A question on remarriage

[cyberjosh]

Adullam has given the correct, Biblical answers to this question:

"A man can only remarry if the wife has been unfaithful."

"But the Lord says in Mat 19:9 ...save for fornication. It is however God's will that couples reconcile."

I can't help but wonder why only Matt has the fornication clause and not the other passages, it is a bit confusing. Could it be because matt was talking to the jewish people and the other gospels were not? I am not jewish so I guess that would not apply to me... Hummm???

Absolutely not. It applies to you and all people, we cannot cherry pick based on what we want. There are several things that are unique to each Gospel and we are not at liberty to excuse ourselves from one Gospel's words in "favor" of what we think another says. The "extra" bit about fornication wasn't just a last minute addition, Jesus himself spoke it when speaking on the truth of marriage and the disciples had a sobering realization from what he said: "He [Jesus] said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.†His disciples said to Him, “If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry†(Matthew 19:8-10). The reason for that is that marriage is not simply a physical but also a spiritual contract between man and wife before God, and only by reason of grievous sin like sexual immorality can that bond be properly (and unfortunately) broken. Jesus was also clear on how hard it was to receive that truth, "But He said to them, "Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given" (vs. 11).

I do not know your situation and I by no means can, or even desire, to judge you, but you must not distort or ignore the Word of God to serve your own purposes. My family recently experienced the tragedy of divorce, due to marital unfaithfulness (the very thing Jesus is speaking about here), even after my Dad offered reconciliation twice to my Mom - and yet she still refused, so he stands clear of conscience before God in knowing that he could do nothing more to preserve the marriage and that he had tried to preserve it even when he was no longer under obligation to do so (because of the marital unfaithfulness). My Dad like Joseph, placed in such a horrible dilemma, can be said to have acted righteously despite the circumstance, "And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly" (Matthew 1:19), and even if for Joseph had it been an actual case of adultery - as Joseph thought it was - he would have shown himself to have exemplary conduct (and clean conscience) in that matter of divorcing her.

It is messy business and never easy, we especially need God's grace in such times, and we should never approach such matters without prayer. But please do strive to be, like Joseph, a righteous person and heed the word of the Lord, listening to the truth of the words that Jesus has spoken to His people under the new covenant.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[skylene]

I do not know your situation and I by no means can, or even desire, to judge you, but you must not distort or ignore the Word of God to serve your own purposes. My family recently experienced the tragedy of divorce, due to marital unfaithfulness (the very thing Jesus is speaking about here), even after my Dad offered reconciliation twice to my Mom - and yet she still refused, so he stands clear of conscience before God in knowing that he could do nothing more to preserve the marriage and that he had tried to preserve it even when he was no longer under obligation to do so (because of the marital unfaithfulness). My Dad like Joseph, placed in such a horrible dilemma, can be said to have acted righteously despite the circumstance, "And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly" (Matthew 1:19), and even if for Joseph had it been an actual case of adultery - as Joseph thought it was - he would have shown himself to have exemplary conduct (and clean conscience) in that matter of divorcing her.

It is messy business and never easy, we especially need God's grace in such times, and we should never approach such matters without prayer. But please do strive to be, like Joseph, a righteous man and heed the word of the Lord, listening to the truth of the words that Jesus has spoken to His people under the new covenant.

God Bless,

~Josh

I am very sorry that your mom and dad have broken up. My mom is on her 3rd marriage and my dad was married 2x and common law 2x. I am blessed to be married to my covenant husband of 7 years. Neither one of us has ever been divorced.

Although that passage says you are free to divorce if the person is unfaithful... No where does it say remarriage is ok. it does say to remain single for remarriage is adultery. So in that case would you not need to pray for reconcilliation on an on going bases?

 

[lastblast7]

You are right Skylene, Jesus makes it clear that to remarry is adultery----for the offended husband as well as for the offended wife. Those that teach a husband can remarry, but a wife cannot are missing what Jesus said: "and the TWO shall be ONE FLESH, NO LONGER two.

The earliest church writings we find (the Ante-Nicene Fathers) understood this teaching of ONE FLESH. That is why it was permitted to put away (put out of house and withhold monetary care) the one who was in UNREPENTANT adultery. That is also why they taught that the "innocent" one was NOT free to remarry, but if they did, they too would be guilty of adultery in the sight of God. They understood that the ONE FLESH joined by God would no longer two.............until death(Rom. 7:2-3, I Cor. 7:39). The disciples understood perfectly what Jesus meant. They knew the teaching/practice of divorcing for adultery. What Jesus taught was NOT in agreement with this practice, hence their shock at His restrictiveness---for the innocent one.

As for the Joseph example, when he thought to put Mary away, this was BEFORE she left her father's home. They had not yet "leaved and cleaved".........they were still in the betrothal period----vowing to each other, but not yet coming together as husband and wife. This they did not do until the angel visited Joseph and told him not to be afraid to take Mary as wife. This is not the same scenerio as modern day marriage in which the vows are not taken until the marriage itself and then consummated. In betrothal, a divorce HAD to be done to get out of the marriage----and fornicating while one was still in her father's house is reason for "putting away"--- as Joseph thought to do.

Truth be known, it is God's heart/will for the forsaken/sinned against spouse to stand in the gap for the erring one............Just as Jesus has stood in the gap for us. For a picture of what God expects for husbands, Eph. 5 is a great chapter to ponder. If a husband is to be like Christ towards his wife, what should his reaction to her sin be?? Do we find that the husband should forget about her and move on to another woman (who may do the same exact thing)? Is it not God's plan for a husband to "love his wife as Christ loves the church and GAVE HIMSELF for her, that he might sanctify and CLEANSE her with the washing of water by the Word"..........deep stuff, but that is what is expected by Jesus from husbands. If a husband "moves on" to another woman, has he walked obediently in the likeness of Christ towards the one God joined him to.............giving himself for her...........or has he decided to live for himself in this life, rejecting his God given role towards his wife that needs "cleansing"? Blessings..........

 

[Adullam]

You are right Skylene, Jesus makes it clear that to remarry is adultery----for the offended husband as well as for the offended wife. Those that teach a husband can remarry, but a wife cannot are missing what Jesus said: "and the TWO shall be ONE FLESH, NO LONGER two.

The earliest church writings we find (the Ante-Nicene Fathers) understood this teaching of ONE FLESH. That is why it was permitted to put away (put out of house and withhold monetary care) the one who was in UNREPENTANT adultery. That is also why they taught that the "innocent" one was NOT free to remarry, but if they did, they too would be guilty of adultery in the sight of God. They understood that the ONE FLESH joined by God would no longer two.............until death(Rom. 7:2-3, I Cor. 7:39). The disciples understood perfectly what Jesus meant. They knew the teaching/practice of divorcing for adultery. What Jesus taught was NOT in agreement with this practice, hence their shock at His restrictiveness---for the innocent one.

As for the Joseph example, when he thought to put Mary away, this was BEFORE she left her father's home. They had not yet "leaved and cleaved".........they were still in the betrothal period----vowing to each other, but not yet coming together as husband and wife. This they did not do until the angel visited Joseph and told him not to be afraid to take Mary as wife. This is not the same scenerio as modern day marriage in which the vows are not taken until the marriage itself and then consummated. In betrothal, a divorce HAD to be done to get out of the marriage----and fornicating while one was still in her father's house is reason for "putting away"--- as Joseph thought to do.

Truth be known, it is God's heart/will for the forsaken/sinned against spouse to stand in the gap for the erring one............Just as Jesus has stood in the gap for us. For a picture of what God expects for husbands, Eph. 5 is a great chapter to ponder. If a husband is to be like Christ towards his wife, what should his reaction to her sin be?? Do we find that the husband should forget about her and move on to another woman (who may do the same exact thing)? Is it not God's plan for a husband to "love his wife as Christ loves the church and GAVE HIMSELF for her, that he might sanctify and CLEANSE her with the washing of water by the Word"..........deep stuff, but that is what is expected by Jesus from husbands. If a husband "moves on" to another woman, has he walked obediently in the likeness of Christ towards the one God joined him to.............giving himself for her...........or has he decided to live for himself in this life, rejecting his God given role towards his wife that needs "cleansing"? Blessings..........

The word of God is not just a list of suggestions that we can choose from. We must submit our judgment to the word. The 2 becoming one flesh does not explain away the rest of scripture regarding marriage. Christ and the Father are one, yet the Father is over the Son. Christ and His church are one, yet Christ is the Head of the church.

Now a man and woman are in a covenant relationship within the context of a marriage. The man is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church. That is God's order.( People will do as they please, of course.) The bible says that the woman was created for the man and not the man for the woman. If the woman is found to be unfaithful....the man may marry again. But not the woman.

Likewise we are created for Christ. Christ does not exist for us. We cannot find another Christ. If, however, we forsake Christ...He will forsake us.

It is vital to read the word without opinions, prejudices, or conditions. Let God be God. Let the word be the word. Now let the mind be renewed.

<><

John

 

[Blazin Bones]

Adullam, you add a wonderful last line there.

It is vital to read the word without opinions, prejudices, or conditions. Let God be God. Let the word be the word. Now let the mind be renewed.

This however is not completely true. We must read with one condition, and that is that we are not as perfect as the God who gave us his word. I find it amazing how we can sit here and call all who remarry adulterers, yet EVERY SINGLE one of us is guilty of Adultery. The moment we accept Christ as our savior and sin yet again we are spiritual adulterers. We do not commit adultery with our flesh but even worse, with our very relationship to our LAST HOPE.

I am ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTED at how easy we sometimes find it to title certain groups as sinners and when we are just as guilty of sins as equal or worse!

When I read threads that come out here on the condition of calling out remarraige as sin, I see a very clear prejudice in the way the same old passages are pointed to. We condemn those who remarry as adulterers, and at the very same time we murder these people in our hearts.

How is it that God was able to bless the lying midwifes in Egypt with families and yet we must label and demean those repentant Christians who God blesses with another spouse as living in adultery? Do we only tolerate those who live in the quiet sins such as habitual lying, daily lust, or greed for success?

Since when did it become beyond God's power to forgive a man or woman of a sinful past, and bless them with more than they could ever deserve in a future?

Yes, perhaps remarraige is a sin, but then again, wasn't even the Great King David, a man after God's own heart, an adulterer and yet his line is the perpetual line of Christ?

Matthew 7:5 is the key we all too easily forget in discussions like these. We only have the right to remove someone else's speck once we have taken our planks out. Christ never told us we would be able to remove or even help with someone else's planks. Perhaps that is why only his Holy Spirit truly has the right to condemn sin and lead us out of it completely.

 

[Blazin Bones]

Because it is not a cut and dry issue.

I disagree. It is cut and dry. Many people just don't respect and honor God's teachings.

You may very well disagree, but you are wrong for one very simple reason. You ARE NOT GOD and you CANNOT Speak for the hearts of those in these situations. You also may not declare which sins he will and will not fogive. We can all discern as forgiveable and unforgivable, but the truth is that GOD is GOD and Jesus is the ONLY ONE WHO can judge the heart of ANY sinner.

Suppose this:

If Christ is able to forgive sin and make us a new creation, then how can it be that portions of our sinful lives remain even as we are made completely new? The Consequence of Divorce and Adultery is not a life without another spouse, but it is the same as all those who sin, and as Romans 6:23 teaches, that wage is death.

What does the rest of the passage teach, though? It teaches that those who are in Christ will receive the gift of eternal life.

2 Corinthians 5:17 declares that THE OLD is gone and that the new has come when we are made new creations by Christ. It does not teach that those sinful things done in our past are still there, but that the old is gone. EVERYTHING about the old life is gone, and we are a new creation. If this is the case, then is not the new creation then subject to the Lord who recreates him? If the Lord blesses this new creation with a new spouse to serve him with, as Paul notes a spouse can be a Spiritual Gift as well as a physical gift, what is wrong with marraige in this case?

The problem with citing the passages from Matthew and the other gospels over and over again is that all of those passage were preached by our savior to show that we are in the hopeless conditions of sin no matter what we do. Jesus wasn't focused on the temporal thing of marraige with his ministry, he was about reconciling his people to him, no matter how wretched they are. However, as new creations, we are not held captive by laws that will always condemn us, but by God who can bless us however he chooses.

 

[shad]

You may very well disagree, but you are wrong for one very simple reason. You ARE NOT GOD and you CANNOT Speak for the hearts of those in these situations.

I have never claimed to be God but I can certainly have my own discernment and opinion. Fruit of disobedience is showing vividly in how they try to find loopholes in the churches.

take care.

 

[Blazin Bones]

Shad, are all those who remarry seeking "Christian Loopholes"? What makes you so certain that they aren't just living in the complete forgiveness of Christ? If we are truly made new creations through the death and resurrection of Christ, then how can we condemn all cases of remarraige? Suppose one of these homosexual "marraiges out in California ends with a divorce and one finding Christ, is this man or woman never to marry again even though they are a new Creation?

 

[Adullam]

Adullam, you add a wonderful last line there.

It is vital to read the word without opinions, prejudices, or conditions. Let God be God. Let the word be the word. Now let the mind be renewed.

This however is not completely true. We must read with one condition, and that is that we are not as perfect as the God who gave us his word. I find it amazing how we can sit here and call all who remarry adulterers, yet EVERY SINGLE one of us is guilty of Adultery. The moment we accept Christ as our savior and sin yet again we are spiritual adulterers. We do not commit adultery with our flesh but even worse, with our very relationship to our LAST HOPE.

I am ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTED at how easy we sometimes find it to title certain groups as sinners and when we are just as guilty of sins as equal or worse!

When I read threads that come out here on the condition of calling out remarraige as sin, I see a very clear prejudice in the way the same old passages are pointed to. We condemn those who remarry as adulterers, and at the very same time we murder these people in our hearts.

How is it that God was able to bless the lying midwifes in Egypt with families and yet we must label and demean those repentant Christians who God blesses with another spouse as living in adultery? Do we only tolerate those who live in the quiet sins such as habitual lying, daily lust, or greed for success?

Since when did it become beyond God's power to forgive a man or woman of a sinful past, and bless them with more than they could ever deserve in a future?

Yes, perhaps remarraige is a sin, but then again, wasn't even the Great King David, a man after God's own heart, an adulterer and yet his line is the perpetual line of Christ?

Matthew 7:5 is the key we all too easily forget in discussions like these. We only have the right to remove someone else's speck once we have taken our planks out. Christ never told us we would be able to remove or even help with someone else's planks. Perhaps that is why only his Holy Spirit truly has the right to condemn sin and lead us out of it completely.

The purpose of reading the word is definitely not to judge or condemn others. Only a Pharisee could do that. I agree that we all fail Christ, at one point or the other, and no one is to sit in the judgment seat, save the Lord. As stated, I myself do not judge those who have remarried. This includes many of my friends. We all have very deep lessons to learn about who we are without Christ.In our flesh dwelleth no good thing.

But this does not change the content of the word in the least. The word exposes our hearts. We should be brought to a deep humility before God. Which is worse....to ignore the scriptures and do as we please....or to judge others for breaking the laws as we please? Neither of course.

<><

John

 

[Blazin Bones]

I think that it is just as bad to make assumptions on such an issue like remarraige and make it wrong in all cases. The truth is that Jesus taught that remarraige was wrong under the law, and by the purest standard of the Law, anyone who remarried after divorce was an adulterer. Just like anyone who lusted after a woman was an adulterer too. So in truth, many of us who marry from the start are already adulterers, so what makes remarraige any different?

I do not see Jesus telling us not to remarry as much as he is telling us how sinful our previous condition must be to come to a point of remarraige. The wonderful thing is that in Christ we are made new. If we are made new, then we are free to live in that renewal, even if that means God brings us to a new marraige. If God brings us to remarriage, is it sin then as well, or will we just be arrogant to assume God never causes one to remarry after divorce?

 

[shad]

Shad, are all those who remarry seeking "Christian Loopholes"?

Did I say ALL?

What makes you so certain that they aren't just living in the complete forgiveness of Christ?

We are forgiven if we are being obedient to His commandments. He does not give us license to sin.

If we are truly made new creations through the death and resurrection of Christ, then how can we condemn all cases of remarraige?

If you are running the race which you should if you are claiming to be Christian, we should take heed everything that He commands, including remarriage.

Suppose one of these homosexual "marraiges out in California ends with a divorce and one finding Christ, is this man or woman never to marry again even though they are a new Creation?

Of course He forgives former sins but he has to stop his sinful activities, including gay practices.

 

[LostSoul]

I am inclined to agree with what is written in Scripture. Should a man or woman leave their spouse for any reason outside of unfaithfulness, a marriage really should not do so. Though I will admit....marriage is not something felt on my part to be something that ever should during our time on earth. It is to be a lifelong commitment. Not only between the two spouses, but between the two individuals and God. So in short....it is not something to be taken lightly.

Remarriage too...from what I understand, though perhaps I am wrong. But have yet to see scripture saying otherwise, that remarriage is not necessarily encouraged unless one is widowed. Otherwise it makes both parties adulterers.

Are there undoubtably some out there in some rather tight spots?

Yes....


Should we pray for them?

By all means.....


Judging though....I do agree should be something we reserve to God. Sharing the word is one thing, as is living by it....but condemning those who do not do it how we see fit for them to is another.


I am sorry for any offense caused. None was meant.

May God Bless You

Danielle

 

[Paidion]

Okay, most of you seem to affirm that you believe the scripture about divorce and remarriage.

Consider the following from 1 Corinthians 7: 27,28

Have you been bound to a wife? Do not seek to be loosed.

To have been bound to a wife, sounds like marriage to me. Seeking to be loosed sounds like divorce to me. Is Paul not saying, if you have been married, do not seek a divorce?

Have you been loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife.

I take this "loosing" the same way --- divorce. If you have been divorced, do not seek a wife.

But if you marry you have not sinned.

What's this? If you have been divorced, and you marry you have not sinned!

Now Paul was very familiar with the teaching of Jesus on marital relationships. So surely he was not teaching something other than what Jesus taught on the subject. My guess is that we are misunderstanding the teaching of Christ.

We assume the translations we read are correct. For example:

And he said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her. Mark 10:11 RSV

I am not convinced that "ἀÀολÅÉ" means "to divorce". It literally means "to loose from", and lexicons state that it means "send away" or "leave".

For example:

Matthew 14:22 NASB Immediately He made the disciples get into the boat and go ahead of Him to the other side, while He sent the crowds away .

The same Greek word "ἀÀολÅÉ" is used here. Jesus didn't divorce the crowds. He sent them away.

