I would like to point out a thematic issue. Jesus is not in the habit of lowering standards. In fact, he teaches quite the opposite. He places a charge of murder on any one who hates and a charge of adultery on anyone who lusts. Jesus is the great standard raiser. Thus, it makes no sense that Jesus would would make such an eloquent case for men to honor their wives and then throw in an exception clause. Further, the Disciples’ reaction is interesting. They react by declaring that it would be better not to marry. Why would they react so strongly if Jesus had just given them an exception?

Translating the clause as an inclusion clause makes more sense. So, the phrase becomes, “…anyone who divorces his wife, not (even) for sexual unfaithfulness…”. This would explain why the 12 reacted so sharply.

This also fits more with the testimony of Jesus’ life. Christians’ don’t have rights. If my spouse wrongs me by be unfaithful I do not then have the right to marry someone else. I may need to leave her, but I do not have the right to marry another. I will wait for her in case she changes her ways and comes back to me. If she never changes, I will still be waiting. That happens to be what God through Jesus does for all of us.

http://www.wisereaction.org/ebooks/mcfall_pawson_critique.pdf

Thank you for posting Leslie McFall’s take on Rom 14:1 and 1Cor 5:8 as it relates to the way he has translated Mat 19:9!

Bob.

The following is a response from Leslie McFall to what AJ had said in blog entry 188 and 190.

*****************************************************************************************
In reply to your query concerning the objection of “AJ” to my literal English translation of Mt 19:9, which does away with the “exceptive clause,” his two examples in Rom 14:1 and 1 Cor 5:8 actually support my view that the verb “put away” must be repeated after the negative MH in Matt 19:9. My translation reads, “Now I say to you that who, for example, may have divorced his wife—(he may) not (have divorced her) for fornication—and may have married another (woman), he becomes adulterous (by marrying her). And the (man) having married (a) divorced (wife), he becomes adulterous (by marrying her).” The words in italics (in brackets) are not in the Greek, but are required to bring out the sense of the Greek.

You will notice that it is necessary to repeat the verb “have divorced” after the negative MH to capture the significance of the negative. AJ has brought forward two texts from Rom 14:1 and 1 Cor 5:8 in which he claims the negative MH does not relate to the preceding verb, but this is incorrect. I give below the correct way he should have translated these two texts.

Rom 14:1, “And the one weak in the faith receive you—not [receive you] in determinations of reasonings.” By adding “receive you” after the negative, this brings out the force of the postive imperative. But there is a negative imperative implied after the particle MH, so the verb should be repeated to bring out the sense Paul intended his hearers/readers to get.

1 Cor 5:8, “. . . so that we may keep the feast—not [we may keep] with old leaven, not [we may keep] with the leaven of evil and wickedness, but [we may keep] with unleavened food of sincerity and truth.” To get the full sense of what Paul wrote we need to re-supply the verb “we may keep” three times in this one verse. There is a positive and a negative “keeping.” This AJ has overlooked.
*******************************************************************************************

http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?sourceonly=true&currSection=sermonssource&keyword=smbconline&subsetcat=series&subsetitem=Divorce+and+Remarriage

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Remarriage-Adultery-Unless-David-Pawson/dp/B0050B5KVS

Scroll down in the link to the Divorce & Remarriage video
http://www.ihop.org/Publisher/Article.aspx?ID=1000104085

3 Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.”

To those arguing the pros and cons of adultery/divorce/remarriage which started out about whether( i think) 2 greek letters were omitted in translations of scripture or not

and then further what the true meanings are

then even further the context
.
To You I same Shame on You.

Can You Not see what You are doing to some of these readers.

You have and are alienating them from the
very One they should be turning to
God Their Loving, Compassionate Father in Heaven.

For it is there they will find the answers they need
Not the teachings of doctrines,FALSELY SO CALLED

They as people like any person Who is a Born Again have
THE RIGHT AND PRIVILEGE TO ENTER THE THRONE ROOM OF GRACE

Hebrews 4:15-16 (King James Version)

15For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

16Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need

Full stop,no questions asked Not by God at Least.

But it would seem,you People think You have the right to determine as to whether that Right and Privilege should be extended to the people who find themselves in a dilemma that brings confusion,conflict into
their lives.

Surely it is at such a time, when a person is confused,conflicted and unsure of their position that they should take God up on His Promise.

After all,He knows all about what it is that we/you are struggling with cause he was tempted in all points as we are,Yet without Sin.

So I say to all…
BOLDLY GO INTO THE THRONE OF GRACE and Find and receive the Help
Your Father has for You.
Allow your High Priest (JESUS) intercede for YOU and RECEIVE THE MERCY and GRACE You Deserve.

Jesus said of us all (refering to us as Children) to come unto Him.

And to anyone who Prevented it,it would be better if a milestone was put around there neck and thrown into the depth of the sea.

Matt 18….

1 At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”
2 Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them,
3 and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.
4 Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
5 Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.

