I'm sure everyone has an opinion that may contain some truth or some things to consider. I'm looking at a lot of perspectives on this whole divorce and remarriage issue, trying to sort out good logic from bad, good theology from bad, trying to discern the Lord's heart and mind on this one. I have a leaning, but I'm interested in your thoughts, particularly if they differ from mine. "As iron sharpens iron..."
I think we all learn in many ways, particularly by wrestling with ideas that don't always agree with us. Truth is truth, whether we like it or not.....
If you have any thoughts, comments, questions or suggestions about some of the web pages listed or on any previous blogs, please feel free to post a comment or question. If you have something not addressed in a blog but would like to comment, I would be willing to put up a new blog post for comment and feedback.
Thanks.
I think we all learn in many ways, particularly by wrestling with ideas that don't always agree with us. Truth is truth, whether we like it or not.....
If you have any thoughts, comments, questions or suggestions about some of the web pages listed or on any previous blogs, please feel free to post a comment or question. If you have something not addressed in a blog but would like to comment, I would be willing to put up a new blog post for comment and feedback.
Thanks.
What do you think about this post?:
ReplyDeletehttp://safeguardyoursoul.com/divorce-remarriage/
One question: Does adultery mean having "sexual relationships" with your new husband/wife?.
ReplyDeleteWhen Jesus said about adultery: if you get married after divorce..., is it adultery because remarriage will be linked to sex?.
If so, if you continue with your new marriage without sex, would it be adultery?
Blessings
I have many thoughts regarding the web page you posted; I will try to be brief because there are many things that could be said back and forth about it.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, a common position on divorce/remarriage is this "2 conditions" position - that a marriage covenant can be ended by adultery or by desertion. The first thought I have about it is that if Paul is stating (In 1 Cor 7) abandonment as a condition that can end a marriage covenant, and if that means the person is free to remarry, then why does Paul say nothing about adultery being a condition that can also end the covenant? I think it is a valid argument to say that if Matthew was making the point that Jesus allowed adultery as the only reason for the end of the covenant, and Paul states desertion as the only reason for the end of the covenant, then they contradict each other, and they both contradict Mark who says there is no reason for it to be considered endable.
A second thought about 1 Cor 7 seems to be that if you look at it in the context, the point Paul is dealing with is not about the freedom of one's marital status; his point is about working toward the salvation of the lost spouse. I think he is saying that you can let them go, because if you try to drag across the country to get them saved, it might be a futile effort anyway. He wasn't speaking in the context of dragging across the country for the sake of keeping the marriage together for the marriage's sake, but for the sake of the salvation of the marriage partner. This, I think, is the point of the passage he writes. It is about salvation of the lost partner that he has in mind in these few verses, not a freedom to remarry. I just don't think that is what Paul was considering in the verse where he says the believer is not under bondage.
Second, I think you need to read Matthew and Mark as separate books, to separate intended audiences. Mark makes a point that any divorce and remarriage is entering into a state of adultery (and in the Greek, it has the implication of a state of being, not a one-time act...). Matthew frames the situation a little differently - to Jews, who would have been famiiar with the Shammai-Hillel debate, which is why Matthew includes, "for every and any reason" in the question from the pharisees. Jesus responded in a way that would not have added confusion for the Jew, who would see the word fornication referring in the context to something other than adultery (sex during betrothal, an illicit marriage that never was blessed by God in the first place, but was judged as needing to be taken apart because it violated God's conditions for what constitutes a valid marriage, and is therefore an illicit relationship under His judgement).
Don't know if this is "scratching the itch" as far as addressing what it was in the post you were pointing to, or if you were taking notice of a point or two there that I've not touched on, but feel free to write back. I promise I will pay a little closer attention to my web page in the future. Thanks for stopping by. Be blessed!
I do think, on your other question, that you are hitting close to the mark - I believe when Jesus said it was committing adultery, it is because of the clear implication that marriage is the way to legitimize sex with the new partner, because they are "married." I do think that is exactly his point: to paraphrase, emphasizing the verb tenses in the Greek, "anyone who divorces their partner and goes through the act of marrying another person (by making vows of marriage to another partner) is really just entering into a state of adultery, not entering into an actual new marriage." That is what I see in the passage. So technically, if you were not having sexual relations with the new partner, I suppose you would not be committing adultery. But is that workable? I think it gets complicated because there are so many factors to consider, such as what living in the same house says to the community about the divorce and subsequent appearance of adultery by "remarriage." And the whole point is that there is still the covenant between you and the first partner in God's eyes. And by the way, I think it's fair to say that when Jesus said, "what God has joined together, let not man put asunder," we need to see that not as him saying "don't bust what God put together," but "don't drive space between what God has joined together as inseparable, because no matter how much space you drive between the husband and wife, it cannot be broken, but this will all strain it horribly." I think this is a reasonable possibility with the word in the original.
ReplyDeleteHello Honest Seeker,
ReplyDeleteYou come across as a man of gentle wisdom from above who invites discussion accompanied by a humble spirit as well as inviting correction from differing views. To me, this is remarkable in the fractured and polarized state we exist with in the church and the culture.
Would you care to comment on my situation. As a single I married a divorced woman whose husband was still living. After 14 yrs she wanted a divorce. We both are professing Christians. After 8 yrs of seeking to love her in such a way that was newly developed in me by the handiwork of God the divorce finally was made official. On the day the divorce decree was handed to me I discovered the doctrine of the Permanence View of Marriage. I believe exactly as you do and was wondering in your understanding of scripture am I free to remarry for the first time legitamately or would you counsel me like yourself to stand firm in prayer for a reconciliation with my illegitamate wife if in the providence of God her husband who has remarried passes on? Thank you.
FaithToFaith;
ReplyDeleteThanks for the kind remarks. Though I've often been judged for some of my thoughts and actions over the years, it has always been my heart to do the right thing. It feels good to be understood once in a while.
My heart goes out to you, as I realize from living through the situation myself, divorce is never easy, no matter how painful the marriage was.
I will first give you a short answer, and then expand a little bit on where my thoughts come from.
My short answer is that I believe you are free to marry. If God doesn't give you a particular conviction about trying to reconcile with this woman, and if your heart is healed enough to be able to live again, looking forward to the future, then I would say that if God brings someone into your life to bless you as your wife, then I believe God would be pleased for you to pursue that relationship with God's blessing.
And now, let me explain where this answer comes from.
First of all, after much study and prayer over this issue, I do have to say my views have changed a lot in the last couple of years. I don't know if you will notice this or not, but I started this blog a few years ago, and I've not even visited it much at all in the last year and a half or so.
Secondly, and this is an irony - I NEVER DID subscribe to the "permanence view" of marriage. When I wrote the post about Voddie Baucham and the permanence view, I was opposed to the position he was presenting. But at the time, the reason I opposed the view was because at the time, I was holding to the belief that subsequent marriages are an ongoing condition of adultery and need to be repented of to be pleasing to the Lord.
Life has been a long journey these past 10 years and I have studied this issue for literally HUNDREDS of hours now, looking at the original languages and the original context, the cultural understandings at the time and many other issues.
I had been interacting with a few other fellows of different positions on this issue for quite a while who all held to different positions. They all had reasons for teaching what they did. The all held to the bible as their reference book, all believed it to be the final authority for faith and conduct. And yet, they all had different interpretations of what it meant. It was interesting, and there were a couple guys on there who were particularly gracious even though we disagreed. And there was one guy who was particularly cantankerous, who held to the position I did when I got there, and who, ironically, was part of the reason I eventually abandoned my (and his) position.
Your email made me aware that I need to update this blog with my most recent understandings on the issue.
FaithToFaith, understand that, like Jesus said when defending David for eating the bread out of the tabernacle on the sabbath, where he said, "the sabbath was made for man, not man made for the sabbath," understand and be free in the understanding that the marriage covenant was made for man, not the other way around.
Man was not made as a means to uphold marriage covenants; the marriage covenant was designed to bless and honor and protect those who are in it. If the marriage is destroying the people who are in it in the process of keeping it together, then I do believe that God, in His mercy, sees that breaking any covenant is a bad thing, but it might well at times be the lesser of two evils.
If you would like to know more, please let me know, I can email you privately with a good reading list of what I have (so far) come to see as the best books on this subject from different perspectives, and I would be willing to share with you the reasons why I now hold this view I spelled out for you briefly here.
Perhaps if I get more responses from this post, I will update the blog with my current views. Let me know if you would like to discuss this further, and I can contact you by email..
I will pray that God will give you peace, joy and FREEDOM in whatever path He leads you.
Honest Seeker