PDA

View Full Version : On Divorce



bagofseed
Apr 27th 2009, 05:29 AM
Interesting text from the translators notes from Luke 16:18 from the NETBible

The examples of marriage and divorce show that the ethical standards of the new era are still faithful to promises made in the presence of God. To contribute to the breakup of a marriage, which involved a vow before God, is to commit adultery. This works whether one gets a divorce or marries a person who is divorced, thus finalizing the breakup of the marriage. Jesusí point concerns the need for fidelity and ethical integrity in the new era.

matthew7and1
Apr 27th 2009, 06:27 AM
maybe you can give me a clear answer on this even though there have been a million threads. I have always been under the impression that if my husband leaves me and marries another it absolves my responsibility and allows me to marry again. However, many people say that it doesn't matter who "ends" the marriage, because effectually the covenant of marriage never really ends even if one party adulters....

bagofseed
Apr 27th 2009, 06:48 AM
I think the statement below is worth considering.

But I am uncertain, if it is valid.

I have to spend some time my self and find out where I stand on divorce and remarriage.

matthew7and1
Apr 27th 2009, 06:51 AM
I pray that I never have to figure it out for myself..... :pray:

Butch5
Apr 27th 2009, 03:40 PM
maybe you can give me a clear answer on this even though there have been a million threads. I have always been under the impression that if my husband leaves me and marries another it absolves my responsibility and allows me to marry again. However, many people say that it doesn't matter who "ends" the marriage, because effectually the covenant of marriage never really ends even if one party adulters....

Hi tayariswife,

Paul answers your question in Romans 7:2, a woman is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives.

SwordmanJr
Aug 20th 2009, 08:20 PM
maybe you can give me a clear answer on this even though there have been a million threads. I have always been under the impression that if my husband leaves me and marries another it absolves my responsibility and allows me to marry again. However, many people say that it doesn't matter who "ends" the marriage, because effectually the covenant of marriage never really ends even if one party adulters....

That depends on WHY he divorced you. If it's because you had lain with another man, for example, then you're tainted goods (so to speak), and any other man marrying you would force him to become a partaker of your adulteries.

That's not to say that you can't be forgiven by the Lord, but you should remain single as an outplay of genuine repentence. Remarrying is evidence for a lack of repentence.

http://i731.photobucket.com/albums/ww316/SwordmanSr/girltongue.jpg

That's something we should all avoid.

SwJr

third hero
Aug 20th 2009, 08:27 PM
maybe you can give me a clear answer on this even though there have been a million threads. I have always been under the impression that if my husband leaves me and marries another it absolves my responsibility and allows me to marry again. However, many people say that it doesn't matter who "ends" the marriage, because effectually the covenant of marriage never really ends even if one party adulters....
Here is my understanding of the laws of Marriage and divorce in terms of what Lord Jesus taught.

If one party commits adultery, aka the act of extra-marital affair, then the contract of marriage ends.

If one divorces another to marry someone else, then that second marriage is the act of adultery against the first marriage. In other words, if I divorce my wife to marry another woman, unless my first wife commits adultery before I divorce her, I am committing the act of adultery, and am terminating my first marriage.

In my opinion, the whole scope of the marriage issue is geared towards both men and women. I may be biased, basing this on ethnocentric beliefs of today, but this is what I believe.

SwordmanJr
Aug 20th 2009, 08:30 PM
Modern, social standards are indeed evil in the sight of the Lord.

http://i731.photobucket.com/albums/ww316/SwordmanSr/extremeevil.gif

SwJr

sedux
Aug 20th 2009, 08:42 PM
Here is my understanding of the laws of Marriage and divorce in terms of what Lord Jesus taught.

If one party commits adultery, aka the act of extra-marital affair, then the contract of marriage ends.

If one divorces another to marry someone else, then that second marriage is the act of adultery against the first marriage. In other words, if I divorce my wife to marry another woman, unless my first wife commits adultery before I divorce her, I am committing the act of adultery, and am terminating my first marriage.

In my opinion, the whole scope of the marriage issue is geared towards both men and women. I may be biased, basing this on ethnocentric beliefs of today, but this is what I believe.
:yes: That's how I understood it to be also. :agree:

9Marksfan
Aug 20th 2009, 09:35 PM
Here is my understanding of the laws of Marriage and divorce in terms of what Lord Jesus taught.

If one party commits adultery, aka the act of extra-marital affair, then the contract of marriage ends.

If one divorces another to marry someone else, then that second marriage is the act of adultery against the first marriage. In other words, if I divorce my wife to marry another woman, unless my first wife commits adultery before I divorce her, I am committing the act of adultery, and am terminating my first marriage.

In my opinion, the whole scope of the marriage issue is geared towards both men and women. I may be biased, basing this on ethnocentric beliefs of today, but this is what I believe.

Hi third hero

I believed what you have stated above as an evangelical Christian for 25 years until my thinking completely changed two years ago. I now no longer believe there are any grounds for a Christian to divorce their spouse and the only "shame free" divorce that scripture permits is if an unbeliever divorces their spouse because they cannot stick living with a Christian any longer. Even there, I don't believe the Christian is free to remarry - just not obliged to follow the unbelieving spouse regardless - God has called us to peace, after all.

There are usually two big objections to the position I hold:-

(1) Doesn't Jesus allow adultery as a legitimate ground of divorce?
(2) Why should a divorced Christian who has been deserted by an unbeliever not be free to remarry, especially if the unbelieving spouse remarries?

Let me deal with these:-

Jesus' teaching on divorce is found principally in four passages - Matt 5:31-32, Matt 19:1-12, Mk 10:11-12 and the passage in Lk that's in the OP (Lk 16:18).

Now, Jesus' exception from the blanket ban on divorce of "sexual immorality" is only mentioned in Matthew, which was written for Jews. In both chs 5 and 19, Jesus uses the word porneia as the ground for divorce and says that he who remarries commits moichao (adultery). Now, why did he use different words? Porneia is a very broad word but it is hardly ever used to mean adultery - that's why there's the Greek word moichao, to show it as marital infidelity as opposed to other sexual sin. So why did Jesus refer to non-marital sexual immorality as a ground for married people to divorce? How would a Jewish mind see it? Well, the Jewish betrothal period was far more binding than our Western "engagement", so that if one did not go through with the full marriage, one had to "divorce" the betrothed person. What was the basis for this? That it was discovered (often on the wedding night) that there had been porneia (fornication with another) - either before or during the betrothal period - this was a ground for "divorce". This was why Joseph was minded to divorce Mary quietly, for he was a just man (Matt 1:19) and did not want to put her to shame. Note it is only in Matthew that this is recorded and explained, because it was a widespread Jewish practice, based on Deut 24 and surrounding passages.

I believe Jesus is therefore saying that the ONLY ground for divorce is sexual immorality during the betrothal period. Two of the most compelling reasons for my saying this are (a) the complete shock of his hearers, in particular the disciples, who - on realising just how binding marriage is - say that it is better not to marry - with good reason! The other reason is the lack of reference in the two other passages - surely Jesus did not forget to mention the exception there? Surely He did not hide it for fear of upsetting His disciples? Surely He had not changed His mind? A further argument is that Paul does not include adultery as a ground for divorce in his exhaustive list of possible scenarios in 1 Cor 7. So, in my view, the only way for all these passages to harmonise and not contradict one another is to accept the betrothal fornication understanding of porneia.

Now, on to the harder topic of a Christian not being free to remarry, even if they have been the "innocent" party in a divorce, where the unbelieving spouse has left. This comes down to the nature of the marriage covenant, which can only be ended by death. Paul sets this out explicitly in 1 Cor 7:39 and also in Rom 7:1-2, as Butch5 has already pointed out. Paul also points out that even in regrettable situations where the Christian spouse feels he/she has to separate (depart) - the only options are to remain unmarried (presumably once the unbelieving spouse has divorced them) or be reconciled to the unbelieving spouse (if he is converted or wants her to come back). Either way, remarriage is not an option - even when the departing spouse remarries - just because they break the covenant doesn't mean that you have to.

One final comment - a friend of mine who was recently divorced by his unbelieving wife (he thought she was a Christian when they married) feels he is free to remarry on the basis of 1 Cor 7:27-28, because he sees himself as being "loosed from a wife" and, while remarriage is not recommended by Paul, it is not sinful. However, that section is addressed to "virgins" (v25) - translated as "betrothed" in the ESV, which is very helpful, as the "unmarried" (presumably virgins!) have already been addressed in the passage commencing at v9. Reading vv25-28 in that light, being "bound" clearly means "betrothed" and being "loosed" clearly means being freed from the betrothal (it is not the normal word used in Greek for divorce). One very obvious reason why "bound" and "loosed" cannot refer to married people is because it is virgins who are being addressed! There was no "cult of celibacy" in Corinth, to my knowledge - on the contrary, it was an extremely sex-driven society and it would be expected that married couples would have sex! So what I believe Paul is saying in vv27-28 is (I'm paraphrasing) "Are you men betrothed? Go ahead and marry the girl! Did things not work out and your betrothal ended? Maybe marriage isn't for you - I've already said there are benefits to being single that married men don't and can't enjoy! But if you do marry someone else, you haven't sinned. And the same goes for you women!"

Hope that generates some discussion! :)

SwordmanJr
Aug 25th 2009, 02:37 PM
Here is my understanding of the laws of Marriage and divorce in terms of what Lord Jesus taught.


If one party commits adultery, aka the act of extra-marital affair, then the contract of marriage ends.

Not within the context of forgiveness. A man may choose to forgive his wife for her adulteries. In such a scenario, the marriage is still intact.


If one divorces another to marry someone else, then that second marriage is the act of adultery against the first marriage.

True.


In other words, if I divorce my wife to marry another woman, unless my first wife commits adultery before I divorce her, I am committing the act of adultery, and am terminating my first marriage.

The second marriage is an adulterous relationship because the first marriage could not legitimately be terminated.

Legal maneuvers on earth don't sway God along with the social tides.

SwJr

LadyT
Aug 25th 2009, 02:57 PM
The LORD forgives all trespasses, and if a person divorces and then remarries, God forgives the second marriage.

Look, marriages break up, it happens, more than it should of course, but I believe that God forgives divorce.

I was on the brink of divorce with my husband, he is an unsaved man, but I have stuck it out because I do love my husband, very much. I love the LORD as well and I do want to do right in HIS eyes, though that old creature in me lurks about. I put 17 years of my life into this relationship, we have children and it is the most important worldy commitment I have, I must do all that I can to keep it in tact. BUT so does the other person. If both involved are not putting forth the effort, then it is going to fail. You can not expect someone to stay in a marriage when the other will not try, I truly believe that God will forgive the person, on either side of it.

There are a million reasons why God should not forgive, but can anyone think of a reason why HE should NOT forgive one of HIS children?

SwordmanJr
Aug 25th 2009, 02:59 PM
Hi third hero


I believed what you have stated above as an evangelical Christian for 25 years until my thinking completely changed two years ago. I now no longer believe there are any grounds for a Christian to divorce their spouse and the only "shame free" divorce that scripture permits is if an unbeliever divorces their spouse because they cannot stick living with a Christian any longer. Even there, I don't believe the Christian is free to remarry - just not obliged to follow the unbelieving spouse regardless - God has called us to peace, after all.

Not free to remarry? Why not?

Paul clearly stated in that instance the believer is no longer bound.

Bound to........what? The Law of marriage, or some other subjectively injected concept that would allegedly mean they can't remarry?

Please clarify.


I believe Jesus is therefore saying that the ONLY ground for divorce is sexual immorality during the betrothal period. Two of the most compelling reasons for my saying this are (a) the complete shock of his hearers, in particular the disciples, who - on realising just how binding marriage is - say that it is better not to marry - with good reason! The other reason is the lack of reference in the two other passages - surely Jesus did not forget to mention the exception there? Surely He did not hide it for fear of upsetting His disciples?

This is subjective reasoning because it attmepts to assume that the context and language of Jesus' other dissertations on divorce had to be exhaustively all-inclusive of His other dissertations in relation to other specifics about divorce.

Disallowing Jesus the same verbal and literary freedoms you and I both enjoy, in order to foist upon scripture your subjective reasoning, is grounds for honest rejection.

When I talk about my enjoyment of chocolate, if you were to demand that I recount, at my ever reference to chocolate throughout my life, the particular recipe I'm talking about, would be, by any reasonable standard, sheer foolishness.


Surely He had not changed His mind? A further argument is that Paul does not include adultery as a ground for divorce in his exhaustive list of possible scenarios in 1 Cor 7. So, in my view, the only way for all these passages to harmonise and not contradict one another is to accept the betrothal fornication understanding of porneia.

Jesus also didn't recount every one of the ten commandments when He demanded in John 14:15, "If ye love me, keep my commandments." Does that give us license to pick apart the original ten, or can we legitimately alter or disallow inclusion of His meaning in other commandments He uttered since he didn't exhaustively outline them as an inclusion in every reference to the particular topic?

Come now. Surely we can be more reasonable about this.


Now, on to the harder topic of a Christian not being free to remarry, even if they have been the "innocent" party in a divorce, where the unbelieving spouse has left. This comes down to the nature of the marriage covenant, which can only be ended by death. Paul sets this out explicitly in 1 Cor 7:39 and also in Rom 7:1-2, as Butch5 has already pointed out. Paul also points out that even in regrettable situations where the Christian spouse feels he/she has to separate (depart) - the only options are to remain unmarried (presumably once the unbelieving spouse has divorced them) or be reconciled to the unbelieving spouse (if he is converted or wants her to come back).

No. As I recall, the believing spounse was not allowed to leave. However, you still have failed to deal with the no longer bound aspect of Paul's words when he addressed the scenario of the unbeliever leaving the relationship.


Either way, remarriage is not an option -

Perhaps in your opinion, but your reasoning is too riddled with holes of inconsistency and omissions for me to so blindly accept your conclusion.

SwJr

SwordmanJr
Aug 25th 2009, 03:07 PM
The LORD forgives all trespasses, and if a person divorces and then remarries, God forgives the second marriage.


Look, marriages break up, it happens, more than it should of course, but I believe that God forgives divorce.

Yeah. That's right. I'll be sure and tell my wife tonight:

"Hey, honey, I need a load of alcohol in my system in order to help ease the hurt of my having been laid off from my job. I'm gonna get drunk......but that's ok. The Lord will forgive me, and you should too. So I'm gonna do it whether you or the Lord like it or not. After all, I'm gonna do it anyway, and I'll be forgiven, so that's the way it is."

Ya know, the fact that someone would justify sin on the basis of forgiveness calls into serious question their own future attempts at repentence.

SwJr

LadyT
Aug 25th 2009, 03:17 PM
Yeah. That's right. I'll be sure and tell my wife tonight:

"Hey, honey, I need a load of alcohol in my system in order to help ease the hurt of my having been laid off from my job. I'm gonna get drunk......but that's ok. The Lord will forgive me, and you should too. So I'm gonna do it whether you or the Lord like it or not. After all, I'm gonna do it anyway, and I'll be forgiven, so that's the way it is."

Ya know, the fact that someone would justify sin on the basis of forgiveness calls into serious question their own future attempts at repentence.

SwJr

woe, excuse me? where did you get that from? you are assuming that, the fact is, GOD FORGIVES, it says so in the bible, NOT my words, the words of God:

1Jn 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

notuptome
Aug 25th 2009, 07:45 PM
woe, excuse me? where did you get that from? you are assuming that, the fact is, GOD FORGIVES, it says so in the bible, NOT my words, the words of God:

1Jn 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
God forgave David after his sin with Bathsheba and his murder of Uriah. God did punish David for his sin by taking the child. God does forgive but there are often consequences for our sin that God allows for our edification.

I wonder how many would sin say the sin of adultery if they thought that God would take one of their children as a consequence of their actions. This is purely speculative I am not suggesting that God would do it. He is also great in His mercy toward us. It is just my contention that we do not consider the cost sufficiently before we sin. We spend a lot of time bemoaning the cost after the fact.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

LadyT
Aug 25th 2009, 07:49 PM
why do you assume that knowing and believing the bible when it says that our sins are forgiven that I think that I can do what ever I want?

I thought it was about trusting in Jesus and that by walking with HIM, we will grow in HIM.

Am I wrong here?

Your Advert here


Hosted by Webnet77