Divorce and Remarriage?
“What God has joined, no man can separate.” Mark 10:7-12.
Divorce and remarriage. In today’s culture, they almost run hand in hand. In the mind of the secular world this may be acceptable; but what about the Christians who do it? We should know, as followers of Christ, that divorce and remarriage is unacceptable. Starting in the Old Testament, we read in Malachi 2:14-16 that divorce is loathed by the Lord. But most Christians are only familiar with with the newer text of the Bible. So let’s proceed in the New Testament and see what God has spoken about divorce and remarriage.
Jesus gives a sermon in Matthew 5:32-33, disclosing to us that to divorce and remarry is adultery. Pretty heavy message. Christ relays this message in Matthew 19:4-6, 9. To divorce and remarry is adultery according to Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18.
But why?
Back to Mark 10:7-12. We see that what God has instated, no man shall separate. To understand the fruition of this sacrament, please read article Matrimony. As for now, let’s see what God has joined which no man is to separate. We see in the book of Genesis and Matthew 19:5-6 that a man is to leave his father, find a wife, and become one flesh. In divorce, how is man to separate one flesh and become two again? This goes against the nature of unity, of the oneness that God has given to us. This is why if a spouse separates they are to remain single (1 Corinthians 7:10-11). To further understand the institution of one flesh of marriage, please read article Trinity, section “Man: Made in the Image of God, the Trinity”.
Divorce under any circumstance other than rape, incest, or coercion, is not allowed by God. If a man or woman’s spouse has an affair, it is not grounds for divorce. If they do divorce, any spouse that remarries commits adultery. Jesus says, “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery” and “But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.” In proper context and translation, Jesus says “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness [Greek porneia], and marries another woman commits adultery [Greek moichatai].” Notice that unlawfulness [porneia] is not the same as adultery [moichatai]. If Christ wanted to say that divorce was permissible over adultery, he would have said moichatai, not porneia.
The only exception in remarriage is if your spouse is deceased (Romans 7:2-3).
Christ said, “Blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it.” Luke11:28.
Your’s,
Drew Castel
There is a total injustice in the Catholic Church’s modern approach to marriage and divorce.
Let’s start with those Christians married in churches other than the Catholic Church. If either partner is divorced, that man or woman can remarry a Catholic since any nuptials outside Catholicism are not considered as full marriages. So a divorced person who becomes a Catholic is entitled to partake of the full sacraments.
What about those who are not married but live together as common law partners? Neither has ever gone through a marriage ceremony, civil or religious, yet if Catholic both can partake of the Sacraments even should they separate.
My third example is Catholic couple who after many years of marriage, one partner is deserted by the other who is in an adulterous relationship. A divorce ensues and the partner who is not at fault is punished by the Church for being divorced even though he or she was never the perpetrator in the first place.
Only under strict circumstances will the Church grant an annulment of a Catholic marriage, but not under these circumstances.
My penultimate example is modern society itself. Those who are not married, never married, and single have every right to sleep around should they desire and use contraception. Yet in spite of the Church’s abhorrence of such practices, one priest once remarked that no woman in his entire ministry had ever confessed to using contraception.
Finally, the Church does not tolerate homosexuality in spite of modern laws allowing civil marriages between same sex partners. However, should either partner be a Catholic, the Church does not recognise that union and admits any such Catholic to the Sacraments.
So where is the justice?
There is only one answer for me, and it comes from John 4, the Samaritan woman at the well. Jesus told her that there had been six “husbands” in her life, and the man she was living with now was not her husband. We assume from the language that Jesus was admonishing her. I think not. I ask myself “What would Jesus do?” God is about love and forgiveness. Surely that is what Jesus would do. He would forgive her and give her a second chance.
Isn’t it time we gave repentant divorcees a second chance?
I am sorry that you feel that way. But I cannot contend with you over doctrinal teachings of non-Catholic faith, but actual scriptural teachings of the Bible that the Catholic Church endorses. I cannot further emphasize the teaching of the Bible than what I had already produced in my short essay Divorce and Remarriage?. I can only further plea that what God has bound cannot be unbound by man which is infallibly stated in the passages of Mark 10:7-12. It is impetuous and irrational to deny the words spoken by Christ concerning marriage and divorce. The formal word for those who go against Biblical teaching, which is universal law for all Christianity, is heresy.
I see that you have raised the issue of Protestant vs Catholic marriage and all the variations in-between. The Church does not deny the sacrament of Holy Communion to anyone, whether Catholic espoused to a Protestant, a Catholic divorcée, or a Catholic living in the sin due to premarital conjugation. The Church however, is concerned for the wellbeing of Her people. It is such that a person unrepentant of their sin is to stand down from the consumption of the Holy Communion, as 1 Corinthians 11:28 states. And annulments are allowed due to adultery, which Christ promulgates.
