Divorced does not mean "put away"...or does it?

[Misty77]

Inferences are interesting. But not conclusive, especially when there are clear passages which speak about divorce and remarriage.

For example, such as:

"For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man" (Rom. 7:2-3)

"The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord" (1 Cor. 7:39)

Divorced people don't have husbands [or wives]. So this has to be talking about separation/abandonment instead. Jesus proves that in his discussion with the Samaritan woman.

John 4:17: The woman answered him, “I have no husband.” Jesus said to her, “You are right in saying, ‘I have no husband’; 18for you have had five husbands, and the one you now have is not your husband. What you have said is true.”

 

[faroukfarouk]

"The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord" (1 Cor. 7:39)

Divorced people don't have husbands [or wives]. So this has to be talking about separation/abandonment instead. Jesus proves that in his discussion with the Samaritan woman.

John 4:17: The woman answered him, “I have no husband.” Jesus said to her, “You are right in saying, ‘I have no husband’; 18for you have had five husbands, and the one you now have is not your husband. What you have said is true.”

'Dead' is what the Romans 7 passage says.

 

[phil112]

Misty, contrary to what others will tell you and/or have you believe, 1 Corinthians chapter 7 addresses ALL marital and non-marital relationships. Study that and you will have the viewpoint all christians should have.

 

[john832]

There is a a topic that I am just beginning to study. There is a theory that some of the verses that the church traditionally uses to condemn remarriage after divorce are actually referring to remarriage while separated only (not divorced). That would be bigamy; but since that is not biblically permitted for women, the second marriage is not recognized, so it is equivalent to adultery.

It actually makes a lot of sense, though I confess that I have little research at this time to confirm it. Jesus talks about the Samaritan Woman having 5 husbands, not 1 husband and 4 adulterous relationships. This infers that each of those marriages were recognized as legitimate, regardless of how wise they were. He then goes on to say that the man she is currently living with is not her husband, which disproves the erroneous idea of sex being equivalent to marriage "in God's eyes."

It's interesting to note that God divorces Israel in Jeremiah 3:8. This concept is confirmed in Isaiah 50:1 and Hosea 2:2. Since God cannot sin, then it confirms that divorce itself is not sin, but rather the result of it.

There is also some basis to support that a "widow" means any woman who has been abandoned (by death or willingly) by her spouse. That would make it a more inclusive term in the Hebrew than in English, and it would be consistent with the frequent commands to provide for and to protect society's most vulnerable members. That would certainly be a big change from hypocritical behavior of those of "Christians" who ignore or even condemn those whose spouses abandoned them.

The woman in 2 Samuel 14:5 declares herself to be a widow and adds that her husband is dead. If widows are by definition those who have survived their spouses, then it is illogical that she would have felt the need to emphasize that her husband is dead—unless she needed to clarify what kind of widow she was.

And Christ remarried the church but not before He died and broke that marriage bond. Christ will NEVER violate His own Laws.

 

[Misty77]

Misty, contrary to what others will tell you and/or have you believe, 1 Corinthians chapter 7 addresses ALL marital and non-marital relationships. Study that and you will have the viewpoint all christians should have.

No scripture is to be understood without the influence of other scripture. Verses and chapters are not independent writings, but are a part of the whole. To fail to look at the entirety of scripture on any subject is to deny it's context and open yourself up to misunderstanding. The inspiration and usefulness of "all scripture" implies it is to be used collectively or else it would have said "each scripture."

 

[Misty77]

And Christ remarried the church but not before He died and broke that marriage bond. Christ will NEVER violate His own Laws.

Your understanding of the analogy is flawed. God was married to both Israel and to Judah, and only Israel was divorced from him. The picture of Jesus being married to the church is a separate picture. If are take the position that the groom in both instances is the same, then the marriage to the church is a return to bigamy because Judah was never divorced. And I don't think that you can argue that God abandoned His covenant to Judah.

 

[faroukfarouk]

No scripture is to be understood without the influence of other scripture. Verses and chapters are not independent writings, but are a part of the whole. To fail to look at the entirety of scripture on any subject is to deny it's context and open yourself up to misunderstanding. The inspiration and usefulness of "all scripture" implies it is to be used collectively or else it would have said "each scripture."

There is a good measure of truth in this; however, where there are very clear statements in a number of passages about subjects such as divorce and remarriage (see earlier in the thread), for the Bible reader then to go to what amount to inferences rather than to the clear and direct passages dealing with the subject itself, and to try to build doctrines on inferences which supposedly outweigh the clear and direct passages, is not the way to handle the Scriptures.

