10-11. (block and bold are mine). Note that this is a specific COMMAND from GOD himself directly to the MARRIED.

You said; "Obviously, "marital unfaithfulness" means someone became "one flesh" with another person, right?" If actually married, sexual activity with someone other than the spouse is an act called adultery (moichao). If unmarried or betrothed, then such an act is called fornication (porneia). Thank you npetreley. latterrain77

 

Hi JohnWells. You said; " latterrain77, Yes, I meant 8:58pm; my mistake." No problem.

You said; "I'm sorry latterrain77, but I don't see that you've answered these questions,.." Sorry, but I think I did respond to your Deuteronomy 24: 1-4 question (see my five posts back). You might have missed a more recent post too where I said; "But I'm pleased to comment even further after you have answered the question above." You still have not answered the "yes or no" question that I have put to you three times. So for the fourth time now, please answer my "yes or no" question with a direct yes or no answer. Here it is again below:

So, does a remarriage of the "first wife" in Luke 16: 18 result in adultery or not? Here is Luke 16: 18 again for your immediate review;

" Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

Once you have answered the above, with a yes or no reply, I will absolutely answer your questions in further detail (if the LORD permits) promptly after reading your Yes or No answer to my question. I await. Thanks! latterrain77

 

latterrain77, I'm sorry, but I don't follow your reasoning or see your points in your post, and I get the impression you didn't follow mine. So I don't really know how to respond.

I did want to correct one minor error, however.

In the verse...

Matthew 19:9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

...the word translated "marital unfaithfulness" (or "fornication" in the KJV) is porneia. Perhaps your point is that it must therefore mean something other than adultery since the word translated "adultery" is moichao. But I don't see where you're going with that line of reasoning. Porneia is a superset of sexual sins including adultery, which simply says that the "exception" in Matthew 19:9 covers more ground than simply "cheating on your spouse with another".

New Testament Greek for ' fornication '

4202 porneia {por-ni'-ah}
from 4203; TDNT - 6:579,918; n f
AV - fornication 26; 26
1) illicit sexual intercourse
1a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse
with animals etc.
(strong's number 4202)

 

Hi npetreley. Thank you for your reply. I appreciate it. You said; " latterrain77, I'm sorry, but I don't follow your reasoning or see your points in your post,.." I have re-read it myself and it seems to be straightforward to me. I'm sorry it wasn't clear to you.

You said; ".. and I get the impression you didn't follow mine." I thought I did. I'm sorry that was not clear to you.

Perhaps you might consider sharing your view on some of the comments if not all? For example, my comments concerning Matt. 5: 32 are really very straightforward and you should have no problem following the reasoning. Also, my comments relating to Matt. 19: 9 as being directed at men only (not women) seems to be very easy reading too. Would you also tell me what you think the "exception clause" means? For example, can a women divorce her husband by virtue of the exception clause? If yes, please cite chapter and verse indicating that this so.

You said; "Porneia is a superset of sexual sins including adultery,.." Adultery is not "porneia." Adultery is "moichao." That is why the English and Greek both use separate words to describe each. They are also separate and distinct in operation. Fornication occurs PRIOR to marriage. Adultery can only occur IF someone is married. Fortunately, in addition to the English and Greek words, the Bible itself shows that the two words mean different things and that fornication occurs PRIOR to marriage, not after. John 8: 41 says;

"Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, [even] God. (John 8: 41)" (bold is mine).

These religious rulers in John 8: 41 believed that Jesus was born "out of wedlock." They assumed this because Joseph and Mary were not married, but betrothed, at the time of the Lord's birth (Matt. 1: 18). In other words, these vicious religious rulers were accusing Jesus of being born "out of wedlock" PRIOR to the marriage of Joseph & Mary. Here (as in our every day understanding of the word fornication), the Bible VERY clearly shows that the word "fornication" (porneia) is associated with sexual activity PRIOR to marriage. That is why the word used in John 8: 41 is "fornication" (porneia) and not adultery (moichao) and, that is why the words in Matt. 19: 9 are distinct and separated too. Thank you again for your follow up npetreley. latterrain77

 

Hello Latterrian77:

I have to lovingly disagree with your comments on the "exception clause." I do not believe that this means that it doesn't apply to women. First of all, the question posed to Jesus specifically refers to men (Verse 3). Additionally, there could have been a specific reason that Jesus said it this way: perhaps Jesus was referring to a particular person, such as the one who asked the question. It wouldn't be the first time that He did something like this.
Secondly, this would imply that the teachings of Jesus only apply to one sex. A few months back, I read a book on ministering to gays and lesbians in the congregation (a horrible book, by the way) and the author was stating that lesbianism was not a sin because the verses oft quoted in the Law of Moses specifically pertain to men.
Furthermore, if a woman is in a physically abusive relationship, do you really think that God would want her to stay in the marriage?

As always, I hope that this post finds you receiving God's blessings seventyfold.

 

ok, I admit I haven't read the whole thread, it's too long. But I just have a few observations I wondered about.
The bible says God hates divorce, Jesus said Moses allowed it becasue of the hardness of thier hearts. The bible also teaches if you divorce adn want to remarry you remarry the person you divorced. Then is it safe to say if it says husband of one wife it means one wife, only one wife, ever.

 

Latterrain - I regards to the Matthew passage - was Jesus saying that divorce was acceptable if it was found out that the wife committed fornication before becoming married?

I've still not fully understood your interpretation of this passage.

 

I know this question isn't directed to me, but I'd like to offer my "interpretation". Jesus says...

I interpret that to mean that if you are divorced for any reason other than sexual immorality and marry another, or if you marry someone who is divorced for any reason other than sexual immorality, you are committing adultery. The converse is that if you divorce your spouse for sexual immorality and marry another, or if you marry someone who is divorced due to sexual immorality, you aren't commiting adultery.

 

Hi BaptistInRichmond. Thank you for your comments. I appreciate your thoughts. You said; "I do not believe that this means that it doesn't apply to women." The text specifically says it is directed at men, not women.

You said; " First of all, the question posed to Jesus specifically refers to men (Verse 3)." Yes, I agree. This is because women never had the ability to divorce; neither did men either as it turned out (Matt. 19: 8).

You said; " Additionally, there could have been a specific reason that Jesus said it this way: perhaps Jesus was referring to a particular person, such as the one who asked the question. It wouldn't be the first time that He did something like this." This would not be possible for a number of reasons. The most obvious reason is the immediately preceding verses (verses 7-9). Jesus is addressing "them" not a singular man: the hardness of YOUR hearts (v7), THEY say unto him (v7). Verse 9 itself says "whosoever" (which means ANY) puts away HIS wife (meaning ANY man, not a singular man, and not women).

You said; "Secondly, this would imply that the teachings of Jesus only apply to one sex." In the Bible, there are a number of directives that apply to only one sex. For example, the qualifications of a pastor in 1 Tim. 3 is directed at men, not women (1 Tim. 3). Being a "keeper of the home" is directed towards women, not men (Titus 2: 5). Husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church (Eph.5: 25) is directed at men, not women. Wives submit yourselves unto your husbands (Eph. 5: 22) is directed at women, not men (and so on).

You said; "Furthermore, if a woman is in a physically abusive relationship, do you really think that God would want her to stay in the marriage?" The way "out" of such a horrific situation is prison for the violent and lawbreaking husband. Divorce in and of itself cannot guarantee that a savage man would cease being a savage simply because he became divorced. Fortunately, GOD has given mankind a "legal system" to meet such protections. Any violent tendencies in a man (whether in marriage, out of marriage, or even on the little league baseball field) should be met with VERY stiff prison time (many years, not a few days). Only THAT kind of hard "chain gang" like separation in prison can provide the woman (and society) with a reasonable expectation of safety. Any violent man on the loose is ALWAYS a danger to all, and such a man poses a tremendous threat to society and social order. Violent men are shown to be worthy of strict incarceration and perhaps even capital punishment (Matt. 15: 7). Accordingly, violent husbands need to be put away in prison for a VERY long time.

You said; "As always, I hope that this post finds you receiving God's blessings seventyfold." GOD Bless you too BaptistInRichmond and thank you for your very kind salutations. It is very much appreciated. latterrain77

 

Hey latterrain - I wanted to make sure you saw this question.

 

Hi Bro. Jeff. Thank you for your question. You said; "... - was Jesus saying that divorce was acceptable if it was found out that the wife committed fornication before becoming married? It means that a man NOT yet married may call off the marriage to his betrothed wife (i.e. engaged), if he discovers BEFORE the actual marriage is finalized that his "bride to be" was NOT a virgin (i.e. committed fornication). Once they are officially "married" (and no longer betrothed) then he may not divorce his wife if he discovers AFTERWARDS that she was not a virgin.

Under OT law, an adulterous wife was given the death penalty, not a divorce (Lev. 20: 10). Thanks Bro. Jeff. latterrain77

 

But Joseph was unwilling to make Mary such a public example and thought to divorce her privately, sparing her life. That's assuming that outside of occasional vigilante action, capital punishment was inflicted outside of Roman jurisdiction over the matter.

 

Once again, I believe that this was because the question posed to Him specifically related to men. I do not believe that this means that it only applies to men.

So you are reading this to mean that the Law was less than Divinely Inspired?

I still am not convinced of this. Like I said before, I believe that this was most likely directed at the person who was asking the question. Jesus knew who was posing the question, as I doubt that they all had this particular question simultaneously.

Neither is prison. Statistics show that modern prisons are not a deterrant to crime.

The "legal system" in place today is vastly different from the one you describe.

Although you and I agree on this point, this does not happen anymore. Also, severe mental abuse is another form of abuse, and one that would be virtually impossible to prosecute.

They are very much sincere. We disagree on a few things; however, I very much enjoy our discussions.

 

Hi BaptistInRichmond. Thank you for your comments. I appreciate them. You said; "So you are reading this to mean that the Law was less than Divinely Inspired?" Oh no, not at all. Women never had the right to divorce a man in both OT times as well as NT times. In the OT era, men (due to their hardness of heart unsaved condition) believed they had this right but they never really did either (Matt. 19: 8). Though some hold that adultery was grounds for divorce in the Old Testament era, the Bible actually shows that the punishment for adultery in the Old Testament era was the death penalty not divorce (Lev. 20: 10).

You said; "... I believe that this was most likely directed at the person who was asking the question. Jesus knew who was posing the question, as I doubt that they all had this particular question simultaneously." I respect your conclusion, but I don't see it in the Biblical text. The question posed to Jesus definitely came from a "group" (they); though it hardly matters. More importantly is that the Lord's response went out to WHOSOEVER (all men) not merely one or some. The word "whosoever" in Matt. 19: 9 means "everyone" - all. The phrase "his wife" in the same verse can only mean that it was directed at men (not women). When taken together with the word "whosoever," it means ALL men concerning their wives. That text is very unambiguous to me.

You said; " The "legal system" in place today is vastly different from the one you describe." This may be true in some respects. But this is an issue that is entirely separate from divorce. The police and the courts are obligated to protect a woman (and society) from an abusive man (and thankfully they usually do!). Whether or not they should do it more aggressively is a topic unto itself. Prison for the violent man is a way to provide a meaningful means of protection for a woman and society from such a man. Hard prison time is what the violent man deserves and should get.

You said; "...Also, severe mental abuse is another form of abuse, and one that would be virtually impossible to prosecute." Judges and courts have the authority to punish such ones, and they should. A verbally abusive man; one who uses extreme, shocking, angry and violent verbiage (such that it would be clearly offensive to most) can and should be prosecuted for such assault. Fortunately, many judges today (and police too) are sensitive to the issue of abusive husbands.

Perhaps a Biblical illustration of this can be found in Abigail the wife of David. Formerly, she was married to a man named Nabal (1 Sam. 25). This man appears to have been a verbally abusive type of man (1 Sam. 25: 14). Abigail recognized her husbands folly (1 Sam. 25: 25, 1 Sam. 25: 36). Ultimately, GOD Himself dealt with this verbally abusive man (1 Sam. 25: 37).

You said; " They are very much sincere. We disagree on a few things; however, I very much enjoy our discussions." You are very kind my brother. I very much enjoy our discussions too. Thank you BaptistInRichmond. latterrain77

 

Thanks for the clarification latterrain.