Divorce advocates are the same as egalitarians

When I say divorce advocates I mean the people — Christians or otherwise — who try to advocate that the exception clause in Matthew 5 and Matthew 19 mean that a husband can divorce his wife if she commits adultery. I’ve already outlined the total case from the Scriptures on why this is false in On divorce Part 4.

What Jesus actually says is two separate statements:

  • Don’t divorce period (v6): “What God has put together let man not separate”
  • You can put away if there was fraud (v9): “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.”). This refers to Deut 22 where there was an invalid covenant marriage if the wife was supposed to be a virgin but was not. In other words, you can put away (without a writ of divorce) if there was deception because it formed an invalid marriage.

This is not difficult to understand given the whole context of the Scriptures by textual analysis and overarching theme. This unifies all of the Scriptures on putting away and divorce (putting away + writ of divorce) with each other: Deut 22, Deut 24, Jeremiah 3, Isaiah 50, Malachi 2, Matthew 5, Matthew 19, Mark 10, Luke 16, Romans 7, 1 Corinthians 5, 1 Corinthians 7, and the case of Joseph and Mary.

In comparison to the egalitarians

Egalitarians hang their argument mainly on two specific versus:

  • Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
  • Ephesians 5:21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

However, there are many other passages in the Scriptures such as 1 Cor 11, Col 3, Tit 2, 1 Peter 3 that state wives should submit to their husbands. They radically ignore most of the other Scriptures to hang onto a fringe opinion.

Additionally, the egalitarians try to reinterpret words like headship to mean ‘source’ instead of an authoritative position. The divorce advocates try to reinterpret “put away” to mean “divorce” and “fornication” to mean “adultery” when the Scriptures never do that.

  • Pharisees said: Matthew 19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
  • Jesus said: Matthew 19:9 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.
  • What Jesus would have said, if He meant you could divorce for adultery: Matthew 19:9 Whosoever shall put away AND GIVE A WRIT OF DIVORCE TO his wife, except it be for ADULTERY, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

It is logically incoherent to hang on to the meaning that fornication means adultery because Jesus would have used the word adultery if he meant adultery. Plus, this means that Jesus would have agreed with the Pharisees’ initial statement. Jesus never agrees with the Pharisees. The disciples response affirms that Jesus was not agreeing with the Pharisees: Matthew 19:10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. In other words, if you can’t divorce period then it’s better not to marry.

This is not to mention what the apostles and early Church fathers taught on marriage, which is no divorce period and there is no putting away unless there was an invalid marriage (like 1 Cor 5). They’re the ones who understood this passage directly from the mouth of Jesus.

Likewise, the early Church did not permit women in leadership positions, and men were the head of their families.

Conclusion

The Word Jesus gives is logically clear (paraphrased):

  • v6: Don’t divorce period.
  • v9: Deception and/or illicit sexual unions don’t form a valid covenant [marriage]. (Deception: Deut 22; Incest: 1 Cor 5).

I’ve gone through four iterations of the “On divorce” outlining the total case, and every time it’s the same old Pharisaical hard heartedness on this passage. The divorce advocates are like the egalitarians. They twist Scripture to fit what they want.

It’s a hard, hard, hard, hard Word. Even the disciples agreed that it was an insane Word: If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

Let’s not fool ourselves that divorce in a valid covenant marriage is ever the right thing, even if a spouse commits adultery. Jesus never permits divorce for adultery.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Divorce advocates are the same as egalitarians

  1. shredifier says:

