Comments on: Thoughts on Marriage, Divorce & Remarriage

By: More Christ Like

More Christ Like — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 01:26:11 +0000

Les McFall has an interesting way to deal with the exception clause in Matthew 19:9 that appear to allow for divorce and remarriage for marriage unfaithfulness. He has written a 43 page paper that reviews the changes in the Greek made by Erasmus that effect the way Matthew 19:9 has been translated. I reviewed McFall's paper at Except For Fornication Clause of Matthew 19:9. I would love to hear some feedback on this position.

By: More Christ Like Blog

More Christ Like Blog — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:22:13 +0000

Les McFall has an interested way to deal with the exception clause in Matthew 19:9. He has written a 43 page paper that reviews the changes in the Greek made by Erasmas that effect the way Matthew 19:9 has been translated. I reviewed McFall's paper at Except For Fornication Clause of Matthew 19:9. I would love to hear some feedback on this position.

By: mattsummers

mattsummers — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 19:15:37 +0000

Dear Hillbilly:

There are a number of notable conclusions in the essay such as: (1) divorce is only permitted by God in a few circumstances; (2) divorce can be followed by reconciliation and/or remarriage when an appropriate circumstance permits; and (3) the “unmarried” are permitted to “marry” when faced with the greater evil of “burning with passion.” These may not be your conclusions, but they are conclusions none-the-less. They come clearly and directly from the two passages mentioned.

In regard to the “sexual immorality” issue you mention; the meaning of the word is open for debate and I have yet to draw a conclusion, thus my recommendation and intentional ommission of a definition for “sexual immorality.”

However, in the particular circumstance (whatever it is?), the innocent party may divorce and remarry without being guilty of adultery. Thus, marriage after divorce is permitted by Jesus. If only in this circumstance, it is permitted by Jesus. To draw any other conclusion is to convolute the issue, do violence to the text, and ignore the clear statement of Jesus.

–Gospel According to Matt

By: Hillbilly Theologian

Hillbilly Theologian — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 22:12:40 +0000

Well, this is a Biblical study with no conclusion. What does the Bible say? You said, “My intent is not to define my view so much as the biblical view as it pertains to these two proof texts.” You know the conclusion I’ve held, but I have also relinquished that divorce takes the place of stoning due to Israel not be self-governed? Yet, remarriage is the real issue to be untangled. Even adultery is to be forgiven the repentant violator. Who forgives the penitent one? The offended mate and anyone else who has been offended.

My question to you, does Matthew 5:31-32 & 19:8-9 relate to Deuteronomy 22:13-21? If so, the sin is fornication (primarily, pre-marital sex) and not adultery (sexual infidelity with in the marriage). Now this will change the line of reasoning to a person’s theology if they understand this point. Both Matthew passages use porneia for the transgression and moichao to reveal the transgression of remarriage. No study is complete without dealing with this thought.

Hillbilly