Divorce?

[Petro]

whitehorse,
I didn't say I disagreed with everything you posted;

But Jesus wasn't saying it was okay not to be able to accept His teaching. What He was saying, is that some couldn't, and if they can't, they should not put themselves in a position to sin

Can't is a word which is closely associated with the word won't.
Usually when children disobey there father or mother, it is because they won't, it is a matter of the will, because it has to do with obeying fathers word, not that they can't.
The fact is they can, but they do not want to.
Do you see it this way at all?
Blessings,
Petro

Petro,
Isa.1:19 I can see what you are saying and in my experience that is true. I'll see something I am unwilling to do and camp there, until the Lord in His wisdom moves me on to a place that I am willing. Sometimes the road is hard so now when I see something that I need to do and I recognize it as the flesh that is resisting, saying it's impossible, I persist in seeking God's will. This is better than going through a lot of "tederizing". He will prevail! amen?
rapha4u

rapha4u,

Amen and don't feel las if you are alone.

I have rope burn on my bowed neck myself....

Life would be much easier if we just simply quit fighting the tether, God wants to keep us  on the straight and narrow path, because He knows what is best for us.

I never understood the argument Christians always put forth, rejecting Gods sovereignty, either His Spirit works in Us to will and to do of His good pleasure or it doesn't.  

Those that believe this, also know that it began long before we came to trust His Word, and had it not been for His drawing no one would ever come to Him.

But I am glad you see something, which may add to your understanding of His word, afterall isn't this the reason why we study and read it.

Not only to hear, it but do it.

Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it.



God Bless,

Petro

[Symphony]

Thank you, Petro.

Marriage is a wonderful thing.

But its' vows, it's promises, it's love, are what make it wonderful.


What we see is society increasingly attmepting to change and revise those vows and promises--to dilute them, water them down.  

Marriage becomes a contrivance, an inconvenience, an imposition.

Or an arrangement to achieve material benefit or acceptance--as the gay movement views it.

The human race as we know it, is under deliberate and deadly attack.  The foes are not kidding around.  Marriage is an obvious--and possibly the most important--target.

[Petro]

Thank you, Petro.

Marriage is a wonderful thing.

But its' vows, it's promises, it's love, are what make it wonderful.


What we see is society increasingly attmepting to change and revise those vows and promises--to dilute them, water them down.  

Marriage becomes a contrivance, an inconvenience, an imposition.

Or an arrangement to achieve material benefit or acceptance--as the gay movement views it.

The human race as we know it, is under deliberate and deadly attack.  The foes are not kidding around.  Marriage is an obvious--and possibly the most important--target.

symph,

Amen,  it was only one generation back, when a hand shakle was as good as done.

Oaths today doesn't mean beans.

Imagine if the President can sware and oath to tell the whole truth, and then answer a question while under that oath, with a bare face lie, and get away with it, and there is no outrage from the people, that tells you the state of affairs of the people that elected him in this country.

Thats a reflection of our first family.

An Dan Rather still  had nerve to say the man was basicly honest.    

Amazing...............

Any way, I am with you, I think thats exactly what scriture teaches, and that is the reason why the country is going downhill fast.

People want god and the name God out of governement, and then complain, "Why does God allow these things to happen to us??

We know why??

Blessings, to you,

Petro

 

[Symphony]

Thank you, Petro....

[Whitehorse]

Can't is a word which is closely associated with the word won't.

 


Ahem.  Sorry.  Couldn't resist.

Anyway, isn't the whole divorce question summed up in the simple statement:  "Unless our spouse dies any remarriage is adultery." ??


sorry.  I don't mean to be mean here.    Isn't this sorta just the case?

That depends on whether or not you want to accept what Jesus said. Yes. Divorce is out of the question in all cases except two, according to scripture. And the "except for marital unfaithfulness" is right smack in the middle of the sentence. If you feel Jesus was wrong, then that is your decision. But then, you would be saying that Jesus was wrong.

