I do have some other questions though:

What do we make of grace in light of the remarried? Must they divorce from an “invalid” marriage? Why doesn’t grace cover them IN their new marriage?

What about haggadic (is that right?) commands? Are they absolute? Is Matthew 5 and 19 part of them?

What about the legalism that we are supposed to free from?

I am just an immature Christian, people. Please don’t crush me! Just info gathering. Or is this the wrong place for these questions?

Trevor Here

My First Comment Is This

Good grief ….are you Fellows still on this Subject???

To Jeff,I can understand Your Concern and I Feel Great Compassion For You.

Jeff You need to understand This

Its for Freedom that Christ Has Set You Free
Yield not again to the Bonds Of Slavery.

I.E If Christ has set you Free You are Free Indeed.

Jeff in the light of This. You Now Must Go by and Trust The Holy Spirit

For It is only The Holy Spirit That CAN Convict us of Sin

and When HE does and not the arguements of Men

He brings us to TRUE Repentance…..Only the Holy Spirit Can Do That

Jeff You need only to Yield unto God and In His Time He Will Exalt You

i.e Bring you into the Freedom and Liberty That is OURS/YOURS JEFF, IN CHRIST

So in Answer to Your Questions

Draw near to God and I promise You He WILL Reveal To You At The Right Time

The Answers You Need

God Bless You Jeff

Simply the Fact You are seeking is the Most Important

Brcause God Will Reward You For That By Answering You

Trev
trvmcnamee3@gmail.com
- Show quoted text -

>>>It was 20 years ago…I was a young man…she is remarried. Should I stop dating??

If it was your and her first marriage then yes you should stop dating as you are still married to her in God’s eyes.

>>>Would I be an adulterer if I remarried?

Yes you would be an adulterer if you remarry.

>>>Should I still try to get back with her even though she is married?

I am not sure how to answer this one. I would hold that the scriptures teach that she is your wife and you are married for life.

Perhaps instead of working on trying to get your wife back the Lord may want you to work on your walk with him.

Thanks!

Bob.

Thanks for those points on “he claims” and “offers evidence he says”. I have added both of them.

Thanks!

Bob.

RE: Bob’s comment
19. Bob Mutch Says:

November 24th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
It was not clear to me What David mean by “This solves the ambiguity in Mt.19.9.” I am guessing you have read David’s books where he may go over what he means. I did email my reply to him and I expect he will respond.

I do hope everyone realizes I am NOT the same Dave as refered to above?

Just wanted to make this very clear.

While I’m at it, I guess I should make very clear why I have this interest in this paper.

Fundamentally it’s simple. I thought this was the MOST unChristian paper I’ve read recently. It accuses a long dead person (Erasmus) of being just a horrible Christian (to say the least!!), but also, EVERY BIBLICAL TRANSLATOR who followed (and apparently up to and beyond 163 years prior) of being either incompetent (e.g. didn’t really understand how to intrepret me epi porneia because they were apparently too stupid) or (worse) PURPOSELY mistranslated it to further a theological idealogy-based goal. Excepting only a small number (4 to be precise) of recent translators, of which McFall (the author of this paper) is included… oh my :O :D

McFall says this rather clearly in his paper.. read it.

I find this paper highly offensive. I find this paper very unChristian. I find this paper poorly researched and undefensible. I find this paper just plain badly written.

That’s me and my position.

Bob:
I really would like to encourage you to re-cast your review of this article in a bit more neutral light, such as including phrases such as the author “claims such and such” and “presents evidence that may show” and so one. For example…

“In his paper, he discusses an addition that Desiderius Erasmus added to his Greek-Latin New Testament (1516 1st ed) that he claims changed the way Matthew 19:9 has been translated.”

.. and …

“McFall offers evidence he says shows how Erasmus’ addition of the Greek word εἰ in Mat 19:9 has lead to the incorrect translation of this verse.

… and so on …

thanks

[Editor: Edited out a slang term.]

Since I’ve been referred to Metzger so many times, might as well include his take on the subject as well…

As quoted from: http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/biblical-prophecy/BP0909W1.htm …
“The ‘excepting clause’ in the Matthean account of Jesus’ teaching on divorce occurs in two forms… parektos logoi porneias (‘except on the grounds of unchastity’), and me epi porneia (‘except for unchastity’). It is probable that the witnesses… which have the former reading have been assimilated to 5:32 where the text is firm” (Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, United Bible Societies, London, 1971, pp. 47-48).

So…. Metzger translates me epi porneia as ‘except for unchastity’? How very interesting!

But I sure am surprised how quick people here have been to just accept what is essentially a major re-write of history (and your divine writings of God), founded on claims of what could only be considered some kind of vast conspiracy created by one man. A man who didn’t even support the side that supposedly benefited by his duplicity and was viciously attacked by both conservative Catholics AND reformers alike. Geez, he must have been the devil incarnate!

