Divorce + Remarriage = Adultery

[BrotherHicks]

I know many years ago most denominations held to some form of the belief that remarriage after divorce was adultery based on Jesus' words in Luke 16:18 and Mark 10:11-12, etc. I am wondering what denominations currently still hold to this standard? I know some Mennonites do, and some Anabaptists, but I was wondering who else still holds to Jesus' standard for marriage?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Interestingly, the Anglican Communion does, at least officially. Despite the extreme waywardness of the Episcopal Church in America, the Anglican Communion does hold this belief. One interesting example was when Prince Charles developed a long-term relationship with his present wife. Following the death of Princess Diana, he married his mistress in a prvate ceremony in the chapel at Windsor Castle conducted by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Prior to the wedding both Charles and his mistress made a complete confession of their sin to the Archbishop. If Diana had remained alive Charles would have been forbidden to marry another wife even if he had divorced Diana.

 

[cougan]

The churches of Christ (not a denomination) holds to the view that the only way a person can remarry is if adultry was ivolved in the marriage or if the person mate died. Any other reason would be living in adultry

 

[MrPolo]

Catholics do not believe divorce is even possible in light of Church teaching, and passages like "what God has joined let no man separate," etc. Someone might bring up annulments as the Catholic version of divorce, but that is incorrect. An annulment is a determination that the sacrament of marriage was not actually administered in the first place.

 

[Uphill Battle]

I've long disagreed with that distinction, MrPolo.... but I know what you intend on the matter.

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

Is it adultery if you became a christian AFTER your first marriage ends in divorce?
(this is not my case, just curious. )

 

[Coptic.Ray]

Coptic Orthodox Church allows divorce only in the case of adultery. Remarriage is granted for the innocent party alone.
Separation is granted in case of abuse.
Annulment is granted is case of fraud only (e.g. one party lying about a chronic disease or something)

 

[Doveaman]

What I find hypocritical about this subject, even among some Christians, is that if a person had five sexually illegal partners in five previous unmarried relationships, one after the other, and those relationships ended badly and that person eventually met and married someone else, that person would receive lots of praise for their new marriage relationship, even from among Christians.

But if a person was in one sexually legal relationship with one marriage partner and the relationship ended badly and that person eventually met and married someone else, that person would be condemned, even among Christians, as an adulterer for having remarried.

This sounds like hypocrisy to me.

It seems to me that you can fornicate as mush as you like before marriage and then get married happily ever after to someone else, but to have been in a legal marriage relationship that ended badly and to get married to someone else is looked upon as an abomination.

If this is not hypocrisy I don’t know what is.

I think that to have lived in fornication with a number of partners then to have married someone else is far worst than to have lived in a marriage relationship with one partner then to have remarried to someone else.

Maybe the church should not marry anyone who ever fornicated, and not just those who are divorced.

I think that a person who lived in a previous unmarried relationship and eventually married someone else is no different to a person who lived in a previous marriage relationship and eventually remarried to someone else.

 

[papist1]

What I find hypocritical about this subject, even among some Christians, is that if a person had five sexually illegal partners in five previous unmarried relationships, one after the other, and those relationships ended badly and that person eventually met and married someone else, that person would receive lots of praise for their new marriage relationship, even from among Christians.

But if a person was in one sexually legal relationship with one marriage partner and the relationship ended badly and that person eventually met and married someone else, that person would be condemned, even among Christians, as an adulterer for having remarried.

This sounds like hypocrisy to me.

It seems to me that you can fornicate as mush as you like before marriage and then get married happily ever after to someone else, but to have been in a legal marriage relationship that ended badly and to get married to someone else is looked upon as an abomination.

If this is not hypocrisy I don’t know what is.

I think that to have lived in fornication with a number of partners then to have married someone else is far worst than to have lived in a marriage relationship with one partner then to have remarried to someone else.

Maybe the church should not marry anyone who ever fornicated, and not just those who are divorced.

I think that a person who lived in a previous unmarried relationship and eventually married someone else is no different to a person who lived in a previous marriage relationship and eventually remarried to someone else.

Fortunately, Truth is not dependent on what you think, it is truth and it does not change.

Not one single Christian understood scripture to be saying what you deem to be true in the first 2/3 of Christianity. Not until Henry the VIII decided he would take the law into his own hands and kill the lawyer for the church and then murder his first and then second wife and remarry, do we see divorce in the church with remarriage following.