    I don’t know why it’s so hard for you to accept that Jesus said in plain clear language that there is indeed an exception clause that allows a man to put away his wife without the stigma involved or fear that he’s committed some sin in doing so……EXCEPT IT BE FOR…….EXCEPT IT BE FOR….EXCEPT IT BE FOR
    I mean how many times do we have to say this? Putting aside ALL the semantic arguments whether Jesus is talking about putting away or divorce, or whether fornication is the same as adultery OR different, putting all that aside, Jesus is saying that if your wife commits fornication you are allowed to put away/divorce her and remarry again and there will be absolutely NO SIN involved for the man to do that
    It’s not us who is twisting the scriptures here, it’s those who stubbornly refuse to accept Jesus’s teaching on this subject in order to maintain there hold on some stupid man made tradition
    I truly don’t care if God’s original design for marriage is unto death with NO EXCEPTIONS, because Jesus himself affirms an EXCEPTION that frees a man to remarry even though the offending spouse is still alive. …the marriage is voided because the wife commits fornication DURING THE MARRIAGE, and it’s got nothing to do with fraud or an “invalid” marriage, it’s a sexual sin that is committed which is grounds according to Jesus to disolve a marriage and be with someone else
    Anyone who rejects this teaching is on their own and stubbornly clinging to tradition and man made doctrines
    To help clarify what I’ve been saying I’ll give an illustration : I’m married to a wife, none of this betrothed garbage, I’m talking about a marriage that has existed for many years, my wife then commits fornication on me DURING the marriage, though I have the option of forgiving her, I now have the legal right to get rid of my wife and remarry another woman, God himself is completely ok with my decision and there is no sin of adultery charged to my account
    That’s the bottom line, and that’s a fact backed up by scripture and Jesus’s own words, there is no wriggle room, there is such a thing as the exception clause and people just need to get over it and accept it

  2. I still find it fascinating the way a certain group of Men respond to discussions on this topic. If your wife is cheating on you, she’s going to leave and you can let a non-Christian walk. You’re not forbidden from taking another Wife in that situation. (Though you can’t be a Bishop.)

    The responses have nothing to do with being careful about Scripture, especially when the objections always start with a *modern* concept of the Marriage Process.

  3. shammahworm says:

    @”Deep Strength”

    You’re a liar and a heretic. You’ve been shown the full context of scripture in painstaking detail over months. The bottom line is a man has the right to divorce his wife and remarry in cases of fornication(porneia). It is no sin. Jesus(being God in the flesh after all) literally tells us when God separates a man and his wife.

    Whenever you’re told what you already know – that porniea means all manner of sexual sin and that Jesus uses fornication instead of adultery because a man has the right to divorce for both adultery AND for falsely representing one’s sexual history, you put on your blinders and act like a specific type of sexual immorality(adultery) is excluded from the word for all manner of sexual sin(porneia). Nevermind 1 Cor. 5: 1 uses porneia to describe adultery and nevermind that you yourself have conceded many times that porneia means all manner of sexual immorality in other threads.

    No “Deep Strength,” your exegesis is like the egalitarians, not ours. There is no equivalent between the virgin bride of Christ and an adulteress. None. Jesus never loves His wife(the Church) the way a cuckold loves an adulteress because His wife never joins herself(every single member of the Body of Christ) as one body to anything other than Him.

    P.S. If and I do say if, because I don’t know for sure, your father divorced your mother for adultery, then he and she are separated by God, not just man. If that is indeed the case, he acted in full obedience to God and committed no sin. The same holds true if you happen to be the brother, nephew, uncle or cousin of an adulteress. If any of the women in your family committed adultery and got divorced because of it, they brought it upon themselves and are fully deserving of the consequences.

    If you’re doing this because you’re clinging to popery’s false teachings, then you have bigger problems like praying to saints or notions of a “Vicar” of Christ.

  4. The Question says:

    Matthew 1:19

    “Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.”

    Notice the angel does not visit him in the dream to condemn Joseph for planning a divorce but to inform him that the pregnancy was not the result of sin. Joseph was choosing one of two options available to him; have her brought out and stoned for adultery or divorce her.

    If divorce was never permitted even in the face of unfaithfulness, then the angel would have chastised him for sinning.

    Notice also the phrase that Joseph was “faithful to the law.” If divorce was not permitted he would not have been faithful to it.

  5. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    In the time of Christ, only men could inititiate divorce. The last I heard, seventy percent of divorces are initiated by women. It seems to me that most men are disinclined to divorce. At a guess, Christ’s words had to leveled at a narow portion of men. I think that things went went crazy with divorce when women could initiate it. It is too bad we don’t have His thoughts on that matter.

  6. shammahworm says:

    @The Question

    DS was saying that the situation in Deut. 22 is what Matt. 5 and 19 is referring to.

    Divorce wasn’t permitted in the case of Deut. 22 because it referred specifically to the discovery the girl wasn’t a virgin at the consummation of the marriage. Joseph knew if he had attempted to consummate the marriage, presumably Mary wouldn’t be a virgin and there would be only one course of action – stoning. That’s why Joseph chose to divorce her quietly without attempting to consummate the marriage. This is how we know(besides just the straight up meaning of porneia) “Deep Strength’s” claims that Matt. 5 and 19 refer to this situation are false. There was no divorce option in Deut. 22.

