Truth Magazine

By Leon Mauldin

Avoid Occasions of Stumbling

Jesus encountered the “philosophy of negation” during his ministry on earth. When he was questioned as to why his disciples did not observe the tradition of religiously washing their hands before eating, he replied, “Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? For God said, Honor thy father and thy mother: and, He that speaketh evil of father or mother, let him die the death. But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, That wherewith thou mightest have been profited by me is given to God; he shall not honor his father or his mother. And ye have made void the word of God because of your tradition” (Matt. 15:3-6).

The tradition they devised was, if one had given his gift to the Lord, when it came to helping his needy parents he could say “Corban” (that is, a gift [to God], Mark 7:11). Since he had already given to God, he had no further obligation to “contribute” to relieve his parents. By this accepted line of reason and explanation, they neglected God’s commandment governing the honoring of one’s parents. They had thus denied the law of its force, and robbed it of its power and real meaning. This is the “philosophy of negation” that is addressed in this article. We are dealing with the fundamental problem of gainsaying the word of God.

Unfortunately, the Pharisees of Matthew 15 were not the last to try to somehow circumvent God’s revealed will. I remember a class in which the text discussed pertained to the eating of meat (either Rom. 14 or 1 Cor. 8). A seemingly ill-prepared teacher looked at the text he had just read aloud, pondered over the implications for a moment, and then said, “Well, if I ran into someone who believed it was wrong to eat meat, I would teach him, but I’m going to eat meat! ” His reasoning was the philosophy of negation. He, like the Pharisees who refused to honor their parents, was essentially refusing to do what the passage said. He was negating God’s will regarding sensitivity to one’s brethren, and the kind of concern which should govern one’s behavior lest he be guilty of causing one to stumble. The bottom line is that if it ever came down to it, that teacher was prepared to disregard what God had said through the apostle: “Wherefore, if meat causeth my brother to stumble, I will eat no flesh for evermore, that I cause not my brother to stumble” (1 Cor. 8:13). The attitude which negates the principle of this passage is not the spirit which converts sinners to Christ, nor does it edify weak Christians.

Yet some negate the force of this passage by reasoning that there is always someone who will object to anything you do. Therefore, they argue that since you “can’t please everybody,” they will just do as they please. They may even decide that they don’t care what anyone thinks about what they do.

It may well be that no subject has been “reasoned around” more than has been the case with church discipline. Just as the Pharisees made their argumentation as to why they did not have to honor and provide for their parents, and then disregarded God’s law which clearly required such, many will enumerate the many reasons why discipline is not or should not be practiced. The Bible says, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly” (2 Thess. 3:6). But we are told that you might act too quickly. Others say that you just can’t know all the necessary information or circumstances that you would need to know in order to take such action. Still others caution that you might run some off. And then there is always someone who will say, “Well, we all make mistakes; who among us has not sinned?” Thus when the philosophy of negation does it work, you end up with the very opposite situation as that which the Lord intended. Such gainsaying contradicts the Word of God. The result of such reasoning is that some brethren are willing to let year after year pass by, and let problems slide (and grow into bigger problems), and be like the proverbial ostrich with its head in the sand!

These often heard statements can be easily countered by careful students of God’s Word. Though it is certainly true that faithful Christians do not want to act too quickly, Titus 3:10 still reads, “A factious man after a first and second admonition refuse.” To say, “We don’t want to act too quickly” simply must not be allowed to nullify that command. There are some problems for which more time is not the solution: “And some save, snatching them out of the fire” (Jude 22).

Likewise, to say, “Who among us has not sinned?” (in the above context) is but an ill-disguised attempt to negate the authority of God’s Word which demands corrective action. It would seem that no church had more problems than the church at Corinth, but Paul still said to “put away the wicked man (the fornicator) from among yourselves” (1 Cor. 5:13). He said, “not to keep company, if any man that is named a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one no, not to eat” (v. 11). It is also amazing how selective one can be as he says, “We all sin.” He may mean that he expects tolerance when it comes to himself, his family, and his friends, but don’t be surprised if you o6serve antithetical strictness when it comes to the conduct of others.

