Honoring Wedding Vows

[Peter]

I really want someone to answer these questions so I list them all again.

1) First a situational question: Two divorcees remarry and have three children. They then get baptised. Do you ask them to separate and return to their original partners who have since remarried. If they did such a foolish thing what would happen to the children? Which parent would get them? Or would they be put in state care?
2) Is a divorced person married or unmarried?
3) Does God allow official divorces?
4) Under what circumstances did he allow divorce?
5) What circumstances did the Jews allow?
6) Did God allow divorced people to remarry?
7) If people remarried after a God sanctioned divorce were they committing adultery?
8) Could divorced people go back to their original partner? Why was this?
9) Does the saying "what God has joined together let not man put asunder" mean that God cannot put asunder marriages?
10) Can God break apart marriages? If yes, under what circumstances? (I can think of 3 different circumstances in OT that lead to a legal end to a marriage - ie one condoned by God)
11)Did God divorce Israel? If so, what reason did he give for his action?
12) Did Jesus allow divorce?
13) Did he nullify the OT law that permitted divorce? If so what text says this?
14) Or did he simply remind people of the ideal that all marriages should aim towards?
15) Why did Jesus even bother to say "except for sexual immorality" when if that phrase is left out you still come up with the opinion that there can be no divorce and remarriage under any circumstances?
16) How does Matt 5:32 and matt 19:9 differ?
17) Regarding matt 5:32 which reads "But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery, how can divorcing a wife make her commit adultery if she doesn't take another partner?
18) Doesn't the "except" clause say that in the case of sexual immorality being involved the divorced wife doesn't commit adultery.
19) Unless she's got a new partner isn't this question nonsensical?
20) Matt 19:9 reads " And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery;" You say whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery in every case" What does Jesus say: "except in the case of sexual immorality!" Are you right or is Jesus?
21) Is it adultery in every case or is there an exception?
22) What is meant by the phrase "not under bondage" in 1st Cor 7?
23) Should ecclesias recognise state sanctioned marriages?
24) Should ecclesias recognise state sanctioned divorces?
25) Is bigamy permissible? If not, why not?
26) Is bigamy against the law of God?
27) How do you know whether God has put together a man and a woman?
28) Is a “defacto” relationship a marriage?
29) Is a “one night stand” a marriage?
30) Given that Paul says you should stay in whatever marital state you were in when you joined the ecclesia is it a sin to marry?

[David]

Historically it seems that Bro Thomas and Bro Roberts accepted that if divorce occurred because of sexual imorality then the innocent partner was free to remarry, quoting the only divorce advise given directly to disciples in Matt 5, the other quotes are given in discussion with the Jewish leaders.

It also seems that the advice in 1Cor7, that if the believer was left by and unbeliever, that they were no longer under bondage, and according to Bro Roberts that the believer was free to remarry, a nice digest is found in Bro Carter's book on Marriage and divorce.

What Jesus does condemn is the Moasic divorce law, in all 4 incident divorce is mentioned in the gospel records, this is where they agree, but sexual immorality was not included in the divorce law, and was a capital crime, hence marriage ending.

In Isa 50v1 God says he has divorced Israel for unfaithfulness, and it must be asked if this should be included in malachi's the LORD hates putting away, or read Malchi in the context of the rest of scripture, that Malachi was talking in the context of the unfaithfulness of old men fancying a younger model, and trying to do it legally, and so becomes adultry as shown by Jesus.

It would seem to be consistent that sexual immorality would be marriage ending in both OT and NT. Indeed Joseph was called righteous because he wanted to put Mary away privately, rather than having her stoned.

Which leads us to the the better than principle, such as when Paul said it was better not to marry, but marrying was not wrong.

It might ok to remarry for fornication, but it might be better not to.

Bro Thomas talking about legal divorce was in context of what the land allowed for divorce, as opposed waht scripture allowed, which might be the same or not, if as it seemed to be in the early times of Christadelphians, desertion was allowable for christain divorce, but not by the law and vice versa.

It seems on this no one ever quotes its not good for man to be alone or it is better to marry than to burn. Or indeed those who forbid to marry in Timothy.

I am stille searching for a reasonable way of finding away fo all the diffferent scripture coming together as a harmonious whole as it is, but i think it is not in quoting a few verse and ignoring the others, which ever side of the fence you sit on

[Peter]

Dear David
Thank you for your very reasonable response.
My plea is for brothers and sisters whatever their persuasion to consider how their position affects others; don't be dogmatic - recognise that this has been a divisive isue throughout the history of Christianity.
Did you see my 30 questions?

[Peter]

Some more questions:
For the death penalty to apply did there have to be witnesses?
What law applied when there was suspicion of adultery but no proof?
Did a person have to be killed if they were caught in adultery?
Why did God divorce Israel? (see Jer 3)
What does Joseph's action toward Mary say about that?
What does Jesus interaction with the woman of John 8 have to say about that point?

What Jesus does condemn is the Moasic divorce law, in all 4 incident divorce is mentioned in the gospel records, this is where they agree, but sexual immorality was not included in the divorce law, and was a capital crime, hence marriage ending.

Is this always true? Does he condemn divorce or does he reiterate the ideal?
Isn't it a bit strong to say that Jesus "condemns" a law set down by God. Wasn't all God's law to be upheld? Wasn't the the thing about the NT that Jesus was trying to get people to see a better way? Did he come to abolish the law?
Consider "Mat 5:17 "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. "

[David]

Yes i did see your 30 questions, too many to answer in one go.

The moasic law allowed divorce for uncleaness litereally nakedness, and maybe shame or unleaness, whereas, sex whilst bethrothed, adultery, homosexuality resulted in death by stoning.

The jews started expanding the divorce law from nakedness into other areas that bought shame on the husband, going as far as burning the cakes! And of course in the time of Malachi they saw just the woman getting old caused shame.

Rightly in the time of Jesus, he points out these defintions were because they, as humans were too hard hearted to forgive or see through these things as being nothing compared to the love they were being given, and had been shown from God as an example to them, so in Matt 5 and 19 he includes fornication as being and exception as soon after these time these things would rather becomes matters of divorce as the romans began imposing roman law,

Yet even for fornication God himself showed a better way, in that he plans to take Israel back after its final repentance, as shown by the example of Hosea. yet in both these cases the wife was and will be willing to return.

This greater example of forgiveness is soemthing to take into consideration, but what if the spouse has walked away from the meetiing, but desires to come back to you is htat now becoming unequally yoked.


Sex is not marriage, the law simply states if a couple had sex and weren't betrothed, then they had to get married, or Salmon would have married and adultress in Rahab. The marriage between Adam and Eve was there before sex, and married couples who cannot have sex because of medical reasons are no less married. Marriage has always been a contract before God and man, and in Christ in that order.

The Jewish idea of divorce was the same as ours, the previous marraige was no longer existed after the divorce, so they were free to remarry, indeed in those days it was important for the woman to get remarried due to support, and I think this is what Jesus is allluding to, if just getting rid of her caused her to marry another, because in God's eyes your marriage is not disolved then you have made her an adulteress, so the man how divorced was not only doing worng but causing someone else to.

According to the law, divorced people were forbidden to go back to their original partner, yet God did this with Israel, mercy is greater than the law, which is quite poigniant as according to God's righteous law Israel should have been destroyed for its continual adultery.

Yes condemn was misplaced, he condemns their hardness of heart, for the ease at which they were happy to sanction divorce.

And yes the except makes no sense unless it is refering to no adultery resulting in remarriage if the divorce was for fornication.

Having said that I wouldn't at the moment be prepared to upset a number of brothers and sisters I greatly respect, and I wonder how many in my position chose not to remarry, not becuase they don't want to but love those in Christ enought to make that sacrifice.

Haven't attempted to answer most of your questions, but hoprfully some of them.

D

[Peter]

Dear David
Thanks for your considered answers.
Yes. You are right to say mercy triumphs over the law. But sometimes there is no scope for forgiveness or mercy even if you wanted to show it. Your partner may have moved on completely to another relationship and will never come back.
If people are prepared to remain unmarried for the sake of other brethren's misunderstandings on this issue I suppose it is in one way commendable but it should never be made into some sort of ecclesial expectation or law. This care stuff cuts two ways.

[David]

Mine has, much to the upset of my son when he found out accidentally, and yes care does cut both ways, and sometimes it can feel like it being a little unfair that for no major fault of your own your are expected to go without so much that others take forgranted, yet still I have to ask myself what should I do to edify my brothers and sisters, and that in the end shouldn't be dependent on others, after all God gave Jesus while I was his enemy,

I think in the end our founding fathers had a far more rational, merciful and above all scriptural take on this issue than that which grew up in the 20 and 30s, leading to a number of schisms, where no schism should be.