Furthermore, the Greek word translated as "marry" sometimes meant to copulate with a person.

Conclusion: Jesus may have been simply saying that whoever sends away his wife, or leaves her, and takes up with another woman commits adultery against his wife.

 

[lastblast7]

The bible says that the woman was created for the man and not the man for the woman. If the woman is found to be unfaithful....the man may marry again. But not the woman.
John

I very much disagree with you, John. Marriage was not made for 1 man and possibly many women, marriage was made for 1 man +1 woman. Jesus said the TWO will become 1 flesh. Jesus did away with polygamous practices, which you seem to be supporting as biblically correct. The earliest church writings indicate that they understood a MAN was not to marry again should his wife become an unrepentant adulteress. He must too "remain unmarried" until her death. Then and only then was he "free" to marry again, which is what the scriptures teach. Blessings........

 

[follower of Christ]

The bible says that the woman was created for the man and not the man for the woman. If the woman is found to be unfaithful....the man may marry again. But not the woman.
John

I very much disagree with you, John. Marriage was not made for 1 man and possibly many women, marriage was made for 1 man +1 woman. Jesus said the TWO will become 1 flesh. Jesus did away with polygamous practices, which you seem to be supporting as biblically correct. The earliest church writings indicate that they understood a MAN was not to marry again should his wife become an unrepentant adulteress. He must too "remain unmarried" until her death. Then and only then was he "free" to marry again, which is what the scriptures teach. Blessings........

Ah, we meet at last ;)

Show us, LB, precisely WHERE Jesus 'did away' with polygamy.
*IF* 'husband of ONE wife' does actually speak about not having more than one wife, then it seems that RESTRICTING the leadership TO one wife directly implies that SOMEONE in the church HAD more than one wife....or was Paul just speaking here to hear himself talk ?

The 'earliest' church taught pennace for payment for sin and confession to a priest....do you practice those as well ?
If not then you are wasting your time telling us what the ECFs thought..kwim ?

 

[follower of Christ]

As to the comment on remarriages bringing Glory to God, that could only happen if a remarriage is ordained by Him, not if a remarriage is adulterous

Fallacious.
He says that adultery is COMMITTED in a case of frivolous (for EVERY cause) divorce to remarry someone else.
He in NO way makes any claim about this new marriage BEING 'adulterous'....
READERS SEE->Click->>> “Committeth adultery†The Present Indicative deception

Like I said though, how comforting to read that many here DO believe in covenant marriage as presented in God's Word. It is my great hope that more and more people will get into God's Word and find that not only does God hate divorce (of covenant couples), but He does not permit remarriage where separation/divorce has occurred in covenant marriage.

So there are some who agree with you, so what ?
Those who dont wont be letting you destroy their marriages here, cindy. You can rest yourself assured of that.

He has commanded that such, "remain unmarried OR be reconciled". ( ICor. 7:10-12). Blessings..........

Sorry but you are MISrepresenting the evidence.
There are TWO grups there in that passage.
The first are those who are EQUALLY yoked, as proven by the instruction to 'the REST' who are UNequally yoked.


"Remain Unmarried or reconcile†vs "not in bondage"
by Wm Tipton

Assertions/Conclusions of this Article
We will show briefly that the commandment of the Lord to ‘remain unmarried or reconcile’ is NOT a blanket commandment in all marital situations where a breaking of the marriage is taking place, but is instead directed to two believers who have left their marriage without just cause, and that Paul also had no commandment for those marriages that weren’t equally yoked, didnt given the same instruction to these who were married to an unbeliever, not having any commandment from the Lord in the matter, and then also offered a concession not given to those who were equally yoked to another believer who had left their marriage for whatever frivolous reason.

Supporting Evidence

Firstly lets look at the actual passages

"And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. (1Co 7:10-11 KJV)

vs

"But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. (1Co 7:12- * KJV)

1.0
"Remain Unmarried or reconcileâ€Â

"And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord,

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist or brain surgeon or even a biblical scholar to look at that passage as a whole to see that Paul is speaking to two groups there. The first being those where obviously both the husband and the wife are both listening since Paul addresses both of them therein.
This idea is made absolute by Pauls making a clear distinction in his next words in saying “BUT TO THE REST SPEAK I, NOT THE LORD†where he shows clearly that he is now speaking to ‘the rest’ of married couples who do not fall into whatever category as the first group fell. These are defined as being those who are married to someone who ‘believeth not’ which we understand as as ‘unequally yoked’ marriage.

Notice that Paul makes it very clear that to these who ARENT married to someone who ‘believeth not’ that he isnt speaking, but the Lord is giving commandment to these.
Easy enough concept to see, to understand and to accept for those reading and being honest enough to let the words say what they simply state.

To these who arent married to someone who ‘believed not’, these are married to someone who instead is a believer. They cannot be anything else or otherwise Pauls words “BUT TO THE REST†when he speaks to the rest who are married make no logical sense whatsoever.
These in verses 7:10-11 MUST be those who are NOT married to someone who ‘believeth not’ but MUST be to those marriages where the person being spoken to is married to a believer. Being honest with ourselves, we accept the targets of these words to be those marriages where both persons are a believer...ie ‘equally yoked’.

To these, Paul shows that the Lord has given commandment if they depart to remain unmarried (ARAMOC/agamos/single/unwed) or reconcile with the man she leftâ€Â
This makes logical sense and harmonizes quite well with Gods whole word and is even completely logical even if we set scripture aside for a moment.
These are two people who have compatible beliefs who, for whatever reason, have left their marriage who, as christians, should be quite interested in working together as ALL believers in Christ should be doing in order to be in harmony with one another.
BOTH of these persons, as followers of Jesus Christ, having entered a marital covenant and having set it aside for whatever frivolous reasonings, should be willing to work together to reunite what they created together previously and set aside without just cause.
The Lord has commanded these two believers to remain unmarried or reconcile this marriage cast away without just cause (as historical evidence of Corinth is quite capable of showing. That area was not exactly morally sound).


2.0
"not in bondage"

"But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not,

Now we move on ‘to the rest’....to those marriages where Paul is addressing the believer who is married to one who ‘believeth not’.

This is the greek for the ‘rest’...

G3062
Thayer Definition:
1) remaining, the rest
1a) the rest of any number or class under consideration
1b) with a certain distinction and contrast, the rest, who are not of a specific class or number
1c) the rest of the things that remain

These ‘rest’ are those that remain of the groups under consideration, which are clearly those whoare ‘married’. This ‘rest’ are those who are married to unbelievers, clearly indicating that the groups being spoken to in verses 7:10-11 are those who are believers married to believers...in other words, equally yoked.
Since the ‘rest’ are those who are Unequally yoked, logically there is no way that that Paul is speaking to ‘the rest’ in verses 7:10-11 then turning right around and addressing ‘the rest’ again starting in verse 7:12.

To ‘the rest’ who are clearly believers unequally yoked to unbelievers Paul has no commandment of the Lord but is clearly speaking his own mind in the matter. Believing that Paul may not be speaking by direct commandment, we still accept that he is speaking by inspiration of the Holy Spirit and thus his words are ‘law’ for these married to an unbelieving spouse.

Firstly we notice that Pauls words offer a more conditional tone.
“IF a brother has a wife who is pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her awayâ€Â.
If this brother is married to an unbelieving wife who wants to live in peace with him, then he should not put her away.
This church had asked questions of Paul and based on Pauls response its easy to determine that they must have believed that if they became born again, that somehow they were defiled by being with an unbelieving husband.
Paul lets them know in this passage that that isnt the case. The unbelieving spouse is sanctified by the believer (in a physical or spiritual ‘cleaness’ type of manner, not meaning a free ride to heaven without repentance or anything like that).
These clearly were under the impression that it might be ok to just walk out of a marriage if they became saved, yet their spouse did not.
Paul straightens out this erroneous viewpoint and lets them know that if the the unbeliever is mutually ‘pleased’ along with the believer and wants to remain in the marriage, then they arent to put them away, and may even be key to their spouses salvation.

Paul then goes on to give concession not given to the two believers above.
First there was no commandment at all from the Lord to these as with the equally yoked marriage, but Paul now tells these that if the unbeliever wishes to depart the marriage that the believer isnt in bondage to this marriage.

Instead of repeating other studies here, please see these articles:
"Let not man Put Asunder" vs "let the unbeliever depart"
Does the bible permit putting away a spouse for abuse?

Now, these folks will casually leave out that Paul gives instruction to TWO different married groups there and try to apply 1 Cor 7:10-11 to ALL marriages, but this makes Pauls statement of ‘BUT TO THE REST†and everything that follows completely illogical and unable to be harmonized with the whole properly.
And the reason they need to pull this deceptive tactic is because they like what the Lord has commanded in verses 7:10-11, but they arent too happy with Pauls concession in 7:12 and after. It completely destroys these false teachings of theirs that Paul offers this idea that the believer might not be forced to remain bound in marriage to an unbeliever in whatever circumstance, and so they force the text to give instruction to a group of people, those unequally yoked, that Paul CLEARLY says he has no word from the Lord to.

Thankfully, you readers are quite capable of seeing the wording used for yourself and seeing what is actually presented by Gods whole word....

Additional Evidence

1Co 7:12 But1161 to the3588 rest3062 speak3004 I,1473 not3756 the3588 Lord:2962 If any1536 brother80 hath2192 a wife1135 that believeth not,571 and2532 she846 be pleased4909 to dwell3611 with3326 him,846 let him not3361 put her away.863, 846

rest3062
G3062
λοιÀοί
loipoi
Thayer Definition:
1) remaining, the rest
1a) the rest of any number or class under consideration
1b) with a certain distinction and contrast, the rest, who are not of a specific class or number
1c) the rest of the things that remain

1Co 7:12 - to the rest--
the other classes (besides "the married," 1Co_7:10, where both husband and wife are believers) about whom the Corinthians had inquired, namely, those involved in mixed marriages with unbelievers.
-Jameson, Faucet& Brown

He has been speaking to the unmarried (1Co_7:8) and to married parties, both of whom were Christians (1Co_7:10). By the rest he means married couples, one of which remained a heathen.
-Vincents Word Studies

 

[follower of Christ]

You said they can remarry if there is adultery... what about gomer and hosea? GOd continually broght them back together despite her adultery. Can you show me where it says you can remarry if there is adultery? What i have read does not agree with that.

May i post a site i have been looking into about this subject??

http://www.cadz.net

Hosea and Gomer
By WmTipton

Some try to assert that Hosea and Gomer were foreshadows of marriage during this age of grace.
Let us see for ourselves what Hosea is about.

God TOLD Hosea to marry a harlot because of Isreals constant whoring / idolatry against Him.
He was showing, thru this prophet, how Israel was BREAKING the covenant He had made with them, and like a forgiving spouse, He had keep taking her back.

But God did not permit Israel, the nation as a whole, to continue in this.
In the book of Zechariah (11:10-11) He fully and finally broke / ended that covenant with them, as a nation.
One more prophet came ofter this, Malachi, then silence from God for over 400 years until John came out of the wilderness.

A brief read through of the first few verses in Hosea shows us clearly that it had nothing to do with all marriages, but was God showing Isreal through the life of this prophet what they had been doing to Him.

The beginning of the word of the LORD by Hosea. And the LORD said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms: for the land hath committed great whoredom, departing from the LORD. So he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim; which conceived, and bare him a son. And the LORD said unto him, Call his name Jezreel; for yet a little while, and I will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu, and will cause to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel. And it shall come to pass at that day, that I will break the bow of Israel in the valley of Jezreel. And she conceived again, and bare a daughter. And God said unto him, Call her name Loruhamah: for I will no more have mercy upon the house of Israel; but I will utterly take them away. (Hos 1:2-6)

Those who use Hosea for an argument also need to start doing every other thing in the OT commanded of His prophets.
God put away a covenant with a whoring nation and we may put away a whoring spouse, just as Jesus has confirmed .(Matt 5:32 and Matt 19:9)
The fact is Hosea and Gomer are irrelevant in the MDR discussion as NONE of us are directed by God to go marry a harlot. Only if we were could we even begin to apply this situation to our marriage and even then it would ONLY be applicable to that marriage itself, not the hundreds of millions of others in the world today.

2.0

Some use the absurd argument that Hosea and Gomer got back together, so therefore its 'ok' to go against Gods instruction that a DIVORCED woman cannot return to her former husband once REmarried, but the fact is Hosea did not put Gomer away as per the law by giving her a writ of divorce.
Like the example spoken of in Romans 7 where also there is no divorce given, this woman simply went out and joined with other men knowing full well that she was married still to Hosea, so of course being a MARRIED woman giving herself to men NOT her husband she would be called 'adulteress'.

Deut 24:4 does not apply in this case because there was no writ of divorce. The same applies to David and Michals situations where she was Davids lawful wife, yet was given to another man. David simply took back his wife that he had never put away. Hosea is exactly the same.

 

[follower of Christ]

No you cannot remarry, even though you can divorce, in case of adultery. Remarriage is acceptable if you are widow or widower.

Sorry but Jesus said EXCEPT for sexual immorality...which shows conditoin to His statement against divorce and remarriage.

 

[follower of Christ]

Why is it then that many churches today hav epastors that are remarried and many are remmarying people? The word is clear isn't it?

Because men search for loopholes in the Scriptures, just like they do in Tax laws. And Ministers bow to their itchy eared congregates. So as not to drive them away, OH!, that would reduce the Churches income :naughty .

Here is a verse used as a loophole. In the first place unbeliever is the case, not a supposed Christian. In the second place, what is the bondage the scripture states, the marriage contract. They are no longer under the bondage to support, or see to the needs of the departed. But can we really stretch this out, to mean you can remarry. There is really no support for such in the text.

1Co:7:15: But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

Sorry but that is simply absurd.
There was no such thing as child support in the scriptures. When a marriage was ENDED it was OVER, simple as that.


