Just so people can easily find it....

[shinbits]

...I'm making a thread about marriage/divorce so people can easily find it in the first post, rather than going through endless pages.


The Bible says in Matthew 5:32 (KJV), “But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery; and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced commiteth adultery.” The passage “Except for the cause of fornication”, is often misinterpreted that divorce is acceptable if the spouse has had sex with someone other than the one that they are married to after the marriage has taken place. But this passage here is in reference to Deuteronomy 22:13-21, which states what a man may do if he discovers his wife is not a virgin after they are married. Sex before marriage is fornication. One cannot fornicate after marriage, because then it is called adultery. Biblically, one cannot divorce someone because the spouse has cheated on them and committed adultery. The Bible means only if the man was deceived about his wife’s virginity, before entering the marriage. On this ground, and this ground only, can someone get divorced and remarried.

What about "inappropriate contentea"?

Some say that use of the word inappropriate contentea includes adultery since the word is used for general sexually immorality, and that Christ permits divorce if adultery has been commited. But Christ makes a distinction, and uses the word "moicheia" for adultery. If Christ permited divorce for all things, including adultery, he wouldn't have made a distinction and used seperate words. "Except for fornication (inappropriate contentea), causes his wife to commit adultery "moicheia". Thus, Christ wasn't permitting divorce for adultery, especially since doing so is counter-intuitive to Christ's preaching of forgiveness to our brothers, which of course extends to our spouses.
There are many pastors and church leaders who are divorced for reasons other than stated in Deuteronomy 22:13. As stated before, the rate of divorce in the Church is over 50% and higher than that of non-Christian or secular people. Therefore, many preachers preach ways around this clear teaching of the Bible.

Jesus was asked in Matthew 19:3 (NKJV), “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?” Jesus answered them in verse 4 saying, “Have you not read that He who made them in the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘for this reason shall a man leave his mother and father and be joined to his wife that the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no man separate.” Then the Pharisees asked Jesus as to why Moses permitted divorce. Jesus answered in verse 8, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.” Jesus goes on in verse 9, “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality (before marriage), and marries another commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”

Modern preaching has gone so far as to say that there are processes by which a divorced person can get remarried. “Remedies”, such as praying to be delivered from the former spouse or asking God to “bring the right one this time”, and many others have been offered. This is clearly against the Bible. There is no way around this teaching. Many preachers, however, including some who are very famous and can be found on television speaking to crowds of thousands, preach ways around this clear doctrine of the Bible. Because so many Christian people are divorced, this new type of doctrine is very popular. It is sad to say that many Christians do not respect the institution of marriage enough to not get divorced the first time.


But What If your spouse divorces you?

The question has been asked, “But what if your spouse divorces you, even if you want to keep the marriage together?” Or “Is it fair that if you did everything right as a husband or wife the first time and your spouse divorces you, that you can never get married again?” Jesus’ disciples also thought that this was a tough thing to swallow. They said in Matt 19:10, “If this is the case with a man and his wife, it is better not to marry.”(NKJV)

What About God’s grace?

Some people take the position that because God is merciful and abounding in grace and love, that God would “okay” a marriage of divorced people because he is forgiving and gracious. This is totally false. Paul addresses this exact issue in Romans 6:1-3; “Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?” (NKJV) Anyone who remarries while the first spouse is alive lives in adultery. This is not at all in reference to those divorced and remarried before being saved by Christ, their sins are forgiven. Paul is speaking about those who know the law and intentionally break it, and then try to justify themselves with the fact that God is gracious. God is a God of grace. But this has been twisted in order to suit the desires of people.

Paul had a thorn in his flesh in 2Corinthians 12. He said that he prayed three times for God to remove it, but God said, “My grace is sufficient for you, my power is made perfect in weakness.” God is a God of grace. But his grace is not so that sin may abound. It is a struggle for divorced people to remain unmarried or to wait to be reunited with their spouse. God’s grace will not permit you to break a law because it is convenient, but God’s grace is sufficient for you to deal with your thorn in your flesh, weather that thorn is lust, loneliness, or whatever you need to overcome. This is what is meant by God is a God of grace.


Isn’t This Being Legalistic?

Some preachers may say that obeying this teaching is living by the letter of the law, and therefore legalistic. There are Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments are pillars of Biblical doctrine, and no one can say that it is just simple legality to follow these commandments. It is not legalistic to not kill, or worship God only, and it is not legalistic to not commit adultery. Yet that is what divorced people who marry another are doing—committing adultery.

This is what dying to flesh is all about. Many people would clap in church services, or voice their “Amen’s” at the concept of dying to flesh as long as it is in reference to not watching R rated movies, or swearing in traffic. The truth is, whoever will not die to his or her own desires, will not hold up if that person’s life is put on the line for the Gospel.

The only way for a person to remarry after being divorced is if the husband or wife dies. Then, as Paul says in Romans 7:2-4, the divorced person is free from the law of marriage and can marry another.

What Then, Is A Divorced Person To Do?
First and foremost, someone going through a divorce should be praying for reconciliation and restoration of their marriage. Even if there has been many years since the marriage broke up, as long as that person’s spouse has not remarried, a restored marriage should be the goal in a divorced person’s life not remarriage. Cases of people who are divorced, especially of those who are young with their whole lives ahead of them, are indeed heart wrenching. The pain involved in divorce is probably one of the reasons why the Bible says, “God hates divorce”(Malachi 2:16). I encourage all to have compassion on divorced people, and to flood them with prayers and support.

In the modern church today, there is far too much emphasis on getting married. Paul said in 1Corinthinthians 7:28, “But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.” 1Corinthians 7:27: “Are you married? Do not seek a divorce. Are you unmarried? Do not look for a wife.” Paul goes on in verse 29, “What I mean brothers, is that the time is short. From now on, those who have wives should live as though they had none.”

