Forgiveness following divorce and remarriage

[sparow]

Matt 5 shows that a further sin of adultery is possible. If the relationship is adultery, then I can't see how forgiveness and a continuation are compatible.
Offending Christian divorcees shouldn't be the primary concern, but it seems to be off limits to repeat what Jesus actually says. Why do we ignore the truth here?

People who are easily offended should avoid debate.

Matt 5:32 mentions two options but only discusses one; if a woman is divorced because of sexual immorality is not discussed; if the woman is divorced for reasons other than adultery then any who marry her commit adultery. But this could be where scripture has been erroneously edited because Matt 5:32 conflicts with Deut 24:1-4.

 

[hedrick]

Here are a couple of observations. This is all based on David Instone-Brewer, “Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible.”

First, almost all the passages involving remarriage talk about a person divorcing his wife and marrying another. This is why I suggested that remarriage isn’t a separate offense. Rather, Jesus is condemning men who divorce their wives in order to move on to someone else.

Second, there’s background here that 1st Cent readers knew and we don’t. In Jesus’ time there were too theories about divorce:

* you could divorce your wife for any reason, even if you burned your dinner
* you could divorce your wife only for uncleanness.

Uncleanness is actually an abbreviated way of referring to about 4 different causes. This includes failure to provide food and general provision for well-being, clothing, and conjugal rights. These things were understood to include emotional well-being, and to prohibit desertion.

Hence the suggestion is that the original question wasn’t about whether you could divorce at all. Everyone assumed you could, and there would have been no reason for Pharisees even to ask. Rather, they were asking whether Jesus supported the idea that you could divorce for any reason. His answer is no. You could only divorce for uncleanness, which probably included the usual range of reasons.

However he added something that was new: that God’s original intention was not to allow divorce at all. It was allowed only because of human hardheartedness.

What’s not so clear, however, is that this meant a complete prohibition. After all, people actually are sinful, so difficult situations come up. After saying that two became one flesh in Mat 19, he does end with a fairly standard Jewish statement that allows divorce for uncleanness. This probably means not just adultery, but is a reference to the usual 4 causes of divorce.

I see no reason to think that he prohibited remarriage after a valid divorce. After all, the major legal meaning of divorce was freeing someone for a new marriage. Thus Mat 19:9 doesn’t prohibit either divorce or remarriage in the case of uncleanness. The shorter passages can reasonably be understood as abbreviations of this, which are misleading if you don’t understand what 1st Cent readers would have understood from context.

 

[DeepWater]

Isnt it odd that the very first thing that any Christian should understand about the Blood Atonement is completely missing from their theology, regarding most Christians?
How can it be that a believer in CHRIST does not understand that "sin", your "Sin" = has nailed Jesus to the cross and you are given the "righteousness of Christ" as your "spiritual position in God's family".
So, there is not more "sin" for you to confess and worry about if you are a born again person, as Jesus has DIED for them ALL.
Understand, that if the Cross does not abolish the Law from you and Jesus's blood PAY for all the eternal penalty due your "sin" for your lifetime, then its all worthless.
Listen, if Jesus on the Cross shedding His blood does not pay for the sin you committed already tomorrow and next week, then salvation is a fraud, and its just one more useless "religion".

The GOOD NEWS, is that the GRACE that God gives you for free when you trusted Christ, = is that all your sins are gone.
They are gone, as Jesus has been killed-sacrificed to pay for them all..all....all.....ALL !
This is "Grace".....this is the "Blood Atonement"...this is God giving you HIS very Righteousness as if you have never sinned and never will, all based on what Christ has eternally accomplished for you on the Cross.
This is SALVATION, and so many "christians" have no clue about their "righteous standing" in the eye of God, based on the Cross, and what is has accomplished for you.
So, I dont know if its bad teaching or preaching or what it is that has created apparently most Christians who proclaim themselves to be so to have no literal and solid theological idea what the "Blood Atonement" and the 'Gift of Righteousness" has done for them regarding their "SIN".
YET, This is the basic revelation of what Jesus has done for you on the cross and most Christians are STILL talking about "sin" and "sinning", as if Jesus has not paid for them ALL over 2000 yrs ago.

Time to get the revelation of "Grace" and "Justification by faith", and discover exactly what IS the "Blood atonement" and "the gift of Righteousness" and move on from the baby food and milk.
Time to read Romans 4:8, and Hebrews 8:12, and Hebrews 12:2, and find out what it all actually means for you.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Some of what the RCC considers valid reasons for an annulment.

