The non-judgmental remarriage thread

[themuzicman]

OK, opening poster's request: If you're here to bash those who are divorced and may be remarried, please go elsewhere. This is an honest question for those who are divorced/remarried. Certainly those who have honest answers or other questions that may not be divorced/remarried are welcome.

The "other thread" got me thinking that I really don't know upon what basis remarriage would be considered acceptable after divorce. I know that in 1 Cor 7, Paul says that if an unbeliever is married to a believer, and the unbeliever leaves to let them go, but that and infidelity seems to be the only basis for divorce, and I don't see any for remarriage.

Again, non-judgmentally, how do you reconcile remarraige with scripture?

Michael

[TheAnalogman]

OK, opening poster's request: If you're here to bash those who are divorced and may be remarried, please go elsewhere. This is an honest question for those who are divorced/remarried. Certainly those who have honest answers or other questions that may not be divorced/remarried are welcome.

The "other thread" got me thinking that I really don't know upon what basis remarriage would be considered acceptable after divorce. I know that in 1 Cor 7, Paul says that if an unbeliever is married to a believer, and the unbeliever leaves to let them go, but that and infidelity seems to be the only basis for divorce, and I don't see any for remarriage.

Again, non-judgmentally, how do you reconcile remarraige with scripture?

Michael

Hi Michael
To the chagrin of some here on TWEB, I am somewhat a fan of Wesley's Theological "Quadrangle", which goes by the acronym REST, which stands for:
Reason - rational thinking,
Experience -our personal and communal journey in Christ,
Scripture - the Holy Bible and,
Tradition - the two millennia history of the Church.
I personally (as did Wesley) put Scripture at the far top, but will not ignore the rest.
There are some particulars that weren't addressed in the "other thread" that, at least in my mind, should be at least considered whether or not divorce is an option.

What about spousal abuse? Mental or physical or other.
Drug abuse? Chronic alcoholism?
Complete irresponsibility leading to starvation?
Putting the spouses life in danger through senseless acts?
Insanity?

This list is of course incomplete and are just some examples. They don't need to be explained in precise detail because so many situations are different. To take Matthew 5 and 19 as the whole testimony on the whole matter of divorce, marital unfaithfulness, remarriage and the like, may be incorrect.

I'm not attempting to make excuses.
I'm certainly not an antinomian.
I don't have the all the answers.

I guess I didn't answer your question.

Prima Scriptura!

[Adam]

Again, non-judgmentally, how do you reconcile remarraige with scripture?
Michael

Well, a chance to agree with Michael for once.
One of the reasons I converted to Roman Catholicism in 1969 (and stayed in for 23 years) was that RC did not shy away from taking the Bible literally. I never even regarded the adultery provision as meaning what Protestants tend to think.
However, given my own divorce and remarriage and the 50% divorce rate among both Christians and non-Christians, rethinking seems necessary. The answer is in Jesus's own words in reply to his disciples question about Moses's permission for divorce, "It was because you were so hard hearted that he wrote this commandment for you." Humans beings remain hard hearted, so divorce continues even among Christians. It remains impermissible to seek a divorce for frivolous reasons or simply to marry another person (obviously a subterfuge for adultery), but many suitable reasons have already been given. Plus in my case where the spouse sought and obtained the divorce for no good reason, the victimized party is free to re-marry. Or so I would think.
Adam

[Dee Dee Warren]

If the divorce is valid, there is no marriage, thus one is free to marry again.

Once is enough for me.

[Celtic moon]

God's ideal is of course that there be no divorce, Marriage is a picture of our relationship with Him, or at least Christ and the church.

However Divorces do happen,

Scripture says that it is the will of God that we abstain from fornication

1 Thessalonians 4: 3

For this is the will of God, [even] your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:

Whilst it may not be the ideal,Paul specifically says that marriage is to AVOID fornication. tho 1 Corinthians 7 specifically talks of the unmarried and widows

1Cr 7:9

But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

I personally would also apply it to those who are divorced and cannot contain,

[themuzicman]

Hi Michael
To the chagrin of some here on TWEB, I am somewhat a fan of Wesley's Theological "Quadrangle", which goes by the acronym REST, which stands for:
Reason - rational thinking,
Experience -our personal and communal journey in Christ,
Scripture - the Holy Bible and,
Tradition - the two millennia history of the Church.
I personally (as did Wesley) put Scripture at the far top, but will not ignore the rest.

Good practice. I think the rest give us a focus when studying scripture.

There are some particulars that weren't addressed in the "other thread" that, at least in my mind, should be at least considered whether or not divorce is an option.

What about spousal abuse? Mental or physical or other.
Drug abuse? Chronic alcoholism?

I've always been of the opinion that separation, when remaining together is unhealthy for one or both, is an option when reconciliation, although a long process, is the goal.

Honestly, I'd even go so far as to say that if one spouse thinks the relationship is sufficiently unhealthy, separation is an option, and that spouse can and should define the terms by which reconciliation will occur. It then puts the other spouse in the position of choosing whether they are a believer in Christ, and seek reconciliation, or just playing religion, and really an unbeliever, and leaving.

If you enter a marriage with the idea that all decisions made by both spouses will be made in the interest of keeping a healthy marriage, then the spouse who separates will endure the reconciliation process, and the spouse that is separated will do what is necessary to be reconciled.

Complete irresponsibility leading to starvation?

Not sure how one could become so dependent upon another that starvation results... maybe in the 3rd world.

Putting the spouses life in danger through senseless acts?

See above.

Insanity?

In sickness and in health?

This list is of course incomplete and are just some examples. They don't need to be explained in precise detail because so many situations are different. To take Matthew 5 and 19 as the whole testimony on the whole matter of divorce, marital unfaithfulness, remarriage and the like, may be incorrect.

I'd like to hear more scripture on this. I believe I cited 1 Corinthians 7. There's Ephesians 5 and Colossians 4, as well.

I'm not attempting to make excuses.
I'm certainly not an antinomian.
I don't have the all the answers.

I guess I didn't answer your question.

Prima Scriptura!

But you contributed. I appreciate that.

Michael

[Glenn P]

The "other thread" got me thinking that I really don't know upon what basis remarriage would be considered acceptable after divorce. I know that in 1 Cor 7, Paul says that if an unbeliever is married to a believer, and the unbeliever leaves to let them go, but that and infidelity seems to be the only basis for divorce, and I don't see any for remarriage.

None for remarriage? That seems a little extreme. What do you think Paul meant in the Corinthian passage that you cited, when he said that the believer is "not bound" in those circumstances? Not bound to what?

[themuzicman]

None for remarriage? That seems a little extreme. What do you think Paul meant in the Corinthian passage that you cited, when he said that the believer is "not bound" in those circumstances? Not bound to what?

Well, that's part of the discussion. Just before that, Paul says that if a couple divorces, they should remain unmarried or be reconciled to each other.

I'm unclear as to whether being "not bound" is an exception to that or not.

Michael

[Glenn P]

Well, that's part of the discussion. Just before that, Paul says that if a couple divorces, they should remain unmarried or be reconciled to each other.

I'm unclear as to whether being "not bound" is an exception to that or not.

Michael

He does say that a couple should reconcile or remain unmarried. However, that's a different group of people. Recall that in Chapter 7 there are three specifically mentioned groups. I have bolded the text where Paul states that he is moving from one group to another.

1 Corinthians 7

8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.
12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace.

The difficulty is explaining who "the rest" might be, since Paul has already covered the married and the unmarried. Who is left? My answer is that "the married" was a reference to Christian married couples, whereas "the rest" includes mixed marriages of believers and nonbelievers, as confirmed by the remainder of verses 12 and 13.

In other words, Christian must not divorce. Marriage is for life, and you may not remarry. If you are married to an unbeliever who insists on leaving, it is beyond your control and you are not bound to them. In other words, you may remarry.

If that sounds a little harsh for Christians in abusive marriages with other Christians, it is only because we aren't harsh enough on abusers or adulterers. An adulterer who does not repent and turn from their sin is an unbeliever, and if he or she leaves for someone else, there is nothing you can do about it, nor are you bound to them.


