Matthew 19:9

matthew19:9

"And I say unto you. Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."

Supplementary Arguments against using Matthew 19:9 and Matthew 5:32 to justify Divorce and Remarriage.

Proposition: Matthew 19:9 and Matthew 5:32, both containing the infamous exception clause (“except for fornication”), cannot be used to justify divorce or remarriage.

Summary:

Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 cannot be used to justify divorce and remarriage for the following reasons:

1. Such an argument needlessly produces contradictions with the last part of both texts where marrying a divorcee is forbidden as adultery. No divorcee can remarry.

2. Such an argument needlessly produces contradictions with Chapter 10 of Mark. Matthew 19:1-9 is the same story as Mark 10:1-12. Mark 10:11,12, which corresponds to Matthew 19:9, does not contain the exception clause demonstrating the utter unimportance of the exception clause. If the exception clause is so important, why is it missing in Mark’s version of the same story.Their placing such great importance on the exception clause implies that Mark is an unreliable witness in that he left out the most important part of the story.

3. The logical meaning of the word ‘and’ means several things that have something in common. . If  we use the dictionary definition of ‘and’ : ‘as well as’, Matthew 19:9 condemns divorce as well as remarriage as well as remarrying a divorcee and all contradictions disappear [Matt 19:9 paraphrased: ‘an illegal divorce as well as remarriage as well as remarrying a divorcee is adultery’. i.e. each is adultery all by themselves].

4. All divorce is a sin. The woman is pronounced guilty of adultery in Matthew 5:32 even though it is the husband who instigates the divorce proceedings. This is evidence that all divorce is a sin. Divorce, in itself, is a sin.

5. The disciples witnessed that Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19:9 meant that it was not good for a divorcee to remarry. (Matthew 19:10) Jesus adds to this understanding by teaching that the divorcee must also remain single and celibate. (Matthew 19:11,12)

6. The argument that these texts teach that a certain kind of divorce is not a sin is based on merely an implied meaning of Matthew 19:9. Implied meanings are weaker than explicit texts which explicitly condemn divorce and remarriage such as Luke 16:18 plus a host of others. By using the weak implied meaning of Matthew 19:9 as a weapon to beat into submission explicit texts, those who argue for divorce and remarriage are trying to use something weak to destroy something strong.

- end of summary -

This article discusses secondary reasons why Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 cannot be used to justify divorce or remarriage. The primary and ultimate reason is listed in the original post (post#1) and it is placed here for continuity. The rest of the article discusses the secondary reasons, as a secondary line of defense, in the unlikely event that some theologian will come up with a counter argument against my primary reason.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Primary/Ultimate reason why Matthew 19:9 cannot be used to justify divorce or remarriage:

Destruction of the Matthew 19:9 argument:


Those who argue that Matthew 19:9 justifies divorce and remarriage make an unexamined and unproven assumption: they conclude that Matt 19:9 proves that, under certain circumstances, a certain kind of divorce is not the sin of adultery, but then they make a huge, unproven leap in logic and say that it is not sinful. I call them on that giant leap. They have to provide some proof for such a leap. Even if a certain kind of divorce is not the sin of adultery, that is as far as the logic of the text will take you.

Even if a particular flavour of divorce is not the sin of adultery, I claim it is still a sin – just not the sin of adultery. I claim that ‘All’ divorce is ‘always’ the sin of, for example: 1. dishonouring the mother-in-law and father-in-law, 2. taking GOD’s name in vain (making a oath then not keeping it), 3. coveting you neighbour’s spouse, and 4. stealing your neighbour’s spouse.

-end of primary/ultimate reason-

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Secondary Reasons why Matthew 19:9 and Matthew 5:32 cannot be used to justify divorce or remarriage.

Matthew 5:32 (KJV) “But I say unto you. That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.”

Matthew 19:9 (KJV) “And I say unto you. Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.”

After divorce: Free to remarry?  No. A catch-22:

1.  The last part of each text makes marrying a divorcee the sin of adultery. How can the first half of each text be interpreted to justify divorce yet the last half make remarriage of that divorcee into a sin? Who are they free to remarry? Such an argument produces an unnecessary contradiction within the same text. If a person is justified in a divorce according to the first part of each text, who are they free to marry? According to the last part of each text, anyone who marries them will be committing the sin of adultery. No divorcee is free to remarry.

