Is it Biblical to marry a divorced person?

[presidente]

Nope...
Completely wrong...she is then divorced.

Dealt with in a post I just posted. Your point is silly....maybe I shouldn't say silly because it is grevious and can lead to adultery, error, breaking up families, causing havok in people's lives, harm relationships of individuals with God, cause all kinds of issues with childhood, lots of emotional pain, etc.

Look at Deuteronomy 24. Look at their question about Deuteronomy 24.

7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

So, first the writing of divorcement, and then sending away. Otherwise, they are not discussing the law of Moses.

'Put away' could also be rendered 'send away.' Do you think they divorced them, but then kept them around, ate with them, slept with them, etc. What would the point be of a man divorcing his wife if he wasn't trying to get rid of her?

I wonder if you have ben reading some garbage interpretations of those who seek to justify divorce for 'any cause' and make it out as if Jesus was only forbidding divorce if there was no certificate. Your terminology seems to align with stuff I have read along those lines. I understand the appeal of this teaching. There are lots of people who have gotten divorced completely contrary to the commands of Christ. Some of them confess their sin. But it might feel a lot more comfortable to reintepret scripture to fit behavior rather than conform behavior to fit the teaching of scripture. Also, giving oneself an out to marriage may be less stressful to some people. The apostles themselves responded to Jesus' teaching by saying, that if such be the case of a man with his wife, it is better for a man not to marry. That tells us that Jesus' teachings were not run-of-the-mill Pharisee teachings. They said that because Jesus' teachings were so restrictive on divorce that it made them uncomfortable.

TWO actions are needed for a divorce not just one.
Both the certificate and putting away.

I hope you agree with yourself. A woman with a certificate who was put away is put away.

A Put Away wife is not a divorced wife.

There is a logical contradiction with what you wrote above. If the woman experienced both receiving the certificate and the putting away, she has been put away.

She is without house, food, family or a means to support herself. It was supposed to be a means of punishing an unfaithful wife. But it was used for less than honorable reasons.

Okay, so we agree on that, but it seems like you are using the arguments and verbage of those who promote 'any cause' divorce among Christians, as long as the woman has a certificate. You made their arguments, minus their conclusion. There had to be two witnesses to stone an adulteress. This was not listed as a requirement for a divorce. So there were cases like this. More conservative Pharisees might have allowed it for 'unclean' situations short of full-blown intercourse, also.

Again you are not using the lifestyles of a Caste Based Society for what Jesus said. Jesus is God. God doesn't change but people certainly do.

I am not sure why that is relevant. Many previous centuries of European culture were a bit more in the direction of a 'caste-based' society. The egalitarian culture we have now took a long time to evolve into what it is now, and if Jesus tarries long enough, it will probably morph into something else, probably something less egalitarian. I do not see how that would change Jesus' teaching on marriage and divorce.

 

[JohnDB]

The issue is not whether there was an 'agunah problem', the problem of abandoned wives. The issue is whether this had anything to do with the passage in question. it is not to what degree the Old Testament or pagan culture considered women to be property of their husbands. The law of God is holy, just, and good. We cannot say that about the pagans.

The point is, Matthew 19 is NOT about the agunah problem. You aren't explicit, but I think you are one of these proponents of this very recent, as far as I can tell, school of thought that Matthew 19 is about Jesus just saying you need to give a woman a paper if you want to get a divorce, then you can divorce and remarry at will. Correct me if I am wrong.

It is extremely obvious from the actual words in the passage that this is not the case. Making this about the agunah problem-- the problem of the abandoned wife who is not legally divorced-- is just wrong. There were more issues than that.

The issue that is actually specifically addressed that shows up in the writings of Judaism that record the debates of the era is the 'any cause' divorce issue. It's the question they actually ask Him about Matthew 19:3. It's what he actually addresses. It is also quite clear from Deuteronomy 24 that a woman who is put away with a certificate is put away. This shows up in the way they ask their question about it:

7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

It is clear from this and from the wording of the passage they refer to that if a man gives his wife and puts her away, that he puts her away. Do you disagree with the idea that if a man puts away his wife, that he puts away his wife?

Look at Christ's words
8 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.

9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Notice how he uses 'put away' in verse 8. It is in regard to what Moses allowed. The context, given the question and the passage they are discussing certainly includes those put away with a certificate. Saying it does not include that is pure sophistry-- not really because sophistry involves clever arguments, and arguments that he is not talking about or including 'putting away' with a certificate
are actually absurd.

In verse 9, 'Whosoever shall put away his wife' clearly includes those who 'put away' their wives with a certificate... since that is what the discussion is about... since he references what Moses allowed in the verse prior... and since logically a woman put away with a certificate is put away. There is no way around it.

And we are talking about the Pharisees here, the legal purists. Jewish authorities could try to compel a man to give an abandoned wife a divorce certificate. I have read about that in Judaism (don't have the source off the top of my head.) But it was hard to do so. Legally, they weren't divorced if he did not give her the paper. But the Pharisees did not say it was okay to leave a wife high and dry like that. They taught that wives were entitled to food, clothing, and sex in accordance with the Old Testament. They prescribed how much a woman could demand from a man based on his occupation, nightly for a lot of occupations (taking niddah and other restrictions into account) up to every so many weeks for fishermen. They weren't going to ask Jesus if it was okay to abandon a wife forever without a certificate since they would have agreed that it was not. People who did so did not follow the Pharisees interpretations, which were not all bad on that point.

You sure are dancing hard and fast to try and go beyond what Jesus said...

Just admit that you want YOUR theology to be true and refuse to accept exactly what Jesus said. Then you don't have to contort, twist, and add to what Jesus said anymore.

The reason for divorce is a high standard. Abuse definitely falls within the confines of what Jesus said. But apparently for you the only reason is because someone decided to go breeding with someone else other than their spouse. Kinda an odd thing IMHO by a Jesus who was dead set against codified legalism to begin with.
The Law is now Living Water that flows wherever it needs to in order to fill every gap possible.

But...
Today in the Middle East there are Marriage Parlors...
Where a guy can go in and get married for an hour or so and then divorced on his way out. That fits inside of legalistic societies...but doesn't fit according to God.

 

[presidente]

Let's imagine you meet a beautiful kind woman or man (opposite sex to yourself), you are single. You find out he or she is divorced. He or she claims the other person committed adultery. You marry. Then you find out this person committed adultery first before the other person. Or you find out neither one of them committed adultery and it was a lie.

Then what?

If two people divorce, and it is not in line with Christ's teaching, then remarry, can they repent and God accepts the second marriage, or are they in 'perpetual adultery.' I don't see this specifically addressed in the New Testament. It might be considered a 'moral gray area.' My advice is to stay out of the moral gray areas like this. Don't do anything where you might set yourself up for not having a clean conscience before God going forward.

Woman can work in our society. There are also social programs. A divorced woman, in most cases, can scrape by. Divorce is a wealth destroyer in most cases for both men and women.

If it because the culture... again... for Christians to stay away from marrying those who are divorced, then after a while, Christians might actually take staying married more seriously, which could help reduce the divorce rate.

 

[JohnDB]

GOSPEL is Latin for "Good News" literally...

And when someone doesn't explain "good news" of how God still loves you in spite of your failings...you aren't hearing the Gospel.

The Gospel message isn't about a license to sin...it's about freedom from them. You don't have to carry them about your neck like a weight anymore.

God and Jesus by definition ARE loving kindness. Not rigid rulemaking legalistic idiots like the Pharisees.

 

[JohnDB]

Let's imagine you meet a beautiful kind woman or man (opposite sex to yourself), you are single. You find out he or she is divorced. He or she claims the other person committed adultery. You marry. Then you find out this person committed adultery first before the other person. Or you find out neither one of them committed adultery and it was a lie.

Then what?

If two people divorce, and it is not in line with Christ's teaching, then remarry, can they repent and God accepts the second marriage, or are they in 'perpetual adultery.' I don't see this specifically addressed in the New Testament. It might be considered a 'moral gray area.' My advice is to stay out of the moral gray areas like this. Don't do anything where you might set yourself up for not having a clean conscience before God going forward.

Woman can work in our society. There are also social programs. A divorced woman, in most cases, can scrape by. Divorce is a wealth destroyer in most cases for both men and women.

If it because the culture... again... for Christians to stay away from marrying those who are divorced, then after a while, Christians might actually take staying married more seriously, which could help reduce the divorce rate.

In today's environment in America women are the primary filers for divorce... something to the tune of 80% of all marriages end because the wife decided she deserved better. (This includes Christian households)

So... something other than what presedente is claiming is definitely going on.

 

[presidente]

You sure are dancing hard and fast to try and go beyond what Jesus said...

Just admit that you want YOUR theology to be true and refuse to accept exactly what Jesus said.

I pointed out, specifically, what Jesus said and described the details of the conversation. Show me exactly where you think I do not accept exactly what Jesus said? Where did He say whatever you are referring to? What verse? What words? What is the basis for your accusation? If you disagree with what I wrote, point it out. Respond to the points I made.

Do you disagree with the idea that a woman who receives a divorce certificate and is put away is put away?

