Would Donald Trump’s marriage be accepted in a CA church?

[Nomad]

I don’t see where the Bible prohibits remarriage at all, except it says explicitly not to marry a divorced woman.

The question is when a divorce is allowed. Matthew seems to say for porneia. If a divorce wasn’t allowed, someone should reconcile with their spouse who wants to reunite with them.

I agree with you on the allowance for divorce and remarriage.

I'm only trying to understand your wording when you say it is explicitly not to marry a divorced women...is it gender specific? Does it work in reverse? Can a single women marry a divorced man but not a divorced woman to a single/divorced man? I would say Jesus is allowing for divorce in remarriage in the case of someone's spouse (man or women) committing porneia against them with this particular allowance clause. But thats not the main point of His answer of course. His point is that divorce, remarriage, and porneia were never in His designs for marriage from the start.

The Old Testament seems to only allow divorce that is initiated by the husband. Jesus seems to be referring to this. I don't think Jesus is making a new policy that now allows women to divorce their husbands if they wish to.

https://gospelbillboards.org/scriptural ... emarriage/

Yes. But the OT also allows the women who has been divorced to also remarry under the OT Law. This was probably an act of mercy in a male dominated society so that the women wasn't relegated to prostitution as a means to make ends meet. She could remarry and build a new life this way.

[Ernie]

Jesus says it’s wrong to married a divorced woman.

He says it’s wrong to divorce your wife - unless she has been sexually immoral.

We have to infer everything else. I think there is room for different churches to have different practices.

I have concluded that if God really wanted his people to take the same position on this matter, he would have made that clear. Including clarity on what repentance looks like in these various situations.

I believe that God preserved scriptures that tell us what we need to know. Consequently, I can respect any position that is firmly grounded in scripture and that takes divorce very seriously. (even if it is a different position than mine)
I am not ok with treating the matter trivially and making excuses for people who could or should have known better.

[Ernie]

I will write a thread on why I think these views came to be.

Is your view the same as Dwight Gingrich's?

[Josh]

I will write a thread on why I think these views came to be.

Is your view the same as Dwight Gingrich's?

I’m not sure what his view is?

[Nomad]

I don’t see where the Bible prohibits remarriage at all, except it says explicitly not to marry a divorced woman.

The question is when a divorce is allowed. Matthew seems to say for porneia. If a divorce wasn’t allowed, someone should reconcile with their spouse who wants to reunite with them.

I agree with you on the allowance for divorce and remarriage.

I'm only trying to understand your wording when you say it is explicitly not to marry a divorced women...is it gender specific? Does it work in reverse? Can a single women marry a divorced man but not a divorced woman to a single/divorced man? I would say Jesus is allowing for divorce in remarriage in the case of someone's spouse (man or women) committing porneia against them with this particular allowance clause. But thats not the main point of His answer of course. His point is that divorce, remarriage, and porneia were never in His designs for marriage from the start.

The Old Testament seems to only allow divorce that is initiated by the husband. Jesus seems to be referring to this. I don't think Jesus is making a new policy that now allows women to divorce their husbands if they wish to.

https://gospelbillboards.org/scriptural ... emarriage/

My main issue with the Gospel billboard article is the author seems to assume in Matthew 19:9 that Jesus is dividing divorce from remarriage. By doing this the writer of this article is stating that Jesus is changing what the Mosaic Law said since the Mosaic Law gave allowance not just for divorce but remarriage. I would say there is continuity with Deuteronomy 24:1-4 rather than a change...it makes more sense that Jesus is stating both Divorce AND remarriage are allowed ONLY in the case of porneia rather than saying Divorce ONLY without remarriage is allowed in the case of porneia. Jesus isn't making a tweak to the Mosaic Law here...in my opinion...

The fact that the parallel passages given in the article of Mark and Luke don't mention what Matthew does is because the answer that Jesus gave in Matthew 19:9 is directed toward the Pharisees misconception that Moses COMMANDED divorce...Jesus is saying Moses did no such thing, rather, he PERMITTED divorce due to their hard heart. Jesus answer isn't really meant to be about divorce and remarriage but is a correction to a Pharisaical misinterpretation.

As far as divorce being gender specific...you would have to explain why if a women has an affair then the male is allowed to divorce. But if the man fools around then somehow the covenant must remain intact and the women must stay? To me it makes more sense that the promise made by both individuals to be true to one another before God is sacred and if one or the other chooses to break it via porneia, regardless of gender, then its broken. The male or female who has been offended could choose to stay or go but I don't take this to mean men can now enjoy a life of adultery knowing his wife can never leave him...of course, this is assuming he's claiming to be a Christian but is taking advantage of his wife. To me, this enhances the sacredness of a marriage promise to one another if you recognize that by cheating on one another you are essentially breaking a bond between each other you previously made to God...thus freeing your spouse from your covenant and allowing for them to establish a new bond (if they remained the loyal party). I think men would probably think twice about fooling around in some Christian circles if they were aware of this.

[joshuabgood]

I will write a thread on why I think these views came to be.

Is your view the same as Dwight Gingrich's?

That is the way I now lean, I think. Similar to the Catholic position. The church has the authority in the messy situations to judge, bind, and loose, on occasion.

I like what you say though, I can respect some different thoughtful positions that take marriage and adultery very seriously.

[Ernie]

As far as divorce being gender specific...you would have to explain why if a women has an affair then the male is allowed to divorce. But if the man fools around then somehow the covenant must remain intact and the women must stay? To me it makes more sense that the promise made by both individuals to be true to one another before God is sacred and if one or the other chooses to break it via porneia, regardless of gender, then its broken. The male or female who has been offended could choose to stay or go but I don't take this to mean men can now enjoy a life of adultery knowing his wife can never leave him...of course, this is assuming he's claiming to be a Christian but is taking advantage of his wife. To me, this enhances the sacredness of a marriage promise to one another if you recognize that by cheating on one another you are essentially breaking a bond between each other you previously made to God...thus freeing your spouse from your covenant and allowing for them to establish a new bond (if they remained the loyal party). I think men would probably think twice about fooling around in some Christian circles if they were aware of this.

I'm not saying at all that I think there should be a difference between men and women. But rather there seems to be a difference between men and women in the OT law.

[Josh]

I will write a thread on why I think these views came to be.

Is your view the same as Dwight Gingrich's?

That is the way I now lean, I think. Similar to the Catholic position. The church has the authority in the messy situations to judge, bind, and loose, on occasion.

I like what you say though, I can respect some different thoughtful positions that take marriage and adultery very seriously.

If I understand correctly… I hold that position too, at least for my own church.

I actually don’t think a radical change to D&R, though, would be wholesome for most plain Anabaptists. The ecclesiology involved starts to really matter once you say “the church” can bind and loose such messy situations.

To give an example of the “nightmare” scenario… I foresee a future where people who are popular / influential who want to divorce and remarry are accommodated and able to do so. Their spouse who is from a lowly esteemed family ends up mistreated. Likewise, I foresee a future where seekers are still treated harshly, perhaps made to wait years and years for their marriage to be “approved” to join, whilst D&R starts to be tacitly accepted amongst ethnic lifelong members.

We can already see the beginnings of this when seeing adultery and gross immorality tolerated amongst conservative Anabaptist men, and their wives blamed for struggling with the situation or choosing to separate. I believe the Bible teaches a husband or wife in such a situation can seek a divorce. Yet I have seen a wife who finally cracked after enduring decades of repeated affairs and worse blamed as the one with the problem. I find the idea of a church allowing such an adulterer to remarry after a marriage defined by his sin to be frankly very disgusting.

[Nomad]

As far as divorce being gender specific...you would have to explain why if a women has an affair then the male is allowed to divorce. But if the man fools around then somehow the covenant must remain intact and the women must stay? To me it makes more sense that the promise made by both individuals to be true to one another before God is sacred and if one or the other chooses to break it via porneia, regardless of gender, then its broken. The male or female who has been offended could choose to stay or go but I don't take this to mean men can now enjoy a life of adultery knowing his wife can never leave him...of course, this is assuming he's claiming to be a Christian but is taking advantage of his wife. To me, this enhances the sacredness of a marriage promise to one another if you recognize that by cheating on one another you are essentially breaking a bond between each other you previously made to God...thus freeing your spouse from your covenant and allowing for them to establish a new bond (if they remained the loyal party). I think men would probably think twice about fooling around in some Christian circles if they were aware of this.

I'm not saying at all that I think there should be a difference between men and women. But rather there seems to be a difference between men and women in the OT law.

Ok, I apologize, I misunderstood the point you were driving at. I agree, there is a gender distinction there.

[Josh]

I'm not saying at all that I think there should be a difference between men and women. But rather there seems to be a difference between men and women in the OT law.

Ok, I apologize, I misunderstood the point you were driving at. I agree, there is a gender distinction there.

The question is if Jesus made a distinction because he was talking about OT law, or if he intended us to think there is a gender distinction. Anabaptists (and Catholics) so far have decided there shouldn't be a gender distinction.

However, if someone wants to claim that Jesus prohibited something... all Jesus said is prohibited as far as remarriage is marrying a divorced woman.