Two other teachers preaching the truth on this subject are Logan Fowler from Truth Baptist Church, and David Sproule from Palm Beach Lakes Church of Christ. Courageous voices in a world that confuses compassion with permission.
@@dystopic6245 Yes brother dysto! Im gleaning yr compassion with permission stance and keep note to look these preachers up. I mostly stick to the Bible. funny how we see in depth research done on a topic that needs no explanation ..freewill. learned and exploited since the wonderful age of two. Bible only teaches on this as what to do with it. I agree with most of this topic of divorce done here. if we could(not sure if were supposed to) spell it out for everyone if the condition would improve. they would just know. Make it clear and still the Holy Spirit not getting them to respond to conviction. we try to teach them and not convict them. rowing against each other? Top it off that they might not be seeking The Lord in the first place. May we encourage others to seek Jesus. God bless
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 .
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.
Sometimes I think about this work. I have read 10% of it. I did however share my questions with a friend in bible translation. They were offended by the conclusion of it being a salvation issue. They also brought up a point that it was not published so it wouldn’t be quoted or referenced in seminary /theological work in the future. Any mention of the decision not to publish? Thanks.
The "ei" means "if." Leslie McFall's thesis THE BIBLICAL TEACHING ON DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE is hands-down THE best thing I've ever read on this subject of divorce-remarriage adultery. McFall demolishes Erasmus and all others who try to teach the deception doctrine so prevalent in the Christian churches/congregations.
Someone else told me she took down her channel. Before that I heard that a lot of people were giving her grief so that she started blocking people. You could only imagine the things upset people would say. Anytime people have a theology that threatens our family... well people get upset about it... the last time I watched her was awhile back and she was doing videos on prayer, meditation, and scripture encouragement. But that’s been a while ago.
@@StandingStrongforMarriages thanks. Yeah the last time I saw her was I think in the early fall and she said she and her Covenant husband were in discussions about reconciliation. I pray it works out for them. She is an inspirational girl to many.
PTL! I've been wanting to do a video on this NOT for fornication. So glad that you have. Thanks for sharing this about Dr. Leslie McFall. I downloaded his unpublished book and got it printed a couple of years ago when I stumbled upon this! Lots of pages. I agree with most of what he says, especially after I double checked his claims. He's right on that there is no "except" words in the original texts of both the Majority and Minority. It is only the Textus Receptus that has the error! We need to get this truth out.
Yes- this information is a total game changer- for one it eliminates the endless hours that people spend debating the betrothal view and “double conditional elliptical phrase” I believe is what the Greek grammar scholars try to unravel... thank God for DuPont and his contribution. In the end, in my experience, it becomes clear what is true and what isn’t. It takes a while to connect the dots.... but this one is a huge dot! To simply say, there was never an exception in the original texts- it was added later- it pretty much solves everything quickly. An hour of research in Erasmus and then things really start to become clear. One of the ways that people like to learn is through interviews- the podcast format is very popular because of the interactions that take place. I haven’t spent tons of time on this issue- I am not a Greek speaker or reader. If you want to do an interview and present your findings, especially if you have gone deep into it...I think people would love it. StandingStrongForMarriages @ Gmail If you are interested. To your point what an amazing piece of information for anyone trying to sort it out.
Please read Ezra 9-10, in which is given the only example of divorce sanctioned by God through a covenant with his returning people after the diaspora. An unlawful union should be severed because it is fraudulent when one or both are ineligible to marry the other according to God’s word. Even when children are involved, as an act of repentance, one must turn away from sin and turn again toward righteousness, according to God’s authority, not what panders to your convenience, or your sensibilities and logic, but instead surrender to God’s authority. God forgives any error in your past, and is merciful when you stumble, but you must admit yourself to be in error and need a savior, and if you love him, you will follow his statutes and ordinances, and not ignore them.
Thank you! I have people tell me that Ezra shows God sanctioning divorce to use it as a reason to get an unbiblical divorce. It is very clear here that is a specific situatrion.
@seeker-seeking I haven’t seen anywhere in the Bible that allows you to legitimately remarry unless your spouse were to pass away. I believe that if you’ve been divorced from a legitimate spouse you have two choices: to remain alone, or to be reconciled. (1 Cor 7:10-11) In Mat 19:12 it was explained that this was not something everybody could understand, only those who are willing to follow God’s authority even if it meant being alone. I believe that Jesus was correcting the pharisaical interpretation that for the cause of adultery (school of Shamaii) or for any reason like burning your dinner (school of Hillel), you could divorce your spouse, and be free to marry another. This is what the Roman society allowed, and in fact, most governing leaders allowed. Jesus says that if you divorce someone and remarry, it’s adultery. He also says that if you marry someone who is divorced, it’s adultery. (Mat 5:32, Mat 19:9, Mark 10:12, Luke 16:18). Of course, if you were never legitimately married in the first place, and divorced somebody publicly as a correction and repentance, you would still be single and able to create a legitimate matrimonial union with someone who is eligible for you to marry. I think it really boils down to a misinterpretation by the Pharisees of Deuteronomy 24. Where the Pharisees believe that the uncleanness with a woman is adultery after marriage, rather than an uncleanness, representing an unlawful union. I believe Jesus was making a correction of the Pharisees misrepresentation, used as a concession to conform to hellenistic society’s norm. Like so many religious leaders even do nowadays many religious sects placate people’s desires to fill their places of worship and the collection box.
Thanks for the comment. I just met a pastor and author who made the point that the provision in Deut. 24 must be for something less than sexual sin, to your point.
