One
Flesh: A Book About Divorce & Remarriage
Chapter 5 Permanence of Adultery The purpose of this chapter is to determine
whether remarriage after divorce constitutes a continuous
state of adultery or a one time act with no continuing
repercussions. Although many in the church teach
that remarriage after divorce should not be considered
adultery, it is not the opinion of the majority that will
count on judgment day. It is only Gods word
and pleasing the Lord that matters. Adultery The Bible clearly states that those who
remarry after divorce commit adultery. The
biblical evidence is as follows: Matthew 5:32b . . .causes her to
commit adultery (moichasthai); and whoever
marries a divorced woman commits adultery (moichatai). Matthew 19:9b . . . and marries
another, commits adultery (moichatai); and
whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery
(moichatai). Mark Luke Romans 7:3 So then if, while her
husband lives, she marries another man, she will be
called an adulteress (moichalis); but if
her husband dies she is free from that law, so that she
is no adulteress (moichalida), though she
has married another man. Although Matthews Gospel gives one
exception for divorce, fornication (porneia), it
can be shown that this exception clause allows only for
divorce in limited instances and the divorce does not
include the right to remarry. In both passages of
Matthews Gospel it is claimed that the person who
remarries still commits adultery. Ten times the New
Testament calls remarriage after divorce adultery. This
is where our study will begin. The Verb Tense One of the main considerations regarding the
permanence of adultery is the use of the verb tense
when Jesus pronounces that those who divorce and remarry
commit adultery. Most often it is the present
tense that controls the meaning of adultery in these
sentences. Matthew Matthew 19:9 twice uses the present
middle/passive indicative (moichatai) to be
an adulterer. Mark 10:11-12 twice uses the present
middle/passive indicative (moichatai) to be
an adulterer. Luke Romans 7:3 uses nouns for the word
adulteress. The main verb that
modifies this is a future active indicative (chrematisei)
she will be called. The other
modifying verb form is the present active
infinitive (einai) to be. The purpose of this section is to give the
reader a basic understanding of the present tense
as it relates to kind of action as well as
time of action. This will be important
as we discuss the use of the verb tense as it relates to
the phrase commits adultery. The
following paragraphs on the Present Tense are a
summary from the works of Dana and Mantey - A Manual
Grammar of the Greek New Testament; Robertson Grammar
of the Greek New Testament; Blass, DeBrunner, and
Funk A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and
Other Early Christian Literature. One important element of tense in Greek is
kind of action or progress. Time of action is
secondary in most cases. The action may be viewed
as continuous, complete, or simply occurring without
reference to progress. The three fundamental tenses
in Greek are: present, representing
continuous action; perfect, representing
completed action; and aorist, representing
undefined action. The basic meaning of aorist (aoristos)
is undefined or without limits. Continuous
action is primarily represented by the present tense and
this is primarily with reference to present time. Continuous
action in the past is represented by the imperfect, and
continuous action in the future is represented by the
future tense (Dana and Mantey, p. 178; Robertson, p.
824). The fundamental meaning of the present tense
is that of progress. It is at its root a linear
tense. Although this is the main significance of
the present tense it is not the only meaning. When
the indicative mood is used with present tense the
element of time is more relevant. In dealing with
the present tense one must consider not only the
fundamental force of the tense, but also the meaning of
the verb root, and the significance of the context (Dana
and Mantey, p. 181). The present tense may be used to express an
action simply (punctiliar), a process (durative or
linear), or a state (perfective or perfect) (Robertson,
p. 865, 869). Although the present tense may be
used in an aoristic sense the present tense more
frequently denotes durative or linear action (Robertson,
p. 879). The present tense may be further broken down
into regular and special meanings
(Dana and Mantey, p. 182). The most basic
(regular) meaning of the present tense is that of the
progressive present. This is nearest the root idea
of the tense. It shows action as a durative
progress or state of persistence. The point of view
can be descriptive, retroactive, or used to denote the
continuation of existing results. The present tense
can also be seen as customary. This is used to
denote that which habitually occurs, or may be reasonably
expected to occur. The temporal element is remote
since the act is assumed to be true in the past or
future, as well as the present (Dana and Mantey, p
184). The regular use of the present tense can also
be iterative, that which occurs repeatedly at successive
intervals (Dana and Mantey, p. 185; Blass, Debruner,
and Funk, p. 166). Special uses of the present tense include:
Aoristic, Futuristic, Historical, Tendential, and Static.
It is improbable that the present tense used by Jesus,
commits adultery (moichatai), should
be considered Futuristic, Historical, Tendential, or
Static therefore these will not be dealt with at this
time. General truths may be expressed by the
aoristic present. Much of the time the aoristic
present is used where a punctiliar act takes place at the
moment of speaking (Blass, Debruner, and Funk, p. 167). One sub-group of the aoristic present is the
gnomic present. The difference between the gnomic
aorist and the gnomic present is that the present may be
durative (Robertson, p. 836). Some claim
that the statement commits adultery (moichaai)is
a gnomic present. The reader should not become confused at
this point. There is a present Greek tense
and an aorist Greek tense. They are separate
forms and tenses. This being said it must be noted
that the present tense can be translated like an aorist
in certain contexts. The basic idea of the aorist
is it is undefined or unlimited.
It is punctiliar (momentary), not linear. It
represents the action as occurring or having occurred
without reference to time. Blass, Debrunner, and
Funk claim that the action is conceived as a point with
either the beginning or the end emphasized, or the action
may be conceived as a whole irrespective of its duration
(p. 166). The aorist tense is neither past, nor
present, nor future with reference to time. It
relates to kind of action (aktionsarten)
rather than time of action. It is not,
as commonly, but erroneously defined, a once for
all event. Durative or Aoristic With the ground work laid for basic uses of
the present tense it must now be decided how the words
commit adultery (moichatai) should be
understood in relation to the subject of divorce and
remarriage. No matter what view one takes of the
exception clause of Matthew 19:9 the question
must be answered. Even those who allow remarriage
after divorce in cases of adultery will have to wrestle
with this issue. Of the divorces that occur in the
evangelical church many occur for a multitude of reasons
where adultery plays no part. Jesus boldly
proclaimed that remarriage after such a divorce
constitutes adultery. Eight times the gospels use the present
tense to state that those who remarry after divorce
commit adultery. Romans 7:3 further
uses the future indicative once and a present
infinitive once. It is claimed that if the
present tense in the gospels is understood as durative or
progressive then the remarried person is committing
continual or repeated acts of adultery. It is then
claimed that if the present tense is to be understood as
aoristic or gnomic then the divorcee does not continue to
commit adultery after a subsequent remarriage. It
is not that simple even if the present tense
commits adultery (moichatai) is
aoristic or gnomic, the effects of adultery may still
apply to those who continue in a sexual relationship. Grammar and syntax regulate the formation
and usage of words in a sentence. The grammatical
rules are derived from analyzing the various uses
of a word in context. They are determined by how
the word is used. The grammatical usage is governed
internally by the text itself. There are no
external sources that state how the word
commits adultery (moichatai) should be
understood. The understanding of the word comes
from how the word is used in context. Even if every other
use of the present tense in Matthews Gospel was
aoristic that does not mean that commits
adultery (moichatai) in Matthew It is possible that commits
adultery (moichatai) should be taken in an
aoristic or gnomic sense. It is also possible that
the present tense commits adultery (moichatai)
should be taken as durative or progressive. There
is certainly nothing that would prohibit it from being
understood as durative or progressive. It is the
word interpreted in context that determines the type
of present tense used not some external definition
applied to the text. Aoristic or Gnomic Implications If the present tense commits
adultery (moichatai) is to be taken as
progressive or durative it would mean that the remarried
person continually commits adultery each and every time
they have sexual relations after the remarriage. The
opposite is not necessarily true if the present tense is
to be taken as aoristic or gnomic. The aoristic (punctiliar) present sets forth
the event as now occurring (Dana and Mantey, p. 184).
Just because it is now occurring does not mean that there
are no residual effects in the future. Dana and
Mantey list Acts 9:34 as an example of the aoristic
present: Aeneas, Jesus Christ heals (hiatai) you.
In this example the healing is stated as presently
occurring but there will be lasting effects for a period
of time in the future. The present may combine both
aoristic action with continuous or durative results (Robertson,
p. 865). The gnomic present is actually a sub-group
under the aoristic (punctiliar) present (Robertson, p.
866). The gnomic present expresses general
truth but this does not mean there are no continuing
consequences. The gnomic present is timeless in
reality, meaning that it is true of all time (Robertson,
p. 836, 864). It is sometimes called the
proverbial present because this use of the present occurs
in proverbial statements or general maxims about that
which occurs at all times. Robertson lists First
Corinthians 15:42 as an example of a gnomic present:
The body it is sown (speiretai) in corruption,
it is raised (egeiretai) in incorruption.
Certainly these two gnomic presents have lasting
implications in the future. Another possible option for the present
tense commits adultery (moichatai) is
the iterative present. The iterative present
represents an action that is repeated each time. When
applied to commits adultery (moichatai) it
would mean that each time a remarried couple had sexual
relations they would be committing a further act of
adultery. Romans 7:3 In Romans 7:3 the future active indicative
she will be called (chrematisei) is
used with reference to the description, adulteress,
applied to the woman who remarries. The future
almost always carries with it an element of time (Robertson,
p. 876; Dana and Mantey, p. 191). Instead
of mainly representing progress, as do the present and
the prefect tenses, the general perspective is aoristic
or punctiliar. The context will sometimes require
the future tense to be interpreted as progressive but
most of the time this is not the case. Romans 7:3 is most
likely an example of a gnomic future which means that it
is an act that is true of all time (Robertson, p.876). Romans 7:3 also uses the present infinitive
to be (einai). Technically
infinitives are verbal nouns and not just a mood (Dana
and Mantey, p.208). They are substantival in
nature and can occupy the ground of both a verb and a
noun. Paul uses the infinitive as a substantive to
show that if the womans husband dies she is not an
adulteress if she remarries. The implication when
taken in context with the first part of Romans 7:3 is
that she is an adulteress if she marries another man
while her first husband is still alive. Conclusion The present tense statement of Jesus
commits adultery is most likely gnomic in
meaning. This being said there is no conclusive evidence
as to whether the present tense commits
adultery (moichatai) should be taken
as linear (durative or progressive) or punctiliar
(aoristic or gnomic). If it is linear then
continual adultery would be implied; since this is a
primary meaning of the tense this may be what Jesus was
speaking of. If the present tense is punctiliar
this in no way means the remarriage is not continuous
adultery. The aoristic present expresses an action
(aktionsarten) as taking place. It is
basically timeless. Every act of adultery including
sexual relations after remarriage takes place at a
specific point in time. Classifying the present
indicative as aoristic or gnomic does not rule out the
existence of future effects or continuing results from
the act of adultery. The use of the present tense
does not indicate that continuous or repeated acts of
adultery do not occur after remarriage. A Logically and Biblically Consistent
View A correct understanding of the present tense
is not the only deciding factor in determining whether
those who remarry after divorce continue in a permanent
state of adultery. Logic used in conjunction with a
biblical view of the one flesh bond and sin must also be
taken into consideration. A common view is that if ones spouse
commits adultery they are free to obtain a legal divorce
and then remarry. There are numerous biblical and
logical problems with this view. The Bible teaches
that the one flesh bond is severed only by death. The
person who has an unfaithful spouse is to forgive them
not divorce them. Jesus commanded His followers to
forgive others who sin against them seventy times seven.
How much more should a husband who is commanded to love
his wife as Christ loved the church forgive his own
flesh? (Eph. 5:25, 29) The reason that remarriage after divorce is
considered adultery is because of the nature of the one
flesh bond. When a person remarries they enter into
a sexual relationship with another person outside of the
original God ordained marriage. Mankind was created
to be in a monogamous sexual relationship. Anything
outside of this is considered sin. The claim is
sometimes made that remarriage after divorce is an act of
adultery but not continual or persistent adultery. Jesus
claimed that it is the remarriage of a divorced person
that is the cause of their adultery (Matt. When a person enters into a sexual
relationship outside of the original one flesh bond it is
considered adultery. It is not the second wedding
ceremony that makes them an adulterer it is the sexual
relations committed after the ceremony that makes them an
adulterer. This is because divorce does not make
one single again. A legal divorce does not end a
persons one flesh bond from their first marriage. If
divorce severed or dissolved the one flesh bond then
adultery could not occur in remarriage. Adultery
occurs in remarriage because the legally divorced spouse
is still married to their first marriage partner. Divorced
persons who remarry may be recognized by the state as
being legally married but from the beginning it was
not so. A legal document called divorce
by the state, from Gods point of view, does not
break the marriage bond, else remarriage would not be
called adultery. If the sexual relations entered into after a
second marriage ceremony are considered to be an act of
adultery then every subsequent sexual act in that
relationship would also be considered adultery. To
believe that the first sexual act is adultery while
subsequent acts are not is illogical. If sexual
relations at the beginning of a second marriage are
considered adultery they would continue to be considered
as such upon each encounter. The reason is that the one
flesh bond from the first marriage continues to exist. Some claim that the second marriage and one
act of subsequent sexual relations breaks the first one
flesh bond and establishes a second. This is
similar to the Erasmian interpretation of the exception
clause that teaches that adultery before a second
marriage dissolves the one flesh bond and allows those
who are married the right to divorce and enter into a
second marriage. Jesus clearly stated that not only
can people commit adultery by having sexual relations
outside of the marriage bond but also a second marriage
constitutes adultery. Both are considered adultery and
neither excuses a second marriage. There is no
biblical evidence to support the claim that a second
marriage annuls or dissolves the first one. The nature of sin must also be taken into
consideration when considering the durative or
progressive nature of the adultery committed by a second
marriage. It has already been established that a
second marriage is considered adultery. There is no
biblical evidence to support the claim that it does not
continue to be adultery. If it is believed that it
does not constitute a permanent or persistent state of
adultery then there are only two options: 1). It is
a one time act of adultery where upon committing this sin
it instantaneously ceases to be sin. This is
twisted logic since committing a sin once cannot cause it
cease. 2). It is a one time act of adultery where
upon after committing this sin it slowly ceases to be
sin. This is also twisted logic since
committing a sin cannot cause it to slowly go away.
Sin neither instantaneously ceases nor slowly diminishes
by continuing in it. Conclusion The only logical and consistently biblical
conclusion is that since sexual relations committed upon
entering into a second marriage are considered adultery
they remain so throughout the entire relationship. It
is not only whether the present indicative should be
taken as progressive or aoristic it is the nature of the
biblical one flesh bond and the nature of sin. Nothing
can break the one flesh bond except for death. Sin
committed continues to be sin until it is ceased and
repented of. There is no other consistent or
logical conclusion. Persistent Sin and Church Discipline There are no specific verses in the New
Testament on how to apply the teachings of Jesus and Paul
concerning remarriage and adultery in the local church.
This is because the Bible does not give steps in dealing
with each specific sin. What the New Testament does
teach is broad commands and principles that apply to all
sins. The basic New Testament concept is that a
professing believer is called to repent of their sin and
forsake it. Admit it and quit it, if you will. If a person persists in living in
unrepentant sin the church is to place that person under
church discipline until they forsake their sin. The
goal of such discipline is to restore the person to
fellowship with God and with the local church. This
may seem strange to many as the practice of church
discipline is almost unheard of in the modern evangelical
church. Nevertheless, church discipline is clearly
taught in the New Testament. In Matthew 18:15-20 the steps of discipline
include a private meeting, the involvement of one or two
others as witnesses, and finally an announcement to the
entire local assembly. If a sinning brother or
sister remains unrepentant the congregation is to treat
that person as an unbeliever. Since the person
refuses to live like a believer they are to be treated as
an unbeliever. Christians are to judge actions not
hearts. The only way to know whether a person may
or may not be a believer is by the way they live. If
they persist in acting like an unbeliever they should be
treated as such. This means they are to be loved by
the Christians and have the good news of Christ presented
to them. Since the fellowship of the local church
is not the place for unbelievers they should not be
received into fellowship. There are some who fall into sin ignorantly.
