Separated or Divorced?

[Transmogrified]

Hello- I had a question regarding how to understand 1 Cor. 7:11. The problem is whether to understand the word 'depart' to mean 'divorce' or does it just mean physically leave. I really don't think it means divorce, however either way you look at it is seems there is a built in contradiction when it says 'if she depart, let her 'remain unmarried,' OR be reconciled to 'her husband.'

The problem is how to understand what is meant that she should 'remain unmarried,' when, if she has only physically left her husband then she is plainly still married, so how could she 'remain unmarried,' when she is still married, and has not been divorced?

The other phrase that confirms she is still married is that one option was for her to be reconciled to 'her husband.' So if she has a husband to be reconciled to, she can't be in an 'unmarried' situation. Thoughts?

 

[Dave L]

Hello- I had a question regarding how to understand 1 Cor. 7:11. The problem is whether to understand the word 'depart' to mean 'divorce' or does it just mean physically leave. I really don't think it means divorce, however either way you look at it is seems there is a built in contradiction when it says 'if she depart, let her 'remain unmarried,' OR be reconciled to 'her husband.'

The problem is how to understand what is meant that she should 'remain unmarried,' when, if she has only physically left her husband then she is plainly still married, so how could she 'remain unmarried,' when she is still married, and has not been divorced?

The other phrase that confirms she is still married is that one option was for her to be reconciled to 'her husband.' So if she has a husband to be reconciled to, she can't be in an 'unmarried' situation. Thoughts?

Divorce was an OT provision for the hard hearted. But the NT does not provide for divorce. So it just means separation but still married.

 

[Monksailor]

The later is easier, I think. One CAN remarry and be reconciled to their x-spouse. It is done. I do think that it can be misunderstood because they do not use an "x" before husband but this is the way they did it back then. Do you remember ever reading x-husband in the Bible any where else? We know WHO he is talking about and that is the point.

Not going by what I want to think but that verse, one cannot "remain unmarried" from separating from a marriage in any way but absolving the marriage by divorce or a Catholic decree.

 

[pdudgeon]

The later is easier, I think. One CAN remarry and be reconciled to their x-spouse. It is done. I do think that it can be misunderstood because they do not use an "x" before husband but this is the way they did it back then. Do you remember ever reading x-husband in the Bible any where else? We know WHO he is talking about and that is the point.

Not going by what I want to think but that verse, one cannot "remain unmarried" from separating from a marriage in any way but absolving the marriage by divorce or a Catholic decree.

Agreed, and those decrees are as scarce as hen's teeth, and practically hopeless to obtain.

 

[Monksailor]

Divorce was an OT provision for the hard hearted. But the NT does not provide for divorce. So it just means separation but still married.

I believe that you are mistaken:

• Matt 19:9
• ! Cor 7:15
• and verses which support leaving abuse or any kind of infidelity are used by some, however, the first two are explicit.

 

[Dave L]

I believe that you are mistaken:

• Matt 19:9
• ! Cor 7:15
• and verses which support leaving abuse or any kind of infidelity are used by some, however, the first two are explicit.

The were OT. Not NT.

 

[Monksailor]

The NT PROVIDES for divorce. It may be a reiteration of OT verses BUT it is NOT citing it as obsolete. It is making it an ALLOWANCE for NT Christians.

God hates sin. Does that mean that He will not tolerate or make allowances for it? There is a multitude of verses in the Bible that show God understands the wretched, deceitful, wretched, hopeless evil heart of humanity. He makes allowances for it and BOY I am thankful He does. He still hates it but His love for us is greater.

God hates divorce but His love for us is greater.

Incidentally, I have never been divorced and am going to celebrate, well recognize, our 43rd anniversary in about 3 weeks.

 

[hope faith love]

Hello- I had a question regarding how to understand 1 Cor. 7:11. The problem is whether to understand the word 'depart' to mean 'divorce' or does it just mean physically leave. I really don't think it means divorce, however either way you look at it is seems there is a built in contradiction when it says 'if she depart, let her 'remain unmarried,' OR be reconciled to 'her husband.'

