I will make just a few comments pertaining to Ron's latest post, and then I will move forward to the next critical aspect of our proposition which bears closer scrutiny. I think it would be very easy for us to allow this debate to deteriorate to a "did too" ... "did not" ... "did too" ... "did not" ... exchange between the participants. And I don't think this is in the best interests of any of the parties involved. Thus, when it is clear that we have each stated our convictions about a matter, and when it is equally clear that neither of us is going to sway the other from that conviction, it is probably best to acknowledge that fact and move forward as best we can to other aspects of the proposition under consideration. Few debates ever end with one side "winning over" the other to their own point of view. Rather, most debates conclude with both sides having presented their best arguments for their positions (with some degree of mutual challenging of those positions), and then letting the reading/listening public make a determination as to which side is nearer the Truth. I believe that will be the outcome here, and I imagine Ron would agree with that assessment.

Let me begin by simply clarifying something Ron said. Brother Thomas stated: "Al said he would part company with me because I view...." He then quoted me as saying, "However, where I would have to part company with Ron's perspective is in the view that...." I think it is important, for the sake of our unity as brethren in Christ, to note that it is with Ron's perspective or view that I "part company," and not with Ron himself, as his previous statement could perhaps be interpreted by some. Ron and I differ in our understandings of what Jesus sought to convey in His teaching on MDR, however I regard Ron as a faithful servant of the Lord and a precious brother in Christ. I have no desire to part company with him, but only his divorce & remarriage theology. At a time when there is so much dissension and division associated with theological debate, I felt it was important to note this distinction. I have no doubt my brother will agree with me on this.

Another point which needs to be clarified: Ron wrote, "Al suggested that the passages I referred to speak nothing at all on the concept of mutilation." Actually, that is not what I stated. Here is what I actually wrote (and Ron quotes me): "A careful reading of all of these passages, however, will clearly reveal that they have nothing whatsoever to do with castration, or making oneself a eunuch." I said they had nothing to do with castration or making oneself a eunuch. Yes, these are forms of mutilation, but self-mutilation may assume many forms, and be performed for many purposes. The ones specifically mentioned in the passages proffered by Ron, however, are limited in scope to the pagan practices associated with great distress and mourning, and were largely linked to attempts to gain the attention, or solicit the favorable action, of the gods. The particular passages Ron mentions have no reference to castration whatsoever. Making oneself into a eunuch is a form of self-mutilation NOT in view anywhere in the context of those passages; not even remotely. I have yet to see a commentary which even suggests it (though with the countless commentaries on the market I don't doubt one could eventually be found).

Ron seems to want to develop the argument that since the word "cut" is used in the passages in question, and since castration would require a "cutting," then the latter must be part of the prohibition of the former. However, by such reasoning one could also argue for the exclusion of circumcision, which also requires a "cutting" of the physical body, and indeed a "mutilation" of it (to some people's way of thinking). As Ron emphasized in an earlier discussion, context is critical to a proper interpretation of any passage, and the context of the passages he listed is totally unrelated to "cuts" in the genital area (whether it be circumcision or castration). Such "cutting," for whatever purpose, is simply not in view. Thus, Ron can't point to these passages as justification for his view that making oneself a eunuch is in opposition to the Law of Moses. He will have to look elsewhere for such "evidence," if such exists.

Ron, naturally, disagrees with me, and so states emphatically: "I strongly deny the accuracy of this statement. Being a eunuch (or self-mutilation) was very much opposed by God in the Law of Moses." I would simply ask Ron to provide the statement in the Law of Moses where God has condemned one for being a self-made eunuch, or even where He has condemned the practice itself. I am not aware of any such passage, but will reserve judgment until such time as Ron produces that specific passage where being a eunuch, or making oneself a eunuch, is specifically opposed by God in the Law of Moses.

Moving along. Ron wrote: "Al, let me ask you to deal with material from my first post. I offered, for your consideration, 14 different translations of Matthew 19:9. Are any of these wrongly translated? If so, where has the translation failed? Further, I gave you authoritative definitions of the word fornication and adultery. Are these definitions incorrect?"

