Dating the divorced, would you?

SirKenin

Contributor
Jun 26, 2003
6,518
526
from the deepest inner mind to the outer limits
✟9,370.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Here, check this out. It's a detailed commentary on that passage you quoted.



Those to whom Christ preached, and for whose use he gave these instructions to his disciples, were such as in their religion had an eye, 1. To the scriptures of the Old Testament as their rule, and therein Christ here shows them they were in the right: 2. To the scribes and the Pharisees as their example, and therein Christ here shows them they were in the wrong; for,

I. The rule which Christ came to establish exactly agreed with the scriptures of the Old Testament, here called the law and the prophets. The prophets were commentators upon the law, and both together made up that rule of faith and practice which Christ found upon the throne in the Jewish church, and here he keeps it on the throne.

1. He protests against the thought of cancelling and weakening the Old Testament; Think not that I am come to destroy the law and the prophets. (1.) "Let not the pious Jews, who have an affection for the law and the prophets, fear that I come to destroy them.’’ Let them be not prejudiced against Christ and his doctrine, from a jealousy that this kingdom he came to set up, would derogate from the honour of the scriptures, which they had embraced as coming from God, and of which they had experienced the power and purity; no, let them be satisfied that Christ has no ill design upon the law and the prophets. "Let not the profane Jews, who have a disaffection to the law and the prophets, and are weary of that yoke, hope that I am come to destroy them.’’ Let not carnal libertines imagine that the Messiah is come to discharge them from the obligation of divine precepts and yet to secure to them divine promises, to make the happy and yet to give them leave to live as they list. Christ commands nothing now which was forbidden either by the law of nature or the moral law, nor forbids any thing which those laws had enjoined; it is a great mistake to think he does, and he here takes care to rectify the mistake; I am not come to destroy. The Saviour of souls is the destroyer of nothing but the works of the devil, of nothing that comes from God, much less of those excellent dictates which we have from Moses and the prophets. No, he came to fulfil them. That is, [1.] To obey the commands of the law, for he was made under the law, Gal. 4:4. He in all respects yielded obedience to the law, honoured his parents, sanctified the sabbath, prayed, gave alms, and did that which never any one else did, obeyed perfectly, and never broke the law in any thing. [2.] To make good the promises of the law, and the predictions of the prophets, which did all bear witness to him. The covenant of grace is, for substance, the same now that it was then, and Christ the Mediator of it. [3.] To answer the types of the law; thus (as bishop Tillotson expresses it), he did not make void, but make good, the ceremonial law, and manifested himself to be the Substance of all those shadows. [4.] To fill up the defects of it, and so to complete and perfect it. Thus the word pleµroµsai properly signifies. If we consider the law as a vessel that had some water in it before, he did not come to pour out the water, but to fill the vessel up to the brim; or, as a picture that is first rough-drawn, displays some outlines only of the piece intended, which are afterwards filled up; so Christ made an improvement of the law and the prophets by his additions and explications. [5.] To carry on the same design; the Christian institutes are so far from thwarting and contradicting that which was the main design of the Jewish religion, that they promote it to the highest degree. The gospel is the time of reformation (Heb. 9:10), not the repeal of the law, but the amendment of it, and, consequently, its establishment.

2. He asserts the perpetuity of it; that not only he designed not the abrogation of it, but that it never should be abrogated (v. 18); "Verily I say unto you, I, the Amen, the faithful Witness, solemnly declare it, that till heaven and earth pass, when time shall be no more, and the unchangeable state of recompences shall supersede all laws, one jot, or one tittle, the least and most minute circumstance, shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled;’’ for what is it that God is doing in all the operations both of providence and grace, but fulfilling the scripture? Heaven and earth shall come together, and all the fulness thereof be wrapped up in ruin and confusion, rather than any word of God shall fall to the ground, or be in vain. The word of the Lord endures for ever, both that of the law, and that of the gospel. Observe, The care of God concerning his law extends itself even to those things that seem to be of least account in it, the iotas and the tittles; for whatever belongs to God, and bears his stamp, be it ever so little, shall be preserved. The laws of men are conscious to themselves of so much imperfection, that they allow it for a maxim, Apices juris non sunt jura—The extreme points of the law are not the law, but God will stand by and maintain every iota and every tittle of his law.

3. He gives it in charge to his disciples, carefully to preserve the law, and shows them the danger of the neglect and contempt of it (v. 19); Whosoever therefore shall break one of the least commandments of the law of Moses, much more any of the greater, as the Pharisees did, who neglected the weightier matters of the law, and shall teach men so as they did, who made void the commandment of God with their traditions (ch. 15:3), he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. Though the Pharisees be cried up for such teachers as should be, they shall not be employed as teachers in Christ’s kingdom; but whosoever shall do and teach them, as Christ’s disciples would, and thereby prove themselves better friends to the Old Testament than the Pharisees were, they, though despised by men, shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Note, (1.) Among the commands of God there are some less than others; none absolutely little, but comparatively so. The Jews reckon the least of the commandments of the law to be that of the bird’s nest (Deu. 22:6, 7); yet even that had a significance and an intention very great and considerable. (2.) It is a dangerous thing, in doctrine or practice, to disannul the least of God’s commands; to break them, that is, to go about either to contract the extent, or weaken the obligation of them; whoever does so, will find it is at his peril. Thus to vacate any of the ten commandments, is too bold a stroke for the jealous God to pass by. it is something more than transgressing the law, it is making void the law, Ps. 119:126. (3.) That the further such corruptions as they spread, the worse they are. It is impudence enough to break the command, but is a greater degree of it to teach men so. This plainly refers to those who at this time sat in Moses’ seat, and by their comments corrupted and perverted the text. Opinions that tend to the destruction of serious godliness and the vitals of religion, by corrupt glosses on the scripture, are bad when they are held, but worse when they are propagated and taught, as the word of God. He that does so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven, in the kingdom of glory; he shall never come thither, but be eternally excluded; or, rather, in the kingdom of the gospel-church. He is so far from deserving the dignity of a teacher in it, that he shall not so much as be accounted a member of it. The prophet that teaches these lies shall be the tail in that kingdom (Isa. 9:15); when truth shall appear in its own evidence, such corrupt teachers, though cried up as the Pharisees, shall be of no account with the wise and good. Nothing makes ministers more contemptible and base than corrupting the law, Mal. 2:8, 11. Those who extenuate and encourage sin, and discountenance and put contempt upon strictness in religion and serious devotion, are the dregs of the church. But, on the other hand, Those are truly honourable, and of great account in the church of Christ, who lay out themselves by their life and doctrine to promote the purity and strictness of practical religion; who both do and teach that which is good; for those who do not as they teach, pull down with one hand what they build up with the other, and give themselves the lie, and tempt men to think that all religion is a delusion; but those who speak from experience, who live up to what they preach, are truly great; they honour God, and God will honour them (1 Sa. 2:30), and hereafter they shall shine as the stars in the kingdom of our Father. II. The righteousness which Christ came to establish by this rule, must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, v. 20. This was strange doctrine to those who looked upon the scribes and Pharisees as having arrived at the highest pitch of religion. The scribes were the most noted teachers of the law, and the Pharisees the most celebrated professors of it, and they both sat in Moses’ chair (ch. 23:2), and had such a reputation among the people, that they were looked upon as super-conformable to the law, and people did not think themselves obliged to be as good as they; it was therefore a great surprise to them, to hear that they must be better than they, or they should not go to heaven; and therefore Christ here avers it with solemnity; I say unto you, It is so. The scribes and Pharisees were enemies to Christ and his doctrine, and were great oppressors; and yet it must be owned, that there was something commendable in them. They were much in fasting and prayer, and giving of alms; they were punctual in observing the ceremonial appointments, and made it their business to teach others; they had such an interest in the people that they ought, if but two men went to heaven, one would be a Pharisee; and yet our Lord Jesus here tells his disciples, that the religion he came to establish, did not only exclude the badness, but excel the goodness, of the scribes and Pharisees. We must do more than they, and better than they, or we shall come short of heaven. They were partial in the law, and laid most stress upon the ritual part of it; but we must be universal, and not think it enough to give the priest his tithe, but must give God our hearts. They minded only the outside, but we must make conscience of inside godliness. They aimed at the praise and applause of men, but we must aim at acceptance with God: they were proud of what they did in religion, and trusted to it as a righteousness; but we, when we have done all, must deny ourselves, and say, We are unprofitable servants, and trust only to the righteousness of Christ; and thus we may go beyond the scribes and Pharisees.
 
Upvote 0

SirKenin

Contributor
Jun 26, 2003
6,518
526
from the deepest inner mind to the outer limits
✟9,370.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I'm getting the impression that Moses' allowing the Jews to divorce for any reason was not a law, but a concession. So Jesus would not be "superceding" the previous law as I erroneously stated. :blush: He was disallowing a previous concession.
 
Upvote 0

Donny_B

Well-Known Member
Mar 4, 2003
570
3
North Carolina
✟740.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
In Matthew 23:23, Jesus spoke of the "weightier matters of the law", justice, mercy, and faith, as opposed to less weighty matters, such as paying tithes:

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone." NKJV

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former." NIV

Tithing is not abolished here, it is just less weighty as compared to justice, mercy, and faith.
 
Upvote 0

SirKenin

Contributor
Jun 26, 2003
6,518
526
from the deepest inner mind to the outer limits
✟9,370.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Donny_B said:
In Matthew 23:23, Jesus spoke of the "weightier matters of the law", justice, mercy, and faith, as opposed to less weighty matters, such as paying tithes:

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone." NKJV

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former." NIV

Tithing is not abolished here, it is just less weighty as compared to justice, mercy, and faith.
I'm not quite sure I'm following you here, to be honest. Can I ask you to clarify your point if you don't mind? :)
 
Upvote 0

Donny_B

Well-Known Member
Mar 4, 2003
570
3
North Carolina
✟740.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
If we apply this to the part of the law dealing with divorce and remarriage, rather than being rendered "null and void", it was instead being restricted because of the way it was being applied.

Quoting from Christianity Today:

http://users.visi.net/~gbraden/God/divorce.html

The problem here has to do with Jewish laws that let men freely discharge their wives, often on spurious grounds. One great rabbi, Shammai, taught that the only basis for divorce was sexual unfaithfulness or adultery. But the Rabbi Hillel was more generous: "A man may divorce his wife even if she burned his soup . . . or spoiled a dish for him." Rabbi Akiba taught that divorce was acceptable "if he should find a woman fairer than his wife." Such divorces left women adrift in a male world, without hope of remarriage, and completely at a loss. Jesus is standing against such divorces of convenience.


He was also standing against the teaching that a man was required to dispense with his wife when he suspected unfaithfulness. (Consider Joseph’s reaction when he learned of Mary’s surprise pregnancy.) Jesus amends this, finding such behavior intolerable. Moses did not command his people to divorce wives, he permitted it. The springboard for right action should not be hard-heartedness, but charity. Jesus affirms once more that only if the woman has done something herself that irreparably ruptures the marriage can such a divorce be right. But it isn’t a necessary response.
In the exception clauses of Matthew 5 and 19, Jesus sees fornication (inappropriate contentea) as the only legitimate grounds for divorce. (Adultery was not a problem at the time, since adulterers were stoned. Since the practice of stoning adulterers ended, it would now be reasonable to say that adultery committed after a marriage is also a reasonable cause for divorce.)

Paul adds desertion of an unbelieving spouse as legitimate reason for divorce. It might be argued that Matthew 23:23 leaves the door open for other legitimate reasons being considered for divorce for the sake of "justice, mercy, and faith". Sometimes it may the least bad solution, such as in a spousal abuse situation.
 
Upvote 0

crydun

Active Member
Nov 5, 2003
206
9
47
OH
Visit site
✟15,381.00
Faith
Protestant
wvmtnkid said:
I have dated divorced men. I think the reason for the divorce matters quite a bit. Personally, I don't want to be with someone just because they got tired of their marriage, their wife, or whatever. If it happened once, whose to say it might not happen again with me. I want to know if the divorce was the last resort and not the first thing they did when things started getting tough. I would want to know if there was an infidelity and the circumstances around that.

