“And the good thing to get out of it over all, is I don’t ever EVER believe in divorce just like Christ did.”
Anonymous reader
The Cure 4 Divorce
In the Kingdom of God
An article by: The Psychology Wiki
Divorce
Religious/cultural attitudes to divorce
“Within Christianity, divorce has become almost commonplace, and the interpretation of the Holy Scripture on divorce widely varies among Christian denominations. However, the first 400 years of the Early Church, the church maintained a rather unanimous voice on divorce.” Retrieved September 1, 2010 Footnote (1)
Table of Contents:
Chapter 1 Covenant Marriage
- “She is your wife by Covenant” Mal. 2:14-16
Chapter 2 “In the Beginning”
- God’s design for Marriage
Chapter 3 Old Testament Divorce
- Moses allowed man to put away his wife
Chapter 4 The Gospel Accounts
- Jesus tells Moses true intent of divorce
Chapter 5 Romans 7:1-4
- A woman cannot be married to two husbands at the same time
Chapter 6 (Commentary) 1 Corinthians 7:1-40
- Paul speaks on all questions concerning divorce, marriage, and remarriage in the Church for today
Chapter 7 The Cure
- God’s true intent of marriage and divorce
- To fear God!
Chapter 1 Covenant Marriage
Living as One Flesh
In the beginning, man and woman became one flesh entering a covenant by oath, cleaving both in body, and sharing a vestige of the spirit (Mal. 2:14-16).
A covenant usually has a sign or symbol to associate the covenant having witnesses present.
The word for covenant basically means… “a solemn covenant guaranteeing promises or obligations undertaken by one or both parties, sealed with an oath.”
Paul R. Williamson, sealed with an oath; Covenant in God’s unfolding Purpose, New Studies in Biblical Theology C. Downers Grove, IL; IVP Academic, 2007), 45.
The marriage covenant is said to bring God as a witness between the two. The wayward wife, “forgets the ‘covenant of her God’” Proverbs 2:17. And, “because the Lord has been a witness between you and the wife of your youth…your wife by covenant” Mal. 2:14.
A covenant is different then; ‘striking of hands’ (shaking hands), giving of something (like your cloak) in a pledge (Proverbs), or even handing over your sandal as an attestation of confirmation (Ruth 4:7).
Becoming one flesh was meant only for marriage (sexual immorality also becoming “one flesh” 1 Cor. 6:15-19). But it will take a commitment, by covenant, to establish the marriage (“your wife by Covenant” Mal. 2:14-16). The marriage covenant was designed to go under the general rule that the two being one flesh will be sexually faithful to the other (Hos. 3:3).
Two becoming one
Two people make a covenant in marriage to the other ‘for life.’ As we say in our marriage ceremony “till death do us part!” For, “God joined them together…” Matt. 19:6 (Heb. 13:4).
The book “Marriage and Family Counseling” says when you have a covenant marriage you are saying, “I give myself to you unconditionally” (Footnote 3).
From the book “Christ of the Covenants” Robertson said a covenant is a “life-and-death bond.”
See O. Palmer Robertson, Christ of the Covenants (Phillipstorg, NJ: P&R, 1980), 4.
Gen. 15:10a God made a covenant with Abraham as he had the animals “cut them in two.”
From the Book “Reversing the Marriage Implosion” by Bob Reccord, under the subtitle “It’s a Covenant, not a Contract!”
“Having had the joy of speaking in marriage conferences, I often start with the differences between a “contract” and a covenant. Tying it back into the covenant dealings of God with His people, I remind them that the Hebrew word so often used for covenant is “beriyth” meaning “a solemn agreement cut between parties with binding force.”
She walks down an aisle (and they will exit by it) representing the “walk of death”, when those entering Biblical covenants walked between the halves of a slain animal, as if to say, “may what happened to this animal happen to me if I break this covenant.”” September 1, 2010. “Reversing the Marriage Implosion” by Bob Reccord, under the subtitle “It’s a Covenant, not a Contract!”
http://www.sermoncentral.com/articleb.asp?article=Bob-Reccord-Reversing-Marriage-Implosion&ac=true Retrieved September 1, 2010.
Braking of the covenant
A Covenant can take many different forms and types yet some are unconditional; “covenant of salt,” or an “everlasting covenant.”
Conditional Covenant:
God gave the Covenant to Abraham saying “the uncircumcised male child…that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant” Gen. 17:14 (Gen. 18:19).
Example of the Marriage Covenant between God and Israel:
It says God was “betrothed” to Israel in the ‘wilderness’ Jer. 2:2 then entered into the covenant of Moses in the giving of the Law (covenant of blood Ex. 24:7) God becoming their “Husband” (Ezek. 16:1-8). (As also, the Church is “betrothed” to Christ as our Husband 2 Cor. 11:3 waiting to enter into the marriage supper of the Lamb in the Last Day).
We have God’s example of divorcing His wife Israel in the Old Testament which became “obsolete” and was eventually “vanishing away,” (Heb. 8:11-13) in order to establish His second covenant. Jesus, “takes away the first that He may establish the second” Heb. 10:9.
Israel played a “harlot:”
Isaiah illustrated the great sin of unfaithful Israel (Isaiah 50:1) saying Israel, “made a covenant with them (the other Nations), you have loved their bed” Isaiah 57:8b. It was also told to the Priests “has married the daughter of a foreign god” Mal. 2:11b. Israel was loved by “many lovers” Jer. 3:1.
“31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD…” Jer. 31:31-32.
“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” Jer. 3:8.
But God will call her back:
“13 For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself… 16 For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife. 17 Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: 18 That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation…” Heb 6:13-18.
God will fulfill His covenant to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob Palms 105:8-10, 106:45 and “remember His covenant.” He has not forgotten and says “for I am married to you” Jer. 3:14. God is crying out for her to return, “Return to Me’, says the Lord, ‘And I will return to you” Zech. 1:3.
The intent of the Certificate of Divorce was to put the woman away, “for she is not My wife, nor am I her Husband” Hos. 2:2.
Paul indicates the spouses are “bound” in marriage (1 Cor. 7:27 man “bound” to his wife and verse 39 woman “bound” of law to her husband). Jesus said if the man is not properly “loosed” from the first marriage covenant, he commits adultery “against” his wife if he marries another (Mark 10:11). As well as the man who marries an improperly (context) divorced woman Matt. 5:32b, 19:9b. The woman must “remain unmarried or reconcile” if she initiated the divorce (1 Cor. 7:11a) but becomes free when he sleeps/dies (1 Cor. 7:39).
Chapter 2 “In the Beginning”
“In the beginning…” Matt. 19:6
Jesus started off by speaking about divorce saying, “He who made them at the beginning made them male and female” Matt. 19:4. Jesus focus in speaking about divorce, was the intent of marriage “in the beginning” Gen. 1:1-26 (seen in Adam and Eve).
Typically in a covenant between man, if one party “breaks” a covenant vow the other was not ‘morally obligated’ to fulfill their vow. But this was not so in the original marriage covenant, “in the beginning divorce was not so” Matt. 19:8. He was not saying that Adam and Eve were not divorced, but that there were no permitted divorces from God.
Jay Adams said in his book “Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the Bible” said about Matt. 19:8 in the beginning, “divorce was not provided for as an option” Footnote (4).
We can see in Jesus statement “So, they are no longer two, but one” Matt 19:6 to the Pharisees was, how should what is made one by God be separated into two again? But Moses allowed contrary to design.
Moses only “permitted” the man the ability to divorce his wife. Paul gives a few reason for the authority of man, “Adam was formed first, then Eve” 1 Tim. 2:13. The order of creation gave man authority. Paul also said man was not made for the woman but woman for man. Paul stressing the point that she was made “from” man 1 Cor. 11:8-9. Therefore; she was called “woman” Gen 2.
The woman, by design, was created as a “help-meet” Gen. 2:18. This caused man to pay the “bridal price” Ex. 22:16-17. The father transferred the authority Deut. 22:21, Num. 30:5-6, 16. While she was in her youth under her father’s roof (Deut. 22:21b). The woman was designed to stay at home, under her father, until married, “a man shall leave his father and mother (not the woman) and cleave to his wife.”
Bridal Price
“Marriage is a unilateral contract in that it involves three things: Payment, Acceptance, and Possession:
Payment: Bride’s Price…
Acceptance: Father Gives the Bride Away…
Possession: Sexual Union…
Marriage is a Unilateral Contract
As in all unilateral contracts, only the one who has made payment can release what he has made payment for, in this case, a wife”. Retrieved Nov. 15, 2010 Footnote (50)
The punishment that fell that her desire shall for a husband but he should have “rule over her” Gen. 3:16.
God’s punishment for original sin was for his creations, Adam and Eve, to experience pain. Today, a woman still experiences pain during childbirth—and a man still works in the heat of the day by the sweat of his brow. Even in the 21st Century, the woman, through the guidance of the bible, should remain under the rule of her husband; where the man has authority over his wife and allowed to over-rule her. This may sound very anti-feminist or worse (gasp!) not politically correct. (By silent editor)
Chapter 3 Divorce
Moses gave man permission to divorce his wife
“When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, when she has departed from his house, and goes and becomes another man’s wife, if the latter husband detests her and writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her to be his wife, then her former husband who divorced her must not take her back to be his wife after she has been “defiled;” for that is an abomination before the Lord, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.” Deut. 24:1-4 NKJ version
“The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible”, Commentaries subtitle under “Deuteronomy 24:1.”
“When a man hath taken a wife and married her…
That is, when a man has made choice of a woman for his wife, and has obtained her consent, and the consent of her parents; and has not only betrothed her, but taken her home, and consummated the marriage: “ Studylight.org
http://studylight.org/com/geb/view.cgi?book=de&chapter=24&verse=1 Retrieved September 1, 2010.
When the “Law” came, sin abounded, and man became hard due to the rebellion of sin in his heart (hardheartedness) Romans 7:7-13.
The Jews currently teach only the man is to initiate the divorce according to Deut 24:1. The “writ” of divorce is referred to by the Jewish law as the “git” …
Wikipedia Encyclopedia;
“The laws of gittin only provide for a divorce initiated by the husband…”
“Get (divorce document)” subtitle under “Refusal to provide a get”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Get_%28divorce_document%29
Retrieved September 1, 2010.
“A woman,” said the Rabbinic law, “may be divorced with or without her will: but a man only with his will…” Footnote (41)
“Under Old Testament law (Deut 24:1), the man was required to initiate any divorce proceeding. This practice continued into the New Testament and is still common among Orthodox Jewish groups today”. Footnote (42)
The woman was not allowed to divorce her husband in the Old Testament. The woman could only leave her husband in rebellion to him Jer. 3:9 (the woman in Judges 19:2).
If the woman had the right to divorce her husband, it would have hinted so: Judges 19:2, Hosea 2:7, Ex. 21:11 (allowed to set her free), Duet. 21:14 (man given the choice to set her free), and like Duet. 22:19, 29 (only the man is ever told by punishments he cannot divorce “all the days of his life”). The woman is presumed to know, by Scripture, not to refuse the marriage set by her father (while still in her youth living under his roof Ex. 22:16-17 and Duet 22:29); or to be allowed to divorce her husband because of the authority given to him by her father Num. 30:16 (bridal price was paid).
