1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Do you believe a Christian can remarry after divorce?

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Marcia, Feb 4, 2009.

  1. Alive in Christ

    Alive in Christ New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2008
    Messages:
    3,822
    Likes Received:
    1
    Baptist Believer,

    Translation...."Several self appointed Pharisees". White washed tombs.

    (To show him the grace of God....????)

    How *big* of them.

    They are lucky they didnt get a *fist sandwich* :eek:

    Shake the dust off. I would have done the same thing.

    Of course. Of course they did. He hadnt been hurt enough yet at that point. Have to pour some handfulls of salt into the wound. Make him REALLLY hurt. Twist the knife in a little deeper. :BangHead:

    Good for you.

    Absolutely amazing. How can so many in the Church have such a huge and obvious blind spot regarding this???

    May God have mercy.

    If you went much further I might have become physically sick.


    Once more....

    MAY GOD HAVE MERCY.


    :godisgood:
     
    #61 Alive in Christ, Feb 9, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 9, 2009
  2. BigBossman

    BigBossman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2009
    Messages:
    1,009
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Baptist
    My parents divorced each other in 1989 & got remarried in 2003. I don't have a problem with them getting back together. They remained good friends after the divorce. I say as long as they are happy.

    It is kind of weird seeing your mom & dad getting married, even if it is their second time around.
     
  3. sag38

    sag38 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,395
    Likes Received:
    2
    I've always noticed that beliefs once considered non-negotiable change when circumstances change. Divorce is one of those circumstances.
     
  4. countrymomof3wwjd

    countrymomof3wwjd New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2009
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have studied this topic alot and now am a victim of divorce. I heard so many different views but it never really touches you till it happens to you. I used to think marriage was forever, now I dont. I also believe that God took me out of my marriage and has so much better planned for me in the future. My husband cheated on me all through our marriage, yet I was oblivious to it until the time I was ready to see it that God put some awesome friends in my life that opened my eyes to my husband's infidelities and it was then that God opened my eyes and comforted my heart. Divorce is not an easy thing by any means but I no longer believe a person has to stay in a marriage where there is no happiness and the other person doesnt want to try anymore.
     
  5. rjprince

    rjprince Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Remarry? Yep. Post more later. Really busy right now...
     
  6. rjprince

    rjprince Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    The whole chapter of 1Cor 7 is crucial to understanding Paul’s additional regulations and concessions concerning marriage. His teaching is the last word on the issue and he adds to what we have from the OT and to what the Lord has said as recorded in the Gospels. Any teaching on marriage, divorce, and remarriage that fails to consider 1Cor 7 is incomplete.
    Maybe I should warn you that I am about to tread onto another "sacred cow" and some may disagree violently. That does not bother me. I only ask that they give their reasons for understanding Paul’s words here differently.

    That Paul is answering questions regarding singleness, marriage, divorce, and remarriage is clear from the context. Paul starts off with, "concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman" (1Cor 7:1). This seems to be a response to the question "Is it a good idea to remain single?" Paul responds, "If avoiding sexual sin requires one to marry, get married. And after getting married meet each others physical needs, except for mutually agreed on seasons of prayer and fasting. At the end of the time consecrated to the Lord, resume marital relations, lest you fall prey to Satan’s snares".

    Then Paul states his preference that those can handle singleness, stay single, but this is not a command (v. 6-7, see also Matt 19:10-12).
    Verse 8 introduces a word that appears nowhere else in Scripture but here in this chapter. The word "unmarried" (Greek - agamos) appears four times, in verses 8, 11, 32, 34. It is distinguished from "widows" "wives" and "virgins" (v. 8, 34). It is defined in verse 11 as one who has "depart[ed]" from her husband – "Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife." The word "depart", Greek - chwridzw means divorce. Jesus uses this word to refer to divorce in Matt 19:6 – "What therefore God had joined together, let not man put asunder." I believe it is wrong to understand the departing as anything less than full divorce. Some have argued that Paul allows for separation, but not divorce in this chapter. Such an interpretation fails to take into account the Lord’s use of the word and that chwridzw is used in other Greek literature to clearly indicate divorce. The idea of a "Biblical Separation" that is less than divorce is a modern explanation that has no support from either the Greek or ancient custom. Paul defines "unmarried" as a wife who has departed from her husband or a husband who has "put away" his wife.

    This is important to understand that Paul tells us that he is adding to the teaching of the Lord Jesus from verse 12 and on. – "to the rest, speak I not the Lord". Just as in verse 10, Paul told us that the command to remain married is from the Lord.

