Yes, There is Biblical Divorce and Remarriage
by shammahworm
EDIT: October 11, 2014
Please read my post titled “A Correction” before reading this. Matthew 19 applies to men. Not women, despite any language in this post which would suggest otherwise. Women DO NOT appear to have a right of divorce and remarriage.
There are certain teachings prevalent in many Christian circles which claim there is no Biblical divorce and remarriage. While these groups rightly expose the sin of the frivolous divorce epidemic in the West, they also fail to acknowledge God’s sanctioning of Biblical divorce and remarriage in cases of sexual sin. ‘No!” They’ll say. “There’s never ever grounds for divorce and anyone who remarries in such a case is committing adultery!”
This is a false teaching and is contradicted by the direct words of Christ Himself. While it’s never good to look at individual passages of scripture by themselves, there are certain instances in which a single passage so clearly debunks false doctrines spanning entire books and sermons that it’s enough. Such is the case with this teaching. Divorce and remarriage is Biblical in cases of sexual sin. The following entry will show this to be the case based on the King James Version of the Bible.
Matthew 19 contains such a passage. In verse 3, the Pharisees pose the question, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” Note the context. They are asking if divorce for ANY reason is lawful. It’s clear that they are asking about divorce in cases of marriages which are already consummated. Hence, the answer Jesus gives is in regard to both consummated and unconsummated marriages. It includes marriages in which the man and woman are already joined together in one flesh. This is vital in understanding Christ’s answer.
“4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.”
Those who claim there isn’t Biblical divorce like to point to verse 8 and say that all divorce is a result of hardness of heart and is therefore unbiblical. But they neglect two things.
1) They forget the question Jesus is being asked. He isn’t being asked if just divorce for sexual sin is allowed. He’s being asked if divorce for ANY REASON is allowed. Under Levitical law, adulterers had to be killed(Leviticus 20: 10). A man following the law wouldn’t even be able to divorce an unfaithful wife at the time of Christ unless there weren’t enough witnesses to convict her of adultery. The same is the case for a newly married woman(Deuteronomy 22: 20-21). This means “hardness of heart” is referring to other problems in a marriage besides just a bitter(which is sin) husband. Letting go of bitterness in no way implies that there are no consequences for marital unfaithfulness. It’s possible to both forgive and to divorce at the same time. Divorce is often an earthly consequence of adultery the same way being fired from a job is often the earthly consequence for theft.
2) They ignore the following verse(9) in which Jesus makes a special distinction between fornication(sexual sin) with divorce for other reasons. Not only does he make a special distinction for divorce in cases of fornication, but He also makes it clear that a man who remarries in such a case isn’t guilty of adultery.
Critics will try to add to the word of God and say that fornication only refers to premarital sex and divorce can only occur before the marriage is consummated if it’s discovered the woman isn’t a virgin on her wedding night.
Deuteronomy 22: 20-21, “But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: 21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.”
The law commands any woman falsely representing her chastity on the night her marriage is to be consummated be put to death. It doesn’t just give the man the option to put her to death. If Joseph had taken Mary and attempted to consummate the marriage, he would have been compelled to have her executed if it turned out she wasn’t a virgin. What this means is the scenarios people give for divorce couldn’t have even taken place because a faithful Jew would have had to report a non-virgin to the priests and she would be executed. This means the answer Christ gives about divorce applies to all cases of sexual sin and includes instances in which the man and woman have cleaved to one another. It also demonstrates why Christ doesn’t mention divorce for cases of sexual sin in Mark and Luke(He hadn’t yet pardoned the adulteress woman described in John). It’s because it would have been very difficult for a man in His time to have even been in a situation in which he could’ve biblically divorced.
Fornication needs to be defined. Multiple dictionaries define it as “sex between unmarried persons” or “sex between people who are not married to each other.” So we must ask a simple question: are two people in an adulterous relationship married to each other? No, they aren’t. Therefore, adultery IS fornication. It’s always been fornication. However, fornication is more than adultery. Premarital sex without a doubt fits the definition above and is therefore also fornication. Adultery is fornication the same way Baal worship is idolatry. Critics will say that because adultery and fornication are listed separately in passages like Galatians 5: 19 they are different.
But lets read the actual passage. Galatians 5: 19-21, “19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.”
Many of these sins overlap with one another. For example, we know that hating one’s brother in one’s heart is murder. Yet, they’re both listed separately. Does this mean hating your brother in your heart is different than murdering him? Nope. In no way does the listing of the two words together imply that they don’t overlap or that they can’t both be committed with a single act. Adultery IS fornication. It’s sex between unmarried persons.
Many other versions of the Bible such as the ESV have been criticized for translating porneia(the Greek word used in Matthew 19) as sexual immorality instead of fornication. However, these critics fail to realize that the word fornication itself has been used as a broad term to describe sexual immorality throughout history.
Deuteronomy 24: 1 reads, “When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.”
This is one of the passages the Pharisees were referencing with Jesus. Note that in order for a man to send his wife out of his house requires that she be living with him first. Which in turn means they had consummated the marriage. Note that the law is only giving the man the right to divorce his wife in the case of “uncleanness.” This means it has to be a case of actual uncleanness and not just a random reason concocted by the man himself. Being a nag or overcooking dinner isn’t uncleanness and is therefore not grounds for divorce as the Pharisees were implying. Even supposedly “good” reasons for divorce like a contentious woman(Proverbs 27: 15) aren’t biblical. And this is why the apostles were shocked.
This law could only apply in cases of actual uncleanness such as adultery(without the witnesses to convict) or deception in regard to her sexual history. Things like being unhealthy, annoying, barren or unattractive isn’t uncleanness and is therefore not grounds for divorce. This is what Jesus said the law meant and this is what He reiterated when He distinguished between a man who divorced for fornication from one who did it for any other reason. Again, this meant that under the law, it was almost impossible to ever have grounds for divorce in His time.
These passages demonstrate that in cases of sexual sin a man has the right to divorce his wife. He also has the right to marry another wife. It’s not adultery. God recognizes divorce in the case of fornication. He also recognizes remarriage of the wronged party in such cases. He recognizes divorce and remarriage in these cases the same way He recognizes divorce and remarriage of a new convert who was abandoned by an unbelieving spouse.
A number of common arguments critics of Matthew 19: 9 often use are summarized and addressed below.
“Love your wife as Christ loved the church. So you can never, ever divorce.”
