Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

1Cor 7: Divorce and Remarriage


Recommended Posts

  • Members
5 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:


Brother Schwenke,

First, due to the apostle Paul’s references in 1 Corinthians 7:10, 12 unto the specific teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ concerning the matter of divorce and remarriage, I believe that the teaching of 1 Corinthians 7 on the matter is an extension of our Lord’s teaching, not a replacement for it.

Second, I believe that our Lord Jesus Christ’s teaching concerning the matter of divorce and remarriage in Matthew 5:31-32 and Matthew 19:3-9 encompasses every such case, except in the case wherein the divorce is due to unrepentant fornication (as per the exception clauses in Matthew 5:32; 19:9) or in the case wherein the divorce is due to an unbelieving spouse desiring to divorce a believing spouse (as per the teaching of 1 Corinthians 7:12-16).  In the case of these two exceptions, I believe that the divorce is not a sin before God.  However, I believe that a divorce for any other cause is not permissible according to Biblical teaching.  Furthermore, I believe that a remarriage after such a divorce (for any cause other than those of the two exceptions) creates the following sinfulness before God –

1.  The divorcing (or, divorced) husband who remarries commits the sin of adultery thereby. (See Matthew 19:9)

2.  The divorced (or, divorcing) wife who remarries commits the sin of adultery thereby. (See Matthew 5:32)

3.  The individual who marries a divorced individual commits the sin of adultery thereby. (See Matthew 5:32; 19:9)

4.  The husband who divorces his wife, because he is responsible as her head, is guilty before God of causing her to commit the sin of adultery if she remarries. (See Matthew 5:32)

Third, I believe that the teaching of 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 encompasses the two cases wherein a divorce is not a sin before God, that is – the case wherein the divorce is due to unrepentant fornication (which, I believe, should be defined as “any sexual immorality”) or the case wherein the divorce is due to an unbelieving spouse divorcing a believing spouse.  As such, I believe in accord with the instruction of 1 Corinthians 7:11 that such a divorced individual has only two acceptable options before the Lord – to “remain unmarried” or to “be reconciled” unto his or her original spouse.  Even so, I believe that even in these cases remarriage is not a Biblically acceptable option, and that it would be a sin against God even for an individual in these cases to remarry.  However, I do not believe that a remarriage in these cases is viewed by God as equivalent to the sin of adultery.  Rather, I believe that a remarriage in these cases is viewed as a sin of disobedience.

I pray that this response may help to clarify my position on the subject and to reveal the Biblical support that I would present for that position.  If there are any further questions or disputes about some point of my position or about a Scriptural passage concerning my position, I am willing to engage with them as I have time.

Pastor Markle,

Thank you for taking time to respond to my question.  I do not wish to belabor the point on this question.  I will simply say, with all due respect, that I disagree with you on this point, based on my earlier question.  If the Lord Himself grants that under the circumstances of adultery (Matthew 19) or desertion (I Cor. 7) divorce is acceptable, though not the original intent, nor the ideal situation, that therefore remarriage would be acceptable (though again, not ideal.)  The original reason given for marriage all the way back in the garden of Eden was that "it is not good for man to be alone."  I believe this statement is still operable.  It would be cruel indeed to condemn a man or woman to live a single life because of someone else's sin!  Sure, SOME could do it, but Jesus Christ Himself and Paul both admit that these individuals are RARE.  It should not be forced upon them!  God created us to be together, and to compliment each other and help each other through the Scriptural institution of marriage.  One person's sin should not deny the innocent party's ability to enjoy what God ordained.
That's how I see it.

Again, thank you, and may the Lord's blessings be upon your family and ministry!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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."

The verbs in the instructional portion of 1 Corinthians 7:11 are imperative verbs; therefore, they carry the authority of divine command.  So then, we are moved to consider two questions:

1.  Does the command, "Let her remain unmarried," allow for a remarriage unto a different husband?

2.  Unto what cases of divorce does the instruction of 1 Corinthians 7:11 apply?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
  • Members
On ‎10‎/‎25‎/‎2016 at 11:12 AM, Musician4God1611 said:

Pastor Markle, I have a (hopefully quick) question. I've heard some people say that when Jesus was talking about divorce for the sake of fornication that it was during the betrothal period. Do you have any thoughts on that?


