2. Again, let�s look at this at face value for a moment, because Paul goes on to give us another cause for divorce. Now wait, first Paul states that the Lord commands for Married couples not to divorce. Then, he turns right around and says in verse 11, "But and if she depart..." Now that tells us something. It tells us that although Paul commanded them not to divorce, he never once expected this to be the case in every situation, else he would have stated not to divorce and that�s that period. We know from earlier examples though that a true statement is true in and of itself, but there are exceptions, and that is why Paul right after commanding them not to divorce says, "but if you do...".

Let�s look for a moment at verse 11 very carefully then. Paul says for the woman to remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband. Now either one of two things is true here. Either Paul is contradicting what Jesus taught, and what we�ve seen to be true so far, OR Paul is addressing a certain situation in this church, and we know what situation that is because we�ve seen it before: Divorce For Every Cause.

3. In the Greek culture, their were very similar problems to that of the Jewish culture when it came to divorce. In fact, while the Jews had to use a writing of divorcement, these people were from a different culture altogether and all that they had to do to get a divorce was to yell, "I divorce thee" three times in a public venue. Talk about casual! It was this same problem of divorcing for every cause under the sun that was taking place in the Corinthian church. Just because they were saved, did not mean that their culture had changed any. So Paul here is not contradicting, but rather is validating what Jesus said, that if anyone divorces for every cause, they are committing adultery. Why? Because their was no grounds for the divorce. The man would remarry and commit adultery, and his wife would remarry and would also be committing adultery because she was divorced without a cause. So Paul commands these Greek Christians that if they divorce their wives, those wives were to remain unmarried or return to their spouses. Now we know that this has to be the case because the Law said that it is an abomination for a divorced woman to return to her husband if she had married again This is why Paul states that she is to remain unmarried. Notice however, that Paul says the words, "IF SHE DEPART", in other words, if she divorces her husband, not vice-versa. Now this has nothing to do with the exception clause and still must be qualified by it. However, what Paul was saying was this: Don�t divorce your spouse, but I know some of you will anyway, and if you do, and not for the right reason, then you must remain unmarried or go back home, because the reason that you left was not the right one."

3. Paul validates abandonment In verse 15, Paul states that if an unbelieving spouse, which must be defined, departs, then the believer is not bound in such cases. In other words, the bond is dissolved, and the believer is free.

Now what is an unbeliever here? Of course we accept that a sinner is an unbeliever, but the Bible says this: "But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel."

This definition fits perfectly with what Paul is saying here, and I will go on to say that it includes those who beat their wives. They have denied the faith.

V. Redefining verse32 of Matthew 5. 1. Overview of Divorce and Remarriage Law First we need to concede the point that these laws are guidelines for believers to follow. They are for believers by default, because sinners do not obey Christ to start with. So we will assume for all practical purposes, that what we have been discussing hitherto has applied to Christians who have experienced divorce in their lives. I hate to break down an emotional issue like this into a table because it is not mechanical. Every circumstance is different. However, there are basic things that they all share. So simply for the sake of argument, we will apply what we�ve learned into sort of a table format.

GROUNDS	AT FAULT	WHO MAY DIVORCE?	IS WRONG?	WHO MAY REMARRY?	WHO COMMITS ADULTERY?
Fornication	Offending Party	Innocent Party	NO	Innocent Party	Offending Party
Abandonment	One Who Leaves (Called Unbeliever)	One Who Stays (Believer)	NO	One Who Stays	One Who Leaves
Any Other i.e.(Mutual Divorce between believers, OR a believer divorcing his/her spouse without cause (1 Cor. 7))	Both Parties (Mutual) Believer (Without Cause)	Neither	YES	Non-Initiating Party	BOTH (NON-INITIATING PARTY INVOLUNTARILY)

Now we see that in every case it is the person who actually initiates the divorce who is at fault. This is the case that Paul refers to in 1 Corinthians 7. He commands that the one who departed, in this case the woman, without grounds, to remain unmarried or to be reconciled to her husband.

We saw that adultery, or fornication, was sufficient grounds even in the Old Testament for divorce. The Guilty party was stoned, was dead, and so the Innocent party was free to remarry. We also saw that in Deuteronomy 24, that the divorced spouse, as long as she had the Writing of Divorcement, was free to remarry, and it was not wrong. Then in the New Testament, we see that Jesus honors the Writing of Divorcement in John 4, but disagrees with the motive by which it is used and given. Then we see that Paul states that if a spouse wants to leave, let them leave. He calls them an unbeliever, not meaning that they have never been saved, but that they have forsaken their faith. The believer is not bound anymore according to Paul.

So if this is true, why then does Jesus say that if a man divorces his wife for any cause except fornication, that he causes his wife to commit adultery. Now it would seem that if they divorced, and Jesus honors the divorce bill, then the divorce is dissolved, then how can she commit adultery? Is there a contradiction? No. Then it calls for the need to find a new definition.

3. A better definition of Adultery If one asks a good Baptist what the definition of Grace is, they will reply that it is the "unmerited favor of God". However, Jack Hyle, Maryln Hickey and I also will argue that even though this is the commonly understood meaning of the word grace, when placed into its Biblical context, that definition really doesn�t fit well. Remember we said that a word can only be properly defined when it is placed into the context that it was used in. Therefore, if we look at the word "grace", we find that the "unmerited favor of God" definition actually applies more to the word "mercy". Why? There are several Biblical proofs of this. I will mention two. The word "Grace", when applied to its context actually is better defined as: "The supernatural power of God".

For proof one, in the Bible it says that Jesus was full of grace and truth. So if we apply the common definition, it really doesn�t fit well at all. Here is Jesus, God the Son, sinless Lamb of God, and He was full of the "unmerited favor of God"? Granted he SHOWED the unmerited favor of God, but again, that is mercy. For proof two, God told Paul, "My Grace is sufficient for thee". Paul was screaming to God for Him to take away this demonic thorn in the flesh, and God tells Paul that His grace is sufficient. Again, the common definition does not fit well at all: "My unmerited favor is sufficient for thee"?

In both of these verses, it is better to define the word Grace in the following way, based upon the context in which it is used: 1. And we beheld him as the only begotten of the Father full of the supernatural power of God and truth. and 2. And God said to Paul, "My supernatural power (or ability) is sufficient for thee". In other words, God would sustain Paul by HIS power, not his unmerited favor.

4. A Redefining of Matthew 5:32 In the same sense as the word grace above was defined, we can look at what Jesus said in the same manner. In John 6 Jesus said "Except ye eat my flesh and drink my blood ye cannot be my disciple." Now we can look at every dictionary and lexicon that we want to, translate it word for word, and we still don�t know what he meant when he said that until he explains himself. Jesus said that his words were spirit and life. Most everything that Jesus said, we would not have a clue of what it means if it were not for either His or Paul�s explanations. It is safe to say therefore, that in many contexts, Jesus is saying something rather different than what his words say. In Matthew 5:32, Jesus says that if a man puts away his wife for any cause other than fornication, then he causes her to commit adultery. Matthew 19, Mark�s gospel, and Luke�s gospel all say that HE commits adultery against HER, but here Jesus says that HE causes HER to commit adultery.

If we look at the word adultery, we know that is often interchangeable with the word fornication, but in definition, fornication includes adultery, but adultery does not include fornication. The definition is unlawful sex with another�s spouse. However, when we look at the Old Testament, we know that based upon the context, that there is a figurative meaning to the word also. It could be defined as idolatrous worship, but a better definition would be the breaking of a covenant vow. Many times, Israel�s heart was away from God, even though they were not worshipping idols, and so they were still committing adultery. Then, in the New Testament, Jesus says that if a man looks upon a woman to lust after her, he has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Again, he cannot be having physical relations, but here it is used again as a figurative about the issues of the heart towards God. In this verse, Jesus is using the word adultery as a interchangeable term with fornication because he doesn�t say anything about the man or woman being married. However, we can see that since the word adultery is used, we know that if a man is married, based upon this teaching, that in lusting after another woman he is breaking his covenant vow with his wife in "forsaking all others". Jesus was saying that it was just as bad for this man to lust after a woman in his heart as it was to have relations with her for real. Of course, this is in the sight of God, not in the sight of the spouse. The spouse would certainly think it worse for the man to actually do the thing than to imagine it! So since we know that Jesus validated divorce on the grounds of fornication, and that he also validated the divorce bill, but disagreed with the motive behind it, and that Paul validated divorce due to abandonment, but not willful divorce between believers, then what is he trying to say? We have already proven that the doctrine of perpetual marriage is wrong, and so if they do divorce, for whatever reason, then she is no longer his wife at all. So how could she possibly commit adultery? It does not say she commits adultery, it says that her husband causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries her commits adultery. But how could that be if she is not to blame? In light of the context of the phrase of committing adultery, we know that it cannot possibly mean having sex with someone else�s spouse here, so then it forces itself to be a figurative as in the preceding verses. Again, Jesus is attacking their motives behind the divorce, not the divorce itself. If we apply a new definition to adultery here then, without changing the scripture, the problem becomes all cleared away. In the figurative sense, we have God�s heart toward the matter, not the matter itself. If a man looks upon a woman to lust after her, in God�s sight it is the same as if the man actually had relations with her. There are two things that I would like to prove here:

NEXT PAGE

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws