Marrying The Same Person Twice?

Ok guys, I am curious what ya'll think about this.

In our culture here in America, divorce is becoming more and more common place. And then also people getting re-married to another person similarly common.

It is completely obvious by the scripture that if you are divorced, and you marry another person, that you are committing adultery if your first spouse is still alive.

What I want to bring up, is the issue of people who get divorced, and then later re-marry each other. This practice seems widely accepted, even by churches, as though it is somehow good and holy for it to take place.

[b]Now, the question I am asking about this issue is this, How is marrying the same person a second time any different than going and marrying another person? Does anyone considered this to be adultery?[/b]

Now I have considered the fact that say the two people never marry anyone else, they just got a divorce, and then they later re-marry. I am not certain there is any problem with this situation. But what still seems to be embraced just as much, are situations where a couple divorces, one or both of them re-marry, divorce again, and then are re-married to each other.

[b]Although in the first question, it may or may not be adultery, I believe it is most certainly adultery in the second example. Anyone's thoughts on this topic?[/b]

But what still seems to be embraced just as much, are situations where a couple divorces, one or both of them re-marry, divorce again, and then are re-married to each other.

The Bible tells us what it is if someone divorces, remarries, and goes back to the first.

Deu 24:1 ¶ When 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.

Deu 24:2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's [wife].

Deu 24:3 And [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;

Deu 24:4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; [b]for that [is] abomination before the LORD: [/b]and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee [for] an inheritance.

To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

I Cor. 7:10,11

We can see by this verse that divorced wifes are encouraged by the Lord to re-marry their husband, or stay single.

Now, the question I am asking about this issue is this, How is marrying the same person a second time any different than going and marrying another person? Does anyone considered this to be adultery?

Hi Ben,

There is a world of difference in the scenerios. In the first, one is simply acknowledging their sin in divorcing their covenant spouse---the "remarriage" is the FULL act of repentance publically. They are simply coming back to the relationship that God has ordained and joined as "ONE". It is NEVER adultery to come back to the One God joins you with. It IS however, adultery to join with one God has NOT joined together. In the case of remarriage (while your covenant spouse lives), it IS adultery because one is STILL joined to their covenant spouse..........and will be considered "ONE" to God until one of them dies.

If one is in a relationship Jesus called "adultery", ie: remarriage to another person, it would NOT be adultery to forsake that relationship and return to one's covenant spouse. Again, they are simply repenting from their sin (divorce and remarriage adultery) and returning to their covenant spouse----the one God joined them to. There is absolutely no biblical evidence that a remarriage is binding in the sight of God when that remarriage was termed "adultery" by Him.

My only contention would be that when Jesus met the woman at the well, he plainly said that she had more than on husband. I would say if Jesus recongnized that they were husbands, rather than boyfriends, God may very well agree.

Not that what she did was good, no not at all, but none the less Jesus called them husbands.

This topic has been covered very well over the years so I will leave it at what has been said.

PreachParsly wrote:
My only contention would be that when Jesus met the woman at the well, he plainly said that she had more than on husband. I would say if Jesus recongnized that they were husbands, rather than boyfriends, God may very well agree.

Not that what she did was good, no not at all, but none the less Jesus called them husbands.

This topic has been covered very well over the years so I will leave it at what has been said.

Did the have the term, "boyfriend" back then?

The Bible forbids remarriage. The world uses the term remarriage, but if it's called adultery in the Bible then it can't be a second marriage.

Jordan

blinx wrote:
To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

I Cor. 7:10,11

We can see by this verse that divorced wifes are encouraged by the Lord to re-marry their husband, or stay single.

Paul telling her to remain [b]unmarried[/b] is conclusive proof that she could indeed marry another in that it would be a [b]"marriage"[/b], even if it is not the right thing to do, otherwise Paul would simply have told her 'do not fornicate" as he had shown example of in verses 7:1-2 there.
If re-marriage weren't possible, then Pauls words to her there are pretty much meaningless.

Paul never tells a single person to divorce and reconcile anywhere because Paul knows that once remarried we are forbidden by God to return to that former spouse. Once remarried it is [b]abomination[/b] to Him to ever reunite that former marriage.

Deuteronomy 24:!-4 is often mistaken as a 'permission' to divorce. It isn't.
It is Moses' (thus Gods) attempt to curb a practice already being carried out in Israel, the casting away of a wife for no justifible cause.

In an attempt to slow this down, Moses lays out requirements for the man that he must give it to her in writing, and he must put it into her own hand, and he must then send her out of his house.
In doing this Moses has made it so that a man would not act in a moment of rashness, but had to purpose in his heart to put this woman away. By the time he sat down and wrote out the bill of divorce he might have enough time to cool down and think about what he was doing.

It apparently didnt work because the practice only grew worse and the Jews even twisted this 'sufferance" to put away a wife for no just reason into a 'commandment' by Moses to put her away for these things so that finally they werent supposedly guilty of anything since it was Moses who 'commanded' this divorce.

Moses also wanted them to understand something. If they put away their wives, if they found some uncleaness in her and felt she was so worthy of being cast out over it, that once she remarried, once she was another mans wife, then she was never under any circumstances to return to him as it would be abomination unto the Lord Himself.

Something quite peculiar that we see in this, is that under all normal circumstances a woman would be free to marry any eligible man if her husband were to die.
But in this situation where the this first husband had put her away finding her to be detestible, even if her new husband died this former man was one of the only men in Israel who was forbidden to ever have her again.
In this case it was 'not lawful' for him to ever have her again.

That says quite a bit about how God sees this practice of divorce, especially for no real reason at all.

There isnt a single NT passage that ever shows that this part of Deut has changed where the woman cannot return to her former husband once remarried.
Pauls saying 'remain [b]unmarried[/b] or reconcile' goes hand in hand with it entirely.

:)

BrianMira wrote:
Not that it is the same, but I am wondering...

I will be getting married May 5th, here in Korea and then 'again' in Canada, July 7th.

First, is there any thoughts on this?

Second, I said that I do not want to 'lay' together or have any type of 'honeymoon' until the second wedding. Any thoughts?

Sorry, Ben if it is not exactly what you are asking, but it was the first thing that I thought of when I was reading this thread...

God Bless those that stay married through thick and thin,
Brian

Different woman?
Polygamy is not God's will for marriage.

Other than that, if it is the same woman, have at it. I dont see any scripture forbidding your renewing your vows or registering your marriage in two different countries.

Only if you divorced her, then she remarried and then became single again somehow, would you be committing abomination by taking her again as your wife.

BrianMira wrote:
Ekklesia1:

Yes, it is the same woman. The reason is that the first wedding will be in Korea with her family and friends, while the second will be in Canada with my family and friends.

My 'point' is that I am wondering if my first marriage is consecrated (is that the right word??), if we do not sleep together and wait until the second?

I was not looking for added questions... seeing that you have only posted twice on the site, it is obvious that you would not have read anything that I have written, so you have no idea that I am an English teacher in Korea, engaged to a Korean.

Take that into consideration when replying to threads.

I thank you for your points.

May God Bless those that read more than what is in front of them,
Brian ;-)

I think it shows a lot of self-control on your part to wait until the second wedding'. Im not sure of your reasoning, but I don't see it as anything wrong at all.
I'm sure if you knew my own story in my own marriage that you would see a very strong similarity between your situation and mine, from what you've presented.

I pray for many long, happy years for you and your bride to be :)

There isnt a single NT passage that ever shows that this part of Deut has changed where the woman cannot return to her former husband once remarried.

Can you find in the OT where such a wife was charged with adultery for marrying again, as you will find Jesus teaching?

What we can find in the OT is David's wife Michal becoming another man's wife and David taking her back to himself. Yes, she was not given a writ of divorcement, but she did become another man's wife.

In the NT, with or without a writ of divorcement, she would be guilty of adultery-----because the Lord doesn't acknowledge a divorce as dissolving what HE joins together. If it is adultery, it is not lawful marriage in the sight of God. At least that's my take.

lastblast wrote:
Can you find in the OT where such a wife was charged with adultery for marrying again, as you will find Jesus teaching?

And that isn't relevant to the point in any way. Im not interested in what you cannot find, but interested in what is present in His word. Deuteronomy showing that it is forbidden to return once remarried after a willful and purposeful divorce is not altered in the NT. Pauls says to remain unmarried or reconcile. That shows quite conclusively that if the person did do so anyway, that it is 'marriage' or otherwise he could not have said remain 'unmarried'.

In the NT, with or without a writ of divorcement, she would be guilty of adultery-----because the Lord doesn't acknowledge a divorce as dissolving what HE joins together.

