Did Jesus say that adultery is grounds for divorce? - Nope.

[St. SteVen]

The position of the church and society at large is mistaken as to what Jesus was quoted as saying in the gospels. IMHO
Let's discuss.

Questions:
1) What did Jesus actually say?
2) Why did he say it?
3) If we got this wrong, where do we go from here?

The position of the church and society at large is that adultery (sexual immorality) is grounds for divorce.
And they will quote Jesus as an authority on this. But is Jesus being misquoted? Yes, I believe so.
The biggest problem is the disconnect we have with the culture that Jesus was speaking to.

The church teaches that the only grounds for divorce is adultery. (sexual immorality)
But that is not what Jesus actually said.

The basis for this teaching is found in Matthew 19:9
See the NIV translation below, taking note of verse 10 as well as verse 9. (at the very bottom of this post)
Then compare the KJV below that. Note the use of the word "fornication" which matches the NT Greek.

This makes a HUGE difference, especially when considering the cultural setting of the Israelites under the law.
Jesus was saying that the only grounds for divorce is fornication, which is sexual intercourse before marriage. (not after)
What does this mean? Both in the historical context and to the misinterpretation assigned by the church today. ???

For the Israelites, a bride's parents presented her as a virgin to her husband-to-be. The law of Moses made a provision for this.
If the husband-to-be discovered that he had been given a bride that was not a virgin, he could divorce her. (for fornication)
Unfortunately, some new husbands were making false claims in order to divorce their new brides. The fornication loophole.
Parents were allowed to challenge this claim if it was false. See Deuteronomy 22:16-18

Therefore, the KJV translation is correct and the church got it wrong.
Jesus said there is no grounds for divorce except for fornication. Now read verse 10 again.
Better not to marry? Indeed. Not if you have ANY plans to divorce.

Matthew 19:8-10 NIV
Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.
9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”

--- COMPARE ---

Matthew 19:8-10 KJV
He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives:
but from the beginning it was not so.
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.
10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

/

 

[Jack]

No He didn't.

2 Corinthians 11:14-15
14 Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light.
15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness,

 

[Aunty Jane]

Haven’t we answered this in your other thread?
The Greek “porneia” encompasses any sexual misconduct. So whether it is translated “sexual immorality” or “fornication“, it means any “illicit sexual misconduct” with one who is not your legal spouse.

 

[Jack]

Allowing divorce does not mean allowing remarriage.

 

[St. SteVen]

Haven’t we answered this in your other thread?
The Greek “porneia” encompasses any sexual misconduct. So whether it is translated “sexual immorality” or “fornication“, it means any “illicit sexual misconduct” with one who is not your legal spouse.

When you take that approach, you don't understand what Jesus was saying in context with
the culture, social, and legal implications of the word fornication in this specific text.
In fact, you are putting words in Jesus mouth that he didn't say.

And frankly, does it even make sense that Jesus is saying a man can divorce his wife for “sexual immorality”,
leaving the man free to enjoy concubines and prostitutes? Or several wives via polygamy?

And the BIGGER question which we can't get to while hung up on word definitions
is that Jesus did not flatly say that adultery is grounds for divorce.
For husbands OR wives. In fact Jesus is only addressing the husband.

BTW you were correct on Romans 1 for lesbians. The Deuteronomy scripture only deals with men.

/

 

[St. SteVen]

Allowing divorce does not mean allowing remarriage.

Yes, murder is the only socially acceptable solution. - LOL

In the age my parents grew up in, you would never dream of getting a divorce.
Murder maybe, but NEVER divorce.

/

 

[Aunty Jane]

When you take that approach, you don't understand what Jesus was saying in context with
the culture, social, and legal implications of the word fornication in this specific text.
In fact, you are putting words in Jesus mouth that he didn't say.

Jesus’ words reflected the scriptures he used in the first century which were the Hebrew Scriptures. As a man under law Jesus maintained all that the law stated which was that sexual immorality was a breach of God’s law…period.
In reporting what Christ taught, the Greek scriptures use the word “por·neiʹa” to describe what Jesus said when he spoke of “sexual immorality”…….which includes adultery, prostitution, sexual relations between unmarried individuals, homosexuality, and bestiality as God law stated.

