Remarriage after divorce

[GoldenEagle]

 

@ Golden Eagle.  I don't understand what the husband beating his wife has to do with her obeying him.  I don't think he is asking her to bend over so he can beat her up so I don't see the logic here.  Lets say he is beating her.  What does that have to do with her obeying him when he tells her to do something?  Yes, she is to obey him.  That being said, we have to deal with the issue of him beating her, and does she have to remain in that situation.  The Bible never says, but as I stated earlier, I would advise her to leave and stay single.  I also stated that this is nothing more than my opinion, and I haven't got a Biblical leg to stand on in telling her that.  I am just trying to keep her from harm.  I can't state that this is the counsel of God or that she is free to re-marry, because I have no scripture to support that. 

 

As far as the Bible translations go, I really thought I was being nice in not going down the KJV only road, in saying I didn't agree with the way your Bible translates something.  No, they are not the same Bible.  I reject what you posted as being scripture, but you already know that.  Even so, I didn't attack the other verse you posted, just what I found to be completely wrong.  It is possible for me to be bitter and not harsh, or harsh and not bitter.  They don't have the same meaning, so they can't both be right.  If you want to debate the translations, I suppose we can look into the Greek words and compare the translations word for word, but I was trying to avoid that.  I see it as your translation, not the Bible.  Perhaps I should have said, "your translation of choice," since you didn't actually write it.  Does that work better?  The reason I don't say "the KJV says," is because I won't lower it to the same level as counterfeit translations.  Of course, I know we disagree on whether or not yours is a counterfeit translations, but I am just explaining why I didn't say it like you think I should have.  I am sorry I have to even go down this road.  I was sincerely trying to avoid a KJV only debate because I didn't want to sidetrack the thread. 

Well if you don't want to go down that path then you need to respect that not everyone agrees with you and that they have their view. If you want to treat others as automatically wrong then don't expect them not to be upset about it or take issue with it. It is simple  I wonder if you realise how offensive this post comes across as.

What is meant by bitter? To embitter. To not irritate. To not make bitter. Do you think a person being beaten by the spouse would not be bitter? Having friends who have been beaten by their spouse I can assure you bitterness is there as a result.

 

@Butero

It seems to me you have limited experience with abuse. Abuse is not just physical in nature but also emotional, intellectual, and spiritual. An abusive husband may beat his wife and consistently tell her if she says anything he would hurt the children or even take her life. An abusive husband may consistently tell his wife she deserves the abuse and it his role to put her in her rightful place since he is the "lord" over her. An abusive husband may consistently play games with his wife's emotions.

 

There is a consistent cycle of the setup, the abuse, guilt over the possibility of getting caught, making excuses, return to "normal" behavior, then then next plan.

 

Domestic abuse falls into a common pattern, or cycle of violence:

• Abuse – Your abusive partner lashes out with aggressive, belittling, or violent behavior. The abuse is a power play designed to show you "who is boss."
• Guilt – After abusing you, your partner feels guilt, but not over what he's done. He’s more worried about the possibility of being caught and facing consequences for his abusive behavior.
• Excuses – Your abuser rationalizes what he or she has done. The person may come up with a string of excuses or blame you for the abusive behavior—anything to avoid taking responsibility.
• "Normal" behavior – The abuser does everything he can to regain control and keep the victim in the relationship. He may act as if nothing has happened, or he may turn on the charm. This peaceful honeymoon phase may give the victim hope that the abuser has really changed this time.
• Fantasy and planning – Your abuser begins to fantasize about abusing you again. He spends a lot of time thinking about what you’ve done wrong and how he'll make you pay. Then he makes a plan for turning the fantasy of abuse into reality.
• Set-up – Your abuser sets you up and puts his plan in motion, creating a situation where he can justify abusing you.

http://www.helpguide.org/articles/abuse/domestic-violence-and-abuse.htm

The abuser will use threats, dominance, humiliation, isolation, intimidation, denial, and blame-shifting on his or her victim.

Again in this theological conversation we need to remember these are real people dealing with real issues.

 

In an effort not to duplicate posts I'll just say I agree with Another Poster here regarding the Bible translations comment. I think this is the most accurate depiction of how KJV only comes across towards other Believers in bold. I assume you don't realize how offensive the view comes across to others.

What are your thoughts on AP's post on bitterness Butero?

God bless,

GE

 

[GoldenEagle]

 

Another Poster I'd like to first say that I agree with a lot of what you've posted on the thread.

 

Multiple times you have claimed that someone on the thread is making false claims. We can only read what is stated. We are seeking clarification. And what was stated was a bad comparison at best per your own agreement. Here it is again in response to a Christian who divorces his or her abusive spouse who also claims to be a Christian:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sure the concern (at least on my part I cannot speak for Sevenseas or anyone else who brought up the poor comparison) was not necessarily on behalf of what Faith pleases God said but on how others reading the thread would interpret what was said.

 

 

Do you see? It is not a false claim. If you feel a violation of the TOS has been made please report the post. Otherwise, let's just drop it and get back to the subject eh?

Well if you can only read what is said then by all means read what was written. When a poster says I was not making a comparison but however making this point then why do you insist on calling it a comparison? Yes what you quoted was said. However a clarification was made which explained what they were doing. Since a third poster saw exactly what they were doing and gave examples from the bible where the same thing was done. So it is not like I'm the only one saying this. If I was the only one I would actually think Gee maybe I've got this wrong. Also since a third poster explained what faith please god(FPG) was doing and FPG said yes thats what I was doing then clearly it is wrong for people to keep insisting that FPG is saying a husband/wife relationship is like a slave/master relationship. 

So obviously I have no issue with the original question and as you correctly pointed out I also had an issue with it. However since the clarification was made then there is no longer cause for complaints. However to continue making a claim that does not in any way acknowledge the clarification is a false claim. 

 

As for getting back to the topic that is what I have wanted. However how useful would it be in that endeavour if I insisted everyone says what their favourite colour is before continuing? Not useful at all. Likewise it is not useful for staying on topic when incorrect statements are made.

 

 

Exactly. 

Too many in the Church take the side of the abuser which is typically, but not always, an abusive husband. What happens if an abusive spouse doesn't repent and refuses to change? Is a victim to stay with their abuser who refuses to change? Worst, what if this abuser claims to be a follower of Christ? Some would say a victim should still remain married to said abuser. That she should go back and simply endure the punishment even unto death. I really would like to hear Faith pleases God and Another Poster's thoughts on the matter in particular. Though of course anyone's thoughts are welcome. 

How does that fit with:

1 John 1:5-10

 

⁵ This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. ⁶ If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. ⁷ But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. ⁸ If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. ⁹ If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. ¹⁰ If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

1 John 2:3-6

³ And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. ⁴ Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, ⁵ but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him: ⁶ whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.

Not sure why you want my opinion but it has not changed since I replied in post #27 to your question about abuse in post #20. My reply is that there is no requirement for a person being abused to stay with their spouse. I also said I did not know if divorce was ok in that situation. However separating is certainly an option and a wise one.

I have seen what InChrist has written. I find it interesting but not convincing enough to take a firm position.

 

Fair enough. I see your perspective. 

God bless,

GE

[GoldenEagle]

 

InChrist, I see a lot of problems with your last post.  In the passage in 1 Corinthians, the choice to leave is with the unbeliever, not the believer.  The believer is told to remain with the unbeliever if the unbeliever is content to remain in the marriage, so unless it was the unbeliever who left, this doesn't apply.   

 

This is what the heart of the matter is about on a Christian who physically assaults his wife on a continual bases.

 

Matthew 18v.15-17 and 1 Timothy 5:8 gives us the conditions or standards when a Christian who refuses to repent and refuses to provide for his family shell be deemed to be a Pagan, unbeliever and one who has denied the faith…I’m sure we can plainly agree on that so far?

 

The question I put forward to Warrior 777 is the same question I will put forward to you:

What is the difference between an unbeliever in Matthew 18v.15-17 and 1 Timothy 5:8 to that of an unbeliever in 1 Corinthians 7:15?

 

Now you state the following:

In the passage in 1 Corinthians, the choice to leave is with the unbeliever, not the believer.

 

 

That’s precisely the point, based on Matthew 18v.15-17 it specifically states… treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

 

I can no longer apply the Christian standards to this Christian who abuses his wife and refuses to repent I must now treat him as a pagan…..Now what is the standard with which we treat a pagan with in a marriage to the other spouse who remains as a Christian?

 

1 Corinthians 7 gives as the standard or treatment of a Christian marrying an unbeliever and divorcing an unbeliever

 

13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. (This standard does not apply – as the marriage was concluded between two Christians, further as per Matthew 18: 15-17 our particular abusive Christian Husband who is now to be treated as a Pagan has refused to repent)

 

14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. ( This standard does not apply to Matthew 18: 15-17 as the Christian Husband who is now treated as a Pagan can not sanctify his Christian wife as he has truly refused to repent)

 

15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. ( This standard or treatment can be applied to who Christian wife beating Husband who is now treated as a Pagan – This treatment of an unbeliever can be applied because this is how a Pagan is treated.)

 

16 How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

The wife will know if her husband has truly repented by following the standards set out in Matthew 18: 15-17 and has been afforded the ability to treat His abusive conditions and is repenting.

 

As explained earlier you need to justify scripturally why scripture tells me to Treat an Abusive Christian Husband as a Pagan won’t apply to 1 Corinthians 7:15? Then there must be a fundamental theological difference between an unbeliever in Matthew 18v.15-17 and 1 Timothy 5:8 to that of an unbeliever in 1 Corinthians 7:15

 

Constructive Desertion biblical case study

Would it be sensible to say that David was the sinful rebellious one when he left Saul’s court? No, he left because of Saul's abuse.

 

David left, but Saul was the cause of his leaving. If we translate the word chorizo as “separate” we see this more clearly: if the unbeliever separates, let him separate. The unbeliever is doing the separating; the believer is commanded to let it be done. This tells the believing spouse (and the church) to allow the marriage to be over, because the unbeliever ( Pagan based on Matthew) has destroyed the covenant.

 

It permits the victim of abuse to take out a legal divorce. Let there be chorizo = let there be separation = let there be legal divorce, because the word chorizo means both separation and divorce.

 

These are very interesting points. This is what I brought up with several people I know as well. Not quite as polished but the idea that perhaps a "Believer" who abusive is not truly a Believer after all... And how to treat them in relation to these various passages. :nodiea:

 

God bless,

GE

[Sevenseas]

IMO, if a believer in Christ has no change in the way they behave, if they are unrepentant, if they show no Christlike nature, and so on, I think we can ask if they are saved.

 

We should see a change in a person who names Christ as their Savior.  Too many men who categorize themselves as Christians do not follow the One they say they do

 

I do not believe a woman should submit to an abusive (and as you stated, there are various forms of abuse) man.  That man, IMO, is not under Christ's authority and is

acting as though he is under the authority of a spirit that is NOT the Holy Spirit.

 

So much more I could say, but it seems  that in some cases, love has a back seat while mistaken authority drives off in all directions with the visor down so the light does not

penetrate the darkness.

 

Yeah I like metaphors.

[faith pleases God]

Is... IMO above God's word?

Does experience trump scripture?

Do we follow our own thinking or have the minds of Christ?

Is Christ not the word?

Does His will differ from what is written?

As Christians, what is our basis for doctrine?

[Sevenseas]

Is... IMO above God's word?

Does experience trump scripture?

Do we follow our own thinking or have the minds of Christ?

Is Christ not the word?

Does His will differ from what is written?

As Christians, what is our basis for doctrine?

 

 

I agree with InChrists post in which scripture is posted...far more then you have posted.

 

As you seem to be keeping up with this op, I will assume you know that

 

Are you looking to make it seem as if I disregard scripture?

 

You are not being very factual in your representation of my post

 

If I agree with InChrists post, as I do, which I have referenced twice and now makes 3 times, then I agree with the scripture he posted

 

It might serve you better to stick with what I posted then attempt to make it seem you have discovered I do not follow the Bible...although according to you, many do not follow the Bible

 

Which is exactly the problem with your position.  You seem to refuse to have a proper look at the verses posted by others that express a different understanding

[Sevenseas]

HERE you are in case you missed it.  

 

 

Please help.

I don't know if these questions have already been asked.

Please answer them again if they have been asked.

If 2 born again Christians gets divorces and then remarry each other, under any circumstances, many are saying they are living in adultery.

Those of you who agree with this, please answer.

 

Do these people live in sin the rest of their lives?

Do these people never get God's blessings in their marriage?

Do these people lose their salvation?

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Your confusing the issue...firstly Yeshua didn't come to change or abolish any of Moses laws but to fullfill them by expanding on them.

 

Lets deal with abuse

 

Biblical Legal grounds for a Divorce In domestic Abuse:

 

1 Corinthians 7:15 But if the unbelieving partner leaves, let him do so; in such brother or sister is not morally bound. But God has called us to peace.

