Divorced - Ok to marry again?

[chevyontheriver]

Do you have an alternative interpretation? Just curious ... I also think Jesus is stating an grounds for divorce (for a husband to send his wife away officially). Do you think Jesus meant something else?

I do have an alternative interpretation.

This exception to the general rule against any divorce is found twice in Matthew but in Matthew alone. Not Mark or Luke or John. Why is it particular to Matthew? It's the Jewish Gospel, and the exception has to be framed in that context. The word so many translators have used for 'inappropriate contentea' is 'adultery'. But that is only one of the many allowable meanings for 'inappropriate contentea'. Not the guaranteed meaning, not the contextual meaning, but the common Protestant assumed meaning. Here's why I think it is the wrong meaning.

First, I think the teaching on divorce in the synoptic gospels is the same. Which is to say no exception for adultery. Or they would have all had an exception for adultery, which they don't. Matthew's 'exception' is best read not as a completion of the teaching in the other Gospels but as a sort of obvious clause that the Jewish readers and listeners would have expected. And I think it actually refers to incest. Of course you can get a divorce if you discover you were married incestuously. In fact you have to. And then you are free to marry again for the first real time, but a bit more carefully. No foul, no enduring marriage, start over.

In other parts of the New Testament 'inappropriate contentea' is a sort of wide word for sexual immorality but I think in Matthew it is to be read very narrowly. Three examples of the wider use of inappropriate contentea are:
“The body is not meant for inappropriate contenteia but for the Lord” (1 Corinthians 6:13).
“Flee from inappropriate contenteia. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body” (1 Corinthians 6:18).
“But among you there must not be even a hint of inappropriate contenteia, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people” (Ephesians 5:3).
The reason I think it must be narrowly interpreted in Matthew is that if it were to be widely interpreted it would also have been in each of the synoptic gospels.

Why do I not think it is adultery? Because the solution to an adulterous spouse is stoning and not divorce. Divorce is too mild. Another reason is that the Greek word for adultery is 'moicheia'. It would have been useful for the Gospel writers to have been specific if they intended divorce. It would have been useful for translators not to have constructed a doctrine about divorce for adultery when the actual word used wasn't the specific word for adultery.

What is my view on when a divorce can be had? And when can one remarry?

First a separation may be proper for reasons of safety or sanity or infidelity. A civil divorce may be necessary for the same reasons. But this does not mean that a remarriage is allowable for a Christian. For that we have to look a bit deeper at exceptions, both Biblical and Traditional. I would think it obvious in the matter of incest. I would also consider it obvious in the case of forced marriages and marriages under false pretenses and massive immaturity on the part of one or both when they are saying their vows. All of these things should mean that the marriage should have never taken place in the first place. Something was wrong from day zero and it should be rectified. There wasn't a 'real' marriage there, but only the trappings of one. These are the people who should be free of marriage and eligible to marry again for the first real time.The rest made a vow, a real and permanent vow, and they should stand in faithfulness to that vow even if they can't live with their spouse.

So if the vow was faulty in the first place, getting out from that vow is proper. But if the vow was real, it is a permanent vow.Whatever 'inappropriate contentea' means in the narrow sense of Matthew would qualify. Incest would qualify as something that can't be a real marriage. So would a secret drug addiction, a massive lie, a massive immaturity, a trial marriage, a bunch of things where the marriage was all wrong to begin with. I just don't think catching a spouse in adultery is a ticket out of a marriage commitment. A continually philandering spouse who philandered before marriage and never stopped would be a different story, but one who strayed once, no.

 

[trophy33]

I do have an alternative interpretation.

This exception to the general rule against any divorce is found twice in Matthew but in Matthew alone. Not Mark or Luke or John. Why is it particular to Matthew? It's the Jewish Gospel, and the exception has to be framed in that context. The word so many translators have used for 'inappropriate contentea' is 'adultery'. But that is only one of the many allowable meanings for 'inappropriate contentea'. Not the guaranteed meaning, not the contextual meaning, but the common Protestant assumed meaning. Here's why I think it is the wrong meaning.

First, I think the teaching on divorce in the synoptic gospels is the same. Which is to say no exception for adultery. Or they would have all had an exception for adultery, which they don't. Matthew's 'exception' is best read not as a completion of the teaching in the other Gospels but as a sort of obvious clause that the Jewish readers and listeners would have expected. And I think it actually refers to incest. Of course you can get a divorce if you discover you were married incestuously. In fact you have to. And then you are free to marry again for the first real time, but a bit more carefully. No foul, no enduring marriage, start over.

In other parts of the New Testament 'inappropriate contentea' is a sort of wide word for sexual immorality but I think in Matthew it is to be read very narrowly. Three examples of the wider use of inappropriate contentea are:
“The body is not meant for inappropriate contenteia but for the Lord” (1 Corinthians 6:13).
“Flee from inappropriate contenteia. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body” (1 Corinthians 6:18).
“But among you there must not be even a hint of inappropriate contenteia, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people” (Ephesians 5:3).
The reason I think it must be narrowly interpreted in Matthew is that if it were to be widely interpreted it would also have been in each of the synoptic gospels.

Why do I not think it is adultery? Because the solution to an adulterous spouse is stoning and not divorce. Divorce is too mild. Another reason is that the Greek word for adultery is 'moicheia'. It would have been useful for the Gospel writers to have been specific if they intended divorce. It would have been useful for translators not to have constructed a doctrine about divorce for adultery when the actual word used wasn't the specific word for adultery.

What is my view on when a divorce can be had? And when can one remarry?

First a separation may be proper for reasons of safety or sanity or infidelity. A civil divorce may be necessary for the same reasons. But this does not mean that a remarriage is allowable for a Christian. For that we have to look a bit deeper at exceptions, both Biblical and Traditional. I would think it obvious in the matter of incest. I would also consider it obvious in the case of forced marriages and marriages under false pretenses and massive immaturity on the part of one or both when they are saying their vows. All of these things should mean that the marriage should have never taken place in the first place. Something was wrong from day zero and it should be rectified. There wasn't a 'real' marriage there, but only the trappings of one. These are the people who should be free of marriage and eligible to marry again for the first real time.The rest made a vow, a real and permanent vow, and they should stand in faithfulness to that vow even if they can't live with their spouse.

So if the vow was faulty in the first place, getting out from that vow is proper. But if the vow was real, it is a permanent vow.Whatever 'inappropriate contentea' means in the narrow sense of Matthew would qualify. Incest would qualify as something that can't be a real marriage. So would a secret drug addiction, a massive lie, a massive immaturity, a trial marriage, a bunch of things where the marriage was all wrong to begin with. I just don't think catching a spouse in adultery is a ticket out of a marriage commitment. A continually philandering spouse who philandered before marriage and never stopped would be a different story, but one who strayed once, no.

I do not know of any example or instructions in the Old Testament regarding divorce for incestuous reasons. However, there were instructions for divorce when the married woman was discovered to not be a virgin. Even Joseph wanted to undertake this process after learning Mary is pregnant.

Therefore, it seems this context should be more natural to Jews in Matthew.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I do not know of any example or instructions in the Old Testament regarding divorce for incestuous reasons.

OK. But then suppose you just discovered that you had married your actual father's daughter by a previous marriage. Are you stuck married to her?

However, there were instructions for divorce when the married woman was discovered to not be a virgin. Even Joseph wanted to undertake this process after learning Mary is pregnant.

True, and maybe I'm wrong and this is the actual context.

Therefore, it seems this context should be more natural to Jews in Matthew.

Maybe. Mostly I don't think 'adultery' is the right word. I said incest because of the strong Biblical contraindications for any incest. Much of the NT use of 'inappropriate contentea' does not make sense if the word 'adultery' is substituted in. I think the translators took liberty and this shaped some bad theology. I'm not saying adultery is trivial, because it's not, but there can be healing after adultery. It does not end all marriages.

My thinking is that both parties have to know what they are getting into. No surprises. Both parties have to willingly and knowingly accept all of the other in a life-long and exclusive bond open to all of each other and open to children. If they only sort of half way agree to this it isn't a marriage except on paper. It's whether their vows were defective or valid. Not whether some years later a pretty boy turns a head and gets one of them in trouble.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Much of the NT use of 'inappropriate contentea' does not make sense if the word 'adultery' is substituted in.

The forum's newspeak has made my sentence not make any sense by taking a Greek word and substituting English letters into that word. Goofy.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Long story short, my ex wife was an utter and complete psychopath. Physically and mentally abusive, she cheated on me and she demanded a divorce. Like a fool, I was willing for us to get counseling and move past her infidelity. She wasn't interested. Once we divorced and I wasn't around, she continued her abusiveness not only towards me via the phone but our child. It got so bad I went up going to court, my ex wife was arrested and she was actually removed from the childs birth certificate. She was utterly and completely stripped of her maternal rights. Just to give you an idea of what kind of person she was.

It's been over a decade since all this happened, and I met a wonderful Christian woman and we fell in love and got engaged, would there be any issue from me getting married again?

None whatsoever.

 

[-=H=-]

Long story short, my ex wife was an utter and complete psychopath. Physically and mentally abusive, she cheated on me and she demanded a divorce. Like a fool, I was willing for us to get counseling and move past her infidelity. She wasn't interested. Once we divorced and I wasn't around, she continued her abusiveness not only towards me via the phone but our child. It got so bad I went up going to court, my ex wife was arrested and she was actually removed from the childs birth certificate. She was utterly and completely stripped of her maternal rights. Just to give you an idea of what kind of person she was.

It's been over a decade since all this happened, and I met a wonderful Christian woman and we fell in love and got engaged, would there be any issue from me getting married again?

Ask God, but no.

 

[biblelesson]

Exodus 20:14 KJV
Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Leviticus 20:10 KJV
And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Matthew 5:32 KJV
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

God hates adultery:

Jeremiah 3:8 KJV
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.

Israel handled accusations of adultery through the priests using a book of curses: Numbers 5:11-31 KJV

It is obvious adultery is a big deal with God and divorce is warranted.

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

Exodus 20:14 KJV
Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Leviticus 20:10 KJV
And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Matthew 5:32 KJV
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

God hates adultery:

Jeremiah 3:8 KJV
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.

Israel handled accusations of adultery through the priests using a book of curses: Numbers 5:11-31 KJV

It is obvious adultery is a big deal with God and divorce is warranted.

Agreed, observe how adultery is a subset of sexual immorality (Matthew 5:31) - so if sexual immorality is a valid grounds for divorce, than adultery also is. Also, it is important to notice how the verse you quoted from Leviticus 20:10 shows the definition of Biblical adultery hinges on the marital status of the woman, but not on the marital status of the man (although that is the case now in Western society and Christianity).

Still, although allowed - divorce is not compulsory in cases like this.

 

[ThisIsMe123]

Wanted to hop on this, as I just met a late 50s woman that stated that when she divorced, her husband remarried. Thus she remained single for 15 years...does HIM remarrying (which is cheating on her/adultery/sexual immorality), would trigger the ability for her to date/remarry?

I was thinking her not believing in remarrying, while he DID remarry, well, she could have dated this whole time...yes..in those 15 years? She said she prayed and fasted for 15 years (not sure why the fasting is necessary).

Later on he died, and this is when she was "released" from her inability to re-marry, or so she thinks?

 

[chevyontheriver]

Wanted to hop on this, as I just met a late 50s woman that stated that when she divorced, her husband remarried. Thus she remained single for 15 years...does HIM remarrying (which is cheating on her/adultery/sexual immorality), would trigger the ability for her to date/remarry?

I was thinking her not believing in remarrying, while he DID remarry, well, she could have dated this whole time...yes..in those 15 years? She said she prayed and fasted for 15 years (not sure why the fasting is necessary).

Later on he died, and this is when she was "released" from her inability to re-marry, or so she thinks?

I think you have to respect her for that.

Not everybody is so sure that a spouse’s adultery is the ticket out of a marriage. Because the word isn’t actually ‘adultery’ in Matthew but a less well defined word that could quite well mean something else. You would have to go back to the community that learned Matthew’s gospel first how they understood his word there. And I’m not sure they would say it was adultery. OR you could look at the other gospels and notice there wasn’t even an exception listed that allowed remarriage, let alone an adultery exception.

 

[ThisIsMe123]

I think you have to respect her for that.

Not everybody is so sure that a spouse’s adultery is the ticket out of a marriage. Because the word isn’t actually ‘adultery’ in Matthew but a less well defined word that could quite well mean something else. You would have to go back to the community that learned Matthew’s gospel first how they understood his word there. And I’m not sure they would say it was adultery. OR you could look at the other gospels and notice there wasn’t even an exception listed that allowed remarriage, let alone an adultery exception.

Hm, I have found this topic to be brought up on a repeated basis over and over, as so many are confused by it. I guess they hoping to find some kind of...out, so that they can feel free to date romantically again.

As a 40+, never married guy, I was told it was wrong to marry a divorced woman, and I'm like "Huh? Really? Every Christian neighbor, friend, and relative I've EVER known does this.

I mean, if I ruled out 40-something divorcee's, I'd never find anyone. lol

 

[chevyontheriver]

Hm, I have found this topic to be brought up on a repeated basis over and over, as so many are confused by it.

Because Scripture doesn't say exactly up and that you can get a divorce for adultery. That's an interpretation. Not sure it's a proper one.

I guess they hoping to find some kind of...out, so that they can feel free to date romantically again.

Of course. And the apostles, hearing that there was no 'out' for divorce, said it was better not to even marry.

As a 40+, never married guy, I was told it was wrong to marry a divorced woman, and I'm like "Huh? Really? Every Christian neighbor, friend, and relative I've EVER known does this.

Does that make it right? Just because they all do it?

I mean, if I ruled out 40-something divorcee's, I'd never find anyone. lol

There are so many Christian men despairing because they can't find a Christian woman. So many Christian women despairing because they can't find a Christian man. I don't know why it is so hard.

Here's my take on the exception that allows for divorce. Since it is only in Matthew it is something that is probably significant to his audience but not generally significant. I often think it is likely to be incest, which of course you shouldn't be bound to stay married if that is discovered. I think there are some other uncommon issues like that where there was a problem going in. Something like a shotgun marriage, or a kidnapping, or an otherwise coerced marriage. Of course you shouldn't be bound to stay married in those cases. Or bigamy, particularly when you find out your new husband already has two other wives. Then there are the defects of consent where one of the putative spouses doesn't really commit to a lifelong exclusive sharing of life. I'm not talking about anything goes, but it seems that there could be several conditions where a marriage wasn't really valid from day one and shouldn't be continued. No divorce for valid marriages, but not all are valid.

 

[ldonjohn]

Long story short, my ex wife was an utter and complete psychopath. Physically and mentally abusive, she cheated on me and she demanded a divorce. Like a fool, I was willing for us to get counseling and move past her infidelity. She wasn't interested. Once we divorced and I wasn't around, she continued her abusiveness not only towards me via the phone but our child. It got so bad I went up going to court, my ex wife was arrested and she was actually removed from the childs birth certificate. She was utterly and completely stripped of her maternal rights. Just to give you an idea of what kind of person she was.

It's been over a decade since all this happened, and I met a wonderful Christian woman and we fell in love and got engaged, would there be any issue from me getting married again?

Our pastor recently preached several messages on the subject of divorce. You might find them to be interesting. Can watch them at the following website. Family Fellowship | Home
Look for "Divorce in the Old Testament."

 

[chevyontheriver]

Our pastor recently preached several messages on the subject of divorce. You might find them to be interesting. Can watch them at the following website. Family Fellowship | Home
Look for "Divorce in the Old Testament."

Lots of pastors are cool with divorce. What is your pastor's opinion? Without having to listen to 'several messages' that is.

 

[Christopher Range]

Take a look at this link: Divorce in the Bible(NIV)

Long story short, my ex wife was an utter and complete psychopath. Physically and mentally abusive, she cheated on me and she demanded a divorce. Like a fool, I was willing for us to get counseling and move past her infidelity. She wasn't interested. Once we divorced and I wasn't around, she continued her abusiveness not only towards me via the phone but our child. It got so bad I went up going to court, my ex wife was arrested and she was actually removed from the childs birth certificate. She was utterly and completely stripped of her maternal rights. Just to give you an idea of what kind of person she was.

It's been over a decade since all this happened, and I met a wonderful Christian woman and we fell in love and got engaged, would there be any issue from me getting married again?

Where your (ex)wife was physically, and mentally abusive. My (ex)wife was that, and more. I won't deny the fact, that I was no prince, but. When it came to 'in sickness and in health', she treated that like a joke. I have had incurable health problems' my whole life(1967). I told her about my health. We were engaged three years before we got married. I had one seizure in front of her, during that time. I was able to control it. But three years into the marriage, I had a seizure that was worse than the first one. Her reaction was to jump off the bed and run out of the bedroom. I could have cracked my skull open on the wood headboard, and bled to death.

 

[ThisIsMe123]

I had one seizure in front of her, during that time. I was able to control it. But three years into the marriage, I had a seizure that was worse than the first one. Her reaction was to jump off the bed and run out of the bedroom. I could have cracked my skull open on the wood headboard, and bled to death.

Yeah , obviously there's just plain common sense man to get the flock out of that marriage, no question.

 

[Christopher Range]

Yeah , obviously there's just plain common sense man to get the flock out of that marriage, no question.

I actually forgave her. But she left 2yrs. later. While I was the one in tears, when she left. She never filed for divorce. When my divorce was finalized, she was the one in tears. Sure I had joined her church prior to the marriage, so we weren't 'unequally yoked', but. There was an awful lot she n' her parents' were in denial about her health, physically and emotionally.

 

[ThisIsMe123]

I actually forgave her. But she left 2yrs. later. While I was the one in tears, when she left. She never filed for divorce. When my divorce was finalized, she was the one in tears. Sure I had joined her church prior to the marriage, so we weren't 'unequally yoked', but. There was an awful lot she n' her parents' were in denial about her health, physically and emotionally.

It's situations like this that make "unequally yoked" over-rated

 

[Christopher Range]

It's situations like this that make "unequally yoked" over-rated

But, In a sense, it helps guard against potential differences. Until it runs' into the truth being withheld.

 

[ThisIsMe123]

But, In a sense, it helps guard against potential differences. Until it runs' into the truth being withheld.

Not sure what you mean, but...okay.