Repentance and Adulterous Relationships

Ask moral related questions. What things are right and wrong? What should we do and not do?

Moderator: grand_puba

Post Reply
approachable
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 2:52 pm
Location: Dayton, Ohio

Repentance and Adulterous Relationships

Post by approachable » Fri Dec 21, 2007 8:24 pm

Hello.
Is it mandatory for one to
dissolve an adulterous union before he is baptized? I only ask this
because the parties who are in an adulterous union may hear a message that
doesn't talk about marriage, divorce, and rema rriage, and one (or both)
may decide to get baptized. Would their baptism be valid?

Thank You

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

what this thread is not about...

Post by m273p15c » Fri Dec 21, 2007 9:06 pm

I do not believe this thread is about baptism being necessary for salvation, because if we assume it is not necessary, then there is no quandary. They are independent actions. Therefore, I am guessing that you believe baptism is indeed necessary for salvation. Also, this is not about baptism sanctifying an adulterous message, because again, if that was granted, there would be no difficulty. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Assuming that one believes baptism is essential for forgiveness, and that adulterous relationships must always be dissolved, I can envision two scenarios:
  1. Two people living in adultery learn the gospel, become Christians, and later learn that their relationship is sin.
  2. Two people living in adultery learn the gospel AND that their relationship is sinful, and become Christians, but never repent of their relationship.
The first case should not be a concern, because people are constantly learning, growing, and maturing. During this process, they often learn that some long practiced deed is sinful. Neither that sin nor that knowledge invalidates their baptism or anything else they have done (generally). Otherwise, we would need to get baptized almost every day, assuming that we are continuing to learn and grow each day. As case in point, consider Simon the Sorcerer. He committed a gross sin after his baptism, exhibiting a very immature faith (Acts 8:13-19). Although standing condemned (Acts 8:20-21), he was not instructed to be baptized again. Peter told him simply to repent and pray for forgiveness (Acts 8:22-24), which is consistent with John's instruction (I John 1:9; 2:1).

However, the second case concerns me. Can a person be saved just by immersion? Obviously, no (I Peter 3:21). There's nothing special with the water. Among other necessary ingredients (grace, for example), baptism is contingent upon that healthy conscience, responding to the message ("the answer of a good conscience toward God", I Peter 3:21). Part of that response is repentance ("repent and be baptized for the remission of sins", Acts 2:38). How can a healthy, believing conscience yield to baptism while failing to repent? Simple - it cannot. The baptism for the second case is invalid, because they never repented, which is indication that they never believed! Their baptism was no more effective than swimming in a lake.

The key question is, "When did they learn that their adulterous relationship was sinful, before or after they repented and were baptized?"

Finally, this is an easy problem to resolve, if there is any doubt. Simply be baptized again, just like the Ephesians (Acts 19:1-5). That way a person can be sure. I would be concerned about the health of the person's faith, who was content to live their lives in doubt and risk their soul in uncertainty (Romans 14:23; James 4:17), when surety could be so trivially obtained.

I pray this helps.
Last edited by m273p15c on Fri Dec 21, 2007 9:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
May God help us to love truth sincerely and supremely (II Thessalonians 2:11-12)

foc
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 2:01 pm
Contact:

Re: Repentance and Adulterous Relationships

Post by foc » Fri Dec 21, 2007 9:17 pm

approachable wrote:Hello.
Is it mandatory for one to
dissolve an adulterous union before he is baptized? I only ask this
because the parties who are in an adulterous union may hear a message that
doesn't talk about marriage, divorce, and rema rriage, and one (or both)
may decide to get baptized. Would their baptism be valid?

Thank You
Please define 'adulterous union'.
If you simply mean remarriage after divorce, would you care to debate that matter ?
That adultery is said to be committed upon remarriage in no way indicates any ongoing 'state' of adultery and the greek itself shows that it probably was not intended in that manner at all...ie, some in the church like to ADD that facet to the issue to create a state of adultery that neither Christ nor Paul did themselves.
The only marriage in the NT that were 'sinful' and thus needed to be deserted (or 'dissolved' as you say) were ones declared to be 'unlawful' in the law (in both cases they were incestuous and thus forbidden)
There is not one single case of a marriage after divorce being commanded to end SOLELY because it was a second marriage
In BOTH cases, Herod and the Corinthian man, these unions were define as 'unlawful' and should never have been regardless of the death or divorcement of the previous spouse.

If the rules permit and you are willing, Im fulling willing to discuss the matter of remarriage here.

wm

foc
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 2:01 pm
Contact:

Re: Repentance and Adulterous Relationships

Post by foc » Fri Dec 21, 2007 9:35 pm

approachable wrote:Hello.
Is it mandatory for one to
dissolve an adulterous union before he is baptized? I only ask this
because the parties who are in an adulterous union may hear a message that
doesn't talk about marriage, divorce, and rema rriage, and one (or both)
may decide to get baptized. Would their baptism be valid?

Thank You
As for a direct response to your question, the answer is no.
That is because second marriages are not 'adulterous' in and of themselves.
Adultery can be committed when a frivolous divorce occurs upon remarriage, but Christ is not declaring any perpetual sin therein, but simply showing the guilty husband who has cast out his innocent wife that he DOES sin even tho Moses assigned no sin in the matter in Deut 24. And also showing that this mans casting out his innocent wife is causing her to sin when she remarries because the marriage was not ended for a just cause.
Christ does not condemn the innocent. That is a hugeclue in this matter.

Once remarriage has occurred and it is not 'unlawful', such as an incestuous one, then marriage it is.
Now, the guilty party who caused the first marriage still must repent for their sins that brought about the destruction of that marriage.
If they are not repentant for those crimes, then in that case being baptised seems to be somewhat meaningless....of what use is being dunked in water to a man who doesnt care if he has sinned or not ?

approachable
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 2:52 pm
Location: Dayton, Ohio

Re: Repentance and Adulterous Relationships

Post by approachable » Sun Dec 23, 2007 4:17 pm

foc wrote:
approachable wrote:Hello.
Is it mandatory for one to
dissolve an adulterous union before he is baptized? I only ask this
because the parties who are in an adulterous union may hear a message that
doesn't talk about marriage, divorce, and rema rriage, and one (or both)
may decide to get baptized. Would their baptism be valid?

Thank You
Please define 'adulterous union'.
If you simply mean remarriage after divorce, would you care to debate that matter ?
That adultery is said to be committed upon remarriage in no way indicates any ongoing 'state' of adultery and the greek itself shows that it probably was not intended in that manner at all...ie, some in the church like to ADD that facet to the issue to create a state of adultery that neither Christ nor Paul did themselves.
The only marriage in the NT that were 'sinful' and thus needed to be deserted (or 'dissolved' as you say) were ones declared to be 'unlawful' in the law (in both cases they were incestuous and thus forbidden)
There is not one single case of a marriage after divorce being commanded to end SOLELY because it was a second marriage
In BOTH cases, Herod and the Corinthian man, these unions were define as 'unlawful' and should never have been regardless of the death or divorcement of the previous spouse.

If the rules permit and you are willing, Im fulling willing to discuss the matter of remarriage here.

wm
Hello, once again. I'm still learning more about this topic. However, I'll respond with what I know in relation to your response.

In speaking about an adulterous union, I didn't simply mean remarriage after divorce. With the divorce being for fornication by one's spouse (Matthew 19:9), the innocent party could marry again without their relationship being adulterous. On the other hand, if the divorce was for a reason other than fornication, and either one of them remarry or has any sexual relationship with someone else, it is adulterous. The second marriage (which was entered into from an unscriptural divorce) appears to be legitimate in the eyes of society, but Jesus says that they commit adultery (Matthew 19:9). Adultery, as you know, is committed when one of the marriage partners has sexual relations with someone who is not their wife/husband. That is what I meant by an adulterous union. God is holding a person accountable to his original marriage.

So, in saying this, God would require a person to dissolve his adulterous union, whether it is incestuous or not. Repentance would demand that the activity cease (Acts 17:30 & Hebrews 13:4).

God Bless

foc
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 2:01 pm
Contact:

Post by foc » Sun Dec 23, 2007 10:57 pm

In speaking about an adulterous union, I didn't simply mean remarriage after divorce. With the divorce being for fornication by one's spouse (Matthew 19:9), the innocent party could marry again without their relationship being adulterous. On the other hand, if the divorce was for a reason other than fornication, and either one of them remarry or has any sexual relationship with someone else, it is adulterous.
I see.

Well, I disagree with your conclussion that the remarriage itself is 'adulterous' because Christs words rendered as 'committeth adultery' are in the Present Indicative form of the greek
In the Present form in greek the Indicative mood is the ONLY way to actually show that NO "ongoing" state was intended but instead that the adultery was only being committed in the present during the act itself.

“Committeth adultery” The Present Indicative deception

Some mistake Jesus intent to simply show these hardhearted men that they WERE committing sin even tho Moses had assigned no crime to this frivolous putting away and erroneously believe that Christ was creating a perpetual 'state' of adultery.
The evidence as a whole does not support any such thought. But since you say you are still learning about the matter, perhaps I need to let you finish your studies before getting into this too deeply.

Nevertheless, we absolutely should see CLEAR commandment to dissolve these second marriages as many of your doctrine so loudly proclaim, *IF* it is the case that these marriages ARE to actually be dissolved.

Oddly, for as vocal as those of your views are, shouting from the rooftops that these marriages MUST be ended, not a single word from scripture ever seems to show this fact.
Quite odd seeing how much our Lord and Paul spoke about marriage and divorce.

