Truth About Divorce and Remarriage, Mountain Creek Church of Christ

"Truth About Divorce and Remarriage" is a sermon preached at the Mountain Creek Church of Christ by Gary Massey, Jr. This sermon examines the different teachings regarding when the Bible allows a person to divorce their spouse and remarry someone else. The sermon shows that only adultery allows divorce and remarriage. People who have divorced and remarried and later come to obey the gospel are not excepted from this teaching because the new marriage is ongoing adultery. The reason for the strictness of the Bible is the sanctity in which God holds marriage.

[@cherylbranch4355]

1. Marriage is an institution designed and administered by God for a lifelong union in Holy Matrimony of one man and one woman, according to the Scriptures. 2. God hates divorce and never sanctions it for covenant marriages(a), A covenant marriage is a union where God has joined a man who does not have another living preexistent wife, to a woman that does not have another living pre-existent husband into what the Bible calls a one-flesh relationship (b), according to the Scriptures. 3. A husband or wife are not to separate from, or divorce their spouse, but if they are, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, they must remain single and celibate as long as they both live, or else be reconciled to each other(c), according to the Scriptures. 4. A marriage may be violated, but not invalidated by adultery committed by either the husband or the wife, or both(d), according to the Scriptures. 5. Any marriage entered into by any man or woman who has a living pre-existing husband or wife is not a one-flesh covenant marriage that is recognized by God, and is considered to be the sin of adultery, and must be repented of and forsaken(d), according to the Scriptures. 6. All homosexual unions are forbidden by God. Homosexual marriages or unions of a woman to a woman, or a man to a man, must be repented of, and forsaken(e), according to the Scriptures. Scripture references: (a) Malachi 2:13-17 (b) Matthew 19:4-6, Mark 10:4-9, 1 Cor. 7:39, (c) 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 (d) Matthew 5:31-32, 19:9, Mark 10:11-12, Luke 16:18, Romans 7:1-3, 1 Corinthians 7:1-39, Hebrews 13:4, (e) Romans 1:26-28, 1 Cor. 6:10-11. www.marriagedivorce.com

[@philipbuckley759]

excellent.....summary....

[@cherylbranch4355]

The only way to have the hope of heaven if you're in an adulterous remarriage is to admit it and quit it. Grace doesn't cover unrepentant adultery.

[@nothereanymore6463]

Tony Rowan Unfortunately the dare is a lifelong commitment. If you made that decision then you have to live with the consequences. Marriage was created by God and He will not be mocked. Repentance and turning from your sin will save you - not grace and mercy alone. Sorry

[@philipbuckley759]

@@nothereanymore6463 no need to say....sorry....we are to teach the text, not our emotions....

[@cherylbranch4355]

One thing preachers today don't seem to do very well in the area of marriage, divorce and remarriage is they don't apply the appropriate laws of hermeneutics. None of the early (ante-Nicene) church fathers for the first 400 years of the church, nor Christ, Paul or any of the other Apostles taught a "Matthean Exception" or a "Pauline Privilege". These are falsehoods that are easily discredited by true Bereans. Being "REMARRIED" to someone else is a heaven or hell issue when a covenant marriage before God has not been dissolved by death alone! THE ONLY BIBLICAL GROUNDS FOR DIVORCE IS THIS: To put away an adulterous civil remarriage in order to obey God's command to be reconciled with the husband or wife of one's youth. Luke 16 : 18 Hebrews 13:4

[@jamesjordanjesusplates3497]

Garry Massey jr ,is a great man of God such truth,spoken, and the revelation, of God, in a dream about, helping the widow and the orphen,I am blessed my brother on your God given sermons .

[@CentralStateMower]

One thing that really helped me understand the teaching of Jesus in Matt. 19 on Divorce & Remarriage was understanding Jewish customs & traditions.... Namely, that in Israel, men were the only ones who initiated a divorce. Secondly, women had no right to divorce their husbands. (Although the gentile cultures of Greece and Rome were much like ours today regarding marriage and divorce). Thirdly, women were not able to support themselves independently. So if a Jewish man was not happy with his wife, he could write her a "bill of divorcement" and send her out of the house in a day with literally nothing except the clothes on her back. Therefore, with no home, income or opportunities, she was forced to either re-marry quickly or become a street beggar. In this context, the way Jesus explained divorce & remarriage makes perfect sense. This doesn't make the teaching on divorce and re-marriage any less difficult to accept, but it does make it easier to understand.

[@happygirl2809]

Thank you for this video. I have studied this a lot and even though I have not been directly affected by the subject, it bothers me that I have not been able to completely reconcile the Church's teaching and the Bible's teaching about this. My two hang ups are: 1) How do we know, without a doubt, what 'fornication' was in the first century when Jesus used the word ? Maybe Jesus was saying a man could only divorce and remarry if he thought he was getting a virgin when she was not. (Remember, this was not modern Western world times.). 2) How do we know absolutely the exception clause allows women to remarry ? I was brought up in the Church and was originally taught only widows/widowers could remarry and that fornication was sex before marriage. Sometime during the seventies fornication became defined as adultery and I began hearing adultery allowed an innocent spouse to divorce and remarry. However the only place in the Bible I have found where fornication and adultery might be used interchangeably is in Revelation 2 concerning 'Jezebel' of Thyratira and both references may be used in a spiritual sense -I don't know. Every where else in the Bible fornication and adultery seem to be different sins. When I have asked these questions of my brethern, I am just told 1) fornication is any unlawful sexual intercourse . ( But where is the proof ? It would help if some ancient writings using the word porneia were cited. ) 2) Innocent divorced women, as well as men, can remarry because God is not respecter of persons. ( But people use this argument to say women can be elders and preachers. ) Anyway, I want the church to be correct on this but you see my problem. Some church folks even seem hostile when I question this. I think the safest thing for Christians to do if they find themselves divorced is to remain unmarried and pray for the repentance of the erring spouse.

[@cherylbranch4355]

Amen!

[@philipbuckley759]

πορνεία evidently Erasmus, in the time, of Luther changed this from fornication, to sexual immorality, which the Reformation Church adopted.....and Matthew 5.32 does not make any provision, for the so called innocent party.....

[@earnestsims1520]

Very good lesson

[@cherylbranch4355]

The confusion today in regard to divorce and remarriage is that people say "God forgives me for my divorce and it's okay for me to marry someone else because I'm not married anymore." They don't realize the divorce isn't the sin. The remarriage is the sin because they are in present tense continuous adultery. The Bible says adulterers won't be allowed into heaven. So the only way to not be an adulterer or adulteress anymore is to repent of the sin of adultery. Repentance is more than just being sorry for your sin and asking God to forgive you. Repentance requires us to stop or get out or flee the sin. Since the remarriage is adultery, in order to truly repent, a person must get out of it and be faithful to their one-flesh, covenant spouse if they have one --- even if their true spouse doesn't want them back and even if you don't want to go back. God joins (glues) us. It is not the preacher or the judge or court that does the gluing of an original covenant marriage and no man or court on earth can un-glue with a stroke of a pen on a piece of paper what God Himself joined until death.

[@TCgirl]

So as a 58 year old woman with no viable skills other than cleaning house, and who's husband divorced me 34 years ago because he wanted to be free to remarry which he has done 3 more times and has now been with his last wife for 18 years and has children with her, you are saying I must divorce my christian husband of 7 years and live alone for the rest of my life? I will have no retirement, I have no savings, everything I have is my husband's. He makes the money, carries the health insurance, pays for our vehicles and everything else and is the only man who has ever truly loved me back. And his wife left him, took his two boys away about 24 years ago and married someone else also. So Jesus wants us to pay with the rest of our lives being alone and lonely without the gift of another? "It is not good for a man to be alone." But He wants us to be alone?... So we are cursed then because of the choices of another? And if we don't divorce we are going to hell. Even though this all happened long before we became believers. So all things don't actually become new then? Is this the teaching? I really want to know because this is pretty devastating to say the least. Not to mention I recently spoke with my first husband for the first time in over 25 years and he informed me he is an atheist and believes that man wasn't meant to be monogamous. But he has a full and wonderful life that he loves and wishes me the best. But Jesus wants me to pay?

[@philipbuckley759]

@@TCgirl sin brings problems, and you seem to be saying that these problems should give me a free pass on a teaching of Scripture...this is probablly the foundation for all the false teaching on this subject.....trying to accomodate one, where there is no Biblical foundation....it can test our faith, but what option do we have....when I became aware, of this....I notified some one that I had wanted to marry that it would not be possible....so here we sit....she in on country, and I in another....both wishing that we could be.....together...so it is putting the eternal consequence, ahead of the temporal.....

[@jamesjordanjesusplates3497]

bless you brother Gerry Massey jr...

[@DanielJohn2300]

A wedding is usually how a man makes a woman his wife, but he could also do it in front of the justice of the peace. It is just the two of them letting the rest of their society know that he is her husband and she is his wife. If God agrees with that, then God will join them into one flesh when he cleaves to her.

[@MountainCreekChurchofChrist]

@DanielJohn2300 I looked up all the uses of porneia and moicheia in scripture, and found them to be very much overlapping. Porneia is a broad term which includes many kinds of sexual sins and is probably best translated sexual immorality. Moicheia is a more specific term that requires one of the participants in the sexual sin to be married. Neither term is gender specific or exclusive. I see nothing to justify the position that a husband may commit porneia but a wife can not.

[@rorschach162]

I hope that you have reconsidered your decision.

[@MountainCreekChurchofChrist]

Randy, I'm not using the NKJV. I'm using the New American Standard Bible, Updated Edition, often abbreviated NASB or NAU. I use it because when I was studying Greek in college, it seemed to be the translation that most closely captured the meaning of the original. However, no translation, not the NASB or the KJV, had miraculously inspired translators. Randy and DanielJohn: The Greek word for fornication in Matthew 19:9 is "porneia" which the NASB translates "sexual immorality". It is not restricted to sexual immorality by unmarried persons but can be committed by anyone, regardless of marital status. 1 Corinthians 5:1 uses the same word for a man who has his father's wife. This situation most likely refers to a situation where one person was married and the other was not. Either way, the relationship was porneia even though it most likely involved at east one married person. Porneia refers to sexual immorality in a broad sense. Its application is not limited to unmarried people.

[@DanielJohn2300]

Hello brother Gary, and thanks for the response. I do not see enough information in 1Cor. 5:1 to determine whether the man was actually committing adultery with his father’s wife. I believe that it’s most likely that his father was dead, in which case, his sin could only be called "porneia." But instead of arguing about what Jesus meant by "porneia", I thought I would share something else that I've learned since I last spoke with you. I've learned that the biblical verb "to put away" (Gr. apoluo) is not the same as the biblical verb "to give a bill of divorce" (Gr. didomi apostasia). To put away is simply to cause one's spouse to become separated, and I know of four ways to do this: 1. sending one's spouse away indefinitely, 2. leaving one's spouse indefinitely, 3. committing adultery against one's spouse, and 4. physically abusing one's spouse or a child of one's spouse. These are four manifestations of "putting away." A spouse can put away the other with or without a bill of divorce. Today, the spouse who puts away the other without a bill of divorce is usually given a bill of divorce by the other (we usually say "file for divorce" rather than "give a bill of divorce"). According to Deuteronomy 24:1-2, a man who "finds some uncleanness" in his wife and puts her away with a bill of divorce, sets her free to be married to another. But the Lord said that it only sets her free to be married to another when the reason for him putting her away is him finding the uncleanness of "porneia" in her (Mat. 5:32). That is how Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic law of divorce. In the Greek translation of Deuteronomy 22:13-21 (written circa 165 BC), we can see that if a man took a wife and "found her not a virgin", then she "ekporneuo" while she lived in her father's house. This means that she gave herself over to "porneia," but the Law of Moses did not require her husband to publicly "bring occasions of speech against her" (Deu 22:14). He had the option of privately putting her away with a bill of divorce instead, because "he found some uncleanness in her" (Deu. 24:1). But I do believe that an adulteress who is committing adultery against her husband, even though he did not put her away, is foolishly putting herself back under the bondage of polygyny, which the Lord freed women from. If her husband marries a second woman, then in God's eyes, he will be lawfully marrying a second wife in polygyny, because he did not cause his first wife to commit adultery by putting her away (Mat. 5:32; 19:9). You and I agree on this, in principle, even though we call it different things. The advantage to calling it "polygyny" rather than "divorce and remarriage" is that it lets the adulteress know that she will never be free to be married to another. This increases the chance of her coming to repentance before her husband's polygamous wedding. But the biggest error I see with what bible colleges teach (and what they need to repent for) is when they flip it around and say that a divorced woman is free to be married to a second man whenever the divorce was caused by adultery that her husband was committing against her. Now, I do not believe that God will hold her accountable for her second marriage, because her husband caused her to enter into it (Mat 5:32). But I'm certain that God will hold the second man accountable for it, along with her husband, because Jesus says "whoever marries her that is put away from her husband commits adultery" (Luke 16:18), the exception being the case where she was put away for "porneia" (Mat 5:32). This is why Paul says to the men "let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband" (1Cor. 7:11). Even though she is no longer married to him, he is still her husband. When a man of God meets a woman who is put away from her husband, rather than covet her, he needs to ask her if she is praying for her husband's salvation, and if she is, then he needs to find a brother who knows her husband and go with that brother to her husband to speak the word of the gospel to him (ie. "to not suffer sin upon him" - Lev. 19:17), having faith that God will give them the best words to speak, because his wife is praying for his salvation. This is the world's most powerful prayer, because it is God's "will" (1John 5:13-14) that no man covets his neighbor's wife, especially a woman of God; and in this case, the surest way for God’s will to be done is for God to reconcile her husband to Himself through the blood of Jesus Christ (2Cor. 5:17-21) so that she can be reconciled to her new husband (1Cor. 7:11). The reason why God's law, fulfilled by Jesus, is a little different in the case of a wayward wife than in the case of a wayward husband is because of simple math (1.0 < 1.5 and 2.0 > 1.5). It is dangerous for two sisters in Christ to speak the word of the gospel to a wayward wife; because the wayward wife is with an adulterer, and God created the female with only about half the strength of the male. Two halves is less than one and a half. But it is not dangerous for two brothers in Christ to speak the word of the gospel to a wayward husband, because two is greater than one and a half. The wisdom of God's perfect law of marriage surpasses human wisdom, and it is yet another thing that confirms Jesus is the Son of God.

[@dystopic6245]

I am not sure why Hebrews 12:16 is really not considered in the understanding of fornication/porneia (The variant fornicator/pornos). In the context, Esau is not guilty of a sexual offense, but one of irreverence to the inheritance of God’s promise. It’s apparent it was more important to satisfy his strong desire that he perceived to be a physical need, then to wait for a future inheritance. How many of us do this and falsely justify sin, not thinking of it as sinful?

[@jaymartin6333]

Romans 7:1-4 if you remarry while your spouse is alive except for fornication you shall be called an adulteress and or adulterer ask for forgiveness all u want you are still labeled as an adulteress only way to erase that is to discontinue that marriage 1 Corinthians 7:27-28 is speaking directly to Virgins according to verse 25 in an espoused state therefore they have never come together in matrimony but once they do and or if they do verse 39 tells what is now the stipulations same as Romans 7:1-4

[@MrBlack-pj1jk]

Well done

[@MountainCreekChurchofChrist]

@DanielJohn2300 I think I see where you get this, but I think Mark makes clear that the rules apply equally to both men and women. Mark 10:10-12 shows that Jesus applied the same standard to both men and women equally. Although Mark doesn't contain the exception in Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9, I see no valid argument that the exception is gender specific.

[@DanielJohn2300]

@Gary 1Co 7v27-28 confirms the virgin was free to put away her husband, but I'd be surprised if he was free to do the same. I think he had to ask her to put him away? It's true that, after they come together, the rules against putting away and remarrying apply equally (Mar 10v11-12); but the rules for marrying the one who gets put away do not seem to apply equally: 6 verses forbid men to do that (Mat 5v32b, 19v9b, Luke 16v18b, Rom 7v2-3, 1Co 7v11, 1Co 7v39), and 0 forbid women.

[@DanielJohn2300]

Still, a command to remain in marriage with another man's wife is NOT in scripture. Nor is there any scripture, besides the divorce exception, that says a man’s wife can become his ex-wife while he is still living. These ideas are lies that the devil deceives unsaved people with. If a man makes a woman his wife, and God does not forbid her to be his wife, then God joins them together the moment the man cleaves to her. This is why God forbids every other man to marry her while her husband lives.

[@DanielJohn2300]

@GaryMasseyJr [1/2] Thank you for the reply. If you look up all the uses of porneia and moicheia in scripture, you'll find that the two words are mutually exclusive. You won't find a wife committing porneia (Heb. zanun) against her husband after they've come together. You'll find a concubine (Jdg 19v2), but not a wife. Only a married man can commit both sins in one act. He commits moicheia against his wife whenever he commits porneia with a husbandless woman (Mar 10v11). But...

[@bailey1493]

What if the husband was gone most of the night before exchanging vows? There is no solid proof of what took place…but I am sure he at least did what most of the world does, if you know what I mean… Also, what about watching porn? What about messages from another woman?

[@rorschach162]

Even though the bible is clear about divorce and remarriage sometimes marriages just can't work. There have been cases where spouses completly loose their mind and you have to get away and cut your legal ties to that person.There have been situations where one spouse decides that the heterosexual life is not for them after years of marriage. This is a good lesson and it should be taught more often but as you teach it always love those who are divorced.

[@philipbuckley759]

you can separate, or even divorce, but the options are.....reconcile or remain single...

[@DerinJacob]

dear brother, I had gone through your video and understood a lot it's from...shall I ask some doubts. which marriages are we can say its a real marriage means what are the elements needed in really a marriage. also, tell brother if someone married a woman more than aged his mother in the age of his 22, is it you can tell it was really the right way of marriage...need a clarification what is the real will of God in marriage?

[@philipbuckley759]

if you are married, in any culture, you are married...and the age is not a factor....the age difference between my mother and father was 33 years.....it is called a May, December wedding.....an old man, with a young woman....still a valid marriage..

[@DanielJohn2300]

The only way a man can cleave to his wife is if he makes her his wife before he cleaves to her. So, there are two steps: 1. he makes her his wife (ie. he weds her), and 2. he cleaves to her. They are not married until they have carried out both steps. Putting away means that the 1st step has happened, but it does not necessarily mean that the 2nd step has happened. Premarital unfaithfulness is before the 2nd step. Marital unfaithfulness is after the 2nd step.

[@DanielJohn2300]

Katie, the verb tenses in Mat 5v32 are what they are. I can’t change them. If Joshua doesn’t lie and during His sermon on the mount, a man in the crowd was married to her that had been put away from her husband for a reason other than fornication, then that man in the crowd was committing adultery and her husband was causing her to commit adultery.

[@ajlouviere202]

According to Deuteronomy 22:20-21, a wife found guilty of fornication could not be given a certificate of divorce in order to become another man's wife. The Mosaic law required that she be stoned to death.

[@DanielJohn2300]

​@@ajlouviere202 That was only if he pressed charges against her (Deu 22v14). When a man found his newly wedded wife to not be a virgin, he "found some uncleanness in her" (Deu 24v1); and he had the option of either pressing charges against her (Deu 22v14) or giving her a bill of divorce (Deu 24v1). We can know that the Mosaic law gave a man those two options by reading Matthew 1v19. At the time Joseph found his betrothed wife Mary to be pregnant, he could either "make her a public example" (the Deu 22v14 option) or "put her away privily" (the Deu 24v1 option).

[@ajlouviere202]

@@DanielJohn2300 Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and Deuteronomy 22:13-21; 23-24 each governed seperately. One governed marriage, and allowed a certificate of divorce to be issued for any cause "except for the cause of fornication". The other governed betrothal (before the wedding night), and required a betrothed wife found guilty of fornication to be stoned to death, which prohibited her from receiving a certificate of divorce in order to become another man's wife.

[@ajlouviere202]

The divorce and remarriage for adultery doctrine is based solely on the supposed guilt of the wife in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. However, the wife, in the above scriptures, is clearly not guilty of fornication because the Jews (that Jesus was speaking to) were still living under the law, and if fornication was discovered, there was a moral obligation to report the offender according to Deuteronomy 22:13-24. The wife, who would have been found guilty of fornication, was subsequently stoned to death, according to the law, which had still governed the Jews up until Christ's death on the cross. The same for a woman caught in adultery, according to Leviticus 20:10. How could a wife, guilty of fornication, or adultery, under the law of Moses, be given a writing of divorcement and be caused to commit adultery with whosoever marries her, that is divorced? Jesus is clear, in these examples, that the wife is not guilty of fornication, but is still caused to commit adultery if she marries another man now that she is divorced. This is the only way that Matthew 5:31-32, and Matthew 19:9 keep harmony with Romans 7:2-3, and 1 Corinthians 7:39. Unlike the synoptic gospels of Mark and Luke, which were written to evangelize the Gentiles, Matthew was written to the Jews, and has of 24 characteristics that identify it as intended for the house of Israel. The ancient Jews called the betrothed (engaged) "husband" and "wife" according to Deuteronomy 22:23-24, Matthew 1:18-25, and Luke 2:5-7. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (Moses's precept of divorce and remarriage) was never for fornication or adultery. Allowing those guilty of fornication and adultery to remain living and become a prospect for remarriage was against the law of Moses in Deuteronomy 22:13-24 and Leviticus 20:10, which commanded that those who were found guilty of fornication and adultery be put away from Israel, and stoned to death. The law of Moses was not given to the world, only to the Jews. From the exodus, to Christ's death on the cross, the law of Moses governed the Jewish people. Christ's death on the cross caused the Jews to become dead to the law of Moses, so they could be joined to Christ under a New Covenant. This is what Jesus's fulfillment of the law of Moses, including Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (Moses's precept of divorce and remarriage), means. Paul gave several warnings to Christian believers against keeping the ordinances of law of Moses as justification, over following Christ and his commands under the New Covenant with Christ. Keeping the ordinances of the law is no longer possible, for Israel, and that is why Christ prophesied that the temple would be destroyed. These scriptures make it clear that if you choose the law over Christ, that you must keep the whole law: Romans 7:4, Galatians 3:1-9, Galatians 3:10-29, Galatians 4:1-7, Galatians 4:21-31, and Galatians 5:1-15. Being unequally yoked to unbelievers is not a cause for divorce, once two become one-flesh in a covenant of marriage, according to 1 Corinthians 7:12-14. Many one-flesh covenant marriages between unbelievers are recognized by God in the scriptures, most notably the marriage covenants between Herodias and King Herod's brother Philip, Potiphar and his wife, Ahab and Jezebel, and Ruth to her deceased husband Mahlon by Boaz when he took her to be his wife. Some are teaching that 1 Corinthians 7:15 implies that those who are abandoned, by an unbelieving spouse, are "no longer bound" in a one-flesh covenant of marriage. The reason this is in conflict is due to the way some translations word it, which gives it an entirely different meaning, and context. 1 Corinthians 7:15, says, "But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace." As you can see, the actual scripture says "not enslaved" which means that the husband or wife is not enslaved to sin with the unbelieving spouse, and is free to worship Christ in peace. Subsequent translations have changed the words to imply that they nullify the marriage covenant, which is not at all the case. The issue that this creates is with 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, which says, "10To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife." As you can see, those who claim 1 Corinthians 7:15 shows the Apostle Paul giving those who are abandoned permission to remarry, do not understand the command that Christ gives is to an abandoned husband, in 1 Corinthians 7:11, and that he "must not divorce" his wife, and his wife is commanded to "remain unmarried or else be reconciled" to her husband. The theory that 1 Corinthians 7:15 nullifies two as being one-flesh, due to one's unbelief, puts the Apostle Paul directly at odds with Christ, and himself, by implying that Paul has issued an opposing command to verses 10-14 in verse 15. Some also teach that 1 Corinthians 7:27-28 is referring to both divorced men and virgin women, and not exclusively to men and women (virgins) who have never been married. This has been falsely taught for some time in churches as referring to anyone who is not currently in a marriage, which, for them, also includes those who are divorced. This is a very false assumption, and puts these verses in a different context, that is at odds with both the teachings of Christ and the apostle Paul. We see Paul refer to virgins, which signifies the unmarried who have never before been wed, which is the proper context here. We see Paul saying clearly that it is good for virgins, which is also speaking to never before wed men here, "that it is good for a man so to be." He goes on to say, "Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife." Who is he referring to here? Men who, like himself, have never married. The word "bound", in these verses, is a clear reference to betrothal (engagement) and not to a one-flesh covenant of marriage. The ancient Jews were considered bound as husband and wife during the betrothal (espousal/engagement) before becoming one-flesh in a covenant of marriage, through consummation. This is affirmed by the context of the term "bound" seen in Numbers 30:14-16. The Jewish couples in ancient Israel, who were betrothed (engaged) were also bound together until death, either by execution for fornication, or by other causes. Then Paul says, "But and if thou marry, thou has not sinned", which is who? The men who had never married in the congregation at Corinth. So he begins with verses 25-26 speaking exclusively to men that have never married. Paul then says, "and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned", which is speaking directly in regard to virgin women who have never been married, within the congregation, not divorced women. Notice that verse 34 says, "There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband." Paul speaks plainly when he says "there is a difference between a wife and a virgin." Paul goes on to say, "But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry." This is speaking of a virgin who has become of age to bear children when it says, "let them marry." This is a clear command, to a single man, who has taken a virgin to be his wife. Paul then says, "Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well." This is referring again to the single man who decides it is better not to marry, but to stay betrothed (engaged), under the present distress, by saying that he "hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin." Paul then says, "So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better", which again means single men, in the congregation, who have betrothed a wife, do well if they marry, and those who choose not to marry their virgin brides do better, under the current climate. For more proper context of the word "bound", let's look further down in this chapter to verse 39, which says, "39The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord" (1 Corinthians 7:39). For so long, these scriptures, between verses 25-38, have been twisted and used to enable divorce and remarriage, by wayward churches and teachers, and have caused many to stumble and to be trapped in unscriptural unions. The use of the woman at the well, in regard to marriage, falsely implies that Christ was endorsing remarriage after a divorce. This teaching is in defiance of Matthew 22:23-28, which shows a woman who had been widowed seven times, and entered into each subsequent marriage without any scriptural conflicts with God's law of marriage (one-flesh covenant) seen in Genesis 2:23-24. Mark 10:1-12 and Matthew 19:1-12 both record Christ's teaching that day beyond the Jordan. There is no mention of the words "fornication", "writing of divorcement", or "divorced" in Mark's Gospel because Mark was not written to the Jews (as Matthew's Gospel was), but to evangelize the Romans, and likewise Luke to evangelize the Greeks, who had no knowledge of the law of Moses in Deuteronomy 22 or Deuteronomy 24. All of these facts draw a clear understanding that remarriage after a divorce, under the New Covenant with Christ, is a scripturally false and baseless teaching. Please use wisdom when living in any situation against what the scriptures command.

[@DanielJohn2300]

Indeed, they are married. But the question is not whether a man and woman are married but whether she is HIS wife. Herod was married, but not to HIS wife (Mar 6v17). If a man marries her that is put away from her husband, then he is married, but not to HIS wife (Luk 16v18). Joshua said "you have had five husbands, and he whom you now have is not YOUR husband" (Joh 4v18).

[@DanielJohn2300]

Before the Messiah's day, a woman that was put away from her husband for any type of indecency became his ex-wife (ie. former wife). After the Messiah's day, only a woman that is put away from her husband for one type of indecency (premarital unfaithfulness) becomes his ex-wife. This is because the Messiah raised the standard. He said that only those whose righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees will enter into the kingdom of heaven.

[@politicallyincorrecttvseas159]

There is no type of abuse that can end a marriage its till death case closed!

[@mistyarlington4070]

+jay black So if you were married to someone who was beating you to a pulp everyday and your kids too would you stay and just let that person beat you all to death so you can go to heaven? No disrespect I just want to know your honest opinion. Thanks.

[@politicallyincorrecttvseas159]

+Misty Arlington you separate and call the cops pray that God will change him or her through repentance.

[@cherylbranch4355]

Amen. The covenant of marriage ONLY ends at death according to the Word of God!

[@antoniogutierrezjr3175]

jay black yes sir only death and fornication end a marriage mathew 19.9 applies to only the Jews this is modern new covenant engagement if your about to marry and your spouse to be is having sex with somebody you can end the wedding day and marry some one else cause there was no covenant established married people can’t commit fornicaion but an engaged couple can tgisbis a Jewish tradition verse that applies to the Jews example Joseph was engaged to Mary he found her pregnant cause he thought she committed formication formicarion and adultery two different things Old Testament if a engaged person was committing fornication and. A married couple commiting adultery the guilty party was stoned new covenant married person who commits adultery the partner must forgive if all else fails one must reconcile or remain in celibacy also desertion don’t end marriage also many twist up that verse thinking they Free to remarry when it says no longer bound it means that the believer is no longer bound by the unbelievers hindering of thy ones faith for god has called us to peace not called us to adultery bro and sis if you are remarried and aren’t a widow I must repent and forsake that marriage or you will die an adulterer

[@antoniogutierrezjr3175]

Misty Arlington nope u leave that person but you can’t remarry till he dies you have only two option reconcile or remain unmarried tough but I didn’t right the Bible take it up with god

[@DanielJohn2300]

I'm sorry, but I don't know what you mean when you say "Paul gave the instructions to remain." What instructions? Remain where?

[@philipbuckley759]

1 Corinthians 7.39 New International Version A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord.

[@BogusJesus]

As long as its a marriage recognized by the state, then it is okay with God. Marriage is honorable in all and the bed undefiled.

[@darlingnikkibatson1891]

My husband is going to divorce me. Been married 15 months. He is divorcing me because of 20 year divorce.. He say he accused her of adultry and found out 6 months in our marriage he was wrong. . I am devastated the brothers here said he must divorce me. I am packing my stuff now.

[@ajlouviere202]

The divorce and remarriage for adultery doctrine is based solely on the supposed guilt of the wife in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. However, the wife, in the above scriptures, is clearly not guilty of fornication because the Jews (that Jesus was speaking to) were still living under the law, and if fornication was discovered, there was a moral obligation to report the offender according to Deuteronomy 22:13-24. The wife, who would have been found guilty of fornication, was subsequently stoned to death, according to the law, which had still governed the Jews up until Christ's death on the cross. The same for a woman caught in adultery, according to Leviticus 20:10. How could a wife, guilty of fornication, or adultery, under the law of Moses, be given a writing of divorcement and be caused to commit adultery with whosoever marries her, that is divorced? Jesus is clear, in these examples, that the wife is not guilty of fornication, but is still caused to commit adultery if she marries another man now that she is divorced. This is the only way that Matthew 5:31-32, and Matthew 19:9 keep harmony with Romans 7:2-3, and 1 Corinthians 7:39. Unlike the synoptic gospels of Mark and Luke, which were written to evangelize the Gentiles, Matthew was written to the Jews, and has of 24 characteristics that identify it as intended for the house of Israel. The ancient Jews called the betrothed (engaged) "husband" and "wife" according to Deuteronomy 22:23-24, Matthew 1:18-25, and Luke 2:5-7. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (Moses's precept of divorce and remarriage) was never for fornication or adultery. Allowing those guilty of fornication and adultery to remain living and become a prospect for remarriage was against the law of Moses in Deuteronomy 22:13-24 and Leviticus 20:10, which commanded that those who were found guilty of fornication and adultery be put away from Israel, and stoned to death. The law of Moses was not given to the world, only to the Jews. From the exodus, to Christ's death on the cross, the law of Moses governed the Jewish people. Christ's death on the cross caused the Jews to become dead to the law of Moses, so they could be joined to Christ under a New Covenant. This is what Jesus's fulfillment of the law of Moses, including Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (Moses's precept of divorce and remarriage), means. Paul gave several warnings to Christian believers against keeping the ordinances of law of Moses as justification, over following Christ and his commands under the New Covenant with Christ. Keeping the ordinances of the law is no longer possible, for Israel, and that is why Christ prophesied that the temple would be destroyed. These scriptures make it clear that if you choose the law over Christ, that you must keep the whole law: Romans 7:4, Galatians 3:1-9, Galatians 3:10-29, Galatians 4:1-7, Galatians 4:21-31, and Galatians 5:1-15. Being unequally yoked to unbelievers is not a cause for divorce, once two become one-flesh in a covenant of marriage, according to 1 Corinthians 7:12-14. Many one-flesh covenant marriages between unbelievers are recognized by God in the scriptures, most notably the marriage covenants between Herodias and King Herod's brother Philip, Potiphar and his wife, Ahab and Jezebel, and Ruth to her deceased husband Mahlon by Boaz when he took her to be his wife. Some are teaching that 1 Corinthians 7:15 implies that those who are abandoned, by an unbelieving spouse, are "no longer bound" in a one-flesh covenant of marriage. The reason this is in conflict is due to the way some translations word it, which gives it an entirely different meaning, and context. 1 Corinthians 7:15, says, "But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace." As you can see, the actual scripture says "not enslaved" which means that the husband or wife is not enslaved to sin with the unbelieving spouse, and is free to worship Christ in peace. Subsequent translations have changed the words to imply that they nullify the marriage covenant, which is not at all the case. The issue that this creates is with 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, which says, "10To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife." As you can see, those who claim 1 Corinthians 7:15 shows the Apostle Paul giving those who are abandoned permission to remarry, do not understand the command that Christ gives is to an abandoned husband, in 1 Corinthians 7:11, and that he "must not divorce" his wife, and his wife is commanded to "remain unmarried or else be reconciled" to her husband. The theory that 1 Corinthians 7:15 nullifies two as being one-flesh, due to one's unbelief, puts the Apostle Paul directly at odds with Christ, and himself, by implying that Paul has issued an opposing command to verses 10-14 in verse 15. Some also teach that 1 Corinthians 7:27-28 is referring to both divorced men and virgin women, and not exclusively to men and women (virgins) who have never been married. This has been falsely taught for some time in churches as referring to anyone who is not currently in a marriage, which, for them, also includes those who are divorced. This is a very false assumption, and puts these verses in a different context, that is at odds with both the teachings of Christ and the apostle Paul. We see Paul refer to virgins, which signifies the unmarried who have never before been wed, which is the proper context here. We see Paul saying clearly that it is good for virgins, which is also speaking to never before wed men here, "that it is good for a man so to be." He goes on to say, "Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife." Who is he referring to here? Men who, like himself, have never married. The word "bound", in these verses, is a clear reference to betrothal (engagement) and not to a one-flesh covenant of marriage. The ancient Jews were considered bound as husband and wife during the betrothal (espousal/engagement) before becoming one-flesh in a covenant of marriage, through consummation. This is affirmed by the context of the term "bound" seen in Numbers 30:14-16. The Jewish couples in ancient Israel, who were betrothed (engaged) were also bound together until death, either by execution for fornication, or by other causes. Then Paul says, "But and if thou marry, thou has not sinned", which is who? The men who had never married in the congregation at Corinth. So he begins with verses 25-26 speaking exclusively to men that have never married. Paul then says, "and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned", which is speaking directly in regard to virgin women who have never been married, within the congregation, not divorced women. Notice that verse 34 says, "There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband." Paul speaks plainly when he says "there is a difference between a wife and a virgin." Paul goes on to say, "But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry." This is speaking of a virgin who has become of age to bear children when it says, "let them marry." This is a clear command, to a single man, who has taken a virgin to be his wife. Paul then says, "Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well." This is referring again to the single man who decides it is better not to marry, but to stay betrothed (engaged), under the present distress, by saying that he "hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin." Paul then says, "So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better", which again means single men, in the congregation, who have betrothed a wife, do well if they marry, and those who choose not to marry their virgin brides do better, under the current climate. For more proper context of the word "bound", let's look further down in this chapter to verse 39, which says, "39The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord" (1 Corinthians 7:39). For so long, these scriptures, between verses 25-38, have been twisted and used to enable divorce and remarriage, by wayward churches and teachers, and have caused many to stumble and to be trapped in unscriptural unions. The use of the woman at the well, in regard to marriage, falsely implies that Christ was endorsing remarriage after a divorce. This teaching is in defiance of Matthew 22:23-28, which shows a woman who had been widowed seven times, and entered into each subsequent marriage without any scriptural conflicts with God's law of marriage (one-flesh covenant) seen in Genesis 2:23-24. Mark 10:1-12 and Matthew 19:1-12 both record Christ's teaching that day beyond the Jordan. There is no mention of the words "fornication", "writing of divorcement", or "divorced" in Mark's Gospel because Mark was not written to the Jews (as Matthew's Gospel was), but to evangelize the Romans, and likewise Luke to evangelize the Greeks, who had no knowledge of the law of Moses in Deuteronomy 22 or Deuteronomy 24. All of these facts draw a clear understanding that remarriage after a divorce, under the New Covenant with Christ, is a scripturally false and baseless teaching. Please use wisdom when living in any situation against what the scriptures command.

[@bailey1493]

@@darlingnikkibatson1891 I am so sorry. This brakes my heart.

[@semi2893]

Well, homosexual marriage is recognized by the state too but that doesn't mean it's recognised by God. Just saying...

[@jamesbangs6431]

Who cares about the old covenant we live under the new covenant Jesus

[@philipbuckley759]

Jesus did change the rules, by saying....but I say, unto you...

[@MountainCreekChurchofChrist]

@DanielJohn2300 What is the authority to support the statement "the only time she can commit porneia is before they have consummated the marriage?" The passages you cited certainly don't stand for that statement. Leviticus 20:10 shows that a wife can commit adultery after marriage. Even if no verse were explicit on that, the word porneia alone means sexual immoral. Any person of sound mind and body, whether male or female, married or not, is capable of sexual immorality.

[@greenhornet1387]

I guess Paul did not make it very clear after the Cross one can remarry in 1 Corinthians 7:15,27-28 it just cant be any plainer than this. Mathew 19:9 is old testament Law of Moses. Mathew 5:17-18 Mathew 7:12 Romans 15:8 King James version Romans 3:19-21 Romans 10:1-6 When will You people ever figure this out??????????

[@ShaunieFree]

Mick Slick can you give further information as to your view. From what I gather you are saying that Jesus was still fulfilling the law when he spoke? So when he spoke to the Apostles in private was that still him speaking and fulfilling the law in Mathew 10:11

[@greenhornet1387]

Hi Darshon prat no I am not saying the Scriptures are saying. Is Mathew 10:5-6 clear on Mathew 10:11 Was Jesus not Clear in Mathew 5:17-18 Mathew 7:12 Was the new testament clear on Jesus old testament mission? Romans 15:8 King James version Jesus tells us plainly He was not doing His new covenant will before the Cross. John 6:38 Jesus did not teach His new testament doctrine. John 7:16 verses 2 John 9-11 after the Cross. Was the new covenant clear on no new testament doctrine being made known before the Cross under the Mosaic covenant kingdom age. Ephesians 3:3-5. Jesus told the Jews under the law of Moses He had many new testament things to teach them, but under the law of they could not bear it. John 16:12-15 Jesus made it crystal clear after the Cross in Mathew 28:18-20 all new testament authority was given to Him, and in that 50 day time period between the covenants Jesus spent 40 days teaching all of His new covenant kingdom commands. Acts 1:3 Here comes foolish Man thinking Mathew 19:9 is new testament doctrine, no way whatsoever. Explain Mathew 19:16-21 how would a Jew under the law of Moses get eternal life? Simple keep the law of Moses and follow Jesus teaching only the law of Moses. Does Mathew 19:9 line up with 1 Corinthians 7:15,27-28 Any one with any common sense can see they do not line up. That clearly explains Romans 3:19-21 and Romans 10:5-6 common sense, but since our heresy loving traditional teaching ignorant Brethren do not receive a love of Jesus new covenant truth they get strong delusion put on them. 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12 This non sense of binding the law of Moses in Mathew 19:9 will not cut it after the Cross.Jesus is fed up with this damnable heresy and will demand repentance from it. Acts 17:30 Paul made it crystal clear that former old testament age Jews no longer acknowledge there fellow Jews under that fleshly born into kingdom in 2 Corinthians 5:16 and that included Jesus also. John 1:14. Jesus told Nicodemus under the law of Moses he had to be a born again child of God after the Cross and converted from fleshly born Israel. John 3:3-6 Mathew 21:43 It is time for people to wake up

[@ajlouviere202]

The divorce and remarriage for adultery doctrine is based solely on the supposed guilt of the wife in Matthew 5:32, and Matthew 19:9. However, the wife in Matthew 5:31-32 is clearly not guilty of fornication because the Jews that Jesus was speaking to were still living under the law, and if fornication was discovered, there was a moral obligation to report the offender according to Deuteronomy 22:13-24. The wife, who would have been found guilty of fornication, was subsequently stoned to death, according to the law, which had still governed the Jews up until Christ's death on the cross. The same for a woman caught in adultery, according to Leviticus 20:10. How could a wife, guilty of fornication, or adultery, under the law of Moses, be given a writing of divorcement and be caused to commit adultery with whosoever marries her, that is divorced? Jesus is clear, in these examples, that the wife is not guilty of fornication, but is still caused to commit adultery if she marries another man now that she is divorced. This is the only way that Matthew 5:31-32, and Matthew 19:9 keep harmony with Romans 7:2-3, and 1 Corinthians 7:39. Please use wisdom when living in any situation against what the scriptures command. The ancient Jews called the betrothed (engaged) "husband" and "wife" according to Deuteronomy 22:23-24, Matthew 1:18-25, and Luke 2:5-7. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (Moses's precept of divorce and remarriage) was never for fornication or adultery. Allowing those guilty of fornication and adultery to remain living and become a prospect for remarriage was against the law of Moses in Deuteronomy 22:13-24 and Leviticus 20:10, which commanded that those who were found guilty of fornication and adultery be put away from Israel, and stoned to death. The law of Moses was not given to the world, only to the Jews. From the exodus, to Christ's death on the cross, the law of Moses governed the Jewish people. But when Jesus died on the cross, he caused the Jews to be dead to the law of Moses so they could be joined to Christ under a New Covenant. This is what Jesus's fulfillment of the law of Moses, including Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (Moses's precept of divorce and remarriage), means. Paul gave several warnings to Christian believers against keeping the law of Moses over following Christ and his commands under the New Covenant with Christ. Keeping the whole law is no longer possible for those in Israel and that is why Christ prophesied that the temple would be destroyed. These scriptures make it clear that if you choose the law over Christ, that you must keep the whole law: Romans 7:4, Galatians 3:1-9, Galatians 3:10-29, Galatians 4:1-7, Galatians 4:21-31, and Galatians 5:1-15. The phrase "sexual immorality" being used in Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9, in place of "fornication", creates conflict with what is written about fornication and adultery in Hosea 4:13-14, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, and Galatians 5:19-21. Being unequally yoked to unbelievers is not a cause for divorce, once two become one-flesh in a covenant of marriage, according to 1 Corinthians 7:12-14. Many one-flesh covenant marriages between unbelievers are recognized by God in the scriptures, most notably the marriage covenants between Herodias and King Herod's brother Philip, Potiphar and his wife, Ahab and Jezebel, and Ruth to her deceased husband Mahlon by Boaz when he took her to be his wife. Some are teaching that 1 Corinthians 7:15 implies that those who are abandoned by the unbeliever, are "no longer bound" in a one-flesh covenant of marriage. The reason this is in conflict is due to the way they word it, which gives it an entirely different meaning, and context. 1 Corinthians 7:15, says, "15But 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." As you can see, the actual scripture says "not under bondage," which means that the husband or wife is not enslaved to sin with the unbelieving spouse, and is free to worship Christ in peace. Subsequent translations have changed the words to imply that they nullify the marriage covenant, when this is not at all the case. The issue that this creates is with 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, which says, "10And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: 11But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife." As you can see, those who claim 1 Corinthians 7:15 has the Apostle Paul giving permission to remarry do not understand that the abandoned husband in 1 Corinthians 7:11 is expected to also remain unmarried, in order to be reconciled with his wife. The theory that 1 Corinthians 7:15 nullifies two as being one-flesh in marriage puts the Apostle Paul directly at odds with Christ, by implying that he has issued an opposing command only four scriptures later. The other false claim that is being widely used is that 1 Corinthians 7:27-28 is referring to a divorced man and a virgin woman who has never been married. This has been taught for some time in churches as to refer to anyone who is not currently in a marriage, including the divorced. This is a very false assumption, and puts these verses in a different context that is at odds with both the teachings of Christ and of Paul. We see Paul refer to virgins, which signifies the unmarried who have never before been wed, which is the proper context here. We see Paul saying clearly that it is good for virgins, which is also speaking to never before wed men here, "that it is good for a man so to be." He goes on to say, "Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife." Who is he referring to here? Men who, like himself, have never married. The word "bound" in these verses is a clear reference to betrothal (engagement) and not to marriage. The ancient Jews were considered bound as husband and wife during the betrothal (espousal/engagement) before becoming one-flesh in a covenant of marriage, through consummation. This is affirmed by the context of the term "bound" seen in Numbers 30:3-7. The Jewish couples in ancient Israel who were betrothed (engaged) were also bound together until death either by execution for fornication, or by other causes. Then Paul says, "But and if thou marry, thou has not sinned", which is who? The men who had never married in the congregation at Corinth. So he begins with the first two verses, speaking exclusively to men that have never married. If they were married, they were bound to a wife, but if they never betrothed or married, or if they were widowed, they were not bound. Paul then says, "and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned", which is speaking directly about virgin women, who have never been married, within the congregation, not divorced women. Notice that verse 34 says, "There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband." Paul speaks plainly when he says "there is a difference between a wife and a virgin." Paul goes on to say, "But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry." This is again speaking of a single, never before wed man, of youthful age, with a virgin bride who has become of age to bear children "let them marry." Paul then says, "Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well." This is referring to the man who decides it is better not to marry, but to stay betrothed (engaged) to his wife, under the present distress, by saying that he "hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin." Paul then says, "So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better", which means that those among the never before wed in the congregation do well if they choose to marry their betrothed virgin, and those who are also never before married do better if they choose not to, under the current climate. For proper context of the word "bound", let's look further down in this chapter to verse 39, which says, "39The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord" (1 Corinthians 7:39). For so long, these scriptures, between verses 25-38, have been twisted and used to enable divorce and remarriage, by wayward churches and teachers, and have caused many to stumble and to be trapped in unlawful unions. The use of the woman at the well, in regard to marriage, falsely implies that Christ was endorsing remarriage after a divorce. This teaching is in defiance of Matthew 22:23-28, which shows a woman who had been widowed seven times, and entered into each subsequent marriage without any scriptural conflicts with God's law of marriage (one-flesh covenant) seen in Genesis 2:23-24. Mark 10:1-12 is the same biblical record of Matthew 19:1-12, which both record Christ's teaching that day beyond the Jordan. There is no mention of the words "fornication", "writing of divorcement", or "divorced" in Mark's Gospel, because Mark was not written to the Jews (as Matthew's Gospel was), but to evangelize the Romans and Greeks, who had no knowledge of the law in Deuteronomy 22 or Deuteronomy 24. All of these facts draw a clear understanding that remarriage after a divorce, under the New Covenant with Christ, is a scripturally false and baseless teaching.

[@DanielJohn2300]

Thanks, but I must ask you something in charity. Do you know that you're accusing Paul of being a false apostle? Paul was not saying that God calls people in adultery. The reason why God's Son was named Jesus/Joshua (pronounced Yeho-shoo'-ah) is because he saves His people FROM their sins, NOT in their sins (Mat 1v21).

[@roybowen5395]

I guess our Messiah change the law of Moses when he said divorce only because of adultery. Since even in our Messiah time, adultery was stoned. Guess we should use Matthew, the only Hebrew text that was written to the Jews in the New Testament. And the other three books that the other disciples were just didn't hear him. Since they didn't have the same verses. And no one looks at the Hebrews words on our new bible words that have changed over the years.

[@philipbuckley759]

fornication, and that is different....

[@DanielJohn2300]

Betrothal is before marriage. In the early church, they were husband and wife during the betrothal. He could put her away for premarital unfaithfulness. If he wanted to be loosed from his virgin, then there was no sin in her putting him away and them being married to others (1Cor 7v27-28). I agree with you that marital unfaithfulness is a much greater sin. But the adulteress wants to be loosed to the adulterer. God would not reward her by recognizing a marital unfaithfulness divorce.

[@greenhornet1387]

1 Corinthians 7:27-28 is the new testament answer to this issue, not Mathew 5:31-32 Mathew 19:9 Jesus taught only the law of Moses before the Cross period. Mathew 5:17-18 Mathew 7:12 Romans 15:8 King James version. It is not what does the Bible say, but what does the NEW COVENANT SAY. Acts 2-Revelation 22 2 John 9-11 Verses John 7:16 before the Cross and John 6:38

[@DanielJohn2300]

[2/2] A husband's porneia doesn't give another man the right to marry the wife, because the Lord's divorce exception is only for a wife's porneia. If someone else's baby is in her womb when they come together, he may put her away. Also, when arranged marriage is the custom, he may put her away if he unexpectedly finds her to not be a virgin. Athenagoras understood. In 177 AD, he paraphrased "except for porneia" (Mat 19v9) by writing "whose virginity he has brought to an end."

[@bailey1493]

What if the husband was gone most of the night before exchanging vows? There is no solid proof of what took place…but I am sure he at least did what most of the world does, if you know what I mean… Also, what about watching porn? What about messages from another woman?

[@TCgirl]

And what of the man? Should he be a virgin too? When is he responsible?

[@ginawhoever9734]

this has been a big issue for me in my life the last 7 years. i understand that i had 'sexual relations' with 'boyfriends' before i was married... which i *now* totally understand to be fornication. when i met a man that i was ready to marry, i did repent and ask forgiveness for my previous relations. once we were married, i never touched another man. but after about a year of marriage, i did get VERY ILL. and spent the most part of a year, admitted in the hospital, gravely ill with serious heart problems. my now 'ex-husband' decided that he did not want to deal with me being sick and in the hospital. he did not come and stay/visit with me there. he just gave up. my illness was making me too sick/frail/unable to serve his needs, and so as soon as i started to recover enough to travel, he TOLD ME he was divorcing me, and i was to go back home. when i asked him 'but what about in sickness and in health?', he told me that 'if he knew that i would get *that* sick, he wouldn't have said it'. nice one eh? in the first two years or so after i returned home to live with my parents, i kept being told that i had to 'get back out there' and i dated a few men. but after they too decided that they did not want to deal with someone sick and broke up with me, i have been celibate and not dating for about 5 years now. i do not believe in annulments. so it would seem that because i became very ill, and he divorced me, no feelings of mine considered, and even admitted that if he knew this would happen he would not have made that vow, that i am now an adulteress, and must stay celibate for the rest of my life. he remarried 4 years ago. it is very difficult. i truly wish to follow HIS commands. that *would* mean having been treated like an object that my 'ex' regretted marrying because i got so sick, and so threw me away, and that i am now an adulteress on top of it all. it would mean forsaking all hope to ever love a man again in my life. were we *truly* 'married' in Spirit by GOD if he said he basically would not have actually made that vow if he knew i would become ill? i have become severely depressed and self isolating, because i am scared of meeting someone i may start to love. the only things that i wonder, is if when it is said "What GOD puts together let no man put asunder", if it isn't possible that GOD Himself *could* choose to put it asunder and see that the marriage was never really 'one flesh' in a whole meaning of that word, not just a sexual act of 'one flesh'... though there is no way to *know* something like that. so for now, i am unsure, and so i remain isolated and alone, i guess anticipating being celibate for the rest of my life. it is not that i AM in love, or that i am seeking any man right now... but i have no idea what 5 years will bring. what 10 years will bring. i do not seek to just see/hear what i want to. but this IS a VERY PERSONAL situation, and with every couple's marriage bringing countless issues and specific problems that people seek to free themselves of, becomes a VERY COMPLEX situation. i can not help but feel as if i am now facing a life with absolutely no possibility of loving a man again, because i got sick and my 'ex' did not want to deal with it. i know HIS ways are not 'our ways'... but i feel so betrayed, worthless, and alone now. is this truly what HE wants for me?

[@GottaGetGary]

Your worth and potential happiness will not come from marriage our sex. They come from God. Depend on him. Surrender to him. Rely on him. I don't think you're an adulterer because you're divorced but if you remarry or join with another man, that would make you an adulterer. Many teach that since your husband remarried, his adultery frees you to remarry. I think that's a very risky interpretation. I might be overly strict but I would recommend you remain unmarried and celibate and dedicate yourself to living for Good, seeking fulfillment through your relationship with him. Romantic love does not bring the happiness that your society portrays. God bless you.

[@ginawhoever9734]

Massey & Associates, PC - Injury Lawyers i never meant that my worth depends on marriage and sex... i should have been more clear. i apologize if i wasn't. when i said 'worthless', i meant because of how sick i have become. i am an RN, and worked 17 1/2 years before i got so sick. i loved my 'job' because it allowed me to serve others, taking care of people who were sick and in need, and doing all that i could to be a comfort to them in some way. it was not just a 'job' to me... and i always felt grateful, and blessed to be able to be doing something that was so rewarding and yet so humbling at the same time. due to how sick i have become, i was forced to go on disability to survive. i so very much want to go back to work... knowing that you can serve and help others in such a way, but your body won't let you is very very frustrating... because there are SO many people out there who need that care. maybe 'worthless' is too strong of a word... i understand that there is only ONE who determines my worth, and it isn't any man or woman in this world. as for me being 'happy' and 'fulfilled' by developing a relationship with GOD, i *do* understand that genuine Joy, and Fulfillment of that kind, which is far beyond anything that this world can give, can only come from GOD's Grace and Love for us. i absolutely seek a true relationship with GOD, to try and walk with Christ every day. and i will *never* stop seeking it and seeking to make it stronger. and yet, there IS a capacity to give and receive love between people here, in our world. that kind of love IS unfortunately becoming much harder to find, but if you do, THAT is really a gift from GOD in itself, and can be very healing, and beautiful. and that is where what i said about being so depressed and feeling so isolated comes in. to me, the sex that comes with marriage, is only as truly intimate and 'one flesh' as the intimacy and unconditional love and loyalty is mentally, emotionally, and from the Soul. i 'believe' that since GOD can absolutely see into our hearts, that he knows when two people having a 'marriage ceremony' are *genuinely* and *without any doubt* speaking those vows and promises to each other creating a *real marriage* of one flesh, or if one or both are *not* being genuine and true with their vows and have *some* kind of different agenda in it. that is why i say i feel betrayed and alone (in *this* world) feeling and knowing that the stance of the scripture seems to be that it does not matter if the whole marriage was a manipulation... i will still have to remain celibate and never love a man again, or marry someone who WOULD mean his vows genuinely. sadly it is making me very depressed. and i know i am not the only one this happens to... or something even worse.

[@marycarr7038]

+n/a n/a God Bless You!

[@philipbuckley759]

@@ginawhoever9734 once again, these cases make it easy to overlook the Biblical teachings, on this topic.....but we are not afforded that luxury...we have to have faith that the Biblical teaching is the right teaching, and we have to adjust to it....not the other way around.....to change the text, to our comfort....

[@DanielJohn2300]

I'm sorry, but nowhere is it written in scripture to stay in a marriage to someone else's spouse. Besides, there is no comparison between us and the Corinthians. They were hearing the gospel for the first time. We've been hearing it for many generations. To whom more is given, more is required. You can never be happy going on and on like this. It's not worth it. It's best to humble yourself before God, repent, and believe the gospel.

[@MountainCreekChurchofChrist]

@DanielJohn2300 According to Jesus, if your spouse, regardless of gender, is guilty of adultery, you may divorce that spouse and remarry. The divorced spouse is no longer your spouse, even thought that divorced spouse is not allowed to righteously remarry.

[@dystopic6245]

Mountain Creek Church of Christ Hebrews 12:16 explains that Esau is a fornicator and profane, and explains why in the same verse (so in context), that he had sold his inheritance for a morsel of food. The Greek word used in the text is “pornos”, A variant of the word porneia. Truman Scott, is correct in his understanding that porneia is not a sexual sin specifically, but the setting aside of God‘s authority, for lust. Lust for wealth, power, and prestige, but also satisfying hunger, thirst, as well as sexual sins that can feel like necessity, and falsely justifying immoral behavior to have what you want, or keep what is not yours... is a lack of reverence for God’s word...an unwillingness to follow God’s word, leading to sin and death. Understanding this should alter and expand the pre-existent definitions of porneia and fornication as more than just premarital sex, or adultery. What should not be considered as authoritative on this subject, Is the Mishnah, or the Talmud. Written down hundreds of years after the first century, by the very sects that Jesus called out as false interpreters, and false teachers of the law, the scribes and Pharisees. Thinking that you have to go outside of the Bible and referred to ecumenical citations, to properly understand the the Bible, is flawed reasoning. Consider where the laws of hermeneutics have come from… the pharisaical school of Hillel, and are largely based on human reasoning, rather than depending on inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

[@philipbuckley759]

fornication...

[@womanatwellworshiptheFather]

So you are saying part of God's Word violates other part of God's Word? Romans 7:3 is pretty clear. The woman who is FIRST MARRIED to ONE MAN then is "freed" to marry ANOTHER is an adulteress and NOT A WIFE until her first husband dies. It does not say "when she is deserted" it does not say "when he commits adultery" as a matter of fact it says "she shall be called an adulteress" so God DOES NOT SEVER their one flesh union because of adultery. She is STILL MARRIED to the FIRST MAN that is why SHE IS CALLED AN ADULTERESS. There is NO JUSTIFIED reason for remarriage AND GODS WORD CALLS IT ADULTERY

[@philipbuckley759]

do yourself a favor, and skip this one....

[@BogusJesus]

Bible sure is okay with slavery, why don't you all talk about that?

[@philipbuckley759]

this is not only out, of line from the Bible, but the denomination....Church, of Christ....and represents a completely false teaching.....it is not adultery, but fornication, and none of the other issues, mentioned, here....abuse, neglect, abandonment, constitutes and reason, for divorce and remarriage.....