Nope, as I said, you are the one in disagreement with them.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Hi, I'm seeking opinions on my divorce. Biblical or not, that is the question.
- Thread starter Anonymous1
- Start date
Anonymous1
New Member
I apologize in advance for just now getting back to you. But I have been diving into scripture on this topic, praying over it, and seeking the truth without trying to self justify my own situation. I am by no means a bible scholar. However, I do have a question about your post on the matter. You state that there is no place that releases me from my own vows to God. Then what is the meaning behind 1 Corinthians 7:15 in your opinion?
I've looked at multiple versions of this scripture (the following are from the two versions of the bible I most frequently read):
KJV: 1 Corinthians 7:15 "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."
ESV: 1 Corinthians 7:15 "But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace."
My understanding of this verse is that if an unbelieving spouse leaves then we are to let it be. It seems to me as though you are only recognizing the first section of this verse. Paul goes on to write that the brother or sister that was left is not under bondage or enslaved. Why would Paul write this if it was not so? He could have simply stopped after his first sentence there. What would be the meaning behind his word choice of bondage/enslaved mean if it did not mean remarriage was a possibility for the deserted spouse?
I do not mean to come across as argumentative. I am genuinely seeking to understand the truth behind this. And again, I may never remarry in the future. But I'm seeking answers up front so that I know what I biblically can or cannot do in the future.
I agonized over just the same things you mention. HOWEVER, it was something I prayed over, and found spiritual release and acceptance by the Father. If I trusted in mankind, I'd still be agonizing, JUst a difficult place to find yourself. By the way, the reasons for the divorce were issues He understood, and I know that I know He forgave me and permitted me to move forward. I trust God has a general word that serves as a cover all blanket for the church, but He also treats each child individually, and He can and does respond in a way that may not fit comfortably under the general meaning, but does fit individually. In the case of divorce, I honestly think and BELIEVE He trats each cae accordingly, and it fits into each circumstance. I have release, and that is all that matters.
Thanks brother, and blessings to you in your search for truth.
Paul is stating that the marriage bond (that which obliges one to submit to their partner) is no longer. Basically that applies to duties and obligations (the physical, emotional, financial) obligations are no longer binding.
What neither Christ nor Paul present is that such removes the “one flesh” that God has united.
This is the reason that one who remarries after a divorce commits adultery.
A non-believer may certainly remove themselves, and even remarry. Not the believer. They represent Christ’s relationship to
His bride. That relationship is never broken.
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
I appreciate your position and understand many believe it. I think you are mistaken.
The “binding” language is more than stating what would be obvious (ie the abandoned believer has no obligation for physical, emotional, economic support toward the spouse that left)
The binding language from a rabbi (like Paul) would tell the abandoned spouse they were free to remarry.
The good news for Anonymous1 is that if she makes the wrong decision, her salvation is not at stake. God is gracious and good and will forgive all transgressions.
It is good to seek opinions and study scripture. Ultimately, you must follow your conscious.
peace to you
37818
Well-Known Member
It does seem to me that in this case that is to be understood statedly the believer would be at liberty to remarry.
Last edited:
If the other party has divorced and then remarried. would the Lord wants them to redivorcerce again in order to reconcile back together then?
We have to see this from being under Grace, and no longer the Law!
When the party that did the divorce now remarries, the other party now freed to remarry again, correct?
Anonymous1
New Member
I understand where you are coming from. But I respectfully disagree. We are also dealing with this being written during a time when women did not really have the ability to earn a living. This was the whole premise behind giving her a "bill of divorcement." So that she could in fact go remarry! I think that it was widely understood during this time that women would need to be able to remarry and therefore were not bound or enslaved to the prior marriage in any way shape or form!
Not only that but I almost feel as though 1 Corinthians 7:9 can still be applied here too. "But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn." I think this can be applicable even to a divorcee.
I also wasn't the one that removed myself from the marriage but yet I should remain alone for the rest of my life and "burn with passion" for a marriage? That just doesn't seem to me what God would want for his child.
God knows my heart and knows that I will long to be remarried again eventually. Not right away and not out of the will of God, of course. But at the end of the day, I've received peace about the matter.
Not the first time I have been accused of being wrong, but on this matter, I am not. "What God has put together" can ONLY be that which becomes "one flesh" which takes place at consummation. Marriages that are not consummated are for annulment, not divorce.
If you want to tighten the language to be even more restrictive than what I presented, I have no problem, however, it is a fact that Paul discusses that the believing partner has certain obligations toward the unbelieving partner that have eternal ramifications. Those eternal ramifications do not pass because the unbeliever decides to separate from the believer.
Not true. There is no evidence that Paul (a married rabbi) was ever divorced and certainly suggested that folks be as he was - single. Rather, he states that those who marry carry the burden of family obligations that those, like himself, were not "bound" but to the service of Christ.
Certainly, however, I do present it is an error to present freedom in which the Scriptures do not, and indeed expressly teach is not available.
Who does so brings a sword into their homes, and must be most vigilant is doesn't become another ruination.
I have to say, this is not wise. "Following your conscious" is not always the best and more often can lead to allowing for error.
Rather, one needs to protect and guard their life as Ephesians 4 states:
1Therefore I, the prisoner of the Lord, implore you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called, 2with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love, 3being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.
7But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift.
Some apply this passage as if it only is to the assembly. And, it does have that point. However, the bond of the assembly is only as good as the bond in each individual of the assembly, and therefore, it also and most certainly applies to the specific believer.
Some have not the ability to "keep themself" as Paul stated, and therefore, they remarry.
But, that is not general permission given, but an acknowledgement of the weakness of the flesh.
I should just ignore your presentation because it is unethical and unrealistic.
Such was never part of the discussion, and should not become part of the argument to present that there is some get out of obligation because of the unrighteousness of someone else.
First, it is not true that "women did not really have the ability to earn a living." The scriptures actually praise women for such ability. They bought and sold both merchandise and property. They made contractual arrangements and were respected in community leadership positions.
Second, Christ states that the "bill of divorcement" was from Moses, not from God. He then went on to explain how God expected things to happen, which did not include divorce AFTER consummation.
I've got no problem with those who are weak and submit to the fleshly, but again that is NOT the high calling of what God expects. The leadership and high calling of God to authority in the assembly is then no longer available.
Certain, there is lust, and passion. But, that is part of the walk in which all must bring under submission to the Master. Some cannot, but some certainly do.
There are some that chose to be, some that are born with no choice, and some who are made because of circumstances in life. This is how the Scriptures present eunichs, but it also applies to any who must live single and resist the passions of the flesh.
That is fine.
"Wisdom from ABOVE is first...."
The remarriage ends the marriage, period, as God would not cause another divorce and then remarriage back again!