EDITED: Baptist Divorce and remarriage, a hypothetical situation for discussion...

[Little_Mary]

There’s this guy, I’ll call him John Doe, who is married with two young children (age 3 and an infant). They are baptist, and he is even a deacon in his baptist church.

Enter “Jane”, the other woman whom John Doe begins having an affair with and ultimately, after over a year of cheating on his wife, divorces her and marries “Jane”. Jane is also protestant (point being that annulments are a non-issue for all parties involved, at least as far as they are concerned).

The years go by. The 3-year old grows up bitter because his dad left, dropped out of school, drugs, etc. The infant, a girl, is severly autistic and needs round the clock care.

John Doe and Jane’s “union” also proves to be a disaster, many fights and near break-ups over the years and John Doe has numerous affairs. But they remain together.

A few more years go by. John Doe’s christian faith is renewed by a group of fundamentalist christians he meets. He becomes immersed in scripture, sola scriptura defines his faith, prayer and he loves the Lord with all of his heart. It waxes and wanes, because he is human I suppose, and the affairs and fights with Jane continue regardless of his new relationship developing wtih God.

John Doe struggles with divorcing Jane and decides that he can never do that, because he knows what it means to make a covenant with God. He understands that covenants are permanent and never broken. Therefore, he can never leave Jane.

Question: what about his first marriage and the covenant made there?

He states with confidence that there is a passage in the bible that allowed him to divorce his first wife. He fails, however to produce chapter and verse.

He lives his life today in complete certainty that he is living in righteousness.

If you are still reading this, and interested, please discuss.

 

[1ke]

I don’t understand what you want to discuss.

 

[joanofarc2008]

It is the Protestant translation of Matthew 19:9.

The NAB translation says:

I say to you, 7 whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery."

The Protestant translation says:

I say to you, 7 whoever divorces his wife (except for fornication) and marries another commits adultery."

This comes down to the translation of the Greek word porneia which means unlawful.

 

[Leegal]

There’s this guy, I’ll call him John Doe, who is married with two young children (age 3 and an infant). They are baptist, and he is even a deacon in his baptist church.

Enter “Jane”, the other woman whom John Doe begins having an affair with and ultimately, after over a year of cheating on his wife, divorces her and marries “Jane”. Jane is also protestant (point being that annulments are a non-issue for all parties involved, at least as far as they are concerned).

The years go by. The 3-year old grows up bitter because his dad left, dropped out of school, drugs, etc. The infant, a girl, is severly autistic and needs round the clock care.

John Doe and Jane’s “union” also proves to be a disaster, many fights and near break-ups over the years and John Doe has numerous affairs. But they remain together.

A few more years go by. John Doe’s christian faith is renewed by a group of fundamentalist christians he meets. He becomes immersed in scripture, sola scriptura defines his faith, prayer and he loves the Lord with all of his heart. It waxes and wanes, because he is human I suppose, and the affairs and fights with Jane continue regardless of his new relationship developing wtih God.

John Doe struggles with divorcing Jane and decides that he can never do that, because he knows what it means to make a covenant with God. He understands that covenants are permanent and never broken. Therefore, he can never leave Jane.

Question: what about his first marriage and the covenant made there?

He states with confidence that there is a passage in the bible that allowed him to divorce his first wife. He fails, however to produce chapter and verse.

He lives his life today in complete certainty that he is living in righteousness.

If you are still reading this, and interested, please discuss.

I would ask him why the second marriage is a covenant, but not the first? Since I assume Baptists allow for divorce and remarriage, what keeps him with Jane when he left his first family so easily after engaging in an affair?

That he stays, yet continues to have affairs sounds like some kind of justification. That’s why he cannot produce the passage – or divorce his second wife, yet continues to have affairs, because there’s a conflict. He had no convenant with his first wife, but has one with the second who he repeatedly cheats on?

 

[Little_Mary]

I would ask him why the second marriage is a covenant, but not the first? Since I assume Baptists allow for divorce and remarriage, what keeps him with Jane when he left his first family so easily after engaging in an affair?

That he stays, yet continues to have affairs sounds like some kind of justification. That’s why he cannot produce the passage – or divorce his second wife, yet continues to have affairs, because there’s a conflict. He had no convenant with his first wife, but has one with the second who he repeatedly cheats on?

That is why I thought this might be an interesting discussion, but idk.

 

[Little_Mary]

It is the Protestant translation of Matthew 19:9.

The NAB translation says:

I say to you, 7 whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery."

The Protestant translation says:

I say to you, 7 whoever divorces his wife (except for fornication) and marries another commits adultery."

