Divorce and Remarriage (A Different Perspective):

[WinBySurrender]

I disagree. If a woman was in that situation she is to call the police and the father must be judged legally. The woman should be faithful to the man she chose to marry. In doing that, the man will change overtime. God doesn't want divorce whenever there is sin in the marriage, he wants restoration. It's not like its a "one strike and I'm so out of here" kind of relationship. That isn't the heart of God and it never was.

Do you also subscribe to the 18th Century concept:

"The beating will continue until morale improves" ?

I'm only going to say this once -- that should be enough. To preserve the victim's health and sanity, sometimes a "therapeutic separation" is necessary. A "therapeutic separation" gives the victim time to heal and "creates a crisis" in the life of the abuser. It forces him to face the destructive nature of his behavior and gives him an opportunity to seek help. The ultimate goal of this type of separation is healing—for the victim, the abuser and the marriage.

That advise is endorsed by Focus on the Family, the source of the above paragraph.
​

 

[Christopher0121]

I disagree. If a woman was in that situation she is to call the police and the father must be judged legally. The woman should be faithful to the man she chose to marry. In doing that, the man will change overtime. God doesn't want divorce whenever there is sin in the marriage, he wants restoration. It's not like it’s a "one strike and I'm so out of here" kind of relationship. That isn't the heart of God and it never was.

Yes, I know about a woman who called the police and pressed charges against her husband for abuse after trying to deal with him for a couple years. Once he was out on bail he came home and killed her.

Abuse is nothing to sneeze at. That’s the problem with your position. You don’t realize how serious abuse is. It’s life or death. The life of the wife and children are often hanging in the balance. Any woman worth her salt would file for separation and demand he get help. If the man refused to get help she should file for divorce. I don’t see the institution of marriage or a religious interpretation as being more important than the wellbeing and safety of a mother and children. And I don’t see God condemning her to never remarry because her husband didn’t cheat…when he has beaten her and perhaps the children over a period of months or years. Frankly, your interpretation is one that fosters abuse. I know a woman who was being beaten by her husband. Her pastor told her that being a believer she isn’t to sue at law or bring up charges against her husband. He also told her that if she divorced him she’d not have the right to remarry because while the husband beat her… he hadn’t committed adultery. That’s BONDAGE. And it’s a religious interpretation that is ABUSIVE to women.

Yes, God wants restoration. But sometimes it just isn’t possible. Sometimes a woman is terrified of the man she married. Why should she be held in bondage to such an animal??? And should she divorce this sleezy abusive monster… why should she be forbidden to remarry??? She preserved her safety and the safety of her children. Instead of being put into bondage to the first marriage… she should be rewarded and allowed to live the life God originally intended for her with a man who loves her.

This interpretation is abusive. Plain and simple.

Okay this logic is very flawed. Why on EARTH would the Pharisees ask Jesus if it was okay to leave a wife without a divorce for every cause? It isn't lawful to leave a wife without a divorce for ANY cause. "Putting away" IS Divorce. It's the same word and it is a part of the same process.

Exactly! However, history has shown that Jewish tradition didn’t see it this way. Look up “agunah” or “agunot” on Youtube and research this practice. Look up articles on it on Jewish websites. Look it up on Wikipedia. It’s a factual reality that Jewish men (including the Pharisees) were doing this. In Orthodox and Conservative Judaism some men are still doing it. You can’t deny FACTS. While under the Law of Moses putting away your wife (sending away your wife) was to be accompanied by a writ of divorcement… men were refusing to do so to keep their wives in bondage and to exploit them. This is why Jesus rebuked the notion. Big duh here. Lol

You can't put away a wife properly without giving her a bill of divorce:

ROFL! That was Christ’s point. If a man put away his wife without giving her a bill of divorcement and marry another he was an adulterer. Notice Christ’s words here which clearly indicate that this is what he was talking about…

Matthew 5:32
But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

How can a man “causeth” or “make” his wife commit adultery??? Simple. In ancient Israel a woman without a husband was forced to either marry or sell herself into slavery (sometimes even prostitution) to survive. If a husband put away his wife without the bill of divorce the least horrendous course of action she could take is to seek to marry another man (perhaps even keeping her original marriage a secret). This was for her welfare and the welfare of her children. This is why if a man put away his wife (no bill of divorcement mentioned) he “causeth her to commit adultery”.

"And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also. " -Jer 3:8

Yes. God wouldn’t just send her away… He sent her away with a bill of divorcement. Maybe it would do you well to realize that Moses commanded the bill of divorcement because men were abandoning their wives. The bill of divorcement was a writ of compassion and social justice that allowed a woman to be free from the control and abuse of such a husband.

The word "and" in scripture does not only refer to two separate ideas or things. It also, depending on the context, refers to two of the same.

"Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, [and] to keep himself unspotted from the world." -James 1:27

Going by your logic, God is different from the Father, because the presence of "and" is there. However, that isn't the case. "a man give a “writing of divorcement”, and to put her away” means putting a woman away is another aspect of the same process of writing a divorce.

"And" basically means: "Which is also"

You’re comparing apples and oranges. If what you say is true… WHY do some Conservative and Orthodox Jewish men “send their wives away” and then remarry without having given the first wife a bill of divorcement??? If what you say is true and it has always been interpreted that way… why do we even have the problem with women who are agunot? LOL The rabbis have commented on this and this practice in accordance to Jewish law has been exploited by Jewish men since long before the days of Christ. I’m only telling you what is consistent according to the Jewish context of the discussion at hand. You’re divorcing (no pun intended) the text from the cultural understanding and essentially making Jesus demand that divorce and remarriage is always sin unless one has committed adultery. In other words a woman who has suffered through repeated abuse who divorces her husband is still in bondage to him according to you. In a sense… you create a Christian class of “agunah”. This is the precise kind of bondage Jesus was rebuking.

Divorce is sin too. Why would you sin to get out of sin? Once you marry, you are obligated under God and law to be with that person.

So you'd advocate that a remarried divorcee living in adultery continue the adulterous relationship??? Also... if it is "adultery" the implication is that they are still under the vows of her previous marriage. Therefore, the second marriage would be null and void. You're contradicting yourself. Is it adultery or not???

Also.... divorce isn’t sin. The Law permitted divorce. Are you saying that God endorsed sin in the Law? Divorce on the grounds of unfaithfulness, abuse, and neglect are not sinful. In fact, the Law of Moses clearly allows for divorce in such cases. Research what rabbinical scholars have to say about the issue. The bill of divorce is a process of mercy and justice to ensure that women can be free from the bondage of a husband who deals treacherously with them. Divorce allows a woman to not only be free from a treacherous husband, but it also allows her to remarry (even if she were charged with fault). The only stipulation is, once she remarries, she cannot return to her first husband if the second marriage fails. Now, the social justice in this is simple. The dowry, children, and inheritance from the second marriage would fall under the authority of the first husband should she return to him after the failure of the second marriage. This would aggregate wealth by depleting wealth from one family and legally transferring it to another.

You need to really research this. The fact that “agunot” (plural of “agunah&#8217 existed in Christ’s day and are even living in bondage to their husbands today shows the distinction between “putting away” and the “bill of divorcement” (official Jewish divorce) in the Jewish mind. Again… this is what Jesus was addressing.

If this wasn't something done to women in Jewish history... if a distinction wasn't made between "putting away" and the bill of divorcement in the Jewish mind... why do "agunah" even exist???

Since the agunot are REAL women in this situation AS WE SPEAK under Jewish law... you have to concede that this indeed was, and is, a Jewish practice. If you're honest, you'll have to concede that the teachers of Jewish law clearly made a distinction between "putting away" and the "writ of divorcement". You'll also have to concede that men frequently did this to exploit the system and keep women in bondage. You'll also have to concede that the Pharisees (teachers of the law) would have seen the practice this way. And you'll have to concede that the very wording of their questions indicate this. Lastly, you'll have to concede that Jesus clearly lets them know that any man who does such a thing is an adulterer and causeth his wife to commit adultery. Once you've done this... you've validated my point.

Prove that the agunot do not exist and this wasn't Jewish practice to validate your claim that the putting away and writ of divorcement was seen in the ancient Jewish mind as being one and the same. The truth is... you can't do it because what I'm telling you isn't a theoretical interpretation (like your position)... it's a historical and cultural fact that many Jewish women are currently experiencing as we speak.

 

[Christopher0121]

Bump.

 

[dollarsbill]

Divorce may be permitted but re-marriage is a different item. So then why would a Christian get divorced? Probably to remarry. Dangerous territory!

 

[dayhiker]

For the people that think remarriage isn't premitted. Why did the writ of divorce read, "You are free to marry any man." If Jesus was against remarriage, He should have told the men what the new words they were to write on the divorce paper.

 

[dollarsbill]

For the people that think remarriage isn't premitted. Why did the writ of divorce read, "You are free to marry any man." If Jesus was against remarriage, He should have told the men what the new words they were to write on the divorce paper.

Luke 16:18
18 "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.