Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 1:21 pm
foc,
First, I should tell you that I am a slow reader, and have learned not to waste time reading posts that are made unnaturally bulky by the redundant repetition of the same sentences half a dozen times in the same posts. You may be as repetitious as you wish in your posts, but I just want you to know that I will not have time to read them (if you want me to do so) unless you can state your new points with some measure of economy of words.
I will try to sift the few new points out of this last post in order to give you a fair reply.
1. You wrote:
"Your view causes a serious problem because it seems to define the REmarriage as the sin instead of what God shows the sin as being...the putting away"
So I take you meaning to be that the divorce is the adultery and the offense toward God, whether there is a second marriage contracted or not. It is not the second marriage that is adultery—else the latter marriage would be invalid in the sight of God, which you say it is not. Your contention seems to be that the second marriage is indeed valid, though the divorce was not.
But Jesus never said that a divorce without a remarriage was "adultery." Wrongful divorce that is never followed by remarriage may be a sin of another sort (i.e., covenant-breaking), but it is never called adultery. In Jesus' (and Paul's) teaching on divorce, there is no accusation of adultery, apart from the case where a second marriage has been contracted (Matt.19:9; Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18; Rom.7:3; 1 Cor.7:11).
If Jesus was simply saying that the divorcing party was committing a crime (adultery) by divorcing, rather than by remarrying, why does he say that the man obtaining the divorce (the criminal) turns his innocent, jited wife into an adulteress? She has committed no "crime" in being divorced against her will. Her adultery occurs when she illegitimately remarries. And Jesus makes this the plainer when He says that the one who marries her (who did not divorce her) is also an adulterer in the matter (Matt.5:32/ Luke 16:18). It is clearly the contracting of the second marriage that is here refered to as adultery. The divorce itself is never called by that name.
If Jesus merely wanted to say that divorce was some sort of crime, He needn't have used the word adultery, which is a word having specific reference to the act of having a sexual relationship with another person's spouse. Jesus said this happens when the (illegitimate) remarriage occurs—implying that the remarriage is itself a sexual violation of the first (still binding) marriage. If the first marriage were not still binding, it would be impossible for anyone to commit adultery against it.
If a wife commits adultery against her husband (say, she has an affair with someone at the office), this does not in any sense cancel her husband's claim upon her. They have a covenant (contract), which he has never violated, and has every right to expect her to honor. The faithful husband can release his adulterous wife, by divorcing her )Deut.24), or he can hold out for her to return in repentance and to resume the original marriage.
Now, if the State gives a woman or a man permission to commit adultery (that is, to marry a person who is already married to another), the State is acting outside the realm of its competence, since God never ordained governments to license adultery. The second union, in such a case, is not a marriage, in any legitimate sense of that word, since Jesus called it adultery. The license from the State means nothing to God, any more than if it were a license granted to a same-sex couple.
In such cases, the remarriage is adultery, according to Jesus, and is not legitimate. I don't know you, foc, but by the way you argue, my guess is that you are in a second marriage that is affected by this this teaching. Otherwise (if you had no strong incentives to see it your way) I think the teaching of Jesus on this point would be crystal clear to you.
2. You seem to think that, since Ezra records the mass abandonment of sinful marriages, the New Testament would also mention such, if it had occurred. The absence of any such report, you say, is the reason that you "know with certainty" that it did not occur.
I would say that an argument from silence like this tells us little or nothing. If such did occur, would you expect to find it mentioned in the Gospels? There is little said there about the actions of other people than Jesus. What others did in response to the Sermon on the Mount is never even mentioned. Would it be in Acts? Possibly, but there is very little detailed there about the lives of the congregations after their initial springing into existence. Many things they did might have gone without mention (e.g., their mass cessation of dishonoring their parents and of their dishonest business practices, which probably occurred, are not mentioned in Acts). The epistles do not so much describe what people were doing as they give prescriptions for what should be done.
Therefore, any mass exodus from sinful marriages, like the mass exodus from the pagan temples, might easily go unreported in these books, as not being the kind of thing that any of the writers address. The absence of any mention of such a thing, in the New Testament records, can not lead to any firm conclusions as to whether it happened or not.
