My Take On It

ANOTHER BIBLE CONTRADICTION?

IF ONE GETS DIVORCED, SHOULD THEY REMAIN UNMARRIED? SHOULD A BELIEVER REFRAIN FROM DATING OR MARRYING AN UNBELIEVERS? HERE ARE A FEW BIBLICAL PASSAGES REGARDING THE ISSUE:

Matthew 5:32 (King James Version)

32But 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.

Nothing in the verse above indicates that it is permissible to remarry after a divorce. I looked at a different translation that clears it up for me a bit better:

Matthew 5:32 (Young's Literal Translation)
32but I -- I say to you, that whoever may put away his wife, save for the matter of whoredom, doth make her to commit adultery; and whoever may marry her who hath been put away doth commit adultery.

I believe this verse means that if your spouse was sexually immoral to begin with, he/she will need no coaxing to remain as such after you divorce him/her. Therefore, you will not cause someone to commit adultery (remarrying) who was already sexually immoral in the first place.

Matthew 19 (King James Version)

9And 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.

Mark 10 (King James Version)

11And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.

12And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

I am not going to pretend that this does not look like a clear example of a contradiction. It does indeed. First of all, I see the word fornication and adultery. It is a commonly held belief that Matt. 19:9 means that one can divorce their spouse and remarry if the previous spouse commits adultery. As you can see, the verse does not use the word adultery in that context, but the word fornication. Where are those Christians getting the idea that adultery releases the offended spouse into freedom to remarry? The last time I checked, fornication meant sex between two unmarried persons. Adultery means sex between a married person and an unmarried person. That leads me with two possibilities; either the word fornication was a poor word choice on the part of the translator or many have gotten the message all wrong. Perhaps, just perhaps the so called exception clause was not referring to the adulterous spouse, but to the offended one. Remember, the bible was translated into English, not directly inspired by the Holy Spirit into English. Whether we want to admit it or not, what we have are texts translated from Spiritually inspired words, not the original inspired words. That is not to take away from the credibility of the bibles we have today (well, not all of them, LOL). I do believe that we must take into account "language transferring" issues when trying to understand the bible. If we don't take that into consideration, we are in fact left with contradictions (whether we admit it or not). Back to the exception clause:

Matthew 19 (King James Version)

9And 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.

If we conclude that the so-called exception clause refers to the adulterer, then this verse is at odds with Mark 10:11-12. Reading that verse alone shows us that remarriage after divorce is a sin no matter what the cause of it was. However, I am going to paraphrase (Matt. 19:9) with what I think most clearly and reasonably matches the inspired text:

If you divorce your spouse, unless you enter into fornication, you are committing adultery. In other words, any relationship you enter will be considered adultery (if you claim remarriage) or fornication (if you simply form sexual relationships).

Disclaimer, I don't believe this applies to widows and widowers.

If someone has what they believe is better explanation that shows no contradiction between the two passages, I am open to hear your explanation. How does one translate it, be, and for (see Matt 19:9) from Greek to English? Were those 3 words included in the original Greek texts?

Should believers marry unbelievers? Most Christians hang all of their doctrine on the verses below:

2 Corinthians 6:13-15 (King James Version)
13Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged.

14Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

15And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?

The passage does not mention marriage. I would say that the passage is more open ended than that. I believe that Christians apply the marriage principle to this simply because of the concept of a union or fellowship. The question would be, how does this apply to non-marital family ties? Aren't we in fellowship with our unsaved mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, children, etc. (for those of us who have unsaved family members)? Some may say no, there is a difference. How is there fellowship and communion in marriage but not in close family relations. This makes no sense to me. Yet, I am always willing to admit that I could be mistaken about something.

1 Corinthians 7:13-15 (King James Version)

13And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.

14For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

HHHmmm, many will claim that the passage refers to people who came to Christ after a marriage to an unbeliever. However, nothing in the passage indicates this.

15But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

Many Christians also claim that the above passage means Christians get remarry if their former spouse deserts them (if that person was unsaved). Whether or not you are deserted (ex spouse saved or not), nothing in the passage speaks of remarriage. The person is not under bondage to continue the marriage, nothing speaks of the so called Pauline privilege. Too many Christians add things to the Bible in order to make themselves comfortable. Remarriage is not an unpardonable sin. Marriage to an unbeliever is not an unpardonable sin; in fact, I can't say with certainty that the Bible says it is sin. I will say it would be best for believers to marry believers.

To be continued...

posted by LorMarie @ 9:48 PM