| Genesis 20 |
As long as Abimelech had another man's wife
under his roof, he was a "dead man" until he released her
to go back to her rightful husband, even though he had not yet touched
her. This was true for even a pagan king. |
| Ezra 9 & 10 |
Though a somewhat different situation, ie. marrying
foreign women, their unions were illicit and their sin was considered
to be removed only when they separated themselves from their wives.
(10:2-4, 10, 11) |
| Jer. 7:8-11 |
(Note preceding context) The Israelites were committing
adultery and then going to the Temple saying "We are safe'--safe
to do all these detestable things..." God said they were trusting
in deceptive, worthless words. |
| Mal. 2:13-17 |
God hates divorce, the breaking faith with the wife
of one's youth. Can He accept in our time that which He once hated?
Is it only the act of breaking faith that He hates, or does He hate
both the act and the ongoing state of breaking faith? |
| Mt. 14:3,4(NAS) |
John the Baptist rebuked Herod for taking his brother
Philip's wife. He did not say: "It is not lawful for you to have
taken her" but rather "It is not lawful for you to have
her". Some say the sin was that of incest. Actually, Herod had
committed two sins: adultery and incest. The only way to repent of
both was to release the woman. John was rebuking a sinner, which shows
that immorality is sin, not only for the saint, but also for the sinner.
If adultery were merely an act, John died in vain. He should have
been more discreet and sensitive, calling only for Herod to say he
was sorry and giving permission to continue on with Herodias. Intead,
Jesus commended John as being the greatest man born of women. Note
also in Mk. 6:18 John's warning to Herod was repeated, continuous
action: "For John had been saying..." This is why Herodias
nursed a grudge against John. If he had said, "Just recognize
you sinned, but stay with her and don't commit adultery again with
another woman", Herodias wouldn't have had reason to be so upset
with John. |
| Lk. 16:18(NKJV) |
If adultery and divorce effectively terminate the marriage
relationship so that the divorcee may then be remarried, how could
Jesus' words be true: "Whoever marries her who is divorced from
her husband commits adultery"? Notice also that he says "whoever",
not merely the Christian who does it. |
| Mk. 10:10-12 |
Jesus clearly states that remarriage after being divorced
is adultery. |
| Rom. 7:2, 3 |
Only death breaks the marriage bond. If the woman marries
another man "while her husband is still alive" (not: "before
her husband divorces her"), she is an adulteress. It does not
say "she commits an act of adultery" but rather "she
shall be called an adulteress". Some say that this is only an
example used to illustrate our relationship with the Law. Granted,
it is an example. However, the teachings about our relationship with
the Law can only be true if the example also is true. It is hard to
think of how one could improve on this passage in terms of its simplicity,
clarity, and conciseness. |
| I Cor. 7:10, 11 |
The Lord's command through Paul: no divorce, no separation.
But if separation does occur, then no remarriage. Either the individuals
must remain unmarried or else be reconciled. |
| I Cor. 7:39 |
Marriage is for life, not until divorce separates. |
Following are other related passages and perspectives that point to
adultery as being an ongoing state of sin until the adulterous union
is discontinued:
- The marriage vow states "till death do us part", not "till
divorce do us apart". God takes vows very seriously as seen in
Eccl. 5:4-6. God honors the first vows, the first union. Sinful vows
should be repented of and sinful actions put away, not continued.
The second vow was not a legitimate vow.
- What is the meaning of repentance? With all other kinds of sins,
we tell a person that true repentance means putting away sin; only
then can he be sure of God's forgiveness. The following passages demonstrate
this truth: Prov. 28:13; Mat. 3:8 and context; Lk. 3:8-14; Acts 26:20--we
prove our repentance by our deeds, not by our words. See also II Cor.
7:11.
- I Cor. 5:1 says the man "has his father's wife", not took
his father's wife. As long as he was calling himself a brother, they
were not to associate with him but rather to expel him from the church.
This indicates that his immoral relationship was an ongoing state.
Other gross sins are listed as reason for the same action by the church.
- Consistency calls for discontinuing the adulterous marriage. If
two people live in fornication, in order for them to repent we tell
them they must stop living together as unmarried people. If a person
lives in incest, we tell him to discontinue that relationship. If
two persons of the same sex are married, they must get out of that
union, whether or not the State says it is legal. With other sins
it is the same: someone who has stolen goods must return them, not
merely say he is sorry for having taken them. A person who has kidnapped
someone must release the person before we would be sure he had truly
repented. Why, then, would this not apply also to divorced and remarried
persons living in adultery?
- The fruit of both approaches. Viewing adultery merely as an act
fills churches with adulterous unions, undermines existing marriages,
justifies having leaders that are divorced and remarried, and shuts
the mouths of Christians and church leaders from speaking out against
adultery in a society that is becoming more immoral and perverse.
Today, many churches are very little different from the surrounding
society in their morals.
