Is Remarriage after Divorce, Adultery?

[amadeus]

I'll be honest, at 25 years old this is not a subject that I've given much study to. It is discussed from time to time, but I've never experienced helping / being there for someone going through this type of situation being the age I am - so I'm just curious. @Episkopos I agree with what you said. If people knew that it was just initial then they could have the mindset of just asking for forgiveness. I then ask myself, well is that true repentance? But after repentance if they continue staying with the individual then it becomes a lifestyle of sin. Either way it is adultery and not what God desires for marriage.

While the following verses are definitely OT, they also definitely speak to us of the mind of God. Has His mind ever changed?

"For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of those lands: yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been chief in this trespass.
And when I heard this thing, I rent my garment and my mantle, and plucked off the hair of my head and of my beard, and sat down astonied." Ezra 9:2-3

"And Shechaniah the son of Jehiel, one of the sons of Elam, answered and said unto Ezra, We have trespassed against our God, and have taken strange wives of the people of the land: yet now there is hope in Israel concerning this thing.
Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of my lord, and of those that tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law." Ezra 10:2-3

"And Shechaniah the son of Jehiel, one of the sons of Elam, answered and said unto Ezra, We have trespassed against our God, and have taken strange wives of the people of the land: yet now there is hope in Israel concerning this thing.
Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of my lord, and of those that tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law." Ezra 10:2-3

This story in Ezra may be especially hard to receive when we consider that not only were the unequally yoked spouses to be put away but also the children born of those wrong marriages also being put away. The children had no direct fault, but they certainly suffered because of what the parents did for their own selfish purposes without due consideration.

The children of Israel were selfish then and people are selfish today... selfish to the point even of taking actions that will needlessly hurt innocent children. In Ezra anyone who refused to put away their strange spouses and their offspring would have been cut off from Israel. For them with God that would have been the end.

People can go ahead and divorce for their own reasons, even for good reasons [such as physical, mental and emotional abuse], but if they knowingly go against what God has made clear to them is His Way... why should they ever expect mercy while they are able to correct the error?

We should not try to set in place here hard and fast black and white rules regarding divorce, but neither should we presume that it is OK to by pass what we see is displeasing to God in order to get what is for the moment pleasing to us. We may be faced with difficult decisions as they were in the Book of Ezra, but will not God help us to make the right decision according to His will rather than our own? Think of the decision Jesus had to make. In his flesh was also a desire to escape the suffering which he knew he was facing. He asked that that "cup" be removed, but he willing went with God even though the "cup" was still his to drink. What cup is ours to drink?

 

[amadeus]

57 years! Wow. My wife and I have been married for 3 years (I was 21 and my wife was 29)with the age difference there are times my immaturity comes out in situations but we learn together and we grow together and forgive together. Each day is a blessing and each day takes work.

Good!

Compared to @"ByGrace" ours is also seemingly short. We just passed our 46th anniversary. But... I know that there are many these days who cannot make it primarily because they are more interested in their own desires than in pleasing God. For a marriage to work and last in God requires that both spouses be submitted fully to God.

 

[amadeus]

Common Law marriage is when two people become married by holding themselves out as married. Without ceremony or legal paperwork, yes, they're married in God's eyes, and in the state's eyes (if the state recognizes Common Law).

When I retired from the Social Security Administration a legal common law marriage could only be established in two states. One of them was Texas. I forget the other one. However, every one of the 50 states recognized as legal any marriage legally established in any one of the other 49 states and according to the laws of most other nations. When this thing of same sex marriage came in lots of rules and laws changed. Since I retired before that happened I don't know how this has all changed. Without doubt as believers in Christ we likely would not and probably should not be pleased with all of the changes that have occurred as a result...

 

[amadeus]

I want to agree, but a man following that advice would likely end up with a frigid woman who makes a miserable wife. How is a man to know his girlfriend is going along with celibacy out of virtue rather than dysfunction? (It's much less likely a woman would have this problem with a boyfriend.)

If we are His sheep then we hear His voice and obey Him:

"To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.
And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.
And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers." John 10:3-5

 

[Vexatious]

When I retired from the Social Security Administration a legal common law marriage could only be established in two states. One of them was Texas. I forget the other one. However, every one of the 50 states recognized as legal any marriage legally established in any one of the other 49 states and according to the laws of most other nations. When this thing of same sex marriage came in lots of rules and laws changed. Since I retired before that happened I don't know how this has all changed. Without doubt as believers in Christ we likely would not and probably should not be pleased with all of the changes that have occurred as a result...