And frankly, does it even make sense that Jesus is saying a man can divorce his wife for “sexual immorality”,
leaving the man free to enjoy concubines and prostitutes? Or several wives via polygamy?

Whoa there…where did Jesus make any such concession? Polygamy was not recommended but simply tolerated for a time, I believe because of God’s promise to Abraham to multiply his descendants like the sands of the sea…..to allow polygamy for a specific time and reason isn’t the same as telling the Israelites to go and do it. It was a given at the time….and regulated under the law.

Remember that Abraham had a barren wife and bore a child to Sarah’s Egyptian hand maiden long before Israel became a nation. Sarah was his half sister and there was no law against incest then either.

Islam was founded on Ishmael as a son of Abraham, but we know that he was not the “son” through whom the Messiah would come….Isaac was the child of a miracle for his aged parents and it was from his descendants through Jacob, that Israel came.

And the BIGGER question which we can't get to while hung up on word definitions
is that Jesus did not flatly say that adultery is grounds for divorce.
For husbands OR wives. In fact Jesus is only addressing the husband.

Unless we are certain of word definitions, no judgment can be made as to their full meaning. You cannot assign a definition to words that are incomplete or misleading to water down God’s laws. “Sexual immorality” has a clear definition in scripture. Why would Jesus change that definition because he was speaking generally about grounds for divorce? God’s law was clear and unequivocal about sexual crimes.

At that time I believe that husbands could divorce wives but not the other way around.
Among the Israelites a man customarily paid a dowry for the woman who became his wife and she was considered his possession or property. While enjoying many blessings and privileges, hers was the subordinate role in the marital union. Her position is further shown by Deuteronomy 24:1-4, which pointed out that the husband might divorce his wife but said nothing about the wife divorcing her husband. Being considered his (purchased) “property”, she could not divorce him.

Under the law of Moses the penalty for adultery was severe—death for both guilty parties….so a man was not free to have sex with other women. He too had to pay for his crimes.
“In case a man is found lying down with a woman owned by an owner, both of them must then die together.”
This applied even to a betrothed woman, it being considered that she had committed adultery if she had relations with a man other than the one to whom she was duly engaged. (Deut 22:22-24)
If suspected of adultery, a wife had to stand trial….it was publicly a shameful thing.

Consider the case of Mary and Joseph….while Matthew does not give every detail regarding the procedure Joseph intended to follow in “divorcing” her, he does indicate that Joseph wanted to deal mercifully with Mary. Joseph is not considered an unrighteous man for this, but, rather, it was “because he was righteous and did not want to make her a public spectacle” that he “intended to divorce her secretly.” (Matt 1:19)

BTW you were correct on Romans 1 for lesbians. The Deuteronomy scripture only deals with men.

Thank you.

 

[St. SteVen]

Consider the case of Mary and Joseph….while Matthew does not give every detail regarding the procedure Joseph intended to follow in “divorcing” her, he does indicate that Joseph wanted to deal mercifully with Mary. Joseph is not considered an unrighteous man for this, but, rather, it was “because he was righteous and did not want to make her a public spectacle” that he “intended to divorce her secretly.” (Matt 1:19)

I'm glad you brought this up. It actually supports my point.
Joseph was of a mind to put her away (divorce her) quietly for fornication (sex before marriage).
This is exactly what Jesus was talking about.

/

 

[Aunty Jane]

I'm glad you brought this up. It actually supports my point.
Joseph was of a mind to put her away (divorce her) quietly for fornication (sex before marriage).
This is exactly what Jesus was talking about.

True, but I believe that you are missing the point….the word “por·neiʹa” used here, covers all aspects of sexual immorality. In that instance it was fornication….but I think, for reasons known only to yourself, you are trying to prove something that Jesus didn’t say. If all “sexual immorality” comes under that same word, what is the point of differentiation if it isn’t necessary to spell it out?

