from Mathew Jesus makes it sound like remarriage is the second unpardonable sin for the spouse that was at fault in their first divorce? Are there translation issues here as this is inconsistant with duet 24 which Jesus specificly brings up. I would say this is probably the most cruel teachings of Jesus so it makes you wonder if there were translation issues as he is basicly defining the second unpardonable sin if the translation is correct.
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
Christian Forums is looking to bring on new moderators to the CF Staff Team! If you have been an active member of CF for at least three months with 200 posts during that time, you're eligible to apply! This is a great way to give back to CF and keep the forums running smoothly! If you're interested, you can submit your application here!
does remarriage = second unpardonable sin
- Thread starter taku60
- Start date
Matthew 5:32 I believe and there are similar verses in luke as well. Maybe I am taking things out of context myself.
Upvote
0
dayhiker
Mature veteran
- Sep 13, 2006
- 15,561
- 5,305
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Charismatic
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Others
No, remarriage isn't even a sin, let along unpartonable. Jesus was saying that it was adultery to marry if one got an illegal divorce. That's the way I read how people understood Jesus' words. The Talmud tells us there was a big dibate for a few years around the time Jesus ministered. From my experince if we don't understand that Jewish debate we don't know what the Bible is saying.
dayhiker
dayhiker
Upvote
0
wayseer
Well-Known Member
- Jun 10, 2008
- 8,226
- 504
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Private
I think you have to look at the context of Matt 5:32.
Jesus here is challenging those Jews who claim they have obeyed the Law. Have a look at Matt 5:22 " ... BUT, I tell you ..." Jesus has just upped the anti - it's no good just claiming that you obey the law and the commandments - Jesus says more is needed. Anyone who looks at a women in lust has committed adultery in their heart. What Jesus is saying is that you enter the Kingdom 'only if you are more faithful than the teachers of the law ...' Matt 5:20.
Of course we all fall far short of that objective - which means, in the end, we must rely on God's mercy. The point is, we cannot rely on own own sense of self-righteousness.
Upvote
0
D
dies-l
Guest
I do believe that divorce is always either sin or the result of sin. Divorce is not part of God's plan for marriage, and anything that falls short of God's plan is sin, imho (which makes us all sinners, as the Bible says in Rom. 3:23). However, the idea that divorce and subsequent remarriage is irredeemably sinful (or unpardonable) is silly. The notion runs contrary to the very idea of salvation by grace spelled out in, e.g., Eph. 2:8-9.
So, let's take a look at the passage you are talking about. In Matthew 5:
32, Jesus says, "But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery." On its face, it seems a rather sexist assertion: If a man divorces his wife, she becomes an adulteress and, if she remarries, her new husband is an adulterer. IOW, if this passage is taken as making a moral pronouncement, then Jesus is saying that if a man does something rotten to his wife, then his wife consequently becomes a sinner and becomes an object of sin for others. This idea of morality is both incredibly cruel and wholly inconsistent with Jesus' ministry. Also, notice that, when read this way, the passage makes no moral pronouncements about the man, who is the one who actually did the wrong.
So, this begs the question: If Jesus is not making a moral pronouncement, what is he doing in this passage? Another (and I think better) interpretation of the passage is to read Jesus' statement as an observation about his own culture, which is why we need to look to historical/social context.
In Jesus' day, it was permissible for a man to ditch his wife for any reason, even if only because he wanted an "upgrade", so long as he completed the proper paperwork and left her with a certificate of divorce. In addition, this culture was very restrictive in the rights of women in terms of property. To top it all off, men in that culture were not interested in having "damaged goods" so to speak. So, this creates a perfect storm for women who fall into disfavor with their husbands: They lose, with full support of the law, any expectation of support from their husband; they have little or no means of supporting themselves; and, there are few if any men who are willing to marry them (and those who do are treated no better than aduleterers by their society). So, what is a woman to do in this situation? Sadly, many women in situation were forced into a life of prositution and/or other forms of sexual immorality in order to support themselves.
