Fornication vs. Adultery

[Lionking]

The statement is often made that if a woman commits adultery, according to the scriptures, this is cause for a divorce. This statement would perhaps be followed by a quotation of Mathew 5:32.

To my understanding, this is an erroneous interpretation or misunderstanding of what the scriptures actually say. I may be wrong, but I doubt it. Follow me with this reasoning. Lets carefully examine what the text states.

"But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."

Note carefully that the operative word here is fornication. According to the scriptures, a woman that is already married cannot commit fornication, any sexual impropriety on her part would be deemed as adultery. It is only a man whether married or unmarried that can commit fornication. The only woman that can commit fornication is an unmarried one.

So what Jesus was actually saying here is that if a man marries a woman, and on her wedding night was not found to be a virgin, then the husband would have reason to divorce her because she played the harlot in her fathers house.

Adultery therefore is not a valid reason or excuse that one can use to lawfully divorce his wife according to the scriptures. We are expected to be forgiving as Jesus forgives us of our sins. In this light, the Titus teaching of a bishop or deacon who is blameless and the husband of one (his first wife) makes more sense to me. For a spiritual leader to truly reflect Christ, he must still be married to his first wife regardless of how many wives he has, he must not be a divorcée, otherwise he would be proven to be a man with an unforgiving spirit, hence he would be unfit to lead a flock.

Lionking.

 

[Mark C]

The KJV rendering of Matthew 5:32 is simply wrong. Whether in the Greek, or in the Hebrew in which He originally spoke the teaching, the last word rendered "divorce" should be "put away", since it is the same word as in the rest of the verse:

"But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is put away committeth adultery."

A woman who is only "put away", but not ALSO given a "certificate of divorce" is still a wife. (Deut. 24:1, repeated almost WORD-for-WORD in Deut. 24:3. The Author is making a point about the process He so particularly describes.)

On the other hand, a wife who has ALREADY committed adultery cannot be "caused" to commit adultery by being put away by her husband, simply because she already HAS.

But on the final point, you are correct. Independently of any of the above issues, our Savior put it very simply, and more than once (Matt. 6:15, Mark 11:26, Matt. 18:35). We are to forgive "from our hearts" EVERY ONE of the 'trespasses' against us. If that applies to debtors, strangers, friends, and even enemies, then "how much more so" those whom we have taken into Covenant.

 

[Scarecrow]

I have been aware of Erasmus and his "work" for some time. All I have is the ability to read the Word of God and allow myself to be led by the Holy Spirit into understanding. As I read I keep in mind that my God does not change, so I look for a consistent pattern. Just as there are verses that the monogamy crowd uses to defend its position that can seem to indicate that monogamy is dictated, upon closer examination it becomes clear that that is not the case. As I have studied divorce it has become clear to me that it simply is not recognized or condoned by God. God hates it, Moses "allowed" it, and those participating in it are called adulterers. The Bible makes it clear that marriage between two believers is a covenant before God, and a covenant cannot be annulled or modified according to the Apostle Paul. When one looks at the texts plain and simply and does not participate in theological gymnastics it should be obvious that this is the case. I could post numerous scriptures and point to them and say see here is the proof (as I am sure some will do) but this topic seems to be one that an individual has to be led by the Spirit to understand in more depth, and I will leave the Spirit to do His work.

In any case here is some information that you might find interesting:

http://morechristlike.com/except-for-fo ... thew-19-9/

http://morechristlike.com/documents/Div ... llview.pdf


"What this study shows is that if the Roman Catholic church had published its Greek New
Testament as soon as it was printed, there would not have been the need to produce
Erasmus’ Greek New Testament. But the delay between printing the New Testament in
1514 and its release to the public in 1522, allowed an inferior version to swamp the
market. Also, the Complutensian was limited to 600 copies. It was expensive, and it was
never reprinted.50 Its text is far superior to Erasmus’ both in the use of clear fonts, its
pleasing layout, and the complete lack of abbreviations and ligatures which spoil
Erasmus’ text, but more importantly, as the diagram above shows, its text of the four
Gospels was closer to the Majority Text, and it did not have Erasmus’ addition of EI in
Matthew 19:9.
The only English version I would recommend at the present time is the New King James
Version (NKJV), but it can only be a stop gap translation because it does not translate the
Majority Text, except when it differs from the TR, which it puts in the margin."