I also disagree with this 'innocent only" line because that would imply that the guilty is still bound to that marriage.
That cannot be *IF* the innocent is no longer under the law of marriage with that person.
The guilty is as free to remarry as the innocent is.....they also need to heed the Lords words 'go and sin no more'...
So, in saying this, God would require a person to dissolve his adulterous union, whether it is incestuous or not. Repentance would demand that the activity cease
Im sorry, but I simply do not see the requirement anywhere in scripture.
All I see in scripture is where UNLAWFUL unions are commanded to be ended.
If I believe as you do, then I have to assume that both Jesus and Paul were so absent minded that they forgot to mention that ALL second marriages entered into after frivolous divorce MUST be dissolved.

Can you cite scripture for this exact issue.....something IN context ?
Feel free to check out my website chock full of research in the matter.
http://studies.assembly-ministries.org/ ... m.php?f=12

JSM17
Posts: 275
Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 5:16 pm
Location: Hoffman Estates, Illinois

Post by JSM17 » Tue Dec 25, 2007 6:39 am

Divorce and remarriage have become common as civil law allows no-fault divorce. A husband or wife may dissolve a marriage for almost any grounds and remarry, regardless of the will of their spouse. The result is that many people marry without considering the teaching of the Bible. Is fornication (or adultery) the only Scriptural grounds for divorce, or does the gospel allow marriage to be dissolved for other grounds? Please consider this careful study of the Biblical teaching.
Introduction:

Many forces in society defend the practice of easy divorce.
Divorce laws in America are so lax that almost anyone can dissolve a marriage and remarry at any time for any reason. With "no-fault" divorce, a husband or wife can claim "incompatibility" or "irreconcilable differences" and get a divorce no matter how much their spouse objects.

What is right or wrong is determined by the Creator of the Universe.
Men will be judged according to whether or not we have conformed our lives to His will (John 12:48). Man's will often differs from God's (Prov. 14:12; Isa. 55:8,9; 2 Cor. 10:12,18; Lk. 16:15,18). Since the Bible reveals God's will, we must learn what it says about divorce and remarriage (2 Tim. 3:16,17; 1 Cor. 14:37; Eph. 3:3-5; 2 Pet. 1:21).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part I: Does the Bible Say Divorce and Remarriage Is Moral or Immoral?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. The General Teaching of the New Testament Is that Divorce is Contrary to God's Will, and that Remarriage Following Divorce Constitutes Adultery.
Note that there is one exception to this general rule, which we will discuss later. At this point we are discussing the general rule. The following passages present this teaching:

Matthew 19:3-9 (cf. Mark 10:2-12; Luke 16:18)
Jesus was asked whether divorce can properly be obtained for just any reason a person might have. He answered by appealing to the original marriage law.

Jesus taught that divorce itself, in general, is contrary to God's will. God made one man for one woman, indicating He did not intend for either to marry anyone else. He said they should cleave to one another and the two become one - there is no room in God's plan for a third party. God joins the man and woman, no human has the right to break that bond.

Further, whoever divorces his wife and marries again commits adultery (unless he does it because she has been guilty of fornication), and whoever marries her who has been divorced also commits adultery. (Mk. 10 adds that this rule also applies to the woman if she divorces her husband.)

To help understand the passage, read it with your name and your spouse's name, instead of "whosoever," etc.

Matthew 19:9 - If ____________ (you) divorces __________ (his wife), except for fornication, and marries another, _________________ (you) commits adultery; and whoever marries ___________ (her who is divorced) commits adultery."

Matthew 5:31,32
One who puts away his wife (for some cause other than fornication) causes her to commit adultery. This assumes that she remarries as described in the last part of the verse and as implied in the previous verse (the purpose of the "bill of divorcement" according to the law was so she could become another man's wife - Deut. 24:1ff).

By divorcing his wife, the husband puts her in the position where she is strongly tempted to remarry and if she does remarry, Jesus says she is guilty of adultery and so is the man she marries (in contrast to the Mosaic Law which tolerated the remarriage). Hence, the divorce itself is wrong and should be avoided. [Cf. Matt. 18:6,7]

Romans 7:2,3
A married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives. This means that if she is married to another man while her first husband is alive, she is guilty of adultery. She is free to remarry without guilt only if her husband is dead.

(Some ask what "law" is this that joins the man and woman - God's law or man's law? It is the law which, when violated, makes the woman an adulteress. Clearly this must be God's law, and this conforms to what is taught elsewhere.)

1 Corinthians 7:10,11
A married woman should not depart from her husband nor he from her. Again, divorce itself is not the will of God.

But if she departs (if divorce has occurred), she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. Clearly remarriage is not a scriptural alternative.

(Note: "depart" here is the same word elsewhere translated "put asunder" - Matt. 19:6; Mk. 10:9: The result of the action is that the woman is "unmarried.")

The teaching of the gospel on this point is unpopular with most people. Many people don't want to hear it preached. Jesus' own disciples considered it very strict (Matt. 19:10-12), still Jesus did not compromise it or apologize for it. He continued to teach and defend it and so must we.

B. To Apply These Passages Properly, We Must Understand Why the Second Marriage Is Forbidden and Why It Is Called "Adultery."
God clearly has the right to forbid any act if He so chooses, but it helps us apply the teaching when we understand His reasons for forbidding an act. What reason does God give for declaring the second marriage sinful, and why does He call it "adultery"?

Malachi 2:14-16
God hates putting away (v16). Again, divorce is contrary to God's will. Why? Because marriage is a covenant between a man and his wife (v14). God is a witness to that covenant, and He holds men to it (v14). If a man violates the covenant, he is dealing treacherously with his wife and God will hold him accountable. [Prov. 2:17; Ezek. 16:8]

Though this is an Old Testament passage, it helps us learn the definition of marriage, which has not changed. Marriage is, by God's definition, a solemn mutual agreement between a man and woman to live together as husband and wife. God holds them to that covenant bond and will not free them from it, even if people declare them to be free.

Remember this! The whole foundation of New Testament teaching regarding divorce rests on God's attitude toward marriage. When people weaken the barriers against divorce, they are weakening respect for marriage. Divorce matters because it destroys a marriage, and marriage is very important to God. Any view of divorce, which fails to respect marriage as God respects it, must be an unscriptural view.

This is why Jesus, in answering a question about divorce and remarriage, appealed to God's original intent regarding marriage (Matt. 19:3-9). God will respect and enforce His law regarding it, even when men disregard it!

Hebrews 13:4
The marriage covenant includes the right and obligation to have the sexual union only with the companion with whom we have a Scriptural marriage covenant. To have relations with anyone else is "fornication" or "adultery."

This too is part of the marriage covenant as God defines it. Marriage gives a man and his wife the right to the sexual union, but only with their lawful spouse.

[Ezek. 23; Jer. 3; Prov. 5:15-20; 6:29,32; 7:18-20; Ezek. 16:32; 1 Cor. 7:1-9].

Romans 7:2,3
In this marriage covenant, the woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives (cf. 1 Cor. 7:39). The marriage "bond" is a lifetime covenant commitment, and God holds people to the commitment they made, even if later they try to break it.

Note that the passage says a woman may be "bound" to one man, but "married" to another man! The "bond" refers to the marriage covenant that God holds you to. "Marriage" refers to the relationship you are living in as recognized by civil law and society. The two may be the same, but not necessarily. In this case, the woman was "bound" to one man but "married" to a completely different man!

That is why a woman is guilty of adultery if she is married to another man. Adultery, by definition, refers to sexual intercourse between two people, one of whom is bound by a marriage covenant to somebody else [see definitions in notes on Matt. 19:9].

This woman is an "adulteress" because she has been joined in a marriage covenant with one man, and God holds her to that covenant for life. But she is having sexual relations with another man, and that, by definition, is adultery. This passage defines adultery for us!

Note that anytime she has sexual relations with a man other than her scriptural mate it is adultery - as long as her first companion is living, the passage says. Whether she has just a single act of intercourse, or has an "affair" involving a number of adulterous acts over a period of time, or whether it is a second marriage to another man - in any case every time she has sexual union with another man the passage says she is guilty of adultery.

This is "adultery" because the woman is Scripturally committed to have the sexual union only with one man as long as he lives, but instead she is having it with another man. This is why it is proper to refer to the second marriage as "adulterous" or "living in adultery," just as it would be if she were living with him but not married to him (Col. 3:5-7).

Matthew 19:3-9
What reason is given why remarriage is forbidden and why it is called "adultery"? Because God declared man and woman should cleave to one another. He joins them (by witnessing their marriage covenant and holding them to it). He forbids their changing their mind and says no man can put their marriage asunder.

So, if man puts away his wife and marries another, the second marriage is "adultery" because he is having the sexual union with a second wife while God still holds him obligated to his covenant to have the sexual union only with his first wife.

Note again: the terms "marry" and "divorce" (or "put away," and also "husband" and "wife") as used here and elsewhere, refer to the relationship as viewed by society and the law of the land. In a first marriage, both God and society recognize the marriage commitment to exist between the man and woman. They are both "married" in the eyes of society and "joined" ("bound") in the eyes of God.

Society and civil law may then grant them a "divorce" (not for fornication) and they may "marry" again. Society and civil law then views them as free from their first marriage and entered into a second one, and the Bible calls this "divorced" ("put away") and "married" again. But though God uses these terms as society does, He does not recognize the divorce as making a valid end to the covenant commitment that He recognized in the first marriage. God still considers them "bound" or "joined" or held accountable for the commitment of the first marriage (v6).

There is a definite distinction between the covenant commitment (bond) which God recognizes and the divorce and marriage which civil law recognizes. (cf. Mk. 6:17,18)

Again, the second marriage is "adultery" because the person is still joined in God's eyes to his/her first spouse, but they are having a sexual relationship with a second spouse. That is adultery, and it will continue to be adultery every time they have the sexual relationship, because God has still "joined" them to their first spouse and He will not "put asunder" that bond.

1 Corinthians 7:10,11
This explains why, if a woman divorces her husband, she still has no right to remarry. She may get divorced in the eyes of civil law, and God calls it "divorce" and says she is now "unmarried." But that does not free her from her bond or covenant obligation to her first husband. Since she is still bound to her first marriage covenant, her only choice then is to be reconciled to her husband (the one God recognizes) or else remain unmarried.

Sexual relationship outside of a Scriptural marriage bond constitutes fornication (v2-5). Hence, if the woman divorces and remarries, that second marriage, as long as it lasted and as long as her first husband was still alive, would constitute adultery.

Understanding these principles will be vital to reaching proper applications and answers to other questions we will deal with.

[Note that adultery involves a sexual act - John 8:4; Heb. 13:4; Prov. 6:20-35. It is not just the act of divorcing and remarrying that is adultery.]

C. God Allows an Exception to the General Rule When One's Spouse Has Been Guilty of Fornication.
This exception is clearly stated in Matthew 19:9 (and 5:32).
"Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery" ("saving for the cause of fornication" - Matt. 5:32).

The question originally asked Jesus concerned the grounds or cause for which a man may divorce his wife (v3). In v9 Jesus clearly says there is no acceptable cause except if ones companion has been guilty of fornication.

Unlike the Mosaic Law, which Jesus admits tolerated divorce and remarriage for other causes, Jesus' teaching allows one and only one cause.

Note that the only one who is granted the right to divorce and remarry without being guilty of sin is the one who has been sinned against by his/her companion who committed fornication.

What is fornication?
Definitions: "illicit sexual intercourse in general" (Thayer); "every kind of unlawful sexual intercourse" (Arndt and Gingrich). Fornication includes any form of sexual intercourse with anyone other than ones scriptural spouse, regardless of whether that person be of the opposite sex or of the same sex. Note passages that explain the meaning:

1 Corinthians 7:2-5 - To avoid fornication, one is to satisfy the sexual desire with and only with "his own wife" or "her own husband." Our own marriage companion is the only one who has power over our body. If we satisfy this desire with anyone else, the passage says it would be fornication, whether it be with someone we are not married to, someone else's husband or wife, or someone else of the same sex (i.e., homosexuality). (See also Heb. 13:4).

Jude 7 - Sodom and Gomorrah gave themselves over to fornication. But Gen. 19 shows this refers to homosexuality (men wanted to lie with men, not with women) ["and going after strange flesh" has the significance of even going after...]. Therefore, homosexuality is a form of fornication, and would be scriptural grounds for one's companion to obtain a divorce and remarry.

Some say fornication would not include adultery (i.e., the case in which one who is married has relations with someone not their spouse). But the following passages use "fornication" to include extra-marital sex: 1 Cor. 5:1; Amos 7:17; Ezek. 16:8,15,26,29; Jer. 3:6,8. Jesus used "fornication" in order to include, not just extra-marital sex, but also premarital sex and homosexuality - any form of illicit sexual intercourse.

When a man and woman marry, they make a covenant to have the sexual relationship only with one another and with no one else (of the same or opposite sex) as long as they both shall live. If one companion violates that covenant by having sexual relations with any person other than their own spouse, he/she has violated the marriage covenant in such a way that God grants their partner the right to divorce them and remarry.

The New Testament teaching regarding divorce and remarriage can be summarized like this: When a man and woman marry, they enter into a lifetime covenant in which God binds or joins them, holding them accountable to keep this covenant. If there is a divorce for some cause other than fornication, God's will is violated; and if either or both remarry, the second marriage relationship(s) is (are) adultery because God still holds the people bound to the first marriage commitment. If during the first marriage, however, one companion commits fornication, then the other companion may choose to obtain a divorce and remarry ey both shall live. If one companion violates that covenant by having sexual relations with any person other than their own spouse, he/she has violated the marriage covenant in such a way that God grants their partner the right to divorce them and remarry.

The New Testament teaching regarding divorce and remarriage can be summarized like this: When a man and woman marry, they enter into a lifetime covenant in which God binds or joins them, holding them accountable to keep this covenant. If there is a divorce for some cause other than fornication, God's will is violated; and if either or both remarry, the second marriage relationship(s) is (are) adultery because God still holds the people bound to the first marriage commitment. If during the first marriage, however, one companion commits fornication, then the other companion may choose to obtain a divorce and remarry without sin.
...in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.9 These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power...

foc
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 2:01 pm
Contact:

Post by foc » Tue Dec 25, 2007 8:40 am

VERY contradictory article, friend.
1 Corinthians 7:10,11
A married woman should not depart from her husband nor he from her. Again, divorce itself is not the will of God.
But if she departs (if divorce has occurred), she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. Clearly remarriage is not a scriptural alternative.
(Note: "depart" here is the same word elsewhere translated "put asunder" - Matt. 19:6; Mk. 10:9: The result of the action is that the woman is "unmarried.")
Versus
Again, the second marriage is "adultery" because the person is still joined in God's eyes to his/her first spouse, but they are having a sexual relationship with a second spouse. That is adultery, and it will continue to be adultery every time they have the sexual relationship, because God has still "joined" them to their first spouse and He will not "put asunder" that bond.
Out of one side of your mouth you AGREE that the word PAUL uses IS "put asunder" (CHORIZO) and acknowledge that she is "UNmarried" (AGAMOS)...yet you dont seem to be able to connect the dots and ACCEPT that abandoning the marriage ALWAYS leads to this 'law of the husband' being removed.

It being sinful, ie defined as adultery to commit this act of frivolous divorce to remarry, does NOT remove the FACT that Paul has deemed this woman UNmarried (AGAMOS).
An UNmarried person CAN remarry. In cases of FRIVOLOUS divorce sin CAN be committed, but NOTHING in scripture shows that this second marriage is perpetually sinful or that it must be ended.
That is ERROR presented by those in the church whom have no studied this matter out to its final conclusion.
=============

"Put Asunder"/"Depart", Jesus versus Paul ?
By WmTipton


Assertions/Conclusions of this Article
Here we will show that not only can one put asunder a marriage (that its possible), but Paul even gives instruction to do just that in certain cases.

Supporting Evidence
1.0
There is an errant teaching out there that claims that when Jesus said 'let not man put asunder' regarding marriage, that He 'meant' man CANNOT put asunder.
L: “When God joins two together, they are now ONE. What GOD joins, man CANNOT separate”
What we will show briefly in this article that there IS an occurance in scripture where it is shown absolutely that man can indeed 'put asunder' what God has joined together.
See 'put asunder' in each of these passages?
(Mat 19:6) Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder(G5563).

(Mar 10:9) What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder(G5563).
(Bearing in mind that, in the context these are in, Jesus and the pharisees are discussing putting away of a wife there in BOTH of those passages. The context of 'put asunder' is putting away of a marriage/wife, nothing less.)

The word is (G5563)chorizo and it only appears a few times in scripture.
G5563
χωρίζω
chōrizō
Thayer Definition:
1) to separate, divide, part, put asunder, to separate one’s self from, to depart
1a) to leave a husband or wife
1a) of divorce
1b) to depart, go away
That word 'put asunder' is the EXACT same word for "depart" in 1 cor 7:11
(1Co 7:11) But and if she depart(G5563), let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
...in other words, Paul has just said this woman has done the exact thing that some claim that Jesus said men CANNOT do....'put asunder'.

Notice Paul makes no claim that she 'cannot' put asunder (depart), but clearly presents that IF she DOES do so, then this is the situation....she is to remain "agamos" (literally "UNmarried").
*IF* putting asunder were IMPOSSIBLE for man to do...then why doesnt Paul REstate (*IF* that were Jesus actual meaning) this fact ?
WHY does he simply say *IF* she puts asunder then ...... ?
*IF* no man can put asunder, then Paul makes absolutely no sense here whatsoever. He should have simply stated that it was impossible to do so.
The word in question pretty much just means to "place room between", "depart" or to "separate"...its not some magical phrase that Jesus used to make a marriage bond unbreakable...

What I find striking is that Paul could have used a number of other choices in demonstrating that this woman had left her husband...but chose the one word that was used in rendering Jesus' words about putting asunder.
Was it coincedence or intentional? Was Paul literally reaching out and using the one word that would make it clear that putting asunder IS indeed possible?
We wont know until that day, for sure...but we do know now that regardless of what some say, that Paul has shown that man CAN 'put asunder'....that is factual.
Certainly a call to reconcile is made to the believers...but this doesnt negate what is clearly presented in Gods word....man CAN indeed put asunder (separate) by Pauls own words.


2.0
Now that its been established that man can indeed ‘put asunder’ (chorizo) a marriage, we move on to something even more astounding. Clear instruction for the believer to actually allow the unbelieving spouse to ‘put asunder’ the marriage.

Heres a very remarkable passage that blows L’s statement above, that man CANNOT separate right out of the water. And not only that, it is our very own Paul giving INSTRUCTION for this believer to let it be so.
1Co 7:15 KJV But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
Remember “chorizo”G5563 our word from above ? Can you guess what greek word ‘depart’ there is rendered from ?
You got it...the very same ‘chorizo’ (put asunder from Jesus’ statement ‘let not man put asunder”) is right there in Paul own instruction to let the unbeliever do.

So we not only see absolute proof that man CAN put asunder a marriage, but we now have Paul even telling the believer to let the unbeliever do so !
This hardly sounds like a ‘cannot’ situation to me.

