Page 1 of 1

Divorce and remarriage

Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 11:11 am
by Marc
Is divorce allowable based on Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9? Thayer defines "porneia" in these passages as "used of adultery" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon). If so does the offending party have the biblical right to marry again?

That's all folks.

Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 6:46 pm
by Hugh McBryde
Assuming both parties in the divorce are believers, no.

Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 9:01 pm
by Marc
After studying this issue more I believe the Bible does declare that divorce and remarriage are allowed (even among believers) in the case of adultery. Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 make no distinction.

- Marc

Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 4:12 pm
by Phebe
Hi Marc,

Looking at Mark 10:11-12, Luke 16:18, and Paul's teachings in Romans 7:2-3 and 1 Cor. 7:11, 39... I'd be very interested in knowing how you came to your conclusions from your further study.

Divorce and remarriage is quite a 'hot topic' today, and a very needed study.

~Phebe

Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 2:45 pm
by Marc
Hi Phebe,

How's it going.

As with every doctrine we must consider "every" passage of Scripture for "the sum of Thy word is truth" (Psalms 119:160). Emphasize the word "sum".

The passages listed show that divorce is not to take place but according to Matthew 5:32 there is an exception to this. God doesn't have to state the exception to the command everytime the command is given. It just takes one time. In Matthew 5 Christ gives the Old Testament commands but notice He gives its spiritual application "but I say unto you". So what He is saying in Matthew 5:32 in regards to the exception it is authoritative for us today.

Those who oppose that divorce and remarriage are allowable in this passage use many arguments. I will list just a few of them (besides the one above) with my response:

1. But God says that the husband and wife shall be "one flesh".

Response: In 1 Corinthians 6:16 a person who has sex with a harlot is considered to be "one flesh" with her but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is permanent. I'm sure there have been unmarried men (and women) who have done this but later decided to get married. Their marriage is valid.

2. Genesis 2:24 states that the man will "cleave" (dabaq) unto his wife.

Response: Dabaq does not always mean something permanent for in Jeremiah 13:11 speaks of a waisteband "clinging" to the waist of a man. But certainly the watseband can be removed.

3. Christ was only referring to mixed marriages between the people of God and unbelievers.

Response: Paul stated that even in this situation this type of marriage is to be maintained (1 Corinthians 7:12-14).

I suppose there could be more but this is a start.

Kind regards
- Marc

Posted: Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:57 pm
by Phebe
Thanks Marc,

I find the more I study, the more scripture seems to prohibit remarriage after divorce ( unless it's done in reconciliation to an original spouse, or to another after the death of a spouse).

At any rate, I'm keeping an open mind... it's too important a topic, to miss the truth on MDR.

God bless,
~Phebe

Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2006 12:08 pm
by Marc
Hi Phebe,

I believe that not only does Matthew 5:32 allow for divorce but it also allows the offending party to remarry any other partner.

If it was allowed in the Old Testament (under the Law) then why would wouldn't it be allowed now that we are no longer under the Law but of grace?

Matthew 5:32 reads:

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


That's like saying:

Whoever drives on this road, except a cop, and speeds is breaking two laws.
(Gets divorced), (the offended party), (remarry)

Those who argue that no divorce is allowable at all would therefore have to agree with this sentence:

1. Whoever drives on this road and speeds, including the cop, is breaking two laws.

Those who argue that the offended party can not remarry anyone else have it no better. You see, the cop (representing the offended party) has both the right to drive on the road (get divorced) and speed (remarry).

Regards
- Marc

Wow! Lots of good questions here...

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:24 am
by m273p15c
I think that there are three good questions here. Maybe they should be split into three threads, but please allow me to separately identify and address all three...

Is there any exception to the law of "marriage for life"?
Phebe wrote:I find the more I study, the more scripture seems to prohibit remarriage after divorce ( unless it's done in reconciliation to an original spouse, or to another after the death of a spouse).
I appreciate and agree with of Marc's central argument. The key here is to take all Scriptures into account. It is a mistake to focus on a subset of Scriptures on any topic. However, since Jesus clearly mentions an exception in these verses, it behooves us to examine these extra closely, lest we gloss over the exception:
Matthew, recording Jesus, wrote:"Furthermore it has been said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.' But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery." (Matthew 5:31-32)

They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?" He said to them, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery." (Matthew 19:7-9)
What clause is Jesus "excepting"? The first verse absolves the innocent party of any guilt related to the adulterer's inevitable lifestyle of ongoing affairs and adultery, following the divorce. In other words, the innocent party is not responsible for what the adulterer may do after the divorce, surely because they have brought it upon themselves. In the second passage, Jesus exempts the innocent party from any responsibility to maintain the marriage. In other words, they are free to remarry as well as divorce. Given the context, to what else could Jesus be granting exception?

