Why Is Divorce & New Marriage Not Adultery?

[Gray]

1) historical context is ignored if one claims the passage means that divorce is adultery 

 

2) The punishment for adultery was death, not freedom from marriage. 

 

3) God gave the law to Moses, permitting divorce with a certificate. Jesus said he didn't come to destroy the law. Rather, it was the Code of Hammurabi that didn't use a certificate, the cultural context of the time.

 

4) The words "put away" in KJV and "divorce" are clearly different in this passage. 

 

5) God himself was divorced from Israel, so it's clearly not a sin. 

 

Jesus didn't say divorce was adultery. He said divorce and remarriage was adultery. Which I think means he would also consider polygamy to be adultery, since the adultery part of divorce consists of marrying a second person. You would be considered, under this view, to be still married to your first partner. 

 

Again, Jesus is presenting a higher law than the previous law of Moses, which permitted divorce and remarriage. 

 

"Put away" is referring to divorce. It's obvious from context that Jesus (if quoted correctly) disapproves of both, except in the case of infidelity. 

 

And again, God figuratively divorced from Israel due to figurative infidelity. Which according to Jesus is fine. 

Edited September 14, 2015 by Gray

[The Nehor]

Right. Which was not being followed at the time of Jesus. 

 

Inorder to say that divorce is adultery one has to claim that Jesus was doing away with the Mosaic Law, which Jesus claimed he wasn't doing.

Actually he kind of was. The Law was still in force but he was adding to it and making it harder. Jesus was not violating the Law but he was saying he had a harder law that has to be lived too.

Your interpretation makes it an absurd interjection into the text.

We have rightly been told not to judge divorcees harshly because we do not know what happened. It is still clear that God does not like divorce and some people are going to be facing some hard questions about their divorce in the next life.

[The Nehor]

1) historical context is ignored if one claims the passage means that divorce is adultery 

 

2) The punishment for adultery was death, not freedom from marriage. 

 

3) God gave the law to Moses, permitting divorce with a certificate. Jesus said he didn't come to destroy the law. Rather, it was the Code of Hammurabi that didn't use a certificate, the cultural context of the time.

 

4) The words "put away" in KJV and "divorce" are clearly different in this passage. 

 

5) God himself was divorced from Israel, so it's clearly not a sin.

1. Wrong.

2. True.

3. You are arguing that Jesus's Jewish listeners, most of whom were loyal to the Torah and its commentaries, needed to be redirected from the Code of Hammurabi? That is ridiculous.

4. And? Different words often mean the same thing.

5. God being divorced from Israel was a metaphor. By this standard we can all steal from our employers if they are about to end our employment because the parable of the unjust stewards says so.

[danielwoods]

Jesus didn't say divorce was adultery. He said divorce and remarriage was adultery. Which I think means he would also consider polygamy to be adultery, since the adultery part of divorce consists of marrying a second person. You would be considered, under this view, to be still married to your first partner. 

 

Again, Jesus is presenting a higher law than the previous law of Moses, which permitted divorce and remarriage. 

 

"Put away" is referring to divorce. It's obvious from context that Jesus (if quoted correctly) disapproves of both, except in the case of infidelity. 

 

And again, God figuratively divorced from Israel due to figurative infidelity. Which according to Jesus is fine. 

 

Jesus didn't say that divorce and remarriage was adultery. He said, only putting away (separation) without legal divorce is adultery. 

 

The greek word "apoluo" doesn't mean divorce, but "to free or put away", and in the context of the Jewish law there was a two step process, 1) giving a certificate and 2) putting away. 

 

"Paul does deal with the question of divorce and remarriage. He does not use the technical words for divorce and remarriage, but rather the descriptive terms, "bound" and "loosed." To be bound by Law means to be married by contract; to be loosed means to be loosed from that contract (i.e., divorced or widowed).

 

1 Cor. 7:27, 28 reads: 27 Art thou bound (by law) unto a wife? Seek not to be loosed (from the bonds of marriage). Art thou loosed from a wife? Seek not a wife.

28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned.

 

Few verses are plainer than these. If you are married, do not seek a divorce. If you are divorced or widowed, do not seek a wife (because of the "present distress" mentioned in verse 26). But if you do marry, YOU HAVE NOT SINNED; and if a virgin marry, she has not sinned either.

In other words, Paul says, remarriage after a divorce is NOT a sin. Thus, divorce and remarriage is NOT adultery."

