Remarriage after divorce

[faith pleases God]

 

Thank you. I feel like my words were misunderstood even after I clearly explained that a slave/wife is different.

I was explaining that if a slave cannot leave their master for abuse... then how much more can a spouse not leave the other for abuse. I have re explained that multiple times over. The point is a good and valid point. It uses a lesser position as an example for remaining. How much more should one flesh remain? The Word only gives 2 reasons for divorce and remarriage. These are being ignored and being added to.

I can't help but think some may just want to justify this obvious sin, or the sins of others who remarry without the Lord's blessing. Because no scripture has been given to violate what Christ said regarding remarriage and divorce.

 

No worries. Hopefully it is understood. Of course as I said I disagree with your conclusion because of the other factors that I don't feel you have considered in that scenario.

 

There have been some scriptures given that could suggest otherwise although are not clear. However your position still relies on assuming the debate over put away vs divorce has been resolved. I have raised that several times and only one person has responded to it. There is what I believe to be credible evidence that word was wrongly translated as divorce and instead should have been put away which was a practice where a man would basically ignore his wife and refuse to give her a certificate of divorcement which means she could not go back to her parents and would not be having her needs met as the husband is required while the husband goes and gets himself a new wife.

 

It is interesting also that Jesus says there is only one reason for divorce but as you say there are two reasons given. So is Jesus wrong? Or is Paul wrong? The very act of Paul giving another reason contradicts what Jesus said.  Jesus said except for this ONE reason. I myself find myself in the category Paul mentioned. Mind you I have no desire to remarry because a part of me will always love my ex wife. Also since things did not work out when I discussed things and compromised on some things (not important things and not my beliefs) then next time I would approach marriage with a my way or the highway approach which simply would not work so no point in trying. Of course legally I am not divorced because I have no desire to be the one to fork out the court fees to process the paperwork. If she wants to remarry then she can pay for that. So I can't actually remarry even if I wanted to!

 

Don't divorce, period! If you divorce her...don't remarry. If she divorces you and commits adultery, remarry. But either way/ There aren't 3 reasons or more given for divorce and remarriage. Abuse which can be interpreted as almost anything is not a reason for divorce and redoing it, right? A home wrecked nation on redos is a mess, do you agree?

[faith pleases God]

 

 

No Golden Eagle he did not. Sure it looked that way but then he made the post saying he did not mean they were the same. To then claim they are is accusing them of lying. Is that really what you want to do? 

Slaves and masters are not one flesh but the slave can not leave if being abused.

husband and wife are on flesh.

Faith Pleases God is of the opinion that if two people who are not one flesh must stay together in the case of abuse then surely two people who do become one flesh should stay together.

That is not saying they are the same or similar. As I already said I disagree as I think he ignores certain other factors but still is not comparing them as being the same or similar.

 

 

 

another poster:

 

regarding your response to GE....faith used the same illustration several times and I asked him why he would do that when scripture provides ample information on the

actual marriage relationship

 

faith answered that even if a slave is abused, he is still the slave of his/her master and the wife is still married even if she is abused

 

So, to say that he was misrepresented and for him to jump on board and say thank you for 'sticking up for him'  is kind of disingenuous IMO

 

faith explained his position regarding comparing slaves to wives more then once, so let's keep this real

 

 

 

I was explaining that if a slave cannot leave their master for abuse... then how much more can a spouse not leave the other for abuse. I have re explained that multiple times over. The point is a good and valid point

 

 

yes, you did and again, why would you make that comparison?  It is NOT scriptural and you are making a comparison that objectifies women and actually

puts men in a pretty bad light too

 

Remember, we are discussing Christian marriage....Christian men have a responsibility towards Christ FIRST...and then everything else falls into line

 

If a Christian man is not submitting to Christ, he can certainly become very self righteous but there is no room for that in either a marriage or the body of Christ

 

I would have thought we were pa

Forget the slave example, for your sake, bad example. However, scripture does not give "abuse" or other reasons as justifications, right? If so, where?

[Warrior777]

Most English versions still mistranslate the verse http://biblehub.com/malachi/2-16.htm

 ““For I hate divorce, says the Lord, the God of Israel”

 

What do ancient translations say?

