Dealing with divorce.

[ALAYMAN]

"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.

I grow weary of indirect answers to plain questions I ask, and for what I perceive to be coy responses when responses are given, so in that respect I eventually become impatient and try to express that in somewhat terse terms, but in doing so it is directly addressed TO you, not ABOUT you TO somebody else in my peanut gallery or cheering section.  In that respect it is not passive-aggressive.

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

So she's shacking up with a dude, and you would infer that this 5th relationship she's having was preceded by 4 solid relationships where she was doing her best and in spite of that she was illegitimately divorced?

And the bigger question to be answered is by implication of your denial of my assertion.  And that being that regardless of whether it was legitimate or illegitimate for the person to be involved in the divorce that there may be (or may have been in the past) bitterness and hardness of heart due to the severance of the relationship.  In such cases, it would be good counsel to advise the aggrieved party to make things right on the human plane, as well as the vertical/God plane.

Secondly the Scriptures introduce the adultery angle.

Do you believe that the adultery causes a state of perpetual adultery?

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

I didn't say that ours did.  We have had to deal with it very little as of yet.  I am arguing from my belief system, and what I generally know to be an aversion of American evangelical churches to deal with the divorce problem with seriousness (up to and including a lack of discipline on their part).

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

"Introducing the verses" doesn't in any way demonstrate your interpretation or application of them as it relates to church discipline.  I could have listed the verses, and that too would not have advanced the conversation one iota in terms of explaining how they support whatever I believe.

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

I don't know with certainty, and you don't either.  What is the point of you asking the question?

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

Is that what yo believe?  That God doesn't recognize the dissolution of the first marriage, ever?  I don't believe the "one flesh" theory as it pertains to the claim that sex = marriage.  Do you?

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

Yes, sex outside of marriage is adultery.  As I said, I don't subscribe to the theory that "one flesh" = sex = marriage. 

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.

Well, explain how the verses you cited support whatever point you're making about adultery, divorce, and remarriage then.

 

[Mathew Ward]

You are coming across as being obtuse here.

I will simplify for you.

When 2 people covenant together for marriage before God does He make them one flesh?

If God makes them one flesh does man's illegitimate reason for divorce now make them no longer one?

If in God's eyes they are still one, then sex outside of that covenant would constitute adultery.

As far as her previous 4 marriages, the Scriptures do not indicate one way or another the reason for the divorce (legitimate or illegitimate), to read into the Scripture would be dangerous.

Restoration and forgiveness are dealt with in numerous passages of the bible.  God would rather have them restored with forgiveness and repentance. 

However in your church matter I don't see where the church should be involved since they are not members.  It sure seems the cart is before the horse here.  Furthermore it would appear that God is working on their heart and I would allow them to join based on their testimony and allow God to continue to work on them.

If God sees folks as still married and one of them has sex outside of that marriage then it would be adultery.  If they continue to have sex outside of that marriage then it would be continued adultery.  Unless you hold to some position that once they commit adultery it can only be a 1 time offense.

I am aware that you did not introduce those verses on adultery and divorce because they do not support your position and you could not advance your position with them.

The point of asking who dissolved the first marriage will answer whether it was man or God.  I'm confident that you can see the repercussions of determining who dissolved the first marriage.

I never said nor implied that sex=marriage. 

 

[Castor Muscular]

I never said nor implied that sex=marriage.

Wouldn't sex have to equal marriage for 1 time adultery to be true?  How else can you rationalize that an unrecognized (by God) marriage constitutes a single act of adultery, after which it becomes a true marriage in God's eyes?  It's such a convoluted notion that I can't even begin to imagine its origins.  Certainly not the Bible. 

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Mathew Ward][quote author=Alayman]...[/quote]I am aware that you did not introduce those verses on adultery and divorce because they do not support your position and you could not advance your position with them.[/quote]



No!

 

[ALAYMAN]

You are coming across as being obtuse here.

