I’m not a Bible scholar by any means. But I would think that any Biblical standards in this area would apply to the “guilty” spouse; the spouse who cheated or abandoned the other.
Whereas it would seem to me that restrictions on remarriage or any other sanction would not apply against the “innocent” spouse who was cheated on or abandoned.
One need only read the bible and compare related scripture with scripture to find what the Bible has to say about marriage and divorce. There is a tendency to choose what one wants. Marriage is until the death. Romans 7:1-3 makes this clear. A woman or man is bound until the death of the spouse.
Romans 7 explains that in our unsaved state we are bound (married) to the law. Only by our death through faith in Christ are we free to be married to another, that is Christ. Since he will not die again and neither shall we (John 11:25,26), that union with Christ will never end.
Cults which teach that earthly marriage is eternal ignore the bibles clear teaching on this subject. Death terminates marriage and there is no giving or taking in marriage in heaven. (Matthew 22:29,30)
The term “divorce,” historically includes”free to marry.” Especially true of Bible times in the Middle East, where for a woman to not be married was to be put in a position of awful vulnerability at best and a rape and death sentence at worst.
It's good that you mentioned this, because the suppositions you make are worldly, of the mindset of the children of Satan, and not of the Biblical culture of mature Christ-followers. In fact, the essence is missed by the author of this article as well.
The keys to this are that:
(1) The context is that Gospel of Matthew/Levi is primarily addressed to the Jewish culture at the time of Jesus' earthly ministry, and only secondarily to the general Christian population in later history.
(2) The audiences for his teaching in Matthew 5 were His disciples with multitudes overhearing; and in chapter 19, Pharisees with disciples looking on.
(3) The "escape clause" found in 5:32 and 19:9 apply only to the Jewish marriage contract which under the Law was composed of a trial period of espousal of the husband and wife, during which the couple (most particularly the wife) remained celibate to avoid any taint of their first-born child being a product of an illicit relationship.
(4) Even during the espousal period, the couple were fully and contractually husband and wife, a quite different scheme than today's "engagement" followed by instituting the legal husband-wife bond only finally at the moment of the civil or religious rite of solemnization of the vows.
(5) The "exception clause" did not then, nor does it now in Gentile society, apply to the couple whose marriage consummation occurred on the wedding night, with cohabitation continuing thereafter.
(6) The last chance to exercise the "exception clause" in a Jewish marriage on the morning following the bridal night of consummation, and then only if the husband finds that she cannot prove her virginity. Going on living as man and wife, even for one night, erases any justification for "putting away" ones marital partner.
(7) The consequence of adultery under the Mosaic Covenant is not the separation and divorce as practiced by Gentiles: the penalty is death for the adulterers; and freedom to remarry by the "innocent" party.
(8) Otherwise, under the New Covenant, if the couple desire and are permitted to divorce, either of the couple joining to another in a marital bond, even as common-law cohabitation without solemnization, is remarriage adultery.
(9) For a remarried couple in which either or both are committed to following Jesus, the only solution is for them to cease to cohabit, to remain celibate, with both carrying our their responsibilities to any issue of the union, as well as to support each other in other material ways that do not compromise their standing before the Christian community as obedient servants of the Lord.
(10) Please recall, this is exactly the situation Joseph found himself in when his espoused wife Mary was found with child before they came together. Under the Law, he could have asked for her death by stoning. but his gentle heart caused him to contempate "putting her away privily" so as to avoid an unwelcome fuss; but the Angel of the Lord appealed to him to go on, giving the reasons why. And Joseph complied.
These are the facts.
=======
Of the author of this article, Shane Idleman is claimed to be a Bible-preaching pastor, of whom it is said (on his web site):
"But when truth is sacrificed for the sake of relating to the culture, as we see today, the very foundation is destroyed. Truth, the foundational beliefs clearly outlined in Scripture, must remain unmoved and unchanged. Times change, but truth does not!"
Now, that is a nice thought, but in this article he is not quite willing to step up to the plate, grit his teeth, and preach what the Bible says, without fear of the smoking replies that would result.
Instead, he backs water and preaches a watered-down gospel that gives permission for the popular (but not with his recommendation) solution for the perplexed believers who yearn for another companion when the separation has become very real. Though a popular preacher, he is apparently not yet spiritually mature enough to stand up for Jesus and against the crowd of naive chapel adherents which really needs this admonition.
To balance this comment, please know that it is coming from a man who was divorced by his wife in 1972, and has determined not to be remarried, according to Scripture. I cannot tell you how many compensating rewards the Lord has provided to offset this unwanted event, but He has more than supplied everything needed to gain s knowledge of His Comforting Presence that would never have been available had I not followed His Will regarding marriage.
Be thus instructed, eh?