SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : General Topics : Marrying The Same Person Twice?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 Next Page )
PosterThread









 Re:

Ekklesia1:

Yes, it is the same woman. The reason is that the first wedding will be in Korea with her family and friends, while the second will be in Canada with my family and friends.

My 'point' is that I am wondering if my first marriage is consecrated (is that the right word??), if we do not sleep together and wait until the second?

....and/or if anyone has thoughts about this action...

I was not looking for added questions... seeing that you have only posted twice on the site, it is obvious that you would not have read anything that I have written, so you have no idea that I am an English teacher in Korea, engaged to a Korean.

Take that into consideration when replying to threads.

I thank you for your points.

May God Bless those that read more than what is in front of them,
Brian ;-)

 2007/3/16 23:45
Ekklesia1
Member



Joined: 2006/12/10
Posts: 14


 Re:

Quote:

BrianMira wrote:
Ekklesia1:

Yes, it is the same woman. The reason is that the first wedding will be in Korea with her family and friends, while the second will be in Canada with my family and friends.

My 'point' is that I am wondering if my first marriage is consecrated (is that the right word??), if we do not sleep together and wait until the second?


Well, was Joseph's marriage consecrated to Mary when our Lord was born?
It had to be for Jesus to be born into a legitimate marriage, yet we know Joseph did not consummate the marriage at least up to that point.
So I'd say yes, your marriage is your covenant vow to your wife before God.

Quote:

I was not looking for added questions... seeing that you have only posted twice on the site, it is obvious that you would not have read anything that I have written, so you have no idea that I am an English teacher in Korea, engaged to a Korean.

Take that into consideration when replying to threads.

I thank you for your points.

May God Bless those that read more than what is in front of them,
Brian ;-)


Yeah, I really dont know your story so I wasn't sure of the details :-)

I think it shows a lot of self-control on your part to wait until the second wedding'. Im not sure of your reasoning, but I don't see it as anything wrong at all.
I'm sure if you knew my own story in my own marriage that you would see a very strong similarity between your situation and mine, from what you've presented.

I pray for many long, happy years for you and your bride to be :)

 2007/3/17 0:07Profile
lastblast
Member



Joined: 2004/10/16
Posts: 528
Michigan

 Re:

Quote:
There isnt a single NT passage that ever shows that this part of Deut has changed where the woman cannot return to her former husband once remarried.



Can you find in the OT where such a wife was charged with adultery for marrying again, as you will find Jesus teaching?

What we can find in the OT is David's wife Michal becoming another man's wife and David taking her back to himself. Yes, she was not given a writ of divorcement, but she did become another man's wife.

In the NT, with or without a writ of divorcement, she would be guilty of adultery-----because the Lord doesn't acknowledge a divorce as dissolving what HE joins together. If it is adultery, it is not lawful marriage in the sight of God. At least that's my take.


_________________
Cindy

 2007/3/17 1:27Profile
Ekklesia1
Member



Joined: 2006/12/10
Posts: 14


 Re:

Quote:

lastblast wrote:
Can you find in the OT where such a wife was charged with adultery for marrying again, as you will find Jesus teaching?


Can you find in the NT a commandment for all remarried persons to leave their current spouse to return to the former?
Remaining [b]unmarried[/b] and reconciling is not the same thing as ending a marriage and reconciling as Ive already shown in this thread.
Also, Herod's marriage to Herodias was unlawful as she was his brother's wife and had a child by Philip. Herod was guilty of taking his 'brothers wife' and so even if Philip had been dead, it was unlawful for Herod to have her. Not to mention the other atrocity that she was the niece of both men.

And that isn't relevant to the point in any way. Im not interested in what you cannot find, but interested in what is present in His word. Deuteronomy showing that it is forbidden to return once remarried after a willful and purposeful divorce is not altered in the NT. Pauls says to remain unmarried or reconcile. That shows quite conclusively that if the person did do so anyway, that it is 'marriage' or otherwise he could not have said remain 'unmarried'.


Quote:
In the NT, with or without a writ of divorcement, she would be guilty of adultery-----because the Lord doesn't acknowledge a divorce as dissolving what HE joins together.


