1 Cor 7:15 "But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bonda

[Dan....]

I was reading from Douglas Wilson's "Reforming Marriage", page 136, where he writes:

...if he [the unbeliever] decides to desert his spouse, the Christian is not bound. What is more, the Christian is forbidden to fight the divorce. This means that the Christian is free - free to remarry, free to stay single, and free to reconcile with his partner (as long as there has not been another marriage between -Deut 24:1-4). Not bound means not bound.

[bold emphasys mine, italic emphasys in original]

I have some questions:

1. If the deserting, unbelieving spouse deserts without filing for a divorce, is the Christian hereby allowed to file for a divorce?

2. Is the believing spouse, as says Wilson, "free to remarry"?

Why, or why not?

In relation to question 1, the WCF says:

Chap XXIV, sec. 6:
Although the corruption of man be such as is apt to study arguments unduly to put asunder those whom God hath joined together in marriage: yet, nothing but adultery, or such willful desertion as can no way be remedied by the church, or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage :[13] wherein, a public and orderly course of proceeding is to be observed; and the persons concerned in it not left to their own wills, and discretion, in their own case.[14]

13. Matt. 19:8-9; I Cor. 7:15; Matt. 19:6
14. Deut. 24:1-4

Must the phrase, "dissolving the bond of marriage" be necessarily interpreted as an allowance for the believer to file for divorce?



I hope my questions make sense. At this point I'm having a hard time finding this passage as allowing for the believer to file for divorce, nor allowing the believer to remarry, but am wondering if Wilson's position is common in the reformed community and why.


Thanks.

 

[pastorway]

if the believer is to let the unbeliever go, and the unbeliever does indeed abandon the believer, then I see no reason that the believer cannot initiate the actual divorce as a legal proceeding, since the unbeliever has already sought to dissolve the marriage by his actions. This should not be done quickly or without seeking counsel and help from the church. Reconciliation is the goal, and only when that becomes impossible should divorce be sought.

Therefore, in this case, or any other case, where the marriage has been dissolved, then there is nothing to prohibit remarriage in the Lord. A marriage is dissolved by death, or by a legitimate divorce for the cause of adultery or abandonment by an unbeliever.

Phillip

 

[LadyFlynt]

however there are those who hold to a more conservative view...

it says free....free meaning from something...not free to do something.

Instead of free to remarry there are those that hold to "free from the duties of marriage"...ie you don't have to take care of them, have conjugal relations with them, or support them.

We had another thread on this not long ago...in fact someone recently just brought the thread to the surface again...you might want to do a search on divorce and remarriage, that'll bring it up.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by Dan....
I was reading from Douglas Wilson's "Reforming Marriage", page 136, where he writes:

...if he [the unbeliever] decides to desert his spouse, the Christian is not bound. What is more, the Christian is forbidden to fight the divorce. This means that the Christian is free - free to remarry, free to stay single, and free to reconcile with his partner (as long as there has not been another marriage between -Deut 24:1-4). Not bound means not bound.

[bold emphasys mine, italic emphasys in original]

I have some questions:

1. If the deserting, unbelieving spouse deserts without filing for a divorce, is the Christian hereby allowed to file for a divorce?

2. Is the believing spouse, as says Wilson, "free to remarry"?

Why, or why not?

In relation to question 1, the WCF says:

Chap XXIV, sec. 6:
Although the corruption of man be such as is apt to study arguments unduly to put asunder those whom God hath joined together in marriage: yet, nothing but adultery, or such willful desertion as can no way be remedied by the church, or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage :[13] wherein, a public and orderly course of proceeding is to be observed; and the persons concerned in it not left to their own wills, and discretion, in their own case.[14]

13. Matt. 19:8-9; I Cor. 7:15; Matt. 19:6
14. Deut. 24:1-4

Must the phrase, "dissolving the bond of marriage" be necessarily interpreted as an allowance for the believer to file for divorce?



I hope my questions make sense. At this point I'm having a hard time finding this passage as allowing for the believer to file for divorce, nor allowing the believer to remarry, but am wondering if Wilson's position is common in the reformed community and why.


Thanks.

1. If the deserting, unbelieving spouse deserts without filing for a divorce, is the Christian hereby allowed to file for a divorce?

I would say yes. Desertion implies that the deserter has no intention of coming back; Our legal system warrants that charges be filed for the sake of alimony as well as child support. If the desertee does not repeort it, no monetary relief can be hoped for.