Viewing adultery as an ongoing state, however, promotes a life of holiness
and purity in churches which take this Scriptural position, and provides
solid foundations for marriages, a basis for facing difficulties in
marriage, and courage and authority to confront sin both in the church
and in the society. This approach best harmonizes Scripture passages
on the topic and follows the practice of the Early Church in the first
centuries.
Responses to questions:
1. What about the "exeception clause" (Mt. 5:32).
Jesus here clarifies in which situation a man is causing his wife to
become an adulteress. He does not give permission for remarriage; in
fact, he forbids remarriage even to the adulterous woman. In Mt. 19:9,
a very good case can be made for the position that divorce in certain
limited cases is permitted but not remarriage; ie. that the exception
clause modifies only the first part of the verse, not the last part.
This position allows for separation in certain limited cases, such as
homosexuality and prostitution without giving permission for remarriage.
This position best harmonizes with other Bible passages on the topic
and is the position of the Early Church for the first five centuries
(See: Jesus and Divorce, by Heth and Wenham, p.22). This position also
makes the best sense of the disciples' expression of surprise (Mat.
19:10) about the Jewish Rabbi Hillel for "any and every cause"
and the conservative position of Rabbi Shammai permitting remarriage
in the case of infidelity.
2. What about I Cor. 7:15 "A believing man or woman is not
bound..." Bound to what? In observing the context, it seems
the best understanding is to say: "He/she is not bound to fulfill
his/her marital rights if the unbelieving spouse voluntarily leaves.
He/she is not bound to force the unbeliever to stay." To say that
this "not bound" passage means that one may divorce and remarry
causes Paul to contradict himself in what he says in vs. 10,11 (by God's
direct command) and vs.39.
3. Doesn't Paul say that "each one should retain the place
in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God called him"
and "to remain in the situation which he was in when God called
him"? (I Cor. 7:17,20,24) Yes, but God does not call people
into a state of adultery. They should remain only in situations that
are not sinful, as per the examples given: circumcision, being a slave.
To apply this to a remarriage situation requires one to also say that
a person who is single or a widow(er) when he accepts Christ must always
remain that way.
4. Didn't Paul say that if you are loosed from a wife you may marry
without sinning? Actually, what he said is "Are you loosed
from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But if you do marry, you have not sinned;
and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned..." (I Cor. 7:27,28
NKJV). He did not say "if you remarry, you have not sinned."
To marry if one's spouse has died is not sin, but to use this passage
to justify remarriage while the first partner is living causes Paul
to contradict himself in this same chapter (vs. 10,11,39) and in his
teachings in Romans 7:2,3, to contradict the teachings of Jesus (Mk.10:11,12;Lk.16:18)
and also the understanding and practice of the Early Church. One must
ask the question: how may a person properly be "loosed from a wife"
in order to marry again? The Scriptural answer is: the death of the
partner (I Cor. 7:39; Rom. 7:2,3). Furthermore, in the context of "loosing",
Paul is not speaking about divorcees, but about virgins and widows (7:25-40).
5. Doesn't God forive? Doesn't his mercy cover our sins? God's
mercy becomes ours when we confess and abandon our sins (Prov. 28:13).
Otherwise we are sinning deliberately, and as long as one remains in
that state there is no forgiveness (Heb. 10:26-31). Note also Titus
2:11-14: The grace of God teaches us to say "no" to ungodliness
and worldy passions--not continue on in them. See also I Jn. 3:7-10.
If adultery was sin in the beginning when first committed, common sense
indicates it continues to be sin when it continues to be committed.
That is the way we view all other sins. Why would it be different with
adultery.
6. What if I divorced my spouse before I was a (committed) believer
in Christ? Doesn't that allow me to remarry (or stay with my present
spouse)? We need to remember that marriage was not first of all
a Christian institution and is valid whether one marries as a Christian
or not. Adultery is not a sin that only Christians can commit. If marriages
were valid only for Christians, then we would have to tell all unbelievers
that their marriages are worthless and that in God's sight they are
not married. This approach would also conflict with the passages in
Genesis 20 and Matthew 14 where Abimelech and Herod, as unbelievers,
were clearly condemned by God in what they had done.
Conclusion: We believe that the teaching that adulter is merely an
act of sin which the grace of God covers while allowing the adulterous
couple to continue together is an example of what Jude warns: "For
certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly
slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace
of God into a license for immorality..." (v. 4, NIV;italics
added).
Therefore, in view of the Scriptures cited above, we conclude the adultery
is an ongoing state of sin that can only be truly forgiven when divorced
and remarried persons separate. "He who covers his sin will not
prosper, but whoever confesses and forsakes them will have mercy"
(NKJV).
For additional reading on this position:
Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage, John Colbentz, c.1992, Christian
Light Publications, 98p.
Till Death Do Us Part?, Joseph A. Webb, c.1996, Webb Ministries,
PO. Box 520729, Longwood, FL 32742-0729,
274 p.
Jesus and Divorce, the Problem with the Evangelical Consensus,
William Heth and Gordon Wenham, c.1984,
Nelson Publishers, 287 p. (No longer in print)
--Written by: Allen Roth