I realise that this thread is very old, but since what I want to post fits the subject matter, I thought that I would add to this one rather than start a new thread on the same topic. Besides, there are already one or two other threads about it (which appear to have been started by the same OP).
A few days ago, I came across a rather heated argument on Facebook about divorce and remarriage. I did not get involved in this argument, but simply read through it. The person who started the post is a Calvinist lady (she hasn't always been a Calvinist, but sadly seems to have converted to that position). This lady is a Facebook friend of mine, but not a friend in the true sense of the word. I would describe her as more of a friendly acquaintance. She does post some good stuff at times, but some of the more Calvinist material is starting to get on my nerves. Anyway, she has recently dissolved her marriage with her second husband, to whom she had been married for 17 years, because they decided together that their marriage was adulterous. She was divorced from her first husband, although I don't know the circumstances of it. But anyway, her second husband was in full agreement with her about the need to dissolve the marriage, and they remain best friends. Marrying her previous husband is not an option for her, but if he were to die, then she would get married to her second husband again. She claims that they both have peace about it, so perhaps it was the right decision for them (I'm not totally sure - I'll leave that for others to judge).
The argument had nothing to do with her second marriage ending. I'm just filling you in on the background. Since announcing the end of her marriage, she has made several posts stating her position on divorce and remarriage. One of these posts led to the argument that I stumbled across. This woman takes the same hardline position that the original poster of this thread does: that divorce and remarriage is always wrong. One of her friends (who appears to be some sort of preacher), made several comments in support of her view. However, another man, who is a Ruckmanite, stated his belief that remarriage is not adultery, and also rebuked the woman for teaching on Facebook. She railed at him a bit and blocked him, and her preacher friend brought railing accusation against him as well.
I found the whole thing quite vexing. What particularly irked me was the arrogant attitude exhibited by everyone in this argument. There was no charity shown by anyone. The Ruckmanite was out of order with his rebuke of the woman for "teaching" on Facebook. The Bible commands women to be silent in the church, not anywhere else. (And even in the church, women can still pray and sing hymns, so it's just in certain specific contexts that they should remain silent.) Also, by posting on Facebook, the lady was hardly usurping authority over anyone. She did make the valid point in her retort to the Ruckmanite that many men twist Scriptures in their pride to intimidate women into silence in situations where they do in fact have a right to speak and voice an opinion. However, the woman, and even more so her preacher friend, showed a lack of charity too. Not only in their railing at the Ruckmanite, but in their complete lack of compassion for people who have ended up divorced through no fault of their own. Their attitude to such people is essentially "Tough bananas". I think the preacher said things like, "Who says that living for Christ is easy?" to support his position that somebody wronged by their spouse should stay single or be reconciled while the spouse in the wrong remained alive. While it may be true that Christian living is often hard and frequently requires considerable self-denial, he is being disingenuous here, attempting to justify himself in his uncharitable attitude. At least, that is my judgement.
Which brings me to the other thing that vexed me about this argument, and what I would now like to discuss in a bit more detail. Very often, false doctrine comes about as a result of taking extreme positions. For example, you might get someone who insists we should observe the Old Testament Law (one extreme, aka legalism), and someone else who says we don't need to obey anything in the Bible because we're not under the law but under grace (the other extreme, aka antinomianism). Well I believe that this Facebook argument contained two extremes that are both wrong. One extreme is quite easy to refute. The other extreme is rather less easy, but with proper study and understanding, it becomes clear that it too is wrong.
The Ruckmanite contended that remarriage after divorce is never adultery. Peter Ruckman went through several divorces and remarriages, so it stands to reason that he (and those who follow him) would teach this error. In order to justify this position, they would have to do some serious twisting of Scriptures like the following:
But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. (Matthew 5:32)
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. (Matthew 19:9)
And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery. (Mark 10:11-12)
Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery. (Luke 16:18)
It is clear enough then that to take the position that remarriage is NEVER adulterous is patently absurd. And not only absurd, but actually quite a serious error. I suspect that people who adopt this view often want to justify their own uncharitable behaviour towards their spouses, which may very well end in divorce, and perhaps justify their lust for "greener pastures". In any case, this is the extreme position that is easiest to refute.
The opposite extreme, that divorce and remarriage is ALWAYS wrong, seems rather more difficult to refute when you look at the above Scriptures in particular (although note the "exception clause" in the Matthew verses, which I'll come back to in a bit). However, it is important to rightly divide the Word of truth, and take the whole counsel of God into consideration. False doctrines are often arrived at by cherrypicking verses and ignoring verses that go against the desired position. If you want to believe that God considers remarriage a sin in every case, explain why He put this in the Old Testament:
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 wife. (Deuteronomy 24:1-2)
Now, there are three aspects to the Law of Moses: the moral law (reiterated in the New Testament - this is what shows us our sin), the civil law (for Israel only) and the ceremonial law (also for Israel only, and only in effect until the death and resurrection of Christ - also true of the civil law). As far as I can understand it, the law given above was part of ancient Israel's civil law. However, this law was still in effect when Christ had His earthly ministry (which I think Kevin may have pointed out earlier in this thread). It doesn't apply to us today. But all Scriptures are written for our learning (Romans 15:4). So while this particular law was part of another dispensation, God still wants us to learn something from it. And one of the things that we can learn is that He is NOT against remarriage in every instance. There are circumstances in which a remarriage after divorce is acceptable in His sight. Those circumstances are not many, but they still exist. An understanding that I believe the Lord has given me recently is that remarriage is acceptable to God when the previous marriage ended because one spouse seriously wronged another. Most divorces are the result of both spouses treating each other poorly. If a couple divorces because they have "fallen out of love with each other", and then remarry, God views their new marriages as adultery because their previous marriage ended for unjustifiable reasons. Such a couple is likely equally in the wrong. But when one spouse has done serious wrong to the other, then we have a question of justice. Surely the innocent party should not suffer for the wickedness of the guilty one. That is not God's way.
I would like to cite an example from within my own family. My dad has one brother, who is two years his senior. Over 50 years ago, about two or three years before my own parents got married, my uncle married an English lady. Although they got married in NZ, I think they ended up living in France together. After roughly a decade, my uncle met an American woman and began an adulterous affair with her. His first wife figured out what was going on though. One day, when my uncle came home from a dirty weekend with his mistress, she said to him, "I know where you've been and who you've been with. I've packed your things - now get out!" That was the end of that marriage. My uncle went on to marry his mistress, who had meanwhile divorced her husband. He has now been with her for over 40 years. Beyond any shadow of a doubt, that marriage is an adulterous one in God's sight.
But what of the Englishwoman my uncle cheated on? Should she have been forced to remain alone the rest of her days because of his wickedness? The "remarriage is always wrong" crowd would say Yes to that. They would doubtless cite 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. In this situation though, what possible chance did my uncle's first wife have to be reconciled to him? She would still be waiting to this day, since he's still married to the woman he cheated with. Why should she have had to live alone all this time because of his evil act? Where would be the justice in that? God is very much about justice. Surely He would not want to punish my English aunt for the evil my uncle did to her. Let's go back to those verses in Matthew for a moment:
But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. (Matthew 5:32)
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. (Matthew 19:9)
Adultery is a form of fornication. According to my understanding of both the Scriptures and God's justice, my English aunt was within her rights to remarry. And remarry she did, to a Frenchman. It's possible the marriage may yet have been adulterous (he had teenage sons from a previous marriage, but I don't know whether he was divorced or widowed, or if divorced, what the circumstances were). But in and of itself, I don't believe she was wrong to remarry, given how grievously wronged she was by my uncle's cheating.
By way of a second "witness", I would like to share an example of a man wronged by his wife. This man is another Facebook friend of mine, but once again more of a friendly acquaintance than someone I have a real friendship with. Nevertheless, I have seen enough of his posts (and one or two videos he's made) to feel confident that he is born again. A number of years ago, this man's first wife abruptly walked out on him. They had a son together, and she took him. Not only that, but she told some malicious lies about her husband (mainly to her family I think, but also posted some slander on Facebook). The man was understandably distraught. He took his marriage covenant VERY seriously and fully intended to remain with his first wife until death parted them. He did everything he could to reconcile with his wife, but she wouldn't have it. He absolutely did NOT want a divorce. In the end however, she divorced him against his will. In view of the way this guy was treated, should he have remained single for the rest of his life? The actions of his first wife strongly pointed to her being a false convert. Which means, I think, that this Scripture applied:
But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. (1 Corinthians 7:15)
This man went on to remarry a few years later, to a lovely Christian lady with whom he is very happy. They now have a child together. Given how appallingly his first wife had treated him, why should he have missed out on this? Again, where would be the justice in it?