What is putting away/divorce-When is a marriage dissolved
by william tipton

The Greek word rendered as "divorce" or "putting away" in our Bibles literally means to dismiss, let depart, let go, loose, put away, to set free, send away, set at liberty, and depart.
The Hebrew means to drive out, put away, be cast out, drive away, expel, and thrust out.

In the Bible putting away or divorce is to depart, to go away, be driven out, or sent away, a repudiation, an abandonment. It has nothing to do with a court of law, or a judge, or county records, or the official declaration "divorce granted."

Divorce occurs in scripture when a man or woman deserts or abandons the marriage with that intent, or has cast out their spouse with that intent.
A spouse may go on an extended trip for business or to visit family, and that is not a divorce/putting away because there is no intent to do so.
When there is intent to leave the marriage itself, or to cast out ones spouse, that is when 'putting away/divorce' occurs in Gods word.

This is proven as factual in the most amazing place and that is right dead in the middle of one of the greatest pet passages of the anti-remarriage camp....1 Cor 7:10-11, where this believing woman has departed from her believing husband and is deemed as 'agamos' by Paul....UNmarried. (see our study 'Unmarried' for more information)

What is made clear from ALL of scripture is that departing the marriage with the intent of no longer being married is considered 'divorce/putting away'. There is no such thing as 'legal separation' in Gods word where a spouse can just leave the marriage and choose to be absent from it indefinitely against the will of the other spouse.

Now, of course the Hebrews and mankind in general has perverted all this, but do the study yourself from Gods whole word and see if you find anything different. Even the writ of divorce was simply told by Moses to be put into her hand and then she was to be 'sent out'...there was no court, no lawyer, no final decree and surely no $2000 retainer.

In Deuteronomy 24 we see exactly what divorce is.

(KJV+) When3588 a man376 hath taken3947 a wife,802 and married1166 her, and it come to pass1961 that518 she find4672 no3808 favor2580 in his eyes,5869 because3588 he hath found4672 some1697 uncleanness6172 in her: then let him write3789 her a bill5612 of divorcement,3748 and give5414 it in her hand,3027 and send7971 her out of his house.4480, 1004

H3748
כּריתוּת
kerîythûth
ker-ee-thooth'
From H3772; a cutting (of the matrimonial bond), that is, divorce: - divorce (-ment).

Which is derived from this word;

H3772
כּרת
kârath
kaw-rath'
A primitive root; to cut (off, down or asunder); by implication to destroy or consume; specifically to covenant (that is, make an alliance or bargain, originally by cutting flesh and passing between the pieces): - be chewed, be con- [feder-] ate, covenant, cut (down, off), destroy, fail, feller, be freed, hew (down), make a league ([covenant]), X lose, perish, X utterly, X want.

Quite apparently divorce is a 'cutting' of the marriage bond that severes it entirely seeing that in that same passage the divorced wife is assumed to be remarrying another man and no prohibition is laid out for her in the matter.

Here are some of the definitions of the words from the greek. These conclusively show that the act of casting out a spouse is precisely what 'divorce' or 'putting away' is.

Chorizo here is the word used for Christs words in the gospels when He spoke about divorce and the act of putting away in Matthew 19 and Mark 10.
It is also used by Paul in 1 cor 7.

"Put Asunder"
G5563
ÇÉÃÂίζÉ
chÃ…ÂrizÃ…Â
kho-rid'-zo
From G5561; to place room between, that is, part; reflexively to go away: - depart, put asunder, separate.


"Put Away"
G630
ἀÀολÃÂÉ
apoluÃ…Â
ap-ol-oo'-o
From G575 and G3089; to free fully, that is, (literally) relieve, release, dismiss (reflexively depart), or (figuratively) let die, pardon, or (specifically) divorce: - (let) depart, dismiss, divorce, forgive, let go, loose, put (send) away, release, set at liberty.

"Divorcement"
G647
ἀÀοÃĀάÃιον
apostasion
ap-os-tas'-ee-on
Neuter of a (presumed) adjective from a derivative of G868; properly something separative, that is, (specifically) divorce: - (writing of) divorcement.

A marriage is 'dissolved' at divorce or putting away with the intent to end the marriage.
That is what the context of the whole of scriptures shows in the matter and what the definitions of the words agree upon.

 

[follower of Christ]

I think the reason this topic causes so much contriversy is because there are so many "christians" who have married and divorced and then remarried. How can we be a light to others if we do not even follow a cut and dry teaching like this one?

I agree.
How CAN we be a light to others when we actually have persons like a woman I know named Cindy who literally has made it her JOB to cause divorce among Christians she would call her brethren ?

When CHRISTIANS are telling other CHRISTIANS to DIVORCE it makes the whole church look like a bunch of bumbling buffoons...It makes our Lord look like a joke.