"Remarriage after divorce is not adultery or sin."

I've had several well-meaning people on MB quote scriptures to me telling me just the opposite of the above statement.

I have had this on my mind almost continuously for some time now. I have felt an overwhelming new pressure to make my marriage work, even if my H isn't going to treat me very well, out of a fear of sinning if I divorce him, and in particular if I were ever to remarry.

So I've been reading and rereading the related scriptures, and today I decided to do some searching on the internet too, and I came across a very carefully researched argument that remarriage after divorce is not adultery or sin.
Divorce: The Bible says Divorce and Remarriage is not adultery

(I am not saying I plan to or even want to divorce my H at this time. What I am saying is that I should be able to do so if we cannot work things out.)

And hey, if you think that the entire article is just plain old bunk, so be it, but I think if nothing else, it's an interesting read for anyone who steadfastly clings to the belief that divorce and remarriage are sins.

Jen

<small>[ July 03, 2003, 01:24 PM: Message edited by: Jen Brown ]</small>

Hmmm?

I need more time to digest this article but a few things are sticking in my craw about it.

Jen,

I disagree with the premise of the article (and I think the author has done a lousy job actually---I've seen more convincing biblical pro-divorce articles). Treating God as a divorcee is pretty tenuous. Marriage is not just a contract---it's a vow. In my case, a sacrament. I look at the author's view of Matthew 5 (Sermon on the Mount)---it's beautiful in it's simplicy of the law, and how to treat people. And the author agrees, right up to the "divorce" segement, where he acts like a lawyer (Pharisee) and tries to wiggle out his interpretation by misusing the translation of the original words.

This isn't to beat up on you (or anyone) for considering divorce. I was fortunately never far enough gone in the marriage to consider divorce. Divorce is not an unforgivable sin (there are no "unforgivable sins"). I cannot say what I would truly do in your situation. I will tell you that there is NO POSSIBLE WAY that I would have predicted the way that I ended up dealing with my wife's affair and pregnancy. What I will tell you is that with God's help, anything is possible.

So it's my hope that God will comfort you, and help you along this difficult journey. Let Him guide you. {{{{{{Jen}}}}}}

Read this, it may help.

http://www.bible.com/answers/adivorce.html

I can't read the article right now- but I do believe that remarriage after divorce IS adultery unless you remarry after your spouse's unfaithfulness. My question is, is a spouse only unfaithful sexually? Can a spouse be unfaithful in that he/she is abusive, or abandones his/her family or puts something else (like OW that maybe he isn't even sleeping with- emotional affair?) before his wife?
And as always, we act like divorce is the sin of all mother sins. It has grave consequences, it is hell to go through, I wouldn't wish it on anyone, but it is still sin that God forgives ....

And solon is using bible.com- that is what I use too.

<small>[ July 03, 2003, 02:28 PM: Message edited by: adgirl48 ]</small>

The interpretation depends greatly on what type of Christian a person is. For Catholics (any sect of Catholics) marriage after divorce is adultery and a sin. BUT, if the person gets an annulment (if their spouse was Catholic) or a dispensation (if their spouse was non-Catholic) then the Church does not recognize the previous marriage anymore. So re-marriage is not a sin. There is absolutely no wiggle room on this in the Catholic faith.

For Catholics, annulments/dispensation can be obtained if it can be shown that their spouse did not fill the responsibilities of a Catholic husband or wife. (‘Responsibilities” may not be the word but am too lazy right now to do the research on how it is really worded.) This includes adultery, addictions to drugs/alcohol, physical abuse, never consummating the marriage, total lack of SF in the marriage for a prolonged period of time, and other things.

My husband and I are Catholics. He is Byzantine Catholic. I am Roman Catholic. Neither of us got annulments or dispensations from our previous spouses. So according to our faith we are adulterers and sinners. My first husband is deceased so according to the Church I’m a widow. I’d be glad to get a dispensation from my second husband but it seems futile since my H will not get an annulment from his former wife. His priest approached him before we got married to tell him that based on his wife’s adultery, drug use, and so forth Father J. would be more than glad to give him an annulment. Father J. knew his ex-wife from birth so he knows what went on. But my H will not get an annulment despite all of that because she is the mother of his children and fears it will hurt his children more then it will help us.

Whether or not a person is sinning or committing adultery based on the beliefs of other Christian sects… there are about as many opinions on this as there are sects. In his book, “Love Must Be Tough”, Dr. Dodson does a very good jog of describing when a person may divorce an adulterer (or otherwise abusive spouse) and it falls within the confines of most definitions of Christianity. The only issue is that Catholics need that extra ok from the Church. Dr. Dodson’s definition is the same one by Priest used when he advised me that I really should divorce my husband.. he told me that we did not have a marriage. Only a legal contract. That my ex did not live as a Christian therefore I was not obligated to stay in that marriage.

