O. S. ASAOLU

1. O. S. ASAOLU Could one scripturally divorce for the cause of adultery? Prepared: March 24, 2019 First presented on request at coC, Mile 12 ½, Lagos Contact: asaolu@yahoo.com www.lainosint.com/download/faith

2. Outline

3. Definitions and OT Precepts To marry a woman is to wed her or take her as a wife; that implies a man has gone through some formal or recognized process / protocol in the society which now recognizes the duo as ‘husband and wife,’ irrespective of whether it is actually approved by God or not. Only those eligible to marry each other by God’s word are in an lawful marriage otherwise a married couple is in an illicit marriage. New couples had freelance time (Honeymoon). Deuteronomy 24:5 When a man hath taken a new wife, he shall not go out to war, neither shall he be charged with any business: but he shall be free at home one year, and shall cheer up his wife which he hath taken.

4. To commit adultery is to break wedlock vow. It occurs when a lawfully married person [historically, woman] has sexual intercourse with someone other than the spouse. It adulterates or pollute, not sever a marriage. The punishment in the OT was severe. Promiscuity discovered on wedding night in a newly married woman (pre-marital sex); execution by stoning -Deut 22:20-21 Confirmed infidelity of a married woman (extra-marital sex); execution by stoning -Deut 22:22, Lev 20:10 Suspected infidelity of a married woman, drinking of ephod water before the priest may absolve or afflict her in life-threatening manner –Num 5:11-31

5. To “put away” a wife is to repudiate her. In the context of divorce [not execution], this is a renunciation of the marriage covenant by the husband; involves giving her a bill (certificate) of divorcement and sending her away from his home. To paraphrase Deut 24:1-4: “When a man has married a woman to be his wife and discovers some uncleanness in her that erases his love and he writes her a certificate of divorce and sends her away from his house, if she goes on to become another man’s wife who also divorce her or later dies, her previous husband may not receive her back as wife after she is defiled. Otherwise it would pollute the land before the LORD and cause the populace to be engrossed in sin.”

6. Jesus and Mosaic Law Christ was born under the law of Moses -Gal 4:4-5 He kept the law perfectly, never sinning –1 Pet 2:21-22 If Jesus gainsaid Mosaic precepts and broke God’s law then He would just be another sinner and could not have qualified to be our Saviour –Heb 7:25-28. People were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes –Mk 1:22 He upheld and expounded the law, teaching its original intent e.g. on vow/swear, vengeance, etc. –Mt 5:21-46 He agreed that ‘the law of Moses should not be broken’ –Jn 7:23 Was Jesus truthful or lying in Mt 5:17-20 ? The law passed away or was changed after His death –Heb 9:15-17

7. Christ on divorce: the plain texts Mark 10:7-9, 11-12For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. …And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery. Luke 16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

8. Christ on divorce: the not-so-plain texts Matthew 5:31-32It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. Matthew 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

9. “Except for fornication” – why ‘fornication’? Amazing that Christians today ignore the plain texts and struggle over the not-so-plain texts! Jesus forbids putting away one’s marriage partner but for the case of fornication. Christ spoke in the common Greek and used the word porneia [fornication / sexual immorality] and NOT morcheia [adultery] in the exemption clause. He would have said “except for adultery” if that is what was intended, no need to complicate or obfuscate it.

10. In Bible times, fornication is primarily used to describe a sexual relationship by persons who are unmarried by God’s standard. It is not the same thing as adultery but is often termed whoredom e.g. -Tamar conceived by tricking Judah -Gen 34:28 -On Balaam’s counsel, Moabites seduced Israelites –Num 25:1-9, Rev 2:14 Thus ‘fornication, adultery’ are actually separate sins, often listed together in the same verse e.g. Mt 15:19, Mk 7:21, 1 Cor 6:9, Gal 5:19, Heb 13:4, Mt 5:32; 19:9

11. Secondarily, {Greek – Porneia Strong 4202} that “fornicationispromiscuity of any type; sexual immorality or surrendering of sexual purity.” It is a broad term which covers every illicit sexual intercourse and a wide range of sins such as harlotry, pre-marital sex, extra-marital sex [adultery], sodomy, bestiality, incest, etc. Example: -The Holy Spirit inspired the apostles to write unto Gentile believers that “they abstain from pollutions of idols, and fornication, and things strangled, and blood.” -Acts 15:20. This statute of holiness is adapted from God’s commandments unto Israel (Lev 17:8-18:26) for citizens and any stranger that dwell therein. -The Corinthian Christian who had his father’s wife -1 Cor 5:1-5.

12. Should a man put away his wife? Jesus says NO Except for fornication Save for a case of fornication Excluding a matter of fornication Only upon a scenario of fornication Christ is saying that man may not put asunder his wife except for a situation of fornication. A husband may put away only on the basis of fornication. If you impose the generic meaning of porneia in the exemption clause, it means people will not only divorce for extra-marital sex today, they would also divorce if the spouse has engaged in pre-marital sex or is NOT found a virgin!It assumes Jesus changed both Deut 22 precepts during His earthly ministry.

13. Since “fornication” is ambiguous let us substitute each plausible option in ‘exemption clause’ to see whether it would be tenable under Mosaic law and acceptable to the audience and the Pharisees!Evidently it could NOT be Harlotry because a prostitute isn’t the focus but a couple. (Men who married known harlots didn’t divorce -Jdg 19:1-3, Hos 1-3) Pre-marital sex because the prevailing law then specified death for such woman –Deut 22:13-21 Proven adultery because the prevailing law then specified death for such woman or man –Deut 22:22, Lev 20:10. Suspected adultery handled by law of jealousies -Num 5:11-31 Homosexual sex / sodomy since the prevailing law then specified death for it –Exo 22:19, Deut 27:21, Lev 20:13 Bestiality or sex with an animal   since the prevailing law then specified death for such man or woman –Lev 20:15, Exo 22:19, Deut 27:21, Lev 18:23; 20:16 But incest & other prohibited unions -Lev 20:20-21, Deut 7:1-4

14. Scrutiny of “put away for adultery” A married person can only divorce and marry another, provided the spouse has committed adultery, otherwise such commits adultery. The guilty party who is put away is still considered married ‘in the eyes of God’ so whoever marry such again commits adultery. This view implies: Not only death may end a lawful marriage as in Rm7:2-3, God approves divorce therein, the Lord reversed the statement that: “he hateth putting away.” –Mal 2:16 Christ gainsaid/revoked then prevailing Mosaic law that specified death penalty, not divorce for adultery. Man may ‘put asunder’ what God joined has together by natural law and spiritual endorsement, violates Mk 10:9 In Mt 5:32, put away ‘not for fornication’ makes her commit adultery when she marries another. He who put her away ‘for fornication’ causes her to do what?

15. Violates plain text –if a man divorces his wife to marry another, is she being innocent, free to remarry after his adultery? View says “Yes” but Jesus says “No.” (Lk 16:18) Violates the definitions of ‘marriage, divorce and adultery.’ If one party commits adultery by remarrying so shall the other for it purports they are still joined. Reads into the text – Christ did NOT say “exceptshe commitsadultery” as many assume rather He deliberately, literallysays “except for fornication.” He talks about a man putting asunder or putting away his joined partner, not about others (witnesses/priest) and him  putting her on trial for joining herself to another man. It is about the duo not about third parties. NB: “divorce for adultery” is NOT exemplified in the Bible

16. Scrutiny of “put away for an illicit union” Except a marital union is fornication, whosoever puts away a spouse and marry another commits adultery. This view implies: Any couple who are ineligible unto each other ab initio are in sexual immorality. As ‘he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.’ Such is divinely instructed to “flee fornication” -1 Cor 6:15-18. God does not approve of any unlawful marriage or relationship though it is a societal reality and His natural law of cleaving ensures such duo actually become one flesh. They must terminate their unlawful union in repentance. Exemplified in Ezra 10:1-44, Nehe 13:23-30, (Mk 16-18)

17. The New Testament Teaching To avoid fornication, ‘let every man have his own wife and every woman have her own husband’ (1 Cor 7:2). It has to be approved and personal, not another’s spouse. A marriage will be unlawful or fornication if ensuing union is divinely prohibited today e.g. incestuous, adulterous, bestial or gay marriage. The command in 1 Cor 7:10-11 is primarily to those who have lawful or divinely recognized wives. We know this because those just reported to have illicit partners were commended for their repentance in discarding such lifestyles.(1 Cor 6:9-11).

18. 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 “And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.” A woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, at his death she is at liberty to marry another person (1 Cor 7:39). Marrying another while the subsisting husband is alive makes her an adulteress (Rm 7:3). Thus a lawful couple that separate or divorce must live as Eunuchs or reconcile.

19. Conclusions Christ neither adopted the position of the Shammai Pharisees that one may only divorce a wife for unchastity nor the position of the Hillel group that one may divorce for any cause. He taught a unique view:Except for when a marital union is sexual immorality, couples who divorce and marry other persons commit adultery. In modern terminology; one may only put away or nullify a void marriage. Jesus gives no ground for divorce in a lawful marriage. His disciples realized the era of laxity was over hence exclaimed ‘that in such case it is not good to marry.’Couples should be holy, love, forbear and forgive. In adultery; one may be innocent, in dissolving a lawful union; both parties are guilty!

20. Addressing Objections - 1 You claim that neither party can divorce and marry another based on adultery but God himself used that principle. Did Jesus not marry Israel whom God divorced for adultery according to Jer 3:8 and Rm 7:4? Reply: Do not inadvertently assert that Jesus said “except she commits adultery” or that He actually aligned with the Shammai Pharisees! The notion that Jesus married national Israel whom God divorced is questionable. Who is the innocent party and who is the guilty party in this case (if I may borrow your lingo)? Which of the parties remarried according to your story? Is Jesus our High Priest married to ‘a defiled and divorced entity’?

21. God using human terms said he put away Israel and gave her a bill of divorcement in Jer 3:1,8. Yet he did NOT really recognize the divorce for he immediately proclaimed in vs 12-14: “Go and proclaim these words toward the north, and say, Return, thou backsliding Israel, saith the LORD; and I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you: for I am merciful, saith the LORD, and I will not keep anger for ever. Only acknowledge thine iniquity, that thou hast transgressed against the LORD thy God, and hast scattered thy ways to the strangers under every green tree, and ye have not obeyed my voice, saith the LORD. Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion.” Note: one may now forgive and receive back an unfaithful spouse as we are not under Mosaic law.

22. God saying that He gave Israel a divorce bill was figurative. The fact is stated in vs 20: ‘Surely as a wife treacherously departeth from her husband, so have ye dealt treacherously with me, O house of Israel, saith the LORD.’ The beloved nation persisted in returning and departing periodically till Messiah came. God himself eventually abandoned her together with the law that covenanted both (Rm 11). That separation amounted to spiritual death. Rm 7:4 says death ended the law’s dominion over Israel or her covenant marriage to the LORD. Jesus will be married (future –Rm 7:4) to a new virgin (2 Cor 11:2); the universal church (spiritual nation) in heaven when the physical nation of Israel is no more -Rev 19:7-9; 21:9-10.

23. Addressing Objections - 2 The Jews were not carrying out executions under Roman rule -Jn 18:31. Divorce was the response to adultery. This should be what Jesus affirmed and he must have meant “except she commits adultery.” Reply: Such assertion is faulty for several reasons. It makes it seem that: Jesus conformed to whatever the people were practicing rather than uphold what the law of God then stated. The Israelite leaders were right when they mischievously said unto Pilate that “It is not lawful for us to put any man to death:” in Jn 18:31. To claim that the Israelites did not carry out executions as per the Law of Moses is to have no respect for scriptures

24. Should the Israelites have obeyed men (Romans) rather than God in carrying out legitimate executions under the Law of Moses? Jesus expected them to rightly administer death penalty -Mt 15:4-6. John 8 shows their intent to stone the woman reportedly caught in adultery. (Christ’s handling of it indicates there were no true or competent witnesses for they did not bring her accomplice!) Jesus did NOT contest the then prevailing law that an adulteress be executed. They invoked the Law of Moses when it suited them and align with the Roman rulers as smokescreen when it suited them. Acts 4:27 explains Jn 18:31. They killed Stephen for alleged blasphemy in Acts 7:57-60; (26:10; 22:3-5). See also Acts 21:30-33; 23:12-15; 24:5-7. It was not always mob action because the Sahendrin authorized such. That was the Israeli state upholding the death penalty aspect of the Law of Moses.

25. Addressing Objections - 3 One can secretly put away a cheating partner without necessarily initiating conviction and death penalty. Joseph did not instigate death penalty on Mary -Mt 1:18-20. Reply: For a woman who was already married the husband may resort to the law of jealousies upon suspicion. Israel was obligated to execute judgment in cases of marital cheating whenever there were two or more valid witnesses -Deut 22:20-24; 17:6-7. To posit that Mt 19:9 exception refers to pre-marital sex is to forbid marriage for any lady who has ever been in sexual immorality; rape victims and repentant harlots inclusive. That is contrary to God’s intent in both testaments.

26. Joseph neither suspected nor caught Mary with any man. He probably knew his betrothed travelled to visit Elizabeth and would have been surprised by her seemingly unbelievable stories. On her pregnancy, he would ponder broadly and include chances that she may not be totally at fault. E.g. If she was raped outside the city such maiden was to be let alone as innocent: ‘…But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death…’–Deut 22:23-27. Thus he thought of privately breaking his engagement with Mary as they were yet to be fully or technically married. The just man chose to apolysai (pardon, free and dismiss) her in private. Contextually, ‘put away’ in Mt 1:19 does not connote “Bill of divorcement” which is a record for publicevidence that a woman was divorced.

27. Addressing Objections - 4 Are you saying people are free to commit adultery as the spouse cannot divorce for that reason? Won’t this encourage married partners to cheat on each other? Reply: that God hates putting away a lawful spouse is not a license to be reckless or unfaithful in marriage or to continually make life unbearable for one’s partner -Rm 6:1. Knowing this truth, we should be virtuous, loving and considerate (Prov 5:18-21, Eph 5:22-25) otherwise one will receive many stripes –Lk 12:47-48, Heb 10:26-29. We must forbear and forgive seventy times seven -Mt 18:21-22. If a partner is unfaithful and unrepentant, one could hand such over to God in prayer (Eph 4:26-27, Phil 4:6-7) and/or temporarily separate as tolerated in 1 Cor 7:10.

28. ‘The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished.’ -2 Pet 2:9. See 1 Cor 10:13 Partner’s obstinacy not permit to also sin. So we must guard our homes, be watchful and intercede for our spouses, neither giving room for temptation nor ignorantly allow the enemy to get a hold on them. Note that God makes a way of escape in every temptation and we must resist the devil in faith. Each must be determined to make his/her marriage succeed and to enjoy not endure this divine blessing –Prov 18:22, 1 Pet 3:1-7. Let every lawful couple recall their honeymoon and re-ignite the passion.

29. Addressing Objections - 5 Christ's immediate audience were Jews of the same faith. In 1 Cor 7:12-15, Paul presents a personal view; fresh revelation on MDR. He means that if the unbeliever takes the initiative to divorce, the believer is relieved of the burden of trying to make the marriage work and is therefore free to remarry. Reply: Do not misconstrue Paul’s advice in 1 Cor 7:12-16 as invalidating Christ’s expressly stated command. The instruction to the married in vs 10-11 is clear and applies to any married person. A brother or a sister is required to obey it irrespective of the spouse’s faith. Paul never wrote that when a spouse departs, “the believer is …therefore free to remarry.” Jesus has prohibited that in vs 11.

30. The endeavor to create a new exception (‘religious incompatibility’), which you term “fresh revelation” yet admit is not inspired, is inconsistent. Note also that God does not describe marriage as bondage but to give up one’s faith because of an unbelieving spouse and return to the world would amount to bondage –Gal 5:1, Lk 14:26 God will judge the whole world by same standard; His written word. Everyone today, including unbelievers (U) and believers (B) are subject to the revealed marriage laws of God irrespective of whether a couple is BB, UB, BU or UU. There is neither warrant for any couple to live above the law nor preferential MDR exemption.

