A Question About Remarriage (take II)

[Carly]

[Adam]

[JRosemary]

[Adam]

[JRosemary]

[girlfreddy]

I seem to kill threads fast these days so I'll try not to bare too much. No, for myself, I do not believe in remarriage, but this would come from never having faced a divorce myself. If I look at my father (currently working on #5 marriage), my sister-in-law (2nd marriage), my aunt (3rd marriage) etc, then I say everyone go for it.

But I also tend to agree with Adam here. We don't seem to know the meaning of the words commitment and until death due us part these days. But again I speak from never having faced the difficulties of divorce and remarriage. Man, it took me years to get over living with the father of my children let alone marrying and divorcing him (if we'd ever been married). I couldn't imagine it.

I'm just throwing in my worth here to break up Adam and JRosemary, both of whom I respect a lot but who do not agree very often.

ps. to Adam and JRosemary, I really do love you two. You make some areas here so exciting to visit!

[Carly]

Interesting stuff! Thank you all for your input (and Adam, you were not the only person to make a comment about remarriage in that other thread--I'm waiting for poster #2 to make an appearance here!)

I have a question for you, Adam--you would say remarriage is forbidden to the partner who does not instigate and, if given a choice, would not have agreed to the divorce, if adultery is not involved? It seems like you're basing that opinion on something Jesus said in Matthew--would you please elaborate on your reading of that section of the Bible?

JRosemary, since you seem well-versed in various scriptures as well, I'd also be interested in your take on the scriptures you mentioned.

Also, girlfreddy, I always value your perspectives, and I hope you will always feel free to post in any thread I might start

[Adam]

::Oh, plenty of us are all too well aware of those consequences. That doesn't mean we should be condemned to live with them until our spouse dies, though. Nor does it mean that we should merely separate and never try again with another person.

I suppose that I feel that we are bound more tightly by word and duty than by reason and purpose. If we pledge our lives to another and then later find that they are unworthy of it, what is wrong is not merely their lack of worth (they are who they are), but our pledge.


::Jesus's own words aren't clear-cut. You're following Matthew's tradition. But in Mark--and in Paul's reference to Jesus's teachings in First Corinthians--no acceptable reason for divorce is given. Not even adultery.

In my interpretation of Mark 10, the act of separation is a sin. But if Christ says elsewhere that the act of adultery is itself an act of separation, then it is itself the divorce. The trifle of having papers signed only reflects what has already occured; the one who abandons the other, physically, emotionally, or otherwise, has already accomplished the divorce.

As for Paul, I can't recall any mention of remarriage in 1st Corinthians. As I understand him, he lauds celibacy, permits marriage, permits divorce more liberally than Jesus, but denies remarriage, saying that those who's spouse seperates from them are "called to peace," as I understand it, an element of his eschatological Law, that because the end is near there is no cause for either new marriage or remarriage.

::In fact, if an otherwise moral community gets one wrong-headed idea, it can make your life miserable. One Catholic in my family was ostracized by her tight-knit, Irish Catholic community after her divorce. (Let me hasten to add that this was in the 1960's before Vatican II.) Nonetheless, she'd be the first to tell you that staying married just to remain on the right side of your community is a bad idea.

The ostracism does not mean that remaining married in this particular situation was a bad idea. The community should have taken the guilt for sin on it's own hands for not caring for the relationship as it should have.

Marriage is not a bond between a man and a woman. Marriage is a bond between the community and the couple. That is why marriage as it is intended rarely exists at all anymore. The couple who have already committed to one another in heart and mind go forth to the community and ask for recognition and honor, and with it for counsel and support. But no such responsibility is born by the community, and what little sense of the immorality of divorce is left in the community is laid only at the feet of the separated couple, when in fact the party in the marriage who failed to keep their committment was the community, and the great sin of divorce is their own.

[Carly]

*waves to Adam* Over here!

Hi Adam You responded to JRosemary (which is great; I have no problem with you responding to her or she to you), but you didn't respond to me. I'm very interested in your answer to my most recent question!

Let me add an addendum to the question that I posted a few hours ago. What would your response be if the non-instigating party very strongly suspected adultery but did not have absolute proof?

*is enjoying this thread immensely and thanks everyone for the thoughtful posts*

[Adam]

[JRosemary]

[Karen]

I have to leap in here, because you're discussing a section of scripture which I hold dear. Here's what Paul has to say:

1 Cor 7:10-11 To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.

Paul recognizes that divorces will sometimes occur - a man can leave his wife and what say does she have in it (something that has happened to a number of my friends)? But this seems to me to be saying that if you do get divorced (which you shouldn't do in the first place) there is to be no remarriage.

12-15 To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace.

In this section, Paul is talking about a very specific case: a Christian who is married to a non-Christian. In that case, *if* the unbelieving spouse leaves, the Christian spouse is not called to try and keep him there. Paul says nothing here about remarriage: the 'peace' which he speaks about is for the Christian spouse so that he will not feel he has committed a wrong if his wife leaves him. There would be no peace if he forced her to stay.

But for two believers, vv. 10-11 are clear because, as Adam has said, the marriage is not simply between two individuals but takes place within the Christian community, which is (ideally) to uphold it. How this should apply in our world, where the church does a very poor job of understanding what marriage is and how it should be upheld, is another matter.

ETA: Later in the chapter (v. 39), Paul writes A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord. This is the only situation in which remarriage is permitted.

[Guest]

[Carly]

Dan, this is from your link:

"A remarriage entered into wrongly does indeed constitute an act of adultery against the previous contract. This breaks the old contract; the former partner is set free. The person who remarries is then obligated to be faithful to the new contract. Deuteronomy 24 showed it to be wrong to go back to the old marriage contract. (Hosea was later commanded to do so as an illustration of the love of God that would take back apostate Israel.)"

Fascinating...especially since I did not "feel" divorced upon the signing of the papers but did feel divorced when my ex got remarried.
(He's in the process of getting married for the third time...I wonder what the scriptures have to say about that!)

Please keep discussing, anyone who wants to chime in or respond. This is great stuff!

[JRosemary]

Hi Karen!

I'm having a problem copying and pasting on this computer, so forgive me for not quoting you.

Regarding the verses you quoted from Paul: Paul is first admitting that Jesus didn't allow for remarriage after divorce under any circumstances. In fact, separation isn't a good idea either--but if you must separate, neither partner should marry afterwards. And he adds 'not I but the Lord' to say, "Hey, this isn't my idea, this comes staight from the Lord."

Ok--so what is Paul addressing when he discusses the issue of interreligious marriage? Remember, Paul first encourages the believer to stay in the marriage. Ok, that's straightforward. And he says the usnbelieving spouse and the children are made holy by the marriage. Ok, that's straightforward to (although it raises an interesting question: are you saved automatically because your spouse is?)

Then Paul says that, hey--who knows? You might convert your spouse. This is still straight forward.

But then Paul says that if the unbelieving spouse separates, "let it be so." Furthermore, the believing spouse is not "enslaved."

Let me point out something here: letting the believing partner go is fairly obvious. Men were free to divorce their wives under Roman law and even women had some recourse to divorce--so there was no practical way for a person to keep their unbelieving spouse hostage in the marriage.

And we already know, from Paul's quote of Jesus's words, that if a separation happens, neither partner can remarry.

What I'm getting at is this: if Paul is just saying that "If your unbelieving spouse leaves you, don't remarry"--well, why say it? That's covered up above.

Is he just saying don't give your unbelieving spouse a hard time about a divorce? Possible--but I think he's going further.

The only reason to bring up this issue is if Paul is allowing the abandoned spouse to remarry. That's what he means by "the brother or sister is not enslaved."

Otherwise, why bring it up? Paul has already quoted Jesus saying that in the case of separation the believer is not free to remarry. There's no reason for Paul to bring up the specific issue of interreligious marriage unless he's overriding Jesus (however reluctantly) and granting the brethren permission to divorce and remarry in that case.

I agree that Paul was talking specifically of the case of intermarriage--but that "God has called you to peace" still kicks the door open for lots of other reasons for divorce and remarriage afterwards.

When Paul revisits the issue later in the letter, he's merely reminding folks that widows and widowers (and presumably people marrying for the first time) ought to find another believer to marry. He doesn't allow intermarriage unless you were married before you became a believer. He's not negating the freedom to remarry that he just granted above in the case of intermarriage.