What we can find in the OT is David's wife Michal becoming another man's wife and David taking her back to himself. Yes, she was not given a writ of divorcement, but she did become another man's wife.

Scripture shows that David lived an upright life all his days and that the only thing against him was the issue of Uriah and his wife (1Kings 15:5).
So his taking back of what was his apparently was right in the Lords eyes.

On a side note, the point isn't relevant to begin with. David committed adultery with another mans wife. Is that ok to do under the law? How about the new covenant?
David committed murder as well. Is that forbidden by law? And in this covenant?
Even if it were unlawful for David to have had Michal back as his wife, apparently God isn't in the habit of forcing men to obey. So even if she wasnt supposed to be his wife again, that she had wouldn't mean a single thing in this matter. David was punished all the rest of his days for marrying the wife of Uriah (2Sa 12:9-10), so apparently he would have been able to also take yet another wife that wasn't his without God stopping him from doing it.

But, since Michal belonged to David and was stolen from him, this isn't remotely related to his willingly casting her aside for 'some uncleaness'.
David simply took back what was rightfully his that he himself had not 'put away'.

Under the law a man having sex with another man's wife is a punishable by death.
Michal could not have been seen as the wife of any other except David, since he didn't divorce her, or otherwise Gods word would have to say that David took another mans wife if this man Phaltiel, who still lived, was actually seen as her 'husband' in God's eyes.
No adultery charge is made against David for taking another man's wife, so we must conclude that God accepted Michal as David's wife regardless of what she is called or what occured.

"And Saul gave his daughter Michal, [b]David's wife[/b], to Phalti the son of Laish, who was of Gallim.
(1Sa 25:44 MKJV)

And there you have it. David never divorced Michal. She was David's wife given to another man. David simply regained what was his own.
Just because some godless man like Saul gave her away, doesn't mean God is forced to accept it.

hi, a study of Hosea might help.jimp

jimp wrote:
hi, a study of Hosea might help.jimp

Hosea was told to marry this woman for a purpose. To show what Isreal had done to God, their continued cheating against Him, and His patience with them. But in the end with God and Israel, He ended the covenant He made with them. So Hosea isn't any evidence at all concerning anyone else's marriage other than Hosea's himself and Gods covenant to Israel. Hosea was not meant as some forerunner for marriage today or we all would need to marry a harlot intentionally.

After surrendering myself to the Lord, He seemed to answer my prayer.

The second reason is that I was not sure if I would 'feel' completely married, without any friends or family to be witnesses. I understand God is our witness, but it would be nice to have people around that I am somewhat familiar with.

The third reason is that the wedding will be conducted in Korean, so really I will not really know what is being said. That in itself will make me wonder about the vows. We will review what is said during a traditional wedding, but since my Korean (Hangeul) is poor, it would take me another 5 years, to fully understand it completely.

The Canadian wedding will be held at that church and I actually care more about my Christian family to be witness to how graceous and merciful the Lord has been to me, rather than my 'friends' and 'family' of my old life.

But I know precisely how you feel in wanting to do this in the way you have. I understand in a very personal way the desire to give your virgin wife who has never even had a single boyfriend plenty of time. My wife was in the very same situation. When she was younger she tried to 'date' once, didnt like it and never dated or kissed again until me. :)

I have lost many 'friends and family' because of my belief, but I have gained so much more.

Thank you again, I hope that I was not babbling too much...

God bless you and your bride. I can't tell you how wonderful and uplifting your post was.

:)

Hi Ben
I believe the answer is determined very simply by asking the question 'Who does God consider you are married to?' I would suggest that subsequent remarriages, which are called adultery, imply that the first marriage is still intact and that the second marriage is both unlawful and unrecognised. Can you be committing adultery when having sex with the person God considers to be your wife? I don't think so. So, regardless of how many subsequent marriages you have, the first is the only one God recognises. So sex with the first spouse could not be adultery while sex with subsequent spouses couldn't be anything other than adultery.

rodge wrote:

I believe the answer is determined very simply by asking the question 'Who does God consider you are married to?' I would suggest that subsequent remarriages, which are called adultery,

imply that the first marriage is still intact and that the second marriage is both unlawful and unrecognised. Can you be committing adultery when having sex with the person God considers to be your wife? I don't think so. So, regardless of how many subsequent marriages you have, the first is the only one God recognises.

So sex with the first spouse could not be adultery while sex with subsequent spouses couldn't be anything other than adultery.