Remarriage after divorce

[another_poster]

There are a lot of things I could say about your post InChrist.  Before I do respond, I do acknowledge that you did provide an actual marriage certificate that said the things you mentioned.  I will accept that as evidence that people entered into that agreement, just as people today enter into a marriage and make vows, like the ones I did to forsake all others, for better or worse, till death do us part.  I don't have any of the things you mentioned on my marriage license and I never made vows that said anything close to that.  I don't know anyone that ever did.  Even so, I will acknowledge some did.  That being said, I am not dealing with an Old Testament understanding of divorce and re-marriage.  I am going by the New Testament and what Jesus taught.  He never gave lack of love and material support as grounds for divorce and re-marriage, and that is what I am going by.  I am not going by an old marriage certificate found among the dead sea scrolls.  Even if someone did make those promises, there is nothing that states that if you did break those promises, it is ok to divorce and re-marry.  I could break all of my marriage vows, with the one exception of committing adultery, and there is no grounds for divorce and re-marriage.  You see, breaking your marriage vows is not given as a grounds for divorce, only fornication is, so in reality, that argument is irrelevant.  

This is a problem with you when you want to discuss scripture. You couldn't care less about context. Several times sexual immorality is mentioned in the gospels. What is sexual immorality? If we go by cases in the gospels then all we can definitely say is sexual immorality is sexual immorality. We can put adultery in there but not much else. However since Jesus was talking to the Jews then to understand what was meant by sexual immorality we need to look at the comprehensive definitions given in the OT. That is a basic fundamental part of context. I don't get why you don't care about it. I come to that conclusion from the several times you have said you don't care about OT. You have several times mentioned the bible as being God's word but you seem happy to ignore a large part of it. I just don't get it.

[another_poster]

I can declare that and I do declare it pertaining to that particular passage or verse of scripture which said,...

1 Matthew 5:32 - 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.

In that verse of scripture the meaning is obvious as it is speaking directly to the physical "act" of sexual immorality outside of the bond of marriage and the marriage bed. It is not speaking of spiritual adultery within that verse. But rather speaking of taking your physical body and literally having sex with another person while joined and married to another person. Please note I am only speaking concerning the meaning of the word in this particular verse and it's meaning is not spiritual adultery but it's meaning is a literal physical act. I am not addressing any of the other scriptural references that have been discussed within the thread thus far. Not that I want but I haven't thus far.

Right so you are declaring that God (through Jesus the Son) said that ONLY adultery is acceptable reason for divorce. Yet we see in 1 Corinthians 7 a different reason being made acceptable. We also see spiritual divorce as being acceptable to divorce by the fact that God did it. So perhaps we should not be so quick to declare it clear cut and easy to understand. 

 

 

No it is what is in your heart that is evil (wrong) and then you act outwardly and commit the evil or wrong sinful act you was lusting after or wanting within your heart. Nowhere have I ever read personally in the scriptures where the lust of our flesh are "good or right lusts". But instead they are always "evil or wrong sinful lusts" of our hearts. I have found in scripture that the fruit of the spirit is something we bear as we walk in the Spirit and the fruit of the Spirit are "not lusts" of the Spirit. So I do disagree because if you are following the Spirit you are not walking in the lust of your flesh because you are doing what is right in the eyes of the Lord shunning the wrong and doing the right which is the counsel of God and the wisdom of God.

 

Correct you have not read it because as I said translators changed wording to make things unclear. When I look at what the church has taught in the past as to what lusting means I see such heartache and guilt as people fall short of the false expectations. 

 

Again I was speaking to the direct meaning of the word in that particular verse and not any other scripture when I addressed you and in that verse it is clear that it was speaking about the physical bodily act of having sex with someone other than your spouse. Now pay close attention here so there is no misunderstanding on my part. I have never said that there isn't such a thing as spiritual adultery. Spiritual adultery is better known as "idolatry" or whoring around with other gods except for the one and true living God. Because there is such a thing as spiritual adultery and it is rampant. And when the scriptures that are in question or being discussed are specifically addressing spiritual adultery or idolatry. Then I will address it as such and not strech it out to mean in those passages to also be a physical sexual act with another person other than your spouse. They are two different things and have to be addressed as such.

 

So you once again confirm that only sexual adultery is what allows divorce so when divorce occours for spiritual adultery then it must be wrong. Therefore God sinned according to you. 

