Divorce, simply put

[MamaZ]

If a man holds a gun to a woman's head and forces her to say "I do", are they married? No. Because there was no true consent on the woman's part.

So a priest would marry a couple like this if a gun was being held to someones head?

That is an extreme example -- that forced marriage is not true marriage. This is also why child marriage is not true marriage, even if an 9 year old says "I do" to her 30 year old "husband", it doesn't count. If you wake up with a hangover and a marriage certificate from an Elvis impersonator, it doesn't count.

I would suggest that this elvis one would count for God takes vows very seriously. Men and woman may not but God does. This is why He says to let your yes be yes and your no be no. This child marriage you speak of is more of pedifilia than anything else to me.


But there are other ways in which the wedding can be defective.

In who's eyes?

For instance, what if one of the spouses was already married? They could not marry another person but rather the new marriage would be invalid because they were not really free to marry. This is often true with couples who have been civilly divorced.

I don't see that as in the scripture and teaching from the Lord but more of a teaching from religion. For we see the woman at the well who Jesus recognized all her marraiges and even that she was not married living with a man.

If one of the spouses has no real intention of committing themselves for life but just wants a "starter marriage", that's not really a marriage because marriage is for life.

So then when this happens then the vows they make are not real to God or something? Please explain in more detail what you mean here.

If one of the spouses doesn't want kids, that is not really a marriage because marriage exists for the procreation of children.

Well I have to disagree with this one. For marraige is of joining a male and female together. That would be like saying Zaccarias and Elizabeth were not married really cuz Elizabeth was barren. Many baren women in the world and also many men who cannot produce children but yet their marriage is valid in the eyes of the Lord.


A couple who gets married with no intention of monogamy (ie. polyamory, swinging, open marriage, etc.) doesn't really marry. A marriage contracted entirely to obtain a visa with no intention of actually living as a married couple would be invalid. A spouse who conceals something very important (say, that he is a felon on the run, has AIDS, cannot have children, is addicted to cocaine, is a homosexual, etc.) commits fraud and therefore they do not marry (this would also be grounds for a civil annulment).

These posted above are all man made rules here with no scripture to back this up.

These are cases in which the marriage was actually invalid, that nothing happened when they said "I do". Therefore, they were never actually married. There had to be some defect at the time of the wedding which would render the marriage invalid in order for a (valid) Decree of Nullity to be granted. The fact that your husband was a jerk or cheated on you doesn't count. What God has joined together, let no man rend asunder -- there is no such thing as Christian divorce. No power on earth can break a true marriage (ratified and consummated), no matter what civil courts declare.

Wow man made rules being declared as truth and nothing but the truth here IMO.. God sees all and hears all.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

If a man holds a gun to a woman's head and forces her to say "I do", are they married? No. Because there was no true consent on the woman's part. That is an extreme example -- that forced marriage is not true marriage.

So a priest would marry a couple like this if a gun was being held to someones head?

Well, I was giving an extreme example. You said that as long as you say "I do", it's valid. Here is one instance where I'm sure you would agree that it's not really a marriage because she only married him out of grave fear.

The "gun" doesn't have to be literal either. If the wedding is conducted simply out of a grave fear, it doesn't count.

Also, a priest doesn't have to be present in order for two people to marry. Protestants, Jews and atheists get married all the time. A couple marries each other, the priest only blesses it. So, yes, even getting married by Elvis or jumping over a broomstick counts because unlike US law, the important thing is not that there is someone who is considered a minister present but the consent of the spouses.

This is also why child marriage is not true marriage, even if an 9 year old says "I do" to her 30 year old "husband", it doesn't count.

This child marriage you speak of is more of pedifilia than anything else to me.

It's considered pedophilia and perverse in the US, but in some other cultures (such as the book I linked to), it is quite common. After all, Muslims follow Mohammed and he "married" a 6 year old and consummated it when she was 9. It was and is a common way of ensuring that the girl you married was truly a virgin.

If you wake up with a hangover and a marriage certificate from an Elvis impersonator, it doesn't count.

I would suggest that this elvis one would count for God takes vows very seriously. Men and woman may not but God does. This is why He says to let your yes be yes and your no be no.

Under civil law, you can't sign a contract if you are drunk -- it's simply not binding. The same is true with marriage.

But there are other ways in which the wedding can be defective.

In who's eyes?

God's. If there is no consent, or if the marriage is illegal in other ways (e.g. incest), there is no marriage.

For instance, what if one of the spouses was already married? They could not marry another person but rather the new marriage would be invalid because they were not really free to marry. This is often true with couples who have been civilly divorced.

I don't see that as in the scripture and teaching from the Lord but more of a teaching from religion. For we see the woman at the well who Jesus recognized all her marraiges and even that she was not married living with a man.

She did this prior to the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus abolished divorce. Also, you are assuming they divorced instead of died.

If one of the spouses has no real intention of committing themselves for life but just wants a "starter marriage", that's not really a marriage because marriage is for life.

So then when this happens then the vows they make are not real to God or something? Please explain in more detail what you mean here.

I mean that if your husband wasalready not planning to be faithful for life at the time of the wedding, then no marriage is contracted. There are men who get married even while they have a on-going affair. You would not be bound in that case.

The words "'til death do us part" are not a necessary part of the marriage rite. The reason why Christian wedding vows are constructed the way they are is to incite consent to marriage. But someone could stlll say "'til death do us part" and not mean it. If they don't mean it, they don't consent to marriage and so no marriage occurs.

In Catholic thought, there are three parts to any Sacrament (and in this case it would also include non-Sacramental, i.e. non-Christian marriages) -- matter, form, and intention. The matter is the individuals getting married. Improper matter would include two men or two siblings. The second is form, which varies widely from culture to culture. Only Catholics are bound to an approved Church form (e.g a Catholic and a Protestant who get married in a Protestant ceremony without a dispensation from the bishop are not validly married -- though this is easily remedied). The primary concern is intention, do the people involved actually intend to get married?

PS: With regards to children, there is a difference between intention and ability.In order to marry, the couple has to be able to consummate the marriage. Beyond that, it is up to nature. The fact that some couples are unable to have biological children does not negate the fact that the primary end of marriage is the production and raising of children. I know people, even married ones, who simply don't want children. This is not marriage.

 

[sunlover1]

So when they say I do in front of witnesses and God it is not ligit?

Always! (UNLESS ... someone is holding a GUN to your head )

thirded. (word?!?)

I second that third.

With the high rate of divorces it seems that marriage is no longer seen as Holy by the majority.

That or pressures get so strong and folks are so weak...

Regarding annulments... there seems to be ignorance as to the specifics of what an annulment is and why it is needed.

What is it and why is it needed?

Maybe there is also the factor of people being hard of heart. I know the RCC has many that fall in to this scenario and it is sad. Partly because I see it in my own family

Mine too.
How come they got to have annulments when they were only hard hearted?

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

Mine too.
How come they got to have annulments when they were only hard hearted?

Catholic annulments in the United States over the last 40 years have become scandalous. The US now accounts for something like 80% of the world's annulments.

Annulments are a finding of fact by a tribunal. If the decision is based on false information or false reasoning by the tribunal, then it is a false judment. But if the evidence presented was true and the tribunal used good reasoning, we can have a moral certainty that the decision was correct. If there is objection, it can be appealed all the way up to the Church equivalent of the Supreme Court (Roman Rota).

Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have both addressed the scandal of the US annulment situation.

 

[Bible2]

The exception for fornication (as distinguished from adultery) in Matthew 19:9 permits a husband to divorce his wife for pre-marital fornication and marry another woman without his committing adultery. But this applies only to cases where a husband doesn't discover until after he's married that his newlywed wife isn't a virgin (cf. Deuteronomy 22:14, Matthew 1:19). There's no such pre-marital fornication exception granted to a wife. If a wife divorces her husband for any reason and marries another man she is committing adultery (Mark 10:12). Also, there's no pre-marital fornication exception granted to a man who marries a divorced woman. If a man marries a woman divorced for any reason he is committing adultery (Luke 16:18b).

1 Corinthians 7:15 means that a believing spouse isn't under bondage to continually try to keep his or her marriage together if his or her unbelieving spouse is absolutely determined to get a divorce. But 1 Corinthians 7:15 doesn't mean that a believing wife, after being divorced by an unbelieving husband, can then marry someone else, because if a man marries a woman divorced for any reason he is committing adultery (Luke 16:18b). But the scriptures don't forbid a divorced man to marry a second, single, non-divorced woman, so long as it was his first wife (whether an unbeliever or a believer) who divorced him. But then in God's eyes he'll be married to two women at the same time, which while no scripture requires is a sin in itself, because it's not the best situation it disqualifies him from taking any leadership positions in the church (1 Timothy 3:2,12), based on the basic idea of 1 Timothy 3:5.

The now-abolished Old Covenant rules (Ephesians 2:15, Hebrews 7:18-19, Colossians 2:14) permitted a divorced woman to marry someone else (Deuteronomy 24:2), but if her second marriage ended, the Old Covenant rules forbade her to remarry her first husband (Deuteronomy 24:4). The New Covenant rules turn this on its head: now a divorced woman can't marry anyone else (Mark 10:12, Luke 16:18b), but she can remarry her first husband (1 Corinthians 7:11).

It was because the Old Covenant rules permitted a divorced woman to marry someone else (Deuteronomy 24:2) that Jesus could acknowledge the woman of Samaria's five different marriages (John 4:18; assuming that all five of her marriages didn't end in the death of her husband: cf. Luke 20:29-31) while the Old Covenant was still in effect. Jesus' New Covenant/New Testament rules forbidding a divorced woman to remarry (Mark 10:12, Luke 16:18b) didn't come into legal effect until his death on the Cross brought the New Covenant/New Testament into legal effect (Hebrews 9:16-17) and abolished the Old Covenant (Ephesians 2:15, Hebrews 7:18-19, Colossians 2:14).

The strict New Covenant/New Testament rules regarding divorce and remarriage cut both ways, in that if we find ourselves in a miserable marriage which is an adulterous affair in God's eyes, we can escape our misery and our unrepentant sin at the same time by simply divorcing our invalid spouse. But if we find ourselves in a very pleasant marriage which is an adulterous affair in God's eyes, we have to be willing to give it up in order to escape our unrepentant sin and thereby avoid ultimately losing our salvation because of unrepentant sin (Hebrews 10:26-29).

 

[hedrick]

I agree with BlueLightningTN. Jesus' concern is divorce, not remarriage.

The problem is that there are situations where everyone agrees that it's better to end the marriage. The simple approach is to say that Jesus never intended to create a law that would be used to harm battered spouses. He was objecting to the easy divorce that some Jews advocated. There were rabbis who said that the husband could divorce the wife for any reason, including whim. Jesus said, no, the any-reason divorce is invalid. That doesn't mean that there's no possible reason. Look at the context. The whole point of the Sermon on the Mount is the God judges by intent, not legalistically.

And in fact Christians by and large understand this in practice. That's why no one wants people to stay in abusive situations. The question is how we deal with it.

Many Christians take a legalistic approach. They're unwilling to openly say that Jesus didn't intend his words to become a new law. So they redefine things. It's not divorce, it's annulment. It's not divorce, it's separation. The absurdity of annulment is obvious, so I won't spend time here. But separation is more widely accepted. The problem is that Paul says that partners can't refuse access to each other, except briefly when both agree to it for devotional purposes. (1 Cor 7:1 ff) So separation violates Scriptural passages too. The problem is that separation without divorce tends to lead to adultery, since many people won't be able to live the rest of their lives without sex. Probably they should be able to, but in real life many can't. Paul recognizes this in 1 Cor 7:9, and suggests that we not put people into that kind of situation. (Jesus implicitly assumes it when he notes that improper divorce will lead to adultery. That statement assumes that the separated partner will either remarry or have sex without remarrying.)

Sin tends to put us in impossible situations. There are times when our choices are between the lesser of evils. Better simply admit it than try to use a legalism that both Jesus and Paul rejected, and soften it by subterfuge. Although I'd rather see the subterfuge than see people actually enforce their legalism, the difficulty is that the subterfuges leave people in situations that are likely to lead to additional sin.

 

[SearchingForJesus]

The exception for fornication (as distinguished from adultery) in Matthew 19:9 permits a husband to divorce his wife for pre-marital fornication and marry another woman without his committing adultery. But this applies only to cases where a husband doesn't discover until after he's married that his newlywed wife isn't a virgin (cf. Deuteronomy 22:14, Matthew 1:19). There's no such pre-marital fornication exception granted to a wife. If a wife divorces her husband for any reason and marries another man she is committing adultery (Mark 10:12). Also, there's no pre-marital fornication exception granted to a man who marries a divorced woman. If a man marries a woman divorced for any reason he is committing adultery (Luke 16:18b).

That is a LOT of personal opinion added to what scripture says:
Mat 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

No where does it say 'pre-marital' fornication, it just says fornication. The best example is God's own divorce:
Jer 3:6 The LORD said also unto me in the days of Josiah the king, Hast thou seen that which backsliding Israel hath done? she is gone up upon every high mountain and under every green tree, and there hath played the harlot.
Jer 3:7 And I said after she had done all these things, Turn thou unto me. But she returned not. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it.
Jer 3:8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce;

Fornication during the covenant.

And as far as women can not divorce men, have you not read:
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

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.

"A Brother or a Sister is not under bondage."

 

[Bible2]

SearchingForJesus said:

No where does it say 'pre-marital' fornication, it just says fornication.

In Matthew 19:9, the word "fornication" is used in the sense of pre-marital fornication, as distinguished from Matthew 19:9's separate reference to "adultery". It's the same with Matthew 5:32 and Galatians 5:19.

SearchingForJesus said:

The best example is God's own divorce

Jeremiah 3:8 refers to God divorcing Israel for adultery during Old Covenant times. Under the New Covenant, men aren't allowed by God to divorce their wives for adultery, only for pre-marital fornication (Matthew 19:9) not discovered until after the wedding. Also, note that even after God divorced Israel he said that he was still married to Israel and wanted Israel to return to him (Jeremiah 3:14). It's the same under the New Covenant; a woman divorced from her first husband is still married in God's eyes to her first husband. That's why if she marries another man she's committing adultery against her first husband (Mark 10:12), and that's why her new husband is committing adultery against her first husband (Luke 16:18b). The only choices for a divorced woman are to remain unmarried or remarry her first husband (1 Corinthians 7:11).

SearchingForJesus said:

And as far as women can not divorce men, have you not read:
Gal 3:28

A wife isn't to divorce her husband (1 Corinthians 7:10), just as a husband isn't to divorce his wife (1 Corinthians 7:11b). But if a wife does divorce her husband (such as to escape domestic violence), she must remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband (1 Corinthians 7:11). A Christian must always completely forgive everyone who has wronged him or her in any way (Mark 11:25), no matter how great the wrong and no matter how many times a wrong has been committed (Matthew 18:21-35). For if a Christian refuses to forgive anyone for anything, God will refuse to forgive that Christian for his or her own sins (Mark 11:26).

Regarding Galatians 3:28, it means only that there's no distinction between male believers and female believers with regard to salvation (1 Peter 3:7). There are distinctions between male believers and female believers with regard to other matters (1 Timothy 2:11-12, 1 Corinthians 14:34-37, 1 Corinthians 11:4-16, 1 Peter 3:7).

SearchingForJesus said:

1Co 7:15

1 Corinthians 7:15 means that a believing spouse isn't under bondage to continually try to keep his or her marriage together if his or her unbelieving spouse is absolutely determined to get a divorce. But 1 Corinthians 7:15 doesn't mean that a believing wife, after being divorced by an unbelieving husband, can then marry someone else, because if a man marries a woman divorced for any reason he's committing adultery (Luke 16:18b).

 

[HAPMinistries]

In Matthew 19:9, the word "fornication" is used in the sense of pre-marital fornication, as distinguished from Matthew 19:9's separate reference to "adultery". It's the same with Matthew 5:32 and Galatians 5:19.

Matthew 19:9 "fornication"
πορνεία
porneia
por-ni'-ah
From G4203; harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively idolatry: - fornication.

Porneia does not restrict to pre-marital. In fact, it is a word that throws a wider net than "adultery"

μοιχάω
moichaō
moy-khah'-o
From G3432; (middle voice) to commit adultery: - commit adultery.

Fornication [Porneia] is harlotry that covers both adultery and incest.

Definition of HARLOTRY

1
: sexual profligacy : prostitution

2
: an unprincipled or immoral woman.

Harlotry - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

There is no place in scripture that states this is to be 'before marriage'. That is your personal opinion. Not meaning to sound offensive or anything, it is just not scriptural.

Jeremiah 3:8 refers to God divorcing Israel for adultery during Old Covenant times... Also, note that even after God divorced Israel he said that he was still married to Israel and wanted Israel to return to him (Jeremiah 3:14). It's the same under the New Covenant; a woman divorced from her first husband is still married in God's eyes to her first husband. That's why if she marries another man she's committing adultery against her first husband (Mark 10:12), and that's why her new husband is committing adultery against her first husband (Luke 16:18b). The only choices for a divorced woman are to remain unmarried or remarry her first husband (1 Corinthians 7:11).

In Jeremiah, you are misunderstanding that it is a repeat at 14, and ends at:
Jer 3:20 Surely as a wife treacherously departeth from her husband, so have ye dealt treacherously with me, O house of Israel, saith the LORD.

Also there is:

Jer 31:31 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:
Jer 31:32 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:

There was a break.

*I admit, you taught me something.

I noticed how it is only the husband when used in the term 'divorce' or 'put away', but throughout the word of God, there are many masculine uses that means man as mankind, not exclusive to the sex, so I never paid too much attention to it until now.

But here:

1Co 7:10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
1Co 7:11 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 7:12 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.
1Co 7:13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.

Here it deals with both sexes, and in the case of the husband, the term 'put away', which is divorce. And for the wife, the term 'depart' and 'leave' are used.

Regardless, it says:
1Co 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
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.

It is very plain to read, and it is read in context of the conversation: "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."

To claim that one married and abandoned is under bondage still to the former spouse, and having no hope, is certainly not peace. It is very much un-scriptural to state otherwise, when they are set free, they are free.

A Christian must always completely forgive everyone who has wronged him or her in any way (Mark 11:25), no matter how great the wrong and no matter how many times a wrong has been committed (Matthew 18:21-35). For if a Christian refuses to forgive anyone for anything, God will refuse to forgive that Christian for his or her own sins (Mark 11:26).

I completely agree. No 2 Christians should ever get divorced because the one in the wrong would always repent, and the other would always forgive.

The problem is when people become unequally yoked.
2Co 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

Sadly, a Christian is known by their fruit, and not all people who claim to be 'Christians' bear the fruit of Christians, which, of course, means they are not. It is not these people that Paul addressed to set free, but the real Christians, not to let them live alone, anchored to a spouse who left them, but to set them free to live life without bondage. These are the people who I believe need to be addressed.

1 Corinthians 7:15 means that a believing spouse isn't under bondage to continually try to keep his or her marriage together if his or her unbelieving spouse is absolutely determined to get a divorce. But 1 Corinthians 7:15 doesn't mean that a believing wife, after being divorced by an unbelieving husband, can then marry someone else, because if a man marries a woman divorced for any reason he's committing adultery (Luke 16:18b).

Because it is plain to see that the 'bondage' is being bound to the broken marriage:
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.
1Co 7:16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?

I have to say it has to be as this scripture puts it, 'not under bondage' 'called to peace'.

To say a woman can be cheated on, left, and divorced, and then if she decides to remarry, she is in sin, is a gross negligence of the heart of what God has done, and that is to set us free from our sins, not place us in bondage to them.

To say she can not re-marry is to say she is still bound to the husband. Paul says she not under bondage in this case. If she is not under bondage, then she is not under bondage, and is free to do what any woman not under bondage to any husband can do, and that is remarry with God's blessing.

 

[Bible2]

HAPMinistries said:

Porneia does not restrict to pre-marital.

Note that it hasn't been said that it does. But while porneia can be used to refer to adultery, it doesn't have to include adultery every time that it's used, but can be used to refer only to sex between unmarried people. For example, someone could say "She committed porneia with a single man before she got married, but she hasn't committed adultery". In the same way, in Matthew 19:9, porneia ("fornication") is used in the sense of pre-marital sex only, as distinguished from Matthew 19:9's separate reference to moichao ("adultery"). It's the same with Matthew 5:32 and Galatians 5:19.

HAPMinistries said:

In Jeremiah, you are misunderstanding that it is a repeat at 14, and ends at:
Jer 3:20

Note that while Jeremiah 3:14 is a repeat of the same "Turn" idea of Jeremiah 3:7, it's not spoken at the same time as Jeremiah 3:7, for Jeremiah 3:7 refers to what God "said" (in the past) before he "had" (in the past) divorced Israel (Jeremiah 3:8), whereas Jeremiah 3:14 is what God was saying presently at the time Jeremiah was giving his prophecy, which was after God had already divorced Israel (Jeremiah 3:8).

So Jeremiah 3:14 shows that even after God had divorced Israel (Jeremiah 3:8) he still considered himself to be married to Israel and wanted Israel to return to him (Jeremiah 3:14). It's the same under the New Covenant; a woman divorced from her first husband is still married in God's eyes to her first husband. That's why if she marries another man she's committing adultery against her first husband (Mark 10:12), and that's why her new husband is committing adultery against her first husband (Luke 16:18b). The only choices for a divorced woman are to remain unmarried or return to her first husband (1 Corinthians 7:11).

Regarding Jeremiah 3:20, it's referring to the same departing from God, the same backsliding, as Jeremiah 3:14. And note that even though Israel had departed from God (Jeremiah 3:20-21), he still wanted Israel to return to him (Jeremiah 3:22).

Also, note that it has been prophesied that all Israel will indeed return to God in the future (Romans 11:26) and call him her husband (Hosea 2:16) and he will remarry Israel (Hosea 2:19-20, Isaiah 54:5-10, Isaiah 62:5b).

HAPMinistries said:

Also there is:

Jer 31:31 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:
Jer 31:32 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:

There was a break.

Note that the "was" in Jeremiah 31:32 doesn't contradict that God still considers himself to be married to Israel and wants all Israel to return to him (Jeremiah 3:14), just as it doesn't contradict that he's made a new covenant with Israel (Jeremiah 31:31-37, Matthew 26:28). For the "was" in Jeremiah 31:32 is used in the same way as if a man were to say to his daughter: "You lied to me even though I was your father". This doesn't mean that the man doesn't still consider himself to be her father.

HAPMinistries said:

I noticed how it is only the husband when used in the term 'divorce' or 'put away'

Actually, Mark 10:12 shows that if a wife shall "put away" her husband, and be married to another man, she commits adultery.

HAPMinistries said:

1Co 7:15

1 Corinthians 7:15 means that a believing spouse isn't under bondage to continually try to keep his or her marriage together if his or her unbelieving spouse is absolutely determined to get a divorce. But 1 Corinthians 7:15 doesn't mean that a believing wife, after being divorced by an unbelieving husband, can then marry someone else, because if a man marries a woman divorced for any reason he's committing adultery (Luke 16:18b).

HAPMinistries said:

To claim that one married and abandoned is under bondage still to the former spouse, and having no hope, is certainly not peace.

The peace in 1 Corinthians 7:15 refers to peace between people (Hebrews 12:14), in this case the peace between the believing spouse and the unbelieving spouse because the believing spouse isn't under bondage to keep fighting the unbelieving spouse over his or her desire to get a divorce.

Also, even divorced believers can always have peace within themselves, because the peace of believers doesn't come from them focusing upon any carnal matters (Romans 8:6) in this awful world of trials and tribulations, but from them focusing on the spiritual peace which is miraculously given to them by Jesus Christ (John 16:33, John 14:27, 2 Thessalonians 3:16, Philippians 4:7) as they do the right thing (Romans 2:10, Galatians 6:16) and remember that he never abandons obedient believers (Matthew 28:20, Hebrews 13:5).

