Adultery...bad?

[Reverend Rick]

But, what we all want to hear (from Christians) is what is considered kosher for remarriage? As UV asked, what if neither partner cheated but were just very unhappy. What would your pastor say?

This is not a divorce issue, this is a remarry issue. Only one of you could remarry and the other would have to die or be unfaithful. This does raise an issue. The church does not grant divorce, the state does. If you are divorced, is it possible to commit adultery afterward? I guess if the person you had sex with was married.

But we digress, it is not fair to homosexuals to enforce Levitical law on them and ignore rebellious children or divorcees.

 

[lunamoth]

But we digress, it is not fair to homosexuals to enforce Levitical law on them and ignore rebellious children or divorcees.

Not mention that Christians don't follow Levitical law period. That one was hammered out between Paul and the Jerusalem church in the first decades after Christ.

 

[Buttercup]

This is not a divorce issue, this is a remarry issue. Only one of you could remarry and the other would have to die or be unfaithful. This does raise an issue. The church does not grant divorce, the state does. If you are divorced, is it possible to commit adultery afterward? I guess if the person you had sex with was married.

But we digress, it is not fair to homosexuals to enforce Levitical law on them and ignore rebellious children or divorcees.

I'm not sure you read my question correctly. I said what if neither partner cheated? Are you saying that you would counsel each of them to remain single?

But, as I asked earlier....why would you allow them in your church if you wouldn't marry them or if they didn't heed your counsel to stay single? What changes after they've been to the courthouse to get married?

 

[Just_me_Mike]

I want to quickly add one more point. Within the churches it is allowed more now than ever before, divorce that is, because it is man that drives the rules in the church and not the bible.
Everyone has clung to that verse in the NT about Jesus allowing divorce for fornication, but as I wrote earlier this is not being understood correctly. As a result the church is more popular (not all of them, but most of them) and it appears the churches are being more and more succesful.
Yet at the end of the bible in revelations and else where God warns the churches just like Israel that is would abandon the church as it did Israel. The problem here is churches don't believe this because they have a hard time distinguishing the corporate church and the spiritual church. The latter makes up all the believers that ever lived. The former is just a building full of people.
So the churches are in great error allowing divorce, to answer you question.

 

[Enoch07]

I read carefully all posts and see no one answered your question. I will answer it for you.
This is going to be a long post, so please read carefully as it will be a lot of information. Think about it and lets continue to develop this.

Let's start with the fact the bible, the world, and everyone in it from beginning to end are all about God. Meaning when we read something in the bible and stray with wondering what does this mean in my personal life, we will never find truth. So as I read everyone's heart felt posts, I realize that everyone is viewing it as if the bible was made or written somehow for individualist and how they or we feel about this or that.

Bare with me, because if we view the bible and its messages as they are suppose to be viewed we can come to truth.
All the verses mentioned so far about divorce and marriage, is a picture of God's overall plan.
You have to remember (an no offense to the Hebrew that posted on here) that the old testament alone is useless, it is just half of the picture. What is the BIG BIG BIG lesson of the old testament? IT was that mankind fell, and God could have destroyed everyone had he wanted to, but instead he made a promise. What was this promise? He promised to save a people for himself. In regard to marriage this picture is a reference to God's first bride, the nation of Israel. The majority of the old testament is about God's marriage to his people Israel.
Now what happened towards the end of the old testament? God warned his bride, that he would cut her off. Why would he cut her off? Well, think about it. Israel was seeking after other God's and other ways, in other words comitting adultry.
So God allowed Moses to create a law, so that man could divorce. This was all part of the plan to divorce the nation of Israel, and allow the gentiles in.