In these instances a spiritually mature believer is to
encourage them to make things right with the Lord. These
people are to be restored with a spirit of gentleness
(Gal. 6:1). There are others who persist in
ungodliness and they are to be removed from fellowship
(Matt What does the subject of church discipline
have to do with divorce and remarriage? The New
Testament teaches that remarriage after divorce is
adultery. Those who live in unrepentant adultery
are subject to church discipline. Even those who
follow the teachings of Erasmus and allow for remarriage
after divorce in cases of adultery will need to deal with
this topic. Many Christians divorce with adultery
playing no part in their separation. If they
remarry they commit adultery and Scripture teaches that
believers are not to associate with sexually immoral
people in the church and the wicked are to be expelled (1
Cor. 5:9-12). Consistent Application of the Doctrine of
Repentance There are two schools of thought when it
comes to the subject of dealing with those who commit
adultery by remarrying after divorce. Some claim
that since the subject of how to deal with individuals in
this situation is not specifically addressed in the New
Testament then those who commit adultery by remarrying
after divorce should see their current relationship with
their new partner as now being Gods will for their
lives. The problem with this view is two fold.
First, it condones adultery. It allows a person to
sin without further expectation that they cease from such
sin. Jesus claimed that those who divorce and
remarry commit adultery. If remarriage is
considered to be an adulterous relationship then to
continue in it is to continue in sin. Second, it
may actually encourage divorced people to remarry. If
it is believed that a second marriage now becomes
Gods will for ones life then people may treat
it as a free pass to sin. If they can just reach
the safe platform of remarriage then they are
secure in that relationship and are never expected to
alter their actions. It certainly is not unheard of
for people to admit that remarriage is wrong but once
they commit adultery by remarrying they feel secure in
that sinful relationship. Others claim that since the subject of how
to deal with individuals who have remarried after divorce
is not specifically addressed in the New Testament then
those who commit adultery by remarrying after divorce
should be treated differently than those who commit other
forms of sin. It should be noted that the New
Testament does not specifically address the subject of
how to deal with professing believers who commit
homosexual acts, engage in premarital sex, or a multitude
of other sins. The only sexual sin that is
specifically addressed with regard to church discipline
is incest (1 Cor. 5). It is assumed that
other sexual sins should be dealt with in the same manner
as this case of incest. The Bible teaches that believers are to
cease and desist from all acts of known sin. Adultery
committed by remarrying is not a greater form of sexual
sin, but it also is not a lesser form of sin that need
not be discontinued simply because the New Testament does
not specifically address it. The church is to
proclaim the consistent application of the doctrine of
repentance and the forsaking of ones sin. If
one is truly repentant they will change their mind about
that subject and then subsequently change their actions. Questions and Applications Now that the basic groundwork has been laid
concerning the subject of the divorce, remarriage, and
the permanence of adultery the following section will
deal with commonly asked questions and practical
applications of this doctrine. It is one thing to
form doctrinal positions. It is another to lovingly
apply biblical doctrine to peoples lives. Doctrine
and theology were never meant to be divorced from
application. Doctrine was intended to be married
with practice. The book of James warns Christians
to not simply be hearers of the word, but also doers.
If we do not practice what we hear we are said to deceive
ourselves (Jas. It is understood that some of the
ramifications of the Lords teachings on this
subject are difficult and may seem harsh from the human
perspective. I myself have thought that things
would be easier had the Lord not taught that remarriage
after divorce was adultery. It is for this very
reason that some believe that remarriage after divorce is
not adultery at all. They realize the ramifications
of the Lords teaching about divorce and remarriage
and believe that it is too difficult to apply. Christians need to be educated on the
permanence of marriage and the sin of remarriage after
divorce. Couples need to be taught that they need
to stay together and forgive one another when tough times
come. Faithfulness to God and His word requires
teaching and applying the whole counsel of God. This
is a biblical issue with biblical answers. 1. Is remarriage after a divorce a
greater sin than other sexual sins? Not necessarily. The reason that this
subject is so relevant for the church today is that it is
so prevalent. It is causing wide spread damage to
society, individual homes, and local fellowships. It
is a sin that is commonly practiced in the church and
some are diligently working to not only allow this sin
but even promote it in certain instances. Most Christians would never think to teach
that pornography, premarital sex, or homosexuality are
biblically justified. But when it comes to divorce
and remarriage, which Jesus calls adultery, the sin is
usually either ignored or justified. 2. Does divorce make one single
again? No, Romans 7:3 clearly states that neither
divorce nor remarriage ends the first marriage. Only
death ends marriage. Divorce is a legal action
invented by man. There is no place in the Bible
which explicitly states that God commands or condones
divorce and remarriage for biblically established and
consummated marriages. God did not have a plan B in
the Garden of Eden for Adam and Eve to divorce and
remarry if their marriage did not work out. The church as well as civil government may
oversee the establishment of marriage. The church
cannot grant a legal divorce, this action belongs only to
the state. Divorce can end the legal aspect of
marriage but it can never end the one flesh aspect
established by God. Divorce does not make a man or woman single
again. Divorce does not end a persons first
marriage. Jesus claimed that remarriage after
divorce is adultery. Adultery can only occur if one
or both persons involved are married. If two single
persons enter into an illicit sexual relationship it
would be called fornication not adultery. If both parties
in a second marriage were truly single Jesus would not
have called their marriage adultery. Jesus taught that
when a man marries a divorced woman he commits adultery
with her, meaning that he is having sexual relations with
another mans wife. Mans civil action in
divorce court does not end the one flesh and one spirit
aspect of marriage that God has joined together. 3. If a person divorces before they come
to Christ, may they remarry after becoming a believer? The answer to this is a difficult
No. The Bible makes no distinction whether a
divorce occurs before or after regeneration. This is
because marriage is universal and based upon the
ordinances of creation. It is not specifically a
Christian institution. Marriage is a union which is
recognized and validated by God. It does not
matter whether the marriage is solemnized by the church
or by the state or whether the two individuals are
believers or unbelievers. Some have attempted to
use Second Corinthians 5:17 as a proof text: Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is
a new creature: old things are passed away: behold, all
things are become new (2 Cor. This verse teaches that at the point of
conversion a person is a new creature in Christ. It
does not teach that the believer is allowed to remarry or
commit any other sin. In context it teaches exactly
the opposite. The believer is a new creation and
the indwelling Holy Spirit of God enables him to obey the
commands of Christ. It is true that at salvation
all sins are completely forgiven. Forgiveness does
not necessarily release one from the consequences of
their past. Nothing occurs at salvation that could
be construed to teach that ones marital status
changes when they place their faith in Christ. 4. Is remarriage necessary to lead
a fulfilled life? Many who have never married are able to lead
a fulfilled life in Christ. Divorced people who do
not remarry can find satisfaction and fulfillment by
remaining celibate. In western culture marriage has
become a form of self gratification. True
satisfaction and fulfillment are found only in obeying
Christ as Lord. Our society places an emphasis on
the pursuit of happiness; the Bible places an emphasis on
the pursuit of holiness. If we first seek
Gods righteousness He will amply supply our needs
according to His will. Western society also places an emphasis on
sexual gratification and self realization. Neither
of these are biblical concepts. Some appeal to
verses like First Corinthians 7:9, It is better
to marry than to burn, which speaks of widows
and widowers, as a basis for remarriage after divorce.
