Are you married, or are you committing adultery?

[Man_in_the_Middle]

How did we get here from the original post?

I have noticed that when the OP does not answer questions or reengage in the thread that they started, the conversation tends to wander more.
I think this happens IRL also. If the original commenter is determined to stay on topic, they have to continuously engage to keep it on that topic.

Outside of that directional rudder control, we tend to drift toward the interests of the other participants in the conversation.... I like it. When more free ranging conversations happen, there is more activity on the forum.

 

[Transformator Reformator]

How did we get here from the original post?

This is how:

1. The Bible states in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 → Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
2. We can be forgiven of our sins when we realise we are sinning and repent... and then we are to "sin no more".

 

[Mojo]

This is how:

Ah ok. I see. It’s related to #2, but not directly.

 

[Mojo]

I have noticed that when the OP does not answer questions or reengage in the thread that they started, the conversation tends to wander more.
I think this happens IRL also. If the original commenter is determined to stay on topic, they have to continuously engage to keep it on that topic.

Outside of that directional rudder control, we tend to drift toward the interests of the other participants in the conversation.... I like it. When more free ranging conversations happen, there is more activity on the forum.

True, true.
Perhaps @Anthony Clark can revisit this topic with us?

Mister Clark…open for discussion????

If not, wouldn’t this topic of Perseverance/Non Perseverance of the saints see more traffic if it became it’s own separate post?

 

[steve]

Outside of that directional rudder control, we tend to drift toward the interests of the other participants in the conversation.... I like it. When more free ranging conversations happen, there is more activity on the forum.

Can we claim it as The road less traveled ?

 

[Anthony Clark]

True, true.
Perhaps @Anthony Clark can revisit this topic with us?

Mister Clark…open for discussion????

If not, wouldn’t this topic of Perseverance/Non Perseverance of the saints see more traffic if it became it’s own separate post?

Howdy. I've read most of the replies here.

This topic is very fresh and 'raw' for me, and at the moment I have chosen to abstain from sex with my first 'wife' as I consider this matter very seriously.

My intention with starting this thread was to have good-faith discussion, not combative debate. I seek the truth and righteousness for myself and others.

The simplicity of the matter hinges on the fact that the first act of sexual intercourse between a man and woman creates a one-flesh bond which only terminates when one of those participants dies. A letter/writ of divorce does not end a one-flesh bond, nor does a father blocking that man from taking his daughter end a one-flesh bond, nor does baptism, repentance, or forgiveness. Then, a man having sex with a woman who has an active one-flesh bond with another man who is still alive is adultery.

These points are the foundation of this topic.

If anyone can scripturally show that a one-flesh bond can be terminated except by death, I would like to know about that.

Thank you.

 

[Man_in_the_Middle]

Howdy. I've read most of the replies here.

This topic is very fresh and 'raw' for me, and at the moment I have chosen to abstain from sex with my first 'wife' as I consider this matter very seriously.

My intention with starting this thread was to have good-faith discussion, not combative debate. I seek the truth and righteousness for myself and others.

The simplicity of the matter hinges on the fact that the first act of sexual intercourse between a man and woman creates a one-flesh bond which only terminates when one of those participants dies. A letter/writ of divorce does not end a one-flesh bond, nor does a father blocking that man from taking his daughter end a one-flesh bond, nor does baptism, repentance, or forgiveness. Then, a man having sex with a woman who has an active one-flesh bond with another man who is still alive is adultery.

These points are the foundation of this topic.

If anyone can scripturally show that a one-flesh bond can be terminated except by death, I would like to know about that.

Thank you.

Gotcha! Thanks for rejoining this thread!

My question for you is this, what is the basis for believing that a man is only able to form 1 single "one flesh" union?

If you agree that you can have more than 1, "one flesh" union, what is the basis for believing that it is a sin to do so?

Answers to these questions will help us in understanding how you got to the position that you are positing. Thanks!!!

 

[Anthony Clark]

Gotcha! Thanks for rejoining this thread!

My question for you is this, what is the basis for believing that a man is only able to form 1 single "one flesh" union?

If you agree that you can have more than 1, "one flesh" union, what is the basis for believing that it is a sin to do so?

Answers to these questions will help us in understanding how you got to the position that you are positing. Thanks!!!

I did not say in any of my writings that a man is only able to form 1 single one-flesh union.

I did not say it is a sin to have more than 1 single one-flesh union.

A man is able to righteously have as many one-flesh unions with virgin or widowed women (women who do not an active one-flesh union), as long as he is also able to perform all the Biblically required duties of a husband.

