Video

instone brewer and craig keener makes a case that 1cor 7,15 about abandonment by an unbeliever is cause for remarriage because it says "not under bondage" , and this is a similar rethoric used in the divorce certificate .... Except we see in galatians for instance that Paul often uses the term in bondage and not in bondage in broadest most mondane way , not specific to marriage at all And Keener / instobe brewer also ordaines women and so on , just goes to show their liberal theology

The Latin Vulgate has the exception clause and it was written around 394 I believe.

All 5 points are only half right.

💯

Hey brother, thank you for studying this , id call myself a marriage stander myself As i understand it , even if the term used in 1Cor15 isnt exactly the same , i think the idea is , throughout the whole bible the terms used for marriage and divorce is being bound / set free , so maybe if the term isnt exactly the same, the idea seems to be But i have a shallow understanding of this as of now, so if anybody reads this then dont base your eternal life on it please😂 BUT , Jesus says "if you marry a divorced you commit adultery" So in childishly simple way tgat means ANY divorced , and if you redefine to mean only a christian divorced , you sort of take freedoms for yourself that isnt necessarily given.

Is this still avilable sir ? Im from philipines how can i order it

Churches you may want to avoid? Any church where they wear a collar... Any church where they adorn themselves extravagant robes signifying anything but mere mortality. Any churches where the moral equivocation play of equality is taught in the pulpit... I was supposed to start their

A pastor will not tell a woman or man that a second marriage is adulterous. Especially viddie bauchman

I dont think any church or person gets it right. You never really drew any conclusions

Jesus used the word Porneia in the exception clause. He did not use the word adultery/moichao. Porneia (fornication) is a term that refers to the unmarried. In Matthew 1:19 and John 8:41, porneia describes a betrothal situation where a couple had not yet entered into a covenant marriage. Jesus had just established in 19:4-6 that a covenant marriage is for life (v. 6 “let no man put asunder”). By using the word porneia, He excuses ONLY a betrothal situation in which one could “put away” their espoused/betrothed. This is the ONLY putting away that did not break the marriage covenant with God, whereby, no one was “putting asunder what God had joined together” (19:4,6,8). Matthew was writing to a Jewish audience who was still living under the Jewish/Mosaic practice of betrothal. Mark and Luke were writing to Gentiles, who did not follow the Jewish/Mosaic practice of betrothal. And Paul was writing to Christians who also did not follow the Jewish/Mosaic practice of betrothal, therefore the exception clause was not in Mark, Luke, Corinthians or Romans. The exception clause is only addressing putting away, not remarriage. Remarriage is never permitted, except if your covenant spouse is deceased, 1 Corinthians 7:39. Only death breaks the marriage covenant. 1 Corinthians 7:39. God hates divorce. Therefore, he does not permit it for covenant marriages. 19:4-6,8-9, 5;32; Luke 16:18; Mark 20:1-12. Paul forbade divorce as well. Only separation or reconciliation are the options for Christians, 1 Corinthians 7:10-11.

From what Ive been studying for 5 months this perspective is backwards and unbiblical. In stone brewer doesn’t believe marriage is a covenant but a contract.

Anybody can make logical deductions from the things they suppose to be true. But the fact is if you look to the biblical precedents to which Jesus refers (when He spoke to this issue) you will see that divorce and remarriage were effective events that changed marital status from one spouse to another. After the fact one was bound to their present spouse and not their former. The fact that ending a marriage causes those who remarry to commit an act of adultery didn't change those realities. That's not what Sharon Henry teaches. She adds false suppositions to God's Word. Blessings

Most of this reasoning here has the fatal flaw of not acknowledging when the fornication happened. If the gal is abandoned by her seducer before betrothal, and her family betroths her, and then in the betrothal, say three or four months, her pregnancy shows. Fornication within the betrothal period is judged like adultery including the penalty of death. Joseph, in putting Mary away quietly instead of seeking the father of the baby, would have needed a writ of divorcement in order to do so. No one is expecting today to put people to death for the Torah's capital crimes. It still has to be acknowledged by believers that certain transgressions are deserving of death (Rom 1:32), albeit such punishment will, and should not, be carried out. But if you go through the Deut 22 scenarios, there are two situations where the woman ISN'T put to death. 1)The gal,betrothed, who is raped in the country, because her cry for help isn't heard (if she's raped in the city,and doesn't cry for help,capital punishment ensues. 2)When a gal,unbetrothed,lies carnally with a man, and then is commanded to marry that man. The writer of this document believes that Deut 22:28 refers to rape, just like 22:25 refers to rape (chazaq). They are two different hebrew words. Deut 22:29, the word is tapas, meaning to sieze. But it is the same word used in Gen. 39:12 when the wife of Joseph's master tried to sieze him. Did she rape him? No, it was pressured but consensual. All Joseph had to do was run. Deut 22:29 has been mistranslated by the likes of the NIV and others. (Check out the points between 20 and 21 - timestamp 38:55. timestamp 41:30 - Where does God require her death, except to the point of the marriage bed? (Believe me, he is not taking the viewpoint of the betrothal camp!) 44:28 - porneia has been used for different things in both the Old and New Testaments. Yes, the betrothal view believes Jesus is speaking of a specific situation here, addressed in the law, and it is pre marital sex. Period. The fornication or adultery argument is a red herring. The problem with the umbrella term idea is it shows how porneia does reference capital transgressions in which would make needing a writ of divorcement moot. A widow/widower doesn't need to be divorced. Has Jesus ever referred to porneia as an umbrella statement? Yes, and it is in Matt. 15:19 where He mentions what comes out of our mouth as fornications. Those can be punishable by death when our mouth causes our flesh to sin. Why take the betrothal view? I find those who say they can divorce their non covenant adulterous union can now look for a non married or widow/widower problematic to the nth degree. This writer believes in marriage permanence. So do I. With the betrothal idea, it shows that there is no reason for us gentiles to consider the exception in order to divorce. If a wife tells her husband she is pregnant by another man while driving to the hotel after the marriage ceremony, especially after they were under the assumption they were both virgins and saving it for their union, would that husband have grounds for divorce (or annullment)?

The divorce and remarriage for adultery doctrine is based solely on the supposed guilt of the wife in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. However, the wife, in the above scriptures, is clearly not guilty of fornication because the Jews (that Jesus was speaking to) were still living under the law, and if fornication was discovered, there was a moral obligation to report the offender according to Deuteronomy 22:13-24. The wife, who would have been found guilty of fornication, was subsequently stoned to death, according to the law, which had still governed the Jews up until Christ's death on the cross. The same for a woman caught in adultery, according to Leviticus 20:10. How could a wife, guilty of fornication, or adultery, under the law of Moses, be given a writing of divorcement and be caused to commit adultery with whosoever marries her, that is divorced? Jesus is clear, in these examples, that the wife is not guilty of fornication, but is still caused to commit adultery if she marries another man now that she is divorced. This is the only way that Matthew 5:31-32, and Matthew 19:9 keep harmony with Romans 7:2-3, and 1 Corinthians 7:39. Unlike the synoptic gospels of Mark and Luke, which were written to evangelize the Gentiles, Matthew was written to the Jews, and has of 24 characteristics that identify it as intended for the house of Israel. The ancient Jews called the betrothed (engaged) "husband" and "wife" according to Deuteronomy 22:23-24, Matthew 1:18-25, and Luke 2:5-7. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (Moses's precept of divorce and remarriage) was never for fornication or adultery. Allowing those guilty of fornication and adultery to remain living and become a prospect for remarriage was against the law of Moses in Deuteronomy 22:13-24 and Leviticus 20:10, which commanded that those who were found guilty of fornication and adultery be put away from Israel, and stoned to death. The law of Moses was not given to the world, only to the Jews. From the exodus, to Christ's death on the cross, the law of Moses governed the Jewish people. Christ's death on the cross caused the Jews to become dead to the law of Moses, so they could be joined to Christ under a New Covenant. This is what Jesus's fulfillment of the law of Moses, including Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (Moses's precept of divorce and remarriage), means. Paul gave several warnings to Christian believers against keeping the ordinances of law of Moses as justification, over following Christ and his commands under the New Covenant with Christ. Keeping the ordinances of the law is no longer possible, for Israel, and that is why Christ prophesied that the temple would be destroyed. These scriptures make it clear that if you choose the law over Christ, that you must keep the whole law: Romans 7:4, Galatians 3:1-9, Galatians 3:10-29, Galatians 4:1-7, Galatians 4:21-31, and Galatians 5:1-15. Being unequally yoked to unbelievers is not a cause for divorce, once two become one-flesh in a covenant of marriage, according to 1 Corinthians 7:12-14. Many one-flesh covenant marriages between unbelievers are recognized by God in the scriptures, most notably the marriage covenants between Herodias and King Herod's brother Philip, Potiphar and his wife, Ahab and Jezebel, and Ruth to her deceased husband Mahlon by Boaz when he took her to be his wife. Some are teaching that 1 Corinthians 7:15 implies that those who are abandoned, by an unbelieving spouse, are "no longer bound" in a one-flesh covenant of marriage. The reason this is in conflict is due to the way some translations word it, which gives it an entirely different meaning, and context. 1 Corinthians 7:15, says, "But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace." As you can see, the actual scripture says "not enslaved" which means that the husband or wife is not enslaved to sin with the unbelieving spouse, and is free to worship Christ in peace. Subsequent translations have changed the words to imply that they nullify the marriage covenant, which is not at all the case. The issue that this creates is with 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, which says, "10To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife." As you can see, those who claim 1 Corinthians 7:15 shows the Apostle Paul giving those who are abandoned permission to remarry, do not understand the command that Christ gives is to an abandoned husband, in 1 Corinthians 7:11, and that he "must not divorce" his wife, and his wife is commanded to "remain unmarried or else be reconciled" to her husband. The theory that 1 Corinthians 7:15 nullifies two as being one-flesh, due to one's unbelief, puts the Apostle Paul directly at odds with Christ, and himself, by implying that Paul has issued an opposing command to verses 10-14 in verse 15. Some also teach that 1 Corinthians 7:27-28 is referring to both divorced men and virgin women, and not exclusively to men and women (virgins) who have never been married. This has been falsely taught for some time in churches as referring to anyone who is not currently in a marriage, which, for them, also includes those who are divorced. This is a very false assumption, and puts these verses in a different context, that is at odds with both the teachings of Christ and the apostle Paul. We see Paul refer to virgins, which signifies the unmarried who have never before been wed, which is the proper context here. We see Paul saying clearly that it is good for virgins, which is also speaking to never before wed men here, "that it is good for a man so to be." He goes on to say, "Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife." Who is he referring to here? Men who, like himself, have never married. The word "bound", in these verses, is a clear reference to betrothal (engagement) and not to a one-flesh covenant of marriage. The ancient Jews were considered bound as husband and wife during the betrothal (espousal/engagement) before becoming one-flesh in a covenant of marriage, through consummation. This is affirmed by the context of the term "bound" seen in Numbers 30:14-16. The Jewish couples in ancient Israel, who were betrothed (engaged) were also bound together until death, either by execution for fornication, or by other causes. Then Paul says, "But and if thou marry, thou has not sinned", which is who? The men who had never married in the congregation at Corinth. So he begins with verses 25-26 speaking exclusively to men that have never married. Paul then says, "and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned", which is speaking directly in regard to virgin women who have never been married, within the congregation, not divorced women. Notice that verse 34 says, "There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband." Paul speaks plainly when he says "there is a difference between a wife and a virgin." Paul goes on to say, "But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry." This is speaking of a virgin who has become of age to bear children when it says, "let them marry." This is a clear command, to a single man, who has taken a virgin to be his wife. Paul then says, "Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well." This is referring again to the single man who decides it is better not to marry, but to stay betrothed (engaged), under the present distress, by saying that he "hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin." Paul then says, "So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better", which again means single men, in the congregation, who have betrothed a wife, do well if they marry, and those who choose not to marry their virgin brides do better, under the current climate. For more proper context of the word "bound", let's look further down in this chapter to verse 39, which says, "39The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord" (1 Corinthians 7:39). For so long, these scriptures, between verses 25-38, have been twisted and used to enable divorce and remarriage, by wayward churches and teachers, and have caused many to stumble and to be trapped in unscriptural unions. The use of the woman at the well, in regard to marriage, falsely implies that Christ was endorsing remarriage after a divorce. This teaching is in defiance of Matthew 22:23-28, which shows a woman who had been widowed seven times, and entered into each subsequent marriage without any scriptural conflicts with God's law of marriage (one-flesh covenant) seen in Genesis 2:23-24. Mark 10:1-12 and Matthew 19:1-12 both record Christ's teaching that day beyond the Jordan. There is no mention of the words "fornication", "writing of divorcement", or "divorced" in Mark's Gospel because Mark was not written to the Jews (as Matthew's Gospel was), but to evangelize the Romans, and likewise Luke to evangelize the Greeks, who had no knowledge of the law of Moses in Deuteronomy 22 or Deuteronomy 24. All of these facts draw a clear understanding that remarriage after a divorce, under the New Covenant with Christ, is a scripturally false and baseless teaching. Please use wisdom when living in any situation against what the scriptures command.

"Putting away" does not mean "divorce". Between what Yeshua said and what came to us, there's a whole chasm. in the original Hebrew and Aramaic verbiage, there was no latin or Greek scripture yet. When Paul said all scripture is God's breathed, the New Testament wasn't even written until about 70 to 100 years later. It's time to release those that western theology have kept in bondage. Once a women has a legal certificate of divorce, she's free. Period.

The Erasmus argument denies inerrancy.

Please read Exodus 22:16. Fornication is when a woman marries a man who didn't take her virginity. Thank you!

God has already judged this topic.

They will sometims say permanance of marriage. But then if youre in a second marriage its ok

I dont have fb, how can I still get the download??

10:15 Fornication is not a continuous ground for divorce, but only valid during the engagement or, if not discovered before, on the wedding night. Once you know that your intended spouse has fornicated with someone else, and you do not divorce him/her, you forfeit that and all past instances of fornication as a ground for divorce or ending the engagement.

Grace to you Brian I was reading (in one of the threads) where Tim was employing you to differentiate between what Jesus actually said from Permanence suppositions of His teaching on divorce. In your commentary you don't seem to do that. I left the following reply to Philip Buckley when he ask me, "what is adultery..... " That's a great question and answering it correctly leads to a proper understanding of Jesus' teaching on divorce. I thought it might be helpful if you realized that there is different ways of committing adultery so THAT you would stop associating the adultery of Jesus' teaching on divorce with the adultery that was punished (as Permanence Teachers do). Once you differentiate between "unfaithfulness while married" from the inadvertent adultery of the divorce concession, you can at lease start explaining the reason Christians like me and Tim don't follow the conclusions of Permanence Teachers who conflate the two as one and the same (as I understand you to do). Here's my response to Philip's question to me. I hope it help's you to see that Jesus' teaching on divorce did NOT claim that those who experience it are "still married to their first spouse" (as claimed by Permanence). Nor did Jesus teach that those remarried are not really married to their present spouse (as Permanence claims). Philip ask me, "what is adultery...." I responded with Adultery occurs as the consequence of violating the one-flesh with one person for life principle of God's creative design in the origin (Matthew 19:4-6, 8b). "adultery" occurs in several ways (other than being unfaithful while married) as Jesus revealed in the sermon on the mount (Matthew 5:28, 32). * verse 28 is adultery of the heart through lust. If a man lust for a woman he violates (in principle) the exclusivity of sex with one's spouse only. Not to be confused with the physical act itself. * verse 32 is the inadvertent adultery that ensued because divorce was conceded (within context) of a woman remarried after her former husband divorced her. Within this CONTEXT the former husband is culpable for the adultery his former wife is caused to commit. Jesus' teaching here (about the former husband's culpability) wouldn't be true if remarriage was prohibited for the divorced woman (as some FALSELY conclude). Try to understand Jesus' teaching within CONTEXT Philip. Then you will realize that the woman was caused to transgress the one-flesh principle BECAUSE she was lawfully allowed to remarry. She was NOT still married to her former husband (as you interpret) and she was NOT stoned because she was lawfully released with the right of remarriage. While Jesus revealed that divorce was NOT inconsequential (as many thought), He did NOT prohibit remarriage nor "repeal", "revoke", "annul", or "abrogate" the divorce concession. He merely revealed that if one ends a marriage prematurely (where remarriage is allowed), it will cause both parties to transgress the one-flesh principle of God's creative design. Try following the biblical facts chronologically Philip and you will interpret "divorce" and "marries another" (as spoken by Jesus) as actual events that changed marital status. Try believing that this way of committing adultery occurs the way Jesus describes instead of SUPPOSING that there wasn't an actual divorce and second marriage (as you claim). Blessings

Is this channel for standers, or for those who follow the doctrine of allowing marriage after divorce?

All arguments against marriage permanence come from selfish pride that wants to do what they want to do. They'll use any argument to justify their sin.

Ron Brown was way ahead of everyone on this.

The "ei" (if) in the Greek does not change the meaning of "not for." It is used to show in English that the "not for" is a conditional statement. "Not for fornication" is given by Christ to exclude the consequence of the ladder part of the statement when the putting away was for reason of fornication. When that condition - fornication (adultery, homosexuality, bestiality) exists, the consequences defined in the ladder part of the verse are not valid. If the reason is other than fornication, then the consequences listed are valid. This is all! Paulson is ignorant to true Biblical marriage, as is the rest of Christendom. They are confused and conflicted, because primarily of these three reasons: 1. They don't accurately perceive and define Biblical marriage. 2. Other wrong Biblical doctrines they embrace. 3. They intermix secular marital concepts with Scripture, which convolutes, conflicts, and contradicts Scripture. Until they understand and accept true Biblical marriage, their conclusions and policies will never have Biblical clarity or accuracy of a marriage by God and the consequences that violate it. They will never understand "Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that commits fornication, sinneth against his own body" (1Corinthians 6:18). For example. They say that there is no justified reason for divorce. Well, if this was the case, why was the "not for fornication" even mentioned in the Greek text. There wouldn't be a "not for" included in the text, which they know and admit is there. Jesus was addressing the "put away for any reason" question. If there were no reason that was valid, then Christ would have said it in the same manner, as He did in Mark 10 and Luke 16. Remove the "not for" and it is the same, because when fornication is not the applicable, then one would say it, as in Mark and Luke. Very simple, but not with them. Will they listen to the truth? No! They don't like it and don't want it.

Are you familiar with Pastor Raymond McMahon & his book? He has done a lot of research on the topic of Covenant Marriage. His church is located in Windsor CT & he streams his radio teachings, and Sunday Services here on youtube as well as facebook

As a 38 year old man never been married or been in a relationship I’ll say. That’ll be rough being married once knowing you can’t get married again. Though you we’re faithful to your spouse they though the grass was greener on the other side leaving you for somebody else.

Grace to you Brothers and Sisters in Christ In Jesus' teaching on divorce He was simply explaining to His covenant people that allowing their marriages to end before death causes an inadvertent consequence of adultery. After the biblical divorce concession (Jesus mentions) there was an unintentional unfaithfulness that followed because the first marriage was not sustained. Jesus is explaining the paradox of conceding divorce. Terminating a marriage causes one to commit adultery against their former spouse when remarried (Mark 10:11) because marriage itself sets forth the obligation of being one-flesh with one person for life (Matthew 19:4-6). It's really that simple. In CONTEXT to Jesus teaching He is explaining something to Israel about divorce they had failed to perceive. Allowing marriages to end before death where remarriage was permitted under the law (Deuteronomy 24:2) does not maintain the sexual exclusivity of the relationship ordained for marriage in the origin (Matthew 19:4-6, 8b). There is an inadvertent transgression of fidelity for life caused by the process. Jesus states, "Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so" (Matthew 19:8). "it" refers to divorce, there was no divorce in "the beginning". There was a permanent marriage. Jesus is contrasting divorce conceded over against God's lifelong design for marriage, understand? The simple point Jesus made was that divorce in the origin did not exist, thus marriages did not come to a premature end. This paradigm sustains the exclusivity of sexual intimacy to each the other for life. Hundreds of years later divorce was conceded under the law, causing the catch 22 Christians now grapple with. So while divorce is real in God's Word it is also in conflict with the original lifelong intention for marriage. That's why God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16) because it puts asunder what God has joined together (Matthew 19:6). So in principle, if in God's design for marriage husband and wife are to be sexually exclusive to each the other for life, what occurs when the first marriage ends prematurely and another marriage is lawfully allowed? Is sexual exclusivity maintained or transgressed? Well the answer to that question is that the one-flesh with one person for life principle is unintentionally transgressed. Thus causing the inadvertent adultery Jesus described. This way of committing adultery was not punished BECAUSE it was not intentional. Jesus is merely making a counter argument against divorce for those who wanted to know all the reasons the law allowed for it (Matthew 19:3). The key to understanding Jesus' teaching on divorce is in understanding that He did NOT actually answer the Pharisees question. Rather (as common for Jesus) He circumvented their question and choose instead to reveal the consequence that ensued. There is no win win in divorce. We as Christians must accept that fact. All the women who were repudiated by their husbands throughout the time period to which Jesus refers were caused to commit adultery when they remarried (Matthew 5:32). Fortunately Jesus also reveals (in that text) that the husband (who divorced his wife) was culpable for causing her to commit adultery this way. While this way of committing adultery happens when remarried it is multi-factor caused, the primal factor Jesus focused on was divorce. Divorce sets it in motion by the husband releasing his wife with the right of remarriage (Deuteronomy 24:2). Remarriage was lawfully allowed after divorce was conceded, ironically divorce conceded and remarriage graciously allowed cannot yield fidelity for life as God designed marriage to be. We MUST accept this dilemma while NOT creating a new narrative for understanding Jesus' teaching by focusing on the next marriage as the cause (instead of the divorce like Jesus did). The "new narrative" has a number of false suppositions added to Jesus' teaching. One theory claims that Jesus "abrogated" the law of Moses. Supposedly Jesus ended divorce and prohibited remarriage and now equates remarriage as the adultery. You might notice this in their refrain "remarriage is adultery". A common but false misnomer. Their position (unlike Jesus') becomes an attack on marriage after divorce. Jesus' teaching on the other hand was NOT an attack on remarriage, rather it's very purpose was to reveal that divorce is the primal factor to this way of committing adultery. Thus the importance of sustaining one's marriage. The underlining thought to Jesus' teaching is this. Terminating a marriage before death (where remarriage was allowed) transfers the obligations of intimacy to the present marriage which then (inadvertently) violates the one-flesh obligation set forth by the first (Matthew 19:4-6, 8b). Jesus is explaining from Israel's history that when one marriage ends and another constituted, sexual exclusivity is transgressed in the process. Thus the inadvertent adultery. It really is that simple, minus all the false suppositions added to Jesus' teaching by those who exchange His point of emphasis from divorce to remarriage. The new narrative eliminates divorce and remarriage as effective events for the adherent. Creating the illusion that those remarried after divorce are "still married to their first spouse in God's eyes". Thus generating fear that one's present spouse is not their actual spouse "in God's eyes". Christians MUST not follow an exaggerated view based in false suppositions where fear becomes the prime motivator and NOT TRUTH. Blessings