So, Jesus comes into the picture and confronts the socially accepted notion that all a man must do to be free of his wife is to give her a certificate of divorce. (v. 31) He opposes this notion by explaining its consequences. It is as if he is saying, "yes, legally you can do this, but if you do, look at the misery you create for your wife." In my profession, I have found that many people like to take comfort in knowing that their actions are legally permissible. We often use the law to avoid looking at the consequences our actions have on other people. However, God's standard is not whether it is permissible, but whether it is the loving thing to do. (See, e.g., Lev. 19:18; Mt. 19:19; 1 Cor. 10:23-24). Jesus seems to be forcing his audience to look beyond the legality of divorce to examine its consequences within his own social framework. IOW, he seems to be saying, "you can divorce your wife without good reason, but a person who is seeking God's Kingdom would never do such a thing, because it is a rotten thing to do to another human being."
This interpretation fits well within the context of the Sermon on the Mount as well. In the Sermon, Jesus is sharing with his audience what it is to be a part of the Kingdom of God. He begins by saying that all are welcome, even if not especially the disenfranchised (Mt. 5:1-10). Later, he says that those who live for the Kingdom will be hated by the world (vv. 11-12), but that we should persevere and bring God's flavor (salt) and light to a world that hates us (vv. 13-16). He goes on to proclaim that the law is not abolished, but fulfilled by Him, but we are not talking about a merit system that awards points for simply obeying the law. (vv. 17-20). Then, he goes into specific explanations of conduct that is legal but that is not consistent with God's Kingdom: malice, lust, divorce, dishonest oaths, vengeance, and hate (vv. 21-48). I could go on, but that would only distract us further; this should be enough to make my point.
Another passage to work through on this subject, and one that is more difficult (and so I leave it for another time) is Matthew 19:1-12. Nonetheless, I believe, for reasons I will explain later, that this passage is also inconsistent with the notion of remarriage as an unforgivable sin. As others have said, in order to understand Jesus teaching in response to a given controversy, we need to understand what the controversy was about. All too often, we want to overlay our own modern issues on top of Jesus' teachings in response to very different questions. This only works if we take the time to look at the entire context and make careful analogies and distinctions to our own situations. Unfortunately, this is not done by those who would use Jesus' words to perpetually condemn those who remarry in our own culture.
So, let's take a look at the passage you are talking about. In Matthew 5:
32, Jesus says, "But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery." On its face, it seems a rather sexist assertion: If a man divorces his wife, she becomes an adulteress and, if she remarries, her new husband is an adulterer. IOW, if this passage is taken as making a moral pronouncement, then Jesus is saying that if a man does something rotten to his wife, then his wife consequently becomes a sinner and becomes an object of sin for others. This idea of morality is both incredibly cruel and wholly inconsistent with Jesus' ministry. Also, notice that, when read this way, the passage makes no moral pronouncements about the man, who is the one who actually did the wrong.
So, this begs the question: If Jesus is not making a moral pronouncement, what is he doing in this passage? Another (and I think better) interpretation of the passage is to read Jesus' statement as an observation about his own culture, which is why we need to look to historical/social context.
In Jesus' day, it was permissible for a man to ditch his wife for any reason, even if only because he wanted an "upgrade", so long as he completed the proper paperwork and left her with a certificate of divorce. In addition, this culture was very restrictive in the rights of women in terms of property. To top it all off, men in that culture were not interested in having "damaged goods" so to speak. So, this creates a perfect storm for women who fall into disfavor with their husbands: They lose, with full support of the law, any expectation of support from their husband; they have little or no means of supporting themselves; and, there are few if any men who are willing to marry them (and those who do are treated no better than aduleterers by their society). So, what is a woman to do in this situation? Sadly, many women in situation were forced into a life of prositution and/or other forms of sexual immorality in order to support themselves.
So, Jesus comes into the picture and confronts the socially accepted notion that all a man must do to be free of his wife is to give her a certificate of divorce. (v. 31) He opposes this notion by explaining its consequences. It is as if he is saying, "yes, legally you can do this, but if you do, look at the misery you create for your wife." In my profession, I have found that many people like to take comfort in knowing that their actions are legally permissible. We often use the law to avoid looking at the consequences our actions have on other people. However, God's standard is not whether it is permissible, but whether it is the loving thing to do. (See, e.g., Lev. 19:18; Mt. 19:19; 1 Cor. 10:23-24). Jesus seems to be forcing his audience to look beyond the legality of divorce to examine its consequences within his own social framework. IOW, he seems to be saying, "you can divorce your wife without good reason, but a person who is seeking God's Kingdom would never do such a thing, because it is a rotten thing to do to another human being."
