quote:

---

Divorce

31"It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.'[f] 32But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

---

Let's say about 2000 years ago there was this God fearing woman named Jane. She's out in the crowd, listening to Jesus. She believes. She loves God, and earnestly desires to do right.

At 17, she was married to this guy name Bob. Bob is not malicious, but he is a drunkard and has a number of emotional issues. He hits her at times, when he's drunk.

Jane desperately wants to please God. She doesn't have the legal right to divorce him, and she wouldn't even if she could; she wants so bad to do right by God.

But one day she burns the biscuits, and Bob divorces her and sends her out on the street.




1) Has she sinned in the divorce?
2) Does she have the right to marry another?


Note: Please justify your answers in light of the above text. Thanks.

[This message has been edited by letters at random (edited 7/4/2005 3:36p).]

I'm not sure what your intentions are here with this thread, but here is something to add to the discussion while we are at it. The parallel references in Mark and Luke exclude the part about marital unfaithfulness.

Mark 10:11-12
He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."

Luke 16:18
"Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery."

Also, read all of 1 Corinthians 7 for more on marriage.

The language appears so harsh, yet the teachings of Moses and Jesus both never contradict these priciples LOR has put forth in Matthew. What a toughie this one is, for I know that sometimes divorce is out of one persons hands, yet many times could have been avoided if the person would have looked closely at the person they were about to marry.

Here is a good website devoted to divorce and what the Bible says.

http://www.biyn.org/divorce/divorce.html

I really searched the Bible for any other exception, but could find none. The only words of advice I can offer to those who find themselves in such a situation is to remember God forgives, and to remember the words of Paul, that it is better to not be married, but if you cannot properly conduct yourself, then marry. So if a person decides their life without a spouse is more sinful than a life with a spouse, I suppose God would sanction that marraige.

No one has been willing to come out and give an answer, although I interrupt one poster to be saying:

1) no
2) Yes

And the second poster to be saying

1) ???
2) no


RtwingAg:

Do you believe Jane sinned in the divorce? Does not the above passage say that thr actrion made her an adulteress?

And why, if Jesus did not intend people to remarry, does he provide any excuse at all for remarriage? Under Moses, the point of divorce was to allow for remarriage.

[This message has been edited by letters at random (edited 7/4/2005 4:16p).]

I will give you a straight up answer then:

No, she has not sinned.
No, she does not have the right to marry, according to what we have from the Scripture, however, like I said, God forgives sins, and if your sin is greater single than married, you should probably marry. The question becomes, is your adultery commited the first time when you consummate the marraige, or perpetually, every time you have sex?

^
|
|

If she did not sin in the divorce, then why did Jesus call her an adulteress in the above passage?

Before you answer, "that is only if she remarries," please not that that is NOT what the text says. Maybe it is what it means, but it is NOT what it says.

I wish I could answer your question, but I really can't.

On the note of the seemingly contradictory Mosaic law, I will write: Under Jewish law, a man betrothed( not marraige) to a Virgin was exempt from military service and prepared their bed chamber for a year. To annul the betrothment required a "divorce" which is probably what Moses is writing about. This refers specifically to this arrangement under Jewish law. The only recourse we Christians have is to study the New Testemant, and from what I see, once a marraige is consumated, God does not want any man putting it "asunder", and if those bonds are severed, we are expected not to remarry.

As for the word adultress, you have to remember the meaning of the word, which is to have sexual relations with someone who is already married. So in this case, the translation must have lost something, because that is all I can take to mean. How could God put a sin upon your back that you did not commit?

[This message has been edited by Rightwingag (edited 7/4/2005 4:33p).]

Of course God does not want any marriage "put assunder." I doubt he "wanted" Jesus to die on cross either. But, given the situation, it was what had to be done.

1) If divorce is always the wrong thing to do, then why did he command Abraham to do it?