Jesus said nothing that altered what a divorce does. The only thing He did was to disallow that Moses had suffered, divorce for no just cause.
Moses had made it so there was no actual crime being committed against the former spouse upon remarriage.
Jesus removed the 'for every cause' allowance and stated that adultery was committed against the spouse (Mark 10) upon remarriage after this type of divorce.
He did not redefine 'divorce' in any manner whatsoever. And yes, Paul shows in 1 Cor 7:10-11 that a woman can 'put asunder' her marriage, what He 'joined together, so it is possible to carry out. The greek word used there for 'depart' is the exact same word "Chorizo" used for 'put asunder' in the words of Christ. Jesus did not say no man 'can' put asunder. That teaching is in error.


Quote:

What we can find in the OT is David's wife Michal becoming another man's wife and David taking her back to himself. Yes, she was not given a writ of divorcement, but she did become another man's wife.


The details of that issue are not any even remotely related to a careless, unjustified 'divorce' as Moses had tolerated and then tried to control in Deut 24:1-4. The woman was Davids wife and was not put away by him (as in Deut 24:1-4), so it is completely unrelated to this topic. Only if David himself had found 'some uncleaness' as he defined in her would Deut 24:1-4 be related.
David merely took back what he himself never put away but was stolen from him.

Scripture shows that David lived an upright life all his days and that the only thing against him was the issue of Uriah and his wife (1Kings 15:5).
So his taking back of what was his apparently was right in the Lords eyes.

On a side note, the point isn't relevant to begin with. David committed adultery with another mans wife. Is that ok to do under the law? How about the new covenant?
David committed murder as well. Is that forbidden by law? And in this covenant?
Even if it were unlawful for David to have had Michal back as his wife, apparently God isn't in the habit of forcing men to obey. So even if she wasnt supposed to be his wife again, that she had wouldn't mean a single thing in this matter. David was punished all the rest of his days for marrying the wife of Uriah (2Sa 12:9-10), so apparently he would have been able to also take yet another wife that wasn't his without God stopping him from doing it.

But, since Michal belonged to David and was stolen from him, this isn't remotely related to his willingly casting her aside for 'some uncleaness'.
David simply took back what was rightfully his that he himself had not 'put away'.

Under the law a man having sex with another man's wife is a punishable by death.
Michal could not have been seen as the wife of any other except David, since he didn't divorce her, or otherwise Gods word would have to say that David took another mans wife if this man Phaltiel, who still lived, was actually seen as her 'husband' in God's eyes.
No adultery charge is made against David for taking another man's wife, so we must conclude that God accepted Michal as David's wife regardless of what she is called or what occured.

"And Saul gave his daughter Michal, [b]David's wife[/b], to Phalti the son of Laish, who was of Gallim.
(1Sa 25:44 MKJV)

And there you have it. David never divorced Michal. She was David's wife given to another man. David simply regained what was his own.
Just because some godless man like Saul gave her away, doesn't mean God is forced to accept it.

 2007/3/17 2:08Profile
jimp
Member



Joined: 2005/6/18
Posts: 1481


 Re:

hi, a study of Hosea might help.jimp

 2007/3/17 4:10Profile









 Re:

Quote:

Ekklesia1 wrote:

Well, was Joseph's marriage consecrated to Mary when our Lord was born?
It had to be for Jesus to be born into a legitimate marriage, yet we know Joseph did not consummate the marriage at least up to that point.
So I'd say yes, your marriage is your covenant vow to your wife before God.



Thank you for that insight, although I felt that the vows themselves would be enough, I did not think of it in light of Joseph and Mary.

Quote:

Yeah, I really dont know your story so I wasn't sure of the details :-)

I think it shows a lot of self-control on your part to wait until the second wedding'. Im not sure of your reasoning, but I don't see it as anything wrong at all.
I'm sure if you knew my own story in my own marriage that you would see a very strong similarity between your situation and mine, from what you've presented.

I pray for many long, happy years for you and your bride to be :)



Again, thank you for your sincerity. As for my 'details', in short: I was a horrible sinner, found the Way, moved to Korea after a few years of learning in my baptist church in Canada, dated many girls along the way, gave everything to the Lord, and then 'some girl' walked into my life last June while I was sitting in church, which was only my second week there.

Within a month or so, we had our first date and spent everyday since together in prayer and/or in person. She and I attend morning church together everyday and end each day in prayer, either on the phone or when she sleeps over. This is a far cry from ANY and EVERY relationship that I have EVER been involved.

