9 thoughts on “The Serious Sin of Adultery| Is Remarriage Adultery?”

1. Thank GOD for grace and for the opportunity to repent!
   Without it, we would ALL not make it!
   And thank GOD for you who will always tell us what’s the right thing – I’m serious, even though I sometimes get convicted by your posts, I am very grateful for them.
   GOD bless you!

   LikeLiked by 1 person

   February 5, 2019 at 10:18 am Reply

2. Very good article . However you might want to read ” Have you not read’ by Casey Whitaker. It’s available online to read for free.

   LikeLiked by 1 person

   October 27, 2020 at 5:14 pm Reply

3. Hi Jamaal, below is my understanding of the Scripture on divorce and remarriage. Please let me know what you think and point out errors in logic if there are any. Thanks!

   –

   “Furthermore it has been said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.” (Matt. 5:31-32)

   Because of the “except,” which sets apart the situation from normality, I believe we can break it down like this:

   1. Whoever divorces his wife for any reason causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.

   2. Except sexual immorality–so if he divorces her, he does not cause her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced does not commit adultery.

   It wouldn’t make sense to say “except” and then get the same conclusion as 1 states.

   –

   We can also put the “except sexual immorality” here with this Scripture, since it is the legit ground for divorce:

   “And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she departs, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.”(1 Cor. 7:10-11)

   1. Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she departs, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife

   2. Except sexual immorality–so if she departs, she is not obligated to remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and the husband is not obligated not to put away his wife.

   LikeLike

   May 4, 2023 at 8:22 pm Reply

4. Hello Mu-chieh. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I highly regard your opinion and for challenging my stance. The Bible does read iron sharpens iron. I am very open to being corrected if my interpretation is wrong.

   You wrote:

   “Because of the “except,” which sets apart the situation from normality, I believe we can break it down like this:

   1. Whoever divorces his wife for any reason causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.

   2. Except sexual immorality–so if he divorces her, he does not cause her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced does not commit adultery.

   It wouldn’t make sense to say “except” and then get the same conclusion as 1 states.”

   Correct me if I am wrong, but you referenced Matthew 5:31-32 to support the claim that remarriage is permissible if the divorce ends because of “sexual immorality.”

   But it’s clear in Luke 16:18 and Mark 10:11-12 that it calls all remarriage after divorce adultery.

   Moreover, 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 teaches that divorce is wrong but that if it is inevitable, the person who divorces should not remarry. It seems pretty clear here. If Paul meant to give an exception to remarriage (which is divorce because of sexual immorality) then I believe he would have clearly stated it.

   Then 1 Corinthians 7:39 and Romans 7:1-3 teach that remarriage is legitimate only after the death of a spouse.

   And Matthew 19:10-12 teaches that special Christian grace is given by God to Christ’s disciples to sustain them in singleness when they renounce remarriage according to the law of Christ.

   —

   Let’s read what John Piper wrote:

   “Matthew 5:32 does not teach that remarriage is lawful in some cases. Rather it reaffirms that marriage after divorce is adultery, even for those who have been divorced innocently, and that a man who divorces his wife is guilty of the adultery of her second marriage unless she had already become an adulteress before the divorce.

   Matthew 5:32: But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

   4.1 Jesus assumes that in most situations in that culture a wife who has been put away by a husband will be drawn into a second marriage. Nevertheless, in spite of these pressures, he calls this second marriage adultery.

   4.2 The remarkable thing about the first half of this verse is that it plainly says that the remarriage of a wife who has been innocently put away is nevertheless adultery: “Everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her (the innocent wife who has not been unchaste) an adulteress.” This is a clear statement, it seems to me, that remarriage is wrong not merely when a person is guilty in the process of divorce, but also when a person is innocent. In other words, Jesus’ opposition to remarriage seems to be based on the unbreakableness of the marriage bond by anything but death.

   4.3 I will save my explanation of the exception clause (“Except on the ground of unchastity”) for later in the paper, but for now, it may suffice to say that on the traditional interpretation of the clause, it may simply mean that a man makes his wife an adulteress except in the case where she has made herself one.

   4.4 I would assume that since an innocent wife who is divorced commits adultery when she remarries, therefore a guilty wife who remarries after divorce is all the more guilty. If one argues that this guilty woman is free to remarry, while the innocent woman who has been put away is not, just because the guilty woman’s adultery has broken the “one flesh” relationship, then one is put in the awkward position of saying to an innocent divorced woman, “If you now commit adultery it will be lawful for you to remarry.” This seems wrong for at least two reasons.

   4.41 It seems to elevate the physical act of sexual intercourse to be the decisive element in marital union and disunion.

   4.42 If sexual union with another breaks the marriage bond and legitimizes remarriage, then to say that an innocently divorced wife can’t remarry (as Jesus does say) assumes that her divorcing husband is not divorcing to have sexual relations with another. This is a very unlikely assumption. More likely is that Jesus does assume some of these divorcing husbands will have sexual relations with another woman, but still the wives they have divorced may not remarry. Therefore, adultery does not nullify the “one-flesh” relationship of marriage and both the innocent and guilty spouses are prohibited from remarriage in Matthew 5:32.”

   He also wrote:

   “The exception clause of Matthew 19:9 need not imply that divorce on account of adultery frees a person to be remarried. All the weight of the New Testament evidence given in the preceding ten points is against this view, and there are several ways to make good sense out of this verse so that it does not conflict with the broad teaching of the New Testament that remarriage after divorce is prohibited.

   Matthew 19:9: And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.

   11.1 Several years ago I taught our congregation in two evening services concerning my understanding of this verse and argued that “except for immorality” did not refer to adultery but to premarital sexual fornication which a man or a woman discovers in the betrothed partner. Since that time I have discovered other people who hold this view and who have given it a much more scholarly exposition than I did. I have also discovered numerous other ways of understanding this verse which also exclude the legitimacy of remarriage. Several of these are summed up in William Heth and Gordon J. Wenham, Jesus and Divorce (Nelson: 1984).

   11.2 Here I will simply give a brief summary of my own view of Matthew 19:9 and how I came to it.

   I began, first of all, by being troubled that the absolute form of Jesus’ denunciation of divorce and remarriage in Mark 10:11,12 and Luke 16:18 is not preserved by Matthew, if in fact his exception clause is a loophole for divorce and remarriage. I was bothered by the simple assumption that so many writers make that Matthew is simply making explicit something that would have been implicitly understood by the hearers of Jesus or the readers of Mark 10 and Luke 16.

