Divorce and Remarriage

[hrhema]

Preach the Word: I find it amazing that you keep missing the whole point you are thinking you are making by telling us that we are trying to live under the law.

Under the law a man could divorce for every frivolous thing. This is exactly what Jesus meant about hardness of heart. They were putting what they wanted above their commitment to their spouse. They were giving a bill of divorcement for even minor infractions.

Jesus was telling the Pharisees basically that this has now changed. That the only reason a person can divorce and remarry is for sexual unfaithfulness. No more frivoulous reasons for divorcing. So no we are not following the law but what Christ himself said.

In reality what you are doing is adding to the word of God. You are trying to supersede Jesus Christ himself. Jesus said "EXCEPT FOR FORNICATION" but PTW said not at all.

 

[Frogman]

Perhaps this has already been mentioned. If so forgive me. I have been concerned with this as well, I have been married for fourteen years and never been divorced.

I believe as PTW has stood is the correct view on the subject. I agree with his statement that what we believe we must believe by conviction and then stand on that.

I know also this is a very touchy subject, but that does not constitute reason to avoid it. I believe one of the most dangerous views is to pretend it is an individual matter. The proper and correct teaching should be sought and delivered that our young would begin to once again hold marriage in the view God has given it to us.

Many people marry for lust, once the desire wains somewhat, they feed that lust elsewhere. This is not the fault of the party who is innocent. Still, Christ said except for reasons of fornication. (I still am praying over this issue, between fornication being addressed generally as sexual immorality, or if it is such a lifestyle prior to marriage. I know two preachers who teach fornication is only before marriage.)

The merit to this (and to the reconciliation of the original partners in a marriage) is that of an extension of the picture of the church being the bride of Christ. When we fall from fellowship, we should be restored to that union with our local church as well.

Much of scripture becomes controversial because we want to read into it what we can to find justification, even though it be slight, for our own actions.

I deeply feel for any who have experienced divorce; yet biblically the only reason Christ gave for divorce is fornication. My own inexperience in this area makes it easy for me to sit here and type a great deal. (That, however, is equal to saying to all of you nonsmokers that you cannot know whether smoking is harmful, because you have not participated).

I do not want to offend people. My conviction is such, though, that a divorce in my life would result in my discontinuance in preaching. I don't believe the controversy is worth the hurt it would bring to the church.

Again, I agree with PTW. I believe we have relaxed our views on marriage and divorce and remarriage for many reasons, the only true reason is that of fornication. My study is ongoing, and must be deeper than now, and must be led of God in order that I may discover the truth of God's Word in this matter. I believe it is of vital importance to the church.

The way I am approaching it is: Is fornication particular to a lifestyle prior to marriage, hidden from one partner or the other? or, Is fornication general, sexual immorality? If it is particular, this limits the conditions acceptable (biblically) for divorce. If general, then these limits are conversely more general.

Also to consider is the vow entered into. When I married I said 'for better or for worse, in sickness and in health, til death do us part' I meant this from all my heart. Too many I fear, do not.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

[Daniel David]

Originally posted by Frogman:
Also to consider is the vow entered into. When I married I said 'for better or for worse, in sickness and in health, til death do us part' I meant this from all my heart. Too many I fear, do not.

I said this earlier and no one address this either. If a person vows before God and man that he/she is committed unconditionally to the other person, that is it. To remarry (after divorce, not death) is to openly admit you are a liar. How else do you get around this?

 

[Daniel David]

Originally posted by hrhema:
Jesus was telling the Pharisees basically that this has now changed. That the only reason a person can divorce and remarry is for sexual unfaithfulness.

See, hrhema, the Scripture actually says sexual immorality. It does not say sexual unfaithfulness. How is it that you are accusing me of adding to Christ's words?

 

[Daniel David]

Originally posted by hrhema:
Under the law a man could divorce for every frivolous thing.

Since you are the only proponent of this view, I would like to know what part of the Law that says this. Btw, I have don't countless hours studying this issue and have NEVER heard this one. This view has been invented by you.

 

[Frogman]

why could he not take a second wife since this was allowed back there instead of divorcing her because she was barren. They could have used Sarah as an example.

To believe this disregards the words of Christ. 'from the beginning it was not so.'

Man and woman were made to become one, remember, '...and the twain shall become one flesh.' Nowhere did God sanction polygomy. This is a failure of Abraham in taking Hagar, and brings about the illegitimate child Ishmael, who is of the flesh and is a thorn in Abraham's side.

Here is the view which PTW is defending against. Generalities that would, if taken, keep us exactly where they were in the day of Moses and when Christ spoke to this Pharisees.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

[Frogman]

Brothers and Sisters,

I need more light on this topic. I shall renew my study through prayer. I ask your prayers for me as well.

(I am leaning to the general interpretation of 'fornication' (pornea) as sexual immorality, this because I have not been able to see the seperation of it particularly before marriage or since). But my question is whether we are teaching morality sufficiently to prevent the entrance into marriage for lustful reasons.

