Login  | |
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 11/30/2005 4:49:25 PM
|
|
|
neuronstatic
Posts: 948
Joined: 7/14/2005
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: lastblast
quote:
ORIGINAL: neuronstatic
Take the time to read the article. It says that they do not remain married. It says that until they get the "get" they are still married. Then once they have the "gitten" they are no longer married and free to marry again.
Thanks all the same, but I will stick with what Jesus said..............In Him, Cindy
So the Jewish culture of Jesus has no bearing on what He said?
_____________________________
Click here for an example of God blessing a man with a second chance at marriage in a new wife.
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 11/30/2005 6:34:06 PM
|
|
|
Keabird
Posts: 694
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
Cindy, what I said in my post was what Jesus said.
I have another question to ask you. Many times, during this discussion, the incident of David eating the forbidden bread has come up in terms of Jesus overlooking a breach of the law.
If I recall correctly, neither you nor any other anti-remarriage person have explained why it was okay for David to do that and Jesus not hold him accountable for it as being a "sin".
So I am asking you to address it, in considering it here as follows:
David and his men were fleeing for their lives. King Saul, quite unjustly, was trying to kill David. The Bible tells us that David and his men were hungry and ate the bread which BY LAW was reserved for the priests. Can you stop for a moment and put yourself in the shoes of David and his men at that point? They knew the law. But here they were, running for their lives, and hungry. Can you imagine the kinds of thoughts and prayers David may have been having just then? Possibly, "Lord I know this bread is not meant to be eaten by us. But we are so hungry, Lord, and there is nothing else. I hope you won't hold it against us." Maybe even some of his men were afraid they would be struck down by God if they ate the bread - they knew God was a powerful God! However, obviously, they ate and lived to tell the story.
Now, let's consider what Jesus said about this. He acknowledged that David and his men broke the law. He did not dispute that they were in sin by doing so. But He did not hold them accountable for it as sin! Why? BECAUSE THE LAW IS SUBJECT TO GOD'S JUSTICE AND MERCY, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
So, Jesus later says the woman who has been divorced unjustly and then remarries commits adultery but that adultery is CAUSED BY HER HUSBAND and she is NOT HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THAT SIN.
Here is one of the wonderful things about the living God, Jesus Christ. When the RULES say someone has sinned, God will look at WHY someone has sinned, and choose or not choose to hold the person accountable. THAT IS HIS RIGHT AS GOD - TO HOLD ACCOUNTABLE OR TO SHOW MERCY.
Many of us know of horribly sad situations where a child has been enticed into sexual sin. Does that mean the child has not sinned? No, it doesn't, because the law still stands. But GOD DOES NOT HOLD THAT CHILD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THAT SIN BECAUSE ANOTHER PERSON ENTICED THEM INTO IT.
This is also how it is with the spouse who has been unjustly divorced and remarries. God does not hold their remarriage against them but shows mercy instead, because it was the former spouse who is held accountable. But ALL can be forgiven and move on.
I am sorry Cindy, but I see you harping on the same thing without acknowledging that people DID remarry in line with the law and for just reasons. Jesus said, "What God has joined together, let no man separate." This implies it is possible for man to separate what God has joined together, and sadly, that happens.
Sorry, Cindy, but I believe your hard and fast belief that the first covenant remains in spite of adultery and divorce is quite incorrect scripturally, and places a heavy burden on people when they probably already have enough burden, without adding to their burden a further burden of confusion and legalism.
In Him, Sherri
_____________________________
"The thief comes to kill, steal and destroy, but I have come that you may have life and have it abundantly." John 10:10
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 11/30/2005 7:31:51 PM
|
|
|
lastblast
Posts: 1599
Joined: 9/20/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Sorry, Cindy, but I believe your hard and fast belief that the first covenant remains in spite of adultery and divorce is quite incorrect scripturally, and places a heavy burden on people when they probably already have enough burden, without adding to their burden a further burden of confusion and legalism.
Sherri,
I understand your feelings on this and I appreciate your nice tone as I know this topic hits close to home for you. The way you have handled yourself is to be commended. However, I do not believe what you wrote in your last post was biblically accurate. I prefer to lay the scriptures out themselves, word for word and really take a look at it.