With the state of the world as it is, and with the ever nearing arrival of our Lord and Savior speeding towards us, we should set our minds on what is most important, and what is lasting. Many are dying, even as this is being typed, even as you are reading this, and many are going to hell. Let’s put things in perspective. When you consider an eternal hell against a temporary marriage, the latter seems much less important, and the former gravely serious. I suggest more preaching needs to be taught on 1Cor 7, and to those who need help, to meditate on 1Cor 7:27-29. And may God bless and strengthen those who read it.

 

[HuntingMan]

Good grief.
didnt you post this in two other threads?
WHY CREATE yet ANOTHER thread on this instead of using an EXISTING one ?

Then again, nevermind..its easy enough to figure out...

 

[HuntingMan]

What about "inappropriate contentea"?

inappropriate contenteia...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.
inappropriate contenteia 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 inappropriate contenteia (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 inappropriate contenteia 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
inappropriate contenteia
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 (inappropriate contenteia G4202) is premarital or betrothal sex only and not “adultery”, why is it that the writer ONLY used ''inappropriate contenteia'' 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 "inappropriate contenteia'' 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.
''inappropriate contenteia'' (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 'inappropriate contenteia' 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 inappropriate contenteia ?

G4205
inappropriate contentos
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.
inappropriate contenteia 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 ...inappropriate contentos)

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 inappropriate contenteia (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 inappropriate contenteia is not all inclusive of sexual immorality)

When Jesus' words were rendered as ''inappropriate contenteia'' 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. ....inappropriate contenteia even covers the possiblity of inappropriate behavior with animals 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 ‘’inappropriate contenteia’’ 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 ‘’inappropriate contenteia’’, 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.

 

[HuntingMan]

The conditional marriage covenant.
By WmTipton

Assertions/Conclusions of this Article

In this writing we will show that the marriage covenant is conditional and that this conditional state precedes the tolerance of Moses concerning frivolous divorce, and that our Lord Jesus and also Paul conclusively show that marriage is still a conditional marriage covenant.
This study is for the sole purpose of answer one question.
Is the marriage covenant conditional or is it without condition and therefore no condition exists whereby it can be ended before death and no condition exists that is in breach of it ?

Supporting Evidence

Firstly, we will show a bit about Gods conditional covenant given thru Moses to Israel, His endurance towards them and their constantly breaking that covenant, and finally His ending of that covenant with them.
We then will list some of the precepts in the scriptures that show conclusively that a marriage covenant might be ended before the death of the spouse and also list some laws that show that there are punishable offenses where this marriage covenant is concerned.
I’ll include links to articles already written about these where applicable.

1.0

Elsewhere in many articles we state that the covenant given to Moses in the wilderness was a conditional one. Conditional means that there a re requirements placed upon the persons that the covenant is given to.
Lets look briefly at a conditional statement made by the Lord concerning His covenant with Israel.

● Exo 19:5 - And now if you will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then you shall be a peculiar treasure to Me above all the nations; for all the earth is Mine.

Now, there are no rocket scientists or scholars of ancient Hebrew living in my home, but even I can read and see that the Lord is showing clearly there the condition that *IF* they obey Him...*IF* they keep His covenant, then....He will do these things just as He has spoken.

For an example of an Uncondtional covenant, lets look at Gods words to Abraham...

● Gen 12:1-3 - And Jehovah said to Abram, Go out of your country, and from your kindred, and from your father's house into a land that I will show you. (2) And I will make you a great nation. And I will bless you and make your name great. And you shall be a blessing. (3) And I will bless those that bless you and curse the one who curses you. And in you shall all families of the earth be blessed.

Notice there are no if’s or but’s there, only the promise to DO as He has spoken. God simply tells Abraham that He will do these things, He does not place condition upon them. The Jews have always been upon this earth and will until the final curtain closes. The Jews have existed literally in perils that have probably wiped out entire cultures over the millenia, by all logical rights the Hebrew people should probably not be in existance today. Not only do they, but they have reclaimed their promise land, just as His word foretold.
Even tho the Jews as a nation are hardened and disobedient, God has kept His Unconditional covenant with Abraham.

We can even see this same type of thing with Abrahams son Ishmael.
Notice here Gods words concerning Ishmael to Abe...

● Gen 17:18-21 - And Abraham said to God, Oh that Ishmael might live before You! (19) And God said, Sarah your wife shall bear you a son indeed. And you shall call his name Isaac. And I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him. (20) And as for Ishmael, I have heard you. Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly. He shall father twelve chiefs, and I will make him a great nation. (21) But I will establish My covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this set time in the next year.

Abraham seems to be very concerned about his son Ishmael. The Lord God promises Abraham to bless Ishmael...to make him fruitful and make a mighty nation of him. Can anyone deny that this is not the case with the descendants of Ishmael today? Has God not made a mighty nation of him ?
This was an unconditional promise made to Abraham. God did not say *IF* you do this, I will do that. He promised it, and it came to pass...
Even though they (the descendants of Ishmael) are not obedient to God nor His word, God kept His UNconditional promise to Abraham.

Our God is not lax in in keeping His unconditional covenants/promises.

As presented earlier with this passage we see that God did, however, make a conditional covenant with Israel.

● Exo 19:5 - And now if you will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then you shall be a peculiar treasure to Me above all the nations; for all the earth is Mine.

There are conditions given in the Lords words there. *IF* you do this *THEN* this will happen. What happens if they do not ‘obey His voice’ and ‘keep His covenant’ ...what then ?

“What then” sets the tone for much of Israels history post Egyptian Slavery. These folks barely made it out of bondage before they started sinning in such a great manner that Ive always wondered why God didnt simply wipe man off the map entirely during that time. But we know that He knows the ending, so He knows that not all men are so willing to defile and disobey to the magnitude of seeing so many wonderful miracles as the Hebrews did in those days, only to turn around and create a golden calf to worship the moment Moses turned his back.