1. Septuagint (LXX)

a. aABQV: “But if, having hated, you divorce …” ἀλλὰ ἐὰν μισήσας ἐξαποστείλῃς

b. L: “But if having hated, divorce!” …” ἀλλὰ ἐὰν μισήσας ἐξαπόστειλον

c. W: “But if you hate, divorce!” ἀλλὰ ἐὰν μισήσῃς ἐξαπόστειλον

2. Targum: “But if you hate her, divorce her, says the Lord God of Israel, and do not conceal sin in your garment”

3. Qumran: 4QXIIa can be translated either “But if you hate (her), divorce” or “If hating her, he divorces” but the former is more likely. (NAC, 363)

4. Vulgate: “When/if you hate her, put her away” cum odio habueris, dimitte.

 

Not one ancient translation of Malachi 2:16 directly reflects the Hebrew text as we have it preserved in any of our new translations, and none of the ancient translations translate it  as “I hate divorce” or as the KJV, “the Lord … saith that he hateth putting away.”

 

Once you’ve observed the difficulty with the text as the original text is choppy…and viewing ancient translations on the matter…Malachi 2:14‐16 teaches us that God regards wrongful divorce as a sin of treachery against one’s wife and against Himself. God doesn’t hate divorce if it’s done for the right reasons like abuse or adultery.

 

Think about it when abuse is in a marriage….there’s no righteousness left, there’s no blessing from God is there?….Its better for you if you hate your husband or wife to rather just divorce.

 

 

 Thanks for the word study.

 

The reason for abuse is not given in the NT though. Jesus gives the only rule for divorce to be allowed and that is due to adultery.

 

The same point I would make in the case of the Samaritan woman:

 

 

Moses laws have not been done away with. You must remember that before divorce was effectively regulated by Moses, the Israelites would divorce for any reason and in effect abuse this type of system. Yeshua was reaffirming the laws of Moses concerning of issuing a divorce certificate.

 

 

Well Moses law is still "there", but we are not under it, especially in the case of divorce, Jesus did change it, when He said that the letter of divorce can only be given in case of adultery, not like Moses who allowed the letter to be given for other reasons. The actual "rule" before that, was Jesus mentioning the original intent for marriage to be lifelong.

 

 

 

She has been defiled in the remarriage because there was no ground for the divorce in the first place. Illegitimate divorce proliferates adultery. Further returning to her first husband after an intervening marriage might have placed the woman in the same position as an unfaithful wife.

 

 

Well back then one could marry another divorced woman, if I understand this correctly, who also was divorced through a letter of divorce by her husband for other reasons than adultery. So this should be the same then as one's own wife coming back to her first husband after she had remarried? Even if she was an unfaithful wife, one still could take her back through forgiveness? I just still don't see the harder case for remarrying the ex-wife again, than marrying another one's ex-wife. Just not clear to me, I thought maybe God gave a reason for it somewhere in scripture why this is treated as such ( or maybe by principle of another deeper issue?).

 

 

Does this mean that the sexual union alone, let's say before a second marriage, but after the first one would not be considered adultery then which would break the first covenant with the first husband?

 

No because the wife is now legally divorced, Deuteronomy 24:1-4 protects her…it is not in the best interest to have a sexual union before the second marriage however she is not committing adultery as she is legally divorced from the first husband.

 

If there was a divorce for another reason than adultery and one spouse had left to marry another, is that still considered adultery then against the first spouse,

 

 

It depends what the reason was for the divorce. Remember one thing if its a wrongful divorce.... it constitutes adultery ..... if its for the right reason like domestic Abuse, how could it constitute adultery? the laws of Moses on divorce and remarriage was constituted to combat lustful affairs.....If the wife divorces a husband from abuse....and no reconciliation is attainable ....and she remarries THERE IS NO ADULTERY

 

The divorce is based on legal grounds she is protected by Deut 24:1-4

 

I believe this is the answer you've been searching for.

 

 

Not really, since what you are saying then would contradict Jesus who mentioned ONLY adultery as a reason - NOT abuse. Further the abuse issue is a very vague one at best. Like I had stated before in a post, almost anything can be used to describe abuse that is not done just so in a loving way that it should be. There is all kinds of abuse and having a verbal agreement can already be seen as some kind of emotional, verbal abuse.

Then anybody could find any reason to get rid of their spouse, if they just don't want to be married anymore.

