Actscelerate.com Forum Index Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
r/Actscelerate

Divorce and Remarriage
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
   Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Hot Discussions Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Message Author
Post Divorce and Remarriage theinsyder
When is it acceptible for someone to remarry after a divorce that was due to adultry?

The Bible says, "Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery" (Matthew 19:9; see also Matthew 5:31, 32).

I have recently read "The controversy over whether divorce and remarriage is allowed according to the Bible revolves primarily around Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. The phrase “except for marital unfaithfulness” is the only thing in Scripture that possibly gives God’s permission for divorce and remarriage. Many interpreters understand this "exception clause" as referring to "marital unfaithfulness" during the "betrothal" period. In Jewish custom, a man and a woman were considered married even while they were still engaged “betrothed.” Immorality during this "betrothal" period would then be the only valid reason for a divorce."

Is this the case? Is remarriage the right of any person whose spouse cheated on them?
Newbie
Posts: 8
4/26/06 2:07 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post "betrothal" The strict Constructionis
I've also heard the "betrothal" theory. The problem is, does that mean that if (for example) that a young Christian lady breaks off her engagement because she began to sense that it was not God's will for her to marry a particular young man, that if he had not cheated on her that she can NEVER marry someone else? Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4295
4/26/06 2:30 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Divorce and Remarriage theinsyder
It seems to me that a Jewish betrothal was very different from an American engagement. As I understand it, a Jewish betrothal was marriage save a consummation. The bride moved in with the groom's mother and was taught how to be a good wife for one year. During this time she was treated as a wife who had no bedrights.

Does this apply? I honestly don't know and am not trying to defend either position. I'm simply stating more information for consideration.

Please keep the dialog going.
Newbie
Posts: 8
4/26/06 2:37 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post There seems to be some controversey between the words caseyleejones
of Jesus and Paul. I look at it this way. Jesus was speaking primarily to jewish people and speaking under the law. Paul was speaking under grace and the NT. That is not my point though....


The problem with the adultery situation is clear in the word. However, that does not necessarily mean that God wants you to divorce the person. I have seen God heal many marriages where adultery entered. However, those are the exceptions and not the rules.

Where I have seen the problem is that people use adultery as an excuse to get out of a marriage when there was no adultery. I have seen many women say they were abused in their marriage to get out when there was no abuse. Though these are valid reasons according to scripture to get out of a marriage, most of the time they are misapplied for an excuse. I never take at face value when an individual says they were abused in their last marriage. I ALWAYS hear the other side. Its amazing how many times I've gotten duped by not hearing both sides.
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11788
4/26/06 2:55 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: There seems to be some controversey between the words theinsyder
caseyleejones wrote:
of Jesus and Paul. I look at it this way. Jesus was speaking primarily to jewish people and speaking under the law. Paul was speaking under grace and the NT. That is not my point though....


Will you be more specific as to which words of Paul you're referring?
Newbie
Posts: 8
4/26/06 2:59 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Abuse is real - no denying it Nature Boy Florida
But I have also seen that as the easy "Christian" words to use to get you a free pass to divorce and marry your current (but still secret) girlfriend or boyfriend.
_________________
Whether you like it or not, learn to love it, because its the best thing going today!
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 16599
4/26/06 3:29 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Abuse is real - no denying it theinsyder
Nature Boy Florida wrote:
But I have also seen that as the easy "Christian" words to use to get you a free pass to divorce and marry your current (but still secret) girlfriend or boyfriend.


I think we're getting a little sidetracked here. While these thoughts are important, I'm afraid we're straying from the subject of whether or not in cases of real adultry (let's even leave abuse out of the equation for the purposes of studying this scripture as fornication doesn't cover abuse) marriage is allowable for any innocent party.
Newbie
Posts: 8
4/26/06 3:31 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Well REVKC
My position on divorce is completely different and it would involve going into my position on love which is a book of informaiton tha tI care not to post in this thread. I think divorce for adultery was giving as an exception to someone who really doesn;t love there spouse the way they should. If you love you spouse the way you should you should be able to forgive adultery and heal from it. I think that if every person made a commitment to love there spouse in way that no matter what you do I will still love you manner than we would have no problem with divorce. Friendly Face
Posts: 349
4/26/06 4:28 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Was Jesus speaking under the Law in Mat 28:19? The strict Constructionis
It seems that He first quoted the Law, and then gave HIS command which was different from the Law.

The Law said that a man COULD divorce his wife for any reason and re-marry. But Jesus said differently.

Yall's thought?
Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4295
4/26/06 5:43 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Was Jesus speaking under the Law in Mat 28:19? Pastor Gary
The strict Constructionis wrote:
It seems that He first quoted the Law, and then gave HIS command which was different from the Law.

The Law said that a man COULD divorce his wife for any reason and re-marry. But Jesus said differently.

Yall's thought?


If we go back to the origins of marriage it is obvious that God never intended for any of us to experience the pain of divorce. I think everybody here will agree that God’s ideal for marriage is 1 man + 1 woman for 1 lifetime. That’s the ideal. If only we all lived up to God’s ideals in every area. But we don’t. We live in a fallen world, in which sin entered in and corrupted the perfection, the ideal.

In Matthew 5:31 Jesus said: "It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’"

This was a reference to Deuteronomy 24:1-4
1 If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce gives it to her and sends her from his house
2 and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man
3 and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies
4 then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the LORD. Do not bring sin upon the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.


Under the law, as Jesus’ audience that day understood it, men were granted the right to issue a certificate of divorce to a wife that displeased him. At the time of Moses and throughout the Old Testament era, a man became the master of the woman he married. (This was true in all the cultures of the time, even among the Israelites.)

A wife was a husband’s possession in a manner similar to his property, his animals, and his slaves (Ex. 20:17). Jewish law did not permit a woman to initiate a divorce.
• She could remarry only if given a certificate of divorce.
• Any promise she made could be overruled by her husband.
• The husband could have his bride stoned if on the wedding night he discovered that she was not a virgin.

The Nation of Israel was definitely patriarchal like that of neighboring nations. But God did not permit men unlimited power over their wives.
• They could not sell a wife into slavery, like neighboring nations could— not even if she were a war prisoner who had been made a secondary wife.
• The children were commanded to honor the mother as well as the father.
• A man could not humiliate his wife by marrying a sister as a rival.

God gave those laws, I believe, as a merciful provision for the protection of women in a male-dominated society. One group followed the teachings of Rabbi Shammai. He founded his teaching on that passage from Deuteronomy 24:1, where Moses allowed for divorce. But Rabbi Shammai believed the only acceptable reason for getting one was what the Scripture said - some grave marital offense – or an act of absolute indecency – such as adultery.

The other group were followers of Rabbi Hillel, who took a much more lax position. Hillel’s point-of-view was the most popular and widely accepted point of view. He taught that the statement of Moses applied to a man “who desires to be divorced from his wife for any cause whatsoever.”

For example, Hillel would say a man could divorce his wife…
• If she spoiled his dinner by adding too much salt
• If she were seen in public with her head uncovered
• If she talked with other men on the street
• If she spoke disrespectfully to her husbands parents
• If she became plain-looking compared with another woman who seemed more beautiful in her husband’s opinion.
Through these regulations, God showed the men in Israel that their wives were to be viewed as people, not merely as property.

But at the time Jesus was speaking, there was a huge controversy over divorce (much like today!!) and no doubt those listening were divided into one of two groups:

Jumping back to Matthew 5:31--
It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’

If a man dumped his wife, and gave her a written statement of divorce, he came off looking like a good guy! I mean, at least she could prove she was now unmarried. That certificate would allow her to defend herself against charges of adultery if she were to be found with a man, seek marriage to another, or even make her living as a prostitute.

As long as you gave your wife a “pink slip” you were being a good guy as you shoved her out the door so you could welcome home a new wife, more to your present liking. Many of the people in Jesus’ day saw this issue of giving divorce papers as a command, a mitzvah, a good deed. That’s what they focused on; the details of how to properly handle the paperwork of divorce.

But Jesus saw the whole issue of divorce as a regrettable concession. In this issue, as with EVERY issue, for Jesus, the heart of the matter was… the matter of the heart.

Verse 32:
But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness,
causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.


Jesus is saying, in essence, “You think all you have to do to be justified in getting rid of a wife who displeases you is to cross the “t’s” and dot the “i’s” correctly? You’re playing legalistic games!"

Jesus says here, the ONLY legitimate reason to divorce your wife is because she has been sexually unfaithful. My point really is to stress that in the teaching of Jesus, He stressed the SERIOUSNESS and PERMANENCE of the marriage relationship. It is not about debating the fine points of scriptural interpretation to either permit or to forbid divorce -- to do that really misses the heart of the matter, which is the matter of the heart.
_________________
I reserve the right to own my words and thoughts without edits.
Acts Mod
Posts: 3530
4/26/06 6:20 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Reply with quote
Post Re: Divorce and Remarriage theinsyder
Excellent post, Pastor Gary! You were one of the folks I specifically was hoping would weigh in on this issue (although I'm greatful for everyone that has something to offer here).

However, this great information doesn't cover my question. Here is the simplest scenario I can provide. I hope someone will have some insight here.

Man marries woman A. Woman A is unfaithful. Man and woman A divorce. Man meets woman B and falls in love. Is he free to remarry woman B? Is he free to remarry woman B in certain circumstances? Is he always free to remarry?
Newbie
Posts: 8
4/26/06 6:45 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Who knows Pastor Gary
theinsyder wrote:
Man marries woman A. Woman A is unfaithful. Man and woman A divorce. Man meets woman B and falls in love. Is he free to remarry woman B? Is he free to remarry woman B in certain circumstances? Is he always free to remarry?


If you have the definitive answer to that one, we could end a lot of debate in more than a few denominations. Shocked

My position is this; I asked God to send me people to love and minister to. If he sends them, I try my best to love and minister to them. Some of those people are divorced. Some are remarried. I find it difficult to sort out all the intricacies of all the permutations so I quit trying. Instead, I observe, and I look for evidence of God's grace at work in their lives. I look for manifestations of the fruit of God's Spirit and presence in their lives. I accept their testimony of salvation and forgiveness unless their lives prove otherwise.
_________________
I reserve the right to own my words and thoughts without edits.
Acts Mod
Posts: 3530
4/26/06 6:57 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Reply with quote
Post Re: "betrothal" Link
The strict Constructionis wrote:
I've also heard the "betrothal" theory. The problem is, does that mean that if (for example) that a young Christian lady breaks off her engagement because she began to sense that it was not God's will for her to marry a particular young man, that if he had not cheated on her that she can NEVER marry someone else?



Most American men do not pay a bride price for their wives before engagement.
_________________
Link
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11846
4/26/06 7:12 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Who knows theinsyder
Pastor Gary wrote:
If you have the definitive answer to that one, we could end a lot of debate in more than a few denominations. Shocked


So your answer is that we can't really know what Jesus meant when He gave this instruction? This is a sincere question, not a malicious one. Jesus at times did speak about things that people wouldn't understand. But it seems that the rest of the Bible usually does a good job of explaining them to the simple minded (like me Wink).

The fact that divorce is tragic is self-evident. The fact that God forgives divorcees is clear. If remarriage is wrong, I believe our God (who is both just and merciful) will forgive if there is true repentence. These are not disputable, in my opinion.

However, I'm searching for the Truth of the scripture in the matter of whether or not remarriage is, in fact, a sin in the first place.

Something that I find interesting is that in Matt 19:9, the scripture says "Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." The word porneia is used instead of moicheia. Porneia (disputably) is the Greek for fornication while moicheia is the Greek for adultry. Is there a reason Jesus would use porneia instead of moicheia? Could porneia be the act of sexual intimacy with another between betrothal and consummation? If so, how does this apply to today's culture?
Newbie
Posts: 8
4/27/06 9:18 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post And the answer is....... SkyPilot
Divorce is sin. Divorce defies the law of God and should be declared as such. It is an evil that is destroying our society and the church. There are as many evangelical, born again couples divorcing as in the larger national population.

