Does Matt 5:32 Mean I Can't Marry A Divorcee?

[Wgw]

I broke up with a divorcee that I had dated for months because I don't see the point in dating someone you don't intent to marry.
I have, on many occasions (even after the break up), considered marrying her since she was giving me a lot of pressure in that direction and I love her a lot. My main reason for saying no was Matt 5:32. Now I want to ask you dear friends if I'm right to believe that if I marry someone who left her husband because he abused her, I'll still be committing adultery.
Please do not give PC or conventional wisdom advice that is not based on scriptures.

The Orthodox would say no, however, marrying a divorcee is an impediment to ordination in our church (which might be waived by the bishop in unusual corcumstances).

 

[Travelers.Soul]

If that is your conviction then you should not marry her, let alone date her. In light of your stance on divorce it is beyond my understanding why you dated her at all. We cannot and ought not take one verse of Scripture and divorce it (no pun intended) from the rest of Scripture. What does the rest of the Bible say about divorce? Maybe that would be a good place to start. Scripture gives two explicitly clear reasons for divorce; abandonment and adultery. I think your question goes beyond just the topic of divorce however, you are also looking at the issue of remarriage. I would never advise a woman or a man in an abusive relationship to stay with their spouse yet I am not certain that opens the door for remarriage. This is a topic I have struggled with for some time and still have not reached a conclusion.

 

[Hoghead1]

I find it particularly interesting to note that some here brought up the Genesis account. I thought I would butt in and share my perspective. Many mistakenly assume that Genesis gives just one account of creation. It does not. If you read the account, with an open mind, it is very apparent these accounts contradict themselves in their chronologies and other details. In Gen. 1, first animals were created, then man and woman. In Gen. 2, first man is created, then animals, then woman. Also these accounts are in radically different linguistic forms, with Gen. 2 probably the older one. What does this have to do with love and marriage? I don't know if you are familiar with the interesting story of Lilith, so I thought I'd share it here. During the Middle ages, scholars tried desperately to fuse the two conflicting accounts together. This lead to many problems. One is that they had to account for two women. One created with Adam and then one late, Eve. The result was to posit Adam had a first wife, Lilith (woman in Gen. 1). She was aggressive and liked to ride on top of Adam during intercourse. Adam did not like this, and God didn't either, since women are to be submissive. So God gave Adam s second wife, Eve. Lilith ran off and became a witch that haunts children. Hence, many cribs has an inscription on them, such as, "God save us from Lilith."

 

[Wgw]

I find it particularly interesting to note that some here brought up the Genesis account. I thought I would butt in and share my perspective. Many mistakenly assume that Genesis gives just one account of creation. It does not. If you read the account, with an open mind, it is very apparent these accounts contradict themselves in their chronologies and other details. In Gen. 1, first animals were created, then man and woman. In Gen. 2, first man is created, then animals, then woman. Also these accounts are in radically different linguistic forms, with Gen. 2 probably the older one. What does this have to do with love and marriage? I don't know if you are familiar with the interesting story of Lilith, so I thought I'd share it here. During the Middle ages, scholars tried desperately to fuse the two conflicting accounts together. This lead to many problems. One is that they had to account for two women. One created with Adam and then one late, Eve. The result was to posit Adam had a first wife, Lilith (woman in Gen. 1). She was aggressive and liked to ride on top of Adam during intercourse. Adam did not like this, and God didn't either, since women are to be submissive. So God gave Adam s second wife, Eve. Lilith ran off and became a witch that haunts children. Hence, many cribs has an inscription on them, such as, "God save us from Lilith."

By the way old chap I did post a thread on process theology, and am very interested to read what you have to say in the matter.

 

[Goodbook]

um. ok.
Its not very different. Also you got it wrong.
gen 1 is the God view. Gen 2 is the close up view. In both accounts animals were created before man. Adam was just there naming them and then Eve was created. Both were charged to look after the animals.

Some people just don't read the bible properly and make up stories and characters that don't exist, and imagine scenes that aren't there. BTW who is on top does not mean anything. Submission does not mean any particular position during intercourse.

 

[Hoghead1]

Thanks for telling me, WGW. Love to read it and respond. But where sis it here? I'm new, don't know my way around here yet. I thought I set up on thread on the topic. However, I can't find that thread, either.