Despite your legthy response, do you know how many germane questions of mine you just left unanswered?  If we are going to come to a reasonable understanding of what each other is saying, and not talk past each other, then there has to be an attempt at intellectual honesty in mutual dialogue.  You may not like my answers/questions, and you may not agree with my questions and answers, but to completely ignore them, only to go on a long monologue, and talk about issues that are either tangential or misrepresentations of my point is a guarantee that no mutual understanding will ever happen.

When 2 people covenant together for marriage before God does He make them one flesh?

Yes, and Paul uses the exact same phrase when he speaks of joining to a harlot in I Cor 6:16, so what do you think that means in relation to your point?  Do you believe that the term "one flesh" means instant marriage due to sex?

If God makes them one flesh does man's illegitimate reason for divorce now make them no longer one?

I reject the notion that the breaking of the covenant vows is impossible.  Your question here seems to be implying that God makes first marriages "one flesh" and permanent in his eyes, and denies that any subsequent marriage is legitimate (in his eyes).  Is this what you are saying?  If not, then what is the significance of your question?

To state my belief, when a person puts away their spouse and divorces it annuls the "one flesh" relationship as soon as they break the covenant promise, particularly when they remarry and become "one flesh" with the new mate.

As far as her previous 4 marriages, the Scriptures do not indicate one way or another the reason for the divorce (legitimate or illegitimate), to read into the Scripture would be dangerous.

So it is your position on John 4:18 that these former men in her lives were either not her husbands, or that she had parted with them through legitimate reasons?

Restoration and forgiveness are dealt with in numerous passages of the bible.  God would rather have them restored with forgiveness and repentance. 

Who said otherwise?  That is exactly and explicitly what I have argued for the entire thread.  To claim I've said otherwise is patent nonsense.

However in your church matter I don't see where the church should be involved since they are not members.  It sure seems the cart is before the horse here.

This is where you begin to go completely off the rails.  I have NEVER stated that this issue is the church's business, unless they are petitioning for membership.

  Furthermore it would appear that God is working on their heart and I would allow them to join based on their testimony and allow God to continue to work on them.

Many people would argue that a couple who goes through divorce while active members ought to be subject to discipline, for salvaging the marriage and such.  It seems to be a convenient loophole for a couple to abandon their membership, go do whatever they want, come back like nothing ever happened, and then expect the fellowship of believers to just accept them as if all is right.  When people join a church there is often a process by which the church covenant and bylaws are explained, so that they know what the expectations of the church are once they join.  That process naturally might cover expectations about marriage.

If God sees folks as still married and one of them has sex outside of that marriage then it would be adultery.  If they continue to have sex outside of that marriage then it would be continued adultery.  Unless you hold to some position that once they commit adultery it can only be a 1 time offense.

This isn't the only person that holds a position essentially equal to what I've been saying...

Jesus' statement about Deut 24:1-4, "Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment," expresses the idea that Deut 24:1-4 is not God's ideal; it is a contingency allowed for sinful people, with the understanding that marriage is a covenant that can be invalidated by the sin of either party, leaving the other with the possibility of a guiltless remarriage. As Cranfield states in his commentary on Mark, "The provisions which God's mercy has designed for the limitation of the consequences of man's sin must not be interpreted as divine approval for sinning" (C.E.B. Cranfield, The Gospel According to Mark [Cambridge University Press, 1959], p. 320). Again, Jesus adopts a position here which respects the divine ideal for marriage; namely, that it remain unbroken, and in so doing He indicts the Pharisees for their eagerness to approve of divorce. But this does NOT mean that Jesus does not recognize that sexual immorality (especially adultery) invalidates a marriage bond. Note that Jesus does not brush Deut 24:1 aside. But He does argue that divorce for the sake of convenience (which was the typical case then, as it is now) would lead to adultery when either party sought remarriage.

