According to Jesus Christ and the New Testament, is remarriage after divorce continual adultery? Christ is clear that putting away or divorcing one’s spouse and marrying someone else when one’s spouse is still alive is a wicked sin, and the consummation of that second marriage is an act of adultery, making the people who commit that sin adulterers:
2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. 3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? 4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. 5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. 6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 10 And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. 11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. 12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery. (Mark 10:2-12)
A (very) small minority of people in Christendom teach not only that the act of remarriage is an act of adultery, but that one is living in continual adultery with a second spouse, and, therefore, needs to abandon that second spouse and go back to his or her first husband or wife. Some Amish groups that are confused on the gospel adopt this false teaching, as do some Mennonites (who also very largely are confused on the gospel by denying eternal security and confused on the church by denying the necessity of immersion in baptism). There are very few groups that get the gospel and the church correct that adopt this false teaching on leaving one’s spouse to go back to a former husband or wife.
The Lord Jesus Christ does NOT teach that someone should go back to his former husband or wife if he or she commits the sin of remarriage. The remarriage was a sin, one that should be repented of with sorrow. However, some sins, once they are committed, do not allow one to go back to what would have been right formerly. After Israel sinned by faithlessly refusing to enter the Promised Land (Numbers 14), God punished them by swearing that they would have to dwell in the wilderness for forty years. After they decided not to go up, it was too late for them to change their mind and go into the land. Some of them tried, and God was not with them:
39 And Moses told these sayings unto all the children of Israel: and the people mourned greatly. 40 And they rose up early in the morning, and gat them up into the top of the mountain, saying, Lo, we be here, and will go up unto the place which the LORD hath promised: for we have sinned. 41 And Moses said, Wherefore now do ye transgress the commandment of the LORD? but it shall not prosper. 42 Go not up, for the LORD is not among you; that ye be not smitten before your enemies. 43 For the Amalekites and the Canaanites are there before you, and ye shall fall by the sword: because ye are turned away from the LORD, therefore the LORD will not be with you. 44 But they presumed to go up unto the hill top: nevertheless the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and Moses, departed not out of the camp. 45 Then the Amalekites came down, and the Canaanites which dwelt in that hill, and smote them, and discomfited them, even unto Hormah. (Numbers 14:39-45)
The same situation takes place after a remarriage. The sin of divorce should not have been committed (Malachi 2:16), and the sin of remarriage should not have been committed (Mark 10:2-12), but once these grave sins have been committed, there is no going back. It is an abomination to divorce a second time and go back to a former husband and wife, according to the Lord Jesus Christ. How do we know this?
Remarriage-Go Back To the First Spouse?
Jesus Christ Did Not Teach One Should Go Back to a Former Spouse
Because The Old Testament Taught It Is An Abomination To Do So
Deuteronomy 24:1-4 reads:
1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. 2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife. 3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; 4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
As explained elsewhere on this blog by both Dr. Brandenburg and in my article “Divorce, Deuteronomy 24:1-4, Remarriage, and New Testament teaching,” Scripture is clear that going back to a former spouse after a remarriage is an abomination before Jehovah, something that God Himself hates. What is an abomination to Jehovah is not just a sin for Israel, but for all people at all times; as the Gentiles had defiled the land by abominations, so Israel must not defile the land by committing this abomination. Thus, it is clear that someone who has sinned by entering a second marriage should not sin again by leaving his current spouse to go back to a former one.
Remarriage-Go Back To the First Spouse?
Jesus Christ Did Not Teach One Should Go Back to a Former Spouse
Because The Passages In the New Testament Misused to Claim This Do Not Teach It
Luke 16:18 reads:
Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
πᾶς ὁ ἀπολύων τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ καὶ γάμων ἑτέραν μοιχεύει· καὶ πᾶς ὁ ἀπολελυμένην ἀπὸ ἀνδρὸς γαμῶν μοιχεύει.
pas ho apolyōn tēn gynaika autou kai gamōn heteran moicheuei; kai pas ho apolelymenēn apo andros gamōn moicheuei.
The verb “committeth adultery” (μοιχεύει, moicheuei) is in the Greek present tense (cf. also Mark 10:11-12; Matthew 5:31-32). People with a surface-level understanding of Greek have concluded from this fact that one who has remarried is committing continual adultery every time the act of marriage takes place. However, the verbs “putteth away” and “marrieth” are also in the present tense, yet are clearly not continual and ongoing actions. As someone with a deeper knowledge of Greek will recognize, the present tense forms in Luke 16:18 clearly fit the syntactical category of the gnomic or timeless present—continual marriage ceremonies, continual divorces, and continual adultery are not at all in view, any more than the present tense verbs in Galatians 5:3; 6:13 specify continually getting circumcised or the present tense verb in Hebrews 5:1 specifies being ordained to the priesthood over and over again. An examination of pages 523-524 of Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996) illustrates that the syntactical features requisite for identifying a gnomic present appear in this context. Luke 16:18 does not teach that those who have committed the grievous sins of divorce and remarriage should commit another abomination (Deuteronomy 24:4) by leaving their current spouses for the previous ones. Rather, in this passage the “present … [specifies] [a] class … of those who … once do the act the single doing of which is the mark of … the class … [as in] Luke 16:18” (Ernest De Witt Burton, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek, 3rd ed. [Edinburg: T&T Clark, 1898], 56-57). The destruction of one family unit through remarriage, the physical consummation of which is an act of adultery, is bad enough; it must not be compounded with a further abomination. Please see my study Reasons Christians Should and Can Learn Greek and Hebrew for more information on both Deuteronomy 24 and Luke 16:18.
Thus, Scripture is clear that one who has committed the sin of remarriage should not go back to his or her former spouse. God teaches that it is an abomination to do so. The Lord Jesus Christ, who revealed the Old Testament by His Spirit in His prophets, taught that it is an abomination in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Christ did not contradict what He affirmed in the Old Testament in the Gospels. Remarriage while a spouse is alive is the wicked sin of adultery, but those who have committed that sin are now bound to remain with their new spouses until death do them part.
–TDR
Hello Bro. Thomas,
Do you have an opinion on I Cor. 7: 27-28 allowing for NT Gentile believers to remarry without it being considered a sin? I’ve looked at these verses from every angle I can and that seems to be what is being stated.
In the question, I am not arguing against the Lord Jesus, or condoning divorce & remarriage. It does seem that Paul is “binding & loosing” here for the Gentile churches.
Looking forward to your response.
Thomas, i very much agree that the initial consummation of an unjustified remarriage is adultery, but after a person acknowledges the initial mistake, staying in the marriage does not constitute continual adultery.
I want to get your (and Bro. Kent’s, if he’s willing) thoughts on 2 things:
1. How do you view the event at Nehemiah’s time, when he forced/convinced some of the Jews to divorce and send away their wives and children. The Scriptural passage records it, and sometimes things are recorded that may not be exactly perfectly God’s will. I’m just wondering how you evaluate this. i myself have some conflicted thoughts about it. Perhaps they should have given chance for the wives to renounce their pagan ways first. Or maybe they did do that. Certainly not everything is recorded. But then again not everything recorded is commended.
2. I noticed that you did not quote from the Matthew passage, but the Markan one. The Matthew passage contains the “adultery exception” clause for divorce and remarriage. Do you agree with divorce and remarriage when one of the spouse is involved in unrepentant adultery?
Thank you
Thomas, thanks for posting on this, a broad topic that needs to be tackled and cleared up in our times.
I would like to add a bit of historical context. The phrase “living in adultery” was a common one among Baptists in my youth, used to describe those who had remarried after a divorce (at least a marriage that did not meet the exception clause). It was not unusual for those in our circles to speak like this, though most Baptists in the mid-20th century U.S. apparently no longer held a strict view that divorce and remarriage constituted “living in adultery.” Where they differed from the Amish or Mennonite position you mention, is that they did not teach leaving the second spouse to go back to his or her first husband or wife. If they were church members, the church simply excluded them and (I believe usually) the only way they could be received back into the church membership was by repentance shown through separating and living apart (i.e., not continuing the adultery). There are actually a few Baptists about that I know who still hold to this practice, but their numbers have mostly been decimated by the fact that they can barely survive a society with a divorce culture.
Overall, Baptists take too light a position on the subjects of divorce and remarriage. However, in this situation, I agree with you – once the sin of divorce and remarriage has been committed, there is no going back. It is too tangled a web to unweave, especially when children are involved, and going back to the first spouse is biblically forbidden. (To be clear, I do not think the church should say or do nothing. I am simply speaking to what can or cannot be undone.)
Dear Bro Camp:
1Cor. 7:27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.
1Cor. 7:28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.
One could be loosed from a wife by her passing away, or by never having a wife in the first place (and thus being and remaining single. I think concluding that this means that if you are divorced with a living spouse you can remarry is drawing a conclusion that the passage is not even addressing and is contradicted by other plain texts like Romans 7. If we wanted to conclude that there were no exceptions at all to “but and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned” we could say that everything from incestuous marriages to polygamy to whatever else is justified. I believe Paul is simply assuming that one is either unmarried or has a spouse who has died, and thus is lawfully loosed, and in such a situation one can remarry.
Dear Tenrin,
I think that the exception clause in Matthew refers to situations where a marriage is unlawful inherently in OT law (such as an abomination like marrying one’s son or daughter in law) or possibly splitting up in the betrothal period (like with Joseph). Note that Matthew does not say “adultery” but “fornication.”
If I were preaching through Ezra-Nehemiah I would at this time take the position that they were not “real” wives. The language used in Hebrew suggests, I believe, that these were consorts or concubines or something other than lawfully wedded wives. I remember reading these books in Hebrew and thinking that these don’t sound like real wives. You can find theological journals and articles taking this position as well.
Even if one does not take this view, in the OT if these were idolators they could actually be executed in the theocracy in Israel. Their Gentile overlords may not have appreciated the Jews putting their idolatrous wives to death, so divorcing them may have been as close to what Moses required as could be done at this time.
Good questions!
From David J. MacLeod, “The Problem of Divorce, Part 2.” The Emmaus Journal 2, no. 1 (1993): 34-35:
A Dispensational Incident of Divorce: Ezra 9–10
When the Israelites were about to enter Canaan (c. 1440 B.C.), they were warned (Deut. 7:3; cf. Exod. 34:16) not to intermarry with the pagan peoples of that land. Centuries later, following the Babylonian captivity, Ezra led a group of exiles back to Jerusalem (c. 458 B.C.). He was told that the people of Israel had intermingled with the peoples of the land in taking daughters of the land for their sons and for themselves (Ezra 9:2). In shame and embarrassment Ezra offered a prayer of confession over Israel’s rejection of the law of Deuteronomy 7:3 (Ezra 9:5–15). Shecaniah then proposed that a covenant with God be made to put away the foreign women and their children (Ezra 10:3). The proposal was accepted and carried out (Ezra 10:5–44).
Three observations need to be made with regard to the application of this passage to the subject of divorce. First, there is evidence that the unions of Ezra 9–10 are not to be viewed as marriages.64 It may very well be, as Rawlinson proposed, that Ezra understood the law to absolutely prohibit mixed marriages. In short, he viewed them as unreal marriages, as illicit relationships.65 There are three reasons why this suggestion may be valid: (1) Such unions were contrary to the law. (2) Ezra, a scribe skilled in the law of Moses, used out-of-the-ordinary terms to describe the marrying (“taking”) and divorcing (“sending away”) of these women.66 (3) It is hard to understand how the Israelites could make a covenant with God to divorce the pagan women if marriage is a covenant made between a man and a woman in the presence [EmJ 2:1 (Sum 93) p. 35] of God.
The second observation is that, even if the unions of Ezra 9–10 were actual marriages, the passage has no bearing on the question of divorce in our time.67 This is a clear instance of where dispensational distinctives are important in interpreting a text.68 Ezra was concerned with the preservation of the Jewish people as a separate and distinct nation, for it was from Israel that the Messiah would come (Gen. 49:10; Num. 24:17; Mic. 5:2). The Apostle Paul makes it clear (Gal. 3:28), however, that the racial purity of God’s people has no bearing on His salvific purposes during the present age.69 Furthermore, any suggestion using Ezra 9–10 that Christians today should divorce their unbelieving spouses contradicts the clear teaching of Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:12–13.