1. You married for social status but the person did not have the status you expected.
2. You didn't know marriage was a "permanent relationship."
3. You married intending to have the option of divorce open.
4. You did not know marriage was an "exclusive relationship."

http://www.stmarys-waco.org/documents/Grounds for Marriage Annulment in the Catholic Church.pdf

https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/marital_consent.htm

If your husband raped your child, however, that would not be seen as a valid reason to dissolve the marriage. Neither would physical abuse, or adultery. If you are married with several kids and your husband abandons you for another women, that's not a valid reason for divorce either, even if you are struggling to raise the kids.

 

[paul becke]

Matt 5 shows that a further sin of adultery is possible. If the relationship is adultery, then I can't see how forgiveness and a continuation are compatible.
Offending Christian divorcees shouldn't be the primary concern, but it seems to be off limits to repeat what Jesus actually says. Why do we ignore the truth here?

As a man with multiple divorces, this is very serious to me.

I'm not going to attempt to justify myself or my actions to anyone. I have more regrets on more levels than most people can fathom. I'm not proud of it. I truly wish I could go back and do it right. But I cannot.

However, I am totally forgiven for all my sins. So - as far as God is concerned - my 'tally' is clear. I have problems with not letting go of the mistakes I made, but that isn't God's doing and He's working on me to 'fix' all that.

For the record, I don't plan on getting into such a predicament again. Hence, I am celibate. I suppose if God sends me a woman, I'll notice, but I'm not looking and probably will take a lot of convincing if such opportunity presents.

An excellent reminder, fleshed out in a person's own life, that upon Love hangs the whole of the Law and the Prophets. It was not God's purpose to condemn but to save, and who better than Christ, would know the myriad factors that can complicate the lives of the virtuous. Technically, the Pharisees were punctilious observers of the Law, though actually, the deepest areas being the least visible to all and sundry, among their other palette of sins, they were avaricious and extortionate - even to the point of 'swallowing' the property of widows, etc.*

Moreover, mercifully, today, post Vatican II, the Catholic Church bears in mind that, while we must not play 'fast and loose', i.e. act irresponsibly, in relation to Jesus' teachings, he, himself, is not bound by his own commands, and can show his infinite mercy to us at his own discretion. Of course, it will not be 'unjust', since he is justice and the source thereof, indeed, of all that is good - but neither would what would be just in the vast myriad of the contexts of our human experience always be susceptible to clear and narrow interpretation. Even less so to outsiders than to the individuals concerned.

The quandaries facing the Christians do not diminish in their complexity but, rather, increase, so that, at times, we must act more in faith than certainty. I do believe that, just as in our secular life, our faith and knowledge form a continuum, a confusion of concepts, the same applies to our Christian life, interior life. Indeed, that the respective continua, themselves, form an interactive continuum. We see our faith vindicated, and retain our faith under trials, which latter, an atheist would deem proof that our faith-knowledge was all hokum. Incidentally, that faith-knowledge corresponds with our life in space-time - Christian, secular and the continuum of both, which we deal with in our daily lives.

 

[paul becke]

Isnt it odd that the very first thing that any Christian should understand about the Blood Atonement is completely missing from their theology, regarding most Christians?
How can it be that a believer in CHRIST does not understand that "sin", your "Sin" = has nailed Jesus to the cross and you are given the "righteousness of Christ" as your "spiritual position in God's family".
So, there is not more "sin" for you to confess and worry about if you are a born again person, as Jesus has DIED for them ALL.
Understand, that if the Cross does not abolish the Law from you and Jesus's blood PAY for all the eternal penalty due your "sin" for your lifetime, then its all worthless.
Listen, if Jesus on the Cross shedding His blood does not pay for the sin you committed already tomorrow and next week, then salvation is a fraud, and its just one more useless "religion".

The GOOD NEWS, is that the GRACE that God gives you for free when you trusted Christ, = is that all your sins are gone.
They are gone, as Jesus has been killed-sacrificed to pay for them all..all....all.....ALL !
This is "Grace".....this is the "Blood Atonement"...this is God giving you HIS very Righteousness as if you have never sinned and never will, all based on what Christ has eternally accomplished for you on the Cross.
This is SALVATION, and so many "christians" have no clue about their "righteous standing" in the eye of God, based on the Cross, and what is has accomplished for you.
So, I dont know if its bad teaching or preaching or what it is that has created apparently most Christians who proclaim themselves to be so to have no literal and solid theological idea what the "Blood Atonement" and the 'Gift of Righteousness" has done for them regarding their "SIN".
YET, This is the basic revelation of what Jesus has done for you on the cross and most Christians are STILL talking about "sin" and "sinning", as if Jesus has not paid for them ALL over 2000 yrs ago.

