Is celibacy the viable option after ending an adulterous remarriage?

[Root of Jesse]

That is not what Jesus said, nor is it Catholic belief about Sacramental Marriage.

I'm glad you and your wife are taking Jesus' words seriously.

Well, as a member of a denomination, you have to take the authority of your denomination, really, which is what I meant. The Catholic Sacrament of Marriage is exactly what Jesus said.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Thank you but i am still living with the wife but she has been 100% in that we will separate when our child is older.

I read an article the other day that might help some...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-paul-evans/how-i-saved-my-marriage_b_6958222.html

Maybe there's hope-never lose hope. Keep working on it. Remember that when you love someone, you sacrifice for them even if they don't return the favor...I will pray for you all, too.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Thank you but best to pray for those that really deserve it. Not me. My wife and child, yes.

Everyone deserves prayers, so stop considering yourself unworthy of it...

 

[Root of Jesse]

This reminds me of a good friend of mine. Prior to becoming a Christian he was a cradle Catholic - religious but not at all moral.

Catholics are Christian, so stop it.

When he became a Christian he repented a decided to marry the Mexican prostitute he had known. Because she was also Catholic he assumed that she was also Christian. She was not, but was delighted to marry a man she considered to be a rich gringo (all Mexican think all Americans are rich gringos). To say the least, they had a very steep learning curve after the marriage. After fathering four sons who grew to adulthood he discovered that his wife had been married in Mexico prior to marrying him and that she and her husband had never bothered to get a divorce (too much hassle and cost). Her first husband is very much alive and utterly disinterested in her. My friend concluded that there is nothing he can do to rectify the situation.

So he quit his church? Had he bothered to speak to his pastor or bishop, it could have possibly been resolved.

 

[BadHabit]

I've refrained from replying to this thread because I wasn't sure how I wanted to word my response. I won't speak in global terms because I think every situation has it's own particular nuances and that the people are different too which plays a major role in the decisions that are made. In my particular life however:

Celibacy IS the only option for me. I have been married twice, and by extension, divorced, twice. In both marriages, the women I was married to were habitually unfaithful and had many lovers behind my back - hence my reason for divorcing them. That being said, I would not ever entertain the idea of marrying again, ever. Even if I met the "love of my life", I would not marry, and because I believe sex outside the bonds of marriage is fornication and therefore sinful, it means that I cannot and will not have a "girlfriend" that I have sex with. Hence, celibacy is the only option available to me.

 

[Open Heart]

Well, as a member of a denomination, you have to take the authority of your denomination, really, which is what I meant. The Catholic Sacrament of Marriage is exactly what Jesus said.

I do understand what you meant. I'm only picking at a very, very small part of your post. As Catholics, we do not believe our Church is a denomination among other denominations, but the CHURCH.

 

[PeterDona]

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

There is a short consideration over "divorce" in 1 corinthians 7:11:
"But and if she depart (Strongs 5563 chorizo), let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband"
Compare to Matthew 5:32
"That whosoever shall put away (Strongs 630 Apoluo) his wife,"
So it is not the same word used, but seemingly to the same intent. Or ? I believe that "to depart" is the same as "to divorce". Then that sentence in 1 Corinthians 7:11 would mean, that a (secular) divorce does not involve the option to go on and marry a new person. So yes, there is a recognition of a divorce, but the situation is that a divorce is not a license to a new marriage. That is what I get from the sentences in 1 Corinthians 7:11.

What do you think?

 

[PeterDona]

That's not a valid marriage no matter what. I think you can move on with a clear conscience.

Indeed. It also demonstrates that (regardless of pinpointing the source of the abuse), you were experiencing extreme abuse and a divorce was not wrong.

Thank you Paidiske and Greg, for your emotional support.

I would like to raise a question, which has bothered me a lot. Yes, I believe that the marriage was put together in an abusive situation, and that my consent was only made "with a gun to the head".

However, where in the Bible can you find an argument that a forced marriage is not a valid marriage? This seems to be every christian's assumption, but can you find scriptural basis for it? Is it not just a luxury of our modern world to think that a marriage is based on consent? In the old days you would even find people who were sold into marriage, or slaves that were taken as wives. And even such a situation is discussed in Exodus 21:10-11, however with some stipulations that a person in such a situation is given certain unbreakable rights.

 

[Greg J.]

In the old days you would even find people who were sold into marriage, or slaves that were taken as wives.

It's no longer "the old days." The cultural situation that passage is given in is much different than today. Human trafficking and slavery are illegal.

Change the "he"s into "she"s and the "she"s into "he"s in the Exodus passage you referenced and you get this:

If she marries another man, she must not deprive the first one of his food, clothing and marital rights. If she does not provide him with these three things, he is to go free, without any payment of money.

Written this way, I find it a little easier to see that the passage is given in the context of polygamy. The generalization of it, to me, is that you are released from your previous commitment and owe the person nothing when the other person has rejected their part of the deal.

The situation you describe is not only that someone forced you to do something, but that you are then responsible for everything that follows as a result. We call that brainwashing.

 

[Open Heart]

However, where in the Bible can you find an argument that a forced marriage is not a valid marriage?