For a nice brief history of this man, wikipedia has a good page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desiderius_Erasmus

Personally, I think anyone who could write something like “The Praise of Folly” back in those days is hero to me :D

Anyway, I’ll just finish up with the following notes…

Andrew said:
Wrong again. They mistranslate the Greek because their translation does not fit:
1. Established Greek grammar.
2. The teaching of Luke.
3. The teaching of Mark.
4. The teaching of Paul.
5. The teaching of the OT.
6. The immediate context in Matthew.
7. The wider context of Matthew.

Twice you criticized translations as based on theological ideology. Now you are stating theological ideology as 6 of the seven points above? Really?

RE: On checking early church quotes / Clement It already has been. The results are in the NA27/UBS4 and the accompanying textual commentary by Metzger. These results (at least in relation to the texts in question) are not controversial and are not disputed by anyone that I know of. No one seriously believes EI was in the original text.

That wasn’t the issue.

RE: Indeed, beacuse the earliest ones used Erasmus’ or derivative texts

Not quite …

Wycliff New Testament, translated from the Latin Vulgate and published in 1380:

And I seye to you that whoever levith his wyf but for fornicacioun and wed ditli an oother doth leccherie and he that wed dith the forsaken wyf doth leccherie

McFall also provides a slightly different text for Wycliff (from a later revision, I suppose) in a section, which claims “The object of this section is to show that while the majority of English translations are based on a Greek text which has thrown out Erasmus’ unsupported addition of EI in Matthew 19:9, they have not thrown out his unbiblical teaching on divorce and remarriage.”
…
“JOHN WYCLIFFE BIBLE (1395) (Wycliffe) And Y seie to you, that who euer leeueth his wijf,
but for fornycacioun, and weddith another, doith letcherie; and he that weddith the forsakun
wijf, doith letcherie.”

And also McFall’s claims (earlier): “And that is exactly what happened in the case of Matthew 19:9, where a scribe in the 15th century added to his copy of the Greek text …”

But… Erasmus’ first translation was performed in 1516, 163 years AFTER the Wycliff translation was published.

Also, McFall says: “Everyone took on trust that Erasmus had been faithful to the handwritten Greek copies that he used to produce the first published edition of the Greek New Testament in 1516.” Really?? I don’t think so!

According to many sources, Erasmus’ work was intently scrutinized and often criticized, for example:

“James Lopez de Stunica, the editor of the forthcoming Complutensian Polyglot, criticized Erasmus’ text for various faults, and for the omission of the clause in 1 John 5:7-8. The influential scholars of France followed Stunica in denouncing the edition, although most of their criticism was directed not against the Greek text, but against the innovative Latin translation.” http://www.bible-researcher.com/bib-e.html

I’m sorry, but this article should be properly published in an appropriate journal and given the full evaluation of respected biblical scholars before any of its conclusions can be accepted, if at all.

And, no, I don’t apologize.

Textual criticism doesn’t work like that. It is a much more sophisticated process. See Metzger’s Text of the New Testament or David Alan Black’s introductory work on textual criticism. We have many early manuscripts and NONE contain EI.

——
Regardless of that, NO current english translation of the bible that I can find, including those that claim to have used texts other than, or in addition to Erasmus’ translation contain text that agrees with McFall’s translation.
——

Indeed, beacuse the earliest ones used Erasmus’ or derivative texts, later ones were mere revisions of the earlier translations, and modern translations in 20th century that used the WH and NA critical texts adopted the traditional renderings and rationalised the translation in the ways I discuss in my paper.

——-
Further, of the discussions of on the translation of MH EPI PORNEIA I have found on the internet, most find the exception clause as a reasonable translation. For example, Don Martin’s very detailed translation which I posted previously (http://www.bibletruths.net/archives/BTAR260.htm)
——-

His translation follows all the other modern translations, but like them, it is grammatically dubious not mention contextually dubious as well. He doesn’t even discuss the grammatical problems. Is he even aware of them?

——
I don’t see you posting any supporting evidence to your arguments, btw.
——

That’s because I haven’t posted any of my arguments, btw.

If you want to look at my view and the problems with the “exception” in Matt 19:9, then please read my paper which is linked above on this discussion board.

Wrong! You don’t seem to have much idea at all about what what McFall is actually arguing.

McFall’s point has nothing to do with the translation of the text. McFall contends that Erasmus added EI to his published Greek text, against all the manuscript evidence. Thus, assuming that EI was in the original text the translators were quite right to translate “EI MH” as “except”. But the point is that EI was NOT apparently in the original text. And NO ONE, I might add, including those who advocate that Matt 19:9 allows for D&R for sexual sin, argues that it did!!!

——
And, ALL people who claim that a translation that allows that MH EPI PORNEIA (literally “not for fornication/whoredom/lewdness/whatever”) can be reasonably intrepreted as an exception
——

Wrong again. MH does not literally mean “not”. MH is a negating particle. It only means “not” when it negates a verb which is not the case here.

——
MUST be either uniformed or are purposely mis-translating the greek, because thier translation does not fit your (and McFall’s) opinion?
——

Wrong again. They mistranslate the Greek because their translation does not fit:
1. Established Greek grammar.
2. The teaching of Luke.
3. The teaching of Mark.
4. The teaching of Paul.
5. The teaching of the OT.
6. The immediate context in Matthew.
7. The wider context of Matthew.

—–
Hardly convincing.
—–

Agree or disagree, David, but at least do McFall the courtesy of getting his position (and mine) right!

——
As per Clement (and similar statements attributed to early church elders), the evidence certainly appears to exist and should be checked by reputable scholars on BOTH sides of the debate
——

It already has been. The results are in the NA27/UBS4 and the accompanying textual commentary by Metzger. These results (at least in relation to the texts in question) are not controversial and are not disputed by anyone that I know of. No one seriously believes EI was in the original text.

——
In my opinion, the evidence casts McFall’s conclusions in grave doubt. But, regardless, I have nothing to apologize for.
—–

You should apologise for going off half-cocked without even bothering to understand McFall’s argument.

My point was simply that there are many different, sometimes commpletely opposing viewpoints held by differing peoples and each of those people justify thier beliefs with as much conviction and strength, also quoting scripture to show how the gospel supports what ever that view is.

RE: We always over complicate matters, the Gospel and God’s requirements must be simple and straightforward so that even children can understand…

Only if God chose to make these matters so simple and straightfoward. Unfortunately He chose not to do so. If things were so simple and straightforward, there would only exist on Christian church. Indeed, if it was so clear and obvious, there would be only one religion in this world. However, that is not the case.

A simple clarity of Mathew 19:9 would help matters greatly. Unfortunately, any such clarity must actually be undeniably true, or it is worthless, regardless of what we wish for.

dvc

Firstly, my ‘analysis’ is not a personal opinion that would seem to enrich my own life in the eyes of the world. I came to the knowledge of the truth about 2 weeks after my conversion in 2004. At that time I recognized the childlike faith that was working in me by grace, and I believed wholeheartedly that Jesus standards, (the spirit if the law) were immovable, and at the same time loved and esteemed by His sheep. One fact that struck me with a sense of the wisdom which is from above is that Jesus doctrine is “according to godliness”, which I have never let go of, and by grace never will. The point I made in the last post about the model and standard of marriage (as expressed by Jesus Himself) is irrefutable regardless of how many multitudes can be assembled in concenses against it. The reason being is that creational marriage, which is indissoluable except by death, is in fact “according to godliness.” Now we know that whatever God says cannot and will not be abrogated or repealed in order to accomodate the violation of that very same word. All other opinions, that would allow for the dissolving of a marriage by sin, do in fact imply the establishment of a sin tolerant standard, that virtually overthrows the pure standard set forth by God Himself. That is the wisdom of man and the basic principles of fleshly centered philosophy. By this type of wisdom “man knew not God” for the simple reason that it always accomodates the flesh instead of deny it. God set forth all His standards of holiness with the understanding that most would violate them through their love of pleasure rather than God, and to thier own destruction. Nonetheless, the holiness of the moral laws of God have not been altered, but shown to be eternal and unimpeachable by those that disobey, as well as by those that “continue in well doing.” The contrary consequences show that the law is upheld in the strictest sense. If the conclusions are inconsistant with godliness, we must necessarily reject them as being opposed to true righteousness and holiness.

On the issue of reasonable doubt, the very statement is missing the essential perspective that it deserves from scripture. Paul said that even doubting the lawfulneess of a rightful act, or something that would fall under things of indifference, (foods, holy days), should not be done when the conscience is accusing. Thus the statement that “blessed is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he allows…” Now to assert that a marriage can somehow be dissolved by the refusal of one or both parties to glorify God through this one flesh covenant, does not bring the truth about their accountability before God into any doubtfulness whatsoever. ONe or both of the spouses are sinning against and violationg their vow before God, and the unchangeableness of the standard continues to hold them accountable to it. There is not only the absense of reasonable doubt through Gods decree, there is no doubt to be found whatsoever, if we maintain the standard of godliness as the scale of measurement and judgment. Wha I seem to hear within this discussion is the idea that a secondary and subprime standard exists that God will affirm and uphold, even though it defiles His holy standard entiresly, and especially the thing it typifies. That is mans invention, and always will be. It goes without saying that all the world will see whose word will prevail in the end. Now that we have taken all doubt away, we can talk about the plausibleness of what Matthew 19 is saying, as long as it doesn’t seem to repeal the standard set forth in verse 6, unless one wants to imply that Jesus overstated the case in the first place, a frightening proposition indeed.

With the thousands of books articles and sermons produced about Marriage, Divorce & Remarriage it can be seen that confusion exists, exactly what satan wants! If we all had a covenantal attitude rather than a contractual attitude (Good Shepherd verses a Hireling attitude) we would fight to uphold marriage as a moral absolute, and not look for justification for people to separate and divorce. Two become one in marriage, one spirit, one body, one flesh an analogy of Christ and the Church. Satan wants to destroy the analogy by confusing us.

May I recommend a brillant book titled Covenantal Relationships by Asher (Keith) Intrater http://www.revive-israel.org/books.php

What is our attitude towards the marriage covenant? What value do we put on marriage? Can will liken divorce to abortion, that is marriage and life are disposable? I certainly make a stand against divorce and abortion. I also make a stand against same-sex marriage, in the same way I also make a stand against adultery (remarriage of divorced persons).

We always over complicate matters, the Gospel and God’s requirements must be simple and straightforward so that even children can understand…

I have claimed no expertise in any particular subject area. I simply see holes in the arguments put forth by McFall on this particular subject that, as of yet, have not been accounted for.

Einstien’s expertise and intelligence has never been questioned either, however he was still completely wrong in his discussions about Quantum Physics. Expertise and a body of correct writings in any particular subject do not prove the correctness of any particular writing.

I also haven’t put forth any view as to the proper intrepretation of God’s law concerning marriage or divorce. While Jim II’s view may be correct, there are very many that disagree with his analysis. But, until such time as one can prove a particular point beyond a reasonable doubt, no one will ever know for sure and the arguments will continue. Contray to the claims of this article, I don’t believe that McFall has done so.

dvc

I have read articles written by Les McFall and Andrew Kulikovsky, I am very impressed with both men and the efforts they have made and what they have written. They are both extremely knowledgable, and extremely gracious men.

It would be great if you too David can share with us any work you have done in this area. Do you have a website, or can you provide links to your work?

Thanks
Michael

Personally I can see that scripture is very clear on this, and the answer is yes. Much has been written and debated on this very topic. All I can recommend is that each person continues to seek, read, pray and ask God for help on this topic, as their eternal destination depends on it.

And, ALL people who claim that a translation that allows that MH EPI PORNEIA (literally “not for fornication/whoredom/lewdness/whatever”) can be reasonably intrepreted as an exception MUST be either uniformed or are purposely mis-translating the greek, because thier translation does not fit your (and McFall’s) opinion?

Hardly convincing.

As per Clement (and similar statements attributed to early church elders), the evidence certainly appears to exist and should be checked by reputable scholars on BOTH sides of the debate, since it may offer the only hope of actually answering this question.

Further, McFall should publish his paper to jurried journal, so that it is properly scrutinized and debated publicly by other scholars.

As for apologizing… I said ….

But, it seems to me, IF McFall has [done the things my analysis seems to indicate he did] THEN he should apologize.

In my opinion, the evidence casts McFall’s conclusions in grave doubt. But, regardless, I have nothing to apologize for.

dvc

[Editor: More comment spam from primewritings.com, I removed the links.]

1. I checked the quote in Schaff’s ANF, and yes, the first part is a purported quotation. Nevertheless, this is still indirect evidence. We don’t know what manuscript was used and what it actually said. If it did contain EI (or EAN) then that rendering was clearly not deemed worthy enough to be preserved in copied manuscripts since no other early manuscripts (from any of the 3 text types) contain EI/EAN.

2. Re Clement’s view matches RCC position, I’m not so sure. Clement could be taken to mean that one could divorce/separate for sexual sin, but separated people could not remarry. But alternatively, it could be taken to mean no divorce and no remarriage UNLESS one partner commits sexual sin.

3. I cannot see how the NAB translators can get “unless the marriage is unlawful” from MH EPI PORNEIA. Theology is driving this that translation, not the Greek text.

4. My reference to “case closed” was in relation to the translation “except…” If the Greek text said EI MH (or more likely EAN MH) then the translation “except…” is absolutely correct. Case closed. If you don’t believe me check any intermediate Greek Grammar (Wallace, Young, BDF, Robertson, Smythe) or the lexical entry for EI/EAN in a standard lexicon (BAGD, BDAG).

5. I haven’t made any claims apart from defending McFall’s original propositions. YOU are the one claiming that McFall slandered Erasmus. I don’t think you have any grounds for doing so. McFall has made a fair proposition and has put forward a reasonable argument in support. He may be right, he may be wrong, but he has NOT acted dishonestly or slandered anyone.

Andrew

RE: But note that Clement was the founder of the Alexandrian school which was well known for eccentric interpretations, and the the allusion to Matt 19:9 is not a direct quotation anyway so we have little idea of what the text actually said or where it came from.

Actually, in what I quoted, there IS a (claimed) direct quote by Clement of (the first part of) Matt 19:9. As to what he is quoting, where the text came from or how eccentric or mainstream his position might be, I see that as insignificant compared to the DATE from which this quote comes.

But, let’s look further at the claim of eccentric intrepretation. Note that the view expressed in that quote is essential the same as the current official RCC church stance on marriage and divorce… eg. no divorce, no remarriage, any time, for any condition.

How similar this stance is to the current position is particularly obvious when one looks at the current (and very recent) english translation of the bible that is officially accepted by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops … the New American Bible (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/index.shtml) which translates Matt 19:9 as:

I say to you, 7 whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.”

So, apparently, at least this particular position of Clement’s is not quite so controversial.

I can (and will) provide further evidence to support my claims if you wish to continue this debate, btw. But ONLY, if you provide compelling evidence to support your claims, otherwise I see not point in bothering.

Saying “Case Closed” is hardly a compelling argument.

dvc

RE: Smythe’s classical Greek Grammar has the most comprehensive discussion and it offers no support for an exception. It suggests a prohibition (my view).

I am more inclined to accept a view that the evidence indicates, which is that either a) scholars of greek text of AT LEAST A.D. 194 translated MH EPI PORNEIA as ‘except…” or b) EI must have existed in an greek text accepted by church elders as early as A.D. 194, which would therefore give inclusion of EI far greater authority than ANY currently existing text that does not.

Regardless of that, NO current english translation of the bible that I can find, including those that claim to have used texts other than, or in addition to Erasmus’ translation contain text that agrees with McFall’s translation.

http://www.biblegateway.com contains the full text of 22 english translations, only one of which is remotely close to McFall’s .. The Wycliffe New Testament:

And I say to you, that whoever leaveth his wife, but for fornication, and weddeth another, doeth lechery [doeth adultery]; and he that weddeth the forsaken wife, doeth lechery [doeth adultery]. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mathew%2019:9&version=WYC

Further, of the discussions of on the translation of MH EPI PORNEIA I have found on the internet, most find the exception clause as a reasonable translation. For example, Don Martin’s very detailed translation which I posted previously (http://www.bibletruths.net/archives/BTAR260.htm)

I don’t see you posting any supporting evidence to your arguments, btw.

dvc

You said:

McFall claims that MH EPI PORNEIA (without EI) translates to an EXCLUSION, not an exception … however, this is not supported either by other modern translators, nor, apparently by Clement of Alexandria writing around A.D. 194, over 800 years prior to the claim of the earliest known manuscript to contain EI.
:
Apparently, the addition of EI is simply a red herring that had essentially no impact in the translation of the reformer’s bible (or any others.) It certainly could not have impacted Clement’s interpretation unless Clement’s text of around 194 A.D. also contain EI.

No! The addition of EI is everything! If EI was in the original text then there is definitely an exception. Case closed.

However, there is virtually no evidence that EI was in the original text! Clement’s reference/translation is not a direct quote so this is indirect evidence at best.

The reformers used Erasmus’ text as the basis for their translations so the presence of EI MH made it clear that this was an exception and so they translated it as such. If MH by itself was in the text then it is likely that they would have translated it differently. Admittedly, the the use of MH by itself is most unusual and is not specifically discussed in the standard grammars. Smythe’s classical Greek Grammar has the most comprehensive discussion and it offers no support for an exception. It suggests a prohibition (my view).

Modern translators–unless the project has a specific translational goal–always tend to favour traditional renderings. Most modern translators assume that there has been an ellipsis of EI so they always translate it as an exception. The ellipsis view has a number of problems which I have discussed in my paper.

Andrew

I took the corrections from you last post and added them to your second last post. Please check your last post and verify that the corrections were added correctly.

Thanks!

Bob.

I did not say that McFall’s claim that EI was added by Erasmus was the point of slander. It is, rather, the claim that Erasmus’ actions caused a mis-translation of the Reformers bible as well as the following confusion and contention over the meaning of Mathew 19:9, along with the strong inference, by focusing so much attention on Erasmus’ sympathy for an alternate interpretation of that clause, that Erasmus must have done so on purpose.

McFall claims that MH EPI PORNEIA (without EI) translates to an EXCLUSION, not an exception … however, this is not supported either by other modern translators, nor, apparently by Clement of Alexandria writing around A.D. 194, over 800 years prior to the claim of the earliest known manuscript to contain EI.

It’s easy to see that Clement could not have interpreted his text to mean an EXCLUSION, as did McFall, since his comments would no longer make any sense with McFall’s translation …. E.G.:

“Now that the Scripture counsels marriage, and allows no release from the union, is expressly contained in the law, ‘Thou shalt not put away thy wife, except for the cause of even in the case of fornication;’ and it regards as fornication, the marriage of those separated while the other is alive.”

So, McFall sure seems to be guilty of trying to do exactly that which he is implying Erasmus did purposefully and successfully: change the translation to suit his belief of what the meaning SHOULD be.

Apparently, the addition of EI is simply a red herring that had essentially no impact in the translation of the reformer’s bible (or any others.) It certainly could not have impacted Clement’s interpretation unless Clement’s text of around 194 A.D. also contain EI.

dvc

This is what McFall actually said:
“Who was the first to add EI to the inspired Word of God? We do not know who did it, but the earliest Greek manuscript to contain the addition does not date earlier than a thousand years after Christ.
How did it get into the Reformers’ Bibles? This we do know. It was through Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536), the Dutch humanist3. He was not a Reformed Christian. He was brought up in the Catholic Church but, like the Reformers, he became disillusioned with the Catholic Church’s teaching on a number of issues, one of which was their insistence that Jesus did not permit divorce or remarriage.”

Contra your claim, McFall did not say that Erasmus created the exception. In fact he clearly states that we do not know this! The oldest and most reliable manuscripts do not contain EI, and it is only found in very late manuscripts known for their scribal editing. The editors of the UBS4 GNT gave MH EPI PORNEIA a B rating (very reliable). The only evidence we have for EI being there is indirect like the quote from Clement. But note that Clement was the founder of the Alexandrian school which was well known for eccentric interpretations, and the the allusion to Matt 19:9 is not a direct quotation anyway so we have little idea of what the text actually said or where it came from.

What we do know is that Erasmus added it to his published Greek Text. That is clearly McFall’s point.

May I suggest that it is YOU who needs to immediately apologise for unjustly slandering McFall by attributing to him something he did not say. This is, may I suggest, a rather serious offence.

Andrew

I post that you think the following position should be rejected outright — “sin is rated by light” and “if they [Christians] don’t know it is wrong it is not sin”

Just to clarify I was speaking about a Christian couple that were in a second marriage. I made that a bit clearer by striking out persons and adding [Christians] to the original comment.

It now reads as follows.

Some would hold that all persons [Christians] that are in a second marriage are lost. I think a more balanced view would be that sin is rated by light. If they don’t know it is wrong it is not sin.

Let me first answer your direct questions and then put together a list of your objections to the position I take and try to answer them.

In response to your questions:

I don’t think a woman telling a man that she loved him as anything to do with the position that I take that for a Christian sin is rated by light and understanding. Nor do I think telling a person that they are sinning when they are ignorantly disobeying a scripture mean now that they are sinners. Where something is sin to you is rated by your light not my light.

No a man can’t claim to have a legitimat covenant since he didn’t know he is disobeying the scriptures when he took a second wife. I would disagree that you can’t reprove a person for sin unless you can show they knew what they were doing is sin. I don’t think ignorance is a legitimate excuse to sin and I have not implied that. If a person finds themselves breaking a commandment in the scriptures they should repent both for their ignorance and for the act they have committed.

Here is a list of your objects:

1. Jesus said that the one that didn’t know that masters will is beaten with few stripes, which clearly shows they are rejected.

2. The scripture also states explicitly that all men will be without excuse, but according to the above opinion, some adulteres will in fact have an excuse ie. ignorance.

3. There are Bibles available within reach of nearly all ‘westernized’ nations, so that removes any plea of ignorance for those nations.

I will address these objections later. I need head off to Wed night Bible study.

Christian love and prayers,

Bob.

http://www.bibletruths.net/archives/BTAR260.htm

I assume most here will disagree with it’s conclusions :D

dvc

This statement should be rejected outright. The scripture states that the grace of God … has appeared unto all men, teaching us to say ‘no to ungodliness’. God has not left Himself without a witness. The view above is not balanced unless we assume that a person could be committing a sin which damns the soul and be excusable as an infant. Jesus said that the one that didn’t know that masters will is beaten with few stripes, which clearly shows they are rejected. It doesn’t state that such a person could not possibly have known, just that he didn’t. The scripture also states explicitly that all men will be without excuse, but according to the above opinion, some adulteres will in fact have an excuse ie. ignorance. There is no exception found among the sins of the flesh that are found all over Gods Word. They plainly state that “those who do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God.” There are Bibles available within reach of nearly all ‘westernized’ nations, so that removes any plea of ignorance for those nations. The rest of the world can be sure that they will be called by the gospel effectually and in such a way that Jesus will be vindicated when He judges, and we know that “the Judge of all the earth shall do right.” This type of fleshly reasoning above is what opens the door, or rather hinders the door of genuine repentance. I am curious how Bob would reprove a man that was found defiling the wife of someone he knew and the man pleaded ignorance based on his belief that the woman said she “loved” him. Would Bob confirm the fact to this same man that he is not presently sinning, but will be after he informs him of his adultery? Couldn’t such a man claim to have a legitimate covenant, since he wasn’t sinning before he knew about it and “married” another mans wife? Taken to it’s inevitable conclusion, you could not truly reprove anyone for any sin unless you could show unequivocally that the person knew beforehand that they were sinning in the way that God describes sin. This isn’t possible without applying the standard of God holy commandments to the past conduct of every person. If ignorance were a legitimate excuse, what would an ignorant person repent of, their sins, or their ignorance about sinning? Jesus says that all souls belong to Him, and “the soul that sinneth it shall die.” That is the balanced view of sin.

Presuming these are valid quotations, the evidence strongly indicates that McFall’s attempt to blame Eramsmus for creating the exception cause and his alternate translation of the original text are both competely without merit.

As to the proper interpretation of that clause, that is a completely different debate.

But, it seems to me, if McFall has unjustly slandered Eramsmus while putting forth an unjustifiable mis-quoting of Mathew, he has commiteed a rather serious offense and he should withdraw his paper and issue an apology imediately.

Mike

[Editor: I fixed the link and deleted the other post.]

Some would hold that all persons [Christians] that are in a second marriage are lost. I think a more balanced view would be that sin is rated by light. If they don’t know it is wrong it is not sin.

Thanks!

Bob.

[Bob: Comment changed to clarify original meaning.]

I think you have a good point. Can someone that has good experience with what the early church taught address this issue please?

Thanks!

Bob.

Since I could find no recent author that finds the same intrepretation of the original greek (e.g. with out the EI the meaning is essentially reversed as McFall states), I did a little search on early church positions on divorce and remarriage and found the following:

The early church’s view on divorce and remarriage
Myron Horst
http://www.biyn.org/divorce/earlychurch.html

‘Clement of Alexandria writing around A.D. 194 on the exception clause states that the only exception for divorce is for remarried couples to end their sinful marriage: “Now that the Scripture counsels marriage, and allows no release from the union, is expressly contained in the law, ‘Thou shalt not put away thy wife, except for the cause of fornication;’ and it regards as fornication, the marriage of those separated while the other is alive.”‘

If this and similar such discussions in that article are accurate, I think it’s safe to conclude that in whatever early texts these authors were quoting, those texts were intrepreted completely differently than McFall’s position AND, since those quotes precede Erasmus’ work by many centuries, McFall’s claim that Eramsmus is responsible for mistranslation of the “exception clause” is without merit.

After all, how could have someone “written on the exception clause” if such a clause did not at that time exist?

I wonder if any of the scholar’s here can verify or deny the validity of such early church writings?

Mike

within this article you will find further help on this matter under the
APPENDIX D TEXTUAL NOTES ON MATTHEW 5:32 & 19:9

Regards
Michael http://www.WiseReaction.org

Andrew

Mike

I want to thank all of you who have posted questions and answers. I have learned more from this website than anyother source. Thank you.

Mike

1. Queen Vashti was unjustly judged for maintaining her modesty and decency. She was not divorced but reduced to the level of a common wife, and replaced by Esther, who was never asked to present herself for the sake of men lusting after her like Vashti was. The opinion that the King was a ‘divorcee’ is an unfounded assumption made popular by the opponents of creational marriage.

2. The common error of talking about an adulterous and unlawful “re-marriage” in the same context of an existing covenant marriage, is what leads to false conclusions. One has to assume that a divorce decree actually dissolves a one-flesh union. Scripture everywhere plainly shows that it does not. A divorce does show that one or both spouses are doing what Jesus commanded them not to do ie,. (put space between themselves). Cindy’s posting of Luke 16:18 is a perfect example. Look at the facts that are revealed in this verse alone;

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)

We have in the above verse the example of a man that “putteth away” (divorce, repudiate) his wife. The same man then “marries another”, stop right there. So far it is perfectly clear that the man in the verse has taken the necessary civil & legal steps to get rid of his wife, and “marry” another woman. However, Jesus calls this mans condition “adultery” not a marriage that is approved by God. Man calls it a marriage because the majority of mankind are living and judging according to the flesh (soulishly) and not the Spirit, which is “according to godliness.” The man in this verse would need to legally forsake this immoral union for the sake of the public, but not in order to reconcile to his wife. Even though he put her away, she is still called his “wife.” The divorce did not dissolve his marriage, and God will not be mocked by mans own inventions.

The latter half of this verse when taken in it’s literal sense, literally forbids any man (whosoever) from marrying any woman that has been divorced from her husband. This makes perfect sense with the first part of the verse. Whoever would attempt to legally “marry” the mans wife in the verse would have to be entering into the sin of adultery because Jesus shows that she remains the mans wife in spite of his treachery (divorce).

