Just curious if you think celibacy is a punishment?
Can a Christian re-marry?
- Thread starter pearlspring
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
But you can't murder your spouse just so you could marry again.
Let's hope not, but if someone tried that, there would be some slim pickin's in the state pen.
This is a tough issue, especially considering how liberal society... and evangelical churches... have become on the issue.
One difficulty is the exception clause (which may rely partly on wording not in the earlier Greek manuscripts) is stated regarding men divorcing their wives, but not wives divorcing their husbands. There is no provision for wives to divorce their husbands in scripture.
One difficulty is the exception clause (which may rely partly on wording not in the earlier Greek manuscripts) is stated regarding men divorcing their wives, but not wives divorcing their husbands. There is no provision for wives to divorce their husbands in scripture.
You should be thankful that you're free from being in bondage with him. But if you still love him then stay with him and watch him every Saturday night seeing him getting married over and over with another woman.
Paul was stating that believers shouldn't be sleeping with prostitutes because they'll be bound with them because they have accepted them as a prostitute before they consummated (Went into agreement) which means they'll have to stay with them even though they sleep with other guys. Just like a woman who marries a man who has concubines. once she accepts this lifestyle, there's no getting away from it. And that's how the divorce judge will handle a case like that. Once the spouse went back to the cheating spouse, the spouse has to accept the other's lifestyle unless the cheating spouse was stoned to death freeing the other from the contract. That's why if a spouse cheats, the partner should leave the marriage right then and there. Unless they renew their contract adding stipulations what will happen if the other cheats again under this new contract.
1 Corinthians 6:16
Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.”
Matthew 5:32
But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
1 Corinthians 7:15
But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace.
Enforced celibacy, yes. And not by God. I've been married for 12 of my 74 years. If people choose to be single, fine. I was married for 9 years. I married again 3 years ago. I chose to remain single for about 25 years.
Some people seem to think that divorce is sin and remarriage the unpardonable sin, even if one party is innocent. God forgave David and Bathsheba for adultery and David for murder. God made Bathsheba's son, Solomon, King after David. When God forgives, He forgets.
The principle of sowing and reaping still applies. I suffered a lot. I found out who my real friends were and I was shocked. So I don't suggest people marry with the idea that you can just bail out if it gets a bit hard.
The liberation of England from the Roman Empire under Henry the 8th and establishment of the Anglican Church.
Then Bloody Mary's return to Catholocism....which caused the Calvinists to run and hide in Geneva Switzerland.
They later pumped English translated Bibles into England.
That's TWO wars right there. People dying by armed conflict.
The translation of the Aramaic and Hebrew from Greek follows the oldest Septuagint. Where we read in English "Divorce" the Aramaic/Hebrew separates and has a clear distinction between "put-away" vx "Divorced".
We live in a Westernized society where there exists no true distinction between the two states. (Although they could use the term "separated" which is somewhat similar...but not really) and the Jews also practiced polygamy. A man having more than one wife was not illegal or immoral. In some instances required by Law.
The whole episode of John 8 was because the Test for an unfaithful wife was never performed. She was "caught in the act" was their claim. Now where she likely was a "put away" wife (acted single just so she could survive as another man's wife)...the Law was never fulfilled of testing her.
Putting away a wife was much much cheaper than divorce. Divorce was controlled completely by a ketubah (pre-nuptual agreement) which included a healthy sum of money for the ex wife to receive from her ex husband. However a put-away wife had zero legal recourse. She could NOT access the Courts for assistance. (Women were considered more property than people). When Putting-away a wife it cost the men nothing.
Marrying a strongly suspected of being a "put away" wife was a literal gold mine of sleazy opportunities. You could marry her and Divorce her without a ketubah at will. You could practically trade her for money or favors because of the lack of ketubah or worry about anyone saying anything. Because if she told about her true "put-away" status she would immediately get stoned to death.
That was the huge tawdry mess Jesus was addressing in Matthew 19. Women were being traded like cattle instead of being treated like equals....and all this by the religious elite leadership in a Caste based society.
Why would you think that is a war over the interpretation of Matthew 19? Henry VIII and the subsequent political instability following his reign came to mind. But his argument was based on a verse in Leviticus 20 about marrying a brother's widow. Matthew 19 wasn't even an issue. Both sides had people who were able to read, after all, and didn't have to deal with fuzzy theological arguments from post-modernists.
I suspect you have been reading some rather unscholarly apologetics in favor of divorce, but do not remember the details of the argument.