Robertson’s NT Word Studies
“Now most of the divorces are obtained by women.” Footnote 70
Divorce Statistics – Divorce Rates
“65% of divorces are initiated by women.” Footnote 71
The Jews clearly understood, according to the Law, if a person were to commit adultery they were to be stoned to death (John 8:1-16) Lev. 20:10.
Jesus speaking to the multitude of believers, in Matt. 5:31-32, explains the word “uncleanness” of Deut. 24:1 to be “sexual immorality.” “Sexual immorality” could be any sexual indecent act that would “defile” the individual’s body. Divorce is not allowed for the sin of the eyes only (as Matt. 5:28-30).
Moses then used a story to explain that even if she was released (either by divorce or death of the second husband) it would be an abomination for him to take her back.
Deut. 24:3 says that the second husband divorced the woman because he “hated” her. Moses is not giving instructions about divorce to the second husband; he was just simply stating she married another man to illustrate a further command.
“After that…”
“That” Deut. 24:4 could also be translated “who” or “which” (she has been) “defiled.” By this we can see that the phrase “after she was defiled” to be a thing of ‘sexual immorality’ of the woman’s body in order for her prior husband to take her back. Anytime a woman had been sexually known by ‘another,’ she was considered defiled. But only when the woman was defiled by another marriage is he commanded not to return to her. That is why it says the land would have been greatly polluted in Jer. 3:1c.
Defiled/uncleanness
A woman becomes “defiled” (inside or outside marriage) by polluting her body by another man’s seed as said, “Then the Babylonians came to her, into the bed of love, and they ‘defiled’ her with their fornications” (Eze. 23:17). Also, a woman who was not a “virgin” before getting married was also defined as “defiled” (Gen. 34 rape of Jacob’s daughter).
God used Deut. 24:1-4 Law to show Israel’s great defilement…though He will take her back.
When relating about the story of Deut. 24:1-4, Jer. 3:1 “Saying,” “If a man divorces his wife, and she goes from him and becomes another man’s may he return to her again? Would not that land be greatly polluted?” This is true; it would defile this Land of Israel (abomination-gross sexual sin). So, this illustration was used to revel great was the sin of Israel in playing a harlot after “many lovers.” But, even though, the Lord will take her back Jer. 3:1 though she was had by ‘another’ (in harlotry).
As written about in the Old Testament Law
The Nations before them that occupied the Land known as Israel, was filled with “abominations” that caused them to be judged Deut. 7:1-2. Like abominable marriages Lev. 18:1-24, and gross sexual sins in marriage Lev. 20:23, which the Lord God “cast out” of the Land.
But God still remained married to treacherous Judah.
But this was not the only Law where God allowed or commanded man to “put away” his wife. Israel started to transgress Moses Law, and mingled their ‘holy’ seed with the seven abominable Nations (Footnote 34) they were commanded not to in Moses Law. Ezra commanded them to both “put away” the wife and their “children” born to them Ezra 10:3 and “separate” verse 11. Which even King Solomon was lead astray by these women who caused his heart to turn away from the one and true living God to idols Neh. 13:26.
Ezra says the marriage was unlawful and needed an immediate divorce.
The Law said nothing about marring a divorced woman other then the high Priestly commands in keeping completely pure…
Priest was not allowed to marry a “divorced” woman
A priest was told in Lev. 21:7 not to marry a “harlot, polluted, divorced, or widow” but only a virgin. Ezek. 44:22 the priest was allowed to marry either a virgin “or a widow of a Priest.” It was improper to marry a divorced woman (under the purity or morality guidelines given to the Priests). But it was allowed for a Priest to marry a widow, though she was previously “one flesh” with another man. So a Priest was not to marry a divorced, unclean, or defiled woman.
“What does the bible say about our Church leaders?”
Since the Priestly Law had restrictions against marrying a divorce woman and the Kings were told not to “multiply wives.” I presume the “husband of one wife” 1 Tim. 3:2 may be a higher expectation that is required solely for Church leaders (although it is a good thing from everyone to practice these).
The overseer/elder was not only required to the highest moral guidelines but also to live in such a way that the outside world will not have an accusation against them.
1 Tim. 3:2 “husband of one wife”
The qualifications for Overseer a “husband of one wife” is spoken in the Greek present tense… A man is only to have one wife at this time of office (polygamy).
In John 4:18 Jesus rebukes the actions of the woman at the well for having “had” 5 husbands. I would presume that since a qualifying Greek word (like “had”) in not included in 1 Tim. 3:2, 12 it may not carry the same type of meaning ( Titus 1:6 “to be” is not stated directly before or after the phrase).
The Law of Moses did not prevent the man more than one wife at the same time. But, at the time of this letter to Timothy, the Roman cultural laws may have spoken against polygamy.
In the New Testament times “polygamy was generally outlawed in the empire…” Footnote (51)
Clearly in 1 Tim. 5:9 for the widow’s fund, the woman was only to be married once ‘in her life time’ by requiring she “has ever been wife of one husband”. For a divorced woman had either committed “sexual immorality” to be put away in the first place (Deut. 24:1). Or, she “committed adultery” if she was put away improperly but still married another (Matt. 5:32).
The orphan, widow and fatherless
The Law gave aid to the widow, orphan, or fatherless and received protection Ps. 94:6, 146:9, to glean in the fields, or to share in the first fruits of the Levite Priests Deut. 14:28-29, 24:19, 26:12. It said nothing concerning a divorced woman. It did say the divorced woman, could returned to her father’s house as in her youth and she was given provisions by her Parents (if a priest daughter and as long as she did not have any children born to her by her husband Lev. 21:13).
God only made the widow (not a divorced woman) to have a “redeemer” seen in the Book of Ruth.
