defending "till death do us part"

[Guest shiloh357]

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.

Fornication in the context IS adultery.  If a person is married and they fornicate, they have committed adultery.  You are unecessarily splitting hairs.  If I am married, any sexual activity outside of my marriage including the watching of pornography is 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.

 

That isn't true.  In that culture, and Jesus did not qualify His statement to exclude betrothal, betrothal was considered one stage of marriage.  it was not like our modern engagement.  Not by a long shot. 

 

When Mary was found to be with child, Joseph was going to divorce her privately.  Why would he need to divorce Mary if they were not considered married?   Jesus was speaking in the context of the marriage customs of that day and adultery was the same offense to a betrothed couple as it was to a couple who had been married for 30 years.   Jesus makes no distinction.

 

 

 

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

Sorry, but you are just wrong on that point.  They are not "only" betrothed.  In that culture betrothal WAS marriage and I defy you to present any proof that contradicts that.

 

 

.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.

 

Sorry, but you are really mixing things up.  Jesus is saying nothing different in Matt. 19:9 than he did in 5:32.   The only legitimate cause for divorce is marital infidelity.  Jesus is saying if man divorces a woman for anything other than marital infidelity he is committing adultery.  Same as in 5:32.   So I really don't see that you have much of a case.  In that day and age, the men were allowed to divorce for any reason, no matter how flimsy.  They could divorce a woman because they saw someone they liked better.  Jesus is speaking to that issue.

 

 

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.

 

No, what I am asserting shows that Matt. 5:32 and Matt. 19:9 actually complement each other.  They should be read and understood as saying that a man who divorces a woman for any other reason other than sexual immorality/marital infidelity causes her to commit adultery and causes any man who marries her later to commit adultery.  And a man who divorces his wife except for marital infidelity is also an adulterer when he marries another woman.  There is no contradiction.  You simply are not looking at what both passages are saying.

[A_Voice]

Shiloh,

You have made some interesting assertions but which have very good answers.

How about if we both agree to answer whatever question the other asks?

So whatever question you ask, I will answer with a yes or no, if required, before presenting any reason etc.

If agreed, then you also will grant me the same respect. 

 

Concerning betrothal, yes they were regarded as husband and wife by betrothal, the word "married" was also used, but everyone knew they had not become joined in marriage. So it is a mute point to make since Jesus defined what that situation is under which God has joined together that man is not to put asunder. It is that situation where a leaving and cleaving has occurred, where they are completely married living with one another. In the case of the divorce-for-fornication-in-betrothal explanation, the exception clause jumps to touch on that entirely different kind of divorce even though the topic of discussion, as established in Matt 5:31, is definitely the other normal post marital divorce. So in that case, (understanding that the the exception clause pertains to a divorce that DOES NOT put asunder what God has joined together), then everything falls into place:

In Matt 5:31,32, she is not caused to commit adultery by being put away for fornication while betrothed. Obviously because she has not ever been joined in marriage (she doesn't qualify for the status of "what God has joined together, let not man put asunder"). We see the same practical accommodating effect in Matt 19:9; he does not commit adultery by marrying another after that kind of divorce, for the same reason; he is still single not having graduated to having left and cleaved to his wife.

 

Please ask questions and I will do the same. By committing to answer each others questions, progress can be made in this discussion. If by your questions and answering my questions I discover and realize I am wrong, then I will very gladly admit that and be thankful for a better understanding. I trust you also have the same heart.

 

Concerning what I said above concerning the exception clause jumping to something other than what was the topic of discussion:

Would you like to see an example of a grammatical parallel where we have a sentence that functions after the same format of Matt 5:31,32 and where the exception clause jumps to what is NOT the topic of discussion?  

[A_Voice]

One light,

"Till death do us part" has been held for centuries by very many Christians  as what the reality of marriage is. It is derived from the very strong words in the long dialogue in Mark 10:2-12, by the short but powerful declaration by Jesus in Luke 16:18 and the two very strong statements by Paul in 1 Cor 7:39 and Rom 7:2,3.

It seems that most Christians through the centuries simply ignored the exception clause or they were given suggestions on what it might mean, all designed to NOT contradict the strong verses mentioned above. Many Christians just could not get themselves to contradict the overwhelming testimony and convicting power of those verses that by all appearance are declaring "till death do us part". The fact that some kind of exception existed by only Matthew's hand was not going to get them to rush into a rash decision to violate those verses that are so plainly and strongly written forbidding divorce and remarriage. They refused to so easily abandon conviction. Good for them, even if they did not know about the premarital divorce that does NOT contradict "till death do us part". 

 

There is a simple challenge that exposes the divorce for adultery explanation of the exception clause to be absolutely false. Would like to accept that challenge to see if you can vindicate that theory?

Edited November 9, 2014 by A_Voice

[Guest]

Concerning betrothal, yes they were regarded as husband and wife by betrothal, the word "married" was also used, but everyone knew they had not become joined in marriage.

 

?

 

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. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

 

Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

 

Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. Matthew 1:18-25

[OneLight]

One light,

"Till death do us part" has been held for centuries by very many Christians  as what the reality of marriage is. It is derived from the very strong words in the long dialogue in Mark 10:2-12, by the short but powerful declaration by Jesus in Luke 16:18 and the two very strong statements by Paul in 1 Cor 7:39 and Rom 7:2,3.

It seems that most Christians through the centuries simply ignored the exception clause or they were given suggestions on what it might mean, all designed to NOT contradict the strong verses mentioned above. Many Christians just could not get themselves to contradict the overwhelming testimony and convicting power of those verses that by all appearance are declaring "till death do us part". The fact that some kind of exception existed by only Matthew's hand was not going to get them to rush into a rash decision to violate those verses that are so plainly and strongly written forbidding divorce and remarriage. They refused to so easily abandon conviction. Good for them, even if they did not know about the premarital divorce that does NOT contradict "till death do us part". 

 

There is a simple challenge that exposes the divorce for adultery explanation of the exception clause to be absolutely false. Would like to accept that challenge to see if you can vindicate that theory?

 

We have been given a choice whether or not to divorce due to extramarital sexual relations.  Those are Jesus words. To argue that we should not divorce when there is no longer a relationship is a very weak one, for Christ knows our heart.  If you ever knew the pain of separation that is caused when finding out your wife or husband has been "becoming one" with another person, you would retract your non-biblical stance.

[A_Voice]

One light,

The word fornication (porneia) has quite a bit more to it than what you have revealed.

Three times in the NT, besides in Matt 5 and 19, the words fornication and adultery are listed side by side. That indicates a difference in meaning. Sometimes it can pertain exclusively to the premarital sexual sin if the context accommodates that. It has more than one definition. Those kinds of very flexible words, when used in a context where there is found some uncertainty, the different definitions may be tried to see if any particular definition will cause the entire function of the sentence to perform more perfectly.

Such is the case with Matt 5 and 19 of the exception clause. When assumed that fornication means adultery some very weird contradictions exist in both verses as well as contradicting each other. When the other kind of divorce that was done in betrothal is embraced as Jesus' intention for the exception clause, those contradictions do not occur.

There is no question which explanation works and which is false. The divorce for adultery explanation is false because of the contradictions that are created within the texts when that definition of fornication is used. The divorce in betrothal explanation fits perfectly with ALL the NT texts on the topic. Not one contradiction. 

[A_Voice]

OneLight,

You continually keep asserting that the word fornication has to be identifying adultery in that context. Since "fornication" depending on context can be used to identify the premarital sexual sin exclusively, you have no grounds to ignore that possibility of intended use by Jesus. The interesting fact concerning this is that Matt 5:31,32 and 19:9 literally contradict themselves, and each other, when fornication is assumed to mean adultery. Those contradictions do not exist when fornication is understood to be pointing to that entirely different kind of divorce for fornication done premaritally in betrothal.

