CecilW said:
But here is another difference: Men's only Biblical excuse for divorcing a wife is adultery. Desertion isn't mentioned (though a case can be made for physical abuse, etc.).
Not that it matters at all in this case (i.e. I'm taking a tangent), but this conflicts with my understanding from the words used in Jesus' exception regarding a just cause for a man to divorce his wife. In particular, Jesus does not use the word adultery or any derivative thereof in Matthew 19:9, but rather the word prostitution. Most English translations render this as 'sexual immorality' and it can have this meaning, to be sure.
However, in looking at the use of this word in the OT (Septuagint), it is often used by God to describe the unfaithfulness of His people in abandoning His headship over them for the headship of the people and customs around them. This is quite clearly a usage of the word that does not involve sex, but rather establishes an easily understandable metaphor for the intended audience. Look particularly at Jeremiah 3 (
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah 3&version=ESV), and note that God refers to the idolatrous unfaithfulness of Israel and Judah using this word repeatedly (i.e. translated whore or whoredom), though He also uses the words adultery and adulteries as well. Likewise, a woman who rejects the headship of her husband in preference for the headship of prevailing cultural 'idols' (e.g. humanism, church doctrine, etc.) is no longer following God, who commands obedience to her husband in scripture; but rather is 'playing the whore' in the same sense that God herein describes: she is engaging in idolatry by yielding to a command other than the command of God.
Regarding a husband's proper response to such rebellion, note that a long-suffering God sent Israel away with a decree of divorce. However, note also that He calls them to acknowledge their guilt and to return to Him (in Verses 12-13), and proclaims that He is merciful and will not be angry at them forever if only they will acknowledge their guilt.
In consideration of the custom of the day whereby Rabbis used an easily recognizable portion of scripture to refer to the larger whole, as Jesus clearly did when He suffered on the cross (i.e. in Matthew 27:46 Jesus cries "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" to call attention to the fulfillment of the prophecy of Psalm 22), it is very reasonable to assume that Jesus is calling attention to this righteous model of God's treatment of His wives (Israel & Judah) for the benefit of those to whom He was preaching. Particularly, it is a husband's duty to call a wife who has rebelled against his headship to repentance, and to offer mercy and forgiveness if she answers this call, but it is not his duty to cede his headship over his house to her if she obstinately persists in rebellion.
Thus, I'm convinced that 'marital unfaithfulness' (as translated in the NIV) is what Jesus meant by this statement, and this not narrowly confined to unfaithfulness of a sexual nature; but rather more broadly applied to persistent obstinate rebellion of a wife against the headship of her husband. Indeed, I believe His choice of the word prostitution over the word adultery, along with the fact that the law prescribed death for adultery and divorce for hardness of heart, argues to the conclusion that He did not intend to convey that sexual infidelity of a wife was the only cause for divorce.
I imagine that there are many out there that disagree. However, I don't offer this in the spirit of debate, but rather simply as a viewpoint to consider. Indeed, the subject of divorce continues to be a vigorous theological debate among scholars to this day, so it is not my purpose to convince those for whom this is already settled; but rather to offer additional insight for those that might not be able to reconcile the 'adultery only' argument with their understanding of the remainder of the biblical witness.