2. Is the believing spouse, as says Wilson, "free to remarry"?

Again,I would say yes. Desertion amongst believers is adultery to Gods covenant.

 

[biblelighthouse]

I agree with Colleen. Scripture says nothing about being free to remarry.

[Edited on 7-7-2005 by biblelighthouse]

 

[pastorway]

The Bible uses the same language for widows who are "free" when their spouse dies, and they are EXPECTED to remarry. Why would we say that the same language means something different where there has been a Scripturally legitimate divorce? Divorce dissolves the marriage covenant, just as death does.

A wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.

Therefore I desire that the younger widows marry, bear children, manage the house, give no opportunity to the adversary to speak reproachfully.

1 Cor 7:39; 1 Tim 5:14

 

[wsw201]

Originally posted by pastorway
The Bible uses the same language for widows who are "free" when their spouse dies, and they are EXPECTED to remarry. Why would we say that the same language means something different where there has been a Scripturally legitimate divorce? Divorce dissolves the marriage covenant, just as death does.

A wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.

Therefore I desire that the younger widows marry, bear children, manage the house, give no opportunity to the adversary to speak reproachfully.

1 Cor 7:39; 1 Tim 5:14

 

[LadyFlynt]

Because there is scripture that specifically comments on divorcees and scripture that separately comments on widows. Widows are to remarry...for divorcees to remarry or anyone to marry one is an act of adultery.

Romans 7: 2-3
Matthew 5: 32
Mark 10:11
Luke 16:18
Jeremiah 3:1

Don't know why this is so difficult to understand...maybe due to the hardness of our hearts?

BTW, I have heard testimonies of ppl who were deserted by a spouse, stayed single, prayed for their spouse...and later, sometimes years later, the errant spouse returned...many times changed and to follow in the ways of the Lord.

Also, Pastor Way, you say "where there is scripturally legitimate divorce"...you know that there are two views on what is legit and what is not. Adultery and fornication...only for fornication is there legitimacy...an understanding of betrothal and marriage is neccessary to understand this. Also do a word study...you will note that in passages relating to this that fornication and adultery are used in the same passage to denote two different acts...therefore the usual rebuttal of fornication meaning adultery is debunk.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Also, I don't know why this passage doesn't get more noteriety:

". . . the wife should not separate from her husband, but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband. . . " (1 Cor. 7:10-11)


Even if a person does seperate from his/her spouse, regardless of the reason, that person has only two options, according to Scripture:

1) "remain single"

2) "be reconciled"


Notice that "remarry" is NOT one of the options.




[Edited on 7-7-2005 by biblelighthouse]

 

[Scott Bushey]

Mat 19:9 And I say to you, Whoever shall put away his wife, if not for fornication, and shall marry another, that one commits adultery. And the one who marries her who was put away commits adultery.

One whom puts away his wife except for fornication and remarry's, commits adultery.

One whom does put his wife away for fornication and remarry's, does not commit adultery.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

I've done my word study, especially in light of elders.

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Pastoral/McMahonElderAndDivorce.htm

1 Corinthians 7:10-11 Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband. 11 But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife.

There is no "regardless of the reason" stated here. Reasons come after. For Christian households this should remain true. For a Christian, a wife is not to depart. If she does depart (which she is not suppose to) she has to remain umarried, or be reconciled. (Note "she"). A husband is not to divorce his wife. Christian couple have no reason, whatsoever to divorce.

When we get into Christian and non-Christians, then problems arise. That is the rest of the Corinthian passage. That revolves around the stated means of adultery and/or dessertion.

In those cases, we are free. Free to stay single. Free to remarry. That would depend on whether God gifts us with the ability to be celibate. If we were already married, maybe we don't have that gift. Maybe God will give that to us later. Maybe not. Prudence ensues.

Jesus' exception is very poignant:

Matthew 19:9 "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery."

The exception, as Paul continues in in dessertion, is based on remarriage. I'm not sure how that is being missed. Maybe its the hardness of our hearts?

As for our word study: in this passage, both are complimentary, and betrothal has nothing to do with it.

moica,w moichao {moy-khah'-o}
Meaning: 1) to have unlawful intercourse with another's wife, to commit adultery with

pornei,a porneia {por-ni'-ah}
Meaning: 1) illicit sexual intercourse 1a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc. 1b) sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18 1c) sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,12 2) metaph. the worship of idols 2a) of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols

That about covers it all. Therefore in these days the laws that were made against adulterers were not regarded: for they would have no need of divorce, if the marriage had been severed by punishment of death.



[Edited on 7-8-2005 by webmaster]

 

[Dan....]

Thanks for the input.

I find myself half way between the ends here...
When it comes to 1 Cor 7, Colleen and Joseph have a point. Nothing is said of remarriage.

When it comes to Matt 19, Scott, Matthew, Pastor Way & co. have a point, remarriage is not adultery if divorce is for fornication.

Mat 19:9 And I say to you, Whoever shall put away his wife, if not for fornication, and shall marry another, that one commits adultery. And the one who marries her who was put away commits adultery.

One whom puts away his wife except for fornication and remarry's, commits adultery.

One whom does put his wife away for fornication and remarry's, does not commit adultery.

Let me add one more line to Scott Bushey's:

One who puts away his wife for desertion and remarries, commits adultery.

Desertion is not fornication; hence, per Matt 19:9, the believing spouse who divorces a deserter and marries again commits adultery. Jesus did not include desertion with fornication.



I have a question for Colleen:
Are there any resources readily available that developes the distinction between betrothal and marriage in the 1st century culture?

[Edited on 7-8-2005 by Dan....]

 

[LadyFlynt]

Start with scripture and Jewish traditions.

The case with Mary and Joseph...they were betrothed...yet he would have had to divorce her to break that covenant. Betrothal was considered binding.


The point that Scott did not make and that I believe Matt pointed out only incompletely (sorry, Matt...really, I truely mean not disrespect...just in view of what others have said, yours doesn't answer a certain passage, which I will mention below).

What is "fornication"? If fornication includes adultery then why is there a passage of scripture that uses the terms fornication AND adultery within the same sentence. Webster's 1828 states that fornication as used in the KJV is sexual intercourse/immorality BEFORE marriage. This is in contrast to the term adultery which is sexual intercourse/immorality with someone other than your spouse. The verse in question does not state porneia and porneia I believe as this would be redundant....therefore the use of fornication is meant to mean something OTHER than adultery. To be consistent through scripture...would this not hold to the other verses...therefore FORNICATION as per the 1828 presumption, would be the ONLY reason for divorce (as per also Joseph's predictament)? Also, if dealing with history, et al...in MOST cases of adultery through the ages ppl were not divorced. However, fornication (immorality before marriage) was almost always a sure breaker. Were not the sheets checked for this reason? This was the one time the spouse could back out. If he CHOSE to stay in afterwards then he was stuck for life.

Matt, if you could confront that passage in another manner, I would be willing to listen. My experience so far from those who disagree with it has been that they talk around it.

 

[LadyFlynt]

I will admit...and I had a PCA pastor tell me that I was within the bounds of orthodoxy on this...that this is the one area that I disagree with what I believe is the reformers' stand on this (possibly because the RC had already caved on this issue?). Therefore, in all honesty...the only sources I would be able to give that I am aware of (there actually may be some out there--hey, I didn't even know that Whitfield was a Calvinist!) are armenian sources.

Sorry, Dan...I will admit to my failing of being only newly reformed within that past year and a half.

 

[LadyFlynt]

Originally posted by webmaster
Matthew 19:9 "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery."

The exception, as Paul continues in in dessertion, is based on remarriage. I'm not sure how that is being missed. Maybe its the hardness of our hearts?

[Edited on 7-8-2005 by webmaster]

I think I'm missing something here also, Matt. Where is desertion mentioned here making it permissable to remarry? It states that the spouse remarries...but nothing of the spouse that he left. Should we not go back to the passage where the spouse is left and should either remain single or reconciled (in this case not reconciled as due to impossibilty given the remarriage on his part...but this still leaves the other option...singleness)?

 

[wsw201]

Originally posted by LadyFlynt

Originally posted by webmaster
Matthew 19:9 "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery."

The exception, as Paul continues in in dessertion, is based on remarriage. I'm not sure how that is being missed. Maybe its the hardness of our hearts?

[Edited on 7-8-2005 by webmaster]

I think I'm missing something here also, Matt. Where is desertion mentioned here making it permissable to remarry? It states that the spouse remarries...but nothing of the spouse that he left. Should we not go back to the passage where the spouse is left and should either remain single or reconciled (in this case not reconciled as due to impossibilty given the remarriage on his part...but this still leaves the other option...singleness)?

Colleen,

You are missing something here. What we are attempting to convey is the principals surrounding biblical divorce and remarriage. In looking at the passages that you mentioned in a previous post, it appears you are taking them out of context. For instance the Rom 7 verses need to be read within the context of Paul's discourse on freedom from the power of the law. This is not a discourse on marriage and divorce. No one is arguing that one can leave their spouse and marry some one else. Scripture is quite clear on this point as has been noted with the reference to 1 Cor 7:10-11.

But the issue concerns abandonment or dissertion by an unbelieving spouse. 1 Cor 7:12-16 specifically deals with this issue. If the unbeliever wishes to leave the marriage they can. As Paul notes in verse 15 the believing spouse is not "under bondage" regarding the marriage. Therefore, they have biblical grounds for a divorce. Now the Christian spouse can either attempt reconciliation or remain single, but they are not obligated to. As Paul notes in verse 9 it is better to marry than to burn so remarriage is also an option.

But a more interesting twist to the issue of dissertion is when it happens in a marriage between two Christians (and this does happen more often than not considering the divorce rate within the Church compared to the secular world). For example, a spouse is fed up and wants to leave their spouse and in fact moves out. The offended spouse takes the issue to the Church. The spouse that has left refuses to repent and be reconciled to their spouse.

Because of the person's unrepentance, the Church is forced to excommunicate the offending spouse. Per Matthew 18:17, the excommunicated person is to be to the Church as an unbeliever. Since the offending person is now considered an unbeliever, does the offended spouse have the biblical grounds, based on dissertion, to get a divorce?

 

[LadyFlynt]

Pesonally...just my thoughts here...no. To me, marriage is marriage...whether a spouse is a believer or unbeliever. Here's why (due to all the excuses I've heard over the years).

"Well, I was qualified...he was a christian!"
okay, I can marry whomever until I decide to really remain married, then I'll marry a christian (I know this all sounds hokey...but you have to get ridiculous when others get ridiculous)
or maybe two unbelievers get married and it's okay now to remarry becaus you became a christian and he supposedly didn't....the list could go on.

The reason it's ridiculous to qualifiy it differently for the believer than the unbeliever is that one person cannot honestly state that the other person ISN'T elect. In fact, in many cases I've questioned the salvation of the one stating it. Now, I know this doesn't have anything to do with the desetion part...but more on the differing between persons.

Since I don't believe it's one rule of marraige for believers and another rule for unbelievers...I don't believe it qualifies remarriage.

Could you go more into the "context" because I wasn't aware that I was taking anything out of context and honestly don't see how it would change that particular statement....


The testamonies I've heard...of those that have done what you have called "the christian thing to do" is that their spouses have come back because they 1)won them by their chaste conduct 2)prayed

A good book of these testamonies is Daughters of Sarah.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by webmaster

Jesus' exception is very poignant:

Matthew 19:9 "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery."

The exception, as Paul continues in in dessertion, is based on remarriage. I'm not sure how that is being missed. Maybe its the hardness of our hearts?

I think the placement of the exception clause is critically important here. The phrase "except for sexual immorality" does not occur after the phrase about remarriage, but before it. If it was meant to modify both the divorce phrase and the remarriage phrase, it could have been placed after both. It was placed only after the divorce phrase, because that is the only phrase it modifies.

It is also important to note the next phrase, "whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery". Notice that there is no exception given here. This reinforces what I said above . . . the exception only applies to the divorce, not to the remarriage.

If I marry a divorced woman, regardless of why she was divorced, then I am guilty of committing adultery.


I admit my argument above is only brief . . . but for more exegetical detail on the subject, have you read the book on divorce by Wenham and Heth? I recommend it.

 

[wsw201]

Pesonally...just my thoughts here...no. To me, marriage is marriage...whether a spouse is a believer or unbeliever. Here's why (due to all the excuses I've heard over the years).

"Well, I was qualified...he was a christian!"
okay, I can marry whomever until I decide to really remain married, then I'll marry a christian (I know this all sounds hokey...but you have to get ridiculous when others get ridiculous)
or maybe two unbelievers get married and it's okay now to remarry becaus you became a christian and he supposedly didn't....the list could go on.

The reason it's ridiculous to qualifiy it differently for the believer than the unbeliever is that one person cannot honestly state that the other person ISN'T elect. In fact, in many cases I've questioned the salvation of the one stating it. Now, I know this doesn't have anything to do with the desetion part...but more on the differing between persons.

I don't think anyone would disagree that "marriage is marriage" no matter who is getting married. And the fact that folks can come up with excuses to justify what they do is nothing new. Consider Rom 1:18-32. But rather than considering the rationalization of sinners, each Christian and the Church should be asking "what does Scripture say". Scripture outlines the grounds for a divorce and rationalizations as you have mentioned are not in the ball park.

But there are differences regarding marriage for believers and unbelievers. For instance Christians are not to be "unequally yoked" to an unbeliever (2 Cor 6). This prohibition would not apply to unbelievers who marry other unbelievers.

Could you go more into the "context" because I wasn't aware that I was taking anything out of context and honestly don't see how it would change that particular statement....

In the passage in Rom 7 (you really need to start in Rom 6) Paul is using the analogy of marriage to point out that just as a spouse is released from the power of the law if the other spouse dies, so we are released from the power of the law through the body of Christ (Rom 7:4-7). His point in using marriage goes to the issue of the binding nature of marriage per the law and the binding nature of the law to all men who are outside of Christ. For all men outside of Christ are subject to the law and will be judged accordingly. If you were to look at Rom 7:1-3 by itself you could easily come to the conclusion that divorce is not allowed at all and a couple are bound together until one of them dies. But we know that is not the case.

The testamonies I've heard...of those that have done what you have called "the christian thing to do" is that their spouses have come back because they 1)won them by their chaste conduct 2)prayed

It is certainly preferrable that when problems arise in a marriage that there be reconciliation, however it comes about. But the question is, is a spouse "obligated" to remain single or stay married if there are biblical grounds for divorce? Scripture says no.

 

[Dan....]

Joseph,

I am having a hard time following you.

Are you saying that the one who divorces for fornication in his/her spouse cannot remarry?

The statement is a "both and" statement. Both must be "yes" for the statement to be true.

I.e.:

Divorces his wife (without fornication) = yes
marries another = yes
Then commits adultery =true.

In the case in which there was fornication:
Divorces his wife (without fornication) = no
marries another = yes
Then commits adultery = false.

Certainly the exception clause " except for fornication" modifies the first condition only. Who is saying that it modifies more than the first condition?


[Edited on 7-8-2005 by Dan....]

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Dan....
Are you saying that the one who divorces for fornication in his/her spouse cannot remarry?

Yes, that is what I believe Scripture is saying.

Originally posted by Dan....
Certainly the exception clause " except for fornication" modifies the first condition only. Who is saying that it modifies more than the first condition?

Anyone who tries to use this passage to support remarriage has to use the exception to modify both conditions. But if it only modifies the first condition, then it has no bearing on the question of remarriage.

 

[kevin.carroll]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse
I agree with Colleen. Scripture says nothing about being free to remarry.

[Edited on 7-7-2005 by biblelighthouse]

I think you guys are ignoring the plain meaning of the passage and the Standard's treatment of it, referenced above (24.5-6). If the bond of marriage is dissolved, as if the offending pary were dead, then the believer is free to remarry.

I appreciate your high view of the sanctity of marriage, but one must also acknowledge that the Bible allows for remarriage.

 

[kevin.carroll]

Originally posted by Dan....
Thanks for the input.

I find myself half way between the ends here...
When it comes to 1 Cor 7, Colleen and Joseph have a point. Nothing is said of remarriage.

When it comes to Matt 19, Scott, Matthew, Pastor Way & co. have a point, remarriage is not adultery if divorce is for fornication.

Mat 19:9 And I say to you, Whoever shall put away his wife, if not for fornication, and shall marry another, that one commits adultery. And the one who marries her who was put away commits adultery.

One whom puts away his wife except for fornication and remarry's, commits adultery.

One whom does put his wife away for fornication and remarry's, does not commit adultery.

Let me add one more line to Scott Bushey's:

One who puts away his wife for desertion and remarries, commits adultery.

Desertion is not fornication; hence, per Matt 19:9, the believing spouse who divorces a deserter and marries again commits adultery. Jesus did not include desertion with fornication.



I have a question for Colleen:
Are there any resources readily available that developes the distinction between betrothal and marriage in the 1st century culture?

[Edited on 7-8-2005 by Dan....]

So, is it your position that Paul was wrong? I have certain theological problems with that. Or is it your position that Divines were wrong? Just curious.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by kevin.carroll

Originally posted by biblelighthouse
I agree with Colleen. Scripture says nothing about being free to remarry.

[Edited on 7-7-2005 by biblelighthouse]

I think you guys are ignoring the plain meaning of the passage and the Standard's treatment of it, referenced above (24.5-6). If the bond of marriage is dissolved, as if the offending pary were dead, then the believer is free to remarry.

