According to the Law - could a woman remarry?

I wonder, if it is related to this:

It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift...who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.
Heb 6:6

It seems to me to be very similar to Jer 3:1

Disgrace would be a synonym to defiled, then.

Can you tell me these 3 ways? I am interested to know about this.

In this would [woman ] here mean a wife [or] the church?

Christ Married the congration[the church],
God gave her a bill of deforce for adultery.

The church [woman] could not marry another
till the man or husband [Christ] died.

After Christ died , the new Church started, soon to be his [wife]
we will be His bride, but the wedding does not take place
till after the mill. rule, when [all the guests] will be there.

Then We will be married by God the father, to Jesus Christ.

When mercy, justice and faith are included in the judgment, it is certain to be allowable.

with money, by contract, or by cohabitiation...

To the third one...

"Salomon had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines"
1 Kings 11:3

Concubines were surely cohabitating with Salomon, but they were not his wives... any thoughts about this?

I think the important thing for us Gentile believers is to honor our marriage covenants (which the NT commands). Not to get all tied up in trying to figure out whether we're sinning if we divorce (for Scripturally valid reasons) and marrying other people.

I believe there is too much finger-pointing at men and women who lawfully divorce and then get married again.

Although I admit I have difficulty figuring out what Paul meant when he said that a wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. The only thing I know for sure is that Paul was referring to Jewish law.

Concubines voluntarily sold themselves, (became slave status) for various reasons. Logic dictates practical reasons such as survival/protection was most common. They did not have the same benefits as wives, for example inheritance/legal heirs.

Of course King Solomon did not follow God's command not to multiply wives or have many wives, thus consequentially the kingdom was divided. By comparison King David had at least 7 wives and a few concubines (? #) and God told him if he had ask God would have given him more wives. So, how many is too many? Somewhere above the number David had, and less than what Solomon had, however, intent probably came into play. David's wives were godly choices and a benefit to the kingdom where his son's wives were for the most part foreign women and for his personal satisfaction.

So, the act of cohabitation does not automatically make people to be married, right?

The question is, if a concubine could marry another man till her "master" or how to call it, was still alive or if she was free/single all the time of her cohabitation. If we do not include the possibility that she was also a slave.

And how does fornication fit into this.

The 'wife' here is the individual believer:

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

The believer can be married to Christ because our first husband 'sin' has died. When we were 'married' to sin the law of Moses acted like a kind of marriage license that kept us bound to that first husband:

"8But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind "-Romans 7:8

For the believer, the law of Moses no longer has jurisdiction over a person to keep them bound to their first husband, 'sin', because that first husband has died. Paul is pointing out that according to that same law that bound you to sin you are no longer legally bound to the spouse who has died and are free to marry new husband, Jesus, and bear fruit in his image.

Morning Ralph

Guten morgen.

Ahhh..a fellow german?? Lol

@Ralph- ..gueten tag..gotta get ready for work soon!

I don't have definate answers here. As for Jewish law, I believe it states concubines are not the same as harlots. Concubines are bound to their masters and not given free rein to be with other men. I would have to research that about what means could free concubines, I suppose some writ or "get" I think it's called.

Torah instructs there be no harlot among Hebrew women, I don't remember Torah instructing about concubines, however, concubines were common among ancient kings of Israel/Judea, pagan kings and remember the instances where the wife's hand maiden was given to the husband in cases of barrenness? I don't recall an instance where this was out n out forbidden. Perhaps these are examples of things God "winked at" for a time, because we know He is merciful. I'm speculating.

My opinion is, the spirit of the law informs us, and I believe as Jesus said 1 husband married to 1 wife.

Es ist guten nacht heir auf Spanien......

It is similar, except that the law that doesn't allow a wife to go back to a husband who has divorced his wife is for those who have not been born again (like Israel) but who can come back in a born again experience, while the Hebrews 6 passage is talking about people who have been born again--they can't come back.

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ."
Ef 6:5

Many slaves were secretly married against the will of their masters.

Now, where they truly married or not? Is it the same situation like people saying today that they do not need any official government certificate to be together? Where they simply cohabiting fornicators or does God recognize marriage against the will of authorities as legal?

To answer that we'd have to know what made it so that the woman at well was not married to the person she was with at that time:

"18for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband"-John 4:18

The point being, simply being together did not constitute marriage. What determined that?