This comes down to the translation of the Greek word porneia which means unlawful.

He never offered this as an argument. He is either keeping it to himself, or he fully understands the meaning of “porneia” and would rather not discuss it.

 

[LoyalChristian]

A covenant with God is very serious. I have been apart from my spouse for several years, and I have continued to remain faithful.

 

[Leegal]

He never offered this as an argument. He is either keeping it to himself, or he fully understands the meaning of “porneia” and would rather not discuss it.

I suspect you are right – he’s keeping it to himself to justify staying in the second marriage for whatever reason. He’s comitting adultery and if he cites verse, you might then ask him why it is that he does makes it any different than divorcing the first wife? He might not want to hear you say, then Jane has grounds against you.

 

[PaulinVA]

It is the Protestant translation of Matthew 19:9.

The NAB translation says:

I say to you, 7 whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery."

The Protestant translation says:

I say to you, 7 whoever divorces his wife (except for fornication) and marries another commits adultery."

This comes down to the translation of the Greek word porneia which means unlawful.

Ha ha. He totally misunderstands this verse, however he wants to read it.

The “wronged” party can divorce due to fornication or unlawfullness (take your denominational pick) but not the person who did the bad thing!

Nowhere was the intention that if you want out of your marriage you commit adultery.

 

[Cavaradossi]

It is the Protestant translation of Matthew 19:9.

The NAB translation says:

I say to you, 7 whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery."

The Protestant translation says:

I say to you, 7 whoever divorces his wife (except for fornication) and marries another commits adultery."

This comes down to the translation of the Greek word porneia which means unlawful.

Nonsense. Porneia means sexual immorality. For example, James in Acts 15:20 says:
αλλα επιστειλαι αυτοις του απεχεσθαι απο των αλισγηματων των ειδωλων και της πορνειας και του πνικτου και του αιματος

Which translates into Latin as:

sed scribere ad eos ut abstineant se a contaminationibus simulacrorum et fornicatione et suffocatis et sanguine

And in English:

[BIBLEDRB]Acts 15:20[/Bibledrb]

Similarly, in Matthew 19:9, Christ says:

λεγω δε υμιν οτι ος αν απολυση την γυναικα αυτου ει μη επι πορνεια και γαμηση αλλην μοιχαται και ο απολελυμενην γαμησας μοιχαται

Which translates into Latin as:

dico autem vobis quia quicumque dimiserit uxorem suam nisi ob fornicationem et aliam duxerit moechatur et qui dimissam duxerit moechatur

And in English:

[bibledrb]Matthew 19:9[/bibledrb]

Either St. Jerome didn’t know what he was doing when he translated the Latin Vulgate or porneia most likely means sexual immorality.

 

[Little_Mary]

The “wronged” party can divorce due to fornication or unlawfullness (take your denominational pick) but not the person who did the bad thing!

To clarify, he was not the one to file for divorce. He did, however, conduct himself in such a manner so that his wife would file. He did this deliberately, by his own admission, so that the divorce would not be as hard on him financially.

I did not make that clear in my original post, sorry.

So what you say, quoted above, is that the protestant interpretation of the verse or…?

 

[Little_Mary]

Nonsense. Porneia means sexual immorality. For example, James in Acts 15:20 says:
αλλα επιστειλαι αυτοις του απεχεσθαι απο των αλισγηματων των ειδωλων και της πορνειας και του πνικτου και του αιματος

Which translates into Latin as:

sed scribere ad eos ut abstineant se a contaminationibus simulacrorum et fornicatione et suffocatis et sanguine

And in English:

[BIBLEDRB]Acts 15:20[/Bibledrb]

Similarly, in Matthew 19:9, Christ says:

λεγω δε υμιν οτι ος αν απολυση την γυναικα αυτου ει μη επι πορνεια και γαμηση αλλην μοιχαται και ο απολελυμενην γαμησας μοιχαται

Which translates into Latin as:

dico autem vobis quia quicumque dimiserit uxorem suam nisi ob fornicationem et aliam duxerit moechatur et qui dimissam duxerit moechatur

And in English:

[bibledrb]Matthew 19:9[/bibledrb]

Either St. Jerome didn’t know what he was doing when he translated the Latin Vulgate or porneia most likely means sexual immorality.

I undertand “porneia” to mean something like, you can’t marry your sister or your mother. In no way does it mean “adultry”.

Right?

 

[dcrowmik]

There’s this guy, I’ll call him John Doe, who is married with two young children (age 3 and an infant). They are baptist, and he is even a deacon in his baptist church.