But that is my issue here. And people are acting like if I don't agree with them, then I'm somehow advocating convenience and temporality, which isn't the case.

But the truth is, I'm taking issue with the concept of placing more merit in personal opinion than God's holy word and omnipotent authority. Please understand, I'm not accusing you of this, of course; I'm just explaining to you. That is what gets me boiling mad.

Because, I see pagans and witches putting their own opinions over God's every day, and one could expect it from them, because they reject Christ. But sometimes they're looking for a way out of that. They sometimes want the truth.

Now, I'm not talking about you here, Symphony. Please understand that. I'm taking issue with a general problem: when a Christian places personal opinion over God's very clear word, now that is what makes all these unbelievers I witness to say they want nothing with "organized religion." It gives them every excuse to deny God because of all the believers they know that are doing it, too. Or they make up their own rules about TV or grape juice versus wine and say that people are in "sin" if they do not submit to these rules that are not found in the Bible. Now, sinful TV is something else. Getting drunk is something else. These things are sin. God is God and we are not.

And so it gives these unbelieving people every excuse to accuse the saints of hypocrisy.

And there's the spirit of condescention and degradation. It makes it so clear to these unbelievers that God's people are not submitted to God's word at all. And it's driving these nonChristians away from Christ, it is leaving them disillusioned, it is the very essence of having a form of worship but denying the power thereof. And people are losing their eternal souls over it.

It's very rare when I get this angry, but I love the people I minister to. I don't want them to go to hell, and if they do, I don't want it to be on account of our family in Christ. And I certainly don't want my dear brothers and sisters in Christ to have to face judgment for these things, either. That's why I'm angry.

[Reba]

I have never seen a passage of scripture saying marring a divorced person  ok. If any one here has please post em.

Do i believe remarriage is unforgivable NO.

 We have to many scriptures tell us of His forgivness.  The wages of sin is death, in divorce some thing dies. All to often it is the children who suffer the most. Children living daily with out Dad. Divorce,  the act of divorce says to me God can not heal this relationship. The couple who divorce live with the conquences of their actions. Sorta the same as the fat girl lives with the conquences of glutteny forgiven but fat.

Other christians should do their best to support marriage. I know this wife has been guilty of, having coffee talking about who has the worst hubby, Not very Christlike. Divorced christians need tons of prayer and support we so often kill our wounded.

[Symphony]

Okay.  I've read through most all of this thread again, including your posts, carefully, Whitehorse.  Thank you.

Whitehorse, your concern, and perhaps Sower's here, is that we hastily paint divorce with too broad a brush, thereby even slandering, judging, incriminating or otherwise alienating those who are divorced--for whatever reason--and furthermore risking the loss of their/our souls.

For the Christian growing in Christ, just the issue for him/herself, without ever getting involved himself, is a certain test enough--the temptation being to launch into a condemning tyrade of how evil everyone is.  It goes right to the nexus of how to be alive in Christ without gloating over the contrast this creates--a very human and typical temptation.

Actually, the central question here isn't about divorce at all, since we are all agreed that divorce is at least permitted.

The central question here is about re-marriage.

While there may not be a specific verse outlining this, the general upshot, intent, and "spirit" of those verses approaching it--from both Paul and our Lord--and others perhaps, not to mention just the underlying definition of the word "marriage" in the first place(that is, "...the two become one flesh..."), indicate that marriage is forever(in the same way that "diamonds are forever"(in fact, that's the title of a James Bond movie, even amidst all the adultery and fornication of a James Bond movie ).

Add to this still further, "...he that even looketh on a woman lustfully hath committed adultery with her in his heart..."(Mtt 5:28).


...and you have a general defnintion of this "animal" called "marriage", that it is a hot potato that does allow a safety valve(called "divorce"), but, because of its definition, recognizes no compromise(re-marriage).  Shucks!  You can't even THINK about a woman and darn it! You've committed adultery!!!

