Let me begin by noting that it is very tragic that early scribes had tampered with the Scriptures in Matt19v9. Thus, the version of Matt19v9 printed in all Bibles is the counterfeit version. The words "and marries another" were not part of the original Scriptures inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Matt19v9 (ESV): And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”
Matt19v9 (Original in Codex Vaticanus): And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for the matter of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and the divorced woman who marries commits adultery.”
More explanation is provided in this document: https://tinyurl.com/can-I-divorce-and-remarry
Jesus said: Lk16v18 “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.
Pastor John Piper rightly teaches that remarriage while one’s spouse is alive is adultery.
But he wrongly teaches people who have entered adulterous “remarriages” to remain in them.
John Piper, This Momentary Marriage, 2009, page 171, Crossway:
There are marriages in the church I serve that are second marriages for one or both partners, which, in my view, should not have happened but are today godly marriages - marriages that are clean and holy, and in which forgiven, justified husbands and wives please God by the way they relate to each other. As forgiven, cleansed, Spirit-led followers of Jesus, they are not committing adultery in their marriages. These marriages began as they should not have but have become holy.
To excuse remaining in an adulterous “remarriage”, he has to distort the Scripture passage which explicitly contradicts his error. This distortion of Scripture has to be exposed and corrected. John Piper’s words are in blue font. My comments are in black font.
We get a lot of emails on relationships, everything from dating, engagement, marriage, and of course divorce and remarriage. This genre of email dominates all the other questions we get. And we get a lot of good push back emails and follow-up questions in search of greater clarity, like this one from a listener named Matthew: “Pastor John, I have a follow-up to you on episode 920 on divorce. Didn’t John the Baptists want Herod to ditch his wife? Because John had been saying to him, ‘It is not lawful for you to have her’ (present tense). See Matthew 14:4. He did not say, ‘It is not lawful for you to have taken her’ (past tense). And we all know how important tense is interpreting the Bible. She is called his wife. So how do you reconcile this seemingly clear call for a married couple to divorce?”
John Piper’s position is that the adulterous “remarriage” should not have been entered into in the past, but after confessing their sin, what was (past tense) an adulterous “remarriage” is (present tense) cleansed and holy. The couple who were (past) adulterers are now (present) holy husband and wife.
John Piper is wrong. Matthew is spot on. He rightly points out that John the Baptist said that “It is not lawful for you to have her” (present tense). Not just in the past. Right now. It is still not lawful.
Furthermore, in Greek, present tense verbs (it is not lawful) & infinitives (to have) emphasize continuous aspect, a continuing action. Meaning: John the Baptist had been saying to Herod, “It is not lawful (and will continue not being lawful) for you to (continue) having her”.
Present Tense’s continuative aspect
Daily Dose of Greek on the present tense’s imperfective / progressive / continuative aspect:
Verbal system overview: https://dailydoseofgreek.com/learn/learn-2/
(4 min - 5:17min; 9:42min - 10:19min)
Present Active Indicatives: https://dailydoseofgreek.com/learn/learn-3/
(05:48 min - 06:20 min)
For participles / infinitives: https://dailydoseofgreek.com/learn/learn-21/
(6:27 min -7:39 min)
See David Alan Black (2009) Learn To Read New Testament Greek Third Edition, page 15 & 20-21, B&H Publishing Group Nashville, Tennessee
There are at least three things in this passage that are unknown to us and that keep me from using the passage to justify divorce. I admit that sometimes divorce for a faithful believer is inevitable, because Paul says so in 1 Corinthians 7:15 when an unbeliever insists on leaving a believer who does everything he or she can to make the marriage work. You can’t stop an unbeliever from doing that and, therefore, divorce as they carry it through may be inevitable. Remarriage in that situation is another issue. We are not talking about that.
John the Baptist may have been telling Herod “Get out of the relationship,” not “Get out of the marriage.”
So, let’s go back to this text. The text says, “For Herod had seized John” — John the Baptist — “and bound him and put him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, because John had been saying to him, ‘It is not lawful for you to have her’” (Matthew 14:3–4). That is a good translation, by the way. “It is not lawful for you to have her.”
1. The first thing that is unknown to me is when Herod married his brother’s wife — or if he actually married her. When John says “it is not lawful for you to have her,” is he definitively saying that they are married? Or only that they are sleeping together or living in some kind of common law situation — kind of a situation that looks like marriage just to avoid legal issues? Most commentators document that they were married, but nobody seems to actually put a date on it in relationship to this event. If they weren’t married, then John is saying: Get out of the relationship. Stop sleeping together. Not, get out of a marriage. I don’t know.
When did Herod marry his brother’s wife? Why does that matter? Does John Piper really believe that without a date determined by scholars, the marriage did not actually take place? Does he apply this same doubt to other Biblical events which scholars can’t date? Of course not. John Piper is making up an excuse.
John Piper even wonders “if he actually married her”. He didn’t even bother to check the parallel passage in Mark 6v17: 17 For it was Herod who had sent and seized John and bound him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife, because he had married (gameō) her.