She cannot be legally divorced when Jesus says that if she divorces her husband for any other reason than adultery, she is committing adultery (if she remarries). And then goes on to say that who marries her also commits adultery.

So unless she is not remarrying, she can be reconciled to her husband, after she marries again, she can't. So if she divorces and no adultery was committed (yet), then goes to marry another, then she commits adultery, otherwise it would not make any sense.

So now my question again was about the adultery after the first marriage (and I would then also count sexual relations in an yet unmarried but prior divorced state as adultery in this case, since there seems to be still somewhat of a covenant between her and her husband otherwise how could it be adultery to remarry, if there wasn't?). This adultery, after the first marriage, does this now release the first husband from the covenant so that he can legally remarry? That was my question.

Deut 24 only talks about giving a letter of divorce, because the husband found some unclean issue (does this now always imply adultery?), nothing about abuse either...

Deut 24 doesn't protect the wife (nor a future husband!) under what Jesus said , if she committed adultery (uncleanness found in her!?) then she is not to remarry at all according to Jesus - not Moses.

[Warrior777]

 

Thank you. I feel like my words were misunderstood even after I clearly explained that a slave/wife is different.

I was explaining that if a slave cannot leave their master for abuse... then how much more can a spouse not leave the other for abuse. I have re explained that multiple times over. The point is a good and valid point. It uses a lesser position as an example for remaining. How much more should one flesh remain? The Word only gives 2 reasons for divorce and remarriage. These are being ignored and being added to.

I can't help but think some may just want to justify this obvious sin, or the sins of others who remarry without the Lord's blessing. Because no scripture has been given to violate what Christ said regarding remarriage and divorce.

 

No worries. Hopefully it is understood. Of course as I said I disagree with your conclusion because of the other factors that I don't feel you have considered in that scenario.

 

There have been some scriptures given that could suggest otherwise although are not clear. However your position still relies on assuming the debate over put away vs divorce has been resolved. I have raised that several times and only one person has responded to it. There is what I believe to be credible evidence that word was wrongly translated as divorce and instead should have been put away which was a practice where a man would basically ignore his wife and refuse to give her a certificate of divorcement which means she could not go back to her parents and would not be having her needs met as the husband is required while the husband goes and gets himself a new wife.

 

It is interesting also that Jesus says there is only one reason for divorce but as you say there are two reasons given. So is Jesus wrong? Or is Paul wrong? The very act of Paul giving another reason contradicts what Jesus said.  Jesus said except for this ONE reason. I myself find myself in the category Paul mentioned. Mind you I have no desire to remarry because a part of me will always love my ex wife. Also since things did not work out when I discussed things and compromised on some things (not important things and not my beliefs) then next time I would approach marriage with a my way or the highway approach which simply would not work so no point in trying. Of course legally I am not divorced because I have no desire to be the one to fork out the court fees to process the paperwork. If she wants to remarry then she can pay for that. So I can't actually remarry even if I wanted to!

 

 

I am sorry to hear about your situation, this definitely cannot be easy, but can there be a reconciliation in time, does she believe in Jesus at all? There are many testimonies, where there was a separation even after many years and the couples had a great marriage afterwards. One of my friends had a divorce and both stayed single for several years. Each one God worked on in the time they were separated. Then they had a reconciliation and some deliverance and worked things out, then remarried and now have a very good marriage.

 

Well Paul actually doesn't give a reason for divorce, it's more a reason one would not be bound anymore to their spouse, if they left, being an unbeliever and divorce the believer. The believer is NOT to divorce the unbeliever as long as they stay with them. There is already a spiritual covenant issue (like spiritual adultery) if you want to see it like that.

[Warrior777]

 

 

 

No Golden Eagle he did not. Sure it looked that way but then he made the post saying he did not mean they were the same. To then claim they are is accusing them of lying. Is that really what you want to do? 

Slaves and masters are not one flesh but the slave can not leave if being abused.

husband and wife are on flesh.

Faith Pleases God is of the opinion that if two people who are not one flesh must stay together in the case of abuse then surely two people who do become one flesh should stay together.

That is not saying they are the same or similar. As I already said I disagree as I think he ignores certain other factors but still is not comparing them as being the same or similar.