Thirty years ago, there were 15 states that recognized common law marriage, and all 50 states recognized common law marriages in those 15. Today, there are 10 states that recognize common law marriage. Probably 100 years ago, all states recognized common law marriages.

 

[Helen]

Thirty years ago, there were 15 states that recognized common law marriage, and all 50 states recognized common law marriages in those 15. Today, there are 10 states that recognize common law marriage. Probably 100 years ago, all states recognized common law marriages.

When we use the term recognized...do we mean legal?
It seems to me that 'legally' it is recognized.
After 6 months or so of living together and if they separate..if one had money and the other not...then the one who didn't have any is legally entitled to get half of 'everything'.

Maybe it is different in every State and every Province? No idea.

It seems to me that there is not much legal difference between the two.

 

[Vexatious]

When we use the term recognized...do we mean legal?

Yes, in 10 states, if you hold yourself out as married, you are legally married. If you wish to end a common law marriage, you have to go through the same legal drama as anyone else married.

Six months makes no difference, except maybe you could more easily convince a judge that you were just cohabitation and didn't really claim to be married (e.g. did you file MFJ on your taxes?). But, I doubt a judge would place much weight on any six month marriage, when splitting assets.

 

[Nancy]

Given the divorce rates in the West and that "common law" really means NO commitment, that is not really marriage (it used to mean simply "shacking up"). All cultures have public weddings, whether you wish to call them civil ceremonies or anything else.

New York no longer recognizes common law marriages.

 

[Jay Ross]

In the Oral tradition, i.e. The book of Jasher, it indicates that Rebekah was only 10 years old, about 30 years younger than Isaac when she left Haran to become Isaac's wife.

Jasher 24:38-40: - 38 And Eliezer related to them all his concerns, and that he was Abraham's servant, and they greatly rejoiced at him. 39And they all blessed the Lord who brought this thing about, and they gave him Rebecca, the daughter of Bethuel, for a wife for Isaac. 40And the young woman was of very comely appearance, she was a virgin, and Rebecca was ten years old in those days.​

It seems to me that Rebecca was older than 10 years old when she left, however, another indicator of the young age of Rebecca from Genesis, is that she was accompanied by her nurse when she went with Elieser to live with Isaac.

Genesis 24:61: - 61 Then Rebekah and her maids arose, and rode upon the camels and followed the man; thus the servant took Rebekah, and went his way.

Genesis 35:8: - 8 And Deborah, Rebekah's nurse, died, and she was buried under an oak below Bethel; so the name of it was called Allon-bacuth.​

Now Rebecca was barren and around 19-20 years later Isaac had to pray for his wife's because she was barren and needed to be healed by God.

Genesis 25:19-21, 26: - 19 These are the descendants of Isaac, Abraham's son: Abraham was the father of Isaac, 20 and Isaac was forty years old when he took to wife Rebekah, the daughter of Bethu'el the Aramean of Paddan-aram, the sister of Laban the Aramean. 21 And Isaac prayed to the Lord for his wife, because she was barren; and the Lord granted his prayer, and Rebekah his wife conceived. . . . . .

. . . . 26 Afterward his brother came forth, and his hand had taken hold of Esau's heel; so his name was called Jacob. Isaac was sixty years old when she bore them.​

We need to be a little careful when we read into the silences of the scriptures. We are not told when Isaac and Rebecca became a married couple.

Shalom

 

[Vexatious]

Given the divorce rates in the West and that "common law" really means NO commitment, that is not really marriage (it used to mean simply "shacking up"). All cultures have public weddings, whether you wish to call them civil ceremonies or anything else.

Enoch111, you are an endless source of factual errors, to say nothing of random nonsense conclusions and false doctrine.

Common Law marriage is 100% real marriage in the eyes of both God and State. The sacred and legal commitment is 100% the same as any other marriage.

 

[Enoch111]

Enoch111, you are an endless source of factual errors, to say nothing of random nonsense conclusions and false doctrine.