The problem is how to understand what is meant that she should 'remain unmarried,' when, if she has only physically left her husband then she is plainly still married, so how could she 'remain unmarried,' when she is still married, and has not been divorced?

The other phrase that confirms she is still married is that one option was for her to be reconciled to 'her husband.' So if she has a husband to be reconciled to, she can't be in an 'unmarried' situation. Thoughts?

im probably gunna get backlash on this for the way im about to explain it but thats ok Gods mercy will cover me if i do ****

***
when you get married it creates a union you then are tied to a husband
when you have sex with him it creates a soul tie and yall are joined as 1 flesh and share a spiritual connection...
we view obtaining a husband thru the writng of documents but God views the obtaining of a husband not thru documents but yet thru sex and the sole tie
think about the woman at the well what did Jesus say to her ****


John 4:17 Context

14But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life. 15The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw. 16****Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither. 17The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband: 18For thou hast had**** five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly. 19The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet. 20Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship

hope this helps a lil

 

[Uber Genius]

10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

We start the periscope with a husband and wife (definitionally married). She separates which is a phrase that is synonymous with divorce, don't read modern legal terms back into ancient texts here.

Her state after separating is..."unmarried" or divorced.

She must "remain unmarried" or reconcile.

So at that time God commands wives and husbands to not get divorced.
He gives a second command if they break the first one, don't get married again to any other than your previous spouse.

Now to be completely honest here, I have been divorced (was defendant not plaintiff) after 30 years, and I remarried someone who is a Godsend, but not my ex-wife, so I have violated both of these commands and would give my hardy approval to any man who lived with a abusive wife (both emotionally and physically) and tried to serve her despite her evil hypocrisy for decades. In fact the nature of my meeting my new wife is nothing less than miraculous and a divine appointment.

 

[Al Touthentop]

Nevermind....

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Hello- I had a question regarding how to understand 1 Cor. 7:11. The problem is whether to understand the word 'depart' to mean 'divorce' or does it just mean physically leave. I really don't think it means divorce, however either way you look at it is seems there is a built in contradiction when it says 'if she depart, let her 'remain unmarried,' OR be reconciled to 'her husband.'

The problem is how to understand what is meant that she should 'remain unmarried,' when, if she has only physically left her husband then she is plainly still married, so how could she 'remain unmarried,' when she is still married, and has not been divorced?

The other phrase that confirms she is still married is that one option was for her to be reconciled to 'her husband.' So if she has a husband to be reconciled to, she can't be in an 'unmarried' situation. Thoughts?

The reason why Paul spoke to the issue of divorce was because there was a movement within the Corinthian church that the single life was spiritually superior to the married life. This causes men to put away their wives and become celibate, and women to leave their husbands in favour of celibacy.

As we have seen, this movement did not remain contained within the Corinthian church, but spread, and in time gave rise to celibate monks and nuns who believed that marriage was sinful; and celibacy was imposed on the priesthood because it was believed that being celibate was more suited to the clergy.

Therefore his comments concerning divorce were solely directed to the problem that existed in the Corinthian church at the time. He did not even attempt to deal with other reasons for divorce, such as domestic violence and cruelty, adultery, and desertion.

But then we have extremists everywhere including Christianity who extend what the Scripture actually teaches and adds further teaching concerning certain issues from their own opinions and imagination. And the extremist teaching concerning divorce is no exception.

In fact, in the RCC, it is a mortal sin for a priest to be married, but in the Vatican it doesn't seem to be so for having concubines, hiring male and female prostitutes, and having gay parties!!

 

[Transmogrified]

The later is easier, I think. One CAN remarry and be reconciled to their x-spouse. It is done. I do think that it can be misunderstood because they do not use an "x" before husband but this is the way they did it back then. Do you remember ever reading x-husband in the Bible any where else? We know WHO he is talking about and that is the point.

Not going by what I want to think but that verse, one cannot "remain unmarried" from separating from a marriage in any way but absolving the marriage by divorce or a Catholic decree.

 

[Transmogrified]

[QUOTE="Transmogrified, post: 74648765, member

 

[Transmogrified]

It doesn’t seem to be saying her “former“ husband, when it says “ or be reconciled to her husband. The plain reading would assume she still had a husband she could be reconciled to, although was separated from him physically.

It would not be accurate to say the term ‘former husband” does not appear in scripture, as it plainly used these words in Deut. 24 :4 when speaking about a man who has put away his wife because of some un- cleanness that was found in her.

1

4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD:

And it wouldn’t be saying things like it was “ my ex” because it seems that no divorce had taken place.

And it would only be relying on the traditions of men to say a Catholic priest has anything different to say than what the apostles and prophets and Jesus have already said.

This is what Jesus reproved the Jews for in that they were “teaching for doctrines, the commandments of men.”

I understand the issue here is that either the phrase “remain unmarried” or the words “ be reconciled to her husband” has to be clarified in some legitimate manner for the sentence to make sense, but it doesn’t seem we have arrived at a satisfactory answer as of yet

 

[Transmogrified]

The reason why Paul spoke to the issue of divorce was because there was a movement within the Corinthian church that the single life was spiritually superior to the married life. This causes men to put away their wives and become celibate, and women to leave their husbands in favour of celibacy.

As we have seen, this movement did not remain contained within the Corinthian church, but spread, and in time gave rise to celibate monks and nuns who believed that marriage was sinful; and celibacy was imposed on the priesthood because it was believed that being celibate was more suited to the clergy.

Therefore his comments concerning divorce were solely directed to the problem that existed in the Corinthian church at the time. He did not even attempt to deal with other reasons for divorce, such as domestic violence and cruelty, adultery, and desertion.

But then we have extremists everywhere including Christianity who extend what the Scripture actually teaches and adds further teaching concerning certain issues from their own opinions and imagination. And the extremist teaching concerning divorce is no exception.

In fact, in the RCC, it is a mortal sin for a priest to be married, but in the Vatican it doesn't seem to be so for having concubines, hiring male and female prostitutes, and having gay parties!!

It would seem to me that if he is dealing with divorce or separation even for the reasons you brought up it wouldn't change the premise regarding the plain command. When it he says 'This is not me speaking but the Lord, saying 'Let not the wife depart from her husband,' it would apply whether in response to some false teaching that women could become more spiritual or whether they were just leaving because of other reasons. In other words, what would be the legitimate reason a woman might have to leave her husband? Would it be because he said something that hurt her feelings, or maybe he offended her, or there could be many other reasons, but Paul said she was not to leave her husband period. There are of course legitimate reasons for getting a divorce, but of course fornication was the only thing he said that would be justified.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

It would seem to me that if he is dealing with divorce or separation even for the reasons you brought up it wouldn't change the premise regarding the plain command. When it he says 'This is not me speaking but the Lord, saying 'Let not the wife depart from her husband,' it would apply whether in response to some false teaching that women could become more spiritual or whether they were just leaving because of other reasons. In other words, what would be the legitimate reason a woman might have to leave her husband? Would it be because he said something that hurt her feelings, or maybe he offended her, or there could be many other reasons, but Paul said she was not to leave her husband period. There are of course legitimate reasons for getting a divorce, but of course fornication was the only thing he said that would be justified.

One has to consider the reason why Paul taught the Corinthians about divorce, and yet there is no mention of it from him to any of the other churches. Also, divorce and remarriage are not mentioned in the council of Jerusalem where Paul and Barnabas attended to deal with the teaching of the false Judaizer apostles. Therefore Paul was dealing with a specific problem around the way many Corinthian men were divorcing their wives in order to live a more saintly single life. Therefore Paul was dealing with the inappropriate religious reason for the divorces that were happening.

The teaching of Jesus concerning divorce was directed to the ungodly, unconverted Pharisees who pressured Him into giving an answer to their questions. His teaching was not directed to converted Christian believers.

Therefore taking the teaching of Jesus and Paul out of their context, and ignoring their intention for giving the teaching, is actually stretching their teaching in ways that were not intended by either of them, and the inaccurate teaching by religious extremists tends to cause damage and harm to godly people who find themselves in circumstances that they cannot control.

 

[Transmogrified]

One has to consider the reason why Paul taught the Corinthians about divorce, and yet there is no mention of it from him to any of the other churches. Also, divorce and remarriage are not mentioned in the council of Jerusalem where Paul and Barnabas attended to deal with the teaching of the false Judaizer apostles. Therefore Paul was dealing with a specific problem around the way many Corinthian men were divorcing their wives in order to live a more saintly single life. Therefore Paul was dealing with the inappropriate religious reason for the divorces that were happening.

The teaching of Jesus concerning divorce was directed to the ungodly, unconverted Pharisees who pressured Him into giving an answer to their questions. His teaching was not directed to converted Christian believers.

Therefore taking the teaching of Jesus and Paul out of their context, and ignoring their intention for giving the teaching, is actually stretching their teaching in ways that were not intended by either of them, and the inaccurate teaching by religious extremists tends to cause damage and harm to godly people who find themselves in circumstances that they cannot control.

Paul at the beginning of 1 Corinthians said who was addressing his letter to: 1) "Unto the church of God at Corinth...2) To them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus...3) to them that are called to be saints...4) with all that in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both theirs and ours."

So his instructions were not just given to the Corinthians, but to every one in every place who call upon the name of the Lord...which would include saints in other churches...the Galatians, the Colossians, the Ephesians, and so forth.

The thing that concerns me probably the most, is that this commandment for the wife to not leave her husband is that he then later seems to condone it by saying '...but and if she depart, let her remain unmarried OR be reconciled to her husband.

So the two options she has was she could seemingly go ahead and live separated from her husband as long as she just didn't marry someone else. Think about that for a bit. God specifically said she is not to leave her husband, and then seems to allow her to do it anyway by just prohibiting her from getting married to someone else.

It seems to me he would of never left this option open for the woman to openly live in defiance of his plain commandment to not leave her husband. In other words by leaving this as a viable option, the woman can actually hold her husband 'hostage' because while she is apparently now free to live a separated life from her husband, he has no other option but to live in this condition of being married without living together and no recourse at all if she refuses to be reconciled to him.

But how did the woman get into this condition? It seems to me God himself has gave her this option because he gave her a choice: You can live separated from your husband, OR you can be reconciled to him. So all she has to do is choose to live separated from him while he suffers without living with her because she chose to break the plain commandment to not leave her husband.

I am looking for a better understanding of this, but it seems he would of not given her a choice like this by saying 'OR' be reconciled. It would seem like it would have said 'Let her not marry someone else, but 'MUST' be reconciled to her husband.

It seems the wife is given this latitude that she can leave for almost any reason she may come up with, which could include living in disobedience to her husband, and God seems to allow this as a viable option. There just seems to be something missing here.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Paul at the beginning of 1 Corinthians said who was addressing his letter to: 1) "Unto the church of God at Corinth...2) To them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus...3) to them that are called to be saints...4) with all that in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both theirs and ours."

So his instructions were not just given to the Corinthians, but to every one in every place who call upon the name of the Lord...which would include saints in other churches...the Galatians, the Colossians, the Ephesians, and so forth.

The thing that concerns me probably the most, is that this commandment for the wife to not leave her husband is that he then later seems to condone it by saying '...but and if she depart, let her remain unmarried OR be reconciled to her husband.

So the two options she has was she could seemingly go ahead and live separated from her husband as long as she just didn't marry someone else. Think about that for a bit. God specifically said she is not to leave her husband, and then seems to allow her to do it anyway by just prohibiting her from getting married to someone else.

It seems to me he would of never left this option open for the woman to openly live in defiance of his plain commandment to not leave her husband. In other words by leaving this as a viable option, the woman can actually hold her husband 'hostage' because while she is apparently now free to live a separated life from her husband, he has no other option but to live in this condition of being married without living together and no recourse at all if she refuses to be reconciled to him.

But how did the woman get into this condition? It seems to me God himself has gave her this option because he gave her a choice: You can live separated from your husband, OR you can be reconciled to him. So all she has to do is choose to live separated from him while he suffers without living with her because she chose to break the plain commandment to not leave her husband.

I am looking for a better understanding of this, but it seems he would of not given her a choice like this by saying 'OR' be reconciled. It would seem like it would have said 'Let her not marry someone else, but 'MUST' be reconciled to her husband.

It seems the wife is given this latitude that she can leave for almost any reason she may come up with, which could include living in disobedience to her husband, and God seems to allow this as a viable option. There just seems to be something missing here.

It seems that those who are single and never married, and those who are happily married, have easy and simple answers to the issue of divorce and remarriage. But once a person has been through a divorce, not of their own choosing, then it brings on more difficult questions and things don't seem as easy or clear as they were before.

For example, a wife who has been beaten to an inch of her life, and is deathly fearful of her life and has to separate from her abusing husband just to be able to stay alive, may not be in a place to take advice about her domestic situation from one who is happily married or single. She would quite rightly say, "You have never experienced what I am experiencing, so how can you know how to advise me?"

 

[Transmogrified]

Yes I realize some situations are worse than others, but what Paul is talking about is depicting a woman who was forbidden by God from leaving her husband, and went ahead and did it anyway. God would not be forbidding her from leaving him had he committed adultery, so her leaving him was without justification which would by why Paul points out that she was the one who needed to be reconciled to her husband, and not that the husband should be reconciled to his wife.

Do you see the conundrum I am talking about? I have read commentators and some of them seem to be able to read what Paul said here and then make the claim God is not allowing the wife to continue in her state, but needs to be reconciled to her husband as soon as possible. I believe that is the way it really should be, but the problem that haunts me is why would Paul say for her to 'remain unmarried' when in fact she was still married? Why would he use these words if he really meant to just say she shouldn't marry anyone else?

The problem is summed up here: Paul says she should 'remain unmarried,' and then in the same sentence he says for her to be reconciled to 'her husband.' How can she be reconciled to her husband if she is not married? But then on the other hand, how can she 'remain unmarried' when it explicitly states she has a husband?

It also seems God is allowing her to be in a state of disobedience to his will by giving her a choice to either 'remain unmarried' (not marry someone else...) OR to be reconciled to her husband. This seems to be offering two choices...she is being allowed to break Gods commandment not to leave, OR she can be reconciled to her husband.

The simplest solution to at least part of this problem would have been for him to use the word 'AND' instead of 'OR..' For example it would have said '...let her remain unmarried AND be reconciled to her husband. However I have looked up the word 'OR in the dictionary and it seems 'OR' can never be 'AND..' OR is always providing a distinction between two options.

 

[Salvadore]

It seems that those who are single and never married, and those who are happily married, have easy and simple answers to the issue of divorce and remarriage. But once a person has been through a divorce, not of their own choosing, then it brings on more difficult questions and things don't seem as easy or clear as they were before.

For example, a wife who has been beaten to an inch of her life, and is deathly fearful of her life and has to separate from her abusing husband just to be able to stay alive, may not be in a place to take advice about her domestic situation from one who is happily married or single. She would quite rightly say, "You have never experienced what I am experiencing, so how can you know how to advise me?"

Read about Hosea and his wife. I love the story. It shows God's grace and mercy.