Dear Sealed Eternal,

I am a little amused at your responses on this subject. The ancient Pharisees had very similar responses when confronting the very author and giver of the Law of Moses. For it is very clear that they were making great effort to set themselves up as judges to define and interpret the law given to Moses. The correct manner in which they should have approached this issue would have been to come in humility to the feet of the Master, who was the very giver of the Law, for clear counsel and direction on how and in what manner each case could be resolved. If one is to judge according to the law, then it is incumbent that the WHOLE law should be taken into consideration. This was a point which they failed to address. If you examine the scriptures carefully, it is obvious that you likewise may have overlooked or failed to recognize some of these important points and by so doing you preach doctrines not in harmony with all revealed scripture.

The following examples are some that we should consider that relate directly to this subject.

1. If one were to take the letter of the law as the only standard, then one must admit that your position, like that of the Pharisees is in error on the basis that the surviving victim of the marriage partner must live a life of celibacy or be likewise guilty of adultery if re-married. Men are accountable for their own sins and not the sins of others. Christ alone is unique in that he is the one and only who has suffered for all. Thus the faithful marriage partner should not and cannot according to sound doctrine be punished according to the law of God for the sins of his or her partner.

If God’s laws given to Moses were correctly administered, this problem would and could not even exist. The law clearly states that the penalty for adultery was punishable by death. If this were properly administered as given, this would eliminate two problems created by false or improper administration of the law.

First, this would constitute a divorce with a lasting decree.

Second, this would permanently eliminate any possibility of further adultery with the offending party.

Thirdly, the offended marriage partner would therefore according to the law, be freed from the marriage vow and therefore be free to marry anyone of his or her choice.

In other words they created this dilemma by their own failure to administer justly the law of the Lord. Had they correctly administered the Law as given, then the scenario they created could not have existed in the first place. A prime example of this is the occasion when they brought the woman caught in the very act of adultery before the Master to tempt him pertaining to the law. If they caught her as stated, then of necessity they should also have brought the man or men who committed this crime before the Master also. This they utterly failed to do, unless of course, they themselves were in fact, the other guilty parties. These Pharisees wanted a one sided justice, which was totally unacceptable to Christ.


2. Another example for marriage to consider is that of Adam and Eve. They, obviously, were married by the Lord. The scripture says: Genesis 2: 18 "And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.” You may so note that God placed no limitations on the time that it would not be good for man should be alone.

Further Genesis 2:24 “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”

Should Adam follow the example of his Father and mother?

Who according to scripture is Adam’s father and mother?

Again please so note that the man should cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Does man have the right to put asunder that which God has joined together?
Consider what Christ taught regarding the eternal nature of marriage in: Matthew 19:3-8 “The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.”

We learn further in Matthew 16:18 “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

We learn from the above that Moses, the Lord’s divinely authorized legal administrator of the law had the power to put away or grant divorce, because of the hardness of their hearts. But more importantly we learn regarding divorce, “but from the beginning it was not so.” In the beginning divorce was not an option. This issue came about only because of the hardness of their hearts.

Most powerfully we learn from the Master that the had at some point during the latter part of his ministry, given to Peter “ the keys of the kingdom of heaven:" and further that, “whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Clearly, according to the power Jesus granted to Peter, a marriage performed by he who had received those keys could eternally bind said marriage on earth and in heaven...;.

Only one having those keys of the kingdom of heaven or one who has that power so delegated to him by the one holding those keys could perform such a marriage that could be bound on earth and in heaven.
All marriages not performed by this authority and power do terminate in divorce at the time of death. So according to your own posts, Sealed Eternal, you likewise will be divorced, for you give no indication that your marriage was sealed eternally by one having the power and authority that Christ clearly granted to Peter.

Adam and Eve were not subject to death when God married them. Therefore the original marriage in the beginning by God himself was intended to be eternal in nature.

After carefully examining your heart and the whole Law and that additionally taught by the Master himself who gave the Law, I hope that you will reconsider your position and deepen your understanding and shed forth a more merciful and compassionate and Christlike judgment and view upon your fellow man.

I, like you, also abhor the terrible scene of divorce that we see today. I firmly believe that almost all divorce could be avoided or eliminated with full application of the principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The blight of divorce is a shame and disgrace to Christianity. Every sect or denomination has fallen short of teaching and living up to the high standards required of marriage. Each of us has a sacred responsibility to “raise the bar”, to achieve and together build stronger marriages and families. I earnestly pray that each of us may so unceasingly work to make this never ending commitment.

I am amazed at the responce that Revelation too gives. This is so comprehensive and Christlike. If you read the requirements for Bishop in 1 Timothy 3:2 it states he must be the husband of one wife. Implying that some in the church are not. Now it isn't condoning remarriage, but it isn't condeming it either really. If Christ wanted me single, He would lay that on my heart . I have prayed about it. You know that wall that goes up when confronted with the idea of fornication? The Spirit tells you it's a line you DO NOT want to cross. A similar wall would go up for me if the Lord wanted me to stay single, and the wall is just not there. I would say even the opposite is true. I feel the Lord would want me to be with someone, It's the way He made me. I am not meant to be alone, and I feel released from my marriage bieng cheated on and divorced.
Thanks Rev. too

For the OP, I might suggest reading God's book and avoiding books by men who try to claim His Word doesn't mean what it says. I have most of His quotes on the subject above.

SealedEternal

Would that include reading posts on Cristian Defense?

SealedEternal wrote (View Post): › For the OP, I might suggest reading God's book and avoiding books by men who try to claim His Word doesn't mean what it says. I have most of His quotes on the subject above. SealedEternal

Blanchard wrote (View Post): › Would that include reading posts on Cristian Defense?

If those posts are pointing them to the Word of God yes, if not NO!

SealedEternal

Dear Revelations Too,

I can't figure out what point you're trying to make. On the one hand you try to make a bunch of excuses why we shouldn't keep God's commandments as they relate to divorce and remarriage, and then make claim to be outraged by how the institution has been destroyed. Personally I live by His commandments and thus my marriage remains according to His plan, which is how it's meant to work.

The problem with the Pharisees wasn't that they were too faithful to God, but rather that they rewrote His Laws to accomodate their sins while claiming to be righteous, and that is why Jesus condemned them as hypocrites. I assure you if they were to sincerely adhere to His commandments in regard to their marriages, He would have congratulated them and not condemned them, but if you study the history of Hillel and Shammai, along with some of the other Pharisees on this subject, the issue was that they abused God's Laws to justify themselves, which is why Jesus condemned them as adulterers in Matthew 19. They were not men who lived righteously but were self righteous hypocrites who lived lawlessly by twisting His Law, and that is why they constantly argued with Jesus.

Jesus said that those who love him will keep his commandments and not find them burdensome, and it is when we keep His commandments that we know we have come to know him. Being faithful to Him is what He desires and expects, and that is not at all what the Pharisees were about.

SealedEternal

SealedEternal, a quick thought: use more than one translation of Scripture, so as to not miss out or have unnecessary additions.

An assumption that the second marriage is the sin is just that, an assumption. It could be very well put that the sin is not in the remarriage, but in the original divorce, making the original "marriage" an adulterous relationship rather than a lifelong commitment.

SealedEternal wrote (View Post): › The Bible is clear that marriage in a union where God joins two into one flesh for life, and no man can separate this union. It also says that when a "divorce" occurs the two are still bound by covenant and therefore any subsequent remarriage is actually not a legitimate marriage but rather an adulterous affair according to God: Genesis 2:22-24 The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. The man said, "This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man." For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. Malachi 2:13-17 "This is another thing you do: you cover the altar of the LORD with tears, with weeping and with groaning, because He no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favor from your hand. "Yet you say, 'For what reason?' Because the LORD has been a witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. "But not one has done so who has a remnant of the Spirit And what did that one do while he was seeking a godly offspring? Take heed then to your spirit, and let no one deal treacherously against the wife of your youth. "For I HATE DIVORCE," says the LORD, the God of Israel, "and him who covers his garment with wrong," says the LORD of hosts. "So take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously." You have wearied the LORD with your words Yet you say, "How have we wearied Him?" In that you say, "Everyone who does evil is good in the sight of the LORD, and He delights in them," or, "Where is the God of justice?" Matthew 5:31-33 "It was said, 'WHOEVER SENDS HIS WIFE AWAY, LET HIM GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE';but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, MAKES HER COMMIT ADULTERY; and WHOEVER MARRIES A DIVORCED WOMAN COMMITS ADULTERY."Again, you have heard that the ancients were told, 'YOU SHALL NOT MAKE FALSE VOWS, BUT SHALL FULFILL YOUR VOWS TO THE LORD.' Matthew 19:4-6 And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'?"So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, LET NO MAN SEPARATE." Mark 10:5-12 But Jesus said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment."But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE."FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER,AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh."What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." In the house the disciples began questioning Him about this again. And He *said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her;and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery." Luke 16:18 "EVERYONE WHO DIVORCES HIS WIFE AND MARRIES ANOTHER COMMITS ADULTERY, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery." 1 Corinthians 7:10-13 But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife. But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her. And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away. I Corinthians 7:39 A wife is bound as long as her husband lives; but if her husband is dead, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord. Romans 7:2-3 For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, SHE SHALL BE CALLED AN ADULTERESS; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man. Ephesians 5:22-32 Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, because we are members of His body. FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND SHALL BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH. This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church. These principles are clear and undeniable from scripture, yet some people try to cherry pick verses to justify doing exactly what Jesus calls adultery by misapplying other verses out of context. I will explain some of those in subsequent posts. SealedEternal

Speaking about cherry picking verses...how about we look to the REST of the story ?
Paul absolutely shows that man CAN indeed separate/put asunder a marriage. Christ never said man 'cannot' do so...


"Let not man Put Asunder" vs "let the unbeliever 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. These seemingly different statements ("Let not man Put Asunder" vs "let the unbeliever depart")are actually about the same exact thing...putting asunder/Chorizo...as proven very conclusively by the greek.


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.

Quote: › 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?

Quote: › So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate(G5563-CHORIZO)." (Mat 19:6 EMTV) (Mar 10:9) 'and the two shall become one flesh'; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has united together, let not man separate(G5563-CHORIZO)." (Mar 10:8-9 EMTV)

Bear 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.
Jesus is CLEARLY discussing not putting asunder of this 'one flesh' that is being spoken of there.

The word is (G5563)chorizo and it only appears a few times in scripture.

Quote: › 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

Quote: › (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.

Quote: › 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'.

Quote: › (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)

Quote: › (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.

SealedEternal wrote (View Post): › Some people claim that the apostle Paul offered an exception to this rule in 1 Corinthians 7, but they are adding to what he said in trying to make his statement confirm their doctrine rather than limiting the text to what it actually says: 1 Corinthians 7:10 But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband 11 (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife. Here is Paul’s teaching to all married people. He says first of all, that we should never separate for any reason just as Jesus did. Then He adds that if any separations should occur, we have two options and two only: 1. remain unmarried 2. be reconciled Could he have stated this any clearer? Next he adds that this applies whether or not the spouse is a believer: 1 Corinthians 7:12-14 But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her. And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. Again, this is about as clear as can be, whether or not the spouse is an unbeliever is irrelevant as to whether the believer is to keep their covenant. We are commanded to always honor it regardless of the actions of our spouse. Of course some try to create a loophole by taking the next verse out of context and trying to claim that it eliminates everything else Paul just said, as well as the rest of the scriptures on the subject, and that he gives a provision to divorce an unbeliever and remarry without committing adultery. Of course they are completely adding this to the text, and Paul has never said anything of the sort: 1 Corinthians 7:15 Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace. If we limit the text to what it actually says, it only permits a believer to allow an unbeliever to depart for the sake of peace, if they refuse to dwell with us. We need to remember the context of this statement: 1. "she consents to live with him" 2. "he consents to live with her" 3. "if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave" The text itself is all about dwelling together and only permits allowing an unbeliever to depart for the sake of peace if they refuse to dwell with the believer. If however they do not refuse then the believer must honor the covenant they made, and if they refuse we still must honor our part in it by remaining unmarried or else reconcile with them. The scriptures are consistent throughout when we don’t try to add what is not there. Beyond that, Paul himself refutes the idea that this bondage is anything but dwelling together, by stating that the marriage bond itself is only dissolvable by death: I Corinthians 7:39 A wife is bound as long as her husband lives; but if her husband is dead, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord. The term he used in this verse is different than the one he used to speak of "bondage" to an unbeliever who refused to dwell with the believer, which referred to servitude rather than a legal bond. If the claim that marriage is dissolved by an unbeliever departing were correct, then Paul would have to be schizophrenic as well as being in direct contradiction to the teachings of Jesus Christ, but it all makes sense when we understand that the first bondage is referring to dwelling together and the second to the marriage covenant itself. Obviously those that use this verse to try to justify remarriage are taking his words out of context and creating a loophole that isn’t there, as well as adding to the text the concept of remarriage which it never even speaks about and actually contradicts everything else Paul said on the topic. SealedEternal

Again, lets not 'cherry pick' favorite verses here but look at the REST of the details
Pauls words are quite conditional about the believer not leaving the unbeliever...