The thing I am seeing is that what I have asked is being skirted. Instead, a source which is EXTRAbiblical is trying to be used to justify the opposite of what our Lord has said. That is what I reject, not learning historical information. I'm very open to that-----as long as what is presented does not contradict the Word of God.
The argument by some is that a divorce dissolves the one flesh. Jesus' charge of guilt against a "third" party (commits adultery) by marrying a divorced person is very clear to me. It shows that HE did not acknowledge the putting away as dissolving the "one flesh". The union is still in tact, that's why a remarriage is adultery. That is why a "third party" is guilty of adultery. They are joining themself with someone who does not belong to them.
I also find it interesting that someone wants me to consider an extrabiblical source of material to justify divorce/remarriage----saying I should consider the cultural concerns at the time, yet the same people refuse to acknowledge that the Jewish culture of Jesus' day indeed did "put away" betrothed women(wife) for "fornication/porneia". Those who say that Jesus DIDN'T mean that, how can you be so sure since we see this exact thing presented in the very same gospel (Mt. 1:18-24)---no extrabiblical sources needed to prove that? Just my thoughts. Blessings in Him, Cindy
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 11/30/2005 9:08:14 PM
|
|
|
neuronstatic
Posts: 948
Joined: 7/14/2005
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
ROTFLMBO!
Extra-biblical? Sure. Historical? Absolutely. Useful? Only if you aren't Jewish or have studied Jewish culture.
Sheesh, if someone does not want to read the Bible in context, but instead look at it "word for word" in isolation, using their cultural context and avoiding the fact that Jesus was Jewish, well, good luck. Otherwise you will look at phrases and sayings and wonder what in the world Jesus and Paul were thinking. Because the Jewish culture of their time is VASTLY different than post-modern United States with the benefit of 2000 years of Christian teaching.
Now if you deny that, then truly, truly I have to say that it will be impossible for you to accurately discern all the scriptures. And if you go to seminary, that is one of the things you learn in addition to Hebrew, you learn what ancient Judaism was like. The theologians of today that know what they are talking about study the cultural context of the Bible and the ancient languages. We have relied on men (and women) of learning for 2000 years to assist us in this endeavor, and they do use extra-biblical evidence to understand the context of what they read in the ancient tongues.
I am getting tired of saying it, but still it must be said. Jesus knew that divorce dissolved the marriage because every Jew knew that it did. Also ALL Jews knew that with a legal divorce remarriage was permissable. They also knew that you could not return to the spouse they had divorced.
I believe to avoid the full context of the Bible and to nitpick the words and syntax in isolation is a dangerous game to play. It is exactly the kind of thing that leads to theological error.
And as for your comment that the same people refuse to acknowledge that the Jewish culture of Jesus' day indeed did "put away" betrothed women(wife) for "fornication/porneia" is absurd. That is exactly what I said. To get out of betrothal required DIVORCE. You know, dissolution of the covenant.
I know what Jesus said and what He meant. Jesus said that it is legal to divorce your spouse for immorality. And Jesus used the word divorce because he knew that divorce dissolves the marriage covenant. And He made it clear that if done properly then it was perfectly acceptable to remarry.
That is exactly what Jesus said. Specifically and to all believers as recorded in the scriptures.
_____________________________
Click here for an example of God blessing a man with a second chance at marriage in a new wife.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 11/30/2005 9:32:17 PM
|
|
|
lastblast
Posts: 1599
Joined: 9/20/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Now if you deny that, then truly, truly I have to say that it will be impossible for you to accurately discern all the scriptures. And if you go to seminary, that is one of the things you learn in addition to Hebrew, you learn what ancient Judaism was like. The theologians of today that know what they are talking about study the cultural context of the Bible and the ancient languages. We have relied on men (and women) of learning for 2000 years to assist us in this endeavor, and they do use extra-biblical evidence to understand the context of what they read in the ancient tongues.
I am getting tired of saying it, but still it must be said. Jesus knew that divorce dissolved the marriage because every Jew knew that it did. Also ALL Jews knew that with a legal divorce remarriage was permissable. They also knew that you could not return to the spouse they had divorced .
Neuron,
I think I did say that there was some value in studying extrabiblical sources for historical research. I don't have a problem with that. The thing I have issue with is using those writings to usurp/change what Jesus spoke. The writings you provide do just such a thing. You would have a real problem explaining how Gentiles were supposed to understand divorce=dissolution of the "one flesh", especially since Jesus taught marriage after a divorce is committing adultery. Like I said, it's impossible to commit adultery if a marriage is no more........
Your understanding of divorce completely contradicts what Jesus spoke. In Him, Cindy
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 11/30/2005 9:36:48 PM
|
|
|
Keabird
Posts: 694
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
Hi Cindy, I laid the scriptures out, and really took a look at them.
If you read my post properly, you will see that what I said was in line with both Scripture and the custom of the times, and the law of Moses at the time.
You appear to be ignoring the fact, as Neuron said, that Jews DID have permission to remarry after divorce. It was an every day fact. Jesus addressed their motives about WHY they were divorcing in the first place. He didn't dispute that they could remarry once divorced, and didn't say a divorced spouse had to return to the previous spouse. It's just not there but you keep speaking as though it is. He simply tried to get them to look at what marriage was MEANT to be, acknowledging that unfaithfulness changes all that.
End of story.
_____________________________
"The thief comes to kill, steal and destroy, but I have come that you may have life and have it abundantly." John 10:10
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 11/30/2005 10:49:34 PM
|
|
|
neuronstatic
Posts: 948
Joined: 7/14/2005
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: lastblast
Neuron,
I think I did say that there was some value in studying extrabiblical sources for historical research. I don't have a problem with that. The thing I have issue with is using those writings to usurp/change what Jesus spoke. The writings you provide do just such a thing. You would have a real problem explaining how Gentiles were supposed to understand divorce=dissolution of the "one flesh", especially since Jesus taught marriage after a divorce is committing adultery. Like I said, it's impossible to commit adultery if a marriage is no more........
Your understanding of divorce completely contradicts what Jesus spoke. In Him, Cindy
I thought you were in fact denying extra-biblical research as that was what you said. My mistake maybe.
I did not use the extra-biblical material to usurp what Jesus said. In fact, the extra-biblical material is used to help us understand the audience Jesus was speaking to and indeed, the cultural context in which Jesus was raised and lived. Let us not forget, Jesus was born, and raised, a Jew. He did not appear fully grown on Earth.
What you have a problem with is that Jesus, being a Jew, fully understood that divorce meant dissolution of a marriage. It is also problematic for your position in that since Jesus, a Jew, and Paul, a Jew, both used the same understanding of divorce, and that no Jew questioned its use, and the Jews knew what divorce was, that the historical position of the Jews is that divorce is dissolution of the marriage. It is also problematic in that the historical position of the Jews is that second marriage was allowed, always had been, and still is.
It is also problematic for you given that Jesus called marriage to an immoral person, immoral, and NOT adultery. Jesus NEVER said marrying the innocent spouse caused adultery. Jesus said that marrying the immoral person (i.e. that committed adultery) knowingly, caused them to be immoral also. You use a post-modern concept for adultery, and not Jesus' definition, which was sexual immorality, and indeed, immorality carried further, as Jesus Himself described when He declared lustful thoughts to be immorality (also translated as adultery).
You have a very, very narrow and misguided definition of adultery. This is exactly what Jesus was trying to tell the Jews when He told them it included lustful thoughts. So then, it appears that your definition would in fact be corrected and rebuked by Jesus. In other words, you are wrong.
One further bit of information. As Christians, there is no Jew nor Gentile. The instructions are equally valid to both because they are given to us as believers.
_____________________________
Click here for an example of God blessing a man with a second chance at marriage in a new wife.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 12/1/2005 8:38:50 AM
|
|
|
lastblast
Posts: 1599
Joined: 9/20/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
If you are divorced and cannot have peace at home, Paul is saying it is ok to remarry.
