#1 --- MATTHEW 19:6b

Darrell wrote, "The prohibitive force of Jesus' teaching is clear: 'What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder' (Mark 10:9; Matt. 19:6; I Cor. 7:11). Remember, Jesus had been asked about the practice of 'putting away.' The Lord's answer is clear. Jesus says, 'what God joined together, let not man sever.' God knits two together in authorized marriage. This double-harness of marriage is joined or fastened by God, the supreme one. Man, an inferior being to God, is not to sever or unfasten that harness. The joining of the Lord is for life (I Cor. 7:32). Jesus said do not do it! Do not sever that joining of God!"

Once again, I do not disagree with anything Darrell has stated here (although I think he probably meant vs. 39 in that last reference above). In my book I declare exactly the same thing. Where some have erred in their interpretation of this passage, however, is in the thinking that Jesus is here declaring something impossible rather than improper. Our Lord did NOT say, "What therefore God has joined together, man CANNOT separate." Instead, He condemned and sought to correct what they actually WERE DOING --- severing the bonds of matrimony! Some have stated (and I don't know if Darrell takes this view or not) that this passage teaches the absolute impossibility of a husband and wife ever being released from their bond of marriage through divorce. In other words, God does not recognize ANY divorce, since the two are actually bound for life. Therefore, in light of this thinking, ANY subsequent marriage is not really a legitimate "marriage" but a "continuing in adultery" by virtue of the fact that the first union is not recognized by God as actually terminated.

Notice a section from Chapter Six of my book in which I deal with this passage:

• Such statements as, "Christians should regard no one as being really divorced," and "Those who are divorced thereby become unfit for any further association .... They can never again enter into a covenant of marriage," both of which were recently declared publicly by religious leaders, reflect a theology formulated from a source other than the teaching of Jesus Christ.

• Generally, those who promote such a stern theology cite the following statement of the Lord as "proof" of their position: "'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate" (Matthew 19:5-6; Mark 10:7-9). The last word in this passage is Chorizo (see Chapter Four), which means "to sever, disunite, put asunder, separate, divide." Few would question the fact that it denotes a total division, a rending apart, of that which was previously united. The disunity which Jesus disparages in this statement is that of a marriage covenant. It was never a part of God's original design, His IDEAL, that such unions be severed. However, this in no way suggests that such severing is beyond the scope of possibility. The Lord is not stating man cannot separate this sacred union, rather He insists men ought not do so, for it violates the spirit and intent of God's design for marriage. To insist, as do some, that a marriage is not truly severed because the Lord has prohibited such dissolutions, is little different than claiming a dead man has not truly been severed from life, or the realm of the living, since God has prohibited murder. The prohibition declares the act unacceptable, and even sinful, but it does not render it impossible or unachievable, nor does it negate the inevitable consequences which result.

• When Jesus used the phrase, "let man not separate," the Greek verb for "separate" appears in the Present Imperative form, and is preceded by the negative particle "me," which makes this a Prohibitive Imperative in Greek grammatical construction. Simply stated, this signifies a negative command which serves the purpose of prohibiting the continuance of a specific act already taking place. This phrase could just as correctly be translated, "Therefore what God has joined together, stop separating." Maintaining that one cannot separate that which was previously joined together fails to perceive the significance of this Greek phrase. Marriages were being terminated. Jesus acknowledged that reality. His command to them was, "STOP!" The intent was to forbid the continuance of what was, not to declare the impossibility of it.

• Covenants of marriage were being broken; new marriages were being entered into; and all was being done with little regard for God's IDEAL, or for the hurt being inflicted upon others. This was a reality of which Jesus was painfully aware. Thus, He called them to cease their sinful behavior, and refocus their hearts upon God's original design for marriage. It was a call to reassessment and repentance; a call to recapture the beauty of God's IDEAL, and to forever put behind them this frivolous fracturing of relationships.