31. Addressing Objections - 6 What of the Samaritan woman at the well? She may have been divorced several times since Jesus said she has had 5 husbands. Reply: John 4:16 Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither. 17 The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband: 18 For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly. No one can affirm with certainty whether she was divorced or widowed repeatedly. We are NOT allowed to speak where the scriptures are silent. Samaria was not really following the law of Moses(vs 20)

32. Addressing Objections - 7 What of the woman caught in adultery in Jn 8, does it not prove that Jesus changed the law from stoning? Reply: From stoning unto what? Foretaste of grace, Jesus didn’t forbid stoning her. (He upheld the death penalty of Exo 21:17 in Mt 15:3-5) Her accusers were convicted of sin since they plausibly weren’t the ones who caught her and also did not bring along the man she committed it with, as stipulated by law. They were thus invalid witnesses who could not initiate her legal execution (Deut 17:5-7; 22:22) when told to cast the first stone. Christ knew they merely wanted to tempt Him and decided to be gracious to her by alluding to their imperfection and to due process. The Lord who forgave David’s adultery was the Son of man who had authority on earth to forgive sins.

33. EPILOGUE Some aver Mt 19:9 ought to be translated: “whosoever shall put away his wife not over fornication and shall marry another, commits adultery: and whoso marries her which is put away does commit adultery.” That Christ did not give an exception and the put away over fornication is the case where she was executed. Though possible, execution doesn’t fit the context. Fornication could refer to the marriage itself not a woman's infidelity. The Pharisee's question in Mt 19 is on divorce not cheating/execution. Jesus addressed a situation where a man personally put away his wife via a Bill of divorcementnot a situation where two or more witnesses put away an unfaithful wife by stoning. Jesus alludes to the fact that someone else may marry the woman that is put awayso she has to be alive. Hence Christ forbids divorce, excluding in a situation of an illicit marriage otherwise an unlawful husband cannot put away his wife!

34. Important Observation on ‘Fornication’ Christ did NOT say a latter spouse must first have sex with a (wrongly divorced) marriage partner before one commits adultery –marrying such constitutes adultery. Thus the Israelites in Ezra were guilty of sexual immorality for marrying women which God had proscribed even before they slept with these wives of theirs. God held king Abimelech accountable for promiscuity though he was kept from sleeping with Sarah. God said: ‘for the woman which thou has taken; she is a man's wife.’ Unto Abraham, this king acknowledged that his action was a great sin; he didn't know she was married but ignorance is not an excuse in law. God had shut the womb of all women in Abimelech’s kingdom till he repented –Gen 20.

35. Indeed, a man is guilty of sexual immorality for taking his father’s or brother’s wife even before he lifts her skirt to sleep with her (Deut 22:30; 27:20, Lev 18:6-8, 16). Under the new covenant it was still unlawful that “one should have his father's wife.” The man in 1 Cor 5:1-5 was guilty of fornication irrespective of whether he merely romanced or just had sex with or actually married his father’s wife, even as it was unlawful for Herod to have [married] his brother Philip’s wife (Mk 6:17-18). Thus an illicit marriage is fornication right from its inception. Only such marriages are to be dissolved or put asunder, not lawful unions.

36. Deuteronomy 24 presents a duality: A man brazenly takes a woman who is actually ineligible as wife; their marriage is illicit. Later, realizing the uncleanness or indecent or sinful situation about his so-called wife, the man contritely puts her away. She was defiledin her first marriage. (Unlawful sex creates defilement e.g. when Shechem raped Jacob's daughter -Gen 34, when a man sleeps with his neighbor's wife -Eze 18:11) The woman goes on to marry another man. Her second marital union could be scriptural. If the latter husband died or also put her away for hatred, she may not return to the first man since doing so would still constitute an illegal marriage. She is unclean to and forbidden to him.

37. Inspired Moses stated “some uncleanness” (עֶרְוַת דָּבָר - ’ervat davar, inherent such that a woman couldn’t be ritually cleansed from it) led to a divorce -Deut 24.   A plausible literal translation of ’ervat davar is ‘nakedness of a word’, or ‘the nakedness (shame or dishonour) of a thing as per God's word.’ In Deut 23:13-14, ’ervat davar is rendered as ‘unclean thing’ and denote an exposed defilement that would arise due to disobedience to God's command to cover the excrement from their body. In Deut 24, it could be defilement due to illicit marriage relationships (Lev 18:6-29; 20:19-21, Deut 7:1-4) some of which had consequences such as childlessness, ostracism, divine retribution, etc. rather than death. Fornication is shameful uncleanness due to uncovering the nakedness of a next-of-kin or prohibited person contrary to God’s law.When a husband finds he had violated God’s law via a marriage, he ought to end it.

38. A man takes an eligible woman as wife; their marriage is legitimate. Out of hatred or arbitrariness on a so-called ‘uncleanness’ he divorces his wife. The woman goes on to marry another man, a union which God tolerated but did not really approve in that dispensation. Hence she was defiled in the second union and may not return to the first husband (for land purity and genealogies preservation) even if the latter husband died or also put her away out of hatred. It is virtually impossible to study and rightly divide Deut 24:1-4 & Mt 19:9 without seeing and discussing an ‘illicit marriage.’ If the initial husband of the woman in consideration is legitimate the latter would ordinarily be unlawful and vice-versa.

39. An ANALOGY With The Nigerian 2019 Election To Help Us Better Understand Mt 5:32 & Mt 19:9 Amidst the electorate, whosoever votes ‘saving for the cause of supporting PDP” contributes to Atiku losing the presidential election. What can we infer about ‘whosoever votes for the cause of supporting PDP’? The necessary, logical inference is that such MAY contribute to Atiku winning the presidential election! We can’t be too sure this voter will cause Atiku to win though it is possible. Amidst the electorate, whosoever votes ‘except for supporting PDP” contributes to Atiku losing the presidential election. It means he who does not vote in support of PDP contributes to Atiku losing, it does not imply that he who votes in support of PDP necessarily contributes to Atiku not losing the election.

40. The overall message of Mt 5:32; 19:9 A wrong divorce make the divorcees commit adultery on marrying another person. Jesus declares such a new marriage ‘adulterous’ though people assumed it was tolerated under the Mosaic Law. (Such woman was considered defiled under the law and unsuitable for a holy priest of God -Lev 24:1,7). He who puts away his wife ‘not for fornication’ causes her to commit adultery. He who puts away ‘except for fornication’ commits adultery and makes her do same. He who puts away his wife ‘FOR fornication’ does NOT necessarily cause her (and her new husband) to commit adultery –provided she has no other marital history. E.g. The women put away in Ezra would not commit adultery should they afterward marry their countrymen whereas Herodias would if Herod divorced her and she marries another while Philip was alive.

41. God however recognizes putting away for fornication or ending an illicit marriage. In this situation, both parties are loosed from THEIR one flesh union or ungodly marriage. That is why he who puts away his wife ‘FOR fornication’ and marries another may NOT commit adultery -Mt 19:9. The man who so put away his wife would NOT commit adultery on marrying a new eligible mate because the previous marriage no longer exists before God and before men. E.g. The men in Ezra had married prohibited foreign women and thus were guilty of sin. They put away their wives in repentance, such men would be free to marry another and raise godly seed.

42. Whenever a lawful husband divorces his wife and she marries another, a bad situation is made worse. The latter husband is in an illicit marriage that Christ describes as ‘adultery’. To assert that the latter husband CANNOT put her away with a Bill of divorcement ‘because they were not married in God’s sight’ is ERROR. Inspiration shows he may in Deut 24:3. (In society, a divorce signifies the end of a marriage just as a wedding signifies its beginning.) In repentance, the latter husband could put her away today even though she does not cheat on him. That is a pointer that ‘a wife engaging in marital unfaithfulness’ is not the basis of the ‘fornication exemption’ but an ‘ab-initio unlawful marriage’.

43. Properly terminating an unlawful marriage is needful not just walking away from it. Casually leaving such partner only makes one a missing or deserting spouse. Community needs to know one is divorced not briefly separated from a union it considers valid which the Bible sees otherwise e.g. gay or adulterous marriage. Divorce/annulment by the traditional or civil authority which contracted the marriage is necessary to inform all and demonstrate to God that the wedding/marriage is truly dismantled -1 Pet 2:13-17. To posit that a spouse’s adultery is the ground for marriage dissolution is to imply those in fornication (unlawful union) where neither cheatshave no scriptural ground to end their marriage. E.g. a couple which discovers that their union is incestuous, a terrorist who abducted and brainwashed a school girl, a man who wedded two women at one ceremony, etc.

44. THANK YOU Obtain materials by the author from www.lainosint.com/download/faith