Why Didn't the Early Church Fathers Write about the Betrothal View? The ORIENTAL BETROTHAL custom has a 4000 YEAR HISTORY, and is recorded in Genesis 19 (Lot’s two betrothed virgin daughters) and Deuteronomy 22:13-21 (a betrothed bride accused of fornication). A favorite argument against the betrothal view is that it is not found in the writings of the early church fathers. Why is this? The betrothal marriage is distinctly Jewish, so I wondered whether any of the ante Nicene fathers were Jews. Of the 26 or more church fathers researched, NONE are Jews. APOSTOLIC FATHERS: Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Hermas of Rome, Polycarp of Smyrna and Papias of modern Turkey, and the Greek apologist, Justin Martyr of Judaea. GREEK FATHERS: Irenaeus of Lyons. Clement of Alexandria, Origen of Alexandria, Athanasius of Alexandria, Cappadocian Fathers, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Maximus the Confessor, and John of Damascus. LATIN FATHERS: Tertullian, Cyprian of Carthage, Hilary of Poitiers, Ambrose of Milan, Pope Damasus I, Jerome of Stridonium, Augustine of Hippo, Pope Gregory the Great, and Isidore of Seville, Spain. NONE are Jews. "The salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it" (Acts 28:28). It may be that the early church did not understand Jewish betrothal customs because Jewish converts no longer practiced Judaism. "For if we are still practicing Judaism, we admit that we have not received God’s favor . . . it is wrong to talk about Jesus Christ and live like Jews.” - The Epistle to the Magnesians, 98-117AD. The early Greek and Latin Church Fathers had no background in Jewish practices and no motivation to institute the betrothal stoning law or Jewish betrothal divorce into the church. Matthew’s “except for a word [report] of fornication” clause was specific to the Jewish audience, and not for Gentiles. Matthew, a Jew, wrote to the Jews in the Hebrew language according to Papias, and with Hebrew idioms, Hebrew prophesies, and references to Mosaic Law. The Fathers obviously struggled to understand “except for a word [a report] of fornication.” To them it meant that one may divorce for persistent whoring, but cannot remarry. To the Jews, the exception given by Rabbi Jesus meant that although they were prohibited from divorcing and remarrying, they may still divorce a betrothed wife for fornication and marry a virgin. The one Early Church apologist who knew Jewish customs intimately was Justin Martyr (100-165 AD), a Gentile born and reared in Judaea. In his apologetic work, Justin dialogues with Trypho, a learned Jew, concerning Joseph’s contemplated betrothal divorce in Mt. 1:18. Trypho did not question or refute Justin’s assertion that a Jewish man would divorce his betrothed wife on the grounds of fornication. Jewish betrothal divorce is recorded in the Babylonian Talmud. “A VIRGIN is to be married on the fourth day of the week . . . if a man questions the virginity of his newly wedded wife, he may bring suit in court the next morning” (Auerbach, 1944, p. 156). The Greek and Latin Church fathers, many of whom lived 100 to 500 years after Christ, interpreted Jewish marriage customs and the words of Jesus through the lenses of their own culture. Moreover, as anti-Semitism developed, the fathers could only learn from their Jewish contacts surreptitiously. Under these obstacles, the Church Fathers would likely fail to connect Matthew 5:32 with the Jewish betrothal. We have the internet, and yet we also fail to research and understand Jewish customs. Justin wrote “Joseph, the spouse of Mary, who wished at first to put away his BETROTHED Mary, supposing her to be pregnant by intercourse with a man, i.e., from FORNICATION (Greek : Porneia ; Hebrew : Zanah) was commanded in a vision not to put away his WIFE.” An engagement Divorce! -Shared Grace and peace.
@@BibliayFe yes, I don’t deny that. I just shared the historical facts as to why some of them allowed divorce which God hates and Commands against (Malachi 2:13-17; Matt 19:6; Mark 10:6-9; 1 Cor 7:10-14) for the sin of adultery, when no man of God is found anywhere in the Holy scriptures ever doing so. The beautiful account of Hosea and his wife Gomer for instance, is a very strong attestment to this fact. Grace and peace. 🙏🏾
Fornication is a Latin word, and because of its use in Mathew, in close proximity to the Pharisees saying that they are not children of fornication because they have one father. Historically, experts have believed fornication to mean premarital sex, assuming the Pharisees were making an accusation that Jesus’ mother Mary was already pregnant and not a virgin before she married Joseph, while they were betrothed, and that Jesus was born of fornication. Recent Bible translations, acknowledge that other carnal sins are represented by the same word, and have changed the phrasing to sexual immorality. I don’t believe this to be correct. In Hebrews 12:16 Esau is referred to as profane and a fornicator, and the explanation why is that he gave up his inheritance for morsel of food. Esau did not commit sexual immorality, the Bible does not claim that he had premarital sex. So what does the Latin word fornication, or the Greek word porneia mean then? The Bible also uses this word to describe idolatry, to worship something other than God’s word. I believe it represents immorality and Irreverence to God, to react to carnal desire, putting it before God, We all naturally know what is right, and wrong being made in our fathers image, when we suppress or are willingly ignorant in order to serve desire of the flesh it is idolatry. This desire could be for food, fame and prestige, wealth and prosperity, power over others… carnal desire is not limited to sexual immorality. For what it’s worth, I believe you are right that Matthew was written originally in Hebrew, Jerome himself claimed to have seen an original manuscript in Hebrew and wrote that he translated from it. Desiderius Erasmus was given an opportunity to “correct” what was supposed error in Jerome’s Vulgate, because it didn’t match the Koine Greek transcripts they used. He also (according to Leslie McFall) made an addition when compiling his Greek text for its first ever printed publication, changing the meaning of Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9. Erasmus later in his annotations, said that it was more fair for people who are unhappy with each other to divorce rather than resort to murder to opt out of marriage. Martin Luther Who used Erasmus’s Greek translation to create his own German translation, also believed that a person for unfaithfulness or abandonment should be considered dead, and the marriage could be ended on this premiss. It should be noted, that this all happened when Henry the eighth broke from the Catholic Church, because he wanted an annulment from his wife Catherine so he could marry Ann Bolin, that the Catholic Church would not grant. For this reason, Henry broke away from the Catholic Church, and began the Anglican church, making himself it’s head, and granting himself an annulment. This was the dawn of Protestantism and the reformation. Desiderius Erasmus what is a professor of Greek language at Cambridge university where Henry VIII studied until the death of his brother Arthur who was king and first husband to Catherine of Aragorn. Desiderius Erasmus was also roommate and regular correspondent to Thomas Moore, chancellor and advisor to Henry VIII.
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?
Hmmmm. I’m not sure about the history of doctrine in the Church of England. I agree it would be very odd for them to pick it up in the last 50 years. I usually think that Ronald Reagan in the US was a big part of no fault divorce in the 1960’s. I could use some help on when divorce was popularized - legalized etc. in England. There was Henry 8th… but since then I’m not sure what has been influential.
I live in England ( and was born here). I remember a time when remarriage after divorce was not accepted in the Anglican Church and it's only been in about the last 20 years that divorced people can remarry in one.
@@MakemelodyinyourhearttotheLord Hmmm. Sounds like such a safe time. Would you describe it as such? I remember when I was a young man someone asked me my biggest fear. I said getting divorced. They said that’s would never happen. Anyways my parents church just announced they hired a bisexual person and had been secretly marrying men. Then they had a bunch of Q&A sessions and my parents decided to change churches. I think the peppery pays off in 2024. All those people who sacrificed and that’s where it is today. Praying God will lead them. So what denomination do you recommend for standers in the UK?
Since adultery doesn’t end the union, shouldn’t we take out the phrase “forsaking all others” then? After all if left in as part of the vow, it’s confusing and hurtful to the one who remained faithful. Rather both parties should know and understand your god doesn’t believe in mark 9:43, if your body parts cause you to sin cut them off. No your god says to keep the diseased member as part of you until both end up in Hell. The God I follow made cutting things off an earlier statement before the statement on divorce, meaning according to hermeneutical study, it’s more important and given greater weight than the statement on divorce. Just because you need to end a relationship doesn’t mean you haven’t forgiven. It just means you understand they aren’t safe to be with or around as part of your life. So like a hand or eye leading you to sin, you cut them out of your life for your own soul’s sake.
Hi John- we get a lot of similar comments… this one is something that I think will cause people to reflect on this verse. I have also noticed that the traditional wedding vows are packed with meaning. “Till death do us part.” What about in mental sickness/health, for when life is worse because of marriage etc. Why do churches still keep these vows, but then they really don’t. Isn’t this setting people up for confusion and hurt as you have been saying. Yes- I think churches need to be more clear. Forsaking all others is a condition of the arrangement- giving people the idea that there is a contract perhaps. If affairs don’t actually break the vows then why is it in there- good question! An interesting commentary on Mark 9:43. Thanks for sharing.