    Notice how the passage specifically refers to the consummation of a marriage.

    Deut. 22: 13-15,
    “‘If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then hates her and accuses her of misconduct and brings a bad name upon her, saying, ‘I took this woman, and when I came near her, I did not find in her evidence of virginity,’ then the father of the young woman and her mother shall take and bring out the evidence of her virginity to the elders of the city in the gate.

  7. Don Quixote says:

    shammahworm says:
    October 15, 2016 at 6:12 pm

    @”Deep Strength”

    You’re a liar and a heretic. You’ve been shown the full context of scripture in painstaking detail over months. The bottom line is a man has the right to divorce his wife and remarry in cases of fornication(porneia).

    @shammahworm: This subject has been done to death many times on many blogs. And I am not interested in repeating previous arguments / discussions with the same people over and over.

    But there is something worth mentioning that I think you may have overlooked. Christians often hold to different opinions on the same subjects using the same verses. What is important to remember is that your opponent is not necessarily a “Liar and a heretic,” just because he disagrees with your view[s].

    Deep Strength has only disagreed with your interpretation. He hasn’t told any lies, nor posted any heresy as far as I know. And from reading his blog I would say this; No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. Simple. But to put in writing that someone is a ‘liar and a heretic’ is a major accusation, and if it’s false then the accuser has born false witness. It’s best to state our various positions, and leave it at that. God will establish His word, and we all need correction at times.

    God bless you in Jesus name.

  8. shredifier says:

    I’ve been holding back in actually accusing DEEP STRENGTH of being a liar in this regard but the more I see his stubborn refusal to accept and see what the scriptures say on this particular subject, the more I’m inclined to say that DEEP STRENGTH has indeed wandered off into heretical doctrine and the FOOLISH man made traditions of the Catholic church
    There is no mistaken it here, DS is dead wrong and needs to recant his unbiblical views

  9. Don Quixote says:

    shredifier says:
    October 15, 2016 at 11:41 pm

    I’ve been holding back in actually accusing DEEP STRENGTH of being a liar in this regard but the more I see his stubborn refusal to accept and see what the scriptures say on this particular subject, the more I’m inclined to say that DEEP STRENGTH has indeed wandered off into heretical doctrine and the FOOLISH man made traditions of the Catholic church
    There is no mistaken it here, DS is dead wrong and needs to recant his unbiblical views

    @ shredifier: Please don’t call DS a heretic unless you can prove it. [I know you have not done this yet to the best of my knowledge].
    DS has not aligned himself with the views of the catholic church. As far I as I know the catholic church doesn’t hold to the betrothal view as expressed by DS, If you have proof otherwise please post a link to the catholic catechism showing clearly the correlation. I could be wrong.

    P.S. I have been trying to come up to speed on catholic dogma on the ‘exception clause’ and haven’t made much progress, probably because its written somewhere in latin or Italian from 900 years ago. During the twelve century the catholic church debated the definition of marriage and there were 3 schools of thought. They produced a library of documents, and how much of it squares off with betrothal view of the exception clause I don’t know.

  10. @Don Quixote:

    It’s little use. “shammahworm” only shows up when this is the topic anywhere, with his constant inability to be consistent with his understanding of the topic being dealt with nor able to deal with the Ancient Hebrew + Greek issues. The last go around, for however many thousands of words he dropped in the comments, showed he clearly has little actual understanding (nor desire) to deal with the subtleties involved. The topic has 4 very distinct issues that cause a lot of trouble: ~1400 BC Mosiac Law, ~30 AD Jewish practice of 2nd Temple interpretation of the Law, the English translation of all of those concepts AND the way Jesus is weaving through the trap inherent in the questions asked by the Pharisees.

    Jesus almost never answered any direct questions because the questions themselves were traps. (There is no way to properly answer a dishonest question.) And we see the same carelessness generally applied to much of the rest of the Gospel. The crowd looking to stone the adulteress runs through the same set of issues. It was the way to deal with the issue under Mosiac Law, but the Jews were also under Roman Law. Thus stoning the adulteress would mark all of them for death as well. (This is why the religious rulers had to take Jesus to Pilate. It wasn’t some random formality.) That’s why Jesus’ response cut the Men so deeply. To enforce the Law they would need to break other Laws. A problem the Jews had because they brought the Romans in.

    As to the Divorce issue, in some ways the hilarious part of all of this is that nearly the entire discussion doesn’t matter under any Western society’s Law. Since a Woman has the legal option to divorce but never the Spiritual option, it really matters little for the Man. The only issue would be the inability to be a Bishop/Pastor. Since a cheating Wife is going to leave, anyway, the Husband can take another Wife. In the Christian context, it’s simply Wife #2 and you move on.

  11. shredifier says:

    I never called DEEP STRENGTH a heretic so please don’t make false accusations. …I said his “doctrine” is heretical, it’s a subtle difference but a difference nethertheless
    Where DS aligns himself with Catholic doctrine is his instranginent belief that there is no grounds for divorce PERIOD…….on the contrary the bible mentions several legitimate grounds for divorce and by inference remarriage. …and the primary one is the one I dealt with tonight which is when your wife commits fornication DURING THE MARRIAGE, as clear as can be the Lord Jesus showed that is what was known as the EXCEPTION CLAUSE on the indissolubility of marriage ….there is no getting around Jesus’s words here, there’s no need to go to the Greek or Hebrew or consult church father’s or lexicons or any other nonsense….if your wife commits fornication there is NO sin involved in divorcing her PERIOD, and the sooner DS acknowledges this the better

  12. shammahworm says:

    @shredifier

    It’s been almost a full year since I first started posting about this topic on here. For months “Deep Strength” has been repeating the same false doctrines over and over. I put his handle in quotes because after his repeated dishonesty with myself and other posters, it’s clear he is willfully ignoring the truth and his handle doesn’t represent him.

    1) DS created fictional “context” by falsely claiming in some of his other posts that the Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus by getting him to speak against Roman law regarding divorce. This is absurd as Jews weren’t considered Roman and were allowed to set many of their own religious laws. At no point was Jesus in danger of being brought to the Romans if he’d said divorce required a certificate.

    2) DS falsely claims throughout his writing that the word for “put away” changes to have different meaning depending upon whether the gospel is allegedly written for Jews or Gentiles. This is false because he assumes the Gentiles were wholly ignorant of the OT. There were Gentiles who already worshiped the Lord of Hosts before the Gospel reached them and the Gospel was often preached in synagogues before being spread to the Gentile population.

    Note Acts 13: 26, “‘Brothers, sons of the family of Abraham, and those among you who fear God, to us has been sent the message of this salvation.'” Gentiles were already worshiping God and studying His word before Paul even arrived.

    3) DS repeatedly cites Deut. 22 as grounds for divorce in spite of the fact that Deut. 22 required stoning and there is no divorce option. It’s an outright lie based on the plain text.

    4) Matt. 5 and 19 say a man may divorce and remarry in cases of porniea(all manner of sexual sin). DS openly admits that porneia includes all manner of sexual sin, including adultery. Here is his own definition from another thread, https://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2015/12/11/on-divorce-part-3/

    “‘Fornication” is an illicit sexual union including incest (1 Cor 5) and includes adultery. However, if Jesus was referring specifically to adultery here then ‘moichao’ would have been used instead of ‘porneia.’ Moichao is used in the same sentence, yet it is not used here.'”

    DS knows exactly why Jesus uses porniea(to refer to all sexual immorality, not just adultery) and he still plays dumb whenever a new poster brings up the exception clause with a “what else can it be but this specific situation from an old passage in the OT that explicitly commands stoning” approach. Nevermind divorce wasn’t an option and nevermind that the only ways to separate two people joined as one flesh is either death or divorce(Deut 24). Even if a girl fraudulently represented her virginity, the two people are still joined as one flesh from the act of sex. A man still has to go through the proper steps to separate in the case of fraud and “putting away” wouldn’t accomplish this if we’re to believe DS’ position that divorce and putting away aren’t the same thing.

    6) Now in this post, DS is trying to say porneia in 1 Cor. 5: 1 doesn’t refer to adultery, but incest even though it’s used to describe both in the passage.

    1 Cor. 5: 1,
    “It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality(porneia) among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father’s wife.”