 

[Mark C]

In general, Scarecrow, I find much of interest in your post, although there are certainly parts I contend are in error. But your terminology and assertions are clear, which helps make those differences I would point to stand out as well, and thus helps "iron to sharpen iron". Kudos.

So let me start here:

As I have studied divorce it has become clear to me that it simply is not recognized or condoned by God. God hates it*, Moses "allowed" it, and those participating in it are called adulterers.

That last assertion is simply wrong, however, not only because it is far too general, "all-encompassing", and simplistic -- but because it also ignores the important specific cases that He spends so much time discussing in Scripture! If it were that simple, why did God not ask you to Write it for Him, instead of spending so much ink complicating the matter with confusing teachings from obfuscators like Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and even our Savior? (And is YHVH Himself an 'adulterer'???!!!)

The Bible makes it clear that marriage between two believers is a covenant before God, and a covenant cannot be annulled or modified according to the Apostle Paul.

Generally correct, although Shaul/Paul is really just reasserting something that is constantly affirmed in Scripture (although man has repeatedly FAILED to honor his covenants, and this is part of the reason why YHVH put Abraham to sleep and walked in his stead!)

But therein lies "the rub"! And your point is important enough to repeat, with emphasis, and a bit of supporting documentation:

marriage between two believers is a Covenant

before YHVH the Creator, and what He "has joined, let man not separate" (or 'rend', 'tear asunder', or otherwise destroy).

How do WE -- or anyone else for that matter -- take it upon ourselves to "judge" what constitutes two so-called "believers"? Unless, of course, it is to know by their FRUIT.

Those who believe Him (not merely believe in Him, of course - because "even the demons" do that - but believe His promises ENOUGH TO OBEY HIM) will not "put away" their wives (much less put them away and then give them a certificate) or permanently abandon their husbands. Period. This is what I Corinthians 7 is about.

But - and this is the key distinction - there are women who HAVE been "divorced", and have the written statement from their (obviously disobedient, and presumably 'disbelieving') FORMER husband as a second witness to their own testimony that they are lawfully ELIGIBLE for remarriage, without fear of being in adultery. Men can remarry anyway, provided they are not currently CAUSING their wives to 'commit adultery' by their own treachery. In both cases, we are not to condemn them for past failures, provided they repent and learn to honor any future Covenant.

Many of us can cop to the shame of having been 'unbelievers' in the past.

My own wife B, who proclaimed both publicly and privately for years that she "believed", and sought to be obedient to Him, abandoned her Covenant to me and my house because she "decided that it was too HARD" to be a 'second wife' in unbelieving "Amerika". Such "friendship with the world", according to Scripture, is clearly no excuse for violating Covenant. She has no "certificate of divorce" from me, and so she is NOT eligible for remarriage; thus while I know that she has borne false witness, I do not know whether or not she has committed adultery. So I fervently pray B is NOT an "unbeliever", and will someday repent, humble herself before our Father, and ultimately return. But IS she really a 'believer'? Even though I know her, and her heart, better than any living soul on this earth...it is still only God who truly KNOWS, and ultimately only by her fruit will that by made clear to me.

No doubt, some people, both men and women, who would recognize that they WERE unbelievers when they became "divorced" can learn from that horrible situation and seek to become one in marriage again, but "only in Him".


-------------------------
* Malachi actually says YHVH hates the "putting away", with or WITHOUT the certificate of divorce. The distinction, of course, is important, because He makes it, and references it repeatedly! And Moses either Wrote what His Master told him to, or he is a "liar and the truth is not in him". Shaul/Paul was careful to distinguish when he was speaking from his own opinion, and not for God, remember!

 

[NeoPatriarch]

I do not understand the positions taken, in that they suggest that parallel statements are somehow fundamentally different.

Deu 24:1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.

Mat 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Can I suggest that the same God, yesterday, today, and forever the same Heavenly Father that hates divorce, inspired both verses.

It seems clear to me that divorce is only justifiable within this limited definition. Not that a man is required to divorce, but that the option is his. Forgiveness is better, no arguement. However even God pictures himself a divorced man, and justifiably so.

Jer 3:8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

Under OT law the adulteress was to be executed. Divorce was a lesser sentence.

Mat 1:19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.

The scripture calls Joseph a just man in the same sentence he considers putting her away.

I think this is worth a second look guys.

God Bless,

Robert

 

[Who is like God?]

Note carefully that the operative word here is fornication. According to the scriptures, a woman that is already married cannot commit fornication, any sexual impropriety on her part would be deemed as adultery. It is only a man whether married or unmarried that can commit fornication. The only woman that can commit fornication is an unmarried one.
Lionking.

