Marriage, Divorce, and ReMarriage.. Toward a Biblical Perspective

l

Hi bigdaveusaWhat do you have in mind? In my posting on the other forum I tried to open out the whole question of marriage and divorce and I think some others tried to address more your unique situation. It is always difficult with e-mails to decide how completely a subject should be tackled; the dangers are 'too deep' or 'too superficial'. This topic has taken whole books in the past and it seems your choices (as regards posting) are snap decisions or long explanations. I began one of the latter but it is heavy going for a forum.I would like to hear some biblically justified definitions of 'marriage' from folks on this site. As I said in the forum, this is where the trail starts. When we have defined 'marriage' we can define 'divorce' and then examine 're-marriage'.

Ron, I agree with your assessment of the posts on the other thread. I would like to go in depth and hear all of the arguments from all perpectives. I printed out your last post on the other thread and am perusing it. I think that this is a worthy topic to rehash with deliberation. So......I do have to agree with what I saw Matthew and Keith post. I tend to take the narrow view and am more than willing to err on the side of caution, not wanting to offend God. That's is where I am at, but I would like to see some scholarly debate about the topic. Thanks.

... but I would like to see some scholarly debate about the topic. Thanks."Scholary debate" huh? Would that exclude me? I don't have a degree or anything. Actually, I'm a little lost here. What other thread are you guys talking about? What exactly is the question concerning marriage, divorce and remarriage?A definition of marriage was requested. Well, what about the one given from the very beginning of time - Genesis 2:24?"Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh."When religious leaders asked questions about marriage in the New Testament, wasn't this verse referred to? I think it may have even been when they were asking about the grounds of divorce and the law of Moses.Then there's those famous verses in Ephesians that every husband and wife loves - Ephesians 5:21-33. Hey, what do you know! Paul quotes Genesis 2:24 in those verses. That must be a pretty good definition of marriage then. And like Ephesians 5 says, Christ's love for the church is a pretty good definition for human marriage relationships.That's all I have for now.

Hi YodiHere's The Other Thread that you asked about, and I don't have a degree either so you will be in good company.

ID

If your marriage was a covenant relationship, then don't remarry...(Having put your hand to the plow).......if however you entered foolishly into a marriage and it meant nothing, then you are not under a covenant..........only you can decide whether you were in covenant.........that's it for now, but if you need further counsel e-mail choctaw@intergate.com

Christopheryou write only you can decide whether you were in covenant.I think this is a mistaken point of view. A covemant is a binding agreement between at least two parties. It is not a matter of personal decision or opinion. How does a covenant stand when one party decides it never existed but the other party decides it did?I am all for 'covenant' but I think you will be hard pressed to illustrate your point from the scriptures. Let your 'yea be yea' is a statement signifying that every sentance I speak has all the power of an 'oath' in it. I don't know about the US and Canada but in the UK a civil marriage is a 'covenant' making function. In law it is regarded as a solemn agreement and instantly changes laws of inheritance due to changes in next-of-kin. It doesn't matter how frivolously it was entered into it is still a life changing 'covenant'.

I am greatly concerned by Christopher's poast. The one verse he alluded to is a clear refference not to mairage, but to those who sought to follow after Christ as desciples. I am sorry that I can provide no more at the present time than I did on the other thread.Just that we must always judge our feelings and thoughts and desires by the BIBLE! THE BIBLE THE BIBLE THE BIBLE THE BIBLE!!!!!we must start and end there

I would like to hear some biblically justified definitions of 'marriage' from folks on this site. As I said in the forum, this is where the trail starts. When we have defined 'marriage' we can define 'divorce' and then examine 're-marriage'.I'll make a start on marriage by asking a question :-D , what is the difference in Genesis between a "woman" and a "wife"? the hebrew word is the same yet woman is used like "the woman" and wife is used like "his wife".How were people "married" back then?

Hi Nasherthe difference is 'his'. By using the possessive pronoun both Hebrew and Greek create a 'his woman' or 'her man' concept which the KJV usually translates as 'husband' or 'wife'. There is no biblical Greek equivalent single word for 'husband' or 'wife' as far as I am aware.

Hey thanks for that link there 'philologos'. I accidently started a new thread titled "Thee Old & New Life" in response to this whole debate.I don't know how to fix it, sorry. Maybe I'll copy and paste it all in here? Or maybe you guys can all go over there and read it? That would be nice. Thanks.

So how were people married back in the days of Adam etc?

Hi Nasheryou ask So how were people married back in the days of Adam etc?This is a good question. It is clear that there was no wedding service; no officiating minister or witnesses were available. No legal formalities were possible. There is something in Genesis 2 which shows that the Scripture is looking forwards at this point; there is a reference to a man leaving his father and his mother. Adam and Eve had neither, so this is clearly in the Scripture for the benefit of subsequent generations. Your question implies a point of marriage and we have no biblical data to enable a definitive answer to that particular question. However there are principals here in Genesis 2:24 which are part of the original revelation; things as they were "from the beginning". This is the phrase that Jesus uses in Matthew 19:8.God's plan was clearly that the human couple were to enjoy a unifying experience. Adam was one, who became two. In some measure the experience would make the two, one again. They would become "one flesh". We should note that "flesh" at this point can have no negative connotations, but is clearly an experience that includes the physical. Consequently there are three elements of "marriage" that may be identified.1. "a man shall leave his father and his mother". The old relationship must be ended, marriage is not an additional experience but a unique one. There is the phrase in the letter to the Hebrew's that comes to mind; He takes away the first that he may establish the second. This is very different to the Roman pattern of marriage where the woman became part of the family of the husband's father. This is a brand-new family unit. This is clearly a very deliberate act too, not a casual or creeping change. The Scripture actually says the man shall leave...is this does not mean that he would move into his wife's family home from his own parents. It is just making the point that the first step in the creation of a new relationship is separation from an old relationship. I think there's a deep psychological implication to this first step, many a man never leaves his mother and the new relationship is almost inevitably doomed. It is important to notice the element of choice, the subject of the sentence is "a man". The "leaving" is the man's choice, this introduces the element of consent. This has its equivalent in the UK civil marriage form where the parties declare legally that they are eligible to marry; there are no competing relationships.2. "And he shall cleave and to his wife" "cleave" is a great word. The NASB uses the word "joined" but this is an anaemic word, without the necessary passion. "Cleave" signifies to claim, stick to, adhere to, overtake, catch. In the story of Shetland and diner the NASB has "He was deeply attracted to Dinah the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the girl and spoke tenderly to her." (Gen 34:3 NASB) He was more than "deeply attracted" to Dinah, he was besotted with her, his soul had been captured. With the same finality with which he "left" his father and his mother and a man must now "cleave" to his wife. I have commented previously that Hebrew (and Greek) does not have a single specific word for "wife" or "husband". The desired effect is achieved by using the word for "man" or "one" and adding the necessary personal pronoun, 'his' or 'her'. Literally, this sentence reads "and shall cleave to his woman". This may seem a little blunt that it is a very powerful statement. This woman will become "his" woman. This is an exclusive statement, this woman will become exclusively "his". (If this way of expression seems chauvinistic please remember that we are viewing this relationship from one side; this is an Adam's viewpoint way of expression) The point is that these two people will belong to each other exclusively. This also has its equivalent in the UK civil marriage form where each party formally 'takes' the other as their husband/wife. Incidentally, the UK marriage law still defines 'marriage' as the exclusive union of a man and a woman for the period of their natural lives; sadly the reality is often very different.3. "And they shall become one flesh" (NASB) the NASB is better here than the KJV which simply says "be". This can be understood that in different ways. Does it mean that point 1 and 2 automatically produce point 3. In other words, does "leaving" and "cleaving" automatically create "one flesh"? Or does it mean that point 1 and 2 must be followed by point 3? Is point 3, the sexual union, now permissible because point 1 and 2 are already in place? My instinct is that point 3, consummation, is now legitimate as a result of points 1 and 2 having been fulfilled.If all three are genuine elements of marriage, if provokes a question in my mind. The 'officiating minister'... 'now pronounces you husband and wife'. Does he have any authority to do so without point 3?Perhaps this is enough to think over before we add more to it.

Hi Ron, this verse from Genesis 2:24 is quoted 3 times in the NT, all 3 times the word for "shall be / shall become" are in the future tense, therefore I would say you are correct in saying that points 1 & 2 must come first.Where would these points come in a modern day marriage / wedding?i.e. When would the man "leave" his mother and father? when would he "cleave" to his women?

Hi Nasheryou write Where would these points come in a modern day marriage / wedding?i.e. When would the man "leave" his mother and father? when would he "cleave" to his women?This is getting into the mechanics of 'marriage' which I think needs real care. I have been trying to identify the principle elements in the bible concept of marriage. Let's wait a while to see what others have to say before. The bible has very little to say about 'weddings' but the concept of 'marriage' is certainly biblical. We have a way of thinking that a 'wedding' is necessary to a 'marriage'; can we justify that biblically?Thanks for your note of the future tense use of 'shall become one flesh'. It is helpful.

If all three are genuine elements of marriage, if provokes a question in my mind. The 'officiating minister'... 'now pronounces you husband and wife'. Does he have any authority to do so without point 3?Curiosity: is any kind of minister ever Biblically invested with the authority to declare a marriage? Is it not God who does the joining? Or is the minister acting on behalf of God? Biblically?Also, the minster's declaration "you may now kiss the bride" would seem to be the point where the man has moral access to his woman, thus the third point of the marriage cannot have legitimately taken place before the ceremony. On the other hand, the "bride-kissing" part seems to be an imported Roman custom with a different background.Another thing I've wondered about is how Jesus' forbiddence of oaths/vows/etc meshes with the concept of "wedding vows."It's all very confusing. :)Matthew 19:10 The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."1 Corinthians 7:28 But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this. The "troubles" I have in mind are probably different from either what the disciples or Paul thought, but sometimes I readily identify with those statements.

I have been searching and searching for a decent exegesis of the scriptures relating to this topic. I have found something that I can say really made a lot of sense It can be found here:http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/ds/q0806/q0806.htmlIt's much too big to reprint here, but is a fairly exhaustive treatment....For what it's worth. It was a big help to me. I'd appreciate some feedback if anyone wants to check it out. Thanks!

Regarding the recent ruling of same-sex marriages, and the 3 points that Ron has made in regards to what a marriage constitutes, are these people actually getting married?...in the eyes of God?