Biblical Divorce & Remarriage Discussion

[Guest]

This thread is for MDR discussion.
Lets keep it out of other peoples threads who are looking for genuine help in their personal lives.

 

[Guest]

First, lets lay out the facts about putting away in scripture and how God has tried to deal with mans sinfulness...




A little background on divorce.
By WmTipton

Putting away a wife had been going on with the Hebrews for quite some time in the desert there during the times of Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy. This putting away was being done by very hardhearted Hebrews, remember, this is the same group of people who had made the golden calf to worship it. Many Hebrews had little concern for God or His statutes.
One symptom of this hardheartedness, among others, was a complete lack of regard for Gods union of marriage. These were casting aside their wives for no reason , which Moses had to permit or else risk having this monstrous men literally torment or kill their wives.

If you break open your bibles to Leviticus 21, you will see that neither the priests, nor the high priest, could marry a woman who was put away ('divorced') from her husband. The high priest couldn’t even take widow . They were to marry ONLY a virgin of Israel.
(as a side note, if we use this for our basis, then some would have to claim that we can’t even marry a widow, something completely lawful in Gods word)

These women who were not permitted to be taken by the priests there are these that had been put away from their husbands for just about any reason that the man could think up.

Also going back to Exodus 21:7-11, we clearly see conditions where this “wife†was permitted to walk out of her marriage a free woman. This is unrelated to the divorce by the man for ‘some uncleanness' (for every cause) found in her by him, but it does help to prove that the ending of a marriage was not new to Deuteronomy as some assert.

When we get to Deut 24:1-4, Moses laying out regulation for a frivolous putting away that had already been going on by a husband who had no lawful claim against the wife (such as Exodus is against the husband). He isn't laying out an ordinance for some new thing called 'divorce', he was placing limitations on what was already occurring in Israel.

Thus he isn't 'defining' what is permissible for divorce in Deut 24:1, they had already defined this putting away 'for EVERY cause' with the manner in which they had been tossing their wives out, Moses is simply stating that if this man has put her away for the causes he had been, which is pretty much anything he deemed as 'unclean' about her, then he MUST give her a bill of divorce and once RE married she could never be his wife again.

Moses didn't define exactly what the cause of divorce was for in Deut 24:1-4, the Hebrew people did with their frivolous reasoning's for this putting away, thus the reason for the ambiguous phrase "ervah dabar"...he is, in this regulation, saying that when this man has taken a wife and has found disfavor with her (as the Jews were doing), some ambiguous uncleanness' (ceremonial uncleanness is not completely out of line here), then he is to write her a bill of divorce and put it in her hand and send her out (if he wishes to do so, this wasn’t a commandment obviously since God would never "command" a man to divorce frivolously).

To make it clearer, Moses isn't defining what they CAN put their wives over in Deut 24:1-4, he is defining what they HAD been putting away their wives for...which any study will show that it was for just about any reason they could think up.

This is the reason why, and you will find this absolutely to be the case, that no one, not even the Jews today, can put an EXACT meaning and intent to the phrase 'some uncleaness' in Deut 24:1-4 there. It simply wasnt MEANT to define anything because there were MANY reasons these men were finding to put their wives away for, not anything specific.

The problem in Jesus day was that instead of helping the situation, Deut 24:1-4 made it worse because now the men turned this 'allowance' into a 'commandment' (see Matt 19) so that not only were these hardhearted ones putting away their wives for no just cause, but now they had a scapegoat to put the blame on....Moses...since supposedly he had commanded them to divorce.

(Bear in mind that this is all happening under the the old covenant. Jesus was a Jew born under law. The new covenant would not take effect until His death on the cross. When Jesus shows them that what they are doing is a sin...it is under the law that this is declared....it isnt something that just took effect with the new covenant being ratified.
Jesus declared what Moses hadnt...that this 'for EVERY cause' divorce to remarry IS sin.