Regardless of the other passages, I do not see how Jesus could have more clearly stated an exception to the marriage law; therefore, I take these verses at face value. Nevertheless, please let us examine the previously mentioned passages for the sake of dilligence:

In general the other passages gloss over the exception, simply because they are briefer accounts or because the exception is not relevant to their point. For example, Luke's account devotes only one verse to what consumes 12 verses in Matthew 19; furthermore, Luke's similar account of Jesus' great sermon does not even mention lust or adultery, much less divorce and remarriage (search for comparable of Matthew 5:27-32 in Luke 6). Does that mean Jesus did not say it? Were these verses not important because Luke did not repeat them? Moreover, Matthew's account of the Pharisees' questioning contains other points either not mentioned in Mark's account or glossed over by him (Matthew 19:10-12). To require identical testimony in all accounts, especially considering we are concerned about an exception - not the rule - seems a difficult position for maintaining consistency.

Incidentally, I believe we are missing God's point when we focus on the exception. The simple fact that the exception is not mentioned in every passage is evidence to God's primary concern - faithful marriages, not lawful divorces. Therefore, it need not be a surprise if the exception is not always mentioned; otherwise, it would be the rule, and the rule would be the exception. ;-)

In Romans 7:1-4 Paul is using the analogy of marriage to explain how the Jews were spiritually free to remarry through the death of Jesus. Their Husband had died - not committed adultery! Introducing an additional possibility regarding adultery would have been confusing at best, if not blasphemous. How would the marriage law's exception proved relevant, given that the realization of that exception was inconceivable for Paul's case?

Therefore, these passages can be reconciled by acknowledging not all passages contain all truths on any point. In fact, introducing every possibly related point can be disastrous to the writer's main point, as seen in the preceding paragraph. If there is an exception, God should only have to state it once, because we should put all the passages together. In this case, He stated it twice (Matthew 5:31-32; 19:7-9).

Are sinners amenable to the Law of Christ, specifically regarding MDR?
Hugh McBryde wrote:Assuming both parties in the divorce are believers, no.
Why does it make a difference if they are a believer? Do instructions regarding stealing, murder, adultery, and lying only apply to Christians? Can a thief keep his plunder, if he's converted after stealing?

Does the offending party have a right to remarry?
Marc wrote:I believe that not only does Matthew 5:32 allow for divorce but it also allows the offending party to remarry any other partner.

If it was allowed in the Old Testament (under the Law) then why would wouldn't it be allowed now that we are no longer under the Law but of grace?
Just because the New Covenant is rooted in grace rather than perfect law-keeping, we should neither assume that it has no laws nor that its laws are more tolerant. Although many burdensome rituals were eliminated in the New Covenant (Acts 15:10), many moral laws were actually tightened, especially those regarding marriage and divorce:
Matthew, quoting Jesus, wrote: Furthermore it has been said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.' But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery. (Matthew 5:31-32)

They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?" He said to them, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery." (Matthew 19:7-9)
Jesus raised the bar for marriage and divorce, but He also raised the bar for lust, hatred, truthfulness, and revenge, when compared to the traditions surrounding the Old Law, as taught by the Pharisees (Matthew 5:17-20). ... It is a rash assumption to associate grace with laxness. In fact, as recipients of a greater blessing and covenant (Book of Hebrews), we should anticipate that more responsibility will be generally expected of us (Luke 12:48).

Since "whoever marries her commits adultery", who can possibly marry the offending party without joining in the adultery? Who is not covered by the term, "whoever"?

Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 1:13 pm
by Phebe
m273p15c wrote: ...I do not see how Jesus could have more clearly stated an exception to the marriage law...
I see several things to be addressed in this (Mt. 19:9, 5:32) and supporting verses, but I'd like to make the single comment that Jesus doesn't seem to include 'remarriage' with the allowance of divorce. We see in Paul's writings that ONLY death frees a person to remarry biblically.

There is no Conflict.

Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 1:15 pm
by Hugh McBryde
Paul and Christ either agree, or we are lost.

Agreed - There cannot be a conflict

Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 5:36 pm
by m273p15c
I agree with Hugh here. There cannot be a conflict, because God cannot lie (Titus 1:2). So, either the passages are in harmony, or God is not the ultimate author of these two texts!

Somehow, I doubt Phebe is advocating the second position. So, Phebe, how would you harmonize Jesus' exception with Paul's wording?

Thanks!

