Can you go back to the first spouse?

Post Reply
User avatar
Quilter2
Posts: 61
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 8:37 pm

Can you go back to the first spouse?

Post by Quilter2 » Mon Jul 26, 2010 11:07 pm

I was listening to the mp3s of the program archives, and Steve's advice to one brother who had divorced & remarried without Biblical grounds was to return and try to mend the marriage with his first wife who had stayed faithful to their original marriage covenant. This is a view alot of Mennonite groups hold. In discussing this with our pastor, his view was that although it is not repeated in the New Testament, neither is the following prohibition from Deuteronomy amended or repealed so he would feel it safer for the repentant husband to stay single. Jesus in fact tightened the requirements for divorce (if you believe it is ever permissible), so I was wondering if it is permissible to return to the first spouse in view of Deut 24:

1 ¶ When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement...
2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife.
3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;
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.

Paula

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Can you go back to the first spouse?

Post by steve » Tue Jul 27, 2010 12:10 am

Yes, this man can and must return to his wife, because, unlike the case in Deuteronomy, his wife has never remarried or been with another man since her husband walked out on her. I do not see how your pastor can say that a man who commits adultery against his wife should not repent and go back to her. Would he forbid the restoration of an intact, but separated, married couple? The man's intervening "marriages" were adultery, not marriage, according to Jesus, so this is just a case of an adulterous man needing to go back to the wife he abandoned.

User avatar
Quilter2
Posts: 61
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 8:37 pm

Re: Can you go back to the first spouse?

Post by Quilter2 » Sat Jul 31, 2010 9:06 am

Thank you for the reply, Steve. No, of course he would send separated people back together. I think I understand now the thinking about returning to the first partner -- the idea that the 2nd union was never a marriage, only an adultery if there was no grounds for the divorce? But what about Deuteronomy says the wife who married again was "defiled"? Do you think that only applies to a wife? Or because she had a Mosaic divorce it was considered a marriage the 2nd time?
Confused here.....
Paula

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Can you go back to the first spouse?

Post by steve » Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:32 pm

The reason for the wife being referred to as "defiled" in Deuteronomy 24 has perplexed commentators (including this one), as also the reason for forbidding the return to the first husband. There are more than one suggestion that have been made:

1. Suggested reasons for the "defilement":

a) Because she was not free to enter the second marriage, she became defiled (that is committed adultery) by marrying the second man.

However, this would not seem to be a valid point, since the circumstance of a woman committing adultery would not automatically disqualify her from returning to her husband, if he would have her back (as, for example, in the case of Hosea and Gomer);

b) She is not defiled, personally, but she is defiled for him, in that he had found "some uncleanness" (that is, something unsatisfactory) in her as his prior cause for having divorced her.

This means that he ought not to take her back, if he had considered her previous "uncleanness" ("defilement") sufficient grounds to divorce her previously. On this view, she was not defiled by marrying the second time. She was (regarded as) defiled by her first husband, previous to the divorce, and that had been his reason for divorcing her. Therefore, if he had thought her to be thus sufficiently "defiled" to justify divorcing her before, why would he now think otherwise, and wish to have her back? And what assurance would she have that he would not divorce her again on the same grounds?

Once a man has discarded his wife—whether frivolously or over a heinous offense—she has been stigmatized as defiled in his eyes. It would be hypocritical (or double-minded) on his part, to take her back, and it would be a seemingly insecure situation for her to be in a marriage with a man who had previously shown sufficient contempt for her as to put her away. This would be especially the case, if the man had not seen any reason to change his mind until he had found that his ex-wife was happily with another man.

2. Reasons for forbidding the second marriage to the first man:

a) The discussion immediately above may provide the reason;

b) The law might thus discourage hasty divorce, since the man who puts his wife away (assuming she remarries) will not have occasion to reverse his decision and take her back, even if he regrets having divorced her;

c) Some think that, to allow a woman to be passed back and forth between the same men, like a football, would be demeaning to the dignity and value of the woman, and provides the reason for this restriction;

d) Some think that the restriction is intended to protect the second marriage of the woman from any attempts on the part of her first husband to persuade her to leave her second husband and to return to him. Under this law, she could not return to him, even if she were freed from the second marriage, so the first husband would have no motive to interfere.

There may be other (and better) suggestions than these, but the rationale behind this law has always seemed somewhat mysterious to me.

It should be remembered, however, that this ruling does not apply to every case of a divorced couple who are considering reuniting. The special circumstances that make this case applicable include:

1. The husband has divorced his wife (thus, he has thrust her out of the marriage). It does not apply when the husband has wished to see the marriage preserved, but found himself abandoned and divorced against his will;

2. The woman has remarried legitimately (because she had been rejected by her husband, and put away, the assumption is that her second marriage was permissible);

3. The second husband has died or divorced the woman (thus she is apparently free to marry a third man, but not to return to her first husband).

Since, in Israel, it was not common (and possibly not permitted) for a woman to divorce her husband, the rule does not consider the same situation with the roles reversed—that is, when a man is divorced by his wife. However, since the New Testament seems to grant identical marriage privileges to both husbands and wives, I assume that the teaching of Deuteronomy 24 would also apply in the following scenario:

1. The wife has divorced her husband (thus, she has thrust him out of the marriage). It does not apply when the wife has wished to see the marriage preserved, but found herself abandoned and divorced against her will;

2. The man has remarried legitimately (because he had been rejected by his wife, and put away, the assumption would be that his second marriage was permissible);

3. The second wife has died or divorced the man (thus he is apparently free to marry a third woman, but not to return to her first wife).

The absence of any of these conditions, in a case under consideration, would throw the applicability of Deuteronomy 24 into question.

AVoice
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 5:12 pm

Re: Can you go back to the first spouse?

Post by AVoice » Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:48 am

The entire Deut 24;1-4 was written for the hardness of their hearts. To accomodate the hard hearts, how much of it should we try to drag into the NT? None of it.
They wanted it? He gave it to them in full measure with its logical conclusion under their mindset. They were given what they deserved and reflecting what their hard hearts wanted. "The strength of sin is the law"
It was directly contradictory to what the NT reveals to be truth.
We are not under the OT law. We are under the NT law which has a higher moral standard.
A man MUST make effort to return to his real wife, regardless of what she has done since according to Jesus they are husband and wife until one of them is dead. If she had become married to another it was just adultery anyway, for which he should be willing to forgive.
The forbidding of the man to return to the wife God says in the NT is his wife that God has joined him together with, is something that cannot be justified by the NT. And Paul makes it clear that a person justifying themselves by the OT not in accordance to the NT revealation is fallen from grace. Forget Deut 24;1-4, it has been abolished by the NT revelation of what the truth is.
People in bondage to Dt 24:4 are often in that state because some pastor is not in the faith and hence not free in Christ and has also bound others to the law.

Post Reply

Return to “Marriage & Divorce”