Here is another account recorded in John 8:1-11…
”But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 At daybreak, however, he again presented himself at the temple, and all the people began coming to him, and he sat down and began to teach them. 3 Now the scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught atadultery, and, after standing her in their midst, 4 they said to him: “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of committing adultery. 5 In the Law Moses prescribed for us to stone such sort of women. What, really, do you say?” 6 Of course, they were saying this to put him to the test, in order to have something with which to accuse him. But Jesus bent down and began to write with his finger in the ground. 7 When they persisted in asking him, he straightened up and said to them: “Let the one of you that is sinless be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 And bending over again he kept on writing in the ground. 9 But those who heard this began going out, one by one, starting with the older men, and he was left alone, and the woman that was in their midst. 10 Straightening up, Jesus said to her: “Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?” 11 She said: “No one, sir.” Jesus said: “Neither do I condemn you. Go your way; from now on practice sin no more.”

The word Jesus used here is “moicheia” and it means specifically “adultery”. What did Jesus know about this woman that the Pharisees brought to him? Obviously more than the account tells us, as he was more concerned about the motives of the Pharisees which were more wicked than the woman’s sin. He simply told her…”from now on practice sin no more”
But taking Paul’s words at 1 Cor 6:9-10 we see that he deliberately separates the categories so that no confusion can be drawn from the cover term “por·neiʹa”……

”Or do you not know that unrighteous people will not inherit God’s Kingdom? Do not be misled. Those who are sexually immoral (pornos) idolaters, adulterers, (moichos) men who submit to homosexual acts, (malakos) men who practice homosexuality, (arsenokoitēs) 10 thieves, greedy people, drunkards, revilers, and extortioners will not inherit God’s Kingdom.”

So if specifics are needed, they are mentioned, specifically.

 

[St. SteVen]

I think, for reasons known only to yourself, you are trying to prove something that Jesus didn’t say.

On the contrary.
Do I need to spell it out for you folks!

Two different words are used. Fornication and adultery. This is intentional.
- Explain why a wife would be guilty of porneia, and why that would be grounds for divorce.
- Explain why this doesn't apply to men.
- Explain why two different words are used here. Fornication and 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.

/

 

[BarneyFife]

The position of the church and society at large is mistaken as to what Jesus was quoted as saying in the gospels. IMHO
Let's discuss.

Questions:
1) What did Jesus actually say?
2) Why did he say it?
3) If we got this wrong, where do we go from here?

The position of the church and society at large is that adultery (sexual immorality) is grounds for divorce.
And they will quote Jesus as an authority on this. But is Jesus being misquoted? Yes, I believe so.
The biggest problem is the disconnect we have with the culture that Jesus was speaking to.

The church teaches that the only grounds for divorce is adultery. (sexual immorality)
But that is not what Jesus actually said.

The basis for this teaching is found in Matthew 19:9
See the NIV translation below, taking note of verse 10 as well as verse 9. (at the very bottom of this post)
Then compare the KJV below that. Note the use of the word "fornication" which matches the NT Greek.

This makes a HUGE difference, especially when considering the cultural setting of the Israelites under the law.
Jesus was saying that the only grounds for divorce is fornication, which is sexual intercourse before marriage. (not after)
What does this mean? Both in the historical context and to the misinterpretation assigned by the church today. ???

For the Israelites, a bride's parents presented her as a virgin to her husband-to-be. The law of Moses made a provision for this.
If the husband-to-be discovered that he had been given a bride that was not a virgin, he could divorce her. (for fornication)
Unfortunately, some new husbands were making false claims in order to divorce their new brides. The fornication loophole.
Parents were allowed to challenge this claim if it was false. See Deuteronomy 22:16-18

Therefore, the KJV translation is correct and the church got it wrong.
Jesus said there is no grounds for divorce except for fornication. Now read verse 10 again.
Better not to marry? Indeed. Not if you have ANY plans to divorce.

Matthew 19:8-10 NIV
Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.
9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”

--- COMPARE ---

Matthew 19:8-10 KJV
He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives:
but from the beginning it was not so.
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.
10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

/

SS, I've never been so fond of a hopeless deconstructionist as I am with you.

How do you do it?

Maybe it's the music thing.

Say, I saw a great YouTube video the other day about John Lennon's guitar genius().
(I'll send you a link when the Sabbath is over. )

Well, we can't very well talk about the Bible, now, can we?

.

 

[Aunty Jane]

On the contrary.
Do I need to spell it out for you folks!

Two different words are used. Fornication and adultery. This is intentional.
- Explain why a wife would be guilty of porneia, and why that would be grounds for divorce.
- Explain why this doesn't apply to men.
- Explain why two different words are used here. Fornication and 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.