Yes, when asked about the practice of "putting away" (which had reached epidemic proportions during His time), Jesus said, "STOP!" He held up for their view the IDEAL of God which had remained unchanged since the very beginning: One man for one woman for life!! Anything less was a failure to achieve God's goal for these covenant unions. Jesus didn't mince words with these people. What they were doing was wrong, and He told them so.

However, Jesus was a realist. He knew that people were indeed severing these sacred unions, and they were doing so for the most frivolous of reasons. He didn't deny the reality of what was occurring. Instead, He demanded that it STOP! He didn't say, "The joke's on you guys! You're not really divorced, because God doesn't recognize such; and your new marriages aren't really marriages, because God doesn't recognize such. You're all living in adultery if you are remarried." Jesus could have said that (if such were actually true), but He didn't. He simply acknowledged that covenants were being broken and new covenants were being made; and He declared such covenant breaking and relationship hopping a violation of God's IDEAL, and He told them it was time to STOP and return to God's original design for marriage.

#2 --- THE "EXCEPTION CLAUSE"

Darrell wrote: "Christ the Lord gave mankind one and only one exception to the rule of one man for one woman for life. That exception is listed in Matthew 19:9. No other New Testament passage provides an exception in addition to that of Matthew 19:9." He also wrote: "If one divorces his spouse for any reason except the one reason authorized by God, God will not grant that person the right to marry again. Jesus gave men one, and only one, God authorized reason for divorce which carries the right of remarriage." Darrell adds: "If there are other reasons for divorce which carry the right of remarriage, then Jesus lied to the Pharisees and to his disciples."

Darrell believes that the statement by Jesus in Matt. 5:32 and 19:9 constitutes some kind of divinely proffered "exception clause" to God's IDEAL (the "exception to the rule," if you will). In other words, the IDEAL of God is "one man for one woman for life" EXCEPT in the case of "fornication," at which point that IDEAL can be "acceptably" set aside. If fornication occurs then there is some kind of "authorized" or "approved" exception to the rule. Yes, I believe that a spouse who is the victim of marital unfaithfulness DOES have legal recourse. But, is this what Jesus was seeking to convey when He said "except for fornication"? Was this some legal provision of law -- the "one just cause," or was there something deeper in view here?! Something far more spiritually significant?

It is interesting to note that the phrase "exception clause" (as well as the concept) is of human origin. Nowhere in Scripture is this statement by Jesus in the Matthew account so characterized. Also, as Darrell points out, you will not find this so-called "exception clause" anywhere else in the Bible. It appears only in Matthew's account, and is excluded in the parallel accounts of Mark and Luke, and is never even hinted at in the writings of Paul.

As one might imagine, there have been numerous theories proposed down through the centuries as to the meaning of this brief clause in Matthew's account. It has been the cause of much debate among scholars. Let me ask a question here: Is it just possible our Lord was not granting an "acceptable exception" to God's IDEAL at all?!!

It is likely, in my view, that this notion that Jesus was admitting to a single "just cause" for failing to achieve God's IDEAL (i.e.: trying to select some palatable "middle course" between the Hillel & Shammai schools of thought) may well be a false premise, and that numerous false doctrines have been constructed upon it. Indeed, I believe this to be the case.

Notice the following excerpt from Chapter Six of my book:

• If one carefully considers the teaching of Jesus on this issue throughout the gospel records, one will note Jesus repeatedly refused to acquiesce to the popular and prevailing views of His day, each of which acknowledged various "just causes" for divorce. Some schools of thought insisted that there was only one just cause for terminating a covenant of marriage; other schools maintained "any and every cause" was justified. Jesus held high for observation the IDEAL, and refused to acknowledge any justifiable cause for failure to achieve it. Yes, Jesus was aware that marriages were failing; He was aware that there were a great many reasons for these failures; but to justify any or all of them, as men were attempting to do, would be to diminish the majesty of God's IDEAL for marriage.

