|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 3
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 3 |
I have been divorced from my 1st husband for over 13 years. We were very young when we married and have a 16 year old daughter. During our years apart I remarried a man that was his complete opposite and that marriage also ended in divorce. My 1st husband and I have always remained close over the 13 years and we've been there for eachother through some difficult situations. We've always been friends and have worked very closely together raising our daughter. Over the last year or so we have spent a lot more time together and have show affection towards eachother as far as sometimes holding hands and always hugging one another when we see eachother. We laugh and enjoy all of the same things. We haven't been intimate with eachother but I feel that we both want to be and he has mentioned how much he'd love to give "us" another try. Do I risk this wonderful friendship that I have...what if he is the one I am meant to be with and I don't take the chance. Is it possible to be in love with someone all this time even though we've carried on seperate lives for over a decade. [color:"green"] [/color]
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,916
Member
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,916 |
I voted no for a reason. You are not remarrying your ex-spouse - don't even think of him that way. You are marrying your friend. Don't never look back, something may be gaining on you. Build a new and completely different relationships without even one single thought on the previous one.
larry
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,140
Member
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,140 |
Before I vote, will you tell us a bit more about why your first and second marriages ended? Mulan
Me, BW WH cheated in corporate workplace for many years. He moved out and filed in summer 2008.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,712
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,712 |
Two quick questions...
1. What caused the divorce (was there adultery involved)?
2. Are you a Christian?
Once I know the answers to these I might be able to answer your question.
Thanks.
Standing in His PresenceFBS (me) (48) FWW (41) Married April 1993... 4 kids (19(B), 17(G), 14(B), 4(B)) Blessed by God more than I deserve "If Jesus is your co-pilot...you need to change seats!"Link: The Roles of Husbands and Wives
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 7,093
Member
|
Member
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 7,093 |
Is it possible to be in love with someone all this time even though we've carried on seperate lives for over a decade. Love is a choice. I can't imagine anything more wonderful than marrying the father of your daughter again. If there were character issues that may have been the cause of the divorce, have they been addressed? Do you think you could make it work this time around?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,712
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,712 |
A quote Deuteronomy: Deu 24:1 "When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts {it} in her hand and sends her out from his house, Deu 24:2 and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man's {wife,} Deu 24:3 and if the latter husband turns against her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts {it} in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her to be his wife, Deu 24:4 {then} her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance.
Standing in His PresenceFBS (me) (48) FWW (41) Married April 1993... 4 kids (19(B), 17(G), 14(B), 4(B)) Blessed by God more than I deserve "If Jesus is your co-pilot...you need to change seats!"Link: The Roles of Husbands and Wives
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 6,025
Member
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 6,025 |
because he has found some indecency in her This is why you asked question #1 Though it doesn't specifically say it the other way around (If HE committed adultery) wouldn't it be also applicable. Finally, since this is old testament, doesn't repentence/forgivenes apply??? Mr. Wondering
FBH(me)-51 FWW-49 (MrsWondering) DD19 DS 22 Dday-2005-Recovered
"agree to disagree" = Used when one wants to reject the objective reality of the situation and hopefully replace it with their own.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,712
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,712 |
Hey Mr. W..... Here are some notes from Pastor Chuck Smith... A. Deut. 24:1-4, Matthew 19. 1. Word adultery not mentioned in excuses for divorce. a. Punishment for adultery was death. b. Thus, no need to mention. c. Marriage did not end in divorce, but death. 2. Mosaic legislation to control divorce. a. Men's estimate of the wife. b. Felt they had a right to divorce for any reason. c. Just kicked her out.
Three great principles. 1. Limited divorce to certain causes. 2. Must give wife bill of divorcement. a. In it stating cause. b. Otherwise might be stoned. 3. Prevented remarriage to same wife if she married some one else. More shortly...
Standing in His PresenceFBS (me) (48) FWW (41) Married April 1993... 4 kids (19(B), 17(G), 14(B), 4(B)) Blessed by God more than I deserve "If Jesus is your co-pilot...you need to change seats!"Link: The Roles of Husbands and Wives
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,712
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,712 |
More... 1-4. When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes--It appears that the practice of divorces was at this early period very prevalent amongst the Israelites, who had in all probability become familiar with it in Egypt [LANE]. The usage, being too deep-rooted to be soon or easily abolished, was tolerated by Moses (Mt 19:8). But it was accompanied under the law with two conditions, which were calculated greatly to prevent the evils incident to the permitted system; namely: (1) The act of divorcement was to be certified on a written document, the preparation of which, with legal formality, would afford time for reflection and repentance; and (2) In the event of the divorced wife being married to another husband, she could not, on the termination of that second marriage, be restored to her first husband, however desirous he might be to receive her.
Standing in His PresenceFBS (me) (48) FWW (41) Married April 1993... 4 kids (19(B), 17(G), 14(B), 4(B)) Blessed by God more than I deserve "If Jesus is your co-pilot...you need to change seats!"Link: The Roles of Husbands and Wives
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,712
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,712 |
Also...remember...the OT does apply!! Jesus said He did not come to do away with the Law, but to fulfill it!!
