Divorce and Remarriage

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

Bro the most awesome explaination of marriage and divorce I ever heard. I thank you for taking the time with this one, because I needed to hear this.

He needs to write a book.

Plus do some audios.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by jediwill83

So you're saying that the Bible says I need to ditch my second wife and my only child to be right with God?

Did I say that?

Go ahead and tell me I'm Hell bound instead of hiding behind massive walls text if that's the case.


Cause as I lay here in the dark while illuminated by words on a screen while holding my little girl as she falls asleep...I have no problem busting Hell wide open rather than leave them.

If you'd rather have ANYTHING more than the will of God done in your life, then you certainly WILL bust hell wide open. Before addressing your particular situation, let's get some perspective:

Luke 14:26-35
(26) If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
(27) And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.
(28) For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?
(29) Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him,
(30) Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish.
(31) Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand?
(32) Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sendeth an ambassage, and desireth conditions of peace.
(33) So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.
(34) Salt is good: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be seasoned?
(35) It is neither fit for the land, nor yet for the dunghill; but men cast it out. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

And again:

Mark 10:29-31
(29) And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's,
(30) But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.
(31) But many that are first shall be last; and the last first.

So, if anyone puts family before Christ, the Kingdom of God, and His righteousness, they simply aren't fit for the Kingdom and have excluded themselves.

Now, having said that, and having established a proper perspective concerning love for family and love for Christ, if you had been keeping up with the thread, or at least my posts in the thread, then you would see that I presented a solid case for the fact that God actually does in fact recognise divorce, making remarriage legitimate (under certain conditions, obviously not any and all conditions). I have never on this forum, to my knowledge, pontificated one way or the other regarding remarriage. Why? Because over the years I have read and heard most every argument from every side for every viewpoint, and every one of them has holes in them that I have not as yet been able to fill in completely, with Scripture alone.

Go back and read the post I made that Amanah and then brother Benincasa quoted. Nevermind, I'll reproduce it here for you:

Originally Posted by Esaias

There is the argument that Jesus disallowed all divorce with one exception. However, there is the counter argument that Jesus disallowed "putting away", which is technically separate from "divorce".

There are two things to consider: putting away, and divorce. Putting away is when a husband send his wife out of the house and says "I am no longer your husband, I am no longer responsible to or for you." Moses required a "writ of divorce" or "bill of divorcement" in such cases. Thus, in order to put away his wife, a man had to give her a paper stating he had dissolved the marriage contract. This would prove that she was divorced, and would allow her to re-marry without the new husband being accusable of adultery with her first husband's wife. This of course enabled women who were put away to find another husband and have someone to take care of them so they didn't starve as a homeless vagabond or spend the rest of their years at Mom and Dad's house in artificial widowhood.

Jesus said Moses allowed a bill of divorce because of the hardness of people's hearts. Apparently, he knew there would be men who were buttheads and kick their wives to the curb, so he made an allowance to protect the woman in such cases by requiring a written proof of divorce, rather than just a separation ("putting away").

There are some who say that Jesus did not actually say all divorce results in adultery, but rather that putting away (without the divorce paper) would. The difference hinges on the meaning of two Greek words, which in the KJV were given the same English translation, thus (they say) obscuring the actual issues.

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.

The words "put away" and "divorced" are actually the same Greek word, apoluo, which literally means "loosed from" and refers to the separation. There is another, different Greek word for "divorce" which refers to being put away with a divorce writ. So, the argument goes, Jesus is condemning "putting away" as causing adultery, not necessarily divorce. the exception clause is "for fornication" which means a man discovers his bride is not a virgin. He may then put her away (annul the marriage) without requiring a divorce writ (which involves witnesses) and neither incurs nor causes any guilt. Joseph was minded to put away Mary privately when she was discovered to be pregnant, because ... well, for obvious reasons. (Of course, Mary had not been guilty of fornication, but Joseph had no way of knowing that until the angel told him the facts.)

This interpretation results in the following:

1. The law of God is not suddenly changed by Jesus' statement. If Jesus had suddenly disallowed all divorce as resulting in adultery, people who were not in sin prior to His statement suddenly found themselves in sin. All divorcees who had remarried and all who had married divorcees were now all of a sudden committing adultery, whereas prior to His statement they were not. This also prevents the accusation that Jesus had changed or abolished the law on the subject of divorce and adultery, which Jesus said He did not come to do. (It is one thing to expand the law to highlight the spiritual aspects, it is another thing to make unlawful what was explicitly lawful previously.)

2. Paul's statements that a person who is "loosed from a spouse" may marry without committing sin is in keeping with both Moses and Christ (1 Cor 7:27-29).

3. It provides for mercy for those who were divorced by their spouses. It is a fact that just as in Bible times, so today, there are hard-hearted people, and by requiring a divorce writ for those who would put away their spouses the one put away is protected. God obviously does not like or prefer divorce, but knowing what jerks humans can be He put in place a mechanism where the put away spouse's future was protected, so that divorce wasn't the end of life.

4. The exception clause is limited to premarital fornication. One who expects to marry a virgin, and then finds out she is not, is not bound to marry her. (If, of course, he is pleased to dwell with her anyway, then he cannot come back some time later and use it as an excuse to get rid of her.) EDIT: the exception clause is limited to "porneia" or fornication, which would include premarital immorality but also any forbidden relations (incest, heathens, etc).

5. The exception clause rules out adultery. Under the law there was no mechanism for getting a divorce on the grounds your spouse cheated on you. Rather, if adultery could be proven, the result was capital punishment, not divorce. And if a charge was levied, and could not be proven according to the law, then the one making the charge could potentially be liable to execution themselves for being a "false witness". Nobody under the law ever sought divorce on the grounds of adultery, at least not publicly. (However, a man might for example divorce his wife for "other reasons" so as not to publicly accuse the woman of adultery, creating the need for a felony investigation.)

There are, however, some problems with this approach:

1. It makes Jesus providing no new information about the command and law of God on the subject of marriage and divorce except that a man might put away his espoused wife if he discovered she was not a virgin. But arguably this was already the way things were, hence Jesus provided no new information about divorce at all. (It may, however, be argued he was saying that once betrothed nothing could end the betrothal except the fornication exception, in contrast to certain Pharisaic teachings on divorce.)

2. It makes Jesus not actually answer the question He was asked. He was not asked about putting away during the betrothal, but about divorce. This is not insurmountable, though, as Jesus often answered His adversaries in ways they did not expect or desire. But it is a definite objection that would need to be addressed.

3. It tends to give wiggle-room for divorce, and would tend to encourage - rather than discourage - divorce. If divorce is seen as a possible and lawful option, it is more likely to be taken than if it is believed to be utterly disallowed.

The post I made to which you responded was directed at Aquila's idea that the marriage act itself can be repented of while the marriage relationship can continue. That idea is simply ridiculous. I do not see how such a thing is possible. The post was made within the context of the purported claim that a marriage can be sinful but covered by grace while continuing to be sinful.

I don't know your particular situation, and therefore I am not commenting on it. Besides, AFF is the LAST place to get advice about marriage.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by JoeBandy

So a person like myself who is married to a second wife before receiving Holy Ghost???

Since you asked...

1. What were the reasons for your initial divorce? Who demanded it? Who filed? What was the ground(s)?

2. Did you remarry before receiving the Holy Ghost? Or after? Or,

3. Did you marry the second wife before SHE got the Holy Ghost?

4. Side question: Why didn't you ask about "before being baptised"? I think a lot of folks have switched the Biblical emphases between baptism and receiving the Holy Ghost... just wondering...

5. Are there any answers you have already determined not to accept?

6. Why in the world are you asking for counsel or opinions regarding your marriage, here on the wackiest place on the intardnets?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

It must be Aquila.

He is the one who believes all divorce and remarriage is a sin.

I have my doubts that Aquila believes anything at all, one way or the other. I think he's trolling the forum like he's been doing for years. Either that or he's got narcissistic personality disorder where everything has to be about him. Note to Aquila: it's not all about you.

[Esaias]

And finally (everyone breathe a sigh of relief), I try to make my posts about the TOPIC, preferably the BIBLE'S TEACHING on the topic, rather than about you, me, or Hee Haw over in the corner. Except when Hee Haw starts missing the spittoon and gets the floor all messy.

Rather than take offense at a presentation of a reasoned argument from Scripture, one could simply present a counter argument, or at the least get all Socratic and just ask questions, in order to find the weak links. I am not above correction, my hope and goal in life is to know the Truth. Sacred cows make great burgers, in my personal opinion. So if anyone thinks I have erred, your Christian duty is to show me where, when, and how, from Scripture, in a reasonable manner.

Challenging me to a duel, or the Al Gore Reality TV Show equivalent, is not the way to go, because honestly I ain't got time fo dat.

[Amanah]

The ESV Student Study Bible Notes say this about 1 Timothy 3:2-3

The meaning of husband of one wife is widely debated. The Greek phrase literally states, "of one women [wife] man [husband]." (1) Many scholars understand this to mean "having the character of a one-woman man," that is, "faithful to his wife." A similar phrase is used in 5:9 as a qualification for widows, where it seems to refer to the trait of faithfulness. (2) Another view is that "husband of one wife" means polygamists cannot be elders. Interpreters who hold this view note that there is evidence of polygamy being practiced in some Jewish circles at the time. According to both of these views, Paul does not say elders may marry only once; he does not prohibit marriage after divorce or the death of a spouse (see 5:14). (3) a third view is that Paul required that an elder be someone who has never married more than once. But that does not fit the context as well, since its emphasis is on present character. able to teach. This is the only example in this list of the pastor/elder's actual duties.

[JoeBandy]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Since you asked...

1. What were the reasons for your initial divorce? Who demanded it? Who filed? What was the ground(s)?

2. Did you remarry before receiving the Holy Ghost? Or after? Or,

3. Did you marry the second wife before SHE got the Holy Ghost?

4. Side question: Why didn't you ask about "before being baptised"? I think a lot of folks have switched the Biblical emphases between baptism and receiving the Holy Ghost... just wondering...

5. Are there any answers you have already determined not to accept?

6. Why in the world are you asking for counsel or opinions regarding your marriage, here on the wackiest place on the intardnets?

1. she fell in love with her best friends dad and left she filed

2.before

3.yes

4. " received the HOLY GHOST" is the term most used in UPC to signify the point of salvation

5. Accept - agree two different things

6. not asking for counsel I was wanting clarification on YOUR stance with regard to your post.

[Amanah]

The ESV Student Study Bible Notes say this about 1 Timothy 3:2-3

The meaning of husband of one wife is widely debated. The Greek phrase literally states, "of one women [wife] man [husband]." (1) Many scholars understand this to mean "having the character of a one-woman man," that is, "faithful to his wife." A similar phrase is used in 5:9 as a qualification for widows, where it seems to refer to the trait of faithfulness. (2) Another view is that "husband of one wife" means polygamists cannot be elders. Interpreters who hold this view note that there is evidence of polygamy being practiced in some Jewish circles at the time. According to both of these views, Paul does not say elders may marry only once; he does not prohibit marriage after divorce or the death of a spouse (see 5:14). (3) a third view is that Paul required that an elder be someone who has never married more than once. But that does not fit the context as well, since its emphasis is on present character. able to teach. This is the only example in this list of the pastor/elder's actual duties.

so if you take the first definition:

(1) Many scholars understand this to mean "having the character of a one-woman man," that is, "faithful to his wife." A similar phrase is used in 5:9 as a qualification for widows, where it seems to refer to the trait of faithfulness.

then, this translation seems to be closer to the actual meaning of the text:

1 Timothy 3:2-7 New International Version (NIV)
2 Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full[a] respect. 5 (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?) 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. 7 He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap.

So a pastor should be above reproach and faithful to his wife, faithful would exclude covenant breakers.

[consapente89]

Originally Posted by Esaias

If you'd rather have ANYTHING more than the will of God done in your life, then you certainly WILL bust hell wide open.

yessir

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by JoeBandy

1. she fell in love with her best friends dad and left she filed

Sounds like she abandoned you and committed adultery. Under the Law she and her new guy would be stoned to death. Her being dead, you would clearly be free to remarry.

Applied to a society NOT following the Law, such abandonment seems equivalent to death. And I do believe Paul had the same principle of application in mind when he wrote 1 Cor 7:15.