Man refused to divorce his wife
A man was allowed to divorce his wife for ‘sexual immorality’ according to the Law of Moses. But if a man brought a bad name on a young “virgin” saying she was defiled when he married her, or humbling a woman by seizing her, then married her, they were not allowed to “divorce her all his days” Deut. 22:19, 29. He had to wait till she died to marry another (though never considered under the “law of his wife”). The former written prerequisites of Moses permission simply did not apply in his situation since the man is now under a restriction for his shameful actions towards his wife, her parents, and all of Israel.
Mal. 2:14-16
By now, divorce was starting to become common place and abused by the Priests Mal. 2:1. God said He no longer will “regard the offering anymore nor receive it with good will from your hands” Mal. 2:13 because they have dealt treacherously with their “companion” the “wife by covenant” verse 14 and taught other to do likewise. For which God answered “He hates divorce for it covers one’s garment with violence” Mal. 2:16.
Chapter 4 The Gospel Accounts
The Gospel accounts of Deut. 24:1 by Jesus
We can see with divorce that the Pharisees had the same heart and mind of the priests in Mal. 2:14-16. Asking Jesus, if it was ‘lawful’ for a man to divorce his wife for “any reason” Matt. 19:3.
Matt. 5:31, “Furthermore it has been said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32a But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; 32b and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.”
Matt. 19:9a, “But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another commits adultery: 19b And whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”
Mark 10:10, “And in the house His disciples asked Him again about the same matter. 11 So He said to them, ‘Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. 12 And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”
Luke 16:18a “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; 18b and whoever marries her who is divorced from a husband, commits adultery.”
The Jews asked if a “man” could put away his wife for “any reason.” Jesus is going to give a detailed explanation to the men who wished to put away their wives. The Disciples end up asking, “If such is the case (Greek root word of ‘reason’ Matt. 19:3) of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry?”
Matt. chapter 5 and all the Gospel accounts start off saying “whosoever” or “everyone.” But we can see in all the Matt. Chapter 5 the “whosoever” was claiming general principles of truth that may or may not apply in every situation. For we know that “everyone” in Luke 16:18 and Mark 10:11-12 does not really include everyone, for it excludes the exception clause of Matt. 19:9. We also see general principles of truth used throughout the Book of Proverbs. Sometimes the “whosoever” also does not explain the situations surrounding the circumstances. Matt. 5:32a now explains how adultery would be considered adultery to the Law. Jesus seen many who were breaking the spirit of the Law though they were claiming they were guiltless concerning the Law. Jesus showed how they will be judged in accordance to the Law.
The Gospel accounts “harmonize” with one another and further information can be attained in all three Gospels.
This was to show the sin from improperly divorcing another and the adultery it would cause in remarriage. The focus of this story is on the man “causing” his wife to sin in Matt. 5:31-32. Jesus formerly pointed out that if you hand “causes” (verse 29-30) you to sin, cut if off!
When Jesus said, “But I say to you…” it was to be in direct opposition of what was previous taught by their religious leaders, “You have heard…” So when Jesus says “but I say to you…” in Matt. 5:32 it was to apply to both of his “whoever” sayings (verse 32a and 32b). This was to oppose the initial teachings of, “It has been said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.” So, in conclusion, Matt. 5:32b could have also been said, “and but I say to you whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.”
By indicating that the man (Matt. 5:32b, 19:9b) who marries the put away woman “commits adultery” they were able to deduct that this woman was not “loosed” by proper Scripture Deut. 24:1. The context now defines the meaning. The hearers understood to “commit adultery” Jesus was saying the marriage covenant was still intact because of an unlawful departure. The Jews present, even those knowledgeable with the Law, did not question if a man was able to marry a divorced woman.
Jesus said you commit adultery “against” Mark 10:11 your former spouse (improper divorce) by marrying another (continued adultery).
This was the meaning of this Law spoken by Jesus. It was to give conviction to others. Jesus said if you sin “against” your brother, reconcile quickly least he has an accusation against you and brings you before the Judge to pay the ‘last penny.’ The husband “causes” his wife to commit adultery and sins “against” her if he marries another. Jesus spoke of the Laws that He knew they would be, more than likely, to have broken already. For anyone who breaks any of these “commandments” (“do not commit adultery” vs. 27) will be called “least” in the Kingdom of Heaven. Both Matt. 5:28 “already committed adultery” and verse 32a adultery is in the Aorist (considered to be a completed act already).
Remember Jesus was answering specific questions concerning the Jews who asked if a man can give his wife a Writ of Divorce and put his wife away and not about marrying a divorced woman. Jesus did not need to give specific instructions in Matt. 5:32b, 19:9b for most of his recorded accounts were generalized teaching and specific traits learned in each account. The put away woman would be committing sexual immorality in any situation if she remarried. Either 1, she was found to be sexually immoral, so she was put away, or 2 she was put away innocently but commits adultery by marrying another.
Concerning those who would marry a divorced woman
Even though the definite article is not present in Matt. 5:32b and Matt. 19:9b. Some scholars argue who was this “put away woman” was?
On the Position of Words in the Sentence, see A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, A. T. Robertson, MA., D.D., LL.D., Litt.D., p. 417.
“…Robertson notes that
The word may be either definite or indefinite when the article is absent. The context and history of the phrase in question must decide. The translation of the expression into English or German is not determined by mere absence of the Greek article. If the word is indefinite, as in Jo. 4:27, 6:68, no article, of course, occurs. But the article is absent in a good many definite phrases also”. Footnote (38)
Matt. 5:27 is going to address the command “do not commit adultery.” The Jews understood this was one of the Ten Commandments concerning marriage. So, in the next statement where Jesus says he who looks at a woman (not indicating why it would be adultery) commits adultery in his heart. The Jews would understand through deductive reasoning that Jesus was stating if a man were to break the marriage covenant in his heart he would still be guilty of adultery. This same kind of deductive reasoning was required for the reader of Matt. 5:32b.
Jesus did not argue with the Pharisees concerning the letter of the Law, but only in God’s true desire and intent for marriage. Jesus answered his followers in the matters of the Law, in private (harmonized) at the house (Mark 10:10) “But I say to you…”
The point of Matt. 5:20-48 were concerning the judgments in the Law of Moses. That is, comparing how the Law was taught (lightly) by their former teachers (“you have heard”) to how Jesus says that Law will really be judged (“But I say to you…). Matt. 5:32b was not a new law but a proper execution of judgment from the original Law of Deut.24:1. In conclusion to Chapter 5, “Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect” (Matt. 5:48).
When it says the man “causes” the woman to commit adultery (Matt. 5:32a) this does not mean she is ‘allowed’ to marry another, but it simply means, he being in charge is responsible for putting her in a position of temptation. The temptation of the woman seen in the scriptures the “desire shall be for your husband” Gen. 3:16a and an empty womb cries out Prov. 30:16 and the woman growing wonton against Christ “they desire to marry” 1 Tim. 5:11. Although the woman will be responsible for her own sinful actions, the former husband would also be held guilty for causing her adultery.
Publically put away for adultery…
Not only were most divorces not due to sexual unfaithfulness of the woman, but even fewer of those women who were divorced, publicly for sexual immorality, were ever married again…
Those Jews asked Jesus in John 8:1-12 what’s to become of the woman who was caught in the “very act” of adultery, expecting Him to either to deny the Law of Moses or be forced to ‘condemn’ her. Joseph, likewise, was not willing to condemn Mary in “public shame” (supposing her sexual immorality) was going to divorce his betrothed wife in “private” Matt. 1:19. The bible called Joseph a “just man.”
So, marrying an innocent divorced woman (approved by the Religious leaders) was in fact now adultery.
Book of Mark
The Book of Mark was an account of the acts of Jesus that was written specifically to the Gentiles living in Rome. Mark 10:1-12 spoke of the same account of Matt. 19:1-10. Though Mark said a woman divorced her husband in Mark 10:12, this was writing to the Gentiles in what Jesus said in “private” and not to the Scribes or Pharisees. So this “private” account was written for the sole purpose of the Gentile readers. Woman divorces were probably prevalent in that culture for we see the ease of Gentile woman divorcing their husband’s in 1 Cor. 7:10-15 without proof of “sexual immorality” needed and the Jew’s knowing Harod (occupied by the Romans) was married his brother’s wife which the Law of Moses would not allow.
Chapter 5 Romans 7
Romans Chapter 7
Paul started off saying to the Jews “Indeed you are called a Jew and rest on the law, and make your boast in God…you who make your boast in the law, do you dishonor God through breaking the law” abbreviate form Rom. 2:17-24. Then speaking to them again on the issues of the Law of Moses saying…
1 Or do you not know (Rom. 6:3), brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives? 2For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband. 3So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man. 4Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another–to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God. 5For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death. 6But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.
They were committing spiritual “adultery.” Paul uses a physical truth “For…” Rom. 7:2 to bring a physical conclusion “So then…” Rom 7:3 to explain a spiritual truth “So…” Rom. 7:4. Old wine skins filled with new wine.
The term had by “another” (Greek) was usually used by the Jewish language to mean another man married her Jer. 3:1 from the example of Deut 24:2 (married to the second man) and Rom. 7:4 “becoming another.”
Paul’s main point in saying, “1 Or do you not know (Rom. 6:3), brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives?” was to emphasize (which they should have already understood) when you are under the law of something, that law has dominion over you as long as you live. But if you die you are free from that law that bound you, whatever that law may have been.
Paul used this concept in comparisons with a wife being bound to the law of her husband upon marriage.
“Under-man, woman”
Rom. 7:2 this sentence says in Greek, “The for (for the) under-man (under the subjection of her husband) woman to the living man (husband), having been (has been) bound (of or by) law.”
This sentence could better be translated: “For the woman who is under authority of her husband has now been bound by law to her living husband.”
Paul says “under-husband” woman “to” the “living (“as long as lives”) husband” she is bound by law Rom. 7:2. The woman in her relationship to her husband is “under-husband” Rom. 7:2a. So upon becoming married she falls under a principle law to him until he dies. The “law of the husband” Rom. 7:2c is the limitations a wife has to her husband. As seen in the example of Numbers 5:29, “This is the law of jealousy, when a wife while under her husband’s authority…” NKJV
Paul uses a known subject of the husband/wife (physical) to explain a deeper truth (spiritual).
“Under man” was to express her general or specific position of the man (to establish the “lords over” rule in Rom. 7:1b). This was taken similar to Paul’s concept when he said sin “lords over” (Rom. 6:14) a man while “under law.” As “under law” and “under grace” is being used in Rom. 6:15 so we can understand Paul using the term “under-man.”
The principle of under-man is also shown in the first part of the Greek word “(under-) submission (appointed, set)” Eph. 5:23-25 and Col. 3:18 showing the premise of the “head” because of his authority.
The ‘under’ was to establish order, position, or rank in these usages. Under was nothing more than to be understood in general as under something else.
By Paul stating in Rom. 7:1, the principle of law, Paul states anytime someone is “under” something and has “dominion” (lords-over) for life. And the woman cannot become free from the man or loosed by her own will. At one point the woman was under her father (Num. 30:2-16) but is now under her husband upon marriage (Gen. 3:16).
We can see Paul was making the point that upon becoming married under her husband (having dominion over her) she is bound due to principle in Scripture which prevents her from marrying “another” and freeing her upon his death. Romans 7:2-4 is not a teaching about divorce (as 1 Cor. 7) but Paul is using an already known and accepted truth about marriage to explain freedom from the Law of Moses (same principle law applies). Since scripture suggest the authority of a man is over (Num. 30:9) with the Writ of Divorce, we know the man still reserves the freedom to send her away if he wills and this by his will only (having lordship over her).
