Divorce and Remarriage

[Big Drew]

I created another thread on this topic, specifically dealing with the verse found in 1 Timothy in regards to qualifications for an elder or deacon...but that got me to thinking about this even further, and thought this would be best in the general theology section...

The other thread is here, if any are interested.1 Timothy 3:2 Husband of One Wife

In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul writes:

15 But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace. 16 For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

This tells me that if the unbelieving partner leaves then the believer is no longer bound to that marriage, and are free to remarry. Later on in the chapter Paul says that widows are allowed to remarry as well.

So, what if, at the time of separation and divorce, both parties were backslidden, and no longer walking in their faith?

 

[FireDragon76]

I think he's just aiming to be pragmatic and realistic. If two people fall away from the faith and then divorce, they should probably spend some time reflecting on their broken marriage before they rush into another one.

 

[Sketcher]

The passage (1 Cor 7:10-16):

To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife. To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace. For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?​

This is the command from the Lord:

To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.​

The rest is Paul's personal judgment. He's not going to go against the Lord. Therefore, when he says that if the unbeliever wants to leave the believer, and the believer is "not bound", he is NOT saying that either party is free to remarry. He's saying the believer shouldn't force the unbeliever to stay with him/her if the unbeliever wants to leave badly enough to go through with a legal divorce. Such houses are not houses of peace.

Also, note that Paul is bringing up this situation only for a believer married to an unbeliever. The idea being that the Gospel was preached, and either the husband or the wife heard it and became a believer, but his/her other half did not. This isn't permission for a believer to marry an unbeliever, or simply more permissiveness for an unequally yoked couple than to a Christian couple (though it makes sense to hold two Christians to a higher standard). It's an acknowledgement of a situation that happens when one converts, and the other has not yet, remembering what Jesus said in Matthew 10:34-36. People would go from being part of the world of sin to the Kingdom of God. And that causes rifts in families, because the whole family was in the world of sin before, now they are split between the world and the Kingdom.

Also, remember 1 Corinthians 7:39:

A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.​

It doesn't look like divorcing him and remarrying is in the cards for her as long as he lives.

 

[Big Drew]

The passage (1 Cor 7:10-16):

To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife. To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace. For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?​

This is the command from the Lord:

To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.​

The rest is Paul's personal judgment. He's not going to go against the Lord. Therefore, when he says that if the unbeliever wants to leave the believer, and the believer is "not bound", he is NOT saying that either party is free to remarry. He's saying the believer shouldn't force the unbeliever to stay with him/her if the unbeliever wants to leave badly enough to go through with a legal divorce. Such houses are not houses of peace.

Also, note that Paul is bringing up this situation only for a believer married to an unbeliever. The idea being that the Gospel was preached, and either the husband or the wife heard it and became a believer, but his/her other half did not. This isn't permission for a believer to marry an unbeliever, or simply more permissiveness for an unequally yoked couple than to a Christian couple (though it makes sense to hold two Christians to a higher standard). It's an acknowledgement of a situation that happens when one converts, and the other has not yet, remembering what Jesus said in Matthew 10:34-36. People would go from being part of the world of sin to the Kingdom of God. And that causes rifts in families, because the whole family was in the world of sin before, now they are split between the world and the Kingdom.

Also, remember 1 Corinthians 7:39:

A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.​

It doesn't look like divorcing him and remarrying is in the cards for her as long as he lives.

So this interpretation would mean that if an unbelieving spouse leaves a believing spouse, then the believer should just remain celibate? So they should be punished for another's actions? I know Paul also says that he wished everyone would remain celibate, just as he chose to...but he also said that it's better to marry than to give in to your lusts.

 

[FireDragon76]

So this interpretation would mean that if an unbelieving spouse leaves a believing spouse, then the believer should just remain celibate? So they should be punished for another's actions? I know Paul also says that he wished everyone would remain celibate, just as he chose to...but he also said that it's better to marry than to give in to your lusts.

Paul is not laying down some kind of new law here, he's giving advice (that's why he says he prefers, not insists on, the celibate life).

Lutheran or Reformed Protestant ethics would probably be helpful here. Most would say that it's a matter of Christian liberty. I personally think hopping in and out of marriages is horrible, and there is something noble to the old Christian practice of recognizing the unitive nature of marriage, but I am not going to sit in judgment of people that are remarried and tell them they aren't Christians that can't attend at my church. That's spiritual confusion (literally confusion of Law and Gospel, as we call it).

 

[Sketcher]

So this interpretation would mean that if an unbelieving spouse leaves a believing spouse, then the believer should just remain celibate? So they should be punished for another's actions? I know Paul also says that he wished everyone would remain celibate, just as he chose to...but he also said that it's better to marry than to give in to your lusts.

Yes, the believer would need to remain celibate, until the ex either returns for reconciliation, or until the ex dies. It's a cross to bear, sure - but so is staying celibate until marriage, which all single people are supposed to do, and what's more, Jesus tells us to pick up our cross and follow him. God will reward the obedience, in this life or the next. What Paul wished for or recommended doesn't factor in to the command he had from the Lord. Rather, the command from the Lord would have/should have been a factor in his recommendations. We too need to hold the commands of the Lord as authoritative, and personal recommendations and judgments should always be in submission to what the Lord has given us.

 

[Big Drew]

Paul is not laying down some kind of new law here, he's giving advice (that's why he says he prefers, not insists on, the celibate life).

Lutheran or Reformed Protestant ethics would probably be helpful here. Most would say that it's a matter of Christian liberty. I personally think hopping in and out of marriages is horrible, and there is something noble to the old Christian practice of recognizing the unitive nature of marriage, but I am not going to sit in judgment of people that are remarried and tell them they aren't Christians that can't attend at my church. That's spiritual confusion (literally confusion of Law and Gospel, as we call it).

I agree that hopping in and out of marriages is bad. But, I can't say it's bad if one finds another a few years later, and they're married...we also have to know the circumstances that lead to the first marriage's failure.

 

[FireDragon76]

Yes, the believer would need to remain celibate, until the ex either returns for reconciliation, or until the ex dies. It's a cross to bear, sure - but so is staying celibate until marriage, which all single people are supposed to do, and what's more, Jesus tells us to pick up our cross and follow him. God will reward the obedience, in this life or the next.

This is washing your hands of other peoples problems, which is the sort of thing Jesus condemned in the religious leaders of his day. The Christian thing to do is to accompany people with that cross they already bear, not to put another one on their back.

Maybe I have a more Augustinian understading of sin. Even as an Orthodox Christian, I realized we are all deeply morally compromised and dependent on God's mercy.

 

[Big Drew]

Yes, the believer would need to remain celibate, until the ex either returns for reconciliation, or until the ex dies. It's a cross to bear, sure - but so is staying celibate until marriage, which all single people are supposed to do, and what's more, Jesus tells us to pick up our cross and follow him. God will reward the obedience, in this life or the next. What Paul wished for or recommended doesn't factor in to the command he had from the Lord. Rather, the command from the Lord would have/should have been a factor in his recommendations. We too need to hold the commands of the Lord as authoritative, and personal recommendations and judgments should always be in submission to what the Lord has given us.

Then do you view remarriage as an unpardonable sin?

 

[Sketcher]

This is washing your hands of other peoples problems, which is the sort of thing Jesus condemned in the religious leaders of his day. The Christian thing to do is to accompany people with that cross they already bear, not to put another one on their back.

Maybe I have a more Augustinian understading of sin. Even as an Orthodox Christian, I realized we are all deeply morally compromised and dependent on God's mercy.

No, it's simply being consistent with the high standard Scripture gives us and that I do my best to live by. I'm single. I'm not getting any younger. I'm limiting my own marriage options according to Biblical lines, not cultural ones. But more importantly: the right thing to do isn't always the easiest thing to do. Another example of that is that we are to forgive one another seventy times seven if our brothers repent that many times. That too is hard. But it's right.

Then do you view remarriage as an unpardonable sin?

Not unpardonable, but a hard one to truly repent of. That's what's so dangerous about it.

 

[FireDragon76]

This is one of the things the current Pope is dealing with in the Catholic church. Rigid legalism isn't really upholding justice, it's sinning against the virtue of hope and love. And that is a graver matter than whether two remarried people are adulterers. It's a case of not seeing the log in your own eye.

 

[Big Drew]

No, it's simply being consistent with the high standard Scripture gives us and that I do my best to live by. I'm single. I'm not getting any younger. I'm limiting my own marriage options according to Biblical lines, not cultural ones.


