Divorce question...specifics...

1 Cor 7:27-28 also says that if a divorced person (one loosed from his marriage) remarries, it is not sin.

A person who has remarried is to stay remarried. A second divorce (that does not involve adultery or desertion) is a sin and doesn't make it any better. What Craig has ultimately advocated is that two wrongs make a right. I don't think that case can ever be made.

The adultery in this case is not on ongoing state because it takes place in marriage.

 

There's really nothing to explain. There's nothing unscriptural about your marriage. As far as your previous marriages, they ended for scriptural reasons: in your case, adultery; in her case, abandonment (her spouse abandoned the marriage for alcohol). However, if you feel there were sins that contributed to damage in the relationship, feel free to give them to the Lord.

Indeed.

You're in a situation where others are judging you unrighteously. This should not be your cross to bear, it should be theirs. You need not give your life story to everyone who asks. If the topic comes up, simply inform them that your previous marriages ended over scriptural reasons. They don't need to know the details, for those are between you, your spouse, and your Lord.

 

3John2, FYI, several years ago, I caught my wife in the act of adultery. I'm divorced now, and dating a wonderful Godly women (who has never been married). I do plan on getting married again someday.

 

So can you explain what Jesus was getting at here:

So this is simply a one time occurance of adultery - on the wedding day? After that it's okay?

I don't understand.

 

Marriage is one man, one woman, one lifetime. Period.

 

Since 3John2 is married to only one woman, and his wife is married to only one man, that point is moot.

 

Just for the record, I'm not accusing you of adultery. While the scripture I mentioned above seems to indicate that, I'm not 100% sure, so I'll leave that up to you, your wife, and God.

 

John I'll tell you what I believe. Unless your becoming a decon or a pastor .... or intrested in that, it's none of their business. It's pure gossip. And bad gossip at that. Who knows what could have happened to your wife in her first marriage. From what you have said , it looks like it was just a matter of time before he would have become violent. And God dosen't want that. Not at all. People comdeming you for your marriage, are not being christian. It is our job to help ( not hinder , not drive nuts) . You and your Wife's prior divorces are between you and GOD. Not between you and the general public. Don't lose the faith. It sounds like God has blessed you and her both with each other. And Even if it WAS a sin (and i'm NOT saying it is).. Sounds like you confessed it. So umm Christ's own words. GO and sin no more, come to my mind. Don't sweat it . You can't change the past you can only hang on to your future. I know that the LORD will bless you .And, I will be praying for you as well. Don't sweat the small stuff

 

On the contrary,I do not believe this is small stuff...

I think people in the church should be looking out for others...the bible teaches that in Matt 18,Godly counsel is very beneficial to keeping our souls in line....now for the divorce issue.

I see both sides. I realize that your first wife committed adultery,so you had biblical grounds for divorce...sometimes in these cases it takes forgiveness(on your part) and repentance on her part to make it work,which I believe to have been the first priority and the best choice...just divorcing someone because of this is not always the best answer. If she would not repent,then divorce may be the only option....I'm really not sure about this.

Also,remarrying after a divorce is a toughy...men I respect a lot(John Piper and John MacArthur) disagree on this topic...good biblical teachers disagree...so I am unsure where I stand. I do realize it is a big deal,though, and I appreciate your sincerity on wanting to do what is right.

Of course,now that you are divorced and remarried,you can not go back and redo all that...it is done...just repent of your sins(you and your present wife). Allow God to teach you and show you through His Word how to live now.

Molly

 

Remarriage after divorce is forbidden unless your prior spouse is dead. However, Paul tells people to remain in whatever state you find yourself.

In other words, your sin was in the remarriage, of which you have been forgiven, but you would only compound that original sin by divorcing again.

 

Paul says 1 Cor 7:28 that a person who marriess after divorce has not sinned.

 

Johnv, I do not have the luxury to be so hyper-simplistic about texts.

 

This statement is false. These two verses actually say:

27. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife.
28. But if you marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Yet such will have trouble in this life, and I am trying to spare you. (NASB)

These two verses can not be interpreted to say that if a divorced person remarries, it is not a sin because the author, Paul, in the very same chapter of the very same epistle has already excluded that interpretation:

11. (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife. (NASB)

This statement is false as already shown from the very same chapter of the very same epistle.

1 Cor. 7:27-28 do not explicitly say that that if a divorced person remarries, it is not sin. However, verse 11 does explicitly say that the divorced woman “must remain unmarried.” But even if it were not for verse 11, the following verses explicitly forbid remarriage (to a different spouse) after divorce:

32 but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the cause of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. (NASB)

Matt. 19:9 "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery." (NASB)

Rom. 7:1. Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives?
2. For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband.
3. So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man. (NASB, 1995)

1 Cor. 7:10. But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband
11. (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife. (NASB, 1995)


Question: Is the interpretation of the scriptures that I am presenting here a new interpretation from modern theology? No, it is the teaching of the Church for 1500 years, and the teaching of the vast majority of the church until just 40 years ago. The teaching that remarriage after divorce is not a sin is a new interpretation from modern theologians and pastors. This licentious teaching only became popular in the last 40 years as pastors wanted to make divorced people feel more comfortable in their churches, just as the liberal churches today are changing their theology to make homosexual couples feel more comfortable in their churches. Where is this licentiousness going to stop?

But there is no real need for me to appeal to ancient church history to defend the interpretation that I have present here, for that interpretation is the one and only literal interpretation of the Scriptures, and we all know what has happened to the family as a consequence of the licentious teaching put forth by modernists.

 

Another, blatantly false statement. I never so much as hinted at such an evil idea! The Scriptures are clear, but the stakes are high.

Prov. 16:25 There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. (KJV)

 

What we are discussing here is our doctrinal beliefs regarding divorce. In order to formulate a solid doctrinal stance one must employ systematic theology. Systematic theology is simply using a “systematic” approach in order to see what the entire Bible has to say about a specific issue. By using such a systematic approach we guard against the hermeneutical mistake of building a doctrine based only on scriptures that support the presuppositions we bring to the biblical text.

There are several doctrinal positions on this issue. Those who hold to a “no divorce under any circumstance” view focus their position on the passages of Scripture that seem to explicitly forbid divorce. However, they fail to adequately explain the passages of Scripture that explicitly grant biblical exceptions for divorce. As best as I can tell those who hold this view make one or more of the following hermeneutical mistakes in their biblical interpretation:

1. They simply disregard Jesus’ statement, "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery" (Matt. 19:9, NASB). Similarly they disregard Paul’s statement, “Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace” (1 Cor. 7:15, NASB). The problem here is that they are either willing ignore other Scriptures that are problematic for their interpretation of specific passages, or they are simply being intellectually dishonest with the biblical texts.

2. They conveniently break from the use of literal historical/grammatical interpretation in favor of a spiritualized or allegorical interpretation. This allows them to arrive at the “no divorce” interpretation which lines up with their “no divorce” presupposition. The problem here is that these same interpreters cry foul and “Liberal” when others employ this same type of interpretation tactic in favor of homosexual issues and/or women serving in the pastorate etc.

3. They explain away Matthew 19:9 as being a scribal error (or worse at later insertion) and question why Jesus’ remarks here are not also found in gospel accounts of Mark or Luke. The problem here goes to the very heart of the battle over the inerrancy of the Bible. Do we conservative and fundamental Baptists want to go down this road? Are we willing to say that a single word in the Bible is not the inerrant, infallible, inspired, Word of God? I don’t think so.

4. They explain away the 1 Corinthians 7:15 passage as being from Paul and not the Lord due to 1 Corinthians 7:12. The problem here is that the entire book of 1 Corinthians is in the canon of Scripture. We hold that entire book is the inerrant, infallible, inspired Word of God. Again, the use of this argument calls the inerrancy of the Bible into question. Are we willing to go down this road? If we are willing to go this way how do we know which parts of the Bible are God’s Word and which parts are not?

Then there are those who would espouse that divorce is biblically acceptable for just about any reason. Clearly the Bible stands against such an interpretation. There simply are too many passages of Scripture which prohibit divorce and the two exceptions referenced above are very specific to divorce only in cases of adultery and when a believing spouse is abandoned by an unbelieving spouse. Additionally, I’m not sure that I am willing to accept the idea that a spouse can “abandon” another spouse for booze, drugs, sports, or whatever. Clearly these things can be terribly sinful habits. However, I think the intent of 1 Corinthians 7:15 is directed specifically to physical abandonment. I think the thrust of the passage is referring to one spouse disserting the other (i.e. a non-Christian man moving out and leaving his wife and children, taking away his financial support and provision for them, and going his own way as if he had never been married or fathered children). Now in cases of abuse I would say that a wife is to take steps to protect herself and her children from harm. She could move into a safe house, obtain restraining orders, and use the police and legal system to protect herself. However, I don’t see a biblical exception for a Christian spouse to divorce an abusive spouse. Separation and protection yes—divorce no.

Finally, there is the question of divorce and remarriage. Craigbythesea stated:

I’m sorry to disagree. However, 1 Corinthians 7:15 says otherwise. Here the Scripture says that a Christian spouse who has been abandoned by an unbelieving spouse is no longer under bondage.

The King James translates the passage: “But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace (1 Cor. 7:15, KJV).

The NASB translates the passage: “Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace” (1 Cor. 7:15, NASB).

The NIV translates it as: “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” (1 Cor. 7:15, NIV).

Now let’s logically reason through the implications and applications of such biblical statements. If we agree with the Scripture here and say that a Christian spouse who has been abandoned/disserted by an unbelieving spouse is no longer under bondage, how does that flesh out in the real world? Well,… no longer under bondage (or no longer bound) must mean that the Christian spouse is no longer matrimonially connected to the abandoning/disserting unbeliever. In other words he/she is free. If this is the case, and I believe that it is, then the Christian (who was abandoned/disserted) must be free to remarry. Here some will cry that the Scripture nowhere says that they are to remarry (returning to a strict literal interpretation when it aids their presupposition against divorce and remarriage). However, it is completely illogical to say that the Christian spouse is no longer bound to the abandoning/disserting unbelieving spouse, and then turn around a claim that they cannot remarry because they are still married (bound) to the other spouse. I’m sorry, but no longer bound means free and free means free to choose remarriage or not.

Now provided that we agree that Matthew 19:9 is the inerrant, infallible, inspired Word of God, and that it does permit an exception for divorce in cases of adultery and coupled with the teaching of the equally inerrant, infallible, inspired Word of God in 1 Corinthians 7:15, we must admit that the New Testament clearly does allow for divorce and remarriage under two specific conditions. Additionally, under those two specific conditions there is no sin of adultery committed by a remarriage because those parties have been declared free by the Scriptures. Perhaps this is why we don’t see “adulterous remarriages” recorded in the records of early church history (because they were not considered adulterous, but rather; they were simply people who were free to marry).

 

Bible Boy, the remarks you made about alcohol and violence not being a cause for divorce struck me as strange. I assume that you have never been there. Of course, in this day and age we now have laws and safe houses for the protection of the abused. Of course we've all heard about how much laws, restraining orders and the legal system protect the abused. It's a little hard to use the legal system when one is dead; killed by a spouse who follows his estranged wife around and shots holes through her and that restraining order when the law is no where to be seen. No law, legal system, safe house or police can save a person when their spouse is bent on teaching them a lesson.
In my case there were no laws in place against demostic violence, no safe houses and restraining orders were barely heard of. I did not take my marriage vows lightly. I stayed in that hell for 22 years and the violence just got worse and worse. I had no one to help me as everyone in the family was also scared of him. He threatened to kill us all so many times and he followed family members around for some strange reason known only to himself. When the abuse got so bad that he threatened my son for standing up for me, I knew that I had to do something. I was not about to let my son kill his father nor let my husband put his son in jail.

God finally gave me the courage to walk out the door and never look back and I can tell you, I was scared out of my wits. We did have to move to get away from him but were always looking over our shoulder. I believe he finally realized that I was no longer scared of him and he just sank into a drunken stupor from then on that killed him five years later.

Things are not always cut and dried, not the perfect little formal some seem to think everyone should use to solve everything.

The inward scars from those years will be with me for the rest of my life. For years I could not stand for a man to even hug me or place his hand on my arm or shoulder. I still can't stand the smell of alcohol or be around anyone who is drinking it. I have had trouble trusting men and was openly hostile toward them for years. At least, I have gotten over that. Abuse of any kind destroys lives for years after it is over. I have not been able to form a close relationsip with any man and I have been divorced 13 years. I don't want to grow old by myself, but my perception of marriage has been distorted because I stayed in an abusive marriage for 22 years because of distored beliefs that I had no other recourse.
My son cannot stand to have his father's name mentioned and wants both of us to change our last name to my maiden name. He has trouble with relationsips also and is a loner.

And now you tell me that I had no right to divorce such a man. I believe God has been much more sympathetic. He has blessed me beyond what I could ever imagine when I was married. I'm in a good church (I was not allowed to attend church when I was married). I have lots of good friends. I have a really good job and I can now afford to buy food and pay my bills instill of living on credit because all the extra money was gone for alcohol.
Perhaps one day God will bless me with a good husband who understands me and what I've been through. I'm still praying for that. Even my boss says I would make some lucky man a really good wife. lol

 

Delly,

Your situation is repeated over and over in many relationships, and I'll be the last to accuse you of wrong doing. I have no problems with what you did, and would support you.

But from a biblical viewpoint, it's more of a challenge. I suppose that's why a lot of folks consider abuse to be a form of "abandonment", in that the abuser has "abandoned" the proper role of husband (or in some cases, wife). Personally, I don't know if this is an accurate definition.

I'm sure this is a sensitive situation for you, and I don't want to add any sort of sense of guilt. I don't believe God would want anyone to remain in such a situation, even if it's not spelled out clearly in scripture. Do what you can to reconcile - but if that's not possible it's time to move on before greater harm is done.

May God bless you and your son.