Divorce and Remarriage

Here we go, the classic O.J. killed Nicole lines.

I DO NOT ADVOCATE WOMEN GETTING BEATEN.

Does everyone understand this? I keep saying this. Instead of dealing with Scripture, you people keep saying this as though you are trying to convince yourself that I do believe it just because you keep repeating it. Get on with it.

Sherrie, great line. That was an excellent contribution to the words of Christ.

I am led to think that the ones who keep putting words in my mouth and calling me names are only convicted by the words of Christ. Why else would you even care what I say if you are so right, and I am so bizarre?

 

But this is not what is meant by "innocent party" when it comes to divorce. Those who of us who see an "innocent party" are not arguing that the other's are perfection. We are admitting that, as Christ said, there is a party who didn't commit adultery ... as Paul said, there is a believing party. To gloss over these scriptural evidences is unwise exegesis.

Christ did quote Moses as permitting divorce because of hardness of heart. That "hardness of heart" is the one thing that has never changed since the time of Moses. It is still the same. And for the record, the hard of heart were the ones seeking the divorce, not the one trying to hold it together. In both the word of Christ and Paul, there is a legitimate exegesis that provides for remarriage. I realize you disagree with that position ... but only because you follow a different exegetical priority. That does not mean that the other position is wrong; it means you disagree with it. That is the caution I would urge. While you hold your position strongly, realize that there are equally loving (of God and his Word) people out here who disagree with you on the basis of exegesis of Scripture. I myself have read most of the major works on divorce/remarriage (including everything mentioned in this forum). I remain completely and totally unconvinced by the position you hold. I am more unconvinced after reading and studying than I was before.

It is interesting that William Heth (of Heth and Wenham fame ... Jesus and Divorce) recently changed his position after the second edition of his own book came out. He had an article about why he changed it. Very interesting read. He came over to teh majority position.

 

Pastor Larry, he also said he didn't know what to believe anymore. Sounds like a classic case of overstudy of a particular position.

 

I disagree. One position is wrong. It has nothing to do with people loving God and his Word. The positions presented here are mutually exclusive. They can't both be right.

 

1. The concession is still for those under the Law of Moses. It isn't for those who are to live, "...forgiving one another even as God in Christ has forgiven you."

2. Hard hearts are still there but the concession isn't since the Law has been done away with (as you and I both know).

3. Agree. That still doesn't change my position.

 

Okay, that was the last straw!

 

PTW, what I said was in jest, understand, a joke, I was just kidding, okay? Of course, I'm paying attention here! This is one of those subjects that there are two very different views on, and no matter how much it is thrashed about, neither side will bend and each side believes they are the one in the right.
Sue

 

Preach the Word: Did not Jesus say he did not come to destroy the Law but to fulfill it and did he not also say that not one jot or tittle would pass away until the end of time.

Jesus did not do away with the entire law. This is what gets Christians into trouble. We are still under moral law.

You quote words that says you are using Jesus' words and Pauls and Peter but everyone of them gave us rules and regulations to live by.

You say I am trying to keep us under the law but does not the Ten Commandments say that we are not to steal and to kill and to commit adultery and to covet etc etc. Am I mistaken or did not our Lord say the same things as did Paul and Peter and John and on and on. I don't think HRHEMA
is the one who is trying to do anything. I believe the writers made it pretty clear that God expects us to be moral people.

If people would study the whole thing about divorce Moses allowed men to divorce their wives for reasons such as if she could not cook. If she could not have a child. If she had any kind of uncleanness at all. There was even another reason mentioned but I don't think this is the place to post that at all about the honeymoon.
This is the hardness of the heart Jesus was speaking about. Why could not the man help his wife learn to cook or why could he not take a second wife since this was allowed back there instead of divorcing her because she was barren. They could have used Sarah as an example.
What if the woman had an uncleanness that put her out of the camp for a week or so. He could have been patient. These people divorced because of the hardness of the heart but the Israelites took unfaithfulness sexually seriously. So seriously that people were stoned to death. There was a supernatural like test used to test a woman's faithfulness if the husband suspected her of committing adultery. They prepared this potion and made the woman drink it and if she was guilty of this sin her thigh would rot. This is where it was said that if she was guilty and it was proven by this test then she had to deal with her sin and the Bible said the man was innocent.

Whether or not this was under the Old TEstament or not does not matter. You want people to believe your interpretation of the Bible. That is your right to have your own opinion but the consensus has been and the majority of preachers and Christians believe that a person has the right to remarry if there spouse cheats on them.

You have not addressed my post at all about what I went through except to make some snide remark about OJ Simpson and Nicole. Anyone can see not only in my posts but others that no one has had a hard heart. YOu act like we can force the other person to stay in the marriage. You say we have a hard heart so please take the time and explain how a person who tried to keep the marriage together and was faithful and loving and caring would be guilty of having a hard heart. You throw accusations at people but you don't have a clue what went on in my marriage or anyone elses.

Every person which has written on this thread has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they did not take divorce lightly. That they tried to keep their marriage together but their spouses were not interested in being faithful to the marriage. So if you want to quote the Hard heart aspect of what Jesus said then you my friend find people in the church who divorced frivoulsy and did not give their partner a chance and be hard nosed to them.

I think as the years go by you will soften your attitude. YOu may not think so now but it will happen. God has a way of making it happen.

 

I disagree. One position is wrong. It has nothing to do with people loving God and his Word. The positions presented here are mutually exclusive. They can't both be right.</font>[/QUOTE]I agree with what you have said. My point was that your disagreeement with a position does not make that position wrong. It may well make you wrong (which I indeed believe the overwhelming evidence of Scripture shows you to be). But you maintain your position for reasons sufficient to yourself. My point in that comment was to urge caution about asserting your position as biblical truth when those who hold the other positions have valid biblical/theologica/exegetical reasons for holding it. Like it or not, every objection you have presented here has been answered in a substantial exegetical way.

