Divorce and Remarriage: the real issue.

[canadyjd]

That is why I said that if a divorce and remarried former member of a particular church still wanted to come and worship, if I were the pastor, I would still welcome them as worshippers and visitors, but not as members.

To accept back into membership, or retain into membership, those who knowingly and willfuly commit adultery through remarriage after divorce is not to keep oneself (as believer) and the church as a whole, from the world.

The purpose of Church discipline is to restore the fellowship of the wayward member. Part of membership is (or should be) the partaking of the Lord's Supper with like-minded believers. To deny membership to a repentent former member would be to deny them the opportunity to obey their Lord by participating in the Lord's Supper.

I understand your desire to keep the church from the world. With respect to you and your position here (and I do respect your understanding of this particular scripture), I think you are taking it too far. If a person is repentent before God and the church, we must exhibit the perfect patience of Christ and welcome them home.

peace to youraying:

 

[MadFingerPainter]

So I have to wait until my ex...who had an affair...dies before I can remarry and be alright in the eyes of God?

 

[Helen]

So I have to wait until my ex...who had an affair...dies before I can remarry and be alright in the eyes of God?

NO! Please ready my post on page two of this thread.

 

[MadFingerPainter]

Let me tell you about the counselling Barry and I received before we were married. First, he had never been married before. However I had been married for 20 years to a man who had a series of affairs for about fifteen of them, if I am to believe what he told me. In 1991 he left us for one of his other women. Within weeks of the divorce being final (I refused to file; he had to. I did not want the divorce no matter what), he was married to her.

I did not think I could marry again, and actually, because I knew the pain 'another woman' could cause, I would not even talk to another man unless it was in a strictly business/professional relationship for at least seven years.

When Barry and I found our professional relationship turning into a friendship and then into a much deeper friendship (although we were 12,000 miles apart!), both of us sought counselling regarding the matter.

Here is what he was told -- which really was the clincher for both of us:

In the Old Testament, if one marriage partner committed adultery, that person was stoned to death. That left the innocent party widowed, and thus free to remarry. We do not stone adulterers to death today; instead divorce. Does this mean the innocent party must be penalized because we do not sentence the guilty party to death?

Shortly after my ex had left us (call it abandonment, for the kids never even got birthday or Christmas cards after the first year, let alone anything else! The judge had to order child support and we got none until the divorce was final.), I was reading the Bible one day and came across the following from Psalm 2, which almost exactly described what had happened.

It [wisdom] will save you from the adulteress
from the wayward wife with her seductive words,
who has left the partner of her youth
and ignored the covenant she made before God.
For her house leads down to death
and her paths to the spirits of the dead.
None who go to her return
or attain the paths of life.

When I read that I literally and out loud screamed at God, "NO! That's my HUSBAND!"

But the years have proved the accuracy of that proverb. My ex is a bitter and hateful old man now. He is dead inside, certainly. It appears in God's eyes that he is dead, and has been for some time now.

For nine years I raised six children alone -- five being adopted special case kids. I would wake up at a run at 5 in the morning and I think I was unconscious before I was even horizontal around eleven at night. I was most certainly not on a husband hunt! In fact, two days before Barry and I were married, I was hysterically trying to talk him out of it, primarily because I did not think I could be a good wife again; I didn't think I could trust or really open up again.

But it has become totally obvious to us both in the almost six years that we have been married now that this is truly of the Lord. The kids (grown now) have responded to this man in incredible ways and there has been so much healing in the family. His research has made giant leaps forward and I am a much, much better person than I ever was before. God has blessed us in more ways than I could count. Sometimes I look at him and wonder how come I was the woman in all the world who got to marry this incredible man.

Remarriage in these circumstances is, I am now convinced, entirely allowable and blessed by God.

No, divorce is not right in any way, shape, or form. However I had no choice in the matter, and the counselling we both got from several different pastors and my brother who is an elder in his church helped us see that we could go ahead with our relationship and know that we were not sinning.

Thank you for this.

 

[npetreley]

However, my scenario was a couple decided they want a divorce, the church labors with them, explains the consequences if they divorce, which includes not remarrying, and that they will be guilty of adultery once they do, but they still went ahead, divorced, and remarried other persons, then they have now become willful, knowing parties to adultery according to Scriptures, not according to the practices of the church.

Okay, this much I follow, and I agree with you 100% that these people still need to be rebuked, and probably not allowed back as members of the church. Why? Because at this particular point they are still trying to justify what they did was permissible.

What I'm saying - and maybe this is our sticking point, or maybe you agree and I don't know it - is that if these people repent of what they did, they should be welcomed back into fellowship (and membership).

Suppose the woman (just as an example) honestly says, "I never should have divorced my husband. It was wrong. I made all the wrong decisions for the wrong reasons and I have damaged many lives as a result, including my own. I can't undo all of the damage now, and I cannot justify what I did in any way. I beg God's forgiveness and yours." I think in that case you should bring her back into fellowship (and membership, of course). Then, there is the problem of her new husband's repentance. If he repents also, he should be brought back in.

If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. That doesn't say He make a way to undo the damage of our sins, and sometimes that's simply impossible. But He forgives us, and cleanses us. That is enough to bring someone back into fellowship.

 

[J. Jump]

So I have to wait until my ex...who had an affair...dies before I can remarry and be alright in the eyes of God?

That's what Scripture says. Nowhere that I can find does God dissolve a marriage by any other means other than death. Punishment for adultery in the OT was much harsher as Helen pointed out, so it wasn't much of an issue, but seeings that adulterers are not put to death then one must reconcile with their spouse or remain separated and single as far as I can tell in Scripture.

The Matthew 5 passage is speaking of the Jewish engagement period, where a divorcement was allowed during the betrothal period for acts of fornication, but after the actual marriage it is until death parts us.

 

[npetreley]

That's what Scripture says. Nowhere that I can find does God dissolve a marriage by any other means other than death.

That's not what scripture says. The only place it comes close to saying this is in Romans, and Paul is quoting a law (for the sake of those who were familiar with the law) to illustrate that death releases us from bondage. His illustration was that we are dead to the law and alive to Christ. That alone should tell you that he wasn't teaching that we should continue to obey the law he was using as part of his illustration.

 

[pasdave]

In Matthew 5:32 Jesus gives us just grounds for divorce. But, Jesus never said that one must divorce an adultrous spouse.

Instead, scripture gives an example of forgiveness if the offender is repentant-John 8:1-11.

I believe, even in the case of fornication, that, as Christians, if something arises in marriage we should not be the one to start the divorce proceedings. In the case of both the husband and the wife are Christians, neither should be the instigator, therefore forgiveness and restoration are the only alernatives.

 

[Brother Bob]

Seems to me that Helen's case fits Matt:, because her husband comitted fornication against her. Her testimony does not give all cases the right to marry again unless I am misreading what Helen wrote. I see Helen told Madfingerpainter it was ok for her to marry again so maybe Helen knows her case. I didn't see where she posted it. Sorry, I missed the part where he had an affair Madfingerpainter so if that is so according to the words of Jesus you would be free. At least that is the way our church works, and that is the way I work when it comes to baptizing someone.

In Matthew 5:32 Jesus gives us just grounds for divorce. But, Jesus never said that one must divorce an adultrous spouse.

Instead, scripture gives an example of forgiveness if the offender is repentant-John 8:1-11.

I believe, even in the case of fornication, that, as Christians, if something arises in marriage we should not be the one to start the divorce proceedings. In the case of both the husband and the wife are Christians, neither should be the instigator, therefore forgiveness and restoration are the only alernatives.

I would say that every case stands on its own merit. The ground is polluted but if a person wants to stay married it probably is better. Jesus just gave a reason if a person wanted to put their spouse away.

 

[pinoybaptist]

So I have to wait until my ex...who had an affair...dies before I can remarry and be alright in the eyes of God?

Hey, don't look at me. I'm not the one who wrote the Scriptures. I just follow it.:flower:

 

[pinoybaptist]

The purpose of Church discipline is to restore the fellowship of the wayward member. Part of membership is (or should be) the partaking of the Lord's Supper with like-minded believers.

You said it yourself, "like-minded believers". There is no like-mindedness if after having been informed of what Scriptures say, the member still chooses adultery and divorce. That being the case, how can two walk together except they be agreed ?

To deny membership to a repentent former member would be to deny them the opportunity to obey their Lord by participating in the Lord's Supper.

I did not write the rules. God did.

I understand your desire to keep the church from the world. With respect to you and your position here (and I do respect your understanding of this particular scripture), I think you are taking it too far.

But how far is far when the Word of God is concerned ? There is nothing in the Scriptures that give us the right to stretch God's word to accomodate error.

If a person is repentent before God and the church, we must exhibit the perfect patience of Christ and welcome them home.
peace to youraying:

You all of you assumed that the person is repentant. I have been saying all along that they chose evil over good, and I did not define which is evil and which is good here, God did.

A member who had commited murder may not be subjected to church discipline, I venture to say, since murder is far different from adulterous remarriages.

While the repentant murderer cannot bring back his victim to life, his repentance before God should be enough for his sin, if it is truly Godly sorrow that he has. Further, he can face the family of his victim and own up to his responsibility.

Not the case in remarriage after divorce.
First off, the Scriptures indicate that as far as God is concerned, the marriage stands while both spouses are alive, though man dissolves the marriage, and if you and I are both believers, I suppose we agree that the laws of our God is excellently higher than that of mere men.

Secondly, when one remarries, then before God this one has become an adulterer since he joined his/her flesh with another.

And then remember that repentance oftentimes involves restitution, else there is no turning away that has been done.

What restitution can a repentant adulterer offer ? Divorce again so he/she can go back to the former ?

I don't know how to say it, but I have a feeling doing that just compounds the error.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Having read every post on both threads I would say that the scriptures have been treated fairly faithfully with a couple of exceptions.

First it was not Moses who established divorce it was man and it was God through Moses who established the divorce proceedings or regulations governing divorce.

Secondly the purpose of the divorce was not to terminate the marriage but to reconcile it. A careful study of the Old Testament divorce proceedings and the New Testament church discipline will show you that both are designed by God to reconcile. God wrote Israel a decree of divorce not to divorce her but to affect reconciliation.

Thirdly Jeremiah is clear when he says once a divorce person is remarried they cannot go back to their former spouse because the land is polluted.

People today like yesterday will do what they want, hardness of heart if you will, our question (local church) should be how are we going to minister to the results of sin? All divorce is ultimately caused by sin and the last I read we have all sinned and come short of the glory of God.

Having said this I understand P-Baptist when after counseling a couple and they determine to divorce that would tend to place both parties within the realms of church discipline. Our church takes a more practical view of this sin, we restrict their involvement within the church to just attendance until such time as repentance and acknowledgement of their sin is recognized by them. We believe the best place to hear the word of God that affects repentance is in the body and as long as they do not remarry there is hope of reconciliation.

We are not tolerant of open sin but like many churches we have not found a truly cut and dried way of handling the myriad of scenarios brought about within today’s culture.


thjplgvp

Thank you for your constructive contribution to the discussions, sir.
Your points are well taken.

 

[saturneptune]

You said it yourself, "like-minded believers". There is no like-mindedness if after having been informed of what Scriptures say, the member still chooses adultery and divorce. That being the case, how can two walk together except they be agreed ?



I did not write the rules. God did.



But how far is far when the Word of God is concerned ? There is nothing in the Scriptures that give us the right to stretch God's word to accomodate error.


You all of you assumed that the person is repentant. I have been saying all along that they chose evil over good, and I did not define which is evil and which is good here, God did.

A member who had commited murder may not be subjected to church discipline, I venture to say, since murder is far different from adulterous remarriages.

While the repentant murderer cannot bring back his victim to life, his repentance before God should be enough for his sin, if it is truly Godly sorrow that he has. Further, he can face the family of his victim and own up to his responsibility.

Not the case in remarriage after divorce.
First off, the Scriptures indicate that as far as God is concerned, the marriage stands while both spouses are alive, though man dissolves the marriage, and if you and I are both believers, I suppose we agree that the laws of our God is excellently higher than that of mere men.

Secondly, when one remarries, then before God this one has become an adulterer since he joined his/her flesh with another.

And then remember that repentance oftentimes involves restitution, else there is no turning away that has been done.

What restitution can a repentant adulterer offer ? Divorce again so he/she can go back to the former ?

I don't know how to say it, but I have a feeling doing that just compounds the error.

Very odd analysis indeed, that murder, the taking of a human life, is a forgiveable sin or less sin than divorce and remarriage. I suppose that includes abortion. As far as your quote about the marriage being intact in the eyes of God until one of the spouses is dead, that is your opinion, not Scripture.

 

[Marcia]

In other words, God designed marriage to be perfect, one union that was never to be broken. One cannot possibly argue with God's intent. But we are now bodies of fallen flesh, and we STILL have hardness of hearts today, even among the saved. That's why Moses allowed for divorce. That's why we should forgive those who sin by divorcing and then repent of it.

I realize we are fallen and sin. But divorce involves more than the married couple; it involves children (if there are any) and the families of the couple. Children are incredibly wounded by divorce.

I guess I would say, where is the repenting? If someone truly repents their divorce and they have not remarried, then I would think they would not remarry if the divorced spouse is still alive and has not remarried, because a truly repentant divorcee would want reconciliation and would pray for that. But I don't see that happening much.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Pinyo,
One thing that you seem to be forgetting, unlike some in these threads, I have no personal stake in this. I have always been married to one person, and for all we have been through, plan to keep it that way.

With that said, let me ask it a different way. If a man was to divorce his wife for adultry, and say remarried a never married woman, is there any way that can be adultry, and if so, please explain how?

Thank you, saturneptune, now we're getting somewhere. I hate quarelling with anybody, so let me take this opportunity to apologize for the words I have spoken to you.

The consequence of that is that I slept late thinking of what I've said to you. Forgive this hothead.

Now, back to your question.

The easy way to answer that is: because God said so.

However, considering the way Scripture was written, or maybe translated, or both, I realize that answer will be unfair and simply not enough.

We need to go to Scripture, and though I tried to explain this in another post in this thread, you being somebody I apologized to behooves me to explain again what I understand the Scriptures are saying.

In Matthew 19 is recorded an attempt by the legalists among the Judaists to trap the Savior with a trick question. You can read about the question in verse 3. Now, the Savior is Jehovah God, and being Jehovah God, he knew what Moses did. He also knows that in all the laws of Israel, Moses allowed divorce only in the cause of fornication. Bear in mind, it was Moses, not Jehovah, who allowed divorce.

As far as God was concerned, from the beginning He intended marriage between a man and a woman to be permanent, and Jesus explained that in His answer. From the beginning, He said, it was not so. Here we have the unchanging, immutable God in the flesh stating that marriage was never intended to be dissolved by any man.

Therefore, although Moses allowed a bill of divorcement for reason of fornication, as far as God is concerned, that marriage which the laws and procedures of man dissolved, still is binding before Him, the source of all laws, and that being the case, the man who divorces his wife for any reason (that was the trick question of the Judaists) save for the cause of fornication (that was the only exclusion that Jewish laws have and He is subtly telling them He knows the law) is causing that wife he put away to commit adultery because if someone marries her then he who marries her, and she, are both guilty of adultery.

Was Jesus endorsing divorce because of fornication ?

I do not believe so, because that will run contrary to His own statement that what God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.

And then there is the apostle Paul, who both in Romans and in his first letter to the Corinthians unmistakably state that the only time a marriage is dissolved, and remarriage is not a sin, is when one of the spouses is dead.

I realize this is a hard stance that I am taking and may be offensive to many, but again, the Scriptures are the Scriptures, and as God says, His ways are not our ways, and His thoughts are not our thoughts.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Very odd analysis indeed, that murder, the taking of a human life, is a forgiveable sin or less sin than divorce and remarriage. I suppose that includes abortion. As far as your quote about the marriage being intact in the eyes of God until one of the spouses is dead, that is your opinion, not Scripture.

Well, no, murder is murder and sin is sin. But like I said, the murderer besides dealing with his sin before God and receiving forgiveness if truly repentant has no one else to answer to if he also had been punished by man's laws.
Now, the kin of those he victimized may plot to kill him but that is a consequence of his sin if it happens, and if he is truly a Christian it really doesn't matter if he dies since death is but the beginning of true life.
There is no law, divine or man made, that he will break again as he tries to reconcile with those he has wronged.
Not the case with the divorcee, though.
He/she may be repentant, but, how is he/she going to show that repentance and render restitution ?
By divorcing again ? Like I said, deep in my bones something tells me that just compounds the sin.

 

[MorganT]

What is the real issue here ? One poster in a thread for a similar subject said that I had ignored Matthew 5:32 where the Lord said, and I quote:

But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

The argument being that God allows divorce in cases where the marriage bed is defiled, thru fornication, which everybody in this board, it seems, considers to be adultery and only adultery.

But how do we harmonize this with the other gospels, if so be that we teach that the Bible does not contradict itself, and all the gospels are in harmony with each other.

Matthew repeats the same things in Chapter 19:9, and again stresses that the Lord said, "except it be for fornication".

However, two gospel writers, Mark and Luke, did not emphasize the cause of fornication.

Paul, the Apostle, writing to the Corinthians, do not even mention fornication, as a cause for married believers breaking up, but, of course, I may have missed the verse, so if anyone knows where Paul said something to that effect, please inform me, and I will gladly retract my statement here in this paragraph.

Now, what was the real issue to the Lord in as far as divorce and remarriage among believers who call on Him, and who are known by His Name, are concerned ?

It is not the divorce part of the issue !

God, in Christ, emphatically told his questioners:

The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

The Lord Jesus Christ, Jehovah God of the Old Testament, declared He is the Lord, He never changes. Hebrews 13:8 says that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. His words do not change, His principles do not change, His commandments do not change, and from the very beginning, He has declared marriage to be undisolvable by no man.

However, because of man's hardness of heart, unfaithfulness happens, and the marriage bed is defiled, and so, Moses, not God, but Moses, he allowed divorce, initially for the cause of uncleanness, which is fornication, or adultery, but which the Jews twisted to mean any uncleannes he perceives in his wife, even a constantly runny nose !

Does that sound familiar ? What reasons run the gamut of those who have divorced, even in the churches ? Incompatibility. Physical Abuse. Mental Illness. Bad breath (good grief) ! Bad money habits.

God, therefore, according to the Lord Himself, still says no to divorce, and would still say no, save for the hurt pride of the husband in the unfaithfulness of the wife.

Divorce will happen, whether God says yes or no.

However, look at the Scriptures very hard.

The only God-recognized way for dissolution of marriage here on earth is death, not adultery, not wife beating, not because the husband is a closet homosexual, not anything else under the sun, but death and only death of one of the couples.

Paul said:

"Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. (Romans 7:1-3)

Paul understood what Jesus was saying, and all the gospel writers understood what Jesus was saying. That the emphasis was on the remarriage side.

We may divorce, we will divorce, but we cannot and should not remarry.

If we do, whether we know it or not, whether we admit it or not, whether we like it or not, we have become adulterers and adulteresses.


Jesus said in Matthew 19:8, 9:

" He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."

The exception clause of fornication did not legalize remarriage, it only gave allowance for the reason for divorce as seen by Moses.

That is why the disciples responded: If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry (Matthew 19:10).

Im not arguing with you but for conversation sake you say that nothing is new under the sun like the bilbe says what about in the Old Testament were they have more than one wife like
Gen 4:19 And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.
Gen 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
Not a wife but wives
Gen 31:17 Then Jacob rose up, and set his sons and his wives upon camels;
2Sa 5:13 And David took him more concubines and wives out of Jerusalem, after he was come from Hebron: and there were yet sons and daughters born to David.
1Ki 11:3 And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart.

I see you can just keep adding wives however you just never divorce one and it all makes sense.

 

[Brother Bob]

WoW! I didn't know all of this where we could just keep adding wives. Wait until I tell my wife of 45 years.

 

[canadyjd]

PinoyBaptist

I believe "marriage" occurs whenever a man has relations with a woman. There was no "ceremony" in the church when Adam took Eve for his wife. They had relations, they were married. Therefore, if a person has relations before he is "married" in the church, he is an adulterer if he "marries" anyone else but that woman.

One man, one woman, joined together for life. That is the model. That is what God ordained. The two have never had sexual intercourse with anyone else, and never will as long as they both shall live. Should one die, the other may remarry either to someone who had never had sexual intercourse, or to someone who had also been a faithful spouse and had become a widow(er). This is the bilbical standard for marriage.

This is supported, I believe, by Gen. 2, and Jesus' comment to the woman at the well (John 4) and Paul's discussion of joining with a harlot (I Cor 6).

How many Christians can meet this biblical standard? Very few, if any.

There must be a place for forgiveness. There must be a place for God separating us from our sins as far as the east is from the west. There must be a place for newness of life. There must be a place for "from this point forward, I will obey my God", and then strive with every once of strength to make it so.

Of course God would rather have people demonstrate a commitment to His ordained plan for marriage from the very beginning. But we are all sinners. God meets us where we are. He has saved us and forgiven us.

Jesus gave us specific instructions for restoring fellowship to repentent believers. I don't believe He made an exception for those who divorce and remarry. If you can show me where Jesus or anyone else said, "never fellowship with someone who divorces and remarries, even if they are repentent before God and the Church", then I will change my mind.

If I am in error, then I will error on the side of Grace, Mercy, and Forgiveness.

peace to youraying:

 

[pinoybaptist]

Let me tell you about the counselling Barry and I received before we were married. First, he had never been married before. However I had been married for 20 years to a man who had a series of affairs for about fifteen of them, if I am to believe what he told me. In 1991 he left us for one of his other women. Within weeks of the divorce being final (I refused to file; he had to. I did not want the divorce no matter what), he was married to her.

I did not think I could marry again, and actually, because I knew the pain 'another woman' could cause, I would not even talk to another man unless it was in a strictly business/professional relationship for at least seven years.

When Barry and I found our professional relationship turning into a friendship and then into a much deeper friendship (although we were 12,000 miles apart!), both of us sought counselling regarding the matter.

Here is what he was told -- which really was the clincher for both of us:

In the Old Testament, if one marriage partner committed adultery, that person was stoned to death. That left the innocent party widowed, and thus free to remarry. We do not stone adulterers to death today; instead divorce. Does this mean the innocent party must be penalized because we do not sentence the guilty party to death?

Shortly after my ex had left us (call it abandonment, for the kids never even got birthday or Christmas cards after the first year, let alone anything else! The judge had to order child support and we got none until the divorce was final.), I was reading the Bible one day and came across the following from Psalm 2, which almost exactly described what had happened.

It [wisdom] will save you from the adulteress
from the wayward wife with her seductive words,
who has left the partner of her youth
and ignored the covenant she made before God.
For her house leads down to death
and her paths to the spirits of the dead.
None who go to her return
or attain the paths of life.

When I read that I literally and out loud screamed at God, "NO! That's my HUSBAND!"

But the years have proved the accuracy of that proverb. My ex is a bitter and hateful old man now. He is dead inside, certainly. It appears in God's eyes that he is dead, and has been for some time now.

For nine years I raised six children alone -- five being adopted special case kids. I would wake up at a run at 5 in the morning and I think I was unconscious before I was even horizontal around eleven at night. I was most certainly not on a husband hunt! In fact, two days before Barry and I were married, I was hysterically trying to talk him out of it, primarily because I did not think I could be a good wife again; I didn't think I could trust or really open up again.

But it has become totally obvious to us both in the almost six years that we have been married now that this is truly of the Lord. The kids (grown now) have responded to this man in incredible ways and there has been so much healing in the family. His research has made giant leaps forward and I am a much, much better person than I ever was before. God has blessed us in more ways than I could count. Sometimes I look at him and wonder how come I was the woman in all the world who got to marry this incredible man.

Remarriage in these circumstances is, I am now convinced, entirely allowable and blessed by God.

No, divorce is not right in any way, shape, or form. However I had no choice in the matter, and the counselling we both got from several different pastors and my brother who is an elder in his church helped us see that we could go ahead with our relationship and know that we were not sinning.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you, Helen.

I do not sit in judgment and pronounce which is unforgivable or which is not.
Mine is simply to quote Scripture as it is written, and to explain what I, in good conscience, understands it to be saying.
I am sorry that you had such a wimp of an ex-husband.
There is a verse in Scripture, 1 Corinthians 7:15, in which Paul seems to be saying that if an unbelieving spouse departs, the believing brother or sister is not in bondage in such cases.
Many commentators say that this not being in bondage means the marriage bond, and for now I agree with them on that because what it amounts to is not only a desecration of the marriage bed but a total turning away from the duties and responsibilites of marriage.


Gill puts it best, I think, when he commented:

The Ethiopic version reads it, "to such an one"; one that is called by grace a church member, and so a brother or sister in Christ, is not to be subject to an unbeliever in matters of conscience, in things appertaining to the worship of God, and the service and glory of Christ;

nor, being in such circumstances, that either Christ must be forsaken, or the unbeliever will depart, are they obliged to yield to such an one, but rather suffer a departure;

nor are they bound to remain unmarried, but are free to marry another person, after all proper methods have been tried for a reconciliation, and that appears to be impracticable; desertion in such a case, and attended with such circumstances, is a breach of the marriage contract, and a dissolution of the bond, and the deserted person may lawfully marry again;

otherwise a brother, or a sister in such a case, would be in subjection and bondage to such a person:

Here is that verse (verse 15) in context:

10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: 11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. 12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. 13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. 15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. 16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how F19 knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?

That is Paul's opinion, and just as Moses bent God's rule on marriage to accomodate the Jews, he could be wrong, and is careful to qualify his statement, "but to rest speak I, not the Lord".