   Would they really have assumed that the absolute statements included exceptions? I have very strong doubts, and therefore my inclination is to inquire whether or not in fact Matthew’s exception clause conforms to the absoluteness of Mark and Luke.

   The second thing that began to disturb me was the question, Why does Matthew use the word porneia (“except for immorality”) instead of the word moicheia which means adultery? Almost all commentators seem to make the simple assumption again that porneia means adultery in this context. The question nags at me why Matthew would not use the word for adultery, if that is in fact what he meant.

   Then I noticed something very interesting. The only other place besides Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 where Matthew uses the word porneia is in 15:19 where it is used alongside of moicheia. Therefore, the primary contextual evidence for Matthew’s usage is that he conceives of porneia as something different than adultery. Could this mean, then, that Matthew conceives of porneia in its normal sense of fornication or incest (l Corinthians 5:1) rather than adultery?

   A. Isaksson agrees with this view of porneia and sums up his research much like this on pages 134-5 of Marriage and Ministry:

   Thus we cannot get away from the fact that the distinction between what was to be regarded as porneia and what was to be regarded as moicheia was very strictly maintained in pre-Christian Jewish literature and in the N.T. Porneia may, of course, denote different forms of forbidden sexual relations, but we can find no unequivocal examples of the use of this word to denote a wife’s adultery. Under these circumstances we can hardly assume that this word means adultery in the clauses in Matthew. The logia on divorce are worded as a paragraph of the law, intended to be obeyed by the members of the Church. Under these circumstances it is inconceivable that in a text of this nature the writer would not have maintained a clear distinction between what was unchastity and what was adultery: moicheia and not porneia was used to describe the wife’s adultery. From the philological point of view there are accordingly very strong arguments against this interpretation of the clauses as permitting divorce in the case in which the wife was guilty of adultery.

   The next clue in my search for an explanation came when I stumbled upon the use of porneia in John 8:41 where Jewish leaders indirectly accuse Jesus of being born of porneia. In other words, since they don’t accept the virgin birth, they assume that Mary had committed fornication and Jesus was the result of this act. On the basis of that clue I went back to study Matthew’s record of Jesus’ birth in Matthew 1:18-20. This was extremely enlightening.

   In these verses Joseph and Mary are referred to as husband (aner) and wife (gunaika). Yet they are described as only being betrothed to each other. This is probably owing to the fact that the words for husband and wife are simply man and woman and to the fact that betrothal was a much more significant commitment then than engagement is today. In verse 19 Joseph resolves “to divorce” Mary. The word for divorce is the same as the word in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. But most important of all, Matthew says that Joseph was “just” in making the decision to divorce Mary, presumably on account of her porneia, fornication.

   Therefore, as Matthew proceeded to construct the narrative of his gospel, he finds himself in chapter 5 and then later in chapter 19 needing to prohibit all remarriage after divorce (as taught by Jesus) and yet to allow for “divorces” like the one Joseph contemplated toward his betrothed whom he thought guilty of fornication (porneia). Therefore, Matthew includes the exception clause in particular to exonerate Joseph, but also in general to show that the kind of “divorce” that one might pursue during a betrothal on account of fornication is not included in Jesus’ absolute prohibition.

   A common objection to this interpretation is that both in Matthew 19:3-8 and in Matthew 5:31-32 the issue Jesus is responding to is marriage not betrothal. The point is pressed that “except for fornication” is irrelevant to the context of marriage.

   My answer is that this irrelevancy is just the point Matthew wants to make. We may take it for granted that the breakup of an engaged couple over fornication is not an evil “divorce” and does not prohibit remarriage. But we cannot assume that Matthew’s readers would take this for granted.

   Even in Matthew 5:32, where it seems pointless for us to exclude “the case of fornication” (since we can’t see how a betrothed virgin could be “made an adulteress” in any case), it may not be pointless for Matthew’s readers. For that matter, it may not be pointless for any readers: if Jesus had said, “Every man who divorces his woman makes her an adulteress,” a reader could legitimately ask: “Then was Joseph about to make Mary an adulteress?” We may say this question is not reasonable since we think you can’t make unmarried women adulteresses. But it certainly is not meaningless or, perhaps for some readers, pointless, for Matthew to make explicit the obvious exclusion of the case of fornication during betrothal.

   This interpretation of the exception clause has several advantages:

   It does not force Matthew to contradict the plain, absolute meaning of Mark and Luke and the whole range of New Testament teaching set forth above in sections 1-10, including Matthew’s own absolute teaching in 19:3-8
   It provides an explanation for why the word porneia is used in Matthew’s exception clause instead of moicheia
   It squares with Matthew’s own use of porneia for fornication in Matthew 15:19
   It fits the demands of Matthew’s wider context concerning Joseph’s contemplated divorce.”

   Source: https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/divorce-and-remarriage-a-position-paper

   —

   His view makes a lot of sense to me, as he takes a lot of scripture about the matter into consideration to come to his conclusion. I came to the same conclusion using the same scriptures.

   That said, I am not dogmatic about this position. I just haven’t heard a convincing argument that allows for remarriage unless your spouse or ex-spouse dies.

   LikeLike

   May 8, 2023 at 7:59 am Reply

   1. Hi Jamaal, thanks for your very detailed reply. I appreciate your humility in discussing and your zeal for the truth. Let me reply to what you wrote 🙂

      –
      (1)
      You wrote:

      “Correct me if I am wrong, but you referenced Matthew 5:31-32 to support the claim that remarriage is permissible if the divorce ends because of “sexual immorality.”
      But it’s clear in Luke 16:18 and Mark 10:11-12 that it calls all remarriage after divorce adultery.”

      That’s right, I took Matthew 5:31-32 to support that remarriage is permissible on the basis of a divorce caused by sexual immorality.

      And I believe the verses in Luke and Mark, as you mentioned, have to be considered with verses in Matthew together to get the full doctrine on divorce and remarriage.

      There are many examples like that in the Bible. Take retaliation for example, in Matt.5:39 it reads, “But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” It is obvious that this verse cannot be taken to say that victims should always keep quiet (don’t ever resist the one who is evil!), and that perverting justice is right, as our God is a righteous God and the Bible repeatedly mentions defending the poor and the needy.

      In the same way, Luke 16:18 and Mark 10:11-12 cannot be examined without considering Matthew 5:31-32. I do not know for sure why Jesus did not include the “except” clause in Luke and Mark; perhaps He wanted to focus on God’s will and purpose for marriage, instead of the tragedy of divorce caused by man’s sin.

      So I have a question for you: if Matthew 5:31-32 is taken into consideration when you read Luke 16:18 and Mark 10:11-12, would you agree with my reasoning presented in the first comment?

      –
      (2)
      Again you wrote:

      “Moreover, 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 teaches that divorce is wrong but that if it is inevitable, the person who divorces should not remarry. And then 1 Corinthians 7:39 and Romans 7:1-3 teach that remarriage is legitimate only after the death of a spouse.”

      I would say the same as above, that we have to take Matthew 5:31-32 into consideration. And then my reasoning will be the same as my first comment addressed. A married woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives–except for divorce on the ground of sexual immorality. And again according to Matthew 5:31-32, spouses in this situation are free to remarry without committing adultery.

      I believe Paul did not emphasize the “except sexual immorality” for the same reason I mentioned above. In the bigger picture, the Bible tends to be plain and simple on explaining things without attaching too many “except for,” “but if what happens then…” etc. It seems that God is not really interested in nor afraid of shrewd people seeking to find fault with Him. This is just my observation by the way.

      –
      (3)
      About John Piper’s article:

      4.4 I would assume that since an innocent wife who is divorced commits adultery when she remarries, therefore a guilty wife who remarries after divorce is all the more guilty. If one argues that this guilty woman is free to remarry, while the innocent woman who has been put away is not, just because the guilty woman’s adultery has broken the “one flesh” relationship, then one is put in the awkward position of saying to an innocent divorced woman, “If you now commit adultery it will be lawful for you to remarry.” This seems wrong for at least two reasons.

      Let me pause here. To me, the fact that the guilty woman is free to remarry while the innocent woman is not makes sense, if you think of the parable of the prodigal son in Luke 15:11-32. You can compare the guilty woman with the younger son (ofc we assume she repents, or else her remarrying or not doesn’t really matter, as an adultress will not enter the kingdom of God), and the innocent divorced woman with the older son. God has His way of showing grace and I believe He is fair.

      –
      (4)
      4.41 It seems to elevate the physical act of sexual intercourse to be the decisive element in marital union and disunion.

      I believe it is, or else the Old Testament will not emphasize on a woman’s virginity before marriage (i.e. Deu.22:13-14) and also loyalty in marriage.

      –
      (5)
      4.42 If sexual union with another breaks the marriage bond and legitimizes remarriage, then to say that an innocently divorced wife can’t remarry (as Jesus does say) assumes that her divorcing husband is not divorcing to have sexual relations with another.

      Wait, where does it say it assumes her divorcing husband is not seeking to have relations with another woman? It only indicates that her divorcing husband will also be committing adultery if he marries another woman. And who knows if this guy who sins against God by putting away his innocent wife is not planning for something more? It will not be strange if he willfully sins against God again by remarrying.

      –
      (6)
      “This is a very unlikely assumption. More likely is that Jesus does assume some of these divorcing husbands will have sexual relations with another woman, but still the wives they have divorced may not remarry. Therefore, adultery does not nullify the “one-flesh” relationship of marriage and both the innocent and guilty spouses are prohibited from remarriage in Matthew 5:32.”

      I agree it’s very unlikely. But note that these guys commit adultery when they remarry as well! And thus I believe adultery does nullify the “one-flesh” relationship of marriage. And in that case, if an innocently divorced wife (which means none of the two commits sexual immorality) sees that her husband has relations with another woman after the divorce (whether he has remarried or not), then it’s obvious he commits sexual immorality. Then she is free to marry someone else instead of trying to get back to her ex-husband.

      –
      (7)
      Piper also wrote:

      “The exception clause of Matthew 19:9 need not imply that divorce on account of adultery frees a person to be remarried. All the weight of the New Testament evidence given in the preceding ten points is against this view, and there are several ways to make good sense out of this verse so that it does not conflict with the broad teaching of the New Testament that remarriage after divorce is prohibited.

      I can’t see how this clause conflicts with the broad teaching of the NT. To be clear, Matthew 19:9 can also be broken down as such:

      Matthew 19:9, “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

      1. Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery.

      2. Except for sexual immorality–so if someone divorces his wife and marries another woman, he does not commit adultery.

      –
      (8)
      And here comes the complicated part:

      In short, Piper manages to make “except for sexual immorality” mean “except for fornication in a betrothed partner,” and rules out remarriage at the same time.

      First of all, he started by being bothered by “the absolute statements included exceptions,” which I would say, again, that different Bible verses have to be considered together. I wonder if he also has a problem with “do not resist the one who is evil” or just any other absolute statements in the Bible which cannot be singled out and explained without other verses.

      –
      (9)
      And he wrote:

      “Then I noticed something very interesting. The only other place besides Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 where Matthew uses the word porneia is in 15:19 where it is used alongside of moicheia. Therefore, the primary contextual evidence for Matthew’s usage is that he conceives of porneia as something different than adultery. Could this mean, then, that Matthew conceives of porneia in its normal sense of fornication or incest (l Corinthians 5:1) rather than adultery?”

      I disagree with the “therefore…” as one cannot conclude that Matthew perceived porneia as different from moicheia, just because they are listed together. There are other examples like that in the Bible.

      For example 1 Cor. 6:9-10, “Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

      Does it mean that sexual immorality here does not include adultery or homosexual intercourse? Then the meaning of sexual immorality, as an umbrella term for sexual sins, will not have a consistent meaning throughout the Bible.

      Even in the verse Matthew 15:19 he quoted, it reads “For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.” Do we then have to exclude bearing false testimony from slandering? It doesn’t make much sense to me to assume each term used here has to exclude one another.

      –
      (10)
      As for what A. Issaksson wrote:

      “…but we can find no unequivocal examples of the use of this word to denote a wife’s adultery. Under these circumstances we can hardly assume that this word means adultery in the clauses in Matthew.”

      This conclusion is based on the presumption of denying Matthew 5:31-32, 19:9 means sexual immorality (which includes adultery) when it says sexual immorality. In other words, this would be a circular argument that cannot be proven true from the Scripture.

      –
      (11)
      And about what Piper wrote about Mary and Joseph:

      “But most important of all, Matthew says that Joseph was “just” in making the decision to divorce Mary, presumably on account of her porneia, fornication.”

      I disagree with limiting porneia to fornication. Since this betrothed couple is just a step from marriage and it would require a divorce to separate them, porneia should be rightly interpreted as adultery.

      “Therefore, as Matthew proceeded to construct the narrative of his gospel, he finds himself in chapter 5 and then later in chapter 19 needing to prohibit all remarriage after divorce (as taught by Jesus) and yet to allow for “divorces” like the one Joseph contemplated toward his betrothed whom he thought guilty of fornication (porneia).”

      Since I disagree with limiting porneia to fornication, this “therefore” cannot persuade me. In addition, Piper is using his interpretation of porneia to limit what the Scriptures in Matthew and Mark have to say. And where does his interpretation of porneia come from? From making questionable assumptions on Matthew 15:19. And that all started from the unwillingness to accept putting Matthew 5:31-32 along with verses in Mark and Luke together, which I do not think has a legitimate cause.

      –

      I respect John Piper as a theologian but I really don’t like debating such a sophisticated teacher haha. Hope my views make sense to you and inspire you further on this issue.

      p.s. I give all these sections numbers so that if you want to reply by points, it will be easier for you to refer to what I wrote. God bless you.

      LikeLike

      May 10, 2023 at 3:12 am Reply

      1. Hello Mu-chieh. Again, thank you for the response. I appreciate your thoughts on the matter.

         1) You said “In the same way, Luke 16:18 and Mark 10:11-12 cannot be examined without considering Matthew 5:31-32. I do not know for sure why Jesus did not include the “except” clause in Luke and Mark; perhaps He wanted to focus on God’s will and purpose for marriage, instead of the tragedy of divorce caused by man’s sin.

         So I have a question for you: if Matthew 5:31-32 is taken into consideration when you read Luke 16:18 and Mark 10:11-12, would you agree with my reasoning presented in the first comment?”

         I believe Jesus didn’t have the except clause in Luke and Mark because Matthew was written with a Jewish audience in mind. Gentiles were commonly practicing porneia. For Jews, the betrothal period was deemed to be “marriage.” Remember, Joseph who was considered a righteous man, was going to “divorce” Mary because of porneia even though they weren’t fully married as they haven’t consummated the marriage yet. I believe if Joseph would have “divorced” Mary, he would have had the right to marry again because he never had sexual relations with her. When you have sexual relations with someone, you become one flesh, therefore who God has joined together, let no man separate(1 Corinthians 1:16; Mark 2:8-9). If he had relations with her, he wouldn’t have the biblical allowance to marry another. At least that’s my understanding of it.

         So I still wouldn’t agree to your reasoning because of what is written in Luke and Mark. I believe God would have made it very clear in Luke and Mark.

         2) “I would say the same as above, that we have to take Matthew 5:31-32 into consideration. And then my reasoning will be the same as my first comment addressed. A married woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives–except for divorce on the ground of sexual immorality. And again according to Matthew 5:31-32, spouses in this situation are free to remarry without committing adultery.

         I believe Paul did not emphasize the “except sexual immorality” for the same reason I mentioned above. In the bigger picture, the Bible tends to be plain and simple on explaining things without attaching too many “except for,” “but if what happens then…” etc. It seems that God is not really interested in nor afraid of shrewd people seeking to find fault with Him. This is just my observation by the way.”

         I don’t think it’s proper exegesis to hang on Matthew 5:31-32 to justify remarriage. There are other scriptures that seems to contradict your interpretation of it. Again, I believe Paul would have written your interpretation to the exception clause found in Matthew to justify remarriage. But he didn’t seem to do it. He however clearly stated if the spouse dies you are free to remarry (1 Cor. 7:39; Rom. 7:2-3), and even says to stay unmarried if the wife departs or reconcile with her (ex) husband(1 Cor. 7:10-11). In fact, in 1 Corinthians 7:39-40, Paul suggests a that when a woman’s spouse dies even though she is free to remarry, that she should remain single: “A wife is bound as long as her husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord. But in my opinion she is happier if she remains as she is; and I think that I also have the Spirit of God.”

         3) “Let me pause here. To me, the fact that the guilty woman is free to remarry while the innocent woman is not makes sense, if you think of the parable of the prodigal son in Luke 15:11-32. You can compare the guilty woman with the younger son (ofc we assume she repents, or else her remarrying or not doesn’t really matter, as an adultress will not enter the kingdom of God), and the innocent divorced woman with the older son. God has His way of showing grace and I believe He is fair.”

         Sure, you are free to remarry, and God certainly can forgive, but is it still sin to remarry if your spouse is still alive? I would say yes.

         4) “I believe it is, or else the Old Testament will not emphasize on a woman’s virginity before marriage (i.e. Deu.22:13-14) and also loyalty in marriage.”

         We agree. But this all the more shows that Matthew 5 is in reference to the betrothal period. If the wife is involved in porneia, then he is free to divorce her.

         5) “Wait, where does it say it assumes her divorcing husband is not seeking to have relations with another woman? It only indicates that her divorcing husband will also be committing adultery if he marries another woman. And who knows if this guy who sins against God by putting away his innocent wife is not planning for something more? It will not be strange if he willfully sins against God again by remarrying.”

         Piper wrote:

         “4.42 If sexual union with another breaks the marriage bond and legitimizes remarriage, then to say that an innocently divorced wife can’t remarry (as Jesus does say) assumes that her divorcing husband is not divorcing to have sexual relations with another. This is a very unlikely assumption. More likely is that Jesus does assume some of these divorcing husbands will have sexual relations with another woman, but still the wives they have divorced may not remarry. Therefore, adultery does not nullify the “one-flesh” relationship of marriage and both the innocent and guilty spouses are prohibited from remarriage in Matthew 5:32.”

         I believe Piper did assume that the divorcing husband will have sexual relations with another woman, but the divorcing wife may not remarry. Just because one may committed adultery, I don’t believe it nullifies the one-flesh relationship since God said what He has brought together let no man bring apart (Matthew 19:6; Mark 10:9).

         Piper makes a good point. Is it okay for the innocent divorced woman to remarry if she commits adultery?

         Again, Matthew 5 would have mean Joseph would have been free to remarry if Mary actually did engage in porneia before consummating the marriage. But for Mary, she would have committed adultery if she got remarried, I believe.

         6)”I agree it’s very unlikely. But note that these guys commit adultery when they remarry as well! And thus I believe adultery does nullify the “one-flesh” relationship of marriage. And in that case, if an innocently divorced wife (which means none of the two commits sexual immorality) sees that her husband has relations with another woman after the divorce (whether he has remarried or not), then it’s obvious he commits sexual immorality. Then she is free to marry someone else instead of trying to get back to her ex-husband.”

         I agree, guys commit adultery when they remarry as stated in Luke 16:18 and Mark 10:11-13. But I disagree that adultery nullifies the “one-flesh” relationship of marriage. If that’s the case, why not commit adultery as a biblical way to get remarried for the husband or wife?

         7) “I can’t see how this clause conflicts with the broad teaching of the NT. To be clear, Matthew 19:9 can also be broken down as such:

         Matthew 19:9, “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

         1. Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery.

         2. Except for sexual immorality–so if someone divorces his wife and marries another woman, he does not commit adultery.”

         I agree with this breakdown. In other words, if the “marriage” was unlawful as in the case if Mary committed fornication with someone during the betrothal period, then Joseph would have been free to remarry.

         8) “And here comes the complicated part:

         In short, Piper manages to make “except for sexual immorality” mean “except for fornication in a betrothed partner,” and rules out remarriage at the same time.

         First of all, he started by being bothered by “the absolute statements included exceptions,” which I would say, again, that different Bible verses have to be considered together. I wonder if he also has a problem with “do not resist the one who is evil” or just any other absolute statements in the Bible which cannot be singled out and explained without other verses.”

         Yes, and his explanation makes sense to me. I understand this is a difficult interpretation to accept. That’s probably the reason why it is a minority position. Even Jesus’ disciples thought it would probably be better to not marry then (Matt. 19:10).

         9) “Does it mean that sexual immorality here does not include adultery or homosexual intercourse? Then the meaning of sexual immorality, as an umbrella term for sexual sins, will not have a consistent meaning throughout the Bible.

         Even in the verse Matthew 15:19 he quoted, it reads “For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.” Do we then have to exclude bearing false testimony from slandering? It doesn’t make much sense to me to assume each term used here has to exclude one another.”

         Well, if God meant sexual immorality to mean adultery in Matthew 5 then the word adultery would have been used, but it’s not.

         10) “This conclusion is based on the presumption of denying Matthew 5:31-32, 19:9 means sexual immorality (which includes adultery) when it says sexual immorality. In other words, this would be a circular argument that cannot be proven true from the Scripture.”

         But why didn’t Jesus just use the more specific word adultery if that is what He meant?

         11) “I disagree with limiting porneia to fornication. Since this betrothed couple is just a step from marriage and it would require a divorce to separate them, porneia should be rightly interpreted as adultery.”

         Well, you seem to disagree with Strong’s Concordance.

         Porneia is:

         “porneia: fornication
         Original Word: πορνεία, ας, ἡ
         Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
         Transliteration: porneia
         Phonetic Spelling: (por-ni’-ah)
         Definition: fornication
         Usage: fornication, whoredom; met: idolatry.”
         https://biblehub.com/greek/4202.htm

         Adultery is :

         moicheuó: to commit adultery
         Original Word: μοιχεύω
         Part of Speech: Verb
         Transliteration: moicheuó
         Phonetic Spelling: (moy-khyoo’-o)
         Definition: to commit adultery
         Usage: I commit adultery (of a man with a married woman, but also of a married man).
         https://biblehub.com/greek/3431.htm

         Yes, porneia can include adultery but I believe the context points to porneia referring to fornication.

         “Does it mean that sexual immorality here does not include adultery or homosexual intercourse? Then the meaning of sexual immorality, as an umbrella term for sexual sins, will not have a consistent meaning throughout the Bible.

         Even in the verse Matthew 15:19 he quoted, it reads “For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.” Do we then have to exclude bearing false testimony from slandering? It doesn’t make much sense to me to assume each term used here has to exclude one another.”

         Of course sexual immorality does include adultery and homosexual intercourse. The word porneia is translated sexual immorality or fornication in many English bible translations. But I believe porneia was used to mean fornication based on the context.

         Since porneia can be an umbrella term, would you say that watching pornography, masturbating, or looking at someone to lust after him/her, is grounds for divorce and remarriage? I don’t think you would believe so.

         —

         Thanks for your response. Again, I’m not adamant with my position. I’m willing to change my view if there is what I think a defeator for the arguments.

         I suggest you read the full John Piper page to get a clearer picture of his argument. It will give you something to think about.

         Much love.

         LikeLike

         May 10, 2023 at 8:45 am Reply

         1. Hi Jamaal, thanks for your quick and patient explanation of your point. I really cherish this opportunity to discuss the topic with you. You’re a nice friend in many ways and, to my surprise and delight, in lengthy discussions on the Scriptures too. But I have to admit I do not have the ability to debate John Piper point by point, and since your views on this are closely related to his, I’m afraid that a lot of valid questions you proposed I’m not capable to respond, at least for now.

            Only for the part of limiting porneia in Matthew 5:31-32 to fornication during betrothal, since it’s the core of Piper’s argument and also what I’m a bit more capable to grasp, I will try to give an account of my perspective.

            –

            1. Piper suggests it’s a problem that in Matthew 5:31-32 the word porneia, instead of moicheia, was used. Why not use moicheia if adultery is to be referred to? He then argues since the word porneia in Matthew 15:19 is listed along with moicheia, it suggests Matthew conceives porneia as different from (and thus not include) adultery.

            First, why not use moicheia if adultery is to be referred to? I think it’s natural to conclude that it’s because there are other legitimate grounds for divorce and remarriage (as Matthew 5 states) other than adultery alone. In addition, I do not find it valid to limit exploring the meaning of porneia to Matthew’s usage of it, since all Scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Not to say that even if we do limit defining porneia in Matthew 5 within the book of Matthew, porneia referring specifically to fornication in betrothal is not valid, since there is simply not enough evidence for that explanation (I’ll explain more in point 2). As I have mentioned briefly in my previous comment, words listed together by the same author cannot lead to a conclusion that each of their meaning must exclude one another. I’ll repeat it here just for convenience in reading:

            In (9) I wrote:

            “…Even in the verse Matthew 15:19 he quoted, it reads “For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.” Do we then have to exclude bearing false testimony from slandering? It doesn’t make much sense to me to assume each term used here has to exclude one another.”

            You replied:

            “Well, if God meant sexual immorality to mean adultery in Matthew 5 then the word adultery would have been used, but it’s not.”

            As I have written above, it is not valid to assume porneia, instead of moicheia, is used, means that porneia does not include moicheia. And also, I would like to ask you, do you think it’s reasonable to assume that each term listed together has to exclude one another in meaning?

            For now, let’s take a look at what porneia refers to in the New Testament for clarification. Since I’m not a Greek expert, I have to quote from Bible teachers whose point I think is Scriptural.

            Below is what Derek Prince wrote in his book God is a Matchmaker:

            “In the New Testament, porneia with its related verb porneuo is used in the following instances (among others), which cover more
            than sexual sin by unmarried persons.

            ● In Acts 15:20, 29, Gentile Christians are commanded to abstain from porneia–clearly not merely from sexual sin by unmarried persons.

            ● In 1 Corinthians 5:1, Paul describes a man living with his father’s wife as porneia. Here it includes both incest and adultery.

            ● In 1 Corinthians 5:9-11, Paul commands believers not to associate with professing Christians who are guilty of porneia. Obviously he does not limit this to unmarried persons. Paul uses porneia and porneuo in a similar way in 1 Corinthians 10:8 and 2 Corinthians 12:21.

            ● In verse 7 of his epistle, Jude applies porneia to the sexual misconduct of Sodom and Gomorrah. The main sin of these cities was homosexuality, and there is no suggestion it was confined to unmarried persons.

            It is clear, then, that porneia includes fornication, homosexuality, bestiality, incest and adultery; and that Jesus sanctioned divorce
            (where appropriate) for any or all of these causes.”

            I remember you wrote:

            “Since porneia can be an umbrella term, would you say that watching pornography, masturbating, or looking at someone to lust after him/her, is grounds for divorce and remarriage? I don’t think you would believe so.”

            Yes I don’t believe so and that is because the NT does not include these as porneia. We should be careful not to add our own explanation to it.

            –

            2. Piper argues that since the Jewish leaders were suggesting Jesus being born of porneia in John 8:41, it is referring accurately to Joseph’s misunderstanding of Mary’s situation. And that is how Piper came to the conclusion that Matthew defines porneia as fornication during betrothal, and thus confines porneia in Matthew 5 to that meaning.

            First, it is questionable whether the Jewish leaders were mocking Jesus and using porneia to refer to His birth, as it is not explicit in the Scriptures. It is just a possibility. Even if it’s assumed to be true, and indeed, porneia can include fornication in betrothal, as mentioned above, there is nowhere in Matthew 1:18-24 that the word porneia is used. That means, there is not enough evidence to say Matthew has the intention of limiting porneia in Matthew 5 as fornication in betrothal, since he never even used that word to refer to Mary’s situation specifically.

            And not to say, as I’ve written above, it doesn’t seem valid to me to define porneia within an author’s usage, since the Bible should be considered as a whole under the inspiration of the Spirit. To find out what porneia in Matthew 5 means, all Scripture should be equally considered–yes, equally! That means Matthew’s own writing does not have any privilege in monopolizing the definition of porneia, but that all other Scriptures should be taken into consideration. Not to mention, as I’ve demonstrated above, there is not enough evidence to support making porneia mean fornication in betrothal even when we examine porneia only within the book of Matthew.

            Last but not least, since all Scriptures are inspired by the Spirit for all believers’ upbuilding, not just for Jewish readers anymore (even though they were Matthew’s target readers), it is rightful to suggest divorce means divorce in its broad sense instead of merely in a betrothal stage. Therefore, whoever divorces legitimately should have the right to remarry, not only those who divorce in betrothal due to their partner’s fornication.

            –

            I hope it does answer some of your (or John Piper’s) points. Again with my limited ability this is the best I can do now. I’ll attach Derek Prince’s teaching on divorce and remarriage since it might help you with the many points you addressed, to which I’m not capable of discussing with you. Love and peace in Christ.

            https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SKVu_FpWLrUjZQNCmnHVO4k1zUYhPp6Z/view?usp=sharing

            LikeLike

            May 10, 2023 at 11:10 pm Reply

            1. Hello Mu-chieh. This is a complex topic — far more complex than I ever imagined after reading numerous commentaries. I thank you for questioning my stance, otherwise I wouldn’t have delved deep into this topic and gained the clarity I have on this issue.

               After more consideration and studying, my stance on the matter of remarriage has actually strengthened! Moreover, I used to believe divorce was permissible of a consummated marriage in God’s eyes because of the Matthean exception clause. I readily accepted the majority view on the matter, but now my view on it has slightly changed. I’m all the more convinced in the permanence of the consummated marriage until death.

               I think you said to let the Bible define the terms by its usage. I agree. You can look up the 8 occurrences of porneuo https://biblehub.com/greek/4203.htm, the 10 occurrences of pornos https://biblehub.com/greek/4205.htm, the 12 occurrences of pornee https://biblehub.com/greek/4204.htm, and the 25 occurrences of porneia https://biblehub.com/greek/4202.htm in the New Testament and let the Bible define the meaning of these words. Likewise, look up the 4 occurrences of moicheia https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g3430/kjv/tr/0-1/,the 4 occurrences of moichos https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g3432/kjv/tr/0-1/, the 6 occurrences of moichao https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g3429/kjv/tr/0-1/ , and the 16 occurrences of moicheuō in the New Testament and let the Bible define the meaning of these words.

               Therefore:

               Adultery is only applicable to married persons.

               Fornication is only applicable to unmarried or single persons.

               The word “porneia” is never specifically or directly used of adultery in the Scripture.

               The context and the predominant usage of the word leads me to believe Jesus was specifically talking about fornication. This strengthens the case that the exception clause was only applicable during betrothal.

               As stated before, I don’t believe Jesus meant adultery is an exception for divorce because He would have used the precise Greek word. Also, under the Mosaic Law adultery was punishable by death (Lev. 20:10; Deut.
               22:22-24) which would mean there would be no need to divorce a dead person. I also don’t think Jesus meant bestiality. A person who did such a thing were also put to death (Exo. 20:19; Lev. 20:15-16). Again, there would be no need for divorce. Same thing for those who were involved with homosexual sex (Leviticus 20:13) and even incestual sex (Leviticus 20:11-12, 14, 19-21). Why divorce when they were to be put to death according to the Law?

               Jesus could have meant one is allowed to divorce in cases of a next to kin or incestual marriage, as it was prohibited in the Mosaic law (Leviticus 18:6-18;Deuteronomy 22:30;27:20; 22-23). I’m fine with that interpretation as well. If that is what Jesus meant by porneia then that would still prohibit most divorces and remarriages.

               I lean towards the belief that when Jesus said (in full accord with the accepted views of the day) that a man may divorce a woman immediately after “marriage” if he finds her not to be a virgin or “indecency.” In such a case he was allowed by the Mosaic law to remarry and was not to be called an adulterer according to Deuteronomy 22:13-19 and Deuteronomy 24:1, but was not permitted to divorce her for any other reason (Deut. 22:29). Indeed, if there was sexual sin found with the woman, he was allowed to let her go. The Pharisees invoked Deuteronomy, and Jesus seemed to have reinforced Deuteronomy 22:13-19 but restored marriage to its ideal state prior to the Law.

               Jesus was apparently presenting a radical teaching that went against the worldview of the Jews. That’s why even Jesus’ disciples were shocked and astonished and said it is better than to not even marry (Mt. 19:10). And Jesus didn’t disagree, instead used the opportunity to call those who can handle it to the ideal of celibacy (Mt. 19:11-12). Jesus’ teachings rose above the that of what the Pharisees taught, who had a more lax view on divorce and remarriage. The Pharisees understood that Jesus was teaching the permanency of marriage. They tested Him about the bill of divorcement under the Mosaic Law. When the pharisees questioned Him about divorce, He referred them back to Genesis 1:26-27 and Genesis 2:23-24, emphasizing the fact that human sexuality is a divine creation and human marriage a divine ordinance. Jesus said, ““Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no person is to separate.”” (Matt. 19: 4-6, Mk. 10:6-9).

               But let’s say, I grant you that porneia in Matthew 5:31-32 is not specifically and only speaking about fornication during the betrothal period. Let’s say I concede, and I grant that you are right with your other points (which is why I won’t directly reply to them) as well, my belief on the matter still holds.

               Follow along and read carefully. This is lengthy, but please bear with me.

               Jesus said:

               ““Now it was said, ‘Whoever sends his wife away is to give her a certificate of divorce’; but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” (NASB, Matthew 5:31-32)

               About the innocent wife put away:

               It plainly reads that the remarriage of a wife who has been innocently put away commits adultery. Jesus assumes the innocent woman will marry again. I didn’t say it, Jesus did. If the man initiates the divorce, he forces her into a position in which she may be forced to remarry, thereby becoming an adulteress.

               Correct me if I am wrong, you interpret it to mean if the husband commits sexual immorality, then the innocent wife is free to remarry?

               It seems to me that Jesus was speaking only about the woman committing porneia, rather than the man because Jesus said that one who divorces HIS WIFE, except for sexual immorality (porneia), causes HER to commit adultery. It wouldn’t make much sense to say if the husband committed sexual immorality (porneia) he would be free to divorce his wife and remarry. That would compound his sin.

               About the guilty wife involved in porneia:

               If an innocent wife who is divorced commits adultery when she remarries, as Jesus stated, then a guilty wife who remarries after divorce is all the more guilty. Right?

               If you argue that the sexual immoral woman is free to remarry, while the innocent woman who has been put away is not, just because the guilty woman already has sinned with porneia, then you can easily say to an innocent woman who is going to be put away to just commit adultery as an allowance to remarry.

               Adultery does not nullify the ‘one-flesh’ relationship of marriage, and both the innocent and guilty spouses are prohibited from remarriage, as stated in Matthew 5:32. How do I know this? Because Jesus said so: And He *said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.”(NASB, Mark 10:11-13). Luke 16:18 (NASB) reads similarly: “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.”

               I believe only death dissolves the one-flesh union created by God in marriage (1 Corinthians 7:39). The binding union is not dissolved by divorce. Therefore, any remarriage of (or to) a divorced person, prior to the death of the former spouse, is an act of adultery. Jesus taught that Moses only permitted divorce because of the hardness of their hearts (Matt. 5:31-32;32; 19:7-8). But God wants people to focus on His original plan: permanency of marriage.

               Biblical doctrine must never be compromised; our views should always conform to biblical doctrine. I know this view sounds harsh (again, the apostles thought so too), but I must be objective about this and try not to impose my own view into the text.

               My shift in view has given me a greater respect for marriage and the sacredness of the consummated ‘one-flesh’ bond.

               By the way, I think the only thing I disagree with Derek Prince on is about the divorce and remarriage thing.

               God bless you!

               LikeLike

               May 12, 2023 at 9:25 pm

5. Hi Jamaal, this is a long debate now, and I appreciate your patience in both explaining your point and responding to mine. I’m glad that now the discussion is pretty focused, which can lead to a fruitful result. May the Spirit of truth help us to rightly divide His word.

   –

   1. The definition of porneia

   I’ve looked up the word with its related Greek words, as you suggested, and made a table to make it easier to absorb:

   https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nDpW8TqLO973KbvLtbRBgJWGQFpsFUc3VI0S3kHmVk4/edit?usp=sharing

   Yes, it’s never used specifically only for “adultery,” yet it doesn’t justify excluding “adultery” from the scope of porneia. In fact, it wouldn’t make sense, in most cases, to rule out “adultery” from porneia. For example, Acts 15:20 warns believers against porneia, which is translated as “sexual immorality” in NKJV. Is it just a warning against fornication? Aren’t other forms of immorality included as well? You can check out the document and judge it yourself.

   And I said “in most cases,” because there are indeed Scriptures that listed porneia with moicheia (which specifically means “adultery”), and seem to suggest that porneia doesn’t necessarily include “adultery” in that context. However, what wrong does it make if God wants to put porneia and moicheia together, and still let porneia include adultery? As I said before, does it then suggest false testimony and slander have to exclude one another in meaning when listed alongside? We should not be teaching how the Holy Spirit should write the Bible. And not to say interpreting porneia as excluding adultery is NOT consistent with how this word is used throughout the New Testament.

   As for some Bible translations translating porneia as fornication, after examining how porneia is used in NT, it is fair to conclude this is perhaps not the best translation, for it seems to overlook the fact that porneia includes fornication (yes that’s true), adultery, incest and homosexuality.

   From all these above, I can’t see any rightful reason to rule out adultery from porneia.

