Illegitimate Divorce, Remarriage, and One-Time Adultery

[Castor Muscular]

It has been posited on this forum that if you get an Biblically illegitimate divorce and then remarry, you are guilty of adultery, but only once.  After that, your new marriage is legitimate.

As far as I know, only one person here holds to that view, but everyone is welcome to respond.

At what point does God miraculously intervene and transform the adultery into a marriage that he honors and blesses?  Is it immediately after the consummation/first and only adulterous act?  Does it occur somewhere during the adulterous act, like after penetration but before climax?  What if one partner (most likely the woman) fakes it?  Does that affect the transformation from adultery to marriage? 

In addition, if you have an ongoing affair but your spouse does not want a divorce, does that affair only count as one act of adultery? 

Inquiring minds want to know. 

Please provide scriptural support for your views. 

 

[rsc2a]

It has been posited on this forum that if you get an Biblically illegitimate divorce and then remarry, you are guilty of adultery, but only once.  After that, your new marriage is legitimate.

As far as I know, only one person here holds to that view, but everyone is welcome to respond.

I would (mostly) agree with that. Although, I would say there aren't any grounds for a "Biblically legitimate divorce".

[quote author=Castor Muscular]At what point does God miraculously intervene and transform the adultery into a marriage that he honors and blesses?  Is it immediately after the consummation/first and only adulterous act?  Does it occur somewhere during the adulterous act, like after penetration but before climax?  What if one partner (most likely the woman) fakes it?  Does that affect the transformation from adultery to marriage?

In addition, if you have an ongoing affair but your spouse does not want a divorce, does that affair only count as one act of adultery? 

Inquiring minds want to know. 

Please provide scriptural support for your views. [/quote]

I'll address this later when I have a bit more time.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=rsc2a][quote author=Castor Muscular]At what point does God miraculously intervene and transform the adultery into a marriage that he honors and blesses?  Is it immediately after the consummation/first and only adulterous act?  Does it occur somewhere during the adulterous act, like after penetration but before climax?  What if one partner (most likely the woman) fakes it?  Does that affect the transformation from adultery to marriage?

In addition, if you have an ongoing affair but your spouse does not want a divorce, does that affair only count as one act of adultery? 

Inquiring minds want to know. 

Please provide scriptural support for your views. [/quote]

I'll address this later when I have a bit more time. [/quote]

The foundational premise that I use to understand Scriptural teachings on marriage is the concept of covenant.

Marriage is clearly taught to be a covenant between two people in Scripture. (More accurately, between a man, a woman, and God (and to a degree, their families)).

There are very few covenants in Scripture that are unilateral; most are bilateral including many of the "promises" that God makes to His people. (Notable exceptions include the Davidic covenant and the New covenant.) In other words, there is expected behavior from both parties and, in exchange, the each party will behave a certain way towards the other. This is the structure in the majority of covenants in Scripture, including the covenant of marriage.

Three of the key requirements expected from the human members of the marriage covenant towards each other can be found in the Hebrew words for love*. These requirements include friendship, commitment, and intimacy. Both parties are expected to fulfill these requirements for the other party. So long as both parties are fulfilling these requirements (among others), they are fulfilling their covenantal obligations, and, therefore, the second party should reciprocate in kind or be guilty of violating the covenant. (You'll notice that this also allows for polygamous marriage; marriage that is no less "real" than non-polygamous marriage, although I believe there is clear Scriptural support to show that polygamy is a pretty terrible idea.)

In the case of adultery, it might be possible for the guilty party to still be fulfilling their covenantal obligations (although it really would depend on many factors, including the intent behind the adultery. For example, was the guilty party just trying to get their rocks off or were they de-commiting from the offended party?)

Once a person is no longer fulfilling their obligations (a point that can be debated), then the covenant is broken and the second party is no longer bound to the covenant to the other spouse (but still bound to the covenant to God). The second party can still allow the first party to re-affirm the covenant (with some exceptions, see below), but by allowing this, the offended party (and offender) is fully responsible for maintaining the covenant relationship again. (This is also an (admittedly partial) explanation for the forbidding of re-marriage to a divorced spouse after the spouse has married someone else and why Jesus stated that marrying a divorced individual causes that individual to commit adultery.)

With this being said, once the covenant with both the spouse and God is broken, then there are no parties still covenantally bound to one another (from the perspective of marriage), and so either human party is free to enter into another covenant relationship with another eligible party.

Now the question becomes "on what grounds is an individual free to break covenant with either their spouse or God", and I would say on no grounds. "What God has joined together, let no man separate." Therefore, there is no point after marriage where either party would be free to break covenant with another short of one of the parties dying (at which point the covenant is already dissolved...see Hebrews). Yet once the covenant is broken, it is broken, and there is no longer an obligation to abide by its strictures. For this reason, I would state that if you get an Biblically illegitimate divorce and then remarry, you are guilty of adultery, but only once.  After that, your new marriage is legitimate.



* In fact, one of the words for love is also used for sexual intercourse many times. The other times that intercourse is referred to, it is called "adultery". This is also why many (including myself) believe that, according to OT customs, "sex" = "marriage" (with the exception of adultery). This is also seen in extra-Biblical sources we have concerning the social customs of the ANE.

 

[Castor Muscular]

[quote author=rsc2a][quote author=Castor Muscular]At what point does God miraculously intervene and transform the adultery into a marriage that he honors and blesses?  Is it immediately after the consummation/first and only adulterous act?  Does it occur somewhere during the adulterous act, like after penetration but before climax?  What if one partner (most likely the woman) fakes it?  Does that affect the transformation from adultery to marriage?

In addition, if you have an ongoing affair but your spouse does not want a divorce, does that affair only count as one act of adultery? 

Inquiring minds want to know. 

Please provide scriptural support for your views.

I'll address this later when I have a bit more time. [/quote]

The foundational premise that I use to understand Scriptural teachings on marriage is the concept of covenant.

Marriage is clearly taught to be a covenant between two people in Scripture. (More accurately, between a man, a woman, and God (and to a degree, their families)).

There are very few covenants in Scripture that are unilateral; most are bilateral including many of the "promises" that God makes to His people. (Notable exceptions include the Davidic covenant and the New covenant.) In other words, there is expected behavior from both parties and, in exchange, the each party will behave a certain way towards the other. This is the structure in the majority of covenants in Scripture, including the covenant of marriage.

Three of the key requirements expected from the human members of the marriage covenant towards each other can be found in the Hebrew words for love*. These requirements include friendship, commitment, and intimacy. Both parties are expected to fulfill these requirements for the other party. So long as both parties are fulfilling these requirements (among others), they are fulfilling their covenantal obligations, and, therefore, the second party should reciprocate in kind or be guilty of violating the covenant. (You'll notice that this also allows for polygamous marriage; marriage that is no less "real" than non-polygamous marriage, although I believe there is clear Scriptural support to show that polygamy is a pretty terrible idea.)

In the case of adultery, it might be possible for the guilty party to still be fulfilling their covenantal obligations (although it really would depend on many factors, including the intent behind the adultery. For example, was the guilty party just trying to get their rocks off or were they de-commiting from the offended party?)

Once a person is no longer fulfilling their obligations (a point that can be debated), then the covenant is broken and the second party is no longer bound to the covenant to the other spouse (but still bound to the covenant to God). The second party can still allow the first party to re-affirm the covenant (with some exceptions, see below), but by allowing this, the offended party (and offender) is fully responsible for maintaining the covenant relationship again. (This is also an (admittedly partial) explanation for the forbidding of re-marriage to a divorced spouse after the spouse has married someone else and why Jesus stated that marrying a divorced individual causes that individual to commit adultery.)

With this being said, once the covenant with both the spouse and God is broken, then there are no parties still covenantally bound to one another (from the perspective of marriage), and so either human party is free to enter into another covenant relationship with another eligible party.

Now the question becomes "on what grounds is an individual free to break covenant with either their spouse or God", and I would say on no grounds. "What God has joined together, let no man separate." Therefore, there is no point after marriage where either party would be free to break covenant with another short of one of the parties dying (at which point the covenant is already dissolved...see Hebrews). Yet once the covenant is broken, it is broken, and there is no longer an obligation to abide by its strictures. For this reason, I would state that if you get an Biblically illegitimate divorce and then remarry, you are guilty of adultery, but only once.  After that, your new marriage is legitimate.



* In fact, one of the words for love is also used for sexual intercourse many times. The other times that intercourse is referred to, it is called "adultery". This is also why many (including myself) believe that, according to OT customs, "sex" = "marriage" (with the exception of adultery). This is also seen in extra-Biblical sources we have concerning the social customs of the ANE.
[/quote]

Scriptural support, please, dealing specifically with divorce and remarriage.  Analogies don't count. 

In addition, your reasoning, if filtered through the words of Jesus, requires marrying the same person two times.  The first act is not marriage, it is adultery in God's eyes.  According to you, this act "breaks" the covenant.  So at that point, the person has committed adultery but has not yet remarried, because it was not a valid marriage in God's eyes.  This requires the person to marry again, this time "for realsies".  You don't see how nonsensical and convoluted (and non-Scriptural) this is? 

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Castor Muscular]Scriptural support, please, dealing specifically with divorce and remarriage.  Analogies don't count.  [/quote]

Sorry if I don't have a random proof-text that makes my point. I am basing my argument on overarching themes in the Bible and how they interact with one another in a way that is consistent and true to all of Scripture. My Scriptural support would be all of the discussion on covenant, both the explicit and the implicit. It would start in Genesis and move all the way through Revelation. It's based on what the Bible teaches about marriage (including polygamous ones), re-marriage and divorce, both explicitly and implicitly. This would start in Genesis and end up somewhere in 1 Peter (I believe). It would be based on what the Bible teaches about proper sexual relations, both explicitly and implicitly, again starting in Genesis and ending up in Jude. It's based on an understanding of the ancient Jewish beliefs about marriage, gleaned from a variety of sources.

In other words, it's my understanding based on the entirety of the Bible, an understanding that considers all of Scripture (vs random proof texts) and the overall themes taught in Scripture, one that is (I believe) contextually accurate: contextually accurate from a thematic position, a historical position, a linguistic position, and an "all of Scripture" position.

[quote author=Castor Muscular]In addition, your reasoning, if filtered through the words of Jesus, requires marrying the same person two times.  The first act is not marriage, it is adultery in God's eyes.  According to you, this act "breaks" the covenant.  So at that point, the person has committed adultery but has not yet remarried, because it was not a valid marriage in God's eyes.  This requires the person to marry again, this time "for realsies".  You don't see how nonsensical and convoluted (and non-Scriptural) this is? [/quote]

Only if one thinks the only way to break covenant is to have sex with someone else, a position I (and I believe Paul) would wholeheartedly disagree with. (In fact, I have argued that it might be possible to keep covenant and still have sex with someone other than one's spouse.) I would also say that if having sex with someone else is from a position of covenant-breaking, then the covenant was broken before intercourse ever took place.

 

[ALAYMAN]

...... For this reason, I would state that if you get an Biblically illegitimate divorce and then remarry, you are guilty of adultery, but only once.  After that, your new marriage is legitimate.

lol, there's a gargantuan amount of irony in this admission.

 

[Binaca Chugger]

"...and keep myself only unto thee..."

A common marriage vow.  Hence, adultery is breaking the marriage covenant even if the other three parts you mention are still present.

 

[Castor Muscular]

I'm truly looking for scriptural support of any given position.  Here's my position regarding how God sees marriage, divorce and a continual state of adultery, and the scriptural support:

Matthew 5:32 But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.

Matthew 19:9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.

I say to you that whoever divorces his wife

The fact that he gets a divorce is the basis for the rest of the passage.  Jesus does not question whether or not the man got a "divorce" in the eyes of man.  That's a given. 

except for sexual immorality

So what's to follow applies only to those divorced for some reason other than adultery/sexual immorality (depending on the translation). 

Given that the man is now divorced, he...

causes his wife to commit adultery

His wife is still bound to him in God's eyes.  God does not recognize the divorce, so she must remain unmarried and celibate, otherwise she will commit adultery. 

If he...

marries another, commits adultery;

Why is this adultery?  Again, because his civil divorce [not for adultery] was meaningless in the eyes of God.  God does not recognize the divorce, and therefore considers his next marriage a case of adultery.  Note that Jesus is equating marrying the new woman adultery, not a single act of adultery, but the fact that he marries another -- the marriage itself. 

Does his act of adultery release the old wife?  No.  When Paul cites the law of marriage in Romans 7, he assumes the permanence of marriage and therefore the continuity of adultery as long as the husband is alive. 

Rom 7:2 For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. 3 Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive.

Is she an adulteress only because she lived with another man and did not marry him?  No.  As Jesus says...

and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery

So, once again, it is the marriage itself that is equivalent to adultery, and both parties are guilty. 



Two side notes:

1.  When Paul cites the law, consider that if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage.  According to the law, if he committed adultery, he would be dead, because that's the punishment for adultery. 

2.  I'm not arguing for enforcing any of this, but enforcement is the root of the problem. 

Some people want to cherry-pick what to enforce without regard to the context of these passages. 

When Jesus says "except adultery/sexual immorality" it is in the same context as "commits/causes her to commit adultery".  The two are part of a single thought.  He is not establishing a new law to enforce, or new facts to determine about potential church members.  He is simply telling you God's perspective, and it involves both the illegitimate divorce and the illegitimate remarriage.  They are inseparable. 

Since this is not a new law to follow, it is abuse of scripture to expect people to live up to it.  Nobody should be questioning remarried couples about the conditions of their former divorce.  Jesus did not give us this information for that purpose. 

But if you do follow this like a law, then I advise you to follow the whole "new law", not just the first part.  If they didn't get a divorce for the cause of sexual immorality, then they're in a state of adultery.  And if you want to mix in a little of the old law, stone them both to death for committing adultery. 

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Castor Muscular]So what's to follow applies only to those divorced for some reason other than adultery/sexual immorality (depending on the translation). 

Given that the man is now divorced, he...

causes his wife to commit adultery

His wife is still bound to him in God's eyes.  God does not recognize the divorce, so she must remain unmarried and celibate, otherwise she will commit adultery. 

If he...

marries another, commits adultery;

Why is this adultery?  Again, because his civil divorce [not for adultery] was meaningless in the eyes of God.  God does not recognize the divorce, and therefore considers his next marriage a case of adultery...

...Does his act of adultery release the old wife?  No.  When Paul cites the law of marriage in Romans 7, he assumes the permanence of marriage and therefore the continuity of adultery as long as the husband is alive. [/quote]

Yes...everything above this is consistent with what I outlined.

[quote author=Castor Muscular]Note that Jesus is equating marrying the new woman adultery, not a single act of adultery, but the fact that he marries another -- the marriage itself. [/quote]

You are assuming this. It isn't stated. The words of Jesus can be understood to mean that the marriage is a single act of adultery because...

[quote author=Castor Muscular]Rom 7:2 For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. 3 Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive.

Is she an adulteress only because she lived with another man and did not marry him?  No.  As Jesus says...

and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery

So, once again, it is the marriage itself that is equivalent to adultery, and both parties are guilty.  [/quote]

...in this culture, sex=marriage or sex=adultery.



