According to The Complete WordStudy Dictionary (#3429), the true meaning of Jesus' words about adultery at Matthew 5:32 is often misconstrued due to poor translating. For, most Bibles render the words there as reading, ‘But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.’
As you can see, the implication is that any divorced woman, regardless of whether she is actually innocent of committing adultery, is deemed an adulteress when she is divorced. And anyone who thereafter marries her is then termed an adulterer.
However, the dictionary mentioned above points out that these conclusions are incorrect, for they fail to recognize the subject of the sentence, which is the need to provide a faithful wife with a certificate of divorce. And when such a certificate is not given, it implies that she has been and adulteress, and thereafter, anyone who marries her is assumed to be an adulterer.
So, if these conclusions are true, perhaps some need to adjust their views on what constitutes adultery.
According to The Complete WordStudy Dictionary (#3429), the true meaning of Jesus' words about adultery at Matthew 5:32 is often misconstrued due to poor translating. For, most Bibles render the words there as reading, ‘But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.’
As you can see, the implication is that any divorced woman, regardless of whether she is actually innocent of committing adultery, is deemed an adulteress when she is divorced. And anyone who thereafter marries her is then termed an adulterer.
However, the dictionary mentioned above points out that these conclusions are incorrect, for they fail to recognize the subject of the sentence, which is the need to provide a faithful wife with a certificate of divorce. And when such a certificate is not given, it implies that she has been and adulteress, and thereafter, anyone who marries her is assumed to be an adulterer.
So, if these conclusions are true, perhaps some need to adjust their views on what constitutes adultery.
Some good research. Thanks Jim, :thumbup:
Hello JWHVACR,
Only in Matt. 19:9 did Jesus offer an 'out' (exception) for divorce. Mark and Luke have no exception clause. (I know you know this :)
The Puritan theologian, John Owen, stated the meaning of the exception clause very succinctly:
"Every exception is a particular case that is contradictory to a general rule. The rule here in general is: 'He that divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery.'
The exception here is : 'He that divorces his wife because of fornication (hers)* and marries another does not commit adultery.'
Re (hers) above, I added that in as it seems to me it is referring to the woman's sexual activity with another man.
I believe the same liberty is given to a wife whose husband has committed adultery and women did seek to divorce but only the man could write out the certificate. Wasn't there an option for the woman under Roman Law? I read somewhere that the husband had to voluntarily do it or if he resisted, he was beaten by the Court system.
Tessa
Yeah, Tessa. Both the wording of this verse and the explanation by the dictionary are pretty vague to me, and I'm still trying to resolve what was meant.
What appears to be true is that a woman who is released legally by her husband is free to remarry, which makes sense. While I certainly understand what adultery means (an unfaithful act in a marriage relationship), the intent as it relates to a succeeding relationship doesn't follow well.
It would appear as though a man who won't provide his wife a certificate of release gives the impression to others that she is an adulteress if she marries another. If so, I like the wording of the God's Word translation, "But I can guarantee that any man who divorces his wife for any reason other than unfaithfulness makes her look as though she has committed adultery. Whoever marries a woman divorced in this way makes himself look as though he has committed adultery."
However, I am reluctant to advise a course to someone based on this explanation.
Well, this thread has been allowed to die, but hopefully, enough have read it to think about what this means.
Hi Jim
Re: "...have read it to think about what this means."
Your research is very much appreciated....always, yes......always!
Christian love and appreciation,
gogh
Hi Jim
Re: "...have read it to think about what this means."
Your research is very much appreciated....always, yes......always!
Christian love and appreciation,
gogh
It's good to have friends... thanks.
Yeah, Tessa. Both the wording of this verse and the explanation by the dictionary are pretty vague to me, and I'm still trying to resolve what was meant.
What appears to be true is that a woman who is released legally by her husband is free to remarry, which makes sense. While I certainly understand what adultery means (an unfaithful act in a marriage relationship), the intent as it relates to a succeeding relationship doesn't follow well.
It would appear as though a man who won't provide his wife a certificate of release gives the impression to others that she is an adulteress if she marries another. If so, I like the wording of the God's Word translation, "But I can guarantee that any man who divorces his wife for any reason other than unfaithfulness makes her look as though she has committed adultery. Whoever marries a woman divorced in this way makes himself look as though he has committed adultery."
However, I am reluctant to advise a course to someone based on this explanation.
JWVACR,
I always imagined that unfaithfullness also meant adultery.
What it means to me is that a woman should not be divorced unless she has comitted adultery.
There is no other unfaithfull act which she could be divorced for.
Otherwise there is a giant loophole in the entire scripture.
People can make up whatever they want "unfaithfull" to mean.
So you would then have a bigger problem with the word "unfaithfull" than the word "adultery".
What I take away from this scripture is that a wife could make her husbands life a living hell and he would be stuck with her forever as long as she did not commit adultery.
I think that is why the disciples asked the question; "who then should marry"?
In Christ
abe
AHH ABE,,
unfaithfullness in Heart is worse..
Why do you think Jesus said "if you even look at a woman"
he changed the game alltogether
We cannot make someone LoVE us..
