Divorce and Remarriage

I've studied this issue before, and I've also consulted the book Divorce and Remarriage: Four Views mentioned above. I'm still not certain about the final interpretation, but I have resolved not to marry a woman who has been divorced, just to be "safe." The problem is that finding a never-married woman is becoming more and more difficult as I get older. Many Christians are divorced (justified or not) and the number is growing. It would be nice to widen the field a bit. I can certainly sympathize with those who struggle with this issue.

 

This whole issue of marriage and divorce followed by re-marriage was much clearer when I was 21. Over time, I have seen the world of marriage of divorce change, even in the Christian circle.

I also serve on the board of a safe house for battered women and have seen both battering and killings because women stayed.

My reasoning now is that we are prepared to forgive those who sin before conversion and welcome them into full fellowship after conversion.

Why can't we deal with divorce in the same manner? I will answer before God if I am wrong, but to-day, I have no problem with performing weddings of divorced people, after full counselling about the sanctity of marriage and the solemn vows before a holy God.

Many beforehand took vows without knowing the implication. Either they married on a whim because they "fell" in love. Here, I believe that marriage is a choice and not so much "falling" in love, or because they "had" to.

I have greater difficulty performing a wedding for two unbelievers or even those unequally yoked.

As an aside, my younger daughter said to her husband when they married, "This is it, bud, because my dad doesn't believe in divorce." Thanks be to God, they are still well married and the parents of my two granddaughters.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Well put. Many these days unfortunately though, think that truth is relative. One or more positions are wrong, irrespective of feelings.

In practice, I agree with the view(s) that Helen, WSeeker, Lorelei and others have put forth. VERY blessed not to have dealt with it personally.

However, Aaron, rlvaughn, others, (and I )
have made some general points worth thinking about.
Which I will now try to reiterate.
This is a DISCUSSION board. Sure, PTW is young and male and comes across harder than Abiyah.
But if he is making people cry, let's remember that it is a DISCUSSION board. There is nothing novel or new about his views. They have been around a LONG time. He is not solely responsible for other peoples' reactions.

When your conscience is clear before God, don't get so upset because PTW or HCL or whoever has a strong view.
I disagree with VERY little either says, but they have not been stronger on their favorite issues than many others have been on theirs. It seems to come down often to HOW something is said rather than WHAT is said.

Karen

 

After Bob left, in 1991, I was determined to not only never marry again, but to never even talk to a man in any kind of a situation which might even vaguely cause his wife or girlfriend to have even a shadow of the pain I had gone through. I was so careful...

I also figured that it didn't matter if Bob had broken his vows, I was not going to break mine. I was absolutely sure I could not, and therefore would not, marry again.

And when Barry started to get serious, (I was doing some editing for him, as he is a research scientist) I told him "friendships are so nice!" I pushed him away over and over again.

My brother is an elder in his church. He sat me down and did a Bible study with me. It raised a few questions about my decision and its basis, but not enough to change my mind. My best friend's husband who has led Bible studies for years also sat down with me and went over Bible. Interesting.

But I was not going to change my mind.

Barry was also checking around. He had never been married and had not expected to. But here he was, in love with me. And I loved him by now.

And so we both talked, individually, with pastors each of us knew and respected.

My brother had concentrated on Matthew 19. He pointed out that the man in v. 9 DID get re-married, and that there was one circumstance when it was NOT considered adultery -- when the other partner had destroyed the marriage via adultery. Not just once, but a lifestyle of it. He then asked me if it was permissable for a man to remarry for that reason, would it be different for a woman?

I had to answer, "No."

My best friend's husband concentrated on 1 Cor. 7. "if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances...." Not bound to what? The marriage. In that case she or he is free. Free to do what? Free to be really single and have the options single people have, including marrying!

It was God Himself who slammed me with Proverbs 2, as I quoted in my first or second post in this thread.

When I read it, I literally cried out, "No, God, no! He's my HUSBAND!"
Oh, I had prayed for him and for our marriage for so long! I couldn't let it or him go. He had gone and never looked back, but I held on to the ghost as if it were the real thing.

What finally made me start seriously reviewing the arguments in terms of my own life was what a pastor Barry talked to said, and it was what I presented at first -- in the Old Testament, God ordered adulterers stoned to death. This left the widow or widower free to remarry. Our country does not have this law now -- but it might be an intresting method of population control! -- but God's law has never changed. In His sight, at least, the chronic, or habitual, adulterer is toast.

That leaves the innocent party free. And YES there is an innocent party! That is nonsense to say there isn't. That doesn't mean sinless! That means innocent of the crime of killing a marriage via adultery. When a person is judged innocent in a court of law, that does not mean the person is innocent of every wrong doing known, but that the person is innocent of particular crime. I was an innocent party. Not sinless, but in the matter of adultery, innocent.

And I found myself free. My next question was, "Lord, is this your will?" And the ways in which He gave us both answers left no doubt whatsoever.

 

Karen, I think if the circumstances of this particular day were different for me it would not have bothered me nearly so much. I apologise to all for the tears, or at least the mention of them. Barry is due in to SF Airport at 9:35 tomorrow morning, which means he will be through customs by 10. He has not been home since April and I only was able to spend two weeks in Australia with him when he had a surgery in Sept. It's been very difficult, and to be told that I am an adulteress when every atom in me is straining to be with my husband again is not an easy thing to handle.

In the meantime, Preach, might I in all openness and friendship suggest that you be more sensitive to a woman's emotions and reactions -- you are married to one of us, and she will need that sensitivity from you. I'm not a weeper by trade, so when there are tears, it usually means something has really hurt. If I had not been absolutely convinced of the fact that the Bible gives that one exception to remarriage, I would never have married again. So while you may not agree with my views, please respect them and don't be so free with your judgments. I would rather die than have my husband, whom I love so much, be married to an adulteress. Please believe that.

I used to judge as severely as you. God taught me the hard way not to do that. I pray it will not take as much pain for you as it did for me to learn to back off on my pronouncements of people in judgment of them.

 

hrhema says:

Let us Concider:

This is not a real circumstance.

I was lost. Did not know the Lord. I was married. I also drank. I met this guy in a bar and he paid attention to me. I felt alive and the next thing you know...Well we got a motel room and then blah...blah. We did this several times.

My husband found out about it. So he had me followed and the P.I. took pictures. It went to court and now we are divorced. I still have the children, but My ex sees them all the time.

Well its been 4 years since that time. It truly saddened me that this happened. I do not know what I was thinking. But I have for the last 3 years been going to Church.

I was also saved 3 years ago. And I was baptised. After alot of counciling with my pastor, all that is behind me. It isn't even who I am anymore.

I got re-married last week. Yes the guy knows what I did. My ex has forgiven me also.

Now aren't I a new person? When I was an adultress wasn't I a dead person? When Jesus forgave me of my sins, wasn't this sin encluded? Aren't I a new person now? Don't I wear Jesus?

Isn't all sin the same? All but one. And if you did that one you wouldn't be here to talk about it. Isn't murder a form of adultry. You fornicated with the devil when you murdered. Isn't shoplifting a form of adultry? When I commit one sin, aren't I commiting all the sins? Shall I go on and on.

I am new my friend. I am pure and full of grace. I wear an Armour of Mercy and a sheild of Blood. Your sword cannot pierce me. For it is Gods word that has pierced me.

Sherrie

[ December 05, 2002, 02:09 AM: Message edited by: Sherrie ]

 

Also for the record the 15th of this month I will be a widow of 2 years. I never cheated on my husband, nor did he on me.

Sherrie

 

I would like to add a couple of more thoughts:

1. I believe (along with everyone I know of that agrees with me) that the "adultery" that is committed is a one time thing. Ignorance of this does not nullify it.

2. Because of #1, the parties involved would not be said to be "living in sin".

3. You folks wanted Scripture. I gave plenty. No one is interacting with my posts that directly quote Jesus. If you want a discussion, please do so. Don't just write me off before you have engaged the Scripture.

4. Helen, I never intended to make you cry. I do not consider you an adultress (see #2). You were right with your initial belief.

5. I vowed before God and witnesses that I would be true to my wife "...for better or for worse, till death due us part..." That is an unconditional promise on my part regardless of the other person. I would be a liar to go back on it.

6. Any man that beats or sexually abuses anyone needs a beating himself. Such men are cowards and evil. I don't care what the reason is.

Is a wife bound to live with him? No. Paul addresses this:

1 Cor. 7:10-11
Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband. But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife.

Now, whether you call this a legal separation or a divorce or whatever, only two options are available. Stay unmarried or be reconciled.

7. Helen, 1 Cor. 7:15 does not mean that. Paul says in verse 39 that a wife is bound to her husband as long as he is alive. The word for bound in not the same as in verse 15.

I think anyone who uses 1 Cor. 7:15 (which could have multiple interpretations) to view all other passages is careless in the interpretation of God's word.

I have more info that I can easily cut and paste if someone wants it. Just PM me. Also, everyone, I believe what I do because I believe that people will only be ultimately happy and fulfilled by following the Scripture. Since I believe this view is what Scripture teaches, I am going to be against the other views. I do not apologize for my views, but I am trying to let everyone know I am not a cold cynic regarding this issue. I have scene it first hand all too often.

Let me restate, my two best friends are "remarried".

 

Well I was just walked right over.

Sherrie

 

PTW -

If I follow you correctly, a woman who leaves her husband because he beats her is not allowed to remarry, according to 1Cor 7. But you also say you believe that people will only be ultimately happy and fulfilled by following the Scripture. Yet Scripture says in Gen2 that it is not good for man to be alone. Therefore, if a person is forbidden from remarrying following abuse, yet desires to be married, then that person lives in a state of non goodness. Is that not a scriptural contradiction?

 

Why would it be a one time thing? Is only the first sexual act between the two adulterous, and this is the one time thing? Is the taking of vow itself adulterous, and that is the one time thing? What are talking about? Why is it only a one time thing?

 

PTW,
My husband and I believe that remarriage when one has a living spouse is adultery as well. However, you said that it is a one time sin, the remarriage itself. Can you explain how this can be?

For me personally, if my husband was to leave me and divorce me I would not feel free to remarry while he was alive. That's just me.

HCL

 

Johnv, before I answer, keep in mind that because this is such a strong belief of mine, no situation will "undo" my theology. Theology should determine how we view situations, not vice versa.

Now, it is not good for a man to be alone. Jesus spoke of those who have the gift of celibacy. That is good. Many men do not have that gift for a reason (I am so glad I don't).

When a man joins himself to a bride, they are together until death ends their marriage. Jesus specifically said that divorce was a concession under the Law.

It is not good for a man to be alone is an argument to get married. That is all. Once we introduce situations and this and that, we need to see what Scripture says already about other situations.

I hope I answered your questions.

 

rlvaughn, I would encourage you to do further study. It is more than I can just simply put. However, I believe what Moses defined under the divorce concession is a principle of remarriage when it happens. Basically you have started a new union. It would be further sin to try and undo that one.

Sin corrupts everything. The more people move away from God's original design, the more messed up things will get and appear. We could sit around for days and invent situation after situation and say - but what about.

 

Jesus is God and the Second Person of the Godhead at least that is what most Baptists believes. He would have been involved with allowing Moses to give the decree about divorce.

Now that we are under grace and free from the bondage of the law people want to even create stricter rules and take scriptures and use them to put people under bondage.

To state that Luke left out what Matthew wrote because he was dealing with GEntiles and gentiles had no right to what Jesus said is so far fetched.

This is exactly what people do with Mark 16. If it doesn't agree with what they believe then throw it out.

Luke was not present with Jesus. Luke was writing from what he was being told by others. Just like any other person writing from second hand stories things may not include everything said or may not be told exactly in the same light someone else would have told it. He probably researched and listened to different people and gleaned what he thought was important from each.

