Had a long discussion with my cousin tonight(also an Aggie) who is considering leaving his new wife of 2 years to re-marry the mother of his children as he believes he would be following Biblical instruction.

Thoughts?

wow

That is tough. On the one hand, you have the mother of his children, while on the other, you have him leaving for another woman.

The Bible certainly does not advocate this (to my knowledge). I think once a divorce is final and either spouse has moved on and remarried, there is no going back unless his current spouse is unfaithful or passes away.

This is a mess, but I would tell him it is not Biblical to leave his current wife. If the issue is financial, he is definitely obligated to support his ex-wife and their kids, as well as be active in his kids' lives.

quote:

---

he believes he would be following Biblical instruction.

---

Therein lies the problem. This guys needs somebody to instruct him on biblical instruction.

I bet this guy thinks he made a mistake and now thinks that his new wife isn't exactly what she was originally cracked out to be.

Why did he leave his first wife in the first place?

Will the first wife actually take him back?

Oh what tangled webs are weaved....

From my vantage point vantage point they had huge problems over her total obsession and inability to separate herself from her parents/sisters. They have two daughters. Anytime we spoke when they were married all dinner meals were eaten commune style at her parents house with the other sisters families there as well. Their oven did look brand new after two years. All vacations were with her family, never with his. Her entire focus was on her parents/sisters and their two daughters. He confided in me that over the 5 years they were together, they were intimate exactly 12 times in 5 years. She would not kiss him, hold his hand, and I jokingly called him sure shot since out of 12 times he had two children.

She told him she wanted a divorce almost every day, according to him for the last 2 years they were married. From the time I was around her she was definitely spoiled and had an air of superiority about her. I know my cousin well and he was/is a doting father. He called once when they were married totally despondent that he had married someone that didn't love him.

I do think he let her run over him and told him so. His position was he wouldn't have taken that crap off of her except for the kids he was trying to keep from fighting in front of his girls so would generally do anything to keep the peace.

At any rate they did divorce and he did wind up beating the exact opposite of her. She is giving, unselfish and seems like a devoted wife. She teaches sunday school to 7th graders.

Now his ex wants him back. She tells him they should remarry because of the girls and now admits she was a terrible wife and blames herself for his infidelity.

I told him to tell his ex that it's wonderful that she has matured and to use that when/if she remarries someday but that for them, it's too late since he is now remarried.

Sorry this is so long, just trying to tell the story as I see it. He's confused about what he should do. Says he loves his wife but wants to do what God would have him do. I think some of this is guilt over his infidelity and just missing his daughters when they are not there.

I've also told him to meet with his minister.

[This message has been edited by Reload8098 (edited 1/8/2008 3:22p).]

Under NO circumstances should this man get back with her...what a selfish woman. I don't believe she's changed at all. Any woman who would only sleep with her husband 12 times in 5 years is no wife.

What a horrible, dependent selfish woman she was and is. Let him be happy, quit feeling ANY guilt whatsoever and finally get on with his life and new wife and love his children.

I will pray for this man to have the strength to not return to her.

When he remarried, he severed the ties to his first wife completely. He cannot reverse it. Any argument for returning to the first wife to right past wrongs only compound things, because he would be repeating those same errors with the second wife. You do not fix your sinful past by committing further sin. You truly repent and move on. His best step will to try to be a good, active father to his two daughters from that first marriage, but any effort to restore that marriage at this point wrongs the second wife, not to mention wrongs God.

thanks for your thoughts, he's agreed to come speak to my minister tomorrow, who's wonderful.

quote:

---

You do not fix your sinful past by committing further sin.

---

Exactly.

There was a less than perfect ending to the 1st marriage, so the error should not be compounded by doing it again.

Plus, it sounds like the woman needs lots of counseling and psychiatric help.

Sad story, what a raw deal for the second wife, who sounds like she is probably a pretty decent lady. She has done nothing to deserve that. IMHO he needs to be a good father while with his second wife.

Reload, does he admit residual feelings for his ex- wife, or is he saying that it's "just for the kids"?
That's the part that rings false with me. Maybe if I knew him, I wouldn't think that.

