by Smyler 22 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
My sister was married, but left him and the WT about two years ago. She left him for another guy, a worldly guy. She got DFed. They lived to together so... But she came back, got reinstated after a year, and is now legally divorced.
Now I understand that her ex can get remarried because she commited adultery, but can she get remarried?
smyler
of course she can.
Smyler,
Legally, she can remarry. I suppose how well this marriage is looked on by the elders depends on WHO she is considering marrying? Is it a "spiritually strong" JW or a "bad association" normal guy?
My sister was married, but left him and the WT about two years ago. She left him for another guy, a worldly guy. She got DFed. They lived to together so... But she came back, got reinstated after a year, and is now legally divorced.
Now I understand that her ex can get remarried because she commited adultery, but can she get remarried?
Sister married to Husband 1
Sister leaves Husband 1 to live with a worldly man
Assuming sister has committed adultery with this man, and it can be proved, Husband 1 is free to remary
Sister is DF'd for adultery but does not marry worldly man (marriage bond is broken so she could have and it would have been considered valid...)
Sister is reinstated and is legally and scripturally divorced from Husband 1.
Sister is free to remarry
The key here is that she did not marry the "worldly guy."
OK, my head hurts now....
Which man does she get to play with on Paradise Earth?
wasn't there some really odd hitch in this that the sinning one would not be free to marry?
Thought I read that somewhere and thoguht it was really odd
Once one has committed adultery they can have a scriptural divorce and then both are free to re-marry. This leads me to my question about JW or Watchtower rules.
If a JW couple separate and get divorced neither is free to re-marry without suffering the consequences of a JC. If while divorced the couple have sex with each other are they commiting fornication as they are not married? If so and regardless of whether they get DF'd or not are they now free to re-marry? If so, a couple could divorce, commit fornication and free themselves to re-marry without involving anyone else. Bizarre?
Thirdson
Messy isn't it? If a JW couple divorse (with or without so called scriptural grounds) and later have sex can they be DFd for fornication? Absolutely. There is a QFR that covers this exact scenario.
If this couple after thus committing "fornication" be free to remary? Nope This also is covered. Another person must be involved to qualify as a breaking of the union between the two. Couples have tried to free themselves in this very way and found a very unsympathetic JC come time to DF.
What if a JW couple splits and the man takes up with another woman, is he then free to marry the woman? Nope Not until she both legally divorces him AND she declares that she is scripturally divorced. There have been cases where the woman so wronged refused to give him satisfaction and in the congregations eyes he remained married to her and unable to marry another with the congos sanctioning. In other words he could be DFd a second time (assumming he was reinstated or reproved after the initial adultery) if he marries another. What is even stranger is that EVEN IF she grants him scriptural divorce allowing him to remarry without further JC consequences, he is, according to recent WT, forever to be considered a "husband of more than one wife" if he does, and is disqualified for special leadership priviledges because of his "treachery".
I seem to remember also that based upon Deut 24 that a couple once divorsed and remarried to others were not allowed to remarry each other at a later time calling this a defilement of the congregation. Maybe someone will check that out.
How much better to allow people to direct their own love lives and not complicate hard enuf decisions with technical trash and threats of doom.
If a JW couple separate and get divorced neither is free to re-marry without suffering the consequences of a JC. If while divorced the couple have sex with each other are they commiting fornication as they are not married? If so and regardless of whether they get DF'd or not are they now free to re-marry? If so, a couple could divorce, commit fornication and free themselves to re-marry without involving anyone else. Bizarre?
Thirdson, here is a QFR that shows how convoluted the WTS thinking is, reminds me of the Pharisees:
w82 9/1 p. 31 Questions from Readers · If a faithful Christian wife has been divorced by her husband, though neither of them is guilty of adultery, would it be Scripturally proper for her to share the marital bed with him when he visits the family?God?s Word clearly indicates that sex relations are proper between a husband and a wife, not between unmarried persons. Hence, a divorced couple should not have sex relations with each other, for that would amount to fornication, but not freeing them for remarriage.
