What are the implications of remarriage being adultery?

[Guest]

Luk 16:18 KJV Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

In some situations Jesus says that if a person remarries they commit adultery.

What are the implications of that teaching? Most of us would forbid adultery. So should we forbid these marriages as well?

Should we join with John the Baptist and declare that such marriages are unlawful and keep saying it until we lose our head or the person responds appropriately?

Thanks
Andrew

[Guest]

I have to say that it is important to understand that John was preparing the way for a then evil generation that was not yet operating under grace. John represented the old and Jesus the new

[_foc]

In some situations Jesus says that if a person remarries they commit adultery.

What are the implications of that teaching? Most of us would forbid adultery. So should we forbid these marriages as well?

But the Spirit expressly says that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and teachings of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, being seared in their own conscience, forbidding to marry, saying to abstain from foods which God has created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.
(1Ti 4:1-3 MKJV)

Well, firstly you can 'forbid' till the cows come home. I answer to God, not anyone else.
Secondly I personally would require that you PROVE that this remarriage is itself 'adulterous' in nature.

Ive studied this for years now and I have concluded that remarriages CANNOT be inherently 'adulterous' or Moses would be a heretic for ever allowing a divorced woman to remarry...which Moses DID do. This is yet another KEY piece of evidence....one of MANY
We should also see CLEAR scripture either commanding ALL remarriages to be ended in an Ezraesque style in the NT or example of other believers putting these 'adulterous affairs' away...yet we see nothing...another piece of evidence...another of MANY


What you need to be more concerned with is the hardhearted frivolous divorce itself.
Anyone who claims that the divorce is equal to or less than the remarriage has completely missed the point Christ and Paul were making

Paul shows conclusively that when the unbeliever has left the marriage the believer is not in bondage to that unbeliever.
If a wife is 'free' of that man, she is 'free' of the 'law of the husband' and is therefore free to remarry.

But of course, if we choose to simply parrot a few passages instead of understanding the spirit of the whole, we may as well all by hypercalvinists as well

Should we join with John the Baptist and declare that such marriages are unlawful and keep saying it until we lose our head or the person responds appropriately?

Thanks
Andrew

Out of context.
John the baptist was accusing Herod well before Christ started His ministry so Jesus had not even taught His divorce teachings when John firstly accused Herod and Herodias.
Secondly, John used the law to accuse Herod who had UNlawfully taken his brothers wife.
It was UNlawful for Herod to have Herodias even if Philip had died because she was his brothers wife and she did have a daughter with Philip, Salome.

Herod and Herodias is a case of UNlawful, incestuous marriage and has naught to do with divorce and remarriage.

*IF* remarriage was 'unlawful' as you say, then Moses would be a heretic for telling this woman that she could go and be another mans wife.
John was the last OT prophet. Under the covenant also, remarriage after divorce was quite acceptable as per Deut 24:1-4.
It is simply your not understanding what Christ is condemning and what He is showing in the gospels that causes you to believe that remarriage after divorce is always 'adultery'.

Herods sin was covered in the law in that he could not have his brothers wife.
Herodias' sin was covered in the law in that she could not have her fathers brother.
They were BOTH condemned because their marriage was incestuous...as was Herodias' marraige to her uncle Philip whom she had Salome with.
The whole Herodian clan was morally bankrupt...adultery would have been the least of their problems.

These two were condemned by law with or without Jesus' teachings on remarriage.

[_foc]

I have to say that it is important to understand that John was preparing the way for a then evil generation that was not yet operating under grace. John represented the old and Jesus the new

Absolutely. Great post !
John was the last OT prophet who accused Herod with the law as Jesus had not even started His ministry when John was firstly lashing out at Herod and Herodias.
That is yet ANOTHER key factor in understanding both Johns accusation and Jesus words about divorce and remarriage.

[_foc]

What are the implications of remarriage being adultery?

A better question is this.
Why do some make remarriage a greater sin than the thing that God Himself says He 'hates'....the putting away itself ?

Oddly God HATES divorce, yet many of these doctrines literally minimize the divorce part and elevate the remarriage to the status of an unforgivable sin.

God HATES divorce and even very clearly ALLOWED remarriage after these divorces (as proven in the OT and even in the NT) and yet these erroneous doctrines make divorce a very casual offense while making the remarriage the larger issue.

Let me state this very plainly for you readers.
Anyone who claims that the remarriage is even remotely as big a deal as the divorce itself has entirely missed the point of the whole of scriptures on this matter of divorce and remarriage.

God HATES putting away....I wonder why He doesnt say "I hate remarriage' ?
I wonder why He permitted Moses to ALLOW remarriage after these divorces ?
I wonder why there is NO direct commandment for all of those remarried Jews coming into the church to put away these supposedly unlawful wives?.....or at least scripture showing that these new coverts DID put them away?

Divorce and remarriage was a HUGE issue during the time of Christ where these folks would literally do as many do today and divorce for pretty much no reason at all...and yet in the NT we ONLY see two cases of two men being commanded to end these marriages and BOTH of those men were in unions literally declared 'UNlawful' (incestuous in these cases) in the law itself.

Paul took the time to have the man who WAS in sexual sin with his fathers wife actually cast out of the fellowship in the Corinthian church...and yet just happened to 'forget' to tell ALL of those remarried divorcees that they either MUST put these marriages away or also be expelled from the church....quite odd if one asks me.


So in part we have that remarriages CANNOT be inherently 'adulterous' or Moses was a man who, with Gods own permission' CREATED adulterous unions by allowing these women to remarry another man AFTER being divored (Deut 24:1-4)

We also have no evidence of any REmarriage being put away simply because it was a remarriage but ONLY those unions that were unlawful as declared in the law (no law ever condemns remarriage except in the case of the priests and remarrying an ex who has remarried)

We also have clear evidence in the NT that there WERE indeed remarried divorcees in the NT church during Pauls lifetime, not having been cast out, but simply having been limited in the church...


This is yet another KEY piece of evidence....one of MANY

Evidences of divorce and remarriage in the Church
By WmTipton

Assertions/Conclusions of this article:

This article is to show evidence that there were remarried divorcess in the early church who were in fellowship, neither being cast out, nor condemned by the brethren. There were restrictions placed on these individuals, but they were in the church.

Supporting evidence:

1Ti 5:9-14
Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old,
having been the wife of one man, (10)
Well reported of for good works;
if she have brought up children,
if she have lodged strangers,
if she have washed the saints' feet,
if she have relieved the afflicted,
if she have diligently followed every good work.

(11) But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry; (12) Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith. (13) And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not. (14) I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.

"Having been the wife of one man"

This requirement clearly is not speaking of a woman who had a man-harem.
There is no real issue of women marrying multiple husbands given in the bible nor in historical accounts.
This leaves either the remarried widow, or the remarried divorcee.
It cannot be a remarried widow as no law prohibited the widow from remarrying. Paul even tells widows;

"I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
(1Co 7:8-9 KJV)

Paul would be setting these widows up to be rejected from this list later if she did remarry.
Also, Paul even insists that younger widows REmarry here...

“But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry; Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith. And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not.
I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.
(1Ti 5:11-14 KJV)

He absolutely would be condemning this woman in later years to be rejected the churches help by forcing her to remarry now.
We know Paul was not so callous and uncaring by his instruction for the helping of widows he gave.

The only possibility for this "wife of one man" is that she was divorced and remarried.
That is the only possibility from scripture as it is the only thing that is clearly corrected in Gods word.

and yet this woman is still in fellowship...not being cast out of the assembly such as the man who had his fathers wife and WAS living in fornication.

Her life was not exemplary, so she couldnt be added to the list of widows, but she WAS in the church and in fellowship.

The requisite for her to have been the wife of ONE man CLEARLY indicates that she COULD have been the wife of more than one husband in her lifetime....aka a remarried divorcee...yet not condemned to hell or cast out of fellowship.

Some will state that this have put away these second marriages, but what I find very peculiar is that, if this matter were so crucial to salvation, Paul should surely have made a point of it. "Only if these second wives have been put away''. The way its left, it sounds very much like they could have still been with the person.

Another issue is that those of the anti-remarriage camp state that this second "marriage" is not a marriage at all, but an adulterous affair.
The clear implication above is that the second marriage is a recognized one, if it weren't, then Paul would have simply called these people adulterers and surely they wouldnt even be in fellowship. Let alone being considered for the position of Bishop.

It is also notable that Paul nowhere states that these second marriages were invalid, nor does he state that these people were to have left this second spouse. In fact, in 1 cor 7 Paul tells these frivolously parted from their spouse to ''remain UNmarried or reconcile........"...showing that REmarriage is quite possible indeed even if wrong to do.

