Skip to comments.Jesus on Marriage: Matthew 19:4-9: "Between male and female" [only]
Posted on 08/10/2012 12:37:53 AM PDT by topher
King James Version:
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,New International Version (NIV):
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.
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.
4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'
5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'?
6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
7 "Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"
8 Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
There is also a similar passage in the Gospel of Mark 10:6-12.
Jesus is clearly stating that we were made by God as male and female for marriage.
He does not say that male and male should marry nor does Jesus say that female and female should marry.
A homosexual partnership is not a marriage by Christian terms. Period. The Old Testament (Torah) has a much stricter definition of marriage and the rites associated with marriage (and the engagement process).
Some cultures practice CANNABALISM. Does that make CANNABALISM something that society should allow?
CANNABALISM versus allowing supposed HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE (fictitious term by homosexuals) are preverse aspects of some cultures.
Marriage, as defined by Jesus in the Gospel, is between male and female.
So what if someone is surgically altered to be male who was female. Or someone who is surgically altered to be female who was male.
Technically, such people are composed of DNA that still make them male if that is how they were born. Or such people are still female if they were born with the DNA of a female.
Cannabalism has existed in the world. Does that make it right?
There will be those who are part of the LGBT community who claim that the Christian faith supports HOMOSEXUAL PARTNERSHIPS.
It does not.
I have heard that China has cannabalism going on: it is considered a delicacy in China to have aborted babies (by a minority in that country).
Though some may feel the reference to cannabalism absurd, it is not. China is a example today of where it is going on.
In the 1920's and 1930's in Mexico, some of those who suppressed Christians in Mexico actually practiced cannabalism.
So modern examples are not that hard to find of cannabalism. Does that make it okay to practice cannabalism?
...supposed HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE (fictitious term by homosexuals)...
The term GAY/LESBIAN MARRIAGE is a term that was invented in the past 40 years.
It is like saying that those men who had mistresses had a second wife.
It is just redefining something for poltical correctness.
We are in the end days and man is still fighting God. The Divine Design shall prevail. Only God’s truth can set us free. Love and serve God. Man’s fevered imagination is wicked still and will pass away very soon.
Psalm 119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.
Psalm 119:89 For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven. KJV- Thy purposes are all settled above, and they shall all be fulfilled below.
While one can make argument about marriage is between male and female based on these verses, my understanding is the main message here is about divorce and adultery. Something that many Christians and Freepers don’t consider sins anymore, or treat them as lesser sins, despite them being mentioned explicitly here.
In His answer, He was explaining about marriage, and why divorce was wrong, and why adultery was wrong.
But the focus of the passage is Jesus explaining marriage.
That is my opinion.
Short of like if the Pharisees had asked about murder and Jesus responded about the sanctity of life, then such a passage would be about the sanctity of life, and not murder... In such a passage, Jesus might explain when one might take a life in self-defense...
And I believe the Gospels of Mark and that of Matthew cite what was written by/for Moses in Genesis chapter 1: verse 27 and chapter 2: verse 24 . And after Jesus of Nazareth was hung on that Roman Cross ,buried in a borrowed tomb,not a bone broken—raised again the third day -the Roman guard proving no obstacle to the God of Israel. That Pharisee who converted on the Road to Damascus upon meeting the Risen Christ in his letter to the church of God at Corinth ! Corinthians chapter 6 verses 8-20 can only be accepted as True-and every man advocating this present darkness a liar .These examples from the Sacred Writings proved the foundation for Marriage under American Law if one can compare Jame Wilson on the Consequences of Marriage and his
comment “the two shall become one.” to what is inspired by God.So we are without excuse.
“While one can make argument about marriage is between male and female based on these verses, my understanding is the main message here is about divorce and adultery. Something that many Christians and Freepers dont consider sins anymore, or treat them as lesser sins, despite them being mentioned explicitly here.”
Yes, agreed. While same-sex marriage has to be relentlessly refuted, it was after all the rampant divorce cultrue of heterosexuals which paved the way for gay marriage to make an appearance.
I believe the article explains homosexuality, Divorce and adultery all three, but homosexuality is an abomination and is also explained real clear in other places.
Divorce was permitted under certain conditions but as far as Jesus was concerned adultery was the only grounds for divorce
and that is by permission only and not mandatory.
Because of the hardness of the hearts, (some people are unforgiving) we are allowed to get a divorce because of adultery.
If you in this passage take "except it be for fornication" to mean "marital unfaithfulness" after the marriage is consummated, as does the NIV when read into the context of today's culture, you would be incorrect.
Here's the scoop:
(1) Matthew was written to the Jews of Christ's day, and
(2) in it Christ was speaking truth to Doctors of Law of those days.