@@StandingStrongforMarriages if the relationship has conditions those conditions WILL be broken. Either it’s until a condition is broken or there are no conditions. It can’t be both ways.
I think we have to avoid the trap of rationalizing what we think is fair over what God expresses in his word. 1 Cor 7 explains what God’s instruction is if a couple were to separate, to reconcile or to remain alone. Do you think it better to expect that it would be impossible for God to change your spouse’s nature over time? Should we exile all criminals for life when they commit a crime assuming they can never be rehabilitated ? Would you want God to so easily give up on you, assuming you are beyond help or hope, and irredeemable? Thankfully, God has made a way through the sacrifice of his only begotten son, and by the atoning shedding of his blood, we no longer need to be shackled to sin, and be under the crushing weight of our past mistakes, so we can start a new life according to righteousness and abandoning the persons we once were.
@@dystopic6245 the question is does God expect us to be more than himself. God knows all. We do not. God sees all. We do not. It’s perfectly valid for God to reconcile. God knows the heart. We do not. While God may change the spouse’s nature over time. We cannot know for certain they are safe to build a new relationship with. Yes I said build a new relationship. The old relationship is dead, killed by the betrayal. Does God expect more of us than himself? Or are we instead permitted to cut them off Mark 9:43, and move on in life?
@@johnborland7865 There is more to be said than what you listed from Mark. Unless it is an unlawful union according to Leviticus 18 and 20, or otherwise, specifically condemned according to God (as when the returning Jews took foreign wives and repented by covenant with God, and divorced and separated from them, even though there were children born unto them) are married, you are no longer two single people, but one, and what God has joined together, let no man put asunder. Has God given up on humanity? Has God cast aside his people and moved on because of their betrayal? Did he consider them dead and forsaken his oath? God forbid anyone should not trust that God is faithful, or that we should not follow his example so we can spare ourselves from painful inconvenience and loneliness. It is the very reason why Esau was considered profane and a fornicator, because he gave up his inheritance for a morsel of food. Choosing to give in to carnal desire, rather than following God shows a lack of reverence for the future salvation from sin that he offers. Would you give up your salvation and follow your spouse into sin and forsake your oath thinking you are justified… thinking yourself the innocent party, and no longer obligated to your oath? Would you consider your spouse as dead to you for their betrayal, or your obligation dead because you do not wish to wait and pray for your spouse because your trust is broken? Hebrews 10:14-17 Ecclesiastes 5:3-5 Ezra 9 and 10 Matthew 5:33-37 Matthew 19:3-6 Romans 7:1-3 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 1 Corinthians 7:39 Maybe you can assume that the metaphor you referenced about cutting your hand off if it causes you to sin, and casting it away from you, relates to marriage, but it doesn’t actually say that in the scripture. Would you ignore scripture that tells you legitimate marriage is until death clearly so that you can wrestle an inference to suit your position and allow abandonment of your oath rather than follow the clear word of God? I think we can only control ourselves, and we can only live up to our own vows, we cannot force salvation, or faith, or integrity upon others as much as we may want to, we also cannot force others to see their need of a savior, but we have to recognize that need in ourselves, for our own sakes. None of us are innocent except Christ, that’s why he died for us, not to condemn us, but by his grace he waits patiently for us to repent, and to reconcile with him.
The NABRE (New American Bible Revised Edition) reads differently than all other modern translations: Mathew 5:32 But I say to you, anyone who divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. Matthew 19:9 I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another, commits adultery.
Dude I'm having a hard time finding the point you're trying to make. Are you saying Erasmus is correct and divorce and remarriage are biblically accurate? Bc you seem to attack David Pawson who doesn't believe that. Or are you exposing Erasmus as a fraud and that divorce AND remarriage after divorce is forbidden ?
Hi, I first heard about Erasmus while watching a David Pawson video in which David was describing the reasons marriage fell apart in Europe and then how remarriage become common place. So to me it seemed like David was clearly saying that Erasmus was part of the problem. But he didn’t elaborate so I went hunting to see who this Erasmus guy was.... When I made this video I was first researching the controversy. I can’t claim any original teaching. This video is a summary of teaching from Leslie Mcfall, who thinks the additions made by Erasmus in the Greek and Latin version are bogus changes and that they deviate from the original teachings of Christ and the General body of evidence that we have from many manuscripts compared to the Erasmanian text that has been adopted my many modern English versions which he goes on to give a list of translations that have returned to the original and the modern translations that are still suffering from the Erasmus changes seen in this video. Leslie McFall doesn’t believe in remarriage as long as as spouse lives because he believes that divorce is such a violation of the standards to forgive, that a person cannot execute a divorce and have any walk with God. If you read other things by him a person basically forfeits their salvation when they decide they are not interested in a faith that requires they forgive others if they are to be forgiven-- ref the Lord’s Prayer or other places in the Gosples. Yeah- the delivery was not the best as I was trying my best to see exactly what he was saying. I tried to clarify- but yeah- it could have been a better video on my part.
@@StandingStrongforMarriages well thanks for responding and clearing it up. In the meantime I have looked into your About section of your ministry and see that you support marriage for life (As do I) and standing for your marriage if divorced by a wayward spouse (which I currently am). Thanks for your stance on the matter and the playlists you provide. They're helpful. Please pray for my Covenant wife to return to The Lord and our marriage be restored. Divorced just over a year now 😔. We are John and Kim. Thank you and God bless 🙏 ✝️
@@philarevolutionarywarriorp8295 I would be honored to pray for you both. Thank you for the work you are putting in for your marriage and as a result, you are ministering to all marriages, intact as well as those that are hurting. Dear God, thank you for this man. Help him endure. Help his wife repent of divorce. Help them both be honest. We bind the lies in the name of your Son. We bless you that you are full of grace and truth. Make them one functionally, even as they have a covenant with you. Give them discernment that there are many forces working against their marriage and that their battle is not against each other. Thank you that you know them and what they need in a way that no person could ever understand. Thank you that you are faithful God and that you are well acquainted with suffering and rejection. Teach us how to handle these things.
@@StandingStrongforMarriages Thank you brother. May God bless your ministry. Please keep us in prayer if your group prays together regularly. It's very much appreciated.
PhilaRevolutionaryWarrior PA we have a group on Facebook. The group name is The same as this channel “Standing Strong For Marriages” it’s still small but you can post any prayer requests as things progress with you two.
But don't fundamentalists believe that the KJV is the inerrant and final Word Of God in English, and every modern translation is virtually the same including on the exception clause and therefore how it should be interpreted? So this video outlines cult teaching declaring that our Bible is wilfully unreliable, this is far more seriously wrong compared to declaring that divorce may be permissible for "porneia", and they then try to split up remarried Christian couples with families threatening them with hellfire as adulterers. Yes of course we should be strong on the sanctity of marriage but the "no grounds for divorce ever" gang produce evil fruit so their doctrine is evil. You can stand strong for marriage without being unbiblical and banning divorce completely fortunately most Protestant pastors who actually have pastoral care of real people discern the spirit of Christ in the words of Matthew 19:9 and indeed 1 Corinthians 7 and show grace even when technically adultery has taken place! I think a lot of the people who promote "no divorce and remarriage ever on any grounds" do so on the basis of their own divorces or bad marriages and it's a Pharasaical spirit of false holiness.
