Divorce and Remarriage

I shudder to think of who my parents would think would be good enough for me... My sister is a widow and her father passed away when she was 7. My mother hates any man she is interested in.... I think if we left it up to our parents.... yow...we would become spinsters...and never be allowed to marry at all ...because no-one is good enough for either one of us.

 

WS, it would either be that or, from an exasperated parent, "Here, TAKE her, PLEASE!"

 

Do you believe this:

Phil. 1:29
For to you it has been granted on behalf of Christ, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake.

2 Timothy 2:9
for which I suffer trouble as an evildoer, even to the point of chains; but the word of God is not chained.

What makes you think that God being loves rules out suffering in the life of believers? Is Romans 8:28 true or not?

 

Helen... fortunately for us she likes my husband. He's proven he's a "real man" to her. But my sister....poor girl...the only way she will ever get a brake from my mothers opinions is if she either lets my mother choose her husband, or she marries someone who is a clone of mine. And since my sister and I are nothing alike...that wouldn't work for her.

Would be nice if my mom would find a husband...then she would be too busy with her own life to have time to comment on my sisters. She's a widow...so I bet according to this thread even P.T.W. would say it was okay for her to remarry.

My first husband may very well have passed away...the way he used to drink and drive...it wouldn't surprise me at all...maybe I'm not an adulteress or a liar after all....I guess theres' no way to know though.

 

Helen, I couldn't tell if you were joking or not. Surely you were, so I won't comment further about it unless you weren't.

Classic the way the Scriptures are being dealt with instead of just one line here and there. Oh wait...

 

Absolutely since the Scripture says yes.

 

I'll let her know she has your approval.

 

Pastor Larry:

In studying the Talmud you will find that it is written that if the wife commits adultery the man is commanded to divorce her even if he is inclined to forgive her. As far as the issue about uncleanness this could be many different things.

I am studying Orthodox Judaism so I can better understand when individuals say things that are not in their fullness or to be able to repudiate when people make false statements. We have to admit that the Orthodox Jews today do keep the full law. No orthodox rabbi would declare that a man can divorce his wife and remarry if it was not permissable.

 

I was commenting on what Moses said. That is what is inspired. Moses set up a situation in those verses which I, in my hurry yesterday, slightly misidentified. The verses that if a man takes a wife, finds an uncleanness, divorces her, she remarries, and her second husband divorces her, she cannot go back to the first.

There is no command to divorce in this Scripture. To read a command to divorce in it is inaccurate, whether it is the Talmud or some 21st century scholar.

This is surprising to me. How do they do this? Do they stone their children who talk back to them? Do they stone adulterers and the like? I think what should be said is that the keep some of the Law according to what is convenient.

 

Larry, I think they keep what is POSSIBLE in the countries that they live in and that this is precisely what marks them as orthodox Jews. Nor do I think they are concerned whether or not a bunch of Gentile Christians think they are doing a good job of it or not...

Preach, when you have teenage daughters you will understand both the meaning and humor behind my one-liner. Exasperation can take on brand new colors with teenage daughters, and so while the idea of "take her, she's yours!" is a joke, the frustrations behind it when you have a teenage daughter charging towards independence (they usually don't walk gently in that direction!) are very real and I think well understood by those who have raised girls here.

In the meantime, allow me to say that if my daughters had had a father through those years, I think it would not have been nearly so rough on them, or on me. You fathers are incredibly important in a girl's life and please NEVER think otherwise. While she will, and must, rebel against her mother (use a word other than rebel if that bothers you, but each girl must separate emotionally and intellectually from the adult female in the family so she can establish her own female identity apart from that), it will always be her father, or even grandfather, whose approval or disapproval will help her keep from falling off the deep end. My girls were deprived of that, as Bob left when Julie was 12 and Bianca 7. Julie ended up living with a guy when she was nineteen, totally tearing apart our family, since she and I had been quite close previously, and Bianca is trying to recover from a real hatred of men. Barry has been a miracle from God here, with his gentle ways and sense of humor and incredible patience. My dad died when Scott, my oldest, was 5 -- before even one of the adoptions. My father-in-law, like the rest of Bob's family, never bothered seeing any of the grandchildren again or contacting them.

Just wanted to mention that sort of thing.

 

That wasn't the one liner I was talking about.

 

Maybe we should start a new thread about what it means to suffer for Christ.

 

Maybe this has been mentioned, it's hard to tell since the thread is so long now.

Years ago, an older pastor, was teaching a lesson that was based on Deuteronomy 24, he has since passed away. I remember him saying that men were at that time, divorcing their wives only to loan them out, for a certain amount of money, of course, to another man, for the purpose of childbearing. After the women had given the second husband a child, he would then divorce her and she could return to the first husband. The law in verses 1 thru 4, put a stop to this sort of thing, and the men were not divorcing because of sexual immorality, if they had been doing that, then the women would have been put to death. I believe this was just a theory, it was a long time ago, if this pastor hadn't been such an excellent teacher, I probably would never have remembered it.
Sue

 

a confusion we seem to be falling into is that adultery is fornication. these are not the same, but the latter could lead to the former.

adultery is living in a marital relationship with one who has had a previous marriage and whose former spouse is living. Within the marriage itself, the sexual relationship would not necessarily be immoral. This sexual immorality is fornication, in my view being engaged apart from the marriage relationship. (In my view is my belief of the topic).

Often the two are used interchangeably, I do not believe they are to be so used.

fornication is engaging in immoral sexual behavior.

adultery is engaging in marriage with a previously married person who has yet, a living spouse. Whatever the reason for the divorce, except fornication, this second marriage is adultery.

Forgiveness can be granted upon repentance, yet the relationship is still adultery and not fornication.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

Frogman, Actually as I understand it, Fornication is any sexual act outside of the sanctity of marriage. And Adultery is any marital act outside the sanctity of marriage which includes physical acts of a sexual nature but is not limited to them alone.

Sue... Good post. Certainly brings new light to the original intent.

[ December 11, 2002, 12:34 PM: Message edited by: WisdomSeeker ]

 

Just a positive note here...I've been studying this some lately with my husband and have been challenged in my thinking from some of the posts here...it is funny how we tend to not study and just take people's words for it,when God wants us all to know and live by His Truth....

Frogman and PTW,I see exactly what you are saying and I read the same verses you are reading...I am drawn to study more from what you have stated,which is always a good thing. I need to study more. I appreciate that from you,to challenge me and maybe see things differently that what I have been taught or accepted as biblical or whatever. I ,also, know John Piper has these same views and have recently read a few of his articles and statements on this...he is defintely someone we respect and he is respected by many in Baptist circles,esp those my husband and I are in contact with. So,I desire to be teachable and open to God's word here...

Right now,we are uncertain where we line up on this issue. It will probably take hours of more study and leading from my husband. He is much more knowledgable of scripture that I am. I just wanted to say thank you for the posts and the using of scripture...it has caused me to search deeper....as always,that is a good thing.

The BB is great for that reason,isn't it?

[ December 11, 2002, 01:13 PM: Message edited by: Molly ]

 

Pardon the length, but let me post this on Deut 4.

The first part merely sets up the occasion: If these strictures are met (the four things), then this is the outcome. It is important to note that divorce was not commanded and that remarriage was assumed. Now, as for the reasoning behind this (remarriage is assumed but following a second divorce, the woman cannot return to her first husband), we are not sure. Consider the following options. (The weird words are the Hebrew characters that do not transliterate well. Since I don't want to go correct them all, the letters represent the ervath debar ... the unclean thing.

Remarriage

The particular reason for the prohibition of remarriage to the original spouse is not explicitly stated. Several reasons have been suggested (1-4 are from Kysar, 1978, pp. 24-25).

1. It might be considered adulterous. “This seems unlikely since it is not so stated. Moreover, if the woman’s second marriage is not considered adulterous, why should remarriage to her first husband be deemed adultery?” (Kysar, 1978, p. 25). Furthermore, remarriage to a third husband is not prohibited, thereby ruling this option unlikely since adultery would be adultery whether returning to the original spouse or establishing a marriage with a third (or fourth, fifth, etc.) spouse.

2. It might be a simple instance of a “taboo,” an unwritten, cultural practice beyond explanation to the modern mind removed by centuries.

3. Luck argues that this passage is protection for the woman married to a husband “who is set on ceasing to provide for his covenant partner. This permission makes it possible for her to be provided for by another man (Luck, 1987, p. 65). Laney likewise argues that the bill of divorcement was given to “protect the rejected wife after marriage to another man [though] it does not alter God’s original plan for marriage” (Laney, 1981, p. 33). It may have served to protect the woman and provide for her legitimate subsistence in the occasion of a divorce. A legal divorce instrument would free the woman to remarry and thus avoid prostitution as one of the only means for a woman to support herself (Feinberg, 1993, p. 311). This seems valid reasoning but appears to be a non sequitur to the prohibition against remarriage.