Re: Divorce and remarriage

Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 4:20 pm
by foc
Marc wrote:Is divorce allowable based on Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9? Thayer defines "porneia" in these passages as "used of adultery" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon). If so does the offending party have the biblical right to marry again?
Where there is an actual breach of the marriage covenant and the innocent has decided to put the guilty away, divorce is justified and tolerated because of sin.
When the marriage is ended for a legitimate breach of covenant, there is no existing 'marriage' remaining and either person would be free to marry.

One Way Street.

Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 4:23 pm
by Hugh McBryde
Divorce, scripturally, continues to be allowed only to the husband. The offending party in adultery in a marriage is always the wife when it comes to allowable divorce. The offended party is in the same case, always the husband.

Hugh McBryde

Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 4:30 pm
by foc
Phebe wrote:
m273p15c wrote: ...I do not see how Jesus could have more clearly stated an exception to the marriage law...
I see several things to be addressed in this (Mt. 19:9, 5:32) and supporting verses, but I'd like to make the single comment that Jesus doesn't seem to include 'remarriage' with the allowance of divorce. We see in Paul's writings that ONLY death frees a person to remarry biblically.
Actually, taking Jesus statement as a whole as it was meant to be, remarriage is absolutely part of His meaning.

Lets look at Matthew 19:9 for a second.

And I say unto you, 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.
(Mat 19:9)


Notice that if he puts her away and its not for fornication that when either of them remarries they commit adultery.
Adultery cannot be committed against this spouse in this situation unless a remarriage is taking place.
Jesus exception, by default, MUST include the 'marry another' part or there simply is no way He could even begin to bring the marriage specific crime of 'adultery' into the discussion.

Jesus is presenting one continuous thought there where I highlighted. He includes 'marry another' in His exception therefore in this case either adultery is committed upon remarriage or in the case of fornication, adultery is not committed upon remarriage.
Remarriage is part of His exception.
Whether adultery is being committed against that spouse put away is where the question lies.

Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 11:16 am
by truth
with out a doubt this is a subject of debate. it has all so been noted we are not under the Mosaic law ,were Jesus spoke in the book of Matthew 5 he was speaking as a Jew living under law, he was not implementing new law ,he was not tiring to replace the law ,he knew the law was being adulterated and his comments confirm this . he knew the law ,and that the nation needed to return to prier worship .
devoice is permitted under the law in certain circumstance ,but there were those who were devoicing for any reason that they could come up with when Jesus made his comments.
now lets jump a head ,the law has been fulfilled and things are a little different, for the most part we are under the law of the land ,as to what ever that is and to what customs we live in is different all over the globe. and yet living to a setting set of standers
1 Corinthians 7:10-11 (King James Version)
10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
by all means a wife is bound in marriage because of her vow ,a vow is something that god holds to and expects all in Christ to have the same commitment to.
11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried : and let not the husband put away his wife.
if she should leave ,she has done thee act of divorce, she has broken her vow ,what is to be done with her ? if she be in Christ she is under obligation never to remarry and the congregation will hold her to it.
as well verse 11 says that "a husband my not but a away his wife ",he than as well as the woman should not depart it could read this way for a husband." But and if he depart, let him remain unmarried or be reconciled to his wife."as it pertains to the woman it also pertains to the man.
the question is tho what to thee innocent party, a wife leaves( thee offender in this case ) what of the man he does not want to be alone , can he not remarry ? he did not want her to leave ,i say yes let him remarry ,it given that enough time has gone by to show that she is sincere in her actions , as it does say "or be reconciled to her husband"






Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2007 10:08 pm
by foc
"Remain Unmarried or reconcile” vs "not in bondage"
Wm Tipton (FoC)

Assertions/Conclusions of this Article
We will show briefly that the commandment of the Lord to ‘remain unmarried or reconcile’ is NOT a blanket commandment in all marital situations where a breaking of the marriage is taking place, but is instead directed to two believers who have left their marriage without just cause, and that Paul also had no commandment for those marriages that weren’t equally yoked, didnt given the same instruction to these who were married to an unbeliever, not having any commandment from the Lord in the matter, and then also offered a concession not given to those who were equally yoked to another believer who had left their marriage for whatever frivolous reason.

Supporting Evidence

Firstly lets look at the actual passages
"And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, 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. (1Co 7:10-11 KJV)
vs
"But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. (1Co 7:12- * KJV)
1.0
"Remain Unmarried or reconcile”

"And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord,

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist or brain surgeon or even a biblical scholar to look at that passage as a whole, instead of breaking it into minute pieces as our false ones do, and see that overall Paul is speaking to two groups there. The first being those where obviously both the husband and the wife are both listening since Paul addresses both of them therein.
This idea is made absolute by Pauls making a clear distinction in his next words in saying “BUT TO THE REST SPEAK I, NOT THE LORD” where he shows clearly that he is now speaking to ‘the rest’ of married couples who do not fall into whatever category as the first group fell. These are defined as being those who are married to someone who ‘believeth not’ which we understand as as ‘unequally yoked’ marriage.

