Adultery as Hyperbole?

[Homer]

Amen to what Steve said.

[BrotherElliott]

It sounds like Keener is advocating the preservation of all remarriages. I disagree. Many remarriages involve cheated spouses and I think in most cases that returning to the original spouse would be most righteous. Other remarriages may directly be justifiable based on Jesus' exception clause or Paul's exception in 1 Corinthians 7.

Homer and Steve, can you think of any circumstance (besides the explicit exceptions of fornication or abandonment) where you believe that a remarriage ought to be preserved?

Steve, I need to read your divorce and remarriage article again. I read it in 2009, but it looks like you've modified it since then. Thanks again.

[steve]

Hi Elliott,

I don't think I have modified the files on Divorce and Remarriage in recent years. I may have softened my position on a point or two since writing it (I am not sure), but I am not aware of any alterations I would need to make to bring the articles into greater conformity with my present thinking.

Would I accept as valid any remarriage that had been contracted sinfully (that is, without biblical ground for the previous divorce)? After the passage of time, in some circumstances, I think I would—depending on whether a victimized party continues to be victimized or not. Many times, when a sinful divorce and a sinful remarriage have taken place, through the passage of time, significant changes have occurred. The jilted first spouse may have died, or remarried, or declared an absolute unwillingness ever to have the cheating spouse back. In such cases, it seems there is no restitution that can be made by the repentant cheater, and remaining in the once-wrongful second marriage may possibly become a righteous option. While I have no specific scriptural direction regarding this, the case of David and Bathsheba seems to support this principle.

The grounds given by Jesus are for couples married within the same faith (comp. 1 Cor.7:10-11, with vv.12-15). "Fornication" speaks of a very serious breach of covenant. Adultery was punishable by death in the Old Testament—which would obviously leave the widow of the perpetrator free to marry again. It seems possible to me that any such sins as would righteously lead to the death penalty of the perpetrator (Rom.1:32; Acts 25:11) might similarly set the innocent spouse free from the marriage. That is, if a married man or woman were to murder someone, or engage in any other capital offense, it might be viewed by God as being the end of that man's legitimate lifetime (whether the State executed the criminal or not), freeing the spouse from the marriage. I am not sure. I do not think I have ever counseled a person in that circumstance, but I would want to be open to the consideration. On the other hand, there is the possibility that the perpetrator might not be put to death, and might yet repent. In such a case, I think a responsible reconciliation should be attempted, if at all possible.

The grounds given by Paul are described in terms of the unsaved spouse not being "content to dwell" and "depart[ing]" from the marriage. Many suggest that this disposition of the unsaved spouse may be present even when physical departure has not occurred—for example, a man who regularly expresses an unprovoked desire for divorce, or a man who uses his family members for punching bags, or who refuses to participate in the marriage—refusing to support the family, etc. Even if he never leaves the family or files for divorce, God may see this as a case of a man "not content to dwell" with his spouse.

There are some very hard cases to deliberate. Sometimes situations have become so tangled, through serious mistakes made by both parties, that it is hard to tell where the fault lies, and whether anything at all could be imagined that could remedy the situation. I am personally inclined, where there is no person whose legitimate interests continue to be violated in the situation, to recommend that all parties involved simply repent of the wrong they have done, and to ask God's grace over the whole mess. Again, David's repentance, but continuing to be married to Bathsheba, comes to mind.

I think God is not as uptight and legalistic as we sometimes can be, and His principal concern is that no one claiming to be a believer should continue in a course that makes a victim of a former spouse or children—or that avoidably brings reproach upon the name of Christ.

[mikew]

I went ahead and did an informal analysis of Matt 5:31-32. The best I could discover from the text (and apparent reliance on Deut 24:1-2) was that the issue was about defilement of the society through adultery as the side effect of reliance on improper grounds for divorce.

The analysis is at: http://www.biblereexamined.com/gospels/ ... RevA1.html

I would be interested to know if there is anything obviously weak in my presentation. (Sorry if I don't write things out clearly. I usually have to do several rewrites. But this was only an attempt at a quick analysis.)