[quote author=Castor Muscular]Two side notes:

1.  When Paul cites the law, consider that if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage.  According to the law, if he committed adultery, he would be dead, because that's the punishment for adultery.  [/quote]

Here we would disagree. He's dead when he is dead.

[quote author=Castor Muscular]2.  I'm not arguing for enforcing any of this, but enforcement is the root of the problem. 

Some people want to cherry-pick what to enforce without regard to the context of these passages. 

When Jesus says "except adultery/sexual immorality" it is in the same context as "commits/causes her to commit adultery".  The two are part of a single thought.  He is not establishing a new law to enforce, or new facts to determine about potential church members.  He is simply telling you God's perspective, and it involves both the illegitimate divorce and the illegitimate remarriage.  They are inseparable. 

Since this is not a new law to follow, it is abuse of scripture to expect people to live up to it.  Nobody should be questioning remarried couples about the conditions of their former divorce. Jesus did not give us this information for that purpose. [/quote]

On this we agree with the exception of the part I bolded. (And, then only because I think there might be cases where someone should question the conditions of the divorce, even if I likely wouldn't place that authority on a new church.)

[quote author=Castor Muscular]But if you do follow this like a law, then I advise you to follow the whole "new law", not just the first part.  If they didn't get a divorce for the cause of sexual immorality, then they're in a state of adultery.  And if you want to mix in a little of the old law, stone them both to death for committing adultery. [/quote]

heh

 

[lnf]

I'm no great Bible scholar, so I'll just relate my story...tear me up as you deem fit:

I am the (widowed) second wife of a divorced man.  We were married for more than twice the years he was married to his first wife.  When we married, I was not a practicing Christian, although I called myself one.  From a young age, I had this silly idea that it would be a good thing to marry a divorced man, because he would know the mistakes to avoid...

Anyway, I married this divorced man.  Many, many years later, I started attending church (another story for another day) and reading my Bible.  Imagine my shock when I realized I was committing adultery with my husband against his former wife.  Yes, I heard stories that there were adulteries during their marriage...by her, against him, but that is not the reason why they divorced.  You need to understand...no one in my church ever told me I was committing adultery...I read the Word for myself.  But I also know I was forgiven, first by God, but also by her...close to 20 years later.   

 

[Castor Muscular]

You are assuming this. It isn't stated. The words of Jesus can be understood to mean that the marriage is a single act of adultery because...

Your "because" is a quote from the old law Paul cited.  It is not in the same context as what Jesus said.

Matthew 19:9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.

Jesus did not say, "and sleeps with another", he said, "and MARRIES another".  Marriage is the adultery (in God's eyes).

Jesus did not say, "whoever sleeps with her who is divorced", he said, "whoever MARRIES her who is divorced".  The marriage is the adultery (in God's eyes). 

 

[Castor Muscular]

Imagine my shock when I realized I was committing adultery with my husband against his former wife.

This is why it irritates me that people treat these passages as if they're a new law to uphold.  Jesus was simply illustrating that the law of Moses was tempered for the sake of fallen man, and does not always 100% accurately reflect the righteousness of God, which is impossible for us to attain.  He was not instructing people to start using a different standard of divorce and marriage. 

 

[rsc2a]

You are assuming this. It isn't stated. The words of Jesus can be understood to mean that the marriage is a single act of adultery because...

Your "because" is a quote from the old law Paul cited.  It is not in the same context as what Jesus said.

Matthew 19:9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.

Jesus did not say, "and sleeps with another", he said, "and MARRIES another".  Marriage is the adultery (in God's eyes).

Jesus did not say, "whoever sleeps with her who is divorced", he said, "whoever MARRIES her who is divorced".  The marriage is the adultery (in God's eyes).

Yes...

...in this culture, sex=marriage or sex=adultery.

 

[Mathew Ward]

"...and keep myself only unto thee..."

A common marriage vow.  Hence, adultery is breaking the marriage covenant even if the other three parts you mention are still present.

So is 'till death do us part"