The third observation has to do with the alleged cruelty of Shecaniah’s proposal.70 Undoubtedly the separation caused great unhappiness, especially to families with children. Yet this unhappiness must be viewed in light of the fact that the Israelites were living in sin with these women. Sin always leads to unhappiness. Even the children were sent away. The religious influence of their mothers undermines the notion of their “innocence.” The story highlights both the real consequences of sin and the importance of the holiness of God’s people. Shecaniah’s proposal must be seen in light of the ultimate blessing to the whole world that would come through the Messianic nation.71
64 I am here following Heth and Wenham, Jesus and Divorce, 163–64.
65 George Rawlinson, Ezra and Nehemiah: Their Lives and Times (New York: Anson D. F. Randolph & Co., 1890), 42. F. Charles Fensham writes, “Foreign women were married contrary to the law of God. The marriages were illegal from the outset” (The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, NICOT [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982], 135).
66 Although Ezra knows and uses the normal verb for “to marry” (לָקַח, lāqaḥ, cf. Ezra 2:61), he uses other terms when he says that they “took” (נשָׂא, nāśāʾ in 9:2, 12; 10:44) some of the daughters of the land, or “gave a dwelling to” (יָשַׁב, yāšaḇ in 10:2, 10, 14, 17–18) foreign women. Ezra uses the hiphil (causative) form of יָצָא (yāṣāʾ) of “putting away” wives and children in 10:3, 19. Elsewhere in the Old Testament the qal form of יָצָא (Deut. 24:2) is used or else גָּרַשׁ (gāraš, Lev. 21:7, 14; 22:13; Num. 30:9; Ezek. 44:22) or שָׁלַח (šālaḥ, Deut. 22:19, 29; 24:1, 3, 4). Cf. Heth and Wenham, Jesus and Divorce, 243, n. 28, 29.
67 Here I follow Laney, The Divorce Myth, 40–43.
68 The situation in Ezra 9–10 is sometimes set forth as a classic example of when the lesser of two evils had to be chosen. Cf. Derek Kidner, Ezra and Nehemiah, TOTC (Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 1979), 71.
69 Old Testament prohibitions against mixed marriages were not, of course, strictly speaking racial, as the examples of the mixed multitude in the Exodus generation (Ex. 12:38, 48; Num. 9:14) and Ruth the Moabitess (Ruth 1:16) illustrate. The crucial objection was to marriages with those who did not worship Yahweh. Cf. Joyce Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, TOTC (Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 1972), 238.
70 Some critical scholars view Ezra as a rigorous anti-assimilationist who may be deplored for the ethical insensitivity of a single minded approach that disregarded the toll exacted on the people. Cf. Joseph Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, OTL (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1988), 200–201.
71 A. E. Cundall, “Ezra,” in The New Bible Commentary: Revised, eds. D. Guthrie and J. A. Motyer (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 404.
Dear Bro Vaughn,
Thanks for sharing that. I would be in favor of church discipline for a church member who left his wife for someone else. I don’t believe that such a person could never be restored to membership the rest of his life, however, if he was repentant, although 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 would exclude him from the ministry. Certainly divorce and remarriage are taken way too lightly today.
Brother Ross, you’re welcome. That is the way the Baptists I knew/know take that (I still know a few, but most have changed their position). They simply would not allow the divorced and remarried ex-member to be restored to church membership as long as they were “living in adultery.”
There are some sins for which you can and should make restitution. For this one, however, I do not see any way it can be “undone” without sinning further.
Dear Bro. Ross,
Thank you for the insight and citation about the passages in Ezra and Nehemiah. It’s very helpful.
About the exception clause in Matthew 19:9, the Bible does use “fornication,” or porneia, which is a broad term for various sexual immorality. Adultery (moicheia) would be one type of porneia, but included in porneia would be various transgressions that might not be traditionally viewed as “adultery” such as homosexuality, bestiality, etc.
The world, both secular and “christian” is often very lax about divorce, and I understand the urge for bible believing Christians to go against this laxness. But sometimes I wonder if in our zeal to go against divorce and remarriage, we end up stricter that God Himself.
I have long contemplated this issue, especially in pastoral settings. Imagine this case (which is not at all rare):
Let’s say a man left his wife and committed adultery with someone else. He is unrepentant, divorced his wife, and then married another woman. So, we already agree, that even if in the future this man were to repent, he should not seek a second divorce and reunite with his first wife.
Where does this leave the first woman? There is no path of reconciliation with her “husband” who is now married to another woman.
I believe that in such cases, the exception clause is fitting, and she would not be sinning if she remarries.
I think this is a logical (and biblical) consequence of the stance expounded in this post. Thoughts?
Tenrin,
If adultery is just a subcategory of fornication in Matthew, why the following in Matthew 15:19, “For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies.” Matthew distinguishes in his gospel between adulteries and fornications. Why the inclusion of adulteries if adulteries is just a subcategory of fornications? The exception clause in Matthew, not found in Mark or Luke, are uniquely Jewish and especially referring to Joseph and Mary in Matthew 1:18-25. Joseph was willing to put away Mary during betrothal because of fornication, he thought she committed.
Every time, every single time, Jesus uses, “Have ye not read,” He doesn’t take a side of the Pharisees. This would be a first, the only time, if He did. He goes back to original scriptural teaching in Genesis, marriage as permanent. The two schools, Hillel and Shammai, took two different positions allowing for divorce after marriage (not during betrothal). They tried to get Jesus to take one of those two positions to divide the crowd, like they would always do. He did not take that bait.
Dear Kent,
Thank you for your response.
I thought it’s pretty clear that porneia is the wider category, and moicheia the narrower one.
1) the definition of the word itself. Looking briefly at Thayer, defines porneia as “illicit sexual intercourse in general” (which would include adultery), Mounce has “fornication, whoredom, concubinage, adultery, incest, lewdness, uncleanness…” Strong has “harlotry (including adultery and incest)”. I can go on with other lexicons.
2) the cognate porne or pornos, often translated “harlot” in the Bible, would also commit adultery in their harlotry.
As for the list in Mat. 15:19 and others, the items in such lists could very well overlap. For instance in Rom. 1:29, “Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers.” I think it’s fair to say that “all unrighteousness” encompasses the other items.
I’ve often heard the explanation that the exception clause in Matthew is only for Jewish settings. But this is not apparent at all from the context. The passage has a style of universality to it.
The information about Hillel and Shammai is very interesting of course, but is extrabiblical information. I’ve also often heard about it. But such things are not the standard. History could be wrong about Hillel and Shammai. But Scripture cannot be wrong about what Jesus said. And many things that the Pharisees teach are correct. That’s why Jesus said “All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not” (Mat. 23:3). The Lord Jesus sided with the Pharisees against the Sadducees in the question about the resurrection. The point is of course that on that issue the Pharisees happen to align with God instead of the other way around.