Not unpardonable, but a hard one to truly repent of. That's what's so dangerous about it.

Is it a sin if both parties wanted out of the first marriage? Wouldn't it be more of a sin to stay together and bring each other misery?

 

[FireDragon76]

No, it's simply being consistent with the high standard Scripture gives us and that I do my best to live by. I'm single. I'm not getting any younger. I'm limiting my own marriage options according to Biblical lines, not cultural ones.

Beware of being like the resentful brother of the prodigal son. There is nothing good or noble in resentment. Often times it leaves us excluded from God's grace, not by God, but by our own foolishness.

 

[Sketcher]

Is it a sin if both parties wanted out of the first marriage? Wouldn't it be more of a sin to stay together and bring each other misery?

I haven't read anything in Scripture that teaches it would be OK. Remember, forgiveness is not optional in the Christian faith. Husbands and wives are to forgive each other. If they're forgiving each other, they're probably staying together.

 

[Sketcher]

Beware of being like the resentful brother of the prodigal son. There is nothing good or noble in resentment. Often times it leaves us excluded from God's grace, not by God, but by our own foolishness.

Thank you for your concern for me, that is something between me and the Lord that needs to be checked regularly, like regular maintenance. But remember, I'm just relaying the standard that Jesus gave in the Gospels.

 

[FireDragon76]

Thank you for your concern for me, that is something between me and the Lord that needs to be checked regularly, like regular maintenance. But remember, I'm just relaying the standard that Jesus gave in the Gospels.

Jesus gave that standard to shame the elders who thought they were righteous for giving a wink and a nod to divorce just because they had met the legal standards of Mosaic law. He didn't give that standard to oppress the "little ones". He hung out with prostitutes and tax collectors, after all, so I don't think upholding standards for propriety's sake was all that important to his mission.

 

[Mountainmike]

That allows separation.

Not remarriage, which is clearly restated as adultery elsewhere.

I created another thread on this topic, specifically dealing with the verse found in 1 Timothy in regards to qualifications for an elder or deacon...but that got me to thinking about this even further, and thought this would be best in the general theology section...

The other thread is here, if any are interested.1 Timothy 3:2 Husband of One Wife

In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul writes:

15 But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace. 16 For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

This tells me that if the unbelieving partner leaves then the believer is no longer bound to that marriage, and are free to remarry. Later on in the chapter Paul says that widows are allowed to remarry as well.

So, what if, at the time of separation and divorce, both parties were backslidden, and no longer walking in their faith?

 

[SPF]

The thing about Scripture is that we use Scripture to interpret Scripture. We find that the NT letters often expound upon the teachings of the Gospels. We also find the Gospels at times expounding upon themselves.

Marriage is the first covenant instituted by God. It preceded the law. I believe that we see in Scripture that there is something unique about a marriage between two Believers.

Mark 10:11,12 - And He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her;
Mar 10:12 and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery."

What we find in this passage is something that is as actually more about remarriage than it is divorce. Jesus is saying that even if two spouses get a divorce on paper, that if one of the spouses remarries, they are committing adultery. This is very telling because only people who are married can commit adultery. Thus, we can see here that Jesus is saying that getting a divorce does not break the one flesh covenant that the two made. They are still married in the eyes of God!

Now, this is where we come to Scripture interpreting Scripture. Because Mark is not the end of the story. We know that there is a famous "exception clause" to this divorce rule found elsewhere in Scripture.

Matthew 10:9 - "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

Here we have something that is not included in the Mark passage, and that's ok. For some reason Mark did not record the exception, but that doesn't mean it's a contradiction. We can just assume that the Matthew version is a fuller, more detailed version.

In Matthew, we see that there is something that exists which is capable of severing the one flesh covenant that is formed when two people are married. Physical adultery is capable of severing the one flesh covenant. Now, does that mean that whenever a spouse commits adultery that the other should seek divorce? By no means! Forgiveness and reconciliation should always be sought after. But if we're honest, physical adultery is such a violent breaking of the covenant, such an intimate and damaging thing to do, that there are times where reconciliation is not possible. In these instances, it would seem that the spouse who was cheated is able to be remarried. The passage is more about remarriage than divorce. The key take-away is that physical adultery is capable of severing the one flesh covenant. That means that if a divorce occurs, remarriage is possible without adultery being the result because the one flesh covenant was broken and not restored.

