Matthew 5:27-32

C. THE RELATION OF THE WISE AND GODLY MAN TO THE LAW
3. HIS ATTITUDE TOWARD LUST.
TEXT: 5:27-32

27. Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28. but I say unto you, that every one that looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
29. And if thy right eye causeth thee to stumble, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and nor thy whole body be cast into hell.
30. And if thy right hand causeth thee to stumble, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not thy whole body go into hell.
31. It was said also, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
32. But I say unto you, that every one that putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress: and whosoever shall marry her when she is put away committeth adultery.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

a.

Is it possible for man to appraise and appreciate the physical and moral beauty of a woman without intent or desire to lust after her?

b.

How do men of our generation rebel against Jesus-' judgments and make lust easier for others?

c.

How does Jesus intend His striking imperatives, concerning tearing out the right eye and cutting off the right hand, to be understood and applied? How did the apostles teach and apply the same lesson?

d.

How could divorcing one's wife, unless she has been unfaithful, make her an adulteress? (Matthew 5:32)

e.

How does Jesus intend this whole teaching on the subject of adultery and divorce to be applied: as the law of the State? as the law of the Church? or merely as a principal of individual conduct?

f.

How does Jesus intend the exception for unfaithfulness-' to be understood and applied? Is Jesus tacitly urging divorce upon one whose partner has proven unfaithful? Does adultery automatically break the marriage tie?

g.

Since the usual punishment under the Mosaic law against adultery was the death of the adulterers, would a divorce be necessary after that sentence was carried out? What, if anything, does this fact suggest about the state of morality in that age to which Jesus addressed His dictum on divorce?

h.

Is Jesus revoking (or setting aside) the Law on the question of what constitutes adultery when He condemns the sin of the heart?

i,

How does purity of heart strengthen the home and human society?

j.

In what way is divorce contrary to God's plan for man?

k.

What constitutes sincere repentance of the sin of adultery: (1) in the case of an undivorced, unfaithful married person? (2) in the case of a wrongly divorced person who has remarried? (that is, one who has remarried while his former mate is still living)

l.

Is adultery, committed under any condition, the unforgiveable sin?

m.

Does Jesus-' teaching on marriage, divorce, adultery and remarriage cover every possible human case? If so, how? If not, what are His disciples to do when they find a case not exactly dealt with in the NT? Are they to make rules where the Lord made none? How are they to apply the rules He did give? If you think that Jesus-' teaching does not cover every possible case, why, accordingly, did not Jesus intend to deal with every imaginable possibility?

n.

If the marriage bond is broken (in the sight of God) by a divorce on the basis of unchastity, are the two individuals yet married in any sense? If they are no longer married in any sense, are they eligible as such to marry?

o.

How does the rejection of unchanging standards erode morality, even if it does not openly encourage immorality?

p.

How can one keep himself unspotted from the world (cf. James 1:27), when there is so much that tempts all about him?

q.

Why must Christians vigorously oppose immorality in all forms?

PARAPHRASE

You have heard that it was said, -You shall not commit adultery. But I say to you that whomever looks at a woman with a desire for her has already committed adultery with her in his imagination.

If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away from you! It is better that you lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go to hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away! It is better that you lose one member of your body than that your whole body go to hell.

It was also said, -Whoever divorces his wife must give her a proper certificate of divorce.-' But I say to you that every man who divorces his wife, except on the ground of her unchastity, is making her to commit adultery. Whoever marries a woman thus divorced also commits adultery.

SUMMARY

Not merely the external act of adultery is condemned before God, but also the more far-reaching lust that smolders beneath an outward decency. Even the most precious and justifiable and useful habit, association or pleasure that carries with it a seduction threatening one's purity of heart, must be mercilessly excised from one's life. Unchastity is the only valid reason for divorce; any other excuse opens doors for adultery.

NOTES

I. A SEARCHING AND SOBER SEX STANDARD

Matthew 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said. Even though the phrase to them of old time does not appear, yet it may easily be added, inasmuch as the law against adultery was certainly known before the Mosaic Law (Cf. Genesis 39:9), and was merely codified by it as a moral principle against any act that destroys the sanctity of the marriage and family. The Law against adultery (Exodus 20:14; Deuteronomy 5:18) only intended voluntary sexual intercourse by a married man with another than his wife, or by a married woman with another than her husband, while the commandment against coveting (Exodus 20:17) actually mentions a longing desire for thy neighbor's wife. If Jesus were merely correcting false or inadequate interpretations of the Law, He could have simply cited the ignored tenth commandment. Yet the Law could punish only the act (Leviticus 18:20; Leviticus 20:10-20), being impotent to touch the sinful desire, However, the death penalty required for the punishment of adultery should cause one to reflect upon the terrible nature of this sin.

Matthew 5:28 But I say unto you, What Jesus is about to declare is a hard-won personal decision, not only the most searching judgment of God. Jesus had faced this question of personal desires under another form and conquered (Matthew 4:3-4). Whoever looks upon a woman to lust after her: this is not a look of evaluation, admiration or affection, but of lusty desire. Both Job (Job 24:15; Job 31:1-4; Job 31:9-11) and Solomon (Proverbs 2:9; Proverbs 2:16-19; Proverbs 5; Proverbs 6:23 to Proverbs 7:27; Proverbs 23:26-28) saw the connection between the lust of the heart and eyes and the act of adultery. But only Jesus could declare and enforce a judgment unknown in the Mosaic Law: he has committed adultery with her already in his heart. By forbidding the lusting look, Jesus prevents the adulterous act. Here is the true cause of adultery: sexual desire that smolders beneath an outward decency, impure thoughts and lewd imaginations represent a subtle rebellion against God's design for the purity of human love. Jesus attacks licentiousness and lust in the heart, because they represent the true, corrupt character of the man even though they have not yet come forth as actual deeds. Though such thoughts are safely hidden from human censure, they are glaringly obvious to the eye of God! Already in his heart: Jesus-' point is that the impure heart has already decided upon a course of action which the body would execute upon the first combination of favorable circumstances, Peter (2 Peter 2:14 a) describes this kind of person as having eyes full of adultery, insatiable for sin. Paul puts it (Titus 1:15): To the pure all things are pure, but to the corrupt and unbelieving nothing is pure; their very minds and consciences are corrupted. He who looks to lust is using just one means to stimulate his corrupt emotions, since pictures, books and filthy conversation arouse and feed lust just as much as the actual presence of the woman. The brazenly assured half-truth that nobody can be punished simply for desiring a woman with his eyes is severely condemned. What a man thinks he IS, and, on that basis, Jesus judges him!

Jesus has already provided the effective antidote for this temptation: Blessed are the PURE IN HEART. (See notes on Matthew 5:8) He would have us be completely sincere, so single of purpose, so unadulterated that we have no conflicting desires. We have no business harboring an emotion the conclusion of which we see to be sin! If we actually love every woman with that intelligent desire to do what is always in her best interest, how can we corrupt our heart with desires to sin against her?

II. A SEVERE, SWIFT SURGERY OF THE
SUGGESTIVE AND SINISTER

Matthew 5:29-30 And if thy right eye or thy right hand causeth thee to stumble. Jesus-' word is to be taken figuratively but seriously. If He be interpreted merely in a literal sense, sheer irrelevancy results. Jesus rejected a purely literal construction of phrase like this when He refused even to make His disciples wash their hands merely to remove ceremonial defilement (Matthew 15:20). Since a wicked heart produces sin, the purification must take place there. (Study Matthew 15:1-20 and Mark 7:1-23 to appreciate this concept.) Anything as seemingly defensible, precious or useful to us as these parts of our body had better be surrendered than permit them to destroy our soul! Many good things can so often be the enemy of the best: for example, any habit which could be a seduction, any possession that could become an obsession, any association or any pleasure that could be the cause of sin is a mortal enemy of our soul. Pluck it out. cut it off and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish. How did the apostles understand and preach this impossible demand of Jesus? Paul (Colossians 2:10-23) teaches that mere austerity is of no value in checking the indulgence of the flesh, even though it seems to promote rigor of devotion, self-abasement and severity to the body. The reason offered is that not merely one portion of the M y is to be made to suffer, but rather the whole man must be crucified and buried! (Matthew 16:24-26; Romans 6:3; Romans 12:1; 1 Corinthians 9:27; Galatians 5:24; 1 Peter 2:11) Only perfect self-denial can overcome the powerful insistence of a lusty imagination. No cost must be thought too high to pay to avoid the gratification of wicked passions. No restraint is too drastic nor self-discipline too severe to avoid using the body for sinful purposes. Better maimed than damned! But so to act is to expose oneself to the solicitous cries of well-meaning neighbors and to be thought a fool for so harshly limiting oneself.

