In other translations it says, "in case of fornication". The reason Jesus didn't just say, "in case of adultery"..is because if you cheat on your wife, that IS adultery and if your wife cheats on you, that is ALSO adultery...but Jesus uses the word fornication (sexual immorality), which means ANY immoral sexual act. That makes me conclude that Jesus meant if the wife or husband commits ANY sexual immorality, that means with an animal or with a minor, it constitutes the right for divorce.
@@perfectwordTV But also, when does the forgiveness come to play in this case? Are we to divorce or are we to forgive..or perhaps both? We could forgive and still divorce? But, if we forgive our spouse why the need to divorce? It's a conundrum!
Romans 7:2-3 makes it clear that the covenant of marriage is broken only by the death of the husband or wife. We make the vow before God and family saying till death do we part. Only if you are widowed can you remmarry. The Most High God gave us and example with the story of Hosea. Please read. Yes, God gave Israel a divorce decree, but He did not remmarry another nation. God is going to restore Her( Israel) and marry His bride. 1 Corinthians 6:9 makes a clear distinction between fornication and adultery. Please read. My husband divorced me 22 yrs ago. I almost remarried 10 yrs ago. The Lord stopped me with a beautiful lesson I came across on Covenants. Praise God🎉🎉🎉 Our soul is precious to the Lord. I pray that you all receive wisdom, knowledge, and understanding through the Spirit of the Lord. Amen 🙏🙏🙏
Excellent teaching! This is a very touchy subject and there is so much confusion in the church about remarriage! You are RIGHT that remarriage (except for sexual unfaithfulness) is adultery! Thank you for very clear teaching on this!!!
Brother, thank you for your teaching. I'm going to write a rather long text to ask your opinion on some aspects. But as the text will not be short, I know that you may not have time to respond. And that's fine. And I apologize for any errors in the english. I translated on Deepl. I studied the subject for years. I didn't want to have to study it, but I was in the situation. After a long time of studying and praying, I came to the conclusion that I could remarry, and I could even by your understanding. I'll point out a few issues: 1. wouldn't the absence of a clear prohibition from Jesus on some behaviors that would seemingly be okay be an indication that they are not prohibited? I say this because of the clear colors permissions and prohibitions in your matrix (in special, when the woman puts away the man). 2. In addition to the absence of a clear prohibition, the difference in the treatment of men and women is constant throughout the Bible. Yes, most of the biblical treatment is the same, but there are differences that we tend not to see, both in the old and new testaments. In the New Testament, both Jesus and Paul treat men and women with some differences. 3. in relation to the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7, isn't it strange that the woman can separate without sinning and the man is left alone with nothing to do? In fact, the man couldn't even say that he was putting up with the woman's sin, because she wouldn't be sinning by separating from him. In other words, the married woman could become celibate of her own free will without sinning and the man would have nothing to do. But wouldn't that be strange if we remember that Paul told each man to have his own wife in order to avoid porneia? How could “having” a woman who decided to become celibate (and this not even being a sin) help to avoid porneia? 4. Today we have the internet, cell phones and many other things. But how in the old days could someone know if their unbelieving spouse was still alive if they traveled far away? If Ruth gave up on the God of Israel and Boaz, should he go to Moab from time to time to see if she was alive? This idea of an eternal and uncertain wait (because the person may even have died and nobody knows) is seen in Greek literature, not in the Bible. 5. I believe that in Deuteronomy 24 divorce was not fair (even if it had real and legal effects). But that woman was not to be stoned, nor was she forbidden to marry another (except priests...Lev 21...Ezekiel 44, 22). Isn't it strange that Jesus actually said that she should always live alone? And Jesus didn't give a new law, but clarified the Tanach. Jesus didn't allow or forbid something that wasn't, he just clarified what was already written (there's discussion around “Truly I tell you”, but I'm with the one that considers that he was clarifying, not creating. In legal terms, his explanation of the law had declaratory rather than constitutive effects (unless I'm mistaken). There are other passages in which Jesus clearly gave a new commandment (John 13:34), but I don't believe it happened in the Sermon on the Mount. 6. the verbs “allow” and “command” are reversed in Matthew and Mark, in the conversation with the Pharisees. In general, theology on divorce focuses only on Matthew. What do you think about it? 7. Paul told Timothy that doctrines of demons would arise which would forbid marriages and food. In Reformed circles, it is customary to interpret the prohibition of marriages only in relation to the Roman church and its priests. However, Paul did not say that the prohibition was only for the leaders. In fact, denominations that prohibit certain foods prohibit them for all members. So, if the ban on marriages wasn't only for leaders, and since it's impossible to interpret the doctrine of the devil as teaching that no marriages should exist (because no one would believe that, since humanity would cease to exist), what ban on marriages would the demons teach? 