Is there somewhere in the Bible where it says a forced marriage IS valid?????? I thought not. The Bible teaches the dignity of every individual. "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart." Jeremiah 1:5 "I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made." Psalm 139:14 "Then God said, 'Let us make man in Our Image.' " Genesis 1:26 Certain things just follow from that, including the idea that contracts and covenants cannot be forced.

 

[Paidiske]

It is true that I am not aware of any passage in the Bible which explicitly states that consent is required for a marriage to be valid.

However, in 1 Corinthians 7:12-15 Paul's discussion seems to rest on the question of the consent of the unbelieving spouse. If the spouse consents, the marriage is "valid" (not Paul's language) and they should not divorce. If the spouse does not consent, the believer is not bound (Paul's language). This seems to me to line up with the view that consent is required for marriage to be binding.

 

[PeterDona]

It is true that I am not aware of any passage in the Bible which explicitly states that consent is required for a marriage to be valid.

Same as me. I simply do not see a strong discussion of free will or lack of the ability to choose freely anywhere. It might be implied or inferred, I should like to know if it is there somewhere.

Concerning the 1 Corinthians 7:12-15, I already posted a comment, that the word "not bound" in 7:15 does not refer to an option to take a divorce and marry someone else, but rather that you need not as a christian pursue the fulfilment of marital obligations in such a situation. I.e. allow for (a time of) solitude.

Let me tell how this verse was applied in the religious group that I was in: They had been a couple who were in the leadership for 10 years, and then he went away. Since he was now not part of the group, or another church at that moment, they decided that now he was an unbeliever, and therefore using 1 Cor 7:15, she was now free to marry another (me).

 

[Paidiske]

I'm not sure. Just having a look at the Greek, the word "not bound" is a form of the verb "to enslave." If I were to render a word-for-word translation of Paul's sentence it would run something like this: "But if the unbeliever separates, let them separate; for the brother or the sister has not been enslaved in these situations."

It's hard to be certain exactly what Paul meant here (is he comparing the "ownership" of one another in marriage with the "ownership" of a slave? And if he is, is separation analogous to emancipation?), but I think the fact that it is the brother or sister who is not bound (as opposed to the unbelieving spouse) suggests to me that it's about more than not pursuing marital obligations (because that would be binding the unbelieving spouse, not the brother or sister).

It's ambiguous, I won't deny it. But I think you are free to remain celibate if you wish, and free to marry another if you wish. If you're not able to come to a comfortable resolution within yourself, I wonder whether you would benefit from talking it over with a spiritual director?

 

[PeterDona]

Yes I agree, that we can not determine exactly what is in the phrase "not enslaved". To me, it looks like Paul is making the argument, that God has called us to peace, and therefore a separation is possible if the marriage would otherwise be full of strife. Meaning that the only way to keep peace in the marriage is to live separate. In such a situation Paul prioritizes the principle of peace over the principle of the covenantal obligations. That is certainly interesting, that he would make such an evaluation.

In this whole debate, there seems to have been 2 views on marriage, one where marriage is like a contract, and one where marriage is a unifying covenant that can not actually be broken. I am in the camp of the latter view. Based on scriptures like 1 Corinthians 7:39.

Concerning myself, I think there is a viable option to live alone. And in my situation it is the safest bet. What matters most in this life is to go to heaven, not to have my needs fulfilled. But well, God is showing me big grace in my celibate situation, so I do not complain.

I have had a bad weekend. Saturday one of my friends confessed to be in marriage number 2, later the same day I was at a party with 2 people who lived also in marriage number 2, and even stood up and spoke openly about it, thanking the party giver that he had been open for them when they had not been able to continue in the pentecostal church for that reason. And now just 2 hours ago, I saw another of my friends on the facebook, that she had moved on into a new marriage, having 5 children with her original husband. I feel sick in my stomach. There is just a pain that will not go away.

 

[samir]

Luke 16:18 is clear that whoever marries the innocent spouse commits adultery. “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced from her husband commits adultery (NKJV)."

There are no exceptions. Even the passage in Matthew that lists an exception for sexual immorality does NOT permit remarriage.

The person who gets divorced and "remarried" is worse than the person who cheats on her spouse while legally married because not only is she committing adultery (since they are still married in the eyes of God) but adding another sin of deceit by lying about who her husband is and pretending her adulterous relationship is a marriage.

 

[PeterDona]

Note that remarrying someone you used to be married to, after they have been married to someone else, is an abominable sin. (Deuteronomy 24:4, Jeremiah 3:1)

I want to consider Jeremiah 3:1(KJV)
"They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man's, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted? but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith the Lord."

I believe, that this verse should be properly split into 4 parts
1) They say,
2) If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man's, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted?
3) but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers;
4) yet return again to me, saith the Lord.

In part 2, we can see how this is related to Deuteronomy 24:1-5. However we do not find discussed the precondition for the divorce, which is given in Deuteronomy. "some uncleanness" or "a matter of indecency". Is this precondition implied in Jeremiah 3:1?


