A Mennonite view of divorce and remarriage

[Bootstrap]

What about the people that Christ is speaking to in these passages?
He is addressing the proud.
I see this very similar to the way he address the Scribes and Pharisees about the woman caught in adultery. He told them:

“Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.”

By "the proud", you mean religious authorities who condemn people, believing they are more righteous, but fail to grasp the deeper meaning of God's teaching?

Did Christ want them to stone her? Of course not, that would be inconsistent with God's design. It was man that initiated sin and murder - not God!

Does God want religious authorities to tell people to break up their marriages and families? Of course not! That would be inconsistent with God's design. God wants us to be faithful to our spouses, and tells us not to divorce - but he doesn't say that we shouldn't notice if our spouse divorces us or engages in serial, unrepentant adultery, that's a teaching of man.

So when he says,

"Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

notice the similarity of addressing the proud? Was He saying to go and even divorce? Of course not, that would be inconsistent with God's design and what He just referred to from the beginning. It was man that initiated divorce - not God!

Why do you think Jesus said "except for adultery"? And why doesn't Jesus say, "whoever divorces his wife - but of course, you might be surprised to learn that the person you married is not your wife, and you can certainly get rid of her ..."

People know if they are married or not, and to whom. If you are married, be faithful to your spouse. If you do not have a spouse to be married to, you do not have a spouse to be faithful to. Don't overcomplicate it.

I would be hard pressed to find a divorced person that could say that they were honestly %100 faithful with their eyes while married and is worthy of casting the first stone at his spouse.
Can you say you have been??????????

I really don't think that Jesus meant you can divorce anyone who has looked at someone else with lust. But someone who has gone off and had an affair with someone else, then sued you for divorce, then married that other person ... it's a rather different category. She does not want me to be faithful to her, she believe she is married to someone else.

I don't think the Bible says I'm supposed to close my eyes and pretend none of that is true. That's why Jesus says "except for adultery" and Paul says that the abandoned spouse is no longer bound.

But one could argue that because they have repented that they are better than his spouse and therefore fit for the exception...

Better than? That's rather irrelevant. My first wife said she does not want the marriage, in no uncertain terms. There is no marriage to be faithful to. That's not a question of who is better.

What makes anyone think they deserve that mercy of time that they could have time to repent? Yet that is what God has giving to each of us...

I think you are saying that the entire rest of my life should be spent in (1) choosing to be unfaithful to a wife and family who actually want me, in a marriage that is bearing good fruit, and (2) hoping that some miracle occurs and my first wife repents and comes back to me. How often does that really happen? I mean, seriously?

Back to your starting point with prideful Pharisees and the woman caught in adultery. Many of us who have been divorced in a Bible believing church have experienced that religious pride, people who "know" all the answers for us, who feel like stoning us. But for the innocent spouse, there's a twist. You don't have to be the one who commits adultery and abandons your spouse. Religious people are often happy to stone you anyway. I can tell you many stories of this.

Repent while their is time...

Follow Him.

Indeed. In the story of the woman caught in adultery, that was a word both for the prideful Pharisees and the woman they almost murdered. Are you familiar with a book called, "Why do Christians Shoot their Wounded?"

Jesus and Paul do not rail against the person whose spouse commits adultery and abandons him. They do not demand that he pretend he is still married when he so obviously is not. They do not hurl religious platitudes at these people. This is not the teaching of the Bible.

If God is calling people to be faithful to their marriages, do people really not worry that telling people to divorce might be a bad idea? If God wanted to teach that, I think he would have taught it very, very clearly so there would be no doubt.

[Bootstrap]

No, but I don't see the relevance.

The notion that some marriages don't really count as marriages and can be easily discarded really isn't biblical.

I don't follow the consistency in these statements.

In the original post I thought it was obvious. In your edited version, I don't see the consistency either. Here's my original response again:

No, but I don't see the relevance. If Jesus said "except for sexual unfaithfulness", I would assume that gay sex is a kind of sexual unfaithfulness too. And if marital faithfulness is to a particular person, my first wife ain't coming back, she thinks she is married even if I don't see it that way, and even if that relationship were to fall apart, there's no way she would return.

I do have a wife to be faithful to. She is married to me, and isn't going anywhere.

Adultery is always adultery against your spouse, marital unfaithfulness. If you cannot practice marital faithfulness because your spouse is gone and doesn't want that, that changes things. This is why adultery (according to Jesus) and abandonment (according to Paul) are the two exceptions - they each make marital faithfulness impossible because of the other person's choice, not yours.

[Wade]

But for the innocent spouse, there's a twist. You don't have to be the one who commits adultery and abandons your spouse.

This isn't about you.
And this is what I believe to be the main cause of any disagreement here: innocent spouse

There was(is) only ever One that was(is) innocent and He was nailed to a cross because of our unfaithfulness. And He was NOT a victim.

[temporal1]

From Page 4:

The simple fact is, I never see any good fruit from remarriages.

If you lived closer, I'd love to have you come over and get to know us better. I can guarantee you that my marriage has born good fruit in my life and the life of our children. For instance, my daughters see a traditional Christian marriage up front and personal,

not just the lesbian marriage my first wife is in.

And my wife really helps me figure out the best ways to continue reaching out to others in more loving ways than I could figure out on my own.

I wish my first marriage had born the same kind of fruit that my second marriage has.

I take Scripture, discernment, and discipleship seriously.
I took my time to carefully discern with the Christian leaders in my life before marrying again, and spent quite a bit of time looking at the various arguments here.

i'm unsure why the answer to RZehr's question above is not simply, "yes."
(this lesbian marriage has been recognized by you and your Christian leaders for years) according to statements repeated, i.e., every time the topic returns. it's the stated basis for acceptance of remarriage.

disapproval seems convenient, and inconsistent, for use on this forum, while not applying to real life.

to clarify my stand, i do not judge any. not my goal.
i am interested in CM understanding and practice, and i have chosen to learn all i can about it, and to share it with my family, and where i can in life.

i believe it is key to prevention of rampant hurt in the world, people are hurting in ignorance, their children devastated, in ignorance. i am in total empathy, i believe Truth is the answer. it can be tough at first, but the results are more than worth it. empathy to those in pain, with focus on preventing continued train wrecks.

[RZehr]

No, but I don't see the relevance.

The notion that some marriages don't really count as marriages and can be easily discarded really isn't biblical.

I don't follow the consistency in these statements.

In the original post I thought it was obvious. In your edited version, I don't see the consistency either. Here's my original response again:

No, but I don't see the relevance. If Jesus said "except for sexual unfaithfulness", I would assume that gay sex is a kind of sexual unfaithfulness too. And if marital faithfulness is to a particular person, my first wife ain't coming back, she thinks she is married even if I don't see it that way, and even if that relationship were to fall apart, there's no way she would return.

I do have a wife to be faithful to. She is married to me, and isn't going anywhere.

Adultery is always adultery against your spouse, marital unfaithfulness. If you cannot practice marital faithfulness because your spouse is gone and doesn't want that, that changes things. This is why adultery (according to Jesus) and abandonment (according to Paul) are the two exceptions - they each make marital faithfulness impossible because of the other person's choice, not yours.

My question was about if same sex marriage count as a marriage.
I understand you to say No, they don't count as a marriage. Then you talked about adultery and sex instead of marriage.
But then you say: The notion that some marriages don't really count as marriages and can be easily discarded really isn't biblical.
One of us may have misunderstood the other.

[Bootstrap]

But for the innocent spouse, there's a twist. You don't have to be the one who commits adultery and abandons your spouse.

This isn't about you.
And this is what I believe to be the main cause of any disagreement here: innocent spouse

There was(is) only ever One that was(is) innocent and He was nailed to a cross because of our unfaithfulness. And He was NOT a victim.

Sure, none of us is innocent, and there are two people in every couple. But Jesus clearly distinguishes the adulterer from the person who did not commit adultery, and Paul clearly distinguishes the abandoned spouse from the spouse who abandons.

This distinction has been called the "innocent spouse" for at least centuries. This distinction was important to the teachings of the early Anabaptists as they tried to return to simple obedience to Jesus and Scripture.

I know several Christians who were faithful through their divorce, but then stumbled and lost faith due to the way their churches treated them. It's not a pretty thing to watch. And I've thought about millstones more than once.

[Bootstrap]

My question was about if same sex marriage count as a marriage.
I understand you to say No, they don't count as a marriage. Then you talked about adultery and sex instead of marriage.
But then you say: The notion that some marriages don't really count as marriages and can be easily discarded really isn't biblical.
One of us may have misunderstood the other.

Ah, I definitely misunderstood you. I am not sure if you understood me or not. Sorry!

I don't consider same sex marriages marriages at all, so I really didn't have them in view when I said that.

[Wade]

But for the innocent spouse, there's a twist. You don't have to be the one who commits adultery and abandons your spouse.

This isn't about you.
And this is what I believe to be the main cause of any disagreement here: innocent spouse

There was(is) only ever One that was(is) innocent and He was nailed to a cross because of our unfaithfulness. And He was NOT a victim.

Sure, none of us is innocent, and there are two people in every couple. But Jesus clearly distinguishes the adulterer from the person who did not commit adultery, and Paul clearly distinguishes the abandoned spouse from the spouse who abandons.

This distinction has been called the "innocent spouse" for at least centuries. This distinction was important to the teachings of the early Anabaptists as they tried to return to simple obedience to Jesus and Scripture.

I know several Christians who were faithful through their divorce, but then stumbled and lost faith due to the way their churches treated them. It's not a pretty thing to watch. And I've thought about millstones more than once.

So every person that uses the exception clause has never committed adultery in any form(lustful looking or physical or otherwise)?

[Bootstrap]

So every person that uses the exception clause has never committed adultery in any form(lustful looking or physical or otherwise)?

I think I just responded to that. Here's my response again:

Sure, none of us is innocent, and there are two people in every couple. But Jesus clearly distinguishes the adulterer from the person who did not commit adultery, and Paul clearly distinguishes the abandoned spouse from the spouse who abandons.

This distinction has been called the "innocent spouse" for at least centuries. This distinction was important to the teachings of the early Anabaptists as they tried to return to simple obedience to Jesus and Scripture.

I know several Christians who were faithful through their divorce, but then stumbled and lost faith due to the way their churches treated them. It's not a pretty thing to watch. And I've thought about millstones more than once.

It's important to get the teaching of Scripture right.

And right now, it's important to get some sleep - so good night, brother!

[Josh]

Wade, what are you saying? Are you saying that since all men are sinners, they deserve it and are guilty if their wives cheat on them, divorce them, and abandon them?

I don't think Jesus said anywhere that everyone is automatically guilty (in marriage); indeed, he gave an exception to someone who divorces his wife for sexual immorality.

And in the case of Bootstrap and myself, we didn't divorce our wives. They divorced us and decided to have affairs with other people, and marry other people. We don't have any control over what they do. Both of us sought reconciliation.