View Single Post
  #86  
Old 07-25-2009, 09:54 AM
custer custer is offline
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Columbia KY
Posts: 74
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulB View Post
Getting back to the original point of this thread there are some that argue that it is unfair on the divorcee to remain alone. Now if (as some argue, the innocent party is free to re-marry) then what rule is there to say that the guilty party isnít free? As the same rule does seem to apply to both regardless of who put away who.

This does seem to point out that even the innocent party in a divorce situation is not free to remarry let alone the one that has put her away.

Remember, this is NT grace and not old covenant law, the words of Jesus are the final rule on all things and not the culture of our day.

Ė what are your thoughts?


God bless

PaulB


Hello PaulB!

I hope you don't mind; I just quoted the pieces of your post that I am responding to directly...

First of all, I must say that Jesus' words are not pure "NT grace" as the New Testament was not fully in effect yet (Hebrews 9:16-17.) I think Jesus always dealt with people according to the law. And as Paul is OUR apostle, his writing (and any writing that does not oppose his) should be "the final rule on all things."

I believe we DO have scripture to prove that the guilty/innocent have different rules to go by; consider:

I Corinthians 7:10-11
10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

AND:

I Corinthians 7:27-28
27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.
28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; ...

The woman that did the leaving in verses 10-11 IS COMMANDED NOT TO REMARRY! The man who was "loosed" in verses 27-28 IS TOLD THAT IF HE REMARRIES, HE HAS NOT SINNED - that means he is NOT committing adultery!

I am saying that it looks like the man in verses 27-28 is the innocent party...the one who got left. He didn't "depart;" he was "loosed." That sounds more like a passive action, something that was imposed upon him.

I have a question too...is the rule of conduct different for the man than for the woman? Is it coincidence that a woman is the subject of verses 10-11 and a man is the subject of verses 27-28? The woman is said to be bound by the law to her husband; the same is NOT said of the man...and the woman was made for the man! Thoughts?

Pam
www.custerfamilyfarm.com