Hardshells & The Adultery Question V

In the previous postings we began to consider the teaching of Jesus concerning marriage, divorce, remarriage, and what constitutes "adultery" or "living in adultery." In the immediate previous posting I began with a close examination of Matthew 5: 31-32, a portion of the Sermon on the Mount. Focus was on verse 32 where Jesus said:

"...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." (KJV)

In looking at this text, I did not discuss what is meant by the word "fornication" (Greek poinei) because it is not an issue with my targeted audience. I did not address why Jesus did not use the word "adultery" instead of "fornication" in the exception clause. Why did Jesus not say "except it be for adultery" instead of "except it be for fornication"? Isn't the fornicating act of a married person an act of adultery? This becomes an issue to address when in discussion with those who think that all divorce is illegal and against the will of God. These people believe that only death dissolves a marriage and frees the married partner to marry again. They think that there is nothing, including adultery or fornication, that dissolves a marriage. Many Catholics believe this, as well as some Protestants. John Piper, a well known Baptist pastor and theologian, holds to this view. (see here)

These folks will argue that "fornication" is what occurs before a marriage, while one is single, and would be grounds for breaking a betrothal but not a marriage. They bring up the case of Joseph, who thought about "putting away" Mary, during their engagement, thinking that her pregnancy proved her guilty of "fornication." Of course, I reject that view, and so do the Hardshells. So, I am not going to deal with it, except to say that by such reasoning it makes God do wrong when he divorced Israel. (See Jeremiah 3:8)

I do believe that the word "fornication" (poinei, from which we get our word "porn" or "porno") is a broad term used for all kinds of forbidden sexual activity, and that the word "adultery" (Greek moicheia) is less broad, falling within the general category of fornication, a case of genus and difference.

Recap of Matthew 5: 32

In the previous posting I dealt at length with the first part of Matthew 5:32 and particularly on what is meant by the husband, who divorces for an unjust cause (not because of fornication), "causing" his divorced innocent wife to "commit adultery." I showed that the NIV translation was much closer to the truth in translating the words of Jesus as "makes her the victim of adultery." In this posting I want to give some further argumentation to uphold this view.

In the previous posting I also began to give what I consider to be the correct interpretation of the latter part of verse 32, a separate independent clause from the first part of the verse, where it is translated in the KJV as "and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." I want to enlarge upon what was stated in the end of the last posting, in regard to that clause, and to further demonstrate that the woman in this clause is not the same woman who was divorced unjustly in the first part of the verse, who was the "victim of adultery," as many falsely assume.

I will also in this posting consider whether the "committing adultery" by the man who marries a divorced woman is a one time act or whether it is a continuous state of sin, or a case of "living in adultery." If it is a one time act, then to repent of it would involve confessing the sin, and expressing sorrow for it, with a resolve not to do it again. If it is a continuous state, then to repent of it would involve divorcing the spouse, dissolving the unlawful union, and either remaining single and celibate or returning to the previous spouse, who is judged to still be the lawful spouse in spite of a divorce.

Recall that I was demonstrating that the common view about these questions was false. That view says that the woman actively sins, or commits adultery, when and if she marries another before her husband, who divorced her, A) commits adultery (by either 1. having sexual relations or 2. by marrying another) or B) dies. It was shown that such a view is false because 1) the woman is viewed as passive in being "made an adulteress" or in being a "victim of adultery," and 2) the text does not say "perhaps causes her to commit adultery," nor "sometimes causes her to commit adultery," which it would say if the popular view was correct, and 3) the text does not deny that the woman is actually divorced and thus allowed to marry again, and 4) affirms that the "committing adultery" occurs at the same time that the "putting away" and "causing" and not at some later time.

In the previous posting it was shown that "causeth (or maketh) her to commit adultery" (kjv) was a misleading translation in that it seems to indicate that the adultery of the woman, who is the victim of an unlawful divorce, is not a mere victim but rather a sinner, who commits adultery actively. Though this translation does put some blame upon the man who divorces his wife by the use of the word "causeth," nevertheless implicates the woman by adding the word "commit" in translation (interpretation). It was argued that the NIV translation best translates ποιεῖ αὐτὴν μοιχᾶσθαι by the words "makes her the victim of adultery."

It is possible to keep a translation such as "making her an adulteress" (Philips Translation) as long as one interprets the words as not denoting the actual making of an adulteress but only making one so in appearance. Recall that I cited from Starling on this point, who said - "Jesus is saying the woman divorced without cause becomes an adulteress in the same sense we make God a liar when we say we have not sinned." (I John 5: 10) The husband who unlawfully divorced his wife in Matthew 5: 32 "makes his wife an adulterer" in the same way John said that hypocrites and false teachers "make God a liar."

It has also been stated that an unlawful divorce may in itself be an act of infidelity or adultery. But, let me enlarge upon this a little here.

Unlawful Marriages & Divorces = Adultery

If an husband causes his wife to be an adulteress, or to commit adultery, or to be the victim of adultery, by his divorcing her, then he is implicated in her being such. It is a case similar to our "felony murder doctrine." This rule of law is defined as - "The felony murder rule is a rule that allows a defendant to be charged with first-degree murder for a killing that occurs during a dangerous felony, even if the defendant is not the killer." Those who illegally divorce their spouses may be said, in like fashion, to be guilty of adultery even though there may not be a prior instance of actual sexual activity.

Keep in mind also that many times a husband will divorce his innocent wife because he has already mentally committed adultery in his heart and mind, and has formulated plans to actually do it once the divorce is finalized.

Most Christians probably do not think of "adultery" as sometimes denoting acts that are non sexual. If we have a case of adultery in a remarriage, when was it first committed? When the marriage was effected in the wedding ceremony? Or later when there was sexual intercourse for the first time? If we say the former, that the act of remarrying is also adultery, then we have not limited the definition to sexual acts.

What if an old man, who is impotent, and cannot have sexual relations, marries the "divorced woman" of Matthew 5: 32? Does he escape being guilty of "committing adultery" by not having sexual relations with his wife? Of course not. Obviously the Scriptures do not define marital adultery as necessitating a forbidden sexual act. Therefore, we argue that since the definition of the sin of "adultery" may denote an act of "marriage," so an act of "divorce" may also be an act of adultery. Both unlawful marriages and unlawful divorces are viewed as violations of the command not to commit adultery. Remember Matthew 5: 32 says "whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." Unlawful marriage is a "committing adultery" even if there is no sexual intercourse. (See also Matt. 19:9; Mark 10:11; Luke 16: 18)

In APPENDIX D - On the Possibility of Nonsexual Adultery (see here), Luck wrote:

"In his commentary on Matthew 19:9, D. A. Carson says that if the remarriage clause is excluded, the thought becomes nonsensical: “Anyone who divorces his wife, except for porneia, commits adultery”—surely untrue unless he remarries."

"Is this the case? Is it nonsense to speak of “nonsexual adultery”? I believe not. Consider first the difference between adultery, fornication, and marital sex. All may involve sexual acts, but what makes them different is their relationship to the matter of covenant. The sex of marital sex is moral since covered by covenant. The sex of fornication is a sin because it is not. And the sex of adultery is sin because it breaks the covenantal bonds. The essence of adultery is unfaithfulness. Adultery never takes place unless someone’s marriage vow has been broken."

"But does an act of sex have to take place in order for the breaking of a vow to be considered adulterous? In one sense, no. According to Jesus in Matthew 5:27-28, an unfaithful thought or, more precisely, a thought of unfaithful sex merits the offense-term adultery. Although it is true that the thought is about sexual relations, Jesus’ revolutionary saying contradicts the Pharisaical teaching exactly at the point at issue: must sexual acts be committed in order for the term adultery to be merited? Thinking of sexual acts is not in itself a sexual act; it is a mental act...Jesus is at pains to say that the man does not have to actually commit an act of sex to be guilty of sin."

"Matthew 5:32 speaks of a man adulterizing his wife by unjustly divorcing her. The adulterization takes place whether or not that woman remarries."

Remember that the sin of adultery is said to occur at the time of marriage, not at the time of the honeymoon when physical intercourse begins. "Whoever marries her that is divorced," said Jesus, "commits adultery." He did not say "whoever marries and has intercourse."

Luck also wrote:

"The next clause (of Matt. 5: 32b - "whoever marries her that is divorced commits adultery" SG) is, as argued in chapter 7, independent of the first. If so, the New Testament is consistent with Malachi in identifying a nonsexual form of adultery, that is, the covenant breaking of unjust divorce. It is treachery, clear and simple. And it remains the sin of adultery whether or not either or both of the former partners remarry...seeing marital breach as “adultery” regardless of whether it involves sex...Unjust divorce (or desertion) is a form of adultery; adultery is a form of porneia; and porneia is justifiable grounds for divorce and remarriage."

Yes, it is important to see "marital breach" as an instance of "adultery," and that "whether it involves sex" or not. "Unjust divorce" indeed "is a form of adultery." Thus, the hard hearted husband who puts away his innocent wife for reasons other than fornication, is committing adultery and making his wife a victim of it.

Luck also wrote:

"Rather than concur that nonsexual adultery is linguistic nonsense, I argue that the idea is eminently sensible and biblically sound. On the contrary, what is nonsense is arguing that remarriage must take place for adultery to occur."

How anyone can say that non sexual adultery is nonsense in light of the words of Jesus is amazing. He clearly said that unlawful marriages are instances of adultery.

Definition of the Greek verb moicheuō (commit adultery)

The KJV, according to Strong, translates the verb in the following manner: commit adultery (13x), in adultery (1x).

to commit adultery
to be an adulterer
to commit adultery with, have unlawful intercourse with another's wife
of the wife: to suffer adultery, be debauched
A Hebrew idiom, the word is used of those who at a woman's solicitation are drawn away to idolatry, i.e. to the eating of things sacrificed to idols

Thayer also, as has been previously stated, gave "to suffer adultery" and "be debauched" in cases like Matthew 5: 32a where the word is written in the passive voice form.

On the uniqueness of the way the Greek word for "adultery" is given in Matt. 5: 32a Luck wrote:

1. The verb moikeuthanai in the text of Matthew 5:32 is an aorist passive/middle infinitive. As an infinitive, it is a verbal substantive. The question is, which (verbal or substantive) predominates this verse? The infinitive in question seems to be the direct object of the main verb, in our case, “to make” or “cause “ It identifies what the divorcing man makes her to experience.

Recall that we cited from Dr. Phil Johnson in the first article in this series who argued that the "aorist" tense, being "punctiliar," does not generally denote continuous or linear action. Many argue that since the present tense is mostly used to describe the action of adultery in the pertinent passages, it must therefore describe a continuous "state" of adultery because most often the present tense is linear, not denoting a specific point in time as does the aorist tense. But more on that later.

Luck continued:

2. As to voice, its force may be presumed to be not as strong as that of the main verb, but it cannot be ignored. In the case of our infinitive, the voice is passive or middle. If middle, there is a stress upon personal interest in the actor, in this case the treacherously divorced woman. It would emphasize her part in committing the sin of adultery. Since such interest would seem to displace the interest which the text clearly places upon the man who divorces her without grounds, the selection of this voice is generally ignored by interpreters in favor of a simple active force. If it is a passive, then the woman becomes the recipient of the adultery which is caused (main verb) by the divorcing husband. She suffers the sin of adultery, not commits it. The presumption rests with the passive, since the middle voice is more rare, and since the middle places a wrong emphasis upon the woman’s culpability rather than that of her former husband.