• If it is true that Jesus was in fact offering NO exceptions to the Creator's original design for marital relationships -- one man for one woman for life -- what is one to make of this apparent "exception clause" recorded in Matthew's gospel? There are two possible explanations. The first is that this clause may be an example of a Preterition, which means the exception of which Jesus speaks is an exception to the proposition of the text itself, rather than to a specific verb within the proposition. Thus, the passage might well be translated: "Anyone who divorces his wife -- the permission of Moses in Deuteronomy 24:1f notwithstanding -- and marries another woman commits adultery." This effectively removes any exception to the IDEAL, and makes the intent of the message far more consistent with other statements of the Lord within the context: "The Law says .... but I say ....!" Jesus would thus be issuing a New Dispensation challenge to the people of God: although the Law of Moses permitted certain acts due to the hardness of their hearts, it was not so from the beginning; it was never a part of the Creator's divine design. Under the New Covenant, mankind is called to return to the IDEAL; to begin living on a vastly superior spiritual plane; to begin behaving as the children of God! Permission to do otherwise is no longer granted! The permissive provisions of Law, due to hardness of heart, are now terminated. This is one view.

• A second probable interpretation (and the one which I very much favor), and one very much compatible with the first, is that this so-called exception clause is simply a means whereby responsibility or guilt for the breakdown of the covenant of marriage is ascribed to one spouse or the other. If a man puts away his wife, and she has done absolutely nothing to warrant such an action on his part, HE is the one who must bear the responsibility for the dissolution of the marriage. However, if the wife is guilty of porneia then SHE must bear the guilt for the ultimate breakdown of the relationship, even though it may have been her husband who actually sought and secured the certificate of divorce against her.

• Thus, the Lord's exception clause is in reality no such thing; Jesus was merely assigning responsibility for the ultimate destruction of the marital relationship. If the husband was dealing treacherously with his wife, HE must bear the guilt; if the wife was not behaving according to the vows of her covenant, SHE must bear the guilt. In either case a marriage has ended, but the matter of culpability has now been addressed. This view also has the advantage of being much easier to reconcile with the remainder of Scripture, in which no mention is ever made of any such exception.

• Perhaps one explanation for why the religious world has so woefully misunderstood this teaching of the Lord is that the focus of God's people has been misdirected. While Jesus lifts up the Creator's original design for marriage -- the IDEAL -- men squander their time and energy searching for some legal justification for their failure to embrace it. With seared consciences and hardened hearts men seek ways to "legally" circumvent their responsibility to both God and their spouses. Divorce is a concept foreign to the heart focused upon God and His IDEAL; it is a worldly option sought out and embraced only by one whose focus is inward, and whose god is SELF. Jesus refused to dignify such maneuvering by declaring any aspect of it just.

• Do marriages end? Yes, and with a frequency that grieves the Lord. Divorce is a tragic reality of life, of which the Lord is painfully aware, but it is not the will of God that marriages end, rather it is the will of man! When divorces occur people get hurt; sometimes innocent people, through no fault of their own. In such cases, one spouse must bear the responsibility for this destroyed covenant of marriage, and also the guilt. It is the assigning of this responsibility and culpability which Jesus addresses in the so-called "exception clause" of Matthew's gospel record; a fact which will become increasingly clear as His teaching on this subject is examined in greater depth.

As one can perceive in my above comments (from my book), I would probably be considered even more "conservative" that Darrell on this matter. I don't believe Jesus has allowed ANY "exceptions" to the IDEAL of God for marriage. ANY failed covenant is a "missing of the mark." Simply put, the so-called "exception clause" is NOT an exception to the IDEAL at all. It is merely part of our Lord's declaration as to who must bear responsibility for the breakdown of the covenant of marriage. It is a declaration of culpability.

Let me give you the following case history from Chapter Six of my book, and the subsequent comment from the text. This will help illustrate this principle:

• CASE HISTORY --- Tom and Debbie had been joined in marriage twelve years when Tom discovered his wife was having an affair with his best friend Jack. Unbeknownst to Tom, this had been going on for months. When confronted, Debbie acknowledged her infidelity. She stopped seeing Jack for a while, but eventually began the affair again. They went to marriage counseling, spoke to their church leaders, and various family members got involved, but to no avail. Debbie refused to give up her sexual relationship with Jack. With a heavy heart, Tom sought out an attorney and secured a divorce against Debbie.

• In the above situation, it was Tom who sought and secured a divorce against his wife, but who was actually responsible for the breakdown of this covenant of marriage? Was it Tom, since he was the one who presented Debbie with a certificate of divorce? Or, was it Debbie, since it was her immoral conduct which forced Tom to seek the solution he did? Who was the guilty party? Again, we see the significance of the Lord's "exception clause." Although Tom divorced Debbie, it was the latter who must bear both the guilt and the responsibility for the destruction of the covenant of marriage.

It should be abundantly clear to most that this clause in no way constitutes an "exception to the rule" or an "acceptable reason" for divorce. Jesus is merely speaking to the matter of culpability. The position of Jesus is that marriage is for LIFE, and ANY challenge should be met and conquered. However, when covenants are broken, then SOMEONE is to blame; SOMEONE must bear the guilt. In this passage Jesus gives us insight into who is to blame. If the husband casts off his wife in favor of another woman, then HE is the covenant breaker ... it is HE who is guilty of adultery. If the husband secures a certificate of divorce against his wife because she was committing fornication, then SHE was the covenant breaker ... it is SHE who is guilty of adultery. Even though HE was the one who divorced HER, yet SHE is the "guilty party." THIS is the significance of the so-called "exception clause." It is NOT permission to set aside the IDEAL for "one reason, and one reason only;" rather it is a declaration of guilt, and an assigning of guilt, for the failure to achieve the IDEAL.

Interesting, is it not, that when the Truth of this passage is finally perceived, that it is Darrell's view which can be characterized as the more "liberal," whereas mine is the more "conservative."

#3 --- THE PRESENT INDICATIVE IN MATTHEW 19:9

Darrell wrote: "Jesus Christ says that one who puts away a spouse for any reason other than fornication and marries another, keeps on committing adultery." Notice what Darrell said here: "KEEPS ON COMMITTING adultery." This is what my critic would refer to as "living in sin" or "living in adultery" --- two phrases which Jesus NEVER used, not even once!!! Both phrases were coined by MEN, and cannot be found anywhere in the Bible with reference to a second union. Darrell goes on to say, "...the state of adultery is entered, when he who divorces for any reason save fornication, shall marry another. The state of adultery is a continual state..." He further writes that the phrase "commits adultery" -- "translates a verb in the present tense, the force of which is continual action. It means, 'keeps on committing adultery.'"

Darrell's understanding of the Greek Present Indicative in Matthew 19:9 is horribly confused and flawed. Indeed, this is just another example of how theologically dangerous it is to possess only scant knowledge of NT Greek. Quite some time back I posed Darrell's premise to a host of Greek scholars on a Biblical Greek discussion list (hosted by a prominent university). The response to my query was immediate and overwhelming. "No, it cannot be sustained from the present tense. The confusion is a common one, especially in older grammars," stated one professor (which is representative of the others). Another scholar wrote, "Actually I think most of the traditionalists have pretty much backed off of the 'continuing action' argument. The whole scholarship world is against them on it. But, you may still encounter it on occasion by those less knowledgeable in Greek." Yet another writes, "When all is said, one cannot be intellectually honest and say that the present tense use of the verb proves the notion of 'continuing adultery.' Based on the rules of Greek grammar it just cannot be proven."

Darrell's contention is that the Present Tense should be interpreted as signifying "continual action," and therefore the verb employed suggests that the meaning is "keeps on committing adultery." What Darrell seems to be unaware of, however, is the significance of the Present Tense when used in the Indicative Mood. Dr. Carroll D. Osburn (formerly of Harding Graduate School of Religion), in the publication Restoration Quarterly (Volume 24, Number 4, 1981), wrote an extremely scholarly article entitled The Present Indicative in Matthew 19:9.

Let me share some of the points Dr. Osburn makes in that article. He begins by stating, "In recent discussion of the interpretation of Matthew 19:9, it has been ventured by some that Moichatai must mean 'continues to commit adultery' because the present indicative necessitates continuous action." This is exactly Darrell's contention. But, is Darrell correct about this? Dr. Osburn notes that such a theory is false, "based as it is upon imprecise understanding of Greek mood distinctions." Dr. A.T. Robertson observes, "It is not wise therefore to define the present indicative as denoting 'action in progress' like the imperfect" (A Grammar of the Greek NT). Dana & Mantey say, "It is a mistake to suppose that the durative meaning monopolizes the present stem." Dr. H.W. Smyth, in his Greek Grammar (Cambridge: Harvard University Press), notes that the "present stem denotes the simple action of the verb in present time without regard to its continuance."

If one examines carefully the indicative mood, one will find it "is normally employed in all Indo-European languages to denote a simple statement of fact, but it has a wide variety of uses, such as the present of customary action, present of general truth, cognitive present, futuristic present, oracular present, historical present, annalistic present, present for perfect, and past and present combined" (Dr. Osburn). Dr. Robertson notes "that the most frequent use of the present indicative is the 'descriptive present,' the simple statement of a fact with no specific reference to continuity." He goes on to point out: "Of the more than 700 instances of the present indicative in Matthew's Gospel, the vast majority of occurrences are 'descriptive' with no continuity under consideration."

Most feel that of the various forms of the present tense which may be employed (and there are many), that it is most likely the Gnomic Present which is in operation in Matthew 19:9. Dr. Osburn writes, "The use of the present indicative in discussing a general truth is called the 'gnomic present'" (see: Dr. Goodwin, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb). He goes on: "This idiomatic use of the present tense to denote a general truth is as old as Aeschylus and Plato. It is this 'gnomic present' which occurs in Moichatai in Matthew 19:9 when Jesus provides the general truth that 'whoever divorces his wife except for unchastity and marries another commits adultery.' In such a 'gnomic present,' or 'present of general truth' (see: Dr. Smyth, pp. 42f) continuity is NOT under consideration."

Dr. Osburn concludes (after much scholarly, in-depth, validating analysis), "Thus, it cannot be said that the present indicative in Matthew 19:9, or any other Greek text, 'cannot mean other than continuous action,' for any such argument blatantly disregards the several idiomatic uses of the present indicative in which continuity is not explicit. ..... In Jesus' statement of that truth Moichatai must be taken as a 'gnomic present' in which continuity is NOT under consideration."

Perhaps Dr. Osburn, recognized across the world for his scholarship in NT Greek, had those like Darrell in mind when he wrote: "Since many a preacher and debater has allowed his syntax to run away with him, it is the vital but unenviable duty of the Greek scholar to remind the preacher and debater to keep his feet on the ground. Especially is this true when men ill equipped in Greek language and literature would use the Greek text to prove theological manipulation.... As Alexander Pope put it well over two hundred years ago: 'A little learning is a dangerous thing!'"

Darrell, who by his own admission is NOT a Greek scholar (or even "the son of one"), has based his MDR theories and suppositions largely upon a misguided interpretation of the force and focus of the Present Indicative in Greek literature (both sacred and secular). His flawed theology visibly reflects his lack of understanding of the intricacies of Greek. The use of the Gnomic Present (and indeed the simple and common use of the Present Indicative itself) suggests the phrase "commits adultery" does NOT denote continual action. Rather, it is a simple declaration of Truth. For example, I can use the same "gnomic present" in the phrase: "Whosoever takes a gun and shoots a man in the head, commits murder." Does the phrase "commits murder" (being a Present Indicative) indicate continuous action? Of course not. It is rather a declaration of historic truth, even though it appears as a present indicative. A man who casts his wife off in favor of a union with another woman (or for any other reason) is guilty of committing adultery. This is a simple statement of fact, as with the man who "commits" murder. Continuance of the action is not even remotely in view here. Jesus is NOT condemning the second union per se, He is rather condemning the action of casting off a woman, breaking covenant with her, so as to pursue a selfish goal (in the case specified: to embrace another woman). It is this sinful casting off that is the adulterous action. EXCEPT (here's the force of the so-called "exception clause") in a case where the man casts off the woman because it was SHE who broke covenant with the husband by her destructive behavior. In such a case culpability lies at HER door, not at HIS.

