Dealing with divorce.

[Mathew Ward]

Quote from Mathew Ward
Not sure if I missed your response to the rewording...


Okay, I gave an answer, but to tell the truth, I didn't quite get any purposeful distinction in the question.  There would be three concerns in the interview/discussion.  1) That they understand the grievousness of divorce 2) That they have made things right to the best of their ability with their former spouse(s) and 3) That the children were being provided for. 

So what's behind your question that wouldn't be addressed by those three points?

That the new couple has have repented of the 1 time sin of adultery (as you see it) because they were originally divorced for unbiblical reasons and got remarried.

 

[ALAYMAN]

That the new couple has have repented of the 1 time sin of adultery (as you see it) because they were originally divorced for unbiblical reasons and got remarried.

Still not exactly sure what you mean, but if you are asking if it would be proper to inform them that they committed adultery by divorcing without cause and remarrying then yes, that would be addressed so that they could repent of that sin if they had committed it in ignorance.

 

[Castor Muscular]

That the new couple has have repented of the 1 time sin of adultery (as you see it) because they were originally divorced for unbiblical reasons and got remarried.

The whole idea of it being 1 time adultery does not jibe with the text if you take it literally. 

If God does not recognize the illegitimate divorce, then God does not recognize the new marriage.  There is no new marriage, therefore they remain in a state of adultery. 

It's no use conflating OT laws and civil laws with what Jesus said.  Jesus specifically addresses how God sees it.  So if you're going to enforce the first part (judge what is or is not a legitimate divorce, based solely on what Jesus said), then it follows you should enforce the second part (judge what is perpetual adultery, based solely on what Jesus said). 

There is no exception made in the Bible.  The Bible nowhere says, "God won't recognize the marriage at first, but if you get a civil certificate of marriage and knock boots, it's adultery the first time, then after that, it's true marriage."  That's purely in the imagination of you know who.

EDIT:  By the way, A. W. Tozer took this very view -- that Christians who divorce may not remarry.  His reasoning was based on logical fallacies (he conflated civil law with God's law), but at least he understood the logical consistency of what Jesus said. 

 

[graceandtruth]

knock boots,

LOL.........It has been a while since I have heard or used that term.  Took me back to the teen years.

 

[ALAYMAN]

If God does not recognize the illegitimate divorce,

Who has said that God does not consider the divorce valid if it is done for any reason other than the exception clause(s)?

 

[Castor Muscular]

If God does not recognize the illegitimate divorce,

Who has said that God does not consider the divorce valid if it is done for any reason other than the exception clause(s)?

Jesus.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=ALAYMAN]Who has said that God does not consider the divorce valid if it is done for any reason other than the exception clause(s)?

Jesus.[/quote]

I was waiting on that.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Jesus.

Joh 4:18  For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly.


Was Jesus schizophrenic?  Confused about what constituted marriage?  Other?

 

[Castor Muscular]

Jesus.

Joh 4:18  For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly.


Was Jesus schizophrenic?  Confused about what constituted marriage?  Other?

Either you are being deliberately dense, or you simply can't admit when you're wrong.  Either way, you're not worth the trouble. 

 

[ALAYMAN]

Either you are being deliberately dense, or you simply can't admit when you're wrong.  Either way, you're not worth the trouble.

I'll take that as "I don't want to deal with the thorny issue".


The fact that God hates divorce is the over-arching premise in interpreting the whole matter of divorce and adultery.  As I told Smellin Coffee, the language in Matthew is in the mold of ironic rhetoric.  "You have heard it said,... but I say".  The legalistic Jews wanted to fancy themselves as self-righteous for having kept the law, but Christ was pointing to their hard hearts in the matter of murder, divorce, etc, and effectively saying that they indeed had dirty hearts and were unrighteous until they found their righteousness in Him.  It is clear that Christ would have not allowed divorce from the beginning, but in a world full of sinners God makes allowances by grace for our mistakes.  Remarried people aren't living in perpetual adultery.  That's just an ignorant position.  But the fact that divorce causes all kinds of problems is without question.  To make sure that divorced-and-remarried people who want to join membership of a church view divorce (and "adultery") in the proper covenantal seriousness that God intends is just prudent.