As we have stated, verbs in the passive and middle voice are written alike in Greek. So, it is possible, though unlikely for contextual reasons, that "commit adultery" be middle voice; And, if so, then the woman certainly would be implicated. She would then be viewed, after her unjust divorce, as not only actively sinning in remarrying but doing it for her own benefit. She would be not only the actor but the recipient of the action. But, as Luck says, "the selection of this voice is generally ignored by interpreters," though they offer an active voice interpretation to what is a passive voice word. She obviously is not committing adultery with or on herself!

Luck continued:

3. The exception to this presumption is when the verb is defective. Such a defective verb, called “deponent” by Greek scholars, would have to be one of a short list of such verbs which had, through the process of the evolution of the language, lost their active voice forms. Moikeuthanai is not one of those verbs, therefore, the presumption remains in favor of the passive interpretation and anyone suggesting otherwise has the burden of proof if he suggests another voice/force, namely active. The translation preferred would be either “he causes her to be adulterized” or “he causes her to suffer adultery.”

Those are two good translations, far better than those which imply that the woman herself sins by committing adultery.

Luck rightly points out that the act of the husband makes the innocent wife "AN ADULTERIZED WOMAN." He wrote:

"If a person is morally permitted only to divorce his wife on the grounds of “unchastity” (and in most instances this would entail adultery), but instead divorces her without these grounds, what does the divorce imply about this woman? The watching world will see the divorce and assume that the woman is guilty of adultery. This in effect puts the sin of the husband upon the head of the woman! He broke his vow of provision by divorcing her (a non-sexual form of adultery or treachery; see appendix D) and framed her with the stigma of being guilty of the only grounds for divorce allowed in the kingdom: sexual adultery. Thus, the woman is treated like a piece of property that has received the stamp “DEFECTIVE,” when in fact, it is the “stamper” who is morally defective. Moreover, grammatically, if the idea of the infinitive as a purpose of the main verb is stressed, it makes sense to say that the aim of his divorcing her is to render her adulterized, or “as an adulteress.” This might even be stronger if the infinitive were rendered as a noun: “He makes her an adulteress.”"

This is a better interpretation of Matthew 5: 32a than is commonly given in the commentaries, for it gets closer to the truth. Yet, it still comes short of what the words of the text are saying. Luck will demonstrate that truth.

Luck continued:

"But the likelihood is that the adulterization that the text wishes to express is not his “making her out to be” an adulteress (so Lenski), but rather that his act of divorcing makes her adulterized. In other words, it seeks to identify her husband as an adulterer. After all, the chief problem with the prevailing Pharasaical teachings on Deuteronomy 24:1-4 was their implication that the husband was guiltless. But as I believe I have shown in chapter 3, the text of Deuteronomy intends nothing of the kind; it was intended to protect the woman from such a man. How ironic that Murray and others have preserved the exact Pharasaical mistake by insisting that the woman is “implicated in adultery.” Rather, it is the husband who is guilty of adultery in the words of Jesus in Matthew 5:31 f."

It is indeed the husband who is guilty of adultery by his divorcing his wife without lawful grounds. As I have shown, "adultery" does not necessitate an actual sexual act, but an unlawful divorce or marriage are examples of it. Luck correctly says "it is the husband who is guilty of adultery."

When Does The Innocent Woman "Commit Adultery"?

Two questions need to be answered in regard to the woman who was put away by a hard-hearted husband and who is said to "commit adultery" (KJV and others) as a result. First, how, or in what way, does the innocent woman "commit adultery" in being unjustly divorced? Second, when does the innocent woman who has been divorced wrongfully become a victim of adultery?

Luck continued:

"As to when the act occurs, that is determined by the main verb, “to cause.” But the tense of the clause is present and must be supplemented by some other wording to identify when this causing is occurring. For that, the immediate context provides the explanation: when the divorcing takes place."