 

Now I think it is not me that needs to explain why it was okay for Jesus to lust but you. Because I do not believe that Jesus lusted after evil or wrong things. Sin did not lurk in his heart He was God in the flesh he was pure in heart and did the will of the Father as he said not my will but thine will be done agognizing in prayer in the garden of Gethsemane before he went to the cross. However He was in all points tempted just like we are yet "without" sin. Jesus was sinless and spotless neither was guile found in His mouth. So I will not respond to the scripture you mentioned in Matthew 5:28 giving you a chance to explain and respond first.

 

I cannot and I don't see for the life of me in how you are linking these things together like you are. Especially in light of the "feelings" of Jesus concering the passover as being "lusts". Just like or being the same as the sin of adultery. Which lurks in the darkness of a person heart. So I think you need to explain not me. I mean what was the "lust" suppose to be within the heart of Jesus?

 

If you look at what I said then lusting itself is not the sin but rather what you lust after determines if it is right or wrong. The lusting Jesus had was not wrong. It was not a sin unless we accept what we are being taught. However the words in the original language in the two passages are the same. At least it helps in understanding what lust is and isn't. In one place they translate it as lust and in another they translate it as earnestly desire. What the motivations of the original translators was in putting different meanings is not clear. It has however resulted in the church in general putting so many men into bondage that they can not escape from. Lusting involves a earnest desire. In Jesus case he earnestly desired to share the passover with his disciples and that is not sinful. When talking in Matt 5 then clearly it is sinful because it is talking about earnestly desiring to possess a woman that is not your wife and therefore wrong as that is adultery. Jesus wasn't changing the law but rather just explaining the existing law. If lusting is sinful no matter what then Jesus lusting to share the passover with the disciples which is a good thing is sinful in your view. I don't believe Jesus sinned however that is the only conclusion one can arrive at with your interpretation.

 

Can you provide me with the scripture concerning adultery that you are specifically referring too which actually uses the word "ONLY" reason for divorce within it? So that I may look at it within it's context.

 

This is just a silly question to be honest. The word only does not need to be there as long as there are words that mean the same thing. When we read Matthew 5 it is clear the words there do mean only.

[Qnts2]

Sorry guys, I am trying to read some of your answers and still want to get back to some of you, but we had a death today in our immediate family and I am just having a hard time concentrating here right now. I will come back to this thread at a later time, maybe a few days, and will try to weed my way through all of this. Please keep responding, especially if you see anything else that maybe we missed (mostly in regards to the remarriage issue itself), but make sure it follows and is in line with all scripture and principle of interpretation. Thanks, God bless...

I am so sorry to hear about the passing of a family member. May the Lord grant you comfort and peace as you mourn the passing.

[Qnts2]

 

I can declare that and I do declare it pertaining to that particular passage or verse of scripture which said,...

1 Matthew 5:32 - 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.

In that verse of scripture the meaning is obvious as it is speaking directly to the physical "act" of sexual immorality outside of the bond of marriage and the marriage bed. It is not speaking of spiritual adultery within that verse. But rather speaking of taking your physical body and literally having sex with another person while joined and married to another person. Please note I am only speaking concerning the meaning of the word in this particular verse and it's meaning is not spiritual adultery but it's meaning is a literal physical act. I am not addressing any of the other scriptural references that have been discussed within the thread thus far. Not that I want but I haven't thus far.

Right so you are declaring that God (through Jesus the Son) said that ONLY adultery is acceptable reason for divorce. Yet we see in 1 Corinthians 7 a different reason being made acceptable. We also see spiritual divorce as being acceptable to divorce by the fact that God did it. So perhaps we should not be so quick to declare it clear cut and easy to understand. 

 

 

No it is what is in your heart that is evil (wrong) and then you act outwardly and commit the evil or wrong sinful act you was lusting after or wanting within your heart. Nowhere have I ever read personally in the scriptures where the lust of our flesh are "good or right lusts". But instead they are always "evil or wrong sinful lusts" of our hearts. I have found in scripture that the fruit of the spirit is something we bear as we walk in the Spirit and the fruit of the Spirit are "not lusts" of the Spirit. So I do disagree because if you are following the Spirit you are not walking in the lust of your flesh because you are doing what is right in the eyes of the Lord shunning the wrong and doing the right which is the counsel of God and the wisdom of God.