Christians, understandably, are concerned primarily about God?s views and directions. His Word specifically advises: "Let marriage be honorable among all, and the marriage bed be without defilement, for God will judge fornicators and adulterers." (Hebrews 13:4) Let us consider what bearing that has on the situation raised in the question.
In many parts of the earth it is common for a man and a woman to engage in sexual relations without being married. Some claim that this is both morally fitting and acceptable to God as long as the two are in "love" or have made a commitment to each other. That, however, is not the Christian view. Appreciating that "God will judge fornicators and adulterers," Christians want to avoid both adultery and fornication.
When a man and a woman get married they establish before all that they are united as husband and wife. In the sight of the law, society and God, they have a right to share in the privileges of marriage, including marital relations. The Scriptures, in fact, urge mates not to withhold from each other the sexual due: "The husband should satisfy his wife sexually. In the same way, the wife should satisfy her husband?s sexual needs."?1 Corinthians 7:3, Simple English Bible.
What, though, if a couple gets a mere separation, which is legally possible in some lands? Since they are still husband and wife legally and Scripturally, they must not share in marital relations with anyone else, for to do so would be adultery that would ?defile their marital bed.? But a separated couple have the option of making up again and of living together as the married couple that they are, after legally canceling their separation.?1 Corinthians 7:10, 11.
Consider next the situation of when one mate, for example the husband, takes matters farther than a separation and gets a divorce. A faithful Christian wife who later learned that (before or after divorcing her) he had been morally unfaithful could remarry, considering her former marriage ended both legally and in the eyes of Jehovah God. On the other hand, if there was a legal divorce but no adultery, the divorce would not of itself end the marriage in God?s view, for the Bible shows that immorality by one?s mate is the only valid basis for a divorce.?Matthew 19:6, 9.
That is the situation with the case in question, for it is definitely stated that no immorality has occurred. The husband left his wife and got an unscriptural divorce. As a consequence of that divorce they are no longer man and wife in the full sense, for he terminated the marriage legally. So what if he visited his family and wanted to satisfy his or her sexual needs? For them to have sex relations would, legally and in the view of the community, be essentially the same as two unmarried persons having sexual relations; it would be tantamount to fornication.
In that situation no third party is involved, as would be needed to give Scriptural substance to the legal divorce; so in God?s sight neither the man nor the woman would be free to marry other individuals. (1 Corinthians 6:16-18) Yet their having sex relations with each other certainly would be in disregard of God?s advice; to a degree they would be defiling the marriage bed since their legal marriage ended with the divorce. This conduct would bring reproach on them and on the Christian congregation of which the wife was a part. So, for her to remain in the congregation, she should avoid sex relations unless the marriage is made legal again. She should hold to the Scriptural and morally upright stand that sex relations should be limited only to legal marriage mates. She thus would add to the dignity that the Bible shows marriage deserves.
Peacefulpete,
Of course, if he/she remarried after being DF'd for adultery, he/she would not be required to separate from his/her 2nd spouse as a condition of reinstatement even if the first spouse had not given permission for the divorce.
But this is certainly true in general (I have seen 2 cases where the husband was used as an elder or MS even after an unscriptural separation and even when the 1st wife gave permission):
There have been cases where the woman so wronged refused to give him satisfaction and in the congregations eyes he remained married to her and unable to marry another with the congos sanctioning. In other words he could be DFd a second time (assumming he was reinstated or reproved after the initial adultery) if he marries another. What is even stranger is that EVEN IF she grants him scriptural divorce allowing him to remarry without further JC consequences, he is, according to recent WT, forever to be considered a "husband of more than one wife" if he does, and is disqualified for special leadership priviledges because of his "treachery".
Also, under the law, men did not divorce their wives for adultery, the women would be executed (women could not divorce their husbands but could be set free to remarry if their husbands committed adultery with someone else's wife/fiancee and were executed). Men only divorced their wives for "petty" things. That is evident in Jesus' words at
Matthew 19:3-93 And Pharisees came up to him, intent on tempting him and saying: "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife on every sort of ground?"4 I n reply he said: "Did YOU not read that he who created them from [the] beginning made them male and female 5 an d said, ?For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh?? 6 S o that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has yoked together let no man put apart." 7 They said to him: "Why, then, did Moses prescribe giving a certificate of dismissal and divorcing her?" 8 He said to them: "Moses, out of regard for YOUR hardheartedness, made the concession to YOU of divorcing YOUR wives, but such has not been the case from [the] beginning. 9 I s ay to YOU that whoever divorces his wife, except on the ground of fornication, and marries another commits adultery."
Deuteronomy 24:1-4
24
"In case a man takes a woman and does make her his possession as a wife, it must also occur that if she should find no favor in his eyes because he has found something indecent on her part, he must also write out a certificate of divorce for her and put it in her hand and dismiss her from his house. 2 And she must go out of his house and go and become another man?s. 3 If the latter man has come to hate her and has written out a certificate of divorce for her and put it in her hand and dismissed her from his house, or in case the latter man who took her as his wife should die, 4 the first owner of her who dismissed her will not be allowed to take her back again to become his wife after she has been defiled; for that is something detestable before Jehovah, and you must not lead the land that Jehovah your God is giving you as an inheritance into sin. w61 2/1 pp. 93-96 Questions from Readers?
A man divorces his wife on unscriptural grounds. After the divorce is granted it becomes known to the wife and the congregation that just before the divorce the man was guilty of adultery. Would such an act of adultery free either the man or the woman Scripturally to remarry?In this case the crucial question, according to the Holy Scriptures, is, Who divorces whom, and on what grounds? Who has the right to divorce? According to the Scriptures the moral status of the husband does not serve as the determining factor that grants him the right to divorce his wife. To the contrary, the moral status of the one divorced is what determines the right of the divorcer to bring about the dissolution of the marriage ties. According to the inspired Scriptures it is the unclean marriage mate that is given the bill of divorce by the clean, unadulterous, innocent marriage mate. The language of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is unmistakable in this regard.
This Deuteronomic law was the one submitted to discussion by the Pharisees in Matthew 19:3-9. Jesus told the Pharisees that God had not given the first man Adam the right to divorce his wife Eve on any grounds. In reply the Pharisees referred to this Deuteronomic law by asking: "Why, then, did Moses prescribe giving a certificate of dismissal and divorcing her?" This Mosaic law specifically cites the uncleanness of the wife who was divorced, not any uncleanness of her husband, the divorcer. Jesus showed the proper respect for restrictions on the right to divorce the marriage mate when he said: "Moses, out of regard for your hardheartedness, made the concession to you of divorcing your wives, but such has not been the case from the beginning. I say to you that whoever divorces his wife except on the grounds of fornication and marries another commits adultery." Since Jesus was here following up his reference to the Mosaic law, he was talking about a wife?s being divorced on grounds other than her fornication, her adultery, her uncleanness, not that of her husband. It was for this reason that Joseph of Nazareth thought of privately divorcing his fiancée, Mary, because he thought there was uncleanness in her; and only divine intervention prevented this divorce. So it is the guilty one that must be divorced. The guilty one is not the one who should do the divorcing.
The guilty one is not expected to incriminate himself and then on the basis of his own self-incrimination divorce the innocent marriage mate. The innocent marriage mate who incriminates the guilty one must do the divorcing. Hence, if the one divorced proves to be the innocent mate, then that innocent, unadulterous, divorced one is exposed to immorality. As Jesus said in Matthew 5:32: "Everyone divorcing his wife except on account of fornication makes her a subject for adultery, seeing that whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." So the right of the clean, innocent, unadulterous marriage mate deserves protection, for which reason an unscriptural divorce of her is out of order. For very personal reasons a wife may choose to overlook the immorality of her husband, and may continue to give him the marriage due and receive the marriage due from him. Why? For the very reason that the marriage has not been dissolved by any adultery on the part of her husband. She has a legal and Scriptural right to keep living with him. She does not automatically become unclean by having further sex relations with him after his committing of adultery.