I’m very close to your position actually. It’s just that I cannot get away with the Matthean passages (chapter 5 and 19), where the Lord does give an exception.
Hello Tenrin,
I won’t keep going and going and going with you. 😀 I have made maybe three or four all out discussions on this subject. I sighed when I saw Thomas writing on it, but I understand covering this particular aspect of it, because of this position Reuben and others represent.
The “Have you not heard” is a strong argument, I believe. The religious leaders were arguing for divorce and Jesus was arguing against it. He wasn’t taking one of the two positions, divorce for almost anything and divorce for adultery. The Matthew 15:19 argument is good in its context of Matthew. I believe these relate. I don’t see the same distinction in the comparison passages you gave. Friberg is interesting on this in his lexicon, and I believe what he writes:
That’s what we have in Matthew, a distinction from adultery, not only in Matthew 5 and 19, but also in Matthew 15:19.
Dear Tenrin,
Please note:
Rom. 7:1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
Rom. 7:2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
Rom. 7:3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
The remarried spouse is not dead, so the one who did not commit the sin of divorce and remarriage still cannot marry someone else. It would be very sad for that person, but he or she would receive superabundant consolation in the coming kingdom by being faithful. Many people–not just those in that sad situation–never marry at all. The person in that situation could give him or herself to the work of Christ and find satisfaction in Him. Yes, that is easier to say than to live through, but God’s grace is sufficient.
Dear Thomas,
Thank you for the response.
I understand where you are coming from, and respect it.
However, some aspects of it just does not make sense to me.
This position means that the innocent party is still bound by the marriage, but the “guilty” party is not bound.
For the “guilty” party, the first marriage is dissolved. But for the innocent party, the marriage stands.
But to whom would the innocent be still married to, if the guilty party is already free of the first marriage?
If one is to ask the innocent party: are you married? What is he/she supposed to say? Yes? But to whom? To that person who already remarried? But surely they can no longer act as a married couple (the innocent party and the guilty remarried party).
A bit jokingly,
This position tempts the innocent party to pray that the former spouse will die soon. 🙂
Also, Bro Vaughn, to clarify, the remarried couple should repent, for they have committed a serious sin. They should not separate, or stop showing love to each other, or anything like that. They also can’t dwell on their sin that they committed the rest of their lives but need to forget the things which are behind and press toward the mark. I don’t think every time David saw Bathsheba they talked about nothing but the terrible sin that began their relationship.
Thomas,
Not sure if this went through. My apology if this is a double.
Deu 24:1-4 is not in operation anymore (as for the red herring of all abominations still stand, other abominations have been nullified by the Lord, like the abomination of eating unclean animals [Lev 11:10-13, 10, 23, 41-42; cf. Ac 10:12-15]). God makes one flesh between a man and women, unbreakable except for death. The Lord Jesus makes this extremely clear in Matt 19 and Mk 10, and do does Paul (Rom 7:1-3; 1 Cor 7:10-11, 39). De 24:1-4 is long done. It doesn’t apply.
It no mystery why you don’t go into Rom 7:1-3 and 1 Cor 7:20-21, 39 — they contradict your position. But so does Mk 10:2-12, saying the very opposite of what you are propagating for false doctrine. Jesus addressed De 24 in Matt 19 and Mk 10.
The Pharisees asked Him about De 24 in Mk 10:2-4 (for instance), and Jesus says it was suffered by Moses to allow this for a nation of unsaved people (v 5, “hardness of heart”) but it wasn’t God’s will (vv 5-6) which will was already recorded in Gen 2:24 (vv 6-9), which is one flesh covenant for life unbreakable except for death.
NO remarriage is allowed, all of which is adultery, chronic adultery until the act is dissolved, which Matt 19; Mk 10; Rom 7; 1 Cor 7 make very, very clear. I mean extremely clear. A lot of damage has to be done to skirt this truth. Only death breaks the law of marriage (Rom 7:1-3).
Marriage breakage leaves one of two choices: (1) remain separated, unmarried, or (2) reconcile.
Give heed to plain and perspicuous truth without presupposed twisting of Scripture, especially considering the seriousness of the subject on hand:
“Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.” (Romans 7:1-3)
The law of marriage binds a man and women for life. Obviously its referring to the first marriage. I want to say “duh,” but I’ll try to be respectful. The law binds them as long as they are alive. Do you get that. Lifelong. Only death nullifies that law. Anyone that remarries while their original spouse is yet alive, is an adulterer. Period. It applies to EVERY SINGLE PERSON in the world. “Marriage is honourable in ALL” (Heb 13:4).
You are advocating for adultery when you say the remarried spouse should remain in their adulterous relationship. You are propagating the very opposite of what Paul is saying here.
More detail out of 1 Cor 7:20-21, 39, that opposes your teaching on this:
“And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. . . . The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.”
This is a command of the Lord. Marriage is for life in all situations. The law (Gen 2:24), again, binds the relationship and only death dissolves it. One flesh is non-sunderable. Two options for ALL separations: (1) remain separated, unmarried, or (2) reconcile.
I know not of one divorce and remarriage that has been blessed of the Lord. Almost every single one ends up in divorce again and that is very simply because the remarriage is ongoing adultery and cursed of God. ZERO blessing there. They are almost entirely homes of conflict, turmoil and disaster. On the other hand, I know of a number that returned to there true spouse after they were converted to Christ and the Word of God making it clear for them to do so (Rom 7:1-3; 1 Cor 7:20-21, 39), the spouse of their marriage of one flesh the LORD God had made just like Scripture plainly proclaims, and they have been abundantly blessed of the Lord, which of course harmonizes with all of Scripture.
What you are teaching is destructive and falsely dividing the word of truth. There is only one marriage where God makes one flesh covenant and that is the first marriage. Scripture is very, crystal clear on that. Very. Any other teaching brings great confusion to this subject. Your use of De 24:1-4 to advance a corrupted view of marriage is an abomination and it completely contradicts Gen 2:24: Mk 10:2-12, Rom 7:1-3; 1 Cor 7:20-21, 39. It needs to be very strongly opposed, for its the very opposite of what these passages are teaching, and gainsays God’s law of marriage.
Reuben
Hi Reuben,
I will not engage with all your points. Bro. Ross or Bro. Brandenburg will probably do so.
I think we all agree that whenever a divorce happens, something is broken, and God’s design is not followed. Where we differ is in how Christians should move forward with all the broken pieces.
I just want to counter your statement of not knowing “of one divorce and remarriage that has been blessed of the Lord.”
First of all, arguments from experience if not very strong at all. Our experience is very limited, and also very biased. That’s why we must always interpret experience using Scripture, and not the other way around.
Second, it’s quite hard to define “blessed by the Lord,” especially since we most likely do not know the full circumstance and history (future blessing?) of every couple.
Third, humanly speaking I do know of at least one couple, who are doing well. A man I know very well, was devastated when his wife left him and ran away with another person. The man pleaded for his wife to return, and was willing to forgive her. To no avail. She abandoned him, committing unrepentant adultery. After a divorce, the man married again. His second marriage is going strong. He has 3 children, one from the first marriage, 2 from the second. His first son understood what happened and stayed with his father.
Now, I am not saying that this case is a standard. The Bible is the only standard. But since you said that you do not know of any one such case, I thought I’ll just share it.
Reuben,
First of all I am just an anonymous housewife commenting here.
My pastor teaches the same position on divorce and remarriage that Bro. Brandenburg and Bro. Ross does……….
So,….if a husband and wife get divorced (which I agree is against God’s will) and one or both remarries and the new family has children,…..they must tell the children…… Johnny and Katie…Mommy and Daddy are going to have to divorce and break up this home because I or we must go back to our first wife/husband. God wants us to break apart this home ( but we still love you and you know what,……my first wife has some children from another husband and you are going to have some new siblings to play with..) Sorry for the sarcasm……Rueben you say……”I know not of one divorce and remarriage that has been blessed of the Lord. Almost every single one ends up in divorce again and that is very simply because the remarriage is ongoing adultery and cursed of God. ZERO blessing there. They are almost entirely homes of conflict, turmoil and disaster. On the other hand, I know of a number that returned to there true spouse after they were converted to Christ and the Word of God making it clear for them to do so (Rom 7:1-3; 1 Cor 7:20-21, 39), the spouse of their marriage of one flesh the LORD God had made just like Scripture plainly proclaims, and they have been abundantly blessed of the Lord, which of course harmonizes with all of Scripture.”..………So,.. the scenario I gave, (along with my sarcasm) you say would be an abundantly blessed home and not the contrary that you state as conflict, turmoil and disaster? ….You can’t change the past actions and yes there will be problems but you must confess sin and go on and serve the Lord.
Hello anonymous housewife,
Firstly, it wouldn’t make any difference if every pastor in the entire world taught the same as Bro’s Brandenburg and Ross; its still wrong. De 24:1-4 is invalidated because it contradicts God’s covenant of marriage and it wasn’t His precept but Moses’. This is extremely clear in Scripture. The NT makes this abundantly and perspicuously plain, as I quote further below in response to Thomas. God the Son verifies that Moses precept (De 24:1-4) opposes God’s will and marriage covenant, something no man can break asunder.
Remarriage is always adultery, but confessing the sin of adultery and then continuing in this sin, is not going on and serving the Lord. I would remind you what the Bible says, “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, . . . nor adulterers, . . . shall inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Cor 6:9-10).
Secondly, your example is all experiential and it brings in the children, as if children supersede the truth. De 24 doesn’t say anything about children, even though its practically guaranteed that children are procreated in some of those marriages. What about the children from that first marriage? In De 24 fashion, they can’t be back with their real father or mother.
Children or not, makes no difference. God doesn’t use children as a measuring stick for what is right and true, or give allowance for sin, to wink at. God slew every first born child of the Egyptians (Ex. 11:5-6; 12:29-30) while sparing the children of the Israelites (Ex. 11:7). Fast forward to the birth of God the Son, which brought about the wrath of king Herod and resulted in what? Yes every child aged two and under being murdered in Bethlehem and surrounding area. God didn’t stop it, and it came about because of the birth of God the Son (Matt. 2:16-18), and God of course knew this would occur, even being prophesied by Jeremiah. How did God deal with the children that mocked Elisha because of his bald head (2 Ki. 2:23-24)? First of all, Elisha “cursed them in the name of the LORD,” and then God sent two she bears who tore forty two of the children to shreds. It wasn’t pretty.
God does love the children but they aren’t above truth, neither can they be used as instruments of unrighteousness.
The truth of the matter is, when God is obeyed in accordance to His Word, the children will Biblically understand vs the hypocrisy of those who say they are believers but continuing in an adulterous relationship. And God will take care of those who unfortunately do not have a father or mother, like He did with Ishmael, like He promises in Proverbs.
The born again believers responsibility is to obey the Word of God, regardless of the consequences. God is glorified.
Reuben
Hello Reuben! After having a long discussion on this before here:
https://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2017/11/divorce-deuteronomy-241-4-remarriage.html
I am not surprised that you dropped by. I think that the discussion there is sufficient to answer most of what you said. I will only add:
1.) Of course she is called an adulteress in Romans 7. That is perfectly consistent with the Scriptural position I have set forth. If you commit adultery one time, you are an adulterer/adulteress.
2.) As pointed out in our previous discussion (although there you said you did not read my responses carefully, which is unfortunate), everything in the OT that is an abomination to Jehovah is not something that was merely ceremonial law. An abomination to the Egyptians or to Israel? That is different. Deut 24:4 is an abomination to Jehovah, and one that defiles the land where it takes place; defiled lands spew out their inhabitants, Jew or Gentile. So someone who violates Deut 24:4 does not please God by doing so, although his sin is less if he has been misled by someone telling him to sin and twisting Scripture for that end. The person who violates Deut 24:4 defiles the land and commits an abomination to Jehovah, an abomination comparable to sodomy or idolatry.
3.) I would like to find out if you will concede that the argument for your position from the present tense of the verb in Luke 16:18 is invalid. In my opinion, the present tense of “commits adultery” argument from the Gospel passages is the best case for your position, but, as this exegesis in this post demonstrates, it is totally invalid. Whether you think your position still holds up or not, can you concede that the present tense argument should not be made by those who take your view?
4.) Arguing on what families seem to be blessed by God is obviously a very experiential way of doing things. Furthermore, it would not surprise me at all that when people commit adultery by entering a second marriage there would be very serious problems that arise. Nobody should enter a second marriage. If you are reading this and wondering if you should, don’t do it. You commit adultery when you do it. God hates it.
If I do not respond again, it is because I think the long discussion with you previously is sufficient, and that discussion should also help anyone who reads this who might be struggling with the issue we discussed there.
Thomas,
1. An adulteress stops being an adulteress when the adultery has been repented of, i.e. stopped. “He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy.” (Pr 28:13). Adultery isn’t some special sin that gets a free pass or get out of jail free card.
How does Biblical repentance apply to your position? When someone truly repents, is it mere lip service and continuation of their sin? Of course not. When a murderer truly repents, does he continue in his murdering behaviour? When a thief truly repents, does he actually stop stealing? When an adulteress or adulterer truly repents, do they stop the adultery, which is the act of remarriage (“Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.” Mk 10:11-12).
Sin is sin, and no, adultery doesn’t get special treatment. Repenting of sin means actually turning from and stopping the sin. Period. That is true repentance.
Why does adultery get a special pass with the ‘certain divorce and remarriage’ crowd? If remarriage is adultery (and it surely is), and adultery is sin (and it surely is), then stopping the sin of adultery would naturally stop the act of sinning. Or this is a new teaching where you can “repent” and even really, really mean it, but get a free pass and continue being an adulterer? Its the act of remarriage that makes it adultery, so as long as the remarriage exists, it continues to be adultery. This is self evident. I hope I’m insulting your intelligence, because this is so simple, it should be insulting.
Approval of or tolerating any form of divorce and remarriage becomes a chess game of mental gymnastics for those who play mind games and twist scripture to justify certain adulterous relationships. None are allowed by God. All attempt to break the one-flesh covenant that God has made, while no covenant can ever be broken except by God. And He says how is that covenant nullified? There is only one means, and it isn’t remarriage and then false repentance.
2. You are also ignoring what the rest of Rom 7 is teaching, as you are with 1 Cor 7:20-21, 39 and Christ’s teaching in Matt 19 and Mk 10. The law of God states that marriage is set in stone until death voids it, Rom 7:1-3; 1 Cor 7:20-21, 39; Matt 19; Mk 10. The covenant that God makes isn’t cancelled because you cry some tears of repentance. It stands and continues to stand as long as both spouses live. There is only one legit husband or one wife, no matter how many times you remarry, but you would be committing adultery. Hence the discourse between Jesus and the Samaritan women at the well (Jn 4). She had five husbands but Jesus says “Go, call thy husband” (singular), and “whom thou now hast is not thy husband:” Pretty obvious who is her husband, since God the Son is the One who made them two into one flesh (Gen 2:24).
But when we look at De 24:1-4, there is no marriage set in stone. Not even close. The very opposite is in fact being condoned. De 24:1-4 actually contradicts Rom 7:1-3 and the rest of the NT passages, allowing for divorce and remarriage, i.e. adultery. It is extremely plainful in that text, as noted for instance in vv. 1-2, “then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife.”
That is divorce and remarriage. It is allowed. Accepted. Approved of. It appears almost encouraged.
It obviously wasn’t of God. It was the precept of Moses (Matt 19; Mk 10). It contradicted God’s will, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” (Gen 2:24).
You are ignoring and denying what De 24 is actually approving and then what the rest of Scripture says, and how Christ invalidates De 24.
In Mk 10:6-12 the Lord Jesus contradicts De 24:1-4, and opposes it: “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.”
I hope you can see the contradiction. Paul the Apostle did the same:
Rom 7:2-3, “For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.”
1 Cor 7:20-21, 39, “And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. . . . The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.”
Mal 2:14-16 is a great passage that shows NO divorce and remarriage is allowed, because of the one-flesh covenant God makes, and the desire for godly seed: “And this have ye done again, covering the altar of the LORD with tears, with weeping, and with crying out, insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, or receiveth it with good will at your hand. Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between THEE AND THE WIFE OF THY YOUTH, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: YET IS SHE THY COMPANION, AND THE WIFE OF THY COVENANT. AND DID NOT HE MAKE ONE? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. AND WHEREFORE ONE? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth. For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that HE HATETH PUTTING AWAY: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.”
None of these passages allow for divorce or remarriage. Its adultery and continues to be so until the sinful behaviour is stopped. De 24:1-4 however APPROVES of divorce and remarriage, as quoted above. Plain. And. Simple. But that is only one reason why this passage out of Deuteronomy is not of the Lord but the precept of Moses. It also allows for remarriage, which even further vehemently opposes God’s law of marriage. Right, God put the caveat of De 24:4 in there, but that was because of the “hardness of their hearts.” It was salt for their wounds. It doesn’t undermine the fact its still the precept of Moses, as Christ made abundantly clear in Matt 19 and Mk 10. It wasn’t His precept. His precept can be found in Gen 2:24 and Mal 2:14:1-4. De 24:4 hinges upon De 24:1-3, and since vv. 1-3 is not in order anymore (i.e., Matt 19; Mk 10), neither is v. 4.
I know you know these passages but they need to be quoted here to show the two completely opposing views. Absolutely everything you read in these passages above contradicts what De 24:1-4 is proclaiming, and its not muddled either. Its crystal clear. Claiming to believe these passages out of the NT, or Gen 2:24 out of the OT, while embracing De 24:1-4, is the hallmark of a double-minded man, one that is falsely dividing the Scriptures so that he can live after his own lusts (2 Pet 3:3).
Only one position is right and can be right:
(a) Moses: De 24:1-4, or
(b) The LORD: Gen 2:24; Mal 2:13-16; Matt 5:31-32; 19:3-9; Mk 10:2-12; Lk 16:18; Rom 7:1-3; 1 Cor 7:20-21, 39.
You can’t have it both ways, because both ways are in complete opposition. Choose you this day which side you are (you can’t play both), but as for me and my house, we will stick to the Lord’s side.
Another symptom of this double-mindedness and holding contradictory positions is to claim to be against divorce and remarriage. But that position becomes a farce when you embrace De 24:1-4, which opposes the doctrine of no divorce and remarriage. The two positions are inconsistent, which means you are not being honest. You can’t have it both ways. Either you allow for all divorce and remarriage or you allow for none. There is no in-between road here, no grey area.
When you read the whole of Scripture, its not difficult to understand which position is true. But you deny and ignore the obvious for the complicated and invalidated—for whatever reason—but 2 Pet 3:3 tells us people do this so they can live after their own lusts (2 Pet 3:3).
I am not trying to be rude. I think you are very intelligent, but your position is not buttressing your intelligence.
