defending "till death do us part"

[A_Voice]

Many believe that Jesus allows divorce for adultery. That directly contradicts "till death do us part". There is strong evidence that fully supports the long held "till death do us part", that proves that adultery is NOT a grounds for divorce.

There was a cultural divorce for fornication (not adultery) that was done while the "husband" and "wife" were only engaged (betrothed). Jesus' hearers were very familiar with this kind of divorce. The texts in Matt 5:31,32 and 19:9 function perfectly when this perspective of the exception clause is embraced. When the perspective that Jesus allowed divorce for adultery is held, then Matt 5:31,32 and 19:9 contradict each other as well as themselves.

Edited November 6, 2014 by A_Voice

[1x1is1]

This does not sound right to me.  I understand it to mean just what it says. What about verse's  Matt 5:27-28?

 

And along the same subject.  It is quite clear to me that  you are not commanded to divorce your spouse in case of adultery.  You have the option to divorce, but you may also forgive the spouse and remained married. 

[Guest]

Many believe that Jesus allows divorce for adultery.

 

That directly contradicts "till death do us part".

 

There is strong evidence that fully supports the long held "till death do us part", that proves that adultery is NOT a grounds for divorce.

 

There was a cultural divorce for fornication (not ) that was done while the "husband" and "wife" were only engaged (betrothed).

 

Jesus' hearers were very familiar with this kind of divorce.

 

The texts in Matt 5:31,32 and 19:9 function perfectly when this perspective of the exception clause is embraced.

 

When the perspective that Jesus allowed divorce for adultery is held, then Matt 5:31,32 and 19:9 contradict each other as well as themselves.

 

~

 

 

Yea~!

 

Their worship is a farce, for they teach man-made ideas as commands from God.'" Matthew 15:9 (NLT)

 

Hath God Said?

 

Thou shalt not commit adultery. Exodus 20:14 (KJV)

 

~

 

This does not sound right to me.  I understand it to mean just what it says. What about verse's  Matt 5:27-28?

 

And along the same subject.  It is quite clear to me that  you are not commanded to divorce your spouse in case of adultery.  You have the option to divorce, but you may also forgive the spouse and remained married. 

 

 

He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God? Micah 6:8

[kwikphilly]

Blessings A_Voice

     Welcome to Worthy........the way you have written the OP can be a bit confusing,as I see it ,you are simply saying that Gods Word has no contradictions,,,,,,,As God said that they should not separate,that is how it should stand as it is the Will of God

 

cifulAnd Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” He answered them, “What did Moses command you?” They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away.” And Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’                                                               Mark 10:2-12

I think Mark 19:2-12 makes it quite clear what Jesus position is,,,,,,,,,Gods Word,His Commands & His Will does not change,but He is Loving ,Merciful,Compassionate & very very Patient & Long Suffering because He knows the conditions of mans hearts & the weakness of the flesh,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Oh but for the Grace of God!                                                                   With love-in Christ,Kwik

[Guest shiloh357]

Many believe that Jesus allows divorce for adultery. That directly contradicts "till death do us part". There is strong evidence that fully supports the long held "till death do us part", that proves that adultery is NOT a grounds for divorce.

There was a cultural divorce for fornication (not adultery) that was done while the "husband" and "wife" were only engaged (betrothed). Jesus' hearers were very familiar with this kind of divorce. The texts in Matt 5:31,32 and 19:9 function perfectly when this perspective of the exception clause is embraced. When the perspective that Jesus allowed divorce for adultery is held, then Matt 5:31,32 and 19:9 contradict each other as well as themselves.

Betrothal is not like our "engagement."   Betrothal was a stage of marriage.  Betrothed couples were considered husband and wife in form but not in function.  Our culture has no parallel to that cultural convention. Adultery occurs between either two married people or a married person and a single person.  If a single man is engaged and commits fornication with a single woman (be she engaged or not)  he is not committing adultery.   So to compare betrothal to engagement won't work.

 

So when Jesus talks about marital infidelity He isn't qualifying which stage of marriage He is talking about.  It doesn't really matter.  So marital infidelity is grounds for divorce at any stage of marriage.

[A_Voice]

Shiloh357, what you have written doesn't make sense to me. Jesus did not make adultery a grounds for divorce. The word he used was fornication, not adultery. That fits perfectly with the divorce during betrothal explanation of the exception clause because Jesus identified the leaving and cleaving as being what God has joined together in marriage. If they are only betrothed they have not been joined together by God. If they divorce while only betrothed, they are still single and hence she is NOT caused to commit adultery as Matt 5:31,32 declares. Also in Matt 19:9 the kind of divorce that is allowed is the kind that makes it that the man that does it can marry afterward and it is NOT adultery. That works perfectly for the divorce in betrothal explanation because he also is still single both before and after the divorce.

