Is it okay to date another Christian whose been divorced?

[1stcenturylady]

When Christ talked about the eunuchs in some of the scripture surrounding the subject here, I wondered how they did that back then?

*shudder

Luckily, something I don't have to worry about.

 

[I'm_Sorry]

"For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." 2 Corinthians 5:21

Jesus was made a lier for me when He never knew a lie.
Jesus was made a theif for me when He never knew stealing.
Jesus was made an adulter for me when He never knew adultery.
Jesus was made an fornicator for me when He never knew fornication.

... Rest of the Law.

He was made the penalty of my sin, which is death, never knowing death.

And God raised Him and gave man to Him, and gave all authority to Him over man whom He payed the penalty of sin, so that man may live in Him forever and ever, salvation His name.

and also

Jesus knowing circumcision (Both being born to a Jewish mother - the rock for God's Church, and the circumcision of the fleshly heart by the Holy Spirit, He overcame all temptation) mas made circumcision for the uncircumcised and circumcised (circumcision is of our heart by the Holy Spirit - sanctification).

He is completion and we owe everything to our savior, our King of kings and Lord of lords, Yeshua Hamashiach, Jesus the Christ, Salvation for man, the Word of God made flesh ascended to the right hand of The Father in Glory forever and ever.

He is One with the Father, and One with the Holy Spirit. And now we are made One with Him, Christ Jesus our Lord, by His living Word, by His Holy Spirit by the will of our Father in Heaven, whom so loved the world He gave His only begotten Son, so that whomever may believe in Him shall be saved and inherit life eternal.

 

[1stcenturylady]

There is a reason you don't answer my questions...maybe you'll figure out that reason eventually.

I back-tracked to find what you were upset about, and found something you said, which could have set him off...

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

No, Jesus brought it back into line with the original in the Garden of Eden. Okay, so He did add the same thing that Moses did - sexual infidelity. It really was the Rabbis and their writing of the Talmid that they could divorce for "any reason" as long as they gave her a writ of divorcement to prove she was divorced. Jesus corrected that fast!

 

[Kenny'sID]

I back-tracked to find what you were upset about, and found something you said, which could have set him off...

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

No, Jesus brought it back into line with the original in the Garden of Eden. Okay, so He did add the same thing that Moses did - sexual infidelity. It really was the Rabbis and their writing of the Talmid that they could divorce for "any reason" as long as they gave her a writ of divorcement to prove she was divorced. Jesus corrected that fast!

I made a point quite awhile back that sort of ties in with what you say, and no one relied to it, which is fine but, what if we do the same to day and just write up some rules that allow it. That's what happened back then and it seems it was acceptable to God.

That the main thing that concerns me about this whole thing....all we see points to "no it's not allowed" but it was allowed back then and those that did it appeared to still be in God's good graces. Point being, can we get away with it today. It was mean to be forever back then too.

Does anyone see my point on that?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Oh, to reply to your post, I didn't really think I set him off, I just think some of the posters here are in a divorce/ remarried situation and don't like the stiff stance against it...can't really blame them...it's so disheartening to think people may have to be alone for the rest of their lives

 

[Kenny'sID]

Luckily, something I don't have to worry about.

Something I'd rather not even think about, accept to say, maybe they just knocked them over the head before surgery...hope so anyway, if that's the best they could do.

I mean...OUCH!

 

[1stcenturylady]

Oh, to reply to your post, I didn't really think I set him off, I just think some of the posters here are in a divorce/ remarried situation and don't like the stiff stance against it...can't really blame them...it's so disheartening to think people may have to be alone for the rest of their lives

There are so many posters and sometimes I can't remember who believes what, so forgive me for asking, but do you believe God permits ANY remarriages after divorce, or not?

 

[1stcenturylady]

Something I'd rather not even think about, accept to say, maybe they just knocked them over the head before surgery...hope so anyway, if that's the best they could do.

I mean...OUCH!

Ouch, is right!

 

[Kenny'sID]

There are so many posters and sometimes I can't remember who believes what, so forgive me for asking, but do you believe God permits ANY remarriages after divorce, or not?

Yes, according to the rules. Assuming the "in the case of fornication" means an unfaithful spouse and not that the woman was not a virgin...that's a reason. If it does mean the latter, then for that reason. And if the divorced spouse dies of course.

Wish I could come up with more.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Yes, according to the rules. Assuming the "in the case of fornication" means an unfaithful spouse and not that the woman was not a virgin...that's a reason. If it does mean the latter, then for that reason. And if the divorced spouse dies of course.

Wish I could come up with more.

Yes, the "that the woman was not a virgin" is covered in 1 Cor. 7 "Are you loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife. 28 But even if you do marry, you have not sinned." Betrothals can be broken if the woman turned out not to be a virgin." Betrothed virgins were also called a "wife."

 

[PollyJetix]

So why are there laws that don't apply to us anymore if they endure forever? How do you explain that.

Because they are fulfilled forever IN CHRIST.
They apply, but as we are IN CHRIST, we stand within the fulfillment of all the ceremonial laws. The laws requiring sacrifices still apply, but they are fulfilled in Christ. He abides forever the sacrifice for all sin. And He is our Sabbath Rest. We abide in HIM, so we abide in continual spiritual rest. Thus, we rest in the fulfillment. There is no way that us keeping days and months, etc, could ever improve on what Christ did. The ceremonial laws, and the types and shadows that pointed to Christ, we stand in obedience to, as those are forever fulfilled in Christ, in whom we abide.

 

[PollyJetix]

I back-tracked to find what you were upset about, and found something you said, which could have set him off...

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

No, Jesus brought it back into line with the original in the Garden of Eden. Okay, so He did add the same thing that Moses did - sexual infidelity. It really was the Rabbis and their writing of the Talmid that they could divorce for "any reason" as long as they gave her a writ of divorcement to prove she was divorced. Jesus corrected that fast!

So... Jesus actually agreed with the Law of Moses as given in Deuteronomy 24:1-4!
That's exactly what I've been saying.

 

[PollyJetix]

Yes, the "that the woman was not a virgin" is covered in 1 Cor. 7 "Are you loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife. 28 But even if you do marry, you have not sinned." Betrothals can be broken if the woman turned out not to be a virgin." Betrothed virgins were also called a "wife."

In Jewish culture they were. But Corinth was not Jewish. They did not have the same customs about betrothal... Therefore, again, we need to let the context define the terms.
Throughout the chapter, "wife" meant someone you were actually married to.
Not someone you were going to marry.

Since Corinth was a Gentile church, Paul would have made it clear, if he was referring to the Jewish betrothal period.

 

[PollyJetix]

Yes, according to the rules. Assuming the "in the case of fornication" means an unfaithful spouse and not that the woman was not a virgin...that's a reason. If it does mean the latter, then for that reason. And if the divorced spouse dies of course.

Wish I could come up with more.

The law allowed for the husband to make an accusation against his wife, based only on suspicion... and if she was proven guilty, she could be stoned.

However, there is also in the Law, the great possibility of forgiveness. If anyone wronged wished to do so, it was possible to either lessen the penalty, or to completely forgive the wrong.

Which is how Joseph was on the edge of just quietly putting Mary away, rather than to exact the full penalty of what the Law allowed. He truly loved her, and didn't want to hurt her. But he also was an just man, and did not want to marry an unfaithful bride. So he opted to quietly just let her go free... which was always an option under the law. The victim always had the right to forgive the offender.

 

[BukiRob]

There is a reason you don't answer my questions...maybe you'll figure out that reason eventually.

I did answer your question, you just dont like the answer.

Good day to you

 

[1stcenturylady]

So... Jesus actually agreed with the Law of Moses as given in Deuteronomy 24:1-4!
That's exactly what I've been saying.

So... Jesus actually agreed with the Law of Moses as given in Deuteronomy 24:1-4!
That's exactly what I've been saying.

Of course He did, He didn't fulfill any sexual infidelity laws! They have all been brought forward and reiterated in the New Testament.

" 19 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood."

These are the laws brought forward. However, look closely. All of those were in force before Moses! Nothing in the law of Moses was new for us. But, the law of Moses did enlighten us to particulars, especially about sex. (Incest, homosexuality, inappropriate behavior with animals). We even went back to the laws given to Noah regarding meat and the blood. Now nothing is unclean. So even though the laws of Moses were holy and informative, we have gone back to God's eternal laws.

Now we don't:

Keep the Sabbath and all the rules attached. - replaced by Jesus' fulfillment and grace.

Eat only clean meat - replaced by the gospel going to the Gentiles (which unclean meat represented.)

Ceremonial feasts - replaced by Jesus' fulfillment.

Yes, I look at the law of Moses for particulars on sexual sins, which includes fornication, adultery, and remarriage after divorce. These were brought forward. But I no longer look to see if I can eat a certain meat. Or which day I should worship God. I'm in constant communion with the Holy Spirit. And I know you agree on some of this, but others are reading too...

 

[1stcenturylady]

In Jewish culture they were. But Corinth was not Jewish. They did not have the same customs about betrothal... Therefore, again, we need to let the context define the terms.
Throughout the chapter, "wife" meant someone you were actually married to.
Not someone you were going to marry.

Since Corinth was a Gentile church, Paul would have made it clear, if he was referring to the Jewish betrothal period.

Did they have divorce in Corinth? Why not use a word they were familiar with? But, even so, it is interesting he covered the only reason for divorce was if the pagan left. Maybe Paul expected the Christian to forgive their spouse for infidelity if they wanted to stay.

 

[PollyJetix]

Of course He did, He didn't fulfill any sexual infidelity laws! They have all been brought forward and reiterated in the New Testament.

" 19 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood."

These are the laws brought forward. However, look closely. All of those were in force before Moses! Nothing in the law of Moses was new for us. But, the law of Moses did enlighten us to particulars, especially about sex. (Incest, homosexuality, inappropriate behavior with animals). We even went back to the laws given to Noah regarding meat and the blood. Now nothing is unclean. So even though the laws of Moses were holy and informative, we have gone back to God's eternal laws.

Now we don't:

Keep the Sabbath and all the rules attached. - replaced by Jesus' fulfillment and grace.

Eat only clean meat - replaced by the gospel going to the Gentiles (which unclean meat represented.)

Ceremonial feasts - replaced by Jesus' fulfillment.

Yes, I look at the law of Moses for particulars on sexual sins, which includes fornication, adultery, and remarriage after divorce. These were brought forward. But I no longer look to see if I can eat a certain meat. Or which day I should worship God. I'm in constant communion with the Holy Spirit. And I know you agree on some of this, but others are reading too...

I think we are agreeing, but using different terminology.
Instead of "replaced by" (which seems to me to 'destroy' the law) I would use the term "fulfilled in".

The reason I'm picky this way, is the same reason you are picky that way.
We are sensitive to certain issues, because of our backgrounds.
You had to search the Scriptures, to find your freedom from having to keep certain outward laws, which were completely fulfilled in Christ.
I had to search the Scriptures, to find out my freedom from having to see the New Testament as completely destroying the law... Because the bondage that approach brought me under, was horrific--worse than the Old Mosaic Law.

Because of my ancestors' approach to the New Testament--that God's moral code had changed greatly--so that now we had stricter rules, I ended up in a situation where all military service, governmental involvement, and even voting, was forbidden. (The idealism of martyrdom created horrible codependent marriage situations.) And women were brought under much stricter laws than the Old Testament ever put upon them. There are words used in the Greek that indicate layers of clothing for women, so the church made extra rules for us, to keep us safely within the margin of error--three to four layers of fabric, from neck to elbow, and below the knee. Oh, and the heavy veils. And heavy, long hair, always hidden in a bun, no matter if we had a headache or not. And the heavy-handed condemnation of women who dared to speak in the assembly!

Women were actually treated worse than children, as children could ask questions in class, but women were to ask at home. Women were seen as more easily deceived than men, so they had to be very careful not to have an individual conscience, but instead rely on the conscience of their male spiritual head. And the divorcee? Goodness, what a loose cannon--always seen as a threat to every other marriage. She had no husband to ask at home, so she had to ask the pastor. But since she was a woman (and a 'scarlet-letter' divorced one at that) she had to ask the pastor through his wife (to avoid all appearance of evil.)
By the time the answer came back through the wife to the divorced woman, about a month had passed, and the original question wasn't even understood.