Hi Philip- how are you today? I don’t think people much care about my opinion. My strategy has been to highlight the work of those who are experts or lay people who have dedicated serious time into a specific area. I do appreciate the suggestion. Perhaps I will put out a paper in the future.
@Godsgift2mee Good to hear from you. My answer to your question would be that a spouse is not simply the first sexual partner or even a subsequent partner. It’s a covenant made willfully with that person and with God. There has been very little debate on this question in the comment section in the past. I can’t remember anyone commenting that sex = marriage. Good question. We will see if anyone has different opinions.
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.
There is a bit of Greek in that section... kind of hard to verify the conclusion he makes based on the supporting evidence he gives with photos of Greek manuscripts. To date- I have not seen someone put as much effort into that issue, so good to read.
@@StandingStrongforMarriages I appreciate your tackling it!! But this is presented a bit confusedly. I’m a divorced wife who was the committer of the sin, but there is still no cause for divorce that Jesus was referring to other than during the betrothal period. I’m part of ministries who teach this very important truth and we refuse to remarry whether we were the offending spouse OR the offended spouse. People need to know about this, clearly. Joseph Webb was quite good on the subject, overall. Narrow is the way, is the basic crux of it all.
Did our Lord Yeshua (Matt. 5, 32) explain or even say that the cause of fornication (sexual immorality) is the one justifiable (acceptable / plausible) reason for divorce? Of course not. If so, he would have contradicted himself and even the Lord God, our heavenly Father as well. So let us just start there: The Father and his Son are one, and the Son is even the Word of God, who became flesh and dwelt among us. The Son is the perfect image of his (and our!) Father, (Col.1,15: “Who is the image of the invisible God-“ and Col.2,9: “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily-) and he would never ever(!) say anything else or other than him. (John. 8,28: “Then said Yeshua unto them, When you have lifted up the Son of man, then shall you know that I am He, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father has taught me, I speak these things.”) The next step we take in this matter, is to look at the context this saying is taken from. Several times Yeshua confronted both the Scribes, the Pharisees and other listener with his own superiority as to Moses and what he (and others) had taught Israel. See Matt. 5, 21: “You have heard that it was said by them of old time, you shall not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment-“ And Matt. 5, 27: “You have heard that it was said by them of old time, you shall not commit adultery-“ And Matt. 5, 33: “Again, you have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, you shall not forswear yourselves, but shall perform unto the Lord your oaths-“ And Matt. 5, 38: “You have heard that it hath been said, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth-“ And Matt. 5, 43: “You have heard that it hath been said, you shall love your neighbour, and hate your enemy-“ Each and every time Yeshua used that expression(s), he immediately continued with: “But I say unto you-“ and then he (each and every time) imposes a (much!) higher moral and spiritual standard than anyone had ever heard of, raising the list dramatically. This is the case also in the matter we now are looking into. But let us first establish the foundation on which we (must) stand. When the Lord God gave his ten commandments (in fact precious promises!) on Mount Sinai, he presented them (all) with one and the same prefix: “When (or if) I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, you shall… (and) you shall not…” The implications of this, are very simple (= easy to understand) and unchangeable. What most people don’t realise, is that an important spiritual, moral and even logical law is hidden in those words, namely that when (or if) the Lord God not is accepted (for what he is) and obeyed of Israel or any other people(s), they shall do exactly the opposite of what he commanded! Fact is: When the Lord God is NOT the one and only God for any man (or woman), he (or she) shall, will and have to have false gods to follow and obey, thereby provoking the Lord God’s anger and wrath. The following consequences are terrifying and gruesome as they always lead to breaking not only the Ten Commandments, but every possible God-given word(s), thereby leading to eternal destruction. Back to the topic of divorce: The Lord Yeshua used exactly the same words as the Lord God when he explained the matter. And as the Lord God did not add any “exception clause” to any of The Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai, neither did his beloved Son so when he taught and explained the Lord God’s will on the mountains of Israel. For those who claim he did so in Matt. 5, 32: Where in the text do you find it? The Lord Yeshua is not at all saying, not even hinting that the cause of fornication makes (a) divorce acceptable! If he had meant that, (which, as we have already established, is impossible, as he then would have contradicted both his own and his Fathers words,) he certainly would has said so. Give me a brake: The most extraordinary brilliant communicator, teacher, scholar, speaker and pedagogue who has ever spoken to any human being, the one and only who is the Word of God; he should not be able to put a sentence together that would reveal and declare the true meaning of it? In light of the significant and utterly important intro mentioned earlier, (“It has been said.. But I say unto you”) it should not come as a surprise for any listener or reader(!) that the Lord Yeshua then tells something unheard of, namely the most gruesome effect and result of (the grave sin) divorce: A man can thereby (by doing that sin!) cause a woman to be guilty of a sin she in fact not has done, (adultery) except of course she herself already has done the other mentioned sin, namely fornication.
@@ajlouviere202 Yes. An honest reading of what Yeshua said and taught about this, is totally in line with (=the same as) what his Father has said: "Therefore (for this cause) shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be one flesh. Consequently / therefore they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate / put asunder."
@@ajlouviere202 Exactly. And the covenant-part of this, is of the utmost importance! Paul speaks of this as a great secret, even a mystery: Yeshua and the Church.
@@knuteskild Then why did The Lord divorce Israel. Granted in the book of Hosea God endured many adulteries and forgave them all, and looks forward to the ultimate reconciliation. Yet God put away His old covenant(marriage) and created a new enduring covenant through the High Priest Yeshua. The Messiah who makes intercession by the shedding of His blood, not through law or edict. Jesus is the end of divorce. Yet God's divorce to Israel demonstrates that divorce is not categorially without merit, or else you are condemning the Most High.
"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.
it is frightening that one person, could change something that potentially threatens the salvation, of all of us....
I'm very thankful for teachers like David Pawson, Joseph Webb, Stephen Wilcox, and Mike Gorrie, who each hold firm to Jesus's teaching on adultery.
Two other teachers preaching the truth on this subject are Logan Fowler from Truth Baptist Church, and David Sproule from Palm Beach Lakes Church of Christ.
Courageous voices in a world that confuses compassion with permission.
@@dystopic6245 Yes brother dysto! Im gleaning yr compassion with permission stance and keep note to look these preachers up. I mostly stick to the Bible. funny how we see in depth research done on a topic that needs no explanation ..freewill. learned and exploited since the wonderful age of two. Bible only teaches on this as what to do with it. I agree with most of this topic of divorce done here. if we could(not sure if were supposed to) spell it out for everyone if the condition would improve. they would just know. Make it clear and still the Holy Spirit not getting them to respond to conviction. we try to teach them and not convict them. rowing against each other? Top it off that they might not be seeking The Lord in the first place. May we encourage others to seek Jesus. God bless
Amen!
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 .
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.
