• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Struggling with Remarriage ...

Status
Not open for further replies.

Endless

Active Member
Mar 18, 2006
234
25
51
Virginia
✟475.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
I usually lurk on forums a while before I post ... but I am in a quandry and need some Christian counsel.

I am engaged to the most incredible man. We got engaged in January after being pulled back into the fold quite forcefully. God has been working very diligently in our lives and we are grateful. I admit (however, abashedly) that we were living together but separated in November as is God's will. We have been chaste and are continually seeking God's will for our lives.

The delimma is ... of course ... if remarriage is truly possible in our cases. Both of us previously married ... both to non-believers ... both abandoned.

In 1 Corinthians 7:15 - But, if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such [cases]: but God hath called us to peace. The greek word for bondage is the same word used for slavery or servitude (douloo) in 1 Corinthians 7:21 - Art thou called [being] a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use [it] rather.

It appears to me that God would have us released from our bonds as slaves of our oath and be freed to follow his will including remarriage (?). However, my finace interprets it to mean that because we are not slaves the unbeliever is permitted to depart but as it would require a divorce for reasons besides adultery not remarry. It is this that we are struggling with as it is clearly stated that there is no valid reason for divorce save fornication. Matthew 5:32 - 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.

My fiance and I are having a very difficult time rationalizing this. PLEASE ... :help: ... any insight you could offer would be most helpful. We have shed many tears for past sins. The anguish is excruciating.

Emily
:prayer:
 

Honibee

Tasting the Lord's goodness
Sep 20, 2005
8,609
371
Passing through (in the USA)
✟33,045.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Endless said:
I usually lurk on forums a while before I post ... but I am in a quandry and need some Christian counsel.

I am engaged to the most incredible man. We got engaged in January after being pulled back into the fold quite forcefully. God has been working very diligently in our lives and we are grateful. I admit (however, abashedly) that we were living together but separated in November as is God's will. We have been chaste and are continually seeking God's will for our lives.

The delimma is ... of course ... if remarriage is truly possible in our cases. Both of us previously married ... both to non-believers ... both abandoned.

In 1 Corinthians 7:15 - But, if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such [cases]: but God hath called us to peace. The greek word for bondage is the same word used for slavery or servitude (douloo) in 1 Corinthians 7:21 - Art thou called [being] a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use [it] rather.

It appears to me that God would have us released from our bonds as slaves of our oath and be freed to follow his will including remarriage (?). However, my finace interprets it to mean that because we are not slaves the unbeliever is permitted to depart but as it would require a divorce for reasons besides adultery not remarry. It is this that we are struggling with as it is clearly stated that there is no valid reason for divorce save fornication. Matthew 5:32 - 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.

My fiance and I are having a very difficult time rationalizing this. PLEASE ... :help: ... any insight you could offer would be most helpful. We have shed many tears for past sins. The anguish is excruciating.

Emily
:prayer:
Hi Emily,
I appreciate your heart to know the truth in your situation before taking further action.

I believe the verse you referenced is better interpreted to say that 'if the spouse departs, the one left need not concern themselves with the duties of marriage'. I don't believe it is giving 'liberty' to remarry, as Paul further states in verse 39, that the bond of marriage is for life, and ONLY death releases a person from their spouse.

A VERY good reference site for you to look at is: www.marriagedivorce.com . PLEASE, feel free to PM me if I can help in any further way.

God bless you with His wisdom and strength as you seek His will.
 
Upvote 0

eatenbylocusts

Senior Veteran
Oct 13, 2005
5,208
340
59
✟29,434.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Just a thought-Are your ex-spouses having or have they had sex with anyone else since your divorces? That may give you some peace if you need a legalistic reason.

I believe that if the ex-spouses are Christians, there are children involved, and they are currently single then reconciliation should be attempted. If they are not Christians then stay away. God forgives us for our past-divorces included. If you can't go back-you must go forward. If you're burning with desire-that's not good either.

It sounds like your boyfriend will probably need to get some advice from clergy.
 
Upvote 0

hidesertrat

Member
Jan 14, 2005
93
18
California
✟15,306.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Endless said:
The delimma is ... of course ... if remarriage is truly possible in our cases. Both of us previously married ... both to non-believers ... both abandoned.

Yes, it is not a sin.

Endless said:
In 1 Corinthians 7:15 - But, if the unbelieving depart, let him depart

I believe the verses before this is addressing a Christians obligations in marriage to a non-believer. Stateing that if the non-believer chooses to stay, the Christian should not divorce them but allow them to stay. However, if the non-believer chooses to leave, than the Christian should let them go. It is as if you weren't married.

Endless said:
Matthew 5:32 - 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.

I take this to mean the husband can not give the wife "a letter of divorcement" unless she is unfaithful to him. It doesn't matter if she is a believer or non-beliver, as long as she is faithful and chooses to live with him. However, if she wants to stay in the home she has to remain faithful to him.

My personel experiance on this: DW is divorced, I am divorced, much the same as your situation.
You are going to find those who will tell you that you can never remarry and if he marries you, you will both be committing adultery.

I believe I serve a faithful and forgiving God. My wife and I didn't seek God's favor in our previous marriages, so that wasn't His best for us. It was our choices and our flesh telling us what to do.

When we entered into this marriage we did ask for His guidance, so this is the relationship He had planned for us. We will honor Him in it.
 
Upvote 0

imaniingod

Veteran
Feb 21, 2006
2,087
184
✟25,604.00
Faith
Christian
Politics
US-Others
Endless said:
I usually lurk on forums a while before I post ... but I am in a quandry and need some Christian counsel.

I am engaged to the most incredible man. We got engaged in January after being pulled back into the fold quite forcefully. God has been working very diligently in our lives and we are grateful. I admit (however, abashedly) that we were living together but separated in November as is God's will. We have been chaste and are continually seeking God's will for our lives.

The delimma is ... of course ... if remarriage is truly possible in our cases. Both of us previously married ... both to non-believers ... both abandoned.

In 1 Corinthians 7:15 - But, if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such [cases]: but God hath called us to peace. The greek word for bondage is the same word used for slavery or servitude (douloo) in 1 Corinthians 7:21 - Art thou called [being] a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use [it] rather.

It appears to me that God would have us released from our bonds as slaves of our oath and be freed to follow his will including remarriage (?). However, my finace interprets it to mean that because we are not slaves the unbeliever is permitted to depart but as it would require a divorce for reasons besides adultery not remarry. It is this that we are struggling with as it is clearly stated that there is no valid reason for divorce save fornication. Matthew 5:32 - 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.

My fiance and I are having a very difficult time rationalizing this. PLEASE ... :help: ... any insight you could offer would be most helpful. We have shed many tears for past sins. The anguish is excruciating.

Emily
:prayer:
I dealt with this same situation but in my case there was adultery on my ex-husband's part, I will be praying for you! God Bless You!
 
Upvote 0

Endless

Active Member
Mar 18, 2006
234
25
51
Virginia
✟475.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Thank ya'll so much for your insight.

I am not simply looking for justification or validation for my own point of view. The truth is that it's my fiancee who is awaiting some revelation.

We have our best days when just don't think about it and let our feet walk one step at a time. The more we learn the better. But the less we push ... the less time we spend pressuring ourselves to comprehend in an instant God's will for our lives, the more joy we have.

Thank you for your prayers. They are needed and appreciated.

~M
 
Upvote 0

1956Ford

Member
Jan 16, 2005
79
7
NC
Visit site
✟22,728.00
Faith
Christian
Endless said:
Thank ya'll so much for your insight.

I am not simply looking for justification or validation for my own point of view. The truth is that it's my fiancee who is awaiting some revelation.

We have our best days when just don't think about it and let our feet walk one step at a time. The more we learn the better. But the less we push ... the less time we spend pressuring ourselves to comprehend in an instant God's will for our lives, the more joy we have.

Thank you for your prayers. They are needed and appreciated.

~M
Never into any situation in doubt. I did.
Please visit
http://www.marriagedivorce.com
for more study.
May your fiancee study the scriptures well and have no doubts before he ever proceeds.
Cheryl
 
Upvote 0

Svt4Him

Legend
Site Supporter
Oct 23, 2003
16,711
1,132
54
Visit site
✟98,618.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Conservatives
As posted in another thread:

Svt4Him said:
Marriage and Divorce
A Clear and Intelligible Exposition
by Robert Waters​

It seems to be taken for granted by many that when Jesus condemned the practice of "putting away" a wife, He was talking about divorce as we understand it today. But, if that was the case, why have translators not consistently used the word divorce instead of put away where divorce is supposedly the meaning? It is argued that put away and divorce are synonymous, but is this true? Is it possible that there was indeed the practice of "putting away" that was something different from a legal divorce, and which did not dissolve the marriage, regardless of the reason for the separation? Before we consider what the Scriptures teach on this important subject, we must be willing to put aside our current opinions and accept only what we find written in the word of God.

The Law under which Jesus lived (and was obligated to follow) made provisions for a marriage to be dissolved (Deut. 24:1-2; ASV) because of the hardness of man’s heart (Matt. 19:8).

"When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth her, then it shall be, if she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her, that he shall write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife."

