Divorce and Remarriage

Status
Not open for further replies.
LadyFlynt

LadyFlynt

Puritan Board Doctor
Okay, yes I am :deadhorse:

Here's to start...

a) this is NOT an attack on anyone who is D&R
b) let's not make this personal or bring in personal issues to it
c) I am not one to be so ungracious as to "cut off" a divorced person in normal church activities in the manner that many fundamentalists do and I have had friends that are D&R


On to the discussion...

The Pastor is going through the sermon on the mount. Unlike many pastors, he has decided to hit this topic head on with his own POV...he holds one of the two common POV, adultery only (the other being the 3 or 4 A's depending on how you count : abandonment, adultery, addiction, and abuse).

The verses in play here are Matthew 5:31-32 and Matthew 19:7-9. Other verses will come into play however.

1) please note that in Matthew 19:6 it says that no man shall put asunder. So in God's eyes are not the couple still married?

2) the pastor admitted that the two should reconcile...but that divorce is also okay. Well, if they can and should reconcile, why divorce? Scripture said it was for the hardness of their hearts...not that it was God approved.

3) in Galatians 5:19...if porneia means sexual sin (including adultery) in this context...then why is adultery (moicheia) included? If porneia is only used in broad context, then there would be no need to add moicheia as it would already be included. If porneia is used in a narrow context (sex before marriage) then that changes the context of the Matthew verses (see the case of Joseph and Mary).

4) If we even conclude that it IS refering to adultery (sex outside of one's marriage)...the WHERE does it say that they can remarry (including the innocent party)? I don't see it. I see the person is not bound to the duties of that marriage, but I also see that that person is still "one" with their spouse in God's view (even if not legally).

[Edited on 9-24-2006 by LadyFlynt]
 
They are not one in God's view if God is the one who allowed the divorce. Divorce means exactly that, cut apart. They are no longer married. All maritial obligations are severed, except for the part of repentence on the part of the guilty party. But even of one were to remarry, I doubt God considers that an illegitimate marriage. Notice what Jesus said to the Samaritan woman, "you've had 5 husbands and the one you live with is not your husband." It is unlikely all 5 of her husbands died. More likely, she was sexually immoral and those previous husbands were still alive. But Jesus didn't say "you had 1 husband and 6 shack ups." Furthermore, abandoment by an unbeleiver is considered grounds for divorce in 1 Cor. 7. Free means free, no longer married. If free, then you are permitted to remarry. Otherwise you are not really divorced.
:2cents:
 
If the two are still married then how does one make sense of Deut. 24. One is not even allowed to go back to their "spouse" even if they were to both consent. So in God's eyes they are still married?

CT
 
CT, in Deuteronomy it says he can't take her back because she is defiled (from being remarried). I'm confused. First it says she can go become another's wife, then it says she is defiled from it (remarriage/adultery). Help?
 
I had a dispensationalist ask me why I could be so strict in my views on marriage and divorce yet believe God divorced Israel. He said that if I believed God only allowed divorce because of the hardness of mans heart, why would He divorce?

I found it a very good question.
 
LadyFlynt,

How did she become defiled?

He pronounced her unclean when he divorced her the first time, so how could she now be found clean in his eyes, in order to marry her again?

And in Duet. 24, it doesn't matter if her second husband divorced her or IF he died, the first husband still couldn't marry her again.



CT, in Deuteronomy it says he can't take her back because she is defiled (from being remarried). I'm confused. First it says she can go become another's wife, then it says she is defiled from it (remarriage/adultery). Help?
Click to expand...
 
Does God join every marriage?

I mean, looking at these verses, why would we believe God does? Most certainly He can bless every marriage, but does He really join them all?


(2 Corinthians 6:14-18) Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? {15} And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? {16} And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will dwell in them And walk among them. I will be their God, And they shall be My people." {17} Therefore "Come out from among them And be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, And I will receive you." {18} "I will be a Father to you, And you shall be My sons and daughters, Says the LORD Almighty."
Click to expand...

And IF God didn't join some marriages who did? Maybe man himself, being outside of God's will?

The Bible says what God has joined together, He could join two Christians together as they are both His, but the lost person isn't His, so could He join them together? Or would He join a Christian with a Non-Christian?

Just some of my own questions.

[Edited on 9-24-2006 by BJClark]
 
Originally posted by houseparent
I had a dispensationalist ask me why I could be so strict in my views on marriage and divorce yet believe God divorced Israel. He said that if I believed God only allowed divorce because of the hardness of mans heart, why would He divorce?

I found it a very good question.
Click to expand...