I have not sought to discover Jesus' overall view of divorce but only the focus of the discussion at 5:31-32.

I have provided a 6 page analysis which is only required due to the fact that we are so detached from the original circumstances. Therefore, we have to look at this for the ideas revealed about the circumstances and the audience. But, the audience only had to react directly to the message --without doing a lot of research.

[kenmartin78]

Dear saints,

This is the first time I have posted on this forum. I personally know Elliot and he informed me about the forum and I have decided to join for the edification of the body of Christ. Also, I have been listening to Steve’s audio messages for the last year and they have been encouraging me to walk the straight and narrow. I wish there were more teachers like him within today’s church.

I am a little rusty on my contention of the divorce remarriage doctrine; however I want to contribute in the best way possible. FYI, I am 37 and I have been a born again Christian since 18. I am currently remarried to a born again Christian who has never been married. My first spouse committed adultery during our marriage then left me and divorced me. I hold to the two exception clauses doctrine for the grounds of remarriage (i.e., adultery and abandonment).

I have read many books, searched and studied the scriptures, counseled with trusted godly elders, and fasted/prayed concerning this important doctrine. I have read the following books: Jesus and Divorce, Gordon J. Wenham & William E. Heth (note this is the book written before Heth changed his view); Remarriage after Divorce in Today’s Church: 3 Views, Strauss, Wenham, & Heth; Till Death Do Us Part? Joseph Webb; Marriage Divorce and the Exception Clause, C.N. Brewbaker; Divorce & Remarriage, Guy Duty; & Not in Despair, Harvey Yoder; etc. I highly recommend anyone serious about the subject for either personal reasons or to counsel others to read these books. However, after all the knowledge I have gained on this subject there is just no substitute for being spiritual and having an intimate relationship with God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. For if we do not have the Spirit of God and if we do not have Christ's love then what profit is that? When inquiring after this doctrine we must have the Spirit’s leading or we have failed already.

If the letter of the law says we can remarry, or as some agree not to remarry unless there is a death of the spouse, I believe that it is also of equal importance that we are spiritual to fully know God’s will. For example, Paul rebuked the Christians at Corinth because there was no one among them that was spiritually mature enough to deal with the man taking his father’s wife. “I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not among you one wise man who will be able to decide between his brethren,” (1 Cor. 6:5). Also, “Dear brothers and sisters, if another believer is overcome by some sin, you who are godly should gently and humbly help that person back onto the right path. And be careful not to fall into the same temptation yourself” (Gal. 6.1).

Therefore, let’s ensure that we are spiritual men and there is nothing standing in the way of our relationship with God as we discuss this doctrine. I believe we are already at fault at times because of the many cases that have arisen in the past where there is not a brethren among us who is spiritual enough to judge what is right and wrong in regard to whether a remarriage with a divorce background is acceptable in God’s Kingdom and is according to His will.

So how are we to know if we are spiritual? Well, I guess that will be another post all together, but if you or I do not know the answer then we must seek to be spiritual first before we can judge in these matters.

Please understand that my first post is not a response to what anyone has said in the post on "Adultery as Hyperbole," it is only the wisdom I have gained over the years concerning this doctrine and contending for the faith in general.

Respectfully seeking to honor His name in this generation,

Kenneth

[DanielGracely]

The problem with the quote cited by BrotherElliott at the beginning of this thread is that it shows, like most translations, little understanding of what the Greek actually says in key instances about marriage and divorce. A lot of confusion is cleared up once it is understood that the ‘Perfect Passive Participle’ in the phrase “and whosever marrieth her that has been put away…” should have been translated in the middle voice, i.e., “and whosoever marrieth her that has put herself away…”. In Greek, the Perfect Passive Participle is spelled the same way as the Middle Voice, and so is translated according to the judgment of the translators. Unfortunately, the translators set up a contradiction by translating the verb as a Perf. Pass. Part.

In other words, unless the last verb in Matt 5:32 is understood as middle voice, the exceptive clause (“except for the cause of fornication”) makes no sense. For if a man is justified to divorce in the case where his wife is unrepentant of fornication, obviously God recognizes and affirms that the union is dissolved in His sight, in which case neither one can be considered still married to the other. Otherwise the exceptive clause is no exceptive clause. I think, though, that what remains is the heart attitude of the one who commited fornication (such as adultery). For if a person is unrepentant about their adultery, then, though upon their divorce they cannot be considered any longer to be committing adultery with their former spouse, since they are no longer married, there remains, I think, an issue of the heart. That is, WERE they still married to their former partner, would they still be committed to a lifestyle of adultery?

The Luke passage has also been mistakenly translated in the Perfect Passive Participle instead of the middle voice. Mark 10 clearly points out two instances in which the aggressor in adultery is condemned. Mark simply doesn’t address the innocent party’s right to remarry.

Incidentally, I have yet to see a preacher from the pulpit distinguish between lust uncondeived, which is not sin, and lust conceived, which is sin. It is James that draws the distinction. Of course, I’m not saying that having lust unconcealed is a good place for one's heart to be. But in the technical sense of the word it is not sin. This is why James says we are drawn away by lust, but THEN, WHEN lust has conceived, it brings forth sin. IMO the word “lust” behaves similarly to how the Greek word “thelo” acts, which is variously translated as “to desire” or “to will.” A careful study of Gr. “thelo” shows that it behaves as the verb “to want” in English, sometimes meaning simple desire, other times meaning desire plus will. For example, if I walked up to an ice-cream counter and was asked by the clerk what I wanted, and I responded, “I want all 31 flavors!”, then obviously I am expressing desire, not desire plus choice. But if he asks me “What do you want?” and I reply, “I want 2 scoops of vanilla with chocolate syrup,” it is understood that I am expressing not just my desire but also my choice. I believe the word “lust” in the Bible behaves the same way. And I think the context of Jesus’ remarks shows that he has in mind “lust conceived,” NOT “lust unconceived.” That is, if one is committed to adultery but simply lacks the opportunity, it is no virtue, but is sin. I wish preachers would make this distinction.

As for the woman at the well in John 4, it must be realized that even Jesus in Matt. 5 used the word “marry” in the ceremonial sense which people would understand, without meaning they were actually married. Therefore there is no reason to think Jesus did not do the same thing here in John 4. In fact, I believe there is another possible translation to Jesus’ statement to the woman at the well. Since in Greek the word “man” doubles as “husband” we may have another instance in which the translators got it wrong. For unless I’m mistaken, it could be translated,

Jesus: “Go call you husband, and come here.”

Woman: “I have no husband.”

Jesus: “You have well said you have no husband. For you have had five men, and who you now have is not a man. In that you spoke truly.”

I actually find this to be a more natural way of translating the passage, since it seems to explain better Jesus’ two-fold statement that the woman indeed spoke accurately. In fact, were she in a lesbian relationship, it would probably have been kept secret, which would more easily explain why the woman instantly thought Jesus was a prophet, for having known something no one else knew. While I wouldn’t insist on this translation, I think it should be considered. As for why the woman would infer "husband" in Jesus' opening statements, but "men/man" in subsequent statements, I think it may be justified in the context of expected remarks. At the beginning of the conversation it would seem more natural (to the extent that the conversation was natural at all, since Jesus was a Jew and Jews didn’t engage Samaratins as a general rule) for a stranger to ask about her husband. But once she declared she had no husband and Jesus said she had spoken accurately, then Jesus’ statement about her having five Gr. aner might be more readily inferred as “men” not “husbands”. The “he” in the phrase “he whom thou now hast” is, I believe, a pronoun that may also mean who, which, etc., and so is not gender specific, though it has been translated that way because of an assumption by the translator.

In short, I disagree with every (or just about every) conclusion in the quote BrotherElliott cited. There is a grounds for divorce, as Matthew showed, and no other gospel challenges that.