Remarriage, when is it allowable?

[ajaffres]

I am married, so it is more of a curiosity question. We hear a lot about remarriage in our society. As far as I have found in the Bible, women can only remarry if her husband is dead. She is the other hand allowed to separate or get a divorce for cause of immorality, but there is no mention that I can find that says she can remarry. Does someone have more information on this topic?

 

[Oreslag]

It seems the purpose of divorce in the first place is to protect the *innocent* spouse (using that term loosely since we're all guilty) from condemnation. Refer to http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy 24:1-4&version=ESV particularly; there is no condemnation mentioned for the divorced wife to remarry. Perhaps you are concerned about: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 cor 7:10-11&version=ESV. However, in context Paul is speaking to a church where (presumably) all are called of the Lord. In any case, it is clear a man can divorce his wife for cause, and it seems clear that if an errant man does so without cause, the divorce serves to protect the woman from condemnation.

 

[Tlaloc]

As Oreslag already referenced, women can remarry.

Deu 24 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's

It's extremely explicit that women can remarry, the bible literally and directly says they can.

The various passages people make the a mess of in the New Testament about adultery are dealing with wrongful divorce and separation. Even according to Deuteronomy if a woman was put out without a proper writ of divorce any relationship she entered into would be adulterous. Jesus was re-instating that fact. Hence we get:

but I say unto you, that every one that putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress: and whosoever shall marry her when she is put away committeth adultery.

Thats American Standard Version. Sadly the old KJV mistranslates 'put away' as 'divorce' so there is much confusion about this passage. Modern KJV and most other translations fix that problem, but with so many people sticking with standard KJV the idea that a divorced woman can't remarry persists horribly.

 

[ajaffres]

I do not use the King James version. Maybe it is because of my catholic background, but as far as I read it. Jesus does not allow divorce and remarriage. He simply makes a distinction between licit and illicit marriage. Of course if the first marriage was illicit, it never actually took place, but if it was licit, than there is no power on earth that can undo it.

Matthew 19:8-9 He said to them, 'It was because you were so hard-hearted, that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but it was not like this from the beginning. 9 Now I say this to you: anyone who divorces his wife -- I am not speaking of an illicit marriage -- and marries another, is guilty of adultery.'

 

[Tlaloc]

But that's not what it says... It's talking about fornication in general, which is a blanket term for sexual sins, its not talking about illicit marriages. There was no such thing as an illicit marriage until the Catholic church started greatly extending its control of marriage around the Hildebrandian era.

If a marriage was contracted properly it was licit, it it was contracted improperly there was a fine and it was licit, and actually more binding than the properly contracted one. Someone engaged in fornication was to be orsticized or executed. No writ of divorce would be required for such a person, as they'd be as good as dead. Fornications are an array of serious sexual crimes, such as sleeping with your fathers wife or male homosexuality. Having sex with someone you intend to marry is not fornication, it's an improperly contracted betrothal. Even then, the marriage did take place.

 

[Paul not the apostle]

Hey Tlaloc,

Wondering if you still have your copy of Thely around, and if so could you please reread Madan's take on the Duet. 24 chapter that you have quoted above, the key item to consider being the fact that the passage is hypothetical. The word "when" in the first verse is actually the same word that is translated into our english "if" in the rest of this passage. The point of the passage being that a defiled woman cannot return to her husband, not an express allowance of remarriage after divorce.

Deu 24:1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
Deu 24:2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.
Deu 24:3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;
Deu 24:4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

 

[Oreslag]

The point of the passage being that a defiled woman cannot return to her husband, not an express allowance of remarriage after divorce.

Indeed this is the point of the passage. However, the passage does give as an example a remarriage after a divorce and makes no condemnation thereof. Similarly, the laws for priests declare:

A widow, or a divorced woman, or a woman who has been defiled, or a prostitute, these he shall not marry. But he shall take as his wife a virgin of his own people

Note that in this case a priest cannot marry a divorced woman, but also note that the office of priest is singled out. The point of this passage is clearly about righteousness for priests, yet it also reveals additional truth if you consider that priests cannot marry widows either, but no one else is condemned for marrying a widow. Indeed, Levirate marriage commands a brother to marry his deceased brother's widow.

Likewise, the Deuteronomy 24:1-4 passage gives an explicit example of divorce and remarriage, yet does not condemn it; but rather condemns a certain form of it as an abomination. As nearly as I am aware, the Word of our God does not condemn remarriage after divorce, but rather condemns wrongful divorce.

Indeed, to ajaffres' post:

Jesus does not allow divorce and remarriage.

I offer the text from my interlinear Septuagint and a contextual explanation:

And I say to you, that who ever should dismiss his woman, not for harlotry, and should marry another, commits adultery; and the one being dismissed marrying, commits adultery.

Note particularly the text after the semicolon that seems to describe the dismissed wife ("the one being dismissed marrying"); which seems to have a far different meaning than the English rendering in my ESV: "And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” In the former case the text seems to be speaking of the divorced woman marrying, and in the latter the translation seems to have truncated the rest of the verse. Compare also to Mark 10:10-12 (see below) which seems to shed more light on Jesus' exchange with the Pharisees on this topic.

By Jesus' time Roman law permitted both men and women to get divorces from their spouse. "Since marriage was often used as a political tool in ancient Rome, especially in the upper classes, divorces were common when new political opportunities presented themselves. Anytime a new opportunity arose, a man or woman would divorce their current spouse and marry a new one. A man or woman could form valuable family ties through their various marriages and divorces to different families. A motivated man or woman might marry and divorce a couple times in their lifetime if they thought it to their advantage." (Cut from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_ancient_Rome and pasted here for convenience). Thus, in context it seems that what Jesus is actually speaking about is this common Roman practice and how God did not intend this abuse of divorce. Note also in Mark:

And in the house again his disciples concerning the same asked him. And he says to them, "Who ever should dismiss his woman, and should marry another, commits adultery for her. And if a woman should dismiss her husband, and should marry another, she commits adultery."

This even more explicitly describes the 'serial monogamy for political gain' nature of the issue Jesus is addressing. It also seems to me to be 'adding to' the scripture if we extend this teaching of our Lord to all cases of divorce if nowhere else is remarriage after divorce explicitly condemned.

In any case, reason seems to argue that divorce has no purpose if it is not to protect all the parties involved from subsequent condemnation. Jesus declares that it is because of our hardness of heart that divorce was given. Whereas marriage involves a husband and wife, and divorce legitimately results from hardness of heart of one or the other spouse (e.g. Jeremiah 3:8 reveals God issued a divorce to Israel, and God is holy and righteous, so clearly He was not wrong to divorce Israel, and Israel was surely to blame because of her hardness of heart), it seems to follow that divorce serves to protect the righteousness of those that had no choice in the matter (e.g. a woman wrongly divorced, a man who chooses to marry such a woman, or a man that rightly needs to put away an unfaithful wife). Or perhaps I should merely say that the entire witness of scripture, consideration of context, and the lack of conviction otherwise in my heart argues to this conclusion in my particular case.

 

[Oreslag]

Wondering if you still have your copy of Thely around, and if so could you please reread Madan's take on the Duet. 24 chapter that you have quoted above, the key item to consider being the fact that the passage is hypothetical. The word "when" in the first verse is actually the same word that is translated into our english "if" in the rest of this passage. The point of the passage being that a defiled woman cannot return to her husband, not an express allowance of remarriage after divorce.

I recently got a copy of this and have been reading through it. After making my last post I also realized that the first chapter in Volume 2 treats divorce, so I'll soon have to opportunity to read more on this topic as well. Does this treatise take up remarriage as well, and if so; in which chapter is it discussed?

 

[Tlaloc]

Paul,

No, I have a propendency to give my books away, especially poly related ones. And I haven't had a chance to re-order it yet. A guy in BC was making a three volume set I was going to get for my next book, but he fell through.

Either way that would be from volume 2, which I never had and only read briefly.

On the subject, all law is hypothetical, I'm not seeing how that changes things. When that hypothetical situation happens (as it does) she is expressly allowed to remarry. Weather or not that's the main point, it is clearly stated.

Ore,

Nice writup.