Divorce & Remarriage...???

[Oreslag]

Re: Divorce & Remarriage...???

I think the last part about a divorce initiated by the wife is the first problem. Biblically-speaking, divorce is only an option to be done by the husband. The wife at best can separate or try to pressure her husband to divorce her but then she cant remarry until husband dies or until he commits adultery by sleeping with a woman who belongs to someone else (including women who are unlawfully divorced).

I find myself curious as to what scripture allows a woman to divorce her husband for committing adultery with another man's wife.

I see several passages of scripture that seem to say exactly the opposite, that a woman must stay with her husband even if he is acting like an unbeliever, which would include being an adulterer. (e.g. 1 Peter 3:1-2 and 1 Corinthians 7:13) I have not found any scripture that allows a woman to divorce and remarry over such an issue however.

Using the same logic you presented previously (which I like and largely agree with, btw), wouldn't it seem that when a man had committed adultery with another man's wife, he was guilty and under penalty of death, so that him being dead; she would be free to remarry? However, just as in the case of Saul vs. David, it was up to God as to exactly 'when' Saul's sin was full and his time had come to die. I think the same can be said for this case in agreement with your conclusion that the woman cannot divorce for this reason. But this also leaves a question in my mind as to the applicability of this logic in application to a woman leaving her husband who has effectively 'murdered' her in thought.

Understand, I have no answers here; only questions. This is a very confused situation to hypothesize about. In such cases, I think we all are forced to follow the guidance the Spirit gives our conscience.

This highlights the problem of trying to apply your logical construct to any and every situation. But, I'm not criticizing your conclusions (because I tend to agree with them), but rather saw an opportunity to point out how unable we can be to simultaneously 'reason' things out generally and logically.

 

[Wesley]

Re: Divorce & Remarriage...???

There is also as I read it no remarriage for a man who divorces his wife unjustly, that is for reasons other than adultery.

Adultery is not the sole justification for a man to divorce his wife, nor does the Word make this claim as nearly as I can tell. If we're considering Jesus' teaching in Matthew 5 and Matthew 19 (as I presume), He does not use the word adultery (though He quite clearly could have), but rather chose to use the word prostitution; which many English translations now render 'sexual immorality', but the NIV translates 'marital unfaithfullness.'

Personally, I believe that the definition of English words will never be as relevant as the definition of the Greek words that the apostles and disciples actually wrote in.

In this case the Greek word used in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 refers to just about any sex outside of heterosexual marriage. It takes in homosexuality, lesbianism, pederasty, prostitution, adultery, and a whole host of other sexual sins.

So why is it translated as prostitution?

• Here is what I believe...
  • Chronologically, the first reason was because the English monarchy was not known for keeping their pants up. They wanted to be able to cover their sexual sins and still be respected as the head of the church of England. Thus they pressured the translators of the King James Version to choose a far more limited English word in place of an extremely broad Greek word.
  • The second reason, again in Chronological order, was because the KJV had been around for two hundred years longer than any other English translation and was considered so authoritative that some seemed to believe that Christ spoke in King James English. Thus they couldn't choose a different word without hurting sales of Bibles.
  • Now that the King James Version is gradually falling out of favor because people are realizing that it actually does contain possibly deliberate mistranslations people are realizing that a much broader English term, such as "sexual immorality" or "marital unfaithfulness" are needed to properly represent the Greek text which is why we're seeing those terms used in more recent translations. Of course there are still those who want to hold onto the KJV translation for both of the first two reasons.

That's what I believe.

 

[Wesley]

Re: Divorce & Remarriage...???

Using the same logic you presented previously (which I like and largely agree with, btw), wouldn't it seem that when a man had committed adultery with another man's wife, he was guilty and under penalty of death, so that him being dead; she would be free to remarry? However, just as in the case of Saul vs. David, it was up to God as to exactly 'when' Saul's sin was full and his time had come to die. I think the same can be said for this case in agreement with your conclusion that the woman cannot divorce for this reason. But this also leaves a question in my mind as to the applicability of this logic in application to a woman leaving her husband who has effectively 'murdered' her in thought.

I disagree.

I agree that sin equals death but we don't stone sinners in the New Testament era. (John 8:7) That's the first problem. Accepting that she has been "murdered-in-thought" means that she is the murder victim not the murderer.