 

Correct you have not read it because as I said translators changed wording to make things unclear. When I look at what the church has taught in the past as to what lusting means I see such heartache and guilt as people fall short of the false expectations. 

 

Again I was speaking to the direct meaning of the word in that particular verse and not any other scripture when I addressed you and in that verse it is clear that it was speaking about the physical bodily act of having sex with someone other than your spouse. Now pay close attention here so there is no misunderstanding on my part. I have never said that there isn't such a thing as spiritual adultery. Spiritual adultery is better known as "idolatry" or whoring around with other gods except for the one and true living God. Because there is such a thing as spiritual adultery and it is rampant. And when the scriptures that are in question or being discussed are specifically addressing spiritual adultery or idolatry. Then I will address it as such and not strech it out to mean in those passages to also be a physical sexual act with another person other than your spouse. They are two different things and have to be addressed as such.

 

So you once again confirm that only sexual adultery is what allows divorce so when divorce occours for spiritual adultery then it must be wrong. Therefore God sinned according to you. 

 

Now I think it is not me that needs to explain why it was okay for Jesus to lust but you. Because I do not believe that Jesus lusted after evil or wrong things. Sin did not lurk in his heart He was God in the flesh he was pure in heart and did the will of the Father as he said not my will but thine will be done agognizing in prayer in the garden of Gethsemane before he went to the cross. However He was in all points tempted just like we are yet "without" sin. Jesus was sinless and spotless neither was guile found in His mouth. So I will not respond to the scripture you mentioned in Matthew 5:28 giving you a chance to explain and respond first.

 

I cannot and I don't see for the life of me in how you are linking these things together like you are. Especially in light of the "feelings" of Jesus concering the passover as being "lusts". Just like or being the same as the sin of adultery. Which lurks in the darkness of a person heart. So I think you need to explain not me. I mean what was the "lust" suppose to be within the heart of Jesus?

 

If you look at what I said then lusting itself is not the sin but rather what you lust after determines if it is right or wrong. The lusting Jesus had was not wrong. It was not a sin unless we accept what we are being taught. However the words in the original language in the two passages are the same. At least it helps in understanding what lust is and isn't. In one place they translate it as lust and in another they translate it as earnestly desire. What the motivations of the original translators was in putting different meanings is not clear. It has however resulted in the church in general putting so many men into bondage that they can not escape from. Lusting involves a earnest desire. In Jesus case he earnestly desired to share the passover with his disciples and that is not sinful. When talking in Matt 5 then clearly it is sinful because it is talking about earnestly desiring to possess a woman that is not your wife and therefore wrong as that is adultery. Jesus wasn't changing the law but rather just explaining the existing law. If lusting is sinful no matter what then Jesus lusting to share the passover with the disciples which is a good thing is sinful in your view. I don't believe Jesus sinned however that is the only conclusion one can arrive at with your interpretation.

 

Can you provide me with the scripture concerning adultery that you are specifically referring too which actually uses the word "ONLY" reason for divorce within it? So that I may look at it within it's context.

 

This is just a silly question to be honest. The word only does not need to be there as long as there are words that mean the same thing. When we read Matthew 5 it is clear the words there do mean only.

 

 

Just a couple of comments. In Matthew 19, Jesus is talking to Jewish people who are under the Mosaic covenant. So Jesus is expounding or explaining the Mosaic law.

 

⁴ And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’  ⁵ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?  ⁶ So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

⁷ They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?”

⁸ He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. ⁹ And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”

 

In my view the law that Jesus is referring to, due to the hardness of their hearts is the following.

 

Deut 24:1 “When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house,

 

So, simply because the man does not care for the wife, he may give her a certificate of divorce.

 

There is another situation in the OT which causes a divorce. Jewish people were only to marry Jewish people according to the law. At one point, during the Babylonian exhile, Jewish men had married non-Jewish women. This of course was a sin as it was against the law. (Exceptions were made if the non-Jewish wife practiced Judaism as a Jew, she was considered a proselyte or convert). But, a marriage between a Jew and a Gentile who did not practice Judaism was against the Mosaic law. In the book of Ezra, the children of Israel had returned from captivity to rebuild the Temple. Ezra speaks to the children of Israel who had returned concerning their unlawful marriages.

 

Ezra 9:1 When these things were done, the leaders came to me, saying, “The people of Israel and the priests and the Levites have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands, with respect to the abominations of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites. ² For they have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and their sons, so that the holy seed is mixed with the peoples of those lands. Indeed, the hand of the leaders and rulers has been foremost in this trespass.” ³ So when I heard this thing, I tore my garment and my robe, and plucked out some of the hair of my head and beard, and sat down astonished. ⁴ Then everyone who trembled at the words of the God of Israel assembled to me, because of the transgression of those who had been carried away captive, and I sat astonished until the evening sacrifice.

⁵ At the evening sacrifice I arose from my fasting; and having torn my garment and my robe, I fell on my knees and spread out my hands to the Lord my God. ⁶ And I said: “O my God, I am too ashamed and humiliated to lift up my face to You, my God; for our iniquities have risen higher than our heads, and our guilt has grown up to the heavens. ⁷ Since the days of our fathers to this day we have been very guilty, and for our iniquities we, our kings, and our priests have been delivered into the hand of the kings of the lands, to the sword, to captivity, to plunder, and to humiliation, as it is this day. ⁸ And now for a little while grace has been shown from the Lord our God, to leave us a remnant to escape, and to give us a peg in His holy place, that our God may enlighten our eyes and give us a measure of revival in our bondage. ⁹ For we were slaves. Yet our God did not forsake us in our bondage; but He extended mercy to us in the sight of the kings of Persia, to revive us, to repair the house of our God, to rebuild its ruins, and to give us a wall in Judah and Jerusalem. ¹⁰ And now, O our God, what shall we say after this? For we have forsaken Your commandments, ¹¹ which You commanded by Your servants the prophets, saying, ‘The land which you are entering to possess is an unclean land, with the uncleanness of the peoples of the lands, with their abominations which have filled it from one end to another with their impurity. ¹² Now therefore, do not give your daughters as wives for their sons, nor take their daughters to your sons; and never seek their peace or prosperity, that you may be strong and eat the good of the land, and leave it as an inheritance to your children forever.’ ¹³ And after all that has come upon us for our evil deeds and for our great guilt, since You our God have punished us less than our iniquities deserve, and have given us such deliverance as this, ¹⁴ should we again break Your commandments, and join in marriage with the people committing these abominations?

    

So, a marriage can be disolved because of adultery. A marriage which is not a lawful marriage can also be terminated. Jesus in Matthew was speaking of a particular circumstance but that does not mean there are no other circumstances. In the OT, a priest was not to marry a wife who was not a virgin. If they did, then the marriage was not a real marriage. If a couple got married when such a marriage was forbidden, the marriage was unlawful.     

[GoldenEagle]

Is sexual abuse a reason for divorce? If denied sex and abused in this way, should we divorce? this could also be considered mental, emotional, and spiritual abuse. Our bodies are not our own. Is this abuse a cause for divorce?

 

Abuse is not a godly way of dealing with another person. So, I think that a separation in the case of what you ask is in order.

What if an abuser never repents?

God bless,

GE

 

[GoldenEagle]

 

Sorry guys, I am trying to read some of your answers and still want to get back to some of you, but we had a death today in our immediate family and I am just having a hard time concentrating here right now. I will come back to this thread at a later time, maybe a few days, and will try to weed my way through all of this. Please keep responding, especially if you see anything else that maybe we missed (mostly in regards to the remarriage issue itself), but make sure it follows and is in line with all scripture and principle of interpretation. Thanks, God bless...

I am so sorry to hear about the passing of a family member. May the Lord grant you comfort and peace as you mourn the passing.

 

+1

Sorry for your loss Warrior.

[Guest Butero]

I am just going to deal with the main things I feel need to be addressed.  In some instance, we are going around in circles.  When Jesus spoke about divorce and that if a divorce and re-marriage takes place for any other reason than fornication, he was speaking to his disciples in private.  It started with the religious leaders, and then his disciples asked him about it.  He told them that divorce for any other reason besides sexual immorality, followed by re-marriage is considered adultery in the eyes of God.  He didn't have to do away with the original teachings on divorce.  He clarified what "some uncleanness" meant.  It wasn't for any cause. There is no scriptures or evidence that shows that divorce for breaking the marriage vows in itself justifies divorce and re-marriage. 

