The Christian Caught in Adultery
Counting the cost of following Christ in "a wicked and adulterous generation"
This newsletter is chapter V of an upcoming eBook on the scandal of Church-sanctioned divorce. If you haven’t already done so, please check out chapters I, II, III, IV, VI, and VII, as well as the preface, afterword, and appendices A and B.
“Go and sin no more”
The most basic confession of the Christian is “Jesus is Lord.” To confess that Jesus is Lord is to say that He is the boss, and what He say goes. As those who profess Jesus’ lordship over our lives (Romans 10:9), we Christians must back our words up with obedience to Jesus’ commandments (John 14:15). If not, He will surely call us out on our hypocrisy: “Why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do what I tell you?” (Luke 6:46). A fair question, to say the least.
The scriptures teach that the just shall live by faith1 (Habakkuk 2:4; Romans 1:17; Galatians 3:11) and that saving faith proves itself genuine through obedience (James 2:14-26). Denying the faith entails so much more than a formal verbal or written denial, for even those who profess Jesus as Lord with their lips or on paper may deny Him with their lives.2 The Apostle John says it straight up: “Whoever says ‘I know Him’ but does not keep His commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him” (1 John 2:4). Well, there you have it.
The point is, being a Christian is a lifestyle (1 John 2:5, 6), a way (John 14:6; Acts 9:2; etc.), an ongoing reality that ought to work itself out in every nook and cranny of your existence (Philippians 2:12, 13). Anything short of this is not true Christianity. You’re either all in, or you are not really in at all.
When it comes to the intractable issues of divorce and adulterous remarriage and the seemingly endless relational quandaries they spawn, many Christian leaders, despairing of the current situation, suggest that one simply cannot “unscramble the egg.” While it is certainly true that all actions, especially consequential ones, have consequences that are difficult, if not impossible to reverse,3 it is simply a dodge to say that all we can do in these situations is throw up our hands, shed a few tears, and promise never to do it again (fingers crossed).
In fact, Jesus spoke directly to men and women entangled in adulterous relationships and His counsel for how to make things right is so simple that many overlook it. When Jesus was confronted with a woman purportedly caught in the act of adultery4 He ultimately said to her “Neither do I condemn you,” a response we just love to repeat (John 8:11a). It’s the next thing Jesus says to her that we often choke on: “Now go and sin no more” (John 8:11b) or, as the New International Version renders it (emphasis mine), “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
So, following the logic of this command, if divorce followed by remarriage during the lifetime of one’s preceding, lawful spouse is adultery according to Jesus (Matthew 5:32, 19:9; Mark 10:11; Luke 16:18), then what would He tell a man or woman caught up in such a sinful relationship to do about it? He would say the very same thing that He said to the woman caught in adultery: “Go and sin no more.”5
Now comes the truly uncomfortable part:
How can people who find themselves in an adulterous remarriage “leave their life of sin” without also leaving their sinful union? In other words, how can one repent of a sin without turning from it?
“Oh no you don’t” you might be saying to yourself right about now. “Surely they’re not suggesting that Christians who have defied Jesus’ commands not to divorce and remarry while still bound by God to their lifelong covenant partner should have to actually leave their sinful, unlawful, adulterous remarriages…are they?”
You bet we are.
Although you might be tempted to hop off the ride at this point and simply write us off as extremists, we would implore you to hear us out first. If you have for the most part agreed with us up to now, but reject what we have to say next, it might have all been for naught in your case. It’s not enough to merely confess that one is in a sinful union—one actually has to do something about it.
If we confess with our mouths that Jesus is our Lord, then we have to follow Him with our actions wherever He leads us, whatever the cost.
“It is not lawful for you to have her”
When it comes to unlawful unions,6 most Christians would concede that many of the marriages that those in the Church currently find themselves in are in fact adulterous. Even those still clinging to the spurious “divorce exceptions”7 would freely admit that the majority of such couples should never have married in the first place, at the very least because they lacked a supposedly just cause for ending their first marriage.
But, these same individuals would also be quick to point out that:
“(1.) Unlawful remarriages are still marriages. (2.) Binding vows have been exchanged, and these must be honored. (3.) Furthermore, lives have been melded into one, both legally and practically speaking, and perhaps even children have issued from the union. Such ties cannot, and indeed should not be undone.
(4.) And aren’t we supposed to be against divorce? (5.) The New Testament is all about forgiveness and (6.) Christians are counseled to remain in the life status they find themselves in (1 Corinthians 7:17-27). (7.) Therefore, if the unlawfully married couple is sorry, they should repent by admitting that they were wrong, vow never to do it again, but by all means stay together, since leaving these marriages only compounds the sin of adultery with the additional sin of divorce. Surely two wrongs don’t make a right.
(8.) Besides, maybe God only views the act of remarriage itself as adultery, and not the subsequent life together. (9.) I can see why it’s fair, and perhaps even Biblical, to end a marriage over adultery, but to end a remarriage between two faithful, committed believers seems like too much to ask, especially when there is no clear Biblical precedent for this. (10.) Paul says that believers should stay married to unbelievers, despite forbidding believers from marrying unbelievers in the first place, suggesting that adulterous remarriages should remain intact as well.”
