The Seriousness of the Sin of Remarriage after Divorce, part 7

This is a series of posts designed to convince people of the Biblical truth that remarriage after divorce is adultery and that the fact that the modern American Christian church has by-and-large rejected this teaching is proof that it is in a state of apostasy.  This article is the seventh in the series.  Click here to read the first article.

Already Married or Shot Gun Wedding?

What about a man and a woman who have already been living together or have already had sexual intercourse?  Break this down into two claims.  First one might claim that the man and woman are then really already married in God’s eyes.  This claim is false because there is nothing in the Bible to substantiate this and Jesus said, “…the man you now have is not your husband…” to the woman at the well (John 4:18).  Another variation would be to say that the man and the woman are not already married, but are obligated to be married because of what they have already done (i.e. a shot gun wedding doctrine).  Here is closest thing I could find about this:

Exodus 22:16-17 says,

If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (KJV) says,

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

(Both the 1984 and the 2011 NIV version of the above passage use the word “rapes” which I do not agree with.  But that interpretation is of no benefit for one arguing against me.) 

This argument is obviously false.  For one thing, a divorced woman is not a virgin. 

And again, we do not live under the laws of the Old Testament.  That laws against sexual acts in the Law of Moses carry over into the New Testament is something which may be indicated in Acts 15:29, 21:25.

Acts 15:28-29 says,

It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things…

Acts 21:25 says,

As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.

But these passages in Acts most definitely do not say that anything that is permitted under the Law of Moses is permitted for New Testament Christians!  And more to the point, it doesn’t say that an obligation (to marry) under Law of Moses is also a New Testament obligation.  Concerning sexual immorality, it is at most only saying that any sexual behavior that is prohibited under the Law of Moses is also prohibited for New Testament Christians.  The key word or phrase is “abstain” or “keep themselves from” (KJV).  It’s funny how some people would want part of Exodus 22:16-17 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29 to carry over into the New Testament, but they have no need to do so when it comes to paying 50 shekels of silver, getting the father’s permission, or that “he may not put her away all his days”.  Everybody always takes the more permissive part and ignores the rest.

Suppose the divorced woman and the man she is living with have children together.  Since the children belong to the father and since according to the Bible, the father is commanded to teach, discipline and take care of his children, then couldn’t the father marry the mother of his children so that he can obey these other biblical commandments?  No.  You could use the same argument to justify polyandry.  If the commandment against remarriage after divorce was not a moral absolute, then it would be a good argument.  But it is a moral absolute, so it isn’t a good argument.  It might be difficult for a father in this situation to fulfill the biblical commandments concerning parenthood without marrying the mother, but it is not impossible.

There are numerous other false exceptions such as physical abuse, alcoholism, etc.  This writing cannot address all of these issues, but suffice it to say that they are not scripturally supportable.  These are purely visceral arguments.  And remember that the issue of remarriage after divorce and the issue of what constitutes biblical grounds for divorce are two different issues.

Click here to read the conclusion of this series.