Expert: Janko - 11/13/2005

Question
What are the Society's rules on divorce? I am disfellowshipped after more than 30 years in the organization and thought I knew full well what they were - i.e. scriptural grounds and eligibility for remarriage aside - either spouse could file for any reason and remain in good standing. The only caveat being that if it wasn't on the grounds of adultery, no scripturally sanctioned marriage could take place. Am I correct? Also, if a couple divorces on nonscriptural grounds and one spouse remarries, what is the most severe penalty? Is disfellowship automatic and, if it is, for how long? After the reinstatement, is the marriage considered to be legitimate? If so, what is the basis for the change in status?

Answer
Hello Jeremy,
Thank you kindly for your questions to me and I hope I can give you the answers your looking for too.
You mentioned that you are disfellowshipped so anything that happens after that such as a divorce does not come under scriptual grounds because you not part of Jehovah's organization and His standards on this matter.But if you were disfellowshipped because of adultery,well thats a
different story.You would have to be reinstated back into
the congregation with true repentance from your actions
and you would be free to remarry again.You must be aware that there is only one grounds for a divorce,which is adultery that Jesus made very clear to us on this topic.
I can relate to this situation because I am divorced and
on unscriptual grounds by my ex wife,who disasociated her-
self from Jehovah's organization and then she in turn remarried and set me free to remarry and her as an adulterer
and the one she married.But after three years she came back to the organization and was reinstated after she became a
Catholic.This is a problem for me because I don't agree
with the decision they made to reinstate her,but they did
and a feel there was great injustice done to me.Her re-
instatement was for her apostasy and not for her adulteress
remarriage.In my mind I feel that she should now be dis-
fellowshipped for her remmariage.All these matters are in Jehovah's hands,you and I both know what and how Jehovah
feels about this subject.To give a more informative look at this subject I included some articles for you to help you
get a better understanding. Thank you again,Janko (read bellow)

Questions from Readers

• A man divorces his wife on unscriptural grounds. After the divorce is granted it becomes known to the wife and the congregation that just before the divorce the man was guilty of adultery. Would such an act of adultery free either the man or the woman Scripturally to remarry?

In this case the crucial question, according to the Holy Scriptures, is, Who divorces whom, and on what grounds? Who has the right to divorce? According to the Scriptures the moral status of the husband does not serve as the determining factor that grants him the right to divorce his wife. To the contrary, the moral status of the one divorced is what determines the right of the divorcer to bring about the dissolution of the marriage ties. According to the inspired Scriptures it is the unclean marriage mate that is given the bill of divorce by the clean, unadulterous, innocent marriage mate. The language of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is unmistakable in this regard.

This Deuteronomic law was the one submitted to discussion by the Pharisees in Matthew 19:3-9. Jesus told the Pharisees that God had not given the first man Adam the right to divorce his wife Eve on any grounds. In reply the Pharisees referred to this Deuteronomic law by asking: “Why, then, did Moses prescribe giving a certificate of dismissal and divorcing her?” This Mosaic law specifically cites the uncleanness of the wife who was divorced, not any uncleanness of her husband, the divorcer. Jesus showed the proper respect for restrictions on the right to divorce the marriage mate when he said: “Moses, out of regard for your hardheartedness, made the concession to you of divorcing your wives, but such has not been the case from the beginning. I say to you that whoever divorces his wife except on the grounds of fornication and marries another commits adultery.” Since Jesus was here following up his reference to the Mosaic law, he was talking about a wife's being divorced on grounds other than her fornication, her adultery, her uncleanness, not that of her husband. It was for this reason that Joseph of Nazareth thought of privately divorcing his fiancée, Mary, because he thought there was uncleanness in her; and only divine intervention prevented this divorce. So it is the guilty one that must be divorced. The guilty one is not the one who should do the divorcing.

The guilty one is not expected to incriminate himself and then on the basis of his own self-incrimination divorce the innocent marriage mate. The innocent marriage mate who incriminates the guilty one must do the divorcing. Hence, if the one divorced proves to be the innocent mate, then that innocent, unadulterous, divorced one is exposed to immorality. As Jesus said in Matthew 5:32: “Everyone divorcing his wife except on account of fornication makes her a subject for adultery, seeing that whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” So the right of the clean, innocent, unadulterous marriage mate deserves protection, for which reason an unscriptural divorce of her is out of order. For very personal reasons a wife may choose to overlook the immorality of her husband, and may continue to give him the marriage due and receive the marriage due from him. Why? For the very reason that the marriage has not been dissolved by any adultery on the part of her husband. She has a legal and Scriptural right to keep living with him. She does not automatically become unclean by having further sex relations with him after his committing of adultery.

If an adulterous husband does not disclose his adultery to his innocent wife, but notifies her of his purpose to seek a divorce, then if she consents to this divorce without knowing of his adultery, but merely with the idea of being legally separated from him by mutual consent under law, then she enters into the divorce action with him on this basis. He procures the divorce with her consent and without her contesting. Thus they both agree to this divorce on an unscriptural basis, which does not free them for remarriage. All they want is to be free from each other, and that is what they get by the unscriptural but legal divorce. Both of them must take the consequences of this type of unscriptural divorce. This, of course, deprives her of the Scriptural authorization to remarry. However, the hypocritical, adulterous husband has tied himself up too, and whereas he has exposed her to adultery he may find it even harder for himself to resist post-divorce adultery than she does, inasmuch as he practiced adultery unknown to her before procuring the divorce. Just because of the ignorance of the wife the Christian congregation is not warranted in setting aside Jesus' rule that a husband, if he really wishes to rid himself of his wife on a Scriptural basis, must do so by taking a divorce from her because of her uncleanness, her adultery. Otherwise, the husband, even if himself adulterous before the divorce, is not thereafter free to remarry; and she, even if she did legally remarry, enters thereby into adultery.

The divorcer, regardless of his own personal morality before the divorce, determines the grounds or terms of the divorce. If now the court grants the divorce on those terms, then the divorce applies on those terms and it carries to the divorcer the corresponding consequences.