Vexatious,
It is you who are an endless source of vexatious nonsense, to say nothing of your false doctrines. So take a good hard look at this official report:

"Of the 2 million Canadians who went through a breakup between 2001 and 2006, approximately half were ending a marriage and the other half were dissolving a common-law relationship. This was despite the fact that there were far fewer common-law couples than married couples in 2001.

Those in common-law unions had lived together for an average of 4.3 years, whereas those in marriages had been together for an average of 14.3 years. [Note: this used to be called "shacking up"]

Nearly two-thirds (65%) of those who left a common-law relationship did not make use of any formal program or service during the breakup. By contrast, 31% of married people who separated and 18% of those who divorced did not seek a formal program or service. Generally, 74% of people with dependent children used some type of formal service during the breakup, compared with 45% of people who separated or divorced with no dependent children."

Common-law couples are more likely to break up

 

[Enoch111]

New York no longer recognizes common law marriages.

About time. This corroborates what I have said.

 

[Vexatious]

Vexatious,
It is you who are an endless source of vexatious nonsense, to say nothing of your false doctrines. So take a good hard look at this official report:

"Of the 2 million Canadians who went through a breakup between 2001 and 2006, approximately half were ending a marriage and the other half were dissolving a common-law relationship. This was despite the fact that there were far fewer common-law couples than married couples in 2001.

Common Law marriages are NOT shacking up, even if the are more prone to breaking up, which I don't know. Why do you have an affinity for rejecting basic facts?

Your source says nothing about "common-law marriage" so it's worthless on this topic.

Fundamentalist Christians are more likely to get divorced than anyone else on the planet (at least, before same-sex marriage), does that mean Fundamentalists are just shacking up when they get "married"?

 

[amadeus]

Thirty years ago, there were 15 states that recognized common law marriage, and all 50 states recognized common law marriages in those 15. Today, there are 10 states that recognize common law marriage. Probably 100 years ago, all states recognized common law marriages.

I do know what I am talking about with regard to marriage law as it related to Social Security which whenever possible was based on the state law of the state where the couple lived. I made common law marriage decisions for Social Security for many years. We had copies of all the state marriage laws in order to correctly make our decisions as if a state court with jurisdiction were making the decisions but they were always for Social Security benefit eligibility purposes only. If a state court had actually rendered a decision on a common law marriage case we were bound by their decision, but such cases were rare. We applied the law of the state with jurisdiction as closely as possible to the way such state would have applied it if they were making the judgment. Our decisions [mine for the cases I processed] were final for Social Security purposes subject of course to appeal by a claimant at an higher level within the Social Security Administration. Over the years I made many such decisions, both favorable and unfavorable.

As I said, at the time of my retirement in the year 2000, it was only legal to contract a common law marriage within a few of the fifty states. All of the time I worked for Social Security all 50 states recognized as valid marriages any marriage contracted legally within the jurisdiction of any other of the fifty states. This meant for example that a couple who lived together in California only without a ceremonial marriage would have no legal marriage in California no matter what they believed. The only people living in California with legal common law marriages had contracted those marriages in other jurisdictions according to the laws of those jurisdictions prior to moving to California. For Social Security benefit purposes only it was possible to establish under special circumstances a "marriage" based on the good faith belief of a person that the common law relationship was a legal marriage. [This was usually in a death case, since in life case, it was still possible for the two parties to make their marriage legal by having someone perform a ceremony.] Such a decision by Social Security was binding only for Social Security purposes and DID NOT ever establish a marriage under state law.

There were other states besides [you say 10 but I guess I don't really don't recall the exact number] the ones where it is still legal which did in the past have common law marriage statutes, but most of those states had changed their laws before I started work for Social Security in 1974 making it impossible to establish a legal common law marriage in those jurisdictions. We had a list of the precise dates for each state that the law was changed so as to be able to apply the law if someone seemed to meet the requirement. When a question came up that made a difference to the person for Social Security purposes, we might have to make a decision to confirm the eligibility of the person to Social Security payments.

In any state where any kind of a legal marriage was established, it could only be ended prior to the death of one of the parties by a formal divorce... even if it was a common law marriage. This was true in all 50 states.

 

[amadeus]

When we use the term recognized...do we mean legal?
It seems to me that 'legally' it is recognized.
After 6 months or so of living together and if they separate..if one had money and the other not...then the one who didn't have any is legally entitled to get half of 'everything'.

Maybe it is different in every State and every Province? No idea.

