husband has been divorced and remarried me and now wants to contact ex wife

[ValleyGal]

Josephus? I am unaware of any Mennonites who use this book as part of the Word of God. For my denomination, it is not in the Bible for a reason - it is contradictory and did not pass the strict cannonization process.

Anyway, Herodias' marriage was unlawful. It does not give the reason as to why it was unlawful. Let's not read anything into it that isn't there.

 

[SouthernMama]

Josephus? I am unaware of any Mennonites who use this book as part of the Word of God. For my denomination, it is not in the Bible for a reason - it is contradictory and did not pass the strict cannonization process.

Anyway, Herodias' marriage was unlawful. It does not give the reason as to why it was unlawful. Let's not read anything into it that isn't there.

I was not implying that this book is part of the Bible. But it is often helpful to compare our interpretation of scripture with other writings written about the same time the Bible was written. They are not Scripture, but they do shed light into the history or customs of the time. Which would you trust more, your interpretation of scripture 2000 years later or the interpretation of a Chrstian writer 100 to 200 years after Christ gave the teaching to his disciples? (I'm not saying Josephus was a Christian; he was a historian.)

I was raised Mennonite and I find it amazing how our viewpoints are so totally different and how you seem to think no other Mennonite believes like me.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Then how do you correct the sin of living in adultery? (the second marriage)

In this case, his divorce happened before he joined the church... So if his first divorce was a sin according to the church he's joining, and he didn't know it would be regarded as a sin, he can seek forgiveness and repent for the sin knowing that, at the time, he didn't know what he was doing was wrong or against the church. Because he entered into another legal and spiritual marriage contract with somebody else, again, without knowledge that his church would apparently take issue to that, he can pull from Romans 2 again and state that he acted in apparent ignorance as to what his church would require or what stance they'd take in his remarriage and only pledge to do with this one what he should have done according to the church with his second.

Alternatively, one would find a church that wouldn't require him to renounce his wife and children in order to belong.

 

[RDKirk]

It isn't. It is sin to marry someone else if you are not yet divorced. First Cor. 7 talks about this, and the whole subject requires a good look at divorce in context of history (even God divorced Israel, so divorce in itself is not a sin, but the behaviours leading to divorce are sin), as well as in language/translation. Often, not always, throughout the NT, the Greek word apoluo has been translated as "divorce" but it actually is better translated as "separation without the benefit of divorce." Where the NT talks about remarriage, it is using the word apoluo to refer to divorce.

For example, when Jesus tells the Pharisees that if anyone does divorce, he must not marry, he is not really saying that - he is saying that if anyone is separated (but still legally married), he must not remarry unless he returns to his spouse - because they are still his spouse.

In 1 Cor. 7 should be studied deeply in context, but this is v. 28
But if you marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned.

Paul is talking about those who have been "loosed from a wife" - divorced.

Yes, this is the proper understanding. In scripture, the concept of "divorce" specifically means "legally able to remarry."

Jesus criticized the Pharisees for "putting away" their wives--simply locking them out of the house without a proper certificate of divorce that would allow them to remarry. In order not to starve in that society, the woman would necessarily have to take up with another man--thus being "caused" to commit adultery by the the husband's immoral act.

In 1 Corinthians, Paul uses the language "bound" and "not bound." The woman whose husband has died is "not bound" and in the same way, the woman who has been abandoned by the unbelieving spouse is also "not bound."

Here is a question, though: If a self-described Christian abandons his or her spouse, is that person really a Christian?

And if the congregation tells the woman she has to wait unmarried in case her wayward husband returns...are they going to "lift a finger" to help her bear that burden (i.e., pay her mortgage)? Or are they going to be like the Pharisees that Jesus condemned for doing the same thing?

OTOH, Paul points out ample reasons why a young widow ought to marry and not have her bills paid by the congregation--how do these same reasons not apply to a young divorcee?

What would Paul say? Based on his writings, I think he'd tell the abandoned woman to remarry.

 

[ValleyGal]

I was not implying that this book is part of the Bible. But it is often helpful to compare our interpretation of scripture with other writings written about the same time the Bible was written. They are not Scripture, but they do shed light into the history or customs of the time. Which would you trust more, your interpretation of scripture 2000 years later or the interpretation of a Chrstian writer 100 to 200 years after Christ gave the teaching to his disciples? (I'm not saying Josephus was a Christian; he was a historian.)

I was raised Mennonite and I find it amazing how our viewpoints are so totally different and how you seem to think no other Mennonite believes like me.

I would rather believe the Bible, and having done a huge, in-depth study about 20 years ago I had to change the way I believed as a child. I was raised non-Mennonite, and when I did this study I was amazed to find that I had been fed so much incorrect information that I had to re-visit my entire faith structure. This happened in a different denomination, but rather than believing everything from the pulpit, I studied everything when I went home and discussed concerns with the pastor of that time. When that pastor died, I was very careful about choosing a denomination that I could trust, which is when I converted to Mennonite - after reading and studying their expanded faith statement. That was a decade ago, and I still do extensive study when I need to.

You are welcome to believe what you would like to believe, but I know for me, when it became apparent that I was wrong in one area, I accepted the correct way of belief, and allowed God to work on my entire faith construct in order to walk in the truth rather than misinterpretations from the pulpit that were oppressive....beliefs similar to the one in the OP.

I never said or even implied that no other Mennonite believes like you - it is obvious from the OP that there is a sect which has this belief. And yes, that surprises me because it is so different from my beliefs that it hardly seems Mennonite - and what surprises me most is that Menno Simons didn't even believe that way, yet there is a sect of Mennonites who do. It is a curiosity for me.