Can You Go to Heaven if You Divorce and Remarry?

[RDKirk]

I appreciate your comments.

In the incident I mentioned earlier, when I relapsed 11 months ago, my wife and I had an argument over my drinking. She left the house. When she came back, I tried to keep her from coming in the front door by pushing and hitting her. I don't even remember it. It is the lowest point of my life, doesn't match my values or character, and I have repented, asked for forgiveness, and turned from it. It is the only time I have ever raised so much as a finger to her. I understand why she rejects me, but I keep praying she'll forgive me. She keeps saying that she will not ever reconcile.

And then I keep going back to being alone. I am so broken and remorseful. I'm beside myself. I keep thinking to the future. As it is right now, I'm barely existing. I am incredibly depressed. I don't eat. I can barely get up off the bed or couch. I am so alone. I want to obey God. I don't want to go to hell. But I don't know how to navigate this life alone.

Have you and she been seeing a Christian therapist or counselor? Did you do so before?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I also don't think she's being fair. One of the reasons she cites that she's divorcing me is because I tried to commit suicide by hanging myself four years ago. She says by doing that, I was abusing her. I have serious mental health problems. Suicide runs in my family. My doctor was altering my medications when I tried to hang myself. I don't feel like that's all my fault.

The vow that was made when you got marriage was for richer or poorer, for better or worse. It seems that the issues that you have had have been on the worse side of things. But to break the vow when things have turned to worse is a sin on her part, and there are serious consequences for her if she refuses to repent. To show how serious a vow before God is, there is a character in the Bible who made a vow, and his having to honour it causes the death of his beloved daughter. He refused to dishonour God by breaking his vow to Him. I think he could have gone to God and repented of the vow because it was an unwise one that threatened an innocent daughter's life, and he would have been forgiven and set from from the vow. But because he view the absolute importance of giving his word in a vow before God, to break it was unthinkable for him. The marriage vow is one of the most important ones, and it is a very serious thing to break it, even in the case of adultery, domestic violence or desertion if the guilty spouse repents and shows the fruit of repentance.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Refusing to forgive the spouse might be an unforgivable sin.

Which is what you said in your post #57.

You are correct. Any unrepentant sin is not forgiven until the person repents and shows the fruit of repentance.

 

[oneironaut27]

Have you and she been seeing a Christian therapist or counselor? Did you do so before?

Just yesterday I asked - again - if she would see a counselor with me. She responded by asking if I had received the divorce papers yet.

 

[oneironaut27]

But don't go making demands on your ex-spouse because of this. All you can do is to pray that the Holy Spirit will convict her of her unforgiveness and the consequences of it. If the process of correction in Matthew has been followed she refuses to repent once it has been brought to the church, then she is to be treated as a heathen unbeliever, and you are set free from any further obligation to the marriage.

Thank you again for your responses.

I haven't demanded anything of her. I have asked many times for reconciliation and another chance, but she is not willing. And I know I can't control her.

We aren't in the same church, unfortunately. Eleven months ago she left me here in one state to go be with her parents in another. We texted yesterday. I asked her to go to therapy, but she said "I believe God has shown me I'm released from this marriage."

 

[chevyontheriver]

When Jesus spoke about marriage, He was answering hypocritical Pharisees who were trying to trap Him. He was using divorce as an example of the Mosaic Law being insufficient to make a person righteous before God. It does not form a reliable doctrine concerning divorce and remarriage.

Um, can we disregard everything Jesus says if it is when he was answering hypocritical Pharisees? That is a strange sort of dispensationalism. Better perhaps to not dismiss what Jesus said.

Paul's teaching about divorce and remarriage concerned some Corinthian men divorcing their wives in the belief that the single life brought them closer to God. He made no mention of domestic violence or desertion as reasons why couples got divorced. We don't know what Paul's attitude toward couples getting divorced through those reasons. He hasn't told us, because he was dealing with a specific reason why these Corinthian men were divorcing their wives and it didn't include any comment about couples getting divorced through domestic violence and desertion.

If there is domestic violence one ought to leave to be safe. One might have to divorce as well to be safe and secure. THAT is allowed. Nowhere is it blanket assumed that a right to remarriage is then created

He did allow an unbeliever leaving a believing spouse, and said that the believing spouse was not under any further bondage to the marriage. This meant that a believing spouse could remarry without any negative consequences.

Correct. It is called the 'Pauline Privilege'. Basically the unbelieving partner does not agree to be married to a Christian.

I am of the opinion that when a spouse commits domestic violence or deserts the marriage, and is unrepentant, they become essentially an unbeliever.

That is your opinion. I'm not sure if God confirms it though.

The process is in Matthew and if it comes to the church and the guilty spouse refuses to repent, then they should be treated as a heathen and be put out of fellowship. This makes them an unbeliever, and the innocent spouse is under no further bondage to the marriage and is entirely free to remarry.

Way too facile. As in pretty much justifying any and every divorce and remarriage. The more sane approach would be to look for whether there was ever a rational bond to begin with. Jesus gives one exception, that of incest as recorded in Matthew. Other exceptions exist in terms of faulty consent, shotgun weddings, disparity of religion, but in general it should be assumed that the marriage bond endures even when love grows cold and people split. Your position would mean that anyone who is divorced by their spouse (deserts the marriage) is free to remarry. Marriage is a sign of the relationship of Christ and His Church. Remarriage means Christ may as well be unfaithful to us whenever we sin, and not stand by us. Those abandoned spouses who remain faithful to their vows while the other partner is unfaithful are signs of the faithfulness of God when we are unfaithful. It matters. It's not a very popular position to take in a time when we all want our rights. It nonetheless matters.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Thank you again for your responses.

I haven't demanded anything of her. I have asked many times for reconciliation and another chance, but she is not willing. And I know I can't control her.

We aren't in the same church, unfortunately. Eleven months ago she left me here in one state to go be with her parents in another. We texted yesterday. I asked her to go to therapy, but she said "I believe God has shown me I'm released from this marriage."

There are many Gods that people conjure up in their imaginations, but there is only one God of the Bible. The God of the Bible does not instruct any married person to break their vows. People break their vows through adultery, domestic violence, and desertion. Putting God's name on a personal decision just intimidates and implies a false authority to justify their actions and to take the blame away from themselves and put it on to God. The "God told me to do it, so I am not responsible for the consequences" lie.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Um, can we disregard everything Jesus says if it is when he was answering hypocritical Pharisees? That is a strange sort of dispensationalism. Better perhaps to not dismiss what Jesus said.

If there is domestic violence one ought to leave to be safe. One might have to divorce as well to be safe and secure. THAT is allowed. Nowhere is it blanket assumed that a right to remarriage is then created

Correct. It is called the 'Pauline Privilege'. Basically the unbelieving partner does not agree to be married to a Christian.

That is your opinion. I'm not sure if God confirms it though.

Way too facile. As in pretty much justifying any and every divorce and remarriage. The more sane approach would be to look for whether there was ever a rational bond to begin with. Jesus gives one exception, that of incest as recorded in Matthew. Other exceptions exist in terms of faulty consent, shotgun weddings, disparity of religion, but in general it should be assumed that the marriage bond endures even when love grows cold and people split. Your position would mean that anyone who is divorced by their spouse (deserts the marriage) is free to remarry. Marriage is a sign of the relationship of Christ and His Church. Remarriage means Christ may as well be unfaithful to us whenever we sin, and not stand by us. Those abandoned spouses who remain faithful to their vows while the other partner is unfaithful are signs of the faithfulness of God when we are unfaithful. It matters. It's not a very popular position to take in a time when we all want our rights. It nonetheless matters.

Good exegesis determines what was said, who it was directed at, why it was said. What Jesus said may be for us, for our education in terms of law and grace, but not necessarily to us as direct instruction. What Jesus taught while on earth was to unconverted Jews, because His ministry at that time was not for Gentiles, but for the "lost sheep of Israel".

When Paul said that the departure of the unbelieving spouse (for whatever reason as I have previously stated), the remaining spouse is no longer under bondage, he meant that they can adopt the attitude that they were never married in the first place. The marriage vow has been broken and therefore the remaining spouse is not longer subject to it. Therefore there is no prohibition on remarriage.