This interpretation fits well within the context of the Sermon on the Mount as well. In the Sermon, Jesus is sharing with his audience what it is to be a part of the Kingdom of God. He begins by saying that all are welcome, even if not especially the disenfranchised (Mt. 5:1-10). Later, he says that those who live for the Kingdom will be hated by the world (vv. 11-12), but that we should persevere and bring God's flavor (salt) and light to a world that hates us (vv. 13-16). He goes on to proclaim that the law is not abolished, but fulfilled by Him, but we are not talking about a merit system that awards points for simply obeying the law. (vv. 17-20). Then, he goes into specific explanations of conduct that is legal but that is not consistent with God's Kingdom: malice, lust, divorce, dishonest oaths, vengeance, and hate (vv. 21-48). I could go on, but that would only distract us further; this should be enough to make my point.
Another passage to work through on this subject, and one that is more difficult (and so I leave it for another time) is Matthew 19:1-12. Nonetheless, I believe, for reasons I will explain later, that this passage is also inconsistent with the notion of remarriage as an unforgivable sin. As others have said, in order to understand Jesus teaching in response to a given controversy, we need to understand what the controversy was about. All too often, we want to overlay our own modern issues on top of Jesus' teachings in response to very different questions. This only works if we take the time to look at the entire context and make careful analogies and distinctions to our own situations. Unfortunately, this is not done by those who would use Jesus' words to perpetually condemn those who remarry in our own culture.
Upvote
0
Ave Maria
Ave Maria Gratia Plena
- May 31, 2004
- 41,126
- 2,009
- 42
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Most definitely not! The only unforgiveable sin is final impenitence or the refusal to repent even on one's death bed. And even then, I am not sure that a person's soul will go to Hell.
Upvote
0
epistemaniac
Senior Member
Mat 5:31-32 ESV "It was also said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.' (32) But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery. And whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." (see also Mark 10:11-12)
Mat 19:3-11 ESV And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?" (4) He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, (5) and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh'? (6) So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate." (7) They said to him, "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?" (8) He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. (9) And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery." (10) The disciples said to him, "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry." (11) But he said to them, "Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given."
The following is concerning a marriage between believers, not a marriage between 2 unbelievers or 2 unbelievers when one becomes a Christian. Paul has guidelines for such circumstances in 1 Corinthians 7:10ff.
Its not that remarriage is necessarily an unforgivable sin... but divorce for illegitimate reasons, and remarriage after a divorce for illegitimate reasons, will or can cause 2 people to live together in a state of constant adultery. God looks at marriage as a covenant, one made before Him. Its not merely a contract that can be kept if one happens to feel like it, or broken with impunity. And if a person breaks their covenant vows before the Lord, say for instance that a man or woman divorces their spouse for reasons other than marital unfaithfulness, the God will not recognize either the cessation of the original marriage, or the remarriage, if such a remarriage occurs. If God does not recognize the marriage relationshiop in the case of remarriage, then of course 2 people living together and having sex are not only committing fornication, since they are not marriaed in God's eyes, but worse, adultery is being committed as the first marriage is still valid, in God's eyes.
This doesn't necessarily mean that salvation is itself not all of grace. It is. But a person who is truly a Christian will not commit adultery voiding the marriage covenant. (though Christians unfortunately do commit adultery they are to repent, stop sinning, be reconciled to their spouse if their spouse will have them, if they fail to take these steps then there is no reason to consider them a Christian as they are willfully and purposely living in a constant state of rebellion and sin.) If such a person does commit adultery, then leaves their spouse merely because they want an "upgrade" there is no reason to consider such a person a Christian in the first place, so, again, its not about grace being denied a person if they are coming to Christ for salvation.