In Luke 10 when Jesus was questioned as to what one should do to inherit eternal life, he answered by asking the inquirer what is written in the law. He answered, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself” (Lk. 10:27). Jesus answered, “Thou hast answered right: this do and thou shalt live” (v. 28). “But he, desiring to justify himself, said unto Jesus, and who is my neighbor?” (v. 29) If you take the commandment as it stands, to love your neighbor, you would help those with whom you came in contact as you had opportunity and ability (as Jesus demonstrated by proceeding to tell the story of the “good Samaritan”). But the term “neighbor” became hard to define for this man who questioned Jesus. After all, how close does one have to live before he is a neighbor? You see, if you can raise enough problems and difficulties with determining who a neighbor is, that puts you back where you started (in most instances) with loving/helping friends and/or relatives – those whom you naturally were inclined to assist all along. -Others are simply not included. it seems the very question “Who is my neighbor?” in this case was intended to negate the command to “love thy neighbor as thyself.”

The church at Thessalonica was concerned with winning souls. Located in the Roman province of Macedonia, Paul commended them, “For from you hath sounded forth the word of the Lord, not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but in every place your faith to Godward is gone forth” (1 Thess. 1:8). The Lord expects us likewise to be concerned with converting others to Christ; first at home, and elsewhere to the full extent of our ability. But do we instead hear ourselves saying, “I know these people here; none of them is interested”? Rather than negate God’s will that we teach the Gospel to the lost, let us live in such a way that we adorn the doctrine of Christ (Tit. 2:10), and attract others to Christ. Let us pray for opportunities to teach others, and be vigilant to recognize open doors. Let our lives be as Paul who said, “For me to live is Christ” (Phil. 1:21). Our only hope of glory is that Christ is in us (Col. 1:27). Far better to hope and work for the salvation of others, than to be a gainsayer.

When God said, “Honor thy father and thy mother,” he was concerned with his law being believed and obeyed. He was not interested in the Pharisees’ reasons (no matter how plausible, or even religious-sounding) as to why they were not about the matter of obedience. So it is with all the Word of God. There is no reason that will stand the test of judgment, for failure to do what Jesus said. Take heed, and beware of the philosophy of negation!

Guardian of Truth XXXII; 11, pp. 334-335
June 2, 1988

By Roger Shouse

There seems to be a growing segment within the Lord’s body which refuses to acknowledge any accountability except to the Lord himself. Now on the surface this allegiance to Christ seems noble and grand but underneath brews an independent spirit which changes the function and role of the local church. These ‘:free and independent spirits” feel that they can come and go as they please, as frequently or infrequently as the mood hits them, and no one should dare question their actions. How could they, “they are accountable to no one, except the Lord. “

Admonishing and encouragement from the pulpit, from the elders and even in private generates feelings of personal meddling, fires a barrage of criticism about all the problems within the church for several weeks or months. After a period of time, the “free spirits” show up once again without any explanation as to where they have been, with no apologies and with no change in their attitudes about their service. But of course why should they change? They are accountable to no one, except the Lord. They come as they please, they go as they please, they serve the Lord as they please and they will answer to no one.

Although I find more and more folks using this type of reasoning, the Bible shows otherwise. We are accountable and not only to the Lord.

(1) We are accountable to the eldership. The elders are to be my spiritual feeders (1 Pet. 5:2), my overseers (Acts 20:28), my leaders (Heb. 13:17) and my examples (I Pet. 5:3). The Bible teaches that I am to “obey” them (Heb. 13:17). I am accountable to be fed, to be overseen, to follow their lead and example. When I am not this way I cause the elders to grieve (Heb. 13:17). I cannot obey them and still come and go as I please.

(2) We are accountable to the local church. My influence, my participation in worship, my involvement in the work and my financial support are the lifeline of the local church. If members can come and go as they please without reason and without question who will teach the classes? How can the church commit itself to supporting a preacher if it cannot be assured of a certain monetary amount? “Free spirits” make people wonder who are members and who are visitors. Withdrawal of fellowship (1 Cor. 5) is indicative of my accountability to the local church.

Does this article hit you? I know it does some because we have some ‘:free spirits” where I work. Their attendance is sporadic at best. Their spot in the Bible classes, home studies, and personal evangelism remains empty. This interest and enthusiasm for the Lord is a question to all of us. If you are one of these “free spirits,” I ask you, “Why not straighten up and serve the Lord as you should and become a vital part of this congregation? You are only pleasing the Devil and fooling yourself by believing that you are accountable to no one except the Lord, and that you can do as you please.” Years of this “free spirit” will only result in passive, lukewarm, unconcerned members of the church of Christ who haven’t served the Lord in a long, long time. You cannot serve God as you please. You must do things on God’s terms as he likes, the way he tells us. This is Christianity as it is perceived by many in the 1980’s.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 12, p. 356, 374
June 16, 1988

By Garreth L. Clair

In this ninth lesson in this series we want to continue the study of terms used to define certain characteristics of the New Testament church. In discussing the two characteristics of this article, “a bride” and “a family,” we suggest that you first reread article number 8 (the last article in this series). As you will observe, the two characteristics in this study are important to a proper knowledge of the function of the ekklesia of God.

