Fact is, the scriptures allow divorce on grounds other than "adultry".
Paul said that if the unbeliving wife (or husband) leaves, then they are not bound. That is abondonment. (cf. 1 Cor. 7:15)
1 Cor. 7:10. But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband
11. (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.
1 Cor. 7:15. Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such {cases,} but God has called us to peace.
Pauls teaching on divorce and remarriage was, of course, the same as that of Jesus in the undisputed passages where Jesus teaches on the subject:
Like 16:18. Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.
Mark 10:11. And He *said to them, Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her;
12. and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.
Remarriage (to a different spouse) after a divorce is forbidden by Jesus because the man or woman divorcing a spouse is still married to the original spouseand nothing can change that until either the man or the woman dies:
Rom. 7:3. Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives?
2. For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband.
3. So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man.
Both of the two teachings on divorce and remarriage in Matthew (5:31-32, 19:3-12) and Pauls teaching at 1 Cor. 7:15 must be interpreted in harmony with the expressly clear passages. Most certainly, the Pauline privilege (as it is called), is not a license to commit adultery!
Matt. 5:31. "It was said, 'WHOEVER SENDS HIS WIFE AWAY, LET HIM GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE';
32, but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for {the} reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
In verse 32, Jesus is clearly teaching that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery (if she is already an adulteress, he does not make her one by divorcing her). Moreover, permission to remarry is NOT granted here (or elsewhere) to either the man or the woman!
When we read the discussion in the Matt. 19:3-12, however, we run into a problem:
Matt. 19:3. Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?
4. And He answered and said, Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,
5. and said, FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH?
6. So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.
7. They *said to Him, Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?
8. He *said to them, Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.
9. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.
10. The disciples *said to Him, If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.
11. But He said to them, Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given.
12. For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.
In Matt. 19:3-12, we find a group of Pharisees attempting to trap Jesus into taking sides in a theological debate and stir up strife by asking Jesus to take a side in the Hillel-Shammai dispute that was raging at the time. The very popular and theologically liberal Rabbi Hillel taught that it was lawful for a Jewish man to divorce his wife for any cause whatsoever; the far less popular and theologically conservative Rabbi Shammai taught that it was lawful for a Jewish man to divorce his wife only if she had committed adultery against him. The Pharisees knew that Jesus was very conservative in His theology and they believed that He would most likely take the side of Rabbi Shammai, and consequently become, along with Rabbi Shammai, far less popular with the people.
If the exception clause in Matt. 19:9 is genuine scripture rather than a very early addition to the original text, we have Jesus falling right into the trap set for Him by the Pharisees and taking the side of Rabbi Shammai. In my opinion, Jesus was not so foolish as to fall into such a trap and that He replied to them,
9. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery.
That this was His actual reply is confirmed by the reaction of His disciples,
10. The disciples *said to Him, If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.
This was not the reaction of the Jews to the teaching of Rabbi Shammai, so we can be quite certain that Jesus taught very differently, and did not include in His answer the exception for adultery that Rabbi Shammai included in his teaching. And, in His teaching elsewhere, Jesus is not quoted as including the exception for adultery having been committed.
The exception clause in Matt. 19:9 has a very large amount of early manuscript support (although with a number of variations); therefore, most New Testament translators translate from a Greek text that includes the exception clause. However, very many scholars of the synoptic gospels believe that the exception clause could not have been a part of the teaching of Jesus because it directly contradicts the teaching of Jesus, not only as found in Mark, Luke, and Paul, but also in the rest of Matthew. Indeed, if the exception clause is genuine, Matt. 19:9 cannot be harmonized with Matt. 19:8,
8. He *said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.
9. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.
Whenever Jesus introduces his teaching with the words, I say to you (there are more than 50 occurrences in Matthews Gospel alone), He is introducing a new teaching that goes beyond the commonly accepted rabbinic teachings of his day. If the exception clause is genuine, in verse 9 Jesus is not introducing a new teaching; He is falling into the Pharisees trap by taking Shammais side in the debate! Therefore, the verse should read,
9. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery.
Compare Luke 16:18,
18. Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.
And not only that, if the exception clause is genuine, in verse 9 Jesus is contradicting what he had just said in verses 4-6.
4. And He answered and said, Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,
5. and said, FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH?
6. So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.
This three-word exception clause has given birth to countless thousands of theological and legal debates, but it is probably a very early addition (before the oldest known manuscripts of Mathews gospel were written) made to the gospel that does not belong there. It may have resulted from a scribe reading a similar phrase earlier in Matthews gospel (chapter 5) and believing that it also belonged in Matt. 19:9,
Matt. 5:31. It was said, WHOEVER SENDS HIS WIFE AWAY, LET HIM GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE';
32. but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
We find the exception clause here in verse 32, but notice again why it is included hereif a man divorces his wife he makes her an adulteress except for the cases where she already is one.
How many pastors today would dare to preach from the pulpit that remarriage (after divorce) to a different spouse is forbidden by Christ Jesus Himself because all second marriages are an adulterous relationship as long as the first spouse is still alive. When His own disciples heard Him teach it, they were so upset that they complained, If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marrya complaint that Jesus let stand! Marriage is not a human arightit is a privilege with strict rules attached to it. People who do not like the rules should not get married.
Our Baptist churches are largely autonomouseven in the SBC, and the SBC is not heavy-handed but increasingly toleranteven on the subject of homosexuality. Certainly some of the individual churches in the SBC have more pull with the denomination than othersand having a member who is an outspoken former President of the United States contributes to that pull. Jimmy Carter is an advocate for what he believes to be human rights, and a rapidly growing number of Christiansincluding Baptistshave adopted that position. In that framework, the SBC can hardly dare to take a stand against homosexuality.