When does the husband cause his wife to commit adultery, or to be adulterized? It is at the time of the divorce. The Greek makes that very clear. This being so, it makes it totally untenable to say that the woman is made to commit adultery in a subsequent remarriage. Yet, in spite of this argumentation, many commentators continue to say that the woman is made to commit adultery when she remarries sometime later than the divorce. These facts are detrimental to those interpreters who interpret the words "causes her to commit adultery" (KJV) as being fulfilled at a time later than the time of the divorce and when the woman supposedly unlawfully remarries another man.

Luck continued:

5. The participle (“he who is divorcing”), which matches the main verb as to tense (present), voice (active) and mode (indicative) is predicative (essential to the meaning of the sentence), making a statement about the subject of the sentence, namely the divorcing man. It is possible that both the verb and the participle are present tense verbals functioning as perfects. That is with a stress more on the state of the action as being complete, rather than durative or continuing actions. But, in either option (present or perfect) the time of the participle is determined by the main verb and is presumed to be inexorably tied to it as to time. The “causing” the man does, occurs when the divorcing takes place, not at some subsequent time, such as her speculated remarriage.

Again, such reasoning destroys the idea that the woman commits adultery at a time later than the divorcing.

Luck continued:

Thus, in sum: “the one who is divorcing without the cause of fornication is causing his wife to be adulterized’ or “the one who is divorcing without the grounds of fornication is making his wife to suffer adultery”—or simply, when he groundlessly divorces her he makes her suffer adultery. He has broken his vows to her to care for her.

The woman was made the victim of the man's adultery when she was divorced. The two verbs "divorcing" and "making" are joined together and cannot be separated as to time.

Luck continued:

"Though they emphasize different sides of the coin, the main intent of both Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and Matthew 5:31-32 is to protect the woman from a hard-hearted husband who is treacherously inclined to treat her like chattel property. Deuteronomy 24 emphasizes the protection of the innocent wife. Matthew 5 emphasizes the culpability of the divorcing husband. Deuteronomy is not trying to exonerate the husband of the guilt of a form of adultery; Matthew is not trying to implicate the wife in adultery. Deuteronomy is not trying to offer a legal way out of a broken marriage; Matthew is not trying to prohibit the legal ending of a broken marriage. And by the same token, it is not the main purpose of Matthew to teach a legal way out of marriage. The exception clause is only an aside to the main point: implicating the treacherous male as an adulterer in the eyes of God over and against a Pharasaical, chauvinistic society."

It is important to realize, as Luck states, that Jesus, in the words of Matthew 5: 32, "is not trying to implicate the wife in adultery," although commentators and latter day interpreters try to do so.

Luck wrote:

"The grammar of the key verb form (“he who is divorcing”) is a present active participle, masculine singular. The Greeks seem to have loved participles, and a good number of that verb form are found in key divorce passages. Summers describes a participle as a verbal adjective. Being present active, the idea of continuous action is underscored. But, as Summers is quick to add, ‘The time of action in participles is indicated in the relation of the action of the participle to the action of the main verb.” He goes on to say, ‘The present participle indicates action which is contemporaneous with the action of the main verb.” And again, “… it is sufficient to know that the present participle indicates continuous action which takes place at the same time as the action of the main verb.” Thus, in our verse, the divorcing of the woman occurs at the time when he causes or makes his wife to experience adultery. This participle appears to be used in the attributive position and therefore should be given a relative translation: “The one who divorces…is the one who is causing…” It is, therefore, not proper to imply, as many interpreters seem to do, that the divorcing subsequently leads to the causing of the woman to commit adultery, when she remarries. The divorcing occurs at the time of the causing, not previously to it."

Clearly Luck shows the error in finding the fulfillment of "commit adultery" in a subsequent remarriage that occurs at a time later than the time of divorce.

Next, Luck wrote:

"R. C. H. Lenski had previously challenged this traditional interpretive framework as poorly analyzed by it proponents. In 1943 Lenski argued the following points:

1. The woman of 5:32a is innocent of wrong. It is her husband who has destroyed the marriage by the divorce-rendering her unable to fulfill her marital commitments. It is improper grammatically to find the responsible agent for her “adultery” in a second, hypothetical husband, for the causal agent of an infinitive must precede it.