I am saying that it is the sin of adultery for a man to create a one-flesh union with a woman who already has an active one-flesh union with 1 or more men who are still alive.

 

[Mojo]

the fact that the first act of sexual intercourse between a man and woman creates a one-flesh bond which only terminates when one of those participants dies.

That’s the item up for discussion. It’s definitively a position that has some historical precedent. It’s a position held by several churches and traditions.

The key is in understanding the biblical implications of such a doctrine. Have you come to this conclusion via study or a particular church doctrine?

 

[frederick]

The simplicity of the matter hinges on the fact

Because of your assumption you arrive at the position stated. I disagree because divorced women are allowed to marry. The only men forbidden from marrying a widow or divorced woman were the priests (Lev. 21:14; Ezek. 44:22). Other men were free to marry them, and even marry harlots if they so desired. If an unbelieving man divorces his believing wife, she is not bound to him and is therefore free to marry (1 Cor. 7:15). God does not punish the righteous for the wrongs committed by the unrighteous. Shalom

 

[Joleneakamama]

Well.
According to scripture "The sum of His Word is truth." We cannot cobble translated passages together like they are building blocks and use those words other than as the author intended.

The more I look at what the book says about marriage, the more clear it becomes. YHWH is for marriage and procreation. He said to let your yes be yes and your no be no. This is super important in the realm of marriage! You dont want to trespass against Him!

But why would He include in His Word the instruction not to marry your brother's woman? If she is still in covenant with Him it would be adultery. There are ZERO redundant commandments!
Marriage is how to to do sex and family the right way. Sadly, even "purity" can become an idol. Many well intentioned people make their first marriage an idol (my marriage would be destroyed if my husband had another wife) and you are certainly not the first who read something convincing on this subject. The Bible has a verse about that too.

hinges on the fact

Where is this fact in scripture?

I seek the truth and righteousness for myself and others.

But are you seeking it by works or resting in the finished work of Yeshua/Jesus?

A letter/writ of divorce does not end a one-flesh bond,

It does not erase memories, it does not remove children that were created from the former union. It DOES leave a woman without a husband. Something that CAN be remedied by another man once he KNOWS that the former man has released her.
I would also say that abandonment/not providing is serious and sufficient cause for a woman to move on. Is a man who did not "marry" formally likely to "divorce" formally?
According to the scripture such a man has denied the faith and is worse than an infidel.

Then, a man having sex with a woman who has an active one-flesh bond with another man who is still alive is adultery.

Please consider the parable of the talents, the above verse about men providing, then to the matter of this other previous man's intent is hugely significant too!

But lets look at creation. Do you believe that the author of Creation who's first instruction to mankind was to multiply, and who authored the plan of redemption, who put into His law the HOW to sever a marriage....made people in such a way that if they goof....or a girl gets used by some man...she can NEVER have a husband and family without it being adultery?

nor does baptism, repentance, or forgiveness.

1 Cor. 6:9 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, 10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 11And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

I am saying that it is the sin of adultery for a man to create a one-flesh union with a woman who already has an active one-flesh union with 1 or more men who are still alive.

You are kind of contradicting yourself here. If only the first matters, then the others are all adultery too, since it is sex that creates this unbreakable union. She can't have multiple active unions and have any man with morals think she is anything but a whore. I have heard of 3 paternity tests being negative....and I doubt that is what you are talking about. You are just building a whole belief system on this unproven fact that someone made a good case for.

YHWH made woman to be a suitable helper for the man. Men sometimes do not consider a woman suitable...even after marrying them. YHWH said that a divorced woman was free to try again. Free to be another man's and try to be his helper. It is no small injustice to elevate purity above His Word, especially when doing so at a level that denies His ability to forgive, restore, bless, and give children to unions formed after her first.
We have too many examples of blessing after.

But do not marry a brother's ex....if you want children.
According to the word the judgment upon that is they die childless..... ironically the opposite of leverite marriage.
But instruction like this should make it apparent that remarriage for his ex is expected and lawful....just not to the brother of her living ex husband.

 

[Fledgling]

I highly doubt YHWH told Hosea to commit adultery. That would be nearly like saying that YHWH Himself commits adultery, since the relationship between Hosea and the woman/women was, as I understand it, meant to symbolize the relationship between YHWH and His people.

