Unlawful remarriage of injured spouse. A false Mennonite teaching

[Spartaeus]

Im sure this has been discussed before I ever got on this forum, but I thought I'd ask anyway.
Ive read in several places where early Anabaptists allowed for remarriage of the injured spouse. I've also read that most conservative Anabaptist churches become more strict in the past 100 years. So my question is why would a group of supposedly merciful christian believers, believe that they should cause more pain and suffering on top of the pain and suffering already caused upon someone whose spouse committed adultery against them and left them with 9 kids and no means of support, instead of showing mercy which would be consistant with Christs teachings. Not only to show mercy, but as Christ taught, not to add to or twist Gods law as the Pharisees did, which nullified Gods laws and replaced them with the traditions of man, or in our time period ignorant legalism. In the situation Jesus spoke about during his historical time period, certain jewish sects held the rabbinic oral law (mishna, talmud)above Gods commandments. Even though God said in deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32, not to add to the law or take away from it. And if you have read the history of that time period it becomes obvious that that was one of Gods main purposes in sending Jesus here (to do the will of the father who sent him), to bring people back to Gods laws which is a light burden compared to the oral law of the rabbinite jews ( not the Samaritan or Karraite jewish sects, which held fast to Torah not oral law) of that period in history. The rabbinites which had hi jacked the kingdom of God and were using it pretty much the same way our American constitution was hi jacked and twisted by judges and politicians for their own corrupt purposes.And on which they now lay a heavy burden on our shoulders. If you're not familiar with at least the Mishnah, it will definitely enlighten you, and probably give you a deeper understanding of the things Jesus was really speaking about. Instead of the fairy tales that have become best selling books sold to the sinfully ignorant calling themselves Christians. And please keep in mind an adulterer was to be stoned to death in that time in history,so there would be no need to worry about remarriage being unlawful, since the adulterer would be DEAD!!!

[Josh]

Good question. Some very good discussion of this got lost that was on the old MennoDiscuss forums.

My advice is that if the conservative Mennonite position does not suit you, seek a group that has the position you feel is right. As far as I know, this limits you to several sectarian groups plus a few scattered independent groups.

[Spartaeus]

Problem is, I strongly believe that they are the closest group on earth to a living breathing example of how God wants his people to live. Even though I know they live as they do, without having the full truth and knowledge of Gods word, they still act and live the closest to how God wants us to live, with the one exception. Their misunderstanding or ignorance creates a legalism that causes them to sin against God and his children. Although I believe its unintentional, God wants mercy, not legalism.
Deut. 6:24 Gods law is for us, for our benefit.We now have the spirit of the law so we can use the law lawfully. What mercy is there to create suffering where none is due? Where is Gods holy spirit to guide us? Certainly not in Talmudic law or Christian legalism. They are both abhorrent to God. Are we so twisted that we call good evil, and evil good? Do we punish the innocent and ignore the sinner? Are not Gods commandments to teach us right from wrong? And that the wicked should be punished not the innocent. Why would God command us to punish the righteous? Its completely inconsistent with all of Gods teachings. And more so if you could read Hebrew and understood their history and culture, you would know there are no inconsistencies. And that the inconsistencies come from those who pridefully cling to a terrible bible translation that teaches false doctrines and confusion.

[Ernie]

Im sure this has been discussed before I ever got on this forum, but I thought I'd ask anyway.
Ive read in several places where early Anabaptists allowed for remarriage of the injured spouse. I've also read that most conservative Anabaptist churches become more strict in the past 100 years. So my question is why would a group of supposedly merciful christian believers, believe that they should cause more pain and suffering on top of the pain and suffering already caused upon someone whose spouse committed adultery against them and left them with 9 kids and no means of support, instead of showing mercy which would be consistent with Christs teachings.

The early Anabaptists who allowed for remarriage were operating based on the Roman Catholic view of marriage. The church leaders decided who was fit to remarry and who was not.
As the Anabaptist movement matured, so did their understanding of the scriptures. No longer was it a matter of marrying inside or outside the church but rather, "What did God intend from the beginning?" The scriptural texts (and their interpretation of them) became the authority on who could remarry, rather than the church leaders.
Also, it became clear to conservative Anabaptists that the whole theme of NT restoration becomes nearly impossible if a person remarries. This includes restoration to a spouse as well as restoration to the Lord. Few spouses are "won by the conversation of their wife" if they remarry. Conservative Anabaptists have dozens of stories of spouses who faithfully prayed for their estranged spouse and eventually were able to see the fruit of their prayers. CA churches have typically supported spouses who have chosen to take this path.

If I'm understanding correctly, it does seem to me that your question puts the focus on the injured spouse and how to reach out to him/her.
The CA position puts the focus on the perpetrator and how to reach out to him/her. (The focus of the book of Hosea.) If a CA church does well with this, the injured spouse will also feel the care and support of the church community during this time of grief.

[Wayne in Maine]

Ive read in several places where early Anabaptists allowed for remarriage of the injured spouse...

The early Anabaptists who allowed for remarriage were operating based on the Roman Catholic view of marriage. The church leaders decided who was fit to remarry and who was not.
As the Anabaptist movement matured, so did their understanding of the scriptures. No longer was it a matter of marrying inside or outside the church but rather, "What did God intend from the beginning?" The scriptural texts (and their interpretation of them) became the authority on who could remarry, rather than the church leaders.

I'm curious about the history of the changes in Anabaptist groups. When did this change occur? Where is it documented? (I'm not challenging what you say, I'm interested in the history of drift / maturing of Anabaptist groups).

[Spartaeus]

Hosea was using an analogy of what was going to happen to Israel and Judah. And it did. Please, you are applying scripture to a modern interpretation of marriage. Hebrew marriages are not similar to modern marriages. If you understood the 3 types of hebrew marriages, which I know you don't, you might be guilty yourself of adultery and have to seperate from your spouse! In fact if we look at what constituted a marriage 2000 years ago, and apply it today, almost everyone in western countries would be considered married and committing adultery. Almost the entire population of America would have to separate from their spouse according to the mennonites lopsided interpretation. Does God want that? Does God want millions of children to be raised in fatherless homes? Is it good for man to be alone? Absolutely not! Marriage is not just for sex. Its for companionship and to have a suitable helper to raise children. And to deny someone the only suitable helper, is denying the purpose of a man or a woman. But when you misapply scripture, you condemn the innocent! And thats what mennonites do! And you say God wants those who are separated to be reunited? That in most cases be more sinful than them being divorced. Those of faith must strive for a good Christian marriage. But its not the case that all marriages begin as christian marriages in this world today. And God wants us to be merciful in our judgement. We have to weigh the facts and deal with each situation differently. Not according to our traditions, which is what God condemns. We must consider the original purpose of marriage, which is what mennonites do not look at. You can't blame the catholic church for everything! Its up to Mennonites to repent from their pride, and ask forgiveness to those they've unjustly condemned.

[lesterb]

Problem is, I strongly believe that they are the closest group on earth to a living breathing example of how God wants his people to live. Even though I know they live as they do, without having the full truth and knowledge of Gods word, they still act and live the closest to how God wants us to live, with the one exception. Their misunderstanding or ignorance creates a legalism that causes them to sin against God and his children. Although I believe its unintentional, God wants mercy, not legalism.
Deut. 6:24 Gods law is for us, for our benefit.We now have the spirit of the law so we can use the law lawfully. What mercy is there to create suffering where none is due? Where is Gods holy spirit to guide us? Certainly not in Talmudic law or Christian legalism. They are both abhorrent to God. Are we so twisted that we call good evil, and evil good? Do we punish the innocent and ignore the sinner? Are not Gods commandments to teach us right from wrong? And that the wicked should be punished not the innocent. Why would God command us to punish the righteous? Its completely inconsistent with all of Gods teachings. And more so if you could read Hebrew and understood their history and culture, you would know there are no inconsistencies. And that the inconsistencies come from those who pridefully cling to a terrible bible translation that teaches false doctrines and confusion.

So if we are " the closest group on earth to a living breathing example of how God wants his people to live" is there any chance that you might be wrong about this, rather than the rest of us? Most people who view us that way also find a thing or two that they strongly disagree with. We would be the "perfect" solution, except for "******". If we were to make all of those changes, we would very quickly no longer be what any of you wanted.

So, if you like the package, don't fuss about the string that holds it together. Neither you nor I will ever find a group we agree with entirely. God has designed it that way to see if we are willing to submit ourselves to a brotherhood.

The rest of your post is simply human reasoning that is commonly used to destroy what the Bible teaches.

Sorry... [If you're going to use a sledge hammer on us, don't expect us to be very sympathetic]

[Josh]

The simple fact is, plain groups (headcoverings, modest attire, nonresistance) do exist who don’t have the Amish or moderate-conservative Mennonite view.

These include Apostolic Christian Church - Nazareans, Holdemans, Russian Baptists, Romanian Pentecostals, a number of independent congregations, and probably some groups I don’t know of.

The best way to be a Christian and an Anabaptist Christian is to live out Jesus’ message of peace and reconciliation in day to day life and find fellowship with other believers doing the same. One has to decide if finding fellowship with the above groups (even crossing language barriers) is worth the fellowship. And no matter what you do, you will have to submit to other doctrines and lifestyle expectations you may not agree with.

I chose to do the above and submit my views on marriage to the churches I have been a part of. I feel God blessed that decision on my part. I disagreed with this doctrine but left it up to Jesus to sort out the details of his church. He has been very faithful to guide my steps and put me in the right church fellowship.

[Heirbyadoption]

Hosea was using an analogy of what was going to happen to Israel and Judah. And it did. Please, you are applying scripture to a modern interpretation of marriage. Hebrew marriages are not similar to modern marriages. If you understood the 3 types of hebrew marriages, which I know you don't, you might be guilty yourself of adultery and have to seperate from your spouse! In fact if we look at what constituted a marriage 2000 years ago, and apply it today, almost everyone in western countries would be considered married and committing adultery. Almost the entire population of America would have to separate from their spouse according to the mennonites lopsided interpretation. Does God want that? Does God want millions of children to be raised in fatherless homes? Is it good for man to be alone? Absolutely not! Marriage is not just for sex. Its for companionship and to have a suitable helper to raise children. And to deny someone the only suitable helper, is denying the purpose of a man or a woman. But when you misapply scripture, you condemn the innocent! And thats what mennonites do! And you say God wants those who are separated to be reunited? That in most cases be more sinful than them being divorced. Those of faith must strive for a good Christian marriage. But its not the case that all marriages begin as christian marriages in this world today. And God wants us to be merciful in our judgement. We have to weigh the facts and deal with each situation differently. Not according to our traditions, which is what God condemns. We must consider the original purpose of marriage, which is what mennonites do not look at. You can't blame the catholic church for everything! Its up to Mennonites to repent from their pride, and ask forgiveness to those they've unjustly condemned.

I would be interested in your presentation of a Biblical case for these comments, if you'd be willing to share. There's a lot of dogmatic statement and some rather strong judgments to boot, and even an accusation or two. Would you be willing to explain your view with the Scriptures for the folks on here who apparently don't understand it so well so it could be viewed as more than opinions? That's about the only worthwhile place to find common ground on this subject, it seems, especially with all the emotions that surround the subject. Thanks.

[Spartaeus]

Lesterb : Its a lack of human reasoning or common sense that tears apart Gods wisdom and creates harmful traditions. Its those who do not truly seek Gods truth and that will not accept it, that God conceals his wisdom from. The rabbinites believe that any tradition that the jews practiced for decades automatically becomes part of the oral law. Most are harmless such as the skullcap they wear. But when traditions are placed above Gods law to the point where they conflict with Gods law or supercede it as did phariseeical law, then there's a problem. Gods law is there to help us, to guide us, to give us life. Its not there to bring us misery. Its there to teach us what sin is, so we do not do harm to each other, so we can live together without bringing harm to one another. Gods law is not there to be used as the pharisees did to place heavy loads upon one another. Acts 15 Gods law is for our benefit.
No one is tearing the scriptures down, rather they need to be used properly, according to the spirit of the law, rather than the letter of the law. In case you don't know, levirate marriages are still practiced among Mennonites in Africa. God established levirate marriages for a beneficial purpose and it wasn't for sex. It is for the purpose of keeping the brothers bloodline continuing, and for providing for the family of a deceased brother. But somehow the ungodly minds of some calling themselves Christians believe that its only purpose is to give the brother extra sex. When in fact its a responsibility not to be taken lightly. A responsibility that God commanded us to keep, whether certain puritanicals agree with it or not, God ordered it.
God gave us exceptions to some laws to be used for the benefit of people, not to harm them. Sin is against another person. If there is none harmed, and it is used for a beneficial use, God allows it. Except for divorce would not even have been mentioned. But God was showing his mercy by not calling for the death penalty for an adulterous woman. Today adultery is everywhere. A union between two believers is a rare blessing that should be honored. No one has the right or authority to say that God wants two Christian believers to separate from each other, thus tearing children and fathers and wives apart because they believe that they are hurting an adulterous previous non believing spouse who couldn't care less about his first wife or husband. If the Mennonite Churches had allowed the full body of Christ to come in, they would have shown mercy years ago. But like most denominations the full body of Christ is excluded.