Divorce and Remarriage

[PeterDona]

He says that the believing wife who has been divorced is not under bondage. This means that she is free to marry again.

You are mixing 2 words here. Bondage and Bound. It is not the same word. I can see that you believe that this mix of meaning is valid, but I do not see that it is something that Paul corroborates in the text. If really Paul just made an exception of the rule of marriage in the case of a believer with an unbeliever, do you not think that he would explain how he suddenly could say that an otherwise indissoluble union is now soluble in this special case? Do you think that he would write such a sharp surprise, with such little commentation? It is in the text almost as if he is not aware the surprise that he just made (or rather what some interpret him to say). And if you are going to quote the principle of peace, how is it that the principle of peace creates/allows the breakup of a covenant? For me I was always puzzled about this, until I understood that Paul is not advocating freedom from the covenant, but only a living separate for the sake of being respectful of the other spouses desire. It does make sense, that the principle of peace could supersede the duty of performing the marital obligations, if the other party obviously rejects them to be performed. Well, it makes sense in the human perspective, but I still lack some scriptural example of such a hierarchy of principles.

 

[bling]

Thanks for the response Bling, I have a couple of questions. Wouldn't you agree that only someone who is married can commit adultery? Adultery is an action that is committed against a spouse. A single person does not commit adultery. That's my basis for interpreting Matthew 19

No, that is not biblical.

I gave this definition:

The best scriptural definition I have come up with for “adultery” is: Any involvement in the damaging of a covenant relationship. We can go through all the scriptures involved to see what would fit. Again we are trying to understand how OT scholars in the first century would understand it (Pharisees).

Your definition could not be used for every time “adultery” is used in scripture.

Adultery is used to describe a lot more than just “acts committed against your spouse”. There is nothing in scripture denoting different types of adultery, so we must assume the same meaning for every time it is used. We have:

Jer. 3: 8 I gave faithless Israel her certificate of divorce and sent her away because of all her adulteries. Yet I saw that her unfaithful sister Judah had no fear; she also went out and committed adultery. 9 Because Israel’s immorality mattered so little to her, she defiled the land and committed adultery with stone and wood.

Jer. 9: 2 Oh, that I had in the desert a lodging place for travelers, so that I might leave my people and go away from them; for they are all adulterers, a crowd of unfaithful people.

Not everyone in the “crowd” would have been directly involved “committing adultery with stone and wood, but they all were allowing it to go on without stepping in.

I think this is very clear. If a divorce occurs for any reason other than immorality/fornication, then the spouse that gets remarried is committing adultery. You can't commit adultery if you're not married.

You cannot make that “conclusion: You can't commit adultery if you're not married.” from that one example (it is not a definition but an example only), Look at this statement:

Matt. 5: 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Jesus says nothing about the man being married?

Judah had a covenant relationship with God, but God was not Judah’s spouse and yet Judah could commit adultery against God.

Therefore, it stands to reason that unless the divorce is for immorality/fornication (physical adultery), than the one flesh covenant is still in effect in the eyes of the Lord. I don't know how else to interpret that. I'm open to another interpretation, I just don't see how it would be viable.

You are limiting the definition of “adultery” to an unbiblical limitation.

I do completely agree with you though that if a divorced spouse does get remarried, that marriage is valid, and becomes a covenant. They may have committed adultery, but it was a one time offense. Do they need to repent? Yes. But their newly formed marriage is certainly a valid covenant that now should be honored.

Agree

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

You are mixing 2 words here. Bondage and Bound. It is not the same word. I can see that you believe that this mix of meaning is valid, but I do not see that it is something that Paul corroborates in the text. If really Paul just made an exception of the rule of marriage in the case of a believer with an unbeliever, do you not think that he would explain how he suddenly could say that an otherwise indissoluble union is now soluble in this special case? Do you think that he would write such a sharp surprise, with such little commentation? It is in the text almost as if he is not aware the surprise that he just made (or rather what some interpret him to say). And if you are going to quote the principle of peace, how is it that the principle of peace creates/allows the breakup of a covenant? For me I was always puzzled about this, until I understood that Paul is not advocating freedom from the covenant, but only a living separate for the sake of being respectful of the other spouses desire. It does make sense, that the principle of peace could supersede the duty of performing the marital obligations, if the other party obviously rejects them to be performed. Well, it makes sense in the human perspective, but I still lack some scriptural example of such a hierarchy of principles.

It is just a matter of messing around with words that mean much the same thing. If Paul were alive today we would go to him and ask him what he meant and he would tell us. But we don't have that opportunity so we can't use what Paul said to be judgmental toward divorced and remarried believers. Of course reconciliation is the preferred option, but if that is not possible, the innocent party should not be punished. This would be against the just character of God. If there is no scriptural example, such as divorce in the case of domestic violence and desertion, then we can't impose a rule on believers where there is no specific rule in scripture for such cases. If Paul says that he says things from himself and not the Lord, are we obligated to accept what he says as the direct word of God. If Paul says it isn't, then what he says is advisory and not binding on believers.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

No, that is not biblical.

I gave this definition:

The best scriptural definition I have come up with for “adultery” is: Any involvement in the damaging of a covenant relationship. We can go through all the scriptures involved to see what would fit. Again we are trying to understand how OT scholars in the first century would understand it (Pharisees).

Your definition could not be used for every time “adultery” is used in scripture.

Adultery is used to describe a lot more than just “acts committed against your spouse”. There is nothing in scripture denoting different types of adultery, so we must assume the same meaning for every time it is used. We have:

Jer. 3: 8 I gave faithless Israel her certificate of divorce and sent her away because of all her adulteries. Yet I saw that her unfaithful sister Judah had no fear; she also went out and committed adultery. 9 Because Israel’s immorality mattered so little to her, she defiled the land and committed adultery with stone and wood.

Jer. 9: 2 Oh, that I had in the desert a lodging place for travelers, so that I might leave my people and go away from them; for they are all adulterers, a crowd of unfaithful people.

Not everyone in the “crowd” would have been directly involved “committing adultery with stone and wood, but they all were allowing it to go on without stepping in.



You cannot make that “conclusion: You can't commit adultery if you're not married.” from that one example (it is not a definition but an example only), Look at this statement:

Matt. 5: 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Jesus says nothing about the man being married?

Judah had a covenant relationship with God, but God was not Judah’s spouse and yet Judah could commit adultery against God.



You are limiting the definition of “adultery” to an unbiblical limitation.


Agree

I agree. Requiring an innocent partner to be under the same restriction concerning remarriage as the guilty partner is on a par with punishing a whole class of students for the misbehaviour of one or two. We would think it is unjust to punish the innocent with the guilty in that case, but there are some who teach that God does. They miss the fact that God is more knowledgible of the hearts of people, and is much more kind, gentle and forgiving than many religious people, and therefore would be a lot less inclined to punish the innocent with the guilty in spiritual matters than we would in ordinary everyday matters.

It is on the same principle of Jesus saying, "If you, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will God give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him?" In that case it is the bestowal of the Holy Spirit, but the same principle can be expressed, "If you being evil know that it is unjust to punish the innocent with the guilty, how much more will God deem it unjust to do the same?"

God is much better at dealing with human situations than we are. He is much more understanding of different issues. Religious people tend to have tunnel vision about things often, but God is not like that. If religious people acknowledge that from the secular perspective being divorced from a violent or deserting spouse is understandable and therefore would not punish remarriage, then how much more is God understanding and would be even less inclined to punish an innocent divorced spouse if they decided to remarry?

The trouble with religious people being inspired by a legalistic religious spirit is they forget that God is much more guided by the fruit of the Spirit than any Christian believer.

 

[PeterDona]

so we can't use what Paul said to be judgmental toward divorced and remarried believers. Of course reconciliation is the preferred option, but if that is not possible, the innocent party should not be punished. This would be against the just character of God.

You may not know my history, but in short I was married to a divorced woman using 1 Corinthians 7:15, and being threatened by the pastor I dared not stand off, but only later got myself together and left the church and left her. So for me it is a 50/50 I would say. If the remarriagers are right about 7:15, then I am in grave sin by having divorced her, and will forfeit my salvation, and if the remarriagers are not right about 7:15, then I will eternally damn my soul by going back to that adulterous remarriage. It is extremely important for me to get it right, dear brother.

Is it not so, that an error in this area will condemn many many people to hell? Is it not so, that a just God will be very clear what is the line, so that believers will not go the wrong place based on interpretations of this verse?

And when Paul says that he is adressing cases where he has no direct command from God in 7:12-15, would that not indicate that now he is not discussing remarriage (to which there is a command: do not) but only divorce (to which there is not a command but an indication: God hates divorce, in malachi 2)

 

[Bible2+]

Big Drew said in post #33:

Going by this post the Mosaic Law was much easier to keep than the New Covenant...

Note what Jesus said regarding that:

Matthew 19:3 ¶The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

 

[Bible2+]

PeterDona said in post #45

Is it not so, that an error in this area will condemn many many people to hell?

Yes, sadly. For note what Paul puts at the very top of the list of things which will keep people from ultimate salvation:

Galatians 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

PeterDona said in post #45

Is it not so, that a just God will be very clear what is the line, so that believers will not go the wrong place based on interpretations of this verse?

Yes, thankfully.

2 Timothy 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

2 Timothy 4:1 ¶I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

 

[Big Drew]

So, if we're going to take a legalistic approach to this whole thing, I got to thinking...

The argument is made that the covenant of marriage was created in the Garden, well before the Mosaic Covenant began...okay, I'll go along with that...but if that's the case, in the strictest sense, Adam and Eve became "married" when they first had sex. That was what solidified this union of the two becoming one...there was no marriage ceremony in the church, because there was no church, and there was not piece of paper from the courthouse because there was no courthouse...it was one man and one woman joining together, physically.

So, if we use this logic, then every woman I have known (in the biblical sense) besides the first, I would be guilty of committing adultery with...which would mean my first church/state recognized marriage would really have been an invalid marriage anyway, in the eyes of God...I really hope I don't have to return to the first woman I was with when I was 17...last I heard she was on drugs and had four different kids from four different baby daddies...that's a lot of extra baggage I really don't need right now...

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

You may not know my history, but in short I was married to a divorced woman using 1 Corinthians 7:15, and being threatened by the pastor I dared not stand off, but only later got myself together and left the church and left her. So for me it is a 50/50 I would say. If the remarriagers are right about 7:15, then I am in grave sin by having divorced her, and will forfeit my salvation, and if the remarriagers are not right about 7:15, then I will eternally damn my soul by going back to that adulterous remarriage. It is extremely important for me to get it right, dear brother.

Is it not so, that an error in this area will condemn many many people to hell? Is it not so, that a just God will be very clear what is the line, so that believers will not go the wrong place based on interpretations of this verse?

And when Paul says that he is adressing cases where he has no direct command from God in 7:12-15, would that not indicate that now he is not discussing remarriage (to which there is a command: do not) but only divorce (to which there is not a command but an indication: God hates divorce, in malachi 2)

It is a pity that you encountered a pastor who had little understanding of the grace and mercy of God. We all mess up and God has to bail us out of things frequently. God is not willing that any should perish and while we were yet sinners, Jesus loved us and gave Himself for us. The scripture says for us to come boldly to God's throne of grace to find mercy and grace to help in time of need. I am aware of what Paul said in 1 Corinthians, and I have had extensive conversations with God about it. What He has told me is that the Bible is not a lawbook (as some wrongly suppose) and that most human situations cannot be solved by general statements in the Bible.

God may hate divorce but he loves sinners. We still have self righteous Pharisees in our churches legislating for others. But remember the parable of Jesus about the Pharisee and the publican. I think that the prayer, "God forgive me a sinner" activates His mercy and grace far more readily than anything else.

If you are born again of the Spirit of God you cannot lose your salvation because you are covered by the righteousness of Christ. Don't let demonic lying spirits tell you otherwise, and for goodness sake don't let those with religious spirits destroy your faith and confidence in Christ. I don't care how people quote the Bible about divorce. God is greater than the Bible and He is greater than the effects of divorce. Jesus said that all manner of sin and iniquity shall be forgiven of men, and 1 John 1:9 says that if we confess our sin He is faithful and just to forgive us and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

If when we first accepted Christ as Saviour, God cancelled all our previous sins and buried them in the deepest sea of His forgetfulness, wouldn't he do the same for any sin when we come to Him for mercy, based on 1 John 1:9? If you have invoked that scripture, then all your negative history is wiped out and you are as clean as a whistle. Notice that 1 John 1:9 mentions only discussing the issues with God and does not include repentance of any kind. Notice also the the works of the flesh in Galatians 5 does not include divorce or remarriage.

God is a God of second chances. Once you have discussed the issues with Him, the slate is wiped clean and your righteousness before is fully restored. God will forgive us seventy time seven. That is the standard He places upon us in forgiving one another, so why wouldn't He do the same? Actually the term seventy time seven is symbolic of infinity. so we are to forgive each other infinite times, and God forgives us infinite times as well. He says though your sins be as SCARLET (which means the worst sins you can think of), they shall be as white as snow. Even Adolf Hitler who was one of the worst mass murderers in history, would have been saved and totally cleansed if he had come to Christ and reasoned with God about his sins.

Are you any worse than Hitler? No? Then it will be easy peasy for God to forgive you, cleanse you and wipe your slate clean so that you can go forward in Him with all the hope in the world. So, break off any contact with those who would condemn you because they will do you no good.

"Who shall bring any charge to God's elect?" It is God who sent Jesus to save us, and it is Christ who died for us. Who is he who can condemn us? Not God or Jesus. And so if God and Jesus don't lay any charge on us once we have confessed our sins to them, then no one, and I mean no one has any right to charge you with any religious "crimes" or to condemn you in any way.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Note what Jesus said regarding that:

Matthew 19:3 ¶The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

So? Jesus is setting a standard. But no one can live up to the standard. If we could, then Jesus wasted His time coming to die for us. It is precisely that we fail to live up to the standards that we need to totally rely on the finished work of Christ. If a religious person condemns a divorced and remarried person then they do not believe that Jesus was punished enough and that not all of God's wrath and anger was poured out on Jesus, and that God still has some anger left to pour out on people who fail to come up to His standards. Some religious people believe that God has given them the big stick to belt divorced and remarried people over the head. In John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, when Christian became discouraged and in despair, Moses came with a club and started beating him over the head. He wrote this because he knew that in his time this is what legalistic religious people did to people. We have such people today, using the Bible to beat people over the head, but that sort of thing comes from a religious spirit and not from the Holy Spirit. Using the Bible to beat failing people over the head does not feature in the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

So, if we're going to take a legalistic approach to this whole thing, I got to thinking...

The argument is made that the covenant of marriage was created in the Garden, well before the Mosaic Covenant began...okay, I'll go along with that...but if that's the case, in the strictest sense, Adam and Eve became "married" when they first had sex. That was what solidified this union of the two becoming one...there was no marriage ceremony in the church, because there was no church, and there was not piece of paper from the courthouse because there was no courthouse...it was one man and one woman joining together, physically.

So, if we use this logic, then every woman I have known (in the biblical sense) besides the first, I would be guilty of committing adultery with...which would mean my first church/state recognized marriage would really have been an invalid marriage anyway, in the eyes of God...I really hope I don't have to return to the first woman I was with when I was 17...last I heard she was on drugs and had four different kids from four different baby daddies...that's a lot of extra baggage I really don't need right now...

The Bible was written to show how God put His wonderful plan of salvation into effect through the ages. We see it right through the Old Testament, and Jesus showed that to the two disciples at Emmeus. We see through the Gospels how Jesus came into the world, what He taught, the standards He advocated, mainly to show that people need more than just compliance with laws to reach them. Then He died and rose again. Acts shows the history of how the Early Church started. Paul wrote about the indicators that showed the type of life and attitudes of a born again believer. The purpose of the Bible was to point us to Christ, establish our faith in Him, and allow the Holy Spirit to put us on the path of sanctification.

The Bible was never meant to be a law book to beat people over the head with. We will never reach the required standards in our lifetime. We will always mess up, and the devil will always tell us lies to dislodge our faith in Christ. Some of our worst enemies of faith are religious people in our churches who appear to be saintly but are legalistic and condemning of those who don't meet their standards, and they use scripture as a foundation for their criticism and condemnation. The Holy Spirit uses scripture in a very different way. He uses it to point us to love, mercy and grace of Christ that we might have faith in Him, come boldly to His throne of grace to find mercy and grace to help in our time of need.

When religious people criticise and condemn divorced and remarried people, Jesus is at the right hand of God acting as the defence lawyer to offset the charges these religious people make. His response to the condemned one is, "I died on the cross for that person and he (or she) is covered by My righteousness and therefore well out of range of the condemnation. I know these religious people are quoting Your Word but they are not applying it rightly." Jesus is our ultimate judge, and the wonderful thing is that our Judge is also our defence lawyer. We can't get better than that.

I don't care how many scriptures are quoted at me over this issue, Jesus is greater and I can bypass everything and go straight to Him as my ultimate Judge, and if I have already judged myself as a sinner and placed myself at His mercy and grace, then I am well out of range of anyone who can condemn me for anything, regardless of whether they quote scripture accurately or not.

 

[PeterDona]

in the strictest sense, Adam and Eve became "married" when they first had sex.

I do think that Adam and Eve were married from when she was formed. That is the whole point of her being formed out of Adams rib, and her not being formed from dust and the 2 later being brought together. So even in the case of Adam and Eve, the one-flesh was there before any act of sex.

Which is the whole point of marriage, where the one-flesh relation between Adam and Eve is given to the people when they are married. (if it is a legal marriage)

 

[Big Drew]

I do think that Adam and Eve were married from when she was formed. That is the whole point of her being formed out of Adams rib, and her not being formed from dust and the 2 later being brought together. So even in the case of Adam and Eve, the one-flesh was there before any act of sex.

Which is the whole point of marriage, where the one-flesh relation between Adam and Eve is given to the people when they are married. (if it is a legal marriage)

The caveat of "if it is a legal marriage) appears nowhere in scripture. If we're going to take everything legalistically and literally we have to ask first what defines marriage from a biblical standpoint. And there's nothing in the Bible to suggest it was a legal contract given to someone by the state.

 

[PeterDona]

God is a God of second chances.

I stand on a very different understanding of God and the scripture than you do, that much is clear to me. Are you believing the Once Saved Always Saved position? Would that be a safe thing to say?

Concerning the pastor of the church, she had a really big idea of grace and mercy, since she now 12 years later divorced her husband and had him walk her up the aisle to hand her over to another man. Seeing that happen did explain to me some things. But it does not relieve me of the horror of having to face my son, and not being sure how to stand in that situation. I have decided to live celibate, and I feel I have recieved grace to do so, in accord with Matthew 19:10-12.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

The caveat of "if it is a legal marriage) appears nowhere in scripture. If we're going to take everything legalistically and literally we have to ask first what defines marriage from a biblical standpoint. And there's nothing in the Bible to suggest it was a legal contract given to someone by the state.

In New Testament times marriage was a personal covenant between the man and woman and was notarized by the local authority. Marriage in church and by a priest or pastor started with the RCC wanting control over who and where Emperors married so that they did not marry anyone not sympathetic to the Church. Registry office marriages are perhaps the closest to what was the way in the First Century. The Jews were more ceremonial about it as we see in the marriage at Cana, but it took more the form of the reception to celebrate the marriage.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I stand on a very different understanding of God and the scripture than you do, that much is clear to me. Are you believing the Once Saved Always Saved position? Would that be a safe thing to say?

Concerning the pastor of the church, she had a really big idea of grace and mercy, since she now 12 years later divorced her husband and had him walk her up the aisle to hand her over to another man. Seeing that happen did explain to me some things. But it does not relieve me of the horror of having to face my son, and not being sure how to stand in that situation. I have decided to live celibate, and I feel I have recieved grace to do so, in accord with Matthew 19:10-12.

I believe in eternal security for the believer. For a person to lose their salvation, they need to deliberately reject Christ and re-adopt the worldly life style. But I believe that no truly born again person could do that because they have a new heart which would make doing that very difficult, and the Holy Spirit would not give them up without a fight.

Our sinfulness, no matter how bad cannot rob us of our salvation, because no matter how bad things get, we can always go to God on the basis of 1 John 1:9 and be immediately cleansed. Even if we sin wilfully through our own deliberate fault, cleansing is still immediately available the moment we realise what we have done and come back to Christ and confess the sin. God forgives much more freely than many religious people do. I call those people religious because truly born again folks are very forgiving because they know what a great debt that has been forgiven of them by God through Christ.

I respect your decision to remain celibate. But I wonder if you feel pressured to live like that because of a religious (not possibly a Christian) principle that might make you feel that you are sinning if you meet a prospective partner. I did not feel that I could cope with being celibate, and so I got myself into quite a few scrapes over that where God had to bail me out. But after seven years of storm and stress, He allowed me to meet my present wife and we have now been happily married for 27 years. It is significant that He restored much more in material things that I lost through my divorce, and He allowed me to have another daughter which has been 25 years of blessing to both of us. God is a God of second chances, and He will guide you rightly as you remain open to Him.

 

[PeterDona]

The caveat of "if it is a legal marriage) appears nowhere in scripture. If we're going to take everything legalistically and literally we have to ask first what defines marriage from a biblical standpoint. And there's nothing in the Bible to suggest it was a legal contract given to someone by the state.

Ok, I admit that marriage is not a contract. I just tried to avoid to widen the discussion too much.

First marriages are covenants, and a covenant marriage is not "broken" by a subsequent marriage. I get this from Malachi 2:14, note the present tense of "though she is the wife of thy covenant", meaning that the covenant is still in force and in the present tense, even though the person adressed has acted treacherously (by at least divorcing her).

 

[Sketcher]

I don't think we can paint with such a broad brush on this issue...we don't know the circumstances of people's lives...I know, from my case, that we were two kids that got married way too early, and grew up to be completely different people...we wanted different things out of life...we constantly fought...we didn't have sex for the last two years we were married...which lead to even more problems...it was a very unhealthy situation, not only for us, but for our children...because it was setting a poor example of what marriage is. I suggested counseling, tried to talk things out, but in the end, she left...now that we don't live together, we have a good relationship with one another...and we're both happily married to the people we should have probably been with the whole time.

God calls us to forgive each other. I would love to have exceptions for that, but I don't get one, nobody gets one. Just the same, there are not any exceptions to what Jesus said about divorce and remarriage, outside of the exception Jesus made. This is consistent with his high standard of forgiving people.

Even if we want to discard my situation, and say that we could have worked it out...if we go with the only adultery theory...that still leaves the door shut on women who are abused by their husbands. Do you think God wants a woman to be a punching bag just to keep her covenant?

If she's in physical danger, she should get to safety. This doesn't mean she can remarry.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Ok, I admit that marriage is not a contract. I just tried to avoid to widen the discussion too much.

First marriages are covenants, and a covenant marriage is not "broken" by a subsequent marriage. I get this from Malachi 2:14, note the present tense of "though she is the wife of thy covenant", meaning that the covenant is still in force and in the present tense, even though the person adressed has acted treacherously (by at least divorcing her).

I disagree. A covenant is between two people. It can be broken when one breaks the covenant. Domestic violence, desertion, adultery, all break the covenant. The innocent person is not bound by the covenant because the guilty person has broken it. A covenant remains in force only when both parties are committed to it. If one party breaks the commitment, the covenant no longer exists.

If we compare the Old Covenant in scripture. We see that it was a covenant between God and Israel. God promised blessing as long as both parties stuck to the terms of the covenant. When Israel broke the covenant by going after other gods. God saw that as adultery and withdrew His blessing from the nation. It was only when Israel came back to God and resumed the terms of the covenant, did God restore His blessing.

The New Covenant is no longer between God and anyone else. It is between the Father and Jesus. This is why the New Covenant can never be broken. The terms of the New Covenant were that if Jesus went to the cross and became the Substitute for the sin of the world, God would raise Him from the dead and grant eternal life to all those who accepted Jesus as Saviour and Lord. That is the New Covenant.

I gave the examples of those covenants to show how the terms of covenants can be broken. In the Old Covenant, when Israel broke it, God was quite righteous and justified in taking the Promised Land away from the nation and allowed it to go into captivity. Under the Old Covenant God promised Israel victory over her enemies and full occupancy of the Promised Land. When Israel broke the Covenant, God was no longer under any obligation to keep those promises.

Therefore it is the same with the marriage covenant. If one partner breaks it through violence, adultery or desertion, then the other partner is free from the terms of the covenant. If the other partner repents and seeks reconciliation, then the covenant can be renewed. Often this has happened because the aggrieved partner has done the Christlike thing and fully forgiven the guilty partner and the marriage has continued. But there are many situations where the guilty partner has not repented and so the covenant has never been renewed. In those circumstances the innocent partner is free to make a new covenant with another partner.

This is what happened when the Old Covenant was abandoned, and the New Covenant was formed by God and a new partner instead of Israel - Jesus.

Just for information - this is why there is no longer Jew or Gentile in the Christian Church, because all are under the one New Covenant.

 

[PeterDona]

I disagree. A covenant is between two people. It can be broken when one breaks the covenant. Domestic violence, desertion, adultery, all break the covenant. The innocent person is not bound by the covenant because the guilty person has broken it. A covenant remains in force only when both parties are committed to it. If one party breaks the commitment, the covenant no longer exists.

Your view on what is a covenant is much like what I would consider to be a contract. A contract can be broken, but such is not the case of a covenant.
(1) The meaning of adulter is more like "pollute", but it is not "break": Adulter dictionary. I found not a hebrew parallel here, but in latin it also works: click (take the first parapgraph). I was intrigued by this, because actually in my language, danish, the word for adultery is "ægteskabsbrud" meaning marriage breaking. So my mother language is really wrong here (!)
(2) When Israel transgressed the terms of the covenant, they were not out of the covenant, but they came under "the curse of the law" ref Deuteronomy 28:15-68, which God included in the covenant for when they would not walk in the right ways.
(3) We can see how God calls Israel back, in Jeremiah 3, in language that clearly indicates that even though a divorce has happened (Jeremiah 3:8), the marriage is still in power (Jeremiah 3:14). So even after Israel and Juda had committed lots of unrepentant adultery and God had given them a divorce certificate, He states here that he is married to Israel and Juda.

So much for now. Hope you had a good nights sleep (if you are US)