Remarriage after divorce

[Sevenseas]

 

I have to really pause at a man who would believe there is ANY comparison that equivocates marriage to a slave and his/her master

 

Where does Christ call the members of His body slaves?

 

 

Sorry but once again you are not reading but rather assuming people are saying what you want to argue against. At no point in time did anyone make any comparison. So stop repeating that false accusation please. It has been explained by three people what was being done and yet you still repeat this accusation. Do you not think that if others understand what Faith Pleases God was saying then perhaps you might be wrong in your understanding? Granted it wasn't clear at first. Look at my response. I understand what he was saying but still disagree. So understanding what is being said doesn't mean one has to agree. 

 

We are either slaves of righteousness or slaves of sin. So no matter what we are slaves. Romans 6. Sure that is a different type of slave to the passage where faith please god is getting the principle from.

 

 

 

that's what you say...but your post was awful confusing last time in response to something I wrote..which YOU did not understand....

 

I know that it is not done on purpose or anything, but I don't think I am the one who is confused...I am not even actually taking exception to what

you posted...it is not your comparison...in fact, I am not even quoting you in my last post....you just happened to be included in the quotes from the other

2 posters

 

Please note that other posters also take exception to the slave comparison and have noted it is not in the Bible

 

Take that or leave that.  Tha's how it is

 

Thanks...

 

 the verse regarding slaves is about sin...talk about taking something out of context!!!

 

The Bible also calls us saints...and children...keeping things in context reveals the actual comparison..

 

I really do not want to keep this particular exchange going as I really am not addressing your posts....please try and understand that

[Sevenseas]

Please help.

I don't know if these questions have already been asked.

Please answer them again if they have been asked.

If 2 born again Christians gets divorces and then remarry each other, under any circumstances, many are saying they are living in adultery.

Those of you who agree with this, please answer.

 

Do these people live in sin the rest of their lives?

Do these people never get God's blessings in their marriage?

Do these people lose their salvation?

 

 

 

Not really, since what you are saying then would contradict Jesus who mentioned ONLY adultery as a reason - NOT abuse. Further the abuse issue is a very vague one at best. Like I had stated before in a post, almost anything can be used to describe abuse that is not done just so in a loving way that it should be. There is all kinds of abuse and having a verbal agreement can already be seen as some kind of emotional, verbal abuse.

Then anybody could find any reason to get rid of their spouse, if they just don't want to be married anymore.

She cannot be legally divorced when Jesus says that if she divorces her husband for any other reason than adultery, she is committing adultery (if she remarries). And then goes on to say that who marries her also commits adultery.

So unless she is not remarrying, she can be reconciled to her husband, after she marries again, she can't. So if she divorces and no adultery was committed (yet), then goes to marry another, then she commits adultery, otherwise it would not make any sense.

So now my question again was about the adultery after the first marriage (and I would then also count sexual relations in an yet unmarried but prior divorced state as adultery in this case, since there seems to be still somewhat of a covenant between her and her husband otherwise how could it be adultery to remarry, if there wasn't?). This adultery, after the first marriage, does this now release the first husband from the covenant so that he can legally remarry? That was my question.

Deut 24 only talks about giving a letter of divorce, because the husband found some unclean issue (does this now always imply adultery?), nothing about abuse either...

Deut 24 doesn't protect the wife (nor a future husband!) under what Jesus said , if she committed adultery (uncleanness found in her!?) then she is not to remarry at all according to Jesus - not Moses.

 

 

Your confusing the issue...firstly Yeshua didn't come to change or abolish any of Moses laws but to fullfill them by expanding on them.

 

Lets deal with abuse

 

Biblical Legal grounds for a Divorce In domestic Abuse:

 

1 Corinthians 7:15 But if the unbelieving partner leaves, let him do so; in such brother or sister is not morally bound. But God has called us to peace.

 

Key Issue: - who is an unbeliever?

                  - Who caused the separation?