And that's where a careful, conscientious approach to the New Testament will take you, if the entire Law is done away in Christ. The entire New Testament is turned into a book of rules, to be applied as carefully as a rabbi would try to parse the Law. Men become caretakers of silenced, passive women, who dare not even have a personal conscience. The atmosphere of the church is gentle beyond belief, but it's a carefully maintained facade--all interpersonal conflict is seen as sinful, so a LOT goes under the surface, and is never dealt with. Strong feelings are seen as carnal. Children grow up so warped! And men even refuse to take up arms to defend their families, in the face of rape and home intrusion. It is forbidden, because of the words in the New Testament.

This is where it will take you. Matthew 5 without the context of the Old Testament Law, will make Christians refuse to fight Hitler.

What God declared as good and holy in Deuteronomy 24:1-2 is declared no longer good, but evil! (Even though the New Testament says the Law is holy, and just, and good.) And the abomination of Deuteronomy 24:4 gets not only completely destroyed, but even turned into a COMMANDMENT of the New Testament!

Jesus said he did not come to destroy the Law. Yet, that is exactly what this approach does.
If the New Testament is a book of better and higher laws, then the Old is declared as "worse" and "lower". But God said the Law of the Lord is PERFECT.

As a standard of right and wrong, the Law was perfect.
The only way it fell short, was in the power to make US perfect!
And that's why Christ came. To make us perfect before God, fulfilling the righteousness of the Law. Not a new, higher, better law. But THE Law. The once-revealed everlasting righteousness of God.

The New Testament emphasizes the heart attitude, because that's the heresy Jesus was dealing with among the Pharisees. They thought they could get away with only outward service. But Jesus countered that with showing them they were overlooking the weightier matters contained IN THE LAW-- matters of the heart.

Seeing the New Testament as a new set of rules, replacing the old, pushed me into an abusive marriage, and made me stay there, like a doormat. It empowered my mentally-ill husband far beyond common sense. It taught my children warped ideas against basic defense of the helpless. And it robbed me of all the blessings and gifts God had placed within me--denying me the calling God had for me when he formed me.

Little by little, God opened my eyes.
And I am never going back.

 

[PollyJetix]

Did they have divorce in Corinth? Why not use a word they were familiar with? But, even so, it is interesting he covered the only reason for divorce was if the pagan left. Maybe Paul expected the Christian to forgive their spouse for infidelity if they wanted to stay.

Who is to say the word Paul DID use was NOT the word the Corinthians commonly used to say "divorced from" in the 1st century?
We cannot know from modern translations. We would have to be linguist historians to determine that.

As to forgiveness... that is a very real possibility.
I know some who say the innocent party MUST divorce the adulterer.
And then, I know some who say the very opposite; that the innocent party MUST completely forgive the adulterer and the abuser, exactly like Jesus forgives us--which means to open the arms immediately and unquestioningly.

Of course, both sides are ditches again, and the truth is in the middle somewhere.

 

[PeterDona]

Yes, it is good to live alone, and Paul even teaches it, and he went that way himself. Now my contribution in this thread has focused on 1 Corinthians 7, and I will not divert that focus. I do believe in a strict stance against remarriage, and divorce only under very rare conditions like it being necessary for peace.

It seems that many people are seeking theological foundation for living in their sin. The basic problem behind all this really is that the foundation is bad. A gospel is preached that requires no repentance, or perhaps only a superficial repentance. So really as a consequence, worldliness has crept into the churches, and actually many sitting in the churches sunday after sunday are unsaved, even in the pentecostal churches now. And so, worldliness is taking over when the fear of God has left. People will say, how can I have fulfillment in this life, rather than seeking to do Gods will.

The use of 1 corinthians 7:15 to preach freedom to remarry was unheard of until Erasmus (a humanist) around 1500, and the damage he caused was so great that the catholic church even sent and digged up his grave and spread his ashes. Well, his philosophy also created the split of the Church of England from the Catholic church, so the consequences already in his time where tangible.

Maybe it is really in the problem of translation. It was at the same time that the first translations of the Bible surfaced, so I would believe that Erasmus simply read the KJV or the Tyndale or something, and came across 7:15 and said, oops here is something that can be used.