With respect to your latter question, I would not declare your "authoritative definitions" incorrect, but rather incomplete. A simple rule of biblical hermeneutics, when considering words in Scripture, is that the "full semantic range" of those words must be given consideration before arriving at an interpretation. You provided a single meaning and application of these words in your post, but you failed to provide the full semantic range. Thus, your "authoritative definitions" were indeed correct, just not complete. In dealing with these words and concepts, I have sought, and will continue to seek, to provide the more complete picture of the meaning and usage.

In my first post I wrote: "We also, for the sake of clarity in our discussion, need to examine in some depth the meaning of porneia (fornication) and moicheia (adultery). What do these words convey to us? What did they convey to the original readers of the biblical documents? Are our applications today consistent with biblical meaning and usage? These are critical areas, and must not be lightly dismissed. Ron, in his affirmation of the proposition, has given a brief definition of each of these terms, but they both require a much more thorough analysis. I will attempt to provide that in subsequent discussions with my brother in Christ." Beginning in my second post, I attempted to present that fuller analysis of porneia, and beginning in this post I will present a fuller analysis of moicheia.

With respect to Ron's first question, I did indeed address it in my first post in this debate. I wrote: "In his post, Ron listed thirteen separate translations of Matthew 19:9, the primary passage from which our proposition is drawn. He then asks, 'Al, are any of these versions incorrect in their translating of Matthew 19:9?' Although each version and translation is worded somewhat differently, I would not go so far as to declare any of them 'fatally flawed.' Each has done the best job they could, limited as they were by their purpose, philosophy of translation, and production guidelines, to provide a readable rendering of this statement by Jesus Christ." As you can see, Ron, I did indeed address both of these matters from your first post. As far as problems in translation, I would point out that the Matt. 5:32 passage does have some problems associated with it, and I will be pointing those out at the appropriate time in our debate.

In his previous post, Ron wrote: "Adultery occurs, in the context of Matthew 5 and 19, when a married person engages in sexual activity (intercourse) with someone other than their spouse. When a person enters into a second marriage (e.g., the 'guilty' party of the divorce marries another) that person is in an adulterous relationship because there is the consummation of the marriage and a continuation of sexual activity. The 'marriage ceremony' is not the adultery (it is simply putting one into a relationship); it is when the sexual activity occurs that adultery takes place."

This truly brings us to the heart of our differences with regard to this topic. For Ron, and indeed for most who hold to the "traditional teaching" on MDR, adultery is exclusively a sex act. I will present the fuller semantic range of this word later in this post, but let me just state here that I firmly believe limiting this term to a sex act ONLY is an error, and it is going to lead to some twisted theology with regard to MDR, and indeed has done so. More about that later.

But, assuming (simply for the sake of argument) the validity of the "adultery = sex only" theory, let's examine Ron's above premise. When a married person engages in sexual activity with someone other than their spouse, then they have committed adultery. (By the way, for the record, let me state that I agree with that statement!) If a man and woman are married, and one of them engages in sexual activity with one other than their spouse, that indeed IS "adultery."

Ron continues his illustration --- When a person has been unfaithful to their spouse, and they eventually divorce that spouse, and then later marry another person, Ron says that when that person engages in sexual activity with that new mate they are actually "committing adultery." Ron, with whom are they committing adultery?! The man's first wife is no longer his wife; he divorced her .... and you have already acknowledged in this debate that divorce does terminate the union; that a "divorce" is really a "divorce." So, he's not committing anything sexual with her; she's gone. And the woman he is now with is his wife; a marriage has taken place. Thus, he is not committing adultery with her, because you can't commit adultery WITH one's own spouse, but only AGAINST one's spouse WITH another person. So, again Ron, with whom is he committing adultery? And how?!

The traditional argument here, and it is an incredibly weak and lame one, is that the man is not truly divorced at all from the first wife. Thus, he continues to be married to the first woman since "God actually recognizes NO divorce" (or so goes the theory). I am assuming, Ron, that you do not embrace this aspect of the traditional argument since you have previously asserted that divorce IS divorce, and is recognized as such. Therefore, you must assume, as do I, that the man and woman in question truly have experienced a termination of the covenant of marriage.