Blessings.

 

[phil112]

No scripture is to be understood without the influence of other scripture. Verses and chapters are not independent writings, but are a part of the whole. To fail to look at the entirety of scripture on any subject is to deny it's context and open yourself up to misunderstanding. The inspiration and usefulness of "all scripture" implies it is to be used collectively or else it would have said "each scripture."

Since you addressed that to my post, perhaps you will explain to me where Paul is wrong in that passage.

 

[Misty77]

Since you addressed that to my post, perhaps you will explain to me where Paul is wrong in that passage.

"The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord" (1 Cor. 7:39)

Paul isn't wrong: the interpretation is. Paul isn't talking about divorce, but about separation/abandonment. Only married people are either husbands or wives. Divorcees are, well, divorcees.

Even if the divorce in question was a sin, are we now teaching that some sins are unforgivable? Is Jesus' death not sufficient to cover the sins of marrying for the wrong reason or for divorcing for the wrong reason? One should not make decisions knowing they are wrong and counting on forgiveness, but that doesn't mean that there isn't redemption after genuine repentance.

 

[BradC]

Have any of you met a jealous person or have had a jealous spouse? What was it like for you? Did your marriage last? How long? What it a time of cruelty and suspicion and always wondering what you were up to and who you might have been with? Did you try everything to give then the love and attention they needed to no avail? Jealousy in a marriage goes far deeper then a wife being upset with her husband getting attention from other women. It goes into him being favored among others and friends and in certain circles that she refuses to honor because she is not the center of attention. If she is not always being esteemed by her husband in the eyes of others she gets upset and angry and accuses him of not honoring her. She always makes these claims of wanting to be where the need is, yet when put in those situations she becomes jealous of those who give of themselves wanting nothing in return.

She does not know how to be selfless and always has to be acknowledged or she gets withdrawn and reactionary and has to confide these things with others who will listen to her. If they won't listen she accuses them of not being a friend and hearing her side of things. This kind of jealousy is cruel as the grave (Song of Sol 8:6) and it is one that will make you pay in one way or another. It divide friends and friendships because it has no love. Anyone that exhibits this kind of jealousy in a marriage is absent of love and knows not the love of God. They can make your life so miserable that you will not desire to spend a single minute in the presence of such a spouse. This kind of jealousy is beyond the control of the husband or anyone else for that matter. You can't win them over no matter how hard you try. They have a root of jealousy that has turned into bitterness and never goes away and even if it is 20-30 years after the fact or breakup they will look for opportunities to slander and malign their former spouse.

Just thought I would throw this in the mix, just in case someone could relate. I did not mention this to give opportunity to bad mouth a spouse of former spouse but to illustrate the tragedy of jealousy in the heart when it is not taken to the cross to be crucified. BTW, I have a wonderful wife that has not even an ounce of jealousy and that blows me away.

 

[faroukfarouk]

"The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord" (1 Cor. 7:39)

Paul isn't wrong: the interpretation is. Paul isn't talking about divorce, but about separation/abandonment. Only married people are either husbands or wives. Divorcees are, well, divorcees.

Even if the divorce in question was a sin, are we now teaching that some sins are unforgivable? Is Jesus' death not sufficient to cover the sins of marrying for the wrong reason or for divorcing for the wrong reason? One should not make decisions knowing they are wrong and counting on forgiveness, but that doesn't mean that there isn't redemption after genuine repentance.

Paul says 'dead'.

In many jurisdictions - and indeed in common Jewish practice - men will and would repudiate their wives in highly dubious circumstances which politicians and Pharisees could call 'divorces'.

But it's not right.

 

[Misty77]

There is a good measure of truth in this; however, where there are very clear statements in a number of passages about subjects such as divorce and remarriage (see earlier in the thread), for the Bible reader then to go to what amount to inferences rather than to the clear and direct passages dealing with the subject itself, and to try to build doctrines on inferences which supposedly outweigh the clear and direct passages, is not the way to handle the Scriptures.

Blessings.

I am not attempting to override commandments, but to clarify them. Your culture, education, upbringing, and personal history influence your beliefs more than you realize. As humans, we are incapable of being completely unbiased in our understanding; but we should try as much as we can to understand scripture as it was written without tainting it with our preconceptions. By looking at commandments in light of how they fit with the whole of scripture, we can get a better understanding of inherent nuances involved, instead of reading it was a westerner in the 21st century.

 

[Misty77]

Paul says 'dead'.

In many jurisdictions - and indeed in common Jewish practice - men will and would repudiate their wives in highly dubious circumstances which politicians and Pharisees could call 'divorces'.