Excatly 💯
Sometimes I think about this work. I have read 10% of it. I did however share my questions with a friend in bible translation. They were offended by the conclusion of it being a salvation issue. They also brought up a point that it was not published so it wouldn’t be quoted or referenced in seminary /theological work in the future.
Any mention of the decision not to publish?
Thanks.
The "ei" means "if." Leslie McFall's thesis THE BIBLICAL TEACHING ON DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE is hands-down THE best thing I've ever read on this subject of divorce-remarriage adultery. McFall demolishes Erasmus and all others who try to teach the deception doctrine so prevalent in the Christian churches/congregations.
MsAnna thank you gal! :)
@@StandingStrongforMarriages Hey brother, quick question: do you know what happened to Mindy the Bibles and Burpees girl?
Someone else told me she took down her channel. Before that I heard that a lot of people were giving her grief so that she started blocking people. You could only imagine the things upset people would say. Anytime people have a theology that threatens our family... well people get upset about it...
the last time I watched her was awhile back and she was doing videos on prayer, meditation, and scripture encouragement. But that’s been a while ago.
@@StandingStrongforMarriages thanks. Yeah the last time I saw her was I think in the early fall and she said she and her Covenant husband were in discussions about reconciliation. I pray it works out for them. She is an inspirational girl to many.
@@StandingStrongforMarriages Btw still praying for you and your situation brother
PTL! I've been wanting to do a video on this NOT for fornication. So glad that you have. Thanks for sharing this about Dr. Leslie McFall. I downloaded his unpublished book and got it printed a couple of years ago when I stumbled upon this! Lots of pages. I agree with most of what he says, especially after I double checked his claims. He's right on that there is no "except" words in the original texts of both the Majority and Minority. It is only the Textus Receptus that has the error! We need to get this truth out.
Yes- this information is a total game changer- for one it eliminates the endless hours that people spend debating the betrothal view and “double conditional elliptical phrase” I believe is what the Greek grammar scholars try to unravel... thank God for DuPont and his contribution. In the end, in my experience, it becomes clear what is true and what isn’t. It takes a while to connect the dots.... but this one is a huge dot! To simply say, there was never an exception in the original texts- it was added later- it pretty much solves everything quickly.
An hour of research in Erasmus and then things really start to become clear.
One of the ways that people like to learn is through interviews- the podcast format is very popular because of the interactions that take place. I haven’t spent tons of time on this issue- I am not a Greek speaker or reader. If you want to do an interview and present your findings, especially if you have gone deep into it...I think people would love it.
StandingStrongForMarriages @
Gmail
If you are interested. To your point what an amazing piece of information for anyone trying to sort it out.
Please read Ezra 9-10, in which is given the only example of divorce sanctioned by God through a covenant with his returning people after the diaspora.
An unlawful union should be severed because it is fraudulent when one or both are ineligible to marry the other according to God’s word.
Even when children are involved, as an act of repentance, one must turn away from sin and turn again toward righteousness, according to God’s authority, not what panders to your convenience, or your sensibilities and logic, but instead surrender to God’s authority.
God forgives any error in your past, and is merciful when you stumble, but you must admit yourself to be in error and need a savior, and if you love him, you will follow his statutes and ordinances, and not ignore them.
Thank you! I have people tell me that Ezra shows God sanctioning divorce to use it as a reason to get an unbiblical divorce. It is very clear here that is a specific situatrion.
@seeker-seeking
I haven’t seen anywhere in the Bible that allows you to legitimately remarry unless your spouse were to pass away.
I believe that if you’ve been divorced from a legitimate spouse you have two choices: to remain alone, or to be reconciled.
(1 Cor 7:10-11)
In Mat 19:12 it was explained that this was not something everybody could understand, only those who are willing to follow God’s authority even if it meant being alone.
I believe that Jesus was correcting the pharisaical interpretation that for the cause of adultery (school of Shamaii) or for any reason like burning your dinner (school of Hillel), you could divorce your spouse, and be free to marry another. This is what the Roman society allowed, and in fact, most governing leaders allowed.
Jesus says that if you divorce someone and remarry, it’s adultery. He also says that if you marry someone who is divorced, it’s adultery.
(Mat 5:32, Mat 19:9, Mark 10:12, Luke 16:18).
Of course, if you were never legitimately married in the first place, and divorced somebody publicly as a correction and repentance, you would still be single and able to create a legitimate matrimonial union with someone who is eligible for you to marry.
I think it really boils down to a misinterpretation by the Pharisees of Deuteronomy 24.
Where the Pharisees believe that the uncleanness with a woman is adultery after marriage, rather than an uncleanness, representing an unlawful union.
I believe Jesus was making a correction of the Pharisees misrepresentation, used as a concession to conform to hellenistic society’s norm.
Like so many religious leaders even do nowadays many religious sects placate people’s desires to fill their places of worship and the collection box.
Hogwash. Standing strong for marriages with adultery would not have been tolerated in Bible days, when adultery carried the death penalty by stoning.
Thanks for the comment. I just met a pastor and author who made the point that the provision in Deut. 24 must be for something less than sexual sin, to your point.
Contrary to current popular criticism, the Textus Receptus is a better source for many reasons. Great video.
Why Didn't the Early Church Fathers Write about the Betrothal View?
The ORIENTAL BETROTHAL custom has a 4000 YEAR HISTORY, and is recorded in Genesis 19 (Lot’s two betrothed virgin daughters) and Deuteronomy 22:13-21 (a betrothed bride accused of fornication). A favorite argument against the betrothal view is that it is not found in the writings of the early church fathers. Why is this? The betrothal marriage is distinctly Jewish, so I wondered whether any of the ante Nicene fathers were Jews. Of the 26 or more church fathers researched, NONE are Jews.
APOSTOLIC FATHERS: Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Hermas of Rome, Polycarp of Smyrna and Papias of modern Turkey, and the Greek apologist, Justin Martyr of Judaea.
GREEK FATHERS: Irenaeus of Lyons. Clement of Alexandria, Origen of Alexandria, Athanasius of Alexandria, Cappadocian Fathers, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Maximus the Confessor, and John of Damascus.
LATIN FATHERS: Tertullian, Cyprian of Carthage, Hilary of Poitiers, Ambrose of Milan, Pope Damasus I, Jerome of Stridonium, Augustine of Hippo, Pope Gregory the Great, and Isidore of Seville, Spain. NONE are Jews.
"The salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it" (Acts 28:28).
It may be that the early church did not understand Jewish betrothal customs because Jewish converts no longer practiced Judaism. "For if we are still practicing Judaism, we admit that we have not received God’s favor . . . it is wrong to talk about Jesus Christ and live like Jews.” - The Epistle to the Magnesians, 98-117AD.
The early Greek and Latin Church Fathers had no background in Jewish practices and no motivation to institute the betrothal stoning law or Jewish betrothal divorce into the church. Matthew’s “except for a word [report] of fornication” clause was specific to the Jewish audience, and not for Gentiles. Matthew, a Jew, wrote to the Jews in the Hebrew language according to Papias, and with Hebrew idioms, Hebrew prophesies, and references to Mosaic Law. The Fathers obviously struggled to understand “except for a word [a report] of fornication.” To them it meant that one may divorce for persistent whoring, but cannot remarry. To the Jews, the exception given by Rabbi Jesus meant that although they were prohibited from divorcing and remarrying, they may still divorce a betrothed wife for fornication and marry a virgin.
