Is Remarriage Adulterous?

Hi Ricky, Paul and Joe,

I was reading some of the doctrines from William Seymour posted here on SI and was surprised to read his stance that those who have remarried were to get out of that adulterous relationship and be either be single or be reconciled to their first husband or wife.

But I put it to you, what happened to forgiveness in this scenario - that of God being willing to forgive the fornicator, adulterer, homosexual (1 Cor 6:11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, [b]but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God[/b])? I'll leave you to look up verse 9.

Since I joined SI a year ago, there have been several threads, most of which have links back to even older threads. The current one, to which I'll be returning when I have more time online available to me, is 'Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage - towards a biblical perspective'. There you will find links to more than one site where there is useful 'perspective' both on scripture and the kind of things other Christians are saying about this matter.

I know this thread is very long, but, its recent activity began around page 3, and remains very much unfinished. Please bear in mind the effect the Council of Trent (I can't find the page in the thread, but, if you google it, the relevant session (24th, I think) is easy to find) had on the way marriages were conducted, and look carefully at the wording which condemns scripture, gospel and any other power opposing the Church of Rome.

While I understand why it would be much easier just to have a formula for dealing with potential remarriagers, which does not require either repentance on the part of the sinner, or discerment on the part of the minister, I don't believe that's what God calls us to rely on. In the Name of Christ, we are called upon not only to minister righteousness and in righteousness, but also mercy and faith. In so saying I am not disputing that divorce is unhealthy for children and heartbreaking for the divorcees, but, that's why Jesus needed to be THE Great Physician. He was shown to Israel as the fulfilment of Isaiah's prophecy, which you will note, even in Isaiah's own words, includes the healing of the broken-hearted.

[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=1923&forum=36]https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=1923&forum=36[/url]

If you do read the whole thread (slowly), you will eventually hit another plea from the heart by a sister (amongst many) of whom I was one once, who didn't believe in divorce. I wasn't been beaten as some of them are, but my children were being sexually abused. As a survivor of sexual abuse myself, I am convinced that divorce is a far healthier solution for the children involved, than failing to protect them from a sexual abuser. I still have much to say in the above thread, to address this matter scripturally, and will I do, I'll try to repost the link in this thread too. (Or perhaps someone else could remember - Ricky, maybe?)

The short answer on sexual abuse, is that it is out of the same stable as fornication, (adultery) and homosexuality; in simple terms, this is idolatry - the one great worship system alternative to worshipping God. Unless we preach this simple truth as part of the gospel, we will continue to have the church bulging with so-called members who have no idea why they should give up fornication, homosexuality, physical violence within marriage, or child abuse.

God sees the heart. He knows who has done with such forms of worship in truth, is not deceived, and will mete out righteous judgment in the last day.

There is a great lack of real understanding of what a marriage is supposed to be - what constitutes 'marriage' and what does not. I now maintain that unless God makes two people one in reality, their participation in a marriage ceremony doesn't bind them to each other in the way He intends a man and a woman should be 'one'.

Also, take a look at Tyndale's use of the word 'wedlock' in the later pages of the above thread, which makes the traditional understanding of adultery (actually acted out), the delineator for the effective end of a 'marriage'. Formalising this state of affairs (forgive the pun) with a divorce, merely legalises the freedoms of both parties to remarry. What it doesn't do, is make their hearts right with God - but He is always open to hear from them, to forgive, to renew and to make them totally clean from ALL past sins.

I hope you brethren know this, otherwise there is little hope for any of us. Let's not make divorce the second unforgivable sin - and condemn ourselves in the process - as this is not a scriptural stance.

When did Jesus specify only during the bethrothal period?

Additionally, there isnt a single indictation in the text of either passage to even insinuate that a consummated marriage isnt being spoken of.

these ideas are added by certain groups

JoeA wrote:
Any Christian married couple considering divorce should ask themselves these questions:

Has God divorced me?
Would God ever leave me or forsake me?

God is faithful..as Savior and as judge.
He may never leave you, but there are far to many clear warnings concerning apostacy for us to ignore that the apostate is in no danger of being rejected....you CAN jump from His hand of your own free will. To dismiss that is to dismiss much of His word.

As such, the comparison isnt relevant in the way you mean it to be.

Does God put up with all of my faults and retake me everytime i come running into His arms?

PreachParsly wrote:
To me, the large question is:

If a sinner gets married, divorces, remarries. 10 years down the road wants to get right with God, does he have to divorce the "remarriage" to repent from sin?