Enter I Corinthians 7. There is a lot packed into this chapter. The first thing that we need to recognize is that ALL Scripture is God Breathed. ALL Scripture is inspired. This would include where Paul says that he's giving his opinion. Sure, when he wrote the letter he was giving his opinion, but we know that Paul's words were inspired by the Holy Spirit. So when Paul is giving "his opinion", he's writing from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit did not take a quick intermission so Paul could give his opinion. Paul's opinion is equally inspired as the words of Christ in the Gospels. We need to make sure we don't discard or downplay anything that Paul said as lesser in Truth.

So what do we end up finding here? I think we find another exception clause. We also have to remember that Scripture interprets Scripture. Paul says in verse 10 and 11 that the husband and wife are not to divorce. He says that if they do divorce they are to remain unmarried or else be reconciled. Interestingly, Paul does not include the exception clause here. But we know the exception clause is real. So what we can say about this passage is that Paul is echoing the fact that getting a divorce does not free a couple from the one flesh covenant. The reason that Paul is saying that they must remain unmarried or reconcile is because getting a divorce on paper does not sever the one flesh covenant. And it's that one flesh covenant that came into existence when they became married that unites them.

But then Paul goes and says something entirely new. Something that we don't find anywhere else. Paul makes a distinction between a marriage between two Believers and a marriage between one Believer and one Non-Believer. This is very interesting, and gives us a glimpse into the nature of the one flesh covenant as well as our sinful nature.

Paul is very clear in that he says that in the case of an unequally yoked marriage, that if the unbelieving spouse wants to maintain the marriage that the believing spouse needs to stay married. He says in verse 14 that they can have peace in the marriage because their spouse is "sanctified" through them. While there has been much debate over the meaning of that, I take sanctified to mean simply that God honors the marriage covenant that was formed. This is why the Believing spouse is not permitted to initiate a divorce. If they do, we can assume that the same rules apply to them about needing to remain unmarried or reconciled.

But then Paul says something entirely unexpected! Paul is very clear in that he says in verse 15 that in the case of a marriage where one is a Believer and one is not, if the unbeliever wants to leave, not only can they do so, but the Believing spouse is not "under bondage", in other words - they can get remarried! This is the second exception clause.

I can see why Paul (God) would allow it. Basically, sinners are doing what they're supposed to do every single day - sin. We don't judge non-Christians actions because we expect them to sin. I'm never interested in fixing the sinful habits of my Non-Christian friends. What i'm interested in is bringing them to Christ so that the Holy Spirit can then begin the work of sanctification in them. Anything less than that is a temporary behavior change with no eternal value.

So I imaging to non-Christians getting married. One of the spouses becomes a Christians and is in a tough situation. Their spouse is not a Christian, what do they now have in common? Nothing! One is of the Spirit, and one is of the world. A change of this magnitude in a person is going to have dramatic effects upon the marriage. So what do they do? Basically, if the unbelieving spouse still feels that they love their converted spouse and wants to continue the marriage, then the Believing spouse needs to stay. But if the unbelieving spouse says they're done with the marriage and wants to walk away, they can, and the Christian spouse can remarry without sinning.

This is very interesting and calls into question the nature of the one flesh covenant and how it is formed. I think Ecclesiastes was onto something when it described marriage as a cord of three strands. The one flesh covenant is not some empty vow made between two people - it is a covenant that is formed by and maintained by the Holy Spirit. If that's the case, then that Spirit bound, one flesh covenant only exists when the Spirit resides in a person.

 

[bling]

The thing about Scripture is that we use Scripture to interpret Scripture. We find that the NT letters often expound upon the teachings of the Gospels. We also find the Gospels at times expounding upon themselves.

Marriage is the first covenant instituted by God. It preceded the law. I believe that we see in Scripture that there is something unique about a marriage between two Believers.

Mark 10:11,12 - And He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her;
Mar 10:12 and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery."

What we find in this passage is something that is as actually more about remarriage than it is divorce. Jesus is saying that even if two spouses get a divorce on paper, that if one of the spouses remarries, they are committing adultery. This is very telling because only people who are married can commit adultery. Thus, we can see here that Jesus is saying that getting a divorce does not break the one flesh covenant that the two made. They are still married in the eyes of God!

Now, this is where we come to Scripture interpreting Scripture. Because Mark is not the end of the story. We know that there is a famous "exception clause" to this divorce rule found elsewhere in Scripture.

Matthew 10:9 - "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

Here we have something that is not included in the Mark passage, and that's ok. For some reason Mark did not record the exception, but that doesn't mean it's a contradiction. We can just assume that the Matthew version is a fuller, more detailed version.

In Matthew, we see that there is something that exists which is capable of severing the one flesh covenant that is formed when two people are married. Physical adultery is capable of severing the one flesh covenant. Now, does that mean that whenever a spouse commits adultery that the other should seek divorce? By no means! Forgiveness and reconciliation should always be sought after. But if we're honest, physical adultery is such a violent breaking of the covenant, such an intimate and damaging thing to do, that there are times where reconciliation is not possible. In these instances, it would seem that the spouse who was cheated is able to be remarried. The passage is more about remarriage than divorce. The key take-away is that physical adultery is capable of severing the one flesh covenant. That means that if a divorce occurs, remarriage is possible without adultery being the result because the one flesh covenant was broken and not restored.

Enter I Corinthians 7. There is a lot packed into this chapter. The first thing that we need to recognize is that ALL Scripture is God Breathed. ALL Scripture is inspired. This would include where Paul says that he's giving his opinion. Sure, when he wrote the letter he was giving his opinion, but we know that Paul's words were inspired by the Holy Spirit. So when Paul is giving "his opinion", he's writing from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit did not take a quick intermission so Paul could give his opinion. Paul's opinion is equally inspired as the words of Christ in the Gospels. We need to make sure we don't discard or downplay anything that Paul said as lesser in Truth.

So what do we end up finding here? I think we find another exception clause. We also have to remember that Scripture interprets Scripture. Paul says in verse 10 and 11 that the husband and wife are not to divorce. He says that if they do divorce they are to remain unmarried or else be reconciled. Interestingly, Paul does not include the exception clause here. But we know the exception clause is real. So what we can say about this passage is that Paul is echoing the fact that getting a divorce does not free a couple from the one flesh covenant. The reason that Paul is saying that they must remain unmarried or reconcile is because getting a divorce on paper does not sever the one flesh covenant. And it's that one flesh covenant that came into existence when they became married that unites them.

But then Paul goes and says something entirely new. Something that we don't find anywhere else. Paul makes a distinction between a marriage between two Believers and a marriage between one Believer and one Non-Believer. This is very interesting, and gives us a glimpse into the nature of the one flesh covenant as well as our sinful nature.

Paul is very clear in that he says that in the case of an unequally yoked marriage, that if the unbelieving spouse wants to maintain the marriage that the believing spouse needs to stay married. He says in verse 14 that they can have peace in the marriage because their spouse is "sanctified" through them. While there has been much debate over the meaning of that, I take sanctified to mean simply that God honors the marriage covenant that was formed. This is why the Believing spouse is not permitted to initiate a divorce. If they do, we can assume that the same rules apply to them about needing to remain unmarried or reconciled.

But then Paul says something entirely unexpected! Paul is very clear in that he says in verse 15 that in the case of a marriage where one is a Believer and one is not, if the unbeliever wants to leave, not only can they do so, but the Believing spouse is not "under bondage", in other words - they can get remarried! This is the second exception clause.

I can see why Paul (God) would allow it. Basically, sinners are doing what they're supposed to do every single day - sin. We don't judge non-Christians actions because we expect them to sin. I'm never interested in fixing the sinful habits of my Non-Christian friends. What i'm interested in is bringing them to Christ so that the Holy Spirit can then begin the work of sanctification in them. Anything less than that is a temporary behavior change with no eternal value.

So I imaging to non-Christians getting married. One of the spouses becomes a Christians and is in a tough situation. Their spouse is not a Christian, what do they now have in common? Nothing! One is of the Spirit, and one is of the world. A change of this magnitude in a person is going to have dramatic effects upon the marriage. So what do they do? Basically, if the unbelieving spouse still feels that they love their converted spouse and wants to continue the marriage, then the Believing spouse needs to stay. But if the unbelieving spouse says they're done with the marriage and wants to walk away, they can, and the Christian spouse can remarry without sinning.