Can you, as a believer and follower of our Lord Jesus, imagine being alive when He walked the earth, being one of those He healed or seeing some other miracle done by Him...can you imagine being Peter and walking on the water even, then not simply staggering a bit in your walk, but literally sitting down and with your own hands making a false idol to worship in His place?

What a treachery that must have been in our Gods mind. I cannot fathom what pain He must have experienced in those days seeing these people that He called His own whom He had just delivered from centuries of slavery in Egypt, seeing these turn in such rebellion and not from ignorance...these had SEEN the Red Sea parted..had SEEN Pharaohs army destroyed.....and the plagues sent against Egypt.
No, these were more like Adam..having SEEN with their eyes the proof of Him who sits on the throne....proof of His existence and care for them by mighty, wondrous miracles performed at Moses hand. There was no excuse that could be given to relieve them from their apostasy.

Here is a little passage that shows us quite conclusively but very briefly that Israel did indeed break the conditional covenant He had made with their forefathers when He brought them out of bondage in Egypt.

● Jer 31:32 - not according to the covenant that I cut with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which covenant of Mine they broke, although I was a husband to them, says Jehovah;

Here again it is shown that our Lord issued a bill of divorcement to Israel for this breach of His covenant;

● Jer 3:8 - And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

And in these we see His finally ending that covenant with the peoples He had given it to:

● Zec 11:10-12 - And I took my staff, even Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the people. (11) And it was broken in that day: and so the poor of the flock that waited upon me knew that it was the word of the LORD. (12) And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver.

Oddly enough, knowing the scenario with the 30 pieces of silver, it can be deduced that it was actually our Lord Jesus who was mediator over even this old covenant, since He speaks in the first person as the One who ended that economy.


2.0

We move now to the conditional marriage covenant.
Let me apologize for trying to be so brief in areas that I know need more detail, but please understand that many readers come home after 10 hour days and have 5 children to attend to afterward. There is literally a 100 pages that could easily be added to this matter, but I fear that some of our readers simply will not have the time and/or energy to read that lengthy of a document, so I’m trying to lay out the foundational information and the relevant precepts in the shortest manner possible so that no one has to leave anything unread.

Lets do as Jesus did and go right back to the beginning...the very first couple in the garden. But lets go even further back to before Eve was even created and see what God was thinking when He had in mind to bring Eve into existance.

● Gen 2:18-20 - And Jehovah God said, It is not good that the man should be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him. (19) And out of the ground Jehovah God formed every animal of the field and every fowl of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. (20) And Adam gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field. But there was not found a suitable helper for Adam.

Lets firstly look at that word ‘helper’ there (rendered as ‘help meet’ in the KJV)

H5828
BDB Definition:
1) help, succour
1a) help, succour
1b) one who helps

Seems to mean precisely what it says in the translation. One who ‘helps’ the man.
This is a foundational point in understanding GODS intent for marriage. This theme remains the same throughout creation. At no point did God stop caring about His marriage covenant and His own intent for it.

Here we see the creation of this ‘helper’ for Adam and we see the creation of the very first marriage and what it was always meant to be.

● Gen 2:21-25 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; (22) And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. (23) And Adam 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. (24) Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. (25) And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

This woman Eve is made directly from Adams own rib, his own flesh and being. While no woman after Eve is literally made from her own husbands actual flesh, we see in the sexual relationship shared between a man and his wife (as evidenced in 1 Corinthians 6:16) that this bond of closeness and unity also exists between every couple afterward....or at least it is supposed to exist. Through the consummation of their marriage, a man and woman today allegorically mimic what Eve shared with her husband Adam physically in that she was literally in being made from his own body.

So now we ask ourselves “Is this union between this man and woman conditional or unconditional ?” bearing in mind that we have understood the tone of conditional versus unconditional covenants above. Where no condition is set into place, there is no possible manner of breach.
In the case where conditions are given for that covenant, then a breach is quite possible and even as shown above, the subsequent ending of that covenant may come to pass because of that breach.

We offer these few as evidence to show that there are conditions to this covenant of marriage.

● Lev 20:10 - And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

● Deu 22:22 - If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

● Deu 22:23-24 - If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; (24) Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

● Exo 21:10-11 - If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. (11) And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.

● Mat 5:31-32 - It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: (32) But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

● Mat 19:9 - And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

● 1 Co 7:12-13 - 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.

● 1Co 7:15 - 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.

Oddly enough, when this issue is followed to it logical conclusion we find that a breach of the marriage covenant is also a breach of Gods covenant. Under the law oneof the ways the Isrealites were finding themselves to be breaking His laws was by committing adulteries andfornications expressly against the covenant God had made with them.
In essence, when a man or woman is married and commits adultery/fornication, they are effectively in breach of His covenant itself that states not to commit these sins.
We see these moral laws are still in effect in the case of the corinthian man who had his fathers wife which is forbidden in Gods law.
Thus we conclude that Gods moral law is still effective which would cause us to believe that when a person commits adultery in their marriage, they not only are in breach of the conditions laid out for that marriage covevant by God Himself, but also finding themselves breaking His covenant with His Church.

 

[HuntingMan]

But What If your spouse divorces you?

"Remain Unmarried or reconcile” vs "not in bondage"


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....

 

[HuntingMan]

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.

 

[HuntingMan]

Jesus was asked in Matthew 19:3 (NKJV), “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?” Jesus answered them in verse 4 saying, “Have you not read that He who made them in the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘for this reason shall a man leave his mother and father and be joined to his wife that the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no man separate.”

"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?
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

Jesus' words were rendered as such here in these two passages regarding marriage ...

(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.

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&#8221 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.

 

[HuntingMan]

“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.

 

[HuntingMan]

.
In the modern church today, there is far too much emphasis on getting married. Paul said in 1Corinthinthians 7:28, “But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.” 1Corinthians 7:27: “Are you married? Do not seek a divorce. Are you unmarried? Do not look for a wife.” Paul goes on in verse 29, “What I mean brothers, is that the time is short. From now on, those who have wives should live as though they had none.”

With the state of the world as it is, and with the ever nearing arrival of our Lord and Savior speeding towards us, we should set our minds on what is most important, and what is lasting. Many are dying, even as this is being typed, even as you are reading this, and many are going to hell. Let’s put things in perspective. When you consider an eternal hell against a temporary marriage, the latter seems much less important, and the former gravely serious. I suggest more preaching needs to be taught on 1Cor 7, and to those who need help, to meditate on 1Cor 7:27-29. And may God bless and strengthen those who read it.

Are you bound to a wife, seek not to be loosed.
Are you loosed from a wife, seek not a wife
1 cor 7:27

1.0

Assertions/Conclusions of this Article
To dispel this erroneous teaching that the two words 'loosed' are not presenting the same meaning.

Supporting Evidence
here is the verse in question;

1Co 7:27
Art thou bound1210 unto a wife?1135 seek2212 not3361 to be loosed.3080 Art thou loosed3089 from575 a wife?1135 seek2212 not3361 a wife.1135

loosed/3080 there is derived from the other 'loosed/3089...3089 being a primary verb.

Strongs
G3080
lusis
loo'-sis
From G3089; a loosening, that is, (specifically) divorce: - to be loosed.

Thayer Definition: G3080
1) a loosing, setting free
1a) of a prisoner
1b) of the bond of marriage, divorce
2) release, ransoming, deliverance
2a) of liquidating a debt
3) means or power of releasing or loosing
Part of Speech: noun feminine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G3089

Strongs
G3089
luo
loo'-o
A primary verb; to “loosen” (literally or figuratively): - break (up), destroy, dissolve, (un-) loose, melt, put off. Compare G4486.
Each is in a different tense/form, but the basic meaning of the root is the same.

Thayer Definition:G3089
1) to loose any person (or thing) tied or fastened
1a) bandages of the feet, the shoes
1b) of a husband and wife joined together by the bond of matrimony
1c) of a single man, whether he has already had a wife or has not yet married
2) to loose one bound, i.e. to unbind, release from bonds, set free
2a) of one bound up (swathed in bandages)
2b) bound with chains (a prisoner), discharge from prison, let go
3) to loosen, undo, dissolve, anything bound, tied, or compacted together
3a) an assembly, i.e. to dismiss, break up
3b) laws, as having a binding force, are likened to bonds
3c) to annul, subvert
3d) to do away with, to deprive of authority, whether by precept or act
3e) to declare unlawful
3f) to loose what is compacted or built together, to break up, demolish, destroy
3g) to dissolve something coherent into parts, to destroy
3h) metaphorically, to overthrow, to do away with
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: a root word

(Both of these scholars agree that g3080 is from the root/primary word g3089)
Each is in a different tense/form, but the basic meaning of the root is obviously the same.
According to the Interlinear bible (see the software links above), this is the english renderings of those words;
loosed/3080 in that passage above is "lusin"...... "LOOSing"
loosed/3089 in the passage there is "lelusai" ..... "YOU-HAVE-been-LOOSED

The word is precisely the same in intent, its just that the added characters to the root cause it to state bit more in the latter case and change the tense and form some.
It doesnt alter the intent tho. Both words mean just what they present.

It is no different than me or you saying
‘Divorcing’
“You have been divorced”
The intent of base word ‘divorce’ in both instances is entirely the same.

2.0

Now, there are some who say that this is a general rule that applies blanketly to married persons.

Are you bound to a wife, seek not to be loosed.
Are you loosed from a wife, seek not a wife

Whether I agree or disagree isnt so much a point as this.
*IF* that part does apply to any and all who are married as a precept, then the very next verse, since it is a continuation of that verse, also applies to ALL who are either married or have been loosed from marriage.

(28) But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned;
1 cor 7:28a

*IF* verse 7:27 applies to anyone, then this part of 7:28 absolutely does as it is simply divided by an irrelevant verse break and not so in the greek.
"but if you marry' MUST apply to those to whom Paul is speaking in verse 7:27...that is simply fact.

 

[HuntingMan]

There WERE remarried divorcees in the church who were in fellowship in Pauls lifetime....



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.

 

[HuntingMan]

The Bible says in Matthew 5:32 (KJV), “But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery; and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced commiteth adultery.” The passage “Except for the cause of fornication”, is often misinterpreted that divorce is acceptable if the spouse has had sex with someone other than the one that they are married to after the marriage has taken place. But this passage here is in reference to Deuteronomy 22:13-21, which states what a man may do if he discovers his wife is not a virgin after they are married. Sex before marriage is fornication. One cannot fornicate after marriage, because then it is called adultery. Biblically, one cannot divorce someone because the spouse has cheated on them and committed adultery. The Bible means only if the man was deceived about his wife’s virginity, before entering the marriage. On this ground, and this ground only, can someone get divorced and remarried.

Sorry chap, but Deut 22 called for her DEATH if she cheated...not divorce.
There is permission to divorce for sexual sins of a wife nowhere in the Mosaic law....that punishment is always death.

This page contains a couple articles dealing with the issue that Deut 24 was not given concerning sexual sins of the betrothed wife that were punishable by death under the law, not divorcement. Its connected to the passage referenced above by this poster...

Deuteronomy 24:1-4 cannot be about sexual sin.

