Forgiveness following divorce and remarriage

[throughfiierytrial]

Actually that passage provides a good reason why young divorcees should remarry.

You miss my point...there is a reason to be married in some cases or stay married...to keep one's life free from sin. Paul lists in the sins an unmarried woman may easily fall prey to should she be unmarried (as a young widow).

If the unbeliever wants to leave the marriage we are to allow him/her to leave in peace. Also, if an unbelieving husband allows the believing woman to practice her religion she should stay in the marriage and not give way to fear...to hopefully save her husband with her Christian actions. Paul goes on to write, but if she leaves she must not remarry and if she wants to marry let hert be reconciled to her husband.
Husbands are never to divorce by their own initiative, says Paul. They are the authority in the family unit and have control of how to conduct the family faith and again the objecting, unbelieving wife should be allowed to leave should she want to leave.

 

[RDKirk]

You miss my point...there is a reason to be married in some cases or stay married...to keep one's life free from sin. Paul lists in the sins an unmarried woman may easily fall prey to should she be unmarried (as a young widow).

How do those reasons change for a young Christian woman married to a pagan who is abandoned by that pagan? Is that woman not going to be affected by the same stresses of the widow?

If the unbeliever wants to leave the marriage we are to allow him/her to leave in peace. Also, if an unbelieving husband allows the believing woman to practice her religion she should stay in the marriage and not give way to fear...to hopefully save her husband with her Christian actions. Paul goes on to write, but if she leaves she must not remarry and if she wants to marry let hert be reconciled to her husband.

No, Paul did not "go on to write" that the Christian abandoned by an unbelieving spouse must not remarry. That was instruction for a Christian married to a Christian.

Husbands are never to divorce by their own initiative, says Paul. They are the authority in the family unit and have control of how to conduct the family faith and again the objecting, unbelieving wife should be allowed to leave should she want to leave.

No Christian is to divorce by his own initiative, but the question is whether a Christian who has been abandoned by an unbelieving spouse--who then goes on to other marriages--cannot remarry. A lot depends on what Paul meant by "...is no longer under bondage."

Some people construe "no longer under bondage" to mean that the abandoned spouse no longer has to live with that unbelieving spouse, but that's senseless...if the unbelieving spouse has left the marriage, the believing spouse has no choice anyway. If that's all it meant, that's no different from Paul's instructions to Christians married to Christians...but Paul did not say to Christians married to Christians "...you are not bound" meaning that they could merely separate. Clearly, "not under bondage" does not mean "live in separation but not divorce."

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Yes, Peter said that. Jesus also said to repent. But Jesus said that you will be forgiven your sins to the extent that you forgive others. To the extent you do not, neither will you be forgiven.

For the most part, we baptize babies, who have not sinned. The baptism is behind. Then come the sins of life. We must indeed repent our sins. But repentance isn't what gives forgiveness, forgiveness gives forgiveness, according to Jesus.

Forgiveness of others is a prerequisite of repentance. If you are still holding someone else's sins against them, you can't be seriously contrite, at least before God.

 

[Meowzltov]

Catholics are too fixated on plurality. For instance, Syro-Malabar Catholics commemorate Nestorius as a saint, and have a liturgy ascribed to him. The Vatican says this is okay because the only thing that really matters is acknowledging the Pope is boss, and they do that so they're Catholic.

If what you say is true, that would be most odd. Perhaps they value certain things about Nestorius, but don't ascribe to Nestorianism. I'll let the Pope figure that all out.

 

[Meowzltov]

"We don't need the common faith, just agree the Pope is boss." And we look at the Catholics and say, "We don't need one see as boss, just agree to the common faith."

I think there is something to be said for both points of view. Again, a very good reason for reunification.

 

[Meowzltov]

Yes, Peter said that. Jesus also said to repent. But Jesus said that you will be forgiven your sins to the extent that you forgive others. To the extent you do not, neither will you be forgiven.

We certainly agree on this!

For the most part, we baptize babies, who have not sinned. The baptism is behind. Then come the sins of life. We must indeed repent our sins. But repentance isn't what gives forgiveness, forgiveness gives forgiveness, according to Jesus.

I disagree with you. In the case of infant baptism, parents take the baptismal vows for the child until such time as they are of age to repent for themselves. I don't see how you can ignore the verses in the Bible that connect repentance to forgiveness. In the sacrament of Reconciliation, in Catholicism, there is no "forgiving of others" involved, but there is certainly an Act of Contrition where we repent.

 

[98cwitr]

My heart is fairly convicted that I, personally, in the event of a divorce would be very sure I do not marry again. To me, the vows I made to my wife are also vows I made to God, and I feel that remarriage would further break those vows and bring judgement upon me even more than I am already due. Just my thoughts on the topic.

 

[Kristen Johnson]

I think we have to look at the social norms of the ancient world, as compared to our world today. I can't imagine that God would want people to stay in potentially harmful, abusive, relationships when they can separate and find happiness in another relationship. Each situation is different.

 

[Meowzltov]

My heart is fairly convicted that I, personally, in the event of a divorce would be very sure I do not marry again. To me, the vows I made to my wife are also vows I made to God, and I feel that remarriage would further break those vows and bring judgement upon me even more than I am already due. Just my thoughts on the topic.

I really respect you.

 

[Meowzltov]

In my case, I married a man with a severe mental problem, although I was in denial at the time of the marriage, because I was so very much in love, and didn't listen to the advice of others. It rendered him completely unable to fulfill his obligations as a husband, resulting in terrible abuse. I wanted to work things out, but he could not see that he had a problem (it was "everyone else that had a problem.") I received an annulment from my church, but ended up never remarrying, and no longer wish to remarry. I thought for a while of becoming a nun, but that's out. I'm very happy in simply being a lifelong celibate dedicated to Christian service.

 

[Tull]

A bad marriage is the other unforgivable sin

 

[98cwitr]

I really respect you.

Thanks for saying that. Trying to imagine celibacy is really hard. I grew up with intimacy issues, and imagining life without intimacy is tough. I respect the fact that you chose to be celibate. I do hope there is no void to be filled there, and there is no emptiness in your life.

 

[Meowzltov]

Thanks for saying that. Trying to imagine celibacy is really hard. I grew up with intimacy issues, and imagining life without intimacy is tough. I respect the fact that you chose to be celibate. I do hope there is no void to be filled there, and there is no emptiness in your life.

The way I see it, marriage has problems, and celibacy has problems. I've basically traded one set of problems for another.

I'm an introvert, so I really only need my few close friends. I have a wonderful family -- my mom, siblings, and my two kids who keep in close touch with me, and I have the world's most wonderful grandaughter. My days are full of meaningful service -- I am a drug and alcohol counselor at a Christian rehab facility, and I also volunteer at my parish office. I enjoy posting as an amateur apologist on different boards as a hobby. I pour my passion into creative activities such as my piano compositions and writing poetry. Life is wonderful.

 

[PeterDona]

As I'm sure you know, there's a certain bias in modern interpretation based on experience with the traditional strict interpretations. Our ideal for what marriage should be has been getting higher over time. In the past Christians would have insisted that people accept abusive or loveless relationships. Today many of us would suggest that staying in certain kinds of marriages is wrong, particularly where there are children, as it risks exposing the next generation to a dysfunctional example, and teaching them that it's acceptable. Hence I have to admit that our exegesis may not be entirely unbiased here.

I stumbled on this verse today: Romans 1,25-26: "and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator. For this cause God gave them up". (abbreviated). I feel that this is so true of todays low view of marriage, where the creature and its emotions is in focus, more than God and how marriage is a reflection of God. I do feel that todays view on marriage is so blurred by the thinking "I want to be happy, and does not also God want me to be happy?". I would be able to accept the statement, that the God that people serve is a God of a folk religion rather than the God of the Bible. The problem is, that so many people are tipping in that direction, I feel almost helpless to stop the tip.

The majority of commentators I've read think the the original teaching was absolute, and that both Matthew and Paul have added exceptions. That's probably the safest view. On the other hand, the fact that both Matthew and Paul would both be willing to do this suggests that early Christians thought it was legitimate to adapt Jesus' teachings that way. Indeed Matthew sometimes states Jesus' teachings in a way that makes strict application virtually impossible (Mat 5). In my opinion the whole context of the family and relations between the genders was so different in the 1st Cent that rules that might have had the effect of protecting women and children then, could if applied strictly have the opposite effect now. Hence I might favor regarding Instone-Brewer as overly clever exegesis, and say simply that the mainline Church has, in accordance with Christ's grant of the power of the keys, determined that strict application of Mark 10:9 (likely the original form) today would not be in accordance with our responsibility as Christ's followers.

I do think that the "exceptions" are really misreadings of what was intended. And if really remarriage is adultery, and therefore is a criminal offense, then I can not reconcile that we as christians should accept that in order to be followers. As much as I can sympathise the principle of compassion, there is a grave danger that we are really comforting sinners in their sin. And that is what we do, even if the whole mainline christian church has come to accept that view. Remember, that Jesus calls our church, the church of Laodicea. The church that are naked even though they think themselves to be dressed and rich and lacking nothing. Therefore, be really careful, when you quote the church as your authority.

 

[hedrick]

I feel that this is so true of todays low view of marriage, where the creature and its emotions is in focus, more than God and how marriage is a reflection of God.

Quite the contrary. Today’s view of marriage is higher than in the 1st Cent. We expect more of a marriage today, and do not believe people should have to put up with marriages where in the past they would have been forced to.

It’s interesting to look at studies on the effects of divorce. They show, not surprisingly, that divorce is stressful. Children do better with an intact marriage. But this is comparing apples with oranges. If the marriage was intact, most couples wouldn’t divorce. Children do even worse in high-conflict marriages than in divorce. But in the past, and today under legalistic rules, they'd be forced to stay in such a situation.

Why has the ideal for marriage gotten higher? I think it’s because there are more alternatives. In ancient times, you just about had to get married. Particularly for women. The alternatives were bad enough that women were better off marrying a rapist than trying to go it alone. (Deut 22:28) With more alternatives today, we can afford to have a higher view of marriage.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

Divorce is a sin period. If you remarry (no matter if your the divorcer or divorcee), your in sin and God does not see it as a marriage/legit. Your essentially cheating on your spouse with someone else. AKA God still sees you married to someone else first.

Usually people will point out the story where people kept coming up to someone and asking if their reason was good enough to divorce someone. And finally adultery was agreed to as a reason. People fail to see this is not something God says is ok. The point of it was it was a parable. Showing that when man wants something bad enough, they will try everything to justify it. Hence why so many will justify their sin no matter what you do to show them its a sin.

Now usually the only people who I see disagree are those who are divorced. Which is what many christians do when confronted with something they don't want to accept. They search the bible for any verse they can twist or cherry pick to back up their view to feel better about it. Because the bible states many times God hates divorce.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Matthew 19:3-9
The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?" And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female, and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no man separate."

They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?"

He said to them, "Moses, because of the bitterness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery."​

I am pretty sure this verse had been quoted dozens of times in this thread, but I think it is important to realize that the ONLY cause for divorce and remarriage is if a spouse cheats on you.
1. God forgives us for any sins when we repent.
2. That forgiveness does not give us the right to remarry if we did not get divorced due to sexual immorality.

If you read the Scriptures, it says that it is adultery if someone divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality and sinful if you marry someone who was divorced for any other reason. But to be sure, the person who did the cheating is not allowed to remarry.

The law of the land says "anything goes for any reason" but for those in God, our standards are a lot higher.

People, be careful who you marry. It is supposed to be a lifetime bond, if you cannot commit to that person for any reason then do not marry them. God's expectation is for the man and woman to be together until death takes them apart. Be very careful who you marry even if you have to remain single for a LONG time until you feel God is calling you to the right person.

 

[highhopes]

As a man with multiple divorces, this is very serious to me.

I'm not going to attempt to justify myself or my actions to anyone. I have more regrets on more levels than most people can fathom. I'm not proud of it. I truly wish I could go back and do it right. But I cannot.

However, I am totally forgiven for all my sins. So - as far as God is concerned - my 'tally' is clear. I have problems with not letting go of the mistakes I made, but that isn't God's doing and He's working on me to 'fix' all that.

For the record, I don't plan on getting into such a predicament again. Hence, I am celibate. I suppose if God sends me a woman, I'll notice, but I'm not looking and probably will take a lot of convincing if such opportunity presents.

I am in the same spot as you. I have had failed marriages too but it hasn't been until recently that I have repented for my part in the demise of the relationships. As for me, I was abused by 2 of them and do not believe that it is in God's will for anyone to stay in an abusive marriage. I am forgive, but forgiving myself is harder. We all make mistakes, we chose people we knew were bad for us and ignored the "red flags" and think we can change the other person. God knows the heart and He knows if there is true repentance, so I believe you are forgiven if you moved on in your sin but finally come to understand that it was wrong to do so.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

I am in the same spot as you. I have had failed marriages too ...

You have my support and prayers. It is a wretched feeling.

God knows the heart and He knows if there is true repentance, so I believe you are forgiven if you moved on in your sin but finally come to understand that it was wrong to do so.

Yes, it is clear Jesus forgives us of our sins - all of them - when we accept Him as Lord; then repent as needed to maintain the 'communication' (and I'm over simplifying).

I know Jesus has cleaned away all my sin. However, the aches remain. Sort of like losing a finger or two being sloppy with a power tool. One lives and gets over the pain eventually, but the fingers are still gone.

I'm doing well in the main - it's been six years since my last divorce and I am happy to report I have had no - ahem - 'contact' since then. Nor do I plan to do so. At times I think I'm afraid of even approaching the idea of keeping company with a woman at even an innocent level. (I can talk with women, it's not I'm pathologically afraid of proximity, but I have no plans to be 'friends'.) Which gives me reason to consider I may be emotionally scarred and need help to be a bit more 'normal'. On the other hand, I'm out of the 'baby business' and I'm rather content with my life usually. So I may just be a Berean Monk for the rest of my days.

As the Jewish philosopher said "Vorse you could do".

 

[Mountainmanbob]

After both being divorced and doing some sinning together
my wife and I repented before getting married 10 years ago.
We know of our wretched past and have asked for forgiveness and mercy.
Seems that God honors those type of prayers.
M-Bob