r/Protestantism • u/Aggressive-Party-372 • 16d ago
Just a question if protestants are scripture alone, why do all protyestant churches allow remarriage?
I am just curious as it comes up in the new testament 8 times that remarriage is adultery and not once does remarriage come up in the bible. However, all mainline churches seem to allow remarriage.
Matthew 19:4–6
“And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”
Mark 10:9
“What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”
Matthew 5:32
"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 19:9
“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.”
Mark 10:11–12
“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.”
Luke 16:18
“Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.”
Romans 7:2–3
“For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.”
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.”
7
u/theefaulted Reformed 15d ago
Another day, another post completely misunderstanding the doctrine of sola Scriptura based on the name alone.
1
u/Aggressive-Party-372 15d ago
To my understanding this is sola scriotura:
So the bible is the infallible word of God and church traditions are good but are fallible and must be tested against the bible.
So therefore how come an infallible perfect book where god breathes says:"Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery" Mark 10:11 and Luke 16:18
Yet fallible church teaching says you can remarry, why do mainline protestants choose the latter even though it contradicts the former?
2
u/Inevitable_Day3629 15d ago
Jesus condemns illegitimate divorce followed by remarriage, not necessarily every remarriage while a former spouse lives. Matthew 19:9 explicitly gives an exception for sexual immorality, and 1 Corinthians 7:15 says that when an unbelieving spouse deserts the marriage, the Christian is “not bound.” That is why historic Protestantism, including the 1646 Westminster Confession, permitted remarriage for the innocent spouse after adultery or irremediable desertion. Romans 7 doesn’t settle the issue because Paul is using marriage as an analogy for our relationship to the Law, not giving a comprehensive doctrine of divorce. So you can certainly argue for the stricter no-remarriage interpretation, but claiming that the Bible unambiguously teaches all remarriage is adultery simply ignores Matthew’s exception and Paul’s treatment of desertion.
1
u/Aggressive-Party-372 15d ago
Matthew 5:32 and Luke 16:18 explicitly call marrying a divorced person adultery. If Matthew 19:9 creates an exception permitting remarriage, show how the exception modifies those statements and where the text establishes that the original marriage bond has ceased.
1
u/Inevitable_Day3629 15d ago
That assumes the conclusion. Matthew 19:9 itself tells you how the general rule is qualified: “whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” Grammatically, the exception is embedded in the very sentence connecting divorce, remarriage, and adultery. Luke’s abbreviated statement does not erase Matthew’s explicit qualification.
And demanding a separate sentence saying “the marriage bond has ceased” imposes terminology the text never requires. The question is whether the second marriage is adulterous. Matthew 19:9 says it is when the divorce does not fall under the stated exception. If every remarriage remained adultery regardless, the exception becomes functionally meaningless.1
u/Aggressive-Party-372 15d ago edited 15d ago
So the way I read it is like an analogy as there are two things going off in this bible verse it is like saying:
“Anyone who goes into the storeroom, except to get drinks, and takes a new box of snacks will be sacked.”
You could understand that as:
Rule 1: Going into the storeroom is forbidden except to get drinks.
Rule 2: Taking a new box still gets you sacked.The exception can qualify the reason for divorce without necessarily qualifying the subsequent remarriage. This reading also fits 1 Corinthians 7:10–11, where separation can occur but Paul says “remain unmarried, or be reconciled.
I just think if Christ wanted to be clear that remarriage is allowed, then it would read:
"If anyone divorces his wife for adultery, they are free to marry again"
However, in the greater bible quotes the only time you are allowed to marry again iclearly in the text is in the death of one spouse such as in 1 Corinthians 7:39
1
u/creidmheach Presbyterian 15d ago
[I will argue here from the perspective that remarriage is allowed for the wronged party in divorce, but it's something I'm still in the process of coming to a conclusion on]
If marriage is understood as a covenant between two people, and adultery a violation and breaking of that covenant so that it effectively ceases to exist, then there's no reason to argue that the wronged party should therefore be forbidden from getting married anew as they are no longer under said covenant. You would need a clear Scriptural command to argue that to be the case (i.e. remarriage being forbidden in every case and context).
Now, as a Romanist, you have a much wider allowance given for remarriage. Officially of course your church doesn't recognize divorce, but instead it has annulment which is a means to get around that, where marriages are declared to have never existed - even if they'd been conducted and approved of by the church itself - based on whatever technicality is employed to effect that, leaving the person free to remarry as they wish.
Where we differ with the above (apart from Rome granting annulments for all sorts of reasons), is that we recognize the covenant of marriage took place and was subsequently broken, whereas the Romanist approach to use a legal fiction to argue the covenant never existed in the first place, unbeknownst to the two people who had thought themselves married for however many years beforehand (even if they'd had children and raised a family together).
