adulterous marriage question

[Guest]

Scenario:

A person lives a life of fornication, never married, comes to Jesus but on one occasion stumbled into the old life patterns, then gets married to a different person.

Is this person in an adulterous marriage and is the marriage recognized by God?

Jim

[Guest]

Hosea's wife Gomer may have been a harlot before he married her (Hos.1:2), as was Rahab before she married Salmon (Matt.1:5). Yet there is no reason to believe that God disapproved of these marriages. The sexual encounters that occurred before marriage did not themselves constitute marriages, so the first marriage is still the first. It would only be adultery if there had been a prior marriage that was not legitimately ended (Matt.5:32/ 19:9).

[Guest]

The sexual encounters that occurred before marriage did not themselves constitute marriages, so the first marriage is still the first. It would only be adultery if there had been a prior marriage that was not legitimately ended (Matt.5:32/ 19:9).

I would slightly and respectfully disagree with this. I believe that sexual activity is obviously appropriate only in the context of a marriage and would actually be a type of seal in the eyes of God of that marriage. The concept “they two shall be one flesh” seems to support this. That being said, if you are sexually active with many people you are, in a way, “married” to each of those people. Mark 10:11-12 I believe backs this up in that if you divorce someone and marry another you are committing adultery. (Hence, death would be the only legitimate way to 'end' a marriage in God’s eyes.)

So I would think that God acknowledges the aforementioned marriage but would regard it as an adulteress marriage--much like he would view someone who was divorced but is now remarried.

[Guest]

My position would be that God does not acknowledge the legitimacy of an adulterous marriage. I believe that people who have forfeited their virginity before marriage (I did not) may still be married and it not be adulterous. If a marriage is adulterous, I do not believe that it is really a marriage. Of marriage, the word says, it is honorable and the bed is undefiled—it is thus contrasted with "fornication and adultery" (Heb.13:4).

[Guest]

Hosea's wife Gomer may have been a harlot before he married her (Hos.1:2), as was Rahab before she married Salmon (Matt.1:5). Yet there is no reason to believe that God disapproved of these marriages. The sexual encounters that occurred before marriage did not themselves constitute marriages, so the first marriage is still the first. It would only be adultery if there had been a prior marriage that was not legitimately ended (Matt.5:32/ 19:9).

Steve,
Thank you for those verses from the OT. I was having a discussion with a gentleman at my church on this subject and I agree with your assesment. Also I agree with your second respose in that the first marriage. To me a marriage based on a lie wouldn't have been God approved.

Jim

[Guest]

The sexual encounters that occurred before marriage did not themselves constitute marriages, so the first marriage is still the first. It would only be adultery if there had been a prior marriage that was not legitimately ended (Matt.5:32/ 19:9).

I would slightly and respectfully disagree with this. I believe that sexual activity is obviously appropriate only in the context of a marriage and would actually be a type of seal in the eyes of God of that marriage. The concept “they two shall be one flesh” seems to support this. That being said, if you are sexually active with many people you are, in a way, “married” to each of those people. Mark 10:11-12 I believe backs this up in that if you divorce someone and marry another you are committing adultery. (Hence, death would be the only legitimate way to 'end' a marriage in God’s eyes.)

So I would think that God acknowledges the aforementioned marriage but would regard it as an adulteress marriage--much like he would view someone who was divorced but is now remarried.

Absolutely untrue.
If your views were accurate then adultery would be impossible as Id be married to every prostitute I was with.

[Guest]

If your views were accurate then adultery would be impossible as Id be married to every prostitute I was with.

Paul seems to support his view:

1 Corinthians 6:16 Do you not know that he who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, "The two shall become one flesh."

Today, the usual meaning of the word “marry” is to undergo a ceremony followed by a legal contract. In the first few centuries after Christ, it seems that the most usual meaning of “marry” was “copulate”. Consider this passage from Clement of Alexandria [153 – 217 A.D.] Clement used the word “marry” (Latin “nubere”) in the sense of copulation:

Nicolaus, they say, had a lovely wife. When after the Saviour's ascension he was accused before the apostles of jealousy, he brought his wife into the concourse and allowed anyone who so desired to marry her. For, they say, this action was appropriate to the saying: "One must abuse the flesh." Those who share his heresy follow both his action and his words simply and without qualification by indulging in the gravest enormity. Stromata Bk 3 Ch 4

Nicolaus could hardly have allowed other men to marry her in the modern sense of the word. Did he not, (according to the report) allow the other men to copulate with her?

Now consider this passage from Mark:

For Herod had sent and seized John, and bound him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife; because he had married her. Mark 6:17

Mark calls Herodias “his brother Philip’s wife”. So it seems she was neither separated nor divorced from him. So how could Herod have “married” her in the modern sense?

It was unknown for a woman to have two husbands. Of course, one could assume that Herodias was divorced or separated from Philip, though there is no contextual evidence of this. If that had been the case, why would John have rebuked Herod? For divorce and remarriage was socially acceptable in that day.

[Guest]

It was unknown for a woman to have two husbands. Of course, one could assume that Herodias was divorced or separated from Philip, though there is no contextual evidence of this. If that had been the case, why would John have rebuked Herod? For divorce and remarriage was socially acceptable in that day.

Scripture doesnt offer a lot concerning Herod and Herodias, for sure.
We do have a bit more of the picture in the works of Josephus, but obviously we arent sure exactly how accurate those nonscriptural accounts are.
I do believe Herodias had divorced Philip (in as much as she was able being a woman, ie..probably not lawfully divorced in the eyes of the Jews and their interpretation of Deut 24:1-4), as Josephus does seem to show as much. But given that it was a completely frivolous divorce on her part, as well as Herodias' from his own wife, we can rest assured that God was not pleased with either divorce, or these two having this affair, not only because of the frivolous manner in which they had put away their spouses, but also because Herodias was neice to both Herod and Philip, making BOTH marriages unlawful according to Gods word.

The Herodians were seemingly completely bankrupt as far as morality and godliness goes.

[Guest]

The sexual encounters that occurred before marriage did not themselves constitute marriages, so the first marriage is still the first. It would only be adultery if there had been a prior marriage that was not legitimately ended (Matt.5:32/ 19:9).

I would slightly and respectfully disagree with this. I believe that sexual activity is obviously appropriate only in the context of a marriage and would actually be a type of seal in the eyes of God of that marriage. The concept “they two shall be one flesh” seems to support this. That being said, if you are sexually active with many people you are, in a way, “married” to each of those people. Mark 10:11-12 I believe backs this up in that if you divorce someone and marry another you are committing adultery. (Hence, death would be the only legitimate way to 'end' a marriage in God’s eyes.)

So I would think that God acknowledges the aforementioned marriage but would regard it as an adulteress marriage--much like he would view someone who was divorced but is now remarried.

I will offer some food for though without personally commenting:

One branch of the Old Brethren church has concluded that your first sexual relations constitutes marriage and that therefore if you "married" another, that marriage would be adulterous and you would have to separate in order to be a member of the church. Your only legitimate wife was and is still the woman with whom you first had intercourse. This is a consistent position taking certain of their assumptions to their logical conclusions.

John Howard Yoder, in what he called a “realist" view, concluded that intercourse constitutes becoming "one flesh", which is in a very real sense is a "marriage" as the scriptures understand it. Adulterous or not this bond always will exist between two people emotionally and psychologically, being de-facto polygamy where one has had multiple partners.

Wayne in Maine

[Guest]

Responding to the thought that sexual intercourse alone creates a "marriage":

If this is so, then why do we have seem to have distinctions in the Hebrew bible between wives and concubines? Both were publicly recognized as sexual companions, but enjoyed different privileges and/or status. Furthermore, (for those who accept Deuteronomy as scripture) why does the legislation in Deuteronomy 22 seem to give no indication of this putative equivalency? Verses 13-21 deal with the issue of honor while under a father's authority, not supposed "adultery." Verses 28-29 legislate a marriage under certain circumstances, which suggests that the society did not necessarily take the equivalence of sex and marriage for granted.

Which last passage leads to the question: if a woman is raped, does she become the wife of her attacker? Will she be committing adultery if she becomes one flesh with anybody else?

Thanks,
Emmet