We have to understand who Paul was writing to in Corinth. A bunch of gentiles. A bunch of Greeks to whom it had been taught by their society that marriage was for procreation and a status symbol. As I posted in another thread, the men of Greece were highly bi-sexual and divorce was very common in Greece for very frivoulous reasons as well as remarriage for no just cause. You can read the who chapter and not once was Paul dealing with adultery. If you read the chapter in the light it was written you will understand that Paul was telling the greeks that they are to stay married. He mentions later about the persecution they are going through but told them don't leave your wife because of it. It is obvious that men and women both had separated because of the persecution. THey probably felt they could be stronger for Jesus if they did not have to watch a spouse be tortured or killed.
Paul was dealing with this issue.

Also the last verse is obvious that Paul is speaking to the spouse who has an unbelieving spouse and the unbeliever has left but is still married to the believer. No where in that chapter is adultery discussed. To take those scriptures where Paul is talking about a believer married to an unbeliever and married couple going through persecution and try to say no one has the right to remarry is very wrong.

I have known many a person who took the same stand of harshness and hardness as Preach the word until their spouse committed Adultery against them and then boy did things change.
Sometime I think God breaks peoples harshness and hardness by allowing them to experience what they criticized others for.

 

Since when is boldness for a position and integrity with keeping it hardness and harsh?

In fact, I think you are the hard and harsh because you have absolutely no room in your heart for people of my belief system. You even say that God puts people through adultery and such to learn from their evil beliefs.

By your utter and total rejection of my belief, you are no more loving and caring.

Since when is it wrong to believe something with such conviction that you express that belief to others guide your own life by it?

I have tried to reiterate that I have remarried friends. I have seen divorce up close and personal. I hate it. Therefore, I want to do everything I can to help alleviate more pain. When people think they can divorce their spouse and go marry another, it is no wonder the divorce rate is so high among Christians.

I can guarantee you this, if a person believed it is wrong to divorce and then remarry, the chances of him doing it are alot less.

Feel free to question my position. I posted plenty of Scripture that NNE has responded to. Don't ever question my faithfulness to what I believe is truth or integrity to defend it and write it off as hardness and harshness.

 

Remember hrhema, grace is not license to sin. If Jesus said that something is wrong, it is not introducing stricter rules by seeking to obey it and tell others about it.

If you disagree with my interpretation, please respond to the many Scriptures I posted. Otherwise, you are just doing a hit-and-run attack that is meaningless in debate.

 

See, I really don't know what you say to this. I think you read my post but am not sure if you read all of it.

The audience is a major factor in interpretation.

Matthew included the exception clause because the Jews are the ones who lived under the law. They knew about the concession. That is why Jesus answered the pharisees the way he did in Matt. 19.

Luke was not writing to Jews. The Gentiles did not live according to the Mosaic Law. Why would it be important for Luke to write about something that did not apply to them directly?

 

ummm...lets see...I will try again. Perhaps it was just an over sight on someones part.

I said:

 

I'm not sure where I stand on this....I appreciate the debate and the good use of scripture,though. That is to be commended. Sometimes,harshness is perceieved,when it is not really harshness....I think we tend to take things too personally on this board,just from my observations.

Anyway,I have always said,I could not remarry if my husband went crazy and lived that way,divorced me,etc. I would have to study more on the subject...my main concern would be placing my children under someone's authority other than their father...it just isn't right,nor does it seem to fit God's perfect plan. I would be very hurt,but I think I would then concentrate on my children and doing what is best for them. I hear too many stories on step families situations....I just couldn't do it. Even if my husband died,it would be something I would not want to do.

As far as scripture,I have always wanted to understand what it says....because it does say what PTW says....there's no going around the facts....and there is only to be one interpretation,not 5. So,I would have to study on that more.

I do appreciate the comments,though. I see a lot of wisdom in what has been stated....

(Not that any body cares what I think! )

[ December 05, 2002, 01:35 PM: Message edited by: Molly ]