Divorce and Remarriage

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Amanah

I think the answer does not hinge on just those scriptures, but also on scriptures in the OT and the epistles.

I agree Amanah. In a situation like this, I always try to find either support or contradiction from other sources of scripture. While it is true that we as Gentiles are not bound by the Abrahamic covenant, it is also true that we serve the same God as the one Who entered covenant with Abraham. Remember . . .

"For I am the LORD, I change not . . .

So we can expect that God will be consistent, even though we are entered into a different, more superior covenant than the old one.

Would the same God that demanded that I marry my deceased brother's wife, because he had nobody to perpetuate his name, forbid me to have more than one wife?

As EB has pointed out, would the same God who divorced His chosen people, for breaking their covenant with Him, and ordered a prophet to marry a harlot to illustrate their idolatry, require me to remain in a covenant where my spouse has broken our marriage vows? It seems unlikely.

[berkeley]

https://makezine.com/2015/08/17/kint...broken-things/

[berkeley]

http://gmcuttingboards.com/kintsugi

[berkeley]

Originally Posted by n david

Please clarify the "thought came to mind as I meditated upon the Lord" part here. Is this a thought you believe came from the Lord or is it something you previously read which you then remembered during this time?

You gave him an escape.

[Aquila]

I want to thank you for your thoughtful post. I love the spirit with which you communicated it, that is rarely seen around here much anymore. God bless you for your kindness and sense of decency.

I'm no theologian, but I'll try to answer your questions as best I can. I want to reiterate that this is only my interpretation or understanding. I am aware that there are others that good men hold. In no way do I want to seem as though my interpretation is a weapon to attack. In fact, my interpretation exposes my own sin and weakness, and my need to confess my sin and seek God's mercy. In addition, it disqualifies me from seeking any official position in the church. For this reason, it is not a comfortable position for me to hold by any means. If anyone here is hindered or humbled by this interpretation... I'm the first in line. It's not easy when one sees something in Scripture that condemns something they've done as sin. And so, I'm chief of sinners, so to speak, in desperate need of a Savior on this one. I don't know of anyone else's status, so I assure you, it isn't intended for anyone else specifically.

I'll now try to answer your very thoughtful questions.

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

I'm not sure where you are getting that the audience was Jewish for Matthew, and not for Mark and Luke. It is my understanding that the gospels were a record of Jesus' life and ministry. His ministry was specifically to the Jews. Can you support this assertion? Because your doctrine seems to stand or fall on the assumption that the audiences were different. If Matthew was written to the Jews, Mark and Luke were to the Gentiles, according to your theory. Who was John written to? Not trying to be critical, I'm just trying to understand.

For the sake of time, I'll share something I Googled that expresses my understanding of the Gospels and their audiences. The source will be in a link at the bottom.

Gospel's Intended Audiences: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John

Each of the four gospels in the Bible (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) can be understood individually, but sometimes it helps to see their intended audiences to get a full appreciation of them. Looking at the purpose and audience of each of the books will give a greater understanding of how they fit together to explain the life of Christ.

Matthew

The gospel of Matthew was written to prove that Jesus Christ was the promised Messiah of the Old Testament. It was written to a Jewish audience using many quotes from the Old Testament. The Jewish audience would have required the Old Testament to support Matthew's claims of Jesus as Messiah. The fact that Matthew wrote for the Jews is seen from the first chapter where he gives the genealogy of Jesus Christ. His family tree is traced back through David and Abraham. The promise to the Jews in the Old Testament was that the Messiah would come through the line of Abraham and later through David. The book of Matthew often refers to Jesus as the "Son of David." (Matthew 1:1; 9:27; 12:23; etc.)

Matthew's gospel talks about Jewish traditions without giving explanations of them. It is assumed that the readers of this gospel understand the traditions and customs of the Jews.

