Menu

Your Thoughts

M
murdog

Saints,

I just wanted to tell you about what is happening in my life and I encourage your thoughts and opinions in regards to my situation.

I came to know the Lord around five years ago. I came out of a criminal past involving drugs, violence and organized crime. I was going through alot and I started seeing a woman who was divorced. I also had a child from another woman who I was the sole caregiver to. The divorced woman I was seeing at the time became pregnant. I thought the right thing to do was to marry her because she was pregnant even though she was divorced. Everytime I opened the bible I would open to the scripture that said "anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery". It troubled me greatly. But like a fool I chose my own path and went ahead and married her. I wanted to have a family for the unborn baby and for my son whom I had from a previous relationship. We got married in February 2004. It was a very tumultuous relationship. We had many problems, but managed to stay together until February of this year. We had one more child together in that time. She left and within a couple of weeks, she had started seeing someone else.

At first I was praying that we would be reconciled even though she was with someone else. I started attending a mennonite church and I was telling the pastor about my situation and I was seeking direction from him. He told me not to pray for reconciliation with her because it was a sinful relationship because she was a divorced woman and that caused me to commit adultery. He also told me not to pursue another relationship because I will soon be a divorced man and I am not free to remarry.

This was difficult to hear because I always wanted to have a Godly wife, but I believe what he told me was the truth.

Murray

C
crsschk

Interesting the timing of these things ...

He told me not to pray for reconciliation

Find that quite hard to swallow.

Brother I do not know there is an easy answer here ...

"anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery"

That is not quite accurate. For what it's worth, you may find something in this thread as well;

[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=16858&forum=36&start=40&viewmode=flat&order=0]The husband of one wife[/url]

A good link in there from John Piper as well.

Came across something from Richard Baxter today that might also be of some help, it will take a bit to type out but will reply back here with it.

S
sermonindex

murdog, may the Holy Spirit continue to lead you in all truth and may the Lord bless you in following His word.

Let anyone you want tell you that its ok to remarry or stay married in an adulterous relationship, but you continue to stand on the word of God. I am overjoyed to hear that you received Godly and scripturally sound council on the matter. No practicing adulterer will inherit eternal life (regardless of what the pastor of some big steeple house tells them)

you should run and leap for joy that God placed His council in your path to keep you from the strong delusion that this generation is under.

In Christ - Jim

S
sojourner7

Murray, you said you have always wanted a
godly wife. This woman you got involved
with evidently was not a godly woman.
You know in your heart that if God is not
the center in a marriage relationship it
won't work. Better that you were not
reconciled with her.

P
PreachParsly

stay married in an adulterous relationship

I don't plan on getting very involved in this discussion but...

This type of language has honestly never made sense to me. How can you be married and the relationship supposedly isn't really a marriage? Is it a marriage or not?

S
sermonindex

hey preach when I use that language I am refering to being married in societies view, while being an adulterer in Gods view.

be blessed brother - Jim

S
sermonindex

BTW - Jesus used the same terminology.

Matthew 19:9
"I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

C
crsschk

jimdied2sin

Are you married?

S
sermonindex

yes Mike, I am... (dreading next question :o)

C
ccchhhrrriiisss

Hi Murdog...

I won't pretend to know the answer to your plight, but I suggest that no one else has a definitive answer either. My newlywed wife and I were discussing this issue the other day. We both disagreed on the rationale behind the Scripture pertaining to divorce and remarriage.

My sister and her husband endured a terrible relationship for about 10 years. They started out in Church, but they strayed following the loss of their first child. My sister had been given a "word from the Lord" by her pastor that the baby would live. A couple of days later, the baby (Christian) died. This devastated my sister. This lack of wisdom on behalf of a well-meaning but misguided pastor literally drove her away from the Lord.

A few years later, my sister was caught into the allure of the internet. She went on a two week long "vacation" to meet an old high school friend (female) now living in New York. When we found out that she wasn't calling very often, my sister checked her email. She was shocked to find that my sister had been carrying on a long-term romance with a man in New York City. We later learned that she wasn't even visiting her friend from high school, but a man that she met online. Her husband was devastated. Still, he tried to keep their marriage together. They had two very little boys. Unfortunately, my sister did it again. She left her wonderful husband for a twice divorced, very well-to-do man who was as old as our dad.

My sister and her husband quickly divorced. Her ex-husband has remained a very good friend. A few years ago, he would come to my college dorm for prayer and fellowship. About a year ago, he moved near my sister in order to be closer to his children. He has a peaceful relationship with my sister and her new husband (who seems to be a "nice" guy). But it is a sad thing to see the terrible experience that my ex-brother in law has endured. He is extremely lonely. He works, spends time with his children, and is very involved with his local church.

My wife and I discussed the possibly of remarriage for my ex-brother in law. I told her that, while I have seen no clear directive from Scripture, I know that it isn't good for him to be alone. I suggested that remarriage is not such a bad thing. My wife disagreed. She said that remarriage is strictly forbidden by the Scriptures. She was quite convinced that remarriage is a "sin" regardless of the rationale or circumstance (even death or adultery). After a few days of study and reflection, my wife was still obstinate about the issue. I wasn't trying to change her opinion. Rather, I was attempting to show her that it [u]might[/u] be acceptable in some circumstances. One night, she read a verse from the older Spanish version (Antiqua) which she felt clearly indicated that remarriage was acceptable when in cases of marriage unfaithfulness.

The point is that our limited intellects often lead us in one direction -- until a point of realization prompts us in another. Be very careful about individuals who give you a "certain word" from the Scriptures about such instances. While they may mean well, such individuals may no more speak for God as that misguided and well-meaning pastor who "gave a word" to my sister.

I will certainly remember you in prayer. I'm not sure that we will discover an easy solution, but we do know the One who knows all things. At any moment, we can throw up our arms in surrender to the Lord and start afresh. Be very careful of those believers who feel that you should believe exactly as they do in such an unclear situation.

As for the marriage thing, I suppose that you are still married to her. As a brother, if I were in the same situation, I would attempt a reconciliation. Why? Because "[i]What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder[/i]." This, of course, is my opinion -- and not a certain word from the Lord.

I am praying for you, your wife, your children and your decision.

:-)

M
murdog

Mike,

I didn't understand when you said:

Interesting the timing of these things....

I have a question. Since we are not yet divorced, and she is committing sexual sin with another man, is that adultery?

Murray

M
murdog

Chris,

I cannot attempt a reconciliation, she is with another man.

Secondly, I don't believe God did join us together, because she is still bound to her first husband until he dies. I believe our marriage was adultery. God was continually leading me to that scripture about marrying a divorced woman causes you to commit adultery. I did not listen, I relied on my own wisdom.

Murray

T
theopenlife

You can [b]definitely[/b] remarry under certain circumstances, or else we aren't saved! Read Romans 7:1-4

1Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
2For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
3So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
4Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; [b]that ye should be married to another[/b], even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

The death of the spouse legally frees a man or woman to remarry. In the case of adultery, the old covenant law required execution, thus an adulterer was as good as dead once the sin was discovered.

Though execution of adulterers is no longer practiced, this is how Calvin and Luther came to defend their position that if a man is betrayed by his spouse and chooses not to remain with her, he is free to marry another on account of her being "dead" according to the law.

My father was married until my mother committed adultery and divorced him. She committed adultery, and he waited several years, but eventually remarried, seeing she proved herself "dead in her sins" as an unbeliever.

He now has peace as a married man.

It appears that you, MurDog, are guilty of fornicating and adultery, but you have never been married in the sight of God. I have difficulty seeing how then you are not eligible for marriage when you have never been married?

God bless you, stand strong and seek His wisdom.

M
murdog

Michael,

In the scripture that you quoted, I believe that it is speaking of being married to Christ. Where it says "that ye should be married to another, even to HIM who is raised from the dead".

I believe the marriage I am in is classified as an adulterous marriage. The scripture says that "anyone who MARRYS a divorced woman, commits adultery". That is why I believe I am not free to remarry. Although the marriage was adulterous, it is still a marriage. And soon I will be considered a divorced man.

Murray

G
ginnyrose

Murray,

You know what the Scriptures says about your situation so I would encourage you to remain faithful to it. I agree with you. The enemy will come along and make you question the rightness of your situation and in the process question the Biblical directives concerning divorce and remarriage. He will inform yu that you deserve to be married, you deserve to be happy, that you do not want to grow old alone, etc., etc., etc.

Now let me ask you a few questions: has God been with you so far? Have you endured? Now what makes you think He will not be there in the future and care for you? Brother, you live one day at a time, or moment by moment, if you will. Do not worry about tomorrow or the future, for that matter.

There is only one thing I would differ with you: if your first 'marriage' was adulterous then when you remove yourself from that union which was not a legitimate one anyways, this could free you to marry. But brother, if the LORD does not give you permission to go ahead with it, don't.

Murray, there are many people who will justify a remarriage after divorce with a former spouse living but you must remember they never died for your sins, they do not know what hell is like so do not listen to them!

Blessings and hoping you will remain faithfull,

ginnyrose

C
crsschk

Are you married?
yes Mike, I am... (dreading next question :o)

Sorry about that, didn't realize at the time how that might be taken. There is a number of things on my mind about all this ... in a general sense.

C
crsschk

I didn't understand when you said:

Hi brother. At the time you first posted this there was two or three others related up at the same time.

I really appreciated Chris's reply here. This matter has been gone through numerous times on this site and I think Chris exemplified something that was also related to by Philologos and that is that this is often a very difficult matter and not as cut and dried as we might think. It is just as well very difficult to work through all the particulars in a setting like this.

It has sent me back to the same scriptures to ponder and pray about .. once again. There is a very personal aspect to this due to someone who is very dear to me ...

What this has done is to take much into account and it raises a number of questions both broadly and in the very narrow sense. I have my own experience which was one of being outside the Lord and 'married' in my mind for seven years, helping raise her son. My present marriage, 'official' and at the time that I was just coming out of the darkness. My wife wasn't married prior but did have a son ...

Here are the hard questions and I am staunchly old fashioned in this and hold marriage to be most honorable. Something truly doesn't add up with what amounts to ... the only word that comes to mind lately is 'banishment' in far too many cases when it comes to remarriage. I just find it very difficult to reconcile ... well, that is the word actually, 'reconciliation'. And that on a number of fronts ... Where does forgiveness fit into all this? It is a true and honest question, not a dodge. What I do wonder at is how this can be taken to be an 'always', black\\white situation, no matter the circumstances, the turning and repenting, the starting over ... the places that either spouse may be at the time of divorce - saved or unsaved? And what to the ones left, with children, through no fault or even a fault of their own ... that a good, God fearing man cannot take such a one to be his wife and sacrifice even the misunderstanding of intention to bring forth an honorable marriage? Even in my instance, am I off the hook because I married, not a divorced woman but one who had conceived out of wedlock? Though she was saved and I was somewhere in the process of being so? See how easily complicated these things can be?

There is a great deal more and I just pray that we can truly look at these things soberly, there is a lot at stake Brethren, more than we know.

Murray, will be praying for you brother.

A
awakenwithin

I have some questions

My father had married a divorced women. Now she lefted him for a other man.. He beleived that she was his wife and he would fight for her. For 5 years this man, loved this women whom had no love for him. He wrote her and called, he did everything he could.

I reminder hosa, how God had go and get his wife back. I guess my questions are is it right to say so fast that reconciliation can't be made. It seems hard thing to say. can we say that he is have reconciliation? This a hard thing.. Maybe it can't be reconciliation, but is it right not to try? what is there is Children?

brother I am praying for you. God alone put His word in our heart.. May he help in everyway..

in his love
charlene

F
freedbyjc

In counseling a couple deep in the throes of the pain and grief that is adultery and resolutely headed for a divorce; I'm trying to help one repent from adultery and keep his life pure and they other to recover from the grief of a lost marriage and all of its inherent dreasm and needs, and move to a place where God's will is more important than hers...I was blessed to receive John Piper's recent sermons on marriage. [b][i]What Therefore God Has Joined Together, Let Not Man Separate [/i][/b] This and [url=http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TopicIndex/135/]his archives[/url] have helped me help them come to an understanding of God's will for their relationship and their lives.

John Piper has an astute way of looking at the scriptures...

[b]Are there no exceptions to the prohibition of remarriage while the spouse is living? [/b]
My answer is no. But I am very much in the minority of biblical students, and even among Bible-believing scholars and pastors. So let’s turn very briefly to Matthew 19 to see the main argument for the exception of adultery—that is, the argument that when there has been adultery against a spouse he or she is free to divorce and remarry. Matthew 19:3-12 is very much like the words of Jesus we saw last week in Mark 10:1-12. There are two main differences. The first one is in verse 9 where there is an exception clause: “And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” Most scholars say that the words “except for sexual immorality” mean that if there has been adultery, the aggrieved spouse is free to divorce and remarry.


[b]Piper’s Position[/b]
I don’t think that is what Jesus meant. There is no time to give the fairly involved explanation why. For that I refer you to [url=http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/1986/1488_Divorce_and_Remarriage_A_Position_Paper]Divorce and Remarriage[/url]: A Position Paper. In a few sentences, since Jesus does not use the word “adultery” here (when he says “except for sexual immorality”), which he uses elsewhere (15:9) in distinction to this word, but instead uses the word typically referring to “fornication” (see especially John 8:41), I think what Jesus is doing is warning his readers that this absolute prohibition against remarriage does not apply to the situation of betrothal, where fornication may have happened.

In the article -Position Paper- listed above Piper states and -IMHO- very scripturally supports his [b]Eleven Reasons Why I Believe All Remarriage After Divorce Is Prohibited While Both Spouses Are Alive[/b]


and he concludes

In the New Testament the question about remarriage after divorce is not determined by:

-The guilt or innocence of either spouse,
Nor by whether either spouse is a believer or not,
-Nor by whether the divorce happened before or after either spouse's conversion,
-Nor by the ease or difficulty of living as a single parent for the rest of life on earth,
-Nor by whether there is adultery or desertion involved,
-Nor by the on-going reality of the hardness of the human heart,
-Nor by the cultural permissiveness of the surrounding society.

Rather it is determined by the fact that:

*Marriage is a "one-flesh" relationship of divine establishment and extraordinary significance in the eyes of God (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5; Mark 10:8),
*Only God, not man, can end this one-flesh relationship (Matthew 19:6; Mark 10:9—this is why remarriage is called adultery by Jesus: he assumes that the first marriage is still binding, Matthew 5:32; Luke 16:18; Mark 10:11),
*God ends the one-flesh relationship of marriage only through the death of one of the spouses (Romans 7:1-3; 1 Corinthians 7:39),
*The grace and power of God are promised and sufficient to enable a trusting, divorced Christian to be single all this earthly life if necessary (Matthew 19:10-12,26; 1 Corinthians 10:13),
*Temporal frustrations and disadvantages are much to be preferred over the disobedience of remarriage, and will yield deep and lasting joy both in this life and the life to come (Matthew 5:29-30).


Those who are already remarried:

*Should acknowledge that the choice to remarry and the act of entering a second marriage was sin, and confess it as such and seek forgiveness
*Should not attempt to return to the first partner after entering a second union (see 8.2 above)
*Should not separate and live as single people thinking that this would result in less sin because all their sexual relations are acts of adultery. The Bible does not give prescriptions for this particular case, but it does treat second marriages as having significant standing in God's eyes. That is, there were promises made and there has been a union formed. It should not have been formed, but it was. It is not to be taken lightly. Promises are to be kept, and the union is to be sanctified to God. While not the ideal state, staying in a second marriage is God's will for a couple and their ongoing relations should not be looked on as adulterous.

Please read the all the sermons and the accompaniing articles to get the compl;ete picture of his insight of God's desire for those in these situations.

C
crsschk

[i]Quest.[/i]V. May husband and wife part by mutual consent, if they find it be for the good of both?

[i]Answ.[/i] If you speak not of dissolving the bond of their relations, but withdrawing as to cohabitation, I answer, 1. it is not to be done upon passions and discontents, to feed and gratify each others vicious distempers or interest: for then both the consent and the separation are their sins: but if really such an uncurable unsuitableness be between them, as that their lives must needs be miserable by their cohabitation, I know not but they may live asunder; so be it, that (after all other means used in vain) they do it by deliberate, free consent. But if one of them should by craft or cruelty constrain the other to consent, it is unlawful to the constrainer. Nor must impatience make either of them ungroundedly despair of the cure of any unsuitableness which is really curable. But many sad instances might be given, in which cohabitation may be a constant calamity to both, and distance may be their relief, and further them both in God's service, and in their corporal concernments. Yet I say not that this is no sin; for their unsuitableness is their sin: and God still obligeth them to lay down that sin which make them unsuitable; and therefore doth not allow them to live asunder, it being still their duty to live together in love and peace; and saying they cannot, freeth them not from the duty. But yet that moral impotency may make such a seperation as foresaid, to be lesser sin than their unpeaceable cohabitation.

[i]Quest[/i].VI. May not the relation itself be dissolved by mutual, free consent, so that they may marry others?