What now if the innocent wife finds out after the divorce to which she consented, or in which she acquiesced, that her husband had committed adultery one or more times before the divorce, but had not informed her? This does not alter the situation. It does not entitle her to appeal for a reversal of the divorce decree, or to appeal for a change of the grounds of divorce so as to make those grounds Scriptural instead of unscriptural ones. It is true that since the divorce she now comes into possession of new knowledge regarding immorality on the part of her former legal husband before the divorce. However, she cannot bring this new knowledge to bear. It must be borne in mind that in the courts of the land when an appeal is made for the reversal of a decision by a lower court no new evidence or features may be introduced to the appeal court to bring such new evidence or features to bear upon the appeal court. Only the evidence already submitted and ruled upon by the lower court can be and is considered by the appeal court in arriving at its own decision. No reversal or cancellation of the decision of the lower court is allowed on the basis of any new evidence. This same limitation as to new evidence after a divorce applies also to the official representatives of a congregation when an innocent, divorced woman, a member of the congregation, brings to light before them the evidence of the adultery of her former legal husband, prior to the divorce.

Only immorality after the divorce by either, or both of the divorced parties, would give force and effect to the legal divorce so as to bring about real dissolution of the marriage ties according to the Scriptures. Immoral sex relations after a divorce on unscriptural grounds adds something, not toward reversing the divorce decision on unscriptural grounds, but to confirm the divorce and to make it more far-reaching. By post-divorce adultery something new has been introduced that did not appear at the time of the suit for divorce when the terms for the divorce action were set by the divorcer with the consent or acquiescence of the divorcee. Thus a new factor has been added since the divorce to validate, not cancel, the divorce decision. This is true even if it is the divorcer himself that commits the adultery after the divorce.

Adultery before divorce does not dissolve the marriage tie of itself. Sex relations may continue between the legally married even after such pre-divorce adultery. Up until the step is decided upon and taken in suing for divorce all sex relations between the legally married couple after the unfaithful husband had committed adultery would offset the adultery as being a ground for divorce action to be taken against the adulterous mate.

However, the divorcer by his post-divorce adultery introduces an effective element into the situation, an element that he himself had not relied upon beforehand when he applied for the divorce against his innocent wife. He now brings adultery to bear upon the matter even though this adultery is on his own part. By his post-divorce adultery he now puts into the hands of the innocent, divorced wife something Scripturally valid that she may hold and apply against the divorcer. Under the circumstances she does not now need to file for a divorce suit inasmuch as there is already a legal divorce in effect that has separated them according to the law. But now the adultery element does make the separation Scriptural and really effects the dissolution of all marriage bonds, and this before God and his Christian congregation as well as before the law of the land. In regard to the unscriptural divorce this effect was not the case previous to such divorce forasmuch as the woman was still the adulterous mate's wife by reason of the then still-existing legal marriage.

In this case where the Christian congregation was not privately advised beforehand of any other basic ground for the divorce, any really Scriptural ground underlying the divorce suit, a divorce must be held to the terms of the divorce upon which the divorcer sued. A divorce sticks, on its own grounds, not on some imaginary possibility of what might have been done on the basis of fuller knowledge. Hence no retroactive action may be allowed beyond what the divorce grounds actually are by stipulation, for the purpose of adjusting the scope and effect of the divorce to agree with additional knowledge or discovery of incriminating evidence. This strict holding to the divorce terms prevents any collusion being carried on by the divorced couple who might agree to trump up something valid that might free them or rid them of the tight restrictions upon them due to the unscripturalness of their divorce.

The hard consequences of the unscriptural divorce bear just as heavily upon the divorcer as upon the divorcee. Therefore the hard consequences of an unscriptural divorce should stand as a warning to any prospective divorcer so that he will consider first the limitations and restrictions and dangers that would result from his unscriptural course to his own self as well as to his innocent marriage mate. It is not the prerogative or obligation of the Christian congregation to relieve the divorced couple of the hard consequences of their unscriptural divorce. In its tendency toward mercy the Christian congregation must not go beyond what is written in God's Word and attempt a reversal of the situation by doing something that it is not authorized to do. A man that forces an unscriptural divorce through becomes very responsible toward the innocent, undeserving mate inasmuch as he makes the post-divorce life and course of her very hard with respect to morality. If the innocent divorcee goes bad, the Christian congregation is not primarily responsible for not sanctioning her remarriage before the death or post-divorce adultery of her ex-husband. The self-seeking divorcer is the responsible one, according to the Scriptures. All that the Christian congregation can do legitimately is to help her to grow straight morally as a Christian by extending to her all the spiritual help possible.

Because of his adultery, unrepented of before the divorce, the unfaithful husband could be disfellowshiped by the Christian congregation of which he may be a baptized member. By concealing his adultery from wife and congregation he may postpone his disfellowshipment for a time. If in addition to his concealed adultery he undertakes to divorce his innocent wife, then he shows that he has not repented of his adultery. Neither does he have his wife's forgiveness for it. Hence he must be disfellowshiped by the congregation when the facts of the matter become known. To the wrong that he has committed against his wife by the adultery that he has concealed from her he hardheartedly adds injury by suing for divorce from her in her innocence. For his moral uncleanness, of which his hypocritical, unloving course shows he has not repented, he must be disfellowshiped from the Christian congregation on the basis of the evidence laid before the congregation's judicial committee.
DIVORCE

Legal dissolution of the marital union. Hence the severance of the marriage bond between a husband and a wife. Various original-language terms for “divorce” literally mean “send away” (De 22:19, ftn), “release” or “loose off” (Mt 1:19, Int; 19:3, ftn), “drive out; cast out” (Le 22:13, ftn), and “cut off.”—Compare De 24:1, 3, where the expression “a certificate of divorce” literally means “a book of cutting off.”

When Jehovah united Adam and Eve in wedlock, he made no provision for divorce. Jesus Christ made this clear when answering the Pharisees' question: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife on every sort of ground?” Christ showed that God purposed for man to leave his father and his mother and stick to his wife, the two becoming one flesh. Then Jesus added: “So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has yoked together let no man put apart.” (Mt 19:3-6; compare Ge 2:22-24.) The Pharisees next asked: “Why, then, did Moses prescribe giving a certificate of dismissal and divorcing her?” In reply, Christ said: “Moses, out of regard for your hardheartedness, made the concession to you of divorcing your wives, but such has not been the case from the beginning.”—Mt 19:7, 8.