If the man in the illustration cheated on his wife (sexually), and then divorced her (which most traditionalists would consider the "one just cause" for the woman to be legally freed, loosed, unbound from this man), doesn't she now, as the innocent party, have the right to remarry? My guess is that Ron would claim that she is indeed free, and that she does have the right to remarry (as would most in the traditional camp). This is an acknowledgement that she is no longer married to him. She is free.

Now, let's reason this through carefully, Ron!! If SHE is free of this marriage, then so also is HE!! Right?! If SHE is no longer married to HIM, then it only stands to reason that HE is no longer married to HER!! BOTH are single!! The woman has no husband, and the man has NO WIFE. If this man now engages in sexual activity with someone else it will technically be porneia, not moicheia. After all, "adultery," according to Ron, is sexual activity with one other than one's spouse .... but his man has NO spouse!!! However, if this man at some point in the future gets married, he once again has a spouse. If he then has sex with his SPOUSE, how is he committing "adultery" if adultery by definition is sex with one OTHER than one's own SPOUSE?!!! This woman to whom he is married IS his spouse. One can't commit adultery with one's own wife, according to your definition, Ron. Thus, with whom is he committing adultery? And how?

Ron's definition of "adultery" just doesn't fit his scenario (which declares moicheia to be sex with the second wife) .... not when you apply logic and rational thought to the scenario. It will fall apart even more dramatically when we examine it in light of the passive voice which is used in Matthew 5:32 with respect to the put away woman!! This will be examined in more depth after I present my analysis of the word translated "adultery." I think one will quickly begin to perceive that limiting this word to "sexual activity only" is going to pose some overwhelming obstacles for the traditional point of view. More about this later.

EXAMINING MOICHEIA

At this point we need to turn our attention to the meaning and usage of the word translated "adultery" in both Scripture and the culture of biblical times. For now I will simply present a lengthy excerpt from Chapter Six of my book Down, But Not Out in which I present a discussion of this term. Perhaps it will open the door to further discussion between us with regard to this concept.

Here is the excerpt:

• The one term which seems to generate the most difficulty in the minds of biblical students, and the most debate and division among biblical scholars, is adultery. The way in which this word is translated, interpreted, and applied has proved to be a most sensitive issue. What exactly was the intent of Jesus when He stated on several occasions that when a divorce and/or remarriage occurs, one or more of the parties "committed adultery?"

• Particularly relevant to a correct understanding of the Lord's teaching with regard to this issue is the proper identification of the verb forms utilized. Indeed, this will prove to be a major factor at this point in clarifying the teaching of Jesus. A failure to distinguish, and correctly identify and translate, these forms will lead to doctrines greatly at odds with the original intent of the Lord. One simply cannot stress strongly enough how critical these verb forms are to correct interpretation.

• In the recorded words of Jesus Christ, with reference to divorce and remarriage, three different groups of people are being examined:
  1. The one who divorces a spouse
  2. The spouse who has been put away
  3. The person who later marries one who has been divorced

• In each of these three situations, "adultery" is said to occur. Also, Jesus speaks to each of these three groups about the matter of responsibility and guilt for the divorce, who must bear it, and the nature of the subsequent consequences. Prior to examining what Jesus has to say to each of these groups, however, one must first seek to grasp the biblical concept of adultery.

• The definition most commonly found in the various English language dictionaries on the market is: "Sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than their spouse." As a result of this popular and widely accepted definition, most people, when they hear the word "adultery," conjure up the image of a married man or woman cheating on their spouse by having sex with another partner.

• There is no question but what this popular definition of the word was utilized by the biblical writers as well. Such a view of adultery is seen in several places.
  1. In John 8:3-11 one discovers the account of a woman, brought before Jesus in the temple courts, who had been caught in the very act of adultery. There is little doubt that the "act" being referred to was sexual in nature.

  2. Hebrews 13:4 is another passage where sexual misconduct is obviously in view: "Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral."