 

Now the argument one would immediately raise is 1 Corinthians 7:15 does not speak of Abuse or about Christians....this is really superficial.

 

1st Issue  - who is an unbeliever

 

In the church we are to take sin seriously and that includes sin within a marriage. Yeshua instructed his disciples as to what should happen if someone refuses to repent of sin as a Christian.

 

Matthew 18v.15-17, If your brother sins against you,go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that “every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.”  If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

 

What Jesus insists on is that sin, even sin between a married couple in their own home, is the responsibility of the church. The church’s role is to call to account those who are guilty of wilful, deliberate, and persistent sin. And those who refuse to repent are to be treated as unbelievers.

 

Further

 

1 Timothy 5:8, If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

 

Now would we all agree that if a Christian spouse batters another Christian spouse refuses to repent, refuses to seek counciling from the church is not providing for his or her immediate family? and is that a true believer? In such a case SCRIPTURE calls that "type" of a Christian worse than an unbeliever and should be treated as a Pagan.

 

2nd Issue - Who caused the seperation.

 

The unbeliever is doing the separating; in this case its the "Christian" spouse who is refusing to repent and has thus destroyed the covenant he has committed the act of desertion. It permits the victim of abuse to take out a legal divorce as she is no longer MORALLY BOUND

 

In other words 1 Corinthians 7:15 is a no-fault divorce clause for abuse, HOWEVER 1 Corinthians 7:15 is not the same as allowing divorce for any disaffection. Because abuse is defined as a pattern of conduct designed to obtain and maintain power and control over the other. 

 

So now my question again was about the adultery after the first marriage (and I would then also count sexual relations in an yet unmarried but prior divorced state as adultery in this case, since there seems to be still somewhat of a covenant between her and her husband otherwise how could it be adultery to remarry, if there wasn't?). This adultery, after the first marriage, does this now release the first husband from the covenant so that he can legally remarry? That was my question.

 

 

Have the couples, once they divorced tried to reconcile? Has there been any repentance? if the one spouse has remarried to a third party, then who broke the covenant first? If the Male spouse broke the covenant first and after a passing of time remarries to a third party, the female spouse of the first marriage is not morally bound to that covenant any longer and may freely marry.

 

To conclude the Bible teaches 3 Grounds for Divorce

 

1. Adultery within marriage permits the believer to instigate a divorce

 

2. Abandonment or desertion by unbelieving spouse permits the believer to recognise the end of the marriage (even if they formalise that in a divorce).

 

3. Abuse which results in constructive desertion permits the believer to recognise the end of the marriage (even if they formalise that in a divorce)

 

 

 

I agree. I have been saying the same for some time now....your post sums it up much better then I did.

[Warrior777]

 

 

 

 

 

No Golden Eagle he did not. Sure it looked that way but then he made the post saying he did not mean they were the same. To then claim they are is accusing them of lying. Is that really what you want to do? 

Slaves and masters are not one flesh but the slave can not leave if being abused.

husband and wife are on flesh.

Faith Pleases God is of the opinion that if two people who are not one flesh must stay together in the case of abuse then surely two people who do become one flesh should stay together.

That is not saying they are the same or similar. As I already said I disagree as I think he ignores certain other factors but still is not comparing them as being the same or similar.

 

 

 

another poster:

 

regarding your response to GE....faith used the same illustration several times and I asked him why he would do that when scripture provides ample information on the

actual marriage relationship

 

faith answered that even if a slave is abused, he is still the slave of his/her master and the wife is still married even if she is abused

 

So, to say that he was misrepresented and for him to jump on board and say thank you for 'sticking up for him'  is kind of disingenuous IMO

 

faith explained his position regarding comparing slaves to wives more then once, so let's keep this real

 

 

 

I was explaining that if a slave cannot leave their master for abuse... then how much more can a spouse not leave the other for abuse. I have re explained that multiple times over. The point is a good and valid point

 

 

yes, you did and again, why would you make that comparison?  It is NOT scriptural and you are making a comparison that objectifies women and actually

puts men in a pretty bad light too

 

Remember, we are discussing Christian marriage....Christian men have a responsibility towards Christ FIRST...and then everything else falls into line

 

If a Christian man is not submitting to Christ, he can certainly become very self righteous but there is no room for that in either a marriage or the body of Christ

 

I would have thought we were pa

Forget the slave example, for your sake, bad example. However, scripture does not give "abuse" or other reasons as justifications, right? If so, where?