1.0
It is not logical that Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is concerning sexual sin
By WmTipton

Assertions/Conclusions of this Article
In this writing we will show a logical argument to prove that Deut 24:1-4 cannot possibly be about the sexual sins of the wife/betrothed wife using the details of the origins of Deuteronomy itself.


Supporting Evidence
What we’re going to try to show is the depth of which this goes and the complete illogic of some views that say that Deut 24:1-4 is about sexual sins by using the details of Deut origin....

Deuteronomy - Introduction to Deuteronomy
The ordinary name of the book is derived, through the Septuagint and Vulgate from that sometimes employed by the Jews, “repetition of the Law,” and indicates correctly enough the character and contents of the book.
The bulk of Deuteronomy consists of addresses spoken within the space of 40 days, and beginning on the first day of the 11th month in the 40th year.
-A Barnes


Deuteronomy - DEUTERONOMY, the second law, a title which plainly shows what is the object of this book, namely, a recapitulation of the law. It was given in the form of public addresses to the people;
-JFB


Deuteronomy -
This book repeats much of the history and of the laws contained in the three foregoing books: Moses delivered it to Israel a little before his death, both by word of mouth, that it might affect, and by writing, that it might abide. The men of that generation to which the law was first given were all dead, and a new generation was sprung up, to whom God would have it repeated by Moses himself, now they were going to possess the land of Canaan.
-M Henry


Deuteronomy - INTRODUCTION TO DEUTERONOMY
This book is sometimes called "Elleh hadebarim", from the words with which it begins; and sometimes by the Jews "Mishneh Torah", the repetition of the law; and so in the Syriac version, with which agrees the Arabic title of it; and when the Greeks, and we after them, call it "Deuteronomy", it is not to be understood of a second, a new, or another law, but of the law formerly delivered, but now repeated, and also more largely explained; to which are likewise added several particular laws, instructions, and directions; all which were necessary, on account of the people of Israel, who were now a new generation, that either were not born, or not at an age to hear and understand the law when given on Mount Sinai;
-J Gill


Preface to the Book of Deuteronomy
We have borrowed the name of this book, as in former cases, from the Vulgate Latin, Deuteronomium, as the Vulgate has done from the Greek version of the Septuagint, Δευτερονομιον, which is a compound term literally signifying the second law, because it seems to contain a repetition of the preceding laws, from which circumstance it has been termed by the rabbins משנה mishneh, the iteration or doubling.
It appears that both these names are borrowed from Deu_17:18, where the king is commanded to write him a copy of this law; the original is משנה התורה mishneh hattorah, a repetition or doubling of the law, which the Septuagint have translated το δευτερονομιον, this second law, which we, properly enough, translate a copy of the law: but in Hebrew, like the preceding books, it takes its name from its commencement, אלה הדברים Elleh Haddebarim, these are the words; and in the best rabbinical Bibles its running title is ספר דברים Sepher Debarim, the book of debarim, or the book of the words. Our Saxon ancestors termed it the after law.
-A Clarke

Now, let us note that it is agreed that Deut is basically a verbal repeating of the law (that apparently was also recorded in written form), and that some new things were added (such as we see with the regulation in Deut 24:1-4).

Let us secondly notice that it was given verbally over about a 40 day span of time by Moses in the desert to this new generation after the last had pretty much died out.

Thinking this thru logically, if Levitical law required the death of a wife, espoused or otherwise, who had committed sexual sin against her husband then a repetition of this fact in Deuteronomy is completely logical.
But we see that Moses added some items when he gave Deut, such as the regulation in Deut 24:1-4.

Now, logically, if the situation had actually changed and it was now DIVORCE that was to be the recourse for a wife being found not a virgin, do not we think it a bit odd to repeat the laws giving the death penalties for this crime (as repeated in spirit in Deut 22) if that penalty had been revoked by God or were to be within mere days of giving Deut 22:13-21 ?
Here is what Deut 22 lays out, its quite detailed compared to any Levitical counterpart.

Deu 22:13-21 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, (14) And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: (15) Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: (16) And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her; (17) And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. (18) And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him; (19) And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days. (20) But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: (21) Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the harlot in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

And this is Deut 24:1-4, the passage a few state is amending/replacing Deut 22:13-21 above;

Deu 24:1-4 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. (2) And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. (3) And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; (4) Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

God is made to look the fool here by believing that Deut 24:1-4 is about sexual sins.
It would mean that He gave Deut 22:13-21 above then suddenly remembered a few days later that He had wanted to change her punishment to divorce instead of death then amended it in Deut 24:1-4....Whoops

Notice the repeating of this precept where a woman not betrothed (aka "bound in marriage") is concerned.
Here we have the levitical law in the matter.

Exo 22:16 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.

And here we have the precept repeated in Deuteronomy

Deu 22:28-29 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; (29) Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

So we see that the concepts are precisely the same.
In Leviticus there is law that a 'wife' (a betrothed woman is her husbands 'wife' merely lacking home-taking/consummation) is to be put to death if she commits adultery with another man. Deut 22 repeats these precepts, and even gives a bit more color in the matter as to how they might be punished where the betrothed wife is concerned (see Deut 22:13-21 above).

*IF* this woman is not betrothed she must be married by this man.
*IF* she is a wife (betrothed or consummated), then death is her penalty under both precepts given.

If these false views were correct and Deut 24:1-4 is about sexual sins of this wife, WHY then would God knowingly have REPEATED Levitical laws in Deut 22, knowing that just a few days later He would be CHANGING the punishments to DIVORCE instead in Deut 24:1-4 ?

Couldn’t an eternal, omnipotent, PERFECT God get it right the first time? Did He 'forget' that He was about to change her punishment for sexual sins against her husband, tell Moses to give the instruction to have her killed then go ' wait, scratch that..." just mere days later?

There is a terrible gaping hole in the logic in thinking that it was necessary to repeat that death was to be her penalty in Deut 22 *IF* it was the intent to change it to divorce....keeping in mind that Deut was given over 40 days to this new generation.. .a 'repeating' of the laws to these children of those who had committed such horrid crimes so that they could carry Gods laws in their hearts into the promise land.

If it were the case that God WERE actually removing the death punishment for the betrothed wife then it makes no sense to even give it to this new generation at all.

And frankly, as far as Ive studied, in Levitical law, it is only really a 'wife' who is mentioned as far as the death penalty and of course that includes the betrothed wife.
But we see that Deut 22 actually breaks it down quite into very clear detail....details NOT given in Levitical law.

Now, why did God waste His time not only repeating these laws from Leviticus IF His intent were to change her punishment from death to divorce, but actually ADD all the details about how she was to be punished in Deut 22:13-23 or so, when He would have KNOWN that in probably less than a week He would be changing those punishments to divorce instead of death ?

It would be illogical by human standards, let alone coming from an eternal, all-knowing God to not only repeat the law, but ADD greatly to its detail, only to REMOVE/CHANGE the law within what was probably no more than a week (between the giving of Deut 22 and Deut 24).
"Illogical" doesnt even remotely describe it...it must be offensive to God to call Him that ignorant.

No, logically Deut 24:1-4 simply cannot be about sexual sins and my guess is that is why, if you study this out, you will find very few, if any, who will try to make the claim that Deut 24:!-4 is about sexual sins already covered in Deut 22.

I wont even go into the fact that Deut 22:23-24 would still have been in effect meaning that while the husband would have been restrained from pushing the death penalty, any other Israelite who found this woman in sexual sin could have had her put to death.

Completely and illogical and utterly incapable of being harmonized with the facts from Gods whole word and the historical details..

 

[HuntingMan]

Deuteronomy 24:1-4 cannot be about sexual sin...cont'd...

2.0
Divorce for ‘every’ cause/some ‘uncleaness’
By WmTipton

Assertions/Conclusions of this article:
There is no clause for divorce in the law for sexual sin. The law prescibed only death for that crime.
This article is to help discern those doctrines based on Deut 24:1-4 supposedly being about putting away a wife for sexual sin. These doctrines use this as their foundation to say that the rules were changed and that divorce, not death, was prescribed in the law for harlotry of a wife.

Some believe that the pharisees misinterpreted 'some uncleaness' in Deut 24:1 and that Moses really only meant it for sexual sins. Some also believe that Jesus is supposedly doing away with this mythical "allowance" for divorce for sexual sin in Matthew 19:9 by correcting their "interpretation' of Deut 24:1.

We show in this writing that ;

1) "some uncleaness" (ervah dabar) isnt refering to sexual sin or bodily nakedness (as ervah alone means) but is refering to a much broader range of 'uncleaness' instead.

Supporting evidence:

The Hebrew word 'ervah' is often used to convey the idea of "nakedness"...also inferring the idea of harlotry in many cases. This is the foundation for many doctrinal views out there that rely on Deut 24:1-4 being about sexual sin of a betrothed wife.

But the text of Deut 24 doesnt seem to imply a sexual sin at all, and the Israelites in general did not believe that it was meant to be limited to sexual sins but instead meant any 'uncleaness' about the wife that the husband had assigned to her. Take a quick look at Matthew 19:1-9 and you will see the phrase 'for every cause' there. This is in reference to Deut 24:1-4 and this term 'some uncleaness' used there.

What we are asserting in this article is that, while "ervah" alone does imply human nakedness and sexual sin, the phrase 'ervah dabar' isn't limited to those definitions but implies a broader range of 'uncleaness' instead.

Here is "ervah dabar" in Deut 24:1 :

Deu 24:1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some1697 uncleanness6172 in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.

This is the word 'some' just before 'uncleaness'

H1697
da?ba?r
BDB Definition:
1) speech, word, speaking, thing
1a) speech
1b) saying, utterance
1c) word, words
1d) business, occupation, acts, matter, case, something, manner

Hebrew and Greek are just alike in the aspect that a word can have a meaning that is modified by the wording and context around it. So if we wanted to get technical, it says "he has found unclean speech" in her. If we want to say it has to be sexually oriented, then what is actually said is "he has found sexual speech in her".
If we take the wording literally and precisely it shows that he has found some indecent (sexual?) speech in her or "has found her speaking indecently" as the case might be.

Now, we're not able to say that this IS actually refering to her saying anything because when we look at 'ervah dabar' in Deut 23, it hasnt the first thing to do with speech at all. Since the phrase is only used twice in the OT, we have to use the context in which it is used in Deut 23:14 to determine its use in Deut 24:1.
Looking at the use of the word "dabar" (H1697) we see that it is used just as often where it doesnt have anything to do with actual speech or a word, but in many other ways, including being once used as 'disease'. So its definition or intent is not limited to the spoken word by any means, which is made very apparent with its use in Deut 23:13-14.

An easy example of how words in ANY language can be modified by the surrounding text might be something like this in our own;

"I'm going fishing at the lake"
vs
"I'm going fishing for men"

Same word 'fishing' in both statements, but in our minds the 'fishing' takes on two entirely different meanings just because of the way it is used.
One is LITERAL fishing, the other is far less literal and isnt about actual 'fishing' at all but is about going out and trying to lead men to Christ.
SAME word, FAR different intent.
So when folks push this idea that 'ervah' AWAYS means sexual sin, they simply are refusing to accept the fact that context and usage of a word MUST be taken into account.

The phrases "some uncleaness" (Deut 24:1) and "unclean thing" are "ervah debar" in Hebrew.

We see this very same use of "ervah debar" used just one chapter before in Deut:23 in the phrase "unclean thing" (ervah debar). From our studies, the phrase 'ervah dabar only occurs twice in the Old testament. Once in Deut 24:1 above and once here in verse 23:14. When trying to understand the meaning of the phrase in Deut 24:1, we look to see how it is used elsewhere, Deut 23:14 being the only other occurance we have to determine its exact use.

Thou shalt have a place also without the camp, whither thou shalt go forth abroad: And thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon; and it shall be, when thou wilt ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from thee: For the LORD thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp, to deliver thee, and to give up thine enemies before thee; therefore shall thy camp be holy: that he see no unclean6172 thing1697 in thee, and turn away from thee.
(Deu 23:12-14)

(in laymans terms, take a shovel with you, dig a hole and when you have relieved yourself, bury it)

In that passage the phrase "ervah dabar" isn't restricted to the fornications as some assert that ervah always means, but is clearly being used blanketly against all uncleanness in the camp (the example given being human excrement).

In fact, it isn't until verse 23:17 that the harlots/harlots and sexual sin are brought into the conversation. This is probably why the scholars don't believe that "ervah debar" is about sexual sins of the wife in Deut 24:1-4.

Seeing that those sins are covered already just two chapters previously and that there are terrible contractions caused by trying to assert that Deut 24:1-4 is about sexual sins, including Deut 22:23-24 that presents that the woman might still be put to death by anyone else other than the husband if caught sinning against her husband in this manner.

Given that the phrase is exactly the same, in Deut 24:1 as it is in 23:14, we can conclude, just as the translators did, that it isnt necessarily in reference to fornication but of a more broader understanding of 'uncleaness'...just as the Jews divorced for and just what they were asking Jesus about in Matthew 19.

If we were to use the meaning of the phrase "ervah dabar" in Deut 24:1 as it appears in Deut 23:12-14 then what this "uncleaness" he has found in her is.....well, Im sure you readers can connect the dots.
The main thing is that the phrase used in Deut 24:1 has nothing to do with her sexual sin but just a general uncleaness that has caused her to find no favor in his eyes...

"some uncleaness" in Deut 24:1 cannot be refering to sexual sins of the wife, betrothed or consummated for the following reasons.

1) These sins were covered just two chapters prior in Deut 22. It makes no sense that there would be a change in part of the law so quickly in Deut 24 without also changing the other laws that would still affect this situation (see #3 below).

2) If Deut 24:1-4 were actually an amendment to Deut 22:13-21, then this means that God put a law into place, then amended part of it within weeks. God and Moses both would have to be very absent minded for this to work.

3) Deut 22:23-24 would still be in effect. This means that while Deut 24:1-4 would be saying that the husband would put her away for sexual sins now instead of having her stoned at her fathers door, that ANY other Israelite could levy charges against her and have her put to death anyway. A terrible hole in this idea that Deut 24 is about sexual sins.

The fact is that all of the evidence is against "some uncleaness" being about sexual sin. The only thing that is any sort of 'evidence' for the view that it does mean sexual sins is that it 'sounds similar' to Deut 22:13-21....but in looking at the actual wording we see that its not that similar at all.

 

[Spiritsong]

Shinbits,

May God richly bless your stand for the truth... your faithfulness will be rewarded. There ARE those who, like you, have determined to follow Christ in 'deed and action', and have not perverted His truth to suit their ends.

I've been fortunate to hear from people as I've posted various places, and I pray the same for you. One wrote and told me his pastor is divorced and remarried, and he and his wife were faithfully praying he would open his heart to the truth on MDR. I pray God allows you to see some of the fruit of your labor.

 

[HuntingMan]

Shinbits,

May God richly bless your stand for the truth... your faithfulness will be rewarded. There ARE those who, like you, have determined to follow Christ in 'deed and action', and have not perverted His truth to suit their ends.

And there are those who have studied Gods WHOLE word on the matter and dont do as folks such as yourself and shinbits who present one side of the evidence while not offering the rest of the facts concerning MDR.

Patting each other on the back is hardly going to change FACTS in this matter, poster...even if you think it might.

I've been fortunate to hear from people as I've posted various places, and I pray the same for you.

I just wonder how much you and shinbits actaully DISAGREE on concerning points of MDR that isnt known to our readers.

Of all the doctrines Ive ever studied, your version of MDR (anti-remarriage) has been the most diverse Ive ever seen.
Some of your views are so completely incompatible, Its hard for me to believe you folks even pretend to agree....the meaning of 'inappropriate contenteia' being one drastic issue.

One wrote and told me his pastor is divorced and remarried, and he and his wife were faithfully praying he would open his heart to the truth on MDR.

yes, lets have this lie from the pits of hell destroy yet another marriage...

I pray God allows you to see some of the fruit of your labor.

And I pray our Lord silences the mouths of ALL who teach falsehoods in these last days...

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
For the truth about remarriage...
Evidences of divorce and remarriage in the Church
The conditional marriage covenant
Unmarried” - 1 Corinthians 7
"Let not man put asunder/separate" / "Let the unbeliever depart"
Does the bible permit putting away a spouse for abuse?
Are vows always ''unbreakable
The wife is bound by law until the husband is dead
Deuteronomy 24:1-4 cannot be about sexual sin
Moses...the biggest sinner and lawbreaker of all time
"inappropriate contenteia...aka "fornication"
The shock value/distraction of divorce statistics
Gay ‘unions’ are incomparable to remarriages
1 Corinthians 7 Study

 

[Spiritsong]

And I pray our Lord silences the mouths of ALL who teach falsehoods in these last days...

What is going to continue to happen, according to Romans, is that those who pervert the Word
in disobedience, God will allow to be BLINDED to the truth. OBEDIENCE opens ones eyes! People of your persuasion put faith in human reasoning while holding the truth in disobedience!

Continue your false mantra of 'presenting the whole word'... it's simply not true. Disobedience will continue to blind those who walk in it... and God holds them accountable, who teach others to do the same.

 

[JimfromOhio]

There are mis-interpretations regarding this issue. God hates divorce however at the same time, divorce is allowable in certain situations. In the concept of God's forgiveness, this also contradicts. God loves us very much and has forgiven our sin (i.e. adultery & divorce) when we confessed it from our heart. He not only forgives our sins but rebuilds our lives from where we are. Love hopes all things (1 Corinth 13). Love refuses to take human failure as final. With Christ in me, my human failures are never final. Love never keeps a record of wrongs. Love forgives and love is unable to think about them anymore. Forget the past and move on. Focus on the future as I focus on Christ at the same time. Romans 4:8 (also Psalms 32:2) "Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him". That if a local church forgive those who sinned (divorce), our heavenly Father will forgive us. But if we refuse to forgive others, our Father will not forgive our sins.

When I remarried, God acknowledges our new marriage as valid before Him and now holds me and my second wife accountable to be faithful to each other. The marriage covenant is very sacred that my wife and I understand this much more now because of the past. But as Paul says, we need to put the past behind us, accept the forgiveness of Christ and serve and praise Him in the days remaining on this earth.

 

[Spiritsong]

Quote:Spiritsong
One wrote and told me his pastor is divorced and remarried, and he and his wife were faithfully praying he would open his heart to the truth on MDR.

HM: ... yes, lets have this lie from the pits of hell destroy yet another marriage...

Hardly! Hopefully that pastor will repent of his adultery! (You really spoke without any knowledge of the situation!) Scripture teaches those who marry the divorced commit adultery... THAT is God's word!

 

[Spiritsong]

When I remarried, God acknowledges our new marriage as valid before Him and now holds me and my second wife accountable to be faithful to each other.

Could you show me from scripture Jim, that God acknowledges a 'new marriage' when the former spouse is still living? Paul taught only death separates that bond in God's eyes. Men on the other hand, make a law 'to themselves', so to speak.... and break what cannot be broken in God's eyes.

 

[JimfromOhio]

Could you show me from scripture Jim, that God acknowledges a 'new marriage' when the former spouse is still living? Paul taught only death separates that bond in God's eyes. Men on the other hand, make a law 'to themselves', so to speak.... and break what cannot be broken in God's eyes.

God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16). Divorce in the Scripture is permitted as an accommodation to man's sin for the protection of the innocent party. in Matthew 19:5-9, Christ teaches that divorce is an accommodation to man's sin and is in violation of God's purpose for the intimate unity of the marriage bond ( Gen. 2:24). It was a concession for the "innocent party" due to the insensitivity of the other partner to God. This is defined biblically as the "hardness of heart" (Matt. 19:8). Dissolution meant that the innocent party no longer had to remain in a hopeless and intolerable situation (Matt. 5:32, 19:9; I Cor. 7:12-15). It is to be expected that a believer will have the same attitude toward divorce as does God and will see it as a violation of God's expressed purpose for marriage.

You have read the whole Bible to understand the context of marriage and divorce. There are only two grounds for divorce in the Scripture. Adultery and unbelieving spouse. Adultery which is fornication (any sinful sexual activity--unfaithfulness of a marriage partner). A non-believing partner who initiates the divorce due to incompatibility with a Christian.

Adultery: In Matthew 5:31: “It has been said , ‘Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement,’ but I say to you”—and here Jesus really supersedes the Old Testament—“anybody that puts away his wife except for the cause of fornication,” that is, sexual involvement, “causes her to commit adultery; and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced commits adultery.”

Unbelieving spouse: One example is a Christian is free to divorce a non-Christian if they no longer desire to live with their Christian spouse. The term "bound" is the same word used in 2 Cor 7:39 concerning the death of a spouse, which means that the spouse is free from the marriage. Thus, if your unbelieving spouse leaves, because this spouse no longer wants to live with you, then you are free to divorce and to remarry.

In terms of being a deacon or even an elder of a local church. In 1 Timothy 3:1-3: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task. Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.

In terms of eldership and deaconship, there is nothing in that scriptures that says "divorce" but rather "husband of one wife." What is the basic meaning of "husband of one wife." ? Can a man who lost a wife through death be qualified as an elder as "husband of one wife"?

Literally the Greek words are simply "one woman man" or "one wife man". One commentator translates as "one wife's husband." Whether this means one at a time or one during a lifetime depends completely on other considerations. Even the question on the meaning of "one at a time" depends on one's view of divorce as to whether a divorced man who has remarried is considered to be "one wife's husband."

When studying the Word of God, we must understand the whole context by not selecting one verse. The heretic simply selects the parts of the Scripture he or she wants to emphasize and ignore the rest. Almost every movements which we are seeing around us practices this art of selecting and ignoring. Proneness to heresy is not confined to the movements. By nature, we are all heretics. People often unconsciously select for special attention certain Scriptures that they are familiar with that they forget to check to see the Scriptures for deeper study. Lack of balance scripturally is often the direct consequence of overemphasis on certain favorite passages while ignoring others that are related.

 

[Spiritsong]

Jim,

I'm in a position to have to know what God's truth is on this issue. In short, I've taken the completed picture scripture presents on MDR, and cannot see that any loophole whatsoever exists for remarriage while the spouse is still living.

A very thorough site you might want to look at that teaches the truth of MDR is found here:

www.marriagedivorce.com

I was seeking God about a relationship with a divorced man (whose wife was unfaithful). As fond as I was growing of him, I had no peace. Believe me, I didn't want what I knew scripture taught to be the case. Grieving the Holy Spirit was much more painful. I submitted my human reasoning (based on a few favorite 'loopholes') and broke the relationship. My peace returned, with understanding I can never alter. It takes OBEDIENCE to understand the Word... and I pray those of the 'adulterous' persuasion (called so by Jesus) find peace in obedient submission.