John the Baptist may have been telling Herod “Get out of the relationship,” not “Get out of the marriage.”
Absolutely false. Herod had married Herodias. John the Baptist was telling him to get out of the “marriage”.
2. The second thing that is uncertain is this: let’s just suppose they were married. Nothing uncertain! They were married. Mark 6v17: 17 For it was Herod who had sent and seized John and bound him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife, because he had married (gameō) her. The second thing that is uncertain is whether John is actually saying that the marriage should end. He is saying: It is unlawful for you to have her. Unbelievable how John Piper quotes “It is unlawful for you to have her” and seems unable (or unwilling) to conclude that John the Baptist was telling Herod to stop having Herodias as his wife since it is not lawful (present tense) and is continuously unlawful (present tense’s continuous aspect). You sinned in marrying her, if he married her. No “if”. They were married. Mark 6v17: 17 For it was Herod who had sent and seized John and bound him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife, because he had married (gameō) her. But it may also be unlawful to throw her out after she had been married to another man and therefore make her destitute on Jewish principle since she can’t go back to that first husband. Herodias sinned. If destitution is the consequence, that is the consequence. Repent from sin. Join the disciples of Jesus, they will take care of those with legitimate needs. It is not crystal clear from this text that John is saying ditch her. Matt 14v4: John had been saying to him, “It is not lawful (present tense) for you to have (present tense) her.” The text is crystal clear.
3. But now, let us suppose that John was actually saying: end the marriage. Yes, John the Baptist was actually saying that. Matt 14v4: John had been saying to him, “It is not lawful (present tense) for you to have (present tense) her.”And let’s suppose they were married. They were married. Mark 6v17: 17 For it was Herod who had sent and seized John and bound him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife, because he had married (gameō) her. So, two uncertainties — we will just assume both of them are true. Pastor John Pied Piper’s 2 uncertainties exist only in his mind, not in the Scripture. Matt 14v4: John had been saying to him, “It is not lawful (present tense) for you to have (present tense) her.” Mark 6v17: 17 For it was Herod who had sent and seized John and bound him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife, because he had married (gameō) her. The third thing that is uncertain is whether he is saying this because the unlawfulness of the marriage is owing to the fact that she was married before or at the same time or that she was the wife of his brother which, according to Old Testament law, would make the second marriage incestuous, like marrying your sister or your sister-in-law or your daughter. So, Leviticus 18:16 says, “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother's wife; it is your brother’s nakedness.” Or Leviticus 20:21, “If a man lies with his uncle's wife, he has uncovered his uncle's nakedness; they shall bear their sin; they shall die childless.”
All these forms of sexually immorality were unlawful. Since John Piper mentioned the forms of sexual immorality in Lev 18 and 20, then note the following…
Lev 18v29-30: 29 For everyone who does any of these abominations, the persons who do them shall be cut off from among their people. 30 So keep my charge never to practise any of these abominable customs that were practised before you, and never to make yourselves unclean by them: I am the Lord your God.”
Repentance from these forms of sexual immorality surely meant stopping them! God is not going to accept lip service as the Pied Piper teaches, “Sorry, I should not have entered this marriage. It was adultery”, and then continue committing adultery. Unbelievable.
Frankly — and this kind of boils down to the practical reality — I have never in all my pastoral life been confronted with a situation in which a man had married his sister or sister-in-law. It is difficult to know what I would say about the ongoing reality and propriety of that marriage. My inclination, not having faced it and not having thought more than a little about it, is that I probably would say the marriage should end, the way I would if the man was found to have married his own daughter. But those are such extraordinary cases that I would be very hesitant to build a case in favor of divorce in general upon them.
Even in the case of incestuous “marriages”, Pastor John Piper can only muster up a “probably would say the marriage should end”. Just “probably”, not “definitely”? No wonder he is willing to let adulterous “remarriages” continue.
So, in view of those three uncertainties at least, I don’t think Matthew 14:4 can be used in any ordinary situation to justify divorce.
Again, Pastor John Pied Piper’s 3 uncertainties exist only in his mind, not in the Scripture.
Firstly, Herod and Herodias certainly got married.
Mark 6v17: 17 For it was Herod who had sent and seized John and bound him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife, because he had married (gameō) her
Secondly, John the Baptist certainly kept saying that Herod’s present, ongoing, continuous marriage with Herodias was unlawful. John the Baptist did not mean Herod & Herodias’ marriage was only unlawful at the start, in the past, but after confessing their sins, it becomes a new holy marriage as the Pied Piper falsely claims.
Matt 14v4: John had been saying to him, “It is not lawful (present tense) for you to have (present tense) her.”
Thirdly, even if John Piper is seriously uncertain what exactly about Herod-Herodias’ marriage was sexually immoral, it is irrelevant. As long as it was a form of sexual immorality, the punishment is still the lake of fire unless one repents and stops committing sexual immorality.
Rev 21v8: But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars (so many liars deceive the churches with empty words to excuse adulterous “remarriages”), their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death.”
In any case, Jesus explicitly taught that remarriage (while one’s ex-spouse is alive) is adultery.