8. if an unjust divorce had no effect, a woman who married another after an unjust divorce could return to her first husband. And she can't, even though her first husband has already died (in fact, this was called an abomination). I don't think Jesus repealed that part. He only clarified that Deuteronomy 24 did not legitimize the repudiation of women. 9. 1, Corinthians, 7, 34, in most manuscripts (including the oldest Vulgate...even the Catholics defend total indissolubility), differentiates between the virgin woman, the unmarried woman (agamos...innupta) and the married woman (gameo). There are 03 states. Therefore, when Paul refers to wives, this does not include unmarried women (agamos...innuptas). 10. Paul clearly said that he was an agamos (therefore not a parthenos). So either he was abandoned by his wife or she died. And he explicitly said that he had the right to take a believing woman with him, just like the other apostles. He referred to the woman who separated from her husband as “agamos”. 11. Paul told the spouses not to abstain from sexual relations, lest they be tempted. And he also said that the woman who wanted to separate would be tolerated. How to fit these two passages together, which are in sequence. “Man, your wife wants to separate and be alone. That's tolerated. Now forget what I said before about not abstaining from sexual relations and live as a celibate, and forget that I said it's better to marry than to live scorched, because now you'll live 'married' and scorched.”? 12. On the question that the brother said that it would not be up to us to presume whether a spouse is a true believer or not, Paul said not to even have lunch with some “Christians”, not by their declaration, but by their actions. And if a “Christian” spouse abandons the home and gives every possible proof that he or she is not a Christian, with the only thing left to do being to declare it in full, how can we not understand him or her in this way? I understand that you can force reality to fit your fallen desire, but often reality is crystal clear. 13. If divorce, even if unjust, had no effects, why should a priest's daughter married to a stranger be able to eat the priestly bread once divorced? She couldn't eat the priestly bread on a visit to her father while married to the stranger, but she could if he repudiated her (and if she hadn't had a child by him). Leviticus 22, 12-13 14. What do you think of the interpretation of Tertullian, who understood that the word kai did not mean “and”, but “for” (divorce and remarriage or divorce for remarriage)? This is also how the scholars of the Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research understand it. They have retranslated the Synoptic Gospels into Hebrew. Another schollar interpretates that this passage has a Hendiadys. My brother, thank you for your time and attention. The subject is complex and, frankly, considering the disagreement over the centuries, I think it will still be the subject of discussion until the Lord's return. May God bless you and keep you in Jesus.
DT 4 2 Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the Lord your God that I give you. RV 22 18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. Didache 4 but you shall keep what you have received, neither adding thereto nor taking away therefrom
Shabbat Shalom, Kevin. I pray you and the family are well, dear brother. Thank you for the edifying and thought-provoking teaching on a subject which has caused much division within the body of Messiah. Two questions, if I may, Kevin. If one is living in adultery and repents according to scripture (Teshuvah - to return to that which is righteous), how could one stay in that adulterous relationship? Can a thief/drunkard/liar etc. continue to turn to his sin daily after repentance? (I understand King David and most of the Patriarchs had adulterous relationships, which has always puzzled me). Secondly, Kevin, do you think non-believers who marry/divorce/re-marry are governed by the same biblical laws, brother, or just believers, those who are in covenant with the Most High? Your time is much appreciated, as always, Kevin. Stay safe and well, dear brother. Sabbath blessings to you and yours. David (UK)
Shabbat shalom, David! To the first question, my understanding, especially after this study, is that marriage is marriage. It is unique in Scripture, therefore divorce after any marriage is still divorce-it would just compound the problem. As you pointed out, we have the adulterous example of David, who married and remained married to Bathsheba. It seems to me that the only thing that can “fix” remarriage after adulterous divorce is repentance. I don’t see Scripture suggesting an alternative. It’s just a messy, messy business. Just consider if the remarriage produced children. That second divorce would be just as destructive as the first. To the second question, it would seem that unbelievers are bound by the same biblical standard just like they stand in judgment for other sins. The best solution overall is to be careful who you marry, and avoid divorce, which God hates. I may do a follow up to this video. You’re not the first to pose these questions. (I posed them to myself as I was preparing this teaching.) Thanks and blessings, brother!
@@perfectwordTV Shalom and blessings, Kevin. Thank you, brother, your time is always appreciated. I agree with you, it is a very messy business indeed. I have often thought about the salvation of King Solomon!!! Sabbath blessings. David (UK)
Very sound teaching! I wish you would have expounded on the definition of marriage first. Marriage is not the certificate I get from the government. Although marriage is laid out in Genesis, it's still not clear. What about "pre-marital sex" if there is such a thing? (Or is a contradiction in terms) Was not Jacob married to Leah after becoming on flesh (Gen. 29:23) even though presumably the feast ( and possibly vows) we're celebrated with Rachel? Therefore, if one has slept with a girl/boyfriend, are they not married in God's eyes?
@@perfectwordTV Of course 😊 The woman Yeshua is speaking with was married. However, Yeshua says that the husband that she's married to at the time of the conversation ISN'T her husband. The text also says that she's been married 5 times. So in this case, that do you think Yeshua meant by "The one whom you are with, is not your husband", even though she's "legally" married to him?
@johnpratts2856 Thanks for clarifying. No, she wasn’t “legally” married at the time of the conversation. She was cohabitating with a man to whom she was not married, after having previously been married five times.
So. If a Saved man commits adultery on his Saved wife and then they get divorced and the man gets married to the woman he was cheating with and stays married to her then would they not be in perpetual adultery until they get divorced? Repentance would be them not being together anymore. Otherwise even if they are sorry to The Lord they are still in adultery. Is that not so?
Was David in perpetual adultery with Bathsheba? Obviously, Scripture doesn’t speak directly to the scenario as you’ve described it. But marriage is unique and somewhat complicated topic in Scripture. While I agree remarriage is at least initially adulterous, if there is true repentance, and God forgives when we repent, I don’t see how the marriage could be adulterous from that point forward. This is covered in the video.
Brother I was really hoping that I found someone that was going to teach the scriptures. But you say that Luke 16 v18 he is not talking about divorce in there culture back then they were putting away their wife's with out a divorce. Because they didn't want to have to pay the dowery back. Putting away and divorce is not the same. There's plenty of evidence to support that. I was really hoping that I found someone to break this down in truth. The reason they are committing adultery is because they are still married. They just put them away. Dang I was hoping
@user-jx5qz8xm9x Well, if it helps, we translate that as “send away” in MJLT. “Everyone who is sending away his wife and marrying another commits adultery; and he who is marrying her who was sent away from a husband commits adultery.” But I don’t see anything in the text that would practically distinguish such a sending away from divorce. Anyway, sorry I couldn’t live up to your expectations.
Excellent
How many families could have been saved if they had been given this instruction.
In other translations it says, "in case of fornication". The reason Jesus didn't just say, "in case of adultery"..is because if you cheat on your wife, that IS adultery and if your wife cheats on you, that is ALSO adultery...but Jesus uses the word fornication (sexual immorality), which means ANY immoral sexual act.
That makes me conclude that Jesus meant if the wife or husband commits ANY sexual immorality, that means with an animal or with a minor, it constitutes the right for divorce.
That seems a reasonable understanding. Thanks for the comment.
@@perfectwordTV But also, when does the forgiveness come to play in this case? Are we to divorce or are we to forgive..or perhaps both? We could forgive and still divorce? But, if we forgive our spouse why the need to divorce? It's a conundrum!
