Divorce & Remarriage

tom_norris · 01-21-12 5:11 pm

Mr Norris,

I'm 35 yrs old and was raised as an Adventist since birth. I did fine with being a Christian and living my life the way I should until I was 19. Then I ended up having a baby while in my mid twenties and while pregnant the second time I decided that my ex- husband and I should marry instead of continuing to live in sin.

During our marriage he had at least 13 emotional affairs and was physically involved with 2 or 3 women. Needless to say it is very hard to deal with even though we separated in 2007.

Now my problem is that I was not faithful to him. I retaliated by sleeping with someone else and felt that I would hurt him the way he continued to hurt me even though he never knew about the affairs.

Now I know that I really messed my life up in more ways than one. According to the New Testament, remarriage after divorce is not allowed unless there is adultery.

Since we both cheated on each other are we both expected to stay single for the rest of our lives with no hope of ever having a marriage partner again? I know that in the Old Testament, husbands were allowed to give their wives a letter of divorce.

I'm just not sure how it all would apply in today's time. Thank you for your time and please pray for me and my children.

Daraugh
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Answer: Take heart, the Gospel is Good News for sinners, and for all those struggling to find peace with God.

Rom. 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Those who understand the Gospel, and embrace it by faith, are forgiven their sins and mistakes. They are new creatures; the past is gone, and so too this legalistic way of viewing the Christian Faith, as if Eternal Life were based on our works and behavior.

1John 1:9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Luke 15:7 “I tell you that in the same way, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.

We live in the New Covenant, not the Old. So this SDA idea that we must live without sinning, trying to obey the law to pass the (Investigative) Judgment is wrong. The Gospel is not law. It is a very different and opposing paradigm. No one is saved by the quality or success of their marriages, nor is Eternal Life granted by any such works.

Heb. 8:12 “FOR I WILL BE MERCIFUL TO THEIR INIQUITIES,
AND I WILL REMEMBER THEIR SINS NO MORE.”

2Cor. 5:17 Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.

1John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.

Moreover, the sin of adultery can be forgiven, even as divorce is not a mortal sin, in spite of what the RC’s teach.

Divorce—The grave sin of divorce condemns those who divorce and remarry (Matthew 5:32) and those who divorce in the civil sense (except by grave dispensation). Hence divorce between two baptized Christians is a mortal sin (CCC 2384).

http://www.saintaquinas.com/mortal_sin.html

http://olrl.org/Lessons/Lesson30.shtml

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/ … fm?id=7272

In addition, the Mormons are wrong to teach that marriage is eternal, or that anyone will be judged by their marriage. Such doctrines are not taught in the NT.

Mormon Celestial Marriage
http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/mormon/marriage/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_marriage

Thus marriage is not a sacrament, as the Protestants correctly claimed, nor is it an institution that will exist after the 2nd Coming. There will be no marriage or procreation in heaven, making both adultery and divorce impossible.

Mark 12:23 “In the resurrection, when they rise again, which one’s wife will she be? For all seven had married her.”

Mark 12:24 Jesus said to them, “Is this not the reason you are mistaken, that you do not understand the Scriptures or the power of God?

Mark 12:25 “For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_marriage

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05054c.htm

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/0 … -marriage/

Today, we have a much-improved understanding of the Bible, including the teachings of Jesus about divorce. Consequently, this idea that Christians must never divorce or remarry, is wrong. And so too any teaching that predicates our salvation on the quality or success of our marriage.

Divorce in the New Covenant

Divorce has not been outlawed in the New Covenant as many teach. Neither should anyone in the NC era think they must reach a level where they do not sin.

While Jesus defends the ideal marriage, which had no divorce, he does not prohibit divorce or remarriage as many assume. After the Fall, the ideal was impossible to achieve.

Matt. 5:31 “It was said, ‘WHOEVER SENDS HIS WIFE AWAY, LET HIM GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE’;

Matt. 5:32 but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Jesus defended marriage and the law. He pushed the meaning of adultery to include the mere thought, and upheld the ideal of no divorce. Such a high view of marriage, and adultery condemns all, regardless if divorce is involved.

However, his teaching about adultery and divorce is about law, not Gospel. Marriage is part of our works, duty, and sanctification. Thus any such sin can be forgiven; adultery and divorce are no exception.

One is free to divorce if necessary under a number of conditions, even as no one should be forced to live in an abusive marriage or live a life of guilt and regret, forced to remain unmarried. The Gospel lets people move on, without the guilt.

Matt. 19:3 Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?”

Matt. 19:4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,

Matt. 19:5 and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’?