So, based on your "Jesus" answer, state plainly your position on perpetual adultery.  Are you saying that the first marriage is the only legitimately recognized marriage in God's eyes, and that all subsequent marriages are unrecognized (and thus causing a state of perpetual adultery)?

 

[Mathew Ward]

Jesus.

Joh 4:18  For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly.


Was Jesus schizophrenic?  Confused about what constituted marriage?  Other?

What were the reasons for the previous divorces?

 

[Mathew Ward]

It is clear that Christ would have not allowed divorce from the beginning, but in a world full of sinners God makes allowances by grace for our mistakes.  Remarried people aren't living in perpetual adultery.  That's just an ignorant position. 

Matthew 5:31-32  It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Matthew 19:4-9  And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Mark 10:2-12  And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.
Luke 16:18  Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

Romans 7:2-3  For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

Genesis 2:24  Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Deuteronomy 24:1-4  When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

Malachi 2:13-16  And this have ye done again, covering the altar of the LORD with tears, with weeping, and with crying out, insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, or receiveth it with good will at your hand. Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth. For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.

 

[Castor Muscular]

Jesus.

Joh 4:18  For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly.


Was Jesus schizophrenic?  Confused about what constituted marriage?  Other?

What were the reasons for the previous divorces?

Also, was Jesus referring to her marriages from her perspective, or from God's perspective? 

Also, what reasons did she have to conform to God's view of marriage and divorce, of which she was surely unaware since it was not the law of the land? 

And so on.  ALAYMAN's ignorance is overwhelming.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=ALAYMAN]So, based on your "Jesus" answer, state plainly your position on perpetual adultery.  Are you saying that the first marriage is the only legitimately recognized marriage in God's eyes, and that all subsequent marriages are unrecognized (and thus causing a state of perpetual adultery)?
[/quote]

Or he (CM) could be allowing for polygamy or He (Jesus) could be speaking using common terms or...

 

[ALAYMAN]

Also, was Jesus referring to her marriages from her perspective, or from God's perspective? 

Also, what reasons did she have to conform to God's view of marriage and divorce, of which she was surely unaware since it was not the law of the land? 

And so on.  ALAYMAN's ignorance is overwhelming.

And again, you refuse to provide a straightforward answer to a simple request. 

Let's be clear, you and Matt are the ones who introduced this rabbit trail.  I didn't introduce the adultery angle, you and him did, yet you refuse to even attempt to answer questions on the very nuanced angle that you introduced.  That's a definite and unique brand of sophistry you're playin'.

What were the reasons for the previous divorces?

Well, she was shacked up with a dude at the time, so the reasonable inference for Jesus' call for her current "husband" was undoubtedly her immoral lifestyle, but I'm sure that despite that reasonable inference that you can introduce greater ambiguity than the current rate of growth on the national debt.

Again, the whole point, which has been evaded by this rabbit chase regarding people's particular vantage point and definition of adultery, is that God hates divorce.  When there's a divorce there is undoubtedly hardness of heart on one, or both parties.  The purpose for discussing these matters with prospective members is to ensure that they have resolved past issues (to the best of their ability) and that they properly understand the church's view of the seriousness of the covenant that they are currently in (and formerly dissolved), all of that supercedes the distinct view/opinions of Mat and Castor on "adultery".

And Mat, I have no idea why you posted the verses you did on divorce, as you provided no commentary of how they relate to the discussion.  Do you believe they support the concept of perpetual adultery?  Or was there some other point you'd like to distill from citing them?

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=ALAYMAN]Again, the whole point, which has been evaded by this rabbit chase regarding people's particular vantage point and definition of adultery, is that God hates divorce.  When there's a divorce there is undoubtedly hardness of heart on one, or both parties.  The purpose for discussing these matters with prospective members is to ensure that they have resolved past issues (to the best of their ability) and that they properly understand the church's view of the seriousness of the covenant that they are currently in (and formerly dissolved), all of that supercedes the distinct view/opinions of Mat and Castor on "adultery".[/quote]

I thought the whole point was that you wanted to look down your nose at and stand in judgment over a couple who started attending your church because (at least) one party in the marriage had previously been divorced?