God also uses the word "abomination" in the OT to describe homosexuality...and I am sure He hasnt changed His mind on that either.
Standing in His PresenceFBS (me) (48) FWW (41) Married April 1993... 4 kids (19(B), 17(G), 14(B), 4(B)) Blessed by God more than I deserve "If Jesus is your co-pilot...you need to change seats!"Link: The Roles of Husbands and Wives
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,712
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,712 |
Last commentary. I look forward to responses!! 24.1 ‘When a man takes a wife, and marries her, then it shall be, if she find no favour in his eyes because he has found some unseemly thing (literally ‘nakedness of a word/thing’) in her, that he shall write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.’
Moses was really here only explaining that a divorce had taken place for some particular reason, without going into detail, although he undoubtedly did see it as a valid reason. He was not, however, intending it to be analysed, either by the Rabbis, or by would be divorce seekers of the present day. He expected his listeners to know the customary conditions for divorce, so he did not explain them here. His reference was not specific. But what did ‘nakedness of a word/thing’ convey. It would certainly seem to suggest some sexual transgression or something unpleasantly unclean. We can compare 23.14 where the same phrase is used and translated as ‘unclean’ and signifies a man’s waste products.
The word for ‘nakedness’ is regularly used of the shame of a person’s nakedness being revealed. It is not the word for ritually unclean nor for things which were just generally unseemly. So ‘nakedness’ usually connects with something to do with sex or the sexual organs. An act of adultery or near adultery for which he did not wish to press charges would fit the bill exactly, possibly a case where she had been discovered before the actual adultery took place, or of actual adultery where there were no witnesses, and his reticence on the matter is then explained by the fact that he divorced her rather than openly accusing her and that he was represented as loving her enough to be willing to take her back after the second divorce.
But while he did not press charges it had been sufficient of a blow to his family honour and his own sense of pride for him to give her a divorce contract in writing and send her away. Possibly out of shame she had even demanded it. It would seem, also, that she left without any rights, which would indicate that she had sinned grievously. That divorce was possible is made clear by 22.19, 29, but not on what conditions. Those verses were simply saying that never again could those particular men bring an action for divorce against that woman for any reason. (Others could accuse her but not them. They had forfeited their right by their behaviour. They were not considered trustworthy). So the grounds for divorce here seems to be restricted to sexual misconduct.
24.2 ‘And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife.’
Once the woman was dismissed from his household she may take the step of going and becoming another man’s wife. (This was not giving permission for this, only stating that it may happen. Unless she returned home it was almost her only option). She had her written contract declaring her to be free. We note here that it was seemingly seen as perfectly acceptable by custom for her to remarry, but never stated in God’s Law. It was this remarriage that Jesus called adultery, and said that it was only allowed by God, although never authorised by Him, for the hardness of their hearts. The point was not that He had condoned it, but that He did not interfere with the general custom and actually forbid it.
24.3-4 ‘And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house, or if the latter husband die, who took her to be his wife, her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after she is shown as (declared to be) defiled, for that is abomination before Yahweh, and you shall not cause the land to sin, which Yahweh your God gives you for an inheritance.’
But the second husband might hate her and also give her a bill of divorcement, and send her from his household. Here the condition for the divorce is the husband’s ‘hate’. It is the same word as that which caused a false accusation of adultery in 22.13-14. It is thus in the wider context connected with a man who accused his wife of sexual misbehaviour. (The fact that the one who made the false charge of adultery in 22.13-14 found it necessary to do so demonstrates that divorce was not easy). But no detail of why this second husband hated her is given. There is nothing to say what it was. For that is not what Moses was seeking to demonstrate here. It is probably suggesting in summary form the fact that she had done exactly the same as she did to her first husband.
Alternately the second husband might die. By adding the clause ‘if the second husband dies’ Moses has put us on the spot. We must immediately ask in passing why Moses complicated things and even mentioned the possibility of a divorce in the second case. It is clearly irrelevant to the case, for if it had not happened it would have made no difference to the argument. The second husband’s death would produce the same situation. Why then did he not just use the illustration that her second husband died? The answer can only be because he wanted to bring out what the woman was like, that all the fault lay with the woman. She was the kind of woman, said Moses, who might easily have had a second divorce. She was a disaster waiting to happen.
But the vital point was now reached. She was again free. However, we now learn that even under the old law the first husband cannot now remarry her. He knows that she was ‘shown as defiled’. But why was she ‘shown as defiled’? We may basically ignore the actions of the second husband, because the same would apply even if he had done nothing and had simply died. Thus we must concentrate on the first husband. And here we must ignore the effect of the theoretical remarriage to the first husband because she was ‘shown to be defiled’ before that had happened.
How had she been shown to be defiled? It may be by her behaviour which had caused the first divorce, of which possibly only he knew, or it may be by her, to his knowledge, having married a second time, or both. To him she had twice revealed herself as an adulteress. There was, however, no suggestion about whether she was or was not permitted to marry again. It was simply stated as something that did happen. No comment is made on it, although as we have seen Moses does make clear what he thought of her.
This is very important to note. Had God approved of divorce it would have been so important a factor that surely it would have been legislated for. Yet it was never legislated for. The only concession that God made was not to interfere with the custom because of the hardness of their hearts. He did not step in to interfere with the custom. But divorce nowhere has God’s blessing.
Thus the ‘showing of defilement’ only seems to apply to the first husband. He not only knew about the divorce certificate, but he also knew the facts behind the case. For him therefore to take her now would be for him to take a woman he knew to be permanently defiled, and defiled in such a way that the defilement could not be removed. For she had committed adultery by going with her second husband. And that could surely only indicate a continuingly adulterous woman. To marry her would result in his own permanent defilement and would defile the land (compare Jeremiah 3.1).
Another alternative explanation is that he was the only one who knew about the two (or one) divorce contracts. Others would have only known about one, or none at all. So he knew that she had been married twice while her first husband was still alive and was thereby an adulteress against him. Thus to marry her as an adulteress against him would be to confirm her adultery and be equally defiling, and would defile the land. She could no longer come to him as unsullied to become one with him. It would in Yahweh’s eyes be obscene. It would be making a mockery of all that marriage stood for. It would be so obscene that it would cause the land which had been given to them as an inheritance from Yahweh to sin. For the sins done in the land were the sins of the land.
Whichever way it was, (and in some ways they were saying the same thing), it was her continuing adulterous state that banned the marriage. And yet as the banning is only in relation to marriage with him it must connect with his personal knowledge of her. He would know that she had not just made one slip up, but was an adulteress through and through. Anyone else who married her might not realise what kind of woman she was, and would not therefore be deliberately sinning against the land. But he did know and would be doing so.
Standing in His PresenceFBS (me) (48) FWW (41) Married April 1993... 4 kids (19(B), 17(G), 14(B), 4(B)) Blessed by God more than I deserve "If Jesus is your co-pilot...you need to change seats!"Link: The Roles of Husbands and Wives
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 764
Member
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 764 |
I will never consider myself crazy....ornery and difficult?? Absolutely....
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 311
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 311 |
Mortarman- while the OT does "count"- Christ's crucifixion and atonement FULFILLED the law- meaning the OLD-Mosaic- law was null and void becasue CHRIST'S law took over. Romans 10:4 specifically says that Christ is the END of the law (meaning the Law of Moses).
This is not to say that divorce has God's blessing, but STONING??? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" />are you kidding me????
We don't do the other things that the Mosaic law required- unless you are an Orthodox Jew, which you say you aren't- does that mean you should slaughter your animals a certain way or make sacrifices? Of course not, Christ made the ULTIMATE sacrifice. We dont' NEED the Law of Moses now that Christ has come.
IMO
Ms Kel, sorry for the outburst. If you feel that the reasons you got divorced are no longer valid, and if you love him, I say go for it.
Again, IMO
Me FWW 36
BH 50
D-day 1 2/18/06
D-day 2 3/28/06 (same EA)
NC 3/28/06 and going strong
7 total children
Mine/ours live with us
DS 15
DD 12
DD 21 months
"With all it's shams, lies, and broken dreams, life is still wonderful. Be cheerful. Strive to be happy."
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,712
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,712 |
Mrs. Rob,
I agree...to an extent. But here's the rub...
The penalty of stoning was just that...the penalty for adultery. Since we are not under the law anymore, then we arent going to be stoning anyone. But that in no way makes the sin of adultery less than it was then. The Law still remains!
The Law is a list of do's and donts. All put there for our good.
Just because Jesus fulfilled the Law didnt make the Law obsolete. Adultery is still a sin. Murder is still a sin. And so on. The issue is the penalty and how we can atone for those sins.
Same goes for this. The way I read it, to remarry a former spouse after already marrying someone else, is regarded as a sin. An "abomination" as it is written.
God says in Malachi that He never changes. And He doesnt. He still hates divorce. He still considers the 10 Commandments to be viable. He still considers homosexuality an abomination. And I believe He considers this sort of thing to still be the same.
I am not sure if I am coming across with what I am trying to portray. I am not trying to be contentious or argumentative. I am trying to express that the OT is relevent...that God has not changed His mind on what is sin. And I believe He has expressed that this would be sin.
Again, I would love to hear anyone that might offer more to this.
Standing in His PresenceFBS (me) (48) FWW (41) Married April 1993... 4 kids (19(B), 17(G), 14(B), 4(B)) Blessed by God more than I deserve "If Jesus is your co-pilot...you need to change seats!"Link: The Roles of Husbands and Wives
|
|
|
0 members (),
538
guests, and
86
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums67
Topics133,623
Posts2,323,508
Members71,998
|
Most Online3,224 May 9th, 2025
|
|
|
|