The church is the body of Christ(1 Corinthians 12: 27 and many other passages). And the body of Christ is His bride. It’s IMPOSSIBLE for the body of Christ to be unfaithful. The body of Christ is the collective body of believers. There are always faithful believers around the world who make up Christ’s virgin bride. When we sin we are the Lord’s disobedient children and not His unfaithful wife. Hence the reason why Jesus tells the parable of the prodigal son and not the prodigal wife. This means the entire analogy of Christ and His church has broken down when a husband or wife commits sexual sin. Also recall in Zechariah 11: 10-11, God breaks his covenant with the people.
“Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 7: 11, ‘But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.'”
In cases of fornication, God recognizes the divorce and the woman who’s been sent away is no longer considered the man’s wife. Paul is talking about instances of divorce other than fornication the same way “thou shalt not kill” is referring to instances other than self-defense. Just because extenuating circumstances aren’t named in every portion of scripture dealing with larger teachings in no way implies they don’t exist. The same way many critics try to alter the reading of Matthew 19 by pointing to Mark and Luke is used by liberal “denominations” to explain away the existence of hell.
It must again be stated that God recognizes divorces which are due to fornication and a couple who is divorced because of that are no longer man and wife. Hence, a woman who’s been divorced for this reason cannot be considered a “wife” anymore. That Paul speaks of a wife being reconciled to her husband makes it clear he isn’t talking about divorces in the case of sexual sin.
A number of other passages in Paul’s writings discuss physical separations and command reconciliation. Again, it’s implicit that these passages aren’t discussing instances of fornication and divorce because they are still called husband and wife.
Anyone who reads this should either show via the scriptures this understanding to be false or change their doctrine to the correct teachings regarding divorce. Fornication has NEVER, EVER meant only premarital sex. It has always meant sex outside of marriage. It also includes other activities which aren’t intercourse. Sodomy, oral sex and other physical acts would be referred to as fornication at the time of King James. Details of cases such as the Monica Lewinsky debacle would never have even been publicly discussed in that time.
If anyone continues to peddle false doctrines about divorce and remarriage never being permitted in cases of sexual sin, they’re knowingly altering the Word of God and furthering a lie. They’re laying up heavy burdens on the brothers. Divorce and Remarriage have and continue to be Biblical in cases of sexual sin. A man is allowed to divorce his wife for sexual sin. He can also remarry the same way a newly converted believer who’s been abandoned by an unbelieving spouse can.
Shammah Worm 
What about the situation where the wife refuses to have sex with the husband? (In this case going on years – no health issues involved.) My understanding is the the husband is pretty much stuck -in the Biblical sense. He pretty much has to accept it and hope for rewards in the next life, as it is not grounds for divorce and it is not grounds for seeking sex elsewhere. Am I correct?
Yes, unfortunately. I should say a man has to provide sex for his wife to. That’s clear from the same NT passages.
Until the modern concept of marital rape, a wife denying sex really wasn’t an issue. I can’t find any passages which indicate marital rape is even possible in the Bible. Now a husband risks death and prison if he doesn’t accept his wife’s denial of sex.
I’m not trying to advocate anything. It’s just a bit surprising to see how strange 21st century western culture is compared to most of history and other cultures around the world.
Really? A husband risks death for marital rape? On this planet?
What bollocks.
I take the Bible seriously. Show me in scripture how marital rape is even possible. A man and wife own each other and denial of sex is a sin regardless of which person does it.
Like I said, I’m not advocating it. But, marital “rape” is an oxymoron. If a husband forced his wife to have sex he’d very likely be jailed or killed. Most cultures outside of the West don’t do this.
You lack understanding of what was being discussed in Matthew 19.
Deut. 24:1-4 was a judicial decision made by Moses. It was not part of the Law given by God, it was a judgment of Moses. Until you understand that, you can’t understand what they were talking about in Matt. 19.
When questioned about divorce, the Lord gave His answer: “That which therefore God has joined together let no man separate.”
It doesn’t get much plainer than that. The following question was about the judgment of Moses. “Why then did Moses…” and the Lord responded in kind, “Moses permitted you…” But again, He answered in keeping with His first answer “But from the beginning it was not so…”
Finally, He affirmed the judgment of Moses in the strictest terms because (per Matt. 23:1-3) He was fully a man and fully under the authority of Moses. He had no choice. Later, however, as the Risen Lord and Savior, He specifically over-ruled that judgment of Moses at 1st Corinthians 7:10-11. “And the husband must not divorce his wife.” Following that, Paul restated the law of the bondservant with respect to marriage. The short version is that two servants of the master who are married are not permitted to divorce. Only by leaving the service of the Master can the marriage be put asunder.
Is God the same, yesterday, today and forever? Of course. Does God regulate sin? No. He forbids and condemns it.
.Is it a sin to be a farmer? No, as long as the farmer obeys the commandments related to farming: do not plow the field with an ox and an ass yoked together, do not mix your seed, give the land a sabbath rest every seven years, do not bind the mouth of the ox that treads the grain and others. Obviously it is not a sin to be a farmer if one obeys the laws related to farming.
This is where you will have problems. If it is not a sin to be a farmer as long as one obeys the laws related to farming, it is not a sin to have more than one wife (as long as one obeys the laws related to polygyny). Wives are to be treated equally. Exodus 21. A man is not to marry sisters, nor a mother and daughter. Rights of primogeniture go to the first-born son regardless of which wife bore him.
There is nothing in all of Scripture that forbids a man from having more than one wife. The reason why the church forbade polygyny at the council of Trent is another story entirely (politics), but the Bible contains no such prohibition.
Nothing in Scripture gives a wife the authority to divorce her husband except for 1st Corinthians 7:12-17 which implies that the unbelieving husband that departs can be divorced by the believing wife. However, 1st Cor. 7:39 says the wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. See also Romans 7:2. No wife has the authority to sentence the husband to involuntary celibacy. The husband always has the option to take another wife.
Divorce between two believers is absolutely forbidden. Consider 1st Peter 3:1. She is to submit to her husband even if he is disobedient to the Word. Is adultery disobedience? Of course it it. Consider the “therefore, you wives” introduction, which is obviously putting that passage in context with the masters and servants passage.
There are no Biblical grounds for divorce between two believers. There is no prohibition on a man taking more than one wife. Yet, these are two litmus tests for the modern church, which claims that (at the least) adultery is grounds for divorce and polygyny is wrong. That which God called a good thing (1st Samuel 12:8) is called bad, and that which God said He Hates is permitted. Go figure.
A wife if prohibited from separating from her husband, but if she does, she is to remain single or be reconciled to her husband. She was not granted the power to divorce him. He was forbidden to divorce her. Sexual sin is no grounds for divorce, per 1st Corinthians 7:10-11 and 1st Peter 3:1-9. The judgment of Moses allowing divorce was overturned.
Edit: My apologies for the delayed response. I go weeks without checking this blog. I’m still new to WordPress and I don’t know how to use a lot of the filters and what not.
You lack understanding of what was being discussed in Deuteronomy 24 and its role.
“Deut. 24:1-4 was a judicial decision made by Moses. It was not part of the Law given by God, it was a judgment of Moses. Until you understand that, you can’t understand what they were talking about in Matt. 19.”
Caps lock added for emphasis.
Deuteronomy 1: 3, “And it came to pass in the fortieth year, in the eleventh month, on the first day of the month, that Moses spake unto the children of Israel, ACCORDING UNTO ALL THAT THE LORD HAD GIVEN HIM IN COMMANDMENT UNTO THEM;”
So no, it wasn’t “a judicial decision made by Moses” and it was part of the law of God. It was in full accordance with God’s commandments.
“When questioned about divorce, the Lord gave His answer: ‘That which therefore God has joined together let no man separate.’ It doesn’t get much plainer than that.”
It actually does. Matthew 19: 9, “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.”
Jesus flat out says that a man may divorce his wife in cases of fornication aka sexual sin. Even if your false claim about Moses acting as a judge and making rulings on his own were true, the direct words of Jesus still establish the right of a man to divorce in cases of sexual sin. Jesus Christ aka God in the flesh recognizes divorce in cases of sexual sin and separates the two formerly married people the same way He recognizes the remarriage of someone who was abandoned by an unbeliever.
“The following question was about the judgment of Moses. ‘Why then did Moses…’ and the Lord responded in kind, ‘Moses permitted you…’ But again, He answered in keeping with His first answer ‘But from the beginning it was not so…'”
The reason why the scribes, etc referred to Moses in the manner in which they did is
precisely because the judgements he pronounced were from God. If it were just Moses pronouncing judgements on his own, it would be of little account and his words wouldn’t have the power that they did. The judgements themselves were from God. While it’s true from the beginning divorce wasn’t so, it’s also true that adultery wasn’t so. God COMMANDED marriages be ended via execution of the unfaithful parties at the time of Christ when adultery occured. He gave no opportunity for reconciliation(I go into much greater detail in the original piece).
You completely ignore what I actually wrote. Let me say it again. Jesus was being asked if divorce was lawful for ANY reason and then He clarified and reiterated what was established in Deuteronomy 24 – that only in cases of actual impurity can divorce occur. Moses allowed men to divorce for reasons other than sexual sin and so Jesus clarified what was and still is in effect regarding Biblical divorce and remarriage.
Christ IS NOT talking about Moses allowing for divorce in cases of sexual sin because at the time of Moses women and girls who sinned sexually were killed. The only time it would have been possible to lawfully divorce is in those rare cases where the accused guilt couldn’t be established.
“Finally, He affirmed the judgment of Moses in the strictest terms because (per Matt. 23:1-3) He was fully a man and fully under the authority of Moses. He had no choice. Later, however, as the Risen Lord and Savior, He specifically over-ruled that judgment of Moses at 1st Corinthians 7:10-11. ‘And the husband must not divorce his wife.’ Following that, Paul restated the law of the bondservant with respect to marriage. The short version is that two servants of the master who are married are not permitted to divorce. Only by leaving the service of the Master can the marriage be put asunder.”
This is false. Jesus DID NOT overule Moses because the rulings themselves were from Him(see Deut 1: 3 again). Corinthians 7: 10-11 refers to instances other than what Jesus specifically states in Matthew 19. It no more forbids divorce for sexual sin than “thou shalt not kill” forbids killing a home invader. God recognizes divorce in cases of sexual sin.
“Is God the same, yesterday, today and forever? Of course. Does God regulate sin? No. He forbids and condemns it.”
And divorce in cases of fornication is no sin at all. God doesn’t alter his commands. Divorce for sexual sin has always been Biblical.
“Is it a sin to be a farmer? No, as long as the farmer obeys the commandments related to farming: do not plow the field with an ox and an ass yoked together, do not mix your seed, give the land a sabbath rest every seven years, do not bind the mouth of the ox that treads the grain and others. Obviously it is not a sin to be a farmer if one obeys the laws related to farming. This is where you will have problems. If it is not a sin to be a farmer as long as one obeys the laws related to farming, it is not a sin to have more than one wife (as long as one obeys the laws related to polygyny). Wives are to be treated equally. Exodus 21. A man is not to marry sisters, nor a mother and daughter. Rights of primogeniture go to the first-born son regardless of which wife bore him. There is nothing in all of Scripture that forbids a man from having more than one wife. The reason why the church forbade polygyny at the council of Trent is another story entirely (politics), but the Bible contains no such prohibition.”
There actually is scripture. 1 Corinthians 7: 2, “Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his OWN WIFE, and let every woman have her OWN HUSBAND.”
“Nothing in Scripture gives a wife the authority to divorce her husband except for 1st Corinthians 7:12-17 which implies that the unbelieving husband that departs can be divorced by the believing wife. However, 1st Cor. 7:39 says the wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. See also Romans 7:2. No wife has the authority to sentence the husband to involuntary celibacy. The husband always has the option to take another wife”.
My article focuses on the man’s rights to divorce his wife and not the wife’s. The scripture specifically refers to men having this right.
“Divorce between two believers is absolutely forbidden. Consider 1st Peter 3:1. She is to submit to her husband even if he is disobedient to the Word. Is adultery disobedience? Of course it it. Consider the “therefore, you wives” introduction, which is obviously putting that passage in context with the masters and servants passage.”
No it isn’t. Matthew 19 applies to believers as much as unbelievers. 1 Peter 3: 1 actually tells wives to be in subjection to their own husbands. This DOES NOT mean they are to go along with the sins of their husbands or to help them commit sin. But, again, my write-up mostly focuses on men.
“There are no Biblical grounds for divorce between two believers. There is no prohibition on a man taking more than one wife. Yet, these are two litmus tests for the modern church, which claims that (at the least) adultery is grounds for divorce and polygyny is wrong. That which God called a good thing (1st Samuel 12:8) is called bad, and that which God said He Hates is permitted. Go figure.”
Sexual sin is Biblical grounds for divorce. You entire claim about Moses simply being a judge is false(Deuteronomy 1: 3). Jesus says flat out in Matthew 19 that a man may divorce for fornication. Let’s go over it again.
1) If Moses were simply acting as a judiciary official, the Pharisees, scribes, etc wouldn’t have even been able to cite Moses like they did because his words would be of little consequence. They cite what he said precisely BECAUSE it was God speaking. Your acting like Moses was pronouncing the judgements of his own accord instead of pronouncing the judgements God was giving.