Sorry, but the image you posted of the Greek, backs up what Jesus said….not what that dinosaur of a Bible (KJV) says….
“I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except on the grounds of sexual immorality, (porneia) and marries another commits adultery.(moichaō)

Look it up in other English translations…..it does not say specifically “fornication” and “adultery” as if they are different things….”porneia” is any kind of “sexual immorality”….as is clearly seen in your attachment.

“Porneia” includes adultery…..do we have to spell it out for you…?
I notice that you get a bit stroppy when you are proven wrong….learn from the correction. You’ve got this one wrong, but because you are laboring the point, I am left to think it must be personal…?

 

[St. SteVen]

SS, I've never been so fond of a hopeless deconstructionist as I am with you.

LOL
Thanks... I think.
To be clear, I was going for "hopeFULL"
But. I think you meant I don't surrender easily.

How do you do it?

Maybe it's the music thing.

I thought it was a spiritual gift.
But I don't see it on the list.
Another reason NOT to trust the Bible. - LOL

Say, I saw a great YouTube video the other day about John Lennon's guitar genius().
(I'll send you a link when the Sabbath is over. )

Please do. Thanks.

Well, we can't very well talk about the Bible, now, can we?

I thought that's what we were doing. - LOL
I'm a bit slow to realize everyone has left the room while I;m still talking.
I learned that from my Dad, I think... what was I saying? Hello?
Where did everyone go? !!!

/

 

[St. SteVen]

Sorry, but the image you posted of the Greek, backs up what Jesus said….not what that dinosaur of a Bible (KJV) says….
“I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except on the grounds of sexual immorality, (porneia) and marries another commits adultery.(moichaō)

Look it up in other English translations…..it does not say specifically “fornication” and “adultery” as if they are different things….”porneia” is any kind of “sexual immorality”….as is clearly seen in your attachment.

“Porneia” includes adultery…..do we have to spell it out for you…?
I notice that you get a bit stroppy when you are proven wrong….learn from the correction. You’ve got this one wrong, but because you are laboring the point, I am left to think it must be personal…?

If your view is the right one then you should be able to easily answer the questions posed.

- Explain why a wife would be guilty of porneia, and why that would be grounds for divorce.
- Explain why this doesn't apply to men.
- Explain why two different words are used here. Fornication and adultery.

/

 

[BarneyFife]

LOL
Thanks... I think.
To be clear, I was going for "hopeFULL"
But. I think you meant I don't surrender easily.

Close enough.

Actually, by "hopeless" I meant in the "hopeless romantic" sense of the word.
You can't help yourself?
Figuratively speaking, of course.

I thought it was a spiritual gift.
But I don't see it on the list.
Another reason NOT to trust the Bible. - LOL

LOL... I think.

Please do. Thanks.

Youbetcha! (Grammarly wants me to spell that: "You betcha"—true story—and it keeps asking me for money.)

I thought that's what we were doing. - LOL

Right.

We can do that sometime... I think. - LOL

I'm a bit slow to realize everyone has left the room while I;m still talking.
I learned that from my Dad, I think... what was I saying? Hello?
Where did everyone go? !!!

I have just entered the room.
I just put my sweatpants on... in the dark... backwards.
(Grammarly wants me to spell that: "Backward"—how would that sound? Like King Charles—that's how it would sound.)
But, then, I guess that must be what I sound like sometimes.
I think I might be half-asleep.
Yeah, that's what I'm goin' with.
Oh, brother

Getting old can be unpleasant, what with all your genetic mutations beginning to introduce themselves by name and all.

.

 

[St. SteVen]

SS, I've never been so fond of a hopeless deconstructionist as I am with you.

How do you do it?

Maybe it's the music thing.

I've become rather frustrated (a bit stroppy, as Aunty would say) with trying to communicate the importance of what Jesus meant.

The church says: Adultery is grounds for divorce.

Jesus says: I never said any such thing.

Divorce is a terribly damaging thing. Blessed by the church.

Yet ANOTHER good reason to DECONSTRUCT.