2) Use your common sense here for a second. Do you really think that the God who sent his son to die for our transgressions is telling Jane in the above scenario that she is unallowed to give and accept marital love for the rest of her life? Does that seem like HIM? What if Jane's very life was in danger because her husband was beating her? If that was your daughter, what would you tell her?


And, if you can't explain why the above passage calls her an adulteress - with no mention of any remarriage - then what makes you think you understand it at all?


PS - You write with a loving and forgiving style. I do not mean to challenge your heart.

quote:

---

1) If divorce is always the wrong thing to do, then why did he command Abraham to do it?

---

From Matthew 19:7-9 "They said to him (Jesus), "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and then put her away?" He (Jesus) said to them, "For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you; whoever divorces his wife, except for unchasity, and marries another, commits adultery."

quote:

---

1) If divorce is always the wrong thing to do, then why did he command Abraham to do it?

---

You are bringing OT into NT times, the analogy is imperfect at best, as back in those days, people could be married to as many wives as they wished. Clearly the NT teachings of Jesus and Paul are different than this. In addition, God did not tell Abraham to divorce Hagar, rather she was to leave his household on account of Sarah, as his first obligation was to her as his first wife.

Secondly, you are taking me to task on the fact that I have not described the adultress issue, I thought I explained my point well enough that I do not think God would charge someone with sin that they have not committed. The difintion of adultery is specifically one who has sexual relations with someone else while either is married. Therfore, I have to conclude that somewhere in translation a key word was lost, if I could read Greek I would go back to the Greek to read precisely what it says.

Remember, we have a forgiving God, again I will say that is why Paul laid out the case for marraige if you cannot live a Christian life without it. I am not trying to hammer divorcees here, I think God sanctions second marraiges in some cases, but again I say I can only take what Scripture gives us, which in very limited cases sanctions divorce and even less sanctions remarraige.

Letters at Random, I keep reading this thread and wondering...what you are trying to get at here? Perhaps it would help if you could enlighten us as to your reasons for starting this thread?

Here is the point I am making:

Attempting to read the words of Jesus as one would read a law book fails everytime. I don't believe this passage is talking about judgment; if it is, it makes no sense. Rather, Jesus is simply describing reality.

When an innocent spouse is divorced, they suffer the same consequence that an adulterer would...hence, they are "made into an adulterer." The view that this passage deals with blame and is a legal commentary on when divorce can/can not happen will never be able to make sense of the fact that the innocent spouse is "made into an adulteress." Jesus is not dealing with blame, but with the reality of what happens in a divorce. In reality, the innocent spouse is forced to suffer all of the consequences of an adultery. They are "made into an adulterer", much like if an innocent person is sent to prison they are "made into a criminal." Not in terms of blame, but in terms of the consequence to their life.

Likewise, the person who marries a divorced person enters into the adultery. Not necessarily in terms of blame, but in terms if consequence. The second marriage carries the baggage of the first, regardless of the "innocence" or "guilt" of the previously married spouse. The person who marries the innocent divorcee inherently must bring that baggage into their marriage.

It is unfair. It has nothing to do with blame. But it is an uncannily accurate discription of reality.


If one reads the above passage as a law, they MUST

1) Proclaim that God judges as sinful the actions of Jane in the above scenario (she HAS, according to this scripture, become an adulteress - even before a possible second marriage.)

or

2) Read words into this text that are not there.

There is no other option.

From Calvin's

COMMENTARY

ON A

HARMONY OF THE EVANGELISTS



Matthew 5:31. Whosoever shall put away his wife. As a more suitable occasion for discussing and explaining this doctrine at greater length will afterwards occur, (Matthew 19:9,) I shall now state briefly what Christ says in this passage. As the Jews falsely imagined that they discharged their whole duty toward God, when they kept the law in a national manner, so whatever the national law did not forbid, they foolishly supposed to be lawful. Divorces, which husbands were wont to give to their wives, had not been prohibited by Moses as to external order, but only, for the sake of restraining lewdness, he had ordered that "a bill of divorcement" should be given to the wives who were put away, (Deuteronomy 24:1.) It was a sort of testimonial of freedom, so that the woman was afterwards free from the yoke and power of the husband; while the husband at the same time acknowledged, that he did not send her away on account of any crime, but because she did not please him. Hence proceeded the error, that there was nothing wrong in such putting away, provided that the forms of law were observed.2

