Is it okay to date another Christian whose been divorced?

[Goodbook]

uh did OP have their question answered? I was trying to figure out what her personal situation was, and just want to say if you don't know something, you just ask God and He will tell you whether its right to date this person or not.

He may give you a scripture,and that will be your answer.

I don't personally know the circumstances, but many christians who have been divorced did not marry another believer, well they either weren't believers at the time they were married or they were just lukewarm and didn't really listen to God about whom they were to marry. Maybe they have now repented but their spouse, having committed adultery, is not, by their actions, going to repent. Especially if they end up in an ongoing liasion.

So you have to take into account they were foolish in the past, but this foolishness does have consequences, that if you date them you have to be ready to take on, for example estranged step children might be one thing.

Generally, not a good idea. God does say in his word that young widows are to marry. But..and I say this, because it says in the bible if you are not married do not seek to be married. see 1 corinthians 7:27 ...read the whole chapter

You are setting yourself up for disappointment if you as a christian lady are seeking to date someone who's divorced just cos theres nobody else. Better to please the Lord and if someone does surprise you with a proposal thats a bonus to consider, but if not, praise the Lord, you are not going to have trouble in the flesh.

or you know, a vengeful ex coming back to haunt you. I don't know what divorcees do with their wedding photos..I suppose they rip them up?

 

[Goodbook]

some real examples...

I know this christian lady that married a guy who fornicated and had a child, and then became a believer, they got married, had a child but then he was unfaithful to her with another woman and had another child so he's got three daughters by 3 different mothers. they now divorced.

I know a husband who was divorced with a child, became a believer and married another christian lady who couldn't have children. but she kind of is stepmother to that now adult child. I have no idea where the ex is.

many divorcees, will live close to the exes because they need to share custody with children, usually in the same town. very awkward if its in the same neighbourhood. but a lot of travelling time for the children to go back and forth between each parent if its far away and they can't even talk to each other.

Those that do, might as well have stuck with their marriage cos they just act married anyway..just end up paying twice as much bills. The price of independence.

so If you end up going into this mess you not going to have much choice where you live for example. And you will have to deal with exes eventually, unless they have a restraining order or in another country.

A christian who divorces his wife who is a believer well there is no such thing. There is no grounds for divorce unless she's comitted adultery, which kinda makes her an unbeliever because she's showing herself unfaithful to her vows and breaking the marriage covenant in that case he really should have heeded God and not foolishly married in the first place. Thats why, with professed christian divorcees, I question their faith at times, because, they chose being married to anyone or having a child/fufilling lusts at the expense of their relationship with God.

I have had so much trouble with christian women divorcees being so demanding and rude that I sometimes wonder maybe their husbands were actually justified in running away from them!

I don't usually come across many christian men divorcees well they don't really come to my local church. Would I date one..as in go somewhere alone with them. um at this point, no, am way too busy.

if you marry a divorcee are always going to be wife number 2..or could be even 3 or 4 'these days'. You are never really going to enjoy things for the first time. Don't settle.

You cannot make another person happy its not your job, if they don't have the joy of the Lord already and expecting you to provide it cos they lonely, well thats an age old temptation. Don't ever date someone out of pity as one now divorced christian lady found to her cost.

if YOU are actually divorced as well, then it would be a more equal match! You both made mistakes and repented. I have heard of that happening. and the ex spouses are locked up in jail or mental hospital or rehab or out of the country. usually they married under false pretences and then got scammed or they were simply foolish.

but when teaching children of these foolish parents its kind of hard for them to understand why their parents acted so idiotically and selfishly. Not to say parents who stay married and suffer abuse are any better, but, well, no child really likes to explain that their mum or dad had an affair and thats why they can't stand to be in the same house anymore. Or they don't even know where their parent is. I think children are cottoning on it all has to do with S-E-X.


Just want to share those examples because I learn from them as warnings I don't actually need all that drama in my life. If you like opening a can of worms, then go for it. Best of luck keeping them in.

 

[PollyJetix]

While I agree on your view on the Law, that it still should be regarded, take note that this enlargement of the rule of Exodus 21:7-11 is your own rationalization and not something that the text itself presents.

Which part? the part that I said about the law to kings applying only to kings, but the law to freemen also applying to kings? Therefore, the law to slaves also applying to freemen?
This is based on how the law was applied throughout the Torah, and also on what rabbis say, not on my own rationalization.