A person can still divorce because of the hardness of heart. It is not God's intent nor is it his ideal. It is the reality. For instance, person A (gender unspecified) is married to person B. Person B decides for whatever reason to leave the marriage. Person B is urged by his/her spouse and counseled by others not to leave. He/she is shown biblical reasons for continuing the marraige. He/she adamantly refuses. That is a textbook definition of "hardness of heart." That person is to be disciplined from the church (if they are a member) and person A is free. Now you can decide what they are free to do. 1 Cor 7 is the disputed passage. Does 'not bound' in v. 15 mean not bound to pursue the marriage or not bound to the marriage but free to remarry. The biblical evidence suggests the latter. There are a number of complicated issues involved, about which I wrote some position papers a while back. My encouragement to you is realize that people who hold the opposing position may not be wrong; it may indeed be you. I think I could arguely conclusively against every reason you have put forth here. In fact, I have done so.

I don't think anyone here is arguing for divorce and remarriage, as if they support or encourage it. The question is, Does the Bible allow for it in some cases?? The answer is clearly yes, unless you twist the text beyond reasonability. The "exception clause" passage has to be turned inside out to deny the exception. The question in regards to Jesus words are, "Which texts take priority?" I think a theological reasoning would lead to saying that the fuller texts do. It would compromise inerrancy to add to Jesus words (if the exception clauses is added in). It would not compromise inerrancy if it was omitted due to the purpose of the author. This cannot be overlooked in this discussion. It seems you would pretend practically speaking that the exception clause doesn't exist. I cannot in good conscience do that. Then when you tie in teh words of Paul, it becomes even more clear that "the one who marries has not sinned" (vv. 27-28). To call remarriage sin is to do exactly what the Bible does not do. I am not comfortable with any alternative exegesis to solve that problem. I would prefer to let the text stand as it does.

In summary,
1. Divorce is never God's ideal or intent. It is always the result of sin, but is not always sin in itself. God intended one man plus one woman for one lifetime.
2. If divorce has been pursued by a professing believer apart from biblical reasons (adultery/abandonment), it is grounds for church discipline. In this, person A could (but does not have to) pursue a divorce from Person B if Person B committed adultery. The best option is forgiveness. If Person B refuses to repent, Person A can pursue a divorce, according to the exception clause.
3. If divorce has occurred, remarriage is a possibility for some. Appropriate steps of repentance and reconciliation must be pursued and remarriage must be entered into with great caution and counsel.

While I may have omitted some finer points, or may have inaccurately worded some points, this stands as my position. I reserve the right to clarify things that may be confusing.

Let's just be careful about questioning people's spirituality or love for God and truth because they differ on this issue.

 

Pastor Larry, I would like to add some concluding thoughts to yours.

1. I am not avoiding the exception clause. In fact, I have repeatedly appealed to Matthew 5 and 19 (the two texts with the exception clause). My contention is that it was for those under Moses, as Jesus said.

2. hrhema, the Mosaic Law is a single unit. It addresses civil, moral, and sacrifical laws. However, according to James and Paul, the Law was one single unit. You cannot divide it. That is your downfall in interpretation.

3. Every text that the majority (which would also include catholics, btw) position puts forth can equally be answered. Also, simply by being the majority position doesn't make it right. I would like to know one liberal that embraces my position, Pastor Larry. It is the majority position because of popularity and because of the desire to use Scripture to justify sin rather than spotting it and avoiding it.

 

According to James, Paul, and Pastor Larry, as a matter of fact. He deserves props on that accurate view, as well.

Preach,

How can you forget that the Majority Text is the best Greek text? We know that because . . . it's the majority.

[ December 09, 2002, 09:45 AM: Message edited by: Siegfried ]

 

Classic Siegfried.

Pastor Larry, I did mean to include you in the part about the Law being a single unit.

 

How about this: "I'm sorry, I posted a response to you, that should have been posted to another person, my mistake" "I'm also sorry that I defended those comments I made to you with more comments and conjecture, without spending any time reading the original statement to make sure the comments I made were appropriate."

I forgive you for your assumptions and statements about my character. I realize that you were only trying to win an arguement.

It's better to try to stick to a subject matter when debating, rather than to call the person on the other side of the debates character into question. it's a more honorable tact to take.

[ December 09, 2002, 06:50 PM: Message edited by: WisdomSeeker ]

 

This was posted on the first page...14 pages later...this statement found in the Bible still stands.

[ December 09, 2002, 06:53 PM: Message edited by: WisdomSeeker ]

 

You don't live under the Law of Moses do you? It amazes me how peple desire to live under the Law when it is clear that it has been done away with.

Paul also said that if you must divorce, remain single or be reconciled.

 

That's funny, Preach -- I really thought that was Jesus talking in Matthew 5!

 

My Bible has the wording in red

According to this Bible, it means Jesus is talking.

 

Are you two serious? Jesus said, "You have heard it said... but I say unto you..."

He was correctly interpreting the Law. You have heard the Pharisees with their interpretation. Now, let me tell you what it really means.

If there is any doubt, Jesus said in Matthew 19 (the other passage with the exception clause) that Moses granted it for the hard hearted.

There is two reasons for my interpretation. Btw, the "red ink" is not inspired.

(Good catch BB)

[ December 10, 2002, 10:47 AM: Message edited by: PreachtheWord ]

 

The red ink is not inspired, but the words are.