(Earlier someone said the catholic priests supported this view on marriage because of detachment, perhaps so. But Paul warned these to take their own wives to prevent such controversies as lusting after another man's, or one who is not).

I confess my inability to resolve this question apart from the Wisdom of God. (The Wisdom of Proverbs 8) which is Christ.

God did not intend for marriage to be entered into lightly; (consider this. woman is taken from the side of man, they are two persons, in marriage they are one). We have become one with Christ. (Like it or not, I see a deeper spiritual side to this question.

God Bless you all in your walk and service to Him.

Bro. Dallas

[ December 10, 2002, 12:31 PM: Message edited by: Frogman ]

 

[hrhema]

I have spent time studying this and I have spent time studying Orthodox Judaism and its history and not only that the Old Testament tells us that if a woman is barren her husband can put her away. It also states that if the woman had an uncleanness then he could put her away.

I am not making this up and it is very wrong for you to make accusations like that without proof to back your statement up.

"A man takes a wife a posseses her. If she fails to please him because he finds something obnoxious about her, he writes her a bill of divorcement, hands it to her, and sends her away from his house. Deuteronomy 24:1

Finish the scripture that says "If she then leaves and marries another man, and the second husband divorces her or dies, the former husband may not marry her again, for she has been defiled.

Moses did not state anywhere that if she leaves and marries another man she sins.

The Jewish GET as it was is still called stated as following:

You are free to engage in any physical, emotional,
spiritual and marital relationship should you choose to do so.

HRHEMA did not make this up. This is how it was and still is in Judaism. It is stated in the Torah that Divorce can happen when fire in the home life makes peace impossible. This is exactly what Jesus was dealing with. He was telling the Jewish leaders that no more can a person divorce and remarry because of contention in the home or because a man is offended by his wife or she is obnoxious or any other reason but for sexual unfaithfulness.

 

[Daniel David]

Originally posted by hrhema:
"A man takes a wife a posseses her. If she fails to please him because he finds something obnoxious about her, he writes her a bill of divorcement, hands it to her, and sends her away from his house. Deuteronomy 24:1

What version is this taken from?

 

[hrhema]

The torah in Hebrew. This is the interpretation of this passage.

You should take time to study divorce in orthodox Judaism. You would then understand where Jesus was coming from.

Women cannot divorce their husbands just for any reason except adultery. If her husband refuses to give her a GET she is still bound to her marriage. This is called "Recalcitrant Husband."
She cannot remarry without the GET. She cannot remarry if he refuses to sign a get. Yet if the woman refuses to sign the get the man is free to remarry whom he chooses.

Judaism recognized no fault divorce thousands of years ago. The talmud declares as I said before
that a man can divorce his wife for any reason or no reason that if she spoils his dinner he can divorce her or if he finds another woman more attractive he can divorce her and the womans consent to the divorce is not necessary. In fact you talk about the hardness issue, Jewish law states that if a woman commits adultery the man MUST divorce her even if he is inclined to forgiveness. No Exceptions.

Preach the Word I think you need to study the Talmud, the Midrash and the Torah before you try to make unqualified statements. If you don't believe what I am stating then get on line and look at sites like Jusaism 101 and other sites.

Jesus knew the Jewish law allowed divorce for any reason this is why he said the only grounds for a man to divorce his wife is Sexual Unfaithfulness.

 

[Daniel David]

Well, doesn't this shed light on things. I have been quoting Scripture. You posted something to make us think it was Scripture. It turned out to be an "interpretation" by lost people.

If you want to appeal to Deut. 24, you need to note that Moses specified "uncleanness". A concordance would identify the various passages with "uncleanness" in the Law.

You are right that Jesus correctly interpreted the Law. Unless you live under it though, you cannot appeal to it for your own purposes.

 

[hrhema]

Who is living under the law or who is appealing to the Law. I have proven to you more than once the reason why Jesus used the term Hardness of the Heart. YOU are standing on dangerous grounds sir when you talk about the law and these things and you don't understand it. The Christian Old TEstament is not the law in its entirety. All people know this.

You quote over and over and over about Jesus saying about the people hardness of heart but you choose to ignore the reason Jesus said they were hard hearted. You come back on people stating they are hard hearted because they divorced their spouse for sexual unfaithfulness. Again absolutely no one who divorced their spouse for unfaithfulness on this thread did not give them repeated chances to change. The law did not give a person the right to even give their spouse a chance so please quit saying I and others are trying to live under the law because again I have proven to you the opposite. If we were trying to live under the law we would have divorced them the first time they cheated on us.

You may call yourself Preach the Word but you do not prove yourself qualified to speak on the subject of the Law obviously and I don't know very many Baptist preachers who did not have to study the Old TEstament in seminary.

Also when Jesus made this statement the law was still under effect.

 

[Daniel David]

Originally posted by hrhema:
Also when Jesus made this statement the law was still under effect.

You have just proven my point. You have the Scripture. You choose to believe whatever you want.

Christians are not under the Law. As I have said a thousand times, divorce was allowed under the Law of Moses. The Law has been done away, therefore, so has the concession to divorce.

