Philosophy of Marriage Part II: On Divorce and Remarriage in the Event of Adultery

Desiring God Ministries ^

[vetvetdoug]

My first wife divorced me after I endured her infidelity for over two years. I believed as in the scriptures that there was nothing I could have done and so I waited seven years before I remarried. My second wife became bipolar and depressed and the rest is history. Marriage was just not meant for some.

[karenbarinka]

So, the Catholic Church has been right all along?

I can't wait to take a copy of this to my next big family dinner -- it should curl the toes of the Protestant half of my family!

[1stFreedom]

You could print the page out -- it's from a protestant minister, so they can't just write it off as a Catholic thing.

[Meletus]

God's command in the OT not to work on the Sabbath was expressed very absolutely--no exceptions mentioned. HOwever, clearly the Lord thought that in unusual situations there were legitimate exceptions (Mark 2:23-3:6; John 5:1ff; 7:14; Luke 13:10ff; Luke 14:1ff) as even the Jews acknowledged.
If all of Jesus' commands are absolute, then "give to him that asketh of thee" would require one to surrender a gun to a serial killer. "Resist not evil" would require one to give in to Satan. All of Jesus' moral and ethical teachings must be informed by his higher principles, and the higher principles informed by the specific codes. Incidentally, what is your definition of porneia as used in Matthew? Does it include adultery or not?

[1stFreedom]

>>If all of Jesus' commands are absolute, then "give to him that asketh of thee" would require one to surrender a gun to a serial killer. "Resist not evil" would require one to give in to Satan.

Obviously, common sense should prevail in these situations.

>>what is your definition of porneia as used in Matthew?

I would stick with the unchaste definition (meaning an unlawful incestious "marriage"). I think using the word "adultery" has done much disservice to the faithful.

[Meletus]

Well, why would not "common sense" apply when a wife is living with a physically and emotionally abusive husband? A husband dangerous to her and to her children?

[Meletus]

>>I would stick with the unchaste definition (meaning an unlawful incestious "marriage"). I think using the word "adultery" has done much disservice to the faithful.<<

I would hardly think that Joseph thought he was in danger of being in an incestuous relationship with Mary.

[1stFreedom]

You bring up an interesting point, but I think I have a good answer:

>>Matthew inserts the exception clause in order to exonerate Joseph and show that the kind of divorce that one might pursue during a betrothal on account of fornication, is not included in what Jesus had said.

Betrothal in the Jewish tradition is not relavant today. Also, notice that nowhere is it said that Joseph intended to remarry. The issue is not divorce, but remarriage after divorce.

I don't think that adultery does justice to this verse. While unchastity in the incestious sense isn't very relative today, it does more justice to the passage and is closer to the intent. Using fornication or adultery as the word for Pornea simply "gives" people the permission they need to remarry after divorce -- which is actually not permitted.

[rmichaelj]

Common sense does apply. The wife can leave her husband. Even file for a civil divorce for legal protection. However if it is a sacramental marriage, she is not able to remarry until the husband dies.

[1stFreedom]

>>Well, why would not "common sense" apply when a wife is living with a physically and emotionally abusive husband? A husband dangerous to her and to her children?

Divorce or separation isn't really the issue -- it's remarriage which is.

[ksen]

Divorce and remarriage is a plague in our churches. There have been more families ruined by it than any other thing. It also has closed off areas of ministry to many people who would otherwise be perfectly qualified.

I am thinking in particular about the office of Deacon. In our church we hold that the "husband of one wife" clause means no divorced or remarried men are qualified to serve as a Deacon. This has severely limited the amount of otherwise qualified men from serving the church in this capacity.

[Onelifetogive]

This has severely limited the amount of otherwise qualified men from serving the church in this capacity.

8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

Slanderers are also prohibited even though they are "otherwise qualified."

Drunkards are also prohibited even though they are "otherwise qualified."

The greedy are also prohibited even though they are "otherwise qualified."

The "doubletongued" are also prohibited even though they are "otherwise qualified."

[ksen]

Yes. Cannot men be "otherwise qualified" if they are grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre, holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience but divorced and/or remarried?

I'm not quite sure what your objection to my statement was.

[Onelifetogive]

I'm not quite sure what your objection to my statement was.

They ARE NOT qualified if they fail ANY of the requirements...whether that requirement be "not greedy", "not a drunkard", or "not divorced."

[ksen]

I believe that is what I said when I bemoaned the fact that there are so many men who would have qualified to be Deacons if that restriction were not there.

But the restriction is there, for good reason, and we abide by it as well as the rest of them.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

I see the problem as God's ideal marrage vs reality.
In the OT men had many wives. Jacob, Gideon, David. How can one divorce one and not have it affect the others?
When Samson's wife was given to another man, was it proper?
What of David whose wife was given to another man yet he took her back, and still had several when he put away the daughter of Saul.
If a man has 5 wives and divorces one can he take another or is he stuck with the four?

Of course, I m only looking at the OT period. I am aware of the difference Jesus made in the NT which can still cause many debates.
What of a truly BAD marrage? What of a marrage to an unbeliever, or wife beater, or worse?
Just for the record, I'm still with my first.

[Meletus]

>>Divorce or separation isn't really the issue -- it's remarriage which is.

A divorce at the time Jesus said this, if valid, always included the right of remarriage. The divorce decree declared that the divorced party was free to remarry. This is how Jesus' original audience would have understood his words.

[1stFreedom]

>>A divorce at the time Jesus said this, if valid, always included the right of remarriage. The divorce decree declared that the divorced party was free to remarry. This is how Jesus' original audience would have understood his words.

What you say sounds reasonable -- but remember what Jesus said -- Moses allowed it because of the hardness of their hearts. Jesus put an end to it! (Which is why he referenced Moses and then basically said it's ove!!)

He basically put end to the Mosaic practice of divorce and remarriage.

[oprahstheantichrist]

For later.