  3. Within the pages of the Old Testament writings, the prophet Ezekiel draws a very vivid picture of two adulterous sisters, describing in graphic detail their sexual misconduct (Ezekiel 23).

• Thus, there is no question but what the biblical definition of adultery does indeed include the concept of sexual unfaithfulness of a married man or woman. It simply must not be overlooked, however, that the above definition is far from being the only one presented in Scripture. The fact is, the Greek noun moicheia, which is generally translated "adultery," has several other biblical meanings and usages.

• For example, it can refer to a sexual attitude separate and apart from the physical sexual act itself. "You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matthew 5:28). Is it possible to commit adultery without ever actually engaging in the physical aspects of the act itself? Can one "commit adultery" alone?! Yes, according to the teaching of Jesus! it is possible for adultery to occur entirely and exclusively within the heart and mind of the lusting individual. Thus, adultery can be as much an attitude as an act. And this "lust" (literally: "earnest desire") can also be non-sexual in nature. It is entirely possible to "earnestly desire" another person for reasons other than sex. And yet, Jesus still characterizes this as "adultery." Thus, this passage certainly implies that moicheia at times could be non-sexual in nature, as well as non-physical.

• Within the Haggadic sections of the Talmud and Midrash one will find numerous warnings against adultery, and it is frequently characterized as being far more than a mere physical sexual act. "We find that even he who commits adultery with the eyes is called an adulterer," and a reference to Job 24:15 follows. "He who regards a woman with lustful intention is as one who cohabits with her." "He who touches the little finger of a woman is as one who touches a certain spot." Perhaps the following quote from a classic work on theology states it best: "From the religious standpoint adultery does not consist merely in physical intercourse with a strange woman; it is present already in the desire which negates fidelity" (Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. 4, pp. 733-734).

• Moicheia is also used within the pages of the sacred writings to convey a condition of unfaithfulness to God; a breach of one's covenant relationship with one's Creator. One noted Greek scholar observes that "Hebraistically and figuratively" this particular word is "equivalent to: Faithless to God, unclean, apostate, ungodly" (Dr. Joseph Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament). Kittel suggests the focus is even narrower in the New Testament dispensation: It is being "unfaithful to God" by virtue of one's "rejection of Jesus" (Vol. 4, p. 734).

• Christ Jesus more than once referred to the people of His day as "a wicked and adulterous generation" because of their lack of faith (Matthew 12:39; 16:4), or because they were ashamed of the Lord and His teachings (Mark 8:38), and were thus unwilling to follow Him obediently.

• Therefore, according to the Scriptures, adultery can be regarded figuratively as a breach of covenant with one's Lord; a breach which can be effected by any number of sinful, rebellious acts. In this sense, adultery is viewed as being far more than the performance of specific acts, but rather the breach of covenant itself which was generated by those acts. When Jesus spoke of His fellow countrymen as being "adulterers" and an "adulterous generation," He was commenting upon far more than their specific sins; He was focusing upon the resultant state of separation of this people from their Creator produced by those sinful acts. It was just as the prophet stated centuries earlier, "Your iniquities have separated you from your God" (Isaiah 59:2). Covenant had been broken!!

• Moicheia is further utilized repeatedly in the Bible to characterize those who are worldly and unspiritual in their actions and attitudes. The brother of Jesus, after describing individuals who were quarreling among themselves over various selfish worldly desires, wrote, "You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God?" (James 4:4). The apostle Peter spoke of false, corrupt teachers as being little better than brute beasts who "revel in their pleasures," who are always sinning against God, and who, "with eyes full of adultery," seduce away the unsuspecting after their falsehoods (II Peter 2). The self-proclaimed prophetess Jezebel was one such seductress who enticed some of the saints in Thyatira to "commit adultery with her" (figuratively speaking) by engaging in worldly, immoral behavior, and through sacrifices offered to idols (Revelation 2:20-22).