So that's just how "sensitive", or discreet, or hallowed, the very idea of marriage itself, really is.

But, as Whitehorse and perhaps Sower are wanting to, very understandbly, prevent, or discourage, we many times immediately take that out to the wood shed and take the glory of it all out on the poor, unbelieving, or unsuspecting, or unknowing, or vulnerable, or ignorant, or unaware, "sinner".

And we go off gloating in our Christian self-righteousness.

[Petro]

Before anyone comes to Faith in the Word of God, they must see themselves as God sees them, and God does show them that they are sinners, they must repentance, and not just feel sorry, but a heartfelt contrite repentance of the heart.

So, if someone becomes a Christian by Gods grace, he understands what repentance means and also, what he has been saved from, and of course wants to live a pleassing life to God in Christ subjected to the Spirit of Grace.

Christians will sin, and the scriptures asure us we have an advocate who interceds at the throne of grace, Jesus.

I know that in this day and age, there are many teachings, that christians find offensive, and there are churches that won't preach them, because they divide and insult people, whether it be visitors or the congregation, especially in this area of identifying and pointing out sin.

This may be one of the reasons, why unlearned or young christians  divorce and remarry without giving it much thought, sometimes this is do to there misunderstanding that if they just si9mply belong to a congregation and do what the church requires of them, everything else will take care of itself,

It may also be do, because the mature Christians do not spend time discipling or mentoring them, in godly living, I am not saying this is the principle reason, but I remember speaking once to a reverend , who admitted to me, he did not believe a principle doctrine his denomination espoused in their articles of faith, and when I asked him, how he dealt with it as far as preaching or teaching it, he answered simply by stating well we do  not discuss it because it divides.

Imagine that?  Not being able to preach or teach the entire gospel because it insults some.

I know its insulting to preach the sinfulness of sin in this day an age, but unfortunately it is essential both in the presentation of the Gospel and as a matter of course in the teaching of it.

The teaching of divorce was never taught by the word of God at all,

All Jesus said was that Moses allowed it, but it was never  to be, from the begining.

And because Moses allowed to put a wife away for fornication, you can divorce if you won't forgive her.

That is what the verses we have discussed teach. Pure and simple.

Yes, the blood of Jesus will cover a multitude of sin, anyone who divorces, especially Christians, should be made to know divorce  is not Gods will, and neither is re marriage, He desires reconciliation, because Christians are ministers of reconciliation.

The idea is not to condemn them but to try and reconcile them, anb if they won't reconcile for what ever reason, they should be instructed that the Lord wants to remain single.

But how many pastors teach this things?, hard to say, if the divorce rate is this high within the church, one of two things, either the leaders are not speaking pout against it, or the christians simply don't feel like doing it Gods way.

Marriage is lifelong commitment..

Blessings,

Petro

[Whitehorse]

Symphony, thank you. You did hit a lot of things that concern me.

I guess the big thing for me is taking authority over God Himself. It's like looking outside at the stars, planets, and endless universe and, as a finite li'l human being, claiming authority over it's Maker. Very serious business.

When someone changes the word of God, or distorts it, or reapplies parts of it in ways that weren't meant, and then says, "This is what God says." That is how every error begins. There's a lawlessness to it that is absolutely horrifying.

And I think you're right; the spirit of pride comes because if the person is not submitted to God Himself, then who are they submitted to? What is the philosophy behind this?

And then imagine when that pride is inflicted upon someone who walks into the church. Maybe they've made some bad decisions, they admit it, and they need someone to gently show them how to get life back on track. Not from a Super Christian, for there is no such thing, but from a fellow believer who likewise has weaknesses and tendencies, but greater maturity and self-control. Someone who is blameless and sanctified.

It's when we don't truly see the sin in our hearts that we become unsubmitted to God, and abuse the hurting, the lost, people disillusioned. It was the publican who acknowledged his wickedness that went away justified before God, not the Pharisee.