I have come across this unscholarly line of reasoning on a 'Divorce Hope' website. The author of the site said he did not know Greek or Hebrew. Mathew 19 does have two words, one for 'send away' or 'put away' which is used to translate a similar word in Deuteronomy 24. The author of that website tried to argue that Matthew 19 was addressing men sending their wives away without
The word can be used to refer to regular sending away in other contexts. But in the context of marriage, translating it with our word 'divorce' is not unreasonable.
Take a look at Matthew 1
18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.
Notice the use of apolusai, a form of apolusw in verse 19 there, translated 'put...away.' He was going to 'send' her away before they came together, so consider that.
Greek and Hebrew concepts do not translate directly into English. In our culture and legal system, there can be a premarital separation before divorce. In Deuteronomy 24, the man gives the wife a certificate and sends her out.
Do you think Joseph was wanting to physically send Mary out of a house she did not live in without a legal certificate of divorce? Or was he thinking of legally divorcing her by giving her a certificate?
Let us consider Matthew 19,
7 They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?”
8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted 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; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”
(NKJV)
'Whosoever divorces his wife' here certainly includes the one who does so WITH the certificate, in line with the actual conversation going on in the passage and Christ's own reference to Moses.
How does this address the topic or build up to your argument later in your post?
How is that relevant? If a wife were tested by a jealous husband taking his wife to a priest, she would put herself under a curse that would apply if she were guilty. But they would not execute her without two or three witnesses to the act, if they were following the law. So how is that relevant to this issue?
Where is the evidence that she was an agunah, an abandoned wife? If she were, sleeping around would still have been adultery. But there is no evidence that she was an abandoned wife... which isn't really relevant. Jesus told her to go and sin no more.
You can read the Talmud to find references to women bringing cases. This page mentions widows bringing a case for a Lavrite marriage. https://www.sefaria.org/Ketubot.64a.7?lang=bi
It is easy to prove stuff from history when you just make up the history. I have presented evidence that a Jewish woman had legal recourse and could bring a court case. Can you prove that no woman could bring a court case?
Maybe putting away a wife was cheaper than divorce. But if a man were put out of the synagogue for not giving his wife a 'get' and were ostracized from the community, that might cost him more, even financially, than the divorce. In terms of social and religious costs, it might be very expensive. If he lost the ability to engage in some aspects of trade, that could hurt him, too.
The thing is, what information we have of Judaism of that time indicates that kicking a wife out without providing her was condemned by religious authorities. Now, the Talmud was written much later, but covers legal decision going back before the first century. And, also, the Pharisees were not in charge of the whole religion back then, as came to be the case some time after the temple was destroyed. But it is likely that the Talmud reflects some of the general thinking of the judges of Israel, or at least an influential group.
But this is likely a case of evidence from history versus made up speculation about history.
And it is actually irrelevant to interpreting Matthew 19, which is not about putting away wives without certificates. The issue is putting away wives. Jesus said that Moses because of the hardness of their hearts allowed them to put away their wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And what kind of putting away did Moses actually allow? With a certificate or without a certificate? With a certificate... and that is the topic of discussions.
If the Talmud is an indication... and it reports some of their legal decisions...putting away without a certificate was not permitted.
And it makes no sense to conclude that Jesus would be implying that it is not adultery if you marry a second spouse without legally divorcing the first in the case she was a cheater.
When Putting-away a wife it cost the men nothing.
Marrying a strongly suspected of being a "put away" wife was a literal gold mine of sleazy opportunities. You could marry her and Divorce her without a ketubah at will. You could practically trade her for money or favors because of the lack of ketubah or worry about anyone saying anything. Because if she told about her true "put-away" status she would immediately get stoned to death.
That was the huge tawdry mess Jesus was addressing in Matthew 19. Women were being traded like cattle instead of being treated like equals....and all this by the religious elite leadership in a Caste based society.[/QUOTE]
There are 3 stages of being married in Jewish culture.
Promised (bride price agreed to and paid), Ketubah made and signed, and Consumation Party.
Joseph had paid for Mary, possibly even had the ketubah written and signed, but had not had a house ready for her or was busy getting the consumation party planned....they were not married in the sense us westerners would consider actually married.
Getting the bride price returned was an option....but it would cause Mary to get stoned to death. Joseph had no stomach for that....IOW he was kind and generous.
So he was going to declare her a put away wife and likely try again with another woman once he had more money. (No problem with polygamy) this Lets Mary and her "lover" live in sin while he remained blameless.
This is the Ancient Near East. Not anything like Western culture. Stop using our social norms as if they belong in the Ancient Near East.
Did you even read my post?
I am aware of these first century marriage customs. I don't know that the death penalty would have taken place in these cases, if the Romans allowed it, or if Jewish legal lynch mobs snuck behind the Romans' back. I don't know if any scholars could answer that question.
You missed the point. or are you gaslighting to save face? Where did I appeal to 'our social norms.' You are mentioning historical facts, but what do they have to do with the issue.
The point I made in my post is that apoluw is used here for a LEGAL DIVORCE even though Joseph was not literally sending Mary away from any place. This indicates that the idea of legally terminating a marriage can be inherent, at least to some extent, in the use of apoluw in Biblical Greek.
Where did I use 'our social norms' as a part of my argument. Re-read my post keeping in mind that Joseph was thinking of divorcing Mary before he lived with her or consummated the marriage... and that the word for divorcing her there means to send away, translated 'put away.' It's apoluw or apoluo. (I used w for the long o omega because of visual similarity.) How does my post make sense without this understanding?
Conversing with you is weird. How about assuming other people are not ignorant and trying to understand what they are saying? It seems like you want to gas light people into thinking you are a culture expert and they don't know what you are talking about, or else are posing for the audience. But you also do not seem to know what you are talking about with some of your vague comments about the role of women. I don't know if you are parroting ignorant commentators or just making stuff up. The role and rights of women comments seem to me to be very ethnocentric and based on 'our social norms'.... but not in line with the reality of the ancient world based on what historical documents we have.
I believe if your wife leaves you because she wants to 'find herself' or because you aren't getting along, that you should not remarry, but should try to reconcile with your spouse.
The divorce certificate is just a piece of paper. If it is a divorce unilaterally from the wife, it doesn't even correspond to what Moses allowed in the Old Testament, much less reach the standards of the Lord Jesus' teaching.
The divorce certificate is just a piece of paper. If it is a divorce unilaterally from the wife, it doesn't even correspond to what Moses allowed in the Old Testament, much less reach the standards of the Lord Jesus' teaching.
People used to live in what was called an insulah. (In-sue-lah) A small "compound" of less than an acre of land where single family had houses built using the exterior wall of one to form the inside wall of another. All the extended family lived in the compound as well and a courtyard was formed out of houses and rocks making a wall for communal living.
The women usually worked together to make food and the clothes making and washing and other household chores.
It was a process for a woman to become a part of a family. What part she was going to play in the daily tasks came down to a blend of fear, pride, necessity, and skills. However, due to some fighting and Roman rulership, many of the families and insulahs had became broken and disjointed due to untimely deaths, disabilities, and illnesses.
Widows were kinda common without a brother-in-law to marry or sons to support their mothers.
Then there were the outcast Samaritans that Jews would not associate with who did not have clean, registered bloodlines of Jewishness.
So a "Put Away" woman could hide her true identity quite easily amongst all the other younger widows running around and get scooped up by a predator Jewish man. Just a few highly believable stories of her family dying and or getting killed and she was a peach by all appearances.
And she needed to be because slavery was not illegal either. Women slaves had a very short lifespan and were usually used in sex trafficking. No self-respecting Jewish woman willingly entered into this lifestyle. A woman needed a family's protection from getting snatched and enslaved.
The brutality of this era Jesus was in ministry tour was extreme. The con artists were everywhere taking every opportunity they possibly could find a hint of weakness.
Jesus expected better from the religious elite. Instead he found their treatment of women to be misogynistic and as calloused as the very worst of heathens.
The women usually worked together to make food and the clothes making and washing and other household chores.
It was a process for a woman to become a part of a family. What part she was going to play in the daily tasks came down to a blend of fear, pride, necessity, and skills. However, due to some fighting and Roman rulership, many of the families and insulahs had became broken and disjointed due to untimely deaths, disabilities, and illnesses.
Widows were kinda common without a brother-in-law to marry or sons to support their mothers.
Then there were the outcast Samaritans that Jews would not associate with who did not have clean, registered bloodlines of Jewishness.
So a "Put Away" woman could hide her true identity quite easily amongst all the other younger widows running around and get scooped up by a predator Jewish man. Just a few highly believable stories of her family dying and or getting killed and she was a peach by all appearances.
And she needed to be because slavery was not illegal either. Women slaves had a very short lifespan and were usually used in sex trafficking. No self-respecting Jewish woman willingly entered into this lifestyle. A woman needed a family's protection from getting snatched and enslaved.
The brutality of this era Jesus was in ministry tour was extreme. The con artists were everywhere taking every opportunity they possibly could find a hint of weakness.
Jesus expected better from the religious elite. Instead he found their treatment of women to be misogynistic and as calloused as the very worst of heathens.
I am at a loss as to how to explain to you how women were property instead of people in the Ancient Near East. I say it, you acknowledge it, but then refuse to accept the reality of it. A group of Jews killing a woman was NOT A CRIME. Women didn't pay taxes so the Romans flat out did not care.
The murder of a slave by the slave owner had more of a legal problem than the group stoning of a Jewish woman branded as a prostitute. And the slave owner's legal problems at most was a nuisance fine. The courts saying he should have just sold the slave instead.
The woman accused of harlotry was not a blip on the Roman's radar screen.
It's not that you don't know....
It's more a matter that you just don't like what I'm saying because it disrupts YOUR theology....nevermind how much sense it makes.
Why would this have anytging to do with my theology.
Jewish executions were apparently illegal under Roman law. The Jews had to sneak around to kill people or perform executions during times of weak governance or deal with possible punishment such as a high priest being replaced if they carried out an execution without Roman permission.
There is no evidence that the woman in John 8 was an abandoned woman in this certainly is not the topic of Matthew 19.
I just get the impression that you are posting with an intention to make yourself look informed and to make other people look uninformed even though what you're going on about is not relevant to the topic.
If there is a claim of 'no fault' for tge divorce, then accusing tge man of abuse to get custody makes no sense. That is a claim of fault. They should have a jury trial.
There should not be no dault divorce, but whoever files a no fault divorce should be at a disadvantage for custody and property decisions. Breaking up a family for no reason shows a fault.
States should charge at least double tax on divorce lawyers' income.
Well the new guidelines are going to change things. A drop of 25% of divorces is absolute proof that things were skewed to empower women over men. And often divorces weren't so much about money but allowing women to overpower men using the courts to do so. And the women became abusive as a result.
Paul warned us in his letter to the Galatians: there is no Jew or Greek, Slave or Free, men or women.....
What's good for the gander is definitely good for the goose.
People abuse power.
Power itself doesn't corrupt, but wicked people SEEK power.
Which is why "if you know the good you should do but don't, you have sinned"
In efesians chapter 5 does Paulus write that the man should love his wife as Christ loved his bride.
Ef 5:25-33.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might [g]sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. 28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. 30 For we are members of His body, [h]of His flesh and of His bones. 31 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.
If a husband lies for the wife or other way around. Or if there is a lack of respect and fightings. Then the husband has failed to do what he ought to. Im not saying its a reason to divorce. But sometimes there could bee physical fights and not money to food. I think that then the need to live separe but still married untill he/she succeded to stop abuse what it is he abuse.
i have been thinking about theese verses and a keyverse is " To love as Christ Loved the Church" unselfish, caring , wisedom and more.
But of course its wise if the family around churchmember , parents brother allaround pray for the sitution because Jesus can deliver the drinker from his abuse.
i also believe that it would be helpfull if a church could have a ministry to support relatives to alcoholist. Maybe it already exist .maybe not . Just some things i been wondering over.
God is gracios to everyone. and i pray that he give me and everyone the wisdom thats need to dont get stuck in sin and bad relations
Ef 5:25-33.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might [g]sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. 28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. 30 For we are members of His body, [h]of His flesh and of His bones. 31 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.
If a husband lies for the wife or other way around. Or if there is a lack of respect and fightings. Then the husband has failed to do what he ought to. Im not saying its a reason to divorce. But sometimes there could bee physical fights and not money to food. I think that then the need to live separe but still married untill he/she succeded to stop abuse what it is he abuse.
i have been thinking about theese verses and a keyverse is " To love as Christ Loved the Church" unselfish, caring , wisedom and more.
But of course its wise if the family around churchmember , parents brother allaround pray for the sitution because Jesus can deliver the drinker from his abuse.
i also believe that it would be helpfull if a church could have a ministry to support relatives to alcoholist. Maybe it already exist .maybe not . Just some things i been wondering over.
God is gracios to everyone. and i pray that he give me and everyone the wisdom thats need to dont get stuck in sin and bad relations
Can you clarify the Malachi 3:16 quote? Is that the correct verse?