How do you reconcile what Paul (the Lord actually) said in I Cor. 7:10-11? Another marriage was CERTAINLY NOT an option........
Is it your view that some Christians CAN remarry after a divorce, while others cannot? In Him, Cindy
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 12/1/2005 9:08:23 AM
|
|
|
Restored_Heart
Posts: 932
Joined: 7/23/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
lastblast
How do you reconcile what Paul (the Lord actually) said in I Cor. 7:10-11? Another marriage was CERTAINLY NOT an option........
Cindy you keep pulling out only ½ of Paul’s thought in this scripture. To be able to understand 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, you must look at the whole section in entirety.
1 Corinthians 7:10-16 (CEV)
10 I instruct married couples to stay together, and this is exactly what the Lord himself taught. A wife who leaves her husband 11 should either stay single or go back to her husband. And a husband should not leave his wife.
12 I don't know of anything else the Lord said about marriage. All I can do is to give you my own advice. If your wife isn't a follower of the Lord, but is willing to stay with you, don't divorce her. 13 If your husband isn't a follower, but is willing to stay with you, don't divorce him. 14 Your husband or wife who isn't a follower is made holy by having you as a mate. This also makes your children holy and keeps them from being unclean in God's sight.
15 If your husband or wife isn't a follower of the Lord and decides to divorce you, then you should agree to it. You are no longer bound to that person. After all, God chose you and wants you to live at peace. 16 And besides, how do you know if you will be able to save your husband or wife who isn't a follower?
Paul addresses leaving, but addresses it in the thought of the time (for any reason). Marriage SHOULD be forever – we should act out the commandment to love one another daily. Unfortunately, this is often not the case – we judge others and harden our hearts towards them. You will notice later in this section of Paul’s words, that if the unbelieving (hard-hearted) spouse leaves, the abandoned believing spouse is not bound to them – we are to allow them to go. If we are not bound (not chained) – we are therefore free; freedom to live according to what God has called us to – in some cases, a second God-ordained marriage.
In the case of some – we acted out verses 12-15. We are free from the unbelieving spouse and no longer bound to the dead covenant.
_____________________________
"Ya mom, I got to see "Some Italian guy" in concert..."
Some Italian guy? (Carman) :p
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 12/1/2005 9:28:13 AM
|
|
|
lastblast
Posts: 1599
Joined: 9/20/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
What you have a problem with is that Jesus, being a Jew, fully understood that divorce meant dissolution of a marriage. It is also problematic for your position in that since Jesus, a Jew, and Paul, a Jew, both used the same understanding of divorce, and that no Jew questioned its use, and the Jews knew what divorce was, that the historical position of the Jews is that divorce is dissolution of the marriage. It is also problematic in that the historical position of the Jews is that second marriage was allowed, always had been, and still is.
Are you saying that you believe Jesus, though prohibiting divorce in His response to the Pharisees, was actually saying "well, guys, I am coming strongly against divorce, prohibiting it for all reasons, but one............but IF YOU DO divorce for other reasons, and then decide to marry another, I will "join" that union............because as you all know, divorce dissolves the"one flesh'".................I won't like it, but I will abide with your decisions and even bless those things I've prohibited."
If this is what you are maintaining, then yes, I have issue with your interpretations because they are diametrically opposed to Jesus' very words on the subject. I don't see the treating of marriage any different today than what the Pharisees were doing in Jesus' day----divorcing for "any cause"..........
In Deut. 24:1-4, marriage after a divorce WAS allowed---with a new marriage following. Never do we see such a marriage labelled "adultery"................yet, when asked about divorce during Jesus' walk upon the earth, He told those listeners, that WHOSOEVER shall divorce and marry another COMMITTETH ADULTERY. What was "allowed" in the OT does not dictate the meaning of what Jesus spoke. Things changed in many different ways, not just concerning marital adultery. What changed with marriage is not only very clear by Jesus' EXACT words, but it is clear by the response of His disciples---who knew about divorce practices of the day. They were SHOCKED by Jesus' response.
quote:
It is also problematic for you given that Jesus called marriage to an immoral person, immoral, and NOT adultery. Jesus NEVER said marrying the innocent spouse caused adultery. Jesus said that marrying the immoral person (i.e. that committed adultery) knowingly, caused them to be immoral also. You use a post-modern concept for adultery, and not Jesus' definition, which was sexual immorality, and indeed, immorality carried further, as Jesus Himself described when He declared lustful thoughts to be immorality (also translated as adultery).
So, what you are saying is that if someone commits adultery, are divorced by their spouse, repent of their adultery, they are STILL considered an immoral person, therefore whooever marries them next, is now immoral too? How do you justify this belief based upon the message of Grace?
Jesus DID say the "third party" is guilty of adultery (#3429, Moichao---adultery). The greek word is not "immorality", it is defined by Strong's as: adultery. Jesus charges the "third party" with committing adultery. The definition of adultery has ALWAYS been: unlawful relations with another's spouse. You continue to have a problem showing scripturally how it is that one can commit adultery if the previous marriage is dissolved by a divorce.............
In Him, Cindy
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 12/1/2005 11:47:36 AM
|
|
|
neuronstatic
Posts: 948
Joined: 7/14/2005
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: lastblast
Are you saying that you believe Jesus, though prohibiting divorce in His response to the Pharisees, was actually saying "well, guys, I am coming strongly against divorce, prohibiting it for all reasons, but one............but IF YOU DO divorce for other reasons, and then decide to marry another, I will "join" that union............because as you all know, divorce dissolves the"one flesh'".................I won't like it, but I will abide with your decisions and even bless those things I've prohibited."
If this is what you are maintaining, then yes, I have issue with your interpretations because they are diametrically opposed to Jesus' very words on the subject. I don't see the treating of marriage any different today than what the Pharisees were doing in Jesus' day----divorcing for "any cause"..........
In Deut. 24:1-4, marriage after a divorce WAS allowed---with a new marriage following. Never do we see such a marriage labelled "adultery"................yet, when asked about divorce during Jesus' walk upon the earth, He told those listeners, that WHOSOEVER shall divorce and marry another COMMITTETH ADULTERY. What was "allowed" in the OT does not dictate the meaning of what Jesus spoke. Things changed in many different ways, not just concerning marital adultery. What changed with marriage is not only very clear by Jesus' EXACT words, but it is clear by the response of His disciples---who knew about divorce practices of the day. They were SHOCKED by Jesus' response.
So, what you are saying is that if someone commits adultery, are divorced by their spouse, repent of their adultery, they are STILL considered an immoral person, therefore whooever marries them next, is now immoral too? How do you justify this belief based upon the message of Grace?
Jesus DID say the "third party" is guilty of adultery (#3429, Moichao---adultery). The greek word is not "immorality", it is defined by Strong's as: adultery. Jesus charges the "third party" with committing adultery. The definition of adultery has ALWAYS been: unlawful relations with another's spouse. You continue to have a problem showing scripturally how it is that one can commit adultery if the previous marriage is dissolved by a divorce.............
In Him, Cindy
Cindy, divorce means dissolving the marriage covenant. You can call it one flesh union, you can call it marriage, you can call it a marriage covenant. But it is a vow made by two people to each other. Vows are broken. And when the marriage vows are broken, specifically in terms of sexual immorality in this discussion, the covenant is at risk. If both spouses reconcile, then the covenant is restored.
However, as it often happens, and increasingly so it may seem, at least one of the spouses refuses to repent of the immorality that broke the vows and shook the covenant. Once they have their hearts hardened to that point, and they do not repent, the other spouse is to give them some time to repent of their sin and reconcile. If after some time, and that amount is dependent on the situation and the individuals involved, that erring spouse does not repent and reconcile, then yes, Jesus said you can divorce them and thus dissolve your marriage covenant with that person. And once the covenant is dissolved, the spouses are no longer in a one flesh union.
Jesus lived in this definition of divorce. When the Pharisees attempted to broaden the grounds for divorce, Jesus narrowed them. But Jesus did not abolish divorce. In the OT, God said that He made an eternal covenant with His people. That covenant was one way, from God to man. Human marriage is like that heavenly covenant in that we bind in exclusivity. However, unlike the eternal God, we are incapable of making vows that we will not break. Our marriage is a pale imitation of the marriage of God to His people just as it is a pale imitation of the marriage of Christ to His church.