2) Even if we accept that Moses was speaking of his own accord and he was just a judiciary, it makes the direct words of Christ all the more applicable when he says a man may divorce his wife and marry another.
“A wife if prohibited from separating from her husband, but if she does, she is to remain single or be reconciled to her husband. She was not granted the power to divorce him. He was forbidden to divorce her. Sexual sin is no grounds for divorce, per 1st Corinthians 7:10-11 and 1st Peter 3:1-9. The judgment of Moses allowing divorce was overturned.”
Physical separation without sexual sin isn’t grounds for divorce. I agree with that. There are a number of passages which refer to physical separation of a man and wife and not divorces in cases of sexual sin.
I’ll finish by asking you to show me the scripture that says Moses was acting as a judiciary of God’s word instead of pronouncing God’s judgements given to him directly. Never forget Moses spoke face to face with God in the tent of meeting and remember Deuteronomy 1: 3.
Peace and Glory Jesus in the highest.
First, you fail to see that the Lord was asked two questions in that passage. The first question was whether a man could divorce his wife for any reason at all. His response was They are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together let no man separate.”
If you will do a bit of research you’ll see the book of Deuteronomy was a sermon preached by Moses to the people. If you look carefully you will find no mention of a certificate of divorce in Exodus, Leviticus or Numbers, which contain what God gave as His Law. The only mention is in Deuteronomy 24:1-4.
The second question Jesus was asked was “Why then did Moses…
The first question was about divorce. When Jesus said there was to be no divorce, the Pharisees responded by asking why Moses allowed it. Jesus responded “For the hardness of your hearts Moses ALLOWED YOU… but from the beginning it was not so.”
Clear evidence that this was a judgment by Moses alone. Jesus, in His own words, throws all the responsibility for this judgment on Moses. If this was Moses speaking at the command of God, Jesus would have responded differently. The Disciples knew what was being said and their response was “It is better not to marry.” They understood Jesus was saying no divorce.
You’re reading something into the text that you want to see, but it isn’t there. Again, read through the Law. You won’t find the ruling about divorce in any of the Law God gave to Moses. Notice the Pharisees didn’t ask why God commanded them, rather why Moses commanded them to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away. Jesus responded and said MOSES PERMITTED YOU. Not God permitted you, but Moses.
Linguistics error. As written the passage is applicable to everyone, whether they have only one wife or multiple wives. To say otherwise makes this a command to marry and creates a conflict with Paul saying it is better to remain single. You need to keep in mind that God does not regulate sin, He prohibits it and condemns it. Yet we find that God regulated the practice of polygyny. A man was not to marry sisters, nor a mother and daughter. He was to provide for his wives equally, in food, rainment, housing and conjugal rights. Is God the same, yesterday, today and forever? If so you cannot claim the practice is a sin because God did not declare it to be a sin. He regulated it, therefore it isn’t a sin anymore than being a farmer is a sin.
Notice that in Exodus 18, Jethro, the pagan priest of Midian and father-in-law of Moses, advises him to select judges for the people. For the minor disputes they are to judge and for major disputes they are to bring the matter to Moses. Moses took this counsel and implemented it.
A cursory view of Numbers 11 and Exodus 18 would imply all the judgments of Moses were directed by God. However, we only need to examine Numbers 16 to see this cannot be the case. In Numbers 16 Moses did not obey God and the result was 24,000 people died in a plague. If every judgment of Moses was God-inspired, how do you explain his judgment in Numbers 16, in disobedience of what God told him to do?
You need to carefully study Matthew 19 and ask yourself the question “Why didn’t the Lord give the answer he gave in verse 9 at the beginning and why does his answer in verse 6 contradict his answer in verse 9? The answer is two separate questions were asked and answered. Jesus was not responding to the first question in verse 9, he was responding to the second question. The question about divorce was answered with “What therefore God has joined together let no man separate.” The answer to the second question about the judgment of Moses rips the heart out of your argument “but from the beginning it was not so.” To say this was a judgment of God is to create a contradiction with verse 6. Again, is God the same, yesterday, today and forever? Only after pointing out that Moses got it wrong did Jesus interpret the judgment of Moses in the strictest of terms. Context is everything in this case. The only way to avoid an antinomy within Matthew 19 and between Matthew 19 and 1st Corinthians 7:10-11 is to accept that the judgment of Moses concerning divorce was overturned AFTER His ascension to Heaven and divorce between two married believers is forbidden. Period.
My apologies for the formatting inconvenience. I’ll try to fix it. This isn’t a very active blog as you can see. This post has been edited for formatting.
“When questioned about divorce, the Lord gave His answer: ‘What therefore God has joined together let no man separate.’ It doesn’t get much plainer than that.”
It actually does. Matthew 19: 9, “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.”
First, you fail to see that the Lord was asked two questions in that passage. The first question was whether a man could divorce his wife for any reason at all. His response was They are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together let no man separate.”
You fail to see that Christ was asked two questions about the same topic. The first question was about divorce and the second was a follow-up question to it. Jesus literally tells us a situation in which God sanctions divorce in the verse AFTER He says “what therefore God has joined together let no man separate.” You literally chop Jesus’ answer to the second question in half because it’s the only way to avoid seeing the circumstances in which God allows for divorce. Here is His full answer:
“8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.”
Jesus specifically distinguishes sexual sin from divorce for other reasons and makes it absolutely clear that a man who divorces and remarries for that reason isn’t sinning. I’ve already demonstrated why it isn’t simply referring to before the marriage is consummated and you haven’t responded. This is critical because Jesus – God in the flesh – is defining an instance when He does separate one flesh. This means if a man finds his wife committing adultery and he divorces her, God is recognizing the divorce and God is separating them.
If you will do a bit of research you’ll see the book of Deuteronomy was a sermon preached by Moses to the people. If you look carefully you will find no mention of a certificate of divorce in Exodus, Leviticus or Numbers, which contain what God gave as His Law. The only mention is in Deuteronomy 24:1-4.
Even if it was a sermon, it’s still part of God’s commands and still a part of the law. Moses isn’t simply rendering a ruling or trying to use his own strength to make a ruling for the people. He’s relaying direct instructions from God to Israel. Deuteronomy 1: 3-4(I’ll get to Jethro) is clear. “In the fortieth year, on the first day of the eleventh month, Moses spoke to the people of Israel according to all that the Lord had given him in commandment to them, 4 after he had defeated Sihon the king of the Amorites, who lived in Heshbon, and Og the king of Bashan, who lived in Ashtaroth and in Edrei.” Deuteronomy 1: 3 is as authoritative as John’s letter to the seven churches in the book of Revelation.