3. Another contradictory position that is required when taking the position that you do, is not allowing a man that has been divorced and remarried to be pastor. I am also against that, but your position isn’t consistent with this Biblical command. Why not allow the man to pastor, if his divorce and remarriage has been approved of by God (as is clearly the case when you read De 24:1-3) and his previous marriages don’t exist or apply anymore, since its been forgiven by God, as you declare? That man is not the husband of more than one wife. He has only one wife, because allegedly God has forgiven the sin of adultery they are presently living in, according to your stand, and then blessed it, and no longer sees the man as committing adultery against his previous wife whom God had made a one-flesh covenant with.
If De 24 is true and it continues to stand today, then it wouldn’t matter whether the man had been “married” before. But if you take the position that it matters, well, your not getting that doctrine from De 24 but from somewhere else. And if you are getting it from somewhere else, then you hold to two contradictory positions, because De 24:1-4 is one position, and everything else in Scripture on marriage, divorce and remarriage is another position. Thats crystal clear.
4. The experiential example wasn’t given to verify doctrine. That’s a logical fallacy people love to jump all over, which I suspected would occur. I gave it simply as an example of what the Bible already teaches and can be seen everywhere around us if we have eyes to see. Passages such as, Pr 18:22, “Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the Lord.”
Notice “a wife” is singular here in Pr 18 like everywhere else, not plural. It’s referring to one wife for life, a foundational truth to scripture that doesn’t even require explanation. God doesn’t bless multiply wives or multiple husbands, which is exactly what is occurring when someone divorces and remarries. His blessing, and it’s great, is when people submit to His rule of marriage.
You ignore, deny, reject and even scoff at what Jesus Christ is so clearly proclaiming in Matt 5, 19, Mk 10 and Lk 18, so that you can continue to propagate the damnable heresy of adultery.
This is one of the simplest subjects in the Bible, but gainsayers make it difficult and confusing. This “new” teaching is unsound doctrine and its invented out of the sands of Egypt.
The biggest issue here is using De 24:1-4 to advance or justify previous divorce and remarriage, which is always adultery and continues to be adultery until the remarriage doesn’t exist anymore. Unlike other sins, the adulterer or adulteress gets to keep going in their sin, as long as they expressed some form of remorse for the sin, even though the remorse didn’t actually produce any change of action or life. So not only does marriage become a casualty of the egregious and wrested use of De 24, as does true repentance and conversion.
It’s a tragedy all around, a greatly destructive and soul-damning one, since it keeps divorce and remarriage wickedness rolling, instead of putting a stop to it, as the Bible so clearly demands, and then greatly hinders the “godly seed” that God seeks after (Mal 2:15), instead of creating wicked, God-hating, bitter and wrathful children.
Reuben
The questions I asked Reuben, patiently going through his argument in the link above, were never answered. In fact, he did not even bother to read them, but said:
“I very briefly skimmed over your response. … I have no intentions on responding to your kindergarten style questions.”
I would encourage blog readers to see if he ever answers the questions I asked him before on this topic and to see if he answers things like #3 in my last comment, which was the NT argument in the post itself, or if he ignores both what I asked him before, the NT content in this post, and my direct question #3 to him.
If anyone is still reading this post, can you clarify the difference in position between Reuben and KJB1611 & Kent?
It seems that the disagreement would be that when a sinner comes to Christ in a marriage (other than the original one–as defined biblically), that Reuben would say the person (or the couple) must divorce (to stop the adultery), whereas Kent/Thomas would argue that based on Luke’s usage of adultery, subsequent acts of intercourse are not adultery, and therefore the “marriage” (if it is one) is legitimized?
And I suppose the same could be said for the believer that ignorantly sinned (by entering into a new union, post divorce).
But all parties would agree that the church should not allow a person to marry while his/her spouse (assuming the first marriage was valid) is living, regardless of “fault” in the first divorce?
And Thomas, you are saying that a couple that I know–who I think (this is years ago memory) divorced, one of them married for a time (the husband), and then divorced, and then the original couple reconciled and were (when I worked with them) living happily together again–should divorce?
If so, this seems to pose the problem that under the same OT law, a man could have multiple wives. So it seems that in essence he had “two wives” while married to the second wife. Of course polygamy in the OT was not a sin (whereas I think polyandry was a sin, which brings up the whole issue of how men and women are treated very differently with regard to marriage in the OT and how that may or may not carry over into the New), so it seems if we are going to apply Deut 24, in this case, would you advocate that the church allow the man (a former polygamist, now living with his true first wife) to continue to be married to his wife? I understand that if the wife was the one that got remarried, you would say she could NOT return to her husband (which I’m undecided on, as I’m not fully convinced that God couldn’t change his mind about that “abomination” when he did so for some other “abominations”).
I’ll come back and give the position if Thomas doesn’t. It was his post. I think he’ll answer.
Dear Brent,
Yes, churches should not allow divorce or remarriage. Entering into a new marriage is an act of adultery. Once that grievous sin is committed, however, there is no going back.
Nobody should divorce the spouse he or she is married to, regardless of the past. The man who divorced his wife and married a new person committed adultery when he did so. He then sinned when he divorced, and he committed an abomination by going back to his former spouse. That is all bad, very bad. However, he should now stay married to the person he is married to. If he claimed to be a Christian while all that sin was going on he should definitely have been delivered to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, but if he repents he should be accepted back into Christ’s church with love, forgetting the things which are behind and pressing forward to the upward call in Christ Jesus. If he was very poorly instructed and thought everything he was doing was fine, much responsibility lies upon whoever was pastoring him.
Polygamy was legal in the civil government but it was still sinful in the Old Testament (like, for example, covetousness or drunkenness were legal, but sinful). You can see that it was introduced by a wicked man in Genesis, and then every single example of a polygamous family in the OT was always an unhappy situation. There are exactly zero polygamous families in the OT. They should have learned from God’s original example in Genesis 2. It was, throughout the OT, and in the NT, God’s plan to have one man and one woman for life.
I would encourage you to see if there is even one example of something that is an abomination to or before “the LORD” is merely ceremonial or changes in different dispensations, or if something that defiles the land and makes a land spew out its inhabitants, like going back to a former spouse does in Deuteronomy 24, is merely temporary. An abomination to the Egyptians (Ex 8:26) or “to you” (Israel) is different.
Thank you.
The sentence about “zero polygamous families in the OT” should have said “zero happy, functional, positive examples of polygamous families.” They existed, of course, but they were never commended.