For months I prayed for a woman just like her (see the thread about 'prayer lists'), but the Lord did not seem to answer, so I quit asking and let Him fulfil His will for me. After surrendering myself to the Lord, He seemed to answer my prayer.

After a few weeks of 'dating', she and I agreed not to have intercourse (easier for her than me because she is a virgin). We try not to kiss or 'make-out', but sometimes that gets the better of us.

The church where we met is where her family has been a member for over 16 years. I am the only foreigner and not one other person speaks English, besides her, so I truly believe the Lord led me there.

The church welcomed me with open arms and have since invited me into the men's group and much attention is brought to me in most occasions. By September we were 'a couple' in church and they invited us to 'preach' to the youth every couple of weeks. The first 'sermon', we (she translates) were both extremely nervous, but for different reasons.

She was nervous about getting up in front of the people, but I was nervous about the surprising ending/conclusion to the 'message'...a proposal!

She obviously said yes and I believe that we 'set the stage' for our lives together; spreading the Good/Bad news all over the world.

Two weeks ago I was accepted into a master of divinity pastoral program back in Canada, so we are leaving the financial part to God. We trust God will put us where we are needed.

As for my 'self control'...it's difficult. As I mentioned, she sleeps over sometime, probably more than she ought to, but we do not have 'relations'. The closer to the date, the harder it is getting for the both of us.

I chose to not have 'relations' until the second wedding, for a few reasons. The first, I would like to have known her for a year, before we 'jump into the sack'.

Over my lifetime, I have had over a hundred 'girlfriends', where she has NEVER had even a boyfriend (actually, she dated a guy for 2 weeks and kissed him maybe 5 times, but she said she was 'diappointed'...now she is quite happy ;-) ).

The second reason is that I was not sure if I would 'feel' completely married, without any friends or family to be witnesses. I understand God is our witness, but it would be nice to have people around that I am somewhat familiar with.

The third reason is that the wedding will be conducted in Korean, so really I will not really know what is being said. That in itself will make me wonder about the vows. We will review what is said during a traditional wedding, but since my Korean (Hangeul) is poor, it would take me another 5 years, to fully understand it completely.

The final reason that I can think of now is that the church where I was baptized. I mentioned that I was a 'horrible sinner' and in search for truth I was led to an all black baptist church, where they welcomed me with open arms and treated me like a son/brother. Over a three year period they helped break my old self and showed me the Way to light, in a manner that I believe I would not have been able to accept, if it were at a different church. Eventually, I was in the mens' brotherhood, youth bible teacher, asked to be in the choir, and offered a job before I left for Korea.

The Canadian wedding will be held at that church and I actually care more about my Christian family to be witness to how graceous and merciful the Lord has been to me, rather than my 'friends' and 'family' of my old life.

Other than that... I just would like to settle down and work for the Lord in ALL I do. Over the years I have changed so much that I am sometimes set back by who I am from what I once was. I have lost many 'friends and family' because of my belief, but I have gained so much more.

There is so much to do and so little time. I hope and pray that all of us (SI members included) take our role as followers of Jesus seriously, because the world needs truth. There is much opposition, which we all have suffered, but in Him we are made strong. Let us not waste time.

Thank you again, I hope that I was not babbling too much... :-(

Again, Sorry Ben... but it is still about the two weddings... we shopped for a dress for her last week and we submitted the sample invitations yesterday... my life is funny and God is truly good.

God Bless those that wait...patiently,
Brian and Mira :-)

 2007/3/17 5:39
Ekklesia1
Member



Joined: 2006/12/10
Posts: 14


 Re:

Quote:

jimp wrote:
hi, a study of Hosea might help.jimp


A study of Hosea doesn't change anything.
Hosea was directly instructed to marry this woman who was a harlot, can anyone other than Hosea say as much? If there is a single man who has been commanded to do so, to him alone does the example of Hosea have any bearing whatsoever. If Hosea is to be a forerunner of todays marriages, then all marriages must be just the same from the start.

Hosea was told to marry this woman for a purpose. To show what Isreal had done to God, their continued cheating against Him, and His patience with them. But in the end with God and Israel, He ended the covenant He made with them. So Hosea isn't any evidence at all concerning anyone else's marriage other than Hosea's himself and Gods covenant to Israel. Hosea was not meant as some forerunner for marriage today or we all would need to marry a harlot intentionally.

 2007/3/17 8:42Profile
Ekklesia1
Member



Joined: 2006/12/10
Posts: 14


 Re:

Quote:
After surrendering myself to the Lord, He seemed to answer my prayer.


The similarities between your situation and mine to my wife are remarkable. :)

Quote:

The second reason is that I was not sure if I would 'feel' completely married, without any friends or family to be witnesses. I understand God is our witness, but it would be nice to have people around that I am somewhat familiar with.


I can understand that :)
Yes, God is the only witness required as far as a covenant before Him goes. But marriage is a public thing and unless there is a reason to not have witnesses at the time (a safety issue possibly) then we should have witnesses to our union if for no other reason than for accountabilities sake.

Quote:
The third reason is that the wedding will be conducted in Korean, so really I will not really know what is being said. That in itself will make me wonder about the vows. We will review what is said during a traditional wedding, but since my Korean (Hangeul) is poor, it would take me another 5 years, to fully understand it completely.


That's pretty interesting. But God knows what is in your heart and why you are standing there with your bride to be. Your just as married at the end of the first ceremony as you will be at the end of the second :)
It is still a very honorable thing you're doing though.

Quote:
The Canadian wedding will be held at that church and I actually care more about my Christian family to be witness to how graceous and merciful the Lord has been to me, rather than my 'friends' and 'family' of my old life.


I can understand your sentiment. :)
It is an honorable thing for you to do things the way you are, but also keep in mind that after the first ceremony that you will be married. You both understand why you are there and the covenant you are entering. You would be permitted to behave as man and wife in every regard at that point if you so chose to do so.

But I know precisely how you feel in wanting to do this in the way you have. I understand in a very personal way the desire to give your virgin wife who has never even had a single boyfriend plenty of time. My wife was in the very same situation. When she was younger she tried to 'date' once, didnt like it and never dated or kissed again until me. :)


Quote:
I have lost many 'friends and family' because of my belief, but I have gained so much more.


I understand what you mean. Many things change, some of them are kind of sad, but in the end you get so much more in return.


Quote:
Thank you again, I hope that I was not babbling too much...


Not at all. Im going to let my wife read this when she is up. The similarities between our stories is remarkable and I'm sure she will love to see that her story is a bit more 'normal' than she has been thinking :)

God bless you and your bride. I can't tell you how wonderful and uplifting your post was.

:)

 2007/3/17 9:08Profile
rodge
Member



Joined: 2004/2/11
Posts: 5


 Re: Marrying The Same Person Twice?

Hi Ben
I believe the answer is determined very simply by asking the question 'Who does God consider you are married to?' I would suggest that subsequent remarriages, which are called adultery, imply that the first marriage is still intact and that the second marriage is both unlawful and unrecognised. Can you be committing adultery when having sex with the person God considers to be your wife? I don't think so. So, regardless of how many subsequent marriages you have, the first is the only one God recognises. So sex with the first spouse could not be adultery while sex with subsequent spouses couldn't be anything other than adultery.


_________________
Andrew Rogers

 2007/3/19 8:00Profile
Ekklesia1
Member



Joined: 2006/12/10
Posts: 14


 Re:

Quote:

rodge wrote:

I believe the answer is determined very simply by asking the question 'Who does God consider you are married to?' I would suggest that subsequent remarriages, which are called adultery,


Jesus offered an exception for this situation showing that there is condition whereby adultery is not committed upon remarriage.



Quote:
imply that the first marriage is still intact and that the second marriage is both unlawful and unrecognised. Can you be committing adultery when having sex with the person God considers to be your wife? I don't think so. So, regardless of how many subsequent marriages you have, the first is the only one God recognises.


I'd like to see a chapter and verse that proves this assertion. Ive seen it stated many times but Ive never actually seen the passage that God only recognizes the first marriage.
In fact, "Having been the wife of one man" tends to lend to the idea that you are wrong seeing how widows remarrying was not unlawful, and there were issues with women marrying multiple husbands, so it had to be a remarried divorcee. Yet there she was, in the church, in fellowship and not being called an adultress. Only being prohibited from the list of widows.


Quote:

So sex with the first spouse could not be adultery while sex with subsequent spouses couldn't be anything other than adultery.


Sorry, but thats not what Jesus or Paul said.

 2007/3/19 9:26Profile





©2002-2019 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy