The Exception | Matthew 19:9
Vložit
- čas přidán 1. 07. 2023
- ntroduction:
Much attention in Matthew 19 has focused on the 9th verse. The reason for that is because of the presence of what has been referred to as the “exception clause.”
As we noted in our last sermon, Christ’s emphasis in the passage, when it comes to the question of marriage, is not on how to get out of a marriage, but the mandate to maintain marriages.
Christ’s emphasis in the passage, when it comes to the to the question of remarriage, is not on getting remarried, but the fact that adultery occurs when people get remarried after a divorce.
What Jesus emphasized in the passage, is woefully underemphasized in the church.
The church of our time does not emphasize the lifelong permanence of marriage.
The church of our time barely mentions the reality of adultery when remarriage follows an unlawful divorce.
All parties who take the Bible seriously should be able to agree, and must agree, that a remarriage that follows an unlawful divorce results in adultery. And yet, is that really emphasized, and are remarriages carefully examined considering that reality?
Sadly, Christ’s emphasis is not His church’s emphasis.
But, having noted where Jesus placed His emphasis, we do have these words, “except for immorality.”
We find the same exception in Matthew 5.
31 “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
In Matthew 5 and Matthew 19 there is the mention of this exception.
But what does it mean?
The majority view, when it comes to the matter of divorce, usually takes the exception to refer to adultery. Sexual unfaithfulness after two people are married results in the nullification of the marriage covenant and sets the innocent party free to remarry.
Today, I will contend that that is NOT what the exception refers to.
I will contend that once two people are truly married, the exception of verse 9 would no longer apply. And I would suggest to you that what I’m going to present is, at the VERY LEAST, a sound possibility for how one ought to read the text, and the reason why it is often dismissed has more to do with the pain of divorce, and the passions of people, than with what the text says.
NOTE: I want to make clear, again, that what we look at today has more to do with our future than with our past.
It has to do with the past also, in the sense that we see the past accurately and deal with it honestly before the cross of Christ. But in terms of preparation for the future, it is about getting this issue right so that we can guide the next generation on the question of marriage and divorce.
Divorce and remarriage, even when it was sinful by the standard of every conservative interpretation of the texts that deal with the subject, is not the unforgiveable sin.
As with every other sin that Christ has forgiven, we are not called to live under the guilt of what His blood paid for. But as is true with every other sin, nor are we meant to continue in error so that grace might abound. We need to know the truth, we want to know the truth, no matter how much would have to change in light of the truth.
So, ARE THERE GOOD REASONS to read μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ as something different than a reference to adultery after marriage?
And I think the easiest and most helpful way to present my case is to tell you what I believe it refers to and then give you reasons why I believe it.
THE EXCEPTION CLAUSE REFERS TO UNFAITHFULNESS DURING THE BETROTHAL PERIOD
This morning, I will explain why I believe that. Here’s the first reason.
• THE OLD TESTAMENT DID NOT INSTITUTE DIVORCE - IT MANAGED DIVORCE
The Deuteronomy 24 passage makes that clear. The command in those four verses is not about a divorce certificate. The command in those verses forbids remarriage after the divorced woman has married another man.
NAS Deuteronomy 24:1 "When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house, 2 and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man's wife, 3 and if the latter husband turns against her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her to be his wife, 4 then her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance.
There were two practical effects of this allowance.
The first practical effect of what Moses allowed was the curbing of divorce.
May the Lord BLESS this pastor who speaks truth! You’re among the very few who teaches truth.
to the Church, anything goes....just look around.....
Anything goes, yeah, like cheating in a marriage? There are two exception clauses, in Matthew 19:9 and in Matthew chapter five verse 32, and you CANNOT REMOVE THOSE VERSES FROM THE BIBLE. They are there to MAKE CERTAIN THAT MARRAIGES ARE BOTH HOLY AND UNDEFILED. In the Bible days, the penalty for immorality was the death penalty. If the adulterer was stoned to death, the innocent party was not also stoned to death, and would be free to remarry. Adultery is serious business to God, and defiles a marriage. If the adulterer is rewarded for their actions by no penalty for immoral behavior, immoral behavior is encouraged, and accepted as a normal part of a marriage. The unconscionable acceptance of adultery in marriage that is promoted by the permanence doctrine's removal of the exceptions instituted by Jesus Christ Himself are an abomination to God, making a mockery of holiness in marriage by forcing an innocent spouse to "put up with" adultery on the part of a betraying, lying, deceiving, and unfaithful cheating spouse.