The Jews were trying to submit under the Law of Moses and Christ at the same time (Rom. 2:23).
She is being “called” (Greek Future) an “adulteress” if she were to marry again Rom. 7:3a. Since the woman is shown to be “under-man” (Greek word used in Rom. 7:2a) having “dominion” (“lords”) over her by Law, it could help also explain why the woman was not allowed to divorce her husband (Gen. 3:16).
Then according to Rom. 7:3a it uses the Greek words “living the man” in the Genitive or as we may say “possessive.” The woman was “called” an adulteress because she was known by the general public to be already married to another man.
Paul was pointing out the woman is not allowed to practice Polygamy for herself (to be married to more than one husband at the same time).
The man is never under the ‘law’ of his wife. So the Law did not prevent the man from taking another wife at the same time. Nor was he called an “adulterer” if he did so…
Solomon had 700 (multiplied) wives, and King David had many too. Scripture allowed the common man (not for a “king” to multiply wives) to have a second wife, though it was a sin for a woman to marry a second husband (Rom. 7:2-3).
Two wives
God is used as an example of having two wives (two sisters) Jer. 3:8; as Jacob with Rachel and her sister Leah. The Law speaks of a birth rite of a man who has two wives Deut. 21:15. As well as a man who takes on a slave as an additional wife for your son Ex. 21:9-11. Finally, it says seven women will in the last days ask to marry one man for their (name) reproach to be taken away.
“Law of-the”
Paul was using a clear point on a subject that they could comprehend to clear up a spiritual misunderstanding.
The “law of the husband” was what Paul used to show when you become “under” a “law” (as of The Law of Moses) the law “lords-over” you Rom. 7:1, in which you “were held by” (Rom 7:6) until “death” frees you from ‘what’ you are “bound” to.
Paul also used the words “law of the” or “law of” to point out a set of principles stoned in scripture. The “law of the husband” was Paul referencing known facts based out of scripture and not his own opinion.
One commentary on Romans 7 says, “Old Testament – “law of the sacrifice,” “law of leprosy,” “law of defilement”” (Footnote 29).
Paul being studied under the strictest of the Law would have been very familiar with the different Laws in the Old Testament taught by Gamaliel (the Ancestral Law). Many of the Old Testament Laws were broken down by Moses before or after giving the parameters, “This is the law of the…” Such as: “the law of jealousy” Num. 5:29, “law of burnt offering” Lev. 6:9, “law of grain offering” 6:14, “law of sin offering” 6:25, “law of the sacrifice of peace offerings” 7:11, “law of the burnt offering” 7:37, “law of leprous plague” 13:59, “law of the one who had a leprous sore” 14:32, “law of leprosy” 14:57, and “law of one who has a discharge” 15:32.
We also call a set of principles that govern our life as law: the “law of Nature,” “law of Gravity,” and the “law of Physics.”
With Deut. 24:1 being an “if” “then” type of teaching the Jews were able to understand the “permission” Matt. 19:2-6 of Moses and were able to understand that Deut. 25:5-10 allowed the “widow” to remarry. Thus the “Law of the husband” Romans 7:2b allowed the widow, by Law, to marry again and be “free.” This type of extraction from the story type of Law was an ‘implied’ type of teaching. This is what Paul was referring to when he said the woman is “bound” to her husband as long as he lives but is “free” Romans 7:3 from the “Law” when he dies.
“The Issue of Case Law
Many expositors have concluded that since Deuteronomy 24:1-3 does not prohibit divorce and remarriage, both are approved by God. This conclusion is inconsistent with the context of the passage (v. 4) and with the nature of biblical case law.
The covenant entered into by God and Israel at Mount Sinai contains the obligations imposed on and accepted by the Israelite people. These covenant stipulations take two basic forms: apodictic and casuistic. Apodictic (derived from the Greek a]po<, “from,” and dei<knumi, “to show”) laws are stated in imperative terms such as “you shall not. . . .” Casuistic (derived from the Latin casus, “case”) laws are stated in the form of cases. If certain circumstances occur, a certain law must then apply. The protasis-apodosis sequence (“if. . . , then. . .”) is the most frequent indicator of biblical casuistic law. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is such an example.” Footnote 202
Paul further used the principle of “a law” (Rom. 7:21-8:2) in regards to bondage in his life. As he said a, “law in my members,” “law of sin,” “law that evil is present with me,” “law of the mind.” Paul also referred to the “law of the Spirit” in contrast to the “law of the sin and death.”
Paul said the Jews are not saved by the “law of works,” but through the “law (of) faith.” Paul also referenced the “Law of God” and the “Law of Christ” in 1 Cor. 9:21 when speaking of the principle commands of God. James called the freedom in Christ the “law (of) liberty” James 1:25 and 2:12.
Chapter 6 (Commentary) 1 Corinthians 7
From the beginning of Chapter 7 to Chapter 16 were “concerns” that Paul addressed (7:1, 8:1, 12:1, and 16:1, 12).
Paul says in the later days some will depart from the faith and teach others not to marry 1 Tim. 4:1-3. In many of these questions, Paul was either telling them to let go of the unbeliever (“not in bondage”), permission to marry (“not sin” – “let them marry”) or to remain where you are at (“remain unmarried or reconcile,” “not leave the unbelieving,” “bound of law”).
In this entire letter you are going to see Paul go back to the theme “remain” (“unmarrieds and widows…remain” verse 8, “But if she does depart…remain” verse 11, “circumcised…or…uncircumcised…remain” verse 20, “slave (unless you can become free)…or free…remain” verse 24, “virgins…remain” verse 26, “if her husband sleeps…happier if she remains” verse 40).
A certain sect of Jews (Acts 15:5) were going around teaching the Gentiles to keep the “laws of Moses” (Gal. Chapter 5) and “circumcision” (1 Cor. 7:18). The Church, now being fully aware of the Law of Moses, was concerned in how to apply these biblical principles (1 Cor. 7:12-14, 2 Cor. 6:14-19). They asked if a man should “touch” a woman (vss. 1-3), if those who are married to “unbelievers” should divorce (vss. 10-16), and if the “virgins” in the Church should marry (vs. 25)? There also was concern if a Christian woman’s believing husband slept, was she then free to marry another (1 Cor. 7:39)?
Paul answered all these questions and more.
1 Cor. 7:8-9 “unmarrieds” and “widows”
Paul addresses the “unmarrieds” and the “widows” in 1 Cor. 7:8-9 saying it is “better to marry than to burn with passion.” Paul was giving a general instruction to remain “as I am” if possible. Since this is a ‘general teaching’ concerning to remain single, he will speak in greater length concerning these unmarrieds (verse 25-38) and widows (verse 39-40) latter in this chapter.
Even though the women of verse 10 were also said to be “unmarried” Paul immediately disqualified these women from marrying again.
1 Cor. 7:10-11 Command/Charge of the Lord
But to the “married…” 1 Cor. 7:10-16. Paul is going to give instructions to those Christians who are, according to the Greek, ‘presently’ married.
With Deut. 24:1 being finally cleared up to the Jewish Church members (“multitudes” Matt. 5:31-32) there would be no more further questions concerning the proper understanding of the Law of Moses. Now, the only thing the Christians wanted to know was how to apply the Law. The Church in Corinth was comprised of both Jewish and Gentile believers (Acts 18:2) and was seen to have been influenced by Jewish teachings (1 Cor. 7:19 circumcision).
Before giving freedoms or talking about divorce. Paul starts off by giving validity to this next message by saying this is not his own personal judgment (as seen in 1 Cor. 7:12, 25, 40) but this comes in the authority (“charge”) of the Lord Jesus, Himself. Paul will later addresses marriage situations that may have an exception to this general rule (the “rest” verses 12-16 in “such cases” in verse 15).
Before Paul was going to give permission for the believers to “separate” he thought it was very necessary for the Church to first understand the Lord’s command is not to divorce your spouse.
Paul is passing along a “charge” by the Lord in the Greek; present, active, indicative.
“The present active indicative depicts action as though it were presently being performed by the subject.” Footnote 65
“Charge” Strong’s numbers – “[3853 (paraggéllō) "originally meant to pass on or transmit; hence, used as a military term, of passing a watchword or command; and so generally to command" (WS, 222).]” Footnote 84
All is wrapped up in this “Charge” (or could be read “Command” as in verse 25, these two Greek words are used very closely interchangeably throughout the New Testament) by our “Lord” Jesus towards all married believers (a general teaching for all believers who are married in any situation). Not nessesarly from Jesus previous teaching Matt. 5:31-32, 19:9, Mark 10:11-12, and Luke 16:18.
The Gospel accounts of divorce were not printed yet, so only the “word of God” was “spread” (Acts 6:7) by the disciples that multiplied (Acts 18:26b Apollos, Aquila and Priscilla) and the Teachers, Prophets and Apostles that were sent out by the Elders to all the churches (3 John 9).
The Church was waiting for “commandments” from the Lord on these issues (1 Cor. 7:1-9, 10-17, 25-38, and 39-40). That is why Paul responds, “I have no commandment from the Lord…” in 1 Cor. 7:25 and “I say this not by commandment…” 1 Cor. 7:6-7. Paul also says latter, “If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord” 1 Cor. 14:37 (footnote 30).
But does Paul repeat any of the Lord’s teaching anywhere else?
Paul received teaching from the Lord.
In this letter (1 Cor. 11:23) Paul said, “For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you…” speaking of the bread He broke saying, “this is my body.” Paul did not witness the Lord speaking these things personally.
Gal 1:18-19 ”Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.”
Galatians 1:9 “But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.” Paul further said to be taught by “revelation” in 2 Cor. 12:1-5.
1 Thessalonians 4:15, “for this we say unto you by the word of the Lord.”
“The probability, therefore, is, that Paul means that the Lord Jesus had made a special communication to him on the Subject.” Footnote 49
Jesus never told the woman not to “separate” from her husband, and man not to “put away his wife” in the Gospel Teachings (Matt. 5:31-32, 19:9, Mark 10:10-11, Luke 16:18). But said in general, “what God joined together, let man not separate” Matt. 19:6.
“A woman is not to separate from her husband…”
That is, the woman is not to divorce her husband. Paul uses the word “separate” for Paul wanted to make it clear that the woman, even if a Gentile, was still not allowed to put away her husband and marry another. Since “separate” as also used in 1 Cor. 7:15a, b we see Paul is not implying they have biblical permission to leave their unbelieving spouse, otherwise they would have in verses 12-13 without the unbelievers permission. But when Paul uses the Greek word “dismiss/send away” (1 Cor. 7:11b, 12, 13) it was probably in association that the Law of Moses permitted such a type of divorce (“put away”).
Paul addressed them with this language to let them know what Scripture had to say about the matter as well as understanding Jesus “charge” and Paul’s later allowance 1 Cor. 7:15.
But if the woman were to “separate…” This is in the Greek hypothetical for Paul was addressing those who were presently married in the Church though could be applied to a past action.
Darby Bible Translation
(but if also she shall have been separated, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband;)…
That is, if she decides to divorce her husband apart from the Lord’s command or if a woman did at a previous time and wanted the Church to know how to handle such situation. Mark 10:12 says a woman is not to put away her husband or she commits adultery if she marries another.
Paul understood for the Lord’s teaching here was that no matter what, if the woman divorced her husband she would not be free to remarry another (not to commit adultery “against” Mark 10:11 him in remarriage). The woman was not given “permission” to divorce her husband in the Law due to “uncleanness” (as also seen in Matt. 5:32, 19:9).