When He said that adultery is committed when they do this the OLD covenant was still in effect (the new was not ratified until His death on the cross, which also took the old out of the way) so He was not saying that they WOULD be committing adultery under His NEW covenant, but they WERE even then...and if they WERE under the old covenant at any point, then they WERE the entire time.
Jesus did what Jesus did best with the Jews....exposed sin where they believed themselves guiltless.
Just as when He told them that they DID commit adultery when they lust after a woman. Did He mean ONLY after His new covenant took effect that this would be the case?
Absolutely not. They WERE, and HAD BEEN, committing adultery in their hearts any time they lusted in the manner He speaks of.
They WERE and HAD BEEN committing adultery when they were putting out their wives for some ambiguous 'uncleanness' to take another.
Jesus exposed their sin, it was nothing new or being defined as such only in this new covenant.)

Jesus shows that this is where they got it wrong. Moses hadnt 'commanded' them to do anything in this regard. He had tolerated their vile casting away of their wives and laid out regulation to try to control or end it.

The regulation in Deut 24:1-4 was given to this younger generation of Hebrews, most of those who had left Egypt were either very old or dead...remember they had been out there for decades...a whole new generation was alive now.
At the end of this wilderness journey is when Moses gives these speeches to repeat the law and give some additions such as the regulation in Deut 24:1-4.

When you read all the relevant passages regarding this issue, keep these things in mind and see if they don’t start all making sense to you.


I’m fully convinced, personally, that in His exceptions that Jesus’ main intent is not to offer any instruction on ‘why’ we can divorce, but I believe that His point is that He is assigning guilt where no guilt was previously designated. Obviously any exception shows condition, and that condition would clearly exist or it would be falsehood. But I believe that Jesus’ real point is mainly to show that even tho Moses hadnt said they were guilty of any crime in divorcing frivolously, that if they do so as they had been, the were guilty of sinning against their spouse who was put away for no just cause.

Moses had tolerated frivolous divorce from at least the time of Leviticus 21, but didn’t actually assign any real ‘sin’ as being committed when this man cast out his wife for no just cause.
The tone seems to be one where we might try to convince a man of the idea ‘NO...you CANNOT just go around killing people. ONLY if they are trying to kill you would you ever be justified in doing soâ€
You can see that there is no real ‘permission’ to kill people in what was said there, but only showing that while there may be some extreme circumstances that relieves one of guilt, killing is not generally tolerated.

The speaker there wouldn't be saying “Hey, wait till they try to kill you and THEN you can kill them (wink wink)â€. That wouldn't be the point at all.
Nor is it Jesus’ point to say “well, you just wait for her to commit adultery and THEN you can toss her out (wink wink) “

I think this is the tone Jesus took in the gospels with divorce. No, Moses hadn’t assigned guilt in the matter, but from the beginning it was not so. From the beginning man and woman were created to be companions for life and unless some extreme circumstance warrants putting her away. If you cast her out otherwise, and then think you are going to remarry, sorry, you commit adultery, as does she, and anyone who marries either of you.
I believe the reason Jesus made sure to include the persons marrying either of these two is to show the extent of the sin going on here. That this mans actions were so terrible that it didn’t just affect him or his wife, that it was like leaven working its way out from one simple act that Moses had tolerated and swallowing up everyone in its path.

I believe in the gospels that Jesus is simply presenting that men were guilty where the law did not define guilt in their actions.
We see this very same concept just before Jesus exception in Matt 5 where Jesus tells them that if they even think about a woman sexually they have already committed adultery with her.

Mat 5:27-28 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: (28) But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Jesus is there also assigning guilt where the Jews believed themselves guiltless. Internalizing it, making it personal. Defining ‘sin’ where none was thought to exist before. God wasnt just watching the outside of the man, but the heart and mind as well.
Oddly enough, in Matt 5 there while Jesus is right on that very train of thought He lays out the MDR statement.

 

[Guest]

Now lets see if man can actually still put marriage asunder under this covenant...if its possible and if its actually ever instructed....



"Let not man Put Asunder" vs "let the unbeliever depart"
Jesus versus Paul ?
By WmTipton


Assertions/Conclusions of this Article

Here we will show that not only can one put asunder a marriage (that its possible), but Paul even gives instruction to do just that in certain cases. These seemingly different statements ("Let not man Put Asunder" vs "let the unbeliever depart")are actually about the same exact thing...putting asunder/Chorizo...as proven very conclusively by the greek.