I think another consideration is if their are children involved. Twice I have gotten involved with a man whose child was being used as a ammunition against the other spouse. And I quickly got out of that. That is not a situation I wanted to be in. The child was the one who was being harmed and I just couldn't abide two grown adults doing that to their child or to each other for that matter. To me, that spoke volumes about their character.

I am not saying you shouldn't get involved with someone who has been divorced, but I think you should tread very carefully.

I couldn't have said it better. I would consider dating a man divorced but I would not consider dating a man with children. Too much mess in that. You can't ever win. :|
 
Upvote 0

MehGuy

A member of the less neotenous sex..
Site Supporter
Jul 23, 2007
55,917
10,826
Minnesota
✟1,163,932.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I don't see why not.. although I'd probably not date someone with kids. I don't want that part of my lifestyle. Also if I were to raise kids I want them to be genetically my own.
 
Upvote 0

bèlla

❤️
Site Supporter
Jan 16, 2019
20,542
17,682
USA
✟952,138.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
In Relationship
No. I prefer someone who never married or had children. Relationships are complicated enough without adding in ex’s and little ones.

Nevertheless, I think its a question you must answer for yourself. It isn’t wholly religious. Dealing with a partner with a failed marriage requires maturity and patience. Have they healed and reconciled the past? Did they learn from their mistakes?

If the comments I see are a barometer, there’s a lot of finger-pointing with the former spouse getting the lion’s share. They’re the innocent, the wronged, etc. But no one knows the truth save those involved. You’ll inevitably have moments when the past rears its head. And you won’t know how much they’ve healed until you take the plunge.

If children are part of the picture, I’d recommend someone with a respectful and amicable relationship with their ex. Or they’ll make your life a living hell and use the kids as bargaining chips at whim. You’ll deal with the ex for many years. Hopefully you get along.

If he’s a single parent he’s looking for a mother. Make sure you’re comfortable with the role. Most women aren’t. Single fathers have a hard time in the dating market. Women aren’t as maternal and nurturing as most believe. Especially with someone else’s children. That’s the biggest surprise for most. Women have it easier on this front.

The same holds true for shared custody. If you don’t want to be a parent leave them alone. If the idea of missing events, canceling plans, or restrictions on your freedom are bothersome, you probably should pass them by. If they don’t have a nanny or reliable caretaker they can turn to at will, expect the unexpected.

Some divorced couples remain friends. Make sure you can handle that too.

Yours in His Service,

~bella
 
  • Like
Reactions: sampa
Upvote 0

Sketcher

Born Imperishable
Feb 23, 2004
38,984
9,400
✟380,249.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
"But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." - Matthew 5:32

"Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it." - Matthew 7:24-27

I'm not building my house on that sand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sampa
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

HisGraceAbounds

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 21, 2019
432
527
Central Illinois
✟267,200.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Private
I divorced a long time ago.

She cheated. Prolifically. I was glad to show her the door and have her served divorce papers.

I consider it a failure. I should have vetted her more thoroughly before marrying her. It was my mistake, and one I won't repeat.

I've reached the age now where if I were to date, all that would be available to me is single mothers and I don't want anything to do with children. Those wanting children are out of luck too. I'm not capable.

I had my chance. I picked the wrong woman when I married. I never found anyone else remotely suitable. I'm too old now.
 
Upvote 0

Miles

Student of Life
Mar 6, 2005
17,104
4,474
USA
✟382,325.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Would I date a divorced woman? Maybe in theory, but I haven't done so. The pieces of the puzzle don’t click into place like they otherwise might, so the chemistry is lacking.

There’s a something to be said for the notion that birds of a feather flock together. I’ve never been married, and I don’t have any children. The women I gravitate toward are similar in that regard. Never married, no kids. Even as I've grown older. Although divorce isn’t necessarily a deal-breaker in and of itself, the odds of us having enough in common to form a relationship are slim.
 
Upvote 0

dayhiker

Mature veteran
Sep 13, 2006
15,557
5,288
MA
✟220,077.00
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
I'm 69 and I've dated divorced women, widows and women who have never married. I find they are all human beings just like the rest of us. Most of them are really good women and I just enjoying my time with them on a date.
 
Upvote 0