The Bible's Laws on Divorce and Remarriage.

[Neogaia777]

A man or a woman should not have to stay around and put up with any kind of abuse from each other or either one of them... But "what is abuse"...? or what qualifies as abuse today...? and "should we" divorce or discontinue a relationship because of that, every single time and all the time and upon even one occurrence, with even the slightest little bit of abuse (and again define abuse or what your calling abuse first), anyway, should we divorce or separate with any or all things or because of any and all things or reasons or whatever that "we might consider abuse" today, or not...? (or for any reason at all basically)...? Or not...?

God Bless!

 

[Dave L]

If you believe this is what our Lord taught, then you are of the opinion that He sinned greatly by teaching contrary to the Law.

The New Covenant replaced the Old. And Divorce did not make it into the new as one of the observances. People are as married leaving divorce court as they were when they entered.

 

[Dave L]

I don't think Paul says that.

There is no acceptable reason for a believer to desire a divorce. Paul says that.

But Paul places the situation of a believer married to an unbeliever in a different category with different instructions from a believer married to a believer. After saying, "To the married..." and giving them instructions based on Jesus' actual teaching (Matthew 19), he explicitly says, "To the rest..." and gives different instructions based on his own Holy Spirit inspiration to a situation Jesus never talked about: Believers married to unbelievers.

In that situation, if the unbeliever walks away, the believer is free to remarry...another believer. But even in that situation, the believer is not permitted to desire divorce. If the unbelieving spouse is happy to allow the believer to do his or her Christian thing with other Christians, the believing spouse has no acceptable reason to seek divorce.

When the unbelieving spouse leaves the marriage, Paul says the believing spouse is no longer "bound." Then later in the letter, he explains that by "bound" he is talking about remarriage.

bound = enslaved, not married.

 

[Dave L]

So in a remarriage, God refuses to forgive and restore them, because their sin exceeds the power of the blood to cleanse from all sins?

No repentance = no forgiveness.

“Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.” (Revelation 2:20–22) (KJV 1900)

 

[Dave L]

Blood of Jesus cleanses from ALL sins!

But it is limited to those who live a holy lifestyle = the elect.

 

[Dave-W]

The New Covenant replaced the Old. And Divorce did not make it into the new as one of the observances. People are as married leaving divorce court as they were when they entered.

Nice deflection. Our Lord was talking from being one "under the Law."

If He was changing the Law / Torah, He sinned, flat out. No question.

 

[Dave-W]

bound = enslaved, not married.

Romans 7:2
For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband.

1 Corinthians 7:39
A wife is bound as long as her husband lives; but if her husband is dead, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.

Sounds like "married" to me.

 

[RDKirk]

1 Corinthians 7:15 is an example of malicious desertion of the spouse.

Beyond physically deserting a spouse, the Bible does not specifically list other ways in which malicious desertion can take place (I Corinthians 7:15). As malicious desertion is characterized by sins that are unilateral, willful and permanent, it could take the form of physical or emotional abuse, refusal to have sexual relations with one’s spouse, or refusal to support the spouse financially. (Malachi 2:14-15)

Because of the complexities of relationships, Christian discernment and pastoral counseling are essential when it comes to determining malicious desertion.

That's why I said earlier that it's possible to leave the marriage without leaving the house.

 

[RDKirk]

bound = enslaved, not married.

Paul explicitly uses "bound" to describe married.

And you know that, Dave L.

You know that. You've read the scripture.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Unlike divorce, an annulment means the marriage was never legitimate to begin with.

An annulment means a marriage never existed in a sacramental sense, but legitimacy is a secular legal concept, not a sacramental concept. So a marriage existed in a secular sense, then ended. Your legitimacy is uncontested.

 

[brinny]

 

[Dave L]

Paul explicitly uses "bound" to describe married.

And you know that, Dave L.

You know that. You've read the scripture.

bound = slavery not marriage

“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.” (1 Corinthians 7:10–11) (KJV 1900)

 

[Dave L]

Romans 7:2
For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband.

1 Corinthians 7:39
A wife is bound as long as her husband lives; but if her husband is dead, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.

Sounds like "married" to me.

= death alone breaks the marriage bond.

 

[Dave-W]

= death alone breaks the marriage bond.

You are adding "alone" to the Word.

 

[Dave L]

Nice deflection. Our Lord was talking from being one "under the Law."

If He was changing the Law / Torah, He sinned, flat out. No question.

The New Covenant, with no mention of divorce for believers, replaced the Old Covenant.

 

[Dave L]

You are adding "alone" to the Word.

OK, only death breaks the marriage bond.
“So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.” (Romans 7:3) (KJV 1900)

 

[Dave-W]

The New Covenant, with no mention of divorce for believers, replaced the Old Covenant.

Supersecessionism. Another form of replacement theology.

 

[Dave L]

Supersecessionism. Another form of replacement theology.

“Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, That I will make a new covenant With the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers In the day that I took them by the hand To bring them out of the land of Egypt; Which my covenant they brake, Although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, And write it in their hearts; And will be their God, And they shall be my people.” (Jeremiah 31:31–33) (KJV 1900)

 

[Dave-W]

OK, only death breaks the marriage bond.
“So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.” (Romans 7:3) (KJV 1900)

In Romans 7 is Paul talking about marriage? NO. His context is the trap of legalism. So it should NOT be taken as a statement about marriage but used only as an example for what he actually IS talking about.

 

[Dave L]

In Romans 7 is Paul talking about marriage? NO. His context is the trap of legalism. So it should NOT be taken as a statement about marriage but used only as an example for what he actually IS talking about.

The New Covenant has no provision for divorce, let alone remarriage.