 

 

Actually I thought it wasn't that bad of an example myself.

 

To anyone who is taking offense by this:

 

Faith pleases God was taking two examples and comparing them in principle and NOT in content. It is biblical to do that.

Jesus is doing that all the time:

 

Luke 14:26

“If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.

 

Now Jesus is not saying to hate your family, since that would directly contradict anything else He said about it. This is not hate in context of the content of this scripture, it is a comparison to the love we should have for Him that makes everything else seem as "hate" or to love less.

The same way a woman and a slave or husband and master are not directly compared but there is a relation in principle of endurance. If this one is to endure, not being one in flesh, how much more should the other one, that is - so: if you love your family like that that, who are NOT God, how much more should you love Jesus, which actually means one should follow Him and do His will and nobody else's, not even your family.

 

Also Jesus is using these kind of principle comparisons in pretty much all of the parables. He compares us to sheep! Now that's not even in the same category of species! If stupid sheep can even follow their master, how much more so should we. Now why is no one offended by that?

 

That's at least how I understood it and "faith pleases God" can correct me if I am wrong.

 

 

 

 

Well God knows the heart, eh?

 

I have to really pause at a man who would believe there is ANY comparison that equivocates marriage to a slave and his/her master

 

Please don't mention Jesus.  He does not see marriage the way some people here seem to see it.

 

Where does Christ call the members of His body slaves?

 

I thought that faith did a pretty good job of explaining his opinion already.  Now I understand that other tents have been put up in that camp.

 

endurance?  Really?  I'd like to see Jesus approve of a man throwing his wife...who weighs almost 90 lbs less then him, across the room into a wall

and then walk away while she can't even straighten up because he put her back out.

 

Jesus would call that endurance?  I can't say what I would like to say without breaking the TOS

 

I just love how someone can sit in judgement regarding abuse and act all high and mighty and tell someone that is God's will for their life

 

And so people who disagree that continuing and unrepented of abuse ends the marriage covenant are offended?   Yet, Jesus said if anyone offends

one of these little ones...children...it would be better if a millstone were tied around his neck and he went swimming in the ocean

 

But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck,

and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.  Matthew 18:6

 

Since y'all are taking such liberties with scripture, let me take one.  A man who abuses the woman he married and kicks her in the stomach after throwing

her down a flight of stairs, throws suppers on the floor and laughs, lies about her and to her constantly, spits in her face, slams her around, throws her

out of bed and sundry and various other things, and all the while pretending to be a Christian, has not broken the covenant he made between the woman,

God and a bunch of witnesses in church?  

 

But if a man commits adultery and does not otherwise harm his wife, the wife can leave and divorce and remarry?  koo koo

 

Jesus died for each person INDIVIDUALLY.. Marriage is not the reason Jesus died.  And an abusive man is not a Christian IMO....there is no love in his

heart and Christ is NOT his Head.  I don't care what excuse is offered.  If a man can act proper in church then he can control himself in the home as well.

 

 

And people wonder why spousal abuse continues in Christian circles.....phffffftt!

 

 

Some people here and myself have been giving good biblical reasons and answered correctly with many biblical examples according to biblical hermeneutics to make it very comprehensible what we mean and what the Bible/GOD states about that matter, but you are creating one straw man after another and turn around the words, meaning and intensions that have been stated, because you do not want to understand. This is now all that I can say about this. You state a lot of IMOs, now that is your right but again, it's your opinion and only that, if you cannot find it in the Word of God. I want to get this back on track to my OP, so I am done discussing this side topic.

