# Divorce And Matthew 5:31,32



## ISPringle (Mar 28, 2013)

“It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ 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.'" -Matthew 5:31-32, ESV

I do not recall where I heard it, if I did I'd go there, but I do remember hearing, or reading, somewhere that the above passage would have been taken as humorous in Jesus' time because it is some type of circular reasoning joke. Essential the joke is: Divorce is wrong because you make an adulterer out of your wife, unless of course she is already an adulterer when you divorced her.

The unless is not that you can divorce on the grounds of adultery, but rather that she's already an adulterer in that case. 

I guess I'd just shut-up and accept the common teaching that divorce is OK in cases of adultery, except I simply cannot rationally put the above verse and Ephesians 5:25, "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her". 

Jesus loved the adulterer as much as the next sinner, so I cannot really figure out how to stick these two together without concluding that one or the other has to be wrongly interpreted. 

Any thoughts or help with my above issue? 

Thanks!


----------



## BuckeyeGirl (Apr 6, 2013)

I have trouble reconciling the verses in Matthew regarding divorce and that passage in Ephesians as well. Should not loving one's spouse as Christ loved the church entail forgiving adultery? Although I daily sin and fail to love God above all else, He does not cast me away! I realize that the general consensus amongst Christians is that divorce is permitted on the grounds of adultery; however, I struggle with my opinion about this.


----------



## Afterthought (Apr 6, 2013)

Didn't Christ have the same relationship with His Church in the OT? If so, then divorce was permitted then for the hardness of people's hearts, and so apparently, this particular aspect of Christ's relationship with His Church does not necessarily imply divorce is absolutely forbidden? Though of course, the "permission" granted for divorce should probably be seen as a concession of sorts, since divorce was not within the original design of marriage (though of course, neither was adultery or desertion)?


----------



## moral necessity (Apr 6, 2013)

I'm fairly certain that adultery means basically a breach of contract. Therefore, when you divorce your wife, you are forcing her out of her contract with you, hence adultery. Also, when she has relations with another man besides her husband, she violates the contract, hence adultery. Divorce is therefore permissable, because the contract has already been broken by her actions.

This perspective helped me to better understand the passages.

Blessings!


----------



## Scott1 (Apr 6, 2013)

> Westminster Confession of Faith
> 
> Chapter XXIV
> Of Marriage and Divorce
> ...


.


> Scripture Proofs
> 
> [1] GEN 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. MAT 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. PRO 2:17 Which forsaketh the guide of her youth, and forgetteth the covenant of her God.
> 
> ...


----------



## Miss Marple (Apr 6, 2013)

Francesca, the fact that adultery is (was) a death penalty offense helped me to understand this.

The adulterous partner should have been put to death, after of course being fairly convicted.

Once dead, the innocent spouse is free to remarry.

If the death penalty is not carried out, due to malfeasance on the part of the civil magistrate, it seems to me the innocent spouse should still be free to remarry.

I would draw a similar analogy in the instance of, say, a spouse who molesst his/her children. They really should be put to death for that, at least in my opinion. Anyway, current law will not have them put to death, but probably just put away for a few years. I think in that instance the innocent spouse can and should remarry, since they are presumably in their younger years and their poor kids could probably use a much better example of a mom/dad.

I am in no authority and don't mean to be flippant, but I think the existence of the death penalty, even if not consistently or truly applied, has at least some bearing on an innocent spouse being allowed to remarry.


----------



## Scott1 (Apr 6, 2013)

BuckeyeGirl said:


> I have trouble reconciling the verses in Matthew regarding divorce and that passage in Ephesians as well. Should not loving one's spouse as Christ loved the church entail forgiving adultery? Although I daily sin and fail to love God above all else, He does not cast me away! I realize that the general consensus amongst Christians is that divorce is permitted on the grounds of adultery; however, I struggle with my opinion about this.




The Westminster Confession summarizes the doctrine of Scripture on this well. It doesn't address quite everything, but most of it.

I think the biblical answer to your question is that the innocent party to adultery MAY. It is not a requirement, the highest road is always reconciliation.

It may be God provided this to prevent undue hardship on an innocent spouse, but that is getting into speculation because the Scripture does not clearly say that.

Notice also Westminster says the parties are not to be left to themselves, the church and/or the state are to be involved in making the narrow determination of whether it is applicable.

It is indeed narrow, not generally a unilateral decision, and never required. One can certainly imagine a pattern of adultery ongoing as being an incredible repudiation.

This is indeed difficult as it bothers me there can be any exception, but I have come to see these are the biblical principles, widely violated in our time, with enormous, lifetime consequences.


