# Does this mean....Marriage/Adultery Question.



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 8, 2005)

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, *nor adulterers*,nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 
1Co 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 

I am particularly wondering about the adulterers portion of this verse. What if a man leaves his wife and marries another. They are both considered adulterers. He becomes a Christian years later and doesn't know what to do. Should he leave his present wife to repent of the adultery? Their marriage is adulterous. Is it not?

[Edited on 2-8-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 8, 2005)

Two wrongs don't make a right but it would be wrong not to repent if it is going to leave both souls going to Hell.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 8, 2005)

I think we need to be careful. Part of the problem is that this man will deal with the consequences of past sin. But I don't think that means he is still sinning by remaining with his current wife. In the law, a woman was forbidden to remarry her first husband, after she had married another. What God has providentially broken, can't be repaired when a new marriage takes place. So for him, repentence must be an acknowledgment of his sin, possibly even seeking his previous wife's forgiveness, and then continuing to be a godly husband to his present wife. Just some initial thoughts...


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Feb 8, 2005)




----------



## doulosChristou (Feb 8, 2005)

I agree with Josh and Patrick. Let me add a wrinkle to the question. Let's say that the man is legally married to several women in a country where such is both practiced and allowed and then God grants him faith in Christ. What would be the lawful response to a man who has married three women all of whom have born him children and subsequently God grants to him saving faith? He comes to the elders asking what he must do in order to be faithful to his Lord. Must he divorce all but the first wife or must he remain with all his wives? I'm sure this issue really comes up where there exist Christian churches in polygamous societies, but I'm not sure where the church has stood on the issue historically in the past.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Feb 8, 2005)

On a ladies list of Christian women (I know that's not worth much) it is believed that he should continue to be head of the home as is and support all wives and children IF he is legally married to all of them.

I'm still sorting this out. As I can't see where divorcing any of them would be of benefit in any regard.


----------



## doulosChristou (Feb 8, 2005)

That would seem consistent with the principle of 1 Cor 7:20. It would be a difficult and unfortunate situation for the church, but I lean toward the same solution.


----------



## JonathanHunt (Feb 8, 2005)

I have seen 'sending' churches split with missionaries over this. The missionary took the view above, that the man should provide and be husband to those he was already married to. The church took the view that the man should cease intimate relations with all but his first wife, yet continue to care for and support the others, and their children in all ways.

I am not easy with either view - I suppose my reservation with the first comes from the idea that he would be having intimate relations with more than one woman at the same time, and my reservation about the second is... it seems unworkable and impractical.

Of course, God can make anything work out, but I am really unsure about this one!

JH


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 8, 2005)

Is the man still considered an Adulterer and unable to break the road to Hell since adulterers can not inherit the Kingdom. Deal with this from a scriptural point. Not a philosophical one.

[Edited on 2-8-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 8, 2005)

As far as the other problem....I would just say he couldn't be an Elder. He is the husband to all of the wives.


----------



## BobVigneault (Feb 8, 2005)

I have some friends who have served in Uganda. They told how the men can become elders there if they had multiple wives before they were saved. So to get around this, the men will often lie and say they have multiple wives even if they don't so that they can marry another later on. 

The heart is deceitfully wicked!


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 8, 2005)

Randy,
The answer to your question (is he an audulterer?) is the same answer regarding any of the other sins listed. Can a coveter go to heaven? Can an extortioner? The passage is saying that a person who is these things (i.e., one who habituates them and will not repent) is not a heaven-bound person. Anyone who is presently an adulterer is giving evidence that he is not a child of God and is heading toward hell. A professing believer who gets mired in this sin (or any other!) has reason to doubt his salvation (maybe he's nothing but a professor, and not a possessor of Christ).

If you are thinking that he is still being an adulterer due to his marriage, this thinking is erroneous, and it creates irresolvable problems related to both sanctification and (as you have questioned) even salvation. He may have been adulterating prior to the marriage, and adulterating by entering the marriage, but if the marriage is a legal marriage, then he is married now. He may have to repent of a host of sins. There will be lingering consequences of sin. But marriage is like a one-way valve. The Bible does not allow disollution of marriage to restore old relationships (Deut. 24:3,4), nor divorce for any grounds other than fornication and desertion. Such allowance or command would create more problems than it solved. Persons living together and never married or persons who could never be legally married but who "made believe" they were married don't have any divorce to contemplate because they aren't married. The solution to that dilemma is simple--STOP SINNING. Get away from each other sexually.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 8, 2005)

Bruce I understand what you are saying. In another thread they were discussing marriage and the samaritan woman at the well. Some where saying that God only considered her first husband to be her only legitimate husband. I am not sure what they considered the other four except illigitimate. If they are illigetimate than they all need to be repented of before she moved on. They were considering her first husband to be her only true husband in God's sight. In Matthew 19 Jesus seems to be saying that a person remains an adulterer if they remarry and were unlawfully divorced or if they marry someone who is put away for uncleaness.