[i]Answ.[/i] As to the relation, they will still be related as those that did not covenant to live in conjugal society, and are still allowed it and obliged to it, if the impediments were but removed; and it is but the exercise which is hindered. And they may not consent to marry others: 1. Because the contracted relation was for life, Rom vii.2, and God's law accordingly obligeth them. Marriages [i]pro tempore,[/i] dissoluble by consent, are not of God's institution, but contrary to it. 2. They know not but their impediments of cohabitation may be removed. 3. If he that marrieth an innocent divorced woman commit adultery, by parity of reason (with advantage) it will be so here. If you say, what if either of them cannot contain? I answer, he that will not take heed before, must be patient afterwards, and not make advantage of his own folly, to the fulfilling of his lusts. If he will do what he ought to do in the use of all means, he may live chastely. And, 4. The public interest must overrule the private, and that which would be unjust in private respects, may for public good become a duty: it seemeth unjust here with us, that the innocent country should repay every man his money, who between sun and sun is robbed on the road; and yet because it will engage the country to watchfulness, it is just, as for the common good: and he that consenteh to be a member of the commonwealth, doth thereby consent to submit his own right to the common interest. So here, if all should have leave to marry others when they consent to part, it would bring utter confusion, and it would encourage wicked men to abuse their wives, till they forced them to consent. Therefore some must bear the trouble which their folly hath brought on themselves, rather than the common order should be confounded.

[i]Quest.[/i] VII. Doth adultery dissolve the bond of marriage, or not? Amesius saith it doth: Mr. Whateley having said so, afterward recanted it by the persuasion of other divines.

[i]Answ.[/i] The difference is only about the name, and not the matter itself. The reason which moved Dr. Ames is, because the injured person is free; therefore not bound: therefore the bond is dissolved. The reason which Mr. Whateley could not answer is, because it is not fornication, but lawful, if they continue their conjugal familiarity after adultery: therefore that bond is not dissolved. In all which is easy to perceive, that one of them taketh the word [i]vinculum[/i] or bond in one sense, that is "for their covenant obligation to continue their relation and mutual duties." And the other taketh it in another sense, that is, "for the relation itself as by it they are allowed conjugal familiarity, if the injured person will continue it." The first [i]vinculum[/i] or bond is dissolved, the second is not. In the matter we are agreed, that the injured man may put away an adulterous wife (in a regular way) if he please; but withal that he may continue the relation if he please. So that his continued consent shall suffice to continue it a lawful relation and exercise; and his will, on the contrary, shall suffice to dissolve the relation, and disoblige him. (Saving the public order.)

[i]Quest.[/i] VIII. But is not the injured party at all obliged to separate, but left free?

[i]Answ.[/i] Considering the thing simply in itself, he is wholly free to do as he please. But for all that accidents or circumstances may make it one man's duty to divorce, and another's duty to continue the relation; according as it is like to do more good or hurt. Sometimes it may be a duty to expose the sin to public shame, for the prevention of it in others; and also to deliver oneself from calamity. And sometimes there may be so great repentance, and hope of better effects by forgiving, that it may be a duty to forgive: and prudence must lay one thing with another, to discern on which side the duty lieth.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Continued ...

C
ccchhhrrriiisss

Hi Murray...

Please understand that all we can offer you is advice. Yet under the present circumstances (particularly regarding "this glass darkly" [I Cor. 13:11-12] in which we see all such things), what makes us think that our advice is any more spiritual than that of Job's friends? We should be steadfast in not trying to explain such matters, but instead, to remind one another to seek the face of God for an answer.

Indeed, there are no easy answers in this situation -- regardless of what the optimistic proud would have us believe. However, the only "easy" answer should be our recommendation that you spend time in intimate prayer with God over this. Just an intimate time in His Presence, where we come naked and transparent, often brings clarity from things that aren't exactly clear.

In addition to the anecdote that I relayed about my sister and her ex-husband, I offer two more:

My mother became pregnant with my oldest sister when she was only 14 or 15. Her boyfriend (my physical father) did the "noble" thing and married her. Within four years, my mother had two more children (another sister and myself). However, she was in an abusive relationship. My father often beat my mother -- sometimes in front of her sisters (my aunts). When my father learned that my mom was pregnant with me, he told her that she needed to have an abortion. She refused. My mother took an awful beating for this. In fact, my father tried to cause a miscarriage through these beatings. He repeatedly kicked her in the stomach when she was pregnant with me. Finally, my mother left him.

My father was at work one day when her teenage sisters helped her pack. She caught a ride with a friend (a truck driver) to Virginia. My mother and father quickly divorced. My father never attempted to reconcile or even contact us. So here was my mother: Unsaved, divorced, and pregnant with her third child. Since she came from a very "proud" family, my mother refused to take government assistance. She felt that such economic aid was for "people who REALLY needed it." So my mother worked at a 7/11 convenience store, eventually working her way into management. On the weekends, she waited tables at a local restaurants for tips.

A few years later, my mother met my "dad." My dad was a military man stationed at a nearby base. During the weekday mornings, my dad frequented the restaurant where my mother worked on the weekends. One day, he happened to want breakfast on the weekend. They met, eventually fell "in love," and married within a nine months. This was my dad's first (and only) marriage. Although he was a faithful Lutheran, he had never had a real experience with the Lord.

Growing up, my dad always treated us like we were his own flesh-and-blood children. He was a true father figure, and he never betrayed our trust. At one point, he even took up a second job in order to earn enough so that my mom wouldn't have to keep working. He spent time with us, taught us a great many things, and genuinely loved us. Even after my mom later gave birth to my little sister (a "real" child for my dad), my dad never treated us any differently. He was a very good man. Even though neither my Mom nor my Dad knew the Lord, they made certain that we went to Church EVERY Sunday (via Church bus, van, or dropping us off).

When I was in the fourth grade, my mother met the Lord. My dad had recently been transferred to Millington, Tennessee, a small community just outside of Memphis. The mother of a friend of mine invited my mom to a Bible study and prayer meeting. A lot of the local mothers at the military base met once a week for a prayer meeting/Bible study, and my mom really enjoyed it. This woman then invited my mom to attend Church. That Sunday, my mom and my oldest sister attended Raleigh Assembly of God Church in Memphis, Tennessee. Like all good testimonies, my mother and my sister were felt good, Biblical conviction of their sins. At the end of the service, they went to the "prayer rooms" to repent of their sins. By the time the Church bus dropped us off, my mom still had not arrived home. When she did arrive home an hour or two later, we could tell something had happened. My mom and oldest sister (who was 12 at the time) couldn't stop talking about the wonderful thing that had happened to them! The following Sunday, my mom told us that we wouldn't take the bus anymore. Rather, she was taking us to Church from now on! My dad didn't attend, but he encouraged my mother to keep seeking the Lord.

As my mom immediately began growing in the Lord, she often spoke with fellow believers when she had questions about Scripture. She often called the pastor (an older gentleman named J.D. Middlebrook) and assistant pastor (Dennis) for Scriptural advice. They were very patient with my mom, and often encouraged her to search the Scriptures for her own answers. They reminded her that they didn't know everything -- and that the only sure word that we have is what is written in the Word of God. Even the less essential "doctrines" of the AoG Church were certainly open to discussion (except those things that are abundantly clear from Scripture).

One day, my mom happened upon the verses pertaining to marriage, remarriage and divorce. She was devastated! She grabbed her Strong's Concordance and looked up every verse she could find about divorce. She wondered if she, according to the Scripture, needed to divorce my "dad" (her wonderful current husband) and return to her abusive first husband. After being unable to find an answer on her own, she contacted the assistant pastor (Dennis). Dennis and his wife were more than happy to meet with my mom. My mom explained her situation clearly to them, including her questions about her present "dilemma."

Pastor Dennis and his wife were quick to point out the lack of clarity concerning the Scriptures in this matter. Dennis explained that various denominations have extremely different perspectives on such issues. In fact, he told my mom about some of the heated discussions that would take place at the yearly major Council meetings in the Assemblies of God concerning preachers and remarriage. He calmed my mom's fears by telling her that she was not "living in sin." My mom had a true conversion experience, and that what was past was now forgotten. Yes, there would always be some "natural" elements of the past (children, husband, scars, etc...), but he reminder her what was "old has been made new."

Pastor Dennis told my mom that the lack of clarity in such matters from Scripture is often a very loud proclamation about how little God felt that we needed to know about such issues. God could very well have included passages that contained minute details about such "important" matters -- but He chose not to. Dennis and his wife told my mom that they offered no definitive answer to her situation, but that God was a good Father, and He was sure to work with my mom where she was. "[i][u]ALL[/u] of the old is made new[/i]," he reminded her. They assured my mom that they would quietly pray for her in this situation. My mom, of course, also prayed.

My mom "realized" that the best thing to do was to do nothing. She felt that the Lord's hand was certainly on our lives, and that He was big enough to overlook the sins of her past and deal with her in the present. She continued to serve the Lord with gladness, knowing that the Lord was more than able to direct her in the right direction. A few years later, my dad came to know the Lord. Even though he is not my biological father, he is certainly my dad. I've never really had a desire to meet or know my physical, earthly father (except to perhaps tell him about the Lord). My dad [u]IS[/u] my father (in my eyes).

I am reminded that the Lord's "lack of clarity" to our earthly minds might also be clarity itself. While the O.T. Law of Moses indeed instructed that an adulterous individual be executed, Joseph thought otherwise. Matthew 1:19 states:

Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.
Being a "just" man, or a "righteous" man -- Joseph was willing to DISOBEY the letter of the law (or at least how that "letter of the law" appeared to him). Instead, Joseph was willing to quietly divorce the woman that he thought had cheated on him instead of causing her to experience public disgrace. Ironically, there are members of the Church who would rather that some experience such public or private humiliation. They are willing to "force into submission" the letter of the "New Testament law" -- which is often speculative at best. Otherwise, they are willing to ostricize those with whom they disagree -- and label them with a metaphoric "scarlett letter" for their "disobedience." They remind us that the Word of God is "black and white" -- but forget the grace that comes with the red letter edition, formed with the blood of our Savior, who was crucified according to the "letter of the law."

Brother, I am not saying that the Word is never clear and that it should be followed according to our own interpretation. I am just saying to be careful about individuals who feel that their interpretation is supreme (and the only one that matters). They forget that God deals with us both collectively, but more importantly, INDIVIDUALLY. While Christ told the rich young ruler to go and "sell everything" and THEN come follow Him, we forget that Zacchaeus (that "wee little man") only decided to give only half of his belongings to the poor when Jesus proclaimed, [i]Salvation has come to this house today[/i]!" Be careful of Job's friends -- who think that they know the Lord well enough to advise others in just about all things.

There is an individual who used to attend our Church who recently left his second wife and returned to his first wife "BECAUSE OF THE LORD." His second wife and children are completely devastated. I've since wondered whether the Lord would ever cause a man to do this, break up a good and godly relationship and family, in order to fulfill the letter or the law?

As I said before, I am praying for you in this. I do not pretend to know a definitive answer. If your wife is indeed committing adultery, then it appears to fall under the New Testament means for divorce. Were you ever truly married? I would imagine that you entered into a sacred covenant before God and man -- regardless of whether or not you really knew what you were doing. The governing authority (the United States) seems to think so. Of course, I really don't know the certainty of this situation. But I will certainly be holding you in my prayers, brother. I am also praying for your wife. Don't fear -- for the Lord is always here. I pray that He leads you and guides you through this circumstance.

:-)

M
murdog

Saints,

I was reading John Piper's position and I found it very good up until the last part. How do you seek forgiveness for something you continue to do on a daily basis. This is not repentance. God does not bless an adulterous marriage. This is the type of logic that would say God would bless a homosexual marriage if they would seek forgiveness. I mean after all there were promises made.

When Jesus said "whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery", he didn't follow it up with until you seek forgivness, then God will bless it. We all know it is impossible to repent of something we know we are going to do everyday for the rest of our lives. It also says adulterers will not inherit the kingdom. I don't want to go to hell. I disobeyed already, I don't have to keep doing it.

Murray

P.S. Thank you for all the heartfelt contributions.

S
sermonindex

Murdog-

I had written before on another thread, that Pipers article is like a bottle of pure milk, with a little bit of poison at the bottom...

Rejoice brother, greatly rejoice as I said before.