The Bride Characteristic

From the readings in Revelation 19:7 and John 3:29 it is apparent that the bride/groom concept is to be understood as similar to the relationship that Christ sustains to his church (i.e. his Bride). That the church is his bride is clearly seen when one compares the readings of Revelation 19:7 and that in 21:9-27. This concept is well described by John T. Hines in his commentary on the Revelation (pp. 266, 267).

“The reason given here for rejoicing is that the ‘marriage’ of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.” The meaning is that the coming of the Lord to receive the prepared church is similar to a bridegroom coming for his bride. Marriage, as a symbol or illustration, is used four times in the New Testament, but each time to teach a different lesson – that is, some phase of marriage is used to illustrate a special feature of the relationship of saved people to Christ.

1. Romans 7:4 and Ephesians 5:22,23 show that the relationship of individuals, and the church as a whole, to Christ now is comparable to the natural relationship of marriage; therefore the saved are correctly represented as being spiritually married to Christ.

2. In Matthew 22:1-14 the idea of a marriage feast is presented, and saved people are represented as guests. Nothing in the parable represents the wife, for the reason that the parable is constructed to teach the necessity of proper character. This is better done by the idea of guests suitably dressed.

3. In Matthew 25:1-13 the lesson is sufficient preparation for the Lord’s coming in order to be ready. This is best presented by representing the saved as wise and foolish virgins. But in the parable these virgins are not the bride; in the application they represent the two elements of the church. Again, the bride is left out of the parable, yet the church is the bride or wife.

In our text the lesson is the joy of being prepared for that eternal home Jesus has prepared for his own. This is like the joy of a bride going to the home prepared for her. These are the lessons based upon marriage as a symbol, and must not be confused, for all of them are true.

The Family

From a number of passages of Scripture we are made aware of the family feature of the church, another characteristic of man’s relationship to God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit within the church of Christ. From those passages found in Ephesians 3:15; 1 Timothy 3:15; Acts 16:31; 10:2; Romans 8:7; etc. it is clear that the family feature is another way God shows his relationship to the saved. Please observe the following ideas contained in the concept (perhaps others may also be found in the figure).

Since God looks upon his people as a family, we therefore possess certain characteristics (i.e., family traits):

1. In the first place the family is a very old family as is evident that it had its origin nearly 2,000 years ago in the city of Jerusalem according to Acts 2.

2. Secondly, the family of which all Christians are a part is to be a unified family in everything:

A. Ephesians 3:9: “And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ” (in fellowship).

B. Ephesians 4:4: “There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling” (in worship of the only true God).

C. Ephesians 4:3: “Endeavoring to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace” (in spirit).

3. In the third place the family is a very large family according to Revelation 7:9. “After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands.”

4. In the fourth place the family of God is a family of great dignity as attested to by Paul in Romans 8:17: “And if children, then heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with Him, that we may be also glorified together.”

5. In the fifth place the family of God has a future home of extreme beauty and grandeur:

A. John 14:1-3: “Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.”

B. Read also Revelation 21:9-27 (a description of that marvelous city of the children in God’s family).

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 12, p. 358
June 16, 1988

By Mike Willis

Living. in a culture in which divorce is the end of half of all marriages, Christians should expect that the problem of divorce would spill over into the church. As Christians have faced the problem of divorce among the membership of the local church, they have witnessed the devastation which it has wrought. Not all have turned to the Bible to let it guide them in reference to marital problems. Some have entered marriages without regard for what the Bible says. Some years later, those who entered marriages without regard to the will of God decide that they want to be accepted by God. Then, they consult what the Bible says about divorce and remarriage.

Some preachers, elders, deacons, and teachers have not been content to allow the Scriptures to mean what Jesus said. Consequently, they have reinterpreted the Scriptures to relax the standards which Jesus taught concerning divorce and remarriage. Such is the case with reference to the various views which have been espoused to evade the teaching of Matthew 19:9. There Jesus said, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. “

The force of this passage is obvious to the average reader. The man who divorces his wife for some reason other than fornication and then remarries is guilty of adultery. Those guilty of adultery must cease the practice of their sin in order to go to heaven. Hence, the adultery must be stopped if one desires to go to heaven.