While other books contain portions of the Sermon on the Mount, none cover it as thoroughly as the book of Matthew. Christ's teachings in this portion of scripture (Matthew 5-7) contain elements that were specific to the Jews. Often Christ says in this sermon, "it was said by them of old time." He is talking about the Jewish traditions and Pharisaical laws that had crept into the Law as given by God through Moses. Prefacing all of that, Jesus expressly said that He did not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17).

Mark

The gospel of Mark is written to a Roman audience to show the accomplishments of Jesus Christ as the emperor of the world. The Romans would not have cared about the lineage of Jesus like the Jews did; therefore, no genealogy is given. Like any Roman emperor, there was more emphasis on what Christ accomplished rather than who He was in history. Since it would have meant little to the Romans, Mark didn't attempt to show Christ as the Messiah. Instead the book starts out calling Jesus "the Son of God" (Mark 1:1). This is a title that Roman emperors often used for themselves.

There are several Aramaic words and phrases in Matthew because the Jews would have known Aramaic. But in Mark those phrases are translated for the readers. The book of Mark uses the Latin phrasing of the Romans as opposed to the more common Greek phrasing used by Luke. Mark explains Jewish traditions with the assumption that the Roman audience would be less familiar with them (Mark 7:3, 4; 14:12; 15:42).

Mark records time in a Roman fashion in the book. The Jews indicated time by "hours" of the day and night, while the Romans marked time in "watches." (Matthew 20:3, 5; Mark 6:48)

In an attempt to show Christ as a man of action, establishing His credentials, Mark records more miracles than any other gospel. It is a short book full of immediacy and urgency. The word "immediately" occurs more than 40 times. Interestingly, the word "law" (very important to the Jews and the book of Matthew) does not occur at all in the book of Mark.

Luke

The language of the book of Luke suggests that his intended audience is Greek. The Greeks were the controlling people in the region before the recent arrival of the Romans. In some cases Luke uses the Greek names of places as opposed to the Roman names. For example Luke calls the place of the crucifixion of Christ, Calvary, while the other gospels call it Golgotha. Luke avoids certain Jewish words like "rabbi" and "Abba."

Luke was a medical doctor and appealed to the educated mind of the Greeks. He rarely quoted from the Old Testament, but when he did it was from the Septuagint version (Greek translation of the Old Testament). He seemed to write with details that the other gospels did not include. This was more satisfactory to the critical, philosophical mind of the Greeks.

In the first four verses, Luke states his purpose in writing the book. He says that he is attempting to cover the events of Jesus' life in an orderly sequence. Luke does not try to prove that Jesus is anything or anyone in particular (Messiah, King of Israel or Son of God), he is simply presenting the facts in a detailed manner to allow the reader to draw his own conclusions.

Unlike Matthew's genealogy, Luke traces Christ's heritage back to Adam. Luke establishes Jesus Christ as human. Many of the accounts in the early chapters (details of his family and birth) are to show that Jesus is the Son of Man.

John

The book of John was written many years after the events of the gospels occurred. It was written around 90 A.D. There is no attempt to prove a certain aspect of Christ to a certain group of people. Therefore John's gospel appeals to a universal audience. One would not need to understand Jewish tradition, Roman authority nor Greek philosophy to understand the book of John.

John teaches more about Christ and who He is in relation to history, the Old Testament and the future of the world than the other books. It is a book concerned about the teachings of theology rather than the events of Jesus' life. John states his purpose in writing is to show that Christ is the Son of God and how that believing on Him one can be saved (John 20:31, 31).

Conclusion

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John have different audiences and different purposes. When studying these books it is good to see them as being written to four distinct people groups. Understanding the mindset of the audience and the proofs of the writers will help the reader understand the gospels as a group.

http://www.infobarrel.com/Gospel's_I..._Luke_and_John

I hope that helps as a brief description of why I believe the Gospels have different audiences, and how when interpreting them it is important to consider that fact. In relation to this topic, it explains why Matthew includes the "exception clause", while Mark and Luke do not. Matthew would have been concerned with clarifying the status of one using the writ of divorcement for his Jewish audience because a writ of divorcement was necessary to dissolve a betrothal. It is also important to note that those who were betrothed were called "husband" and "wife" during the betrothal period before the consummation of their marriage. Essentially, Matthew is saying that if a man puts away his wife, except for the cause of fornication (not adultery), and marries another, he commits adultery. We see this very thing taking place in the very same Gospel...

Matthew 1:19
Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.

Keep in mind, Joseph and Mary were only betrothed at this point. The grounds of terminating the betrothal would have been "fornication", and Joseph could have gone on to marry another, because they had not consummated their union, sealing the covenant, yet.

This interpretation brings the meaning of what is being said in Matthew into complete agreement with what is stated in Gospels of Mark and Luke where no exception clause is found. And, as explained above, the Roman and Greek audiences wouldn't have cared much about the Jewish customs of betrothal, so Mark and Luke have no real reason to even mention it. So, they cut to the point.

Mark 10:11-12
And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

Luke 16:18
Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

TO BE CONTINUED...

[n david]

Originally Posted by berkeley

You gave him an escape.

I wasn't clear on whether he was saying God told him this or if it was something previously read which was recalled during prayer and devotion.

I'm assuming it was the latter. I've had times when, during prayer and devotion, I will recall something previously read, either a scripture or passage from a book, etc.

Obviously a source should have been included.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

The "one wife" doctrine is similar, but perhaps even more crucial. I'd like to share some thoughts on that interpretation. You believe that the one wife doctrine means that they must be married to the only wife that they have ever had. It makes everything simpler for you this way. It seems to me that your theory would exclude widowers who remarried, as well as they who married and divorced before becoming saved. Just my thoughts.

If my conclusion on the nature of the Gospel of Matthew as it relates to divorce and remarriage is correct, anyone who had completed the betrothal period and consummated their marriage would be in adultery if they divorced and married another. And so, they would have two indissoluble unions, making the second an adulteration of the first. This would support the idea that even though divorced from the first, the man in question has had two wives.

The Scripture clearly states that one is bound to their husband for as long as he lives. So, widowers would be exempt of such a standard.

I believe that the proper interpretation is that they do not have more than one wife . . . currently. I acknowledge that this is an issue that is not as simple, and the answer not as obvious as we would like it to be.

I can see what you're saying. But it opens the door for one to have been married multiple times and still be qualified to serve as bishop. I believe the standard dovetails with the requirement to ruling one's home well, being above reproach, and having a good report of those who are without. I've seen the drama that an angry ex can bring just to a divorced man who is licensed as a preacher under a pastor. The she said, he said started... and, it was hard to know the truth. The church was confused. "Is all the stuff his ex is saying true?" He flat out denied it. "Is the preacher telling the truth?" Then there were those who seemed to believe her over him, and him over her. For nearly two months the church was somewhat divided on the issue, silly gossip started that was absolutely false, and the pastor ended up sitting him down. After the dust settled the man (still licensed) was advised to transfer to a church where no one knew neither him nor her. He did and last I checked, he was still licensed and preaching. Now, imagine this happening to a pastor. The office of pastor (bishop/elder) should be above reproach because the stability of the church is strongly effected by the stability of the pastor. There are horror stories of divorcee pastors who after being installed it came to light that they were the abusers or the unfaithful ones. To disqualify a divorcee keeps it clean and simple. It helps to ensure that the office is above reproach. And it elevates men who run their home life well and have a good report all around.

Remember Aquila, the church at Jerusalem was zealous concerning the law. As you have pointed out, we have a new covenant, we are not bound by the law as the Israelites were. But they were following the law. So . . . if my brother died and had not fathered a man-child, I was required by law to take his wife (even though I am already married), and father a son unto him. Now I have two wives, and wouldn't you know it, my other brother dies, and guess what, he had no son either. Now I am required (by law) to do the same for my other brother. I now have three wives. (Do you remember the hypothetical situation where seven brothers married the same woman, in turn, each dying, until she had been married to them all, and whose wife would she be in the afterlife? This was a situation that lets us know that this law was still being followed in Jesus' lifetime.) So to say that the one wife thing, means more than one wife in your lifetime, doesn't survive the test of rightly dividing the scripture to me. And if you are wrong, and I believe you are, your whole doctrine collapses because your foundation is faulty.

While I understand that the church in Jerusalem was zealous for the law, I don't recall the Levirate marriage practices being embraced by the early church. In addition, it is my understanding that for most of Hellenized Judaism, the practice had fallen to the wayside by the first century. I could be mistaken and thinking of something else. Can you provide any sources or additional information on this?

I will entertain the notion though. Certainly there was some overlap in practice in some areas, so assuming that is the case with this practice, I'd say that it was an OT issue that needed NT resolution. It would stand as a testimony of what not to do. Which, I Timothy 3:2 would have helped to establish. If any church still practicing Levirate marriage existed at the time of the writing of I Timothy, certainly those in such marriages would be disqualified for eldership. I've heard that some see the text in I Timothy as establishing a "one wife" rule specifically because there were pockets of believers in polygamous marriages.

Either way, I Timothy 3:2 would put a cap on having more than one wife, be it polygamous or on account of divorce and remarriage.

I am reluctant to criticize you, because I know you receive plenty of that, and I don't feel good about piling on somebody, however please accept this as constructive criticism and respond to it with an answer that is based solidly on scripture. You have picked one of three theories that are based on commentary of someone who is floating them as possible interpretations of a passage. It seems to me that out of three possibilities, he has no alternative but to be wrong twice. I don't like the numbers, yet you fasten onto one of the three, and evidently take it for settled fact.

I can't say that my interpretation is settled fact. What I can say is that my interpretation agrees quite a bit with the older interpretations that we see held by the old world churches such as Roman Catholicism and Greek Orthodoxy.

Once again, I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just searching for the truth. Let me know what you think.

You're fine my brother. The spirit of your post is what I actually prefer.

God bless you for providing some respectful and truly thoughtful conversation on this topic.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

Please clarify the "thought came to mind as I meditated upon the Lord" part here. Is this a thought you believe came from the Lord or is it something you previously read which you then remembered during this time?

Wow. Are you really interrogating me about my morning prayer time? LOL

During my morning prayers and devotion, God impressed upon me to emphasize mercy and grace. He also impressed upon me that there was someone currently in ministry that was a divorcee reading my posts, and that there was a divorcee feeling the call to ministry. This is probably why God brought this came up. God is loving, gracious, and merciful. Sin can be covered in the blood and forgiven. And the church holds the authority to loose and bind upon the body as led by the Holy Spirit. The standard rule is often made by the exceptions. His mercy endures forever.

The pottery story was just something that came to mind as I posted about what I felt God telling me. It was from my heart to those who might have felt discouraged or troubled about their circumstance.

[berkeley]

Originally Posted by Aquila

The pottery story was just something that came to mind as I posted about what I felt God telling me. It was from my heart to those who might have felt discouraged or troubled about their circumstance.

What??

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Wow. Are you really interrogating me about my morning prayer time?

Not interrogating. As stated previously, I wasn't sure if you were saying the Lord gave that to you or it was something you were remembering. I was trying to understand what you were saying, instead of assuming and posting something else.

Obviously, if you were claiming the Lord gave it to you, there's a major issue since it's word for word from another source.

Originally Posted by Aquila

The pottery story was just something that came to mind as I posted about what I felt God telling me. It was from my heart to those who might have felt discouraged or troubled about their circumstance.

It's a good story. In fact, I shared it with a co-worker because I noticed she has a bowl in her office which looks like the one from your post.

As I posted before, I've had the same experience in which something I've previously read was brought back to my mind during prayer and devotion.