@@BennettJonWayne-xw9vi yes my brother there will be no need for divorce if the person is put to death thats the reason why at that time there was no divorce and remarried because u would put to death!!
There is no exception clause to leave a marriage and never was; The original Greek manuscripts have an exclusion NOT an exception; This is an error in translation; Research The Erasmus Error; There is no way out of a marriage except death, that won't bring judgement.
You are a bold faced liar, removing scripture from the Bible. There are two exception clauses, in Matthew 19:9 and in Matthew chapter five verse 32, and you CANNOT REMOVE THOSE VERSES FROM THE BIBLE. They are there to MAKE CERTAIN THAT MARRAIGES ARE BOTH HOLY AND UNDEFILED. In the Bible days, the penalty for immorality was the death penalty. If the adulterer was stoned to death, the innocent party was not also stoned to death, and would be free to remarry. Adultery is serious business to God, and defiles a marriage. If the adulterer is rewarded for their actions by no penalty for immoral behavior, immoral behavior is encouraged, and accepted as a normal part of a marriage. The unconscionable acceptance of adultery in marriage that is promoted by the permanence doctrine's removal of the exceptions instituted by Jesus Christ Himself are an abomination to God, making a mockery of holiness in marriage by forcing an innocent spouse to "put up with" adultery on the part of a betraying, lying, deceiving, and unfaithful cheating spouse.
So you are saying that a righteous judge will judge the world from an unrighteous text that is flawed, has errors, and that we cannot trust the word of God as it is published? Please keep in mind that God will judge us from "the books" according to Revelation 20:12. You are saying that God is unrighteous and flawed, or the Bible as written is untrustworthy, and flawed. The nicest thing that I can say is that is reprobate heresy.
@jamescutter3234 I agree. I have looked into Dr. Leslie McFall's study on Erasmus as well as others. I have done tons of videos on the difference between fornication and adultery and the Scriptures that prove it. Even if the man finds his wife isn't a virgin on the wedding night and divorces her for fornication, there isn't anything in Matthew 5:32 or Matthew 19 that says he can remarry. 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 says the husband is not to divorce his wife and there isn't any exception clause there or in Mark 10:1-12 or Luke 16:14-18. The problem I have with most of these sermons, even this one, is that he says near the end that there is grace for remarriages which is saying that there is grace to continue in adultery. The grace of God calls for repentance, forsaking and ending the 2nd marriage, and then remaining chaste or if there has been repentance on the part of the one flesh spouse, then to reconcile. Marriage is for life.
James, you are correct! Matthew 19:9 and Matthew 5:32 is fornication which refers to the betrothal period as the Pastor states...before marriage...the only time we are permitted to break the engagement! Once married God doesn't recognize divorce, period.
