[soc.religion.christian] divorce and remarriage

irani@brahms.udel.edu (Jennifer Irani) (10/28/90)

I have a question regarding divorce and remarriage in the Bible. I have to
lead a bible study on it and discovered a few things while preparing that
I could use some help on. According to the old testament and Jesus' teaching
in the New Testament, it seems as though it is acceptable to get a divorce
as long as there is not a remarriage, otherwise the sin of adultery is being
committed. I understand why it would be adultery. What I do not understand
is, if I am reading it right, then why do so many churches allow a person
to remarry and actually assist/perform the second marriage? Wouldn't the
church then also be sinning by not only allowing the person to sin but also
causing them to stumble? Or is this a case where society has accepted the
idea of a second marriage and therefore the church has also? I hope we are
not compromising the law.

Jennifer Irani
irani@brahms.udel.edu
university of delaware

[I don't know of any church that considers divorce truly acceptable.
Those that allow it do so on the understanding that the alternative is
even worse, so the best we can do is choose among several bad
alternatives.  The concept is that Christ did not intent to create an
absolute law here, but to point out clearly what God's intention was.
Thus the Church must both witness to the true nature of marriage,
resisting any concept that it is intended to be temporary, and also
deal with the situations of individuals in a loving manner that avoid
turning gospel into law.  --clh]

jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com (10/30/90)

    I have a question regarding divorce and remarriage in the Bible. I have to
    lead a bible study on it and discovered a few things while preparing that
    I could use some help on. According to the old testament and Jesus' teaching
    in the New Testament, it seems as though it is acceptable to get a divorce
    as long as there is not a remarriage, otherwise the sin of adultery is being
    committed. I understand why it would be adultery. What I do not understand
    is, if I am reading it right, then why do so many churches allow a person
    to remarry and actually assist/perform the second marriage? Wouldn't the
    church then also be sinning by not only allowing the person to sin but also
    causing them to stumble? Or is this a case where society has accepted the
    idea of a second marriage and therefore the church has also? I hope we are
    not compromising the law.
    
I had a discussion with a Southern Baptist on this once.  It came down
to one passage:

	Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, maketh
	her to commit adultery, etc. (Mt. 5:32)

He defended this as permitting divorce and remarriage.  I thought this
indefensible in light of parallel passages (Mark 10:11, Luke 16:18, I
Cor. 7:39).

The Catholic teaching -- that one cannot remarry until the other person
dies -- has been such since the Fathers of the Church wrote on the
subject, starting in the 4th century or so.  Matthew 5:32 in particular
they explained as permitting a separation in the case of adultery, but
remarriage was forbidden.

That divorce/remarriage is so widespread in this country is due to the
Reformation; in places like Ireland it is still illegal, to the best of
my knowledge.  Once the historical precedent was established, it's
obviously hard to break, especially in something that is not always
easy.

Joe Buehler

mib@geech.ai.mit.edu (Michael I. Bushnell) (11/02/90)

Jennifer Irani asked about the justification of divorce by Christians
in churches which permit divorce and remarraige.

The PCUSA has for quite some time allowed the marraige of divorced
persons.  The Westminster Confession reads as follows:

In the UPCUSA amended version:

    Because the corruption of man is unduly to put asunder those whom
    God has joined together in marriage, and because the Church is
    concerned with the establishment of marriage in the Lord as
    Scripture sets it forth, and with the present penitence as well as
    with the past innocence or guilt of those whose marriage has been
    broken; therefore as a breach of that holy relation may occasion
    divorce, so remarriage after a divorce granted on grounds
    explicitly stated in Scripture or implicit in the gospel of Christ
    may be sanctioned in keeping with his redemptive gospel, when
    sufficient penitence for sin a failure is evident, and a firm
    purpose of and endeavor after Christian marriage is manifest.

(Book of Confessions, 6.132)

In the PCUS amended version:

    It is the divine intention that persons entering the marriage
    covenant become inseparably united, thus allowing for no
    dissolution save that caused by the death of either husband or
    wife.  However, the weaknesses of one or both partners may lead to
    gross and persistent denial of the marriage vows so that marriage
    dies at the heart and the union becomes intolerable; yet only in
    cases of extreme, unrepented-of, and irremediable unfaithfulness
    (physical or spiritual) should separation or divorce be
    considered.  Such separation or divorce is accepted as permissible
    only because of the failure of one or both of the partners, and
    does not lessen in any way the divine intention for indissoluble
    union.

    The remarriage of divorced persons may be sanctioned by the
    church, in keeping with the redemptive gospel of Christ, when
    sufficient penitence for sin and failure is evident, and a firm
    purpose of and endeavor after Christian marriage is manifested.

    Divorced persons should give prayerful thought to discover if
    God's vocation for them is to remain unmarried, since one failure
    in this realm raises serious question as to the rightness and
    wisdom of undertaking another union.

(Book of Confessions, 6.137 - 6.139)


Also, note that the Directory for Worship recommends "Services of
Acceptance and Reconciliation" for recognizing and acknowledging
"one's own responsibility in the brokenness and failure of a
relationship ... in marriage" as a "significant move toward
wholeness."  Such a service is for "acknowledgement and recognition of
failure in relationships, [for] grieving together over the loss of
relationship, and [for] mutual forgiveness and reconciliation within
the believing community."

In the statement on "Diversity and Inclusiveness" the Book of Order
affirms that "Persons of ... different marital conditions (married,
single, widowed, or divorced) shall be guaranteed full participation
and access to representation in the decision making of the church."
(G-4.0403)



--
    Michael I. Bushnell      \     This above all; to thine own self be true
LIBERTE, EGALITE, FRATERNITE  \    And it must follow, as the night the day,
   mike@unmvax.cs.unm.edu     /\   Thou canst not be false to any man.
        CARPE DIEM           /  \  Farewell:  my blessing season this in thee!

ta00est@unccvax.uncc.edu (elizabeth s tallant) (11/02/90)

In article <Oct.30.00.28.07.1990.7889@athos.rutgers.edu>, jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com writes:
> 
>      What I do not understand
>     is, if I am reading it right, then why do so many churches allow a person
>     to remarry and actually assist/perform the second marriage? Wouldn't the
>     church then also be sinning by not only allowing the person to sin but also
>     causing them to stumble? Or is this a case where society has accepted the
>     idea of a second marriage and therefore the church has also? I hope we are
>     not compromising the law.
>     
> I had a discussion with a Southern Baptist on this once.  It came down
> to one passage:
> 
> 	Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, maketh
> 	her to commit adultery, etc. (Mt. 5:32)
> 


Here is another Southern Baptist point of view.

I don't pretend to be an authority on divorce and remarriage, but even in my
own church, there is a disagreement on this topic.

What is seems to boil down to is the perfect will of God vs. the permissive
will of God.  My deacon's wife maintains that since the perfect will of God
is one man and one woman,  anything else is the permissive
will of God, and since it is not the perfect will of God, divorce and        
remarriage shouldn't be permitted at all. 

On the other hand, my current pastor and two of my previous pastors disagree
with her point of view.  My current pastor, Ron Helms, interprets the passage

"Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication,  and marries anothercommitts adultry...


as saying that remarriage after fornication is not unlawful.  Yet it is not the
perfect will of God.  He thinks that it's sort of like God is saying, OK, you've
gotten into this mess and since you cannot undo what's already been done, I'm
gone to give you a loophole so that you can remarry.

Then, he noted that in the OT times, an adulteror or adultress was put to
death.  In Rev. Helms opinion, this symbolizes that adultry is like a death.
He seems to be saying that in OT times, an adulteror was put to death and in
this case, the remaining spouse could remarry because his/her former spouse
was dead.  Since we are now living during the age of grace, those who commit
adultry are not put to death, but Rev. Helms maintains that unfaithful spouse
is "dead" to the faithful spouse and therefore, divorce and remarriage is     
permitted.

Elizabeth Tallant

dhosek@lucy.claremont.edu (Hosek, Donald A.) (11/02/90)

In article <Oct.28.03.50.02.1990.25765@athos.rutgers.edu>, irani@brahms.udel.edu (Jennifer Irani) writes...
>I have a question regarding divorce and remarriage in the Bible. I have to
>lead a bible study on it and discovered a few things while preparing that
>I could use some help on. According to the old testament and Jesus' teaching
>in the New Testament, it seems as though it is acceptable to get a divorce
>as long as there is not a remarriage, otherwise the sin of adultery is being
>committed. I understand why it would be adultery. What I do not understand
>is, if I am reading it right, then why do so many churches allow a person
>to remarry and actually assist/perform the second marriage? Wouldn't the
>church then also be sinning by not only allowing the person to sin but also
>causing them to stumble? Or is this a case where society has accepted the
>idea of a second marriage and therefore the church has also? I hope we are
>not compromising the law.

This is one that I've thought long and hard about for a long
time and is something that applies to some of the restrictive
parts of both the Old and New Testament teachings. Marriage and
divorce is a nice concrete item to deal with, so I'll stick with
that.

When we look at any teachings whether they come out of scripture
or religious tradition, we should remember Jesus' answer about
what the most important law was: "The most important law is You
should love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul. The
second most important law is like it: You should love your
neighbor as yourself. On this the whole of the law and the
prophets as well is based." (Paraphrase from memory from
Matthew).

In the case banning remarriage, the purpose of this was to make
couples take the sacrament of marriage very seriously: they were
making a life-long commitment and should be sure that they enter
into this sacrament as such. There is a stigma in our society
towards breaking off an engagement. This is too bad; people
should understand that it's perfectly OK to realize that they
aren't called to marry each other. At a young adult group meeting
last month, one of the parish priests mentioned that about half
the couples he counsels in engaged encounter decide not to get
married or to delay the wedding. He gets a lot of kidding about
this from his fellow priests, but he thinks that it's a sign that
he's doing his job well, I'm inclined to agree.

But what about the people who feel trapped in a bad marriage
because of church strictures on divorce? The fact of reality is
that people make mistakes. And we should remember that we are
called to forgive others. Jesus said, "Man was not made for the
Sabbath, the Sabbath was made for Man." (Mk 2:28 or somewhere
thereabouts). The same applies for the whole of any law; it was
made for us not we for it. However, we are still faced with the
reluctance of the church to allow remarriage, and this is
understandable. There is the danger of the abuse of the sacrament
if annullment of marriage were a trivial matter, since this
would, in the eyes of the people, lessen the value of marriage.
I'm not exactly convinced that the church's laws regarding
annullment are the best approach to the problem, but they do go
some distance to address the issue.

I hope these thoughts aren't too disjoint to be of any use...

-dh

---
Don Hosek                       TeX, LaTeX, and Metafont support, consulting 
dhosek@ymir.claremont.edu       installation and production work. 
dhosek@ymir.bitnet              Free Estimates.
uunet!jarthur!ymir              Phone: 714-625-0147
                                finger dhosek@ymir.claremont.edu for more info

garyh@crash.cts.com (Gary Hipp) (11/06/90)

In article <Oct.30.00.28.07.1990.7889@athos.rutgers.edu> jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com writes:
>
>    I have a question regarding divorce and remarriage in the Bible. I have to
>    lead a bible study on it and discovered a few things while preparing that
>
>He defended this as permitting divorce and remarriage.  I thought this
>indefensible in light of parallel passages (Mark 10:11, Luke 16:18, I
>Cor. 7:39).

The parallel passages do not contradict and cannot be used to
disregard the Matthew passages in 5 and 19.  The Matthew passages
include "except for immorality (fornication)" which is commonly called
the exception clause.  Because it is not stated in Mark and Luke does
not except it from the teaching.

>The Catholic teaching -- that one cannot remarry until the other person
>dies -- has been such since the Fathers of the Church wrote on the
>subject, starting in the 4th century or so.  Matthew 5:32 in particular
>they explained as permitting a separation in the case of adultery, but
>remarriage was forbidden.

The separation was for unchastity (sexual sin), the result was the sin
of adultry.  I also know of the Catholic church as granting an
annulment after some paperwork and ritual to just about anybody
wishing to return to the "church" Then everything is supposed to be OK
for remarriage, etc.  Seems to be skirting the issue to me as I don't
find the passage to read, "except for annulment."

>That divorce/remarriage is so widespread in this country is due to the
>Reformation; in places like Ireland it is still illegal, to the best of
>my knowledge.  Once the historical precedent was established, it's
>obviously hard to break, especially in something that is not always
>easy.
>
I don't believe you can blame it on the Reformation, but you can
definately place it on just plain SIN and the historical precedent has
long been set on that.

garyh

howard@53iss6.waterloo.ncr.com (Howard Steel) (11/06/90)

In article <Oct.28.03.50.02.1990.25765@athos.rutgers.edu> irani@brahms.udel.edu
(Jennifer Irani) writes:
>I have a question regarding divorce and remarriage in the Bible.
>What I do not understand
>is, if I am reading it right, then why do so many churches allow a person
>to remarry and actually assist/perform the second marriage?

In some cases the view is employed that the original marriage was in fact
a non-event. On the basis of a variety of questions, the minister can form
the conclusion that the original marriage was not valid for a number of reasons
(ie pressured into it, too young to know better, not actually consumated, etc
etc.). Any straw is grasped to make it OK.
/ / / / / / / / / / :-(I Think, Therefore I Am, I Think :-) / / / / / / / / / /
/ Howard.Steel@Waterloo.NCR.COM 	    NCR CANADA LTD. - 580 Weber St. N /
/   (519)884-1710 Ext 570 	     	          Waterloo, Ont., N2J 4G5     /
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

edb@sequoia.execu.com (Ed Barker) (11/06/90)

I want to share some of my reflections concerning the breakup of my
marriage.  My prayer is that this discussion of divorce will help
someone  who may be facing the same problems.

My wife filed for divorce a year ago.  I spent the last 5 years (of a
marriage which lasted 20 years) knowing that there were deep problems in
my marriage, but being unwilling to confront any of them.  My reasoning
went something like this:  I know that the Bible says divorce is wrong.
My wife is driving me nuts.  But she will never change.  So I have only
2 choices; live with her as she is, or get a divorce.  But since divorce
is wrong, I must live with her as she is.

This, of course didn't work.  It caused me to repress my anger rather
than dealing with it, which of course ment that I exploded in ungodly
anger at the wrong times.   And the problems just got worse, to the
point where I finally had to confront them.  But by then it was too
late, my wife had no desire to work on any of these things.

If there is someone else out there who is now suffering in a bad
marriage, my plea would be that you not let "fear of divorce" keep you
from getting help.  Anger cannot be buried, ignored, covered up, etc.;
it must be dealt with.  So please see a pastor or Christian marriage
counselor.

Now after suffering with this bad marriage for 5 years, I finally did go
to a Christian marriage counselor.  But my wife refused to go with me.
She filed for the divorce instead.  I know some will disagree, but I
really believe that 1 Corintians 7 applies in this situation.  Recall
that Paul said here that if a believer is married to an unbeliever and
if the unbeliever wants the marriage disolved, the believer is then
under no obligation to the unbeliever and is free to marry again, but
only to another believer.

In Romans 8 Paul says "All things work together for good for those who
love the Lord."  And although divorce is a very bad thing, I really
believe that God has used my divorce for good in my life.  I was a
nominal Christian before it, just showing up for church on Sunday but
not really trying to relate to God in any manner during the rest of the
week.  God used my divorce to get my attention, to show me how
despirately I need to rely on His strength and not my own.

To God alone be all Glory and Praise.

Ed Barker
Austin, Texas

ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) (11/06/90)

In article <Nov.2.03.51.48.1990.4256@porthos.rutgers.edu>, ta00est@unccvax.uncc.edu (elizabeth s tallant) writes:
> In article <Oct.30.00.28.07.1990.7889@athos.rutgers.edu>, jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com writes:
> > I had a discussion with a Southern Baptist on this once.  It came down
> > to one passage:
> > 	Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, maketh
> > 	her to commit adultery, etc. (Mt. 5:32)

> On the other hand, my current pastor and two of my previous pastors disagree
> with her point of view.  My current pastor, Ron Helms, interprets the passage
> 
> "Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication,  and marries anothercommitts adultry...
> 
> as saying that remarriage after fornication is not unlawful.

Um, let's get one thing straight.  NT Greek has a word for "adultery"
(moicheia) and a word for "fornication" (porneia).  Whoever wrote
the Gospel according to Matthew knew and used both words.  Any satisfactory
account of this verse (which itself contains both words) has to explain at
least two things:
 -- why is Matthew the only Gospel to contain an "exception clause"?
 -- why does the "exception clause" talk about _fornication_ in the
    context of divorce?  If a wife had sex with someone else, that
    was adultery, not fornication!

The explanation which makes the most sense to me is this:
    -- the Gospel according to Matthew was written to Jews (it contains
       a much higher proportion of quotations from/allusions to the
       Tenach than any of the other Gospels)
    -- Jewish marriage customs of the time required a divorce to end
       an engagement
    -- so the exceptional condition where divorce is permitted is this:
	man A is betrothed to woman B,
	but A hasn't taken B into his household yet (she is still
	living under the authority of her parents/guardians).
	A discovers that B has had sex with man C.
	In _this_ case, where Jewish custom spoke of a "marriage", but
	it hadn't been consummated, it was permitted to break the
	engagement.
This makes it clear how each of the different versions of the logion on
divorce could have _faithfully_ presented the intent of whatever it was
that Jesus said; the other Gospels, not being written to people who
required the same kind of legal procedure to end an engagement as to
end a marriage, didn't need this clarification.

On this account, then, Jesus' teaching was something like "divorce and
remarriage from a consummated marriage is _out_".  This is certainly a
hard saying.  Frankly, it's frightening.  I had one near-engagement that
went badly wrong.  What if my next choice is as bad, but I don't find
out until too late?

I _think_ I can justify the following.  In Jesus' time, a woman needed
the economic support of her own family or her husband's.  Remarriage was
all but essential for economic survival, so to divorce one's wife was to
force her to remarry.  It is not so now:  if I were to marry, and the
marriage were to be intolerable, I don't see anything in the Bible that
would force us to live together.  (Economic support, _yes_, but live in
one household?  Have I missed Something?)  If I were to allow her to
divorce me, I _think_ I'd be ok as long as I didn't remarry during her
lifetime.  (That's certainly consistent with the 3 other occurrences of
this logion in the Synoptics.)

> Then, he noted that in the OT times, an adulteror or adultress was put to
> death.

Er, not quite.  If that were so, the book of Hosea wouldn't make sense.
The penalty for adultery was certainly death, BUT people could be
ransomed from the death penalty in every case except for deliberate murder.
According to Matthew, it was _righteous_ (dikaios) of Joseph to choose
to divorce Mary quietly (as far as Joseph could tell, he was in precisely
the situation of "A" above).  It couldn't have been righteous to go for a
quiet divorce if the death penalty had been obligatory.

> Since we are now living during the age of grace, those who commit
> adultry are not put to death, but Rev. Helms maintains that unfaithful
> spouse is "dead" to the faithful spouse and therefore, divorce and
> remarriage is permitted.

There is much in what he says.  But it's rather odd nevertheless.
Doesn't the Bible teach that if A divorces B and B marries C and
then C divorces B, A shouldn't remarry B? (Sorry, the tools I need to
find the reference for this aren't in my office just at the moment.)
How can you (re)marry someone who is dead?

-- 
The problem about real life is that moving one's knight to QB3
may always be replied to with a lob across the net.  --Alasdair Macintyre.

liu@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Peter T Liu) (11/08/90)

The Bible allows divorce only on the grounds where one mate
commits 'porneia' -- a Greek word encompassing fornication and
adultery.  The following Scriptures I hope will help you see that
not allowing divorce is a law that Jehovah, not Jesus Christ or
any apostle, Jehovah set forth.  Jesus represented his Father
here during his ministry on earth and the Bible writers were under
the influence of the Holy Spirit when they wrote their books.
Thus everything came from Jehovah Himself and everything said in
the Bible is His word.

	Malachi 2:15, 16: "'You people must yourselves respecting your
spirit, and with the wife of your youth may no one deal treacherously.
For he has hate a divorcing,' Jehovah the God of Israel has said."

	Matthew 19:8, 9:"[Jesus] said to them:'Moses, out of regard
for your hardheartedness, made the concession to you of divorcing 
your wives, but such has not  been the case from the beginning.  I
say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except on the ground of 
fornication, and marries another commits adultery.'" (So the innocent 
mate is permitted, but not required, to divorce a mate who commits
"fornication.")

	Romans 7:2, 3: "A married woman is bound by law to her husband
while he is alive; but if her husband dies, she is discharged from the
law of her husband.  So, then, while her husband is living, she would
be styled an adulteress if she became another man's.  But if her husband
dies, she is free from his law, so that she is not an adulteress if she
become another man's."  

	1 Corinthians 6:9-11: "Do not be misled.  Neither fornicators
nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes,
nor men who lie with men ... will inherit God's kingdom.  And yet that
is what some of you were.  But you have been washed clean, but you have
been sanctified, but you have been declared righteous in the name of our
Lord Jesus Christ and with the spirit of our God." 

  
1 Cor 6:9-11 emphasizes the seriousness of the matter.  Unrepentant 
adulterers will have no part in God's kingdom.  People who divorced
and remarried except on the grounds of fornication are guilty of
adultery.  Thus they will not inherit God's kingdom.

As to why so many religions which call themselves 'Christian'
allow divorce.  Their permissiveness is their fruit and it is certainly
not a good one since it is against Jehovah's law.  Thus as to identifying 
the true religion Jesus said the following in Matthew 7:16-20:

 	"By their fruits you will recognize them...Every good tree
 	 produces fine fruit, but every rotten tree produces worthless
	 fruit;... Really, then, by their fruits you will recognize
	 those men." (referring to the true members of the Christian
	 organization.) 

Not all paths will lead to eternal life.  "...because broad and spacious
is the road leading off into destruction, and many are the ones going
through it; whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off
into life, and few are the ones finding it."--Matthew 7:13, 14.

Thus summing up what was said, Jehovah does not allow divorce except
on the grounds of one mate commiting fornication or adultery, and
any religion which allows its members to divorce for any other reason
except porneia is not the true religion leading to eternal life.
Therefore to any religion which calls itself 'Christian' yet allows
divorce is producing a bad fruit and is thus not the true Christianity.
There are a lot of other pointers as to which religion is true Christianity
but allowing divorce except on the grounds of porneia is a good
pointer.


The views expressed in this article are not in any way the views of
Upenn but are views based on the Bible.

Please direct any comments, further inquiries, any inquiry or dispute
to liu@eniac.seas.upenn.edu.  

garyh@crash.cts.com (Gary Hipp) (11/08/90)

In article <Nov.6.03.11.00.1990.2163@athos.rutgers.edu> ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes:
>In article <Nov.2.03.51.48.1990.4256@porthos.rutgers.edu>, ta00est@unccvax.uncc.edu (elizabeth s tallant) writes:
>> In article <Oct.30.00.28.07.1990.7889@athos.rutgers.edu>, jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com writes:

>Um, let's get one thing straight.  NT Greek has a word for "adultery"
>(moicheia) and a word for "fornication" (porneia).  Whoever wrote
>the Gospel according to Matthew knew and used both words.  Any satisfactory
>account of this verse (which itself contains both words) has to explain at
>least two things:
> -- why is Matthew the only Gospel to contain an "exception clause"?
> -- why does the "exception clause" talk about _fornication_ in the
>    context of divorce?  If a wife had sex with someone else, that
>    was adultery, not fornication!

Let me throw a little hitch into you popular engagement thesis.  See
if this makes sense.

If you study out the word fornication (porneia) referred to in other
versions as immorality, unchastity, etc., you will find that the word
refers (contrary to popular belief that it is only sex before
marriage) to any sin that is sexual including adultry.  It is the
"pork barrel of sexual sin" including homosexuality, bestiality, etc.
So, Jesus is essentially saying that the divorce is not sinful if one
of the parties has committed a sexual sin.  Don't get me wrong.  I am
not saying that the acts contributing to the divorce were not sinful,
just that the divorce itself isn't.  (See Ezra 10:9-19)

>The explanation which makes the most sense to me is this:
>    -- the Gospel according to Matthew was written to Jews (it contains
>       a much higher proportion of quotations from/allusions to the
>       Tenach than any of the other Gospels)
>    -- Jewish marriage customs of the time required a divorce to end
>       an engagement
>    -- so the exceptional condition where divorce is permitted is this:
>	man A is betrothed to woman B,
>	but A hasn't taken B into his household yet (she is still
>	living under the authority of her parents/guardians).
>	A discovers that B has had sex with man C.
>	In _this_ case, where Jewish custom spoke of a "marriage", but
>	it hadn't been consummated, it was permitted to break the
>	engagement.

>This makes it clear how each of the different versions of the logion on
>divorce could have _faithfully_ presented the intent of whatever it was
>that Jesus said; the other Gospels, not being written to people who
>required the same kind of legal procedure to end an engagement as to
>end a marriage, didn't need this clarification.
>
>On this account, then, Jesus' teaching was something like "divorce and
>remarriage from a consummated marriage is _out_".  This is certainly a
>hard saying.  Frankly, it's frightening.  I had one near-engagement that
>went badly wrong.  What if my next choice is as bad, but I don't find
>out until too late?

As far as Matt. being written to the Jews, I will agree, but must
leave it at that.  In both Matt.5:32 and Matt.19:9, Jesus is
respectively 1.  referring to an OT passage which is consistent with
the rest of the Sermon on the Mount, and 2. responding to questioning
by the Pharisees.  In both instances, He was referring to Deut.24:1-4
and giving clarification on its meaning. By reference to this aspect
of the Mosaic Law, marriage NOT ENGAGEMENT was definately the topic of
discussion.  The engagement thesis has lttle behind it but
assumption.  Hardly enough to determine doctrine.  

Back to the topic.  Specifically to be defined was the word
"indecency"(NASB) in 24:1.  Ref. Matt19, the rabbis were divided on
what the legitimate grounds ("for any cause at all"vs.3) being of the
school of Shammai or followers of Hillel which allowed for divorce for
many trivial reasons.  Jesus' clarification was seen as a drastic
tightening of Jewish Law as proved by the disciples reaction in vs.10.

To quickly sum up, divorce is an option with grounds of sexual sin.
Remarriage is also acceptable, but that is another subject.

gary hipp

jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com (11/09/90)

garyh wrote:

    The separation was for unchastity (sexual sin), the result was the sin
    of adultry.  I also know of the Catholic church as granting an
    annulment after some paperwork and ritual to just about anybody
    wishing to return to the "church" Then everything is supposed to be OK
    for remarriage, etc.  Seems to be skirting the issue to me as I don't
    find the passage to read, "except for annulment."

An annullment is a declaration that there was no marriage in the first
place, and is thus different from a divorce, which is a breaking up of a
valid marriage.

That there are so many annullments granted in this country is one of the
scandals of the American Catholic Church.  I have little doubt that most
of them are null and void.
    
Joe Buehler

brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony) (11/09/90)

dhosek@lucy.claremont.edu (Hosek, Donald A.) writes:

>Jesus said, "Man was not made for the Sabbath, the Sabbath was made for Man."
>(Mk 2:28 or somewhere thereabouts).
>The same applies for the whole of any law; it was made for us not we for it.

The point of this statement is that we should understand that God's Laws
have a purpose which will bring benefit to those who obey them. The
Sabbath is constituted so that each person might have time for rest and
reflective prayer. Thus as long as we ensure we have this we are obeying
the purpose of the Sabbath, even if we occasionally shift the
observance around to suit other purposes.

I think the problem with applying this line of reasoning to marriage is
the vast variety of perceived purposes to marriage. The purpose stated
in Genesis is that people have a suitable companion for their life.

	Then the man said, "At last here is one of my own kind- Bone
	taken from my bone, and flesh from my flesh. ... "

	That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united
	with his wife and they become one.

>But what about the people who feel trapped in a bad marriage
>because of church strictures on divorce? The fact of reality is
>that people make mistakes.

But God does not, no matter how harsh the burden may seem.
God has created your spouse, bone from your bone,
flesh from your flesh. The purpose of marriage is to formally recognise
the unity bestowed by God on two people. The marriage is not the point,
but rather the unity itself. And so to

	What God has joined let no man put assunder.

which tells us that the unity bestowed by God is life long.

Thus arguments about bad marriages miss the point, whilst

>I'm not exactly convinced that the church's laws regarding
>annullment are the best approach to the problem, but they do go
>some distance to address the issue.

arguments about non-marriages go directly to the point. The ceremony
does not a sacred marriage make. The marriage does not exist if spouses
enter the ceremony with evil intent. You may be married without the
ceremony, and unmarried even with it.

>And we should remember that we are called to forgive others.

Yes, but not to encourage them to refuse the service asked of them by
God.

>However, we are still faced with the
>reluctance of the church to allow remarriage,

It is not a matter of any reluctance, it is a matter of inability.
The church could sit around pretending that someone has remarried till
it is blue in the face and it would not change the fact that the true marriage,
conceived and consecrated by God is to the true spouse. Christ has specifically
stated that we do not have the power to second call God on this matter.

--
Brendan Mahony                   | brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz       
Department of Computer Science   | heretic: someone who disgrees with you
University of Queensland         | about something neither of you knows
Australia                        | anything about.

dhosek@sif.claremont.edu (Hosek, Donald A.) (11/09/90)

In article <Nov.7.22.22.32.1990.16872@athos.rutgers.edu>, liu@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Peter T Liu) writes...
>The Bible allows divorce only on the grounds where one mate
>commits 'porneia' -- a Greek word encompassing fornication and
>adultery.  The following Scriptures I hope will help you see that
>not allowing divorce is a law that Jehovah, not Jesus Christ or
>any apostle, Jehovah set forth.  

[Much deleted]

>Thus summing up what was said, Jehovah does not allow divorce except
>on the grounds of one mate commiting fornication or adultery, and
>any religion which allows its members to divorce for any other reason
>except porneia is not the true religion leading to eternal life.
>Therefore to any religion which calls itself 'Christian' yet allows
>divorce is producing a bad fruit and is thus not the true Christianity.
>There are a lot of other pointers as to which religion is true Christianity
>but allowing divorce except on the grounds of porneia is a good
>pointer.

I've been watching this thread and it's amazing how legalistic
people have been about this issue. Wonderful debates about
fornication vs. adultery and so forth and why the stricture on
divorce appears differently in one gospel than it does in some
other and so forth.

((They like to put heavy burdens on others while they will not
lift a finger to help...))

What is the basis of the law? All of it, what appears in the
Pentateuch and in the Gospels and the Letters of Paul and in the
rights of Kings (cf 1S) etc.? What is the basis of the prophets?

((The greatest commandment is this: you must love the Lord your
God with all your heart and soul. The second most important
commandment is like it: you must love your neighbor as
yourself.))

So what really matters in ending a bad marriage? The stricture on
divorce comes out of these two laws. Can you really believe that
God wants us to stay in an unhealthy and loveless marriage? You
must love your neighbor as yourself. Marriage is permanent
because the love of the two people involved is symbolic of their
love for God. A loveless marriage is not much of a symbol, is it? 

Think about this, please. We aren't called upon to come up with
strict legalistic definitions of this and that, we're called upon
to love. We're called upon to forgive. We're called upon not to
judge. Sometimes we all fall into the trap of wanting to have
concrete rules that we _must_ follow and everyone else _must_
follow and not wanting to look beyond that. Be careful, *that* is
the wide path that leads to destruction. It's too easy to sit
down and cite chapter and verse and say that's the end of the
question and forget that their are people involved, people who
live and laugh and love. We can't afford to do that. When you
look at any commandment in the Bible, it's not enough to look at
what it says, but at why it says it. Everything hangs on those
two commandments Jesus gave in answer to the Pharisees. Ask
yourself how it relates to that, and then think about how it
relates to your life. There's a reason the first quotation I gave
above follows close on the heels of the second in Matthew's
gospel.

-dh

lae@io.UUCP (Larry Enos) (11/10/90)

In article <Nov.6.03.11.00.1990.2163@athos.rutgers.edu>, ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes:
> Um, let's get one thing straight.  NT Greek has a word for "adultery"
> (moicheia) and a word for "fornication" (porneia).  Whoever wrote
> the Gospel according to Matthew knew and used both words.  Any satisfactory
> account of this verse (which itself contains both words) has to explain at
> least two things:
>  -- why is Matthew the only Gospel to contain an "exception clause"?


>  -- why does the "exception clause" talk about _fornication_ in the
>     context of divorce?  If a wife had sex with someone else, that
>     was adultery, not fornication!
> 

Let me start with your second question first.  There is a difference
in degree between adultery (moicheia) and fornication (porneia).
Adultery implies any sexual infidelity in marriage.  Fornication
(which can also be translated as `whoredom') implies gross and
repeated sexual immorality.  If you compare this statement with what
the Lord says elsewhere about forgiveness, then it will be clear what
the the Lord is saying here: If your spouse is unfaithful and repents,
then you should forgive him/her; however, if your spouse does not
repent, but continues to be unfaithful, then you are permitted to
divorce him/her.

As for your first question, the fact that a truth is only revealed in
one passage of the bible does not make it less true.  For example,
John 1:1 is the only passage that states that in the beginning the
Word (Jesus Christ) was with God and was God.  Because of this
passage, orthodox Christians believe that Christ is God and that He
existed from the beginning.  Yet some people choose not to believe
this on the grounds that it is not so clearly defined elsewhere in the
bible.  

Many people want to pick and choose passages from the bible according
to their preconceptions.  Thus, if a passage agrees with their
concepts, they accept it literally, but if it does not, they either
reject it or try to intrepret it away.  Yet, we must realize that
either all of the bible the word of God or none of it is.  We cannot
have it both ways.

brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony) (11/13/90)

dhosek@sif.claremont.edu (Hosek, Donald A.) writes:

>So what really matters in ending a bad marriage? The stricture on
>divorce comes out of these two laws. Can you really believe that
>God wants us to stay in an unhealthy and loveless marriage?

If you are in communion with Christ then the marriage is not loveless,
for you must surely love your spouse. I have no doubt that an unloved
spouse can be doing God's work in setting an example of love. You know
with the help of the Holy Spirit no burden is too heavy.

>You must love your neighbor as yourself.

Yes even the unloving spouse.

>Marriage is permanent
>because the love of the two people involved is symbolic of their
>love for God.

What rubbish. Love in marriage and in general derives from Christ, and
is not merely symbolic thereof.
If anything it might be a symbol of God's love for them.
In any case read Genesis as to why God joins man to woman. The
permanence comes from the fact that God creates your spouse specifically
for you, there is no other possible spouse.

>A loveless marriage is not much of a symbol, is it? 

What loveless marriage can a Christian be involved in?

>Think about this, please. We aren't called upon to come up with
>strict legalistic definitions of this and that, we're called upon
>to love. We're called upon to forgive. We're called upon not to
>judge.

Sorry, who is being judgemental? You stand up in church, before God,
and vow to love and cherish till death. No-one forces you to do that.
God will expect you to keep your vow. Don't expect me to encourage you
to break that vow. I'd have trouble explaining that one away. How is it
loving to encourage people to go against God's Will? Love isn't just
feeling sorry for people you know.

It sounds to me as if you think you know better than God. You don't.

My position is that marriage vows made by a Christian are binding. If
you marry someone else whilst your spouse lives then you are breaking
your vow, and giving public witness against Christ. You cannot expect the
Church to help you do this. This is a loving position because this
action is the spiritual equivalent of slashing your own wrists.

--
Brendan Mahony                   | brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz       
Department of Computer Science   | heretic: someone who disgrees with you
University of Queensland         | about something neither of you knows
Australia                        | anything about.

HWT@bnr.ca (H.W.) (11/13/90)

In article <Nov.9.00.30.32.1990.28222@athos.rutgers.edu>,
brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony) writes of the nature of true
marriage:

> arguments about non-marriages go directly to the point. The ceremony
> does not a sacred marriage make. The marriage does not exist if spouses
> enter the ceremony with evil intent. You may be married without the
> ceremony, and unmarried even with it.

Firstly, I suspect that positions on this topic are rigid enough that
the discussion ought to be dropped, as no one seems to be doing anything
but stating positions that are rigid.

However, Brendan's logic would appear to put marriage into a position
where the church should not attempt to regulate it at all.  I'm on shaky
ground here, but I thought that most Protestants regarded the Eucharist and
marriage as the two sacrements... unlike the seven of Catholic practice.
So one has to feel that Brendan is at least out on a limb here, as he seems
to be saying that the ceremony can be invalidly administered?

[Sorry, the two sacraments accepted by Protestants are Baptism and
the Lord's Supper.  The whole discussion of valid sacraments that
has being going on here probably seems somewhat odd to most Protestants.  
--clh]

carroll@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Jeff Carroll) (11/23/90)

	This issue (whether divorce is permissible for Christians) is a
specific case of the general question of whether one's actions ought to
be conditioned by one's feelings, or the other way around.

	In other words, Hosek and his proponents seem to be saying that
you should only be in a marriage if you love your spouse, and his
opponents seem to be saying that you love your spouse in part if not
whole because you are joined to that person in Holy Christian Matrimony.

	My church permits divorce, having gone through some intricate
doctrinal contortions to justify it, similar to those which it used to
deal with the notion of transsubstantiation, and to justify the
ordination of homosexuals. Indeed, as in the case of a similar moral
tragedy, namely abortion, I admit that there are cases in which divorce
may be the best of all possible choices.

	However, I generally tend to take the latterly aforementioned
position, believing that the former leads ultimately to moral confusion.
If I ignore my conscience and Christian moral teaching in favor of my
desires, what else am I doing other than giving in to sin?

	I would invite further discussion of this more general question
("Should what I feel determine what I do, or should what I do as a
faithful disciple of Christ determine what I feel?"). Opponents of my
position may wish to restate the question in more objective terms.

	Other applications of this question that come to mind - 

	- practice of homosexuality by Christians
	- assisting/failing to assist the needy
	- liturgical practices

	Jeff Carroll
	carroll@atc.boeing.com