-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Is Divorce a Sin?
- Thread starter AdoptedDaughter
- Start date
latterrain77
New Member
Hi Tonya. Thank you for your reply. You said; Right, this verse is showing the force of the Mosaic Law to which christians are not obligated to anymore...
I respectfully disagree. 1 Cor. 7: 10-11 won't bear out your conclusion, nor will Matt. 5: 32; both of which support the Roman 7: 2-3 conclusion that remarriage after divorce is not permissible (except when there is a death of a spouse). But I won't try to change your mind. Good luck! latterrain77
I respectfully disagree. 1 Cor. 7: 10-11 won't bear out your conclusion, nor will Matt. 5: 32; both of which support the Roman 7: 2-3 conclusion that remarriage after divorce is not permissible (except when there is a death of a spouse). But I won't try to change your mind. Good luck! latterrain77
Right, Matt 5:32 follows Matthew 5:31 where it was stated that a divorce is a putting away and a giving of a bill of divorce. Since a woman was still married with only a putting away, yes there would be adultery involved. I'm not talking about just putting away, but a putting away and a "standing off"..
How does 1 Cor 7:10-11 play into this?
How does 1 Cor 7:10-11 play into this?
Brother Dallas,
I won't disagree with you that a woman cannot be in two marriages at once and pleasing to God. As we have already noticed in the Romans passage, she shall be called an adulteress. This is the purpose of a bill of divorce.
Jesus was asked if it was lawful for a man to put away his wife.
In the Mark account Jesus got them to answer by asking "What did Moses command you?" The reply back that He suffered them to write a bill of divorce & to put her away was the answer to "is it lawful"...
Then later on Jesus says , 11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her: 12 and if she herself shall put away her husband, and marry another, she committeth adultery.
Now the most important thing to remember her was that the words Put away mean just that. They don't encompass the "putting away plus the giving of a bill of divorce"; for a woman was not allowed to give her hubby a bill of divorce, but you'll notice above Jesus speaks of a woman putting away her hubby. Thus putting away is a general term which means to leave, let go, free, separate fully..or only half of a God authored divorce. God's type of divorce is the only way to do it. This prevents immorality. What God has joined together let not man put asunder..
I won't disagree with you that a woman cannot be in two marriages at once and pleasing to God. As we have already noticed in the Romans passage, she shall be called an adulteress. This is the purpose of a bill of divorce.
Jesus was asked if it was lawful for a man to put away his wife.
In the Mark account Jesus got them to answer by asking "What did Moses command you?" The reply back that He suffered them to write a bill of divorce & to put her away was the answer to "is it lawful"...
Then later on Jesus says , 11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her: 12 and if she herself shall put away her husband, and marry another, she committeth adultery.
Now the most important thing to remember her was that the words Put away mean just that. They don't encompass the "putting away plus the giving of a bill of divorce"; for a woman was not allowed to give her hubby a bill of divorce, but you'll notice above Jesus speaks of a woman putting away her hubby. Thus putting away is a general term which means to leave, let go, free, separate fully..or only half of a God authored divorce. God's type of divorce is the only way to do it. This prevents immorality. What God has joined together let not man put asunder..
latterrain77
New Member
Hi tonya. Thank you for the follow up. You said; Since a woman was still married with only a putting away, yes there would be adultery involved. I'm not talking about just putting away, but a putting away and a "standing off"..
I don't understand what you saying. However, with respect to what we have been discussing (remarriage after divorce) Rom. 7: 2-3, 1 Cor 7:10-11 and Matt. 5: 32 provide the answers as I see it.
You said; How does 1 Cor 7:10-11 play into this?
Like Rom. 7: 2-3 and Matt. 5: 32, 1 Cor. 7: 10-11 is self explanatory. Good Luck! latterrain77
I don't understand what you saying. However, with respect to what we have been discussing (remarriage after divorce) Rom. 7: 2-3, 1 Cor 7:10-11 and Matt. 5: 32 provide the answers as I see it.
You said; How does 1 Cor 7:10-11 play into this?
Like Rom. 7: 2-3 and Matt. 5: 32, 1 Cor. 7: 10-11 is self explanatory. Good Luck! latterrain77
divorcement: G647
ἀποστάσιον
apostasion
ap-os-tas'-ee-on
Neuter of a (presumed) adjective from a derivative of G868; properly something separative, that is, (specifically) divorce: - (writing of) divorcement.
G868
ἀφίστημι
aphistēmi
af-is'-tay-mee
From G575 and G2476; to remove, that is, (actively) instigate to revolt; usually (reflexively) to desist, desert, etc.: - depart, draw (fall) away, refrain, withdraw self.
put away: G630
ἀπολύω
apoluō
ap-ol-oo'-o
From G575 and G3089; to free fully, that is, (literally) relieve, release, dismiss (reflexively depart), or (figuratively) let die, pardon, or (specifically) divorce: - (let) depart, dismiss, divorce, forgive, let go, loose, put (send) away, release, set at liberty.
I don't see the distinction in being 'put away' and being given a 'writing of divorcement', if anyhing 'apoluo' means to 'free-fully' so cannot be a condition in which you describe.
Christ said except for the grounds of 'fornication', he did not say on the grounds of adultery, though in cases, I believe adultery can be the same as fornication. But, the only Biblical grounds for divorce would be fornication. None other. Fornication denotes as I showed earlier a development of the lust of the flesh not due to something 'wrong' in the marriage, but for something wrong in the fornicator, being 'full' having need of nothing, thus seeking to add 'excitement' to their lives. Plainly, sin.
Bro. Dallas Eaton
ἀποστάσιον
apostasion
ap-os-tas'-ee-on
Neuter of a (presumed) adjective from a derivative of G868; properly something separative, that is, (specifically) divorce: - (writing of) divorcement.
G868
ἀφίστημι
aphistēmi
af-is'-tay-mee
From G575 and G2476; to remove, that is, (actively) instigate to revolt; usually (reflexively) to desist, desert, etc.: - depart, draw (fall) away, refrain, withdraw self.
put away: G630
ἀπολύω
apoluō
ap-ol-oo'-o
From G575 and G3089; to free fully, that is, (literally) relieve, release, dismiss (reflexively depart), or (figuratively) let die, pardon, or (specifically) divorce: - (let) depart, dismiss, divorce, forgive, let go, loose, put (send) away, release, set at liberty.
I don't see the distinction in being 'put away' and being given a 'writing of divorcement', if anyhing 'apoluo' means to 'free-fully' so cannot be a condition in which you describe.
Christ said except for the grounds of 'fornication', he did not say on the grounds of adultery, though in cases, I believe adultery can be the same as fornication. But, the only Biblical grounds for divorce would be fornication. None other. Fornication denotes as I showed earlier a development of the lust of the flesh not due to something 'wrong' in the marriage, but for something wrong in the fornicator, being 'full' having need of nothing, thus seeking to add 'excitement' to their lives. Plainly, sin.
Bro. Dallas Eaton
Wow. I appreciate the intensity of the discussion here. Please realize with every post that there are people who believe adamantly one way or another . . and that does not make them "wrong" or "evil" because they disagree with what you think!
Also, many on the BB have been afflicted (is that a good word?) by divorce personally - in their lives, in their children or parents. Kindness and gentleness should weigh in on every post. People hurt and our words should be "fitly spoken".
This subject - especially the "exception clause" - has been dealt with in the theology forum in the past. A search there might give some insights. There is also a lot of false information in the previous 5 pages that will only confuse or harm believers.
As opportunity arises, I will monitor this thread carefully and try to point out some facts that are being misrepresented in our rush to defend God.
Also, many on the BB have been afflicted (is that a good word?) by divorce personally - in their lives, in their children or parents. Kindness and gentleness should weigh in on every post. People hurt and our words should be "fitly spoken".
This subject - especially the "exception clause" - has been dealt with in the theology forum in the past. A search there might give some insights. There is also a lot of false information in the previous 5 pages that will only confuse or harm believers.
As opportunity arises, I will monitor this thread carefully and try to point out some facts that are being misrepresented in our rush to defend God.