 

[ALAYMAN]

I thought the whole point was that you wanted to look down your nose at and stand in judgment over a couple who started attending your church because (at least) one party in the marriage had previously been divorced?

Well, you thought that because you're an idiot.  The bad news is, it is generally understood, ya just can't fix stupid.

 

[Castor Muscular]

I thought the whole point was that you wanted to look down your nose at and stand in judgment over a couple who started attending your church because (at least) one party in the marriage had previously been divorced?

Precisely.

 

[ALAYMAN]

I thought the whole point was that you wanted to look down your nose at and stand in judgment over a couple who started attending your church because (at least) one party in the marriage had previously been divorced?

Precisely.

You've continually interjected yourself into the discussion, and constantly in doing so you make the matter ad hominem.  It is clear to any objective person that I have attempted to interact with the concepts you've put forth, but you continue to passive-aggessively take swipes at me rather than answering questions or honestly dealing with my points.  You brought up adultery, not me. All you want to do is justify yourself by impugning the nature of my motives.  The Bible has a lot to say about that, and generally, it ain't good.  The irony of that, is that in doing such, you much more closely resemble a pharisee than anything I have suggested by way of advancing an argument for church discipline.  And that goes back to what I suggested long ago, that many folk have such an aversion to church discipline (one of the core tenets of the reformed understanding of what constitutes a true NT church) that it doesn't matter what form the argument advocating discipline takes, y'all would have a hissy fit and hurl epithets about legalism and self-righteousness.  I have attempted to address concepts, you have done nothing more than attack my person. 

 

[Mathew Ward]

Also, was Jesus referring to her marriages from her perspective, or from God's perspective? 

Also, what reasons did she have to conform to God's view of marriage and divorce, of which she was surely unaware since it was not the law of the land? 

And so on.  ALAYMAN's ignorance is overwhelming.

And again, you refuse to provide a straightforward answer to a simple request. 

Let's be clear, you and Matt are the ones who introduced this rabbit trail.  I didn't introduce the adultery angle, you and him did, yet you refuse to even attempt to answer questions on the very nuanced angle that you introduced.  That's a definite and unique brand of sophistry you're playin'.

What were the reasons for the previous divorces?

Well, she was shacked up with a dude at the time, so the reasonable inference for Jesus' call for her current "husband" was undoubtedly her immoral lifestyle, but I'm sure that despite that reasonable inference that you can introduce greater ambiguity than the current rate of growth on the national debt.

Again, the whole point, which has been evaded by this rabbit chase regarding people's particular vantage point and definition of adultery, is that God hates divorce.  When there's a divorce there is undoubtedly hardness of heart on one, or both parties.  The purpose for discussing these matters with prospective members is to ensure that they have resolved past issues (to the best of their ability) and that they properly understand the church's view of the seriousness of the covenant that they are currently in (and formerly dissolved), all of that supercedes the distinct view/opinions of Mat and Castor on "adultery".

And Mat, I have no idea why you posted the verses you did on divorce, as you provided no commentary of how they relate to the discussion.  Do you believe they support the concept of perpetual adultery?  Or was there some other point you'd like to distill from citing them?

"I'm sure that despite that reasonable inference that you can introduce greater ambiguity than the current rate of growth on the national debt." Is this a passive-aggressive swipe that you condemn in others?  Not sure why the comment.

But if immorality or adultery was the reason for the divorces then we are talking about legitimate reasons for divorce not illegitimate reasons.

Secondly the Scriptures introduce the adultery angle.

You took the hard line position that most American churches do not deal with church discipline but that yours did. 

Since you introduced the issue of divorce I just figured we would bring verses in that deal with divorce.

In the instance you gave, who dissolved the first covenant?

If God does not recognize that dissolution would they still be one flesh in His eyes?

If they are still one flesh in his eyes, would sex outside of that marriage constitute adultery?

You honestly do not see how the verses posted have no relation to the discussion on adultery and divorce?  That seems odd to me.  As far as providing commentary, it seems that they are pretty plain and straightforward.