In Christ - Jim

C
crsschk

Chris, thank you brother ...

C
crsschk

When Jesus said "whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery", he didn't follow it up with until you seek forgivness, then God will bless it.

No of course He didn't, neither did He imply there would be no forgiveness possible either, implicitly ... it's the wrong argument to draw from the context brother ...

What I fear is to take this lone statement and detach it from it's context ... is this not what so many do? Please understand, I am not necessarily offering this as a counter argument as if there were a drawing of sides ... Brethren, there is a great deal to consider. All the matters of divorce, remarriage, adultery, all the scriptures, all the situations and circumstances. To just do a word study on 'adultery' alone brings up many things.

Not to get into the tit for tat that can often come about ... The verse where Jesus spoke on the adultery of [i]looking to lust[/i]. Generally speaking we do not believe it to be [i]as[/i] true as the actual event, in other words to equate it with the same level that He did, that it was the same as if we had. We cannot believe that emphatically and still carry on a carved in stone and unmovable mind that allows no quarter from the verse;

"whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery"

Otherwise many of us are quite the hypocrites indeed, hiding the thought-full sins behind the easier out of [i]not having gone that far[/i] in actual committal. But the Lord says we have done the deed [i]already[/i]. Where do we put the adulterers of other men's wives many times over, in their minds and fantasies even while they are yet married?

Is this too much hyperbole? Or is it just to painful to truly face in actuality ... If we truly believed what the Lord stated there as much as this lone verse ... should either spouse have grounds for divorce, since, in fact adultery has been committed ... even if it was 'only' in the mind?

There is still a greater depth to these things I do not think we have truly come to terms with.

T
tjservant

There is still a greater depth to these things I do not think we have truly come to terms with.

Amen brother.

T
tjservant

pure milk, with a little bit of poison at the bottom...

Making it no longer pure. I may not agree with John Piper’s position, but I do know this. God wants you to know His will for you in this situation and all others. He will let you know what to do. It may not be as soon as you want it or feel that you need it, but it will come. I will be praying for you brother.

M
murdog

Mike,

I have been all through the scriptures that pertain to marriage, divorce and adultery. And I have come to the conclusion that as long as her first husband is alive, she is not released from the law of marriage.

It is interesting for as much as Jesus spoke in parables, when dealing with the issue of marriage with a divorced person, he used very clear language.

This is what I understand at this moment to be the truth.

Murray

C
crsschk

Hi Murray,

I understand to a point and would not argue from a standpoint of strength but of weakness. In other words, there is still something that is not squaring and so I would wish to continue to press on rather than to hold firm at the point of conclusion. Found the old puritan having much to challenge and just wish to present it here for the consideration of all. It will take a bit still to get through the sections and don't want to skirt them by jumping just to the matter of remarriage.

C
crsschk

[i]Quest.[/i] IX. Is it only the privilege of the man, that he may put away an adulterous wife? or also of the woman, to depart from an adulterous husband? The reason of the doubt is, because Christ mentioneth the man's power only, Matt. v. and xix.

[i]Answ.[/i] 1. The reason why Christ speaketh only of the man's case is, because he was occasioned only to restrain the vicious custom of mens causeless putting away their wives; having no occasion to restrain women from leaving their husbands. Men having the rule did abuse it to the woman's injury; which Christ forbiddeth. And as it is an act of power, it concerneth the man alone; but as it is an act of liberty, it seemeth to me to be supposed, that the woman hath the same freedom; seeing the covenant is violated to her wrong. And the apostle in 1 Cor. vii. doth make the case of the man and of the woman to be equal in he point of infidelity and desertion. I confess that it is unsafe extending the sense of Scripture beyond the importance of the words upon pretence of a parity of reason (as many of the perjured do by Lev. xxx. in case of vows): lest man's deceitful wit should make a law to itself as divine, upon pretence of interpreting God's laws: but yet when the plain text doth speak but of one, (that is, of men's putting away their wives,) he that will thence gather an exclusion of the woman's liberty, doth seem by addition to be the corrupter of the law. And where the context plainly showeth a parity of reason, and that reason, and that reason is made the ground of the determination in the text, there it is safe to expound the law extensively accordingly. Surely the covenant of marriage hath it's conditions on both parts: and some of those conditions are necessary to the very being of the obligations, though others are but needful to the well-being of the parties in that state. And therefore though putting away be only the part of the husband, as being the ruler, and usually the owner of the habitation, yet departing may be the liberty of the wife. And I know no reason to blame those countries, whose laws allow the wife to sue out a divorce, as well as the husband.

[i]Quest.[/i] X. May the husband put away the wife without the magistrate, or the wife depart from the husband, without a public legal divorce or license?

[i]Answ.[/i] Where the laws of the land do take care for the provision of injuries, and make any determination in the case, (not contrary to the law of God,) there it is a christian's duty to obey those laws: therefore if you live under a law which forbiddeth any putting away or departing, without public sentence or allowance, you may not do it privately upon your own will. For the civil governors are to provide against the private injuries of any of the subjects. And if persons might put away or depart at pleasure, it would introduce both injury and much weakness into the world. But where the laws of men do leave persons to their liberty in this case, they need then to look no further than to the laws of God alone. But usually the sentence of the civil power is necessary only in case of appeal, or complaint of the party injured; and a separation may be made without such a public divorce, so that each party may make use of the magistrate to right themselves if wronged. As, if the adultery be not openly known, and the injuring party desire rather to be put away privily than publicly, (as Joseph purposed to do by Mary,) I see not but it is lawful so to do, in case that the law, or the necessity of making the offender an example, require not the contrary, nor scandal or other accidents forbid it not. See Grotius's learned notes on Matt. v 31, 32, and on Matt. xix. and 1 Cor. vii. about these questions.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Continued

A
awakenwithin

brother chris and mike
thanks for your input In well put
Thanks

in his love
charlene

C
crsschk

[i]Quest.[/i] XI. Is not the case of sodomy or buggery a ground for warrantable divorce as well as adultery?

