The Divorce Clause: Marital Unfaithfulness

Status
Not open for further replies.

UBERROGO

Senior Member
May 1, 2006
814
27
United States
Visit site
✟8,610.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Green
Doesn't say, one way or the other. I'd think that's sort of like an abuse of grace, or the result of bad judgment on the part of the person getting an unlimited amount of divorces, though.
I agree that it would be a bad idea.
 
Upvote 0

sunlover1

Beloved, Let us love one another
Nov 10, 2006
26,146
5,348
Under the Shadow of the Almighty
✟94,511.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
This clause is believed by many theologians to be a forgery. I'm inclined to agree, as I don't see why marital unfaithfulness (of all reasons) should make divorce permissible. What do you think?

Jeremiah 3:8
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.


God said this.
Jesus agrees.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PETE_
Upvote 0

mcart909

Active Member
Nov 12, 2006
311
7
38
✟7,990.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
In the first-century Mediterranean world, divorce and remarriage were common—except among the Jews. Jesus in particular used strong language in condemning the practice. In Matthew 5:31–32, he says, "It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." Similarly, in Matthew 19:9, he says, "And I say to you: Whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery" (emphases added).

Many Protestants seize on these so-called "exceptive clauses" as legitimizing divorce in cases where one of the spouses has committed adultery or engaged in some sort of sexual sin.

There are a number of problems with this. First among them is that the exceptive clauses do not appear in the parallel passages in Mark and Luke. In Mark 10:11–12, Jesus says only, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery." Likewise, Luke 16:18 says, "Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery."

This is striking. How could Mark and Luke, writing for the Greco-Roman world, omit the one, glaring exception that allows remarriage after divorce? Adultery and sexual sins were rampant in the Roman culture. Mark and Luke would have realized that their audiences needed to know about the exception even more than the Jewish audience for which Matthew wrote.

The exceptive clauses also do not appear in Paul’s discussion of divorce and remarriage. In Romans 7:2–3, he writes that "a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her husband dies she is discharged from the law concerning the husband. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress."

And in 1 Corinthians 7:10–11, 39, he writes, "To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband)—and that the husband should not divorce his wife. . . . A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. If the husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord."

Paul was dealing also with a Greco-Roman audience, and he also does not make an exception for unfaithfulness or sexual sin. (The only exception he does make is for the dissolution of a non-sacramental marriage when one spouse has converted to Christianity [1 Cor. 7:12, 15]—what we know today as the Pauline privilege—but that is a different matter.)

Because the exceptive clauses occur only in Matthew’s Gospel—one written for a Jewish audience—it suggests that they reflect some issue of particular concern to Jews. What might this be?

One possibility is that the exceptive clauses are there as an illustration of the precision demanded in rabbinic logic. In other words, the clauses indicate that if one divorces an adulterous wife, one isn’t making her into an adulteress because she already is one. That doesn’t mean that she’s free to remarry; it just means that you aren’t forcing her into an adulterous situation if you divorce her.

Another possibility is that the exceptive clauses are a way of avoiding altogether the subject of an unchaste spouse. In Judaism around this period, there was a debate between the school of Hillel and the school of Shammai over the circumstances in which one could divorce. The Hillelites argued that it could be essentially for any reason, while the Shammaites argued it could be only for adultery. The exceptive clauses could be a way of avoiding this debate. The Greek grammar allows the passage to be understood roughly in this sense: "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another—I’m not going into the subject of unchastity—commits adultery."

A third possibility is that the Greek term used for "unchastity"— inappropriate contenteia—is being used in a special sense. For example, some have taken it to refer to unchaste behavior before the marriage is consummated. At that point, it is possible to dissolve the marriage, for marriages become indissoluble only when they are consummated.

Today, with the tradition of the wedding night, it is highly unlikely a spouse could be unfaithful between the marriage ceremony and the consummation. However, in Jesus’ time it was customary for a couple to be legally married for about a year before the consummation. The bride continued to live with her family while the husband prepared their home. At the end of this time there was the "fetching of the bride" ceremony, where the groom took her back to his own home with family and friends accompanying them. Then, during the wedding party, the couple would retire and consummate their union. Clearly, within this long time frame unchastity was possible on the part of one of the spouses.

Why would Matthew be the only Evangelist to point out the possibility of dissolving such unions? Because he is the only one who mentions that, when Mary was discovered to be with child by the Holy Spirit, Joseph had in mind to divorce her quietly (Matt. 1:19). He alone would seem to have a reason to clarify why Joseph’s planned course of action was legitimate, given what Jesus said later regarding marriage.

Others have interpreted the Greek term used for "unchastity"— inappropriate contenteia—as a reference to incest, the idea being that divorce and remarriage is permissible in the case of incestuous marriages, since the marriage was never valid to begin with. If this is correct, then we have the principle that underlies modern annulments: Those who are not validly married are free to contract it.

Advocates of this interpretation point out that inappropriate contenteia is not the usual Greek term for adultery. Indeed, in the passages cited above, Jesus uses the term for adultery (moicheia) and does not identify it with inappropriate contenteia. These advocates point out also that many peoples in the eastern-Mediterranean region had marriage practices that allowed unions forbidden by Leviticus 18. This caused problems when individuals wanted to convert to Judaism and Christianity. Did they have to leave their spouses? Matthew, writing in an eastern-Mediterranean context, would have had reason to insert a clarification to prevent such converts from using the unqualified statement as justification for staying with their current spouses.

The idea that inappropriate contenteia is being used in this narrow way is suggested by two other biblical passages. In Acts 15:29, it is proposed that, to avoid offending Jewish believers, Gentile converts abstain from eating idol meat, blood, strangled animals, and from inappropriate contenteia. These objections are often regarded as being based directly on Leviticus 17–18, where the same things are prohibited in the same order.

The second passage is 1 Corinthians 5:1, where Paul applies the word inappropriate contenteia to the case of a man who has married his stepmother—a case forbidden by Leviticus 18:8. These considerations make it reasonable to assume that inappropriate contenteia is being used in the exceptive clauses to refer to incestuous unions.

Whichever above arguments you find convincing, it is clearly false that Jesus meant to allow divorce and remarriage when one party has committed adultery. Matthew 19:9 has often been read against the context of the Hillel-Shammai debate and interpreted to mean that Jesus was simply siding with Shammai in permitting divorce only for adultery. But this does not square with two key points in the text.

First, 19:3 specifically says that the Pharisees were trying to test Jesus, and it uses a Greek word—peirazo—that the synoptic Gospels use to indicate an act of malice. Even John P. Meier, a biblical liberal, notes, "If the Pharisees are simply asking Jesus he favors the opinion of Hillel or Shammi, how does this constitute a malicious attempt to force him into a dilemma whereby one choice or either choice would involve a damaging statement? After all, both rabbinic opinions were perfectly respectable" (The Vision of Matthew, 252).

Second, Jesus’ answer is so amazing that in 19:10 the disciples declare that it would be better not to marry if what Jesus has said is true. Meier again: "This is not a reaction to the well-known position of Shammai, which would hardly lead a Jew or anyone else to such a conclusion. Matthew has the disciples react all too humanly to Jesus’ total prohibition of divorce" (ibid., 253).

Finally, "if Matthew were espousing adultery as grounds for divorce, he would soon run up against grave practical difficulties. In this hypothesis, Matthew would allow divorce and remarriage for a husband and wife who had committed adultery. But a husband and wife who remained faithful to each other would not be allowed to divorce; indeed their attempt at divorce would be considered adultery. Obviously, the only thing to do for a faithful Christian couple who wanted a divorce would be to commit adultery, after which a dissolution of the marriage would be allowed. What we wind up with is divorce on demand, with a technical proviso of committing adultery. This all constitutes a strange church discipline, one in which adultery seems encouraged and fidelity discouraged" (ibid.).

The situation Meier describes is actually found in many Protestant churches. Any experienced Evangelical counselor can attest that many Evangelicals who find themselves in difficult marital situations do commit such sins specifically for purposes of being able to divorce and remarry. They may say to themselves, "Jesus will forgive me afterwards" or "I have already been forgiven for all my sins—future ones included." Through this loophole Evangelicalism has absorbed the secular world’s divorce and remarriage ethic, just as it has absorbed the secular world’s contraceptive mentality.

Fortunately, in recent years all the interpretive options mentioned above have found advocates in conservative Protestant circles. Time will tell whether this new recognition of the seriousness of Jesus’ teaching on divorce and remarriage will bear significant fruit.

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0007bt.asp
 
Upvote 0

mcart909

Active Member
Nov 12, 2006
311
7
38
✟7,990.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Jesus's point was that marriage was intended to be a lifelong covenant.

I agree.

It is immoral to try and use adultery as an excuse to get out of a marriage you are unhappy with. You have to make every effort to stay with your spouse--period.

sunlover: I don't think those verses apply.
 
Upvote 0

Joykins

free Crazy Liz!
Jul 14, 2005
15,710
1,181
53
Down in Mary's Land
✟29,390.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Anyone trying to parse Jesus's words in order to find out the absolutely correct grounds for divorce or to try to prove that divorce is never permissible is probably making the same mistake that the Pharisees made in asking him the question in the first place.
 
Upvote 0

intricatic

...a dinosaur... or something...
Aug 5, 2005
38,926
697
Ohio
✟58,189.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
sunlover: I don't think those verses apply.
The same way these ones don't?

The exceptive clauses also do not appear in Paul’s discussion of divorce and remarriage. In Romans 7:2–3, he writes that "a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her husband dies she is discharged from the law concerning the husband. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress."

