Some married men wandering alone
in case of adultery are looking for something hard to achieve this to spark again and make it come alive.
If marriage is intended to convey the unwavering, covenantal faithfulness of the Messiah to his bride, is allowing for divorce in
cases of adultery not the antithesis of this symbolic representation?
Since, in his reading, none of them teaches the indissolubility of marriage and some recognize the possibility of breaking up the marital bond through divorce
in case of adultery, one then must come to the conclusion that divorce is theologically possible.
Or put Luke's Jesus, who forbids all divorce, together with Matthew's, who allows it in
the case of adultery.
Instead, he found ample evidence that the Church Fathers had a more differentiated view and that even several particular councils (e.g. Toledo in 681 or Compiegne in 756) allowed divorce and remarriage in
cases of adultery.
What does it mean to say marriage represents Jesus and the Church if marriage does not, at the very least, mean forgiveness and reconciliation in
cases of adultery?
One can say with David Hill that Jesus upheld the dissolubility of marriage on the basis of Genesis, but that Jesus also permitted divorce in
cases of adultery, which contravened the created order.
It certainly forbids divorce except in
the case of adultery (and remarriage even then), but has no objection to slavery; and appears to support the subordination of women.
Moreover, despite the fact that Georgia courts rely on circumstantial evidence in
cases of adultery, it's still extremely challenging to prove your spouse's infidelity.