As I already stated and will state again, the reason why the scribes can even refer to Moses with the sort of authority they do is because it’s understood that he was relaying commands and rulings DIRECTLY from God. The scribes NEVER EVER refer to simple descriptions of what Moses did on his own or what he said on his own.
The second question Jesus was asked was “Why then did Moses…
The first question was about divorce. When Jesus said there was to be no divorce, the Pharisees responded by asking why Moses allowed it. Jesus responded “For the hardness of your hearts Moses ALLOWED YOU… but from the beginning it was not so.”
First, Jesus didn’t say there was to be no divorce. He said there was no divorce except in the case of fornication.
Second, you need to remember that Israel was still under the law of God when Jesus was teaching the scribes and Pharisees. This meant executing adulterers was REQUIRED and divorce wasn’t even an option unless there weren’t enough witnesses to establish adultery. This is also why during the time of Moses “hardness of your hearts” couldn’t be referring to instances of sexual sin. Those who committed sexual sin were automatically executed. It’s also why Jesus doesn’t mention sexual sin in Luke and John.
Clear evidence that this was a judgment by Moses alone. Jesus, in His own words, throws all the responsibility for this judgment on Moses. If this was Moses speaking at the command of God, Jesus would have responded differently. The Disciples knew what was being said and their response was “It is better not to marry.” They understood Jesus was saying no divorce.
Moses didn’t force men who divorced in his time to show they had found some “impurity” in their wives that was grounds for divorce. Nor did he try to make men take back wives who weren’t actually impure. He allowed them to divorce for their own reasons instead of what God had actually commanded. I discuss this at length in my original post.
Jesus’ disciples were shocked by the fact that outside of fornication, a wife could do anything to her husband and her husband was powerless to leave her. Let me list a few huge things.
-Recall what Samson’s Philistine wife did to him when she told his enemies his riddle and caused him to lose his wealth.
-Recall Solomon’s warnings about a quarrelsome wife.
-Imagine a wife who squanders her husband’s wealth, etc.
Adulteresses would have been executed in the time of Jesus’ teaching about divorce. Which further demonstrates that the apostles weren’t primarily thinking of having to stay with an adulterous but rather situations like the ones I just described. This further demonstrates Jesus wasn’t saying no divorce, but rather, as the text says, no divorce except in the case of fornication.
This is false. Jesus DID NOT overrule Moses because the rulings themselves were from Him(see Deut 1: 3 again). Corinthians 7: 10-11 refers to instances other than what Jesus specifically states in Matthew 19. It no more forbids divorce for sexual sin than “thou shalt not kill” forbids killing a home invader. God recognizes divorce in cases of sexual sin.
You’re reading something into the text that you want to see, but it isn’t there. Again, read through the Law. You won’t find the ruling about divorce in any of the Law God gave to Moses. Notice the Pharisees didn’t ask why God commanded them, rather why Moses commanded them to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away. Jesus responded and said MOSES PERMITTED YOU. Not God permitted you, but Moses.
It’s there in plain English. Aside from failing to explain what Jesus was referring to when He said a man who divorces for fornication isn’t guilty of adultery or causing adultery, you also fail to realize that divorce for sexual sin would have been impossible in almost every single instance it occurred from the time Moses received the ten commandments to the time Jesus reiterated that divorce for fornication was permitted.
Your entire premise that Deuteronomy was a judicial ruling is false. The reason why they asked why Moses commanded them – instead of God – is because it was implicit that the words God spoke through Moses were His own words. They understood Deuteronomy 1: 3(don’t worry, I’ll get to what you said about Jethro).
“There is nothing in all of Scripture that forbids a man from having more than one wife. The reason why the church forbade polygyny at the council of Trent is another story entirely (politics), but the Bible contains no such prohibition.”
There actually is scripture. 1 Corinthians 7: 2, “Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his OWN WIFE, and let every woman have her OWN HUSBAND.”
Linguistics error. As written the passage is applicable to everyone, whether they have only one wife or multiple wives. To say otherwise makes this a command to marry and creates a conflict with Paul saying it is better to remain single. You need to keep in mind that God does not regulate sin, He prohibits it and condemns it. Yet we find that God regulated the practice of polygyny. A man was not to marry sisters, nor a mother and daughter. He was to provide for his wives equally, in food, rainment, housing and conjugal rights. Is God the same, yesterday, today and forever? If so you cannot claim the practice is a sin because God did not declare it to be a sin. He regulated it, therefore it isn’t a sin anymore than being a farmer is a sin.
People with regular sex drives who are overcome with temptation are commanded to marry. According to the reasoning above, marrying one’s sibling wouldn’t be a sin either. The son’s and daughters of Adam are then as guilty of sin as someone who’s married his sister in South East Asia a few weeks ago(not that I actually know if this happening there).
I’ll finish by asking you to show me the scripture that says Moses was acting as a judiciary of God’s word instead of pronouncing God’s judgements given to him directly. Never forget Moses spoke face to face with God in the tent of meeting and remember Deuteronomy 1: 3.
Notice that in Exodus 18, Jethro, the pagan priest of Midian and father-in-law of Moses, advises him to select judges for the people. For the minor disputes they are to judge and for major disputes they are to bring the matter to Moses. Moses took this counsel and implemented it.
Deuteronomy 1: 3 makes it clear that the words Moses is speaking to Israel are directly from God. I never said all of Moses’ words in every part of the Old Testament are the direct will of God. What I said is that the words Moses speaks in Deuteronomy and the other parts of the law are. And it’s these words to which the Jewish leaders are referring. Moses was relaying God’s rulings and commands, NOT making his own.
Jethro’s advice is an apples and oranges comparison. Moses is delegating authority to the Israelites to enforce the law of God that they have been given. The judges are to simply resolve disputes based on the law of God(including what is said in Deuteronomy). This is exactly what the Hebrews promised to do when they made their covenant with God. This is entirely different from the law and commands Moses speaks to the people which God commands him to speak directly. We know this because the text specifies when Moses gives specific instructions from God. All Jethro did was give Moses advice on how to comply with commands and the law God had already given.
A cursory view of Numbers 11 and Exodus 18 would imply all the judgments of Moses were directed by God. However, we only need to examine Numbers 16 to see this cannot be the case. In Numbers 16 Moses did not obey God and the result was 24,000 people died in a plague. If every judgment of Moses was God-inspired, how do you explain his judgment in Numbers 16, in disobedience of what God told him to do?