The second witness to the same story, Mark, omits the exception phrase proving it is of little importance:

2.  Matthew 19:1-9 is the same story as Mark 10:1-12. They are two versions of the same incident. Mark 10:11,12, which corresponds to Matthew 19:9, does not contain the exception clause.

Mark 10:11,12 (KJV) “And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.”

You would think that any interpretation of scripture ought to explain both versions of the same incident. Why do those who advocate the doctrine that the Bible allows divorce and remarriage focus on Matthew 19:9 but completely ignore Mark 10:11,12? They are two versions of the same story! If their doctrine were true, they ought to be able to prove it using either of the two versions. If their precious exception clause is so important, why is it missing in Mark 10:11,12? Their doctrine implies that Mark’s witness of the teaching of Jesus cannot be relied upon. Their doctrine creates an unnecessary contradiction between Matthew and Mark. The fact that the exception clause is missing in Mark 10 is evidence that it is of little importance.

Those who support divorce and remarriage make the exception phrase to be of utmost importance. I have seen some Bible translations where they even insert the exception clause into other Bible texts such as Luke 16:18 even though it is not there in the original Greek manuscripts. They use the exception phrase as a hammer to beat into submission any Bible text which explicitly condemn divorce and remarriage. I ask again, if the exception phrase is so important, why does the second witness, Mark, leave it out? How can those who argue in favour of divorce and remarriage, use a text to support their cause in which Jesus lists three things that are adultery. Their cause is not based on an explicit Bible statement. It is based on an implied meaning taken from Matthew 19:9. Isn’t it presumption to base a whole way of life on something they think Jesus has merely ‘implied’? An implied meaning is not an absolute truth. It may or may not be true.

 I am making the argument that Matthew 19:9 does not imply that divorce or remarriage is valid in the eyes of GOD. I argue that the exception phrase is so unimportant that it can safely be dropped and, for all practical purposes, it doesn’t change the teaching of  Jesus at all. Despite the absence of the exception phrase in Mark, both Matthew and Mark are teaching the same thing.

 It is a fundamental principle of Biblical interpretation that we must adjust our interpretation of scripture to demonstrate that all Bible texts agree with one another – that all the Bible is consistent.

I argue that Matthew and Mark are saying, essentially, the same thing. Matthew is merely being a little more picky than Mark, he is merely giving us a little more information. Mark is saying that all divorce and remarriage is adultery. Matthew is saying that only some divorce and remarriage is adultery. Matthew is saying there is one exception to Mark’s rule – the case where fornication is involved. There is not necessarily any major disagreement here between Mark and Matthew. As interpreters of the Bible, we must minimize the differences not magnify them, else we risk making either Mark or Matthew or Jesus into a liar. To accomplish this, I argue that Matthew is agreeing with Mark in saying that all divorce and remarriage is a sin, he merely disagrees on what kind of sin is involved – a minor difference indeed. Matthew is giving a little more information. He is saying that when fornication is involved, the sin is not the sin of adultery but a sin of a different name and he does not give that other name. I argue that the name of the sin that should be applied to a legal divorce is: dishonouring parents-in-law, or breaking a Holy Wedding Vow we have made to GOD. To a Christian, we must shun all sin. What difference does it make whether one name is applied to a sin or another name is applied to a sin under slightly different circumstances. They are all a sin and as Christians, we must shun those actions. The exception phrases in Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 are a minor technical detail which are, in practice, largely irrelevant.

‘And’ means ‘as well as’:

3. In Matthew 19:9 Jesus lists three things that have something in common: they are examples of adultery:

1.     illegal divorce

2.     remarriage

3.     marrying a divorcee.

The logical definition of the word ‘and’ means two things that have something in common. . If  we use the dictionary definition of ‘and’ : ‘as well as’, Matthew 19:9 condemns divorce as well as remarriage as well as remarrying a divorcee and all contradictions disappear. [Matt 19:9 paraphrased: ‘an illegal divorce as well as remarriage as well as remarrying a divorcee is adultery’. i.e. each is adultery all by themselves].

The exception phrases apply to everything?

Those who argue in favour of divorce and remarriage claim that the exception clause in Matthew 19:9 can be applied to all three items in the list. This claim is in violation of the basic rules of English Grammar.

Matthew 19:9 (KJV) “And I say unto you. Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.”

In Matthew 19:9, the phrase “except it be for fornication” can only modify the main clause “Whosoever shall put away his wife…committeth adultery according to the rules of English Grammar. It cannot be used to modify any other clause.

Here is an example to illustrate their faulty logic.

Sample sentence:

All our tomatoes, except for the green ones, and all our peppers were stolen from our garden.

According to the rules of English Grammar, the phrase “except for the green ones” can only refer to ‘tomatoes’. Using the same logic they use on Matthew 19:9, those who argue for divorce and remarriage would have you believe that this phrase also refers to the peppers. They would claim that the thieves did not steal your green peppers.

Blame the Victim?:

4. Matthew 5:32 is slightly different than Matthew 19:9 in that the woman is pronounced guilty of adultery even though it is the husband who instigates the divorce proceedings. Why? This is evidence that all divorce is a sin. All divorcees are guilty whether or not they instigated the divorce. Divorce, in itself, is a sin.

What did the Disciples learn from Jesus’s teaching in Matt19:9?

5.  The disciples witnessed that Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19:9 meant that it was not good for a divorcee to remarry.

Matthew 19:10 (KJV) “His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.”

There is no such word as ‘remarry’ in the Bible. They only had one word ‘marry’ that had to serve for three of our modern words: ‘engagement, marry, remarry’. So when we see the word ‘marry’ in the Bible, we must take into consideration that it might mean ‘remarry’.

In Matthew 19:3, we see that the original question put to Jesus by the Pharisees was about a man divorcing his wife - a man who was a divorcee. So ‘the man’ referred to in Matthew 19:10, is a divorcee and the disciples are not talking about marriage, in general terms, not being a good thing; they are talking about the divorcee man marrying another woman – a remarriage. The disciples are concluding from the teachings of Jesus in Matthew 19:9 that it was not good for the divorcee man to remarry.

A man must become a eunuch after divorce?:

At this point, (Matthew 19:11,12), Jesus teaches the disciples about the need for the divorced man to become a  eunuch – He is adding to the knowledge gained by the disciples. Now my opponents in this debate do not agree with me on anything, it seems, but perhaps here is one thing on which we can agree. If Jesus is teaching the disciples that a divorcee man must cut off a body part after a divorce, perhaps my opponents will agree with me that such a prescription would be a most excellent deterrent for divorce. (this last sentence is a joke, lighten up)

I don’t think that anyone would argue that a man must cut off some personal ‘members’ after a divorce. I propose that the word ‘eunuch’ in Matthew 19:11,12 is a poor translation. A better modern word would be ‘celibate’. Jesus is adding to the knowledge gained by the disciples and HE is teaching that: in addition to the divorcee man not remarrying, he must remain single and celibate until either his wife dies, or he is reunited with his wife.

The weak destroys the strong?:

5.  The argument that Matthew 19:9 proves that divorce is not a sin is based on merely an implied meaning of Matthew 19:9. Implied meanings are weaker than explicit texts which explicitly condemn divorce and remarriage. By using the weak, implied meaning of Matthew 19:9 as a weapon to beat into submission explicit texts, those who argue for divorce and remarriage are trying to use something weak to destroy something strong.

Here are Bible texts which explicitly condemn divorce and remarriage and they ought not to be: added to, or nullified, or modified by a teaching that is merely an implied meaning of Matthew 19:9 which may or may not be correct:

1.  Matt 5:32 (KJV) “…and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

2.  Matt 19:6 (KJV) “Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore GOD hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

3.  Matt 19:9 (KJV) “…and whosoever marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.”

4.  Mark 10:8,9 (KJV) “And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. (v.9) What therefore GOD hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

5.  Mark 10:11,12 (KJV) “And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.”

6.  Luke 16:18 (KJV) “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.”

7.  Rom 7:2 (KJV) “for the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth, but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. (V.3) So then, if while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress….”

8.  1Cor 7:10 (KJV) “And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the LORD, Let not the wife depart from her husband.”

9. 1Cor 7:11 (KJV) “But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband and let not the husband put away his wife.”

10.  1Cor 7:12 (KJV) “…let him not put her away.”

11.  1Cor 7:13 (KJV) “…let her not leave him.”

12.  1Cor 7:39 (KJV) “The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth;…”

sincerely

bob_crawford

Home   |  Proposition Assumptions   |  About the Debate   |  The Debate Results    |  Deut.24:4 Article  |  Matt.19:9 Article   |  1Cor.7:15 Article  |  1Cor.7:28 Article  |   Site Map  |  Links

This site was last updated 07/25/08