[Warrior777]

 

Not really, since what you are saying then would contradict Jesus who mentioned ONLY adultery as a reason - NOT abuse. Further the abuse issue is a very vague one at best. Like I had stated before in a post, almost anything can be used to describe abuse that is not done just so in a loving way that it should be. There is all kinds of abuse and having a verbal agreement can already be seen as some kind of emotional, verbal abuse.

Then anybody could find any reason to get rid of their spouse, if they just don't want to be married anymore.

She cannot be legally divorced when Jesus says that if she divorces her husband for any other reason than adultery, she is committing adultery (if she remarries). And then goes on to say that who marries her also commits adultery.

So unless she is not remarrying, she can be reconciled to her husband, after she marries again, she can't. So if she divorces and no adultery was committed (yet), then goes to marry another, then she commits adultery, otherwise it would not make any sense.

So now my question again was about the adultery after the first marriage (and I would then also count sexual relations in an yet unmarried but prior divorced state as adultery in this case, since there seems to be still somewhat of a covenant between her and her husband otherwise how could it be adultery to remarry, if there wasn't?). This adultery, after the first marriage, does this now release the first husband from the covenant so that he can legally remarry? That was my question.

Deut 24 only talks about giving a letter of divorce, because the husband found some unclean issue (does this now always imply adultery?), nothing about abuse either...

Deut 24 doesn't protect the wife (nor a future husband!) under what Jesus said , if she committed adultery (uncleanness found in her!?) then she is not to remarry at all according to Jesus - not Moses.

 

 

Your confusing the issue...firstly Yeshua didn't come to change or abolish any of Moses laws but to fullfill them by expanding on them.

 

Lets deal with abuse

 

Biblical Legal grounds for a Divorce In domestic Abuse:

 

1 Corinthians 7:15 But if the unbelieving partner leaves, let him do so; in such brother or sister is not morally bound. But God has called us to peace.

 

Key Issue: - who is an unbeliever?

                  - Who caused the separation?

 

Now the argument one would immediately raise is 1 Corinthians 7:15 does not speak of Abuse or about Christians....this is really superficial.

 

1st Issue  - who is an unbeliever

 

In the church we are to take sin seriously and that includes sin within a marriage. Yeshua instructed his disciples as to what should happen if someone refuses to repent of sin as a Christian.

 

Matthew 18v.15-17, If your brother sins against you,go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that “every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.”  If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

 

What Jesus insists on is that sin, even sin between a married couple in their own home, is the responsibility of the church. The church’s role is to call to account those who are guilty of wilful, deliberate, and persistent sin. And those who refuse to repent are to be treated as unbelievers.

 

Further

 

1 Timothy 5:8, If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

 

Now would we all agree that if a Christian spouse batters another Christian spouse refuses to repent, refuses to seek counciling from the church is not providing for his or her immediate family? and is that a true believer? In such a case SCRIPTURE calls that "type" of a Christian worse than an unbeliever and should be treated as a Pagan.

 

2nd Issue - Who caused the seperation.

 

The unbeliever is doing the separating; in this case its the "Christian" spouse who is refusing to repent and has thus destroyed the covenant he has committed the act of desertion. It permits the victim of abuse to take out a legal divorce as she is no longer MORALLY BOUND

 

In other words 1 Corinthians 7:15 is a no-fault divorce clause for abuse, HOWEVER 1 Corinthians 7:15 is not the same as allowing divorce for any disaffection. Because abuse is defined as a pattern of conduct designed to obtain and maintain power and control over the other. 

 

So now my question again was about the adultery after the first marriage (and I would then also count sexual relations in an yet unmarried but prior divorced state as adultery in this case, since there seems to be still somewhat of a covenant between her and her husband otherwise how could it be adultery to remarry, if there wasn't?). This adultery, after the first marriage, does this now release the first husband from the covenant so that he can legally remarry? That was my question.