This teaching is much too strict for some people. Consequently, Matthew 19:9 must be reinterpreted to fit a less strict point of view. This has been done in two ways: (1) to redefine “adultery”; (2) to limit Matthew 19:9 to Christians. I want to consider the former of these positions in this article and the latter in next issue’s editorial.

The New Interpretation of Adultery

The meaning of “adultery” is rather obvious to any English reader. Nevertheless, efforts are presently being made to cloud the minds of men to make them think that determining the meaning of this word is difficult, if not impossible. In his recent book What The Bible Says About Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage, Olan Hicks redefines adultery to mean “the divorcing of one and marrying another” (p. 149). He affirms that over the years the word has changed in meaning: “Primarily what has been lost in this revision is the basic idea of sinning against marriage by breaking it. The idea of betrayal of vows, of covenant obligations, has been replaced with the idea of a sinful sexual practice in the subsequent marriage relationship” (p. 155). In his chapter entitled “The Meaning of Adultery,” Hicks cited only one study by a Greek lexicon (Thayer) and he was in disagreement with the conclusion of that study. By redefining the word adultery, Hicks reaches the conclusion that repentance of the sin of “adultery” refers to the resolution that one will not break another marriage covenant. Hence, when the gospel is taken to someone who has divorced his mate for some reason other than fornication and remarried, the, message of Christ should be this: “Repent of having divorced your first mate, resolving in your heart not to break the marriage vows of this second marriage. To break this second marriage would result in your committing the sin of ‘adultery’ again. Consequently, you should live with this mate.”

Here we have two understandings of Matthew 19:9. (1) The one understands that “adultery” in Matthew .19:9 refers sexual immorality. The act of sexual immorality is committed when a person who divorces his mate for some reason other than fornication and marries again has sexual relations with his mate. In order for this person to be saved, the adultery (sexual immorality) must cease, thus demanding the breaking of the marriage entered by one who divorced his mate for some reason other than fornication. (2) The second interpretation states that the “adultery” of Matthew 19:9 is the act of divorcing and remarrying. The one who has committed “adultery” must repent of having divorced his mate and having remarried, resolving in his heart not to divorce and remarry again. He then not only can continue to live with the mate to whom he is married but is obligated to continue that marriage. Which of these understandings is correct depends upon the meaning of the word “adultery.”

What Do The Lexicons Say?

What is the meaning of the word which Jesus used that is translated “adultery” in Matthew 19:9? Does it mean “an act of sexual immorality” or “breaking a marriage covenant”? Let the lexicons define the word for us. What does the moich- root mean? Here are the definitions of the word and its roots by reputable scholars:

I. Thayer (p. 417):

1. Moichao: “to have unlawful intercourse with another’s wife, to commit adultery with . . . Matt. v. 32; xix. 9; Mk. X.11.”

2. Moicheuo: “to commit adultery; a. absol. (to be an adulterer): Matt. 5:27; 19:18; Mk. 10:19; Lk. 16:18;. . . . b. to commit adultery with, having unlawful intercourse with another’s wife: Matt. 5:28; . . . pass. of the wife, to suffer adultery, be debauched: Matt. 5:32 [19:9 marg. reading] . . . . By a Hebraisin (see moichalis) trop. meta tinos (gunaikos) moicheuein is used of those who at a woman’s solicitations are drawn away to idolatry, i.e. to the eating of things sacrificed to idols, Rev. 2:22.”

3. Moichalis. “an adulteress. . . a. pro. Rom. 7:3; ophthalmoi mestoi moichalidos, eyes always on watch for an adulteress, or from which adultrous desire beams forth, 2 Pet. 2:14. b. As the intimate alliance of God with the people of Israel was, likened to a marriage, those who relapse into idolatry are skid to commit adultery or play the harlot . . . ; hence, moichalis is fig. equiv. to faithless to God, unclean, apostate. Jas. 4:4; Matt. 12:39; 16:4; Mk. 8:38.”

II. Moulton and Milligan (pp. 415, 416):

1. Moicheuo: “commit adultery on the part of the man . . . Matt. 5:28. “

2. Moichaomak “After the example of the LXX translators of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, this verb ‘commit adultery with’ is used in the NT with either sex as subject – Mk. 10:11 of the man, ib. 12 of the woman. . . .”

3. Moichalis: “To the examples of this late word, = ‘a married woman who commits adultery’ (Rom. 7:3), given by . . . we may add . . . . where the high priests are charged with having intercourse both with unmarried and married woman . . . . In the figurative use of the word in Jas. 4:4 Schmiedel . . . refers moichalides both to men and to women . . . . but the fem. moichalis ‘is alone appropriate in this sense, since God is always thought of as the husband. . . .”‘

III. Liddell and Scott (p. 974; note: this lexicon specializes in classical usages and rarely refers to the NT):

1. Moichao: “to commit adultery . . . Matt. 5:32. . .”

2. Moicheia: “adultery.”

3. Moicheuo: “to commit adultery with a woman, or generally, to debauch her. . . . intrans. to commit adultery.”

IV. Arndt and Gingrich (pp. 527-528):

1. Moichalis.- “adulteress. . . 1. Lit. Rom. 7:3 . . . ophthalmoi mestoi moichalidos eyes that are full of (desire for) an adulteress i.e., always looking for a woman with whom to commit adultery 2 Pet. 2:14. . . . 2. Fig., in a usage found in Hosea (3:1), in which God’s relation to his people is depicted as a marriage, and any beclouding of it becomes adultery. . . a: Matt. 12:39; 16:4; Mk. 8:38. . . b. Jas. 4:4.”

2. Moichao: “cause to commit adultery. . . only pass. be caused to commit adultery, be an adulterer or adulteress, commit adultery, lit. 1. of the woman . . . Mt. 5:32; Mk. 10:12 . . . 2. of the man, who marries a divorced woman, Mt. 5:32b; 19:9 v. 1. or whom marries again after divorcing his wife 19:9. . . . Mk. 10:11. . . 3. of man or woman… whoever acts as the heathen do (i.e., takes part in idolworship), commits adultery. . .”

3. Moicheia: “adultery. . . adulterous acts Mt. 15:19 = Mk. 7:22. . . catch in the act of adultery Jn. 8:3.”

4. Moicheuo: “commit adultery . . . 1. of both sexes, w. ref. to the Ten Commandments … Mt. 5:27; 19:18; Mk. 10:19 . . . a. in some instances where m. stands alone Lk. 16:18a … b. has an obj. tina (gunaika) commit adultery w. someone. . . Mt. 5:28; 5:32; 19:9; Jn. 8:4. c. Rev. 2:22 is at least on the way to a fig. mng.”

V. Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Vol. IV, pp. 729-735):

1. Moicheuo: “to commit adultery… to be or to allow oneself to be, seduced, of the woman, to commit adultery …. Cf. also the NT quoting the 7th Commandment, Mt. 5:27; 19:18; Mk. 10: 19. . . . “

2. Moichao: “to commit adultery. . . fig. to adulterate . . . the NT only in the pres. stem of the med. and pass., to commit adultery’ . . . Mt. 5:32; 19:9; Mk. 10: 11 . . .”

3. Moicheia: “adultery, illicit intercourse . . . Matt. 15:19; Mk. 7:22; Jn. 8:3 . . .”

“In the Figurative Sense. The NT, too, used moicheuein fig. for religious unfaithfulness to God. . .Mt. 12:39; 16:4; Mk. 8:38. . . Jas. 4:4. . . Rev. 2:2. “

VI. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (pp. 32-33):

1. Moichos. “denotes one who has unlawful intercourse with the spouse of another, Lk. 18:11; 1 Cor. 6:9; Heb. 13:4. As to Jas. 4:4, see below.”

2. Moichalis: “an adulteress, is used (a) in the natural sense, 2 Pet. 2:14; Rom. 7:3; (b) in the spiritual sense, Jas. 4:4; . . . As in Israel the breach of their relationship with God through their idolatry, was described as adultery or harlotry (e.g., Ezek. 16:15, etc.; 23:43), so believers who cultivate friendship with the world, thus breaking their spiritual union with Christ, are spiritual adulteresses, having been spiritually united to Him as wife to husband. . “

3. Moicheia: “adultery, is found in Matt. 15:19; Mk. 7:21; Jn. 8:3.

4. Moichao: used in the Middle Voice in the N.T., is said of men in Matt. 5:32; 19:9; Mk. 10: 11; of women in Mk. 10: 12.

