How Adultery is Disguised as ''Remarriage'' Part One

                                                 Contents:   

                                                 I. Introduction

                                                II. Justification by Both Faith and Works 

                                                III. The General Purpose of this Essay

                                                IV. Jesus and ''Remarriage''

                                               V. Paul and the Case of Abandonment of the Unbeliever

                                               VI. The Arguments Concerning Elders and One Wife

                                               VII. The Spouse Without Support

                                               VIII. The Spouse Who Committed Adultery 

                                               IX. Adultery and Judgement

                                              X. The Perfection of Marriage as Defined by Both Christ and the Church

                                              XI: The Sacrament of Matrimony according to Ephesians 5

                                              XII: The Perfection of Marriage as Defined by Adam and Eve

                                              XIII: Summary and Further Problems with Remarriage

                                              XIV:  Conclusion

                                                      

                                          

                                                                  I. Introduction         

This is a longer post than what I normally write on theology. There is a reason why this is the case. 

Currently, adultery, fornication, and sexual sins are widespread throughout American homes. Statistics are high, for instance, showing the popularity of pornography in many homes. But while most Evangelical Churches will often condemn pornography, many of them have embraced another sexual sin called adultery, which they falsely disguise as simply ''remarriage.'' 

This post will set out to prove that those living in ''remarriage'' (unless their spouse has died) are actually living in adultery and will perish from Heaven if they do not return to their true spouse. I love the picture of the Baltimore Catechism, which demonstrates that divorce does not end a lawful and valid marriage. 

Before I prove that marriage is indissoluble, however, I wish to argue why I believe that Scripture teaches that we are justified by both and works, which will tie in with one's view of ''remarriage.'' Throughout this post, I will also strive to demonstrate certain sins, such as adultery, brings one outside of justification. 

                                      

                                                                 II. Justification is by Both Faith and Works

''If you love me, you will keep my commandments (John 4: 15, RSVCE).'' In John 15: 9-10, Jesus also says that if we keep His commandments, the love of God abides in us. Nowhere did Jesus ever teach that we should simply try to keep his commandments in order to go to Heaven. Likewise, Jesus nowhere implied that He simply said this, yet we somehow cannot keep them. Many have assumed that we cannot keep them (even with the guidance of the Holy Spirit among us being saved). Actually, Jesus understood that we can and should keep His commandments which is why He said this.  A proper understanding of this passage will lead one to a Biblical view not just on salvation, but on marriage itself. 

Unfortunately, these words of Jesus have been skipped over in most evangelical churches. That's because they not only assume that the unbeliever has sinned, but that the believer can go on living in sin and not keep the laws of God. 

Christians historically thought very differently. They understood that some people's names would be blotted out of The Book of Life (Revelation 3: 5). They also understood that while God is faithful to us, He does not leave us unless we leave Him (Deuteronomy 31: 6, John 6: 36, Hebrews 6: 4-6, Hebrews 10). 

Christ Jesus has died for the world (in the sense of every person as I have proven in my previous post on 1 John 2). Likewise, as discussed in my previous post about Romans 9, God's love for Jacob over Esau is proven Scripturally to be out of His love for the Jews over the Gentiles in the Old Testament and has nothing to do with Christ only dying for the elect. Additionally, as discussed in my previous post on Ephesians 1, not all believers are necessarily among the predestined. Therefore, since Christ has died for all men, He has died even for those who do not accept Him, as implied in 1 John 2. Certainly, He died even for those who will not keep their faith in Him. Unlike the unloyal married person, who commits adultery toward their spouse, Christ has loved us, even when we have stomped on Him. But even God hates what is wicked, and Christ never promised eternal security to all who either profess or to all who have genuine faith. 

1 Corinthians 1: 2 is further proof that true believers can lose their salvation. The author of the letter, Paul the Apostle, addresses those ''sanctified.'' Keep in mind that Paul does not simply affirm those who are members of the visible church or those who think that they have been saved forever. No indeed, when he addresses sins that cause people to not enter Heaven (such as adultery, fornication, and homosexuality), he is addressing the church, specifically those already saved. 

Thus, given the context, Paul is warning believers that if they do these sins, they will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Understanding that the separation of chapters was not in the original letter and understanding who Paul was writing to, allow the Evangelical reading 1 Corinthians to see these passages in a very different light than how they have been trained to believe. It is very vital that the Evangelical Christian read the entire Biblical book all the way through rather than simply reading a verse or so out of it, which assumes that its entire context and who it is addressing, is somehow, irrelevant. 

As further evidence that Paul is warning believers of their ability to walk away from Christ and lose their salvation, ''Do not be deceived: neither fornicators...nor swindlers will inherit the Kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6: 9-10). What is there to be deceived about for the believer if they are guaranteed a golden ticket to go to Heaven? On the contrary, Paul understands that even believers can be deceived into believing that they can go to Heaven by sinning....in which case, they may lose their salvation. 

There are actually multiple examples in Scripture that we can lose our salvation. Among them, is Paul’s warning to the church at Colossae: “And you, who were one estranged and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him, provided that you continue in the faulty, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel which you heard, provided that you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which has been preached to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister (Colossians 1: 23-24, RSCE). 

In the early part of the passage, Paul affirms that they (the Colossians ) have been reconciled to God (v. 22) but then later affirms the condition that they must continue in faith in order to receive the Kingdom of Heaven (v. 23). Thus, he is not talking to people who only think that they are believers. Rather, he is warning that even true believers must keep faith or they will not enjoy celestial paradise. 

1 Corinthians 6: 11 speaks of how those he writing to, 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.'' 

By referring to the believers as ''washed, sanctified and justified,'' Paul is affirming that even the Corinthian believers can lose their salvation. This aligns with the teachings of James 2, that a man is not justified by faith alone, but by both faith and works and it does not contradict Paul's teachings in Romans 3-4 and Galatians 3 that the works of the law do not justify, as indeed, the works of Judaism do not justify, but the works of the church do. 

First of all, Scripture nowhere says we are justified by faith alone (though it does say that we are justified by both faith and works). Secondly, let me briefly respond to many of these Evangelical thoughts below. 

Paul the Apostle understood that we are justified by both faith and works. He never rebuked James, who believed that were justified by both faith and works, in any of his writings nor did he ever claim that we are justified by faith alone. As already mentioned, Romans 3-4 and Galatians 3 are not about the contrast between Catholicism and Protestantism, but Judaism vs. Christianity. This is why Paul affirms the law of faith in Romans 3: 27. Christians are justified by the laws of faith, not the laws of works. He contrasts the two throughout Romans 3-4. The former includes those of the New Testament Church such as us parking in the Eucharist (John 6), while the latter referred to Old Testament practices such as the sacrificing of animals. Since Jesus teaches that we have no life in us unless we eat His Body and Drink His Blood, receiving the Eucharist is necessary for our justification. 

Yet many Evangelicals do not understand that the entirety of both Romans and Galatians concern a contrast between Judaism and Christianity, not Catholicism vs. Protestantism. That's because many of them read these letters from the lens of the Reformation rather than first-century Judaism. It is also because many of them will cherrypick a verse or two in Paul's writings and ignore his broader message. Their methods of interpretation are largely built on Luther and Calvin's criticism of indulgence abuses, which the reformers, knew lacked Scriptural support. Luther and Calvin, however, were wrongly interpreting Paul's writings to be about the Catholic Church rather than Judaism. 

Chapters and verses though, were not part of the original Biblical text. The former was first added by Stephen Langton, a medieval archbishop. While chapters can help us find certain passages, many Evangelicals have wrongly concluded that every chapter can be read in isolation from the chapter both before and after it. If anything, the book of Romans should be read in its entirety so that we hear Paul's full thoughts and the same is true for James or any other Biblical book. One verse may very well be enough to convince us to accept a theological doctrine, but if the context of the rest of the passage causes us to doubt the theology proposed, that is also something else to consider. 

But does Ephesians 2: 8-9 not teach that we are saved by grace alone and not by works?

Not at all. It is important that the Evangelical not isolate one Biblical text and put it at odds against all others, but to grasp a basic understanding of grammar. 

Ephesians 2:8-9 affirms that we have been saved by faith, not by works. But Mark 16: 16 says he that believes and is baptized is saved. Matthew 24: 13 also affirms that he who perseveres until the end shall be saved. 

Ephesians 2: 8-9 is grammatically speaking of past tense (were saved), while Mark 16: 16 speaks of the present tense (is saved), and Matthew 24: 13 speaks of future tense (will be saved). Evangelicals often run with the first and ignore the latter two but believing in all three does not take away belief in any of them, while a denial of one of them, is still a denial of Scripture.  

It is illogical to say that Ephesians 2: 8-9 is about salvation for the whole life (when it does not speak of the believer in the future). It is also selective to say that Ephesians 2: 8-9 is about our salvation, then ignore Mark 16: 16 and Matthew 24: 13. 

If anything, we can affirm that the past tense of our salvation has been grace alone (Ephesians 2: 8-9). But in light of God's justice and our need to stay in justification, (Mark 16: 16) and Matthew 24: 13 affirm not only the importance of baptism but also of perseverance itself. 

Matthew 24: 13 demonstrates that in order to go to Heaven, one must endure until death. If Matthew 24: 13 meant otherwise, there would be no point in the gospel writer saying that we are saved by the evidence of perseverence. James 2  is clear, that our justification is by not by faith alone. Since Paul warns believers that they can fall away in 1 Corinthians 1-6, we must conclude, that justification that is by both faith and works. It is not the works of Judaism, that contribute nothing to our salvation. It is alone the law of faith (Romans 3: 27). The law of faith in Romans 3 is significantly different than the law of works that Paul affirms both throughout Romans and Galatians, which does not justify us. 

No one who comes to the Christian faith comes initially by works (Ephesians 2: 8-9). However, in order to keep justification, one must have works (James 2, Mark 16: 16, Matthew 24 13, Hebrews 6, Hebrews 10, 1 Corinthians 2). 

Scripture is specific that baptism is part of our salvation (Mark 16: 16) and it implies that it is part of our justification, by Christ's insistence that we are lifeless without Him (John 6). 

Some Christians, such as R. C. Sproul and John Macarthur, have tried to reconcile James 2 with belief in justification by faith alone, which they assume is taught in Romans 3-4.  Sproul claims that justification in Romans 3-4 is about a man's right standing before God, but James 2 is only about a man's outward works testifying to his true faith before other men. But this is disproven one realizes that James 2: 21 is actually quoting Genesis 22: 1--12, which refers to Abraham's right standing before God. Before this, in Genesis 22: 1, it says that God tested Abraham, showing that the context of James 2, is not simply us being justified by works before other men, but before God Himself. Because of Abraham's obedience to God, the Creator in turn, blessed him with offspring (Genesis 22: 16-20). Furthermore, when the entire Book of James is read through, and not one verse of so is isolated, James refers also specifically to Abraham being a friend of God (verse 24). James is referring to the same case of justification (that of Abraham) as Paul does in Romans 3-4. Indeed, both James and Paul affirm justification by both faith and works (though in the works of Judaism). Both Sproul and Macarthur are dead wrong. 

Sproul's view, though, is not true. Above, I explained why Romans 3-4 is actually about a person being justified by the works of the church rather than that of Judaism. 

Luther did not like the Book of James*1. He realized that taught theology which contradicted his own. In this sense, he also realized that the book does indeed, reach justification by both faith and works.  

In short, the Christian believer is justified by both faith and works. This was the teaching of Scripture, was affirmed by the fathers, and was uncontested for most of church history. 

Returning to 1 Corinthians, Paul nowhere claims that his warnings (written to the Corinthians who are sanctified) are somehow irrelevant to them. Given the context, he is warning believers that no one (and yes, even the true Christian) will enter the Kingdom of God if they go on sinning in the sense of living in sin without repentance. That is why Paul uses a term like ''adulterer'' instead of ''adultery.'' For Christians who fall short, they can still be forgiven through repentance. As will explained later in this post, King David was for an unspecified amount of time, guilty of the sin of adultery but later repented and did not live in the state of being ''married'' after divorce. 

No one in Christendom denies that we have all sinned (Romans 3: 23). But many professing Christians throughout the known world, have rebuked the words of Christ, cast aside the teachings of Paul, and dishonored the teachings of the New Testament by their refusal to call out all of sin and that a true believer, cannot be someone who sins without repentance, yet still expects to go to Heaven. 

Jesus said that He did not come to call the righteousness, but sinners to repentance (Luke 5: 32). Does that not mean that we can live in sin and still be forgiven by God? 

Absolutely not. 1 John 3: 9 affirms that we cannot live in sin and know God. 

Yet, never has the relevance of 1 John 3: 9 has been more ignored in many modern Evangelical Churches than concerning the topic of ''remarriage.'' Throughout this post, I am not referring to ''remarriage'' as one spouse remarrying after their spouse has died, in which case, God recognizes them as now having a true valid marriage before Him. Instead, by ''remarriage,'' I will be referring to those who live in the open sin of adultery while calling it marriage. I use quotes around the topic of remarriage, as in the cases of one ''wedding'' someone after divorce (unless a spouse dies), which is in the lens of Scripture, not a true marriage in the eyes of God. 

In our society, many assume that ''remarriage'' is a true marriage at all, which this post, will show, is not valid in the eyes of God. On the contrary, the two ''spouses'' in such a ''marriage,'' are headed down the way of destruction. 

Before I get to ''remarriage'' however, let me use the analogy of a glutton who wishes to go to Heaven. 

A true repentant glutton would not simply ask God for forgiveness but they would stop overeating and repent (meaning to truly turn away). since repentance is not simply asking sorry, but resolving to do different than carnal passions, the glutton would week to not only stop overeating but also lose weight (if they are obese) and preserve their body as the temple of God. 

Some will quickly point to how we can all overeat and be occasionally guilty of this sin. This has been used to defend those living in the sin of gluttony. After all, are not obese people just as sinful as we who may daily consume ourselves overeating as they do? 

There is actually a huge distinction (and I mean that in more than one way). 

An obese person, for instance, has not just been guilty of the sin of gluttony but has lived in that lifestyle. This is what makes one person who is far distinct from him who eats too many chocolates one night. 

Now, I'm not saying that only fat people live in the sin of gluttony. Skinny people can too. I'm simply stating that a person has obviously lived in this sin. And since scripture condemns us for living in sin, it brings serious doubt as to whether an obese person is truly within a state of grace.

But obese gluttons aren't the only ones living in sin. Fornicators who repeat their sins over and over are also living in sin. So are gossips who pretend to be only sharing critical words of another person in the name of helping them, when it is actually about putting that person down. 

Sadly, one of the most obvious examples, and arguably the most offensive against God of all the sins mentioned so far, is the sin of adultery. Adultery, when defined by Scripture, however, is not simply one spouse having fornication with another person. No indeed, and will be proven by Holy Scripture, adultery also includes those who live in ''remarriage.'' 

Gluttony is a great sin for many Americans, much like drunkness, and sexual immorality. All of these three sins, tend to be humanity's greatest struggles since the fall. 

In general, if a man or a woman can learn to resist sexual impulses, the perceived gratification of overeating, and drunkenness, they will themselves attain many of God's graces for us, such as the Holy Eucharist itself. How important it is, and what a priority it should be all for us, to learn self-control. And what better way to learn self-control than through frequent prayer? The time that we invest in so many other things could be replaced by us simply taking time out of our days to be intimate with our voice and ears to the will of the Creator. 

If one can learn to discipline oneself from food and pray, one will likely learn to discipline their desires from overeating and drunkenness. Discipline means us resisting what we are normally drawn towards. It is no easy task and we need the Holy Spirit to overcome all sin. 

Many Evangelicals have been raised to believe that if sin can bring us outside of justification, then we would all be outside justification since we all sin (Romans 3: 23). But while it is true that we all sin, this does not take away the fact that we are justified by faith and works for three reasons:

1. Even if we lose justification every time we sin, then we need to repent so that we will obtain God's forgiveness and receive justification back. If we are constantly losing justification, then we all need to be constantly repenting. 

2. Secondly, not all sins do lead to a loss of justification. 1 John 5: 16-17, for example, teaches that there is a certain sin which is mortal. Matthew 12: 22-32 also describes blasphemy against the Holy Spirit as unforgivable. In 1 Corinthians 6 (as mentioned above) Paul warns believers that they will not inherit the kingdom of God if they are guilty (and without repentance) of fornication, homosexuality, etc. The Ten Commandments are not a complete list of every sin and obeying the Laws of God as contained in them are still different than some other sins. For example, The Ten Commandments speak against bearing false witness against one's neighbor, which is not the equivalent of every lie. Likewise, while all lies and fornication are sinful, The Ten Commandments specifically condemn a man taking another man's wife (though Jesus does confirm lust as adultery in Matthew 5: 28). Some sins, however, also bring God's wrath more than others. In Genesis `19: 24-25, God destroyed Sodom for homosexuality, showing that it is a more depraved sin than most (God never destroys an entire city for one sin in the rest of Scripture). In Romans 1, Paul also argues that homosexuality is unnatural according to God's design and comes from a suppression of the truth. In Matthew 18: 6, Jesus specifically condemns those who bring His little ones from him, saying that it would be better that they be cast into the sea. Indeed, to say that all sin is equal is not true. At the same time, though, the smallest of sins, if not suppressed, will lead to greater sins. Christians have no room for legalism as we are called to complete holiness (Ephesians 1). 

3. Thirdly, even if we concede that the predestined never lose justification, as explained in previous posts, not all believers are among those predestined to Heaven. 

While some evangelicals claim that our justification by faith and works takes away from Christ's work on the cross, it is actually them who are taking away from the power of the Holy Spirit in our salvation. The Holy Spirit is saving us who are in Christ, long after Christ's finished work at the cross (Ephesians 2: 1, John 16: 13-14, 2 Thessalonians 2: 13-17). 

The idea that we cannot stop from engaging in mortal sins is simply not Biblical. In Job 31: 1, Job said that he made a covenant with God to never lust. Later, he is clear that he is unaware of any falsehood on his part as to why he is suffering now (verses five-six). Saying that we can not stop from mortal sinning not only contradicts various passages from Scripture already quoted in this post but leaves the individual a sense of excuse to go on sinning. 

It does no one good, whether they be fornicator, adulterer, glutton, coveter, or homosexual, to think that they can live in sin and still go to Heaven. Tragically though, millions of Evangelicals are currently taught that ''remarriage'' is not sinful, or if it is sinful, then it ceases to be sinful after one request of forgiveness. 

                                               III. The General Purpose of This Paper

Saying one has a broken family has often been used as an excuse for defining one's invalid marriage. Imagine a murderer saying, ''I'm broken, but I'm going to continue on murdering because Christ has forgiven me.'' 

Why the penalty of taking another's life is one of the worst of sins condemned in Scripture, if we are consistent with Scripture, there is no room to defend those living in ''remarriage'' as going to Heaven any more than fornicators, murderers, liars, homosexuals, thieves, etc. 

Victimization doesn't help anyone. People are always going to blame others for their sins (Adam and Eve did). Christ, however, calls us to so much more. A man who doesn't provide for his family is condemned by God (1 Timothy 5: 8). He may always use the excuse of blaming his wife or somebody else for his own sins, but like the rest of us, he will give account to God for his own actions. 

While some have tried to appeal to the idea that if we become a Christian after divorce, we can now ''marry'' someone else and not return to the original spouse, no such concept is found in Scripture. In fact, since marriage was instituted in the Garden of Eden, it is an institution that is enjoyed by even those outside the Christian faith---and is just as lifelong for the unbeliever as for the Christian. Since the laws of God are written on our hearts (2 Corinthians 3: 1-6), even an unbelieving man (before or after he supposedly converts to Christianity) is still living in adultery if he ''marries'' someone else after now claiming to be a true Christian. 

That said, many in American Churches, especially Evangelical Churches, have hardened their hearts to the teachings of Scripture, as I will prove in this post. The words of Matthew 5: 32 concerning the hardened hearts of the Hebrews, is also a type of allegory for today's church. 

For this people's heart has grown dull, 

and their ears are heavy of hearing, 

and their eyes they have closed, 

lest they should perceive with their eyes, 

and hear with their eyes, 

and understand with their heart, 

and turn for me to heal them (Matthew 13: 15, RSVCE). 

In short, I am arguing in this post that not only is ''remarriage'' a cover-up name for adultery but that many modern Evangelicals are guilty of hardening their hearts to the teachings of Scripture. While an entire post about the church fathers opposing divorce and ''remarriage'' would be interesting to share, I have appealed only to Scripture and logic in my understanding of Scripture in this post (everyone uses reason and logic to interpret Scripture after all, whether or not they admit that. For example, we who hold to the orthodox Christian faith profess that Christ was both God and man in His incarnation. John 1: 14, for instance, teaches that Christ is fully God, while Romans 1: 2-4 is very clear that Jesus was also completely man. One verse, though, does not cancel out the other. They both reflect aspects of Christ's personhood. Using logic, we conclude that Christ is both God and man. In the same vein, everyone, even Evangelicals use logic in interpreting Scripture). 

I have a lot to say so bear with me. I ask that the reader not presuppose one Bible verse or the thoughts of one every theologian over everything I'm about to share. For example, hear out my thoughts on each point, one at a time. In short, I wish to answer all of the following points within this post (though I don't cover them in the following chronological order): 

1. Why ''remarriage'' is adultery in disguise. 

2. The Biblical evidence used by Roman Catholics, Anglicans, and what Protestants traditionally believed about how people living in ''remarriage'' are just as damned as those living in fornication or homosexuality. 

3. Does Christ forgive those living in a ''remarriage'' whether or not they repent, in the sense of turning away from sex with their new ''spouse'' and returning to the 

4. The inconstancies of John Macarthur and many other Evangelicals on Divorce and ''Remarriage.''

5. Problems with Eastern Orthodoxy on Divorce and ''remarriage.'' 

6. Scriptural Evidence that neither Christ nor Paul allowed a spouse ''freedom'' under the cases of adultery and abandonment of the unbeliever. 

7. Why believing in divorce and ''remarriage'' is a denial of Ephesians 5's teachings concerning Christ's love for the church. 

8. Why the teachings of 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 forbid not only ''remarried men'' from church offices, but from being recognized as true Christians by the church. 

9. How those who Take Holy Communion while not truly repenting of their adultery bring judgment upon themselves. 

10. What Scripture Teach about those who can't return to their true Spouse. 

11. Biblical evidence that ministers who do not call out ''remarriage'' will answer to God for not preaching the fullness of Scripture. 

The eleven points above are not all answered chronologically in this post. I placed them there to simply demonstrate to the reader that they are all covered here. 

I have decided to not use the church fathers in this post as this post is written primarily for Evangelical Christians who may feel confused about their friend at church who has been ''remarried.'' Technically, the church fathers saw those living in ''remarriage'' as adultery. However, this post does not refer to specific church fathers at all. Rather, it proves through Scripture that those living in ''remarriage'' are actually adulters in the disguise of living in Holy Matrimony to one another. 

Finally, before I move to point III, the main point of this post is to convince Evangelicals that not only is ''remarriage'' adultery, but that churches are responsible for preaching against all sin, calling al lot of repentance, to not giving Holy Communion to those living in sin, and to canonically enforce church discipline on those who refuse to repent. 

                                               IV. Jesus and ''Remarriage''

Luke 16: 18 is one of several key passages to the thought of our Lord on the subject of divorce and ''remarriage.'' In the Bible verse, Christ says, ''Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery (RSVCE).'' 

Jesus leaves no room for ''remarriage'' in Luke 16: 18. In fact, in this passage, he doesn't even mention the exception clause for sexual immorality. 

In Luke 16: 18, Jesus affirms that anyone who ''remarries'' someone else while their true spouse is alive (even if they claim to be divorced), then they commits adutlery. He then adds that a man who ''marries'' a divorced woman, himself commits adultery. 

Not only does Jesus say that ''remarriage'' is adultery, but He affirms that a man who ''marries'' a married woman, is himself, committing adultery. This also proves that Christ did not recognize a married woman as having the right to a second or new valid marriage in the eyes of God. No indeed, Christ clearly teaches that marriage is exclusively one man for one woman, and anything to the contrary, whether adulterous ''remarriage'' or same-sex marriage, is not a recognized true marriage. 

In Mattew 19: 6, Jesus says of marriage, ''So they are no longer two but one. What therefore God has joined, let not man put asunder (RSVCE, Matthew 19: 6).''

In Matthew 19: 6, Jesus recognizes that no one has the authority to end a valid marriage. This goes for both the government and the local church. A judge or pastor may proclaim two people no longer wed and that they have the right to ''remarry'' other people, but in the eyes of Christ, they are still married. This could not be any more clear than what is. Jesus sees everyone living in a false marriage as openly living in the sin of adultery. 

  Jesus recognized ''remarriage'' as adultery (Matthew 5: 32). Nowhere in the New Testament, is there one example of a believer who is recognized by the church as authentic in the faith, who has also been divorced and ''remarried.'' In fact, while Moses had once affirmed a certificate for divorce (Deuteronomy 24: 1-4), Jesus ended this in Matthew 5, saying explicitly that the words of Moses in this regard are no more. He says the same in Mark 10: 1-12 (RSVCE). 

''And he left there and went to the region of Judea and beyond the Jordan, and crowds gathered to him again; and again, as his custom was, he taught them.

2 And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” 3 He answered them, “What did Moses command you?” 4 They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to put her away.” 5 But Jesus said to them, “For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6 But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ 7 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife,[a] 8 and the two shall become one.’[b] So they are no longer two but one.[c] 9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.”

10 And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. 11 And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

Indeed, the words of Christ throughout the gospels could not be any more explicit than they are. The only case that Jesus mentioned for divorce is adultery in Matthew 5: 32. In Luke 16: 20, he does not even mention this case. In both passages, however, he affirms that those who ''remarry'' while their true spouse is alive (even if they claim divorce) are living in adultery. 

Matthew 5: 32 and Luke 16: 18 are evidence that those who legally divorce and ''remarry'' their spouse, are in the eyes of God, still married to their original spouse. If the New Testament Church rescinded these words of Christ (which they would have no authority to do so), they would not do so in all of Scripture. 

But what about the exception clause? Did not Christ allow divorce and ''remarriage'' in the case of one spouse's infidelity?

The exception that Jesus references to divorce and remarriage in the gospels is more clear in Greek than in the English translations of the Bible. In Matthew 19: 9, for instance, Jesus does not use the word, moicheuō, which is the ordinary Greek word for adultery. Instead, the Greek word found in this text, is porneia, which sometimes refers to marriages within close relatives (in other words, incest) Eric Ewanco of biblebeltcatholic.com writes, ''The Greek word porneia, literally means unlawful union or something close to it*2.'' 

This is why Roman Catholics traditionally have annulments. Imagine a man accidently marrying his sister and later, they learn that they are siblings. In the eyes of God, it would not be a true marriage. 

But even if Matthew 19: 9 does allow one to literally divorce their spouse due to the other person's adultery, Jesus never embraces the concept that one can then ''remarry'' after divorce. 

In fact, the debate is already over. One verse of the words of Christ is all that we need for truth. Nevertheless, I will prove through various other passages in Scripture why ''remarriage is adultery.'' 

                                               V. Paul and the Case of Abandonment of the Unbeliever  

It is often claimed that the person done wrong by the unfaithfulness of the other spouse now has the right to remarry. Many who propose this appeal to 1 Corinthians 7: 15, where they said the spouse who was faithful, is now at liberty to divorce and ''remarry'', as they are supposedly no longer bound by the marriage oath. Since this thought has made its way into many Protestant confessions of faith, it must be dealt with carefully here. 

First of all, Paul seems to say otherwise in 1 Corinthians 7: 10: ''To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband)---and that the husband should not divorce his wife (RSVCE).'' 

In 1 Corinthians 7: 10-11, Paul nowhere gives the right to divorce for believers. In fact, he affirms the possibility of marriage separation but never says that they can divorce, little alone ''remarry.'' Even if by ''separation,'' he meant divorce, however, he never allows the legal right to ''remarriage.'' 

Furthermore, keep in mind that Paul never affirmed either divorce or ''remarriage'' in the passage above. Although some have interpreted his use of ''freedom'' in the passage, as referring to believers having the right to divorce and ''remarry'' when one looks back at 1 Corinthians 6: 16, this is simply not the case. In 1 Corinthians 6: 16, Paul affirms the danger of man becoming one in body with a prostate and says instead, that he should be one only wife his wife. With ''remarriage,'' however, one is denying sexual intimacy to their spouse alone and perhaps even worse, breaking their oath to their spouse to stay faithful to them. And if is this is not bad enough, ''remarriage'' is one perpetually breaking their oath to God by living an adulterous sinful relationship. Indeed, divorce and ''remarriage'' for all of the reasons mentioned, are actually worse than fornication. 

Nowhere in 1 Corinthians does Paul say that one can divorce and ''remarry.'' Rather, a believer is free to let the abandoning unbelieving to go. 

It is also interesting to note that in all the gospels, that Jesus never mentions the case of abandonment of the unbeliever for an exemption from lifelong marriage. If anything, the New Testament is far closer to divorce on the grounds of adultery than it does to the abandonment of the unbelieving spouse. 

I will also add that we need to define who the unbelieving spouse is in 1 Corinthians 7:1 must be not one simply whose spouse affirms as an unbeliever as any spouse could this. Also, being married to an unbeliever alone does not justify separation. The unbelieving spouse would have to openly denounce the Christian faith and leave their spouse for the faithful spouse to feel the freedom that Paul is describing. Otherwise, this would allow any husband or wife to accuse their spouse of now being an unbeliever. 

Even if Jesus did allow for divorce and ''remarriage'' for the spouse done wrong by the other spouse's adultery, and if Paul allowed divorce and ''remarriage'' for the abandonment of the unbeliever, these would still be in the minority of legal cases for Christians have the right to ''remarriage.'' So even if one thinks that these are exceptions which are allowed, millions of Americans are still living openly in adultery and justifying it by calling it ''remarriage.'' 

                                             VI: The Argument of Elders and One-Wife

Some have attempted to reconstruct 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 to somehow mean that it only requires ministers to be married to one wife at a time. Ironically, this is a modern interpretation, was unknown among those at the time when the New Testament was written, and runs contrary to church interpretations of these texts over the course of the last two thousand years. 

Nevertheless, this type of interpretation has justified ''pastors'' like Robert Tilton in the eyes of man, even has been ''married'' three times. 

But what about elders? After all, 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 are only about elders, right? Maybe they forbid men who have been divorced and ''remarried'' from ordination, but not other Christians? 

As Voddie Bauchaum rightly pointed out, 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 are not simply about elders, but every man in his own home. Thus, if we truly believe this, then these passages not only forbid men who have been divorced and ''remarried'' from being church leaders, but they forbid all men from being divorced and ''remarried.'' 

Voddie's reasons for believing that leadership/eldership in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 is for all men, and not just elders, is because the New Testament is explicit about the modesty of women and how they should behave in the church (1 Timothy 2: 9-15), but it is never explicit about the behavior of all men in the church. However, Voddie concludes that it implies what all men should be by what elders are (1 Timothy 3, Titus 1). This is further proof that no Christian man is living godly by living openly in sin. While he may be a ''Christian'' in the sense of a member of the visible church, God knows his heart, just as the Creator knows all of our hearts and it is based upon our hearts that we are judged. 

1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 testify that there is no place within Christianity for divorce and ''remarriage.'' 

                                           VII: The spouse without support

Based on all the Biblical arguments that I have made above, it is clear that Scripture considers those who live in ''remarriage'' to be adulters and headed for damnation. If we dispute this, then may also dispute if liars or thieves are being damned. 

Because Scripture teaches those who are ''remarried'' are also adulters, we must ask ourselves what is to be canonically done across parishes 

But what about the righteous spouse who cannot return to their spouse? What must they do? According to Paul, they are free (1 Corinthians 7). While I have argued Biblically that they cannot ''remarry'', they are no longer bound by the abandoned unbelieving spouse. 

Even though they are still married in the eyes of God, they are not at fault for their spouse who has falsely ''wed'' someone else. 

                                           VIII: The spouse who committed adultery 

What about the spouse who committed adultery on their own spouse? Can they ''remarry?''

Absolutely not. They are living in adultery until they repent and attempt to reunite with their true spouse. 

But what about the situation in which one spouse (the one who did wrong) cannot return to the one who was done wrong because the latter has ''remarried?''

This too, is an interesting scenario. 

It would be awful to be the spouse who did the other spouse wrong because of adultery and if one cannot return to the one done wrong, because the one done wrong, has now ''remarried'' someone else. 

Nevertheless, God can forgive the person who did wrong to the other spouse if the former now chooses to remain celibate until (if ever) there can be a reunion of the true husband and wife. Even if there cannot be such a reunion, the spouse now sorrowful,  can repent of their sins, receive Communion, and choose to not live in adultery, regardless of what their other spouse does. 

This goes for both the spouse who has been done wrong and the one who did wrong. If their spouse has now ''remarried'' someone else, they are responsible for repenting (if they were guilty of anything), take Holy Communion, and living a celibate life. 

                                            IX: Adultery and Judgement

Everyone is invited to a church. I've never a church say a Muslim can't attend, for example. but attendance is far different than being invited to the table, to share in the Eucharist itself. 

Ministers of all Christian traditions are responsible for protecting their flocks from heresies. One of the greatest modern heresies is that we can take the Body and Blood of Christ without true reverence for our Lord and by living continually in sin. 

1 Corinthians 11, however, is very clear: those who take Holy Communion unworthily, receive judgment upon themselves. Since those living in ''remarriage'' are adulterers and since adulterers are those living in open sin, ministers are responsible for not distributing the Body and Blood of Christ to them, lest they desecrate our Lord's Body and Blood itself, and bring scandal on the church of God. 

While it cannot be known the private sins in the hearts and minds of humanity, ministers are responsible for protecting the church from all outward heresies and immoralities. Truly, it would be better to be no minister at all than one who protects sin and gives sinners a sense of self-righteousness by affirming their sin to not be contrary to God's perfect justice. Those who affirm adulterers to the table, affirm unrepentant sinners to receive what is holy. Those who claim that they are not responsible for giving Holy Communion to those who live in outward sin, make a mockery of the house of God. Those who excuse themselves for avoiding preaching against certain sins based on the hypocrisy of other ministers make other ministers, rather than God Himself, their standard for what is right and wrong. ''Remarriage'' is adultery, however, and it is never love to leave a person left to sin and to not call a sinner to Christ. We are not gracious by letting others pass to Hell. True grace requires that we share a concern for everyone, including those guilty of living in adultery. 

The effects of the sin of adultery are great on many. In Judges 17-21, Israel suffered God's wrath for their sin. Oftentimes, one's sin strongly impacts the punishments of other people. 

In 2 Samuel 12, David learns of his son's foretold death due to his sin in committing adultery with Bathsheba. In this regard, David impacted the life of his son, who was not guilty of the sin of his father. 

Others often face consequences because of our bad choices. Because of Adam's disobedience in the Garden of Eden, now, death has been passed down to all of us (Romans 5: 12-19). And yes, even after we ask God for forgiveness, we still face the impact of our sins, if not those of others as well. David's repentance in Psalm 51 never brought his son back. 

If this is not somber enough to warn us of the great consequences that accompany sin (especially sexual sin), let us turn to Psalm 51 to see the impact sin even had on David's relationship with God: 

''Create in me a clean heart, O God

and put a new and right spirit within me. 

Cast me not away from your presence, 

and take not your Holy Spirit from me. 

Restore to me the joy of your salvation, 

and uphold me with a willing spirit (RSVCE, Psalm 51: 10-12).'' 

David is not only confessing his repentant heart, but he is pleading God for salvation again. By saying ''Restore to me the joy of your salvation,'' David is demonstrating that he has lost Christ. For those who say that he is not referring to our loss of salvation, but only to our loss of the joy of salvation, are they asserting that Christ can live in us yet He no longer impacts the joy of our salvation? Furthermore, before this, David pleads, ''Cast me not away from your presence (11).'' Why would David say this if he thinks that this is impossible to happen? Why does David not say instead, ''Oh God, I can never lose my salvation, but don't punish me for my sins.'' No indeed, the latter statement would be as opposite of Pslam 51 as possible. 

Furthermore, while some translations use the word, ''presence'' instead of salvation in this passage (such as the ESV), this doesn't change the argument I am proposing, that David lost his salvation due to sin. For even if David is simply saying he lost God's presence, does that mean that for those who claim that we cannot lose our salvation that Christ lives in us always, yet somehow, we can lose his presence? Likewise, the context of the whole passage bears further evidence that David did lose his salvation such as when he says, ''Cast me not from your salvation (or presence)'' ''and take not your Holy Spirit from me.''

Psalm 51 is rarely mentioned in many Evangelical pulpits, though. I've never heard one Evangelical pastor in all of my life address it in a Sunday sermon what David is affirming here: that the sin of adultery cost him his relationship with the Lord. Even though David later repented, he still faced the consequences of his sin

Does that mean that David lived in sin? Not at all. Soon, I will demonstrate from Scripture that David was not only repentant of his sin but did not live life in it. In the meantime, however, I wish to address another Evangelical argument against this. 

Is Psalm 51 only about David thinking that he lost his salvation? Could the king have thought he lost it due to his own guilt, but that he never actually lost it? 

Even if this were the case, David by David acknowledging the possibility of one losing God's presence, he is still confirming Biblical thought concerning the potential of the believer losing salvation. Secondly, David did lose his salvation, as will be proven by other Scriptures. 

2 Samuel 12: 9 and 1 Kings 15: 5 confirm that David did a great sin by committing his adultery. In Psalm 51, he acknowledges that he sinned against God alone. 

Ezekial 33: 12-13 and Ezekial 18: 20 are further evidence that salvation can be lost through grave sin:

''And you, son of man. say to your people, The righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him when he transgresses, and as for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not fall by it when he turns from his wickedness; and the righteous shall not be able to live by his righteousness when he sins. Though I say to the righteous that he shall surely live, yet if he trusts in his righteousness and commits iniquity, none of his righteous deeds shall be remembered; but in in the iniquity that he has committed he will die (Ezekial 33: 12-13).''

The former passage shows first, that even a righteous man may stumble into great sin, in which case, all of his previous righteous actions don't save him from punishment. For those who claim that it is not speaking of salvation, think again:

''The soul that sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of his father, nor the father suffer from the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself (Ezekial 18: 20).'' 