Notice that the Scripture says that it is the person who breaks up a marriage and then marries another is the one committing adultery. Again we have to use good exegesis to determine who Paul was teaching, and why he taught it. Basically, he was writing about those who were divorcing their wives on some religious principle and not for the cause of adultery, domestic violence or desertion. Therefore we must adopt the three rules of good exegesis:
1. context
2. context
3. context

For this reason we can't impose a blanket "size fits all" approach to what Paul taught about divorce and remarriage, otherwise we are adding to what Paul taught under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

When you said about God confirming something, the only way He confirms anything is that it is clearly written in His word and is understood by good exegesis through the context in which it was spoken.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Good exegesis determines what was said, who it was directed at, why it was said. What Jesus said may be for us, for our education in terms of law and grace, but not necessarily to us as direct instruction. What Jesus taught while on earth was to unconverted Jews, because His ministry at that time was not for Gentiles, but for the "lost sheep of Israel".

When Paul said that the departure of the unbelieving spouse (for whatever reason as I have previously stated), the remaining spouse is no longer under bondage, he meant that they can adopt the attitude that they were never married in the first place. The marriage vow has been broken and therefore the remaining spouse is not longer subject to it. Therefore there is no prohibition on remarriage.

Notice that the Scripture says that it is the person who breaks up a marriage and then marries another is the one committing adultery. Again we have to use good exegesis to determine who Paul was teaching, and why he taught it. Basically, he was writing about those who were divorcing their wives on some religious principle and not for the cause of adultery, domestic violence or desertion. Therefore we must adopt the three rules of good exegesis:
1. context
2. context
3. context

For this reason we can't impose a blanket "size fits all" approach to what Paul taught about divorce and remarriage, otherwise we are adding to what Paul taught under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

When you said about God confirming something, the only way He confirms anything is that it is clearly written in His word and is understood by good exegesis through the context in which it was spoken.

There is a difference between good exegesis and writing off the words of Jesus. I fear you have found a way of writing off the words of Jesus so they don’t apply to you and me. Likewise Paul. Context is important indeed, but what I’m seeing here is a convenient permission for divorce and remarriage that isn’t so far different than those who say that same sex marriage is all ok with the Bible in it’s proper context. I’m saying the words of Jesus are relevant for us today. So too the words of Paul. Of course in their proper context. And that context forbids remarriage after a valid marriage. Hard and inconvenient as that may be.

 

[RDKirk]

Good exegesis determines what was said, who it was directed at, why it was said. What Jesus said may be for us, for our education in terms of law and grace, but not necessarily to us as direct instruction. What Jesus taught while on earth was to unconverted Jews, because His ministry at that time was not for Gentiles, but for the "lost sheep of Israel".

When Paul said that the departure of the unbelieving spouse (for whatever reason as I have previously stated), the remaining spouse is no longer under bondage, he meant that they can adopt the attitude that they were never married in the first place. The marriage vow has been broken and therefore the remaining spouse is not longer subject to it. Therefore there is no prohibition on remarriage.

Notice that the Scripture says that it is the person who breaks up a marriage and then marries another is the one committing adultery. Again we have to use good exegesis to determine who Paul was teaching, and why he taught it. Basically, he was writing about those who were divorcing their wives on some religious principle and not for the cause of adultery, domestic violence or desertion. Therefore we must adopt the three rules of good exegesis:
1. context
2. context
3. context

For this reason we can't impose a blanket "size fits all" approach to what Paul taught about divorce and remarriage, otherwise we are adding to what Paul taught under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

When you said about God confirming something, the only way He confirms anything is that it is clearly written in His word and is understood by good exegesis through the context in which it was spoken.

A couple of additional thoughts:

Paul spoke to three groups of Christians (not to pagans...none of his letters were to pagans):

Unmarried believers,

Believers married to believers,

Believers married to pagans.

Paul is speaking to a new situation, believers married to pagans, for which a specific lesson from Jesus was not available. Jesus never spoke to that context. Hence: "To the rest [believers married to pagans] I say this (I, not the Lord)...." This doesn't mean it can be ignored, because Paul a few verses later affirms that he is speaking by unction of the Holy Spirit (verse 40).

This line by Paul is often overlooked in this discussion:

For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband.

This marriage is recognized by God is because of the belief of the believer. It is not recognized by God separate from the belief of the believer. If the pagan leaves the marriage, he or she also leaves the covering of the believer's belief.

Paul defined his terms (he usually does). He defined what he meant by "bound" a few verses later: A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord.

It is clear here that to be "bound" means explicitly, "not free to remarry." Thus, when Paul has said, "The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances," he is making a specific rule for a specific situation. If "bound" means "not free to remarry," then "not bound" means "free to remarry."

Essentially, he's saying that when the pagan leaves the sanctifying cover of the believer's belief, the unbeliever is dead.

 

[RDKirk]

There is a difference between good exegesis and writing off the words of Jesus. I fear you have found a way of writing off the words of Jesus so they don’t apply to you and me. Likewise Paul. Context is important indeed, but what I’m seeing here is a convenient permission for divorce and remarriage that isn’t so far different than those who say that same sex marriage is all ok with the Bible in it’s proper context. I’m saying the words of Jesus are relevant for us today. So too the words of Paul. Of course in their proper context. And that context forbids remarriage after a valid marriage. Hard and inconvenient as that may be.

I saw what you did there.

What is a valid marriage?

Or to put it in another way (and I've asked this question in these forums before without getting a conclusive answer):

What has God joined?

What constitutes a God-joined marriage?

When is a marriage not God-joined?

 

[chevyontheriver]

I saw what you did there.

What is a valid marriage?

Or to put it in another way (and I've asked this question in these forums before without getting a conclusive answer):

What has God joined?

What constitutes a God-joined marriage?

When is a marriage not God-joined?

That IS the thing. What is necessary to be God-joined?

You need a man and a woman. You need a man and a woman who are free to marry. You need free and informed consent of both the man and the woman. Some understanding that children are expected, not to be avoided, but not guaranteed. Some level of maturity, of honesty. A consummation. Probably a few more rather obvious things.

Without any one of those things I think you have a ceremony but not a valid marriage. Like the exception listed by Jesus in Mt, which I take to be for incest. Of course that would not be a real marriage, and it should be dissolved. Or a shotgun marriage. Did God join them in a shotgun marriage? How about if one lied to the other? IMHO these things matter a great deal. Was she already married? Was he a porn star and hid that little detail? Did he mention the six kids by five different women? Did she want absolutely no children? Was it ever a real marriage. If not, why pretend it was.

Now there is such a thing as a valid marriage and love just grew cold, I get it that happens. But then it’s a God-joined thing and different from an invalid marriage from the beginning.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

A couple of additional thoughts:

Paul spoke to three groups of Christians (not to pagans...none of his letters were to pagans):

Unmarried believers,

Believers married to believers,

Believers married to pagans.

Paul is speaking to a new situation, believers married to pagans, for which a specific lesson from Jesus was not available. Jesus never spoke to that context. Hence: "To the rest [believers married to pagans] I say this (I, not the Lord)...." This doesn't mean it can be ignored, because Paul a few verses later affirms that he is speaking by unction of the Holy Spirit (verse 40).

This line by Paul is often overlooked in this discussion:

For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband.

This marriage is recognized by God is because of the belief of the believer. It is not recognized by God separate from the belief of the believer. If the pagan leaves the marriage, he or she also leaves the covering of the believer's belief.

Paul defined his terms (he usually does). He defined what he meant by "bound" a few verses later: A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord.

It is clear here that to be "bound" means explicitly, "not free to remarry." Thus, when Paul has said, "The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances," he is making a specific rule for a specific situation. If "bound" means "not free to remarry," then "not bound" means "free to remarry."

Essentially, he's saying that when the pagan leaves the sanctifying cover of the believer's belief, the unbeliever is dead.

Paul does not use the word "pagan". He uses "unbeliever". We have to define what essentially an unbeliever is. We know that an unconverted person is an unbeliever. But also someone who refuses to repent of wilful sin and will not accept correction when it comes through the process until it gets before the church, then that person is to be viewed and treated as an unbeliever until they repent and brought back into fellowship. Therefore a spouse who commits adultery, domestic violence, or deserts, and receives correction by the church but refuses to accept it, essentially makes him or herself an unbeliever. If the "unbeliever" persists in being unrepentant to the point where reconciliation is no longer a possibility then the remaining spouse is no longer bound and is therefore able to remarry.

Because I am not Arminian, I believe that a spouse who commits adultery, domestic violence or deserts and refuses to repent, was never a true believer in Christ in the first place, but was a religious hypocrite pretending profess Christianity while his heart was unchanged. I believe that a true believer in Christ would never commit adultery, physically or mentally abuse their spouse, or break the marriage vows by deserting their spouse. Every believer is prone to error through temptation and the wiles of the devil, but the difference between them and unbelievers is that when the Holy Spirit convicts them and/or receives correction by the church, they willingly repent and make things right with their remaining spouse. Then it is up to the remaining spouse to forgive as Christ has forgiven them.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Because I am not Arminian, I believe that a spouse who commits adultery, domestic violence or deserts and refuses to repent, was never a true believer in Christ in the first place, but was a religious hypocrite pretending profess Christianity while his heart was unchanged.

