What's the deal with Chritian divorcees remarrying?

[seeking the truth]

Not understanding why when Jesus wrote Luke 16:18 is a very bold, straightforward saying that seems to settle the issue quickly: "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and whoever marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery". Both divorce and remarriage are just plain wrong—right?

But then there's this:

Corinthians 7:8-9 (NASB) But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

So which is it?

 

[columbus]

So which is it?

It seems to me that the one attributed to Jesus would at least take precedence.
But they are not really contradictory. Paul isn't addressing divorce.
Tom

 

[seeking the truth]

Good point! Some christians are saying that when they divorce then become born again and realize their mistakes they they are forgiven, has a clean slate then can remarry under the grace of Jesus?

 

[jonathan180iq]

We don't live in the Jewish Middle East, 2,000 years ago... That seems pretty clear to me.

 

[columbus]

Good point! Some christians are saying that when they divorce then become born again and realize their mistakes they they are forgiven, has a clean slate then can remarry under the grace of Jesus?

Christians are pretty good at rationalizing away the parts of Jesus's Message they find inconvenient.
I have been struck by the irony of multiply married and divorced Christians complaining about the destruction of the family caused by gay people getting married.
Tom

 

[Desert Snake]

Not understanding why when Jesus wrote Luke 16:18 is a very bold, straightforward saying that seems to settle the issue quickly: "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and whoever marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery". Both divorce and remarriage are just plain wrong—right?

But then there's this:

Corinthians 7:8-9 (NASB) But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

So which is it?

If you divorced your wife, then you should not get remarried. /that's pretty clear/. There is an action there, the man is divorcing the wife, it isn't just ''divorce'', in general. Sometimes divorce is necessary, this verse is not meant to make things worse for people /by staying married/.
The second part of your question isn't even the same inference/in meaning, from the first.

 

[seeking the truth]

Meaning if you divorce your wife then you have to saty single for the rest of your days?

 

[Desert Snake]

Meaning if you divorce your wife then you have to saty single for the rest of your days?

Unless you had an extremely good reason for divorcing your wife, yes. Note the action there, and specific implied meaning.

'Divorce' is not an implied mutual agreement. This verse /the wisdom of Scripture/, is very apt for the varying divorce laws by culture/country

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you divorced your wife, then you should not get remarried. /that's pretty clear/. There is an action there, the man is divorcing the wife, it isn't just ''divorce'', in general. Sometimes divorce is necessary, this verse is not meant to make things worse for people /by staying married/.
The second part of your question isn't even the same inference/in meaning, from the first.

Except Jesus never bothers to ban polygamy, and Paul only argues against it for presbyters, so apparently it isn't the "remarriage" part that's the problem; it's divorce and remarriage together.

Nothing that Jesus or Paul say in the Bible suggest any problem with remarrying if you don't divorce your first wife.

 

[Godobeyer]

Meaning if you divorce your wife then you have to saty single for the rest of your days?

Yes.
I understand it that way!
But why suppose Jesus( pbuh) said such weird thing! I don't believe he said that.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Not understanding why when Jesus wrote Luke 16:18 is a very bold, straightforward saying that seems to settle the issue quickly: "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and whoever marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery". Both divorce and remarriage are just plain wrong—right?

Jesus comments on Deuteronomy 24. First, the whole reason for the law of divorce matters in this case, as Jesus is commenting on it. One reason it is there is to prevent enslavement through marriage. It says (short summary) the man must release the wife if he doesn't love her. You must first read this law and understand what its about. You don't seem to have a grasp about the particulars. Because of that you also don't know whether Jesus is condemning divorce or not. Long story short...a divorced person can remarry of you are just going by Luke and by the Bible -- although not necessarily according to traditional church authorities. If you want someone to tell you what to think, they will.

But then there's this:

Corinthians 7:8-9 (NASB) But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

So which is it?

Corinthians 7:8-9 is speaking about men who are betrothed during a time of crisis. It involves the laws surrounding betrothal. They are confused, because on one hand they aren't supposed to get married if they can't be a good husband, but on the other hand they have promised to get married. (This interpretation is based on my opinion of Deut 24:5, which I think Paul is also commenting on.)

 

[Desert Snake]

Except Jesus never bothers to ban polygamy, and Paul only argues against it for presbyters, so apparently it isn't the "remarriage" part that's the problem; it's divorce and remarriage together.

...

Nothing that Jesus or Paul say in the Bible suggest any problem with remarrying if you don't divorce your first wife.

Yes, agree. Perhaps you misunderstood my statements

 

[Desert Snake]

Yes.
I understand it that way!
But why suppose Jesus( pbuh) said such weird thing! I don't believe he said that.

It's only weird if you don't understand what He is saying

 

[Godobeyer]

It's only weird if you don't understand what He is saying

I am waiting for that explaination

 

[columbus]

It's only weird if you don't understand what He is saying

But like a vast majority of scripture, from genesis to Quran, it isn't really possible to understand it if you aren't familiar with the culture in which it was written. Parsing deep meaning out of a turn of a phrase or an idiomatic reference the original audience would get, but modern people don't have a clue about, causes all kinds of problems.
Modern people, for instance, don't know a thing about what a Samaritan was to a Jew 2000 years ago. But it matters a lot to the meaning of the parable to the audience of the day.
Tom

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

Not understanding why when Jesus wrote Luke 16:18 is a very bold, straightforward saying that seems to settle the issue quickly: "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and whoever marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery". Both divorce and remarriage are just plain wrong—right?

But then there's this:

Corinthians 7:8-9 (NASB) But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

So which is it?

It was meant to address the hardness of men that throw away their singular wife or play games in which case a woman could do as well that's why both cross each other or cancel out. And Jesus used both as examples. Cruelty is probably the best one, usury, or swapping person for person also shows/possess hardening of heart to their end (while the opposite Good shows/possess...................) or also having intent to harden the others heart, why and what for? Honesty is still necessary in these cases. But at the end when it gets brought we usually find lots of accusations and lying on one side why the other may have some too and true. I would give to a church that tries really hard not to make poor judgments on this or advices. This is usually where people like to sue at the law and bring it before God at the same time while others would not want to harm the other in the least bit. Anyways, No person is truly stuck in a redundancy hardness might as well call it a none marriage or even a uncommitted relationship eventually when the intent to harden or they may have already pride fully harden their hearts. That's why he mention Moses because Moses couldn't even change their harden hearts, so Moses suffered on the grounds to allow divorce. Why? because people can be jerks! Jesus is saying I will look at both ends. Paul spoke on the grounds of strange practices in the area, that might demotivate them from "church". Which is not the case, many have not, and have saved themselves with guidance of course from the Holy Spirit.- From wolf-ing which doesn't mean that lack of marriage or a committed relationship makes anyone better, as we saw with Paul himself. Also ironically someone can try to pull a fast one with church to guilt trip someone when they weren't really with a genuine feeling of a committed relationship they just want to use the church to substitute it or justify it at the end. It may not free them of it if that's the motive but in cases people have a abused then that area where church is; actual people going into marriage, tried to leverage against someone when their heart was harden or agenized prior. Some people and parishes and such have gotten a little smarter and aren't always falling for that but that also means that other cases it maybe different. Believe they are not all that "stupid." It makes it easier one day to have truth and forgive even if you already had.

 

[Desert Snake]

But like a vast majority of scripture, from genesis to Quran, it isn't really possible to understand it if you aren't familiar with the culture in which it was written. Parsing deep meaning out of a turn of a phrase or an idiomatic reference the original audience would get, but modern people don't have a clue about, causes all kinds of problems.
Modern people, for instance, don't know a thing about what a Samaritan was to a Jew 2000 years ago. But it matters a lot to the meaning of the parable to the audience of the day.
Tom

Only partly true. The statement presented in the original argument /the verses/, are completely relevant to modern circumstances. The problem is bad inference, not what is being said. The Bible actually does explain a lot of that material, it just may be in another book.

 

[Desert Snake]

I am waiting for that explaination

Try reading my comments again?

 

[columbus]

The statement presented in the original argument /the verses/, are completely relevant to modern circumstances.

I don't think this is true.
By the standards of the day, women were chattel. Jesus's standards were an improvement. So were Mohammed's.
Today's cultural standards are different and better. If you find yourself married to a violent criminal or serious drug addict, grabbing the kids and filing for divorce are the responsible way to go.
The fact that this wasn't mentioned in the Bible is because Biblical standards and morality are primitive.
Tom

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

I don't think this is true.
By the standards of the day, women were chattel. Jesus's standards were an improvement. So were Mohammed's.
Today's cultural standards are different and better. If you find yourself married to a violent criminal or serious drug addict, grabbing the kids and filing for divorce are the responsible way to go.
The fact that this wasn't mentioned in the Bible is because Biblical standards and morality are primitive.
Tom

how are mohammed's improvement?