But it's not right.

I understood you the first time. I read it correctly the first time.

The people that Paul is talking about are married, not divorced. A woman is a wife only if she is married. A woman can have a dead husband only if she was married to him. That verse is about people who are legally married, but may have been separated.

I hope it was sufficiently clear this time because I cannot otherwise compensate for a lack of reading comprehension.

 

[faroukfarouk]

I understood you the first time. I read it correctly the first time.

The people that Paul is talking about are married, not divorced. A woman is a wife only if she is married. A woman can have a dead husband only if she was married to him. That verse is about people who are legally married, but may have been separated.

I hope it was sufficiently clear this time because I cannot otherwise compensate for a lack of reading comprehension.

Well, then, I don't understand how where Paul says 'dead', he really means 'not merely separated', supposedly.

 

[faroukfarouk]

I am not attempting to override commandments, but to clarify them. Your culture, education, upbringing, and personal history influence your beliefs more than you realize. As humans, we are incapable of being completely unbiased in our understanding; but we should try as much as we can to understand scripture as it was written without tainting it with our preconceptions. By looking at commandments in light of how they fit with the whole of scripture, we can get a better understanding of inherent nuances involved, instead of reading it was a westerner in the 21st century.

Again, some of what you say has merit in general terms, but I really don't understand, for example, if Paul says a husband being 'dead' (Romans 7) releases the wife from the marriage bond, it's reading personal and cultural bias into the passage to understand it to mean 'dead'.

 

[Misty77]

Well, then, I don't understand how where Paul says 'dead', he really means 'not merely separated', supposedly.

Dude, "dead" means "dead." That word is not in question.

The wife and her husband are the only ones I am addressing. The man is definitely dead. The woman is definitely alive. But they are not divorced. They are married, or at least they were until the man died. That is why it would have been wrong for the woman to marry someone else before her husband died: because they were married. This is one one the scriptures used against divorcees to tell them that to remarry while their EX is alive is sin.

But that is not what this passage is talking about. It means that to be remarried while your SPOUSE is alive is sin. Only married and separated people have spouses, so this scripture applies only to them. Divorcees and singles do not have spouses, so this scripture does not apply to them.

PLEASE tell me that you get it this time.

 

[parablepete]

Sez a man that listens to false doctrine and doesn't "study to show himself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth".
If you don't divorce someone that insists on leaving, you are still under bondage to them.

You are not under bondage, but, you are not FREE to remarry. The Only execption for Divorse is un-faithfulness.

If your Husband or Wife Passes away you can re-marry, but, it must be from within the church.

It also don't make any difference if your a Christian or Heathern, God Laws apply to all of us.

I am ready for an APPLOGY for you calling me a False Teacher and Not rightly dividing the Word of God. Sir it is you that have twisted things. You show me where I am wrong and I will gladly say I am sorry.

I WISH THESE SCRIPTURES WERE NOT IN THE BIBLE AS MUCH AS YOU DO. I HAVE MANY FRIENDS IN THE SITUATION, EVEN MY MOTHER.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Dude, "dead" means "dead." That word is not in question.

The wife and her husband are the only ones I am addressing. The man is definitely dead. The woman is definitely alive. But they are not divorced. They are married, or at least they were until the man died. That is why it would have been wrong for the woman to marry someone else before her husband died: because they were married. This is one one the scriptures used against divorcees to tell them that to remarry while their EX is alive is sin.

But that is not what this passage is talking about. It means that to be remarried while your SPOUSE is alive is sin. Only married and separated people have spouses, so this scripture applies only to them. Divorcees and singles do not have spouses, so this scripture does not apply to them.

PLEASE tell me that you get it this time.

Seeing as Paul has just seemingly defined what a spouse is, namely, someone who is married until one party dies, I don't see how what you say can be so.

 

[Misty77]

Seeing as Paul has just seemingly defined what a spouse is, namely, someone who is married until one party dies, I don't see how what you say can be so.

Only if you didn't read the rest of the chapter.

[SUP]i cor 7:15 [/SUP]But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace.

Not bound = free. As in, not married, not having a spouse, free to remarry.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Only if you didn't read the rest of the chapter.

[SUP]i cor 7:15 [/SUP]But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace.

Not bound = free. As in, not married, not having a spouse, free to remarry.

I think you are reading a lot into this verse. Paul seems to be saying: the Christian is not morally responsible for the actions of an unbelieving spouse, and if s/he leaves, then the Christian can't stop the other from going out of the door.

But I don't see any reference to remarriage in what Paul is saying here.