We see, then, that God laid down the procedure for a man to dissolve a marriage. This command was a procedure consisting of three separate actions (see below). Previous to this, men were simply putting away or sending their wives out of the house (women did not have the same rights). At that time, men were permitted to have more than one wife and received a dowry also. But if a man divorced his wife then the dowry had to be returned. The dowry, however, did not have to be returned in a case where there was no formal divorce. We can see, then, that simply sending his wife out of the house was a way of avoiding any financial loss. However, the consequences were very serious for the wife: without a formal divorce, she was left without a home and a means of support; and, being still married, it was not lawful for her to remarry. For a married woman to have sexual relations with another man was considered an act of adultery that was punishable by death (Leviticus 20:10). Husbands who dealt treacherously with their wives (by putting them away and marrying another, which was contrary to the teaching of Moses) were committing adultery against them – adultery meaning "covenant breaking" or "breaking wedlock." (See Mark 10:11 and Ezek 16:38 ASV, BBE, and CEV.)

The wife that was put out of the house may well have been innocent of any wrongdoing, yet she could not marry another without a certificate of divorcement that proved her marriage was legally dissolved. Thus, husbands who refused to give a bill of divorcement to those whom they had put away were disobeying God. It is interesting that the same evil practice among the Jews is still going on to this day. The following is an Internet link to an article that you will find enlightening: www.totalhealth.bz/spiritualneeds/Jewish_Women_in_Chains.html .

Nowadays, in most countries, wives too are permitted to divorce their husbands; consequently women are not so vulnerable to being left homeless and destitute the way Jewish wives often are due to their husbands' refusal to present them with divorce papers. Nevertheless, the same sort of thing is experienced by both women and men today! People who have been divorced are being told by church leaders that, being divorced, they are ineligible for marriage and must remain unmarried or face the loss of fellowship in their church.



During the Mosaic age, a husband would often send (put) his wife away (Heb. Shalach, Gk. Apoluo) without a certificate of divorce. In God's sight, though, the husband committed adultery against her. Furthermore, his wife would find herself homeless and destitute and unable to remarry; to do so would be to commit adultery, and any man who married her would commit adultery (see Mark 10:11; Matt. 5:31-32), a crime that was punishable by death (Leviticus 20:10).

However, God laid down a procedure to prevent such evils and protect wives from such treachery. This procedure consisted of three actions: writing her a bill of divorcement, placing it in her hand, and sending her away (Deut. 24:1-2).

Interestingly, there is no suggestion in Jesus' teaching that the man who initiates “divorce” commits adultery (Matt. 5:31-32; Mark 10:11). Seeing this, some people, contending that the "put away person" has no right to marry, reason that a person needs only to ensure that he is the one filing for divorce. (This suggestion is, apparently, imprudent as it tends to encourage divorce because people feel compelled to divorce when they have the "grounds" and before the other spouse divorces them, making them a "put away person" and "ineligible for marriage"). But the only significance to this observation is that the men would not commit adultery in the marriage with another because they were allowed to have more than one wife. There is no evidence that the men discussed in the context (which goes back to Deut. 24:1-4 for the specific passage of the Law) were divorcing their wives "for fornication" or because they had committed adultery. Since the Law called for the death penalty for adultery, this theory lacks credence (Leviticus 20:10).

Jesus, like all faithful Jews, was obedient to the Law. No one could accuse Jesus of changing the Law (before the cross) because He Himself promised, "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" (Matt. 5:18). In view of this, we see a serious error with the traditional teaching, attributed to Jesus, that a divorced person commits adultery if he remarries. The problem, then, in understanding who has a right to marry, hinges on the meaning of divorced. Many of the newer Bible versions translate the Greek word apoluo as divorced but the older and more reliable versions consistently translate apoluo as "put away" (or something similar).

Let us now note a couple of definitions from Random House Dictionary and make some observations:

Divorce
1. Law. a judicial declaration dissolving a marriage in whole or in part, esp. one that released the husband and wife from all matrimonial obligations.
2. Any formal separation of man and wife according to established custom, as among uncivilized tribes. 3. total separation; disunion: a divorce between thought and action. 4. to separate by divorce: The judge divorced the couple. 5. to break the marriage contract between oneself and [one's spouse] by divorce: She divorced her husband.

Judicial separation
Law. a decree of legal separation of husband and wife that does not dissolve the marriage bond. Also called limited divorce.