 

[Sketcher]

So we have all of these examples of how we're supposed to regard each other in love and mutual submission. Abuse is the opposite of that. Christ said what he said in Matthew 5:32, I'm neither denying anything nor inferring anything to the contrary, but think we ought to be careful not to make an argumentum ex silentio (argument from silence) by saying "because Christ didn't say abuse isn't a reason for divorce, it's not something he supports".

He had the opportunity when the Pharisees approached him in Matthew 19:1-9 on the subject. He chose not to take it. I believe that he didn't consider it to be a valid exception. A wife hitting her husband with a household object would have been covered under "any and every reason," along with burning his food, not giving him sex when he wanted it, not being as lovely as someone else (Rabbi Akiva justified divorce in this last circumstance), nagging him too much, etc. Jesus could have allowed for two or three exceptions in which divorce and remarriage is permissible, and by doing so still stuck up for Jewish women who were being wronged by frivolous divorces. He only allowed for one, however.

If we assume such, then we risk sending a message to faithful Christian women that if they're abused by their husbands, then they have no recourse and no hope unless he decides to also go off and have an affair; or that they're dependent on the observation and intervention of another man to step in and set him straight. If neither of those things happen, then that woman could very well remain a victim of abuse up to the point of her own death. It's an extreme case, but not impossible.

Which is why it's important to emphasize that it's OK to move out and get to physical safety if that is what is needed.

 

[Ubuntu]

He had the opportunity when the Pharisees approached him in Matthew 19:1-9 on the subject. He chose not to take it. I believe that he didn't consider it to be a valid exception. A wife hitting her husband with a household object would have been covered under "any and every reason," along with burning his food, not giving him sex when he wanted it, not being as lovely as someone else (Rabbi Akiva justified divorce in this last circumstance), nagging him too much, etc. Jesus could have allowed for two or three exceptions in which divorce and remarriage is permissible, and by doing so still stuck up for Jewish women who were being wronged by frivolous divorces. He only allowed for one, however.

Here is a good answer to this:

"Yet, some have argued that if Jesus considered neglect and abuse to be valid grounds for ending a marriage, He would have said something about them (Instone‑Brewer, 2003, pp. 95‑96). What can be concluded about Jesus’ silence on this matter?:

There were no debates about the validity of neglect and abuse as grounds for divorce in any Jewish literature, for the same reason that there are none about the oneness of God: these principles were unanimously agreed on. Rather than indicating that Jesus did not accept the validity of divorce for neglect and abuse, his silence about it highlights the fact that he did accept it, like all other Jews at that time (Instone-Brewer, 2003, p. 96)."

source: http://mendingthesoul.org/research-...icles/a-biblical-response-to-the-abused-wife/
(Very good article btw, highly recommended.)

 

[Ubuntu]

I was going to strongly disagree then that Malachi verse got me thinking. I'm interested to know what others think about it

I dug up a reference for you about the interpetation of Malachi 2:16.

"When read in its original historic and literary contexts and in light of the overarching biblical message of redemption, Malachi 2:16 presents domestic violence as a form of covenant-breaking equal to divorce. Moreover, this text asserts what abuse survivors know too well—that abuse divorces them from their abusive spouse. Abuse of all kinds is an ongoing abandonment and betrayal by the abusive partner.

This is also the interpretation that I propose, so that the first sentence of v.16 should read: " 'For I hate the one who divorces' says Yahweh the God of Israel, 'and the one who covers his wife with violence' says Yahweh of the hosts."

[...]

In light of all this evidence, then, we may justifiably posit that Malachi 2: 16 links divorce with domestic violence ("one who covers his wife with violence"). This verse is an example of synonymous parallelism, a pervasive Semitic literary device in which one idea is expressed in two ways for emphatic purposes. In this verse we see divorce and a man covering his wife with violence as synonymous. God hates both. God's judgment is against the violent spouse.

For the entire argument, see: http://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/ashland_theological_journal/28-1_001.pdf

 

[Rajni]

Something else to consider:

God Himself is a divorcée (Jeremiah 3:6-9).

If Jesus is God, then Jesus is a divorcée. Yet, he
marries again in spite of that, given that Christianity
is considered the “Bride” of Christ.

-

 

[Ubuntu]

If we assume such, then we risk sending a message to faithful Christian women that if they're abused by their husbands, then they have no recourse and no hope unless he decides to also go off and have an affair; or that they're dependent on the observation and intervention of another man to step in and set him straight. If neither of those things happen, then that woman could very well remain a victim of abuse up to the point of her own death. It's an extreme case, but not impossible.

You're right about this!

Being killed by your spouse is definitively not impossible, and these cases might be more prevalent than we realize. In 2008, 45% of female murder victims were killed by their partners. Source: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/12/06/us/domestic-intimate-partner-violence-fast-facts/

If your spouse is violent, then you risk your health, even your life. I personally know of two cases where women were killed by their partners. For instance, a neighbour of mine grew up with her grandmother, because her mother had been killed by her abusive partner.

Such things happen all the time… Here is an interesting article written by a person who formerly was an abuser himself. He argues that a woman does not glorify God by staying in an abusive relationship. He tells the stories of Christian women that were advised by their pastors to stay in abusive relationships, only to later be killed by their Christian spouses:

It's a very good read and can be found here: http://www.glennbrownministries.com/uploads/Wife_Abuse.pdf

 

[Tom Mix]

Lets remember that when a Christian marries another that they are promising to God Himself that they will remain together forever, even in the bad times.

If your woman has broken this promise to God already then I bet her track record will not be that great in her next marriage either.

I see this everyday. I bet there is a 90% chance that her abuse was mental abuse and not physical. Dig and ask her more about it. I am finding that when women in todays world want a divorce they shed a few tears and tell how they were mentally abused which to me means she just was not happy and needed an excuse to justify her action.

For those that were truly mentally abused I am very sorry to hear it happened and I hope you get over it as soon as you can and that it never happens again.

I have been in a very mentally abusive relationship. I was abusive to her and she was abusive to me but we were both just young kids at the time and for us it was a learning experience on how not to have a relationship. Since then I have studied it to learn why we acted in such a way and the fact is we were just young and dumb.

 

[CCHIPSS]

The main point of the Sermon on the Mount was that we are living in a fallen world, so we are helpless against our sins. Jesus was just pointing out that we all need his help.

Short Answer: Marrying a divorcee is not ideal. But then again so is marrying a non-virgin not ideal. But that's why we need Jesus to help us. Jesus' grace and mercy is well well well above all our sins. Jesus is expert on taking non-ideal things and make them great, for those who believes in and follows him. So yes Christians can marry divorcee and non-virgins.

If you are worried about committing adultery, you should be more worried about Matthew 5:27-30. Because the "perfect" (in terms of following the law) person would have cut out his own eyes to prevent himself from sinning. Now I have no interest in being a perfect follower of the law and neither should you. I follow Jesus, believing in his grace and mercy, not the law.

Jesus later in Matthew 5:48 further said that we must be perfect, just as God is perfect. But then we got to ask: How can we be perfect? This is impossible!

Now I am in no way saying we should go out and do whatever we want. But we need to change our point of view. God didn't ask us to actually be perfect. God wants us to follow him to the best of our abilities in this fallen world.

In God's perfect world, we will see perfect marriages where everyone is a virgin when they get married. But once again we are not in the perfect world yet (one day we will be). So are non-virigins and divorcees doomed to be alone forever? Nope!

For example God commended Hosea to marry the prostitute Gomer. Later on Gomer went out and sold herself back into prostitution because she enjoyed the company of many different men. Then God asked Hosea to restore her once again.

Was this an ideal marriage? Nope not even close. But isn't this one of the most extreme example of love in the bible? When Gomer was a prostitute Hosea accepted her. When Gomer cheated on Hosea (in the worst way possible) Hosea forgave and rescued her. In fact I am 99% certain that Gomer is a worst lady/wife than that divorcee lady of yours. But God can take terrible things and make them great. Even if just to make you an example to others of how accepting and forgiving you are because you are a follower of Jesus.

In Matthew 9:4-8 Jesus ask a question that we should all think about: "Which is easier? Forgiveness of all sins? Or a miracle?" The answer is "Miracles are easier"

In your case here is Jesus' question: "Which is easier? Forgiveness of all sins? Or a miracle to make that lady a non-married virgin again?" And you already know the answer.

If Jesus can forgive us of all sins for all ages and generations of believers, why do we worried about non-ideal marriages?

So tbh, you should be more worried about if she is a believer of Jesus or not. Because if she is indeed a believer of Jesus, the curse of sin has no hold on her. Non-ideal marriages and non-ideal situations have no hold on her. Because if Hosea and Gomer can work, all marriages can work. But faith in Jesus is required for this miracle to be on your family.

 

[Sketcher]

Here is a good answer to this:

"Yet, some have argued that if Jesus considered neglect and abuse to be valid grounds for ending a marriage, He would have said something about them (Instone‑Brewer, 2003, pp. 95‑96). What can be concluded about Jesus’ silence on this matter?:

There were no debates about the validity of neglect and abuse as grounds for divorce in any Jewish literature, for the same reason that there are none about the oneness of God: these principles were unanimously agreed on. Rather than indicating that Jesus did not accept the validity of divorce for neglect and abuse, his silence about it highlights the fact that he did accept it, like all other Jews at that time (Instone-Brewer, 2003, p. 96)."

source: http://mendingthesoul.org/research-...icles/a-biblical-response-to-the-abused-wife/
(Very good article btw, highly recommended.)

That's not a good answer. Rather, that is an attempt to have Jesus justify "any and every reason" that the author thinks is valid, when he clearly did not in Matthew 19. It would be like me using your posts on this topic to claim that you really support my stance. It's liberal nonsense.

When it comes to abuse, I believe the Bible allows for physical separation, but not remarriage.

 

[CCHIPSS]

Unless she divorced her husband because he cheated, then she is still married in the eyes of God.

What if after their divorce, the man went out and slept with another woman? Is this considered cheating?

 

[William67]

What if after their divorce, the man went out and slept with another woman? Is this considered cheating?

If he was not the one who cheated, which caused the divorce, and he then went out and slept with another woman, I guess technically that would be fornication.

 

[CCHIPSS]

If he was not the one who cheated, which caused the divorce, and he then went out and slept with another woman, I guess technically that would be fornication.

I was actually thinking about a deeper theological question from what you wrote.

What if no one cheated but the couple got divorced/separated for other reasons. And then after the "human divorce" the man went out and sleep with another woman (before or after marriage)? Is this adultery and sexual immorality against his ex-wife?

If God did not consider the "human divorce" valid, does this mean the man has now (after the "human divorce") committed adultery against his ex-wife? And so now this "human divorce" got upgraded into "Godly divorce" and so now she is free to remarry?

If the answer to this is yes, that means the ex-wife must wait until her ex-husband sleep with another woman. And once the ex-husband has slept with another woman, he immediately committed adultery and sexual immortality. And now she is free to marry anyone she wants.

Another example is that she has to wait until her ex-husband is dead. Once he dies, the ex-wife is now a widow and can marry whoever she wants.

And what if after the "human divorce", the ex-husband watched some erotic videos? Does this count as sexual immortality and hence ground for a "Godly divorce"?

Hope this make sense.

 

[SnowyMacie]

In God's perfect world, we will see perfect marriages where everyone is a virgin when they get married. But once again we are not in the perfect world yet (one day we will be).

Um...what?

 

[CCHIPSS]

He had the opportunity when the Pharisees approached him in Matthew 19:1-9 on the subject. He chose not to take it. I believe that he didn't consider it to be a valid exception. A wife hitting her husband with a household object would have been covered under "any and every reason," along with burning his food, not giving him sex when he wanted it, not being as lovely as someone else (Rabbi Akiva justified divorce in this last circumstance), nagging him too much, etc. Jesus could have allowed for two or three exceptions in which divorce and remarriage is permissible, and by doing so still stuck up for Jewish women who were being wronged by frivolous divorces. He only allowed for one, however.

In 1 Corinthians 7:12-15 it started that if the non-believing husband was "willing to live with" a Christian wife, she must not divorce her. However if the non-believing husband chooses to leave, let it be so.

So what does "willing to live with" mean?

If a non-believing husband beats his Christian wife every single day, is he really "willing to live with" her?

I will argue that a non-believing husband is treating his Christian wife better by "choosing to leave" than "staying but beating his wife everyday".

 

[CCHIPSS]

Um...what?

My point is our world today is not perfect. One day we will be in heaven and it will be perfect.

No need to read too much into it. =)