As I bring this post to a close, I would like to discuss one of the accounts where Jesus heals someone on the Sabbath (this was something He did several times). Bear with me, because it does have relevance to the rest of my message, which will become clear shortly:
And he was teaching in one of the synagogues on the sabbath. And, behold, there was a woman which had a spirit of infirmity eighteen years, and was bowed together, and could in no wise lift up herself. And when Jesus saw her, he called her to him, and said unto her, Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity. And he laid his hands on her: and immediately she was made straight, and glorified God. And the ruler of the synagogue answered with indignation, because that Jesus had healed on the sabbath day, and said unto the people, There are six days in which men ought to work: in them therefore come and be healed, and not on the sabbath day. The Lord then answered him, and said, Thou hypocrite, doth not each one of you on the sabbath loose his ox or his ass from the stall, and lead him away to watering? And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day? And when he had said these things, all his adversaries were ashamed: and all the people rejoiced for all the glorious things that were done by him. (Luke 13:10-17)
Now when Jesus healed this woman, what was He also doing? Showing charity, and loving His neighbour. Did the ruler of the synagogue show any charity to this woman? No. Notice that he referenced the Scriptures, but showed no compassion whatsoever to the woman Christ had healed. As in other instances, Christ's enemies accused him of "working" on the Sabbath when He was healing people. But what He showed is that charity overrides the letter of the law. He also pointed out that these same people would show charity to their animals on the Sabbath. They were perfectly happy to "work" when they wanted to care for their own animals. So there was no reason why the woman couldn't be healed on the Sabbath as any other day. The need for charity overrode any other considerations about "working".
The Pharisees often used the Law (or their own traditions based on it) to justify their lack of charity to others. For example, they used it to avoid being kind to their own parents:
And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye. (Mark 7:9-13)
Many people today try to use the Scriptures, or sometimes "tradition", to justify their lack of charity. They use the Bible as a kind of "smokescreen" to hide their real agendas. (A simple example would be my mother quoting "Honour thy father and thy mother" to manipulate me into obeying an unreasonable or even sinful demand.) But everything in the Scriptures comes back to two things: loving God and loving your neighbour. Loving your neighbour means showing charity to that person. More than obedience to the strictest letter, God desires charity.
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. (Matthew 22:37-40)
And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity. (1 Corinthians 13:13)
Bringing it back to the issue at hand, and finishing this off, I believe that the "remarriage is never OK" crowd lack charity, and indeed we see this in the attitude of the person who started this thread. It was also very evident in the Calvinst lady and her preacher friend on Facebook. They get so hung up on what certain Scriptures say that they overlook the need for charity in particular situations, and turn a (wilfully) blind eye to the fact that God does make provision for such situations. They also appear to care more about "the letter of the law" than justice and mercy towards those who have been wronged. Just like the Pharisees of old, they are abusing the Word of God to hide their own lack of charity to others (or maybe to justify it to themselves). As Jesus said, Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment [justice], mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. (Matthew 23:23) That said, the Ruckmanite who claimed remarriage is never adultery also lacked charity, especially in his harsh rebuke of the Calvinist woman. Perhaps it is not surprising that those who lack charity also readily espouse false doctrine (whichever extreme they prefer). Of course, there are those Christians who choose (whether rightly or wrongly) to remain on their own after departing from a spouse. I'm not for a moment saying that they lack charity (except possibly to themselves, depending on the circumstances of their departure). What I am saying however is that there are many who get puffed up in pride over taking this particular position - people like the OP, or the Calvinist lady and her preacher friend. It is these people specifically who are greatly lacking in charity and compassion.
In closing, it is important to note that in MOST cases, remarriage after divorce IS adulterous. That is why Jesus gave the commandments that He did. Most cases of divorce involve MUTUAL lack of charity on the part of both spouses. Those divorces are unquestionably sinful. Therefore, any remarriage that follows them is also sinful. However, there are certain specific instances (albeit very limited in number) where one spouse is wronged by another. That is when divorce is justifiable, and God does NOT view remarriage as adulterous in those few cases. That is because He does not want an innocent person to suffer for the evil done to them. These people who insist that remarriage is always wrong fail to take God's desire for justice and fairness into account in these specific cases. They really need to examine their own hearts IMO. Anyway, I hope this adds something useful to the older discussion. I just needed to get this off my chest, but also share what I believe the Lord has shown me in the last few days.
