There is perhaps no issue that has caused as much confusion as the question of what constitutes adultery. In an effort to avoid the confusion, some have concluded that one is entitled to only one marriage in life. This is an overreaction. Others have come to equally erroneous conclusions which actually seek to justify adulterous circumstances. All would agree that the issue is of eternal import because no one who practices adultery can inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Galatians 5:19-21). Of course, those who repent of adultery (and who show forth fruits worthy of repentance, Acts 26:20) obtain forgiveness. The impenitent adulterer, however, God will judge (Hebrews 13:4). It is important, therefore, that we get the issue right.
The history of the word “adultery” begins in the Old Testament. It is first found in Exodus 20:4, “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” It is stated without definition. Leviticus 20:10 clarifies that adultery is something that is done “with another man’s wife” and “with his neighbor’s wife.” Proverbs 6:32 says that adultery is committed “with a woman.” Deuteronomy 22:22 sets forth the situation explicitly. “If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.” The original and non-metaphorical sense of the word adultery has reference to the sexual relationship. I don’t know of anyone who disagrees on this point. Any man or woman who is married and engages in an extra marital sexual relationship is guilty of committing adultery.
The situation becomes more complicated when one begins to include the concept of “divorce.” Under what circumstances does one have the right to divorce and remarry and not be considered guilty of adultery? In Jesus’ day, some were saying that one could divorce “for any cause” (Matthew 19:3). To this Jesus did not agree. Instead, Jesus made it clear that one could divorce only upon the grounds of fornication and remarry and not be guilty of adultery. He said, “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” (Matthew 19:9).
What did Jesus mean by the word “adultery” in this verse? Some say that Jesus was referring to the divorcing and remarrying itself. Those who hold this view appeal to a sort of “common sense” reading of the passage. They may also cite A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Early Christian Literature: Third Edition (BDAG) p.656. Others say that Jesus used the original Old Testament definition of the word “adultery” indicating that one’s divorcing and remarrying is tantamount to the sexual act of adultery. In support of this view they cite the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament by G. Kittel, Vol.IV., p.733. It should be noted that both definitions have been used to justify remarriage after a divorce that does not occur upon the grounds of fornication.
Some argue that since “adultery” in Matthew 19:9 is only referring to the acts of divorcing and remarrying, as long as one stops divorcing and remarrying he may abide in a subsequent marriage even if his divorce was not for fornication. Others, however, accept the premise that “adultery” in Matthew 19:9 is the divorcing and remarrying but hold that “adultery” also includes the subsequent relationship. They argue that the relationship must be terminated in order to repent of adultery and further stipulate that only those who divorce on the grounds of fornication may remarry without entering into adultery as a relationship.
On the other hand, some argue that since “adultery” in Matthew 19:9 is referring to the sexual act, that the divorcing and remarrying is in name only and does not constitute a divorce and remarriage at all and that one may subsequently remarry after one has waited for one’s spouse to commit fornication in some subsequent relationship. It is then claimed that one may divorce said spouse upon the grounds of fornication. Others, however, accept the premise that “adultery” in Matthew 19:9 is referring to the sexual act but argue that the divorcing (not upon the grounds of fornication) and remarrying are binding and do not legitimate subsequent remarriages. They argue that individuals who have divorced (not upon the grounds of fornication) and remarried must repent and put away their spouse because their presumed ongoing sexual relationship constitutes adultery. If they are not having a sexual relationship, they argue that these must repent of other sins (such as lasciviousness, poor example, etc.) and separate.
It should be noted, then, that there are only two ends under consideration. There is the one end where remarriage takes place subsequent to a divorce (not on account of fornication) and those who approve of such a marriage. There is the other end where remarriage takes place subsequent to a divorce (not on account of fornication) and those who condemn such a marriage. It is this second end that Jesus has in mind. By using the word “adultery” Jesus intended to convey condemnation to those who would divorce (for reasons other than fornication) and remarry. Any teaching that undermines this basic teaching must be rejected. Only the one who has divorced his spouse upon the grounds of fornication may remarry.
It is folly to suggest that the act of marrying can be isolated from the marriage itself. Surely if the act of marrying is unauthorized, the marriage is also unauthorized. If the act of marrying is unauthorized, why would the consequences of that act, the marriage, be authorized? It wouldn’t.
It is also folly to suggest that when one has been divorced for some reason other than fornication that one may “wait it out” and pursue some additional concept of divorce. I’ll confess that I once privately held this belief, but I no longer accept it and I want to share why.
In Matthew 5:32, Jesus says, “But 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.” The expression “causeth her to commit adultery” is important. The causal aspect of her committing adultery is initiated from outside of her will on account of her husband’s having put her away on grounds other than fornication. This entails the fact that one may be put away on grounds other than fornication without one’s consent.
It is not fair nor equitable for such a circumstance to occur because it precludes the one put away from obtaining an additional marriage without engaging in adultery. The women of Jesus’ day had no recourse to the law to protest such treatment. Could the women not “divorce” their husbands after their husbands contracted another marriage and committed fornication? The text does not provide for such an option. Jesus simply said that they were being caused to commit adultery. There was no “mental” divorce; there was no appealing to elders; there was no judicial challenge available for them. They were stuck with the prospects of living alone or engaging in a marriage that Jesus characterized as adultery. Those were the only two options under their legal system.
The reality is that if the law permits divorce for some reason other than fornication, such a divorce is still considered by God as binding because the very character of the institution of marriage (and divorce) requires public acknowledgement and that necessitates human involvement. There is no such thing as a secret marriage and there is no such thing as a secret divorce; such actions must be taken publicly by definition of the institution as God ordained it. Under such circumstances, when the law is structured in such a way so as to permit (and even favor) divorces for some reason other than fornication, the Christian has no recourse but to submit to the law. Such may take away a Christian’s right, but it does not cause a Christian to violate a command of God, because God has never commanded Christians to marry. When a command of God comes in conflict with the law of the land, we must obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29). However, when it is a matter of one’s right, the Christian is under obligation to sacrifice his right in order to be submissive to the law (Romans 13:5, Romans 15:1-3).
This issue has caused much contention in our brotherhood among individuals who profess that Jesus’ words condemn those who have divorced, (not on the grounds of fornication) remarried, and remain in that marriage. Both sides of the polemic have either publicly or privately engaged in culpable rhetoric and pejorative attitudes. While we may not agree upon the means by which we come to the same end, let us agree upon the same end and let this not be an issue that further divides us.