I had noted this distinction in the past and although it made little sense (how a married women could fornicate), at least in my understanding of the biblical definitions and laws surrounding divorce and fornication, I had not had the time to look into it properly. You illustration definitely presents a possibility I will have to take the time to look further into this verse. As a note I did find Shipley's comments on this verse in "They shall be one flesh" as interesting.

 

[Tlaloc]

@ Neo

You beat me too it I think we said the same thing in different words. I should stop wandering off and doing things while my post screen is up or I'll keep getting beat like this. Nice touch adding Jeremiah ect though.

@Lionking

According to the scriptures, a woman that is already married cannot commit fornication, any sexual impropriety on her part would be deemed as adultery.

Where?

Porneos covers a wide variety of sexual sins and lewdness while adultery covers only having sex with a married woman.

Go back to the root of what Jesus was talking about,

Deu 24:1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.

Hebrew has a clear word for Adultery, but this verse uses the term for nudity\shame\sexual uncleanliness. The cause for divorce here is much less than adultery, and our texts have Jesus using the term Fornication because it is closest to this term Uncleanliness here. It is not adultery.

So what Jesus was actually saying here is that if a man marries a woman, and on her wedding night was not found to be a virgin, then the husband would have reason to divorce her because she played the harlot in her fathers house.

Deu 22:20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
Deu 22:21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

Scripture never allows someone to divorce in that case, the letter of the law says she dies. Playing the harlot in her fathers house is not a cause for divorce, but a much more serious problem.

Either way adultery is not simply any fornication in marriage, fornication is a broad term referring to any sexual sin while adultery is a specific kind of fornication. Adultery is a form of fornication thus a married woman can certainly commit fornication.

Your keystone premise which you say is 'according to scriptures' is not found in scriptures and semantic nonsense.

 

[Lionking]

@ Neo

You beat me too it I think we said the same thing in different words. I should stop wandering off and doing things while my post screen is up or I'll keep getting beat like this. Nice touch adding Jeremiah ect though.

@Lionking

According to the scriptures, a woman that is already married cannot commit fornication, any sexual impropriety on her part would be deemed as adultery.

Where?

Porneos covers a wide variety of sexual sins and lewdness while adultery covers only having sex with a married woman.

Go back to the root of what Jesus was talking about,

Deu 24:1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.

Hebrew has a clear word for Adultery, but this verse uses the term for nudity\shame\sexual uncleanliness. The cause for divorce here is much less than adultery, and our texts have Jesus using the term Fornication because it is closest to this term Uncleanliness here. It is not adultery.

So what Jesus was actually saying here is that if a man marries a woman, and on her wedding night was not found to be a virgin, then the husband would have reason to divorce her because she played the harlot in her fathers house.

Deu 22:20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
Deu 22:21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

Scripture never allows someone to divorce in that case, the letter of the law says she dies. Playing the harlot in her fathers house is not a cause for divorce, but a much more serious problem.

Either way adultery is not simply any fornication in marriage, fornication is a broad term referring to any sexual sin while adultery is a specific kind of fornication. Adultery is a form of fornication thus a married woman can certainly commit fornication.

Your keystone premise which you say is 'according to scriptures' is not found in scriptures and semantic nonsense.

I stand corrected concerning what you said in quoting deut. 22:20-21 that the woman would be stoned if found playing the harlot in her fathers house, but that was not my keystone premise.

The real point that I was attempting to bring across is the fact that it is not Gods will for us to terminate a covenant because of marital infidelity. He desires us to have mercy and forgive.

 

[Lionking]

I still stand by my position however that a married woman cannot commit fornication. The scriptures say that we will be judged not only by our deeds, but also the very intents of our hearts. Even our thoughts will be brought into judgement against us.

Therefore if a married woman is caught in a compromising position, the actual act of intercourse not yet committed, or if she behaves lewdly, or anything sexual in nature that is done with anyone else other than her husband, she has committed adultery.

I get what you are saying that adultery in the Hebrew tongue is a specific word and was not the word used in that particular passage of scripture, so by the letter of the law your statement is 100% correct, but by the spirit of the law I will stand by my statement.

Lionking.

 

[Tlaloc]

Semantic means dealing with interpretation and meaning of words, your keystone premise is that 'adultery is simply any fornication in marriage and therefore a married woman cannot commit adultery'. That's the semantic nonsense I was talking about.

