by IsaacJS2 8 Replies latest watchtower bible
I was hoping to confirm something for an article I'm working on. I was told that the only acceptable grounds for divorce are adultery and a husband failing to support his wife financially. I don't believe apostasy counts, does it? You would think that it would, but I'm almost sure it isn't.
Thanks for any help.
IsaacJ
If you are talking JW doctrine:
the only acceptable grounds for divorce are adultery
Only the one. Others are acceptable for separation, but remaining married-
Lack of financial support (from a husband)
Extreme physical violence
Spiritual endangerment
Divorce and remarriage are two very different things. I don't know of a Witness shunned for getting divorced, but I know of several who are shunned for getting remarried.
This 1972 QFR may be helpful:
Questions
FromReaders?
Why,accordingtoMatthew’saccounts,didJesususetwodifferentwords—"fornication"and"adultery"—indiscussingthepropergroundsfordivorce?IsnottheonlygroundforScripturaldivorce"adultery,"asthetermisgenerallyunderstood?—U.S.A.At Matthew 5:32 Jesus’ words are: "However, I say to you that everyone divorcing his wife, except on account of fornication [Greek, por·nei´a], makes her a subject for adultery [Greek, moi·khei´a], and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." Similarly, at Matthew 19:9 we read: "I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except on the ground of fornication [por·nei´a], and marries another commits adultery [moi·khei´a]."
The account, therefore, does use two distinct words. Let us first see what they mean and then consider the significance of their use.
Moi·khei´a,
one of the terms used in Matthew’s account, is properly translated "adultery." The English word "adultery" comes from the Latin adulterare, which means, basically, "to alter" and, by extension, "to corrupt or make impure, as by the addition of a foreign or a baser substance." Thus we speak of ‘adulterating’ food, making it impure by adding foreign substances. A marriage is ‘adulterated’ when one of the parties defiles the marital relationship by having relations with someone outside that relationship. This idea of adulterating or corrupting, and of unfaithfulness to a sacred relationship, is also inherent in the Greek term moi·khei´a. Therefore, both in Greek and in English, the focus is on the effect illicit sexual relations have on the marriagerelationship, the adulterous mate being guilty of introducing someone else into that relationship, corrupting the union that should include just the husband and wife.What of the other term used? "Fornication" focuses attention, not on the effect sexual immorality may have on a marital relationship, but on the natureorqualityofthesexualactivityitself. This is true, not only of the English word "fornication," but also of the Greek word, por·nei´a, used in Matthew’s account. Our interest, of course, is primarily in the Greek term used by the Gospel writer. For, no matter what the word "fornication" may commonly be understood to mean by English-speaking people, it is what the word used in the Bible meant to the writer and the people at that time that really counts and is decisive.
When "fornication" is mentioned today, people commonly think of sexual relations between members of the opposite sex, relations carried on outside marriage yet consisting of intercourse in the ‘ordinary’ or natural way. So, many have understood that, when Jesus said that "fornication [por·nei´a]" was the only ground for divorce, he referred only to intercourse in the ordinary or natural way between a wife and a man not her husband, or, by extension, between a husband and a woman not his wife. But is that the case? Does por·nei´a, the word used in Matthew’s account, refer only to such natural sexual relations? Or did it include all forms of immoral sexual relations, including those between individuals of the same sex and also perverted forms of sexual relations between members of the opposite sex? Just what did por·nei´a mean to people in the first century when Jesus was on earth? And does a sincere and careful investigation of this meaning call for a reappraisal of our understanding as to what the Scriptural ground for divorce is?
A thorough study of the matter shows that por·nei´a refers to allformsofimmoralsexualrelations. It is a broad term, somewhat like the word "pornography," which is drawn from por·nei´a or the related verb por·neu´o. Lexicons of the Greek language clearly show this to be so.
They show that por·nei´a comes from a root word meaning "to sell," and it describes sex relations that are licentious and not restrained (as by the restraint of adherence to marriage bonds). Thus, of the use of the word in Bible times, Thayer’sGreek-EnglishLexiconoftheNewTestament states that por·nei´a described "illicit sexual intercourse in general." Moulton and Milligan’s TheVocabularyoftheGreekNewTestament says it is "unlawful sexual intercourse generally." The sixth volume of the TheologicalDictionaryoftheNewTestament says that por·nei´a can come to mean "‘sexual intercourse’ in gen[eral] without more precise definition."
It is because of its being a broad term (broader in its scope than the word "fornication" is in the minds of many English-speaking people) that many Bible translators use expressions such as "gross immorality," "sexual immorality," "sexual sins," or similar, when translating por·nei´a.
Does this mean that unnatural and perverted sexual relations such as those engaged in by homosexuals are included in the meaning of this term used by the apostle in recording Jesus’ words? Yes, that is the case. This can be seen by the way Jesus’ half brother Jude used por·nei´a when referring to the unnatural sex acts of the men of Sodom and Gomorrah. (Jude 7) Concerning the use of por·nei´a by Greek-speaking Jews around the start of the Common Era, the sixth volume of the TheologicalDictionaryoftheNewTestament says: "p???e?a [por·nei´a] can also be ‘unnatural vice,’ . . . sodomy."
What, then, is the significance of the Bible’s use of these terms and what does it reveal as to the valid Biblical grounds for divorce? It shows that any married person who goes outside the marriage bond and engages in immoral sexual relations, whether with someone of the opposite sex or someone of the same sex, whether natural or unnatural and perverted, is guilty of committing por·nei´a or "fornication" intheBiblesense. Such sexual relations do not refer to minor indiscretions a person might commit, as by a kiss or caress or embrace, but refer to immoral use of the genital organs in some form of intercourse, natural or unnatural.
We find principles in the Law covenant in support of this broadened viewpoint. It is clear that under that Law marriages were dissolved when a mate committed serious sexual sins, includingunnaturalones, inasmuch as such mate was put to death according to God’s own instructions.—Compare Exodus 22:19; Leviticus 18:22, 23, 29; 20:10-16; Deuteronomy 22:22; as well as the words of the Christian apostle at Romans 1:24-27, 32.
Taking Jesus’ words for what they mean, therefore, when a mate is guilty of such serious sexual immorality the innocent mate may Scripturally divorce such a one, if he or she so desires. One who obtains a divorce on such Scriptural grounds is also Scripturally free to remarry, not thereby being subject to a charge of adultery.
This clearly marks a correction in the view expressed on previous occasions in the columns of this magazine, but faithful adherence to what the Scriptures actually say requires it. There is much more that can be considered on the matter and for that reason it will be discussed more completely in a coming issue of this magazine.
But check out this from Pay Attention Elders' book:
Strong circumstantial evidence, such as pregnancy or evi-
dence (testified to by at least two witnesses) that the
accused stayed all night in the same house with a person of
the opposite sex (or in the same house with a known
homosexual ) under improper circumstances, is acceptable.
I know at least two people who obtained Scriptural grounds on this basis.
Skeptic1914
Spiritual endangerment = staying with the bad scary apostate. Therefore, apostasy would be grounds for separation - I don't know about divorce.
*** w88 11/1 p. 22 pars. 10-12 When Marital Peace Is Threatened ***
Willful nonsupport is one basis for separation. When entering wedlock, a husband assumes the responsibility of providing for his wife and any children they may have. The man who does not provide for members of his household “has disowned the faith and is worse than a person without faith.” (1 Timothy 5:8) So separation is possible if there is willful nonsupport. Of course, appointed elders should give careful consideration to an accusation that a Christian is refusing to support his wife and family. Stubborn refusal to support one’s family may result in disfellowshipping.
Extreme physical abuse is another basis for separation. Suppose an unbelieving mate often gets drunk, becomes enraged, and causes the believer physical harm. (Proverbs 23:29-35) Through prayer and by displaying the fruitage of Jehovah’s spirit, the believer may be able to prevent such outbursts and make the situation endurable. But if the point is reached where the health and life of the abused mate actually are in jeopardy, separation would be allowable Scripturally. Again, congregation elders should look into charges of physical abuse when two Christians are involved in the troubled marriage, and disfellowshipping action may have to be taken.—Compare Galatians 5:19-21; Titus 1:7.
Absolute endangerment of spirituality also provides a basis for separation. The believer in a religiously divided home should do everything possible to take advantage of God’s spiritual provisions. But separation is allowable if an unbelieving mate’s opposition (perhaps including physical restraint) makes it genuinely impossible to pursue true worship and actually imperils the believer’s spirituality. Yet, what if a very unhealthy spiritual state exists where both mates are believers? The elders should render assistance, but especially should the baptized husband work diligently to remedy the situation. Of course, if a baptized marriage partner acts like an apostate and tries to prevent his mate from serving Jehovah, the elders should handle matters according to the Scriptures. If disfellowshipping takes place in a case involving absolute endangerment of spirituality, willful nonsupport, or extreme physical abuse, the faithful Christian who seeks a legal separation would not be going against Paul’s counsel about taking a believer to court.—1 Corinthians 6:1-8.
Would masturbation be grounds or does someone else have to be there?
OH - and the adultery has to be with one of the OPPOSITE sex in order to remarry:
*** w72 1/1 p. 32 Questions From Readers ***
While both homosexuality and bestiality are disgusting perversions, in the case of neither one is the marriage tie broken. It is broken only by acts that make an individual “one flesh” with a person of the opposite sex other than his or her legal marriage mate
or, the NEW LIGHT:
*** w83 12/15 p. 27 When a Mate Is Unfaithful ***
In such a situation, Jesus’ words on the subject have to be taken into account: “I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except on the ground of fornication, and marries another commits adultery.” (Matthew 19:9) What does this mean? That fornication (which in the Bible sense includes adultery and gross sexual immorality such as homosexuality) can break up a marriage. Scripturally, the innocent partner has the right to divorce the guilty one and remarry without sin in God’s eyes.
Why was this so traumatizing? My girlfriend ran away from home as a young teen because her father was coming home from jail, where he had been sent for incest / molesting her brother. The elders told her mother that she had to remain married and should accept him back into the home, as he had not been guilty of anything to break the marriage ties. Nice, huh?
Thanks for your help, everyone. It's very much appreciated. I just wanted to be 100% sure. Everything I had found suggested it was just adultery, but it always seems more complicated than that.
IsaacJ
incredible! i never knew that homosexuality wasnt porneia once. poor poor girls and boys who were married to a homosexual in the 70's.