There are perfectly reasonable, logical, and above all Biblical answers to each of these points. Indeed, not only is it not unreasonable to ask unlawfully remarried couples to separate, it is simply the plain, right thing to do. Those who knowingly choose to remain in adulterous unions do so at their own peril and against the clear and repeated warnings of scripture.
Let’s respond to each of these ten objections in turn:
“Unlawful marriages are still marriages.”
Yes, but this argument misses the most obvious point: unlawful marriages are indeed marriages…unlawful ones! Now more than ever, Christians must make a sharp distinction between unions that are merely lawful according to the law of the land, and those that are lawful according to both the law of the land and the law God, which is the highest and most authoritative law of all. Abortion and “gay marriage” may be lawful under some jurisdictions, but never under God’s. Like the popular and profoundly misguided phrase “love is love,” Christians who defend adulterous remarriages by saying “marriage is marriage” are inexcusable for assuming that so long as a marriage of some sort has taken place, it is automatically binding in God’s sight. If this were the case, then a “gay marriage” between two men or two women would have to remain intact even after such couples converted to Christianity and confessed that their sodomitic union is sinful.8 It is sheer folly to treat illegitimate marriages as if they were legitimate.
“Binding vows have been exchanged […].”
If one asserts that we should honor our vows, no matter what (Psalm 15:4b; etc.), then this argues for leaving the unlawful remarriage, not for staying in it, for to obey this Biblical precept (Numbers 30:2; Matthew 5:34-37) one would have to give precedence to the initial set of binding marriage vows.
Otherwise, one would be in the curious position of arguing that vows made in a subsequent, unlawful remarriage should be honored over and against vows made in a prior, lawful marriage, vows which the second marriage violated!
“[…] lives have been melded into one […].”
If one responds by noting that the remarried couple also vowed to care and provide for one another in a shared life together, and that there may even be dependent children involved, then this argues for ongoing support (i.e., financial, material, familial, etc.) following separation/divorce of the unlawfully married couple, not for remaining in the unlawful remarriage.
We are not disconnected from the responsibilities and demands of everyday life in the real world. Such changes will not be straightforward or convenient. The legal procedures and the lifestyle changes involved with ending a marriage will take time and effort to accomplish. That said, divorcees in adulterous remarriages make similar adjustments when starting new families after their first marriages are sinfully terminated, so surely we are not wrong to expect them to do the same for a righteous cause.9
“[…] aren’t we supposed to be against divorce?”
Since adulterous remarriages are unlawful, it would be a sin to remain in them, not to leave them. Adulterous relationships are, by definition, those that violate the seventh commandment: “You shall not commit adultery” (Exodus 20:14). This forbids cohabitation and/or sex with another person’s spouse (Romans 7:3; 1 Corinthians 7:39). Since the Bible teaches that God joins a husband and a wife together in a one-flesh union for life (Matthew 19:4-6; Mark 10:6-9; Romans 7:1-3; 1 Corinthians 7:39), then a remarriage that occurs during a divorced spouse’s lifetime constitutes adultery (Matthew 5:32, 19:9; Mark 10:11, 12; Luke 16:18; Romans 7:3).
Notice carefully the wording of Jesus’ prohibition of divorce (Matthew 19:6b; Mark 10:9; emphasis mine): “Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” God does not join individuals together in unlawful unions, for to do so would violate His own law by sanctifying10 sin, in this case, the sin of adultery (1 Corinthians 6:15-17). No, it is clearly sinful man who joins such couples together, in defiance of God’s law, and it for this reason that such mutinous marriages, such unions of the ununitable, not only can, but must be dissolved.11
“The New Testament is all about forgiveness […].”
The forgiveness Jesus offers is not “cheap grace,” but rather comes at the highest cost, both to Himself and to those who would receive it—indeed, Jesus warned His disciples that following Him could even cost them their dearest, most intimate earthly relationships.
Just seventeen verses after Matthew's divorce text in chapter 19 of his Gospel, Jesus says to His disciples (Matthew 19:29, emphasis mine):
“And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or fields for My sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life.”
Yes, following Jesus can even require leaving one’s wife and children. This makes sense, considering that Jesus also said that He came to bring a sword that would set close family members against one another (Matthew 10: 34-39). Indeed, Luke puts these truths even more pointedly (if that were possible) in his Gospel (Luke 14:26-27, emphasis mine):
“If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple. And whoever does not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.”
And you think we are being too extreme?
Yes, forgiveness is not earned; it is received as a free gift. But that gift came at the expense of the incalculably precious blood of Christ (1 Peter 1:18, 19), and He is absolutely, 110 percent right to ask no less than our total obedience, and even our very lives, in return (Luke 17:10; Romans 6:13, 12:1; 1 Corinthians 6:20). Jesus warned us upfront about what it would take to follow Him—we are the ones who have failed to count the cost (Luke 14:25-33). We cannot say that repentance requires confessing a sin and leaving it, unless that sin proves too costly or difficult to leave. That simply will not cut it for the disciple of Jesus (Luke 14:33, emphasis mine): “So therefore, any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be My disciple.” Again, if you think we are going too far, then tell that to Jesus.12
“[…] Christians are counseled to remain in the life status they find themselves in […].”