Now that is a lot of general information, so I will get more specific so it all makes more sense. Jesus stated in the NT that divorce was allowed when asked, but only because of the hardness of their hearts in the OT was it allowed. Then Jesus said from the beginning it was not so. He then said that from hence forth, divorce was not allowed, "except" for the cause of fornication or adultry. When we look at the word used here in the original greek manuscripts as "except" we realize it is used often as the word "even". However read as is, we think it is saying it is allowed. It should actually read "divorce is not allowed, "even" for the cause of fornication or adultry. This makes a HUGE difference.
If you are interested look at the original greek words used and check it out for yourself.
Moving on, we can begin to understand that divorce was allowed at one time, and that was ultimately allowed so that God could divorce the nation of Israel. Jesus recended that law in the NT.
Remember what I said at the beginning of my post, we need to understand the bible from the point of view that is focussed on God, and not us? Can you begin to see with this information how God has through the bible made a way to save all the people he planned to save. God could have never come to the gentiles unless he made the allowance of divorce. So all this talk about husbands and wifes, is really missing the point.
The whole NT talks about God's bride, and how Jesus will come for his bride. His bride is all those who were saved in the old testament, and also later after the divorcing the nation of Israel, his new bride in the gentiles.

This is another way in which the bible and God surpass our minds and shows His majestic and infinite mind.

Now, let's think about the enmity between Jews today and Christians. Sure they are not killing each other (generally speaking like they used too), but they are at odd, because one says God is married to them and the other says God is married to them. Can you begin to see what is going on here?
I know this is probably different than what you ever thought about before, but really consider it.

If anyone wants more details on the subject I will e glad to explain it more.

Thanks for reading...

God loves all his children equally. Even the ones that don't believe in him. Accept it or do not. But it is Truth.

 

[Kathryn]

I would love to hear the proper context & full explination myself Kathryn.
I hope you will come back and post again.
I have always wondered about this, even as a traditional christian,
how christians rationalized away this teaching.
(as I have always seen it)

First - context:

Keep in mind that the bible verses on this topic address TWO PEOPLE OF THE SAME FAITH (either Judaism or Christianity) except for the verses in 1 Corinthians 7 (more on that later). So for people of other faiths, the verses really don't apply.

Let's take a look at some verses and apply the idea of context - which is SO IMPORTANT when studying scripture to understand doctrine:

In the Old Testament, (Deuterotomy) Moses gives guidelines to a pre-existing practice of divorce. In Matthew, Jesus said that Moses allowed divorce because of the hardness of men's hearts. Anyway, Moses isn't professing to state the grounds for divorce, but simply accepting it as an existing fact. He does, however, give two examples of when divorce is NOT allowed - when a man has falsely accused his wife of premarital unfaithfulness, and when a man has had relations with a girl he's not married to, and her father commands him to marry her.

On two exceptional cases in the OT, divorce was actually COMMANDED. This was when the returned exiled Jews had married pagan wives.

On to the New Testament:

Here are some of the verses Christians apply to divorce and remarriage - and let's look at context again:

Matthew 5:32

32(A)but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Wow, sounds pretty cut and dried, right? But what's the context?

This verse is from the Sermon on the Mount. Here are the verses immediately BEFORE the verse on divorce:

29"(AM.com)If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into (an.)hell.
30"(Alpha Omega Computer Systems, Inc.)If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into (AP: High Performance Audio Analyzer & Audio Test Instruments)hell.


Hmmmm, does Jesus REALLY MEAN these words LITERALLY? No, of course not. In fact, the Sermon on the Mount is all about the SPIRIT of the Law and not the LETTER of the Law - the irony of this is that Jesus' sermon there was all about freeing people from LEGALISM and confronting them with the MEANING of the law. His challenge in this whole beautiful chapter is for us to live the SPIRIT of the law.

And yet, well meaning Christians who so often understand that Jesus isn't speaking literally in the verses just before the one on divorce, or the ones just after (walk two miles with your brother if he asks you to walk one, offer no resistance to one who is evil, if someone asks you for your shirt, give him your shirt and your coat, etc etc) - suddenly shift gears and insist on the LITERAL interpretation of that ONE verse.

That's inconsistent.

I believe that in that passage, Jesus is talking about ATTITUDES. That we cannot treat marriage, or anger, or lust, or the needs of others, legalistically - we must be sure our MOTIVES and hearts are pure.

Now on to Matthew 19:

1(A)When Jesus had finished these words, He departed from Galilee and (B)came into the region of Judea beyond the Jordan;

2and large crowds followed Him, and (C)He healed them there.
3Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, "(D)Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?"
4And He answered and said, "Have you not read (E)that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,
5and said, '(F)FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND (G)THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'?
6"So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."
7They said to Him, "(H)Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?"
8He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.
9"And I say to you, (I)whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."
10The disciples said to Him, "If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry."
11But He said to them, "(J)Not all men can accept this statement, but (K)only those to whom it has been given. 12"For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it."


The context, once again - is legalism. The Pharisees were trying to trip Jesus up. But this passage has a lot of interesting nuances to it.

First of all, I don't assume that GOD put together all marriages. Some marriages I can almost assure you God did NOT think were a good idea!

Secondly, there is the clause about adultery/immorality - even if one wants to be legalistic, there's that "out" given.

Finally, Jesus does state that not all men can accept this teaching. That's open to interpretation, but it does loosen the meaning a bit to me. And once again - Jesus is focusing in on the SPIRT of the law and not the LETTER of the law.

Mark 10 is another rendition of this event. It is generally accepted that the version in Matthew is more complete - there is no contradiction between the two passages. The account in Matthew just gives more detail.

Luke 16 is another interesting passage about a LOT of topics, and if you read it in context once again it is about attitude and spirit as opposed to legalism. The legalistic Pharisees are standing over to the side, listening to Jesus tell parables. They begin sneering at Jesus and He turns to them and says, "You justify yourselves in the sight of others, but God knows your hearts." The Pharisees had been twisting the Law to justify all sorts of things, including frivolous divorce - which was a big topic at the time. Jesus knows this and uses that particular hypocricy as a GENERAL EXAMPLE in this ONE small verse (the only verse in the entire chapter that even touches on marriage or divorce):

18"(R)Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.

The very fact that He did NOT include the option of divorce in the case of unfaithfulness is because that was a GIVEN - He didn't intend this ONE verse to be a full expansive teaching on marriage and divorce. He was merely using that situation as an example of the bad teachings of the Pharisees, because they had been guilty of stretching the PRINCIPLES of the law into convoluted legalistic teachings.

Now we move on to Paul's teachings. The most comprehensive chapter specifically dealing with marriage, divorce and remarriage is 1 Corinthians 7. Paul is speaking to the early church in Corinth. This was a very diverse congregation made up of Jews and Gentiles, with many ex-pagans in attendance. There were many wealthy members, who worshipped alongside house servants and merchants. As you can imagine, there were lots of different forms of marriages in which people came into this community (I know, that's bad grammar but you know what I mean).

 

[Kathryn]

1 Corinthians 7

Teaching on Marriage


1Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is (A)good for a man not to touch a woman.
2But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband.
3The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband.
4The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
5(B)Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that (C)Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
6But this I say by way of concession, (D)not of command.
7[a]Yet I wish that all men were (E)even as I myself am However, (F)each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that.
8But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is (G)good for them if they remain (H)even as I.
9But if they do not have self-control, (I)let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
10But to the married I give instructions, (J)not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband
11(but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.
12But to the rest (K)I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her.
13And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away.
14For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are (L)holy.
15Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called [b]us (M)to peace.
16For how do you know, O wife, whether you will (N)save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife? 17Only, (O)as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk And (P)so I direct in (QDN1)all the churches.


And a few verses down, we find this:

27Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife.
28But if you marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned.


This seems clear enough - if two Christians are married, they are to stay married (though Paul doesn't mention adultery, most churches assume that this is covered via Jesus' words). However, if a Christian is married to a non Christian who wants to leave - then let the non Christian leave. It seems clear to me that in that case, the divorced Christian is free to remarry.

This is a very interesting passage to me because I believe it pertains to abusive situations.

How can a Christian justify physical abuse of their spouse? In the context of the Jewish or early church faith - what would be the recourse of an abused spouse?

In the OT, severe abuse could be punishable by death. In that case, a divorce wouldn't be necessary.

In the NT, abandonment by an unbeliever allows for divorce and remarriage. If an abuser is sent to jail because of his own actions, hasn't he abandoned his family through his actions? If a woman has to physically leave for her own safety or the safety of her children, WHO HAS REALLY LEFT WHO? It makes no sense to say that the abuser didn't leave when his abuse created a situation which the abused must leave.

1 Tim 5:8But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

2 Cor 6:14Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
15And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?

Matt 8:16 6But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

Eph 5:25Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

26That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. 28So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

Jesus is clear about how to handle grievances between two believers:

Matt. 18:15 Therefore if thy brother shall sin against thee, go and reprove him between thee and him alone; if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. 16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church; but if he neglects to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a worldly man and a publican.

(other versions say Gentile - the context is LET HIM BE AS AN UNBELIEVER)

That being said, I think we have our way to resolve abusive situations:

If a spouse is abused, she/he is to take up the matter with the abuser. If that doesn't work, take the matter to one or two other members of the church. If that doesn't work, expose the abuser to the whole church. If he/she still won't alter the behavior, THE SPOUSE IS ALLOWED TO CONSIDER THE ABUSER AN UNBELIEVER.

If abused women would actually report and prosecute their abusers, more would end up in jail - thereby effectively deserting the marriage.

I do not believe that God expects spouses and children to stay in a dangerous situation - OR be shackled to that marriage just because an abusive spouse CLAIMS to be a Christian.


I believe they are free to remarry.

I also think it just makes common sense - even if the original divorce wasn't for biblical reasons - that if the other spouse is remarried, the bond of that marriage is broken and the remaining spouse is free to remarry.

There are many forms of deserting marriage vows, by the way.

Sorry this is so long.

 

[Kathryn]

So I believe that divorce and remarriage are allowed in the following circumstances:

Adultery, Abandonment, and Abuse

 

[Buttercup]

So I believe that divorce and remarriage are allowed in the following circumstances:

Adultery, Abandonment, and Abuse

Thank you for your very long and thoughtful answer, Kathryn....it's appreciated.

The problem is that there are MANY Christians in the church who do not have the three "A" excuses for their divorce and remarriage. How are they looked at by God? Are they sinning? Can the sin be "removed"?

 

[Kathryn]

Thank you for your very long and thoughtful answer, Kathryn....it's appreciated.

The problem is that there are MANY Christians in the church who do not have the three "A" excuses for their divorce and remarriage. How are they looked at by God? Are they sinning? Can the sin be "removed"?

All sin can be removed from a repentent sinner's heart.

However, we can't continue to live in the same sin.

There are so many individual situations, it would be impossible to make a blanket statement.

For instance - addictions - are they a form of desertion? Many would argue that they are.

What about online adultery - you know what I mean. Is that truly adultery?

I would say that if a Christian looked at his or her past and determined that they should not have gotten divorced in the first place - but now they're remarried - well, the marriage has been broken by adultery. Accept the guilt, repent, and submit your will to God - and then follow His lead.

Are kids involved? Has the former spouse remarried? I mean, it gets so complex that I lean toward the concept of "picking up where you are today and moving forward in repentance."

 

[Kathryn]

And I also believe that Christians should take divorce and remarriage VERY seriously and proceed with GREAT caution, counsel, etc. because I definitely think that there are situations in which there is no justification - and then the remarriage would be compounding the wrong.

And I can tell you - we never really get away with anything. The piper always gets paid.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

hmmm no response to my posting?

I believe it was asked for a biblical answer and I Gave one. Did I not write clear enough? Please let me know if I need to clarify. Everything I said is biblical. I can not say the same about everyone elses post. No offense, but the question for this thread was what does the bible say, and why is it OK for the church to allow divorce. The bible teaches it is NEVER ok to allow divorce, so the church is in error for doing this.

 

[Buttercup]

All sin can be removed from a repentent sinner's heart.

However, we can't continue to live in the same sin.

Everything you've said is pretty much what I heard during my 25 years as a Christian. That is, even though it is definitely not preferable to divorce, the sin can be forgiven....even if the divorce was initiated without the three "A" reasons.

Maybe you can answer this somewhat related question.....why isn't this same standard applied to obesity/gluttony? Aren't people who are very heavy continually sinning by over eating?

 

[blackout]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kathryn
All sin can be removed from a repentent sinner's heart.

However, we can't continue to live in the same sin.

Well this would mean then, that a christian (who believed such)
in a second marriage, even with children by that new partner,
if they came to believe they were ultimately wrong in that remarriage,
their repentence would include abstainance with that new partner.
They might remain under the same roof to raise their kids,
but would have to live as brother and sister.

(repentence means to "turn around" or "turn back" from your sin/s)

 

[Reverend Rick]

Maybe you can answer this somewhat related question.....why isn't this same standard applied to obesity/gluttony? Aren't people who are very heavy continually sinning by over eating?

Some are some are not. Some folks have conditions where they are over weight for medical reasons. I believe people reaching for that third piece of cake may be sinning.

Here is the real deal. It is not for us to judge. It would be wrong however to bring them that third piece of cake just as it would be to marry them after divorce. If they go to the court house and remarry, that is between them and God. We should treat them with love as commanded by our Lord and Savior.

 

[Kathryn]

Everything you've said is pretty much what I heard during my 25 years as a Christian. That is, even though it is definitely not preferable to divorce, the sin can be forgiven....even if the divorce was initiated without the three "A" reasons.

Maybe you can answer this somewhat related question.....why isn't this same standard applied to obesity/gluttony? Aren't people who are very heavy continually sinning by over eating?

Yes, absolutely! And as a Christian, it's my responsibility to take a hard look at ALL my habits - and to daily submit my will to God, ask for wisdom and guidance, and study his Word.

Notice though how I said "look at all MY habits." I think most Christians (unless they are in church leadership) should take a harder look at themselves and quit trying to condemn others.

As Jesus said, we should get the LOG out of our own eye before trying to remove the SPLINTER out of someone else's eye.

 

[blackout]

...and thank you for your long attempt at an answer kathryn.

I'm just glad I don't feel I have to sift through all that stuff
to try and figure out how I am and am not supposed to live anymore.

I'm easy. I just want everyone to be happy.
I would never hold anyone to something they no longer wanted with me.
If I needed to have an affair to free them to go on with their own life and be happy,
(because they felt they couldn't remarry otherwise)
I would even do that for them.

I'm not the least bit worried about "hell" or literal judgement (from on high),
so I'd try and find a way for everyone to feel... to BE free.

It would upset me though if my partner(s) were not honest with me.
There is no need to "sneak around".
Just say what you need to say. ya know?
It can all be worked out somehow, even creatively...
(when you don't have all these rules to second guess and follow) :areyoucra

 

[Kathryn]

Well this would mean then, that a christian (who believed such)
in a second marriage, even with children by that new partner,
if they came to believe they were ultimately wrong in that remarriage,
their repentence would include abstainance with that new partner.
They might remain under the same roof to raise their kids,
but would have to live as brother and sister.

(repentence means to "turn around" or "turn back" from your sin/s)

Not necessarily - it would depend on whether or not their former spouse was remarried for one thing. If that spouse was remarried, it would not be possible to remarry them.

That's just one example. Also, there are some verses in the OT that imply that a person isn't supposed to remarry a spouse who has been married since their divorce.

Seems to me, simplistically, that a marriage is broken by adultery - on either side. At some point, a Christian may just have to say, "Lord, I've made such a mess of this - please forgive me for all I've done in the past, and help me glorify you in my life from now on. Show me what you will have me do." And then obey.

 

[blackout]

Not necessarily - it would depend on whether or not their former spouse was remarried for one thing. If that spouse was remarried, it would not be possible to remarry them.

.

hahaha! so then mutual adultery sets both original partners free!
excellent loophole.

 

[Buttercup]

Some are some are not. Some folks have conditions where they are over weight for medical reasons. I believe people reaching for that third piece of cake may be sinning.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of people who are heavy are heavy for the simple reason of over eating. Few are overweight because of medical conditions...unless they become diabetic due to obesity. Then it becomes a vicious circle.

Just look at old film footage from the 60's and notice how much skinnier people were back then. America has exploded in the last 40 years and it's not from medical conditions.

Here is the real deal. It is not for us to judge. It would be wrong however to bring them that third piece of cake just as it would be to marry them after divorce. If they go to the court house and remarry, that is between them and God. We should treat them with love as commanded by our Lord and Savior.

Then tell me why a very overweight person is MUCH more welcomed in church than an overtly gay person?