Skip to main content

What is Adultery? Is remarriage ever permitted? What about Spousal Abuse? How do we move forward?


Grizzly Bear track, Rocky Mountains, Montana.

The Seventh Commandment tells us in Exodus chapter twenty to not commit adultery. “You shall
not commit adultery” is verbatim in most popular translations. But what does this mean? It seems that sometimes it is thought that adultery only means unfaithful to one’s spouse. But other times Jesus says things like “Even if you marry someone who has been married then you have committed adultery” (paraphrase of Matthew 5:32).
I think the best way to answer the question of adultery is to think one step further. I think we should answer biblically speaking, the grounds for remarriage. Reaching further would give the argument greater strength.
It seems that the Bible defines three areas for remarriage, but we should continue to refine the standard from which to catapult. In 1 Timothy chapter three, we observe the qualifications of an overseer. In this, Paul says that one of the qualifications must be that he is to be a “Μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα” which means in Koine Greek, “one woman man” or a man who is faithful to his wife. The idea of this passage being a man only being married to only one woman his entire life is theologically expelled with logic. For instance, what if the man’s wife died and he remarried? The Bible clearly frees a man to remarry a woman in the event of death in Romans chapter seven, beginning at verse one:

“For I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.”

If the death has occurred, then the remaining spouse is free to remarry and not sin against God. This is the first of three ways remarriage is not committing adultery. The same author is the author of both of these passages in Romans seven and 1 Timothy chapter three which tells us that he would not logically disagree with himself. One is saying that He must be the husband of one wife, which a lot of people read as “only one wife, ever”; and the other passage is saying that if the husbands’ wife dies, he is free to remarry. So which is it? There is definitely a third horn to the dilemma. The husband of one wife is faithfully translated into the English as “Faithful to his wife” because otherwise, it would be logically inconsistent.
One does not commit adultery by remarriage through death, as mentioned above, and secondly, by unfaithfulness, which we can see biblically in Matthew chapter 19:7-9, which says,

“Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery” (emphasis mine).

Theologians sometimes call this the “exception clause.” It seems that there are legalists who believe that this is inserted into the text as an interpolation, but the rest of the Biblical passages on this topic do not logically disagree with what is said here, indicating that this is genuine. The idea is that a person does not commit adultery by divorcing his wife and then marrying someone else on the grounds of infidelity. This is a second means by which a person can be remarried and not commit adultery.
With this, it seems to bring us to the conclusion that there is more to being guilty of adultery than simply infidelity, which I think Jesus answers. We will get to that shortly, but I want to continue with the biblical grounds for remarriage.
A third way that the Bible seems to give ground for remarriage is found in First Corinthians chapter seven:

“To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. 16 How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife” (emphasis mine)?

If you didn’t catch what is in there, I would personally call it abandonment. If your spouse abandons you, with a qualifier that she is not a Christian, then you are free to remarry. Paul says in this passage, “The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances…” This is interesting because the question becomes, what if she is a Christian? Well, if she was, would she be divorcing her husband (See 1 Corinthians 13:4)? Bear also in mind that you can tell what kind of a tree one is by the fruit that it produces (Matthew 7:15-20). This is the same chapter that tells us how to make good and proper judgments.
So if she claims to be a Christian yet leaves her husband, how do we handle this? Before we answer this, I think we can introduce another sensitive scenario here as well. What if the spouse is in an abusive relationship? This takes a turn from our main point, but needs to be addressed. If someone is in an abusive relationship, they should remove their self (and very likely, their children) at first offense. In a sense, the abusive spouse has abandoned his or her post, and is no longer acting accordingly. On the other hand, from a counseling perspective, I would never encourage someone to divorce their abusive spouse, because “God hates divorce” (NASB Malachi 2:16), which makes me think, there are not a lot of things in the Bible that spell out what God hates. Therefore, I think that counselors having a reverent fear of God is highly appropriate. Because of such, it seems that counseling someone to divorce their husband or wife would be like counseling them to go and steal something. There must, therefore, be another option, which is a separation.
We answer the problem of abandonment of a spouse the same way we answer an abusive spouse. Matthew chapter 18 tells us how to do that in a list of proper steps to take. The first step when a “brother sins against you” is to go to him privately (v. 15). In the case of physical abuse, however, this step must be skipped for obvious reasons. Secondly, if nothing changes, then bring two or three others with you to try to win him back to reality (v. 16). If that does not work, it is time to go public in the church (v. 17). Finally, if none of these steps work out, then you treat him as you would like someone who does not know God or someone whose moral compass is not calibrated (“Gentile or tax collector” v. 18).
So if the spouse abandons you or abuses you, they have clearly done wrong against you. The steps in Matthew 18 are the first place to which we turn in the Bible in either of these events. I realize that there are many different scenarios with either of these situations, but in order to move forward from them, things must be done, steps must be taken. This is a delicate matter in any event, but it is mentally (and possibly physically) healthy to move forward after knowing what the Bible says and hearing from many advisors (Proverbs 15:22).

