Originally Posted by ok.book.guy

Dunno. In my question, I'm only asking about the case where it is an unbeliever leaving a believing spouse: Does the "not bound" refer to the marriage i.e. the believer is not married and is therefore free to marry,
OR
is it (as I suspect it is) that the believer does not have to remain (bound) to the unbeliever when the unbeliever leaves, but is nonetheless not to remarry?

The young widows are permitted to remarry (1Ti 5). He never says this about those with a living (former) spouse.

OK Book Guy and Timothy,

I think you hit it square on the head!

We have to look at the big picture of what God says about divorce and remarriage and then keep that in mind when we read I Cor. 7. Many people want this to be interpreted that it is ok and that you are not bound so that they can remarry. It is sad and I am not condemning people that this happens to but it is what God says. The believer is not bound means that they are not bound to stay in the marriage - Paul spoke this by permission from God. Which is a subject someone may want to comment on. That has always puzzled me a bit.

God hates divorce but if a woman or man leaves their spouse for another person and demands a divorce, the other person isn't sinning in this!! Their hands were more than likely tied. It does hinder both but the one committing the sin would be the one demanding the divorce. There would be possible exceptions to this - ie: abuse, child molestation etc. The sin would be in them remarrying.

I believe that the knowledge that if I was to ever divorce, I would be going against God's plans if I remarried has been a factor in my own marriage commitment. However God gave me a wonderful husband who is easy to keep my commitment too. I do feel for those who have bad spouses.

[Biblestudent]

1 Corinthians 7:6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
1 Corinthians 7:25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.
1 Corinthians 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
That Paul spoke "by permission" does not necessarily mean he gives an uninspired opinion that can be disobeyed or disregarded. Paul had "revelations" (2 Cor. 12:1) from the Lord and was an apostle by the "commandment of God our Savior" (1 Ti. 1:1). Where he had no direct command from God on a particular matter, he gives his "judgment" by permission; that is, he was permitted and given authority by God to write his judgment, and the things that he wrote are to be acknowledged as "the commandments of the Lord".

[Biblestudent]

"No divorce" and "one man, one wife" are God's perfect will (Mr 10:6-9). It is also evident in Scripture that a "bill of divorcement" (Dt. 24:1) is not only because of the "hardness" of man's heart (Mr 10:5), but may in certain conditions be a "just" choice (Mt 1:19).
Concerning remarriage:
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.
1 Corinthians 7:27 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; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.
Looking at the whole context, letting a partner "depart" makes the person "not under bondage" or "loosed". If a person who is no longer "bound" (but not a "virgin") marries, Paul says to him "thou hast not sinned".
On the other hand, I'm just glad that divorce is still banned in the Philippines!

[Biblestudent]

I don't think that GAPS in Scripture are "theories"; they are "doctrine".
For example, John mentions of "the hour" in which "all" will be resurrected - to life and to damnation.

John 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour [singular] is coming, in the which all [in general] that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; [Is there a gap here? No mention.] and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
1. Is the statement continuous? Yes.
2. Is a gap mentioned? No.
3. Is there, therefore, no gap?

"Line upon line, precept upon precept" (Is 28:13), by "comparing spiritual things with spiritual" (1Co 2:13), it was revealed later that "the hour" is 1,000 YEAR long and the "resurrection of life" is 1,000 YEARS ahead of the "resurrection of damnation".

Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

Or course, there are many other gaps in Scripture. Concerning the gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, here is a link that enlightened my mind on the issue: "To Gap or Not to Gap" (by Dr. David F. Reagan) http://www.learnthebible.org/gap_or_not.htm

Show some Scripture in context that actually teaches a Gap Theory. Aside from the fact that Satan walked in the Garden of Eden before he fell, and the Garden of Eden was not created until day six, the same day man was created - there is no Biblical basis for an earth before the six days of creation, for a pre-creation week fall of Satan, nor for any kind of previous civilization on earth.

Originally Posted by kstsells

OK Book Guy and Timothy,

I think you hit it square on the head!

We have to look at the big picture of what God says about divorce and remarriage and then keep that in mind when we read I Cor. 7. Many people want this to be interpreted that it is ok and that you are not bound so that they can remarry. It is sad and I am not condemning people that this happens to but it is what God says. The believer is not bound means that they are not bound to stay in the marriage - Paul spoke this by permission from God. Which is a subject someone may want to comment on. That has always puzzled me a bit.

God hates divorce but if a woman or man leaves their spouse for another person and demands a divorce, the other person isn't sinning in this!! Their hands were more than likely tied. It does hinder both but the one committing the sin would be the one demanding the divorce. There would be possible exceptions to this - ie: abuse, child molestation etc. The sin would be in them remarrying.

I believe that the knowledge that if I was to ever divorce, I would be going against God's plans if I remarried has been a factor in my own marriage commitment. However God gave me a wonderful husband who is easy to keep my commitment too. I do feel for those who have bad spouses.

I think chapter 7 of 1 Cor needs to be looked at in its entirety.

1 Corinthians 7:1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.

4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.

5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.

7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.

8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.

9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

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.

If she depart, (the believing spouse) she may not remarry

12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.

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.

If the unbelieving depart, let him depart. Now how do you come to the conclusion that no longer under bondage does not mean they are no longer bound to the marriage? God hath called us to peace, right. what if the believing spouse is left with children and it would be more peaceful to have a partner a spouse to complete his or her family again? It should at least be open for discussion that the believing spouse is free to re-marry.

16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?

17 But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches.

18 Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.

19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

20 Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.

21 Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather.

22 For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant.

23 Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.

24 Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God.

25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.

26 I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be.

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; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.

29 But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;

30 And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not;

31 And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away.

32 But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:

33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.

34 There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.

35 And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction.

36 But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.

37 Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well.

38 So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.

39 The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.

40 But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.

I'm not saying Ruckman is a god but I do believe that he is one of todays best defenders of the KJV and that God is using him and his ministry. I know that sometimes he is rude or crude in some of his books that I've read, but let's face it, he's human just like us. I'm not saying he's right in what he says all the time but Paul the Apostle even said that he himself was "rude in speech." I don't think we necessarily should throw the baby out with bathwater.

Paul meant he was not an eloquent speaker (like Apollos), not that he spoke crude things.

Ya your right about that Jerry. I can see that, but don't you also think that according to Rom. 16:17 that sometimes it is necessary to strongly make known the sin of some other men around us? Again I myself do not believe that the way Ruckman represents himself all the time is appropriate, but I'm just saying don't you think that it is necessary sometimes to be strong in your approach. Christ himself called the Pharisees "O ye generation of vipers." According to the Pharisees and everyday speech that would be considered "rude," don't you think so? All I'm saying is are we confusing "rude" with "boldness" sometimes?

Rom 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

We are supposed to be righteously angry and sin not. Losing control of your tongue and or typing fingers is a sin. If someone is being a hypocrite and I call him one, that is not sinning. If I call someone some crude term or nickname, then I am sinning. And Ruckman has used some crude terminology that the Bible does not use - he also uses various terms in ways that the Bible does not. Even if it is appropriate to use the same terms, we should make sure that they fit the same sins - not just calling them something crude because they don't cross their t's the exact same way I do.