Time to get the revelation of "Grace" and "Justification by faith", and discover exactly what IS the "Blood atonement" and "the gift of Righteousness" and move on from the baby food and milk.
Time to read Romans 4:8, and Hebrews 8:12, and Hebrews 12:2, and find out what it all actually means for you.

Pity you were not able to enlighten St Paul and the other Evangelists. Christ, if it comes to that ... at least in anticipation. I wonder why he told the woman caught in adultery to sin no more.

 

[paul becke]

Pity you were not able to enlighten St Paul and the other Evangelists. Christ, if it comes to that ... at least in anticipation. I wonder why he told the woman caught in adultery to sin no more.

I find it astonishing that young girls have given their lives a martyrs, and rightly or wrongly, to me you give the impression of rejoicing because Judgment Day is only either only for others, or a literary conceit, a gratuitous fiction, and you can play 'fast and loose' - as long as you believe God will - has, forgiven you.

 

[Jan001]

Matthew 19:9
I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.” nabre​

Jesus was talking specifically to the Jews about the exception for "divorcing" an unlawful "spouse." At the time of Jesus' preaching on earth, there were Jews sinfully living together in unlawful/prohibited marriages. These people were never lawfully married according to the Jewish religion and so since they were never lawfully married according to the Jewish religion, these Jews may now repent of their sin and then they may marry according to God's/Jesus' laws regarding marriage.

I do not know exactly what constituted an unlawful/prohibited marriage for Jews in Jesus' time, but these are the prohibitions regarding marriage for Jews today:

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/468337/jewish/Prohibited-Marriages.htm

Matthew 5:31-32
It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife must give her a bill of divorce.’ 32 But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. nabre

Matthew 19:9-12
I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.” 10 [His] disciples said to him, “If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” 11 He answered, “Not all can accept [this] word, but only those to whom that is granted. 12 Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.” nabre​

The apostles and disciples were so shocked to learn how strict Jesus' teaching was about divorce and remarriage that they said it is better to not marry at all. Jesus said that to not marry at all is a special calling for people who desire to exclusively work for His kingdom.

That is why men and women who have this special calling and desire to serve God alone wholeheartedly do not choose to marry, but choose instead to become priests, nuns, etc. Catholics who desire to become priests, nuns, monks, etc. may not marry. Catholic priests and nuns are not allowed to marry after they become priests and nuns. Deacons, if married at the time of their ordination, may not remarry after their first spouse dies. If a person cannot accept the fact that he/she may not serve his/her sexual appetite (his/her flesh) after he/she becomes a priest or nun or deacon, etc., he/she should not choose to become a priest, nun, or deacon, etc.

1 Corinthians 7:32-35
I should like you to be free of anxieties. An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord. 33 But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, 34 and he is divided. An unmarried woman or a virgin is anxious about the things of the Lord, so that she may be holy in both body and spirit. A married woman, on the other hand, is anxious about the things of the world, how she may please her husband. 35 I am telling you this for your own benefit, not to impose a restraint upon you, but for the sake of propriety and adherence to the Lord without distraction. nabre​

 

[AlexDTX]

If someone divorced their spouse in a sinful way, and then remarried, ive heard it said that God would forgive their sin, and they move on with the next marriage.

Firstly, is the second marriage recognised by God, and if not, doesnt this make the second marriage, an ongoing sinful adulterous relationship that shouldnt continue?
So forgiveness in that context couldnt validate more of the same?

We just had a sermon on divorce, so its a question that was raised.

I have tried to read everyone's comments on the question and I think the most important point has been missed. That point is our relationship with God. As stated by one of the commenters, all sin has been nailed to the cross of Christ. God is reconciled to the world. Jesus took our sins so we could have a relationship with the Father through the new birth. Once that relationship has been established, we then are able to follow and obey God's will. We never follow and obey God because we have to, but rather, because we want to. Jesus said, "if you love me you will keep my commandments" (John 14:15). Because of our love for Jesus we obey him.

