Divorce and remarriage

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Hypothetical:
... Where does that leave his wife?
What are her options?
She feels completely deceived.

She will be standing for her marriage.

There was not full discernment and wisdom going into the marriage.

And I know one young lady in Jerusalem that was a runaway bride as discernment became clearer. Sometimes the orthodox Jews can pretend to be believers, perhaps they convince themselves for a season and a purpose.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

She will be standing for her marriage.

There was not full discernment and wisdom going into the marriage.

Well she understands that.

She requests prayer for her husband. They have resumed talking. He seems confused about some things. Largely I think it has to do with an unwillingness to acknowledge his grandfather might just be plain wrong.

I counseled her to be the best Christian she can, to pray not only for him but WITH him, and he will either get right with God or leave.

Which was my main question: if he abandons her, then what? How does 1 Cor 7:12-15 play into that situation?

[peter83]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Well she understands that.

She requests prayer for her husband. They have resumed talking. He seems confused about some things. Largely I think it has to do with an unwillingness to acknowledge his grandfather might just be plain wrong.

I counseled her to be the best Christian she can, to pray not only for him but WITH him, and he will either get right with God or leave.

Which was my main question: if he abandons her, then what? How does 1 Cor 7:12-15 play into that situation?

If she abandon him she is guilty but if he abandon her she is not!
She just stay single or depends may she reunite with the ex.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Which was my main question: if he abandons her, then what? How does 1 Cor 7:12-15 play into that situation?

She stands for the marriage. By the grace of God ne becomes unconfused and the marriage is unabandoned.

It works better with strong church support and belief, that a covenant marriage is forever. Conviction helps.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by consapente89

The single divorcee should seek to know Jesus in a more intimate way, and stay single. Marriage is a blessing, but being single is NOT a curse.

But ye are complete in Him...

Everyone should seek to know Jesus in a deeper way. Some that are divorced are without doubt closer to Jesus than some that are not divorced.

And why should the divorced one, innocent of wrong doing according to Jesus and Paul not remarry? Jesus said EXCEPT IT BE FOR FORNICATION. That is an exception.

So if they remarry in that situation they are ok with Jesus.

[peter83]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Everyone should seek to know Jesus in a deeper way. Some that are divorced are without doubt closer to Jesus than some that are not divorced.

And why should the divorced one, innocent of wrong doing according to Jesus and Paul not remarry? Jesus said EXCEPT IT BE FOR FORNICATION. That is an exception.

So if they remarry in that situation they are ok with Jesus.

Then everyone can remarry how many times wants.
Because there is not man (woman) in the world who divorces to stay single almost anyone who divorce does it in order to remarry and if the reason is not about adultery (irs not called fornication but adultery) then after a while he ir she will remarry.
For example if you want you just leave your wife till she remarry or fornicate with an other man..and then you are "innocent".

Woman is bound to her husband till her husband us dead. And believe me there are few that marry an other man while living with the first. I mean a woman that her husband lives and she remarry means they are separated.
If ,if for any reason departs let her stay single or reconcile back to her ex.
That's the instructions.
The way is strict and few are those who make it to the end.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

She stands for the marriage. By the grace of God ne becomes unconfused and the marriage is unabandoned.

It works better with strong church support and belief, that a covenant marriage is forever. Conviction helps.

And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. 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. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?
(1Co 7:10-16)

Paul is relaying two sets of instructions, pertaining to two types or classes of cases. In the first case, he simply reiterates what Christ taught, "yet not I, but the Lord..." In the second case he asserts he is giving his apostolic judgment. This means that the second case ("to the rest speak I, not the Lord") concerns a matter NOT DISCUSSED by the Lord in the Gospel accounts or maintained by then-current oral tradition.

The second case involves a believer married to an unbeliever, ie a mixed marriage as concerns religion. Jesus did not address such marriages, most likely because such were already forbidden by the Law so would not be under contemplation in the contexts in which Jesus' teachings were given concerning marriage. Paul however had to deal with a situation that Jesus did not directly address: the case where a gentile heathen couple experience a conversion on the part of one of the parties.

In the second case concerning mixed marriages Paul states that IF worse comes to worse and the unbeliever decides the marriage is now a no-go, then the believer is "not under bondage in such cases". This seems to me to indicate that in the case of a mixed marriage, if the heathen partner decides to dissolve the marriage the believer is no longer bound to that partner.

It seems that what you are saying makes the two cases identical, that is, the same response is given for both cases. Yet this seems contrary to the plain statement of Paul that he is giving information NOT given by Jesus in His original marriage teaching. If the response to both cases were identical, then Paul would not need to say "to the rest" nor would he need to specify that he is giving apostolic judgment in contrast to Christ's known declarations. The two cases are different, and the two solutions are different.

Otherwise, saying "not under bondage" literally has no meaning. How can one not be under bondage (ie not be bound) in a marriage if they are just as bound to the marriage after the separation as they were before?

Again, though, Paul's statement here applies to mixed marriages not to marriages between two persons both in covenant with God. (And, of course, this is not concerning a case where a Christian decides to marry a non believer, either.)

Can you elaborate on how you understand this entire passage? And why?

[peter83]

Originally Posted by Esaias

And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. 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. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?
(1Co 7:10-16)

Paul is relaying two sets of instructions, pertaining to two types or classes of cases. In the first case, he simply reiterates what Christ taught, "yet not I, but the Lord..." In the second case he asserts he is giving his apostolic judgment. This means that the second case ("to the rest speak I, not the Lord") concerns a matter NOT DISCUSSED by the Lord in the Gospel accounts or maintained by then-current oral tradition.

The second case involves a believer married to an unbeliever, ie a mixed marriage as concerns religion. Jesus did not address such marriages, most likely because such were already forbidden by the Law so would not be under contemplation in the contexts in which Jesus' teachings were given concerning marriage. Paul however had to deal with a situation that Jesus did not directly address: the case where a gentile heathen couple experience a conversion on the part of one of the parties.

In the second case concerning mixed marriages Paul states that IF worse comes to worse and the unbeliever decides the marriage is now a no-go, then the believer is "not under bondage in such cases". This seems to me to indicate that in the case of a mixed marriage, if the heathen partner decides to dissolve the marriage the believer is no longer bound to that partner.

It seems that what you are saying makes the two cases identical, that is, the same response is given for both cases. Yet this seems contrary to the plain statement of Paul that he is giving information NOT given by Jesus in His original marriage teaching. If the response to both cases were identical, then Paul would not need to say "to the rest" nor would he need to specify that he is giving apostolic judgment in contrast to Christ's known declarations. The two cases are different, and the two solutions are different.

Otherwise, saying "not under bondage" literally has no meaning. How can one not be under bondage (ie not be bound) in a marriage if they are just as bound to the marriage after the separation as they were before?

Again, though, Paul's statement here applies to mixed marriages not to marriages between two persons both in covenant with God. (And, of course, this is not concerning a case where a Christian decides to marry a non believer, either.)

Can you elaborate on how you understand this entire passage? And why?

I know you didn't ask me but the answer comes from were we don't want.
Paul is giving the Rule about all married couples
And that's it no divorce
(Jesus said that if you leave your wife and she remarry you also responsible of her adultery).
Now the first set speaks for all married couples.
In the second set Paul say his opinion which can not be any difference than what Jesus commanded.
So with that in mind he goes to speak for a special question and how they can apply what Jesus told in this special need.
Thata it. :
1 you can't divorce because is not Christian.
2) only if she/he leaves you then you are not bound, not condemned and not responsible for her/his future adultery.
3) you can wait for him/her and be together again.
4)you can't re marry of course for the law told by Jesus apply to all.
5)at the end of the chapter the rule is "woman is bound to hee hausband till he is dead.
No because ge is a Muslim ir an atheist or he loses his legs or what ever. Only when is dead.
(And there's no woman who thinks to marry an other while she is still living with her husband Paul speaks for the divorced couple)

That was a parentheses and a voice crying to a religious forum... i wait to see Steven answer.
With respect.

[Originalist]

Everybody stop answering this guy so this thread will die.

[peter83]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Everybody stop answering this guy so this thread will die.

I think nobody answer to that guy . one is asking the other.for the subject is hot. Hot as hell.
People are dying because the lack of knowledge.
Most of them are innocent victims of some "preacher"
So may the thread dies (like many people) but the subject is there in the Church and is scriptures.