God established divorce in the OT because He divorced His people. He removed from them the benefits of the union He had with them. Completely removed those benefits and left Israel on its own to whore after other gods. When that happened, there was no union with God. Then God raised up prophets at those times to deliver His words to His people, to bring them back. But until that time, they were divorced, they had no union with God. Once the people returned to God, He restored a union with them.
Now then, Jesus would never be diametrically opposed to God the Father. God instituted this concept of divorce in the way he disciplined His people. We also know that in Christ, "nothing can snatch those the Father gives Him from His hand." Again, like the Father who made an eternal covenant with His people, Christ continues that same eternal covenant with His people. And those that He saves, He keeps. He keeps them safe like a shepherd. He does not abandon them.
But just like sheep, people abandon Christ, and they abandon God. That is how we know when someone is not one of His. Their walk falters and we realize they were a goat all along.
Now I have just spoken of the divine marriage of the triune God to his people. Now let us look again at human marriage.
Human marriage is a pale imitation of the divine marriage. There is a covenant between two sinners. Neither of the spouses are capable of sitting in the place of God and keeping the covenant eternally. Because of this we can only say human marriage is like the divine marriage. The covenant is not made by divine and eternal beings. It is made by beings that sin and fail.
It was because of this very thing that God allowed Moses to institute divorce. God demonstrates divorce means dissolution of the union, and in the case of Moses, it was written into Law that it meant the dissolution of the marriage. So that when any Jew from the time of Moses on ever used the word divorce, they knew it meant the dissolution of the marriage covenant and the complete breaking of the one flesh union.
God allowed this because of the hardness of human hearts and our inability to not sin at times. God allowed this not by concession to sin. God is capable of overcoming any barriers to His plan. He allowed divorce not from frustration, but from compassion. This is what I have been trying to get across to everyone all along on this thread. God is compassionate. It is not compassionate to leave someone in a situation where they are dishonored daily by an adulterous spouse or worse, being abused. God requires the sinner to repent. but they don't always. The pride in their sinful hearts makes them hard as stone and they do not repent.
When that happens, in compassion, God allows the divorce to occur. This serves two purposes. The first purpose is for compassion and mercy to the innocent spouse. The second purpose is to disconnect the adulterous spouse from the union. This is exactly the same concept as removing the unrepentant sinner from amongst the congregation when they do not repent (as Paul instructed). So then by being apart from the union it is the intent that this serve as a means of rebuking the sinner and bringing them to repentance.
Now in the case of marriage, God in the OT established a few more regulations through Moses to control divorce. Like all good things from God, even compassion can be abused. You can "love" your kids so much you spoil them and that is wrong. And likewise, a tool for compassion and restoration of sinners, namely divorce, was abused as well. The OT Laws sought to contain that abuse. And that is what Jesus did in the NT. He sought to contain that abuse.
God also directed through Moses to write into the Law provisions for remarriage. It was implict from the nature of divorce that the divorced spouses were free from the covenant, free from the bondage of marriage, and therefore free to marry again. However, to prevent further abuse, there were limitations put in place so that you could not return to a spouse once they were defiled.
God created marriage for permanence. He created love to be ever present. Just as we do not love as we should, we do not keep marriage as we should. There is an important lesson here in that we can never meet the mark. What this literally means is we cannot do all God calls us to. If we were able to love perfectly, worship perfectly, keep marriage perfectly, and do all the other commands of God perfectly, then there would have been no need of Christ. However, Christ was with God at the foundation of creation. He has been in the plan all along because we cannot earn our way to God through our works. We must rely on grace. There is no other way.
Because of this, God does not require us to keep a perpetual marriage covenant when it is impossible to keep because of the hard heart of one of the spouses. When one spouse leaves, and there is divorce, there is no more covenant. To require an innocent spouse to continue in a broken covenant completely defies the compassion God instituted when He created divorce.