D
dianetavegia
Guest
Johnv, I have to leave for a VBS meeting in just a minute but when I get home, if no one else has pointed it out, I'll post the scripture that says if your spouse leaves you to let them go but that you are not to divorce them but wait for them to return.
Diane
Diane
I did. I waited two years. It was the second time she had cheated on me. The first time, I told her, your sins are forgiven, go and sin no more. I guess she only heard part of that.
But one thing that hasn't been discussed much: The one committing adultery has broken the marital covenant. Once broken, that covenant no longer exists. Waiting for my ex wife to return would be tantamount to condoning her actions.
But one thing that hasn't been discussed much: The one committing adultery has broken the marital covenant. Once broken, that covenant no longer exists. Waiting for my ex wife to return would be tantamount to condoning her actions.
Whatever we happen to believe about the rightness or wrongness of divorce; it happens, and it is happening at an alarming rate. We still need to deal with the after effects and that usually lands in the lap of ministers.
May we deal wisely with the matter, and not lose the souls involved, and they get on with life to be productive in the Lord, as many have.
Cheers,
Jim
May we deal wisely with the matter, and not lose the souls involved, and they get on with life to be productive in the Lord, as many have.
Cheers,
Jim
Ok, been thinking on this all afternoon (no comments on smelling smoke!), and I have a question for those who believe that divorced and remarried believers are perpetually sinning by being remarried.
Should People like me (divorced & remarried) be accepted into the membership of a local church? I mean, think about it. Most churches don't let unrepentent sinners join the membership, right? A man and woman living together without the bonds of marriage would not be eligible for membership unless they got married. At least, that's how it is at my current church. A practicing homosexual is not eligible for membership unless he/she repents of the lifestyle, correct?
So, how does someone like me, who is remarried after my divorce of many years ago, repent of my sin of adultery that goes on every day of my current marriage (according to some)?
Please know that I am asking this question with the intention to learn, and do not mean any malice toward anyone at all.
Also, thanks to all who have participated so far. I think it's been a very civil thread. Let's keep it up!
Should People like me (divorced & remarried) be accepted into the membership of a local church? I mean, think about it. Most churches don't let unrepentent sinners join the membership, right? A man and woman living together without the bonds of marriage would not be eligible for membership unless they got married. At least, that's how it is at my current church. A practicing homosexual is not eligible for membership unless he/she repents of the lifestyle, correct?
So, how does someone like me, who is remarried after my divorce of many years ago, repent of my sin of adultery that goes on every day of my current marriage (according to some)?
Please know that I am asking this question with the intention to learn, and do not mean any malice toward anyone at all.
WonderingOne
New Member
This topic begs a thousand questions, but I will only pose a few of the ones that I find the most confusing.
If a wife is being beaten on a regular basis, but there is no adultery involved on the part of either party, does God expect her to remain in that relationship? Is she sinning if she leaves the abusive husband? If not, does that mean she may separate herself from the abusive situation, but may not divorce him? Suppose the abusive husband meets someone else and files for divorce himself? Does God still expect the abused wife to honor her "committment" to the marriage, even though the husband has broken the vows>
If a wife is being beaten on a regular basis, but there is no adultery involved on the part of either party, does God expect her to remain in that relationship? Is she sinning if she leaves the abusive husband? If not, does that mean she may separate herself from the abusive situation, but may not divorce him? Suppose the abusive husband meets someone else and files for divorce himself? Does God still expect the abused wife to honor her "committment" to the marriage, even though the husband has broken the vows>
If a wife is being beaten on a regular basis, but there is no adultery involved on the part of either party, does God expect her to remain in that relationship?
No. There are two specific reasons for divorce: Adultery and Abandonment. Abuse falls under abandonment, because the abuser has abandoned the spouse.
Does God still expect the abused wife to honor her "commitment" to the marriage, even though the husband has broken the vows
No. When a spouse becomes an abuser, that person, like an adulterer, has broken the covanent. A person who leaves an abusive spouse is leaving the spouse, but it is the abuser who has ended the marriage by way of abuse. For the abused party, there is no existing "commitment" to honor.
No. There are two specific reasons for divorce: Adultery and Abandonment. Abuse falls under abandonment, because the abuser has abandoned the spouse.
Does God still expect the abused wife to honor her "commitment" to the marriage, even though the husband has broken the vows
No. When a spouse becomes an abuser, that person, like an adulterer, has broken the covanent. A person who leaves an abusive spouse is leaving the spouse, but it is the abuser who has ended the marriage by way of abuse. For the abused party, there is no existing "commitment" to honor.
Personally, I believe that modern marriage is both a civil and religious event. In a civil wedding, the law allows for divorcement. There are some referenes to marriage requirements in scripture, but aside from these, two people do make an oath before God and before the people.
Circumstances do change. No person should be expected to tolerate abuse, let alone return to it. Often there is more damage done by two who remain together for unholy reasons. More suffer than the two, but also the children.
In any church I have pastored,a Christian in good faith would be quite welcome to fellowship in our midst. I would much rather have you there to grow and mature in the Lord, than sitting in the bleachers falling away.
Cheers, and God bless,
Jim
Circumstances do change. No person should be expected to tolerate abuse, let alone return to it. Often there is more damage done by two who remain together for unholy reasons. More suffer than the two, but also the children.
In any church I have pastored,a Christian in good faith would be quite welcome to fellowship in our midst. I would much rather have you there to grow and mature in the Lord, than sitting in the bleachers falling away.
Cheers, and God bless,
Jim
2Timothy4:1-5
New Member
I was married, now I am divorced. I will be getting remarried sometime this fall.
Was my divorce a sin? Probably yes. Does God forgive sin? Yes, He does. Is divorce/remarriage the "unforgivable" sin? IMHO, no, it is not.
Not trying to make excuses but it was a marriage that never should have happened. We were too different from each other (I'm Baptist, she's Charaismatic, and that was just one of our differences). Those who say opposites attract are full of it. Maybe opposites attract, but those "differences" will eventually wear on the marriage. They did on mine. We didn't live close to each other while dating (we met online), so we didn't know each other as well as we probably should have. We saw each other maybe two weekends a month, at best, although we both racked up huge phone bills with nightly calls. Some people say that their marriage was "made in heaven." Maybe so, but ours was most certainly made "in hell," things were that bad.
I was the one who walked away. Three different times. Why really isn't important, just know that it didn't involve an affair, anything sexual, or physical abuse. After the first time, she took me back, no quetions asked. After the second time, one of her conditions was for me to get counseling for my temper. I did, and she took me back. After the third time, she wanted nothing more to do with me (and still doesn't). I begged and pleaded for "just one more chance," but she slammed that door in my face. Just getting what I deserved, I guess.
She filed for the divorce. Do I feel she was in the wrong? No. She did what she had to do. I messed up, and I messed up her life as a result.
Now I have met a wonderful lady who I love with all my heart. I am happy, and I believe I make her happy. We know we want to be together; forever. She knows I'm divorced. She knows why the divorce happened. She knows what "she's walking into" so to speak. But she also knows that I've grown. I've grown as a man, and in my walk with the Lord. I have learned from my past mistakes. I have learned to deal with my temper. I have learned to communicate better. I have learned how to better handle those curveballs that life can throw my way.
Now, my question is this...knowing all that the bible says about divorce, and having read the back and forth debate in this thread (as well as many others, not just here), why would God have placed this woman in my life if remarriage was such a terrible act? Maybe I'm just trying to rationalize my getting married again, I don't know. I just know that in my heart we are meant to be together, and if remarriage was the terrible sin some make it out to be, then I wouldn't feel the way I do.
Kenneth
Was my divorce a sin? Probably yes. Does God forgive sin? Yes, He does. Is divorce/remarriage the "unforgivable" sin? IMHO, no, it is not.
Not trying to make excuses but it was a marriage that never should have happened. We were too different from each other (I'm Baptist, she's Charaismatic, and that was just one of our differences). Those who say opposites attract are full of it. Maybe opposites attract, but those "differences" will eventually wear on the marriage. They did on mine. We didn't live close to each other while dating (we met online), so we didn't know each other as well as we probably should have. We saw each other maybe two weekends a month, at best, although we both racked up huge phone bills with nightly calls. Some people say that their marriage was "made in heaven." Maybe so, but ours was most certainly made "in hell," things were that bad.
I was the one who walked away. Three different times. Why really isn't important, just know that it didn't involve an affair, anything sexual, or physical abuse. After the first time, she took me back, no quetions asked. After the second time, one of her conditions was for me to get counseling for my temper. I did, and she took me back. After the third time, she wanted nothing more to do with me (and still doesn't). I begged and pleaded for "just one more chance," but she slammed that door in my face. Just getting what I deserved, I guess.
She filed for the divorce. Do I feel she was in the wrong? No. She did what she had to do. I messed up, and I messed up her life as a result.
Now I have met a wonderful lady who I love with all my heart. I am happy, and I believe I make her happy. We know we want to be together; forever. She knows I'm divorced. She knows why the divorce happened. She knows what "she's walking into" so to speak. But she also knows that I've grown. I've grown as a man, and in my walk with the Lord. I have learned from my past mistakes. I have learned to deal with my temper. I have learned to communicate better. I have learned how to better handle those curveballs that life can throw my way.
Now, my question is this...knowing all that the bible says about divorce, and having read the back and forth debate in this thread (as well as many others, not just here), why would God have placed this woman in my life if remarriage was such a terrible act? Maybe I'm just trying to rationalize my getting married again, I don't know. I just know that in my heart we are meant to be together, and if remarriage was the terrible sin some make it out to be, then I wouldn't feel the way I do.
Kenneth
2Tim,
What if there is no sin in remarrying?
Would it ease your conscience to know that there is not?
There is a lot of commentary on the supposed "why"
remarriage is wrong. But very little new thought being put out on the subject.
What most people don't realize , thru no fault of their own, is that attitudes are usually passed down from one generation to the next.
For instance, in the south you'll see lots of people driving around with confederate flags on their vehicles. Being originally from the south, I know firsthand that there is still tremendous sentiment regarding what happened in the civil war. And in the minds of some southerners, its like it happened yesterday. But it was 150 years ago! People have passed down their biases thru the decades regarding this matter.
The same can be said of religious thought. Many people don't know the origins of the divorce theories, they just know what feels right to them.
There are several words used in the original texts for separate and divorce. Two transliterated greek words to consider are apoluo and apostasion. Apoluo means to set free;free fully; apostasion means to stand off.
Apoluo is the word that is translated as put away and apostasion is translated as divorcement as in bill of divorcement. Jesus never said it was wrong to give a bill of divorcement. Jesus said that it was wrong to do one thing: Put away.
Most modern translation translate apuluo(put away) as divorce. The KJV is nearly perfect except in Matt 5:32 where apoluo is translated as divorce. Out of the 20 or 21 times apoluo is used, this is the only time in the KJV where it is translated as divorce. The ASV of 1901 translates it perfectly every time as put away.
Alot of the time people say that Jesus was intervening in a dispute between two warring Rabbi factions. And that He was settling a matter over what the unclean thing was in Deut 24:1-4.
Most of your parroting commentators have egregiously come to the conclusion that Jesus was siding with the more conservative party and saying that the unclean thing was adultery and that any other divorces and remarriages were adultery.
But lets take a closer look.
First thing to consider was that adultery was an offense punishable by stoning. Do you think that the Pharisees would have taken Jesus seriously as He was claiming to be the Son of God then turning around and saying just the opposite of the Law.
The Law said that if a person was caught in adultery then that person was to be stoned. Yet it appears to our commentary writers that Jesus is saying that a bill of divorcement was really to be given to adulterers. Now think about it. A bill of divorcement was given so that the women being divorced could go and be another mans wife and so that the first husband could never take her back after she had already married hubby #2.
Are you following me so far?
Now keep in mind that Jesus said that He came to fulfill the Law, not to destroy it. He also said that not one tittle or jot shall fail.
Now lets turn to one of the favorite verses: Some translations start verse 9 of Matthew 19 off with the word But, however the ASV correctly translates it as And.
Matthew 19:9 reads: And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery.
Jesus did not say that whosoever shall put away his wife and give her a bill of divorcement...
