Does adultery really break the marriage bond?

[Guest]

Hello foc,

Just a suggestion. Please tone it down a bit. Many of us enjoy this forum because we love and respect one another. It seems to me that you have some emotional tie to your understanding and therefore you seem to feel the need to pursuade rather than converse. I may be full of hot air on this since I don't know you but really I felt I needed to say it.

With all due respect.

Youre not full of hot air at all

Many folks take things I say as having a 'tone' and its almost never really meant that way at all. Most of the time these conversations are completely removed of emotion, the only time that I do get bent out of shape a bit is when a poster starts saying that I MUST be defending myself and that is the reason why I pursue this topic so much.
That isnt the case at all.
I was only interested in MDR discussion slightly until I found out that there are a few lawful marriages that have literally been destroyed over these doctrines. That should really bother ANY born again believer, kwim ?

After I post I do try to edit if I see anything that seems to sound too emotional but I do miss things a lot of times.
If you see anything in particular just show me and Ill edit it so it says what I want it to say but doesnt 'sound' so offensive

[Guest]

When we divorce our spouses 'for EVERY cause' (ie hardheartedly) we commit adultery against each other when we remarry.
Again, I must accept that fact or be in opposition to Christ Himself.

Ah, OK. Great. So what then do you understand that Jesus meant when he said that the innocent woman commits adultery when she remarries? Perhaps:

1) Jesus called it adultery because she was still, in God's eyes, married to her first husband that unlawfully divorced her?

2) Adultery is symbolic of something???

3) The second marriage itself is unlawful since God does not condone adultery?

4) Something else?

[Guest]

When we divorce our spouses 'for EVERY cause' (ie hardheartedly) we commit adultery against each other when we remarry.
Again, I must accept that fact or be in opposition to Christ Himself.

Ah, OK. Great. So what then do you understand that Jesus meant when he said that the innocent woman commits adultery when she remarries? Perhaps:

1) Jesus called it adultery because she was still, in God's eyes, married to her first husband that unlawfully divorced her?

2) Adultery is symbolic of something???

3) The second marriage itself is unlawful since God does not condone adultery?

4) Something else?

Jesus ASSUMES remarriage after divorce and its quite easy to tell that from His tone. He assumes the man is putting her away to take someone else, and He assumes that the woman will also not be able to unjustly endure a life of celibacy forced upon her by some dog of a man who cannot control his own lusts.

Christs words are not meant to damn this woman to a life of being alone because this perverted male cant control his hormones.
His words are meant only to show these hardhearted husbands the extent to which their sin is carrying...what is does to HER as well as himself.

We see this also in Matt 5:32a where the man 'causes' her to 'commit adultery' simply by putting her away before remarriage ever occurs.
The word there doesnt meant 'commit adultery' in the same sense as EVERY other time Christ says 'commits adultery' but instead in this case means ' to be adultered'....it shows that HE sins AGAINST her and has caused her to look as if she has done some wrong that caused him to throw her out.

In 5:32b, it then speaks about her remarrying to another man and there we see an agreement to all the other passages.
Some of you seem to think that Christ has now turned His attention to the innocent woman now and her new husband....He hasnt. He is STILL showing condemnation to the MAN who put her away ....showing him the extent of the damage HIS sin causes.
Christ is not declaring this new marriage as any state of ongoing adultery...He is showing the man that not only is HIS sin affecting HIM....its is affecting everyone else that this marriage being thrown away concerns.

[Guest]

Jesus ASSUMES remarriage after divorce and its quite easy to tell that from His tone.

Yea, that is how i see it too FOC.

Christs words are not meant to damn this woman to a life of being alone because this perverted male cant control his hormones.

I don't see forced celibacy the same way. Indeed, it is a blessing in that Paul says one can serve the Lord better. And, it is for such a brief time - 40, 50, maybe 80 years. In the light of eternity it is 'but a vapour'.

His words are meant only to show these hardhearted husbands the extent to which their sin is carrying

This i think is the central sticking point. I fully agree that Jesus was exposing the horrible sin of the person who divorces his wife unjustly. It is like tearing a person in two. But that is not the 'only' thing Jesus was teaching.

Jesus was also showing that the innocent woman is still bound by the marriage covenant and so any subsequent marriage will violate that covenant. That is the reason He repeatedly calls it adultery. The inviolable nature of covenants are central to our understanding of God. So Jesus is restoring this covenant to its original place of honour.

I think you see this view as a horrible indictment on a loving, gracious God. And because of that you minimise what the simple word 'adultery' actually means and what it must convey. As far as i can tell you must have two definitions for adultery. No doubt Jesus chose the word for a purpose. Your view removes almost all meaning from that word when used in respect to the innocent party. And that is where you go astray.

