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
10 minutes ago, Brother Stafford said:

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.

Brother Stafford,

That is a commonly taught viewpoint among Independent Baptists.  As for myself, I already presented a fairly thorough consideration of that viewpoint in a previous posting (here).  If you have specific questions about that presentation, I am willing to answer them.

(Note: The problem with viewing the New Testament definition for the word "fornication" throughout the entire New Testament as "sexual sin outside the marriage covenant" is that this definition does NOT fit the entire teaching of the New Testament on the subject.  In order to engage that definition correctly, an individual would be required to consider EVERY New Testament passage that employs a form of the word "fornication.")

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

  • Members
On 3/10/2017 at 9:56 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

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.

You are correct in my position.  It makes no sense to me how one can combine what the Lord said in Matthew and what Paul said in 1st Corinthians as they are opposed to each other.  Have you read on this topic in the Way of Life Encyclopedia?  Maybe that can explain it better than I.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On ‎3‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 10:34 AM, Musician4God1611 said:

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.

Brother Middlebrooks,

My best understanding concerning the grammatical structure of our Lord's declaration in Matthew 5:32 and concerning the place of the "exception clause" therein is as follows:

Our Lord's declaration in Matthew 5:32 is a compound sentence, containing two independent clauses that are joined with the conjunction "and."

The first independent clause is -- "That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery."

"and"

The second independent clause is -- "Whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."

Since your question specifically concerns the grammatical place of the "exception clause," and since the "exception clause" is a part of the first independent clause, I shall focus the remainder of my comments on that first independent clause.

The subject of that first independent clause is the pronoun "whosoever" (with some grammatical provisions).  The main verb of that independent clause is "causeth."  And the direct object of that independent clause is the entire infinitive (verbal) phrase "her to commit adultery," wherein the pronoun "her" serves as a form of subject for the infinitive phrase itself, wherein the infinitive "to commit" serves as the verbal of the phrase itself, and wherein the noun "adultery" serves as the direct of object of the infinitive phrase itself.

Yet since the pronoun "whosoever" is a relative pronoun, it actually serves to initiate a relative (dependent) clause of its own.  This relative (dependent) clause encompasses the following -- "Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication."  As such, technically (the "some grammatical provisions" from above) the ENTIRE relative clause  serves as the subject for the main verb "causeth." 

For the relative (dependent) clause itself, the pronoun "whosoever" serves as the subject of the clause.  The verb "shall put" serves as the verb of the relative (dependent) clause itself.  The adverb "away" serves to modify the verb "shall put."  The noun "wife" serves as the direct object of the verb "shall put," and the adjective "his" serves to modify the noun "wife."  Finally, the participial (verbal) phrase, "saving for the cause of fornication," serves as an adjective to modify the relative pronoun "whosoever."  For this participial (verbal) phrase, the participle "saving" serves as the verbal itself, which is then modified by the prepositional phrase "for the cause," which prepositional phrase is then modified by the second prepositional phrase "of fornication." 

(Note: In the Greek the English participle "saving" translates the Greek adverb "parektos."  This Greek adverb means "besides;" and it can be used as an informal preposition meaning "apart from, except for," which appears to be its usage in the grammatical structure of Matthew 5:32.  As such, in the Greek the phrase, "saving for the cause of fornication," appears to be adverbial and to modify the verb "shall put."  Regardless, it appears that grammatically the "exception clause" is a part of the relative (dependent) clause, and thus does not directly modify the verb "causeth.")

So then, how does this grammatical understanding aid our doctrinal understanding of the declaration?  The first dependent clause of our Lord's declaration presents a form of conditional statement.  As such, the relative (dependent) clause serves as the condition of the conditional statement, and the main verb with its direct object serves as the result of the conditional statement, as follows:

Condition: "Whosoever shall put away his wife"

Result: "Causeth her to commit adultery."

However, the inclusion of the "exception clause" within the grammatical structure of the relative (dependent) clause presents an additional condition, which serves as a form of nullification to the first condition, as follows:

Condition: "Whosoever shall put away his wife"

          Nullification: "Saving for the cause of fornication"

Result: "Causeth her to commit adultery."

As such, if the "condition" is met, but the "nullification" is not met, then the "result" stands true.  However, if the "condition" is met, and the "nullification" is also met, then the "result' does not apply.