6 “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

7 Woe to the world because of offenses! For offenses must come, but woe to that man by whom the offense comes!

Should you not also have had compassion on your fellow servant, just as I had pity on you?’
34 And his master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him.
35 “So My heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother his trespasses.

Its about time we accept The People as they come and LET (as i have been saying)

Let the Holy Spirit Do His Work

The Holy Spirit Is Quite capable of doing that
Thank You very Much
and if We/You allowed that Holy Spirit Work to happen in their Lives ,
who dont Live upto OUR expectations(whether based on Thier interpretation of scripture or Not)
We would Find there being a far Greater Crowd in Glory than not.

Because let me tell you, its arguements like this of doctrine Falsely so called that cause people to leave the Church in thier droves.

Its this sort of thing that the world looks at and Says what a Bunch of…

Any one who is reading this and are grappling with these issues in yours or others lives.

Go Back and Read Romans Chapt Eight and see what Is RECKONED TO YOU BECAUSE OF THE FINISHED WORK OF THE CROSS.

And again If any of you think I am Watering down or giving liscence to people to continue in thier Sin.
Absolutely NOT.
You Teach the Gospel in it entirety and
You Will see people repent of thier Sin before YOU EVEN THINK ABOUT whether You should point it out to them.

Hows That….Because When you Lift HIM higher HE will Draw Men/Women Unto Himself.

Note Not lifting the sin higher for a person to see

But Lifting Jesus Higher

If You have at any time in Your Life Given Your Heart To The LORD

I’ll see You in GLORY

Trev.

Reckon Your Rightful place in the Throne Room of God
Sitting at the right hand of the Father with Jesus

How do you feel about John telling Herod post-marriage that it was not lawful for him to have his brothers wife (Mk 6) or when the Israelis according to the counsel of Ezra (Ezra 9 and 10) put away there unbiblical wives.

>>>I think the scripture should be interpreted as “no man shall divorce his wife except for marital unfaithfulness.”

This was the law in the Old Testament (Deut 24) and God allowed this because of the hardness of their hearts but from the beginning it was not so and Jesus told them that a man was not to put away his wife. Mk 10:2-12, Lk 16:18, Rom 7:2-3, and 1Cor 7:11, 39 clearly state that if you divorce and remarry it is adultery. So the question at hand is what does Mat 19:9 teach.

>>>I know many people’s intent here is to save marriages and thus protect the family unit at all costs, but if even one person feels hopeless and loses their chance at salvation because of your judgement, isn’t there blood on your hands?

This of course goes both ways. If there is no allowance for divorce and remarriage and you teach people it is okey then isn’t there blood on your hands also?

>>>It’s easy to sit in an Ivory Tower and force false doctrine on people, but how many of you have been subjected to an adulterous marriage? I’d like to see how you would interpret the scripture?

Many that have a spouse that has left them hold to this view of the scriptures and have not remarried.

>>>I’m glad he will be on the throne on Judgement day and not any of you folks.

Here we agree, AMEN!

Bob.

God holds every man & woman personally accountable to uphold and affirm the righteousness and purity of marriage as defined by the creational record. Paul uses the perfect analogy of the indissoluble bond of marriage, in Romans 7, to show that you can’t be joined to the law, and also be ‘married to Christ’. One must die in reference to the law, in order to be married to another; Christ Jesus. The principle isupheld with the law of the husband, that the wife is bound to, as long as the husband remains alive. We might refer to this as the ‘death clause’. This ‘law of the husband’ precludes the possibility of any ‘exception’ (whatever it means) of dissolving the covenant marriage. If the husband is physically alive, the ‘law’ remains in effect. This is perfectly consistant with Jesus repeatedly saying that ‘whoever marries a woman divorced from her husband, committs adultery.’ If we consider Adam & Eve, the picture is clear; For a strange man to have joined himself to Eve, (literally impossible of course), he would, be lying with Adam also, since she was taken form him literally; (woman – from or out of the man). God does not continue to put males to sleep, and perform the same creational miracle, but He does perform the same ‘one flesh’ bond with every covenant marriage, just as if the same procedure was performed again. That is why death alone will dissolve the one flesh bond. Only death ended the union of our first parents, and Jesus says that the same principle is in effect for all subsequent covenant marriage in these ‘last days’. As a side note; the wife of a man is said to be the mans ‘own body’, and Paul even states that the spouse do not retain exclusive rights over their own body, but they do have exclusive claims to each others body. The distinguishing priciple of the woman being taken from the man is also maintained during the time preceeding Jesus coming. When God tolerated some men having multiple wives, He never tolerated a woman multiplying husbands to herself. A king may have 3 wives, but they were his wives exclusively, and no other man could defile any of them, for that would be an obvious violation of the law against coveting, which includes ‘thy neighbors wife.’ Just some thoughts. In conclusion; take a look at the way the EMTV renders Romans 7, and keep in mind the idea of crational marriage.

