Is celibacy the viable option after ending an adulterous remarriage?

samir

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2015
2,274
580
us
✟18,067.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
You're forgetting the exception clause found in Matthew 5:32.

I'm aware of Matthew 5:32 but it was written to Jewish believers about a unique situation that didn't need to be mentioned when Luke wrote to Gentile (non-Jewish) believers. Regardless of what you believe about it, scripture can't contradict scripture so you can't use Matthew 5:32 to overrule Luke 16:18.

Another poster already explained Matthew 5:32 very well:

Kersh,
The unchastity as the exception thingy is only discussed in the gospel of Matthew 5:32, which is a gospel directed at the jewish people. You would be very careful to interpret that exception clause, but anyway, it seems likely, that before the marriage, during the betrothal, if you found that your to-be wife was not a virgin, you could legally dismiss her. But after the marriage, all doors were closed until death.

A man and a woman seem to have equally no open doors when we look at Mark 10:11-12.

And likewise, Luke 16:18 seems to slam the door at the "innocent party" interpretation. The one who is divorced against his will still will have to remain celibate until reconsolation happens. Even if the partner starts living in a remarriage, which is not a marriage but an adultery, according to the same passage.

And, by the way, the original hebrew meaning of adultery is most like the word "pollution", so if you go into adultery, you pollute your marriage, but by no means you break it or end it. Such is not possible.
 
Upvote 0

PeterDona

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 13, 2010
742
181
Denmark
✟348,585.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
There is an aspect to all this divorce-remarriage topic that I take note of. It seems to be a very serious topic in the eyes of God. Well, certainly I believe that it is in part because marriage is in the image of God - as man and woman He created them (Genesis 1:27), and just as God cannot divorce himself, likewise marriage would have to reflect that fact. This is the reasoning why I think that marriage is unbreakable.

But then, is adultery a deadly sin? A look at revelation 22:15 says, without are dogs and sorcerers and whoremongers and murderers and idolaters and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie (KJV). Now whoremonger is the english word for adulterer, but in the greek it says "inappropriate contentos" which is more like fornicators. Some believe that the word includes also adulterers, I see that in the Strongs dictionary. I am not going to take a chance on that one, personally. So I will rather live celibate.
 
Upvote 0

samir

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2015
2,274
580
us
✟18,067.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Is the OP assuming that every time a person remarries after a divorce that they are commiting adultery?

Divorced by whom? Do you think a civil judge has the power to separate what God has joined together?

What if the marriage dissolved because of the ex-spouse's infidelity? What if the ex abandoned the marriage? Is moving on with your life still adultery?

First you have to establish that the marriage was dissolved in the eyes of God. Just because a civil judge says he ended the marriage doesn't mean God considers the marriage dissolved. As long as God considers a couple married, sleeping with another person is adultery whether "remarried" or not.
 
Upvote 0

Kersh

Well-Known Member
Jan 23, 2016
804
386
46
Michigan
✟24,645.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Divorced by whom? Do you think a civil judge has the power to separate what God has joined together?

Does a civil judge or county clerk have the power to act as the medium by which two people are joined together by God? If so, then I suppose the same government can dissolve the marriage. If not, then the marriage was invalid to begin with.



First you have to establish that the marriage was dissolved in the eyes of God. Just because a civil judge says he ended the marriage doesn't mean God considers the marriage dissolved. As long as God considers a couple married, sleeping with another person is adultery whether "remarried" or not.

And, God did provide a mechanism for divorce in the OT. In the NT, he explained the grounds for permissible divorce (unchastity or abandonment).
 
Upvote 0

samir

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2015
2,274
580
us
✟18,067.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Does a civil judge or county clerk have the power to act as the medium by which two people are joined together by God?

No, they simply register a marriage for civil purposes which isn't necessary or relevant to God. A couple can get married in the church without the government's approval and it's still a valid marriage. A person can get married by a judge and not be married in the eyes of God (an example would be a gay marriage).


If so, then I suppose the same government can dissolve the marriage. If not, then the marriage was invalid to begin with.

Neither a marriage nor a divorce by a civil judge has any bearing on the couple's status before God.

If you were right, a person could get divorced for any reason the judge allowed so a man who wanted a divorce to marry someone younger could get divorced and remarried without committing adultery.


And, God did provide a mechanism for divorce in the OT. In the NT, he explained the grounds for permissible divorce (unchastity or abandonment).