 

 

 

another poster:

 

regarding your response to GE....faith used the same illustration several times and I asked him why he would do that when scripture provides ample information on the

actual marriage relationship

 

faith answered that even if a slave is abused, he is still the slave of his/her master and the wife is still married even if she is abused

 

So, to say that he was misrepresented and for him to jump on board and say thank you for 'sticking up for him'  is kind of disingenuous IMO

 

faith explained his position regarding comparing slaves to wives more then once, so let's keep this real

 

 

 

I was explaining that if a slave cannot leave their master for abuse... then how much more can a spouse not leave the other for abuse. I have re explained that multiple times over. The point is a good and valid point

 

 

yes, you did and again, why would you make that comparison?  It is NOT scriptural and you are making a comparison that objectifies women and actually

puts men in a pretty bad light too

 

Remember, we are discussing Christian marriage....Christian men have a responsibility towards Christ FIRST...and then everything else falls into line

 

If a Christian man is not submitting to Christ, he can certainly become very self righteous but there is no room for that in either a marriage or the body of Christ

 

I would have thought we were pa

Forget the slave example, for your sake, bad example. However, scripture does not give "abuse" or other reasons as justifications, right? If so, where?

 

 

Actually I thought it wasn't that bad of an example myself.

 

To anyone who is taking offense by this:

 

Faith pleases God was taking two examples and comparing them in principle and NOT in content. It is biblical to do that.

Jesus is doing that all the time:

 

Luke 14:26

“If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.

 

Now Jesus is not saying to hate your family, since that would directly contradict anything else He said about it. This is not hate in context of the content of this scripture, it is a comparison to the love we should have for Him that makes everything else seem as "hate" or to love less.

The same way a woman and a slave or husband and master are not directly compared but there is a relation in principle of endurance. If this one is to endure, not being one in flesh, how much more should the other one, that is - so: if you love your family like that that, who are NOT God, how much more should you love Jesus, which actually means one should follow Him and do His will and nobody else's, not even your family.

 

Also Jesus is using these kind of principle comparisons in pretty much all of the parables. He compares us to sheep! Now that's not even in the same category of species! If stupid sheep can even follow their master, how much more so should we. Now why is no one offended by that?

 

That's at least how I understood it and "faith pleases God" can correct me if I am wrong.

[lmab]

That was the question I was going to ask GE.  Because I believe that Jesus made it pretty clear that anyone who looks at someone else with lustful eyes is committing adultry.  And we also know that adultry = idolatry in God's eyes.  Now I may be wrong but I feel that if one spouse abuses his/her spouse than they have commiteed adultry by betraying their vows, that they have exchanged their love for their spouse for their love of violence, power or whatever else is driving them.

 

Sorry I thought that I was the poster right after Golden Eagles remark.  This is what he said: 

I have followed this thread with interest.

I'd like to ask a question if I may: What if a Christian divorces an abusive spouse who also claim to be a "Christian"?

God bless,

GE

 

Sorry about the mix up.  It is late and now I haven't read the entire thread because I thought GE's was the last one.     Just too tired right now to make sense I guess.     Night all.

Edited September 30, 2014 by lmab

[Fez]

I don't serve a God who would approve of a battered wife waiting all day for her husband to come home so that she can be battered again.

 

And again

 

And again

 

And again

[faith pleases God]

 

 

 

 

No Golden Eagle he did not. Sure it looked that way but then he made the post saying he did not mean they were the same. To then claim they are is accusing them of lying. Is that really what you want to do? 

Slaves and masters are not one flesh but the slave can not leave if being abused.

husband and wife are on flesh.

Faith Pleases God is of the opinion that if two people who are not one flesh must stay together in the case of abuse then surely two people who do become one flesh should stay together.

That is not saying they are the same or similar. As I already said I disagree as I think he ignores certain other factors but still is not comparing them as being the same or similar.

