|
|
|
MARRIAGE, DIVORCE, AND REMARRIAGE BY RYAN HICKS © 1998-2001 Ryan Hicks |
Matthew 19:1-12
Some take Matthew 5:32 as a verse proving remarriage. They do this by saying that because the man divorcing their adulteress wife does not cause her to commit adultery that he is not doing wrong, thus he is free to remarry. This is wicked. Jesus uses two different Greek words here which are translated two different ways. The first word in question is porneia (translated "fornication" here) and the second is moichao (translated "adultery" here). Jesus used different words for obvious reasons. The fornication refers to fornication during the espousal period, NOT after the marriage is official! The adultery refers to relations outside of the marriage bounds AFTER the marriage is official, not during the espousal period. The Biblical truth is that once the woman is married to him she is still his wife until death looses them from one another (Romans 7:2-3; 1 Corinthians 7:39).
So no matter what any claimed Greek "scholar" says about the two different words here they clearly show two different names for actions, one occurring before marriage (i.e. fornication) and one occurring after marriage (i.e. adultery). Ask any Greek scholar how porneia is used in the Septuagint. I did a brief study through the Septuagint and never found porniea to be used for adultery. It is simply a desperate attempt on the part of a person to try to say that fornication (porneia) and adultery (moichao) are the same thing. If you claim that porneia refers to adultery then you are questioning Jesus. He knew what He was saying and would not have used two different Greek words if He was referring to the same thing in the very same sentence! Do not blaspheme the Lord Jesus Christ by saying that He did not know what He was talking about when He used two different Greek words. Had Jesus been intending to give the Jews a way out of their marriages, then Matthew 5:31-32 would not have the word "fornication" but would have "adultery" in its place. It is clear to the fair-minded person what is being dealt with.
Other places where fornication and adultery are distinguished are seen below:
Matthew 15:19
19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
Mark 7:21
21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
Galatians 5:19
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
Those first two verses, Matthew 15:19 and Mark 7:21, are both quotes from Jesus where He once again distinguishes between fornication and adultery. There is no excuse for someone saying fornication is "marital unfaithfulness" or any other nonsense like modern men read into the text and some even make their own "bible" versions in order to propogate divorce and remarriage, like the New International Version.
The espousal or betrothal period was the legal part of the marriage of the Jews. It is where the man and woman promise to marry one another and set a date for the marriage to be official. The legal documents were signed and sealed during this time and a date was set for the marriage to be official (Genesis 29:18; Deuteronomy 20). The ONLY way the betrothal period could be broken off is by a bill of divorcement. Sometimes the times between the betrothal or espousal period's beginning and the marriage would be a year or so. This is different from modern engagements in which the legal part accompanies the marriage ceremony, thus a modern engagement does not need to be broken off by a bill of divorcement.
Joseph thought that Mary had been with another man during their espousal period, before they were married, and was going to divorce her privately, for the Scripture says, "Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily" (Matthew 1:19). This is the divorcement that Jesus allowed for, only during the espousal period (i.e. the only time fornication could occur). After the marriage was binding all relations outside of the marriage would not be considered fornication like they would have been during the espousal period. Also, any relations outside of the marriage bonds would be adultery when one is married, but while espoused it would be fornication.
Matthew was written mainly to the Jews. The Jews practiced bethrothal and divorce during the betrothal period (Matthew 1:18-20). This is why the "exception clause" about divorcing for fornication is not found in Mark's gospel (Mark 10:11-12) or Luke's (Luke 16:18). The Gentiles which overall did not practice betrothal (espousal) would not need to know about divorce, because they could not do so seeing they got married without a betrothal or espousal period and did not have a betrothal period in which one could get divorced before the marriage was final. The Jews on the other hand, because they practiced betrothal, needed to know that they could divorce the person they were espoused to if the person committed fornication. Those who practiced betrothal did not have to fret about having to go through and marry someone who was not able to be faithful to them before they even got married. Yet, once the marriage was finalized, only death could break its bonds (Romans 7:2-3; 1 Corinthians 7:39).
