A Take on Matthew 19:9 You May Not Have Heard

[@sandraglade]

Im separated from my husband. As hard as it is, I cannot remarry unless he is dead. It’s a narrow path

[@thomasalbinholmes2538]

Be strong and courageous my friend. I'll pray for your husband's repentance. Thanks for sharing. John 14:23

[@thomasalbinholmes2538]

Do you have Christian community and support?

[@lutufyodixon9997]

1. You can go back and work it out 2. You can get a divorce from your husband and find another husband

[@thomasalbinholmes2538]

@@lutufyodixon9997 are you aware that this is not how the apostolic church understood Jesus?

[@lutufyodixon9997]

@@thomasalbinholmes2538 according to the mosaic law you can part ways with your wife (not divorce) and later on work things out and rejoin the husband. Romans 7:1-3 Or You can divorce and got married to someone else. You have to understand the difference between apoluos and apostasion. Apoluos is just being separate from the husband Apostasion is being given a bill of divorce So a woman who has separated from the husband isn't allowed to marry BUT a woman who has been given a bill of divorce is allowed to get married to someone else. Thats Mosaic Law not a comment from a certain junk who lived in dark ages

[@wayne4949]

I’ve never heard Matthew 19:9 explained this way but it makes a lot of sense and it really does tie the other verses together. Thank you for this explanation!

[@tedvinessr7187]

This is the correct meaning of the exception clause. The people working in the Greek, by applying the correct grammar, could confirm this meaning. Please don't tire of explaining this, it is too important.

[@thomasalbinholmes2538]

Hello my friend. Thanks so much for the encouragement. How did you come to see the exception clause in this way? I'd love your thoughts on the rest of the marriage series if you have the time. God bless you.

[@tedvinessr7187]

Sexual immorality in the exception clause of mt.5 grammatically cannot mean except for marital unfaithfulness. The koine greek is a very precise language and never uses a general word in place of a specific word such as porneia for adultery. Thank you please reply.

[@tedvinessr7187]

Although porneia can include all sexual sins including moichos, it is never used specifically for the individual sin of moichos. This is why the word adultery is used of the one marrying another in Mat 5:32.

[@betawithbrett7068]

Clement of Alexandria recorded that when he converted (~150 AD), he traveled the ancient world to learn from those Christian leaders who had learned DIRECTLY from the apostles John, James, Peter and John. We see this in Eusebius' Church History. 2:50 so applying Clement's view to Matthew 19:9, we can reword πορνεια as: "Whoever divorces his wife not for an adulterous remarriage, and marries another, commits adultery." In other words, if you married someone who was divorced, you are in adultery, so getting out of that adultery through divorce, means you were never joined by God, and so remarriage after your only marriage was an adulterous one, makes you able to remarry...because in effect, it is your first REAL marriage where God can join your until death to someone of the opposite gender. Jesus said in Matthew 19 "what God has joined, let no one separate." This implies the opposite too What God HAS NOT JOINED let man separate. This is what Clement is saying.

[@a11an72]

Dear brother , you're a hero, such an important topic .... i dont get why i didnt see the comment from Clement before, ive literally read it, but it didnt "click" Im gonna listen to this vid a second time

[@thomasalbinholmes2538]

Well I'm just putting stuff out there that others helped me to see also. We all need help. Praise God for sending the Teacher to us.

[@iviewutoob]

Dr. Joseph Webb covers this topic very clearly with the early church fathers.

[@Phil-bm4xo]

Excellent points! I absolutely agree. Remarriage IS adultery when one’s spouse is still living and this fact harmonizes with the following passages. Luke 16:18 Mark 10:11-12 Romans 7:3 1 Cor. 7:10-11, 39 The exception clause in Matt. 19:9 is regarding divorce only, NOT remarriage. The pharisees question was regarding divorce, not remarriage. Further, Jesus was answering their question in response to Moses’ law, but from the beginning, God never prescribed divorce. It was because of the “hardness of their hearts” that this idea of divorce was pursued (Matthew 19:8). When speaking of remarriage, Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18 specifically state remarriage is adultery. The apostle Paul affirms this in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, and there are no exception clauses. These three verses, along with 1 Corinthians 7:39, clarify the proper interpretation of Matthew 19:9 and Matthew 5:32. The proper biblical discernment of all associated verses is that remarriage is adultery when one’s spouse is still living. Remarriage is the opposite of what God wanted in the case of the Israelites, Hosea, and Gomer. Countless churches teach that remarriage is justified after infidelity but that is not so. Remarriage is only pursued in order to appease one’s own desires. Itching ears twist the scripture (Matt. 19:9) in order to serve self. Paul was not speaking for himself when he stated that one is bound until death 1 Cor. 7:39. Reconciliation is what God desires. That is what true forgiveness is. (”For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. ”But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions.“ ‭Matt. 6:14-15).

[@johncpa9196]

I came to this same conclusion some time ago. You are absolutely correct.

[@truthnow902]

Okay but the only issue with this is this only applies to what Bible you are reading from, the King James version does not use the words sexual immorality, it uses the word fornication!

[@leastoftheapostolicfaith4407]

This would support those who were never married before AND got married TO a multiple married person to be free to get properly married.

[@thomasalbinholmes2538]

Hello my friend. That is a question that I don't think we get an explicit answer on. I lean towards that myself. In my mind it is the most natural conclusion (that the party who had never been married before can then enter into a legitimate marriage). I've heard arguments to the contrary. I don't find them compelling. But I understand why some find them convincing. What do you think? And thanks so much for listening. Do we have mutual friends?

[@thomasalbinholmes2538]

Although you could make the argument that this understanding of Matthew 19:9 leads to the conclusion that both parties must remain single (or that the one who was previously married must go back to their spouse while the one who had not previously been married must stay single). Because if divorce only is permitted, but not remarriage, on the other view (where you understand the exception clause to be talking about a cheating spouse), then it seems like divorce only is allowed but not remarriage on this view as well. I don't know what to make of it all. All I am confident of is that we cannot divorce our first spouse and marry another. And that if we are in a remarriage, we need to come out of it. What happens after that, I am just not totally clear on, and I think both views should be presented to everyone with their strengths and weaknesses, so that people can come to their own conclusions. God help us all we are in a terrible mess.

[@leastoftheapostolicfaith4407]

@@thomasalbinholmes2538aving seen your other video on the subject, i understand why you could come up with that conclusion. Jesusstudentbrett I believe is working on the our findings on the subject.

[@thomasalbinholmes2538]

@@leastoftheapostolicfaith4407 I've been talking with him. He's been helping me with my next episode of my podcast. And it is a big, big deal if it is right. Maybe you've already spoken with him about it. The Matthew 19:9 variant. What a bombshell.

[@applecrafterLP]

@@thomasalbinholmes2538 Amen.

[@utubemedward1]

Except for fornication in the Matthew versus is pertaining to a espoused or betrothed wife under Jewish law. The divorce is NOT of marriage; it is to end the legal engagement under Jewish law; if the woman was involved with another man while betrothed to be married.

[@likesanddislikesetc]

According to 1st Corinthians 7 then you are correct

[@Legowiebe]

This is the first I've heard someone aside from my father who takes an interpretation that Matt 19:9 (and Matt 5:32) is an imperative to "send away" rather than a permission. In fact, if you understand the Greek, you'll see that Jesus is addressing the individual committing the act of porneia hence the imperative. However I would caution you not to go so far as to say that second marriages must be broken up. This represents a failure to understand the permanency of marriage. Two wrongs don't make a right and 1 Timothy 5:8 speaks strongly about how a man should treat his household. A person who enters a marriage when his spouse is still alive commits adultery. But just as a murdered person can repent of his murder but can't un-murder his victim, a person who committed adultery by marrying a second spouse cannot un-marry. (There is no word for un-marry in scripture.) Look closely at the words used. There is no word for "husband" and no word for "wife". Any time you see this in scripture you should re-read the passage and use the word "man" or "woman". Likewise "divorce" is not there, it just is a word that means "send away". So when Matthew 19:9 says "whoever puts away the woman he has except for sexual immorality and shall marry another commits adultery" it is speaking of sexuality outside of marriage. So if you are in sexual sin with someone you should put her away (or marry her) but if you have a woman you are married to you should not put her away. There's much more to this than can be covered in a KZbin comment so I would be happy to discuss this (and point you to my Dad's essay) if you wish to study it more.