Brother Middlebrooks,

 

I do apologize for taking so long in providing an answer to  your question.  I did not disregard your question, nor did I forget it.  My excuse is that I have been quite busy over the past few months with other responsibilities, holiday responsibilities, family responsibilities, ministry responsibilities, funeral responsibilities (4 over the past few months), Bible study responsibilities (teaching classes), discipleship responsibilities (praise the Lord for new converts), wedding responsibilities (1 to be administered in 2 weeks), pre-marital counseling responsibilities, house and church unplanned repairs responsibilities, etc.  I do not know if you are still "paying attention" to this thread; however, at the moment I have a "small window" of time to respond.

 

Concerning your question

 

Yes, I am familiar with the position that the “exception clauses” in Matthew 5:32 & 19:9 apply ONLY unto the betrothal period of the Jews in that time.  In fact, this is one of the positions that I was taught during my earlier years.

 

This position is based upon a three-fold premise, as follows:

 

Premise #1 – The Gospel of Matthew was written with a Jewish audience primarily in view.

 

Premise #2 – For the Jews in that time, the covenant of betrothal was as legally binding as the covenant of marriage, such that it required a legal divorcement to nullify just as a marriage covenant would require.

 

Premise #3 – Although the word “formication” basically means “any sexual sin,” when it is employed in the same context as the word “adultery, the word “fornication” narrows its meaning to “any sexual sin outside of the marriage covenant,” whereas the word “adultery” would refer to “any sexual sin against the marriage covenant.

 

The argument then proceeds from this three-fold premise as follows:

 

Since the “exception clause” is only found in the Gospel of Matthew (Matthew 5:32 & 19:9), but not in Mark 10:11-12 (which is the parallel passage to Matthew 19:9), and since the Gospel of Matthew was written with a Jewish audience primarily in view (premise #1), then we should be viewing the “exception clause” from a Jewish perspective.  Furthermore, since the Jewish perspective of divorce included both the covenant of betrothal and the covenant of marriage (premise #2), then we should recognize that the “exception clause” could apply either to the covenant of betrothal, or to the covenant of marriage, or even to both.  Finally, since both the word “fornication” and the word “adultery” are employed in Matthew 5:32 & 19:9, then we should view them as possessing their distinctly separate meaning in these contexts (premise #3), that is – that the word “fornication” would refer only to any sexual sin outside the marriage covenant, and that the word “adultery” would refer only to any sexual sin against the marriage covenant. 

 

So then, since the word “fornication” is that which is found in the “exception clause,” and since the word “fornication” in the context of Matthew 5:32 & 19:9 would refer only to sexual sin outside the marriage covenant (premise #3), then we should understand that the “exception clause” only applies to sexual sin outside the marriage covenant, not against the marriage covenant.  Furthermore, since the “exception clause” relates to the matter of divorce, yet applies to sexual sin outside the marriage covenant, then we should understand that the “exception clause” applies, not to the covenant of marriage, but to the Jewish covenant of espousal (premise #2).  As such, the “exception clause” would have no specific application unto our present day, and thus would not provide any justification whatsoever for either divorce or remarriage in our present day.

___________________________________

 

My response to the argument is as follows:

 

First, I have no dispute with premise #1.  The gospel of Matthew does indeed appear to focus upon Jesus as the promised King of the Jews, and as such does indeed appear to be written with a Jewish audience primarily in view.  Second, I have no dispute with premise #2.  Historically, it does appear that the Jewish covenant of espousal was legally binding and did require a legal divorce to nullify.  In fact, the case of Joseph with Mary in Matthew 1:18-19 appears to present a Biblical example of this cultural practice.

 

However, I myself do have a dispute with premise #3.  On the one hand, I would contend that the word “fornication” (as well as its related words) generally encompasses any and all sexual sin both outside of and against the marriage covenant.  As such, the word “fornication” would include the sin of adultery as a subset of its meaning.  On the other hand, I would acknowledge that in some contexts (primarily in listings of sins) the words “fornication” and “adultery” are distinguishable from one another, with the word “fornication” focusing upon sexual sin outside the marriage covenant, and with the word “adultery” focusing upon sexual sin against the marriage covenant.  Indeed, Hebrews 13:4 would appear to be one example of this distinction – “Marriage is honourable in all, and the be undefiled: but whoremongers [fornicators, in this context, those who commit sexual sin outside the marriage covenant] and adulterers [in this context, those who commit sexual sin against the marriage covenant] God will judge.” 

