Dating the divorced, would you?

[wvmtnkid]

Something I have always wondered about. I know that biblically the reason allowed for divorce is unfaithfulness of a spouse. I have a friend whose husband abused her. He beat her time and time again. Pushed her down the stairs and caused her to miscarry their child. She had several broken bones as a result of his beatings. When they were dating, he did not do this. There was no sign that this would occur, so it wasn't like she knew what she was getting into to.

She finally divorced him. The church she was going to at the time asked her to step aside from her work with the youth group because they didn't feel a divorced woman should hold a teaching postion in the church.

Would she not be permitted to marry again? Would God not allow her to find someone who would love her and treat her like she should have been treated to begin with? I guess I have a hard time reconciling this in my mind. Should she have stayed in a marriage that very well could have resulted in her death had her husband continued to beat her? Is this issue as black and white and we sometimes try to make it?

 

[KeilCoppes]

Something I have always wondered about. I know that biblically the reason allowed for divorce is unfaithfulness of a spouse. I have a friend whose husband abused her. He beat her time and time again. Pushed her down the stairs and caused her to miscarry their child. She had several broken bones as a result of his beatings. When they were dating, he did not do this. There was no sign that this would occur, so it wasn't like she knew what she was getting into to.

She finally divorced him. The church she was going to at the time asked her to step aside from her work with the youth group because they didn't feel a divorced woman should hold a teaching postion in the church.

Would she not be permitted to marry again? Would God not allow her to find someone who would love her and treat her like she should have been treated to begin with? I guess I have a hard time reconciling this in my mind. Should she have stayed in a marriage that very well could have resulted in her death had her husband continued to beat her? Is this issue as black and white and we sometimes try to make it?

There are several churches that believe that the OT death penalties and the NT abandonment clauses (1 Cor 10) give a way out here. Beating and such like, or refusing to support the family financially are considered as abandonment, and the believer is free without penalty. In cases where the other party is guilty of adultery, murder, or such like, as they would be dead in the OT, marriage may be dissolved without guilt. Causing the miscarriage would definitely be considered to be murder, as the OT calls it such. The principle is that the nature of God doesn't change and that His laws are an expression of His nature. Therefore in NT times (and the OT times weren't that far gone), the eternal principles of the OT laws (not the sacrificial laws) that protected women are still in effect, and the woman is free. Because the state does not impose the OT penalties, and the church does not have the power of the sword (and should not), she could get a divorce in the public courts, without being under penalty of sin in the church - essentially granted a divorce under biblical conditions by the church. It would typically come before the rulers of the church, though, and they would very definitely have something to say to the man involved and be involved in protecting her as they could.

She would be permitted to marry again without penalty, but not to the previous man, as he would be considered as dead to her. Of course, the hope would always be that he would repent and be saved. Hope it helps.

-kc

 

[charligirl]

There are several churches that believe that the OT death penalties and the NT abandonment clauses (1 Cor 10) give a way out here. Beating and such like, or refusing to support the family financially are considered as abandonment, and the believer is free without penalty. In cases where the other party is guilty of adultery, murder, or such like, as they would be dead in the OT, marriage may be dissolved without guilt. Causing the miscarriage would definitely be considered to be murder, as the OT calls it such. The principle is that the nature of God doesn't change and that His laws are an expression of His nature. Therefore in NT times (and the OT times weren't that far gone), the eternal principles of the OT laws (not the sacrificial laws) that protected women are still in effect, and the woman is free. Because the state does not impose the OT penalties, and the church does not have the power of the sword (and should not), she could get a divorce in the public courts, without being under penalty of sin in the church - essentially granted a divorce under biblical conditions by the church. It would typically come before the rulers of the church, though, and they would very definitely have something to say to the man involved and be involved in protecting her as they could.

She would be permitted to marry again without penalty, but not to the previous man, as he would be considered as dead to her. Of course, the hope would always be that he would repent and be saved. Hope it helps.

-kc

Beautifully said!

 

[KeilCoppes]

Beautifully said!

Thanks - it is a great blessing to have a God who is consistent throughout the ages! He may change the way in which He deals with us, such as the winking at polygamy in the OT, but He Himself never changes!

ps - still double-checking if my memory led me wrong on miscarriage in a fight & death penalties in the OT.