5. Moicheuo: used in Matt. 5:27, 28, 32 . . .; 19:18; Mk. 10: 19; Lk. 16:18; 18:20; Jn. 8:4 . . . . in Rev. 2:22, metaphorically, of those who are by Jezebel’s solicitations drawn away to idolatry.”

VII. Analytical Greek Lexicon (p. 272):

1. Moichos. an adulterer.

2. Moichafts. an adulteress, Rom. 7:3; Ja. 4:4; by meton. an adulteress mien, lustful significance, 2 Pet. 2:14; from the Heb., spiritually adulterous, faithless, ungodly, Mat. 12:39; 16:4; Mk. 8:38.

3. Moicheia. “adultery, is found in Matt. 15:19; Mk. 7:21; Jn. 8:3.

4. Moicheia: adultery, Matt. 15:19; Mk. 7:21; et al.

5. Moicheuo: trans. to commit adultery with, debauch, Mat. 5:28; absol. and mid. to commit adultery, Mat. 5:27; Jn. 8:4 et al; to commit spiritual adultery, be guilty of idolatry, Rev. 2:22.”

VIII. E. W. Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance (p. 28).

1. Moichos. adulterer.

2. Moichalis: adulteress, Rom. 7:2.

3. Moichalis. an adulteress, applied as an adjective to the Jewish people who had transferred their affections from God. . . Matt. 12:39; 16:4; Mk. 8:38.

4. Moicheuo: to commit adultery with; Moichaomai, to commit adultery, to be guilty of adultery by causing another to commit it. . . Matt. 5:27, 28, 32; 19:9, 18; Mk. 10: 11, 12, 19; Lk. 16:18; 18:20. . . . “

Scholars Define Moich-

Scholar	Matt. 5:32	Matt. 19:9	Mk. 10:11	Lk. 16:18
Thayer: unlawful sexual intercourse	x	x	x	x
Moulton & Milligan commit adultery	(no specific references to any of these passages)
Liddell & Scott   commit adultery	x	(no other specific references to NT)
Arndt & Gingrich   commit adultery	x	x	x	x
Kittle   commit adultery illicit intercourse	x	x	x	x
W.E. Vine   unlawful intercourse w. spouse of another; adultery	x	x	x	x
Analytical Greek Lex.   commit adultery	x	(other passages not specifically mentioned)
Bullinger   commit adultery	x	x	x	x

Conclusion

These are the definitions given to the word by reputable Greek lexicographers. There is general agreement that the moich- root means “to commit adultery, to have unlawful sexual intercourse.” Even its figurative usage is derived from the concept that man is married to God and apostasy is unfaithfulness with another mate.

There is no reference to moich- referring to unfaithfulness to a contract or the act of divorcing and remarrying. No scholar was cited by Olan Hicks which so defined the word, in spite of his theory of divorce and remarriage relying so heavily on the word “adultery” meaning the act of divorcing and remarrying. Even if such a reference could be found, the lexicographers are generally agreed that the meaning in the texts before us – Matthew 5:32; 19:9; Mark 10: 12; Luke 16:18 – is “commit adultery, to have unlawful sexual intercourse. ” Adultery is committed in the bedroom, not the court house. It is not a legal act, it is a sexual act.

Should someone suggest that the word has some other meaning in these texts, we respectfully ask:

1. What lexicographers support your conclusion?

2. If no lexicographers can be found to support your conclusion, what Greek credentials do you have which make you an authority on the subject?

3. If an isolated lexicographer/Greek authority can be found who gives these words another definition, he still stands outside the generally accepted conclusions of the Greek authorities.

Conclusion

The lexicons are agreed that, when Jesus said, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery” (Matt. 19:9), “adultery” referred to an act of sexual immorality. Inasmuch as adultery must be repented of, demanding the cessation of the sin (Gal. 5:19-21; 1 Cor. 6:9-11), those who are guilty of committing adultery (in the case of having put away one’s mate for some reason other than fornication and have remarried) must cease the committing of sexual immorality – they must break off their unscriptural marriage. All agree that the adultery must be ceased and the consensus of the Greek scholars is that “adultery” means “sexual immorality.”

Those who are trying to justify the continuance of a marriage entered after a divorce not for fornication cannot find that justification in the meaning of the word “adultery.” Rather, the scholars are agreed that the adultery of Matthew 19:9 is sexual immorality. That must be stopped in order for a person to go to heaven.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 12, pp. 354, 372-374
June 16, 1988