Remarrying after a Divorce....is it forbidden?

[billie]

I'll pray that the Lord provide!

[firehill]

Here is my contribution to this thread: If one feels they are being physicaly or even mentaly abused such is grounds for divorce as is unfaithfulness. Afterall, Christ sacrificaly died for his Bride and couldn't conceive of abusing her. In other words generaly speaking divine judgement is against those who would advocate that a spouse MUST stay in such an abusive relationship.

Some marriages can be restored others are not and it can turn deadly if the two come back together.

TRUE.

If a couple cannot be restored because of violence permanent seperation may be the result for the spouse's safety. But they should remain single and leave the door open for reconciliation though it may never happen. Because as long as the spouse is alive then they are bound to their husband and to divorce and get remarried would be according to scripture to commit adultery and the other person they marry to commit adultery. So I advocate whole heartedly seperation and even permanent seperation if necessary in violent situations but not divorce because their is no grounds for divorce in these areas.

OC

Hello, OC.

The Bride belongs to Christ not an abusive Pharisee to put it very simply and direct. Roman laws do not dictate God's provisions for the abused.

I'll attempt not to debate this topic thus forward.

Hello again firehill

This is a special verse to me I want go into details as it doesn't relate to topic

Romans 7:4--"Wherefore my brethren ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ that ye should be married to another even in him who is raised from the dead that we should bring forth fruit unto God."

The bride does belong to Christ. But what is the bride of Christ is it not the body of Christ made up of both men and women and Christ is the head of the body. So it is within the marriage when a man leaves father and mother and is joined unto his wife they become one flesh and the husband is the head of the home their body. As far as the church goes we are joined unto Christ body by the blood that ran down the Saviour's side on the cross of Calvary. And thus we are married to another as Romans 7:4 says as Christ becomes the provider not another man but Christ become the provider for His glorious church made up of men and women who have been redeem by the blood and are the bride the body of Christ. As we have become dead unto our sins.

As far as God goes He provides for all of His children for we are married to Christ as the bride we must be submissive men and women to the laws of God in His word. Because He is the head or authority of the church as the man is in the home.

The Lord is very much aware of His dear children who are being abused in these bad types of relationships and I don't think it is the Lord's will to let them go without should permanent or temporary seperation is necessary because of abuse. The Lord loves His own and will provide and be a husband to His bride made up of both men and women joined to Him through the blood of His side that was pierced.

OC

1) Read my responses in 'husband 911, how do we let them lead the home' in General discussion.

2) A small debate over the meaning of kephale is underway in the thread

[Openly Curious]

Here is my contribution to this thread: If one feels they are being physicaly or even mentaly abused such is grounds for divorce as is unfaithfulness. Afterall, Christ sacrificaly died for his Bride and couldn't conceive of abusing her. In other words generaly speaking divine judgement is against those who would advocate that a spouse MUST stay in such an abusive relationship.

Some marriages can be restored others are not and it can turn deadly if the two come back together.

TRUE.

If a couple cannot be restored because of violence permanent seperation may be the result for the spouse's safety. But they should remain single and leave the door open for reconciliation though it may never happen. Because as long as the spouse is alive then they are bound to their husband and to divorce and get remarried would be according to scripture to commit adultery and the other person they marry to commit adultery. So I advocate whole heartedly seperation and even permanent seperation if necessary in violent situations but not divorce because their is no grounds for divorce in these areas.

OC

Hello, OC.

The Bride belongs to Christ not an abusive Pharisee to put it very simply and direct. Roman laws do not dictate God's provisions for the abused.

I'll attempt not to debate this topic thus forward.

Hello again firehill

This is a special verse to me I want go into details as it doesn't relate to topic

Romans 7:4--"Wherefore my brethren ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ that ye should be married to another even in him who is raised from the dead that we should bring forth fruit unto God."

The bride does belong to Christ. But what is the bride of Christ is it not the body of Christ made up of both men and women and Christ is the head of the body. So it is within the marriage when a man leaves father and mother and is joined unto his wife they become one flesh and the husband is the head of the home their body. As far as the church goes we are joined unto Christ body by the blood that ran down the Saviour's side on the cross of Calvary. And thus we are married to another as Romans 7:4 says as Christ becomes the provider not another man but Christ become the provider for His glorious church made up of men and women who have been redeem by the blood and are the bride the body of Christ. As we have become dead unto our sins.

As far as God goes He provides for all of His children for we are married to Christ as the bride we must be submissive men and women to the laws of God in His word. Because He is the head or authority of the church as the man is in the home.

The Lord is very much aware of His dear children who are being abused in these bad types of relationships and I don't think it is the Lord's will to let them go without should permanent or temporary seperation is necessary because of abuse. The Lord loves His own and will provide and be a husband to His bride made up of both men and women joined to Him through the blood of His side that was pierced.

OC

1) Read my responses in 'husband 911, how do we let them lead the home' in General discussion.

2) A small debate over the meaning of kephale is underway in the thread

[firehill]

Im sorry, I may have misunderstood.

We're we trying to not discuss here ?

MrsSealedEternal:

Perhaps someone should start a new thread, since the OP expressed a wish this thread not be used to debate the topic. I think we should respect her wishes.

....

[firehill]

firehill

it is apparent in your double talk here that you do not believe in any type of authority taking greek words and twisting the meaning to make the word of God null and void doesn't help those who are in trouble within their marriages to add further burdens to their lives.

Why don't you prove your accusation stated with such confidence.

To twist and disannul the authorities in the home and in the church is to bring further harm to those in trouble and is to give ungodly advice.

There is one leader of the home and that is the LORD. Again read my posts in the thread 'Husband 911, how do we let them leadt the home?' in General Discussion. How did authority structure within the church come into play here?

...and the word says if you are married to an unbeliever and the unbeliever is happy to stay married to you since you became a Christian do not depart from them and that the husband who is a non-believer can be won over to being a Christian by the chaste conversation of the wife.

Yes, such is biblical.

But in the cases of physical abuse it is a matter of life and death and one should not stay in these cases in my opinion but seperate.

Good point.

[firehill]

Here is my contribution to this thread: If one feels they are being physicaly or even mentaly abused such is grounds for divorce as is unfaithfulness. Afterall, Christ sacrificaly died for his Bride and couldn't conceive of abusing her. In other words generaly speaking divine judgement is against those who would advocate that a spouse MUST stay in such an abusive relationship.

There is nothing in scripture to back up this statement. I have seen this idea thrown around before as though it is a fact, but there is no scriptural support for it.

Why do you put aside the more important things of the Law like justice, love, and mercy? Even Moses permitted a man to divorce a wife because of a hard heart of the man. Yet, you would have a spouse whom is abused endure the abuse of the hard hearted?

[Openly Curious]

firehill

it is apparent in your double talk here that you do not believe in any type of authority taking greek words and twisting the meaning to make the word of God null and void doesn't help those who are in trouble within their marriages to add further burdens to their lives. The word of God has godly instructions for us His church to follow and adhere unto so that we can be protected and live sheltered within His will for our lives it is a place of protection from futher harm when we obey and submit to the things he has layed out for us in His word.

To twist and disannul the authorities in the home and in the church is to bring further harm to those in trouble and is to give ungodly advice.

Again I do not advocate violence in the home no way shape or form and I advocate seperation if marriage can be restored it should be if not permanent seperation is in order. But as long as a couple is married no matter what is going on in the home good or bad it doesn't ever dimenish the authority in the home. and the word says if you are married to an unbeliever and the unbeliever is happy to stay married to you since you became a Christian do not depart from them and that the husband who is a non-believer can be won over to being a Christian by the chaste conversation of the wife.

But in the cases of physical abuse it is a matter of life and death and one should not stay in these cases in my opinion but seperate.

OC

actually, there is no 'separation' as we understand it in the text.

even in 1 cor 7:10-11 the word 'unmarried' is 'agamos' (ARAMOC) and its use in the rest of the chapter clearly presents a woman who is 'UNmarried' because she has left the marriage.

The call to reconcile doesnt change the meaning of the word and its use and intent.

3.3

http://divorceandremarriage.bravehost.com/1corstudy.html

"unmarried"

Here we are going to discuss the marital status that Paul assigns to this woman who has left her marriage. Her status is all we are really interested at this point in time.

Firstly let us discuss Pauls marital situation, then see how he compares it to this woman in verses 10-11.

Lets suppose for a moment that Paul IS refering to 'widowers' (as some assert) alone here in verse 8...

(1Co 7:8) I say therefore to the unmarried (G22) and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.

This is the word in question...

"unmarried" in ALL passages above is....

G22

agamos

Thayer Definition:

1) unmarried, unwedded, single

G22

agamos

ag'-am-os

From G1 (as a negative particle) and G1062; unmarried: - unmarried.

Being a 'widower' means this 'law of the husband' (Romans 7, verse 39 below) is no longer en force....meaning he is 'free' from that bond .

We find it quite odd that Paul uses the very same 'agamos' (g22) in describing this woman who has departed from her husband..

(1Co 7:11) But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried(G22), or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

...was Paul an flunky who didnt understand what he was writing? ...OR....is this in perfect harmony with much of the other scripture that shows 'divorce' or 'putting away' simply as leaving or being 'cast out' ?

What we discover, given the use of the word, is that if Paul did mean "agamos" as 'widowers' in verse 8 then it helps to cement even more that this 'unmarried' woman in verse 7:11 is truly 'UNMARRIED' as the text seems to clearly present.

Why would Paul call a woman UNmarried who was indeed still considered 'married' ?

Why would he choose the very word to describe his own marital status to describe hers ?.. it makes no sense at all.

That is UNTIL one looks up the meanings of terms like 'divorce' and 'put away' in Gods word and sees the harmony therein that divorce is simply a "casting out" of or a desertion from a marriage.

"put away" (concerning a spouse)

N.T.

============

G630

ἀπολύω

apoluō

Thayer Definition:

1) to set free

2) to let go, dismiss, (to detain no longer)

2a) a petitioner to whom liberty to depart is given by a decisive answer

2b) to bid depart, send away

3) to let go free, release

3a) a captive, i.e. to loose his bonds and bid him depart, to give him liberty to depart

3b) to acquit one accused of a crime and set him at liberty

3c) indulgently to grant a prisoner leave to depart

3d) to release a debtor, i.e. not to press one

[Openly Curious]

firehill

it is apparent in your double talk here that you do not believe in any type of authority taking greek words and twisting the meaning to make the word of God null and void doesn't help those who are in trouble within their marriages to add further burdens to their lives.

Why don't you prove your accusation stated with such confidence.

To twist and disannul the authorities in the home and in the church is to bring further harm to those in trouble and is to give ungodly advice.

There is one leader of the home and that is the LORD. Again read my posts in the thread 'Husband 911, how do we let them leadt the home?' in General Discussion. How did authority structure within the church come into play here?

...and the word says if you are married to an unbeliever and the unbeliever is happy to stay married to you since you became a Christian do not depart from them and that the husband who is a non-believer can be won over to being a Christian by the chaste conversation of the wife.

Yes, such is biblical.

But in the cases of physical abuse it is a matter of life and death and one should not stay in these cases in my opinion but seperate.

Good point.

The authority came into play because it is found in the word of God the chain of command is in

1 Corinthians 11:3--"But I would have you to know that the head of every man is Christ and the head of the woman is the man and the head of Christ is God."

that is God's chain of authority and it is very plain in scripture to see. the word "head" means authority

God the Father is head of Jesus Christ

Jesus Christ is head of the Man

Man is head of the Woman

OC

[Openly Curious]

seperation for a time is permitted for a time according to 1 cor 7:5 in order to give yourself to prayer and fasting and then you are suppose to come back together again.

This is unrelated to an abandonment of the marriage.

That is clearly refering to coming apart as far as the sexual relationship goes as is made clear in the beginning of the verse and the preceding verse.

I advocate this practice within a marriage especially if it is troubled as alot of problems could be solved by this very practice and the relationship could be restored by the help of God.

In the case of physical abuse it is a matter of life or death in some cases and they cannot come back together again that is just using plain old wisdom within these situations and the seperation may lead to permanent.

The word does allow seperation and then reconciliation if possible but if it is a matter of violence it is better to be permanently seperated that to be dead perhaps some things you just can't toy around with and shouldn't.

OC

I have to again state that a separation with the intent to 'leave' the marriage causes one to be considered "agamos" (ARAMOC) as clearly presented by Paul.

Verses 4-5 are not discussing an abandonment of the marriage or the casting out of a spouse but simply coming apart from the sexual part of the unoin for a time so each can devote themselves to prayer.

I wasn't relating the verse to abandonment situations but to physical abuse situations. Divorce is permitted in the cases of abandonment. should a spouse depart.

The verse does promote seperation and not for the reasons of sexual problems within the marriage but for a time of prayer and fasting the couples are not to stay seperated for long periods of times because of incontinency (morally incapable of restraint being sexual desires getting out of control) as Satan would begin to play upon those desires if they stay apart to long.

I do believe if this practice was adhered unto within marriages a lot of problems would get worked out and marriages would be restored instead of increasing the divorce rate.

In the cases of permanent seperation the spouse has not sinned if she remains single the spouse only sins when they remarry because it is adultery. the spouses in these type of situations of physical abuse for their own safety has to permanently seperate not because they were abandoning their husbands as you are trying to lump all of this into abandonment and it is not the same thing.

OC

[firehill]

Here is my contribution to this thread: If one feels they are being physicaly or even mentaly abused such is grounds for divorce as is unfaithfulness. Afterall, Christ sacrificaly died for his Bride and couldn't conceive of abusing her. In other words generaly speaking divine judgement is against those who would advocate that a spouse MUST stay in such an abusive relationship.

There is nothing in scripture to back up this statement. I have seen this idea thrown around before as though it is a fact, but there is no scriptural support for it.

Why do you put aside the more important things of the Law like justice, love, and mercy? Even Moses permitted a man to divorce a wife because of a hard heart of the man. Yet, you would have a spouse whom is abused endure the abuse of the hard hearted?

That is a perversion of what Jesus said. He made it clear that it was never God's intention that divorce be allowed for any cause but only fornication. In the Old Testament, it said it was permitted for uncleaness and Jesus expounded on the meaning of the law. Hardness of heart refered to the sinfulness of men. I didn't make up the rules, Jesus did. If you have a problem with that, take it up with him.

It is not a perversion of what Jesus said. Such things were neglected by the Pahrisees. I have no problem with what Jesus said. Why resort to Rhetoric? It is a waiste. There is a difference between the spirit and the letter of the law. Cain was a murderer of his brother yet we as christians are specificaly told not to be like him. The Church out of love for the brethern are not to send off it's own to a slaughter (back to an abusive marriage which could result in death - the extreme hand, yes).

NIV

13:10Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

How then could love harm it's own brother or sister?

1 Co.

13:4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.

13:5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.

13:6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.

13:7 IT ALWAYS PROTECTS, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.