On face value, it is saying that a woman must remain with her husband as long as he lives. She made a covenant before God. >>>Not just remain, but the couple is bound/united to each other, they are no longer 2, but 1 flesh
MT 19:4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator `made them male and female,' 5 and said, `For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' ? 6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
But if she hears this, having been saved after the marriage to a man who has been married before, her covenant is invalid then.. that is what you are saying. Am I undestanding this correctly? >>>You wrote: ”to a man who has been married” >>>”If his original spouse is still alive, he is still married legitimately to his original spouse in God’s eyes”
We are also commanded to stay with unbelieving spouses, but if that unbelieving spouse is divorced, than that command is null and void then right? Is this what you are saying? >>>Are you referring to: 1CO 7:15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. 16 How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?
The word bound here is referring to fulfilling your marital duties, sexual or otherwise. These verses are not implying that you are unbound flesh. If it were referring to unbound flesh, then it would contradict 1 Corinthains 7:39 and we know that the bible does not contradict itself. Humans are the ones who sometimes contradict scripture.
>>>I can prove this in the Greek and will post if you need it in English
---------------------------------- How is this an example to the unbelieving spouse? Are you suggesting that there was divorce en masse among the gentiles that Paul was teaching this to? Or are you assuming that even though divorce/remarriage was rampant at that time as well.. that there were no couples that were in what you call "adulterous remarriages?"
>>>Not sure what you mean by this last part, please explain