If she passes judgment on his sin and decides that he is dead then she is murdering-him-in-thought rather than being murdered-in-thought herself. John 8:7 directly forbids such action. John 15:13 states that laying down one's own life is a respectable action. There is no scripture that justifies laying down the life of another however.

So, no, I don't see a way that a woman could possibly be justified for leaving her husband because of his adultery.

I think we all are forced to follow the guidance the Spirit gives our conscience.

This is true. The Holy Spirit guides each of us and sometimes two different people receive two different sets of directions based on what God expects of them. So even the fact that the instructions are different does not necessarily mean that one is in error.

This highlights the problem of trying to apply your logical construct to any and every situation. But, I'm not criticizing your conclusions (because I tend to agree with them), but rather saw an opportunity to point out how unable we can be to simultaneously 'reason' things out generally and logically.

Honestly, I see no issues with trying to use logic to understand scripture. The problem is troubleshooting the logic to ensure that no mistakes enter into the ideology. Mistakes, or logical fallacies as they are called among those familiar with logic problems, are sneaky little things that will take any opportunity to sneak in where they don't belong.

 

[PolyPride]

Re: Divorce & Remarriage...???

I think the last part about a divorce initiated by the wife is the first problem. Biblically-speaking, divorce is only an option to be done by the husband. The wife at best can separate or try to pressure her husband to divorce her but then she cant remarry until husband dies or until he commits adultery by sleeping with a woman who belongs to someone else (including women who are unlawfully divorced).

I find myself curious as to what scripture allows a woman to divorce her husband for committing adultery with another man's wife.

I see several passages of scripture that seem to say exactly the opposite, that a woman must stay with her husband even if he is acting like an unbeliever, which would include being an adulterer. (e.g. 1 Peter 3:1-2 and 1 Corinthians 7:13) I have not found any scripture that allows a woman to divorce and remarry over such an issue however.

Using the same logic you presented previously (which I like and largely agree with, btw), wouldn't it seem that when a man had committed adultery with another man's wife, he was guilty and under penalty of death, so that him being dead; she would be free to remarry? However, just as in the case of Saul vs. David, it was up to God as to exactly 'when' Saul's sin was full and his time had come to die. I think the same can be said for this case in agreement with your conclusion that the woman cannot divorce for this reason. But this also leaves a question in my mind as to the applicability of this logic in application to a woman leaving her husband who has effectively 'murdered' her in thought.

Understand, I have no answers here; only questions. This is a very confused situation to hypothesize about. In such cases, I think we all are forced to follow the guidance the Spirit gives our conscience.

This highlights the problem of trying to apply your logical construct to any and every situation. But, I'm not criticizing your conclusions (because I tend to agree with them), but rather saw an opportunity to point out how unable we can be to simultaneously 'reason' things out generally and logically.

I'm not sure if you were responding to me or Wesley or both of us. First, i can say that I'm not a Christian; I'm an agnostic (not atheist). Im only here because I support polygamy and i love to discuss biblical theology. With that said, all that I go by is evidence and logic to help get to the truth or as close to it as i can. Without logic, or at least consistency, nothing would make sense and we'd have no way of testing people's views as the apostle Paul commended the Bereans for doing (Acts 17:11).

I think we can all agree that remarriage is allowed if the prior marriage ended due to sexual infidelity or if one of the spouses died. But im still unconvinced about remarriage being biblically justified under any other condition.

 

[Wesley]

Re: Divorce & Remarriage...???

Without logic, or at least consistency, nothing would make sense and we'd have no way of testing people's views as the apostle Paul commended the Bereans for doing (Acts 17:11).

Here is a link that has helped me improve my use of logic. I find that self examination of my own arguments is beneficial.

I agree with you that use of logic is not the culprit, as Oreslag seems to suggest, but rather the misuse of logic combined with the refusal to admit that it is possible for our own arguments to be flawed with errors. All of us make mistakes. The link above helps us learn how to identify those mistakes within our systems of logic. Blaming logic is pointless when human error in the use of logic is actually at fault.

I think we can all agree that remarriage is allowed if the prior marriage ended due to sexual infidelity or if one of the spouses died. But im still unconvinced about remarriage being biblically justified under any other condition.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I might caution you that those who have been abandoned by their spouses might take offense at your arguments however if they are applied in a manner that appears to be too personal.

 

[PolyPride]

Re: Divorce & Remarriage...???