We should remember that Jesus was the last Old Testament prophet. Before his death and resurrection, all of Israel still lived under the Mosaic law. So when we consider his comments such as, "when you look upon a woman with lust in your heart, you have committed adultery" (Matt. 5:28); or, "divorces his wife except for fornication, commits adultery" (Matt. 5:32) he is preparing Israel to understand the spirit of the law instead of the letter of the law - which the Holy Spirit, who would be given after his resurrection, would further illuminate to his disciples.

Paul made his attempt to help believers understand divorce and remarriage in chapter 7 of 1st Corinthians. Verses 1 to 5 make it clear that God's will is for one man and one woman are to freely give themselves to one another for sexual satisfaction in marriage with the exception of a time of prayer and fasting. In verse 6 he says it is a permission, however, not a commandment. Paul says in verses 7 - 9 that he thinks it is better for the unmarried to remain unmarried but if they can not control their passion, then go ahead and get married. He later explains his reason for this view in verses 32 and 33 that marriage is a distraction from attendance to the Lord since we need to attend to our spouses. In verse 10 Paul makes it clear that remaining married is the will of God, and is his commandment. And in verse 11 and 12 he states that if a spouse leaves the marriage, then the other spouse should remain unmarried, which echos what Jesus said about remarrying being adultery. Verses 13 - 16 make it clear that it is not the responsibility of the believing spouse to save the other spouse, but the Lord's.

Verses 17 to 24 makes it clear that we are to abide in whatsoever state we are in because we are the Lord's. If married remain married, if divorced remain divorced. Why? Because we are to wait upon the Lord to follow his will. Is not God merciful? Yes, of course He is, and He may bring you a new spouse because of his compassion for us. However, we are to let God bring us the new spouse, not to seek one on our own. Instead we are to seek what God wants from us today and let that be enough for now.

If we are focused on our relationship with Jesus then it should not matter whether we are married or not. Paul said,

1Co 7:29 But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;

We are to love Jesus more than we are to love our spouses. This echos what Jesus said about those who love their parents, spouses or siblings more than Him are not worthy of Him (Matt. 10:37). Does that mean we do not love our spouses? Of course not. If God brought a couple together, then loving our spouses with all our hearts is to obey Jesus, who gave us the "new" commandment that we love one another as Christ loved us (John 13:34, 15:12 & 17).

Paul concludes chapter 7 with these words:

1Co 7:38 So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.
1Co 7:39 The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.
1Co 7:40 But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.

Why is the spouse happier? Because Christ is his or her priority. And this is the reason we have so many divorcing in our culture today: Christ is not their priority. God gives new spouses if the one desires after divorce, but He wants us to make Him our priority first. If we seek remarriage on our own, God still loves us and works in our lives for Jesus's sake, but we reap a whirlwind of problems and the likelihood of another divorce again.

 

[Butch5]

If someone divorced their spouse in a sinful way, and then remarried, ive heard it said that God would forgive their sin, and they move on with the next marriage.

Firstly, is the second marriage recognised by God, and if not, doesnt this make the second marriage, an ongoing sinful adulterous relationship that shouldnt continue?
So forgiveness in that context couldnt validate more of the same?

We just had a sermon on divorce, so its a question that was raised.

The early Christians understood Jesus' words as there was no remarriage while the original spouse was alive.

 

[FireDragon76]

I find it astonishing that young girls have given their lives a martyrs, and rightly or wrongly, to me you give the impression of rejoicing because Judgment Day is only either only for others, or a literary conceit, a gratuitous fiction, and you can play 'fast and loose' - as long as you believe God will - has, forgiven you.

I hear what you are saying... Jesus' sacrifice is not condoning sin. And I agree. But I don't agree with the Roman Catholic legalistic approach to the issue. Marriages do fall apart, and not everybody is capable of living celibate lives, especially in the modern world where most folks' issues we are talking about do not come from religious traditions at all capable of supporting celibacy.

The glibness by which certain evangelicals handle divorce is distressing. It's one reason that conservative evangelicals have lost credibility talking about the sanctity of marriage in our culture. Southern Baptists are actually twice as likely to divorce as irreligious people. Some of this is probably due to socioeconomic factors, but a lot could be due to superficiality and lack of focus on repentance and self-reflection in those religious environments. A kind of selective antinomianism.

People that attend Orthodox or mainline Protestant churches actually have divorce rates little different than Roman Catholics, even though their churches take different stances on how to handle divorce.

