Last month my thought for the month addressed divorce from a Biblical perspective; this month I thought I would address the sister issue, remarriage. Today remarriage is the act of a person marrying another person who already has made a marriage covenant but has been put away through divorce. In the Old Testament, divorce was permitted on the grounds of something indecent; however, it never directs a divorced man to be remarried. Remarriage was practiced in the Old Testament but was never addressed as being evil; yet this does not make it an acceptable practice. For example: polygamy was practiced throughout the Old Testament, and it also was not condemned as evil. It cannot be assumed that silence equates God's approval. For God does indicate how He feels about remarriage:

God considers a woman who has been remarried as being defiled by the second marriage. In other words, God was not pleased. God does not see divorce as an annulling or dissolving of a marriage covenant. Malachi speaks of the marriage covenant as being intact after a divorce:

The Scriptures under the old covenant do not support remarriage, rather it recognizes the former marriage covenant of their youth. God still maintained that she still was the man's partner and wife in His sight. Therefore a woman who was divorced then remarried to someone else was considered by God as being defiled by her second marriage.

In the New Testament, we must see what the Scriptures actually teach concerning remarriage. We need to stay within the boundaries of what was said and not what one wants to imply from them. For we are warned:

We need to ask ourselves, "Exactly what did Jesus teach when He changed the law for divorce?

The conclusion we can draw concerning remarriage seems clear: the person who is divorced for fornication commits adultery through remarriage. Some infer that the innocent party is free to remarry, yet Christ did not say that. When Jesus was approached by the Pharisees concerning divorce for any and every reason, Matthew focused on the conversation with the Pharisees about a change in law; only for fornication was divorce permissible. The question that the Pharisees asked was on divorce and not remarriage. Christ did not say, "that anyone who divorces his wife for fornication and marries another does not commit adultery." Rather we read:

Christ, in answer to their question whether it is lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason is stating the answer "No". The "except for fornication" is not an exception that allows remarriage on those grounds but rather an exception of being the only reason for which God accepts divorce. For no longer do we stone the adulterer or adulteress and their lover to death. What some like to infer can be cleared up when we consider Mark's account. Mark's account of the same incident doesn't focus on the verbal exchange with the Pharisees or on the change of law, rather he focuses on the private conversation that happened later with the disciples when they went back into the house. They had questions concerning the condition of a person who had divorced his spouse for fornication then remarries:

This conversation was after Jesus had established with the Pharisees that fornication was the only grounds for divorce. The disciples must have sought a judgement on someone who remarries after being divorced for fornication, as it was left open ended. The conclusion that Christ makes concerning someone who divorces because their spouse committed fornication is that the innocent party commits adultery when they remarry. This caused the disciples to respond:

The disciples had a hard time with Christ's teaching. For even though it allowed divorce for fornication, it prevented remarriage except for death. Christ radically changed divorce when He made an allowance for a wife to divorce her husband if he commits fornication- which was unheard of in that day. Yet the conclusion on remarriage is still the same, that though she be the innocent party, she is an adulterer if she remarries. In Luke's gospel he doesn't mention the exchange at all, rather he concludes:

Luke concludes that both the innocent party who divorced the fornicator and the fornicator who was divorced, are guilty of adultery should they be remarried. This strengthens two points: first, that divorce does not release a person from their marriage covenant. And second, that God expects all members of a marriage covenant to remain faithful and does not treat the guilty party different then the innocent party. The marriage covenant is for life as a person is only released from the marriage covenant through death, after which they are free to remarry:

The previous Scripture does not clarify whether the person be the innocent or the guilty party who committed fornication, as it is immaterial- both become adulterers through remarriage. The Bible is painstakingly clear, only death of a spouse releases a person from the covenant of marriage. Remarriage at any time other then after the death of a spouse places one in the state of adultery. Man separates by divorce, making allowance for remarriage; but the Bible calls divorced people who remarry adulterers. For God separates by death:

It is only after the death of one's spouse that he is freed from the marriage commitment and may pursue another marriage covenant. For a person who divorces a spouse on the grounds of fornication has only two options while their spouse lives:

As long as the fornicator is alive, reconciliation is possible; but the moment we date towards remarriage, we have given up on reconciliation and our marriage covenant. Therefore the Bible presents a clear message: remarriage is allowed only after the death of a spouse. It is the only grounds that a person who has made a marriage covenant can use to be free to be remarried.

Some churches allow remarriage when an unbeliever divorces a Christian. The Bible teaches us that in the marriage covenant we have obligated ourselves to fulfill the terms of the covenant for the length of the covenant- life:

The Bible binds a divorced spouse to one of two actions: either remain unmarried till their spouse dies or seek reconciliation. Every Christian who is caught in the position of being divorced must continue to be loyal to their marital covenant leaving them just these same two options. Remarriage is contrary to reconciliation. The moment a divorced person seeks another spouse, they are being unfaithful to their marriage covenant and are an adulterer. Some quote:

The "not bound" does not imply that she is released from the life-long commitment of marriage. The Bible already established that divorce does not release a person from the marriage covenant. Hence, we must conclude that Paul has released them from being bound to pursue reconciliation if the unbelieving spouse wants no part of it- but live in peace unmarried. This becomes clear as in the context of the same chapter as the previous two scriptures, we read :

The Christian is bound to her spouse as long as he lives. The "not bound" has nothing to do with the releasing from the covenant of marriage but rather the freeing of the responsibility to be reconciled to her husband. If we interpret v.15, "Not bound," in light of v.11 we would conclude: that the believer is not bound to pursue reconciliation if the unbelieving spouse will have no part of it--but rather live in peace- unmarried. For God knows her heart and her sincerity in desiring reconciliation, and He also knows her loyalty to her marriage as indicated by remaining unmarried. However if she remarries while her spouse lives, she would then be considered in the sin of adultery as she is not being loyal to the one with whom she has made a life long commitment. Therefore, a Christian is bound to their spouse as long as he lives, but she is not bound to continue to seek reconciliation if her husband wants no part of it. She must be at peace, remaining unmarried

back to title page back to main menu