Husband of one Wife

Diane and El Guero say that I cor 7:28 is referring to a never married person. Is that true? Let's let the text answer the question

27 Are you bound to a wife? Who does this refer to? A married person.

Do not seek to be released. What is the command? Don't seek a divorce.

Are you released from a wife?Who does this refer to? A divorced person. In what sense can a never married person be said to have been released from a wife? That doesn't make a lot of sense.

Do not seek a wife.What is the command? If you are divorced, don't seek to be remarried.

28 But if you marry, you have not sinned;"But" is a adversative conjunction, contrasting the current statement with the previous. "You have not sinned" is pretty clear.

and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned.This is the never married person. It is used of both men and women (Rev 14:4). And it is clearly a different person in view than the first clause about "if you marry."

Yet such will have trouble in this life, and I am trying to spare you. The passage says that people who are married will have trouble because of the current state and because of divided loyalties (God and spouse).

So it should be clear that the text does say that if a divorced person (one released from a wife) marries, they have not sinned.

In fairness, I can refute my own position, and I know that other people hold differently. But I can refute virtually every position I hold because I have studied it enough to know both sides. But the word "released" certainly can have the idea of released from a contract or commitment, and therefore, can apply to a marriage. Truth be told, the biblical case for remarriage after divorce doesn't hinge on this passage. Christ made it explicitly clear in Matthew 19 that remarriage after divorce was permissable. This is just another passage that can support Christ's previous saying.

 

Hi Larry;
When we marry do we not take an oath until death do us part. Very clearly we are sworn to each other all the way to death. This is sworn before God and man isn't to put it asunder. Marriage is a lifetime commitment. Swearing an oath before God means only God can dissolve it.
Lev 5:4 Or if a soul swear, pronouncing with his lips to do evil, or to do good, whatsoever it be that a man shall pronounce with an oath, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty in one of these.
May Christ Shine His Light On Us All;
Mike

 

I don't disagree with any of that. But we live in a fallen world, and God has made provisions for that. He is the one who allows remarriage after divorce. I didn't make that up. And I don't get to change it, even though I would likely not encourage it. I told a guy just yesterday that I don't think he would be eligible for remarriage, even though he is estranged from his wife, partly due to him and partly due to her. He asked about whether he could divorce her. I told him it didn't matter. It was a moot point. He should not pursue a marriage in any case.

Marriage is a lifetime commitment. But people are sinners. And God has told us how to respond to those situations.

 

At the point where tradition becomes more important to Baptists than what God's Word actually says, I will volunteer my paint brush...

Really? Why would you come to that conclusion?

Because we suggest that we should let scripture say what it says without reading our biases between the lines?

Be consistent. Apply every qualification as stringently as you have this one. Ensure that none of your deacons or pastors ever had any kind of romantic relationship that would make them less than a one woman man.

Baptists should question things that quite apparently come from something other than a direct reading of scripture.

We now have a character here telling us that divorce, though mentioned in scripture, has no meaning. It doesn't end a marriage. I guess he thinks it is just poligamy by another name.

Now, is he really willing to apply that consistently? Doubtful.

 

Why are you adopting non-Baptist methodology?

The problem is that in over 35 pages of interaction on this subject you have persistently refused to do this.

The Bible does not give "no divorce" as a qualification for a deacon.

You have contended that "one woman man" precludes a past divorce. I have responded that to be consistent you would have to disqualify anyone who had ever done anything that made their "one woman man" status suspect.

If "one woman man" means for a lifetime (which is the only case you can make to automatically disqualify someone based on a divorce) then you should immediately disqualify yourself if you have ever had any romantic or sexual experience outside of marriage- includes real or imagined. You should then find out if your pastor(s) or deacons had any such experience. You should then go find a church where the pastor and deacons are strictly lifetime "one women men".

Not only this, you should take the rest of the qualifications and make sure that those were adhered to by the officers for their whole lives also.

Just be consistent.

 

Thanks for your input Bob.

It is interesting that divorce was allowed in a time when adultery would result in stoning. This passage could not have been primarily directed at that particular sin but would have a much broader application.

It also firmly establishes from the Bible that divorce for whatever reason, done in writing, ends a marriage.

Jesus of course restricted the application of this to fornication- a term which like "one woman man" has a much broader application than most here acknowledge. It would seem to cover a host of non-physical as well as physical sins.

 

Hi Larry;

God says we can divorce and remarry. I disagree. We take an oath to have and to hold until death do us part not letting any man put it asunder or devide the union. We take this oath before God who's will is for one man and one woman to be joined and never be divided until death of one or the other. we become one flesh two halves of the greater whole. If we become one flesh as the word says then are we one and a half felsh if we marry some one else?
I have more than one reason to diaprove of divorce.
Mat 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
Mat 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
A lot of people would say that this is the major cause for divorce but it isn't. The major cause's is the lack of Love, Money, and lies.

The Bible says we are to forgive, and it also says if we can't forgive, we won't be forgiven. So how is it a Christian can divorce His wife, after he has forgiven her. Even if this release you speak of is alright it's still a sin, because it is more than one sin we are talking about. We are instructed to love our wives as Christ loves the church Thats one sin. Forgiveness is another. not to mention swearing an oath before God. One that they didn't keep. And we are instructed not to do that at all.
It still remains that it was never God's intention for Moses to give in on it just because of there hardness. I think Paul was against it as well.
May Christ Shine His Light On Us All;
Mike

 

ILUVLIGHT Says: Mat 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
A lot of people would say that this is the major cause for divorce but it isn't. The major cause's is the lack of Love, Money, and lies.

Would love to see your statistics on this, Mike.

 

Well, you are wrong and he is right.

Yes, "we" take that oath, and if "we" both don't keep it, there is no marriage. A marriage takes two, not one.

No, because in a divorce, you are no longer "one flesh." That is a marriage relationshiop, not simply a physical one.

Your "one more reason" is the explicit refutation of your position. Christ himself, in the very passage you cite, allowed for remarriage after divorce. Why do you disagree with him? Are you more Christian than Christ?

Incorrect. The cause of divorce is hardness of heart and it's unwillingness to obey God.

Because a marriage takes two. If a spouse forgives the partner for adultery, but the adulterer doesn't want to reconcile, is it not forgiveness? Of course it is. Plus, Christ said in the case of adultery, divorce and remarriage were allowable. That certainly did not contradict his position on forgiveness. Again, he is the one who said. Do you konw more than him?

That is a direct contradiction of Scripture. In the Law given by God, divorce was specified as an allowable act by Israel in the covenant. That is undeniable.

Paul said differently.

Why not just take God's word for it? I really don't understand ...

 

ILUVLIGHT

You cannot expect those that do not believe in "until death do us part", to stand FOR God. They are unwilling to make a covenant for marriage. They misinterpret His Word. They take your words and my words out of context. Why should we expect them to respect God when they do not respect people. Why would we expect them to respect people when they do not respect God.

They will continue in their sin against God. That they disrespect us is small compared to their sin against God.

They want consistency? Then we should consistently call their hearts hardened. Hearts hardened by their sin. Their SIN against God. I think that we are doing that.

 

God allowed divorce because of the hardness of men's hearts.

God's Word calls that sin. When does God change His mind? Divorce is allowed, sin is allowed. But, soon will come the day when God's anger is poured out because of sin. He is consistent throughout His Word.

 

El Guero, you're coming awfully close to libel with the implication that people here do not respect marriage, God or anything else. I don't think the pharisaical approach becomes you, friend.

 

Who are you talking about? I haven't seen anyone take this position that you allege here. Tell us who you are talking about.

The hardness of heart is sin. The divorce may or may not be. If your wife leaves you and divorces you, are you guilty of sin? Of course not. You can see how absurd that is.

He didn't. It has always been this way. In the OT, God clearly gave prescriptions for when divorce was permissable and when it was not. How can you sit there and deny that? You are ignoring certain passages in order to maintain your position.

Yes indeed, but that is irrelevant.

Really? So he expects us to punish adultery with capital punishment? He expects us to stone rebellious children? do you really want to go down this road? Or do you want to rethink it? (Hint: You should do the latter.)

You really need to quit making assertions about the spiritual condition of those who disagree with you. That is completely unacceptable.

 

Friend,

If you choose to cheapen marriage, then do so.

Just do not expect me (or others) to endorse your choice. God doesn't, and I won't.

 

Friend,

If you choose to ignore scripture, then it's on you.

Just don't expect me (or others) to endorse your faulty approach to what God has said concerning divorce.

 

Who has cheapened marriage? If you are going to make these accusations, then back them up. Show us someone who has cheapened marriage.

Secondly, explain to us why God didn't mean what he said in Deut 22 and 24, and Matt 19 and 1 Cor 7 when he said that remarriage after divorce was permissable?

 

Interesting charge from someone who refuses to deal with what God actually said but instead tries to divert the debate into "tradition", supposed "re-interpretation", and various other evasions. It is you that is intent on adding human traditions to what God said the qualifications for a deacon were.

We respect God. People get respect on matters such as this by demonstrating agreement with God.

It is you that has not only taken our words out of context but in fact accused us of saying things we never said.

We are standing for God by standing by what His Word actually says.

You said that we misinterpret His Word. Yet it is those arguing from our perspective that keep going back to the literal wording of the text as God gave it. How is that "misinterpretting"? It would seem that someone who adds the word divorce where God didn't say it is more in danger of misinterpretting the text. BTW, your opinion about the texts in question is not synonamous with "God's Word".

Prove that we have sinned against God or you. You haven't proven that we have departed from what God said. You have only proven that we disagree with you about what God said... and that after you add your words to His.

Then that would make you a consistent false witness.

The evident sin here is that you are bearing false witness after you have failed to bully us into accepting your extrabiblical requirements for deacons.

Yes, I want consistency. I asked you for a coherent interpretation of this passage. Rather than attempting to give one, you have gotten personal and started throwing charges around.

You haven't dealt with the text because you can't. You have hardened your heart. You have refused to reason together. You would rather preserve your pride apparently than simply accept and deal with what God literally said were the qualifications.

 

Don't worry, Brother El-G. It isn't that bad being a Pharisee. The Holy Spirit used me as an instrument for the gospel this weekend, and eight were led to the Lord. If Pharisee Willie doesn't let it get him down, you hang in there, too. OK?

 

Don't worry, Brother El-G. It isn't that bad being a Pharisee. </font>[/QUOTE]Now we have a new tactic.

You can't deal with the topic with substance so... play the victim.

Just another implicit admission that you recognize that you don't have a scriptural leg to stand on.