Is it okay to date another Christian whose been divorced?

[BukiRob]

1) when is it right to call a person an unbeliever? I refer to our Lord in Matthew 7:16 and Matthew 7:21. Someone can say all day long that they believe in Christ, but if their works don't line up, they aren't believers.

You do reliaze that when scripture is speaking of works that is code for Torah observance right? You DO know that all of scripture were written by holy spirit filled observant jews right?

2)Not only that, but think about the reasoning... God recognizes that some simply need marriage in order to keep from sin. How could it be, that he would recognize this weakness only in virgins, but not in a man whose wife ran off with another man?

Im starting to wonder if you believe what G-d says?!? It is NOT weakness!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! When Adam was WITHOUT SIN, G-d said IT IS NOT GOOD for the man to live alone..... Marriage is G-ds plan for ALL men and women. This garbage about celibacy being preferred is based upon a DEEPLY flawed understanding of what Paul is teaching based upon what was currently happening to the people Paul is speaking to!

3)You still have "the rest" separate from "the married". Which means that the things spoken to "the married" do not apply to "the rest." Which lifts a very heavy burden off the shoulders of many Christians. And you still have to deal with how verses 27 and 28 read, in the Greek. The first clause of verse 28 obviously belongs to the end of verse 27. And the Greek word translated as "loosed" in verse 27 is NOT the same Greek word that refers to loosing in death. It means "loosed" by divorce. (Compare the Greek word translated "loosed" in Romans 7:2)

You're on your way. Keep plugging.

 

[pshun2404]

Was their previous spouse an unbeliever or make believer? Then Yes it is fine.

Was adultery the case? Then Yes it is fine.

 

[REBEL CRUSADER]

I know the bible says that if a man divorces his wife and marries another, then he and that new woman are adulterers. But in this day and age, it is extremely hard not to meet someone who is divorced. Especially when you are older. Are there any exceptions? I don't want to commit adultery!

Look, there are going to be very cold legalist, sin this, law that people here, telling you it's not okay. Then there are going to be hot for grace people here that I agree with telling you are not under law, all things are lawful, it is impossible for you to sin as it were.

You got to decide what you're going to believe. I'll tell you why. No guy needs some woman around always looking at him like he's a filthy sinner or that she is, and feeling guilty and doing some sin for being with him.

If you're going to be thinking that way, do him the favor and leave him alone. Go find yourself some old virgin, never been married, always lived in his mom's basement, or stay alone.

 

[BukiRob]

Look, there are going to be very cold legalist, sin this, law that people here, telling you it's not okay. Then there are going to be hot for grace people here that I agree with telling you are not under law, all things are lawful, it is impossible for you to sin as it were.

You got to decide what you're going to believe. I'll tell you why. No guy needs some woman around always looking at him like he's a filthy sinner or that she is, and feeling guilty and doing some sin for being with him.

If you're going to be thinking that way, do him the favor and leave him alone. Go find yourself some old virgin, never been married, always lived in his mom's basement, or stay alone.

All things are NOT lawful those that hold that view misunderstand Paul

It is NOT lawful to take G-d's name in vain. It is not lawful to commit adultery, murder to bear false witness....etc.

You DO NOT get to pick and choose

 

[REBEL CRUSADER]

All things are NOT lawful those that hold that view misunderstand Paul

It is NOT lawful to take G-d's name in vain. It is not lawful to commit adultery, murder to bear false witness....etc.

You DO NOT get to pick and choose

It's not lawful for you because you are under law. I am not. I was brought out from under the law, like it or not, and I'm not going back. Good luck to you though in adding your own righteousness (filthy rags/dirty tampons) on to His finished work at the cross. Yeah Jesus just loves that, because His sacrifice just wasn't quite good enough for you, was it? Worthy is the Lamb...... and meeeeee, right? Gotta have a little hand in it don't ya?

Got to get right with that law, got to start working it, got to save yourself with it, be a bit of your own messiah, your own Jesus, your own god.

"Thou Shalt not have no other gods before me" ......... oops. What do you know, the moment you touch it, you're a sinner.

Well it's His law. You can have it, but you can't keep it. Only one that is 100% God, and 100% man, can do that.

 

[PeterDona]

1) when is it right to call a person an unbeliever? I refer to our Lord in Matthew 7:16 and Matthew 7:21. Someone can say all day long that they believe in Christ, but if their works don't line up, they aren't believers.
2)Not only that, but think about the reasoning... God recognizes that some simply need marriage in order to keep from sin. How could it be, that he would recognize this weakness only in virgins, but not in a man whose wife ran off with another man?
3)You still have "the rest" separate from "the married". Which means that the things spoken to "the married" do not apply to "the rest." Which lifts a very heavy burden off the shoulders of many Christians. And you still have to deal with how verses 27 and 28 read, in the Greek. The first clause of verse 28 obviously belongs to the end of verse 27. And the Greek word translated as "loosed" in verse 27 is NOT the same Greek word that refers to loosing in death. It means "loosed" by divorce. (Compare the Greek word translated "loosed" in Romans 7:2)

You're on your way. Keep plugging.

regarding your statement #1 I see in the parable of the wheat and the tares a principle of not judging before time who are the real believers. It would make better sense that the unbeliever of 7:15 is someone who never committed to Christ while his spouse did. The first church of Corinth would have such problematic situations.

Your interpretation is of special interest to me, since this is the way my wife used the verse. Even though her husband had been in the leadership of the church, he was now declared to be an unbeliever. I mean, really? So can anyone who divorces be declared an unbeliever? considering example that he does something unchristian by divorcing his wife?

Please bear with me if I include my own situation here. I hope it does not distract too much from the general line.

Regarding your statement #3, you understand "to the rest" as speaking to a specific group of people. It may be so or not be so. I mean, unmarried and married are covered, so can there be a 3rd group? It would make sense to believe that this is talking about the rest of the cases that the corinthians have asked Paul about, and that are not covered well enough by the brief statements to the unmarried and to the married.

Regarding 7:27-28, I already covered how this is speaking to the virgins. My question back to you is, how can one be a virgin if already married? ("Art thou bound to a wife") As I have already stated, I believe that "bound" in this context refers to the state of betrothal.

best regards and thanks for the conversation. Interesting to meet you.

 

[1stcenturylady]

While I want to follow that interesting interaction between 1stcenturylady and pollyjetix, let me just tell what my sleep has brought me, or rather what the debate yesterday brought me

1) I would not (if I became a minister) advocate that a divorced woman has to be open at all times to take her unbelieving husband back. This is a difficult one, because really how far does the principle of peace extend? and when is it right to call a person an unbeliever?
2) Point taken, it can not be proven from the immediate context without the shadow of doubt that the "unmarried" in 7:9 does not include divorced people.
3) however, I do not take the 4-division of chapter 7 proposed. If it were a right understanding, then category 3 could not be "the rest". Then Paul would have had to line up like this: (1) the virgins (2) the unmarried and widows (3) the married (4) the rest. So I stick to my understanding that the discussion of the virgins in 7:25-39 does not refer back to the first part of chapter 7.

I would say that the "unmarried" and widows in vs. 9, refers to a "widower" and a "widow." Paul is not going to contradict Jesus.

 

[PollyJetix]

regarding your statement #1 I see in the parable of the wheat and the tares a principle of not judging before time who are the real believers. It would make better sense that the unbeliever of 7:15 is someone who never committed to Christ while his spouse did. The first church of Corinth would have such problematic situations.

Your interpretation is of special interest to me, since this is the way my wife used the verse. Even though her husband had been in the leadership of the church, he was now declared to be an unbeliever. I mean, really? So can anyone who divorces be declared an unbeliever? considering example that he does something unchristian by divorcing his wife?

Please bear with me if I include my own situation here. I hope it does not distract too much from the general line.

Regarding your statement #3, you understand "to the rest" as speaking to a specific group of people. It may be so or not be so. I mean, unmarried and married are covered, so can there be a 3rd group? It would make sense to believe that this is talking about the rest of the cases that the corinthians have asked Paul about, and that are not covered well enough by the brief statements to the unmarried and to the married.

Regarding 7:27-28, I already covered how this is speaking to the virgins. My question back to you is, how can one be a virgin if already married? ("Art thou bound to a wife") As I have already stated, I believe that "bound" in this context refers to the state of betrothal.

best regards and thanks for the conversation. Interesting to meet you.

One problem with using the wheat-and-tares parable to say the church is full of tares...
Jesus said the field is the world. Not the church. Matthew 13:38
Tares are a specific weed, which look almost identical to wheat.
But when the time of harvest comes, it's easy to tell which are tares.
Tare seed is light, so the seed stalk stands upright.
Wheat seed is heavy, so the seed heads bow under the weight.
"By their fruits you shall know them."

Jesus did not tell us that parable to say that we cannot know.
He gave that parable to tell us that the wicked will continue to exist in the world until the end, when He comes back. It's not up to the righteous, to try to root out the wicked from the world. It's a job for God. But we can tell who is real wheat, by watching for the fruit, and for humility.

As for "It would make better sense that the unbeliever of 7:15 is someone who never committed to Christ while his spouse did." Well, yes, that would be nice. But things are rarely as clean-cut as we would like for them to be.

I believe, on the basis of many scriptures (I have a list of over 30 of them) that a believer can walk away from God, and become lost. (You have "left" your first love.)
The Word is very clear: Whoever sees his brother have need, and shuts up his feelings of compassion from him, the love of God does not dwell in them. Also, anyone who refuses to provide for those of his own household, has denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
On the basis of these two verses, I believe we are on very safe ground to say that anyone who commits adultery/divorce, out of an unloving heart, is walking in unbelief, and is worse than if he had never believed.

I don't know how God sees those who separate under the duress of a false teaching, thinking they had to divorce, to please God. The Mennonites require such separation of ALL divorced/remarried homes.

As to who "the rest" are... I see it very clearly.
Paul says "the rest" is this:

1Corinthians 7:12 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.
1Co 7:13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.

Therefore, "the rest" are those who are married to unbelievers.
And it is obvious that this type of marriage is NOT included in "the married."
Therefore, when Paul speaks here to "the married," he means for it to be understood as "married in the Lord." (1 Corinthians 7:39)

It is obvious also that 1 Corinthians 7:27-28a is NOT speaking to virgins, but to those who are in unequal-yoke marriages. (Not in the Lord.)
Verses 25 and 26 are to virgins. But the beginning of verse 27 is the beginning of a conclusion, where he wraps up the subject of whether it's better to be married or unmarried.

 

[PollyJetix]

I would say that the "unmarried" and widows in vs. 9, refers to a "widower" and a "widow." Paul is not going to contradict Jesus.

That contradicts a very important rule for correct interpretation of Scripture.
"Allow the context to define the terms."

 

[BukiRob]

It's not lawful for you because you are under law. I am not. I was brought out from under the law, like it or not, and I'm not going back. Good luck to you though in adding your own righteousness (filthy rags/dirty tampons) on to His finished work at the cross. Yeah Jesus just loves that, because His sacrifice just wasn't quite good enough for you, was it? Worthy is the Lamb...... and meeeeee, right? Gotta have a little hand in it don't ya?

Got to get right with that law, got to start working it, got to save yourself with it, be a bit of your own messiah, your own Jesus, your own god.

"Thou Shalt not have no other gods before me" ......... oops. What do you know, the moment you touch it, you're a sinner.

Well it's His law. You can have it, but you can't keep it. Only one that is 100% God, and 100% man, can do that.

Yep yet another christian who thinks the law has anything to do with salvation... why am I NOT surprised.

Abraham, David, you, me and everyone who has or ever will be saved was done the same way.... By GRACE, through Faith.

Torah keeping has NOTHING WHAT SO EVER to do with attaining salvation....

But its probably pointless to converse with you since you dont even know that much.

Good day to you.... G-d bless

 

[PollyJetix]

Yep yet another christian who thinks the law has anything to do with salvation... why am I NOT surprised.

Abraham, David, you, me and everyone who has or ever will be saved was done the same way.... By GRACE, through Faith.

Torah keeping has NOTHING WHAT SO EVER to do with attaining salvation....

But its probably pointless to converse with you since you dont even know that much.

Good day to you.... G-d bless

There are two ditches to this road.
As usual, the truth is not in either ditch.

 

[1stcenturylady]

There are several Scriptures telling us that those who are in Christ are not under condemnation of the Law. I can think of these right off the top of my head:
Romans 8:1-4, Romans 5:16-18, 2 Corinthians 3:9

And the reason we are not condemned by the law, is not because the law itself has been done away (it hasn't) but because as we are in Christ, we fulfill the Law, through HIM!

The law, as a moral standard, still stands for those who are lawless and disobedient, etc. It is NOT done away for them, because they are not in Christ. The Law still stands to bring them to Christ.

The way this works, for instance in the Law concerning divorce and remarriage, is that IF we walk after the Spirit, we will operate in love, and we will not want to hurt, betray, stop providing for, those of our own household.

But if any Christian refuses to walk in the Spirit, and becomes selfish, and does NOT act in love, then he will not provide love and care for those of his household. It may go so far as to betray his spouse, via adultery and divorce.

And in that state, he is NO LONGER in Christ, and is again under the condemnation of the Law! He has denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel!

This thinking that the moral code of the Law is completely done away, so that we can do anything we wish (as long as we feel like we love them) and no longer have to remember the lessons taught us by our former schoolmaster, the Law, turns modern Christians into "worse than infidels".

It is true, that those who live in the Spirit, and walk no longer after the flesh, are above the Law. They don't have to have rules telling them not to divorce their spouses. But for those who walk after the flesh, they need the rules!

And the rules telling us what is godly have not changed.

All of the Law is contained in this: Love God above all, and love others as you love yourself.
If selfish humans instinctively could know what that looks like, they wouldn't need the moral code contained in the Law. I am not talking about those things contained in ceremonies, washings, clean and unclean, sacrifices... all of that, Christ has BECOME to us. Those who disobey the moral social code, aren't in Christ. They are outside the veil. They are not part of Israel.

But we who are now the true spiritual Israel (I speak only in the sense of Romans 9:6, and 1 Corinthians 10:18) walk after the perfect law of liberty IN CHRIST. Because IN HIM, ALL that which has to do with ceremonial laws and days, feasts, etc, are FULFILLED. We do not need to try to add to His perfect work there.

But in us, who are IN CHRIST, the righteousness which is contained in the Law, is lived out.
By love.

That's why true Christians don't divorce.

As you yourself said, what happens before one is born again, is washed away. He gets a clean slate. This only happens because the New Testament doesn't establish a new code of behavior. IF, however, the NT created a new set of rules, then ALL the old Testament is out the window.

In that case, all who are divorced and remarried would have to go find their first spouse, and return to them, even if they were living in the world at the time. NO remarriages would be valid, because Jesus said WHOSOEVER marrieth her that is put away, committeth adultery!

If you try to understand what Jesus taught, outside of the context of the Old Testament moral code, you end up with a much heavier burden of law than what God ever gave Moses.

Preach it, sister!!!! Yes, we are on the same page.

The reason for my question is Romans 8:1 from modern translations only says, "Therefore, there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. Period! But, the whole scripture reads further - who do not walk after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

A whole sub-culture of false teachings has risen out of the modern translations, making, in that case, grace as a license to sin, just as long as you believe in Jesus.

Even the Trinity. Modern translations have chopped of more than half the contents of 1 John 5:7 saying only, "For there are three that testify:" Whereas, the whole verse says, "For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one." This has caused yet another false teaching.

I would only warn you on one point. We do not know when a Christian becomes an unbeliever and returns to perdition. Too many have used that misjudgment to damn to hell (don't know of a kinder way to put it) the spouse who doesn't love them anymore. That is why I, with, maybe, an over zealous fear of the Lord, hesitate to go any further without God telling me I can go forward with another partner in life. Seeing as we can make scripture say anything we want (why there are over 30,000 denominations), He would audibly have to tell me with my knight in shining armor coming down before me on a magic carpet! Luckily, I am content with the state I am in - celibate. So, far, all He has said is "I release you." So, I know I'm released from the marriage, but my concern is, is my husband damned to hell, or is his marriage to his mistress, blessed by God. I feel confident that God did not put them together, I just want to know is Steven and Mary going to hell because they fell in love. To me repentance means "turning away from sin." Does that mean he should have turned away from Mary, and back to a wife he didn't love - me? Or does he get a second chance and just love Mary and stay faithful to her? I've asked pastors and gotten both answers. Some say he is forgiven, just "go and sin no more."

 

[1stcenturylady]

1) when is it right to call a person an unbeliever? I refer to our Lord in Matthew 7:16 and Matthew 7:21. Someone can say all day long that they believe in Christ, but if their works don't line up, they aren't believers.
2)Not only that, but think about the reasoning... God recognizes that some simply need marriage in order to keep from sin. How could it be, that he would recognize this weakness only in virgins, but not in a man whose wife ran off with another man?
3)You still have "the rest" separate from "the married". Which means that the things spoken to "the married" do not apply to "the rest." Which lifts a very heavy burden off the shoulders of many Christians. And you still have to deal with how verses 27 and 28 read, in the Greek. The first clause of verse 28 obviously belongs to the end of verse 27. And the Greek word translated as "loosed" in verse 27 is NOT the same Greek word that refers to loosing in death. It means "loosed" by divorce. (Compare the Greek word translated "loosed" in Romans 7:2)

You're on your way. Keep plugging.

Good answer. Yes, I too believe if a verified unbeliever leaves and divorces his Christian spouse, the Christian, though now divorced, is free. I just believe Paul meant, unbeliever from birth.

 

[PollyJetix]

Good answer. Yes, I too believe if a verified unbeliever leaves and divorces his Christian spouse, the Christian, though now divorced, is free. I just believe Paul meant, unbeliever from birth.

Do what you feel, before God, is right.
Each person really must be careful to obey his conscience. The conscience is the gateway to the spirit (as I see it) and is the avenue via which God can convict us of sin. When we disregard that little voice, we silence the voice of God within us, and start down a path of tremendous confusion.

Consciences are taught, however. We can be taught by mistaken humans, or we can be taught by God. I was taught to view the Scriptures through a mistaken lens of very strict Mennonitism, on many subjects.

The main thing they hold to, is the idea that when Jesus spoke the Sermon on the Mount, he was establishing a whole new set of rules, throwing out the moral code of the Old Testament. This is why they do not go to war. And this is why they do not allow ANY divorced-and-remarried couples to stay together, in their churches. To them, the "exception clause" is only about betrothal.

When God opened my eyes, it was just me and Him. I was reading the Word in my private time, and suddenly, I SAW Matthew 5:17-18 in stark relief, as a disclaimer Christ was issuing before plunging into the Sermon on the Mount. And I found that EVERYTHING Jesus preached in those 3 chapters, contradicting "them of old time" was actually found in the Old Testament! He wasn't referring to Moses and the prophets, as "them of old time!" He was refuting the teachings of the rabbis who had lived only a couple hundred years before, who the Pharisees obeyed more than the Old Testament!

When I saw that false foundation of Mennonitism crumble in the light of truth... it all fell away. I saw everything differently. And I was free from the cage I had grown up in. Completely free.

Yes, our ex-husbands are different, I guess...
When my husband left, he knew he was disobeying God, in a drastic way. So he just decided to turn his back on God completely. He told me he tried to do everything evil he had not allowed himself to do before. He refuses to have anything to do with me, as he hates me.

Now, I am not his judge. However, 1 John 3:15-16 is pretty clear. I do not perceive anything of God's love in him. I feel completely free from this marriage.
And after 18 years of an abusive marriage, followed by 14 years of having that dead marriage strapped to my back like a putrefying corpse, this feels like breathing the air of heaven.

 

[I'm_Sorry]

When my husband left, he knew he was disobeying God, in a drastic way. So he just decided to turn his back on God completely. He told me he tried to do everything evil he had not allowed himself to do before. He refuses to have anything to do with me, as he hates me.

I'm really sorry for your pain you carry.

I hope you forgive him. Abuse is not good to be under, it exhausts our love and trust.

God loves us more than even we could love our spouses at best of times.

 

[PollyJetix]

I'm really sorry for your pain you carry.

I hope you forgive him. Abuse is not good to be under, it exhausts our love and trust.

God loves us more than even we could love our spouses at best of times.

Actually, I pray constantly, "Father, forgive him. He doesn't know what he did. Please grant him repentance."
I am not bitter at all. I'm only telling what happened, because it explains why I feel completely free from that marriage, and even from the weight of another "higher, better, New Testament Law".

 

[I'm_Sorry]

Actually, I pray constantly, "Father, forgive him. He doesn't know what he did. Please grant him repentance."
I am not bitter at all. I'm only telling what happened, because it explains why I feel completely free from that marriage, and even from the weight of another "higher, better, New Testament Law".

I'm just expressing empathy. I know what its like.

I'm glad you forgive him and are free in Christ Jesus.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Do what you feel, before God, is right.
Each person really must be careful to obey his conscience. The conscience is the gateway to the spirit (as I see it) and is the avenue via which God can convict us of sin. When we disregard that little voice, we silence the voice of God within us, and start down a path of tremendous confusion.

Consciences are taught, however. We can be taught by mistaken humans, or we can be taught by God. I was taught to view the Scriptures through a mistaken lens of very strict Mennonitism, on many subjects.

The main thing they hold to, is the idea that when Jesus spoke the Sermon on the Mount, he was establishing a whole new set of rules, throwing out the moral code of the Old Testament. This is why they do not go to war. And this is why they do not allow ANY divorced-and-remarried couples to stay together, in their churches. To them, the "exception clause" is only about betrothal.

When God opened my eyes, it was just me and Him. I was reading the Word in my private time, and suddenly, I SAW Matthew 5:17-18 in stark relief, as a disclaimer Christ was issuing before plunging into the Sermon on the Mount. And I found that EVERYTHING Jesus preached in those 3 chapters, contradicting "them of old time" was actually found in the Old Testament! He wasn't referring to Moses and the prophets, as "them of old time!" He was refuting the teachings of the rabbis who had lived only a couple hundred years before, who the Pharisees obeyed more than the Old Testament!

When I saw that false foundation of Mennonitism crumble in the light of truth... it all fell away. I saw everything differently. And I was free from the cage I had grown up in. Completely free.

Yes, our ex-husbands are different, I guess...
When my husband left, he knew he was disobeying God, in a drastic way. So he just decided to turn his back on God completely. He told me he tried to do everything evil he had not allowed himself to do before. He refuses to have anything to do with me, as he hates me.

Now, I am not his judge. However, 1 John 3:15-16 is pretty clear. I do not perceive anything of God's love in him. I feel completely free from this marriage.
And after 18 years of an abusive marriage, followed by 14 years of having that dead marriage strapped to my back like a putrefying corpse, this feels like breathing the air of heaven.

I too believe in following your conscience. My spirit is very sensitive, so I just don't do things that others may think are questionable for them to do, but do them anyway. Or I do do things that others are legalistic about and won't do - I just won't do them around them.

As for the Mennonite interpretation about the betrothal, that matches mine as well if it has to do with 1 Corinthians 7:27-28. In context, that whole section, starting with vs. 25 is to virgins and widows/widowers. In that section Paul is not referring to the divorced. (He spoke of not being bound earlier, which would have covered being free from a consummated marriage.) However, people mistake vs. 27-28 as talking of the divorced. Wrong!

 

[REBEL CRUSADER]

Yep yet another christian who thinks the law has anything to do with salvation... why am I NOT surprised.

Abraham, David, you, me and everyone who has or ever will be saved was done the same way.... By GRACE, through Faith.

Torah keeping has NOTHING WHAT SO EVER to do with attaining salvation....

But its probably pointless to converse with you since you dont even know that much.

Good day to you.... G-d bless

Pretty sure I made it clear that the law has nothing to do with salvation. Abraham never had the law. David knew it wasn't by law. You're the one going on about the law, in whatever way. You can't put together a proper sentence.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Do what you feel, before God, is right.
Each person really must be careful to obey his conscience. The conscience is the gateway to the spirit (as I see it) and is the avenue via which God can convict us of sin. When we disregard that little voice, we silence the voice of God within us, and start down a path of tremendous confusion.

Consciences are taught, however. We can be taught by mistaken humans, or we can be taught by God. I was taught to view the Scriptures through a mistaken lens of very strict Mennonitism, on many subjects.

The main thing they hold to, is the idea that when Jesus spoke the Sermon on the Mount, he was establishing a whole new set of rules, throwing out the moral code of the Old Testament. This is why they do not go to war. And this is why they do not allow ANY divorced-and-remarried couples to stay together, in their churches. To them, the "exception clause" is only about betrothal.

When God opened my eyes, it was just me and Him. I was reading the Word in my private time, and suddenly, I SAW Matthew 5:17-18 in stark relief, as a disclaimer Christ was issuing before plunging into the Sermon on the Mount. And I found that EVERYTHING Jesus preached in those 3 chapters, contradicting "them of old time" was actually found in the Old Testament! He wasn't referring to Moses and the prophets, as "them of old time!" He was refuting the teachings of the rabbis who had lived only a couple hundred years before, who the Pharisees obeyed more than the Old Testament!

When I saw that false foundation of Mennonitism crumble in the light of truth... it all fell away. I saw everything differently. And I was free from the cage I had grown up in. Completely free.

Yes, our ex-husbands are different, I guess...
When my husband left, he knew he was disobeying God, in a drastic way. So he just decided to turn his back on God completely. He told me he tried to do everything evil he had not allowed himself to do before. He refuses to have anything to do with me, as he hates me.

Now, I am not his judge. However, 1 John 3:15-16 is pretty clear. I do not perceive anything of God's love in him. I feel completely free from this marriage.
And after 18 years of an abusive marriage, followed by 14 years of having that dead marriage strapped to my back like a putrefying corpse, this feels like breathing the air of heaven.

I'm splitting my response. As for Matthew 5 and the law, I would say that the Ten Commandments had to do with outward actions, whereas, the same commandments under Jesus' revisions make them commandments starting in the heart - a much higher standard as we are privileged to have the Holy Spirit which has heightened our conscious' sensitivity, and also given us the power of God to walk in the Spirit.

This is why we are not under the Ten Commandments, we are under Christ's commandments which are to believe on Him, and love your neighbor as yourself - all from the heart.