Marriage and divorce

[BigBert]

Rom 7:2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth . . .

Need clarification on this. So, in other words, if a woman divorces her husband due to his infidelity and remarries another man, she is committing adultery?

according to some that's the case even if his infidelity is endless, he's a wife beater, and whatever else--even if he totally deceived her into marrying him. But that's what the "law" says. She's allowed to "separate" but cannot ever have hope for remarriage to anyone but this man. You know, it's that grace and love thing.

Seriously, a lot of these seemingly "cut and dried" verses can read a lot differently when you examine the totality of the Bible and at least understand the context of the situation. I recognize the fear of many that this can become a trap that leads to rationalization of all behaviors ungodly, but, like much in life, you have to be willing to do the study, to be open minded enough, and to do your dead level best to live according to how you believe the Spirit is guiding you.

*by the way, though my wife has filed for divorce and has shown absolutely zero interest in trying to reconcile (to even start the process), I have many, many times tried to get her to do so. Even with the D' about one month away, I again tried today, letting her know that I still care a lot about her, and that I believe it's the wrong thing to do. I also reminded her that more than one couple has re-energized their fallen marriages through strong Christian counseling. Inevitably, I still pray that somehow a miracle in her heart occurs.

If, for whatever reason, it does not, I will do my best to allow the Spirit to guide me on how long I will stay the course after she has seen the divorce become final. For those who are totally certain in this (that I have to do so forever), that's your call, but it's not necessarily God's, despite the conclusions you've reached. I respect your conclusions, but I also believe I'll do what's the best taking all factors into consideration.

What is not in dispute in most cases, at least, is that it's far more "ideal" for a marriage to inevitably have a story of "lived happily ever after."

Edited August 26, 2009 by BigBert

[JCISGD]

Hi BB and ASC, please know that i am not trying to be condemning or restrictive, i have come to know my conclusions after 20 yrs of struggle, a divorce from a women who had a husband still living, even though as a new christian i (erroneously) believed i should pray and believe for reconcilliation.

Jesus has already told us the way to heaven is narrow, and the broad way ( the way of the world ) leads to hell. All sin robs kills and destroys, and it is only after following bad advice from my peers and the many pastors i sought counsel from, and much grief and unecessary struggle, that i now see where the errors lie.

I have looked at all the arguements and have had 20 yrs of being personally affected, and watching the results of modern church error about divorce and remarriage, to make keeping silent morally wrong and sin for me, according to Ezk 33:6.

ASC i think you see from Rom 7:2+3 that its clear that divorce while a spouse is living is always adultery?

BB I will try to address your objections, which i fully respect your right to.

It is not possible that Jesus was overturning Gods supposed previous allowance for divorce, as Jesus was there at the time of Moses ("before Abraham I AM" )and as we know equal to and one with the Father, only doing His will.

Jesus himself said He had not come to do away with one jot of the law. He fulfiilled the law, not by reducing or altering it, but by obeying it fully and coorecting the errors that people had.

One of these errors was that Moses gave allowance to divorce, but Jesus quotes genesis and refutes all divorce as from a hard heart, reiterating that "What God has joined let no man seperate". This then is the context of the clear instruction in the 4 gospels that all remarriage is adultery.(unless the marriage was unlawful in the first place, i.e incest or adulterous)

Gods supposed divorce is not to be used to divorce as God does not have sexual relations or physical children from a union. God also took back His wayward bride and the prophets message was only designed to shock Israel out of their sin.

What the early men of God did does not give us , who have the gospel and the very Spirit of God giving us unprecedented light, reason to follow that which God overlooked, for the reason they lived in such dark times.

Polygamy is not sin, but divorcing your first wife definatley is, Mal 2:14+15 But it does limit the capacity of a christian in church service.

David not only was repentant after his adultery, but God also brought a great trial on him for both the murder and the adultery because he was King. If David had then put Bathsheba away, his sin would have been compound and aggrivated by the sin of divorce.

BB if your wife is your first wife and you her first husband then i urge you to stand on the word of God and call her back through prayer warfare. God will not leave you unvindicated, but do nothing to aggrivate or neglect Gods plans. He will avenge anyone wronged far quicker and surer than we can hope for or expect. " Vengence is mine says the Lord" (this does not imply wrathful judgement, but rather fair and just treatment for those wronged)

Because Jesus knows every man who is not gifted in celibacy needs a wife, He will act speedily or if the wayward spouse stubbornly refuses they will either end up eating slops or be removed from this life. So stand on your authority as the head and not the tail as the believer. 1 Cor 7:16

Please also consider the evidence and testimonies on THE HOSEA PROJECT website, esp that of J Humphries.