Do people who put on a hat and go outside go outside, or are they always inside? It is a matter of logic. What is your area of disagreement.

I have seen the same sort of comments you made on a website and in posts from those who believe a man may divorce his wife for any cause and Jesus was okay with that as long as he gives her a certificate. That's why most post 'hard and fast.' But I did not dance around the issue, as you seem to be doing. I was direct and specific.

Then you don't have to contort, twist, and add to what Jesus said anymore.

Where did I contort, twist, or anything along those lines.

The reason for divorce is a high standard. Abuse definitely falls within the confines of what Jesus said. But apparently for you the only reason is because someone decided to go breeding with someone else other than their spouse. Kinda an odd thing IMHO by a Jesus who was dead set against codified legalism to begin with.

Since I did not even address the topic of abuse, just pointed out the way you were interpreting the wording of the passage, your comment does not make much sense. If a man is beating his wife, and they are Christians (though clearly he isn't living it out), then I would think the following may apply in some cases "but and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband." Abuse does not justify adultery or becoming 'one flesh' with multiple partners. Living right before God is more important than getting one's desires and 'rights' fulfilled. God gives us grace to follow him.

But...
Today in the Middle East there are Marriage Parlors...
Where a guy can go in and get married for an hour or so and then divorced on his way out. That fits inside of legalistic societies...but doesn't fit according to God.

The arguments you make could lead to a conclusion that such things are justified. So I wonder if we are talking past each other. If Jesus were only speaking against putting away women without a certificate, then why wouldn't one hour marriages be okay as long as the man gave the woman a certificate? There are branches of Islam that allow for short-term marriage. I think it might be one day, though. I am not sure. Shi'i are looser about it than Suni. But Jesus' words on the subject were a lot more 'restrictive' for a man wanting to get out of a marriage than what the Hillel house Pharisees allowed.

 

[presidente]

In today's environment in America women are the primary filers for divorce... something to the tune of 80% of all marriages end because the wife decided she deserved better. (This includes Christian households)

So... something other than what presedente is claiming is definitely going on.

You are attributing ideas to me that I did not post, like you did with the abuse issue before. I had not addressed that in this thread. I read stats of 69 or 70ish percent on that, btw, and I have no idea how that breaks down with Christians v. nonChristians. If you have a source for that, I would appreciate a link.

The Bible doesn't really address women divorcing men except a verse that forbids a wife to put away her husband. I have read there was one known case of this, that the woman we know as Herodias got the chief priests to approve her divorce with Philip before marrying his brother. (She might have been something like Philipias at the time.) John the Baptist said to Herod, "It is not lawful for you to have her." Roman women could divorce men, but it was not a provision in the Torah, so probably something Pharisees discussed when dealing with issues related to the Jewish people.

 

[presidente]

GOSPEL is Latin for "Good News" literally...

And when someone doesn't explain "good news" of how God still loves you in spite of your failings...you aren't hearing the Gospel.

The Gospel message isn't about a license to sin...it's about freedom from them. You don't have to carry them about your neck like a weight anymore.

I have a similar sentiment actually, when it comes to the issue of grace and sin. I also believe in repentance and walking circumspectly. As far as our conclusions about divorce, I think you agree that someone isn't free to dump a spouse with a certificate and move on to the next one, but the method of interpretation you used seems to lead in the opposite direction, and is used by some who promote that sort of libertine philosophy when it comes to divorce.

 

[JohnDB]

pointed out, specifically, what Jesus said and described the details of the conversation. Show me exactly where you think I do not accept exactly what Jesus said? Where did He say whatever you are referring to? What verse? What words? What is the basis for your accusation? If you disagree with what I wrote, point it out. Respond to the points I made.

You keep adding to what Jesus said.

You keep adding in this certificate of divorce that Jesus never mentions. Jesus was talking about the scandal of wife swapping that the Pharisees were involved in. They were marrying and divorcing these put away wives fast and furiously. (Lack of dowry or bride price was a huge loophole they were taking advantage of). Jesus wanted it to stop because of the dehumanizing of these women. Sure they were put away instead of divorced...

The Samaritan woman at the well was "living in sin" when Jesus made her THE FIRST of his Samaritan campaign.

Obviously she was not exactly a happy camper until after she talked with Jesus...and notice how he never said "you need to get married".

Not that shacking up is such a good idea either. But he didn't condemn her and instead used her to start something Wonderful.

Three walnut sized pieces of food per week was all that was required for husbands to supply a put away wife. That was the Law.

 

[JohnDB]

You are attributing ideas to me that I did not post, like you did with the abuse issue before. I had not addressed that in this thread. I read stats of 69 or 70ish percent on that, btw, and I have no idea how that breaks down with Christians v. nonChristians. If you have a source for that, I would appreciate a link.

The Bible doesn't really address women divorcing men except a verse that forbids a wife to put away her husband. I have read there was one known case of this, that the woman we know as Herodias got the chief priests to approve her divorce with Philip before marrying his brother. (She might have been something like Philipias at the time.) John the Baptist said to Herod, "It is not lawful for you to have her." Roman women could divorce men, but it was not a provision in the Torah, so probably something Pharisees discussed when dealing with issues related to the Jewish people.

She never got divorced...she just took up with him and that "divorce" wasn't really kosher by even Edomite or Roman guidelines. (Herod was an Edomite)

 

[presidente]

Samson liked those Hoe's in Philistine. God said don't go into them, man did not listen.

I have heard preacher say stuff like this, minus the hoe comment. I cannot find in the Old Testament was forbidden. The Philistines and Edomites were the two other people-groups for whom we read that God drove out their enemies before them. We know they existed at the time of the Exodus because God did not lead Israel in the way of the Philistines. Yet they are not listed among the seven nations Israelites were not to marry.

And in the passage with Samson, his parents suggest he marry one of his own people, and the passage says it happened because the LORD was seeking an occasion with the Philistines.

 

[Roughsoul1991]

T


Thanks for sharing this with me

No problem

 

[presidente]

You keep adding to what Jesus said.

You keep adding in this certificate of divorce that Jesus never mentions.

Where did I add that. I pointed out it was in the context of the discussion. Jesus referenced Moses, who gave the law in the passage the Pharisees alluded to. The context Jesus set had to do with Moses. Also, I point out that women who are given a certificate of divorced and put away.... are put away based on logic and scripture.

Jesus was talking about the scandal of wife swapping that the Pharisees were involved in. They were marrying and divorcing these put away wives fast and furiously. (Lack of dowry or bride price was a huge loophole they were taking advantage of). Jesus wanted it to stop because of the dehumanizing of these women. Sure they were put away instead of divorced...

You are accusing me of adding to Jesus' words. Yet you are the one who said, "Jesus wanted it to stop because of the dehumanizing of these women.' Where did Jesus say that? If my pointing out the context is 'adding' to what Jesus said, then what is your taking that neither Jesus nor anyone else in the passage mentions?

What reasons did Jesus give for His teaching on divorce? He says, 'but from the beginning it was not so' and 'two sayeth he shall be one flesh.' Those are the justifications Christ gives for His interpretation and teaching.

Does Jesus care about women being mistreated? I certainly believe He does and that He did then. But the theological concerns He expressed had to do with the way things were in the beginning, two being one flesh, and the sin of adultery.

 

[presidente]

She never got divorced...she just took up with him and that "divorce" wasn't really kosher by even Edomite or Roman guidelines. (Herod was an Edomite)

The Jews had compelled the Edomites to convert to Judaism during the Hasmonean dynasty before the Romans took over. From what I have read, Herod was Jewish by religion. I don't picture him as being that serious about his religion.

Marrying a living brother's wife was something for which Gentiles were driven out of the land, also, according to Leviticus.

 

[JohnDB]

used by some who promote that sort of libertine philosophy when it comes to divorce.

Not libertine in any fashion...
It's actually more restrictive than your theology. Less forgiving but does allow for forgiveness at the same time.
(Jesus was big on forgiveness)

 

[presidente]

Not libertine in any fashion...
It's actually more restrictive than your theology. Less forgiving but does allow for forgiveness at the same time.
(Jesus was big on forgiveness)

Do you think the belief that a man can give his wife a divorce certificate for any reason at all and put her away, and he is free and clear to remarry without sinning is 'more restrictive' than my theology?

That is what I was addressing. Some of your arguments are the building blocks of that view, which I have found on a website and promoted in a supposedly Christian marriage forum elsewhere.

 

[Naamini]

@CI
Leadership by example.

Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas? (1 Corinthians 9:5|NKJV

 

[2ndTimothyGroup]

I am done explaining myself to you.

Nice. Proper Christians walk away instead of engaging in senseless worldly debate.

 

[Dino246]

Do you believe it is wise to go against the teaching of Paul?

1 Corinthians 7:17 NLT - "Each of you should continue to live in whatever situation the Lord has placed you, and remain as you were when God first called you. This is my rule for all the churches."

Paul wrote just prior to the destruction of Israel. The situation is different today.

 

[Naamini]

God has the final word too.. He can cleanse body, spirit and Soul. Well does this verse have meaning to divorced person getting repentance and sanctification?

And a voice spoke to him again the second time, "What God has cleansed you must not call common." (Acts 10:15|NKJV