Further, a person who is truly a Christian will not marry a person who was wrongly divorced in the first place, as this person is still actually married. That God does not recognize an illegitimate marriage does not mean that God is not a God of grace and mercy. He is. But He is also a God of law and wrath. The 2 concepts (grace and mercy/law and wrath) must always be held together, for if we think that God couldn't possibly be so "mean" as to not condone a marriage between 2 people who claim to love each other and not recognize their marriage, and further, consider it adultery, we have injected a modern view of what God must be like, and further, what love "must" be like. Love does not mean that there is no law, no commandments by which the Christian must live their life. The Law does not save, but the law is still valid unless it has been abolished in some way by the coming of Christ. In the case of wrongful divorce and wrongful remarriage, this is not the case, it is still a valid commandment (to not wrongly divorce your spouse and wrongly remarry another) every bit as much as "you shall not murder" or "you shall not steal".
Can a person be forgiven if they murder or steal? Well of course. But is a person really asking for forgiveness, coming to Christ acknowledging Jesus as both Savior AND Lord (this means submitting to Christ's moral commands and serving Him with one's whole life) if they continue, in an unbroken way, of stealing and murdering? Of course not, no one should consider such a person's profession of faith as vaild or meaningful. So too, if a person wrongly divorces their spouse, and they wrongly remarries, they are living in a state of constant unremitting sin, willfully so. Thus they are in the same situation as a person who continues sinning in an unbroken unrepentant way.
Is this a "hard word"? Yes, especially in today's society where people can exchange spouse about like they trade in cars. They think that all that matters is their "happiness", and if their spouse is "not meeting their needs" or they "just don't feel in love with their spouse anymore" then society says "why of course you should be happy... whatever you want... you should do it... be happy"... but that is not God's way.
Probably the most helpful discussion I have read on this situation is that of John Murray in his book entitled simply "Divorce". And I have read a great deal on the issue from many points of view as my wife left me me for unbiblical reasons, so I spent over a year in great personal turmoil about how this siutation should be handled, what my response ought to be, what it was exactly that my wife had done, etc. So I guess that I am just saying that while I am no expert, I also am not an ivory tower academic observer searching out this issue out of idle curiosity or even for the good reason of just knowing what the bible has to say on the subject of divorce.
see also
http://www.the-highway.com/divorce_Murray.html
GIRS Summary Studies in Reformed Theology: of Marriage and Divorce (part 2)
blessings,
ken
Mat 19:3-11 ESV And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?" (4) He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, (5) and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh'? (6) So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate." (7) They said to him, "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?" (8) He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. (9) And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery." (10) The disciples said to him, "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry." (11) But he said to them, "Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given."
The following is concerning a marriage between believers, not a marriage between 2 unbelievers or 2 unbelievers when one becomes a Christian. Paul has guidelines for such circumstances in 1 Corinthians 7:10ff.
Its not that remarriage is necessarily an unforgivable sin... but divorce for illegitimate reasons, and remarriage after a divorce for illegitimate reasons, will or can cause 2 people to live together in a state of constant adultery. God looks at marriage as a covenant, one made before Him. Its not merely a contract that can be kept if one happens to feel like it, or broken with impunity. And if a person breaks their covenant vows before the Lord, say for instance that a man or woman divorces their spouse for reasons other than marital unfaithfulness, the God will not recognize either the cessation of the original marriage, or the remarriage, if such a remarriage occurs. If God does not recognize the marriage relationshiop in the case of remarriage, then of course 2 people living together and having sex are not only committing fornication, since they are not marriaed in God's eyes, but worse, adultery is being committed as the first marriage is still valid, in God's eyes.
This doesn't necessarily mean that salvation is itself not all of grace. It is. But a person who is truly a Christian will not commit adultery voiding the marriage covenant. (though Christians unfortunately do commit adultery they are to repent, stop sinning, be reconciled to their spouse if their spouse will have them, if they fail to take these steps then there is no reason to consider them a Christian as they are willfully and purposely living in a constant state of rebellion and sin.) If such a person does commit adultery, then leaves their spouse merely because they want an "upgrade" there is no reason to consider such a person a Christian in the first place, so, again, its not about grace being denied a person if they are coming to Christ for salvation.
Further, a person who is truly a Christian will not marry a person who was wrongly divorced in the first place, as this person is still actually married. That God does not recognize an illegitimate marriage does not mean that God is not a God of grace and mercy. He is. But He is also a God of law and wrath. The 2 concepts (grace and mercy/law and wrath) must always be held together, for if we think that God couldn't possibly be so "mean" as to not condone a marriage between 2 people who claim to love each other and not recognize their marriage, and further, consider it adultery, we have injected a modern view of what God must be like, and further, what love "must" be like. Love does not mean that there is no law, no commandments by which the Christian must live their life. The Law does not save, but the law is still valid unless it has been abolished in some way by the coming of Christ. In the case of wrongful divorce and wrongful remarriage, this is not the case, it is still a valid commandment (to not wrongly divorce your spouse and wrongly remarry another) every bit as much as "you shall not murder" or "you shall not steal".
Can a person be forgiven if they murder or steal? Well of course. But is a person really asking for forgiveness, coming to Christ acknowledging Jesus as both Savior AND Lord (this means submitting to Christ's moral commands and serving Him with one's whole life) if they continue, in an unbroken way, of stealing and murdering? Of course not, no one should consider such a person's profession of faith as vaild or meaningful. So too, if a person wrongly divorces their spouse, and they wrongly remarries, they are living in a state of constant unremitting sin, willfully so. Thus they are in the same situation as a person who continues sinning in an unbroken unrepentant way.
Is this a "hard word"? Yes, especially in today's society where people can exchange spouse about like they trade in cars. They think that all that matters is their "happiness", and if their spouse is "not meeting their needs" or they "just don't feel in love with their spouse anymore" then society says "why of course you should be happy... whatever you want... you should do it... be happy"... but that is not God's way.
Probably the most helpful discussion I have read on this situation is that of John Murray in his book entitled simply "Divorce". And I have read a great deal on the issue from many points of view as my wife left me me for unbiblical reasons, so I spent over a year in great personal turmoil about how this siutation should be handled, what my response ought to be, what it was exactly that my wife had done, etc. So I guess that I am just saying that while I am no expert, I also am not an ivory tower academic observer searching out this issue out of idle curiosity or even for the good reason of just knowing what the bible has to say on the subject of divorce.
see also
http://www.the-highway.com/divorce_Murray.html
GIRS Summary Studies in Reformed Theology: of Marriage and Divorce (part 2)
blessings,
ken
Upvote
0
The only problem with this line of reasoning is it boils down to living as a eunch if your divorce is not valid which is not how God designed most of our bodies. So if we are unfortunate enough to have a failed marriage and remarry then what you are saying is we are not christians? So is it better to remain unchristian until your old enough that this is not an issue anymore? It does not wash, I guess we will never know until the end, until then the bottom line is im not living as a eunch because thats not how God designed me. It becomes a really fine line when you start talking about the ins and outs of what is considered a valid divorce but even if the basis of your divorce was not valid should that suggest that you do not have a second chance to have a happy sex life, I think that is nonsense, that line of reasoning is basicly stating that we are held to a much higher standard for our very salvation than thoes who lived before christ so the playing field is not even because sexual issues are much more relavant in our daily lives than that of stealing or murdering.
What would you say to someone who was burning with passion and had a questionable divorce in which there was some circumstance that they were not getting back together, just say oh well dude thats to bad looks like no sex for you for the rest of your life, that seems way out of line with the love of christ. This is not someone with evil motives he simply wants to be happy, this is why this line of thinking is messed up. How long do you think that guy is going to be part of that church especially if he knows you are married and having awesome sex, he is going to take his chances and do his own thing and if God casts him into hell because he had the unfortunate circumstance of having a questionable divorce and not you because you got lucky and had it work out then I guess thats life.
I just read thoes 2 links and that is legalism to the max, no where does it explain what to do if a divorced person burns with passion, as I stated above.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
So, anyone who has divorced 'wrongfully', and then marries is in a constant state of sin which in this case is adultery, and until they they separate (I guess we couldn't call it divorce, since God doesn't recognize the marriage) are finally restored to God.
I'm sad to think some of my family, I will not see in heaven. For they divorced (though I don't know the details to see if it was lawful) and are now married to another person with children.
What happens in cases like that. You divorce 'wrongfully' and get married again and have children. Do you break up with them, and somehow reconcile with your ex-partner. What if they don't wish to take you back.
You then become an eunuch for the rest of your life?
