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

[firehill]

Here is what it does say in Ephesians 6:1 "CHILDREN, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right.

My point is that someone can just as easily pervert the word obey and claim it doesn't mean what it clearly does and say children really don't have to obey their parents.

Key phrase in that verse is "In the Lord". If a parent is demanding something unjust, or telling a child to do something unscriptural, or beating or otherwise abusing their child, then it certainly isn't "In the Lord".

4And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

Col. 3:20Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing unto the Lord.

21Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged.

We are not to heed the word or command of authority figures above the laws of God, regardless of who they are: parent, government, pastor, etc.

And in extremely bad cases of child abuse children do 'divorce' their parents! Some need foster care etc...

[firehill]

It definitely does appear in the greek for 1 Peter 3:5, and in the exact same context as Eph. 5:22.

BUZZ. FALSE. In 1 Peter 3:5 believeing wives and unbelieving husbands are the issue rather than two believing spouses. Therefore the word is not in the exact same context as the Ephesians context.

[firehill]

So we see twice Peter used the greek word for "submission" or "subjection", in in both these cases the greek word IS there in the orginal text.

Butero:

I did look up the word in Greek and it does exist. When a situation arises where a word is inserted in the text that was not in the original Greek, it is placed in italics in the Bible, and doesn't appear in the Greek reference in the Abington-Strongs Concordance. What they do is show that one word in Greek covered two in English. That is not the case here.

"One of those recently discovered papyri contains Ephesians 5:21-22. P46 dates from around 200 A.D. and is preserved in the Chester Beatty Library in Dublin, Ireland. That papyrus copy does not include the word for "submit" in the phrase that comprises verse 22. The earliest manuscripts we have that do contain the word for "submit" date from 400 A.D. Modern textual scholars generally give the greatest weight of authenticity and originality to the earliest copy of a text. That is why the word for "submit" is omitted from the current Nestle and UBS Greek text of Ephesians 5:22."

http://www.mainstreambaptists.org/mob1/bestgreek.htm

Here's just one example.

[firehill]

Let me also add this. The Bible clearly does say children are to obey their parents just as wives are to submit to their husbands. I wonder how long it will be before some expert comes up with a new Greek definition for words indicating parental headship over their children and make it null and void?

Interesting though that the Bible never says that parents are the 'head' of their children.

Here is what it does say in Ephesians 6:1 "CHILDREN, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right.

My point is that someone can just as easily pervert the word obey and claim it doesn't mean what it clearly does and say children really don't have to obey their parents.

Yes, the Bible does say that. Iv'e never known any to say that children should not obey their parents. It is also a command written in the OT law.

The reason I brought this up originally is that you claimed the only authority in the home is Christ. That would take away parental authority if it were true, except for one thing. Christ in his word makes the husband the head of the wife and places both parents over the children, so in reality, if a couple is following Christ, the wife is in submission to her husband and the children are obeying their parents.

And the husband is submitting to his wife as all christians are bound to do. Eph 5:21

[firehill]

Firehill, since you continue to deny their is authority in the home outside of Jesus, I will add these verses as well. Ephesians 5:22-24

22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the savior of the body.

24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

To anyone reading this to get the true meaning and not to try to change it to fit a specific agenda, it is obvious that it is saying that the wife is to submit to the husband. The word submit is from the Greek word hupotasso which means to subordinate; refles. to obey: be under obedience (obedient), put under, subdue unto, (be,make) subject (to, unto), be (put) in subjection (to, under), submit self unto. As everyone is to be in subjection to the Lord Jesus Christ, wives are to be in subjection to their own husbands. This is plain.

The husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. The word head in the Greek literally means head. In this instance, it cannot mean a literal physical head as it would make no sense. It therefore has to be in authority, though authority is not in the definition. The head rules over the body. Anyone can logically put that together.

In the same way the church is in subjection to Christ, wives are to be to their own husbands. The word subjection is from the Greek word hupotage which means subordination. As the church is to be subordinate to Christ, wives are subordinate to their own husbands. Do you have someone disputing the meaning of these Greek words as well?

I've already answered how a husband leads his home. He attempts to make decisions with his wife. When they are at an impass, he ultimately has the last say. There is nothing tough to figure out here. If the man is being led by Christ, he is obeying the Bible, because it is Jesus' written word.