 

 

 

another poster:

 

regarding your response to GE....faith used the same illustration several times and I asked him why he would do that when scripture provides ample information on the

actual marriage relationship

 

faith answered that even if a slave is abused, he is still the slave of his/her master and the wife is still married even if she is abused

 

So, to say that he was misrepresented and for him to jump on board and say thank you for 'sticking up for him'  is kind of disingenuous IMO

 

faith explained his position regarding comparing slaves to wives more then once, so let's keep this real

 

 

 

I was explaining that if a slave cannot leave their master for abuse... then how much more can a spouse not leave the other for abuse. I have re explained that multiple times over. The point is a good and valid point

 

 

yes, you did and again, why would you make that comparison?  It is NOT scriptural and you are making a comparison that objectifies women and actually

puts men in a pretty bad light too

 

Remember, we are discussing Christian marriage....Christian men have a responsibility towards Christ FIRST...and then everything else falls into line

 

If a Christian man is not submitting to Christ, he can certainly become very self righteous but there is no room for that in either a marriage or the body of Christ

 

I would have thought we were pa

Forget the slave example, for your sake, bad example. However, scripture does not give "abuse" or other reasons as justifications, right? If so, where?

 

 

Actually I thought it wasn't that bad of an example myself.

 

To anyone who is taking offense by this:

 

Faith pleases God was taking two examples and comparing them in principle and NOT in content. It is biblical to do that.

Jesus is doing that all the time:

 

Luke 14:26

“If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.

 

Now Jesus is not saying to hate your family, since that would directly contradict anything else He said about it. This is not hate in context of the content of this scripture, it is a comparison to the love we should have for Him that makes everything else seem as "hate" or to love less.

The same way a woman and a slave or husband and master are not directly compared but there is a relation in principle of endurance. If this one is to endure, not being one in flesh, how much more should the other one, that is - so: if you love your family like that that, who are NOT God, how much more should you love Jesus, which actually means one should follow Him and do His will and nobody else's, not even your family.

 

Also Jesus is using these kind of principle comparisons in pretty much all of the parables. He compares us to sheep! Now that's not even in the same category of species! If stupid sheep can even follow their master, how much more so should we. Now why is no one offended by that?

 

That's at least how I understood it and "faith pleases God" can correct me if I am wrong.

 

That's exactly what I meant. These are a few good examples of comparisons. You're right, I was by no means calling a spouse (either one) a slave. There was a lot of assuming and reading into something I never intended. The slave/master example goes for the husband and wife alike. The slave is bound to the master, and the spouses to one another. If the slave is not permitted to leave a bad master, then why would a spouse be permitted to leave a "bad" spouse?

I believe we should seek God's will and not our own. This is the reason for false religions and denominations.

[faith pleases God]

I don't serve a God who would approve of a battered wife waiting all day for her husband to come home so that she can be battered again.

 

And again

 

And again

 

And again

No one here was saying God approves of assault and battery. Neither do the courts or police!! We should hate violence, should we also not HATE divorce?

For the sake of Christianity and beings followers of the teachings of Christ we look to the Word for our guidance. So I assume that we look at what Christ says about a particular issue if we have questions. But I have found many seem to lean on their OWN understanding. Seeing their justifications as better than what Christ has said and taught. This is mind blowing to me! Everyone is doing what is right in their own eyes.

Everyone can choose anything obviously, but everyone is getting divorced for any reason and it is a major problem. To veer from the Lord's word is a slippery slope. No?

It is destroying our culture and society. The very fabric is ripping apart at the seems. We are a confused, ungodly mess! It is getting far worse and not getting better. If we can't even keep our families together and overcome, forgive, repent, and love, with grace, mercy, and hope. What chance does this wicked nation have?

Why are so few defending marriage but quick to justify unholy, unbiblical, and unpermissed divorced? Especially Christians? Especially redoing it? Which is not permissible by Christ.

[faith pleases God]

That was the question I was going to ask GE.  Because I believe that Jesus made it pretty clear that anyone who looks at someone else with lustful eyes is committing adultry.  And we also know that adultry = idolatry in God's eyes.  Now I may be wrong but I feel that if one spouse abuses his/her spouse than they have commiteed adultry by betraying their vows, that they have exchanged their love for their spouse for their love of violence, power or whatever else is driving them.

 

Sorry I thought that I was the poster right after Golden Eagles remark.  This is what he said: 

I have followed this thread with interest.

I'd like to ask a question if I may: What if a Christian divorces an abusive spouse who also claim to be a "Christian"?

God bless,

GE

 

Sorry about the mix up.  It is late and now I haven't read the entire thread because I thought GE's was the last one.     Just too tired right now to make sense I guess.     Night all.

With this logic...What if one thinks about and looks upon abusing their spouse...Is this adultery and a reason to divorce?