Im divorced, can I remarry?
By Wm Tipton
Here we will try to show that in spite of what a few in the church are teaching, remarriage after divorce is assumed unless expressly forbidden for whatever reason, and also will show that marriage is a conditional covenant.
We try to lay the information out in most of our writings and let the reader decide for themselves what to believe, but I find it necessary at this point in time to simply state things plainly for any who are asking if they can remarry after being divorced.
The short, simple answer is ‘yes, you can remarry’.
I say short and simple for a couple reasons. Firstly this issue has been made way too complicated by legalists who are incapable of understanding the marriage covenant to begin with, nor are they able to comprehend concepts such as ‘grace’ and forgiveness, even tho that would seem to be at the forefront of these erroneous doctrines.
We need to dumb the whole thing down and bring it back to its very basic intent. God created them male and female in the beginning and His clear intent was for them to help each other and to provide for the other what they needed...be it food, clothing, kindness, love, romance.
Some are blinded to the fact that when God created Eve He did so as a ‘helpmeet’. It was never Gods intent for marriage to have turned into the monstrosity that it has.
The second reason I say short and simple is that there is more to the story that we do need to take into account.
Yes, you MAY remarry, but is it the right decision?
Lets say you are a believer, as is your ex spouse. 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 is written to you both.
1Co 7:10-11 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: (11) But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
(we know this is to two believers because of Paul's words ‘but to the rest’ in the very next verse where he speaks without any commandment to those who are married to an unbeliever)
It is assumed that BOTH of you will want to be pleasing to God and in being pleasing to God will BOTH find a way to reconcile and work together to make it what God would have it to be. How could two people who supposedly both love the Lord God not be able to find a way to make their marriage work if they are being pleasing to the Lord in their thoughts and actions ?
In this situation, yes, you ‘can’ remarry (ie no one is going to forcibly stop you), but it would be against clear commandment from the Lord Himself if your spouse has not remarried. No, it isnt unforgivable if you have married someone else, but do you really want to push the limits of grace here if you have not yet remarried and your former spouse and you are in a situation where your previous marriage can indeed be reconciled ?
Obviously if your ex is completely unwilling to reconcile, you have a choice to make and we cannot council you on that matter, but in our humble opinion, if a ‘christian’ spouse refuses to reconcile and the marriage was not ended for a breach such as abuse or adultery, then we would have to question whether this person is actually saved or not. If it is evident by their actions that they are not a believer and they will not reconcile, you are not required to remain unmarried.
Again, this is contingent upon whether you cheated or abused them or not. If you did, then its hard for me to sit here and say they aren’t being forgiving.....they might simply be tired of being mistreated. In such cases we believe that the abuser/cheater was put away for a lawful reason and we believe that remarriage is not forbidden after such a divorce.
So we see that while we ‘may’ remarry, there may be circumstances where we shouldn't because both are believers and there has been no breach of covenant to warrant the divorce. No, you aren’t still married to your ex if the marriage has been wilfully abandoned, but guilt is still assigned when we remarry after a frivolous divorce because it simply is against Gods will to end a marriage thus.
Now we turn our attention to the conditional marriage covenant itself. We use the word ‘conditional’ because that is precisely the case. If marriage were unconditional then no circumstance would ever exist whereby it could be defiled or sinned against. But we see that is not the case in both the old covenant and in the new. Under the law we see passages such as Exodus 21:10-11 where this “wife†was permitted to leave her marriage if her husband did not provide for her with food, clothing and conjugal duty/attention
Exo 21:10-11 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. (11) And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.
And we also see that the Law required the death of the adulteress and her lover;
Lev 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
These two are but a couple pieces of evidence that show us that the marriage covenant is not without condition. There are ways to defile it, to be in breach of it or there would be no recourse offered when it was sinned against.
That it is conditional, as the Mosaic covenant was conditional, also shows us that there is circumstance by which it may by ended justly, lawfully, as God ended the old covenant justly when it was sinned against perpetually.
If you have read many of the articles contained on this web site then its probable that you have seen that we cover a great deal concerning the Jews and the frivolous divorce Moses suffered to avoid even greater sin in that they would even harm these wives to be rid of them. Of course, if a man is determined to be rid of his wife, clearly Moses would have not have been able to stop him from casting her out.
From our studies we have determined that remarriage after these divorces were simply assumed and only in cases where it is forbidden is a divorced woman not permitted to marry this man. The only real prohibition of marrying women put away from their husbands is for the man who put this woman away to begin with and she has subsequently married another, and also the priests of the Temple as presented in these passages that speak of the priests and high priests of the church who were a foreshadow of the Messiah...
Lev 21:7 They shall not take a wife that is a whore, or profane; neither shall they take a woman put away from her husband: for he is holy unto his God.
Lev 21:14 A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or an harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife.
Eze 44:22 Neither shall they take for their wives a widow, nor her that is put away: but they shall take maidens of the seed of the house of Israel, or a widow that had a priest before.
In those passages we see clear prohibition for these priests against taking a woman put away from her husband. With the Levitical prohibitions it is our assumption at Assembly Ministries that these are part of what Moses was dealing with in the desert and his sufferance of this casual putting away, and why he gave Deut 24:1-4 as a regulation to this frivolous ending of marriage and often simply to take another.
It seems peculiar that there is no clear instruction for anyone else in Israel to refrain from marrying a woman who was put away from her husband, and in fact we see in this regulation in Deut 24 that the wording seems to clearly imply that it was assumed that she would remarry after divorce, and surely no sin is defined herein when she does remarry after being casually cast aside.
Deu 24:1-4 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. (2)
And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. (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; (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.
What is made quite clear there is that ‘someone’ is actually permitted to marry this woman who has been put away (divorced) from her husband for this ‘uncleaness’ that he has defined in her. Based on the facts we see, we conclude that unless it is prohibited, marrying after being put away is simply assumed.
Now when we come to the new testament we see in the gospels that Jesus is preaching His new covenant and setting things back to a former order before these frivolous divorces came into the picture.
In Matthew 5 and Matthew 19 we see that Jesus has again shown that the marriage covenant is still conditional, and where a spouse was put away for fornication, adultery is not committed upon remarriage.
In Matthew 19:9, we see clearly that Jesus again is assuming remarriage when He says ‘and marry another’. It is simply assumed on His part that these are remarrying.
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.
(Mat 19:9)
(No, Jesus is not correcting their understanding of Deut 24:1-4 concerning sexual sin as some assert, but is instead correcting their MISrepresentation of Moses intent by twisting what Moses 'tolerated', fivolous putting away, into 'commandment' to do such. )
Notice that He doesnt just state “and shall commit adultery†but plainly shows a remarriage taking place (“marry anotherâ€Â).
When this situation arises, whether adultery is the case upon marrying another is contingent on why the former spouse was put away...ie ‘conditional’.
Jesus could simply have said ‘you cannot marry another’ if that were His intent and that statement would have cleared up a LOT of erroneous thought, but clearly our Lord does assume remarriage as well.
In no way is Jesus telling them that they are perpetually married to this spouse. He simply assigns guilt where Moses did not in the case of ‘for every cause’ divorcement, which is precisely what the Jews were doing, divorcing for every trivial reason, and exactly what He was asked about here in Matthew 19. It is also this context from which He speaks in the gospels concerning divorce and remarriage....a point that some would prefer you not be made aware of so they can condemn all divorce even where it is justified. He lets the pharisees know that, despite what they are used to getting away with, they are sinning even tho the law did not define any sin in their actions.
Moving ahead to Pauls writings on the matter of ending a marriage, we find ourselves in the book of 1 Corinthians, chapter 7.
Instead of adding huge amounts to this article or retying what we have already stated, see the following articles on our studies website...
Does the bible permit putting away a spouse for abuse?
1 Corinthians 7 Study
In that article you will see our logic used and why we believe that the believe does indeed have the authority to end a marriage in some cases.
Actually it is possible to end a marriage for ANY frivolous reason today, just like it was then, but the fact is that when we end a marriage without cause, unlike the old covenant, GUILT is assigned to this act when we remarry and Jesus words are completely true of this scenario that we do so from hardheartedness.
To be blameless before our Lord and to not be hardhearted, believers simply do not put away their spouse for no just cause.
Clearly physical abuse is a just reason, and we believe, as we show in that article, that putting away is actually the right of the believer where there is just cause to do so.
The other issue is abandonment by the unbeliever. Paul is quite clear, contrary to some, that the believer is not in bondage to this marriage where the unbeliever has deserted. A slave who is not in bondage has no master anymore...he is free indeed. And so the believer is also free to make the choice to remarry a believing spouse, or outside Gods desire yet another unbeliever, or to remain single if they so choose.
We end with our conclusions that in the cases of adultery, legitimate abuse or abandonment that the believer has the right of divorce (it is not compulsory, merely tolerated).
Where one has divorced either an unbeliever or a ‘makebeliever’* for these causes, remarriage would be assumed and permitted.
(*we say ‘makebeliever’ because Jesus says we know men by their fruits. Men who beat their wives and cheat on them may claim to be believers, but scripture shows that they are not His at all.)
In the case where both are TRUE believers as evidenced by their fruits, it is commanded of the Lord that they work out their differences and reconcile their marriage *IF* neither made the mistake of remarrying.
Paul says ‘remain Unmarried or reconcile’. He does not say to end a marriage to reconcile a previous one.
)