In my case i tried to believe for my wife to return but because (as i only now know, that it was adultery and she was infact another mans wife) i was fighting against the will of God. Believe me its no easy place to be found in, and if i had of listened to what i now know the Holy Spirit was telling me, it would have been oh so different.

[BigBert]

JC, I appreciate your response. I will also consider it.

Naturally, I'm going to question or even disagree with certain aspects. You stated clearly based on scripture that those who remain married to someone in a manner that creates adultery are hell bound.

This, at least to me, would still have been the case for David. And if you recall in another part of the OT, I believe God demanded followers to divorce those who He requested not marry, those of foreign nations (the passage escapes me currently). Either way, David staying married to someone who God would consider a wrongful marriage and adulterous seems contradictory with the hard line position you stated earlier regarding staying married to someone in that state. According to your earlier comments, there are no exceptions. If God has made one for David (and not saying He hasn't), does not that bring up the possibility that adultery (according to your definition) is not always an eternally damning sin?

I also question your assessment that Moses was outright wrong in his divorce allowances, but rather believe it was the hard hearted men who used his precepts as an excuse to divorce "for any cause" who were wrong. If we start trying to determine where Moses was wrong, that can open up the proverbial can of worms, wondering where and when elsewhere Moses may have been "wrong." We are to suppose that he was inspired by God in such matters, aren't we? Or was that just the ten commandments?

As this leads to the passages of Jesus on divorce, there is further question, since the Greek word attributed to His statements would be translated "putting away" (of a woman without giving her a legitimate certificate of divorce), rather than a legal divorce. In light of the context of the times and men's tendency to often put a woman away without the dignity of divorce, it would have been far more clear had He simply used the word for legitimate divorce when speaking against the action.

Here is something I found in an amazon book review that discusses the different meaning of the two words related to putting away and actual divorce:

"Luke 16:18, Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery. The New Testament word translated "put away" is a form of the Greek word, apoluo. It is the Greek word apostasion which is the technical term for a bill or writing of divorce as far back as 258 BC. Again, many, who are hard-hearted, and don't believe in the rights of both spouses, use these two terms as synonyms. The distinction between "put away" and "divorce" between these Greek words is critical. Apoluo dismissed the woman, but left her married, put away, with no rights, no recourse, and deprived of the basic right to monogamous marriage. Apostasion ended marriage and permitted a legal subsequent marriage.

In 1611, the KJV inconsistently translated apoluo in Matt. 5:31-32,"...and marrieth her that is divorced committeth adultery. In the New Testament, forms of apoluo appear 69 times but only in this one instance, (in KJV) is it translated divorce. If it had been translated in harmony with the rest of the KJV, it would say, "And whosoever shall marry her who has been put away (or abandoned or dismissed, etc.) committeth adultery."

The Holy Bible from the Ancient Eastern Text, Matt. 5:32b reads, "And whosoever marries a woman who is separated, but not divorced, commits adultery." Luke 16:18b reads, "He who marries the one who is illegally separated commits adultery." This translation highlights the misunderstanding made possible by that inconsistent KJV translation of Matt. 5:32.

The translation error was corrected in the American Standard Version of the Bible, 1901. Imagine overcoming 270 years of reading "divorced". that 1611 KJV mistranslation in this one instance has so dominated our thinking that virtually all modern translations say "divorced," not just in that one place, but in ALL 11 places. They completely ignore the correction provided by the 1901 American Standard Version, and ignore the distinction between the two words."

___________________________________

Having noted these things, I still tend to agree with you regarding staying steady in attempting to win back my wife. I do not feel much personal desire to do so in many ways, but I believe internally it's the right thing to do still--at this point. Others, however, have relayed that--as Paul states--I am to "let her go, because God is of peace." I am not sure whether she's a believer or not. For certain, ascribing the Matt 18:17 criteria, she is to be treated as an unbeliever.

Edited August 27, 2009 by BigBert

[sheya joie]

Rom 7:2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth . . .

Need clarification on this. So, in other words, if a woman divorces her husband due to his infidelity and remarries another man, she is committing adultery?

I'm not sure if women in that time period had the right to divorce their husbands. Also, if the husband was found to be committing adultery back then, wouldn't he have been executed for it? (Solves the wife's problem - no more philandering spouse, and now she's a widow and free to remarry!)

[sheya joie]

And if you recall in another part of the OT, I believe God demanded followers to divorce those who He requested not marry, those of foreign nations (the passage escapes me currently).

This would be the final chapters of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah.

[~Shalhevet~]

Jesus has already told us the way to heaven is narrow, and the broad way ( the way of the world ) leads to hell. All sin robs kills and destroys, and it is only after following bad advice from my peers and the many pastors i sought counsel from, and much grief and unecessary struggle, that i now see where the errors lie.

I have looked at all the arguements and have had 20 yrs of being personally affected, and watching the results of modern church error about divorce and remarriage, to make keeping silent morally wrong and sin for me, according to Ezk 33:6.

ASC i think you see from Rom 7:2+3 that its clear that divorce while a spouse is living is always adultery?

Jesus himself said He had not come to do away with one jot of the law. He fulfiilled the law, not by reducing or altering it, but by obeying it fully and coorecting the errors that people had.

One of these errors was that Moses gave allowance to divorce, but Jesus quotes genesis and refutes all divorce as from a hard heart, reiterating that "What God has joined let no man seperate". This then is the context of the clear instruction in the 4 gospels that all remarriage is adultery.(unless the marriage was unlawful in the first place, i.e incest or adulterous)

I agree with this. Maybe you could copy and paste what you said here and put it in this thread: http://www.worthychristianforums.com/churc...html&st=120

I do not, however, agree with the polygamy part though. Just out of curiosity, what denomination are you?

[JCISGD]

sorry ASC i dont know how to copy and paste, but your welcome to if you want.

I have been in pentecostal churches such as AOG, Apostolic, and Elim, but also rub shoulders with conseervative christians here in NZ.

Im not 100% convinced about polygamy and would not practice it. It goes against the grain of my cultural upbringing but it is something missionaries are faced with. I just dont see where it is called sin or reproved of in those living in OT times. The fact that a man must be of one wife to be in church leadership, does by default admit that polygamist were being admitted into the church without having to put away their other wives.

It would be sin to practice it where it is illegal in that country, and very imprudent after becoming a christian at the least.

[BigBert]

And if you recall in another part of the OT, I believe God demanded followers to divorce those who He requested not marry, those of foreign nations (the passage escapes me currently).

This would be the final chapters of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah.

Thanks, Sheya.

[Guest Butero]

All Don Francisco is doing is twisting scripture to justify sin. It is never God's will that any divorce take place. He does allow it in the case of fornication, but even that is not his best. As for God spiritually putting away Israel, the nation was guilty of committing spiritual fornication on God. Even so, God hasn't given up on the Jewish people, and they will one day be restored to him. Even in the case of separation among believers, God's will is that they work things out and reconcile. This entire teaching is wrong, and if this is any example of Don Francisco's ministry, I am not impressed.

[JCISGD]

JC, I appreciate your response. I will also consider it.

Naturally, I'm going to question or even disagree with certain aspects. You stated clearly based on scripture that those who remain married to someone in a manner that creates adultery are hell bound.

This, at least to me, would still have been the case for David. And if you recall in another part of the OT, I believe God demanded followers to divorce those who He requested not marry, those of foreign nations (the passage escapes me currently). Either way, David staying married to someone who God would consider a wrongful marriage and adulterous seems contradictory with the hard line position you stated earlier regarding staying married to someone in that state. According to your earlier comments, there are no exceptions. If God has made one for David (and not saying He hasn't), does not that bring up the possibility that adultery (according to your definition) is not always an eternally damning sin?

I also question your assessment that Moses was outright wrong in his divorce allowances, but rather believe it was the hard hearted men who used his precepts as an excuse to divorce "for any cause" who were wrong. If we start trying to determine where Moses was wrong, that can open up the proverbial can of worms, wondering where and when elsewhere Moses may have been "wrong." We are to suppose that he was inspired by God in such matters, aren't we? Or was that just the ten commandments?

As this leads to the passages of Jesus on divorce, there is further question, since the Greek word attributed to His statements would be translated "putting away" (of a woman without giving her a legitimate certificate of divorce), rather than a legal divorce. In light of the context of the times and men's tendency to often put a woman away without the dignity of divorce, it would have been far more clear had He simply used the word for legitimate divorce when speaking against the action.

Here is something I found in an amazon book review that discusses the different meaning of the two words related to putting away and actual divorce:

"Luke 16:18, Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery. The New Testament word translated "put away" is a form of the Greek word, apoluo. It is the Greek word apostasion which is the technical term for a bill or writing of divorce as far back as 258 BC. Again, many, who are hard-hearted, and don't believe in the rights of both spouses, use these two terms as synonyms. The distinction between "put away" and "divorce" between these Greek words is critical. Apoluo dismissed the woman, but left her married, put away, with no rights, no recourse, and deprived of the basic right to monogamous marriage. Apostasion ended marriage and permitted a legal subsequent marriage.

In 1611, the KJV inconsistently translated apoluo in Matt. 5:31-32,"...and marrieth her that is divorced committeth adultery. In the New Testament, forms of apoluo appear 69 times but only in this one instance, (in KJV) is it translated divorce. If it had been translated in harmony with the rest of the KJV, it would say, "And whosoever shall marry her who has been put away (or abandoned or dismissed, etc.) committeth adultery."

The Holy Bible from the Ancient Eastern Text, Matt. 5:32b reads, "And whosoever marries a woman who is separated, but not divorced, commits adultery." Luke 16:18b reads, "He who marries the one who is illegally separated commits adultery." This translation highlights the misunderstanding made possible by that inconsistent KJV translation of Matt. 5:32.

The translation error was corrected in the American Standard Version of the Bible, 1901. Imagine overcoming 270 years of reading "divorced". that 1611 KJV mistranslation in this one instance has so dominated our thinking that virtually all modern translations say "divorced," not just in that one place, but in ALL 11 places. They completely ignore the correction provided by the 1901 American Standard Version, and ignore the distinction between the two words."

___________________________________

Having noted these things, I still tend to agree with you regarding staying steady in attempting to win back my wife. I do not feel much personal desire to do so in many ways, but I believe internally it's the right thing to do still--at this point. Others, however, have relayed that--as Paul states--I am to "let her go, because God is of peace." I am not sure whether she's a believer or not. For certain, ascribing the Matt 18:17 criteria, she is to be treated as an unbeliever.

BB, please be assured i take no offence at reasonable disagreement by anyone, nor do i put myself out there as having any authority over anyone or about this or any topic. I am pleased to lay out my case and let the truth stand on its own legs.

you have raised reasonable objections, which i believe can be answered and accounted for. Im a slow typer, which accounts for the apparent bluntness of my posts, and i honestly believe that the gospel is black and white about our its doctrines.It is only Satan and the false gospel that brings confusion.

King David had Uzziah killed to have his wife, and although a despicable thing to do, imo it was a panicked response and David knew he was guilty of adultery only if Bathsheba`s had a living husband, Rom 7:2+3 Shows David was no longer in adultery. IMO Gods chastening of David did infact bring true repentance, without which he surely would be in hell right now. God can only forgive upon genuine repentance and not the worldly sorrow of being caught out.

I too struggled with Ezra making them put away their foreign wives even with children, but then i realised they were illegal marriages as God had expressly forbade them to marry such. Israel was to be a nation like a light on the hill to lead all the other nations to Christ, and to do that God need to seperate them from the ways of others as a perculiar people, such that the other nations would see that their gods were but false idols and Israels God was the only God.

The fact that it says Moses gave them divorce, points to it being a choice made without Gods instruction and in keeping with Moses authority and charge to make laws in keeping with the social needs of those under him.

IMO Mose gave them concession to divorce due to the hard and calous nature of men in those times who would treat their wives extra harshly if they had to stay with them. We who live under the gospel light are held to a much higher standard, and IMO it is tempting God to use their standard as excuse to do that which we see as wrong.

I think your point about marrying her that is "put away" commits adulery, does not line up with the context of what Jesus was addressing. The Jews sought to trap Him by asking if it was lawful to divorce their wives if they had reason (" for any reason"), and Jesus` answer was in essence saying that the only reason was if there had been "Porneia"(fornication) before the marriage ceremony/consumation, or was a unlawful marriage such as incest which is also fornication.

The Jewish betrothal of 2 yrs was considered binding unless there was deciet/uncleaness during that time leading up to the consumation, that is if the women said she was a virgin the man had a right to expect she be one.

Joseph was going to "put away" Mary privately to protect her, but IMO it would still have been witnessed and a legal paper so that Mary could marry another who was willing to have her. It would not have been adultery for her or joseph to remmary because it was considered Porneia/fornication. Keeping in mind women were often treated as chattels and not always married for sexual intimacy, and often just extra workers unable to be bought back like a slave could be.

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

My heart goes out to you in your trial, i agree she is an unbeliever as Christ in her would not do what she is doing. We have to ask if Paul was giving allowance for divorce, why does he quote the law in Rom 7:2+3 as a irrefutable fact known to all.

Paul cannot be taken to contradicting Jesus, it must be that we have misread his intentions.

I wish i were wrong and i am ready always to be shown a more excellent way, but i have come from the other side of the tracks, having weighed up the mountains of arguement and having paid a heavy price for listening to man over that of the witness of the Holy Spirit.

I do not judge any who are remmarried but i cannot be silent of my conviction that the Word of God calls it adultery of which none who are "adulterers will enter into heaven". I treat all equally and with respect, for whatever i do to the least i do to Jesus himself.