Though divorce was allowed among the Israelites on various grounds as a concession, Jehovah God regulated it in his Law given to Israel through Moses. Deuteronomy 24:1 reads: “In case a man takes a woman and does make her his possession as a wife, it must also occur that if she should find no favor in his eyes because he has found something indecent on her part, he must also write out a certificate of divorce for her and put it in her hand and dismiss her from his house.” Just what “something indecent” (literally, “the nakedness of a thing”) was is not specifically stated. That it was not adultery is indicated by the fact that God's law given to Israel decreed that those guilty of adultery be put to death, not merely be divorced. (De 22:22-24) Doubtless, originally the ‘indecency' that would have given a Hebrew husband some basis for divorcing his wife involved serious matters, perhaps the wife's showing gross disrespect for the husband or bringing shame on the household. Since the Law specified that “you must love your fellow as yourself,” it is not reasonable to assume that petty faults could be used with impunity as excuses for divorcing a wife.—Le 19:18.

In the days of Malachi many Jewish husbands were dealing treacherously with their wives, divorcing them on all kinds of grounds, ridding themselves of the wives of their youth, possibly in order to marry younger, pagan women. Instead of upholding God's law, the priests allowed this, and Jehovah was greatly displeased. (Mal 2:10-16) That Jewish men were using many grounds for divorce when Jesus Christ was on earth is indicated by the question the Pharisees put to Jesus: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife on every sort of ground?”—Mt 19:3.

Among the Israelites a man customarily paid a dowry for the woman who became his wife, and she was considered his possession. While enjoying many blessings and privileges, hers was the subordinate role in the marital union. Her position is further shown by Deuteronomy 24:1-4, which pointed out that the husband might divorce his wife but said nothing about the wife's divorcing her husband. Being considered his property, she could not divorce him. In secular history, the first recorded instance of a woman in Israel trying to divorce her husband was when King Herod's sister Salome sent her husband, the governor of Idumea, a bill of divorce dissolving their marriage. (Jewish Antiquities, XV, 259 [vii, 10]) That such divorce action by women had begun to crop up when Jesus was on earth or that he foresaw its development may be indicated by Christ's words: “If ever a woman, after divorcing her husband, marries another, she commits adultery.”—Mr 10:12.

Certificate of Divorce. It should not be concluded from the later abuses that the original Mosaic divorce concession made it easy for an Israelite husband to divorce his wife. In order to do so, he had to take formal steps. It was necessary to write a document, to “write out a certificate of divorce for her.” The divorcing husband had to “put it in her hand and dismiss her from his house.” (De 24:1) While the Scriptures do not provide additional details on this procedure, this legal step apparently involved consultation with duly authorized men, who might first endeavor to effect a reconciliation. The time involved in preparing the certificate and legally implementing the divorce would afford the divorcing husband opportunity to reconsider his decision. There would have to be a basis for the divorce, and when the regulation was properly applied, this would logically serve as a deterrent to rash action in obtaining divorces. Then, too, the wife's rights and interests were thus protected. The Scriptures do not disclose the contents of the “certificate of divorce.”

Remarriage of Divorced Mates. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 also stipulated that the divorced woman “must go out of his house and go and become another man's,” meaning that she was eligible for remarriage. It was also stated: “If the latter man has come to hate her and has written out a certificate of divorce for her and put it in her hand and dismissed her from his house, or in case the latter man who took her as his wife should die, the first owner of her who dismissed her will not be allowed to take her back again to become his wife after she has been defiled; for that is something detestable before Jehovah, and you must not lead the land that Jehovah your God is giving you as an inheritance into sin.” The former husband was barred from taking the divorced wife back, perhaps in order to prevent the possibility of any scheming between him and this remarried wife to force her divorce from her second husband or to cause his death, thereby allowing for remarriage with her previous husband. If her former marriage mate took her back, it would be an unclean thing in God's eyes; the first husband would make himself look foolish because he had dismissed her as a woman in whom he had found “something indecent” and then, after she had been lawfully joined to another man and used as his wife, he took her back once again.

Doubtless the very fact that the original husband could not remarry his divorced wife after she became another man's, even if that man divorced her or died, made the husband contemplating divorce action think seriously before acting to end the marriage. (Jer 3:1) However, nothing was said that would prohibit him from remarrying his divorced wife if she had not remarried after the legal severance of their marriage tie.

Sending Away Pagan Wives. Before the Israelites entered the Promised Land, they were told to form no marriage alliances with its pagan inhabitants. (De 7:3, 4) Nonetheless, in the days of Ezra, the Jews had taken foreign wives, and in prayer to God, Ezra acknowledged their guiltiness in this matter. In response to his urging and in acknowledgment of their error, the men of Israel who had taken foreign wives sent them away “along with sons.”—Ezr 9:10–10:44.

However, Christians, coming from all different nations (Mt 28:19), were not to divorce mates who were not worshipers of Jehovah, nor was it even desirable for them to separate from such marriage partners, as Paul's inspired counsel shows. (1Co 7:10-28) Yet, when it came to contracting a new marriage, Christians were counseled to marry “only in the Lord.”—1Co 7:39.

Joseph's Contemplated Divorce. While Mary was promised in marriage to Joseph, but before they were united, she was found to be pregnant by holy spirit, and the account states: “However, Joseph her husband, because he was righteous and did not want to make her a public spectacle, intended to divorce her secretly.” (Mt 1:18, 19) Since engagement was such a binding arrangement among the Jews at that time, the word “divorce” is properly used here.

If an engaged girl submitted to having relations with another man, she was stoned to death the same as an adulteress. (De 22:22-29) In cases that might result in stoning an individual to death, two witnesses were required in order to establish the person's guilt. (De 17:6, 7) Obviously, Joseph had no witnesses against Mary. Mary was pregnant, but Joseph did not understand the matter thoroughly until Jehovah's angel gave him the explanation. (Mt 1:20, 21) Whether the ‘secret divorce' he contemplated would have included the giving of a certificate of divorce or not is not stated; but it is likely that Joseph was going to act in accord with the principles set out at Deuteronomy 24:1-4, possibly giving her the divorce in front of just two witnesses so the matter would be settled legally without bringing undue shame on her. While Matthew does not give every detail regarding the procedure Joseph intended to follow, he does indicate that Joseph wanted to deal mercifully with Mary. Joseph is not considered an unrighteous man for this, but rather, it was “because he was righteous and did not want to make her a public spectacle” that he “intended to divorce her secretly.”—Mt 1:19.