The only reasons most people argue for remarriage after divorce is that a divorced person should not have to "suffer" with remaining single for someone else's sins. Whenever I hear this argument, and it is all too common among people who believe this way, I think of the verse in Hebrews about Moses, "Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season" (Hebrews 11:25). Any true Christian takes the same stand as Moses, and the idea about one suffering by remaining single after divorce should be endured just as Moses endured the suffering not of his own making.
Jesus also said, "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery" (Matthew 19:9).
Many people will use the "exception clause" (as it is called) in Matthew 19:9 as an excuse to remarry if they divorce because of their mates' adultery. This is not the clear reading of the Scripture. It must be noted that the vast majority agree with this erroneous view and overall make up their own "divorce and remarry over and over again theology."
The clear idea of Matthew 19:9 is that divorce is wrong EXCEPT IT BE FOR FORNICATION, and that remarriage while one's spouse is still alive is ALWAYS considered adultery (if one partner is committing adultery in being married to another, then the other is also committing adultery). That is to say that the "exception clause" only applies to the putting away of the wife, and not to the remarriage. Fornication applies to fornication between the two espoused or another during the espousal period and has no reference to after the marriage is official as we have seen by the words used above. Jesus only puts the exception on the putting away during the espousal period and NOT THE REMARRIAGE! This clear grammatical truth destroys the sandy foundation of the modern remarriage myth in the supposed church. Thus, remarriage after divorce is clearly adultery either way.
If Jesus was trying to say that fornication is also an exception to the clear prohibition on remarriage then the verse would read something like this, "Whosoever shall put away his wife and shall marry another, except it be for fornication, committeth adultery." Instead the truth is that the Lord puts the exception on the divorce ONLY and not on the remarriage. Remarriage is still prohibitted either way, even if you twist fornication into being adultery during marriage and thus divorce while you were married (not during the espousal period). You still cannot remarry if you twist fornication that way, because the "exception clause" is only on the divorcing and not on the remarriage. Remarriage after divorcing your spouse is ALWAYS adultery.
"Fornication" in the New Testament means: Premarital relations between single people (Matthew 5:32; 19:9; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; 7:2; 10:8; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; Revelation 9:21); incest (1 Corinthians 5:1); fornication in idol worship (Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25; Revelation 2:14-21; 14:8; 17:2-4; 18:3-9; 19:2); playing the harlot (John 8:41; 1 Corinthians 6:13-18); spiritual harlotry (Revelation 17:2-4; 18:3-9; 19:2); sodomy (Romans 1:29; Hebrews 12:16; Jude 6-7).
All manner of sins relating to fornication (sodomy, harlotry, prostitution, etc.) are not the same as adultery. When an unmarried person has relations with a married person they commit both fornication and adultery. Fornication because they are having relations outside the marriage bond, and adultery because they are having relations with a person that they are not married to. Thus, to try to make cases where an unmarried person commits both fornication and adultery mean that fornication is synonymous with adultery is missing the point.
What did we learn from Matthew 19:1-12 and our study so far?
Notice Jesus' response to the question of the Pharisees about divorce ("Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?" Matthew 19:3):
Matthew 19:4-6
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
It is important to pay careful attention to Jesus' response to the question of divorce. He plainly states, "What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder." This thoroughly rebukes the idea of divorce, much less divorce for any reason. He does permit "divorce" or "putting away" for fornication during the espousal period as in Matthew 19:9. These verses make no reference to it being permissible to divorce or put away your spouse after the marriage was official, much less remarriage after being divorced from one's spouse being permissible.
Deuteronomy 24:1-4
Jeremiah 3:1
Malachi 2:14-16
1 Corinthians 7:10-15
It must be noted that the word "depart" as is seen in v.10, 11, 15 is NOT divorce. Many have tried to make it into this to excuse their sin, but it means exactly what it says. The Greek word behind it is chorizo and look at how in the 8 other times it occurs in the Scriptures it never refers to divorce, but always to separating (Acts 1:4 as depart; Acts 18:1 and Philemon 15 as departed; Romans 8:35, 39; and Hebrews 7:26 as separate; Matthew 19:6 and Mark 10:9 as put asunder, which proves God does not want people separating much less trying to permanently separate by divorce).
1 Timothy 6:3-5
Some use 1 Corinthians 7:8-9 as an excuse for remarriage. These verses read:
Luke 16:15-18
Psalms 15:4
Romans 1:29-32
Now let's look at Matthew 19:7-12 which takes up the Pharisee's response to Jesus' teaching about the indissolubility of marriage:
Matthew 19:7-12
7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
Jesus explains the reason why Moses put regulations on man's sinful act of divorce and then explained the only reason for a bill of divorcement allowed under the New Testament was for fornication. It is important to take note of the fact that the only reason divorcing from one's spouse was even permitted in the first place was not because those seeking divorce were holy and saved people, but rather because they were hard hearted. This alone should shed much light on the fact that divorce itself is not permissible. How can people assume that remarriage is allowed when God is thoroughly against divorce and hates it (Malachi 2:14-16)?
The disciples obviously understood that Jesus was allowing no room for divorce (except it be for fornication, which can only occur during the espousal period, for after the marriage is official it would be adultery) or remarriage (after divorcing from one's spouse), and thus responded, "If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry" (Matthew 19:10). Jesus then agrees with this and teaches that only the saved or those to whom it is given can live a life of singleness in perfect peace. He will enable the saved to receive His teachings (including His strict teaching against divorce and against remarriage) as is taught in Matthew 13:11 and 19:11. The unsaved are expected to live by these strict standards, but many will not, yet the saved can and will joyfully receive Jesus' teaching on divorce and remarriage because it is given to them.
It must also be noted that Jesus even considers it to be adultery when a person who has never been married gets married to a divorcee (this by itself proves that divorce does not end the marriage bond like some claim, otherwise how could a never married person marrying a divorcee be adultery, except that the divorcee is still considered married in God's sight?). This is due to the indissolubility of the marriage until the death of one spouse. Man's "legal" divorce (which is illegal according to the Law of God) changes absolutely nothing, it is simply a piece of paper full of sin and filth to Him, for "they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder" (Matthew 19:6). Your divorce does not change the fact that your marriage is indissoluble. You still are considered husband and wife "till death do you part." No divorce or annulment can change the truth that the married have become one flesh, and that oneness, both spiritual and physical, only ceases upon the death of one spouse (Luke 16:15-18; Romans 7:2-3; 1 Corinthians 7:39).
Some argue that because the context of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is that of already married people divorcing, and not espoused people divorcing, that this "proves" that Jesus was talking about married people in Matthew 19:9. This misses the point that the bill of divorcement applied to both already married people and espoused people. In the case of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 it is directly speaking of already married people (see Deuteronomy 24:1). Either way, the espoused woman and espoused man were already considered husband and wife (Matthew 1:18-20). They had to be put away by a bill of divorcement just as if they were already married. Let's look at Deuteronomy 24:1-4.
ORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.
3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;
4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the L
ORD.
1 They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man's, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted? but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith the L
ORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.
14 Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the L
15 And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.
16 For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.
These Scriptures should settle the case in any sincere person's mind that there is no biblical reason for divorce after the marriage is official. There are no other exceptions! Those that try to make other exceptions by twisting Paul's statements in 1 Corinthians 7 are being foolish and wicked. Paul would not contradict the Lord, and only modern men bent on excusing adultery (remarriage after divorce from their spouse) would try to twist Paul's words into being contradictory of the Lord Jesus' teaching in Luke 16:18; Mark 10:11-12; etc.
10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
11 But if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
These Scriptures are abundantly clear, but a few verses later Paul makes a statement that is used by many to disregard Jesus' statements about divorce and remarriage. He says, "Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you" (1 Corinthians 7:27-28).
Those looking for an excuse to be remarried will pull weird ideas out of this like "If you are divorced and remarry you have not sinned." This is not Paul's idea. Obviously the main point Paul is making is that because of the present distress it is better to remain unmarried (v.26), but if you are already married do not seek to be loosed from your wife and if you are not bound to a wife (i.e. widowed, the only way to be loosed, as only widows and virgins are allowed to marry) then do not seek one. Any other assumption is perverting the context and trying to make the apostle Paul contradict the Lord Jesus Christ. What does the Bible say about such people who reject the plain words of our Lord Jesus Christ?