Working my way up to SPONTANEOUS deconstruction. - LOL



/

 

[St. SteVen]

I have just entered the room.
I just put my sweatpants on... in the dark... backwards.
(Grammarly wants me to spell that: "Backward"—how would that sound? Like King Charles—that's how it would sound.)

We are way too polite with our wives.
Is it too much to ask to see what we are doing when we get up.
We should flip on all the lights and yell, "Time to get up honey! I want breakfast!" - LOL

I tried that once. She said, "Pour your own bowl of cereal." (actual quote)

Grammerly is right. "I put my sweatpants on backward."
But who talks that way?

That's why...
Writing the way you speak is a mistake.

But, then, I guess that must be what I sound like sometimes.

Nope.
You always sound like Barney Fife to me.
"Ya gotta nip it in the bud, Andy."

I think I might be half-asleep.
Yeah, that's what I'm goin' with.
Oh, brother

Sounds like a glass half empty problem.
How come you aren't half awake? - LOL

Sorry. I'm one of those annoying morning people.

Getting old can be unpleasant, what with all your genetic mutations beginning to introduce themselves by name and all.

Honestly.
If I feel like this now. Another ten or twenty years will not bring improvement.

/

 

[BarneyFife]

I've become rather frustrated (a bit stroppy, as Aunty would say) with trying to communicate the importance of what Jesus meant.

The church says: Adultery is grounds for divorce.

Jesus says: I never said any such thing.

Divorce is a terribly damaging thing. Blessed by the church.

Yet ANOTHER good reason to DECONSTRUCT.

Working my way up to SPONTANEOUS deconstruction. - LOL

View attachment 39493

/

I gave this the laugh reaction because it's what Brother Dave Gardner would say is:

"In the zone between the zones"

But, as he would also say:

"All Seriousness Aside"
(This is actually the name of one of his "ablums" that nestled in my dad's record rack in the '60s.)

My sister used this defense to eighty-six her marriage.

She (born 8 years after me) married my best friend in high school who was a year ahead of me.

Yeah, how creepy is that?

He was, in all likelihood guilty but she was not even going to give him the benefit of the doubt (which he didn't deserve, but she didn't know that).

Am I making this convoluted enough?

I'm really trying to get to the point.

To be continued... (I don't know why. Oh, yeah I do. Hold on.)

.

 

[BarneyFife]

Sorry. I'm one of those annoying morning people.

I wanted to address this very quickly.
(I don't know why—yeah, I do—I'm such a liar.)
I'm one of those people, too.
Problem is: I just went to bed less than 3 hours ago.
Yeah, I've been enjoying some insomnia over the holidays.

.

 

[BarneyFife]

I've become rather frustrated (a bit stroppy, as Aunty would say) with trying to communicate the importance of what Jesus meant.

Back to the topic.

So, my sister came up with my dad to visit me 12 years ago.
And I was having some pretty severe anxiety in preparation for this, as my custom was at that time.
So I took an Ativan.
And, after about 1/2 hour I didn't feel sufficiently calm enough.
So I took another one.
I mean, I'm getting off track, I know that, but to make a long story hopefully not so long:
By the time they arrived, I had somewhat unwittingly gotten myself drunk on Ativan and proceeded to read my sister the riot act for giving up on her God-blessed union in the pseudo-gentle way that I'm told only I can do.

And my point is:

I believe Jesus meant what most people think they think He meant, but I spin it this way:

"All things are lawful for me but not all things are expedient."

IOW, just because I believe that Matthew 19:9 should be interpreted in the traditional sense doesn't mean we have to cross over into ultra-literalism with the thing, for crying out loud.

I'm pretty darned serious about the whole Bible study thing.

And, no, I don't mean that in the way that triggers some people into thinking that I mean:

"I, alone, am pretty darned serious about Bible study!" I know God has His seven-thousand.

But I would say that, due to circumstances for which I can take virtually no credit:

I'm no Bibliolator, but I'll cop to Avid Bibliophile.

I mean, in more words akin to the vernacular of the illustrious Brother Dave:

"That's his (my) kick, man, he (I) dig(s) that."

I want Scripture to make sense, and I'm willing to die trying.

And the more that I foster that philosophy for myself (and, hopefully, others):

The less frustrated I find myself becoming.

Just a thought.

I'm experimenting with a kind of authentic/transparent testimony thing.

.