Ezekial 18: 20 shows that the soul died due to sin. Ezekial 33: 12-13 shows that even a righteous man, loses all of his righteousness if he stumbles to sin. Ezekial 18: 20 implies a loss of salvation (how can a soul be dead, even for a once righteous person if one believes that they cannot ever lose salvation?) While Ezekial 33: 12-13 confirms that living well for many years does not guarantee that some will not stumble due to sin, and accordingly, lose faith. 

But does not Romans 4: 3-4 teach that God never imputes sin into any believer? 

Interestingly enough, Romans 4 is actually quoting Psalm 32, in which David described his own downfall to sin. In Psalm 32, David says that a man is blessed whom God does not impute sin to the church of Rome in Romans 4. In fact, Paul is clearly talking about salvation in the first several verses...but by referring and quoting to David's words in Psalm 32, he understands David also having been referring to salvation. 

If we affirm that Paul is saying that David is now saved after the adultery of Bathsheba, that would imply that David was never saved beforehand for those who say that justification can never be lost. This is not the context of either passage, however. Paul knew different and so did most for the past two thousand years. David was anointed when young (1 Samuel 16: 1-13). Furthermore, the Old Testament is very clear in many places that David had a genuine relationship with God before his fall to sin with Bathsheba. Therefore, Romans 4 (which quotes Psalm 32) does not refer to David suddenly becoming justified for the first time in his life after his adutlery with Bathsheba. Rather, David has received justification back due to repentance. 

In turn, some Evangelicals who affirm eternal security loved to whip up Romans 8: 1, which teaches that there is no condemnation for those in Christ. However, this doesn't prove eternal security. Both Hebrews 6 and Hebrews 10 (as I have shown in other posts) demonstrate that Christians can lose their salvation. This is not a matter of one Biblical passage contracting one another but understanding that we are in a state of grace so long as we heed Paul's warnings in 1 Corinthians 6, James's warnings in James 2, and John's writings in 1 John 3: 9. If we engage in mortal sin, then we lose justification (1 Corinthians 6). Adultery is one of the sins most condemned in Scripture and remains the topic of this post. 

Because of this, Romans 4 should be understood as David's forgiveness by God rather than God keeping all the saved from losing their salvation. The context of both Psalm 32 and Psalm 51 show that David did indeed, lose his salvation when he sinned through adultery and murder. Unfortunately, many Evangelicals have been raised to believe that the New Testament can be quoted and understood without reading its direct references back to the Old Testament. 

                                           X: The Perfection of Marriage as Defined by Both Christ and the Church

In Revelation 19, the Bride of Christ is spotless from evil and blameless from all sin. As Christ Jesus gathers her to Himself, he restores creation (Romans 8). 

There is no better picture of Christ and the church than in the Scriptures. Christ is married to the church in general and even though some of the once faithful will leave Christ (Hebrews 10), the church will always comprise the predestined (Ephesians 1). In turn, Christ will keep his promise that He will never leave the Hebrew Christians (Hebrews 13: 5). God never cast the Jews out (Romans 11). However, the church (including Jews and Gentiles) is the Israel of God (Galatians 6: 16). Furthermore, Christ is the perfect picture of what a husband should be (and a Christian man). Christ died for those who rejected Him (1 John 2). Our Lord loved the saints even before they were holy (Ephesians 1). God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the strong (1 Corinthians 1). 

As a picture of His love for us, Christ gifted humanity with the beautiful sacrament of matrimony, one of the most beautiful institutions in history (and the oldest). Just as Christ loves the elect, a husband loves his bride as they share in the joy of union under the New Testament covenant to the people of God. 

                                           XI: The Sacrament of Matrimony according to Ephesians 5

One of the strongest arguments against divorce and ''remarriage'' (as well as gay/homosexual'' marriage'') is that Ephesians 5 understands Christian marriage to be a sacrament between a man and woman. Although all people who marry the opposite sex experience a type of grace from God, the Creator specifically blesses the believer with the Sacrament of Matrimony. 

But can it be proven that the Sacrament of Matrimony according to Scripture? 

Yes, it can be proven on at least three accounts. 

1. One believing spouse sanctifies even the unbelieving (1 Corinthians 7: 14). 

2. Some have pointed out to John 2: 1-12 which records Jesus's presence at the wedding at Cana. Christ supports the marriage, and some see this chapter as when marriage becomes a Christian Sacrament. 

3. Whether or not Christ made marriage a sacrament in John 2: 1-12, Paul affirms it as one in Ephesians Chapter 5. In the context of speaking of what a husband should be for his wife in Ephesians 5, Paul says in verse 32 of marriage itself: ''This is a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and the Church. 

Therefore, since matrimony is a sacrament in Ephesians 5, since marriages patterned after the lifelong marriage of Christ to the Church, we must conclude that Scripture does not recognize it as dissolvable. 

                                              XII: The Perfection of Marriage as Defined by Adam and Eve

Besides Christ and the church, there is one other example of a perfect marriage as recorded in Scripture. This latter case was that of Adam and Eve as both loved one another before the fall of humanity to sin. 

Since Christ was the fulfillment of Adam and Adam and Eve's original state in the garden was that of perfection and paradise, we have no better example of a man and woman enjoying a beautiful marriage than that of Adam and Eve. Adam, though, only had one wife. He was no polygamist. Nor did God grant him the right to either divorce or ''remarry.''  

God later allowed divorce in the Old Testament due to man's hardened heart, which in turn, ended with the teachings of Christ in the New Testament. 

Interestingly enough, there are examples in Scripture of polygamists who were heroes of the faith, such as David and Soloman. Yet there are no examples of heroes of the faith (or any believers) within Scripture who were divorced and ''remarried.'' The Old Testament records men guilting of adultery (and yes, David was not married to Bathsheba until after her husband's death), men guilty of rebellion (Adam), men guilty of disobedience (Joshua) and lack of faith (Moses). But through the example of a Hebrew or a Christian in either the Old or New Testament, there is never an example of one single person held as a true believer who was divorced and ''remarried.'' 

This is because divorce and ''remarriage'' as more perverted than polygamy. In the Old Testament, even polygamists such as David and Soloman remained the legal fathers of many children. In modern law, however, a man can divorce his wife and dissociate from his family altogether. 

Likewise, Nathan the prophet rebuked David for taking another man's wife (and killing the man before marrying her), though Nathan never rebuked David for having more than one wife. Thus, many of the Old Testament patriarchs who had more than one wife were not living in open sin (at least in this regard). 

But does not Deuteronomy 17: 17 teach against polygamy in that it says a king should not have many wives unless it turns him away from the Lord?

First of all, this passage only speaks of a king, not everyone among the Hebrew people. It does not condemn Abraham, for instance, and was written long after he was dead. 

Secondly, Soloman and David were distinct in one notable way: unlike his father, who married only women within the people of Israel, Soloman did marry many wives outside of God's people, and this took him away from God. Did Soloman repent at death? Did he go to Heaven? Only God knows, but he was certainly not the committed believer as was David who was a man after God's own part (1 Samuel 13: 14, Acts 13: 22).''

Thirdly, some translations of the Bible such as the RSVCE, understood ''many wives'' to be the equivalent of multiple wives. If this is a correct translation from the Biblical Hebrew text, David did not live in open sin as he is never recorded to have had that many wives. While a strong case can be made that Soloman did live in open sin (at least for a time), I don't think that anyone is questioning that. He married outside of Israel, even to women who questioned the one true God. While we can all hope that he later repented of this, I'm not affirming him as an Old Testament saint, at least in the way that David was. 

Fourthly, Soloman is not mentioned in Hebrews 11 concerning the great heroes of the faith. Therefore, his example of being married to many wives, cannot be used to just that a true believer can live in open sin and still retain justification before God. 