Now, of course this is not our Lords desire for marriage that it would ever have to be ended, but clearly He had enought forsight to show Paul to let the believer do EXACTLY what He Himself had told man not to do.

Why?
Because Jesus knows that no matter what we do as believers, there will always be unbelieving spouses who will not honor the covenant of marriage.


3.0

As we can see here in this passage, the believing wife who has departed (chorizo) her believing husband is considered 'agamos'.....'unmarried'.
(1Co 7:10 KJV) And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart(chorizo)from her husband:
(1Co 7:11 KJV) But and if she depart(chorizo), let her remain unmarried(agamos), or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

Logically carrying this 'agamos' over to this passage where this unbeliever also has departed the marriage its quite easy to conclude that this person would also be deemed as 'agamos' (unmarried)
(1Co 7:15 KJV) But if the unbelieving depart(chorizo), , let him depart(chorizo), . A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
in the former case where both are believers there is commandment to remain UNmarried or reconcile.
In the latter case tho, where one is unequally yoked, Paul clearly states that he is speaking, not the Lord, in this matter.
To these Paul gives concession not given to those who are equally yoked with another believer.
"BUT to the REST"....to these who are unequally yoked, Paul says quite plainly that they are not in bondage to that union where it has been put asunder.

4.0
Another point of interest is in verse 7:11 where it says 'let her remain unmarried or reconcile to her husband" the actual greek means 'let her remain unmarried or to the man let her be being conciliated"
It is often pushed that the use of 'her husband' there means that she is still married to the man, but that is not proven from the actual Greek at all. The greek word for 'man' is also used for 'husband'.
Paul used 'agamos' to describe this woman for a reason.


==========================================================================


“Unmarried”
1 Corinthians 7

Assertions/Conclusions of this Article


Here we show conclusively that this unmarried woman in 1 Cor 7:10-11 is in the same exact marital state that the widower is in verse 7:8...

Supporting Evidence

1.0

The word 'agamos' (agamos/agamois) appears 4 times in the NT and in each instance its in this chapter. We’re going to compare what Paul says about widows and unmarried virgins to this woman in 1 Cor 7:11 to see if she is deemed as ‘unmarried’ in the same manner.
Here is the word we are looking at;

"unmarried" in ALL passages above is....
G22
agamos
Thayer Definition:
1) unmarried, unwedded, single

Strongs;
G22
agamos
ag'-am-os
From G1 (as a negative particle) and G1062; unmarried: - unmarried.
Here is where those are found in this chapter;
I say therefore to the unmarried (agamois) and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
(1Co 7:8)

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

But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried (agamos) careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:
(1Co 7:32)

There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried (agamos) 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.
(1Co 7:34)
I added the ACTUAL word after each occurance in parenthesis.

The root word is the exact same in all four occurrences above. There is one character change that seems only to show some small difference in verse 7:8 for the male widower, but the intent that this person is ‘unmarried’ or not currently under the ‘law’ of marriage is precisely the same. That character difference does not alter the intent of the root word ‘unmarried’.

Lets look at verses 32-33.
"But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried (agamos) careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he (aresE) may please the Lord: But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he (aresE) may please his wife.
(1Co 7:32-33)

“AresE” - "he should be pleasing"


There we find the same “agamos” as in verse 11 where this woman as left her husband and is called UNmarried by Paul.

Do you see how Paul uses the word agamos (not agamois) and then refers to this person as "HE" and shows that he is going to be pleasing to his "wife"
Now *IF* agamos was restricted to the woman, how can a person who is agamos be pleasing to their "wife" ?
The word agamos is used in verse 11 to speak about the woman. In verse 32 it is speaking about the man.
What we see is that verse 8, while it may mean widowers, it doesnt keep this woman in verse 11 from literally being "unmarried" after putting asunder her husband by leaving him. She IS 'agamos' by Pauls own words

If you get the interlinear bible software in the links above, you can check this material out yourself.
In verse :7:11 agamos is in the feminine form....but in verse 7:32, its exactly the same and yet it is shown as being in the masculine form.
This definitely tends to show that the context plays a part in the gender of this word.

There is pretty much no way around this matter. Paul absolutely chose a word that means ‘unmarried’ to describe this woman in 7:11 there. In comparing its usage in the other passages there we see conclusively that, like these others, she is ‘unmarried’ and not currently under the ‘law’ of her husband.

In understanding this fact, we also understand that in 7:39, that Paul is simply laying out the general ‘law’ of marriage. That it is intended for life....and based on the facts from the whole, that it is not an unconditional law in the least. It CAN be put asunder by man even though that is not Gods will for marriage.

2.0

As we can see here in this passage, the believing wife who has departed (chorizo) her believing husband is considered 'agamos'.....'unmarried'.
(1Co 7:10 KJV) And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart(chorizo)from her husband:
(1Co 7:11 KJV) But and if she depart(chorizo), let her remain unmarried(agamos), or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

Logically carrying this 'agamos' over to this passage where this unbeliever also has departed the marriage its quite easy to conclude that this person would also be deemed as 'agamos' (unmarried)
(1Co 7:15 KJV) But if the unbelieving depart(chorizo), , let him depart(chorizo), . A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
in the former case where both are believers there is commandment to remain UNmarried or reconcile.
In the latter case tho, where one is unequally yoked, Paul clearly states that he is speaking, not the Lord, in this matter.
To these Paul gives concession not given to those who are equally yoked with another believer.
"BUT to the REST"....to these who are unequally yoked, Paul says quite plainly that they are not in bondage to that union where it has been put asunder.
Last edited by foc on Tue Dec 25, 2007 9:08 am, edited 4 times in total.

foc
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 2:01 pm
Contact:

Post by foc » Tue Dec 25, 2007 8:40 am

What is fornication?
Definitions: "illicit sexual intercourse in general" (Thayer); "every kind of unlawful sexual intercourse" (Arndt and Gingrich). Fornication includes any form of sexual intercourse with anyone other than ones scriptural spouse, regardless of whether that person be of the opposite sex or of the same sex. Note passages that explain the meaning:
Porneia...aka ‘’fornication’’
By WmTipton


Some claim that fornication in Matthew is PRE marital sex alone and that divorce and remarriage for any other reason is not permissible.
But we see that conflicts with the use of the word throughout the NT.
Porneia is whoredom, harlotry, illicit sex of any kind.
This included every sexual sin of every nature.
Sex with men, women, animals or any other perversion in existance or any new ones that a person can come up with.
This can be commited by anyone. A husband or wife or a single person.
When porneia (any sexual sin) is carried out by the married, the crime of adultery is commited.

Even the current english definition of ‘’fornication’’ is against these false doctrine as it says NOTHING about Unmarried people, but only that the two engaging in ‘’forication’’ are not married to each other.

Here is the current definition...
Main Entry: for·ni·ca·tion
Pronunciation: "for-n&-'kA-sh&n
Function: noun
: consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other
Source: Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
Notice not a single word about either person being ‘’unmarried’.
One or both could be married to someone else, they just arent marrried to EACH OTHER.
Or both could be single.

Fornication means just what porneia presents,...having sex with someone who ISNT your lawful spouse, whether youre married or not.
Here is the greek word rendered as ''fornication'' in your KJV bibles.
G4202
porneia
por-ni'-ah
From G4203; harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively idolatry: - fornication.
Also....

In Acts 15 and 21, four items are given for gentiles to abstain from as presented in the following verses.
Act 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

Act 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

Act 21:25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication (G4202, same as the exception clause in Matthew).
1. Things offered to idols
2. blood
3. Things strangled
4. fornication (G4202 same as the exception clause).
I ask those who say fornication (porneia G4202) is premarital or betrothal sex only and not “adultery”, why is it that the writer ONLY used ''porneia'' in Acts 15 and 21 and didnt seem to think it necessary to mention ''adultery'' as something to abstain from as well?
Hes already on the topic of sexual sin here, why not mention the big one *IF* adultery is a separate sin?

The reason is "porneia'' covers ANY sexual sin. Paul knew that as did whoever rendered Jesus words in Matthew into greek.
When it was used it in Acts 15, he was laying out a blanket coverage for ANY sexual sin, that we abstain from ALL sexual sin. Just as Jesus meant all sexual sin in Matthew 19.
''Porneia'' (whoredom, harlotry), by default, would be ''adultery'' within a marriage, there was no need to mention adultery, it was covered. And neither was there any need for Jesus to use the word adultery, which would have left a hole or two in His teaching (see ''why didnt Jesus say ''except for adultery)
1 Corinthians chapter 5
We see in the following passage that only the fornicator is mentioned..
I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
(1Co 5:9-13 KJV)
Now, *IF* adultery isnt included in 'porneia' or 'fornication', why on earth didnt Paul mention not keeping company with the adulterer ?
Was Paul stating to not keep company with the fornicator ... but hey, its ok to hang out with adulterers ?

Hardly.
Paul used a word that covers all sexual sin.
He mentions a ''brother'' and isnt it odd that the word he chose rendered as 'fornicator' here is the masculine form of porneia ?
G4205
pornos
Thayer Definition:
1) a man who prostitutes his body to another’s lust for hire
2) a male prostitute
3) a man who indulges in unlawful sexual intercourse, a fornicator
Paul was clearly stating to not keep company with any man called a brother who is out having illicit sex.....married or not.
Porneia and its forms are all inclusive of sexual sin of the married and the Unmarried.