[@DeltonDoucet]

I would like more on this. There are so many different peoples interpretations of what is being said. I’m so conflicted and emotionally distraught over this.

[@Legowiebe]

@@DeltonDoucet do not be emotionally distraught! If you believe in Christ you have victory in Him. 2 Tim 1:7, we have not been given a spirit of fear but of love and self discipline. It's so important to read the Bible and understand what it says, but know that any mistakes you have made in ignorance (or even in outright rebellion) do not permanently separate you from the Love of the Father Romans 8:31-39. He wants you restored to Him. Abide in Him. I encourage you to keep researching what the Bible says about marriage and commitment. If you seek knowledge you will find it. If you submit to Him then He will guide you to all truth. Do not be afraid to do what is right. Instead die to your flesh, put off the old man, and live according to the spirit. Let me know if there's anything specific you are unsure about.

[@DeltonDoucet]

@@Legowiebe well there is more, but too long to post in here

[@Legowiebe]

@@DeltonDoucet well I wish I could help you more but in the mean time I will pray for you. Keep up the Faith.

[@Taftal]

As Jesus himself says, "all men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given."

[@PreparelikeJoseph]

Poor David and Solomon. Burning in hell for all their wives and concubines. O wait, didnt David kill his new wifes husband, keep the wife, and just repent of murder and adultery? Hmm

[@TheFightingSheep]

A lawful marriage is a contract between the husband and the wive's custodian, usually the father. The bride MUST be redeemed with a price. Two state slaves shacking up by government issued license, isn't a lawful marriage. License is lawlessness, or iniquity by definition.

[@jermiahmaxpower]

It’s says except. That’s why I’m so confused. I don’t believe in divorce and remarriage. But I feel so confused reading this scripture because of the word “except”. Can you explain?

[@davidnsude2986]

@@jermiahmaxpower he's a false teacher who have just mislead thousands of people bcs of his false imposing of his believes on scripture, just bcs they are so called pastors doesn't mean u should take their words as law , I will be happy to explain it to u as cleanly as possible without the mental gymnastics this man just went through to make that " except " useless!!!!!

[@davidnsude2986]

@@jermiahmaxpower @jermiahmaxpower he's a false teacher who have just mislead thousands of people bcs of his false imposing of his believes on scripture, just bcs they are so called pastors doesn't mean u should take their words as law , I will be happy to explain it to u as cleanly as possible without the mental gymnastics this man just went through to make that " except " useless!!!!!

[@davidnsude2986]

@@jermiahmaxpower @jermiahmaxpower he's a false teacher who have just mislead thousands of people bcs of his false imposing of his believes on scripture, just bcs they are so called pastors doesn't mean u should take their words as law , I will be happy to explain it to u as cleanly as possible without the mental gymnastics this man just went through to make that " except " useless!!!!!

[@davidnsude2986]

@@jermiahmaxpower @jermiahmaxpower he's a false teacher who have just mislead thousands of people bcs of his false imposing of his believes on scripture, just bcs they are so called pastors doesn't mean u should take their words as law , I will be happy to explain it to u as cleanly as possible without the mental gymnastics this man just went through to make that " except " useless!!!!!

[@philipbuckley759]

this is becoming way too convoluted....

[@johnnason5787]

What about the case of the impotent man? In the context of Matthew 19:9-12 it talks about eunuchs. And if a marriage is unconsummated its not a whole marriage of becoming "one flesh". Doesn't church history teach that the impotent man is forbidden from remarriage and the wife is free to remarry as she has been defrauded?

[@philipbuckley759]

an exception is something that is allowed.....being in an adulterous marriage is a sin, and it would be a command to exit that relationship.....not permission....

[@philipbuckley759]

one has to leave a particular relationship, due to the fact that there is another relationship......in effect....also know as the covenant relationship....

[@PreparelikeJoseph]

Heres what I want to know. There is no condemnations for those who are in christ, except if you get remarried, then its only condemnation. Nothing can snatch us from his hands except remarriage. All who call on the name of the lord will be saved, except if they remarry. Im told all bets are off on Christ being enough if you get remarried. The bible may encourage the widow and virgin to get married to avoid lust, but if your spouse runs off with another person and leaves you high and dry, you are expected to become celibate for life, your “burning lust” is your life burden because your X sinned. You would be better off having never married and just lives in fornication, or do what King David did and have someone killed. You can repent of those sins and then go about your life. But if you get remarried, you are dammed if you dont leave your new spouse. Im having trouble seeing Gods love in this ordeal. 😢

[@escalus84]

God's grace is there to get you away from the second death, not to give you newfound privilege. My question is, "Who are you planning to have as your second spouse?" Do you look at Luke 16:18 and say, "Oh, I can't marry someone as myself who has been divorced, therefore I will marry a widow or never-married?" Your whole argument is "what if I can't control my passions?" I Cor 7:9 is not directed to the divorced, but to young unmarried men and women (especially when you considered words like being "saved through childbirth"). If you've divorced, you've already had sex. There is no mystery at this point. The burning of passion falls more in line with what someone has never experienced. My point here is, are you, a divorced man, going to then seek to take a never been married woman as your 2nd spouse, causing her to commit adultery, leaving her with no ability to remarry, and taking away some opportunity of a never been married eligible man, currently in storms of passion. Isn't this a consideration issue, too, toward your brethren in the congregation? Aren't you defrauding your brethren in the name of attaining spouse #2?

[@davidnsude2986]

@@PreparelikeJoseph ooooh my bloody days , this false teachers are finishing people and I can clearly see they got to u , if ur wife abandoned u for another man u are more than free to remarry , only the woman is bound to her husband as long as she is alive , infact ur wife is commiting adultery now by leaving you, but since she has committed adultery, u are more than free to marry as the "except " says , I really don't understand what this guy in this channel is twisting scripture too , pls reply cos from what am seeing ur truly lost and a victim of false teaching 😞😞

[@davidnsude2986]

@@PreparelikeJoseph @PreparelikeJoseph ooooh my bloody days , this false teachers are finishing people and I can clearly see they got to u , if ur wife abandoned u for another man u are more than free to remarry , only the woman is bound to her husband as long as she is alive , infact ur wife is commiting adultery now by leaving you, but since she has committed adultery, u are more than free to marry as the "except " says , I really don't understand what this guy in this channel is twisting scripture too , pls reply cos from what am seeing ur truly lost and a victim of false teaching 😞😞

[@davidnsude2986]

@@PreparelikeJoseph @PreparelikeJoseph ooooh my bloody days , this false teachers are finishing people and I can clearly see they got to u , if ur wife abandoned u for another man u are more than free to remarry , only the woman is bound to her husband as long as she is alive , infact ur wife is commiting adultery now by leaving you, but since she has committed adultery, u are more than free to marry as the "except " says , I really don't understand what this guy in this channel is twisting scripture too , pls reply cos from what am seeing ur truly lost and a victim of false teaching 😞😞

[@tedvinessr7187]

Sexual immorality in the exception clause of mt.5:32 and 19:9,grammatically, can not mean except for marital unfaithfulness. The koine greek is a very precise language and never uses a general word in place of a specific word in the Bible.Marital unfaithfulness is always given as adultery specifically,and never generally as fornication(porneia) when speaking of the specific sin of adultery.Never in the Bible is porneia used in place of moichos specifically.

[@tedvinessr7187]

Porneia can include all sexual sins in general, including moicos but never singularly of the specific sin itself.

[@tedvinessr7187]

You have it right. Why all the other articles? To me, that is confusing and should be discontinued. If you are sure of your teaching, you should stand by your commentary.

[@mchevalier-seawell4438]

@@tedvinessr7187. That Greek word includes more than just sexual sin. It can mean licentiousness….disregarding all accepted rules and standards, as in a covenant like marriage. Strongs is not the end all for Greek words. Are you really telling ppl that God wants them to abandon their children because you have interpreted a passage differently. That is not Godly.

[@BennettJonWayne-xw9vi]

Well, Thomas, all that I can say is that I am glad that you are NOT God. God is a lot smarter than you and I are. Very, very well said. The death penalty was a reality in the Bible days for sexual sins. That would solve the problem, back then. Not so, today (murder being outlawed today). Are they saying that a wife cannot backslide, and leave the church through sin? Do they believe in Calvinism (once saved, always saved doctrine)? Think about that. Perhaps. There is an exception for immorality, however. It is in the Bible that God will judge us by. The permanence view twists the scriptures with private interpretation. Either there is an exception clause found twice in Matthew, or there is not. The Bible says that there is an exception clause, found twice in Matthew. Are they calling Jesus a liar? Are they saying that the scriptures cannot be trusted? Are they saying that I cannot trust the Word of God, as it is written? I can tell you one thing for certain: The scriptures are not of "private interpretation." That means that the scriptures mean what they say, and they say what they mean. 2 Peter 1:20-21 King James Version 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. Matthew 5:32 says “everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality makes her commit adultery.” Matthew 19:9 NKJV And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”

[@doglover19601]

Wasn’t the word (fornication) in the KJV?

[@BennettJonWayne-xw9vi]

@@doglover19601 Doesn't matter. The KJV is not the original text, it is a translation. Porneia πορνεία is in the original text. Google πορνεία for yourself. In the common Greek, it means sexual immorality or prostitution.

[@letstalkbiblewithshun.s]

Marriage is for life and remarriage while the first spouse is alive is adultery. It's one of Jesus hard sayings. When I say hard, I mean hard on the flesh. But remarriage for any other reason apart from death = continous adultery. Obviously, I agree that the first marriage must be lawful to begin with also. Thank you for your video and Stay blessed.

[@cathoji]

Hi Thomas, this subject is very hard as we need to look at the original Greek texts. And seeing as so many people have different views on what the original word "Porneia" actually means, then its really hard to distinguish this view. There are Godly preachers like Derek Prince (who has passed on to be with the Lord), who married his second wife (first wife passed away), his second wife was divorced as her first husband cheated on her, and Derek Prince married her and believes that Adultery/Porneia in marriage is the exception to divorce and remarry. Also, another Godly Pastor Voddie Baucham stated that, YES marriage is binding UNTIL death, however his view is also that if you are in your second marriage (first spouse still alive), that you should NOT divorce your second spouse but instead live out your promises made to your second spouse. Yes, I do NOT claim to know the scriptures, and no I do not have any skin the game, however, it definitely is a topic that is often discussed. I agree 100% that everything is worth giving up for Jesus (harder said than done), and its hard to navigate this topic. but also why did Jesus speak to the woman at the well and say "you are right in saying that you have no husband, because you have had FIVE husbands"? If remarriage was not allowed wouldn't he have said "you have had ONE husband, and the rest were illegitimate"? This is just my take on it. But then again brother, I know nothing. I just want to follow Jesus with all my heart. God bless you brother. I am not from America but I enjoy speaking with fellow Brothers and Sisters in Christ. If you would ever like to just have a chat over zoom or something please let me know. God bless you

[@WalkingbytheSpiritAlways]

Derel Prince was in adultery, but she died first. I don't know if he ever repented. Voddie Baucham is wrong like 99% of them that you can remain in the adulterous remarriage. God doesn't recognize the 2nd marriage at all, and those who claim grace to stay in it are going to find themselves in hell if they die or they will miss the rapture which could happen any day. The woman at the well doesn't have anything to do with divorce and remarriage. If it did, Jesus would have said so. Mostly likely all of her husbands had died, and she was living with a man who wasn't her husband. If Jesus had used it to teach the permanence of marriage, He would have said, "leave the man you are with and return to your first husband or whichever husband was her covenant husband."

[@thomasalbinholmes2538]

Hey thanks so much for your comment. I think I tried to reply, but I cannot now see the response I left. Did you see a reply from me here already? Anyway, one thing that is helpful to know is that there is no word for "husband" or "wife." There is only the words for "man" or "woman." So when Jesus said, "you have had five husbands", he is literally saying "you have had five men..." They translate it "husband" or "wife" depending on the context. But I personally do not believe that remarriage is okay, yet I don't really have a problem referring to someone's second husband as their current husband. I also think that they are really living in an adulterous affair, and that their legit husband is the one they should be with. These are just terms. Maybe I could be more consistent in how I talk about it. I don't know... But it is also important to remember that this woman had been going through these marriages prior to the initiation of the New Covenant when Jesus could give us his new law. And there is so much the passage is silent on. What else did Jesus tell her? Did he tell her to go back to her first man or to remain single? Was her first husband dead by this time? Or maybe he was remarried and not open to reconciliation with his first wife? We don't know. So we have to reach our conclusions based on the texts that actually deal explicitly with this subject, and not based on texts that are silent on these questions. By the way, I do NOT know everything there is to know about this subject or any biblical subject, so perhaps we can learn fro meach other. Where are you located? Looking forward to your response...

[@cathoji]

@@thomasalbinholmes2538 Thanks for your reply brother. Great points actually. I do agree with the point that there are passages that are not completed and we are not sure what Jesus said fully in the text. How about for example, in the case where a Pastor/Leader is put in a situation where their spouse is not a believer and is physically, emotionally and spiritually abusive to their partner, what are they to advise that person? I also do not believe that Jesus would want any of his children to live in that abuse (especially after praying for their partner and nothing changes). What are we to advise people in that scenario? My Sister is a divorcee and is currently in another relationship. Its hard to navigate around this. Also I am from Singapore

[@kenw772]

Never isolate a verse from the text.if you do you will get false teaching called heresy. Read all of Gods words together. In the original manuscripts none have the Greek word ei in it. We know for for sure Erasmus added this word because he despised Jesus teaching that there is was no way out of marriage other than death. This is why there is so much confusion on this verse. It is an exclusive clause not an exception clause. No word in the NT is Jesus given you a right to divorce and remarry unless your mate dies, period. So many twist the scriptures to justify their sin. Dr McFall has the correct understanding on Matthew 19:9

[@mchevalier-seawell4438]

In Israel, if your spouse was committing adultery, you would take her out and have her STONED. There was never a question of you being tied to an adulterous woman for your whole life. This is insane.

[@thomasalbinholmes2538]

That was the case under the old Covenant. But under Jesus, we are obviously not allowed to stone anyone, and we are no longer allowed to send our wives away and find a new one. He is explicit about this. It may sound insane to us because we've been so conditioned to understand Matthew 19:9 in a certain way. But it IS much more ambiguous than many evangelicals realize, and it is a plain fact that the church did not understand it to allow for divorce and remarriage historically. And that is not something we can afford to ignore any more than a Jehovah's Witness can safely ignore the fact that the people who came right after the apostles believed Jesus is divine. Does it make some sense to you? Do you not think that Jesus is raising the standard substantially in his teaching from what had been permitted in Israel regarding this issue and others?

[@grant2149]

We are Not under Mosaic Law Jesus came. He is for forgiveniss and reconcilation.

[@craigrasmussen45]

Has the church missed the point and context of Matthew 19 that this wasn’t talking about marriage but pre-marriage? As when Joseph was going to put away Mary… the Jewish leaders were trying to make Jesus and His ministry illegitimate, and that marriage didn’t happen until consummation but if someone fornicated or had sex before marriage you could leave that person.