God does not give Christians permission to remain in the sinful condition(s) that they found themselves in when they came to the Lord, nor does He call anyone to enter sinful statuses, such as that of an adulterer, but rather warns against remaining in them (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). The Lord calls all those who turn to Him in faith to forsake their sinful relationships, including adultery (Matthew 5:27-32; John 8:11). When the Apostle Paul said that Christians should “lead the life that the Lord has assigned to him, and to which God has called him”(1 Corinthians 7:17) and “remain in the condition in which he was called [with God]” (verses 20 and 24), he meant only that with respect to morally neutral13 conditions (verses 19, 22, and 28), such as circumcision status (verse 18), freedom status (verses 21 to 23), and marriage status (verses 26 and 27), that Christians should remain in the God-given stations that they found themselves in at the time of their calling.
“[…] if the unlawfully married couple is sorry, they should repent […] but by all means stay together, since leaving these marriages only compounds the sin […]. […] two wrongs don’t make a right.”
Those who claim that couples in adulterous remarriages need only confess their sin and resolve never to enter another unlawful remarriage are omitting an inseparable consequence of Biblical repentance, namely, turning away from and forsaking the sin(s) one confesses in pursuit of righteous living (Matthew 21:28-32; Luke 3:8-15; John 5:14; John 8:11; Acts 26:20; Ephesians 4:28; Romans 2).
You cannot be forgiven of a sin that you refuse to forsake. You may say that you are sorry over a certain sin, but if you don’t give it up, then your actions contradict your words (2 Corinthians 7:10; James 1:23-24). Imagine a husband who is cheating on his wife saying “I admit that I am committing the sin of adultery, I am terribly sorry about it, and I commit to never to do it again with another man’s wife, but I am not going to leave my current affair.” Would any reasonable person conclude that this man has truly repented from his adultery? Of course not. So why then would anyone accept such an inadequate “repentance” from someone who is not only engaging in unlawful sex, but who has added to this injury the insult of unlawful remarriage? Now that is a case of “two wrongs making a right” if ever there was one!
If remarriage during the lifetime of a previous spouse constitutes adultery (Matthew 5:32, 19:9; Mark 10:11, 12; Luke 16:18; Romans 7:3), then the individuals involved in such sinful marriages cannot repent of their adultery without also leaving these marriages. Otherwise, we either do not really believe that they are committing adultery or we believe that one can repent of a sin while continuing to commit it. An adulterous remarriage does not cease to be adulterous simply by admitting it to be so: only leaving the relationship, or the death of the previous spouse(s) changes this status.
“[…] maybe God only views the act of remarriage itself as adultery […].”
If one argues that God considers only the remarriage itself to be adultery, but not the subsequent married life of the couple,14 such that the couple in this situation only “commits adultery” (Matthew 5:32, 19:9; Mark 10:11, 12; Luke 16:18) in punctiliar fashion at the outset of the union, rather than in a continuous state of adultery,15 we would respond by saying that the Bible includes the act of living with another person’s spouse as one aspect of a constellation of behaviors that constitute the sin of adultery (Jeremiah 3:6-10; Matthew 5:28; Romans 7:1-3; 1 Corinthians 7:39).
Paul states in Romans 7:3 (emphasis mine): “she [a married woman] will be called an adulteress if she lives16 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.” So, although remarriage during the life one’s spouse is certainly an act of adultery in itself, as are the initial and subsequent acts consummating such a union in sexual intercourse, the accompanying living arrangement is also adulterous, since cohabitation is part and parcel of married life and it too would be occurring while one or both parties is still lawfully bound to a previous partner.
Just as we would not permit an unmarried Christian couple to live together as husband and wife, so long as they abstained from sex (which is almost never the case anyways), so the Church should not permit couples in adulterous remarriages to live together, even if they concede that their union was unlawful. In short, if the marriage union is unlawful, then so is the ensuing marriage.
“[…] it’s fair, and perhaps even Biblical, to end a marriage over adultery, but to end a remarriage […] seems like too much to ask […] there is no clear Biblical precedent for this.”
The Bible nowhere grants an exception whereby divorce of lawfully married persons and unlawful remarriage are permitted for adultery,17 but it does record instances when unlawful marriages, even those involving children, were dissolved, or at least commanded to dissolve (2 Sam. 3:13-16; Ezra 10:1-4; Matthew 14:1-12; Mark 6:14-29).18
Most pertinent to New Testament believers are the accounts of John the Baptist telling king Herod “It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife” (Matthew 14:1-12; Mark 6:14-29). John elsewhere tells various groups that in order to “Produce fruit in keeping with repentance” (Luke 3:7-14), they must leave their sinful ways behind and start doing what is right.
If Herod were to ask John what repentance from an adulterous, incestuous marriage looked like, what would John have said? Well, if it was unlawful for Herod to have Herodias in marriage, since she was still married to Herod’s brother Philip, then logically, to rectify that situation, Herod would have to give Herodias up and end the relationship. Otherwise, one would have to believe that John would have let Herod off the hook and remain with Herodias if he had simply acknowledged his sin and vowed never to do it again. But surely John was not imprisoned and decapitated for demanding a mere apology.