[i]Answ.[/i] Yes, and seemth to be included in the very word itself in the text, Matt. v 31,32, which signifieth uncleanness; or at least is fully implied in the reason of it. See Grotius ibid. also of this.

[i]Quest.[/i] XII. What if both parties commit adultery? may either of them put away the other, or depart; or rather must they forgive each other?

[i]Answ.[/i] If they do it both at once, they do both forfeit the liberty of seeking any compensation for the injury; because the injury is equal (however some would give the advantage to the man): but if one commit adultery first, and the other after; then either the last offender knew of the first, or not. If not, then it seemeth all one as if it had been done at once. But if yea, then they did it either on a supposition of the dissolution of the matrimonial obligation, as being loosed from the first adulterer, or else upon a purpose of continuing in the first relation: in the latter case, it is still all one a if it had been done by them at once, and it is a forfeiture of any satisfaction: but in the former case, though the last adulterer did sin, yet being before set at liberty, it doth not renew the matrimonial obligation: but yet, if the first offender desire the continuance of it, and the return of the first injured party; shame and conscience of their own sin, will much rebuke them, if they plead that injury for continuance of the separation.

[i]Quest.[/i] XIII. But what if one do purposely commit adultery, to be separated from the other?

[i]Answ.[/i] It is in the other's power and choice, whether to be divorced and depart, or not, as they find the good or evil consequents preponderate.

[i]Quest.[/i] XIV. Doth not infidelity dissolve the relation or obligation; seeing there is no communion between light and darkness, a believer and an infidel?

[i]Answ.[/i] It maketh it unlawful for a believer to marry an infidel (except in case of true necessity); because they can have no communion in religion. But it nullifeth not a marriage already made, nor maketh it lawful to depart or divorce; because they may have mere conjugal communion still. As the apostle purposely determineth the case, in 1 Cor. vii.

[i]Quest.[/i] XV. Doth not the desertion of one party disoblige the other?

[i]Answ.[/i] 1. It must be considered what is true desertion. 2. Whether it be a desertion of the relation itself for continuance, or only a temporary desertion of co-habitation, or congress. 3. What the temper and state of the deserted party is. 1. It is sometimes easy, and sometimes hard to discern which is the deserting party. If the wife go away from the husband unwarrantably, though she require him to follow her, and say that she doth not desert him, yet it may be taken for a desertion, because it is the man who is to rule and choose the habitation. But if the man go away, and the woman refuse to follow him, it is not he that is therefore the deserter.

[i]Quest[/i]. But what if the man have not sufficient cause to go away, and the woman hath great and urgent reasons not to go? As suppose that the man will go away in hatred of an able preacher, and good company, and the woman if she follow him, must leave all those helps, and go among ignorant, profane, heretical persons, or infidels; which is the deserter then?

[i]Answ.[/i] If she be one that is either like to do good to the infidels, heretics, or bad persons whom they must converse with, she may suppose the God calleth her to receive good by doing good; or if she be a confirmed, well-settled christian, and not very like, either by infection, of by want of helps, to be unsettled and miscarry, it seemeth to me the safest way to follow her husband. She must lose indeed God's public ordinances by following him: but it is not imputable to her, as being out her choice; and she must lose the benefits and neglect the duties of the conjugal ordinance, if she do not follow him. But if she be a person under such weaknesses, as make her removal apparently dangerous as to her perseverance and salvation, and her husband will by no means be prevailed with to change his mind, the case is then very difficult, what is her duty, and who is the deserter. Nay, if he did but lead her into a country where her life were like to be taken away, (as under the Spanish Inquisition,) unless her suffering were like to be as serviceable to Christ as her life. Indeed these cases are so difficult, that I will not decide them; the inconveniences (or mischiefs rather) are great which way soever she take: but I most incline to judge as followeth: viz. It is considerable first, what marriage obligheth her to, simply of its own nature; and what it may do next, by ant superadded contract, or by the law or custom of the land, or any other accident. As to the first, it seemeth to me, that every one's obligation is so much first to God, and hen to their own souls and lives; that marriage as such, which is for mutual help, as a means to higher ends, doth not oblige her to forsake all the communion of saints, and the place or country where God is lawfully worshiped, and to lose all the helps of public worship, and to expose her soul both to spiritual famine and infection, to the apparent hazard of her salvation (and perhaps bring her children into the same misery); nor hath God given her husband and power to do her so much wrong, nor is the marriage covenant to be interpreted to intend it. But what any human law or contract, or other accident which is of greater public consequence, may do more than marriage of itself, is a distinct case which must have a particular discussion.

[i]Quest.[/i] But what if the husband would only have her follow him, to he forsaking of her estate, and undoing herself and children in the world (as in the case of Galeacius Carracciolus, Marqui of Vicum); yea, and if it were without just cause?

[i]Answ.[/i] If it be for greater spiritual gain, (as in his case,) she is bound to follow him; but if it be apparently foolish, to the undoing of her and her children without any cause, I see not that marriage simply obligeth a woman so to follow a fool in beggary, or out of a calling, or to her ruin. But if it be at all a controvertible case, whether the cause be just or not, then the husband being a governor must judge. The laws of the land are supposed to be just, which allow a woman by trustees to secure some part of her former estate from her husband's disposal; much more may she beforehand secure herself and children from being ruined by his willful folly: be she can by no contract except herself from his true government.

Yet she must consider, whether she can live continently in his absence; otherwise the greatest sufferings must be endured, to avoid incontinency.
2. Moreover, in all these cases, a temporary removal may be further followed, than a perpetual transmigration, because it hath fewer evil consequents.