   2. The context of Matthew 5:31-32

   Why didn’t Jesus use the word moicheia in Matthew 5:32? The simplest answer is because He wanted to include sexual sins more than just adultery. Any other sexual sin within the scope of porneia is also legitimate ground for divorce. Indeed, under the Mosaic Law adultery, homosexuality, bestiality and incest were all punishable by death. Yet that is under the Mosaic Law, and it is not so in the New Testament, when Jesus said these words in Matthew 5. Remember what Jesus said to the woman caught in adultery in John 8? He said, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.” Is He unjust in not putting the woman to death because of her adultery? Doesn’t this signify God’s forgiveness now extends to those who are punishable by death penalty in the past?

   And also consider 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.”

   It is very clear that under the new covenant established by Jesus, all those who commit sexual sins do not have to be put to death if they repent! God can forgive them and cleanse them completely!

   And since these people can escape death penalty now, wouldn’t it be fair to consider all these situations (adultery, homosexuality, bestiality and incest) in a marriage? Because if a spouse commit these sins, they wouldn’t die automatically and thus end the marriage! That’s why Jesus used the word porneia to include all these as ground for divorce and remarriage.

   3. Your other points:

   (a)”About the innocent wife put away:
   It plainly reads that the remarriage of a wife who has been innocently put away commits adultery. Jesus assumes the innocent woman will marry again. I didn’t say it, Jesus did. If the man initiates the divorce, he forces her into a position in which she may be forced to remarry, thereby becoming an adulteress.

   Correct me if I am wrong, you interpret it to mean if the husband commits sexual immorality, then the innocent wife is free to remarry?

   It seems to me that Jesus was speaking only about the woman committing porneia, rather than the man because Jesus said that one who divorces HIS WIFE, except for sexual immorality (porneia), causes HER to commit adultery. It wouldn’t make much sense to say if the husband committed sexual immorality (porneia) he would be free to divorce his wife and remarry. That would compound his sin.”

   Yes, in the Scripture, since Jesus is talking to males, it is fair to interpret “except sexual immorality” to mean “except the wife commits sexual immorality.” But will you say that if the husband commits sexual immorality, the wife has no ground to seek a divorce? It is the same to say that because Jesus only said to men that it’s a sin to look at a woman with lust, so if it’s a woman looking at a man with lust, it’s not a sin. I don’t think that’s how we read the Scriptures. And thus, no matter who commits sexual immorality, they can seek a legitimate divorce. And since the divorce is legitimate, of course they can remarry without committing adultery in God’s eye.

   (b)”About the guilty wife involved in porneia:
   If an innocent wife who is divorced commits adultery when she remarries, as Jesus stated, then a guilty wife who remarries after divorce is all the more guilty. Right?

   If you argue that the sexual immoral woman is free to remarry, while the innocent woman who has been put away is not, just because the guilty woman already has sinned with porneia, then you can easily say to an innocent woman who is going to be put away to just commit adultery as an allowance to remarry.”

   No matter who commits adultery, a legal ground is provided to the victimized spouse to seek a divorce. Let’s make it clear what the innocent and guilty woman mean here, so that we may be sure what we are discussing.

   ・Innocent woman: neither does she nor her husband commits sexual immorality, yet her husband divorces her

   ・Guilty woman: she commits sexual immorality and her husband decides to put her away

   Remember, the most important thing is not about remarrying or not, but entering the kingdom of God. The innocent woman, not wanting to commit adultery, of course should seek to reconcile with her husband (even though it’s he who wrongly put her away), so as to honor God, since in God’s eye this marriage is not over yet. But if the husband now has relations with another woman, since the marriage is not over yet in God’s sight, he commits adultery. Then the innocent woman does not have to seek to get back to her husband anymore because adultery is the ground to end a marriage. She is free to remarry now.

   So, how can you say to a woman to commit adultery to be able to remarry? Do you think it will be green light for her and that God will bless her next marriage? Then according to this rationale, isn’t it fair to tell her to just kill her husband, if you want to make it all done in one shot? Aren’t we totally losing the point now?

   The guilty woman who commits adultery may repent before or after her husband divorces her. If it’s before, for some reason the husband doesn’t want to give her a second chance, so he divorces her, and indeed he has the right to do so. So now the marriage is legitimately over in God’s sight. Both of them surely have the right to remarry. If it’s after, the woman repents and God gives her the grace to find a new love, since the previous marriage is over in God’s sight already, of course she can remarry.

   So do you still think the guilty woman is gaining something more? NO! Because if she doesn’t repent and still remarry, what’s the point of all this after all? She’s not entering the kingdom of God, even though it’s not wrong for her to remarry.

   “Adultery does not nullify the ‘one-flesh’ relationship of marriage, and both the innocent and guilty spouses are prohibited from remarriage, as stated in Matthew 5:32. How do I know this? Because Jesus said so: And He *said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.”(NASB, Mark 10:11-13). Luke 16:18 (NASB) reads similarly: “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.””

   Adultery DOES nullify the ‘one-flesh’ relationship of marriage. The guilty spouse, who has provided ground to end the marriage, is free to remarry if they get divorced. Remarriage hangs on whether the last marriage has truly ended in God’s sight. A divorce on the ground of sexual immorality means this marriage is truly over. There’s no reason for both of them to not remarry if God leads them to do so. And again, you need to consider Matthew along with Mark and Luke. It’s unfair to uphold Mark and Luke and neglect what Matthew has said.

   “I believe only death dissolves the one-flesh union created by God in marriage (1 Corinthians 7:39). The binding union is not dissolved by divorce. Therefore, any remarriage of (or to) a divorced person, prior to the death of the former spouse, is an act of adultery. Jesus taught that Moses only permitted divorce because of the hardness of their hearts (Matt. 5:31-32;32; 19:7-8). But God wants people to focus on His original plan: permanency of marriage.”

   Yes, only death nullifies the marriage–ideally, if man does not harm the covenant by their sin. Yes, Moses permitted divorce because their hearts were hard, and they wanted to divorce their wives not just in cases of sexual immorality. That’s why the disciples thought it was harsh. But if Jesus meant almost no divorce at all, except for fornication in betrothal, then He shouldn’t use the word porneia. And again, you can’t make porneia mean something it’s never specifically referring to and hold fast to it.

   –

   I think this debate is nearly over now since the points we didn’t agree with are pretty clear. Let me know if what I said makes or doesn’t make sense to you and why. God bless you.

   LikeLike

   May 13, 2023 at 11:46 pm Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Enter your comment here...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Email (Address never made public)

Name

Website

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out /  Change )

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

Notify me of new comments via email.

Notify me of new posts via email.

Δ