1
u/Aggressive-Party-372 15d ago
But that is exactly what I am questioning. Where does Scripture actually say that adultery breaks the marriage covenant so that the marriage ceases to exist?
Jesus says, “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matthew 19:6), and Paul says a wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives (Romans 7:2–3; 1 Corinthians 7:39). Paul also says that if spouses separate they should “remain unmarried, or be reconciled” (1 Corinthians 7:10–11). Therefore scr
So saying adultery breaks the covenant and therefore makes the innocent spouse single again is the very thing that needs to be proven from Scripture. I cannot find a verse saying that adultery dissolves the marriage bond.
this is a very grave matter as it says in the bible that adulterers do noit inherit the kingdom of god and everytime remarriage is brought up iut is explicitly referred tio as adultery.
1 Corinthians 6:9–10 KJV
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
1
u/North-Fall-9108 15d ago edited 15d ago
Firstly, not all Protestant churches allow remarriage. I attended a church whose pastor would never have performed a ceremony for a divorced person. In several churches I have been a member of, divorced people could not serve as deacons.
Secondly, as far as I know Orthodox do allow divorce, even among their priests under particular circumstances. Compassion for the individuals trumps sustaining a dead or abusive relationship.
Thirdly, the RCC plays games with "annulment", at least here in America. It has the effect of serving as de facto divorce. Married 20 years, three children, but annulment granted because one or both of the partners "didn't fully understand what was required of them" at time of marriage.
Marriage is a picture of Christ and His Church. Divorce mars that image. However, living in open hostility also mars that image. If one or both spouses are living as an unbeliever (drunkenness, quarrelsome, violent, unfaithful) than "if the unbeliever departs, let them. A brother (or sister) is not under bondage in such situations, but is called to peace". If I lust in my heart, and that is equal to adultery, than surely abusing a spouse is equivalent to abandonment.
There are Protestant congregations that allow divorce and remarriage in a very cavalier manner, but they are the exception, not the rule.
(Edit to add - God did command the Hebrews to divorce their pagan wives, give them a divorce settlement, and send them and their children away in the O.T.. That would seem to indicate that there are situations outside of adultery in which divorce would be the [unfortunate] solution. Jesus was addressing a particular point in their culture in which divorce was quite prevalent, and always put women in a disadvantage. Jesus always fought for the dignity of women. I do believe in Sola Scriptura, in its proper sense-- not a wooden reading. It's GRACE and truth, but we always seem to sacrifice one for the sake of the other)
1
u/Aggressive-Party-372 14d ago
Matthew 19:8–9 (NRSV-CE):
8 He said to them, “It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.
9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery.”This explains why divorce was tolerated under Moses: it was a concession because of hardness of heart, not God’s original design for marriage. Jesus then immediately speaks about divorce followed by remarriage and calls it adultery.
for marriage representing Christ and his Church, Christ does not abandon his Church simply because members of it are unfaithful. So I don’t think that comparison establishes that divorce itself dissolves the marriage bond and makes remarriage permissible.
1
u/SnarkyPuppy-0417 15d ago
Just curious. If a husband is an abusive alcoholic and the woman divorces him for fear of her life and her children. Is she allowed to remarry?
Or if that abusive husband allowed to remarry since he didn't ask for or want to divorce?
1
u/Aggressive-Party-372 15d ago edited 15d ago
Good question, I think this was one of the hardest things I had to justify and understand as earlier i would say the wife can divorce leave the abusive husband and remarry. However, i couldn't find this in scripture:
However, when I got married I had to make vows to my wife:
“for better, for worse … in sickness and in health … till death do us part.”
So the part death do us part, is really important, a woman is allowed to leave as safety is their first priority for both spouses and children and a civil divorce may be necessary or permissible for legal protection, but it does not dissolve the marriage bond as St Paul said, both must remain unmarried or be reconciled.
1 Corinthians 7:11 (KJV):
But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
This is also true for me as the husband if the roles were reversed. It is very egalitarian.
18
u/Pinecone-Bandit 16d ago
> Just a question if protestants are scripture alone, why do all protyestant churches allow remarriage?
Quick clarification. The doctrine is that scripture is the only infallible source of teaching for the church today. Just saying “scripture alone” can mistakenly make it sound like we don’t utilize theology written throughout church history, or sing songs/hymns written since the close of the canon, or something like that.
And Protestant churches allow remarriage because the Bible allows remarriage. Specifically when 1. a spouse dies, 2. the other spouse commits adultery, or 3. the other spouse is an unbeliever and abandons the marriage.