How does God view Remarriage? MDR

I have called the title by an acronym to admit that this area of controversy is old and divisive. I derive my views on this from group study, and not individual research. Inasmuch as the Bible certifies the authority of elders, a qualified elder led the discussion, in presence of other elders.

MDR stands for M(arriage D(ivorce) and R(emarriage.) I have set precedent for the practice of using abstract "constructs," to give shape and context to verse by verse study. Earlier constructs are the Holy Spirit, and Perfection. The construct is given in my own words, the verses later investigated exhaustively. I will take license here to plagiarize God's wisdom so that I can be disagreed with, and not commit the moral blackmail of commandeering his authority with his wisdom.

Consider that it is governmentally legal to divorce in many contexts. God is on record as saying "I hate divorce." However, if you divorce for whatever divorceable reason you divorce, the Lord does not withhold the option of remaining single the rest of your life. There will be spiritual consequences, [we may investigate them if it seems to be short enough,] but the act and behavior does not mathematically eliminate one from salvation.

Under the old testament, God directed Moses to authorize divorce. Mt 19:
[3] The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
[4] And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
[5] 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?
[6] Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
[7] They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
[8] He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
[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.

Points worth noting explicitly are: 1. Marriage is instituted by God from the Garden of Eden, not a recent Governmental gambit of any earthly nation. 2. Remarriage can result in adultery.

In Mt 5:
[31] It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
[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.

...in the middle of the Sermon on the Mount, pretty much hard on the heels of the beatitudes, Jesus denotes the party that bears the brunt of the blame. The man that divorces his wife "causes her to commit adultery." If infidelity on her part is taken for granted after divorce, she is viewed as a weaker vessel, not exempt from condemnation. He also specifies the exception to the rule: Except it be for fornication. We have only recently (last entry) observed that fornication is a misunderstood word; some people enlarge it to include masturbation. I'll specify, and you may research it. Fornication INCLUDES adultery, and any immorality committed out of wedlock; heterosexual indiscretions, bestiality, and various homosexualities. It would be wrong to say it was committed "outside the body," 1 Cor 6:
[18] Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
...denotes that God regards fornication to be different from all other sins in being against one's own body. Please see previous entry for any questions about fornication with regard to masturbation.

How do we establish the conditions that govern the emotionally embroiling exception? The clear winner for elegance (in the mathematical sense of that term,) is careful attention to the term "bound." Ro 7:
[2] 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.
[3] 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.

...and 1 Cor 7:
[25] Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.
[26] I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be.
[27] Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.
[28] But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.
[29] But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;

...the Apostle Paul works within the confines of the same construct "bound." To be explicit, the Corinthian passage was written to a congregation of the Lord's Church that was weak at the time, and the admonition is specific to the time frame before Jerusalem fell in 70 CE. [In this world of woes, Christians won the battle to set convention back in the Julian and Gregorian days. More recently we have lost, and it is incumbent on us to keep "Christian Era," alive, while it fights a competitive battle with the more Politically Correct "Common Era."] The salient point is that the covenant of marriage lasts while the husband lives. It ends on his death and she is bound to him first, with all exceptions applying accordingly.

Premarital indiscretions are not sufficient basis for divorce: the Mt 19:9 exception does not contradict 1 Cor 7:
[36] But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.

...never mind the obvious paradox in making a covenant with a person who is willing to be forthcoming about premarital indiscretions but cannot obtain actual commitment from a potentially innocent party who is willing to make the vow.

Baptism does not reset the MDR clock; 1 Cor 7:
[10] 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.
[12] But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
[13] And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
[14] For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
[15] But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
[16] For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?

...Paul is addressing the circumstance of newly converted souls [and such were some of you.] Bottom line verse 15: If the unbelieving depart, let him depart. The believer is not bound [obligated] to follow them around and "render due benevolence," if the spouse does not choose to serve the Lord.

The marriage vow is a subset of vows; a unique case. The marriage vow traditionally ends on death alone. We have talked about the consequences of broken vows in general in "Have we trials and temptations." To generalize, it is important to have a clear ending condition on a vow, in order to avoid bad consequence when it is no longer pertinent. Ending conditions that cause careful consideration without being prohibitive are: shaving the head; a tattoo below the panty line or drawers; shaving the pubic area which would correctly be observable only by the spouse. Since it is an oath that calls on God as witness and arbiter, attention should be given to choosing and obeying the wording. There are traditional ones as pump primers, but I wouldn't want to use a Vegas special.

In invoking the exception of (by application) adultery (but not excluding homosexuality and bestiality,) Christians will use evidence that can be presented to witnesses, not rumor and innuendo.

Please research the Lord's word exhaustively for your own benefit, and "work out your own salvation in fear and trembling." per Phil 2:12. The great temptation for Church goers, in context of this topic, is to judge eternal outcomes before the Lord has had a chance to weigh in. Dis-fellowship [what the Catholics call ex-communication,] is not irreversible or indicative of final salvation status. It is for a purpose and is a disciplinary measure of last resort. I personally distinguish it from obedience to the Ro 16:
[17] Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
[18] For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

...admonition to mark those who cause envy and strife. I estimate that "marking," is a command that can be implemented brotherhood wide, and not limited to a single congregation.

I hope I haven't overlooked any really obvious point. I'll reiterate that [although I am not sure,] I expect to be notified on email of comments. Comments will inform future postings and be visible to other readers. I am open to discussion about content on email if you know it, and the posting can be modified to better reflect God's axioms as dictated to Bible authors.