This is very interesting and calls into question the nature of the one flesh covenant and how it is formed. I think Ecclesiastes was onto something when it described marriage as a cord of three strands. The one flesh covenant is not some empty vow made between two people - it is a covenant that is formed by and maintained by the Holy Spirit. If that's the case, then that Spirit bound, one flesh covenant only exists when the Spirit resides in a person.

An “adulterous marriage” is not found in scripture nor was it described, it is something people will introduce later.

Now we have to be extremely careful and try to understand what Jesus was trying to convey to those He was directly addressing in the context of; when (still under the Old Law), who (the Pharisees misusing scripture and later his disciples who would get a more direct answer), why (this was a huge issue in the first century), how (not a “parable”, but short and to the point and will be more useful later), and what was going on at the time.


It has been my experience when truths seeking Christians argue about differences in their “conclusions”, it is because they are defining words differently. We are really looking for how the Holy Spirit word define the words He is using in scripture, which would be how those being directly addressed would best understand Jesus words at the time.

The first question we need to ask ourselves would be: “ Are we going to believe what Jesus said or what others want Jesus to be saying”?

If Jesus says: “They are divorced” and cannot say; “Jesus really meant to say: “They think they got a divorce”.

Some would say: “If it is “sin” for you to do it then it cannot physically be done, but that does not hold true since as an example: you could physically become “unevenly yoked with another person” even though it is a sin.

Definitions must be inclusive of all the ways the word is being used.

The best scriptural definition I have come up with for “adultery” is: Any involvement in the damaging of a covenant relationship. We can go through all the scriptures involved to see what would fit. Again we are trying to understand how OT scholars in the first century would understand it (Pharisees).


“Marriage” is a problem to define from scripture, but there is good reason for that. Every tribe (group of people) on earth has defined who is married and who is single. The scripture call couples married, husbands & wives, and that is who are married and if they have to get married then they are not married. Mary and Joseph were husband and wife prior to any sexual intercourse. We are instructed on how to treat our spouse and how to treat those we are not married to. There are no instructions for any in-between single and/or married. If a couple are “married” then they are married and have marriage obligations toward each other.


“Divorce” is another word not will define from scripture. Divorce seems to be the dissolving of a covenant relationship. Can we also agree that if scripture calls a couple divorced then they are divorced?


Going to what Christ said using these definitions we find:


Jesus calling a person that were previously married to another person getting a divorce and then being married to a third person. Now Jesus does say “If it was not done because of adultery than everyone involved in divorce/marriage committed adultery, but Jesus is also saying they committed divorce and another marriage (this is not my idea, I am just quoting Jesus).

If your second marriage is pronounced by Jesus as being a marriage, so you have spousal obligations to that second marriage and not to the first marriage that ended in divorce (Jesus called it divorce). As you say: “The Greek word for, "commits adultery" in Matthew 5:32, means an on-going action because of the tense of the verb.” But this needs to be understood the same way “if you steel something you are a robber (an ongoing condition) but you do not stop being a thief/robber by not steeling forth in the future or by returning what you stole. The thief has sinned against God and must turn to God (repent) and seek God’s forgiveness, which God readily gives. To stop being an adulterous you have to turn to God (repent) and seek God’s forgiveness and you will be a former adulterous.

You stop being a thief when you become a Christian, stop stealing and serve others, so when do you stop being a murder? When do you stop being an adulterer? Adultery is more than just sex and does not require sex.

Jesus said the adultery happened with the divorce and/or the marriage and did not say sexual intercourse, that is something man has added.

 

[SPF]

Thanks for the response Bling, I have a couple of questions. Wouldn't you agree that only someone who is married can commit adultery? Adultery is an action that is committed against a spouse. A single person does not commit adultery. That's my basis for interpreting Matthew 19

Matthew 19:9 "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality (NASB, KJV says fornication), and marries another woman commits adultery."

I think this is very clear. If a divorce occurs for any reason other than immorality/fornication, then the spouse that gets remarried is committing adultery. You can't commit adultery if you're not married. Therefore, it stands to reason that unless the divorce is for immorality/fornication (physical adultery), than the one flesh covenant is still in effect in the eyes of the Lord. I don't know how else to interpret that. I'm open to another interpretation, I just don't see how it would be viable.

I do completely agree with you though that if a divorced spouse does get remarried, that marriage is valid, and becomes a covenant. They may have committed adultery, but it was a one time offense. Do they need to repent? Yes. But their newly formed marriage is certainly a valid covenant that now should be honored.