But that aside, God's word needs to be God's word.

As for remarriage, absolutely. Marriage is a covenant, but also a type for the union of Christ with his people. So, remarriage under this understanding is a very serious offense indeed. Jesus does not forsake His people and marry another. If not His bride, who would He be marrying? And this is what we testify when we marry another while our spouses are still alive. We are pointing, in our ceremony, to a future event and how it will be.

We do not work on the Sabbath, because we are pointing to an eternal rest.

We do not remarry, because God has one spouse.

It's in understanding the true meaning behind our Christian duties and ceremonies and law that we see why it is not to be taken lightly.

And this can only be done properly when we have a submission to all of God's word.

Thank you for your gracious post. It was excellent.

[Sower]

I have never seen a passage of scripture saying marring a divorced person  ok. If any one here has please post em.

So you have never seen a passage which permits re-marriage after divorce or separation. However , I will provide you with one Scripture from the OT and one from the NT THAT PERMIT RE-MARRIAGE AFTER DIVORCE.  We will not go into an expostion of these Scriptures, simply note the fact that they are recorded and you have failed to notice them:

Deuteronomy 24:1,2
When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her; then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
AND WHEN SHE IS DEPARTED OUT OF HIS HOUSE, SHE MAY GO AND BE ANOTHER MAN'S WIFE.

1 Corinthians 7:27,28
Art thou bound unto a wife? Seek not to be loosed.  Art thou loosed from a wife? Seek not a wife.
BUT AND IF THOU MARRY, THOU HAST NOT SINNED;...

Whose words are these? Moses and Paul's or God's? If we dismiss these as not being divinely inspired, we have nothing but shifting sand. If they're inspired, God had a reason for giving them. So let's not continue insisting about God never allowing a divorced person to re-marry. There's your proof.

These Scriptures are not to encourage divorce and re-marriage but to discourage unbelief. God is BOTH a holy and a just God, and we must see Him as He is. In the OT, the penalty for adultery was death. The "uncleanness" -- real or imagined -- is not adultery, but could be anything other than adultery. In the NT, Christ made one single exception for divorce -- adultery -- and that same single exception applies to the remarriage of the innocent partner.

[Petro]

I have never seen a passage of scripture saying marring a divorced person  ok. If any one here has please post em.

So you have never seen a passage which permits re-marriage after divorce or separation. However , I will provide you with one Scripture from the OT and one from the NT THAT PERMIT RE-MARRIAGE AFTER DIVORCE.  We will not go into an expostion of these Scriptures, simply note the fact that they are recorded and you have failed to notice them:

Deuteronomy 24:1,2
When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her; then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
AND WHEN SHE IS DEPARTED OUT OF HIS HOUSE, SHE MAY GO AND BE ANOTHER MAN'S WIFE.

1 Corinthians 7:27,28
Art thou bound unto a wife? Seek not to be loosed.  Art thou loosed from a wife? Seek not a wife.
BUT AND IF THOU MARRY, THOU HAST NOT SINNED;...

Whose words are these? Moses and Paul's or God's? If we dismiss these as not being divinely inspired, we have nothing but shifting sand. If they're inspired, God had a reason for giving them. So let's not continue insisting about God never allowing a divorced person to re-marry. There's your proof.

sower,

This is a poor explanation of these verses in trying to prove re-mnarriage is allowed by the Word of God.

It is clear the only thing the looses anyone from the oath of marriage is DEATH, being loosed does not just include those who are widowed, but those who never married, since they are not bound.

Consider these verse when putting the verses you have given forth.

Rom 7
7:1  Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
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.

Now, just because Christ has loosed us from the law, are you saying a man may put his wife away, and re-marry?

If so, then are you implying it is OK not to, observe the the commandment agains fornication?