 

Key Issue: - who is an unbeliever?

                  - Who caused the separation?

 

Now the argument one would immediately raise is 1 Corinthians 7:15 does not speak of Abuse or about Christians....this is really superficial.

 

1st Issue  - who is an unbeliever

 

In the church we are to take sin seriously and that includes sin within a marriage. Yeshua instructed his disciples as to what should happen if someone refuses to repent of sin as a Christian.

 

Matthew 18v.15-17, If your brother sins against you,go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that “every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.”  If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

 

What Jesus insists on is that sin, even sin between a married couple in their own home, is the responsibility of the church. The church’s role is to call to account those who are guilty of wilful, deliberate, and persistent sin. And those who refuse to repent are to be treated as unbelievers.

 

Further

 

1 Timothy 5:8, If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

 

Now would we all agree that if a Christian spouse batters another Christian spouse refuses to repent, refuses to seek counciling from the church is not providing for his or her immediate family? and is that a true believer? In such a case SCRIPTURE calls that "type" of a Christian worse than an unbeliever and should be treated as a Pagan.

 

2nd Issue - Who caused the seperation.

 

The unbeliever is doing the separating; in this case its the "Christian" spouse who is refusing to repent and has thus destroyed the covenant he has committed the act of desertion. It permits the victim of abuse to take out a legal divorce as she is no longer MORALLY BOUND

 

In other words 1 Corinthians 7:15 is a no-fault divorce clause for abuse, HOWEVER 1 Corinthians 7:15 is not the same as allowing divorce for any disaffection. Because abuse is defined as a pattern of conduct designed to obtain and maintain power and control over the other. 

 

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.

 

 

Have the couples, once they divorced tried to reconcile? Has there been any repentance? if the one spouse has remarried to a third party, then who broke the covenant first? If the Male spouse broke the covenant first and after a passing of time remarries to a third party, the female spouse of the first marriage is not morally bound to that covenant any longer and may freely marry.

 

To conclude the Bible teaches 3 Grounds for Divorce

 

1. Adultery within marriage permits the believer to instigate a divorce

 

2. Abandonment or desertion by unbelieving spouse permits the believer to recognise the end of the marriage (even if they formalise that in a divorce).

 

3. Abuse which results in constructive desertion permits the believer to recognise the end of the marriage (even if they formalise that in a divorce)

 

 

 

I agree. I have been saying the same for some time now....your post sums it up much better then I did.

 

 

 

I would appreciate your acknowledgment of the fact I do follow scripture and that there are verses replete, in what I stated I believe, FROM scripture.

 

You may disagree, but stating I go by opinions only is a cheap shot IMO

 

There is no need to stretch things here and misquote me or anyone else in order to make it seem another poster is wrong

 

My opinion is based on these scriptures which again, if you have been following along and it seems you have, you actually do know

 

I have disagreed with other posters from time to time, but problems arise when misquoting, such as you have done here, occurs. 

 

A disagreement is one thing...an attempt to discredit someone is not proper conduct IMO

[Sevenseas]

 

@ Golden Eagle, the wife is to obey her husband in everything unless he tells her to sin.  It doesn't matter if he is abusive.  Thanks for clearing up what you meant, because I didn't understand the connection.  If the wife is obeying her husband, why does he have to use intimidation tactics to get her to do something she is already doing?  Wouldn't he be doing that if she is failing to be obedient as she is commanded in scripture to do?  I say that realizing that some who are truly abusive will never be satisfied no matter what.  If that is the case, then this woman truly has a cross to carry.  I already told you how I would handle physical abuse, but if it is verbal abuse, I would not suggest she would be right to separate.  She needs grace to deal with it. 

 

 

I know you are asking GE Butero, but as he and I and several other posters (not trying to draw lines but just trying to explain that neither he nor myself are alone in what we are saying we

believe)...but how can you say it does not matter if the husband is abusive?

 

Do you or not agree that a husband who is abusing his wife is not following Christ as his head?  

 

We both know that claiming Christ as your Savior is words unless actions back up that claim up

 

I will also disagree that a wife should just obey as though she were a child and had nothing to say.  That, is hardly a marriage relationship

 

If the husband does not submit to the Lord, then how can a wife submit to the husband as she does in her realtionship to the Lord?