Some assume that Jesus is responding here to an objector whose demurring from His harsh judgment (Matthew 5:28) might be stated, But, Jesus, where can you draw the line between looking at a woman to

appreciate her physical beauty and the place where that admiration becomes lust? If Jesus is responding to such a question, then His answer may be paraphrased thus: If your looking at a woman or touching her causes adulterous thoughts to rise in your heart, do not look at her! Take your hands off her! How intensely practical this word of Jesus! He knew how irresistible is that sexual tension when excited and tantalized by a look or a caress.

What can break the spell of this sensual enravishment and bring reality back into focus? Nothing less than the live possibility that thy whole body be cast into hell! Hell awaits the offender: what an incentive to immediate and uncompromising obedience! How this reality restores one-s perspective! Later, Jesus also emphasizes the entrance into life, to stimulate a positive refusal to indulge one's desires, (Matthew 18:8-9; cf. Romans 8:18) Fear is a proper motive. (Cf. Acts 24:25; Romans 1:18; Romans 11:20; Romans 11:22; 2 Corinthians 5:11; Galatians 6:7-8; Hebrews 10:26-31) When tempted to shrink from the self-discipline demanded

by the Lord, think of the alternative!

What are some applications of Jesus-' judgments against immorality?

1. Young people who are not married are forbidden to act as if they were! lovers may not make their own rules, but must obey Jesus.

2. The Biblical view of purity contradicts the readily-accepted axiom of modern advertising: Sex sells, (Ephesians 5:3-12) Though successful in selling, it has also succeeded in relaxing a proper sense of modesty and purity.

3. Dressing to arouse sexual appetite is forbidden, (Matthew 18:7-9; Romans 14:13 to Romans 15:3 a)

4. Those of seemingly irreproachable moral integrity who think nothing of seeking their erotic entertainment in socially-approved ways also should feel the Lord-s censure. Some socially acceptable means are risque comedy, licentious books, adults only movies. One must examine his motives for participation in such things: does he do it with an eye to criticize by God-s standards, or to satisfy an idle curiosity, or to indulge a secret sensuality?
5. Sophisticated sex, the view that the pleasures of sex are perfectly harmless, inconsequential and may be freely enjoyed outside marriage without any sense of sin or shame, is a false view of man. That sophistication which glorifies illicit relations associated with the new morality or free love is not harmless and morally unobjectionable, but is contemptible, damnable and worthy of the most vigorous opposition. While it may not be absolutely possible to prove such relations to be wrong by philosophical reasoning, the objective standard which damns this way of thinking stands upon the authoritative word of Jesus.

Can you think of other applications? Let us beware not to be hypocritical as we seek to apply Jesus-' word, as if we ourselves were not affected by those overpowering forces of our age which would portray so many forms of sexual perversion as exciting and entertaining. (1 Corinthians 10:12; Galatians 6:1 b)

What can save us from the all-pervasive sexuality of this era?

1.

Thorough knowledge of God's Word regarding this problem, with a view to answering temptations that certainly will arise. (1 Corinthians 6:9-20; 1 Corinthians 10:1-13; 1 Corinthians 5; 1 Corinthians 7; 1 Thessalonians 4:3-8; Hebrews 13:4) This constant reflection upon what God has provided to lead us into life and godliness as well as upon the attractions of His precious and very great promises, will show the way of escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion (2 Peter 1:3-4). This habitual choice of truth and righteousness reinforces the conscience, making the right decision easier when the temptations present themselves. (Philippians 4:8) Monasticism, or refusing to look upon a woman at any time, is no way to overcome the adulterous look, since refusal to think a b u t a forbidden desire is the best way to find the mind most securely fixed upon it. Only positive thought which fills the mind with the view-point of God can cast out adulterous sentiments.

2.

The expulsive power of a new affection leaves no room for the lust of the eyes (1 John 2:15-16) which contradicts that new love. The intelligent choice to love one of the opposite sex, even as God has loved them, destroys the power of lust. This is true moral vision: the ability to see a man or woman, not as the means of satisfying one's lust, but as one whom we may love to the point of sacrificing one's self for their highest good.

3.

The purifying power of hope, (Cf. 1 John 3:3) No sane man will risk his eternal security by momentarily dallying with a temptation when he knows that his salvation depends upon unwavering faithfulness.

Positive action helps to break the spell of some allurement, Sometimes flight is best. (Genesis 39; 2 Timothy 2:22) Plunging into the service of others does not allow time for that idleness in which the self-indulgent imagination may seek satisfaction.

III. A SUBTLE AND SERIOUS SUBVERSION OF SOCIETY

Matthew 5:31 Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement. (See also Matthew 19:1-9) In these few words Jesus practically cites all of the Mosaic legislation on the subject, (Deuteronomy 24:1-4; Deuteronomy 22:13-21) Observe that the only divine law that ever spoke on the subject of divorce did not command it. Divorce was merely tolerated as representing men's yet unconverted hearts (Matthew 19:8) and was regulated to prevent grosser inhumanities.

The reason Jesus connects His teaching about divorce with His instruction about adultery is that there is an unavoidable moral connection. When any society sinks to such a level that complete freedom of divorce for any excuse permits as many husbands or wives in quick succession as desire may crave, any command not to commit adultery becomes a farce.

God hates divorce (Malachi 2:13-16), because one thus deals treacherously with his companion, the wife of his youth; because one breaks the covenant he made with her before God; and because he thus shows his basic inhumanity by casting her out and compelling her to sob out her troubles alone at God's altar. This heartbreak, loneliness, shame and often destitution caused by easy divorces caused God to reject the worship of the Jews (Malachi 2:13 b). Compare notes on Matthew 5:23. God also hates divorce because it goes against the nature both of the institution of marriage and of man himself (Matthew 19:1-9).

Matthew 5:32 But I say unto you. For the full Christian teaching, compare Matthew 19:1-9; Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18; Romans 7:1-3; 1 Corinthians 7:10-17. Were Jesus merely clearing the rubbish of human traditions from the ancient Law against adultery, as many assume, in order to show its deep and true spiritual meaning and restore the Seventh Commandment to its proper observance, then why does not Jesus restore also the death penalty for unchastity, rather than suggest that a woman divorced for any cause is made to be (or made to appear to be) an adulteress when she marries another? The OT Law against adultery was clear in its definition of the death penalty to the adulterers. (Cf. Deuteronomy 22:22; Leviticus 20:10) But He is not defending the Law, as misinterpreted by the scribes and Pharisees. Rather, He is picturing true righteousness which is always a greater standard than legal righteousness. Jesus here completely removes the necessity for the Law, by establishing a principle that thoroughly fulfils the intent of the Law.

The Law seemed to permit divorce for any cause. (Matthew 19:3) The rabbis could not agree upon the exact intent of the phrase: if the wife does not find favor in his eyes, because he has found in her something shameful. (Cf. Deuteronomy 24:1) Hilll's school interpreted it in the widest and most lax manner possible: literally for any cause. Shammai adhered more strictly to the spirit of the law, his interpretation being wantonness, lasciviousness, lewdness as the shameful things that the husband must find in his wife before he may divorce her, although he did not include actual adultery since that was punished by death. A rabbi Akiba even allowed the finding a more desirable woman as ample justification for divorcing the present wife. Such a lowering of the moral standards of marriage probably affected the question of unfaithfulness to the point that even adultery became so commonplace that it was regarded as an inconvenient and embarrassing social mistake, rather than high treason against the family. As a result, the ancient Law seemingly was not carried out, as many commentators suggest. (Cf. Hosea 4:14; John 4:18; Luke 7:36-50; Matthew 21:32) However, to assert that the Jews did not have the right to execute the death penalty proves nothing, since they exercised the penalty when their conscience was sufficiently aroused. (Cf. John 18:31 with Acts 7:58-59; Acts 26:10; note John 7:1; John 7:19; John 7:25; John 8:59; John 10:31-33) The story of the adulteress brought to Jesus (John 7:53 to John 8:11) is inadmissible as evidence because of the adequate manuscript testimony against it. (See Butler, John, Vol. II, p. 42)

Every one that putteth away his wife. maketh her an adulteress. Here the principle is stated regarding only the man, but it is reversible (Mark 10:12). Because Jesus made only one exception to the general rule, His rule may be stated as above: Anyone who divorces his wife for any other excuse makes her an adulteress. But questions immediately arise: how or in what sense does he make her an adulteress? Is she really considered by God to be an adulteress or is she only falsely stigmatized as such by those who know of her divorce? The phrase, translated by the ASV maketh her an adulteress, (poiei auten michheuthenai) is made difficult by the fact that the last word is a passive infinitive in form, The question for the translators is whether the infinitive must be translated passively or whether it is the usual Greek translation for an active Hebrew verb. The difference in meaning which results from the varying translation may be expressed as follows:

1.

Actively: (he causes her) to commit adultery or to be an adulteress, Because a woman, divorced for just any excuse, is not really divorced in God's view, her practical necessity to remarry in order to be supported would force her to commit adultery, since she was really ineligible to remarry. Is this practical necessity her personal responsibility?