With everything out in the open and all things considered, we must ask, “Is it good for us to try to find a way that we are not guilty of adultery before the Lord?” What is our purpose in understanding what the Bible says about our remarriage situation? Are we trying to justify ourselves before God?
We need to be very careful about making ourselves out to be clean before God (See Ephesians 2:8-9 and 1 John 1:9). It is good for us to humble ourselves before the Lord (1 Peter 5:5-6). Especially in a situation as fragile as discussed.

Ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη, Οὐ μοιχεύσεις.  ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ βλέπων γυναῖκα πρὸς τὸ ἐπιθυμῆσαι αὐτὴν ἤδη ἐμοίχευσεν αὐτὴν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ.

Jesus says, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:28). Now which of us reading these words of Jesus can honestly say that we have never lusted? With the enormity of how frequent this happens in the world, I think Jesus is saying in a sense, “See how desperately you need me!” We are all guilty of adultery (See Romans 3:10-18). Thankfully, we not only do not have to earn our way, but we absolutely cannot (See Romans 3:23 and 6:23 et. al.). Therefore, “Give thanks to the Lord for He is good! His love endures forever!”


Written by Nace Howell through the grace of the Lord Jesus 
© Nace Howell, 2019

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Evidence and Power of Testimony: The Apostolic Witness

What to say to People who Demand more Evidence for God. Why is there something rather than nothing? Glacier National Park. © Nace Howell, 2018. The question is, how much evidence do you require? Would Jesus have to come back and slap you in the face with evidence that He is God? It seems to me that there is a line we must draw. We do this in all other areas of our lives, so why would we treat theism any different? When a court convicts, they do so “beyond a reasonable doubt.” I would like to take a few moments to explore this a bit. But before we get to that, I want to pose a question, which is… why are you the standard? What makes you think He has to prove His existence to everyone individually? He already created the universe from nothing. In the beginning, there was a big bang. Seriously… do you believe your mom when she tells you a story about her day? Did you believe the reports of 9/11 when they were happening? Do you accept the testimony of anything you hear on social ...

Baptism is Not Necessary for Salvation According to the Early Church

Let’s dive right in. The Bible says in Acts 2:37-41,    Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.   The phrase in Acts 2:38 that reads, “for the forgiveness of your sins” modifies the word repentance, not the word baptism.  See more about this Here .   What is interesting is that those who translate the above verse as meaning that baptism is a requ...

Using Guilt to Guide to the Truth

While taking a cultural apologetics class in my doctorate, I rambled along in a 30-page paper and in it, I wrote that, “I define religion as an anthropological system consisting of worship which is often filled with specific sacred rituals that seeks to appease or eradicate guilt.” My professor red-penned this and said that I am not yet in an authoritative position to make such definitions. But I was never asked how I came up with such a definition. The thing is, working on my second post-graduate degree in apologetics, studying many other religions on a deeper level was inevitable, and  by this, I noticed a pattern in all of them which was the fact that they all seek to appease or eradicate guilt, including   Buddhism , even though   many adherents of Buddhism claim that it is not a religion . The point is that all religions seek to eradicate guilt on some level, because   guilt crosses all cultures and times, to all people .   Guilt transcends all people. The ...

The God of the Killdozer Operator, Marvin Heemeyer

While working toward becoming an apologist and a pastor, I was a heavy equipment operator. I have over 15 years’ experience in the field, focusing on hydrological restorations (stream bank and river restoration and water dam removals) and site development for building pads (ranging from houses to one million + sq. ft. warehouses). I say this because I want to show where the heart for writing article this came about. Marvin Heemeyer purchased a bulldozer from an auction which was a Komatsu D355A with an operating weight of 97,907 lbs. (this does not include the weight of Heemeyer’s fabricated addition). In the picture above, I am operating a Komatsu D155AX which has an operating weight of 89,300 lbs. (If I remember correctly, we were developing the site for a 550,000 sq. ft. warehouse building pad). Heemeyer then went on a rampage in his armored bulldozer in Granby, CO. I don’t want to go into great details about what led up to Heemeyer doing what he did, nor do I want to go into great ...

Self-tests of Some of the World's Religions

It is fairly common for a religion of the world to give itself a sort of test for truth, since this is one question that is asked of any religion: “Why should I believe what you are telling me is true?” After all, the answer to such a question will ultimately result in followers of specific beliefs and doctrines, let alone religions, or will result in a lack of followers.  If a religion can answer this question posed by seekers and thinkers, and therefore train its adherents to be able to answer why a religion is true, this will inevitably help people believe in such, even if the claims are false. If there is no answer, this is where a religion will perhaps find more trouble for itself.  Many religions make an appeal to a higher authority, namely,  God , for the veracity of their existence and as a result, no one can question the truth from such an authority. This is correct in a sense, that  if in fact God is making such a claim, then what is said or stated is true ...

Two Problems Jesus has with the Mormon Doctrine of Eternal Families

Mormonism teaches that those who are married in a temple can be married for eternity. In Doctrine and Covenants 132:15–20, we find the following:   15 Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word , and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead , and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world. 16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory. 17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God for...

An Overlooked Argument Against the Book of Mormon

The Book of Mormon is written in a style of language that was not used by anyone at the time that it was written and published. This style of English is called   Early Modern English . This fact is an anachronism that I find to be severely overlooked by those who seek the truth about the Book of Mormon. Many Mormons will instantly write this objection off concerning the veracity of the Book of Mormon, even to the point of saying that such an objection is lazy and pitiful, while not giving any rebuttals worth their weight.   I recently insinuated the absurdity of the Book of Mormon by asking the question, “Why was the Book of Mormon translated into Early Modern English?” I’m saying that it is absurd that the BoM uses an out-of-date language. A Mormon replied to me that the Bible has equal absurdities. He said, “Why is [The BoM translation into Early Modern English] absurd? Is it absurd that God uses a donkey to speak to Balaam in Numbers 22?”  First, this is a  tu quo...

Defending Christianity against Jehovah’s Witnesses

Defending Christianity against Jehovah’s Witnesses Using much of their “bible” to refute them “But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect ” (NIV 1 Peter 3:15). In other words, LOVE THEM . Jehovah’s Witnesses                                       Biblical Truths Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe in the Trinity. J.Ws. believe that Jesus was a “little god” (lower case g). J.Ws. believe in a different “ Jesus ” because of the NWT accounts. J.Ws. call themselves “Christians.” J.Ws. believe Jesus is not to be worshiped. J.Ws. believe that Jesus was once, and is again, Michael the archangel. Genesis 1:26 says, “Let Us crea...

Who Made God? Identifying Categorical Errors

A category is simply a distinct class to which something belongs… A set of objects that can be treated as equal in some way. A Macintosh apple belongs to the category, apple, and not what we categorize as an orange. Similarly, colors are in a different category than taste.   When we say, “apples and oranges” what we mean is that there has been a confusion of categories. Sure, they are both fruit, but when you examine both, there is an obvious difference. An apple is not an orange, and an orange is not an apple. Macintosh, Granny Smith, and red delicious are all apples. Navel, blood, and Valencia are all oranges. To mix the two, for instance, to call a navel orange an apple, would be a categorical error, sometimes referred to as a category mistake.      How Identifying Categorical Errors can Help with Apologetics It seems that simply learning about or being reminded of categorical errors can help us be more aware of them. We have all heard or thought of ourselves, the...

How to Show a Mormon the Difference Between the Mormon Jesus and the Biblical Jesus

I find that Mormons frequently claim that they are Christians, and that they want to be referred to as Christians, and that they have even recently sought to distance themselves from the word “Mormon.” The problem is, they worship another Jesus, and here is how to show them the difference between the Mormon Jesus and the Biblical Jesus. Before we get to that, some clarifications are necessary. Specifically, that they cannot even distance themselves from being called "Mormons."   The Mormon President Russell Nelson said,    “What’s in a name or, in this case, a nickname? When it comes to nicknames of the Church, such as the “LDS Church,” the “Mormon Church,” or the “Church of the Latter-day Saints,” the most important thing in those names is the absence of the Savior’s name. To remove the Lord’s name from the Lord’s Church is a major victory for Satan. When we discard the Savior’s name, we are subtly disregarding all that Jesus Christ did for us—even His Atonement.” [1] ...