[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by tlj009

There is still the question of what are the free from? What is Paul talking about there? I'm sorry, I cut the passage off too early. I am referring to verse 15.

1Corithians 7[14] For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
[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 is a very good question, but it would seem to me not to be going where you think.

Compare.

13 If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. iOtherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. 15 But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you2 jto peace. 16 For how do you know, wife, kwhether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?
The Holy Bible : English Standard Version. (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), 1 Co 7:13-16.

39 iA wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only jin the Lord. 40 Yet kin my judgment she is happier if she remains as she is. And I think lthat I too have the Spirit of God.

The Holy Bible : English Standard Version. (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), 1 Co 7:39-40.

Both are in the same passage and are context to each other. My guess is that the believer is free from trying constantly to reconcile. I base this on verse 11.

11 (but if she does, hshe should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and gthe husband should not divorce his wife.
The Holy Bible : English Standard Version. (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), 1 Co 7:11.

The syntax is not particularly clear, but I would wager that the freedom is from the previous discussion of separations just a moment previously. And notice that the spouse leaves. No mention of divorce here is even addressed.

[tlj009]

That is a very good question, but it would seem to me not to be going where you think.

Compare.

13 If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. iOtherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. 15 But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you2 jto peace. 16 For how do you know, wife, kwhether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?
The Holy Bible : English Standard Version. (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), 1 Co 7:13-16.

39 iA wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only jin the Lord. 40 Yet kin my judgment she is happier if she remains as she is. And I think lthat I too have the Spirit of God.

The Holy Bible : English Standard Version. (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), 1 Co 7:39-40.

Both are in the same passage and are context to each other. My guess is that the believer is free from trying constantly to reconcile. I base this on verse 11.

I don't think so. First, the verse 39, I think would be comparable to verse 10 and not as a blanket statement that you are implying. Second, I don't think that there is ever an obligation to reconcile. There is a choice, either remain alone or reconcile but there is no obligation. Now if the decision is unilateral, that is a different issue but I am assuming this is about mutual consent.

I would also like to say that 12-16 deal with a very special case that isn't hinted at in the rest of the chapter. In the later verses, it is in the context of believers marrying believers. Paul did address being unequally yoked, but he didn't do it in this passage. So, toward the end of the passage, I do think that it is safe to assume that he is addressing marriage between believers.

11 (but if she does, hshe should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and gthe husband should not divorce his wife.
The Holy Bible : English Standard Version. (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), 1 Co 7:11.

The syntax is not particularly clear, but I would wager that the freedom is from the previous discussion of separations just a moment previously. And notice that the spouse leaves. No mention of divorce here is even addressed.

I agree that Paul doesn't address it as a divorce. My assertion was that it was more comparable to becoming a widow. I agree that the freedom is in reference to his discussion on separations. But in a separation Paul gave two options, reconcile or remain single. The freedom would be a freedom from making that choice. Similar to the way that a widow is free.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by tlj009

I don't think so. First, the verse 39, I think would be comparable to verse 10 and not as a blanket statement that you are implying. Second, I don't think that there is ever an obligation to reconcile. There is a choice, either remain alone or reconcile but there is no obligation. Now if the decision is unilateral, that is a different issue but I am assuming this is about mutual consent.

Thats dangerous. 39 nowhere has a disclaimer like 10. It is a blanket statement that is backed up by Jesus' teaching on marriage. Remember what Jesus said when asked about the woman with 7 husbands? I think that is Paul's basis here.

Verse 11 gives an obligation to reconcile or remain unmarried. In Christianity, there is an obligation to reconcile. There is nothing in the passage about mutual consent, in fact there cannot be, for Paul is encouraging the believer to stay with the unbeliever and not leave them.

Furthermore, Paul is specific that widows can remarry. He makes no such statement about those whose spouses abandon them. And even still, if the spouse abandons them, (no divorce is mentioned, remember?) them being free to remarry would require bigamy! Which is definitely not okay with this passage.

I would also like to say that 12-16 deal with a very special case that isn't hinted at in the rest of the chapter. In the later verses, it is in the context of believers marrying believers. Paul did address being unequally yoked, but he didn't do it in this passage. So, toward the end of the passage, I do think that it is safe to assume that he is addressing marriage between believers.

I don't think that is really sensible. All manner of situations are being addressed. All manner of the subcontexts are being dealt with.

The unmarried, widows, mixed religion families. (might I add that these would likely be half-converted hoseholds, and historically speaking, largely women with unbelieving husbands.) Paul has laid a tremendous burden on these people to try to win their spouse, but follows with "if they leave, they are free" It would be the burden spoken of, that they are free of. Not free to remarry. Paul is explicit when he defines who can remarry in this text. He does not leave it to the imagination here.

I agree that Paul doesn't address it as a divorce. My assertion was that it was more comparable to becoming a widow. I agree that the freedom is in reference to his discussion on separations. But in a separation Paul gave two options, reconcile or remain single. The freedom would be a freedom from making that choice. Similar to the way that a widow is free.

Thats a very weak argument that ignores that Paul was explicit when he said who could remarry.

It is not comparable to becoming a widow. The other party is still alive., and by the same passage, they are bound to them as long as they live.

couple that with Jesus

Matthew 5:32 oBut I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and pwhoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
The Holy Bible : English Standard Version. (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), Mt 5:32.

Divorce is okay in cases of sexual immorality, per Jesus, but remarriage is adultery.

[tlj009]

Thats dangerous. 39 nowhere has a disclaimer like 10. It is a blanket statement that is backed up by Jesus' teaching on marriage. Remember what Jesus said when asked about the woman with 7 husbands? I think that is Paul's basis here.

There is context though. And in context Paul just got through discussing whether or not it is right to even marry. He follows that with his warning of if you get married, you are to stay married until you die. I don't think that we can read as much into it as you think.

And I am missing something with Jesus' teachings on the 7 husbands. The point that I remember is about the resurrection. She will have no husbands because she will be like the angels who neither marry nor are given in marriage. ???

Verse 11 gives an obligation to reconcile or remain unmarried. In Christianity, there is an obligation to reconcile. There is nothing in the passage about mutual consent, in fact there cannot be, for Paul is encouraging the believer to stay with the unbeliever and not leave them.

Not leave them....unless they choose to go. You cannot keep them against their will, which is about mutual consent. Between Christians, I don't see the obligation to reconcile. Verse 11 gives two options. It does not say that they are obliged to reconcile. It says that reconciliation or remaining unmarried is their choice. Although I do see an implication that if remaining unmarried is their choice, it should be mutual. But I see that in the order for a man not to "put away his wife".

Furthermore, Paul is specific that widows can remarry. He makes no such statement about those whose spouses abandon them. And even still, if the spouse abandons them, (no divorce is mentioned, remember?) them being free to remarry would require bigamy! Which is definitely not okay with this passage.

I think that the statement about not being in bondage is a specific statement about the circumstance in question. Regarding bigamy, I think that is a little like begging the question. It is bigamy because she is married to two men when my position is that she is freed from that burden. But for the record, divorce is also not mentioned in regards to married couples. But I think that we can draw a conclusion from "put away your wife", "depart from her husband", "let him not put her away", and "let her not leave him".

I don't think that is really sensible. All manner of situations are being addressed. All manner of the subcontexts are being dealt with.

The unmarried, widows, mixed religion families. (might I add that these would likely be half-converted hoseholds, and historically speaking, largely women with unbelieving husbands.) Paul has laid a tremendous burden on these people to try to win their spouse, but follows with "if they leave, they are free" It would be the burden spoken of, that they are free of. Not free to remarry. Paul is explicit when he defines who can remarry in this text. He does not leave it to the imagination here.

A burden to try and win them would make more sense to me than a burden to reconcile. But I don't see it as an iron clad argument.

Thats a very weak argument that ignores that Paul was explicit when he said who could remarry.

It is not comparable to becoming a widow. The other party is still alive., and by the same passage, they are bound to them as long as they live.

Unless, of course, you read the earlier verse as saying that they are no longer bound. Which is how some translations read rather than not being under "bondage".

couple that with Jesus

Matthew 5:32 oBut I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and pwhoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
The Holy Bible : English Standard Version. (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), Mt 5:32.

Divorce is okay in cases of sexual immorality, per Jesus, but remarriage is adultery.

The only difference is that I think Paul states what Jesus is talking about in verse 10 and then states that Jesus didn't mention the particular circumstance in verse 12. That is the whole "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord:" part. Otherwise, what would he be talking about there?

[BBart]

Originally Posted by BBart

Matthew 19:9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Wouldn't it stand to reason with the words except for marital unfaithfulness in this verse that if anyone divorces his wife because of marital unfaithfulness and marries another woman does not commit adultery? In that it appears the reason Jesus states that it is adultery is because it is for something other than marital unfaithfulness.