2.

Passively: (he causes her) to be adulterated or defiled by her sexual contact with another, when she was not really (in God's sight) divorced from her husband, even though this other be recognized by the society to be her new husband. The Law (Deuteronomy 24:4) speaks of this second union as defilement. Another possible passive translation is offered by Lenshi: (he causes her) to be stigmatized as an adulteress when in fact she is not, her divorce being on quite other grounds, The mere fact that she was divorced might give rise to suspicion of adultery, even though the public reason was some triviality. Thus, she would bear the suspicion or stigma of having been an adulteress.

Thus it will be seen that neither construction necessarily views the woman as guilty. Both view her as the unfortunate victim of a vicious system which subjects her to the caprice of her husband. What is unequivocally clear is that the stigma of adultery is related to her remarriage.

In regard to the man who shall marry her when she is put away, the same translational difficulty exists due to another middle-passive Greek verb (moichatai), which carries with it the same difficulties of interpretation. Is he really an adulterer or only stigmatized as such? Yet, the fact that Matthew (Matthew 19:9 twice) and Mark (Mark 10:11-12 twice) seem to use the verb with active force, while Luke's parallel (Luke 16:18) uses an undoubted active verb (moicheuei), points to the conclusion that the man who marries an improperly divorced woman commits adultery and is personally guilty of sexual relations with a woman who, as God views the question, was the wife of another. Legal permission granted by a State for any cause other than unfaithfulness does not justify taking advantage of such permission.

Let us compare the various elements in Jesus-' teaching:

Matthew 5:32

Matthew 19:9

Mark 10:11-12

but I say unto you that
(1) every one that putteth away his wife

And I say unto you,
(1) Whosoever shall put away his wife,

And he saith unto them,
(1) Whosoever shall put away his wife,

(2) saving for the cause of fornication,

(2) except for fornication,

(2)

(3) maketh her an adulteress

(3)

(3)

(4)

(4) and shall marry another, committeth adultery:

(4) and marry another, committeth adultery against her:

(5) and whosoever shall marry her when she is put away committeth adultery.

(5) and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth
adultery.

(5)

(6)

(6)

(6) and if she herself put away her husband and marry another, she committeth adultery.

Luke 16:18 merely repeats elements 1, 4, 5.

Obviously, the man who thus divorces his wife for relatively trivial reasons does so with a view of remarrying. According to element 4, he sins against his former wife, in that he was not really (in God's sight) divorced from her and he sins against his new wife, since he was not eligible to marry her. Thus, he involves four people in adultery by his selfish divorce: his former wife, himself, his new wife, and his former wife's new husband.

The one exception to the general rules described above is clearly stated twice by Jesus (Matthew 5:32; Matthew 19:9): except for the cause of fornication. Fornication (porneia) is a general word used to mean any kind of unlawful sexual relations, whether prostitution, unchastity, whoredom or premarital intercourse, The Law (Deuteronomy 22:20-21) assumed the possible case of premarital infidelity, but death. not divorce, resolved the question, as in the case of marital infidelity (Deuteronomy 22:22), But Jesus unequivocally teaches that a person may divorce his mate because of their unfaithfulness, This, and only this, divorce is valid before God: such a couple is no longer married in any sense.

But is this exception offered as a recommendation that those whose mate betrays them SHOULD divorce them, or is it offered as a concession under intolerable conditions, so that those whose mate betrays them MAY divorce them? Since pardon and complete reconciliation are not inconceivable, Jesus-' exception is a concession, Although a partner who seeks sexual satisfaction outside his marriage has certainly sinned, his mate is not automatically exonerated for his conduct or attitudes that may have driven his formerly faithful mate to seek illicit satisfactions, In other words, is divorce, even for the cause of marital unfaithfulness, the best answer to the unfaithful consort's problem? The cause of the unfaithfulness may partially be found in the so-called innocent party, although, of course, not necessarily. The sin of adultery does break the marriage vow of the adulterer, but not of the other partner; hence, the marriage union is not yet severed. The union may only be ended by death or divorce, neither of which has yet occurred. The injured mate has the right but not the obligation to terminate the marriage in divorce. If he is satisfied with the genuineness of the adulterous partner's repentance, the marriage may be continued. Forgiveness is not unlikely nor impossible.

