Do biblical literalists think divorce and remarriage is a sin?

Great Debates
21

(emphasis mine)

But strangely enough, nobody noticed these possible interpretations in the past when divorce was rare or unexisting and frowned upon. Religious folks just considered divorce as forbidden by the scriptures. They just took the most obvious references at face value. And did so for centuries. Actually, divorce was rare/unexistanrt because the churches were forbidding it.
Now, divorce is culturally accepted. At first, people had to oppose the churches, the christian teachers and preachers. This cultural evolution happened despite and against the opposition of these institutions and people. As usual. And now, when the practice becomes mainstream and common, still as usual, the churches and their representants, accustomed to this new norm, begin to search for some valid religious justification for it.
Organized religions have to evolve and adapt to their social environment, or die… :wink:

22

Since when?

Surely, there should have been plenty of divorces on such ground during the last 2000 years? Divorce should have been an accepted and probably regulated practice, don’t you think?
Or did litteralist christians only realize recently that they have been wrong all the way? Was it some sort of inspiration suddenly sent by God, eventually pissed off that after so much time, christians still seemed unable to understand correctly his words?

23

And by the way, I’m waiting for the next creative litteralist interpretation. Will it allow gay marriages? Or forbid eating meat? It’s everybody’s guess…

24

Since Jesus said it was okay for the grounds of adultery.

25

It’s not a creative interpretation. Let me show you the very words themselves:

That’s the literal part. The creative interpretatio, I suppose, is whatever it was that was brought into the issue that held that no matter what no divorce is permitted.

BTW, I’m far from being a literalist. I’m just pointing out that a literalist view that divorce is permitted for adultery is not creative.

26

It is not my place to decide what is sin to another man or woman. I’ve lived that way for too many years.

27

The problem is that Luke and Marc don’t mention any exception. And the word used in Matthew isn’t “aldultery”, in my translation of the gospels (sorry, but I don’t know the corresponding english word). But there’s a footnote discussing the meaning of this word, with several possible interpretations : prostitution, marriage unlawful at the first place, mention allowing to put away a concubine, as opposed to a spouse, and finally, indeed, possibly adultery. Some poster will probably know what was the original greek word.
De facto, adultery has not been considered as a valid exception during essentially all the history of christianism. Since I assume all these generations of christians, preachers, etc had read Matthew too, they obviously considered that this unclear exception wasn’t a solid ground to allow divorce, since :

1)It had to be interpreted in a particular way to be understood as allowing divorce in case of adultery

  1. This particular interpretation would contradict other unambiguous statements in the scriptures.

So, once again, how comes this peculiar interpretation of Matthew is now considered by some as the correct one, and other parts of the scriptures refering to this issue uncomplete or faulty?

Could it be because people want to have some scriptural backing for their own cultural and ethical norms?

Or do you think it’s more likely that christians and theologians were just blind during all these centuries and just recently saw the light, the fact that it happened right after divorce became generally accepted in the western world being a mere coincidence?

28

Well, that’s certainly not a what a literalist would say! :slight_smile:

Seriously, that’s part of the problem being discussed. A Biblical literalist depends on the “absolute truth” of the Bible, its applicability to themselves and to everyone. And yet, that “absolute” truth changes depending on the interpretation of the Biblical text. The problem is, you can’t really interpret the Bible for the meaning you like best and maintain that it represents an absolute.

I prefer dreamer’s way, anyway. I’ve never been one to choose someone else’s sins for them.

29

I guess after being away from the boards for so long I kinda forgot that I wasn’t as much a “literalist” as I used to be :slight_smile:

30

I guess I am a literalist, in that I believe the Bible is the word of God, written by man but sort of “dictated” to them by God. Inspired by God is the phrase used by many.

The Bible says that divorce is allowed in certain circumstances. It also says that if you remarry you are committing adultery. I don’t think there is any doubt about that. Unless there is some translation issue that I would have no way to investigate. I don’t think so, since I would imagine someone would have seized on it and I would have heard about it.