 

However, I would contend that such a distinction is not universally the case when both the word “fornication” and “adultery” are used in the same context, as premise #3 indicates.  Rather, in some contexts the words “fornication” and “adultery” appear to be used somewhat interchangeably.  This appears to be the case in Revelation 2:20-22.  In Revelation 2:20 God’s Word states that “that woman Jezebel” taught and seduced the Lord’s servants “to commit fornication.”  Yet then in Revelation 2:22 the sin that they committed with her is described as “adultery.” 

 

Even so, I would contend that in Matthew 5:32 & 19:9 the words “fornication” and “adultery” are employed, not in the distinctive manner, but in the more interchangeable manner.  I would contend that the word “fornication” is employed in the “exception clause” in order to encompass any form of sexual sin, from sexual lewdness to sinful sexual intercourse.  Furthermore, I would contend that the word “adultery” is then employed in order to precisely describe an unrighteous “remarriage” as a sexual sin against the original covenant of marriage.  As such, the sin of adultery would not be distinct from the sin of fornication in this context.  Rather, the sin of adultery would be encompassed within the sin of fornication in this context.  Even so, the word “fornication” within the “exception clause” would allow for the “exception clause” to be applied unto the covenant of marriage, not just the covenant of espousal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
26 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

My response to the argument is as follows:

 

First, I have no dispute with premise #1.  The gospel of Matthew does indeed appear to focus upon Jesus as the promised King of the Jews, and as such does indeed appear to be written with a Jewish audience primarily in view.  Second, I have no dispute with premise #2.  Historically, it does appear that the Jewish covenant of espousal was legally binding and did require a legal divorce to nullify.  In fact, the case of Joseph with Mary in Matthew 1:18-19 appears to present a Biblical example of this cultural practice.

 

However, I myself do have a dispute with premise #3.  On the one hand, I would contend that the word “fornication” (as well as its related words) generally encompasses any and all sexual sin both outside of and against the marriage covenant.  As such, the word “fornication” would include the sin of adultery as a subset of its meaning.  On the other hand, I would acknowledge that in some contexts (primarily in listings of sins) the words “fornication” and “adultery” are distinguishable from one another, with the word “fornication” focusing upon sexual sin outside the marriage covenant, and with the word “adultery” focusing upon sexual sin against the marriage covenant.  Indeed, Hebrews 13:4 would appear to be one example of this distinction – “Marriage is honourable in all, and the be undefiled: but whoremongers [fornicators, in this context, those who commit sexual sin outside the marriage covenant] and adulterers [in this context, those who commit sexual sin against the marriage covenant] God will judge.” 

 

However, I would contend that such a distinction is not universally the case when both the word “fornication” and “adultery” are used in the same context, as premise #3 indicates.  Rather, in some contexts the words “fornication” and “adultery” appear to be used somewhat interchangeably.  This appears to be the case in Revelation 2:20-22.  In Revelation 2:20 God’s Word states that “that woman Jezebel” taught and seduced the Lord’s servants “to commit fornication.”  Yet then in Revelation 2:22 the sin that they committed with her is described as “adultery.” 

 

Even so, I would contend that in Matthew 5:32 & 19:9 the words “fornication” and “adultery” are employed, not in the distinctive manner, but in the more interchangeable manner.  I would contend that the word “fornication” is employed in the “exception clause” in order to encompass any form of sexual sin, from sexual lewdness to sinful sexual intercourse.  Furthermore, I would contend that the word “adultery” is then employed in order to precisely describe an unrighteous “remarriage” as a sexual sin against the original covenant of marriage.  As such, the sin of adultery would not be distinct from the sin of fornication in this context.  Rather, the sin of adultery would be encompassed within the sin of fornication in this context.  Even so, the word “fornication” within the “exception clause” would allow for the “exception clause” to be applied unto the covenant of marriage, not just the covenant of espousal.

