Redeeming an Adulterous Remarriage

I think it's important to note something about the teaching of remarriage as adultery in the Bible, and that is the distinction between the marital contract and the one flesh union.

If one has made a marital contract with an individual, that individual enters into a contract that is established at the consummation of the marriage, which creates the one flesh union between the two. The marital contract does not create the one flesh union. The sexual act does, and this is to be done within the context of the covenant vow that is made.

What happens when there is a divorce and remarriage while both spouses of the one flesh union are still alive is that an old vow is broken and a new vow is made. In other words, a vow/covenant is made in sin. It is not a union that was to be formed. Both the one that was divorced and the one who marries the one who was divorced are committing adultery.

Now, does this mean that the only possible redemption of the couple is that they divorce again, stay single, and/or go back to their previous spouse or spouses?

The answer to the last question is provided by Scripture for us. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 states:

If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, ² and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man [the Hebrew actually states, "she belongs to another man"], ³ and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, ⁴ then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the Lord. Do not bring sin upon the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.

The woman is not to return to the previous spouse once she has been joined to another, even if she is divorced from the second husband. This is called a sin and an abomination to YHWH. So even though the one flesh union is intact with the first husband, the possibility of rejoining with him after she has joined to a new husband is gone. 

Second to this, she is actually called the wife of another man. This means that the marital contract is legally identified by God, even though He considers it adultery based on the one flesh union.

Scripture continually identifies any person with whom the marital vow is made as the person's "husband" or "wife." Jesus tells the Samaritan woman that she has had five husbands, and the man that she is now with is not her husband. The other five are all called her "husband" in a different way that the man she is with now is considered.

This is not the case when a marriage is based in an illegitimate union that cannot be sanctified. The text says that this man has "his father's wife," not his own in 1 Corinthians 5:1, even though it is likely that the father has divorced the woman and the son decided to marry her. If that is too much speculation to put into the text, the case of Herod and Herodias is far more clear. We know that Phillip divorced Herodias and married Herod. Yet, John rebukes him that it is not lawful for him to have his brother's wife. It is lawful to marry a divorced woman, so John must be talking about the incestuous relationship that is formed via the one flesh union. Since Herodias is still one with Phillip, becoming the sister of Herod, the law views Herod as committing incest. Hence, it is unlawful, and Herodias is still identified therefore as his "brother's wife." 

But how is a vow that is made in the sin of adultery established as legitimate in Scripture, and the vow made in the sin of incest not made legitimate?

One could say that they merely are speaking as though these are legitimately married, but are really not; but this fails to note the fact that the Scripture makes a distinction and does not view marriages based on illegitimate unions as legitimate. Likewise, what is the difference between the Samaritan woman's four other husbands and the guy she has now if they are all the same? Furthermore, why can't a woman just go back to her first husband then if the other union was never recognized? 

One could further argue that any adultery makes the first union defiled, but why does God tell Hosea to take back his wife after adultery? Are all men who sleep with prostitutes viewed as defiled and therefore cannot get married or restore their marriages? Paul says that one who has sex with a prostitute is one flesh with her. This means that anyone who has sex before marriage would not be allowed to be married at all. There would be no marital redemption for any pagans who were not still virgins when they became Christians. Are Christians not to forgive for the sin of adultery? They could not. They would have to break the relationship rather than restore it. This, therefore, simply doesn't seem to be the biblical answer.

It seems God as much as God hates adultery, He also finds divorce and remarriage to be an abomination in Deuteronomy 24, and therefore, does not want His people playing games with it; but it is not adultery that prevents her from returning. Instead, it seems to be the vow and the flippant attitude toward breaking it that God finds detestable. 

So what can sanctify a second marriage? We've already concluded that repentance is needed. If there is no repentance, there is no placing the sin of adultery on the cross. The person will answer for it without the cross, and "adulterers God will damn" (Heb 13:4; 1 Cor 6:9-10; Matt 5:27-32).

We've talked about repentance looking like acknowledgment of the sin, informing others that it was wrong and advising them not to follow suit, and never doing it again.

Now, here is where I think some people may not understand how a sin like this, i.e., a vow made in sin, works. They think that every time, even after the couple has repented, that they have sex in marriage they are committing adultery. Here is why I don't think this is true, and therefore, a remarriage can be redeemed by the cross.

Piper gives an analogy with the sinful vow that is made by the Israelites to the Gibeonites. The Israelites were to completely drive out the people of the land. They were to destroy them and run them off. To make a covenant with them is an evil rebellion against God. They, however, due to their not asking God about it, end up making one with them. If a vow made in sin is a continuous committing of sin in the keeping of that covenant, even after they have repented, then the Israelites would have sinned again and again, every moment they do not go off and kill the Gibeonites. Even hundreds of years later, they would never have been reconciled to God, and the sin would have caused their destruction long before their others had. Yet, God tells them to keep the covenant with them. He disciplines them for it, but the vow they made is to be kept because it is a covenant vow.

I would argue, therefore, that the sin is seen as one large whole and not in part where one would be committing the sin over and over again by keeping the vow (and an essential component of the vow is sex). The whole of that sin, from its inception to the ending of the covenant many years later, is placed upon the cross, and the relationship can then be sanctified. 

In the same way that one should remain faithful to bring up a child from a sinful union, even though that child was never to be had with the person, so the covenant should be kept, and the couple should confess their sin and never do it again by divorcing and remarrying again.

This is, perhaps, what Paul is driving at in 1 Corinthians 7 when he is advising widows and virgins as to whether they should get married. "Let each man remain in the state in which he was called." He is not talking directly about remarriages at this point, but noting the above, it is possible to perhaps say the same thing. The web cannot be untangled, so what is the most faithful thing to do now? I would argue that it is not further breaking a vow and sinning again by doing so. If the Israelites had broken their vow to the Gibeonites, it would have been viewed as an absolute evil. Although we are flippant about vows in our culture, the Bible is clear that they are not to be broken, even when they are made in sin (which is likely why Jephthah still goes through with his vow and the Lord does not intervene).

Hence, the most creational thing to do now is to remain in the marriage, start from there, establish family, be humble and repentant, and hope fully on the mercy of God that is provided in the cross. 

In this regard, I would argue that this option is more faithful, more creational, and more redeemed, not less, than the one that splits a remarriage to remain celibate.