I believe this to be so. The "cause" for the woman being an adulteress, or the victim of adultery, is not in her remarrying, but is in the act of her husband divorcing her. His divorcing her is the "causal agent" that precedes her being adulterated. It cannot be that her subsequent remarriage is what causes her to "commit adultery" for that act comes after the infinitive.

All commentators who find that the woman "commits adultery" in her remarriage make her to do it actively and not passively, but such is not possible by the Greek grammar, unless it be taken as a case of the middle voice, which nearly all agree would be out of context to do. It is true that "commit adultery" is a valid translation of most occurrences of the Greek verb because they are in the active voice, but such is not the case in Matthew 5:32a, which gives the verb in either the passive or middle voice.

Luck continued:

"Thus, in sum: “the one who is divorcing without the cause of fornication is causing his wife to be adulterized" or “the one who is divorcing without the grounds of fornication is making his wife to suffer adultery”—or simply, when he groundlessly divorces her he makes her suffer adultery. He has broken his vows to her to care for her."

That is correct. The man who put away his wife for reasons other than fornication is the one guilty of adultery. And, if this is so, then of course the woman has a right to remarry.

Is The Unlawfully Divorced Woman Free To Remarry?

One of the chief questions to determine in regard to the innocent woman in Matthew 5: 32a is whether she is really "divorced," that is, divorced "in the eyes of God." Or, is she, as many affirm, still married (in the eyes of God) to her husband who divorced her without cause? Of course, if the latter is true, then of course she cannot remarry but must 1) be reunited with the husband who divorced her, or 2) remain unmarried until her former husband frees her by his own act of adultery. If, however, the former is true, that she is truly divorced in the eyes of God by the act of her husband, then it cannot be a sin for her to remarry, nor a sin for a man to marry her.

Kevin Pendergrass wrote the following in his article "MARRIAGE IS DISSOLVED BY DIVORCE" (see here emphasis mine):

"There are some who teach that marriage can’t be dissolved except through death or a lawful divorce. The reality is that marriage is in fact dissolved through divorce (regardless of the reason) and death. The Bible teaches, in both the Old and New Testament, that marriage is dissolved through divorce, even if it is unlawful divorce."

This is the error of those, like my father, who think that most marriages are not ended by divorce. And, if they are not ended by divorce, "in the eyes of God," then of course a remarriage would be instances of adultery.

Wrote Pendergrass:

"In Deuteronomy 24:1-4, under the Law of Moses, the Bible teaches that if a man divorced his wife and she went and became another man’s wife, then she couldn’t return back to her original husband even if her current husband was to die. This was to protect the woman."

This reasoning completely annihilates the reasoning of those, like father, who think that unlawful divorces are not really divorces, and that people remain married "in the eyes of God" even though they are divorced. If the husband unlawfully divorces his wife (for a reason other than fornication), the strict view would say that the man must seek the return of his divorced wife, and that the divorced wife must also seek to be returned to her estranged former husband, but this text forbids such a thing. Ergo, the strict view is shown to be false. Divorce, even unjustified divorce, severs the marriage.

Wrote Pendergrass:

"Jesus also taught that marriage can be dissolved. In John 4:17-18, Jesus recognized that the woman at the well had been married to 5 husbands and was currently living with someone she wasn’t even married to."

Exactly so!

Wrote Pendergrass:

"If marriage was not dissolved through divorce, then Jesus would have told the woman to return to her original spouse, or He would have told her to return to the last man to whom she was scripturally married. However, that wasn’t what Jesus said. Instead, Jesus acknowledged that the woman had been married 5 times. Jesus taught that the woman had no husband (Jn. 4:17). Divorce, even unlawfully, dissolves marriage according to Jesus."

