The Bible's Laws on Divorce and Remarriage.

[Dave-W]

, I will put my law in their inward parts,

"Law" = Torah = instructions.

And the Torah allowed for divorce. And according to that verse - Torah is in the New Covenant.

 

[Dave L]

"Law" = Torah = instructions.

And the Torah allowed for divorce. And according to that verse - Torah is in the New Covenant.

Divorce did not make the transition. If so, you would see it spelled out, which it isn't.

 

[Dave-W]

Divorce did not make the transition. If so, you would see it spelled out, which it isn't.

In ancient Mid east covenants, when they were renewed/updated, everything that was not specifically mentioned got carried over intact.

I suggest a book called "Torah Rediscovered" by Ariel Berkowitz as he has an excellent presentation on exactly how covenants were made new.

Is there a reason you are so adamant about this subject?

 

[paul becke]

All true believers are priests (Revelation 1:6).

Yes. I agree wholeheartedly (as well I might). Human traditions often tend to 'muddy the waters'.

 

[Dave L]

In ancient Mid east covenants, when they were renewed/updated, everything that was not specifically mentioned got carried over intact.

I suggest a book called "Torah Rediscovered" by Ariel Berkowitz as he has an excellent presentation on exactly how covenants were made new.

Is there a reason you are so adamant about this subject?

The Old Covenant is replaced by the New Covenant.

 

[Dave-W]

The Old Covenant is replaced by the New Covenant.

With broad areas of continuity.

 

[Vicomte13]

Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery (Matthew 5:32).

In Matthew 19:9 it says: “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery;"

Some think you can divorce for other reasons.

That's true. That's what the Bible says. More specifically, that's what Christ says, as recorded in the Bible. Half or more of people in nominally Christian countries find this rule to be unworkable.

Divorce and remarriage is a sin, of adultery. Half of Christianity finds that it is better to commit the sin and seek forgiveness than to go on until the end of life in misery.

It's a choice people make.

 

[bcbsr]

An annulment means a marriage never existed in a sacramental sense, but legitimacy is a secular legal concept, not a sacramental concept. So a marriage existed in a secular sense, then ended. Your legitimacy is uncontested.

Annulment means the marriage was never legitimate in the eyes of God. And I think that's what counts, don't you?

 

[paul becke]

It seems to vary, but I would say probably not strict enough. Some canon lawyers seem to think that most marriages are flawed enough to be invalid, and thus an annulment is possible for almost any excuse. That makes it 'Catholic divorce'. Other canon lawyers are more strict. The reality is some marriages are so deeply flawed from the very beginning that someone should have told them to call it off. In retrospect they were impossible and should have never happened. I don't know what the proportion is. Then there are marriages that were valid but failed due to the hardness of at least one of the spouses.

There are lots of Catholics who, when denied an annulment, become Protestant so they can remarry. I see it all the time.

One ground for annulment that should make perfect to everyone is : 'Omnia preparata sunt' - 'All the preparations have been made.' At least one of the partners wants to call it off, but is dissuaded because all (or, presumably, 'significant' preparations have been made: invitations, gifts, catering arrrangements, etc.

Another is that, at least one of the partners did not commit themselves to a one-on-one relationship, which I imagine refers to more or less habitual adultery. In both cases any purported commitment is a charade, although well-meaning enough, according to normal human canons of behaviour.

 

[RDKirk]

OK, only death breaks the marriage bond.
“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.” (Romans 7:3) (KJV 1900)

So Paul is saying in the case of a believer married to an unbeliever that the unbeliever is dead, thus the believer is no longer bound.

And that's correct.

 

[paul becke]

That's true. That's what the Bible says. More specifically, that's what Christ says, as recorded in the Bible. Half or more of people in nominally Christian countries find this rule to be unworkable.

Divorce and remarriage is a sin, of adultery. Half of Christianity finds that it is better to commit the sin and seek forgiveness than to go on until the end of life in misery.

It's a choice people make.

That sums it up pretty well, I think, Vicomte.

 

[Dave L]

So Paul is saying in the case of a believer married to an unbeliever that the unbeliever is dead, thus the believer is no longer bound.

And that's correct.

No. Divorce is not a New Covenant provision. People are married for life even if the unbeliever departs.

 

[Dave L]

With broad areas of continuity.

If you can find it in the New Covenant, it is part of the New Covenant.

 

[Vicomte13]

That sums it up pretty well, I think, Vicomte.

Makes sense to me. I'm never going to divorce my wife pretty much no matter what. I doubt she will ever divorce me either. It seems so unlikely.

BUT if I were married to a different woman, and things were different, I might. For example, if I were married to a woman who abused my kid, or if I were a woman married to a man who did, I would cut him/her off like a viper. Period. I love my kid more than I am obedient to something that somebody wrote that Jesus said. If Jesus meant "Don't divorce, even if your spouse abuses your kid", then my answer is: "Lord, I will not obey you on that. My child's safety comes before my obedience to you. Sorry."

And that's the way it is.

I can think of other circumstances. If my spouse attacked ME, that would likewise be the end of the marriage.

We all sin. If escaping from an abusive relationship is sin, then it's a sin I'm going to commit.

I suppose the problem I would have is that I would not be at all repentant for escaping abuse, and I would reproach God for expecting me to be.

So I guess that means - if the mechanical logic applied by some Christians is true - that were I to have an abusive spouse, that I would lose my Salvation and be thrown into the fires of Hell for eternity, because I would divorce that spouse and find another who loved me, and I would not feel guilty about it and "repent" it. Absolutely not.

True repentance of the divorce being impossible, then, human religious logic would consign me to the flames. I expect God is better than that. But if the humans are right, well, then I'm lucky God loves me enough to have not put me to the test by giving me an abusive spouse, because that is a test that I would fail.

 

[bcbsr]

Nice deflection. Our Lord was talking from being one "under the Law."

If He was changing the Law / Torah, He sinned, flat out. No question.

If you look at Jesus' reasoning like in Mark 10, what he advocating was superseding the Law under Moses with Genesis (though Genesis is called the first book of the law). Or the idea that the principles established in the first book of the Law supersede that which came later.

The way I would say it is that Jesus invoked the very nature of marriage from its inception in Genesis to show that divorce under Moses was not the ideal but simply something God put up with. Then he went one to say that basically remarriage after divorce is in fact adulterous. And it seems from the context he was saying that God put up with that particular form of adultery under the Law of Moses because of their hardness of hearts. (That is, if he invoke the perfect standard the Christians are to live under, the Israelites would simply refuse to obey) In fact even Peter reacted saying that if that's they way it is, it's better not to marry at all. Fact is, divorce doesn't nullify a marriage. The only thing that nullifies a marriage is the death of a spouse.

 

[bcbsr]

Half of Christianity finds that it is better to commit the sin and seek forgiveness than to go on until the end of life in misery.

It's a choice people make.

Guess that's what Jesus meant when he said, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives" Mt 19:8 Sad that half of Christianity must be classified as those of hardened hearts.

 

[Vicomte13]

The way I would say it is that Jesus invoked the very nature of marriage from its inception in Genesis to show that divorce under Moses was not the ideal but simply something God put up with. Then he went one to say that basically remarriage after divorce is in fact adulterous. And it seems from the context he was saying that God put up with that particular form of adultery under the Law of Moses because of their hardness of hearts. (That is, if he invoke the perfect standard the Christians are to live under, the Israelites would simply refuse to obey) In fact even Peter reacted saying that if that's they way it is, it's better not to marry at all. Fact is, divorce doesn't nullify a marriage. The only thing that nullifies a marriage is the death of a spouse.

Yep, I read it the same way. So does the Catholic Church.

The question that isn't answered by Jesus is "What if somebody knows this and divorces ANYWAY?" Churches have attempted to answer the question. The reason that the Anglican/Episcopalian Church came to exist in the first place is because the Catholic Church gave ITS answer to a King who didn't accept it and who had the power to do something different.

 

[dogs4thewin]

biblical grounds for the death penalty.

but not in this secular world do that and you will likely end up locked up and depending on the state/other factors face the death penalty yourself.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Annulment means the marriage was never legitimate in the eyes of God. And I think that's what counts, don't you?

No, it isn't an issue of the marriage being legitimate or not but of being valid or not. A thing can be valid but not legitimate. A declaration of nullity means there was no valid marriage, it didn't ever actually exist, but only a simulation of it existed. That is different than a marriage done validly but not according to the laws and customs of the Church. Perhaps you are unaware of the distinction.

Which is fine, but then in the eyes of God nobody is born illegitimate or becomes illegitimate. That whole idea of legitimacy of children has to do with inheriting property and is a totally secular issue.

Your parents may never have been validly married according to the judgement of a Catholic Church marriage tribunal. Or your father may have shopped for an annulment and pulled the wool over the eyes of the marriage tribunal. None of that makes you legitimate or illegitimate. That is a secular definition.

 

[Dave-W]

The way I would say it is that Jesus invoked the very nature of marriage from its inception in Genesis to show that divorce under Moses was not the ideal but simply something God put up with.

While He appealed to the original unfallen state of man, (which was when that first marriage occured) He also said that divorce was allowed to protect us from each other's hardness of heart.

The fact that the author of Hebrews writes 3 times (quoting Ps 95) "Today if you hear His voice do not harden your heart ..." indicates that hardness of heart happens in the New Covenant as well. And people still need protection from it.