Now then, where does that leave Jesus teaching in the NT on divorce and second marriages? If you still hold that Jesus was in opposition to the Father in His design of marriage and divorce then you are wrong.
What Jesus did do was clarify the misunderstandings of the Pharisees, and by way of God's plan for the scriptures, we believers as well. Jesus clarified many things the Jews had wrong. They had a wrong view of murder, adultery, lust, marriage, and divorce. Jesus clarified all these things. But neither did Jesus deny divorce nor did he deny marriage after proper divorce. And Jesus did not deny the cleansing of a repentant sinner by the forgiveness from the Father.
So again I say, marriage after divorce is not only allowable, whether the person was the innocent spouse or the repentant sinner, as long as they build their marriage on God, then God will honor that marriage. And I further say that to tell anyone that they cannot marry after divorce when they were the innocent spouse or they are repentant, is diametrically opposed to God. And that puts your position directly in that light.
Denial of marriage to those that are free to do so is no different than what the Judaizers were doing in the time of Paul that attempted to prohibit marriage, eating of all foods, and all other freedoms in Christ. Furthermore, to insist that a person in an honorable marriage to God must divorce and return to their original spouse or forever remain single is completely wrong and does considerably much more damage than the original divorce did.
So then as it comes all the way full circle, to get back to the OP, when a spouse is sexually immoral in their marriage, and a divorce occurs, their marriage covenant is dissolved and the innocent spouse is immediately free to marry again. The immoral person must repent of their sins completely and then they likewise, as forgiven sinners cleansed by God, are free to marry again.
_____________________________
Click here for an example of God blessing a man with a second chance at marriage in a new wife.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 12/1/2005 12:47:14 PM
|
|
|
DaveW
Posts: 4110
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: MD suburbs of Washington DC
Status: offline
|
Cindy:
Don't fall into the trap of looking at this from a western perspective. Scripture was written from an eastern Hebraic viewpoint. Jesus was/is a Jew. Those he was speaking to were Jews. Paul was a Jew, and as we know from acts there were many Jews in Corinth.
It has been said that in biblical intreptetation, context is king. But what is the context? I would submit that the contexts of Jesus and Pauls statements were in very different contexts. The question Jesus was asked sets the context: "Is it OK to divorce your wife for any reason?" This was an almost century old debate between 2 exalted Pharasaic leaders named Hillel and Shammai. THis Pharasee articulates Hillel's position very well; "any reason." Shammai said it was only if he found her not a virgin. Jesus is asked to weigh in on this hot topic debate between these 2 factions of Pharasaism. The "any reason" was not good reason and led to His statement that this was the same as adultery.
Paul is also responding to a question. We do not have that question. What we do know from tradition is that Corinth had gotten the idea (probably from some faction of the gnostics) that it was better to be single for the Lord. So many just divorced en masse. Some ended up marrying other recently divorced believers. Paul says this is not right. If an unbeliever leaves, go ahead and remarry. If you divorced a believer, be rejoined. He then says it is better to be married than to burn. To sum up, he invokes beit shalom - a peaceful home.
Please note that both these are from a Hebraic perspective, which takes very seriously "It is not good for man to be alone." This is routinely ignored in western christianity, in fact by focusing on the parts where Paul says it is better to be single. But please note what the apostle cites as reason for going against "It is not good for man to be alone;" he says "...in light of the present trouble..." i.e. there was persecution going on at that time.
Neither Jesus or paul deal at all with the Ex 21 reason for divorce:
Exo 21:7 "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do.
Exo 21:8 If she does not please her master, who has designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has broken faith with her.
Exo 21:9 If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter.
Exo 21:10 If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights.
Exo 21:11 And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.
It was reasoned from this that if a slave wife is due these 3 things, food clothing and sex, how much more is a free wife? She could petition a rabbinical council (bet din) to force her husband to write her a certificate of divorce (get).
She was then free to remarry.
We err in trying to apply both Jesus and Paul too broadly on this topic. They were both answering different specific questions.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 12/1/2005 1:10:08 PM
|
|
|
lastblast
Posts: 1599
Joined: 9/20/2005
Status: offline
|
You're a very nice writer Neuron, but you still are not focusing on what Jesus said.......you are trying to go all around it. Please take some time and address the "third party" person issue........How can they be charged with adultery, if the person they married is LAWFULLY---in God's eyes----free to marry? Thank you. In Him, Cindy
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 12/1/2005 1:35:27 PM
|
|
|
lastblast
Posts: 1599
Joined: 9/20/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Cindy:
Don't fall into the trap of looking at this from a western perspective.
It's interesting you say that Dave. I think my view of marriage is FAR from a Western mindset. 
quote:
Scripture was written from an eastern Hebraic viewpoint. Jesus was/is a Jew. Those he was speaking to were Jews. Paul was a Jew, and as we know from acts there were many Jews in Corinth.
What about those Christians (Gentiles) that had no such "exception clause" in their teachings (Mk. 10, Lk. 16)? What do you suppose they believed about marriage?
quote:
The "any reason" was not good reason and led to His statement that this was the same as adultery.
I agree. Jesus' response shows that He does not accept those types of putting away.........and anyone who marries one put away commits adultery---because their "bond" has NOT been dissolved. It's quite perplexing to me that so many argue against the clear word of Jesus in favor of believing He really didn't mean what He said........."it just has to mean something else"...........The adultery charge is in the REMARRIAGE, not the divorce as some are trying to say.
quote:
If an unbeliever leaves, go ahead and remarry. If you divorced a believer, be rejoined.
First, where does Paul EVER state that we should "go ahead and remarry"----unless you are speaking of a woman who departs and is told by Paul that she is either to remain UNMARRIED or to be reconciled?
quote:
He then says it is better to be married than to burn. To sum up, he invokes beit shalom - a peaceful home.
I've got a real problem with that. Paul in the very last part of his teachings, teaches that the marriage bond endures TIL DEATH (I Cor. 7:39). When a woman is freed in such a way, THEN she is free to marry again, only in the Lord. As for marrying because one burns, that admonishment was for those who are FREE to marry again, not the divorced who will commit adultery by another marriage. That completely smacks of "flesh". As I've said before, that "burning" argument lacks weight in it's argument, because if God allows us to sin in order to satisfy our fleshly desires, where does it end? The truth is with this type of thinking, there will be NO end at what we will justify to pleasure ourselves. I've brought this up before but here's a case inpoint: a man has a wife who is a vegetable (terri schiavo for instance).......... Her husband's flesh was burning..........she sat alone in a hospital bed for years. Do you think it mattered more to the Lord that her husband remain faithful to her or do believe the Lord "winked" on him finding another woman because he is human after all and his flesh was "burning"?
quote:
Please note that both these are from a Hebraic perspective, which takes very seriously "It is not good for man to be alone." This is routinely ignored in western christianity, in fact by focusing on the parts where Paul says it is better to be single.
The thing is Dave that this is NOT ignored in Western Christianity. Western Christians feel ENTITLED to marry again, irregardless of what Jesus and Paul spoke and for whatever reasons they determine are "good" reasons. If one brings up Paul's (the Lord's) admonishment for "remaining unmarried or being reconciled".........people get indignant.
quote:
It was reasoned from this that if a slave wife is due these 3 things, food clothing and sex, how much more is a free wife? She could petition a rabbinical council (bet din) to force her husband to write her a certificate of divorce (get).
She was then free to remarry.
We err in trying to apply both Jesus and Paul too broadly on this topic.
No, I believe we "err" when we lean on our own understanding instead of looking to the Words of Jesus and Paul for direction and clarity. In my opinion, it's better to "keep ourselves from sin" than it is to possibly misuse Grace to commit sin........Like has been said before there is MUCH said about adultery in the NT, so trying to minimize it may not be the best thing for those who profess Christ to do.............In Him, Cindy
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 12/1/2005 2:51:35 PM
|
|
|
neuronstatic
Posts: 948
Joined: 7/14/2005
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: lastblast
You're a very nice writer Neuron, but you still are not focusing on what Jesus said.......you are trying to go all around it. Please take some time and address the "third party" person issue........How can they be charge | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