Aha! Now I understand your haste to declare a person a nonbeliever. The old ‘no true Scotsman’ thing.

I believe that a true believer in Christ would never commit adultery, physically or mentally abuse their spouse, or break the marriage vows by deserting their spouse. Every believer is prone to error through temptation and the wiles of the devil, but the difference between them and unbelievers is that when the Holy Spirit convicts them and/or receives correction by the church, they willingly repent and make things right with their remaining spouse. Then it is up to the remaining spouse to forgive as Christ has forgiven them.

What if they repent but it takes a few years and in the mean time the other spouse has ‘moved on’? I know of one such sad case where the guy finally figured out what he had done wrong, he grew up, he confessed his many sins to all of those he had harmed, but his wife was married to some other guy now? He has continued to make reparations but there is no way to repair his marriage even though he has repented. How can things be made right? Her church remarried her to someone else.

This is why no valid marriage should be ended. If they need a civil divorce for safety fine. But a remarriage destroys something. In this case it destroyed a marriage of a repentant Christian that took some time to see the error of his ways. Marriage is a permanent witness to fidelity. Except when it isn’t. But it should be, with spouses permanently separated from any others until death of at least one of them. Call me hard hearted but that’s how I see it.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Aha! Now I understand your haste to declare a person a nonbeliever. The old ‘no true Scotsman’ thing.

What if they repent but it takes a few years and in the mean time the other spouse has ‘moved on’? I know of one such sad case where the guy finally figured out what he had done wrong, he grew up, he confessed his many sins to all of those he had harmed, but his wife was married to some other guy now? He has continued to make reparations but there is no way to repair his marriage even though he has repented. How can things be made right? Her church remarried her to someone else.

This is why no valid marriage should be ended. If they need a civil divorce for safety fine. But a remarriage destroys something. In this case it destroyed a marriage of a repentant Christian that took some time to see the error of his ways. Marriage is a permanent witness to fidelity. Except when it isn’t. But it should be, with spouses permanently separated from any others until death of at least one of them. Call me hard hearted but that’s how I see it.

Once the spouse has remarried, then the other spouse is set free from any obligation and is therefore free to remarry. My first wife deserted me for no other reason that she believed that we were "culturally incompatible". Strange that she is a professing Christian. She remarried later on, and after that I met and married a widow. So I was free to remarry, and my present wife did not commit adultery by marrying me.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Once the spouse has remarried, then the other spouse is set free from any obligation and is therefore free to remarry.

Facile. You seem to have written off the words of Jesus as not being relevant to Christians and so you find it ok to do the opposite of what Jesus said. We know the words of Jesus about marriage were relevant for us because the apostles considered how his words would effect them. They thought it might even be better not to marry.

 

[RDKirk]

Paul does not use the word "pagan". He uses "unbeliever". We have to define what essentially an unbeliever is. We know that an unconverted person is an unbeliever. But also someone who refuses to repent of wilful sin and will not accept correction when it comes through the process until it gets before the church, then that person is to be viewed and treated as an unbeliever until they repent and brought back into fellowship. Therefore a spouse who commits adultery, domestic violence, or deserts, and receives correction by the church but refuses to accept it, essentially makes him or herself an unbeliever. If the "unbeliever" persists in being unrepentant to the point where reconciliation is no longer a possibility then the remaining spouse is no longer bound and is therefore able to remarry.

That's a pagan.

 

[chevyontheriver]

That's a pagan.

Well a heathen anyway. A pagan implies a general belief in some things religious though not at all Christian. A heathen implies only a lack of Christian or Jewish faith. An atheist would not be a pagan.

 

[RDKirk]

Well a heathen anyway. A pagan implies a general belief in some things religious though not at all Christian. A heathen implies only a lack of Christian or Jewish faith. An atheist would not be a pagan.

The traditional definitions are that a heathen has no belief, and a pagan believes in gods other than the God of Abraham.

However, what we see in scripture, particularly in Romans 6-8, is that there is no god but the God of Abraham, yet everyone obeys some master...which is either the God of Abraham or they are gods to themselves.

Nobody is really a heathen. Everyone believes in and obeys someone. Most people are their own god.