It seems to me that there is not much legal difference between the two.

The laws are different for different jurisdictions. Even though a legal common law may not have been established, some states and provinces still have statutes in places providing regarding some legal rights for the surviving member of such a relationship. In state cases inheritance is usually the important thing if any kind of estate is involved. The laws vary considerably from one jurisdiction to another. Laws in all jurisdictions are usually much more favorable toward the biological children in such a cases than toward a person with no legally established marriage to a decedent. The details vary considerably according to who has jurisdiction.

 

[H. Richard]

Under grace divorce is a sin that has already been paid for and will not condemn anyone IMO.

But there is another sin of adultery that is not paid for, and that adultery is a person saying they believe God while in their hearts they only belief in their religions. Example: saying they believe in God and all the while they will not see the wonderful message that Jesus gave Paul. That message is that Jesus paid for the sins of the whole world but it will only save those that truly believe it does.

For a person to say they believe in Jesus and then say they believe in their works are committing spiritual adultery. A person can not believe in Jesus' payment for sins and then believe that they are paying for their sins by their works. IMHO

 

[Episkopos]

Under grace divorce is a sin that has already been paid for and will not condemn anyone IMO.

But there is another sin of adultery that is not paid for, and that adultery is a person saying they believe God while in their hearts they only belief in their religions. Example: saying they believe in God and all the while they will not see the wonderful message that Jesus gave Paul. That message is that Jesus paid for the sins of the whole world

For a person to say they believe in Jesus and then say they believe in their works are committing spiritual adultery. A person can not believe in Jesus' payment for sins and then believe that they are paying for their sins by their works. IMHO

A strawman. You had the right idea at first...although somehow reducing the effects of a carnal adultery. But this doozie..

but it will only save those that truly believe it does.

That is so far from the truth...

Does gravity only affect those who believe in it? Do the unbelievers in gravity float through the air? As far-fetched as this is...so also is your reasoning that your belief is necessary for reality to be.

Can you also change the weather by not believing it's raining?

 

[Vexatious]

Does gravity only affect those who believe in it? Do the unbelievers in gravity float through the air? As far-fetched as this is...so also is your reasoning that your belief is necessary for reality to be.

Can you also change the weather by not believing it's raining?

As a Calvinist, I believe what we believe has zero affect on our salvation. Rather, we believe because God, in his sovereignty, has given us the faith to believe. Yet, what we believe are just details (details often have great consequences) and those details don't have to be right for us to be saved.

There are many, even most people, who say they believe are not saved because God has not chosen them. Their belief counts as nothing. Belief is a manifestation of faith, but also those of true faith gravitate toward the truth in all things. But, those of false faith cling to even blatant lies with no willingness to change.

 

[Helen]

As a Calvinist, I believe what we believe has zero affect on our salvation. Rather, we believe because God, in his sovereignty, has given us the faith to believe. Yet, what we believe are just details (details often have great consequences) and those details don't have to be right for us to be saved.

There are many, even most people, who say they believe are not saved because God has not chosen them. Their belief counts as nothing. Belief is a manifestation of faith, but also those of true faith gravitate toward the truth in all things. But, those of false faith cling to even blatant lies with no willingness to change.

I am not a Calvinist as you are. But some interesting points there.

If any faith that we have is God's then why did Jesus says "Have faith and doubt not"...if man has no ability anyway of his own...
And why are we told to "choose this day whom we will serve" if we have no choice but have "false faith" as you said?

I do agree that for the most part , what we believe has zero affect on our salvation...true...it is 'in Whom we believe, not what we believe'.

Thank you for your post...I found it very interesting.

 

[Episkopos]

As a Calvinist, I believe what we believe has zero affect on our salvation. Rather, we believe because God, in his sovereignty, has given us the faith to believe. Yet, what we believe are just details (details often have great consequences) and those details don't have to be right for us to be saved.

Mainly agree. I think people put too much trust in their own beliefs and then justify themselves based on their beliefs....and endless circle of presumptions.

We will be judged by our works...what we have done with what we have been given.

There are many, even most people, who say they believe are not saved because God has not chosen them. Their belief counts as nothing. Belief is a manifestation of faith, but also those of true faith gravitate toward the truth in all things. But, those of false faith cling to even blatant lies with no willingness to change.

As is plainly evidenced for all to see...except those who have believed the lies.