Can Darrell seek out and produce a list of "scholars" who will agree with him that the Present Indicative denotes continuous action? Of course he can (and he probably will), but these scholars are very much in the minority among their peers. He can also probably produce scholars (perhaps some of the same ones) who will insist that "baptism" can acceptably be practiced by sprinkling or pouring, rather than immersion. The bulk of reputable Greek scholarship, however, clearly sides with the view I have presented, and it denounces the view embraced by Darrell. After much research, I side with the majority position of Greek scholarship and completely reject Darrell's view that the Present Indicative of Matthew 19:9 denotes "continuous action." It simply does not!

#4 --- DEFINITION OF "FORNICATION"

Darrell wrote: "Fornication refers to any act of illicit sexual contact (see John 8:4), including homosexuality and bestiality." I would agree with this statement. But, I must hasten to point out that his definition doesn't go nearly far enough in presenting the true significance of this word as it relates to the biblical text. The Greek word in question is Porneia, and it is variously translated in the many versions available to us in English. Again, notice the following excerpt from Chapter Six of my book:

• Some translations render this phrase, "except for fornication," or "except for immorality." Others have "sexual sin," "marital unfaithfulness," "lewd conduct," "unchastity," and other similar expressions. An examination of the first four letters of this word (as transliterated into English) -- PORN -- will suggest to the reader some of the words in our vocabulary which are derived from it (such as "pornography").

• A good, general, operational definition of this word is "any illicit sexual activity." As one can quickly perceive, this is broad enough to embrace a wide variety of such illicit activity, including incest, prostitution, homosexuality, child molestation, and bestiality, just to name a few. It is also general enough in scope to encompass all illicit sexual activity engaged in both prior to and following a covenant of marriage. There is nothing inherent within the word itself that suggests this activity is restricted solely to the premarital state, although some promote such a view. It should also not be overlooked that Porneia is used in the New Testament writings to discuss acts of lewdness, uncleanness, and even idolatry. Thus, one can easily see the word has a very wide range of meaning and application.

• Some scholars, embracing the view that porneia refers exclusively to illicit sexual activity prior to a covenant of marriage, maintain Jesus teaches in the "exception clause" that the only acceptable cause of divorce is the discovery by one of the spouses, after a covenant of marriage has been effected, that their mate had committed some illicit sexual act prior to their covenant of marriage. If a man believed his wife to have been a virgin at the time of their marriage, for example, only to discover later that she had been sexually active prior to their relationship, then, according to this view, he has "just cause" to terminate the covenant of marriage. To help validate this perception of the "exception clause" they cite Deuteronomy 22:13-21, and also the determination of Joseph to divorce Mary.

• Other scholars view Porneia as encompassing far more than just the physical aspects of an illicit sexual act; it is perceived as constituting any illicit spiritual activity as well. If one's spouse commits spiritual fornication with the world, is an idolater, or one engaged in a love affair with worldly pleasures, or simply an unbeliever, for example, this also is seen as "just cause" for divorce. In their opinion, this is the significance of Paul's statement to the saints in the city of Corinth: "But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances" (I Corinthians 7:15).

• Since the meaning and usage of Porneia is so broad, even within the pages of the New Testament writings, it is rather inappropriate for any person or group to declare dogmatically that Jesus had only one of these many conceivable applications in mind when He issued His so-called "exception clause." There is simply no obvious, indisputable basis upon which to make such a narrow determination. Since the Lord Himself chose not to specify any particular application or meaning, it is at least logical to assume He may have intended it to be far more general than specific. After all, ANY of the many aspects of Porneia would be sufficient in and of itself to seriously jeopardize a covenant of marriage, if not destroy it. Why single out only one when each represents such a real threat to this sacred union?

Thus, I believe it is vital that we not LIMIT the definition of Porneia to only one of its many possible biblical significations and applications. There are many things which may serve to terminate a covenant of marriage between a man and woman .... SEX is but one.

#5 --- DEFINITION OF "ADULTERY"

Darrell wrote: "Sadly, Maxey's doctrine .... encourages adulterers to keep on living in sin!" This, of course, is a ridiculous assertion. First of all, the phrase "living in sin" (or "living in adultery") never once fell from the lips of our Lord (one will not find it even one time used with reference to a second union in the pages of the Bible). Darrell may call some remarriages "living in sin," but JESUS never did!! Not even once!!! Long before this discussion ever began I challenged Darrell to provide me with even ONE passage from the Bible in which a second marriage was called "living in sin" or "living in adultery." I'm still waiting!!! And no, I'm not holding my breath!! Those words are NEVER used in Scripture with reference to a remarriage. NEVER!!!

I agree wholeheartedly that those who engage in adultery, and refuse to repent of it, will face eternal destruction. Thus, I will neither proclaim nor promote ANY teaching which encourages acts of adultery. Darrell's problem is that he believes the term "adultery" to apply to the second marriage of those "unauthorized" to remarry (he wrote: "...the state of adultery is entered, when he who divorces for any reason save fornication, SHALL MARRY ANOTHER. The state of adultery is a continual state..."), and thus such a second union constitutes a CONTINUAL sin. This, once again, is based on a lack of understanding of the nature of the Present Indicative in Greek, as has already been displayed. Such is NOT what is being taught in this passage, to which the bulk of Greek scholarship will readily attest. Darrell views "adultery" as some continual "state" of sin engaged in by those in "unauthorized" remarriages. It is interesting to note that the phrase "state of adultery" is also peculiar to Darrell. Perhaps he could show us where that phrase is employed in the Scriptures with reference to a remarriage. Again, let's not hold our breath!!

Darrell states: "It has been said that the divorce, or the breaking of the marriage covenant itself, is adultery. Jesus never attempted to convey that message." First, I appreciate that Darrell characterizes marriage as a "covenant." Some do not. However, Malachi 2:14 clearly states, "...the Lord has been a witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously, though she is your companion and your WIFE BY COVENANT."

Can the breaking of this covenant of marriage be characterized as "adultery," or is that word inappropriate in this context? Perhaps we need to do some research into the meaning of this word. I noticed Darrell said nothing in his post about the meaning of this particular Greek word. Thus, it behooves us to do so at this juncture. Please notice the following lengthy, but extremely vital, analysis of this term in Chapter Six of my book:

• 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.

(***NOTE --- Let me just interrupt and add here that I believe one of Darrell's major problems with his interpretation is that he has totally failed to perceive the significance of the Passive Voice as it is used in these critical passages pertaining to MDR. This has led him down a false theological trail, as it has others who are not well-schooled in Greek. These verb forms are not dealt with in this current post, but they most definitely WILL BE in future posts when Darrell touches upon these critical areas, as he undoubted will. I think the readers will find this upcoming aspect of our discussion MOST enlightening!!!)

• In the recorded words of Jesus Christ, with reference to divorce and remarriage, three different groups of people are being examined: The one who divorces a spouse, the spouse who has been put away, and the person who later marries one who has been divorced. In each of these three situations, adultery is said to occur in some sense. Also, Jesus speaks to each of these three groups about the matter of responsibility and guilt for the divorce, who must bear it, who is victimized by 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 person.

• 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. 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. Hebrew 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." 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 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.

• 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 then 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 (sexual or otherwise), 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 (and He certainly wasn't just speaking of sex acts); rather, He was focusing upon the resultant state of separation of this people from their Creator, a separation 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).

• 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" 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 Corinthians 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).

Some suggest that "adultery" is committed with the remarriage. Thus, in this view, "adultery" is not the breakdown of the previous marriage, but rather the REmarriage. This would have Jesus, therefore, NOT condemning the divorce so much as He condemns the remarriage. There are numerous problems associated with this, and I spend a great deal of time and space in my book addressing the flaws in reasoning in that interpretation. The failure to properly perceive the significance of the Passive Voice, for example, is a major factor in this false teaching. This fact will become abundantly clear when Darrell attempts to exegete these particular phrases!!! But more about this in future posts. The important thing to stress here is that it is not the remarriage which is characterized as "adultery," but rather the destruction of the covenant of marriage. Again, that will become abundantly clear from the Greek text itself when Darrell ventures into those waters!

#6 --- PROHIBITIONS CONCERNING REMARRIAGE

Darrell speaks of those "....remarrying, without having the authority given by Jesus." He goes on to declare: "If they desire to be forgiven of their adultery, they must repent of their unauthorized marriage." Again, we see here that Darrell in some way equates "adultery" with the remarriage. I don't believe such a position can be sustained by sound exegesis of the Greek text. Indeed, to be "forgiven of their adultery," Darrell would have the remarried couple commit adultery once again!!!!! He would have them break covenant as an act of repentance for breaking covenant!! That is insanity. This theology actually places Darrell in the unenviable position of ENCOURAGING couples to commit adultery. Darrell states that he believes MY theology "encourages adulterers to keep on living in sin!" Well, I believe HIS theology encourages married couples to commit adultery all over again!! He writes, "That is, THEY MUST DIVORCE according to the laws of the land and stop engaging in the unauthorized act." He considers the remarriage to be the "unauthorized act" which can only be repented of by DIVORCE!! In my view, such teaching is not only FALSE, it is an abomination in that it not only encourages additional adultery, but destroys families in the process!!

Darrell wrote: "If one divorces his spouse for any reason except the one reason authorized by God, God will not grant that person the right to marry again. Jesus gave men one, and only one, God authorized reason for divorce which carries the right of remarriage. Jesus said except it be for fornication. One may not divorce his spouse for any other reason than fornication and marry another spouse." So sayeth Darrell Broking! However, one will be hard-pressed to find GOD or JESUS ever stating such. Darrell is putting words in their mouth! They have never declared such prohibitions! Such are deduced and assumed by Darrell, and these assumptions are inherently flawed because he has totally failed to perceive the exact meaning of our Lord's statements.

I refer you to my final statement in Chapter Six of my book:

• The question invariably arises as to whether Jesus has made any definitive statement concerning the "legal right" of a divorced person, whether they be the innocent or guilty party, to remarry. Would God view such a remarriage as sinful, or would it be an acceptable union in His sight?

• Although the apostle Paul gives some insight into this matter, as will be discussed in the next chapter, Jesus Himself remains silent. One should note, however, that Jesus does consistently refer to all second unions as marriage, and nothing less. They are never termed "living in sin" or "living in adultery." Such phrases are common among men, but are never uttered by the Lord, nor by any of His inspired writers.

• Some theologians theorize that the innocent party may acceptably remarry, but the guilty party may not. Others adamantly declare that neither may remarry. Both state far more than Jesus!! God's Son spoke of both innocent and guilty parties remarrying, and always spoke of those unions in terms which characterized them as legitimate marriages. Jesus neither condemned nor condoned those unions by any direct teaching; He merely acknowledged their reality: A first marriage had been terminated, and a second marriage had been initiated.

• The prohibiting of marriage to any or all parties involved in a divorce simply cannot be justified by an appeal to the teaching of Jesus Christ. Such restrictions find their source and support only in the minds of men.

In conclusion to this post, let me quote something Darrell said that I agree with: "Friends, after reading Al's book let me encourage you to read God's book. You will find that our Lord was very specific on this subject." AMEN, Darrell. In fact, AS you read my book, please do so with your Bibles open before you. What I have presented in my work is taken directly from the Word of God. Darrell continually refers to "Al Maxey's doctrine." I personally have no doctrine!!! That which I teach comes directly from my God and His Word. It is HIS doctrine!! My book is merely a signpost pointing the way to HIS teaching, not MINE. Darrell stated, "You can read what Al wrote for yourselves." That's right, you can! And then you can go and check it out at the SOURCE --- God's Holy Word!!! I, like Darrell, encourage you to do so.

• Al Maxey