 

The above quote is taken from:  http://www.truthofyahweh.org/divorce.htm

[danielwoods]

Actually he kind of was. The Law was still in force but he was adding to it and making it harder. Jesus was not violating the Law but he was saying he had a harder law that has to be lived too.

Your interpretation makes it an absurd interjection into the text.

We have rightly been told not to judge divorcees harshly because we do not know what happened. It is still clear that God does not like divorce and some people are going to be facing some hard questions about their divorce in the next life.

 

Jesus didn't do away with the law, that is what he stated. He was doing away with the faulty interpretation of the Pharisees. 

 

He also said, "my yoke is easy." ... Not harder... 

 

1. Wrong.

2. True.

3. You are arguing that Jesus's Jewish listeners, most of whom were loyal to the Torah and its commentaries, needed to be redirected from the Code of Hammurabi? That is ridiculous.

4. And? Different words often mean the same thing.

5. God being divorced from Israel was a metaphor. By this standard we can all steal from our employers if they are about to end our employment because the parable of the unjust stewards says so.

 

What is awesome is being able to study the original languages and their historical context. We disagree, and that's ok. 

[Gray]

Jesus didn't say that divorce and remarriage was adultery. He said, only putting away (separation) without legal divorce is adultery. 

 

No, Jesus is not recorded as having ever said that.

 

The greek word "apoluo" doesn't mean divorce, but "to free or put away", and in the context of the Jewish law there was a two step process, 1) giving a certificate and 2) putting away. 

 

From the context it's clear Jesus is referring to both parts of the process and is condemning both, except in cases of adultery. 

 

 

Edited September 14, 2015 by Gray

[CV75]

In the same-sex scripture-challenge thread I brought up the aspect of divorce in the scriptures, I figured I'd start a new thread because I have some questions and it's only partly related to that thread.

 

- We have Jesus in the scriptures stating plainly that if you get divorce and remarry you are committing adultery (save in cases of infidelity) 

- Paul adds another exception in the case of unbelieving spouses who leave

 

So what has changed now in the modern church?  We obviously don't consider it adultery now.  It's not a violation of the law of chastity in regards to the temple recommend questions.

 

Is this a matter of the full law being "too hard" to follow for the saints so they get a lesser law?  Kind of like tithing vs. the united order?

 

What statements do we have from the church or prophets saying that the situation Jesus described is not adultery now?  How did that "softening" come about?  Via revelation?

Matthew 5 is speaking of the higher law; there is a lesser and higher law of chastity and of adultery.

 

“…whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” But there is no policy or penalty in the earthly kingdom for doing this; that is up to the Lord to mete out in the day of reckoning.

 

Focusing on verse 32 (and Matthew 19:9): “… 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. …And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” As with lust, there is no policy or penalty in the earthly kingdom for doing this; that is up to the Lord to mete out in the day of reckoning. Divorce is still recognized and permitted in the earthly kingdom because of our fallen natures (but in the beginning, as with Adam ad Eve, it was not so!), and adultery is still a forgivable offense for the repentant.

 

In some cases divorce is the way to go: “And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.” Fornication is one of these justified reasons for divorce.

 

Because of the hardness of our hearts, divorce is still permitted in the Church, and for the same reason we also have a repentance and forgiveness process. Both are reflected in the administrative procedures of the earthly kingdom. Membership in the earthly kingdom is a help in our learning to live and then actually living the higher law (which gets higher and higher: D&C 59:4; 88:49), but there is no enforcement of that higher law until the next life.

 

I think the phrase, “causeth her to commit adultery” is used to emphasize how debased and hard-hearted it is to divorce one’s wife for reasons other than breaking the marriage covenant. As with the traditions and sins of the fathers that are foisted upon the innocents until they dwindle in unbelief, the penalty of adultery will fall upon the offender’s head.

[CV75]

I think the ultimate answer to your question is that this rule isn't enforced because the Church members wouldn't accept it. Even the Catholics try, but had to invent the concept of "annulment" to get around it.

 

Not to drop a bomb on the conversation, but I suspect the same thing will happen with the Church's non-acceptance of same-sex marriage.  It won't be a question of whether or not the Church will accept it; it will be when we have generations of Church members who can't believe we ever didn't accept it. 

 

It would be kind of like birth control; I suspect if you read a list of statements from past Church leaders on the subject of birth control to most 18 year old LDS, most would roll their eyes. Most LDS read the scriptures quoted above and just roll their eyes.

 

I think rather that there is no enforcement of the higher law in the earthly kingdom or in this life.

 

I believe the Church will continue to enforce her marriage doctrine because any higher law of a man and a woman relating to each other depends on keeping this basic principle of marriage between the man and the woman.

 

Likewise, the church does not enforce fulfilling the command to multiply and replenish the earth, but she still enforces the doctrine to do so. A couple's honesty in keeping it is between them and the Lord, and He will decide whether they are living the higher law.

[The Nehor]

Jesus didn't do away with the law, that is what he stated. He was doing away with the faulty interpretation of the Pharisees. 

 

He also said, "my yoke is easy." ... Not harder... 

 

 

What is awesome is being able to study the original languages and their historical context. We disagree, and that's ok.

Jesus's yoke is easy because he bears the burden with us and buoys us up. The gospel law is more difficult then the Law of Moses, not easier.

Disagreement is not okay. I believe we have to duel to solve this.

[3DOP]

 

Here's the KJV:

 

 

I think the ultimate answer to your question is that this rule isn't enforced because the Church members wouldn't accept it. Even the Catholics try, but had to invent the concept of "annulment" to get around it.

 

 

Cinepro...I don't know if I have ever responded to one of your pithy arguments against conservative LDS beliefs, although I have read many many over the years. I almost always disagree with your criticisms of your own professed faith. I have been satisfied to leave you alone whether your own fellow religionists care to correct you or not. But now, I must insist that you allow me to suggest that you are utterly unqualified to criticize the Catholic teaching on the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony.

 

There is no way that Catholics can believe that every so-called marriage, especially between non-Catholics or nominal Catholics is valid as a Sacrament. If you want to criticize the modern Catholic Church for being too loose about granting annulments I am with you. But if you insist that every couple who copulates after getting some note from a non-Catholic authority, while at the same time rejecting Catholic teaching on Holy Matrimony, are undoubtedly receiving Sacramental graces according to Catholic doctrine, and are therefore truly married according to 2,000 years of Catholic Tradition, then it makes me suspicious of your ability to analyze your own faith, much less mine. 

 

With no malice. I am sure you are a better Christian than me. You'll probably have a higher place than me in heaven, if I make it. That said, assuredly you do not appreciate the seriousness of the charge you raise against my faith. My apologies, but I can't let such a calumny against Holy Mother Church go unanswered.

 

Rory

Edited September 15, 2015 by 3DOP

[danielwoods]

Jesus didn't say that divorce and remarriage was adultery. He said, only putting away (separation) without legal divorce is adultery. 

 

No, Jesus is not recorded as having ever said that.

 

The greek word "apoluo" doesn't mean divorce, but "to free or put away", and in the context of the Jewish law there was a two step process, 1) giving a certificate and 2) putting away. 

 

From the context it's clear Jesus is referring to both parts of the process and is condemning both, except in cases of adultery. 

 

I disagree and here's a good example as to why. 

 

Matt. 19:3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce (apolyō) his wife for any and every reason?”

 

(Notice their question wasn't about divorce or the divorce process, but rather (apolyō) 'putting away' their wife for any reason. Because below they ask about the divorce process.)

 

Continuing to verse 7:

 

7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce (apostasion) and send her away (apolyō)?”

8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce (apolyō) your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces (apolyō) his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

 

(Notice the apostasion is not used in the last injunction rather the word for "Send away" or apolyō was used, which makes it clear it's not talking about the divorce process, but the act of simply sending a wife away (or separating) and calling it a divorce. The reason an exception is made for adultery is because adultery was punishable by death.)

[danielwoods]

Jesus's yoke is easy because he bears the burden with us and buoys us up. The gospel law is more difficult then the Law of Moses, not easier.

Disagreement is not okay. I believe we have to duel to solve this.

 

I would love to hear how you think that a person who lives with no condemnation is "more difficult" than one who does?

Edited September 15, 2015 by danielwoods

[Stargazer]

"Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.  I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

 

This "putting away of wives" does seem to refer to the practice of a man deciding he was bored with her, and just tossing her out with "I divorce you!  I divorce you!  I divorce you!"

 

What if SHE is fed up with HIM beating her if she forgets to put a pat of butter on his oatmeal in the morning?

 

Jesus didn't say a thing about the wife having any right to dump an abusive husband.  Or any other reason.  It's only husband-initiated divorce which is forbidden, then.

 

I seem to recall that when men came to Brigham Young asking for a divorce from their wives, he counseled them to keep their wives if their wives were OK with staying with him, but he would easily grant a divorce to a woman if SHE wanted one.  That seems to fulfill the spirit of the law, IMHO.