This went unadressed earlier. Doesn't it stand to reason that it is only adultery to remarry if the divorce was for any reason other than marital unfaithfulness?

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by BBart

This went unadressed earlier. Doesn't it stand to reason that it is only adultery to remarry if the divorce was for any reason other than marital unfaithfulness?

Not with what Jesus said in Matthew 5:32. The later passage does not state that explicitly, but Matthew 5 is pretty specific.

[BBart]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

Not with what Jesus said in Matthew 5:32. The later passage does not state that explicitly, but Matthew 5 is pretty specific.

Matthew 5:32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery. (NIV)

It still seems as though the whole adultery issue swings around the marital unfaithfulness clause. Let's say you take out that clause then the verse would read like. But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

If it is "except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress" Then wouldn't it stand to reason that if it is for marital unfaithfulness then it would not cause her to become an adulteress?

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by BBart

If it is "except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress" Then wouldn't it stand to reason that if it is for marital unfaithfulness then it would not cause her to become an adulteress?

that's because she already IS an adulteress. If your wife cheats on you and you divorce her, you don't make her a cheater because she already IS one.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by BBart

Matthew 5:32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery. (NIV)

It still seems as though the whole adultery issue swings around the marital unfaithfulness clause. Let's say you take out that clause then the verse would read like. But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

If it is "except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress" Then wouldn't it stand to reason that if it is for marital unfaithfulness then it would not cause her to become an adulteress?

Yes, if you remove that clause it would read that way, however, the clause is in the passage, and the act of marriage, not the unfaithfulness that previously occurred causes her to be an adulterous. Thus the remarriage is classed adultery. Even if she is an innocent party.

Now there is a counterpoint to this, but nobody has brought it up yet. And even so, when you are discussing deacons you are discussing a higher biblical standard.

[BBart]

Originally Posted by Bryan

that's because she already IS an adulteress. If your wife cheats on you and you divorce her, you don't make her a cheater because she already IS one.

I see what you're your saying. So the woman gets it either way, if a man divorces her because of marital unfaithfulness she already is an adulteress, and if he divorces her for any other reason she becomes an adulteress?

Question, can you commit adultery and not be an adulterer or an adulteress?

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

Yes, if you remove that clause it would read that way, however, the clause is in the passage, and the act of marriage, not the unfaithfulness that previously occurred causes her to be an adulterous. Thus the remarriage is classed adultery. Even if she is an innocent party.

Now there is a counterpoint to this, but nobody has brought it up yet. And even so, when you are discussing deacons you are discussing a higher biblical standard.

If it is the case that she is an adulteress either way, and a man committs adultery by marrying her, then this verse (Matthew 5:32) still only deals with marrying the divorced woman and not the man remarrying. While Matthew 19:9 deals with the man marrying another woman and still stands to reason that if the divorce is due to marital unfaithfulness on the womans part that the man would be free to remarry. Granting he is not marrying the divorced woman.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by BBart

I see what you're your saying. So the woman gets it either way, if a man divorces her because of marital unfaithfulness she already is an adulteress, and if he divorces her for any other reason she becomes an adulteress?

Question, can you commit adultery and not be an adulterer or an adulteress?

Actually no. If they are divorced without adultery, and remarriage occurs, that would be adultery. If we are just looking at this passage.

If it is the case that she is an adulteress either way, and a man committs adultery by marrying her, then this verse (Matthew 5:32) still only deals with marrying the divorced woman and not the man remarrying. While Matthew 19:9 deals with the man marrying another woman and still stands to reason that if the divorce is due to marital unfaithfulness on the womans part that the man would be free to remarry. Granting he is not marrying the divorced woman.

I don't think the man would be free to remarry because I don't think Jesus is advocating a double standard based on gender. It does not stand to reason that the divorces discussed that Jesus describes as adultery are all based on marital unfaithfulness.

The text does not really allow for these loopholes.

I will outline the loopholes that are much more difficult.

1) Adultery was a stonable offense as is evidenced by the most controversial story in the NT. Hence, if they are guilty, they are dead.
2) The nature of covenants. Is the covenant broken by unfaithfulness. I think the book of Hosea is very enlightening here. But the evidence leans towards a breach being a breach.
3) The background info on Pharisee versus Saducee is VERY enlightening. Jesus is taking a Pharisaical position in a hot cultural debate. The saducees held a very lax view on divorce and when one could divorce another. (I believe it is identical to the ancient Muslim divorce of saying it 3xs before witnesses, but I could be wrong)

However, I still would not allow divorced deacons, and I myself have waffled over this position at length for over a year now. My Father in Law is divorcing his wife after cheating on her. She is actually innocent on all counts. As a seminary student I get asked by her family if she could get remarried. I am an OT guy. I tend to think, yes. However, this is a bad choice of passage to go to, and in fact its the one that makes me question my beliefs.

However, I would tend to say that it is a very, very sticky area. And that a divorced man no longer meets the requirements.

I am trying to be true to the whole of scripture and thus am emphasizing the really sticky parts.

[BBart]

I'll have to read Hosea. I want to lean towards that marital unfaithfulness breaks the marriage bond and thus allowing remarriage and service on the deacon body if you were the innocent party.

But then again I can't be 100% sure and would probably think it safer to not allow divorced men to serve on the deacon body.

Do you think the requirements for deacons are intended to be present tense or past and present?

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by BBart

I'll have to read Hosea. I want to lean towards that marital unfaithfulness breaks the marriage bond and thus allowing remarriage and service on the deacon body if you were the innocent party.

But then again I can't be 100% sure and would probably think it safer to not allow divorced men to serve on the deacon body.

Do you think the requirements for deacons are intended to be present tense or past and present?

past and present. Remember the requirements are that someone be those things. They are not a deacon, so it is of necessity looking at the past and they ARE being held to a higher standard than sinning. Even if it was okay, it might not be okay for a deacon. I think my little brother very clearly ruled my dad out for deaconship. He is an unbeliever, with drug, mob, and prostitution ties. (he claims to be out of the drugs and prostitution now, and I believe him.) But he still has mob ties.

Did my dad do a thing wrong to do this? I don't think you could pin that on my dad. Me, maybe to a larger degree.

However, the sins of others always effect us in scripture. Even when it is not fair.

[BBart]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

past and present. Remember the requirements are that someone be those things. They are not a deacon, so it is of necessity looking at the past and they ARE being held to a higher standard than sinning. Even if it was okay, it might not be okay for a deacon. I think my little brother very clearly ruled my dad out for deaconship. He is an unbeliever, with drug, mob, and prostitution ties. (he claims to be out of the drugs and prostitution now, and I believe him.) But he still has mob ties.

Did my dad do a thing wrong to do this? I don't think you could pin that on my dad. Me, maybe to a larger degree.

However, the sins of others always effect us in scripture. Even when it is not fair.

Those are very good points. So many people in my church think that when you speak against divorced men being deacons that you are being judgemental and marking divorce as the unforgivable sin. It is too bad that we seem to focus mostly on divorce and not as much on the full requirements to be on the deacon body.

Let me ask you this, and don't be worried at all about offending me. I was saved at 14 but around 18 to 24 did my share of wild living, nothing real serious just drinking too much to the point of intoxication. Definately would not have been considered above reproach in that it probably wouldn't be wise for a deacon to be out at the bars on Saturday nights and then playing music at church on Sunday's. Would this type of behavior disqualify me from being a deacon later in life?

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by BBart

Those are very good points. So many people in my church think that when you speak against divorced men being deacons that you are being judgemental and marking divorce as the unforgivable sin. It is too bad that we seem to focus mostly on divorce and not as much on the full requirements to be on the deacon body.

Let me ask you this, and don't be worried at all about offending me. I was saved at 14 but around 18 to 24 did my share of wild living, nothing real serious just drinking too much to the point of intoxication. Definately would not have been considered above reproach in that it probably wouldn't be wise for a deacon to be out at the bars on Saturday nights and then playing music at church on Sunday's. Would this type of behavior disqualify me from being a deacon later in life?

I don't know to be honest with you. I would say, probably not. But divorce is a lot deeper issue than having a few drinks too many. I don't drink, but I am occasionally seen at bars. I tend to have a lot of good discussions with friends at pubs, or accompany my wife to work stuff. In my mind, being seen at a bar is a disputable matter. Heck, I am not opposed to a deacon having a few drinks at a bar as long as he didn't get drunk.

Divorce follows you for life in ways that a few times getting drunk do not. However, I can see how in certain areas of the US that would be a big deal and could be regarded as bringing reproach on the name of Christ.