Divorce is never required. Forgiveness can help bring healing and keep the marriage together.
Romans 7:2-3 makes it clear that the covenant of marriage is broken only by the death of the husband or wife. We make the vow before God and family saying till death do we part. Only if you are widowed can you remmarry. The Most High God gave us and example with the story of Hosea. Please read. Yes, God gave Israel a divorce decree, but He did not remmarry another nation. God is going to restore Her( Israel) and marry His bride. 1 Corinthians 6:9 makes a clear distinction between fornication and adultery. Please read. My husband divorced me 22 yrs ago. I almost remarried 10 yrs ago. The Lord stopped me with a beautiful lesson I came across on Covenants. Praise God🎉🎉🎉 Our soul is precious to the Lord. I pray that you all receive wisdom, knowledge, and understanding through the Spirit of the Lord. Amen 🙏🙏🙏
Excellent teaching ❤ ty 😊
Excellent teaching! This is a very touchy subject and there is so much confusion in the church about remarriage! You are RIGHT that remarriage (except for sexual unfaithfulness) is adultery! Thank you for very clear teaching on this!!!
Praise God! I am grateful. Thanks for the comment!
I left my ex-husband for a man Who I am married to today. Does this mean I am constantly living in sin?
@NikkiFindley-mz8er Possibly. This is addressed in the latter part of the video.
Brother, thank you for your teaching. I'm going to write a rather long text to ask your opinion on some aspects. But as the text will not be short, I know that you may not have time to respond. And that's fine. And I apologize for any errors in the english. I translated on Deepl.
I studied the subject for years. I didn't want to have to study it, but I was in the situation.
After a long time of studying and praying, I came to the conclusion that I could remarry, and I could even by your understanding.
I'll point out a few issues:
1. wouldn't the absence of a clear prohibition from Jesus on some behaviors that would seemingly be okay be an indication that they are not prohibited? I say this because of the clear colors permissions and prohibitions in your matrix (in special, when the woman puts away the man).
2. In addition to the absence of a clear prohibition, the difference in the treatment of men and women is constant throughout the Bible. Yes, most of the biblical treatment is the same, but there are differences that we tend not to see, both in the old and new testaments. In the New Testament, both Jesus and Paul treat men and women with some differences.
3. in relation to the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7, isn't it strange that the woman can separate without sinning and the man is left alone with nothing to do? In fact, the man couldn't even say that he was putting up with the woman's sin, because she wouldn't be sinning by separating from him. In other words, the married woman could become celibate of her own free will without sinning and the man would have nothing to do. But wouldn't that be strange if we remember that Paul told each man to have his own wife in order to avoid porneia? How could “having” a woman who decided to become celibate (and this not even being a sin) help to avoid porneia?
4. Today we have the internet, cell phones and many other things. But how in the old days could someone know if their unbelieving spouse was still alive if they traveled far away? If Ruth gave up on the God of Israel and Boaz, should he go to Moab from time to time to see if she was alive? This idea of an eternal and uncertain wait (because the person may even have died and nobody knows) is seen in Greek literature, not in the Bible.
5. I believe that in Deuteronomy 24 divorce was not fair (even if it had real and legal effects).
But that woman was not to be stoned, nor was she forbidden to marry another (except priests...Lev 21...Ezekiel 44, 22). Isn't it strange that Jesus actually said that she should always live alone? And Jesus didn't give a new law, but clarified the Tanach. Jesus didn't allow or forbid something that wasn't, he just clarified what was already written (there's discussion around “Truly I tell you”, but I'm with the one that considers that he was clarifying, not creating.
In legal terms, his explanation of the law had declaratory rather than constitutive effects (unless I'm mistaken). There are other passages in which Jesus clearly gave a new commandment (John 13:34), but I don't believe it happened in the Sermon on the Mount.
6. the verbs “allow” and “command” are reversed in Matthew and Mark, in the conversation with the Pharisees. In general, theology on divorce focuses only on Matthew. What do you think about it?
7. Paul told Timothy that doctrines of demons would arise which would forbid marriages and food. In Reformed circles, it is customary to interpret the prohibition of marriages only in relation to the Roman church and its priests. However, Paul did not say that the prohibition was only for the leaders. In fact, denominations that prohibit certain foods prohibit them for all members. So, if the ban on marriages wasn't only for leaders, and since it's impossible to interpret the doctrine of the devil as teaching that no marriages should exist (because no one would believe that, since humanity would cease to exist), what ban on marriages would the demons teach?
8. if an unjust divorce had no effect, a woman who married another after an unjust divorce could return to her first husband. And she can't, even though her first husband has already died (in fact, this was called an abomination). I don't think Jesus repealed that part. He only clarified that Deuteronomy 24 did not legitimize the repudiation of women.
9. 1, Corinthians, 7, 34, in most manuscripts (including the oldest Vulgate...even the Catholics defend total indissolubility), differentiates between the virgin woman, the unmarried woman (agamos...innupta) and the married woman (gameo). There are 03 states. Therefore, when Paul refers to wives, this does not include unmarried women (agamos...innuptas).
10. Paul clearly said that he was an agamos (therefore not a parthenos). So either he was abandoned by his wife or she died. And he explicitly said that he had the right to take a believing woman with him, just like the other apostles. He referred to the woman who separated from her husband as “agamos”.
11. Paul told the spouses not to abstain from sexual relations, lest they be tempted. And he also said that the woman who wanted to separate would be tolerated. How to fit these two passages together, which are in sequence. “Man, your wife wants to separate and be alone. That's tolerated. Now forget what I said before about not abstaining from sexual relations and live as a celibate, and forget that I said it's better to marry than to live scorched, because now you'll live 'married' and scorched.”?
12. On the question that the brother said that it would not be up to us to presume whether a spouse is a true believer or not, Paul said not to even have lunch with some “Christians”, not by their declaration, but by their actions. And if a “Christian” spouse abandons the home and gives every possible proof that he or she is not a Christian, with the only thing left to do being to declare it in full, how can we not understand him or her in this way? I understand that you can force reality to fit your fallen desire, but often reality is crystal clear.
13. If divorce, even if unjust, had no effects, why should a priest's daughter married to a stranger be able to eat the priestly bread once divorced? She couldn't eat the priestly bread on a visit to her father while married to the stranger, but she could if he repudiated her (and if she hadn't had a child by him). Leviticus 22, 12-13
14. What do you think of the interpretation of Tertullian, who understood that the word kai did not mean “and”, but “for” (divorce and remarriage or divorce for remarriage)? This is also how the scholars of the Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research understand it. They have retranslated the Synoptic Gospels into Hebrew. Another schollar interpretates that this passage has a Hendiadys.
My brother, thank you for your time and attention. The subject is complex and, frankly, considering the disagreement over the centuries, I think it will still be the subject of discussion until the Lord's return.
May God bless you and keep you in Jesus.
DT 4
2 Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the Lord your God that I give you.
RV 22
18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll.
Didache 4
but you shall keep what you have received, neither adding thereto nor taking away therefrom
Shabbat Shalom, Kevin. I pray you and the family are well, dear brother. Thank you for the edifying and thought-provoking teaching on a subject which has caused much division within the body of Messiah.
Two questions, if I may, Kevin. If one is living in adultery and repents according to scripture (Teshuvah - to return to that which is righteous), how could one stay in that adulterous relationship? Can a thief/drunkard/liar etc. continue to turn to his sin daily after repentance? (I understand King David and most of the Patriarchs had adulterous relationships, which has always puzzled me).
Secondly, Kevin, do you think non-believers who marry/divorce/re-marry are governed by the same biblical laws, brother, or just believers, those who are in covenant with the Most High? Your time is much appreciated, as always, Kevin. Stay safe and well, dear brother. Sabbath blessings to you and yours. David (UK)
Shabbat shalom, David! To the first question, my understanding, especially after this study, is that marriage is marriage. It is unique in Scripture, therefore divorce after any marriage is still divorce-it would just compound the problem. As you pointed out, we have the adulterous example of David, who married and remained married to Bathsheba. It seems to me that the only thing that can “fix” remarriage after adulterous divorce is repentance. I don’t see Scripture suggesting an alternative. It’s just a messy, messy business. Just consider if the remarriage produced children. That second divorce would be just as destructive as the first.