• As was seen with Jezebel and her disciples, it was not uncommon for moicheia to express itself in the form of idolatry; such is often labeled "adultery." Ezekiel 16 speaks of unfaithful Jerusalem as being like a prostitute, an adulteress, because of her repeated acts of idolatry. Even among the ancient Apostolic Fathers idolatry was recognized as constituting "adultery." Referring to the practice of idol worship, Clement wrote, "Whoever acts as the heathen do, commits adultery" (II Clement 4:3). In the Shepherd of Hermas (in his second work, known as Commands), one reads, "Now they commit adultery, not only who pollute their flesh, but who also make an image. If therefore a woman perseveres in any thing of this kind, and repents not, depart from her, and live not with her, otherwise thou also shalt be partaker of her sin" (4:9). Some scholars detect a possible connection here with the statement of Paul to the Corinthians: "But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances" (I Cor. 7:15). According to the above definition, the unbeliever in this passage would be regarded as an adulterer; not because he had committed an illicit sexual act with one other than his spouse, but because he was in a loving relationship with the world rather than with God.

• In the secular writings of that day and age, moicheia had an even broader range of possible meaning. Some applied it to sexual relationships between men and animals; others utilized it to denote the intermingling of people from different racial groups. Some even taught there was an astrological connection; that fornication and adultery were more likely to be engaged in when Venus was in conjunction with Mars (Kittel, Vol. 4, pp. 729-730). Although such secular views never found their way into the Scriptures, nevertheless the inspired writers and those who read their works may well have been aware of them.

• It should be rather obvious, therefore, from this admittedly brief and incomplete overview, that adultery, as understood within the pages of the Scriptures, simply cannot be limited exclusively to the narrow definition of "an illicit sexual act between a married person and one other than their spouse."

• As one carefully examines all the many facets of the biblical concept of adultery, one soon begins to realize that the concept itself has a greater focus and broader scope than any specific part of the whole. In other words, the concept of adultery, as presented in the pages of Scripture, appears to be more the resultant breakdown or breach of a covenant, than any specific act itself, of which there are many, which may have generated that effect. By limiting the meaning of moicheia to only ONE of its many biblical usages, and then maintaining that this ALONE is adultery, one will have great difficulty understanding the teaching of Jesus with respect to divorce and remarriage. However, if one regards moicheia as a resultant breakdown of a covenant relationship, for which there are numerous possible causes, one will appreciate far more the significance of the Lord's teaching, and one's practical theology will be more in tune with the will of God.

• When Jesus declares that adultery has been committed, He is stating far more than the fact of two people engaging in a physical sex act. He is declaring the fact of a broken covenant between a husband and wife. Although sexual infidelity may well have ultimately been the cause of some of those disunions, there is little doubt that in some of the Lord's statements about divorce and remarriage sexual infidelity is not even remotely being alluded to when He utilizes the word adultery, as will soon be demonstrated.

• It is divorce itself that Jesus focuses upon and condemns, far more so than any particular cause that may have generated that dissolution of marriage. There are countless causes for the failure of marriages, but it is the failure itself that Jesus says is unacceptable before God. Moicheia, therefore, refers to the actual breach of the covenant, the breakdown of the marriage relationship, for which there may be a host of causes. This is a view which can be clearly demonstrated from all the biblical passages in which this word appears. To allow oneself to become side-tracked by the English dictionary's definition of adultery as being strictly a sexual act, one fails to perceive the biblical meaning and application of this word, which is the idea of unfaithfulness to a covenant relationship; an unfaithfulness which may manifest itself in a number of ways.

• The spouse who is guilty of "committing adultery," then, is the spouse responsible for violating his or her covenant of marriage and bringing about the destruction of this sacred relationship. The cause may well have been sexual misconduct; it may well have been something else entirely. The adultery of which Jesus speaks is unfaithfulness to the covenant itself, and to the other party to that covenant, not a solitary, singular act which might have contributed to that breach. Moicheia is simply not as limited in scope as many interpreters seek to make it.

• To truly understand the teaching of Jesus, it is critical that one shift his focus from cause to effect. "The point of the utterances of Jesus is His condemnation of the disruption, no matter what the cause may have been. The point should not be shifted to the cause of the disruption, whether this be grave or light. Whatever the cause, a disrupted marriage is a disrupted marriage" (R.C.H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Matthew's Gospel, p. 735).

Home Index