Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
If you get nothing else from this conversation consider this: why is divorce considered "protection"? Do divorce papers fill bellies? Is divorce the only way we can help a woman experiencing lack?
Sometimes I read some of these threads from the view of domestic violence, since my wife deals with the ladies of DV, she meets with the local judges and lawyers about DV and teaches about it. One police officer called her. The officer was having trouble with the fact that she was picking up a victim at the hospital to take her home. The crescent wrench imprint on her face was still showing. The victim had bern in the hospital for two weeks.
That being said, I need to do a better job of keeping on script with what is being said on these threads instead of allowing my buas to draw in from some of the DV instances I know of.
I forget that most of what we talk about are not from this mold.
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.
That simply says if your spouse leaves you, whether or not it was sinful for them to do so, you are free. By extension (depending on your interpretation of "free"), you can remarry.
It does not give any right to you to divorce them.
It says an abandoned woman is free from her husband, but does not give her the right to abandon him. Or vice versa.
That simply says if your spouse leaves you, whether or not it was sinful for them to do so, you are free. By extension (depending on your interpretation of "free"), you can remarry.
It does not give any right to you to divorce them.
It says an abandoned woman is free from her husband, but does not give her the right to abandon him. Or vice versa.
That simply says if your spouse leaves you, whether or not it was sinful for them to do so, you are free. By extension (depending on your interpretation of "free"), you can remarry.
It does not give any right to you to divorce them.
It says an abandoned woman is free from her husband, but does not give her the right to abandon him. Or vice versa.
"Must not." None of the New Testament writers felt the need to make exceptions for any of the sob story cases everyone always wants to bring up. The best you get is:
But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.
No this is a different principle. This is working out the practical realities of a husband who is presumed dead or who abandons the wife. 1 Cor 7 covers this.
My point is that she’s not free even if the man gone to war is presumed dead as long as there’s food in the house. It’s only where there’s no food in the house coupled with his abscence that makes it ok for her to have another husband in the Code of Hammurabi.
I know I said I wasnt going to post my opinions or scriptural interpretations unsolicited but I do have a question that I need my train of thought to be known so I ask please bare with me its a practical situation that may apply to readers.
God forgives us if we repent a sin.
If we are not repentant there is no forgiveness. Choosing to live in what we know is a sinful situation is non repentance. A sin is a sin and just because at one time we didn't know something was a sin doesn't mean we can continue to sin when we do know, we must stop it.
If you believe that a woman who divorces a man or leaves a man can not remarry and a man who believes this marries her, then he is choosing to live in sin, right? They are not repentant as long as they choose to live as man and wife. There is no forgiveness as long as they willfully choose sin over the instructions (put forth in the beleive that women who leave/divorce their man can not marry) of God, correct? Would any of you council a man to leave or divorce a woman he was married to who had been the one to intiniate a divorced from a man because they were now disobeying the instruction of God according to the belief that a woman cannot remarry after she divorces?
How would the sex equals marriage camp handle this. If the woman he married by having sex with was not a virgin either she was someone else's wife or "divorced"?
I'm just wondering the practical application of this teaching by those who espouse it?
I know a couple of pastors who teach this as the proper way to interpret scripture. I don't go to them for understanding because unfortunately they are married to women who divorced their first husbands and it makes them hypocrites to preach what they don't practice. Thus I don't trust their teachings.
Edit: This is not my belief, I'm just trying to understand the application of this belief in the given situation.
God forgives us if we repent a sin.
If we are not repentant there is no forgiveness. Choosing to live in what we know is a sinful situation is non repentance. A sin is a sin and just because at one time we didn't know something was a sin doesn't mean we can continue to sin when we do know, we must stop it.
Consider that Deuteronomy says that for a woman to go back to her first husband is sinful. And add that to the general agreement that divorce is generally sinful but allowed in certain circumstances only (we mainly disagree on the circumstances). Then you get:
They're married and shouldn't be. Ideally, she should be with her first husband. But:
- To divorce her would be a sin. And
- For her to go back to her first husband would be a sin.
So choosing NOT to live in this marriage is also a sinful option, and to try and restore the original "ideal" of her being with the first would be even more sinful. It is sinful to try and fix it yourself. There is no sin-free way out.
So I conclude that although the act of marrying may have been a sin, that is past. And is forgiven. And that forgiveness cleanses the current situation. Continuing as you are, without adding further sin, is best.
The objection to this is obviously David taking back Michal. I think this is consistent if we see her as never divorced from David. This makes her a married woman who was forced into the home of someone else, likely against her will. She was committing adultery, possibly unwillingly, not divorced and remarried. She was always David's wife and was taken back as an adulteress who was shown mercy by her husband. But that explanation itself works best if divorce is only valid if initiated by the husband and a wife has no right to divorce. If a woman does have the right to divorce, then we have to assume that Michal chose not to do so and was forced, and we have no evidence either way as we're never clearly told her opinion. What we do know is that David disapproved, and we know this because he was so insistent on taking her back.
Pretty much agree with @FollowingHim . Committing more sin does not fix or reverse previous sin. I also recognise that unfortunately we have a huge mess created by our culture's easy divorce and the Church's acquiescence. The result us that we need a giant reset... but that may not happen until tribulation and a move through Is. 4:1.... so, we're left with lots of divorcées who are either stuck, or each has to come to the Father and find a place of peace and forgiveness that they are comfortable with in navigating a 'theological minefield. '
For me, I would be willing to marry a divorcée provided we have prayed and really sought the Father to know the door of return has, for one reason or another, been nailed shut. Too many hypotheticals to try to explain... would have to be a God thing.... what I know is this, God loves redemption and Himself, as the Messiah, was willing to suffer in order to redeem adulterous Israel.... I can't died and be raised from the dead on someone else's account, but I can be a type of Redeemer who changes their life for the better and extends grace and mercy where there is little.
So choosing NOT to live in this marriage is also a sinful option, and to try and restore the original "ideal" of her being with the first would be even more sinful. It is sinful to try and fix it yourself. There is no sin-free way out.
Not disputing your statements but playing the devils advocate here with the next Questions.
11And He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her.
12And if she divorces her husband and marries another, she is committing adultery.”
Verse 12, A marriage that is adulterous by the literal interpretation of the verse is continously comitting sin and will always continue to do so. There is no way to correct that. It will always be a sinful situation. How is leaving a sinful situation that the lierteral interpretation of scripture forbade a sin?
Next question
Observe the target to mentally establish the distance between the throwing position and the target area. In observing the target, minimize exposure time to the enemy (no more than 3 seconds).
Grip in the throwing hand.
Grasp the pull ring with the index or middle finger of the nonthrowing hand . Remove the safety pin with a pulling and twisting motion. If the tactical situation permits, observe the safety pin’s removal. Look at the target and throw the grenade using the overhand method so that there is an arcs, landing on or near the target. Allow the motion of the throwing arm to continue naturally once released. This follow-through improves distance and accuracy and lessens the strain on the throwing arm.
Doesn't verse 11 also forbid divorce men from remarring by a literal interpretation of scripture?
Edit: an attempt at humor to make sure everyone new these question weren't a serious attack on others beleif. I would like an honest conformation or rebutal of the literal interpretation of verse 11.
I think you're probably correct. If so, that means that the subsequent events demonstrate David's rejection of Saul's decision and whatever legal framework he based it upon (potentially the code of Hammurabi).
I'm struggling to understand your point @Verifyveritas76 (or the reason for the smileys!).
The situation you're talking about seems to completely undermine the point you've been making up to now - we have an evil king, Saul, causing a divorce of his non-bondmaid daughter due to lack of provision, followed by a clear rejection of that divorce by the righteous king David. That doesn't clearly prove anything either way about the wife vs bondmaid divorce question, because we don't know Saul's motives, but IF this is a divorce for lack of provision, and Saul's justification were that passage, David's response would show Saul's interpretation was wrong. Which would be the opposite point to what you've been trying to say up until now in the discussion. So I'm a bit confused.
Are you considering Saul's decision in isolation from David's response to it?
I’m going to do the same as I did with @rockfox and point out that you’re using a bad argument. Samuel beat me to it but...
I don’t see how we can take anything from King Saul during that time in his life and assume it is a good example for how to apply scripture... you may be correct that the passage includes free women as much as bond women but this is a lousy argument to use in support of it...
Not disputing your statements but playing the devils advocate here with the next Questions.
11And He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her.
12And if she divorces her husband and marries another, she is committing adultery.”
Verse 12, A marriage that is adulterous by the literal interpretation of the verse is continously comitting sin and will always continue to do so. There is no way to correct that. It will always be a sinful situation. How is leaving a sinful situation that the lierteral interpretation of scripture forbade a sin?
Next question
Observe the target to mentally establish the distance between the throwing position and the target area. In observing the target, minimize exposure time to the enemy (no more than 3 seconds).
Grip in the throwing hand.
Grasp the pull ring with the index or middle finger of the nonthrowing hand . Remove the safety pin with a pulling and twisting motion. If the tactical situation permits, observe the safety pin’s removal. Look at the target and throw the grenade using the overhand method so that there is an arcs, landing on or near the target. Allow the motion of the throwing arm to continue naturally once released. This follow-through improves distance and accuracy and lessens the strain on the throwing arm.
Doesn't verse 11 also forbid divorce men from remarring by a literal interpretation of scripture?
Edit: an attempt at humor to make sure everyone new these question weren't a serious attack on others beleif. I would like an honest conformation or rebutal of the literal interpretation of verse 11.
I don't have good answers... somewhere there is a balance between a Just God and a Merciful God. Each has to find that place for him/herself. Standing in the midst, as Advocate and Redeemer is my Yeshua who pursued His adulterous bride to His own death so He could redeem her....
He took my grenade, should I not be willing to do the same for another?