 

I have agreed with you in the past concerning the husband as the head of the home, but that head is supposed to be UNDER another head 

 

I have already stated numerous times I agree with InChrist's position so to save space here, kindly reflect on that to see where I am coming from

 

Thanks

[Sevenseas]

I do have one other thing I want to address Sevenseas.  The wife is told to submit herself to her own husband as unto the Lord.  How are we to submit to the Lord?  Are we to submit to Jesus as a child with nothing to say?  I believe we can say anything we want to him about our concerns over things in the written Word, but ultimately, we are to obey him regardless.  It doesn't matter how we feel.  If wives are to submit in the same way, this would apply to them in their relationship to their husband. 

 

 

The husband and wife are both under obligation to submit to one another if you continue reading.  I can say with complete confidence that most women would turn themselves

inside out if their husband would submit to Christ and love her the way Christ loves the church. 

 

UIltimately the husband is the head of the home...the CHRISTIAN husband is the head of the home UNDER Christ and if he is abusing his wife he is not submitting to

his Lord...the submission is IN the Lord...it does not state submit no matter what

 

You disagree with InChrist

 

I agree with InChrist who has provided ample scripture for that position.  

 

What Jesus insists on is that sin, even sin between a married couple in their own home, is the responsibility of the church. The church’s role is to call to account those who are guilty of wilful, deliberate, and persistent sin. And those who refuse to repent are to be treated as unbelievers.  (from his post)

 

There should be no disagreement regarding the above.  Certain men seem to think that in their home they are their own authority yet that is NOT

what the Bible teaches.

 

 

Far too many men abuse their position and believe they have some kind of God given authority to treat their wife like a second class Christian

 

Submissiveness is rendered by the wife to the husband under the eye of Christ, and so is rendered to Christ Himself.

The husband stands to the wife in the relation that the Lord does to the Church, and this is to be the ground of her submission:

though that submission is inferior in kind and degree to that which she owes Christ (Eph 5:24).

 

 

commentary notes re above in quotes

[another_poster]

@ Another Poster.  I attempted to do that the first time by simply disagreeing with Golden Eagle's translation.  I felt the way I do about it, that it isn't even a real Bible, but I didn't say that.  I said I didn't agree with the way it was worded, and he came back with me that it wasn't his translation because he didn't write it, which to me was straining at gnats.  What I should have said was his translation of choice, but I didn't think it was important to be that specific.  Because he made an issue out of my disagreement with the wording of his translation of choice, and the way I responded to it, I felt the need to clear things up as to how I see it.  I don't care if the truth offends you.  That is not my problem, and this was not even your argument. 

 

BTW, the verse says husbands aren't to be bitter, not the wife. 

 

@ Golden Eagle, the wife is to obey her husband in everything unless he tells her to sin.  It doesn't matter if he is abusive.  Thanks for clearing up what you meant, because I didn't understand the connection.  If the wife is obeying her husband, why does he have to use intimidation tactics to get her to do something she is already doing?  Wouldn't he be doing that if she is failing to be obedient as she is commanded in scripture to do?  I say that realizing that some who are truly abusive will never be satisfied no matter what.  If that is the case, then this woman truly has a cross to carry.  I already told you how I would handle physical abuse, but if it is verbal abuse, I would not suggest she would be right to separate.  She needs grace to deal with it. 

Seriously do people not realise this is a forum?????  Go to any forum you like and you will see that it is just like a group conversation. people make comments and occasionly someone will stay quiet then suddenly respond to something even though that conversation has been going on for a little while already. It is acceptable in those situations for a person to do that. Likewise on a forum it should be ok to do that. If you want a private conversation there are ways to do that. Do you really want me to repost an identical post just so I can make a comment in the conversation? Surely that is a waste.

The truth does not offend me. However just because you believe something to be true does not make it the truth.

 

Where does it say a wife must obey her husband? Do not use the wives submit to your husband as evidence unless you take into consideration that the bible commands the husband to submit to his wife as well. I would also expect you to address situations where people argued with God such as Elijah or Elisha (can't remember which off hand) who wanted blessing and was told if he saw the other taken up they would get the blessing. Also Jacob wrestling with an angel. When God was going to destroy a city and was asked but what if you find 100 righteouss in the city? God never condemned these people for arguing and saying in some cases No I won't accept that. 

 

Verbal abuse has led to suicide in many cases. However because there are no bruises people think it is not a problem. Verbal abuse is clearly a sin and against the bible just like physical abuse is. So why would you agree to separation in one but not the other? Note abuse is repeated continuous so please don't respond as if I am talking about a one off comment.