Matt. 19:6 “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

Matt. 19:7 They *said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?”

Matt. 19:8 He *said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.

Matt. 19:9 “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Matt. 19:10 The disciples *said to Him, “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.”

Matt. 19:11 But He said to them, “Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given.

(Note that this high ideal of marriage is not for all. “Not all” can live with such an ideal.)

Thanks to a better understanding of the ancient world, we can now better understand the context of Jesus teaching about divorce. It is not self-evident.

Divorce or Adultery Not Mortal Sin

Jesus refuted the easy divorce views of his day, (verse 3), which was “for any reason.” He also teaches a more stringent definition of divorce, which equaled adultery. In a male dominated world, his teachings were meant to protect women and the family.

Such a view of adultery, which deals with thoughts as well as actions, condemns most all, both men and women. Thus, by the very thought alone, one can be guilty of adultery, which is worse than divorce, and its predicate in most cases. With such a strict definition of sin, most everyone, if not everyone, in every marriage, is condemned.

Matt. 5:27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY’;

Matt. 5:28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Jesus teachings about the law and adultery condemns the world. Which was one of the points he was making. This is why Paul teaches that all have sinned and none are righteous.

Rom. 3:10 as it is written,
“THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;

Rom. 3:21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,

Rom. 3:22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction;

Rom. 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Rom. 3:24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption, which is in Christ Jesus;

No one should confuse Jesus teaching about the law, including his definition of adultery and marriage, with the Gospel. They are not the same. We are only saved by the Gospel, not the law. Which means that anyone can be forgiven for adultery, divorce, and remarriage, no matter if it is based on a thought,- or an action.

1John 5:16 If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask and God will for him give life to those who commit sin not leading to death. There is a sin leading to death; I do not say that he should make request for this.

1John 5:17 All unrighteousness is sin, and there is a sin not leading to death.

1John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.

The Gospel is for sinners. For those that have made mistakes and have the good sense to honestly admit it. The Gospel is not for those who think they have obeyed the law correctly and are righteous, but for those that have not.

Matt. 9:13 “But go and learn what this means: ‘I DESIRE COMPASSION, AND NOT SACRIFICE,’ for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

Matt. 21:31 Jesus *said to them, “Truly I say to you that the tax collectors and prostitutes will get into the kingdom of God before you.

Salvation is not based on how well anyone obeys the law on any point-much less about adultery and marriage. Nor are we saved by our Sanctification or how well we have live our lives. This is not the Gospel.

We are only saved by the confession that we are sinners, always in need of Christ’s imputed Righteousness, which is by faith alone. We are not saved by our works, including our success in marriage, nor are we judged in the IJ, as the SDA’s teach, to see if we are good enough to be saved. No one is good enough to be saved, even as no marriage is salvific.

Eph. 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;

Eph. 2:9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Paul and Divorce

In ancient Judaism, like in Roman law, women had little freedom to divorce their husbands until the 1st century. At that time, no fault divorce emerged in Roman law, as well as in Judaism.

“Divorce had always been a common occurrence in Rome and from the beginning of ancient law in Rome men have always had the possibility of divorcing their wives.[32] Although this custom was usually reserved for serious marital faults, such as adultery, making copies of the household keys, consuming wine, or infertility, it could be employed by a husband at any time...[33]”

“For many centuries only husbands had this privilege but wives were finally included in this process and given permission to divorce their husbands as Rome entered into the classical age.[32] Thus “The Manus Marriage custom ended in the 1st century BCE and the Free Marriage divorce emerged. With this, the reasons for any divorce became irrelevant. Either spouse could leave a marriage at any point.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_ancient_Rome

By the 1st century, Women were gaining more rights in the Empire, and so too in Judaism. And it is within this cultural change about marriage and divorce that the Church must emerge and navigate.

Paul teaches that a wife “should not leave her husband,” even as he makes the point that this view is from Christ. But he also teaches that if a spouse is an unbeliever, and they want a divorce, “let them leave.” (See 1 Cor 7:15 below)

This is not only in line with recent changes in Roman law, but it also reflects Jesus teaching on this matter. Women could not only divorce, they could also remarry.

1Cor. 7:10 But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband

1Cor. 7:11 (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.

Such ideal advice, including the part of not being remarried, is meant to prevent divorce and strengthen the family. It represents law, not Gospel. Which is why Jesus teaches that even the Prostitutes can be saved by the Gospel. If true, why not those who break the rules regarding marriage and divorce and repent?

Matt. 21:31 “Truly I say to you that the tax collectors and prostitutes will get into the kingdom of God before you.

Divorce Allowed

So strong is the ideal of marriage in the NT, that even if the wife is not a Christian, the husband is “not” to divorce her, and so too if the Wife is a Christian and not the husband. But nonetheless, if one decides to divorce, so be it. God wants “peace” in the home, not strife and war. Thus, Paul says, “let him or her leave.” (v 15) Which is to say, let there be a divorce.

1Cor. 7:12 But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her.

1Cor. 7:13 And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away.

1Cor. 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.

1Cor. 7:15 Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace.

1Cor. 7:16 For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?

1Cor. 7:17 Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. And so I direct in call the churches.

A Christian, whether a man or woman, is not to live in “bondage” or in an abusive situation. (Anyone who is committing adultery is not acting like a believer, even if they claim otherwise.) Thus if a spouse wants to leave, “let them leave.” V15.

1Cor. 7:27 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife.

1Cor. 7:28 But if you marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Yet such will have trouble in this life, and I am trying to spare you.

Note that v 28 says that if a person is released, (divorced), and the person marries again, they “have not sinned.”

Divorce & Remarriage

Jesus teaching about divorce and remarriage must be understood in the proper historical context. The question put to Jesus about divorce was a point of great debate between the 1st century Pharisees. One party, the Shammai, were trying to limit divorce, while the other, the Hillelites, were allowing it for any reason whatsoever, even on the whim of the husband.

Jesus sides with the party of Shammai. He repudiates this idea that the husband may divorce his wife for any reason, including her bad cooking, or even if he “found another fairer than she, for it is written, ‘And it shall be if she find no favour in his eyes’”4

Thus the Hillelites were teaching such an easy divorce that it has been referred to as “seriel adulerty,” because the man is dismissing one wife after another, sending the divorced wife back out into society as damaged goods so he can constantly have a younger wife.

Jesus is attacking this liberal view, which was very abusive to women, by declaring it not legitimate. Thus anyone who embraces this position of easy divorce, is guilty of making his wife “commit adultery” and so too her next husband, even as he is also committing adultery because he is still married to his original wife.

This is the background of this passage about divorce.

Matt. 5:31 “It was said, ‘WHOEVER SENDS HIS WIFE AWAY, LET HIM GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE’;

Matt. 5:32 but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Historical Background

In the first century though there were protests against this easygoing approach to divorce. The Essenes reproached the Pharisees for being seekers after smooth things, i. e. watering down the law’s demands. They argued on the basis of Gen 1: 27 that God intended monogamy, not polygamy. A view that did not become official Jewish teaching till the decree of Gershom in AD 1030.

Among the Pharisees there was a dispute between the party of Shammai and the Hillelites about grounds for divorce. Both parties appealed to Deuteronomy 24. On the basis of the phrase, ‘if then she finds no favor in his eyes’ Hillelites justified divorce for any reason. But Shammai insisted that ‘A man may not divorce his wife unless he has found unchastity in her’ Compare because he has found some indecency in her Deut 24: 1.’

Philo and Josephus say: the latter says a man may divorce his wife ‘for whatever cause’2 Amram in The Jewish Law of Divorce says ‘This ancient right of the husband, to divorce his wife at his pleasure, is the central thought in the entire system of Jewish divorce law.’3

Illustrations of this from the Hillelite school include ‘He may divorce her even if she spoiled a dish for him... R. Akiba says: Even if he found another fairer than she, for it is written, “And it shall be if she find no favour in his eyes”’4

http://www.wisereaction.org/ebooks/wenh … _first.pdf

Jon Paulien says: The original language is much clearer than most translations on this point. What is in view is looking “with the purpose of lusting” (pros to epithumesai) in one’s heart. The articular infinitive with a leading preposition is one of the clearest and most consistent ways to express intent and purpose in the Greek language. The focus of this passage is not on just any looking, but specifically the looking of a married man who is examining a particular woman with the purpose of lusting after her in his heart.

This is a very effective description of the fantasizing and flirtation process that precedes acts of adultery for days, weeks, and even months and years. Except that in this case the (generic) Pharisee that Jesus has in view does not contemplate that his lusting will result in an act of adultery but rather the exchanging of a present wife for a more attractive one (or at least a more novel one).

Jesus thinks of this as “serial adultery” or perhaps, in extreme cases of repeated divorce, “punctuated prostitution.” Jesus sees no difference between discarding a wife in order to marry another and having sexual relations with one woman while married to another. If these insights are correct, a critical component of interpretation here is to see the two parts of Matt
5:27-32 as related to the same overall topic, the deeper meaning of the adultery commandment…

http://www.scribd.com/doc/7240067/Divor … -in-the-NT

Here is an excellent article:

Divorce: Ancient Jewish Documents & The Bible
What God Has Joined

What does the Bible really teach about divorce?

by David Instone-Brewer

What Does the Bible Say?

The New Testament presents a problem in understanding both what the text says about divorce and its pastoral implications. Jesus appears to say that divorce is allowed only if adultery has occurred: "Whoever divorces a wife, except for sexual indecency, and remarries, commits adultery" (Matt. 19:9). However, this has been interpreted in many different ways. Most say that Jesus allows divorce only for adultery. But some argue that Jesus originally didn't allow even that. Only in Matthew does he offer an out from marriage: "except for sexual indecency." Beyond what Jesus says, Paul also allows divorce. He permits it for abandonment by a nonbeliever (1 Cor. 7:12-15). Many theologians add this as a second ground for divorce.

Yet some pastors have found this teaching difficult to accept, because it seems so impractical—even cruel in certain situations. It suggests there can be no divorce for physical or emotional abuse, and Paul even seems to forbid separation (1 Cor. 7:10).

As a result, some Christians quietly ignore this seemingly "impractical" biblical teaching or find ways around it. For example, they suggest that when Jesus talked about "sexual immorality," perhaps he included other things like abuse. Or when Paul talked about abandonment by a nonbeliever, perhaps he included any behavior that is not supportive of the marriage or abandonment by anyone who is acting like a nonbeliever. Many have welcomed such stretching of Scripture because they couldn't accept what they believed the text apparently said.

But does the literal text mean what we think it does? While doing doctoral studies at Cambridge, I likely read every surviving writing of the rabbis of Jesus' time. I "got inside their heads" enough to begin to understand them. When I began working as a pastor and was confronted almost immediately with divorced men and women who wanted to remarry, my first response was to re-read the Bible. I'd read the biblical texts on divorce many times in the past, but I found something strange as I did so again. They now said something I hadn't heard before I read the rabbis!

'Any Cause' Divorce

The texts hadn't changed, but my knowledge of the language and culture in which they were written had. I was now reading them like a first-century Jew would have read them, and this time those confusing passages made more sense. My book, Divorce and Remarriage in the Church (InterVarsity Press), is a summary of several academic papers and books I began writing with this new understanding of what Jesus taught.

One of my most dramatic findings concerns a question the Pharisees asked Jesus: "Is it lawful to divorce a wife for any cause?" (Matt. 19:3). This question reminded me that a few decades before Jesus, some rabbis (the Hillelites) had invented a new form of divorce called the "any cause" divorce. By the time of Jesus, this "any cause" divorce had become so popular that almost no one relied on the literal Old Testament grounds for divorce.

The "any cause" divorce was invented from a single word in Deuteronomy 24:1. Moses allowed divorce for "a cause of immorality," or, more literally, "a thing of nakedness." Most Jews recognized that this unusual phrase was talking about adultery. But the Hillelite rabbis wondered why Moses had added the word "thing" or "cause" when he only needed to use the word "immorality." They decided this extra word implied another ground for divorce—divorce for "a cause." They argued that anything, including a burnt meal or wrinkles not there when you married your wife, could be a cause! The text, they said, taught that divorce was allowed both for adultery and for "any cause."

Another group of rabbis (the Shammaites) disagreed with this interpretation. They said Moses' words were a single phrase that referred to no type of divorce "except immorality"—and therefore the new "any cause" divorces were invalid. These opposing views were well known to all first-century Jews. And the Pharisees wanted to know where Jesus stood. "Is it lawful to divorce your wife for any cause?" they asked. In other words: "Is it lawful for us to use the 'any cause' divorce?"

When Jesus answered with a resounding no, he wasn't condemning "divorce for any cause," but rather the newly invented "any cause" divorce. Jesus agreed firmly with the second group that the phrase didn't mean divorce was allowable for "immorality" and for "any cause," but that Deutermonomy 24:1 referred to no type of divorce "except immorality."

This was a shocking statement for the crowd and for the disciples. It meant they couldn't get a divorce whenever they wanted it—there had to be a lawful cause. It also meant that virtually every divorced man or women was not really divorced, because most of them had "any cause" divorces. Luke and Matthew summarized the whole debate in one sentence: Any divorced person who remarried was committing adultery (Matt. 5:32; Luke 16:18), because they were still married. The fact that they said "any divorced person" instead of "virtually all divorced people" is typical Jewish hyperbole—like Mark saying that "everyone" in Jerusalem came to be baptized by John (Mark 1:5). It may not be obvious to us, but their first readers understood clearly what they meant.

Within a few decades, however, no one understood these terms any more. Language often changes quickly (as I found out when my children first heard the Flintstones sing about "a gay old time"). The early church, and even Jewish rabbis, forgot what the "any cause" divorce was, because soon after the days of Jesus, it became the only type of divorce on offer. It was simply called divorce.

This meant that when Jesus condemned "divorce for 'any cause,' " later generations thought he meant "divorce for any cause."

Reaffirming marriage

Now that we know what Jesus did reject, we can also see what he didn't reject. He wasn't rejecting the Old Testament—he was rejecting a faulty Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament. He defended the true meaning of Deuteronomy 24:1. And there is one other surprising thing he didn't reject: Jesus didn't reject the other ground for divorce in the Old Testament, which all Jews accepted.

Although the church forgot the other cause for divorce, every Jew in Jesus' day knew about Exodus 21:10-11, which allowed divorce for neglect. Before rabbis introduced the "any cause" divorce, this was probably the most common type. Exodus says that everyone, even a slave wife, had three rights within marriage—the rights to food, clothing, and love. If these were neglected, the wronged spouse had the right to seek freedom from that marriage. Even women could, and did, get divorces for neglect—though the man still had to write out the divorce certificate. Rabbis said he had to do it voluntarily, so if he resisted, the courts had him beaten till he volunteered!

These three rights became the basis of Jewish marriage vows—we find them listed in marriage certificates discovered near the Dead Sea. In later Jewish and Christian marriages, the language became more formal, such as "love, honor, and keep." These vows, together with a vow of sexual faithfulness, have always been the basis for marriage. Thus, the vows we make when we marry correspond directly to the biblical grounds for divorce.

The three provisions of food, clothing, and love were understood literally by the Jews. The wife had to cook and sew, while the husband provided food and materials, or money. They both had to provide the emotional support of marital love, though they could abstain from sex for short periods. Paul taught the same thing. He said that married couples owed each other love (1 Cor. 7:3-5) and material support (1 Cor. 7:33-34). He didn't say that neglect of these rights was the basis of divorce because he didn't need to—it was stated on the marriage certificate. Anyone who was neglected, in terms of emotional support or physical support, could legally claim a divorce.

Divorce for neglect included divorce for abuse, because this was extreme neglect. There was no question about that end of the spectrum of neglect, but what about the other end? What about abandonment, which was merely a kind of passive neglect? This was an uncertain matter, so Paul deals with it. He says to all believers that they may not abandon their partners, and if they have done so, they should return (1 Cor. 7:10-11). In the case of someone who is abandoned by an unbeliever—someone who won't obey the command to return—he says that the abandoned person is "no longer bound."

Anyone in first-century Palestine reading this phrase would think immediately of the wording at the end of all Jewish, and most Roman, divorce certificates: "You are free to marry anyone you wish."

Putting all this together gives us a clear and consistent set of rules for divorce and remarriage.

Divorce is only allowed for a limited number of grounds that are found in the Old Testament and affirmed in the New Testament:

• Adultery (in Deuteronomy 24:1, affirmed by Jesus in Matthew 19)

• Emotional and physical neglect (in Exodus 21:10-11, affirmed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 7)

• Abandonment and abuse (included in neglect, as affirmed in 1 Corinthians 7)

Jewish couples listed these biblical grounds for divorce in their marriage vows. We reiterate them as love, honor, and keep and be faithful to each other. When these vows were broken, it threatened to break up the marriage. As in any broken contract, the wronged party had the right to say, "I forgive you; let's carry on," or, "I can't go on, because this marriage is broken."

Therefore, while divorce should never happen, God allows it (and subsequent remarriage) when your partner breaks the marriage vows.

Reading the Bible and ancient Jewish documents side-by-side helped me understand much more of the Bible's teaching about divorce and marriage, not all of which I can summarize here. Dusty scraps of parchment rescued from synagogue rubbish rooms, desert caves, and neglected scholarly collections shone fresh light on the New Testament. Theologians who have long felt that divorce should be allowed for abuse and abandonment may be vindicated. And, more importantly, victims of broken marriages can see that God's law is both practical and loving.

David Instone-Brewer is senior research fellow in rabbinics and the New Testament at Tyndale House, Cambridge. He is married with two daughters.

http://www.lampstandstudy.com/forum/chr … bible.html

http://www.tyndalearchive.com/Brewer/PPages/121/

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#1 01-21-12 5:11 pm

Divorce & Remarriage

Board footer