But they did wrong in viewing as a matter of civil law, the rule which had been given them for a devout and holy life. For national laws are sometimes accommodated to the manners of men but God, in prescribing a spiritual law, looked not at what men can do, but at what they ought to do. It contains a perfect and entire righteousness, though we want ability to fulfill it. Christ, therefore, admonishes us not to conclude, that what is allowed by the national law of Moses is, on that account, lawful in the sight of God. That man, (says he,) who puts away his wife, and gives her a bill of divorcement, shelters himself under the pretense of the law: but the bond of marriage is too sacred to be dissolved at the will, or rather at the licentious pleasure, of men. Though the husband and the wife are united by mutual consent, yet God binds them by an indissoluble tie, so that they are not afterwards at liberty to separate. An exception is added, except on account of fornication: for the woman, who has basely violated the marriage-vow, is justly cast off; because it was by her fault that the tie was broken, and the husband set at liberty.


32. Causeth her to commit adultery. As the bill of divorcement bore, that the woman had been loosed from her former husband, and might enter into a new marriage, the man who, unjustly and unlawfully, abandons the wife whom God had given him, is justly condemned for having prostituted his wife to others.

l.a.r., don't post a question when you have an answer already in mind, and are just waiting to pop it out later. That, at least to me, appears deceptive. Just, be forthright and give us you take so we can respond.

Your point is valid. No one can keep the whole law, even the principles of the New Testament. We all are sinners, and must throw ourselves at the love, mercy, and grace of God.

Sorry I did not answer directly, but I am on vacation and refuse to turn on my brain...

Actually, I disagree and think there is a third option: "marital unfaithfulness" is a poor translation of the Greek word used there, porneia. There is a Greek word for adultery, moicheia. Indeed, in the Matthew 5 passage using the Greek words, Jesus is saying that anyone who divorces his wife, except for porneia, causes her to commit moicheia.

So what is porneia? In Greek it can mean a variety of sexual sins, including incest etc. However, some theologians interpret that it is being used much more narrowly, to mean an unlawful marriage. Porneia is used in Acts 15:20 and 29, referring to marriages that were unlawful under Leviticus 18, but were permissible by the Gentiles. Porneia is also used in 1 Cor 5:1, when Paul uses it in a case where a man is married to his stepmother - an unlawful union under Leviticus 18.

With that interpretation, the exception is NOT for adultery (which would directly contradict the passages in Luke and Mark) but for a specific type of unlawful marriage - a marriage that was really never a marriage. Otherwise, good Christians can not get divorced, but if they would just commit adultery they can get out of the marriage, a strange argument to make.

When we look at Matthew 19:1-11, Jesus again forbids divorce. In verse 8 He tells the disciples that Moses allowed them to divorce because of the hardness of their hearts, but it was not so in the beginning, then repeats the statement that anyone who divorces, except in the case of unlawful marriage, commits adultery.

Now does the situation letters at random describes classify as an "unlawful marriage?" That's open to interpretation.

^
|
|

That does NOT change the dillema of "the innocent wife" which, in this passage, is called an adulteress by Jesus.

The commentary quoted by Notafraid says this passage is a judgement on the man for "prostituting out his wife." But the passage NEVER says that the wife "is made an adulteress" only if she remarries.

letters:

quote:

---

1) Has she sinned in the divorce?

---

No, she has not sinned. If divorce was a sin, then God Himself sinned when He divorced Israel:

quote:

---

Jer 3:8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

---

quote:

---

2) Does she have the right to marry another?

---

Yes, she has the right to marry another. According to Torah law:

quote:

---

Deuteronomy 24:1-2: When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give [it] in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's [wife].