3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
Some argue from 1 Corinthians 6:16 that marriage can be dissolved for any reason. The verse says, "What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh." They then deduce from this that marriage is the joining of two to become one flesh (which is true), and that this verse's usage of this quote proves that becoming one flesh is not a permanent thing. This is based on them trying to make relations between a man and woman be marriage. This is a warning against marrying harlots, and a warning against divorcing a harlot (if already married or joined), because "two, saith he, shall be one flesh." Relations between people is not marriage, and to suggest such is simply to try to cheapen the marriage bond and make it something unclean and without covenant. Marriage is permanent and is only broken by death (Luke 16:15-18; Romans 7:2-3; 1 Corinthians 7:39). Divorce does not break up the marriage bonds, rather it simply separates the two mates. Remarriage would be allowed if divorce broke the marriage bonds, but this is not the case. The only people allowed to remarry according to the Bible are widows (1 Corinthians 7:8-9).
From these simple Scriptures we have seen so far we learn:
1 Corinthians 7:8-9
8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
Amazingly they will use the word "unmarried" as their main point. They will try to make this word into including someone who has been married but is now divorced. This is simply erroneous, as this makes a person separated from their spouse, but the marriage covenant remains intact, as the marriage law allows for only death to end a marriage (Romans 7:2-3; 1 Corinthians 7:39). The word unmarried is correctly translated from the Greek word agamois here (masculine plural), but if further clarity is needed for those who refuse Jesus' teaching against remarriage, the word simply means unmarried as in not currently married, and can refer to both widowed men or never married men, as "widow" is only used for women in the New Testament and not for both male and female like our common English. Also, it must be noted that "virgins" (women) are dealt with later in the chapter (v.25), so this refers to the unmarried men, whether they are that way because they have never been married or because their spouse has died. In the case of married people divorcing they are still seen as married according to the Scriptures anyway (Luke 16:18; Romans 7:2-3; 1 Corinthians 7:39), so it is impossible to apply this to a divorced person. Only those who have never been married and those who are widows, both male and female, can get married.
Agamos refers to a married woman with a husband still living in 1 Corinthians 7:11, 34, as is seen by the context and also in the truth that the Greeks used anadros to refer to women without husbands. So even in that we see that the woman, while commanded to remain "unmarried," was still considered the wife of her husband. The "unmarried" in the married woman's case is simply another way of saying, do not get married again, or do not enter into an adulterous "remarriage."
15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.
16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.
17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.
18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
Most today highly esteem the adultery of the people who are married after divorcing their spouse. Yet, according to our Lord Jesus Christ, "that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God." Who are you going to believe and serve? The Lord Jesus Who upholds the marriage covenant as holy and pure and not to be mocked by men vainly trying to undo it, or men who reject the truth and serve their lusts over God?
A few other Scriptures relating to this subject are Malachi 2:14-16; Mark 10:11-12.
ORD. He that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not.
4 In whose eyes a vile person is contemned; but he honoureth them that fear the L
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
The only time a person can be remarried is when their spouse dies, thus completing the marriage covenant and freeing them to make a new marriage covenant. The Scriptures say:
Romans 7:2-3
Hebrews 13:4
Matthew 5:20
2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
1 Corinthians 7:39
39 The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.
Some say that because these verses (Romans 7:2-3 and 1 Corinthians 7:39) only refer to the wife, that a man can divorce and remarry. This is simply erroneous and damnable. If the woman is still bound to the man, then he still has a wife that is bound to him in marriage, regardless of some "divorce." So the husband is equally bound.
The "law" as referred to in Romans 7:2-3 is the law of marriage that existed from Adam and Eve (as seen in Gensis 2:24; Matthew 19:4-6; Mark 10:1-12; etc.). It is not talking about the Old Testament law, for it specifically refers to "that law" in verse 3. Only the one law of marriage is being talked about (i.e. "the law of her husband," "that law"). In verse 1, 4, and the rest of Romans 7 the law of Moses is clearly being talked about. The point that the law of marriage ends in death was used to make the point that the law of Moses is ended because "ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God" (Romans 7:4). Thus, no one can dismiss Romans 7:2-3 as "Old Testament law," especially when one sees the exact same law of marriage being taught again in the New Testament in 1 Corinthians 7:39.