3. I was not suggesting that Herod's marriage did not have more than one reason for being regarded as sinful. My point was that John's preaching to Herod provides a case of a sinfully contracted marriage being condemned, and by implication, required to dissolve.
4. You wrote:
"Brother steve...would you have a man who divorced his wife unjustly 40 years ago who later remarried and raised a godly family and is sorrowful for his past now rip this family apart...forsaking his wife of decades? Just wanting to know exactly where you stand on that matter...."
"Forsaking his wife of decades" does not put the case quite correctly. If, as I have read Jesus to say, the second marriage is no marriage at all, but adultery, then the question should be phrased "forsaking his mistress of decades." Poor woman! She should have considered this possibility before entering into an adulterous relationship with another woman's husband! Many a man and woman has violated the laws of God, only to find, decades later, that there is still a penalty to be paid for their acts (e.g., the belated penalties imposed on Reuben, Joab, and Shimei).
Your question is put in such a way as to arouse sentimental approval for the permanence of the second marriage. The real question is not whether the marriage is a happy one of long duration, but, rather, Is this marriage sinful in the sight of God?
If a man had robbed a bank (or robbed you) forty years ago, and was now living happily on the stolen money (and even tithing to his church), would you have him break-up his pleasant lifestyle and return the stolen money to its rightful owner? If not, then you and I see morality very differently. I don't believe that the passage of time erases sin. Only repentance (often accompanied by restitution) does. Now, if the bank, in the meantime, has forgiven the robber of the theft, and canceled his debt, then he can go ahead and keep the money. That's the bank's prerogative, not the robber's.
So also, if a man's ex-wife has surrendered her claim on her adulterous husband, by herself remarrying and going on with her life, then the adulterer would still have to repent of his adultery, but there is no possibility of his making restitution in being restored to his first wife. In such a case, it would apparently not be necessary for him to leave the sinful marriage, but only (after repentance) to solemnize it.
First, I should tell you that I am a slow reader, and have learned not to waste time reading posts that are made unnaturally bulky by the redundant repetition of the same sentences half a dozen times in the same posts. You may be as repetitious as you wish in your posts, but I just want you to know that I will not have time to read them (if you want me to do so) unless you can state your new points with some measure of economy of words.
I will try to sift the few new points out of this last post in order to give you a fair reply.
1. You wrote:
"Your view causes a serious problem because it seems to define the REmarriage as the sin instead of what God shows the sin as being...the putting away"
So I take you meaning to be that the divorce is the adultery and the offense toward God, whether there is a second marriage contracted or not. It is not the second marriage that is adultery—else the latter marriage would be invalid in the sight of God, which you say it is not. Your contention seems to be that the second marriage is indeed valid, though the divorce was not.
But Jesus never said that a divorce without a remarriage was "adultery." Wrongful divorce that is never followed by remarriage may be a sin of another sort (i.e., covenant-breaking), but it is never called adultery. In Jesus' (and Paul's) teaching on divorce, there is no accusation of adultery, apart from the case where a second marriage has been contracted (Matt.19:9; Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18; Rom.7:3; 1 Cor.7:11).
If Jesus was simply saying that the divorcing party was committing a crime (adultery) by divorcing, rather than by remarrying, why does he say that the man obtaining the divorce (the criminal) turns his innocent, jited wife into an adulteress? She has committed no "crime" in being divorced against her will. Her adultery occurs when she illegitimately remarries. And Jesus makes this the plainer when He says that the one who marries her (who did not divorce her) is also an adulterer in the matter (Matt.5:32/ Luke 16:18). It is clearly the contracting of the second marriage that is here refered to as adultery. The divorce itself is never called by that name.
If Jesus merely wanted to say that divorce was some sort of crime, He needn't have used the word adultery, which is a word having specific reference to the act of having a sexual relationship with another person's spouse. Jesus said this happens when the (illegitimate) remarriage occurs—implying that the remarriage is itself a sexual violation of the first (still binding) marriage. If the first marriage were not still binding, it would be impossible for anyone to commit adultery against it.
If a wife commits adultery against her husband (say, she has an affair with someone at the office), this does not in any sense cancel her husband's claim upon her. They have a covenant (contract), which he has never violated, and has every right to expect her to honor. The faithful husband can release his adulterous wife, by divorcing her )Deut.24), or he can hold out for her to return in repentance and to resume the original marriage.
Now, if the State gives a woman or a man permission to commit adultery (that is, to marry a person who is already married to another), the State is acting outside the realm of its competence, since God never ordained governments to license adultery. The second union, in such a case, is not a marriage, in any legitimate sense of that word, since Jesus called it adultery. The license from the State means nothing to God, any more than if it were a license granted to a same-sex couple.
In such cases, the remarriage is adultery, according to Jesus, and is not legitimate. I don't know you, foc, but by the way you argue, my guess is that you are in a second marriage that is affected by this this teaching. Otherwise (if you had no strong incentives to see it your way) I think the teaching of Jesus on this point would be crystal clear to you.
2. You seem to think that, since Ezra records the mass abandonment of sinful marriages, the New Testament would also mention such, if it had occurred. The absence of any such report, you say, is the reason that you "know with certainty" that it did not occur.
I would say that an argument from silence like this tells us little or nothing. If such did occur, would you expect to find it mentioned in the Gospels? There is little said there about the actions of other people than Jesus. What others did in response to the Sermon on the Mount is never even mentioned. Would it be in Acts? Possibly, but there is very little detailed there about the lives of the congregations after their initial springing into existence. Many things they did might have gone without mention (e.g., their mass cessation of dishonoring their parents and of their dishonest business practices, which probably occurred, are not mentioned in Acts). The epistles do not so much describe what people were doing as they give prescriptions for what should be done.
Therefore, any mass exodus from sinful marriages, like the mass exodus from the pagan temples, might easily go unreported in these books, as not being the kind of thing that any of the writers address. The absence of any mention of such a thing, in the New Testament records, can not lead to any firm conclusions as to whether it happened or not.
3. I was not suggesting that Herod's marriage did not have more than one reason for being regarded as sinful. My point was that John's preaching to Herod provides a case of a sinfully contracted marriage being condemned, and by implication, required to dissolve.
4. You wrote:
"Brother steve...would you have a man who divorced his wife unjustly 40 years ago who later remarried and raised a godly family and is sorrowful for his past now rip this family apart...forsaking his wife of decades? Just wanting to know exactly where you stand on that matter...."
"Forsaking his wife of decades" does not put the case quite correctly. If, as I have read Jesus to say, the second marriage is no marriage at all, but adultery, then the question should be phrased "forsaking his mistress of decades." Poor woman! She should have considered this possibility before entering into an adulterous relationship with another woman's husband! Many a man and woman has violated the laws of God, only to find, decades later, that there is still a penalty to be paid for their acts (e.g., the belated penalties imposed on Reuben, Joab, and Shimei).
Your question is put in such a way as to arouse sentimental approval for the permanence of the second marriage. The real question is not whether the marriage is a happy one of long duration, but, rather, Is this marriage sinful in the sight of God?
If a man had robbed a bank (or robbed you) forty years ago, and was now living happily on the stolen money (and even tithing to his church), would you have him break-up his pleasant lifestyle and return the stolen money to its rightful owner? If not, then you and I see morality very differently. I don't believe that the passage of time erases sin. Only repentance (often accompanied by restitution) does. Now, if the bank, in the meantime, has forgiven the robber of the theft, and canceled his debt, then he can go ahead and keep the money. That's the bank's prerogative, not the robber's.
So also, if a man's ex-wife has surrendered her claim on her adulterous husband, by herself remarrying and going on with her life, then the adulterer would still have to repent of his adultery, but there is no possibility of his making restitution in being restored to his first wife. In such a case, it would apparently not be necessary for him to leave the sinful marriage, but only (after repentance) to solemnize it.