Also, the part about how the law was enforced, via the judges that sat at the gates, that is easily seen throughout the Old Testament.
How else could a slave wife find freedom from her owner, based on his treatment of her?

I did not come up with any of this through my own rationalization.
It was via research into traditional Jewish practices.

Which, I think, is permissible, and should be allowed to throw light on Scriptures, because as Israel left Egypt, they set up their societal structure traditions with Moses at the helm.
After all, Moses was the one who received this from God firsthand.

 

[PollyJetix]

1 Cor 7:15 is a verse that is often propagated. But honestly it says, in the original greek, preserving the tense, "were not enslaved". This most probably talks about the marriage being a bond but not an enslavement. Meaning that if the unbelieving partner opposes your fulfilment of your marriage vow, then you can live alone in peace. (it was your partner who went for divorce and not you, so you can rest in peace until he maybe returns).

If really Paul gave permission to remarriage here, it would be amazing that he did so without any elaboration. Just throwing out a permission to remarriage shortly after warning that adulterers will not inherit eternal life, and not qualifying that statement, would make no sense. There would have to be a lengthy explanation why he suddenly gives approval of remarriage. So this passage does not address the breaking of the marriage bond.

Firstly, the verse in question says this:

1Corinthians 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.

My husband left me with 2 children to raise, about 15 years ago. He had been abusive.
I loved him deeply, and was willing to die at my post. It took 14 years to realize I didn't have to take him back if he wanted to come back. Those 14 years were not peaceful years.
There is no worse bondage to put someone in, than to tell a woman she has to keep her heart soft and open toward an abuser and an abandoner. She is always looking over her shoulder, wondering if her heart will be broken all over again. If her children will find their worlds torn apart again. If she will be betrayed again.
As long as that marriage is said to be alive, that woman will remain in bondage. The worst sort there can be. A slave on the run, being chased, as it were, by dogs.
Don't tell me it is not so.
I have LIVED this torment. You have not.

Furthermore, this one verse cannot be understood out of context.
Paul addressed 4 separate categories of people in this chapter.
Those who are married to unbelievers ('the rest') are addressed very differently than those married to believers (them that are married.)
What he said to each category did not apply to the other categories.

And virgins were not included in the category that included the "unmarried".
Paul had a commandment from God to the "unmarried" but not to virgins.
Also, Paul clearly defines "unmarried" (agamos) as those separated from former spouses. (v.11)

Now, secondly, as for permission to remarry...

Verse divisions and punctuation are not inspired. These are later additions of man, and are subject to being wrongly applied.
Read this excerpt with that fact in mind:

Art thou bound unto a wife seek not to be loosed Art thou loosed from a wife seek not a wife But and if thou marry thou hast not sinned

Furthermore, Paul was highly educated, and knew how to give a cogent presentation of thought. he did not change subjects in the middle of I Corinthians 7, and then change back to his original subject. That section in the middle that deals with "if thou mayest be made free, use it rather" is a discussion about servitude in marriage to unbelievers. Paul was talking about legal permission to find freedom from a marriage.

 

[PeterDona]

I have LIVED this torment. You have not.

Well, of course I have not gone through your torment. But that does not mean that I have gone through an easy life. But easy or difficult, whatever we are discussing, we should remember that this is a forum for discussion of the Bible.

If your own emotional situation is the reason for why you understand the 1 Corinthians 7 like that, I believe you will not be open to another understanding, and so will it make any difference if I utter my opinion on it?

Concerning your situation, you are free to live alone. Is that not freedom enough? Does the scripture (1cor7:15) itself teach that you have to be ready to take back the unbeliever at all times? No it does not discuss that. That is a well-meaning addition by some, but you also have to watch your limitations. You are free to live alone, once the unbeliever has departed, it does not say in scripture that you have to be open to take him back at all times.

 

[PeterDona]

If 1 cor 7:15 was a permission to remarriage, how is it that the principle of peace surpasses the law of marriage? I have never heard anyone explain that, no matter how much they wanted to use 7:15 as an excuse for remarriage.

 

[Light of the East]

The Bible has no talk of annulment, the catholic church is at fault in that one.

The Bible also doesn't mention condoms or artificial contraception, the Trinity, polyester suits on preachers, automobiles or jets and whether a man should fly like a bird in them.

 

[PollyJetix]

The Bible also doesn't mention condoms or artificial contraception, the Trinity, polyester suits on preachers, automobiles or jets and whether a man should fly like a bird in them.