Some folks will use a preposterous example of Paul also not telling gays to separate (or some other irrelevant distraction), but Jesus offered NO exception to gay couples, did He ? His exception is clearly speaking of a MAN and a WOMAN...and husband and a wife when He made His exception for sexual sin.

the student of scripture can latch on to statements such as 'committeth adultery' and parrot those without understanding the WHOLE issue being dealt with....or....the bible student can spend countless hours asking 'why' as he studies in trying to find out things like why Jesus can say 'let NOT MAN put asunder" while Paul turns around and tells the believer to allow precisely that.

"Let not man put asunder/separate" / "Let the unbeliever depart"


.

[Guest]

To make a distinction between the Old Testament and the New in this issue is to miss the point. Divorce is a crime against God and against a spouse—unless there has been grounds for divorce. Moses alludes to certain grounds for divorce in Deuteronomy 24 (the only teaching in the law concernig divorce), but he does not identify specifically what those grounds are. The fact that covenant breaking was universally regarded as a sin in the ancient Near East would be enough to suggest that the only grounds for breaking a marriage covenant would be something so heinous as to itself be a breach of the covenant—e.g., adultery, desertion, etc. (the very things identified by name in the New Testament as grounds for divorce). Only where there were grounds for divorce did Moses allow remarriage. In that sense, Moses' teaching was identical to that of Jesus and Paul.

Regardless what testament we live under, unfaithfulness, injustice and unmercifulness (the "weightier matters of the law"—Matt.23:23) are never permitted. Groundless divorce is all of these and more. When you add remarriage of the illegitimately-divorced person (whose previous marriage has thus never been validly terminated), you add the additional sin of adultery, as Jesus said. This is never permissible, in either testament. In fact, the New Testament lists it as one of the things that will debar a person fro the kingdom of God (1 Cor.6:9-10/ Gal.5:19-21).

Though foc claims to have thought about these things for many years, he is not alone in that. I have studied the issue with great personal interest for 35 years, and have read the works of men who have spent longer than that on the subject. That doesn't make me correct. My agreement with the Word of God is what woud make me correct. However, it does mean that no one's opinions should be trusted merely because they claim to have studied the matter for many years.

See my responses to foc at this page: http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.ph ... c&start=15

[_foc]

To make a distinction between the Old Testament and the New in this issue is to miss the point.

A fatal flaw in any doctrine is ever believing that God Himself has 'changed' in His views.
I agree that when we make any distinction between covenants and believe that Gods heart has changed in the least that we err.
God hated divorce in the Old testament even tho He allowed it..and He hates it in the NT even tho it is tolerated because of sin.
He allowed for remarriage because He Himself has said that it is not good for man to be alone and He understands that some men CANNOT contain and must marry to avoid fornication, as Paul himself clearly shows.
If that first marriage cannot be reconciled, a new marriage is perfectly lawful and assumed where this person 'cannot contain'.

Divorce is a crime against God and against a spouse—unless there has been grounds for divorce.

Agreed.
Where we disagree, apparently, is what qualifies as 'grounds'.

Moses alludes to certain grounds for divorce in Deuteronomy 24 (the only teaching in the law concernig divorce),

'divorce' as in a writ, yes, but NOT the first mention of grounds for ending of a marriage.
See Exodus 21:10 or so for more information on that point.
Support of a wife is also REQUIRED in marriage by a husband, as well as fidelity.

but he does not identify specifically what those grounds are.

Well..that is because Moses is not 'defining' any grounds in Deut 24:1-4 but instead saying that when these men put her away for 'some uncleaness' as THEY determine in her (the phrase is only used twice in the OT and seems to take on the meaning of an ambiguous 'uncleaness' that could be just about anything..SEE THIS LINK)...just what they were tossing their wives out over..just about anything...

The fact that covenant breaking was universally regarded as a sin in the ancient Near East would be enough to suggest that the only grounds for breaking a marriage covenant would be something so heinous as to itself be a breach of the covenant—e.g., adultery, desertion, etc. (the very things identified by name in the New Testament as grounds for divorce).