D

[Peter]

Dear David
I mentioned in an earlier blog that my ecclesia became divided over the marriage question in the early 1980s. Now that period in ecclesias in Australia was dominated by some very Hardline dogmatic types. Since then there has been a real softening going on. Some of the old debates do not have any teeth any more.
In my own ecclesia I have seen as you a more rational, merciful, and dare I say it pragmatic attitude to these sorts of questions - a willingness to face realities plus the fact that brothers and sisters are human beings not slaves to the opinions of those who shout the loudest.

[David]

Maybe so, but I think maybe we ought to do more about supporting marraiges, as well as the single.

D

[dkiversen]

Originally Posted by David

Maybe so, but I think maybe we ought to do more about supporting marraiges, as well as the single.

Well said, I think there's far too much emphasis on the wedding rather than the marriage sometimes.

To me the various passages are harmonised by understanding that marriage is a covenant. Folk need to understand the commitment they're making and be prepared to work through the rough times.

While I was giving a talk on "True Love" once it struck me that marriage covers all the aspects of love in Greek:
eros to want marriage rather than a friendship
philos being friends and enjoying each other's company
agape for the times when we, or our partners, aren't very lovable

[David]

It is true that people need to be prepared to work through the rough times, and nothing is infact unforgivable, but sometimes only one is prepared to work thorugh the rough times, and sometimes people don't want to be forgiven, else they would seek it.

There is so much we can do to support and fellowship, in alsorts of situations. Although i am not seeking marriage, more for two reasons, that I need to show a christ-like attitude in the way I treat brothers and sister who might stumble, and I still love my ex- wife. Yet I have always prefered female company, and because of the assumptions that people tend to make, I tend to avoid feamle company because of the ability we have to get one and one to equal any number but two. There are a whole host of relationships men and women can have, and none of them need to be sexually motivated. when bringing up a daughter it was and still is important to get a female perspective on the matter.

D

[dkiversen]

Originally Posted by David

I need to show a christ-like attitude in the way I treat brothers and sister who might stumble

This is what I was commending in a parallel thread. I think it behoves the meeting to recognise your commitment to ecclesial harmony and support you in that choice. Personally I think it would be lawful for you to have a new relationship, but not edifying. I see as like Timothy's choice to be circumcised to avoid ecclesial discord. I admire your strength.

Originally Posted by David

Yet I have always prefered female company, and because of the assumptions that people tend to make, I tend to avoid feamle company because of the ability we have to get one and one to equal any number but two. There are a whole host of relationships men and women can have, and none of them need to be sexually motivated. when bringing up a daughter it was and still is important to get a female perspective on the matter.

One way the meeting should support you, and brethren and sisters in general, by looking positively at your behaviour. We often seem to fall into the trap of looking for negative implications of each other's behaviour.

Not having a female perspective for my daughters is one of the biggest problems I have as a single father. Thankfully I've had a lot of support, particularly from one sister and her three daughters, but it's not the same as the constant presence of a mother.

It's all blown up a bit with my oldest daughter, though every widower I've talked to has had particular problems with oldest daughters in their teens at the time of bereavement.

Interestingly my oldest daughter still thinks of herself as "Christadelphian", for example she joined the facebook group for brethren, sisters, cyc and sunday school attendees, although she's very much on the fringe at the moment.

[David]

By God's blessing my daughter who is the eldest has been baptised, which is nice, and hope that your daughter works things out in her head, whch is sometimes the problem.

I and I that things maybe lawful and not edifying. Advise has at time been useful, so has some undergraduate biology, but that is not the same as feeling comfortable phoning up a mate who so happens to be female, or going out to the pictures and not starting rumours.

I think to that there is a need for sympathy for those who have decided it is better to marry than to burn for example, after divorce, because that is not a decision generally taken lightly.

D

[Peter]

I've recently been reading a book by Guy Duty entitled "Divorce & Remarriage" (printed by Bethany Fellowship, Inc. 1967)
One thing I found fascinating was the wording commonly used by the ancient Jews as recorded by Jewish Encyclopedias in their divorce bills.

"On .......day of the week.....day of the month...............in the year ............
I who am also called son of .............of the city of .........by the river ..........
do hereby consent with my own will, being under no restraint, and I do hereby release, send away, and put aside thee , my wife .............who is also daughter of ...........who is this day in the city of ...........by the river of .......
who has been my wife for some time past and thus I do release thee and put thee aside that thou mayest have permission to be married to any man that thou mayest desire, and that no man shall hinder thee from this day forward, and thou art permitted to any man, and this shall be unto thee from me a bill of dismissal, a document of release, and a letetr of freedom according to the law of Moses and Israel.

................the son of ........................Witness
................the son of ........................Witness

[RichLeamington]

Originally Posted by Watching_and_waiting

If you leave, is that it - are you doomed to be single forever until you die? Do you deserve to become an outcast because you have left this situation? Or are you expected to stay and put up with it because you have vowed to on your wedding day?

I've only got three mins until work starts so I can't look up the passage. However it says something like "if a man/woman shall put away their wife/husband and then get married again they shall commit adultery".

It specifies that one parter "puts the other away" and the one who does the putting is committing adultery. Mind you, that's one passage out of many that deal with this important issue.

[Peter]

Dear Richard

Some of the passages have the clause "except for sexual immorality". There is an exception to the situation what you quoted

I recommend that you look at the 30 questions that I posed in blog #21 - there's no escaping some issues.

[SedesGobhani]

Originally Posted by Peter

Dear Richard

Some of the passages have the clause "except for sexual immorality". There is an exception to the situation what you quoted

I recommend that you look at the 30 questions that I posed in blog #21 - there's no escaping some issues.

This is an interesting conversation. It doesn't look like a consensus was reached. I wonder myself sometimes if a man's wife cheats on him if he's allowed to divorce her. If he's not allowed to divorce her does he have to, because of "Submitting yourselves one to another" and "the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife", let her jump back in bed with him and give him VD?

[Peter]

Personally i think the ecclesia should stay out of this issue. (In saying that I am not advocating adultery)
Clearly God allows divorce and remarriage in the situation where one partner has committed adultery or some other sexual indiscretion (eg homosexuality, incest paedophilia). It sounds lovely to talk about the offended party forgiving the adulterer. However in a lot of cases the adulterer doesn't want forgiveness and doesn't want to come back and has moved on to another marriage.
In one case in Australia one partner had an affair with an unbeliever. The adulterer divorced the first partner The adulterer married the unbeliever - the unbeliever became a believer and was baptised- the new couple were both accepted into fellowship.
Following the sort of reasoning that is being given by some bloggers it sounds as if the victim should refrain from a new relationship to satisfy the whims of the other members in the ecclesia.
In pushing that sort of line they are condemning their innocent brothers/sisters to a life of loneliness. That is not a very loving thing to do. And in speaking to my single friends I am very aware that married couples do not make a lot of effort to befriend singles.
I say if Christ and God allow divorce and remarriage, other members should butt out and let the brother or sister in that situation make their choice without pressure of the ecclesia or some unwritten non-scriptural law.
Have confidence in your brother or sister that they have faith and a conscience to do the best thing based on that faith. Have confidence in Christ to judge fairly over the situation at the judgment seat.
If remarriage is "legal" then a person entering a new marriage is not in danger of "hellfire" so I say let it be. Worry about your own life and conscience.
Too many of us want to control other people's lives when their own isn't under control.

[David]

Yes a man is allowed to forgive his wife, Just as God will do with Isreal, just as it seems that Hosea did with his wife after she had dwelt with him for a while. Yes er to be honest in my situation VD was a worry, but in the end my wife didn't want to be forgiven, in fact didn't really see she had something to be forgiven, and although I may have asked God not to lay her sin to her charge, she left.

One of the biggest problems we have is that Jesus showed the Mosaic divorce law was only given for hardness of heart, but adultery, sex with another man other than your betrothed before mariage, homosexuality, etc, all of which would come under the umbrella pornea (fornication), were not included in the Mosaic divorce law, but infact were marriage ending in that the sinners died, even there though the injured party didn't have to accuse, or could follow righteous Joseph's example and put her away, or in fact God's example Isa50v1 I think.

So on one hand there is always forgiveness, and sometime sex is only sex, and is not as injurious to a marriage as say dishonesty, again not advocating a lower ideal than the one that God gives, but stating the only thing that prevents forgivness is our own minds, but if the unbeliever choses to leave because the law now allows it, there isn't anything the believer can do to stop divorce, well at least not in the UK.

D

[Peter]

Dear David
yes there were laws which imposed the death penalty for certainn sexual sins. However I am not convinced that these would have been carried out for every case. the Jews weren't that great at sticking to the law.
I would suggest that there would have been a lot of situations like the Joseph one where there was evidence of adultery but not proof.