Divorce and Remarriage

Bible2+

Matthew 4:4
Sep 14, 2015
3,001
375
✟91,195.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Big Drew said in post #91:

Back to Oscarr's point.

How does this view jibe with what was written in the letter from the Apostles to the Gentiles? Are we saying that Paul went against the grain and started adding more rules and regulations?

Are you thinking of the following verses?

Galatians 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?

If so, this means that the works of the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, especially its physical circumcision (Galatians 6:12-13), are works of the flesh, as opposed to spiritual works of faith (Philippians 3:2-14; 1 Thessalonians 1:3, Galatians 5:6, Titus 3:8). For the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law is not of faith (Galatians 3:12). Also, compare Romans 7:5-6.

Galatians 3:2-3 means that the works of the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law cannot make Christians perfect. Galatians 3:2-3 is not contradicting that initially saved people must have both faith and continued works of faith (1 Thessalonians 1:3, Galatians 5:6b, Titus 3:8) (not works of the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law) if they are to obtain ultimate salvation (Romans 2:6-8, James 2:24, Matthew 7:21).
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,138
20,183
US
✟1,441,553.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The passage (1 Cor 7:10-16):

To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife. To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace. For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?​

This is the command from the Lord:

To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.​

The rest is Paul's personal judgment.

It's not just "Paul's personal judgment," for as Paul says a few verses later: "... and I think also that I have the Spirit of God."

With "not I, but the Lord" Paul is pointing out that he is explicitly quoting Jesus, and with "I, not the Lord" he is saying that he is not explicitly quoting Jesus. Jesus did not say anything about believers married to unbelievers because He only spoke directly to believers. The situation of, for instance, a wife becoming a believer while her husband remained a pagan was not a situation Jesus ever directly faced or spoke directly about.

But Paul does through the unction of the Holy Spirit, as he explicitly points out.

He's not going to go against the Lord. Therefore, when he says that if the unbeliever wants to leave the believer, and the believer is "not bound", he is NOT saying that either party is free to remarry.

A few verses later, he certainly does use "not bound" to indicate freedom to remarry.

He's saying the believer shouldn't force the unbeliever to stay with him/her if the unbeliever wants to leave badly enough to go through with a legal divorce. Such houses are not houses of peace.

What "force" could that be. The scripture says:

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.

The unbeliever has departed. The believer has no options in that matter. In the case of a believing woman married to a pagan, the woman certainly had no power to force the man to remain--the men had all the options in those days.

The question is what is the status of the person who has been abandoned. Of that, Paul says, "you are not bound." "not bound" cannot mean "you are not required to force them to stay with you," because they have no power in that regard. In fact, that power lay in the hands of Caesar, for Roman divorces required permission of the governor of the region, and that decision would be weighed according to the implications on local politics and shifting family wealth and power.

The only "bondage" under question is the issue of remarriage by the believer abandoned by a pagan. "Bondage" in verse 15 means exactly the same thing that it means in verse 39.
 
Upvote 0

PeterDona

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 13, 2010
742
181
Denmark
✟348,585.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
Jesus did not say anything about believers married to unbelievers because He only spoke directly to believers.
The greatest conversation concerning remarriage adultery in Matthew 19:3-9 was between Jesus and the pharisees. Do you consider those to be believers or unbelievers?
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,138
20,183
US
✟1,441,553.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You are mixing 2 words here. Bondage and Bound. It is not the same word. I can see that you believe that this mix of meaning is valid, but I do not see that it is something that Paul corroborates in the text. If really Paul just made an exception of the rule of marriage in the case of a believer with an unbeliever, do you not think that he would explain how he suddenly could say that an otherwise indissoluble union is now soluble in this special case? Do you think that he would write such a sharp surprise, with such little commentation? It is in the text almost as if he is not aware the surprise that he just made (or rather what some interpret him to say). And if you are going to quote the principle of peace, how is it that the principle of peace creates/allows the breakup of a covenant? For me I was always puzzled about this, until I understood that Paul is not advocating freedom from the covenant, but only a living separate for the sake of being respectful of the other spouses desire. It does make sense, that the principle of peace could supersede the duty of performing the marital obligations, if the other party obviously rejects them to be performed. Well, it makes sense in the human perspective, but I still lack some scriptural example of such a hierarchy of principles.

Paul divides his instruction on marriage into three categories: The currently unmarried, Christians married to Christians, and Christians married to pagans.

If he intended to give the same instruction to Christians married to pagans as he did to Christians married to Christians, there would not have been a need for a "...to the rest..." division.

Remember that the covenant with the pagan spouse is recognized by God only through the faith of the Christian spouse, which Paul points out...otherwise, the pagan is still dead in his sins. Dead men can make no covenants that include God.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,138
20,183
US
✟1,441,553.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The greatest conversation concerning remarriage adultery in Matthew 19:3-9 was between Jesus and the pharisees. Do you consider those to be believers or unbelievers?

They were believers in God and the Mosaic law. They were not pagans. And the entire crowd was not of Pharisees. Moreover, Jesus didn't have any theological problems with Pharisees.
 
Upvote 0

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,810
10,792
76
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟827,333.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
So then, no more reason to keep the conversation going right?
The trouble is that the religious intolerance comes from the extreme Holiness groups that subscribe to Arminian theology and who insist on sinless perfection as a qualification for salvation. But if there is any fault in divorce and remarriage it is a sanctification issue not a Justification issue. We are Justified by faith. I hold very strongly to Luther's theology on this. He fought for that theology and put his life at risk because he firmly believed that we are justified by faith in Christ alone, apart from anything we may do. My view is that the Holy Spirit has not convicted me of sin in this regard. In fact, He has almost drowned me in reassuring scriptures that show that God does not hold anything against me concerning my divorce and remarriage.

It is an insult to His justice to insist that a person forced into something through duress be punished. It doesn't happen in law, and God is greater than the laws of the land. His justice is more solid and He certainly does not punish the innocent with the guilty. But these Holiness people do and they insult God's Justice and come very near to blaspheming the Blood of Christ. I wonder if those people take communion (or the Eucharist) that because they believe that the Blood of Christ is not sufficient to cleanse a person from ALL sin, they are drinking it unworthily because they fail to discern the body and blood of the Lord? A thought worth thinking about.

The Holiness people are not representative of Jesus at all. Even while we were yet sinners, Jesus loved us and gave Himself for us. Holiness people do not believe that Jesus would love us until we are sinlessly perfect.
 
Upvote 0

The Times

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2017
2,581
805
Australia
✟90,081.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
I created another thread on this topic, specifically dealing with the verse found in 1 Timothy in regards to qualifications for an elder or deacon...but that got me to thinking about this even further, and thought this would be best in the general theology section...

The other thread is here, if any are interested.1 Timothy 3:2 Husband of One Wife

In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul writes:

15 But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace. 16 For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

This tells me that if the unbelieving partner leaves then the believer is no longer bound to that marriage, and are free to remarry. Later on in the chapter Paul says that widows are allowed to remarry as well.

So, what if, at the time of separation and divorce, both parties were backslidden, and no longer walking in their faith?

Are you implying that people should Vito Jesus in what he said.......

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,' 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’ 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

If people even thought of vitoing Jesus, that would be considered as mutiny.

You wouldn't? Would you guys? :sigh:
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,810
10,792
76
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟827,333.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
After all Jesus Christ is our high priest, if he said what he ties on earth shall be tied in heaven and he gave instructions that divorce is not permitted unless if adultery is involved, then that should be authority wouldn't you all agree?
It depends on who He was talking to and why. He was talking to unconverted Jews at the time to show them that there is a higher standard than just the Mosaic Law in order to be justified before God. The issues around divorce and remarriage concern sanctification and not justification. I am opposed to those who say that divorced and remarried people lose their salvation. I believe that is treading the Son of God underfoot and insulting the grace of God through legalism. Jesus always knew that people will never attain the standards that God expects of them in order to be accepted of Him. This is why He died on the cross for us because we could never be righteous no matter how hard we try. To say that anything we do outside of a refusal to believe that He is the Son of God and that He rose from the dead, loses us our salvation is denying that Jesus is a complete Saviour and is an insult to His blood in that they are saying that the effects of the shed blood can be reversed by our lack of sinless perfection.

There are no instructions for those who are forced into divorce by the actions of others, through domestic violence or abandonment of the marriage. Paul recognised this by saying to the Corinthians that he was just giving personal advice and not giving any commandment from the Lord.

So, those who say that divorce and remarriage loses a person their salvation is teaching false doctrine and insulting Jesus, His finished work on the cross, and are blaspheming His blood that was shed for us.
 
Upvote 0

The Times

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2017
2,581
805
Australia
✟90,081.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
It depends on who He was talking to and why. He was talking to unconverted Jews at the time to show them that there is a higher standard than just the Mosaic Law in order to be justified before God. The issues around divorce and remarriage concern sanctification and not justification. I am opposed to those who say that divorced and remarried people lose their salvation. I believe that is treading the Son of God underfoot and insulting the grace of God through legalism. Jesus always knew that people will never attain the standards that God expects of them in order to be accepted of Him. This is why He died on the cross for us because we could never be righteous no matter how hard we try. To say that anything we do outside of a refusal to believe that He is the Son of God and that He rose from the dead, loses us our salvation is denying that Jesus is a complete Saviour and is an insult to His blood in that they are saying that the effects of the shed blood can be reversed by our lack of sinless perfection.

There are no instructions for those who are forced into divorce by the actions of others, through domestic violence or abandonment of the marriage. Paul recognised this by saying to the Corinthians that he was just giving personal advice and not giving any commandment from the Lord.

So, those who say that divorce and remarriage loses a person their salvation is teaching false doctrine and insulting Jesus, His finished work on the cross, and are blaspheming His blood that was shed for us.

Nonsense. Jesus refers to the law of divorce existing from the very first day that he created Adam and Eve and that is why he said it wasn't always so, yet Moses bent the law under the Mosaiac law to appease the hardened hearts. Then Jesus went on to say that under the new covenant as our High Priest, if a man so much as lusts after a women, he has already committed adultry.

Not only did Jesus as our Kingly High Priest overrule Moses and refer to the law that existed before the Mosaiac law, but he even upped the anti by saying that even lusting after a women is adultry. Therefore the question of divorce is a cut and dry matter, that is if you accept Jesus as the final authority, over and above Moses.
 
Upvote 0

Big Drew

Believer
Supporter
Nov 10, 2009
1,883
541
Alabama
✟74,961.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
The Times...your posts come off as very fundamentalist evangelical, yet your profile says Eastern Orthodox, so I'm very confused. In my study of the EOC I haven't seen these hardline legalistic views expressed. In fact, I've read that the Orthodox faith allows for divorce and remarriage in certain cases, so how do you stand in opposition of your faith?
 
Upvote 0

The Times

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2017
2,581
805
Australia
✟90,081.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
The Times...your posts come off as very fundamentalist evangelical, yet your profile says Eastern Orthodox, so I'm very confused. In my study of the EOC I haven't seen these hardline legalistic views expressed. In fact, I've read that the Orthodox faith allows for divorce and remarriage in certain cases, so how do you stand in opposition of your faith?

I don't stand against my faith, I simply remphasize the importance of listening to Jesus as our Kingly High Priest. I don't believe that the EO Patriarch will disagree with me.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

r4.h

Active Member
Feb 11, 2018
167
83
62
Hamilton
✟13,310.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul writes:

15 But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace. 16 For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?


While trying to know what was the right thing to do in my situation where my wife of 5 yrs had left me. There was infidelity on both sides and on top of that we had married as unbelievers and she was divorced when i met her. I used to go over and over every verse on divorce, esp 1 Cor 7:15+16.
Verse 15 seem to say i was free to remarry, but verse 16 would ask me how did i know if i would be instrument to save her?
V15 cannot mean free from the marriage because of V16, it can only mean I am not to force her to stay as might happen in those days, and or that I was free from financial obligation etc.
Its like saying do what you want v15 but if she goes to hell, it could be your fault. That is Hobson`s choice, which is no choice at all.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,138
20,183
US
✟1,441,553.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
While trying to know what was the right thing to do in my situation where my wife of 5 yrs had left me. There was infidelity on both sides and on top of that we had married as unbelievers and she was divorced when i met her. I used to go over and over every verse on divorce, esp 1 Cor 7:15+16.
Verse 15 seem to say i was free to remarry, but verse 16 would ask me how did i know if i would be instrument to save her?
V15 cannot mean free from the marriage because of V16, it can only mean I am not to force her to stay as might happen in those days, and or that I was free from financial obligation etc.
Its like saying do what you want v15 but if she goes to hell, it could be your fault. That is Hobson`s choice, which is no choice at all.

Verse 16 says that 1 Peter 3:1-6 is not guaranteed. Peter says you might save your spouse, Paul says you might not. An unbelieving spouse is not slave to Christ, but slave to sin.

As Christians, there is no acceptable reason for us to desire divorce. If there is any way, insofar as it depends on us, to be desirable within our Christianity, that's what we are to be. Divorce might come upon us, but it should never have been our desire.

If the unbelieving spouse wants to leave the marriage, God does not stop them and we can't stop them.

And nobody--nobody--is responsible for the salvation or condemnation of another. Christ is solely responsible for salvation today and is solely responsible for judgment tomorrow. You may be used by Christ for another's salvation, but every person accepts Christ or rejects Christ on his own.
 
Upvote 0

sdowney717

Newbie
Apr 20, 2013
8,712
2,021
✟102,588.00
Faith
Christian
While trying to know what was the right thing to do in my situation where my wife of 5 yrs had left me. There was infidelity on both sides and on top of that we had married as unbelievers and she was divorced when i met her. I used to go over and over every verse on divorce, esp 1 Cor 7:15+16.
Verse 15 seem to say i was free to remarry, but verse 16 would ask me how did i know if i would be instrument to save her?
V15 cannot mean free from the marriage because of V16, it can only mean I am not to force her to stay as might happen in those days, and or that I was free from financial obligation etc.
Its like saying do what you want v15 but if she goes to hell, it could be your fault. That is Hobson`s choice, which is no choice at all.

Paul says they are not under bondage to continue with the marriage, so let them separate as God has called us to peace. Then Paul still addresses them as husband and as wife, so this means they are still married, so not at liberty to marry again.

Really , when Jesus said what God has joined together, let no man separate is a rigid truth which people ignore.
The spiritual significance of marriage not being dissolved also points to Christ and His church, the bond never to be broken apart being an eternal everlasting one.

Ephesians 5:30-32 New King James Version (NKJV)
30 For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones.
31 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”
32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
 
Upvote 0

Bible2+

Matthew 4:4
Sep 14, 2015
3,001
375
✟91,195.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
r4.h said in post #115:

. . . she was divorced when i met her.

If she was divorced from a valid husband, then your marriage to her was invalid. It was adultery, for:

Matthew 5:32 . . . whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Luke 16:18 . . . whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

Mark 10:12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: r4.h
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums