Divorce Musings

[TexasSky]

lol Diane.

For those who haven't heard the theory - It is one of those 1 + 1 might equal 2 theories.

Paul was once a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin which means he HAD to have been married at one time.

He never mentions a wife at all in his writing, so the assumption is that he was widowed or divorced.

Because he talks about a thorn in his side, and because some people think he is less than a fan of marriage - they conclude that he is divorced.

They have other little threads of 2+2= but I can't remember them all.

I don't quite see how they go from "thorn in side" = "ex wife" though.

 

[paidagogos]

I am doing my best to put this in a plain brown wrapper. Just mention the word divorce and folks come at you bristling and snarling regardless of the position you advocate. Therefore, I am specifically avoiding a direct response to any post on this thread. It would appear that divorce is absolutely one issue that people cannot discuss rationally.

Furthermore, may I suggest that personal experience has absolutely nothing to do with the justification or condemnation of divorce. Rather, we ought to be more concerned about what God has said. Let’s not deal with what other people have either said or done but let’s try to determine what God has said in His Word. All others are cop-outs.

I recommended the The Divorce Myth by J. Carl Laney because he brings some wise ideas and well-considered views to this topic. Laney has done a very thorough Scriptural study of divorce for many years. He actually changed his views during his study of Scripture. I would say that his opinion by virtue of his diligent study is more valuable than every Tom, Dick and Harry shooting off his mouth without knowing the relevant Scriptures and their exegesis. Also, William Heth and Gordon Wenham have done some good work on the subject of divorce. I recommend their book, Jesus and Divorce, although they do not altogether agree with Laney. They deal exhaustively with Matthew 19:9 and

In careful study of Scripture, some passages seem in conflict because we do not properly understand or interpret one or more of the passages. For example, it is by no means certain that Matthew 19:9 allows divorce for sexual immorality. The meaning behind the word porneia generally means uncleanliness, something disgusting, or filthiness. It is interesting that the passage uses porneia (i.e. translated fornication) instead of moichao (translated adultery) which is used in the same verse. A married person committing sexual immorality is guilty of adultery, not fornication that refers to a broader range of sexual sins. This should tell us that something is more than may meet the eye on first blush. Although porneia is usually rightly translated fornication in context, it may not necessarily be the case here. In the OT context, this is related to the idea of something disgusting and filthy such as the person who left his excrement uncovered within the camp. Some have advanced a strong case that it is specifically referring to incest or some other especially despicable sexual act. It may be that God is allowing divorce of a marriage that is an incestuous relationship. Others have argued that Jesus was only referring to the betrothal period when the couple was considered married but had not come together in sexual relations. For example, Joseph and Mary were called husband and wife before they ever came into sexual intimacy. Joseph was going to divorce Mary when he thought she had been promiscuous. You see, it is not straightforward and plain as you may think.

Read Laney or Heth and you’ll understand some of the problems in interpreting this passage. I can’t develop here what took these guys many pages to do. Also, don’t write this off until you are conversant with the issue. “He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him (Proverbs 18:13).”

Obviously, I do not have the definitive answer on divorce. Too many men wiser than I have written long treatises without arriving at the final answer. However, I do believe the following statements taken in their context are supportable from Scripture.

1. God’s original intention was one man for one woman.
2. God tolerated OT divorce because of the hardness of man’s heart.
3. Adultery does not necessitate divorce. There is forgiveness.
4. No two Christians have to divorce. Only when one or both are willful and stubborn does divorce result.
5. Divorce is sin but it can be forgiven. (Please note that this does not necessarily say that all parties are sinning if one party was willing to reconcile and the other wasn’t.)
6. Divorce can disqualify a man for certain offices in the church. (This is parallel to Moses who was forgiven but still prevent from entering the Promised Land.)

Finally, we must find a balance in dealing with divorce in the church. We cannot turn a blind eye toward it. We cannot condone and coddle it. We must preach against it and try to prevent it from happening. Unfortunately, it has happened and some good faithful servants of the Lord have been divorced either before salvation or after. Sometimes it is not their fault and sometimes it is their fault. Some, who were at fault, have confessed, repented and found forgiveness. They are not second-class citizens of the Kingdom. We must deal compassionately and tenderly with the divorce as well as standing against it to discourage others from following this same route. Each case must be considered differently. Some divorced people need to repent, call it sin and ask forgiveness. Some need to go back and make things right with their former spouse. Others need tender, compassionate support when an unfaithful spouse walked out on them. There’s no one way to deal with divorce.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by paidagogos:
I recommend your reading of The Divorce Myth by J. Carl Laney.

Not familiar with him. What is his conclusion? q </font>[/QUOTE]Read the book. I cannot reconstruct his views and arguments in this limited space.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Our views on divorce should be determined by what Scripture says rather than what we think or feel.

Absolutely.

Also, we must reject any so-called extra-Biblical revelation based on God gave me peace about . . . .

... as well as extra-biblical revelations based upon what I or some teacher gave me guilt about. </font>[/QUOTE]The Bible is clear on this. If you doubt, it is sinful. Don’t blame your doubts on someone else. This is a cop-out. You can search the Scriptures for yourself.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />It was very clearly stated by Jesus in Matthew 19:4-9 that God's intentions from the beginning were one man married to one worman for life.

It is just as clear from that very same passage that Jesus made an exception for "fornication". The understanding implicit in the discussion of Moses allowance of divorce is that putting away allowed for remarriage since remarriage was the whole point of being able to "put away" a woman that was not pleasing to her husband. </font>[/QUOTE]No, it is not that clear. Read Laney and Heth as recommended in another post and you’ll see what I mean. Can you explain why sexual immorality of married persons is called fornication in one phrase and adultery in another of the same verse? Do the two refer to the same thing?

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Copper:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by TexasSky:
I mean - how do you back down on vows to God without REALLY screwing up?

You didn't.

Marriage is a covenant. A vow taken TO God. You are treating it with the correct respect and duty and I admire you for it. More Christians should realize the importance of marriage and divorce.

But your husband left you. He broke the covenant by being with another woman. If this were the Old Testament, he would be ... dead.

Blessings,
Copper </font>[/QUOTE]No, some of the OT rabbis allowed divorce for any reason. Divorce was quite easy. This is the question brought to Jesus in Matthew 19:9. They were asking Jesus to take sides with one of two schools of teaching--Hillel and Shammai. The debate was over Deuteuromy 24:1. Both schools allowed divorce but they disagreed on the reasons. Jesus disagreed with both.

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Paid...you have my applause and thanks for a good,well thought-out and balanced post.I confess that after my own posts on this subject it is probably obvious that I do take this subject very personal and have a tendency to get somewhat emotionally charged when I discuss it.I'm sure with what I have posted you can understand that.I do want to say for the record though...I am AGAINST divorce in general and for CHRISTIANS in PARTICULAR.Reconciliation is ALWAYS the scriptural route to go...in my opinion(and I personally believe it is what scripture teaches).I agree that "each case must be considered differently".The bottom line though...in general...is that it takes both parties having the same convictions on the matter and a mutual goal of PLEASING THE LORD to make either a marriage or the reconciliation of a broken one work.Such was not the case in my circumstances.Now remarriage is a different subject...I won't even go into that right now.It is many times even MORE divisive than divorce but as I said on the divorce topic...it is neither "black and white" nor "one size fits all" either.God Bless You.

Greg Sr.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by paidagogos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by paidagogos:
I recommend your reading of The Divorce Myth by J. Carl Laney.

Not familiar with him. What is his conclusion? q </font>[/QUOTE]Read the book. I cannot reconstruct his views and arguments in this limited space.</font>[/QUOTE] I don't own his book and probably won't buy it. I didn't ask you to do anything but give his conclusion.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Our views on divorce should be determined by what Scripture says rather than what we think or feel.

Absolutely.

Also, we must reject any so-called extra-Biblical revelation based on God gave me peace about . . . .

... as well as extra-biblical revelations based upon what I or some teacher gave me guilt about. </font>[/QUOTE]The Bible is clear on this. If you doubt, it is sinful. Don’t blame your doubts on someone else. This is a cop-out.</font>[/QUOTE] Yes. The Bible is clear on this. Jesus said that it was allowable to divorce for fornication. Divorce then as now directly implies the freedom to remarry.

Paul added to this exception the freedom afforded to a believer whose unbelieving spouse is not please to dwell with them. He specifically stated that the believer is NOT under bondage.

This is what the text actually says... There is no need to add or subtract from it.

You can search the Scriptures for yourself.

I have and there it is.

It is just as clear from that very same passage that Jesus made an exception for "fornication". The understanding implicit in the discussion of Moses allowance of divorce is that putting away allowed for remarriage since remarriage was the whole point of being able to "put away" a woman that was not pleasing to her husband.

No, it is not that clear. Read Laney and Heth as recommended in another post and you’ll see what I mean.[/quote][/qb] I don't need Laney and Heth. This is what the text says... I don't really need anyone to explain it away because they disagree with it.

Can you explain why sexual immorality of married persons is called fornication in one phrase and adultery in another of the same verse? Do the two refer to the same thing?

Yes I can. And no they do not.

The last phrase isn't dealing with the exception of fornication. It is dealing with all the other divorces that Jesus disallowed.... less those that Paul said left a Christian not under bondage.

 

[Copper]

Originally posted by paidagogos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Copper:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by TexasSky:
I mean - how do you back down on vows to God without REALLY screwing up?

You didn't.

Marriage is a covenant. A vow taken TO God. You are treating it with the correct respect and duty and I admire you for it. More Christians should realize the importance of marriage and divorce.

But your husband left you. He broke the covenant by being with another woman. If this were the Old Testament, he would be ... dead.

</font>[/QUOTE]No, some of the OT rabbis allowed divorce for any reason. Divorce was quite easy. This is the question brought to Jesus in Matthew 19:9. They were asking Jesus to take sides with one of two schools of teaching--Hillel and Shammai. The debate was over Deuteuromy 24:1. Both schools allowed divorce but they disagreed on the reasons. Jesus disagreed with both. </font>[/QUOTE]You misunderstood what I was saying. I did not say anything about the OT rabbis allowing divorce. I was talking about adultery. Adultery in the Old Testament was punishable by death.

That death completed the vow or covenant.

The spouse of the dead person would then be either a widow or a widower.

Widows and widowers are free to remarry.

I said nothing about the Jews allowing or condoning divorce. I spoke of adultery.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Scott J:

It is just as clear from that very same passage that Jesus made an exception for "fornication". The understanding implicit in the discussion of Moses allowance of divorce is that putting away allowed for remarriage since remarriage was the whole point of being able to "put away" a woman that was not pleasing to her husband.

So you say. It is not that simple. Don’t you think God expects one to forgive his spouse who commits adultery and repents? Scriptures clearly teach that God desires reconciliation. As you have stated it, divorce is an absolute right with justification if the spouse commits adultery.

Furthermore, your handling of this complex issue is superficial and uninformed. You state things as factual, which you have not proven. For example, you have not solved the problem in understanding porneia (fornication). If Christ was speaking of divorce based on adultery in Matthew 19:9, it seems that he would have used moichao (adultery) which he did use in the next phrase. You have not adequately addressed this issue. IMHO, porneia is referring to some specific sexual abomination such as an incestuous or defiled marriage. Polyandry is a possibility. Or, it could be like situations such as mentioned in I Corinthians 5:1 or Deuteronomy 24:4.

I am sure that I cannot definitely analyze and explain all the nuances and interplay of meaning in Matthew 19:9 but I am equally certain that Jesus did not agree with either Hillel or Shammai. His answer was a rebuke to both schools of thought. God’s will is for one man and one woman.

Unless I misunderstand you, you are saying that if a woman commits fornication then her husband has the absolute right to divorce her and remarry. Well, I am not so sure that it is so simple. Suppose the wife repents, asks forgiveness, and desires to remain with her husband. IMHO, there are many Scriptures that teach he is to forgive her and remain married to her. If the husband uses her fornication as a excuse for getting rid of her so that he can marry someone more desirable to him, I say it is sin. I do not believe that Matthew 19:9 is giving an absolute right to divorce on grounds of fornication.

I Corinthians 7 does deal with the problem of the unbelieving spouse. It is clear that the believing spouse is to do all to make the marriage work. However, the Scripture, it seems, does deal differently with marriage to an unbeliever than two believers. I think it safe to say that there is never a reason for two believers to divorce. If one walks out, he or she is sinning. Of course, church discipline is to take place here and it may end in the walking party, who refuses to reconcile, being declared “a heathen and a publican” (i.e. an unbeliever).

This whole business is complicated and it is bound up with repentance, forgiveness, church discipline, and willingness to reconcile. IMHO, we typically fall to one extreme or the other. Some blast and condemn forever anyone and everyone involved in a divorce regardless of circumstance. Others condone, coddle and justify divorce for any reason. What we need is a balanced Scriptural view that is free of our own personal situations and prejudices. No more and no less. We are polarized like the Jews into the schools of Hillel and Shammai.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Copper:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by paidagogos:

No, some of the OT rabbis allowed divorce for any reason. Divorce was quite easy. This is the question brought to Jesus in Matthew 19:9. They were asking Jesus to take sides with one of two schools of teaching--Hillel and Shammai. The debate was over Deuteuromy 24:1. Both schools allowed divorce but they disagreed on the reasons. Jesus disagreed with both.

You misunderstood what I was saying. I did not say anything about the OT rabbis allowing divorce. I was talking about adultery. Adultery in the Old Testament was punishable by death.

That death completed the vow or covenant.

The spouse of the dead person would then be either a widow or a widower.

Widows and widowers are free to remarry.

I said nothing about the Jews allowing or condoning divorce. I spoke of adultery. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]I beg to differ—you missed my point. Due to the leniency of the rabbis on divorce, most adultery ended in divorce instead of stoning. Divorce was so easy in some quarters, especially for men, that it reduced adultery. It may have involved only a verbal statement: “I divorce thee.” There seems to have been little enforcement of the death penalty for adultery. Such was the Jewish experience.

Divorce and adultery are connected. It may be compared to the modern divorce rate, although alarmingly high, that is truncated by people cohabiting without the benefit of marriage vows. When they part, no divorce is recorded.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by TexasSky:
I get a lot of grief in my life because I am totally against divorce. The interesting thing is, I happen to BE divorced.

I took a vow to God very seriously. If I was dating someone and discovered they were not a believer, I ceased to date them because I made a personal committment to God to marry a Christian or remain single.

When I took my wedding vows I made a vow to God. Not to the state of Texas, not even to my spouse. I made my vow to the Almighty. I did the best I knew how to live up to that vow. The man I married had a personality change following a car accident, and part of that personality change included the announcement he was not going to be a husband and father any more. I get people who tell me its okay for me to "move on" and "meet someone else" because "he left" or "he committed adultery" or "the man he was died in the car accident." The problem is, I told God, "in sickness and in health," I told God, "For better or for worse." I told God, "Until death do us part." So, despite how the great state of Texas views it, I figure I am still, in the eyes of God, married. I try to live my life in that stand point. I still treat my ex with respect. I still include him in family events for the children.

However, I also take the standards for leaders in God's church very seriously. I have not returned to Children's Ministry or Youth Ministry since my husband filed for divorce. Frankly, I don't think it sets a good example for children. I get grief over that. My ex teaches a Sunday School class, and people think I am "back sliding" because I don't. I don't know how you can lead children when you are. We are supposed to be their examples. I can't very well explain to them that my ex had an affair, or that he had a huge personality change for a few years and is better now. (BTW, he filed. Even after I learned of the affair I knew he was suffering a mental illness and figured if God could forgive I could forgive.)

Well, now, I wonder about a lot of things.

I ran into someone who told a class of single adults, all of whom were divorced, "I can show you how to be pleasing so that you won't be alone anymore." Since when was paring up divorced people the Church's job? And frankly, I would really resent being put IN a single's class for divorced people.

I am told one of our Deacon's is divorced. I felt he should have resigned from the deacon board, but I've never said that to anyone but you folks here.

Even though I don't blame my ex for what he did when he was having dellusions, I think he should not be teaching a Sunday School class.

Am I too hard on the divorced? Am I too hard on myself? On my ex?

I find your spirit and attitude very commendable. I admire and honor your forthright stand for your convictions. Don’t violate your own convictions.

The question that I have concerns church discipline. Did your church take any steps of discipline toward the offending party (i.e. your husband)? There are steps and levels of church discipline to bring back the wayward saint to fellowship and restoration in the church. Failure to do Biblical church discipline shortchanges both parties. If he refuses all overtures and refuses to listen, then he is to be declared “a heathen and a publican” which brings I Corinthians 7 into play. There’s a lot more to church discipline than my brief synopsis but it is designed by God to alleviate many of these problems. I recommend your reading Jay Adam’s book on Church Discipline.

 

[Copper]

Originally posted by paidagogos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Copper:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by paidagogos:

No, some of the OT rabbis allowed divorce for any reason. Divorce was quite easy. This is the question brought to Jesus in Matthew 19:9. They were asking Jesus to take sides with one of two schools of teaching--Hillel and Shammai. The debate was over Deuteuromy 24:1. Both schools allowed divorce but they disagreed on the reasons. Jesus disagreed with both.

You misunderstood what I was saying. I did not say anything about the OT rabbis allowing divorce. I was talking about adultery. Adultery in the Old Testament was punishable by death.

That death completed the vow or covenant.

The spouse of the dead person would then be either a widow or a widower.

Widows and widowers are free to remarry.

I said nothing about the Jews allowing or condoning divorce. I spoke of adultery. </font>[/QUOTE]I beg to differ—you missed my point. Due to the leniency of the rabbis on divorce, most adultery ended in divorce instead of stoning. Divorce was so easy in some quarters, especially for men, that it reduced adultery. It may have involved only a verbal statement: “I divorce thee.” There seems to have been little enforcement of the death penalty for adultery. Such was the Jewish experience.

Divorce and adultery are connected. It may be compared to the modern divorce rate, although alarmingly high, that is truncated by people cohabiting without the benefit of marriage vows. When they part, no divorce is recorded. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]My friend, you can differ until the cows come home - you still missed my point and are trying to springboard and pound on a non-relevant point from my message.

Yes there was some twisting of the law, that is fact, but the bottom line, the law provided for the death of the adulterer up until Jesus stopped the Jews from stoning the woman caught in the act of adultery.

Law provides for death for adulterers, Grace provides for forgiveness to the adulterer. Whether or not it was always utlized or executed is immaterial. It WAS the Law. That's my point which you seem to have missed.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Copper:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by paidagogos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Copper:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by paidagogos:

No, some of the OT rabbis allowed divorce for any reason. Divorce was quite easy. This is the question brought to Jesus in Matthew 19:9. They were asking Jesus to take sides with one of two schools of teaching--Hillel and Shammai. The debate was over Deuteuromy 24:1. Both schools allowed divorce but they disagreed on the reasons. Jesus disagreed with both.

You misunderstood what I was saying. I did not say anything about the OT rabbis allowing divorce. I was talking about adultery. Adultery in the Old Testament was punishable by death.

That death completed the vow or covenant.

The spouse of the dead person would then be either a widow or a widower.

Widows and widowers are free to remarry.

I said nothing about the Jews allowing or condoning divorce. I spoke of adultery. </font>[/QUOTE]I beg to differ—you missed my point. Due to the leniency of the rabbis on divorce, most adultery ended in divorce instead of stoning. Divorce was so easy in some quarters, especially for men, that it reduced adultery. It may have involved only a verbal statement: “I divorce thee.” There seems to have been little enforcement of the death penalty for adultery. Such was the Jewish experience.

Divorce and adultery are connected. It may be compared to the modern divorce rate, although alarmingly high, that is truncated by people cohabiting without the benefit of marriage vows. When they part, no divorce is recorded. </font>[/QUOTE]My friend, you can differ until the cows come home - you still missed my point and are trying to springboard and pound on a non-relevant point from my message.

Yes there was some twisting of the law, that is fact, but the bottom line, the law provided for the death of the adulterer up until Jesus stopped the Jews from stoning the woman caught in the act of adultery.

Law provides for death for adulterers, Grace provides for forgiveness to the adulterer. Whether or not it was always utlized or executed is immaterial. It WAS the Law. That's my point which you seem to have missed.

</font>[/QUOTE]No, you're wrong. What you originally said was:

"But your husband left you. He broke the covenant by being with another woman. If this were the Old Testament, he would be ... dead.

"

My point was that he would not be dead because the death penalty was rarely enforced. The parallel is that Biblical church discipline is not being done today.

Your posturing and rationalizations came later. It was never a question about what the Law said. Therefore, it is material and relevant whether the Law was enforced or not because it was directly related to whether he would be dead or not! It would appear that you later tried to change your point.

 

[TexasSky]

Paidagogos,

No, they didn't, but they knew that most of the inappropriate acts and things followed the head injury and came hand in hand with a psychosis.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by TexasSky:
Paidagogos,

No, they didn't, but they knew that most of the inappropriate acts and things followed the head injury and came hand in hand with a psychosis.

IMHO, following the proper course of church discipline would have helped resolve many of the issues in your situation. It would have helped your husband. The purpose of church discipline is not purely punitive, although it may carry some punitive measures, but it is to reconcile and restore. There are many aspects of church discipline such as confrontation, exhortation, admonition, confession, repentance, forgivenes, restoration, counseling, etc. It also may involve breaking fellowship or declaring, one who refuses to listen, a "heathen and a publican (i.e. an unbeliever)."

 

[paidagogos]

To summarize my thoughts on divorce, IMHO, one of the reasons for the divorce messes in churches today is the lack of proper application of church discipline. Discipline means to disciple. If marriage issues were handled properly from the beginning before they ended in divorce, then we would see a dramatic decline in divorce among Christians. Also, if divorce did occur, there would be clear judgment of righteousness and closure provided the Biblical pattern had been followed. The guilty party would be confronted, exhorted, admonished, etc. If he or she refused to hear, then fellowship would be broken until the party repented and came under church authority. Finally, if the person stubbornly refused to listen, repent and reconcile, then he or she would be put out of the church and considered an unbeliever. Evangelization of the individual would begin.

We are so namby-pamby that we are afraid to confront a brother or sister even when they are obviously wrong and sinning. This is not love; it is cowardice. If we really love a person (i.e. desire their best interests), then we are not content to allow them continue in sin out of fellowship with God.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by paidagogos:
To summarize my thoughts on divorce, IMHO, one of the reasons for the divorce messes in churches today is the lack of proper application of church discipline.

After all we don't want to offend anyone. I have talked with non-believers who are offended by such lack of leadership and caring discipline that they are disgusted. It is a fact that when the leadership confronts sin in a loving way it shows care and concern.

Gerald Dahl wrote a book years ago called How Can We Keep Christian Marriages from Falling Apart? HE says that in the case of a troubled marriage the chruch should ocme closer to the couple not farther apart.

In fact last week we had a family visit us who were having troubles in their marriage about ten years ago. One of the ladies in the Sunday School I was leading at the time brought it up about the couple having trouble. We planned what we would do to encourage that couple and help them get through their troubles. Today everyone of us are close friends.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by paidagogos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:

It is just as clear from that very same passage that Jesus made an exception for "fornication". The understanding implicit in the discussion of Moses allowance of divorce is that putting away allowed for remarriage since remarriage was the whole point of being able to "put away" a woman that was not pleasing to her husband.

So you say.</font>[/QUOTE] So the text says unless you are given to redefining words when their meaning is inconvenient to your presuppositions.

It is not that simple.

No... not if you are intent on making the texts say what they don't say and not say what they do say. That indeed is a very complicated endeavor.

Don’t you think God expects one to forgive his spouse who commits adultery and repents?

Probably. But Jesus didn't choose to say so in context nor did Paul.

Then again, it would also relate to what one considers "repent".

Should one go 70 X 7 on this one? Do you really believe that a person should believe that a spouse is truly repentant if they fornicate repeatedly?

Scriptures clearly teach that God desires reconciliation.

God also desires spousal faithfulness and addressed two situations where that covenant of faithfulness is broken.

As you have stated it, divorce is an absolute right with justification if the spouse commits adultery.

Nope. That is how Jesus appears to have stated it.

He also commanded forgiveness. The question is how much of a habit can fornication be before there is a price to pay.

Further, spouses are commanded not to withhold sexual favor from each other within the marriage. Then as now, STD's risks are directly proportionate to one's promiscuity. Syphillis and HIV can kill or destroy a person's mind and body.

I know of a specific instance where a habitually unfaithful spouse infected their partner with syphillis. The partner almost died and will suffer lifelong health problems because of this. What is your solution? Since you say that all adultery should be forgiven... which command should a person with a habitually cheating spouse disobey?

Furthermore, your handling of this complex issue is superficial and uninformed.

My handling of this issue is to read the Word and let it speak first.

You state things as factual, which you have not proven.

I have stated interpretations that are consistent with the text. I don't have to "prove" anything more than simple agreement with what God said.

For example, you have not solved the problem in understanding porneia (fornication). If Christ was speaking of divorce based on adultery in Matthew 19:9, it seems that he would have used moichao (adultery) which he did use in the next phrase. You have not adequately addressed this issue.

I most certainly did.

Matthew 5:32But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, The rule. saving for the cause of fornication, The exception. causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. The consequences of the rule.

The consequences of the rule do not apply to the exception to the rule or else there is no reason to make an exception in the first place... but Jesus did.

IMHO, porneia is referring to some specific sexual abomination such as an incestuous or defiled marriage. Polyandry is a possibility.

Then you are reading your 'honest opinion' into the text, aren't you?

Or, it could be like situations such as mentioned in I Corinthians 5:1 or Deuteronomy 24:4.

If it were a specific problem then there is an error in Christ's words if He didn't state it as such.

I am sure that I cannot definitely analyze and explain all the nuances and interplay of meaning in Matthew 19:9 but I am equally certain that Jesus did not agree with either Hillel or Shammai. His answer was a rebuke to both schools of thought.

His answer means what He said. Your attempts to rationalize whatever bias you carry to the text doesn't mean that my approach is "superficial and uninformed".

God’s will is for one man and one woman.

I never said it wasn't. But sin has its effects and both Jesus and Paul dealt with those effects as they pertain to divorce.

 

[Scott J]

Unless I misunderstand you, you are saying that if a woman commits fornication then her husband has the absolute right to divorce her and remarry.

That is what the text says in context. Cross referencing with other scriptures, if the offended member is the Christian then they should seek forgiveness and reconciliation but they apparently retain the right to divorce and remarry.

Well, I am not so sure that it is so simple.

The "right" is simple. The correct, Christian employment of the right may not be quite as simple.

Suppose the wife repents, asks forgiveness, and desires to remain with her husband. IMHO, there are many Scriptures that teach he is to forgive her and remain married to her.

Although I am not aware of a single scripture that speaks specifically to forgiving an adulterous spouse, I would agree that reconciliation should be the first choice.

However, what if the act is repeated? What if the spouse always wants to stay married and is always real sorry?

What if it really isn't that complicated? Let's say a man makes frequent business trips to a distant city. There, he begans to see a mistress. Then suppose the wife finds out. Let's say that when confronted he expresses his desire to stay married but refuses to stop seeing the mistress.

What then?

If the husband uses her fornication as a excuse for getting rid of her so that he can marry someone more desirable to him, I say it is sin.

Yes. If it is specifically so that the husband can pursue someone they had already desired, I would agree.

I do not believe that Matthew 19:9 is giving an absolute right to divorce on grounds of fornication.

Again, that would be an argument against the text, not me.

I would say that the right is given but that the application of the right should definitely be governed by other texts.

I Corinthians 7 does deal with the problem of the unbelieving spouse. It is clear that the believing spouse is to do all to make the marriage work.

Agreed.

However, the Scripture, it seems, does deal differently with marriage to an unbeliever than two believers.

Agreed.

I think it safe to say that there is never a reason for two believers to divorce. If one walks out, he or she is sinning.

Walks out? OK. Leave the door open and let God deal with them so long as they do not fornicate or commit adultery.

We have TS's situation where the "believer" husband not only walked out, he divorced her and married someone else. TS had no choice nor power in the matter.

IMO,

A) There is sufficient reason for TS to question the man's status as a believer as it pertains to I Corinthians 7. He was definitely in disobedience to scripture while knowing he was.

B) She is free to remarry per the words of Jesus due to his adultery with no possibility of repentance/reconciliation. He is remarried and he divorced TS. She cannot remarry him now.

Of course, church discipline is to take place here and it may end in the walking party, who refuses to reconcile, being declared “a heathen and a publican” (i.e. an unbeliever).

Biblically, yes. Practically, I haven't seen a church with that kind of gumption.

This whole business is complicated and it is bound up with repentance, forgiveness, church discipline, and willingness to reconcile.

Agreed. Divorce is never the first nor best option for a believer.

IMHO, we typically fall to one extreme or the other. Some blast and condemn forever anyone and everyone involved in a divorce regardless of circumstance. Others condone, coddle and justify divorce for any reason.

I have tried to avoid both by letting the scripture say what it says in these passages but also counterbalance that with other scriptures- especially those that relate to the relationships between believers.

What we need is a balanced Scriptural view that is free of our own personal situations and prejudices. No more and no less.

I absolutely agree.

 

[Artimaeus]

I must be one of the men who "cannot receive this saying" because I have been studying on this for over 30 years and cannot come to a conviction. The best I have been able to do is come to a preference. I have concluded these things:

1. It is a sin for one spouse to leave the other.
2. It is a sin to remarry after you divorce your spouse.
3. A person whose spouse divorces them should not remarry but seek reconciliation.
4. Once the divorcing spouse remarries the other spouse is then free to remarry.

Something I have noticed however, is that as the instances of divorce has become more prevelant, that attitude about divorce have become less strong. This telss me that most peoples opinions are not based on scripture but on personal experiences (family, friends, themselves, etc.) As I said, these are preferences and I cannot defend them with a strong argument but no one elses strong arguments have persuaded me otherwise.

BTW, As a suggestion to no one in particular but everyone in general, when you quote someone could you remove the unneeded parts so that it shortenes the threads a little. I am suffering with slow dial up and it really bogs things down on this end. Thanks.