In Ephesians and Colossians both we see references to Fornication, but none about adultery.
But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
(Eph 5:3-5 KJV)
(whoremonger being the masculine form ...pornos)

and
When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory. Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience:
(Col 3:4-6 KJV)

So if this porneia (fornication) does not include all sexual sin, then we would have to suppose that Paul is only directing these two churches to abstain from SOME sexual sins (incest, premarital sex, etc) , and surely not adultery (if it were the case that porneia is not all inclusive of sexual immorality)

When Jesus' words were rendered as ''porneia'' in Matt 5:32 and 19:9, He was saying the same thing ''Sexual Sin'' or whoredom. Jesus did not mean just PREmarital sex, and neither does the definition of ‘’fornication’’ present that idea either.

He used a word, the same as in Acts 15, that covers ALL sexual sin....whoredom....as ‘’fornication’’ clearly shows as well. ....porneia even covers the possiblity of bestiality if it has occured.
We cannot divorce our spouse and remarry without committing adultery against that union, EXCEPT for any sexual sin...EXCEPT that this person we marry has had sex with someone they arent married to.

That is what is clearly conveyed with ‘’porneia’’ and what is also presented with the REAL definition of ‘’forncation’’ (not the Unmarried tripe that some pass off on us )

What is funny about this one is we can get total agreement from everyone that a man can ‘’divorce’’ his wife for ‘’porneia’’, but the anti-remarriage camp then restricts the meaning of the word to fit their doctrinal stance...whichever it may be based on the many VARIED versions of their doctrine.

foc
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 2:01 pm
Contact:

Post by foc » Tue Dec 25, 2007 8:42 am

1 Corinthians 7:10,11
This explains why, if a woman divorces her husband, she still has no right to remarry. She may get divorced in the eyes of civil law, and God calls it "divorce" and says she is now "unmarried." But that does not free her from her bond or covenant obligation to her first husband. Since she is still bound to her first marriage covenant, her only choice then is to be reconciled to her husband (the one God recognizes) or else remain unmarried.
Evidences of divorce and remarriage in the Church
By WmTipton

Assertions/Conclusions of this article:


This article is to show evidence that there were remarried divorcess in the early church who were in fellowship, neither being cast out, nor condemned by the brethren. There were restrictions placed on these individuals, but they were in the church.

Supporting evidence:
1Ti 5:9-14
Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old,
having been the wife of one man, (10)
Well reported of for good works;
if she have brought up children,
if she have lodged strangers,
if she have washed the saints' feet,
if she have relieved the afflicted,
if she have diligently followed every good work.

(11) But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry; (12) Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith. (13) And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not. (14) I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.
"Having been the wife of one man"

This requirement clearly is not speaking of a woman who had a man-harem.
There is no real issue of women marrying multiple husbands given in the bible nor in historical accounts.
This leaves either the remarried widow, or the remarried divorcee.
It cannot be a remarried widow as no law prohibited the widow from remarrying. Paul even tells widows;
"I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
(1Co 7:8-9 KJV)
Paul would be setting these widows up to be rejected from this list later if she did remarry.
Also, Paul even insists that younger widows REmarry here...
“But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry; Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith. And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not.
I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.
(1Ti 5:11-14 KJV)
He absolutely would be condemning this woman in later years to be rejected the churches help by forcing her to remarry now.
We know Paul was not so callous and uncaring by his instruction for the helping of widows he gave.

The only possibility for this "wife of one man" is that she was divorced and remarried.
That is the only possibility from scripture as it is the only thing that is clearly corrected in Gods word.

and yet this woman is still in fellowship...not being cast out of the assembly such as the man who had his fathers wife and WAS living in fornication.

Her life was not exemplary, so she couldnt be added to the list of widows, but she WAS in the church and in fellowship.

The requisite for her to have been the wife of ONE man CLEARLY indicates that she COULD have been the wife of more than one husband in her lifetime....aka a remarried divorcee...yet not condemned to hell or cast out of fellowship.

Some will state that this have put away these second marriages, but what I find very peculiar is that, if this matter were so crucial to salvation, Paul should surely have made a point of it. "Only if these second wives have been put away''. The way its left, it sounds very much like they could have still been with the person.

Another issue is that those of the anti-remarriage camp state that this second "marriage" is not a marriage at all, but an adulterous affair.
The clear implication above is that the second marriage is a recognized one, if it weren't, then Paul would have simply called these people adulterers and surely they wouldnt even be in fellowship. Let alone being considered for the position of Bishop.

It is also notable that Paul nowhere states that these second marriages were invalid, nor does he state that these people were to have left this second spouse. In fact, in 1 cor 7 Paul tells these frivolously parted from their spouse to ''remain UNmarried or reconcile........"...showing that REmarriage is quite possible indeed even if wrong to do.

Some folks will use a preposterous example of Paul also not telling gays to separate (or some other irrelevant distraction), but Jesus offered NO exception to gay couples, did He ? His exception is clearly speaking of a MAN and a WOMAN...and husband and a wife when He made His exception for sexual sin.


=======================================================================


Husband of ONE wife ?
by Wm Tipton

Assertions/Conclusions of this article
Here we briefly show that since polygamy has not been banned outright in scripture, it supports that it is the divorce / putting away that is the main issue with divorce/remarriage, not in the taking of a second wife.


Supporting Evidence
These passages below are probably the only thing in the NT that could be used to prohibit polygamy outright. We can say God created one woman for one man or use other passages to try to find the spirit of Gods word concerning the taking of multiple wives, but there really doesnt exist any outright prohibition to polygamy in Gods word.
If we try to outright condemn polygamy, we end up condemning some very upright men of God in the OT and God Himself for not prohibiting the act entirely.
This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
(1Ti 3:1-5 KJV)

If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.
(Tit 1:6-9 KJV)
If taking of a second wife while the first is living is 'adultery' in and of itself, then polygamy should be condemned entirely in the law and surely there should be CLEAR prohibition in both covenants about taking a second wife while the first is living.

If it is the second marriage that is the 'sin' in divorce and remarriage, then surely this marriage to a second women while the first one lives would absolutely be 'adultery' as well.
It would be illogical and entirely inconsistant for scripture to assert that one is in a "state of adultery" in a second marriage AFTER a lawful divorce for a just cause, then to not condemn men taking of second wives while yet STILL married to the first.

Under the old covenant we see that this may not have been Gods will for marriages, but He absolutely permitted and in at least one case would have commanded the taking of a second wife (A dead mans childless widow being taking by his only brother who is already married).
Would this not be 'adultery' if simply taking a second wife is defined as this sin ?

We can do as we wish to try to work around the facts, but it simply is fact that God has tolerated and even condoned polygamy and regardless of what some say, there is no outright prohibition against it for all men anywhere in scripture...not even in the NT which only has the two passages above that could be understood as placing such a restriction.

But those passages, if they are actually about polygamy, would prove that polygamy DID still exist otherwise restricting SOME men from taking a second wife while still married to the first would be a bit meaningless. *IF* this passage is in any way dealing with polygamy, then it is very clear evidence that other men in the church might have taken second or third wives and yet go uncorrected.

So why is it that a man who has divorced for say sexual sin of the wife is condemned by some in the church for his actions when he takes a second wife ?
If he was in a country that permitted polygamy, the church there would say nothing about his taking a second wife and as long as he was not applying for one of the positions listed in those scriptures above, he would not be sinning against God who has seemingly permitted polygamy from a very early point.

*IF* the problem were actually about taking a second wife while the first one still lived, then polygamist should be the FIRST to be condemned in scripture. Yet it was entirely tolerated by God, never being deemed as unlawful or sinful as far as we have seen in scripture (and believe me, Id like nothing more than to find something that does prohibit polygamy).

This leaves us seeing that taking a second wife isnt the issue with even divorce and remarriage.
Gods CLEAR words in the matter show where the actual problem is "I HATE putting away" by His very own words is what He "hateth".
It is the breaking apart of an existing marriage that is GODS issue with man. The taking of a second wife whether still married to the first, or if one has divorced, is quite secondary, otherwise EVERY polygamist should be called an adulterer in BOTH testaments.
When Jesus speaks about divorce and remarriage in the gospels, He also is condemning the divorce, the breaking of the marriage by these hardhearted Jews who were casting away their wives for just about any cause one wanted to. Moses had dealt with the same issue in the desert, having laid out regulation to this frivolous putting away in Deut 24:1-4 as the younger generation of Hebrews was about to enter the promise land.

Jesus is condemning the sinful act of casting out a wife for no just cause. Showing the men that even though they think themselves sinless in the matter because Moses had assigned no sin to the act, that they DO commit adultery against when they cast her out for no reason and they also draw her and anyone she marries into their sin as well, since Christ knew that this woman would have to remarry in almost every case because that society made it pretty hard for an unmarried woman to make it on her own. Especially since the Hebrew men had perverted the law of Moses and its intent.

Now, we personally do not believe that the passages above are meant for polygamy directly, possibly indirectly. But instead we believe that it is about something that IS corrected in Gods word...divorce and remarriage.
Our personal opinion is that these passages are more in line with "having been the wife of ONE man" concerning remarried widows and their not having been divorced and remarried (since it is not unlawful for a widow to remarry).
If our view is correct, then again it is cemented that there WERE remarried divorcees in the church in Pauls lifetime, not having been cast out, but simply being restricted to some extent so as to not set a tone in the church that divorce and remarriage is to be the norm.

And if our view is not correct, and those passages are indeed about taking of a second wife not only while the first is living, but even still married to her, then this conclusively shows that taking of a second wife is not the core issue (otherwise ALL men should have been forbidden to take second wives), but instead is, as we conclude ourselves, the hardhearted casting away of a wife who has done no wrong.

The Lord has said "I HATETH putting away".
And to that, we completely agree.

When we bring in such points as 'the wife is bound by law to the husband for as long as he lives" this sort of passage even further solidifies our stance. This 'law' existed from the very first couple, as our Lord Himself shows and logic also dictates, and so if taking of a second wife while the first lives inherently is sinful or adulterous, then this perpetual law or marriage would definitely cause adultery to be an absolute fact ESPECIALLY with polygamy where we are STILL married to the first wife.
Passages such as Exodus 21 show conclusively that polygamy was not only NOT prohibited, but that passage very clearly shows that taking of second wives WAS condoned as long as the first wife was cared for in the same manner as she had been prior to the taking of the second wife.
The 'law' of marriage that was from the beginning combined with Gods tolerance and even permission of polygamy is absolutely evidence that taking a second wife while the former lives is not the real issue here at all, but as we have already presented from Gods own words, it is instead the PUTTING AWAY that He 'hateth'.

foc
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 2:01 pm
Contact:

Post by foc » Tue Dec 25, 2007 8:43 am

1 Corinthians 7:2-5 - To avoid fornication, one is to satisfy the sexual desire with and only with "his own wife" or "her own husband." Our own marriage companion is the only one who has power over our body. If we satisfy this desire with anyone else, the passage says it would be fornication, whether it be with someone we are not married to, someone else's husband or wife, or someone else of the same sex (i.e., homosexuality). (See also Heb. 13:4).
1 Corinthians 7 Study

We’ll be breaking this chapter down into sections for this study. This is mainly to dispel some of the erroneous teachings out there in some parts of the ‘church’.
Lets start right at the beginning.

1.0
Here we find that Paul is responding to questions that must have been asked of him by the Corinthians. This is a very key point because it sets the tone as to whether Paul is simply speaking in a vacuum with his instruction, or if he is reacting to specific situations he has been asked about.
1Co 7:1-40 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. (2) Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
Easy enough to understand. Paul is clearly saying that it is better for a man to remain a virgin, or even a widower if the case may be, better to not touch a woman at all if one has the willpower to live a celebate life.
But where one doesn’t, as most do not, let each man have a wife, and let each woman have a a husband, ‘let them marry’ so to speak, so that they are not tempted into fornication.
Contrary to the views of some, this verse is not making any statements to someone having someone else's wife. It is clearly speaking in such a manner as to promote a life of chasteness/celibacy where possible.

2.0
In this next passage we will deal with denying our spouse conjugal duty within the marriage.
(3) Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. (4) The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. (5) Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. (6) But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
Again we have very straightforward instruction by Paul. Let the husband and the wife not withhold affection and sexual relations from one another. Our bodies are not our own, but belong to each other. It is part of the responsibilities of the marriage covenant that we pray that everyone who enters this holy union is ready to accept and carry out.
We can come apart for a time to devote ourselves to fasting and prayer, but this is ONLY to be done by mutual consent and only for periods of time that BOTH the man and woman can handle without being tempted. Clearly Paul had no commandment from the Lord in this matter, but spoke from his own experience, most likely.

3.0
From this we learn that Paul was surely a single man at this point, and many believe that he was a widower, which I tend to agree with.
(7) For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. (8) I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. (9) But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
It is quite clear that Paul understands that as human beings we were created with passions that are sometimes hard to impossible to control. If this werent the case, then the manner in which Paul opens this chapter is somewhat of an antiquated statement, being entirely meaningless altogether. If Paul says ‘to AVOID fornication, the possibility of it, from our life, that we should marry, then its fairly easily discerned that Paul knows well the temptations of the flesh that can overwhelm and consume a person. This sentiment is reflected in the first few verses in his saying that its better to remain a virgin, or a widower, but so that we can avoid sexual sin, let each man and woman take a mate.
In verses 7-9 above he repeats this thought to the widows and what is most likely intended as widowers (“unmarried” there)

4.0
Now Paul moves on to those already married. Here we have a couple groups that Paul will deal with individually. To this first group Paul makes it known for whatever reason, most likely to re-enforce to those in corinth that we are dealing with Gods intent for marriage, not just mans wishes and desires.
To these who are equally yoked to another believer (as will be proven in section 5.0), Paul tells these who may have it in mind to depart their believing spouse for no just reason, that if they do to remain unmarried or reconcile.
(10) And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: (11) But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
Of course this passage must be harmonized with the whole so that we understand that where there is a breach of covenant, exceptions apply here as well, but we ask ourselves what believer would knowingly turn themselves over to a life of sexual sin. Knowing that we know men by their fruits, it is readily discerned that the man or woman who, not merely upon a sole occasion, but who has given themselves over to unbridled sexual immorality, that these cannot be the followers that they once claimed, but are like those seeds thrown in the rocks who may have started to appear, but were quickly overwhelmed their the world and its passions. Lacking remorse for their actions, not showing TRUE repentance, is accepted that these are probably not His to begin with, but simply “make-believers”.

5.0
In this passage changes his direction changes to those Unequally yoked to an unbelieving spouse. Here Paul shows that he has no commandment from the Lord as he had to those equally yoked.
(12) But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. (13) And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. (14) For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. (15) But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. (16) For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife? (17) But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches.
Instead of repeating things already stated elsewhere, this ARTICLE (Putting away for abuse) will show our view about some of the issues in this passage and the conditional statement made by Paul above.
What Paul is dealing with above is directly tied into the opening statement in 7:1. He is responding to questions asked of him concerning whether it was lawful for these in Corinth to put away their spouses who were not believers. They seemed to feel that possibly their spouse was ‘unclean’ as a non-believer and so defiled the believer in some way. Paul tells them that this is not the case. The unbeliever is ‘santified’ by the believer and so they are not defiled in any way by remaining married.

Paul then addresses responsibility of the believing spouse to be available as a witness to the unbeliever. ‘How do you know if you wont save your wife’ ? A very good question indeed.
I hope you read the ‘Putting away for abuse’ article so that you also understand that there is condition in Pauls words. He understands that even though we may do our best in a marriage, sometimes the unbeliever is literally depraved and there really is nothing we can do about it. In such a case where this marriage is abusive then the believer most surely has rights to end that marriage.
Of course, we always want divorce to be the last resort, but in dangerous cases the last resort is quite often going to be the first.

6.0
In this passage Paul states to remain in whatever position one is in. I personally believe it may have been because of the situation then, but it may apply in general as well. Obviously if one is in a sinful situation, say a drug dealer or a nite club dancer, there must be an immediate change, but Paul seems to be showing that whatever situation we’re in, to be satisfied with that as long as it isn’t anything sinful and unless God calls us to move.
(18) Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised. (19) Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. (20) Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. (21) Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. (22) For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant. (23) Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men. (24) Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God.
7.0
This passage clearly is addressed to virgins. Paul states briefly in agreement with teachings elsewhere, that it is his opinion (no commandment of the Lord) that it is good for a man to be a virgin instead of taking a wife.
(25) Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful. (26) I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be. (27) Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. (28) But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.
Starting in verse 27 we have a bit of an issue because it is not generally understood whether Paul is speaking about marriage in general, or confining his comments solely to virgins.
It is my opinion that this is directed entirely at virgins alone and not meant for non-virgins intentionally, but I do personally believe that the precept is applicable to even non-virgins marriages because when virgin is betrothed in marriage, they are under a marriage covenant. If one ‘marriage’ can be ended for a breach of covenant, then so can another. If the wife cheated during betrothal, her punishment was the same ‘death’ sentence as the consummated wife's for the same crime and so we understand that both are equally binding in Gods eyes...both are equally conditional. A marriage doesn't suddenly become unconditional at consummation as some teach and have no proof of.

Paul shows in the passage above that neither marriage, nor abstinence is sinful. But during those times of Roman occupation and distress in the early church, Paul seemed to feel that it might be better to remain free of the added stresses of marriage.

8.0
This is probably a continuation of Pauls thoughts in 6.0 above. He speaks such that we should not be overly concerned with the things of this fading world that are destined to burn, but on the eternal things
(29) But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none; (30) And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not; (31) And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away.
9.0
Continuing on the state of unmarried virgins, Paul shows us that our attention is divided when we are married. We cannot ignore our spouse and even pretend that we honour God. And we cannot idolize a spouse. Our desires are split between what we need to do to please a spouse and to do the work of our Lord. Paul surely shows that remaining unmarried is of great benefit.
(32) But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: (33) But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife. (34) 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. (35) And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction.
10.0
This speaks to fathers of virgins more than to the virgins themselves. Clearly this is speaking to certain cultures only as only some have marriages arranged by the father. It is neither sinful to give his daughter in marriage or not to. Let him decide for himself what he feels best for his own daughter. Of course, I personally believe that the daughter would surely have had a voice with her father who loved her.
(36) 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. (37) 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. (38) So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.
11.0
Here we have Pauls final responses to these in Corinth who had asked him these things about marriage. Paul lays out the very precept that the wife is bound to her husband by this ‘law’ created in the beginning with the very first couple for the life of her husband. Corinth was quite a sinful place, as corrupt as the pharisees themselves and just as quick to end a marriage or partake of sexual sins.Pauls response to them is a reminder that GOD Himself has created marriage to be for the life of our spouse and not lightly ended.
(39) 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. (40) But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.
Widows who remarry are to take only a believing spouse, but Paul shows that she may be better off if she simply doesnt marry again.

foc
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 2:01 pm
Contact:

Post by foc » Tue Dec 25, 2007 8:46 am

Romans 7:2,3
A married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives. This means that if she is married to another man while her first husband is alive, she is guilty of adultery. She is free to remarry without guilt only if her husband is dead.
The wife is bound by law until the husband is dead
(Romans 7:2-3, 1 Cor. 7:39)
By WmTipton

Assertions/Conclusions of this article


In this article we will show that the two passages in question speak of the ‘law of the husband’ and that even though these verses say that this law is until death, that is is not an unconditional law that cannot be ended before the death of the spouse. The law of the husband is intended to be until the death of one of the spouses, as God created it from the very first marriage, Adam and Eve, but it has never been without condition.

