RE: What about the Mark 10 passage on divorce? - Divorce Minister

But that doesn’t mean that the law has lost its force. It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the smallest point of God’s law to be overturned. -Luke 16:17, NLT

In response to my post “What about the Mark 10 passage on divorce?” Bill wrote:

We addressed this before. You have to deal with the word “logos” (Strong’s g3056) of “porneia” (Strong’s g4202) in Matthew 5:32. It means “except for a saying or report of prostitution.” Even the Google translator says it is “reason for prostitution.” The kicker is that it is also found in the betrothal portion of Duet 22, not the marriage portion of Duet 24. The “exception” you’re trying to stand on is for “a report of prostitution during the betrothal period, prior to the covenant vows.” Joseph could have had valid reason to divorce Mary, had he received such a report (which he didn’t).

Your pastoral and theological error is believing that one passage (Matthew) is in opposition to the other 2, though all are the words of Jesus. All 3 passages, plus Paul, have to agree, or God is inconsistent. Take the easier ones first, and the more difficult must comply. One can (and probably should) separate themselves from an adulterer or an abusive spouse for protection, but divorce doesn’t dissolve a marriage. Death ends a marriage! That is all that ends a marriage! Real death, not your wish that she was dead. Not her “killing” the one flesh by her adultery. By grace she is alive and allowed the opportunity to repent. Just as you and I are allowed to repent of things that put us at odds with God. God said in Jer 3:14 that He is still married even though He was divorced.

Jer 3:14 Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion:

David, you aren’t under the law of Moses. Nobody is. It ended at Calvary, and you weren’t born before Calvary. If you choose to pick a Mosaic law that you think justifies an adulterous remarriage, then the bible says you will be judged by the whole law, which cannot justify you in the eyes of God. You will have to abide by all the washings and the ceremonies, and it will require all the animal sacrifices and the offerings, making the death of Jesus moot. It is a rejection of the Messiah. You’re kicking against the goads.

Bill,

I WANT TO BE CRYSTAL CLEAR–

This website is not a place where I will tolerate shaming faithful spouses for being remarried. Attacking myself or others by calling us adulterous for remarrying is such shaming behavior.

Ultimately, we disagree over how the applicable Bible passages are translated and applied. You continuing to state your position is not going to change my mind on these matters.

All that said, I feel it might be helpful for my readers to see how and why I disagree with what you recently wrote in a comment.

We addressed this before. You have to deal with the word “logos” (Strong’s g3056) of “porneia” (Strong’s g4202) in Matthew 5:32. It means “except for a saying or report of prostitution.” Even the Google translator says it is “reason for prostitution.”

If you actually consulted a reputable Greek lexicon, you would discover more than “prostitution” as an option to translate “porneia.” It is a broad Greek word used to signify any sexual immorality.

Now, I understand your choice is based on a move to harmonize the passages by writing off this passage are just referring to the betrothal period. However, I find the arguments for such a move weak (see my post here).

Also, I shouldn’t have to say this but…

Google translator does not settle the argument over proper translation choice.

While Google translator is helpful for conversational translations or a quick grasp of a text, I would highly discourage using it in an argument with an educated individual–like myself–on a matter.

Your pastoral and theological error is believing that one passage (Matthew) is in opposition to the other 2, though all are the words of Jesus. All 3 passages, plus Paul, have to agree, or God is inconsistent. Take the easier ones first, and the more difficult must comply.

My point in my post on Mark 10 is that I do not see the Matthew passages as in opposition to the Mark and Luke passages. Mark and Luke are simply silent where Matthew speaks on the matter of a divorce exception.

Death ends a marriage! That is all that ends a marriage! Real death, not your wish that she was dead. Not her “killing” the one flesh by her adultery. By grace she is alive and allowed the opportunity to repent. Just as you and I are allowed to repent of things that put us at odds with God.

Putting an exclamation point behind your conclusion does not make it the correct conclusion. I fully understand that is your position, and I disagree with it.

Also, I am not wishing my ex-wife is dead. My point in citing the law regarding the death penalty for adultery in Deuteronomy and Leviticus is to point out that God released faithful spouses from marriages where adultery took place in the Old Testament.

It is a principle I am illustrating from those laws–namely, God releases faithful partners from marriages where adultery has taken place. The Old Testament mechanism for such release was the death penalty whereas the New Testament merciful mechanism is divorce, IMO.

God said in Jer 3:14 that He is still married even though He was divorced.

Yes, the verse does say that. Looking more closely at this verse, you will notice that God is saying He is married to a select few from Israel–the Remnant. In other words, the divorce is very real to those Israelites who are NOT chosen to be part of that remnant.

For your argument to hold, God would have to take ALL of the Israelites back as their Husband. God does not. The “divorce” is very real. And this is consistent with New Testament teaching per the Apostle Paul in Romans 11.

David, you aren’t under the law of Moses. Nobody is. It ended at Calvary, and you weren’t born before Calvary. If you choose to pick a Mosaic law that you think justifies an adulterous remarriage, then the bible says you will be judged by the whole law, which cannot justify you in the eyes of God. You will have to abide by all the washings and the ceremonies, and it will require all the animal sacrifices and the offerings, making the death of Jesus moot. It is a rejection of the Messiah. You’re kicking against the goads.

I am fully aware that I am not under the Law. When I speak and write about the Law, I write as one who believes ALL of Scripture is God-breathed and useful in understanding God’s ways (2 Timothy 3:16). God did not change from the Old Testament to the New.

What are you are pushing for is called “antinomianism.” The moral principles behind the Old Testament Law is still in effect in this age of grace. To completely write off the Old Testament Law as completely outdated and unhelpful today is commonly and historically understood as heretical (see Luke 16:17).

Finally, I am not “kicking against the goads.” I have a different interpretation of these passages than you. That is all. You see goads where I see none.

We likely will need to agree to disagree. And that is okay. Follow your convictions, and I will follow plus promote mine.

Sincerely,

Pastor David