Out like quality food at McDonald's.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Actually your citation of Deut 24:1 is not the Torah in Hebrew. Having translated it many times and studied it, virtually all are in agreement that the translation you (and the kJV) give is wrong. It is a series of 4 conditional clauses followed by a command. If he 1) take a wife, and 2) finds her unclean, and 3) writes her a divorce, and 4) sends her out, then ...

The divorce is not commanded, it is assumed and is one of the conditions.

 

[hrhema]

Again you missed the point. Jesus was talking to the religious leaders about what the law said about divorce and remarriage. The law did not say the only reason a person can divorce and remarry is Sexual unfaithfulness. I have proved to you this by scripture. You refuse to listen. You don't know obviously anything about the law and what it said but you consistently talk about it. Why don't you go study the law about divorce through the Talmud and the Torah then come back to this thread and speak to the people with authority instead of your own beliefs.

How many times do I have to say this to you. Jesus is the one who said that the law is no longer in effect. That you cannot divorce your spouse for any reason except Sexual unfaithfulness. The law of Moses or the Talmud/Torah said men could divorce for any reason they wanted to. No fault divorce. Why do you ignore this fact.

I am tired of talking to a person who refuses to study about what they are trying to convince others of. I don't know who you preach to but I would walk out of your congregation and find a preacher who is more qualified then you are.

 

[Helen]

hrhema, I want to thank you for your excellent presentations on this topic, as well as for Pastor Larry's further explanation. Please know you are talking to an audience here and not simply responding to one person. We all all getting the education you are offering and so thank you.

 

[LadyEagle]

I thank you, too.

2 cents, perhaps only a penny:
Could all of the lusting, falling into marriage out of lust be avoided if we had just stuck to the old traditions of letting the parents choose the mates? Perhaps the "love" and "romance" deal isn't such a good deal after all.

Just wondering.

 

[Wisdom Seeker]

Originally posted by Frogman:


God did not intend for marriage to be entered into lightly

Yes, I quite agree...God intended for it to be as if two people ceased to be two people and instead through marriage became one.

I hold marriage in high esteem. I agree it should be prayerfully and seriously considered before entering into it.

I will reiterate a point that I believe valid as well.... In some instances, one partner may not take it as seriously and renig on the vowes. When that person has adulterous relations the marriage can be broken. That is what Matthew 5 speaks of.

It is unfortunate that not all marriages are based on Christian virtue and living in the word of God...sometimes it goes wrong...sometimes there is sin. Matthew 5 allows for the only acception to the rule. It's in the Bible in black and white, and why some people think that the Bible is not applicable as the word of God on the matter I can only speculate. The word of God is all that matters in the absolution of the injured party. The word of God provides a window for escape. I do not believe that God would wish for his children to suffer at the hands of a person who wantonly sins. But then I also believe that God is love...which is also what the Bible says.

It is apparent to me that this topic is settled in the word of God. And that is all that is really important.

 

[Daniel David]

Originally posted by hrhema:
How many times do I have to say this to you. Jesus is the one who said that the law is no longer in effect. That you cannot divorce your spouse for any reason except Sexual unfaithfulness. The law of Moses or the Talmud/Torah said men could divorce for any reason they wanted to. No fault divorce. Why do you ignore this fact.

Here we go again. I thought we were past this. I KNOW WHAT THE TALMUD SAYS. There were two interpretation groups. Hallel (sp?), said you could divorce and remarry for any reason you could come up with. Shimei (sp?), said you could only remarry under specific circumstances. On this basis, the Pharisees tried to trap Christ into one position over the other. Instead of appealing to a dead Rabbi, Christ appealed to God (Gen.2:24).

The Pharisees did not want to hear this. They then asked why Moses COMMANDED them to divorce.

1. Moses never commanded it.
2. They ignored Jesus' answer.

Jesus then explained what Moses did say.

Here is Deut. 24:1-4
1. When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house,
2 and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man's wife,
3 and if the latter husband turns against her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her to be his wife,
4 then her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance.

_________

1. Divorce is not commanded but allowed (just like Jesus said).

2. The husband could divorce over a matter of indecency (or uncleanness depending on your translation). An example would be if he found out he did not marry a virgin but was tricked. He did not have to.

3. Several things had to happen before the divorce would be allowed.

4. The punishment for "adultery" is death not divorce.

5. Finally, the first husband cannot remarry his original wife because she has become "defiled" (that is the word in verse 4). I wonder why the Bible says that she became "defiled"? Actually, I don't. I know.

There is not one objection, one scripture, one idea I have not met with Scripture. You might not like my interpretation, but insinuating that I am ignorant is ludicrous.

 

[Helen]

4. The punishment for "adultery" is death not divorce.


That's right, Preach, and that would leave the widow or widower free to remarry.

So then, because the laws of the land have changed, you would prefer to see the innocent party live the rest of his or her life in penalty and pain.

I don't mind sticking to what God has said. If He commanded death, and He did, then the person is dead to HIM, and that is enough for me.

Your own argument, in other words, does not hold water.