Divorce

Is it sin for a woman to remarry after she receives her certificate of divorce?

Its my understanding that divorce is only lawful if there is adultery involved. In this case there wasn't. But the husband left her and she tried to make it work.

I'm trying hard to figure this out. Id appreciate some biblical insight. thanks :)

1Co 7:15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

"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." Matt. 5:32

HomeFree89 wrote:
"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." Matt. 5:32 [/qoute]

The question needs to be asked, Why did Paul feel it necessary to address this situation to the church at Corinth? What was happening socially at this time in Corinth. Find that and you will begin to understand the social climate of this subject.

Telestai, Because of the contention that this subject has in the present and historical church, it would be far better for you to seek His face on this matter, therby avoiding the condemnation that will come your way.
Remember, condemnation is not God's way of speaking to us. There are many arguements for both sides of interpretation, but the correct understanding does not involve condemnation.
May God bless this thread and will bring enlightment, understanding and decernment to those who reads it.
Be bless

great advice to seek God's face. If any man lacks wisdom... God is faithful to open the scriptures with prayer and study, meditation, and an open mind and open heart. We can't come into this with preconceived or denominational ideas and expect God to agree with us. We found out that divorce before conversion was made right with Jesus when we became new creatures in Christ, and that indeed all thing become new. May the Lord bless your journey. Barry

1 Cor 7:6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.
8Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

10To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

NOTICE IN VERSE 6 IT IS PAULS OPINION BUT IN VERSE 10 IT IS A COMMAND FROM GOD IF SHE SEPERATES SHE HAS 2 CHOICES TO STAY SINGLE OR RECONCILE TO HER HUSBAND ALSO SEE Romans 7:1 she is bound by the law until death. Also your yes must be yes and you’re no no. and the wedding vow was until death do us part. You cannot break the wedding covnent only violate it. Marriage is Death do us part. Period. Find the book what the bible really says about divorce and remarriage by Joseph Webb. Salvation can be lost from remarriage.

BVO wrote:
We found out that divorce before marriage was made right with Jesus when we became new creatures in Christ, and that indeed all thing become new.

I'd really like to believe that, but where do you find this in Scripture?

Jordan

nowhr2hide wrote:

HomeFree89 wrote:
"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." Matt. 5:32 [/qoute]

The question needs to be asked, Why did Paul feel it necessary to address this situation to the church at Corinth? What was happening socially at this time in Corinth. Find that and you will begin to understand the social climate of this subject.

Because there was divorce happening. I believe God allows divorce (because of hardness of heart), but not remarriage.

Bremerton wrote:
1 Cor 7:6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.
8Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

10To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

NOTICE IN VERSE 6 IT IS PAULS OPINION BUT IN VERSE 10 IT IS A COMMAND FROM GOD IF SHE SEPERATES SHE HAS 2 CHOICES TO STAY SINGLE OR RECONCILE TO HER HUSBAND ALSO SEE Romans 7:1 she is bound by the law until death. Also your yes must be yes and you’re no no. and the wedding vow was until death do us part. You cannot break the wedding covnent only violate it. Marriage is Death do us part. Period. Find the book what the bible really says about divorce and remarriage by Joseph Webb. Salvation can be lost from remarriage.

Where is grace from this qoute read throughly this post isn't it spoke of judgemental and condemnation?

Nowhr2hide,

Here are several sermons that I'd really encourage you to listen to. Not to further my view, but because I believe these people teach biblically on this topic.

http://www.charityministries.org/msg_detail.a5w?vlast_index=2919

http://www.charityministries.org/msg_detail.a5w?vlast_index=2913

http://www.charityministries.org/msg_detail.a5w?vlast_index=2037

Jordan

Wow, lawl this is a rather contentious issue isn't it. It is interesting to see the differing views held to the age old arguement of Grace vs Law. I know which one i would choose to live by. :-P :-P

Maybe we should lift this woman up in prayer for God to show her what He would like her to do. Remember guys, we only know a little, God is Omniscient.

Living in Grace

Is it sin for a woman to remarry after she receives her certificate of divorce?Its my understanding that divorce is only lawful if there is adultery involved. In this case there wasn't. But the husband left her and she tried to make it work.

Rom. 7:2For (A)the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband.

3So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man.

Lk. 16:16"(A)The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John; since that time (B)the gospel of the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it.

17"(C)But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to fail.

18"(D)Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.

The only thing that dissolves a covenant marriage(a marriage joined by God) is death. To remarry before that time is to enter into adultery. To take a divorced person as one's own, is to join themself with another's spouse.

It is interesting to see the differing views held to the age old arguement of Grace vs Law. I know which one i would choose to live by

This isn't an issue of law vs grace. This is an issue of obedience vs sin. Grace was never meant to be used so we can enter into sinful relationships, nor to continue in relationships deemed by the Lord Jesus as sinful. If Jesus calls a relationship adultery (a remarriage), we can no nothing in honesty, but agree with Him.

This is basic theology and is the gospel of Jesus Christ as I understand it in it's simplest form. We were all once in sin and far from God, at emnity. Upon conversion old things passed away, behold things are made new, He promised to deliver us from the power of sin, and to remember our sins that we repented of no more, they are now as far from us as the east is from the west, and though my sins were as scarlet, He has made me as white as snow.

This is simply before Christ and after Christ. If I can't trust God for forgiveness for repented of sins, then what is the gospel for.

Because unconverted people do sin, should a missionary require everyone in the village that has been involved in divorce and remarriage to separate before they can be converted? This I don't see in scripture (new testament). Jokingly I told one of my accusers that I would be better off to kill my wifes ex-husband and repent of that sin and they agreed because that would release us per Romans 7. Romans 7 doesn't seem to be addressing marriage as much as being loosed from the law to serve in the newness of spirit and not in the oldness of the letter (vs.6)

Divorce and remarriage AFTER conversion is a completely different issue.

I just noticed that my previous post wasn't clear about the divorce and remarrige were both pre- conversion and we have both put it under the Blood once and for all. I believe it was covered and removed with the rest of my many sins I came to Jesus with. Thanks and many blessings Barry

Try a search on these here, "Divorce" or "Divorce and Remarriage", there has been a number of previous discussions.

Oh, Uhm... yer; alright. Thanks to all the learned opinions and corrections of intrepretations.
The Grace vs Law comment was in response to the overall debate on the initial posted question, encompassing the crux of everyones input.
Ho hum.
:-?

Bremerton wrote:

Salvation can be lost from remarriage.

I am divorced and remarried. I was the one who committed the unfaithful act. Am I doomed to hell? What should I do now? In my present marriage, we have an 11 yr old son who loves his father. I love his father. How can my sinful life be unravelled? It's like a piece of knitting that's full of mistakes. Shall I unravel the entire piece and start over? No. I can't start over. I'm forbidden to start over. Shall I kill myself? No. I'm forbidden to kill myself? Shall I simply accept the fact that I'm forever lost from God? Oh!!!!!No!!!!!All who call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved, right? Shall I leave my husband and go live in a cave and wait there to die and go to hell? Shall I leave my child with his father, but leave him motherless?

I tell you what people, I feel like I'm running from the devil. Everybody has an opinion and they don't mind giving it, do they? What's a person supposed to do in this world we're living in? There's terror on every side. This world has spun out of control. It's darn near impossible to make it trying to live in it. One is constantly facing peril of all kinds, ie, failing health, demands upon us financially that keep us continually dangling by a thread, the constant running of the sands of the hour glass as we watch our lives flashing before our eyes knowing that, soon, we will face a Holy God, and have we done the necessary thing to pass through His gauntlet?

What is wrong with you people? Seriously!!!! I'm being serious!!! I'm dying here and there's nothing I can do to save myself!!! Nothing!!! If the mercy of God isn't enough to save me then I can kiss my ass goodbye and I don't mean that fecetiously.

Please, for the love of God, get your heads out of your derrier. People are dying here!!!! Don't shoot them as they are falling into the grave.

I tell you, I'm at the end of my rope. How does anyone expect people to live? I could do what this one says, but there will be another one over here who says it's wrong.

When I was a young girl I used to have a repeating dream. I was walking down a dark road with trash piled up on either side. It was a wall of wire and junk that made it impossible to do anything except walk straight ahead down this dark road. I had that dream over and over again. That's how I feel in life. I must keep walking straight ahead because there's a wall of junk on both sides of me. If I listen to men, my journey will come to a screeching halt.

I seek God every day in a desperate, humble way, knowing that I am a dreadful sinner who cannot save myself. I never feel completely saved. I just feel completely desperate for the mercy of God upon a dying sinner who calls upon his name. Perhaps, this day, I shall be with Him in Paradise or perhaps, this day, I shall be the loudest voice in hell saying, "God is great and greatly to be praised!". Sincerely, Dian.

BVO said:

Divorce and remarriage AFTER conversion is a completely different issue.

I honestly feel that I didn't get truly converted until after I married the man I'm married to now. I was desperately miserable right after we married. I was suicidal. I [i]did[/i] feel there was no hope for me. I even said with my own mouth, "my life feels like a capped nuclear disaster." I had to call upon the mercy of God to live in the fallen state of my life, but isn't that the shape that every single person is in? All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, right? There (where I was), but for the grace of God, go you.

If the gospel can't deliver me, I won't be delivered. It's just that simple. I'm a sinner in need of a Savior. How loud do you want me to say it? [b][size=large][color=FF0000]I'M A SINNER IN NEED OF A SAVIOR!!!![/color][/size][/b] Dian.

Now what?

Truth is truth, but its the relationships that you have in your fellowship that need to be the sounding board for such things.

Dian, I hope the tone of my post was not condemning or breeding hopelessness. Please forgive me if it was. I love God and the way He works in His children's lives to make us more and more into His image. I don't have a pat answer for any of the questions, but what I sought from God was what He was faithful to give, an answer to my need and a greater revelation of who He is, and more mercy in my heart for His children that have been mercilessly battered by the enemy. Isn't that just like Him? I began this just to say AMEN to those who seek Him for their own need. Isn't that what He really wants? That's what Romans 7 is about. As long as we are married to the letter, we won't be able to be alive to the spirit of the law (of Christ). But when the old husband dies,you are free to marry Christ. This is really the love relationship He draws us all to, Right? Thanks to everyone for patiently enduring my ramblings! I'm just thankful that God is willing to take this kind of effort to make me more like Him. Happy Thanksgiving :-D

Just a quick side thought: I struggled with Carter Conlon's thing with the angry watchman. Dian's question about How about the false conversions (false belief systems), the church that has allowed rampant sin? Her solution was priceless, and loosely said it is to lovingly guide them to a Savior as people wake up from their slumber. Again, GOD IS GOOD!

In Christ, Barry

Oh dear,
i have quote early on in this thread ...
Because of the contention that this subject has in the present and historical church, it would be far better for you to seek His face on this matter, therby avoiding the condemnation that will come your way, "or now i should say our way":-?
Remember, condemnation is not God's way of speaking to us. There are many arguements for both sides of interpretation, but the correct understanding does not involve condemnation.
May God bless this thread and will bring enlightment, understanding and decernment to those who reads it.
Be aware there is spiritual world as we are trying to find the light of this issue ... please pray first before posting your knowledge and have a decernment if your word would bring encouragement and hope to those who had and have experience this issue.

God bless you all

to remember our sins that we repented of no more, they are now as far from us as the east is from the west, and though my sins were as scarlet, He has made me as white as snow.

I agree with this, but as you stated above, the prerequisite of this is repentance. If one is in an illicit relationship when they come to Christ, is repentance to stay in that relationship or is it to forsake that illicit relationship?

Divorce and remarriage AFTER conversion is a completely different issue

Why is it different? If you are speaking that true converted believers should not be breaking covenant and committing adultery, this is true. However, what is adultery for a believer is also adultery for an unbeliever. Adultery means one is having UNLAWFUL relations with someone who is not their spouse. There is no biblical evidence that conversion does away with a marriage God joined together and then joins the two who are committing adultery together as One flesh.

As with any type of illicit relationship, it remains illicit when one comes to Christ. What society accepts as "lawful" and what God accepts as lawful may be two entirely different things.

Careful, Cindy, you are presenting yourself as if you are a sinless human. Well, hmmm.... may be you are since you're casting several well aimed stones at all of us divorced (and obviously going to hell by your standards)!!

Lisa,

I know that is your defensiveness kicking in, but I'm sure how you are judging me above is not how you judge yourself (don't address ANY sin unless you are perfect??). I don't think I have ever stated that I am sin-free, but I do understand that tactic you are using. When Jesus spoke on "judging", it was not that we are not to call sin sin, it is that we are not to call sin sin when we are walking in hypocrisy, not because we are not perfectly sinless.

Just to be clear here: I am by no means throwing stones. Is it your contention that if a Christian speaks against ANY sin, they are then "throwing stones" at those who may be guilty?

Personally, I do not believe in condemnation of the adulterer/adulteress. Jesus came so that such could have life. He did not pick up a stone to throw at the woman caught in adultery----He gave her a chance to REPENT of her adultery. He told her to "GO and sin NO MORE".........in other words, leave her life of adultery. In the OT, the penalty was DEATH---no chance to "go and sin no more"........such were forced to "sin no more" through their physical death. NOW, dying means to forsake our sin and live for Jesus. It's a very different scenerio. I do believe it is the Lord's desire for all who are in adultery to repent and come to Him, so they are not those named by Him and Paul who will not inherit the kingdom of God.

The church needs much cleaning up. This is only one area.......it's a BIG area of sin(as it perverts the relatinship of Christ/Church), but it's only one........and as I said, I am not without sin in my own life and know the Lord is not done with me either. I dont' believe the Lord is done either with the adulterer/homosexual/murderer/thief/drunk/coveters/fornicators, etc, etc, etc........It is His desire that ALL die to self and live for Him-----so they receive eternal life. Blessings.......

Ps. Here's a great website for any who want to know where I'm "coming from"........
http://www.cadz.net/mdr.html

people listen to yourself throwing scripture upon scripture that sounds like you have some much knowledge of such, but look at the fruit of what is this causing amongst every one, devision and pride, this is the decerment i was trying to speak to you people be aware that your word and self knowledge are being use to destroy against the unity of this bretheren in this site. we are to edify and uplift one another ... be hold no matter where we are when you are seeking the truth of the word of God the enemy is not just gonna sit by, this spiritual realm bringing destruction, dissension, disunity and every diversion to stop any growth of truth in our life. Do not let yourself to fall on the scheme of the enemy.

Look at the example of John the Baptist with King Herod. The Lord spoke through John to tell an unregenerate person that it wasn't lawful for him to have his brother's wife.

Jordan

One Flesh

One Covenant

Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage

(Part 1)

by Dean Taylor

“…Yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. And did not he make one?” (Mal. 2:14-15).

Divorce…the very word brings such pain, such heartache, such contention. It not only divides families, it splits churches, separates friends, polarizes denominations; it isolates victims, champions assailants, destroys faith, and disparages numberless children caught in the middle, asking—“Why? Where is God?”

The truth is—God is there, and He cares about these little ones; He cares about the families, He hears the prayers of the bereaved, He hears the cry of the widow and the fatherless—He cares.

He even sees the mistakes, the wrong choices, the disastrous scenarios; and He stands listening, ready to help. He watched the sins done in ignorance, the sins done in hard times, and the sins done blatantly to His face; and to all these He offers blood—the sacrificial blood of His Son, Jesus Christ, to atone, redeem, forgive, reconcile and empower these destroyed lives, so that they can become beautiful, fruitful children of God once again.

He sees the “impossible situations,” and just like He does with so many other “impossible” things in our lives, He promises to bring beauty from ashes, streams in the desert, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness. God is glorified when He takes the impossible and says—“DONE.” As it says in Romans 4:17, “…even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.”

The lives affected by divorce are real people with real pains. Many have suffered betrayed trusts and bear deep scars. They are not an “argument” or a “doctrine,” they are souls—souls that Jesus died for. Because of this, they cannot be dismissed, ignored, maligned, or marginalized. As a people of God, we are called to minister to them. Moreover, as a church in America, we must recognize that this “people group” is not merely a passing fad, but an ever increasing element of our morally declining society.

With these hard situations, like all hard situations, the temptation is to ignore it and hope it will just go away. This seems to be the prevailing tendency among the churches which maintain a conservative, Biblical attitude toward divorce and remarriage. Defeating words such as, “Let someone else minister to them,” “They will never fit in here,” or “They’ll never stay,” are not words of faith. The purpose of the Church is not to exist as some sterilized, fictitious “Precious-Moments-like” figurine displayed on a shelf. We are to face the hurts, the pains, the ugly, the despised, the dark, the diseased, the impossible, and then, administer Christ to them. The subway station graffiti often reads “Jesus Saves,” and if this isn’t true, then we’re wasting our time.

In the next few issues we will be examining the Biblical guidelines for marriage, divorce, and remarriage. It is my prayer that, by the grace and anointing of God, the truth of Jesus will be uplifted, and not my opinion or the opinion of an agenda or a denomination. “Yea, let God be true, but every man a liar” (Rom. 3:4). I’m certainly not the final word on divorce and remarriage. I am a pastor, not a theologian, and I have no desire for a religious debate for the sake of academic exercise. It is my hope that these articles might encourage all of us to reach out and minister to those who are victims of divorce, and mostly, that the scores of souls which feel caught in “impossible situations” would discover the light of the Gospel, and find Jesus there waiting with the key of faith that opens any door! Overall, it is my prayer that God would strengthen that which remains, as we seek to hold up what the Word of God has to say on these issues.

Another World

Daily in the midst of the market place, the water well, and the synagogue—laughing at weddings and crying at funerals—observing the wink of the money changer’s eye, and the tremble of the widow’s hand, Jesus walked for 30 years—watching, pondering, and comparing. He compared all that was “man” with all that was “divine,” and taught that by grace men could become partakers of the boundless storehouse of the Kingdom of God. Although He had voluntarily laid down His divinity, He knew, even as a child, who His true father was. Even though His celestial throne was awaiting His return, Jesus knew Heaven. No idealistic thoughts were needed to remind Him to “seek those things which are above.” All the holiness, purity, order, majesty and worship of that place were created by Him, and it was in that place that Jesus taught us to pray: “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven” (Matt 6:10).

What must it have been like to be Him—in the everyday hustle and bustle of shopping, working, synagogue-ing, etc.? When Jesus’ time had come and he began to teach the people, His words cut through to the very heart and motive of everything we do. Even our everyday necessities were challenged by Him. He did not shrink away from bringing attention to our propensity toward living careless and godless lives. Jesus warned, “For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark” (Matt 24:38).

He challenged earthly securities, self-defense, judicial vindication, and all other efforts of human strength and set them at naught. He took purity and sin beyond the outward and proceeded to challenge even the inward motives of our hearts. Revenge, anger, covetousness and lust had never been taken this far before. He split the society, changed the world, and brought us a flawless image of our God.

When discussing divorce and remarriage, as well as many other of Jesus’ teachings, the clearer the Kingdom of Heaven is in view, the more sense the teaching will make. Also, the more the Church represents a faith-filled expression of the entirety of the Sermon on the Mount, the more clearly a message of repentance like this will be demonstrated, “not just in word but in power.”

Marriage

Married life was, in the time of Jesus—perhaps even more than it is today—the very center of Jewish life. Indeed, it would appear that it would have been quite a strain for them to have considered the unmarried man complete. As it was recorded in the Jewish Talmud, “The man who is not married at 20 is living in sin.” And also, “Any man who has no wife is no proper man for it is said ‘male and female created He them and called their name Adam.’” However, while the married state was certainly prominent in Jewish society, divorce had also become an unfortunate experience of their time. Additionally, while the marriage bond was highly reverenced, the bond for the man differed somewhat from that of the woman. Polygamy, which by Jesus’ time was becoming very out of fashion, was inevitability still a part of their heritage and domestic identity. What affect this mindset had on the sense of responsibility from the men is unknown; but judging from Jesus’ teaching, it seems that their view was off balance, at least in part, because of their misunderstanding of what marriage really was.

Jesus raised the duty and majesty of marriage higher than it had been for a long time—“since the beginning.” His illustrations to it and parables about it demonstrated that Jesus saw in the marriage relationship a type or likeness that was so close to His heart that it typified salvation, redemption and eternal fellowship in heaven. (Matt 25; Eph 5; Rev 20)

That said, as honorable as Jesus makes marriage out to be, He also showed us that marriage, itself, was not to be the very center of our identity and focus. He taught that this sacred place in our hearts was to be reserved only for Him. “And there went great multitudes with him: and he turned, and said unto them, 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” (Luke 14:25 -26).

Radically challenging the entire vision and understanding of our life in heaven, He even disclosed that in that place, many parts of the normal married life as we know it will not even exist. “For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven” (Mar 12:25 ).

The Beginning

As Jesus was traveling into the coast of Judea, he was met by a group of Pharisees who wanted to “tempt” him, by asking what his position was on divorce. However, before Jesus would enter into this discussion about divorce, he apparently felt it necessary to correct their view of marriage. As Andrew Cornes suggests in the book Divorce and Remarriage, Biblical Principles & Pastoral Practice, the reason the Jews were off on their doctrine of divorce and remarriage was because, like the modern church, the Jews came about it from the wrong perspective: “They began with the Biblical passage about divorce…he began with the key passage about marriage. And one of the points he was certainly making was that their mistake stemmed from starting in the wrong place.”

“The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?”

The passage of scripture that Jesus took the Pharisees to was back to the very first marriage between Adam and Eve, found in Gen 2:18-25. Jesus answered the Pharisees saying,

“Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?” (Matt. 19:4-5)

Here, taking the Pharisees back to the original marriage in the Garden of Eden, Jesus stated to them what the fundamentals of marriage actually are. He taught that since the dawning of creation, marriage essentially requires:

One man and one woman
A man must leave his father and mother
A cleaving together
Becoming one flesh
1 One man and one woman: Modern attempts to disparage the sanctity of marriage by suggesting the union of same sex partners defies nature, historical precedent, and common morality. However, most importantly, it defies the Law of God at the very core. History itself has borne out that even when secular nations have ignored this ordained creation principle, total moral breakdown inevitably follows. So, the primary element necessary for a lawful marriage is to have one man and one woman.

2 The man must leave his father and mother: Interestingly, the focus here is on the man. The changing of their place of residence naturally comes to mind. However, since in the Jewish culture moving was not always the norm, its connotation suggests even more than this. It suggests a moving of the place of loyalty, identity and emotion. Before the marriage, the man was completely a part of his parents’ “household.” All of his identity came from there. Now, in this new household, this chief place of identity, benevolence and loyalty was to be rendered unto his wife. Cornes suggests that in our modern culture, which puts little emphasis on the honor and loyalty given to our parents, this seems but a minor and insignificant point. However, to the Israelite, this change of household identity, authority, and loyalty had a profound effect on all relationships. (ibid., 57)

3 A cleaving together: “…For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh” The Hebrew word for “cleave” in this passage suggests the idea of being glued together. This word is used in Job 38:38, speaking of dirt clods which stick together after the rain. In another place, it is used by Joshua, referring to a military alliance (Josh 23:12). The word is also used referring to the leprosy that would cling forever to the dishonest and greedy Gehazi (2 Kings 5:27). In marriage, the husband and wife are “glued” together—bound inseparably into one solitary unit. (Carl Laney, The Divorce Myth)

In the Greek, the word “cleave” (pros-kol-lah’-o) means: to glue upon, glue to, or to join one’s self to closely. I’ll never forget a brilliant, real-life object lesson of this passage I once saw in a children’s lesson. A few yeas ago, in order to graphically demonstrate the meaning of this word, Bro. Paul Lloyd from Charity Christian Fellowship, took a piece of wood that had been glued together the night before and attempted to separate it with great force as the children looked on expectantly. I’ll never forget the result—as we all looked on in astonishment, the board indeed splintered into pieces, but the union was still intact! The message was clear.

4 Becoming one flesh: The most obvious use of this phrase is realized in the marital affection between man and wife. This is certainly in view in Paul’s rebuke to the men at Corinth in their sin with prostitutes, “Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh” (1 Cor. 6:15-16).

Although God ordained that there be strong emotional and spiritual ties created through marital affection, the Bible clearly shows that in marriage, this “one flesh” identity goes beyond mere physical affection. Taken in isolation, the “one flesh” attachment of fornication is certainly sharing in a privilege granted only to the married, and is a serious offence to God. However, the conjugal act, in and of itself, does not “make” the marriage. If this were the case, then there would have been no reason to differentiate between Solomon’s wives and Solomon’s concubines.

Taken in the creation context of Genesis quoted by Jesus, this miraculous union of the “two becoming one” is something that is accomplished supernaturally, by God. God is present at the marriage, and it is God who makes this union. The first two parts of marriage quoted by Jesus indicate an active process, “leave and cleave.” This last part, and the one that Jesus seems to bring the most attention to, is spoken of as an accomplished fact, “and they twain shall be one flesh.”

Commentator Andrew Cornes, discussing the phrase “become one flesh” from the Hebrew, states: “The Hebrew phrase does not describe the process, but the accomplished fact, the changed situation.” In other words, the reality of becoming “one flesh” is not just an idea for the married couple, it is something spiritual and supernatural that God accomplishes at marriage. This is something that goes beyond basic human comprehension. In this light, it is indeed a “mystery,” as Paul wrote to the Ephesians: “So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. for no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh... This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church” (Eph 5:28-31).

Becoming Blood Relatives

When God made Eve out of Adam’s rib, He was very graphically demonstrating the authenticity of this “one flesh” relationship. When Adam saw her for the first time he cried out with joy. A literal translation of what he said is, “This one at last. Bone—my bones! Flesh—my flesh! This one shall be called woman because from man this one was taken!” (Carl Laney, The Divorce Myth)

It is a very interesting fact that this concept of becoming “one flesh” was taken so far by Mosaic law, that once a person was married, their spouse’s family then became related to them, just as if they were their own flesh and blood.

The various prohibitions of incestuous marriage found in Leviticus 18 are based not only on literal blood lines, but also on these ‘blood’ relationships created through marriage. Marriage thus created both vertical blood relationships in the form of children, but it also formed horizontal ‘blood’ relationships between spouses. In Lev. 18:18 and 20:14, it is written that a man was not allowed to marry his wife’s mother or sister. Incest laws were common among ancient civilizations. What made the Hebrew culture different was that the prohibitions against marrying one’s own family included not just your own blood relatives, but also those who married your blood relatives. (Lev. 18:8, 14-16) (Wenham & Heth, Jesus and Divorce)

No Longer Twain

To these basics of marriage, Jesus added his profound, dominical explanation point!—“Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh” (Matt. 19:6). The entire focus of the debate was resolved in this God-ordained fact. The Pharisees were asking about the various legalities of splitting the two individuals up. However, Jesus attempted to change their entire way of thinking, informing them that contrary to what they were thinking, the married couple remained no longer as two individuals that even could be split up, “they are no more twain, but one flesh.”

What God Has Put Together

Jesus then concludes the question of whether or not it was ever allowable to permit divorce with this weighty command, “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matt.19:6).

This phrase suggests the idea of a covenant—a covenant in which God was an active witness in the marrying process. This is a significant point because it takes the question about the validity of a marriage out of the numerous human scenarios and possibilities, and places it entirely in the hand of God. He is saying that man may contrive any manner of legal proceedings and name it all kinds of various things, but the bottom line is that marriage is a covenantal unity between man and woman that the Lord God, himself, has performed. Regardless of how oblivious the couple may be to the mystery of the spiritual truth of the union, it is God who has made them one flesh.

The prophet Malachi, more than any other writer, bears testimony to this covenantal aspect. When the people of God were crying to God because they didn’t understand why their prayers were not being heard, Malachi told them it was because they were divorcing their wives. He warned them that by doing this they were breaking their covenant and violating their “one flesh” relationship.

“Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth. For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away” (Mal 2: 14-16).

The covenantal aspect of marriage cannot be overlooked. Unfortunately, conservative commentators on divorce and remarriage usually divide, for the most part, into two camps—those who believe that marriage is simply the forming of “one flesh,” and those who believe that marriage is strictly a covenant. I believe both concepts are involved in a Biblical understanding of marriage. While I believe the emphasis of Jesus’ and Paul’s words were certainly on the “one flesh” relationship, the covenantal concept, especially as it pertains to the heart of God, is undoubtedly expressed in the Scripture and should not be disregarded. To ignore this aspect of God’s involvement in the marital union would be dishonest and perhaps even irresponsible. We are uphold the entire Word of God. Let’s remember, too, we are told it is a “mystery.”

Contemporary thinking makes very little of covenants, vows and promises. Almost every culture has some kind of marriage ceremony. The prophet Malachi is telling us that God is witness to these ceremonies and does not take the vows spoken lightly.

Ronald Martin, in his paper “Divorce, Remarriage and Reconciliation” speaks strongly about vows and covenants saying, “The only vows that did not stand as spoken, were the vows of a wife or an unmarried daughter, and then only if they were disallowed at the first hearing by the husband or father. All other covenants, based on a promise to God, stood as they were uttered (Num. 30:2, Deut. 23:21-23). Oaths that turned out in be for the hurt of the one who uttered them stood (Ps 15:41). This keeping of covenants was considered that important to God that He required that an animal dedicated to him could not be switched for another animal even if the dedicated animal turned out to be flawed. He would rather have a sacrifice that was less than perfect than to have a man change a vow (Lev 27:9-11). Ecclesiastes 5:4-6 clearly teaches us that it is a sin not to perform our vows, even ones that we later realize were in error. Jephthah discovered this much to his dismay (Jud 11:30-36). Joshua also realized this after he made a covenant that clearly violated the command of God (Ex 23: 32-33 Josh 9:15-21). Yet this covenant needed to stand: and even generations later, God punished Israel for violating it” (2 Sam 21:1).

Can any vows ever be broken?

Some ask about vows that have been made to satanic secret societies like the Masons, or vows of celibacy by converted Roman Catholic priests, such as Menno Simons. Others ask about religious groups which require vows at membership, many of which are spoken without any true sincerity or conversion of the heart. What happens if the person later realizes their vows were made fraudulently, out of peer pressure or for any other insincere, illegal or dishonest reason. Can these vows be “broken”? I can’t answer all the various angles in this particular article on marriage. Perhaps we will be able to address this concern in a future article, but let it suffice it to say that vows have always been a very serious thing in the eyes of God, from the Old Testament right on through to the teachings of Jesus. Do you think it is just coincidence that after Jesus’ teaching on adultery, divorce and remarriage in the Sermon on the Mount, that Jesus immediately introduces his teachings on oaths? (Matt 5: 36 Jas 5:12) I don’t think so.

To Conclude

The essence of the teaching of Jesus is the cross—complete self-denial, complete abandonment of self-rights and self-interest. To look at our marriages though the eyes of the cross puts our marriages in their proper perspective. A healthy marriage is about each partner seeking to lay his or her life down for the other. This world’s pursuit of a happy marriage, with its barrage of self-help books, self-improvement seminars and “getting the most out of your spouse” attitudes are not to be the focus in a marriage where Christ is Head. As God has mysteriously joined man and wife together into one person, He has done so for a reason. He does this for a channel of grace—to seek a godly seed, a receptacle of the divine image, a beacon to the world, which testifies magnificently of the existence of another realm, one which exists for no other reason than to bring glory to God! May our marriages and all of our lives, by the grace of God, do just that.

One Flesh

One Covenant

Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage

(Part 2)

by Dean Taylor

The prophet Malachi prophesied of a time when nations would weep and cry to God but would not receive an answer. He writes that the people, bewildered by God’s silence, would then cry out to Him asking why He no longer responds to their prayers. The reason God gives for holding back His blessing is surprising—it had to do with the way they were regarding marriage and divorce. Much like the time that was prophesied in the book of Malachi, many Christians today across our nation are raising up their voice to God with “tears and weeping,” crying to God for revival. When the results do not come, we ask God—why? Revivalists often quote 2 Chronicles 7:14, “If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.” Exactly what are the “wicked ways” spoken of here in 2 Chronicles? Certainly, it is more than divorce. But perhaps the prophet Malachi is providing us with some valuable insight into the heart of God on this matter:

And this have ye done again, covering the altar of the LORD with tears, with weeping, and with crying out, insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, or receiveth it with good will at your hand. Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth. For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away (Mal 2:13-16).
These are hard words for the church of today. The Book of Hebrews tells us: “For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart” (4:12). Throughout time, there have been many who have experienced the laceration of this two edged sword, following Christ literally as lambs to the slaughter. Enduring the savage beast of the Roman arena, the burning cross along the Thebes, or the drowning in Zurich, these precious saints clearly demonstrated their holy devotion to the world around them. Others, like the Apostle John, who after hearing the words of Christ immediately left the ship and their father, and followed him, must have also felt this divine sword pierce their hearts, although they did not physically die. If truth be told, although free of the pain of burning crosses and severed limbs, many saints confronted with the austerity of their calling have surely looked upon the quick, sanctified vindication of martyrdom with longing, saying with Paul, “For me to live is Christ but to die is gain.”

Whenever a soul has reached out and dared to take the words of Christ literally, the outcome has never resulted in anything less than a complete and radical change of life. In my own life, I have come across many brave saints who have taken the words of Christ seriously when He said, “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it” (Mt 16:24-25).

For some, accepting Jesus’ teachings on nonresistance meant leaving a promising career in the Army to face an uncertain future. For others, Jesus’ words on materialism have caused them to deny themselves the “American Dream,” and give up comforts and luxuries some would consider necessities. Countless others have walked away from a multi-generational inheritance within a strong community of people, full of wealth, comforts and security, all in exchange for a shameful disinheritance and a new identity as the stranger in the land. I have seen men give up positions as varied as trial attorneys, Catholic priests, contemporary Christian musicians, and corporate executives. I have seen men forgive murders, deny lawsuits and accept the plundering of their personal possessions. However, I must say that I have hardly seen any teaching more painfully misunderstood and more blatantly ignored than Jesus’ commandments on divorce and remarriage. Furthermore, witnessing this flagrant disregard for God’s Word in the world is one thing, but to see it so prevalent in the Church is simply heartbreaking.

For the saints who have embraced Jesus’ hard teachings on divorce and remarriage, the path has not been easy. Allowing the painful incision of this two-edged sword to truly effect their lives, they have chosen to follow Jesus in “the narrow way that leads to life.” Others look on with astonishment and ask, “Whatever would cause a man to choose such a life—such self-denial? Is it necessary to take Jesus’ words so literally?” Like the holy martyrs, they walk in an uncommon power to live out the precious commandments of their Savior, no matter the cost. As living testaments, they show forth a beautiful, living testimony of the very power and truth of God’s Holy Word.

The few who do accept Jesus’ teachings on divorce and remarriage have now found themselves in the vast minority. Witnessing the Church’s greatest departure from this truth in the history of the world, these seekers have discovered that this realization, at least to some degree, changes the way they view the mainstream Church. After all, if Luke was accurate when He recorded the words of Jesus, “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery,” (Luke 16:18), then what are we to think of the wholesale abandonment of this teaching across Christendom? The tragic consequences of such a thought have led most to simply dismiss Jesus’ teachings altogether. Still others, however, have begun to brave the challenge and to cry out to the Church for repentance.

Noted radio evangelist and author, John Piper, speaks of his difficulty in accepting Jesus’ teaching on divorce and remarriage stating:

All of my adult life, until I was faced with the necessity of dealing with divorce and remarriage in the pastoral context, I held the prevailing Protestant view that remarriage after divorce was Biblically sanctioned in cases where divorce had resulted from desertion or persistent adultery. Only when I was compelled, some years ago, in teaching through the gospel of Luke, to deal with Jesus’ absolute statement in Luke 16:18 did I begin to question that inherited position. I felt an immense burden in having to teach our congregation what the revealed will of God is in this matter of divorce and remarriage. I was not unaware that among my people there were those who had been divorced and remarried, and those who had been divorced and remained unmarried, and those who were in the process of divorce or contemplating it as a possibility. I knew that this was not an academic exercise, but would immediately affect many people very deeply. I was also aware of the horrendous statistics in our own country, as well as other Western countries, concerning the number of marriages that were ending in divorce, and the numbers of people who were forming second marriages and third marriages. In my study of Ephesians 5 I had become increasingly persuaded that there is a deep and profound significance to the union of husband and wife in “one flesh” as a parable of the relationship between Christ and his church. All of these things conspired to create a sense of solemnity and seriousness as I weighed the meaning and the implication of the Biblical texts on divorce and remarriage. The upshot of that crucial experience was the discovery of what I believe is a New Testament prohibition of all remarriage except in the case where a spouse has died.

Review

As was discussed in Part 1 (April/May/June 2007) Jesus’ prohibition against divorce stemmed not so much from a new teaching about divorce, but from reinstating God’s original heart on marriage from the beginning. When Jesus was challenged about divorce, he took them back to a teaching about marriage. Quoting from Part 1:

“To these basics of marriage, Jesus added his profound, dominical explanation point—'Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh' (Matt. 19:6). The entire focus of the debate was resolved in this God-ordained fact. The Pharisees were asking about the various legalities of splitting the two individuals up. However, Jesus attempted to change their entire way of thinking, informing them that contrary to what they were thinking, the married couple remained no longer as two individuals that even could be split up, 'they are no more twain, but one flesh.'"
A few years ago, in a teaching on divorce and remarriage, Bro. Rick Leibee used a very graphic illustration to help us better understand the concept of “the two becoming one.” He took two lumps of clay, one of them yellow and the other blue, and began to knead the two together until eventually they became one large, bright green lump. When he was finished, he held the lump up and said, “Now, someone come up here and take out the blue clay.” The point was clear, the change was irrevocable. Similarly, marriage fuses together two individuals into one—irrevocably.

The Divorce Question

For study purposes, the scriptures that deal with the issue of divorce and remarriage are generally regarded as: Gen. 2:24, Deut 24:1-4, Ezra 10:1-3, Mal. 2:6-16, and Jer. 3:1-14. In the New Testament they are: Mt. 5:31-32, 19:3-12, Mk. 10:2-12, Luke 16:18, Rom. 7:1-6, 1 Cor. 7:10-15, 1 Tim. 3:2, and Eph. 5:15-33.

The question that the Pharisees asked Jesus about divorce was, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” After Jesus gave them the basics of the marriage covenant by accenting this “one flesh” theology, He boldly answered their question by stating, “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” This alone should be sufficient to establish an absolute prohibition against divorce and remarriage. However, like the reply of the Pharisees, several questions naturally tend to come up.

What About The Old Testament Law Of Divorce?

The Pharisees seemed to understand that Jesus was indeed saying that divorce with remarriage was not permissible at all. However, being good students of the Law, they naturally questioned Jesus about the law of divorce found in Deut. 24, “Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?” To this Jesus responded, “Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so” (Matt. 19:7-8).

Like many of the Old Testament laws, Jesus further expanded this “Law of Divorce” to include the spirit and intent of the heart. Jesus’ focus challenged the way the Pharisees looked at marriage, and now He was even telling them that they had viewed the Mosaic Law incorrectly. One of the most common misconceptions held about the Deuteronomy passage has been that the Old Testament Law instituted a “Law of Divorce.” A closer look reveals that divorce was already happening; Moses did not institute “divorce,” he simply regulated it.

Adding to this misconception is a problem of translation. Although this misconception obviously predates the King James translation, it is possible to make a false assumption based upon some of the wording in our King James version. Look in your Bibles at Deuteronomy 24. It states: “When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house” (Deut. 24:1).

Unfortunately, the word “then” was not part of the original Hebrew, even in the “Textus Receptus,” from which the King James was derived. No doubt it was put there by the translators to allow the sentence structure to flow better. However, this addition actually changes the emphasis entirely. It creates a “Law of Divorce” which was not part of the original language.

As Andrew Cornes points out in Divorce & Remarriage: Biblical Principles & Pastoral Practice, this “divorce law,” instead of being a “Law of Divorce,” was actually a law regulating against a type of remarriage. When looked at in the original Hebrew, as opposed to a simple one-sentence, cause-and-effect law commanding divorce, it rather reads as a four-sentence regulation against putting a woman into this particular situation. “The circumstances under which the Law applies continue throughout the first three verses; the action to be taken—what the husband must (or must not) do–only comes in verse 4” (ibid).

Cornes gives the translation as:

If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, (2) and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, (3) and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, (4) then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the Lord. Do not bring sin upon the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance (Deut 24:1-4).
Regardless of how the KJV reads, the context of the passage is instructive. The context reveals that divorce was already practiced by the Hebrews at this time. This passage assumes its existence in the regulation. The law was created as a way to protect the woman, not to reject her. It is important to remember that Moses gave the law as a response to “the hardness of your hearts.” Again, this passage indicates that Moses did not institute divorce, he merely regulated against a type of remarriage. This passage provided at least three regulations: (1) It prevented the women from being traded and passed around like merchandise. (2) It curtailed remarriage for a woman in this condition. (3) It restrained the husband, causing him to know that he cannot just act indiscriminately about sending his wife away.

The Words Of Jesus…

Jesus spoke on the subject of divorce and remarriage in several places. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus began by defining the sin of “adultery” in the eyes of God, stating, “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” To the Jewish man of this day, these words must have sounded absurd. According to Old Testament Law, a man would be found guilty of “adultery” only by taking another man’s wife. For the man, everything else was merely “fornication,” which was considered a lesser offense by Old Testament standards.

In a sense, Old Testament marriage and divorce law seemed to have more to do with authority and ownership of the women than it did the mutual, marital oneness that Jesus stressed in the New Testament. In this way, polygamy was thereby tacitly allowed. However, Jesus was now focusing on the man’s original union with his wife and going so far with it, that He said that even looking at another woman lustfully made a man guilty of adultery! Again, this would have been radical and absurd by the Jewish men of that day. To make matters worse, instead of softening these hard statements, Jesus went on to say that if the offending eye or hand was causing the problem, then it would be better (still not best) that we pluck them out or cut them off.

Concluding this severe train of thought, Jesus then touched on the subject of divorce and remarriage. To their surprise, Jesus added divorce and remarriage to His list of those things which were now being called “adultery.” He explained that a man, by divorcing his wife, was guilty of causing her to fall into adultery if she should remarry. Because of this, he is therefore guilty of her adultery along with her. The only exception Jesus gives was if the woman was already guilty of adultery. In that case, then he, of course, would not be held guilty of this adultery. However, concerning a remarriage, Jesus caps off his list of adulterers, including even the man who simply marries a woman who has been divorced:

It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 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 (Matt 5:31-32).
Similarly, in the Matthew 19 passage, Jesus repeated the Sermon on the Mount teaching saying,

“And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery” (Matt 19:9).
These ‘exception clauses’ of Matthew 5 and 19 will be discussed in more detail in the next issue. Here in Matthew 19, the sin of adultery is given both to those who would divorce a woman wrongfully, as well as to those who would marry a woman who has already been divorced.

In Mark, Chapter 10, the same scene that was recorded in Matthew 19 is in view; only this time we get to peek into the private discussions of the Apostles about the issue after they got home. This time, the topic of remarriage is more in focus. Mark also makes it clear that the sin of adultery applies to both men and women.

And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. 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 (Mark 10: 10-12).
Finally, in Luke 16:18, stemming from a discussion about the Law, Jesus again focused on the sin of marrying a divorced person and stated, “And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail. Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery” (Luke 16:17-18).

To summarize, Jesus taught that:

Divorcing a spouse for any reason except for fornication is to be guilty of causing your spouse to commit adultery (Matt 5:32, 19:9).]
Divorcing a wife and marrying another is adultery (Mark 19:11).
Marrying someone who is divorced is adultery (Luke 16:18).
How Long Does The Sin Of Adultery Last?

Finally, concerning the sin of adultery, the question remains: Is this a one time sin, or is it an ongoing sin? For example, is it like asking forgiveness for a lie you told years ago, or is it more like keeping something that you stole while asking God for forgiveness? John Coblentz, in his book What the Bible Says About Marriage, Divorce & Remarriage, touches on the Greek word used in Mark 10 saying:

“The Greek verb tense translated 'committeth adultery' in Mark 10:11, 12 is present indicative, suggesting continuous action. It means 'is committing adultery.' The adultery is not in the past only. It began when the second relationship began and continues as long as the relationship continues—the remarriage is ongoing adultery against the former companion as long as that companion lives."
These words are hard, and as I said in the beginning, I believe that I have hardly seen any personal cross more painful, misunderstood or ignored in the American Church today as Jesus’ teaching on divorce and remarriage. Sadly, the consequences have been devastatingly tragic, leaving victims suffering in the wake of the damage. Because of the magnitude of the situation, it almost seems impossible to regain the lost ground. Generations of families, churches and even whole denominations have been birthed into this inherited position. Yet I believe it is not too late to make a change. Once the problem is admitted, churches might differ on how to respond to it, however, at the very least, a church-wide moratorium on remarriage alone could turn the tide of this epidemic completely around in one generation. One thing is certain, ignoring the situation will not make it go away. May God open our eyes to the need, and give us the grace for the work. May His gentle sword cut away our burdens, define our path and enlighten our future.

but look at the fruit of what is this causing amongst every one, devision and pride, this is the decerment i was trying to speak to you people be aware that your word and self knowledge are being use to destroy against the unity of this bretheren in this site. we are to edify and uplift one another

Dear nowhr,

Any one of us could say the same thing about a vast array of biblical doctrines/teachings, etc. Take the prosperity gospel........should we "be quiet" about the false teachers who are leading many astray because it will cause them "hurt" who hold tight to this doctrine? Should we allow such false teachings continue to grow unopposed because it will bring "disunity"? How about the "homosexual Christian"? Should we not address the sin of homosexuality because it will cause division in the church?

TRUE unity means that we are walking united in the Truth. We cannot be truly united if we are walking in error and passing on that error.

Also, edification means to BUILD UP. We cannot build up and have it stand if the foundation is shaky/flawed or if the stones laid on the foundation are shaky/flawed. Many times in order to properly build up, the "shaky" needs to be exposed, then taken out and replaced with that which is solid/sure. All of us, if we have sought truth on a given area of doctrine, have found "shaky" places that needed to be replaced.......and I'm sure that process is far from over in most of us. :-)

That's very good counsel , Cindy.

I'd also add that Jesus, Peter, and Paul all spoke the truth and it was very divisive at times, but in the end it brought about true unity.

Jordan

Hi Telestai,
I have a very indepth FAQ on marriage divorce and remarriage at [url=http://www.cadz.net/faq.html]cadz Frequently Asked Questions/Comments/Arguments About Marriage, Divorce & Remarriage.[/url]

I repented of an adulterous remarriage, my testimony (and a few others) are at [url=http://www.cadz.net/mdr.html]Why I Repented Of A Marriage That God Called Adulterous! [/url]

If you don't like reading you can hear my radio testimony and many other sermons at
[url=www.cadz.net]Spirit of Hosea Audio Archive[/url]

Hope this helps in your studies.

I haven't read all of the 2 extra long Cut and Paste articles on
One Flesh

One Covenant

Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage

by Dean Taylor

But Dorcus,
I would like to read the scripture to the allowance of divorce after desertion.
Is it taken from Jeremiah's description of God Divorcing Israel?
Or Paul saying "let the unbeleiver depart" "you are not bound" 1 Cor 7?

Please help me find these verses.
Did I miss them in this thread?
YET

Just for the record, let me say, I do not endorse divorce [u][i]at all[/i][/u]. In my present marriage, I have come to understand that the covenant I have is with God concerning my husband and I will not break it for any reason for I know that God will never fail me. I didn't know or understand this truth when I was married the first time. I have faith in Jesus Christ now to see me through to the end, no matter how difficult it may be in the process. My life is no longer about me and my happiness, it's about the glory of God.

Nowhr2hide wrote: (EDIT)
Remember, condemnation is not God's way of speaking to us.

If there is condemnation, is it not because we have unrepentant sin in our life? Guilt is not a bad thing: it is to the spirit/soul what pain is to the body. Pain is essential for the survival of the physical body. If you would have no feeling when your body is injured, you would end up destroying it because there would be no sense there to tell you to STOP! it HURTS! So is guilt and its accompanying feelings of condemnation. (Romans 8:1: 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.) It is there to tell you to repent, that not all is right between you and God. So, look at it as a blessing that God wants you restored to HIM!

I suggest you check out the site as Mike suggested. There have been long discussions about divorce in the past.

Blessings,
ginnyrose

Dian,

My heart goes out to you...I have read many of your posts here on SI but seldom responded to them. You come across to me as a woman who so desperately wants God but does not succeed very well. Am I wrong here?

I never feel completely saved.

You are in a very difficult situation and that is why so many church people are capitulating on this issue. Now really, if the Bible teaches otherwise, is this what you really want? Just think about it without considering what the physical ramifications would be. Would you want the church to surrender absolute truths to accommodate unrepentant sinners? Who is going to end up in hell after embracing such doctrine? Both, do you not think?

Dian, you sound desperate to me...my heart goes out to you - really it does. Have you ever considered just surrendering to the LORD your entire life, leaving the father of your child and depending on the LORD for his sustenance? To do this looks bleak, but you know what? The LORD will not give us any directives for life without HIM providing the means to accomplish it. Think about that! The Bible is full of stories that underscore this principle. Know what it is called? Faith! Hebrews 11:6 tells us that it is impossible to please God without it. Faith means responding to God when "it" looks impossible, ridiculous to do so.

Dian, I would encourage you to do what you know you should - God will be with you! Promise!

Blessings,
ginnyrose

I checked out the word "pleased " on e-Sword and it means just what we think it means.

Now when you get to the subject of abuse, I do not know of any who would say they should remain under the same roof - separate, perhaps, but not divorce. Seems to me the abused should be aggressive in seeking help, swallowing their pride that keeps one from doing so. Unfortunately, too many counselors are telling their clients to leave the erring spouse and 'get on with life'. To find one who will work to help the situation is indeed hard to find.

(This reminds me of a story: a pastor told us of an situation where they had a couple come to the LORD and joined their church. This couple got along like some mean cats and dogs. And they both said they were Christians, if I recall. The church was one which believed in the 'death do you part' so to divorce was never an option. The wife would get so mad at her DH that she would often call the pastor over to moderate their fights. He told us he often had to talk to them like you would some naughty children. In time the husband became terminally ill, and this is what it took to bring about a reconcilliation between them. She cared for him and in the process learned to love him and peace ruled in that home.)

There is one thing we often overlook in Jesus' attitude towards sin: he never overlooked it. He confronted it head-on whenever he encountered it. Too many moderns will try to appease the aggressive sinner because they do not enjoy a scene. And he/she knows it and takes advantage of it.

My opinion...

ginnyrose

The only thing I am not sure of is what about forgiveness if you are already in this situation?

Glory, that is really the issue in all this. How one answers this is very important---not only in regards to this sin, but in regards to how they apply God's Word/Truth to ALL sin.

I cannot do anything but look to the Word to see how Jesus defines a relationship and whether He ever redefines the same relationship when the nature of the relationship has not changed.

For instance, if it is adultery to Jesus to marry another after a divorce, that means one is joining with a person in God's eyes who is NOT their spouse. The very act of marrying is adultery. Can it be both adultery and a binding marriage? I do not think so, nor is there any scripture which shows that such a union can become lawful any time prior to the death of one's lawful spouse.

So where is there forgiveness? I believe it is found in the forsaking of a union the Lord has defined as adultery. If forgiveness/restoration to God is not found by means of repentance, then none of us have any right to call any person who is in an illicit relationship out of that relationship. We should tell all such persons that they can tell God they are sorry for being in the illicit relationship and then all will be well with the Lord---even though they stay in it.

Most would never think to teach/say such a thing, but in our application of God's Word on the issue of remarital adultery, that is exactly what we are SHOWING those who are in other types of illicit relationships. We are showing that even though God calls a relationship sinful, we can stay in it and then say that it is not sinful.

The "world" is watching us----very closely, and the handling of sin using "different weights and measures" is very apparent to them. That is why many do not want to hear from Christians about THEIR sin and need for a Savior. They see us doing the same sins and we HAVE the Saviour.

Here is what David Wilkerson wrote back in 1999:

Glory, here is a testimony from a brother who was in an adulterous marriage. The Lord used David Wilkerson to speak to him in his situation:

http://www.cadz.net/tony.html

[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=18583&forum=35]Your Thoughts[/url]

For some consideration, see Richard Baxter and "What God Has Joined" linked also. It may take some humbling of fixed positions to allow some challenges ... This is something that is going to continue to be divisive until there is a backing off and prayerful, searching of our hearts.

Hi Mike,

Some of us were not "churched" in the permanency of marriage belief. When I became born again, I actually came from a church that was quite liberal with divorce/remarriage practices(My pastor was divorced/remarried and quite a nice guy too). I personally came to my present view though MUCH study of God's Word and much prayer. Have I read quite a bit by Instone-Brewer? Yes! Can I align with his beliefs? Absolutely not! Years ago, when I was not so knowledgeable about what God had to say on the matter of divorce/remarriage, I would have high- fived Mr. Brewer as most of my family is divorced/remarried. Now, I shake my head with sadness that he is actually one who is being used by many to justify divorce and then remarriage.........for some causes or any cause.

Concerning Pastor Piper who has a much "stricter" stance: I have to agree with Jimdiedtosin about his writings/teachings on the issue:

"Pipers article is like a bottle of pure milk, with a little bit of poison at the bottom".

There is nothing but confusion in his teachings. He teaches truth all the way up to the "what nows".........which causes his previous teaching to fall apart. He teaches that only God can dissolve what He joined together and the only way He does that is through death. He teaches that divorced persons are NOT to remarry because they are bound to their first/covenant spouse until death. But........if one does remarry, they are to remain married to the second one(even though they are still bound til death to their covenant spouse????). He also teaches that the "left" one is NOT free to remarry in such cases. As I've stated before, Mr. Piper is teaching a form of polygamy---where the first one to remarry can stay in the second marriage, but the one "left" is still bound to the one who is now married to another.........Wow, I can't seem to find such a one-way allowance given anywhere in NT scripture......

Yes, there is MUCH to discern on the topic of D/R, but when one truly desires to know the Truth, the Lord will give such a one a mind to see through all the inconsistancies in flawed teachings on the matter.

Truth is a many layered thing. When one "layer" is not true and it is placed between layers of real truth, it stands out---to those who are inspecting it closely. This is what Mr. Piper has done.......he has layered an "untruth" between truths. Why? I do not know, nor do I want to speculate how one can teach such a Word of Truth and then compromise on that truth in the end.........

Dian,

I too have read your posts for a long time and have seen such a hunger for the Lord in you. Some of your heart exposing posts have actually showed me that I am lacking in some areas of my spiritual life.

I wondered to myself today when I saw your post. In the years since I have been on SI, I don't recall you entering into any discussions on divorce/remarriage(I could be wrong on that). I guess I look for purpose in all things---believing God is working in us and that is why some things "touch" us and we have to respond. I pray if the Lord is doing this in you that you will seek His face......Blessings.......

I never feel completely saved.

Some of us were not "churched" in the permanency of marriage belief. When I became born again, I actually came from a church that was quite liberal with divorce/remarriage practices(My pastor was divorced/remarried and quite a nice guy too). I personally came to my present view though MUCH study of God's Word and much prayer. Have I read quite a bit by Instone-Brewer? Yes! Can I align with his beliefs? Absolutely not! Years ago, when I was not so knowledgeable about what God had to say on the matter of divorce/remarriage, I would have high- fived Mr. Brewer as most of my family is divorced/remarried. Now, I shake my head with sadness that he is actually one who is being used by many to justify divorce and then remarriage.........for some causes or any cause.

Thought it was interesting. I don't really like working out from inside positions, or prepositions and then being forced into choosing sides on a matter. This is just not as simple as it seems or as you may have it, there are too many illogical contradictions just on the matter of forgiveness alone.

Using something or someone for justification might just be a leap in itself if the intention is to just look at a matter. I do not know if this is the case or not, you may have read much more than I and could come to that conclusion. But that is my only intention. Wrote out the Baxter sections as it struck me as quite a bit contrary to a great deal of the heat on the subject currently, especially from someone of such a Puritan understanding. Justification? Again, no, I am staunchly opposed to divorce as anyone could be and believe it is the laziness and compromise on teaching the whole council of the Word of God across all manner of heart issues that has let this become so prevalent and ruinous to society, to the family and a black mark on the Name of Christ. I believe it is far too often and overwhelmingly a matter of selfishness as a root issue and cause, lust, greed and an unwillingness to suffer in patience and prayer, other attributes come into play as lesser reasonings.

Cindy said:

I have been on SI, I don't recall you entering into any discussions on divorce/remarriage(I could be wrong on that). I guess I look for purpose in all things---believing God is working in us and that is why some things "touch" us and we have to respond. I pray if the Lord is doing this in you that you will seek His face......Blessings.......

I have PM'd both Lastblast and Ginnyrose because, perhaps some level of this discussion should be private, but I [i]do[/i] want to be public as much as possible for anyone else who may need to see what God is doing for a witness in their own lives.

If I'm correct here, then Lastblast and Ginnyrose are suggesting that my own wrestlings with God, lack of peace and confidence about my salvation and sense of security [i]may[/i], and understand I said [i]"may"[/i], be attributed to the "sin" that I continue in daily by being with my now husband. Are we all on the same page here? Does everyone here understand that there is a camp of believers who think that the only way for me to be in true repentance is to leave my husband and...do what? I'm not sure. What comes after that?

Everyone, please, hold your nerve. Give these people a chance to talk. I'm not going to be offended by their far fetched ideas. I want to hear them. Ok? After all...I am desperate to know God. How desperate are we all? Are we desperate enough to go down the really tiny, difficult path? I know this is tough. I know this has our hair standing up on the backs of our necks, but it's ok. Let us talk here. I'll be ok. Thanks, Dian.

I do have one more thing to say before we go any further in this discussion. I'm thinking of that scripture where Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for some of their teaching. He tells them that they are making people "twice the son's of hell" that they are by "teaching for doctrine the commandments of men". Now...what I want to say is this:

Let's everyone be careful that we aren't in here just slinging out our own opinions, because that is a serious crime against God. People's eternal lives are at stake here. Thanks, Dian.

Ok, I'm up now and I can't sleep. It's 3:45am here in East Tennessee. I was thinking...my great grandmother on my mother's side of the family was never married and had children by 6 different men. My grandfather's last name was "Gray", but we think it may have been his mother's maiden name, therefore he wasn't really a "Gray", but probably some other name that he never knew. In other words...how far back does one go in unraveling this web of sin? Perhaps I shouldn't even exist. I'm just a cosmic mistake. My grandfather was a cosmic mistake made by his own mother. There are now at least 4 generations that shouldn't even exist and God knows how far back it goes. Maybe it goes all the way back to the dawn of mankind.

My first husband was divorced from his first wife when I met him. I was 17 years old. I can't go back to him because that would be wrong also. Plus, he's already married for the third time to someone else. Even if he saw the "error" of his ways, he would have to go all the way back to his first wife, which wasn't me, but she's married to someone else. Where does it all end?

So...where would that leave me? Single for the rest of my life because I screwed up when I was 17? And what about my children? I had two children by my first marriage. Are they cosmic mistakes also?

What if I leave my now husband? Should I take my son with me kicking and screaming (for he wouldn't go any other way)? Or should I just abandon the both of them? I'm sure that my son would have a long, difficult struggle in trying to make sense of his religious mother who abandoned him on the premise that it was the way for her to be right with God. I've heard such tales. This is enough to make me a nut and for what? For me to spend eternity with my Holy God? "Oh Children, Children!!! (As Art would say).

Lord, we need you so bad! What shall we do, Oh God? Where shall we go? I'm a woman of unclean lips and I dwell among a people of unclean lips. My God! Have mercy upon us all!

Telestai is this thread had given you enough of understanding and insight. This shows how people thinks and decern judgement of this issue, assumption of they think of some is being condem because of guilt, some they know because of what they precieve and study what the scripture have said ... really it all falls onto how God reveal himself to us. A revelation of His Word that comes from THE HOLY SPIRIT Himself only can show the light of this matter and only Him can brings hope and assurance of FORGIVENESS to recieve salvation of everlasting life. It is our own personal walk that become so unique that made so strong to know Christ. no matter what sin when we all come to Christ and repent of our sin and recieve pardon. He Himself Christ Jesus will gives us peace ...

sigh...:-( may God Almighty bless your heart every one.

Dear Dian,

My apologies for meddling with your expression, was drawing my own by way of comparison.

Philologos made the same point about the difficulty in public discussion vs. the better of private. As you stated however, '[i]I do want to be public as much as possible for anyone else who may need to see what God is doing for a witness in their own lives.[/i]'

I am inclined to consider heavily upon the very culture and times that these specifics were written in scripture, if it must be said, on divorce and remarriage, adultery and lest it be forgotten ... of the [i]mind[/i]; "already" was the Lords pronouncement.

Cut this last night as it was a muddle, hopefully just something of a consideration. Right now there are more adulterers in our midst (speaking in great generalities) than actual divorces or if we were to apply a law to it as it is understood, in the thought life and\\or the viewing life. That may be by way of gazing (think, Internet, magazines ...) or just in those things that easily come to a mind. Let me speak as a man to the men for all the ladies benefit. A great many of us need next to no outside influence to be quickly on the precipice, trust me. I would be hard pressed to find one man that has not crossed the line of exactly what Jesus stated;

Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

And that repeatedly. It is not too far fetched to note the remedy for this illness quickly following in the next verse. If we were to hold to this strictly, right now you should be reading something on the order of; Gkh3pgelv[ ekigf-s0mb r[p tept ;ejkt.

Clever, perhaps, exaggerating the point.

Joh 8:4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

Mind you that the wives have every right to dismiss themselves from the marriage, if the truth be told we should have more divorces, not less.

Joh 8:5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

Nothing.

Joh 8:6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to [i]accuse him[/i]. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

"[i]as though[/i]"

Joh 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

"He that is without sin ..."

Why do I get this sense that this is an exercise in futility? "We have heard this, I have heard all the arguments ... I know that, but ..."

Joh 8:8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

Again. Another long pause.

Joh 8:9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

"being convicted by their own conscience"

Joh 8:10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

"[i]where are those thine accusers?[/i]"

"[i]hath no man condemned thee?[/i]"

A pause of my own here.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ezra talk about revival, and God speaking to them to put away strange wives and their children so God can restore through revival his house Ez 9:9. Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.In these endtimes we desperately need to listen to the voice of God and do the things that he calls us to do, some things that might seem strange. Mt 16:8 He is building a church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Many are called to separate from many things of this world and those things will include relationships. 1Pe 4:12 Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you:

Below are the two chapters in Ezra that are very interesting………

Ezr 9:1 Now when these things were done, the princes came to me, saying, The people of Israel, and the priests, and the Levites, have not separated themselves from the people of the lands, doing according to their abominations, even of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites.
Ezr 9:2 For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of those lands: yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been chief in this trespass.
Ezr 9:3 And when I heard this thing, I rent my garment and my mantle, and plucked off the hair of my head and of my beard, and sat down astonied.
Ezr 9:4 Then were assembled unto me every one that trembled at the words of the God of Israel, because of the transgression of those that had been carried away; and I sat astonied until the evening sacrifice.
Ezr 9:5 And at the evening sacrifice I arose up from my heaviness; and having rent my garment and my mantle, I fell upon my knees, and spread out my hands unto the LORD my God,
Ezr 9:6 And said, O my God, I am ashamed and blush to lift up my face to thee, my God: for our iniquities are increased over our head, and our trespass is grown up unto the heavens.
Ezr 9:7 Since the days of our fathers have we been in a great trespass unto this day; and for our iniquities have we, our kings, and our priests, been delivered into the hand of the kings of the lands, to the sword, to captivity, and to a spoil, and to confusion of face, as it is this day.
Ezr 9:8 And now for a little space grace hath been shewed from the LORD our God, to leave us a remnant to escape, and to give us a nail in his holy place, that our God may lighten our eyes, and give us a little reviving in our bondage.
Ezr 9:9 For we were bondmen; yet our God hath not forsaken us in our bondage, but hath extended mercy unto us in the sight of the kings of Persia, to give us a reviving, to set up the house of our God, and to repair the desolations thereof, and to give us a wall in Judah and in Jerusalem.
Ezr 9:10 And now, O our God, what shall we say after this? for we have forsaken thy commandments,
Ezr 9:11 Which thou hast commanded by thy servants the prophets, saying, The land, unto which ye go to possess it, is an unclean land with the filthiness of the people of the lands, with their abominations, which have filled it from one end to another with their uncleanness.
Ezr 9:12 Now therefore give not your daughters unto their sons, neither take their daughters unto your sons, nor seek their peace or their wealth for ever: that ye may be strong, and eat the good of the land, and leave it for an inheritance to your children for ever.
Ezr 9:13 And after all that is come upon us for our evil deeds, and for our great trespass, seeing that thou our God hast punished us less than our iniquities deserve, and hast given us such deliverance as this;
Ezr 9:14 Should we again break thy commandments, and join in affinity with the people of these abominations? wouldest not thou be angry with us till thou hadst consumed us, so that there should be no remnant nor escaping?
Ezr 9:15 O LORD God of Israel, thou art righteous: for we remain yet escaped, as it is this day: behold, we are before thee in our trespasses: for we cannot stand before thee because of this.

Ezr 10:1 Now when Ezra had prayed, and when he had confessed, weeping and casting himself down before the house of God, there assembled unto him out of Israel a very great congregation of men and women and children: for the people wept very sore.
Ezr 10:2 And Shechaniah the son of Jehiel, one of the sons of Elam, answered and said unto Ezra, We have trespassed against our God, and have taken strange wives of the people of the land: yet now there is hope in Israel concerning this thing.
Ezr 10:3 Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of my lord, and of those that tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law.
Ezr 10:4 Arise; for this matter belongeth unto thee: we also will be with thee: be of good courage, and do it.
Ezr 10:5 Then arose Ezra, and made the chief priests, the Levites, and all Israel, to swear that they should do according to this word. And they sware.
Ezr 10:6 Then Ezra rose up from before the house of God, and went into the chamber of Johanan the son of Eliashib: and when he came thither, he did eat no bread, nor drink water: for he mourned because of the transgression of them that had been carried away.
Ezr 10:7 And they made proclamation throughout Judah and Jerusalem unto all the children of the captivity, that they should gather themselves together unto Jerusalem;
Ezr 10:8 And that whosoever would not come within three days, according to the counsel of the princes and the elders, all his substance should be forfeited, and himself separated from the congregation of those that had been carried away.
Ezr 10:9 Then all the men of Judah and Benjamin gathered themselves together unto Jerusalem within three days. It was the ninth month, on the twentieth day of the month; and all the people sat in the street of the house of God, trembling because of this matter, and for the great rain.
Ezr 10:10 And Ezra the priest stood up, and said unto them, Ye have transgressed, and have taken strange wives, to increase the trespass of Israel.
Ezr 10:11 Now therefore make confession unto the LORD God of your fathers, and do his pleasure: and separate yourselves from the people of the land, and from the strange wives.
Ezr 10:12 Then all the congregation answered and said with a loud voice, As thou hast said, so must we do.
Ezr 10:13 But the people are many, and it is a time of much rain, and we are not able to stand without, neither is this a work of one day or two: for we are many that have transgressed in this thing.
Ezr 10:14 Let now our rulers of all the congregation stand, and let all them which have taken strange wives in our cities come at appointed times, and with them the elders of every city, and the judges thereof, until the fierce wrath of our God for this matter be turned from us.
Ezr 10:15 Only Jonathan the son of Asahel and Jahaziah the son of Tikvah were employed about this matter: and Meshullam and Shabbethai the Levite helped them.
Ezr 10:16 And the children of the captivity did so. And Ezra the priest, with certain chief of the fathers, after the house of their fathers, and all of them by their names, were separated, and sat down in the first day of the tenth month to examine the matter.
Ezr 10:17 And they made an end with all the men that had taken strange wives by the first day of the first month.
Ezr 10:18 And among the sons of the priests there were found that had taken strange wives: namely, of the sons of Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and his brethren; Maaseiah, and Eliezer, and Jarib, and Gedaliah.
Ezr 10:19 And they gave their hands that they would put away their wives; and being guilty, they offered a ram of the flock for their trespass.

Right now there are more adulterers in our midst (speaking in great generalities) than actual divorces or if we were to apply a law to it as it is understood, in the thought life and\\or the viewing life.

Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart

Mind you that the wives have every right to dismiss themselves from the marriage, if the truth be told we should have more divorces, not less.

Mike,

I am fully in agreement with you concerning the definition of adultery-----many seem to forget how Jesus defined adultery when they focus on what they believe is their permission to exit a marriage joined by God. Jesus' definition was greatly expanded from the understood definition of adultery.

If one holds that Jesus allowed for a marriage to be dissolved for adultery, His definition of adultery, that opens a whole nother can of worms, no? It then puts the so called "innocent" in the camp of the guilty as well, does it not?

So where does that leave us with this so called "exception/permission" clause? ;-)

As for the rest of your post, I addressed that issue before. The Lord came to give LIFE to the adulterer/adulteress, not condemnation. He did not stone, though she was guilty and the law called for stoning. He, in dealing with the men, after speaking to them, exposed in silent introspection their own guilt(Mt. 7).......hence they walked away, knowing they too deserved what they wanted to do to the woman.

Jesus gave the woman a word, and in that word, He spoke her guilt. Yet, she also experienced God's Grace by having the chance to walk out repentance. This is His desire for all of us who sin. He does not desire condemnation (which will come WHEN HE COMES (II Thess. 1:7-9), but instead desires that all He speaks to come out of their sin....... Blessings.

Mikey. I still love you, Brother. You can speak on my behalf anytime. That was a good post.

Now, I've been thinking (all night) about King David & Bethsheba & Solomon. It seems to me that this way of thinking that says things are different now because of the New Covenant isn't quite the best argument either. What about redemption? What about Christ being slain from the foundation of the world and God is the Alpha and Omega? Why would God allow a union made in adultery to be the breeding ground for the Savior of the world? Why would God save Rahab and her whole household? Why would God find it just to allow a daughter-in-law (Tamar, Genesis 38) to betray her father-in-law into siring a child for her which is in the lineage of Christ?

Obviously, God doesn't think the way we do. The Savior of the world came through a line of sinful men (and women). But...God could have brought Him forth by a word.

Why do we make knowing God so difficult? Why do we think because we've done all this "study" with our intellect that we now are certified to tell others what's "right"? Knowing God cannot be figured out by our intellect or else stupid people couldn't come to Christ.

You know how I put Truth concerning the gospel to the test? I ask myself, is this method or description or philosopy too complicated for a homeless, naked, aids orphan in Africa to understand? If it is, then it probably isn't the Gospel. We've come to think more highly of ourselves than we ought. God isn't saving us because we are smart enough, or disciplined enough to stand on the "circle". God is saving us because we have cast ourselves upon Him for mercy, knowing that, without sheer mercy, we all deserve Hell. It's just that simple. I'll never be able to align myself right enough to God apart from laying myself out before Him in acknowledgement that He is a Holy God and I am a sinful, fallen human being in need of a Savior.

It all goes back to the two thieves with Him at Calvary. It's just that simple. Which attitude will you have towards Christ?

Here's a song for you:'

Three men on a mountain
Up on Calvary
And the man in the middle was Jesus
He died for you and me.

Now the man on the left was a sinner man
Tied to a cross he bled
He could have been forgiven
But he mocked the Lord instead
"They say you are the Son of God
They nailed you to that tree
Come down, come down and save us
If God your Father be."

Now the man on the right was a sinner too
But he was sorry for his sins
He begged the Lord's forgiveness
And Jesus said to him
"Fear not, fear not this earthly death.
Before this day is o're
You'll be with me in Paradise
On Heaven's golden shore.

Love Ya'll. Dian.

Dian,

Thank you for your openness in discussing your situation and in hearing from the "far fetched" group :-P . The funny thing is that in the early church, today's practice of divorce/remarriage would have been thought of as "far-fetched"/unthinkable. What I believe the scriptures teach on the permanency of God joined marriages is what the earliest writings in the Christian Church show(before Roman Catholicism).

As for your situation, Dian, it appears to me since you married a divorced man (from his covenant marriage), you were not "joined by God" to this man. Both of you were committing adultery, according to scripture. If your second husband was not joined previously to another woman by God, you and he ARE in covenant---with each other and with God.

I really would encourage you to visit the sites that were posted here in this thread. At the very least, they will give you food for thought and possibly drive you further into God's Word/heart on this issue, so you will be firmly grounded in your own heart.

Again, thanks for being open, sister. Blessings.....

I am not directly responding to Dian's post but to a mindset that is pervasive to some on SI: how dare you confront another person's sin because of your own sin[s]? We are not all free from it...is the essense.

During Jesus last day on earth He was confronted with three offenses against his person:

1. Judas betrayed him for a sum of money.
2. Peter denied him.
3, The soldiers killed him.

Now notice Jesus response to these three:

Judas: Judas never came back to Jesus after he sold him. He was striken with guilt and went out and hung himself. Jesus did not pursue him and told him he would forgive him. Judas sin was premeditated.

Peter: when Jesus heard Peter denying him, he looked at him and was guilt striken. He went out and wept. Later, Jesus confronted him very forcibly. He was very aggressive in working to root out the contributing fault in his heart. Thus was reconcilliation made between Jesus and Peter. Less then two months later, Peter stood up to crowds and had the audacity to tell them "You crucified Jesus!" He was very blunt. Spared no punches. And he did this after denying Jesus?! Think about that for a moment. Now Peter's sin was committed in a weak moment. It was not premeditated.

The Roman soldier: he was merely doing his official duty. Likely he had no person feeling about Jesus other then what he saw. He was simply doing the job he was paid to do. Jesus told the Father "Forgive them for they know not what to do."

Now where do we find ourselves? Just because we, too, have committed sins does not mean it should silence us in speaking out against it, does it? When we have all our sins under the blood, we should be busy warning others of this because we know all too well how destructive sin is. Why? Because we want others to go to heaven but sin will prevent this from happening. So to those who have lusted, you can get deliverance from that sin. And BTW, males are not the only ones guilty of this sin: females are involved in it just as well.

Blessings,
ginnyrose

You know how I put Truth concerning the gospel to the test? I ask myself, is this method or description or philosopy too complicated for a homeless, naked, aids orphan in Africa to understand? If it is, then it probably isn't the Gospel. We've come to think more highly of ourselves than we ought. God isn't saving us because we are smart enough, or disciplined enough to stand on the "circle". God is saving us because we have cast ourselves upon Him for mercy, knowing that, without sheer mercy, we all deserve Hell. It's just that simple. I'll never be able to align myself right enough to God apart from laying myself out before Him in acknowledgement that He is a Holy God and I am a sinful, fallen human being in need of a Savior.

Dian,

I agree with you in so much as how salvation is gained. We don't DO, then we are saved. We become His, THEN we DO, BECAUSE we are saved.

Human beings complicate life through our sinful choices. That is not the fault of God. To have to make restitution for those things done while a sinner is not uncommon for the believer. As God makes known His ways, many of us have had to "go back" to things that we had done in the past and rectify, ask forgiveness, confess sin to someone even if it meant LOSING that someone, confess and go to jail for crimes committed, etc, etc. The "blood" does not wash away responsibility to rectify for the sins committed----as the Lord brings those to the forefront. It IS "complicated" to live as one "in Christ" for He calls us to and from many difficult things. Blessings.......

Now where do we find ourselves? Just because we, too, have committed sins does not mean it should silence us in speaking out against it, does it? When we have all our sins under the blood, ...

Including adultery?

Don't meant to be contentious at all sister, nor is the particular mindset geared to 'how dare you', it was just a pause in consideration.

It just seems to me that with all the possibilities, all the varieties and combinations of circumstance, all the things not directly addressed on this matter emphatically in scripture, where it is silent ... That there is an unmovable stone and a hardness, almost or for some even a "law" that only applies here to this issue.

It is interesting the way we can process things and the launches we may take with looking into a matter taken as compromising the same. That does not have to be the case. "Impartial" does not always equate to "compromise", hopefully it never does.

There are example after example after example, one case tested up against another, sometimes they are hypothetical, sometimes the very ones who are deadly serious in their walk with the Lord are in a state of bewilderment because of their present situation and ... how often might our particular advice, opinion, be ruinous to them, to their families? Some of us speak out of no experience at all, some of us from our own true experience ... are they always transferable? My situation or yours pitied up against theirs? Not to forget, there are those looking precisely for an 'escape' clause, for the very exception that if I am tracking this honestly is some of our great fear, that it will be abused (and it certainly has been abused!) for selfish ends and means. For all of that, do we therefore withhold it from who it does belong to? Did the Lord? And is it really our business to be deciding who does and who does not get it?

I am not leading or baiting here nor even as it seems coming to the rescue of one side of the camp. It is a very complex matter. There are volumes written and appeals to all the variety of particular situations by way of things linked here and in all the postings and threads elsewhere and that is only by way of this particular site. How much more?

All the scripture verses pertaining certainly are gone over with a fine tooth comb and this would certainly be the case with those sincere and in the midst of these troubles, others ... who knows their motivations? Some of us want to be of a help only because we truly care for the Brethren others ... Seemingly just to show how well studied they are or some mixture of both, who knows, just as much variety in that itself.

What does seem the general, overall conclusion is similar to many other matters; Camps. Two sides. Pick one or the other. Black and white. Cut and dried. All I have are questions and considerations, observations and wonders. I am adopted. I married a women who was a Christian yet had borne a son out of wedlock. At the time of our marriage I was in all honesty somewhere 'in-between' in my own particular salvation. I know that sounds like some grand impossibility ... This is all very simplistic in comparison to others who have extended or extenuating circumstances, far more complex and far more compounded. I find it just a bit out of sorts that there is a mathematical type equation for each and every instance, it is far too simplistic.

For every scripture that speaks to the questions directly, there may be something missing I fear within those very verses themselves. It was with that intention I brought forth just the lone example earlier. The woman at the well with 5 husbands and the one at that instance who was not ... Interesting that the whole thing was left kind of just hanging there isn't it? No further exhortations from the Lord, no follow up on what she may or may not have done. We just do not know, but we can speculate ... and we do speculate much don't we, about others special or not so special circumstances.

I do sometimes wonder if we haven't missed a great deal when we think we are siding with the Lord and repeating even His own words in these situations. I too agree with the Lord, His word is final and authoritative and it is a fear to be meddling with it. But I also find other things coming back in to haunt me from other parts of the whole council, one that is up front in the thoughts at the moment and is just again for consideration and a certain emphasis;

[i]But go ye and learn what this meaneth, I desire mercy, and not sacrifice: for I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.[/i] Mat 9:13 (RV)

"Go and learn what this means ... I desire mercy, not sacrifice..."

It has been rattling between the ear lobes, those words.

I will be just bold enough to suggest that what we have in scripture though it always speaks for all time in spirit and truth, just may, just might have some understanding in specifics that we are not completely privy to. There may be something there about the idea of "any cause" historically that might warrant more attention, it is interesting not as compromise but just as possibility, it does seem to at least give some pause for consideration seeing that it does appear at least to flesh out some of the difficulties, make some sense of the explanation. Still, that it is only a percolating observation and largely on the surface. It would take some serious study to see if these things be so, taking into account all the sources sited, especially those written from outside our particular constructs. It begets many questions and something that just occurred to me from it;

Mat 19:3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?" (ESV)

Usually we will go towards the emphasis of the Pharisees testing of the Lord and rightly so. Used the ESV since it has the word 'any', the KJV and RV seem even stronger in a sense; "every cause." But what is interesting is the motivation behind the question beyond the testing and also beyond what is usually refereed to by the appealing to the law of Moses.

There are some precedents not to be forgotten;

[b]Mat 19:3 -
Tempting him[/b] - Trying what answer he would give to a question, which, however decided by him, would expose him to censure.

[b]Is it lawful - for every cause?[/b] - Instead of αιτιαν, fault, cause, reason, three MSS. and the Coptic version read αμαρτιαν, sin or transgression: this was probably the original reading - the first syllable being lost, αρτιαν alone would remain, which a subsequent transcriber would suppose to be a mistake for αιτιαν, and so wrote it; hence this various reading. What made our Lord’s situation at present so critical in respect to this question was: At this time there were two famous divinity and philosophical schools among the Jews, that of Shammai, and that of Hillel. On the question of divorce, the school of Shammai maintained, that a man could not legally put away his wife, except for whoredom. The school of Hillel taught that a man might put away his wife for a multitude of other causes, and when she did not find grace in his sight; i.e. when he saw any other woman that pleased him better. See the case of Josephus, mentioned in the note on Mat_5:31 (note), and Calmet’s Comment, vol. i. part ii. p. 379. By answering the question, not from Shammai or Hillel, but from Moses, our blessed Lord defeated their malice, and confounded their devices.

Adam Clarke

Really didn't want to appeal to commentary and lose the heart of the matter. But there was a controversy then that sprung forth the question irregardless of the motivation of the Pharisees. Please recognize that I am not all that particularly 'studied' on all this matter and am not making statements but observations and that without wholesale conclusions. Best I can tell it is always a heart matter well before it is a practical matter throughout scripture if that can be said with some liberality, that is and continues to be my interest and ... alarm at my own heart's challenges, deceptiveness and even it's ... dismantling? Think that is the word I am looking for. Perhaps, rearranging ...

Once again have gone on to loquacity, the thing I actually came to beg off of. Will leave off with part of the expression the Lord responded with for more contemplation;

[i]He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.[/i] Mat 19:8

That heart issue ... again.

Mike,

Maybe I'm being overly simplistic, but to me, what God joined together IS either lifelong, or it is merely just an "ideal" to TRY to attain. In other words, the marriages God joins together (not man) are til 'death do us part' or they are not. If they are binding til death, any relationship we choose to enter into other than that marital relationship is sin---because in God's eyes we are already joined to someone else. If what God joined together is NOT binding til death, then we have the freedom to come and go as we wish.

I personally do not see marriage being binding for some (because we choose it to be so), but not binding for others (because we choose it not to be binding). Do the scriptures teach man holds sway over God in how they choose to live out the marriage covenant? Does God then have to honor the choices sinful man makes? It seems to me that many today say, "it is not adultery, it is a lawful marriage", when God has said, "it IS adultery".........I cannot get beyond the Word of God, no matter what my mind/heart wants to do with those who have suffered in bad marriages and have found themselves in marriages God says are adulterous.

I do not see "mercy over sacrifice" in regards to giving an allowance for remarriage because I do not see God ignoring sin in order to placate man's desires. Some teach that remarriage should be allowed so one does not "burn" with desire.

I have asked this question many times with no response: if God allows sin(remarital adultery) because our flesh "burns", why would it not then be ok for a man to go out on his incapacitated wife because she could not satisfy his "burning"? In each of the cases, it is adultery, right? Why is one considered tolerable in the house of the Lord, but not the other? Why not extend "mercy" to the suffering husband with the incapacitated wife? Why should he have to "sacrifice" his desires and the man who was deserted by his wife not have to sacrifice his desires, but instead get a new "better" wife?

To me, what God joined together is either binding or it is not. If it is, there should be no arguing circumstance because the fact is that most ALL of us are guilty of adultery according to Jesus' definition, aren't we?

If what God joined together is not binding (meaning lifelong marriage is just an ideal, not a state of being), then "mercy over sacrifice" should trump in ALL cases and there should be no issue........because no one should HAVE to stay in a marriage if they are not happy/fulfilled.

I do not believe scripture in any way, shape, or form teaches that life-long marriage is merely an "ideal"---something to shoot for.........but that's just me. Each of us has to come to a place of their own understanding so they will be able to walk out what truly is the Lord's will........

Maybe I'm being overly simplistic, but to me, what God joined together IS either lifelong, or it is merely just an "ideal" to TRY to attain. In other words, the marriages God joins together (not man) are til 'death do us part' or they are not. If they are binding til death, any relationship we choose to enter into other than that marital relationship is sin---because in God's eyes we are already joined to someone else. If what God joined together is NOT binding til death, then we have the freedom to come and go as we wish.

Well then you have a process contradiction with the Lord and Paul for giving place to exceptions and instructions.

I do not see "mercy over sacrifice" in regards to giving an allowance for remarriage because I do not see God ignoring sin in order to placate man's desires. Some teach that remarriage should be allowed so one does not "burn" with desire.

I have asked this question many times with no response: if God allows sin(remarital adultery) because our flesh "burns", why would it not then be ok for a man to go out on his incapacitated wife because she could not satisfy his "burning"? In each of the cases, it is adultery, right? Why is one considered tolerable in the house of the Lord, but not the other? Why not extend "mercy" to the suffering husband with the incapacitated wife? Why should he have to "sacrifice" his desires and the man who was deserted by his wife not have to sacrifice his desires, but instead get a new "better" wife?

Maybe one reason you do not get any response sister is because you are setting up ridiculous hypotheticals and frankly it comes across as contentious the way these are framed, I am not going to get into this.

I do not believe scripture in any way, shape, or form teaches that life-long marriage is merely an "ideal"---something to shoot for.........but that's just me. Each of us has to come to a place of their own understanding so they will be able to walk out what truly is the Lord's will........

You would be hard pressed to find anyone here thinking this either.

There is no disputing what ought to be, what marriage is, what the definition is. What you do have is all kinds of situations often running in parallel with believers and unbelievers, those coming to the Lord before or after their marriage, uninstructed or even mis-instructed due to poor preaching\\teaching. There are so many scenarios it is impossible to speak to them all. You would have some destroy themselves and their families all due to your hard-line stance. And say this is the Lords will ... it is quite absurd.

I've been thinking about the argument here. Our two sisters, Lastblast & Ginnyrose are taking the extreme stance that someone who is married for the second or more times should leave their spouse in order to be reconciled to God and the only way that they can have an intimate relationship that is right before God is to return to their first spouse. I think I'm being fair in stating this in this way. I believe (ladies, correct me if I'm wrong), that you are stating that a person must remain single or return to their first spouse, that this and only this is true repentance from adultery. Is that correct?

Well, obviously, if your philosophy is true, I am living in continual sin by being in my second marriage. I'm just wondering what kind of restitution a person can make if they have killed someone. They can't raise that person from the dead. They can only be sorry for their sin.

Since my revelation about covenant, I think I also believe as you do that there can never be a reason for me to divorce my husband. I will not be deterred from keeping my vows for any reason. However, I do believe that I have an obligation to preserve the sanctity of my home if my husband defaults on that job. Therefore, since he chose to default, I must do the necessary thing to enforce that God be upheld in my home. That might mean that we would separate (this came very close to happening in my marriage). I had no intentions of divorce, but I did feel that I had an obligation as a mother to protect my child. My husband was being quite violent and vile at the time. I literally gave him an ultimatum to cease his ungodly behavior or he would have to leave. I wasn't threatening divorce, I was promising that I would not tolerate his damaging our son. This pressure brought him to repentence pretty quick. But...it could have gone the other way, in which case, I would have separated from him.

Since this turning of my way of thinking, I've had friends whom I've tried to help stay in their difficult marriages. I've found that, oftentimes, although they are saved, they haven't got the faith to remain. I've thought alot about it and I came to the conclusion that, while divorce was certainly not God's best for that person, it isn't something that will cause God to cast them off. God is ever persueing his own and he doesn't expect a child to behave as an adult. One woman, I actually felt that she could do nothing but divorce her husband. He was quite unfaithful and it was too painful for her to tolerate. She simply had not progressed in her walk with God to the degree that would sustain her under such extreme conditions. I could see that. I knew that. She just didn't have it in her. I felt sorry for her, and yet, I know that God is faithful, even when we are faithless.

Someone mentioned in one post about Peter's betrayal of Christ. Was it a sin what Peter did? Yes, but Jesus knew that Peter had a ways to go before he could walk the walk where he would love not his life unto the death. That time eventually came because Peter was serious about following Jesus. Alot of genuine people get divorced. I think, deep down, they know it isn't God's best, but they don't know how to walk out faithfully under the present suffering. That's ok. If you are serious about surrendering your life completely unto God, then God Himself will bring you to that place eventually. That's what happened to me.

Jesus met the Samaritan woman at the well and he told her that she had been married 5 times and the man she was with at that moment, she wasn't even married to. When he forgave her, he told her, "Go and sin no more." That's all she could do. I don't believe that many people can retrace their steps in life to prove that they have repented. The trail behind them has disappeared. They simply must go forward in obedience to God now.

I do not believe that I must leave my husband to be right with God. The grace of God is evident in my life to all who look on. My life isn't perfect, but God's mercy is abundant. I'm so grateful for the blood of Jesus Christ which has set me free from the Law of Sin and Death. Nothing can separate me from the love of God. Nothing.

I'm on my second marriage and, yes, I took my vows in my first marriage far too lightly. I won't make that mistake again. I'm older. I'm wiser...and Christ has become my life. Hallelujah! Love, Dian.

Well then you have a process contradiction with the Lord and Paul for giving place to exceptions and instructions.

I don't believe holding the view that marriage IS (not "should be") lifelong contradicts at all what Jesus and Paul both taught. I believe this is exactly what they both taught. The Lord, through Paul, did give allowance to "depart", but He did not give allowance to remarry this side of death.

you are setting up ridiculous hypotheticals and frankly it comes across as contentious the way these are framed, I am not going to get into this.

Mike, when someone quotes scripture "I desire mercy, not sacrifice" as a reason why a person can remarry, then one has to be ready to answer the different scenerios and how that position fits/doesn't fit with those differing scenerios. You may call such scenerios, "ridiculous", but for some, these are real-life situations/struggles. If we are to apply "mercy" to some who are lonely/neglected, etc.......where does it end? Can we prove scripturally that some deserve to receive mercy in their marital situations, but others have to "sacrifice" in order to be right with God? I think that is quite a valid question. I'm sorry you don't.

There is no disputing what ought to be, what marriage is, what the definition is

You seem to be saying that every situation is different and there is no "cookie cutter" answer. YOu seem to feel quite irritated that I believe scripture teaches that ALL marriages that God joined together remain ONE until one of them dies---hence the reason Jesus and Paul both teach it is adultery to join with another before that time.

You would have some destroy themselves and their families all due to your hard-line stance. And say this is the Lords will ... it is quite absurd.

Mike,

I think your language to me is much more contentious/inflammatory than any of my words have been. My heart is not to "destroy families".......I think there is quite enough of that being done concerning the marriages that God DID join together. Unfortunately, much of the damage being done is BECAUSE people will not address it(or there are some who try to demean those who do care enough about this plague in the confessing church to talk about it) and preachers will not teach line upon line, precept upon precept on the issue of divorce/remarriage.

I cannot tell you how many times I have heard of people being pushed out of churches because they question their pastors on this issue.........some of them ARE the divorced who want answers.......and pastors are too uncomfortable to answer them, so they either will ignore them, or ask them politely to find another church. Your demeanor towards me is part of the problem, I think. That type demeanor is a source of great hurt towards those who have been thrown away by a spouse, yet believe what Jesus says about the enduring nature of the covenant they entered when they married. They are already struggling with great loss on many fronts, and then they are hit with people getting angry with them because they are living out their faith---and sometimes verbal about it.

You must understand this, brother: when you come to the defense of the remarried in such a way, you come AGAINST those who have been forsaken and are standing faithful, praying for their wayward spouses (those whom Jesus says are committing adultery). Not only are many standing faithful for their wayward spouses, but they are also praying for the one who came between them and their covenant spouse----the one who "defrauded" them in God's sight. That is the other side of the coin that many forget about when they jump to defend one side.

Well, obviously, if your philosophy is true, I am living in continual sin by being in my second marriage. I'm just wondering what kind of restitution a person can make if they have killed someone. They can't raise that person from the dead. They can only be sorry for their sin.

Dian,

I thought I had addressed this in my post to you. I do not believe you are living in continual sin. You married a divorced man to begin with(your first marriage). According to Jesus, you committed adultery by marrying him. He is "joined" to his first wife. It appears to me you are NOW in a valid marriage in the sight of God.

You ask about what is true repentance from adultery? If one were committing extra-marital adultery, what would repentance look like? If you say extra-marital adultery is different than remarital adultery, what in scripture leads you to believe that some adultery can be confessed yet stayed in, while other types of adulterous relationships must be forsaken?

If you are now looking at covenant marriage in the way you are (and I DO believe you are viewing it in accordance with scripture and with the heart of God), do you also believe that God, concerning moral sin, allows for some to commit it, while holding others to His standards? In other words, do you believe His standards change according to the level of faith someone has?

Personally, to me, sin is sin. The difference is to what extent we will be held accountable for the transgression. Jesus teaches that whosoever is given much, much will be required. He also teaches that if we KNOW, yet still do the wrong thing, we will be judged more harshly than those who do not know, yet did the same thing.

Jesus met the Samaritan woman at the well and he told her that she had been married 5 times and the man she was with at that moment, she wasn't even married to. When he forgave her, he told her, "Go and sin no more." That's all she could do. I don't believe that many people can retrace their steps in life to prove that they have repented. The trail behind them has disappeared. They simply must go forward in obedience to God now.

What you have said, Dian, is true and not true. As for the woman at the well, Jesus revealed her PRESENT sin to her. Even so, He did not give her the remedy, except to point her to Him. He did not say, Drink of me, THEN, forsake your sin........yet, I'm sure she knew that when she DRANK OF THE LIVING WATER that her life would CHANGE---drastically. That is what happens to all born again believers. They KNOW their life will change---drastically, yet none of us knows in what ways our lives will change, what things the Lord will call us from (yes, even those PRESENT sins, and sometimes, yes, we will have to "go back" before we can go forward).

When you say that one has to go forward in obedience, there is a growing number of people who are remarried(in unlawful unions) who HAVE been convicted they are living in adultery---and they want to go forward in obedience and more and more are forsaking what Jesus calls adultery.

In many of them, up to the point of the revelation of this sin, God was working mightily in their lives. Just because someone is in an unlawful remarriage, it does not mean that the Lord is not with them----not at all, so I hope you do not get that from me. That is not what I believe. I believe those who come to a place of conviction and later repentance are proof that the Lord is working in them. I also believe He was leading them prior to that point, in different areas of their walk.

Mike, when someone quotes scripture "I desire mercy, not sacrifice" as a reason why a person can remarry, then one has to be ready to answer the different scenerios and how that position fits/doesn't fit with those differing scenerios.

Do you realize that this is your assumption, I never stated this nor had it in mind. This is really quite something to be playing a cat and mouse game here.

You seem to be saying that every situation is different and there is no "cookie cutter" answer. YOu seem to feel quite irritated that I believe scripture teaches that ALL marriages that God joined together remain ONE until one of them dies---hence the reason Jesus and Paul both teach it is adultery to join with another before that time.

I think your language to me is much more contentious/inflammatory than any of my words have been. My heart is not to "destroy families".......I think there is quite enough of that being done concerning the marriages that God DID join together. Unfortunately, much of the damage being done is BECAUSE people will not address it(or there are some who try to demean those who do care enough about this plague in the confessing church to talk about it) and preachers will not teach line upon line, precept upon precept on the issue of divorce/remarriage.

I went out of my way to express not only here but time and again how important marriage is and where a great deal of the fault lies in this whole mess. Since the church has by and large ceased to instruct the heart matters of this life we have this epidemic that is just as often as simplistic as what abortion has become, common. There is no dispute with this whatsoever, but we are dealing with after effects primarily, not prime effects, how things out to be.

I cannot tell you how many times I have heard of people being pushed out of churches because they question their pastors on this issue.........some of them ARE the divorced who want answers.......and pastors are too uncomfortable to answer them, so they either will ignore them, or ask them politely to find another church. Your demeanor towards me is part of the problem, I think. That type demeanor is a source of great hurt towards those who have been thrown away by a spouse, yet believe what Jesus says about the enduring nature of the covenant they entered when they married. They are already struggling with great loss on many fronts, and then they are hit with people getting angry with them because they are living out their faith---and sometimes verbal about it.

What of your demeanor towards those who do not think this is such a simple matter? You would have me either firmly acquiescing to your exacting take on this or ... what? Again you are making great leaps of presumption, I don't care frankly if you believe what I have stated or not but I have no illusions nor conclusions here on this whole mater, it is complex ... it's redundant. But you don't care, your way or the highway. It is rare that I might be offended but this is absurd that you would think or equate what I am forwarding here as just pure consideration to anyone who has been hurt by this tragedy, whatever they might hold to.

You must understand this, brother: when you come to the defense of the remarried in such a way, you come AGAINST those who have been forsaken and are standing faithful, praying for their wayward spouses (those whom Jesus says are committing adultery). Not only are many standing faithful for their wayward spouses, but they are also praying for the one who came between them and their covenant spouse----the one who "defrauded" them in God's sight. That is the other side of the coin that many forget about when they jump to defend one side.

You got under my skin I will admit it but I do not think you may even recognize just what you are doing, there is no give, no consideration, no discussion. This ends up just going around in circles. Such insidious insinuations ... If I have done the same I apologize profusely, but I have yet to hear you ever consider anything other than your decidedly one sided mandate. I would never do the things you are insinuating towards anyone ... that is very, very poor. It's a scarecrow you are setting up and to my shame allowed myself to be caught up in it. How grievous.

Do you realize that this is your assumption, I never stated this nor had it in mind.

Mike,
That scripture has been brought up many times in the discussion of D/R----in favor of D/R. It was again brought up in this thread. I question the applicability of that scripture when we are speaking of the forsaking of adultery or the assumption that God allows for what He calls adultery because of mercy. I do not see how that could rightly be applied to 'some' adulterous relationships, but not other relationships that the Lord may call sin. I believe His mercy is involved in how things play out, but His mercy does not change what His Will is for the end result.....

Nonsense. It only matters to you if it fit's your paradigm, otherwise you would consider far more than the camp you have entrenched yourself into.

I don't know what you're thinking, but I have considered far more than what the "camp" you say I'm entrenched in believes. You only know of me since I joined the site. The "considering" far more is what led me to where I am at now, and that process was not quick. I will say that one thing I never did while praying/studying/speaking with others of various viewpoints on this issue, BEFORE I was settled, was tell them that a valid point(or what could be a valid point) was ridiculous. I WANTED to test all things.......all scenerios.....I don't think any of us can truly come to the full truth on a matter without trying to see if God's Word fits even the 'ridiculous'........or what we at that time deem ridiculous.

Let me say this, Mike: if I have WRONGLY offended you with disparaging words, or misrepresenting your position, I truly am sorry. Sometimes when I read your posts, I totally "get" you. Other times, your posts leave me wondering what you meant (and I dont' mean on this topic). So, in light of that, I may not have understood what you were trying to convey. I do think you were very harsh and you I assumed much of you, yet I saw you doing the very same thing to me in the last two posts.

Mike, I do have to say this though:
if my being "firm" in what I believe is your problem with me, I can't apologize for that. I believe the Lord led me to the place I am at. If I am wrong or have only "part" of the picture correct, then He will have to lead me further to His full truth. For now, though, I can only rely upon His Word and what He has shown me in regards to this matter.

I went out of my way to express not only here but time and again how important marriage is and where a great deal of the fault lies in this whole mess. Since the church has by and large ceased to instruct the heart matters of this life we have this epidemic that is just as often as simplistic as what abortion has become, common. There is no dispute with this whatsoever, but we are dealing with after effects primarily, not prime effects, how things out to be.

Yes, and I understand where you are coming from in the respect that this ISN'T a simple matter. Everything that gets a couple to divorce and then into a remarriage is complicated. However, these complications do not change truth in regards to how God views what He joined together.

"

That is precisely what I am trying to say. If the unbeliever departs that no longer constitutes a marriage, how can it? "All marriages that God joined together" think about your use of words here.

Who says it no longer constitutes a marriage? God's Word doesn't say that. In I Cor.7---Paul is dealing with a believer/unbeliever marriage. He in no way presents this marriage as one that was not joined by God. I also do not see where scripture teaches that departing nullifies the bond of marriage. We see that truth in I Cor. 7:10-11. Though a woman "departs" from her husband, she is still bound to him. Her options are to remain UNMARRIED or to be reconciled to him. Her leaving the marriage does not "separate what God joined together".......she merely leaves the presence of her husband, not the covenant of lifelong marriage.

What of your demeanor towards those who do not think this is such a simple matter? You would have me either firmly acquiescing to your exacting take on this or ... what? Again you are making great leaps of presumption, I don't care frankly if you believe what I have stated or not but I have no illusions nor conclusions here on this whole mater, it is complex ... it's redundant. But you don't care, your way or the highway. It is rare that I might be offended but this is absurd that you would think or equate what I am forwarding here as just pure consideration to anyone who has been hurt by this tragedy, whatever they might hold to

My demeanor, Mike, hopefully is respectful to those I disagree with concerning remarriage while one has a living spouse. I try my best NOT to use inflammatory words meant to "pierce" the one(s) I'm disagreeing/dialoguing with in a personal way. I'm not always perfect with that, but I do try. Even so, the real issue I think is that some are offended with my beliefs, not my behavior.

It truly is not 'my way or the highway', but as you know, I do not believe truth on this subject is subjective. I believe God's truths and divorce/remarriage are applicable to all----though He will work in each situation in a different way based upon the circumstances.

Some are doing this within their present marriages and some have many a variation on this and frankly when it comes right down to it, it is none of your business. How can you speak to the other side of the coin when in your sight their isn't one?

Yes, I do know people IN their marriages, loving their wayward spouses as Jesus loves.......people in what I would consider a "horrible" marriage......and lest you misrepresent me further as being one-sided or attribute motives to me which which are just not there, I DO believe there are 2+sides to the coin. The truth is: I do not just take up for the "deserted"/divorced, etc. I know of quite a few that just could not "take it" anymore.........they were the beaten down. The so called "faithful" one who believes in life-long marriage brought their spouse to a place of dispair, so they left. Or, another scenerio: the UNFAITHFUL one left their spouse and then came to a place of repentance, but their spouse moved on. Their sin led to their spouse's sin. So you see, I realize/see that there are many facets to this.

As I said, I agree that there are many complications leading to D/R, but I don't believe those complications change truth. What they should do is spur us as the Body of Christ to love/care for those who are suffering (on both sides of the coin) and to hold accountable those who are sinning----desiring to be a force of reconciliation/healing in that marriage. In addition, we should be holding up God's Standard. We don't need to lower the standard of God to show compassion/love to those who are hurting.

I'm enjoying the fact that I have a horse in this race! I'm all in!

Linn said:

I particularly want to challenge your faulty base premise that God promises to Himself never to release a person from their vow to the other person, except by the death of one of those parties.

I can't wait to hear this, Linn! Because...I agree with Cindy and Sandra. I really do. The thing I'm disagreeing on is the remedy they are proposing.

Listen, please, everyone! I beg you! I do agree that marriage is binding until death, but we are talking about the ideal life. We do not live in an ideal world!

I think the real problem here may be this: Hold onto your seat belts, Folks! I hold to a Calvinistic view that God chose me before I was born to save me, so in other words, I've been in the process of being saved since the day I was born. I was [i][b]predestined[/b][/i]! Did I say that? I don't think everyone is predestined to be saved, but for the ones who are, all of their life, every aspect of it, every mistake, every tragedy, every failure, every glitch is a part of God's great plan to bring them to Himself. So...for those who are being saved, even when they go their own way in sin, ie, leaving a spouse through divorce and remarriage, God is still pursueing them, still watching over the fine details of their life to bring them to himself. They are not forever cut off from God by their past failures. They don't have to retrace their steps to make things right with God, but they do have to repent with all their hearts and that time will eventually come. If it doesn't, then they are kidding themselves.

This is where I disagree with Cindy and Sandra. I think people who have divorced and remarried can let go of the past and begin to walk in the knowledge of God from this day forward. To go back is futile. One should simply acknowledge their failure and sin and go forward. The mess is too complex. It can often bog people down to the point that they aren't living in today. I've seen it time and again. We must repent to God, forgive ourselves, and go and sin no more.

Maybe this is the reason I said in my original post that I never feel completely saved. I feel that I am being saved. It is a process that I'm striving to cooperate with now that I understand that I am God's girl. Perhaps "saved" isn't the proper word for me to use here.

Have you all ever watched the dog whisperer on tv? When he is dealing with a rebellious dog, he continues to bring that animal into submission until that dog is lying on it's back quietly under his authority. Oftentimes it's a long, arduous struggle, but the dog whisperer is confident that he will get his dog. He is fully convinced that he knows how to make this animal submit to him and trust him...and he doesn't fail. In the end, the animal is looking up at him like he is God.

Our Heavenly Father is like this. He isn't angry about the struggle. It's all a part of the great plan. He knows how to get His man (and woman). I'm done. Love you guys! Dian.

I know that commentaries and sermons and studies are not to replace earnest prayer, meditation, and mining for God's truth in His word to hear His voice. There are many voices screaming to be heard some good (John the Baptist), some bad (the demons that Jesus sent into the herd of swine). I still believe there are people that God gives insight and wisdom and knowledge to minister for the intent of Godly counsel. There was a link put on a ways back from a woman as to why she repented of her marriage, and I have seen it referred to since. I don't believe in this separation stance, but still went to the site and read in openness to see what was being presented. The position was sincere and well done, but the conclusion is faulty based on a few wrong facts. I was speaking to a brother about this post a couple of days ago that previously held to this view (seperating to stop the adultery) and has since allowed God to minister to him the complete spirit of this debate. All that said, this brother told me of a link that I believe is balanced and touches truth like no other study of this subject I have seen. He shows through their own writings how the early church fathers up through the Anabaptists (especially Menno Simons) were contrary to this separation view. Please if you are confused about this issue consider as the Bereans this writing. It is a 56 page booklet printable.

As I have considered this subject I am more and more convinced this is a tool to confuse those coming into the light (with repentance) with legalistic misinterpretations and bring them into bondage with the law. And why does it breed such confusion and division? Simply if we don't understand God's heart for marriage it will skew our view of the relationship of Christ and His bride. I am resolved to understand this issue better, as many will need to be healed of the damages of our society's rampant lusts and sinfullness. They need to know whether there is really forgiveness in Jesus.

http://www.obeyingthetruth.com/books/divorce.html
May the Lord bless all who seek Him in truth,

Barry

Let me say this, Mike: if I have WRONGLY offended you with disparaging words, or misrepresenting your position, I truly am sorry. Sometimes when I read your posts, I totally "get" you. Other times, your posts leave me wondering what you meant (and I dont' mean on this topic). So, in light of that, I may not have understood what you were trying to convey. I do think you were very harsh and you I assumed much of you, yet I saw you doing the very same thing to me in the last two posts.

All that being said you are still doing the same in the first out take, I put it forward as a broad application to plug into the grid work of considerations. Read something somewhere about this, where we can take something said and restate it differently, make the application our own and not what was intended by the one who spoke\\wrote it. It happens all the time here, it is just as likely unintentional, but it happens nonetheless, causing a lot of unnecessary quarreling, guilty as charged I am as well.

If anything at all I am asking for a reasoning and a discussion, especially for those who have not yet come to a conclusion. Too often you come across with a mandate of how things are emphatically, discouraging those from coming to their own decisions and conclusions while they may still be wrestling with it all.

There are any number of contradictions you are creating by way of this either being simple or not so. It still seems you intentionally or not are often setting up a straw man (earlier mis-termed a scarecrow) to be knocked down by the way you frame hypothetical situations (real or not), expecting the answer and then wondering at the lack of response ... that it is what I meant by it being ridiculous. It comes across as a bait and switch tactic rather than an honest inquiry. If you already have a pre-planned response to it, why ask the question? Again, I am not questioning your motive just the manner.

What I fear is that there is not a great care taken with all of this. It is a very complex and recognizably heated matter. Life altering decisions can be made from suggestions and counsel given even if it is just being absorbed subtly. It may well be that the innocent are being condemned and put into bondage that is needless, there are a lot of ramifications and there is a very good reason behind what was formerly mentioned that this may not be an ideal place, publicly, to dissect very personal situations, hypothetical or not.

Like other matters, greater minds than our own have wrestled with this topic, here is one again to plug into the considerations from the verse you mentioned. I will retire to the sidelines with it.

[b]1Co 7:10-16 -[/b]
In this paragraph the apostle gives them direction in a case which must be very frequent in that age of the world, especially among the Jewish converts; I mean whether they were to live with heathen relatives in a married state. Moses's law permitted divorce; and there was a famous instance in the Jewish state, when the people were obliged to put away their idolatrous wives, Ezr_10:3. This might move a scruple in many minds, whether converts to Christianity were not bound to put away or desert their mates, continuing infidels. Concerning this matter the apostle here gives direction. And,

I. In general, he tells them that marriage, by Christ's command, is for life; and therefore those who are married must not think of separation. The wife must not depart from the husband (1Co_7:10), nor the husband put away his wife, 1Co_7:11. This I command, says the apostle; yet not I, but the Lord. Not that he commanded any thing of his own head, or upon his own authority. Whatever he commanded was the Lord's command, dictated by his Spirit and enjoined by his authority. But his meaning is that the Lord himself, with his own mouth, had forbidden such separations, Mat_5:32; Mat_19:9; Mar_10:11; Luk_16:18. Note, Man and wife cannot separate at pleasure, nor dissolve, when they will, their matrimonial bonds and relation. They must not separate for any other cause than what Christ allows. And therefore the apostle advises that if any woman had been separated, either by a voluntary act of her own or by an act of her husband, she should continue unmarried, and seek reconciliation with her husband, that they might cohabit again. Note, Husbands and wives should not quarrel at all, or should be quickly reconciled. They are bound to each other for life. The divine law allows of no separation. They cannot throw off the burden, and therefore should set their shoulders to it, and endeavour to make it as light to each other as they can.

II. He brings the general advice home to the case of such as had an unbelieving mate (1Co_7:12): But to the rest speak I, not the Lord; that is, the Lord had not so expressly spoken to this case as to the former divorce. It does not mean that the apostle spoke without authority from the Lord, or decided this case by his own wisdom, without the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. He closes this subject with a declaration to the contrary (1Co_7:40), I think also that I have the Spirit of God. But, having thus prefaced his advice, we may attend,

1. To the advice itself, which is that if an unbelieving husband or wife were pleased to dwell with a Christian relative, the other should not separate. The husband should not put away an unbelieving wife, nor the wife leave an unbelieving husband, 1Co_7:12, 1Co_7:13. The Christian calling did not dissolve the marriage covenant, but bind it the faster, by bringing it back to the original institution, limiting it to two persons, and binding them together for life. The believer is not by faith in Christ loosed from matrimonial bonds to an unbeliever, but is at once bound and made apt to be a better relative. But, though a believing wife or husband should not separate from an unbelieving mate, yet if the unbelieving relative desert the believer, and no means can reconcile to a cohabitation, in such a case a brother or sister is not in bondage (1Co_7:15), not tied up to the unreasonable humour, and bound servilely to follow or cleave to the malicious deserter, or not bound to live unmarried after all proper means for reconciliation have been tried, at least of the deserter contract another marriage or be guilty of adultery, which was a very easy supposition, because a very common instance among the heathen inhabitants of Corinth. In such a case the deserted person must be free to marry again, and it is granted on all hands. And some think that such a malicious desertion is as much a dissolution of the marriage-covenant as death itself. For how is it possible that the two shall be one flesh when the one is maliciously bent to part from or put away the other? Indeed, the deserter seems still bound by the matrimonial contract; and therefore the apostle says (1Co_7:11), If the woman depart from her husband upon the account of his infidelity, let her remain unmarried. But the deserted party seems to be left more at liberty (I mean supposing all the proper means have been used to reclaim the deserter, and other circumstances make it necessary) to marry another person. It does not seem reasonable that they should be still bound, when it is rendered impossible to perform conjugal duties or enjoy conjugal comforts, through the mere fault of their mate: in such a case marriage would be a state of servitude indeed. But, whatever liberty be indulged Christians in such a case as this, they are not allowed, for the mere infidelity of a husband or wife, to separate; but, if the unbeliever be willing, they should continue in the relation, and cohabit as those who are thus related. This is the apostle's general direction.

2. We have here the reasons of this advice. (1.) Because the relation or state is sanctified by the holiness of either party: For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife by the husband (1Co_7:14), or hath been sanctified. The relation itself, and the conjugal use of each other, are sanctified to the believer. To the pure all things are pure, Tit_1:15. Marriage is a divine institution; it is a compact for life, by God's appointment. Had converse and congress with unbelievers in that relation defiled the believer, or rendered him or her offensive to God, the ends of marriage would have been defeated, and the comforts of it in a manner destroyed, in the circumstances in which Christians then were. But the apostle tells them that, though they were yoked with unbelievers, yet, if they themselves were holy, marriage was to them a holy state, and marriage comforts, even with an unbelieving relative, were sanctified enjoyments. It was no more displeasing to God for them to continue to live as they did before, with their unbelieving or heathen relation, than if they had become converts together. If one of the relatives had become holy, nothing of the duties or lawful comforts of the married state could defile them, and render them displeasing to God, though the other were a heathen. He is sanctified for the wife's sake. She is sanctified for the husband's sake. Both are one flesh. He is to be reputed clean who is one flesh with her that is holy, and vice versâ: Else were your children unclean, but now are they holy (1Co_7:14), that is, they would be heathen, out of the pale of the church and covenant of God. They would not be of the holy seed (as the Jews are called, Isa_6:13), but common and unclean, in the same sense as heathens in general were styled in the apostle's vision, Act_10:28. This way of speaking is according to the dialect of the Jews, among whom a child begotten by parents yet heathens, was said to be begotten out of holiness; and a child begotten by parents made proselytes was said to be begotten intra sanctitatem - within the holy enclosure. Thus Christians are called commonly saints; such they are by profession, separated to be a peculiar people of God, and as such distinguished from the world; and therefore the children born to Christians, though married to unbelievers, are not to be reckoned as part of the world, but of the church, a holy, not a common and unclean seed. “Continue therefore to live even with unbelieving relatives; for, if you are holy, the relation is so, the state is so, you may make a holy use even of an unbelieving relative, in conjugal duties, and your seed will be holy too.” What a comfort is this, where both relatives are believers! (2.) Another reason is that God hath called Christians to peace, 1Co_7:15. The Christian religion obliges us to act peaceably in all relations, natural and civil. We are bound, as much as in us lies, to live peaceably with all men (Rom_12:18), and therefore surely to promote the peace and comfort of our nearest relatives, those with whom we are one flesh, nay, though they should be infidels. Note, It should be the labour and study of those who are married to make each other as easy and happy as possible. (3.) A third reason is that it is possible for the believing relative to be an instrument of the other's salvation (1Co_7:16): What knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? Note, It is the plain duty of those in so near a relation to seek the salvation of those to whom they are related. “Do not separate. There is other duty now called for. The conjugal relation calls for the most close and endeared affection; it is a contract for life. And should a Christian desert a mate, when an opportunity offers to give the most glorious proof of love? Stay, and labour heartily for the conversion of thy relative. Endeavour to save a soul. Who knows but this may be the event? It is not impossible. And, though there be no great probability, saving a soul is so good and glorious a service that the bare possibility should put one on exerting one's self.” Note, Mere possibility of success should be a sufficient motive with us to use our diligent endeavours for saving the souls of our relations. “What know I but I may save his soul? should move me to attempt it.”

Matthew Henry

I can't wait to hear this, Linn! Because...I agree with Cindy and Sandra. I really do. The thing I'm disagreeing on is the remedy they are proposing.

Hello Dian,

I think even though you believe we essentially agree, I do not believe we are truly looking at marriage in the same way. You are still approaching life-long marriage as an ideal. I believe you are applying the Truth (that marriage IS lifelong) to your own marriage, hence your faithfulness to your vows irregardless of your husband's behavior. In application you are living it out, but you still view life-long marriage as an "ideal". I view life-long marriage as a fact. That is why our remedies are different.

I believe that those two who are now ONE (by an act of God) will remain ONE in God's sight until one of them passes from life. I don't believe the one woman/one man for life is something man can choose to deviate from and have God approve/join whatever union they instead desire to enter into----polygamous marriage, adulterous marriage, homosexual marriage, incestual marriage, etc.

Until the original union has been dissolved BY GOD(not man), it remains---no matter who we choose to "mix in" to that union.

I think people who have divorced and remarried can let go of the past and begin to walk in the knowledge of God from this day forward. To go back is futile. One should simply acknowledge their failure and sin and go forward. The mess is too complex. It can often bog people down to the point that they aren't living in today. I've seen it time and again. We must repent to God, forgive ourselves, and go and sin no more.

To go back is not futile---concerning rectifying what is a present ongoing sin or even one from the past which will stunt a believer's growth/hurt their witness, should it not be dealt with. Many believers can not go forward until they go back and deal with something the Lord brings to their attention. If the Lord brings it to us, we cannot say, "it's under the blood, I can forget about it". If one does do that, I can guarantee they will not be walking in the Lord's perfect peace until they do "go back".

I know people who have gone back and they are not regretful that they have chosen to follow the Lord (because they believe they are bound for life to the one they divorced. They also believe their joining with someone else was sin because they are still bound to their covenant spouse---due to what Jesus spoke, as well as what Paul spoke). I also know some who are in the process of restoration. Do you believe they are in sin for forsaking the relationship Jesus calls adultery and either remaining single or "going back"?

I hold to a Calvinistic view that God chose me before I was born to save me, so in other words, I've been in the process of being saved since the day I was born. I was predestined!

Just for the record, this is also what I believe. :-)

Thank you, Mike.

I see there have been tomes of learned opinion and interpretation of Scripture written here. Here is my addition to the discussion. Marriage is a covenant. Covenants are meant to be life-long, and in some cases, go beyond the lives of the original covenanters. God has a very dim view of covenant breakers. Adultery is not merely a sexual sin. The sexual sin is an outward result of an inward condition. Nobody accidentally commits adultery. It never "just happens". It has been thought of and thought out for some time, like David and Bathsheba. God called Israel an "adulterous" people. Adultery is really the breaking of a covenant - however that is demonstrated in the physical realm, not just sex. So the question is not really "who filed the paperwork" or "who had sex with whom". The question is "who broke the covenant"? A man who constantly abuses his wife, physically, emotionally, or any other way, is breaking his covenant. There are other examples, of course, but we all appear to be intelligent here and can think of our own along the lines of this principle.

I know a lot of words had been written since I checked out this thread and I hope what I will add here will be carefully considered.

When I worked at CPC (was there for 15 years) we encountered all kinds of sins known to man or imagination. After talking to so many people practicing sin one soon learns a few things and this is a one-size-fits-all observation. The problem people had was not the conduct, it was their relationship with God! Their conduct/behavior informed us what their point of reference for life is, who they are serving! That is all, and no exceptions. Gal. 5:19-21 informs us what life in the flesh looks like, what the symptoms are. They are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idoltry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing and things like these, of which I forwarn you just as I have forewarned you that those who practice such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." NASB

From my observation, I have noticed the reality of James 2:10: For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all." NASB. No one sin can exist in isolation in a person. If a person is guilty of any sin you will also notice other unrepented sins active/controlling in that person.

Jesus encounter with the woman at the well underscores this point: what she needed was Jesus! He could have told her in detail how she need to quit her whoring but had she stoppped it, it would not have reconcilled her to God at all. She would have been just as lost as before. What she needed was Jesus and once she drinks from the water that he offers and becomes yoked up with HIM, he will lead her to where she needed to go. The issue there is not her relationship with males - this just informed others who she was serving - but her standing before God. We can clean up the person on the outside, get them to look holy but still be rotten on the inside. Now a holy person will be clean through and through. This is what we are concerned about.

Whether we all agree on what constitutes adultery, one will by observation notice who or what controls that person. Will this person's lifestyle refect holiness?

Dian wrote:

The thing I'm disagreeing on is the remedy they are proposing.

Dian, I would like to share a couple stories.

I had -I say had because he has now died - an uncle who was divorced and remarried; had two children from wife #1, 5 with wife #2. After 24 years of being married to woman #2, he left her because he knew that relationship was sin, that he was not ready to meet his Maker. He did not attend a church that taught that his situation was sin, but the HS taught him - he was a member of the Assembly of God. He separated and lived a single life until his death last fall.

There was a young man Web who lived in Memphis, TN. He was well educated, had a Ph.D in physics, I think. Anyhow, the Lord convicted him and he asked the LORD to cleanse his heart from all sin, made a complete change. His wife did not like it that he became a Christian so she divorced him. He then resolved to stay single because the LORD had convicted him that to remarry with his wife still living was sin. Today this fellow is a professor in North Korea in a university staffed by Christians, operated by the N. Korean government! But when this man lived at MSU, he was a firebrand for the LORD: he ministered to foreign students, bringing them to the LORD. He was and is an outstanding man.

Now the question comes: where does this conviction of separation come from? This is one we must carefully consider.

ginnyrose

Ginnyrose wrote:

Now the question comes: where does this conviction of separation come from? This is one we must carefully consider.

There have been many people do things with quite a passion while saying they were doing what the "HS" was telling them to do. So called, "Christians" have killed people outside of abortion clinics because the "HS" told them to do it! This is the problem! People come under the sway of some other spirit and they are deceived into thinking it's the Holy Spirit.

I can remember, not too many years ago, the parents of a young child refused to take their child to a doctor because they believed it was a "sin", and the child died. They were prosecuted for homicidal negligence.

In all honesty, this blanket answer you all are giving that anyone in a consecutive marriage is continuing in sin seems like that kind of deception to me. I'm just telling you how I honestly feel. It sounds all good and everything, you know, it fits with scripture in some ways, but it denies scripture in others. This is the kind of thing that makes me very cautious. This is the kind of thing that sends me into a dark corner to pray. I want to talk to God himself. I don't want someone else telling me what "right" is. I want to hear from God, because I realize that the biggest problem that exists in the world since time began is this and it is a quote by Art Katz:

"We do not know God as He, in fact, is."

There is a thing called "the witness of the Holy Spirit". It's how I live my life.

Now, I have just one more comment. When David had sinned with Bethsheba and God had sent the prophet to him to tell him what a sinner he was, David repented. He did [i]not[/i] put Bethsheba away. In fact, the Son of God came through that union. God didn't tell David to divorce Bethsheba as a solution for the problem, but he did fully expect David to turn in his heart. How can you explain this? Love, Dian.

Since the analogy is already here partially ... Need to come off the sidelines and blow the whistle here, time out.

I do want to draw everyones attention to what is going on around us. If it hasn't been noticed, there has been a number of postings related to some of these very issues here. Saints, there are others watching and reading and I want to make a very strong plea that we might be very, very care full and prayerful over our words and our decisions of what we bring out here as example, how we go about all this.

Don't get the wrong idea, there is nothing to hide but think on what sort of ramifications can come forth and just how costly this all is. This is not something to be trifled with. People make decisions from what they glean and we all have our misgivings and regrets here of how we couch our words and phraseology.

I've tried to shake this one off

This is the kind of thing that makes me very cautious. This is the kind of thing that sends me into a dark corner to pray. I want to talk to God himself. I don't want someone else telling me what "right" is. I want to hear from God

I truly do try my best to impartial here and there is no doubt there is a blending of the two, my personal\\spiritual musings and considerations and those that warrant the refereeing of all these discussions. The impartial I speak of better elucidated here; [url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flat&order=0&topic_id=20768&forum=34&post_id=&refresh=Go] "Sober-Mindedness Pressed Upon Youth" Matthew Henry sermon modernized and in installments[/url]

However that may be, I do share these above sentiments as it applies here. Far too often the leadings we think are of the Lord ... I do not want to overstate this. I am concerned on a number of fronts. One is the inference that can be drawn by lone example, whatever the intention and the hypothetical is still similar, it can give off an air of [i]Ipso facto[/i] and indeed am drawing that from one Arthur Katz as well. In fact his life story is one of a consideration in these matters as well;

[url=http://www.benisrael.org/writings/online_books/ben_israel_odyssey_of_a_modern_jew/bi_contents.html]Ben Israel: Odyssey of a Modern Jew [/url]

This is a great example of what I mentioned elsewhere about things happening in parallel, simultaneously. I am speaking of salvation and the overlaps that can be part and parcel of differing states of before\\after\\during marriage; Before marriage, in marriage... after marriage, yes even remarriage. Believer\\unbeliever ... backslider- adulterer, adultery. There is [i]much[/i] to consider! It is just not as simple as some of this is made out to be or at least that impression can be given off. And to just dismiss it all with a seemingly siding with the Lord may find one at His great displeasure if we are not more careful.

I plead with all that we be very prayerful, considerate and willing to consider many things with this.

Thank you.

I brought this topic up during our Monday night house church last night. It created a great discussion. We talked about it and all came up with some conclusions, but not the only conslusions.

Marriage should be taken seriously by all who partake in it, beleiver or not.
Divorce is not ok, but it is a forgiveable sin.
Two "walking" Christians sould not get a divorce (opinion).
Gods seeks a repentive heart over a set of rules.
Gods love and forgiveness is so much bigger and better then ours.
Thank God for forgiveness.

The Lord loves us, even when and after we sin. Repent and move on. Don't dwell on your past sin.

Ok, folks, I reckon I better spell out in stead of use abbreviations! "HS" stands for Holy Spirit. So please do not mock that anymore, OK?

It is true some have done heinous things in the name of God, but Holy Spirit? I am at a loss here to recall, but knowing human nature I can imagine someone saying this. In any case, behaviours must line up with Biblical directives which would prohibit killing babies, abortion doctors, abortion nurses and Hitler.

Now what scripture was the motivation to leave a marriage in which a former spouse is still living? (All scriptures taken from NASB)

1. It is repentance from sin. Luke 24: 46-47: "and He said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, and that [b]repentance for forgiveness of sins [/b] would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

2. John 4: 17: The woman answered and said, "I have no husband." Jesus said to her, "You have correctly said, 'I have no husband'; for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; this you have said truly."

3. Luke 16:18:"Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.

I know well how difficult it is for a person to remove himself/herself from this kind of relationship for Biblical reasons, but is it not odd that people will encourage one to leave an abusive relationship at the drop of a hat? Is this advice not one given to protect one from physical harm? Odd.....

(FYI: my uncle was so smitten by his sin, was so discouraged, he twice purchased a hand gun, planning to use it upon himself. But the LORD intervened - the gun disappeared before he could do so! OK, you do not like anecdotal evidence).

Now the OT story about David and Bathsheba was OT - they operated under the OT law in which God allowed for divorce. When Jesus came he changed this. In Matthew 5:27-32 he describes adultery: v. 28: lust is adultery: but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart; v. 32 divorce is adultery: "but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; v. 32: marrying a divorced person is adultery: and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

In studying these verses one can understand that multiple marriages with an original spouse who was in an original marriage living is not a marriage: it is a relationship because the first marriage is still in force.

It is odd that when a divorced person remarries, he/she still feels married to that person. I have heard testimonies to this effect. Now when our daughter died, her widower remarried after two years. I used to call him on important dates. Finally, he told me that he has moved on...yes, I can take a hint and stopped calling him then on these dates. Gina no longer existed as a wife, the bond has been severed by God by death. He was free from her. She is still our daughter because I birthed her, but she is no longer his wife. And I respect and honor that. Opps, anecdotal, again...will try to back off from telling stories...

Obedience is extremely difficult at times, especailly when we become victim of bad choices we have made. Brother Paul informs us that he dies daily: 1Cor. 15:31: I affirm, brethren, by the boasting in you which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily. Romans 8:13: for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live." This death demands action which will not be pleasant.

I know what I have written will anger some. For this I am sorry...You must know I choose to believe this because "thus saith the LORD". It is not my idea. It would be a whole lot easier to go with the flow of modern Christianity who thinks otherwise. So, to you who find this offensive, please do not bother to try to dissuade me. I suggest that if you are in a situation of being remarried with a former spouse living, you make this a matter of prayer...a matter of falling on your face before God ALmighty and seek it with all your heart and mind.

Blessings to you - especially to those who are in a divorced/remarried situation,

ginnyrose

PS: Another story: I also have an aunt who is divorced and remarried but will not say anything about her except to say I love that woman!

Hello...

Forgive me if I misunderstand, but are some of you suggesting that a person who has been divorced and remarried should DIVORCE AGAIN?

Divorce is, by definition, a "formal seperation between a husband and wife according to established custom" (Random House Dictionary). The word literally means a "complete or radical severance of closely connected things" (American Heritage Dictionary). Divorce is taken from Middle English, from Old French, and then from the Latin [i]dīvortium[/i], from [i]dīvortere[/i], which is [i]to divert[/i], a variant of [i]dīvertere[/i]. So to suggest that a divorcé should seperate from a new spouse is to actually suggest a second "divorce."

I wonder what sort of precedent this sets for the choices made by other "sinners" before (and possibly, [i]after[/i]) they came to Christ? We are told to show forth the fruit of our repentance. But a marriage (and even a REmarriage, I believe) is a binding covenant. Even if a person divorced and remarried, aren't they bound by such a covenant (and the consummation of that covenant)? Aren't even "unbelievers" married?

It just seems so incredibly strange to suggest that a couple consisting of at least one "remarried" person should divorce! In many cases, BOTH of the original divorcés have moved on in their lives with new families. In many cases, a person hasn't come to Christ until they already have young children within a second marriage.

Suppose a young man who is a divorcé without children later remarries and then has five kids with his second wife. If this man were to come to Christ, should he be seperated from his family? To suggest that this union should be broken because of a past that is washed away by the blood of Jesus just doesn't sound credible.

While I never intend to ever seperate myself from my wife, I do speak with people on a daily basis who are involved in such situations. It just doesn't seem very realistic to suggest that they are "living in sin" with their new family.

Here are a few passages to consider:

"Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved."
- Acts 11:14

"Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house."
- Acts 16:29-34

"But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife? But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches."
- I Corinthians 7:12-17

A lot of the questions brought up here I have seen so many times in many discussion forums.
Many of the answers have been archived here, if interested.

Complete FAQ
[url=http://www.cadz.net/faq.html]cadz Frequently Asked Questions/Comments/Arguments About Marriage, Divorce & Remarriage. [/url]

[url=http://www.cadz.net/notunforgivable.html]Divorce/Remarriage is Not the Unforgivable Sin[/url]

[url=http://www.cadz.net/remarryasin.html]God Hates Divorce!Divorcing From A Remarriage Would Be A Sin?
[/url]

Annie wrote:

I'm not into "modern teachers" neither. I prefer my scholars dead - - having stood the test of time and lived honorable lives unto death.

LOL! this is funny! Lots of truth to it, tho’.

Dorcas wrote:

Remember that under the Mosaic law, an adulterer would have been stoned to death already? (Leaving the former spouse free to remarry...?)

Let us look at Leviticus 20: 10-13: “If there is a man who commits adultery with another man's wife, one who commits adultery with his friend's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.)If there is a man who lies with his father's wife, he has uncovered his father's nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death, their bloodguiltiness is upon them.If there is a man who lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have committed incest, their bloodguiltiness is upon them.If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them. If there is a man who marries a woman and her mother, it is immorality; both he and they shall be burned with fire, so that there will be no immorality in your midst. If there is a man who lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death; you shall also kill the animal. If there is a woman who approaches any animal to mate with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.” If you notice in these verses BOTH participants in the adulterous act were to be killed .”

Now you have the Pharisees bring a woman to Jesus who was caught in the very act to see what he would say. (John 8:3-11). According to the OT which was still in force, both male and female were to be killed but they brought only the woman – where was the man? Why were they not concerned about him? Did they only want to kill her but let the male go scott free? Looks like it to me…what do you think? This is basically the situation Jesus was dealing with: the Pharisees were not being Biblical or lawful in their accusations.

Now to answer your question Dorcas, according to Old Testament law neither one should have survived that sin for long because they were both to have been killed.

What Jesus did in Matthew was extend mercy to adulterers: he did not pronounce a death sentence upon any of them! Think about that!

Old Testament law allowed for divorce when the wife displeased her husband. I do not read where adultery was a point of consideration at all in allowing a divorce. Now in Matthew 5:32: “but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” Jesus is saying Ok, you can divorce if your spouse has committed adultery, but you may not remarry. Mark 10:11: And He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; 12and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery." Luke 16:18 echoes these sentiments: "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.” Can it be any clearer then this?

Now, how does one repair what has been done? This, question is the one that gets people riled up because it looks so grievous: to demand a couple separate for the sake of the gospel sound ridiculous and tragic. Tragic, yes, but what doeth the Scriptures say? What was Jesus solution to those crippled by lust? Matthew 5: 29-30: If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30"If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell.” Quite radical, do you not think? Is this not more radical then leaving an adulterous relationship? Or consider Matthew 19:12: For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it." This verse follows a discussion on divorce – check it out. The solution Jesus is offering to one who finds it hard to remain unmarried is castration. I have heard it done, but I do not personally know of any male who submitted to it for Biblical reasons.

Now how does one go about to fix what has been done? Is the Scripture not clear there must be repentance in order to be Saved? The argument that to divorce the second time is in violation of scripture, I would have to ask why is that sin when the relationship is illegitimate. It is a relationship, not a marriage because Jesus says that whosoever marries one who is divorced commits adultery…I know this is hard when there are children involved (remember my uncle still had a couple children at home when he left). Jesus also tells us in Luke 14:26: ”If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.” God does not demand anything from his people without Him supplying the grace/ability/strength to accomplish that.

Someone earlier asked a question about what my uncle did about the woman he was with when he left her. Good question: he was an owner and operator of a Mobile home park. Unknown to the woman, he removed his name from the property deed and left it all to her. She was well provided for, always had plenty of money because of his generosity. Whether there was a divorce, I do not know. Some say there was; others are not sure. I never did bother to find out because that was not important to me. He was in an illicit relationship.

I hope I answered some questions. Again, I plead for those who have doubts about this, go to your closet and make this a matter of prayer. Allow God to speak to your heart, being in silence to listen to his voice. I do not despise divorced/remarried persons – my heart grieves for them – I have relatives involved in it.

Blessings to one all, especially those who are divorced and remarried,

ginnyrose

It just seems so incredibly strange to suggest that a couple consisting of at least one "remarried" person should divorce! In many cases, BOTH of the original divorcés have moved on in their lives with new families. In many cases, a person hasn't come to Christ until they already have young children within a second marriage.

Chris,

If a person who is divorced is praying for the restoration of their marriage, what scriptures would you lead them to to prove that they are not bound to the spouse who remarried---in God's eyes?

If Jesus says a marriage contracted after a divorce is adultery, doesn't that mean Jesus does not honor a divorce as dissolving the union He joined as ONE or do you believe one can commit adultery (by marriage), yet in the same act BE married(joined by God as ONE) to the person they're committing adultery with?

Now you have the Pharisees bring a woman to Jesus who was caught in the very act to see what he would say. (John 8:3-11). According to the OT which was still in force, both male and female were to be killed but they brought only the woman – where was the man? Why were they not concerned about him? Did they only want to kill her but let the male go scott free? Looks like it to me…what do you think? This is basically the situation Jesus was dealing with: the Pharisees were not being Biblical or lawful in their accusations.

I thought the situation He was dealing with was their accusing hearts and neglect of their own sins.

[i]When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

She said, No man, Lord.

And Jesus said unto her,

Neither do I condemn thee:

go, and sin no more.[/i]

Or consider Matthew 19:12: For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it." This verse follows a discussion on divorce – check it out. The solution Jesus is offering to one who finds it hard to remain unmarried is castration.

That is absurd.

[i]And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

But he said unto them, [b]All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given[/b].[/i] Mat 19:9-11

[i]For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. [/i] 1Co 7:7-9

V. Here is a suggestion of the disciples against this law of Christ (Mat_19:10); If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is better not to marry. It seems, the disciples themselves were loth to give up the liberty of divorce, thinking it a good expedient for preserving comfort in the married state; and therefore, like sullen children, if they have not what they would have, they will throw away what they have. If they may not be allowed to put away their wives when they please, they will have no wives at all; though, from the beginning, when no divorce was allowed, God said, It is not good for man to be alone, and blessed them, pronounced them blessed who were thus strictly joined together; yet, unless they may have a liberty of divorce, they think it is good for a man not to marry. Note, 1. Corrupt nature is impatient of restraint, and would fain break Christ's bonds in sunder, and have a liberty for its own lusts. 2. It is a foolish, peevish thing for men to abandon the comforts of this life, because of the crosses that are commonly woven in with them, as if we must needs go out of the world, because we have not every thing to our mind in the world; or must enter into no useful calling or condition, because it is made our duty to abide in it. No, whatever our condition is, we must bring our minds to it, be thankful for its comforts, submissive to its crosses, and, as God has done, set the one over against the other, and make the best of that which is, Ecc_7:14. If the yoke of marriage may not be thrown off at pleasure, it does not follow that therefore we must not come under it; but therefore, when we do come under it, we must resolve to comport with it, by love, and meekness, and patience, which will make divorce the most unnecessary undesirable thing that can be.

VI. Christ's answer to this suggestion (Mat_19:11, Mat_19:12), in which,

1. He allows it good for some not to marry; He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. Christ allowed what the disciples said, It is good not to marry; not as an objection against the prohibition of divorce, as they intended it, but as giving them a rule (perhaps no less unpleasing to them), that they who have the gift of continence, and are not under any necessity of marrying, do best if they continue single (1Co_7:1); for they that are unmarried have opportunity, if they have but a heart, to care more for the things of the Lord, how they may please the Lord (1Co_7:32-34). being less encumbered with the cares of this life, and having a greater vacancy of thought and time to mind better things. The increase of grace is better than the increase of the family, and fellowship with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ is to be preferred before any other fellowship.

2. He disallows it, as utterly mischievous, to forbid marriage, because all men cannot receive this saying; indeed few can, and therefore the crosses of the married state must be borne, rather than that men should run themselves into temptation, to avoid them; better marry than burn.

Christ speaks here of a twofold unaptness to marriage.

(1.) That which is a calamity by the providence of God; such as those labour under who are born eunuchs, or made so by men, who, being incapable of answering one great end of marriage, ought not to marry. But to that calamity let them oppose the opportunity that there is in the single state of serving God better, to balance it.

(2.) That which is a virtue by the grace of God; such is theirs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. This is meant of an unaptness for marriage, not in body (which some, through mistake of this scripture, have foolishly and wickedly brought upon themselves), but in mind. Those have thus made themselves eunuchs who have attained a holy indifference to all the delights of the married state, have a fixed resolution, in the strength of God's grace, wholly to abstain from them; and by fasting, and other instances of mortification, have subdued all desires toward them. These are they that can receive this saying; and yet these are not to bind themselves by a vow that they will never marry, only that, in the mind they are now in, they purpose not to marry.

Now, [1.] This affection to the single state must be given of God; for none can receive it, save they to whom it is given. Note, Continence is a special gift of God to some, and not to others; and when a man, in the single state, finds by experience that he has this gift, he may determine with himself, and (as the apostle speaks, 1Co_7:37), stand steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but having power over his own will, that he will keep himself so. But men, in this case, must take heed lest they boast of a false gift, Pro_25:14.

[2.] The single state must be chosen for the kingdom of heaven's sake; in those who resolve never to marry, only that they may save charges, or may gratify a morose selfish humour, or have a greater liberty to serve other lusts and pleasures, it is so far from being a virtue, that it is an ill-natured vice; but when it is for religion's sake, not as in itself a meritorious act (which papists make it), but only as a means to keep our minds more entire for, and more intent upon, the services of religion, and that, having no families to provide for, we may do the more works of charity, then it is approved and accepted of God. Note, That condition is best for us, and to be chosen and stuck to accordingly, which is best for our souls, and tends most to the preparing of us for, and the preserving of us to, the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew Henry

has anyone found the new testament link showing where Jesus or any of the apostles required any of the Jews or gentiles to divorce before they could be baptized? Something this important surely would have been addressed squarely and not just weak inferences. I understand the thought process of the separation thing, but maybe it is part of the stronger brother/weaker brother thing. If it isn't done in faith (accepting God's forgiveness any sins), then it IS sin. We should be careful calling sin (in others) what God has allowed, even if it is sin (to us) personally. At the day of pentecost alone this would have been a huge issue with all the Jews being added daily. Have we noticed that the young couple (one of which was previously divorced) will many times come to Christ and be converted, be on fire and growing, and in their zeal looking for an even deeper walk, this is where they encounter this separation doctrine and it many times ministers death?

Thanks and God Bless! Barry

One relief is that I think we all came to a consensus on one of the Women's threads, that it is men that are to establish Doctrine in the Church.

He reigns, there are many men who teach the permanency of marriage, in the US., and moreso in other countries where divorce has not gained a firm hold yet.

Barry,

Jesus did call the union of two after a divorce, adultery, so it is sin. The issue for some is that it is not sin for "some" divorcees to remarry while they have a living spouse.

As for having to divorce an illegitimate marriage partner before one gets baptized, I'm not sure what you mean by that. I believe true BELIEVERS can be in an invalid marriage and come to the truth AFTER baptism. The Lord leads each of us to our sins (outwardly seen and inward) in HIS perfect time. Just because we don't "see" yet, doesn't mean we do not have sin in an area.

Concerning "ministering death".......if anyone who follows Jesus is brought to conviction in an area and it brings death to the relationship between them and Jesus, were they really following Jesus if they love their life more than Him (and I'm not just speaking of the D/R issue here----it could have to do with ANYTHING the Lord shows that needs to be forsaken in one's life). In any case, if someone follows "man" and what "man" has said, that is not a good place to be in. I certainly do not want people to follow what I say anymore than I want them to follow what their pastors say. They need to follow what Jesus says. When they do that, there will be no swaying to and fro----they will be settled completely in their own minds and able to handle differing opinions.

Blessings...........

The people I know who believe the bible teaches permanency of marriage would NEVER have anything to do with encouraging a battered woman to stay in the home of a batterer. One can/should leave the home. However, leaviing does not dissolve what God joined together(I Cor. 7:10-11). We have to remember too, that God desires the batterer to come to repentance and walk with Jesus. When the Lord has worked forgiveness in the heart of the battered, that should be their desire as well---to see the sinner come to the Lord in repentance and then to see restoration of what God joined together, if possible. Blessings.........

If the Lord doesn't fogive the sin of divorce, then what sin will He forgive? Didn't He die for all sins, past, present and future? Are there not only a few unforgiveable sins? Is divorce one of the unforgiveable sins?

If someone gets remarried, has children with the new spouce, does this mean that the children produceed from the second marriage are bastard children?

This is getting pretty silly.

Miccah,

You are lumping divorce and remarriage together. They are not one and the same. One can be divorced and be in the will of God, but one cannot be in an unlawful marriage and be in the will of God. Very different. Some are divorced against their will. Are they guilty for their part in the divorce? I don't know, only they, their spouse, and the Lord knows. What I do believe is that if a person is divorced from their covenant spouse, the Lord would want them to forgive and pray for the other who is wayward----to pray first and foremost that such would return to the Lord and after that, to return to the marriage the Lord joined them in.

Many talk of repentance from divorce, but truly there is no repenting from a first marriage--- because a 1st marriage (with 2 who are free to marry) is not a sin needing to be repented of. The turning away from sin would involve the divorce(having the mindset of permanent separation) or a remarriage, if that took place.

I guess it really comes down to how people look at the marriage vow. Some believe it is binding until death because God actually is the one who binds the participants together, some believe a second vow supercedes the first vow----even though God says the second vow is sinful. I have a hard time seeing how God honors the second one, but not the first, biblically speaking.

I heard of an instance quite a while ago, don't know if it's true, but it's about two wives. One the first wife, one is the second wife. Both are standing for the same man to return to them. Which wife's prayers does the Lord hear and honor? Good thing to ponder if one is so inclined.

He reigns,

I believe in life-long marriage, so I think you know what my answer is. I would say that God joins unbelievers in marriage and He joins believers in marriage. Marriage is for mankind, so our salvation/lack thereof is not at issue. In the big scope of things, He already knows who belong to Him. We may think our spouse unsaved(and to us that may appear to be the case), but that may not be the case at all. Such a spouse may be "in the womb" so to speak, not yet born.

I can only tell you what I would do in such a case knowing what I know now(and to be clear, I wouldn't have said the same thing 10 years ago that I am now saying): I would remain unmarried and I would be in fervant prayer for that man I married.......I would pray for him to become a man of God on fire! I would pray that the blinders be taken off his eyes. I would thank the Lord that He put me in this place to be a vessel to pray for a man who may not have anyone else in the whole world praying for him.......

That's a hard thing, I know.......and even though I say this is what I would do, I know it would be a hard thing to do, but I also know this: It would be the Lord's heart I was living out, not my own feelings....... Blessings......

Hello…

Some time ago, an interesting thing occurred with a man from our local Church fellowship.

This man divorced from his first wife several years before he came to the Lord. After several years, he eventually remarried a woman who was also a divorcé with young children (and whose first husband had also remarried). After about five years of marriage, this man and his wife became believers. They even had another child together. They continued to grow and serve the Lord diligently. Although this brother was not involved in a “speaking” ministry or any sort of ministry of “authority,” he was always there to mow the lawn, clean the building, cook the meals, etc… He participated in every Bible study, attended every prayer meeting, and donated quite a bit of time, effort and material goods to the local Church. He once spoke to me about feeling a “call” into the “ministry.” He told me that he was quite aware of the possible Scriptural apprehension for such ministry due to the divorce that took place before he knew Christ.

This man had a wonderful little family. Little did this woman know that the man had been speaking on an almost nightly basis with his previous wife. One day, this man informed his wife that “God told him” to divorce her and return to his first wife. This man decided to break off all ties with his current wife, divorce her, and return to his former wife (who also went through a second divorce). As a result, he left the woman who he had spent the past many years with (and the mother of his children) in order to fulfill this “permanent marriage covenant.”

Since then, I have seen this now twice-divorced woman and their children walking into Church with heavy, broken hearts. In my opinion, this man has ABANDONED his family in order to fulfill an assumption that he had (and perhaps, an ongoing relationship with his first wife).

Was this man correct?

Before we can properly understand the concept (and acceptable provisions) of “divorce,” we really need to understand the meaning of “marriage.” A marriage is simply a covenant between a man and a woman who decide to end a life of loneliness and continue their lives as one. What makes a person “married?” Is it a document? It is the recognition of the government? Is it the recognition of the Church?

Throughout history, the definitions of “marriage” (including the requirements to make such a declaration) have varied from one culture to the next. In some cultures, a man (and his family) was expected to literally BUY his wife via a prearranged dowry. In other cultures, a man could simply announce that he was marrying a woman. In Old Testament times (and in many cultures throughout history), polygamy has been permitted – where a man could marry as many wives as he desired (or could support). Some cultish sects (like the Mormons) go so far as to “spiritualize” marriage as an EVERLASTING covenant. They claim that we will be forever united with our marriage partners throughout eternity (…better make sure you really, really love that guy, girls).

At different times during history, Christians have sometimes been required to "hide" their marriage. The ceremony today is largely based upon Roman Catholic/pagan traditions. Throughout history, believers (such as those during the Inquisition and even the early Church) were forced to marry in secret -- without the knowledge of the official Church or state. At times, believers even had to hide their marriage from unbelieving parents and relatives. So what constitutes a "Christian" marriage?

Yet the Gospel tends to de-spiritualize the concept of marriage. Marriage is still EXTREMELY important, but not in an ethereal sense. It is not a sacrament. It is simply a binding COVENANT. While the Lord instructed mankind to “be fruitful and multiply” (in order to populate our species), both Jesus and the apostle Paul articulated vacillation about the necessity of marriage. They articulated that it is BETTER for a man to [u]NOT[/u] enter into a marriage covenant. Paul expressed how a godly man is required to consider the needs of his family once that he is married. If he doesn’t take care of those needs, according to Paul, he “had denied the faith and he is worse than an infidel” (I Timothy 5:8). A single man can concentrate on the things of God. Yet both Jesus and Paul said that it is not for everyone. Jesus said, “He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.” Paul went so far as to say that it is “better to marry than to burn” (I Corinthians 7:9).

Today’s sinful world is filled with different cultural beliefs considering marriage and divorce. Polygamy is still widely practiced in the Third World. Divorce is a part of life in nearly every nation. Even in America, more than 50% of marriages (both WITHIN and OUTSIDE of the Church) end in divorce. Most of these divorces result in the divorcé remarrying and even having more children. In fact, there are any individuals involved in several subsequent marriages with children resulting from each wife or husband! Yet it seems that believers of “permanent marriage” feel that these divorcés should DIVORCE AGAIN and either return to their first wife/husband or remain alone (2 wrongs that make it right?).

The problem with this is that these divorces are just as sinful as the supposedly sinful second marriage. In some cases, it causes a man to forsake a second family (wife and kids) – making him worse than an infidel! Yes, such a man can pay alimony and child support, but it causes a man to forsake his rightful place as “priest” of a home. It turns a man into a weekend dad who can no longer provide the more important things that money cannot buy.

Can a marriage covenant that was created and abandoned before Christ become superseded by a second covenant?

Interestingly, there is a Scriptural precedent in which one covenant is superseded by another. In the Old Testament, God provided a lasting, eternal covenant. Even Christ said that he did not desire to abolish the Old Covenant. Yet we are no longer bound to the Old Covenant, because we have become partakers to a New Covenant. One might suggest that, in our former lives, we were espoused to this world. We are now joined with our new husband – that is Christ the Lord. As a result, we are no longer bound by the requirements and laws of the old, because they are fulfilled by our obedience to the new. In fact, we no longer receive the penalty for failure under the Old Covenant. Many of us would be considered “sinners” by merit of the Old Covenant. We no longer honor the Sabbath day – which was a LASTING requirement of the Old Covenant (Exodus 31:12-18). Instead, we believe that EVERY DAY is a day of rest in this new covenant. What more? We can eat pork, shrimp, catfish, etc… (Acts 10:12-16). We are not bound by the covenant of the circumcision (I Corinthians 7:17-20 – within the same conversation of Paul concerning marriage and divorce).

Divorce is, by definition, a "formal separation between a husband and wife according to established custom" (Random House Dictionary). The word literally means a "complete or radical severance of closely connected things" (American Heritage Dictionary). Divorce is taken from Middle English, from Old French, and then from the Latin dīvortium, from dīvortere, which is to divert, a variant of dīvertere. So to suggest that a divorcé should separate from a new spouse is to actually suggest a second "divorce." What makes divorce ugly is that it allows men and women to forsake a covenant. According to the Old Testament, anyone who forsakes a covenant is CURSED.

Can a Christian be cursed? When an unbeliever comes to Christ, ALL of the old is passed away. They are now partakers of a new covenant, and by the grace of God, they are no longer confined to the penalties due from failing to follow the ordinances of the old. We become NEW CREATURES. Our lives are now new. As believers under the New Covenant, we are accountable for those things following our new birth. Otherwise, Saul (Paul) should have been STONED (eye for an eye, tooth for tooth) for overseeing the persecution of Stephen and killing other believers. Yet the old had passed away.

I am the child of a divorced mother. I wrote this in another thread some time ago about my childhood experience:

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

[color=990000][size=xx-small]
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. "ALL of the old is made new," 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 IS 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.

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, [u]INDIVIDUALLY[/u]. 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, Salvation has come to this house today!" 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.[/size][/color]

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Here are a few other passages to consider:

"Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved."

- Acts 11:14

"Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house."

- Acts 16:29-34

"But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.

For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?

But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches. Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.”

- I Corinthians 7:12-20

:-)

*EDIT:
I feel that we should be very careful about creating a doctrinal conclusion (and then boldly articulating it) out of something that is not entirely clear from the Scriptures. We should NOT point the finger of adultery at those who have undergone such a divorce and remarriage. Nor should we slander those who disagree with our notions about marriage/divorce/remarriage if they can build their conclusion on the Word with honest integrity.

I was told that I would be better off as a believer to kill my wife's ex husband then repent of that sin which is forgiveable to stay married to my wife.Hmmmmm It would be legal or lawful now that he is dead (Note: I didn't take their suggestion seriously).
By the way, how many husbands did Jesus recognize with the woman at the well? Any more than the first marriage seems like it would be a contradiction if the 2nd and on are not recognized by God. Just a thought.
Blessings, Barry

Chris, thank you brother. Much to consider here ... I well recall the older thread.

Am somewhat reluctant to follow so closely on the heels of this, have something shelved for the moment.

Yet the Gospel tends to de-spiritualize the concept of marriage. Marriage is still EXTREMELY important, but not in an ethereal sense. It is not a sacrament. It is simply a binding COVENANT. While the Lord instructed mankind to “be fruitful and multiply” (in order to populate our species), both Jesus and the apostle Paul articulated vacillation about the necessity of marriage. They articulated that it is BETTER for a man to NOT enter into a marriage covenant. Paul expressed how a godly man is required to consider the needs of his family once that he is married. If he doesn’t take care of those needs, according to Paul, he “had denied the faith and he is worse than an infidel” (I Timothy 5:8). A single man can concentrate on the things of God. Yet both Jesus and Paul said that it is not for everyone. Jesus said, “He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.” Paul went so far as to say that it is “better to marry than to burn” (I Corinthians 7:9).

This is very interesting and not up in the front of thinking but found that it was indeed lurking back in the mind somewhere.

I find this whole matter very, very difficult and very grievous, perplexing ... But I do hope what you have written is read and truly taken into account here.

Hi reformer...

Just a thought, since you said this man,felt called to the ministry. By going back to his first wife and restoring that marriage, would he then feel justified he furthering his "calling?"

:-(

Dorcas,

You said you would like to converse with me over a few more posts...but this thread has gotten quite a few more posts since I wrote. My computer started to have problems - again - and today the hard drive died and now I am using my brother's. So I do not know what you want to ask me...if you want to PM that will be ok.

ginnyrose

Ray,

The last I read in the scriptures, I do not see where Menno Simons or John Calvin or Rick Warren, or John Hagee or you or....died for my sins and is able to provide a way to escape the wrath to come.Jesus did this and sealed it with his own blood. No one else has any authority to set aside Jesus words for life...
Blessings,
ginnyrose

There has been conversation here as it regards children born to parents in remarriages. I think this to be one of the more difficult aspects of the entire discussion. Parents who are genuinely broken over past mistakes, poor choices and yes sin.

And now only want to please God.

I remember what one word of counsel was to me personally and that was if it’s not good for God it’s not good for the children. This is in no wise meant to suggest the abandonment of children. I know the story of Ezra is often cited in this regard but we certainly do not have the entire process given to us and how this played out practically. Not that the two are comparable in similarities.

Any comments we make are an awesome responsibility that we must dispense of carefully. I am trying to learn in my own life to simply share my understanding of scripture and let the Holy Spirit make the application.

Unless believers have found themselves tangled in these webs, one has no idea the repercussions that any decision will bring. I fear we want a repentance that is not messy. A repentance that is comfortable. A repentance whereby nothing is required of us.

As I hear the teens often say “oops me bad”, and what passes for repentance today is eerily similar it seems to me.

Dorcas,

I have not read your posts but will after answering a question you just asked.

Dorcas wrote: You mentioned you could not find divorce in the Old Testament,

I wrote in my post: Old Testament law allowed for divorce when the wife displeased her husband. If you would, please go back and read it again.

Thanks!
ginnyrose

Glory,

There are many people like her. They are praying for a restoration of their marriage - even after their spouse left and married another. And would you know? It has happened!

ginnyrose

ginnyrose wrote:
Glory,

There are many people like her. They are praying for a restoration of their marriage - even after their spouse left and married another. And would you know? It has happened!

ginnyrose

But at what cost? The cost of another family?

Boy, the best option is to just not get divorced in the first place. No more issue of divorce, right? To bad we don't live in that world, yet.

What a long thread we Christians always have a lot of opinions about divorce guess we should know better than anyone we are the largest class among divorces. :-P

Many try to use this passage to state one cannot remarry their covenant spouse. But Jesus taught that although divorce was previously allowed for hard heartedness, this is no longer the case.

The New Testament teaches if one does divorce their spouse, they are to remain unmarried or be reconciled (I Cor. 7:10-11). Very clear. The New Covenant teaching replaces completely Moses’.

And so yes, clearly the NT does in fact reverse what Moses has said.

I’m a little confused RayinPA,

You hold to the permanency of salvation but you do not hold to the permanency of marriage? Or am I reading you wrong?

Is there a reason you make no reference or concession that a believer can hold to both of these scriptural positions?

Ray,

I'm sorry, but you are uninformed about ALL permanency of marriage proponents. The truth is: some of us believe in eternal security (not the greasy grace, easy believism type), and some believe one can lose their salvation due to a unrepentant lifestyle. We are not cookie cutter in that regard.

As far as loving those who love Him, that is required of ALL true saints, not just those who differ on the MDR issue.

Dorcas,

As I understand the OT law, if observed faithfully, there would have been no adulterers around to divorce, or get married to - they would have been killed, both participants. Which then means the surviving spouse would have been widowed. The divorced people that did exist were those that were put away because they displeased their spouse and they were allowed to remarry. The priests, however, were prohibited from marrying a divorced person or a widow. They were only allowed to marry a virgin.(Lev. 21)

Harlots did exist in Israel. Hosea was commanded by God to marry one. But why they were there is likely because of disobedience to the law, just like they disobeyed in a lot of other things awhich evoked divine wrath/displeasure.

The homosexual rights often are critical of conservative Christianity because this same law decreed the death of homos, those involved in beastality (sp?) (both animal and man were to have been killed)in addition to addulterers. They say this is so harsh and blah, blah, but Jesus came and offered them life and forgiveness for sin with the stipulation "go, and sin no more". This is a radical departure - I think - from OT law, do you not agree?

Blessings,

ginnyrose

Ray wrote:What's your reply have to do with what I wrote?

It is this: when people run out of scripture to back up their opinion, they will resort to contemporary writers to support their claim. It is not hard to find a prolific writer somewhere who will write something that will support a more pleasing view. So, use only scripture. While one may appreciate their leadership roles, if they diviate from Biblical directives, we must disregard them as having authority. In short we must be noble like the Bereans who checked out the scriptures to see if these things were so. If all would do this, you would not have the proliferation of false teachers.

I get the feeling you do not hold homemaking in very high regard! I have been married to the same man for 40 years and raised 5 children to adulthood. Reckon a body does not learn a few things in the course of time? But that is ok, if you do not appreciate a woman being a homemaker - i still love it. BTW, I am also a co-owner with my husband in our business and neither one of us could operate it without the other - we are so dependant on the other for its operation.

Blessings,
ginnyrose

PS: I am well aware of Menno Simmns legacy. He brought coherance to the Anabaptist movement which until he came along was quite fragmented. Now some early Anabaptists also taught that if a spouse was excommunicated from the church, the faithful one was to leave his/her spouse. There is no scripture to support this position, in fact it is contrary to 1Cor. 7. Obviously, this opinion did not endure the test of time. Having said all this, I do appreciate their tenacity in the face of severe opposition. This really challenges me...many were killed for not bending to the pressure of the local state church. Actually, historians credit the Anabaptists for promoting the concept of the separation of the church and state. IMHO, they taught a lot of good but not all was good, so one needs to discerning, realize church leaders are still human and sometimes this gets in the way of how they lead. ginnyrose

MrBillPro wrote

What a long thread we Christians always have a lot of opinions about divorce guess we should know better than anyone we are the largest class among divorces.

jimdied2sin wrote:
This is great error. The statistics you are referencing apply to churchianity, not the bride of Christ.

In Him - Jim

This statement below is right off another popular "Christian" site that I am also a member of and I have often heard this statement before a few times in my life.

Born again adults who have been married are just as likely as non-born-again adults who have been married to eventually become divorced. Because the vast majority of born again marriages occurred after the partners had accepted Christ as their savior, it appears that their connection to Christ makes less difference in the durability of people’s marriages than many people might expect. Faith has had a limited affect on people’s behavior, whether related to moral convictions and practices, relational activities, lifestyle choices or economic practices.

The Barna Research Group, an evangelical Christian organization that does surveys and research to better understand what Christians believe and how they behave, studied divorce rates in America in 1999 and found surprising evidence that divorce is far lower among atheists than among conservative Christians — exactly the opposite of what they were probably expecting.

11% of all American adults are divorced
25% of all American adults have had at least one divorce

27% of born-again Christians have had at least one divorce
24% of all non-born-again Christians have been divorced

21% of atheists have been divorced
21% of Catholics and Lutherans have been divorced
24% of Mormons have been divorced
25% of mainstream Protestants have been divorced
29% of Baptists have been divorced
24% of nondenominational, independent Protestants have been divorced

27% of people in the South and Midwest have been divorced
26% of people in the West have been divorced
19% of people in the Northwest and Northeast have been divorced

sermonindex wrote:
Faith revolutionizes and changes people for eternity.

Could you elaborate a little here? are you saying that because of ones faith they are changed eternally? because I don't agree with that, I do agree that Faith revolutionizes and changes people for eternity, but is faith going to keep them out of hell regardless of their actions? sorry help me out here I am a little confused here.

Faith has had a limited affect on people’s behavior

I believe this to be true because it does have a "limited" effect on "some" and more of an effect on others. I also believe this person that wrote this was talking about your faith and marriage and that one's faith doe not hold their marriage together any longer than non-Christian marriages, I think you might have read to much into this.

Dorcas,

I am not ignoring you or avoiding your questions. It is just that with my computer biting the dust, my schedule has been disrupted and I have not had the time to read all the posts on this thread.

Your question is an interesting one:
Is it your understanding that those widowed in such a way, were free to remarry?

My understanding is "yes" because the other partner was dead. Like today when a spouse dies, he/she is free to remarry.

Another question from Dorcas:

On what basis can you justify withholding life, forgiveness for sin and repentance (turning away from that sin) to adulterers?

I do not justify withholding life, forgiveness of sins from anyone who repents. Actually, this forgiveness is not mine to give or withhold: it belongs to God. Jesus demands repentance for forgiveness and I think you would agree to that. The difference here is that there was a vow made and that forgiveness does not cancel vows made before conversion. And that conversion also means restitution for wrongs committed. Hebrews 10:26 speaks to this issue, I think: "For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins." NASB. Under the OT law there was no sacrifice for an adulterer: he and she were both to be killed. The verses following this one speaks more to this issue...why do you not go and study these verses some more? Actually, since I have been studying the OT more concerning this issue, I have been understanding these verses better then before.

Now about homosexuals: You have asked a question that I wish others would answer. I am not aware that homos were marrying in the old days, were they? I do not know of any Bible story that deals with this issue except that when it does address it it is with horror and repulsion, but, yes, I understand your question.

Cindy, have you encountered this issue?

Blessings,
ginnyrose

moe_mac wrote:
God meets us right where we are in any sin. His grace is sufficient. Divorce is just as much as a sin as bank robbery. Our culture does not see it that way.

I see it that way and I also see that a lie is a lie I see no were in the word God breaks down lies to were this one is worse than that one, but I am a pretty practical Christian God did not build me to be the smartest kid on the block.

I personally have to read scripture as a child and leave it to Christian Scientist to haggle over the scriptures, trust me I am not going to hell because I lack the wisdom some have were I don't totally understand all scripture if so there will be a lot of folks there with me even some good old Christians, but I am sure some might say I am, but we all have a right to our opinions because that would be just that an opinion.

dorcas wrote:

MrBillPro said

I see it that way

Brother, we don't need you to hide behind false modesty about your intelligence. We need all the wits we can, trained on what scripture actually means, with no assumptions being handed out as if they are dependably true, because we [i]think[/i] we agree with people that [i]sound[/i] as if they've done the footwork honestly.

Hey I think that was a complement but when you said wits you have me wondering now. :-P

HE_Reigns wrote:
This [i]is[/i] confusing now.
I sincerely need to ask if we may say Merry Christmas on here now or not?

I sure hope so I said it many times last year and hope to this year. :-)
Hey were "all" work in progress here:

"None is righteous, no, not one;
no one understands, no one seeks for God.
All have turned aside, together they have gone wrong;
no one does good, not even one." (Rom. 3:10-12)

RayinPA wrote:
Thanks,RayinPA (AKA...to some,the uncivil one)

Hey I think I already own that title here. :-P

and if Christians would feel responsible to protect other people's children from their own, marriages would have a much better chance of holding together.

But I believe this is where that law of love comes into its fulness. That real love will not take liberties with another person's virginity, purely for the sake of that person's personal integrity before God. Also, it places a value on one's own integrity, of which the world, in generally, knows nothing. Finally, it places the proper value on what is being yeilded to the other person in marriage, which should be respected as the privilege that it is to enjoy.

These words are so desparately needed amidst the Christian communites, unfortunately..not so.

Great post, Dorcas. Thanks

RayinPA wrote:
Hello Mr. Bill, Don't think we've met! Pleased to meet you...

Ray, all I can say is WOW!! right now what an amazing read thank God for dreams and by the way pleased to meet you also sir.
Mr. Bill

Hi RayinPA...

Re: "...SI does not fulfill the requirements fully, of a church...",in this statement I see a sly and sinister way of nullifying the bWord of God and making it of no effect for convenience. Much like the pentecostal who says they have a "Word from God" or a dream or a vision. It's extra-biblical revelation and leaves the hearers with no rule(canon of scripture)to judge such by,in their scheme of things of course. Jeremiah 23:16-32 " Thus saith the LORD of hosts, Hearken not unto the words of the prophets that prophesy unto you: they make you vain: they speak a vision of their own heart, [and] not out of the mouth of the LORD.

So much is being done and said "In the Name of the LORD",yet Jesus and the apostles warned us time and again that such would be the case. If I receive a reprimand from anyone for this post,so be it. Whatever action be taken according to the rules of this forum,so be it. No offense will be taken whatsoever on my part. Bless God, RayinPA

Remember the words of I Corinthians chapter 13:

1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,

5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;

6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;

7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

:-)

Hi RayinPA…

What does God’s face look like?

I ask you because your words tend to reflect a man who feels that his doctrine is [u]perfect[/u], and he is no longer confined to the same veil as we who are not perfect (I Corinthians 13:12). This is the problem with brethren who feel the “call” to loudly proclaim the error in the beliefs of others. We are quick to call out the speciousness in others, even though we ourselves walk in error in one way or another. How do we walk in error? None of us are completely righteous (no, not one). None of us are perfect in every manner.

Yes, we can (or [i]should[/i]) be able to “see” the obvious doctrinal error in others. We can know the certainty of many things from the Word of God. But what about those issues that are not entirely clear to everyone? What is the difference between Mormons making an excuse for their false doctrine and others who argue on behalf of their beliefs? When does godly patience work in us?

The difference comes down to whether or not we understand who is truly a believer. A Mormon does not go to Hell because he is a Mormon. He goes to Hell because he does not know Christ. A Jehovah’s Witness does not go to Hell because he is a Jehovah’s Witness. He goes to Hell because he does not know Christ. Do you “see” this difference? A true believer, who after careful and prayerful study, who believes that a divorced person can remarry, is not the same as a Mormon, Jehovah ’s Witness, etc… The difference is found within the relationship of the believer. If a man or woman truly knows the Lord, there is a process of maturity that will take place as they grow in their relationship with the Lord (including their knowledge of His Word). This is true with all matters of doctrine.

Once upon a time, a well known preacher was telling Gentile believers that they must be circumcised. He also told them that they must abstain from the food forbidden under the laws of the Old Covenant. It almost sounds downright “[i]cultish[/i]” if you ask me! Thankfully, the Apostle Paul was able to gently but abruptly rebuke Peter for this error (Galatians 2:11-21) and remind him that we are no longer bound by the letter of the Law. I am extremely happy that Paul rebuked Peter without resorting to a “[i]You’re a deceived heretic![/i]” sort of tone.

My post was nothing personal. I don’t mean to offend, and I am grateful that no offense was taken. However, I do feel that we should all exercise caution when we go handing out our rebukes. We should remember our own flawed humanity and the current veil to which we are all confined (until Christ comes). Yes, we should teach the truth with boldness. But we must remember that what we consider “truth” may not be clearly understood by other believers. Every so often, we may even find ourselves in the wrong in terms of doctrinal beliefs (even though we might not discover it for a long time). Until we are perfect, we should exercise charitable caution in our discussions with other believers.

:-)

Upon reading this again, I feel compelled to explain that I don't mean this to be taken personally. We all need a dose of humility within our conversation so as to not appear proud or arrogant in our knowledge.

I used to know it all but then I lived another 20 years and learned that there were some things I didn't know. One of those things I learned was about getting offended. I was taught that pride and self were at the root of such.

Well Ray then what follows ought not to be a problem whatsoever. I would challenge you on a number of fronts in this regard. Since you have been here just a little over a week now you certainly are giving off quite an aire of arrogance, presumption and indeed pride. Does it not strike you a bit odd that you are often referring back to yourself; "RayinPA", "If Ray is deceived ..." etc.? Pride? Self?

Not questioning your motivation nor your particular style, it is just what you give off when it is included in the rest of your demeanor. So far you have managed to take quite a few pot shot's at this forum, your disdain not meeting your particular expectations and questioning even some simple guidelines as unbiblical all the while greatly overlooking your own presumptions. The guidelines are designed largely towards just simple conduct. Managing such a large and diverse setting is not a simple task and we have tried to have as much patience as allowable within it's framework. There is a vast amount of history here with many of the members, some stretching back over 4 years. With that goes along many, many discussions of the same matters that may seem as if they are just now being addressed for the first time. It is one of the reasons we do encourage a mining or searching out of the forum.

It is both pride and presumption to come on board and start laying into those you do not know and attempting to set them straight, we see this often enough from new members, whatever the motivation, it often gives off an ideal of having come to save the day from the poor misguided ones that fellowship here. It is also just simply rude.

Spent some time correcting some of your posts as they were making the pages stretch out of their dimensions, this happens when either a long URL (link) is copied or when their is a continuation of characters strung together that carry across lines without breaks. It is a good idea to use the preview button to see how a post looks before submitting. Just as well, learning how to use the "QUOTE" button is helpful in distinguishing who is speaking or being excerpted so that everyone can understand more clearly who and what is being stated.

Simple things and we are more than happy to help anyone learn how to navigate the site, there are topics and discussions on these matters within the forum section itself.

Ray, you are certainly welcome here but I am asking you to consider slowing down a bit and get more familiar with your surroundings and the Brethren here, for the very most part they are just as dedicated and serious as yourself in all manner of things pertaining to the Lord. Take some time to find out and rather than presume, consider. We have worked very hard over the years to make this something different from a mere chat style board and it does get away from that unfortunately at times. Redundantly, it is not by design or by setting itself up as more lofty if you will but just charitable and long suffering, trying to draw back to old paths and long forgotten ways. Remember that at any given time there are those at any point along the way who are hearing our words and looking on our conduct and character, our expressions and drawing from them. Good, bad or indifferent. It is often a refrain or merely an inference that we might think we are of such a no compromise state and most everyone else is either deceived or diluted so we carry an air of "I don't care" that gives one a sense of just doing 'Gods will and holding to His word' and it is quite easy to forget the great admonishen;

[i]Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.[/i] 1Pe 5:5

If this all seems a bit much, let me add just one last thing. There is and will continue to be always a great deal of misunderstanding in this setting. All of us are expressing in some form or fashion from a variety of backgrounds, setting and present circumstances. Emotions get in the way, they get inflamed, they get passionate, they veer off on to tangents ... Sometimes into the wrong spirit and divisive, unruly behavior. We have seen just about everything imaginable and conceivable, so there is also some great sweeping generalities here that go beyond yourself, for others here. Brother, there is often regret upon more reflection and we encourage making our own corrections and asking for further clarifications, questions that are asked in earnest more than pointed or presumptions. Again generalities here, accusations are often taken when not implied. See the difficulty?

Enough of the spiel. A very helpful and constant appealing to and re-reading for my own shortcomings is this posting;

[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flat&order=0&topic_id=10733&forum=34&post_id=&refresh=Go] Jonathan Edwards - Undiscerned Spiritual Pride[/url]

To the matter at hand;

Jesus rejected the ‘Any Cause’ divorce as a non-biblical invention, so that anyone who had divorced using this interpretation (which included almost every divorced person in Israel) had an invalid divorce. He emphasised this in a most dramatic way by saying that anyone who had remarried after such a divorce was now committing adultery, because their previous marriage had not yet ended.

This jumped out at me a few days ago as something of a hinge to this whole matter. There is something of a tie-in to a question asked in an older posting linked here on this same subject;

[i]But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery:[/i] Mat 5:32

The assumption is that divorced people will remarry. And it was my wonder if the very emphasis was more so on the 'causer', the one who [i]causeth[/i] as ... 'having the greater sin' if I may put it in that frame work.

Somewhere Ray I believe you did get to the very crux of this whole matter and it is my concurrence as well; There is a certain simplicity in this whole matter that may have become undone by much of the over-speaking and deriving out of Scripture where it is otherwise silent. That is, if the two have become one as true disciples of the Lord there is no divorce, it is a complete contradiction in terms, in element, in foundation, at the very core of the matter. Rightly related to the Lord it is an impossibility. Have forwarded the notion that divorce is by and large a mechanism of selfishness, the very thing that cannot continue to function in the heart of a believer. For the world and for the larger realm of ... Christendom (beginning to hate this word) the matter has far less to do with divorce and remarriage as it does with teaching about the desperate and wicked state of the heart, fix that and the divorce rate amongst "Christians" evaporates.

Ray, I am glad you are here, you have much to add and I humble myself just as well for any misgivings and or assumptions of my own. We draw off what we read, but I am always ready to stand to be corrected.

Are you familiar with a book entitled,"The Sovereignty of God" written in the 1930's,Bunyan on Reprobation,or Spurgeon's Free Will A Slave. Matthew Meade and Joseph Alleine I have found are good reads to put my self in perspective. Re: This Divorce forum; John Owen wrote a very good,very brief article entitled "On Remarriage after Divorce". I've spent more time than maybe I should here. I've got 7 persons living in my home that I'm responsible for and I've not been getting proper amount of sleep.

Hi Ray,

Have read quite a bit and am always hungry for more. Spurgeon, Bunyan, Joseph Alleine, Edwards certainly though perhaps not extensively. It would be wonderful if you could dig up the article from John Owen that you mentioned, found Baxter's take on this matter very interesting, there is a section of it in the articles section here.

Didn't mean to be overbearing earlier, got a sense it was not your intent either ... sounds like you have quite a busy set of circumstances there, can well attest to the fatigue.

Hi guys

Ooops sorry.

My wife left me. Besides she was wanting to divorce me from almost from the start.
When I married her, she was not a Christian and wonder if she is Christian now or not (she thinks she is). We ended up staying together for 5 years. We have 3 beautiful children.

After the 3rd time she left me, I warned her that if she was going to do this, I was no longer bound to her.
I never thought of cheating on her until this third time and I did because I felt so rejected. Besides, she left me right after my mother passed. I needed to find a listening ear and I did.

I was justifying my actions by the fact she left me but now I'm starting to think that I was real wrong.

I know it's a little bit late to think about all of this but I still wonder every day what God would want me to do?

Should I keep trying to pray for my wife? She told me I should move on.
Should I stay unmarried for the rest of my days
or should I marry the virgin?

Exodus 22:16
"If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife."

Who's to blame? My unbelieving wife who left me or me to have seduced a virgin?

The other day, I had a dream that I wasn't raptured. How could I turn this possibility around?

I know what will do (or won't do) will have a major impact on my salvation.

Is my responsibility to tell my wife and divorce her based on the sins I've committed?

Sometimes I wonder if God wouldn't have had us both sinned in order so both could be saved (since we are even)? Makes no sense I guess....?

Besides, I think it's a farce to see people remarried who claim to be with their lawfully husband or wife. To me, it doesn't sound right at all. I've always known it. But I'm afraid of spending the rest of my life being alone.

Puzzled.

Pete.

Pete,
Sounds to me like you need a prayer support group to stand by you during this very difficult time. May I suggest you go to http://www.marriagedivorce.com/mdemails1-50.htm

They have a prayer group where you can share your concerns via emails and people will come alongside you and pray for you. Most of the posters are people whose spouses have left them for whatever reason.

On this divorce thread people discuss what they think the scriptures teach about divorce. It will not matter what people think, it is what the scripture says and you know that one day you will stand before the great white throne judgement and will have to give account.

In any case I would urge you to go to the "Spirit of Hosea" site and there you will find what you are looking for, I think. If you have any problems finding it, come back and I will assist you.

Blessings,
ginnyrose

this is the best article on divorce and remarriage I have come across:

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/1986/1488_Divorce_and_Remarriage_A_Position_Paper/

Hi Ginnyrose,

Thank you very much for your reply.
As a matter of fact, I started listening to the sermons from Spirit of Horsea. It's never been so clear.

Thank you very much Ginny.

Pete

Thank you very much for your reply.

As a matter of fact, I started listening to the sermons from Spirit of Hosea. It's never been so clear

I am glad you found that site. Just don't forget they have a prayer support group for people like you. You can ask questions, share your feelings about your joys and disappointments and others will be there to lift you up in prayer and in giving words of advice, encouragement - which you obviously need.

God bless you,
ginnyrose

Hi LookingForTruth,

I would highly recommend the following articles:

[url=http://www.charityministries.org/theremnant/2007/May/theremnant-May2007-covenant.a5w]One Flesh, One Covenant Part 1[/url]

[url=http://www.charityministries.org/theremnant/2007/July/theremnant-July2007-one-flesh.a5w]Part 2[/url]

[url=http://www.charityministries.org/theremnant/2008/1Q/theremnant-2008-1Q-exception-clause.a5w]Part 3[/url]

[url=http://www.charityministries.org/theremnant/2008/2Q/theremnant-2008-2Q-bondage.a5w]Part 4[/url]

[url=http://www.charityministries.org/theremnant/2008/3Q/theremnant-2008-3Q-divorce.a5w]Part 5[/url]

Amen 89

Those articles are powerful.

One preacher that I know says it this way:

1Co 7:24 Brethren, let each man, wherein he was called, therein abide with God.

It was also said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.' But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Right, this passage allows for divorce when there is sexual immorality, but it doesn't necessarily allow for remarriage.

And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. And he said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.

This passage in Mark shows that remarriage is still adultery.

For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.

Romans show us that until the spouse is dead, they are still bound together. If one were to remarry while the other is still alive, it is adultery.

Just going to give you a bit of my testimony.

Whan I was a teenager my Mother came into my room late at night. She was very nervous as she stood at the bottom of my bed. I asked her what was wrong, she said God has spoken to me tonight and he wants me to tell you something. She then proceeded to tell me what God wanted me to know.

As she was about to leave, I asked did God tell you anything else. Yes she said you'll be married to woman that was married before and has two children.

At the age of 25 years I married my wife, she was married before and has two children.

(EDIT)

Yes she said you'll be married to woman that was married before and has two children.

Yeah, and so it was with our daughter-in-law who married our son-in -law. But it was a Biblical union. Our daughter had died leaving behind a widower with two small children.

When a directive comes from the LORD it will be Biblical.

ginnyrose