Divorce and Remarriage

[bling]

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...

Marriage does not require even having sexual relationship: Mary and Joseph were married prior to Jesus' birth and they had not had sexual relationships.
God gave away Eve to Adam and I would say they were married at that time.

 

[bling]

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...

Marriage does not require even having sexual relationship: Mary and Joseph were married prior to Jesus' birth and they had not had sexual relationships.
God gave away Eve to Adam and I would say they were married at that time.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

the word bound in 1 cor 7 and romans 7 are two different greek words.

one has to do with release from duty while the other has to do with separation/breaking of union.

the believing person no longer has to seek to fulfill their spousal obligations to the unbelieving person who left. in other words, Paul is saying that you don't need to try to track this person down and make the marriage work(you can try, but you don't have to and are not condemned if you fail). this does not, however, mean that the one flesh union has been severed to the point where they can now marry someone else.

the only thing that can break the one flesh union for a woman is death as our Lord said that anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

 

[Big Drew]

Does the Bible specifically teach us what a proper marriage is? Not how we are to conduct ourselves as husbands and wives...but more along the lines of where or when a marriage starts?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Does the Bible specifically teach us what a proper marriage is? Not how we are to conduct ourselves as husbands and wives...but more along the lines of where or when a marriage starts?

It is interesting how some people use the Bible as a law book to beat people over the head with. I don't think that was the purpose of the authors of the Bible. Also, there is not enough information about marriage in the bible to make it a manual on marriage. I wonder if there is an Early Church marriage manual somewhere in the Vatican vaults? It would be very interesting to know what First-Fourth Century believers thought about what happens in marriage when domestic violence and desertion occurred and whether they thought that the innocent party should be able to remarry. If someone could provide a link to what how any of the Early Church Fathers dealt with it, it might shed some light on what attitude should we settle on for divorced believers in this present time. I cannot be convinced that God would put the same restrictions on an innocent party of a broken marriage caused by domestic violence and desertion, as well as adultery. It would go against the nature and justice of God.

It is also interesting that those who use the Bible as a law book on marriage and speak against remarriage, are single (never married) or married with no expectation of divorce. Divorce for an innocent party is a very distressing and grievous experience, something I would not wish on my worst enemy, and for someone to place restrictions on them is going right against the fruit of the Spirit. To tell a grieving innocent party of a broken marriage that they can't remarry is the most unkind, harsh, and unloving thing to say to them. People who would say that to an innocent person would be on the same same as the ones who wanted to throw stones at the woman caught in adultery. Jesus had a good answer for them.

What we need to consider, and men need to be honest about this, especially those who condemned remarried people, is that, have you ever been at the beach and looked at a scantily clad female and become aroused at the sight, or walked behind a young woman in a short skirt on a windy day and had naughty thoughts? I would say that 95% percent of men would have, and the other five percent are liars. If that is so, all those men who looked at any woman with lust in their hearts have already committed adultery and their wives, if they were married, would have every right to divorce them on the grounds of adultery. This may be an extreme point, but it shows that we sometimes try to take a speck out of someone else's eye when we have a log in our own.

Single and happily married men and women can be quite judgmental at divorced people sometimes, but it is remarkable about how attitudes change when divorce happens to them and they are the innocent ones.

 

[writewords]

I don't think backsliders is the issue here. It is the unbelieving partner. It is not backslidden faith, Paul here, I think is talking about no faith. Picture an unbelieving couple then one of them gets saved. The unbeliever leaves, so the believer is no longer bound. If the unbeliever is willing stay, the believer is still bound.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I don't think backsliders is the issue here. It is the unbelieving partner. It is not backslidden faith, Paul here, I think is talking about no faith. Picture an unbelieving couple then one of them gets saved. The unbeliever leaves, so the believer is no longer bound. If the unbeliever is willing stay, the believer is still bound.

True. There are many good marriages between believers and unbelievers. I don't believe what some say that a marriage between the two is an unequal yoke arrangement. Many spouses accept the Christian faith of their partners and are able to live with them without conflict and undue pressure each way. The believing spouse does not nag the unbelieving one or beats them over the head with the Bible; but prays for them instead and continues to show the love of Christ to them. Such marriages remain meaningful and happy. In my view, the best influence for Christ for an unbeliever is a believing and loving wife.

 

[writewords]

True. There are many good marriages between believers and unbelievers. I don't believe what some say that a marriage between the two is an unequal yoke arrangement. Many spouses accept the Christian faith of their partners and are able to live with them without conflict and undue pressure each way. The believing spouse does not nag the unbelieving one or beats them over the head with the Bible; but prays for them instead and continues to show the love of Christ to them. Such marriages remain meaningful and happy. In my view, the best influence for Christ for an unbeliever is a believing and loving wife.

Right. As I said, if the unbeliever is willing to stay, the believer is still bound. See in first comment.

 

[bling]

Does the Bible specifically teach us what a proper marriage is? Not how we are to conduct ourselves as husbands and wives...but more along the lines of where or when a marriage starts?

No the Bible does not tell us and that is one more evidence to show God was involved in the writing of it.
Every society our Christian missionaries have gone into has someway of determining when a couple are or are not married and these missionaries do not need to go in with some "doctrine" on marriage splitting these families up.

 

[Big Drew]

My parents had a wonderful marriage and my dad was not a believer while my mother was. In the end, before he passed, he did make peace with God, and I'd like to believe that her strong faith had something to do with that...of course, judging by many of the comments here, their marriage was never valid given that they had both been married before. Sure hope I don't have to tell my mom that...but, I guess it's okay now since both of her previous husbands passed away before she married the man she's with now...sigh...

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Right. As I said, if the unbeliever is willing to stay, the believer is still bound. See in first comment.

I didn't say that. I believe that the innocent party is set completely free from any obligation if the unbeliever decides to quit the marriage permanently. But still, it is better to stay married if possible. I wouldn't want my words to be twisted around to mean something that I did not intend.

 

[PeterDona]

I believe that the innocent party is set completely free from any obligation if the unbeliever decides to quit the marriage permanently.

Luke 16:18 and other scriptures like it effectively kills the innocent party theory. Even if the husband has divorced and married another, it is still adultery to marry the forsaken wife. How can it be so other than the first marriage is still alive in Gods eyes?

The call to be a christian is a call to a higher way. Salvation is a pearl of big price to be won. Run in such a way that you win the race.

 

[Bible2+]

Big Drew said in post #48:

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...

Even pre-marital sex, and even just one time with even a prostitute (that is, even with someone you're not in a "loving" or "committed" relationship with), results in one flesh in one sense (1 Corinthians 6:16), where not God, but sin has joined two people together physically. This sinful union of fornication can be broken and forgiven by repentance and confession to God (1 John 1:9; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11).

There is also another sense of one flesh, the marriage sense (Matthew 19:5), where it's God who joins two people together (Matthew 19:6) without any sin being involved (Hebrews 13:4a; 1 Corinthians 7:28). It's because of this God-joined union that divorce and remarriage is adultery under the New Covenant (Matthew 19:3-9).

 

[Bible2+]

Oscarr said in post #49:

If you are born again of the Spirit of God you cannot lose your salvation because you are covered by the righteousness of Christ.

Note that Hebrews 10:26-29 shows that truly saved people, people who have truly been sanctified by Jesus' sacrificial blood (Hebrews 10:29), which sanctification requires faith (Acts 26:18b, cf. Romans 3:25-26), can, after they get saved, wrongly employ their free will to commit sin without repentance (Hebrews 10:26). By doing this, these saved people are unwittingly trampling on Jesus and his sacrificial blood, and doing despite unto the Spirit of grace (Hebrews 10:29), turning the grace of God into lasciviousness (Jude 1:4), so that their ultimate fate will be worse than if they had never been saved at all (2 Peter 2:20-22). Even though Jesus' sacrificial blood is sufficient to forgive all sins (1 John 2:2), it actually forgives only the sins of believers which are past (Romans 3:25-26), as in sins which have been repented from and confessed to God (1 John 1:9,7). Jesus' sacrificial blood does not remit unrepentant sin (Hebrews 10:26-29). So a saved person can in the end lose his salvation if he wrongly employs his free will to commit unrepentant sin (Hebrews 10:26-29; 1 Corinthians 9:27, Luke 12:45-46).

Some Christians feel that Hebrews 10:26-29 is not for Christians. But note that the immediate context of Hebrews 10:26-29 is Hebrews 10:25, which is addressing "we" saved people. Hebrews 10:25-29 is the same idea as Hebrews 3:13: Saved people need to gather together and exhort each other so that no saved person will fall into any unrepentant sin. For any unrepentant sin will ultimately result in the loss of salvation (Hebrews 10:26-29; 1 Corinthians 9:27, Luke 12:45-46, Matthew 7:22-23, Galatians 5:19-21; 2 Peter 2:20-22, Romans 8:13; 1 John 5:16, James 5:19-20).

One way that a saved person could come to desire to commit sin without repentance would be if he finds a particular sin to be very pleasurable, so pleasurable and so fulfilling (in the short term) that he continues in it over time until his heart becomes hardened by the deceitfulness of sin (Hebrews 3:13), to where his love for God grows cold because of the abundance of iniquity (Matthew 24:12), to where he quenches the Spirit (1 Thessalonians 5:19), to where he sears his conscience as with a hot iron (1 Timothy 4:2), to where he becomes so infatuated with his sin that he can no longer endure the sound doctrine of the Bible (such as the doctrine of Hebrews 10:26-29), but instead latches onto a mistaken, man-made teaching which contradicts the Bible (2 Timothy 4:3-4), such as the mistaken teaching which assures believers that there is no way that they can ever lose their salvation, even if they sin without repentance.

*******

Oscarr said in post #51:

Jesus is our ultimate judge, and the wonderful thing is that our Judge is also our defence lawyer.

Note that some saved people, at the judgment of the church by Jesus (2 Corinthians 5:10, Romans 2:6-8, Luke 12:45-48, Matthew 25:19-30), at his second coming (Psalms 50:3-5, cf. Mark 13:27), will lose their salvation because of such things as unrepentant sin (Luke 12:45-46, Hebrews 10:26-29; 1 Corinthians 9:27), unrepentant laziness (Matthew 25:26,30, John 15:2a, Romans 2:6-8), or apostasy (Mark 8:35-38, Hebrews 6:4-8; 2 Timothy 2:12b). That's why saved people know the "terror" of the coming judgment of the church by Jesus (2 Corinthians 5:10-11), why they must remain in fear of being cut off the same as unbelievers if they don't continue in God's goodness (Romans 11:20-22, Luke 12:45-46), why they must be careful to work out their own ultimate salvation with fear and trembling (Philippians 2:12b; 1 Peter 1:17, Romans 2:6-8).

*******

Oscarr said in post #59:

If one party breaks the commitment, the covenant no longer exists.

Similar to what PeterDona pointed out, this brings to mind Jeremiah 3:8, which refers to God divorcing Israel for adultery during Old Covenant times. Under the New Covenant, men aren't allowed by God to divorce their wives for adultery, but only for pre-marital fornication (Matthew 19:9) not discovered until after their wedding. Also, even after God divorced Israel, he said that he was still married to Israel and wanted Israel to return to him (Jeremiah 3:14). It's the same under the New Covenant: a woman divorced from a valid husband is still married to him in God's eyes. That's why if she marries another man, she's committing adultery against her valid husband (Mark 10:12), and her new husband is committing adultery against him (Luke 16:18b). The only choices for a woman divorced from a valid husband are to remain unmarried or to remarry her valid husband (1 Corinthians 7:11), just as divorced Israel will eventually remarry God (Hosea 2:19-20, Isaiah 54:5-10, Isaiah 62:5b).

Oscarr said in post #59:

If one party breaks the commitment, the covenant no longer exists.

This also brings to mind Jeremiah 31:32. This verse saying that God "was" Israel's husband is like a man saying to his daughter: "You left me even though I was your father". This doesn't contradict him still considering himself to be her father. For even if the father had legally disowned the daughter after she left him while still a minor to go live with some other family that ended up legally adopting her, this doesn't contradict him still considering himself to be her biological father. For there's no breaking that connection. In the same way, even after God legally divorced Israel after she abandoned him to worship other things, this doesn't contradict him still considering himself to be her husband (Jeremiah 3:14), for there's no breaking that connection entirely in God's eyes (Mark 10:8-12).

Also, Jeremiah 31:32 saying that God "was" Israel's husband doesn't contradict that God still wants Israel to return to him (Jeremiah 3:14), just as it doesn't contradict that he has made the New Covenant with Israel (Jeremiah 31:31-37, Matthew 26:28; 1 Corinthians 11:25). In the father/daughter analogy, it would be like the father sending letters to his estranged daughter asking her to come back to him, and him writing up a legal document which if she signed would make her legally his daughter again.

 

[Big Drew]

Even pre-marital sex, and even just one time with even a prostitute (that is, even with someone you're not in a "loving" or "committed" relationship with), results in one flesh in one sense (1 Corinthians 6:16), where not God, but sin has joined two people together physically. This sinful union of fornication can be broken and forgiven by repentance and confession to God (1 John 1:9; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11).

There is also another sense of one flesh, the marriage sense (Matthew 19:5), where it's God who joins two people together (Matthew 19:6) without any sin being involved (Hebrews 13:4a; 1 Corinthians 7:28). It's because of this God-joined union that divorce and remarriage is adultery under the New Covenant (Matthew 19:3-9).

How do we decide what constitutes a marriage in the eyes of God? As a youth, I believed I was in a "loving and committed" relationship with the first girl I slept with...we were together for almost two years, dating each other exclusively...so that wouldn't be akin to a prositute, IMO.

I again say we have to decide what makes a marriage a marriage in the eyes of God before we can begin casting stones...of course, Jesus didn't approve of stones being cast at the adulteress...so, to use His words...let those among you without sin cast the first stone...and, if anyone is blameless, I would ask that they tell us how they have achieved this status?

This is the problem with legalism. It negates the work of the Cross. I'm not saying we are free to live however we choose, we should always be striving for perfection...but we also must understand that due to our fallen nature, perfection is not obtainable this side of Paradise.

Posts like the one quoted seem to make it as if divorce and remarriage is the unforgivable sin...one could be a murderer, a thief, a child molester, or a rapist and receive God's forgiveness. But God forbid someone be remarried after a divorce! Please.

I'm not saying divorce isn't a problem...some people are serial divorcers, with failed marriage after failed marriage, for whatever reason...some use it as a way to gain worldly possessions...some see it as a quick fix...

But, there are those that have valid reasons. Adultery, abuse, abandonment, incarceration...there are others...but when it happens, the bond is broken...there is no more covenant...the covenant died at the moment the guilty party committed whatever act they committed. Now, if this leads to divorce, and somewhere along the way one meets another that they believe they should spend the rest of their life with, and the other feels the same way...are you going to tell me that a kind, merciful and gracious God is not going to allow this union because of a technicality? I think not.

 

[writewords]

I didn't say that. I believe that the innocent party is set completely free from any obligation if the unbeliever decides to quit the marriage permanently. But still, it is better to stay married if possible. I wouldn't want my words to be twisted around to mean something that I did not intend.

Apologies on the misread and I wasn't twisting words.

 

[PeterDona]

I wonder if there is an Early Church marriage manual somewhere in the Vatican vaults? It would be very interesting to know what First-Fourth Century believers thought about what happens in marriage when domestic violence and desertion occurred and whether they thought that the innocent party should be able to remarry. If someone could provide a link to what how any of the Early Church Fathers dealt with it, it might shed some light on what attitude should we settle on for divorced believers in this present time.

Here is an analysis of the Early Church Fathers on the issues of divorce and remarriage, done by Stephen Wilcox. I wish you a good read
http://www.marriagedivorce.com/Restoration-of-Christian-Marriage.pdf

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Apologies on the misread and I wasn't twisting words.

Accepted

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Here is an analysis of the Early Church Fathers on the issues of divorce and remarriage, done by Stephen Wilcox. I wish you a good read
http://www.marriagedivorce.com/Restoration-of-Christian-Marriage.pdf

So, what do you reckon? All divorced and remarried preachers, pastors, ministers and elders leave the work of the church and the ministry, put away their present wives and live celibate in order to gain forgiveness from God? Think of the distress and suffering to families and children! But, then, two wrongs don't make a right. Good luck on getting all the divorced and remarried people in your church and letting them know that because they are committing adultery, they remain unforgiven and in danger in losing their salvation unless they break up their present families and live celibate from now on. Or does the Scripture provide another way?

 

[bbbbbbb]

So, what do you reckon? All divorced and remarried preachers, pastors, ministers and elders leave the work of the church and the ministry, put away their present wives and live celibate in order to gain forgiveness from God? Think of the distress and suffering to families and children! But, then, two wrongs don't make a right. Good luck on getting all the divorced and remarried people in your church and letting them know that because they are committing adultery, they remain unforgiven and in danger in losing their salvation unless they break up their present families and live celibate from now on. Or does the Scripture provide another way?

Yes, scripture clearly does provide another way. When one's spouse dies then one is free to remarry.