The trinity is the only doctrinal subject you have listed. And the Bible clearly speaks of the deity of each separate member of the godhead.
All the others you listed... seriously? As if they were on the level of a church claiming the authority to proclaim a marriage as if it had never happened? There is no Biblical authority granted to the church to do this.

 

[PollyJetix]

If 1 cor 7:15 was a permission to remarriage, how is it that the principle of peace surpasses the law of marriage? I have never heard anyone explain that, no matter how much they wanted to use 7:15 as an excuse for remarriage.

It's not an "excuse for remarriage."
It's the principle of freedom in Christ.

If the Law of Moses allowed abused women to be free (via divorce papers)to find another man for financial, social, and emotional security, how can it be that the New Covenant (which is supposed to be better) would put a heavier burden on her than the Law did?

In fact... considering that this burden is placed on the weaker vessel, and in no way affects the strongest in the church--those with good, healthy marriages--and especially the male leadership...
This rule has the Pharisaic flavor of "binding heavy burdens on the weak, and refusing to touch them with one of their fingers."

 

[PollyJetix]

Well, of course I have not gone through your torment. But that does not mean that I have gone through an easy life. But easy or difficult, whatever we are discussing, we should remember that this is a forum for discussion of the Bible.

If your own emotional situation is the reason for why you understand the 1 Corinthians 7 like that, I believe you will not be open to another understanding, and so will it make any difference if I utter my opinion on it?

Concerning your situation, you are free to live alone. Is that not freedom enough? Does the scripture (1cor7:15) itself teach that you have to be ready to take back the unbeliever at all times? No it does not discuss that. That is a well-meaning addition by some, but you also have to watch your limitations. You are free to live alone, once the unbeliever has departed, it does not say in scripture that you have to be open to take him back at all times.

My personal history provides a unique lens through which I can see the Scriptures in a slightly different light than you can. And you, being deprived of this experience, ought to appreciate my perspective of experience.

No, it is not BECAUSE OF my situation, that I twisted the Scriptures for myself, to make myself feel better. I was willing to live forever single, and was even willing to be reconciled to my former husband, if God asked me to. I remained in that misinterpretation of Scripture for most of my life. It is only that God used this situation to help open my eyes to the truth. And when the truth was revealed to me, it was as if scales fell off my eyes, and the freedom was incredible!

For 14 years as a single divorced mother, I lived under the belief that what was written in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 was written to all who still had living former marriage partners, whether they were believers or not.

It was GOD who opened my eyes to the fact that Paul gave 4 distinct and separate (and very different!) sets of instructions, for 4 very distinct and separate groups.

The "unmarried" (of 1 Corinthians 7:8-9) are defined by the context. (1 Corinthians 7:11).
It is obvious that these unmarried are those who once were married, but no longer are... and they are included in the same group as widows. Naturally.

Paul says clearly that he has no command of God for virgins. Yet, he had a command of God for the "unmarried"! Therefore, "virgins" are the fourth group, and are not included in the first group of "unmarried and widows."

Therefore, what is written in 1 Corinthians 7:9 was written not only to widows, but also to the divorced.

 

[PeterDona]

It was GOD who opened my eyes to the fact that Paul gave 4 distinct and separate (and very different!) sets of instructions, for 4 very distinct and separate groups.

It is increasingly becoming the norm amongst my christian sisters where I live, that god is leading them to abandon a broken marriage and move on to the soulmate that god is showing them. The leading usually is in the form of falling in love, which is gods way of showing them that this is the person that he had for them all the time, and that the former spouse was a wrong marriage.

Like that, christianity is turning into a new age religion, where you do your own thing and find some theological alignment for it if you can, or you just suppose that it is ok even when you cannot justify it.

Looking at this tendency, I believe that we live in a time where we really can not trust our hearts, but have to rely totally on the word.

Concerning the division of 1 Corinthians 7 into 4 categories may not be totally wrong, but it is not totally right either, and the division, and the interpretation that comes from that division can be very important.

I notice that 1 Corinthians 7:1 opens with "NOW concerning the things that you wrote". Next time there is a "NOW" is in 1 corinthians 7:25. So it would make sense to group 7:1 - 7:24 together. Here are 3 groups, the unmarried and widows(7:8), the married (7:10), and the rest (7:12). So we may assume that Paul is responding to some cases that the corinthian church have written to him about. Actually it is a bit weird that there is a group called "the rest", since people would be either married or unmarried. I suppose with David Pawson as my source, that the rest is referring to the rest of the cases that the corinthian church wrote to Paul about, cases that are not treated under the first 2 categories, or not treated enough in depth.

Concerning the virgins of ! corinthians 7:25-39 it would make sense to believe that the corinthian church had questions on the situation of being engaged, which was actually binding in jewish culture unless for the cause of fornication, with which we have an actual case in Joseph who would put away Mary for that cause. It makes sense that Paul says that you can seek to be loosed if you are betrothed, with the option of finding another, as I get it from verses 7:27-28. Of special note here is that the angel calls Mary "Mary thy wife" in Matthew 1:20 when they are still only betrothed, so it makes sense that the word wife is also used about the state of betrothal.

 

[Light of the East]

The trinity is the only doctrinal subject you have listed. And the Bible clearly speaks of the deity of each separate member of the godhead.
All the others you listed... seriously? As if they were on the level of a church claiming the authority to proclaim a marriage as if it had never happened? There is no Biblical authority granted to the church to do this.

The Church bears the authority of Christ. She speaks and acts in His absence, through the leading of the Holy Spirit. It is very much Her responsibility to care for the welfare of the sheep entrusted to Her, therefore, She very much not only has the right, but the duty to do those administrative functions which protect the sheep from sin and error.

Your mindset on this is the typical Protestant mindset, one of rugged individualism and listening to no one but one's own self and conscience. That is not what Jesus taught:

Mat 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

BTW - if the deity of Christ and the Trinity was so terribly clear in the Bible, the heretic Arias would have never come forward with his idea that Christ was merely a created being. And he defended his heresy at Nicea by resorting to the Bible alone (sola scriptura)!

 

[1stcenturylady]

This topic has been hotly debated while I had my sleep. Let me say this,

FOR A CHRISTIAN THERE IS NOT AN EXCEPTION

I think almost all possible exceptions in the bible have been dug up, and "God leading me to a new marriage" by prophecy or by my own heart feeling this.

If we take Jesus teaching at word, there is no exception. Why do you think that the disciples said, "if this is the case between a man and a woman, it is better not to marry" (matthew 19)?

Honestly it is better not to marry. Or why do you think that Paul said so in the openinng of 1 Cor 7?

The disciples remark was born out of not being able to divorce for any cause as the Rabbis had been teaching them. That false teaching had been ingrained in them; thus what they said meant, it may be better not to marry in the first place than to have to work at a marriage and stay together. But Jesus brought up sex. And like Paul said it is better to marry than to burn with lust. However, in Paul's day, the persecution was fierce, and marriage meant you will be worried about each other, when the word of God must be preached to the whole world and time is short. But that it is not a sin if you do marry in the midst of persecution. BTW, that statement had nothing whatever to do with the sin in some cases of remarriage.

 

[PeterDona]

This rule has the Pharisaic flavor of "binding heavy burdens on the weak, and refusing to touch them with one of their fingers."

It is a bit shocking that you will bring out such a judgment. The verse states that you can allow the unbelieving partner to separate, that you do not have to live in a home of unpeace, and then you call that "binding heavy burdens". I can not follow you here.

 

[PollyJetix]

It is increasingly becoming the norm amongst my christian sisters where I live, that god is leading them to abandon a broken marriage and move on to the soulmate that god is showing them. The leading usually is in the form of falling in love, which is gods way of showing them that this is the person that he had for them all the time, and that the former spouse was a wrong marriage.

Like that, christianity is turning into a new age religion, where you do your own thing and find some theological alignment for it if you can, or you just suppose that it is ok even when you cannot justify it.

Looking at this tendency, I believe that we live in a time where we really can not trust our hearts, but have to rely totally on the word.

And I agree with you here completely.

Concerning the division of 1 Corinthians 7 into 4 categories may not be totally wrong, but it is not totally right either, and the division, and the interpretation that comes from that division can be very important.

I notice that 1 Corinthians 7:1 opens with "NOW concerning the things that you wrote". Next time there is a "NOW" is in 1 corinthians 7:25. So it would make sense to group 7:1 - 7:24 together. Here are 3 groups, the unmarried and widows(7:8), the married (7:10), and the rest (7:12). So we may assume that Paul is responding to some cases that the corinthian church have written to him about. Actually it is a bit weird that there is a group called "the rest", since people would be either married or unmarried. I suppose with David Pawson as my source, that the rest is referring to the rest of the cases that the corinthian church wrote to Paul about, cases that are not treated under the first 2 categories, or not treated enough in depth.

You are grasping at unnatural straws.
The word NOW is used by Paul to introduce a new subject, or to change directions within a subject. Paul's use of the word in chapter 7 is very natural, when changing from topic to topic, or from group to group, as a transitional word in his presentation.

Your difficulty lies in the fact that you don't WANT for Paul to be giving a clear presentation, in which he speaks to 4 groups into which all people can be categorized, as pertains to marriage.
And since you don't WANT for the obvious interpretation to be the correct one, you are left to try to explain it away, making the passage hard to understand and obscure.

A very important rule of Scripture interpretation is to allow the context to define the terms.
And verse 11 clearly defines "unmarried" for verse 9.

Concerning the virgins of ! corinthians 7:25-39 it would make sense to believe that the corinthian church had questions on the situation of being engaged, which was actually binding in jewish culture unless for the cause of fornication, with which we have an actual case in Joseph who would put away Mary for that cause. It makes sense that Paul says that you can seek to be loosed if you are betrothed, with the option of finding another, as I get it from verses 7:27-28. Of special note here is that the angel calls Mary "Mary thy wife" in Matthew 1:20, so it makes sense that the word wife is also used about the state of betrothal.

Which could make sense... if Paul had mentioned betrothal. But he didn't.
Corinth was a Gentile church, anyhow. Not Jewish.

 

[PeterDona]

The Church bears the authority of Christ.

I have much respect for the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church for upholding doctrines, and I believe that there are genuinely saved christians in those churches. I was only mentioning that I do not agree on their annulment doctrine (although to be very honest it would fit me pretty well if it were so). When I go on the street to preach I normally say that I would send people to any lutheran or free or catholic church, any church that upholds that Jesus is God and that he died on the cross for our sins, and that it is important to have a living relation to him.

God bless you and your family, and the rest of your saturday.

 

[PollyJetix]

It is a bit shocking that you will bring out such a judgment. The verse states that you can allow the unbelieving partner to separate, that you do not have to live in a home of unpeace, and then you call that "binding heavy burdens". I can not follow you here.

You do not understand the world of the separated woman. Granting physical absence from abuse does not give peace. Only complete release from the marriage gives peace.

Women who lose their husbands to death are allowed to bury them. They are allowed to say goodbye, and to let healing come after the wounds heal.
Emotional peace, emotional healing, cannot come to one who has been abused, unless the marriage tie is allowed to die. Completely.

I come from a church background that took literally everything that the New Testament contains that could apply to keeping women bound in servitude.
Heavy veils. Long, modest, homemade several-layer clothing. No education. Not allowed to speak up in "open conversations" in mixed classes at church. Complete silence strictly enforced.

And this is part of that. I was taught from early childhood that a divorced woman was to blame for the divorce, at least partly. If a man was unhappy, it was at least partly the fault of the women in his life... because after all, the woman was created to make the man happy!
I was taught from early childhood that no marriage can ever be dissolved by divorce. That only God joins two into one, and that He doesn't recognize divorce. Ever.

Based on this, I was taught that even if an abusive husband leaves, the wife is obligated before God to be like Jesus, and love the one who hurt her... even to the point of taking him back at the drop of a hat, just like Jesus does.

THAT's where your interpretation would take you, if you would follow it to its natural conclusion.

 

[BukiRob]

OK

1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,



Divorce was allowed in the old testament...Christ made some changes.

“For I, the LORD, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.

 

[BukiRob]

Right, I understand that. But why does it say she was "defiled"

Not sure other than he divorced her and now is remarrying her which on some level is making a mockery of marriage

 

[PeterDona]

Your difficulty lies in the fact that you don't WANT for Paul to be giving a clear presentation, in which he speaks to 4 groups into which all people can be categorized, as pertains to marriage.

I do not agree. I feel that what Paul is saying is pretty clear. But it is not the same clarity that you seem to have.

I say again, if really Paul went against the indissolubility of marriage, he would have to explain at length his reason for doing so. Remember that adulterers shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Remember also that Jesus when confronted on the issue basically called marriage indissoluble (Matthew 19:9), and that the disciples were also shocked at this statement. So if really 1 Corinthians 7:15 presents a freedom for a remarriage, there has to be some weighty in depth explanation, why Paul goes beyond the teaching of Jesus.