SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : General Topics : Divorce and Remarriage

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 Next Page )

Joined: 2005/8/1
Posts: 201
North West England

 Re: allhavsinned

I also wrote 'I am happy to be wrong...'

I've just read Cheryl's testimony, very powerful

I am looking into this subject.

have you ever heard the phrase; 'there is only Jesus or sin'

Where does God draw the line?

black and white?

I'm still happy to be wrong cos it makes life easier.

compromise vs fundamentalism?

We all need to get closer to God, He alone will lead us into all Truth

I'll read that long thread now...


 2005/9/6 23:17Profile

 Re: Divorce and Remarriage

When one CANNOT marry again ....

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

One can leave and not remarry, in the case above. Doesn't specify 'why' "she departs", but abuse or something must be a possibility here.

An O.T. law says, that if your x-spouse remarries, you cannot remarry them if they divorse that 2nd spouse later. So there can be no "reconciliation" with them if that's the case, yet you must remain unmarried, if 'you' are the one who left (vs.11).


When one CAN marry again .....

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

If an unbeliever departs and then remarries someone else, then the Christian is free to marry again. (Don't go beyond what is "written").


When one CAN marry again ....

Mat 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, [b]EXCEPT[/b] it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

In other words, if he puts away his wife for sexual immorality during the marriage, he CAN remarry. That word "Except" is in the text for a reason.

The majority of scholars on this verse, say that the "sexual immorality" (fornication) happens "during" the marriage, and not prior.

If the Lord had just said "adultery", then that would have limited any number of other ways in which a married person can "defile the marriage bed", (that we won't get into) ... that is why Jesus used the all encompassing word "porneia" meaning 1) illicit sexual intercourse
1a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.
1b) sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18
1c) sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mar_10:11,Mar_10:12
2) metaphorically the worship of idols
2a) of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols (Thayer's)

How this verse being taking so far out from it's meaning, I don't know.


All of the above is not from "modern" scholars, but our old trusted ones. We should not add to God's Word and thus condemn or hurt our brothers and sisters unwarrantedly.

 2005/9/7 7:34


This thread is like de ja vu all over again... de ja vu all over again... de ja vu all over again...

Didnt we just have this discussion like 2 weeks ago?


 2005/9/7 8:25

Joined: 2005/5/2
Posts: 3777

 Re: Mercy Triumphs over judgment

Two threads on this same topic! The following words were meant to go on the very very long thread, but I am posting it here. You don't need to read that thread, this gives the drift:

I just read through this long 14 page post, trying to imagine that I was one of the statistics. Would I find Christ amidst the conversation? I did PTL: in Neiglin1’s testimony. Thank you for sharing that!

I'm just tired of the church treating divorced people like they are some kind of second rate Christian.

Sadly this comment expresses the true feelings of many – those who find themselves among the statistics. Sadly, all too often when they are in their weakest condition, as a result of the emotional turmoil in their lives, they get hammered by the legalists – those who are straining the gnats, but missing the message of the Sprit.

Note this message: The book of Hagar is an unbelievable story of a man taking back his promiscuous wife (against law but not against grace). That is the picture of Christ and the sinful human race – of which none of us are exempt.

When we all see ourselves as the promiscuous wife, then we will see that none of us deserves any mercy anymore than the divorced person.

Since the statistics are as they are, what are we to do? I have several piano students from broken homes. They hurt badly. So do their parents. They have all heard enough degrading, accusing, slamming words thrown at them. They have suffered already from the consequences of poor choices – whether their own, or someone else’s. (including the sins of society in general)

In the past the "dysfunctional" person was the exception. Now it is the norm. People carry a lot of unhealthy emotinal baggage, and that makes it extremely difficult to maintain healthy reliationships - whether in marriage or otherwise. We need to take that into consideration when trying to understand the issue of divorce. Let's face it, any of us would find it difficult, even impossible, to have a trusting relationship with a person who harbors a lot of rage, shame, addiction, who lies a lot, who won't listen to anything you say, who perpetually makes wreckless choices etc. [edit added]

We can add several more pages in this thread, but if we have nothing to say that would promote healing and forgiveness for these people, we are as sounding brass, and all our words will count for nothing.

I’ve heard it said that when God sends revival, it will be the forgiven sinners – the divorces, the addicts, the prostitutes etc who will lead the way. I can easily believe this. These are the ones who will KNOW the mercy of God. They will be the ones who will give it to others.
“Freely you have received, freely give.”

They may not be allowed to hold offices in the church, but they will be God’s mighty servants among the sinners of the world – ministers of reconciliation.

Who knows, some day you or I may be ministered to by one of those among the statistics. (Doesn’t that remind you of the Parable of the Good Samaritan? )


 2005/9/7 11:10Profile

Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK


Two threads on this same topic! The following words were meant to go on the very very long thread, but I am posting it here. You don't need to read that thread, this gives the drift:

There have been 4 or 5 threads on this topic over the years. This is one which tried to find some definitions: [url=]Divorce and Remarriage a biblical perspective.[/url]

My own view on this is that the narrow interpretation of Matthew's reference to fornication as meaning 'pre-marital sex' just cannot be sustained from the Bible data.

Without joining a 'side' in this, I think Neilgin's 'born again virgin' concept is also mistaken. I am not trying to prove anything about divorce and remarriage in saying this, but that the concept does not work. New birth happens in the spirit, but sexual union happens in the body. The concept that 'new birth' resets all the dials is not true of the body. If this were so 'new birth' would instantly effect a cure of all hereditary or sexually transmitted diseases.

Over many years I have discussed and re-discussed this question with many. There are two main settings for such discussions; a group of studious thinkers with highly tuned spiritual antennae AND broken hearted people whose lives have fallen to pieces around them. In the first scenario we have all the luxury of precise defintions and prescriptions; in the second we have a pastoral responsibility to wounded souls.

As a younger man, I heard a wise old preacher say there are three things that Christians will never agree on; the reconciliation of apostates, divorce and remarriage, and the taking up of arms. I thought him somewhat defeatest, believing myself that there must always be a simple answer to such moral dilemmas.

For myself one of the continuing problems in trying to 'hold the line' and at the same time not wanting to impose my own convictions upon another's life, is the whole definition of 'marriage'. Christians presume that we have one; I am not sure. I posted this in another thread about 18 months ago.Sometimes we have to broaden an issue before we can narrow it. There are at least three issues affecting fellowship which the Church has struggled with for hundreds of years; repentant apostates, the marriage of divorcees, and taking up arms in war. Opposing sides have been taken by Godly men in their different persuasions. Often, as the saying goes 'we generated more heat than light'. It is easier to come to decisions about these matters in our studies than in our pastoral care of the saints. It is relatively easy to come to fixed position theologically; if we were dealing with boxes and not people life would be uncomplicated.

Before we can define 'remarriage' we have to define 'divorce', but before we define 'divorce' we have to define 'marriage'. For a couple of hundred years there has been a 'Christian consensus' for a definition; usually it would involve the notions of consent, covenant and consumation. It has been a bulwark for society and the family, but we are now living in a society which is much more like that of the first century and it would be good if we understood what that society was like.

As far as I can ascertain there are no Hebrew words nor Greek words for 'husband' or 'wife'. :-o Both languages use the simple words for 'man' or 'woman' and they add a possessive pronoun. eg Jesus says to the Samaritan woman "thou hast had 5 men and he whom thou now hast is not thy man". The question then is what makes 'a man' hers or 'a woman' his. and we are back to our need for a definition of marriage!

There are no marriage 'ceremonies' in the Old Testament. There is a wedding celebration in John 2 and we have a good idea of the pattern of betrothal and marriage in Jewish society. Some say that God authenticates the Jewish pattern, but do not usually say where or how.

At this point in history Roman wedding patterns were in transition. Roman family life with its rights and responsibilities is very complicated for folks brought up in our cultures. The Romans had 5 recognized forms of marriage! In some of them 'ownership' of the woman changed. In some it did not. The one closest to our traditional 'Christian marriage' was called 'Confarreatio'.
Confarreatio was an elaborate religious ceremony,
* with ten witnesses,
* the flamen dialis (himself married confarreatio) and
* pontifex maximus in attendance.
* Only the children of parents married confarreatio were eligible.
* The grain far was baked into a special wedding cake (farreum) for the occasion; hence, the name confarreatio.

It was only available for the patrician class. (the upper strata of Ronan society) Technically this made the bride her father-in-law's possession.

Another familiar form of marriage was known an USUS and has similarities with what we would now call 'common law marriage'. This would have been the form of marriage for much of the lower 'strata' of Roman society. Under this form of marriage
* After a year's cohabitation, the woman came under her husband's manum, (authority)
* unless she stayed away for three nights (trinoctium abesse).
* Since she wasn't living with her pater familias, and
* since she wasn't under the hand of her husband,
* she acquired some freedom.

We have no records of Roman marriages being 'blessed' by Christians and it is most unlikely that early Christians were required to be formally married by 'Christian priests'.

One of the things we 21st Century christians need to think through is the implications of all this. Is a common-law marriage between two faithful partners less 'valid' that a legal marriage in Las Vegas that lasts for an hour or two? Can someone live a life of promiscuity but still be regarded as 'unmarried' and therefore eligible for 'Christian Marriage'?

The words of the Lord are very striking; They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. (Mat 19:7-8 KJV)

In particular we should notice
1. his change from 'command' to 'allow' in his statement regarding Moses,
2. that the original design (from the beginning) had been allowed to be 'modified'.
3. the reason for the modification was 'hardness of heart'.

The Moses commandment was part of a Law-Code which began at Sinai (and hence did not include Adam, Abraham, Jacog etc) and ended when the 'seed came to whom the promise was made'. (Gal 3:19). This means we must be very cautious about the way we use the Old Testament to understand the New Testament. The New Covenant contains a promise of a new-heart, so is there now any accommodation for 'hardness of heart' in the Church? are we back to 'as it was in the beginning?'.

In all these considerations we need a spirit of patience love and, often, specific discernment. This is a plea from an old pastor who once had all this sorted out theoretically, but real people just kept getting in the way! :-)

Just one more comment by way of loving provocation; one of the reasons we have such difficulties with this issue is because churches have taken on the role of 'marriage facilitators'. Why do we 'marry' people? If we left this in the hands of the civil authority we might be able to see some of the issues more clearly. Just my thoughts... we know in part...

Ron Bailey

 2005/9/7 14:09Profile


I just read through this long 14 page post, trying to imagine that I was one of the statistics. Would I find Christ amidst the conversation? I did PTL: in Neiglin1’s testimony. Thank you for sharing that!

Me too Diane, and on this one, I found it in Hans' testimony.

I reckon as long as new folks come on, we'll see threads come up on old-already-hashed-out topics, but I'm sure the starter of this thread, had a reason to start it.

I'm sort of glad he did, cuz the other one was getting old, stale and starchy in places.

I think I'm getting old and tired and maybe (I don't know what) ... cuz I'm really "TIRING" of "OPINIONS".
I even told my daughter, that I'm a sick ol' grumpy lady. Ha - :-?

But I almost started a thread titled ... "Opinion is Sin". (dead serious here tho'.)

I think when it comes to God's Word and the Events going on in the World, that "God's" people should have 'the mind of Christ' on these issues or be Biblically Based.(same thing)

The world looks to 'us' for The Answers, and if all we have is differing "[u]opinions[/u]" and not The Word of God, or intelligent research on political issues, then how can we be the [b]LIGHT[/b] of the world ?

Confusion is not from the Lord, and "opinions" are confusion.

I think on Biblical discussions or on POLITICS, we should know from RESEARCH, and lots of it, what we are saying, for the sake of the World.

They're lost, they need firm, truthful, From God, answers.

Enough blah, blah from me, though this really HAS been heavy on my heart lately, more than ever.


 2005/9/7 17:35

Joined: 2005/5/31
Posts: 78


from brother Hans:

the Church has no business to tell the world how to live or how to behave, since She doesn’t know how to obey God’s Word.

Jesus never told the world how to live neither did he lead a protest march to Rome to complaint to the Emperor.

He only scolded the religious leaders, never the political ones according to my knowledge. Paul tells us to pray for our leaders, not to tell them how to run the country.

this is well said

your whole testimony Hans, how the Lord uses both you and your wife now to counsel others is a testimony to the power of grace and that mercy indeed does triumph over judgment

but we don't want grace when we're confident of our abilities to live righteously

those that spout self-righteously and finger-point constantly and continually on this message board will find that they themselves shall become ensnared in the same sins they try to focus upon in others

just watch

 2005/9/7 17:37Profile

Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK


"Opinion is Sin"

that's an interesting opinion. ;-)

Ron Bailey

 2005/9/7 18:02Profile



Your summary here was much appreciated.

After one marriage partner has been born again, I have the impression that there must come some discussion about how the other wishes to proceed - staying or leaving - which naturally has consequences for the believer. Even if the unbeliever stays for a while, surely, something vital has changed their relationship?

New birth happens in the spirit, but sexual union happens in the body.

You have said what new birth does not do. Could you elaborate on what it does do, please?

EDIT: I mean, do to present and past marriage relationships. EDIT end

 2005/9/7 18:08

Joined: 2005/8/1
Posts: 201
North West England


I think when it comes to God's Word and the Events going on in the World, that "God's" people should have 'the mind of Christ' on these issues or be Biblically Based.(same thing)

Annie, good point,
It's not what we think the Bible says but what God says. Therefore let God deal with those people who are in the remarried position, it is not for us to judge them. If they are honest with God and desire His Lordship in their lives, they will search for His answer and live by it. This brings us back to Cheryl's testimony.


 2005/9/7 19:01Profile

Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy