Marriage, Divorce and Adultery

Marriage. What is it?

Merriam-Webster Dictionary: (Traditional definition) "The state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law."

In my words this is "being as one in an exclusive male/female committed complementary  existence recognized by divine authority".

"Recognized by law" is too general. Marriage can exist where there is no law and without the consent of law. In time even "common law" relationships become legal. Therefore, the ultimate law in which marriage must be recognized is God's Law, especially since it's an institution ordained by him!

Matthew 19:6 "Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

The institution of marriage is authorized by God. It's what he joined together that becomes one.

This raises some questions? Does God recognize secular marriages with no religious vows? Are two non-Christians married in the eyes of God? If the marriage vows were just part of a meaningless ritual, is the marriage recognized in God's eyes. Only he knows the answers to these questions!

The woman at the well had had five husbands, but the one with which she now lived was not her husband. What made five husbands, but not the one? It could not have been merely a sexual relationship because it's reasonable to assume that she was intimate with all six! Jesus made a difference here between marriage and adultery:

John 4:16 "Jesus said to her, 'Go, call your husband, and come here.' 17 The woman answered him, 'I have no husband.'  Jesus said to her, 'You are right in saying, 'I have no husband’; 18 for you have had five husbands, and the one you now have is not your husband. What you have said is true.” 

Jesus acknowledged by his statement that divorce is recognized. He used past tense. "You have had five husbands." That means she no longer has five husbands, and he expounds upon that saying "You are right in saying "I have no husband', hence Jesus recognized that the woman is not now married although the "one you now have" isn't her husband. That's present tense! If this was a man, then since he has no present wives, he would be eligible to be a bishop or deacon because he would not have multiple wives!

What made the difference in Jesus' eyes as to whether this woman was married before, but not now?  This is covered quite well by Lion Tracks: Marriage and Betrothal in Biblical Times:

The parents, or a confidential friend, of the bridegroom chose the bride (Genesis 24; 21:21; 38:6). The parents' consent was asked first, then that of the bride (Genesis 24:58). The presents (dowry) to the bride and/or her parents are called "mohar", those to the relatives "mattan." The dowry could take the form of service (Genesis 29; 1 Samuel 18:25). Between betrothal (engagement) and marriage all communication between the couple was carried on through "the friend of the bridegroom" (John 3:29). They were considered to be married to a degree, so that being unfaithful was punishable by death (Deuteronomy 22:23-24) — as it was for any marital unfaithfulness. If the bridegroom did not want to go through with the marriage, he could divorce her ("put her away") by a bill of divorcement (Deuteronomy 24:1; Matthew 1:19). No formal religious ceremony attended the wedding; but a blessing was pronounced, and a "covenant of God" entered into (Ezekiel 16:8; Malachi 2:14; Proverbs 2:17; Genesis 24:60; Ruth 4:11-12). The essential and distinguishing part of the ceremony was the taking of the bride from her father's house to that of the bridegroom or his father.

In short to become married involved consent, commitment to faithfulness, engagement, a dowery,  a time of waiting, blessing by the family and God, and a covenant with God entered into, culminating with a separation from the parents and the joining together of the two. Most modern marriages are not undertaken with this degree of commitment and ritual! The woman at the well may very well have done these things, formulating "real 'marriages in contrast to the adultery or fornication of the latter. As such, the woman was an adulterer!

Let's say that in haste a couple goes to Las Vegas and is married by a government official without  religious ceremony nor vows. Are they married or fornicators? It would appear that in the eyes of our Lord, they were fornicators! They are married by law, but remember, marriage for a Christian is symbolic of our relationship with Jesus. Without the vows and commitment, the religious symbolism just isn't there. God did not join them together; lust did!

Suppose that a couple has a church marriage, but the vows were said without commitment. Did God join them in marriage, or are they on their own again? Again, it's "whatever God joined together"!

Consider the following: One of the two or both parties have been joined together before by God in Holy Matrimony. They divorce. They are no longer married and have no spouse. God recognizes divorce, albeit it's undesirable. Because they were married in God's eyes, they commit adultery. It's sin, but it is not the unpardonable sin! However, what if they had been in a mere civil marriage. After they marry in a religious ceremony, is this their first and only marriage? God did not join them together to start with, but in the second relationship he did. Which "marriage" counts and are they both marriages?

I have no definitive answers, but the question of adultery, divorce and marriage are complicated. Sure, we know modern standards of legal marriage, but we all know they have long ago deviated from God's definition of marriage! In fact during the 17th Century few people were legally married (joined by banns). Were they civil fornicators even though they were married in God's eyes?

People, including myself, who had never been divorced are condemning judges of those who are legally divorced, but for some reason "separation" is honorable. I was the worst critic of divorce until it happened to me! I still do not believe in divorce, but "living together under the law" does not a marriage make. It's a legal agreement to have uncontested sex with financial obligations. Marriage is a sincere commitment to the mate and to God. Then God honors the couple's bequest and ordains the  marriage. As such, it represents Christ marriage to the Church and our marriage to him. When God joins a marriage together, it is sacrosanct!

"Living together" is not "whatever God joins together". Civil marriages are not "whatever God joins together" and meaningless rituals with apathetic vows are not "whatever God joins together"!

We need to be careful how harshly we judge. Divorce, adultery, fornication and other sexual sins have the same punishment unless the sinners repent. Fornication is as wrong as is legal divorce, but I believe that Christian divorce is a "greater sin" than civil divorce. The difference being that in one God "joined together" and in the other, man did!

Is it best and desirable that civil marriages continue? Of course, but it's not the same as "whatever God joined together"! Civil marriages can grow into Godly marriages. However, a sincere religious ceremony with vows need to be appended to change civil marriages into one ordained by God.

Many critics of divorce have themselves had numerous sexual relationships. That doesn't stop them from judging others harshly. They use a different standard for others than they do themselves. It's reasonable and desirable to judge fairly, but harsh judgment may cause judgment to come on oneself! Judge... beware! I learned my lesson. It can happen to me and it can happen to you because we're mere weak humans and we err with sin! God is graceful indeed!