That said, I experienced a fit of rage recently. I also was jealous of another's success and that led to envy. I spoke harshly to a brother and I also was guilty of spreading gossip. Just recently I had to ask forgiveness of a brother against whom I had harbored ill will bordering on hatred.

I have a good friend that married, divorced and remarried.

Who is the greater sinner?

We have both been forgiven by the same God and the sins of the past are gone. it is a mute point to bring what is past into the discussion. No one denies me a position in the pulpit just because I have sinned. No one should deny my friend a seat in the congregation because he has a divorce in his past.

I think Pastor Gary was on target when he advised that we should look into the spirit-life of the person and not dwell on the history a person brings. Obviously God can forgive people for divorce and remarriage, but we seem to elevate that sin above most other sins.
_________________
Pax,

Skypilot
Acts-celerater
Posts: 849
4/27/06 12:14 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Divorce and Remarriage pastorjason
Quote:
Divorce is sin. Divorce defies the law of God and should be declared as such


I am not an advocate for divorce but this is an unbiblical statement.

Jer. 3:8 "I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce"

These are the words of the lord who can not sin. The sin is not the divorce per'se but dealing treacherously with ones spouse. This is the Divorce that God hates.

His Ideal design for marriage is a lifetime commitment but even Jesus said God recognizes the hardness of the heart and made allowance in the law.

Jason
_________________
Blessed and Highly favored of the Lord regardless of what it looks like

Jason
Hey, DOC
Posts: 98
4/27/06 3:50 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Who knows Pastor Gary
theinsyder wrote:
So your answer is that we can't really know what Jesus meant when He gave this instruction?


I think Jesus meant what I said I think he meant: all the bickering over D&R issues was missing the heart of the matter completely, and was little different than all the other issues the Pharisees constantly wrestled over.

Jesus' blood either covers our sin or it dooesn't. If divorce is sin, and is then forgiven, it is forgiven. If remarriage is also a sin, and then is forgiven, it is forgiven. I do not hold to the "ongoing state of sin" theory that says those remarried must then break a SECOND covenant and destroy ANOTHER family to return to the first marriage.

Salvation, new birth, forgiveness... why do we have such a problem understanding those terms?
_________________
I reserve the right to own my words and thoughts without edits.
Acts Mod
Posts: 3530
4/27/06 4:25 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Reply with quote
Post Re: Who knows theinsyder
Pastor Gary wrote:
Jesus' blood either covers our sin or it dooesn't. If divorce is sin, and is then forgiven, it is forgiven. If remarriage is also a sin, and then is forgiven, it is forgiven. I do not hold to the "ongoing state of sin" theory that says those remarried must then break a SECOND covenant and destroy ANOTHER family to return to the first marriage.


I understand your position much better now. Thank you. My question wasn't one of whether or not remarriage is an ongoing sin, but whether it was a sin that required repentence in the first place. One can't ask forgiveness if they're unaware of their sin. And one can't make an educated decision about whether or not remarriage is an option they should consider without understanding this situation.

Again, thanks for your time and effort. I value your input.

I'm still open to hearing more thoughts on this from all. I feel like my question was finally understood.
Newbie
Posts: 8
4/27/06 4:55 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Who knows The strict Constructionis
The insyder wrote,

"Something that I find interesting is that in Matt 19:9, the scripture says "Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." The word porneia is used instead of moicheia. Porneia (disputably) is the Greek for fornication while moicheia is the Greek for adultry. Is there a reason Jesus would use porneia instead of moicheia? Could porneia be the act of sexual intimacy with another between betrothal and consummation? If so, how does this apply to today's culture?[/quote]"


The Greek word "porneia" is where we get the word "pornography" and means ,

"1) illicit sexual intercourse

a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.

b) sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18

c) sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,12

2) metaph. the worship of idols

a) of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols




Therefore. the word "adultery" in Mat. 19:9 indeed means "a wife cheating on her husband" AFTER consummation.
Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4295
4/27/06 10:16 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Who knows Poimen
theinsyder wrote:


Something that I find interesting is that in Matt 19:9, the scripture says "Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." The word porneia is used instead of moicheia. Porneia (disputably) is the Greek for fornication while moicheia is the Greek for adultery. Is there a reason Jesus would use porneia instead of moicheia? Could porneia be the act of sexual intimacy with another between betrothal and consummation? If so, how does this apply to today's culture?


It would not apply to today's culture. We do not view betrothal, engagement, or espousal nearly the same now as the Jews of NT times did. Not even modern Jews regard the betrothal the same as Jews did espousal in NT times. Similar but significantly different.

In NT times, when espousal was entered into, the covenant was actually made then, sealed with a cup/toast, and the bride was literally purchased. At that point she was a wife. The customs and traditions carried over into a good year of the espousal period before finalizing the ceremony with physical union and the marriage supper. But the covenant of marriage was already made before the young man left his espoused wife to go and prepare a place for her.

If the betrothal theory is accurate for understanding the exception clause then it can only be understand in the culture and context of NT Jewish thought. A strength to that argument is that Matthews gospel (written to a Jewish audience) is the only gospel to spell out the exception clause. And in the other gospels we find that Jesus covered the idea of woen putting away their husbands as well -- obviously addressing other cultures where this was (or perhaps would be) permissible.

Personally, I lean towards the following quote...

Quote:
The difficulty with the preceding views becomes obvious when we look at the statements that come at the end of both passages. In Matt. 5:32 we read, "…and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery," and in 19:9 we read, "…and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." In light of the passages in question, the wife could be put away (or divorced) in two ways: first, for the reason of fornication (unchastity, sexual immorality), or for some other reason (as it was the custom of many Jews at the time of Jesus). According to the "innocent party" view the guilty wife should not remarry. If she did, she would be involved in adultery. But what if she was not guilty, and yet her husband put her away? According to the closing statement in both passages, if she got remarried she would again be involved in adultery. In the case of the view that divorce for the cause of fornication brings about complete dissolution of the marriage, then why is it adultery if someone marries one of the two divorced spouses? This leads to an impasse. The only way out of this, is to allow for the interpretation that in the passages under study "divorce" and "putting away" does not mean divorce with the right to remarry but only separation. To reinforce this approach it is important to go back to the "exception clause" and see if its position in the passages allows for such an interpretation.

The position of the "exception clause" in the passage allows for an interpretation that in contemporary English could read: "No cause, save unchastity, justifies divorce, and even then remarriage is adultery." This would make the use of the term divorce to mean only separation – not dissolution of the marriage.

In order to better understand the above interpretation it is important that the grammatical/exegetical approach be applied. It is equally applied to Matt. 19:9 and Matt. 5:32. The passage has within it a "compound conditional relative clause" that has a protasis (if this is the case), "whosoever divorces his wife, except for fornication, and marries another," and an apodosis (result), "commits adultery." In this structure Matthew could have placed the "except for fornication" in two possible positions in order to express Jesus' saying on divorce and remarriage. A different positioning of the "exception clause" would result in a different meaning. This is an intentional strategic grammatical arrangement that shows divorce as separation with no allowance for remarriage. Matthew could have said "whosoever shall put away his wife, and shall marry another, except it be for fornication, commiteth adultery." The interpretation then would have been that divorce and remarriage would have been allowed. This would fit the two popular views that have already been mentioned. However, Matthew chose to say "whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, commiteth adultery." This would mean no cause except fornication justifies divorce but remarriage is adultery.

_________________
Poimen
Bro. Christopher

Singing: "Let us then be true and faithful -- trusting, serving, everyday. Just one glimpse of Him in glory will the toils of life repay."
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5657
5/14/06 12:39 am


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Hot Discussions Post new topic   Reply to topic
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Acts-celerate Terms of Use | Acts-celerate Policy
Contact the Administrator.


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group :: Spelling by SpellingCow.