I want to suggest that adultery is, essentially, the sin of entering into a "one-flesh" relationship with someone other than the person to whom you were previously married. (For "one flesh," see also Gen 2:24; 1 Cor 6:16.) It breaks the original one-flesh covenant. If a married person has sexual relations with someone other than his/her spouse, that is adultery. If a married person becomes legally divorced and then remarries, when they have intercourse with the new spouse, this is adultery against the first spouse (i.e., it breaks the original one-flesh covenant). Adultery is, in simple terms, a breaking of the one-flesh covenant. What I will argue, in a moment, is that a broken covenant is no longer in effect. Once adultery is committed, the marriage agreement is broken. This is why the adulterer is killed in the Old Testament; they are no longer bound to their spouse. I will come back to this momentarily. Let's look at the parallel account in Matthew.

I am aware that you did not introduce those verses on adultery and divorce because they do not support your position and you could not advance your position with them.

No, my position from the beginning has been that restitution, forgiveness, and repentance can restore any sinner to any sin, otherwise we'd be lying about what the Bible says is the unforgivable sin.  But in that process of forgiveness and repentance it ought to be acknowledged that sin has <potentially> occurred in the divorce, else the same things be repeated through avoidance with the issues that caused the sin, or ignorance of what the Bible says about God's hatred of divorce.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=ALAYMAN]Many people would argue that a couple who goes through divorce while active members ought to be subject to discipline...[/quote]

Are we talking about something like leather and whips here or is it more of a nose-in-the-corner type of discipline?

 

[Mathew Ward]

You are coming across as being obtuse here.

Despite your legthy response, do you know how many germane questions of mine you just left unanswered?  If we are going to come to a reasonable understanding of what each other is saying, and not talk past each other, then there has to be an attempt at intellectual honesty in mutual dialogue.  You may not like my answers/questions, and you may not agree with my questions and answers, but to completely ignore them, only to go on a long monologue, and talk about issues that are either tangential or misrepresentations of my point is a guarantee that no mutual understanding will ever happen.

When 2 people covenant together for marriage before God does He make them one flesh?

Yes, and Paul uses the exact same phrase when he speaks of joining to a harlot in I Cor 6:16, so what do you think that means in relation to your point?  Do you believe that the term "one flesh" means instant marriage due to sex?

I never said nor implied that sex=marriage.  I have stated that it is God that makes them 1 flesh.  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.

If God makes them one flesh does man's illegitimate reason for divorce now make them no longer one?

I reject the notion that the breaking of the covenant vows is impossible.  Your question here seems to be implying that God makes first marriages "one flesh" and permanent in his eyes, and denies that any subsequent marriage is legitimate (in his eyes).  Is this what you are saying?  If not, then what is the significance of your question?

You have stated the two possible reasons you believe for breaking the covenant vows.  If one of those two reasons is not the cause of the divorce would they still be covenanted together in marriage?  Or to put it another way...Matthew 19:6  Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

To state my belief, when a person puts away their spouse and divorces it annuls the "one flesh" relationship as soon as they break the covenant promise, particularly when they remarry and become "one flesh" with the new mate.

Any scripture for this?  Especially if it isn't one of the two legitimate reasons for divorce.

As far as her previous 4 marriages, the Scriptures do not indicate one way or another the reason for the divorce (legitimate or illegitimate), to read into the Scripture would be dangerous.

So it is your position on John 4:18 that these former men in her lives were either not her husbands, or that she had parted with them through legitimate reasons?

Actually I don't know nor hold a position on them since the Scriptures do not say.

Restoration and forgiveness are dealt with in numerous passages of the bible.  God would rather have them restored with forgiveness and repentance. 

Who said otherwise?  That is exactly and explicitly what I have argued for the entire thread.  To claim I've said otherwise is patent nonsense.

I am agreeing with you here, unless there is someplace where I have expressly stated that you did not say this.

However in your church matter I don't see where the church should be involved since they are not members.  It sure seems the cart is before the horse here.

This is where you begin to go completely off the rails.  I have NEVER stated that this issue is the church's business, unless they are petitioning for membership.

So non members applying for membership will be subject to church discipline, is how it comes across

  Furthermore it would appear that God is working on their heart and I would allow them to join based on their testimony and allow God to continue to work on them.