Jen, I also don't agree with the author's interpretation and think he does an awful lot of unneccessary twisting. He is overanalyzing. And while different religions might have different customs, the buck stops at the Bible, that is the deciding factor in God's Word. God's Word also never says anywhere that divorce is the unforgivable sin.

Hi Jen,

Oh, I wrote a thread very much like this once... maybe twice. I too had verses and one heck of an article (posted to me by an old MB'er friend of mine - TNT)... Heck, I even sent a copy to my ex to study. So you won't get any argument from me.

However, I do want to tell you about something that I have learned about being a Christian... well, actually, let me begin with a story about my ex-H's grandparents:

They have been married for over 50 years, may be 60 now, I'm not sure. A long time. They have one daughter, my ex's mother. They are long-long time members of the Church of Christ. In their church there are deacons and elders. This God-fearing, lovely man could never be a deacon or an elder. Wanna know why? It's because the Bible says that a deacon must be the father of children. Not one child, but more than one. So, they would never let him be a leader in the church, because of their black-and-white literal interpretation of the Bible.

Ya know, I don't think that's what that verse meant, do you? I really do think we can pick apart the Bible to suit our needs, and many, many people do just that!

Personally, I would have let the man be a deacon... I can't imagine taking the Bible *that* literally.

Anyway, what I have learned is that only one person will stand before God when all is said and done in YOUR life, and it won't be your spouse, your neighbors, or our fellow-MB'ers. It will be YOU. And what has happened in your life is between YOU and GOD.

Thanks for sharing the article. I'm going to add it to my file... for when I'm questioning things myself.

Jen:

All this stuff about Bibles and religions and articles...

...what do YOU believe is right for YOU? What "moral code" defines YOU and how you behave? And before you answer that, I KNOW that it isn't the same as it was when you had your ONSs.

I'm not much for labeling people as sinners. I prefer underscoring their positive attributes and watching those grow.

Take care,
-ol' 2long

Jen, I also don't agree with the author's interpretation and think he does an awful lot of unneccessary twisting. He is overanalyzing.
It looks like it COULD have been written by a certain person “banned” from these very forums... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

Jen;

Seems to me this question puts the cart before the horse, here......

The SIN was the actual affair! Divorcing/remarriage, or just plain working to make a M work isn't necessarily any worse than what has already taken place! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

Not trying to beat up on ya, Jen, but reallY!!!! I think you're focus needs to change.

Quit worrying so much about it, pray intensely about it, ask God, wait for an answer from Him, and then proceed. The most important thing to God is that we turn from our sin(which you have done), and live FOR HIM.

He wants to direct your steps. He wants to see you happy, fulfilled, living IN HIS WILL, and He wants to help you do it.

Believe it. Pray for it.

God Bless you both.

oops!

<small>[ July 03, 2003, 05:32 PM: Message edited by: MelodyLane ]</small>

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by new_beginning:
<strong>Wanna know why? It's because the Bible says that a deacon must be the father of children. Not one child, but more than one. So, they would never let him be a leader in the church, because of their black-and-white literal interpretation of the Bible.

.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Thats a very sad example of a gross misinterpretation of a literal passage. It's not literalism that is the problem, but legalism.

While I don't think the Bible is the easiest book in the world to understand, I get the sense that God sort of expected us to figure it out and really thought we were smart enough to do it.

Does that mean that every person will have it 100% right? No, but they should try to understand it if they have chosen God. I think it would be a horrible mistake to use the misinterpretations of others as an excuse to not try and learn its meaning. And by correctly, I mean taking the literal parts literally and the symbolic parts symbolically. The meaning of a passage is always determined by the author, not the reader, so it is up to each reader to honestly try to determine the author's meaning.

So, when I stand before God and explain my life, I can say that tried to follow his command to do "your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth." 2 Timothy 2:15

I might have got a few things wrong, but it wasn't from a lack of trying.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by MelodyLane:
<strong>oops!</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I saw that <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="images/icons/tongue.gif" /> pssstttt <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

saw what??? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="images/icons/tongue.gif" />

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by MelodyLane:
<strong>saw what??? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="images/icons/tongue.gif" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Nothing <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="images/icons/tongue.gif" /> ... actually it is not that bad, you should leave it alone. However I understand there might be misunderstanding and moving the focus from the original thread. Like this replies ... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="images/icons/tongue.gif" /> .

-rh-

redhat <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by MelodyLane:
<strong>
While I don't think the Bible is the easiest book in the world to understand, I get the sense that God sort of expected us to figure it out and really thought we were smart enough to do it.
</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I totally agree with you!

And I do see your point about 'legalism' vs. 'literalism'... I'll be thinking on that... it rings true.

I have been putting off replying to this thread. Simply because even though I consider myself somewhat religious, with a Christianity (Baptist) background, I try to adhere to the principle that each of us have the freedom to worship as we choose, and believe as we choose. I will not force my beliefs on someone else, neither do I want other's views forced on me. But...I do think that ALL religions can benefit from constructive discussion of each other's thoughts.

Sometimes I think to myself that if all of us could discuss our beliefs in our respective religions, that we could somehow take a little from each and eventually reach a common ground within them.

With that being said...

I think that we sometimes miss an important point regarding forgiveness. Does forgiveness completely absolve someone of their wrongdoing? Yes, you say? Well...think about this...

Moses at one time after leading the children out of Egypt had a conflict with God. I am quite sure that there was forgivness given for that, YET Moses STILL had a punishment that he was to endure even though he had been forgiven for his misgivings.

He was prohibited from entering the promised land.

There are also certain stipulations and requirements for those whom assume leadership positions in their religions. Even though one can be forgiven for their bad deeds, there still can be certain "punishments", or can be disallowed from participating in certain aspects of life because of those past deeds. Deacons and elders of the church, according to the KJV Bible, have certain requirements that must be met. Now...any of the "no-no's" are forgiveable, BUT they will cause a person to have "forfeited" their right to participate and enjoy in them.

So...in a nutshell...my opinion is that just because it is possible to be totally forgiven for a past transgression, it IS entirely possible to STILL have forfeited certain aspects of life.

I think that marriage is one of the more sacred gifts from God. Too many times God has referred to his relationship with us as a "marriage". Hence, the importance in his eyes of marriage.

If forgiveness was a "cure-all", then why would God have needed to issue other remedies and teachings concerning adultery? Could one assume that marrying again after one commits adultery cannot be forgiven? If this is not the case, WHY would God need to specifically state the conditions for DV? Wouldn't have just the act of forgiveness taken care of that?

Using my XW as a example, she remarried a week after our DV was final. Now...I ask...isn't she commiting adultery? Is it possible for her to be forgiven for that, yet remain married to her current husband? If being married to her new H was adultery yesterday, and today she asks for forgiveness, why wouldn't continuing to be married to her current H be adultery tomorrow? Can someone point me to a situation in which something is a sin before forgiveness, that isn't a sin after forgiveness? Does that mean that I can commit murder today, ask for forgiveness tonight, and then because I have been forgiven, that I can continue that activity and it is no longer murder? We all know the answer to that one...

Sometimes I honestly have the opinion of that we can indeed, as did Moses, forfeit certain rights and privileges even though forgiveness has been granted. Enjoying the fruits of marriage is one of them. I believe if we show a propensity to introduce adultery into our marriage, that God is merciful and gracious enough to allow us to be forgiven of that, providing that we can repair our M, and commit adultery no more. If that doesn't happen, then it would seem that may be a right that we have forfeited such as Moses did, and also leaders of the church have. Sure, we are forgiven, YET we are restricted to not enjoying certain things in life.

That brings me to where it has been posted concerning DV'ing, marrying another, and then the ORIGINAL H or W NOT taking the offending spouse back. I think that is God's way telling us that we are not to assist the wayward, adulterous one of circumventing God's issuing of punishment. In other words, if one commits adultery, they have God's mercy in that he will allow them to enjoy the fruits of a meaningful M, providing that they are successful in maintaining and rebuilding the original M. However, should an adulterous spouse marry another, and then wish to be restored to the original M, then it is my opinion that they have forfeited the right to particpate and enjoy in that aspect of life.

Remember? God will forgive us, yet place certain restrictions on our lives due to our past actions.

Not all will agree, and some may even be apalled at my thoughts, but I wanted to offer my opinion.

HCII

<small>[ July 05, 2003, 12:08 PM: Message edited by: hcii ]</small>

Thanks for your well thought out post HCII. It’s right along the lines of what I’ve been thinking.

A couple of months ago there was an OP posting on MB. She and her MM were getting married. The adulterous couple PLANS to be saved after their marriage. Yep, it is their intent to continue their adultery until the day they are married, then say they accept Jesus and be saved. This OP actually thinks that premeditated adultery and a false ‘saving’ are going to absolve them of all guilt. To my dismay, some people were telling her that doing this was wonderful; the nothing is required for salvation and forgiveness except to believe.

Can a person really put a date for salvation on your calendar and purposely sin right up to that date and be forgiven? And then continue living the sin after ‘salvation’ and be absolved? It’s like getting a cart blanc for any one particular sin for the rest of your life. It’s one of the more ridiculous things I’ve ever heard. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="images/icons/shocked.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="images/icons/shocked.gif" />