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

[KarenJo5]

Well I really dont know all the scriptures concerning this and my own opinion may be nothing. But it seems to me that if a marriage relationship were really bad so that a divorce were necessary for the partner who is being wronged, that innocent partner should be able to remarry. If it were a violent relationship or some other bad situation why should the innocent partner have to spend the rest of their lives single when it is not their fault the first marriage had to end?

This is my thought about it too.

Why would God hold that a woman,or man for that matter, have to live the rest of their life with out a spouse and helpmate when through no fault of their own they had to divorce.Such as abuse,or child molestation. If the marriage was entered into without knowing the spouse was going to be this way

[Guest drbelitz]

the fact that someone within a covenant as marriage makes terrible mistakes and sins horribly does not invalidate the covenant.

that is beside the point. That would be like God saying that we broke our covenant with him by sinning gravely and him not offeriing is the remedy for it, when in fact he does offer the remedy which is to repent and confess our sins etc.

What God hath put together(a valid marriage) let no man put asunder.

NO ONE in ANY church taught other wise until after the revolt of luther and the rise of henry VIII.

it is the easy road, not the marrow path. of course most protestant bible churches take the easier route when it comes to the hristian life, which is unbiblical and false. ie, contraception, divorce.

[LadyRaven]

NO ONE in ANY church taught other wise until after the revolt of luther and the rise of henry VIII.

The true doctrine of salvation by faith alone was not taught until Luther either, so this has nothing to do with the validity of the arguement that older is always better.

[firehill]

...

[Openly Curious]

Well I really dont know all the scriptures concerning this and my own opinion may be nothing. But it seems to me that if a marriage relationship were really bad so that a divorce were necessary for the partner who is being wronged, that innocent partner should be able to remarry. If it were a violent relationship or some other bad situation why should the innocent partner have to spend the rest of their lives single when it is not their fault the first marriage had to end?

This is my thought about it too.

Why would God hold that a woman,or man for that matter, have to live the rest of their life with out a spouse and helpmate when through no fault of their own they had to divorce.Such as abuse,or child molestation. If the marriage was entered into without knowing the spouse was going to be this way

I agree KarenJo5,

In the case of child molestation it is no question that is sexual infidelity or unfaithfulness in the marriage and a forbidden practice and a crime and a shame and I want say what all else I think it is.

Jesus said Moses "allowed" divorce "because" of the hardness of their hearts. Hardness of heart is the result of sin. It is obvious a man who beats on his wife and those who would molest their children have a hard heart towards God and their hearts are full of sin. In these type cases I don't see it as wrong for divorce or remarriage I see it just as Moses did. Matthew 19:8 sometimes divorce has to be suffered.

But I believe in what Jesus taught us as well as it is the heart of God that reconciliation tried to be made first and the door should stay open if at all possible for this to happen. For it is God's heart for the couple to remain married and reconciled in the relationship but if not possible what else can one do. I do not advocate a battered woman staying in this type situation and never do I think they should stay if the spouse is molesting children.

If the spouse doesn't care enough for their own child over their husband enough to protect them then they should at least give the child over to someone else's custody so they can stay with their perverted spouse and not let the child go through years of torture and hurt for the sake of a marriage staying together.

loving blessings

OC

[Openly Curious]

...

this is the best post I read thus far you have written.

oc

[billie]

...

this is the best post I read thus far you have written.

oc

I agree O.C. This is one time I do not disagree with a position taken by Firehill.

You guys are awful!

[firehill]

OC:

That was so indepth just to ignore the fact that being Head is to be over something. You are steeped in feminism so deep that you will go to great lengths I see to do away with the authority of man and of Christ. I do not know why you are so afraid of authority.

In depth? I quote verses from the scriptures of the OT that use head and tail metaphors in their context and you call that deep? I go to great lengths to do away with Christ's authority? For the second time Christ is Lord (Kurios), that is he has supreme authority, not husbands. There is only ONE Lord. I'm not afraid of authority what is scary though is what happens when someone pulls a single verse out of its context.

OC:

Is it not the head that tells our body what to do if my foot itches is it not my head that give the message to my hand to reach down there to my foot and scratch it and my hand totally obeys that command and my foot gets scratched and therefore stops itching as a result of obedience.

Butero:

I don't understand where the dispute lies. The definition of the word is head, literal or figurative. In some places, it means a physical human head, but in others it cannot mean that and make any sense, such as in reference to Christ being the head of the church. It obviously is meaning that he is the chief authority. Since the comparison is made of Christ's headship over the church, and the husbands headship over the wife, the meaning should be clear to anyone reading it objectively.

It doesn't have to. The word means head. It either means a literal or figurative head. In the sense of Christ being head of the body, anyone reading it knows it means authority. The comparison is likewise made that as Christ is the head of the church, the husband is the head of the wife. It has to mean authority because nothing else makes sense.

1 Corinthians

Particularly take a good look at 12:21

12:12 The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ.

12:14 Now the body is not made up of one part but of many.

12:15 If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body.

12:16 And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body.

12:17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be?

12:18 But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be.

12:19 If they were all one part, where would the body be?

12:20 As it is, there are many parts, but one body.

12:21 The eye cannot say to the hand, "I don't need you!" And the head cannot say to the feet, "I don't need you!"

12:22 On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable,

12:23 and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty,

12:24 while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it,

12:27 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.

Now then we are members of Christ

[firehill]

OC

To "submit" and to "obey" is the same things they are not different. they both are laying down in order to follow the leading of another. So it is in the marriage when wives submit and obey their husbands leadership of the home as he is head of the woman the authority. Same way in the church we submit our wills and obey Christ's leadership as He is head authority over the church and will have final say one day.

The Greek words for 'submit' and 'obey' are not the same they are different. Wives are never told to obey thier husbands. Children are told to obey their parents. There is a difference. This has already been covered in another thread, 'Wives role in marriage, By John MacArthur

[firehill]

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.

Man, you are clearly reading verse 1 wrong.

"Likewise ye wives be in subjection to your own husbands that if any obey not the word they also...."

Here we have no reason to think the word "any" refers back to "husbands". "Any", as is clear from verse 2, refers to anyone who observes the behaviour of the woman in question, and not just their husband.

"Lexicon Results for apeitheo (Strong's 544)

Greek for 544

Pronunciation Guide

apeitheo {ap-i-theh'-o}

TDNT Reference Root Word

TDNT - 6:10,818 from 545

Part of Speech

v

Outline of Biblical Usage

1) not to allow one's self to be persuaded

a) to refuse or withhold belief

b) to refuse belief and obedience

2) not to comply with

Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count