It is interesting that some contemporary writers use the phrase "put away person" when referring to a divorced person. This is misleading because "put away" is equal to being separated, not divorced – according to the Law of Moses. Even a judicial separation is not a divorce and does not end the marriage. While it is true that a divorce does separate a couple, it is also true that a couple can separate without divorcing. A married couple who separate might claim they are divorced but, in reality, they are still married. Those who teach that "putting away" a spouse (without a "bill of divorcement") constitutes a divorce are not only teaching error, but make Jesus a liar! If a "put away" person equals a "divorced" person then Jesus broke His promise that the Law would not change until all was fulfilled (Matt. 5:18). When one who is "put away" (or separated) marries another he obviously commits adultery. But it is important to understand that God gave a procedure for divorcing that would allow that one to marry another. Jesus could not possibly have contradicted Moses on this because to do so would have been transgression and would have given the Jews just cause to condemn Him. Interestingly, they did not charge Jesus with breaking the Law on this matter, yet people today (supposedly His friends!) contend that He did.

The apostle Paul spoke to the "unmarried" person in 1 Corinthians 7:8-9. The word unmarried means: single, unattached, free, not married. “Not joined to another by marriage" [Encarta Dictionary]. To anyone who might not understand His universal divorce law, which freed the divorced, God gave a direct command: "let them marry." Unfortunately, a misunderstanding of Jesus' teaching has led many to ignore this command.

Many believe that the only instance where God recognizes a divorce is when one's spouse has committed fornication. This is based on their conception of what Jesus was teaching in Matthew: "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" (Matthew 19:9 KJV). The misunderstanding centers around two things: 1) the phrase "put away" and, 2) the definition of the word fornication. We have already discussed the meaning of put away so we will focus on the meaning of fornication. The word fornication is often believed to be a general term for any type of illicit sex. But consider the following quote:

“The Old Testament commandment that a bill of divorce be given to the woman assumes the legitimacy of divorce itself. It is this that Jesus denies. (Unless the marriage is unlawful): this ‘exceptive clause,’ as it is often called, occurs also in Matthew 19:9, where the Greek is slightly different. There are other sayings of Jesus about divorce that prohibit it absolutely (see Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18; cf 1 Cor 7:10, 11b), and most scholars agree that they represent the stand of Jesus. Matthew's ‘exceptive clauses’ are understood by some as a modification of the absolute prohibition. It seems, however, that the unlawfulness that Matthew gives as a reason why a marriage must be broken refers to a situation peculiar to his community: the violation of Mosaic law forbidding marriage between persons of certain blood and/or legal relationship (Lev 18:6-18). Marriages of that sort were regarded as incest (porneia), but some rabbis allowed Gentile converts to Judaism who had contracted such marriages to remain in them. Matthew's ‘exceptive clause’ is against such permissiveness for Gentile converts to Christianity; cf the similar prohibition of porneia in Acts 15:20, 29. In this interpretation, the clause constitutes no exception to the absolute prohibition of divorce when the marriage is lawful” www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew5.htm (footnote 21).

The word fornication, then, is the violation of Mosaic Law forbidding marriage between persons of blood relationships. The only two examples we have recorded in the New Testament where a marriage was said to be unlawful, or fornication, were the man who "had his father's wife" (1 Corinthians 5:1) and Herod, who married his brother's wife (apparently after divorce) while he still lived (mark 5:18; Lev. 20:21).
With this in mind, we offer the following paraphrase of Matt. 19:9:

"And I say unto you, whoever shall put away his wife without a certificate of divorcement, except in cases where he is married to a close relative forbidden by the Law, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away without a certificate of divorcement doth commit adultery."

Therefore, the traditional teaching that divorced people are still married in the sight of God is without Biblical support.

The idea that Jesus was giving the grounds for a “scriptural” divorce, and that only the one who initiated the divorce may marry another, is not in harmony with the Bible. Such a doctrine has God not only punishing innocent persons, contrary to His nature, but also has Him contradicting Himself. When the apostle Paul (by inspiration) dealt with questions pertaining to marriage, he said to let men and women have a spouse so they can avoid fornication (1 Cor. 7:1, 2). By teaching men to "love their wives" (Col 3:19) and women to "be in subjection" to their husbands (Eph. 5:22) he teaches against separation and divorce; but obviously it happens. Yet only during the "present distress" were those who were separated commanded to remain "unmarried" or in the state they were in -- as unmarried (1 Cor. 7:10, 11, 26). There is no command, example or inference that teaches that divorced persons must remain celibate. The following is a link to an article that deals with the contention that Paul taught celibacy for the divorced: www.totalhealth.bz/spiritualneeds/Celibacy.html .

In his answer to the brethren in Corinth, Paul makes it clear that people should marry, if necessary, to avoid fornication. He says to anyone who would object to the unmarried marrying: "let them marry" and "He sinneth not." We must accept that a legal divorce dissolves a marriage and that "unmarried" persons do not commit adultery when they marry. Paul's teaching in 1 Cor. 7:1-2, 8, 9, 27, 28, 36 should leave no doubt in our minds that divorced persons may scripturally marry another. For a church to refuse to accept a couple because one person in the marriage has been divorced is to place an unnecessary burden on the couple, and their children, which often results in their turning away from Christ. Thus, Paul's classifying "forbidding to marry" as "doctrines of devils" (1 Timothy 4:1-3) surely condemns the traditional teaching and practice of forbidding legally divorced persons to marry, or to continue in a legal marriage. Furthermore, he said: "But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry" (1Cor 7:36). The phrase any man is not limited to virgins or those who have never been married. Thus, persons who are unmarried, which includes those legally divorced, must be allowed to marry if they see the need, for they do not sin if they do. On the other hand, one who is thus guilty of "forbidding to marry" does indeed commit sin.

Recommended reading:
www.totalhealth.bz/spiritualneeds/Divorce_Sermon.html
www.totalhealth.bz/spiritualneeds/Forbidding_To_Marry.html

http://www.totalhealth.bz/spiritualneeds/Marriage_and_Divorce_a_clear_and_intelligible_exposition.html
 
Upvote 0

lavenderskies

Senior Veteran
Mar 27, 2006
2,574
136
54
Kentucky
✟26,022.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I completely understand the issue you are dealing with. I advise you to speak with your pastor about this situation. My husband and I were both previously married, and we talked to our pastor. Afterwards our pastor AGREED to be the one to marry us. Neither of us was married to christians in the past. Neither of us concerned ourselves with those marriages being God's will for us, they were us doing what we wanted for ourselves. I will gladly discuss this with you if you want to PM me.
I will be praying for you!
 
Upvote 0

Endless

Active Member
Mar 18, 2006
234
25
51
Virginia
✟475.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
I wanted to thank you guys for all your kind words and testimonies. Many of the sites you offered really helped. Not that we hadn't done our homework ... we certainly had. We were just having trouble sorting it all out.

That and the fact that the original church fathers (anti-nicene) even believed in remarriage after adultery or abandonment.

We have set a date ... June 24th. Providing the pastor is available ... we will be married at Raleigh Heights Baptist Church by Pastor Jim Thompson under the watchful eye of our Father.

~Emily
 
Upvote 0

lastblast

Regular Member
Feb 2, 2003
266
8
60
Visit site
✟22,947.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Endless said:
That and the fact that the original church fathers (anti-nicene) even believed in remarriage after adultery or abandonment.

What ECF Anti-Nicene Fathers are you speaking of? I have the ECF library and that position is certainly not found in those writings? Have you read the Shepherd of Hermas on the topic? In Him, Cindy
 
Upvote 0

Endless

Active Member
Mar 18, 2006
234
25
51
Virginia
✟475.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
lastblast said:
What ECF Anti-Nicene Fathers are you speaking of? I have the ECF library and that position is certainly not found in those writings? Have you read the Shepherd of Hermas on the topic? In Him, Cindy
ante-nicene ... Origen, in his Commentary on Matthew, did not seem as strict as his contemporaries. He noted that Christ rejected "the opinion that a wife was to be put away for every cause" (1.14.16), but he did not seem to rule out divorce completely. Indeed, he admitted that some church leaders "have permitted a (divorced) woman to marry, even when her husband was living," and he confessed that such permission was "not altogether without reason," being undoubtedly a lesser of evils (1.14.23).6

Origen was not the only one ... but the first I could find documentation on.

Reformation ... In his own preaching on divorce, Luther was quite flexible as to what constitutes just cause. He cited adultery as the only cause given by Jesus. Through the Mosaic Law, adultery was punishable by death. Therefore, an adulterer "has already been divorced, not by man but by God Himself, and separated not only from his wife but from this very life."33 In such an instance, the other partner is completely free of any obligation to the former spouse. Adultery for Luther, however, was not the only possible ground. Desertion of spouse and family, he felt, was equally legitimate.34 In his interpretation of the teachings of Paul, Luther believed that if a Christian hinders a believing spouse from following Christ, divorce is in order, with remarriage a viable option.

Like Luther, Calvin saw adultery as the one cause for divorce in Jesus' teachings. As far as he was concerned, the OT penalty for adultery should be enforced, making divorce unnecessary, but "the wicked forbearance of magistrates makes it necessary for husbands to put away unchaste wives, because adulterers are not punished."43 Divorce under such circumstances gives the innocent party freedom to remarry, for Jesus' condemnation of remarriage as adultery applied undoubtedly only to "lawful and frivolous divorces."44 ...if an unbeliever wishes to divorce a spouse on account of religion, the believer is no longer under marital obligation. In such a case, "the unbelieving party makes a divorce with God rather than with her partner."42
 
Upvote 0

lastblast

Regular Member
Feb 2, 2003
266
8
60
Visit site
✟22,947.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Endless said:
the original church fathers (anti-nicene) even believed in remarriage after adultery or abandonment.