And if either party renounce the relation itself, it is a fuller desertion, and clearer discharge of the other party, than a mere removal is.

~~~~~~~~~~~

Continued.

C
crsschk

[i]Quest.[/i] XVI. What if a man or wife know that the other in hatred doth really intend by poison, or other murder, to take away their life? May they not depart?

[i]Answ.[/i] They may not do it upon a groundless or rash surmise; nor upon a danger which by other lawful means may be avoided (as by vigilancy, or the magistrate, or especially by love and duty). But in plain danger, which is not otherwise like to be avoided, I doubt not, that it may be done, and ought. For it is a duty to preserve our own lives as well as our neighbours''. And when marriage is contracted for mutual help, it is naturally implied, that they shall have no power to deprive one another of life (however some barbarous nations have given men power of the lives of their wives.) And killing is the grossest kind of desertion, and a greater injury and violation of the marriage covenant than adultery; and may be prevented by avoiding the murderer's presence, if that way be necessary. None of the ends of marriage can be attained, where the hatred is so great.

[i]Quest.[/i] XVII. If there be but a fixed hatred of each other, is it inconsistent with the ends of marriage? And is parting lawful in such a case?

[i]Answ.[/i] The injuring party is bound to love, and not to seperate; and can have no liberty by his or her sin. And to say, I cannot love, or my wife or husband is not amiable, is no sufficient excuse; because every person hath somewhat that is amiable, if it be but human nature; and that should have been foreseen before your choice. And as it is no excuse to a drunkard to say, I cannot leave my drink; so it is none to an adulterer, or hater of another, to say, I cannot love them: for that is but to say, I am so wicked that my heart or will is against my duty. But the innocent party's case is harder (though commonly both parties are faulty, and therefore both are obliged to return to love, and not to separate). But if hatred proceed not to adultery, or murder, or intolerable injuries, you must remember hat marriage is not a contract for years, but for lie, and that it is possible that hatred may be cured (how unlikely soever it may be). And therefore you must do your duty, and wait, and pray, and strive by love and goodness to recover love, and then stay to see what God will do; for mistakes in your choice will not warrant a separation.

[i]Quest.[/i]XVIII. What if a woman have a husband that will not suffer her to read the Scriptures, nor go to God's worship public or private, or that so beateth or abuseth her, as that it cannot be expected that human nature should be in such a case kept fit for any holy action; or if a man have a wife that will scold at him when he is praying or instructing his family, and make it impossible to him to serve God with freedom, or peace and comfort.

[i]Answ.[/i] The woman must (at necessary seasons, though not when she would) both read the Scriptures, and worship God, and suffer patiently what is afflicted on her. Martyrdom may be as comfortably suffered from a husband, as from a prince. But yet if neither her own love, and duty, and patience, nor friends' persuasion, nor the magistrate's justice, can free her from such inhuman cruelty, as quite disableth her for her duty to God and man, I see not but she may depart from such a tyrant. But the man hath more means to restrain his wife from beating him, or doing such intolerable things; either by the magistrate, or by denying her what else she might have, or by his own violent restraining her, as belongeth to a conjugal ruler, and as circumstances shall direct a prudent man. But yet in case that unsuitableness or sin be so great, that after long trial there is no likelihood of any other cohabitation, but what will tend to their spiritual hurt and calamity, it is their lesser sin to live asunder by mutual consent.

[i]Quest.[/i] XIX. May one part from a husband or wife that hath the leprosy, or that hath the French pox by their adulterous practices, when the innocent person's life is endangered by it?

[i]Answ.[/i] If it be an innocent person's disease, the other must cohabit, and tenderly cherish and comfort the diseased; yea, so as to somewhat to hazard their own lives; but not so as apparently to cast them away, upon a danger not like to be avoided, unless the other's life or some greater good be like to be purchased by it.

But if it be the pox of an adulterer, the innocent party is at liberty by the other's adultery; and the saving of their own lives, doth add thereto. But without adultery, the disease alone will not excuse them from cohabitation, though it may from congress.

[i]Quest.[/i] XX. Who be they that may or may not marry again when they are parted?

[i]Answ.[/i] 1. They are released by divorce upon the other's adultery, sodomy, &c. may marry again. 2. The case of all the rest is harder. They that part by consent, to avoid mutual hurt, may not marry again; nor the party that departeth for self-preservation, or for the preservation of estate, or children, or comforts, or for liberty of worship, as aforesaid; because it is but an intermission of conjugal fruition, and not a total dissolution of the relation; and the innocent party must wait to see whether there be any hope of return. Yea, Christ seemeth to resolve it, Matt. v. 31, 32, that he is an adulterer that marrieth the innocent party that is put away; because the other living in adultery, their first contracted relation seemth to be still in being. But Grotius and some others think, that Christ meaneth this only of the man that over-hastily marrieth the innocent divorced woman, before it be seen whether he will repent and reassume her; but how can that hold, if the husband after adultery free her? May it not therefore be meant, that the woman must stay unmarried in hope of his reconciliation, till such time as his adultery with his next married wife doth disoblige her. But then it must be taken as a law for christians; for the Jew that might have many wives, disobligeth not one by taking another.

A short desertion must be endured in hope; but in case of a very long, or total desertion or rejection, if the injured party should have an untamable lust, the case is difficult. I think there are few but by just means may abstain. But if there be any that cannot, (after all means,) without such trouble as overthroweth their peace, and plainly hazardeth their continence, I dare not say that marriage in that case is unlawful to the innocent.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This has been moved collectively to the article section: [url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/articles/index.php?view=article&aid=20832]Christian Economics ~ Excerpts- Cases about Divorce and Separation [/url]

([i]Will need proper editing later[/i])

A
awakenwithin

Murray,
I was listening to John Piper tonight, his pomes
you go to..www.desiringgod.org and you go to Resource Library - the on the left there is pomes
Hosea and Gomer (original 1990)
December 19, 2004
It really good!!

In His Love
charlene

A
awakenwithin

brother how are you doing?
what happened with you are wife?

still praying
charlene

C
crsschk

Came across the following last month;

[url=http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/october/20.26.html]What God Has Joined[/url]
[i]What does the Bible really teach about divorce?[/i]

A very interesting look at "any cause" divorce.

This discussion is archived and closed to new replies. Start a new discussion to carry the subject on.
Archived
1 of 36 posts

Everything we make is available for free because of a generous community of supporters.

Donate