You must have missed this post Firehill.

In the Greek in v.22 the word for 'sumbit' does not exist because it is borrowed from v.21 which binds all christians to submit to eachother. That means husbands to wives. There is a thread on the meaning of this Greek word. You should have a look at it.

The word most certainly does exist. All words that were added for clarification are in italics and this word is not. It comes directly from the word hupotasso. The scripture in verse 21 is dealing with our relationship with Christians in general. We are to minister to each others needs. Verses 22 through 24 are dealing with husbands and wives specifically. I don't need another thread with the definition of the Greek word used here as I already included the definition in my post right out of the Greek Dictionary.

The thread is, 'Wives role in marriage, By John MacArthur' in General Discussion. LOOK IN THE GREEK not an English translation of NT. The word does NOT exist, it is not written in v.22. That's a fact.

I did look up the word in Greek and it does exist. When a situation arises where a word is inserted in the text that was not in the original Greek, it is placed in italics in the Bible, and doesn't appear in the Greek reference in the Abington-Strongs Concordance. What they do is show that one word in Greek covered two in English. That is not the case here.

It is true that the verb be subject does not occur in v22. It is in v21. But that does not impact the meaning at all. It is very common in greek for verbs to function elliptically (be used once and then inferred in the context). It is a literary divice

Butero,

The word does appear in Ephesians as well. It is just used elliptically. In other words it is used once but functions to govern several phrases. It is still valid to read Ephesians 5:22 as using the verb, even through it is only used once in the section

[firehill]

A diagram of this sentence can better help us understand the meaning of the phrase "in the Lord" The phrase is basically a preposition in the dative case. It modifies the verbal imperative "be obedient". It does not modify the noun. It is designed to "amplify" the verbal action. Thus it is the children's obedience that is to be "in the Lord". Not the parents. Paul is not creating an exit clause here that allows children to evaluate their parents to determine if their behavior is in the Lord. Paul is giving children a motivation. Their obedience is to be in the Lord, because they are in the Lord. This is probably a ditive of means "obey by the Lord".

So you're suggesting a child should obey their parents even if the parents are promoting sin, or if it is causing harm to the child or others?

No,

I am saying this passage does not support the idea you proposed. You would need to find other texts to do that. This one addresses the motivation for the children's obedience. It does not address the conditions under which they may decline obedience. The grammar does not support this interpretation

WhysoBlind, you are correct too meaning your point is valid and can be backed by other scripture.

[firehill]

Here is yet another scripture from 1 Peter 3:1 "LIKEWISE, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives. While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear."

The word subjection is from the Greek word hupotasso which means to subordinate; reflex. to obey: be under obedience (obedient), put under, subdue unto, (be, make) subject (to, unto), be (put) in subjection (to,under), submit self unto.

Firehill, are you going to try to make the claim this word doesn't appear in the original text either?

Why would you bring up an erronous argument? Why would I say that when it does appear in the Greek in 1 Peter 3:1?

[firehill]

Butero's response to the 'upsidedown supposed hierarchy' in 1 Co 11:3:

Big deal. It doesn't change the obvious meaning.

The obvious meaning to who? You. So what. I bet you'd say that the context as no warrant either, you know the context (vv.1-16) of WORSHIP not authority structure.

[Openly Curious]

If it were a chain of authority then why is it written UPSIDEDOWN? That's odd for Paul because he wrote hierarchies of the gifts in his letters. Where would you fir the Holy Spirit into this upsidedown hierarchy? Many read into the text that which isn't there. It happens.

oc

Hello firehill

Now you have really peaked my curosity here with this reply. Please could you explain further what you mean on "upsidedown hierarchy" from the text of 1 Corinthians 11:3 as I have no clue what you are meaning thus far.

[EricH]

Butero's response to the 'upsidedown supposed hierarchy' in 1 Co 11:3:

Big deal. It doesn't change the obvious meaning.

The obvious meaning to who? You. So what. I bet you'd say that the context as no warrant either, you know the context (vv.1-16) of WORSHIP not authority structure.

Actually the context of I Corinthians 11 is the proper order in Worship