These Scriptures are not to encourage divorce and re-marriage but to discourage unbelief. God is BOTH a holy and a just God, and we must see Him as He is. In the OT, the penalty for adultery was death. The "uncleanness" -- real or imagined -- is not adultery, but could be anything other than adultery. In the NT, Christ made one single exception for divorce -- adultery -- and that same single exception applies to the remarriage of the innocent partner.

Unbelief in what?

Consider what the Apostles and Elders confimed at the First Council at Jerusalem.

24  Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
25  It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
26  Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
27  We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.
28  For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
29  That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.


If adultery is a form of fornication, anyone who still has a living partner who was married to them an re marries cause them to comit adultery.

Petro

[Reba]

Deut 24:1-4
24:1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.

2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.

3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;

4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
KJV
Had I seen these, above, verses 35 years ago I may not have stayed married.  Looking at these I am wondering what they say about( verse 4) reconciliation. I am wondering if marriage, by law, the ceremony, etc , is what is being talked about here or is it sleeping with a person.

 
1 Cor 7:25-28

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.
KJV
In my view verse 28 in speaking of the  virgin restricts remarriage at the very least for the her.  27 plainly says seek not a wife.  

[Quartus]

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.

So from this VERY CLEAR statement, we cannot come to any other conclusion than that divorce is not permitted under any conditions.  The passage is clear that a woman is under the law of her husband as long as he is alive.  Period.  No allowance for divorce.

Right?

Wrong.  That's not the whole story, is it?  If this were the only passage of Scripture that deals with the subject, I've given the correct interpretation.  But we know it's not.

Similarly, the passages where Jesus speaks on the subject are not the only ones that deal with it.  If we are not going to commit the Red Letter heresy (giving more authority to the words which Christ spoke on earth than to the words which He spoke by His Spirit through the Apostles), then we have to look at ALL of the passages that deal with the subject, and come to an understanding which takes ALL the truth into account.

1 Corinthians 7:12-15

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.

And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.

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.

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.

The word for bondage in this passage is the same word as is used in the Romans passage above.  The context is the same - marriage and its permanence.  OR lack thereof.   A woman whose unbelieving husband departs is as unbound as the woman whose husband dies.  


By New Testament times, no-one was being put to death for immorality.  The Romans did not allow it.  It matters not whether they SHOULD have been or not - the fact is, they were not.  The case of the woman taken in adultery only shows the hypocrisy of the Jewish leaders - they knew perfectly well that no-one could stone the woman.

Since adulterers were NOT put to death for immorality, it cannot be argued that re-marriage was permitted in cases of adultery because the adulterer would be dead.  

[Whitehorse]

Well a couple of things here. Forst, going back to my post to Sym, Jesus tell the pharisees that Any man who divorces his wife and remarries commits adultery. So I'm saying this to qualify what I said yesterday.

Quartus, I think I understand what you are saying, but I just clarify one thing; Jesus has all authorit, because He is God. So, it isn't a matter of giving more authority to Him than the Holy Spirit in speaking through the apostles, fo all authority belongs to the triune God, with the Father as the first person in the trinity. And all three are in agreement.

The issue is not reading everything God said. He spoke through the apostles and Jesus told the things He told as well. So all authority belongs to Jesus, including that which was spoken through the apostles.

But yes-I absolutely agree with you on taking all scriptures into account, because they all come from God.

When we have a misunderstanding, we shouldn't squash the Bible into what we thought we understood any more than we should try to jam a puzzle piece that clearly doesn't belong where we thought it would. Instead, we look for the right piece. Agreed, 100% on this.

As for Rome, the Jews did have some sovereignty. In fact, Paul was left in prison by Felix as a favor to the Jews. So the threat of the woman being stoned was real. But I think we don't stone people today because of the Lord, not because of Rome.

Reba, exactly. That's why it's so important to know all of scripture. Jesus clarifies in the NT that this allowance was made because of the hardened hearts.

But once the woman remarried, she has made a covenant with a new man. So to go back to her first husband would violate the covenant again. So it would be both, because sleeping together should only be in the context of marriage.

In the second set of verses, the church was under a time of severe persecution, and this made it even harder for married couples. In a tiome of such persecution, the churhc was best off focusing on the Lord because thir faith would be tested, and this was hard for amrried couples. So Paul isn't restricting marriage; anyone could do as they liked and get married. He wasn't calling it sin, because there is no prohibition against marriage. In fact, there was a prohibition against prohibiting marriage! But he was just saying it would be easier because they were being persecuted, and it would make it harder to focus on the Lord, etc.

[Sower]

Petro:

sower, This is a poor explanation of these verses in trying to prove re-mnarriage is allowed by the Word of God.

The issue is not whether my "explanation" is "poor" or "excellent".  Reba said she had NEVER SEEN a Scripture that permitted remarriage after divorce, and now she and you and everyone else have seen the Scriptures, but perhaps are unwilling to accept them as God's Word.  Your argument is not with me but with God.

It is clear the only thing the looses anyone from the oath of marriage is DEATH, being loosed does not just include those who are widowed, but those who never married, since they are not bound.

That is how you would prefer to read it, but now you have Scripture that tells you that death is NOT the only reason for loosing the bonds of marriage, and now it is up to you, and Reba, and anyone else to simply BELIEVE IT.  Again, your argument is with God.

Consider these verse when putting the verses you have given forth. Rom 7:1  Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
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

These verses ARE NOT in conflict but are complementary and supplementary to all the other teaching. What they are telling us that as long as two people are married they are BOUND, and only death severs the bond.  No more and no less. They are not addressing the EXCEPTION which the Lord dealt with.

Now, just because Christ has loosed us from the law, are you saying a man may put his wife away, and re-marry?
If so, then are you implying it is OK not to, observe the the commandment agains fornication?

Christ has set us free from the law of sin and death [the Law of Moses] and placed us under a higher and better law -- the Law of Christ. the Law of Liberty, the Royal Law.  This law has only ONE commandment -- love.  And if we love God and our spouses according to this law, we will not even contemplate adultery or divorce or separation or re-marriage after making a marital mess.  So I am not implying that anything is "OK" or "not OK".  I am simply pointing out that no sincere student of God's Word can deny that God Himself allows re-marriage after divorce under very specific circumstances.  That's all.

These Scriptures are not to encourage divorce and re-marriage but to discourage unbelief....

Unbelief in what?

Unbelief in the living God. If we teach [contrary to the Word] that UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES CAN A MAN OR WOMAN RE-MARRY, we make God unjust and we make Him a liar [God forbid]. This leads to unbelief since God is not only holy, but He is also just. He is also merciful and gracious, and none of these attributes are ever in conflict.  

By showing you Scripture that God does indeed allow re-marriage after divorce UNDER SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES, I have upheld the justness of the Almighty -- He does not punish the innocent for the sins of the guilty.  He sets the innocent spouse free to re-marry, since the unmarried state is NOT ideal [with some exceptions].

Consider what the Apostles and Elders confimed at the First Council at Jerusalem. 15:29  That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: ...

If adultery is a form of fornication, anyone who still has a living partner who was married to them an re marries cause them to comit adultery.

In response: (1) adultery is a form of fornication (2) it is a sin (3) God allows divorce for adultery only and (4) God permits the innocent spouse to re-marry, if he or she so wishes. This satisfies the holiness of God as well as His mercy and justice.  In God's eyes the sinning partner has annulled the marriage-bond, just as death annuls the bond.

Also, in God's eyes marriage is UNTIL DEATH, and the partners are ONE FLESH. and believers are not to even consider divorce and re-marriage.  If believers are having marital problems either one or both of them are walking in the flesh, not in the Spirit.  It is a spiritual problem and needs to be dealth with as a "spiritual problem". However, there are some who violate the marriage bond with their unfaithfulness, therefore God allows -- PERMITS -- the next best thing, just as He PERMITTED divorce in the OT.