Is remarriage permitted after divorce?

[wonderer]

For example, Jesus said in Mark :
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."

I guess that means that..once married, always married.

In Matthew 19 there's a difference: "9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery"

Now, why would a person be allowed to remarry if the divorce was because of unchastity?
Some say that's because if one partner has been 'unchaste' (committed adultery?), the marriage tie has been broken already.

That leads me to wonder why. if a person according to Jesus in Mark divorced and remarried thus committing adultery, the first marriage tie would not be considered broken also, and thus he'd be free.

At any rate, it looks like if a person divorces their partner for any other reason except for adultery, that person who'se been divorced through no fault of their own is condemned to live single for the rest of their life. Yet if that person is the 'guilty' party who has committed adultery, they are free to remarry! That doesn't seem very fair to me.

I used to go to an anabaptist church. A couple visited the church at one time, where each partner had been married before, divorced, married each other, and had children together. The divorces took place before the 2 people became Christians. The view of the church was that they were in an adulterous union and would be living in adultery if they didn't decide to live separately, and would therefore be doomed to hell, based on Jesus' teaching in Mark. I don't think they allowed for any 'exception clause' as in Matthew 19.

It would be very hard for people in that situation who wanted to be in accordance with God's will to break up their 2nd family and live single or return to their previous partners, especially as they now had children together. But it'd be very hard also to continue living together under the threat of being doomed to hell.

It wouldn't be any use 'repenting' of having committed adultery by remarrying, if they were going to continue committing adultery by staying in the relationship. Some say God would forgive them for the initial sin of remarrying, and they'd be free stay together, but that doesnt seem have any basis in scripture, but to be just 'wishful thinking'. It'd be a big risk for a Christian to take, and might take the joy out of the union, fearing there'd be hell at the end of it. However, many Christians do seem to live happily ever after with a clear conscience.

What a horrible dilemna to be in, to get remarried, then become a Christian, and be faced with the prospect of having to break up the marriage.

But does God expect them to do that?

[Angel]

Angel,

I find your defense of polygamy interesting, though I think it is a difficult case to uphold. Please tell me how you respond to post #19 (First Timothy 3:12)

bjs' post from page 2, post #19:

This is interesting to me, because it seems I'm still carrying the vestiges of my Christian years where in my chuch circles it was taught that God's will regarding marriage was strictly monogamy. I did a google search to see what verses I could find to show that the NT taught monogamy, and came across a polygamy site which shows that there is actually nothing in the NT to condemn polygamy. I have learned something new!

First Timothy 3:12, “A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well." Literally in Greek it says he must be “a one-woman man.�

This certainly outlaws polygamy for deacons. I don’t see any case for this being an ethical command only for deacons (or even only for church leaders). In context, Paul is describing the ethics expected of all Christians, and saying that a person must have demonstrated the ability to uphold this ethic reasonably well before entering church leadership.

Although you mentioned that 1 Timothy 3 is not about ethical commands just for deacons, but that is contrary to what the chapter explicitly mentions. 1 Timothy 3 opens up by referring to those who desire a particular position in the church, first with the position of bishop and then deacon and the instruction that Paul gives applies to each respectively. There are different rules for husbands and wives in the Bible (e.g. one being subordinate to the other) so I don't see why it would be a stretch for the rules in 1 Timothy 3 to apply only to bishops and deacons while the general population of Christians have less restrictive rules to live by. Interestingly, the rules for priests in the Old Testament were also much more restrictive than for the rest of the Jews. For example, priests could not marry a divorced woman (Leviticus 21:1, 7), and for a high priest even more restrictive since they could only marry a virgin (Leviticus 21:10, 13-15). None of these rules apply to the Jews who weren't priests and it seems even God instructed the prophet Hosea to marry a woman who was not a virgin but one who was promiscuous and in some translations, she was even a prostitute (Hosea 1:1-2).

If 1 Timothy chapter 3 was a section where Paul was giving instruction that applied to ALL Christians, then that would mean that all Christians would have to be married or have one wife. Paul was not married and he even recommends staying single at times (1 Corinthians 7:1, 8). So if the instructions in 1 Timothy 3 were to apply to all Christians then Paul is guilty as well as all other Christians who don't get married or stay married. I think that's unlikely to be the case.

[Angel]

Adstar - from your post - post #28

So you will not be apologising for your false accusation against me.

To proud to admit a wrong.

I will not be replying to you from this moment onwards.

May you be forgiven.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

I will NOT apologize because I didn't do anything wrong. I already responded to what you were accusing me of, and you are wrong, not me.

[bjs]

Although you mentioned that 1 Timothy 3 is not about ethical commands just for deacons, but that is contrary to what the chapter explicitly mentions. 1 Timothy 3 opens up by referring to those who desire a particular position in the church, first with the position of bishop and then deacon and the instruction that Paul gives applies to each respectively. There are different rules for husbands and wives in the Bible (e.g. one being subordinate to the other) so I don't see why it would be a stretch for the rules in 1 Timothy 3 to apply only to bishops and deacons while the general population of Christians have less restrictive rules to live by. Interestingly, the rules for priests in the Old Testament were also much more restrictive than for the rest of the Jews. For example, priests could not marry a divorced woman (Leviticus 21:1, 7), and for a high priest even more restrictive since they could only marry a virgin (Leviticus 21:10, 13-15). None of these rules apply to the Jews who weren't priests and it seems even God instructed the prophet Hosea to marry a woman who was not a virgin but one who was promiscuous and in some translations, she was even a prostitute (Hosea 1:1-2).

If 1 Timothy chapter 3 was a section where Paul was giving instruction that applied to ALL Christians, then that would mean that all Christians would have to be married or have one wife. Paul was not married and he even recommends staying single at times (1 Corinthians 7:1, 8). So if the instructions in 1 Timothy 3 were to apply to all Christians then Paul is guilty as well as all other Christians who don't get married or stay married. I think that's unlikely to be the case.

I agree that Paul is not saying that all Christians need to be married. I can’t even say that Paul is instructing all church leaders to be married. As you point out, neither Paul nor Timothy were married and Paul recommended staying single at times. Rather, it seems that Paul is saying that if a leader is married then he must remain faithful to his one wife

This command does extend to all Christians – that if a Christian marries s/he must remain faithful to his/her one spouse, neither committing adultery nor taking a second spouse.

In context, Paul gave a list of qualification expected of a deacon. He must be
1 worthy of respect
2 sincere
3 not indulging in much wine
4 not pursing dishonest gain
5 keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience
6 husband of but one wife
7 manage his children and household

These are commands for all Christians. Would we say that a leader must be sincere, but all other Christians may be dishonest? Would we say that a leader must not indulge in much wine, but everyone else may get drunk regularly? Of course not! Nor can we say that a deacon should be the husband of but one wife but all other Christians may commit adultery or polygamy.

Paul does call leaders to set the best example of following Christ – he says that they should be tested to show that they are living the right life and if there is nothing against them then they may serve as leaders. The testing is to show that they live out the ethical demands that God has placed on all Christians, and this includes avoiding adultery and polygamy.

[pasha]

For example, Jesus said in Mark :
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."

I guess that means that..once married, always married.

In Matthew 19 there's a difference: "9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery"

Now, why would a person be allowed to remarry if the divorce was because of unchastity?
Some say that's because if one partner has been 'unchaste' (committed adultery?), the marriage tie has been broken already.

That leads me to wonder why. if a person according to Jesus in Mark divorced and remarried thus committing adultery, the first marriage tie would not be considered broken also, and thus he'd be free.

At any rate, it looks like if a person divorces their partner for any other reason except for adultery, that person who'se been divorced through no fault of their own is condemned to live single for the rest of their life. Yet if that person is the 'guilty' party who has committed adultery, they are free to remarry! That doesn't seem very fair to me.

I used to go to an anabaptist church. A couple visited the church at one time, where each partner had been married before, divorced, married each other, and had children together. The divorces took place before the 2 people became Christians. The view of the church was that they were in an adulterous union and would be living in adultery if they didn't decide to live separately, and would therefore be doomed to hell, based on Jesus' teaching in Mark. I don't think they allowed for any 'exception clause' as in Matthew 19.

It would be very hard for people in that situation who wanted to be in accordance with God's will to break up their 2nd family and live single or return to their previous partners, especially as they now had children together. But it'd be very hard also to continue living together under the threat of being doomed to hell.

It wouldn't be any use 'repenting' of having committed adultery by remarrying, if they were going to continue committing adultery by staying in the relationship. Some say God would forgive them for the initial sin of remarrying, and they'd be free stay together, but that doesnt seem have any basis in scripture, but to be just 'wishful thinking'. It'd be a big risk for a Christian to take, and might take the joy out of the union, fearing there'd be hell at the end of it. However, many Christians do seem to live happily ever after with a clear conscience.

What a horrible dilemna to be in, to get remarried, then become a Christian, and be faced with the prospect of having to break up the marriage.

But does God expect them to do that?

Is there this line from GOD, that states
WHAT GOD HAS JOINED TOGETHER LET NO MAN SUNDER???
So then if all unions, including I would hazard GAYS- OFFICIALLY
then it was sanctioned by GOD, for another BIBLE
verse states this, NOTHING HAPPENS UNLESS GOD ALLOWS IT TO.
Or as Jesus told the disciples what you bind on earth or unbind.

There are too many contradictions in all the BOOXs
to have them intoned as GOD's inerrant word, for too many finiky fingers
have been messing with it too long.

pax

[Angel]

Although you mentioned that 1 Timothy 3 is not about ethical commands just for deacons, but that is contrary to what the chapter explicitly mentions. 1 Timothy 3 opens up by referring to those who desire a particular position in the church, first with the position of bishop and then deacon and the instruction that Paul gives applies to each respectively. There are different rules for husbands and wives in the Bible (e.g. one being subordinate to the other) so I don't see why it would be a stretch for the rules in 1 Timothy 3 to apply only to bishops and deacons while the general population of Christians have less restrictive rules to live by. Interestingly, the rules for priests in the Old Testament were also much more restrictive than for the rest of the Jews. For example, priests could not marry a divorced woman (Leviticus 21:1, 7), and for a high priest even more restrictive since they could only marry a virgin (Leviticus 21:10, 13-15). None of these rules apply to the Jews who weren't priests and it seems even God instructed the prophet Hosea to marry a woman who was not a virgin but one who was promiscuous and in some translations, she was even a prostitute (Hosea 1:1-2).

If 1 Timothy chapter 3 was a section where Paul was giving instruction that applied to ALL Christians, then that would mean that all Christians would have to be married or have one wife. Paul was not married and he even recommends staying single at times (1 Corinthians 7:1, 8). So if the instructions in 1 Timothy 3 were to apply to all Christians then Paul is guilty as well as all other Christians who don't get married or stay married. I think that's unlikely to be the case.

I agree that Paul is not saying that all Christians need to be married. I can’t even say that Paul is instructing all church leaders to be married. As you point out, neither Paul nor Timothy were married and Paul recommended staying single at times. Rather, it seems that Paul is saying that if a leader is married then he must remain faithful to his one wife

This command does extend to all Christians – that if a Christian marries s/he must remain faithful to his/her one spouse, neither committing adultery nor taking a second spouse.

In context, Paul gave a list of qualification expected of a deacon. He must be
1 worthy of respect
2 sincere
3 not indulging in much wine
4 not pursing dishonest gain
5 keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience
6 husband of but one wife
7 manage his children and household

These are commands for all Christians. Would we say that a leader must be sincere, but all other Christians may be dishonest? Would we say that a leader must not indulge in much wine, but everyone else may get drunk regularly? Of course not! Nor can we say that a deacon should be the husband of but one wife but all other Christians may commit adultery or polygamy.

I can't help but reiterate again that you're referring to 1 Timothy 3 which explicitly opens up addressing only 'bishops' and 'deacons' and not to all Christians. Eventhough there are similiarities in roles and rules between bishops/deacons when compared to the laity, but that doesn't prove that there aren't or that there can't be differences between the two groups (bishop/deacon and laity). It's possible for there to be different rules and roles between certain positions of believers; for instance, a Christian husband and wife would believe in God and do all of what you mentioned in your numbered list (1-7) but a difference we find is that it is the husband who is to be the head of the marriage. Then there's also the OT which mentions rules for priests that do not apply the general population of Jews like priests being able to only marry virgins and undivorced women while the general population of Jews could marry widows (presumably who weren't virgins), God asking Hosea to marry a prostitute (Hosea 1:1-2), etc. Both of these examples show clearly that God does, at time, assign different rules between different groups or positions of believers.

You also haven't shown any reasonable basis to determine when rules apply to all believers and when it applies to only some believers, which I'll go ahead and say that I know ALL Christians are to follow what you listed in 1-7 because the NT mentions that for BOTH groups. That would take reading more than just 1 Timothy 3 but also other areas of the NT to find that out, since 1 Tim. 3 is only addressing those who seek become bishops and deacons. You claiming that 1 Timothy 3 applies to all Christians while excluding the possibility that there can be different roles and rules between two different groups of believers is unreasonable - esp. in light of the EXPLICIT opening of 1 Timothy which address to bishops and deacons.