 

To Another Poster.  I am not ignoring the Old Testament.  I said I am giving more weight to the New Testament.  There is a big difference.  When Jesus clarifies what "some uncleanness" means, I believe him.  I do find this funny, considering all the things people said about the Old Testament teachings on polygamy.  I used the law of Moses to defend the practice, and people claimed Jesus changed this.  It is funny how people conveniently hold to the Old Testament to defend divorce and re-marriage, but not to defend polygamy.  The fact of the matter is, Jesus told the disciples in private how God feels about divorce for any cause other than fornication. 

 

To Golden Eagle.  It depends on what you mean by expecting a wife to obey an abusive husband.  If the husband is ordering his wife to place her hand on a hot iron, or bend over while he beats her, no, I am not saying she has to do that.  If he is ordering her to sin, I am not saying she has to do that.  If on the other hand he is telling her to get his supper on the table, or dress in a certain way, or not associate with a person he doesn't like, or something like that, she should obey him.  The Bible says she is to submit to her husband in everything.  Now, before going any further, I do not condone a husband treating his wife like a slave, and ordering her around all the time.  I am not saying he should tell her she can't talk to her Mother, jump on her if he sees her talking to a man because he is a jealous nut, or anything like that, but she is told to obey him.  She is not responsible for his actions, but hers only.  Ideally, both the husband and wife follow scripture.  That is why it is so important to get to know someone before you marry them. 

 

Is there any Biblical grounds for divorce and re-marriage besides adultery or abandonment on the part of an unbeliever?  No.  All I am reading is a lot of speculation based on extra-Biblical things, and on the assumption that people automatically knew Jesus didn't mean what he said about divorce.  I don't buy that.  Even if those opinions turn out to be correct, there is no way anyone can verify it is true.  It is all trusting in the idea that InChrist is correct in a lot of speculation.  How would I deal with a case of physical abuse?  I would advise the abused person to leave the person for their own safety, assuming this is a serious and continuing case of abuse.  What I mean by that is that it isn't an isolated slap due to something occurring that caused a person to behave completely out of character.  That is based on my personal desire to save this person from harm, not based on any scripture, as the Bible is silent on this matter.  I could never condone divorce and re-marriage based on something like this.  What happens if this person does get a divorce and re-marries?  That is between them and God, but they would do so in spite of the fact the Bible calls it adultery.  I don't condemn them, but they will have to give an account to God for their decisions.  It is up to him to find them innocent of wrong doing or guilty.  I won't go further than scripture, so I won't tell them everything is fine and they are doing nothing wrong.  That would make me a false teacher, and I would have their blood on my hands. 

 

 

[Openly Curious]

inChrist said: 

 

And yet God divorced Israel on the grounds of something that was spiritual....

Hi inChrist, I am assumming here you are speaking about spiritual adultery as being a means for divorce. If so do you have a difinition of what spiritual adultery is ond or what it entail? It would help me when reading your posts.

If anyone else has a difinition of spiritual adultery and what it entails of their own, I would appreciate their input as it will help me in regards to reading in this thread and to their meaning when they are posting I am curious as well. Thank you.

[faith pleases God]

 

Where did Paul say Jesus didn't know what He was talking about?

 

 

In the passage being discussed in 1 corinthians. Since Jesus words according to you made it abundantly clear adultery was the only reason and there is no other then that just does not fit with what Paul says. Either Jesus was right when he said adultery is the only reason and Paul is wrong OR Jesus was wrong and Paul is right or the most logical and likely it isn't as clear cut as people like to think it is.

 

 

 

Is sexual abuse a reason for divorce? If denied sex and abused in this way, should we divorce? this could also be considered mental, emotional, and spiritual abuse. Our bodies are not our own. Is this abuse a cause for divorce?

If it is continuous denial with no justifiable reason then at the very least it could be considered tempting your partner to sin or causing them to stumble. 

 

by justifiable reason I mean things like ill health or injury or away or things like that.

 

Are you a christian?

[faith pleases God]

 

Is sexual abuse a reason for divorce? If denied sex and abused in this way, should we divorce? this could also be considered mental, emotional, and spiritual abuse. Our bodies are not our own. Is this abuse a cause for divorce?

 

Abuse is not a godly way of dealing with another person. So, I think that a separation in the case of what you ask is in order.

What if an abuser never repents?

God bless,

GE

 

 

What if one spouse abuses and neglects the other from sex. Is this grounds for divorce?