In part 1, we have the curious opening: "they say". Why does God not say: "I say"? We know that he said something in Deuteronomy 24, but why is he not identifying with that statement here? Is it in the meaning, that when you leave out the uncleanness precondition, the resulting twisting means that God can no longer identify with the statement? That would seem likely when we consider Jesus comment on the verse in Matthew, where he clarifies the uncleanness precondition to be fornication, i.e. that the man can only legally dismiss his wife if he found out that she has had sex before marriage, but if he does so he can not take her back later. This would also make sense of Jesus ensuing comment, that anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery. This means that the divorced woman is not freed from her first marriage even in the case of a divorce.

In part 3, we see that there has been a lot of marital unfaithfulness on Israels part.

In part 4, God says that Israel should return to him. So, does God put aside his own command in Deuteronomy? I see 2 possible ways of understanding this?
- God has not divorced Israel, though he now has the right to do it. Contrarily, he has the option to bear with the transgression
or
- Israel is not meeting the divorce condition even if living in unrepentant adultery.

To sum up, the understanding of Jeremiah 3:1 hangs heavy on how to understand Deuteronomy 24:1-5. Especially, what is the uncleanness clause?

 

[Greg J.]

The way I read Jeremiah 3:1 is that God is telling the Israelites that what they are doing is even more abominable than violating what the Law commands. The situation where the man (God) is putting his wife away makes it look to us like the man has decided to divorce his wife, but actually it is the wife (Israel) alone who has rejected the man. The man is only formalizing the fact that she has already divorced him. The unclean and the clean cannot exist together. According to the Law, the clean would become unclean ("shall not that land be greatly polluted?"). (Since God cannot become unclean, the passage uses one of God's possessions [the land] instead).

But the Lord says Israel has done worse: they have made themselves unclean not only with one other man, but with many other men. But even so, they still want to return.

The adulterer's heart is soiled even worse than it first appeared (that caused the first divorce), when that person looks at themselves with innocence (instead of repentance, v. 13) and wants to make things all nice and happy like they were before because they have become desperate for help. God is showing Israel their abominable sin, but he doesn't say they can't return. In fact, he says they can return, demonstrating he is more loving and forgiving than following the letter of the Law.

For modern divorce, we would need to look at the heart condition of the two people involved, not only what they have done or not done. In the best scenario, the person who didn't commit adultery would be taking the moral high ground if they were willing to take the adulterer back (but some serious spiritual examination would be appropriate), as we see Hosea doing at God's command in the Book of Hosea (in which God is doing the same thing: showing the Israelites how unfaithful they have been, but how faithful God is). There is still an abominable sin in a modern scenario, but it can be forgiven.

He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. (2 Corinthians 3:6, 1984 NIV)

 

[Tree of Life]

Hi,
As the name of the thread will indicate, I am in the camp that sees remarriage as adultery. It seems that a wave of conservatism in this area is going through christendom, and I feel also that this is what lines up most closely to the scriptures, and to the emotional reality of myself. I am a very faithful person, maybe that goes with the introvert personality trait?

Anyway, my question is on, how is the situation for those who moved out of an adulterous marriage, and have not been married in a licit marriage.

1) when remarriage is adultery (in the ongoing tense), it would be so that the only solution will be remission of the sinful condition, therefore stopping the sinful relation (?). Some argue that an adulterous marriage is not a marriage in Gods eyes. I found some support for this in Malachi 2:14-16, where God explains about staying with the "wife of thy youth", which would be the same as "your first wife".

2) after removing the sinful condition, an adulterous marriage, a person is divorced or single. Is such a person able to marry, or does he have to stay celibate? Both sides can be found on the net.

-- celibate: it is good for a man not to touch a woman (1 Cor 7:1) and, in the discussion on marriage, Jesus mentioned those who make themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom (matthew 19:8-12). So celibacy is encouraged, at least. Also, there is the general idea that a divorced person cannot remarry, does this idea extend to the person who has divorced from an adulterous marriage (which is suggested on some websites)?

-- marry: this is where until now I have seen only a void, no discussion on it. I saw it not in scripture, or in the writings of early christians. So where does it leave us? Hopefully there are some people on this forum, who meditate the same things.​

p.s. this is not a thread to discuss the validity of the claim for remarriage being adultery when first spouse is still alive, if you want to do that, better to start your own thread. Please make your answer in either category 1 or 2 above. Thank you

This is indeed confusing.

Once divorce has occurred all parties are single and, thus, free to marry. They are also free to remain celibate. But if no divorce occurs then the parties are not free to remarry or practice celibacy.

 

[samir]

This is indeed confusing.

Once divorce has occurred all parties are single and, thus, free to marry.

Scripture says remarriage after civil divorce (which doesn't end the marriage in the eyes of God) is adultery.

Luke 16:18 - “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced from her husband commits adultery (NKJV)."

Notice neither spouse can remarry after civil divorce without committing adultery.

 

[Tree of Life]

Scripture says remarriage after civil divorce (which doesn't end the marriage in the eyes of God) is adultery.

Luke 16:18 - “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced from her husband commits adultery (NKJV)."

Notice neither spouse can remarry after civil divorce without committing adultery.

You're forgetting the exception clause found in Matthew 5:32.