To assert that the divorce for fornication is really a divorce for adultery makes Jesus to contradict himself since he said, "what therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder." 

It makes Jesus to contradict himself in Matt 5:31,32 as well as Matt 19:9. These verses also contradict each other when the exception of fornication identifying premarital sex is mistakenly assumed to be adultery.

[A_Voice]

Hi kwikphilly,

 

If a person reads Mark 10:2-12 there is an unmistakable message there. Marriage is until death like the old phrase "till death do us part". A person gets the same effect when reading Luke 16:18. That same message is again clear when reading 1 Cor 7:39 and Rom 7:2,3.

 

The mistake people are making is assuming the exception clause in Matt 5:31,32 and 19:9 is contradicting the very clearly stated passages in Mark 10:2-12 Luke 16:18 1 Cor 7:39 and Rom 7:2,3. The explanation of the cultural divorce done for suspected fornication (not for adultery), which divorce took place while they were only betrothed, works perfectly for Jesus' exception clause since it does not contradict Jesus' strong statement, "what therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder."

 

There is very strong evidence that Jesus did NOT make adultery a grounds for divorce. 

 

I think this touches our consciences as well because the situation in the garden at the first marriage; it was impossible for the couple to no longer be one flesh, husband and wife for as long as they were both alive. According to Jesus all married couples after Adam and Eve fall into that same category. They are one flesh, impossible to alter by divorce. Only death can part.

To divorce and to remarry is adultery. Jesus made this very clear 5 times. Paul did so twice. As overwhelming as that message is, somehow modern Christianity finds ways to basically deny that adultery is being committed by being remarried. That strong testimony 7 times in the NT that remarriage is adultery fully supports Jesus' claim: what therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder. If a divorce is acquired followed by a remarriage, that is adultery. The divorce has no weight by God's truth as revealed by Jesus.

[OneLight]

Shiloh357, what you have written doesn't make sense to me. Jesus did not make adultery a grounds for divorce. The word he used was fornication, not adultery. That fits perfectly with the divorce during betrothal explanation of the exception clause because Jesus identified the leaving and cleaving as being what God has joined together in marriage. If they are only betrothed they have not been joined together by God. If they divorce while only betrothed, they are still single and hence she is NOT caused to commit adultery as Matt 5:31,32 declares. Also in Matt 19:9 the kind of divorce that is allowed is the kind that makes it that the man that does it can marry afterward and it is NOT adultery. That works perfectly for the divorce in betrothal explanation because he also is still single both before and after the divorce.

To assert that the divorce for fornication is really a divorce for adultery makes Jesus to contradict himself since he said, "what therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder." 

It makes Jesus to contradict himself in Matt 5:31,32 as well as Matt 19:9. These verses also contradict each other when the exception of fornication identifying premarital sex is mistakenly assumed to be adultery.

 

Perhaps it would benefit you to look up the meaning of porneia (G4202) ... the most basic terminology is harlotry.  The Greek dictionary basically states it is to commit fornication or any sexual sin.

[RustyAngeL]

Many believe that Jesus allows divorce for adultery. That directly contradicts "till death do us part". There is strong evidence that fully supports the long held "till death do us part", that proves that adultery is NOT a grounds for divorce.

There was a cultural divorce for fornication (not adultery) that was done while the "husband" and "wife" were only engaged (betrothed). Jesus' hearers were very familiar with this kind of divorce. The texts in Matt 5:31,32 and 19:9 function perfectly when this perspective of the exception clause is embraced. When the perspective that Jesus allowed divorce for adultery is held, then Matt 5:31,32 and 19:9 contradict each other as well as themselves.

Till death do us part is not even in scripture. And scripture never contradicts itself.   God always wants  the relationship restored.  Healing and forgiveness is always what He desires.  But adultery was grounds for divorce.  But again restoration was what He wants. 

[OneLight]

 

Many believe that Jesus allows divorce for adultery. That directly contradicts "till death do us part". There is strong evidence that fully supports the long held "till death do us part", that proves that adultery is NOT a grounds for divorce.

There was a cultural divorce for fornication (not adultery) that was done while the "husband" and "wife" were only engaged (betrothed). Jesus' hearers were very familiar with this kind of divorce. The texts in Matt 5:31,32 and 19:9 function perfectly when this perspective of the exception clause is embraced. When the perspective that Jesus allowed divorce for adultery is held, then Matt 5:31,32 and 19:9 contradict each other as well as themselves.

Till death do us part is not even in scripture. And scripture never contradicts itself.   God always wants  the relationship restored.  Healing and forgiveness is always what He desires.  But adultery was grounds for divorce.  But again restoration was what He wants.

 

 

"Till death do us part" is a spin off of Matthew 19:6

 

So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.