I can see a position where he believes that he was abandoning his wife and committing adultery with the new woman, and is therefore returning or repenting of this. The problem lies with his marriage commitment to this new wife. There seems to be no good answer, but I suppose since there are kids with this first wife, and apparently none with this new wife, it might be better to go back. It doesn’t seem like anybody else on this anonymous message board agrees with this though.

He is probably thinking of this verse:

Matthew 19:9 "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."


[This message has been edited by Notafraid (edited 1/9/2008 2:57p).]

Does he think his kids will somehow magically be straighted out by reconciling with his former wife?

The real victim here would be the new wife.

I am divorced and remarried. Although I can't state that I had nothing to do with the divorce, I can say I "left it all on the field" in trying to prevent it.

If my ex were to want to reconcile with me, she would be met with a less than Christian laughing fit in her face.

I am married to my wife, and my previous marriage could not possibly be more "over". God have mercy on me, a poor sinner in need of a redeemer.

except for immorality

Sounds like there was some of that going on at both ends...

Interesting translation posted of that critical passage in Matthew. All translations I have seen indicate "immorality" as you have typed to be some combination of words to indicate sexual immorality or marital unfaithfulness or adultery. And I would argue that this is the correct translation of the greek word "porneia". Just a generic "immorality" is not at all intended by this passage of scripture.

Therein lies the answer to me. If they divorced (granted by our government) they are still not divorced in God's eyes --- unless it also meets the condition of this greek word "porneia". That initial marital contract stands (again in God's eyes) although our civil courts may render a piece of paper that says differently. If it did not still stand, why or how would it then be considered adultery after the piece of paper from our court has been issued?

This is a tough situation. I agree with that. It speaks to the care and consideration we should make before entering such a contract as marriage. I am most likely in the minority here, but unless his ex-wife(civilly and for description purposes only so that we can understand who I am referring to) has had sexual relations with another man (the porneia clause again!) since they separated, he has no grounds to divorce her (again, in God's eyes) and he should still be bound to her by contract. He is not really married to his current "wife" (again, in God's eyes -- I know our civil government considers them as married).

Agree with Reno if you are wanting to know what God says in his word.

Reno's right.

there are 2 parts to a marriage. The civil and the spiritual. A divocre ends only the civil.

If the marriage was valid in the first place (which, this sounds like it might not have been - she seems to have been holding back some vital aspects of herself - both physically and psycologically) - then the spiritual marriage cannot be ended. Thats where an annulment comes in. An annulment is the church stating that there even though there was a civil marriage, there was no spiritual marriage. There are MANY gounds for annulment, one of which is that either or both spouses believe in divorce.

So, I'd say its a tricky situation.

From your discription of their marriage, it sounds to me like there WAS no spiritual marriage in the 1st place. How ever, it is still adultury for him to be remarried without the first marriage being annuled.

adultery?

if you want to understand the fruits of a Catholic-based policy that doesn't allow for divorce, look to the Phillipines.

Reno ..... a question for you. What officially makes one married in the eyes of God to begin with? I ask only because if the divorce as given by the government may not be recognized by God, the marriage recognized by the government may also not be recognized by God.

What makes one married in the eyes of God?

Don't go back. His ex-wife is coveting the spouse of another.

Based on what I read, his first wife wasn't committed to her new family. IMO, that is grounds for an annulment. In addition, if you believe your sins can be forgiven, either directly from God or through a priest or minister, than the divorce can be forgiven. Forgiven doesn't mean having to go back.

Great question.

Let me state clearly and up front that I find no passage of scripture that makes qualification for what ceremony, procedure, vow, or list of words to be spoken constitutes the beginning of a marriage in the eyes of God.

However, and this is my opinion only, any statement of intent to be married in whatever form of ceremony, however simple or extravagant, whether in a church building, country club, JOP office, or Elvis chapel, is sufficient to accomplish the beginning of a marriage - in God's eyes. This assumes that both parties are eligible to enter into such a contract, ie. not already married. For practical purposes, before couples say their vows (which is a custom in our culture - but not scripturally commanded), some statement is usually made that such vows are being made before family, friends, witnesses and in the presence of *God*. So in our culture, a specific reference is usually made.