The same is true of a wife beater (for example) who does not repent and turn from his sin. It is my opinion that such behaviour is such that it can be reasonably treated as dessertion.

[Adam]

....
I've always been of the opinion that separation, when remaining together is unhealthy for one or both, is an option when reconciliation, although a long process, is the goal.
Honestly, I'd even go so far as to say that if one spouse thinks the relationship is sufficiently unhealthy, separation is an option, and that spouse can and should define the terms by which reconciliation will occur. It then puts the other spouse in the position of choosing whether they are a believer in Christ, and seek reconciliation, or just playing religion, and really an unbeliever, and leaving.
If you enter a marriage with the idea that all decisions made by both spouses will be made in the interest of keeping a healthy marriage, then the spouse who separates will endure the reconciliation process, and the spouse that is separated will do what is necessary to be reconciled.
Not sure how one could become so dependent upon another that starvation results... maybe in the 3rd world.
In sickness and in health?
I'd like to hear more scripture on this. I believe I cited 1 Corinthians 7. There's Ephesians 5 and Colossians 4, as well.
Michael

Gee, Michael,
Have you never heard of wives, or do you just assume the current working wives state of affairs is universal--in the good old days, wives were completely dependent upon their husbands to provide for them and their children? Looking in the other direction, some wives are so spendthrift (particularly if manic-depressive, doubling the insanity plea, a husband could need to divorce her to be able to support their children).
I'm sure it will please you no end to know that your position allowing divorce, but forbidding remarriage, is exactly the Roman Catholic teaching.
Adam

[themuzicman]

I'm not saying that it's universal. However, the opportunities for women to work are out there. I don't get how one gets to the point of starving with those opportunities.

Edit to add: IN the US.

Worldwide is another story.

[TheAnalogman]

Here's what our friend Holding has to say:
http://www.tektonics.org/qt/remarry.html

Does the Bible Allow Remarriage After Divorce?
James Patrick Holding

A reader wrote in telling of a friend with a personal situation of some difficulty, asking of this person would be permitted, Biblically, to remarry after a divorce is pursued. Since this is probably a common question, we've decided to do a broad article on the subject. Our source is Instone-Brewer's Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible, the most recent and comprehensive treatment of the subject. We'll keep the presentation simple by categorizing under the two basic questions:

* When is remarriage not allowed?
1. When a divorce was invalid. Instone-Brewer argues that such invalid divorce is what is referred to in Jesus' command about divorce [147-52], on the grounds that "commits adultery" is used in the LXX and other literature to refer to "illegal sexual activity with a person who is married to someone else." If the divorce was valid, Jesus would have said it was fornication, not adultery, and under this rubric Jesus did not regard Hillelite "all matter" divorces as valid.

Thus there is a need for a valid divorce (or separation), which leads to the question:
* When is remarriage allowed?
1. After death of a spouse. This one is easily based on 1 Cor. 7:39, 1 Tim. 5:14, and Rom. 7:32.
2. After adultery. This we have discussed extensively here.
3. After an unbelieving partner leaves. Paul's comments in 1 Corinthians about an unbelieving spouse (1 Cor. 7:15) and about a believer no longer being in bondage make the most sense if he is saying that they are free to remarry, rather than that they are free to remain separate [203]. This makes divorce because of desertion a valid practice today, for according to Greco-Roman law within which Paul spoke, the mere act of leaving amounted to a legal divorce.
4. Because of emotional or physical neglect. Rabbis of Jesus' day -- in both Hillel and Shammai's school -- agreed that neglect was grounds for divorce. They debated over what constituted "neglect" [99ff], and while material neglect led to divorce, emotional neglect was treated first with attempts at conciliation and fines before divorce was granted. We do not have direct Biblical counsel for this area, but of course one may practice a form of neglect that amounts to #2 above.

And that's the conditions in a nutshell. What can be concluded? Grounds for divorce is not as restrictive as we may think, and remarriage is certainly approved when the grounds for divorce is sufficient. We'll leave it to readers to decide whether their situations, or the ones they know, fit the bill.

[themuzicman]

I don't see where #4 has biblical foundation.

[ForHimAlone]

God blamed Israel for committing all, three deadly relationship sins: adultery, fornication and desertion.