One might argue that God divorced Israel for the purpose of bringing about repentance and reconciliation not for chasing after another people. In the same way, the argument could be made that that's how Christians should view divorce, not for chasing after a new spouse but for bringing about repentance and reconciliation.

It's a tough issue for sure.
 
Originally posted by Puritan Sailor
They are not one in God's view if God is the one who allowed the divorce. Divorce means exactly that, cut apart. They are no longer married. All maritial obligations are severed, except for the part of repentence on the part of the guilty party. But even of one were to remarry, I doubt God considers that an illegitimate marriage. Notice what Jesus said to the Samaritan woman, "you've had 5 husbands and the one you live with is not your husband." It is unlikely all 5 of her husbands died. More likely, she was sexually immoral and those previous husbands were still alive. But Jesus didn't say "you had 1 husband and 6 shack ups." Furthermore, abandoment by an unbeleiver is considered grounds for divorce in 1 Cor. 7. Free means free, no longer married. If free, then you are permitted to remarry. Otherwise you are not really divorced.
:2cents:
Click to expand...

Convert those cents to dollars, and add a few zeros. This is a valuable, biblical principle.
 
If we even conclude that it IS refering to adultery (sex outside of one's marriage)...the WHERE does it say that they can remarry (including the innocent party)? I don't see it. I see the person is not bound to the duties of that marriage, but I also see that that person is still "one" with their spouse in God's view (even if not legally).
Click to expand...

Hi Colleen,

As a genuine question, where do you get the idea that a person can be not bound to the marriage but still 'one' with the spouse/former spouse. I can't think of any place where the bible speaks of such a half-way state. If divorce is the splitting up of a marriage, than logically speaking, if the divorce is one God allows, wouldn't the innocent party be not bound to any spouse and hence free to remarry in the same way as a single person would be?
 
BJ, yes, I believe marriage of believers and unbelievers (and mixed) is held as a valid vow before God. If I were to take what you said, then I could marry an unbeliever and then divorce him when I'm ready to move on because it "wasn't a valid marriage"...my MIL tried to pull this one. We are also not called to divorce when our spouse is an unbeliever....we are called to pray for them and be a witness by our behaviour.


Mark Li, the scriptures state that no man can put asunder what has been joined before God (or rather what God has joined together). Also that God does not intend divorce. Israel demanded divorce, so God said FINE, have your divorce and the consequences that go with it. This does not show that he approved of such.



Has anyone here read the books Till Death Do Us Part? and Daughters of Sarah? That would be where I am coming from. But I want to look further into it as the history on divorce is not fully clear to me either.

[Edited on 9-25-2006 by LadyFlynt]
 
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
CT, in Deuteronomy it says he can't take her back because she is defiled (from being remarried). I'm confused. First it says she can go become another's wife, then it says she is defiled from it (remarriage/adultery). Help?
Click to expand...

In order to restrain the hardness of man's heart God allowed for divorce under the Old Testament in the case of uncleanness. In order to hinder men from completely trampling upon this concession, and upon women in the process, He commanded that a wife, once put away, was not to be taken again by the same man. This would (1) cause a man to seriously consider the consequences of the putting away, and (2) prevent the well known ANE vice of woman trading.

Like so much of OT law, the Jewish religious leaders introduced various sophisms to bring the commandments of God under their power. Numerous shortcomings of a wife were classified as uncleanness, thereby widening the cause for putting away. Christ brings us back to the original intent of the commandment by clarifying that fornication, or sexual uncleanness, is the only valid cause for putting away. But He first takes us back to the original intent of marriage: What God hath joined together let not man put asunder. It reminds us that the marriage union is a divine ordinance, and therefore not to be treated lightly, as if it were a mere business transaction. Yet it also recognises that man can in fact sunder that union, and is inclined to do so.

In 1 Cor. 7, the apostle Paul does not provide a different cause of divorce when he deals with the issue of unbelievers "leaving" or abandoning their spouses. Abandonment is itself a divorce. By "leaving," the unbeliever has put himself away, and effectively terminated the marriage. This leaves the abandoned person in a state of limbo. The apostle determines that such a state is in fact one of singleness, and therefore the person is free of the marriage bond. They may choose to marry again.

[Edited on 9-25-2006 by armourbearer]
 
Hi Colleen,

regarding the Lord's statements in John 19, I think we have to see that when Jesus says 'what therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder' in verse 6 he says it in the context of the pharasees asking him in verse 3 'Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?'

As Rev Winzer stated above, it seems Jesus is correcting the abuses of the law of God that was going on at that time. In fact in verse 9, he Jesus restates that fornication is a valid reason for 'putting away your wife'.
 
LadyFlynt,

I didn't ask if the vow was valid, I asked did *God* join them together?

Or did God allow the believer to make the choice to be unequally yoked to an unbeliever and live with the consequences of their choice? (kind of like Isreal demanding a divorce, and God allowing it, did He approve of the marriage to begin with? How could He, if He tells us very clearly do not be unequally yoked with an unbeliever?)


And No, even if you married an unbeliever you couldn't just divorce them because they are not a believer. However, IF the unbeliever wants a divorce you let them go, per scripture.

Are you going to try and hold them hostage in a relationship they no longer want to be in? Or are you going to do as God shows us, He does with the unbeleiver who desires to live in their sin? He lets them go. (Per the letter to the Romans)

Most certainly it would be great IF they repented, But do you know for certain they were called? Do you know if God knew them from before creation? Do you know if they were chosen by God? We don't, so if they choose to leave, then we give them the freedom to leave.

Sometimes even trying to convince an unbeliever to work on a marriage just because of OUR understanding about God's design for marriage to be a lifetime, will only serve to harden their heart even further against God.

Why would an unbeliever want to serve or worship a God who tells them they are not even ALLOWED to leave a marriage they no longer want to be in? They would see that as God is controlling, and not loving.

As Christians, we can still pray for them, and we can still live a Godly life before them, but we aren't called to hold them hostage in a relationship they don't desire to be a part of.

Most certainly we want them to make the choice to stay in the marriage, BUT we want them first to be reconciled to God through Christ, even if that means we go through a divorce, even if it means that marriage is never restored. And we must also accept the possibility, that they are not called, no matter how much we might want them to be.


BJ, yes, I believe marriage of believers and unbelievers (and mixed) is held as a valid vow before God. If I were to take what you said, then I could marry an unbeliever and then divorce him when I'm ready to move on because it "wasn't a valid marriage"...my MIL tried to pull this one. We are also not called to divorce when our spouse is an unbeliever....we are called to pray for them and be a witness by our behaviour.


Mark Li, the scriptures state that no man can put asunder what has been joined before God (or rather what God has joined together). Also that God does not intend divorce. Israel demanded divorce, so God said FINE, have your divorce and the consequences that go with it. This does not show that he approved of such.



Has anyone here read the books Till Death Do Us Part? and Daughters of Sarah? That would be where I am coming from. But I want to look further into it as the history on divorce is not fully clear to me either.

[Edited on 9-25-2006 by LadyFlynt]
Click to expand...



[Edited on 9-25-2006 by BJClark]
 
Originally posted by BJClark
LadyFlynt,
I didn't ask if the vow was valid, I asked did *God* join them together?
Click to expand...
If I believe that God is sovereign in all things, then yes, I believe that God joined them together. Their decision was within God's hidden Will.
 
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
Could someone hit on #3 please?
Click to expand...

I think the difficulty may be with trying to read this list as a non-overlapping set of categories.

I do not think it is to be taken that way. E.g., "drunkenness" and "revelries". Not exclusive. One contains aspects of the other. Same with "idolatry" and "sorcery" or "dissensions" and "heresies".

I don't think it was Paul's intent to come up with a set of terms where each one captures only one sort of infraction.

It is certainly appropriate to call out both fornication and adultery.
 
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
Originally posted by BJClark
LadyFlynt,
I didn't ask if the vow was valid, I asked did *God* join them together?
Click to expand...
If I believe that God is sovereign in all things, then yes, I believe that God joined them together. Their decision was within God's hidden Will.
Click to expand...

Certainly it is by God's will that they were married - as are all things. But this does not necessarily make them "one".

(1Co 7:12-13 NKJV)
But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him.

(1Co 7:15 NKJV)
But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace.
Click to expand...

The believer is required to stay married to the unbeliever, but the believer is not bound to the unbeliever. If the unbeliever divorces the believer - then the believer is free to remarry. They were not "one" in marriage because a believer can not be one with an unbeliever. They are not of the same mind/faith.

And what about two unbelievers? Can they be "one" in marriage. I don't think the Bible is concerned about the validity of marriage among unbelievers, much more the "oneness" in them. I think Paul is only concerned about the obligations of the believers.
 
So it's like saying "adultery and other sexual sins"? Okay, that makes sense. Those that use this (#3) would say that it doesn't make sense to say "adultery and adultery"...but that is only one way to look at it. If it is being presented as "adultery and other sexual sins" then that would clarify the issue.
 
Concerning Deuteronomy 24,

According to John Murray's _Divorce and Remarriage_ ,

The passage is not giving the first husband the right to divorce his wife. It is saying that IF he divorces her he may not take her back. If I remember correctly, the point is to make the man think twice before divorcing his wife.

Jeff
 
I paid attention to Pt2 of D&R today. The pastor's main points were his personal opinions on examples.

Unbeliever leaves...innocent remarry....yes

Person's spouse leaves for another...innocent remarry....yes

2 ppl have an affair...their marriages break up...the innocents remarry...can the 2 having the affair marry eachother if they have *repented?....he says yes he would perform the ceremony

abusive spouse...he says innocent can divorce and marry someone else




Anyone want to have a go at the thirdexample?
 
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
I paid attention to Pt2 of D&R today. The pastor's main points were his personal opinions on examples.

Unbeliever leaves...innocent remarry....yes

Person's spouse leaves for another...innocent remarry....yes

2 ppl have an affair...their marriages break up...the innocents remarry...can the 2 having the affair marry eachother if they have *repented?....he says yes he would perform the ceremony

abusive spouse...he says innocent can divorce and marry someone else




Anyone want to have a go at the thirdexample?
Click to expand...

The third one is very strange. From the standards in the Gospels and Epistles, the innocents' remarriage is fine, but the two actually committing the affair would fall under the category of permanently ineligible to remarry, given their adultery. I don't see where the Scriptures or even just ordinary wisdom would see fit to permit the adulterous pair, even in repentance, to marry each other. It seems to retroactively condone the past adultery and is a slap to the innocent parties. Just my :2cents:
 
A divorced condition is a remarriageable condition in the eyes of the State; and though marriage is ordained by God it is administered by the State. Hence a divorced person is able to be remarried. The Church can counsel the State as to biblical marriage, but at the end of the day, the State rules.

Whether ministers should personally sanction the State's rules by officiating at such weddings is another question, and a knotty one at that.
 
Originally posted by armourbearer
A divorced condition is a remarriageable condition in the eyes of the State; and though marriage is ordained by God it is administered by the State. Hence a divorced person is able to be remarried. The Church can counsel the State as to biblical marriage, but at the end of the day, the State rules.

Whether ministers should personally sanction the State's rules by officiating at such weddings is another question, and a knotty one at that.
Click to expand...

I'm not too concerned about the State here...the State can condone homosexual marriage and it not be recognized by the church...just as a church can enact a marriage that is not recognized by the state (I know of such cases). My concern is on where we are supposed to be standing as a church.
 
"I don't see where the Scriptures or even just ordinary wisdom would see fit to permit the adulterous pair, even in repentance, to marry each other."

Would the existence of children produced by the adulterous relationship change anything?
 
Originally posted by Theoretical
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
I paid attention to Pt2 of D&R today. The pastor's main points were his personal opinions on examples.

Unbeliever leaves...innocent remarry....yes

Person's spouse leaves for another...innocent remarry....yes

2 ppl have an affair...their marriages break up...the innocents remarry...can the 2 having the affair marry eachother if they have *repented?....he says yes he would perform the ceremony

abusive spouse...he says innocent can divorce and marry someone else




Anyone want to have a go at the thirdexample?
Click to expand...

The third one is very strange. From the standards in the Gospels and Epistles, the innocents' remarriage is fine, but the two actually committing the affair would fall under the category of permanently ineligible to remarry, given their adultery. I don't see where the Scriptures or even just ordinary wisdom would see fit to permit the adulterous pair, even in repentance, to marry each other. It seems to retroactively condone the past adultery and is a slap to the innocent parties. Just my :2cents:
Click to expand...

That was pretty much how I felt on the quilty persons' issue. The pastor made an emotional, subjective appeal to "his own observation" of their repentence. To me, this is no different than someone who is remarried unlawfully (according to scripture, not state) and then saying, well we repent now we are comitting adultery where five minutes before we repented we were. I like the RPCNA's and FPC's stand on this one...to not participate in any remarriages.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Whitefield
  • Locked
A look at Mark 10:2-12 and the issue of marriage and divorce
Replies
0
Views
3K
Whitefield
Whitefield
D. Paul
  • Locked
Logos and Rhema (Pastors and Greek students)
Replies
8
Views
6K
Heidelberg1
H
W
"Baptismos" and "Baptisma"
Replies
6
Views
2K
Contra_Mundum
Contra_Mundum
JesusIsLord
  • Locked
Dispensationals and Exegesis
Replies
29
Views
3K
Dachaser
D
arapahoepark
  • Locked
Background and interpretation
Replies
4
Views
2K
arapahoepark
arapahoepark
Back
Top