....4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

intricatic

...a dinosaur... or something...
Aug 5, 2005
38,926
697
Ohio
✟58,189.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Anyone trying to parse Jesus's words in order to find out the absolutely correct grounds for divorce or to try to prove that divorce is never permissible is probably making the same mistake that the Pharisees made in asking him the question in the first place.
I agree. :thumbsup: It flies against the spirit of what marriage is.
 
Upvote 0

sunlover1

Beloved, Let us love one another
Nov 10, 2006
26,146
5,348
Under the Shadow of the Almighty
✟94,511.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I agree.

It is immoral to try and use adultery as an excuse to get out of a marriage you are unhappy with. You have to make every effort to stay with your spouse--period.

sunlover: I don't think those verses apply.

The verse I quoted:
Jeremiah 3:8
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.


shows that God gave a bill of divorce for adultry.
Jesus would agree with God, no?



I'd hate to have some new Christian come in here and get the wrong information.

How don't these verses apply.
Divorce, adultry.
God said, Jesus said
Please advise.
 
Upvote 0

mcart909

Active Member
Nov 12, 2006
311
7
38
✟7,990.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
"Anyone trying to parse Jesus's words to try to prove that divorce is never permissible..."

That's not what I'm arguing. My point is that there are no "good" reasons for divorce; if adultery is a good reason, then so is physical abuse, mental torture etc.

The bottom line is that a wife must make every attempt to reconcile with her husband (or vice versa) even if (s)he has been unfaithful.
 
Upvote 0

SoC

Soldier of Christ
Jul 15, 2004
1,200
66
39
WA, USA
Visit site
✟9,324.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Oh. My. Gosh.

You are now contending that Jesus didn't say something that the Bible says he said? What's next? God didn't give Moses the Ten Commandments, he made them up on his own? I mean come ON! Where do you draw the line between trusting the Word of God to be 100% infallible (which it is) and distrusting this part or that part? If the Bible says that Jesus said something... HE FREAKIN' SAID IT!!! Get a grip people. How can you trust anything in the Bible if you can't trust certain parts of it?

As for the divorce thing, I refer you all a few verses prior where Christ says "So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." Marriage is for life, not until you decide on a whim you don't want to be married anymore. If there has been unfaithfulness, and you cannot work it out (because you can still have a good marriage after unfaithfulness if you're willing to work at it), then you CAN get a divorce, but it isn't an automatic thing. God hates divorce according to Malachi 2:16, so let's not be looking for a reason to get one, let's be looking for reasons to not get one.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

mcart909

Active Member
Nov 12, 2006
311
7
38
✟7,990.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
You are now contending that Jesus didn't say something that the Bible says he said? What's next? God didn't give Moses the Ten Commandments, he made them up on his own? I mean come ON! Where do you draw the line between trusting the Word of God to be 100% infallible (which it is) and distrusting this part or that part? If the Bible says that Jesus said something... HE FREAKIN' SAID IT!!! Get a grip people. How can you trust anything in the Bible if you can't trust certain parts of it?

I take it you were not aware that the end of Mark is also considered to be fabricated?

((The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.))

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=48&chapter=16&version=31

9When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons. 10She went and told those who had been with him and who were mourning and weeping. 11When they heard that Jesus was alive and that she had seen him, they did not believe it.

12Afterward Jesus appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking in the country. 13These returned and reported it to the rest; but they did not believe them either.
14Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.
15He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well." 19After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God. 20Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it.

COUNTERFEIT
 
Upvote 0

Joykins

free Crazy Liz!
Jul 14, 2005
15,710
1,181
53
Down in Mary's Land
✟29,390.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
"Anyone trying to parse Jesus's words to try to prove that divorce is never permissible..."

That's not what I'm arguing. My point is that there are no "good" reasons for divorce; if adultery is a good reason, then so is physical abuse, mental torture etc.

Those are all good reasons IMO.

The bottom line is that a wife must make every attempt to reconcile with her husband (or vice versa) even if (s)he has been unfaithful.

The bottom line is not that divorce is not permissible but that to remarry is adulterous.
 
Upvote 0

sunlover1

Beloved, Let us love one another
Nov 10, 2006
26,146
5,348
Under the Shadow of the Almighty
✟94,511.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Those are all good reasons IMO.



The bottom line is not that divorce is not permissible but that to remarry is adulterous.

I think we need to look at the spirit rather than the letter too.

We all agree, I'm sure, that divorce is horrible.
None of us, filled with the Spirit of God, would choose divorce.

And I ask those who say that abuse is not a grounds for divorcement, should the woman sacrifice maybe her life, leaving children without a mom, to live with an abusive father?

I don't think we should judge those women who have been abused.

I can't, after some of the terrible stuff I've heard.

If it were my daughter, I'd say, LEAVE baby, get as far away from that man as you can.

:o
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

savedandhappy1

Senior Veteran
Oct 27, 2006
1,831
153
Kansas
✟18,944.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Matt 5:31-32

31It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 32But 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.

So is Matt 5:32 a forgery also?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.