A Mennonite view of divorce and remarriage

[GaryK]

So you think these two situations refer to an illegitimate divorce?

Luke 16:18
“Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.

Yes - I think you need to combine all the similar statements from the Gospels here, which brings in the exception clause. I think this is a valid principle:

In my law practice, if I’m reading two contracts between the same parties involving the same subject matter, but one provides more details than the other, I naturally give credence to the details that are included in the one but omitted from the other, and any court would do the same; it’s simple common sense. To give the abbreviated account precedence over the detailed one would be absurd.

So if it wasn't a valid divorce He's referring to then it would follow that the "marriages" referred to in the passage are equally not valid, correct? What would keep this from falling into the adultery category Paul refers to?

[Bootstrap]

Let me reconstruct something I did a long time ago, bringing in all of the clauses from all of the Gospels on this topic. I really need to get other things done today, so it won't be today, but I think this is the right way to go about it.

Each of the Gospel passages fills in one part of the picture that the others do not.

[temporal1]

"A Mennonite view of divorce and remarriage."
sadly, that did not last long.

i have eagerly enjoyed learning about CM view(s) and sincerely believe the world would be so much better off if these views would (again) become commonly known, rather than (the "exception.")

as is the case with attempting to learn languages like Latin and Greek, attempting to return to the earliest church comes with challenges. i.e., attempting to understand in context of the day.

imho, in today's world, it would actually be far easier for people to remain single and celibate after divorce ..

in former times, even just 100 years ago, it was really-really hard to run a home without both man and wife. women had few opportunities to work outside the home, men had to work outside the home, home and children require care. today, there are more work opps, plus all the conveniences of modern life, plus, subsidies for food, healthcare, etc., that did not formerly exist.

another reality is that romantic love as we think of it today, was not the "end-all" motivation for marriage in all of history. marriage represented more than romance (than it does in modern thinking.)

imho, just as there is no "conversational Latin," i'm not convinced there is "conversational" remarriage, as understood in today's self-at-center world.

i'll repeat, for me, Hosea and Gomer represent God's view on marriage. no divorce, no remarriage.
true, even when using Hosea and Gomer as an analogy for God and Israel, and, using Hosea as an OT prophesy of Jesus Christ to come.

God removed Gomer for a period - until she came to repentence.
Hosea did not use that time to divorce. after sincere repentance, the marriage was restored.

(for me) anyone considering divorce would benefit from thoroughly studying Hosea.
who was ever more betrayed, more abandoned, more neglected-rejected than Hosea?
he remained faithful to God, he was rewarded.

he had legal options. others considered him "nuts." he chose God, did not focus on Gomer's failures. he was not looking for justification to make another choice. he was rewarded.

i do not believe it's more difficult to choose the narrow way today than it was then.
i believe it's logistically far easier.
sadly, at center, we prefer our will, not God's.

[lesterb]

I've gotten way behind with this thread, due to other constraints, but I read it through this morning. Thanks for the discussion.

I think it partly comes back to our definition of the permanence of marriage. That's a major discussion in the ultra conservative groups. One side believes that only your marriage to your original partner is a marriage, unless that partner dies. So any relationship with someone else is adultery. You can read a discussion of this view on my blog.

The other view side believes that both the first marriage and the second marriage are binding. But since the second marriage is adulterous, it needs to be abandoned. But it also makes returning to the first marriage adultery.

That's a fairly serious generalization, but it gives the idea. The EPMC and about two thirds of the NWF, as well as about half of Beachy would agree with the second view or some variant of it.

I feel that too often the focus goes to remarriage in these discussions, rather than remaining on divorce. The Pharisees were not asking if it's okay to remarry. They were asking if it is okay to divorce. And that is the question that Jesus answered. Going beyond that is actually arguing from silence and using men's reasoning.

I will admit that the Pharisee's may have been assuming that divorce meant the freedom to remarry. But that is going beyond the context of the discussion. Jesus said that divorce is wrong, except for unfaithfulness. Paul added abandonment to that equation. BUT NEITHER OF THEM SAID A WORD ABOUT WHETHER THIS INCLUDED THE RIGHT TO REMARRY OR NOT. When you say that these scriptures "assume" this right, you are making an assumption based on silence.

Assumptions based on silence are pretty dicey at the best of times. When there is a chance that they might lead you into adultery, then this is doubly true.

Jesus also did say that "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

Then there is also the question about whether the second "divorce" isn't wrong because of all this. However, if you believe in the first view I gave above, then it really isn't divorce in God's eyes to separate from your second partner. It is simply leaving a sinful state. In most cases going back to your first partner isn't an option.

From a humanitarian perspective, this could lead to tremendous suffering. But the way of the transgressor is hard. This is where it is absolutely necessary for God's people to step into the gap and provide the support needed. This is the same thing we require of any sinful state. If you are a killer, a thief, or living common-law, we say that the sinner must repent and forsake his sin. Why not adultery?

Thanks to all of you who have pitched in help clarify the OP. I don't want this thread to be one of condemnation. However, I felt that the direction being taken by the Anabaptist view of Divorce... thread was leading to some unbiblical conclusions and thought that should be counter balanced for readers who might find the thread on Google, etc.

Maybe I should have entitled this thread, A Biblical View of Divorce and Remarriage, but that seemed a bit too egotistical.

[lesterb]

Boot: I cut and pasted Thayer's definition directly from my computer Bible.

[Ernie]

Let me reconstruct something I did a long time ago, bringing in all of the clauses from all of the Gospels on this topic.

While you are working on that, perhaps the rest of us can make note of what we are confident God is pleased with.
We could spend the rest of our lives looking at all the possible allowances and exceptions for divorce and/or remarriage and miss giving our lives to the very things that Jesus was intending to promote.

A. What can we be confident God is pleased with?
1. One man and one woman who love each other unselfishly for life.
2. Spouses who seek to win over an estranged spouse by living celibate, chaste, and love filled lives.
(The winning may result in marriage reconciliation or it may mean helping an estranged spouse come to know Jesus.
3. People who recognize adultery as sin, and are willing to repent of it.

What else?

[temporal1]

lester, i wondered if you had worded your subject line, "A Conservative Mennonite's view of divorce and remarriage," it might have made a difference?

i agree, this is what most folks will be looking for when reading this thread.
i.e., the uncommon view.

[Bootstrap]

What can we be confident God is pleased with?
1. One man and one woman who love each other unselfishly for life.

Absolutely.

2. Spouses who seek to win over an estranged spouse by living celibate, chaste, and love filled lives.
(The winning may result in marriage reconciliation or it may mean helping an estranged spouse come to know Jesus.
3. People who recognize adultery as sin, and are willing to repent of it.

If (2) means hoping you can convince your ex to divorce their current spouse and come back to you, that's divorcing a current spouse to marry another, something God is not pleased with. If (3) means divorcing your current spouse, who is not committing adultery, I don't think God is pleased with this.

So I would be careful about using overly pious language to describe these things. I do not think God is pleased by divorce.

[Bootstrap]

We could spend the rest of our lives looking at all the possible allowances and exceptions for divorce and/or remarriage and miss giving our lives to the very things that Jesus was intending to promote.

I agree. And fundamentally, Jesus was telling us to be faithful to our spouses.

I'm suspicious when people start making allowances and exceptions that say some marriages don't count. The New Testament never says that. There's no indication that the early church did either.

[temporal1]

does God recognize homosexual marriage?
they say it can be humanly legal, but, human legalities are not the topic in this thread?

in this thread, all remarriages outside of death of the first spouse, are in question.
which is interesting, in the very least.