Edited September 15, 2015 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

Not buying it.

Jesus contrasts the Law with what he is saying (a more difficult standard) throughout this section. Yet for some reason in this particular verse he was saying that the Law was all that was required or that they are not doing the Law correctly by getting the bills of divorce? Nope.

 

Actually, I find that a total forbiddance of divorce is less merciful than permitting it.  This is because it literally forbids a woman from seeking relief from an unrepentant wife-beater.  She is required to stay with him for as long as it pleases him to beat her?  The only relief she has from the situation is specified in the pronouncement, which is for her to commit adultery.  Then she must hope that her husband will seek a divorce -- instead of just beating her as a punishment for adultery, or killing her.  Because this scripture does not even contemplate that a wife has a way out of a marriage at all.  It's all at her husband's control.  She is just a chattel slave in the event.

 

danielwoods' formulation makes a heckuva lot more sense, IMHO.

[Stargazer]

Jesus didn't say divorce was adultery. He said divorce and remarriage was adultery. Which I think means he would also consider polygamy to be adultery, since the adultery part of divorce consists of marrying a second person. You would be considered, under this view, to be still married to your first partner. 

 

 

 

No, polygamy is not adultery.  Adultery is to have sex with someone you're not married to.  If you are married to two women, you're permitted (required, even) to have sex with both of them.  If you then have sex with a third woman, to whom you are not married, then THAT's adultery.

[Gray]

I disagree and here's a good example as to why. 

 

Matt. 19:3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce (apolyō) his wife for any and every reason?”

 

(Notice their question wasn't about divorce or the divorce process, but rather (apolyō) 'putting away' their wife for any reason. Because below they ask about the divorce process.)

 

Continuing to verse 7:

 

7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce (apostasion) and send her away (apolyō)?”

8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce (apolyō) your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces (apolyō) his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

 

(Notice the apostasion is not used in the last injunction rather the word for "Send away" or apolyō was used, which makes it clear it's not talking about the divorce process, but the act of simply sending a wife away (or separating) and calling it a divorce. The reason an exception is made for adultery is because adultery was punishable by death.)

 

Again, it's a creative reinterpretation, but you can't get that while respecting the context of the verses, which make it clear that divorce is exactly what he's talking about. 

[Gray]

No, polygamy is not adultery.  Adultery is to have sex with someone you're not married to.  If you are married to two women, you're permitted (required, even) to have sex with both of them.  If you then have sex with a third woman, to whom you are not married, then THAT's adultery.

 

No, adultery is sex with someone other than your spouse. Sex with someone you're not married to is fornication. It's clear that Jesus didn't recognize the validity of divorce, and so taking on another spouse was regarded as adultery, since the first marriage was still in place in his eyes. Which really means that polygamy would not be allowed under this viewpoint. 

[stemelbow]

In the same-sex scripture-challenge thread I brought up the aspect of divorce in the scriptures, I figured I'd start a new thread because I have some questions and it's only partly related to that thread.

 

- We have Jesus in the scriptures stating plainly that if you get divorce and remarry you are committing adultery (save in cases of infidelity) 

- Paul adds another exception in the case of unbelieving spouses who leave

 

So what has changed now in the modern church?  We obviously don't consider it adultery now.  It's not a violation of the law of chastity in regards to the temple recommend questions.

 

Is this a matter of the full law being "too hard" to follow for the saints so they get a lesser law?  Kind of like tithing vs. the united order?

 

What statements do we have from the church or prophets saying that the situation Jesus described is not adultery now?  How did that "softening" come about?  Via revelation?

It seems we put weird pressures on ourselves all because of the way we want to treat scripture. Scripture tells us plenty of things that Jesus said or that Jesus would say. The problem is we don't know that Jesus sanctions it all. The gospels are written as if they are first hand, but all evidence point to them being written by someone other than the claimed author. That's fine. no problem to me. But that means some of the things we pull from the text might just be preachy stuff that Jesus never endorsed. Divorce might not be as bad as we want it to be, because of the training we've received. I say leave people to it. It may be exactly what God wants them to do. How would we know?

[danielwoods]

Again, it's a creative reinterpretation, but you can't get that while respecting the context of the verses, which make it clear that divorce is exactly what he's talking about. 

 

Actually, it is exactly what the context (both cultural and greek) says. I've love hear a thoughtful refutation of what I presented. Until then, it's clear to me that Jesus wasn't doing away with the Mosaic law, only the mis-interpretation of it by hard-hearted men. 