 

[Postvieww]

What about a divorce in the past of a couple that occurred before either one was saved? Now that both are Christians, two wrongs do not make a right. I only see one unpardonable sin in scripture and divorce is not it.

 

[PeterDona]

See a comprehensive analysis of the issues of divorce and remarriage at
http://bcbsr.com/topics/marry.html

Your own analysis?
I agree, I think after a quick read. There is an option for divorce in certain circumstances, but not for a remarriage. As I read the Bible verses, remarriage while spouse #1 is alive is always an adultery. Pretty sobering, when you combine that information with the information, that adultery is a work of the flesh.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

If someone divorced their spouse in a sinful way, and then remarried, ive heard it said that God would forgive their sin, and they move on with the next marriage.

Firstly, is the second marriage recognised by God, and if not, doesnt this make the second marriage, an ongoing sinful adulterous relationship that shouldnt continue?
So forgiveness in that context couldnt validate more of the same?

We just had a sermon on divorce, so its a question that was raised.

I think one can gain at least some insight from the conversation Jesus has with the Samaritan woman at the well...she claimed to have no husband and Jesus says...“You are right when you say you have no husband. The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true.”
What is revealing to some extent anyway is that the sinful woman is not dealt with regarding what to do about her current "non-husband" nor her exact sins. I do not believe this means He is condoning her adultery, but shows us the priorities when reaching people of revealing sin and offering the Gospel. The faith is to be refined by growth thereafter for Christianity is a process of growth. A mature Christian follows the tenets of Jesus...no remarriage unless death of a partner. All else is the sin of misreading, misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the Scriptures...forgivable sin, but there should be proper repentance.
The following passages lead me to believe that one is to stay in that marriage they find themselves wrongfully in and live godly lives in the humility that knowledge of wrongfulness before God should bring about.
I Timothy 5:14-15:
As for younger widows, do not put them on such a list. For when their sensual desires overcome their dedication to Christ, they want to marry. Thus they bring judgment on themselves, because they have broken their first pledge. Besides, they get into the habit of being idle and going about from house to house. And not only do they become idlers, but also busybodies who talk nonsense, saying things they ought not to. So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander. Some have in fact already turned away to follow Satan.

 

[chevyontheriver]

If your husband raped your child, however, that would not be seen as a valid reason to dissolve the marriage. Neither would physical abuse, or adultery. If you are married with several kids and your husband abandons you for another women, that's not a valid reason for divorce either, even if you are struggling to raise the kids.

Sorta. But you have middied the terminology a bit.

The Church addresses the question of whether a marriage was valid or not valid. If it's not valid and declared not valid then it never was a marriage, considered null and void.

If you have a serious reason for a divorce you may divorce without sin. You have a valid reason to separate or even divorce from an abusive spouse. That does not necessarily mean that the original marriage was invalid. Divorce when needed for serious reason. But that does not guarantee that the marriage never existed. The Church only says that remarriage is not possible if the original marriage was valid. Not to forbid a separation or divorce.

 

[Jan001]

What about a divorce in the past of a couple that occurred before either one was saved? Now that both are Christians, two wrongs do not make a right. I only see one unpardonable sin in scripture and divorce is not it.

Paul gives this command to the Christian husbands and Christian wives:

1 Corinthians 7:10-20
To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband 11 (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband)—and that the husband should not divorce his wife. rsv (The same applies to the husband. If he separates from his wife, let him remain single or else be reconciled to his wife.)
​

Paul continues with this command to the new Christians who have spouses that did not convert to Christianity:

12 To the rest I say, 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. 13 If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is they are holy. 15 But if the unbelieving partner desires to separate, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. For God has called us to peace. 16 Wife, how do you know whether you will save your husband? Husband, how do you know whether you will save your wife?

17 Only, let every one lead the life which the Lord has assigned to him, and in which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches. 18 Was any one at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was any one at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision. 19 For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God. 20 Every one should remain in the state in which he was called. rsv
​

It seems to me that if, on their wedding day, both unbelievers were of sound mind and freely consented to marry and both believed that their marriage was to be binding until death, that they are indeed bound until death. Neither can remarry even if one or both later become Christian. They are bound to their first spouse until the death of their spouse. If either remarries, adultery is being committed each and every time he or she has sex with their new partner.

Jesus said that we are to stop sinning.