Supporting Evidence
In Romans Paul was speaking to those who knew the law (Romans 7:1)
The law reigned over a man all his days. Paul uses this analogy of marriage, the wife being bound to her husband all his days, to represent that it was the same.
What Paul didn’t state, and those knowing the law would know this, is that there was provision in the law for a husband to put away his wife while he was alive . (Deut 24:1-4 )
This shows conclusively that Paul was not laying out the whole scope of rules on marriage in Romans 7 but was using one aspect of it to explain our relationship to the law and to the new covenant.

This idea is presented again in 1 Corinthians 7:39. The wife is bound to the husband until his death.
We must ask ourselves one question here. ‘What law’ bound this woman to her husband for life?
Was it the Mosaic law? How then could any wife have been bound at all to her husband from Eve until the Law ?
It is cemented that it is not the Mosiac law when we find no actual law making this commandment.

So, is Paul lying when he says she is ‘bound by law’ to him until he is dead? By no means.
We are left with one conclusion. That this ‘law’ is an unwritten law of marriage and had to be put into place in the garden with Adam and Eve. It was set into place as a parameter to be accepted in all marriages from thence forth.

Now, we ask ourselves, why, if this law is for life, did Moses ever permit it to end while the former spouse lived?
We ask ourselves about the wife in Exodus 21:7-11 who was permitted to walk out on her marriage if her husband denied her the basics of marriage, food, clothing and conjugal duty.
Why, if this law that existed from the beginning, was Moses so determined to undermine its supposed finality by ever allowing men or women to end it this side of death? Was Moses a rogue prophet who defied Gods will in the matter and even added divorce proceedings to His law? Not at all.

Moses understood Gods intent, that marriage is for life, but Moses also knew Gods heart and that God wanted mercy over sacrifice and he knew the hearts of evil, hardhearted men who would treat their wives horribly as they wished.
And so Moses understood that this ‘law’ was not unconditional.
If it were unconditional, then it was that way in the beginning and Moses would make himself a heretic by ever going against it.

So we see that when Paul gives his words in 1 Corinthians 7:39, that this is not the whole picture. This ‘law’ that Jesus presents as being ‘from the beginning’ was never meant to be unconditional. Jesus’ very words ‘except for’ in Matthew 19 show conclusively that even He does not see it as being without condition.

Paul was asked some questions by the Corinthians as is made apparent in the beginning of chapter 7;

1 Corinthians 7:1 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote”

These believers had asked him some weighty questions about marriage, fornication, virgins, etc, to which he responded with what is written in this chapter.
They clearly had pondered the right of the believer to put away an unbeliever, to which Paul said “no, if the unbeliever is pleased along with the believer, the do not put them away, you might be the catalyst in their salvation”.
Paul is showing these believers who think they can just walk away from marriage that no, they cannot because it is for life.
But Pauls words also show condition. What if this unbeliever isn’t ‘pleased’ along with the believer, but is abusive, hateful, adulterating...then what does Pauls condition show?

Please see this page for more on that issue
Aslo see THIS PAGE that shows conclusively that man CAN indeed 'put asunder' a marriage, thus the 'law of the husband" ("bound by law") is quite conditional.

When you’ve finished there, I believe you will see that there is condition in Pauls words. A condition that is perfectly harmonized with the heart of other scriptures such as Exodus 21 where the wife can leave over nonsupport, Jeremiah 3:8 where even God the Father issued a bill of divorce for harlotry, and Matthew 19 where Jesus shows that the same harlotry is just cause for ending this marriage.

Pauls words in Romans 7 and 1 Corinthians 7 are true. They are just harmonized with the whole of Gods word. If we fail to harmonize correctly, then we end up with absurd teachings such as ones that say that we “cannot sin” because the literal reading of 1 John 3:9 would seem to show as much when taken alone and not properly harmonized with the whole.

We hope that this has been helpful in showing you the truth, dear reader, and how to harmonize the whole of Gods word so that you understand the whole truth.

foc
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 2:01 pm
Contact:

Post by foc » Tue Dec 25, 2007 8:47 am

C. God Allows an Exception to the General Rule When One's Spouse Has Been Guilty of Fornication.
This exception is clearly stated in Matthew 19:9 (and 5:32).
"Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery" ("saving for the cause of fornication" - Matt. 5:32).
Does the bible permit putting away a spouse for abuse?
By WmTipton


Actually, it does seem to give grounds for 'putting away' for things like abuse, ect.
But to the rest speak I, not the Lord:
If any brother hath a wife that believeth not,
and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
(1Co 7:12)
The wording there clearly shows that if she is 'pleased' then let him not put her away.
This statement is conditional.
It doesnt not simply state 'let him not put her away' but adds the condition of being 'pleased' to his not putting her away.
If this were an absolute statement, that he not put her away then it should be stated as such, but its not. A condition is very apparent in the actual text.
So what does this word 'pleased' mean?
G4909
1) to be pleased together with, to approve together (with others)
2) to be pleased at the same time with, consent, agree to
2a) to applaud
the word clearly shows a mutually pleasant experience.
She is pleased along with him...at the same time....'together'.
If one spouse is being beaten, they would hardly be "pleased together with" the person who is beating them....so why does Paul show the condition of mutual pleasing if there is no condition at all ?

In taking the actual greek into account, we clearly see a condition added to Pauls stating that this man not 'put away' his wife. The condition being that the marriage is pleasing mutually... the greek does not show a one sided thing at all.
Paul then shows the same thing in reverse for the believing wife in this situation....
And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
(1Co 7:13)
"leave him" there is the same as 'put away' in the previous verse.
G863
aphie?mi
Thayer Definition:
1) to send away
1a) to bid going away or depart
1a1) of a husband divorcing his wife
1b) to send forth, yield up, to expire
1c) to let go, let alone, let be
1c1) to disregard
1c2) to leave, not to discuss now, (a topic)
1c2a) of teachers, writers and speakers
1c3) to omit, neglect
1d) to let go, give up a debt, forgive, to remit
1e) to give up, keep no longer
2) to permit, allow, not to hinder, to give up a thing to a person
3) to leave, go way from one
3a) in order to go to another place
3b) to depart from any one
3c) to depart from one and leave him to himself so that all mutual claims are abandoned
3d) to desert wrongfully
3e) to go away leaving something behind
3f) to leave one by not taking him as a companion
3g) to leave on dying, leave behind one
3h) to leave so that what is left may remain, leave remaining
3i) abandon, leave destitute
The context of 'divorce' as a whole in scripture is either the casting out of a spouse or the leaving of a marriage with the intent of 'putting away' that marriage (altho there are some who try to pretend the two are not the same intent)

If we jump back up to verse 7:11 we see that this woman who has departed her marriage is deemed 'unmarried' by Paul....Agamos/single/unwed/ARAMOC
G22
agamos
Thayer Definition:
1) unmarried, unwedded, single
I think the greek makes it very clear that in a situation where a believer is married to an unbeliever who is abusing them that the condition above that Paul presents does give 'grounds' for divorcing the spouse (leaving the marriage)

Pauls condition of if it is "pleased" (meaning mutually) is the 'grounds' for putting away this spouse if they are abusing and its not pleasing.
The "leaving" of the believer would cause them to be "agamos" or unwed/single/unmarried according to Paul thus showing that they are quite divorced when they left with that intent.

In a case of two believers tho, there is a call to reconcile or remain unmarried.
Of course, some folks move on because they no longer wish to be abused.

Those in Corinth were putting away a spouse when they became born again, even if the marriage was otherwise fine.
Paul tells them in this passage to not end their marriages simply because they found Christ and their spouse had not.
If the marriage is ok otherwise, if it is ‘pleased’...then do not put away this spouse but stay with them because the believers influence might be used to bring salvation to this person.

The conditional statement made by Paul clearly shows that there might be a situation whereby the believer may put away this spouse.
If the marriage is abusive it is hardly mutually ‘pleased’ and as such the condition is not being met as presented by Paul.

Regardless of what some teach, there ARE conditions whereby divorce is permissible and as such is not ‘sin’ for the one carrying the divorce out. Just as we know the Lord God did not ‘sin’ against an adulterous Israel when He gave her a bill of divorce.

foc
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 2:01 pm
Contact:

Post by foc » Tue Dec 25, 2007 8:48 am

1 Corinthians 7:10,11
A married woman should not depart from her husband nor he from her. Again, divorce itself is not the will of God.

But if she departs (if divorce has occurred), she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. Clearly remarriage is not a scriptural alternative.
1 Corinthians 7:10,11
This explains why, if a woman divorces her husband, she still has no right to remarry. She may get divorced in the eyes of civil law, and God calls it "divorce" and says she is now "unmarried." But that does not free her from her bond or covenant obligation to her first husband. Since she is still bound to her first marriage covenant, her only choice then is to be reconciled to her husband (the one God recognizes) or else remain unmarried.
"Remain Unmarried or reconcile” vs "not in bondage"
by Wm Tipton

Assertions/Conclusions of this Article
We will show briefly that the commandment of the Lord to ‘remain unmarried or reconcile’ is NOT a blanket commandment in all marital situations where a breaking of the marriage is taking place, but is instead directed to two believers who have left their marriage without just cause, and that Paul also had no commandment for those marriages that weren’t equally yoked, didnt given the same instruction to these who were married to an unbeliever, not having any commandment from the Lord in the matter, and then also offered a concession not given to those who were equally yoked to another believer who had left their marriage for whatever frivolous reason.

