The Narrow Path Ministries

I have been studying the subject of Divorce and Remarriage for quite some time.
In the interim I was studying another topic, the Jewish custom of Marriage, and ran across the betrothal period which they practiced, and how the groom would go and prepare a place for his bride, then come back for her.

This made sence for the escape clause found in Matthew 5 and 19.
Not found in the other gospels.

My big question is, I found a great position paper on the topic from
John Piper. http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibr ... tion_Paper
He quotes some writers from before A.D. 400.
Hermas, Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch amongst others.

How can I verify these writers?
I did e-mail his site but no answer yet, probably dur to the holidays, but I am desiring of your opinion also Steve.
and I am having difficulty accessing the writings from the internet .
Steve have you heard this position and their claim of source material?
If the source material is correct, it would seem to solidify that betrothal period position.
Thanks.

The betrothal period divorce fits perfectly with the text and meaning and grammar of Matt 5;32 and 19:9.
We need no outside information to verify that the exception clauses in Matthew are absolutely explained exclusively by the premarital divorce for fornication, not the postmarital divorce for adultery. There is enough internal scriptural evidence to establish this as fact.
I would love to make full proof of this to anyone desiring to sincerely discuss this.
"Till death do us part" is right after all.
The allowance to divorce for adultery is one of the most damaging heresies ever to afflict "Christianity".
It is antichrist to defy Jesus by the blatant contradiction that man MAY in fact put asunder what God has joined together.

In the Greek of I Corinthians 7:27, Paul wrote: "λελυσαι απο γυναικος"

The verb "λελυσαι"<lelusai> is a perfect passive indicative of "λυω"<luo> ("to loose"), and therefore the question should be translated as "Have you been loosed from a wife (or 'woman')?" What can this mean other than divorce? Does Piper think it refers to someone who has been loosed from some sort of promise to marry? If so, then OF COURSE, he would be free to marry. Paul wouldn't have to affirm that fact.

But Piper does not agree that λυω refers to divorce. He writes:

10.15 It is significant that the verb Paul uses for "loosed" (luo) or "free" is not a word that he uses for divorce. Paul's words for divorce are chorizo (verses 10,11,15; cf. Matthew 19:6) and aphienai (verses 11,12,13).

Neither "χωριζω"<chorizo> nor "αφιημι"<apheimi> means "divorce" as Piper affirms.

"χωριζω" means "to separate":
Romans 8:35 who shall separate us from the love of Christ?
Mark 10:9 "Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."

"αφιημι" means "to leave" or "to send away" and sometimes "to forgive"
Matthew 4:20 They immediately left their nets and followed him. (They didn't divorce their nets)
I Corinthians 7:12 To the rest say I, not the Lord, if any brother has an unbelieving wife and she consents to live with him, he should not leave her.

Again, Piper does not agree that λυω refers to divorce. But interestingly enough in the main passages in which Jesus speaks agaist divorce, the verb "απολυω" is used. This word has been formed from "απο" (from) and λυω (to loose). So if you have been "loosed from" a spouse, you have been divorced. There is not a significant difference between "απολυω" (to loose from) and "λυω" (to loose) when used with the preposition "απο" (from) as in I Corinthians 7:27, where Paul wrote: "λελυσαι απο γυναικος" (Have you been loosed from a wife?)

Matthew 19:3 The Pharisees also came to him, testing him, and saying to him, "is it lawful for a man to divorce <απολυω> his wife for just any reason?"

And he answered and said to them, "Have you not read that he who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’"and said, ‘for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."

They said to him, "Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce (αποστασιον), and to put her away?"

He said to them, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce (απολυω) your wives, but from the beginning it was not so, and I say to you, whoever divorces (απολυω) his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced (απολυω) commits adultery." Matthew 19:3-9 NKJV

The context of Mt 5:32 absolutely pertains to the joined married couple, not the betrothed (engaged) couple.
That joined-in-marriage context is established with no doubt in Mt 5:31 where Jesus is referring to the certificate of divorce which is in Dt 24, which absolutely is a reference to a divorce from a joined married wife and not a betrothed/espoused/engaged "wife".

This fact that the context is surrounding the joined married wife and not the betrothed wife supports and does not work against the fact that the exception clauses in Mt 5:32: 19:9 pertain EXCLUSIVELY to the betrothed "wife" (not joined in marriage) and to no other.

Discussions of 1 Cor 7 are an entirely separate issue.
There is ample evidence within the context and scriptures in Matt 5:31,32;19:9 Mark 10:2-12 and Luke 16:18 to overwhelmingly support the old solemn phrase "till death do us part".
It is not of the truth to proclaim "till adultery do us part" or anything else "do us part".
Some of the strongest evidence AGAINST the divorce for adultery model is found within the very verses from which it is derived: Mt 5:32; 19:9.