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

Actually, Brother Markle is correct; there is an "exception clause" and by using the word "whosoever" in Matthew 5:32 and again in Matthew 19:9 , it means "anyone"; not just an Israelite under Old Testament law.. Furthermore, according to Old Testament Law, if a spouse committed fornication/adultery the marriage was to be ended by capital punishment anyway(stoning).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On ‎03‎/‎09‎/‎2017 at 1:08 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

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).

Ok. So here's my question I've been getting around to bringing up. Concerning Matthew 5:32 (at this point I'm not referring to Matthew 19:9 because I feel like that is a different part of the discussion), if you look at it grammatically, is he saying it is wrong to put away your wife except for the cause of fornication, or is he saying if she's committing fornication you don't CAUSE her to commit adultery because she's already doing it. Therefore not saying it's "ok" to put her away, but rather dealing with what causes her to commit adultery.

I'm seriously curious about your thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

As some back ground for the discussion I would add one thought, the biblical act of divorce takes place in three stages with the intent to restore the marriage.  There is much time involved, much more time than today's divorces.  It is this very process that is mimicked in church discipline also designed by God to restore the one who is in sin to a right relationship with God and with the believer's community. 

The three stages are as follows.

1.Presentation of charge (s) God said that he had written Israel a bill of divorcement i.e. a lit of charges brought against her.

2.Presence of witnesses; Witnesses are there to try to offer reasons for the marriage to continue

3.Disolvment of the marriage; it was this part that Jesus said "for the hardness of your heart"

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
16 hours ago, Orval said:

As some back ground for the discussion I would add one thought, the biblical act of divorce takes place in three stages with the intent to restore the marriage.  There is much time involved, much more time than today's divorces.  It is this very process that is mimicked in church discipline also designed by God to restore the one who is in sin to a right relationship with God and with the believer's community. 

The three stages are as follows.

1.Presentation of charge (s) God said that he had written Israel a bill of divorcement i.e. a lit of charges brought against her.

2.Presence of witnesses; Witnesses are there to try to offer reasons for the marriage to continue

3.Disolvment of the marriage; it was this part that Jesus said "for the hardness of your heart"

Brother Orval,

1.  Could you provide some Biblical evidence that the "bill of divorcement" was "a list of charges," and not a legal document of "authentication"?  I myself could NOT find any such Biblical evidence, thus I would like to know what Biblical evidence you would provide for your statement #1 above.

2.  Could you provide some Biblical evidence that witnesses were required in the process of divorcement?  I myself could NOT find any such Biblical evidence, thus I would like to know what Biblical evidence you would provide for your statement #2 above. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother Orval,

1.  Could you provide some Biblical evidence that the "bill of divorcement" was "a list of charges," and not a legal document of "authentication"?  I myself could NOT find any such Biblical evidence, thus I would like to know what Biblical evidence you would provide for your statement #1 above.

2.  Could you provide some Biblical evidence that witnesses were required in the process of divorcement?  I myself could NOT find any such Biblical evidence, thus I would like to know what Biblical evidence you would provide for your statement #2 above. 

It will take me a while brother Scott, I did the study many years ago.  Nearly 30 would be closer but I seldom get rid of books so I will take a look later this week and try to put evidence where my mouth is.  ha 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
3 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother Orval,

1.  Could you provide some Biblical evidence that the "bill of divorcement" was "a list of charges," and not a legal document of "authentication"?  I myself could NOT find any such Biblical evidence, thus I would like to know what Biblical evidence you would provide for your statement #1 above.

2.  Could you provide some Biblical evidence that witnesses were required in the process of divorcement?  I myself could NOT find any such Biblical evidence, thus I would like to know what Biblical evidence you would provide for your statement #2 above. 

Brother Scott, I went back in my records to find the original series of lessons I did.  But could not find them, however I did find my notes on the second time I taught a series on Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage in which I covered divorce in lesson five.  You will find this lesson attached with this proviso, I have been transcribing my messages for many years and seldom correct grammar because I am the only one to read them.  I did not foot note everything so it seems my thoughts on divorce were primarily drawn from my personal study including the thought of the three stages of divorce.  It is unlikely I jumped to those conclusions but entirely possible seeing I sometimes connect the dots with in my mind and do not always express myself clearly.  I will continue to look this week and try to isolate the seed thought sent my mind in that direction.  PS. it was not my intention to derail the topic please accept my apologies.

Marriage Divorce and Remarriage 05.doc

Edited by Orval
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On 3/9/2017 at 2:08 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

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).

Concerning 1 Corinthians 6:18.

"Flee fornication.  Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body."

As I consider 1 Corinthians 6:18 within its immediate context (see 1 Corinthians 6:13-20), I see two possibilities for its intended meaning:

First, 1 Corinthians 6:18 could be presenting a parameter for the New Testament definition of the word "fornication."  If this is the case, then the word "fornication" in the New Testament would not encompass any and all sexual sin, both mental and physical, but would only encompass any and all sexual sin wherein the physical body is somehow engaged.  Even so, other words would encompass sexual sin that is only mental in nature, such as "lust," "lasciviousness," "uncleanness," etc.