The one Early Church apologist who knew Jewish customs intimately was Justin Martyr (100-165 AD), a Gentile born and reared in Judaea. In his apologetic work, Justin dialogues with Trypho, a learned Jew, concerning Joseph’s contemplated betrothal divorce in Mt. 1:18. Trypho did not question or refute Justin’s assertion that a Jewish man would divorce his betrothed wife on the grounds of fornication. Jewish betrothal divorce is recorded in the Babylonian Talmud.
“A VIRGIN is to be married on the fourth day of the week . . . if a man questions the virginity of his newly wedded wife, he may bring suit in court the next morning” (Auerbach, 1944, p. 156).
The Greek and Latin Church fathers, many of whom lived 100 to 500 years after Christ, interpreted Jewish marriage customs and the words of Jesus through the lenses of their own culture. Moreover, as anti-Semitism developed, the fathers could only learn from their Jewish contacts surreptitiously. Under these obstacles, the Church Fathers would likely fail to connect Matthew 5:32 with the Jewish betrothal. We have the internet, and yet we also fail to research and understand Jewish customs.
Justin wrote “Joseph, the spouse of Mary, who wished at first to put away his BETROTHED Mary, supposing her to be pregnant by intercourse with a man, i.e., from FORNICATION (Greek : Porneia ; Hebrew : Zanah) was commanded in a vision not to put away his WIFE.” An engagement Divorce!
-Shared
Grace and peace.
Thank you. That was absolutely informative.
PhilaRevolutionaryWarrior PA very welcome, and God bless.
@@44HardCase actually church fathers were against remarriage
@@BibliayFe yes, I don’t deny that. I just shared the historical facts as to why some of them allowed divorce which God hates and Commands against (Malachi 2:13-17; Matt 19:6; Mark 10:6-9; 1 Cor 7:10-14) for the sin of adultery, when no man of God is found anywhere in the Holy scriptures ever doing so. The beautiful account of Hosea and his wife Gomer for instance, is a very strong attestment to this fact.
Grace and peace. 🙏🏾
Fornication is a Latin word, and because of its use in Mathew, in close proximity to the Pharisees saying that they are not children of fornication because they have one father.
Historically, experts have believed fornication to mean premarital sex, assuming the Pharisees were making an accusation that Jesus’ mother Mary was already pregnant and not a virgin before she married Joseph, while they were betrothed, and that Jesus was born of fornication.
Recent Bible translations, acknowledge that other carnal sins are represented by the same word, and have changed the phrasing to sexual immorality.
I don’t believe this to be correct.
In Hebrews 12:16 Esau is referred to as profane and a fornicator, and the explanation why is that he gave up his inheritance for morsel of food.
Esau did not commit sexual immorality, the Bible does not claim that he had premarital sex.
So what does the Latin word fornication, or the Greek word porneia mean then?
The Bible also uses this word to describe idolatry, to worship something other than God’s word.
I believe it represents immorality and Irreverence to God, to react to carnal desire, putting it before God,
We all naturally know what is right, and wrong being made in our fathers image, when we suppress or are willingly ignorant in order to serve desire of the flesh it is idolatry.
This desire could be for food, fame and prestige, wealth and prosperity, power over others… carnal desire is not limited to sexual immorality.
For what it’s worth, I believe you are right that Matthew was written originally in Hebrew, Jerome himself claimed to have seen an original manuscript in Hebrew and wrote that he translated from it.
Desiderius Erasmus was given an opportunity to “correct” what was supposed error in Jerome’s Vulgate, because it didn’t match the Koine Greek transcripts they used.
He also (according to Leslie McFall) made an addition when compiling his Greek text for its first ever printed publication, changing the meaning of Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9.
Erasmus later in his annotations, said that it was more fair for people who are unhappy with each other to divorce rather than resort to murder to opt out of marriage.
Martin Luther Who used Erasmus’s Greek translation to create his own German translation, also believed that a person for unfaithfulness or abandonment should be considered dead, and the marriage could be ended on this premiss.
It should be noted, that this all happened when Henry the eighth broke from the Catholic Church, because he wanted an annulment from his wife Catherine so he could marry Ann Bolin, that the Catholic Church would not grant.
For this reason, Henry broke away from the Catholic Church, and began the Anglican church, making himself it’s head, and granting himself an annulment.
This was the dawn of Protestantism and the reformation.
Desiderius Erasmus what is a professor of Greek language at Cambridge university where Henry VIII studied until the death of his brother Arthur who was king and first husband to Catherine of Aragorn.
Desiderius Erasmus was also roommate and regular correspondent to Thomas Moore, chancellor and advisor to Henry VIII.
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?
Hmmmm. I’m not sure about the history of doctrine in the Church of England. I agree it would be very odd for them to pick it up in the last 50 years. I usually think that Ronald Reagan in the US was a big part of no fault divorce in the 1960’s.
I could use some help on when divorce was popularized - legalized etc. in England. There was Henry 8th… but since then I’m not sure what has been influential.
I live in England ( and was born here). I remember a time when remarriage after divorce was not accepted in the Anglican Church and it's only been in about the last 20 years that divorced people can remarry in one.
@@MakemelodyinyourhearttotheLord Hmmm. Sounds like such a safe time. Would you describe it as such?
I remember when I was a young man someone asked me my biggest fear. I said getting divorced. They said that’s would never happen.
Anyways my parents church just announced they hired a bisexual person and had been secretly marrying men. Then they had a bunch of Q&A sessions and my parents decided to change churches. I think the peppery pays off in 2024. All those people who sacrificed and that’s where it is today.
Praying God will lead them.
So what denomination do you recommend for standers in the UK?
how can one person, with, what, one translation, can not be corrected....
Since adultery doesn’t end the union, shouldn’t we take out the phrase “forsaking all others” then? After all if left in as part of the vow, it’s confusing and hurtful to the one who remained faithful. Rather both parties should know and understand your god doesn’t believe in mark 9:43, if your body parts cause you to sin cut them off. No your god says to keep the diseased member as part of you until both end up in Hell.
The God I follow made cutting things off an earlier statement before the statement on divorce, meaning according to hermeneutical study, it’s more important and given greater weight than the statement on divorce. Just because you need to end a relationship doesn’t mean you haven’t forgiven. It just means you understand they aren’t safe to be with or around as part of your life. So like a hand or eye leading you to sin, you cut them out of your life for your own soul’s sake.
Hi John- we get a lot of similar comments… this one is something that I think will cause people to reflect on this verse.
I have also noticed that the traditional wedding vows are packed with meaning. “Till death do us part.” What about in mental sickness/health, for when life is worse because of marriage etc.
Why do churches still keep these vows, but then they really don’t. Isn’t this setting people up for confusion and hurt as you have been saying. Yes- I think churches need to be more clear.
Forsaking all others is a condition of the arrangement- giving people the idea that there is a contract perhaps. If affairs don’t actually break the vows then why is it in there- good question!
An interesting commentary on Mark 9:43. Thanks for sharing.
@@StandingStrongforMarriages if the relationship has conditions those conditions WILL be broken. Either it’s until a condition is broken or there are no conditions. It can’t be both ways.
I think we have to avoid the trap of rationalizing what we think is fair over what God expresses in his word.
1 Cor 7 explains what God’s instruction is if a couple were to separate, to reconcile or to remain alone.
Do you think it better to expect that it would be impossible for God to change your spouse’s nature over time?
Should we exile all criminals for life when they commit a crime assuming they can never be rehabilitated ?
Would you want God to so easily give up on you, assuming you are beyond help or hope, and irredeemable?
Thankfully, God has made a way through the sacrifice of his only begotten son, and by the atoning shedding of his blood, we no longer need to be shackled to sin, and be under the crushing weight of our past mistakes, so we can start a new life according to righteousness and abandoning the persons we once were.
@@dystopic6245 the question is does God expect us to be more than himself. God knows all. We do not. God sees all. We do not. It’s perfectly valid for God to reconcile. God knows the heart. We do not. While God may change the spouse’s nature over time. We cannot know for certain they are safe to build a new relationship with. Yes I said build a new relationship. The old relationship is dead, killed by the betrayal. Does God expect more of us than himself? Or are we instead permitted to cut them off Mark 9:43, and move on in life?
@@johnborland7865
There is more to be said than what you listed from Mark.
Unless it is an unlawful union according to Leviticus 18 and 20, or otherwise, specifically condemned according to God (as when the returning Jews took foreign wives and repented by covenant with God, and divorced and separated from them, even though there were children born unto them) are married, you are no longer two single people, but one, and what God has joined together, let no man put asunder.
Has God given up on humanity? Has God cast aside his people and moved on because of their betrayal? Did he consider them dead and forsaken his oath?
God forbid anyone should not trust that God is faithful, or that we should not follow his example so we can spare ourselves from painful inconvenience and loneliness.
It is the very reason why Esau was considered profane and a fornicator, because he gave up his inheritance for a morsel of food.
Choosing to give in to carnal desire, rather than following God shows a lack of reverence for the future salvation from sin that he offers.
Would you give up your salvation and follow your spouse into sin and forsake your oath thinking you are justified… thinking yourself the innocent party, and no longer obligated to your oath?
Would you consider your spouse as dead to you for their betrayal, or your obligation dead because you do not wish to wait and pray for your spouse because your trust is broken?
Hebrews 10:14-17
Ecclesiastes 5:3-5
Ezra 9 and 10
Matthew 5:33-37
Matthew 19:3-6
Romans 7:1-3
1 Corinthians 7:10-11
1 Corinthians 7:39
Maybe you can assume that the metaphor you referenced about cutting your hand off if it causes you to sin, and casting it away from you, relates to marriage, but it doesn’t actually say that in the scripture.
Would you ignore scripture that tells you legitimate marriage is until death clearly so that you can wrestle an inference to suit your position and allow abandonment of your oath rather than follow the clear word of God?
I think we can only control ourselves, and we can only live up to our own vows, we cannot force salvation, or faith, or integrity upon others as much as we may want to, we also cannot force others to see their need of a savior, but we have to recognize that need in ourselves, for our own sakes.
None of us are innocent except Christ, that’s why he died for us, not to condemn us, but by his grace he waits patiently for us to repent, and to reconcile with him.
The NABRE
(New American Bible Revised Edition) reads differently than all other modern translations:
Mathew 5:32
But I say to you, anyone who divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
Matthew 19:9
I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another, commits adultery.
Dude I'm having a hard time finding the point you're trying to make. Are you saying Erasmus is correct and divorce and remarriage are biblically accurate? Bc you seem to attack David Pawson who doesn't believe that. Or are you exposing Erasmus as a fraud and that divorce AND remarriage after divorce is forbidden ?
Hi, I first heard about Erasmus while watching a David Pawson video in which David was describing the reasons marriage fell apart in Europe and then how remarriage become common place. So to me it seemed like David was clearly saying that Erasmus was part of the problem. But he didn’t elaborate so I went hunting to see who this Erasmus guy was.... When I made this video I was first researching the controversy. I can’t claim any original teaching. This video is a summary of teaching from Leslie Mcfall, who thinks the additions made by Erasmus in the Greek and Latin version are bogus changes and that they deviate from the original teachings of Christ and the General body of evidence that we have from many manuscripts compared to the Erasmanian text that has been adopted my many modern English versions which he goes on to give a list of translations that have returned to the original and the modern translations that are still suffering from the Erasmus changes seen in this video. Leslie McFall doesn’t believe in remarriage as long as as spouse lives because he believes that divorce is such a violation of the standards to forgive, that a person cannot execute a divorce and have any walk with God. If you read other things by him a person basically forfeits their salvation when they decide they are not interested in a faith that requires they forgive others if they are to be forgiven-- ref the Lord’s Prayer or other places in the Gosples. Yeah- the delivery was not the best as I was trying my best to see exactly what he was saying. I tried to clarify- but yeah- it could have been a better video on my part.
@@StandingStrongforMarriages well thanks for responding and clearing it up. In the meantime I have looked into your About section of your ministry and see that you support marriage for life (As do I) and standing for your marriage if divorced by a wayward spouse (which I currently am). Thanks for your stance on the matter and the playlists you provide. They're helpful. Please pray for my Covenant wife to return to The Lord and our marriage be restored. Divorced just over a year now 😔. We are John and Kim. Thank you and God bless 🙏 ✝️
@@philarevolutionarywarriorp8295 I would be honored to pray for you both. Thank you for the work you are putting in for your marriage and as a result, you are ministering to all marriages, intact as well as those that are hurting. Dear God, thank you for this man. Help him endure. Help his wife repent of divorce. Help them both be honest. We bind the lies in the name of your Son. We bless you that you are full of grace and truth. Make them one functionally, even as they have a covenant with you. Give them discernment that there are many forces working against their marriage and that their battle is not against each other. Thank you that you know them and what they need in a way that no person could ever understand. Thank you that you are faithful God and that you are well acquainted with suffering and rejection. Teach us how to handle these things.
@@StandingStrongforMarriages Thank you brother. May God bless your ministry. Please keep us in prayer if your group prays together regularly. It's very much appreciated.
PhilaRevolutionaryWarrior PA we have a group on Facebook. The group name is The same as this channel “Standing Strong For Marriages” it’s still small but you can post any prayer requests as things progress with you two.
But don't fundamentalists believe that the KJV is the inerrant and final Word Of God in English, and every modern translation is virtually the same including on the exception clause and therefore how it should be interpreted? So this video outlines cult teaching declaring that our Bible is wilfully unreliable, this is far more seriously wrong compared to declaring that divorce may be permissible for "porneia", and they then try to split up remarried Christian couples with families threatening them with hellfire as adulterers. Yes of course we should be strong on the sanctity of marriage but the "no grounds for divorce ever" gang produce evil fruit so their doctrine is evil. You can stand strong for marriage without being unbiblical and banning divorce completely fortunately most Protestant pastors who actually have pastoral care of real people discern the spirit of Christ in the words of Matthew 19:9 and indeed 1 Corinthians 7 and show grace even when technically adultery has taken place! I think a lot of the people who promote "no divorce and remarriage ever on any grounds" do so on the basis of their own divorces or bad marriages and it's a Pharasaical spirit of false holiness.
is this not a huge issue, as the Seminaries....
why not just do a position paper, or post his.....after all we can read....
