Divorce and Remarriage

Also about that article: Jesus was comparing the Old Covenant divorce laws with the new changes He was making–so both were talking about legal, official divorce.

After a few comments, the writer of the article is now in agreement with me.

Okay, so are you okay with divorce, but not with remarriage? or is it both?

Okay, so are you okay with divorce, but not with remarriage? or is it both?

Okay. If the spouse fornicates, divorce is lawful but not encouraged. Under no other circumstance is divorce lawful.
Remarriage is lawful under two circumstances–1: if you were the one divorced, or 2: if you divorced your spouse on the Biblical ground. If you divorced your spouse for any reason except fornication, you may not remarry (possibly unless your ex-spouse remarries; I haven't thought about that).

I have to go out to the barn, but here is something for you to meditate on.

On God hating divorce, "And this have ye done again, covering the altar of the LORD with tears, with weeping, and with crying out, insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, or receiveth it with good will at your hand. Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth. For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously." Asterisks mine.

On separation by death,
"For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man."

This is an important topic, John the Baptist lost his head over it you'll remember.

on special pleading,

THE ARGUMENT THAT AN INNOCENT PARTY HAS CERTAIN FREEDOMS

First of all, it is doubtful that there ever is “a totally innocent party” in a marriage conflict. Usually each person in the marriage relationship had some part to play in the conflict, and was not absolutely and totally innocent. To say that a person in conflict with another is totally innocent is a pretty big statement. Perhaps there are some exceptions to the general rule, and so we should look at how the Bible would deal with the conflict if someone is indeed completely innocent.

What about the person who has experienced marriage failure, and seems totally innocent of any wrongdoing in the conflict that led to the divorce? Is it proper for that so-called “innocent” person to remarry?

The latter part of Matthew 19:9 records the words of Jesus–“whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.” Jesus does not say why the woman was divorced. Perhaps she didn’t cook right, or maybe she ran off with another man, or she may have combed her hair in a way that displeased her husband. God says that the marital relationship is so sacred that there are no exceptions—even if one of the parties is innocent. First Corinthians 7:10 says that we need to keep the marriage in-tact, because in marriage, we are involved in a covenant relationship, and we are to keep our part of the covenant even if the other party breaks his/her vow. Even if there is such a thing as “an innocent party” in a marriage conflict, there still seems to be no right to re-marry.

Some quote from 1 Corinthians 7:15 and conclude that the Bible says in certain situations an individual “is not under bondage.” They say that if you are married to an unbeliever, and the unbeliever departs, you are free from the bondage of marriage—as free as if you had never been married. But the teaching in 1 Corinthians 7:15 is that if the unbelieving partner departs, and doesn’t want to have anything to do with you, let him/her go. You are not bound to keep on following, serving, and hounding the partner. Let him/her go. God has called us to peace. To interpret the passage any other way would contradict other verses in the same chapter. First Corinthians 7:11, for example, says “Let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband.” There is something binding about the first marriage. The married person is always to let the door open for reconciliation. Only death terminates a marriage. Therefore the word “bondage” (1 Corinthians 7:15) does not mean that one is free from the bond of marriage, when serious conflict arises.

There is an example in the Bible of how to experience God’s blessing when tangled marriage situations are present. In the book of Ezra, there is an example of a voluntary separation of partners who were wrongly married. True, the wrongly married persons may have seemed happy together. They had a family and home (Ezra 10:44). Yet the solution to separate was what the Children of Israel were told to do, if they had been involved in sinful marital relationships. There were probably some young men and women in the camp who were deeply in love with each other, yet the Lord’s disciples must be reminded that “the way of the transgressor is hard.” Sometimes there is no easy way out of difficult situations.

In 1 Corinthians 7:11, the Lord gives a permissive will related to marriage: “But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife.” God does allow married partners to separate if the relationship be-tween them becomes too strained. When separation occurs, however, there are only two options—to remain unmarried, or to become reconciled to the married partner.

Some say that it is too much to ask a person to go through life without enjoying the blessings of marriage and becoming the parents of children. But the Apostle Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7:8 that singleness is a good choice to make. He gives reasons in 1 Corinthians 7:32-34. God calls some people to remain eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. We should exalt this position as an option for our young people. God has a real blessing in store for those who choose that direction. Isaiah 56:4-5 informs us that God holds a special place in His heart for those people who are willing to forego some of the otherwise acceptable pleasures of this life for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.

Surely, if God has special blessings and grace for those who choose a life of singleness for the kingdom of heaven’s sake—there will be sufficient grace for those who have had unfortunate marriages, and are determined to go through life without remarrying.