Again, this is correct and is against the strict view of father and many Hardshells and Campbellites that affirms that people who remarry after an illegal divorce "live in a state of adultery."

Wrote Pendergrass:

"Not only did Moses and Jesus teach that marriage can be dissolved, but Paul also taught that marriage can be dissolved. According to 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, man can separate what God has joined together. Even though someone may divorce unlawfully, Paul taught that divorce severs the marriage. The apostle Paul says that when a wife departs from her husband they are unmarried. The word for depart/divorces is the same word used in Matthew 19:6, translated separate or put asunder. Thus, one can separate what God has joined together according to Paul. Some believe that Paul is referring to mere separation. However, that position can not be sustained. Paul uses the exact same word Jesus used. Furthermore, Paul is clearly referring to divorce in this context (1 Cor. 7:11b)."

Again, this is correct. We will hopefully expand on some of this when we look at the Matthew 19 and I Corinthian 7 passages.

Is The Adultery Continuous?

Luck wrote:

4. The tense of the infinitive is aorist. This tense implies “punctiliar action,” action which is conceptually complete, not a continuing activity." 

Infinitives in English are generally recognized by the use of the preposition "to" (at least what are called "full infinitives"). We don't use them as much in English as do other languages, including NT koine Greek. When we say "to swim is fun," we have used an infinitive. The Greek word moikeuthanai is therefore translated properly in English as "to commit adultery" or "to be adulterized," or "to be the victim of adultery."

The Greek verb moikeuthanai in the text of Matthew 5:32 is an aorist passive/middle infinitive. "Commit adultery" is twice mentioned in Matt. 5: 32, but only in the first instance is the tense aorist, while the latter is in the present tense, its normal tense in the NT. As stated, many argue that "commit adultery" is a state, and not a single act, and say that the present tense shows this to be so, since present tense is "linear" and denotes continuous action. But, there are some problems with this line of reasoning. First, it is not always true that the present tense denotes ongoing action, though it generally does. Second, though it may denote linear action, it does not denote action that has no end. Third, why is the aorist tense used in the first instance of "commit adultery"? Generally, the aorist tense speaks of events that are not linear! This is what Dr. Phil Johnson argued in the first posting. The woman who suffers adultery is not said to suffer it continuously.

Wrote Luck:

"The tense of the infinitive for the act of adultery is aorist, which stresses punctiliar action. “Punctiliar” means specific action, indefinite or undefined as to the time it occurs. If you want further to pin the time down for the infinitive, you have to refer to the time sense of the main verb. Compare this with Acts 15:37, where Barnabas proposes to take Mark on the pending missionary journey. Thus, the debated phrase relating to the divorce woman and adultery, would seem to be saying that the point-act of adultery happens when he causes it, which, in turn happens when the divorce takes place. All of this supports our previous conclusion that recourse to the second, independent saying should not be taken, but the first saying should be interpreted on its own. And, it would seem that only an interpretation such as we have offered here, “causes her to be adulterized,” or perhaps, “causes her to suffer adultery” will do justice to the grammar."

Wrote Pendergrass in "MATTHEW 19:9 AND THE PRESENT INDICATIVE" (see here):

"In the Greek language, the phrase “commits adultery” is present indicative in Matthew 19:9. In the Greek, the present indicative usually carries with it the force of continuation. Some have made the argument based upon the Greek language that one is continuing in adultery as long as they continue in a subsequent marriage after their divorce. In this article, I am going to explain why such is not the case."

But, as stated, "commit adultery" is not always in the "present tense"; the words "makes her to commit adultery," for instance, are in the aorist tense. Though it is true that "the present indicative usually carries with it the force of continuation," it is not universally so.