[@doglover19601]

It seems that way

[@robertstutler6229]

Or it is what paul states between a believer and non believer..God might hate divorce but he also hates sin..and demands not to be with unrighteousness what is that someone not following his ways..

[@tobymichaels8171]

I find it impossible to believe that Jesus intended for the sexual and marital fate of a faithful spouse to be held at the mercy of their unfaithful partner. What loving God would condemn a faithful person to a lifetime of solitude and celibacy because of the sins of their spouse?

[@thomasalbinholmes2538]

Well, we are following the man who allowed himself to be slaughtered by his enemies, and who prayed for them as they did it. Why should we be surprised if he calls us to be faithful to a wayward spouse and to keep our promise to them? That WAS the vow after all... Until DEATH. Our hope is not in this life, right? This life is a mist. So let's take up our cross and go through whatever we need to in order to be faithful to King Jesus.

[@thomasalbinholmes2538]

Are you in a difficult marriage situation?

[@tobymichaels8171]

@@thomasalbinholmes2538 No I am not, though I have been witness to a good many divorces. My interest is in discerning the actual intention of various Gospel passages that deal with transactional pre/proscriptions, based on the fundamental posture of God to man. It seems specious to derive certainty via parsing the syntax of second- and third-hand translations of the original texts by fallible and self-interested humans centuries after Christ. Having begun to study the Gospels in the original Greek, I find enough meaningful discrepancies to require further discernment and I cannot take seriously the pronouncements of those who know only their contemporary vernacular editions. Man is too fallible to put faith in the translations of man.

[@grant2149]

It's Not what you believe Scripture is Crystal clear. Your soul is more worth than that second piece of flesh.

[@doglover19601]

@@grant2149 second piece of flesh? Most people don’t think of their spouse as a second piece of flesh.

[@philipbuckley759]

this seems to be the worst translation, because the one says if you marry while the first spouse is alive the issue becomes adultery.....

[@jasonroberts4177]

The word porneia is the Greek word similar to the Hebrew word Zanut. The word Jesus uses here implies an unrepentant continual sexual immorality ie a harlot or harlotry. I don’t think Jesus would have said except for an unlawful marriage because the discussion centered on Deut 24 which does not contain anything about unlawful marriages only between actual husbands and wives. He would not need to make this point…..The whole backdrop of Matt 19 is the fact that these Jewish people of the day were finding someone else they wanted instead of their wives,, then divorcing faithful wives so they could marry that person…….Jesus was condemning divorce to remarry another and telling us that only legitimate reason one may divorce is a spouse’s continual unrepentant sexual immorality……..That is my understanding of these scriptures……I have researched this subject a lot and also have heard several views on this sensitive topic….This is my conclusion. Thank You

[@davidnsude2986]

@@jasonroberts4177 ur talking like emasculated man from what I see , cos no man will take a adulterous wife , let alone one who does it on several occasions. And the actual meaning of pornea surrounds many sexual sins , e.g adultery,fornication , harlotry etc. so pls stop spreading this sort of information

[@mahiletgetachew9209]

I should get out from this with Gods grace if its his will ....my first marriage was aborted early i was broken and damaged

[@thomasalbinholmes2538]

Hello my friend. I'm sorry to hear about that difficult situation. It is very hard to even contemplate. But Jesus is worth losing everything. All that matters ultimately is that you, your wife, and the woman you are now living with (if I understand correctly) all end up with Jesus in the end. But if we lose him, we lose it all. Do you need someone to talk to? Please let me know if you want to have a phone call sometime.

[@mahiletgetachew9209]

Am a woman my first husband runaway and marry unbeliever within 5 months of living together am married now after real brokness infront of God for 4 years ...from my point of view if a person really know God and know his intension about marriage is the best thing but to dig out reason to get divorce and remarried is the worst thing I may tell you what I have been through if there is another way

[@thomasalbinholmes2538]

@@mahiletgetachew9209 sorry I assumed you were a man. Where are you from? Do you want me to connect you with a woman you can talk to about this?

[@mahiletgetachew9209]

It's ok am from Ethiopia

[@thomasalbinholmes2538]

@@mahiletgetachew9209 how are you doing my friend? How is it going? Do you want to be in touch with someone you can talk to about this issue?

[@PaulWayneJohnson-ie4cu]

I too find this the only correct interpretation of that passage

[@mbgodwebsite5272]

The verse is not ambiguous. Jesus doesn't have to define sexual immorality (fornication), because it consists of its own meaning and definition. When it is defined accurately and Biblically, it is very clear what he was declaring in this verse, and the purpose of the exception. First, what "law" was Clement referring to that "allows no release from the union" and says, "it regards as fornication the marriage of those separated while the other is alive?" Where can I find that law that says these things? Also, what is meant by "separated?" And who determines whether a marriage is "lawful?" Men? The Catholic Church? Do you believe God joins two people as one flesh? If so, when does He do this?

[@philipbuckley759]

how be it that we cant understand one term, after more than 2000 years.....and who is responsible for changing the translation fornication, to sexual immorality, et al..

[@kylechagnon3223]

Can you just split up if remarried and no longer live together

[@thomasalbinholmes2538]

Yes I think you can, difficult as it may be.

[@KimChrzanowski]

No you have to legally get divorced and you can't keep his last name, because he's not your husband 😢and I understand that because I'm going thru it and giving up my marriage, just to be right with the Lord Jesus , life is temporal here , Eternity is a very long time, as Long as God is God 🥺

[@doglover19601]

@@KimChrzanowskihow are you doing? I think I will be doing the same. It’s horrible.

[@KimChrzanowski]

@doglover19601 I'm still working on getting out , it takes time there is a lot to do to get out of marriage you've been in a long time but still getting Out of it!

[@doglover19601]

@@KimChrzanowskiheartbreaking! I know. Trying to work out details!😢

[@Runnit12]

Wait in KJV it says except it be for fornication. So can you explain that too I’m trying to clear it up.

[@thomasalbinholmes2538]

Hey thanks for your comment. By fornication it could be referring to an unlawful marriage, which is adulterous and therefore sexually immoral. But the word "except" is not actually there in the Greek. Erasmus appears to have inserted the word "if" into the text in front of the word "not", changing it from "not for fornication" to "IF not (except) for fornication". I have a podcast on this on my channel in the Matthew 19:9 disaster playlist. The episode is called The Matthew 19:9 Disaster - Erasmus' "Little Contribution"

[@Runnit12]

@@thomasalbinholmes2538 Thank you so much I’m just trying to learn because this scripture always confused me. I’m still a little confused though because I thought sexual fornication can only be committed by single people. Sexual acts committed by someone who is married outside the marriage is adultery. Can you explain that too?

[@thomasalbinholmes2538]

@@Runnit12 asexual immorality is a larger category that includes adultery, homosexual sex, beastiality, incest. So Jesus' may be saying that a divorce is allowed (and therefore necessary) in cases where a marriage is sexually immoral because of incest or adultery, both of which fall under the larger "fornication" category. Something like that

[@Runnit12]

@@thomasalbinholmes2538 Ohh ok thanks so much!

[@thomasalbinholmes2538]

@@Runnit12 God bless you.

[@laidback1.0.1.2]

If your unlearned in the law then you will struggle with fornication but it's simple if you notice the Pharisees didn't dispute the fornication. First you have to understand the Pharisees only asked Jesus the question of divorce to catch him in error, they were no looking a Revelation. Fornication that causes divorce 👇 #1. A guilty woman not party #2. Becoming one flesh with a man before becoming one flesh with her husband.