Upvote
0
That is why it does not wash, duet 24 states that if you remarry to go back to your old spouse would be an abomination. Jesus is stating what it was suppose to be like from the beginning unfortunatly we live in an imperfect world. I guess the only thing I can think of was that mathew was mistaken when he recorded Jesus speach some 40 years before he wrote about it. The end result of such a concept is not in line with the rest of the entire bible as far as second chances and grace.
Upvote
0
Breckmin
Junior Member
No one (I don't think) is saying that you won't see them in heaven because
they had an improper marriage. Jesus' Sacrifice is great enough to
forgive ALL sin, including the sins involving marriage.
You confess your sins and move on. BUT, you can still recognize the
fact that you have sinned. Just because you have sinned, however,
does not mean that other Christians should lower the standards that
God has set regarding marriage and re-marriage.
Matthew 6:33
Upvote
0
But what about the idea that the catholics have that every instance of sex in a remarriage is an instance of adultry does this mean you should be repenting every day or repent once of the original divorce. I think that is the real crux, rub, what have you. The problem with "every day repentance" is its not really repentance because you know your going to be having sex with your new wife becasue its your wife, so the only real repentance would be for the divorce itself as I cant imagine you plan to divorce your new wife again, if you PLANNED on having throw away marriages then that would be an issue.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Breckmin
Junior Member
There is also another book from the late 60's that was recommended
all through the 70's and early 80's by Guy Duty entitled "Divorce and
Remarriage" which deals with this subject pretty accurately.
I agree with Ken, for the most part... Perhaps I would specify that
a "mature believer wouldn't marry a person who was wrongfully
divorced" rather than saying "a person who is really a Christian"
won't do something or commit a particular sin...
I think God's standards are high, and we shouldn't lower them.
Upvote
0
Breckmin
Junior Member
I think it is a fair question and I personally have never had to specify
the sins of another believer this way because I am not certain that
there is a blanket answer that does not deal with an individual in their
specific situation. IOW, if a person is already remarried and has one
wife, I believe he should serve the Lord and keep his marriage holy
right where he is. If both the husband and wife have repented and
are now desiring to serve the Lord together, I believe God can work
through the imperfections of their marriage and once again model the
relationship between Christ and the church through being faithful to
one another.
Let me say this.... I DON'T KNOW the answer to this question currently
because I have not researched it in detail like John Murray or Guy
Duty. I believe firmly in repentance and serving the Lord where you
are at. Can your marriage model Christ and the church? I think this
is the real question and is at the heart of what God intended. I have
been married to the same woman for almost 20 years and have never
had to struggle with this question - so I'm not even sure of the details
of what I believe. I only know what I would tell a divorced person
before they remarry.
Upvote
0
Breckmin
Junior Member
I think the technical question becomes "Does he only have one wife?"
here or is his wife who is still living his one wife, and the "new" wife
is the mistress in God's eyes? It has always been a tough question
for me to answer because what if he can't find his first wife? What
if she is on the other side of the planet somewhere, but still living?
What if she has remarried and is a missionary in Africa somewhere?
She is being "faithful" to her new husband and serving the Lord as
a missionary some place else.... Can she do this? Tough questions.
How "real" are our current relationships with people? How real are
our marriages when we remarry?
Upvote
0
RMDY
1 John 1:9
- Apr 8, 2007
- 1,531
- 136
- 40
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- CA-Conservatives
It sounds to me, in my opinion, Jesus said remarriage (as long as either person was still alive) was wrong because it is a binding contract between the two individuals until the day either one of them dies (just like how the law was a contract that christians are freed from once they die to it and are bound to Jesus).
Upvote
0
D
dies-l
Guest
It seems to me that you understand it that way because you do not understand the cultural context into which Jesus was speaking. In fact, as I pointed out in a prior post, if you read Jesus' words carefully, that interpretation is inconsistent with even a literal reading of the text.
However, even if your reading were true, to talk about marriage in terms of contract creates a difficulty for your position. The problem is this: contracts, by definition can legally and ethically be broken by the agreement of both parties. This concept severely undermines the sacredness of marriage and the idea of marriage as a permanent institution.