Mark 10v10-12: 10 And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. 11 And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”
Luke 16v18: “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.
All forms of sexual immorality, all forms of unlawful “marriages” must definitely end (and not merely, “probably would say the marriage should end” for incestuous marriages). This includes adulterous “remarriages”. This is true repentance. A “sorry, we were wrong” followed up by continually committing adultery is not repentance.
Here is the full paper explaining why those who "remarry" while a spouse is alive are committing adultery and will be punished in the lake of fire unless they repent and stop it: https://tinyurl.com/can-I-divorce-and-remarry
As it turns out, the accepted version of Matt 19v9 which is often used to justify such "remarriages" was not even what was written originally in the Scripture. The original version of Matt 19v9 contains the same words as in Matt 5v32 and does not give permission to remarriage. Read the paper for the full explanation.
Note once more that the Pied Piper's "justification" theology allows him to excuse continuing in unrepentant sin.
He is a firm upholder of the traditional Protestant "gospel" which teaches: "justification by grace ALONE (no works) through faith ALONE (no works) in the imputed righteousness of Christ ALONE (not the Spirit-empowered Christian's righteous works)".
John Piper, This Momentary Marriage, 2009, page 171, Crossway:
There are marriages in the church I serve that are second marriages for one or both partners, which, in my view, should not have happened but are today godly marriages - marriages that are clean and holy, and in which forgiven, justified husbands and wives please God by the way they relate to each other. As forgiven, cleansed, Spirit-led followers of Jesus, they are not committing adultery in their marriages. These marriages began as they should not have but have become holy.
John Piper's argument has set up a very slippery slope.
Why can't someone say: There are marriages in the church I serve that are same-sex-marriages, which, in my view, should not have happened but are today godly marriages - marriages that are clean and holy, and in which forgiven, justified husbands and husbands, wives and wives, please God by the way they relate to each other. As forgiven, cleansed, Spirit-led followers of Jesus, they are not committing sinful homosexuality in their marriages. These marriages began as they should not have but have become holy.
John Piper will never make this statement in red font. But his logic, when taken to its logical end, allows for the redefinition of sexual immorality into something that has "become holy". No need to repent and stop doing those sexually immoral acts.
Such lawlessness is possible because of the Protestant errors of "justification".
Your Protestant "gospel" is filled with man-made traditions. The "imputed righteousness of Christ" is not even written in Scripture, as J.I. Packer himself admitted in his interview with you. See: Protestants who don't believe IROC too (searchingscripture.wixsite.com)
You and other Protestant super-apostles deny that faith is a righteous work of obedience in the face of explicit Scriptures teaching that it is. See: https://tinyurl.com/Faith-Is-Obedient-Work
You use the man-made Protestant traditions, Sola Gratia (Grace ALONE), Sola Fide (Faith ALONE), Solus Christus (Christ's "imputed righteousness" ALONE) to excuse unrepentant adultery and void Christ's explicit word: Lk16v18 “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.
These are the Protestant Pharisees. Mt15v6-9: So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God. 7 You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: 8 “‘This people honors me with their lips (boy are Protestants good at honoring with the lips - Soli Deo Gloria), but their heart is far from me; 9 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’”
May God cast every lying preacher of this lawless "gospel" of (dis)grace into the lake of fire.
Rev 21v8: But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death.”
This lawless Protestant "gospel" of (dis)grace is a different gospel from the apostle's gospel. It is Fake news, not the true Good News. But so many Protestants prefer to believe the Fake news that permits ongoing unrepentant sin!
Gal 1: 6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the favor of Anointed-One and are turning to a different Good News— 7 not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the Good News of Anointed-One. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a Good News contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be anathema! 9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a Good News contrary to the one you received, let him be anathema!
10 For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a slave of Anointed-One.
If you are not a deserter of God and you reject the lawless "gospel" of (dis)grace, then come, join me. We have work to do. We need to contend for the faith. The true faith.
Jude: 3 Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the holy-ones. 4 For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the favor of our God into sensuality and deny our only Overlord and Master, Jesus Anointed-One.
This Protestant pastor and many others have perverted God's grace / favor into sensuality, excusing ongoing unrepentant adultery and daring to call unrepentant adulterers "justified", "Spirit-led" followers of Jesus.
They have thus denied the supreme authority of our only Overlord and Master, Jesus the Anointed-One. Their lips confess him as Master, but their lives deny him as Master. The reality is that they are their own Master. What Jesus declares is adultery, the Protestants declare to be acceptable. Who do they think they are to distort Jesus' words!
Definition of pied piper
1: one that offers strong but delusive enticement 2: a leader who makes irresponsible promises
Don't follow Pastor John Pied Piper and his false Protestant "gospel". But we cannot stop there. We must contend with all of them. Every single Protestant false teacher who promotes the lawless "gospel" of (dis)grace. Like for example in Singapore: The Anti-Christian Lawless "Gospel" of (Dis)grace - Eph 2v8-9 ripped out of context (YouTube video): https://youtu.be/Vofm7BYrzRs
Comments