However, some of might think it unfair, if not downright cold and unfeeling, to demand that even victims of adultery leave their unlawful remarriages. It’s bad enough they suffered unjustly in their first marriage, but requiring them to leave their second marriage seems to lack compassion. But this is worldly thinking pure and simple, for do not even the gentiles and tax collectors love the spouses who love them and divorce the ones who don’t (Matthew 5:43-48)? As those whose words and deeds are to proclaim the message of the cross (1 Corinthians 1:18), our standards must be higher than this (Romans 5:6-8, emphasis mine):
“For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die—but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”
Now that is compassion: suffering (-passion) with (co-) one’s unfaithful bride!
It must also be noted that this response is more than a little ironic, for if adultery is considered to be a just cause for ending a lawful marriage according to these Christians, then how much more should this same sin be a just cause for ending an unlawful marriage?19
“Paul says that believers should stay married to unbelievers […] suggesting that adulterous remarriages should remain intact […].”
Some might claim that since Paul instructs believers who are married to unbelievers to stay in the marriage (1 Corinthians 7:12-14), in spite of the fact that he instructs believers to only marry fellow believers (1 Corinthians 7:39), then couples in adulterous remarriages should confess that they sinned in entering the marriage, but stay together—but this reasoning again fails to distinguish between lawful and unlawful unions.
Unlike adulterous remarriages, unions between a believer and an unbeliever, or even between two unbelievers,20 are still lawful (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 14:4b, 19:5; Mark 6:18, 10:8; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, 7:12, 13; Ephesians 5:31; Hebrews 13:4), and therefore should not be dissolved. Hence, Paul calls those who unlawfully marry another person while their preceding spouse is living adulterers (Romans 7:1-3; 1 Corinthians 7:39), yet instructs believing spouses not to separate from their unbelieving partners (1 Corinthians 7:12, 13).
This was especially prudent given that Paul was primarily addressing Christians who had converted after marrying an unbeliever (1 Corinthians 7:10-24).21 Further, Paul knew that the natural means to sanctifying and saving one’s unbelieving spouse and children is covenant marriage (1 Corinthians 7:14-16).
In sum, the problem in the case of a believer lawfully married to an unbeliever is the unbelief of the unbelieving partner, not the marriage per se, which is actually part of the solution. However, the problem in the case of the adulterous remarriage is the unlawful marriage itself, and thus the solution is to leave the marriage such that adultery is no longer occurring.
By choosing your sinful marriage over God, you are saying to Him “I'm choosing this relationship over You. This person is more important to me than You. My subjective desires trump Your absolute lordship.”
Jesus looks at each one of His disciples and asks, as He did to Simon Peter (John 21:15b): “[…] do you love Me more than these?” The Christian who loves anyone or anything more than Christ is not worthy of Him (Matthew 10: 34-39; Luke 14:26-27). That’s the bottom-line truth here, and no amount of excuses will make it go away.
John the Baptist, the greatest man up to that point in human history according to Jesus (Matthew 11:11), said it best when he confronted this issue in his day: “It is not lawful for you to have her” (Matthew 14:4b).
Who are we to say otherwise?
“This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”
Elon Musk once said "I sometimes say […] strange things […]. To anyone I've offended, I just want to say: I re-invented electric cars and I'm sending people to Mars in a rocket ship. Did you also think I was gonna be a chill, normal dude?"22
It’s true that the words of Jesus are often intimidating, mystifying, challenging, over our heads, and hard to swallow. But is this really so surprising? He created the the entire universe out of nothing (John 1:3), saved it from death and decay by bearing the sin of mankind as a perfect blood sacrifice (Romans 7:24, 25; Revelation 1:18), ascended into heaven in a cloud (Acts 1:9), and will one day return in power and great glory to make all things new in a New Heaven and New Earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness (Matthew 24:30; 2 Peter 3:13; Revelation 21:5): Did you also think He was going to be just another “chill, normal dude”?
What we have been suggesting here may come across as a bridge too far for many of you. But this should not be shocking, since this was a common reaction elicited by Jesus’ teachings in His own day, including when He taught on divorce and remarriage (Matthew 19:10). In fact, Jesus’ teachings were at times so radical, and so offensive, that His hearers abandoned Him (John 6:60, 66; Matthew 26:31), accused Him of being demon possessed and insane (Mark 3:21; John 7:19, 20, 8:48, 10:20), and even tried to kill Him on the spot (Luke 4:29; John 10:31). Here was a typical response (John 6:60, 66):
“On hearing it, many of His disciples said, ‘This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?’ […] From this time many of His disciples turned back and no longer followed Him.”
Some may feel that the teaching we are laying out here is too hard to bear, and in a sense we would agree. It is not without reason that Jesus’ divorce sayings are counted among “the hard sayings of Jesus,” for that is precisely what they are. In fact, we would suggest upping the ante by referring to these teachings as “the impossible sayings of Jesus,” for no one can accept these things, much less obey them, in their flesh23 (Romans 8:7).
Like the rich young ruler who walked away sorrowful because Jesus had asked him to give his great wealth away to the poor, if we find ourselves similarly crestfallen upon hearing this teaching on divorce and remarriage, we must remind ourselves of what the text says before Jesus made His difficult request (Mark 10:21a, emphasis mine): “And Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him […].” Whenever Jesus asks us to give up something costly, He does so out of His great love for us. His desire is always to fill us with heavenly treasures that far outweigh any sacrifice we might make on earth (Mark 10:21b).
When that upstanding, wealthy young man staggered off in dismay, Jesus remarked on the dismal odds stacked up against even the most moral and well heeled entering the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 19:23, 24)! This was apparently too over the top even for the disciples to take in (Matthew 19:25): “When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished, saying, ‘Who then can be saved?’” Jesus’ immortal response says it all (Matthew 19:26b, emphasis mine): “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
Only God’s Spirit can empower someone to accept and obey the full rigors of God’s holy commandments. In other words, you must be born again of the Spirit (John 3:5-8). Then, you must have the Spirit dwelling in you and continually filling your person (Ephesians 5:18). As Jesus said (John 6:63): “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.”
Paul said that (1 Corinthians 1:18) “the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God,” adding shortly thereafter that (1 Corinthians 2:14):
“The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.”
So if everything that we have been saying here sounds ludicrously impossible and naïvely foolish to you, then you need to pause and ask yourself: “Do I even have God’s Spirit dwelling in me? If so, have I so quenched and grieved Him that I am almost totally immune to His overtures and powerless to obey His will?” It is healthy, wise, and indeed safe to periodically conduct such reality checks of one’s life, for the stakes are high (2 Corinthians 13:5):
“Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you fail to meet the test!”
Divorce and adultery are extremely severe maladies, and serious illnesses requires serious interventions. Cancer requires chemotherapy. Bacterial superbug infections require amputations. We must not kid ourselves into thinking that diseases this deadly can be fixed with a band-aid (Jeremiah 6:14).
Yes, separation and celibacy are hard, but are divorce and remarriage any easier? Has having multiple marriages and families to support simplified your life, or made it exponentially more difficult? Doesn’t the Bible require all people to live chaste, self-controlled lives (Titus 2:5), whether married or single? Jesus is not picking on divorcees. He is an equal opportunity Lord. He asks each and every one of His followers to abstain from illicit sex and to leave sinful relationships no matter how entangled in them he or she becomes.
If we react like the disciples did to these teachings and simply throw our hands up and cry “It’s better not to marry at all!” (Matthew 19:10), then where does that leave us with respect to every other tall order the Lord makes of those who are single, dating, engaged, married, and so forth?
Are we true disciples of the Teacher (Matthew 10:24, 25; Luke 6:40), or aren’t we?
A long hard look in the mirror
This is really going to offend some folks, but these things have to be said.
We in the modern Church have grown accustomed to smooth-talking flatters in the pulpit (Romans 16:18) who ingratiate themselves to their hearers by telling them what they want to hear (Isaiah 30:10; 2 Corinthians 11:20; 2 Timothy 4:3), never what they need to hear (2 Corinthians 2:17; Galatians 1:10).
But Christian friends don’t let Christian friends stomp all over their Lord (Hebrews 10:29) without sticking up for Him and sayin’ somethin’.
So listen up Christians, especially you men and church leaders who so confidently end lawful marriages, thinking you have God’s blessing, or worse, knowing that you don’t, and yet doing it anyways, presuming on His mercy.
It’s time we held a mirror right up to our grills and forced ourselves to take a long, hard look.
Lord, put us in our place (Job 42:6)!
Who are you, O man (Romans 9:20), to separate a husband and wife whom God has joined together for life, and yet refuse to countenance, for even half a second, the mere thought of ending a sinful remarriage that God never had His hand of blessing on in the first place?
Who are you, O man, to give your own dear wife, the tender bride of your youth, the (former) love of your life and onetime apple of your eye away, willingly, to sleep with another man in a bed of adultery, and even to bear his children?
Who are you, O man, to entrust the raising of your offspring “in the fear and admonition of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:4), one of the chief duties and delights of a godly father, to another man, whom you know not?
Who are you, O man, to sacrifice your wife and children on the altar of your personal happiness, rather than follow your Lord’s example by taking up your cross and dying that they might live (Matthew 10:38)? Many in the modern Church may approve of this tact, “But that is not the way you learned Christ!” (Ephesians 4:20).
Who are you, O man, to say that we’re the ones who have gone too far by requiring of you an outrageous thing, when it is you who have forced us to this by refusing to be a man of God and do right by your family and your Lord (1 Corinthians 16:13; Ephesians 5:25-33)? No, we say that it is you who have gone too far (Numbers 16:1-7) and it is you who have done an outrageous thing in the Church (Jeremiah 29:23, emphasis mine):
“‘For they have done outrageous things in Israel; they have committed adultery with their neighbors’ wives, and in My name they have uttered lies—which I did not authorize. I know it and am a witness to it,’ declares the Lord.”
The narrow way of marital fidelity
It is not lost on us that we are in the distinct minority on this point in today’s Church, even if we are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses in heaven (Hebrews 12:1). One may, for instance, cite a lack of present day Christian leaders requiring the breaking up of sinful marriages to counter our arguments here: “Why should I believe you, when the pastor down the street says I’m good to go?”