I do not have sufficient time today to quote all the relevant texts to demonstrate the proof of my statement above but the judicious reader of Scripture will readily admit that the statement is valid.

God gave Israel a "bill of divorce" as a result of Israel's idolatry, which was likened to "spiritual fornication" as well as "adultery" and "desertion." Fornication is what we do when adultery is committed. We also desert a spouse and committ adultery in the process of committing fornication. All three of these terms are connected together and work together to destroy earthly relationships.

God divorced Israel for her refusal to worship Him alone. God then remarried a new wife, whom He would have presented to Himself as a "chaste virgin" to His Son. Some will argue that Christ's Wife is not the same as the Father's Wife but I will say this is semantical nonsense. God is one and for this reason the Bride of Christ is the same as the Wife of God.

The Bride of Christ consists of all believing Jews and Gentiles who would not commit spiritual fornication, adultery or desert their God for another.

I am convinced that God left room for backsliding Israel to return if they would do so. They were broken off because of unbelief but could be grafted in again if they were to abide in the Vine again.

The analogy breaks down I think but I remain convinced that God has quite graciously given fallen men the ability to seek new relationships in the event when a present one
is not able to be reconciled, but that this process is not to be taken willy-nilly, as the Pharisees and many, other cultures would practice divorce and remarriage today.

On a sidenote, I know of a man who was in the PRC and was told he could not remarry once he was divorced by a consistory and pastorate of married men. They smuggly sat there and told this man he had to remain celibate the rest of his life because his wife had deserted him. So, as the RCC, they allowed him to divorce, but forbade his being married again. So much for grace.

Christ has given us the ministry of reconciliation. I believe this applies to husbands and wives as well as to the Gospel being proclaimed to an estranged humanity apart from God, but in all soberness of consideration, this can be applied to couples in real-life experience only so far. Both parties must be willing and able to reconcile, otherwise the well-intentioned efforts of one are futile.

Divorce mustn't be treated like the un-pardonable sin. If God, and not man, have joined two people together, then man will not be able to dissolve this relationship.

Far too many in the church today have either had divorce made too easy to execute, on the liberal side of thinking, or too difficult to lawfully persue on biblical grounds, from the conservative side. Real people deserve real counsel, one case at a time, and with both parties present whenever possible.

In the Church, leadership should apply Scripture's precepts and counsel couples seeking to divorce regarding the need to exercise forgiveness and seek reconciliation, whenever the opportunity exists. But parishioners should not be given license to exercise unforgiveness and condemnation of those in their midst who, for various reasons, did not obtain proper outside counsel. Sometimes people simply do not avail themselves of outside assistance to mend breaking relationships.

Divorced people are not greater sinners than married couples. To their own Master they stand or fall, and the very fact that they are in church seeking the forgiveness and grace only Christ can provide is an indication of contrition and sorrow for sin. I am not able to judge the person's heart, but only able to observe their words and practices from the outside. Christ alone has the prerogative to judge righteous judgment concerning their cases. I must extend to them the grace I would desire for myself.

Or, I could exclude divorced, and the alcoholic, and the drug addict and the homosexual and purge my church of all "sinners" and fill it up instead only with the "good" and "religious" people who outwardly appear perfect, but whose inside where I cannot perceive is full of railing, bitterness, damnable heresy and excess of all kinds.

Give me sinners who will come humbly to the cross, fall on their faces and admit they are guilty before God, and who then afterward love as much as they are able their neighbor as themselves.

I will let the civil magistrate deal with murderers, rapists, thieves and all manner of penal violations. I am asked to call the sinners to repentance, that God might work conviction in the hearts of men and women, to the end they are changed from the inside-out, by the Holy Spirit, rather than from the outside in from my bashing them from the pulpit for their perceived faults.

Bottom line: Husbands and wives are obliged to do all in their power to remain together and to stir up the Spirit of Christ within them to love, honor and cherish one another and to make divorce a last resort, and not the first line of defense when the going gets tough.

I remain married to Christ,

ForHimAlone

[TheAnalogman]

God blamed Israel for committing all, three deadly relationship sins: adultery, fornication and desertion.