Because of the heavy emphasis that Jesus gives to the idea that the remarriage of improperly divorced mates to others causes adultery, we are stimulated to ask, What of the person whose divorce from his mate is recognized by God as valid? May he remarry? For this question the Lord has left no answer. If we may be permitted to solve the problem by human reasoning, we would conclude: the couple in question are really divorced, hence, married in no sense and, therefore, eligible to marry. This conclusion is valid as much for the guilty as for the innocent, since there can be no sense in which one party is married while the other is not. Yet, this is a human conclusion: Jesus did not say so.

Jesus is revealing ideals which will render adultery and divorce impossible: remove lust from the heart and adultery becomes impossible; when adultery is eliminated, divorce becomes unnecessary. The Law did not nor could not take adequate account of the sin in the heart. Therefore it had to legislate against certain external acts in order to eliminate worse. The language of Jesus is as far from legal terminology as could be imagined especially in dealing with all sides of every case. This feature renders difficult a legalistic application of Jesus-' teaching, since He chose not to say more. Many questions are left to human wisdom:

1.

What constitutes repentance in regard to the sin of adultery?

a.

Divorcing one's wife who was not really divorced from her first husband? What about children of her second marriage?

b.

Divorcing one's second wife, because not really divorced from the first? Must one return to the first wife?

c.

Must the first wife divorce her second husband in order to return to her first? Would God approve of such a return, when He once called it an abomination? (Deuteronomy 24:4)

d.

Must unlawful (from God's viewpoint) marriages be broken up as evidence of repentance?

e.

Or, does repentance consist of refusing to commit further adultery (or refusal to divorce one's present mate) without changing the past mistakes?

2.

Since God has revealed no specific means whereby repentance of adultery may be demonstrated, is the confession of this sin to God enough to assure one's conscience that God has forgiven the sin? Then, if God has truly forgiven the sin, how does He then regard the formerly illegitimate marriage? The marriage, presumably legal in the eyes of society, has continued perhaps for years until the individual was led to repentance. Does 1 Corinthians 7:24 apply?

3.

If an act of adultery causes divorce and the adulterer was later forgiven by God, would God permit him (or her) to remarry after that? Would one be truly penitent if he sought another mate?

The very complexity of such questions and the uncomplicated nature of the Lord's revelation by which we are to decide these problems, should help us to see in what spirit He intends that we shall take His Word on the subject. He has revealed enough to keep us out of these entanglements; so little to get us out, And though His silence be regarded by the legalist as an inadequacy, yet the fact that Jesus did not go into great detail is most significant, In this problem, as in all other moral issues, He laid down broad guidelines within which His disciple must make his own moral judgments. He has not fettered His followers with multitudinous rules, details and cases, Instead, He provides in us the new nature that abhors all that is connected with adultery and divorce, Should we find ourselves involved in such a situation, however, we are left free to decide, in harmony with all His other principles, how best to arrive at the most equitable, most merciful solution for our given case, Thus, without detailed laws, He controls us by His Spirit which He puts in us.

Let it be closely observed that these controls will work only in him to whom Jesus addressed these words, that is, the disciple, They cannot be applied to society in general without the loss of that controlling, motivating moral vigor found only in faithful discipleship to Jesus.

FACT QUESTIONS

1.

Where is the OT Law on divorce located? (give book, chapter, verse)

2.

What was the common application of this law, as interpreted by the Jews?

3.

What significant difference does Jesus-' instruction make in that law?

4.

What is fornication? How does Jesus use that word in this context?

5.

What is the difference between adultery and fornication usually noted in other contexts?

6.

What was the OT penalty meted out against those guilty of adultery? Solve the discrepancy between this law and the situation to which Jesus aimed His judgment,

7.

What are the great, abiding principles which underlie all that Jesus teaches concerning marriage, the family, divorce, and adultery?

8.

List the other NT passages which give teaching or helpful information on the questions of marriage, divorce and adultery.

9.

Explain how a man, who divorces his otherwise faithful wife, is condemned by Jesus, since he maketh her an adulteress (Matthew 5:32). Is she really an adulteress, or merely and falsely stigmatized as such? Or both? Explain your answer. Does she become an adulteress by having to marry again in order to sustain her life?

10. On the basis of your answer to the previous question, explain how a man who marries the divorcee committeth adultery. (Matthew 5:32) Is he falsely stigmatized as an adulterer because he married a woman thought to be an adulteress (when in fact she was not), or, is he really an adulterer because he married a woman ineligible for marriage (since, in fact, her divorce for any cause from her former husband was no divorce at all)?

11. What breaks the marriage bond?