Fifthly, David openly confessed his sins to God as recorded in the Scriptures (Psalm 51). While Soloman does encourage his readers to turn to God (Ecclesiastes 1: 14) and (Ecclesiastes 12: 13-14) but I'm not sure that this is evidence that he was sorrowful of his sins. 

Sixthly, let us assume for the sake of argument that Soloman did repent of disobeying God by marrying outside the Old Testament Hebrew community. What should he have then done? Divorce his many wives from the countries that he had taken for himself? If we affirm that he should have given them all up and no longer stay married to them, then does that not mean that he would have had to break his oath to God in being married to them? This is not a comparison to a man divorcing his wife and ''remarrying'' another under the New Testament, as the latter situation is not recognized by our Lord as a true marriage and ''remarrying'' someone else while the true spouse is alive, would be an explicit denial of oath to God, to stay with one's spouse until death does separate them. 

Seventhly, Nathan the prophet rebuked David for the sin of adultery and murder (both of which David confessed to God). Yet neither Nathan nor David accused the king of living in open sin by having more than one wife. Because of this, it would seem that David does not break the Old Testament law of Detuternemony 17: 17 about a king not having multiple wives (he had at least eight wives). If David was living in open sin by violating the laws of God, would Nathan the prophet not have mentioned this? 

Eigtlhy, David's wives did not lead him astray from God as did Soloman. 

Ninthly, although some Christians once thought Moses wrote Deuteronomy, most Biblical scholars now believe that was written during the reign of King Josiah. If this is the case, then the prohibition of a king having multiple wives was written after David was dead, and thus, does not condemn him as living in open sin as it was no yet in force. 

Tenthly, 1 King 11: 4, 11-12 demonstrates that David does not live in open sin by being polygamous. It only contrasts both David and Soloman from one another:

''For when Soloman was old his wives turned away his heart after other gods; and his heart was not wholly true to the Lord his God, as was the heart of David his father (1 Kings 11: 6, RSVCE). 

And later...

''So Soloman did what was evil in the sight of the Lord, and did not wholly follow the Lord, as David his father had done (1 Kings 11: 6, RSVCE).'' 

Tragically, many Evangelicals look to David and claim that he lived in the open sin of polygamy. They then claim that they can somehow live openly in ''remarriage'' and still go to Heaven. This is a wrong conclusion, however, for all of the reasons I mentioned above. The case of David's marriage to Hebrew women within the people of god in no way justifies the modern ''Christian'' from living in open sin. 

At the same time, none of this means that polygamy was God's intention. Just because it was allowed for Old Testament Israel, doesn't mean that He saw it as the perfect image of Christ's love for the church that is found in the marriage of one man and one woman. 

Additionally, while polygamy is a shortcoming, a man married to several wives, is potentially still more faithful to his marriage than he who breaks his vows altogether, divorces his wife, and ''remarries'' another woman. 

If one believes only appealing to explicit theology as found in Scripture, then the New Testament does not condemn polygamy. Scripture only explicitly rejects kings from having many wives (Deuteronomy 17: 17), sisters from being in a polygamous marriage (Leviticus 18: 18), and church elders from having several wives (1 Timothy 3: 2 Titus 1: 6) We know, however, that polygamy is now condemned under New Testament practice, just as we know divorce and ''remarriage'' are now condemned under New Testament practice, because both implicitly go against the teachings of Ephesians 5 about matrimony being a sacrament between one man and one woman. Yet the same Evangelicals who assume that polygamy is now condemned without the New Testament nowhere explicitly condemning it, often defend those living in the sin of adultery (which they falsely call remarriage), as being forgiven by God and allowed to sin over and over again without losing justification (and being recognized as having a valid marriage by their church). 

Polygamy is no longer permissible as it was in the Old Testament (Ephesians 5, 1 Timothy 3, Titus 1). The purpose of this post is not to defend polygamy. I acknowledge that polygamy was a shortcoming of God's perfect design. Indeed, His perfect design was just one man and one woman for each other as was the case of Adam and Eve. 

Nevertheless, the Old Testament nowhere claimed that polygamy was a sin. In fact, the Old Testament allowed both polygamy and divorce under certain circumstances. The Old Testament never affirmed a ''remarried'' person being in right standing with God, though it does affirm polygamists such as David and Soloman as being in right standing with Him. 

If anything (and I'm not endorsing this), there is more Biblical support for polygamy than there is divorce and ''remarriage.'' There are many examples of the former being practiced by heroes of the faith in the Old Testament, and absolutely no examples of the latter having been practiced by any believers in Scripture. 

On another note, if we believe that polygamy was just for the Old Testament, we must also believe that marriage, according to the New Testament, is truly lifelong between one husband and one wife. 

And many of the people who defend ''remarriage'' claim that they believe in Scripture alone as their final authority. This is simply not the case, however. They ignore the many Bible verses and arguments based on Scripture against the sins, which God hates, and appeal to the opinions of Evangelical pastors rather than that of the Word of God. In fact, the Evangelical advocates of ''remarriage'' who affirm belief in Scripture alone, unlike Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox,  make themselves all the more hypocrites, as they do not appeal to Scripture as their final authority. 

                                         XIII: Summary and Further Problems with Remarriage

Over the course of two thousand years, only the Roman Catholic Church has generally been faithful in the last century to the idea that marriage cannot be broken, and is truly lifelong between one man and one woman. The Eastern Orthodox Church, meanwhile allows divorce and ''remarriage'' up to three times. Lastly, many Evangelical Churches embrace one person marrying and ''remarrying'' unlimited times. 

Before the eleventh century, no divorce was allowed in the Orthodox Church. At the time of the Reformation and after, Lutherans and Calvinists only tolerated divorce and ''remarriage'' in the cases of sexual immorality or abandonment of the unbeliever. Even if these Protestants were right, that ''remarriage'' is allowed only in these two cases, then millions of Americans are still living in adultery and headed to damnation...even as many American Churches comfort them in their sin because these people have itching ears (2 Timothy 4:3) to hear false doctrines. 

In short, the Eastern Orthodox Church, while generally stricter against divorce than most countries, allows divorce and remarriage according to its canon law up until three times (an odd rule never confirmed by either Scripture or the Ecumenical Councils). 

Furthermore, the Orthodox Church claims to be the owner's true church. 

While the Roman Catholic Church has found significant abuse in various dioceses concerning annulments, their teaching still stands, which is that, that marriage is lifelong between one man and one woman and that this marriage never ends (at least in this life). 

While abuse in every denomination, the Roman Catholic Church has historically been faithful to the words of Jesus in Luke 16: 18, that whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery. 

We can spend pointing out hypocrisies all day. Nevertheless, even if one criticizes Catholicism on other points, they have protected the right of marriage between one man and one woman for thousands of years. 

Denominations that accept people living in adultery (and yes, so-called ''remarriage'' between one spouse still married to someone else in the eyes of God is exactly that)

Evangelicals like John Macarthur contract all the fathers and everyone in the first millennium of church history. No one in Christian history 

Truth is truth no matter how popular it is. The Evangelicals who have accepted divorce and ''remarriage'' are doing the same as the mainline Protestant denominations who accept homosexuality in that both are embracing a change of morals based on what is popular and they both do under the excuse that Christ forgives us (even if go on to have sex with either the same sex or someone of the opposite sex while our true spouse in the eyes of God is still allowed). 