I previously mentioned above that the McFall theory of Erasmus adulterating the scripture has been debunked by scholars mentioning the exceptions in early texts. The exceptions were in the earlier texts 4th century. However, I agree that the scope of the exceptions are very very narrow. Read Matthew 19:9 NKJV one more time please. Five points to consider: (1) WHOEVER DIVORCES HIS WIFE (BTW Jesus would not say "divorce," if divorce was impossible and could not happen. Otherwise, why mention it?) (2) EXCEPT FOR SEXUAL IMMORALITY (just one exception mentioned only here, to escape the adultery penalty of death). (3) AND MARRIES ANOTHER (the exception clearly speaks of remarriage), commits adultery. (4) Therefore, from Matthew 19:9, we find that only a man whose spouse committed sexual immorality can divorce and remarry, and that man can ONLY (repeat ONLY) remarry a single never married lady, or a widow, in the faith to fulfill the exception, because of other scriptures too numerous to mention here. (5) Failure to follow these instructions can result in DEATH from ADULTERY. No one, I repeat, no one, can marry a divorced woman. She is marked for life as forbidden fruit. BEWARE, BEWARE, BEWARE: "...and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.” Matthew 19:9 NKJV
Excellent Bible study on the subject! Thank you. I don't understand what you said very near the end though..."Remarriage without a lawful divorce is adultery". This implies that sometimes a person can remarry after a divorce. I thought your understanding of the Scriptures was that all remarriage after divorce was adultery. Please would you clarify? Thank you
There are two exception clauses, in Matthew 19:9 and in Matthew chapter five verse 32, and you CANNOT REMOVE THOSE VERSES FROM THE BIBLE. They are there to MAKE CERTAIN THAT MARRAIGES ARE BOTH HOLY AND UNDEFILED. In the Bible days, the penalty for immorality was the death penalty. If the adulterer was stoned to death, the innocent party was not also stoned to death, and would be free to remarry. Adultery is serious business to God, and defiles a marriage. If the adulterer is rewarded for their actions by no penalty for immoral behavior, immoral behavior is encouraged, and accepted as a normal part of a marriage. The unconscionable acceptance of adultery in marriage that is promoted by the permanence doctrine's removal of the exceptions instituted by Jesus Christ Himself are an abomination to God, making a mockery of holiness in marriage by forcing an innocent spouse to "put up with" adultery on the part of a betraying, lying, deceiving, and unfaithful cheating spouse.
Thank you for replying. Sadly I can see only a little bit of it . When I press "read more" it doesn't open it up. Instead it just allows me to reply to you.
Great! It opened up now and I could read it.
It was a very good sermon, but you are right that he got some things wrong near the end. I also commented: You were doing great until you said, "We know the mercy of God in remarriages," that is saying you think God gives mercy to remain in adultery!!! No, if you repent of your sins and come to Christ, you must reject the adulterous relationship and forsake it. One flesh is for life, and all remarriage after divorce is ongoing adultery. This is a salvation issue since no fornicator or adulterer has eternal life. To repent is to end your life of adultery and live as a eunuch or reconcile with your covenant spouse. John Piper is also wrong about remaining in the adulterous remarriage. We can't use the grace of God to continue in sin.
Thank you for your comments
except for fornication, as sex, out of the marriage covenant is adultery.....
Phillip, fornication is premarital sex and adultery is sex after marriage. If you do a word search on fornication in the KJV, ASV, JUB etc, there are verses where both are in the same verse, so they are not the same thing. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Galatians 5:19-21, etc.
There are two exception clauses, in Matthew 19:9 and in Matthew chapter five verse 32, and you CANNOT REMOVE THOSE VERSES FROM THE BIBLE. They are there to MAKE CERTAIN THAT MARRAIGES ARE BOTH HOLY AND UNDEFILED. In the Bible days, the penalty for immorality was the death penalty. If the adulterer was stoned to death, the innocent party was not also stoned to death, and would be free to remarry. Adultery is serious business to God, and defiles a marriage. If the adulterer is rewarded for their actions by no penalty for immoral behavior, immoral behavior is encouraged, and accepted as a normal part of a marriage. The unconscionable acceptance of adultery in marriage that is promoted by the permanence doctrine's removal of the exceptions instituted by Jesus Christ Himself are an abomination to God, making a mockery of holiness in marriage by forcing an innocent spouse to "put up with" adultery on the part of a betraying, lying, deceiving, and unfaithful cheating spouse.
Point 6: Yes, it is amazing the ignorance of scholars and preachers not understanding why Matthew, who wrote "with a Jewish audience in mind" is the only one who presented Christ's teaching on divorce with the exception, where the others didn't. It is unbelievable how they can be so ignorant and unobservant.
I will tell you why. In Matt. 5, Jesus is referencing the putting away with the Jewish BOD and its consequences, while presenting a new way under Him without it. In Matt. 19, Jesus is referencing the question by the Jewish Pharisees of "putting away for any cause," which also includes the Jewish BOD. In Mark 10, Jesus is answering a question by His disciples "in the house," after he sparred with the Pharisees. We don't know the content of the question they asked. Do you know what their question consisted of? Don't speculate! It may not and probably didn't have anything to do with the BOD. Remember, he wasn't addressing Jews, according to you. In Luke 16, Jesus was speaking with the Pharisees, but the BOD was not the topic. And what He said, when fornication by one spouse is not present, then there is no exception and the consequence is valid. Matt. 5 and 19 would be the same as Mark and Luke, if fornication is never an issue. Sad indeed of these leaders ignorance.
Nobody disputes that death is the only thing that separates a marriage. A legitimate marriage. However, Romans 7 is not Paul teaching on all the aspects of marriage and divorce. He talks only about a wife who commits adultery (marries another- sexual intimacy) against her living husband, which she is referred to as what? Yes, an adulteress and no longer a wife. Ah ha! He is not referencing divorce or the BOD. So, don't take it out of context. And it is not "lives with another man," as your false revision
says. It says "married to another" (ἀνδρὶ ἑτέρῳ - to man another) man, as is the same in the latter part of the verse (ἀνδρὶ ἑτέρῳ - to man another), which now your revision interprets it "married." You have been lied to. However, even though they lie, they still prove me right - it is involving sexual intimacy, where in their ignorance, they are admitting that is what makes a marriage. There blatant deception is shameful. And you promote it.
No! You are wrong on 1Cor. 7:10. Here you go again, applying wrong ideas in Scripture, because of your ignorance. Paul is not describing a wife leaving her husband and divorcing him. Remember, you said divorcing doesn't separate a marriage. You're contradicting yourself and Paul by saying she is separating the marriage. The separation was her just removing herself from living with her husband. No divorcing. And Paul commanded the husband not to divorce her just because she departed. Paul commanded her to not be sexually intimate with any other (stay unmarried), while in her departed state. You assume it means divorce, based on your failed understanding. Your ignorance of Biblical marriage makes you stupid and contradicting when interpreting Scripture. There was "no exception," because there was no divorce involved.
No, you are wrong. There was no "divorce certificate given" in a betrothal. It only applied to a one flesh married man and woman. There is nothing in Scripture that even alludes to your declaration. You are making that up. According to Jewish betrothal law, if she were to have been sexually intimate with another man, she would have married him and would face being stoned to death for violating the betrothal contract made between her father and her husband under Hebrew law, yet not before God. Remember, betrothals only pertained to virgins marrying and not any other. Joseph was just going to send her away without reporting a violation. He was going to suffer himself to be defrauded (his loss of purchasing her).
Point 1: Right, divorce was not instituted in the O.T. The reason being is because they were stoned to death, if they committed any fornicated act, setting the other free to marry another automatically. They didn't need to divorce. However, you are contradicting yourself in your diatribe, because you are always referencing a married "one flesh union/bond" couple in Deut. 24 and Matt. 19, not a betrothed couple. The Pharisee's question was about a "one flesh marriage and putting away. Your application is incongruent. To claim the fornication exception is associated to a betrothal is completely out of context with the subject matter, which your diatribe on divorce reveals.
Curb divorce? Wife swapping? How does this correlate with the exception clause associated with a betrothal? In a betrothal, a man never "had" his betrothed wife. She was still a virgin. Betrothals only consisted of virgin girls, no others.
God never commended polygamy in the O.T., nor did He have any binding laws against it for the common male. Yes, Piper is right. Divorce is not acceptable and marrying another after divorce defiles each, unless/except if one of the spouses commits fornication (adultery, homosexuality, bestiality). However, what has this got to do with a betrothal? This fornicated defilement by that married spouse is the reason why the innocent spouse must put their defiled spouse away, for the same reason the "former husband" in Deut. could not take his defiled wife back again. Their spouse is defiled, and they bring defiling sin upon themselves, if they take them back. It is no longer an honorable marriage, and the marriage bed is defiled. But if the innocent spouse puts them away, when knowledgeable of their defilement, then they avoid being defiled by them and can marry again without committing adultery. That is the point of the exception regarding a married one flesh couple. I'm glad that Piper is admitting that marriage consists of sexual intimacy, because that is the only way possible for her to become an "adulteress," after marrying her second husband. That's what happens when a spouse is sexually intimate with another when married. It is defiled adulterous fornication, and they must not be taken back. This has nothing to do with betrothals. It is not "evidence." Everything you refer to in this point, adultery, defilement, hardheartedness, etc. is regarding a marriage and not a non-married betrothed couple. If a non-married betrothed woman married a man, while betrothed to another, she would not be committing adultery. She is a virgin. Adultery is being sexually intimate with someone after already having been sexually intimate with another or being sexually intimate with someone who themselves have already been sexually intimate with someone else. Your thesis is not managing marriage, as you say, it is supposedly managing betrothals.
You were doing great until you said, "We know the mercy of God in remarriages," that is saying you think God gives mercy to remain in adultery!!! No, if you repent of your sins and come to Christ, you must reject the adulterous relationship and forsake it. One flesh is for life, and all remarriage after divorce is ongoing adultery. This is a salvation issue since no fornicator or adulterer has eternal life. To repent is to end your life of adultery and live as a eunuch or reconcile with your covenant spouse. John Piper is also wrong about remaining in the adulterous remarriage. We can't use the grace of God to continue in sin.
I agree with you. I think the scripture is clear. I certainly don’t want to bet my soul on doing it differently.
AMEN...Remarriage IS adultery...a sin that leads to death....Repentance is to confess and forsake...QUIT the deliberate sin!
Proverbs 28
13He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy.
please contact me somehow i need to talk to someone about this, I am currently in this situation and I help so desperately desperately
With all due respect and love I must say as I am called as a true Christian to do , you are wrong about remarriage being okay with God .
The church is so deep in this deception and many , so very many are going to parish in the sun of adultery.. remarriage to another while your 1st spouse is living is clearly written in scripture as adultery..
God hates divorce and yet it happens ..when it does happen you are to remain alone even if that means you spend the rest of your life on you own or you reconcile with your 1st spouse .
No where in scripture does it say you can marry another other than being a widow or widower ..
pastors , church members I beg you to seek the truth of this . Those in remarriage while your 1st spouse lives is adultery .
The church today fights for unborn children,fights for those lost in homosexuality and transgender and yet the one sin they fear to speak of is divorce and remarriage and telling those to repent and get out of the adulterous marriage.. it does not mean to not take care of children from the adulterous marriage , you must care for children.. but do not stay in the sin of adultery . If you kill Someone do you ask Gods forgiveness and yet keep killing ? If you steal and ask for forgiveness and yet keep stealing , do you lie and ask forgiveness and yet keep lying ? To stay in your sun is not repentance. I repeat to stay in your sin is not repentance.
Please please please stop the sin of remarriage after divorce.. do not attend a wedding of a divorced person/ persons , do not encourage dating of divorced people , do not encourage a couple in remarriage after divorce to stay in the marriage, it’s not a marriage in Gods eyes .. it’s ongoing , continual adultery .
VERY GREAT!!!
Point 2: No, this does not "accord with Jewish marriage customs." If the woman took a man willfully before consummating the betrothal, she was stoned to death, along with the one she took, unless she was forced (Deut. 22:23-25). This was Jewish law, not custom. Joseph was going to put Mary away privately, so she wouldn't be stoned to death, which would have been her fate. I like the way your revised Bible contradicts itself, when it says, "fear not to take Mary, [as] your wife", which means she wasn't yet, but then said that "he arose and "took his wife," even though they had not yet consummated." Was she his wife, or wasn't she? How was she his wife with no consummation? You should have never left the KJV.
Where do you get off declaring that "Joseph was going to give her a certificate of divorce?" How do you know that? A certificate of divorce was never used in a betrothal. Its design was for men putting away their married wives, so they could go be the wife of another man, which "caused" her to commit adultery. Not so with the betrothal. Your ignorance of understanding of a betrothal and being married by God causes you to make up these foolish statements to support your ignorance. Scripture says nothing about a certificate given. This is why you are so confused.