[OneLight]

One light,

The word fornication (porneia) has quite a bit more to it than what you have revealed.

Three times in the NT, besides in Matt 5 and 19, the words fornication and adultery are listed side by side. That indicates a difference in meaning. Sometimes it can pertain exclusively to the premarital sexual sin if the context accommodates that. It has more than one definition. Those kinds of very flexible words, when used in a context where there is found some uncertainty, the different definitions may be tried to see if any particular definition will cause the entire function of the sentence to perform more perfectly.

Such is the case with Matt 5 and 19 of the exception clause. When assumed that fornication means adultery some very weird contradictions exist in both verses as well as contradicting each other. When the other kind of divorce that was done in betrothal is embraced as Jesus' intention for the exception clause, those contradictions do not occur.

There is no question which explanation works and which is false. The divorce for adultery explanation is false because of the contradictions that are created within the texts when that definition of fornication is used. The divorce in betrothal explanation fits perfectly with ALL the NT texts on the topic. Not one contradiction. 

 

Yes, that is true, it does have a lot more to it.

 

From The Complete Word Study Dictionary edited by Spiros Zodhiates Th.D. New Testament

 

To commit fornication or any sexual sin.  Fornication, lewdness, or any sexual sin.

1. Any sexual sin; coupled with moicheia (3430), adultery (Mark 7:21), and other sins (Romans 1:29).  Used generally to refer to any sexual sin (1 Corinthians 6:13, 18; 7:2; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; Revelation 9:21).  The explanation goes on for a page and a half.  I could type it all out, but I do hope you get the idea that adultery is included in the meaning of fornication, though it is not the whole meaning, but just part.

OneLight,

You continually keep asserting that the word fornication has to be identifying adultery in that context. Since "fornication" depending on context can be used to identify the premarital sexual sin exclusively, you have no grounds to ignore that possibility of intended use by Jesus. The interesting fact concerning this is that Matt 5:31,32 and 19:9 literally contradict themselves, and each other, when fornication is assumed to mean adultery. Those contradictions do not exist when fornication is understood to be pointing to that entirely different kind of divorce for fornication done premaritally in betrothal.

 

Yes, and I will continue to speak the truth.  You do realize that words have different meaning in other parts of scripture.  Fornication is one of them.  Please supply the reference material you are using.  Scripture does not contradict itself, peoples understanding of what they read does.

[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.

 

 

"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.

 

I just said that "Till death do us part was not in the Bible, I didn't say I agreed with divorce.  I would rather see the relationship mended as only God can do.

[A_Voice]

FresnoJoe,

Notice in Matt 1, while in that state of not having become joined in marriage, while they were only betrothed, Joseph is identified as her "husband" and Mary as his "wife".

In modern times we might say 'husband and wife to be'. We see the same scenario of the premarital uses of these terms in Deut 22:23,24 and Deut 20:7. In Gen 19:14 we see a reference to the word "married" apparently also used with regard to the betrothed state. In Matt 1 we see also the term, "put her away". That is the same term used for divorce. So Joseph, Mary's "husband", was contemplating "divorcing" his "wife" Mary, while they were only betrothed, BEFORE they joined in marriage and became husband and wife after how we use those terms today.   .

 

Lacking this understanding of their usage of terms, ('husband' 'wife' and 'divorce') has led many very highly respected Biblical scholars to not even begin to consider that the word fornication in Matt 5:31,32 and Matt 19:9 can reasonably refer to the premarital type of divorce we see in Matt 1. It is understandable for the mental block since they were not at all familiar with those usages in these modern times. They failed to discover this revelation or failed to put themselves in the shoes of the first century Christians and see how the betrothal explanation for the exception clause works perfectly.

Edited November 10, 2014 by A_Voice