---

The Torah specifically allows her to remarry.

However, if she remarries, she can never return to her former husband:

quote:

---

Deuteronomy 24:3-4: And [if] the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth [it] in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her [to be] his wife; Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that [is] abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee [for] an inheritance.

---

Rightwingag:

quote:

---

You are bringing OT into NT times...

---

There is no such thing as "Old Testament" and "New Testament." The commandments of the "Old Testament" are just as valid today as they ever were.

quote:

---

No one can keep the whole law...

---

Not true. We are commanded to keep the whole law, and are even told that it is not too difficult for us:

quote:

---

Deuteronomy 30:11: "For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach.

---

Yeshua told us that His yoke is light:

quote:

---

Matthew 11:29-30: Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke [is] easy, and my burden is light.

---

The Torah is that yoke.

[This message has been edited by Bracy (edited 7/4/2005 8:06p).]

quote:

---

That does NOT change the dillema of "the innocent wife" which, in this passage, is called an adulteress by Jesus.

---

No, but it does correct the word usage, and make clear that Jesus is forbidding ALL that are married from divorce and remarriage, not allowing an exception for a type of sin.

To answer your question very specifically, it's crucial that Jesus says the husband who divorces his wife has CAUSED HER to commit adultery - the blame is on the husband, not the "innocent wife." Regardless of who is "guilty" the passage is making clear that ALL are forbidden from divorce and remarriage, and when one spouse divorces the other, they have caused that spouse to commit adultery. It's a hardline stance that speaks to the indissolubility of marriage and by extension covenant.

[This message has been edited by Psych75 (edited 7/4/2005 7:42p).]

quote:

---

To answer your question very specifically, it's crucial that Jesus says the husband who divorces his wife has CAUSED HER to commit adultery - the blame is on the husband, not the "innocent wife."

---

So she did commit adultery, or not?

quote:

---

Regardless of who is "guilty" the passage is making clear that ALL are forbidden from divorce and remarriage, and when one spouse divorces the other, they have caused that spouse to commit adultery.

---

How does this passage make clear that remarriage is forbidden? It does not "make clear" that remarriage is sinful any more than it "makes clear" that the innocent spouse was "sinful" when their husband/wife divorced them.

[This message has been edited by letters at random (edited 7/4/2005 9:36p).]

She should get an annullment....

quote:

---

So she did commit adultery, or not?

---

I already admitted she did, though the blame, and presumably the judgment, is on her husband. It is his responsiblity.

quote:

---

How does this passage make clear that remarriage is forbidden? It does not "make clear" that remarriage is sinful any more than it "makes clear" that the innocent spouse was "sinful" when their husband/wife divorced them.

---

Sorry, you're right; I wasn't speaking of this passage alone but of this one combined with the three other similar passages found in the gospels. I reject the idea that this is a "stand-alone" verse and that my answers can only use the verse you've selected.

IMO, in your hypothetical situation, it's best to argue that her marriage was in some way an unlawful one. Whether you or I like it personally or not or think it's fair to call an innocent party an adulteress, what Jesus is saying on divorce and remarriage in all four passages seems very clear.

Edited to add: Re-reading your above posts, it seems to me that we agree on reading this passage to mean that the wife is NOT at blame for committing adultery. I was merely adding another interpretation of the verse that could excuse the woman in your hypothetical situation from the accusation of being an adulteress, even if blameless.

[This message has been edited by Psych75 (edited 7/4/2005 10:24p).]

Speaking from a legal viewpoint, how could one be an adulteress without committing adultery? And if one commits adultery, how are they not to blame?

Don't you see how this passage makes no sense when read from a legal perspective - NONE! It can't be justified. We MUST not even try to read the passage from that perspective, or else we are doomed to logical inconsistencies.

LAR, I was just about to post ON THIS VERY SUBJECT! Some great discussion so far.

What my question is, if a couple divorce for marital unfaithfulness, can the individuals scripturally remarry if their former spouse is still alive, or are they to remain single for the rest of their lives, or must they remarry the one whom they divorced?

lar --

quote:

---

If one reads the above passage as a law, they MUST

1) Proclaim that God judges as sinful the actions of Jane in the above scenario (she HAS, according to this scripture, become an adulteress - even before a possible second marriage.)

or

2) Read words into this text that are not there.

There is no other option.

---

If this was the only time Jesus ever spoke of divorce, I would grant your point. However, He did speak of God's view concerning divorce and remarriage much more explicitly in Matthew 19.

Perhaps you have not fully considered the context of Matthew 5 -- it is a sermon, and verses 31-32 are part of a series of six illustrations showing how the righteousness of Jesus' disciples must exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees (cf. v.20).

So, if this passage is part of an illustration used in a sermon, is it possible that Jesus did not take the time to explicitly spell out every implication involved in "Jane's" divorce and subsequent remarriage? The Lord is attacking an attitude on the part of the Pharisees who thought Deut. 24:1-4 gave them license to divorce anyone at any time for any reason. And to boot, the Pharisees belived they could do all this while still being "righteous" in terms of God's law. Whatever else you get out of this passage, the clear implication of Jesus' example here is that one can NOT treat marriage and divorce lightly and still be right with God.

As for your point about this not being a passage of law, I would have a difficult time understanding the rest of Jesus' sermon if that were the case. However, I do acknowledge that Jesus used this example as an illustration.

quote:

---

And if one commits adultery, how are they not to blame?

---

If a woman is raped, fornication has occurred, but I'd be hard pressed to say that she has the guilt of that sin. By way of very loose analogy, the story of Judah and Tamar from Genesis 38 has her engaged in several sins: deception, playing as a prostitute, having intercourse with her father-in-law. And yet the text makes clear that she is not to blame - she has been forced by Judah into these activities to make him keep his promises, and he himself says that she was in the right to do these activites.

quote:

---

Speaking from a legal viewpoint, how could one be an adulteress without committing adultery?

---

That depends on how adultery is being defined from Mosaic law and within the community. Married men, for instance, don't commit adultery by having sex with unmarried women. Jesus could be speaking of her as an adulteress because she is now being forced, by her husband, to be denied children and all the legal protections of being a wife; an OT scholar or historian could probably better reflect on the attitude towards divorced women and what fell under "adultery" in Jewish society of the time. I can only speculate as to what Jesus means by applying that term to a woman in that situation. But I don't think it diminishes from the truth of the passage in the legalistic sense, especially in light of Mark 10, Luke 16, and Matthew 19.

quote:

---

Don't you see how this passage makes no sense when read from a legal perspective - NONE! It can't be justified. We MUST not even try to read the passage from that perspective, or else we are doomed to logical inconsistencies.

---

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue. Are you trying to say that Jesus was "describing reality" and really meant that divorce and remarriage were permissible, by ignoring the three other similar gospel passages? Are you arguing that Jesus never speaks from a legal perspective?

PhiAggie:

quote:

---

What my question is, if a couple divorce for marital unfaithfulness, can the individuals scripturally remarry if their former spouse is still alive, or are they to remain single for the rest of their lives, or must they remarry the one whom they divorced?

---

I mentioned above how porneia can be defined. The answer to your question depends on that interpretation.

quote:

---

As for your point about this not being a passage of law, I would have a difficult time understanding the rest of Jesus' sermon if that were the case

---

I think the Sermon on the Mount makes no sense from a legal perspective.

quote:

---

Are you trying to say that Jesus was "describing reality" and really meant that divorce and remarriage were permissible, by ignoring the three other similar gospel passages? Are you arguing that Jesus never speaks from a legal perspective?

---

I don't think any of the passages teach that divorce and remarriage are never the best course of action, given certain tragic conditions. I think that anyone who thinks that Jesus teaches this is logically inconsistent. I used this passage to point out how reading Jesus words in this fashion forces the legalist to twist the words Jesus actually said.