One who is validly married in the sight of God and the Church cannot break that covenant with God until death of either the husband or wife. if the marriage was invalid in the sight of God then it was never a marriage to begin with, and the relationship would need to be dissolved.

peace, papist

 

[Doveaman]

Fortunately, Truth is not dependent on what you think, it is truth and it does not change.

Not one single Christian understood scripture to be saying what you deem to be true in the first 2/3 of Christianity. Not until Henry the VIII decided he would take the law into his own hands and kill the lawyer for the church and then murder his first and then second wife and remarry, do we see divorce in the church with remarriage following.

One who is validly married in the sight of God and the Church cannot break that covenant with God until death of either the husband or wife. if the marriage was invalid in the sight of God then it was never a marriage to begin with, and the relationship would need to be dissolved.

peace, papist

How is a marriage established as valid in the sight of God, is it through the signing of a marriage certificate or is it through the sexual union?

 

[djmctico18]

"How is a marriage established as valid in the sight of God, is it through the signing of a marriage certificate or is it through the sexual union? "

That is a very good question. I spoke about it with one of my elders one day and there is no Biblical passage of a matrimonial ceremony that takes place like the ones we have today.

From Scripture in Genesis and Ephesians it states that a man shall leave his parents and join his wife and BECOME ONE. So we came to the conclusion that the sexual union of a man and a woman deeply in love and committed to each other until death not matter what...is what God recognizes.

But the Bible also states that we must obey the law of the land we live in(as long as it does not go against the written Word) therefore we must also perform the ceremony and sign papers to also satisfy God's Word.

 

[papist1]

"How is a marriage established as valid in the sight of God, is it through the signing of a marriage certificate or is it through the sexual union? "

That is a very good question. I spoke about it with one of my elders one day and there is no Biblical passage of a matrimonial ceremony that takes place like the ones we have today.

From Scripture in Genesis and Ephesians it states that a man shall leave his parents and join his wife and BECOME ONE. So we came to the conclusion that the sexual union of a man and a woman deeply in love and committed to each other until death not matter what...is what God recognizes.

But the Bible also states that we must obey the law of the land we live in(as long as it does not go against the written Word) therefore we must also perform the ceremony and sign papers to also satisfy God's Word.

In his preaching Jesus unequivocally taught the original meaning of the union of man and woman as the Creator willed it from the beginning permission given by Moses to divorce one's wife was a concession to the hardness of hearts. The matrimonial union of man and woman is indissoluble: God himself has determined it "what therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder."

They key here, is the last, line, which states, "what therefore God has joined together...." inferring that God joins some together in marriage, but not all. One example would be that if two persons, one being divorced in the sight of the world, were to be married. Does this make the marriage valid and blessed by God? No, because it is made readily clear both in scripture and church history and once two are married in the graces of God and it is a valid marriage, then that marriage can never be rent asunder until death of one of the spouses takes place. therefore if they were divorced, then it would make them an adulterer to remarry.

A valid marriage consists of full consent, proper format and the agreement of both parties to be open to children and be fruitful and multiply if able and to raise said children in the faith.

This is the teaching of the church in all ages to this very day.

peace, papist

 

[Doveaman]

"How is a marriage established as valid in the sight of God, is it through the signing of a marriage certificate or is it through the sexual union? "

That is a very good question. I spoke about it with one of my elders one day and there is no Biblical passage of a matrimonial ceremony that takes place like the ones we have today.

From Scripture in Genesis and Ephesians it states that a man shall leave his parents and join his wife and BECOME ONE. So we came to the conclusion that the sexual union of a man and a woman deeply in love and committed to each other until death not matter what...is what God recognizes.

But the Bible also states that we must obey the law of the land we live in(as long as it does not go against the written Word) therefore we must also perform the ceremony and sign papers to also satisfy God's Word.

Yes, the bible does state we should obey the law of the land, hence the marriage ceremony and signed papers.

However, through the same law of the land those papers can be annulled through divorce, and the marriage no longer be recognized by the law of the land, but yet the divorced couple can be considered adulterers in the sight of God if they remarried to different partners.

My question is, if the marriage papers has been annulled and the marriage is no longer recognized by the law of the land, then on what basis does God consider their remarriage to be adultery?

For it to be adultery it means that God recognizes them as still being married to each other despite the annulment of the paper work.

On what basis, then, does God recognize them as still being married if the marriage certificate has been annulled?

 

[Doveaman]

In his preaching Jesus unequivocally taught the original meaning of the union of man and woman as the Creator willed it from the beginning permission given by Moses to divorce one's wife was a concession to the hardness of hearts. The matrimonial union of man and woman is indissoluble: God himself has determined it "what therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder."