    Jesus has given some clear instruction and in my judgment Matthew 19 allows divorce and remarriage for "fornication", or more broadly, almost any "sexual sin" (Greek - porneia). No doubt many will disagree with me here. But I will explain more fully after looking at the OT.

    The original passage that the Pharisees quoted in attempting Jesus to side with the conservative Rabbi Shammai, or the liberal Hillel, was from Deut 24:1-4. Shammai allowed for divorce only for adultery and Hillel allowed for divorce for almost any reason. Hillel’s view was certainly the most popular but if they could force Jesus to choose one over the other, then the other crowd would be against Him.

    The Jews understood the Deut 24:1-4 passage as a "command to give a writing of divorcement" (Matt 19:7). The AV wording can also be so understood – "then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house" (v. 1). Jesus replies, "Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered (emphasis added) you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so" (Matt 19:8). Jesus corrects the perception that Moses commanded divorce.

    The actual Hebrew sense (protasis apodisis, sp?) of the Deut 24 passage is as follows: "When a man takes a wife, marries her, AND IF he finds some uncleanness in her, writes her a bill of divorce and sends her out of his house; AND IF she goes and marries another man; AND IF the latter husband divorces her, OR IF the latter husband dies, THEN she may not return to her first husband." The passage regulates the divorces that were already being practiced by the Jews as learned from either the Egyptians or the other nations. ONE VERY IMPORTANT POINT TO NOTICE HERE: God does not regulate that which He forbids! God regulates the practice of divorce, He does not forbid it.

    Three other important points to notice here. 1) There is no thought of a betrothal period in Deut 24. 2) The divorce did break the marriage, and 3) the second marriage is recognized as valid since the man who takes her next is called "husband". The argument that "divorce does not break a marriage" (Gothard and others) and that any future marriage is therefore adultery fails to stand from the very first Biblical mention of the practice of divorce and remarriage. AGAIN, God’s regulation is not prohibition, it is tacit permission. God tolerated the practice, even though it was against His original plan. Why? Because of the hardness of their hearts (Matt 19:8). His original plan was one man, one woman, one lifetime, period. Then sin entered the picture and God finally grants this concession regarding the practice – after a divorce and another marriage, a woman may not go back to her first husband.

    Why is the Deut 24 passage significant? BECAUSE it is impossible to understand the NT correctly without a correct foundational understanding of the OT. The OT is the foundation upon which the NT stands. Jesus words must always be understood, interpreted, and reconciled in light of what we find in the OT.

    Many have suggested that the Jesus’ use of the word "fornication" indicates that the divorce occurs during the betrothal period. Joseph was prepared to divorce Mary upon learning that she was pregnant. It is true that divorce was required to break the betrothal even before the marriage had been consummated. The question remains, is that what is in view here in Matthew 19?

    The original passage that was used to introduce the passage has no thought of a betrothal period anywhere in the text. The fact that a return to the first husband would be "defile[ment]... abomination... [and] sin" seems to clearly rule out any idea that the marriages had not been consummated. Some have argued that the use of porneia rather than moichea suggests that sexual relations prior to marriage are in view. This understanding of the word "fornication" is naive and not in line with its use in either the NT or other ancient Greek literature. The word porneia is much broader than moichea and would encompass any kind of sexual sin, including adultery. The argument that adultery could not have been meant in Matthew 19 since the Mosaic Law provided for stoning in that case fails to take into account that the Jews were no longer able to carry out that sentence because of the Roman occupation.

    The question by the Pharisees was an attempt to force Jesus into one of the two camps, either that of Shammai or Hillel. It would seem that Jesus chose middle ground after reminding them that God’s original plan and current desire was one man, one woman, for one lifetime. The concession to divorce was God’s concession because of the hardness of their hearts (Matt 19:8). Then Jesus says, "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." Again, this must be understood on the basis of the foundation laid in Deut 24.

    In Jesus’ day, the whole debate revolved around what was meant by "some uncleanness" (Deut 24:1). The only other place the same two words are used in Scripture is in Deut 23:14 – "And thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon; and it shall be, when thou wilt ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from thee: For the LORD thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp, to deliver thee, and to give up thine enemies before thee; therefore shall thy camp be holy: that he see no unclean thing in thee, and turn away from thee." (Vss 13-14). The word "uncleanness" (Heb. ervah) is used 54 times and is translated as nakedness (51), shame, unclean, and uncleanness (once each). In the Deut 24 passage it seems apparent that something less than adultery or premarital sexual activity is indicated since the Mosaic Law generally required stoning in both of those cases.