I'll even go so far as to say that a ceremony or witnesses is not even necessary. That if the man and woman, all by themselves and in the presence of no other person(s), make this commitment to be married to each other, the contract has been formed in God's eyes. Our governement may not recognize it but it would be there nonetheless. All parties necessary to form and consent to the contract would have been present.

In short, the absence of specific instruction in the scriptures on how to accomplish the beginning of a marriage necessarily gives us as humans broad latitude to accomplish it in any such way as we deem fitting. But however we choose to accomplish it makes it no less binding or the contract less valid.

I know this much -- I would not want to meet the Creator and argue about whether my marriage was valid based on some sort of technicality. That we were just kidding around or our fingers were crossed or what the definition of "is" is.

To address an issue that came up in a post after my original, I do not find provision in the scriptures for "annulment" for any reason. Nor do I find any sort of consummation clause in the scriptures either. The existence of the marriage contract is not dependent on when or I daresay if sexual relations occurs. The only clause I find to end a marriage in the scriptures before one of the parties dies has already been mentioned - unfaithfulness(adultery).

Again, I realize I am probably in the minority on this issue. It makes me neither wrong nor right. The scriptures are what they are. I would encourage anyone to study what they say before making any sort of decision in regard to this subject. But again, it speaks to the care we should give before making our decision about who we marry.

Let me add another biblical principle that has been brought out.

Forgiveness is always dependent on repentance. In this case as mentioned in the beginning of this thread, if the man is comitting adultery by being "married" to the 2nd "wife" he is not repenting by staying with her. He is continuing to commit adultery. I see no repentance if it continues.

Let me state again. I do not know what the "ex" wife has done since they became separated. Perhaps she committed adultery too. I don't know and don't pretend to know. But if we make some assumptions, we can make some applications. If those assumptoins don't apply, then neither does the application.

Again I agree with Reno. Being married before God is simply commitment/promise between a man and a woman to be together till death.

Reno, as I stated previously, I am a divorced and remarried man. The circumstances of my divorce and remarriage aren't germane to the discussion, except to say that infidelity was not part of the equation to my knowledge.

Being divorced and remarried, I am probably particularly sensitive to this topic, but that said, I feel that you are painting with an awfully broad brush without scriptural support for much of your opinions on this subject.

It is dangerous, in my opinion, to make sweeping generalizations without an understanding of circumstances. I think it's an especially dangerous stance to take, without scriptural support, to suggest that the man in question on this thread is committing unrepentant adultery by sleeping with his wife, and suggesting (as I read your opinion, which may be wrong) that repentance means abandoning his wife and reconciling with his ex. If this is not what you are suggesting, please accept my apologies for my lack of understanding.

As for me: God will judge me and my actions, and it is only through the grace of my redeemer that I will be found righteous in His eyes.

Tech:

I find the scriptural references both interesting and perplexing. What I really derive from them is a belief the Christ was discouraging it, but he did not disallow it.

It is interesting that Catholics must resort to difficult machinations to explain it. So sometimes, there's no explanation except that two people can't make it work for whatever reason.

For whatever its worth:

As I have stated on previous threads, I believe that Christ gave the Apostles the power to bind and to loose.I believe, also, that that authority has been passed down by and through the Apostles to the bishops.YMMV.

Canon Law states that a marriage is forever. The Church (mine) is not in the business of giving divorces. But the goal is , after all, to save souls.

The bishops have the authority, the Church states, to apply the law strictly (akribeia) or leniently (oikonomia).

If there is a marriage that is so toxic, so abusive, so harmful mentally, physically and spiritually ,that a soul is embittered or lost, what has been gained?

How many instances have we heard of women who have murdered their spouses because they couldn't get out of a marriage? Granted, these were not all because the church said they couldn't get a divorce. But for whatever reason,staying in the marriage led to greater harm than its dissolution would have, maybe even the loss of salvation. And how many children have witnessed the cruelty or abandonment and lost faith forever.

