DIVISION OVER D&R WEST VERSUS EAST

[ronhall]

How would one possibly identify a couple as professing if they fight and express no love?

-- Or to put it another way --

What might it be they are professing?

[What Hat]

My ESV study Bible has an extended section on D&R, which it describes as "the most commonly held view among Protestants since the time of the Reformation".

I've never had much of an opinion on this subject but there's been so much discussion on this subject on-line and off, that I had to make up my own mind on it.

This is my own opinion, but the underlying principle seems to be that there is no situation in which a person would be forced to live as a single for the rest of their lives in order to be saved. That makes sense doesn't it. Why would God make man and woman and then have a situation where a God fearing person would have to live alone in order to be saved. Different, if it's voluntary.

The ESV essay argues for two acceptable grounds for divorce based on (1) Matthew 5:32 and (2) 1 Cor 7:12-14. These are (1) sexual immorality by the partner, and (2) unbelieving spouse leaves marriage. In both cases divorce and re-marriage are permissible.

Also, in case one spouse does divorce on insufficient grounds and remarries, then repents his or her sin, she or he should not be thought living in adultery as long as the couple are faithful to each other in the second marriage.

(In reference to a prior post, 'Continuing in sin' does not mean continuing in the state of sin, which we all do, but willfully and rebelliously continuing in a particular sin. Giving up the struggle.)

What is excluded, then? Basically any activity that does not respect the sanctity of marriage, what God has put together, through extra-marital affairs, sexual immorality, or "putting away" a spouse for anything other than the two grounds allowed.

Also, fighting in the marriage is sinful, as is even desiring another man or woman, or prolonged separation ... in some cases.

It seems to me that some aspects of the 2x2 policy can box someone into a state of sin with no hope for redemption. Beyond the love of Jesus; I don't think that is correct, and seems counter-intuitive. Isn't sin something we should always be able to recover from through cleansing and forgiveness?

Take a worst case. Someone has an affair, divorces their first husband, remarries, and all the while continues going to meeting. Clearly while all this goes on, that person should not take part. But if at a later point in time, that person confesses their sin, admits their wrong, feels true remorse for their actions and the hurt and sorrow caused, then, the logical thing is that the person would be able to fully partake once more. And stay in the second marriage, of course. I can't see it any other way, but I could be wrong.

The ex-spouse, the victim of the sexual immorality OTOH would have suitable grounds for divorce, and could re-marry. There is nothing to repent. (Actually, there could be, but not as a direct consequence of the divorce).

[What Hat]

Well here it is. I would have given the link, but you need a code. I think this is a fair use, but maybe they'll sell a couple more ESV Study Bibles.

Essay on Divorce and Remarriage

God's Original Plan

God's original plan for the human race, as indicated in his creation of Adam and Eve as husband and wife, is lifelong, monogamous marriage. Jesus affirmed this in responding to a question about divorce:

And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female [from Gen. 1:27], and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’ [from Gen. 2:24]? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate” (Matt. 19:3–6).

In this reply Jesus rebukes and corrects a first-century practice of easy divorce for trivial reasons. For example, the Mishnah said, “The school of Shammai say: A man may not divorce his wife unless he has found unchastity in her. . . . And the school of Hillel say [he may divorce her] even if she spoiled a dish for him. . . . Rabbi Akiba says, [he may divorce her] even if he found another fairer than she” (Mishnah, Gittin 9.10). Rather than entering into this debate among rabbis, Jesus first affirms God's original plan for marriage and shows that it remains God's ideal for all marriages.

Malachi views marriage as a “covenant” between a husband and wife, a covenant to which God was a witness and to which therefore God will hold people accountable: “the Lord was witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant” (Mal. 2:14). Therefore marriage is an especially serious commitment (1) between husband and wife, (2) to the society in which they live, and (3) before God himself (whether or not he is explicitly acknowledged in the marriage ceremony).

But What If One Spouse Is Unfaithful?

In marriage, a man and a woman commit to live with each other as husband and wife for life. In order for them to keep this commitment, both parties have to remain in the marriage. But when one party decides to leave the marriage for another partner, it becomes impossible for the remaining spouse to faithfully fulfill his or her commitment (a husband, e.g., cannot live with and act as a husband to a wife who is living with another man). Because of such cases, it seems that in both the OT and the NT God allowed divorce, in order to give some relief to the one spouse when the other has deserted the marriage or desecrated it by adultery.

Although divorces took place in OT times (assumed by Lev. 21:7, 14; Num. 30:9; Deut. 24:1–4), the only OT law concerning divorce is found in Deuteronomy 24:1–4 (see note). It envisions a situation in which a man divorces and sends away his wife, she subsequently remarries, and then becomes divorced or widowed. In such a case the law forbids the first husband to marry her again.

Jesus' Teachings on Divorce

Many of the first-century rabbis expanded on Deuteronomy 24:1–4, using it to justify divorce for many reasons, even trivial ones (see above). This fact lies behind the remainder of the exchange between the Pharisees and Jesus in Matthew 19:

They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery” (vv. 7–9).

Jesus' statement, “Because of your hardness of heart,” should not be understood to imply that only “hard-hearted” individuals initiate divorce but rather, “because your hard-hearted rebellion against God led to serious defilement of marriages.” The presence of sin in the community meant that some marriages would be deeply harmed, and God therefore provided divorce as a solution in those cases.

When Jesus says that anyone who divorces his wife “except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery” (Matt. 19:9), he implies the converse: divorce and remarriage on the ground of one's spouse's sexual immorality are not prohibited and do not constitute adultery. It is the one exception Jesus makes to the requirement that marriage be lifelong, for sexual immorality seriously defiles, indeed disrupts, the “one flesh” union (Matt. 19:5). When Jesus says, “and marries another,” he implies that both divorce and remarriage are allowed in the case of sexual immorality and that someone who divorces because his spouse has committed adultery may marry someone else without committing sin (see notes on Matt. 19:3–9). Therefore, if “sexual immorality” (Gk. porneia, which included any sexual intercourse contrary to the moral commands of Scripture) occurs, then divorce is allowed but not required. In fact, forgiveness and reconciliation, restoring the marriage, should always be the first option.

Where divorce was allowed—in Greek, Roman, and Jewish culture—the right to remarry (another person) was always assumed in the first century. For example, the Mishnah says, “The essential formula in the bill of divorce is, ‘lo, thou art free to marry any man'” (Mishnah, Gittin 9.3).

But in Matthew 19:1–9 where Jesus allows divorce on the grounds of porneia, Jesus was simultaneously prohibiting divorce on the numerous other grounds that were being invoked in the first century. If divorce is secured for other reasons (but see a further exception below), then God does not count the divorce as valid (for such divorcers would be committing adultery should they marry someone else; see Matt. 19:9).

In Matthew 5:32, Jesus affirms essentially the same teaching:

But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Jesus says that the husband who wrongfully divorces his wife “makes her commit adultery” because in that society, it was assumed that a divorced woman would usually need to marry someone else for financial support and protection, and yet Jesus still says this new relationship is, at least initially, “adultery” because there was not a proper reason for the divorce. But Jesus places most of the blame on the husband who wrongly divorced her, saying that he thereby “makes her commit adultery.” In the last sentence of the passage, “whoever marries a divorced woman” should be taken in context with the preceding sentences, and so it means, “and whoever marries such a wrongly divorced woman as I have just spoken about . . .” (see note on Matt. 5:31–32).

In the parallel statements about divorce in Mark 10:11–12 and Luke 16:18, Jesus does not include the exception clause, “except for sexual immorality.” The most likely reason is that there was no dispute or disagreement among Jews, or in Greek or Roman culture, that adultery was a legitimate ground for divorce, and Jesus is not addressing that issue (see notes on Mark 10:10–11 and Luke 16:18). This does not invalidate the more extensive teaching given in Matthew, because Jesus' acceptance of the exception for adultery, though not stated explicitly by Mark and Luke, was assumed as being beyond question. (Other interpreters think that Mark 10:11–12 and Luke 16:18 prohibit all divorces and they then understand Matt. 5:32 and 19:9 to refer to special circumstances of some kind, not divorce in general.)