John 5:14
Afterward, Jesus found him in the temple, and said to him, “See, you are well! Sin no more, that nothing worse befall you.” rsv
​

The apostles were so amazed by Jesus' teaching on marriage and no remarriage after divorce, that they said that it would then be better not to ever marry. To claim that a spouse committing adultery is a grounds for a person to divorce and remarry does not exist in Jesus' teachings. A person should be very careful about choosing a marriage partner because he will be married to that person until death.

Poor translation of the Greek word porneia which early Christians understood to mean unlawful has resulted in the corruption of Jesus' and the apostles' teaching/preaching on marriage.

Matthew 19:9-10
I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.” 10 [His] disciples said to him, “If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” nabre​

If one or both of the partners in any marriage never had any intention of being faithful until death, then the marriage was not a lawful marriage, and therefore it is not binding until death. It was a marriage in name only. If these people do divorce according to civil law, and one of them becomes a Christian, the Christian is free to marry another Christian who also is free to marry.

2 Corinthians 6:14
Do not be mismated with unbelievers. For what partnership have righteousness and iniquity? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? 15 What accord has Christ with Be′lial? Or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? 16 What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said,

“I will live in them and move among them,
and I will be their God,
and they shall be my people.
17 Therefore come out from them,
and be separate from them, says the Lord,
and touch nothing unclean;
then I will welcome you,
18 and I will be a father to you,
and you shall be my sons and daughters,
says the Lord Almighty.” rsv​

Luke 9:23
And he said to all, “If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. rsv

John 5:14
Afterward, Jesus found him in the temple, and said to him, “See, you are well! Sin no more, that nothing worse befall you.” rsv​

 

[Meowzltov]

You're forgetting that a previous marriage is in the past. What's done is done.

Jesus does not acknowledge divorce, so there is no such thing as a "previous marriage." A civil divorce is a sham that is not recognized by God. Someone who obtains a civil divorce and remarries is, in God's eyes, still married to their first spouse and is therefore committing adultery.

If a Christian has already divorced and remarried, meaning they are living in a state of adultery, the only course of action is to repent, meaning to stop sinning. Hopefully that would simply mean moving out and obtaining a civil divorce. However, in some cases there are children involved and it is important not to pass the harm along to innocents. In such cases, the couple would have to find a way to live together as brother and sister.

Now that said, it is sometimes the case that the first marriage wasn't actually valid in God's eyes. It may have been perfectly legal (meaning that the children are not bastards). For example, two men may legally marry, but in God's eyes it is not a real marriage. In the Catholic Church, these men may therefore divorce civilly and obtain an annulment from the Church stating they never had a sacramental marriage in the first place. Then each of these men may then marry a woman and it will be considered their first marriage.

There is a serious serious problem in Protestant churches in that there are "marriages" that have ended in civil divorce which were never valid in the first place, meaning that the persons have every right to marry again, but their churches have no structure in place in which to evaluate marraiges to see if they were valid or not. This is horribly unjust. It has led to many rightfully remarried Protestants giving the appearance of living in sin

The following are the grounds for nullifying a marriage in the Catholic church (stating it was never a real marriage in the first place, regardless of its legality):

Insufficient use of reason (Canon 1095, 10) You or your spouse did not know what was happening during the marriage ceremony because of insanity, mental illness, or a lack of consciousness.

Force (Canon 1103) You or your spouse married because of an external physical or moral force that you could not resist. Fear (1103) You or your spouse chose to marry because of fear that was grave and inescapable and was caused by an outside source.

Fraud (Canon 1098) Reasons for Marriage Annulment You or your spouse was intentionally deceived about the presence or absence of a quality in the other. The reason for this deception was to obtain consent to marriage.

Grave lack of discretionary judgment concerning essential matrimonial rights and duties (Canon 1095, 20) You or your spouse was affected by some serious circumstances or factors that made you unable to judge or evaluate either the decision to marry or the ability to create a true marital relationship.

Psychic-natured incapacity to assume marital obligations (Canon 1095, 30) You or your spouse, at the time of consent, was unable to fulfill the obligations of marriage because of a serious psychological disorder or other condition.

Ignorance about the nature of marriage (Canon 1096, sec. 1) You or your spouse did not know that marriage is a permanent relationship between a man and a woman ordered toward the procreation of offspring by means of some sexual cooperation.

Error of person (Canon 1097, sec. 1) Reasons for Marriage Annulment You or your spouse intended to marry a specific individual who was not the individual with whom marriage was celebrated. (For example, mail order brides; otherwise, this rarely occurs in the United States.)

Error about a quality of a person (Canon 1097, sec. 2) You or your spouse intended to marry someone who either possessed or did not possess a certain quality, e.g., social status, marital status, education, religious conviction, freedom from disease, or arrest record. That quality must have been directly and principally intended.

Total willful exclusion of marriage (Canon 1101, sec. 2) You or your spouse did not intend to contract marriage as the law of the Catholic Church understands marriage. Rather, the ceremony was observed solely as a means of obtaining something other than marriage itself, e.g., to obtain legal status in the country or to legitimize a child.

Willful exclusion of children (Canon 1101, sec. 2) You or your spouse married intending, either explicitly or implicitly, to deny the other's right to sexual acts open to procreation.

Willful exclusion of marital fidelity (Canon 1101, 12) You or your spouse married intending, either explicitly or implicitly, not to remain faithful. Willful exclusion of marital permanence (Canon 1101, sec. 2) You or your spouse married intending, either explicitly or implicitly, not to create a permanent relationship, retaining an option to divorce.

Future condition (Canon 1102, sec. 2) You or your spouse attached a future condition to your decision to marry, e.g., you will complete your education, your income will be at a certain level, you will remain in this area.

Past condition (Canon 1102, sec. 2)R You or your spouse attached a past condition so your decision to marry and that condition did not exist; e.g., I will marry you provided that you have never been married before, I will marry you provided that you have graduated from college.

Present condition (Canon 1102, sec. 2) You or your spouse attached a present condition to your decision to marry and that condition did not exist, e.g., I will marry you provided you don't have any debt.

Error regarding marital unity that determined the will (1099) You or your spouse married believing that marriage was not necessarily an exclusive relationship.

Error regarding marital indissolubility that determined the will (Canon 1099) You or your spouse married believing that civil law had the power to dissolve marriage and that remarriage was acceptable after civil divorce.

Error regarding marital sacramental dignity that determined the will (Canon 1099) You and your spouse married believing that marriage is not a religious or sacred relationship but merely a civil contract or arrangement.

Lack of new consent during convalidation (Canons 1157,1160) After your civil marriage, you and your spouse participated in a Catholic ceremony and you or your spouse believed that (1) you were already married, (2) the Catholic ceremony was merely a blessing, and (3) the consent given during. the Catholic ceremony had no real effect.

 

[pdudgeon]

You're forgetting that a previous marriage is in the past. What's done is done. There's no reason to believe that God would hold someone's past sins against them. No harm is done if a remarried person is genuinely repentant and lives a godly life in his or her new marriage. Frankly, I don't see why God would wish for a repentant divorced person to live alone until his or her former spouse dies, which would mean many decades of loneliness for that person. After all, God created Eve precisely because he didn't want Adam to be lonely.

^^^^ please realize that you are responding from a Methodist viewpoint, which church accepts multiple marriages.
As such, that viewpoint is hardly wet behind the ears compared to that of the Catholic Church.
However it's not a church's viewpoint that is being asked here, but how God sees the situation.
and that's a different kettle of fish indeed.

 

[paul becke]

But I don't agree with the Roman Catholic legalistic approach to the issue.

Nor do I, and more to the point, nor does Francis. There has been all too much Pelagianism in the Church's minstry, and hangover from the pre-Vatican II Tridentine Church. Amazingly, he is being accused by the Pelagians of being a liberal 'anything goes' type.

Here is something that seems quite typical, but still shocked me : In one Catholic paper someone was moaning because the Pope had suggested that, in certain cases, it might be possible for a divorced and re-married Catholic to take Holy Communion ; whereas he and his lady friend had lived together chastely together for what seemed to me quite a brief time. I'm sure my wife and I did, for at least seven years, but I didn't feel a 'dog in the manger' kind of attitude, or that I'd lost out during that time ... what's past is past, and was part of God's providence for us.

 

[Meowzltov]

The glibness by which certain evangelicals handle divorce is distressing. It's one reason that conservative evangelicals have lost credibility talking about the sanctity of marriage in our culture. Southern Baptists are actually twice as likely to divorce as irreligious people. Some of this is probably due to socioeconomic factors, but a lot could be due to superficiality and lack of focus on repentance and self-reflection in those religious environments. A kind of selective antinomianism.

You are sadly correct. Born again Christians / Evangelicals have the highest divorce rate of any group in the US.