 

 

Have the couples, once they divorced tried to reconcile? Has there been any repentance? if the one spouse has remarried to a third party, then who broke the covenant first? If the Male spouse broke the covenant first and after a passing of time remarries to a third party, the female spouse of the first marriage is not morally bound to that covenant any longer and may freely marry.

 

To conclude the Bible teaches 3 Grounds for Divorce

 

1. Adultery within marriage permits the believer to instigate a divorce

 

2. Abandonment or desertion by unbelieving spouse permits the believer to recognise the end of the marriage (even if they formalise that in a divorce).

 

3. Abuse which results in constructive desertion permits the believer to recognise the end of the marriage (even if they formalise that in a divorce)

 

 Thanks for answering my last question, that's pretty much what I was looking for.

 

About the abuse issue, I think you are taking this to a point where context does not allow to make this an automatic reason that you can read into 1 Corinthians 7, otherwise others could come and make up other reasons that also would validate the spouse to be an unbeliever. Oe actually could insert any sin into this. This is then again almost right there where we had it with Moses and the letters of divorce. BTW I did not say that Jesus abolished the law, of course He fulfilled it but he also changed it, as can be seen in this subject matter we are talking about.

Thanks for your input, even though I don't agree on the one issue, you helped this along quite a bit.

[Warrior777]

 

 

 

 

 

 

If scripture gives a specific reason for a matter to be a decisive rule for that matter and no other beyond that, then we simply cannot make up another reason to decide that matter. Everything else is in danger of walking out of God's will into sin.

In this case Jesus Himself even stated explicitly that this is to be the reason that rules to decide this matter and Paul led by the Holy Spirit stated the only other one found in God's word under this New Covenant. And Jesus even gave an explanation to why that is:

Because people out of their hardened hearts were giving all kinds of reasons why they wanted to divorce their spouse (under Moses), so He said that this will not work like that anymore and He made a stricter rule, which was even given from the beginning, but temporarily changed under the old Law.

 

Isn't it interesting though that Jesus said this is the ONLY reason and then later Paul gives another reason. Guess Jesus must have been wrong or perhaps it really isn't as clear as people think.

 

Perhaps if you care to re-read my posts you will see a question that nobody has addressed yet in this thread.

 

Edit to add: In the couple of hours between when I wrote this reply and when I actually posted it inchrist has responded to the question

 

 

Well I get your point somewhat, but just because Paul expounds on what Jesus said and maybe clarifies a case that Jesus did not mention closer, does not mean that it contradicts it. You also have to see that Paul was lead by the Holy Spirit to write this, pretty much God saying it anyways, since it became also scripture. I just wish he would have explained some things even further, but that does not mean that we can go ahead and just make up what we feel like or what seems just plausible to us, without extracting what we know from scripture about a matter and comparing each scripture with it. In any case where scripture is not quite clear, a decision must be made that is in light and principle of scripture nonetheless, in connection with the known will of God and the nature of it.

Now my point actually was, in cases where scripture is known we have to abide by it and definitely can't sway outside of it, making up further rules or regulations that scripture therefore does not allow, since it would contradict it. And in the case of what Paul is saying this is also part of scripture that is known.

 

but that is what you are doing. Jesus said there was only one reason for divorce which is adultery. You have decided that since Paul said there was another reason then he is just expanding on what Jesus said! Sorry but no you can not read that into it. As I said it is not as clear as you are making out. You also have not addressed the other question. The very real argument about there being a difference between putting away and divorce. I'm saying scripture is not as clear as one suggests. Others have posted things that are known that have not been addressed and affect this topic. If correct then people need to examine their view.

You are essentially approaching this with a view in mind and then reading scripture rather than reading scripture and forming your view. 