Mat 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. 

If someone remains married in such a relationship it seems that they are branded, so to speak. And in a state of continued sin.
In the old testament when Isreal took foreign wives they repented and put them away to become clean again. What would be the difference. Where is the repentance? Is there any need to repent? 

Ezr 10:3 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. 
Ezr 10:19 And they gave their hands that they would put away their wives; and being guilty, they offered a ram of the flock for their trespass. 

I actually don't agree with the others saying the woman only had one husband since Jesus acknowledged the others. But I have had a run in with a few people now who claim this sort of stuff.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, *nor adulterers*,nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
> 1Co 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
> 
> ...



I agree with Duolos; The 1 Cor 7:20 passage is clear. However, I believe the passage speaks louder than you are viewing it Randy. For instance, I believe the emphasis is upon the first part of the passage:

*Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?*

A believer would not practice these things. Singularly, these sins are forgivable. Christ is our redemption. He is our righteousness. _The righteous will inherit the kingdom of God_ 


> If someone remains married in such a relationship it seems that they are branded, so to speak. And in a state of continued sin.


Adultery is forgivable; in any case, it is not perpetual. Scripture clearly says that the only unforgivable sin is the blasphemy of the HS, in which them who blaspheme are not, and never were righteous through Christ.

[Edited on 2-9-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Feb 8, 2005)

I would think this was an easy question.

All of the things mentioned in 1 Cor. 6:9-10 are describing consistent lifestyles......... anyone who lives in them cannot inherit the kingdom of God. Don't forget verse 11 - such WERE some of you. 1 Cor. 7 adds a few things - if you're married, don't seek to be loosed from your wife. The church @ Corinth was rife with multiple marriages and divorces - Paul puts a halt to it in 1 Cor. 7. Stay put where you are when you were called until you have biblical precedent to remarry.

[Edited on 9-2-2005 by OS_X]


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> If someone remains married in such a relationship it seems that they are branded, so to speak. And in a state of continued sin.
> In the old testament when Isreal took foreign wives they repented and put them away to become clean again. What would be the difference. Where is the repentance? Is there any need to repent?
> 
> ...


Randy,
I'm glad you aren't confused about what I've said.

Regarding other questions:
Read Matt. 19 carefully. *To marry* is the sin. Now, having married, unless they could never have gotten married for some other reason (like they were sister and brother), they are married. That is a _condition,_ a description of what they are. Now, if changing the condition requires additional sin, then it cannot be the case that it is necessary to change the condition in order to be forgiven and move on. This is the "one-way valve" analogy. But consequences will remain.

What about Ezra descriptions?
1) The incident cannot be separated from Israel's unique place in the history of redemption. These marriages were forbidden by God in the law. Therefore they were _illegal_ marriages. The men had been married according to the customs of the people's surrounding Israel. It's clear that the children involved had not been circumcised either according to the law. The involved were in the process of assimillating to the foreign society, and corrupting Israelite society. This had to be halted dead in its tracks, or Judah would resemble the Samaritans.

2) While we aren't told this _exactly_ in the sacred record, I suspect the following to be true: 
--The sin was obvious and widespread.
--A list of the ones who complied with the directive is recorded, 113 names. Were there any wives who like Ruth rejected her family and chose to covenant with Jehovah? I think there must have been, though perhaps not many.
--Not everyone guilty repented. These persons and their families/decendents did apostatize and were no longer members of the covenant community.

3) Repentance in a NT context would involve a turning from sin, changing things back to right _that can be changed,_ and resolve to never again stray from God's commands and to live within his will from now on.

[Edited on 2-9-2005 by Contra_Mundum]


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> In another thread they were discussing marriage and the samaritan woman at the well. Some where saying that God only considered her first husband to be her only legitimate husband. I am not sure what they considered the other four except illigitimate. If they are illigetimate than they all need to be repented of before she moved on. They were considering her first husband to be her only true husband in God's sight.