----------



## BuckeyeGirl (Apr 9, 2013)

Thank you all for the replies! This has given me much to think over. 

Miss Marple: I have heard the argument about adultery and the death penalty before. It does help in understanding this somewhat; however, one thing does give me pause. Other sins also carried the death penalty as punishment, correct? So then wouldn't those other sins also be cause for divorce?


----------



## MW (Apr 9, 2013)

ISPringle said:


> Jesus loved the adulterer as much as the next sinner, so I cannot really figure out how to stick these two together without concluding that one or the other has to be wrongly interpreted.



The analogy is breaking down at the point where "adultery" is being considered in only one sense. The physical union of husband and wife is likened to the the spiritual union between Christ and the church, but the scenario only allows for physical adultery in both cases. If we take into account the sad reality of spiritual adultery in the church, and apply the Scriptures where God cut off Israel under the Old Testament, and Christ cuts off faithless members of the visible church under the New, the analogy and likeness will appear more clearly.


----------



## MW (Apr 9, 2013)

Miss Marple said:


> I am in no authority and don't mean to be flippant, but I think the existence of the death penalty, even if not consistently or truly applied, has at least some bearing on an innocent spouse being allowed to remarry.



Something else that might be worth considering -- divorce frees the married person. If it frees the innocent person, it also frees the guilty person. If the guilty person is not put to death, he or she is also free to remarry.


----------



## Miss Marple (Apr 9, 2013)

"Other sins also carried the death penalty as punishment, correct? So then wouldn't those other sins also be cause for divorce? "

It would seem so, logically, to me. At least it is a point to be considered.


----------



## MW (Apr 9, 2013)

Other sins in and of themselves are not a legitimate cause for divorce.


----------



## littlepeople (Apr 9, 2013)

Miss Marple said:


> "Other sins also carried the death penalty as punishment, correct? So then wouldn't those other sins also be cause for divorce? "
> 
> It would seem so, logically, to me. At least it is a point to be considered.



The scripture only tells of adultery and abandonment. We ought not add to what has been given. Given the nature of sabbath observation in this country, everyone would be entitled to divorce their spouse.


----------



## Miss Marple (Apr 10, 2013)

Mr Moran, Pastor Winzer, I don't endorse divorce in these circumstances, I was just admitting that it would be a logical conclusion for the "adultery is grounds for divorce since the adulterer should have been put to death" argument.

I am not certain about the issue, hope I never have to face it, and was just trying to present the argument as I best knew it, because it did help me understand the issue somewhat.


----------



## SRoper (Apr 10, 2013)

I believe one of the better known theonomists took the position that crimes that would have resulted in a death sentence under OT civil law are grounds for divorce. I'm not convinced.


----------



## sevenzedek (Apr 10, 2013)

Some have taken the words "sexual immorality" to erroneous conclusions because they are translated from the Greek word "porneía". The reasoning is that, since porneía can sometimes refer to spiritual adultery, a person can find just grounds for divorce more easily. For instance, if one spouse becomes an unbeliever, that would be spiritual adultery. Their spouse could then legitimately divorce on the grounds of "porneía" because the unbelieving spouse left the faith. But this opens the door wide for divorce because all sin can be viewed as spiritual adultery. Jesus gave us narrow criteria for divorce. If we trade it for a broad interpretation, everyone who is now married would seem to have a just ground for divorce.


----------



## David Pope (Apr 10, 2013)

ISPringle said:


> I guess I'd just shut-up and accept the common teaching that divorce is OK in cases of adultery, except I simply cannot rationally put the above verse and Ephesians 5:25, "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her".
> 
> Jesus loved the adulterer as much as the next sinner, so I cannot really figure out how to stick these two together without concluding that one or the other has to be wrongly interpreted.
> 
> ...



The following line of thought has been bouncing around in my head: 

The respective parties to these covenants/contracts should be considered. When Adam (and we in Adam) broke the Covenant of Works (parties: God, Adam), God instituted a new Covenant of Grace (parties: God, Christ). Although we are beneficiaries of the Covenant of Grace in our union with Christ, we are not a party to the Covenant of Grace. When the condition of the marriage contract (parties: Husband, Wife) is transgressed by adultery, there is the option for the innocent spouse to dissolve the contract through divorce. In this way there is a parallel between God’s action after Adam’s betrayal and the innocent spouse’s action after their spouse’s betrayal. 




> WLC
> 
> Question 22: Did all mankind fall in that first transgression ?
> 
> ...


----------