Logic is not the culprit, as Oreslag seems to suggest, but rather the misuse of logic combined with the refusal to admit that it is possible for our own arguments to be flawed with errors. All of us make mistakes. The link above helps us learn how to identify those mistakes within our systems of logic. Blaming logic is pointless when human error in the use of logic is actually at fault.

I agree and thanks for the link. To Oreslag's point, i know that trying to understand things intellectually or rationally has its limitations, esp. when dealing with the supernatural, but the basic rules of logic like not contradicting must always apply. Otherwise, it would be false, or unprovable, or beyond our understanding and certainly God's rules on marriage should be understandable, otherwise how could we understand and follow them.

I think we can all agree that remarriage is allowed if the prior marriage ended due to sexual infidelity or if one of the spouses died. But im still unconvinced about remarriage being biblically justified under any other condition.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I might caution you that those who have been abandoned by their spouses might take offense at your arguments however if they are applied in a manner that appears to be too personal.

The Bible will not always fit with how we want things to be. I encourage all to not go by feelings but rather go by logic and evidence if they want to get to the truth of the matter.

I am waiting for any logic, evidence, or clear passage that shows that remarriage is not sin when the prior marriage ended for reasons other than being widowed or cheated on.

 

[Wesley]

Re: Divorce & Remarriage...???

I am waiting for any logic, evidence, or clear passage that shows that remarriage is not sin when the prior marriage ended for reasons other than being widowed or cheated on.

We seem to have reached an impasse on this. You're waiting for someone to present scripture and I'm waiting for you to stop ignoring half of the Bible.

 

[PolyPride]

Re: Divorce & Remarriage...???

Here is what I've gathered for support of remarriages after a divorce not involving adultery or widowhood:

1) Deuteronomy 24:1-5
2) 1 Corinthians 7:12-14
3) 1Timothy 5:8

Here are my responses to each passage above:

1) Deut. 24 mentions a remarriage in passing or as a 'description' and not a 'prescription'. Even in that it clearly mentions remarriage being prohibited when it involves going back to the first husband because the woman is "DEFILED". So if husband #1 cant take her back because she is defiled, wouldnt she be defiled for ALL other men, as well? And if she can be made clean again, why couldnt it be something that husband #1 can do?

2) 1 Corinthians 7:12-14 talks about separation but that is not the same as remarriage. You can separate or divorce without being allowed to remarry, like described in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, Matthew 5:31-32, etc. In fact, i wouldve considered the use of 1 Corinth. 7:12-14 to support remarriage as being speculation, but then passages like the ones i mentioned in the last sentence shows that remarriage is not a 'moral' option. Even if it was a supporting point, it would not be an option when two 'believers' are involved.

3) 1 Timothy 5:8 would only support remarriage if believers could remarry after their non-Christian spouse leaves which some suggests 1 Cor. 7:12-14 justifies. But I have shown that view is not valid and in other posts Ive shown how a believer can divorce his wife for any reason and still remain a believer. The husband can do so by continuing to provide for his ex-wife and kids even after the divorce.

So after reading through a lot of points in defense of each passage, I'm still left unconvinced because Ive presented counterpoints/questions that have gone unanswered and i have shown some conclusions to be faulty or speculation, at best.

 

[Wesley]

Re: Divorce & Remarriage...???

Here is what I've gathered for support of remarriages after a divorce not involving adultery or widowhood:

1) Deuteronomy 24:1-5
2) 1 Corinthians 7:12-14
3) 1Timothy 5:8

You are repeating the same arguments that you presented earlier in the thread. We disagree on the validity of your interpretation of these passages. You're entitled to your opinion but for my own purposes I have already considered and dismissed each of your points. My conclusion is that you're falling into the trap described by the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 13:1-3, especially verse 2.

1 Corinthians 13:1-3NIV
1 If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.

Christ states that justice and mercy are more important than bean counting in the law. (Matthew 23:23) In light of that and of 1 Corinthians 7:9 as well as James 2:16 I perceive your positions as unjustifiably unmerciful toward those who have been abandoned, abused or neglected.

So, in short, I perceive your position as based misinterpretations of the cited passages for the purpose of bean counting in direct contradiction of the fact that all passages of the Bible are to be interpreted in context of the two greatest commandments.

If you want me to be more specific then I can but that would require typing a book that I don't have time to type right now and you may or may not have time to actually read.

 

[PolyPride]

Re: Divorce & Remarriage...???