So, if what you are saying is under the betrothal, Joseph could cast Mary and the illegitimate baby away. Otherwise, in a one flesh marriage, Joseph would have had to keep Mary and the illegitimate baby and could not put her away, if they would have already consummated the betrothal and made a one flesh marriage, because the exception would be inapplicable. This way he could have a dishonorable marriage and a defiled bed for God to bring judgment upon. Woopee! Mary would have been married to another and all his days he would be committing adultery with her while married. Talk about causing righteous church members to commit sin, you are doing just that. The point of the exception was to keep an innocent married spouse from committing sexual sin with the errant spouse and not be subject to a "defiled bed."
Your ignorance is also on further display to think that man can put asunder what God has joined. How do you do that? How does any man have the wherewithal to that? With a secular document? It didn't occur with a certificate of divorce. How can you tell that a male and female are no longer one flesh? How can you tell when a male and female are one flesh? Can you see it? Does Scripture, anywhere, declare how man puts a God joined marriage asunder?
No, this does not match Jewish marriage custom. It plays into your wrong theology on betrothals and marriage.
Not that I'm asking for proof, but do you personally have evidence concerning the writ of divorce being used for only consummated marriages? Even Deut 24:1 in its language is stating from betrothal until the ceremony of Nissuin (when a man takes a wife, and marries her). But I learn from being wrong, and if you have references as only for a consummated marriage, I would be happy to see it.
So can a man who's never been married, marry a woman who was divorced ?
No, because according to the scriptures she is a adulterous no matter who's fault the divorce was.
What about if she's divorced because her husband committed adultery
No ma'am! No reason!!! Look in Scripture at the reason why John the Baptist was beheaded. Philip was the Covenant husband of herodias and even though herodias committed incest and adultery with Phillips half-brother Eric divorced Philip and married Eric. Scripture firms that Philip is still the husband Herodias!! John said it's not lawful for you to have your brother Phillips wife!! Again please notice it did not call Herodias ex-wife!! Had it called her his ex-wife then it would have made divorce for sexual immorality adultery correct!! But it did not which affirms that the only thing that causes a covenant marriage to end is death!!!
That should say Herod and not Eric.
No.
Point 3: No Jesus did not singularly use the word "adultery" for the exception. Yes, fornication is not confined to adultery. It includes homosexuality and bestiality. You saying, "sexual immorality following marriage is adultery. Is this betrothals or one flesh marriages? This is nonsensical. The exception is addressing when sexual immorality happens within the one flesh marriage.
See, your lack of knowledge causes you to make conclusions that is out of context in Scripture. In Matt. 5:32, Jesus is responding to what the BOD did when utilized by the married husband. Because of it allowing her to marry another, she would be committing adultery. This is what happens between males and females sexually, when already married. You are twisting yourself and butchering Scripture by your false theology on marriage and the exception clause.
Christ isn't just "talking about adultery." You only think He is, because of your wrong perception. The exception is being referenced to a one flesh joining and it being defiled by any sexual immorality and not just adultery. That is why the word adultery isn't used exclusively. (Matt. 15;19) Right, you just answered it, "adultery is not the only sexual sin." So, if it is mentioned and then sexual immorality is added to adultery, then it is referring to those other sexual sins, as well as adultery. Adultery can only occur between a human male and female. Do you recognize your confusion when you are teaching this?
Jn. 8:41 is not talking about "premarital activity." How foolish. You are using a secular dictionary definition of fornication, which in every sense is not Biblical. There is no such thing as premarital sex, Biblically. It is impossible. Sexual intimacy is marriage. You are too secularly minded. Defining fornication secularly causes you to believe the Pharisees were speaking about Christ. Well, they were not. They had no such thought. Just in Jn. 6:42 they were saying, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?" So, how do you declare what you do? The Pharisees were not "mocking Christ and His origin," but was referring to the "spiritual" aspect of their bloodline being a Jewish bloodline. "PERHAPS a rumor?" The Jewish people had no knowledge of Mary conceiving Christ as a virgin. They thought it was Josephs child. Again, your theology and understanding of Scripture is skewed. Through such, along with your speculations, you contradict Scripture.