I see this teaching of Jesus as a wonderful example of God's holiness which we as soft hearted Christians are called to imitate. Celibacy is not a curse. Indeed, all those who find themselves abandoned by their partners are the only ones who have an opportunity to demonstrate God's faithful love to an unfaithful people.

This is a high calling in my opinion. And so it saddens me that so many cast it aside so they can get 50 years of earthly companionship.

endure a life of celibacy

Eternity beckons. Let us not be so short sighted.

Andrew
PS: I have only 'endured' two years. But so far so good!

[Guest]

Andrew,

I am sorry I have not weighed in on your original question (which may have been addressed to me). I confess, I have a hard time even finding the time to read all of these threads running concurrently on the divorce topic. This is mostly because foc is posting nearly identical, endless, repetitious posts on more than one thread simultaneously. My inability to take the time to read, again and again, his oft-repeated ideas keeps me from being able to interact meaningfully on all of the threads, so that your important question just got lost in the confusion.

I cannot answer your question authoritatively, as it is clearly a difficult one (much more difficult than foc seems to acknowledge). I can say that the problem is not new to me, and is not one that I have neglected to wrestle with. In the end, I interpret these verses in accordance with my understanding of the total subject as taught (I believe) in the whole of scripture elsewhere.

I am of the opinion that Jesus is not describing the woman's remarrying after her husband's remarriage, and is taking the two cases separately, not chronologically.

That is, His meaning (in Luke 16:18) would not be, on my view, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and whoever [thereafter] marries his ex-wife also commits adultery..."

but, rather, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery [full stop; new statement:] and whoever marries a divorced woman [i.e., before her husband has remarried, and therefore before her first marriage is really defunct], commits adultery."

I realize that my understanding presupposes some ideas that Jesus does not state outright, and I can appreciate your decision to reject it, if you judge that it is incorrect. However, I do not introduce the modifiers out of thin air, but out of my general understanding of the biblical principles on the total subject.

It does not, in my judgment, do violence to the actual statement, if one assumes that His audience had in place certain correct presuppositions on the subject (i.e., that not all divorce and remarriage is unlawful, but only such as involves remarriage after an illegitimate divorce). It is my opinion that the Jews, having been correctly informed by the law, had this understanding in place, and would rightly assume that Jesus' words should be interpreted in this light. I apply the same assumption to the last phrases in the Matthean parallels, as well.

My point is admittedly weakened by its dependence upon such an assumption, but I do not think it to be improbable.

Without this assumption in place, it would seem necessary to reach the conclusion (as some have) that the man may justly remarry if his divorce was upon the grounds of fornication, but the woman, however innocent, must never remarry while her husband lives. I know that Romans 7 and 1 Corinthians 7 are often taken to support this idea, but my analysis of those verses does not lead me to that conclusion.

[Guest]

Andrew, I am sorry I have not weighed in on your original question (which may have been addressed to me).

No problems. I struggle to keep up with it to.

I confess, I have a hard time even finding the time to read all of these threads running concurrently on the divorce topic. This is mostly because foc is posting nearly identical, endless, repetitious posts on more than one thread simultaneously. My inability to take the time to read, again and again, his oft-repeated ideas keeps me from being able to interact meaningfully on all of the threads, so that your important question just got lost in the confusion.

He is quite a character - bless his soul. He and Sozo on another forum have given me endless pleasure with their discussions. I still laugh hearterly at what i can remember!

I am of the opinion that Jesus is not describing the woman's remarrying after her husband's remarriage, and is taking the two cases separately, not chronologically.

Yea, i thought this must have been how you handled it. Thank you for articulating it here. It does seem to me to be the weaker of the two interpretations. Why do most people divorce? Usually so they can marry someone else. So i expect that is what the man had in mind and would have pursued it quickly. The woman, now 'damaged goods', would find it harder to find a new husband. So i think the logical chronology would be 'man marries immediately' and 'woman marries some time later'. But on the other hand, your view could be right too.

If my view is true, then it kills two birds with one stone. Neither abandonment nor adultery frees an innocent person to remarry. This is what i would expect if a blood covenant is only terminated by the death of one of the covenanting parties (which is as i understand it) - aka 1 Cor 7 and Rom 7.

My point is admittedly weakened by its dependence upon such an assumption, but I do not think it to be improbable.

I appreciate your frankness and is a good example for those of us less studied

Without this assumption in place, it would seem necessary to reach the conclusion (as some have) that the man may justly remarry if his divorce was upon the grounds of fornication, but the woman, however innocent, must never remarry while her husband lives.

I dont quite follow that one.