I appreciate your high view of the sanctity of marriage, but one must also acknowledge that the Bible allows for remarriage.

I don't agree that is the "plain" meaning of the passage.

Who gets to decide which passages are "plain" and which ones aren't? Who gets to decide what the "plain meaning" of any given passage is?

I do not acknowledge that the Bible allows for remarriage. I believe the Bible prohibits it. Scripture says that if I marry a divorced woman, then I am guilty of adultery. Period.

There is no passage that says, "but it's not adultery if she's divorced for the right reason". . .

 

[kevin.carroll]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

Originally posted by kevin.carroll

Originally posted by biblelighthouse
I agree with Colleen. Scripture says nothing about being free to remarry.

[Edited on 7-7-2005 by biblelighthouse]

I think you guys are ignoring the plain meaning of the passage and the Standard's treatment of it, referenced above (24.5-6). If the bond of marriage is dissolved, as if the offending pary were dead, then the believer is free to remarry.

I appreciate your high view of the sanctity of marriage, but one must also acknowledge that the Bible allows for remarriage.

I don't agree that is the "plain" meaning of the passage.

Who gets to decide which passages are "plain" and which ones aren't? Who gets to decide what the "plain meaning" of any given passage is?

I do not acknowledge that the Bible allows for remarriage. I believe the Bible prohibits it. Scripture says that if I marry a divorced woman, then I am guilty of adultery. Period.

There is no passage that says, "but it's not adultery if she's divorced for the right reason". . .

That's because your presupposition is coloring your exegesis. You've already decided that Jesus' exception in Mat. 19 is no exception, so you ignore it by trying grammatical acrobatics to explain it away.

Again, I appreciate your high view of marriage...but you are simply wrong.

 

[Scott Bushey]

http://www.the-highway.com/divorce_Murray.html

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

I agree with the Westminster Confession, Chap. 24:

V. Adultery or fornication committed after a contract, being detected before marriage, giveth just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract.(l) In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce: (m) and, after the divorce, to marry another, as if the offending party were dead.(n)

(l) Matt. 1:18, 19, 20.
(m) Matt. 5:31, 32.
(n) Matt. 19:9; Rom. 7:2, 3.

 

[biblelighthouse]

It's one thing for a person to study a view, consider it, and then to disagree with it.

But it appears to me that all of you are dismissing my arguments out of hand, and I think that is irresponsible.

Have any of you even taken the time to read books that disagree with you? . . . like the one by Wenham and Heth, for instance?

Or is the issue not important enough to you to consider all scholarly Christian viewpoints before making a decision?

I believe my view has been the majority view throughout church history prior to the reformation . . . especially consider the early church fathers!

The idea that remarriage is OK is a very new teaching, only about 500 years old, as far as I know. That alone should make us pause to think.

[Edited on 7-8-2005 by biblelighthouse]

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
http://www.the-highway.com/divorce_Murray.html

 

[Dan....]

Originally posted by kevin.carroll

Originally posted by Dan....
Thanks for the input.

I find myself half way between the ends here...
When it comes to 1 Cor 7, Colleen and Joseph have a point. Nothing is said of remarriage.

When it comes to Matt 19, Scott, Matthew, Pastor Way & co. have a point, remarriage is not adultery if divorce is for fornication.

Mat 19:9 And I say to you, Whoever shall put away his wife, if not for fornication, and shall marry another, that one commits adultery. And the one who marries her who was put away commits adultery.

One whom puts away his wife except for fornication and remarry's, commits adultery.

One whom does put his wife away for fornication and remarry's, does not commit adultery.

Let me add one more line to Scott Bushey's:

One who puts away his wife for desertion and remarries, commits adultery.

Desertion is not fornication; hence, per Matt 19:9, the believing spouse who divorces a deserter and marries again commits adultery. Jesus did not include desertion with fornication.



I have a question for Colleen:
Are there any resources readily available that developes the distinction between betrothal and marriage in the 1st century culture?

[Edited on 7-8-2005 by Dan....]

So, is it your position that Paul was wrong? I have certain theological problems with that. Or is it your position that Divines were wrong? Just curious.

What kind of a question is that? Is this some attempt to just ruffle feathers? Do you think any Christian is going to claim that Paul was wrong??? I can as easily invert the question on you:

So, is it your position that Jesus Christ was wrong? I have certain theological problems with that.

Show me where the apostle says that it is okay for the believer who is deserted to remarry. I missed that verse.