I explain it by the fact that the text itself specifies when God gave Moses specific rulings and words to say and when the text tells us that Moses sinned. Even the Pharisees and Sadducees understood this and didn’t reduce the direct words of God spoken through Moses as mere words from a man. Noting what is plainly written in the text is not “a cursory view.” I never implied every word Moses spoke was from God. Only portions which God commanded Moses to speak are. Those are what I was referring to in the last post. The text is very clear about what these are. I pointed out that the text of Deuteronomy states in verse 1: 3 that Moses was speaking God’s words and as such what was commanded in Deuteronomy 24 was from God Himself and not simply “a judicial ruling.” It’s very clear in Numbers 11 that Moses isn’t speaking God’s ruling and the text is describing Israel’s sin and Moses’ sin.
You need to carefully study Matthew 19 and ask yourself the question “Why didn’t the Lord give the answer he gave in verse 9 at the beginning and why does his answer in verse 6 contradict his answer in verse 9?
I answered this in my very first post, but I’ll say it again. Women who fornicated were executed in accordance with the Torah. Husbands DID NOT even have the option of sparring their lives. ALL Hebrews and Jews who followed the law of Moses(which were the DIRECT commands of God) had a duty to carry this out regardless of their personal feelings toward the fornicator(adulteress, non-virgin). This means in almost every single case of adultery at the time of Moses through the time of Jesus, divorce wouldn’t even be part of the conversation because the law of God told the Jews what to do.
Remember how Joseph chose to divorce Mary instead of shaming her publicly? The reason why he did that is because if he took her into his home and tried to consummate the marriage, he would have been compelled to report her to the priests if she wasn’t a virgin and they would’ve been compelled to execute her. Read my original post, it quotes the passages.
In light of this, it means the conversations about divorce Jesus had with both the Jewish leaders and His apostles weren’t primarily about divorce in cases of sexual sin at all. The scribes were attempting to use the very specific passages in Deuteronomy which gave a man the right to divorce his wife because of sexual sin(which could only apply in situations in which there wasn’t available evidence to convict the girl/woman in question) in order justify divorce in cases other than what the actual text describes. This is why Jesus doesn’t mention fornication in Luke and John as a reason for divorce.
The answer is two separate questions were asked and answered. Jesus was not responding to the first question in verse 9, he was responding to the second question. The question about divorce was answered with “What therefore God has joined together let no man separate.”
They weren’t separate questions. The second question was a disgusting attempt to try and twist the passages in Deuteronomy which give a man a very narrow condition in which divorce is allowed(sexual sin which didn’t result in the girl/woman’s execution) to include all sorts of petty and idiotic reasons like overcooking dinner, etc. The only reason the second question was even asked is to try and support their false position regarding the first question. Both questions were part of a continuous exchange between Jesus and the Jewish leaders.
Now back to the first question. Deuteronomy 24, Matthew 5 and Matthew 19 all establish sexual sin as grounds for divorce. From these it’s also clear that a man who remarries after divorcing for this reason isn’t sinning and he bears no responsibility for any sexual sin his former wife undertakes.
In these three passages God literally establishes how and when a marriage can be ended. In situations where a husband chooses to divorce because of sexual sin, God recognizes the divorce and GOD SEPARATES them.
The answer to the second question about the judgment of Moses rips the heart out of your argument “but from the beginning it was not so.”
Absolutely nothing has been ripped from the actual reading of the text and that is the heart of this work.
There was no sexual sin in the beginning. Now that there is sexual sin, there are sadly consequences for that sin. Before Christ’s mercy, God commanded all adulterers and girls who falsely represented their virginity in Israel be put to death. Now He allows them to live worldwide. However, the plain words of God in both Deuteronomy and Matthew give a man the right to divorce a fornicator and remarry without sin. Again, in cases where this occurs, God separates the two. This means the entire passage to which you keep referring isn’t applicable in cases of divorce for fornication because the divorce is sanctioned by God and the man and woman are no longer considered man and wife before God.
To say this was a judgment of God is to create a contradiction with verse 6.
There is no contradiction. God is the one who establishes and reaffirms the Biblical right to divorce and remarry in cases of sexual sin. When a man divorces his wife because of fornication, he’s acting in accordance with what God said.
Man IS NOT the one who separates the two in this case. God is.
I don’t understand how you can ignore the direct words of Jesus. You don’t even try to provide an explanation for what He says in the same answer He gives after verse 6.
Again, is God the same, yesterday, today and forever?
Yes, and that’s exactly why Deuteronomy and Matthew establish the right of a man to divorce and remarry in cases of sexual immorality and all three passages are consistent with eachother.
Only after pointing out that Moses got it wrong did Jesus interpret the judgment of Moses in the strictest of terms.
Jesus did no such thing. He said that Moses permitted(actually “suffered” it in the KJV) it – as in made no attempt to stop men from divorcing for reasons other than sexual sin. When reading the actual command of God in Deuteronomy 24, it’s plain that it’s speaking of very specific circumstances which most men could never face – sexual sin which couldn’t be established publicly(as the Torah required). Only in cases where an adulterer and an adulteress managed to hide their sin well enough to avoid the necessary witnesses to execute them could a man divorce.
Moses gave God’s command/ruling exactly as God told him to. Then Moses made no attempt to make sure all the divorcees adhered to the command. Since the people who committed sexual sin were almost always put to death, it meant most divorces were unbiblical from Moses’ time all the way to Jesus’.
Context is everything in this case. The only way to avoid an antinomy within Matthew 19 and between Matthew 19 and 1st Corinthians 7:10-11 is to accept that the judgment of Moses concerning divorce was overturned AFTER His ascension to Heaven and divorce between two married believers is forbidden. Period.
I explained this already. Since God Himself tells us that a man may divorce his wife for the cause of fornication(sexual sin), God Himself is recognizing such divorces and neither party is married anymore. This means Paul isn’t referring to people who are divorced for sexual sin because a woman who’s divorced for sexual sin is no longer married to her husband in the eyes of God and cannot be called his wife.
There is no antinomy at all because God has been clear throughout His word since the time of Moses that divorce for sexual sin is in accordance with His will. It’s horrible, but in accordance with His will. The ruling wasn’t overturned because it was and is the same.
Also, as I said in the original post, don’t confuse a physical separation(wife gets angry and moves to her parents house, but remains sexually faithful) with a biblical divorce for sexual sin.
Jesus doesn’t just say divorce for sexual sin is biblical in Matthew 19. He also says it in Matthew 5: 32,
“But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.”
Jesus also gives this teaching when He was giving His sermon on the mount. And that’s no coincidence. Divorce for sexual sin aka fornication has always been biblical and in accordance with God’s commandments. A man who’s divorced for this reason has the right to remarry. It’s no sin.