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

  • Members
2 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother Middlebrooks,

My best understanding concerning the grammatical structure of our Lord's declaration in Matthew 5:32 and concerning the place of the "exception clause" therein is as follows:

Our Lord's declaration in Matthew 5:32 is a compound sentence, containing two independent clauses that are joined with the conjunction "and."

The first independent clause is -- "That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery."

"and"

The second independent clause is -- "Whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."

Since your question specifically concerns the grammatical place of the "exception clause," and since the "exception clause" is a part of the first independent clause, I shall focus the remainder of my comments on that first independent clause.

The subject of that first independent clause is the pronoun "whosoever" (with some grammatical provisions).  The main verb of that independent clause is "causeth."  And the direct object of that independent clause is the entire infinitive (verbal) phrase "her to commit adultery," wherein the pronoun "her" serves as a form of subject for the infinitive phrase itself, wherein the infinitive "to commit" serves as the verbal of the phrase itself, and wherein the noun "adultery" serves as the direct of object of the infinitive phrase itself.

Yet since the pronoun "whosoever" is a relative pronoun, it actually serves to initiate a relative (dependent) clause of its own.  This relative (dependent) clause encompasses the following -- "Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication."  As such, technically (the "some grammatical provisions" from above) the ENTIRE relative clause  serves as the subject for the main verb "causeth." 

For the relative (dependent) clause itself, the pronoun "whosoever" serves as the subject of the clause.  The verb "shall put" serves as the verb of the relative (dependent) clause itself.  The adverb "away" serves to modify the verb "shall put."  The noun "wife" serves as the direct object of the verb "shall put," and the adjective "his" serves to modify the noun "wife."  Finally, the participial (verbal) phrase, "saving for the cause of fornication," serves as an adjective to modify the relative pronoun "whosoever."  For this participial (verbal) phrase, the participle "saving" serves as the verbal itself, which is then modified by the prepositional phrase "for the cause," which prepositional phrase is then modified by the second prepositional phrase "of fornication." 

(Note: In the Greek the English participle "saving" translates the Greek adverb "parektos."  This Greek adverb means "besides;" and it can be used as an informal preposition meaning "apart from, except for," which appears to be its usage in the grammatical structure of Matthew 5:32.  As such, in the Greek the phrase, "saving for the cause of fornication," appears to be adverbial and to modify the verb "shall put."  Regardless, it appears that grammatically the "exception clause" is a part of the relative (dependent) clause, and thus does not directly modify the verb "causeth.")

So then, how does this grammatical understanding aid our doctrinal understanding of the declaration?  The first dependent clause of our Lord's declaration presents a form of conditional statement.  As such, the relative (dependent) clause serves as the condition of the conditional statement, and the main verb with its direct object serves as the result of the conditional statement, as follows:

Condition: "Whosoever shall put away his wife"

Result: "Causeth her to commit adultery."

However, the inclusion of the "exception clause" within the grammatical structure of the relative (dependent) clause presents an additional condition, which serves as a form of nullification to the first condition, as follows:

Condition: "Whosoever shall put away his wife"

          Nullification: "Saving for the cause of fornication"

Result: "Causeth her to commit adultery."

As such, if the "condition" is met, but the "nullification" is not met, then the "result" stands true.  However, if the "condition" is met, and the "nullification" is also met, then the "result' does not apply.

But what makes it a nullification of the condition rather than a nullification of the results?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
49 minutes ago, Musician4God1611 said:

But what makes it a nullification of the condition rather than a nullification of the results?

Brother Middlebrooks,

Grammatically, the "exception clause" is a modifier WITHIN the relative (dependent) clause; and the relative (dependent) clause is that which presents the condition.  As such, the "exception clause" is grammatically a form of SUB-condition WITHIN the condition (and should not be separated from it).  Thus the "exception clause" serves as an exception (nullification) to the condition.

However, doctrinally that which the "exception clause" actually nullifies is the application of the result.  The reality of the condition (of a husband who has put away his wife) still exists, but the result does not apply to this condition in reality because the case of the exception has intervened. 

Following the grammatical structure, wherein the "exception clause" is a modifier within the relative (dependent) clause, and thus is a sub-condition within the condition of that relative (dependent) clause), we would see the following two possibilities:

Possibility #1 --

1st condition met, wherein a husband has put away his wife . . . but . . .

          sub-condition not met, for the cause of the divorce was NOT fornication . . . therefore . . .

the result applies, such that the husband causes his wife to commit adultery (apparently IF she remarries).