Second, 1 Corinthians 6:18 could be presenting a descriptive for the specific form of "fornication" that is being specifically referenced within the immediate context.  This immediate context appears to begin in 1 Corinthians 6:13, wherein the apostle Paul provides the foundational truth that our bodies are made for the Lord's use, not for the use of fornication.  As such, this verse does not necessarily provide us with a definition for fornication; but it does focus our attention upon the physical ("body") aspects of fornication.  This focus continues in 1 Corinthians 6:15, wherein the apostle informs us that even our physical bodies as believers are joined with our Lord Jesus Christ as His members.  Thus 1 Corinthians 6:15-16 teaches that we should not join our physical bodies, as the members of Christ, "to an harlot" through an act of fornication with her.  As such, the immediate context focuses our attention upon the sin of fornication, not only as an action of our physical bodies, but more specifically as an action of sexual engagement with an harlot.  Would this then narrow the New Testament definition for the word "fornication" only unto sexual sin with an harlot?  The teaching of the entire New Testament concerning this word "fornication" would not appear to allow for such a narrowing of its definition.  However, within this focus of the immediate context concerning the physical aspect of fornication with an harlot, 1 Corinthians 6:18 then presents its truth that fornication is a sin of corruption and filthiness against one's own body.  Furthermore, 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 teaches us that such a sin against our bodies should never occur, since our bodies are not our own to do with as we please, but are the temple of the indwelling Holy Spirit, bought with the price of Christ's precious blood, to be used in purity and holiness for the glory of God the Father.  As such, the truth of 1 Corinthians 6:18 would not be presenting a New Testament parameter for the definition of fornication, but would only be speaking concerning the physical aspects of fornication that are specified within the immediate context, that is -- the commission of fornication with an harlot.

As for myself, after consideration of the flow of thought within the immediate context,  I presently lean toward the second of these possibilities as I have presented them above.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Jude 1

7Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. 8Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.

The "filthy dreamers" in Jude are charged with three sins which are compared to three Old Testament sinners: the "angels which kept not their first estate" "despised dominion". The Israelites wandering in the wilderness for 40 years "spake evil of dignities" (Moses) and Sodom and Gomorrah "defiled the flesh" via "fornication and going after strange flesh" which shows us what "fornication" means: it "defiles the flesh". : it's physical sexual sin of which it does not specify. it could be premarital relations, relations with harlots, adultery(physical kind) and no telling what else.  It's not that hard. 

Edited by heartstrings
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
21 minutes ago, heartstrings said:

Jude 1

7Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. 8Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.

The "filthy dreamers" in Jude are charged with three sins which are compared to three Old Testament sinners: the "angels which kept not their first estate" "despised dominion". The Israelites wandering in the wilderness for 40 years "spake evil of dignities" (Moses) and Sodom and Gomorrah "defiled the flesh" via "fornication and going after strange flesh" which shows us what "fornication" means: it "defiles the flesh". : it's physical sexual sin of which it does not specify. it could be premarital relations, relations with harlots, adultery(physical kind) and no telling what else.  It's not that hard. 

Brother Wayne,

With your understanding concerning the New Testament definition for the word "fornication" (as you appear to be presenting it), would you then deny that the sin of pornography is encompassed under the term "fornication"?  Would also then deny that the sin of lasciviousness is encompassed under the term "fornication"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
7 minutes ago, heartstrings said:

If they're physical, yes, they're a form of fornication.

"Denied"? What have I denied? :4_6_2v:

I employed the word "deny" in my questions in order to understand the boundaries for your definition of "fornication."  It appears that your boundaries of the definition allow ONLY for sexual sin wherein the physical body is engaged. 

As such, I asked about the sin of pornography.  Is the sin of pornography a sexual sin of a "physical" nature, or only of a "mental" nature?  If you would claim that it is of a "physical" nature, in what manner would you make that claim?  If you would claim that it is NOT of a "physical" nature, but only of a "mental" nature, would you then claim that it does NOT fall within the boundaries of your definition for "fornication"?

As such, I asked about the sin of lasciviousness.  Is the sin of lasciviousness a sexual sin of a "physical" nature, or only of a "mental" nature?  If you would claim that it is of a "physical" nature, in what manner would you make that claim?  If you would claim that it is NOT of a "physical" nature, but only of a "mental" nature, would you then claim that it does NOT fall within the boundaries of your definition for "fornication"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
14 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

I employed the word "deny" in my questions in order to understand the boundaries for your definition of "fornication."  It appears that your boundaries of the definition allow ONLY for sexual sin wherein the physical body is engaged. 

As such, I asked about the sin of pornography.  Is the sin of pornography a sexual sin of a "physical" nature, or only of a "mental" nature?  If you would claim that it is of a "physical" nature, in what manner would you make that claim?  If you would claim that it is NOT of a "physical" nature, but only of a "mental" nature, would you then claim that it does NOT fall within the boundaries of your definition for "fornication"?

As such, I asked about the sin of lasciviousness.  Is the sin of lasciviousness a sexual sin of a "physical" nature, or only of a "mental" nature?  If you would claim that it is of a "physical" nature, in what manner would you make that claim?  If you would claim that it is NOT of a "physical" nature, but only of a "mental" nature, would you then claim that it does NOT fall within the boundaries of your definition for "fornication"?

Brother, Maybe you should do a study on those words because I certainly don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I have never heard of fornication to mean all sexual sin before now, but I am still a neophyte.  I have been under the impression that fornication, in the context of Matthew 5:32, is to mean physical sexual activity before one is married.  If fornication can be used to encompass all sexual sin, it would seem redundant to use it in that way when followed by a specifically named sexual sin.  It seems like, in that context, it would be  saying, (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 formication: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth fornication.

However, if fornication is here being used to mean sexual activity before one is married, then it would make fornication impossible for one who is married.  It would be called adultery after one is married.  In this context, the only exception for divorce would be if a husband learns that his wife (or betrothed) was sexually active before their marriage, but never told him, then he would be within his rights to put her away.  To me, this view allows for a clearer understanding of Matthew 1:18-19.

Edited by Brother Stafford
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...