I must say, I don’t think it’s biblical for a man who has chosen to stay with his wife with full knowledge of her sexual sin for months/years to turn around and divorce her if he’s already resolved to stay with her and they’ve already dealt with it as a couple. This would violate numerous passages throughout the New Testament. But if a man is genuinely clueless about her sin(both adultery and lying about her sexual history) then he has a right to divorce and remarry. Of course divorce in this case isn’t a requirement and God has caused many couples to live out their days together in great marriages.
Jesus Christ, King of kings and Lord of lords bless you.
Your settings won’t allow the blockquote tag, so my response to you is not styled very well. If you could clean that up it would help any other readers. Thanks.
My apologies about the formatting. I’ve tried to change it and it doesn’t seem to be working. This is the free version of WordPress and I don’t know if some of the formatting features are available.
I think you are about as clueless concerning what the Bible says as about WordPress settings, so I’ll leave you with this:
Jesus said that if a man lusts in his heart after a woman, he’s committed adultery. Is that grounds for every wife on the planet to divorce her husband? Seriously, you need to take a class and learn how to study Scripture.
There is no antinomy at all because God has been clear throughout His word since the time of Moses that divorce for sexual sin is in accordance with His will.
So the Lord wasn’t clear in Genesis? Only after the time of Moses?
Are you so intellectually inept that you can’t imagine what the Lord could have said? Why did He not simply say what He said in Mathew 19:9 in verse six? Why? How do you reconcile verse six with verse nine? The answer is there were two questions being answered. I suspect your personal situation involves a divorce and you’re looking for cover. You cloak yourself in false humility calling yourself a worm, while the Word of God says that in Christ you are more than a conqueror. You defame your place in Christ by doing so and demonstrate you have the brain of a worm.
In Matthew 19, Jesus was clear. He said “Moses permitted you” and that should tell you it wasn’t from God. It was a decision made by Moses, not God. Otherwise, Jesus would never have answered in that way. When asked about divorce, Jesus said “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” He was then asked another question. Having said “no divorce” the Pharisees asked “Well, why did Moses allow it?”
He answered that question and said “Moses permitted you for the hardness of your hearts, but from the beginning it was not so.” You’re trying to say that after Jesus said “let no man separate” and “from the beginning it was not so” that His interpretation of the judgment of Moses was “in accordance with God’s will.” You now have Jesus contradicting Himself twice in the space of six verses. Nice. As I said, you need to learn how to study Scripture. I think your heart is in the right place but your brain isn’t. Please perform an autocraniorectotomy.
I think you are about as clueless concerning what the Bible says as about WordPress settings, so I’ll leave you with this:
You say this and yet you make no attempt to respond to my responses to your false statements. I’ll lay out three major facts which you ignore.
1) The direct words of Jesus in Matthew 5 and Matthew 19. Jesus says the same things in Matthew 5 as He does in Matthew 19. You literally chop the answer Jesus gives in half and ignore His direct words.
2) The fact that women who were sexually sinful were commanded to be executed and as such divorce was impossible in almost every situation where it was biblically permissible.
3) Your false claim that the word of God in Deuteronomy was simply a “judicial ruling.” Despite the fact that verse 1: 3 makes it clear that it was God speaking.
Jesus said that if a man lusts in his heart after a woman, he’s committed adultery. Is that grounds for every wife on the planet to divorce her husband? Seriously, you need to take a class and learn how to study Scripture.
Nope, because lusting after a person in one’s heart doesn’t join a person together with the other in one flesh. A physical act has physical consequences just as hating one’s brother in one’s heart is murder and yet earthly officials don’t have the authority to punish someone for that.
There is no antinomy at all because God has been clear throughout His word since the time of Moses that divorce for sexual sin is in accordance with His will.
So the Lord wasn’t clear in Genesis? Only after the time of Moses?
I told you exactly why this isn’t the case and you made no attempt to respond. There was no sin in the garden and therefore the horrible consequences of sin(even if just) weren’t present. Also, God recognizes divorce for sexual sin and He is the one who separates. This is demonstrated by the simple fact He states a circumstance for it.
Are you so intellectually inept that you can’t imagine what the Lord could have said?
It’s pathetic of you to say this and make no attempt to respond to the information I told you. Also, no. I don’t “imagine” anything that the Lord “could have said.” I read the plain text. It’s disgusting that you resort to an ad hominem at the start of your post about how clueless I am only to make no attempt to demonstrate the provided information false.
Why did He not simply say what He said in Mathew 19:9 in verse six? Why? How do you reconcile verse six with verse nine? The answer is there were two questions being answered.
I already told you. The questions were about the same topic. The second question was asked as a follow-up to the first to try and trap Jesus. We know it’s a continuous exchange because the second question begins with “why then.”
I suspect your personal situation involves a divorce and you’re looking for cover. You cloak yourself in false humility calling yourself a worm, while the Word of God says that in Christ you are more than a conqueror. You defame your place in Christ by doing so and demonstrate you have the brain of a worm.
I’ve never been married nor do I have any friends and family who’ve divorced for this reason. The Lord rebuke you for that. Answer the facts provided.
In Matthew 19, Jesus was clear. He said “Moses permitted you” and that should tell you it wasn’t from God.
I demonstrated why this was false and you made no attempt to show why I was wrong and instead continue to falsely claim God didn’t give the commands He gave. Here’s Matthew 5: 32, “But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.”
It was a decision made by Moses, not God.
False. Verse 1: 3 of Deuteronomy makes it clear Moses was speaking at the command of the Lord. Moses had no authority to establish doctrine on his own. The situation involving Jethro was simply him hashing out logistics in order to comply with commands God had already given to Israel.
Otherwise, Jesus would never have answered in that way. When asked about divorce, Jesus said “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”
False. You literally edit out half of Jesus’ answer. Here’s His FULL ANSWER, “8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.”
I have to type this in all caps. JESUS LITERALLY GIVES AN INSTANCE IN WHICH GOD SANCTIONS DIVORCE AND SEPARATES A MAN AND WIFE DIRECTLY AFTER THE VERSE YOU KEEP QUOTING.
You are deliberately editing it out and remaining silent on it.
He was then asked another question. Having said “no divorce” the Pharisees asked “Well, why did Moses allow it?”
False, you continue to ignore the fact that at the time Jesus said this, adulteresses were commanded to be executed. Hence, the divorces they were discussing weren’t referring to those rare divorces which took place in cases of sexual sin.
Both questions were about divorce. The other question was a follow-up question also about divorce. He made it clear that divorce and remarriage are permissible in instances of fornication.