We can talk about any passage you want to demonstrate otherwise.

letters:

quote:

---

I think the Sermon on the Mount makes no sense from a legal perspective.

---

The Sermon on the Mount only makes sense from a legal perspective. It is a lesson in Torah interpretation. The Sermon on the Mount is an example of a Jewish rabbi teaching proper Torah interpretation.

Without understanding that the Sermon on the Mount is a Torah lesson, misinterpretation and misunderstanding of Yeshua's words are inevitable.

quote:

---

23"Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.

---

Here is an example. Jesus is not actually teaching that, if we are at church and have a disagreement with a friend, we sin if we don't leave church right away and go make ammends. It isn't about laws. It is about the transformation fo the heart.


Here is another example:

quote:

---

27"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.'[e] 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

---

Can a blind man lust? Of course. The whole point here is that it is our heart, not our right eye or our right hand, that causes us to sin. The heart must be transformed. A set of laws can never do that - only the grace(power) of God.

letters:

quote:

---

Here is an example. Jesus is not actually teaching that, if we are at church and have a disagreement with a friend, we sin if we don't leave church right away and go make ammends. It isn't about laws. It is about the transformation fo the heart.

---

This has nothing to do with "church." This has to do with temple worship. It concerns a person coming into the very presence of God in the Temple where His Shekinah Glory resided.

quote:

---

Can a blind man lust? Of course. The whole point here is that it is our heart, not our right eye or our right hand, that causes us to sin. The heart must be transformed. A set of laws can never do that - only the grace(power) of God.

---

The Torah laws aren't what transforms a person, they are the laws that a person willingly obeys once his heart has been transformed.

lar --

You're confusing me. How, exactly, was Jesus trying to transform people's hearts in the Sermon on the Mount? By osmosis? Why bother preaching if His words are not to be taken seriously?

If the Sermon on the Mount is not some kind of "law" or "rule of life" for disciples, then please tell me what it is! And please justify your answer in light of Jesus' conclusion to the sermon in Matthew 7:24-28 -- "Whoever hears these words of mine and does them shall be like a man who built his house upon a rock, etc. etc. etc."

Sounds like Jesus was explaining God's law to me.

Bracy and Aggieology:

Would you agree, then, that if a man worships while being upset with a brother, then that man sins in doing so? You really think that the point of Jesus' words there are that small?

The words of Jesus DO transforom our hearts, through the grace of God, when we have ears to hear. As our hearts are transformed, his "laws" become the things we naturally do out of our own transformed desire. We WANT to do the things God wants to do, not just out of a desire to be obedient, but out of an overflow of who God has made us.

letters:

quote:

---

Would you agree, then, that if a man worships while being upset with a brother, then that man sins in doing so? You really think that the point of Jesus' words there are that small?

---

What do you think the word "Worship" means? "Worship" means "to serve" or "to obey."

Yeshua's words concerning the offerings at the Temple deal with what is required for sinful man to come into the presence of a holy God.

A woman who is in her menstrual period hasn't "sinned" by menstruating, but she cannot come into God's presence and offer a sacrifice until her menstrual period is over.

Being "unclean" does not necessarily mean that one has sinned. One can become "unclean" without committing a sin, but one who is "unclean" cannot enter the Temple and come into the God's presence.

If a person wishes to enter into God's presence but has a sin hanging over his head that he is aware of, he must take care of that sin before coming into His presence.

LAR, it is LAW Jesus is speaking, for we will be judged by His words!

Making sense of it in a legal manner is a bit different. Read this better version and regard the audience, Jews that knew the Laws Jesus was changing.

NASB
Matt 5:31"It was said, '(AQ)WHOEVER SENDS HIS WIFE AWAY, LET HIM GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE';

32(AR)but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Many posters hit the implications of phyiscal and spiritual consequences of this sorry situation.

If the man wrongly divorces the wife he has sinned.

You could get so legalistic in reading this that you could say they may never have even had sex. It only says marriage...