To the second question, it would seem that unbelievers are bound by the same biblical standard just like they stand in judgment for other sins.
The best solution overall is to be careful who you marry, and avoid divorce, which God hates.
I may do a follow up to this video. You’re not the first to pose these questions. (I posed them to myself as I was preparing this teaching.) Thanks and blessings, brother!
@@perfectwordTV Shalom and blessings, Kevin. Thank you, brother, your time is always appreciated. I agree with you, it is a very messy business indeed. I have often thought about the salvation of King Solomon!!! Sabbath blessings. David (UK)
Very sound teaching! I wish you would have expounded on the definition of marriage first. Marriage is not the certificate I get from the government. Although marriage is laid out in Genesis, it's still not clear. What about "pre-marital sex" if there is such a thing? (Or is a contradiction in terms) Was not Jacob married to Leah after becoming on flesh (Gen. 29:23) even though presumably the feast ( and possibly vows) we're celebrated with Rachel? Therefore, if one has slept with a girl/boyfriend, are they not married in God's eyes?
Thank you! And yes, they are. That will probably be a “prequel” episode to this one. 😊 Thanks for the feedback!
Shalom! Question: what's your take on John 4v18?
Shalom. Can you please clarify and elaborate on your question? Thanks
@@perfectwordTV Of course 😊
The woman Yeshua is speaking with was married. However, Yeshua says that the husband that she's married to at the time of the conversation ISN'T her husband. The text also says that she's been married 5 times.
So in this case, that do you think Yeshua meant by "The one whom you are with, is not your husband", even though she's "legally" married to him?
@johnpratts2856 Thanks for clarifying. No, she wasn’t “legally” married at the time of the conversation. She was cohabitating with a man to whom she was not married, after having previously been married five times.
@@perfectwordTV Ah! Actually that makes sense. 😌 Thank you for your help! Shalom!
So. If a Saved man commits adultery on his Saved wife and then they get divorced and the man gets married to the woman he was cheating with and stays married to her then would they not be in perpetual adultery until they get divorced? Repentance would be them not being together anymore. Otherwise even if they are sorry to The Lord they are still in adultery. Is that not so?
Was David in perpetual adultery with Bathsheba? Obviously, Scripture doesn’t speak directly to the scenario as you’ve described it. But marriage is unique and somewhat complicated topic in Scripture. While I agree remarriage is at least initially adulterous, if there is true repentance, and God forgives when we repent, I don’t see how the marriage could be adulterous from that point forward. This is covered in the video.
@@perfectwordTV how do they repent being in an adulterous marriage without divorcing and not marrying again?
How did David repent?
@@perfectwordTV what does repentance mean according to your interpretation?
Psalm 51. What’s yours?
Brother I was really hoping that I found someone that was going to teach the scriptures. But you say that Luke 16 v18 he is not talking about divorce in there culture back then they were putting away their wife's with out a divorce. Because they didn't want to have to pay the dowery back. Putting away and divorce is not the same. There's plenty of evidence to support that. I was really hoping that I found someone to break this down in truth. The reason they are committing adultery is because they are still married. They just put them away. Dang I was hoping
I’m not following. You’re saying Luke 16:18 is *not* about divorce?
@perfectwordTV no putting away was putting away with out divorce. They were putting their wife's away with out divorcing them.
Can you point me to a verse or passage that makes this distinction between “divorce” and “putting away”?
@perfectwordTV apoluo means to put away. It dose not mean to give a certificate of divorcement
@user-jx5qz8xm9x Well, if it helps, we translate that as “send away” in MJLT. “Everyone who is sending away his wife and marrying another commits adultery; and he who is marrying her who was sent away from a husband commits adultery.” But I don’t see anything in the text that would practically distinguish such a sending away from divorce. Anyway, sorry I couldn’t live up to your expectations.