He answered that question and said “Moses permitted you for the hardness of your hearts, but from the beginning it was not so.”
And literally in the next verse Jesus says a man can divorce his wife and marry another in the case of fornication. You ignore it. There was no adultery in the beginning and that meant there was no divorce.
You’re trying to say that after Jesus said “let no man separate” and “from the beginning it was not so” that His interpretation of the judgment of Moses was “in accordance with God’s will.”
God recognizes divorce in cases of sexual sin and HE SEPARATES them. Judgment of God spoken through Moses as verse 1: 3 makes that clear. If it were Moses trying to establish doctrines on his own they’d be of no account and the Jewish leaders wouldn’t have been able to even refer to Moses’ teachings as they did.
You now have Jesus contradicting Himself twice in the space of six verses.
They aren’t contradictions. Giving a statement and then stating an exception for that statement in one continuous answer isn’t a contradiction.
Nice.
Indeed the commands of God are.
As I said, you need to learn how to study Scripture.
Is there a seminary that teaches its students to chop an answer Jesus gives in half and then omit any mention of the other half which directly contradicts one’s position? What if the same statement can be found independent of the context in another part of the book?
This is literally what you did and continue to do.
I think your heart is in the right place but your brain isn’t. Please perform an autocraniorectotomy.
Even if this is a troll, I hope you learn something and I hope the tiny amount of readers this blog has benefits from this conversation.
Glory to Jesus in the highest.
I responded to your arguments here:
http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/08/18/from-celibate-boyfriend-to-celibate-husband-true-love-doesnt-wait/#comment-137737
I will note that where I did not provide full text, I was providing only the essential text. Your argument about adultery being a death-penalty offense is interesting in that no conviction could be had without the testimony of two witnesses. Two witnesses had to “catch them in the act” in order for the death penalty to apply. Joseph and Mary is a good example. Even with a pregnancy, the two witness requirement means Mary could not have been stoned to death. Joseph decided to “put her away” quietly rather than make an issue of it until an angel appeared to him and explained things.
So, if you want to seriously respond to the argument, do it on Dalrock’s site. There are lots of Biblical scholars, pastors, priests and others there. Notice that they tend to leave me alone. Silence is better than embarrassment.
I will note that where I did not provide full text, I was providing only the essential text.
You responded to nothing I said. You just parroted your same demonstrably false positions. They were already demonstrated false and rather than defend them you continue to repeat them as if that will change something.
Your argument about adultery being a death-penalty offense is interesting in that no conviction could be had without the testimony of two witnesses. Two witnesses had to “catch them in the act” in order for the death penalty to apply.
1) Give me the passage that says two witnesses had to “catch them in the act.” I seriously can’t find the passage that says it has to be two witnesses catching them in the act.
Deuteronomy 22: 22 is the closest thing I can find and that reads, “22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.” There’s no mention of the amount of witnesses.
Leviticus 20: 10 reads, “10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.” There’s no mention of two witnesses or having to “catch them in the act.”
2) It’s clear adulteresses were executed and in the rare cases where adultery was known but the conviction couldn’t be secured, divorce was sanctioned by God. That two witnesses were required to convict in no way changes the facts provided.
Joseph and Mary is a good example. Even with a pregnancy, the two witness requirement means Mary could not have been stoned to death. Joseph decided to “put her away” quietly rather than make an issue of it until an angel appeared to him and explained things.
This is false. Deuteronomy 22: 13-21,
“13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, 14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: 15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel’s virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: 16 And the damsel’s father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her; 17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. 18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him; 19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: 21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.”
If Joseph had taken Mary into his home and found she wasn’t a virgin, he’d have been required to report her to the priests/officials and then this punishment would’ve been carried out. Falsely representing virginity was punishable by death. As long as Joseph didn’t try to consummate the marriage, he could’ve divorced Mary quietly because she could’ve claimed rape(actual rape) and she couldn’t have been convicted. But if he’d taken her to his home he’d have had no choice except to report her.
So, if you want to seriously respond to the argument, do it on Dalrock’s site. There are lots of Biblical scholars, pastors, priests and others there. Notice that they tend to leave me alone. Silence is better than embarrassment.
I’ve already responded to all that you’ve said. It’s pathetic that you think you can refer me to another blog where you repeat your same discredited falsehoods and call that a response. I’ve no choice but to refer people to this exchange. You’ve been shown the scripture and you persist. Parrot what you’ve said 1,000 more times on a 1,000 more blogs and your false position would still be as false as it is now. You’re refusing correction for false doctrine. You’ve been shown the True scripture. God help you.
I am aware you’re young and ignorant. You are free to try to refute what I’ve said in a public sphere in which learned men pay attention. However, acting like a three-year-old and simply saying “you’re wrong!” doesn’t cut it. I addressed every point of contention you made and if you cared about rational discourse, you’d respond in public. This is kind of like the scientific realm, where the concept is “peer review.” Throw your thesis out and let other scientists review it and see if they can replicate the results.
It’s one thing to make your ignorant assertions on your own little blog, it’s another thing to assume the burden of proof in the public sphere. I wish you well, but it sounds like you’re invested in divorce for whatever reason. That will be between you and the Lord one day. Ciao.
You are free to try to refute what I’ve said in a public sphere in which learned men pay attention.
I already did. And anyone who wishes to read it need only to click my name. That you chose to republish your debunked lies on a bigger blog where the conversation wasn’t even about our topic doesn’t elevate it to “a public sphere(every WordPress blog is part of it by default).”
This is kind of like the scientific realm, where the concept is “peer review.” Throw your thesis out and let other scientists review it and see if they can replicate the results.
Nope, it’s not like it at all. The words of God are already established and aren’t open for debate or interpretation. Those with honest disagreements about doctrine don’t repeat their already debunked claims about scripture and they don’t ignore the direct words of God. They base their positions on what God actually said. Despite multiple posts in which you were presented with facts demonstrating why your position is false and why the scriptures you point to don’t actually mean or imply the things you say, you persist.
It’s one thing to make your ignorant assertions on your own little blog, it’s another thing to assume the burden of proof in the public sphere.
The scripture is clear. I provided the necessary passages. You lie and do not practice the truth. It doesn’t matter how many times you lie about addressing my points. Your position is still false. And every time you repeat it, you’re lying. Unless of course, you can actually address what I said instead of republishing the same drek as if it were addressing the facts presented.
That will be between you and the Lord one day. Ciao.
It’s between the Lord and me now. The Lord rebuke you for your false teachings and lies.
Glory to Jesus in the highest, who was, who is and who is to come!
You people take yourselves a tad too seriously.