Hi Philip- how are you today? I don’t think people much care about my opinion. My strategy has been to highlight the work of those who are experts or lay people who have dedicated serious time into a specific area.
I do appreciate the suggestion. Perhaps I will put out a paper in the future.
@@StandingStrongforMarriages interesting, thanx, for your explanation....
@@StandingStrongforMarriages it is not your opinion, it is an open secret that needs to be addressed......and at least you are doing something...
the one....who has not given cause....is defined just before to be ....the innocent partner....
What exactly constitutes a marriage in Gods eyes ? Are you married to the first person you had sex with ? Is that your covenant spouse ?
@Godsgift2mee Good to hear from you.
My answer to your question would be that a spouse is not simply the first sexual partner or even a subsequent partner. It’s a covenant made willfully with that person and with God.
There has been very little debate on this question in the comment section in the past. I can’t remember anyone commenting that sex = marriage.
Good question. We will see if anyone has different opinions.
@@StandingStrongforMarriages this question floats around.....quite a bit....
Just because you let your neighbors cattle graze on your land, does it become his land?
@@MoonPhaze5If someone builds a house first on unclaimed land it is his is it not?
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.
maybe it is time to just read the report....
There is a bit of Greek in that section... kind of hard to verify the conclusion he makes based on the supporting evidence he gives with photos of Greek manuscripts. To date- I have not seen someone put as much effort into that issue, so good to read.
does the translation....not even for fornication, have any merit....
You need to be stronger in the way you present this.
Thanks for the advice Becky.
@@StandingStrongforMarriages I appreciate your tackling it!! But this is presented a bit confusedly. I’m a divorced wife who was the committer of the sin, but there is still no cause for divorce that Jesus was referring to other than during the betrothal period. I’m part of ministries who teach this very important truth and we refuse to remarry whether we were the offending spouse OR the offended spouse. People need to know about this, clearly. Joseph Webb was quite good on the subject, overall.
Narrow is the way, is the basic crux of it all.
Did our Lord Yeshua (Matt. 5, 32) explain or even say that the cause of fornication (sexual immorality) is the one justifiable (acceptable / plausible) reason for divorce?
Of course not.
If so, he would have contradicted himself and even the Lord God, our heavenly Father as well.
So let us just start there: The Father and his Son are one, and the Son is even the Word of God, who became flesh and dwelt among us.
The Son is the perfect image of his (and our!) Father, (Col.1,15: “Who is the image of the invisible God-“ and Col.2,9: “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily-) and he would never ever(!) say anything else or other than him. (John. 8,28: “Then said Yeshua unto them, When you have lifted up the Son of man, then shall you know that I am He, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father has taught me, I speak these things.”)
The next step we take in this matter, is to look at the context this saying is taken from.
Several times Yeshua confronted both the Scribes, the Pharisees and other listener with his own superiority as to Moses and what he (and others) had taught Israel.
See Matt. 5, 21: “You have heard that it was said by them of old time, you shall not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment-“
And Matt. 5, 27: “You have heard that it was said by them of old time, you shall not commit adultery-“
And Matt. 5, 33: “Again, you have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, you shall not forswear yourselves, but shall perform unto the Lord your oaths-“
And Matt. 5, 38: “You have heard that it hath been said, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth-“
And Matt. 5, 43: “You have heard that it hath been said, you shall love your neighbour, and hate your enemy-“
Each and every time Yeshua used that expression(s), he immediately continued with: “But I say unto you-“ and then he (each and every time) imposes a (much!) higher moral and spiritual standard than anyone had ever heard of, raising the list dramatically.
This is the case also in the matter we now are looking into.
But let us first establish the foundation on which we (must) stand.
When the Lord God gave his ten commandments (in fact precious promises!) on Mount Sinai, he presented them (all) with one and the same prefix: “When (or if) I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, you shall… (and) you shall not…”
The implications of this, are very simple (= easy to understand) and unchangeable.
What most people don’t realise, is that an important spiritual, moral and even logical law is hidden in those words, namely that when (or if) the Lord God not is accepted (for what he is) and obeyed of Israel or any other people(s), they shall do exactly the opposite of what he commanded!
Fact is: When the Lord God is NOT the one and only God for any man (or woman), he (or she) shall, will and have to have false gods to follow and obey, thereby provoking the Lord God’s anger and wrath.
The following consequences are terrifying and gruesome as they always lead to breaking not only the Ten Commandments, but every possible God-given word(s), thereby leading to eternal destruction.
Back to the topic of divorce: The Lord Yeshua used exactly the same words as the Lord God when he explained the matter. And as the Lord God did not add any “exception clause” to any of The Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai, neither did his beloved Son so when he taught and explained the Lord God’s will on the mountains of Israel.
For those who claim he did so in Matt. 5, 32: Where in the text do you find it?
The Lord Yeshua is not at all saying, not even hinting that the cause of fornication makes (a) divorce acceptable! If he had meant that, (which, as we have already established, is impossible, as he then would have contradicted both his own and his Fathers words,) he certainly would has said so.
Give me a brake: The most extraordinary brilliant communicator, teacher, scholar, speaker and pedagogue who has ever spoken to any human being, the one and only who is the Word of God; he should not be able to put a sentence together that would reveal and declare the true meaning of it?
In light of the significant and utterly important intro mentioned earlier, (“It has been said.. But I say unto you”) it should not come as a surprise for any listener or reader(!) that the Lord Yeshua then tells something unheard of, namely the most gruesome effect and result of (the grave sin) divorce:
A man can thereby (by doing that sin!) cause a woman to be guilty of a sin she in fact not has done, (adultery) except of course she herself already has done the other mentioned sin, namely fornication.
Can you include a summary statement for what you have posted so people can be clear?
@@ajlouviere202 Yes. An honest reading of what Yeshua said and taught about this, is totally in line with (=the same as) what his Father has said: "Therefore (for this cause) shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be one flesh. Consequently / therefore they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate / put asunder."
@@knuteskild Amen. Yes. Jesus upheld the standard of the covenant of one-flesh in marriage.
@@ajlouviere202 Exactly. And the covenant-part of this, is of the utmost importance! Paul speaks of this as a great secret, even a mystery: Yeshua and the Church.
@@knuteskild Then why did The Lord divorce Israel. Granted in the book of Hosea God endured many adulteries and forgave them all, and looks forward to the ultimate reconciliation. Yet God put away His old covenant(marriage) and created a new enduring covenant through the High Priest Yeshua. The Messiah who makes intercession by the shedding of His blood, not through law or edict. Jesus is the end of divorce. Yet God's divorce to Israel demonstrates that divorce is not categorially without merit, or else you are condemning the Most High.
"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.