4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
I ask you, "How can you believe that Jesus came to bring a New Testament and yet lowered God's standards for marriage?" The Old Testament saints understood that a husband and wife were each other's for life (Compare 1 Samuel 25:44 with 2 Samuel 3:13-16). Even in Deuteronomy 24:1-4, which is widely used to justify the sin of divorce and remarriage, the woman that got divorced and remarried is said to be "defiled" (Deuteronomy 24:4).
20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
The excuses of people trying to justify the sin of adultery via remarriage after divorcing from one's spouse or via marrying one divorced from their spouse are put in blue.
If Christians were not allowed to divorce and remarry as many people teach then we would have to change 2 Corinthians 5:17 to read "...old things (except sexual deviation or prior marriage failure) are passed away, behold all things (except a sexual sin or marriage failure) are become new."
Those that hold to high standards of living and holiness in marriage only allow for divorce in the betrothal and NOT after the actual marriage. But Jesus and the Pharisees were not discussing betrothal; they were talking about marriage! There is no logical, grammatical, or exegetical ground for limiting "fornication" to immorality before marriage. Here it clearly refers to infidelity AFTER marriage. Also, limiting the right of divorce to suspected immorality before marriage is absurd. To infer Christ would allow divorce for suspected prebetrothal or betrothal sin but forbid it for proven infidelity during marriage is noting but religious twaddle.
Matthew 19:7-12
I just do not believe that "fornication" in Matthew 19:9 only refers to premarital relations. Jesus allows for us to divorce and remarry if our spouse commits sexual sin.
God Himself is a divorcee (Jeremiah 3:8), thus how can we say divorce is wrong? Also, God is going to be remarried. This would make Him an adulterer if we were to take Matthew 5:32 literally.
Jeremiah 3:6-17
Hosea 2:10-20
If one cannot remarry after divorce then this makes divorce a unforgivable sin.
Proverbs 28:13
This message is condemning one, this is not uplifting to me, but it condemns me.
John 3:18-20
If a person is unsaved when they get a divorce then after they get saved they can get remarried.
In Matthew 19:9, the "except it be for fornication" portion is a null statement. Like if one said, "Except for liars, people who steal are thieves." The "Except for liars" portion does not say anything about those who steal. So, neither does the "except it be for fornication" refer to whosoever shall put away his wife. Jesus said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the case of fornication WHATSOEVER. To say there is an exception in logic terms it is known as the Fallacy of Denying the Antecedent.
Matthew 19:9
These people want to mock the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ which makes one free from sin. They are the ones that practice the first half of Proverbs 28:13 while true believers practice the last half of it (Proverbs 28:13 reads, "He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy.").
As for the weak argument that the Pharisees were not discussing betrothal, thus Jesus could not have been talking about it, this is a deceptive and devilish argument. The reason being is because the verse they claim excuses them to remarry is in response to a different question from the Pharisees. The Pharisees asked the question about divorcing a wife after marriage in v.3 of Matthew 19. Yet, these remarriage defenders refuse to accept Jesus' answer which was, "Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder" (Matthew 19:4-6). Any further points Jesus made about the espousal period and a special exception for that period did not change Jesus' answer about divorce which was, "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."
The "exception clause" is in response to another question, not the question about divorcing a wife. This question arises out of the Pharisees being amazed that Jesus allowed for no divorce (READ MATTHEW 19:4-6 AGAIN!). Let's take up with their response:
7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
Notice that the disciples did not take Jesus' sayings to be excuses for divorce and remarriage (it is amazing that anyone does!). Note their response in v.10 of Matthew 19. Does this sound like they thought Him to be teaching divorce and remarriage like modern people who are being led by devils would have you to believe?
ORD said also unto me in the days of Josiah the king, Hast thou seen that which backsliding Israel hath done? she is gone up upon every high mountain and under every green tree, and there hath played the harlot.