Enter “Jane”, the other woman whom John Doe begins having an affair with and ultimately, after over a year of cheating on his wife, divorces her and marries “Jane”. Jane is also protestant (point being that annulments are a non-issue for all parties involved, at least as far as they are concerned).

Presuming he and his original wife were both baptized prior to their marriage and their marriage was properly performed according to the rights of whatever denomination they Christian denomination they belonged to, then the first marriage is still in force regardless of the divorce and subsequent remarriage.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I undertand “porneia” to mean something like, you can’t marry your sister or your mother. In no way does it mean “adultry”.

Right?

But then we would have to radically rethink James’ judgment in Acts 15:20. We would have to say that he’s not prohibiting all sexual immorality (the traditional interpretation of porneia), but only illegal marriages.

Furthermore, we can see that the Greek Fathers took porneia to mean adultery.

For example, St. Basil the Great writes this to Amphilochius concerning the canons (this letter, known as the first canonical epistle was approved at Trullo, and ratified by Second Nicaea).

The sentence of the Lord that it is unlawful to withdraw from wedlock, save on account of fornication, applies, according to the argument, to men and women alike. Custom, however, does not so obtain. Yet, in relation with women, very strict expressions are to be found; as, for instance, the words of the apostle “He which is joined to a harlot is one body” and of Jeremiah, If a wife “become another man’s shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted?” And again, “He that hath an adulteress is a fool and impious.” Yet custom ordains that men who commit adultery and are in fornication be retained by their wives. Consequently I do not know if the woman who lives with the man who has been dismissed can properly be called an adulteress; the charge in this case attaches to the woman who has put away her husband, and depends upon the cause for which she withdrew from wedlock. In the case of her being beaten, and refusing to submit, it would be better for her to endure than to be separated from her husband; in the case of her objecting to pecuniary loss, even here she would not have sufficient ground. If her reason is his living in fornication we do not find this in the custom of the church; but from an unbelieving husband a wife is commanded not to depart, but to remain, on account of the uncertainty of the issue. “For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband?” Here then the wife, if she leaves her husband and goes to another, is an adulteress. But the man who has been abandoned is pardonable, and the woman who lives with such a man is not condemned. But if the man who has deserted his wife goes to another, he is himself an adulterer because he makes her commit adultery; and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has caused another woman’s husband to come over to her.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf208.ix.clxxxix.html

He argues that while Christ’s words do say that a marriage can be dissolved for reason of adultery, when it is the man who commits adultery, it not the custom of the church that the woman should be allowed to leave the man (despite St. Basil’s interpretation that Christ’s words should apply equally to both woman and man), but that only the man should be allowed to leave the woman. Regardless of the peculiarities of divorce law in the Eastern Church, it seems rather clear that St. Basil interpreted Christ’s words in Matthew 19:9 to mean adultery, not incestuous or other unlawful marriages.

 

[LoyalChristian]

But then we would have to radically rethink James’ judgment in Acts 15:20. We would have to say that he’s not prohibiting all sexual immorality (the traditional interpretation of porneia), but only illegal marriages.

Furthermore, we can see that the Greek Fathers took porneia to mean adultery.

For example, St. Basil the Great writes this to Amphilochius concerning the canons (this letter, known as the first canonical epistle was approved at Trullo, and ratified by Second Nicaea).

The sentence of the Lord that it is unlawful to withdraw from wedlock, save on account of fornication, applies, according to the argument, to men and women alike. Custom, however, does not so obtain. Yet, in relation with women, very strict expressions are to be found; as, for instance, the words of the apostle “He which is joined to a harlot is one body” and of Jeremiah, If a wife “become another man’s shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted?” And again, “He that hath an adulteress is a fool and impious.” Yet custom ordains that men who commit adultery and are in fornication be retained by their wives. Consequently I do not know if the woman who lives with the man who has been dismissed can properly be called an adulteress; the charge in this case attaches to the woman who has put away her husband, and depends upon the cause for which she withdrew from wedlock. In the case of her being beaten, and refusing to submit, it would be better for her to endure than to be separated from her husband; in the case of her objecting to pecuniary loss, even here she would not have sufficient ground. If her reason is his living in fornication we do not find this in the custom of the church; but from an unbelieving husband a wife is commanded not to depart, but to remain, on account of the uncertainty of the issue. “For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband?” Here then the wife, if she leaves her husband and goes to another, is an adulteress. But the man who has been abandoned is pardonable, and the woman who lives with such a man is not condemned. But if the man who has deserted his wife goes to another, he is himself an adulterer because he makes her commit adultery; and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has caused another woman’s husband to come over to her.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf208.ix.clxxxix.html

He argues that while Christ’s words do say that a marriage can be dissolved for reason of adultery, when it is the man who commits adultery, it not the custom of the church that the woman should be allowed to leave the man (despite St. Basil’s interpretation that Christ’s words should apply equally to both woman and man), but that only the man should be allowed to leave the woman. Regardless of the peculiarities of divorce law in the Eastern Church, it seems rather clear that St. Basil interpreted Christ’s words in Matthew 19:9 to mean adultery, not incestuous or other unlawful marriages.