Many people would argue that a couple who goes through divorce while active members ought to be subject to discipline, for salvaging the marriage and such.  It seems to be a convenient loophole for a couple to abandon their membership, go do whatever they want, come back like nothing ever happened, and then expect the fellowship of believers to just accept them as if all is right.  When people join a church there is often a process by which the church covenant and bylaws are explained, so that they know what the expectations of the church are once they join.  That process naturally might cover expectations about marriage.

Is this just hypothetical or is this what your church does?

If God sees folks as still married and one of them has sex outside of that marriage then it would be adultery.  If they continue to have sex outside of that marriage then it would be continued adultery.  Unless you hold to some position that once they commit adultery it can only be a 1 time offense.

This isn't the only person that holds a position essentially equal to what I've been saying...

The problem here is that the commentator will reference a legitimate reason given for divorce not an illegitimate one.

Jesus' statement about Deut 24:1-4, "Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment," expresses the idea that Deut 24:1-4 is not God's ideal; it is a contingency allowed for sinful people, with the understanding that marriage is a covenant that can be invalidated by the sin of either party, leaving the other with the possibility of a guiltless remarriage. As Cranfield states in his commentary on Mark, "The provisions which God's mercy has designed for the limitation of the consequences of man's sin must not be interpreted as divine approval for sinning" (C.E.B. Cranfield, The Gospel According to Mark [Cambridge University Press, 1959], p. 320). Again, Jesus adopts a position here which respects the divine ideal for marriage; namely, that it remain unbroken, and in so doing He indicts the Pharisees for their eagerness to approve of divorce. But this does NOT mean that Jesus does not recognize that sexual immorality (especially adultery) invalidates a marriage bond. Note that Jesus does not brush Deut 24:1 aside. But He does argue that divorce for the sake of convenience (which was the typical case then, as it is now) would lead to adultery when either party sought remarriage.

I want to suggest that adultery is, essentially, the sin of entering into a "one-flesh" relationship with someone other than the person to whom you were previously married. (For "one flesh," see also Gen 2:24; 1 Cor 6:16.) It breaks the original one-flesh covenant. If a married person has sexual relations with someone other than his/her spouse, that is adultery. If a married person becomes legally divorced and then remarries, when they have intercourse with the new spouse, this is adultery against the first spouse (i.e., it breaks the original one-flesh covenant). Adultery is, in simple terms, a breaking of the one-flesh covenant. What I will argue, in a moment, is that a broken covenant is no longer in effect. Once adultery is committed, the marriage agreement is broken. This is why the adulterer is killed in the Old Testament; they are no longer bound to their spouse. I will come back to this momentarily. Let's look at the parallel account in Matthew.

I am aware that you did not introduce those verses on adultery and divorce because they do not support your position and you could not advance your position with them.

No, my position from the beginning has been that restitution, forgiveness, and repentance can restore any sinner to any sin, otherwise we'd be lying about what the Bible says is the unforgivable sin.  But in that process of forgiveness and repentance it ought to be acknowledged that sin has <potentially> occurred in the divorce, else the same things be repeated through avoidance with the issues that caused the sin, or ignorance of what the Bible says about God's hatred of divorce.

Your position has been to look at only one aspect of the divorce and not the other.

You hold that folks who get divorced for an illegitimate reason commit a 1 time only act of adultery.  However there are no scriptures to support that position.

If God sees folks as still married and one of them has sex outside of that marriage then it would be adultery.  If they continue to have sex outside of that marriage then it would be continued adultery.  If this statement is wrong please point out the error.

If there is adultery in a marriage, there does not have to be divorce.

Now if there are any points i have not answered or talked past you on please point them out and I will answer.  I am sure you will do the same...

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Here is another question.

Since Jesus viewed lusting on par with adultery, shouldn't those who lust be brought under the umbrella of church discipline also?

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Here is another question.

Since Jesus viewed lusting on par with adultery, shouldn't those who lust be brought under the umbrella of church discipline also?