Circumstances Barring Divorce in Israel. According to God's law given to Israel, there were conditions in which divorce was impossible. It might occur that a man took a wife, had relations with her, and then came to hate her. He might falsely state that she was not a virgin when he married her, thus improperly charging her with notorious deeds and bringing a bad name upon her. When the girl's parents produced evidence that their daughter had been a virgin at the time of her marriage, the men of the city would have to discipline the false accuser. They would fine him a hundred silver shekels ($220), giving these to the girl's father, and she would continue to be the man's wife, it being stated: “He will not be allowed to divorce her all his days.” (De 22:13-19) Also, if it was discovered that a man seized a virgin who was not engaged and had relations with her, it was stipulated: “The man who lay down with her must also give the girl's father fifty silver shekels [$110], and she will become his wife due to the fact that he humiliated her. He will not be allowed to divorce her all his days.”—De 22:28, 29.

What is the only Scriptural basis for divorce among Christians?

Jesus Christ, in his Sermon on the Mount, stated: “Moreover it was said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.' However, I say to you that everyone divorcing his wife, except on account of fornication, makes her a subject for adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” (Mt 5:31, 32) Also, after telling the Pharisees that the Mosaic concession of divorcing their wives was not the arrangement that had prevailed “from the beginning,” Jesus said: “I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except on the ground of fornication, and marries another commits adultery.” (Mt 19:8, 9) Today, generally, distinction is made between “fornicators” and “adulterers.” According to modern usage, those guilty of fornication are unmarried persons who willingly have sexual relations with someone of the opposite sex. Adulterers are married persons who willingly have sexual relations with a member of the opposite sex who is not their legal marriage mate. As shown in the article FORNICATION, however, the term “fornication” is a rendering of the Greek word por·nei´a and includes all forms of illicit sexual relations outside of Scriptural marriage. Hence, Jesus' words at Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 mean that the only divorce ground that actually severs the marriage bond is por·nei´a on the part of one's marriage mate. The follower of Christ may avail himself of that divorce provision if that is his desire, and such a divorce would free him to marry an eligible Christian.—1Co 7:39.

Sexually immoral acts committed by a married person with someone of the same sex (homosexuality) are filthy and disgusting. Unrepentant persons of this type will not inherit God's Kingdom. And, of course, bestiality is Scripturally condemned. (Le 18:22, 23; Ro 1:24-27; 1Co 6:9, 10) These grossly filthy acts come under the broad designation por·nei´a. It is also noteworthy that, under the Mosaic Law, homosexuality and bestiality carried the death penalty, freeing the innocent mate for remarriage.—Le 20:13, 15, 16.

Jesus Christ pointed out that “everyone that keeps on looking at a woman so as to have a passion for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (Mt 5:28) But Jesus did not say that what was in the heart, but not carried into action, furnished a basis for divorce. Christ's words show that the heart should be kept clean and one should not entertain improper thoughts and desires.—Php 4:8; Jas 1:14, 15.

The Jews' rabbinic law laid emphasis on the married person's duty to perform the marital act and allowed a husband to divorce his wife if she was unable to produce children. However, the Scriptures do not give Christians the right to divorce their mates for such a reason. Barrenness for many years did not cause Abraham to divorce Sarah, Isaac to divorce Rebekah, Jacob to divorce Rachel, or the priest Zechariah to divorce Elizabeth.—Ge 11:30; 17:17; 25:19-26; 29:31; 30:1, 2, 22-25; Lu 1:5-7, 18, 24, 57.

Nothing is said in the Scriptures that would permit a Christian to divorce a marriage partner because that one was physically unable to perform the marital act, or had gone insane or contracted an incurable or loathsome disease. The love that Christians are to show would call, not for divorce, but for merciful treatment of such a mate. (Eph 5:28-31) Nor does the Bible grant Christians the right to divorce their marriage mates because of difference in religion; it shows instead that by remaining with an unbelieving mate the Christian may win that individual over to the true faith.—1Co 7:12-16; 1Pe 3:1-7.

In his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said that “everyone divorcing his wife, except on account of fornication, makes her a subject for adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” (Mt 5:32) By this, Christ showed that if a husband divorces his wife for reasons other than her “fornication” (por·nei´a), he exposes her to adultery in the future. That is so because the unadulterous wife is not properly disunited from her husband by such a divorce and is not free to marry another man and have sexual relations with another husband. When Christ said that whoever “marries a divorced woman commits adultery,” he was referring to a woman divorced on grounds other than “on account of fornication” (por·nei´a). Such a woman, though divorced legally, would not be divorced Scripturally.

Mark, like Matthew (Mt 19:3-9), recorded Jesus' statements to the Pharisees regarding divorce and quoted Christ as saying: “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if ever a woman, after divorcing her husband, marries another, she commits adultery.” (Mr 10:11, 12) A similar statement is made at Luke 16:18, which reads: “Everyone that divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he that marries a woman divorced from a husband commits adultery.” Taken alone, these verses seem to forbid all divorce by Christ's followers, or at least to indicate that a divorced individual would not be entitled to remarry except after the death of the divorced marriage partner. However, Jesus' words as recorded by Mark and Luke must be understood in the light of the more complete statement recorded by Matthew. He includes the phrase “except on the ground of fornication” (Mt 19:9; see also Mt 5:32), showing that what Mark and Luke wrote in quoting Jesus on divorce applies if the ground for procuring the divorce is anything other than “fornication” (por·nei´a) committed by the unfaithful marriage partner.

A person is not Scripturally obligated to divorce an adulterous though repentant marriage partner, however. The Christian husband or wife may extend mercy in such a case, even as Hosea seems to have taken back his adulterous wife Gomer and as Jehovah extended mercy to repentant Israel that had been guilty of spiritual adultery.—Ho 3.

God's original standard restored. It is clear that Jesus Christ's statement pointed to a return to the high standard for marriage originally set by Jehovah God, and it showed that those who would become Jesus' disciples would have to adhere to that high standard. Though the concessions provided by the Mosaic Law were still in effect, those who would be true disciples of Jesus, doing the will of his Father and ‘doing' or putting into effect the sayings of Jesus (Mt 7:21-29), would no longer avail themselves of such concessions to exercise “hardheartedness” toward their marriage mates. (Mt 19:8) As genuine disciples, they would not violate the original divine principles governing marriage by divorcing their mates on any grounds other than the one Jesus specified, namely “fornication” (por·nei´a).