Simply put , the bill of divorcement was given because men could not find the thought of life long marriage appealing. So because of the hardness of their hearts, this precept was written. But it wasn't written as much to allow them to divorce as it was to prevent them from taking their put away wives back.
This may be too much info for now.. if you are interested I can spout on and on, LOL..
Peace,
Tonya Rudd
What if there is no sin in remarrying?
Would it ease your conscience to know that there is not?
There is a lot of commentary on the supposed "why"
remarriage is wrong. But very little new thought being put out on the subject.
What most people don't realize , thru no fault of their own, is that attitudes are usually passed down from one generation to the next.
For instance, in the south you'll see lots of people driving around with confederate flags on their vehicles. Being originally from the south, I know firsthand that there is still tremendous sentiment regarding what happened in the civil war. And in the minds of some southerners, its like it happened yesterday. But it was 150 years ago! People have passed down their biases thru the decades regarding this matter.
The same can be said of religious thought. Many people don't know the origins of the divorce theories, they just know what feels right to them.
There are several words used in the original texts for separate and divorce. Two transliterated greek words to consider are apoluo and apostasion. Apoluo means to set free;free fully; apostasion means to stand off.
Apoluo is the word that is translated as put away and apostasion is translated as divorcement as in bill of divorcement. Jesus never said it was wrong to give a bill of divorcement. Jesus said that it was wrong to do one thing: Put away.
Most modern translation translate apuluo(put away) as divorce. The KJV is nearly perfect except in Matt 5:32 where apoluo is translated as divorce. Out of the 20 or 21 times apoluo is used, this is the only time in the KJV where it is translated as divorce. The ASV of 1901 translates it perfectly every time as put away.
Alot of the time people say that Jesus was intervening in a dispute between two warring Rabbi factions. And that He was settling a matter over what the unclean thing was in Deut 24:1-4.
Most of your parroting commentators have egregiously come to the conclusion that Jesus was siding with the more conservative party and saying that the unclean thing was adultery and that any other divorces and remarriages were adultery.
But lets take a closer look.
First thing to consider was that adultery was an offense punishable by stoning. Do you think that the Pharisees would have taken Jesus seriously as He was claiming to be the Son of God then turning around and saying just the opposite of the Law.
The Law said that if a person was caught in adultery then that person was to be stoned. Yet it appears to our commentary writers that Jesus is saying that a bill of divorcement was really to be given to adulterers. Now think about it. A bill of divorcement was given so that the women being divorced could go and be another mans wife and so that the first husband could never take her back after she had already married hubby #2.
Are you following me so far?
Now keep in mind that Jesus said that He came to fulfill the Law, not to destroy it. He also said that not one tittle or jot shall fail.
Now lets turn to one of the favorite verses: Some translations start verse 9 of Matthew 19 off with the word But, however the ASV correctly translates it as And.
Matthew 19:9 reads: And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery.
Jesus did not say that whosoever shall put away his wife and give her a bill of divorcement...
Simply put , the bill of divorcement was given because men could not find the thought of life long marriage appealing. So because of the hardness of their hearts, this precept was written. But it wasn't written as much to allow them to divorce as it was to prevent them from taking their put away wives back.
This may be too much info for now.. if you are interested I can spout on and on, LOL..
Peace,
Tonya Rudd
Daniel David
New Member
I am only responding because this was originally posted in response to my post.
You only believe it to not be a sin. You have never offered any exegetically sound position that says it isn't.
Jesus made it crystal clear in Matthew 19 that those who divorce do so because of a hard heart. That is a sin. There is so much more that I have posted before that no one answers. It is old and tiresome, but a new person asked the original question.
AdoptedDaughter
New Member
2Timothy4:1-5,
Divorce other than fornication is a sin. If you remarry after a divorce that wasn't due to fornication, you commit adultery. And the person who caused the divorce makes the spouse commit adultery. It's right there in scripture, my dear brother.
Divorce other than fornication is a sin. If you remarry after a divorce that wasn't due to fornication, you commit adultery. And the person who caused the divorce makes the spouse commit adultery. It's right there in scripture, my dear brother.