Supporting Evidence

Firstly lets look at the actual passages
"And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. (1Co 7:10-11 KJV)
vs
"But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. (1Co 7:12- * KJV)
1.0
"Remain Unmarried or reconcile”

"And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord,

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist or brain surgeon or even a biblical scholar to look at that passage as a whole, instead of breaking it into minute pieces as our false ones do, and see that overall Paul is speaking to two groups there. The first being those where obviously both the husband and the wife are both listening since Paul addresses both of them therein.
This idea is made absolute by Pauls making a clear distinction in his next words in saying “BUT TO THE REST SPEAK I, NOT THE LORD” where he shows clearly that he is now speaking to ‘the rest’ of married couples who do not fall into whatever category as the first group fell. These are defined as being those who are married to someone who ‘believeth not’ which we understand as as ‘unequally yoked’ marriage.

Notice that Paul makes it very clear that to these who ARENT married to someone who ‘believeth not’ that he isnt speaking, but the Lord is giving commandment to these.
Easy enough concept to see, to understand and to accept for those reading and being honest enough to let the words say what they simply state.

To these who arent married to someone who ‘believed not’, these are married to someone who instead is a believer. They cannot be anything else or otherwise Pauls words “BUT TO THE REST” when he speaks to the rest who are married make no logical sense whatsoever.
These in verses 7:10-11 MUST be those who are NOT married to someone who ‘believeth not’ but MUST be to those marriages where the person being spoken to is married to a believer. Being honest with ourselves, we accept the targets of these words to be those marriages where both persons are a believer...ie ‘equally yoked’.

To these, Paul shows that the Lord has given commandment if they depart to remain unmarried (ARAMOC/agamos/single/unwed) or reconcile with the man she left”
This makes logical sense and harmonizes quite well with Gods whole word and is even completely logical even if we set scripture aside for a moment.
These are two people who have compatible beliefs who, for whatever reason, have left their marriage who, as christians, should be quite interested in working together as ALL believers in Christ should be doing in order to be in harmony with one another.
BOTH of these persons, as followers of Jesus Christ, having entered a marital covenant and having set it aside for whatever frivolous reasonings, should be willing to work together to reunite what they created together previously and set aside without just cause.
The Lord has commanded these two believers to remain unmarried or reconcile this marriage cast away without just cause (as historical evidence of Corinth is quite capable of showing. That area was not exactly morally sound).


2.0
"not in bondage"

"But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not,

Now we move on ‘to the rest’....to those marriages where Paul is addressing the believer who is married to one who ‘believeth not’.

This is the greek for the ‘rest’...
G3062
Thayer Definition:
1) remaining, the rest
1a) the rest of any number or class under consideration
1b) with a certain distinction and contrast, the rest, who are not of a specific class or number
1c) the rest of the things that remain
These ‘rest’ are those that remain of the groups under consideration, which are clearly those whoare ‘married’. This ‘rest’ are those who are married to unbelievers, clearly indicating that the groups being spoken to in verses 7:10-11 are those who are believers married to believers...in other words, equally yoked.
Since the ‘rest’ are those who are Unequally yoked, logically there is no way that that Paul is speaking to ‘the rest’ in verses 7:10-11 then turning right around and addressing ‘the rest’ again starting in verse 7:12.

To ‘the rest’ who are clearly believers unequally yoked to unbelievers Paul has no commandment of the Lord but is clearly speaking his own mind in the matter. Believing that Paul may not be speaking by direct commandment, we still accept that he is speaking by inspiration of the Holy Spirit and thus his words are ‘law’ for these married to an unbelieving spouse.

Firstly we notice that Pauls words offer a more conditional tone.
“IF a brother has a wife who is pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away”.
If this brother is married to an unbelieving wife who wants to live in peace with him, then he should not put her away.
This church had asked questions of Paul and based on Pauls response its easy to determine that they must have believed that if they became born again, that somehow they were defiled by being with an unbelieving husband.
Paul lets them know in this passage that that isnt the case. The unbelieving spouse is sanctified by the believer (in a physical or spiritual ‘cleaness’ type of manner, not meaning a free ride to heaven without repentance or anything like that).
These clearly were under the impression that it might be ok to just walk out of a marriage if they became saved, yet their spouse did not.
Paul straightens out this erroneous viewpoint and lets them know that if the the unbeliever is mutually ‘pleased’ along with the believer and wants to remain in the marriage, then they arent to put them away, and may even be key to their spouses salvation.

Paul then goes on to give concession not given to the two believers above.
First there was no commandment at all from the Lord to these as with the equally yoked marriage, but Paul now tells these that if the unbeliever wishes to depart the marriage that the believer isnt in bondage to this marriage.

Instead of repeating other studies here, please see this page for more on this point.

Now, these folks will casually leave out that Paul gives instruction to TWO different married groups there and try to apply 1 Cor 7:10-11 to ALL marriages, but this makes Pauls statement of ‘BUT TO THE REST” and everything that follows completely illogical and unable to be harmonized with the whole properly.
And the reason they need to pull this deceptive tactic is because they like what the Lord has commanded in verses 7:10-11, but they arent too happy with Pauls concession in 7:12 and after. It completely destroys these false teachings of theirs that Paul offers this idea that the believer might not be forced to remain bound in marriage to an unbeliever in whatever circumstance, and so they force the text to give instruction to a group of people, those unequally yoked, that Paul CLEARLY says he has no word from the Lord to.

Thankfully, you readers are quite capable of seeing the wording used for yourself and seeing what is actually presented by Gods whole word....

foc
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 2:01 pm
Contact:

Post by foc » Tue Dec 25, 2007 8:53 am

Matthew 19:3-9
What reason is given why remarriage is forbidden and why it is called "adultery"?
(As with many of our articles beginnings, this is a response to a forum posters questions)
Hi. Thanks for your detailed responses. Can you tell me what you believe the situation is for the *innocent* woman in this scenario? Can she remarry with God's blessing or does He consider remarriage adultery?
The woman has been faithful to her husband and he has also been sexually faithful to her however he wants someone else so divorces her and marries another woman.
Thanks
However Jesus says that, even though adultery has occurred, the innocent woman will also be committing adultery if she remarries.
It doesnt say 'committing' adultery as in perpetually...it says 'commits adultery'....the Present Indicative form which is the only way in the present form of the Greek to absolutely contain the action to the present since the present form is inherently linear in nature.

Committeth adultery” The Present Indicative deception

The writer could have used other ways to show an act with ongoing consequences...there are very easy ways to do that in the greek, yet for some reason they chose the one form of the present tense that is the ONLY form that would be used to show that the act was NOT 'ongoing'.

Why does adultery (and in this case abandonment as well) not terminate the marriage bond?
Some have entirely misunderstood Jesus' intent there.

Because Moses had not actually assigned any crime or sin to this putting away for no just cause, the Jews in Jesus day believed that they were guiltless in putting away over anything they wanted to (whether they remarried or not).
He isnt defining marriage as UNconditional as some seem to believe but IS defining these hardhearted divorces as being sinful where Moses did not.

Jesus point is not to show that marriage lingers after divorce in any way at all, but is to show them that even tho they do put her away as Moses permitted, that this horrible practice of putting out a spouse for no just cause that had been with them since at least their time in the desert after escaping Egypt DID incur guilt and WAS indeed a sin...and their sin was affecting everyone in its path.

That is what Jesus is doing....showing men who believed themselves guiltless (as seemed to be a epidemic with this people) that they WERE guilty when they cast out a spouse unjustly and especially when they do it to take someone else.

Just as He also showed them just before His exception in Matt 5 that even if they looked on a woman lustfully they had already committed adultery in their heart...the point is exposing guilt where they believed there was none.

You seemed to have missed that if a man just wanted a new, younger wife, all he had to do was be a polygamist and just add this new woman to his harem. Even in the NT there is no outright prohibition or condemnation of taking multiple wives.

The real issue here isnt about taking a new bride because polygamy was practiced by some at that time and still is in this world today in some cultures.
It is the hardhearted throwing out of a wife who has done no wrong that is the core of this matter.
God hates putting away, remember ? That is a very key element to this entire topic...understanding that it is the putting away that He 'hateth'.

In that, this putting away a wife who has done no wrong, whether we remarry or not, is the very heart of this whole issue of divorce and remarriage.

The problem here is with not understanding the WHOLE council of Gods word in this matter and simply picking at a verse here and a passage there.

As I said somewhere here, the Hypercalvinist is quite adept at using a few very CLEAR passages to show that God is so sovereign that He literally foreordains EVERY sin man commits, then condemns that man for the sin that GOD basically forced him to do.
And even tho there are VERY clear passages that seem to back these claims (Romans 9 for instance..not to mention so many passages about things decided from the foundation of the world) few of us actually believe that God has foreordained that man sin AGAINST God Himself.

The same with this MDR matter.
Some take a few CLEAR scriptures to force a view from ONE side of the data to create an UNconditional marriage covenant.
But just like with the Hypercalvinist viewpoint, we must harmonize ALL of scripture to understand that Romans isnt about individual predestination..even tho it CLEARLY seems to show that it is in a couple places....but is directly about what has happened to the nation of Israel.

Doctrines that focus on part of the evidence without truly understanding the WHOLE so that ALL of the evidence is harmonized correctly will always be skewed and distorted because they will end up missing the point of many passages.
It happens with Romans 9 with the hypercalvinist....and it happens with things like 'committeth adultery' with anti-remarriagers.

Post Reply