Thank you so much for that link. It is very helpful.

 

[rinnie]

There’s this guy, I’ll call him John Doe, who is married with two young children (age 3 and an infant). They are baptist, and he is even a deacon in his baptist church.

Enter “Jane”, the other woman whom John Doe begins having an affair with and ultimately, after over a year of cheating on his wife, divorces her and marries “Jane”. Jane is also protestant (point being that annulments are a non-issue for all parties involved, at least as far as they are concerned).

The years go by. The 3-year old grows up bitter because his dad left, dropped out of school, drugs, etc. The infant, a girl, is severly autistic and needs round the clock care.

John Doe and Jane’s “union” also proves to be a disaster, many fights and near break-ups over the years and John Doe has numerous affairs. But they remain together.

A few more years go by. John Doe’s christian faith is renewed by a group of fundamentalist christians he meets. He becomes immersed in scripture, sola scriptura defines his faith, prayer and he loves the Lord with all of his heart. It waxes and wanes, because he is human I suppose, and the affairs and fights with Jane continue regardless of his new relationship developing wtih God.

John Doe struggles with divorcing Jane and decides that he can never do that, because he knows what it means to make a covenant with God. He understands that covenants are permanent and never broken. Therefore, he can never leave Jane.

Question: what about his first marriage and the covenant made there?

He states with confidence that there is a passage in the bible that allowed him to divorce his first wife. He fails, however to produce chapter and verse.

He lives his life today in complete certainty that he is living in righteousness.

If you are still reading this, and interested, please discuss.

He like most protestants say that Moses allowed divorce. But they miss the part where Jesus said only for the hard at heart. That divorce is not permtted.

As you just stated he contradicted himself. He first says divorce is not permitted its a promise to God, then he says its permitted.

A classic way that people who fall from the Church also fall from the true teaching’s of Christ.

And as you see he is in a church where it accepts and allows his truth. But as we both know there is only one truth and that is Gods and God said NO DIVORCE.

But again if you read what you wrote he is really in an argument with himself.

 

[Nine_Two]

Liddell and Scott doesn’t list “unlawful” as a definition of porneia. Throughout the ages it seems to have always related to fornication or acts related to prostitution.

 

[rinnie]

Presuming he and his original wife were both baptized prior to their marriage and their marriage was properly performed according to the rights of whatever denomination they Christian denomination they belonged to, then the first marriage is still in force regardless of the divorce and subsequent remarriage.

Not in any protestant church’s I know of. I can tell you hundreds who get married over and over. I know one lady who got married 3 times in the protestant church.

My own best friend was married in the protestant church and then got remarried in it again. No Problem!!

I don’t know of anyone married and divorced in the protestant church that were told they could not remarry another.

 

[fbl9]

he that shall marry one who has been put away commits adultry…
how can one commit adultry with a divorced person if the previous marriage was dissolved?
Infidality in marriage by Jesus’s own words does not dissolve the marrital bond.
If we say Jesus is dissovling the marital bond because of adultry we are contradicting His own plan of marriage. it was not so from the beginning.

 

[Little_Mary]

He like most protestants say that Moses allowed divorce. But they miss the part where Jesus said only for the hard at heart. That divorce is not permtted.

As you just stated he contradicted himself. He first says divorce is not permitted its a promise to God, then he says its permitted.

A classic way that people who fall from the Church also fall from the true teaching’s of Christ.

And as you see he is in a church where it accepts and allows his truth. But as we both know there is only one truth and that is Gods and God said NO DIVORCE.

But again if you read what you wrote he is really in an argument with himself.

Yes. For me, it’s not about who he is or is not married to, it’s about his dodging and ducking the issue. I am trying very hard not to appear (or actually be) judgmental,

…but at the same time it is very difficult for me to accept that someone would pretend things are fine when they are, by their OWN words/beliefs/teachings, not fine.

My business? Not really. But again, is he for real? Do people like this really exist? Really? I can’t get my head around it.