Re-Defining Adultery
Paul K. Williams
Troubles with divorce and remarriage abound. Despite plain teaching by Jesus some try to evade what He says. For example, did you know some teach that adultery is a non-sexual act? See if you can find such in Jesus’ words:
“I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the cause of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” Matthew 5:32 (NASB)
“I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery." Matthew 19:9 (NASB)
This teaching is very clear, so the person who is seeking to justify a marriage after a divorce for some cause other than physical fornication says, “Jesus does not mean sexual adultery.” When I ask for a definition of “adultery” he answers, “It means the act of divorcing and remarrying.” This is what a South African preacher told me and what a number of others are teaching. What does changing the definition of “adultery” do? It makes it possible for a divorced and remarried person to “repent” of the act of divorcing and remarrying and to stay married to his or her second partner without sin because all they say is “I repent of divorcing and remarrying” -- they don’t have to admit they are living in adultery, an ongoing and continuous sin.
Defining “adultery” to mean “the act of divorcing for some cause other than for fornication and marrying again” violates two simple, common-sense rules of grammar.
1. The first rule, stated in my words, is that a word should be understood in its ordinary sense unless the way it is used shows that it is to be understood in another way. Often Jesus used words to mean something other than their ordinary meaning, but when He did it is easy to see from the context what He meant. For instance, in John 6:54 He said, “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” A careful reading of the chapter causes us to understand that when Jesus said “My flesh” and “My blood” He was referring to His words, and therefore the word “eats” means “listens to” or “heeds”. (See verse 47, for instance).
However, unless the context shows that the word is used in a metaphorical sense, we should understand it in its literal sense. In John 3:5 Jesus said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” He later explains that the word “born” refers to a birth of one’s spirit, but there is nothing in the context to show that the words “water” and “the Spirit” are not literal. “Water” means “water,” not something else. Those who “spiritualize” the word “water” to mean “the Holy Spirit” or something else ignore the plain meaning of the word and violate an important grammatical principle.
Let’s apply this rule to Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9. There is nothing in the context to show that Jesus used the word “adultery” in anything other than its ordinary sense. The ordinary meaning of the word fits perfectly with what Jesus says. Not only does the put-away woman commit adultery when she marries again, but the man who marries her commits adultery. When a person who is bound by the marriage bond has sex with a person he or she is not bound to, both that person and the person he or she has sex with commit adultery. That is the ordinary meaning of the word, and that fits perfectly with what Jesus says. There is nothing in the context to suggest that the word should be used in anything but its ordinary meaning. If we can change its meaning to fit our desires, we can change anything in the Bible! It reminds me of the story I heard a long time ago. A man who was in the Old Apostle Church told a preacher that the Ethiopian eunuch was not baptized in literal water. He said “the chariot” represented his “responsibility” and “the water” represented “the light.” What a mess! But the only way to avoid such a mess is to understand words in their ordinary sense unless the context shows that they are used in a different way.
2. A second simple grammatical rule is: When a word is defined properly, the definition can be substituted for the word and the sentence will make sense and mean the same.
If we go back to the example in John 6:54, if we substitute the word “heeds” for “eats” and the word “words” or “teachings” for the words “flesh” and “blood,” the sentence reads, “He who heeds My words has eternal life.” We have substituted the definitions for the actual words used, and the sentence makes perfect sense. It fits the context, and the definition fits in the sentence.
However this will not work with the non-sexual definition of adultery. If we substitute the definition for the word “adultery” we get:
“I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the cause of unchastity, makes her [divorce and remarry]; and whoever marries a divorced woman [divorces and remarries].” (Matthew 5:32)
“I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman [divorces and remarries].” – Matthew 19:9
That simply does not make good sense. The definition does not fit the sentence. The definition must be wrong! The only way to understand Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 is to understand the word “adultery” to mean what it usually means.
Long articles with complicated reasoning will not change this plain truth. There is no room for “non-sexual” adultery in Matthew 5:32 or 19:9. May God help us to deal honestly with the Scriptures!