A single person who commits fornication with a prostitute makes himself “one body” with that person. Similarly, the adulterer makes himself “one body,” not with his legal wife, but with the immoral person with whom he has sexual relations. The adulterer thus sins not only against his own personal flesh but also against his legal wife who until then has been “one flesh” with him. (1Co 6:16-18) For that reason adultery provides a true basis for breaking the marital bond in accord with divine principles, and where such ground exists, a divorce obtained brings about the formal and final dissolution of the legal marriage union, freeing the innocent partner to remarry with honor.—Heb 13:4.

Figurative Divorce. The marriage relationship is used symbolically in the Scriptures. (Isa 54:1, 5, 6; 62:1-6) Reference is also made to symbolic divorcing, or the sending away of a wife.—Jer 3:8.

The kingdom of Judah was overthrown and Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 B.C.E., the inhabitants of the land being taken into Babylonian exile. Years earlier Jehovah had said prophetically to Jews who would then be in exile: “Where, then, is the divorce certificate of the mother of you people, whom I sent away?” (Isa 50:1) Their “mother,” or national organization, had been put away with just cause, not because Jehovah broke his covenant and started divorce proceedings, but because of her wrongdoing against the Law covenant. But a remnant of Israelites repented and prayed for a renewal of Jehovah's husbandly relationship with them in their homeland. Jehovah, for his own name's sake, restored his people to their homeland as promised, in 537 B.C.E., at the end of the 70-year desolation.—Ps 137:1-9; see MARRIAGE.
Marriage Obligations and Divorce

“That is why a man will leave his father and his mother and he must stick to his wife and they must become one flesh.”—Gen. 2:24, NW.

FOR his followers Jesus Christ put marriage back where God had started it in the garden of Eden. God gave the perfect man Adam one wife, making him monogamous. The Christian that is justified or declared righteous in God's sight may have no more than one living wife. In the congregation the overseers, who are spiritually “older men,” and the ministerial servants may be “husbands of one wife” only. They are the men to be followed as examples of the flock, and so all other married persons in the flock may have only one living marriage mate. (1 Tim. 3:1, 2, 12, NW; Titus 1:5-7) Christians must stick to their marriage mates in faithfulness, in love, so remaining in it associated with God.

2 This does not permit a man to commit adultery or have sex relations with any other woman. He should be satisfied with and draw delight from sexual relations with only his wife; as it is written: “Drink water from your own cistern, running water from your own well. Why should your springs be scattered abroad, your streams of water in the streets? Let them be for yourself alone, and not for strangers along with you. Let your fountain be blessed to you, and get your enjoyment from the wife of your youth. A lovely hind, a graceful doe—let her breasts intoxicate you always, with her love be continually ravished. Why, my son, should you be ravished with the wife of another, and embrace the bosom of an adulteress?” (Prov. 5:15-20, AT) Committing adultery makes the guilty one subject to disfellowshiping from the New World society.

3 God created the sexes particularly for the peopling of the earth by bringing forth children. (Gen. 1:27, 28) In his law to Israel God provided that a wife should have from her husband “her sustenance, her clothing and her marriage due,” undiminished. This means she has the right to have children if she wants them. (Ex. 21:10, 11, NW) This was shown by God's law of brother-in-law marriage, whereby the brother-in-law was obliged to marry the widow in order to give her a child and thus raise up the name of his dead brother and not leave his brother's widow childless. (Deut. 25:5-10) A man was also entitled to have children by his wife. That is why, when the call to the army of Israel came to him, if he was simply engaged to marry a girl he could not be drafted till after the engagement was over and he was fully married. Even then he could not be drafted until he had lived a year with her as a married man and had the opportunity to have a child by his wife and see and enjoy it. (Deut. 20:1-5, 7; 24:5) The wife's claim on the man preceded that of the army, for her sake and for the sake of the family name. He must give her the “marriage due.” She must give him his due.

4 After the great flood Jehovah God repeated to Noah and his family the mandate to have children. But there is now no procreation mandate laid upon Christians. Otherwise, no Christian should remain single and childless. So no Christian obligation exists now before the battle of Armageddon to have children. To keep as free as possible for the direct service of God in preaching the good news of his kingdom, some Christian couples may choose to remain childless, thereby avoiding parental obligations and keeping unburdened. If there were now in force a procreation mandate from God, all married members of the New World society would choose to have children immediately, and not delay it till after Armageddon, if possible. Although under the original procreation mandate from God Adam and Eve did not have any children in the garden of Eden for what time they were there. It was not for their failing to conceive children at once that they were driven out. No married couple should be criticized for refusing or failing to have children now before Armageddon.

5 This is not saying that married couples should not give each other the sexual due. This is not saying that, before getting married, they should make an agreement and enter a common vow before God to live a celibate life even after marriage, having no sexual relations but merely enjoying each other's companionship. No one should think that this is raising marriage to a spiritual level and keeping it on an exalted, unfleshly plane, and so belittling the marriage of others who have sexual relations. If a married couple does not want to pay marriage dues, then the man and woman should not marry at all and not subject the mate to deprivation of what is natural and craved naturally. By celibacy they are not putting their marriage on a level higher and holier than that of others. They cannot change God's honorable sexual arrangement. Celibate marriages have therefore never fared well.

6 The others are not degrading their married life by intercourse, but are following an honorable, rightful course. There is no proper marriage for so-called “Platonic friendship” just because the end of the world is so near. If an engaged couple think natural connections are carnal, then why wed at all? Why have one of the opposite sex so close to one all the time, in the most intimate privacy? If it is not good or spiritually upbuilding to touch a woman, why live so intimate with her even in celibate marriage? Be natural, be normal, do not be falsely idealistic. Do not be like some Irish Catholic girls who are in the news, who get married but refuse to give their husband his due because they want to imitate Jesus' mother Mary and remain “ever virgin.” The apostle Peter instructed them never to handle their married life that way, but to recognize their husband as their “lord.” (1 Pet. 3:5, 6) The apostle Paul, who at least once set the apostle Peter straight, wrote:

7 “Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is well for a man not to have intercourse with a woman; yet, because of prevalence of fornication, let each man have his own wife and each woman have her own husband. Let the husband render to his wife her due; but let the wife also do likewise to her husband. The wife does not exercise authority over her own body, but her husband does; likewise, also, the husband does not exercise authority over his own body, but his wife does. Do not be depriving each other of it, except by mutual consent for an appointed time, that you may devote time to prayer and may come together again, that Satan may not keep tempting you for your lack of self-regulation. However, I say this by way of concession, not in the way of an order.”—1 Cor. 7:1-7, NW.

8 The everlasting life of a married person depends upon his faithfulness to his marriage contract. Jehovah, accompanied by his Messenger of the covenant, is now at his spiritual Christian temple and warns that he has come near to judgment and will be a swift witness against adulterers. (Mal. 3:1, 2, 5, Da) The apostle Peter says that a Christian husband should treat his wife understandingly and as a fellow runner in the race for everlasting life in the new world. His words are: “You husbands, continue dwelling in like manner with them according to knowledge, assigning them honor as to a weaker vessel, the feminine one, since you are also heirs with them of the undeserved favor of life, in order for your prayers not to be hindered.” (1 Pet. 3:7, NW) A Christian will therefore not abuse his wife either physically or spiritually. If he does not help his wife and children to gain life in the new world, how could he be expected to help outsiders to do so?

9 Jesus Christ loves his “bride,” who is to be his “wife.” His married followers must also love their wives. “Husbands, continue loving your wives, just as the Christ also loved the congregation and delivered up himself for it, . . . let each one of you individually so love his wife as he does himself; on the other hand, the wife should have deep respect for her husband.” (Eph. 5:25, 33, NW) To some former pagans the command to love one's wife may sound strange, but a Christian is under orders to do so. He should love her by deeds as well as words, being concerned “how he may gain the approval of his wife” as far as he conscientiously can. (1 Cor. 7:33, NW) He should sit with her in congregational meetings, he should study the Bible at home together with her and build up a oneness of spiritual interests with her. This may be difficult at first or unusual.

10 But as a husband begins showing love in little ways of expressing it and notes the pleasure of his wife over it he will find that he likes it. He will want to do it some more and to enlarge it. It will become normal, natural for him to do so. He will grow in appreciation that this is a showing of the spirit of God, the fruitage of which is love. In turn, let no wife reproach her husband, saying: “You don't love me. You never show it.” Let her notice his little, embarrassed ways of showing love for her and then let her reveal sincere pleasure at this and also voice appreciation of this, to enhance his happiness. The common possession of the truth and the likeness of their dedications to God and their hope of gaining life together everlastingly in the new world ought to provoke a sympathy and love between them. This will help so much amid the difficulties of married life today.

11 Let the wife show deep respect for her husband, acknowledging him as her married head. (1 Cor. 11:3) “Let wives be in subjection to their husbands as to the Lord, because a husband is head of his wife as the Christ also is head of the congregation, he being a savior of this body. In fact, as the congregation is in subjection to the Christ, so let wives also be to their husbands in everything.” (Eph. 5:21-24, NW; also Titus 2:3-5) Besides this example of the Christian congregation toward Jesus Christ, the Christian wife has the still loftier example of the subjection and obedience of the universal organization of God toward the Lord Jehovah. (Isa. 54:5, AS) It is interesting for a wife to note the recommendations of March 20, 1956, of Great Britain's third Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce. Among the factors that it listed as contributing to the rising divorce rate in Britain was “the new position of women as equals rather than inferiors in marriage partnerships.” It is only reasonable to expect that the ignoring of God's all-wise arrangement for human marriage would lead to trouble and the wrecking of more and more marriages. The purpose of all the advice of God's Word to married couples is, not only to guide them in making their life together more enjoyable and helpful toward gaining eternal life, but also to keep them living together, to help them avoid divorce.—New York Times, March 21, 1956.

DISSOLUTION GROUNDS: LEGAL AND SCRIPTURAL

12 By the laws of states and nations today divorce is granted on a number of grounds. Persons who have lost or killed their love for their marriage mate try to grab hold of whatever legal grounds they can to break the marriage tie, such as mental cruelty, laziness, refusal of conjugal rights, drunkenness, insanity, incurable disease, desertion or abandonment, barrenness, sodomy, bestiality, criminality, incompatibility, change of one's religion, and so on, besides adultery. But are all these legal grounds Scripturally right, valid for the Christian? Jesus Christ is Jehovah's Counselor for us. The Jewish Pharisees once tested him with this question: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife on every kind of grounds?” Jesus did not answer those questioners by referring to the Roman Caesar's laws concerning divorce. He referred to the superior law of the Most High God and showed there is but one ground for divorce—adultery or moral unfaithfulness.

13 “In reply he said: ‘Did you not read that he who created them at the beginning made them male and female and said: “For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh”? So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has yoked together let no man put apart.' They said to him: ‘Why, then, did Moses prescribe giving a certificate of dismissal and divorcing her?' He said to them: ‘Moses, out of regard for your hardheartedness, made the concession to you of divorcing your wives, but such has not been the case from the beginning. I say to you that whoever divorces his wife except on the grounds of fornication and marries another commits adultery.'” (Matt. 19:3-9, NW) “When again in the house the disciples began to question him concerning this. And he said to them: ‘Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if ever a woman, after divorcing her husband, marries another, she commits adultery.'” (Mark 10:10-12, NW) “Everyone that divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he that marries a woman divorced from a husband commits adultery.”—Luke 16:18, NW.

14 Adultery is unloving and is a breaking of God's commandment. (Rom. 13:8-10; Ex. 20:14; Acts 21:25) The adulterer is already married and yoked together as one flesh with his legal mate. But adultery is a putting apart what God has yoked together. The adulterer pulls away from his legal mate and makes himself one flesh with a third person. Three do not make one flesh, but two do become one flesh. A person's being one flesh must be with only one other, not with two others or more. Addressing himself to anointed Christians who were members of Christ's spiritual body or congregation, the apostle Paul wrote: “Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I, then, take the members of the Christ away and make them members of a harlot? Never may that happen! What! Do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body? For, ‘The two,' says he, ‘will be one flesh.' But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit. Flee from fornication. Every other sin which a man may commit is outside his body, but he that practices fornication is sinning against his own body. What! Do you not know that the body of you people is the temple of the holy spirit within you which you have from God?”—1 Cor. 6:15-19, NW.

15 Many of those here addressed were married persons. Having sexual connection with their married mates was not taking them away from membership in Christ's body, for one's wife is one's own flesh and one is uniting with what is one's own. But when married Christians commit adultery or single Christians commit fornication, even with a religious temple prostitute, they do something of which God and Christ do not approve. They are taking their bodies that belong to Christ and becoming one flesh with a sinner, a fornicator or a harlot. When committing adultery or fornicating, a Christian sins against his own body. He is misusing it, contrary to his owner Christ. The adulterous Christian also sins against his wife, who is properly one flesh with him. He is breaking his unity with her, thus hurting himself, hating himself because he hates his wife whose flesh he rejects. An anointed Christian cannot take himself as a member of Christ's body and make himself “one flesh” with an illegal person, a fornicator or a fornicatrix, a harlot, for Jesus has no connection or oneness with such an unclean person. Unless the Christian repents and reforms from his immoral course he shows he prefers union, not with Christ, but with the immoral person, and hence he ceases to be in union with Christ. He is not one in spirit with Christ. He ceases to be part of the virgin class that is espoused to Christ. A confirmed adulterer or fornicator is no Christian. He is no witness of Jehovah. Jehovah God does not make adulterers or fornicators his witnesses.—1 Cor. 5:11-13.

16 Since this uniting sexually with an illegal person makes a married person one flesh with someone outside the marriage union, it is only adultery that really breaks the marriage union, snapping the yoke with which God has made the married couple one flesh. Therefore Jesus said that only adultery is the ground that God allows for divorce. Unless adultery has broken the yoke of marriage, a divorce would not be proper or would not really take effect before God. Divorce courts of this world, when decreeing a divorce on grounds other than adultery, are not actually putting apart what God has bound together. The divorced persons are still one flesh with each other, still man and wife. Thus neither one is free to remarry, for to remarry would mean to commit adultery. A man who divorces his wife on unadulterous grounds exposes her to adultery by a remarriage and also exposes himself in a like way. A man who marries a woman not divorced for adultery by herself or by her husband commits adultery with her, uniting himself with flesh that still belongs to another man.

17 Death dissolves a marriage. A widower or widow is therefore free to remarry. “A married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is alive; but if her husband dies, she is discharged from the law of her husband. So, then, while her husband is living, she would be styled an adulteress if she became another man's. But if her husband dies, she is free from his law, so that she is not an adulteress if she becomes another man's.” (Rom. 7:2, 3, NW) One's husband or wife may be known to be dead through war or a catastrophe but may not happen to be registered as dead or the records may not be at hand to verify the death. Or one's marriage mate may disappear and be absent so long that the law of the land pronounces him dead. By this a person is legally declared a widower or widow. Such a one may conscientiously remarry. By remarrying he takes upon himself the responsibility for the outcome, and he must live in full submission to the new obligations. God knows the actual facts and he judges in accordance with them, and he determines whether the remarried person is suitable for life in the new world or not. If a mate legally declared dead should put in appearance again and want his legal mate restored to him, the matter would have to be straightened out legally. Under such circumstances anyone marrying a person only legally declared a widower or widow is taking a risk or chance and must be willing to face any turn of events.

IMPOTENCE, UNCLEANNESS, INSANITY, CHANGE OF RELIGION

18 The Rabbinical law of the Jews laid emphasis on the duty of the marital act. It allowed the wife to divorce her husband who, because of his physical disability, was unable to give her this due for a period of six months. Likewise a husband could divorce his wife because of her inability to produce children. But mere impotence on the husband's part Jesus did not recognize as a ground for divorce. The wedding procedure that has legally been carried out before witnesses made the marriage both binding and valid, just as it did for Adam and Eve in Eden. Where a man is impotent today the married couple in their desire for children might agree for the wife to receive the seed of another man by artificial insemination. Some law courts have already held that artificial insemination is adultery and that children produced by such means are illegitimate. The recent British Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce recommended as a ground for divorce the wife's acceptance of artificial insemination by a donor of seed without her husband's consent. Such a divorce would be Scriptural. But where the husband consented it would be grounds for the disfellowshiping of both man and wife. Why? Because it is a virtual committing of adultery, and both man and wife consented to the immoral act. The husband in effect gave her to another man to receive the seed of copulation, and the wife gave herself to a man not her husband to become the mother of a child by that other man with whom she was not one flesh. It is an adulterous course, and the fact that the husband adopts the child does not do away with the fact that he consented to the adulterous use of his wife.—Lev. 15:16-18, 32, 33; 19:20; Num. 5:12, 13, NW.

19 Neither is a wife's barrenness a true ground for divorce. Because of her barrenness for many years, even up to more than twenty-five years, Abraham did not divorce Sarah, nor Isaac Rebekah, nor Jacob Rachel, nor the priest Zechariah Elizabeth. The sons of Noah did not divorce their wives for barrenness during all the years that the ark was under construction and until two years after the flood. (Gen. 6:18; 11:10) Nor did Jehovah divorce his “woman,” his universal organization, because of her barrenness or failure to bring forth the Messiah for more than four thousand years.—Isa. 54:1-13.

20 Sodomy (or the unnatural intercourse of one male with another male as with a female), Lesbianism (or the homosexual relations between women), and bestiality (or the unnatural sexual relations by man or woman with an animal) are not Scriptural grounds for divorce. They are filthy, they are unclean, and God's law to Israel condemned to death those committing such misdeeds, thus drastically putting these out of God's congregation. But such acts are not adultery with the opposite sex, making the unclean person one flesh with another of the opposite sex. (Rom. 1:26-32) Yet there is a penalty of disfellowshiping attached to them. They will keep a Christian out of the heavenly kingdom and out of God's new world, and that means being destroyed like beasts from all future life. “The minding of the flesh means death,” it “means enmity with God, for it is not under subjection to the law of God, nor, in fact, can it be. So those who are in harmony with the flesh cannot please God.” They cannot gain the prize of everlasting life from him. (Rom. 8:6-8; 1 Cor. 6:9, 10; Gal. 5:19-21) Such filthy things by a mate may make life unbearable for the clean married person and are grounds for separation only, though some courts grant a divorce on such grounds. Such separation does not free one to remarry and enter thus into adultery. Writes Paul: “To the married people I give instructions, yet not I but the Lord, that a wife should not depart from her husband; but if she should actually depart, let her remain single or else make up again with her husband; and a husband should not leave his wife.” (1 Cor. 7:10, 11, NW) Only if one of the separated couple committed adultery under the stress of the separation would there be Scriptural basis for the innocent to procure a divorce and be free to remarry.

21 Should one's marriage mate in the course of time go insane or contract an incurable disease or a loathsome one, this is no true basis for getting a divorce. In this case the unfortunate mate must be treated just as an injured member of one's body or as one's child by one's mate. The mate should be treated with proper care, not be cut off from relationship by legal divorce. Despite the ailment the sick mate remains one flesh with the healthy one and deserves full attention and faithfulness as his own flesh. This displays love for one's flesh and helps to lighten the terrible situation, rather than worsen it. “In this way husbands ought to be loving their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself, for no man ever hated his own flesh, but he feeds and cherishes it, as the Christ also does the congregation, because we are members of his body. ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh.'” (Eph. 5:28-31, NW) The faithful mate will not forsake the other during illness either mental or physical. By God's law the healthy one is not freed to do so. Naaman's wife was not freed from him because he was a leper whose terrible disease only a miracle of Almighty God could cure. (2 Ki. 5:1-4, 8-14) At a wedding the mates usually vow to take each other for better or for worse.

22 Some law courts take as a ground for divorce the change in religion on the part of one's mate. According to God and Christ this is not right. This law case assumes that, at marriage, both the husband and the wife were members of the same religious system, so that now the one's change of religion creates a home difficulty on a most vital point. By adopting the new religion the one changing becomes an unbeliever toward the religion of the other mate. Though this may be a bitter experience for the mate that retains the former religion it is no real reason for him to separate from the other either by legal action or by mutual consent. On this Paul writes:

23 “If any brother has an unbelieving wife, and yet she is agreeable to dwelling with him, let him not leave her; and a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and yet he is agreeable to dwelling with her, let her not leave her husband. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in relation to his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in relation to the brother; otherwise, your children would really be unclean, but now they are holy. But if the unbelieving one proceeds to depart, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not in servitude under such circumstances, but God has called you to peace. For, wife, how do you know but that you will save your husband? Or, husband, how do you know but that you will save your wife?”—1 Cor. 7:12-16, NW.

24 So difference of religion, either from before marriage or only since getting married, is no reason why a couple should separate. It is no basis for a divorce that would free them to marry others. If the husband should believe and come into God's truth before his wife does, he should stick to his wife if his change of religion makes no difference with her or even if she objects. The thing is, Does she want to continue living with him under the circumstances, which his accepting the truth should really make better circumstances? If she does, then he should not leave her. His staying with her gives him the opportunity to talk the truth to her, or at least live the truth before her, and possibly by this course help her to accept the truth and get salvation to life in God's new world. This opportunity holds true also for the wife who believes the truth and still remains with her husband.

25 Since the unbelieving one is still “one flesh” with the believer, the unbeliever for this reason alone gains some recognition from Jehovah God. God considers their children, not as unclean, but as holy, and the believer will try to bring them up in true holiness that, at the age of understanding, they too might of their own choice dedicate themselves to God through Christ. The unbeliever is not automatically made a saint or one of God's holy ones, but the believing mate has dedicated everything to God and treats the unbeliever from that standpoint. The sanctified believer will accordingly treat the unbeliever as God would want it to be done, and that will be all toward aiding the unbeliever to see and accept the truth and also come into relationship with God.

26 If the unbeliever does not respond to this sanctified treatment, there is still no reason to leave such one. The move toward separation must or should be taken by the unbeliever. In some cases this move may be a virtual abandonment by the unbeliever's mistreating the believer so badly that it is practically unbearable to live together further. But, as in the case where even fellow believers might separate from each other over some disagreement, the believer must remain single until the departed unbeliever commits immorality and so provides grounds for proper divorce. (1 Cor. 7:10, 11) The believer's attitude toward the separated mate may be like that expressed in Laban's words to Jacob against any violation of the marriage alliance: “Let Jehovah keep watch between me and you when we are situated unseen the one from the other.” (Gen. 31:49, NW) Jehovah God watches whether there is any violating of the marriage covenant. He observes who is the guilty mate and determines whether there is Scriptural ground for divorce to free one for remarriage. This must be, not so-called “spiritual adultery,” but physical adultery.

27 The inspired James did write: “Adulteresses, do you not know that the friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever, therefore, wants to be a friend of the world is constituting himself an enemy of God.” (Jas. 4:4, NW) But this spiritually adulterous friendship with the world is no ground for divorce. Why not? Because this mere friendship does not make anybody “one flesh” with one of the opposite sex adulterously. True, an unbeliever is a friend of this world. However, the apostle Paul did not argue from this that a believer had the right and good cause to leave the unbelieving mate. To the contrary, it was perfectly proper, and altogether moral, for them to keep living together if the unbeliever was agreeable to this. By this keeping together as a couple the unbeliever might be helped toward salvation in the new world, which help would not be possible if the two were said to be improperly living together and the believer was therefore said to be conniving at spiritual adultery by the worldling.

MERCIFUL TREATMENT OF A MATE

28 Christ limited the grounds for a divorce that frees one for remarriage to adultery. This does not give either marriage mate the allowance to abuse or neglect the other. This limitation to adultery only emphasizes the divine arrangement that the married couple are one flesh, and should stick together in mutual care, come better or come worse. This is the decree of the infallible Judge of the Supreme Marriage Court. In some lands the law does not make the adulterous conduct of the husband a legal ground for the wife to divorce him, but makes only the morally loose wife the one that can be divorced for adultery. But according to God's ruling through Christ, if the husband is immoral, it allows a woman to put him away legally and free herself for remarriage without becoming an adulteress by this action. That is why Jesus said: “Whoever divorces his wife [unscripturally] and marries another commits adultery against her, and if ever a woman, after divorcing her husband, marries another, she commits adultery.” (Mark 10:11, 12, NW) So Jesus was not setting up for husbands a standard different from that for wives when he said in his sermon on the mountain: “Moreover it was said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.' However, I say to you that everyone divorcing his wife except on account of fornication makes her a subject for adultery, seeing that whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” (Matt. 5:31, 32, NW) God is not partial. To him adultery by the husband is just as bad as that by the wife.

29 So let no husband covet another man's wife, nor look upon any other woman with desire to have with her the relations that he owes exclusively to his wife. Let the proverbial married business executive or office man beware that he does not fall in love with his lady secretary, married or single, and take liberties with her. Jesus said: “You heard that it was said, ‘You must not commit adultery.' But I say to you that everyone that keeps on looking at a woman so as to have a passion for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (Matt. 5:27, 28, NW) He is already guilty in the sight of God, who reads the heart. Although this is adultery in the man's heart and although he may not be divorced by his wife on this ground, covetousness toward someone oth