₦airaland Forum

Biblically,can Pst Chris remarry since their divorce was not based on the wife’s infidelity and she is still alive?

The wife divorced him based on allegations of adultery and unreasonable behaviour. This means the wife is biblically allowed to remarry

If truly he fell into sin and he has repented, does it mean he MUST remain unmarried and burn with passion for life while his ex has the option of moving on!

Bible Scholars, pastors and mature Christians what do you think?

Dae Jumong

The first question is what led to the break up?
God hates divorce! Malachi 2:16

There's too much wahala as regards divorce in the Bible!

God hates divorce but did permitted Moses to encourage letter of divorce!

And God didn't warn Moses about it.

Just as Samson was busy carrying "Hoelowshow" and God was unable to warn him till Delilah came! Holy Spirit will still empower Samson to expire Philistines! It doesn't matter who Samson carries!

AntiChristian:
There's too much wahala as regards divorce in the Bible!

God hates divorce but did permitted Moses to encourage letter of divorce!

And God didn't warn Moses about it.

Just as Samson was busy carrying "Hoelowshow" and God was unable to warn him till Delilah came! Holy Spirit will still empower Samson to expire Philistines! It doesn't matter who Samson carries!

Jesus explained why God told Moses to allow Israelites divorce their wives. Matthew 19:8

If the only ground for divorce back then is the death of a spouse surely many will die through the hands of their husbands after all he is free to remarry when she's dead.

The transition just begun when God brought the Israelites out of Egypt so the laws given to Isrealites is to lead them till the coming of the Christ who will teach them the way of holiness! Deuteronomy 18:18-19; Isaiah 35:8; John 4:25; John 14:6

That's why nobody is qualified for holiness right from the time women started having children until the day of John the baptist {Matthew 11:11} because the gateway to holiness was opened when Jesus walked the earth!🙂

He fit still NOT make HEAVEN .GOD will NOT kee u for breaking the COVENANT.

There’s no proof that Pst Chris cheated or did gruesomely in the marriage, I just felt devil just wanted to take a chance in the life of the man through the institution called marriage but failed nevertheless the man of God and his ministry is standing strong even much better and till tomorrow you still see him wear his marriage band which signify he was never a part of it or concurred to the divorce brouhaha

Daejumong:
Biblically,can Pst Chris remarry since their divorce was not based on the wife’s infidelity and she is still alive?

The wife divorced him based on allegations of adultery and unreasonable behaviour. This means the wife is biblically allowed to remarry

If truly he fell into sin and he has repented, does it mean he MUST remain unmarried and burn with passion for life while his ex has the option of moving on!

Bible Scholars, pastors and mature Christians what do you think?

Dae Jumong

The Bible says that those that divorce are to remain unmarried unless their former spouse dies. It is only when the former spouse has died, that the person can remarry. See the Bible verses below:

(Romans 7:2-3 KJV) 2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. 3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

(1 Corinthians 7:39 KJV) The 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.

(Luke 16:18 KJV) Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

(1 Corinthians 7:11 KJV) But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

MaxInDHouse:
Jesus explained why God told Moses to allow Israelites divorce their wives. Matthew 19:8

If the only ground for divorce back then is the death of a spouse surely many will die through the hands of their husbands after all he is free to remarry when she's dead.

The transition just begun when God brought the Israelites out of Egypt so the laws given to Isrealites is to lead them till the coming of the Christ who will teach them the way of holiness! Deuteronomy 18:18-19; Isaiah 35:8; John 4:25; John 14:6

That's why nobody is qualified for holiness right from the time women started having children until the day of John the baptist {Matthew 11:11} because the gateway to holiness was opened when Jesus walked the earth!🙂

You speak of Moses and Jesus, of law and holiness, and say that the Israelites were given divorce only because their hearts were hard, that holiness was shut to humankind until Christ opened the gate. But when I take up the old scrolls and turn them beneath the torchlight, they tell a different tale.

Jesus, in Matthew 19:8, said that Moses allowed divorce because of hardness of heart — yet he also said, “From the beginning it was not so.” He does not strike down Moses; he strikes at the people’s cruelty. Moses’ permission was a shield for abandoned wives, not a license for men to cast them away. Jesus recalls God’s original intent in Genesis, where two become one flesh, to show divine order, not to condemn the entire Mosaic law as false. The contradiction is that the man’s message condemns the law, while Jesus himself affirms its justice but calls people back to its heart.

He warns that if death were the only way to be free of marriage, men would kill their wives. Yet the same law thunders, “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13). The Torah treats bloodshed as defilement of the land and a crime demanding life for life (Numbers 35:16–21). No man could kill his wife and be blameless. The divorce command in Deuteronomy 24:1–4 required a written certificate, not to make divorce easy, but to protect women from being cast into the street without record or provision. What he calls cruelty was meant as mercy in a hard age.

He claims the laws were given only as a bridge until Christ, using Deuteronomy 18:18–19 about the prophet to come. But in that same breath God affirms the people’s duty to obey His commands now. The promised prophet does not erase Moses; he continues his line. The psalmist declares, “The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul” (Psalm 19:7). If it were merely a flawed placeholder, it could not restore anyone. Here, the scripture he uses turns back on him, saying that the law itself was holy and alive.

He quotes Isaiah 35:8 about the “highway of holiness” to prove holiness began with Christ. Yet Isaiah wrote of his own time, when Israel would be redeemed from exile. That road already existed for those who walked with God. The prophet’s song is about restoration for the faithful, not the first appearance of holiness centuries later.

He brings John 4:25, where the woman at the well speaks of the coming Messiah, and John 14:6, where Jesus calls himself the way, truth, and life. Those verses do proclaim the fullness of revelation in Christ, but they do not erase what came before. Jesus himself says in Matthew 23:2–3 that the teachers of the law “sit in Moses’ seat,” and he tells the crowds to “do whatever they teach.” He condemns hypocrisy, not the Torah. So his own words contradict the claim that the old law was worthless.

He points to Matthew 11:11, saying no one born of woman was greater than John the Baptist, and from that he argues that holiness began only then. But the same verse says, “Yet the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.” This speaks of position in history, not moral rank. John stands at the turning of the ages — the last prophet of the old order and the herald of the new. That does not make the old unholy; it means a fuller light had dawned. The verse marks transition, not exclusion.

Throughout the old writings, men and women are called righteous: Noah was “blameless in his generation” (Genesis 6:9), Job was “upright and feared God” (Job 1:1), David was said to have “a heart after God’s own” (1 Samuel 13:14). Leviticus 19:2 commands, “You shall be holy, for I the LORD your God am holy.” Such words have no meaning if holiness were impossible. They show that holiness, though difficult, was real before Christ ever drew breath.

The psalms sing the same tune. Psalm 119 is a long love song to the law: “Blessed are those whose way is blameless, who walk in the law of the Lord.” The writer finds joy and holiness within the law, not despair beneath it. That stands in open contradiction to the claim that the old way was only darkness.

And about his notion that men could simply kill wives to be free — the law itself chained such violence. Exodus 21:18–19 says that if a man injures another, he must pay for the loss and healing. The entire legal code guards life with blood-price and judgment. The Torah’s intent was to limit cruelty, not to bless it.

So when he says the law was a cruel bridge, the old texts themselves roar back. They show holiness as attainable, divorce as restricted, the law as good. The prophets cried not that holiness was absent, but that Israel had abandoned it.

You, who call yourself an atheist, have asked not for faith but for truth. I answer you with the weight of the words themselves. The contradictions are not between Jesus and Moses, but between the preacher’s reading and the scriptures’ own voice. The old covenant never taught that holiness was sealed away; it shows people who reached toward it through obedience and faith. Jesus brought fulfillment, not invention.

So here stands the verdict, hammered on the anvil of reason: the man’s message condemns the very law his Christ upheld. When the scrolls are read whole, they show a God who called for holiness from the first, who forbade murder, who gave the law to protect the weak, and who walked with the righteous long before Bethlehem’s star. Holiness did not begin with Christ — it found its crown in him. The light was not born from nothing; it rose from a long dawn already breaking.

That is what the scriptures themselves say — ancient, unbending, and still speaking, whether one believes in them or not.

But hey, im just an atheist

You talk too much!🙂

Fenrir:
You speak of Moses and Jesus, of law and holiness, and say that the Israelites were given divorce only because their hearts were hard, that holiness was shut to humankind until Christ opened the gate. But when I take up the old scrolls and turn them beneath the torchlight, they tell a different tale.

Jesus, in Matthew 19:8, said that Moses allowed divorce because of hardness of heart — yet he also said, “From the beginning it was not so.” He does not strike down Moses; he strikes at the people’s cruelty. Moses’ permission was a shield for abandoned wives, not a license for men to cast them away. Jesus recalls God’s original intent in Genesis, where two become one flesh, to show divine order, not to condemn the entire Mosaic law as false. The contradiction is that the man’s message condemns the law, while Jesus himself affirms its justice but calls people back to its heart.

He warns that if death were the only way to be free of marriage, men would kill their wives. Yet the same law thunders, “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13). The Torah treats bloodshed as defilement of the land and a crime demanding life for life (Numbers 35:16–21). No man could kill his wife and be blameless. The divorce command in Deuteronomy 24:1–4 required a written certificate, not to make divorce easy, but to protect women from being cast into the street without record or provision. What he calls cruelty was meant as mercy in a hard age.

He claims the laws were given only as a bridge until Christ, using Deuteronomy 18:18–19 about the prophet to come. But in that same breath God affirms the people’s duty to obey His commands now. The promised prophet does not erase Moses; he continues his line. The psalmist declares, “The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul” (Psalm 19:7). If it were merely a flawed placeholder, it could not restore anyone. Here, the scripture he uses turns back on him, saying that the law itself was holy and alive.

He quotes Isaiah 35:8 about the “highway of holiness” to prove holiness began with Christ. Yet Isaiah wrote of his own time, when Israel would be redeemed from exile. That road already existed for those who walked with God. The prophet’s song is about restoration for the faithful, not the first appearance of holiness centuries later.

He brings John 4:25, where the woman at the well speaks of the coming Messiah, and John 14:6, where Jesus calls himself the way, truth, and life. Those verses do proclaim the fullness of revelation in Christ, but they do not erase what came before. Jesus himself says in Matthew 23:2–3 that the teachers of the law “sit in Moses’ seat,” and he tells the crowds to “do whatever they teach.” He condemns hypocrisy, not the Torah. So his own words contradict the claim that the old law was worthless.

He points to Matthew 11:11, saying no one born of woman was greater than John the Baptist, and from that he argues that holiness began only then. But the same verse says, “Yet the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.” This speaks of position in history, not moral rank. John stands at the turning of the ages — the last prophet of the old order and the herald of the new. That does not make the old unholy; it means a fuller light had dawned. The verse marks transition, not exclusion.

Throughout the old writings, men and women are called righteous: Noah was “blameless in his generation” (Genesis 6:9), Job was “upright and feared God” (Job 1:1), David was said to have “a heart after God’s own” (1 Samuel 13:14). Leviticus 19:2 commands, “You shall be holy, for I the LORD your God am holy.” Such words have no meaning if holiness were impossible. They show that holiness, though difficult, was real before Christ ever drew breath.

The psalms sing the same tune. Psalm 119 is a long love song to the law: “Blessed are those whose way is blameless, who walk in the law of the Lord.” The writer finds joy and holiness within the law, not despair beneath it. That stands in open contradiction to the claim that the old way was only darkness.

And about his notion that men could simply kill wives to be free — the law itself chained such violence. Exodus 21:18–19 says that if a man injures another, he must pay for the loss and healing. The entire legal code guards life with blood-price and judgment. The Torah’s intent was to limit cruelty, not to bless it.

So when he says the law was a cruel bridge, the old texts themselves roar back. They show holiness as attainable, divorce as restricted, the law as good. The prophets cried not that holiness was absent, but that Israel had abandoned it.

You, who call yourself an atheist, have asked not for faith but for truth. I answer you with the weight of the words themselves. The contradictions are not between Jesus and Moses, but between the preacher’s reading and the scriptures’ own voice. The old covenant never taught that holiness was sealed away; it shows people who reached toward it through obedience and faith. Jesus brought fulfillment, not invention.

So here stands the verdict, hammered on the anvil of reason: the man’s message condemns the very law his Christ upheld. When the scrolls are read whole, they show a God who called for holiness from the first, who forbade murder, who gave the law to protect the weak, and who walked with the righteous long before Bethlehem’s star. Holiness did not begin with Christ — it found its crown in him. The light was not born from nothing; it rose from a long dawn already breaking.

That is what the scriptures themselves say — ancient, unbending, and still speaking, whether one believes in them or not.

But hey, im just an atheist

Fenrir:
“You’ve swung your tongue like a dull axe at a giant’s helm, little one. Next time, choose a foe of your own stature, not an atheistic demi-god carved from wit and northern frost!”

Just say you love being atheist and that's all but claiming you know the Bible ọmọ that's a big lie because you know nothing about the Bible!🙂

Daejumong:
Biblically,can Pst Chris remarry since their divorce was not based on the wife’s infidelity and she is still alive?

The wife divorced him based on allegations of adultery and unreasonable behaviour. This means the wife is biblically allowed to remarry

If truly he fell into sin and he has repented, does it mean he MUST remain unmarried and burn with passion for life while his ex has the option of moving on!

Bible Scholars, pastors and mature Christians what do you think?

Dae Jumong

How do you know that his wife was unfaithful? Anyway, he can remarry if he wants. The commandment is optional because it's not everyone that can bear it, according to the Bible. The wife left him, not the other way round.