Divorce and Remarriage

It does get tricky…but I would argue… Whether the man is legally alive or sinfully kept alive the man is still alive. And the Bible speaks against divorce and remarriage.

But the person is still divorced, so one could argue that it would not be lawful.

The point is not to take a verse to every literal conclusion without considering other things in the Bible.

I asked Pastor Waters about the issue of whether or not there are circumstances under which remarriage after divorce is lawful, and he directed me to 1 Corinthians 7:15. Calvin and the Puritan commentators all agree on this as well (I know that doesn't make it true, but I'm just pointing it out).

Yeah…but the person is died now…so…it's not like they're still alive.

And that isn't what I'm doing.

I asked Pastor Waters about the issue of whether or not there are circumstances under which remarriage after divorce is lawful, and he directed me to 1 Corinthians 7:15. Calvin and the Puritan commentators all agree on this as well (I know that doesn't make it true, but I'm just pointing it out).

Hmm…I have some thoughts on this verse…but give me some time to write out my thoughts.

After thinking more about this, I think I would agree with you on this. It just seemed confusing to me when I pondered it at first. I suppose that command is more simple than I first made it out to be. :)

Perhaps the question I am myself struggling with answering at the moment is the following: If you don't know whether your abusive spouse is dead or alive, is it morally acceptable to re-marry? Let's say you are a woman who was beaten every day by your husband, and both your person and your children were threatened and harmed daily by that man. One day the man disappeared, whether taken by the government (this hypothetical does not take place in America) or else fled. You have no way to find out whether he is dead or alive, even if you tried (and to be honest, why would you?). After, say, 5-10 years, is it morally acceptable to re-marry?

Yeah…hmm…I don't know…cause what happens if ten years later he showed back up… =\ I'd say be on the safe said and don't remarry…

How about this,
A Christian mother, father and children are living a happy life, they have a wonderful relationship, and let's say they are living in North Korea. All of a sudden the Father disappears, the mother doesn't know if He is alive in a concentration camp or whether He has been killed. Should she marry again? Can she marry again?
The verse in 1 Cor. 7 I think means, she is free from trying to stay with him (in the same house), after all He is gone. She should not get married again though.
It is a tricky subject though and sometimes we just need time to wrestle/think about a subject.
~Caleb

+PLEASE read this; it is CRUCIAL.+ Looking up passages of question in the Greek is extremely helpful, especially among passages that seem to be contradictory. (It can be shocking at times, too.)

So, I looked up Luke 16:18 in the Greek, and when Jesus says "divorced woman," He specifically meant a woman who had divorced her husband–not a woman who was divorced from by her husband. The word for "divorce" is ἀπολύω, or apoluó–meaning, to depart from, to release, or to send away. It's an active thing–something you do; not something that is done to you.

Furthermore…
1 Corinthians 7:15–But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is NOT UNDER BONDAGE in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

Notice the verse doesn't say he's not guilty; it says he's not under bondage–meaning he's no longer restrained. All our respected reformed commentators agree, by the way.

Is it fair that a victim of a divorce should be kept from what the Bible strongly encourages? No. Is God unfair? No! His will might allow injustice to happen, but His Law will NEVER require injustice.

However, Context defines Content, so let's look at the context.
"But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?" 1 Cor. 7:12-16
I believe what Paul is talking about in verse 15 about being under bondage is referring dwelling with him/her, not divorce and remarriage.

Hmm… that's an interesting point… let me Greek that.

Okay, I found that the word for separate in this verse means the same thing as does the word for "divorce" in Luke 16:18–and we know that He meant divorce in the latter. It also means to withdraw. And even that aside, while this 1 Corinthians passage could be interpreted to mean merely living separately, even by the Greek's terms, I think it much more likely that the word "separate" means divorce. But I think the fact that those two words mean the same thing proves it.

Here another SIGNIFICANT point. If the unbeliever divorced, the believer would have no choice because the unbeliever would run away to some place where the believer could not find him/her, and therefore would be incapable of living there. If this is the case, why does Paul even bother to mention that the believer is no longer under bondage? There's no reason to mention that unless there's something more to it. And it makes perfect sense to say that this means they are free to remarry.

Nathan and I had an e-mail conversation about this, so I'm going to post the transcript for that here, and we will continue our debate on this topic.

Christian: About remarriage and divorce, I don't think you could say that the issue is resolved, because there are still very respected people on both sides. John Piper and Voddie Baucham argue that no divorce is biblically valid and therefore neither is any remarriage. I know you'll immediately go to Matthew 19, but before you do, remember that these are respected Bible teachers who have considered all the relevant passages, and they know what they're talking about. It's called the "permanence" view of marriage, and if you need me to, I can send you a link to a very good sermon by Voddie Baucham on the subject. =)
________________________

Nathan: No thanks. It's not just that an innocent divorce victim should be prevented from partaking of what the Bible specifically encourages and what they might, in fact, need. And my God is a God of justice.

There are also respected Bible teachers who hold to the "justice" view, as I'll call it.
________________________

*sigh* The way you present your arguments will never fail to get under my skin, will it? =P Do you realize that what you just said implies that I believe in a different God than you do? You said that your God is a God of justice and implied that a God who didn't allow divorce in any circumstances (the God I believe is presented in Scripture – specifically in the words of Jesus) is not a just God and therefore isn't a God you believe in. So thanks for the vote of encouragement.

There are much more tactful ways you could have said what you wanted to say… I understand that there are respected Bible teachers on the other side. Obviously there are. Many more, in fact. My view is in the minority. But I know you respect John Piper and Voddie Baucham, so I didn't think it would make you absolutely incensed to learn that they had a different view than you do. Let alone that you would imply they believe in a different God…
_________________________

I kinda assumed you would understand that I didn't mean it the way you took it… I mean, no one would read that and think I meant it literally. You know what I mean, okay; I know you do. Spurgeon talks the same way, and everyone knows he doesn't mean it like that.

Okay wait… you don't think God ever allows divorce, or He doesn't ever allow remarriage after divorce?
_________________________

Yes, of course I know what you mean. But I really wish you wouldn't argue like that. It doesn't help your cause in the least. I mean, if you argue with me – a good friend – that way, why am I to think you would treat someone else much better? You often argue for good things, but if your methodology is messed up or even abusive, people aren't going to come to your side.

I don't believe either is biblical. I know there are instances where God allows divorce in the OT. But I think, as Jesus says, that was due to hard hearts; He wasn't setting a moral principle. In the gospels, however, He does set a moral principle. And that principle is, no divorce.
_________________________

I see why that kind of arguing might bother you, but do you get bothered by Spurgeon, then?

Jesus said whoever divorces for any reason EXCEPT SEXUAL IMMORALITY has done wrong.
_________________________

I'm not too big a fan of that argumentation from anyone. Martin Luther is another example of it. He really went overboard with it. But I would tend to think that he and Spurgeon handled it a little better than you do, to be honest. You do it over some of the most trivial issues… They would at least use that kind of argumentation for essential subjects.

WHAT? JESUS SAID THAT? That changes my entire outlook on the subject. I'm sorry I ever doubted you.

NOT. Do you really think people like Voddie Baucham and John Piper have no idea what they're talking about? There are two very convincing alternative ways to read that verse. And, by the way, no matter how you look at it, it does not say what you just said that it says. ;)
_________________________

Okay; I'll humor you. Give me an example of an alternative way.
_________________________

The first thing that you need to know, which is vitally important, is that Matthew is the ONLY gospel that contains the "exception clause." And to what people group was Matthew written? The Jews. Mark and Luke both contain passages where Jesus is addressing this issue, but they don't contain the exception. This means that all Gentile believers who were reading those Gospels would get the impression that Jesus taught that divorce was wrong. Period. No exceptions. But if there's an exception, why would the Holy Spirit not make sure that that message got out to all believers? That's an important question.

So we come to Matthew, whose audience is the Jews. The Jews had an important cultural practice called betrothal. If you recall, Jesus' earthly parents were in this relationship when Joseph did something to end it, upon realizing Mary was pregnant. _He divorced_ them. Now was this a divorce of a marriage? No. It was the end of a betrothal (which was still a very significant covenant, as you know) on the grounds of (perceived) _sexual immorality_. And what's interesting is that the word for "sexual immorality" used in Matthew 19 is one that you may be familiar with: _porneia_. The Jews listening to Jesus would have immediately thought about the grounds for divorce in a betrothal relationship when He used that word.

_Porneia_ is very significant, because it doesn't really address adultery. It most specifically addresses fornication (sex outside of marriage before marriage), and then can also branch out to refer to other sexual infidelity in less common instances. It's also, obviously, where we get our English word pornography, so in today's world, pornography could rightly be said to be covered under this word as well.

That creates a problem. If Jesus here is making an exception for divorce, wouldn't that mean that a husband and wife could biblically get divorced if one found the other looking at inappropriate images on the Internet? Or even if the wife just knew that the husband was having an "emotional" affair? Meaning he's merely lusting after another woman he knows and carrying on an inappropriate relationship with her? That is all under the umbrella of sexual immorality, so it would open up a much wider door when it comes to Christian divorces.

On those grounds, I believe that the "exception clause" was specifically addressed to the current Jewish culture of the time, and it cannot possibly be meant to legitimize any divorce today, because _1_. that would leave Gentiles in the dark about it, at least for the first century or so of the church, because Mark and Luke don't mention the exception, and _2_. adultery would not be the only exception allowed; many other forms of sexual immorality would have to be brought to the table.

Do you see now why there is a legitimate argument here?

I could also go into a different understanding of the grammar of the exception clause altogether, but that's significantly more complicated, and I should only make you respond to one thing at a time. ;)
_________________________

Okay; thanks. Here are the problems…

As for the cultural thing–no; Jesus never said He was only talking to the Jews. That verse simply says what it says, and that is all I will take it for. And today, what if a Jew wants to divorce on that ground? What if I have some Jewish blood in me? Where do we draw the line?

As to the Greek thing, you might be right there. I had already looked up that word and found it to mean nothing but adultery–in any form–so I find it weird that other people have found differently. But if they're studied the cultural connotations more than I, they're more likely to be right. So with this, you have me open to the possibility that divorce might always be wrong.

But here's a potential inconsistency. Jesus said "whoever divorces his WIFE. . ." NOT "whoever divorces his BETROTHED. . . ."

I hope you realize I could say all the same things to you that you're saying to me. Do you really think Calvin, Owen, Gill, and all the other Puritan commentators "didn't know what they were talking about"? OH, JOSEPH DIVORCED MARY BEFORE THEY WERE MARRIED? WOW! IF I HAD KNOWN THAT, I NEVER WOULD HAVE DOUBTED YOU! See? Your debating skills are no better than mine.

I do respect Voddie Baucham, John Piper, and all those guys. But I also respect Calvin and however many zillion Puritan commentators agree. But views make sense, but since the Puritan view sides with justice, which is what God's Law is, I side with it.
_________________________

You've missed my point. No, Jesus doesn't say He's only talking to the Jews, but Matthew explicitly wrote his Gospel for the Jews. And sure any Gentiles reading it would have read the exception clause (case in point: us); but in the same way, any Gentiles reading Mark and Luke – much more likely, in the first century – are going to get every impression that they should not divorce their wives on any grounds.

Therefore, because of that fact, we are compelled to look into _why_ only Matthew found it necessary to include this clause in his account. Obviously Jesus said it, so why did only Matthew report on it? I think it seems obvious that the answer is that he knew his audience and he knew that Jesus had specifically directed that exception towards his audience, so he made sure to include it. Because it would have been specifically relevant to first-century Jews who still practiced the fine points and traditions of Judaism, so they needed to hear what Jesus said about them.

I'm not sure where you got your definition, but here's the word in Strong's Greek: http://biblehub.com/greek/4202.htm

You're right, He does say "wife." But you must realize that the betrothal relationship between two Jews was such a significant commitment that, by law and by common tongue, they were regarded as husband and wife. It was almost as if they had already had the marriage, but it wasn't finalized yet, because they weren't yet able to live together. Does that make sense? So I still think it's perfectly legitimate to believe that Jesus is here referencing divorce in the betrothal relationship.

No, I totally get what you're saying. That's why _I_ am not here saying that _your_ God is not my God, and that _your_ God is a God of injustice, etc. Of course I realize that that's what the majority of commentators have believed over church history. So, yes, I totally understand your reluctance to go against that position. But that's also why I think this has always been the primary interpretation: because it's always been the primary interpretation. It's just that simple – it's tradition. And as much as we Protestants like to say we don't believe in the authority of tradition, it happens all too often. And I think this is one of those instances: just because we've always understood it that way, we think that's the way it should be understood, even when there are other legitimate options.

You say the Puritan view sides with justice. Okay. I'll give you that. I'd kinda like more explanation behind what you mean by that, but okay. I would say that the "permanence" view sides with redemption and forgiveness. All too often, Christian spouses are willing to just immediately give up on their marriages because of the unfaithful spouse's adulterous choices. _Even if_ the exception clause is true, I do _not_ believe that should be the spirit behind Christian marriage. It's like they're looking for a way out, and then _finally_ the spouse commits adultery, so they're _finally_ biblically allowed out. That's not how it should be at all. Even if there's adultery, the goal still ought to be the redemption and saving of the marriage. And that's so often not the case.

So I believe the permanence view helps to that end even more. I don't know if you ever thought about it, but wedding vows are done according to the permanence view: "For better or for worse" isn't followed by "except in the case of adultery." We promise to stay with our spouses no matter what. And that's because that's what Jesus did. In fact, that's _exactly_ what He did. We are adulterous to the highest degree – going after other gods, other lovers, even to the extent that we _killed_ Him to get rid of that accountability. But He died for us; He cleansed us; He was patient with us until we finally surrendered to Him. Is that not what a Christian marriage should look like as well? Not justice, not giving our spouses what they deserve, but mercy, grace, and forgiveness. Redemption. Loving our spouses as Christ would. As Christ loves us.

That, I believe, is infinitely more beautiful than whatever justice may be in the other view.
_________________________

The link you sent me is the same one I already looked at, and one of the first things it says is "promiscuity of ANY AND EVERY TYPE."

If something is only written to a specific people, and it doesn't specify that it is, I will not accept it as inspired. The book of Matthew may have been sent to the Jews, but it applies to everyone.

If "wife" means "betrothed" here, why does Paul not use the same term in 1 Corinthians 7 when he's talking about betrothal? Why does he instead say "his betrothed", if there was no need to specify that?

Okay, I see that I jumped from one aspect to the other without specifying it. My fault. Actually, this conversation kind of diverted. When I say my view is the view of justice, I means that it's unjust for an innocent victim of divorce to be bound by that for the rest of their miserable life. THAT'S injustice. It's not unjust to say that you should never divorce even if your spouse has an affair; even though I believe that is lawful, I do think it's better to just forgive! Sorry for the confusion over that.
_________________________

Okay…. and your point is? That's still not confining it to adultery. As I said before, it includes adultery, but that is not the primary thrust of the word. Otherwise, Jesus would have said adultery. So the point remains, this would widely broaden the allowances for divorce if it were really supposed to be a hard-and-fast rule for marriage.

O_o You still aren't getting the point… And I don't know what inspiration would have to do with this. There are several places in the Bible where something is said and it only really applies to the original audience. (Case in point: the thing we were talking about with Joshua 10 just earlier. Would you say that's not inspired? Because it doesn't _specify_ that its truth about the rock monument still standing only applies to the original audience; so would that mean you don't see it as the Word of God?)

As I have repeated several times now, the point is, the original audience would have understood it much differently than our modern, traditional interpretation does. Especially because they were Jews. And if God didn't want them to understand it that way, why did He seemingly strengthen that interpretation by not including the exception clause in the accounts of Mark and Luke? Virtually all Gentile churches in the early decades of the church would have been totally in the dark. According to you, they would have been under the false impression that they could not ever get divorced. But you say that they could have, so why would God have left them without that revelation? Why did He allow Mark and Luke to leave it out? I believe it's because it was only meant for the Jews; so God only directed it to be included in the Gospel written to the Jews.

Because that's Paul and not Matthew…? And also because Paul is writing, arguably, several decades later and to a different audience? You're trying to compare apples and oranges here.

No problem. I figured that's what you believe. I just wanted to make clear the primary reason that I value one interpretation over the other.

Ah yes, I forgot to touch on the issue of where adultery begins and ends. I think it's likely that Jesus was referring to physical adultery, because He didn't just say adultery, but "sexual immorality." Yes, lust is in some sense sexual immorality, but I believe that term is likely meant to be more specific than just "adultery" would be. But in answer to your question about my point, my point is that it referred to marriage AFTER betrothal as well as within it.

I do not agree that anything in the Bible only applies to its original audience unless it specifies it or somehow makes it obvious. As for Joshua 10 and other such passages that say "to this day", it does make it obvious. It says "to THIS day"–meaning, to the time this was written. Jesus said "WHOEVER divorces his wife for any reason other than. . ."

Maybe it's not in Mark and Luke because it's in Matthew. I never said they were under any kind of false impression.

So, if Matthew is nothing but a historical account, does that mean that nothing in it applies to us? Can we just ignore any of its principles? And again–what about modern day Jews, half-Jews, etc.?

This, to me–meaning, what we're currently discussing–is not that big of a deal. Like I said, I think that, either way, the best option is to forgive and stay with your spouse. The thing I'm adamant and much concerned about is the issue of whether or not it's okay to remarry if you were the innocent victim of a divorce. But in neither case am I holding to anything just because it's the traditional view; in fact, in the case of the latter, I've believed differently most of my life.

Thanks for moving the conversation here!

By your own exegetical standards, I would say, why doesn't Jesus just say "adultery" if that's what He means? Why would He use a word that's so closely related to a betrothal situation if that's not what He was talking about?

I don't think this would necessarily only apply to the original audience. If nothing else, the principle remains: If two people are engaged or even betrothed, according to today's definition, sexual immorality would be a legitimate reason to abruptly end the relationship. So it's not irrelevant; it's just not about what you keep saying it's about. =P

Wow, how do you continue to miss my point? The point is not that Matthew covers for what Mark and Luke left off. I get that. But the point is that the four Gospels weren't always together in the format in which we have them now. Each one was written to be sufficient in itself to communicate the account of Jesus' life to the audience for which it was intended. Mark and Luke both went to Gentile audiences. Why were the Gentiles not told that there was an exception to the divorce law? Why were they left under the impression that they could never divorce? Until they got their hands on Matthew, which would have been a significantly later date, they had to operate under the information they were given; and apparently Mark (and Peter, really) and Luke were totally fine with that. That makes me think that the exception clause was not meant to be universal.

Of course Matthew applies to us. All of it does. But we must understand it in context. As always.

To an extent, it is a big deal, because it affects a whole lot of people. I know it's not an essential issue or anything, but it's immensely practical in our world. I'm glad you agree that there should be forgiveness and redemption as a rule; that's really what's most important. But I do disagree about the "innocent victim of a divorce thing" and obviously the whole idea that there can be biblical divorces. ;)

Each one was written to be sufficient in itself to communicate the account of Jesus' life to the audience for which it was intended. Mark and Luke both went to Gentile audiences. Why were the Gentiles not told that there was an exception to the divorce law? Why were they left under the impression that they could never divorce? Until they got their hands on Matthew, which would have been a significantly later date, they had to operate under the information they were given; and apparently Mark (and Peter, really) and Luke were totally fine with that. That makes me think that the exception clause was not meant to be universal.

I don't mean to jump in here, but I would be VERY careful about this line of reasoning. Essentially, this type of reasoning logically leads to individuals saying that whatever one book of the Bible, intended for one particular audience, says cannot be meant to applied to other audiences, at least for a certain time period. If that were the case, Paul's teachings to specific churches could not be said to apply to other audiences or the Gospels of Luke and Mark cannot be applied to Jews, or Hebrews to the gentiles. After all, it would have taken a long time for those teaching to reach the unintended audiences. You seem to be saying that every teaching must be mentioned in all the gospels in order for it to be valid. In my opinion, this is simply not true. I know you clarify this by saying that it applies to us now, but this is logically where this type of reasoning leads (at least, when it is used in the form that you used it). Also, the time it took for Matthew to spread was not long at all (I would advise you to look it up; it's actually miraculous how fast it and the other gospels spread), so I think that that does not have real bearing on the logical structure of Nathan's argument.

I am not trying to bash what you are saying; I am just trying to point out that the idea you use to support your point has consequences, consequences that might have very bad effects in the long run.

No, you definitely have a good point. And I totally get what you're saying about the danger of that line of reasoning. I typically stay away from it myself. But when you have a universal statement in a book of the Bible on the morality of something that seems to leave out any exceptions, and the only thing that supposedly sheds light on it is in another book entirely, I think we need to take note of that. I mean, for some reason, Mark did not think it was necessary to record that Jesus talked about an exception. Neither did Luke. Why? That's really all I'm asking. It seems to me that if one of the core parts of Jesus' discourse there was the fact that there is an exception, why would two Gospel writers not mention it at all?

That word was NOT limited to the betrothal system. I read the definition of the word, and the word "betrothal" isn't even mentioned on that page you posted.

Okay, so now it doesn't only apply to its original audience. Then why are you using the fact that it was written to the Jews as a way to say it doesn't apply to us?

I know that's not your point. I'm saying that's an alternative view that makes more sense.

There are countless instances of one Gospel recording something that another Gospel leaves out. Maybe Mark and Luke just didn't remember everything Jesus ever said? Everything you're going by is speculation, and you're trying to decide what applies to who here. Jesus said WHOEVER. Again–what if I'm a half-Jew?

So you think that if someone is divorced by their spouse, it just stinks for them and they should have to make do with being single and miserable the rest of their life, even if they need a spouse? Does that really sound like justice to you? The essence of God's law is justice; if a ruler's law requires injustice, then he is an unjust ruler. But God is a just ruler. His will might allow injustice for whatever reason, but His Law–sometimes called His revealed will–will never require it.

Plus, how do you explain that Paul says that if the unbeliever separates, the victim is NOT BOUND? Not just not guilty of sin, but NOT BOUND. FREE.

Jimmy's right. All the epistles were either written to a specific church or even a specific person, as seen by their names. Paul told the Corinthians to excommunicate the man who was committing adultery with his mother. But since it was written only to that church, does that mean we can allow such people in our churches (and be arrogant)? Hardly. The historical aspect is meant to teach us a lesson. This man was disgustingly violating two of God's laws; therefore he was excommunicated–and all churches should do the same in circumstances like that.

Thanks for posting that in, it helps with the background.

Although I agree with Slave of Christ, His argument could be valid, I also agree with Jimmy, It is very dangerous to deny scriptural applicability to us today. That is what people do with 1 Cor. 11, Homosexuality, etc. Though I also find Nathan's reasoning kinda dangerous as well, He says,
"So you think that if someone is divorced by their spouse, it just stinks for them and they should have to make do with being single and miserable the rest of their life, even if they need a spouse? Does that really sound like justice to you? The essence of God's law is justice; if a ruler's law requires injustice, then he is an unjust ruler. But God is a just ruler. His will might allow injustice for whatever reason, but His Law—sometimes called His revealed will—will never require it."
You are right Nathan, this is the heart of the issue, remarriage.

So do you think that if someone has homosexual leanings, and it just stinks for them and they should have to make do with being straight and miserable for the rest of their life, even if they need a partner? Does that really sound like justice to you? The essence of God's law is justice; if a ruler's law requires injustice, then he is an unjust ruler. But God is a just ruler. His will might allow injustice for whatever reason, but His Law—sometimes called His revealed will—will never require it.

Notice all I did was change a couple words and you certainly wouldn't agree with the conclusion. I am not saying your reasoning is absolutely wrong, I am saying we have to be careful with that line of reasoning.

Now for 1 Cor. 7
I agree with you that the words mean the same thing, (though they are different Greek words). However, what we are really looking at is the phrase "Not under bondage". Bondage to what? I contend to trying to stay with their partner, and that is what the context seems to say. Why does Paul say they are free if they obviously can't stay with their partner? To add clarification, otherwise someone might say, "Well, how am I suppose to fulfill God's plan for me, when my Husband divorces me?" Does that make sense?

If someone needs a partner, God has provided a way–marriage. And He will never deny anyone that. Homosexuality, however, is unnatural. If someone has homosexual leanings, it's their own fault for disobeying God's law. They're not an innocent victim.

Your last paragraph doesn't make sense. The Greek word for "separate" in that verse means the same thing as "divorce." (They're not the same word, but they have the same definitions.)

I am not quite sure how to make my last paragraph more clear. Could you say the things that don't make sense to you?
Again, we have different views on what the person is no longer under bondage to.
Notice I said, "I agree with you that the words mean the same thing" (I was just stating as a point of fact that they are different words.)

Ahhh, okay; I just looked through it sentence by sentence and I see what you're saying now. Well, who would ask that? That would be like if my dad told me to go wash the car, and when I got there I found that it had been stolen. I would just go tell Dad that I wasn't able to do what he said. I wouldn't go "Ah man! Now I'm forced into disobedience; whaddemi gonna do?" (Of course, we'd call the police and all that afterwards, but that's beside the analogy.)

And then your Dad might say, "Oh, well then you don't have to wash it." Which is what Paul did.

And then your Dad might say, "Oh, well then you don't have to wash it." Which is what Paul did.

No; he wouldn't say that, because it's obvious I don't have to wash it. I CAN'T wash it. So I don't need to be told that.

So you are saying that Paul wouldn't state the obvious, even though that is what the immediate context suggests?

So you are saying that Paul wouldn't state the obvious, even though that is what the immediate context suggests?

Well, it would be useless…

So you would prefer it reading,
"But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. God has called you to peace."
"But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace."
Don't you see how that adds clarification?

No. Everyone would understand perfectly well without that one statement.

What about for emphasis and clarification? Sometimes God states something twice for emphasis.
notice, "But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart." See the let him depart. Why can we let him depart? Because, "A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases:" Why should we make an effort to keep him from getting to the point of him departing, because, "God hath called us to peace."

It would be a possibility, I suppose.

But the Greek words point to a meaning of divorce.

That word was NOT limited to the betrothal system. I read the definition of the word, and the word "betrothal" isn't even mentioned on that page you posted. *Again, not my point. (How many times must I repeat that sentence...) My entire point is that it covers a _wide variety_ of things, not just adultery. So your view is in big trouble if it tries to say that this is an exception for regular marriages.* Okay, so now it doesn't only apply to its original audience. Then why are you using the fact that it was written to the Jews as a way to say it doesn't apply to us? *_sigh_ That's not even what I was saying... I meant it in the same way that the entire Bible applies to us. It's there for our edification and learning, whether or not the law directly applies to us. I think the context and the content of the other Gospels makes it clear that that specific exception was directed toward the Jews.* There are countless instances of one Gospel recording something that another Gospel leaves out. Maybe Mark and Luke just didn't remember everything Jesus ever said? Everything you're going by is speculation, and you're trying to decide what applies to who here. Jesus said WHOEVER. Again--what if I'm a half-Jew? *But those examples typically don't change important doctrines and/or concepts. If I were Mark, recording what Jesus said about divorce, and one of the most important things that He said was that there was this exception, I would feel that it's pretty important to include that. But if I'm Mark, and I understand that the exception was primarily directed toward Jews, then I'm not going to write it in my Gospel to the Gentiles. Of course Mark and Luke didn't remember everything; but the oly Spirit was sent to bring "everything to their remembrance." So they recorded exactly what their audiences needed to hear. And apparently the Holy Spirit did not think it was necessary for their original audiences to know that Jesus talked about an exception.* So you think that if someone is divorced by their spouse, it just stinks for them and they should have to make do with being single and miserable the rest of their life, even if they need a spouse? Does that really sound like justice to you? The essence of God's law is justice; if a ruler's law requires injustice, then he is an unjust ruler. But God is a just ruler. His will might allow injustice for whatever reason, but His Law--sometimes called His revealed will--will never require it. *Dude... this is the _exact_ same argument that people use against Christians who believe that Christians who struggle with homosexuality should remain celibate. We can't just go based on feelings and desires. We must go based on God's law, as you said. And I disagree that the focus is justice; I believe the focus is love -- love for God, love for others, and as an extension of that, grace and forgiveness. And I believe that that's what the principle of permanence in marriages allows for. It requires bearing with a wayward spouse, just as God bore with us in our rebellion. We follow the example of Christ: we're committed until death parts us.* Plus, how do you explain that Paul says that if the unbeliever separates, the victim is NOT BOUND? Not just not guilty of sin, but NOT BOUND. FREE. *My view is the same one that witness1615 has been espousing. Paul says that the "victim" is no longer bound to the relationship with his or her spouse. The situation was very strenuous, because one spouse was a believer and the other wasn't, so the believer is free from that strain when the unbeliever leaves. I don't believe it has anything to do with remarriage. God still sees the two as one flesh. And the spouse promised to stay married until death parted him or her from the other spouse. Why would anything change that?*

Again, not my point. (How many times must I repeat that sentence...) My entire point is that it covers a _wide variety_ of things, not just adultery. So your view is in big trouble if it tries to say that this is an exception for regular marriages. *1. As many times as you don't make your point clear. 2. I'll repeat that it's quite clear that it refers to physical adultery because of the wording choice. But okay, do you believe that if the a Jewish husband falls into porno, that means the wife can divorce him?* _sigh_ That's not even what I was saying... I meant it in the same way that the entire Bible applies to us. It's there for our edification and learning, whether or not the law directly applies to us. I think the context and the content of the other Gospels makes it clear that that specific exception was directed toward the Jews. *No. I notice you keep ignoring my question, "WHAT IF I'M A HALF-JEW?"* But those examples typically don't change important doctrines and/or concepts. If I were Mark, recording what Jesus said about divorce, and one of the most important things that He said was that there was this exception, I would feel that it's pretty important to include that. But if I'm Mark, and I understand that the exception was primarily directed toward Jews, then I'm not going to write it in my Gospel to the Gentiles. Of course Mark and Luke didn't remember everything; but the oly Spirit was sent to bring "everything to their remembrance." So they recorded exactly what their audiences needed to hear. And apparently the Holy Spirit did not think it was necessary for their original audiences to know that Jesus talked about an exception. *Or maybe they already knew that Jesus had said that and so it was assumed. AND JESUS SAID "WHOEVER", just like in John 3:16. NOT "WHOEVER AMONG YOU." _"How many times must I repeat that..." ~You_* Dude… this is the _exact_ same argument that people use against Christians who believe that Christians who struggle with homosexuality should remain celibate. We can't just go based on feelings and desires. We must go based on God's law, as you said. And I disagree that the focus is justice; I believe the focus is love — love for God, love for others, and as an extension of that, grace and forgiveness. And I believe that that's what the principle of permanence in marriages allows for. It requires bearing with a wayward spouse, just as God bore with us in our rebellion. We follow the example of Christ: we're committed until death parts us. *1. See my response to what Witness said about homosexuality. 2. Justice and love can never be severed; and it's not unforgiving to take a partner in marriage if you've been dumped. 3. We are commanded not to break the covenant; but if the other side breaks the covenant, it's broken. When Adam sinned, God wasn't wrong to bring death into the world. If the unbeliever breaks the covenant, we're... well, not bound.* My view is the same one that witness1615 has been espousing. Paul says that the "victim" is no longer bound to the relationship with his or her spouse. The situation was very strenuous, because one spouse was a believer and the other wasn't, so the believer is free from that strain when the unbeliever leaves. I don't believe it has anything to do with remarriage. God still sees the two as one flesh. And the spouse promised to stay married until death parted him or her from the other spouse. Why would anything change that? *Okay... God said that a married couple is to live together (assuming that's possible). Why would anything change THAT?*

But those examples typically don't change important doctrines and/or concepts. If I were Mark, recording what Jesus said about divorce, and one of the most important things that He said was that there was this exception, I would feel that it's pretty important to include that. But if I'm Mark, and I understand that the exception was primarily directed toward Jews, then I'm not going to write it in my Gospel to the Gentiles. Of course Mark and Luke didn't remember everything; but the oly Spirit was sent to bring "everything to their remembrance." So they recorded exactly what their audiences needed to hear. And apparently the Holy Spirit did not think it was necessary for their original audiences to know that Jesus talked about an exception.

*Sorry for jumping into this conversation again, but I really feel that this type of reasoning still fails to pass the litmus test of truth. The intended original audience, while important to a degree, is not really the primary lens through which we ought to interpret a passage. Mark wrote to the Jews, but does that mean his inspired words apply only to the Jews or were originally meant to apply only to the Jews? That is not really how inspiration works. God inspired the words of the writers, not simply for the original audience; He inspired Biblical writers primarily such that the Bible as a whole is God's truth, God-breathed for all men. Of course, He cares about the original audience, but He didn't for instance, inspire 1 Thessalonians solely and primarily for the Church of Thessalonica. He inspired it as a part of His plan to give God-breathed truth as a part of His Scriptures as a whole. As a result, things left out of particular gospels and included in others cannot be parsed out solely based on intended audiences. Sure, the original authors had different emphases, reflecting in their words, but that does not mean that when they leave something out, it is not applicable. The gospels form a perfect, inspired whole. What is mentioned in Mark does not have to be mentioned in Luke to be true for everyone. What is mentioned in Luke does not have to be in Mark to be true for everyone. If that were true, then the 18 parables and countless teachings unique to Luke could not be said to have real applicability to the Jews. Specifically regarding the question of the exception for divorce, I think that it is a _major_ reach say that the sole reason it is in one Gospel and not the other is that the one is originally intended for the Jews and the other for the gentiles. It is simply too great of a logical and theological leap. How can anyone be sure that is the reason? It is unsustainable. Again, while sometimes intended audiences can be helpful, relying on them too much in reasoning can create big problems in one's argument.*

Plus, how do you explain that Paul says that if the unbeliever separates, the victim is NOT BOUND? Not just not guilty of sin, but NOT BOUND. FREE. My view is the same one that witness1615 has been espousing. Paul says that the "victim" is no longer bound to the relationship with his or her spouse. The situation was very strenuous, because one spouse was a believer and the other wasn't, so the believer is free from that strain when the unbeliever leaves. I don't believe it has anything to do with remarriage. God still sees the two as one flesh. And the spouse promised to stay married until death parted him or her from the other spouse. Why would anything change that?

*I am not quite sure what you mean here. What does it mean to simply be "free from a relationship"? I guess I am not understanding why you say God would release a woman from the relationship but still declare consider them married. Are you saying that God wants the two-become-one to separate and never try to join together? Why would God say to let your spouse go and yet not even try to fulfill the duties of a spouse? This interpretation seems to go against all other Scripture passages about marriage, where those who had been married are either together through marriage or apart through divorce. No where else in Scripture have I been able to find another example of this "in-between" ground that you try to draw from this passage. God desires marriage to be two willing participants together. It is representative of his Church. When two people make a vow to remain together and be married, God's command to let that one go without divorce would be a deliberate breaking of that vow. That would seem to act directly against the idea of two-become-one. God, as far as other passages go, cannot act like that. It just seems that this passage makes better sense if interpreted in light of divorce. We have to use other Scriptures and the reason God has given us to come to the right conclusion, and it seems that between the vague, "middle-ground" theory and the idea that divorce, in very, very narrow cases (addressed in the Scriptures) is allowable, that it is more reasonable (at least on the surface) for the divorce interpretation to be correct. Again, it could be that your position is completely right. It just seems that more needs to be clarified before that can really* know.

This is a public conversation, Jimmy. Join all you want. =) (And that goes for everyone, by the way, even those who disagree. :-P) I'll read your post later.

Haha! Thanks. :)

*Sorry for jumping into this conversation again, but I really feel that this type of reasoning still fails to pass the litmus test of truth. The intended original audience, while important to a degree, is not really the primary lens through which we ought to interpret a passage. Mark wrote to the Jews, but does that mean his inspired words apply only to the Jews or were originally meant to apply only to the Jews? That is not really how inspiration works. God inspired the words of the writers, not simply for the original audience; He inspired Biblical writers primarily such that the Bible as a whole is God's truth, God-breathed for all men. Of course, He cares about the original audience, but He didn't for instance, inspire 1 Thessalonians solely and primarily for the Church of Thessalonica. He inspired it as a part of His plan to give God-breathed truth as a part of His Scriptures as a whole. As a result, things left out of particular gospels and included in others cannot be parsed out solely based on intended audiences. Sure, the original authors had different emphases, reflecting in their words, but that does not mean that when they leave something out, it is not applicable. The gospels form a perfect, inspired whole. What is mentioned in Mark does not have to be mentioned in Luke to be true for everyone. What is mentioned in Luke does not have to be in Mark to be true for everyone. If that were true, then the 18 parables and countless teachings unique to Luke could not be said to have real applicability to the Jews. Specifically regarding the question of the exception for divorce, I think that it is a _major_ reach say that the sole reason it is in one Gospel and not the other is that the one is originally intended for the Jews and the other for the gentiles. It is simply too great of a logical and theological leap. How can anyone be sure that is the reason? It is unsustainable. Again, while sometimes intended audiences can be helpful, relying on them too much in reasoning can create big problems in one's argument.* _Again, I totally agree with all of your conclusions. In no way am I trying to pit books of the Bible against one another or say that they should only be considered as applicable to their original audience. But I'm saying that in cases of *exceptions* like this, original audience is an important consideration. I mean, imagine if you had 1 Corinthians 6 that says that believers should never sue one another, and then you had an epistle by Peter that said believers should never sue one another *except* when it's an issue of embezzling or something. You could explain it away, yeah, but it would still be odd that one epistle by one author seems to say that there are no exceptions, but then another author says there is an exception. And what would be even more puzzling is if they were both reporting on the words of one source, and one mentioned the exception, while the other didn't. It would seem that the exception would be something very important to mention, since divorce is such a major practical issue for the Christian life. And there's a big difference between no exceptions and one exception (or more; but I'll touch on that later)._ *I am not quite sure what you mean here. What does it mean to simply be "free from a relationship"? I guess I am not understanding why you say God would release a woman from the relationship but still declare consider them married. Are you saying that God wants the two-become-one to separate and never try to join together? Why would God say to let your spouse go and yet not even try to fulfill the duties of a spouse? This interpretation seems to go against all other Scripture passages about marriage, where those who had been married are either together through marriage or apart through divorce. No where else in Scripture have I been able to find another example of this "in-between" ground that you try to draw from this passage. God desires marriage to be two willing participants together. It is representative of his Church. When two people make a vow to remain together and be married, God's command to let that one go without divorce would be a deliberate breaking of that vow. That would seem to act directly against the idea of two-become-one. God, as far as other passages go, cannot act like that.* _God releases the woman (I'm going with a situation where the husband leaves the wife) because her husband has abandoned her. She no longer has to feel committed to the marriage, because it was already a very strained relationship to begin with, and it's better for her to just be free, since the husband had no apparent desire to make it work. But there is no mention of a divorce at all, and there's no implication that she should be able to remarry. She's just no longer obligated to fulfill the responsibilities of a wife, and that's a huge burden off her shoulders. Therefore, "she is no longer bound."_ *It just seems that this passage makes better sense if interpreted in light of divorce. We have to use other Scriptures and the reason God has given us to come to the right conclusion, and it seems that between the vague, "middle-ground" theory and the idea that divorce, in very, very narrow cases (addressed in the Scriptures) is allowable, that it is more reasonable (at least on the surface) for the divorce interpretation to be correct. Again, it could be that your position is completely right. It just seems that more needs to be clarified before that can really know.* _Another reason I think the permanence view is the one that makes the most sense is precisely because of this 1 Corinthians 7 passage. I remember being in a debate online with an Eastern Orthodox fellow who adamantly believed that the Bible left room for more grounds for divorce than just the two mentioned in Scripture. His primary reason for believing that was that Mark and Luke give the impression that there are no exceptions; then Matthew says that there is an exception, but gives no impression that there are any others at all; and then the traditional interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7 yields yet *another* exception. His point was, if Matthew's apparent exclusive exception wasn't really exclusive, then why should we believe that only the exceptions in Matthew and 1 Corinthians are legitimate? Obviously if the exclusive language of Matthew 19 still left room for the exception in 1 Corinthians 7, then there's no reason to believe that there aren't more exceptions -- emotional or physical abuse, for example._ _So I think the permanence view is just more consistent with the overall theme of Scripture -- the themes of redemption, grace, forgiveness, forbearance, patience, and Christlike love. Giving up when the going gets tough is not what the Bible teaches -- even if one only applies that principle in the two specific instances that Scripture supposedly gives us. I believe both the nature of the marriage vows we say, and just the overall presentation of marriage in God's Word, give us every reason to believe that marriage is to last forever, no matter what._

You could read the book our Church's elders wrote on the topic of divorce and remarriage, the permanence view. ;) Just saying. Honestly, I haven't really studied the topic myself, I have read an article in brief summary of the book before I joined our Church as a member, though. But I definitely agree with the view held in it, as well as does my dad and Church. Not that that matters, necessarily, to you, but if you ever wanted to read a whole book on the topic. =)

leaves

You could read the book our Church's elders wrote on the topic of divorce and remarriage, the permanence view. ;) Just saying. Honestly, I haven't really _studied_ the topic myself, I have read an article in brief summary of the book before I joined our Church as a member, though. But I definitely agree with the view held in it, as well as does my dad and Church. Not that _that_ matters, necessarily, to you, but if you ever wanted to read a whole book on the topic. =)

Thanks. And I agree with Calvin and all the Puritan commentators. ;-)

*1. As many times as you don't make your point clear. 2. I'll repeat that it's quite clear that it refers to physical adultery because of the wording choice. But okay, do you believe that if the a Jewish husband falls into porno, that means the wife can divorce him?* Um.... no.... this is not about Jewish people. It's about the betrothal situation (and whatever modern equivalent you want to bring up) where they weren't married, but they were committed to be married. So if a Jewish man was betrothed to a Jewish woman/girl, and she discovered that he had been going down to the local brothel and staring at stuff he shouldn't have been staring at, yes, I think this gives her grounds for "divorcing" him. That would be sexual immorality that shows that he's not ready to be committed appropriately to a marriage. *No. I notice you keep ignoring my question, "WHAT IF I'M A HALF-JEW?"* I'm ignoring it because it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what I'm talking about. It has nothing to do with ethnicity. It has everything to do with cultural practice. If the half-Jew practices the betrothal rituals mentioned above, then yeah, he can divorce his betrothed in the way described under the circumstances given. *Or maybe they already knew that Jesus had said that and so it was assumed. AND JESUS SAID "WHOEVER", just like in John 3:16. NOT "WHOEVER AMONG YOU." _"How many times must I repeat that..." ~You_* Wow. That's an Arminian argument if I ever saw one. xD So every instance of the word "whoever" always applies to any person ever? =P Even John 3:16 does not just say "whoever." It says "whoever *believes*." ;) It doesn't say "whoever will not perish and have eternal life" -- meaning everyone -- but "whoever *believes* will not perish...." So that was a really bad analogy. xD *1. See my response to what Witness said about homosexuality. 2. Justice and love can never be severed; and it's not unforgiving to take a partner in marriage if you've been dumped. 3. We are commanded not to break the covenant; but if the other side breaks the covenant, it's broken. When Adam sinned, God wasn't wrong to bring death into the world. If the unbeliever breaks the covenant, we're... well, not bound.* 1. I saw your response already, and it was lame. =P 2. That's your opinion. It seems to me that remarriage should never be resorted to, because one never knows if the wayward spouse will repent. That possibility should always be left open. We should always be waiting and praying for the prodigal to come home. So to go and get married to someone else is to totally cut that person off from redemption and to prevent the marriage from any sense of restoration. That is a travesty, as I see it. 3. Really? Where do you get that? You've promised to be with them for better or for worse, until death parts you. Just because the "for worse" means that they don't think they love you anymore and they want out doesn't mean that you're suddenly "free" or "no longer bound" and you can go marry someone else. No, you made the commitment to them, and you're required to carry it out to the best of your ability as long as you both live. *Okay... God said that a married couple is to live together (assuming that's possible). Why would anything change THAT?* Because God says it can be changed... right there in 1 Corinthians 7... He left her. She can't really go chase after him at that point. =P So Paul says that she's free to live her life. But that shouldn't mean that she ever stops praying that God saves him and that he repents and returns to her.

_Again, I totally agree with all of your conclusions. In no way am I trying to pit books of the Bible against one another or say that they should only be considered as applicable to their original audience. But I'm saying that in cases of *exceptions* like this, original audience is an important consideration. I mean, imagine if you had 1 Corinthians 6 that says that believers should never sue one another, and then you had an epistle by Peter that said believers should never sue one another *except* when it's an issue of embezzling or something. You could explain it away, yeah, but it would still be odd that one epistle by one author seems to say that there are no exceptions, but then another author says there is an exception. And what would be even more puzzling is if they were both reporting on the words of one source, and one mentioned the exception, while the other didn't. It would seem that the exception would be something very important to mention, since divorce is such a major practical issue for the Christian life. And there's a big difference between no exceptions and one exception (or more; but I'll touch on that later)._ *I see where you are coming from as well, and this ultimately leads back to a difference in understanding of Scripture interpretation. In your view, a mentioning in one gospel and a non-mentioning in another means that we must look at the original audience for the answer. I agree that this can be a useful tool, but I don't think we can make logically-sound arguments based off of such an investigation. You are essentially saying that because the one is mentioned in the gospel to the Jews and isn't mentioned in the one to the gentiles, it _must_ be related to the audience. I think God was thinking of the Scriptures as a whole, instead of separately. As the Gospel were written and accepted together very quickly and about he same time, there would not have been confusion regarding this teaching. God, in essence, did not _need_ to say it in both, as it was already in the one. Yes, one might argue that it would be nice if it were in all the Gospels, but to be honest, it does not follow that it has to be in order for the exception to be valid. Ultimately, I just can't see the logical connection of "it's in only the gospel written to the Jews, therefore it could only have been meant for the Jews." The link is too thin, and that is why I think the argument falls apart. Even if permanence is true (and it might be), this way, while possibly indicative, is not strong enough to reach that conclusion.* I am not quite sure what you mean here. What does it mean to simply be "free from a relationship"? I guess I am not understanding why you say God would release a woman from the relationship but still declare consider them married. Are you saying that God wants the two-become-one to separate and never try to join together? Why would God say to let your spouse go and yet not even try to fulfill the duties of a spouse? This interpretation seems to go against all other Scripture passages about marriage, where those who had been married are either together through marriage or apart through divorce. No where else in Scripture have I been able to find another example of this "in-between" ground that you try to draw from this passage. God desires marriage to be two willing participants together. It is representative of his Church. When two people make a vow to remain together and be married, God's command to let that one go without divorce would be a deliberate breaking of that vow. That would seem to act directly against the idea of two-become-one. God, as far as other passages go, cannot act like that. _God releases the woman (I'm going with a situation where the husband leaves the wife) because her husband has abandoned her. She no longer has to feel committed to the marriage, because it was already a very strained relationship to begin with, and it's better for her to just be free, since the husband had no apparent desire to make it work. But there is no mention of a divorce at all, and there's no implication that she should be able to remarry. She's just no longer obligated to fulfill the responsibilities of a wife, and that's a huge burden off her shoulders. Therefore, "she is no longer bound."_ *This simply does not make sense. I believe (and I think you do to) that marriage is a special, powerful symbol of love and devotion, of two-become-one. It is a wonderful thing that God means to bring people together. He wants that commitment to be real. However, this idea of "she no longer has to feel committed to the marriage, because it was already strained" makes no sense. This goes against the very Biblical view of marriage. God requires the binding, you say, but then commands that those very vows not be followed. She doesn't have to be committed, but at the same time she does. This is an exceptionally vague and, in my view, contradictory interpretation of Scripture.* *I want to look again at 1 Corinthians 7 for some context that might prove very helpful. Here is the passage in question:* *10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: 11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. 12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. 13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. 15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.* *Look at verse 11. If the wife depart (the same greek word used later in the passage and which you believe to mean "leave but not divorce"), let her _remain unmarried_. Look at the Greek there. "Remain" and "unmarried" really do mean "remain" and "unmarried." The use of these words comes after the word "depart." In context then, to depart means to place oneself in the state of non-marriage. You, through departing, become unmarried. When God uses the same word only a couple verses later, context indicates the same thing: "departs" is best understood in terms of divorce.* *Look also at verse 12. "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away." Traditionally, to "put someone away" has been translated from the Greek as "divorce." It is the best and most accurate English equivalent. If an unbelieving wife wants to dwell with the believer, the verse says, you should not divorce her; this implies, however, that if the opposite is true (that she wants to leave), then divorce is permissible. In a disjunctive sentence like that, the opposite of the premise becomes the opposite of the conclusion. In that way, divorce in the specific case mentioned does become permissible.* _Another reason I think the permanence view is the one that makes the most sense is precisely because of this 1 Corinthians 7 passage. I remember being in a debate online with an Eastern Orthodox fellow who adamantly believed that the Bible left room for more grounds for divorce than just the two mentioned in Scripture. His primary reason for believing that was that Mark and Luke give the impression that there are no exceptions; then Matthew says that there is an exception, but gives no impression that there are any others at all; and then the traditional interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7 yields yet *another* exception. His point was, if Matthew's apparent exclusive exception wasn't really exclusive, then why should we believe that only the exceptions in Matthew and 1 Corinthians are legitimate? Obviously if the exclusive language of Matthew 19 still left room for the exception in 1 Corinthians 7, then there's no reason to believe that there aren't more exceptions -- emotional or physical abuse, for example._ *Please do not hold me to the logical inconsistencies of another individual's arguments. Your Eastern Orthodox friend is simply in error when he said that the Bible opens up an endless door of exceptions. That is not how the Bible works, and my reasoning is not subject to that line of attack. Jesus, for instance, ate certain food and healed men on the Sabbath, acts that the Law said He could not do. In very simple words without delving into the really amazing theology behind those acts, Jesus stated an exception to the rule. Now, one could say that Jesus left the door open for no one to ever follow the Passover ever again and to break God's Laws (in a round-about way, he did do that through the Cross, but that is not quite the point of what I am saying), but that would be wrong. Exceptions given by God do not extend beyond what He Himself says. He alone is the Truth. Now, when I say that the Bible creates a very narrow, explicit exception in the Scriptures, that is all I am saying the exception extends to. One could argue that if there is one exception, there could be many more, but that would be adding to the Word of God, which is sin (Proverbs 30:6). God does not leave us room to add. He gave us the principle to which he can provide His own exceptions given in all wisdom. When one takes a principle and says that there could not possibly be a circumstance to which it does not apply, he could be right (a lot of principles are like this), or he could be like the Pharisees who did not understand God-given exceptions (Please do not think I am calling you a Pharisee. I am definitely not.) In summary, I would be careful about applying one individual's flawed logic as evidence against another's point. While your friend's logic might work elsewhere, the playing field is very different where the Bible is concerned.* _So I think the permanence view is just more consistent with the overall theme of Scripture -- the themes of redemption, grace, forgiveness, forbearance, patience, and Christlike love. Giving up when the going gets tough is not what the Bible teaches -- even if one only applies that principle in the two specific instances that Scripture supposedly gives us. I believe both the nature of the marriage vows we say, and just the overall presentation of marriage in God's Word, give us every reason to believe that marriage is to last forever, no matter what._

*And this is where our conclusions largely converge and our reasons differ. I would say that my view is the more consistent with the overall theme of Scripture. I agree with you that giving up when the going gets tough is not always the right thing (though why you say that God allows the woman to "give up" so to speak on her relationship eludes me), but when God provides an exception, I think it is not necessarily a sin to take it. Our vows are important, but when they are broken/God says they are not binding, then I believe they cannot hold us captive.* *Please let me be clear: Divorce is tragic. I hate it; you hate it; Nathan hates it; Caleb hates it; the Puritans hated it; Voddie Baucham hates it; John Piper Hates it; William Henry hates it; we all hate it. It is one of the saddest things in life. Sometimes, though, God allows us to not be bound to certain, specific equally tragic situations within our marriage. God loves marriage, but there are times when He says we are no longer bound. The spouse may depart. This does not detract from God. As far as I see it, it adds some very important elements to His incredible character.*

Yes. All of it. Yes, yes, YES!

+TO YOUR RESPONSE TO JIMMY:+

Again, I totally agree with all of your conclusions. In no way am I trying to pit books of the Bible against one another or say that they should only be considered as applicable to their original audience. But I'm saying that in cases of *exceptions* like this, original audience is an important consideration. I mean, imagine if you had 1 Corinthians 6 that says that believers should never sue one another, and then you had an epistle by Peter that said believers should never sue one another *except* when it's an issue of embezzling or something. You could explain it away, yeah, but it would still be odd that one epistle by one author seems to say that there are no exceptions, but then another author says there is an exception. And what would be even more puzzling is if they were both reporting on the words of one source, and one mentioned the exception, while the other didn't. It would seem that the exception would be something very important to mention, since divorce is such a major practical issue for the Christian life. And there's a big difference between no exceptions and one exception (or more; but I'll touch on that later). *There are no "exceptions" unless God specifies them. What I draw from the fact that only one Gospel mentions that is that God PREFERS that we just forgive and move on, but it is lawful to divorce. So divorce wouldn't be sin, but it wouldn't honor God like staying together would.* God releases the woman (I'm going with a situation where the husband leaves the wife) because her husband has abandoned her. She no longer has to feel committed to the marriage, because it was already a very strained relationship to begin with, and it's better for her to just be free, since the husband had no apparent desire to make it work. But there is no mention of a divorce at all, and there's no implication that she should be able to remarry. She's just no longer obligated to fulfill the responsibilities of a wife, and that's a huge burden off her shoulders. Therefore, "she is no longer bound." *Martin pointed out to me last night that "no longer bound" means the binding _covenant_. Also, if God allows the wife to be free from her duties--which is unlawful under other circumstances--then why wouldn't He release her from the marriage? Both are sin under other circumstances anyway. And when God says He has "called them to peace", that strongly implies that they are "never ever ever getting back together" [Swift]. And if they do get back together, they should probably make the renew the covenant. So why would God allow them to be separated but married? The whole point of marriage is to be together.* Another reason I think the permanence view is the one that makes the most sense is precisely because of this 1 Corinthians 7 passage. I remember being in a debate online with an Eastern Orthodox fellow who adamantly believed that the Bible left room for more grounds for divorce than just the two mentioned in Scripture. His primary reason for believing that was that Mark and Luke give the impression that there are no exceptions; then Matthew says that there is an exception, but gives no impression that there are any others at all; and then the traditional interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7 yields yet another exception. His point was, if Matthew's apparent exclusive exception wasn't really exclusive, then why should we believe that only the exceptions in Matthew and 1 Corinthians are legitimate? Obviously if the exclusive language of Matthew 19 still left room for the exception in 1 Corinthians 7, then there's no reason to believe that there aren't more exceptions — emotional or physical abuse, for example. *With regards to emotional abuse, I agree with this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82oJASb0v94 (watch all of it before you freak out, because there are clarifications to what he says). With regards to physical abuse, buzz the cops.* So I think the permanence view is just more consistent with the overall theme of Scripture — the themes of redemption, grace, forgiveness, forbearance, patience, and Christlike love. Giving up when the going gets tough is not what the Bible teaches — even if one only applies that principle in the two specific instances that Scripture supposedly gives us. I believe both the nature of the marriage vows we say, and just the overall presentation of marriage in God's Word, give us every reason to believe that marriage is to last forever, no matter what. *Giving up when going gets tough, eh? Awww, that sounds so convicting! Okay, this is scary. "EVEN IF?" _WHAT?!?!_ You basically just said "It's not true even if the Bible says it is." Yeah, marriage should last forever, but it requires TWO people to keep a covenant. And if one person breaks, the bond is busted. Just like when Adam sinned, his covenant with God was broken and God, in turn, denied him mundane life. In no way am I saying that you SHOULD divorce your spouse if the break the covenant--I in fact think you should not--but it's not sinful to do so. The law permits it but by no means encourages it.*

+TO YOUR RESPONSE TO ME:+

Um.... no.... this is not about Jewish people. It's about the betrothal situation (and whatever modern equivalent you want to bring up) where they weren't married, but they were committed to be married. So if a Jewish man was betrothed to a Jewish woman/girl, and she discovered that he had been going down to the local brothel and staring at stuff he shouldn't have been staring at, yes, I think this gives her grounds for "divorcing" him. That would be sexual immorality that shows that he's not ready to be committed appropriately to a marriage. *No. The definition is immorality of ANY KIND, not just in betrothal. And the definition doesn't even mention betrothal; the word betrothal is not even on that page you shared. {Edit} Yyyes! HERE'S WHAT I'VE BEEN LOOKING FOR! The original manuscripts use the word "fornication", which means physical adultery. So that's the limit. We have an answer for that now.* Wow. That's an Arminian argument if I ever saw one. xD So every instance of the word "whoever" always applies to any person ever? =P Even John 3:16 does not just say "whoever." It says "whoever *believes*." ;) It doesn't say "whoever will not perish and have eternal life" -- meaning everyone -- but "whoever *believes* will not perish...." So that was a really bad analogy. xD *Okay, so John 6:13 says "whoever believes" and the passage at hand says "whoever divorces." I didn't say John 3:16 didn't have a conditional verb. And if there were any exceptions in God's law, He wouldn't just say "whoever". He would specify the exception.* 1. I saw your response already, and it was lame. =P 2. That's your opinion. It seems to me that remarriage should never be resorted to, because one never knows if the wayward spouse will repent. That possibility should always be left open. We should always be waiting and praying for the prodigal to come home. So to go and get married to someone else is to totally cut that person off from redemption and to prevent the marriage from any sense of restoration. That is a travesty, as I see it. 3. Really? Where do you get that? You've promised to be with them for better or for worse, until death parts you. Just because the "for worse" means that they don't think they love you anymore and they want out doesn't mean that you're suddenly "free" or "no longer bound" and you can go marry someone else. No, you made the commitment to them, and you're required to carry it out to the best of your ability as long as you both live. *1. Actuallyyyyy... Marriage is highly recommended multiple times in the Bible. Homosexuality is unnatural and a perversion of God's creation of sex. Trying to compare the two is absurd. God will withhold a perversion from someone, but not a gift that He intended for everyone who needs it. 2. The wayward can still repent if the victim remarries. And if they don't get to return, that's their own fault. Their victim needed a spouse, so he/she remarried. That's not a travesty. 3. Not all violations of the covenant free the other side. God specifies which one does; in fact it's only one. What I meant was a violation of the sexual purity covenant.* Because God says it can be changed... right there in 1 Corinthians 7... He left her. She can't really go chase after him at that point. =P So Paul says that she's free to live her life. But that shouldn't mean that she ever stops praying that God saves him and that he repents and returns to her. *Because God says it can be changed--that is precisely my point! Easier than I thought. I agree that she should pray for him to repent, and if that happens, he WILL return. And if it is too late, that is not one bit defrauding.*

Wait–the passage Jimmy posted brought something to my attention that I was previously unaware of. The whole context of that part is under the statement "I say, not the Lord."

Parts of the Bible that say this mean that what they're about to say is the BEST way to do things, but other ways are not unlawful. I mean, it says that the Lord doesn't say it. So, being inspired, whatever statement may follow is the preferred way. But not the only way.

What does that mean for this passage? I leads me to the same nature of conclusion I have about the other issue: it's BEST not to remarry, but it's not unlawful to remarry.

I think that is a very good question, however, it might be best to start it on a new topic.

"Please let me be clear: Divorce is tragic. I hate it; you hate it; Nathan hates it; Caleb hates it; the Puritans hated it; Voddie Baucham hates it; John Piper Hates it; William Henry hates it; we all hate it." Love this.

Here is a statement our church has in our directory.
"According to the Scriptures, Christian couples can separate, but not divorce (1 Cor. 7:10-11,15) These couples should seek reconciliation to their spouse or remain single for life."

"Actuallyyyyy… Marriage is highly recommended multiple times in the Bible. Homosexuality is unnatural and a perversion of God's creation of sex. Trying to compare the two is absurd. God will withhold a perversion from someone, but not a gift that He intended for everyone who needs it. "
You misunderstand how we see divorce and remarriage. I see remarriage as adultery, which as you would agree is NOT recommended in the Bible. God's gift of sex is only a gift if it is used within the bounds He created.
I disagree, I don't think there is a person out there who "needs" it, especially if that person "needs" it outside the bounds of marriage, in fact, it would seem that Paul recommends singleness. Also, here is a thought for you, Marriage is a picture of Christ and the Church.

http://www.nelsonleemiller.com/?s=divorce
Here is a little brief article by a friend of mine on the topic.

Here is a statement our church has in our directory. "According to the Scriptures, Christian couples can separate, but not divorce (1 Cor. 7:10-11,15) These couples should seek reconciliation to their spouse or remain single for life." *No, for the reasons Jimmy and I have posted above. And woah! _Christian_ couples? 1 Corinthians 7 talks about a marriage between a believer and an unbeliever, but but does not mention divorce between Christians!* "Actuallyyyyy… Marriage is highly recommended multiple times in the Bible. Homosexuality is unnatural and a perversion of God's creation of sex. Trying to compare the two is absurd. God will withhold a perversion from someone, but not a gift that He intended for everyone who needs it. " You misunderstand how we see divorce and remarriage. I see remarriage as adultery, which as you would agree is NOT recommended in the Bible. God's gift of sex is only a gift if it is used within the bounds He created. I disagree, I don't think there is a person out there who "needs" it, especially if that person "needs" it outside the bounds of marriage, in fact, it would seem that Paul recommends singleness. Also, here is a thought for you, Marriage is a picture of Christ and the Church. *I'm not saying someone needs sex; I'm saying they might need marriage. And no; Paul says that singleness is good for a person just like marriage is; the book of Proverbs balances that well. (Paul was balancing Proverbs likewise.) Neither way is better than the other; rather what's best for everyone is to follow God's calling--some to marriage, some to singleness. Yes; marriage is a picture of Christ and the Church, but no representation is perfect down to every detail--eg, the husband doesn't have to die and rise again before marrying the wife. Similarly, the covenant of marriage can be broken; whereas the covenant of salvation can't be. But you won't agree that this is a difference, Caleb, because you believe we can lose our salvation (sorry if I'm mixing you up with someone else?)--so that's another topic. But anyway, since you do believe we can lost our salvation, I would expect you to think that divorce, though still wrong, also illustrates what can happen with the covenant of salvation. But, well, rabbit trail. :-P* http://www.nelsonleemiller.com/?s=divorce Here is a little brief article by a friend of mine on the topic. *No; Jesus was answering their question about DIVORCE, not temporary separation.*

http://www.nelsonleemiller.com/?s=divorce Here is a little brief article by a friend of mine on the topic.

Interesting article, by the way, and well-written. I think, though, that he seems to force the passage to do grammatical gymnastics in order for him to get his point across. I do not really agree with his understanding of English grammar and the use of phrases within commas, so I guess that is probably why we disagree. I have not really studied the Hebrew/Aramaic of this particular text (and from what I understand, your friend hasn't really either) and I am not quite sure of the grammatical customs of the time, so I think neither of us can say definitively whether his is a workable argument. I think, where grammar is concerned, we cannot just rely on grammatical arguments arising from the English translation to make that point for us. To do what he is trying to do, he would have to go back to the original Hebrew. Just a thought. :)