The same could be said of Romans 7 and 1 Corinthians 7. In both instances, the parties are still refereed to as the husband or wife of the one that has departed or been put away. That being said, it is impossible to conclude that Jesus would sanction the transgression of His own holy law. When Jesus says that marrying another is committing adultery against the covenant spouse, then His explanation forbids the possibility of recognizing a civil ‘re-marriage’ as anything but adultery. Jesus can’t contradict His own standard of holiness and purity.

Lastly, and for the sake of illustration, please consider the outcome of justifying an ‘exception’ to the permanency of marriage other than the death of the spouse. For example, if Lisa is in a true covenant marriage, but believes that there is an exception to her marriage outside of death, then the necessary implications are as follows;

1. Her marriage is a temporary agreement based on prudence and the current agreement between her and her husband to continue with the benefits of staying together.

2. If Lisa’s husband walked into sin with another woman, and subsequently pursued the legal requirements to make the immoral woman his “wife”, Lisa would have to uphold and support the new “marriage” or she is guilty of the sin of partiality, which is excercising unjust judgment.

3. Lisa cannot defend her own marriage based on the truth of Gods word. The fact that she and her husband are continuing faithful to each other, and committed to stay that way, doesn’t mean that you have bound yourself to obedience to the truth. Many can conform to things when there is no persecution that is beyond what they are able to endure, but when people turn toward evil, that’s when you find out what ground you are standing on.

4. If Lisa doesn’t believe that marriage is binding til death regardless of the actions of one or both of the spouses, then no marriage is literally bound until death. In other words, every marriage could be dissolved (with Gods approval it is asserted) as long as one or both of the parties perform the proper legal requirements. This very idea self destructs when it’s really taken to it’s obvious conclusion. If a man divorces his covenant wife whom he vowed “till death do us part..”, how can he make the same vow to a 2nd woman? He is contradicting himself in word and deed while he is taking the vow with a living spouse as a witness. Living for the sake of righteousness is not based on happiness by this worlds standards, but by doing the will of God, even if it requires death.

Thank you for your well thought out post. Sadly, it seems few take Jesus’ words seriously about divorce and remarriage. But Jesus’ words still stand for today.

To be sure remarriage while one has a living spouse is wrong. Jesus and Paul both called the new relationship, not a lawful marriage joined by Him, but adultery (having unlawful relations with one who is not your spouse). To break up a “new marriage” as you say, is to REPENT from adultery……….to turn from an illicit relationship and to turn back to the Lord. Nowhere in God’s Word do we ever find where this relationship defined as adultery turns into a lawful marriage, joined by God as ONE FLESH. We do have evidence given us in the example of Herod/Herodias—neither a divorce, nor remarriage, nor adultery dissolves the original marriage. John told Herod that he had PHILIP’s wife (she didn’t belong to Herod no matter that she was “legally” his wife). New vow taking does not magically turn an adulterous/incestuous relationship into a God joined marriage.

In regards to ANY OT practice with marriage, all bets are off. Jesus brought marriage back to the ORIGINAL creation intent for marriage—one man/one woman for life. Polygamy is no longer tolerated (which is a form of adultery against the original spouse), nor is divorcing one’s covenant spouse and marrying another—-again, a relationship Jesus deemed adulterous.

You are correct in that the Lord said He would protect His Word. In Lk. 16:16-18 we find: 16 “Until John the Baptist, the law of Moses and the messages of the prophets were your guides. But now the Good News of the Kingdom of God is preached, and everyone is eager to get in.[a] 17 But that doesn’t mean that the law has lost its force. It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the smallest point of God’s law to be overturned.

18 “For example, a man who divorces his wife and marries someone else commits adultery. And anyone who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.”

See, Jesus said that to divorce and remarry is adultery, as is marrying a divorced person, yet much of the church today is practicing adultery—-they have “taken away” from the Word of God. They have joined themselves to other people’s spouses or have forsaken those God joined them to and have entered into adulterous relationships—-condoned by man and man’s laws. The days we are living in are very sad.

What do you think though about Esther in the Bible, she was “raised up for such a time as this” to save her people and obviously was doing God’s will in marrying a divorced man.

I do not believe that God would Ever guide us to do something that although helping save some lives, would be against His Holy ordained law. God would never lead us into sin. So what is the answer here?

Also I believe that God says He will always protect His inspired Word, and that it will always be maintained until He comes again. I cannot find this scripture reference right away.

Are you saying though that only the original Greek and Latin manuscripts where the inspired Word of God? Is so, is it ever possible to make an inspired translation of the Bible?

I would be afraid to attempt this myself! Rev. 22:18-19 It is not wise to Add to or Minus from God’s Word!