Possibility #2 --

1st condition met, wherein a husband has put away his wife . . . and . . .

          sub-condition met, for the cause of the divorce WAS fornication . . . therefore . . .

the result does NOT apply.

(Note: I am more than willing to answer questions, so please do not hesitate.  I simply pray that I am explaining myself clearly enough.) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • Members
On ‎3‎/‎19‎/‎2017 at 6:37 AM, swathdiver said:

You are correct in my position.  It makes no sense to me how one can combine what the Lord said in Matthew and what Paul said in 1st Corinthians as they are opposed to each other.  Have you read on this topic in the Way of Life Encyclopedia?  Maybe that can explain it better than I.    

Brother "Swathdiver,"

At your recommendation I read through Brother Cloud's article on "Divorce" in the "Way of Life Encyclopedia of the Bible & Christianity" (5th edition).  In that article, Brother Cloud dealt significantly with Matthew 19:3-9 & portions of 1 Corinthians 7.  However, throughout that article I could not find a single reference unto Matthew 5:31-32.  In my opinion (as much as I respect Brother Cloud's characteristic depth of study), this is a fault with Brother Cloud's article.

Now, it is true that in Matthew 19:3-9 our Lord Jesus Christ was responding to a question from the Pharisees concerning the teaching of the Old Testament Law.  Furthermore, it is true that our Lord Jesus Christ responded, not with a detailed discussion concerning the teaching of the Old Testament Law on the matter, but by referring them back to the original intent of the Lord our God at the creation of marriage.  Finally, it is true that we New Testament believers are no longer bound under the dispensation and details of the Old Testament Law.

However, Matthew 5:31-32 is NOT presented in the same manner as Matthew 19:3-9.  In Matthew 5:31-32 our Lord Jesus Christ is NOT responding to a question from the Pharisees concerning the Old Testament Law, but is providing His own teaching unto His own disciples concerning a daily walk of righteousness before the Lord our God and heavenly Father.  Furthermore, in Matthew 5:32 our Lord Jesus Christ does not make any reference unto the Old Testament Law at all, but founds His teaching concerning divorce and remarriage upon His own personal authority as the LORD, saying, "But I say unto you . . . ."  As such, I believe that Matthew 5:32 (as well as the entirety of the Sermon on the Mount) certainly IS teaching for New Testament believers in the New Testament dispensation.

Yet you yourself seem to struggle with this because in your viewpoint there is a contradiction between the specific teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ on the matter of divorce and remarriage with the specific teaching of the apostle Paul under Holy Spirit inspiration on the matter.  As for myself, I see NO contradiction between the two teachings.  Rather, it appears to me that the apostle Paul's teaching under Holy Spirit inspiration provides a complement and completion unto the teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ on this matter.  In fact, I believe that the apostle Paul revealed with the opening portion of 1 Corinthians 7:10 that he was providing a teaching on the matter which was complementary with the Lord's teaching.  Therein the apostle stated, "And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord."  Herein the apostle indicated that he was providing a teaching that carried the authority of "commandment."  Furthermore, the apostle indicated that this commandment was the same as the Lord's commandment on the matter, thus indicating that there was unity (not contradiction) between his teaching and the Lord's teaching on the matter.  Now, this opening statement of 1 Corinthians 7:10 grammatically encompasses the entire sentence of 1 Corinthians 7:10-11.  Thus the apostle Paul indicates that his teaching concerning divorce and remarriage is authoritative command and in unity with the Lord's teaching in Matthew 5:32.

On the other hand, the apostle Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit to provide additional (not contradictory, but complimentary and completing) teaching concerning the matter of divorce in 1 Corinthian 7:12-16.  Even so, he communicates that this is so with the opening portion of 1 Corinthians 7:12, saying, "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord."  With this statement, the apostle was not indicating that this teaching was not authoritative command.  Rather, with this statement the apostle was indicating that the Lord Jesus Christ had not teach specifically on the case about which the apostle was intending to teach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
9 hours ago, swathdiver said:

I see where you are coming from and reject your assertions.  Matthew 5 notwithstanding.  

Brother "Swathdiver,

I thank you for your acknowledgement of my posting.  Furthermore, I certainly would not argue with your right and responsibility before the Lord God to search the Scriptures and study the matter for yourself, and thus to draw your own conclusions on the matter.  Obviously, we now part with disagreement between us over this matter; however, we do part peaceably. 

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...