However, we no longer LIVE under the Law, we live under the law of love. I believe Christ died for my sins, in expiation for them. I have accepted His grace and I LIVE under His grace. Before you jump all over me, this does NOT mean I can do whatever I want and it doesn’t matter because I live under Grace. Not at ALL, not even remotely.

I am not divorced, and if I were I would have to think long and hard and PRAY long and hard to decide if I could remarry. I would do that myself, although I would seek council from people I respect who I believe have the love of God and Christ within them AND also great knowledge of the Bible. Just as I do with other issues I wrestle with.

But you know, I don’t believe it is MY place to make a determination about any one else’s behaviour or sin unless they are hurting someone else. When you move into the realm of your behaviour hurting someone else, THEN it becomes my business to “judge” you. Because then you are not longer dealing with your OWN sin, but sins against others. Other people divorcing and remarrying doesn’t fall into this catagory. Not in MY opinion, anyway.

I know this seems simplistic to some, maybe ALL of you. Doesn’t bother me. The greatest commandments are these…that you love the Lord Your God with all your heart, and that you love your neighbor as yourself. I have enough trouble with THAT, when I get THERE then I will start working on theological arguments. I don’t expect it to happen anytime soon. Probably never, given the difficulty I sometimes have with these issues.

31

I recall from my church days that a man and woman become “one” in heaven if they’re married. What happens if I die at a young age, and my wife remarries a decade later?

How happy will I be in heaven knowing the love of my life is now with someone else? And that I longer will be waiting for her in heaven?

32

I’m not a Biblical literalist, but I do believe divorce to be immoral. I’d like to put my two cents in. I’ve also said some of this over in the Pit thread, but I’d like to put it in a slightly cooler environment.

In addition to the Gospel verses already cited, choosing to marry involves swearing vows to each other and, in most religion settings, to God. Divorce, by definition breaks those vows. The only valid reason my beliefs consistenly allow for divorce is abuse, and that’s when the life of the person being abused is in danger (note that this includes all cases of physical and sexual abuse). Even then, it doesn’t make divorce moral, only necessary. In all other cases, including adultery, both parties have an obligation to try to reconcile their differences and find a way to keep their vows.

Also, before vowing to spend their lives with someone else, people should make quite certain they know what they’re getting themselves in for, including what the other person’s like when angry, stressed, and generally cranky. I’m also very much in favor of watching them interact with friends and family, and listening to what they say about other loves and relationships, if any. While I don’t suggest following my best friend’s example (she dated the same fellow for over a decade before marrying him), my own personal, arbitrary minimum is I’d prefer to know a person for at least a year before making a permanent decision.

Marriage is a very serious, lifelong commitment, in my book. It should certainly be taken on with more consideration than buying a new house or car (not that I suspect that many people take it on with less), and with full awareness of the practical realities. It’s not easy. I can understand looking at someone when he’s gotten on your last nerve and wondering, “What did I ever see in him?” I also realize that people do make mistakes, but this is something I take seriously, and, just as I would fight to save a friendship, I would fight even harder to save a marriage.

For the record, I’ve never married, and if I do, you’d better believe I’ll inform the gentleman of these beliefs beforehand! Hopefully, he’ll decide I have other redeeming qualities, including a certain degree of spiritedness.

Anyway, I’ll quit being a moralistic prig now,
CJ

33

CJ: So what about civil marriages, such as in Korea, where there’s no mention of God in the vows?

34

Forget Korea – my best friend was married in a civil marriage in West Virgina, and neither God nor degree of blood relationship was mentioned! :wink:

The people who are being married are still making vows to each other. Perhaps I’m sounding like a naive little girl, but if a person makes a promise, he or she should make every possible effort to keep that promise. That doesn’t just apply to romance. If I promise you I will build a widget-tracking database by next Friday, I will do everything I can to do so, even if it means staying up all night Wednesday and Thursday nights because I underestimated how complex widget-tracking is.

