Anyone that has a marriage where both are believers in Jesus Christ could definitely get through anything that I can think of.
    Just a little faith that both share will get a couple through- I wonder if anyone has read the Bible...so many things in this world will cause people to become complacent- self serving rather than Jesus Christ serving (I am guilty as well)
    But I personally can't see divorce - not one sin gets in..continue in the faith , don't faint..persevere.  If there is a divorce I think that's it afterward as far as intimacy is concerned between man and woman. Don't even mention gays.
    Spirituality should overcome fleshly need

    The believer and repenter is in Christ..so we then get divorced ?? The reward is so great ...if we faint not...redeem the time..salt our speech..Its love baby! The devil is a pig..don't let him wreck your days.                  Grace be to you and peace from God our Father...its must mean something to you as a believer
  WAKE UP!   the love is still there

My husband and I are both divorced and remarried I have studied this subject and listened to countless teaching on it, and read much stuff on the internet by various Christians on it too, and guess what?? they all say something different!
The conclusion I have come to based on my studies and what I have heard and read, is that for 2 Christians divorce seems to only be allowed for 'pornea' which is a greek word meaning sexual immorality. This could include adultery, incest, a homosexual relationship,and sexual acts which while they stop short of actual sex, are still committing 'pornea'.
This was the case for both my husband and myself, ie our ex parters both committed 'pornea', and therefore according to the bible it seems we are both free to remarry.

If one partner is an unbeliever and they want to leave and divorce the Christian, then I believe that the Christian is also free to remarry.

I cant see any other reasons for divorce allowed. I think that maybe God knows that the sexual act seals the marriage in the first place, so a sexual act with someone other than the wife/husband finishes it also, and breaks the covenant.Thus divorce is alowed and therefore remarriage.

The case of serious abuse is a hard one, and I feel the utmost sympathy for those in this position, but also I have known of cases where Christians have used the 'emotional' abuse card to get a divorce when there was actually no abuse at all, just an excuse becuase they want to get rid of their spouses, so you do have to be careful on this.

I would like to take this further, to ask if the 'guilty party' in a divorce, if they are a Christian is allowed to remarry? Of all the teaching I have read or heard on this question, nine of out ten have said no, they are not permitted to remarry if they were the guilty party who committed adultery or 'pornea' How do others see this in the bible?

The thing is that God does care why we divorce. he cares about us, so of course he cares. Whatever we do or dont do has repurcussions for ourselves and for others. We cant just do whatever we want to and expect God to just let it go and cancel out any consequenses that may arise.Of course He forgives if we are really sorry, but there will still be consequenses even if He forgives us.

Of course we all have free will, and God cannot stop us from divorcing anyone for whatever we like if we are really determined to, but one of the consequenses may surely be that we arent able to remarry, according to Him. Gods instructions are always for our good and if we break them then we can suffer and so can others. Sort of like, you reap what you sow.

I think it is very important that we know why someone is divorced if we are thinking of marrying them. many of you may have heard of the late Derek Prince who was a very good bible teacher, who lived and preached in the USA for some time, well when God led him to his second wife (his first wife died), he knew God was in it, but on finding out that this lady was divorced, he did question her carefully about what had caused her divorce, so that he could be sure that it was ok to marry her.  This isnt being judgemental, just careful and sensible.he just wanted to be sure that he was doing the right thing.

Goodness, I agree hroberson, it isnt our place to question or judge anyone who is married. I am really talking about those who are thinking of divorcing or who are thinking of remarrying. Not everyone who is divorced is allowed to remarry I dont think, according to what I read of the Bible in this situation.However each person has to account to themselves before God in the end dont they and excuses of any sort wont impress Him then I guess.
A question. If a spouses leaves his spouse for another person, who they commit adultery with..are the allowed to remarry according to you?. It is ok in your opinion that thay marry them with the attitude that God will forgive me anyway, so it doesnt matter?

I know of a  man who was a strong Chrstian, who left his wife of over 30 years for a younger non Christian woman, and after 5 years (the time you have to wait for a divorve that is contested in the uk) he divorced his wife (who was still praying that he would return) and then married the other women(who he had been living with for the 5 years). So is that ok, even though he has committed three sins against what God teaches, ie leaving his wife, committing adultery and marrying a non Christian women? The only thing I would say is that I would fear for him when he, like all of us, has to account for all that he has done before God.
I am not pefect, far from it, but this 'anything goes' mentality is far from right surely?

Not sure if he is following God or not anymore, but if he is he will need to totally repent of what he has done at some point.
Agree he shouldnt leave his present wife. I find those people who are stil 'standing' for their marriage even after their ex spouse has remarried slightly creepy, its as if they are hoping and praying for the divorce and break up of another family and marriage, and that is wrong and they should get on with their lives and not live in the belief that one day their ex spouse will return. What a waste of their lives!! By all means keep praying if their ex spouse hasnt remarried, but not for ever.
The lady in question that I talked about, stopped believing that her husband would return after he remarried, and many years later is the happiest that she has ever been and God has used her in amazing ways.

The proper word used in Rom 7:2 could be translated “bound of law” instead of “bound by law.”  For the “by” is not in the original Greek.  Paul was not referring to a Law in Moses but the ‘Law of God’ from Geneses chapter 2, 3. 

Paul does not focus in Rom 7:1-2 or 1 Cor 7:39 on the covenant as to why she is ‘bound’ to her husband, or the marriage itself, but puts the focus on the “law” of her husband. 

“Law of the husband”
Paul also said in 1 Cor 7:39 (approximately one year before the book of Romans) when a woman marries a man she becomes “bound of law, as long as her husband lives; but if her husband is dead, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.”  Paul was not teaching against polygamy as in Rom 7:1-6 but still Paul said a woman was “bound of law”.  Paul in explaining this further said in Rom 7:3b (which can be used in both circumstances) “but if dies the husband, free she is from the ‘law’, not being her an adulteress if she becomes wife to another man”.  Paul is not focusing on her being bound to the ‘husband’ but her being bound to the ‘law’ of him. 

Rom 7:2b “But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband...”

Paul says the reason the woman is bound to the “law of the husband” (Rom 7:2b) was stated earlier by him saying because she is “under-man” (in Greek Rom 7:2a).
   
“Law of-the”
Paul also used the words “law of-the” or “law of” to point something other than the Law of Moses as we might say the “law of Nature”, the “law of Gravity”, or the “law of Physics”.  This “law” is to be something of known unmovable parameters that binds us under a rule.  By Paul stating in Rom 7:1, the principle of law, Paul states anytime something falls “under” something else (in its entirety) if falls under a principle ‘law’ to it.

Paul used “law of the” to state a known fact or order according to God’s laws i.e. “another law”,  “law of the sin”,  “I find a law that is evil is present with me”,  “law of the mind”,  “law of the Spirit”,  “law of the sin and of the death”.   And so was used the “law of the husband” in Rom 7:2b. 

Though the “law of the husband” may not be a direct reference to the Law in Gen 3:16, but we can understand this is where it originates from by Paul stating the woman “under-man” Rom 7:2a as why she is bound “to” her “living husband”. 

Paul also uses the word “law” without speaking about the Law of Moses earlier when he said the Jews are not saved by the law of works but through the “law (of) faith”.   And Paul referenced the “Law of God” and the “Law of Christ” in 1 Cor 9:21 though he was not speaking about the “Law of Moses” either. 

Paul said “Law” in 1 Cor 14:34 where he was not referring to the ‘Law of Moses’ but a writing of Geneses from the Old Testament.  Paul also referenced “Law” when he was speaking about any writing in the Old Testament.  1 Cor 14:21 says “In the Law it has been written” (not from the 5 books of the Law of Moses but a scripture in the book of Isaiah ).  The entire Old Testament could also be referred as; “Scriptures”,  “the Law and the Prophets”, “the Ancestral Law” Acts 22:3, or “the Law of the Lord.”   

Paul used the marriage of a woman to a man, established by God through Adam and Eve, to compare to them how they are released from the Law of Moses.  Being that the Law from Adam and Eve they all knew, loved, and most importantly understood. 

The “law of the husband” was a play-on-words, which Paul used to show when you become “under” a “law” of something (as of The Law of Moses) the law “lords-over” you Rom 7:1, in which you “were held by,”  until a “death” frees you from ‘what’ you are bound to.

The woman commits adultery against the “law” of the husband if she were to marry another man while still married to her first husband Rom 7:3 or anytime (in general) she marries another man while a former husband of her is “still living” 1 Cor 7:39.  Rom 7:3b can be used in both circumstance, married or unmarried, through the “law”.

“Under-man, woman”
Rom 7:2 this sentence says in Greek, “The for (for the) under-man woman to the living man, having been (has been) bound (of) law.”

This sentence could better be translated: “For the woman who is under man (or under-husband) has been bound of law to the living husband.”

Paul says “under-man” woman “to” the “living man” in the same sentence in Rom 7:2 thus we can see Paul was making another point, something more than just ‘husband’ or ‘married’ as most biblical translations translated. 

Although a man is never under the “law” of his wife (put under her) he is said to also be “bound” 1 Cor 7:27 to her, as well.  Though they are both said to be “bound” to each other by scripture, only woman is said to be bound of “law”.


Paul gives three reasons a woman is “under-man”.  First this was the ‘design’ of God for she was made “for” man and “from man 1 Cor 11:8-9 putting man in general as the “head” of all women 1 Cor 11:3.  Secondly, Adam was made ‘first’ 1 Tim 2:13 then Eve showing an ‘order’ of creation.  And thirdly because of the ‘fall’ she was to be “submissive” to her husband 1 Cor 14:34 in ‘all’ things Eph 5:25.

The principle of under-man is also shown in the Greek word “(under-) submission (appointed, set)” Eph 5:23-25 and Col 3:18 using the premise of the “head”.   

“Under man” is taking from the understanding of underneath man.  This was to express her general or specific position to the man in obedience unto (to establish the “lords over” rule in Rom 7:1b).  This was taken from Paul’s concept when he said sin “lords over” a man while “under law”.   As “under law” and “under grace” is being used in Rom 6:15, so was “under-man” being used to fall in line with these two types of concepts.

The “under” word in Greek is also used in the first part of the word “under-officers”  or “ministers”  to show submission to another.  The ‘under’ was to establish order, position, or rank in these usages.  Under was nothing more than to say under something else. 

Widow
Rom 7:2b and 1 Cor 7:39 says she is still bound of law to him “as long as he lives”.  “As long as lives” was a very strong statement and a blanket statement to be an all inclusive - no matter what as long as the person lives (with no exceptions).  As said when Hannah “lent” her son Samuel to the Lord “as long as he lives” .  Both of these scriptures when talking about freedom of a husband to marry another do not say she is bound as long as married to him, or if she was put away.  Some may argue that 1 Cor 7:39 Paul is stating not how long she is bound to the law of her husband (until he ‘sleeps’) but in the context of Rom 7:2b this is not talking about her freedom as a widow to marry another but how long until she can marry another without it being “adultery”.

Further it was said, “Do not let a widow under sixty years old be taken into the number, and not unless she has been the wife of one man” 1 Tim 5:9.  The “has been” in Greek shows that she has only been married to one man in her life ever (unlike Duet 24:3); unless she was a true widow before she married another man again Deut 25:5-10 (Matt 22:28).  1 Tim 5:9-10 were standards for a ‘widow’ to receive funds living a godly and pure life.  Again Paul only said the women “widow” is allowed to remarry (if formerly married) 1 Cor 7:8-9, 10-11a, 39-40, and 1 Tim 5:14.  The bible never called a man a “widow” when speaking of remarriage rites.

"abandonment" is not divorce.  To equate the two to be one and the same is beyond the scope of dictionary definitions and common understanding of the words.  To make them one and the same is fraught with pitfalls, is untenable, and merits questioning not only the content of what the user wrote, but also why they would post as one who understands the issue when words on the topic are misappropriated and violently wrested for application in order to bolster a belief.