I would agree. I was just curious as to your thoughts on the matter.

So then my question would be, if fornication would be a exception, then would it stand to reason that if your spouse looks on someone to lust after them (thus committing fornication in their heart) that you are allowed to divorce her.

I am not rambling, I do have a point as to where I am going. I've been forced to give this subject much thought recently and have done some thorough study on it. I just want to run my train of thought by some other people to see if I'm overthinking things or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Well, THAT is quite annoying.  When Brother Middlebrooks presented his response above, I noticed that I had created a typographical error in my quotation of Hebrew 13:4 (employing "be" instead of "bed").  However, when I attempted to edit my posting in order to correct that typographical error, I received yet another error message informing me that I was not permitted to do so.  Indeed, the inability to edit my spelling and grammatical errors IS going to annoy me a bit, especially if those errors are contained in Biblical quotations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
48 minutes ago, Musician4God1611 said:

I would agree. I was just curious as to your thoughts on the matter.

So then my question would be, if fornication would be a exception, then would it stand to reason that if your spouse looks on someone to lust after them (thus committing fornication in their heart) that you are allowed to divorce her.

I am not rambling, I do have a point as to where I am going. I've been forced to give this subject much thought recently and have done some thorough study on it. I just want to run my train of thought by some other people to see if I'm overthinking things or not.

The Bible specifically says that "fornication" is an actual sin against "the body" so I would say no.  I'm assuming that means it has to be "physical" before divorce would be a consideration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
19 minutes ago, heartstrings said:

The Bible specifically says that "fornication" is an actual sin against "the body" so I would say no.  I'm assuming that means it has to be "physical" before divorce would be a consideration.

Hmmm. Interesting thought, worthy of some consideration.  Thank you for that thought, Brother Wayne.  I will indeed engage in consideration before providing my response to Brother Middlebrooks (and I DO already have a response "brewing").

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
3 hours ago, heartstrings said:

The Bible specifically says that "fornication" is an actual sin against "the body" so I would say no.  I'm assuming that means it has to be "physical" before divorce would be a consideration.

Agree 100% particularly from the context of earthly consequence for it. Sin in the heart is between us and God. Sinful acts on earth are between us, the person(s) done wrong and God.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
14 minutes ago, 1Timothy115 said:

I have a comment for those who may consider remarriage after divorce. Only in this context, of two divorced people remarrying while their prior spouses remain alive. There will be trouble or at the least issues which arise in the described remarriage. 1 Cor. 7:28 Troubles or issues may not necessarily be between the new formed spouses but may take other forms which will require a lot of prayer time and self-sacrifice. If there is any doubt about your willingness to lay aside self and be fully dedicated to your marriage and a permanent outcome do not remarry. Ask yourself if you were ready to lay aside self in the first marriage. If anyone here or anyone you may know is contemplating divorce, I council against it. Find a way to put humility first and reconcile. Seek the peace God has called you to. Just my two cents.

Thank you for your willingness to be frank and honest about such a touchy subject. It's much appreciated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On ‎3‎/‎6‎/‎2017 at 11:02 AM, Musician4God1611 said:

So then my question would be, if fornication would be a exception, then would it stand to reason that if your spouse looks on someone to lust after them (thus committing fornication in their heart) that you are allowed to divorce her.

I am not rambling, I do have a point as to where I am going. I've been forced to give this subject much thought recently and have done some thorough study on it. I just want to run my train of thought by some other people to see if I'm overthinking things or not.

Brother Middlebrooks,

Your question above approaches the "exception clauses" of Matthew 5:32 & Matthew 19:9 more from the perspective of permission to divorce, than from the perspective of exceptions to the sinfulness of divorce.  As such, we are brought to consider the structure of these "exception clauses" in themselves.  In Matthew 5:32 the "exception clause" is presented as follows -- "Saving for the cause of fornication."  In Matthew 19:9 the "exception clause" is presented as follows -- "Except it be for fornication" (wherein the two words "it be" are italicized in the King James translation in order to indicate that they have been added for the grammatical structure of the English). 

