I wonder how it is we look at the word of God are we looking at God's word or the GOD of the word. I look too see am I looking at the word for my holyness or too make myself holy in my sight. My masters said "what is that too you, you just follow me". I think I will.

Concerning this topic, I think Jesus answered that Himself: "Be ye holy as I am holy". You're right, it is not an option to question HOW He tells us to follow Him. He is God. The Book of Hosea speaks of the neverending faithfulness of a husband wronged.........Jesus being the husband illustrated----ever faithful in the midst of our continual "adulteries/fornications". "I will never leave you or forsake you"......is something we grab hold of as believers to apply to ourselves and our relationship with Jesus, yet we offend the Most Holy God because many rebel against Him by forsaking those He joined them with----many times making their faithfulness/longsuffering conditional on a spouse's "perfect" behavior---or at least behavior they can "live" with. It's a good thing Jesus does not deal with us in the same manner. We'd all be tossed aside.

Some say the "hard" stance is law without spirit, but IMHO, the hard stance is very much in lines with the Spirit of God and the examples He gave us in scripture. To "remain unmarried or be reconciled" is a hard thing to take, but those are His commands. It is the true picture of "dying to self" and living for Christ. We are to live for the Glory of God, not for ourselves and our fleshly desires. I humbly submit, when it comes to marriage, we need to discern what it is that GOD sees as a lawful marriage, not what we want to be a lawful marriage.

_________________
Cindy

Read carefully ICor 7:25-28 note the following: I have no commandment of the Lord---yet Paul gives his judgement here after the mercy he recieved to be faithful.Note carefully vs27 this more fully explains vs 12-17.A born again believer is not responsible for the moral choices of the UNbelieving . In this case you can infer that the breach was made by the unsaved spouse who put away his wife or visa versa.Note however vs28---Never the less such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.Basically in a lawful remarriage the brother or sister will bring into that new marriage excess baggage from the past marriage.BUT they enter the marriage having been innocent in thier prior marriage.And that assumes that they were christians and the the other party was not.And that the unbeliever was the one who left.Also a believer can divorce on grounds of violence as shown in Malachi.

_________________
D.Miller

Hello dohzman,

I am in disagreement with you for differing reasons. One, I do not believe "not under bondage" relates to a dissolving of the marriage. If we take the entire verse in context, bondage is used in contrast to peace, so IMHO, the bondage must relate to that----a type of warring vs. peace. We are called to peace, not to war against those who are in darkness. To keep peace, we are to let them "go", not fight them.

Scripture also teaches that in whatever state one is called in(in this case married to an unbeliever), that is the state they are to remain in---verse 20. In the previous verses, Paul was addressing the conduct of those who were both believers in a marriage. In this he is addressing the conduct of the believer only and what is expected.

Concerning verses 27-28 we must remember that Paul would not contradict other passages in which he clearly states that God commands a husband does not put away his wife. If it be the case that he is allowing divorced men to marry again, he would be oking committing adultery per Mt. 19:9, 5:32. I don't believe that is what he is saying here.

It also doesn't appear to me that Paul is still speaking of those who have been deserted since he changes the topic from those deserted, to Virgins and then to those "loosed". Loosed in the first instance could very well be speaking of divorce (what he said the Lord prohibited in verse 11). Loosed in the second part of that verse could very well refer to the death of a spouse.

Paul was a big proponent of singlehood-----especially for widows/widowers and it appears to me that is what he is addressing in verse 28. We do know from Paul's other writings that when a spouse dies, one is free to remarry. There is no sin if one marries "in the Lord", verse 39. However, there really is no other scripture which can clearly be shown to say sin is not present in the remarriage outside of death. To me, saying that those deserted have a right to remarry is inferred doctrine as the right to remarriage outside of death is not anywhere in scripture explicitly taught by Paul. I'm just not comfortable with standing on inferred doctrine, no matter what topic it is.

In Malachi, I don't believe this is an OK to divorce for abuse either and surely doesn't give permission for remarriage in that case. Malachi is addressing the priests who have treated the wives of the covenant treacherously by DIVORCING them. After this, they married daughters of a strange God. They were committing adultery against their lawful wives. Malachi said that the Lord would "cut off" the men who did such. The Lord even rejects their offerings----covering the altar with tears and weeping.........

We see exactly this in Ezra 9-10. The Lord's judgment was on Israel for mixing themselves with the "heathen". When the realization finally hit why they were suffering God's judgments, they repented---giving up the heathen wives and children of those unions and returning to the Lord. This sin had been going on so long that even the priests were numb to it and even partaking in it themselves (Mal.2:7-9). They did not "see" until the princes were shown the error(Ezra 9:1-3). Even Ezra, when shown, finally saw their sin and rent his garment. Obviously he didn't see the sin until then.

IMHO, that is what may be happening today. Is it possible that many are blind to the sin of unbiblical remarriage? Since the days of our fathers (like Ezra 9:7), it has occurred and now has become so common that I think our eyes, like theirs could be blinded. I have come to see like I said before, more and more people are being drawn to study this out like I was ----and many are coming to the same conclusions based upon God's Word. They are asking those hard things: ie; Is the remarriage/adultery a continuing sin needing to be left? If not, why is the nature of this sin different than other sins in relation to repentance? If Paul didn't really teach the indissoluability of marriage, why does he teach this in I Cor. 7:39, also using the same illustration of permanency in Rom. 7:2-3?

If adultery gives a marriage partner the right to divorce and remarry, why is the woman of Mt. 19:9 forbidden to remarry without committing sin herself----since her husband has entered into an adulterous second marriage? Just some things to ponder. Blessings..........

_________________
Cindy

note Cor 7:10 his comments are made to the wife[christian] and her actions---period.This is from the Lord.vs12-16 This addresses the unbelieving person leaving the christian believer----its very staright forward.vs17-24 this is life,where we were in life---literal.vs25-28 what was the present distress?The unbelieving in many cases was leaving the newly converted individual.Infered?Brother---just read Christian history of the first century--Eusbius would be a good starting point.What I put forth is sound and practical and full of mercy and does bear good fruit.As to death or dead???Wasn't it Jesus' who said in the story of the prodical son that he was dead?but of course in his story he is now alive.At what point do we die in the sight of God?Be very careful here because I don't need any OT references to show or prove that point-I'll show you from Jesus' own words.However as to 1COR7 I believe if you read it carefully and just let it say what it says it'll be clear.

_________________
D.Miller

Yes, I am in agreement with you concerning I Cor. 7:10-11 and vs 12-16----who the passages are directed at. In each situation, they are spoken to believers and their conduct should separation occur. In the first case---believers married to each other. In the second--- a new convert married to an unbeliever. Yes, I understand why Paul had to address the believers in the second part-----THEY were deserting their unsaved spouses, probably due to "be ye not yoked with unbelievers............". I don't believe it was the other way around predominantly.........

To me, remarriage being spoken of here is 'inferred' because Paul does not state that. IMHO, if it was a clear teaching, there would not be dissension over it and varying interpretations in commentaries. Concerning your viewpoint being "sound, practical and full of mercy", I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Are you saying that God's mercy is only extended to those who are deserted by unbelievers, but if one is married to another believer and they desert, God's mercy (remarriage I think you mean) is not offered to the one left? I don't see that as a persuasive argument for remarriage of the deserted believer by an unbeliever. It also seems to say that God does not honor a marriage between a new convert and their still unconverted spouse.

I think that passage shows exactly the opposite, so I'm not sure why this type of marriage would be dissolved while all other marriages God honors must remain intact.

I'm not quite sure what you are meaning concerning the "death/dead" statement. Could you expound on that? Thank you. Blessings........

_________________
Cindy

All marriage is honored by God.I was making the point that in the specific case where a non-believer leaves or deserts a believer that the believer is free to remarry.In a case where a believer deserts a non- believer the believer isnot free to remarry.But in America we have such a loose standard of what a christian is it is sometimes very difficult to validate who is and who isn't a christian so the remarriage issue becomes very muddied.In the case where a christian leaves another christian they cannot remarry.But the question begs in the case of adultry or violence as to the if's in the marriage.Was the offender really saved?After divorce Should the offended or innocent party be allowed to remarry?I believe in vs25-28 Pauls cover all the bases in believrs vs non believers and visa versa---believer leaves---and non believer leaves---both are put forward here.I don't think we basically dissagree but its hard sometimes to put thought in print.Now as concerning that which is dead--in the parable of the prodical son the father stated his son was dead and now is alive.lk 15 is the story basically Jesus was putting forth how heaven views thoughs who walk away from God,in the case where the son was in a far away country he was dead ie. lost//in the case where a believer divorces another believer at what point do we still refer to the offender as still christian?I can't rightly answer that.But I'm watching christians divorce each other all around the country in order to find thier "soul mate" --in such cases I have to believe the injured christian who stays in fellowship with Jesus and his Church has the right to remarriage only after thier ex-spouse has already remarried.The offender or believing spouse who left for what ever reason[except for adultry/violence]and remarries is remarried outside of Christ since he has departed from the light/truth/way---and I draw a comparsion between him/her to the prodical son where his father called him dead.They are indeed dead again in thier treaspasses and sins.I hope you can follow my mind on this.I will look at the website you posted about the subject matter and if I need to change in doctrine I will.Thank you for your time and input---God bless

_________________
D.Miller

I have just done a quick scan through this most recent incarnation of the topic. Have we defined marriage yet?

_________________
Ron Bailey

We should define marriage.

I would start by saying that marriage is a union.

_________________
Mark Nash

Hi Nasher
A cat and a dog tied together by their tails would also be a union. ;-)

_________________
Ron Bailey