If an adulterous husband does not disclose his adultery to his innocent wife, but notifies her of his purpose to seek a divorce, then if she consents to this divorce without knowing of his adultery, but merely with the idea of being legally separated from him by mutual consent under law, then she enters into the divorce action with him on this basis. He procures the divorce with her consent and without her contesting. Thus they both agree to this divorce on an unscriptural basis, which does not free them for remarriage. All they want is to be free from each other, and that is what they get by the unscriptural but legal divorce. Both of them must take the consequences of this type of unscriptural divorce. This, of course, deprives her of the Scriptural authorization to remarry. However, the hypocritical, adulterous husband has tied himself up too, and whereas he has exposed her to adultery he may find it even harder for himself to resist post-divorce adultery than she does, inasmuch as he practiced adultery unknown to her before procuring the divorce. Just because of the ignorance of the wife the Christian congregation is not warranted in setting aside Jesus? rule that a husband, if he really wishes to rid himself of his wife on a Scriptural basis, must do so by taking a divorce from her because of her uncleanness, her adultery. Otherwise, the husband, even if himself adulterous before the divorce, is not thereafter free to remarry; and she, even if she did legally remarry, enters thereby into adultery.
The divorcer, regardless of his own personal morality before the divorce, determines the grounds or terms of the divorce. If now the court grants the divorce on those terms, then the divorce applies on those terms and it carries to the divorcer the corresponding consequences.
What now if the innocent wife finds out after the divorce to which she consented, or in which she acquiesced, that her husband had committed adultery one or more times before the divorce, but had not informed her? This does not alter the situation. It does not entitle her to appeal for a reversal of the divorce decree, or to appeal for a change of the grounds of divorce so as to make those grounds Scriptural instead of unscriptural ones. It is true that since the divorce she now comes into possession of new knowledge regarding immorality on the part of her former legal husband before the divorce. However, she cannot bring this new knowledge to bear. It must be borne in mind that in the courts of the land when an appeal is made for the reversal of a decision by a lower court no new evidence or features may be introduced to the appeal court to bring such new evidence or features to bear upon the appeal court. Only the evidence already submitted and ruled upon by the lower court can be and is considered by the appeal court in arriving at its own decision. No reversal or cancellation of the decision of the lower court is allowed on the basis of any new evidence. This same limitation as to new evidence after a divorce applies also to the official representatives of a congregation when an innocent, divorced woman, a member of the congregation, brings to light before them the evidence of the adultery of her former legal husband, prior to the divorce.
Only immorality after the divorce by either, or both of the divorced parties, would give force and effect to the legal divorce so as to bring about real dissolution of the marriage ties according to the Scriptures. Immoral sex relations after a divorce on unscriptural grounds adds something, not toward reversing the divorce decision on unscriptural grounds, but to confirm the divorce and to make it more far-reaching. By post-divorce adultery something new has been introduced that did not appear at the time of the suit for divorce when the terms for the divorce action were set by the divorcer with the consent or acquiescence of the divorcee. Thus a new factor has been added since the divorce to validate, not cancel, the divorce decision. This is true even if it is the divorcer himself that commits the adultery after the divorce.
Adultery before divorce does not dissolve the marriage tie of itself. Sex relations may continue between the legally married even after such pre-divorce adultery. Up until the step is decided upon and taken in suing for divorce all sex relations between the legally married couple after the unfaithful husband had committed adultery would offset the adultery as being a ground for divorce action to be taken against the adulterous mate.
However, the divorcer by his post-divorce adultery introduces an effective element into the situation, an element that he himself had not relied upon beforehand when he applied for the divorce against his innocent wife. He now brings adultery to bear upon the matter even though this adultery is on his own part. By his post-divorce adultery he now puts into the hands of the innocent, divorced wife something Scripturally valid that she may hold and apply against the divorcer. Under the circumstances she does not now need to file for a divorce suit inasmuch as there is already a legal divorce in effect that has separated them according to the law. But now the adultery element does make the separation Scriptural and really effects the dissolution of all marriage bonds, and this before God and his Christian congregation as well as before the law of the land. In regard to the unscriptural divorce this effect was not the case previous to such divorce forasmuch as the woman was still the adulterous mate?s wife by reason of the then still-existing legal marriage.
In this case where the Christian congregation was not privately advised beforehand of any other basic ground for the divorce, any really Scriptural ground underlying the divorce suit, a divorce must be held to the terms of the divorce upon which the divorcer sued. A divorce sticks, on its own grounds, not on some imaginary possibility of what might have been done on the basis of fuller knowledge. Hence no retroactive action may be allowed beyond what the divorce grounds actually are by stipulation, for the purpose of adjusting the scope and effect of the divorce to agree with additional knowledge or discovery of incriminating evidence. This strict holding to the divorce terms prevents any collusion being carried on by the divorced couple who might agree to trump up something valid that might free them or rid them of the tight restrictions upon them due to the unscripturalness of their divorce.
The hard consequences of the unscriptural divorce bear just as heavily upon the divorcer as upon the divorcee. Therefore the hard consequences of an unscriptural divorce should stand as a warning to any prospective divorcer so that he will consider first the limitations and restrictions and dangers that would result from his unscriptural course to his own self as well as to his innocent marriage mate. It is not the prerogative or obligation of the Christian congregation to relieve the divorced couple of the hard consequences of their unscriptural divorce. In its tendency toward mercy the Christian congregation must not go beyond what is written in God?s Word and attempt a reversal of the situation by doing something that it is not authorized to do. A man that forces an unscriptural divorce through becomes very responsible toward the innocent, undeserving mate inasmuch as he makes the post-divorce life and course of her very hard with respect to morality. If the innocent divorcee goes bad, the Christian congregation is not primarily responsible for not sanctioning her remarriage before the death or post-divorce adultery of her ex-husband. The self-seeking divorcer is the responsible one, according to the Scriptures. All that the Christian congregation can do legitimately is to help her to grow straight morally as a Christian by extending to her all the spiritual help possible.
Because of his adultery, unrepented of before the divorce, the unfaithful husband could be disfellowshiped by the Christian congregation of which he may be a baptized member. By concealing his adultery from wife and congregation he may postpone his disfellowshipment for a time. If in addition to his concealed adultery he undertakes to divorce his innocent wife, then he shows that he has not repented of his adultery. Neither does he have his wife?s forgiveness for it. Hence he must be disfellowshiped by the congregation when the facts of the matter become known. To the wrong that he has committed against his wife by the adultery that he has concealed from her he hardheartedly adds injury by suing for divorce from her in her innocence. For his moral uncleanness, of which his hypocritical, unloving course shows he has not repented, he must be disfellowshiped from the Christian congregation on the basis of the evidence laid before the congregation?s judicial committee.
Thanks all for your replies! I always hated how technical it was for someone to divorce and remarry in the WT.
and concered mama
Is it a "spiritually strong" JW or a "bad association" normal guy?
Well, he's a 'worldly' guy. I've met him quite a few times. He's always over at her house... my sister drives him to and from work, he looks after my nephew sometimes too. My sister hasn't told my parents even though they have been going out for about a year now.. surprise surprise. My sister doesn't care about my brother and me when he's there, because she knows that we won't said anything. We've all, my sister, her boyfriend, my brother, melissa, and me, have gone to the movies.
So you can see, my sister isn't the most spritly strong girl... but i love her, and her boyfriend is a nice guy too
smyler