The scriptures say that we will be judged not only by our deeds, but also the very intents of our hearts. Even our thoughts will be brought into judgement against us.

Therefore if a married woman is caught in a compromising position, the actual act of intercourse not yet committed, or if she behaves lewdly, or anything sexual in nature that is done with anyone else other than her husband, she has committed adultery.

Even if I granted that,

Adultery is a form of fornication

If someone commits adultery it is always fornication, though there are forms of fornication that are not adultery. This is because

fornication is a broad term referring to any sexual sin while adultery is a specific kind of fornication.

This is not an either\or case.

but by the spirit of the law I will stand by my statement.

Now THIS bugs me. The spirit of a law is its intent, the intent of the laws regulating divorce where to regulate divorce (Sometimes a tautology is necessary isn't it?). By broadly forbidding divorce your completely nullifying the spirit of the law, not upholding it. And in order to make a case against the law by the law you have to blame the victim which the law was enacted to protect. "Oh, that guy's wife was sleeping around on him. Oh yeah, he caught them in the act, it was going on for months, he's furious. Well he should be more forgiving. How DARE he be cold to her after that, he must be SO un-Christlike and unforgiving if he doesn't want to take her back. He's not allowed to have lasting feelings about what happened! He should get just get over it and stop being so hard hearted."

Is what your arguing for really much better than that? If you want to know the spirit of the law, look at the situation and have compassion for both sides. Don't expect people to be forgiving automatons, and don't expect coldness to equate to unforgiveness. Only the husband knows weather can or should maintain the relationship or not, the ball is in his court and no one other than he has the right to say what he should do about the situation. Such situations are bad enough without people on the outside criticizing him for staying and other people criticizing him for divorcing.

 

[Anonymous]

Sorry I've been away for a few months, but I just got an e-mail from a friend who reminded me of BF and I just popped in to add my two cents to this conversation...

According to the scriptures, a woman that is already married cannot commit fornication, any sexual impropriety on her part would be deemed as adultery. It is only a man whether married or unmarried that can commit fornication. The only woman that can commit fornication is an unmarried one.

You are correct that a fornicating married woman is actually adulterating. All adultery is fornication, but not all fornication is adultery. For a married woman to fornicate, she must BY DEFINITION be committing adultery. The acts of an unmarried woman committing fornication are the EXACT SAME ACTS of a married woman committing adultery.

- If a virgin is unbetrothed, laying with any man is considered fornication, never adultery.

- If a virgin is "betrothed" married, laying with a man other than her husband is considered adultery.

- If a woman is "one flesh" married, laying with a man other than her husband is considered adultery.

Whether in the Greek, or in the Hebrew in which He originally spoke the teaching, the last word rendered "divorce" should be "put away", since it is the same word as in the rest of the verse:

I agree. There is a single word in Scripture which must be translated into English, so that an English-speaking audience can read God's Word. This word is "shalach" in Hebrew and "apoluo" in Greek. However we translate this word into English, it must be rendered consistently to avoid playing word games. For those who wish to translate it one-for-one with a single English word, it is usually translated as "divorce". In this case, the passage should be rendered as follows:

Matt. 5:32: "But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except for the matter of whoring, makes her commit adultery. And whoever marries a woman who has been divorced commits adultery."

This rendering is consistent with the actual words of Scripture in the original language. However, others (such as myself) prefer a small multi-word phrase to represent the single original word of Scripture, because it can be more precise and doesn't carry the additional baggage that the modern term "divorce" might otherwise carry. As a result, I prefer the English term "put away" or "cut off" when translating the word "shalach" (in Hebrew) or "apoluo" (in Greek). In this case, the passage would be rendered as follows:

Matt. 5:32: "But I say to you that whoever puts away his wife, except for the matter of whoring, makes her commit adultery. And whoever marries a woman who has been put away commits adultery."

Matt. 5:32: "But I say to you that whoever cuts off his wife, except for the matter of whoring, makes her commit adultery. And whoever marries a woman who has been cut off commits adultery."

These renderings are also perfectly consistent with the actual words of Scripture in the original language. What would NOT be consistent is when a translation takes the exact same word and translates it as DIFFERENT words in the destination language. The KJV rendering of Matt. 5:32 is inconsistent because it takes the same Greek word "apoluo" and translates it into English as two different terms: "put away" and "divorced". In Scripture, there is ONLY ONE WORD and it must be translated consistently throughout Scripture. The KJV rendering incorrectly suggests there is a difference in meaning, when the original Greek text makes clear that the same word is being used in both places. There is a singular concept of marital separation in Scripture, and a lot of semantic gymnastics could be avoided if we were forced to reference the original words of Scripture when discussing the subject.

As I have studied divorce it has become clear to me that it simply is not recognized or condoned by God. God hates it, Moses "allowed" it, and those participating in it are called adulterers.

I feel this is an unnecessarily simplistic statement that is otherwise mostly correct. God does hate "shalach", but you know what? Shalach happens. And when it happens, it always happens to the woman. There is no such thing as a "put away" man in Scripture. God was never "put away", yet we read in Jer. 3 and Is. 50 that God "put away" Israel. Israel certainly could not "put away" God.

Can I suggest that the same God, yesterday, today, and forever the same Heavenly Father that hates divorce, inspired both verses. It seems clear to me that divorce is only justifiable within this limited definition. Not that a man is required to divorce, but that the option is his. Forgiveness is better, no arguement.

I completely agree that a man is only permitted to put away his wife within the permissible context of Deut. 24 and referenced in Matt. 5 and Matt. 19 by our Master Himself.

However even God pictures himself a divorced man, and justifiably so.

Again, God pictures Himself as having put away Israel, not being a put away husband. If anything, He is the "put away"-er.

Go back to the root of what Jesus was talking about,

Deu 24:1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.

Hebrew has a clear word for Adultery, but this verse uses the term for nudity\shame\sexual uncleanliness. The cause for divorce here is much less than adultery, and our texts have Jesus using the term Fornication because it is closest to this term Uncleanliness here. It is not adultery.

That is an excellent understanding of what was being communicated. Had Jesus understood Deut. 24 to be a reference to adultery, He would have used the word for adultery. Rather, He used the word for whoring or fornication. He certainly understood EXACTLY what Deut. 24 was a reference to and we have His exact words recorded in Scripture to prove it. Therefore, we can be certain that adultery on the part of the wife was NOT grounds for putting her away. On the contrary, it was grounds for putting her in the ground. The whoring or fornication that she committed which caused her to be "unclean" was NOT adultery, which I believe was the point originally made by Lionking. In Scripture, adultery is NOT grounds for putting away one's wife.

Either way adultery is not simply any fornication in marriage, fornication is a broad term referring to any sexual sin while adultery is a specific kind of fornication. Adultery is a form of fornication thus a married woman can certainly commit fornication.

Actually she can't, not without ALSO committing adultery in the process. Since all adultery is fornication, then all adulteresses are fornicators as well. However, just because a thief is dishonest, it does not follow that all dishonesty is theft. The penalty for the greater crime (theft) dwarfs the lesser crime (dishonesty). Likewise, her greater crime (adultery) dwarfs her lesser crime (fornication). Nobody in Israel's time would have believed Deut. 24 permitted an adulterous wife to be put away. They already knew the penalty for adultery was seperation from LIFE, not merely from her HUSBAND.

The spirit of a law is its intent, the intent of the laws regulating divorce where to regulate divorce (Sometimes a tautology is necessary isn't it?). By broadly forbidding divorce your completely nullifying the spirit of the law, not upholding it.

That's an interesting point. You believe the context of Deut. 24:1-4 is instruction on how to put away one's wife? When I read the passage in context, it seems clear to me that the intended subject is how a man is not permitted to take back a wife after he puts her away and she subsequently becomes another man's wife. While the passage certainly demonstrates the LAWFULNESS of a man putting away his wife (under the specific conditions stated in the same passage), the passage as a whole should not be taken as "regulating divorce", but rather "preventing him from taking back that which he was disgusted enough to put away in the first place".

Think about what this passage is saying. After taking his new wife to bed, the husband found a matter of uncoveredness in her that bothered him SO much, that he wanted to get rid of her. But then AFTER he puts her away and AFTER she's been with another man, THEN he wants her back to be his own? Did she suddenly become less disgusting?? What is being taught in this lesson about looking before leaping? This passage was protection for the woman, not to be traded back and forth like baseball cards. At least, that's how I understand it. All we can be certain of is that a man was PERMITTED to put away his wife under the conditions spelled out in verse 1. Beyond that, we have to see how Jesus interpreted this passage and allow His definition to stand.