Notice that Paul makes it very clear that to these who ARENT married to someone who ‘believeth not’ that he isnt speaking, but the Lord is giving commandment to these.
Easy enough concept to see, to understand and to accept for those reading and being honest enough to let the words say what they simply state.

To these who arent married to someone who ‘believed not’, these are married to someone who instead is a believer. They cannot be anything else or otherwise Pauls words “BUT TO THE REST” when he speaks to the rest who are married make no logical sense whatsoever.
These in verses 7:10-11 MUST be those who are NOT married to someone who ‘believeth not’ but MUST be to those marriages where the person being spoken to is married to a believer. Being honest with ourselves, we accept the targets of these words to be those marriages where both persons are a believer...ie ‘equally yoked’.

To these, Paul shows that the Lord has given commandment if they depart to remain unmarried (ARAMOC/agamos/single/unwed) or reconcile with the man she left”
This makes logical sense and harmonizes quite well with Gods whole word and is even completely logical even if we set scripture aside for a moment.
These are two people who have compatible beliefs who, for whatever reason, have left their marriage who, as christians, should be quite interested in working together as ALL believers in Christ should be doing in order to be in harmony with one another.
BOTH of these persons, as followers of Jesus Christ, having entered a marital covenant and having set it aside for whatever frivolous reasonings, should be willing to work together to reunite what they created together previously and set aside without just cause.
The Lord has commanded these two believers to remain unmarried or reconcile this marriage cast away without just cause (as historical evidence of Corinth is quite capable of showing. That area was not exactly morally sound).


2.0
"not in bondage"

"But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not,

Now we move on ‘to the rest’....to those marriages where Paul is addressing the believer who is married to one who ‘believeth not’.

This is the greek for the ‘rest’...
G3062
Thayer Definition:
1) remaining, the rest
1a) the rest of any number or class under consideration
1b) with a certain distinction and contrast, the rest, who are not of a specific class or number
1c) the rest of the things that remain
These ‘rest’ are those that remain of the groups under consideration, which are clearly those whoare ‘married’. This ‘rest’ are those who are married to unbelievers, clearly indicating that the groups being spoken to in verses 7:10-11 are those who are believers married to believers...in other words, equally yoked.
Since the ‘rest’ are those who are Unequally yoked, logically there is no way that that Paul is speaking to ‘the rest’ in verses 7:10-11 then turning right around and addressing ‘the rest’ again starting in verse 7:12.

To ‘the rest’ who are clearly believers unequally yoked to unbelievers Paul has no commandment of the Lord but is clearly speaking his own mind in the matter. Believing that Paul may not be speaking by direct commandment, we still accept that he is speaking by inspiration of the Holy Spirit and thus his words are ‘law’ for these married to an unbelieving spouse.

Firstly we notice that Pauls words offer a more conditional tone.
“IF a brother has a wife who is pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away”.
If this brother is married to an unbelieving wife who wants to live in peace with him, then he should not put her away.
This church had asked questions of Paul and based on Pauls response its easy to determine that they must have believed that if they became born again, that somehow they were defiled by being with an unbelieving husband.
Paul lets them know in this passage that that isnt the case. The unbelieving spouse is sanctified by the believer (in a physical or spiritual ‘cleaness’ type of manner, not meaning a free ride to heaven without repentance or anything like that).
These clearly were under the impression that it might be ok to just walk out of a marriage if they became saved, yet their spouse did not.
Paul straightens out this erroneous viewpoint and lets them know that if the the unbeliever is mutually ‘pleased’ along with the believer and wants to remain in the marriage, then they arent to put them away, and may even be key to their spouses salvation.

Paul then goes on to give concession not given to the two believers above.
First there was no commandment at all from the Lord to these as with the equally yoked marriage, but Paul now tells these that if the unbeliever wishes to depart the marriage that the believer isnt in bondage to this marriage.

(also see HERE...)

Now, some will casually leave out that Paul gives instruction to TWO different married groups there and try to apply 1 Cor 7:10-11 to ALL marriages, but this makes Pauls statement of ‘BUT TO THE REST” and everything that follows completely illogical and unable to be harmonized with the whole properly.
And the reason they need to pull this tactic is because they like what the Lord has commanded in verses 7:10-11, but they arent too happy with Pauls concession in 7:12 and after. It completely destroys these false teachings of theirs that Paul offers this idea that the believer might not be forced to remain bound in marriage to an unbeliever in whatever circumstance, and so they force the text to give instruction to a group of people, those unequally yoked, that Paul CLEARLY says he has no word from the Lord to.