Paul and the Gnostics said the act was negated if it was committed under an umbrella...on the beach.....so in the Greek, under a beach umbrella. 

 

[ALAYMAN]

Here is another question.

Since Jesus viewed lusting on par with adultery, shouldn't those who lust be brought under the umbrella of church discipline also?

And by implication of your question you either misunderstand the mechanics of discipline, or are just being a pot stirrer .  A person who commits lust usually does so in the secrecy of their heart, so the matter is not publicly known, therefore cannot be publicly dealt with.  Moreover, the matter of church discipline comes down to the guilty party being unrepentant of their ongoing sin.  Lust, like any other sin, can and should be repented of, and if it is, then church discipline need not ever occur.


Oh, and Matt, sorry to put you off for awhile.  I have been struggling with a bad cold, and yesterday afternoon-evening it reached its worst stage.  I'll try to get back to your lengthy response after while, or tomorrow.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Here is another question.

Since Jesus viewed lusting on par with adultery, shouldn't those who lust be brought under the umbrella of church discipline also?

And by implication of your question you either misunderstand the mechanics of discipline, or are just being a pot stirrer .  A person who commits lust usually does so in the secrecy of their heart, so the matter is not publicly known, therefore cannot be publicly dealt with.  Moreover, the matter of church discipline comes down to the guilty party being unrepentant of their ongoing sin.  Lust, like any other sin, can and should be repented of, and if it is, then church discipline need not ever occur.


Oh, and Matt, sorry to put you off for awhile.  I have been struggling with a bad cold, and yesterday afternoon-evening it reached its worst stage.  I'll try to get back to your lengthy response after while, or tomorrow.

Being a pot-stirrer.

So unrepentant sins in secret need not be dealt with. Gotcha. Here I thought that the reason for church discipline was to "purify" the church. Seems pretty ineffective, IMHO.

Jesus said that the church discipline for the unrepentant after rebuke was that they were to be treated as "Gentiles and tax collectors". How were the Gentiles and tax collectors to be treated by the church in that day? Expelled? Shunned? 40 lashes with a wet noodle?

Or could it be that Jesus said to allow the tares to grow with the wheat and let God deal with it in His time?

 

[Castor Muscular]

Or could it be that Jesus said to allow the tares to grow with the wheat and let God deal with it in His time?

That's no fun when you could be lording over people what they can and cannot do with your church.  How else can you feel more righteous about yourself if you can't indulge in interviews about and judgement of their past?  Or present, even? 

Sometimes you need a little more self-righteous satisfaction than just telling people who can and cannot participate in the Lord's supper for this or that reason.  Sometimes you want to think big, and not even allow them in your church.  Now THAT's a notch on the self-righteous belt.

 

[Bob H]

Or could it be that Jesus said to allow the tares to grow with the wheat and let God deal with it in His time?

If I may digress.... Apples and oranges. Christ was speaking of unbelievers not church discipline

 

[raised2walk]

"But my main point from the beginning was that it most certainly is the business of the church to make sure that the proper exercise of forgiveness, reconciliation, and repentance has occurred."

Hi ALAYMAN. . .long time no see - Wanted to jump in here and ask:

What does this "repentance, forgiveness, and reconciliation" look like between a divorced couple where one (or both) have been remarried? Specifically the reconciliation part?

 

[ALAYMAN]

"But my main point from the beginning was that it most certainly is the business of the church to make sure that the proper exercise of forgiveness, reconciliation, and repentance has occurred."

Hi ALAYMAN. . .long time no see -

Good to see you round here again.

What does this "repentance, forgiveness, and reconciliation" look like between a divorced couple where one (or both) have been remarried? Specifically the reconciliation part?

I would think the offending party who caused the divorce could attempt to make material and/or spiritual reparations for known wrongs that were done.  If the guilty person thinks that their presence might open old wounds and make things worse rather than better then a simple letter expressing sorrow/repentance for the harms caused would be a simple gesture.  If the wounded former spouse doesn't reciprocate or return the communication then at least an effort was made to do the right thing.

