The Biblical Doctrine of Divorce

[ReformedBaptist]

You took that out of context as well (should I expect anything more from you?). Read 1 Timothy 5:17 and you'll see that "elder" does not simply refer to "just older people." In the scripture named above, it signifies an "officer" of the church. How many instances do you think there were when a young man were to rebuke an older man in the church -- especially a father? Read on and you'll see that he should be treated as a father -- with great respect.

The only one out of line is you sir, who is stating Jesus permitted divorce when He did not!

I took it in its immediate context. Let's widen the context. Since your so wise, you already know that a verse should be understood in its immediate context first, then the wider context. But let's enlarge the context. I have nothing to fear from the truth. Do you?

1 Timothy 4

12Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.

13Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.

14Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.

15Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all.

16Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.


1 Timothy 5

1Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren;

2The elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity.

3Honour widows that are widows indeed.

4But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to shew piety at home, and to requite their parents: for that is good and acceptable before God.

5Now she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, trusteth in God, and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day.

6But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth.

7And these things give in charge, that they may be blameless.

Tell me, O master of the Church, where is the office of the bishopric in view here? Do you suppose the term elder ALWAYS means the office of a bishop? Do you think words always carry just one meaning? Look at the Greek word for elder.

1) elder, of age,

a) the elder of two people

b) advanced in life, an elder, a senior

1) forefathers

2) a term of rank or office

a) among the Jews

1) members of the great council or Sanhedrin (because in early times the rulers of the people, judges, etc., were selected from elderly men)

2) of those who in separate cities managed public affairs and administered justice

b) among the Christians, those who presided over the assemblies (or churches) The NT uses the term bishop, elders, and presbyters interchangeably

c) the twenty four members of the heavenly Sanhedrin or court seated on thrones around the throne of God

presbyteros can have several meanings, one of which simply means older. How do we know which meaning to take? The immediate and wider context.

Look at verse to, referring to elder women. Shane, you amaze me! I took you for a fundamentalist! You believe women can be elders! Amazing!!!! :laugh:

 

[exscentric]

Just to comment on the tread as a whole. I think it is the most conservative of any I have seen on the net. :thumbs: I personally fall on the most conservative end most likely but seldom see a discussion that does not allow divorce for multiple reasons.

Personal opinion, most of the problems we have today - including a higher divorce rate in the church than in the lost world - is that pastors/teachers/parents have not been teaching a proper view of divorce and remarriage thus we have a "try it, if you don't like it bail out" philosophy.

I would only add one item to the discussion and that being Eph. 5.22-33

As to the comments related to personal situations - that hurts and you must seek the Lord's understanding of what you have read with wide open eyes, not rejecting anything without Biblical basis. Not that anyone is, but we cannot base our doctrine on personal situation, but upon the Word of God.

All of the passages need to be taken in full understanding of ALL. When God says He hates divorce we must understand all other passages with that as a serious part of our understanding. When we understand that He allowed it for some in the OT due to hardness of their hearts ----- Even if you see divorce as okay, also understand that divorce allowed (which I don't think it is other than in the OT) is related to hardness of hearts in the OT. Not a principle to follow if you are trying to please God with all that you do.

Thank you for a pretty balanced discussion ALL :thumbs:

Edit: Good grief I think there have been two pages added while I composed this post - this post relates to about the first six or seven pages - won't comment on the rest due to having not read them

 

[Cutter]

This comes across as an odd question to me. Once a man joins with a woman he has become one flesh with her. Some refer to this as married in the sight of God. I am not sure how someone could be married in the sight of man but not God.

When Christ encountered the woman at the well, He asked her to go and call her husband. She said I have no husband. Jesus said, Thou hast well said, I have no husband: For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly.

Did Christ say she had no husband because;
A) She was not really married to anyone of the six men, just living with them, which BTW would contradict Him saying she had had five husbands?
B) She had officially divorced the men she had been married to?
C) B plus she was only living with the current man and not married to him?
D) She was married to five other men, but God did not recognize those marriages?
E) She was married to all six men, but God did not recognize those marriages?
F) Other explanation.

 

[superwoman8977]

Well if I am going to be called an adulteress then so be it. In the state of Indiana he can divorce me and I can have no say in it in fact in most states its this way. I was told that at the preliminary hearing so I would rather be there to sign the papers and walk out of the courtroom with my head held high knowing I am doing whats best for me and my kids rather than sit there and fight for something thats never going to happen. I am not going to be bound to a man that doesnt want to be bound to me I didnt ask for him to cheat on me I didnt ask to be played, etc with everything that happened. I prayed over my marriage, my husband and it is in God's hands and since its not His will to fix it, its time to move on. I have met a great guy someone who will be good to me and the boys and who understands respect and how to treat people. My marriage was all about sex and the outer package there was no depth to it, no foundation at least with this guy we are making a foundation we are talking and texting we dont get to see each other alot because he is a soldier always working but we are building a foundation based on the Lord. In fact our first date was to church and then out to dinner. So if I am wrong so be it but why should I sit there broke and miserable when I can have a person in my life who loves me for me and wants to build a realtionship with me and be there for me and my kids. The door to my marriage is closed and I am moving on God has opened way better doors down this path we call life. So now go ahead and bash me.

 

[annsni]

You took that out of context as well (should I expect anything more from you?). Read 1 Timothy 5:17 and you'll see that "elder" does not simply refer to "just older people." In the scripture named above, it signifies an "officer" of the church. How many instances do you think there were when a young man were to rebuke an older man in the church -- especially a father? Read on and you'll see that he should be treated as a father -- with great respect.

The only one out of line is you sir, who is stating Jesus permitted divorce when He did not!

Since the passage contrasts "elder" with "younger", nothing was taken out of context.

Shane, you are most certainly 'younger'.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

The Scripture makes no provision.

Romans 7:3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

Your prooftexting. And it is leading to a misapplication of the verse to our point. The text is using the example of lawful and unlawful marriage, and applying it to our divorce from the Law and marriage to Christ being lawful.

But our topic is an exception given by the Son of God on the account of fornication. No one has delt with that passage. It has been asserted that there is no Bible verse that says that there is. But I have already shown that verse and no one has yet to answer it.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

When Christ encountered the woman at the well, He asked her to go and call her husband. She said I have no husband. Jesus said, Thou hast well said, I have no husband: For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly.

Did Christ say she had no husband because;
A) She was not really married to anyone of the six men, just living with them, which BTW would contradict Him saying she had had five husbands?
B) She had officially divorced the men she had been married to?
C) B plus she was only living with the current man and not married to him?
D) She was married to five other men, but God did not recognize those marriages?
E) She was married to all six men, but God did not recognize those marriages?
F) Other explanation.

Umm...first thought, and I will poke around the language in a bit..but she slept with five men, and the current one she was sleeping with she was no married to. But she was espoused to them all. She had five husbands, and the 6th wasn't her husband either.

But let's not miss the forrest for the trees. What an amazing, merciful God we serve that showed this woman such compassion and mercy!

 

[DHK]

Well if I am going to be called an adulteress then so be it. In the state of Indiana he can divorce me and I can have no say in it in fact in most states its this way. I was told that at the preliminary hearing so I would rather be there to sign the papers and walk out of the courtroom with my head held high knowing I am doing whats best for me and my kids rather than sit there and fight for something thats never going to happen. I am not going to be bound to a man that doesnt want to be bound to me I didnt ask for him to cheat on me I didnt ask to be played, etc with everything that happened. I prayed over my marriage, my husband and it is in God's hands and since its not His will to fix it, its time to move on. I have met a great guy someone who will be good to me and the boys and who understands respect and how to treat people. My marriage was all about sex and the outer package there was no depth to it, no foundation at least with this guy we are making a foundation we are talking and texting we dont get to see each other alot because he is a soldier always working but we are building a foundation based on the Lord. In fact our first date was to church and then out to dinner. So if I am wrong so be it but why should I sit there broke and miserable when I can have a person in my life who loves me for me and wants to build a realtionship with me and be there for me and my kids. The door to my marriage is closed and I am moving on God has opened way better doors down this path we call life. So now go ahead and bash me.