Or do you not know, brothers (for I speak to those knowing the law), that the law rules over a man as long as he lives? For the woman who is under a man has been bound by law to the living husband. But if the husband should die, she is released from the law of the husband. So then, while the husband is living, she will be called an adulteress if she becomes married to a different husband; but if her husband should die, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress, having become married to a different husband. (Rom 7:1-3)

According to my research, I am informed by several reliable sources that the “earliest manuscripts” of Matthew 19:9 read:

“And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, MAKES HER COMMIT ADULTERY, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery”

Thus, Matt 19:9 reads almost identically to Matt 5:32 in the Sermon on the Mount. The conclusion to both being that the “exception clause” refers only to the husband’s guilt-worthiness in regards to CAUSING THE WIFE to commit adultery (presumably when she remarries). In other words, if the wife is already an adulteress, the divorcing husband is not responsible for making her an adulteress (when she remarries). Otherwise, he not only bears his own guilt, but some of hers as well. In either case, remarriage would be viewed as adultery. It is just a matter of the divorcing party being responsible for only his own gulit, or for the guilt of both parties should remarriage occur (and it was presumed that it would).

I did not see this addressed here (or did I miss it?) and what do you think?

No not at all.

Bob.

Did I not make it clear, that I reject the notion that a covenant marriage can be finally dissolved based on an interpretation of “except it be for fornication? It is not wise to give so much weight to our English translations. They are certainly an imperfect representation (though sufficient) of a perfect language which God Himself has authorized. The suggestion to set aside all the verses that you listed, only results in an erroneous conclusion. You cannot ‘fragment’ and isolate a text when there are seemingly unclear statements within that text. We can confidently assert that Paul had the wisdom from the Holy Spirit, which provided the inspiration of his letters. Paul has come to the conclusion, based on Jesus doctrine, that “the wife is bound to her huiband as long as he liveth.” Now we know beyond all doubt, that Paul had full and complete knowledge of the doctrine of marriage, which he unequivocally states to be until death.

All I am maintaining, with the full revelation of scripture as my support, is that the phrase under consideration, cannot, and does not, allow for the divorce of a COVENANT spouse, with the subsequent right to marry another person. The apostles made it crystal clear that a lawful marriage is bound and indissoluable until the death of one of the spouses. In this sense, ‘it doesn’t matter what the pharse in Matthew 19:9a means. It is just as valid and applicable to point out what the phrase does not mean. Whatever your explanation is, I can accept it as plausible, aslong as it does not contradict the ‘death clause’ which is binding upon the spouses while they are physically alive. Hope this helps.

>>>I am only maintaining the logical fact which is; whatever the ‘except for…’ phrase means, it cannot in any way modify the portion that states ‘and marries another’ unless you conclude either of the following;

How did you come to that conclusion?

“And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery:” Mat 19:9a

I think it is pretty clear that if for a moment set aside the other verses (Mark 10:2-12 , Luke 16:18, Rom 7:1-3, 1Cor 7:11,29) that refer to the issue what the meaning of the Mat 19:9a is.

Anyone that puts away his wife for any other reason than immorality and marries someone else commits adultery.

Ask a English teacher and they will tell you the same thing.

>>>1. The betrothal view (which you don’t prefer)
2. The unlawful union view (you are legally married to a sister, daughter, near of kin, another mans wife etc..)

I reject both these views and I posted 5 reasons above whey I reject them. In my blog post Divorce And Remarriage And Jewish Betrothal I came up with one more.

>>>Although I am not a stauch adherent to the betrothal view, you made a number of assumptions that are questionable, and you omitted important facts that pertain to this position.

Again there is no sense telling me that I am making questionable assumptions and omitting facts if you don’t tell me what they are.

The Aramaic is supposedly dated to at least 165AD and has the exception clause.

It may be the way I worded my last comment, but you miss the point I attempted to make. I am only maintaining the logical fact which is; whatever the ‘except for…’ phrase means, it cannot in any way modify the portion that states ‘and marries another’ unless you conclude either of the following;

1. The betrothal view (which you don’t prefer)

2. The unlawful union view (you are legally married to a sister, daughter, near of kin, another mans wife etc..)

Both of these position do not end up in a contradiction with Jesus command that all covenant marriages are binding upon both parties until one physically dies. As you stated in your response to me; Jesus points to creation as the model that is binding upon everyone in these ‘last days.’ That is all I was tring to point out. The whole focus of those that attempt to excuse a ‘remarriage’ based on some imaginary interpretation of the phrase imn Matt 19, is fatally flawed. You bind yourself until death when you marry your covenant spouse. The death clasue in scripture can only be voided by death. It is noble to attempt a clear and plausible definition of the ‘escept for’ phrase, but the death clause binds both parties to conform themselves with the creational model. Could anything but death, dissolve the union of Adam and Eve? No. There you go.

By the way Bob. Although I am not a stauch adherent to the betrothal view, you made a number of assumptions that are questionable, and you omitted important facts that pertain to this positon. Jeremiah 2 & 3 is most certainly applicable to any discussion about marriage. Both positions above are consistant with the binding nature of covenant marriage. If one can find a justification for a divorce from a covenant spouse, it won’t have the effect of dissolving the marriage as long as both spouses are living. The divorcing of an unlawful partner is only a public necessity and formality. Your not truly ‘married’ to the degree that you are one flesh, which is why Jesus calls it adultery and fornication. Thanks for responding.

>>>Even Tertullian, long before Erasmus, was aware of an exception to at least divorce.

As noted before there is an exception in Matt 5:32 that no one is contesting. I noted this in my last post to you.

>>>Tyndale also translated the Bible with the exception ‘clause’.

Tyndale used Erasmus Greek text.

>>>What we are looking at here are three unlikely hypotheses: that the clause was never an exception (in spite of the understanding of very early writings), and Erasmus is responsible for meddling with the Bible.

You have not made a case for “in spite of the understanding of very early writings”. As noted there is a exception clause in Mat 5:32 that is NOT referring to divorce and remarriage being adultery.

There are five main ways Matthew 19:9 is viewed.

1. It is an exception to divorce and remarriage in the case of immorality.
2. It is an exception to break off a betrothal in case of fornication.
3. The translation of the Greek is incorrect and it should read as a information clause instead of a exception clause. The Kulikovsky Position.
4. The translation of the Greek is incorrect due to Erasmas changing the Greek and it should read as a information clause instead of a exception clause. The McFall View.
5. The complete exception in Matthew 19:9 is an addition to the text.

>>>Even Tertullian, long before Erasmus, was aware of an exception to at least divorce.

As noted before there is an exception in Matt 5:32 that no one is contesting.

>>>Tyndale also translated the Bible with the exception ‘clause’.

Tyndale used Erasmus Greek text.

>>>What we are looking at here are three unlikely hypotheses: that the clause was never an exception (in spite of the understanding of very early writings), and Erasmus is responsible for meddling with the Bible.

You have not made a case for “in spite of the understanding of very early writings”. As noted there is a exception clause in Mat 5:32 that is NOT referring to divorce and remarriage being adultery.

There are three ways it can be view.

1. It is an exception to divorce and remarriage in the case of immorality.
2. It is an exception to break off a betrothal in case of fornication.
3a. The translation of the Greek is incorrect and it should read as a information clause instead of a exception clause. The Kulikovsky Position.
3b. The translation of the Greek is incorrect due to Erasmas changing the Greek and it should read as a information clause instead of a exception clause. The McFall View.

I said that to say this.

There is another theory on 19:9 about mistranslation. I do not know all the facts on this, but here is what I know. Some people think that the read of 19:9 should be a repeat of 5:32 because of some ancient Greek manuscripts reading this way. This is mentioned in the footnotes of the RSV, NRSV, and ESV. I think this would line up with the early church fathers teachings and quotes, such as Justin Martyr, as well as Mark and Luke.

—————————————-

Another view similar to the betrothal view is the incestuous marriage view (Lev 18). Matthew was written to Jews and addressed Jewish law, Mark was written to Romans and addressed Roman law, a woman being able to divorce. When considering this view, a big thing is to look at John B condemning Herod for unlawfully marrying his brother Philip’s wife (unlawful incestuous marriage, etc).

Some thoughts.

>>>If you hold the position that the ‘fornication’ being spoken of is referring to the betrothal practice, then you would be correct in stating that one could marry another.

The betrothal theory never ever sat well with me. While McFall’s and Kulikovsky’s positions produce some objections their position is more believable and their objects much easier to answer. I hold that the betrothal theory will give people a reason to reject the conservative divorce and remarriage position and stay or go into a second marriage which is adultery.

Here are a few of issues with translating porneia in Mat 19:9 to fornication alone and applying it to Jewish Betrothal.

1. Can Todays Formal Engagement Be Broken — This position creates a pre-marriage relationship in which is adultery to break and marry anyone else. If this is the case with Jewish Betrothal then this may also mean today when a formal engagement is made, broke, and one of the two parties marries they are in adultery.

2. Two Account Of The Same Discussion Can’t Mean Two Different Things — It appears that the Mathew 19 and Mark 10 are two accounts of the same occurrence. With the Jewish Betrothal theory we now have Matt 19:9 teaching on an engagement issue and Mark 10:11 dealing with a marriage issue. It can’t be both, it must be one or the other.

Clearly Mark 10 is dealing with marriage. If Mark 10 and Matthew 19 are the same accounts then Matthew 19 must also be dealing with the very same issue that Mark 10 was dealing with. You can’t take two accounts that are the same and make one mean one thing and the other mean something different.