From from http://www.brfwitness.org/god-speaks-about-divorce-and-remarriage-fornication-and-living-together-before-marriage/

I have to go out to the barn, but here is something for you to meditate on. On God hating divorce, "And this have ye done again, covering the altar of the LORD with tears, with weeping, and with crying out, insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, or receiveth it with good will at your hand. Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth. For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth _putting away_: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously." Asterisks mine. *What Jimmy said.* On separation by death, "For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man." *While her HUSBAND is alive, not an ex-husband who divorced her.* This is an important topic, John the Baptist lost his head over it you'll remember. on special pleading, THE ARGUMENT THAT AN INNOCENT PARTY HAS CERTAIN FREEDOMS First of all, it is doubtful that there ever is “a totally innocent party” in a marriage conflict. Usually each person in the marriage relationship had some part to play in the conflict, and was not absolutely and totally innocent. To say that a person in conflict with another is totally innocent is a pretty big statement. Perhaps there are some exceptions to the general rule, and so we should look at how the Bible would deal with the conflict if someone is indeed completely innocent. *If the two people agree to divorce, then neither should remarry no matter whose original idea it was. But if one party does NOT want to divorce but is forced by the other party, only then are they unbound; and that's justice, not special pleading.* What about the person who has experienced marriage failure, and seems totally innocent of any wrongdoing in the conflict that led to the divorce? Is it proper for that so-called “innocent” person to remarry? *What's the term "so-called" doing in there? That's ignorant.* The latter part of Matthew 19:9 records the words of Jesus–“whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.” Jesus does not say why the woman was divorced. Perhaps she didn’t cook right, or maybe she ran off with another man, or she may have combed her hair in a way that displeased her husband. God says that the marital relationship is so sacred that there are no exceptions—even if one of the parties is innocent. First Corinthians 7:10 says that we need to keep the marriage in-tact, because in marriage, we are involved in a covenant relationship, and we are to keep our part of the covenant even if the other party breaks his/her vow. Even if there is such a thing as “an innocent party” in a marriage conflict, there still seems to be no right to re-marry. *The Greek word for "divorce" here strongly indicates the act of divorce--as in, someone who divorced their spouse, as opposed to someone who was divorced by their spouse.* Some quote from 1 Corinthians 7:15 and conclude that the Bible says in certain situations an individual “is not under bondage.” They say that if you are married to an unbeliever, and the unbeliever departs, you are free from the bondage of marriage—as free as if you had never been married. But the teaching in 1 Corinthians 7:15 is that if the unbelieving partner departs, and doesn’t want to have anything to do with you, let him/her go. You are not bound to keep on following, serving, and hounding the partner. Let him/her go. God has called us to peace. To interpret the passage any other way would contradict other verses in the same chapter. First Corinthians 7:11, for example, says “Let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband.” There is something binding about the first marriage. The married person is always to let the door open for reconciliation. Only death terminates a marriage. Therefore the word “bondage” (1 Corinthians 7:15) does not mean that one is free from the bond of marriage, when serious conflict arises. *OHHHHHHH MYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!! Are these people really blind, or are they being deceitful? It's honestly hard to tell. I would laugh out loud at that paragraph if it wasn't so disturbing. This is the most blatant out-of-context argument I've seen since the last TLDW article I read. 7:11 is referring to a woman who left her husband! Right there in the same verse, it says "IF SHE DEPART". It has nothing to do with someone who was left by their unbelieving husband. I'm tempted to ignore the rest of this garbage if the authors are going to ignore the context that is right there in the same verse. But I have a few more pearls left, so I might as well cast them.* There is an example in the Bible of how to experience God’s blessing when tangled marriage situations are present. In the book of Ezra, there is an example of a voluntary separation of partners who were wrongly married. True, the wrongly married persons may have seemed happy together. They had a family and home (Ezra 10:44). Yet the solution to separate was what the Children of Israel were told to do, if they had been involved in sinful marital relationships. There were probably some young men and women in the camp who were deeply in love with each other, yet the Lord’s disciples must be reminded that “the way of the transgressor is hard.” Sometimes there is no easy way out of difficult situations. *It was a consequence of their own sins.* In 1 Corinthians 7:11, the Lord gives a permissive will related to marriage: “But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife.” God does allow married partners to separate if the relationship be-tween them becomes too strained. When separation occurs, however, there are only two options—to remain unmarried, or to become reconciled to the married partner. *I feel like punching a hole in the wall. That verse is referring to divorce, saying that it is NOT lawful! It says that she should NOT depart! It is NOT saying that you can separate when things strain. It's saying that if you do sin by doing that, you can't remarry. But in no way is it saying that you can separate as long as you don't remarry. Have these people even read the entirety of 1 Corinthians 7, in order?!* Some say that it is too much to ask a person to go through life without enjoying the blessings of marriage and becoming the parents of children. But the Apostle Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7:8 that singleness is a good choice to make. He gives reasons in 1 Corinthians 7:32-34. God calls some people to remain eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. We should exalt this position as an option for our young people. God has a real blessing in store for those who choose that direction. Isaiah 56:4-5 informs us that God holds a special place in His heart for those people who are willing to forego some of the otherwise acceptable pleasures of this life for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. *It would definitely bring honor to God for a victim not to remarry. But it's not unlawful for them to remarry just because there are benefits to being single or because God calls some people to be single for life.* Surely, if God has special blessings and grace for those who choose a life of singleness for the kingdom of heaven’s sake—there will be sufficient grace for those who have had unfortunate marriages, and are determined to go through life without remarrying. *Yup! But that doesn't make it unlawful for them to remarry. It just means they're doing the best they can.* From from http://www.brfwitness.org/god-speaks-about-divorce-and-remarriage-fornication-and-living-together-before-marriage/

That was sickening. Please don't post anything else from these people. They have serious problems. Good grief; they blow off the context even if it's in the same verse! Does anyone else call red flag?

Hey, Nathan! I would encourage you to try to be a bit less caustic in your responses on this thread. Even if an argument is wrong, words like "that was sickening" do not really foster a healthy atmosphere for debate. Just a thought. :)

Hey, Nathan! I would encourage you to try to be a bit less caustic in your responses on this thread. Even if an argument is wrong, words like "that was sickening" do not really foster a healthy atmosphere for debate. Just a thought. :)

I appreciate the input. Normally I do try not to get heated, but that article was genuinely offensive because the authors were clearly either incompetents or liars–and therefore, in either case, have no business teaching about Scripture.

I have to go out to the barn, but here is something for you to meditate on. *EDIT: I wrote this small block of text after I read and responded to your post. It seems that you are arguing about re-marriage, rather than divorce. If so, a lot of my comments you can probably disregard, as I misunderstood what you were arguing at the time. :)* On God hating divorce, "And this have ye done again, covering the altar of the LORD with tears, with weeping, and with crying out, insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, or receiveth it with good will at your hand. Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth. For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth **putting away**: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously." Asterisks mine. *You are right here. As I said, no one (even God) would say that divorce is inherently a good thing. Looking at the context of the verse just by looking at the verses you cite here, though, it is clear that God is contextually talking about a husband dealing _treacherously_ with his wife, and covering _violence_ with his garment. This is not a blanket statement that all instances of "putting away" are disapproved of by God (in that it is a sin to do so).* On separation by death, "For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man." *Nathan is right here. This refers to a situation in which the woman is still legally married to her husband and marries someone else. Divorce is not the topic of Romans 7, anyway. Taking things for what they are worth, this passage also is not even meant to be prescriptive, Paul uses it _descriptively_ as part of an analogy to our relationship to the law. Paul is not saying how marriage should work; he is saying how it tends to work around him, and then uses that as an example to clarify an important issue.* This is an important topic, John the Baptist lost his head over it you'll remember. on special pleading, THE ARGUMENT THAT AN INNOCENT PARTY HAS CERTAIN FREEDOMS First of all, it is doubtful that there ever is “a totally innocent party” in a marriage conflict. Usually each person in the marriage relationship had some part to play in the conflict, and was not absolutely and totally innocent. To say that a person in conflict with another is totally innocent is a pretty big statement. Perhaps there are some exceptions to the general rule, and so we should look at how the Bible would deal with the conflict if someone is indeed completely innocent. *Actually, before I proceed, I would like to caveat that I think that there are many, many cases in which there _is_ a completely "innocent" marriage partner in a conflicted marriage. Men and women who have affairs do not necessarily do so because of an evil spouse. They do so on their own initiative. Just one example of many.* What about the person who has experienced marriage failure, and seems totally innocent of any wrongdoing in the conflict that led to the divorce? Is it proper for that so-called “innocent” person to remarry? The latter part of Matthew 19:9 records the words of Jesus–“whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.” Jesus does not say why the woman was divorced. Perhaps she didn’t cook right, or maybe she ran off with another man, or she may have combed her hair in a way that displeased her husband. God says that the marital relationship is so sacred that there are no exceptions—even if one of the parties is innocent. First Corinthians 7:10 says that we need to keep the marriage in-tact, because in marriage, we are involved in a covenant relationship, and we are to keep our part of the covenant even if the other party breaks his/her vow. Even if there is such a thing as “an innocent party” in a marriage conflict, there still seems to be no right to re-marry. *In context of the first half of the verse (which you omit), it seems that Jesus is talking about a woman put away because of her own fornication. This too isn't a blanket statement for all divorces. If you broke your own vows, as do the women in the verse, remarriage at that point, even with a divorce, would be sin. That makes perfect sense in light of God's view on adultery. This verse, while important, doesn't show that all divorce is wrong or that all re-marriage is wrong.* *I want to stop here to be sure I am not mistaking your argument. Are you saying that all divorce is wrong, or that all re-marriage is wrong. From your arguments, I can't quite be sure. If both, though, I would ask why you bring up verses that say how all divorce is wrong and verses that say that _divorced_ women can't remarry within the same argument. It would not make sense.* Some quote from 1 Corinthians 7:15 and conclude that the Bible says in certain situations an individual “is not under bondage.” They say that if you are married to an unbeliever, and the unbeliever departs, you are free from the bondage of marriage—as free as if you had never been married. But the teaching in 1 Corinthians 7:15 is that if the unbelieving partner departs, and doesn’t want to have anything to do with you, let him/her go. You are not bound to keep on following, serving, and hounding the partner. Let him/her go. God has called us to peace. To interpret the passage any other way would contradict other verses in the same chapter. *I couldn't agree more. What is your point?* First Corinthians 7:11, for example, says “Let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband.” There is something binding about the first marriage. The married person is always to let the door open for reconciliation. Only death terminates a marriage. Therefore the word “bondage” (1 Corinthians 7:15) does not mean that one is free from the bond of marriage, when serious conflict arises. *Actually, I would refer you to my response on my previous post to this very argument:* *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.* There is an example in the Bible of how to experience God’s blessing when tangled marriage situations are present. In the book of Ezra, there is an example of a voluntary separation of partners who were wrongly married. True, the wrongly married persons may have seemed happy together. They had a family and home (Ezra 10:44). Yet the solution to separate was what the Children of Israel were told to do, if they had been involved in sinful marital relationships. There were probably some young men and women in the camp who were deeply in love with each other, yet the Lord’s disciples must be reminded that “the way of the transgressor is hard.” Sometimes there is no easy way out of difficult situations. *What exactly do you mean here? Are you saying that we must follow God's will through situations in marriage, no matter how hard? If so, I definitely agree with you.* In 1 Corinthians 7:11, the Lord gives a permissive will related to marriage: “But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife.” God does allow married partners to separate if the relationship be-tween them becomes too strained. When separation occurs, however, there are only two options—to remain unmarried, or to become reconciled to the married partner. *Again, exactly. But to say that there is this vague "in-between stage in marriage" 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.* Some say that it is too much to ask a person to go through life without enjoying the blessings of marriage and becoming the parents of children. But the Apostle Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7:8 that singleness is a good choice to make. He gives reasons in 1 Corinthians 7:32-34. God calls some people to remain eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. We should exalt this position as an option for our young people. God has a real blessing in store for those who choose that direction. Isaiah 56:4-5 informs us that God holds a special place in His heart for those people who are willing to forego some of the otherwise acceptable pleasures of this life for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. Surely, if God has special blessings and grace for those who choose a life of singleness for the kingdom of heaven’s sake—there will be sufficient grace for those who have had unfortunate marriages, and are determined to go through life without remarrying. *O.K. I think you are arguing about the question of re-marriage, rather than the question of divorce (I hope I got that right). :) In this way, then, I am very open to agree with you on this. Again, I don't think Matthew really opposes the permissibility of re-marriage, but I do see the possibility of that doctrine, as opposed to the permanence view/no-divorce view of marriage.* From from http://www.brfwitness.org/god-speaks-about-divorce-and-remarriage-fornication-and-living-together-before-marriage/ *Good article, from what I saw. To really analyze it, though, I would need a lot more time. :)*

Hey, Nathan! I would encourage you to try to be a bit less caustic in your responses on this thread. Even if an argument is wrong, words like "that was sickening" do not really foster a healthy atmosphere for debate. Just a thought. :)

I appreciate the input. Normally I do try not to get heated, but that article was genuinely offensive because the authors were clearly either incompetents or liars--and therefore, in either case, have no business teaching about Scripture.

Or, rather, they have a different perspective than you, and they can see different things in the text than you can, and you have a very hard time thinking outside the box, so you were offended.

At least, that's what I think happened. ;) Thank you, Jimmy, for saying what I wanted to say in a nicer way than I would have said it.

You guys may be wondering why I haven't responded for a day or so. Well, in addition to being busy, I really don't know how to respond, to be honest. Your arguments haven't changed my thoughts on the matter, nor am I totally without words in response, but I have only just recently come to this belief, so I'm not familiar with all of the ways to support the position. At some point, I need to read the book that Bethany mentioned, which I know my family has, but which I haven't been able to find of late. xP

So anyway, thanks for a thought-provoking debate. I will be stepping away now.

Did you even read the article Caleb posted? I think even you would agree that their arguments abused Scripture, even though you agree with their conclusion. This case wasn't just a matter of interpretation; they were… like… cutting apart words from a newspaper and rearranging them. Even if I agreed with their conclusion, I would be offended at their arguments. And notice I didn't say that about any of your arguments. That's because your arguments, even though I didn't agree with them, were respectable. I didn't get offended until a sentence from Scripture was cut in half. Do you understand better now? ;-)

Anytime. xD

I just read the whole article (at least the parts related to the discussion), and I agreed with it just as much as when I was only reading the excerpts that Caleb posted. I do not see the exegetical issues that you seem to see. I agree with Jimmy's estimation that it was a good article, but that I would need more time to analyze it more thoroughly. Perhaps you should analyze it more thoroughly, because I get the impression that you didn't read it very carefully, so you didn't follow the argumentation very well, leading you to the conclusion that Scripture was being "cut in half" and misused.

I just read the whole article (at least the parts related to the discussion), and I agreed with it just as much as when I was only reading the excerpts that Caleb posted. I do not see the exegetical issues that you seem to see. I agree with Jimmy's estimation that it was a good article, but that I would need more time to analyze it more thoroughly. Perhaps you should analyze it more thoroughly, because I get the impression that you didn't read it very carefully, so you didn't follow the argumentation very well, leading you to the conclusion that Scripture was being "cut in half" and misused.

I read the scary sections more than once, to make sure I hadn't read wrong or something… you know, benefit of the doubt. Here's the most prime example laid out. It talks about how if the unbeliever separates, the believer should not remarry–and to prove that, it uses the sentence “. . .let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband" from a few verses earlier. But that sentence had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the issue of unbelievers separating from believers; in fact, it came before that subject was even introduced. And the full sentence is, "If she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband." Do you see it now? Even if I agreed with their conclusion, I would be just as offended by that argument.

No, if you read the article carefully, it specifically says that the appeal to v. 11 is only to establish the binding nature of the first marriage. The statement preceding the quotation of v. 11 is, "To interpret the passage any other way would contradict other verses in the same chapter." So the point isn't to continue the argument based on a previous verse, jumping around with no warrant at all; the point is to examine a point made by a previous verse and to then see how it applies to the later verse.

They're saying that we can't say that v. 15 annuls the marriage, because v. 11 has already established the permanence of the first marriage in any situation. So even if you don't agree with that conclusion, you can't fault the process they used to get there. Let alone say that it's offensive or sickening..

That clarification must not have been included in the excerpt? All I read was what Caleb posted. But that clarification doesn't even do much, and I am still pretty scandalized–because they're still cutting the sentence in half. The first half of the sentence specifically limits it to a context–that if a woman sins against her husband, he's the only person she can remarry to. You'll say that's "not their point", that they're just trying to apply it other ways, etc. But I'm saying that it CAN'T be applied other ways, because Scripture tells us that it is applied specifically to that context. If they want to apply that part of the sentence to other things, that's just their personal standard, not God's law (admirable as it may be). ". . .because v.11 already establishes the permanence of marriage in any situation." NO! READ IT! It doesn't say "any situation"; it specifies ONE situation: if a woman divorces her husband (and that's even right there in the same sentence). And again, this is regardless of whether their conclusion is right or wrong.

If I'm heated (which I am), it's not because I'm offended by the ending they're defending. I'm offended that Scripture is being ripped out of context and they're making excuses about it.

Nothing is being ripped out of context. You just don't like allowing people to reason outside of the box that you've made for yourself. They believe that a person's first marriage is forever binding in any situation. They use v. 11 to prove that. So when they need a proof of that fact when in v. 15, they go back to v. 11. You don't like that; therefore you're heated. I just don't understand why you can't allow them to come up with the conclusions they want to come up with and then build on those conclusions – even if you don't agree! No injustice to Scripture is being done.

Nothing is being ripped out of context. You just don't like allowing people to reason outside of the box that you've made for yourself. They believe that a person's first marriage is forever binding in any situation. They use v. 11 to prove that. So when they need a proof of that fact when in v. 15, they go back to v. 11. You don't like that; therefore you're heated. I just don't understand why you can't allow them to come up with the conclusions they want to come up with and then build on those conclusions -- even if you don't agree! No injustice to Scripture is being done.

I'm not making any boxes. This verse can't be used to prove anything other than what it says. It might have some good advice for other situations, but that is all. It couldn't be more clear what it's applying that statement to. So there are no Biblical grounds for saying it applies to other situations. If you want to apply it as an admirable principle, great! I even agree if you do that. But you CANNOT apply it as proof of law in other situations.

"If the two people agree to divorce, then neither should remarry no matter whose original idea it was. But if one party does NOT want to divorce but is forced by the other party, only then are they unbound; and that's justice, not special pleading."
So, you said that, "If the spouse fornicated, divorce is lawful but not encouraged." What if the party that is forced was the party that committed fornication? What if one of the two people that agree to the divorce committed fornication?

"The Greek word for "divorce" here strongly indicates the act of divorce—as in, someone who divorced their spouse, as opposed to someone who was divorced by their spouse."
Again it would seem you have contradicted yourself, you said that, "If the spouse fornicated, divorce is lawful but not encouraged." You can't have it both ways, either it is okay for the spouse who divorced her husband on biblical ground to be able to marry, or not.

"OHHHHHHH MYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!! Are these people really blind, or are they being deceitful? It's honestly hard to tell. I would laugh out loud at that paragraph if it wasn't so disturbing. This is the most blatant out-of-context argument I've seen since the last TLDW article I read. 7:11 is referring to a woman who left her husband! Right there in the same verse, it says "IF SHE DEPART". It has nothing to do with someone who was left by their unbelieving husband. I'm tempted to ignore the rest of this garbage if the authors are going to ignore the context that is right there in the same verse. But I have a few more pearls left, so I might as well cast them."
Again, you said that there is biblical ground for her to depart AND get remarried, are you saying that you are now wrong about that?

"Yup! But that doesn't make it unlawful for them to remarry. It just means they're doing the best they can." This is directed at the claim that they are going to be as you put it, " should be kept from what the Bible strongly encourages"

So, you said that, "If the spouse fornicated, divorce is lawful but not encouraged." What if the party that is forced was the party that committed fornication? What if one of the two people that agree to the divorce committed fornication? *Let me use a scenario here. X's spouse, Y, committed fornication. X can divorce Y, but Y can't divorce X. If they agree, it's only lawful if X's reason is because Y fornicated. Just because the spouse has fornicated doesn't mean you can divorce them for any reason; that has to BE THE ONLY REASON. Jesus didn't say that you can divorce your spouse only IF they fornicate, but BECAUSE they fornicate. ". . .for any reason except. . ." Does that make sense?* Again it would seem you have contradicted yourself, you said that, "If the spouse fornicated, divorce is lawful but not encouraged." You can't have it both ways, either it is okay for the spouse who divorced her husband on biblical ground to be able to marry, or not. *No; Paul is obviously talking about if she divorced her husband unlawfully. It's like when the Bible says not to kill someone. It goes without saying that that's only referring to murder, and not lawful execution.* Again, you said that there is biblical ground for her to depart AND get remarried, are you saying that you are now wrong about that? *Again, this is only referring to if she departed unlawfully. It makes sense that generalizations are made, since there is only ONE way to divorce your spouse lawfully. The fact that he's referring to unlawful divorce is assumed. If I say that it's wrong to kill, but then say that the government should kill terrorists, you won't say I'm contradicting myself. Why? Because when I say killing is wrong, it's assumed that I only mean unlawful killing.* "Yup! But that doesn't make it unlawful for them to remarry. It just means they're doing the best they can." *There are situations when it is better not to do something even if it is generally encouraged in the Bible.*

Okay that helps some.
So really it comes down to the starting points, doesn't it?
You assume that divorce and remarriage is okay, so when you come to a passage, you say it is just a generalization etc.
I assume that divorce and remarriage is not okay, so when I come to a passage with an exception etc., I interpret that passage perhaps more like, Slave of Christ, or my friend who I posted that article from. (sorry for the preposition)
The same could be said for "Old" earth believers and "New" earth believers, they each have different starting points.
So who is right?
You see, anything I give to you, you will always come up with something, "Oh, that is a generalization." "Well, since the greek word means this, the following can't mean that even if that is what the context suggests", etc. Same for me.
BTW Your not going to convince me with the killing generalization, because I believe it is always wrong to kill and to lie for the New Testament Christian… but that is another conversation.

Here however is a question, isn't having a divorce making a lie? We say till death do us part, or is that just a generalization too?

Okay, yes, I am definitely against remarriage, hands down. And perhaps we need to define divorce, is it the actually separating and annulling of a covenant? or is it having an "unbiblical" divorce, so the government recognizes them as not married, when in actuality they are actually still married?

As far as the "remain unmarried", I would have to say, that it means remain unmarried to any other individual, which would make sense if the first marriage couldn't be annulled.
You see, if "just" remarriage is wrong, Why? If their marriage is actually no more, and is separated as much as death would, why can't she get remarried? that is why I have to say, that there is something still binding about the previous marriage.

In-Between-stage-of-marriage-?
She should always want reconciliation, however she doesn't need to feel, that she has to run after him, and sneak into his hotel room with a candle lit dinner or something. Also, not all marriages are what they are supposed to be, in fact, some marriages are kinda "in between" in the sense that they are not up to par.

You see, anything I give to you, you will always come up with something, "Oh, that is a generalization." "Well, since the greek word means this, the following can't mean that even if that is what the context suggests", etc. Same for me. *Context is important, as we've seen, but so is definition. Words mean what they mean.* BTW Your not going to convince me with the killing generalization, because I believe it is always wrong to kill and to lie for the New Testament Christian... but that is another conversation. *What about the government executing people for murder? You think even that's wrong?* Here however is a question, isn't having a divorce making a lie? We say till death do us part, or is that just a generalization too? *For a Biblical divorce, it's just officiating the brokenness of a covenant instead of fixing it.* *Also, some divorces are definitely not legitimate and the people are still married. But the Bible specifies under what circumstances they are NOT still married.*

"Words mean what they mean."
however meaning is determined by context.
"What about the government executing people for murder? You think even that's wrong?"
Notice I said "New Testament Christian" I don't believe the Church should be part of the government.

"For a Biblical divorce, it's just officiating the brokenness of a covenant instead of fixing it."
Still, death do us part, not divorce do us part, so is the breaking of a covenant at wrong? and the officiating isn't?

"Words mean what they mean." however meaning is determined by context. *They can be. But to find out whether they are or not, we have to look up the definition. If there are multiple definitions, they we go by context. But if there's only one definition, there's only one thing it can mean.* "What about the government executing people for murder? You think even that's wrong?" Notice I said "New Testament Christian" I don't believe the Church should be part of the government. *Okay; I see. And I'm assuming you don't think it's wrong for a Christian to be a part of the government.* "For a Biblical divorce, it's just officiating the brokenness of a covenant instead of fixing it." Still, death do us part, not divorce do us part, so is the breaking of a covenant at wrong? and the officiating isn't? *The breaking of the covenant is when the fornication occurs. If the spouse of the one who fornicated then wants to officiate it, that's lawful.*

On context and meaning, Blue Letter Bible defines the word for under bondage as
I. to make a slave of, reduce to bondage EDIT : http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1402&t=KJV
II. metaph. give myself wholly to one's needs and service, make myself a bondman to him
I would say that the context shows #2.

Assume again, Christians are what make up the church, if there weren't Christian's there wouldn't be a church. Christian's are the Church, and there shouldn't be a separation between sacred and secular. Can a Christian be a Mailman? Yes.

n breaking of the covenant,
That makes sense.
Caleb

On context and meaning, Blue Letter Bible defines the word for under bondage as I. to make a slave of, reduce to bondage EDIT : http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1402&t=KJV II. metaph. give myself wholly to one's needs and service, make myself a bondman to him I would say that the context shows #2. *Okay, so if God says that a slave is no longer under bondage, would you say he's still a slave but just doesn't have to work? No. If the spouse is no longer under subjection, that means they're no longer the spouse; because if they were, they would still be under SOME subjection: they could never remarry. It doesn't say "not under any bondage except they can't remarry." It just says "not under bondage"--period.* Assume again, Christians are what make up the church, if there weren't Christian's there wouldn't be a church. Christian's are the Church, and there shouldn't be a separation between sacred and secular. Can a Christian be a Mailman? Yes. *I'm confused. I think there might be a typo in there somewhere, or something. Do you or do you not think it's wrong for a Christian to work for the government?* n breaking of the covenant, That makes sense. *I take it that some accident cut off what you wrote here.*

Could you give a verse about slave under bondage?

I don't think it is wrong for a christian to work for the government, road construction, mail man etc. These things won't violate the christian conscience. Killing, ordering killings, going to war, etc. I believe do.

Could you give a verse about slave under bondage? *There is none that I know of, but I'm asking--if there was, would you interpret it the same way?* I don't think it is wrong for a christian to work for the government, road construction, mail man etc. These things won't violate the christian conscience. Killing, ordering killings, going to war, etc. I believe do. *Okay. I can only carry on one debate at a time. ;-)*

If there was a verse of scripture… kinda hard to debate hypotheticals.
Here is a debate on just war if you like debates. ;) Kinda long though.
http://followers-of-the-way.org/justwar2014.shtml

There is a difference between slavery and marriage.

There is a difference between slavery and marriage.

But the same word is used.

It is synonymous with slave not under bondage of the slave.
Also, context defines content, sometimes it will mean definition #1 and sometimes #2, it depends on the context.

Perhaps this is a personal question, but, Are you closely connected with someone who has had a "Biblical" Divorce?
You don't have to answer that if you don't want to.

It is synonymous with slave not under bondage of the slave. Also, context defines content, sometimes it will mean definition #1 and sometimes #2, it depends on the context. *Okay, good point there. My slave argument was bad. But what I said about ALL duties being loosed, not all but one, still stands.* Perhaps this is a personal question, but, Are you closely connected with someone who has had a "Biblical" Divorce? You don't have to answer that if you don't want to.

When debates register on a personal level, things always get bad. It's irrelevant anyway.

Perhaps this is a personal question, but, Are you closely connected with someone who has had a "Biblical" Divorce? You don't have to answer that if you don't want to.

*When debates register on a personal level, things always get bad. It's irrelevant anyway.*

Let me interject here and say, yes, he is. And I was, too, when I attended the church that he does. And the woman who is now remarried after a divorce that happened because of her husband's adultery, is really great, as is her new husband. Which is what kept me from ever wanting to consider the permanence view. But now that I'm more removed from that, I feel like I have the opportunity to be less biased. And while I did previously see the remarriage as a beautiful redemption of the woman who had been mistreated by her husband, I now see that a more beautiful thing is a woman who patiently waits on the Lord and trusts Him to provide for her through His Church, whether He restores her husband to her or not – but the prayer and confident expectation must always be that He does. Not to do so leaves no room for true redemption.

Hi, all! Still working on a response to you, Caleb (time has been tight, as it is midterms week at my school. Haha), but I did have a probing question I wanted to ask everyone first. It is not exactly on topic with our main discussion, but I still wanted to hear what you all thought.

What if someone marries, and several years later their spouse goes off to war or leaves town on a business trip. News comes back later that the spouse was killed in a helicopter explosion or the plane they were on went down in a storm. The woman, believing the spouse to be dead, goes through the normal grieving process (or not, if it was the case that the spouse was a terrible, abusive individual, which for the purpose of the hypothetical we will assume). Three years later, she marries a Christian man and has three children. Four years after that, she receives news that her spouse is, in fact, alive, and that he was marooned on a remote, uninhabited island or captured as a prisoner of war for 7 years. He comes back to his spouse, who has remarried and who is raising a family. This man, who as you may remember is habitually abusive (even criminally so), wants to get back together with his spouse. What, as far as you are willing to venture, is the appropriate response to this request? Are the second marriage and the children produced from that marriage null and void because the first husband had not actually died? The article Caleb presented seems to argue that, no matter what, the woman has been living in a continual state of adultery and that she should break off her second "marriage" at once, renounce that life, and go back to that (potentially abusive relationship). While hard to say for myself, I personally disagree with this view. But I wanted to know what you all thought.

The above question is not a shot-in-the-dark imaginary hypothetical. There are countless stories and instances of things like this happening. As far as I am aware, most of the time the wife chooses to stay with her second family (more specifically, the children), but to those adhering to the permanence view or to the logic found in the article Caleb brought up to peruse (which, by the way, is well written though seems to have some interpretation flaws), what is the Biblical answer, if any? Just wanted to probe y'all's position a little bit more. :)

I know, I am really busy as well, so take your time.
Tough Question.
What if the wife of Lazarus had gotten remarried? If he had one.
What if the Husband hadn't been abusive? Would that change your belief?
I know of a person who was married to a missionary pilot, that pilot lost his life in an airplane crash. They had several children. The wife has now gotten remarried. But what if the pilot were all of a sudden to show up? What do you believe she should do?

"Okay, good point there. My slave argument was bad. But what I said about ALL duties being loosed, not all but one, still stands."
Are you talking about the in-between state? If so, here is my response to Jimmy.
"She should always want reconciliation, however she doesn't need to feel, that she has to run after him, and sneak into his hotel room with a candle lit dinner or something. Also, not all marriages are what they are supposed to be, in fact, some marriages are kinda "in between" in the sense that they are not up to par." She will still have the duties of marriage, but she can't perform them because he is, well, divorced, so she is not under bondage to have to keep trying too. Make sense?

"When debates register on a personal level, things always get bad. It's irrelevant anyway."
You're right, sorry I asked. I suppose we all know people with marital struggles.

Ooh, interesting hypothetical about Lazarus! I am not sure what the appropriate response would be in that situation, but I assume it would be the same as though he had not actually died (though I would be willing to concede a difference if you press for it. I am not sure.)

Regarding the abuse, I just threw that into the hypothetical to make it draw y'all''s thoughts out more. I think the right response, whatever it is, would need to be made in a disconnect from the kindness or abusiveness of the first spouse. Morally, it wouldn't matter any more than it would if they were simply married. When I say "abusive," though, it makes it a bit easier for people to see where they stand on the issue of a returning spouse. An extreme hypothetical tends to elicit more clear responses and reactions to that hypothetical.

Regarding your missionary pilot and his wife, I would again say that it is a tough question. I would answer, though, that he was dead to her, and her subsequent marriage is not voided as a result. She did not sin in choosing to raise a family (at least, I wouldn't venture to claim it as a sin). When the first husband returns out of thin air, so to speak, that second relationship/second family does not suddenly become sinful. As a result, it does not stand to reason that it should be nullified for her to abandon her new children and husband to return to her original husband. Something within me grates against that. It seems far more of a sin to abandon those children than to remain in that second relationship. Ultimately, I do not know how exactly she should proceed, but I lean more toward her not leaving her family.

Granted the Lazarus hypothetical is rather rare. :)

Regarding abuse,
The reason I asked about a not quite so extreme is because, as you said, it might elicit more clear response. Ultimately, I don't think it should matter if the first marriage was strained or not. But that is an interesting thought about being dead to her…

The missionary pilot's wife had all her children with the pilot, not the second husband.

Okay; I'm back. I took a week's break from internet debating. :-)

Why Christian felt the need to butt in and announce information on my behalf, when I clearly stated I didn't want to get personal, I don't know. That was just ignorant, and it gives the appearance of malice. 'Cause see, now I look biased, as if the only reason I believe what I do is because I love two people who actually did it. So thanks a lot.

It's not a problem that you asked, Caleb. Thanks for making it easy to drop. :-)

But since you've already brought it up–I actually thought they were doing wrong when I first heard about it, but then I asked Pastor how he explained it and it made sense. Burn. (By the way, they have since moved out of the state, so I've been separated from them as well.)

Both forms of redemption are true redemption–just different types of it. And both types are beautiful.

As for the issue Jimmy brought up, I think I'll just read you all on this one, at this point. :-) I haven't thought enough about the issue to debate it either way (okay, to be fully honest, I'm not even sure if I have an opinion at all…).

"Both forms of redemption are true redemption—just different types of it. And both types are beautiful."
I would disagree here. :)

So, just interested in your opinion, If someone divorces unbiblically and then remarries, are they still married, and just committing adultery?

So, just interested in your opinion, If someone divorces unbiblically and then remarries, are they still married, and just committing adultery? *They're committing adultery. So we agree on this point.*

Is the adultery a one time event? Or a continuous act?

Is the adultery a one time event? Or a continuous act?

Continuous, if you're living with someone else and acting as their spouse.

Are they a Christian or not?

"Adulterers will not inherit the kingdom of God…."

I don't think we can regard adultery as a continuous event. One of Paul's key exhortations in 1 Corinthians 7 is that unbelievers should remain as they are when they get saved. If they've been divorced and remarried, for example, even though that was initially an act of adultery, they're saved now and should be faithful to their current spouse. Therefore, I don't think God sees adultery as a constant act in the case of remarriage after a divorce. The initial marriage and resulting intercourse is adulterous, but to say that the person is a repeated adulterous offender every time he engages in intercourse after that point is to introduce several problems.

Furthermore, when Jesus encounters the woman at the well, she tells him that she has had five husbands. He doesn't correct her and say, "No, you had one husband, and ever since then you've been committing adultery with those other men." He says that she's right in saying she had five husbands, and adds that the man she's with now isn't her husband. But the point is, He (and, consequently, God) viewed each one of those marriages as valid eventually, even though they were initially acts of adultery. Therefore, I personally wouldn't say that a person who gets remarried after a divorce is in a constant state of adultery for the rest of his or her life.

So marriage isn't permanent?
So if Doug Phillips would have just kept going down the adulterous life, the first one would be sin, but the next one wouldn't be?

*Nathan Alert, you might not want to read this. I don't want you getting sick again. ;)

"Some quote from 1 Corinthians 7:17, 20, 24 and say that the Bible tells a person to remain in the same condition in which he was when he was first saved. In the mind of some Bible readers, this becomes a loophole for justifying the remarriage of divorced persons who remarried while they were still unsaved. Believers need to look at the setting in 1 Corinthians 7. Paul is talking about two things—circumcision and servanthood. Paul is not talking about sin and wrong living. He is not saying, “if you are a murderer, just continue being a murderer.” He is not saying, “If you are a liar, you may keep on lying.” He doesn’t say, “If you were a fornicator, keep on in your immorality; that’s okay.” Proverbs 28:13 makes it clear that God expects His people to turn away from sinful living." ~ http://www.brfwitness.org/god-speaks-about-divorce-and-remarriage-fornication-and-living-together-before-marriage/

So marriage isn't permanent? So if Doug Phillips would have just kept going down the adulterous life, the first one would be sin, but the next one wouldn't be?

No, because he wasn't divorced from his first wife.

Yeah, but for Slave of Christ divorce doesn't end marriage.