And yet such was the case in Ezra's day: all had entered into unlawful marriages, with the “leaders” right out in front (Ezra 9:2, emphasis mine):
“They have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and their sons, and have mingled the holy race with the peoples around them. And the leaders and officials have led the way in this unfaithfulness.”
We should not be deterred simply because a Biblically sound position is not widely held at the current cultural moment. Most people rejected Christ, especially among the most religious (Isaiah 53:3; Luke 13:23; John 12:37-41; etc.). Nobody liked the true prophets of old or agreed with their takes on morality and current events (1 Kings 19:10, 14; Matthew 5:12, 23:37; Acts 7:52; etc.). If the whole world is sometimes against us, then like Athanasius, we must sometimes be against the whole world.24
If all this sounds too narrow, hard, or unpopular, our response is, “Well, yeah…what did you expect on the narrow, hard, unpopular road?” Matthew 7:13-14 (emphasis mine):
“Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.”
Peter notes how peculiar Christians will seem when they refuse to buy into the sexual mores of their pagan neighbors: “With respect to this, they think it strange of you not running with them into the same overflow of debauchery, speaking evil of you” (1 Peter 4:4). But Christians are supposed to be the oddballs, the goobers, the crazies (1 Peter 2:9), at least in the eyes of the world. We’re supposed to live by such godly, otherworldly standards that unbelievers (and even a good many professing Christians) will despise us simply for reminding them of how inadequate they are before the holy God they wish they could forget (Romans 1:18; 2 Corinthians 2:15; 1 Peter 2:12).
If you find yourself hating our guts for ruining the otherwise rosy self-assessment you previously held concerning your marriage, then watch out! You may find yourself unwittingly on the wrong side of the fence with respect to this issue (2 Timothy 3:12, 13):
“Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.”
Does anyone hate the pastor who says “Look, just say you’re sorry and God will forgive you—no messy lifestyle changes necessary”? Of course not. People love false prophets for letting them off the hook so easily (Jeremiah 6:14; Luke 6:26). You’d never crucify someone so handy in a moral pinch.
But the guy who has the chutzpah to say “Give her up, buddy, she ain’t yours!” well, off with his head (Matthew 14:1-12; Mark 6:14-29)!
Given the spiritual climate in the modern American Church, is it any comfort to know that everyone else is jumping off the bridge alongside you? Are we still amazed to discover so widespread a neglect of God's word? Wouldn’t that just be history repeating itself (Genesis 6:5; 2 Chronicles 29-31, 34:14-33; Psalm 14:1-3, 53:1-3; Isaiah 63:5; Jeremiah 3:6-11; Romans 3:10-12; etc.)? Shouldn’t being in the minority in our day and age offer a sort of strange comfort, a indication that maybe, just maybe, we might actually be on the right track?25
Be that as it may, there is a small but growing contingent of believers, and indeed even some notable and respected teachers, who are reaching some of these very same conclusions.26 And the position we are advocating for here was certainly not in the minority in the past, but rather was held in one form or another by nearly every respected, mainstream Church leader.27 Through we may be a remnant, we are not alone (1 Kings 19:18; Romans 9:27). More saints across the globe than you realize are recovering and reimplementing these Biblical, historical principles.28
Rest assured, dear Christian: Your sacrifices for Christ will not go unnoticed, or unrewarded, either in this life, or in the life to come (Matthew 19:29; Mark 10:29, 30).
Take up your cross. Follow your Master. Lay down your life.
There’s joy on the other side (Matthew 25:23; Hebrews 12:2).
Seeing divorce for what it really is
The Church needs a reality check from the Lord on divorce and unlawful remarriage. We need to see through their curbside appeal and step into the house of horrors that they truly are. In the next chapter, we will summarize the case we’ve made thus far and remind ourselves of what it’s so important for the Church to change its disastrous trajectory on these topics. The future of our nation, families, and souls depend on it.
Thanks for reading the League of Believers.
We are committed to offering this newsletter in its entirety completely free of cost. If you have not yet subscribed, you can support this free newsletter by becoming a subscriber using the button below.
You can also support this ministry by sharing this newsletter with friends or family that may profit from it.
As always, we would love to hear your feedback, including prayer requests, in the comments section below or through emails to:
garrettpleague@proton.me
Want to print this article or read it on your e-reader device? We’ve got you covered. Click the “Download” button below for an easy-to-print, downloadable PDF file containing this edition of the newsletter.
Roughly speaking, faith is trust in God. Specifically, faith is trusting that God is who He says He is (especially as He has revealed Himself to us in His word) and that He will fulfill His promises to us (Hebrews 11:6).
That is, with their choices, actions, and behavioral patterns.
This is true even after becoming a Christian and receiving the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38; 1 John 1:9). A man reaps what he sows, especially if he is a child of God (Galatians 6:7-10; Hebrews 12:4-13).
I say “purportedly” because there are clues in the text that something suspect was going on and that the whole situation was contrived by the scribes and Pharisees as a set up to test Jesus’ adherence (or lack thereof) to the Law of Moses (John 8:6a). As her accusers were all too eager to point out, adultery was a death penalty offense under the law (John 8:5). However, what they neglected to mention was that the law stipulated that both the woman and the man who committed adultery were to be executed (Leviticus 20:10; Deuteronomy 22:22), specifically by stoning (John 8:5; cf. Ezekiel 16:38, 40). And yet despite catching this woman in the very act of adultery (what are the odds?), curiously, the man is nowhere to be found (John 8:3, 4).
One might respond “Yes, but the woman caught in adultery was not married to the man she was committing adultery with. If that were the case, then she would only have to admit that her marriage was adulterous and commit to never remarrying in such a manner again.” However, this rings hollow since a person who admits that they are in sin, vows never to repeat it, and yet remains in that very sin cannot be said to be truly repentant. For more on the problems with this line of thinking, see point seven in the following section (“It is not lawful for you to have her”).
Keep in mind that a union that is unlawful in God’s eyes (the sense that is intended here) may be lawful in Uncle Sam’s eyes. However, just because the state recognizes that adulterers and sodomites are “lawfully married” according to the law of the land does not make it so according to the Law of God.
See “The ‘exceptions’ as the rule” in chapter IV “The Rule of the ‘Exceptions.’”
Some may object to this analogy by saying that the two cases are clearly incomparable. On the one hand, after the gay couple repents, the marriage still consists of two men or two women, which is inherently sinful. Thus, the marriage must be dissolved. On the other hand, after the adulterous couple repents, the marriage consists of a man and a woman, which, far from being inherently sinful, is inherently good. Thus the marriage should remain intact. There are two responses to this.
First, the whole point of an analogy is to compare two things that are similar in some respects, but dissimilar in others: hence the two are analogous, rather than identical. This is done to shed light on one thing by comparing it to another thing with which it shares some commonality, not to say that the two things are alike in every respect.
Second, it is obvious that a marriage between a man and a woman is not inherently sinful like a marriage between two men or two women. But this misses the point of the analogy, since a marriage between a man and a woman while one or both of these is/are married to another person is adultery, which is inherently sinful. To change this, the couple must end the adulterous remarriage or either one or both (as the case may be) of these individuals’ preceding, lawfully married spouse(s) must die. If the couple in the adulterous remarriage “repent” by acknowledging the sin, expressing remorse over it, and resolving never to repeat it, but nevertheless remain in the union while one or both is still married to another person, then this in no way changes the fact that the union is adulterous, any more than if the gay couple “repented” in similar fashion, but remained together.
This is by no means to say that such couples are “on their own” when making these difficult adjustments. The body of Christ has to to step up to help individuals in these situations make the necessary moves to extricate themselves and their families from sexual sin and the judgment that such behavior wreaks (Hebrews 13:4). Such individuals and their families will no doubt be “put out” by these changes in the short term, but ultimately, everyone involved will be far better off in the long term, especially for eternity.
To sanctify something is to set it apart as holy, sacred, and blessed, and therefore distinct from common, everyday things (2 Timothy 2:21).
Again, if we would require repentant individuals involved in homosexual, incestuous, or polygamous marriages to leave their unlawful unions, then how is it not rank hypocrisy and special pleading of the worst kind to permit repentant heterosexual individuals to remain in their adulterous remarriages?
One is reminded of Chesterton’s famous observation: “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried.”
To say that such conditions are “morally neutral” does not mean, for instance, that being a slave is as good as being free (Paul says that freedom is better in 1 Corinthians 7:21, 23) or that singleness is as good as being married (with respect to creation in general, God says explicitly that singleness is “not good” in Genesis 2:18 and implicitly that marriage is “very good” in Genesis 1:31 and with respect to the Christian life in particular, Paul touts the advantages of singleness over marriage in 1 Corinthians 7:7, 32-35, 40). Rather it is simply to say that it is not necessarily a sin to be circumcised or uncircumcised (under the New Covenant), married or single, bond or free. Each of these conditions may be strategically better or worse, depending on the providential circumstances of one’s life (1 Corinthians 9:1-23; Acts 16:3; Galatians 5:2; Philemon 11, 15, 16), but they are not sinful in and of themselves.
Those who advocate this position would typically concede that the initial act of sexual intercourse consummating such an unlawful marriage is also adulterous, whereas all subsequent acts of intercourse are lawful.
Continuous, that is, until either the unlawfully wed couple separate/divorce or until the spouse(s) from the preceding marriage(s) die(s). Thus, the adulterous state is continuous, in the sense of being a durative state, but not continual, in the sense of being a perpetual, never-ending state.
Or “is joined to” from “γένηται,” “genētai” (Strong’s 1096): “A prolongation and middle voice form of a primary verb; to cause to be, i.e. to become, used with great latitude,” “to become a man's wife.” Essentially, as the various translations of this verse bear out, Paul is saying “she will be called an adulteress if she is joined to/is attached to/unites herself to/gives herself to/goes off with another man while her husband is alive” (Romans 7:3a). In the most literal sense, this phrase can be translated “if she be/becomes/is to another man(’s).” Clearly, this refers to more than a marriage ceremony or sex alone, and would include the attendant married life and the giving of oneself away to another person entailed in such an arrangement.