In John 4:18, Christ said she had "five husbands." He does not say she had one husband and five adulterous relationships. Here the Law-giver Himself says she had 5 "husbands." I don't think we need to question their legitimacy if Christ doesn't. especially when he has no problem calling her out on her present adulterous relationship.

[Edited on 9-2-2005 by puritansailor]


----------



## satz (Feb 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> Randy,
> The answer to your question (is he an audulterer?) is the same answer regarding any of the other sins listed. Can a coveter go to heaven? Can an extortioner? The passage is saying that a person who is these things (i.e., one who habituates them and will not repent) is not a heaven-bound person. Anyone who is presently an adulterer is giving evidence that he is not a child of God and is heading toward hell. A professing believer who gets mired in this sin (or any other!) has reason to doubt his salvation (maybe he's nothing but a professor, and not a possessor of Christ).
> 
> If you are thinking that he is still being an adulterer due to his marriage, this thinking is erroneous, and it creates irresolvable problems related to both sanctification and (as you have questioned) even salvation. He may have been adulterating prior to the marriage, and adulterating by entering the marriage, but if the marriage is a legal marriage, then he is married now. He may have to repent of a host of sins. There will be lingering consequences of sin. But marriage is like a one-way valve. The Bible does not allow disollution of marriage to restore old relationships (Deut. 24:3,4), nor divorce for any grounds other than fornication and desertion. Such allowance or command would create more problems than it solved. Persons living together and never married or persons who could never be legally married but who "made believe" they were married don't have any divorce to contemplate because they aren't married. The solution to that dilemma is simple--STOP SINNING. Get away from each other sexually.



Contra, just a question regarding your post. What if the marriage was entered into while the man was a christian? say a believer hardened his heart and entered into such a marriage, then a while later was convicted of his sin. Would your answer change at all?


----------



## Robin (Feb 9, 2005)

My Dear Randy! You FORGOT TO FINISH THE STATEMENT and POINT OF Paul'S MESSAGE: 

1 Cor. 6:

11And that is what some of you *WERE*. But you *were* washed, *YOU WERE SANCTIFIED*, you *WERE JUSTIFIED* in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Never rip a verse out of context - especially in Paul's writings!

The terrible sin in the Corinthian church was covered by the merits of Christ as they trusted in the Gospel. Think about it...Paul is speaking to these(formerly pagan) Christians - that are yet caught in many grave sins - and he announces to them they WERE (already) justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ!

God saves WICKED people. Paul wants them to consider (reckon) the impact of what God has ALREADY done so they would live accordingly. Focusing upon the Gospel is for the Christian, too. In fact, focusing upon the Gospel RATHER than upon the Law IS what makes us desire to obey the Law.

Robin


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 9, 2005)

> Contra, just a question regarding your post. What if the marriage was entered into while the man was a christian? say a believer hardened his heart and entered into such a marriage, then a while later was convicted of his sin. Would your answer change at all?


Essentially no. Sin abstractly is sin. Is it _worse_ for the believer or even the false professor to sin so? You bet. Its a sin against the light, a most terrible offense.

As for resolution, it makes little difference whether a person is called into faith for the first time, or called back from apostasy. Remain in the condition you are when you are called (1 Cor 7:27), until God (in conformity to his Word) calls you into a different state. The consequenses for sins against knowledge are and ought to be greater than sins done in ignorance. But demolishing an existing legal marriage is never the biblical solution. Duties have been assumed that have to be fulfilled, and to fail in their performance would be added sin.

Now, to add another layer of complexity, what if a man sinfully divorced and remarried, but a believer now (when he became is irrelevant) is freed from his present wife by her death? One of the consequences of his sinful divorce from his _first_ wife was that biblically he could not marry again, unless he were reconciled to his wife prior to any remarriage (by either party). Now I judge that that consequence, though superceded by the second marriage, has not been annulled, and returns to effect following the expiration of the second marriage. Until that woman who was his first wife is dead, since he is forbidden to return to her, and forbidden to marry again, he must remain single.

If this sounds odd to us, or harsh, or confusing (an it is confusing!), we should just consider how this is nothing but the biblical solution to the labyrinthine problems of sin. Consistent application of biblical discipline, and individuals commitment to follow God's counsel, will produce a society--or at least a church!--where divorce is rare, rconcilliation is common, and harmony is the rule.


----------