Yes, but God still makes exceptions:

I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery...Matt 19:9.

This statement implies that the marriage can be dissolved in the case of marital unfaithfulness and the faithful partner in that marriage can remarry and not be considered an adulterer.

They key here, is the last, line, which states, "what therefore God has joined together...." inferring that God joins some together in marriage, but not all. One example would be that if two persons, one being divorced in the sight of the world, were to be married. Does this make the marriage valid and blessed by God? No

Sounds like you are describing many members of the church who are presently on their second or third marriage.

Are they adulterers?

because it is made readily clear both in scripture and church history and once two are married in the graces of God and it is a valid marriage, then that marriage can never be rent asunder until death of one of the spouses takes place. therefore if they were divorced, then it would make them an adulterer to remarry.

1 Cor 7:13-15:

If a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him.

For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband...

But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances.

The marriage of a believer to an unbeliever can be sanctified and recognized as valid in God’s sight.

But, yet, a believer is not bound in such a marriage if the unbeliever wants a divorce.

Such a marriage can be dissolved even though it was sanctified.

A valid marriage consists of full consent, proper format and the agreement of both parties to be open to children and be fruitful and multiply if able and to raise said children in the faith.

What do you mean by “proper format”?

 

[max1120]

Ah yet another "divorce, remarriage, adultery" thread..lol

Ok here we go. Divoriced persons are not committing adultery. The bible does not say that at all. The points you bring forth are basically hyperbole. Christ was not being literal when he said those things. The sermon on the mount was entirely intended as hyperbole...God never wanted you to pluck out your eyes or chop off limbs. God created the law of divorce which he gave to Moses and no Jesus did not take it away. To deprive people of the option of divorce would be cruel and overly harsh. There are just reasons for divorce and not just adultery. Such a out right prohabitation agaist all divorce/remarriage would have been harsher on women than upon men and would have been even harsher still upon the children during the time when Jesus was on earth (first century). There is nothing in the bible that outright says that you are committing adultery by remarriage.

It is amazing how some people will just beat this into the dirt. It is one of the ways some have used scripture as a way to control women and sexuality. They are so adament because they are afraid of loosing control of women. God gave the law of divorce not because he likes divorce but as a concession "because of the hardness of your heart". God knew it would be worse to not allow people to divorce as it would lead to more evil than if he allowed it.

 

[fireandsalt]

I know many years ago most denominations held to some form of the belief that remarriage after divorce was adultery based on Jesus' words in Luke 16:18 and Mark 10:11-12, etc. I am wondering what denominations currently still hold to this standard? I know some Mennonites do, and some Anabaptists, but I was wondering who else still holds to Jesus' standard for marriage?

Any denomination that still preaches the bible.

 

[max1120]

Fireandsalt

No you are incorrect. The bible does not say that remarriage after divorce adultry. The denominations that believe that are incorrect and are reading into what is said into the bible to make it say what they want it to say. Clearly God was not a fan of divorce but he recognized the need for it and thus gave the law of divorce to Moses. Jesus did not change the law. People twist the bible in an attempt to make it say what they want it to say an this is the case with the denominations who are opposed to divorce/remarriage.

 

[Uphill Battle]

It says God hates divorce.

it also says that he hates lying.

he forgives lying....

hmm....

 

[SuperPhil]

Jesus did not change the law.

Thats news to me.

But theoretically, by your human standards. I can marry then divorce, marry then divorce, marry then divorce, marry then divorce, etc? So like, when I see that this woman isn't pleasing to me, I will stop loving her like Christ loved the Church then just move along?

But that is biblically ok?

 

[JohnDB]

What it is; is that you do not know the anthropology of the day in which Jesus was speaking this. You also are ignoring to whom he was saying this to.

There is a definate disconnect here for most on this subject.

Most will agree that Divorce is a sin.

But when it comes time there is a "but if" clause when it comes time for God forgiving the sin of divorce.

God doesn't know about your "but if" clause. God forgives each and every sin completely as if it never was there.

So...men can remarry and women can remarry...no adultery in that situation at all.

If you are simply separated from a spouse and get remarried...now that is adultery...and that is what Jesus was truly saying.

Besides...adulterous women were stoned...no need for an expensive divorce then.

And BTW...FYI

SBC Baptists don't believe in divorce and remarriage either. Can't be a deacon or a missionary if you have had a divorce in your past.