Supporting Evidence

1.0
There is an errant teaching out there that claims that when Jesus said 'let not man put asunder' regarding marriage, that He 'meant' man CANNOT put asunder.

L: “When God joins two together, they are now ONE. What GOD joins, man CANNOT separateâ€

What we will show briefly in this article that there IS an occurance in scripture where it is shown absolutely that man can indeed 'put asunder' what God has joined together.
See 'put asunder' in each of these passages?

So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate(G5563-CHORIZO)."
(Mat 19:6 EMTV)

(Mar 10:9) 'and the two shall become one flesh'; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has united together, let not man separate(G5563-CHORIZO)."
(Mar 10:8-9 EMTV)

Bear in mind that, in the context these are in, Jesus and the pharisees are discussing putting away of a wife there in BOTH of those passages. The context of 'put asunder' is putting away of a marriage/wife, nothing less.
Jesus is CLEARLY discussing not putting asunder of this 'one flesh' that is being spoken of there.

The word is (G5563)chorizo and it only appears a few times in scripture.

G5563
??????
ch?riz?
Thayer Definition:
1) to separate, divide, part, put asunder, to separate one’s self from, to depart
1a) to leave a husband or wife
1a) of divorce
1b) to depart, go away

That word 'put asunder' is the EXACT same word for "depart" in 1 cor 7:11

(1Co 7:11) But and if she depart(G5563), let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

...in other words, Paul has just said this woman has done the exact thing that some claim that Jesus said men CANNOT do....'put asunder'.

Notice Paul makes no claim that she 'cannot' put asunder (depart), but clearly presents that IF she DOES do so, then this is the situation....she is to remain "agamos" (literally "UNmarried").
*IF* putting asunder were IMPOSSIBLE for man to do...then why doesnt Paul REstate (*IF* that were Jesus actual meaning) this fact ?
WHY does he simply say *IF* she puts asunder then ...... ?
*IF* no man can put asunder, then Paul makes absolutely no sense here whatsoever. He should have simply stated that it was impossible to do so.
The word in question pretty much just means to "place room between", "depart" or to "separate"...its not some magical phrase that Jesus used to make a marriage bond unbreakable...

What I find striking is that Paul could have used a number of other choices in demonstrating that this woman had left her husband...but chose the one word that was used in rendering Jesus' words about putting asunder.
Was it coincedence or intentional? Was Paul literally reaching out and using the one word that would make it clear that putting asunder IS indeed possible?
We wont know until that day, for sure...but we do know now that regardless of what some say, that Paul has shown that man CAN 'put asunder'....that is factual.
Certainly a call to reconcile is made to the believers...but this doesnt negate what is clearly presented in Gods word....man CAN indeed put asunder (separate) by Pauls own words.


2.0
Now that its been established that man can indeed ‘put asunder’ (chorizo) a marriage, we move on to something even more astounding. Clear instruction for the believer to actually allow the unbelieving spouse to ‘put asunder’ the marriage.

Heres a very remarkable passage that blows L’s statement above, that man CANNOT separate right out of the water. And not only that, it is our very own Paul giving INSTRUCTION for this believer to let it be so.

1Co 7:15 KJV 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.

Remember “chorizoâ€G5563 our word from above ? Can you guess what greek word ‘depart’ there is rendered from ?
You got it...the very same ‘chorizo’ (put asunder from Jesus’ statement ‘let not man put asunderâ€) is right there in Paul own instruction to let the unbeliever do.

So we not only see absolute proof that man CAN put asunder a marriage, but we now have Paul even telling the believer to let the unbeliever do so !
This hardly sounds like a ‘cannot’ situation to me.

Now, of course this is not our Lords desire for marriage that it would ever have to be ended, but clearly He had enought forsight to show Paul to let the believer do EXACTLY what He Himself had told man not to do.

Why?
Because Jesus knows that no matter what we do as believers, there will always be unbelieving spouses who will not honor the covenant of marriage.


3.0

As we can see here in this passage, the believing wife who has departed (chorizo) her believing husband is considered 'agamos'.....'unmarried'.