In that culture, when a man and a woman agreed to marry, they were espoused, and that was a valid contract of marriage, much more firmly than today's "engagement." The period of espousal was at least nine months, and perhaps more--long enough to know that the woman is a virgin and has no child, not even with her espoused husband. Furthermore, she and her parents will, upon consummation, be able to display the tokens of her virginity (see Deut 22:13-21)
However, if she produces a child during that test period of her virginity, and not of the espoused husband, he is justified under the law in writing out a bill of nullification of the marriage agreement contract on the basis of fornication with another man.
Subsequently, he is then freed and able to engage in a different espousal to a virgin woman. But his espoused wife, now being rejected on the basis of infidelity, is subject to death by stoning.
However, if , after the marriage is finally consummated and her virginity is proven, the husband then becomes disenthused with her, Moses' command was that the husband could write out a bill of divorcement, give it to her, and she could go out and marry someone else. Then the forner husband could remarry.
But Jesus proclaimed that under His rule, a man thus rejecting his faithful wife, even if the espousal period has not been fulfilled, is continually committing adultery (and is thus worthy of death by stoning).
Four things to note here are:
(1) The "exception clause" which Jesus included in his two discourses in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 applies only to the Jewish culture, within the espousal contract period, before consummation, and under the Old Covenant of His day.
(2) Under the Law, the penalty and solution of the wife's adultery after consummation of the marriage was not divorcement on the basis of fornication--it was death (by stoning)!
(3) A man divorcing his wife after consummation of the marriage using the excuse given by Moses, then marrying another, would be continuously committing adultery; and so would the divorced woman, if she remarried.
(4) Joseph, espoused to Jesus' mother Mary, could have legitimately and intended to put her away, quietly, because of her pregnancy. But he did not, through obedience to the angel of The God. In later on debates with Pharisees, they intimated (ad hominem argument) that Jesus was illegitimate.
The bottom line is that a solid exegesis of the relevant Scriptures prove that accepting divorced and remarried couples into Church membership in today's culture is a recognition and acceptance of the sin of remarriage adultery, sometimes in ignorance, sometimes through poor exegesis, and sometimes just through in-your-face disobedience to Christ's commands.
So, if entertaining church members exercising continual remarriage adultery is prevalent in one's denomination without discipline, one should not presume to distract attention by pointing out the equally execrable practice of "same-sex" marriage before correcting one's own doctrinal basis.
I want to say again, that adultery by one's mate is not a justification for the obedient regenerated believer-disciple of Christ for divorce. Even if the mate leaves for good, there is no justification for remarriage and still remain within God's will. But confession and true abandonment of ones sins is.
According to Scripture, marriage is defined as man-woman (Genesis 2, referenced also by Jesus); lifelong (prophet Malachi says God "hates" divorce, Jesus says that a person who marries a divorced person is committing adultery); and procreative ("be fruitful and multiply"-- but implied by the very fact that they are male and female: this is part of the natural "design".)
There is not a single instance of sexual partnering that is man-woman, lifelong, and procreative, that is condemned in he Bible. There is not a single instance of sexual partnering that is same-sex, non-lifelong, or anti-procreative, that is blessed in the Bible.
If I am in error here, please correct me.
But most "Christian" churches have already given up on 2 of 3, namely, lifelong and procreative. They OK divorce/remarriage and they OK anti-procreative acts, e.g. contracepted sex.
So most "Christian" churches have already re-defined marriage into a form contrary to what God has designed and defined.
Gays are just making it 3-out-of-3.
You are exactly correct, and this is what I was attempting to say. Straight sociey had already long ago done 2/3 of the job of the revaluation and transformation of marriage - the gays simply have rushed in at the eleventh hour to get this last change in.
In fact, gay marriage is the natural and inevitable consequence of changes which began in heterosexual marriage decades ago (e.g., the Pill leading to recreational sex, easy divorce, multiple partners, etc.).
In a sense, the gays have logic on their side, thanks to us: “If there can be rampant divorce, cohabitation, abortion, contraception and reproductive tehcnology, all made respectable - then why on earth can’t 2 men marry and adopt?”. In fact, the gays use such arguments and straights have a hard time arguing with them.
Gays just making it three out of three— does that make it any better? I recall it being written in Scripture where the
Apostle Paul asked should we go on sinning ,because we have been saved from sin? May God forbid it! If most churches have already turned away from the Biblical elements of “marriage” the “sin” remains the same doesn’t it?
In short, the Lord specified that it was opposite genders that God joined together.
What God has placed asunder let no man join together.
Cannibalism is rejected in principle based on Gn. 9:2-6, perhaps allowing exceptions as in the case of the Andes Survivors, but never as a practice.
To put a sharper point on it, I don't think there's any reasonable way you can OK contracepted sex and not end up OKing homosex. They're both "acts against nature," based on the assumption that "we can restructure sex to be anything we want it to be," and outside of God's good, wise, holy, procreative design.