Furthermore it has been said, “Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.” But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery (Matt. 5:31-32).

Much has been written about the subject of divorce and remarriage, but little has been said in recent years about the phrase “causes her to commit adultery.” There is relevance in this study because some have the mistaken concept that the non-fornicating party has the right to remarriage regardless of how he/she has mistreated his/her mate during the years of their marriage. In answering that view, I would like to examine the teaching of Matthew 5:31-32.

The Phrase: “Causes Her to Commit Adultery”

When interpreting a difficult passage, one should always begin with what he knows conclusively. We know that human responsibility is not removed by bad conduct on another’s part. One is responsible for his own conduct (Ezek. 18:20). Sin problems are sometimes many-sided. I mean that sometimes one person’s sin stirs a sinful reaction in another person, in which case both stand sinful before the Lord. For example, suppose someone took a screwdriver and ran it down the side of a teenager’s car. In the heat of his anger, the teenager slugs the one who vandalized his car. One can recognize the contributing cause that the vandalizer’s sinful conduct played in the teenager’s reaction without dismissing him from responsibility for his slugging another. One is not justifying the adulterer to hold accountable the one who “causes her to commit adultery.” The adulterer is accountable before God for the sinful conduct.

The phrase “causes her to commit adultery” in the Greek language is poiei auten moicheuthenai. Commentators have struggled with this phrase as they try to explain the aorist infinitive passive of the verb moicheuo (to commit adultery). The usual explanation is as follows:

B.T.B. Smith, Cambridge Greek Testament: “It is assumed that she will marry again. By so doing, since the marriage tie is indissoluble, she becomes an adulteress” (99).

Hermann Olshausen, Commentary on the Gospels: First, the divorced woman, (apolelumene) who must still be conceived as bound by the marriage-tie, is exposed to the temptation of entering another connection. He therefore occasions her to sin, poiei auten moicheuthenai. Next, he brings another man into the danger of forming an adulterous connexion with the apolelumene (the one having been divorced, mw) (I: 205).

Alan Hugh M‘Neile, The Gospel According to St. Matthew: “Her re-marriage is assumed as certain, and her divorce has led her to it. But since divorce is sinful, and the first marriage is still valid, the second union is sinful” (67).

R.C.H. Lenski takes a different approach. He focuses on the passive form of the verb moicheuthenai. He explains, “The innocent wife is by this man’s action forced into a position similar to that of the innocent husband whose wife broke his marriage by her fornication. Jesus says that by his act the husband forces the wife into a position that is contrary to the Sixth Commandment: ‘he brings about that she is stigmatized as adulterous.’” Focusing on the passive form of the verb, Lenski argues that “The moment her husband drives her out whether she marries again or not,” she is made to be an adulteress, i.e., stigmatized as adulterous.

Is Lenski’s conclusion legitimate? The passive form of the verb is not exclusive to Matthew. The Attic form of the word, moichao, uses the active verb for the man and the passive form to describe the adultery committed by the woman. This is reflected in the LXX translation of Leviticus 20:10—“The man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, he who commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer (moicheuon) and the adulteress (moicheuomene), shall surely be put to death.” The Wisdom of Ben Sirach uses the active and passive forms of the verb in the same way in 23:22-23—“Thus shall it go also with the wife that leaveth her husband and bringeth in an heir by another. For first, she had disobeyed the law of the most High; and secondly, she hath trespassed against her own husband; and thirdly, she had played the whore in adultery, and brought children by another man.” Literally, en porneia emoicheuthe, “in fornication, she has committed adultery,” even though emoicheuthe is passive. In John 8:4, the text says, “Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery (moicheuomene), in the very act” (John 8:4). The passive form here is very instructive. The context shows that she was not being raped, but was a willing participant in adultery. The conclusion one reaches is that the use of the active and passive is sometimes gender related: the man moicheuon (the active form) and the woman moicheuomene (passive form). This is not an absolute use; sometimes the passive form is used for the man. This much we know: the conclusion that Lenski draws from the passive form is not a necessary inference and is, therefore, ill founded.

The more likely meaning is that traditionally taught: the person who divorces his wife for some cause other than fornication places her in such a condition that she is likely to remarry and thus commit adultery (by her subsequent involvement with another man, either inside or outside of a society-recognized wedlock).

The situation in Matthew 5:31-32 is parallel to that discussed in 1 Corinthians 7:1-5. There Paul wrote,

Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

The purpose of Paul’s instruction was to avoid sexual immorality. To prevent this from happening, the Apostle taught that every man is to have his own wife and every woman her own husband. Furthermore, they are not to withhold themselves from each other sexually because of the danger this poses to the other in sexual immorality. Withholding oneself from one another should only be done by mutual consent for a “time,” and then they should come together again “so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.”

The context of 1 Corinthians shows that some had apparently reached a conclusion that it was better, even in the marriage relationship, to avoid sexual contact, which view Paul is correcting (1 Cor. 7:4-5). Paul tells Christian men and women not to withhold sexual intimacy from their partners. If one can recognize the principle that withholding oneself from one another inside a marriage places one in a position of being tempted by his lack of self-control, how much more would that be the case were one to divorce his/her mate and place him/her in that position? Both passages are discussing the same subject.

Another piece of evidence that needs to be considered is the influence of the Hebrew Scriptures on what Jesus taught. The idea that one could be “caused” to commit sexual immorality was not new with Jesus. Leviticus 19:29 says, “Do not prostitute your daughter, to cause her to be a harlot, lest the land fall into harlotry, and the land become full of wickedness” (Lev. 19:29). The verb zanah means “commit fornication, be a harlot.” Here it is used in the Hiphil form, which form is used for causing a given action (Gesenius, §53c); in Leviticus 19:29, the Hiphil form of zanah means “causing her to commit  fornication.” The context is clear. When a man places his daughter in a situation that she must commit fornication, he causes her to be a harlot. He might sell her into sexual slavery, give her as a hierodule or sacred prostitute, or create another kind of situation that causes her to become a harlot. In the same way as a father may put his daughter in that situation, a man who divorces his wife places her in a situation where she faces this temptation.

The principle of causing another to sin is well grounded in Scripture. Jesus warned against conduct that places a stumbling block before one of the “little ones” (not children, but those who humble themselves as a little child to enter the kingdom of heaven, Matt. 18:1-5) saying, “But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea” (Matt. 18:6). Jesus warned that temptations to commit sin (stumbling blocks) would come to His children and added, “but woe to that man by whom the offense comes!” (Matt. 18:7). He concluded saying, “Take heed that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that in heaven their angels always see the face of My Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 18:10). By creating a stumbling block, one showed despite to that person.

An application of the same principle, that one can become a stumbling block to another, occurred in the early church over the issue of eating meats sacrificed to idols. Some thought that they could eat meats sacrificed to idols and others thought eating those meats was sinful. Paul showed that eating such meats was a liberty (something lawful, but not required) and then wrote:

But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak. For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, will not the conscience of him who is weak be emboldened to eat those things offered to idols? And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? But when you thus sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble. (1 Cor. 8:9-13; cf. the parallel discussion in Rom. 14:1-15:7).

There is no question that one’s conduct can create an occasion for another person stumbling into sin.

Brethren have usually understood the principle that one’s sinful action contributing to the mate’s marital unfaithfulness precludes their right to remarriage. Brethren usually oppose the “waiting game.” In this scenario, one partner withholds himself/herself from his/her mate, resulting in the other mate committing fornication. Then the withholding partner claims the right to remarriage because the other committed adultery. Whether the “waiting game” involves withholding sex within a civil marriage, legal separation, or legal divorce, brethren have generally agreed that such is sinful conduct that precludes one having the right to remarriage. With this I am in agreement, based on the arguments previously cited.

Conclusion

Having looked at the text in some detail, I have reached the conclusion that the translation in the KJV and other major translations is what should be followed. One who divorces his mate without a cause places her in such a situation as to bear responsibility for his action should she subsequently commit adultery. This text shows that a person can be the cause of another committing fornication.

I also showed that the same cause/effect relationship can exist when a person withholds himself/herself sexually from one’s mate within a marriage. The withholding of sexual favors places the other in a temptation of vulnerability, making the one who withholds himself/herself from the other responsible for his sin, a sin which contributes to his partner’s sexual immorality.

It seems to be a fair deduction that these are not the only ways in which a person can place a stumblingblock before his mate and drive her from his arms into the arms of another. Sinful conduct against one’s mate can so destroy love in a marriage that the person is driven from the unloving home into more welcoming arms. In such cases, the sinful party needs to recognize that he is not innocent and, therefore, does not have the right of remarriage. He cannot benefit from his sin, else a husband or wife might decide, “I am going to act in such a horrible way that I drive my mate to commit adultery and then I will have the right to remarriage.” One with such attitudes and conduct may deceive man, but he can never deceive God.

No one is affirming that a person must be sinlessly perfect as a marriage partner before he has the right to remarriage in the event that his mate is unfaithful to him. A loving wife or husband occasionally hurts the other and seeks the other’s forgiveness and reconciliation. That is part of the marriage experience. But continued and unrepentant abusive conduct is different. It is not without consequences. When one creates an atmosphere in the home where love cannot thrive and grow, he contributes to the situation that might lead to his/her mate’s subsequent infidelity. He need not think that he has a right of remarriage in such circumstances. He doesn’t.

Furthermore, should one so abuse his/her mate that there are no feelings of love between them, he/she should not think that because their sexual contact in the bedroom is shut down as a result of this maltreatment that he/she is a victim. The one responsible for the cold bedroom is the sinner, not the victim of the sin. Otherwise, one is left with the position that the wife who is abused is obligated to provide sex regardless of how abusively she is treated. Sexual intimacy is the natural expression of mutual love. When one abuses his/her mate, the sexual expression naturally shuts down. The one who abuses the mate and causes the sexual expression to shut down is the one responsible for the cessation of intimacy. How can a woman feel warm enough for sex toward a man who just threw her against the wall and beat her until she is black and blue? If she shuts down, who is responsible? In my understanding of Scripture, if she were driven from this unloving home into the arms of a more welcoming man, neither has the right to remarriage.