 

[Castor Muscular]

"But my main point from the beginning was that it most certainly is the business of the church to make sure that the proper exercise of forgiveness, reconciliation, and repentance has occurred."

Hi ALAYMAN. . .long time no see - Wanted to jump in here and ask:

What does this "repentance, forgiveness, and reconciliation" look like between a divorced couple where one (or both) have been remarried? Specifically the reconciliation part?

Woah, R2W is here!!!  Now it's a party!!!

 

[raised2walk]

Woah, R2W is here!!!  Now it's a party!!!

Hay! Nothing to see here. . ."Toking" with Lawrence Welk

 

[raised2walk]

"But my main point from the beginning was that it most certainly is the business of the church to make sure that the proper exercise of forgiveness, reconciliation, and repentance has occurred."

Hi ALAYMAN. . .long time no see -

Good to see you round here again.

What does this "repentance, forgiveness, and reconciliation" look like between a divorced couple where one (or both) have been remarried? Specifically the reconciliation part?

I would think the offending party who caused the divorce could attempt to make material and/or spiritual reparations for known wrongs that were done.  If the guilty person thinks that their presence might open old wounds and make things worse rather than better then a simple letter expressing sorrow/repentance for the harms caused would be a simple gesture.  If the wounded former spouse doesn't reciprocate or return the communication then at least an effort was made to do the right thing.

Well, thanks!

I can understand that. As a pastor, would you request this information in writing or verbally before someone joins your church? There's no magical Divorce Oxiclean fairy that dings us divorcees on the head. Sometimes it takes a loooong time to heal and everyone goes at their own speed, which is not necessarily a bad or sinful thing.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Or could it be that Jesus said to allow the tares to grow with the wheat and let God deal with it in His time?

If I may digress.... Apples and oranges. Christ was speaking of unbelievers not church discipline

True. In essence, the tares are allowed to grow with the wheat which means they are not subject to church discipline.

However, Jesus explains who the tares are:

Then Jesus sent the multitudes away, and went into the house. His disciples came to him, saying, "Explain to us the parable of the darnel weeds of the field." He answered them, "He who sows the good seed is the Son of Man, the field is the world; and the good seed, these are the children of the Kingdom; and the darnel weeds are the children of the evil one. The enemy who sowed them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are angels. As therefore the darnel weeds are gathered up and burned with fire; so will it be at the end of this age. The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will gather out of his Kingdom all things that cause stumbling, and those who do iniquity (i.e., the tares) and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be weeping and the gnashing of teeth.

Sounds like violators who might be considered as in need of church discipline.

 

[Agent P]

I can understand that. As a pastor, would you request this information in writing or verbally before someone joins your church? There's no magical Divorce Oxiclean fairy that dings us divorcees on the head. Sometimes it takes a loooong time to heal and everyone goes at their own speed, which is not necessarily a bad or sinful thing.

I know as I'm beginning to look into ordination that some denominations require exactly that!  In writing.  Some go so far as to request affidavits from others!  For some,  they act as if they expect you to provide them with pictures or a video of your ex in the act with somebody else.

As for what "repentance, forgiveness, and reconciliation" looked like for me...
Repentance? My wife walked out on me and only seems mildly sorry when she has a fight with her new boyfriend.  Part of me working through my divorce is to try to figure out where I caused problems and to repent for those.  Once all the repentance I could accomplish was done, and the marriage still wasn't restored nor would it be, I moved on.
Forgiveness?  I figured I'd better take care of that on my own, and it's still a work in progress some days; but I bear her no ill will now.
Reconciliation?  Another work in progress.  With a daughter about to leave her teenage years, it still requires us to be in some semblance of a working relationship, even though I've remarried.  It seems to work, my present wife and my ex can be in the same place without conflict; as we all consider ourselves to have a stake in our daughter (or stepdaughter as the case may be).  If we hadn't had children, I'm not sure we could have pulled this off.