Does Paul Add a Second Reason for Divorce?

Many interpreters hold that Paul adds a second legitimate reason for divorce in 1 Corinthians 7:12–15. Paul is facing a new situation that was not addressed by Jesus—the situation of a Christian and non-Christian married to one another. (In the context to which Jesus was speaking, Jewish people only married other Jews, and both husband and wife therefore were part of the Jewish religious community.) When a believer has an unbelieving spouse, Paul says that they should remain married if the unbeliever is willing to do so (1 Cor. 7:12–14). “But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace” (1 Cor. 7:15). Most interpreters think this implies the freedom to obtain a legal divorce and the freedom to marry someone else. When an unbelieving spouse has deserted the marriage, God releases the believing spouse from the twin unending stresses of (1) a lifelong vain hope of reconciling with an unbeliever who has left, and (2) a lifelong prohibition against enjoying the good blessings of marriage again. (But some interpreters hold that remarriage is never allowed after divorce. On that view, Paul is saying only that the believing spouse is not bound to continue to seek reconciliation.)

Would this passage apply to desertion by someone who professes to be a Christian? In such cases, a question arises as to whether the person is genuinely a believer or is making a false profession of faith. Each situation will be different, and a Christian involved in such a difficult circumstance should seek wise counsel from the leaders of his or her church. Where possible, the steps of church discipline outlined in Matthew 18:15–17 should be followed in an attempt to bring reconciliation to the marriage. If that process results in the final step of excommunication from the church, then it would seem appropriate to treat the deserting spouse as an unbeliever (“let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector”; Matt. 18:17). But it must be emphasized that, if reconciliation of the marriage can at all be brought about, that should always be the first goal.

Are There Other Grounds for Divorce?

In addition to the two grounds of sexual immorality or desertion by an unbelieving spouse, are there any other legitimate, biblical grounds for divorce? Some interpreters have argued that repeated instances of physical abuse should be seen as an additional legitimate ground for divorce. Others would respond that many other means should be used to bring the abuse to an immediate halt, including separation (for the eventual purpose of bringing restoration along with the complete cessation of the abuse), church discipline, confrontation and counseling, police action, a court order, and other kinds of intervention by church members, family, and friends. But these would stop short of adding a reason for divorce that neither Jesus nor Paul specified.

Some have argued that a prominent school of rabbinic interpretation in the time of Jesus allowed divorce in cases where a husband did not provide enough material or emotional support to his wife. This was based on their interpretation of a law concerning a slave woman in Exodus 21:10–11. Since Jesus did not explicitly correct this view, they argue that he must have allowed the legitimacy of some other kinds of divorces, such as divorce for prolonged, unrepented physical or emotional abuse. But an argument from what Jesus did not say is of dubious validity, especially since Jesus' words “whoever divorces his wife” (Matt. 19:9) are so extensive in scope and seem to rule out additional exceptions not specified in the Bible itself.

What should be done if someone has been divorced for other reasons than those given in the Bible and then has married someone else? Jesus says that in such a case the person has committed “adultery” (Matt. 19:9), so the marriage began with adultery. But when Jesus says, “and marries another” in that same verse, he implies that the second marriage is in fact a true marriage. Jesus does not say, “and lives outside of marriage with another” (which was possible, see John 4:18), but “and marries another.” Therefore, once a second marriage has occurred, it would be further sin to break it up, for it would be destroying another marriage. The second marriage should not be thought of as continually living in adultery, for the man and woman are married to each other, not to anyone else. The responsibility of the husband and wife in such a case is to ask God for his forgiveness for previous sin, and then for his blessing on the current marriage, and to strive to make the current marriage a good and lasting one.

With respect to the phrase “husband of one wife” in 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6, some argue that this means that a person has never been married more than once, and therefore that it excludes from the office of elder all men who have been divorced for whatever reason and also all whose wives have died and who have subsequently married someone else. But a better understanding of this passage is that it refers to the present status of a man, either to his character of being faithful to his wife, or else to the fact that he does not have more than one wife (see note on 1 Tim. 3:2–3). In either of these better interpretations, the verse does not prohibit all divorced men from being elders, but each case should be evaluated on an individual basis.

Since marriage is not an institution only for Jews and Christians but is an institution established by God at creation, it is for all people, believers and unbelievers alike, and is in fact universal in the human community. The standards expressed here for divorce and remarriage are therefore applicable to all people. The church, where it has opportunity, should encourage non-Christians as well as Christians to abide by God's high moral standards regarding divorce and remarriage. However, in cultures where rampant divorce for all sorts of reasons is common and has been occurring for decades, individual Christians as well as churches should seek to support and minister to the many women and men and children who have been hurt by divorces in the past, as well as the casualties of divorces in the present.

The principles expressed in this article represent the most commonly held view among Protestants since the time of the Reformation (e.g., see the 17th-century Westminster Confession of Faith 24.5, 6). Other views are also held by some evangelicals, however. Some hold that the exception clauses in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 apply only to sexual immorality committed during the betrothal period (when a couple was legally pledged to be married), and do not apply to marriage proper, and therefore there are no legitimate grounds for divorce. Others argue that, where a divorce has occurred, for whatever reason, remarriage is never allowed. And others have argued that there should be some additional, but limited, grounds for divorce. But these views have not gained majority support among evangelical interpreters of the Bible.

From ESV Study Bible.

[fred]

Thanks what, this is a most balanced presentation. David Instone-Brewer has studied the matter in depth and has some very interesting articles - one I particularly like references ancient jewish documents that he came across while doing his Phd.

I don't know how to post the site but if you Google 'ancient jewish divorce documents' you might find it at Lampstandstudy.

[CherieKropp]

Aug 4, 2009 4:36:13 GMT -5 fred said:

Thanks what, this is a most balanced presentation. Callison has studied the matter in depth and has some very interesting articles - one I particularly like references ancient jewish documents that he came across while doing his Phd.

I don't know how to post the site but if you Google 'ancient jewish divorce documents' you might find it at Lampstandstudy.

Here is the Callison article on TTT:
www.tellingthetruth.info/publications_index/callisonwalter.php

[fred]

Sorry folks, the guy I was thinking about is David Instone-Brewer. And you can find it by following my 'non tech-savvy' instructions !

[JO]

Aug 4, 2009 4:36:13 GMT -5 fred said:

Thanks what, this is a most balanced presentation. David Instone-Brewer has studied the matter in depth and has some very interesting articles - one I particularly like references ancient jewish documents that he came across while doing his Phd.

I don't know how to post the site but if you Google 'ancient jewish divorce documents' you might find it at Lampstandstudy.

Is this the one Fred?

www.lampstandstudy.com/forum/christian-life/1888-divorce-ancient-jewish-documents-bible.html

[fred]

Yes jo that is it! Thanks for that and .......how do you do that ??

[JO]

Aug 9, 2009 17:52:13 GMT -5 fred said:

Yes jo that is it! Thanks for that and .......how do you do that ??

At the top of your browser you'll see the webpage address. Click on it to highlight it, then right click and click copy.

Right click on where you want to paste it, and click paste.

If that doesn't work for you, PM me and I'll explain it better.

[JO]

Jan 31, 2009 18:29:51 GMT -5 sojourningthrulife said:

To reply to one of the above posts: there is no stigma to those who remarry the same spouse. In fact, that is what is encouraged in the scriptures for those who have parted, to reconcile.

Reconciliation on many issues is very encouraging to all as reconciliation is the very endeavor the Lord would like us to experience with him.

When one of the mates remarries a different mate it puts a dead stop to the reconciliation process, and thereby, puts the brakes on to the leadings and direction of the Holy Spirit.

Interestingly workers have made a big issue of SOME OT scripture (eg women must not wear man's apparel) yet the following OT scripture they contradict. Perhaps they think SOME OT scripture no longer applies while some still does:

NIV Deuteronomy 24:4 then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the LORD. Do not bring sin upon the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.

KJV Deuteronomy 24:4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

[ronhall]

How about if she claims she isn't defiled?

And how might her first husband test her to be sure she isn't defiled?

[JO]

Aug 9, 2009 22:34:07 GMT -5 ronhall said:

How about if she claims she isn't defiled?

And how might her first husband test her to be sure she isn't defiled?

If she was divorced and then either had an affair or remarried it can be assumed she was "defiled".

Workers in hardline areas (most of the world) teach that subsequent marriages should be broken up and the first marriage resurrected.

That was an abomination to God in OT days, yet workers commend and encourage it today i.e. they encourage people to divorce their current spouse and remarry their original spouse.

[shushy]

It seems the defilement is on having been married.

[Rob O]

Good to see David Instone-Brewer referenced. He's brought some much needed sense to the topic. I have the academic version of his book. While one might quibble over some details, the cumulative force of his case far outweighs any other view I've read on the issue. The full edition (not copyable) of the pastoral version is online at his site: www.divorce-remarriage.com/

[shushy]

Aug 10, 2009 1:42:14 GMT -5 JO said:

Aug 9, 2009 22:34:07 GMT -5 ronhall said:

How about if she claims she isn't defiled?

And how might her first husband test her to be sure she isn't defiled?

If she was divorced and then either had an affair or remarried it can be assumed she was "defiled".

Workers in hardline areas (most of the world) teach that subsequent marriages should be broken up and the first marriage resurrected.

That was an abomination to God in OT days, yet workers commend and encourage it today i.e. they encourage people to divorce their current spouse and remarry their original spouse.

JO

Sorry but I think that is sick. To someone like me.
They need to go bk to the work force.

[gells]

I really think this issue depends on the people, and not whether you are in the east or the west. My widowed father remarried a divorced woman and they were from different states, and they discussed it with the workers and they are both able to take part in meeting... There are other couples however that I know that were not allowed to take part in meeting for a little while, but they do now. I really think it depends on where you are at in your life, and what has happened during your service. Just a little insight on what I have noticed.

[JO]

Oct 4, 2009 21:12:20 GMT -5 gells said:

I really think this issue depends on the people, and not whether you are in the east or the west. My widowed father remarried a divorced woman and they were from different states, and they discussed it with the workers and they are both able to take part in meeting... There are other couples however that I know that were not allowed to take part in meeting for a little while, but they do now. I really think it depends on where you are at in your life, and what has happened during your service. Just a little insight on what I have noticed.

Gells, that's not my experience with the ministry's stance on D&R in the parts of the world under western alliance influence.

If you are living with a spouse and either of you have a former spouse still living you won't be allowed to take part. Sometimes an exception was made for people whose D&R situation predated their discovery of the fellowship, but I think even that loophole has been closed in the last few years.

You may even find that you're not wanted in fellowship meetings at all, because you're deemed to be living in sin as an adulterer until all previous spouses of both parties have died.

[ronhall]

Come now, let us reason together. Though your sins be as scarlet . . . . . . .

[JO]

The difficulty with D&R is that its considered to be ongoing sin...

i.e. the current marriage is not recognized by God and so you are living in an adulterous relationship.

[gells]

Oct 8, 2009 14:27:41 GMT -5 JO said:

The difficulty with D&R is that its considered to be ongoing sin...

i.e. the current marriage is not recognized by God and so you are living in an adulterous relationship.

Who's to say that they have not already reconciled with God on this matter?? Nobody knows what is said between God and a sinner, so no one can know if it has been reconciled. Again, God is the only rightful judge.

[JO]

The thinking goes like this:

God has appointed the workers to interpret scripture and manage the church on behalf of the friends.

Therefore when the workers say you are living in adultery according to their interpretation of scripture, then you just are - no matter what your thoughts might be on the matter.

[someguy]

Oct 8, 2009 18:13:11 GMT -5 gells said:

Who's to say that they have not already reconciled with God on this matter?? Nobody knows what is said between God and a sinner, so no one can know if it has been reconciled. Again, God is the only rightful judge.

Amen I totally agree. So why is it that the f&w continue to judge these people? If it is up to God then why wouldn't we allow them full priveledge in meetings seeing only God knows? By denying them full priveledge the workers are saying we think you are still in sin and obviously by your actions you are still sinning....ie judging. However, I for one certainly don't see this changing, not with the hardline the west is taking with these people.

[open mind]

I agree...leave it to God. I am sure God would in some way or another prevent anyone that he doesnt want worshipping him from doing it...whether it be in the F&W church or other...

[gells]

Oct 9, 2009 12:51:14 GMT -5 someguy said:

Oct 8, 2009 18:13:11 GMT -5 gells said:

Who's to say that they have not already reconciled with God on this matter?? Nobody knows what is said between God and a sinner, so no one can know if it has been reconciled. Again, God is the only rightful judge.

Amen I totally agree. So why is it that the f&w continue to judge these people? If it is up to God then why wouldn't we allow them full priveledge in meetings seeing only God knows? By denying them full priveledge the workers are saying we think you are still in sin and obviously by your actions you are still sinning....ie judging. However, I for one certainly don't see this changing, not with the hardline the west is taking with these people.

My father is married to a divorced woman.. they both take part fully in meetings. but u may be right regarding the west coast.

[someguy]

seeing I am from the west coast and still living here I can guarantee you this is the stance out here.

[julio]

There is definitely a clearly defined difference between the Western alliance and the other states and provinces.

From Manitoba west people remarried after divorce are silent in meetings, and from Ontario east they may fully participate. This information was told us by a Canadian worker.

In the US, the western alliance is Montana, Wyoming, Nevada, Arizona, and west of that. Silence there. But North Dakota, South Dakota, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, and all states East of there, people may fully participate (although there may be some remnants that haven't quite made it into full participation).

In the Western alliance, these people are not allowed to speak, pray, choose hymns, or partake of the emblems in fellowship meetings.

[stargazer]

Perhaps the best way to effect change in this arena is to not only pray that it be resolved but to ask every "worker", "saint" and "ex" to pray for its resolution.

[sharon]

Mar 4, 2009 19:44:41 GMT -5 someguy said:

Mar 3, 2009 18:25:43 GMT -5 emy said:

8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted divorce only as a concession to your hard hearts, but it was not what God had originally intended. 9 And I tell you this, whoever divorces his wife and marries someone else commits adultery—unless his wife has been unfaithful.”

my only question to people who love to quote this is, did God intend us to do many of the things we do? People murder, did God intend that. People fornicate, did God intend that? However, thanks be to God there is provision for our failings called grace. If we can be gracious to a murderer or a fornicator or thief and give them a second chance, can we not be gracious to a divorcee?

Oh, I know what people say, we are being gracious, they just have to remain single all their lives. To me, this is such a revolting, ungracious response to a human error I wonder how people can even remotely feel this is righteous.

The grace of God is giving someone a second chance. We let a murderer back out in society. This is an example of grace. To let a divorced person to marry is the same example of grace. To never allow them to remarry is unbelievably self-righteous. We in all our sin are given second, third, fourth, fifth chances, yet we can't even give them another. hmmmm

I agree 100 percent someguy! The only thing about D&R is it is quite apparent that it has happened, whereas often any other sin as great is "secreted" away and the workers have been proven to do just that, they've "secreted" away the perpatrators of sexual misconduct and crimes. Do they make 'public example" o these sins? NO, they do not.

The sad and pitiful part of it is this: these workers who blithely "look the other way" inm regards to the knowledge that they have about the workers' sins themselves sets them up for a severe judgment individually, esp. when they turn right around and make "public" examples of the D&R people!

It is a "double standard", folks! Why are we tolerating that?