The church has mercy on those who have suffered in a marriage. Not, I assure you, just, 'I'm not happy". But Canon Law may be applied leniently in these cases. I believe Christ has provided for that, as I said, by his conferring on his Apostles the power to bind and to loose.
My church says, in essence, get a civil divorce to get you out of the toxic situation, and then the Church will affirm or deny , according to the circumstances of the case,whether you can go on to another marriage.

I have said all that to say that I do not believe Christ ever meant for that law to apply without any mitigation or mercy.
That's my churches teaching.

Leaving your spouse is allowed in the NT. Remarriage except for sexual immorality is not.

Matt 19:9 is pretty black and white. Verse 5 is the original intent. If you can find another scripture that gives other reasons for remarriage, please show us.

1 Cor 7 allows one to leave and unbelieving spouse but it does not allow them to remarry.

Romans 7 only gives the reason of death for remarriage.

Luke 16:18Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery. (no exception given, sorry for the KJV)

P.S. I am not catholic, not even close. Annulment is not mentioned in the NT (to my knowledge).

But, BBDP, you don't believe in Apostolic Succession and I do. So that is the difference.
I believe that the bishops have the authority, from Christ, to apply the law leniently if they see the necessity.

I should point out that you should consult 1st scripture, second your conscience, then a fortune teller, and use a magic 8 ball as a last resort.

(last two = not serious)


There is no good answer here, but it does not seem that reconciliation with a wife with questionable motives and commitment would make things better, for either of you. I do however realize doing the right thing does not always equal doing the easy thing.


So remember, all the advice in the world won't equal a search of the scripture, and your earnest, true search for doing things right by God. I hope your answer comes to you soon.

God bless.

My opinion would be to not divorce again....what is done is done.

Reconcile as friends after a remarriage, but, no to divorcing a second time..

He could become a Mormon and just keep them both!

He should stay with the wife he has now and repent of his past sins, because if he leaves the woman he is with now and she remarries he has caused her to comitt adultry.

At the other end of the spectrum....did he really "cleave unto his wife"? Did they become "one"?

Sounds to me like they were ships passing in the night, with a couple of stops to pick up passengers. I do not claim to know the answers, since this gentleman must work out his own "salvation" in the matter, but it sure is thought provoking. The Scripture does address marriage, but I don't now if there are any "thou shalt's...." in there except the Commandments, and Our Lord's definition of adultery, which points back at the Commandment against adultery. Which is why I framed my questions in the first paragraph the way I did. Some basic understandings have to be in place before the problem can be properly addressed from a Scriptural standpoint.

Any way you cut it, there is a Scriptural, and probably a very large Spiritual problem at hand.....and I don't think there is an answer that is cut and dried. So when in doubt, pray.

The secular question has been addressed, and it is only a matter of him making a decision as to whether or not he wishes to return to that which he left. See how easy it is?

david

Tech -

I fully understand the sensitive nature of this topic. It is one of many that affects more of my family and friends than I care to think about. And it is one of several topics that I wish I could be convinced the scriptures say something other than what I believe them to say. But I refuse to let my own personal desires cause me to inject my own voice into what the scriptures say.

I believe my position is fully supported by scripture with regard to divorce and remarriage. We have already mentioned the passage that gives the condition under which the marriage contract can be dissolved -- adultery. If there are additional scriptures that pertain that would allow for other circumstances or conditions to dissolve the marriage contract, please show them to me. I find no others. What have I stated, let alone much of it, is as you call it "unsupported"?

My position with the limited knowledge given by the original post, qualified by the assumption that the wife has not commited adultery, (again I point out that I do not know if that is the case or not) is that there is no real marriage contract to the 2nd "wife". Why? Because the man is still contractually bound to the 1st. I would add that reconciliation is preferred. But in the event no such reconciliation occurs, it still does not free one from the initial contract to become "remarried". I know that is not a popular position in this "so long as we both shall love" society.

I will add if it is not already obvious that I believe the scriptures to be the only source we have for authority in spiritual matters. If one believes that a church, man, committee etc. has the authority to grant otherwise, then obviously that will have a bearing on this topic as well as every other and it is a much greater topic for discussion than just a marriage/divorce/re-marriage issue. I have no desire to go down that road on this thread.