I know some believe this is true. For some reason it just doesn't set right with me...

Its very odd that Jesus was dealing with so many Jews who were divorcing and remarrying...yet not once did He preach this line we see out of some so adamantly today to divorce or burn in hell.

Not once do we see either of these two men preaching to the remarried person to divorce.

quite odd indeed since BOTH dealt with remarried divorcees..

Can we divroce Him? Yes (although i don't understand how a true believer would ever do such a thing). Will He ever leave us? No. But we can leave Him (again, i don't see how a true believer would do such a thing).

I do see a lot of brothers and sisters who seem to want to believe that just because He wont forsake us, that it is impossible for us to do so with Him.
Neither can I fathom what could happen in a persons heart and mind to cause them to walk away from the truth...but because of the clear warnings in His word I have to assume it is something that can happen.

That is why divorce is so hated by God. Marriage itself is a type of Christ's marriage to the Church, and when a married couple divorces, it is making a mockery of the salvation that God has provided through the Blood of His Son. God will never cast us off if we continue to follow Him. Why should we divorce our spouse if they have been faithful? And even in unfaithfulness "With the Lord there is mercy, and with Him plenteous redemption".

I honestly believe that we should even forgive adultery if possible if thats the only sin involved (adding ongoing beatings would definitely change my mind on that matter).
God didnt just end the covenant with Israel the first time she strayed. He gave her many chances over the years and presented great patience.

I think if a spouse simply falls and is repentant that we are to forgive them.
It was Israels ongoing whoredom that was the problem. And even tho God foreknew it all, He finally ended that covenant made with their forefathers out of Egypt over their adulteries against Him.

I think it should be the same with marriage.
Great patience should be given, but there comes a time when finally, if the spouse is persistant and so hardened against the marriage covenant that they will not even try to be faithful, that the marriage can be ended justly freeing both persons from it.

MSeaman wrote:
I have a question then. This is a real situation. A man and woman were married. the wife is a Christian, the husband is not. they were married over twenty years. there was adultery in the marriage as well as emotional abuse, on the part of the husband for sure. the wife may or may not have committed adultery. The wife left the husband and filed for divorce. She is remarried now to a Christian and is still serving God now.

So in this scenario, where would she be?

Really well written! Its not too often that I come across articles that point out how in some cases, after such a long time and so much abuse that its OK to sever the marriage covenant. It's not much a covenant when one party has completly disregarded the promises made. Well done. :-)

MSeaman asked (end of p2):

So in this scenario, where would she be?

I agree that marriage is an extremely serious commitment, but it is supposed to be a health-giving, [i]nurturing[/i] arrangement under GOD's order, between a man and a woman, which depends at its deepest level on mutual fidelity.

Imho, only the two people in the marriage are able to work out whether one of them is unable to continue the commitment on the terms it was originally made, and whether the other person is able to live with whatever changes are proposed.

It is completely clear from scripture that the person who leaves the marriage by committing adultery, is voting with their feet, and if the faithful spouse does not want to take the adulterer back, he or she doesn't have to AND is free to remarry.

It is also clear from the gospel, that adultery can be forgiven by God, and in real terms, that also makes the one-time adulterer completely clean in His sight, and free to remarry, if he or she was married and is now divorced from the spouse against whom adultery was committed. Obviously, a [i]single[/i] person who commits adultery with another person's spouse, doesn't have the 'adulterous remarriage' question to deal with...... do they?

It is primarily because of this, and because God is [i]not[/i] stupid, AND because He created us in His own image and knows what we need (for instance, the sexual freedom imposed by marriage - not to commit fornication within marriage either), that I find the continual suggestion He is going to judge [i]repentant, forgiven,[/i] adulterers later [i]guilty, after[/i] a fidelitous remarriage, wildly confusing.

Either the forgiveness of God means something in eternity, or, it is a figment of imaginations. The forgiveness He's given me is not a figment of my imagination, but I can only speak for myself.

Those of you who have not been in abusive marriages (or 'married', even), or are not survivors of domestic abuse yourselves, need to get out more and meet the people at your local battered wives' (or mens') shelter. Then come back here and justify how you can harbour the remotest thoughts of confining a survivor of such circumstances, (whose spouses manifestly did not comply with Paul's exhortations about loving one's spouse as one's own body), to just one marriage in a lifetime.... please? I'm not being theoretical here. Also, I realise that God can save people in these circumstances and they can change. Also, battered wives can change and live in an abusive marriage if they believe God wants them to do so.

However, scripture does not support [i][b]forcing[/i][/b] a spouse to live in an abusive marriage, as the template for marriage given in scripture, nowhere includes permission for one spouse to abuse the other [u]in any way at all[/u]. Key words are 'love', 'cherish' and 'nourish', 'honourable' and 'undefiled'.

I realise that the teaching of the Catholic church on divorce runs deeply within evangelical mindsets, but it also runs counter to scripture, and both aspects need to be resisted, in that there IS no formula for dealing with failed marriages EXCEPT scripture.

And, each individual spouse has to be in an honest relationship with God, and take the risks they do when they remarry, if they remarry without being [u]completely clear in their own hearts[/u] about the standing with God of the relationship into which they enter.

Remember, many faithfully married people will be in hell, because they refused to believe in Jesus Christ for salvation.

If a homosexual couple was married and had children and one of them came to Jesus Christ.

On the other hand, we have a wonderful story about a woman who saved the Hebrew people from extinction....a woman married to a divorcee...a woman GOD used to protect Israel.

For a God who hates divorce, He managed to use even that.

We also have clear evidence that there were indeed remarried divorcees in the church and in fellowship, not being told to divorce and not being cast out of the church.
http://divorceandremarriage.bravehost.com/evidences.html

If Jesus calls remarriage adulterous should not those who are remarried bring forth works meet for repentance also. It does not matter if a person was remarried before they came to Christ, they need to repent.

Paul says remain UNmarried or reconcile...NOWHERE does he say "DIVORCE and reconcile".

And contrary to your errant view, Jesus DOESNT call all remarriages adultery. Where fornication (whoredom) is present in the marriage put away, NO adultery is committed upon marrying another by His own exception.

You should spend some time here....
http://divorceandremarriage.bravehost.com/

hredii wrote:
Mark 6:18
For John had said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife

Mosaic law FORBADE the taking of the wife of a brother UNLESS the brother died childless. Philip was alive and kicking still and DID have a daughter with Herdodias (Salome)

How much time have you spent on studying this issue out?

Additionally, NEITHER man could lawfully have Herodias as she was the daughter of their own brother. BOTH marriages were unlawful from the start.

John would not say now come to Christ and all will be well.

That is why John was put in prison.
Mark 6:17
For Herod himself had sent forth and laid hold upon John, and bound him in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife: for he had married her.

Even *IF* Philip were dead, Herod could NEVER lawfully take Herodias for his wife because it was not LAWFUL to marry ones brothers wife UNLESS he died without child.

Herod and Herodias, whether you like it or not, arent even the slightest bit of evidence for your errant views
http://divorceandremarriage.bravehost.com/herodherodias.html

.

hredii wrote:

Ezra10:10-12
10And Ezra the priest stood up, and said unto them, Ye have transgressed, and have taken strange wives, to increase the trespass of Israel.

11Now therefore make confession unto the LORD God of your fathers, and do his pleasure: and separate yourselves from the people of the land, and from the strange wives.

12Then all the congregation answered and said with a loud voice, As thou hast said, so must we do.

Nehemiah 13:23,24
23In those days also saw I Jews that had married wives of Ashdod, of Ammon, and of Moab:

24And their children spake half in the speech of Ashdod, and could not speak in the Jews' language, but according to the language of each people.

Methinks you either forgot, or intentionally left out, a frivolous divorce and a REmarriage that God used to save Israel from destruction.

Why is it that we never see those of your doctrinal views presenting much about Esther?

That passage you speak of was about a situation like Herod and Herodias where it wives were taken that were UNLAWFUL to be taken from the start.

Esther provides a refutation to your errant belief that divorce automatically makes remarriage null and void.

In the times of Ezra Deut 24:1-4 was in place, had these simply been wives 'put away/divorced' taking them would have been permitted by that law....this was not the case.
the Israelites had taken FORBIDDEN, UNLAWFUL wives, not mere divorcees....and just as Herod with Herodias, were not permitted to have them at all.

Ezra is also not any sort of evidence for your docrtrinal error

MSeaman wrote:
I have a question then. This is a real situation. A man and woman were married. the wife is a Christian, the husband is not. they were married over twenty years. there was adultery in the marriage as well as emotional abuse, on the part of the husband for sure. the wife may or may not have committed adultery. The wife left the husband and filed for divorce. She is remarried now to a Christian and is still serving God now.

So in this scenario, where would she be?

A woman who is not the 'wife of one man' but a remarried divorcee...who would be most likely denied the list of eligible widows when she turned 60 but still in fellowship, neither being condemned or commanded to divorce in scripture, but being of a second marriage being told by Christ to 'go and sin no more'...she needs to be the best christian wife she can to her current husband...

Some say a homosexual marriage is not really a marriage, therefore it falls into a different category. I personally do not see a difference.

We see calls for men to put unlawful WIVES away....can you show us where Men are told to 'put away' their 'husbands' ?

No you cannot...because there is NO such thing as a male/male marriage...it doesnt exist...never has, never will as far as Gods word in concerned.

Its not a matter of, like with an UNlawful marriage that does 'exist' but isnt in Gods will, of the marriage actually BEING a marriage...This gay 'marriage' isnt even remotely related....no more so than a man and a goat can 'marry'...it is simply 'abomination' and nothing more.

We dont see God telling a man to put his goat away (bestiality) either in scripture, do we, cindy?
Thats because there can be no "marriage" between a man and a goat...even if they do partake of some vile act together...even if they have a ceremony there is no 'marriage' there.

You need to PROVE that a 'husband/husband' relationship even has the potential of existing in Gods word before your apples/oranges comparison even has a chance of standing.

You simply need to make this seem feasible to make your error work...that is the ONLY reason you folks try to pull this with us.

If God does not "join" the homosexuals as One

Your apples arent fitting into the orange holes, lastblast.

At least I haven't been able to find such a teaching in God's Word.

Could you show the rest of us please ? :)

...

Something else Id like to add without causing too much offense is that we really have to wonder about someones level of understanding about 'marriage' in the bible to even suggest that there is even a remote similarity between a marriage (even an unlawful one) and the abomination between two men.

I really think this shows one of two things.
Either some are acting in desperation in trying to prove their error, grasping at any straw they can.

Or they are not as studied on the topic of marriage as it is presented in Gods word as a whole.

There is no way a person could READ the whole bible and ever logically conclude that a male/male abomination could be even compared to even a sinful relationship between a man and a woman who arent even married (who under the law could simply have married and never divorced).

FOC, while taking the points you are making about the act of physical union necessary for a marriage to exist at all - that is, the point at which God makes two people one or He doesn't (make them 'one'), I think Cindy is referring to the civil legality of being able to call a person one's spouse - not that I would accord that to either in a homosexual union, because it totally undermines the meaning of the word 'spouse' and reduces it to something unspeakable, not elevates it to a status where God Himself would be pleased to call us His.

Cindy said:

Some say a homosexual marriage is not really a marriage, therefore it falls into a different category. I personally do not see a difference.

Id make sure to clarify what point it is you are agreeing with cindy on (as you did, of course)...so you dont confuse the readers into thinking that two men can ever be seen as anything but abomination before God.

In agreement with the rest of your post, it really doesnt matter how secular government defines 'marriage' as far as God and His word goes.

I defy cindy or anyone to present even the first passage that ever implies or alludes to two men even having the ability to be 'married'.

Even UNLAWFULLY married, Philips 'marriage' to Herodias WAS acknowledged by John the baptist as cindy often likes to point out...yet she has NO scripture showing this absurdity that men can 'marry' men before God....apples and oranges.

In that she is completely wrong...there is no actual comparison to Gods union of marriage created by Him in the beginning with the abomination of two men pretending like they have some 'right' to be joined (even before Him).

Secular laws at times have permitted abortion....does that mean it isnt murder in Gods eyes?
No, it doesnt.
Secular lawmakers dont get to redefine what God has already defined...murder is pretty much taking of innocent human life.

So...are we accepting civil definitions for marriage or are we sticking to what Gods word presents?
I really wasnt interested in what MAN calls marriage but what Gods shows that it is. :)

additionally, I do agree with you dorcas, that no ceremony would be required to make a man and woman 'married'...altho I believe adamantly that there must be something that occurs between them and God that acknowledges that their intent is to be 'married' and faithful before Him for life...meaning that I dont believe that 'sex' makes a marriage but a covenant.

I dont believe that 'sex' makes a marriage but a covenant.

I always thought scripture in the NT dealing with divorce & remarriage was quite plain and simple to understand. But after reading this thread I feel like my head is gonna explode! We here on this forum sure have a way of simplifying the complex and complicating the obvious! LOL

Krispy

KrispyKrittr wrote:
I always thought scripture in the NT dealing with divorce & remarriage was quite plain and simple to understand. But after reading this thread I feel like my head is gonna explode! We here on this forum sure have a way of simplifying the complex and complicating the obvious! LOL

Krispy

If some could just accept the fact that the marriage covenant has never been UNconditional, nor was it designed as such, then there would be no need for these long, confusing threads.

But I dont see that happening. Folks love complexity and legalism....makes em feel more 'justified' ;-)

ConsiderHim wrote:
I agree that those who come to the Word of God without an agenda, and are honest intellectually, will understand God's heart.

additionally, I dont think EITHER side can claim intellectual honesty while denying the same to the other.

BOTH views are very easily proven from scripture, so for one side to play off like the other must be intellectually DIShonest or have an 'agenda' is, in my opinion, being quite dishonest themselves.
*IF* this matter were so easy to resolve then there wouldnt be 2 millenia of bickering over it.

I hardly think its fair to accuse folks today of being intellectually DIShonest who are no better scholars than the actual scholars who have disagreed about his matter since at least the time of Tertullian.

My point is that I think its time for BOTH sides to stop calling each other names, accusing the other of having some imagined agenda and also of being 'intellectually DIShonest' simply because they dont agree.

If youre of the anti-remarriage camp then you and I will disagree until judgment day. That doesnt mean that you are intellectually dishonest, that you have a predetermined agenda or anything else other than the fact that youve looked at the scriptures and believe you have seen some truth that some other brethren disagree with because they havent seen it precisely the way you have.
Theyre no more intellectually honest or dishonest than you or I am :)

who come to the Word of God without an agenda, and are honest intellectually, will understand God's heart.

The point which I took from ConsiderHim's post, is that there is a single truth.

I believe the problem lies entirely at the door of sin, and whether a person has genuinely entered into a relationship with Jesus which pleases Him (The believer intends to please Him.) and in which the believer has embarked upon a journey of overcoming sin in their own experience.

It is useless to any soul, for those who are (even 'real') Christians, to apply 'God's heart' (as you and I understand it - from scripture), to those who are not in a living relationship with the Father, which enables them to experience the transformation of their sinful nature to one of obedience. Without this righteousness which exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees (Matt 5:20), none can claim to be so pure..... That means that all the strictures of a marriage relationship are beyond being honestly kept by the nominal Christian (sometimes even the 'real' Christian) all the way along the continuum to the outright atheist or pagan..... take your pick.

God's heart as it is expressed in scripture is aspirational and can be no more than aspirational, until both the man and the woman involved in a marriage (or a potential marriage) are delivered into full salvation.

So, for all those who were not in a place of real communion with God at the start of their only marriage, the way is paved with repentance unto salvation, before any of the other commands can be experienced as promises by the NOW believer(s).

All the fornication and adultery of the past must be repented of and washed away FIRST. Then, whether a believer is still single, or already married, he or she can begin to lay hold on the outworking of God's heart, as He opens it to their understanding on this particular topic.

In another thread, someone asked me to read this by OC. It is peculiarly relevant here too.

'.. But when I am brought into relationship with God, I am in the condition Isaiah was in. Isaiah's soul was so attuned to God by the tremendous crisis he had gone through that he recorded the call of God to his amazed soul. The majority of us have no ear for anything but ourselves, we cannot hear a thing God says. To be brought into the zone of the call of God is to be profoundly altered. '

This is what I'm talking about. You can't slap God's standards on to an unbelieving heart, and judge the man and woman by the same standard you would judge a Spirit-filled Christian.

I suppose I'm saying, this is where your 'intellectual dishonesty' creeps in. People can understand what [i]should[/i] be happening, but they have no power to perform it without God, and while they are still living according to the lust and conversation of the flesh and natural mind, they are bound to fail (at some level) to be able to match up to God's high standard of love and fidelity.

Does He forgive us?

Only if we accept His conditions for it.

The point which I took from ConsiderHim's post, is that there is a single truth.

based on the comments of both posters, I didnt really feel it was as simple as this.
Typically 'agenda' and 'intellectual honesty' are buzzwords used against those some disagree with.

I believe that ConsiderHim was 'feeling out' the other poster to see what they believe and making sure that it is known that only those who agree with him are those who are 'intellectually honest' and have no 'agenda'.

Possibly the poster can make himself clear on the matter :)

CH could have simply stated that 'yes, its easy to understand' or something similar without the buzzwords....I think that would have been more likely to not be taken as "if you dont agree with me, then you have an intellectually dishonest agenda" which is exactly what I felt the poster was stating.....
But thats just me most likely :)