Edited September 15, 2015 by danielwoods

[Gray]

Actually, it is exactly what the context (both cultural and greek) says. I've love hear a thoughtful refutation of what I presented. Until then, it's clear to me that Jesus wasn't doing away with the Mosaic law, only the mis-interpretation of it by hard-hearted men. 

 

If Jesus is just saying, "it's okay to get divorced, just make sure it's official first" then that renders his entirely commentary null. The format of his teaching is "Moses taught you X, but I say, do Y. Y is higher than X" What you say makes Jesus' teaching entirely nonsensical and pointless. 

 

Do you know of any textual critic who agrees with your reading?

Edited September 15, 2015 by Gray

[Glenn101]

If Jesus is just saying, "it's okay to get divorced, just make sure it's official first" then that renders his entirely commentary null. The format of his teaching is "Moses taught you X, but I say, do Y. Y is higher than X" What you say makes Jesus' teaching entirely nonsensical and pointless. 

 

Do you know of any textual critic who agrees with your reading?

 

 

I have not really found a textual critic, i.e. one who has a degree in Greek and Hebrew and is an expert in textual criticism, but I have found several people on the internet that have come to similar conclusions. I do not think that  "it's a creative reinterpretation" but rather seems to have support from others. And that interpretation is more in line with Church policies.

 

I remember something about some official part of LDS canon or other which states that "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly...."  

I think that the culture and religious beliefs of the time had some influence on the translations of those scriptures (as well as all other parts of the Bible). It certainly has something to do with the way we interpret what we read here and now.

 

Glenn

[cinepro]

There is no way that Catholics can believe that every so-called marriage, especially between non-Catholics or nominal Catholics is valid as a Sacrament. If you want to criticize the modern Catholic Church for being too loose about granting annulments I am with you. But if you insist that every couple who copulates after getting some note from a non-Catholic authority, while at the same time rejecting Catholic teaching on Holy Matrimony, are undoubtedly receiving Sacramental graces according to Catholic doctrine, and are therefore truly married according to 2,000 years of Catholic Tradition, then it makes me suspicious of your ability to analyze your own faith, much less mine. 

 

With no malice. I am sure you are a better Christian than me. You'll probably have a higher place than me in heaven, if I make it. That said, assuredly you do not appreciate the seriousness of the charge you raise against my faith. My apologies, but I can't let such a calumny against Holy Mother Church go unanswered.

 

Rory

 

Apologies, I was just going off my understanding of the Catholic "declaration of nullity", such as described here. It was an illustration of the contrast between how Mormons have learned to deal with the reality of "divorce" in light of the scriptural teachings against it (i.e. ignoring those teachings) compared with a religion which takes those teachings very seriously but also must deal with the reality of "divorce" (i.e. by making the argument that the marriage was never valid in the eyes of the Church in the first place, and thus it is annulled instead of "divorced"). 

 

The point being that even if the LDS Church decided today that this was a teaching of Jesus that we were going to start adhering to 100%, there would still need to be some process put in place for members to get divorced and remarried and remain in good standing in the Church.  Whether that process was similar to the Catholic "annulment" or some new and creative method were adopted, it would need to be done.

[The Nehor]

I would love to hear how you think that a person who lives with no condemnation is "more difficult" than one who does?

The secret is not to be condemned.

[The Nehor]

I have not really found a textual critic, i.e. one who has a degree in Greek and Hebrew and is an expert in textual criticism, but I have found several people on the internet that have come to similar conclusions.

I can find several people on the internet who believe the Earth is flat or that the abolition of slavery is where the United States started going wrong.

[The Nehor]

Actually, I find that a total forbiddance of divorce is less merciful than permitting it.  This is because it literally forbids a woman from seeking relief from an unrepentant wife-beater.  She is required to stay with him for as long as it pleases him to beat her?  The only relief she has from the situation is specified in the pronouncement, which is for her to commit adultery.  Then she must hope that her husband will seek a divorce -- instead of just beating her as a punishment for adultery, or killing her.  Because this scripture does not even contemplate that a wife has a way out of a marriage at all.  It's all at her husband's control.  She is just a chattel slave in the event.

 

danielwoods' formulation makes a heckuva lot more sense, IMHO.

It makes sense because we want to believe it. Pretty much a textbook definition of "wresting the scriptures".

For whatever reason the Lord currently allows divorce. Probably for the same reason he took away consecration. I still think many people will face some hard questions about their divorces in this life.