    These are clear cut cases of dishonesty on the part of DS. Men come on here for sound doctrine and instead of getting the true teaching of the Bible, get a churchian “no divorce ever” heresy. In the three or so years I’ve been reading Dalrock and much of his blog roll, I’ve never seen a topic that goes unanswered more than the “no divorce ever” lie. A lot of readers in this little corner of the internet don’t have the energy to give long, detailed answers to these heresies and I don’t blame them. But victim’s of these heresies need to know that they have no obligation to bear the heavy burdens imposed on them by popery or other false teachers.

  13. shammahworm says:

    @Don Quixote
    Look at my previous post and you’ll see clear lies perpetrated by DS. Hopefully you’re doing well and you’ve stopped spreading the false doctrines you were warned about in the past. It’s not fun having to warn men, especially cuckolds, about the “no divorce ever” lie.

    @Looking Glass
    “It’s little use. “shammahworm” only shows up when this is the topic anywhere, with his constant inability to be consistent with his understanding of the topic being dealt with nor able to deal with the Ancient Hebrew + Greek issues.”

    Of course you can’t name one example of me being inconsistent with the topic or point out an example in which another poster showed how inconsistent I was. I don’t alter definitions from passage to passage, DS does. I don’t provide a definition and then ignore it to fit my position, DS does. I don’t fabricate “context,” DS does. I don’t repeatedly lie about the content of a passage(Deut 22), DS does.

    It’s ironic that later in your post you show an ignorance of the Torah and John 8.

    “The crowd looking to stone the adulteress runs through the same set of issues. It was the way to deal with the issue under Mosiac Law, but the Jews were also under Roman Law.”

    This is false. Mosiac law was clear. If a man and woman were caught in adultery, both the man and woman were to be executed on the order of whichever leader(s) was in charge of sentencing. The crowd disobeyed the Torah because:
    1) The man was no where to be found.
    2) The leaders who actually had the authority to sentence a person to death weren’t notified and didn’t give the order.

    The crowd made no attempt to obey Mosiac law at all.

    The “no divorce ever” lie is easily the most perverse lie of churchianity propagated in the manosphere which seeks to lay up enormous false, heavy burdens on men that they have no obligation to bear. A lot of people on here understandably don’t have the energy to answer all the “no divorce ever” heresies and just take Christ at his word(Matt. 5 and 19). The problem is some men, especially those who are new or who have pastors with false doctrine need more of an explanation than that. For that reason, I’ll take the time away from my other reading and writing to answer.

  14. shredifier says:

    Shammahworm

    I agree with you 1 billion percent, the “no divorce ever” myth perpetuated by DEEP STRENGTH is one of the most demonic lies ever taught by Satan and it comes straight from the pit of hell, and it’s primary use is to shackle mankind into the most insidious type of bond age and guilt
    Like you, I was attracted to this blog because of its normally sound handle on doctrine compared to “churchianity” but I’ve seen this false doctrine perpetuated by DS for a long time now and I’m getting sick of it
    Its time that DEEP STRENGTH and his sycophant supporters admit their error, stop pushing this “no divorce ever” garbage and move on to discuss other things

  15. @ LG

    Eh, I find the divorce advocate comments boring. The same old thing that is parroted over and over are “fornication includes adultery” and “putting away is divorce.”

    Other such things that are never addressed are:

    1. If Jesus meant adultery and divorce then he would’ve been agreeing with the Pharisees. Jesus simply doesn’t do this ever.
    2. The disciples did not respond like he was agreeing with the Pharisees and instead thought that it’s better not to marry. Men could already divorce for adultery: this would not be a reason the disciples thought Jesus was crazy.
    3. Textual context of the words being used.
    4. Mary/Joseph example of Deut 22, 1 Cor 5 example of illicit marriage (incest).
    5. Distinction of putting away in the same passage and Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Malachi.
    6. The trick question context.
    7. Lack of agreement with Mark 10 and Luke 16.
    8. Early Church did not permit divorce or remarriage. They were the ones who heard it from the mouth of Jesus.
    4. Lack of reference to the ideal: “what God has put together let man not separate” — if divorce was allowed by Jesus then it’s still hard hearted to do it.

    The Scriptures do permit divorce for one reason: 1 Cor 7 if an unbeliever leaves then you’re not under bondage. That’s it.

    I’m honestly pretty done arguing this topic, so I’m going to lock comments. If other people want to argue against what I’ve written on other blogs, so be it.

Comments are closed.