3. Out Of Context — The context of Matthew 19:9 is found in Mathew 9:3-12. The context of the first question Jesus is asked (vs3) was about marriage not about Jewish Betrothal. The reasoning Jesus uses in his answer (vs4-6) is concerning marriage not Jewish Betrothal. The second question (vs7) that Jesus was asked deals with Deut 24:1-2 which has nothing to do with betrothal. To apply his answer (v8-9) to Jewish Betrothal is to take verse 9 completely out of context.

4. Creates Insurmountable Objections — While the Jewish Betrothal theory is one way to try to bring Mat 19:9 into agreement with Mark 10:2-12 , Luke 16:18, Rom 7:1-3, and 1Cor 7:11,29; it also creates additional difficulties of its own as does McFall’s and Kulikovsky’s positions. I would hold that the difficulties created by either McFall’s or Kulikovsky’s position are easier to overcome than the objections that the Jewish Betrothal theory presents.

Further I would hold that the Jewish Betrothal theory creates insurmountable objections to the degree that it will cause people to reject what the new covenant scriptures on divorce and remarriage in Mark 10:2-12 , Luke 16:18, Rom 7:1-3, and 1Cor 7:11,29. They will instead add the exception clause from Mat 19:9 to all the other scriptures. Both McFall’s and Kulikovsky’s positions bring all new covenant scriptures into agreement and the objections to their positions are fewer and easier to explain.

5. Porneia Translated Immorality Not Fornication — As the KJV has become less used and less relevant the Jewish Betrothal theory has taken on a second object to overcome. Most new translations translate Porneia in Mat 19:9 as immorality (NIV, NASB, NKJV) or unchastity (AMP). Out of 22 modern English translations that Bible Gateway offers only 4 (KJV, ASV, NJ21, DT) translate porneia as fornication.

The King James Only position is very hard to maintain and the position to translate porneia in Mat 19:9 as fornication is equally difficult to maintain. This has made the Jewish Betrothal theory much more difficult to maintain as the KJV translation is used less.

If there are other objects or article that deal with other objects to the Jewish Betrothal theory could some one please post them.

Bob.

Doesn’t it allow the following?:

(A.) Violation of God’s overarching precept: He hates divorce (Malachi 2:16).
(B.) Violation of Jesus command to forgive (Matthew 6:15): Millions of Christian spouses not forgiving one another.
(C.) Violation of God’s command to not sue each other (1 Cor 6:7): Millions of Christian spouses sue out a divorce in secular court.
(D.) Breaking of the “one flesh” bond of holy matrimony: Handing the “keys of the kingdom” to the civil magistrate to “put asunder” Christian marriage?
(E.) Violation of Jesus’ command to protect “the least of these” (Mark 9:42): Millions of covenant children in great spiritual peril.
(F.) Through divorce one becomes a disciple of schism and scandal: Divorce is communicable — it leads others into divorce (Luke 9:23).

Why has Jesus left us confused about divorce putting millions of dear children in harm’s way?

Who will lead us out of this pit?:

(A.) Pastor Voddie Baucham (No divorce or remarriage).
(B.) Pastor John MacArthur (Divorce and remarriage permitted by “sexual immorality or desertion”).
(C.) Pastor Richard Caldwell Jr (Exception clause in error: No divorce or remarriage).

Perhaps OPC Pastor and leading broadcaster, Kevin Swanson, summarizes it best:

“Divorce puts a bullet in the head of the family.”

What we are looking at here are three unlikely hypotheses:

that the clause was never an exception (in spite of the understanding of very early writings), and Erasmus is responsible for meddling with the Bible.

that the sayings were never even uttered

that it is for ‘betrothal’ fornication (which does not fit at all with the context of Deuteronomy 24, a wife who was living in the house of the man who divorced her)

This is starting to look like grasping at straws to cling to the traditional view, instead of perhaps considering whether Jesus was misunderstood, and he was overstating the issue, and that there is an exception clause, actually. Could it simply be that the woman improperly divorced only commits adultery in the same way the woman in the lustful man’s imagination’ commits adultery’ with him as he thinks of her?Is she actually complicit? No. It’s not ideal, but she’s not really sinning.

The traditional view looks less and less ethical the more it is examined, with all its crazy implications.

If you hold the position that the ‘fornication’ being spoken of is referring to the betrothal practice, then you would be correct in stating that one could marry another. I don’t know how to word it in clearer terms. I suppose I could simp[ly say that they ‘fornication’ referred to in Matthew, cannot mean ‘adultery’, due to the blasphemous implications that I mentioned in the post that you are referring to.

Your post is not clear to me.

>>>I just wanted to clarify a common misapplication of the “saving for a word of fornication’ phrase, where it is erroneously asserted that the phrase actually modifies the words “and shall marry another” because of the English word “and”.

I think if we leave all other scriptures off and just look at the English in Mat 19:9a that it is very clear that you can divorce and remarry for fornication.

“And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery:” — Mat 19:9a

But I don’t think the Greek scriptures means that as the Greek Mat 19:9a has either be translated incorrectly as Kulikovsky holds or that the Erasmus modified the Greek leading to such an English translation as is maintained by McFall.

Bob.

>>>Are you coming from the context of betrothal?

No.

>>>If not, explain how the fornication of a wife, would dissolve a covenant marriage, and subsequently allow both parties to legally commit adultery.

I don’t hold that fornication by the wife will dissolve a covenant marriage or allow either to remarry.

>>>Bob, could you explain what you mean by the above statement?

First let me provide the context of my comment you asking about.

In my comment to Margaret I was addressing her question that as the Shepherd of Hermas appears either to quote from or be aware of the exception clause in Mat 19:9 TR, wouldn’t this stand against McFall’s efforts to prove that Mat 19:9 “except it be for fornication” shouldn’t be a exception clause but a information clause as he translates it “he may not have divorced her for fornication”.

My answer short answer was that there is an exception clause in Mat 5:32 that McFall doesn’t dispute.

Then I when on to note what the main clauses were that the exception clauses in both Mat 5:32 and Mat 19:9 refer to. The reason I did this as some people seem to think that because Mat 5:32 makings an exception clause for divorce that this same scripture makes an exception clause for remarriage in the case of fornication

With the above context now let me explain the following statement you are asking about.

>>>In Mat 19:9a TR/KJV the exception clause “except it be for fornication” refers to the main clause “Whosoever shall put away his wife… and shall marry another, committeth adultery.

If we accept the TR Greek text as it stands and the KJV translation of that text and we don’t consider any other scriptures and just apply English grammar rules we have a main clause and a exception clause.

The reason I pointed this out is to clearly show the difference between the Mat 19:9 exception clause and the Mat 5:32 exception clause.

Sorry if my purpose was not clear.

Bob.

Bob, could you explain what you mean by the above statement? Are you coming from the context of betrothal? If not, explain how the fornication of a wife, would dissolve a covenant marriage, and subsequently allow both parties to legally commit adultery. Thanks in advance.

^[1] Edited.

Let me address your question which I think is a good one.

>>>Your Question: However, does it not lend credence to the idea of an early understanding of the Matthean text to contain an ‘exception’, whether one believes it is only for divorce for adultery/immorality, not remarriage, or only for betrothal/unclean marriages?

There are two exception clauses in the TR/KJV new testament. One in Mat 19:9 and one in Mat 5:32. In Mat 19:9 Mr McFall maintains that the current TR/KJV conditional clause “except it be for fornication” should be a parenthetical or information clause which he translates “he may not have divorced her for fornication”.

While both McFall and Kulikovsky dispute whether the Mat 19:9 is an exception clause, neither dispute whether there is an exception clause in Mat 5:32.

McFall disputes the exception clause in Mat 19:9 based on what he considers the unsupported addition to Erasmus’ Greek text. Kulikovsky takes the Mat 19:9 Greek text as it is and disputes the exception clause through exegesis by considering grammatical options, context of the verses, and Matthew’s redaction^[1] of the Mat 19:9 text.

In Mat 5:32a TR/KJV the exception clause “saving for the cause of fornication” refers to the main clause “That whosoever shall put away his wife… causeth her to commit adultery”. In Mat 19:9a TR/KJV the exception clause “except it be for fornication” refers to the main clause “Whosoever shall put away his wife… and shall marry another, committeth adultery.

In Mat 5:32a reading it the way it stands in the KJV translation the conditional cause is dealing with whether a husband is responsible for causing his divorced wife to commit adultery. If he put his wife away for fornication (immorality) he is is not responsible as she has already committed adultery. If he puts her away for anything other than immorality and she commits adultery by having relations with another man, the husband is responsible for causing her to commit adultery.

As the text reads in Mat 19:9a KJV the conditional cause appears is be dealing with whether a husband commits adultery if he remarries. If he put his wife away for fornication (immorality) he can remarry with out committing adultery. If he puts his wife away for any other reason that fornication (immorality) he commits adultery when he remarries.

The early church fathers in general allowed for divorce but not remarriage. They would all have had access to the Mat 5:32a exception clause.

You may want to read Kulikovsky’s article Divorce and Remarriage: Another look at the Matthean “exception” clauses. Kulikovsky takes a fresh look at both Mat 5:32 and 19:9 and presents grammatical options that many times are not considered, he re-evaluated the context of the verses, and gives Matthew’s redactional^[1]
concerns due weight.

I hope this helps some.

Bob.

^[1] Redaction — “In the study of literature, redaction is a form of editing in which multiple source texts are combined (redacted) and subjected to minor alteration to make them into a single work.”
Wikipedia: Redaction

Indeed. I made this very point in my paper on the so-called exception clauses. See the link to my paper at the top of this page: Divorce and Remarriage: Another Look at the Matthean Exception Clauses^[1] (PDF) by Andrew S. Kulikovsky

Editor: ^[1]Link added.

Because most Evangelical leaders assume the “exception” clause allows divorce if one’s spouse has been engaged in sexual immorality (pornea), isn’t this a leading cause for the divorce tsunami flooding every denomination?

By this reasoning, when a Christian husband is guilty of sexual immorality through Internet pornography use (or even by his inadvertent exposure to a pornographic pop-up), doesn’t it follow that his Christian wife may divorce him and marry another?

How many Christian homes and pulpits are being wrecked – even this very moment – by this scenario?

Who will stem this devastating riptide and save the little ones hurt by divorce?

“Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it would be better for him if, with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he had been cast into the sea.” (Mark 9:42).

ATTENTION ALL TRANSLATORS AND PASTORS:

Therefore, if by illogic, production of faulty translations, misinterpretation or misapplication of the Greek or English texts, you have thereby allowed divorce and remarriage, you are complicit in the injury of these little ones (regardless if by the sin of commission or omission), you are guilty and repentance is required.

This IS the issue of our day in the Church.

Who has the guts to fix this defect in forthcoming English translations?

Perhaps in generations to come they will refer to our “exception” clause English Bible as the “Divorcer’s Bible”: A translation that’s permitted a reported 50% divorce rate in the church.

Meanwhile, the “exception” clause will continue to wreck havoc.

Christ have mercy upon us.

The writings of the Shepherd of Hermas seem to reflect an understanding of the ‘exception’ to be just that; an exception…or at least, it is alluded to, because he recommends divorcing as a discipline for adultery. Obviously, one could speculate that he understood Jesus’ words to mean an exception, or perhaps he simply had a disgust for a man staying with an adulterous wife while she continued in such behaviour.

However, does it not lend credence to the idea of an early understanding of the Matthean text to contain an ‘exception’, whether one believes it is only for divorce for adultery/immorality, not remarriage, or only for betrothal/unclean marriages?

I don’t really buy into the idea that it has never been understood to be an exception of some sort.

As I’ve stated previously, my main reason for involvment in this convversation is that I believe that McFall (and some others) have unfairly and unjustly attacked a person whom I can only admire: Erasmus. Erasmus, from all I’ve read (some conflicting on both sides, but overall), *tried* to take a middle view between the Lutherans and the Catholics and find points of agreement, ways to settle differences amicably … a VERY christian attitude I do believe.

For this attempt at mediation, it seems, Erasmus was critisized harhly by BOTH sides. Not very Christian, IMHO! And, it seems to me, McFall is simply trying to revive that harsh critisim from the Luthern perspective. I don’t like that.

However, why should I care? My wife is a good christian catholic and I love her. I’m divorced for exactly the reason in the exception clause, hence why I found this (via google). Personally, I wouldn’t care if not for my wife. I am an atheist.

However, I DO have great respect for Jesus and his teachings; I do believe that Jesus was one of the great philosphers and moralists of all time; I do love Jesus, but I don’t believe he was (nor anyone else) THE great savior / prophet / son of god.

I’m sure that will make a huge difference to many reading this, but, quite frankly, what *I* believe should make little difference. Either McFall makes a reasonable and compelling case, or he doesn’t.

I’m completely convinced he does not. Further, I believe he simply makes a vindictive, self-serviing attack upon an inocent believer of the same faith he professes to adhere to. I beileve he offers hypocritical views that Jesus would have been horrified to read if he were around today to read them.

But, that’s just the views of this heritc (me).

Love and best wishes to all,
dvc

I do think that the blog author has been gracious in allowing the discussion to flow as it has, and I’m going to ask that a link I’d like to post be permitted, for reflection and prayer. It’s a short, non-scholarly book written by a pastor Mark Bullen, a very conservative brother whom I feel has a few pertinent things to say about this topic of MDR, and in particular the status of remarried people. He does disagree of course, by default, with Leslie McFall and all those who hold to the traditional view of marriage, divorce and remarriage, because he does not hold that remarried couples should have to separate in order to be a part of the body of Christ.

As my previous posts show, I take the same position, though I’m not for divorce if it is avoidable. I think that the perpetual adultery view leads to absurdities in practice, as I pointed out, and multiplies sin and injustice if taken to its logical conclusions. I believe this is an important issue for the churches to think through carefully, before we condemn those we shouldn’t or condone that which we shouldn’t.

http://www.thefaithoncedelivered.info/Divorce.htm

Many thanks for letting me participate.

I have posted (as you can surely see above) harsh disagreements with McFall’s article and, one must suppose, am therefore in sharp disagreement with Bob on this issue, yet, Bob has not EVER, even once, censored or restricted my postings in any way.

I may not be in agreement with Bob or others in this discussion or this web site, but they have been very generous in allowing me to voice my concerns and opinions. And for that, I hold the greatest respect and admiration for them.

Indeed, as you may note above, I challenged Bob to modify his blog on McFall’s paper to at least reduce the implied acceptance of McFall’s conclusions by including statements such as “the auther claims” other than restating those conclusions as fact, until such time as a reasonable panel of experts can study and verify / deny his claims. And Bob, in fact, did do exactly that! Bravo Bob!

For these reasons, I believe WmTipton is totally off-base and wrong in his negative comments against Bob and this web site and general.

Thanks and love to everyone with an open, tolerant mind and a willingness to consider opinions that may be contrary to your own. THAT is the true Christian spirit! Christ would have gotten nowhere without it :)

dvc

>>>The owner is afraid someone might see the truth and so theyve set it up so we can post without their approval.

I pretty well approve all link drops on matter which side of the argument they come out on. If you took time to read over the comments you would have seen that.

The reason most blogs set up post approval is to stop spammers from doing link drops that are not relevant to the subject of the blog post.

>>>If the coward wasnt afraid of the truth he’d let us say what we wanted to.

However it’s the above comment that caused me to delete your first post and remove the link out of this one. If the “truth” you claim to have produces the mocking attitude that you have shown in your post (ie. calling me a coward because your posted didn’t get displayed with in the same hour) — I have no interest in that kind of “truth”.

Christian love and prayers,

Bob.

I also got from the McFall article that he believes that knowing, willful sin means no forgiveness ever.

”However, if the marriage with the non-Christian is done in full knowledge of the teaching of
Jesus, and against the explicit warning by the Church, it is a deliberate sin which requires a second
crucifixion of Jesus to atone for it (Heb 6:4-6), But Scripture teaches that “it is impossible for those
who were once enlightened . . . if they shall fall away, to renew them again to repentance seeing they
crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put Him to an open shame” (Heb 6:4-6).” (under section 2:6)

This is referring to those who knowingly marry an unbeliever. He believes they cannot receive forgiveness, based on a faulty view of the context of Hebrews 6. It should follow that he must believe that all knowing sin is unforgivable for the Christian, and he assumes that no forgiveness is possible. I cannot take this man’s teaching seriously because he ignores many scriptures which address the forgiveness of even willfull sinners in the church who do repent.

Mr. McFall is teaching falsehood, and an extreme ‘Novatian’ view of sin and the Christian.

I took this by extrapolation that *all* adulterers would lose their Salvation and that goes against nearly every understanding of His grace, mercy, and forgiveness for my sins.

>>>Dr. McFall seems to be making the assertion that a forgiven, repented Christian spouse who has committed adultery is beyond the redemption of Christ and will not be allowed into heaven.

Could you post the quote that makes you think he holds his view. I am very sure he doesn’t.

Bob.

1) Dr. McFall seems to be making the assertion that a forgiven, repented Christian spouse who has committed adultery is beyond the redemption of Christ and will not be allowed into heaven. I find this distressing.

2) I am personally grateful for the paper; there is much foundational truth here that could be a significant part of renewing a relationship that was considered, for all intents and purposes, dead as a doornail.

http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/articles/on-divorce-remarriage-in-the-event-of-adultery

and from Jul 21, 1986 -

http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/articles/divorce-remarriage-a-position-paper

To extract a apt phrase from Bob Mutch “…you can always find an explanation if you want one.”

Sent following to a leading theologian for his reivew. Perhaps he will provide feedback on this important matter:

Subject: Tiny Word “If”: Cause of 16th Century Evangelical Divorce Scandal?

Dear Dr Mohler,

In your excellent “Divorce — The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience”

[http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/09/30/divorce-the-scandal-of-the-evangelical-conscience/]

you mentioned, “[Dr. Mark A.] Smith makes a compelling case that evangelicals began their accommodation to divorce even before [the 1970s no-fault divorce] laws took effect.”

Didn’t the inadvertent Evangelical accommodation to divorce and remarriage start with Erasmus’ (16th Century) erroneous Bible translation/interpretation of Matt 19:9?

In it, he apparently added the Greek word “if” to “not” in his manuscript, changing the text to read “except” instead of “not.”

Then, didn’t the Reformers inadvertently copy this error into their Bible(s)?

To correct the error, shouldn’t his erroneous “if not”/”except” be cut out of my Bible?

Also, if removed, wouldn’t this impact our understanding of and doctrines (i.e., adultery, abandonment, divorce and remarriage) related to Matt 19:9?

The following message from Pastor Richard C. Caldwell Jr of Founders Baptist Church clarifies these concerns regarding Erasmus’ error:

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1200312549

Thank you.

In Christ,

Allan

After months of reading articles written by people, I came up to one conclusion. It was my reading/listening to mortals’ words that made so confused. Instead of listening to these things, I suggest that we should just read our bible,pray and pray and listen harder to the holy spirit talking to us.

I stand firm on my decision not because of what others say but because of what I feel is right based on my understanding of the bible as I ask for God’s guidance.