Paul is clear that separated or divorced believers are to
remain unmarried or be reconciled to their spouse (1 Cor.
The story of Joseph and Potiphars wife
and the teachings in Romans 6-8 show us that God has
given us control over these areas of our lives.
Christians are not enslaved to sexual passions. Beyond
this many Christians who have never married can testify
to the fulfillment they have outside of sexual areas in
their lives. Geoffrey Bromiley has captured the spirit of
the New Testament when he writes: In a world of the fall the redemptive work
of God carries with it a service of God not necessarily a
technical ministry but a service according to Gods
will, by Gods appointment, and in Gods
discipleship which means that some part of life, if not
all, must be lived temporarily outside the regular
patterns of Gods created order. This reminds
us of the order of priorities which Jesus demands in the
calling of His disciples. What God requires must
come before all else, the good as well as the bad. The
followers of Jesus must be ready, should He will, to
renounce even marriage for the sake of the gospel. They
must be ready to obey God and not remarry after
separation even though they might plead, as they often
do, that they have a right to happiness and fulfillment
of natural desires. To talk of a right to happiness
is to delude ones self. Happiness, when
attained, is a gift from God and it cannot be attained,
nor can life be fulfilled, where there is a conflict with
Gods stated will or a defiant refusal to see that
true happiness and fulfillment lie only in a primary
commitment to Gods kingdom and righteousness.
For Gods sake, some may have to put it in a new
perspective, and some who have broken their marriage may
have to refrain from marriage. Marriage is a good
thing but it is not the one thing needful
(Luke 5. Does time change
things? Some wrongly assume that time changes
ones marital status. It is true that
Gods grace combined with time can heal damaged
emotions. The Bible gives no hint that a
period of healing changes ones marital
status to allow a divorced person the freedom to remarry.
It is also not true that the state of adultery that is
entered into by remarrying after a divorce slowly goes
away. If remarriage is considered adulterous one day
after a divorce it is still considered adulterous one
year or ten years after divorce. The one flesh bond
continues on until the death of either partner. 6. Does grace change
things? Gods grace does not make an
unrighteous act righteous. Paul makes it clear that
believers should not continue to sin so that grace may
increase (Rom. 6:1). Paul also reminded the
Corinthian believers that some of them were
fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, and homosexuals.
Notice the text does not say that some of them are.
Their lives had been changed by the grace of God. Those
who were fornicators no longer practiced that sin;
those who were adulterers no longer practiced that
sin; those who were homosexuals no longer
practiced that sin. In First Corinthians11 Paul tells the
Corinthians that they were washed, they were sanctified,
they were justified. The statements are given in
reverse order of the Christian experience. Justification
and positional sanctification are acts of God which take
place when a person places their faith in Christ. Justified
(edikaiothete) and sanctified (egiasthete)
use the passive voice of the verb to show that the action
was done to them when they believed. Washed
(apelousasthe) uses the middle voice to show that
the believers had washed themselves. Washed speaks
of separation from a sinful past, not the washing of
salvation. In other words they had left behind
their sinful lifestyles which included the above
mentioned sexual sins. The grace of God had
been poured out on these believers lives. Because
of the work of God they separated themselves from their
sinful lifestyles. They did not continue to sin so
that the grace of God would increase. 7. Does adultery or remarriage sever the
original one flesh bond? It is sometimes taught that adultery or the
subsequent remarriage after divorce breaks the one flesh
bond. Some claim that it is one act of adultery
that severs the marriage relationship. Some claim
that persistent adultery severs the marriage
relationship. Some claim that it is the actual
legal divorce that severs the marriage relationship.
Others claim that the marriage relationship is severed by
a subsequent remarriage to another person. The
Bible considers all these acts wrong but it does not
teach that any of them sever the marriage relationship. The error occurs partly because of a
misunderstanding as to when the beginning of marriage
actually occurs. Marriage takes place at the point
in time when the bride and groom signify their commitment
to one another. The precise manner may vary from
culture to culture but marriage begins at this point.
This is most likely the leaving spoken of in
Scripture. It is this commitment to one another
that allows them to consummate the marriage with
sexual relations. This is most likely the
cleaving spoken of in Scripture. A
misunderstanding takes place when it is believed that
sexual relations commence a marriage. Sexual
relations do not begin a marriage and sexual relations do
not end a marriage. In western culture there may
be instances where a couple commit to one another in a
legal and binding marriage relationship but never
consummate the marriage. In this case they are
still married until death do they part. The
situation may be somewhat different in Eastern cultures
that practice betrothal. Some mistakenly believe that First
Corinthians If it is believed that the one flesh bond
ceases to exist when a man commits adultery with a harlot
then the next question that must be asked is whether the
man is now one flesh with the harlot? The
text specifically states that he is only one
body with her. Once again there is no reference to
the man being married. For sake of argument if it
is believed that adultery ends the one flesh union that a
man has with his wife and establishes a one flesh union
with the harlot then this would cause the man to cease
being married to his wife and marry him to the harlot.
If he then returned to his wife and had sexual relations
with her he would then be committing adultery against the
harlot by having sexual relations with his wife. This
is absurd but these are the logical conclusions one would
arrive at if they believe that this passage teaches that
adultery ends the one flesh bond. Some erroneously teach that it is persistent
adultery that severs the one flesh bond and thus allows a
person to divorce their spouse and subsequently remarry.
Not only does this view lack scriptural support but the
term persistent is vague and indefinable. Jesus
told His disciples to forgive those who sin against them
seventy times seven. This statement of hyperbole
means to forgive no matter how many times one is wronged.
Paul told husbands to love their wives as
Christ loved the church. This is
unconditional love. The Bible teaches persistent
forgiveness of an adulterous spouse, not divorce of the
persistently adulterous spouse. The persistent adultery theory has other
inconsistencies. Either one act of adultery does or
does not sever the marriage relationship. To claim
anything else is illogical. If one act of adultery
severs the one flesh marriage bond then those who commit
one act of adultery would cease to be married to their
spouse; unless they were to remarry their original
spouse. This would mean that the married couple
would be living in persistent adultery if one partner
committed adultery and the other never knew of it. This
is absurd, but sometimes absurdity is necessary to
illustrate the absurd. Others teach that adultery is wrong, divorce
is wrong, and remarriage is wrong but since a person is
now remarried this makes it right. This safe harbor
theory has no biblical basis. It is the admission
of sin with no practical application of the doctrine of
repentance. 8. What about civil divorce courts? The Bible makes it clear that a believer in
Christ is not to take another believer to court (1 Cor.
6:1-7). If a dispute arises between a Christian
husband and a Christian wife the matter should be judged
by other spiritually minded believers. A case
can be made that if a believer gets a summons to appear
in court because their spouse is pursuing a divorce they
should obey the laws of the land and appear in court.
One purpose for appearing should be to see if
reconciliation of the marriage can be achieved. A
Christian should not be the instigator or aggressor of a
divorce in a civil court. 9. Is Gods blessing
on a second marriage evidence of His approval? God does not bless that which he considers
to be sin. God is good to the righteous and the
unrighteous alike. God has mercy on sinners. It
is the goodness of God that leads to repentance. Some
believe that compatibility or harmony in a second
marriage is the sign of Gods approval. This
misunderstanding of marriage is based upon selfish
gratification rather than a life long commitment. Outward
circumstances are not the determinant of right and wrong.
Some second marriages appear to go quite smoothly. Many
carry doubt and guilt. Some are filled with strife
and end in a second divorce. Final judgment is
rendered in the next life after death. 10. What if a remarried person
recognizes their error? They should confess their sin to God and be
assured that He is faithful and just to forgive them (1
John 1:9). Forgiveness should be sought of those
who were harmed or offended. In some cases
restitution may be necessary. The word repentance (metanoia)
literally means to change ones mind. Part of
repentance is to forsake ones sin. Admit it
and quit it, if you will. The Bible knows nothing
of being sorry for ones sin and still continuing in
it. If a person is involved in homosexuality,
repentance would include acknowledging that it is wrong,
as well as ceasing homosexual behavior. If a person
is a thief, they are to admit that stealing is wrong and
cease. The question naturally arises whether
remarried Christians should discontinue the relationship
they are in. This is a difficult question that is
not specifically addressed in the New Testament. Since
the one flesh bond is never broken by divorce, the
logical implication seems to be that a remarried person
should terminate the current relationship. The Lord
calls remarriage after divorce adultery. There is
no biblical reason to believe that this is a one time act
of adultery with no further implications. If it was
adulterous in the first instance it remains such
throughout the relationship. 11. May the repentant person return
to their former spouse? If a person involved in a remarriage
relationship was previously married and there is a mutual
desire on the part of the original partners to be
reunited, there is no New Testament principle that
forbids it. This is the logical conclusion based upon the
continuance of the one flesh bond. For those who
are divorced against their will or those who have
divorced and recognize their error and subsequently
desire to be reunited with their legitimate spouse they
should never give up hope. God can work in the
hardest of hearts to bring them to repentance. The Bible teaches that the first marriage
remains intact. This is the reason the repentant
person may return to their former spouse. The Lord
Jesus Christ taught that the so called second
marriage is adultery. In order to commit
adultery one must be married to someone; that someone is
the original spouse. One cannot commit adultery if they
are not considered married. Jesus claimed that a
second marriage is adultery committed against ones
spouse. This implies that the divorced person is still
married to their original partner. The laws of men allow legitimate subsequent
marriages. The law of Christ does not. The
implication of Jesus teaching is that the person
who is granted a civil divorce and then remarries is
still married to their original partner in the eyes of
God. The two are still one flesh whatever sexual
relations either one may have had in the mean time.