The Church has done its best in cushioning this hard commandment that has been lain by Jesus Christ. No where in the Bible is annulment alluded to. But the power to annul has been delegated to the Church when Christ commended to His disciples the power to bind and loosen in Matthew 18:18-19 which mirrors Isaiah 22:22.
I know by communal experience that the Church allows the remarriage of the innocent divorcée divorced by an concupiscent spouse. Again, under the pretense of licentiousness, will the Church accept annulment. And the marriage in which I know of, neither party were married in the Catholic Church or were Catholics themselves but later converted.
We cannot take the notions of current events of modern society as rules in which we govern our life. God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, according to Hebrews 13:8. This means His law stands without the sway nor the blemish of time. Society doesn’t dictate morality and ethics, God does. Your notion of polygamy, “Those who are not married, never married, and single have every right to sleep around should they desire” is abhorrent.
As for the concerns of contraception, do you realize that all of Christianity, not just Catholicism, found it detestable to use as you do thinking it is abhorrent to not use? My question to you, since the use of contraception is permissible to your standards, is what was Onan’s sin in which God took his life in Genesis 38:9-10? It can’t be that he neglected to rear a child in honor of his late brother’s name because Deuteronomy 25:5-10 states that he never was obligated to engage in matrimony, hence he would forgo bearing children. What was Onan’s sin than? It may come as a surprise to you that contraception remained unsanctioned by all factions of Christian communions until the Anglican Lambeth Conference in 1930. The founder of Protestantism, Martin Luther, loathed contraception. This is declared in his Lectures on Genesis: Chapter 38-44; 1544, which states, “Onan must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel. This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery.” Martin Luther understood that contraception incurred more than temporal pleasure of an empirical sense; he equivocates it with disgrace, maliciousness, atrocity, adultery, even incest. The strongest advocate of perpetuating the Protestant faith into vitality was John Calvin whom also despised contraception. John Calvin writes in his Commentary on Genesis that, “It is a horrible thing to pour our seed besides the intercourse of a man and woman…. This means that one quenches the hope of his family and kills his son, which could be expected, before he is born. Moreover he [Onan] thus has, as much as was in his power, tried to destroy a part of the human race. When a woman in some way drives away the seed out of the womb, through aids, then this is rightly seen as an unforgivable crime”.
The Catholic Church does not have to yield its religious practices due to the government or society in which it dwells, whether it be polygamy or homosexuality – which the Bible states is an abomination to God – lest you negate the rules of ‘separation of Church and state’. The Church does not have to recognize a civil contract no more than a state or government has to recognize marriage. Will the state or government acknowledge a strictly religious marriage which negates the civil contract? If you say yes, than I would ask why the government doesn’t recognize Jehovah Witness polygamous marriages.
Sexual orientation is not so much of a sin but evolves into a sin once committed; i.e. if a man is naturally attracted to a woman but does not lust for her, he does not sin. This is because he chastises his mind and body for purity and God. If another man is attracted to another man but does not lust for him, he does not sin. This is because he chastises his mind and body for purity and God. Temptation is not a sin, giving in to temptation is a sin. People who live an active homosexual lifestyle are in mortal sin just as a heterosexual adulterer would be. Again, the Church, endorsing the Bible, asks these citizens to stand down from Holy Communion according to 1 Corinthians 11:28.
As for your plea about the Samaritan woman, know that no scripture is for our personal interpretation, stated in 2 Peter 1:20. And yes, the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is about love and forgiveness. But His law stands, and no one should break it and make a mockery of God, as seen in Galatians 6:7. Jesus just affirmed that the woman had five husbands and the man she was with now was not a husband. The Bible passage in context shows that Jesus accepts her as a Samaritan, not an adulterer. This is the issue when the woman asks why Jesus is civil, or more so hospitable toward her in John 4:7-15. What you don’t realize is that Jesus is the Living Water which will replace the Samaritans stagnant water of the well. Further, her five husbands are a reference of idolatry [which always places a thing higher than God and His law, which in this case is her polygamous husbands] found in 2 Kings 17:24-31. Seconds Kings conveys to us the story of the Samaritans, a lineage of people whom divided their gods into five, known as baal, which is Hebrew for “lord” and “husband”. But Christ came, casting all these five entities aside and espoused the Samaritan, in a purely spiritual communion. In this, Jesus has fulfilled the new leadership of being a husband found in Hosea 2:16-20, 3:29. How peculiar that those who found their true husband, appointed by God, was at the well, as in Genesis 24:10-67, 29:1-30, and Exodus 2:15-21. Jesus was showing her truth, not commending her nor insinuating a tolerance for sin.
A second chance has been given to divorcées of adultery. The Church, given Her authority, has been most generous in lightening this commandment implemented by our Lord Jesus Christ via the Bible. In your exhortation I see that you call into account the Catholic Church’s pontiff. The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, as your Bible will indicate in 1 Timothy 3:15.
Brother, the best way to interpret the Bible is using the Bible.
Truly and respectfully yours,
Drew Castel.