 

[wvmtnkid]

Thanks KeilCoppes. I pretty much agree with what you posted. I probably wouldn't have been able to post it with such knowledge, but yeah, that's my thinking on the situation!

What I didn't tell you about my friend was that she also caught her husband in adultery. She found him with her neighbor. And that is what ultimately lead to the divorce. I guess I have always had a problem with her church asking her to step down from her duties, specifically her minister. Her husband was unfaithful, he beat the daylights out of her, yet she was a bad influence on the youth.

 

[Donny_B]

Here is an interesting summary of how the question of divorce and remarriage has progressed in the history of the Church, from Augustine to the Reformers.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/135/46.0.html

Augustine was the first theologian to call Christian marriage a sacrament, or means of grace. He based his argument in part on the use of the Latin word sacramentum for the Greek word mysterion in Ephesians 5. He opposed those who wanted to allow marriage of the innocent party in cases of adultery and made the indissolubility of Christian marriage, even after adultery, the standard of the Western church.
The Eastern churches, under the influence of imperial legislation, were more lenient. They generally permitted divorce and remarriage for adultery and other serious offenses. For a while during the early Middle Ages, a few church councils in the West began allowing remarriage after adultery or lengthy separations.

Augustine's position, however, eventually carried the day in the West, and a medieval consensus on marital sacramentality and indissolubility developed, receiving Thomas Aquinas's stamp of approval in the thirteenth century. During the same period, a very limited alternative to divorce developed. This was the procedure of "annulment," the official pronouncement that a marriage bond never existed, despite outward appearances to the contrary.

The Reformers
The Protestant Reformers, claiming to return to biblical teaching, rejected both the sacramental nature and the absolute indissolubility of Christian marriage. According to the Bible, they said, marriage is certainly holy and is in principle indissoluble, but there are certain acts that break the marriage bond and hence permit divorce and remarriage. The Reformers could not agree, however, on the legitimate grounds—scriptural or otherwise—for divorce.

A strong advocate of faithfulness as a chief Christian virtue, Luther was not always sure that the Catholics were wrong about indissolubility, and he once said half seriously that bigamy might be preferable to divorce. He came to see divorce, however, as a permissible last resort in cases of infidelity, impotency, refusal of marital relations, and desertion. He strongly supported remarriage for the offended party. Melanchthon, Luther's colleague, limited the grounds to two, infidelity and desertion, on the basis of the "Matthean exception" and "Pauline privilege."

Similarly, Reformers John Calvin and Theodore Beza allowed divorce only for adultery and, more hesitantly, for desertion on grounds of irreconcilable religious differences. In 1561, the Calvinist city of Geneva enacted a law permitting divorce, as a last resort, for these two reasons.

The Radical Reformers, such as the Anabaptists and Hutterites, recognized adultery as legitimate grounds for divorce on the basis of Matthew 5, but they were divided on the Pauline privilege. Unlike the Lutherans and Calvinists, the Radical Reformers generally forbade remarriage following divorce.

More liberal attitudes to divorce came from Zwingli in Zurich and Martin Bucer in Strasbourg. Zwingli believed that the cause of adultery in Matthew 5 was intended only as one example (and not the most serious one), to which could be added other legitimate causes, such as abandonment, endangerment of life, and insanity. Bucer went further still, becoming the first Christian leader to permit divorce by mutual consent.

Largely in reaction to Protestant leniency, in 1563 the Roman Catholic Church, at the Council of Trent, made the indissolubility of consummated Christian marriage a matter of canon law. Divorce and remarriage were thus officially banned even in cases of adultery, though long-term separations were permitted.

The Westminster Confession of Faith uses these texts (footnoted and linked) to support its statments on divorce and remarriage:

www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_XXIV.html

V. Adultery or fornication committed after a contract, being detected before marriage, gives just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract.[11] In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce and, after the divorce,[12] to marry another, as if the offending party were dead.[13]

VI. Although the corruption of man be such as is apt to study arguments unduly to put asunder those whom God has joined together in marriage: yet, nothing but adultery, or such wilful desertion as can no way be remedied by the Church, or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage:[14] wherein, a public and orderly course of proceeding is to be observed; and the persons concerned in it not left to their own wills, and discretion, in their own case.[15]

It is interesting that in spite of the postition of the Roman Catholic Church, 21% are divorced. Among Non-denominational Christians, the rate is 34%, Baptists 29%, Mainline Protestants 25%, and Lutherans 21%. http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

Some high-profile divorce and remarriage cases among Christians include singer Amy Grant and Vince Gill, Hal Lindsay, and former televangelist Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker.

Just a few more tidbits of information to ponder.....

 

[KeilCoppes]

I guess I have always had a problem with her church asking her to step down from her duties, specifically her minister. Her husband was unfaithful, he beat the daylights out of her, yet she was a bad influence on the youth.

Well, we all need to remember that the best of churches can and do err and work to be in the best we can - I think it has to do with all the sinners in them. And yet, we are called to be together.

-------
"If you find a perfect church, don't join it, you'll ruin it!"

 

[wvmtnkid]

I do agree that no church is perfect, and I am sorry if I implied otherwise. Just the fact that I sit in a pew in my own church makes it imperfect! But thanks to the loving attitude of her church, she wants nothing to do with church now. At the time when she needed her church the most, they practically pushed her out the door. She now feels unworthy. This event occured 25 years ago.

I guess I posted this example to show that not all divorces are cut and dry and maybe we (the church) should look more at the person behind the divorce and not so much at the divorce itself. There are alot of hurting folks involved in divorces. If the church isn't there to help them, where can they go?

 

[harmmony]

Something I have always wondered about. I know that biblically the reason allowed for divorce is unfaithfulness of a spouse. I have a friend whose husband abused her. He beat her time and time again. Pushed her down the stairs and caused her to miscarry their child. She had several broken bones as a result of his beatings. When they were dating, he did not do this. There was no sign that this would occur, so it wasn't like she knew what she was getting into to.

She finally divorced him. The church she was going to at the time asked her to step aside from her work with the youth group because they didn't feel a divorced woman should hold a teaching postion in the church.

This disgusts me. As the Black Eyed Peas would say "Where is the love???"

Are the notions of compassion and understanding completely devoid in some of our churches. Is it any wonder people walk away from the church or see Christians as judgemental? Is this the example of God that we are showing to the world?

But thanks to the loving attitude of her church, she wants nothing to do with church now. At the time when she needed her church the most, they practically pushed her out the door. She now feels unworthy. This event occured 25 years ago.

Is it any wonder she feels like this now. The church should be there to offer and show the non-judgemental love of God to any who want it and even those who don't, regardless of who they are or what they've done.

 

[KeilCoppes]

There are alot of hurting folks involved in divorces. If the church isn't there to help them, where can they go?

I very much agree - my reaction was really to things like harmmony's post (sorry harmmony) where the reaction to the miss-steps of the church is disgust and anger, and any application of God's word in discipline or standing for principle (even correct principle) that people disagree with is denounced as judgemental. However, without principle (and yes, we must be critically careful to have the same principles the bible does), in the end the church ends up being a blank smiling face that has nothing to say to anyone - its salt loses its saltiness and its light fades to a glimmer, when its responsibility is to be the pillar and ground of God's truth. The christian faith ceases to be following God as revealed in His word, and becomes following the ideals of self, even unconsciously, as revealed in whatever desires we have. If we do not have obedience and truth, we will have self-will and chaos.

In deference to harmmony, though, if we do not have biblical truth and biblical love, we will have in its place error, more sin, and pain, and even those who have understanding often do not have the walk to match it. It is the truth that sets us free, but if we abandon practicing the truth, we abandon ourselves to continue the slavery to sin that is in us. It is vital to get the truth, and it is equally vital to follow it. My prayer is that christians will abandon anger and disgust, which are nowhere exalted in scripture (quite the opposite), and exchange them for sadness for those who are on the wrong path, peace in who God is, and a determination to work for improvement in God's church.

No admonishment to you here, wv.
pax.

 

[harmmony]

I very much agree - my reaction was really to things like harmmony's post (sorry harmmony) where the reaction to the miss-steps of the church is disgust and anger, and any application of God's word in discipline or standing for principle (even correct principle) that people disagree with is denounced as judgemental. However, without principle (and yes, we must be critically careful to have the same principles the bible does), in the end the church ends up being a blank smiling face that has nothing to say to anyone - its salt loses its saltiness and its light fades to a glimmer, when its responsibility is to be the pillar and ground of God's truth. The christian faith ceases to be following God as revealed in His word, and becomes following the ideals of self, even unconsciously, as revealed in whatever desires we have. If we do not have obedience and truth, we will have self-will and chaos.

I hear what you're saying KC, (please don't apologise for disagreeing) I agree with you to a point. Of course there must be principle applied in the church, but as you said later, principle applied in love - I believe to an individual's circumstances, not just a blanket application without deference to details. I am in no way judgemental toward the church that applies biblical and Godly principles within itself, there would be chaos if it did not as you said, and what would set us apart. The lady we were talking about had very specific circumstances to her divorce and instead of looking to the woman and her character and principles, she became just a "divorced person" and since she will always be a divorced person, then she must logically be always excluded in the future, I don't agree that she should (just my opinion of course).

My prayer is that christians will abandon anger and disgust, which are nowhere exalted in scripture (quite the opposite), and exchange them for sadness for those who are on the wrong path, peace in who God is, and a determination to work for improvement in God's church.

I believe that my anger and disgust are well placed and well deserved, I have become so disillusioned with the church (not God) through my own experiences and others I have spoken to with it's blanket judgements and hypocrisies. That's not to say that I don't need to come to terms with those feelings and forgive. But, in my experiences the church is responsible for putting quite a few of those that are the wrong path on it, or for keeping them there. I/we certainly need to pray for improvement of the church and that it applies principle and discipline justly.

 

[KeilCoppes]

I believe that my anger and disgust are well placed and well deserved, I have become so disillusioned with the church (not God) through my own experiences and others I have spoken to with it's blanket judgements and hypocrisies. That's not to say that I don't need to come to terms with those feelings and forgive. But, in my experiences the church is responsible for putting quite a few of those that are the wrong path on it, or for keeping them there. I/we certainly need to pray for improvement of the church and that it applies principle and discipline justly.

I can understand how you feel - from what I can see, much of the church has either abandoned its principles, or gotten lost in extensions to God's revealed word (though not all the church is like that). (Don't get me wrong - I with no doubt believe _all_ God's word is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness - it is .the. standard for living)

My concern in the issue is one of the verses that I had a massive train wreck with years ago - "The wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God." Jas 1:20. No matter what is going on, I can't seem to get away from it. The same passage is very strong on "be doers of the word and not hearers only", so I have responsibilities, no ifs, ands, or buts. But in the middle of that, where does God fit my anger in? How does it produce the righteousness of God? No matter how justified I may ever feel in being angry or frustrated, what does it _say_? And if I am to be a doer of the word, what does that say I should do about it?

On a deeper level, it's a hard thing to say when it feels like the world is raging in unrighteousness, but I'm not running the world - God is. It's his righteousness and justice that is ripped open and dishonored. Whose honor is offended? Not mine, but my master's. I can see when his standard violated, and I have a deep commitment to see it upheld to the best of my ability wherever I am. However, the anger is not my place in the universe - anger is when _my_ honor is violated, and I have none of my own - it belongs to God. From the divine perspective, I have no right to be angry, and so I am not. Frustrated at times, yes, worlds of sad for others who are blind and twisted, often, but always brought back to God being God.

pax


----------
It's one thing to be strong when you appear strong by the world's standards, it's another to be strong anyway when the whole world thinks it is weakness. Would that I appeared weak to the world more often. -kc

 

[harmmony]

I can understand how you feel - from what I can see, much of the church has either abandoned its principles, or gotten lost in extensions to God's revealed word (though not all the church is like that). (Don't get me wrong - I with no doubt believe _all_ God's word is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness - it is .the. standard for living)

My concern in the issue is one of the verses that I had a massive train wreck with years ago - "The wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God." Jas 1:20. No matter what is going on, I can't seem to get away from it. The same passage is very strong on "be doers of the word and not hearers only", so I have responsibilities, no ifs, ands, or buts. But in the middle of that, where does God fit my anger in? How does it produce the righteousness of God? No matter how justified I may ever feel in being angry or frustrated, what does it _say_? And if I am to be a doer of the word, what does that say I should do about it?

On a deeper level, it's a hard thing to say when it feels like the world is raging in unrighteousness, but I'm not running the world - God is. It's his righteousness and justice that is ripped open and dishonored. Whose honor is offended? Not mine, but my master's. I can see when his standard violated, and I have a deep commitment to see it upheld to the best of my ability wherever I am. However, the anger is not my place in the universe - anger is when _my_ honor is violated, and I have none of my own - it belongs to God. From the divine perspective, I have no right to be angry, and so I am not. Frustrated at times, yes, worlds of sad for others who are blind and twisted, often, but always brought back to God being God.

I get it, I don't claim that my anger is righteous or without sin. But, I think it's highly unrealistic for me not be angered when I and others are spiritually abused in our own church or scorned by others who view Christians through the eyes of those who are abused by our "standards", often legalistic standards as well, certainly not biblical or Christ like. I realise that doesn't make my anger right, am I sinning in anger, I really don't know. So many things I do as a sinful human do not produce the righteousness of God, I will always be working on that. Perhaps my anger is righteous as Jesus' was, most likely it is not. I think you must be far more mature than I in that you can say you have no right to be angry, so you aren't, I am not there yet. And I don't know that I agree that I have no honour of my own only God's.

Back to the OP. I have read the article linked to earlier and I find the conclusions in there quite compelling. It is a great look at the scripture in that it doesn't just look at Luke 16:18, but other teachings of Jesus, as well as Paul and a bit in the OT as well. I think it's always important not to take a scripture by itself but in context with surrounding scriptures and any other relevant ones fom elsewhere in the bible. It makes excellent reading. I agree with the final conclusion that it should be OK for a repentant divorcee to remarry. Thanks for putting it up Charligirl.

 

[KeilCoppes]

I think you must be far more mature than I in that you can say you have no right to be angry, so you aren't, I am not there yet. And I don't know that I agree that I have no honour of my own only God's.

Not perfected here - no halo, just working on living. And I have my own integrity which feels it when attacked and feels it when abused - although I struggle, that integrity is derived - it's not truly mine to claim. Practically, when I stand as myself, rather than standing as a servant of God, though, it's then that I have the most trouble and get carried away. When I step back from myself, then things get much easier and I can deal with what I need to do without being stampeded by myself or others. Thanks for the reply, harmmony.

 

[stubbornkelly]

Been there, done that, would do it again.

 

[SirKenin]

There are several churches that believe that the OT death penalties and the NT abandonment clauses (1 Cor 10) give a way out here. Beating and such like, or refusing to support the family financially are considered as abandonment, and the believer is free without penalty. In cases where the other party is guilty of adultery, murder, or such like, as they would be dead in the OT, marriage may be dissolved without guilt. Causing the miscarriage would definitely be considered to be murder, as the OT calls it such. The principle is that the nature of God doesn't change and that His laws are an expression of His nature. Therefore in NT times (and the OT times weren't that far gone), the eternal principles of the OT laws (not the sacrificial laws) that protected women are still in effect, and the woman is free. Because the state does not impose the OT penalties, and the church does not have the power of the sword (and should not), she could get a divorce in the public courts, without being under penalty of sin in the church - essentially granted a divorce under biblical conditions by the church. It would typically come before the rulers of the church, though, and they would very definitely have something to say to the man involved and be involved in protecting her as they could.

She would be permitted to marry again without penalty, but not to the previous man, as he would be considered as dead to her. Of course, the hope would always be that he would repent and be saved. Hope it helps.

-kc

This sounds like a manipulation of the text. Abuse is not abandonment, for one.

Second, Deuteronomic law provided for stoning of the husband only if he assaulted a pregnant woman and she aborted. There was also a similar provision for raping and seducing virgins. I have found no other provisions for death of an abuser. The idea of OT law was eye for an eye. Life for a life. Also, new Christians are free from OT law. Paul mentions this when he slams legalism in Galatians 3 (and elsewhere I think, but I can't remember where) So, the husband would still be alive.

We then have to go into what Jesus teaches in Matthew and Mark considering that the husband and wife will still be alive and well. Jesus' teaching is VERY clear and succinct on the issue. There are no words to mince. No room for loose translations.

Jesus said "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery". Matthew 19:9

"And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery" Mark 10:12

If there was anything else, Jesus would have brought it up, as the Pharisees were testing him on why Moses allowed for a divorce with a certificate. The "Jesus simply omitted things" argument is bunk AFAIC.

Paul provides for one further provision for Gentiles.

"But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace." 1 Corinthians 7:15

The only other recourse is to leave the abuser and remain single.

Jesus calls to love the abuser, actually:

Jesus said, “Love your enemies. Do good to those who hate you. Bless those who curse you. Pray for those who abuse you. If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them….”

In other words, love them, forgive them, work things out and remain committed. The only reason this doesn't work is when hearts are hard. Unfortunately Jesus ruled that out as being a satisfactory reason for divorce.

Anything else is merely a manipulation of the text to serve as a means to an end. There is no weaseling out of this so people can bounce around and remarry at will. Just because our immoral society allows us to divorce for abuse or whatever suits our fancy does not make it right. Remember, adulterers will not inherit the Kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9). You can try and twist words around to fool others, but I don't think you'll be fooling God, and He's ultimately the one who's going to be making the decisions when you're standing at the gates.

 

[KeilCoppes]

Anything else is merely a manipulation of the text to serve as a means to an end. There is no weaseling out of this so people can bounce around and remarry at will. Just because our immoral society allows us to divorce for abuse or whatever suits our fancy does not make it right. Remember, adulterers will not inherit the Kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9). You can try and twist words around to fool others, but I don't think you'll be fooling God, and He's ultimately the one who's going to be making the decisions when you're standing at the gates.

God alone is my ultimate Judge and He will indeed judge righteously - His word stands forever. I have no desire to engage in a flame war, though, as I do not find it glorifying to God to have Christians attacking one another and impugning one anothers motives at the drop of a hat, rather than showing grace and consideration.

One should consider that attempted murder by a husband is not remotely the same as whatever suits ones fancy, as the Pharisees seemed to wish. Quite the contrary. However, I would not wish to assert that the same God who protected women in the OT would withdraw His protection in the NT. In addition, this is a refutation by action of the one-flesh relationship.

 

[stray bullet]

My concern is spending a lifetime commiting adultery, not knowing if the conditions of the divorse were 'good enough' for the bond between the husband and wife to be broken in God's eyes.

Would Jesus tell a woman to go back to a man that was a negative influence on her, abused her, tried to kill her? What if a husband killed their child and went to jail, are they still married? Is she going to have to wait until he is dead to remarry? What if he is released, is she supposed to get back with him?
What if an 18 year old girl marries a guy that goes to jail for the rest of his life a month later? In the old days, you just killed him and that was that.... nothing the man did hurt the marriage, so she is supposed to be alone for the rest of her life?

Would I go to hell just for marrying a divorced woman who didn't have a good enough reason? What if she lied about the reason and I considered her old marriage still valid, must we divorce? I certainly feel bad for the Christians that are put into these kinds of situations with uncertainity.

There were a lot of good points made here, while I hope I never have to worry about it, I'm pretty sure God will give me the the wisdom and point me in the right direction to make the correct choice. With all the divorces in this country... it certainly is something to think about.

 

[stray bullet]

"What if she lied about the reason and I considered her old marriage still valid, must we divorce?", expanding on that...

If I marry someone who didn't have a valid reason to divorce and we sleep together, then is the bond between her and her husband broken? If sleeping together breaks the bond, then isn't the sin only committed once? Her husband, therefore, would be rightly freed and could marry... if he did, then am I still commiting adultery with his ex-wife?

If you marry someone who didn't divorce for a valid reason, must you divorce to avoid a sinful marriage? Could you stay married if the ex-husband considered the relationship at that point completely dead? I guess I could see it being questionable if he still wanted to get back together.

 

[SirKenin]

However, I would not wish to assert that the same God who protected women in the OT would withdraw His protection in the NT. In addition, this is a refutation by action of the one-flesh relationship.

God did not protect women in the OT and then remove that in the NT. Where on earth are you drawing that conclusion from?

Deuteronomic Law protected women in the OT. Mosaic law permitted anyone to divorce.

In the NT, Jesus and Paul were very specific about divorce and remarriage. They didn't remove their protection, because they never gave it to begin with. Remember Jesus saying that "Moses allowed", not "God allowed".