6 The L
7 And I said after she had done all these things, Turn thou unto me. But she returned not. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it.
8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.
9 And it came to pass through the lightness of her whoredom, that she defiled the land, and committed adultery with stones and with stocks.
10 And yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah hath not turned unto me with her whole heart, but feignedly, saith the LORD.
11 And the LORD said unto me, The backsliding Israel hath justified herself more than treacherous Judah.
12 Go and proclaim these words toward the north, and say, Return, thou backsliding Israel, saith the LORD; and I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you: for I am merciful, saith the LORD, and I will not keep anger for ever.
13 Only acknowledge thine iniquity, that thou hast transgressed against the LORD thy God, and hast scattered thy ways to the strangers under every green tree, and ye have not obeyed my voice, saith the LORD.
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:
15 And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding.
16 And it shall come to pass, when ye be multiplied and increased in the land, in those days, saith the LORD, they shall say no more, The ark of the covenant of the LORD: neither shall it come to mind: neither shall they remember it; neither shall they visit it; neither shall that be done any more.
17 At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the LORD; and all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of the LORD, to Jerusalem: neither shall they walk any more after the imagination of their evil heart.
It must also be remembered that God is not literally married to Israel. This has more to do with His people who serve Him being married to Him, and those that rebel are dead in regards to their marriage with God.
ORD.
10 And now will I discover her lewdness in the sight of her lovers, and none shall deliver her out of mine hand.
11 I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.
12 And I will destroy her vines and her fig trees, whereof she hath said, These are my rewards that my lovers have given me: and I will make them a forest, and the beasts of the field shall eat them.
13 And I will visit upon her the days of Baalim, wherein she burned incense to them, and she decked herself with her earrings and her jewels, and she went after her lovers, and forgat me, saith the L
14 Therefore, behold, I will allure her, and bring her into the wilderness, and speak comfortably unto her.
15 And I will give her her vineyards from thence, and the valley of Achor for a door of hope: and she shall sing there, as in the days of her youth, and as in the day when she came up out of the land of Egypt.
16 And it shall be at that day, saith the LORD, that thou shalt call me Ishi; and shalt call me no more Baali.
17 For I will take away the names of Baalim out of her mouth, and they shall no more be remembered by their name.
18 And in that day will I make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of heaven, and with the creeping things of the ground: and I will break the bow and the sword and the battle out of the earth, and will make them to lie down safely.
19 And I will betroth thee unto me for ever; yea, I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in lovingkindness, and in mercies.
20 I will even betroth thee unto me in faithfulness: and thou shalt know the LORD.
13 He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy.
John 3:16-21
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
1 John 1:7-9
6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
All seem to agree that divorcing from a marriage is a sin, and this is correct. If the thief is told, "Let him that stole steal no more" (Ephesians 4:28), and any other sin must be stopped, then how can one who is truly repentant, and truly has been saved stay in an adulterous "marriage" if they had ever repented of the divorce that got them into the adulterous "marriage" in the first place? One would have forsaken their divorce, which means they come back to the realization of their marriage covenant and honor it. Staying in an illigitimate marriage (any marriage in which one or both of the people involved has been divorced from their spouse and their spouse is still living) proves that they have not repented in the least, as they have not changed their heart toward their sin of divorce and toward the marriage covenant they sin against. They have not stopped the sin, rather have used claimed forgiveness as an excuse to continue in their sin of adultery instead of actually receiving true forgiveness by changing their hearts and actions in regard to marriage, divorce, and remarriage (and all sin for that matter).
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
Romans 8:1
1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
1 John 3:18-21
18 My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.
19 And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him.
20 For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.
21 Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God.
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
The only fallacy here is in the argument maker arguing against the plain reading of the Scriptures, and committing the Fallacy of Denying the word of God. They warp modern digressed English into the Bible's pure English, and then apply their modern rules that are based upon modern English. Thus, having a baseless argument based on severe perversion of the English language and a dependance on the modern digression in purity of the English language.
Matthew 7:21-23
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Who will you be? One who has departed from iniquity, or one who is merely a professing believer, without doing the will of the Father? "Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity" (2 Timothy 2:19).