Not included here are the unlawful relationships recorded in scripture that did not involve a marriage but that were nevertheless implicitly or explicitly commanded to be broken up. For example, Abraham was not married to his wife Sarah’s slave, Hagar, but God still commanded Abraham to send Hagar and her son Ishmael away, since he was not to enjoy the inheritance that belonged to Isaac (Genesis 21:8-21; Galatians 4:21-31).
To those divorced Christians who say they couldn’t bear the thought of leaving their adulterous remarriage, we would ask the following: “Why didn’t that stop you the first time?” The answer is obviously that they want to stay in the unlawful remarriage, but wanted out of the lawful one. This demonstrates that such individuals are not really lodging an objective, principled, Biblical critique of this point, but are simply arguing from their present felt needs.
Assuming, of course, that the unbelievers involved are not already lawfully bound to another person, are of the opposite sex, are not closely related, etc.
If the believing spouse came to faith before entering a marriage with an unbeliever, then based on Paul’s counsel, the believer should do three things: (1) remain married (1 Corinthians 7:10-24); (2) repent for disobeying Paul’s commands to marry “only in the Lord” (1 Corinthians 7:39) and to avoid close partnerships with unbelievers (1 Corinthians 15:33; 2 Corinthians 6:14-17); and (3) work toward his/her unbelieving spouse’s salvation through prayer and witnessing (1 Corinthians 7:14; cf. 1 Peter 3:1, 7), even if the unbeliever insists on departing (1 Corinthians 15, 16).
See “Elon Musk incredulously asks why people thought he'd be a 'chill, normal dude' during SNL monologue” by Tim O’Donnell of The Week.
Biblically, the word “flesh” as it is used in this context refers to one’s old, fallen, self-centered human nature (e.g., Romans 7:5, 14–25).
See Ken Jones, “Contra Mundum.” Tabletalk, 2004.
One is reminded of Mark Twain’s famous dictum: “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.”
Although we would have important differences with these men on certain points, evangelical pastor-teachers such as John Piper (U.S.A.; see “Divorce & Remarriage: A Position Paper.” Desiring God, 1986.) and the late David Pawson (U.K.; see “Divorce & Remarriage” sermons), to name two prominent examples, as well as everyday pastors and churches, have also rejected the modern Protestant consensus on divorce and remarriage. Further, many commentators, including the great Matthew Henry, have hinted at some of these conclusions, if not outright held them (albeit inconsistently) for centuries.
Indeed, besides our position, there are at least three other options for interpreting Matthew’s “exception clauses” that do not permit divorce and remarriage: the so-called “betrothal solution,” the “preteritive” or “no comment” view, and the “‘divorce’ (separation), but no remarriage” view (for a detailed discussion of all major views, see Bruce Vawter, “The Divorce Clauses in Mt 5,32 and 19,9.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly. 1954; 16(2): 155–167). These interpretations are quite ancient, being held variously by the Early Church Fathers and others throughout Church history (see “The Fathers know best” in chapter III “The Apostle, the Fathers, and the ‘Prince of Humanists.’”).
For example, St. Jerome viewed Christians who refused to extricate themselves from adulterous remarriages as deserving severe church discipline (Letters 55, 58):
“Therefore, if your sister, who, as she says, has been forced into a second union, wishes to receive the body of Christ and not to be accounted an adulteress, let her do penance; so far at least as from the time she begins to repent to have no further intercourse with that second husband who ought to be called, not a husband but, an adulterer. If this seems hard to her, and if she cannot leave one whom she has once loved and will not prefer the Lord to sensual pleasure, let her hear the declaration of the apostle: ‘you cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of devils: you cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table and of the table of devils,’ [1 Corinthians 10:21] and in another place: ‘what communion hath light with darkness? and what concord hath Christ with Beliel?’ [2 Corinthians 6:14]”
The Roman Catholic Church holds a similar position, stating in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (“IV. Offenses Against the Dignity of Marriage,” 2384, emphasis mine):
“Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery: If a husband, separated from his wife, approaches another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery, and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another's husband to herself.”
And elsewhere, the catechism states regarding the requirements of repentance for couples who find themselves in adulterous remarriages (“V. The Goods and Requirements of Conjugal Love,” 1650, emphasis mine):
“Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ - ‘Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery’ The Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God's law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists. For the same reason, they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities. Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence.”
Broadly speaking, the traditional Protestant view is only one of at least four major Christian viewpoints: 1. “No divorce and no remarriage” (aka the “marriage absolutist,” “marriage for life,” “indissolubility of marriage,” or Catholic position); 2. “Divorce, but no remarriage” (aka the “early Church view,” where “divorce” is merely a separation of still-married persons); 3. Divorce and remarriage for adultery and desertion (aka the “Erasmian” or Protestant/evangelical view); 4. Divorce and remarriage under a variety of circumstances (the modern liberal and, increasingly, evangelical view). These views are outlined in this fashion in Divorce and Remarriage: Four Christian Views. H. Wayne House (ed.). Westmont, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990).
For encouraging evidence of this, listen, for example, to David Pawson’s “Divorce & Remarriage” sermons and Jason Smith’s interview with Leslie McFall.