[@thomasalbinholmes2538]

Hello and thank you for taking some time to watch and comment. Could you clarify the last sentence in the first paragraph of your comment? About the guilty woman vs the guilty party. Yes I'm aware that Jesus never says a woman can put away her husband for sexual immorality. He only speaks explicitly of a man putting away his woman in that case. And that is how the early church understood it to my knowledge. But it could be that Jesus is giving a principle that would apply if a woman has a husband who continues to commit sexual immorality and will not stop. I think she would be right to at least separate from him in an attempt to move him toward repentance. In either case, what I think people need to understand is that whether a man or a woman comes to the conclusion that they need to at least separate from their spouse (for ANY) reason, they can never be with anyone else as long as that first spouse is alive (if their marriage was lawful) About the betrothal period theory, which it sounds like you are holding to, I do not think it is compelling. Deuteronomy 24 is clearly not discussing the betrothal period. Mark 10 and Luke 16 are clearly not talking about betrothal. And it is nowhere in the text of Matthew 19. If Matthew 19 is about betrothal, then you have to say that Mark 10 is too, since they are possibly the same event. But Mark 10 is written to gentiles who did not have the betrothal tradition that Jews had, and so Mark 10 is clearly talking about divorcing a true spouse, not a betrothed fiance, etc. HOWEVER, if your view is that you can only put away your wife during the betrothal period, but that you can never divorce and remarry once you have "tied the knot", then that's at least leading to the right conclusion - marriage is for life and remarriage is out of the question until your first spouse dies. What do you think

[@laidback1.0.1.2]

@@thomasalbinholmes2538 The Pharisees knew the answer to the question they asked Jesus about divorce, they just wanted to see if Jesus knew the answer

[@laidback1.0.1.2]

@@thomasalbinholmes2538 Hello and Grace and Peace to you

[@thomasalbinholmes2538]

@@laidback1.0.1.2 grace and peace to you too my friend. Thanks for your thoughts. Please feel free to keep giving me your input on future vidoes, Lord willing.

[@laidback1.0.1.2]

@@thomasalbinholmes2538 Oh please keep them coming, the world has turned upside down because we don't talk about God enough.

[@dh605x]

That's the problem with elevating the words of Clement of Alexandria to a weight that is unwarranted: man's opinion is man's opinion, regardless of what authority that man carried or the century that man lived in. The Word of God is not man's opinion. If remarriage after divorce was that heinous of a sin, it would have never been allowed even in the Old Testament. Jesus was emphatic that He did not come to alter or abolish the tenets of basic morality (Matthew 5:17-18, Luke 16:17). Full disclosure: this is how I handled the matter when my own marriage was in serious trouble and I was considering walking out. I decided that I would work with my then-wife to resolve the behavior issues that were destroying the marriage. I made it very clear to her that these issues must be resolved or she cannot continue to be my wife. I didn't need an excuse or justification to get a divorce as I already had that. Instead I sought a way to make divorce unnecessary. Throughout the process, I regarded divorce as a remedy of last resort. I also made it known that in the event divorce proves unavoidable, then I would recognize no doctrine that claims I am somehow condemned to celibacy for the rest of my life. I will tolerate no such injustice. That is also why mere separation would not have been an adequate remedy in such an event. I am not a eunuch and I refuse to become one, no matter what ultimately happens in my marriage.

[@thomasalbinholmes2538]

I'm sure that whatever you went through was very difficult, as was my own situation. But it seems to me, from what you are saying, that you are coming to Jesus on your terms and not his. That is, you are setting some conditions (I refuse to be a eunuch, I will not tolerate injustice done to me, I will not tolerate a cross to carry in this area of life, I will not extend the kind of grace to my wife that God has extended to me). But we have to come to Jesus on HIS terms, WITHOUT conditions, totally submitted to his authority, ready to do whatever he tells us no matter how hard it may be or what it may cost us. If we are not ready to give him that kind of loyalty, then we are not ready to become a Christian. Would you be willing to get your head chopped off for Jesus? Would you be willing to be thrown to lions and tigers and get eaten alive for him? Would you be willing to suffer persecution? I hope you can answer YES to these questions. But if you are not willing to be faithful to your spouse and wait and pray for her, honoring the promise you made, then I would find it difficult to believe that you would be willing to suffer these other things for Jesus. Our hope is not in this life. This life is like a mist, here today and gone tomorrow. The kingdom of God is near and Jesus is Lord, and one day he will send us all to one of two places for eternity. And he deserves our uncompromising obedience. He died for us and we need to be die to ourselves in response to what he has done for us. I would exhort you to turn your back on this world and what it offers you, and to be faithful to your wife, and more importantly, to Jesus, at all costs, and to let go of your life in this world. Whoever loves his life loses it, but whoever hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. About Clement's quote, it is just showing us how the early church understood this, and shedding light on why the church did not understand Jesus to be allowing for remarriage prior to the reformation. If it does not bother you that the church of the apostles understood these things differently than evangelicals do today, then I would suggest that you consider the very real possibility that you are not really looking for truth, but only an answer you prefer. But that is not the way to find truth, and it is not the narrow way which leads to life.

[@dh605x]

@@thomasalbinholmes2538 If there were a clear biblical mandate for people who were divorced to remain celibate, then you would have a point. But there is no such mandate. Matthew 19:9 has got to be one of the most abused verses in all Scripture. The truth is that Jesus never abolished divorce per se, remarriage after a valid divorce, or any other aspect of the moral law. Instead He was speaking out against the practice of dumping your spouse - oftentimes on a lame pretext - just so you could be with someone you liked better. One man dumps Jessica just to run off with Rachel. Another man puts up with years of abuse, neglect, etc - but after her third arrest for shoplifting he finally says he's done and divorces her - then he meets Deanna five years later. Jesus condemned the actions of the first man as tantamount to adultery, and rightly so. But He gave no such condemnation to the actions of the man in the second scenario. Even pagans can understand the moral difference here. Deut 24:2 makes it very clear that remarriage is allowed following a valid divorce. Matthew 5:17-18 and Luke 16:17 show that nothing in the words of Jesus alters or abolishes this. His words at Matthew 11:28-30 and 12:7 are further reasons to give greater scrutiny to doctrines that would impose heavy burdens on people, especially when they don't appear to serve a worthwhile purpose. People who promote the marriage permanence doctrine are adamant that Jesus abolished divorce, or the right to remarry after a valid divorce. This cannot be substantiated anywhere in Scripture. Clement of Alexandria was dead wrong on this issue. Not only that, Paul made it very clear in 1 Corinthians 7, verses 9, 15, 27 and 28 that it is no sin to marry if you are unmarried for any reason. No exception is given or implied for those who were formerly married but no longer due to divorce. Not in verses 10-11 or anywhere else. There is a big difference between an injustice perpetrated by the sin of others, and one perpetrated by God Himself. The former happens all the time, the latter is unheard of. God does not impose unreasonable and unjust restrictions on people who had no choice but to end a marriage to someone who flagrantly refused to honor their vows. To suggest otherwise is to accuse God of being a party to injustice. This alone is reason to reject the marriage permanence doctrine in its entirety. As for my own situation: I did all I could. In the end, she decided to end the marriage. I had no choice but to let her walk. She is no longer my wife as a result, and I am no longer bound to this marriage (1 Cor 7:15). You are either married or you are not - there is no middle ground. I would rather die 1,000 deaths than be celibate.

[@dh605x]

@@thomasalbinholmes2538 For the sake of some common ground: I believe we all can agree that there are inappropriate reasons to divorce. Meeting someone you like better would be an obvious one. In fact, I would offer no defense to the kind of man who would dump a faithful wife just to pursue some OnlyFans girlie. That is a cruel and dishonorable thing to do. It's also an awful way to treat women. The general principle that I see in the teachings of Jesus is that you don't terminate a marriage for selfish or frivolous reasons. Even in cases where there are just grounds (some serious sin), I would say that divorce should oftentimes be pursued only as a remedy of last resort. In my own case, I did not want to divorce until I was certain that I've exhausted every other reasonable avenue. I'm not going to sit around and "pray for reconciliation" or "pray for a repentance" that may never come. I need to get on with my life as a man who is single for the first time in years. I have no intention of remaining single for the rest of my life.

[@thomasalbinholmes2538]

@@dh605x the mandate is that if we divorce and remarry, we commit adultery. And the implications are obvious. There is no explicit mandate that two men who are in a monogamous relationship have to separate. But it DOES say that homosexual sex is a sin. And the implications are obvious. Have you heard any of the longer videos I put out on it?

[@dh605x]

@@thomasalbinholmes2538 Actually, that is not so. If any and all remarriage after divorce were adultery, then either adultery was lawful under the Mosaic Law (Deuteronomy 24:2), or Jesus changed the Law to expand the definition of adultery to include remarriage (Matthew 5:17-18). Neither can pass the smell test biblically. If you see Deut 24:1-4, how could a divorced woman have ever become the wife of another man without both of them being stoned to death for adultery? If it were adultery, how could it have ever been lawful? If not, then when did it become adultery? God isn't known for granting Licenses to Sin, so it's not enough to say "that was under the Law". Not only that, but where in Scripture is there a mandate for people in a 2nd or 3rd marriage to get a divorce because of this? What happens if you don't? Do you lose your salvation, or become ineligible for salvation unless you divorce? If so, why wasn't that explicit?

[@omegatafkal]

AMEN

[@philipbuckley759]

so there is no exception.....why not Joseph and Mary....who were engaged.....so Joseph sought a divorce....

[@escalus84]

this is perfectly in line with what he is saying. If Mary had been with a man before betrothal and pregnancy followed, Joseph's marriage to her would have been unlawful, because the only man she could marry would have been the father of the child per Deut 22:28

[@marktownsend7367]

There's some problems with your take: 1. You use obscure translations to reword what you call "ambiguous". You lean very heavily upon those. 2. Those translations are very questionable. The Greek word Jesus uses is, "porneia", which means sexual immorality. Nowhere in that translation does it account for what Jesus is actually saying. Instead it is paraphrasing with its thoughts about unlawful marriage. This is a huge hurdle that cannot be dismissed so easily.

[@thomasalbinholmes2538]

Okay interesting. Could you unpack that a bit more please? And what translation would you suggest? I think the verse is a bit ambiguous no matter what translation you use.

[@Michael-kd1ud]

I can not believe how best to death this issue is. I’ve heard this verse interpreted 7 ways from Sunday and in every case you all make it sound like you are going to hell because it’s not completely clear if remarriage is allowed. Give me a break!!! Keep arguing about it, the rest of us will rely on our relationship with Jesus, not our spouse to save us. You people are ridiculous!!!! I guess Jesus sacrifice won’t cover your sins, but it will mine…. Good day hypocrites

[@mak88119]

God hates divorce. You do not stop sinning by sinning again. Divorce is not an unforgivable sin.

[@thomasalbinholmes2538]

Hello. Thanks for taking time to comment. I understand the concern but I don't think that's how Jesus thinks about this. Divorcing from someone you are joined to by God is a sin, yes. I totally agree. But if you have divorced and remarried, you are commiting adultery, as Jesus explicitly taight. In other words, the second "marriage" is really an affair that goes into the same category as sleeping with someone behind your spouse's back. And an affair should never continue. It is no sin to stop having an affair. We are not allowed to be with anyone but our first, legitimate spouse as long as they are living on this planet. If we are with anyone else while they are alive, it is an adulterous affair and must come to an end. Does that make sense to you?

[@womanatwellworshiptheFather]

Jesus said if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. If your hand causes you to sin, remove it. That unlawful spouse is a whole OTHER BODY causing you to sin. You have lied to yourself that a divorce from an unlawful marriage is considered sin

[@mak88119]

@@womanatwellworshiptheFather You made my point, you know nothing of the Grace of God or what Jesus did. Strange because you have two eyes do you not? Why don't you remove both of them? You are a legalist, Salvation is by Grace through Faith.

[@womanatwellworshiptheFather]

@@mak88119 it is sad you don't understand Grace is the ability to follow God's commands unwavering. They loved their lives not unto death. Take care. May your eyes be opened to true Grace.

[@womanatwellworshiptheFather]

Do you think that John the Baptist persistently pestered Herod about his marriage to Herodias because he wanted them to stay married? No. He said it was an unlawful marriage. When his disciples visited Jesus, did Jesus say "you can't unscramble eggs John. Just let it be" No He said blessed are you when you are NOT OFFENDED by My Words. He knew John was in prison because of His Words. Did He call John a legalist? No. His Words gave John Grace to endure his beheading for Jesus's Words.

[@GreatnPwrfulSteve]

Wha a recipe for sadness, loneliness and misery. My ex wife who lost her mind, hurt my kids and was certifiably ( by court appointed psychiatrists). Yet my life of any personal joy is over. If this is the case then I will teach my kids not to join in marriage. Avoid the pain. There is no love with anyone on earth. Only with God.

[@thomasalbinholmes2538]

Hello friend. That sounds very difficult and I can relate, though my story is different. There are people who have good marriages, and marriage itself is a good thing. But there is also a good reason why the apostles were shocked at what Jesus said and why they said in response, "if this is the case, better not to marry." But it doesn't mean marriage should be avoided. Paul clearly says it is bad to forbid marriage. It's just that many of us make bad choices and do not realize the weight of this issue. When my wife left, I thought I could remarry. It was a real shock and like a knife in the gut when I realized what Jesus is really saying. But he is worth whatever we must go through in order to be faithful to him. How did you come across my channel?

[@GreatnPwrfulSteve]

@@thomasalbinholmes2538 your channel came up in my feed.

[@mahiletgetachew9209]

I may need help from God to get out from this one ....my first marriage aborted early ....I was broken badly

[@alexanderkapsiotis8050]

@@thomasalbinholmes2538 men can have multiple marriages. I guess that it is your spouse that left the marriage, and as such you are not the guilty party. The prophets, Jesus and Paul preached that polygyny is fine.

[@davidnsude2986]

The confusion this individual is spreading stems from a lack of understanding of biblical truth and the original Hebrew and Greek texts of Scripture. Let’s break down and refute his claims thoroughly with the Word of God, exposing the falsehoods in his arguments. --- 1. Divorce and Adultery for Men This person appears to misunderstand both the biblical teaching on divorce and the distinct roles of men and women in marriage. Matthew 19:9 clearly states, “Whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” The exception clause (porneia, meaning sexual immorality) applies here. If a man divorces his wife due to her sexual immorality, he is not committing adultery if he remarries. However, if a man divorces his wife without cause and marries another, he is held accountable for breaking his covenant unjustly. The point he seems to miss is that a man taking another wife is not adultery. Adultery for a man is explicitly defined as taking another man’s wife. Biblical Definition of Adultery: Leviticus 20:10: “If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.” Adultery involves a married woman, not a man lawfully marrying another wife or remarrying after a just separation. Polygyny is Not Adultery: The Bible explicitly regulates polygyny, proving it is not sinful. Exodus 21:10 commands that if a man takes another wife, he must not diminish the first wife’s rights. This regulation affirms polygyny as lawful, provided the husband fulfills his obligations. --- 2. “One Flesh” Does Not Mean One Wife for Life This man’s claim that “one flesh” prohibits men from having multiple wives or remarrying is a complete misinterpretation of Scripture. Genesis 2:24: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” This verse establishes the intimacy and covenantal bond of marriage, not a limit on the number of wives. Men in Scripture who had multiple wives were still described as being “one flesh” with each wife. For example: Jacob became “one flesh” with Leah, Rachel, Bilhah, and Zilpah (Genesis 29-30). David became “one flesh” with each of his wives (2 Samuel 5:13). The concept of “one flesh” does not negate a man’s authority to take additional wives or remarry if the covenant is broken. --- 3. False Equality Between Men and Women in Marriage He claims men and women are bound equally and indefinitely, which contradicts the hierarchical structure established by God. 1 Corinthians 11:3: “But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.” The man is the head of the wife, not her equal. This is why women are bound to their husbands (Romans 7:2-3), while men have the authority to lead, including taking another wife or remarrying under lawful circumstances. Ephesians 5:22-24: “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.” This submission includes the acceptance of biblical polygyny or a lawful remarriage by the husband. The idea of absolute equality undermines God’s design. --- 4. The Greek Misunderstanding This person is misusing or misunderstanding Greek terms to twist the meaning of Scripture. For instance: The Greek word porneia (sexual immorality) in Matthew 19:9 does not imply that all remarriage is adultery. Instead, it creates an exception for lawful divorce in cases of immorality. The claim that remarriage is inherently sinful contradicts Scripture, as remarriage is explicitly allowed in 1 Corinthians 7:15 for cases of desertion by an unbelieving spouse. --- 5. Rebuke to This False Teaching This so-called teacher is perverting the Word of God, likely influenced by modern egalitarian or feminist ideologies. Let him hear the rebuke of Scripture: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness” (Isaiah 5:20). By denying men their God-given authority and rights, he calls good (polygyny and lawful remarriage) evil and evil (egalitarianism and unjust restrictions) good. Matthew 15:9: “In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.” His arguments are rooted in human traditions, not Scripture. He seeks to bind men with commandments God never gave. Titus 1:10-11: “For there are many who are insubordinate, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision party. They must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for shameful gain what they ought not to teach.” His teachings are upsetting families by denying the biblical rights of men to lead, remarry, or take additional wives. --- Conclusion This man’s claims are false and directly contradict Scripture. The Bible does not prohibit polygyny or remarriage for men under lawful circumstances. His arguments are rooted in ignorance of the Word of God and a rejection of biblical authority. Expose his lies with the truth: 1. Polygyny is lawful and regulated in Scripture. 2. Adultery for a man is defined as relations with another man’s wife, not marrying another woman. 3. “One flesh” does not prohibit polygyny or remarriage. 4. Men and women are not bound equally; the man has authority over the marital covenant. Let him repent of his false teaching or face the judgment of the Lord for distorting His Word (Revelation 22:18-19). Stay firm in the truth, and do not allow such lies to undermine your understanding of God’s design.