This is what troubled me Emily. That statement is just not correct as the Ante-Nicene Fathers overwhelmingly agreed that it was adultery to marry while one has a living spouse...........and that the adultery was an ongoing sin, not just a one time sin, as the original marriage partners are still married. I know that you said that Origen wasn't as strict as his contemporaries, but that also is far from being in agreement with remarriage after a divorce.

As for the reformers, they changed much when they separated/came against the RC church---and rightfully so, yet, they went too far in some cases, including their new treatment of remarriage after divorce. If you read Luther's thoughts on it, I think many today would never say such things in defense of remarriage/divorce. Luther only believed that remarriage for the guilty party was ok so that they could have some enjoyment before they ended up in Hell eternally. Obviously he did not believe that a person could repent from adultery---they were eternally condemned. Is this scriptural? I don't believe so as Jesus gave the perfect picture when the woman was caught in adultery........she was not considered by Jesus as "dead".........He extended mercy and told her to go and sin no more (stop sinning).....Luther's theology does not afford that mercy.

In the Westminster confession we find that the one who commits adultery within marriage can be viewed as "dead". Again, is this scriptural? I do not believe so. The protestant church is filled with contradictions as well on their application of scriptural truth on divorce/remarriage, that's why each one of us needs to go to the Word of God and prayerfully seek the FULL counsel of His Will. Thank you for listening and considering Emily. Blessings in Jesus, Cindy
 
Upvote 0

Endless

Active Member
Mar 18, 2006
234
25
51
Virginia
✟475.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
lastblast said:
This is what troubled me Emily. That statement is just not correct as the Ante-Nicene Fathers overwhelmingly agreed that it was adultery to marry while one has a living spouse...........and that the adultery was an ongoing sin, not just a one time sin, as the original marriage partners are still married. I know that you said that Origen wasn't as strict as his contemporaries, but that also is far from being in agreement with remarriage after a divorce.

As for the reformers, they changed much when they separated/came against the RC church---and rightfully so, yet, they went too far in some cases, including their new treatment of remarriage after divorce. If you read Luther's thoughts on it, I think many today would never say such things in defense of remarriage/divorce. Luther only believed that remarriage for the guilty party was ok so that they could have some enjoyment before they ended up in Hell eternally. Obviously he did not believe that a person could repent from adultery---they were eternally condemned. Is this scriptural? I don't believe so as Jesus gave the perfect picture when the woman was caught in adultery........she was not considered by Jesus as "dead".........He extended mercy and told her to go and sin no more (stop sinning).....Luther's theology does not afford that mercy.

In the Westminster confession we find that the one who commits adultery within marriage can be viewed as "dead". Again, is this scriptural? I do not believe so. The protestant church is filled with contradictions as well on their application of scriptural truth on divorce/remarriage, that's why each one of us needs to go to the Word of God and prayerfully seek the FULL counsel of His Will. Thank you for listening and considering Emily. Blessings in Jesus, Cindy
I was simply repeating someone else's claim ... and I did clarified it with him last night. He was aware that Origen was a universalist and that most of the church fathers were in agreement. Apologies for the misdirection. I understand your concern ... but trust that I am comfortable with God's will for my life ...

~M
 
Upvote 0
Mar 20, 2006
23
3
✟168.00
Faith
Baptist
Check this out.....

"

The internal controversies of the Lutheran Church, which were to shatter its disjointed unity with the force of an explosive eruption after his death, and which now only his dauntless courage, powerful will, and imperious personality held within the limits of murmuring restraint, were cropping out on all sides, found their way into Wittenberg, and affected even his bosom friends. Though unity was out of the question, an appearance of uniformity had at all hazards to be maintained. Cordatus, Schenck, Agricola, all veterans in the cause of reform, lapsed into doctrinal aberrations that caused him much uneasiness. The fact that Melancthon, his most devoted and loyal friend, was under a cloud of suspicion for entertaining heterodox views, though not as yet fully shared by him, caused him no little irritation and sorrow. But all these domestic broils were trivial and lost sight of, when compared to one of the most critical problems that thus far confronted the new Church, which was suddenly sprung upon its leaders, focussing more especially on its hierophant. This was the double marriage of Landgrave Philip of Hesse.
Philip the Magnanimous (b. 23 Nov., 1504) was married before his twentieth year to Christina, daughter of Duke George of Saxony, who was then in her eighteenth year. He had the reputation of being "the most immoral of princelings", who ruined himself, in the language of his court theologians, by "unrestrained and promiscuous debauchery". He himself admits that he could not remain faithful to his wife for three consecutive weeks. The malignant attack of venereal disease, which compelled a temporary cessation of his profligacy, also directed his thoughts to a more ordinate gratification of his passions. His affections were already directed to Margaret von der Saal, a seventeen-year-old lady-in-waiting, and he concluded to avail himself of Luther's advice to enter a double marriage. Christina was "a woman of excellent qualities and noble mind, to whom, in excuse of his infidelities, he [Philip] ascribed all sorts of bodily infirmities and offensive habits" (Schmidt, "Melancthon", 367). She had borne him seven children. The mother of Margaret would only entertain the proposition of her daughter becoming Philip's "second wife" on condition that she, her brother, Philip's wife, Luther, Melancthon, and Bucer, or at least, two prominent theologians be present at the marriage. Bucer was entrusted with the mission of securing the consent of Luther, Melancthon and the Saxon princes. In this he was eminently successful. All was to be done under the veil of the profoundest secrecy. This secrecy Bucer enjoined on the landgrave again and again, even when on his journey to Wittenberg (3 Dec., 1539) that "all might redound to the glory of God" (Lenz, op. cit., I,119). Luther's position on the question was fully known to him. The latter's opportunism in turn grasped the situation at a glance. It was a question of expediency and necessity more than propriety and legality. If the simultaneous polygamy were permitted, it would prove an unprecendented act in the history of Christendom; it would, moreover, affix on Philip the brand of a most heinous crime, punishable under recent legislation with death by beheading. If refused, it threatened the defection of the landgrave, and would prove a calamity beyond reckoning to the Protestant cause. Evidently in an embarrassing quandary, Luther and Melancthon filed their joint opinion (10 Dec., 1539). After expressing gratification at the landgrave's last recovery, "for the poor, miserable Church of Christ is small and forlorn, and stands in need of truly devout lords and rulers", it goes on to say that a general law that a "man may have more than one wife" could not be handed down, but that a dispensation could be granted. All knowledge of the dispensation and the marriage should be buried from the public in deadly silence. "All gossip on the subject is to be ignored, as long as we are right in conscience, and this we hold is right", for "what is permitted in the Mosaic law, is not forbidden in the Gospel" (De Wette-Seidemann, VI, 239-244; "Corp. Ref.", III, 856-863). The nullity and impossibility of the second marriage while the legality of the first remained untouched was not mentioned or hinted at. His wife, assured by her spiritual director "that it was not contrary to the law of God", gave her consent, though on her deathbed she confessed to her son that her consent was feloniously wrung from her. In return Philip pledged his princely word that she would be "the first and supreme wife" and that his matrimonial obligations "would be rendered her with more devotion than before". The children of Christina "should be considered the sole princes of Hesse" (Rommel, op. cit.). After the arrangement had already been completed, a daughter was born to Christina, 13 Feb., 1540. The marriage took place (4 March, 1540) in the presence of Bucer, Melancthon, and the court preacher Melander who performed the ceremony. Melander was "a bluff agitator, surly, with a most unsavoury moral reputation", one of his moral derelictions being the fact that he had three living wives, having deserted two without going through the formality of a legal separation. Philip lived with both wives, both of whom bore him children, the landgravine, two sons and a daughter, and Margaret six sons. How can this "darkest stain" on the history of the German Reformation be accounted for? Was it "politics, biblicism, distorted vision, precipitancy, fear of the near approaching Diet that played such a role in the sinful downfall of Luther?" Or was it the logical sequence of premises he had maintained for years in speech and print, not to touch upon the ethics of that extraordinary sermon on marriage? He himself writes defiantly that he "is not ashamed of his opinion" (Lauterbach, op. cit., 198). The marriage in spite of all precautions, injunctions, and pledges of secrecy leaked out, caused a national sensation and scandal, and set in motion an extensive correspondence between all intimately concerned, to neutralize the effect on the public mind. Melancthon "nearly died of shame, but Luther wished to brazen the matter out with a lie" (Cambridge Hist., II, 241). The secret "yea" must for the sake of the Christian Church remain a public "nay" (De Witte-Seidemann, op. cit., VI, 263). "What harm would there be, if a man to accomplish better things and for the sake of the Christian Church, does tell a good thumping lie" (Lenz, "Briefwechsel", I, 382; Kolde, "Analecta", 356), was his extenuating plea before the Hessian counsellors assembled at Eisenach (1540), a sentiment which students familiar with his words and actions will remember is in full agreement with much of his policy and many of his assertions. "We are convinced that the papacy is the seat of the real and actual Antichrist, and believe that against its deceit and iniquity everything is permitted for the salvation of souls" (De Wette, op. cit., I, 478). "

PS...it seems you're famous on the web as anti-remarriage :) (not saying it's good or bad just saying...)
 
Upvote 0
Mar 20, 2006
23
3
✟168.00
Faith
Baptist
....let us go to part two of his paper "The Estate Of Marriage" circa 1522

"
In the second part, we shall consider which persons may be divorced. I know of three grounds for divorce. The first, which has just been mentioned and was discussed above, is the situation in which the husband or wife is not equipped for marriage because of bodily or natural deficiencies of any sort. Of this enough has already been said.

The second ground is adultery. The popes have kept silent about this; therefore we must hear Christ, Matthew 19 [:3-9]. when the Jews asked him whether a husband might divorce his wife for any reason, he answered, "'Have you not read that he who made them from 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"? what therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder.' They said to him, ‘Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?' He said to them, 'For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery; and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.’"

Here you see that in the case of adultery Christ permits the divorce of husband and wife, so that the innocent person may remarry. For in saying that he commits adultery who marries another after divorcing his wife, "except for unchastity," Christ is making it quite clear that he who divorces his wife on account of unchastity and then marries another does not commit adultery.
The Jews, however, were divorcing their wives for all kinds of reasons whenever they saw fit, even though no unchastity was involved. That covers so much ground that they themselves thought it was going too far. They therefore inquired of Christ whether it was right; they were tempting him to see what he would say concerning the law of Moses.

Now in the law of Moses God established two types of governments; he gave two types of commandments. Some are spiritual, teaching righteousness in the sight of God, such as love and obedience; people who obeyed these commandments did not thrust away their wives and never made use of certificates of divorce, but tolerated and endured their wives' conduct. Others are worldly, however, drawn up for the sake of those who do not live up to the spiritual commandments, in order to place a limit upon their misbehaviour and prevent them from doing worse and acting wholly on the basis of their own maliciousness. Accordingly, he commanded them, if they could not endure their wives, that they should not put them to death or harm them too severely, but rather dismiss them with a certificate of divorce. This law, therefore, does not apply to Christians, who are supposed to live in the spiritual government. In the case of some who live with their wives in an un-Christian fashion, however, it would still be a good thing to permit them to use this law, just so they are no longer regarded as Christians, which after all they really are not.

Thus it is that on the grounds of adultery one person may leave the other, as Solomon also says in Proverbs 18, "He that keepeth an adulteress is a fool". We have an example of this in Joseph too. In Matthew 1 [:19] the gospel writer praises him as just because he did not put his wife to shame when he found that she was with child, but was minded to divorce her quietly. By this we are told plainly enough that it is praiseworthy to divorce an adulterous wife. If the adultery is clandestine, of course, the husband has the right to follow either of two courses. First, he may rebuke his wife privately and in a brotherly fashion, and keep her if she will mend her ways. Second, he may divorce her, as Joseph wished to do. The same principle applies in the case of a wife with an adulterous husband. These two types of discipline are both Christian and laudable.

But a public divorce, whereby one [the innocent party) is enabled to remarry, must take place through the investigation and decision of the civil authority so that the adultery may be manifest to all - or, if the civil authority refuses to act, with the knowledge of the congregation, again in order that it may not be left to each one to allege anything he pleases as a ground for divorce.

You may ask: What is to become of the other [the guilty party] if he too is perhaps unable to lead a chaste life? Answer: It was for this reason that God commanded in the law [Deut. 22: 22-24] that adulterers be stoned, that they might not have to face this question. The temporal sword and government should therefore still put adulterers to death, for whoever commits adultery has in fact himself already departed and is considered as one dead. Therefore, the other [the innocent party] may remarry just as though his spouse had died, if it is his intention to insist on his rights and not show mercy to the guilty party. Where the government is negligent and lax, however, and fails to inflict the death penalty, the adulterer may betake himself to a far country and there remarry if he is unable to remain continent. But it would be better to put him to death, lest a bad example be set.

Some may find fault with this solution and contend that thereby license and opportunity is afforded all wicked husbands and wives to desert their spouses and remarry in a foreign country. Answer: Can I help it? The blame rests with the government. Why do they not put adulterers to death? Then I would not need to give such advice. Between two evils one is always the lesser, in this case allowing the adulterer to remarry in a distant land in order to avoid fornication. And I think he would be safer also in the sight of God, because he has been allowed to live and yet is unable to remain continent. If others also, however, following this example desert their spouses, let them go. They have no excuse such as the adulterer has, for they are neither driven nor compelled. God and their own conscience will catch up to them in due time. Who can prevent all wickedness?"

So we see that Luther thought that divorce was acceptable on the grounds of adultery as well as a partner that was physically incapable of having children AND the "innocent" party was free to remarry with God's blessing, not bound for Hell. Whether he rightly dividing the Word is subject to inspection but his feelings are clear.

God bless.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.