(1Co 7:10 KJV) And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart(chorizo)from her husband:
(1Co 7:11 KJV) But and if she depart(chorizo), let her remain unmarried(agamos), or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

Logically carrying this 'agamos' over to this passage where this unbeliever also has departed the marriage its quite easy to conclude that this person would also be deemed as 'agamos' (unmarried)

(1Co 7:15 KJV) But if the unbelieving depart(chorizo), , let him depart(chorizo), . A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

in the former case where both are believers there is commandment to remain UNmarried or reconcile.
In the latter case tho, where one is unequally yoked, Paul clearly states that he is speaking, not the Lord, in this matter.
To these Paul gives concession not given to those who are equally yoked with another believer.
"BUT to the REST"....to these who are unequally yoked, Paul says quite plainly that they are not in bondage to that union where it has been put asunder.

4.0
Another point of interest is in verse 7:11 where it says 'let her remain unmarried or reconcile to her husband" the actual greek means 'let her remain unmarried or to the man let her be being conciliated"
It is often pushed that the use of 'her husband' there means that she is still married to the man, but that is not proven from the actual Greek at all. The greek word for 'man' is also used for 'husband'.
Paul used 'agamos' to describe this woman for a reason.

 

[Guest]

Now lets see if scripture shows if a person who has left their marriage without the death of the spouse is ever considered 'unmarried/unwedded/single' again.



“Unmarriedâ€
1 Corinthians 7

Assertions/Conclusions of this Article

Here we show conclusively that this unmarried woman in 1 Cor 7:10-11 is in the same exact marital state that the widower is in verse 7:8, which is a person who is not currently under the law of marriage...ie 'single', 'unwedded'

Supporting Evidence

1.0

The word 'agamos' (agamos/agamois) appears 4 times in the NT and in each instance its in this chapter. We’re going to compare what Paul says about widows and unmarried virgins to this woman in 1 Cor 7:11 to see if she is deemed as ‘unmarried’ in the same manner.

I say therefore to the unmarried (agamois) and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
(1Co 7:8)

But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried (agamos), or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
(1Co 7:11)

But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried (agamos) careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:
(1Co 7:32)

There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried (agamos) woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.
(1Co 7:34)

I added the ACTUAL word after each occurance in parenthesis.
Here is the word we are looking at;
"unmarried" in the passages above is;

G22
agamos
Thayer Definition:
1) unmarried, unwedded, single

Strongs;
G22
agamos
ag'-am-os
From G1 (as a negative particle) and G1062; unmarried: - unmarried.

The root word is the exact same in all four occurrences above. There is one character change that seems only to show some small difference in verse 7:8 for the male widower, but the intent that this person is ‘unmarried’ or not currently under the ‘law’ of marriage is precisely the same. That character difference does not alter the intent of the root word ‘unmarried’.

Lets look at verses 32-33.

"But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried (agamos) careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he (aresE) may please the Lord: But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he (aresE) may please his wife.
(1Co 7:32-33)

“AresE†- "he should be pleasing"

There we find the same “agamos†as in verse 11 where this woman as left her husband and is called UNmarried by Paul.

Do you see how Paul uses the word agamos (not agamois) and then refers to this person as "HE" and shows that he is going to be pleasing to his "wife"
Now *IF* agamos was restricted to the woman, how can a person who is agamos be pleasing to their "wife" ?
The word agamos is used in verse 11 to speak about the woman. In verse 32 it is speaking about the man.
What we see is that verse 8, while it may mean widowers, it doesnt keep this woman in verse 11 from literally being "unmarried" after putting asunder her husband by leaving him. She IS 'agamos' by Pauls own words

If you get the interlinear bible software in the links above, you can check this material out yourself.
In verse :7:11 agamos is in the feminine form....but in verse 7:32, its exactly the same and yet it is shown as being in the masculine form.
This definitely tends to show that the context plays a part in the gender of this word.

There is pretty much no way around this matter. Paul absolutely chose a word that means ‘unmarried’ to describe this woman in 7:11 there. In comparing its usage in the other passages there we see conclusively that, like these others, she is ‘unmarried’ and not currently under the ‘law’ of her husband.

In understanding this fact, we also understand that in 7:39, that Paul is simply laying out the general ‘law’ of marriage. That it is intended for life....and based on the facts from the whole, that it is not an unconditional law in the least. It CAN be put asunder by man even though that is not Gods will for marriage.

2.0

As we can see here in this passage, the believing wife who has departed (chorizo) her believing husband is considered 'agamos'.....'unmarried'.

(1Co 7:10 KJV) And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart(chorizo)from her husband:
(1Co 7:11 KJV) But and if she depart(chorizo), let her remain unmarried(agamos), or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

Logically carrying this 'agamos' over to this passage where this unbeliever also has departed the marriage its quite easy to conclude that this person would also be deemed as 'agamos' (unmarried)

(1Co 7:15 KJV) But if the unbelieving depart(chorizo), , let him depart(chorizo), . A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

in the former case where both are believers there is commandment to remain UNmarried or reconcile.
In the latter case tho, where one is unequally yoked, Paul clearly states that he is speaking, not the Lord, in this matter.
To these Paul gives concession not given to those who are equally yoked with another believer.
"BUT to the REST"....to these who are unequally yoked, Paul says quite plainly that they are not in bondage to that union where it has been put asunder.

 

[Guest]

And here we'll see if we have any evidence from scripture that there may have actually been remarried Christians in the church during Pauls lifetime...



Evidence of divorce and remarriage in the Church
By WmTipton

Assertions/Conclusions of this article:

This article is to show evidence that there were remarried divorcess in the early church who were in fellowship, neither being cast out, nor condemned by the brethren. There were restrictions placed on these individuals, but they were in the church.

Supporting evidence:

1Ti 5:9-14
Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old,
having been the wife of one man, (10)
Well reported of for good works;
if she have brought up children,
if she have lodged strangers,
if she have washed the saints' feet,
if she have relieved the afflicted,
if she have diligently followed every good work.

(11) But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry; (12) Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith. (13) And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not. (14) I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.

"Having been the wife of one man"

This requirement clearly is not speaking of a woman who had a man-harem.
There is no real issue of women marrying multiple husbands given in the bible nor in historical accounts.
This leaves either the remarried widow, or the remarried divorcee.
It cannot be a remarried widow as no law prohibited the widow from remarrying. Paul even tells widows;

"I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
(1Co 7:8-9 KJV)

Paul would be setting these widows up to be rejected from this list later if she did remarry.
Also, Paul even insists that younger widows REmarry here...

“But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry; Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith. And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not.
I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.
(1Ti 5:11-14 KJV)

He absolutely would be condemning this woman in later years to be rejected the churches help by forcing her to remarry now.
We know Paul was not so callous and uncaring by his instruction for the helping of widows he gave.

The only possibility for this "wife of one man" is that she was divorced and remarried.
That is the only possibility from scripture as it is the only thing that is clearly corrected in Gods word.

and yet this woman is still in fellowship...not being cast out of the assembly such as the man who had his fathers wife and WAS living in fornication.

Her life was not exemplary, so she couldnt be added to the list of widows, but she WAS in the church and in fellowship.

The requisite for her to have been the wife of ONE man CLEARLY indicates that she COULD have been the wife of more than one husband in her lifetime....aka a remarried divorcee...yet not condemned to hell or cast out of fellowship.

Some will state that this have put away these second marriages, but what I find very peculiar is that, if this matter were so crucial to salvation, Paul should surely have made a point of it. "Only if these second wives have been put away''. The way its left, it sounds very much like they could have still been with the person.

Another issue is that those of the anti-remarriage camp state that this second "marriage" is not a marriage at all, but an adulterous affair.
The clear implication above is that the second marriage is a recognized one, if it weren't, then Paul would have simply called these people adulterers and surely they wouldnt even be in fellowship. Let alone being considered for the position of Bishop.

It is also notable that Paul nowhere states that these second marriages were invalid, nor does he state that these people were to have left this second spouse. In fact, in 1 cor 7 Paul tells these frivolously parted from their spouse to ''remain UNmarried or reconcile........"...showing that REmarriage is quite possible indeed even if wrong to do.

Some folks will use a preposterous example of Paul also not telling gays to separate (or some other irrelevant distraction), but Jesus offered NO exception to gay couples, did He ? His exception is clearly speaking of a MAN and a WOMAN...and husband and a wife when He made His exception for sexual sin.

And also see >>>
Evidences of Remarriage II - Polygamy