While homosexuality is more perverted than adultery (Galatians 2: 10), justifying one and not the other, has also been shown by this post, to be inconsistent. Both the homosexual as well as the heterosexual fornicator, are living in sin, but so is the spouse who no longer loves his Bride as the Church (Ephesians 5), abandons her, and ''remarries someone else (Luke 16: 20). Many Modern Evangelicals skip over the context of Luke 16: 20, which speaks not just of fornication or what many typically think of adultery. Instead, Christ calls ''remarriage'' ''adultery.'' For those who say that Christ only is calling the initial act of ''remarriage'' adultery, but then He forgives that person and accepts the new marriage as valid once they repent (a complete fiction never said in the passage), read the text again. If one claims that Christ is only speaking of the initial act of ''remarriage'' as adultery, but then accepts the new marriage after the person supposedly repents, one would also have to accept fornicators or homosexuals living in open sin as long as they only repented of their initial step. All of this, however, contradicts the plain words of 1 John 3: 6 that a Christian is not one who lives in sin?

For those who say that Christ simply forgives us and we should not be legalistic to say that ''remarried'' people are damned, why do they believe an ongoing murderer or homosexual or thief or fornicator will go to Hell when those described as committing adultery in Luke 16: 20 (Christ's words, not mine) are those who live in the sin? 

For those who simply say that they affirm ''remarriage'' because of John Macarthur or someone else, the same person may as well defend the use of secular universities, and sports, as most Evangelicals have no problem with these institutions. Likewise, if one says ''John Macarthur knows the Bible and I accept it,'' not only hold Macarthur above the words of Scripture, but if they are going to embrace theology based on a person's knowledge, one will also accept homosexuality as some very learned mainline ''Christians'' in their knowledge of the Scriptures, nevertheless,  accept homosexuality. 

Being learned, however, does not make one right. The Pharisees were schooled in Judaism and most of them rejected Christ. Many seminary students today, justify women's ordination, abortion, and homosexuality, and it is not because they aren't learned in Scripture. 

Scripture, however,r is clear regardless of one's education. Macarthur twists Scripture to justify the ''remarried'' in his congregation and episcopalian the Scripture to justify the gays in their own. 

If one is to use the reasoning, ''Well most Evangelical Churches accept remarriage, then I accept it,'' one may also justify those who defended abortion in the 1970s, as most Southern Baptists did. 

If one is to argue that homosexuality is contrary to Christian essentials but divorce and ''remarriage'' aren't, what exactly is this based on? The creeds? The councils? The New Testament? For neither the creeds nor the New Testament has ever said this. There may be Evangelicals who say, many of whom are the same Evangelicals who accept contraception and send one's child to public school. They are not Scripture, regardless of their seminary education. If one is to trust they got divorced and ''remarriage'' right simply because they went to semianry, why not accept those who accept women's ordination and homosexuality, as many such advocates have also gone to semianry? 

If one is to argue that Paul's words are absolutely clear about homosexuality being a lifestyle of sin in 1 Corinthians 6 but that the topic of remarriage is not clear in Scripture, look again to Luke 16: 20 and Ephesians 5. I'm appalled that anyone would claim this. In fact, Scripture says even more about the lifelong marriage of a man and a woman than it does in condemning homosexuals. In Luke 16: 20, the words of Jesus about one person ''remarrying'' another person being adultery, could not be any more clear against remarriage. Nor could the words of Paul in Ephesians 5 be that marriage is about us imitating Christ's relationship to the church, which is lifelong marriage, and because it is a lifelong marriage which we should imitate; therefore, marriage between one man and one woman, is also lifelong. 

Scripture speaks more against ''remarriage'' (which Jesus calls adultery) than it does against either abortion or homosexuality. Yet ''remarriage'' has spread like wildfire across Evangelical Churches. More Evangelicals are divorced and ''remarried'' than either Lutherans or Roman Catholics. In fact, Pew Research discovered that Evangelicals are just as ''remarried'' as those in the secular world. 

Such theology is based on sinking sand, it changes with the wind and deflects from the plain teachings of Christ that marriage is lifelong, as he taught in Luke 16: 20. 

                                                                     XIV. Conclusion

Divorce and ''remarriage'' were uncommon in Western societies for centuries. They grew extensible, however, during the sexual revolution; which in turn, popularized, abortion, contraception, and eventually, homosexuality.

If society does not return to marriage being lifelong between one man and one woman, then our whole civilization will continue to fall apart and abandon Biblical Christianity altogether. If society does not return to marriage being lifelong between one man and one woman, then everything from ''marriage'' to the ''family'' can be redefined based on what is popular. If churches do not return to marriage being lifelong between one man and one woman, then they have no Scriptural standard to say that fornication is wrong or homosexuality or bestiality. 

Indeed, it's actually for those to defend those living in sin for they too, are responsible before God. Ministers who distribute communion to those living in adultery (or anyone living in open sin), make themselves not only accountable before God but bring God's judgment on their persons. Since Hebrews 13: 17 teaches that those in authority are held accountable by God, everyone professing to a be a ''pastor'' and comforting others staying in sin, is so accountable before the Creator. 

Being less popular on this earth and more accepted by God is worth facing any trial or tribulation in this world for. As Mark 8: 36 rightly implies, it is better than we lose the world and gain Christ. 

If what is popular becomes what is true, then anti-Semitism was true for Nazi Germany and Same-Sex marriage is true for us. Christianity, though, is not about what is popular. Christ was not popular. His own people betrayed Him. 

I will also bring up, that as a cultural talking point, the legality of both divorce and ''remarriage'' has actually contributed to the legislation of gay marriage. The modern gay movement has pointed to laws and churches affirming the ''right'' of divorced straight people to ''remarry'' as an inconsistent denial of their perceived freedom. 

Certainly, if Evangelicals defend divorce and ''remarriage,'' then they will also soon defend homosexuality. This is what happened with both contraception and abortion. As society accepted contraception, it gradually accepted abortion. Likewise, mainline Protestant Churches accepted a denial of Biblical inerrancy long before they affirmed their support of both abortion and homosexuality. 

Sin is like a great weed. If it is not cut soon, it will grow and grow. But it has grown. Divorce and ''remarriage'' helped to lay the foundations for the modern homosexual movement, which in turn, is now breeding pedophiles towards children. One sin does not have to be as deprived as the sin that follows it for both to be against God's original design of creation. We were meant for so much more, after all. We were meant to live in s perfect paradise with natural desires for the opposite sex, as we rejoice at the glory of God. 

No amount of theology is ever too much. Few topics concerning the Creator should end with one or two sentences. A careful study of Scripture is sometimes exhausting but it is necessary to understand a proper theology of God and our sinful desires. Even the Scriptures were not written on just a page or so, but written over many centuries by writers in different regions across the Near East and southern Europe. Those aspiring for an easy truth in theology may get what they are looking for someone...someone who will tickle their ears rather than carefully examine the amount of Scripture that needs to be considered for various theological topics. Augustine of Hippo spent fifteen years studying the Trinity and writing a volume about the doctrines of the three Persons of the Godhead. Jerome of Rome spent twenty years in a cave translating the Bible into Latin. Yet somehow, many Evangelicals wish for a quick Google answer according to what their favorite Evangelical pastors say on this subject. In turn, many of these Evangelicals will idolize their pastors over the clear teachings of Scripture, that adulterers stand condemned by God. 

Proverbs 6: 32-35 says that adultery destroys a man. We would be wise to heed its implicit warning to not sin

Let this post serve as a warning, to call all of Christendom to not only repentance, but ministers, specifically, to call out the adultery within their congregations. While we can spend all our time talking about unfaithful church leaders in Roman Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox, that is beside the point. Scripture and Church history are on the side of marriage being lifelong between one husband and one wife and that those who defy this, defy the authority of Scripture. Lastly, those who replace the teachings of Scripture and the church fathers with modern Evangelical leaders may claim that they only appeal to Scripture as their final authority, but in reality, they have replaced the teachings of the Christian faith with the words of modern man. 

Notes:

*1-https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/the-epistle-of-straw-reflections-on-luther-and-the-epistle-of-james/

*2-https://www.biblebeltcatholics.com/_WebPostings/Answers/2000_11NOV/2000NovWhatIsTheActualGreek.cfm