 

 

 

Sorry, could you write your question again, there was a lot to read and I had to respond to many people, if the question wasn't directed to one of my quotes I either did not pick up on it or I might have answered it in one of my posts/answers to other quotes/questions. Did you read all my posts to see if I might have touched your subject you are referring to? If I did, then I most likely have not posted an additional answer to it again. Thanks.

 

with all due respect you should not be telling people to read back through the thread to find things if you are not willing to do so. No you have not addressed it but it is repeated here in this post anyway.

 

 

I can only tell you what scripture says about the known points, who said what in scripture is actually quite uninteresting for this matter, point is, there is scripture that is known.

To come back to your point of Paul, there are people, who just because of what Jesus said and because some of them think it might be a contradiction, are saying that Paul only meant for people not to be bound to a person does not mean at the same time that they are free to remarry at all unless there was also adultery in the mix. So you can take that viewpoint and go from there. For me, it doesn't contradict itself. And just because that there seems to be some issue that people think it's contradicting does not give anybody the right, according to sound scripture interpretation, to throw in all kinds of other scripturally unfounded and made up conditions that the Bible does not give, because one thinks, not everything about it is written in there, when all you can work with are 2 points that state and exception. You have to take these two points and with all known scripture come to an understanding for specific situations that have been left out (the ones that I have posted before).

 

Also you have asked many questions , how am I supposed to know which one is not answered and which one you actually mean? I have many people to answer here and write and read and research, I just do not have the time that I can go all the way back and reread everything and then guess on top of it, when it is of no great time consuming deal for you to just rewrite your question to me, as you now did, thanks.

 

To answer that question you could have just done a quick word study yourself (blueletterbible):

 

"To put away" - apolyō

 

Meanings: To set free, release, to let go, dismiss and it is used here for the meaning of divorce. It is the term the KJV uses to describe divorce in these cases you were questioning, so it's the same meaning.

 

As I said if you are going to tell others to go back to find stuff then you should not have a problem with others telling you the same thing. Essentially I am asking you to apply the same standards to yourself that you expect of others.

 

Put away and divorce are not the same. Also looking at context such as cultural situations it was practice for men to not actually divorce their partners but ignore them and not support them as required. There was words used in original languages that translated as divorce so why use a different word that is not clear in its meaning if divorce is meant? The question really is not that easily answered.

 

 

The word study I showed you was a greek word used in the NT and in context of the issue at hand it ALWAYS can be substituted for divorce. The issue you are talking about was the reason that Moses allowed and started to implement the letter of divorce back under the law, so that the spouses legally where separated otherwise they would just "hang in there" if left by their spouse for just any reason and there was a lot of confusion as one would just go with another spouse without really being legally unbound, etc... but this is under the law and does not apply nowadays, since Jesus changed it (back to what it should be).

[Warrior777]

 

 I can only tell you what scripture says about the known points, who said what in scripture is actually quite uninteresting for this matter, point is, there is scripture that is known.

To come back to your point of Paul, there are people, who just because of what Jesus said and because some of them think it might be a contradiction, are saying that Paul only meant for people not to be bound to a person does not mean at the same time that they are free to remarry at all unless there was also adultery in the mix. So you can take that viewpoint and go from there. For me, it doesn't contradict itself. And just because that there seems to be some issue that people think it's contradicting does not give anybody the right, according to sound scripture interpretation, to throw in all kinds of other scripturally unfounded and made up conditions that the Bible does not give, because one thinks, not everything about it is written in there, when all you can work with are 2 points that state and exception. You have to take these two points and with all known scripture come to an understanding for specific situations that have been left out (the ones that I have posted before).

 

When there are unknowns it is unwise to build a solid doctrine on that belief with unknown factors. You choose to see no contradiction but base that on what? Nothing. Lets deal with what is known as you suggested. We know Jesus said there is only one reason for divorce. What we know is that Paul then says well actually there is a bit more which is not in any way indicated in what Jesus said. Yet for some reason you want to think Paul is just clarifying what Jesus said! Sorry just does not add up. So it comes back to what I said which is that it isn't as simple as you suggest.

 

 

I am not going into this any deeper here, this is somewhat of a side study and you can open another thread to discuss this. A simple answer: If you see this as a contradiction, then just take of what is known - Jesus mentioned one reason, Paul adds another (or explains further, whatever). BOTH are scripture, so very easy to follow. Case closed.

[Warrior777]

Please help.

I don't know if these questions have already been asked.

Please answer them again if they have been asked.

If 2 born again Christians gets divorces and then remarry each other, under any circumstances, many are saying they are living in adultery.

Those of you who agree with this, please answer.

 

Do these people live in sin the rest of their lives?

Do these people never get God's blessings in their marriage?

Do these people lose their salvation?

 

Well partially of what you are asking I wanted to know also, that's why I started this thread. There have been answers given so far, so I will not go into detail here. One has to take some scriptures and apply in principle to fully explain or understand. Scripture is not quite clear on some detailed issues.

Taking what Jesus said as basis, then it depends who divorced and why and what happens afterwards. If you mean that the 2 Christians marry each other again after they have been divorced, then this is not adultery (they both have to still be single), it's actually desired and the best possible outcome.

If the one that divorced (except for adultery) remarries someone else, they both commit adultery (the ex-spouse and their new partner). Some suggested that only the new union at creation of the new marriage is seen as adultery, not the ongoing marriage, since it is again a new covenant between two people. There has to be repentance for adultery though.

The one that had been divorced (not for adultery) can remarry after their spouse who divorced them remarries first (which by extension would still be adultery against the first spouse).

 

I hope this answers your questions. Take it prayerfully with caution though, these are somewhat logical conclusions derived from scripture and principles, not written in stone anywhere.

[Warrior777]

ONCE AND FOR ALL:

 

ABUSE is NOT a biblical reason for divorce, NOWHERE in scripture is it mentioned (now specifically talking about our new covenant and the rules that JESUS and PAUL set which applies to us today). One can read things into scripture by speculation as with all scripture and make assumptions but it is not a valid comparison that one could build doctrine on.

Should a physical abused spouse separate if it gets too violent or life threatening, yes! Should there be reconciliation and repentance, yes! In any case if the spouse separates then they need to stay single until they can reconcile and nobody is or was implying that a spouse should stay in the same house with that violent partner. If there is an unbeliever involved and they leave (not if the believer leaves!), then the believer is not bound anymore to that unbeliever.

This is found in the scriptures and anything else in that case is opinion, which many people here have been giving a lot of, without at least trying to support it with other scripture like I asked and applying sound bible interpretation rules).

Please keep it on topic of the OP and questions and back it up with scripture and biblical principles, biblical historical backgrounds (they all have to agree with/can't contradict known scripture and need to be compatible with the NEW Covenant) 

Edited October 2, 2014 by Warrior777

[another_poster]

There has been a lot said since the last time I was in this thread, but I do want to address a couple of things.  The Bible says what it says about divorce and re-marriage.  If you go beyond what it says in justifying divorce and re-marriage, you are only giving personal opinions.  For instance, one person was bothered by a comparison of a husband and wife to a slave and their master as they said it was an extra-Biblical comparison, yet the same person said they believe that if a person is abusive, they have broken the marriage covenant so divorce and re-marriage would be permissible.  That is an extra-Biblical position.  What is it based on?  Jesus didn't say that, and I haven't seen it any place in scripture. 

 

One comment I personally disagree with was the quote about people don't care how much you know till they know how much you care.  For the record, I don't care how much you care before I care how much you know.  If I have a question, I want the truth, and I don't care if the person telling me the answer cares or not.  I just want the correct answer.  I would much rather have the cold hard truth presented to me by someone who doesn't care than an incorrect answer from someone who does care.  Many times, a persons feelings get in the way if they are too emotionally involved, and they will tell me something is ok that is not.  I don't want that, so if you don't care but know the answer to a question I have asked, I am still interested.