Wrote Pendergrass:

"First, the present indicative doesn’t necessitate continued action and can refer to a completed action. Professor Osburn states it this way:

“…Greek syntax requires that each occurrence of the present indicative be understood in terms of its context to determine whether continuity is involved. The context of Matt. 19:3-12 involves a discussion of general truth, as a ‘gnomic present’ in which continuity is not under consideration…” (Carroll Osburn, The Present Indicative in Matt. 19:9. Restoration Quarterly Corporation, Abilene, Taxes, Vol. 24, No. 4, 1981. p. 193; See also: Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 517; Robertson, The Grammar of the Greek New Testament In Light of Historical Research, Nashville, Tenn,; Broadman Press, 1934, p. 864-865).

Therefore, it is erroneous to assume that an action must be continual just because it is in the present indicative."

Exactly so, and therefore, the burden of proof is on those who insist that a state of adultery continues when it has been initially committed by an act of adultery.

Wrote Pendergrass:

"The tenses found in the marital teachings of Jesus are anything but uniform. Let me explain.

For example, in Matthew 5:32a, the divorcing is present tense and the adultery committed is aorist. In Matthew 5:32b, the divorcing is in the perfect tense, the remarrying is aorist, and the adultery is in the present.

Below I have broken it down by action:

Divorce (Present: Mt. 5:32a; Lk. 16:18a; Perfect: Mt. 5:32b; Lk. 16:18b; Mk. 10:10-12; Mt. 19:9a; Mt. 19:9b). Marries Another (Aorist: Mt. 5:32b; Mt. 19:9b; Present: Lk. 16:18a; Lk. 16:18b; Perfect: Mk. 10:10-12; Mt. 19:9a). Commits Adultery (Aorist: Mt. 5:32a; Present: Mt. 5:32b; Lk. 16:18a; Lk. 16:18b; Mk. 10:10-12; Mt. 19:9a; Mt. 19:9b).

As one can tell, when we compare the narratives, there is little uniformity among the tenses in the marital teachings."

Again, all this shows that the argumentation for a state of adultery based upon the use of the Greek present tense for the verb translated "commit adultery" is not sound or convincing.

Wrote Pendergrass under the heading "INCONSISTENT APPLICATION":

"If one wants to reason that the adultery is an ongoing state in Matthew 19:9 simply on the basis of the present indicative, then one would also have to reason that the divorce attained unlawfully is an ongoing state of sin as well since it is in the present indicative in Matthew 5:32 and Luke 16:18. When one divorces (or was divorced) unlawfully, even if they remain single, they are in a constant state of separating what God has joined together (Mt. 19:6), regardless if they remarry. Yet, this doesn’t mean one can’t remain single after an unlawful divorce just because it is in the present indicative anymore than it would mean one can’t remain in their new marriage after an unlawful divorce just because it is in the present indicative.

This is sound reasoning!

Wrote Pendergrass:

"In other words, if one wants to base their argument solely upon this faulty understanding of the present tense, then remaining single after obtaining an unlawful divorce is just as sinful as remarrying after obtaining an unlawful divorce since both actions (divorce and adultery) are seen in the present indicative in the marital teachings of Jesus. Obviously, this conclusion is nonsensical and demonstrates why one should abstain from making Greek tense arguments when dealing with hypothetical time."

Again, such reasoning completely overthrows the argumentation that the present tense linear supports the idea that adultery is not a single act but a continuous state.

Wrote Pendergrass under "THE ONGOING EFFECT":

"Let’s say someone rejected all of the above information and still wanted to base their argument on the present indicative, believing that it is continual. If such were the case, then the present indicative at best would show how the effects of the unlawful divorce and marriage are continual. Consider a murderer who takes a man’s life. He can repent, but the effects of that action will always be continuous. He will always be deemed a “murderer.” If a man mistreats his wife and divorces her, there will be an ongoing effect that he was a bad husband. The same is true if someone divorces unlawfully to marry someone else. Sure, they can be forgiven, but those effects will always be there."

Again, this is sound reasoning.

In the next posting we will continue our look at Matthew 5: 32 and particularly the latter part of the verse that says "and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."

I was intending to include this look at the latter part of the verse in this posting, but seeing it is long enough, will do so in the next.