4. Heth concludes with Wenham that the first marriage is irreconcilable after the second divorce or death because the first marriage constituted the establishment of a “close relationship” which would make subsequent remarriage to the original spouse a form of incest. He says, “one thing seems certain: the ‘one-flesh’ bond of marriage is not dissolved by legal or customary divorce nor by sexual relations with a third party.” He concludes, “Deuteronomy has taken the theological logic of Leviticus to its limit” (Heth and Wenham, 1984, p. 110). Yet it is more likely that Heth and Wenham have taken the theological logic of Deuteronomy beyond its limit.

5. It might have discouraged hasty divorce. MacLeod gives five guarantees against hasty divorce: “definite and substantial grounds,” a proper legal instrument, the implication that a public official must be brought in to assure rights and protections, formal dismissal, and irrevocability (MacLeod, pt 2, 1993, p. 30). Thus there were some limits, however broad or narrow they might be, on the divorce. A man could not, as the Pharisees asked, divorce his wife for any reason. Thus, the later rabbinical interpretation that the Pharisees referenced was indeed beyond the scope of the text.

6. It might have protected the second husband from the second thoughts of the first husband who might desire to have his wife return to him. Some have suggested that since the wife had gained a second dowry, the first husband might now be driven by financial gain. In such a case, the rb*d* tw~r+u# for which he originally divorced her has become less important in view of the financial gain (Walton in Brewer, 1998, p. 235).

One of the last two makes the most sense, i.e., it was protecting and encouraging the sanctity of marriage. The precise reason for the prohibition might be only an academic exercise for the NT believer however since the Law is no longer in effect. All of these solutions have their problems. Forced to choose, the protection against hasty divorce and the protection for the second husband against the second thoughts of the first husband seem most attractive. However, the point that rings clearly to the modern theologian is, as Harrell says, “The Old Testament assumes in the Deuteronomic passage the right of the divorced parties to remarry” (Harrell, 1967, p. 71). Whatever the rb*d* tw~r+u# was, and whatever the reason for the prohibition against remarriage to the original spouse, the right of the divorced parties to remarry is accepted rather than prohibited.

Conclusions

In summation, on the basis of this text, we cannot conclude that divorce is “impossible,” that a divorced couple is still married in God’s sight. If such were true, then the “remarriage” to the original spouse would not be a remarriage; it would only be a reconciliation of an existing marriage. We can also conclude that divorce was a reality which, in the text of Scripture in this passage, is neither condemned nor condoned. It is merely accepted as a part of the status quo. This does not suggest that it had divine approval or sanction. The provision of Deuteronomy 24 serves to regulate an area of life that must have been a problem. We can conclude that this passage understood in the light of rb*d* tw~r+u# as well as in the light of Genesis 22 cannot be maintained to permit divorce for any reason. There were definite, though non-preserved standards for which a person might divorce. Lastly we can conclude that the right of remarriage was assumed in the event of a divorce.

 

I have been reading many web sites on this subject and one point many writers have said is that God divorced Israel and remarried the church (Gentiles. The thought process is that the church is the bride of the Son only so this is not true but let us look at the facts clearly.

Who appeared so many times in the Old Testament.
Hundreds of scholars declare it was Jesus.
Others state it was God the Father as a theophany.

We claim that the Father, The Son and the Holy Ghost is the Trinity and they are one then if this statement is truth then Israel was the first wife of the Blessed Trinity and the Church is the Second Wife of the Blessed Trinity because Israel was divorced by God yet the Bible makes it very clear that God will return to Israel the First wife.

The Bible says God hates divorce but it did not say he forbad divorce.

So many people question why the discrepancies in what Matthew wrote compared to Mark and Luke. In one reality Matthew was present when Jesus had this conversation with the Pharisees and Sadducees. Mark and Luke got second hand information.

To many Bible scholars it does not make sense for the Second Person of the Trinity who was part of the decision to allow Moses to accept divorce and remarriage to now change it to absolutely no remarriage for any reason.

Matthew 5 and 19 has exceptions clauses. Individuals like PTW can ignore the clauses if they so choose but it says what it says and nothing anyone can say can change that. Jesus himself said a person can remarry if there has been sexual unfaithfulness and this is not my personal interpretation. This is exactly what every Bible translation declares. You can argue whatever you want to but it does not change the fact that Jesus gave the exception clause.

 

Rhema --

He divorced Israel and married the church? Now,
that is an amazing twist of Scripture. Glad you
don't believe that.

 

Since when is interpretation ignoring, hrhema? I have kept my arguments primarily to these two passages. Thankfully others can see through this line.