I also have this quaint notion that God is present at all marriages, even if He’s saying “No! No! No!” I also realize there are people around here who’d just as soon He kept His non-existent nose out of such things. My friend is just as obligated to keep her vows as she would be if she were a devout Episcopalian being married before the Archbishop of Canterbury himself, or a devout member of the LDS being married in the Temple in Salt Lake (sorry if that’s a mischaracterization). Fortunately, knowing her and her husband, I’ve got no doubt they’ll do so.

Also, FWIW, I do have divorced friends, and some of them even know my views and put up with me anyway.

CJ

35

The tricky bit comes when those vows don’t actually include a lifelong commitment. To rove far afield of the subject of Christianity, I believe the traditional Wiccan vow includes “for so long as love shall last” as its duration.

36

And I recall from MY church days that marriage ended at death, and did not carry over into heaven. That is why the vows are “Till death do us part” - not “Forever”.

There is a story where (probably) Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus in a contradiction, asking about a sitution similar to the one you asked about. Jesus wasn’t fooled; he made it clear that there’s no marriage in Heaven. Sorry, I’m too lazy to look it up this morning - try blueletterbible.org if you’re interested; it has a search engine.

CJ - thanks for your posts here and in the Pit re: divorce. I also have never been married, and am vehemently opposed to most divorce and especially remarriage after divorce. I’ve seen what it does to families - multiple times, to my very great sorrow.

As a direct result I’m pretty much a cynic about sex and marriage anyway. I think I’m with St. Paul on the matter. “Marry if you absolutely must…”

37

cj, you seem to be under the mistaken notion that all marriage vows involve a life-long commitment. Very many don’t. This allows room for human error, and for change. To be unalterably attached to someone who later develops a persistant fondness for sexual relations with the neighbor’s labrador retriever is not part of god’s plan as far as I am concerned.

Speaking as someone who has been married over 20 years, and has been monogamous my entire life, I shudder to see people trying to hold to vows they made while they were ill-informed or under duress by family and society, which should never have been uttered in the first place. Holding to such vows often does far more harm than breaking them.

See: Oath of Fëanor

38

Qadgop, I realize I’m being incredibly absolutist and naive here, and I do allow for exceptions. Also, as far as I’m concerned, “someone who later develops a persistant fondness for sexual relations with the neighbor’s labrador retriever” has pretty much broken his/her vows. I’m also for finding out if such a predilection exists beforehand, and saying, “I love dogs” would not be considered adequate in that situation. I’m also against people making vows when “ll-informed or under duress by family and society.” Then again, I’m an ornery cuss who never quite got the hang of conforming to peer pressure. Just as my views are my own with regard to abortion and I would not choose to enforce them on someone in any way, shape or form (I’m politically pro-choice), I also admit my views on divorce are my own, and the only person I’d consider imposing them on is someone I was planning to marry. On the other hand, if a friend of mine were to get involved with someone who I had severe doubts about, e.g. “Excuse me, when he says ‘I love dogs’, he’s not quite telling the whole truth.” I’d probably mention it to her. Also, I do now consider an open marriage a viable alternative to divorce, mostly because a couple of good friends tried it as just such an alternative and they recently celebrated their 26th wedding anniversary. A few years ago, you would have gotten a very different answer. It was an extreme measure, but one of the things I respect about them is there decision to do whatever it took to preserve their marriage.

Lilairen,would you believe I know more divorced Christians than Wiccan, and that is measuring proportionally?

Feh! I don’t really like this absolutist nonsense, but since the question was asked fairly, I suppose I should try to answer it fairly. I don’t have much naivete left these days, but this is one area where the tatters of it linger.

CJ

39

cj, thank you, I understand where you are coming from better. IME, most people don’t mention their love of labradors before the marriage, tho.

40

Are you kidding? One fellow who declared his undying love for me a couple of years ago didn’t even mention that he had a wife! Fortunately, his friends did. :slight_smile: Needless to say, I didn’t exactly reciprocate that “undying love.”

CJ