If it is against Scripture, why do you say that God has opened it?
You are basing your decisions all on your emotions, and the "fact" that you believe that life has not been fair to you.
Paul was married. (He was a member of the Sanhedrin, a qualification of which was to be married). Apparently she died early in his marriage. He went through his entire Christian ministry single, and never complained about it. Concerning his weakness and afflictions he testified of the words of the Lord to him: "My grace is sufficient for thee."

I don't believe anyone here has suffered more than Paul. Paul never said: "Life isn't fair." He didn't complain. In fact he did say that in whatever state he was, he would be content.

Decisions need to be made based on the Word of God and prayer. If the Word of God indicates no, our life ought to indicate the same thing.

 

[LadyEagle]

Why not just look it up yourself? Have you never read...

1They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man's, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted? but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith the LORD.

2Lift up thine eyes unto the high places, and see where thou hast not been lien with. In the ways hast thou sat for them, as the Arabian in the wilderness; and thou hast polluted the land with thy whoredoms and with thy wickedness.

3Therefore the showers have been withholden, and there hath been no latter rain; and thou hadst a whore's forehead, thou refusedst to be ashamed.

4Wilt thou not from this time cry unto me, My father, thou art the guide of my youth?

5Will he reserve his anger for ever? will he keep it to the end? Behold, thou hast spoken and done evil things as thou couldest.

6The LORD said also unto me in the days of Josiah the king, Hast thou seen that which backsliding Israel hath done? she is gone up upon every high mountain and under every green tree, and there hath played the harlot.

7And I said after she had done all these things, Turn thou unto me. But she returned not. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it.

8And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

9And it came to pass through the lightness of her whoredom, that she defiled the land, and committed adultery with stones and with stocks.

Thank you, RB: Bill of divorce is pretty specific.

Here is what the different translations say in that specific passage:

Jeremiah 3:6-8
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"And I saw that for all the adulteries of faithless Israel, I had sent her away and given her a writ of divorce, yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear; but she went and was a harlot also.

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Judah saw that I sent unfaithful Israel away because of her adultery and that I gave Israel her divorce papers. But treacherous Judah, her sister, wasn't afraid. She also acted like a prostitute.

King James Bible
And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

American King James Version
And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

American Standard Version
And I saw, when, for this very cause that backsliding Israel had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a bill of divorcement, yet treacherous Judah her sister feared not; but she also went and played the harlot.


Also there is Hosea 2 (Prophet to Israel, the Northern Kingdom)
1Say ye unto your brethren, Ammi; and to your sisters, Ruhamah.
2Plead with your mother, plead: for she is not my wife, neither am I her husband: let her therefore put away her whoredoms out of her sight, and her adulteries from between her breasts;


Hosea 9:15 >>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All their wickedness is in Gilgal for there I hated them for the wickedness of their doings I will drive them out of mine house I will love them no more all their princes are revolters
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All their wickedness
ra` (rah)
bad or (as noun) evil (natural or moral)one), worse(-st), wretchedness, wrong. (Incl. feminine raaah; as adjective or noun.).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
is in Gilgal
Gilgal (ghil-gawl')
Gilgal, the name of three places in Palestine -- Gilgal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
for there I hated
sane' (saw-nay')
to hate (personally) -- enemy, foe, (be) hate(-ful, -r), odious, utterly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
them for the wickedness
roa` (ro'-ah)
badness (as marring), physically or morally -- be so bad, badness, (be so) evil, naughtiness, sadness, sorrow, wickedness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
of their doings
ma`alal (mah-al-awl')
an act (good or bad) -- doing, endeavour, invention, work.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will drive them out
garash (gaw-rash')
to drive out from a possession; especially to expatriate or divorce -- cast up (out), divorced (woman), drive away (forth, out), expel, surely put away, trouble, thrust out.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
of mine house
bayith (bah'-yith)
a house (in the greatest variation of applications, especially family, etc.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will love
'ahabah (a-hab-aw)
love.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
them no more
yacaph (yaw-saf')
to add or augment (often adverbial, to continue to do a thing)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I have read Romans about the remnant. God did not divorce the Southern Kingdom of Judah but He clearly divorced the Northern Kingdom of Israel which is clear from the prophets to the Northern Kingdom in these passages;

Jesus Christ came from the Tribe of Judah, and so the reference in Romans about the remnant is pertaining to the Kingdom of Judah, Shane.

 

[DHK]

Your prooftexting. And it is leading to a misapplication of the verse to our point. The text is using the example of lawful and unlawful marriage, and applying it to our divorce from the Law and marriage to Christ being lawful.

It is not proof-texting at all. Paul is quite clear on that passage in Romans 7, and it is the inspired Word of God. If he didn't mean it to be true, then why did he include it?

But our topic is an exception given by the Son of God on the account of fornication. No one has delt with that passage. It has been asserted that there is no Bible verse that says that there is. But I have already shown that verse and no one has yet to answer it.

That is not true.
I answered that back on page four. You can read it here.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1249421&postcount=39

 

[Cutter]

But let's not miss the forrest for the trees. What an amazing, merciful God we serve that showed this woman such compassion and mercy!

On that we all agree, but you said my question was odd. I would like to know how Christ could say a woman had five husbands then say that she was correct in saying she had no husband?

 

[pinoybaptist]

So, God was wrong then when he divorced Israel for adultery. OK.

Well, you have to understand that divorce was pretty much temporary. In Hosea 3:1 and 2, Hosea is told to buy Gomer back. I believe this is an illustration of a future event of restoration, as mentioned by Paul in Romans 11.

So, if we were living under OT law, there would be no problem with DHK's position because all adulterers and adulteresses would already be dead and thus, no divorce. Pretty clear-cut.

There can be no scriptural discussion of divorce without referring back to the Old Testament. It does not mean, however, that death should be the penalty for fornicators or adulterers.

What is important to see is that the Eternal Lawgiver Himself, Jesus Christ, has made it plain for all His people: "What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder". That should settle it. Now, if he said in another Scripture that fornication is the only ground for divorce, then we should be pretty careful in distinghuishing between words, because as DHK pointed out, fornication is not adultery, and vice-versa, and the situations in which either words are applied or used are pretty much different.

There would be a huge population decrease in America, let alone in the Church.

The "Church", whoever that is, IS the problem. It has watered down its position on divorce and kept watering it down, until we now find this violation of God's precepts have totally gone into and occupied the church, like the proverbial elephant, so much so that many believers find it totally a normal recourse to marriage problems.
I venture to say I fear the same will be true of homosexuality.

 

[Steven2006]

This long thread, and I haven't read every single response, so I apologize if this was addressed. My questions are for those that believe that divorce is never allowed under any circumstance.

1) Is divorce and remarriage a sin that can be forgiven as other sins are?

2) Is divorce and remarriage a greater sin than other sins? For example, lying, stealing, murder, anger, gossip, etc.?

3) If a person was divorced and then remarried before he/she were saved, is that different then different?

 

[pinoybaptist]

On that we all agree, but you said my question was odd. I would like to know how Christ could say a woman had five husbands then say that she was correct in saying she had no husband?

Allow me. No disrespect intended. Here's the Scripture:

For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly.

The woman had had five husbands. They could have died (Scripture doesn't say, so best not to speculate on that). And at that time Christ spoke to her, she was living with a sixth man, outside of marriage, therefore, no husband.

 

[LadyEagle]

My reply about God divorcing Israel is here, but got lost in the shuffle:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1249532&postcount=89

 

[Brother Shane]

I took it in its immediate context. Let's widen the context. Since your so wise, you already know that a verse should be understood in its immediate context first, then the wider context. But let's enlarge the context. I have nothing to fear from the truth. Do you?

1 Timothy 4

12Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.

13Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.

14Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.

15Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all.

16Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.


1 Timothy 5

1Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren;

2The elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity.

3Honour widows that are widows indeed.

4But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to shew piety at home, and to requite their parents: for that is good and acceptable before God.

5Now she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, trusteth in God, and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day.

6But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth.

7And these things give in charge, that they may be blameless.

Tell me, O master of the Church, where is the office of the bishopric in view here? Do you suppose the term elder ALWAYS means the office of a bishop? Do you think words always carry just one meaning? Look at the Greek word for elder.

1) elder, of age,

a) the elder of two people

b) advanced in life, an elder, a senior

1) forefathers

2) a term of rank or office

a) among the Jews

1) members of the great council or Sanhedrin (because in early times the rulers of the people, judges, etc., were selected from elderly men)

2) of those who in separate cities managed public affairs and administered justice

b) among the Christians, those who presided over the assemblies (or churches) The NT uses the term bishop, elders, and presbyters interchangeably

c) the twenty four members of the heavenly Sanhedrin or court seated on thrones around the throne of God

presbyteros can have several meanings, one of which simply means older. How do we know which meaning to take? The immediate and wider context.

Look at verse to, referring to elder women. Shane, you amaze me! I took you for a fundamentalist! You believe women can be elders! Amazing!!!! :laugh:

I think you take it in terms that women are not to teach -- so "elder" implied in front of "woman" would not mean "officer." However, notice that "man" was not implied after "elder" in the first verse.

 

[pinoybaptist]

1) Is divorce and remarriage a sin that can be forgiven as other sins are?

The Savior said the only sin that cannot be forgiven is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, so, yes it can be forgiven. In fact, personally, I believe that these sins have already been put under the blood even before it was committed by the believer. Does that mean we should be free to sin ?

2) Is divorce and remarriage a greater sin than other sins? For example, lying, stealing, murder, anger, gossip, etc.?

I think this has been addressed in one of the replies. But, no, divorce is no greater than other sins, but we must admit, God singles out certain acts and appears to speak against these more than He does about others. Adultery, for instance. Murder is another.

3) If a person was divorced and then remarried before he/she were saved, is that different then different?

The person didn't know it then. If that person has been instructed, and is persuaded that the instruction was right, and deliberately goes into divorce, then that person sinned/transgressed the law.

But the others may have better answers for your questions.

 

[exscentric]

1) Is divorce and remarriage a sin that can be forgiven as other sins are?

2) Is divorce and remarriage a greater sin than other sins? For example, lying, stealing, murder, anger, gossip, etc.?

3) If a person was divorced and then remarried before he/she were saved, is that different then different?

1. Yes, but in the idea that the adultry is ongoing sin, it is continuing sin.
2. No is my usual answer but in the thread the question came up and I'm thinking on that one, still think no.
3. No, it relates to consequences of one's sin.

 

[DHK]

This long thread, and I haven't read every single response, so I apologize if this was addressed. My questions are for those that believe that divorce is never allowed under any circumstance.

1) Is divorce and remarriage a sin that can be forgiven as other sins are?

God forgives all sins. But as in the proverbial argument against OSAS, the doctrine is not a licence to sin. Just because we know God forgives sin, does not give one a licence to go out and divorce and remarry knowing that God forgives sin.

2) Is divorce and remarriage a greater sin than other sins? For example, lying, stealing, murder, anger, gossip, etc.?

All sin is equal to some extent in that it is a transgression of God's law. Some sin has greater consequences. One will go to jail for murder but not for tellin a lie.
One who is divorced and remarried cannot hold the office of a pastor.
In many cases, he may be disqualified from teaching Sunday School or other leadership positions (that depends on the constitution of the local church). Thus ministry is limited, but not completely stifled.

3) If a person was divorced and then remarried before he/she were saved, is that different then different?

No, although it is debatable, the Scriptures do not differentiate between the saved and unsaved when it comes to divorce and remarriage.

 

[LadyEagle]

One who is divorced and remarried cannot hold the office of a pastor.

Technicality: It doesn't say that. It says husband of one wife. Nothing about remarriage.