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.
This is the passage in question;

Quote: › But to the rest I say, not the Lord, if any brother has an unbelieving wife, and she consents to live with him, let him not leave her. And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified by the husband; else, then, your children are unclean, but now they are holy. But if the unbelieving one separates, let them be separated; the brother or the sister is not in bondage in such matters; but God has called us in peace. For what do you know, wife, whether you will save the husband? Or what do you know, husband, whether you will save the wife? (1Co 7:12-16)

The passage and the context of it was an answer to the Corinthians (See 7:1 "But concerning what you wrote to me") about being able to leave if they were saved and the spouse was not.
They felt that they were 'defiled' in being with this person in the marriage based on other teachings about 'touching no unclean thing' and related passages.
This is why Paul tells them that their children are clean and that their spouse is 'sanctified' (not in a SAVED sense, but just to ease their minds so they didnt divorce) by the saved spouse (1Co 7:14).
These believers were assuming they could just up and leave their existing marriages if they became saved and their spouse had not.
Paul is only showing there that they are not to leave if the unsaved spouse is happy to remain with them in the marriage...dont just divorce them because they are unsaved...we may be instrumental in bringing them to salvation.
But Pauls statement IS conditional. If the unbelieving spouse is abusive we DO have right to leave that marriage...ie 'divorce'...which is what LEAVING the marriage is...we would be in the very same 'agamos' state that the woman in 1 Cor 7:10-11 would be...UNmarried.

Quote: › 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 7:12-13)

The wording there clearly shows that if she is 'pleased' then let him not put her away.
This statement is conditional.

Quote: › "if" G1487 ei i a primary particle of conditionality; if, whether, that, etc.:--forasmuch as, if, that, (al-)though, whether. Often used in connection or composition with other particles, especially as in G1489, G1490, G1499, G1508, G1509, G1512, G1513, G1536, G1537. See also G1437.

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?

Quote: › 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....

Quote: › 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.

Quote: › 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)

For a bit of proof that this is consistently the case, we jump back up to verse 7:11 and see that this woman who has departed her marriage is deemed 'unmarried' by Paul....Agamos/single/unwed/ARAMOC

Quote: › 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 and it is very easily argued that if a man can continually and repeatedly batter his wife then he is not showing evidence of actually being a believer/follower of Christ based on the fact that CHRIST shows that we will know men by their fruits.

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.

SealedEternal wrote (View Post): › Jesus says it is absolutely unlawful to God for us to try to separate what He Himself has joined together, so any claim that He was making provision here for divorce and remarriage is false. SealedEternal

Then brother Paul would be a liar, as Ive shown above, when he shows that man CAN put asunder and even instructs it to be so himself in 1 Cor 7.
It cannot be 'unlawful' as your post states if Paul instructs for it to be so.

SealedEternal wrote (View Post): › For the OP, I might suggest reading God's book and avoiding books by men who try to claim His Word doesn't mean what it says. I have most of His quotes on the subject above. SealedEternal

What youve seemingly done is the same thing you mention in one of your own posts...'cherry picking' specific verses and trying to force a doctrinal position from them without accepting the REST of the story, such as Pauls showing quite conclusively that man CAN put asunder (CHORIZO) a marriage.

SealedEternal wrote (View Post): › The "exception" that Mr McArthur taught you is adding to the text something that Paul never said, and directly contradicts his teaching throughout that chapter which he summed up saying that only death ends the marriage bond and nothing else, so he cannot possibly be correct.

Paul finished up that chapter by laying out the scriptural precept that marriage is a life commitment. That precept is taking along with Pauls concession, not in defiance of it.
This 'law' of marriage is no more unconditional then the old or new covenants are.
We look to the REST of the story for understanding...



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.

Another point with Romans 7:1-4 or so is that at no time does this passage show that there was ever any divorce as permitted by Mosaic law. If we take it 'as written' it shows that this woman has only left her husband and gone to join with another. Without a divorce as presented by the law Paul speaks of, without the breaking of that marriage covenant, then of course she would be called an adulteress by joining herself to some man not her husband.

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.

angela wrote (View Post): › I have been married before, and to my regret, now divorced. I have been reding a book called " Preparing fo rMarriage", so that if I do decide to do it again, I will have more knowledge and uunderstanding. In the beginning of the bok, it asks a series of questions, and there is one i don't understand. It asks, if you have been married before, are you free to marry again? Can you explain how to know if you are free to marry again?

I dont want to flood this thread and upset anyone, so Ill put a link for this one since this is a pretty long article
READERS SEE->Click->>>Im divorced, can I remarry ?