I do not have sufficient time today to quote all the relevant texts to demonstrate the proof of my statement above but the judicious reader of Scripture will readily admit that the statement is valid.

God gave Israel a "bill of divorce" as a result of Israel's idolatry, which was likened to "spiritual fornication" as well as "adultery" and "desertion." Fornication is what we do when adultery is committed. We also desert a spouse and committ adultery in the process of committing fornication. All three of these terms are connected together and work together to destroy earthly relationships.

God divorced Israel for her refusal to worship Him alone. God then remarried a new wife, whom He would have presented to Himself as a "chaste virgin" to His Son. Some will argue that Christ's Wife is not the same as the Father's Wife but I will say this is semantical nonsense. God is one and for this reason the Bride of Christ is the same as the Wife of God.

The Bride of Christ consists of all believing Jews and Gentiles who would not commit spiritual fornication, adultery or desert their God for another.

I am convinced that God left room for backsliding Israel to return if they would do so. They were broken off because of unbelief but could be grafted in again if they were to abide in the Vine again.

The analogy breaks down I think but I remain convinced that God has quite graciously given fallen men the ability to seek new relationships in the event when a present one
is not able to be reconciled, but that this process is not to be taken willy-nilly, as the Pharisees and many, other cultures would practice divorce and remarriage today.

On a sidenote, I know of a man who was in the PRC and was told he could not remarry once he was divorced by a consistory and pastorate of married men. They smuggly sat there and told this man he had to remain celibate the rest of his life because his wife had deserted him. So, as the RCC, they allowed him to divorce, but forbade his being married again. So much for grace.

Christ has given us the ministry of reconciliation. I believe this applies to husbands and wives as well as to the Gospel being proclaimed to an estranged humanity apart from God, but in all soberness of consideration, this can be applied to couples in real-life experience only so far. Both parties must be willing and able to reconcile, otherwise the well-intentioned efforts of one are futile.

Divorce mustn't be treated like the un-pardonable sin. If God, and not man, have joined two people together, then man will not be able to dissolve this relationship.

Far too many in the church today have either had divorce made too easy to execute, on the liberal side of thinking, or too difficult to lawfully persue on biblical grounds, from the conservative side. Real people deserve real counsel, one case at a time, and with both parties present whenever possible.

In the Church, leadership should apply Scripture's precepts and counsel couples seeking to divorce regarding the need to exercise forgiveness and seek reconciliation, whenever the opportunity exists. But parishioners should not be given license to exercise unforgiveness and condemnation of those in their midst who, for various reasons, did not obtain proper outside counsel. Sometimes people simply do not avail themselves of outside assistance to mend breaking relationships.

Divorced people are not greater sinners than married couples. To their own Master they stand or fall, and the very fact that they are in church seeking the forgiveness and grace only Christ can provide is an indication of contrition and sorrow for sin. I am not able to judge the person's heart, but only able to observe their words and practices from the outside. Christ alone has the prerogative to judge righteous judgment concerning their cases. I must extend to them the grace I would desire for myself.

Or, I could exclude divorced, and the alcoholic, and the drug addict and the homosexual and purge my church of all "sinners" and fill it up instead only with the "good" and "religious" people who outwardly appear perfect, but whose inside where I cannot perceive is full of railing, bitterness, damnable heresy and excess of all kinds.

Give me sinners who will come humbly to the cross, fall on their faces and admit they are guilty before God, and who then afterward love as much as they are able their neighbor as themselves.

I will let the civil magistrate deal with murderers, rapists, thieves and all manner of penal violations. I am asked to call the sinners to repentance, that God might work conviction in the hearts of men and women, to the end they are changed from the inside-out, by the Holy Spirit, rather than from the outside in from my bashing them from the pulpit for their perceived faults.

Bottom line: Husbands and wives are obliged to do all in their power to remain together and to stir up the Spirit of Christ within them to love, honor and cherish one another and to make divorce a last resort, and not the first line of defense when the going gets tough.

I remain married to Christ,

ForHimAlone

Excellent post! You bring gladness to my heart. Absolutely outstanding.
Thank you.