 

Someone asked about differences between putting away and divorce.  There is no difference.  They are one and the same thing, so I didn't feel the need to say anything about it, but since it came up again, and directly to me, that is my response. 

 

The fact of the matter is, the only thing that is sure is what the Bible teaches.  We don't have a clear answer about questions over a continual state of adultery after divorce and re-marriage, unless it is for Biblical grounds, so we can only speculate.  I do know that God recognizes another marriage because Jesus recognized that the woman at the well had 5 husbands and was now living in fornication.  He recognized a difference between legitimate marriages verses shacking up, so I don't agree with those who think that if you are divorced and re-married, God doesn't recognize the new marriage.  I also disagree with those who say you need to split up with your spouse and go back to your first husband or wife, as that is forbidden in scripture.  All chances at reconciliation end with the new marriage.  Some things are plainly stated and some things are not.  I don't even see what is controversial about saying that. 

 

As for husbands owning their wives verses wives owning their husbands, I would say Biblically they are one flesh, so ownership is a bad comparison.  That is quite different than a slave and their master, but scripture does refer to the husband as the Lord over his wife.  It specifically mentions how Sarah called Abraham Lord, and that is an example to all wives.  Jesus is Lord over the husband, and of course, the husband is supposed to obey Jesus.  He does that by obeying the written Word, as those are the words of Jesus, however, wives are told to obey their husbands, even if they are not living right.  They are to do so, in the hopes that the husbands will see the example of the believing wife and we won over.  There are answers to many of the questions asked in this thread, but unfortunately, the Bible is silent in some things.  I am ok with giving personal opinions, but that is all they are, once they exceed what the Bible actually says. 

Worth noting the passage about the husband being won over is talking about a unbelieving husband not a believer who is doing the wrong thing.

 

Considering appearances of words translated into put away and divorce are different to begin with and other usage of those terms I just can't see them being the same. When a word is always translated one way and then suddenly in another place it is translated a different way that time only one should ask questions. If they always translate it one way why suddenly use different words? I'm not firm enough in view to form a belief around this but there is certainly enough evidence to ask questions. Of course if I was the only one who thought this then I would think maybe I'm wrong however I am certainlt not the only one.

[another_poster]

I know that it is not done on purpose or anything, but I don't think I am the one who is confused...I am not even actually taking exception to what

 

 

 

 

you posted...it is not your comparison...in fact, I am not even quoting you in my last post....you just happened to be included in the quotes from the other

2 posters

 

Please note that other posters also take exception to the slave comparison and have noted it is not in the Bible

 

You still don't get it though. It is not a comparison. That is the bit your missing and you keep calling it that. I said it was not a valid comparison but after it was clarified what they meant and they said it was not a comparison one should not keep calling it that as it is misrepresenting the person. That it is continued means it is bordering on bearing false witness. I am not the only person who understand what faith pleases god was doing. Another person made it clearer than I did and still you insist on saying faith please god was saying a marriage is like a slave/master relationship when that is simply not true.

 

 

 

 the verse regarding slaves is about sin...talk about taking something out of context!!!

 

The Bible also calls us saints...and children...keeping things in context reveals the actual comparison..

and it also calls us slaves. you asked where does the bible do that and I answered. If you did not give the full question earlier then that is not my fault. You just need to say what I meant was and then explain yourself properly. I have however answered the question you asked as it was written. Did you mean to limit it to a particular area? 

 

I really do not want to keep this particular exchange going as I really am not addressing your posts....please try and understand that

 

I understand you are talking about another persons posts. However you need to understand two things.

1. If I see a person making false claims about what another person has said I will speak up

2. The nature of forums is that people make posts and others respond. They can respond to any post unless there is a specific rule that says they are not allowed to. It is like a conversation with several people.