    (continued below)
     
  7. rjprince

    rjprince Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    (continued from above)

    In my judgement, Jesus’ choice of the word "pornea" is broader than the "adultery only" position of Shammai but much narrower than the "almost anything" position of Hillel. The strong reaction of the disciples, "If that is the case it is better to never get married" has been taken by some to mean that Jesus words were more restrictive than either Shammai or Hillel. It is also possible to understand their reaction as an indication that they may have leaned more toward Hillel’s position on the issue.
    We should also note that the exception clause is applied to both the matter of the legitimacy of the divorce and the possibility of remarriage. Again, in the Deut 24 passage, the fact of a divorce allowed for remarriage. God regulated this, but did not forbid it. In Jesus words, "if you divorce, except for sexual sin, and remarry, you have committed adultery." The exception applies to both the divorce and the remarriage according to the grammatical structure of the sentence.

    When Paul says, "Do not divorce your spouse, and if you already have, seek reconciliation" he is quoting the divine standard given in Genesis and reiterated by the Lord Jesus in Matthew 19. The fact that Paul does not mention the exception clause does not lessen the validity of the exception given by Jesus. Paul simply chose not to repeat what was already well understood.

    As Paul moves onto new ground in verse 12 he, as an apostle, adds to the teaching of the Lord Jesus as he does in many other areas as well. This is not a disclaimer that makes the following instruction optional as being simply his opinion. Not at all, it is still the law and the testimony, it is just that this was something new that had not been addressed yet.
    Again, bear in mind that Paul is addressing the questions that they had sent to him (v. 1). It is likely they had asked, "What about those of us, who by virtue of our new faith in Christ, now find ourselves married to unbelievers?" Paul answers, "do not divorce them simply because they are unbelievers!" "One believer in the home is a sanctifying influence upon the unbelieving spouse and the children." "If the unbeliever wants a divorce, let them go. You are not bound to continue in such a relationship. Do you think you should stay married in hopes of seeing them come to Christ? You do not know if they will ever become a believer! If they want out, let them go, you are free in such a case as this." (My own paraphrase)

    So, Moses did not limit the reasons for divorce too narrowly. God only forbade a return to the first husband. Jesus allows for divorce only in the case of sexual sin, some would argue persistent sexual sin. Paul now allows divorce if an unbeliever wants to be divorced from a believer. It seems clear that it is the unbeliever who must initiate the request for a divorce. The believer is not free to seek a divorce, but must remain in the marriage so long as the unbeliever is willing to stay married. I would further suggest that the believer has a much greater obligation to demonstrate the love of Christ in such a situation.

    This leads to the question of whether or not the believer can then be remarried. I understand the words "not under bondage" and "called to peace" as being equal to the words "at liberty to be married" (vss. 15, 39). If the unbeliever requests the divorce, the believer is free to grant the divorce and to seek remarriage, but again, "only in the Lord" (v. 39).
    What about people who have come from a mixed up, scrambled, broken past and then accepted the Lord Jesus? I believe the context indicates that they should seek reconciliation with their former spouse if possible, but if not they may be free to remarry as well. Why? I refer back to verses 8 and 9 – "I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn." Remember that the word "unmarried" (agamos) refers to those who are divorced. Why would Paul grant this concession? In order to avoid "fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband" (v. 2). Jesus clearly recognizes that most men cannot handle singleness (Matt 19:11-12).

    I do understand that this position is "without the camp" as far as the traditional fundamental Baptist interpretation goes. I do not answer to independent fundamental Baptists (1Cor 4:3-4). I have tried to clearly explain my position on the issue and to set forth the Biblical reasons for my position. If you agree, may God bless you. If you disagree, may God bless you. If you are still trying to decide where you stand, may God bless you as well. It is my prayer that the time I have invested in this will drive God’s preachers to His Word to examine and validate their own position on this very relevant issue.

    I might also add that I am not divorced. No members of my immediate family are divorced (parents, siblings, or my own children) therefore I have no particular ax to grind here. These conclusions are the result of MUCH study. Disagree? What are your reasons?

    RJP
     
  8. Marcia

    Marcia Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    1
    RJP, since I started this thread, I want to thank you for your very detailed and thorough answer and explanation. I appreciate it. I find it very well thought out.
     
  9. rjprince

    rjprince Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks and you're welcome. I have been refining it for about 30 years! Still not done, but most of the major work is complete!

    RJP
     
Loading...