Also, if we are to analyze marriage as a mere contract, we need to ask who is the contract between. Jesus was speaking into a cultural context in which women were not trusted to enter into such agreements. Thus, the contract would have been between the man and the woman's father. Thus, if marriage were a contract, the man, in order to be released from the contract would need the consent of the woman's father, leaving the woman, the one is most negatively affect by divorce in that context, with little or no recourse. But, the law of the day didn't even require that; it required only that the man grant the woman a certificate of divorce. This, of course presented incredibly unjust results for women, often causing them to resort to prostitution or granting sexual favors to married men (i.e., adultery) in order to support themselves.
Ultimately, Jesus was questioning both the the idea of marriage as contract (between a man and his wife's father) and the even more egregious idea that marriage was up to the will of the husband. Instead, the text most clearly supports the idea that marriage is nothing less than an affirmative duty of a man to support his wife so long as her conduct indicates that she wants to be supported by him. This is the only moral attitude towards marriage that I see supported by the actual text of Jesus' words.
One other aspect about Jesus is that if we read them at face value, we see him declaring no marital duty of a wife toward her husband. Certainly, this duty is mentioned other places in Scripture, but never in the conext of divorce, and the man's duty to his wife is always greater than a wife's duty to her husband.
Certainly, other passages of Scripture support the notion that divorce is never a good thing. But, the idea that divorce and remarriage creates in all or most circumstances a perpetual state of adultery is not supported at in Scripture. What is supported is the idea that a man has a duty to support his wife for as long as she is faithful to him, such that a man who breaches this duty is morally no better than an adulterer, and a man who breaches this duty is not free to bring his dysfunctional idea of marriage to a new relationship. This does not address the myriad of complex situations in today's world that lead to divorce and remarriage, and it is poor exigesis to pretend that it does.
Upvote
0
dayhiker
Mature veteran
- Sep 13, 2006
- 15,561
- 5,305
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Charismatic
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Others
Good comments RMDY. I think Dies-I bought up very good points that are based on the historical situation.
I'd add that from my understanding of history there was noone in Jesus' day that didn't understand that a divorce ended the marriage. This idea comes from Roman.7 were Paul talks about the jews were married to the law. Now the law will never do anything wrong so the Jews would have no reason to ever sepearte from the law that didn't have the power to bring salvation. So the law is nailed to Jesus and dies with Jesus so that they Jews can be married to another, Jesus. Sence all humans fall short of the law, no human would be bound in this way.
If Jesus was saying that marriage is for life and divorce doesn't end it. Then a whole new body of instruction should have been given to deal with this situation as noone would know what to do since noone believe or acted or made decission this way before. We don't have instructions from Jesus saying what to do with children from a 2nd marriage. Or does Jesus say both EXs are to get back together since the divorce meant nothing.
My only conclusion is that Jesus was showing them that they didn't live up to God's expectation. You we are all guilty. But we don't say therefore we are all constinuouly sinning. I would also say remarried focks aren't sinning. They are loving each other and love fulfills the law. Its the only way anyone of us can fulfill the law. So I accept all divorced and remarried Christians as living in God's will.
dayhiker
I'd add that from my understanding of history there was noone in Jesus' day that didn't understand that a divorce ended the marriage. This idea comes from Roman.7 were Paul talks about the jews were married to the law. Now the law will never do anything wrong so the Jews would have no reason to ever sepearte from the law that didn't have the power to bring salvation. So the law is nailed to Jesus and dies with Jesus so that they Jews can be married to another, Jesus. Sence all humans fall short of the law, no human would be bound in this way.
If Jesus was saying that marriage is for life and divorce doesn't end it. Then a whole new body of instruction should have been given to deal with this situation as noone would know what to do since noone believe or acted or made decission this way before. We don't have instructions from Jesus saying what to do with children from a 2nd marriage. Or does Jesus say both EXs are to get back together since the divorce meant nothing.
My only conclusion is that Jesus was showing them that they didn't live up to God's expectation. You we are all guilty. But we don't say therefore we are all constinuouly sinning. I would also say remarried focks aren't sinning. They are loving each other and love fulfills the law. Its the only way anyone of us can fulfill the law. So I accept all divorced and remarried Christians as living in God's will.
dayhiker
Upvote
0
Similar threads
