Dave keeps claiming the man in the verse was the one who was unfaithful when it is clear that Jesus was saying the man could only divorce his wife if SHE was unfaithful. I don't know if women even had the right to ask for a divorce back then if the husband was unfaithful.
And clearly Jesus is saying you can't stone an adulterer to death any longer, otherwise why would Jesus even bother mentioning it in an example of when you are allowed to divorce and then go on to mention the unfaithful wife remarrying and making her new husband an adulterer? I think he was not only saying that you could divorce in cases of infidelity but that adultery is no longer a death sentence. This is his new covenant rules after all. He stopped them from stoning the adulterous woman, remember? Clearly Jesus is saying you can't kill someone for adultery any more. But you can divorce them.
And clearly Jesus is saying you can't stone an adulterer to death any longer, otherwise why would Jesus even bother mentioning it in an example of when you are allowed to divorce and then go on to mention the unfaithful wife remarrying and making her new husband an adulterer? I think he was not only saying that you could divorce in cases of infidelity but that adultery is no longer a death sentence. This is his new covenant rules after all. He stopped them from stoning the adulterous woman, remember? Clearly Jesus is saying you can't kill someone for adultery any more. But you can divorce them.
Comment