All additional sexual relations committed are seen as
adulterous in the eyes of the Lord. It is for this
reason that the repentant person may return to their
former spouse because in the eyes of the Lord they did
not cease to be married. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 does raise a question for
some. Verse 4 teaches that the first husband who divorced
his wife was never allowed to receive her back even if
her second husband died. The issue is whether this
verse applies to Christians today. If it does apply
then this would preclude the divorced spouse from
returning. There are many things written in the Old
Testament which do not apply to Christians. This
may be one of them. 12. What if a person has counseled
others to divorce and remarry? If a person encourages someone else to sin
they should confess it to God and ask the person whom
they have counseled to forgive them. They should
admit their error and give correct counsel to the
individual. Teaching another person to break one of
Gods commands is a serious matter and should not be
taken lightly (Matt. Many counselors are so eager to help hurting
people that they will counsel a person to remarry no
matter what the circumstances behind the divorce. They
just want the person to be happy. To
others, every divorce is different and one is usually
encouraged to remarry based upon various subjective
criteria such as how long one has been divorced or
whether they have had time to heal. It
is not uncommon for divorced women to be told to remarry
for the financial sake of the children or that they
should remarry in order to fulfill their emotional
needs. There are no verses in
Scripture that teach that a woman who does not have
children commits adultery if she remarries but if she
does have children she does not commit adultery. What
if the woman has adequate financial means to support her
children and herself? What if the husband has
custody of the children? Those who base their decisions on these and
other subjective criteria are practicing a form of
situational ethics. Compassion for people is a good
thing but answers should be rooted in the authority of
Scripture whenever possible. Those who teach that
people should remarry because they are
unfulfilled are subjecting the word of God to
a form of moral relativism. The answers to divorce
and remarriage questions are to be found inside not
outside of Scripture. Some divorced people remarry because the
local church is not functioning in the manner in which
God intended it. This is no excuse for sin but
local congregations must stand ready to spiritually,
emotionally, and financially support divorced people in
need, especially those who have children. 13. What if the elders of a
congregation encourage divorce and remarriage? It is common to hear people claim that since
this is a tough subject the elders of each local assembly
should examine each case and give approval or disapproval
for divorce and remarriage. One problem with this
form of thinking is that what is sin and forbidden by
God in one congregation is not sin and
allowed by God in another congregation.
God is not ambivalent. Elders are established to shepherd the flock
by teaching and upholding Gods word. Elders
have no more authority to say that a person can divorce
and remarry than the Roman Catholic Church has the right
to grant annulments. Both are extra-biblical
teachings of men with no Scriptural basis. 14. Is divorce allowed for cruelty
or abuse? Jesus allowed divorce for one reason only,
fornication (porneia). It is adding to
Gods word to claim that this includes physical or
emotional abuse. The continuation of marriage is
always Gods will. Separation is allowed (and
may be advisable) in situations where ones safety
is involved. Any such separation should be taken as
a step towards reconciliation of the marriage. Paul
clearly states that the wife who departs should be
reconciled to her husband or remain single (1 Cor. 15. Should divorced Christians remarry in
order to help them resist sexual temptation? This way may seem right but it is not
Gods will for the Christian. Since remarriage
after divorce is considered adultery then it would make
no sense to remarry in order to fulfill ones sexual
desires. In doing so one would be committing adultery so
that they would not be tempted to commit adultery. Any
sexual relations with another person while ones
original spouse is alive would be considered adultery.
It makes no difference if further sexual relations are
committed inside or outside the confines of a subsequent
civil marriage ceremony. Further sexual relations
are considered adultery either way. As stated before, even Erasmian interpreters
will have to deal with this subject as most divorces
between Christians do not occur because of persistent
adultery. Even if it is granted that the
exception clause allows for divorce and
remarriage in limited instances, the vast majority of
divorces are not covered by the exception clause. 16. Should divorced Christians
remain in a second marriage if they have produced
children? The statement of Jesus that remarriage after
a divorce is considered adultery does not mention an
exception for those who have produced
children. The sexual relations between the two are
considered adulterous regardless of whether they have
children or not. Sin has consequences. Children
are harmed when first marriages are granted civil
divorces. Children are harmed when they are born
out of wedlock. Such consequences remind us of the
gravity of sin. Those who allow divorce and remarriage
rarely take into consideration whether the original
legitimate marriage produced children. They claim
the right to end that relationship regardless
of whether children were produced or not. It is
only when there is talk of ending the second adulterous
marriage that concern for children is considered. This naturally leads to a second question:
if a couple repents of their adultery and separates, what
should be done for the benefit of the children?
Both parents are responsible for the support and
upbringing of children which are produced. This is
similar to when children are produced out of wedlock
before a legitimate marriage. Both persons are
responsible for their actions. It would also be
similar to a married man who fathers a child during an
adulterous affair; he is responsible for the financial
and emotional support of that child. Some have suggested that remarried couples
should cease sexual relations but continue to live under
the same roof in a brother sister relationship. This
may be one alternative; but it is probable that sexual
temptation would be too great and ones testimony
would be harmed by outward appearances. 17. May a divorced and remarried
person be received into fellowship? Those who repent and forsake their sin may
be received into fellowship. It should be kept in
mind that many have been encouraged to remarry by other
Christians. This does not excuse the sin but those
who are remarried may be seen in two different
categories. There who have sinned ignorantly and
those who have sinned intentionally. Both sin but
the heart is different, especially with those who have
remarried before they came to Christ. Now that they
have turned to Christ for forgiveness they should be
encouraged to repent and confess their sin to God. Some may be tempted to ignore this sin
especially among those who remarried before turning to
Christ. It is sometimes taught that those who
divorce and remarry before turning to Christ can continue
to live in their sin while those who divorce and remarry
after turning to Christ should be subject to church
discipline. Although it is true that Christians
should know better, the sin is the same. Any sexual
relationship that a married person has with anyone other
than their original spouse is considered adulterous.
A consistent approach teaches that a person involved in
an adulterous relationship cannot be received into
fellowship. It is most incongruous to teach that a
person involved in this kind of adulterous relationship
can be received into fellowship while those who are in
other adulterous relationships should be disciplined or
put out. Another aspect of this question must be
considered: may a divorced but not remarried person be
received into fellowship? The answer is generally
yes. There is a clear distinction between one who
is divorced and one who is divorced and remarried. They
are related topics but not one and the same. Remarriage
after divorce is adultery. Divorce in and of itself
is not necessarily sin. If a person is divorced
because their spouse has divorced them against their will
then the blame lies with the person who sought the
divorce. 18. What if a Christian friend chooses to
divorce and remarry? First, one should pray for their friend and
then for ones self. The emphasis should be
for wisdom and love based upon Scripture. The
person should go and express Christs unconditional
love to their friend but be prepared to follow Christ no
matter what the cost. One should carefully show
from Scripture that divorce and remarriage is considered
adultery. It is out of concern, not condemnation,
that this should be done. 19. What about vows? Ecclesiates 5:4 makes it clear that people
should keep their vows to God. Most who marry make
vows before God that their marriage will be until
death do us part. If the Erasmian position is
true then the vows should be changed to read until
adultery, desertion, divorce, or death do us part.
For many modern evangelicals it should also read until
irreconcilable differences, lack of emotional
support, falling out of love (or almost anything else one
wants to add) do us part. 20. What is Gods opinion of
divorce? In Malachi Though not expressly restated in the New
Testament it is possible that the spiritual principles of
this passage may apply to the Christian today. If a
Christian divorces his wife and deals treacherously
against her it may be possible that God will reject his
worship. In First Peter 3:7 husbands are warned to
treat their wives with honor or their prayers may be
hindered. Certainly divorcing ones wife
cannot be considered treating her with honor. Modern Erasmian interpreters have attempted
to explain away this passage by claiming that it is only hateful
divorces that cover a mans garment with wrong.
The Hebrew text literally reads For He hates
sending away. The He in this context is
God. Modern Erasmian interpreters translate the phrase
For the man who hates and divorces. This
is a loose translation at best the purpose of which
appears to be to allow divorce and remarriage; except
those divorces based upon hate. We are not told the
definition of non-hateful divorces which are not
considered treacherous. Further proof that the
Erasmian understanding of this text is wrong is the
contextual statement that the woman is still thy
companion and thy wife by covenant even after she
was divorced. 21. Did Jesus approve of the
Samaritan womans five marriages? In John 4:4-26 Jesus encountered the
Samaritan woman at Jacobs well. When Jesus
told her to call her husband she claimed, I have no
husband. Jesus prophetically replied that she
was correct. She had been married to five men and
the man she was now with was not her husband. Some
have pointed out that Jesus recognized the legality of
the womans five marriages. There is little
doubt that Jesus recognized the cultural legality of
these marriages. The issue is that Jesus used this
to show the woman her sin and her need for a Savior. He
was not approving of her multiple marriages any more than
He approved of her current unlawful relationship. Her
marriages may have been legal according to the civil
authorities but they did not receive divine approval.
The passage does not teach the dissolution of marriage
with the right to remarry. It teaches the
sinfulness of the woman who had multiple marriages.
It also teaches the love and forgiveness that Christ
bestows on all who believe no matter how great their sin.
22. Are those who teach the
permanence of marriage modern day Pharisees? It is sometimes claimed that those who teach
that remarriage after divorce is adultery are similar to
the Pharisees of Jesus day. This analogy has no
factual basis. According to the historical record
there were few if any Pharisees who taught that a
divorced person could not remarry. In the first century A.D. the Pharisees were
divided into two main camps, those who followed the
teachings of Hillel and those who followed the teachings
of Shammai. Hillel taught that a person could
divorce his wife for almost any reason. Shammai
taught that a person could divorce his wife only for
serious sexual sins. Both claimed that a divorced
person had the right to remarry. It is actually modern day evangelicals who
teach that divorce and remarriage is allowed who are the
most like the Pharisees. They debate the nuances of
the divorce clause and seek legal loopholes that allow
people not only the right to divorce but also to remarry.
Some allow divorce and remarriage for almost any reason
and while others limit it to serious sexual sins. The
words of the Lord Jesus would be the same to these
teachers as it was for the Pharisees, Therefore what
God has joined together, let no man separate (Matt.
19:6). It is also claimed that to require such a
high standard as no remarriage after divorce is legalism.
Legalism is defined as attempting to earn or keep
ones salvation by works of the Law. Obeying
Scripture with a proper heart towards God is not
legalism. Nor is it legalism to obey what Christ
commands. The balance is found in the command to
speak the truth in love. How Jesus
dealt with the woman accused of adultery in John 8:1-11
is a clear example of love without compromise. He
did not condemn the woman to death by stoning. He
did not lower Gods standards. He told her to
go and sin no more. |