For me the key pharse is 'from the beginning it was not so'. Jesus was restoring things to their original intent - before Deut 24, before multiple wives, back to the Garden of Eden.

Adam and Eve are the example of the first marriage - joined together supernaturally by God since Eve and Adam were literally one flesh. There was nothing Eve could do to seperate herself from Adam. She was Adam's own flesh - literally. So, when God joins man and woman in marriage today and they become one flesh (similarly to Adam and Eve), there is nothing anyone can do to separate that ... apart from dying.

I think this would be better translated:

Mat 19:6 AGR Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, man cannot put asunder.

This Greek word is actually translated 'cannot' in Luk 16:26, Gal 5:17, Heb 4:15 and Heb 12:27. But i am sure there is a reason the translators didn't use it here Wish i knew why.

Hmm, i have covered way too much territory here. Sorry.

Andrew

[Guest]

agrogers wrote:

"This Greek word is actually translated 'cannot' in Luk 16:26, Gal 5:17, Heb 4:15 and Heb 12:27. But i am sure there is a reason the translators didn't use it here Wish i knew why."

Me too. Good question.

[Guest]

I don't see forced celibacy the same way. Indeed, it is a blessing in that Paul says one can serve the Lord better.

And when Paul and Christ fully acknowledge that many men and women CANNOT endure celibacy ?
Youre not being realistic about this at all but using something Paul presented as desirable and trying to pass it off as an absolute.

*IF* things were as you seem to think, then Paul is a fool because he clearly shows that widowers might need to remarry if they BURN.
Virgins need also to marry if they 'CANNOT contain'

Do you actually believe that a man who is married who WAS a virgin who could NOT contain and so married and was divorced against his will is going to be able now to contain ?

Ill play the game that a FEW might, but there are MANY divorces these days and for anyone to claim that ALL of those folks being divorced against their will CAN contain is simply naive, Steve.

No scripture says that we are magically going to be ABLE to contain....NOT burn....live celebate just because we are of more use to God if we do.
Scripture factually shows that that is NOT the case...that only those to whom it is GIVEN can live celibate.

So while YOU may find some blessing in it (if you yourself ARE living as such and not just expecting the other guy to), OTHERS to whom this gift has NOT been given are these who WOULD 'burn' and who could NOT 'contain'.

Those who are married and those who CAN contain and remain unmarried are in NO position to go against the ideas set forth from Paul in this matter.
There are those men and women out there who CANNOT contain and if they are left without a mate and are able to marry to avoid fornication they absolutely should do so.

[Guest]

This Greek word is actually translated 'cannot' in Luk 16:26, Gal 5:17, Heb 4:15 and Heb 12:27. But i am sure there is a reason the translators didn't use it here Wish i knew why.

Me too. Good question.

I don't understand you guys. I looked up the four verses above, and the verb"chōrizō" does not occur in any of them!

Furthmore in Matthew 19:6 the verb is in the imperative mode. So "Let no one separate" has the same grammatical force as "Let there be light" [Gen 1:3]

The word there doesnt meant 'commit adultery' in the same sense as EVERY other time Christ says 'commits adultery' but instead in this case means ' to be adultered'....

Foc is correct in saying that in this case the meaning is "to be adulterated".
The word is an aorist passive infinitive. Thanks, Foc. I never noticed that before. The other four uses of the word are present middle deponents. ["Deponents" are words in a passive form with an active meaning].

However observe the following:

Mark 10:12 ...and if she separates from her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.

In this case it is the wife is the active party in separating and taking up with another. So it is stated that she commits adultery (present deponent) rather than "being adulterated" (passive infinitive).

I know that many of your translations will read "divorces" in the verse quoted above. But the Greek word "apoluō" means "to separate from".

I think it is the easy separation from one's spouse and taking up with another, which Jesus speaks of as "adultery". Paul, who understood our Lord's teaching well, said that if one is loosed from one's wife (no longer bound, a true divorce) it is better to remain single. But if he marries he has not sinned.

[Guest]

I don't understand you guys. I looked up the four verses above, and the verb"chōrizō" does not occur in any of them!

Furthmore in Matthew 19:6 the verb is in the imperative mode. So "Let no one separate" has the same grammatical force as "Let there be light" [Gen 1:3]

Hi Paidion.

I was simply using E-Sword's King James Concordance which shows how the words 'let not' (strongs 3361) are translated in other verses. It says the words are translated 'cannot' in the verses mentioned.

Mat 19:6 Wherefore5620 they are1526 no more3765 twain,1417 but235 one3391 flesh.4561 What3739 therefore3767 God2316 hath joined together,4801 let not3361 man444 put asunder.5563

That was all.
Andrew