As we compare these two "exception clauses," we find that Matthew 5:32 includes (what I believe to be) a key word that is not found in Matthew 19:9.  It is the word "cause."  Now, since Matthew 5:32 & Matthew 19:9 are the only two places wherein we find this "exception clause" in the New Testament, and since Matthew 5:32 is presented first of the two passages, I believe that the significance of this word "cause" in Matthew 5:32 should be viewed as governing both passages.

So then, what IS the significance of the word "cause" in the "exception clause" of Matthew 5:32?  In Matthew 5:32 this word "cause" is translated from the Greek noun "logos."  The basic meaning of the Greek noun is "word."  However, this Greek noun does not simply encompass a singular word of usage, but can indeed encompass an entire body of information on a subject.  As such, I would contend that when this Greek noun is employed in the "exception clause" of Matthew 5:32 to speak concerning "the cause of fornication," it encompasses more than simply a momentary commission of fornication.  Rather, I would contend that it encompasses the sinful commission of fornication itself, as well as the continuation of that sinfulness, either through an ongoing practice or simply through an unrepentant spirit.  I would contend that this is "the cause" of fornication about which the "exception clause" speaks.  (Note: I would further contend that the use of the Greek noun "logos" in the "exception clause" of Matthew 5:32 also requires that there be a genuine "case" of fornication with genuine evidence, not simply a strong suspicion thereof.)

On the other hand, if fornication is indeed committed, yet a spirit of genuine repentance is pursued, then "the cause" of fornication is no longer present.  Rather, I would contend that in such a case the Biblical principles of forgiveness and reconciliation are now required, rather than any permission for divorce.

 

I pray that this answer may be of some help to you in your consideration of the matter.  Concerning Brother Wayne's reference unto 1 Corinthians 6:18 in relation to the New Testament definition for the word "fornication," I wish to present my thoughts is a separate posting (if I may).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

There is no exception clause Brother Markle.  All the Lord Jesus did in Matthew 5 was to reiterate the Old Testament Scriptures to those troublemakers.  The Apostle Paul gave us our current doctrine on divorce and remarriage.  To say they are both correct is confusion and God is not the author of confusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
6 hours ago, swathdiver said:

There is no exception clause Brother Markle.  All the Lord Jesus did in Matthew 5 was to reiterate the Old Testament Scriptures to those troublemakers.  The Apostle Paul gave us our current doctrine on divorce and remarriage.  To say they are both correct is confusion and God is not the author of confusion.

Brother "Swathdiver,"

Grammatically, both Matthew 5:32 & Matthew 19:9 do indeed contain an "exception clause."  In Matthew 5:32 that "exception clause" begins with the words "saving for" -- "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."  In Matthew 19:9 that "exception clause actually begins with the word "except" -- "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."  Whether the teaching of Matthew 5:32 & Matthew 19:9 applies unto the New Testament believer in the present time is a different question.  Indeed, that is a question of New Testament doctrine.  However, the existence of the "exception clauses" in the text of these two verses is a Biblical fact.  That is a reality of the grammar, and to deny their very existence is to deny a portion of God's own Word.

Now, concerning the DOCTRINAL implication of your statement, I believe that I understand your intention and position.  I believe that you are indicating that only the teaching of the apostle Paul's writings on this subject are valid and applicable unto the New Testament believer for the present day, and that the teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ in the gospels on this subject were only valid and applicable for the Old Testament Israelites.  (Note: If I am wrong in my understanding of your position, I am certainly open to a better understanding thereof.)  If I am correct in my understanding of your DOCTRINAL position on this matter, then I presently stand in disagreement thereof.

By the way, Matthew 5:32 was NOT written "to those troublemakes."  Matthew 19:9 WAS communicated in response to the Pharisee-troublemakers, as per the context of Matthew 19:3-9.  However, Matthew 5:32 was delivered in the Sermon on the Mount, which according to Matthew 5:1-2 was delivered primarily unto our Lord Jesus Christ's own believing disciples (which is the reason that our Lord continually makes reference unto "your Father which is in heaven" throughout that "sermon").  Furthermore, in Matthew 5:31-32 our Lord Jesus Christ did NOT simply reiterate the Old Testament Scriptures in His teaching.  Rather, He said, "It hath been said, . . . but I say unto you."

 

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...