You are repeating the same arguments that you presented earlier in the thread. We disagree on the validity of your interpretation of these passages. You're entitled to your opinion but for my own purposes I have already considered and dismissed each of your points. My conclusion is that you're falling into the trap described by the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 13:1-3, especially verse 2.

It is true that you and I disagree but disagreement does not always mean there's an impasse or that i'm wrong. Reading over previous comments i find that others here disagree with you on some of your positions. You referred me to a passage about doing things in love but i actually find your tone a bit arrogant and Im the 2nd or 3rd person on this thread alone to bring up negatives about how you post - your attitude/tone.

Christ states that justice and mercy are more important than bean counting in the law. (Matthew 23:23) In light of that and of 1 Corinthians 7:9 as well as James 2:16 I perceive your positions as unjustifiably unmerciful toward those who have been abandoned, abused or neglected.

Skipping over my points to bring up other passages does not answer my points. Assuming you were right, it would only show a contradiction unless you can reconcile my points which would take addressing them.

To answer your point specifically...
- Despite justice and mercy Christians are still not to sin.
- The Bible calls remarriage as being sin when the previous marriage ended on unjust grounds.

Putting these 2 points together I can only conclude that justice for the neglected would NOT involve the woman remarrying. It can involve the husband being required to support her even post-divorce. Others can be required to support her as 1 Timothy 5:8 mentions.

So, in short, I perceive your position as based misinterpretations of the cited passages for the purpose of bean counting in direct contradiction of the fact that all passages of the Bible are to be interpreted in context of the two greatest commandments.

Again, skipping to other points does not answer my points, especially when you give vague explanations.

If you want me to be more specific then I can but that would require typing a book that I don't have time to type right now and you may or may not have time to actually read.

No one should have to read a book long post on a forum especially if it ends up being nonsense. Just get straight to the point or at least post like youve done for some of your other posts.

 

[Wesley]

Re: Divorce & Remarriage...???

You are repeating the same arguments that you presented earlier in the thread. We disagree on the validity of your interpretation of these passages. You're entitled to your opinion but for my own purposes I have already considered and dismissed each of your points. My conclusion is that you're falling into the trap described by the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 13:1-3, especially verse 2.

It is true that you and I disagree but disagreement does not always mean there's an impasse or that i'm wrong. Reading over previous comments i find that others here disagree with you on some of your positions. You referred me to a passage about doing things in love but i actually find your tone a bit arrogant and Im the 2nd or 3rd person on this thread alone to bring up negatives about how you post - your attitude/tone.

I have been guilty of arrogance in the past. I find it interesting that you quote me respecting your right to your opinion and affirming that my statements are "for my own purposes" while accusing me of arrogance.

Yes, I have been guilty of arrogance in the past. Not this time. This time it's you who is being arrogant.

Good day.

 

[FollowingHim]

Re: Divorce & Remarriage...???

PolyPride and Wesley: This is sinking into a personal fight. Stop, or I'll have to lock the thread. You don't need to win...

 

[PolyPride]

Re: Divorce & Remarriage...???

FollowingHim,

I apologize for making personal comments about someone. In the future I will PM or report to you when i feel that someone wants to make me the issue instead of addressing my views.

The following is my sum up of my views that Ive yet to get any reasonable counter responses (from those who say wife can remarry even after unjustified divorce)

Here is what I've gathered for support of remarriages after a divorce not involving adultery or widowhood:

1) Deuteronomy 24:1-5
2) 1 Corinthians 7:12-14
3) 1Timothy 5:8

Here are my responses to each passage above:

1) Deut. 24 mentions a remarriage in passing or as a 'description' and not a 'prescription'. Even in that it clearly mentions remarriage being prohibited when it involves going back to the first husband because the woman is "DEFILED". So if husband #1 cant take her back because she is defiled, wouldnt she be defiled for ALL other men, as well? And if she can be made clean again, why couldnt it be something that husband #1 can do?

2) 1 Corinthians 7:12-14 talks about separation but that is not the same as remarriage. You can separate or divorce without being allowed to remarry, like described in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, Matthew 5:31-32, etc. In fact, i wouldve considered the use of 1 Corinth. 7:12-14 to support remarriage as being speculation, but then passages like the ones i mentioned in the last sentence shows that remarriage is not a 'moral' option. Even if it was a supporting point, it would not be an option when two 'believers' are involved.

3) 1 Timothy 5:8 would only support remarriage if believers could remarry after their non-Christian spouse leaves which some suggests 1 Cor. 7:12-14 justifies. But I have shown that view is not valid and in other posts Ive shown how a believer can divorce his wife for any reason and still remain a believer. The husband can do so by continuing to provide for his ex-wife and kids even after the divorce.

 

[Wesley]

Re: Divorce & Remarriage...???

To sum up my position, I will chart my own course according to the guidance of the Holy Spirit regardless of how many people try to attack me for it. Others should do the same.

Good day.

 

[Oreslag]

Re: Divorce & Remarriage...???

If she passes judgment on his sin and decides that he is dead then she is murdering-him-in-thought rather than being murdered-in-thought herself. John 8:7 directly forbids such action. John 15:13 states that laying down one's own life is a respectable action. There is no scripture that justifies laying down the life of another however.

So, no, I don't see a way that a woman could possibly be justified for leaving her husband because of his adultery.

Here is where your logic falls apart: she is passing no judgement whatsoever. If he committed adultery, God has passed judgement. It is not a matter of her opinion of what was in his heart at all, but rather it is a matter of comparing the facts of the situation with the Word of God. If he had another man's wife, he committed adultery; period.

And if so, he was under penalty of death, and thus dead. This is the same argument you used previously in a woman's favor in the situation where the man had 'thought-murdered' her. You cannot have it both ways. This was my point. The obvious conclusion of the logic you formerly used would give the woman a basis to leave her husband for adultery according to your logic, because his death by God (in accord with God's pronounced penalty) released her from the law of marriage.

 

[Oreslag]

Re: Divorce & Remarriage...???

I think we can all agree that remarriage is allowed if the prior marriage ended due to sexual infidelity or if one of the spouses died. But im still unconvinced about remarriage being biblically justified under any other condition.

I was responding to you both. My point is that God uses the term 'prostitution' all over the place in the old testament to refer to the unfaithful, yet non-sexual, acts of His people, the Hebrews. Read Jeremiah 3 for an example. This is one of many specific cases whereby the Word uses 'prostitution' to describe unfaithfulness.

 

[Wesley]

Re: Divorce & Remarriage...???

If she passes judgment on his sin and decides that he is dead then she is murdering-him-in-thought rather than being murdered-in-thought herself. John 8:7 directly forbids such action. John 15:13 states that laying down one's own life is a respectable action. There is no scripture that justifies laying down the life of another however.

So, no, I don't see a way that a woman could possibly be justified for leaving her husband because of his adultery.

Here is where your logic falls apart: she is passing no judgement whatsoever. If he committed adultery, God has passed judgement. It is not a matter of her opinion of what was in his heart at all, but rather it is a matter of comparing the facts of the situation with the Word of God. If he had another man's wife, he committed adultery; period.

We will have to agree to disagree on this issue. You seem to me to be saying that she can judge him but she isn't judging him.

God's judgment may very well be to exclude the man from the Kingdom of God over it. If God takes such action then that is God's judgment.

If she takes any action over it, such as leaving him, then that is her judgment not God's. God's action = God's judgment. Her action = her judgment.

And if so, he was under penalty of death, and thus dead. This is the same argument you used previously in a woman's favor in the situation where the man had 'thought-murdered' her. You cannot have it both ways. This was my point. The obvious conclusion of the logic you formerly used would give the woman a basis to leave her husband for adultery according to your logic, because his death by God (in accord with God's pronounced penalty) released her from the law of marriage.

No, it most definitely is not the same argument. There is no scripture that gives a woman the right to pass judgment on another by taking action against them such as deciding to leave because of their sin. Matthew 19:9 gives men that option but not women.

As I said above, I intend to chart my own course according to the guidance of the Holy Spirit and others can do the same.

For my own purposes the only biblical reason that I see for a woman to leave her husband and remarry is life-threatening abuse or neglect, not a sin of adultery on his part.

 

[Wesley]

Re: Divorce & Remarriage...???

A response to this thread has been weighing heavily on me for some time. I stand accused and, based on a PM I received from a person that I won't name, unfairly condemned. But a condemned man has nothing to lose. I'm going to attacked and/or falsely accused of attacking no matter what I say or don't say. So here goes.
============================

As always, I am addressing the issues that have been raised not the person raising the issues. Regardless of how clumsy I may, or may not, be at accomplishing that I do recognize that the person, in this case PolyPride, is a child of God who has infinite value even when I perceive the arguments presented as totally worthless.

With that said...
============================

The points in question are logical points. This is not a case of blunt scripture such as the declaration that male homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of God that is given in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10. We are both attempting to use human logic to extrapolate meaning from the same passages of scripture.

We disagree on the application of the logic in question.

When that happens, when two brothers or sisters in Christ use logic differently to extrapolate meaning from scripture and thus reach different conclusions, we must recognize this reality...

• Given:
  1. Both are using human logic
  2. Human logic = Human logic, neither is greater
  Conclusion:
  • Neither one can be accepted as authoritative since either one could be in error.

This means that we must accept each other in spite of our disagreements, without judging or putting stumbling blocks in front of each other, as brothers and/or sisters in Christ. (Romans 14:13)

With that said, here are the reasons that I cannot accept the three points given for the purposes of running my own household...

Here is what I've gathered for support of remarriages after a divorce not involving adultery or widowhood:

1) Deuteronomy 24:1-5
2) 1 Corinthians 7:12-14
3) 1Timothy 5:8

We agree on the content of the scripture. It is the logic process, the way the content is processed to reach a conclusion, that I disagree with not the content itself.

1) Deut. 24 mentions a remarriage in passing or as a 'description' and not a 'prescription'. Even in that it clearly mentions remarriage being prohibited when it involves going back to the first husband because the woman is "DEFILED". So if husband #1 cant take her back because she is defiled, wouldnt she be defiled for ALL other men, as well? And if she can be made clean again, why couldnt it be something that husband #1 can do?

This assumes a chain of events as follows: Divorce > Defilement > No possible reconciliation. It assumes that the defilement results from the divorce.

I see this as a type of logical fallacy, a mistake in processing the content, called a Affirming the Consequent.

Affirming the Consequent means that we assume a cause-and-affect relationship between two potentially unrelated, or differently related events.

Based on Matthew 19:9 I perceive the chain of events as follows: Defilement (unrepentant sexual immorality) > Divorce > Continued Defilement > Second Divorce > Continued defilement (continued unrepentance) > No possible reconciliation.

Thus if the woman repents from her sexual immorality she is no longer defiled and can either return and reconcile her first marriage or, if rejected by her first husband, return and reconcile her second marriage, or if rejected by both prior husbands can in fact remarry.

Once again these are logic processes and either one, or both, of us could be in error because we are both human therefore neither can be considered authoritative over the other. Each of us must chart our own course based on our own understanding and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. What I am stating is the course that I will chart for my own household.

2) 1 Corinthians 7:12-14 talks about separation but that is not the same as remarriage. You can separate or divorce without being allowed to remarry, like described in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, Matthew 5:31-32, etc. In fact, i wouldve considered the use of 1 Corinth. 7:12-14 to support remarriage as being speculation, but then passages like the ones i mentioned in the last sentence shows that remarriage is not a 'moral' option. Even if it was a supporting point, it would not be an option when two 'believers' are involved.

I perceive this as a Straw Man Fallacy in which we build a "straw man" by twisting words out of context and then assault the straw man rather than addressing the actual issue.

The actual issue is given in verse 15.

1 Corinthians 7:15 NIV
But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances...

Since the brother or sister is "not bound" that means, at least in my perception, that they are free to remarry. "Not bound" = free in my mind.

In this case, 1 Corinthians 7:12-14 is a "straw man." It is a passage that is not relevant that has been twisted to make it appear relevant to support a flawed process of logic. Those verses are not relevant to whether or not a brother or sister is free to remarry after having been abandoned. They relate ONLY to the situation in which the believer is NOT abandoned and are thus irrelevant to the situation that occurs when the believer IS abandoned.

3) 1 Timothy 5:8 would only support remarriage if believers could remarry after their non-Christian spouse leaves which some suggests 1 Cor. 7:12-14 justifies. But I have shown that view is not valid and in other posts Ive shown how a believer can divorce his wife for any reason and still remain a believer. The husband can do so by continuing to provide for his ex-wife and kids even after the divorce.

I perceive multiple separate straw men in this point.

• The first is the same straw man we saw before, the idea that 1 Corinthians 7:12-14 is somehow relevant.
• The rest are misrepresentations of my earlier point about 1 Timothy 5:8

Since I've already addressed the straw man of 1 Corinthians 7:12-14 I'll concentrate on the others.

• Straw men that I perceive here...
  1. The idea that the only support a spouse provides is solely monetary. This is a direct contradiction of 1 Corinthians 7:2-9 in my mind.
  2. This quote: "I have shown that view is not valid and in other posts Ive shown how a believer can divorce his wife for any reason and still remain a believer." On this point we disagree because I have not seen anything that would constitute such proof in my mind.
  3. The use of the term "non-Christian" in an apparent attempt to limit the context of 1 Corinthians 7:15 since 1 Timothy 5:8 clearly (at least to me) shows that anyone who would refuse to care for their spouse (to include preventing temptation to sexual sin by satisfying sexual needs, 1 Corinthians 7:2-9) is at best an unbeliever, or worse, a false-believer. Either way 1 Corinthians 7:15 applies at least in my mind regardless of whether or not the guilty party claims to be a Christian because 1 Timothy 5:8 renders any such claim utterly false when abandonment or life threatening abuse/neglect are issues in question.

So, in short, while I respect PolyPride and the right of each individual patriarch to run his household his way without undue interference I cannot accept the three points that have been presented as the will of God for my own household.

 

[PolyPride]

Re: Divorce & Remarriage...???

1) Deut. 24 mentions a remarriage in passing or as a 'description' and not a 'prescription'. Even in that it clearly mentions remarriage being prohibited when it involves going back to the first husband because the woman is "DEFILED". So if husband #1 cant take her back because she is defiled, wouldnt she be defiled for ALL other men, as well? And if she can be made clean again, why couldnt it be something that husband #1 can do?

This assumes a chain of events as follows: Divorce > Defilement > No possible reconciliation. It assumes that the defilement results from the divorce.

I see this as a type of logical fallacy, a mistake in processing the content, called a Affirming the Consequent.

Affirming the Consequent means that we assume a cause-and-affect relationship between two potentially unrelated, or differently related events.

The main point is the woman is defiled. When you are defiled, you are unclean/unfit for all until you are made clean, if it's cleanable. That means she wouldnt be able to remarry all or any men, at that point. Why would the defiled woman be prohibited from remarrying her only first husband when he was not the cause of her defilement? Or better yet, how would marrying a THiRD guy, which by your view she could, make her undefiled or clean again compared to remarrying her first husband?

Also, you can narrow down when the woman becomes defiled by looking at the timeline of the story, and it clearly occurs as a consequence of the woman's second marriage. If i need to I'll elaborate more as i address the rest of your responses.

Based on Matthew 19:9 I perceive the chain of events as follows: Defilement (unrepentant sexual immorality) > Divorce > Continued Defilement > Second Divorce > Continued defilement (continued unrepentance) > No possible reconciliation.

If remarriage is not a sin (that's your view), why would the second marriage that occurs after the first divorce be "continued defilement" of the WiFE? Defilement means NO marriage since 'defilement' is the precise reason given for why she cant remarry her first husband.

So you agree then that it makes no sense that she is defiled only towards the first husband as opposed to all marital relations? If thats the case then you have conflict with your own position. In my view, the UNJUST divorce defiles her if she remarries another. Had she been divorced on just grounds then she could rightfully remarry.

Thus if the woman repents from her sexual immorality she is no longer defiled and can either return and reconcile her first marriage or, if rejected by her first husband, return and reconcile her second marriage, or if rejected by both prior husbands can in fact remarry.

What sexual immorality? Perhaps Matthew 19:9 is not a good verse to compare w/ Deut. 24 because my disagreement with you has been about if a woman can remarry after being UNJUSTly (reasons other than sexual immorality) divorced.

In Deut. 24, what does the woman repent from? The defilement occurs after the second marriage if you look at Deut. 24. If a man simply divorces and stays single and his divorced wife stays single then there is no defilement of any of the two.

2) 1 Corinthians 7:12-14 talks about separation but that is not the same as remarriage. You can separate or divorce without being allowed to remarry, like described in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, Matthew 5:31-32, etc. In fact, i wouldve considered the use of 1 Corinth. 7:12-14 to support remarriage as being speculation, but then passages like the ones i mentioned in the last sentence shows that remarriage is not a 'moral' option. Even if it was a supporting point, it would not be an option when two 'believers' are involved.

I perceive this as a Straw Man Fallacy in which we build a "straw man" by twisting words out of context and then assault the straw man rather than addressing the actual issue.

The actual issue is given in verse 15.

1 Corinthians 7:15 NIV
But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances...

Since the brother or sister is "not bound" that means, at least in my perception, that they are free to remarry. "Not bound" = free in my mind.

i gave you an examples of someone not being bound but still required to remain single so clearly saying not bound does not automatically mean remarriage is okay. The examples i gave are the husband in Matthew 5:32 who unjustly divirces his wife and the woman in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11.

Even if i accepted your logic, this would only apply to a marriage involving a nonbeliever and not marriages involving two believers as 1 Cor. 7:10-11 distinguishes.

3) 1 Timothy 5:8 would only support remarriage if believers could remarry after their non-Christian spouse leaves which some suggests 1 Cor. 7:12-14 justifies. But I have shown that view is not valid and in other posts Ive shown how a believer can divorce his wife for any reason and still remain a believer. The husband can do so by continuing to provide for his ex-wife and kids even after the divorce.

I perceive multiple separate straw men in this point.

• The first is the same straw man we saw before, the idea that 1 Corinthians 7:12-14 is somehow relevant.
• The rest are misrepresentations of my earlier point about 1 Timothy 5:8

Since I've already addressed the straw man of 1 Corinthians 7:12-14 I'll concentrate on the others.

• Straw men that I perceive here...
  1. The idea that the only support a spouse provides is solely monetary. This is a direct contradiction of 1 Corinthians 7:2-9 in my mind.
  2. This quote: "I have shown that view is not valid and in other posts Ive shown how a believer can divorce his wife for any reason and still remain a believer." On this point we disagree because I have not seen anything that would constitute such proof in my mind.
  3. The use of the term "non-Christian" in an apparent attempt to limit the context of 1 Corinthians 7:15 since 1 Timothy 5:8 clearly (at least to me) shows that anyone who would refuse to care for their spouse (to include preventing temptation to sexual sin by satisfying sexual needs, 1 Corinthians 7:2-9) is at best an unbeliever, or worse, a false-believer. Either way 1 Corinthians 7:15 applies at least in my mind regardless of whether or not the guilty party claims to be a Christian because 1 Timothy 5:8 renders any such claim utterly false when abandonment or life threatening abuse/neglect are issues in question.

1 Timothy 5:8 does not mention that if you dont provide 'sex', then you are a nonbeliever. When someone says provide for 'household' that usually means material assistance. Also, Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 does not call a wife who separates from her husband (which means no sex for her and the husband) a nonbeliever AND he even tells her to remain single! If providing sex in marriage was a moral instruction then Paul's instruction to remain single would be against God or false.

Not providing sex, may be psychologically bad depending on the person (apostle Paul and Jesus had no problems!) but that doesnt mean its a sin or that it cant be resisted or that the first marriage wont be reconciled.

As for 1 Corinthians 7:1-9, read vs. 6, Paul is speaking some of his opinion and as a CONCESSION and NOT command. Paul also preached being single, like he tells the wife who separates from husband.

So, in short, while I respect PolyPride and the right of each individual patriarch to run his household his way without undue interference I cannot accept the three points that have been presented as the will of God for my own household.

Perhaps to some, not being able to remarry after an UNjust divorce is unbearable, but to me it helps keep people mindful to take your time getting to know and pick out who you will marry.

 

[PolyPride]

Re: Divorce & Remarriage...???

I think we can all agree that remarriage is allowed if the prior marriage ended due to sexual infidelity or if one of the spouses died. But im still unconvinced about remarriage being biblically justified under any other condition.

I was responding to you both. My point is that God uses the term 'prostitution' all over the place in the old testament to refer to the unfaithful, yet non-sexual, acts of His people, the Hebrews. Read Jeremiah 3 for an example. This is one of many specific cases whereby the Word uses 'prostitution' to describe unfaithfulness.

I found the word translated as "adultery" in Matthew 19:9 is porneia in the Greek. Metaphorically it can refer to idolatry. So if I accepted your logic, that would mean a justified divorce would involve divorcing for idolatry and sexual immorality. If that's the case then I don't agree with that view because it mixes a metaphorical or nonliteral meaning with a literal meaning. Rarely, if ever, would we find BOTH the literal and metaphorical meaning being applied at the same time. So there would be nothing wrong with 'porneia' just referring to literal sense (to refer only to sexual immorality) and all English translations, including Dr. William Luck, last I checked, agree with that. For instance, I know we can not commit adultery (in a sexual-sense) against God so only porneia in a non-literal sense can applies to him.