Grace to you Brothers and Sisters in Christ In Jesus' teaching on divorce He was simply explaining to His covenant people that allowing their marriages to end before death causes an inadvertent consequence of adultery. After the biblical divorce concession (Jesus mentions) there was an unintentional unfaithfulness that followed because the first marriage was not sustained. Jesus is explaining the paradox of conceding divorce. Terminating a marriage causes one to commit adultery against their former spouse when remarried (Mark 10:11) because marriage itself sets forth the obligation of being one-flesh with one person for life (Matthew 19:4-6). It's really that simple. In CONTEXT to Jesus teaching He is explaining something to Israel about divorce they had failed to perceive. Allowing marriages to end before death where remarriage was permitted under the law (Deuteronomy 24:2) does not maintain the sexual exclusivity of the relationship ordained for marriage in the origin (Matthew 19:4-6, 8b). There is an inadvertent transgression of fidelity for life caused by the process. Jesus states, "Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so" (Matthew 19:8). "it" refers to divorce, there was no divorce in "the beginning". There was a permanent marriage. Jesus is contrasting divorce conceded over against God's lifelong design for marriage, understand? The simple point Jesus made was that divorce in the origin did not exist, thus marriages did not come to a premature end. This paradigm sustains the exclusivity of sexual intimacy to each the other for life. Hundreds of years later divorce was conceded under the law, causing the catch 22 Christians now grapple with. So while divorce is real in God's Word it is also in conflict with the original lifelong intention for marriage. That's why God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16) because it puts asunder what God has joined together (Matthew 19:6). So in principle, if in God's design for marriage husband and wife are to be sexually exclusive to each the other for life, what occurs when the first marriage ends prematurely and another marriage is lawfully allowed? Is sexual exclusivity maintained or transgressed? Well the answer to that question is that the one-flesh with one person for life principle is unintentionally transgressed. Thus causing the inadvertent adultery Jesus described. This way of committing adultery was not punished BECAUSE it was not intentional. Jesus is merely making a counter argument against divorce for those who wanted to know all the reasons the law allowed for it (Matthew 19:3). The key to understanding Jesus' teaching on divorce is in understanding that He did NOT actually answer the Pharisees question. Rather (as common for Jesus) He circumvented their question and choose instead to reveal the consequence that ensued. There is no win win in divorce. We as Christians must accept that fact. All the women who were repudiated by their husbands throughout the time period to which Jesus refers were caused to commit adultery when they remarried (Matthew 5:32). Fortunately Jesus also reveals (in that text) that the husband (who divorced his wife) was culpable for causing her to commit adultery this way. While this way of committing adultery happens when remarried it is multi-factor caused, the primal factor Jesus focused on was divorce. Divorce sets it in motion by the husband releasing his wife with the right of remarriage (Deuteronomy 24:2). Remarriage was lawfully allowed after divorce was conceded, ironically divorce conceded and remarriage graciously allowed cannot yield fidelity for life as God designed marriage to be. We MUST accept this dilemma while NOT creating a new narrative for understanding Jesus' teaching by focusing on the next marriage as the cause (instead of the divorce like Jesus did). The "new narrative" has a number of false suppositions added to Jesus' teaching. One theory claims that Jesus "abrogated" the law of Moses. Supposedly Jesus ended divorce and prohibited remarriage and now equates remarriage as the adultery. You might notice this in their refrain "remarriage is adultery". A common but false misnomer. Their position (unlike Jesus') becomes an attack on marriage after divorce. Jesus' teaching on the other hand was NOT an attack on remarriage, rather it's very purpose was to reveal that divorce is the primal factor to this way of committing adultery. Thus the importance of sustaining one's marriage. The underlining thought to Jesus' teaching is this. Terminating a marriage before death (where remarriage was allowed) transfers the obligations of intimacy to the present marriage which then (inadvertently) violates the one-flesh obligation set forth by the first (Matthew 19:4-6, 8b). Jesus is explaining from Israel's history that when one marriage ends and another constituted, sexual exclusivity is transgressed in the process. Thus the inadvertent adultery. It really is that simple, minus all the false suppositions added to Jesus' teaching by those who exchange His point of emphasis from divorce to remarriage. The new narrative eliminates divorce and remarriage as effective events for the adherent. Creating the illusion that those remarried after divorce are "still married to their first spouse in God's eyes". Thus generating fear that one's present spouse is not their actual spouse "in God's eyes". Christians MUST not follow an exaggerated view based in false suppositions where fear becomes the prime motivator and NOT TRUTH. Blessings

People just watch David Pawsons video cut out this guys review. he misinterprets Davids videos and teaching.. you can't tell which side of the fence he's on.. if he wants to contridict Pawson you should use scripture.. only death breaks the covenant marriage.. John the Baptist wasn't wishy washy he was clear and got imprisoned and killed for it.. he told herrod it's unlawful for you to have your brother phillips wife for he had married her.. Luke 16:18 mark 10:10-11 romans 7:1-3

Grace to you Brian After several decades of coming to an understanding of the different views on this issue, it really does boil down to the suppositional premise a specific view starts from. Particularly in how Christians start with their perception of divorce, especially when interpreting Jesus' teaching on this matter. For instance, if divorce is the premature termination of marriage, Christians will understand Jesus' teaching differently than those who perceive divorce as still married "in God's eyes". Those are opposite meanings for interpreting divorce. In one view divorce is effective in the other it's ineffective. Thus divorce, particularly within Jesus' teaching on the matter is perceived from opposite realities. The logic and reasoning (in interpreting Jesus) will either look to the biblical history to which He refers, or it will create a different paradigm that's discards biblical precedents. Christians opinion and ensuing counsel about how and why adultery ensues from Jesus teaching will be derive from one or the other perceptions of reality. From one view you have adultery ensuing from a terminated marriage (option 1). From the other you have adultery ensuing from a marriage that divorce fail to end (option 2). So why the opposite perceptions of divorce? A lot of Christians believe option 2 because they presume that option 1 can't be true. The reason Christians presume option 1 can't be true is simply because they start from the belief that adultery only occurs as "unfaithfulness while married". Because option 1 doesn't fit that definition their mind defaults to the belief that the divorce must somehow be illegitimate. If it was legitimate according to this line of reasoning, adultery wouldn't result. An actual divorce would "prevent" adultery from occurring because there would be no "unfaithfulness while married". Thus the circular reasoning of the Permanence camp. This position produces the most strict and far reaching consequences for those divorced and/or remarried. Why? Because their counsel to them is based in the opposite reality of divorce and remarriage being effective. From Permanence perception the individuals are told and made to believe that they aren't actually married to their present spouse "in God's eyes" and not actually divorce from the former spouse "in God's eyes". If this is true then their counsel (for those "supposedly" remarried) to divorce their present spouse and return to their first spouse is correct. Christians should be able to determine that if divorce and remarriage is ineffective, then the most extreme position on this issue is interpreting Jesus correctly. Question, can the Permanence View be true if Jesus was speaking about divorce and remarriage as EFFECTIVE events? The answer should be obvious. If option 1 is correct and "divorce" and "marries another" (as spoken by Jesus) are effective events then the Permanence view has greatly exaggerated Jesus' teaching, causing sin instead of remedying it. If divorce and remarriage are effective events in God's Word then we actually have one spouse supplanting another. We actually have individuals married and obligated to their present spouse and not their former. We can certainly argue if divorce or remarriage should have occurred within various situations, but not that they didn't occur. We then have an interpretation of Jesus and the writings of Moses (to which He referred) understood congruous, not in conflict as the Permanence view paradigm concludes. In closing I should note that not all Permanence Pastors are as extreme as others, but Christians could clear up a lot of the confusion created by Permanence by realizing that Jesus didn't claim marriages can't end before death. He merely revealed what would transpire if it did. Blessings

Who cares about Erasmus? He was a good man, that put his pants one leg at a time, like everybody else. The innocent party had the exception, in Jesus' day, and still does today. Adultery meant being stoned to death. Why is remarriage adultery, and must be forsaken by divorce (which may be true in some cases) to "marriage permanence" folks, but adultery after marriage is okay with them? It makes no sense whatsoever. IF THE BETROTHAL DOCTRINE DOES NOT FIT, YOU MUST ACQUIT. Why? Let me explain. Of course, you are quoting the King James Version of the Bible, for the use of the word "fornication." The New King James version is a better translation, which uses the word "immorality," instead, of "fornication". Jesus never spoke English upon the earth, neither did his disciples. The King James Version was translated more than one thousand five hundred years AFTER THE BIBLE (original text) was written. The original text (I hope that we agree) was divinely inspired. If there is a disagreement on a particular word, we MUST look at the original text for truth. The original text is divinely inspired. King James, the translator, was a worldly king, living in sin, not a Christian, who commissioned a bunch of worldly scholars, who were educated in their day, but none ever received the Holy Ghost, to translate the original text. Generally, KJV is a good and an accurate translation, and I love it and use it on occasion, but "fornication" was not used in the original text, which was πορνεία porneía, (pronounced por-ni'-ah) which means "porn." In Jesus' day, "porn" meant "immorality." "Immorality" covers both single and married unlawful sex, which defiles any marriage, and makes it unclean in the sight of God. God expects marriage to be holy amongst believers, not adultery. “Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy, saith the Lord.” 1 Peter 1:16 Think about this, to say that the betrothal must be holy, but the marriage need not be, simply does not make any sense. If "betrothal does not fit, you must acquit." Blessings to you, sister. This is why Jesus gave us the two great exceptions found in Matthew. Excluding exceptions given by Jesus to guard against adultery are a license to commit adultery, because it eliminates recourse against the adulterer.

Why does God still consider Isreal his wife even after he wrote a certificate of divorce from an Adulterous ɓride. Loke the book of Hosea?

I wonder why the church ( in England) only started to follow Erasmus's teaching in Matthew 19 v 9 in the last 50 years or so? I mean for the hundreds of years earlier remarriage after divorce was not accepted by the church of England.Maybe the theologians of those bygone years were aware of the error?

Hogwash. Standing strong for marriages with adultery would not have been tolerated in Bible days, when adultery carried the death penalty by stoning.

Jesus was talking to Jews who understood the law. We teach Jesus changed the law ignoring Jesus’ own statement in Matthew 5:17-19. #1 every Jewish marriage had a “divorce agreement” required by Moses called a ketubah. It promised what the woman would receive in compensation if the husband divorced her. She was to be given her ketubah and her dowry. Divorce for adultery wasn’t possible according to the law, it was punishable by death. So the question is what was an adulterous marriage according to the law of Moses. Well women couldn’t remarry without their bill of divorce called a gett Duet 24, Isaiah 50, Jeremiah 3. She would remained a chained woman called agunah until she died. She could only remarry with proof of death by 2 or 3 witnesses or her get. In the case of the witnesses being wrong and the husband being alive, the woman’s second marriage was then viewed as an adulterous marriage because she was still legally married to the first husband. The law required her to then be divorced by her first husband and the second “adulterous” husband but was free to marry. We can see this law enforced in David’s marriage to Michal where Phalti had to release her back to David. In their case Jewish teachings explain Phalti never slept with Michal so as not to break the law. And this allowed her to return to David without him being defiled according to the law, Deut 24:4. Now any children produced in the second marriage was then labeled a bastard and lose their inheritance not being birthed in a legitimate marriage. The men did not require a get because of the law of polygamy so they were just abandoning their wives and remarrying. Look up agunah, gett refuser or gett refusal. It was a major problem in Jesus time as well as today because of the loop hole in the law. This is what Jesus was addressing in those passages on adultery. All the disciples were married, they had divorce agreements with their wives. Jesus said you can’t “put your wife away” apolyo and marry another woman, you must give her a get first and pay her her ketubah and dowry. Lusting after a woman being adultery was Jesus teaching the law of Moses, “thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife.” Jesus was talking to Jews who knew the law.

Hi. I am in the "divorce to repent" camp because it's proof of "godly sorrow that produces repentance that leads to salvation" in 2 Corinthians 7:10-11 and Proverbs 28:13 confess and forsake. I evangelize since 2007, and to tell a gay couple to divorce from their gay marriage is what most Christians would say, and they would tell someone who wants to repent of abortion to stop having abortions, but they won't say to an adulterer to stop committing adultery. God only sees sex after divorce as adultery whether you are having sex with someone after the divorce that you just live with or you got "married." My channel is going to warn people to repent and live blameless/holy because that's what the Bible says right before the verses about the pre-Tribulation rapture- 1 Thessalonians 4:1-8. If someone dies in remarriage adultery, they don't have an eternity in heaven. So we are to warn. Revelation 21:8, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Galatians 5:19-25.

it is frightening that one person, could change something that potentially threatens the salvation, of all of us....

I never understood why most people don’t look for in-depth answers for such a serious subject. Thank you

You need to be stronger in the way you present this.

Thank you for telling the truth on this. The bottom line Jesus did not say you can divorce over adultery. Forgiveness if you are a believer. I communicated with Dr McFall before his death and was very helpful to me. The truth is Christ gave no way out other than death.

I'm tired of getting nowhere but backwards. Everyone keeps saying to move on. But I can't. I can't just stop being in love with her. Why won't God help me? Am I just not worthy?

What about food with special property's from other countrys sweety and is it authorized for civilians

Happy face. Happy face sweety

What about miracle medicine sweety

The article about the guy not getting a job is made up. It's satire comparing the unemployed guy giving advice to the unmarried woman giving relationship advice.

I found out about what Erasmus wrote a few years ago via Dr McFall's in-depth research. Different translations have different word. The NIV for example uses the word adultery but the KJV and Greek Interlinear N.T. says fornication! We should interpret the UNCLEAR passages of scripture in light of the CLEAR ones and the majority clearly states no remarriage after divorce. Mark 10:10,11, Luke 16:18. 1 Corinthians 7:10,11 is talking to Believers. Remain unmarried or be reconciled. Sadly many 'Christians' are getting divorced and remarried - just like the unsaved. God wants us to be Holy .

Ok, you need to clarify that she was not in her second of third marriage. She was in her FIRST marriage and but she was the second wife of her husband. That’s a very important distinction to make!!!!!

A caution to anyone listening to this message; parts of what he says are absolutely incorrect! He's adding his opinion and presenting it as scripture. Beware! Always, always read the scriptures for yourself and don't take anyone's word for what is said, including mine.