Also, regarding hope, even divorced believers can always have hope, because the hope of believers isn't in the carnal matters of their lives in this world (1 Corinthians 15:19, Romans 5:3-5), but in Jesus Christ (1 Timothy 1:1b) and in eternal life (Titus 1:2, Titus 3:7) in an immortal body (Romans 8:23-25) which will be given to obedient believers at his second coming (1 Peter 1:13, 1 John 3:2-3, Titus 2:13).

HAPMinistries said:

No 2 Christians should ever get divorced because the one in the wrong would always repent, and the other would always forgive.

After getting saved, a Christian doesn't always repent when he commits a sin. If he wrongly employs his free will to ignore Jesus' warning and chastisement (Revelation 3:19) and wastes the time he's given and refuses to repent (Revelation 2:21) until death (1 John 5:16) or Jesus' return (Matthew 24:48-51), he will in the end lose his salvation because of unrepentant sin (Hebrews 10:26-29, 1 Corinthians 9:27, Matthew 24:48-51, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Galatians 5:19-21, 2 Peter 2:20-22, Romans 8:13, 1 John 5:16, James 5:19-20, Hebrews 5:9).

HAPMinistries said:

Sadly, a Christian is known by their fruit

Actually, it's an obedient Christian that is known by his good fruit (Matthew 12:33), for it's possible for a Christian to wrongly employ his free will to be disobedient to the point where he doesn't bear good fruit (John 15:2a, Matthew 25:26,30).

HAPMinistries said:

To say a woman can be cheated on, left, and divorced, and then if she decides to remarry, she is in sin, is a gross negligence of the heart of what God has done, and that is to set us free from our sins, not place us in bondage to them.

Note that just as God setting Christians free from bondage to sin (Romans 6:18) doesn't mean that God has set them free to sin (Romans 6:2), so God setting Christians free from any bondage of having to keep together a marriage to an unbeliever when the unbeliever is absolutely determined to get a divorce (1 Corinthians 7:15) doesn't mean that God has set divorced Christian women free to start a second marriage, because the second marriage would be the sin of adultery (Luke 16:18b).

 

[HAPMinistries]

Note that it hasn't been said that it does. But while porneia can be used to refer to adultery, it doesn't have to include adultery every time that it's used, but can be used to refer only to sex between unmarried people.

You said:

In Matthew 19:9, the word "fornication" is used in the sense of pre-marital fornication

You are taking the word porneia, and limiting it to one fraction of what it means. Yes, it can mean finding out something had happened sexually before marriage, like how Joseph was putting away Mary, but it also means after marriage, it means incest, it can even be taken as idolatry, which may be the reasoning for Paul addressing the Corinthian church about marriage with unbelievers.

Point is, you can not conclude that the word porneia means ONLY pre-marriage sexual delinquency.

So Jeremiah 3:14 shows that even after God had divorced Israel (Jeremiah 3:8) he still considered himself to be married to Israel and wanted Israel to return to him (Jeremiah 3:14). It's the same under the New Covenant; a woman divorced from her first husband is still married in God's eyes to her first husband. That's why if she marries another man she's committing adultery against her first husband (Mark 10:12), and that's why her new husband is committing adultery against her first husband (Luke 16:18b). The only choices for a divorced woman are to remain unmarried or return to her first husband (1 Corinthians 7:11).

Regarding Jeremiah 3:20, it's referring to the same departing from God, the same backsliding, as Jeremiah 3:14. And note that even though Israel had departed from God (Jeremiah 3:20-21), he still wanted Israel to return to him (Jeremiah 3:22).

Also, note that it has been prophesied that all Israel will indeed return to God in the future (Romans 11:26) and call him her husband (Hosea 2:16) and he will remarry Israel (Hosea 2:19-20, Isaiah 54:5-10, Isaiah 62:5b).

I am going to bypass beating a dead horse that you would find verse 20 as a repeat, but not verse 14. In both cases, God called for repentance, and in both cases a marriage is broken, with God divorcing Israel [8] and Israel departing from God.[20] God related in being both the one who divorces, AND as the one that is abandoned.

Though you believe you disagree with my view, you really do not.
You recognize a need for remarriage. A need for remarriage means the former marriage is no more.
Of course God wanted Israel to repent and return, do you think Christians do not cry their self to sleep praying for the return of their spouse, even AFTER divorce?
I believe to be a Christian is to emulate God to the best ability possible. In Jeremiah, God found the adultery, asked for repentance, when refused, 'then' divorced. This did not mean God did not love Israel, but means that God was not going to tolerate their fornication. God looked for ways to restore the marriage, but was willing to draw a line.

Note that the "was" in Jeremiah 31:32 doesn't contradict that God still considers himself to be married to Israel and wants all Israel to return to him (Jeremiah 3:14), just as it doesn't contradict that he's made a new covenant with Israel (Jeremiah 31:31-37, Matthew 26:28). For the "was" in Jeremiah 31:32 is used in the same way as if a man were to say to his daughter: "You lied to me even though I was your father". This doesn't mean that the man doesn't still consider himself to be her father.

The scripture says:
Jer 31:31 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:
Jer 31:32 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:
Jer 31:33a But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel...

'Was' is definitely meaning at one point had the position of 'husband', but no longer. The Geneva Translation says:

Jer 31:32 Not after the couenaunt that I made with their fathers, when I toke them by the hande and led them out of the lande of Egypt, which couenaunt they brake, yea euen when I as an husbande had rule ouer them saith the Lorde.

The word is saying at one time, but no longer, was like a husband. Even the context, "which my covenant they brake", "brake" means:

פּרר
pârar
paw-rar'
A primitive root; to break up (usually figuratively, that is, to violate, frustrate): - X any ways, break (asunder), cast off, cause to cease, X clean, defeat, disannul, disappoint, dissolve, divide, make of none effect, fail, frustrate, bring (come) to nought, X utterly, make void.

I apologize for the expression if it is offensive, but for God to say the marriage covenant is broken up, asunder, cast off, cause to cease, disannuled, dissolved, divided, make of none effect, failed, come to nought, and made void, and then it is still in effect..., then God would be talking out of both sides of God's mouth.

...but we know God does not do that.

Actually, Mark 10:12 shows that if a wife shall "put away" her husband, and be married to another man, she commits adultery.

Thank you, I appreciate that.

1 Corinthians 7:15 means that a believing spouse isn't under bondage to continually try to keep his or her marriage together if his or her unbelieving spouse is absolutely determined to get a divorce.

Exactly!

But 1 Corinthians 7:15 doesn't mean that a believing wife, after being divorced by an unbelieving husband, can then marry someone else, because if a man marries a woman divorced for any reason he's committing adultery (Luke 16:18b).

I am trying to ignore that somehow you are rationalizing that it is ok for a man to divorce and remarry, but not ok for a woman, but I have to show that Mark 10:12 does correspond in message with Luke 16:18, but what you are lacking is Mark 10:4-12 is synoptic with Matthew 19:3-9, and Luke 16:18 is synoptic with Matthew 5:32.

It is not hard to reason that a woman can divorce for reason of fornication of her husband, should he remain unrepentant.

The peace in 1 Corinthians 7:15 refers to peace between people (Hebrews 12:14), in this case the peace between the believing spouse and the unbelieving spouse because the believing spouse isn't under bondage to keep fighting the unbelieving spouse over his or her desire to get a divorce.

Agreed

Also, even divorced believers can always have peace within themselves, because the peace of believers doesn't come from them focusing upon any carnal matters (Romans 8:6) in this awful world of trials and tribulations, but from them focusing on the spiritual peace which is miraculously given to them by Jesus Christ (John 16:33, John 14:27, 2 Thessalonians 3:16, Philippians 4:7) as they do the right thing (Romans 2:10, Galatians 6:16) and remember that he never abandons obedient believers (Matthew 28:20, Hebrews 13:5).

Also, regarding hope, even divorced believers can always have hope, because the hope of believers isn't in the carnal matters of their lives in this world (1 Corinthians 15:19, Romans 5:3-5), but in Jesus Christ (1 Timothy 1:1b) and in eternal life (Titus 1:2, Titus 3:7) in an immortal body (Romans 8:23-25) which will be given to obedient believers at his second coming (1 Peter 1:13, 1 John 3:2-3, Titus 2:13).

None of this says they can not remarry. You would place an unbearable yoke on someone who never desired their spouse to cheat or leave them. Even Paul understood:
1Co 7:9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

It is not always about sex, but can be about children, about loneliness, about support, all of which Christ gives, but you neglect the instrument which Christ would give through. Divorce and remarriage has never been the issue that is the problem. Fornication is. Eliminate fornication, and you eliminate divorce.

After getting saved, a Christian doesn't always repent when he commits a sin. If he wrongly employs his free will to ignore Jesus' warning and chastisement (Revelation 3:19) and wastes the time he's given and refuses to repent (Revelation 2:21) until death (1 John 5:16) or Jesus' return (Matthew 24:48-51), he will in the end lose his salvation because of unrepentant sin (Hebrews 10:26-29, 1 Corinthians 9:27, Matthew 24:48-51, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Galatians 5:19-21, 2 Peter 2:20-22, Romans 8:13, 1 John 5:16, James 5:19-20, Hebrews 5:9).

I agree. Only, he did not lose his salvation at the end, he lost it when he sinned and refused to repent.

Actually, it's an obedient Christian that is known by his good fruit (Matthew 12:33), for it's possible for a Christian to wrongly employ his free will to be disobedient to the point where he doesn't bear good fruit (John 15:2a, Matthew 25:26,30).

I disagree. A person claiming to be a Christian, but not bearing the fruit of a Christian, is a liar.

Note that just as God setting Christians free from bondage to sin (Romans 6:18) doesn't mean that God has set them free to sin (Romans 6:2), so God setting Christians free from any bondage of having to keep together a marriage to an unbeliever when the unbeliever is absolutely determined to get a divorce (1 Corinthians 7:15) doesn't mean that God has set divorced Christian women free to start a second marriage, because the second marriage would be the sin of adultery (Luke 16:18b).

I disagree. The OT says:
Lev 21:14 A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or an harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife.

This shows a divorced woman, like a widow, being a potential mate for others, but rejected for the high priest, who:
Lev 21:13 And he shall take a wife in her virginity.

It is easy to see the divorced is treated like the widow, because that is truly what a divorced person's life is, their spouse 'died' out of their life.

It is not that Paul did not address them, it is that Paul called them for what they were, unmarried:
1Co 7:8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.

I can prove this, and actually, you taught me to see this, so I do not say this as any kind of rebuke whatsoever, but as a student showing their teacher what they had learned:

1Co 7:10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
1Co 7:11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband:

Here Paul plainly calls a divorced woman a 'unmarried' woman. I looked it up in the Greek:
ἄγαμος
agamos
ag'-am-os
From G1 (as a negative particle) and G1062; unmarried: - unmarried.

I looked up 'unmarried' in 1 Co 7:8, same word, 'agamos'.

Though I hope you understand that I am always for the reconciliation of homes, even AFTER divorced has happened, it is just important to remember that they are unmarried, and let's not forget:

Deu 24:1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
Deu 24:2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.

But you can see there would be confusion when it says:

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

Because God does not want divorce, and Paul understood that Christians did not want to be divorced, that is why, under the Holy Ghost, Paul wrote:

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.
1Co 7:16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?

May as well say, if your spouse has no regard for God's word, and they leave, let them leave.

I find the word of God telling both women and men that you should forgive your spouse, and in every possible case, restore marriages, but if a spouse fornicates, and is unrepentant, to leave you to continue fornication, then you can move on with your life in peace.

 

[MamaZ]

and with annulments then we have to look at what a bald headed priest?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

and with annulments then we have to look at what a bald headed priest?

The priest didn't really do anything with my annulment. And I was fortunate the psychologist I saw had a full head of hair.

My poor brother is balding. LOL

I still do not understand the fear of it. Just go with and be proud!

 

[sunlover1]

Man cannot seperate that which God has joined in sacrament.

Evidently he can or God wouldn't have to tell him not to.

16 “I hate divorce,” says the Lord God of Israel,

“and I hate a man’s covering himself with violence

as well as with his garment,” says the Lord Almighty.
So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith.

If anyone thinks that some bald-headed judge can undo what God has done, then you are either giving God too little credit or giving man too much

No I'm not.
GOD gave man the power to marry and to divorce.
Just because 'you' say He didn't, doesn't make it so.

My poor brother is balding. LOL

I still do not understand the fear of it. Just go with and be proud!

Amen! Might as well learn to love it lol.
Just like wrinkles and bifocals?

 

[Rhamiel]

and with annulments then we have to look at what a bald headed priest?

the annulment is to say that the marriage was never legit to start off with
it is like a contract that can not be broken, but it can be rulled void because it was not done properly to start with

 

[MamaZ]

the annulment is to say that the marriage was never legit to start off with
it is like a contract that can not be broken, but it can be rulled void because it was not done properly to start with

Yes but we do not see in scripture that God has said anything about a marriage not being legit in the first place.

 

[Bible2]

HAPMinistries said:

Point is, you can not conclude that the word porneia means ONLY pre-marriage sexual delinquency.

Note that it hasn't been said that porneia means only pre-marital sex. But while porneia can be used also to refer to adultery, incest, or idolatry, it doesn't have to include these things every time that it's used, but can be used simply to refer to pre-marital sex. For example, someone could say "She committed porneia with a single man before she got married, but she hasn't committed adultery". In the same way, in Matthew 19:9, porneia ("fornication") is used in the sense of pre-marital sex only, as distinguished from Matthew 19:9's separate reference to moichao ("adultery"). It's the same with Matthew 5:32 and Galatians 5:19.

HAPMinistries said:

I am going to bypass beating a dead horse that you would find verse 20 as a repeat, but not verse 14.

Note that it was agreed that Jeremiah 3:14 is a repeat of the same "Turn" idea of Jeremiah 3:7. But Jeremiah 3:14 isn't spoken at the same time as Jeremiah 3:7, for Jeremiah 3:7 refers to what God "said" (in the past) before he "had" (in the past) divorced Israel (Jeremiah 3:8), whereas Jeremiah 3:14 is what God was saying presently at the time Jeremiah was giving his prophecy, which was after God had already divorced Israel (Jeremiah 3:8).

So Jeremiah 3:14 shows that even after God had divorced Israel (Jeremiah 3:8) he still considered himself to be married to Israel and wanted Israel to return to him. It's the same under the New Covenant; a woman divorced from her first husband is still married in God's eyes to her first husband. That's why if she marries another man she's committing adultery against her first husband (Mark 10:12), and that's why her new husband is committing adultery against her first husband (Luke 16:18b).

Regarding Jeremiah 3:20, it's referring to the same departing from God, the same backsliding, as Jeremiah 3:14. And note that even though Israel had departed from God (Jeremiah 3:20-21), he still wanted Israel to return to him (Jeremiah 3:22).

Also, note that it has been prophesied that all Israel will indeed return to God in the future (Romans 11:26) and call him her husband (Hosea 2:16) and he will remarry Israel (Hosea 2:19-20, Isaiah 54:5-10, Isaiah 62:5b).

HAPMinistries said:

A need for remarriage means the former marriage is no more.

After a divorce, a marriage is no more legally, so that if a woman divorces her husband she can be said to be "unmarried" (1 Corinthians 7:11) legally. But because she's still married in God's eyes, her only choices are to remain unmarried legally or to remarry her husband legally (1 Corinthians 7:11), for if she enters into a second marriage legally with some other man, both she and her second husband will be committing adultery in God's eyes (Mark 10:12, Luke 16:18b).

HAPMinistries said:

Of course God wanted Israel to repent and return, do you think Christians do not cry their self to sleep praying for the return of their spouse, even AFTER divorce?

No doubt some divorced Christians do that, but not all do. For some divorced Christians go and marry someone else.

HAPMinistries said:

God looked for ways to restore the marriage, but was willing to draw a line.

Note that God never drew the line regarding his remarrying Israel.

HAPMinistries said:

The word is saying at one time, but no longer, was like a husband.

The "was" in Jeremiah 31:32 is used in the same way as if a man were to say to his daughter: "You left me even though I was your father". This doesn't mean that the man doesn't still consider himself to be her father. For even if the father had legally disowned the daughter after she left him while still a minor to go live with some other family that ended up legally adopting her, this doesn't mean that the man doesn't still consider himself to be her biological father, for there's no breaking that connection. In the same way, even after God legally divorced Israel after she abandoned him to worship other things, this doesn't mean that God doesn't still consider himself to be her husband (Jeremiah 3:14), for there's no breaking that connection entirely in God's eyes.

Also, note that the "was" in Jeremiah 31:32 doesn't contradict that God still wants all Israel to return to him (Jeremiah 3:14), just as it doesn't contradict that he's made a new covenant with Israel (Jeremiah 31:31-37, Matthew 26:28). In the father/daughter analogy, it would be like the father sending letters to his estranged daughter asking her to come back to him, and him writing up a legal document which if she signed would make her legally his daughter again.

HAPMinistries said:

I am trying to ignore that somehow you are rationalizing that it is ok for a man to divorce and remarry, but not ok for a woman, but I have to show that Mark 10:12 does correspond in message with Luke 16:18, but what you are lacking is Mark 10:4-12 is synoptic with Matthew 19:3-9, and Luke 16:18 is synoptic with Matthew 5:32.

It is not hard to reason that a woman can divorce for reason of fornication of her husband, should he remain unrepentant.

Note that while Luke 16:18 and Mark 10:11 are qualified by the single, pre-marital sex exception granted only to husbands in Matthew 19:9, there's no verse which grants any exceptions to Mark 10:12.

HAPMinistries said:

You would place an unbearable yoke on someone who never desired their spouse to cheat or leave them. Even Paul understood:
1Co 7:9

1 Corinthians 7:8-9 isn't referring to a divorced woman whose husband is still alive, for her choices don't include entering into a second marriage (1 Corinthians 7:11, Mark 10:12, Luke 16:18b). And while this could be difficult for her if she has a strong sex drive, note that it would be no different than if her husband fell into a coma and stayed alive in that coma for years in a hospice. She can't divorce him and marry someone else just so she can have sex again. But there's always the chance that her husband could come out of his coma and be restored to good health, just as there's always the chance that a divorced adulterer husband could repent and come back to her and remarry her.

HAPMinistries said:

It is not always about sex, but can be about children, about loneliness, about support

Note that a divorced woman can keep her children, and she need never be lonely or without emotional support from other adults, but can have close emotional relationships with adult friends, parents, and siblings. If she has no children, she can't enter into a second marriage just to have them, just as if her husband was infertile she couldn't marry someone else just to have children.

With regard to financial support, she can retain it in the form of alimony. And if that isn't available because her husband is financially destitute, she can get government aid, or go to work, or appeal to her parents and siblings. And if all of these still leave her and her children living in relative poverty, she can't marry someone else who is financially well-off just so that she and her and her children can escape relative poverty. For just as escaping relative poverty wouldn't justify a wife continuing in the sin of an adulterous affair with a man who financially supports her and her children (or wouldn't justify the sin of her becoming and remaining a well-paid prostitute), so escaping relative poverty wouldn't justify the sin of her entering into and remaining in a case of second-marriage adultery (Mark 10:12) with a man who financially supports her and her children.

HAPMinistries said:

Divorce and remarriage has never been the issue that is the problem. Fornication is.

Divorce and remarriage is the issue that is the problem in Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18. And the exception for fornication as distinguished from adultery in Matthew 19:9 permits a husband to divorce his wife for pre-marital sex and marry another woman without his committing adultery. But this applies only to cases where a husband doesn't discover until after he's married that his newlywed wife isn't a virgin (cf. Deuteronomy 22:14, Matthew 1:19). There's no such pre-marital sex exception granted to a wife. If a wife divorces her husband for any reason and marries another man she's committing adultery (Mark 10:12). Also, there's no pre-marital sex exception granted to a man who marries a divorced woman. If a man marries a woman divorced for any reason he's committing adultery (Luke 16:18b).

HAPMinistries said:

Eliminate fornication, and you eliminate divorce.

How? People divorce for other reasons than sex.

HAPMinistries said:

Only, he did not lose his salvation at the end, he lost it when he sinned and refused to repent.

Actually, that's not the case. Salvation isn't lost until the judgment of the church, at the second coming:

Some believers, at the judgment of the church (2 Corinthians 5:10-11, Psalms 50:4-5, cf. Mark 13:27), at the second coming, will lose their salvation because of such things as unrepentant sin (Matthew 24:48-51, Hebrews 10:26-29, 1 Corinthians 9:27), unrepentant laziness (Matthew 25:26,30, John 15:2a, Romans 2:6-8), or apostasy (Mark 8:35-38, Hebrews 6:4-8, 2 Timothy 2:12).

That's why believers know the "terror" of the coming judgment of the church (2 Corinthians 5:10-11), why they must remain in fear of being cut off the same as unbelievers if they don't continue in God's goodness (Romans 11:20-22, Luke 12:45-46), why they must be careful to work out their own ultimate salvation with fear and trembling (Philippians 2:12, 1 Peter 1:17, Romans 2:6-8).

HAPMinistries said:

A person claiming to be a Christian, but not bearing the fruit of a Christian, is a liar.

A person claiming to be an obedient Christian but not bearing the fruit of an obedient Christian is a liar. For it's an obedient Christian who is known by his good fruit (Matthew 12:33). It's possible for a Christian to wrongly employ his free will to be disobedient to the point where he doesn't bear good fruit (John 15:2a, Matthew 25:26,30).

HAPMinistries said:

1Co 7:8

1 Corinthians 7:8-9 isn't referring to a divorced woman whose husband is still alive, for her choices don't include entering into a second marriage (1 Corinthians 7:11, Mark 10:12, Luke 16:18b).

HAPMinistries said:

1Co 7:11

If a woman divorces her husband she can be said to be "unmarried" (1 Corinthians 7:11) in a legal sense. But because she's still married in God's eyes, her only choices are to remain legally unmarried or to legally remarry her husband (1 Corinthians 7:11), for if she enters into a second legal marriage with some other man both she and her second husband will be committing adultery in God's eyes (Mark 10:12, Luke 16:18b).

HAPMinistries said:

Deu 24:2

The now-abolished Old Covenant rules (Ephesians 2:15, Hebrews 7:18-19, Colossians 2:14) permitted a divorced woman to marry someone else (Deuteronomy 24:2), but if her second marriage ended, the Old Covenant rules forbade her to remarry her first husband (Deuteronomy 24:4). The New Covenant rules turn this on its head: now a divorced woman can't marry anyone else (Mark 10:12, Luke 16:18b), but she can remarry her first husband (1 Corinthians 7:11).

HAPMinistries said:

1Co 7:15

1 Corinthians 7:15 means that a believing spouse isn't under any bondage of having to keep together a marriage to an unbeliever when the unbeliever is absolutely determined to get a divorce. But 1 Corinthians 7:15 doesn't mean that a believing wife, after being divorced by an unbelieving husband, can then marry someone else, because if a man marries a divorced woman he's committing adultery (Luke 16:18b).

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

and with annulments then we have to look at what a bald headed priest?

Be nice to bald people.

And he [Eliseus] went up from thence to Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, little boys came out of the city and mocked him, saying: Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And looking back, he saw them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord: and there came forth two bears out of the forest, and tore of them two and forty boys.

 

[HAPMinistries]

Note that it hasn't been said that porneia means only pre-marital sex. But while porneia can be used also to refer to adultery, incest, or idolatry

Adultery, incest, and adultery. The word is not restricted to having one meaning at all times, but has all 3 meanings at all times.

You never replied to my posts, just chose verses and made comments on the verses.

You are making claims like this:
Deu 24:1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
Deu 24:2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.

You say this is OT, therefore it does not count, as if it is not God's word. Yet Grace is to set us free from the law, not make a stricter law.

The scripture says:
1Co 7:10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
1Co 7:11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband:

She is called unmarried. Unmarried is unmarried.
ἄγαμος
agamos
ag'-am-os
From G1 (as a negative particle) and G1062; unmarried: - unmarried.
Unmarried

1Co 7:8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
1Co 7:9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

The language is plain and easily understood.

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.

Again, fornication is the problem, because fornication is the 'only' way a man or a woman can legally be divorced and remarry. Stop fornication, and you stop all legal divorce.

 

[MamaZ]

Be nice to bald people.

I wasn't the one who brought up bald people. Bald is beautiful.