Adventist Online

Adultery the Only Reason for Divorce—A woman may be legally divorced from her husband by the laws of the land and yet not divorced in the sight of God and according to the higher law. There is only one sin, which is adultery, which can place the husband or wife in a position where they can be free from the marriage vow in the sight of God. Although the laws of the land may grant a divorce, yet they are husband and wife still in the Bible light, according to the laws of God. – {TSB 78.4}

I saw that Sister Jones, as yet, has no right to marry another man; but if she, or any other woman, should obtain a divorce legally on the ground that her husband was guilty of adultery, then she is free to be married to whom she chooses.—The Adventist Home, 344. – {TSB 79.1}

Among the Jews a man was permitted to put away his wife for the most trivial offenses, and the woman was then at liberty to marry again. This practice led to great wretchedness and sin. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus declared plainly that there could be no dissolution of the marriage tie except for unfaithfulness to the marriage vow. “Everyone,” He said, “that putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress: and whosoever shall marry her when she is put away committeth adultery” (Matthew 5:32, R.V.). – {TSB 79.2}

When the Pharisees afterward questioned Him concerning the lawfulness of divorce, Jesus pointed His hearers back to the marriage institution as ordained at creation. “Because of the hardness of your hearts,” He said, Moses “suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so” (Matthew 19:8). He referred them to the blessed days of Eden, when God pronounced all things “very good.” Then marriage and the Sabbath had their origin, twin institutions for the glory of God in the benefit of humanity. Then, as the Creator joined the hands of the holy pair in wedlock, saying, A man shall “leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one” (Genesis 2:24), He enunciated the law of marriage for all the children of Adam to the close of time. That which the Eternal Father Himself had pronounced good was the law of highest blessing and development for man.—Thoughts from the Mount of Blessing, 63. – {TSB 79.3}

Change Disposition, Not the Marriage Status—I have received a letter from your husband. I would say that there is only one thing for which a husband may lawfully separate from his wife or a wife from her husband, and that is adultery. – {TSB 80.1}

If your dispositions are not congenial, would it not be for the glory of God for you to change these dispositions? – {TSB 80.2}

A husband and wife should cultivate respect and affection for each other. They should guard the spirit, the words, and the actions so that nothing will be said or done to irritate or annoy. Each is to have a care for the other, doing all in their power to strengthen their mutual affection. – {TSB 80.3}

I tell you both to seek the Lord. In love and kindness do your duty one to the other. The husband should cultivate industrious habits, doing his best to support his family. This will lead his wife to have respect for him.—The Adventist Home, 345. – {TSB 80.4}

Views: 942

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

That's very bad of her.
It will be like masturbation right Aquila?.

Dior Manta Tambunan:

“Everyone,” He said, “that putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress: and whosoever shall marry her when she is put away committeth adultery” (Matthew 5:32, R.V.). – {TSB 79.2}

If you marry a woman who has been thus cast off, then you commit adultery with her, because marriage is defined by both parties leaving their parents, to join their spouses, to start a new family.  It does not say anything about leaving your former spouse to be joined unto your new spouse.

But, God will not hold you accountable for that, neither the woman.  All four counts of adultery fall upon the man who initiated the divorce.  He is the only one at fault, here.  But, the woman who marries him, may also be partaker to the sin.

He's saying make your marriage work, at all costs.  No one is justified to divorce, just because they want to marry someone else, or because they're just not happy.  That is evil.  But, if you do everything to make it work, and still end up divorced, whether your spouse was cheating, or not, you can still remarry, because it's not your fault.

1 Cor.  7:15    But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such [cases]: but God hath called us to peace.  

The unbelieving can still be a church member.  Their willingness to divorce defines them as unbelievers.

1 Cor.  7:2    Nevertheless, [to avoid] fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.  

Every man, every woman.  That includes those which have been divorced by their unbelieving spouse.  There is always hope.  Let no one be governed by any superstitions.  But, such unbelievers must be removed from the church.  They are committing adultery.

But, what about their children?  Should we let them remain, for the sake of their children, which may go with them, in spite of their unbelief?

Divorce is always very difficult when it comes to children involvement.


"... with pornography involved. Yes, that was my meaning. I don't see how one could deny a victim of that the right to divorce and remarry. I'd call it "violation of the marriage bed.""

So, if there's no pornography, but just what he remembers from way back, before his wife froze up, then you wouldn't have a problem?  Or at least divorce wouldn't be justified?

But, what if it's been so long, the memory fades, and he forgets what it all looks like, and he requires a mental stimulus to trick the body into believing his wife is still there for him, and still loves him?  He may happen to have snuck a picture, and has it handy.  But, what if he doesn't?  Then, what if he finds one, that looks exactly the same as what he remembers?  No face, just body parts...

You know, all this would be a lot simpler if the wife would have remained faithful to her vows, in the first place.  Then there would be no problem, and we wouldn't have to delve into these hypotheticals.

The man was not the one who caused the problem.  He was faithful, and willing, and did everything a husband is supposed to do, to provide for his wife and family.  Yet, she saw greener grass on the other side of the fence, and coveted it, and ended up strangling her marriage to death.  And somehow she's "innocent"?


She's guilty of not following her vows.

He's guilty of not following his vows.


One person's guilt does not nullify or excuse another persons guilt.

Thank you, this is an important point, Will. The divine response to the breaking of a covenant is the renewal of the covenant.

Aquila said that if a wife defrauded her husband for years, and then caught him with dirty pictures, then she is the victim, and innocent, and has grounds for divorce.  Are you in agreement with this?

Then she claims to be innocent, and has him disfellowshipped, and they are all comforting her.  No woman will marry him, because the divorce happened because of his adultery, as if he actually went out and committed adultery with another woman, though she was a faithful wife.

If there was actually another woman involved, then he could go to her, after she divorced him.  That just doesn't seem fair.

I see her as the most repulsive thing upon the whole earth, for destroying her husband's life, like that.  How can anyone call her "innocent", or "victim"?

This is making me sick.  I'm finished with this hypothetical situation.  I'm moving on, now.


The woman in your hypothetical situation will reap the just reward for her crime.

The man will reap the just reward for his.

I believe you and I would be on the same page if we said that the woman's just reward would be far worse than the man's.

Actually, to not be with her husband is not congruent with scripture.

1 Corinthians 7:1-5, "Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control."

Explain what two consenting, married, heterosexual people can do that is degrading when they both find the activity acceptable?

If you read the passage, neither is in possession of their own body.  That includes the husband.

 There are a number of options. One is excessive sex. There is such a thing even with consenting adults what if one is not consenting but is being pressured into being what amounts to a sex slave ?. Another is kinky sex. There is some very disgusting things that can happen. Because neither is in possession of their own body does not mean that anything and everything goes. Some would like to think that marriage is a green light for every warped idea that pops into a person's head.


Site Sponsors


Adventist Single?
Meet other Single
Adventists here:
Join Free

USA members:

Support AO by
using this link:


© 2020   Created by Clark P.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service