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.