This is helpful. I didn’t realize that polygamy was sin in the OT, and I wish there was something more definitive on that. Great point about “no happy polygamous families.” I always assumed it was okay (in the OT) since Jacob did it. Perhaps this is why Rachel’s life was so hard (she actually committed adultery with Jacob)?
The nuances of abomination will be a good Bible study. Certainly with lying lips being an abomination to the Lord (as well as frowardness, etc), it seems that if someone took back their original wife (or husband) after a divorce, that that could also be repented for (just like lying lips). But “marriage” is a tricky one in that it is ongoing relationship. Is it just the initial taking back that is an abomination (which can be repented for), or is it the relationship, period?
I think you are saying that this “couple” (that I know and referenced above) that did get back together in a “remarriage” (or continuation of the initial marriage) after a divorce can’t “cure” the marriage, even though they are NOT committing adultery (although the first act was adultery again). But other post-divorce marriages can become acceptable because adultery is essentially one and done, but don’t rise to the abomination level.
I also am not so sure about the scenario that anyone that is divorced by or divorces a spouse can go ahead and remarry (knowing it is wrong), commit the adultery (once), and then repent later and get back into the church.
I still struggle to believe that this means something different than what it seems to clearly say (regarding adultery being something that isn’t a terminated status after the first night together). Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
So in a situation like this, the church “shall” call her an adulteress one time? By the time she is called an adulteress, she is no longer an adulteress (if the adultery is a one time thing). It seems more likely we are supposed to label a woman “an adulteress” for as long as her husband is alive (the label only drops when the guy dies). This is a big deal to know for everyone, in part because of communion.
The fact that the scripture uses a label “she shall be called” rather than vilifying an act by saying “she commits adultery” implies (IMHO) that the adultery is hard-stop over after the wedding vows are taken (or the new marriage is consummated).
One of my greatest “hopes” (in the secular sense) for divorced/remarried people (men in particular) was that polygamy was somehow acceptable. Interestingly, the scripture above focuses on how that doesn’t work for women, implying it is different for men.
But if the woman is bound to her husband (the original one) for as long as he is alive, then even if she is remarried and somehow only committed adultery at the outset of that marriage, she is still committing polyandry (based on the Romans 7 scripture, the law binds for the life of the husband).
I still have this “hope” (because I have friends who are in such remarriage states) that polygamy is somehow tolerated by God (I really see no possible way polyandry can be okay). After all, isn’t it possible that some early church believers had more than one wife, since a qualification is “the husband of one wife”?
Not trying to be difficult, but find it amazing that this is so confusing. I suppose the domino effect of sin makes everything more confusing. God grant us grace to stay out of these situations in the first place.
Brent,
You bring up some good points that cannot be consistently answered by the position of Thomas or anyone that continues to hold to De 24, which precept of Moses long ago was nullified. I also like the point on abomination. I would ask, what about the abomination of lying, when the one flesh covenant promised each other “till death do us part”? Or is that sentence non-existent in the wedding vows of De 24? It should be, because those “marriages” are written in sand.
The position that Thomas holds to is incredibly confusing because its perfectly inconsistent with what the Bible is teaching, and irreconcilable with what the NT teaches on marriage, divorce and remarriage. The position that I teach and believe however reconciles all of Scripture, and is perfectly non-confusing and consistent because it is the Biblical position and its also the position that believers embraced over most of the last two millennia.
Reuben
I meant to say “NOT” hardstop over after the wedding vows are taken
Dear Brent,
Thanks for your comment. I intend to reply to it but have not gotten to it yet.
Thanks again.
Dear Brent,
Sorry for taking so long to get back to you! Here are a few thoughts.
I think we underestimate the degree of continuity between Christ’s teaching in the Gospels and the Old Testament. For example, in Deuteronomy 24:4, remarriage “defiles” the person who remarries; this verb is used in Leviticus 18:20 for defilement caused by adultery. With the pattern in Genesis with Adam and Eve of life-long marriage, and a careful meditation on the Pentateuch in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, would not one come to the conclusion that divorce and remarriage were allowed in the civil courts but that remarriage is actually an act of defiling adultery? Is Christ’s teaching on divorce and remarriage in the Gospels really different than the Pentateuch, or is it just clarifying what always was the teaching of God and of Moses? Comparing the 10th Commandment with the ones before them in Exodus 20, as well as other texts in the Pentateuch such as Easu hating Jacob and then determining to kill him, it is clear that it always was murder to hate one’s brother and always was adultery to have a lustful thought–Christ was not teaching anything new in the Sermon on the Mount. Was He teaching anything new in His explanation of divorce and remarriage?
Adultery is always an abomination. Since Deut 24:4 is clear that going back to one’s former spouse is a sin that defiles the land–something for which God spews Gentile nations out, among other sins, Leviticus 18:24 (note the linguistic connections), the command is not at all limited to Israel.
People commit many sins that create many messy situations. Abraham should never have conceived Ishamel with Hagar, but once he was conceived, there was no going back–he had a son and needed to care for him. Nobody should divorce and nobody should remarry, but if someone commits this sin, he has committed adultery. At that point, however, he needs to stay with the person he is currently married to, because a second divorce and remarriage are a second abomination.
Anyone who has the attitude “I’ll just commit adultery once and then I can get back in church after some time out of it” needs to examine himself seriously whether he is in the faith. Adultery is a wicked, wicked sin. It put Christ on the cross.
One-time sins can result in life-long consequences. A child conceived out of wedlock is Biblically a “bastard.” There was one act of sin that conceived him or her, but that child is that the rest of his life. So “she shall be called an adulteress” does not mean that she must be continually engaging in adultery with her second husband. “Adulteress” is a noun. That is what she is called after committing an act of adultery. Bill Clinton is an adulterer although he is not sinning with Monica anymore. Romans 7:3 does NOT say “she will be continually committing acts of adultery.” There is no ongoing action verb for adultery. Bill Clinton is still called an adulterer and he is still an adulterer although (as far as we know) he committed only one act of adultery with Monica.
Some early believers could well have had more than one wife, just as some of them could have been given to wine, been strikers, not been blameless, etc., but that does not mean any of that is OK. The fact that a pastor must be a one-woman man does not mean everyone else was fine having more than one.
While sin creates complicated messes, the teaching of the Bible is very simple, not complicated.
1.) Don’t divorce.
2.) Don’t remarry while your spouse is alive.
3.) If you do remarry with a living spouse, you have committed adultery.
4.) If you commit this grievous sin, don’t divorce, and don’t remarry.
Thanks for caring about Scripture!