I agree that by Gods standards, and those of civilized men, that only severe actions would be grounds for divorce.
But in the regulation put forth in Deut 24:1-4 there is no clear defintion because Moses is not defining grounds but simply saying that if they put her way for this 'uncleaness' that they have defined in her (which could have been just about anything) then they MUST give her a writ of divorcement and once remarried she could never be their wife again.
Moses isnt giving grounds in the least....he is regulating what is already going on with the Hebrews.
Understanding and accepting that point is also quite key to understanding the whole issue. (see Leviticus 21 for proof that putting away was already going on well before Deut wasd given)

Only where there were grounds for divorce did Moses allow remarriage.

Absolutely wrong, Steve..and this is one of the core problems with why you believe what you do.
Moses was not defining any grounds but was responding to something already going on. These men were tossing out their wives for just about everything in the desert there after leaving Egypt as PROVEN by Lev 21 where the priests and high priest were forbidden to take a woman put away/divorced from her husband.
Moses tells them if they are defining some 'uncleaness' in her to put her out, then they must give her a bill of divorcement.
Moses used a very ambiguous phrase 'SOME uncleaness' (ervah dabar in the Hebrew)...
If a man is going to throw out his wife for some uncleaness he has determined in her because she has found no favor in his eyes, then he must give her a writ and once remarried she cannot return to him.

No definition is given by Moses as to what this 'uncleaness' is because this is a RESPONSE to whatever trivial thing the men were already putting her away for...

In that sense, Moses' teaching was identical to that of Jesus and Paul.

not even remotely.
Jesus laid down the law and demanded that an actual breach of covenant occured....Moses did no such thing...hence his use of 'some uncleaness' which literally could have been a ceremonial cleaness issue or even taking a dump inside the camp (as is shown in Deut 23:12-14 where the phrase 'ervah dabar' aslo appears so that we see what it actually means).

Moses said..."when you throw her out for no just cause at all she can go and marry someone else, but you must give her it in writing and once remarried she can never return....'
While Jesus said 'if you throw her out for no just cause you commit adultery"

Moses was regulating what they were already DOING....not defining what they COULD do

Jesus is the one who defined what they could do.

Regardless what testament we live under, unfaithfulness, injustice and unmercifulness (the "weightier matters of the law"—Matt.23:23) are never permitted.

And yet they exist.
And because they exist Paul has said quite clearly that if an unbeliever does not want to live in peace with the believer that the believer is not in bondage to that union.

Many of your doctrine say that these things are not permitted, but you fail to accept the FACT that because of unrepentant men, these things DO happen. And when they do the believer is NOT a slave to that union...but your doctrines force slavery upon them because you say that they are forever bound unless some specific sin occurs.
That is not what Jesus meant and its not what Paul clearly stated...and it surely isnt what the evidence as a whole presents as Ive already been showing evidence of.

Groundless divorce is all of these and more.

Agreed.

When you add remarriage of the illegitimately-divorced person (whose previous marriage has thus never been validly terminated), you add the additional sin of adultery, as Jesus said.

Adultery is committed as Jesus has said, quite correct.
And again you miss His point that is ONLY to show these hardhearted men who were casting out their wives for NO just cause at all the extent of THEIR sin.
Jesus in NO wise meant to condemn that innocent yet that is EXACTLY what your doctrines end up doing.

This is never permissible, in either testament.

And again, you have failed to comprehend that Moses was NOT defining any sort of grounds for divorcement..thus the reason he used 'ervah dabar' which does not 'define' ANY particular sin.

Moses said if they put her way for some ambiguous uncleaness THEY define in her then they must give her a writ of divorce.....etc, etc, etc.
He did NOT define any 'grounds' for divorcement as that was not the purpose of Deut 24:1-4 at all.

If a person believes that Deut 24:!-4 DOES 'define' grounds, then you must believe that Moses just woke up one day and decided to allow divorce for some ambiguous 'uncleaness'...that is not what happened.

Men were ALREADY putting away their wives and as this younger generation was about to enter the promise land Moses gave the speeches that ended up being recorded as the book of Deuteronomy.
In these speeches he repeated much of the law and then also gave this REGULATION to this frivolous casting away of a spouse by requiring that a writ was given and that once remarried this woman could never return as his wife.

Any manwho claims that Moses is DEFINING grounds for divorce in Deut 24:1-4 has missed the WHOLE point there.
Moses was not giving definition for grounds for some new concept called 'putting away'...he was given regulation to this frivilous (some 'uncleaness') putting away that was already going on with the Hebrews.