[@philipbuckley759]

what is the perfect fit is the issue of Joseph and Mary.....she gets pregnant and the issue is she is in this condition to a sexual act, called fornication.....yet how can Joseph seek a divorce, when they were not married...., it is because an engagement was as binding as a marriage.....this is the better solution.....as any sex, out of a covenant relationship has its own term....adultery....which ties both the Matthew accts into one solution....

[@bobthrasher8226]

I had no idea!

[@philipbuckley759]

any type of sex, out of the marriage covenant is adultery, and nothing more, and nothing less..so, that seems to indicate that fornication, may be the issue, and there is an example given, in the case of Joseph and Mary...

[@philipbuckley759]

sex, out of the marriage covenant has its own term....adultery.....

[@JesseJones-oq9ty]

It's say fornication. Fornication is 2 people not married. It didn't say adultery.

[@thomasalbinholmes2538]

Fornication is a wider category that would include adultery. But can you please explain the point you are trying to make. Thanks so much for taking the time to watch and comment. Please explain further

[@JesseJones-oq9ty]

@thomasalbinholmes2538 fornication is 2 people having thsts not married. Matthew 19:9 Jesus Christ was talking about betrothed wife ( Fiance) read Matthew 1 18:25. Joseph thought Mary had fornicated. He reminded himself to put her away privately. Betrothed was thinking 🤔 she had cheated. But once you married. No divorce only separation. Adultery and fornication. Same act but different titles. Jews use tilted husband or wife even if they not marry yet ( espoused wife or husband)

[@thomasalbinholmes2538]

@@JesseJones-oq9ty I think you reach the right conclusion, though I don't think Mathew 19:9 is talking about betrothal. But I agree with you that AT MOST separation is allowed if a spouse is cheating and will not stop. But Remarriage is never allowed while that spouse is alive, not matter what they do. But there is good reason to think that Matthew 19:9 is referring to a sexually immoral marriage / relationship, and that Jesus gives permission to people who are either remarried or living in a sexually immoral relationship to separate and end that union. And therefore that is what they need to do. Does this make sense to you?

[@DeltonDoucet]

So basically stay lonely and no relationships for the rest of your life

[@thomasalbinholmes2538]

I am single, but I am not lonely and without relationships. Paul was not without rich, nourishing relationships, right? I know this is a very difficult thing. If you need someone to talk to please let me know. Are you in a tough marriage situation? God bless you.

[@DeltonDoucet]

@@thomasalbinholmes2538is there an email because since my post I have had some revelations that I would like clarification on.

[@Seafarer62]

Yep- these false teachers condemn innocent spouses to a life of sexual frustration and loneliness. I think these false teachers are warned about in 1Timothy 4:3, because these teachers forbid marriage to those who are now single and divorced and have the liberty to remarry. These people are so illogical. The entire definition of divorced means single and free to remarry.

[@rawminimalist9043]

🙄 ...... finding more ways to trap and enslave women through religion and then wonder why people falter in their faith......so then do you suggest that women stay until death with a man who is physically or emotionally abusing her?

[@thomasalbinholmes2538]

Hello my friend. Thank you for watching and commenting. No I do not think that and I apologize if my video in any way left that impression. A woman (or a man) who is married to a spouse who is abusive or dangerous to their kids, etc, does not need to remain with that person. They can remove themselves from that situation and go somewhere where it is safe, although I think that should be avoided if possible. But they may not remarry. They are still bound to that person, whether they are physically abusive, having affairs, etc, or not, and they will commit adultery if they marry someone else. Does this make sense?

[@applecrafterLP]

@@thomasalbinholmes2538 Amen. Divorce and remarriage is what will exclude people, not divorce alone.

[@betawithbrett7068]

Tommy said nothing about an abused wife staying with an abusive husband. Paul indicates she can flee BUT NOT REMARRY in 1 Corinthians 7:10. If a person does not obey God, their faith is fruitless and cannot save them. Anyone claiming faith will be tested and must prove faithful. Jesus says in Revelation "to the one who is victorious (overcomes), I will give the right to eat from the tree of life.

[@lorigail6644]

Thank you for this study brother. I being a divorced woman have asked Jesus for insight on this subject. I now know. Yet those of us who know The Ways in which Jesus addresses the "issues of life" are not common (make sense) to the mortal man. _ Matthew 19:11

[@grant2149]

You can leave but no 2nd piece of flesh. " if the wife depart to remain unmarried or reconcile to husband NOT EX husband. The covenent remains till death.

[@jasonroberts4177]

If it allows divorce, it also allows remarriage .

[@thomasalbinholmes2538]

Hi Jason. Thanks for listening and commenting. Have you listened to my podcasts on this issue? If not, I'd be very interested to hear what you think of them. By the way, I am divorced and have some skin in the game. Just letting you know that so you know this affects me personally. What have you looked into? What sort of research have you done? God bless you and looking forward to your thoughts.

[@jasonroberts4177]

@@thomasalbinholmes2538 please see below where I commented……also Did you know that the Geneva Bible 1599 reads except it be for whoredom?

[@Thomas116-m2n]

Exactly. Marriage after a divorce happened anyway (proof? Deuteronomy). It was assumed as the scriptures discuss two ways that a marriage is dissolved: Abandonment by a non-believing spouse (1 Cor 7:15) and Adultery by the other spouse (Matthew 19:9). Yes, marriages can be dissolved; it certainly isn't God's preference but it happens due to the hard hearts of humans and is recognized. As far as Romans 7:3 and 1 Cor 7:39, it discusses a woman who has a husband. A scripturally divorced person has no spouse. Comparing a divorced person to a homosexual relationship is an incorrect comparison. There are people who are divorced and married afterward (the word 'remarried' doesn't exist in the Bible) but there are no recognized homosexual 'marriages,' so it is an invalid comparison. If one has made the mistake of marrying someone who wasn't in a scriptural divorce (as the woman at the well), there is nothing in scripture that says that they should part ways. If it were 'perpetual,' certainly Paul and Jesus would have addressed that...."And if you are married now and have been married before, you need to divorce that person and either stay single or go back to your first spouse or you are going to hell." It is never stated. I would think that would be important "doctrine" to address. It is because it doesn't make sense to do that. Jesus didn't tell the woman at the well to divorce her current husband and go back to her first. He recognized each as a marriage. The legalism/works-based doctrines make me think that a believer in that truly doesn't understand salvation.

[@HamiltonRowan-r6z]

In todays corrupt world I don't think that many people are capable of successfully navigating marriage. I certainly cannot. My only option is to remain single permanently. I am simply incapable of being in a marriage relationship.

[@thomasalbinholmes2538]

Hello my friend. Thanks for your comment. Well, Jesus has a way of sobering us up and straightening us out. He has a way of causing us to become mature quite rapidly, if we will just listen to what he says and let it all sink in. I think part of the reason so many of us fail to be transformed in the way we read about in the New Testament is that we are being influenced by many other voices from outside the scriptures. Many Christians today are more influenced by certain theologians or by their surrounding culture than by Jesus and the apostles. But if we will focus in on what the Master actually says, then we really can be radically changed. Do you belong to some kind of church community?

[@NyaRikong]

Everything is possible with Jesus

[@HamiltonRowan-r6z]

@thomasalbinholmes2538 Right now I do not. I have been rejected all my life by "churches." And while it is true that with Jesus all things are possible we are never promised marriage. So my choice to remain single permanently is Biblical.

[@thomasalbinholmes2538]

@@HamiltonRowan-r6z there is certainly nothing wrong with choosing to be single. May God bless you in that. What does life look like for you? Where are you located? If you don't mind me asking...

[@davidnsude2986]

Stupid lies by adding words to the word and be calling married couples spouse as if the laws are the same for both of them, am sure u don't even get the definition of adultery right Nonsense!!!

[@thomasalbinholmes2538]

@@davidnsude2986 I responded to your other comment.

[@davidnsude2986]

Ur a demonic liar adding to the word , the law applies to the wife , but as a twisted of scripture u used the word spouse 😒😒😒

[@thomasalbinholmes2538]

@@davidnsude2986 hi David. Are you someone who teaches that men can remarry in one case but not women?

[@davidnsude2986]

@@thomasalbinholmes2538 You have committed a grave sin by twisting the Word of God to fit your own narrative and emotions, leading others-particularly women-into eternal destruction. It is written, "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness" (Isaiah 5:20). By your deliberate perversion of Scripture, you have become such a one. Your attempt to impose egalitarian, feminist ideals upon the Bible is wicked. The Bible is clear: "The head of the woman is the man" (1 Corinthians 11:3), and the laws God gave reflect this divinely ordained hierarchy. Romans 7:2-3 explicitly states that a woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. It does not say "spouse" or "partner"-it says husband. You, however, like the lying scribes condemned in Jeremiah 8:8, have dared to alter the Word, replacing “wife” with “spouse” to erase the God-ordained distinctions between men and women. This is not a trivial error but a deliberate rebellion against God’s authority. The Bible is not unclear about remarriage: 1. A man can remarry unless he has divorced unjustly, as Christ stated in Matthew 19:9: "Whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery." This permission is never extended to women. Instead, Paul reiterates in 1 Corinthians 7:39 that a wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. 2. Men and women are not equal in authority or responsibility, and God’s law reflects this reality. To suggest otherwise is not only false but blasphemous. You have elevated humanistic ideals above God's law and dared to speak lies in His name. "Every word of God proves true; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you and you be found a liar" (Proverbs 30:5-6). Your argument-“do you teach a man can remarry in one case but not the other”-is foolish and deceptive. Of course the laws are not applied equally; they were never meant to be! The very structure of God’s creation and the order of His commandments show that men and women have distinct roles and responsibilities. Egalitarianism, rooted in rebellion and pride, seeks to erase this divine distinction, which is why it has indeed destroyed the Western church. Your actions are leading souls to hell. By teaching women that they can remarry while their husbands are alive, you contradict Scripture and encourage them to commit adultery. Christ Himself warned against this: "Whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery" (Matthew 5:32). By lying about God’s Word, you bear the blood of those you mislead. It is written: "Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness" (James 3:1). If you continue down this path of deceit, your judgment will be severe. Repent now, lest you face the full wrath of the God whose Word you have distorted. Finally, know this: Scripture is not subject to your feelings or the cultural trends of a decaying society. "Forever, O LORD, Your word is firmly fixed in the heavens" (Psalm 119:89). You must submit to the truth of God’s Word, not twist it to fit your agenda. Stop leading others astray with your lies and return to the authority of Scripture, or you will stand condemned before the Lord on the day of judgment. U will be held responsible for this thing u just did , if u were a true follower of Christ who were just confused , u will take down the video and apologize to ur viewers and show them the truth , but if ur a follower of the devil and have decided to elevate laws of men to that of God such as egalitarian feminism, u will be judged and as I know will not take down the video , good bye

[@davidnsude2986]

​@@thomasalbinholmes2538 Your statement that men cannot remarry under any circumstance is a blatant denial of Scripture. You are falsely binding men to laws that God Himself never imposed. This is nothing less than an attempt to corrupt the Word of God and enslave men to your own erroneous interpretation. It is written, "You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it" (Deuteronomy 4:2). Yet, you have chosen to add your own unbiblical restrictions to the law, imposing burdens that Scripture does not. Christ's words in Matthew 19:9 are crystal clear: "Whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery." Here, Christ explicitly allows remarriage for a man if his wife has committed sexual immorality. This is not a suggestion or a concession to human weakness; it is the very Word of God. By denying this, you are calling Christ a liar and placing yourself above Him. "Let God be true and every man a liar" (Romans 3:4). Your assertion reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the differences between men and women as ordained by God. Scripture consistently upholds a man's authority and headship in marriage (Ephesians 5:23). The laws regarding divorce and remarriage reflect this hierarchy. A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives (Romans 7:2-3), but the same is not said of the husband. Instead, the Bible provides clear instances where men, including patriarchs like Abraham and David, took additional wives or remarried without condemnation. You falsely equate the roles of men and women in marriage, betraying an underlying influence of egalitarian thinking, whether intentional or not. This error is destructive and must be rebuked: 1. Christ Permitted Remarriage for Men in Specific Cases: Your denial of this truth directly contradicts Matthew 19:9 and undermines the authority of Christ’s teaching. 2. The Patriarchs and Polygyny: Men like Abraham, Jacob, and David were never condemned for marrying additional wives or remarrying. Their actions align with God's laws, which distinguish between male and female roles and rights. 3. Egalitarianism in Disguise: By denying men the right to remarry while holding women to the same standard, you are imposing an artificial equality not found in Scripture. This reflects the egalitarian feminism that has indeed destroyed the church in the West, as it elevates human ideas above God's law. You have no authority to impose restrictions where God has given liberty. Christ rebuked the Pharisees for adding human traditions to God's law, calling them "blind guides" who lead others into destruction (Matthew 15:14). Your teaching does the same, trapping men in guilt and shame for exercising a right explicitly given to them by God. Repent of this false teaching immediately. You are not only misrepresenting Scripture but are also leading others into error by presenting your man-made doctrines as the Word of God. It is written: "Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness" (James 3:1). If you do not correct this error, you will face the judgment of God for every soul you have deceived. The Word of God stands firm, whether you accept it or not: "If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?" (Psalm 11:3). Do not destroy the foundation of God’s truth with your lies. Return to the plain teaching of Scripture and stop twisting the Word to fit your own misunderstandings.

[@davidnsude2986]

I responded but my comment was deleted

[@thomasalbinholmes2538]

@@davidnsude2986 I assure you that I did not delete your comment. That even happens to me sometimes when I leave a comment on my own channel. It is very frustrating. If you want to email me instead my email is [e-mail]. or give it another try.

[@GirvineTieties]

Amen