In His love,
David

 

[Tlaloc]

Actually I see Deut 24 as regulating many aspects of divorce, and not very much about giving instructions on how to do it. Verse 1 gives conditions for divorce and the procedure for it. Verse 2 gives her permission to re-marry, Verses 3 and 4 deal with no take backs. All four verses regulate different aspects of divorce, but if divorce is forbidden outright (or forbidden after marriage) then these regulations are pointless. If divorce is regulated then there must be a case where it is allowed, denying that case kills the spirit of the regs.

 

[Mark C]

If divorce is regulated then there must be a case where it is allowed, denying that case kills the spirit of the regs.

Agreed, Tlaloc. YHVH does not give either permission or regulations for doing that which He prohibits. The same obvious truth is at the heart of understanding why a man is able to take more than one wife.

You believe the context of Deut. 24:1-4 is instruction on how to put away one's wife? When I read the passage in context, it seems clear to me that the intended subject is how a man is not permitted to take back a wife after he puts her away and she subsequently becomes another man's wife...

One of the most fundamental principles in understanding Scripture is to understand that a single verse is able, and almost always DOES, carry more than one level of proper meaning. (Brad Scott often says simply, "God is smarter than we are!" )

In the Hebrew, these referred to as the peshat, drash, remez, and sod levels, meaning the plain or literal, the allegorical, the derived, and the hidden or mystery. To note that there is one understanding of what a text is intended to convey does not mean that our Creator does not want us to study further and understand what else He has for us in a teaching. Similarly, the fact that a man is not permitted to take back a wife he has put away and given a certificate of divorce after she has married another, does not mean that He did not also intend His process to be followed in every such case, however undesirable.

But the fact that there are MANY other teachings on unfaithfulness -- both literal and prophetic -- and on reconciliation, forgiveness, restoration, and healing, gives us understanding of the other levels of meaning in His Word here as well. It was never only about the mistakes, and the things which cannot be taken back, but about those things which can be forgiven and healed as well.

 

[Anonymous]

Actually I see Deut 24 as regulating many aspects of divorce, and not very much about giving instructions on how to do it. Verse 1 gives conditions for divorce and the procedure for it. Verse 2 gives her permission to re-marry, Verses 3 and 4 deal with no take backs. All four verses regulate different aspects of divorce, but if divorce is forbidden outright (or forbidden after marriage) then these regulations are pointless. If divorce is regulated then there must be a case where it is allowed, denying that case kills the spirit of the regs.

Oh, agreed. Putting away one's wife MUST be permitted under some circumstances, since we have other passages that tell us when a man is FORBIDDEN from putting away his wife (Deut. 22:13-19, Deut. 22:28-29). We all know it would be meaningless to tell us of conditions where a man was forbidden to put away his wife unless it was permitted elsewhere. It is also significant that in both of the passages that specifically forbid putting away one's wife, the man has taken her virginity from her.

So, Deut. 24:1 gives those requirements needed for a man to put away has wife (though he is NOT required to do so, only that he may do so IF she has lost favor in his eyes as a result), and Jesus reaffirms the same requirements in Matt. 5:31-32 and Matt. 19:9. Deuteronomy calls it "uncleanness" or "nakedness". Matthew calls it "whoring" or "fornication". They are referring to the exact same thing. Nowhere did Jesus say that a man MAY NOT put away his wife, since that would have been contrary to established law. Rather, He said that IF "put away" AND THEN "remarries", adultery ensues (Matt. 5:32, Matt. 19:9, Mark 10:11-12, Luke 16:18). Unless the exception clause applies (which it rarely does in our culture), divorce + remarriage = adultery.

It is not divorce itself which was forbidden, it was remarriage AFTER most cases of divorce.

In His love,
David

 

[Tlaloc]

I think we generally agree then, thats good

 

[Who is like God?]

Wow! If the people of the church could just get their mind around this one and hearts for that matter. I am still marveling over the fact that so many miss interpret almost everything that is said in Mathew 5:32 because they are afraid to deal with this difficult and socially awkward issue. Thanks for the very good logical arguments and points presented here.

 

[ke4ke]

Hello,

I am like David. I like consistency. I believe that a word should be translated the same. I have a Bible translation from Arkansas that does that. Over all it's not bad. I apoluo means divorce then Christ divorced crowds of people on a few occasions. Apoluo is just simple separation. Here is how I see Matthew 5:32. I don't think it has anything to do with divorce. This includes [commentary].

"But I say to you that whoever separates [without divorcing his wife], except for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery [when she marries another]. And whoever shall marry her who is [only] separated commits adultery."

Makes sense to me when you consider the other scriptures on the subject.