But oh when they dooooo... and you know they do its great... and no sex is involved just LOVE for LOVES sake
Jim -- I don't know that Greek speaking members of the early congregations in the 2nd century had access to "The Complete WordStudy Dictionary" but they commonly understood from Jesus words that any divorce with remarriage was an act of adultery. You can see echoes of this in Paul's instructions that overseers be husbands of one wife. He is not talking about polygamy as the Watchtower teaches.
Well, I've learned that it's not a perfect world, and that's why Jehovah allowed divorce. In ancient Israel, a man could divorce his wife although faithful. And the same is true today. Is she then to be penalized if she chooses to remarry?
The WTS says that the husband must first commit adultery to free her to remarry. However, the scripture seems to indicate that she should be legally set free to remarry if she chooses. That sounds reasonable, and God's Laws are always reasonable.
And though I realize that 1st Century Christians didn't have the advantage of our Bible dictionaries, they did actually read and understand the language. And if they read Aramaic (the language of Matthew), they may have even known what Jesus said before his words were translated into Greek, Latin, English, etc.
Totaldismay thats an astute point.
Fornication for Jesus wasn't the mere act of fornication but also and more importantly of the heart. So what I get from Jesus` words here is that fornication of the heart would provide grounds for divorce. So with this in mind i think that actual sex outside of the ones marriage might not of itself constitute grounds for divorce because its not necessarily going to be unfaithfulness at the level of the heart. Love could still exist between the two marriage mates, and the relationship would therefore be amenable to reconstruction and forgiveness. Marriage for Jesus I think wasn't a legal contract in that when one broke the agreement it could or should be dispensed with. This is the same attitude God had for Israel and us as Christians. We break our contract with God according to law and a legalistic viewpoint all the time but God forgives us anyway. If though we were unfaithful at the level of the heart, ie if the love was gone, then it would be grounds for divorce. In other words if grace can be applied to a broken marriage, it should be disregarding a legalistic attitude. So adulatory is not always grounds for divorce on the fleshly level, but on the level of the heart. For instance a man might have a problem with with drug abuse. He might then use dirty needles routinely placing the life of his wife in mortal danger due to aids or whatever else. If he continually refused to get help or stop using dirty needles ect ect that could be grounds for divorce because he is repeatably repudiating his first loyalty to his wife. It could in affect be fornication of the heart. So sex outside of marriage may not be grounds for divorce and drug abuse or whatever other repudiation of love could be. Transversely the opposite is also true.
Only those who realize that what is going on at the level of the heart is greater than a perceived action or surface appearance when it comes to truth can grasp this. Also those who understand that love is greater than law, and grace than sacrifice will see the truth of this. God wants a relationship based on love, forgiveness and grace not one with no love, legalism and judgment.
Ahh and I know of a scripture that says that it would be up to the mate to divorce if adultery was committed..
To me it is very simple.. why on earth or in heaven would you want to be with someone who does not LOVE you?
the only reason I can imagine is if we are broken.. which most of us are to different extents..
we cannot help being broken we just are. it is due to the original sin in my estimation.
we cannot LOVE ourselves in a healthy and balanced way without going thru some crap in life.
So if we cannot LOVE ourselves rightly how can we LOVE another.
Contracts way back when were not about LOVE they were legal matters.
in heaven angels neither marry nor are given in marriage
why would we ever have need of divorce should be the question in my mind
Ahh and I know of a scripture that says that it would be up to the mate to divorce if adultery was committed..
To me it is very simple.. why on earth or in heaven would you want to be with someone who does not LOVE you?
the only reason I can imagine is if we are broken.. which most of us are to different extents..
we cannot help being broken we just are. it is due to the original sin in my estimation.
we cannot LOVE ourselves in a healthy and balanced way without going thru some crap in life.
So if we cannot LOVE ourselves rightly how can we LOVE another.
Contracts way back when were not about LOVE they were legal matters.
in heaven angels neither marry nor are given in marriage
why would we ever have need of divorce should be the question in my mind
I do agree with you. Although there sometimes there is the need. If ones murders the love!
I certainly agree with you regarding loving ones-self before being able to love another. This scriptures says the same thing. One cant love ones neighbor as unless one loves oneself and so even more so with a spouse.
Mar 12:31 "And [the] second [is] similar to it, 'You will love your neighbor as yourself'-no other commandment is greater [than] these." [Lev 19:18]
In the same way as loving oneself can sometimes mean we cut off certain behaviors or habits because they harm us, so too can this be applied in marriage meaning that divorce could sometimes be necessary in extreme cases. If a marriage is one flesh then divorce could be likened to cutting off ones arm or leg if it is making us stumble.
Brother "Although there sometimes there is the need."
are you meaning sometimes we need divorce?
IF so. you misunderstood what I said.
all others that are not as angels need the law..
does that make more sense. As we can be unevenly yoked. specialy if it is a long marriage people grow and change. BUt What I get is if we can stay for the long haul and have patiences our partner will rise up as well at some point. all things in due time.
inless of course they out right reject LOVE. then we may have little hope..
I think Paul touched on this.. saying if our mate did not want to stay due to our being christian that we should let them go.