You can keep on insisting on your interpretation, but it is wrong.
-
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.
Does sexual immorality break the lifetime marriage bond of two believers given in Romans 7:1-3 and 1 Corinthians 7:39.
- Thread starter elkanahtyler
- Start date
The wife is forbidden from returning IF she went to another man first. If she did not then she can return.
No, sexual immorality doesn't break the marriage bond. According to 1 Cor 7:39 the only thing that breaks the marriage bond is death.
As far as people saying that a woman cannot return if she had sex with another man, this is simply not true. That was a limitation based on a permission that no longer exists. Jesus says marriage to a divorced woman is adultery. Moses never said that.
As far as people saying that a woman cannot return if she had sex with another man, this is simply not true. That was a limitation based on a permission that no longer exists. Jesus says marriage to a divorced woman is adultery. Moses never said that.
Not quite correct.
1 Cor. 7:15 But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases.
If God saves one or the other spouse in a marriage but the unbeliever doesn't want to remain married to the new believer, the unbeliever can depart and the believer is now free to remarry. God doesn't condemn the obedient believer. Shalom
I agree with everything the OP said.
When all is said and done there are only two groups when it comes to divorce and remarriage those that believe that God recognizes all divorces end the marriage vow and those that believe that God never recognizes any divorce.
And I am in the latter camp. Many mistakenly believe there is a Third Way option but the fact is there isn't one it's either one or the other.
When all is said and done there are only two groups when it comes to divorce and remarriage those that believe that God recognizes all divorces end the marriage vow and those that believe that God never recognizes any divorce.
And I am in the latter camp. Many mistakenly believe there is a Third Way option but the fact is there isn't one it's either one or the other.
Just out of curiosity, what is the Third Way?
Well there is the Deuteronomy 24 mention of divorce which Jesus said Moses allowed. But the fact is Moses reluctantly allowed this it's probably getting tired of being nagged about divorce. The reason why both he said a woman who had been with another man could not go back to her first husband is that she was committing adultery that's why she is defiled. Yet some people continue to ignore the fact that Jesus said that Moses permitted them to divorce. God never allowed it this is the only time Jesus had to correct Moses regarding the entire Old Testament law.
Another Third Way option that people have tried is the "I wasn't saved when I was married and divorced." But this doesn't work either as this would create a huge loophole anybody could claim that they had backslidden when they divorced their spouse.
Then there are those that push the put away is different from divorce excuse. But the fact is even though put away and divorce are too different words in the Greek this does not mean that they are two different things. Jesus clearly said that anyone who married a divorced woman who was put away is committing adultery.
And by the way the action is continuous it is not a one-time event any man who divorces his wife and marries another is committing adultery any woman that divorces her husband is committing adultery and any man that marries her is committing adultery.
The adultery is continual and the only way to repent is to leave the "marriage" I say "marriage" because God doesn't recognize it if he did it would not be adultery.
Now with that being said if you notice in Scripture an innocent husband who is divorced by his wife is free to marry another woman. However God does not recognize the fact that she divorced him he is still married to her when he marries another he has two wives and if she wants to reconcile he must take her back. The reason is of course as everyone here knows polygny is lawful.
But as someone else has already mentioned on this thread a man that divorced his wife because she committed adultery against him it is wrong for him to divorce her. People need to understand that God takes vows seriously that marriage is vow before God that is for life.
Another Third Way option that people have tried is the "I wasn't saved when I was married and divorced." But this doesn't work either as this would create a huge loophole anybody could claim that they had backslidden when they divorced their spouse.
Then there are those that push the put away is different from divorce excuse. But the fact is even though put away and divorce are too different words in the Greek this does not mean that they are two different things. Jesus clearly said that anyone who married a divorced woman who was put away is committing adultery.
And by the way the action is continuous it is not a one-time event any man who divorces his wife and marries another is committing adultery any woman that divorces her husband is committing adultery and any man that marries her is committing adultery.
The adultery is continual and the only way to repent is to leave the "marriage" I say "marriage" because God doesn't recognize it if he did it would not be adultery.
Now with that being said if you notice in Scripture an innocent husband who is divorced by his wife is free to marry another woman. However God does not recognize the fact that she divorced him he is still married to her when he marries another he has two wives and if she wants to reconcile he must take her back. The reason is of course as everyone here knows polygny is lawful.
But as someone else has already mentioned on this thread a man that divorced his wife because she committed adultery against him it is wrong for him to divorce her. People need to understand that God takes vows seriously that marriage is vow before God that is for life.
Thank you.
I will just say that this has all been hashed out and I see no reason to redo it.
The "Celtic Catholic church" is not affiliated with the Roman Catholic church - it's a tiny little highly liberal denomination, that doesn't restrict sex in any way, they'd be quite happy for you to be a flaming homosexual priest, this liberal approach to sex is their major defining characteristic as far as I can see. They have very little in common with conservative Protestantism or Hebrew Roots either, and even less to do with the Catholics.
Neither is the Greek Orthodox church affiliated with the Catholic church - they're a major denomination that split with the Catholics a thousand years ago and certainly doesn't require priests to be celibate.
Neither of your experiences have anything to do with the Catholic church. The true Roman Catholic church has a very hard rule about priestly celibacy. It has a very small exception allowing Anglican or Orthodox priests that are already married when they were ordained converting to Catholicism to remain priests - but even they are forbidden to remarry if their spouse dies.
Lol, thank you for the lesson, again. I obviously know nothing about what I was invited to go into, it's amazing that I am able to write.
Just to help you out the post I was responding to stated "Catholic" not "Roman Catholic" so I was referring and responding to Catholic.
Maybe you missed it in your eagerness to be accurate and helpful, again, but alas....
Anyway...
Yes the Celtic Catholic (universal) church split away from the Roman Catholic (universal) church because they do not recognize the pope as the head of the church and the Orthodox (original) church split after the moving from Jerusalem to Rome and the installation of the Pope. So yes, I am well aware of the differences, the splits AND the connections that they STILL have.
However it would be fruitless to tell you about the allowances that go on in the Roman Catholic church that contradict what they present outwardly. I had a few years to get to know quite a few priests and nuns as all my children went to Roman Catholic schools and I was a governor.
You can research on Google, and read your books but in real life not everything is as black and white as it is in the books or online.
A Suggestion...
Maybe read the post properly before responding and inserting a word that was not mentioned, if the person had stated "Roman" Catholic I would have responded differently and then my response would indeed have not been relevant as you so nicely attempted to assert, sadly it is your response that has no relevance as I checked and rechecked but still cannot see the word "Roman" in the post that I responded to. The poster may well have meant Roman Catholic but sadly I didn't take the mind reading class, so I have to respond to what is written.
Thanks again for the lesson, I learned something new today.
Earth is
I am not a Catholic
It seems like I understand the difference, and, as I wrote...
Hope that helps
So essentially @JudahYAHites in an effort to argue that you were correct, you are throwing @Earth_is- under the bus and saying he had no idea what he was talking about. It's completely obvious to any other reader that he was referring to the Roman Catholic church. And I don't think you're actually foolish enough to mistake his meaning as you appear to be claiming. I think you're just trying to be a smart alec.
There you go, let it out.
I clearly stated
If that is not clear enough then I guess you should just reread until you get it.
That is not throwing anyone under a bus.
You obviously have authority and full understanding of how I should think read and respond.
Your attempts to insult are petty, childish and boring.
If you don't want to accept what I have written then jog on past the post and have a nice day.
I don't know any other way to interpret it. The standard interpretation I keep hearing from some folks, simply flies in the face of the context of the text in question.