Pack a 747 full of Christian theologians for 7 orbits around the world with the intention of hammering out divorce and remarriage once-and-for-all, and by the end of their trip there will be no agreement on either doctrine.

Why would they think it means until one commits adultery or desertion (or some other very sinful act against marriage) when they have no Scriptures to reference? Since they have no other reference document but only the vows themselves, wouldn't they be forced to assume that the vows mean what they each said: They will remain married "for better or for worse" until one dies?

If you poll an atheist, he'll know what our Christian vow means and will be a literalist. However, ask your pastor and it'll take him 30 minutes to try and explain it to you.

Your link, [URL=http://www.godrules.net/articles/divorce.htm]]]What does the Bible really say about divorce & remarriage?[/URL], summarizes at least 14 views on divorce and remarriage from 2nd through 18th Century theologians.

Since marriage, divorce and remarriage doctrines are apparently a buffet -- it's all good, take whatever you want, leave the rest -- how can this thread even begin to resolve these complex and nettlesome issues?

The saddest thing of all is that millions upon millions of covenant children make none of these decisions but are victim to the sins of their Christian daddies and mommies.

As I re-read your post and on second thought, I stand corrected with changes in CAPS:

But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, not for fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery; and he who marries one put away commits adultery. (Darby)
CORRECT.

That would roughly paraphrase to: If a man divorces his wife, NOT for SEXUAL IMMORALITY (I.E., FOR ANY SIN OR REASON AS IN NO-FAULT DIVORCE), and then goes on to marry again, he then becomes an adulterer.
TRUE.

And if someone marries his divorced wife, he too becomes an adulterer.
YES, BOTH SHE AND HER "SECOND" HUSBAND ARE ENGAGED IN ADULTERY.

But if the man found his wife had been unfaithful, then he could divorce her and remarry without committing adultery.
FALSE.

In context, since divorce and remarriage were rampant in the Roman Empire, it took until the 9th-10th Centuries for marriage to reach the status of "Holy Matrimony."

Calvin stated this:

"That there is [no Sacrament] in marriage, even children can judge."

John UK wrote:
1. Do you think the WCF got it correct, PRO?
2. Do you think it necessary to incorporate every single facet of every single doctrine in a confession of faith?
3. Do you think confessions are biblical? If yes, can you show me chapter and verse?
If no, why does it concern you about the LBCF?
4. Do you believe all doctrine should be attained by the use of scriptures only?
If no, what other means may be correctly utilised?
5. Are you now clear in your mind about what the Bible teaches about divorce and remarriage?

Over the past 40 years, half the church took the Westminster Divines at their word, "[URL=http://www.pcanet.org/general/cof_chapxxi-xxv.htm]]]sued out a divorce[/URL]" and it is now "[URL=http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/6-7.htm]]]already defeated[/URL]" (lit. destroyed).

In light of the clear teaching in [URL=http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/6-7.htm]]]1 Cor 6:7[/URL], what did Jesus really mean in an obscure verse (Matthew 19:9) about "sue out a divorce" and remarriage?

However, with a reported 50% divorce rate over the past 40 years, even in the church, a vast number of Christians have sued each other in court and "are already defeated" (1 Cor 6:7).

What’s enabled this new Christian carnage? Besides no-fault divorce laws, the 16th Century Greek manuscript upon which Matthew 19:9 is based -- is the smoking gun:

“And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, EXCEPT FOR fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.”

However, this Greek “EXCEPT FOR” manuscript is in the minority. 6 other significant Greek manuscripts do not include “if” that has created this “exception clause”:

(A.) The [URL=http://scripturetext.com/matthew/19-9.htm]]]Textus Receptus (TR) manuscript[/URL] has:

εἰ μὴ ἐπὶ = "if not for" = "EXCEPT FOR"

(B.) The [URL=http://scripturetext.com/matthew/19-9.htm]]]Westcott/Hort manuscript[/URL] and the other 5 only have:

μη επι = "NOT FOR"

John UK wrote:
Well let's have a look at what you regard as a correct translation, as found at the link you posted.
But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, not for fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery; and he who marries one put away commits adultery. (Darby)
That would roughly paraphrase to: If a man divorces his wife for any reason except her unfaithfulness, and then goes on to marry again, he then becomes an adulterer. And if someone marries his divorced wife, he too becomes an adulterer. Yes?
But if the man found his wife had been unfaithful, then he could divorce her and remarry without committing adultery. Yes?
That is how the Darby translation portrays it?

John UK wrote:
1. Considering the Byzantine mss are several thousand, have you checked these out yet?
2. In my understanding, no. It is that 'divorce' which Joseph was considering when he found out Mary was pregnant during betrothal but before marriage. He "was minded to put her away privily". This was in accord with old testament law, and which Jesus reiterated.
3. Sexual immorality by one partner after marriage is called adultery, and that would not fit well in with Matthew 19:9. It would sound ridiculous. Try it.

2. Isn't this context marriage and not the betrothal period?

3. Doesn't this verse mean that a married Christian man, whose wife engages in "whoredom" (adultery), if he divorces her and they each marry others then they both "doth commit adultery"?

"And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, [URL=http://concordances.org/greek/3361.htm]]]μὴ -- NOT[/URL] for [URL=http://concordances.org/greek/4202.htm]]]πορνεία -- pornea -- fornication -- WHOREDOM[/URL], and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery" (Matthew 19:9).

John UK wrote:
This where it gets complicated. The words μη επι seem to appear in many and varied mss, which would make the translation 'except' quite correct, would it not? Even the dreadful W & H greek ms has got it.
As on [URL=http://biblos.com/matthew/19-9.htm]]]BIBLOS.COM[/URL]
Of course it is crucial to have it right, and I think you'll find the KJV has it spot on.

εἰ μὴ ἐπὶ = "if not for" = "except for"

(B.) Whereas the [URL=http://scripturetext.com/matthew/19-9.htm]]]Westcott/Hort manuscript[/URL] and the other five manuscripts only have:

μη επι = "not for"

Two very different meanings. Why is the TR's (no thanks to Desiderius Erasmus, a Humanist Roman Catholic heretic) "except for" used in our Bibles?

John UK wrote:
(a.) Are you saying that there is another greek text where the greek word ei is missing?
(b.) What is this greek text, please?

(b.) Click [URL=http://scripturetext.com/matthew/19-9.htm]]]here[/URL] to see a comparison of nine manuscripts.

Of these nine manuscripts, six have the word μὴ (not) in Matthew 19:9.

Only one (Erasmus' 1550 and subsequent Textus Receptus manuscripts) includes εἰ -- ei -- (if) before μὴ -- mē -- (not) thus creating the word "except."

Thus, in Greek, Jesus states:

"And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, NOT (me) for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery" (Matthew 19:9)

However, Erasmus translated it this way:

"And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, EXCEPT (ei + me) it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery" (Matthew 19:9).

AlexanderHenderson1647 wrote:
I simply asked for the data, if you'll note I said I was not certain, but have only heard. So could you please give me the link? Besides, with your caustic tone, regarding my intelligence- keep it at home, won't you? I don't nor have ever practiced birth control &am in a particular movement w/i Protestantism pushing to instruct Christians to not use birth control in general (b/c it prevents the blessing of offspring), the pill in particular b/c of the possibility of abortion. I've used RC research in my conclusions incidentally- gasp!