There is a distinction between types of circumstances involving women who are no longer virgins. Where exactly those lines are drawn are sometimes fuzzy and might be debated, and your particular situation might (or might not) be murky, but I do think it is clear that sex having occurred with a man who is not yet dead does not always mean that the relevant woman is unable to marry a different man. In some cases, she is unable to marry another. In some cases, she may marry another. Unfortunately, you'll have to discern which situation your woman is in, and that will depend on the specifics, not simply the fact that she has had relations with another.

 

[frederick]

I highly doubt YHWH told Hosea to commit adultery. That would be nearly like saying that YHWH Himself commits adultery, since the relationship between Hosea and the woman/women was, as I understand it, meant to symbolize the relationship between YHWH and His people.

There is a distinction between types of circumstances involving women who are no longer virgins. Where exactly those lines are drawn are sometimes fuzzy and might be debated, and your particular situation might (or might not) be murky, but I do think it is clear that sex having occurred with a man who is not yet dead does not always mean that the relevant woman is unable to marry a different man. In some cases, she is unable to marry another. In some cases, she may marry another. Unfortunately, you'll have to discern which situation your woman is in, and that will depend on the specifics, not simply the fact that she has had relations with another.

I agree. And rape would then condemn the woman to singleness, something foreign to God's justice.

 

[steve]

I agree. And rape would then condemn the woman to singleness, something foreign to God's justice.

Not only to Yah’s justice, but foreign to His Kingdom.
That a woman would have to live in the shame of singlehood for the rest of her life, whether from rape or divorce is simply against His ordained structure.

You are abusing your wife in withholding yourself from her.

 

[steve]

1When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. 2And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. 3And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; 4Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

Your assumption that the one-flesh union is unbreakable is the problem here. Ideally it should remain unbroken, but when it is broken people must simply move forward with righteousness.
The above instruction clearly shows that it does not remain static.

 

[The Revolting Man]

The simplicity of the matter hinges on the fact that the first act of sexual intercourse between a man and woman creates a one-flesh bond

This observation is completely true.

which only terminates when one of those participants dies. A letter/writ of divorce does not end a one-flesh bond

This observation is not. We’re taught specifically that a lawfully divorced woman can go to another man. God doesn’t like it but he allows it. We’re also taught that if an unbeliever leaves the believer then the believer is free to remarry.

It’s possible that your first wife has some bonds that need to be broken. But they probably aren’t the ones to you.

 

[Mark C]

Agreed.

If anyone can scripturally show that a one-flesh bond can be terminated except by death, I would like to know about that.

Steve has already noted Deuteronomy 24:1-3 in this thread (and it has been noted in many others on this topic before.)

But it bears emphasis:

If YHVH Himself says that a woman who has GOT a 'sefer keretutah' [certificate of divorce] from her now NO-LONGER husband* can "go be another man's [wife]" - who would dare to argue with Him?



------------------------------------
* I.e., to be utterly clear. There is a PROCESS outlined, not once, but twice, in Deuteronomy 24:1, and again in v 3. She has met the conditions. Period. And she many never return to that EX-husband, once she has been taken by another man, too.

 

[ASyers41]

Also 1 Corinthians 7 says that we are not to withhold sexual intimacy from a spouse except in matters of prayer and fasting but this is not be a long term thing. Exodus 21:10-11 is clear that if a man cannot provide food, shelter and sexual intimacy then he is to set her free.
A Bill of Divorcement was given to a woman and if a woman can’t remarry then there is no need for a Bill of Divorcement. Deuteronomy 24 lays out how Divorce is a three step process and I’m just going to say it, put away is not the same as divorce.

 

[NBTX11]

You need to dig deeper. You’re theory that a woman can’t be one flesh with you, if she is one flesh with another man who has not died is wrong. First off in 1 Cor 6, a man can be one flesh with a harlot, even though she has had other one fleshes, showing it’s possible. Secondly, why did God tell Hosea to marry a woman who had many one fleshes unions previously? Did God tell Hosea to sin? You can’t answer this and never will.

What is the purpose of a bill of divorcement if she can’t remarry. Seriously this is not rhetorical, what is it? Please answer. Because if she did not need a bill of divorcement to remarry then the husband could just kick her out of house without one because she can’t remarry anyways.

 

[Man_in_the_Middle]

Also 1 Corinthians 7 says that we are not to withhold sexual intimacy from a spouse except in matters of prayer and fasting but this is not be a long term thing.

This is also very important to note! If a woman was married by virtue of having had sex alone, then she now should be providing sex to that man today, regardless of what civil relationship she has entered into.

And, if it was actually a marriage in the eyes of God, I would stand on that as being true. But, in this case, it is NOT.

May peace be upon you all as you work through this issue in your study.