till death due us part…..period..if one party is guilty of adultry makes no difference…..we are one and lie christ teachings we are to forgive and reconcile……or remain faithful and stay on the narrow road……

why do we as man have to try and change the meaning of what christ and paul teach……in corinthians i may not be bound to have to live with a woman who decides to leave but it gives me no permission to remarry anyone but my wife……as disobedient as she may be……but i dont have to either.i can remain single and serve the lord…

but we teach excuses, and then add still more as we g o along……..Gods plan and will.one man for one woman till death…….i we wonder why even in the church divorce and remarriage are so rampent. the truth isnt being taught………if someone truly wanting a divorce knew they couldnt ever remarry until the death of their spouse i believe divorce would never happen with believeres….and a believer would be careful to be evenly yoked when they married…..

satan conceived divorce and remarriage……so dont be deceived……why should the victim suffer you ask……well if dieieng of self honors the lord then thats exactly what we teach is it not…..take up our cross…..to love and forgive……..to repent……a civil court can not destroy what God has joined together…

adultry doesnt just happen without sin…..it is sin……a marriage is for life…….and remarriage is living in adultry……now i know many christin couples remarried to a divorced person…….what do they do……repent for one…….if reconciliation is possible then do it……but at the least, commit this marriage till death…..have any of you ever heard all things are possible with God…..that we can do anything thru and with Christ…….a marriage can only be in the lord……so what does the lord say? if still confused pray……search the truth…….dont make excuses…..but then again man has been trying to change Gods word and put him in a box for ages…….all divorce begins with sin……..stop the divorce and we become obedient……allow it we are being deceived by satan…….guilty back then was death by stoning…….we have grace……let it shine as light thru us by being obedient and offering forgiveness………not making excuses to remarry another mans wife……..

you gentlemen are all great scholars……..i am just following what the truth of his word says…….what God has joined together let not man seperate…….man being laws,mans heart, etc….divorce cant happen thus any remarriage cant happen until death……..

i pray you all will begin to teach the truth……till the death…….period……..just ask the holy spirit to lead you……follow the teachings of Christ and God and paul never not once taught anything that conflicted with Christ……..souls are being lost by divorce and remarriages……..and we sit in church next to someone who has been married what 3 ,4 maybe more…..repent? how is that being done? the lust of the flesh is controlling and just becuase the laws of the land say we can divorce and remarry over and over, we the church have learned to sit and say its ok…come join our church……..remarriage is adultry…..luke and mark are very clear……so why be confused…….ever wonder why so many dont come to church…..religion makes rules as time changes……it was not that way in the beginning and it shouldnt be that way now!

In the near future I hope to post an article on my web site dealing with the passive voice of the two Greek words for committing adultery. It is more than a stigma, it is an actual sin.

I'm probably the wrong person to respond to McFall, but I've looked at his article. And I just don't see how it matters whether Erasmus tinkered with the Greek text. All the modern translations are based on independently produced Greek texts that don't include his change.

My Greek text (Nestle's) says "not for fornication" — there is no "ei." Hence, Erasmus' change is not there. And yet the clause is an exception. Literally translated, it says, "… whoever dismisses the wife of him not of fornication and marries another …"

In short, McFall's theory is unpersuasive. And I find his conclusions contrary to the scriptures and devoid of grace for reasons I state in the MDR series. http://oneinjesus.info/index-under-construction/m…

I think you're likely right. As much as I respect Edwards and his work in this area, I think the passive voice argument ultimately fails — although it's supported by some pretty impressive scholars, including Lenski.

I reach similar conclusions but by different means as explained in earlier posts.

"But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for fornication, causes her to have adultery comitted (on her), and anyone who marries the divorced woman has adultery comitted (on him)."

It makes no sense. It is stretching.