Though foc claims to have thought about these things for many years, he is not alone in that.

agreed.

I have studied the issue with great personal interest for 35 years, and have read the works of men who have spent longer than that on the subject.

Then I find it quite striking that you are making so many glaring errors in this matter, including stating that Moses was defining grounds FOR divorce in Deut 24:1-4...which is completely illogical as well as not agreeing with the facts.

That doesn't make me correct.

Agreed

My agreement with the Word of God is what woud make me correct.

Agreed.
So far I see a few places where your views do not line up with the context as a whole.
No offense intended, but thats simply how I see it given that you seem to claim that Moses intent was to DEFINE grounds for divorce in Deut 24:1-4 when that makes no sense at all given that putting away was already going on at that point.
Even scholars I disagree with show that Moses was regulating these putting away and Deut 24:1-4 was an attempt to extirpate these frivolous divorces

However, it does mean that no one's opinions should be trusted merely because they claim to have studied the matter for many years.

Agreed...and I never told anyone to trust me at all in the matter because of time spent

See my responses to foc at this page: http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.ph ... c&start=15

it would have been nice to see a bit more as far as responses go, Steve.
I mean, we didnt get to actually swap ideas much in that thread before you decided that you didnt have the time for discussion.


Anyone who wants to see why we believe as we do can feel free to check out the studies archive at our site HERE

[Guest]

I guess my stand is more towards the compassionate side. I know God is serious that we live a holy life, but lets face it, without Him we couldn't even begin to live one. The Disciples themselves wondered how it could possibly be that one could be saved. Its a terrible thing to be in the Hands of the Almighty. Therefore my opinion is to act on what ones knows to be right in their heart (however that goes) and let God work out the rest.

I have to say that it is important to understand that John was preparing the way for a then evil generation that was not yet operating under grace. John represented the old and Jesus the new

It's a challenge to balance grace and truth, that is for sure Allyn. I would happily climb into your boat but here are my fears:

1. Marriage is God's holy institution created, i think, primarily for Him and His church. I don’t think we can bend it to suit our temporal needs for sexual and emotional companionship and get away with it. Jesus seemed to restore marriage to the original plan and now requires soft hearted Christians to live that out. One man, one woman, one life time. God demonstrated his faithful love to unfaithful Israel and calls His children to do the same to their unfaithful spouses. I fear that we may violate this holy institution to our eternal detriment and maybe to our eternal damnation. Which is why...

2. Many will come to Christ fully expecting to be saved but will be rejected for 'iniquity'. Jesus describes sex in some second marriages as adultery. Surely adultery is iniquity. Many of my beloved and remarried Christian brothers and sisters would fall into that category. (viz the 5 virgins and the man without the wedding garment - they came so close)

3. In the end times there will come great deception particularly in the area of sexual immorality. Is this part of that deception? The general church teaching is so very different from that of even 100 years ago.

4. Do we turn the grace of God into lasciviousness by saying, "Well, i know you should never have got married but i dont want to destroy this happy but unlawful marriage and so we will accept it." God is gracious. Yet he was going to kill Abimelech, a righteous man, because he almost married Sarah... even when he had been tricked into it! What about our unlawful marriages that we go into with Jesus words written in black and white.

I want to be on the safe side. I am the 'innocent' party in my situation. Yet Jesus words ring loudly in my ears. My wife has abandoned me and may well have married another. But Jesus says that if i remarry i commit adultery. I am not yet prepared to take that risk. And although i like the complex arguments presented by others on this forum, the simplicity of those words in Luke 16 and Mark 10 are for me, unavoidable.

Sorry for the long post. Haven't got that off my chest for a while.
Cheers
Andrew

[Guest]

Don't get me wrong Andrew, I am not winking at sin if it is truly sin - I am just not going to judge over it in this life. I'll leave that to God. We are commanded to work out our own salvation and so lets do it that way.

[Guest]

Yea, i agree. The dilemma for me though is that i feel an obligation to warn others not to go through the door that i am afraid to go through for fear of what Christ says is on the other side. Like the watchman who failed to cry out when he saw destruction coming - the blood of those lost was on his hands.

Do you think a person who is sure that such and such a course is fatal yet says nothing to warn others can do so with a clear conscience and God's blessing?

Andrew