Yes. There are a few tripping over eachother to be the first in line to trade everything they've ever stood for to get a chance at a woman in distress. A woman who, btw, may have already vacated this site.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Divorce and Remarriage - Am I doomed?
- Thread starter Sophia
- Start date
"Woman, where are thine accusers?"
"Sir, they are all over BibFam."
Not only this, but technically, it wasn't adultery. Something does not add up here.
No it isn't! She said that he wouldn't, not that he won't. There doesn't appear to be any attempt on her part to see what might possibly happen. I think we are all tripping over ourselves for someone who we cannot say for sure is a real person. Kinda like the woman that they brought before Jesus story, that does not appear in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts. You cannot rule out the possibility that someone invented that story out of a desire to get the church off their backs for their own adultery.
I just learned about that the other day. It's very interesting. There are many other passages that got left out because there wasn't enough corroboration. Rather than accidentally print an error, anything that had doubt as to its accuracy was simply dropped. The book of Esther, for instance, would be twice as long if all the manuscripts were included, but they only carried forward what parts (edit: most of) the manuscripts agreed on. However, that practice was suspended in the case of the small excerpt about the woman caught in adultery. There is real reason to suspect that it is not authentic.
Last edited:
1 Cor. 7:11 is the lynchpin to this whole conversation. Is there a duty on the husband to take back a wife who left?
The verse says she is to remain "unmarried". If there is no longer a marriage according to scripture, I don't know if you can bind duties upon the exhusband such as Ex. 21:10 in order to give a reason for a legitimate divorce. Unless you can show the husband has a duty to take back a departed wife, I don't see any authority for her to marry someone else.
The verse says she is to remain "unmarried". If there is no longer a marriage according to scripture, I don't know if you can bind duties upon the exhusband such as Ex. 21:10 in order to give a reason for a legitimate divorce. Unless you can show the husband has a duty to take back a departed wife, I don't see any authority for her to marry someone else.
Yep, they’s a whole lotta judjin goin on with only part of the story.
There are two sides to every story, and all we have is part of her side.
@JudahYAHites of course the answer is "no". Even I said that very clearly. No idea why you're so worked up over that, almost everyone agrees with that one-word answer based on their comments here. They just went the next step to discuss the detail.
And on the question others have raised about if she is even real - in cases like this I strive to write good concise advice for the benefit of readers who may be in a similar situation to the hypothetical one being proposed. And should the hypothetical one be actually real, that advice will be good for the OP also. I'm not bothered either way, but I keep my words concise to avoid wasting time if the situation is purely hypothetical, and to avoid turning away the OP with a giant treatise to read if the situation is real.
And on the question others have raised about if she is even real - in cases like this I strive to write good concise advice for the benefit of readers who may be in a similar situation to the hypothetical one being proposed. And should the hypothetical one be actually real, that advice will be good for the OP also. I'm not bothered either way, but I keep my words concise to avoid wasting time if the situation is purely hypothetical, and to avoid turning away the OP with a giant treatise to read if the situation is real.
Oh, that is opening a massive can of worms which I do not intend to discuss on this specific thread, except to say that "most reliable" is a highly contentious statement which there is enormous scholarly debate over. Don't assert the opinion of one side of that debate as fact in a thread like this, it will only force others to disagree and take us off on a completely unnecessary tangent!
If anyone wants to discuss which passages should really be in the Bible, which manuscripts are more reliable and so forth, please start a new thread for it, and expect the thread to become massive - or find a previous thread on it and add to that.
The Pericope is well attested to in very reliable early manuscripts and church writings. If the New Testament is corrupted then our whole faith is corrupted.
This is a falsehood.
Sophia, there has been some excellent contributions made in reply here.
Biblical remarriage occurs when new testament conditions are met, be ware of anything old testament on this topic, most of this was changed by Christ and the apostles.
I see this many many times in my counselling services. Advice changes based on your entire story, not just a few paragraphs.
I recommend finding a Godly biblical literalist, preferably an elder of a church, seek his counsel over several sessions. A single Godly man whom believes the scriptures will be able to navigate this for you. He should also contact your ex husband and communicate with him, based in the word of God i see a commandment on him to accept your return, and any Godly man when confronted with truth should accept that over his own feelings.
If you cannot find such an elder, reach out if you choose I do these types of things over zoom and email often
Colin
coling@thegodlymarriage.com.au
@Sophia, beware of anyone who says the OT was changed by the Messiah and the apostles. There isn't a New Testament without the Old Testament. YaHshua came to show us how to live the Old Testament, not to change it. The same goes for the apostles. Both still followed the Torah and taught Torah, they definitely did not change it.
I do not wish to derail this topic, but if we are going to give Biblical advice than we need to stick to the WHOLE scriptures, not just New Testament.
There is precedent for the first husband to take her back. It’s called the parable of the unforgiving debtor. If Jesus was able to wash him clean by his precious blood then he has to forgive others. Therefore if she apologizes and 100% repented, then he should take her back as an additional, submissive, and obedient Christian wife. Only way I see, per scripture (if she repented), he can righteously refuse is if she’s been one flesh with another man - then God says it would be an abomination for him to take her back:
Deuteronomy 24:1-4
Suppose a man marries a woman but she does not please him. Having discovered something unlcean (Hebrew defines this word as something sexual - like public nakedness/exposure) about her, he writes a document of divorce, hands it to her, and sends her away from his house. 2When she leaves his house, she is free to marry another man. 3 But if the second husband also turns against her, writes a document of divorce, hands it to her, and sends her away, or if he dies, 4the first husband may not marry her again, for she has been defiled. That would be detestable to the LORD. You must not bring guilt upon the land the LORD your God is giving you as a special possession.
I know the reason for the divorce is different than the passage above, but I don’t think it changes the reasoning it would be detestable to the LORD for him to take her back. If she hasn’t been one flesh with any other man - I agree she should try and work harder to get the first husband to take her back. Pray to King Jesus to open his heart to forgiveness and pray you two can come back together. That would be the best outcome.
Last edited:
You could well be totally correct
Last edited:
Interesting, now you assume you can tell my emotional state. making a personalised comment about something that you have no clue about seems very adhominem to me. Go for it you obviously like to give "accurate" advice when you don't have all the details. Lol
How can it be "good" when you are assuming the details you do not know (is there a pattern emerging) and didn't even answer the initial question directly.
Voila, there it is, you have said all that I need to know in that one statement. Thank you.
Which part?
The whole textual criticism of the Pericope. It’s garbage from start to finish. As soon as you dig a little bit it falls apart.
Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying.
Edward feel free to start a new thread on this if you'd like the discussion, It is very easy to show we cannot rely/use the OT on this topic.