Jesus' statement on marriage to Gentiles (non-Jews) does not allow divorce and remarriage for any reason. The exception mentioned in Matthew must only be relevant to Jewish believers and pertain to a situation that doesn't occur among non-Jews.
 
Upvote 0

bcbsr

Newbie
Mar 17, 2003
4,085
2,318
Visit site
✟193,956.00
Faith
Christian
The basic principle is that a legitimate marriage lasts the life of the spouse. If divorce occurs in the case of a legitimate marriage (as in the case of God's marriage in Jer 3:8+), then one must remain unmarried or be reconciled with their spouse (1Cor 7:11b)

However if one's first marriage was to someone who previously had a legitimate marriage and divorced out of it, and their former spouse was still alive, that marriage is illegitimate. Divorcing out of that, the person can then enter into their first legitimate marriage with someone who is unattached.
 
Upvote 0

PeterDona

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 13, 2010
742
181
Denmark
✟348,585.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
However if one's first marriage was to someone who previously had a legitimate marriage and divorced out of it, and their former spouse was still alive, that marriage is illegitimate. Divorcing out of that, the person can then enter into their first legitimate marriage with someone who is unattached.
Hi bcbsr, I would like to ask you if this is the view that you studied out yourself from Scripture, or if this represents the view of some faith group. It is my own view, mostly, I only wonder if it is really legitimate to marry after an illegitimate marriage.

I believe that the early christians were careful not to enter into an adulterous marriage, and not to divorce except in the case of marital infidelity, where they however had only options to remain celibate or reconcile.
Stephen Wilcox has written an excellent paper on early sources: click
 
Upvote 0

PeterDona

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 13, 2010
742
181
Denmark
✟348,585.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
Does a civil judge or county clerk have the power to act as the medium by which two people are joined together by God? If so, then I suppose the same government can dissolve the marriage. If not, then the marriage was invalid to begin with.
Scripture is not very explicit on considerations into who can legitimately marry a couple. That is quite interesting for our discussion. One would be tempted to say, that a solemn oath made by both parties would in principle be enough? However, there seems to be in Malachi 2:14-16 the idea that your first wife is your wife of covenant. There are some interesting covenantal principles, that you could consider here
1) usually the first wife would be the one and only sex partner for life.
2) on the first occasion for sex, there would be a breaking of the virginity, which involves spilling of blood, thereby resembling the 'blood of a covenant'.

And, God did provide a mechanism for divorce in the OT. In the NT, he explained the grounds for permissible divorce (unchastity or abandonment).
I agree in the approximate sense ... however it seems that these grounds were much stricter than presumed or hoped for by the larger crowd. I am starting to see how some of the scriptures actually repeatedly deal with a desire for divorce in the people, and reproving that desire.

If really abandonment is a ground for a divorce, it would be for the failure of the spouse to supply marital affection, following Exodus 21:7-11. However it seems that Paul in ! Corinthians 7 actually follows this line of thinking, that in marriage there is a marital obligation, and moves on to say, that you can almost never use that obligation to overrule the greater principle of being bound by a marriage until death. (well, I do not see any example where he permits the lack of marital affection to be used as a ground for divorce and remarriage)
 
Upvote 0

PeterDona

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 13, 2010
742
181
Denmark
✟348,585.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
Let me just as an example show how Jesus in a scripture corrects popular opinion on divorce, and then move on to something that I wonder. The example is Matthew 5:32. Jesus speaks like this according to the KJV:

31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.


There is an opening statement: "you have heard it said ..."
And then there is the correction: Saving for the cause of fornication, it is not legal.
(I found this pattern also in the Jeremiah 3:1)
So clearly this is a reference back to Deuteronomy 24:1-5, upon which jews in Jesus time tried to hang a custom of divorce.

Now as I understand Deuteronomy 24:1-5, it only is about what if you find out on the wedding night that your wife is not a virgin. If you are hard-hearted enough (proud??), you can then legally send her away. However you can not take her back later - "for that is an abomination".

So what is the abomination, and why does God label it an abomination?
I think that when you have opted to disgrace a woman by sending her away as the wedding night commenced, you can not later e.g. out of sexual desire take her back. Maybe that would be even more disgraceful I dont know.

Let me then explain how some have taken this bible passage, forgot all about the uncleanness clause, and applied it in a general way to remarriages. And then produced the conclusion, that if you divorced someone and married another, you can not go back to your first (covenant) spouse again, for that would be an abomination. And after using the passage in this manner, getting to the conclusion that remarried couples (adulterers) should stay in that remarried condition. (I do feel that such a conclusion is at odds with Malachi 2:14-16 where God talks about your youth wife being your covenant wife).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Greg J.

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 2, 2016
3,841
1,907
Southeast Michigan
✟233,164.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Now that I have seen that you have thoroughly studied this issue, Peter, I think the best thing you can do is to be in regular prayer that the Holy Spirit would guide your heart and thoughts down the path he wants for you. I think that the longer you pray in devotion to him, the more he will adjust your understanding, and more importantly, your faith in him about what he wants for you. He may or may not help you with your general theological understanding, but he will certainly help you with your understanding of your situation—possibly not with knowledge, but with circumstances and experiences (which you might not learn without running into the circumstance or experience).

It seems like you have accepted his grace as just another legalistic element in your reasoning, but that is not what grace is. God's grace cancels the written code (Colossians 2:14). Grace is something that can reveal the truth more clearly for us than understanding God's commands. It is only with the help of the Holy Spirit that this can happen. When you have come to understand something so well that you can correctly see it is complex, there is inevitably going to be some failed human deduction involved, or a failure to have accurate information about the Scriptural narrative or what was going on in the heart and mind of the writer. Jesus didn't say the Holy Spirit would guide us into the truth that isn't clearly understood from Scripture, he said the Spirit would guide us into all truth (John 16:13). You need the grace of the Holy Spirit to understand anything correctly.

For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace. (Romans 6:14, 1984 NIV)

It doesn't mean that sinning is ok, but it does mean that you can't so easily judge what is right and wrong for you by just looking at the Law or other "rules." Fundamentally, it is the Lord's love and wisdom that defines what you should or shouldn't do. All the commands in Scripture for us are still there for the same reason they have always been there: they tell us what brings death and what does not. But the Law can no longer tell us whether God accepts our choice or not. For that he looks at a person's heart. No one needs to understand this marriage and adultery issue as well as you do to make a choice pleasing to the Lord.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

W2L

Well-Known Member
Jun 26, 2016
20,081
10,988
USA
✟213,573.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Im not understanding this issue as its being presented here. Jesus said a divorce is permitted in the case of fornication. You guys are saying that this means that as long as they dont have sex, then they are not truly married, and can get a divorce if one of then commits fornication? That's ok but its not ok to get a divorce after the two have had sex, and one of them commits adultery? That sounds strange. God doesn't mind commanding a person to put up with adultery, as long as the adulterer stays in the marriage, but if a virgin commit fornication then all bets are off? Why? What the heck?
 
Upvote 0

PeterDona

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 13, 2010
742
181
Denmark
✟348,585.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
hi W2L, thanks for your input. Long answer coming here.
Jesus said a divorce is permitted in the case of fornication.
1) The grand standard is, that no-one can be released from a marriage once committed (e.g. 1 Cor 7:39)
2) Sexual betrayal in a marriage is not fornication, it is adultery. Therefore no-one who is married can claim fornication as a legitimate reason for divorce. Only exception is, if they find out on the wedding night, that the spouse really is not a virgin, but has had sex before marriage. Then the fornication exception might apply.
You guys are saying that this means that as long as they dont have sex, then they are not truly married,
There are those who uphold that a marriage is not a marriage until it is "consummated", meaning after the first sexual event. I have not raised such a question in this thread. I am aware of a few scriptures that could be used to build up such a position, and I am aware of some that will negate such a position, but I will not dig into it here. Maybe another thread to be started?
God doesn't mind commanding a person to put up with adultery, as long as the adulterer stays in the marriage, but if a virgin commit fornication then all bets are off? Why? What the heck?
I agree with your position here, but maybe I will turn it the other way over. For me, adultery is not a ground for a divorce, and really fornication should not be used as such either.
1) the exception clause is seen only in the Gospel of Matthew, which is the Gospel to the jewish people. In the other Gospels, there is no exception clause mentioned, and not either in the letters.
2) Jesus commented on the use of the exception clause, in Matthew 19:1-12, where he said that God only gave the exception for their hardness of hearts. I think hardness of heart = pride. God even gave the jewish people this testimony, that they were stiffnecked (Exodus 32:9).
 
Upvote 0

W2L

Well-Known Member
Jun 26, 2016
20,081
10,988
USA
✟213,573.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I'm aware of Matthew 5:32 but it was written to Jewish believers about a unique situation that didn't need to be mentioned when Luke wrote to Gentile (non-Jewish) believers. Regardless of what you believe about it, scripture can't contradict scripture so you can't use Matthew 5:32 to overrule Luke 16:18.

Another poster already explained Matthew 5:32 very well:

While i dont claim to have all the answers to this issue, i do know that your statement isnt entirely correct. You can use Mathew to clarify Luke. Luke is a poorly written Gospel. Here is an example.



Luke 14:26 “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.


Matthew 10:37 He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. 38 And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. 39 He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it.
 
Upvote 0

W2L

Well-Known Member
Jun 26, 2016
20,081
10,988
USA
✟213,573.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
hi W2L, thanks for your input. Long answer coming here.

1) The grand standard is, that no-one can be released from a marriage once committed (e.g. 1 Cor 7:39)
2) Sexual betrayal in a marriage is not fornication, it is adultery. Therefore no-one who is married can claim fornication as a legitimate reason for divorce. Only exception is, if they find out on the wedding night, that the spouse really is not a virgin, but has had sex before marriage. Then the fornication exception might apply.

There are those who uphold that a marriage is not a marriage until it is "consummated", meaning after the first sexual event. I have not raised such a question in this thread. I am aware of a few scriptures that could be used to build up such a position, and I am aware of some that will negate such a position, but I will not dig into it here. Maybe another thread to be started?

I agree with your position here, but maybe I will turn it the other way over. For me, adultery is not a ground for a divorce, and really fornication should not be used as such either.
1) the exception clause is seen only in the Gospel of Matthew, which is the Gospel to the jewish people. In the other Gospels, there is no exception clause mentioned, and not either in the letters.
2) Jesus commented on the use of the exception clause, in Matthew 19:1-12, where he said that God only gave the exception for their hardness of hearts. I think hardness of heart = pride. God even gave the jewish people this testimony, that they were stiffnecked (Exodus 32:9).


Luke is poorly written and only contains part of the sermon on the mount. Mathew is unique in that it contains the whole sermon. Seems to be a lot of speculation going on here. Im not sure we can say that Mathew was written to Jews and John and Mark wasn't. That sounds unrealistic to me. Luke is another matter, it just seems sloppy.
 
Upvote 0

W2L

Well-Known Member
Jun 26, 2016
20,081
10,988
USA
✟213,573.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Luke is also the only Gospel that has the repentant thief on the cross version. Luke's version seems to contradict Mathew and Marks version. Mathew and Mark both say that both men mocked Jesus, but Luke says that only one of them mocked Jesus. I dont think John even mentions the two who were crucified with the Lord.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

PeterDona

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 13, 2010
742
181
Denmark
✟348,585.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
For me, the Bible is the uncorrupted Word of God. I take the Textus Receptus to be the most accurate reproduction of the original writings. So, I am KJV.

You are off track when you try to belittle a whole Gospel.

Suppose you go to England and drive your car in the right side of the road, well knowing that their rules say that you have to drive in the left side. When a policeman stops you, do you think he will listen to arguments like you have better laws in your country?
 
Upvote 0

W2L

Well-Known Member
Jun 26, 2016
20,081
10,988
USA
✟213,573.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
For me, the Bible is the uncorrupted Word of God. I take the Textus Receptus to be the most accurate reproduction of the original writings. So, I am KJV.

You are off track when you try to belittle a whole Gospel.

Suppose you go to England and drive your car in the right side of the road, well knowing that their rules say that you have to drive in the left side. When a policeman stops you, do you think he will listen to arguments like you have better laws in your country?

YOu argument is that we have different gospels with different rules? I thought there was only one Gospel? Maybe i misunderstanding, but im referring to the analogy of having different laws, which you used.
 
Upvote 0

W2L

Well-Known Member
Jun 26, 2016
20,081
10,988
USA
✟213,573.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Perhaps i may have been wrong to criticize the Gospel of Luke. However i did bring up some good points. I cant imagine why we would say that John and Mark are not written to the Jews. I can see Luke not being written to them because its addressed to some person known as the "most excellent Theophilis."
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

PeterDona

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 13, 2010
742
181
Denmark
✟348,585.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
Maybe i misunderstanding, but im referring to the analogy of having different laws, which you used.
My point is, that you are constructing a different law based on the Gospel of Matthew, and claiming that your law is better than the law that you find in the Gospel of Luke. I oppose that argument, by giving this analogy. Thanks for the conversation.
 
Upvote 0