1 Cor. 7:10-11 implies that if the husband or wife wanted to divorce their spouse it would have been fairly easy to do so in their culture.
When Paul mentions “separate/depart” for the woman in verses 10-11a and “send away” verse 11b, he is not saying there are two types of divorce in Corinth according to the Roman law (though there may be many). Paul was indicating their reasoning behind the divorce. 1 Cor. 7:10-11 does not imply if sexual immorality was committed in the marriage and 1 Cor. 7:12-15 does not indicate that sexual immorality was committed by the unbeliever for the divorce. We are to presume Jesus is charging the believer in all cases that the man and woman are not to divorce the other.
Paul proclaimed that if she were to “separate” (for any reason) verse 10-11a, she must “remain unmarried or reconcile” with her husband only. Paul wanted to make it clear to the women; under no circumstance was to marry another.
Although the woman is commanded not to marry another man, the man’s issues of remarriage will be addressed latter in 1 Cor. 7:27-28.
The teachings of divorce from 1 Cor. 7:10-14 were directed towards the Christian as the possible “initiator” of the divorce. 1 Cor. 7:15-16 was addressed if the unbeliever was the initiator. They will be later told to remain in the state they are in (until loosed by Scripture) verse 17-18.
I believe Paul probably mentioned she was to “remain unmarried” before he said to “reconcile” to show his main point was for the woman to know she is not allowed to marry another man. That would have then cleared up any misunderstanding or disagreements the Church had concerning the woman thinking she may be free to marry again, according to Deut. 24:1. That is, if she divorced her husband and known that he committed sexual immorality in the marriage.
Remember the woman having the ability according to the law of the land to divorce her husband; she may have thought that she also shared the same permissions and allowances. Since the Jewish woman was not allowed to put away their spouses according the Law of Moses, this case would have never came up as a biblical option. Even though the Law in Ezra 10:3 only allowed the man to put away his wife and children, Paul is not saying the “brother or sister” is not allowed to “separate” according to the Law but according to his judgment for “peace.”
The Gentile women did not fully understand and argued against the submission to her husband and/or the roles of leadership/speaking in the Church. That is why Paul corrected the Corinthians using the Law (1 Cor. 14:34) and Adam and Eve (1 Cor. 11:3, 8-9). This problem and confusion was also seen in other Gentile Churches (1 Tim. 2:11-14).
1 Cor. 7:11a gives instruction to a woman who may possibly become “separated” by her own actions in the future (Greek: Verb, 3rd Person, Aorist, Passive, Subjunctive, Singular). The Greek possible future is also told to the woman 1 Cor. 7:39 saying, if the husband (in the present) were to “sleep” (Greek: Verb, 3rd Person, Aorist, Passive, Subjunctive, Singular). Therefore; Paul is giving instructions in the present, if the situation were to possibly change in the future. But says later in 1 Cor. 7:15 if the unbeliever separates (Greek present) then let them separate. Paul does not use the Greek Subjunctive there as seen in 1 Cor. 7:11a.
Jesus main concern here was saying neither of you are to initiate a divorce. That is, to leave your spouse, kids, family and home.
If the woman “separated” from her husband it can be understood by example in Matt. 5:31-32 that she would “cause” her husband to “commit adultery” (Footnote 33). Therefore she should reconcile to her husband if at all possible first.
“A man is not to dismiss/send away his wife”
Paul would not use the Jewish term “put away” to Gentiles living under different legal and cultural laws in Corinth. The term “put away” Deut. 24:1-2 according to the Law of Moses was if a man were to give a Writ (Certificate of) divorce to his wife, “put” it in her hand, and “sends her out” of his house. To “put away” a wife, according to the Jewish Law, no court was needed but a writ of testimony paper put in the hand.
The Apostles, and Elders in the Church, told the Gentiles to abstain from “food offered to idols, from blood, from things strangles, and from sexual immorality” Acts 15:29 rather than the need to be under the Law of Moses (Acts 15:5). It would be “sexually immoral” if one was to “commit adultery” in an improper divorce and remarriage.
The Gentiles were also told they are not under the Law Gal. 3:10 (or they would be obligated to fulfill the entire Law). But we are still to test “all” things through Scripture (Old and New) to see what is “good, just, and holy.” Paul said, ALL Scripture is good for “doctrine, correction, reproof, and instruction in righteousness” and to be applied in the Church. Paul also says to this Church, “all things are lawful, but all things are not profitable” 1 Cor 6:12, 10:23. We are commanded to live according to the “law of liberty” (Book of James) and “not sin.”
This entire law concerning divorce can be summed up in this one statement; love God and love your neighbor as yourself.
The man is not given the same set of parameters as the woman after the divorce (1 Cor. 7:11). It is possible, if the wife committed “sexual immorality” and left the marriage (Jer. 3:8-9) though he should not “seek” a divorce, it would not be a “sin” if he married another 1 Cor. 7:28 (being now loosed from his wife Matt. 19:9).
The word used in the KJV “put away” is 1 Cor. 7:11b is of the man is in Strong’s #863 (below).
“Strong’s #863: (I) To dismiss, e.g., the multitudes (Matt. 13:36); of a wife, to put her away (1 Cor. 7:11-13). In Matt. 27:50, “he gave up the spirit” (a.t.), expired. See also Gen 35:18. In Mark 15:37, “when Jesus let forth a loud cry” (a.t. [Sept.: Gen. 45:2]).”
Retrieved 12/04/2010 Footnote 60.
“And that the husband leave not his wife (kai andra mh apienai). … meaning to send away.” Retrieved December 04, 2010 Footnote 61
In general, Paul is saying that neither the man (according to the Law) nor a woman (not according to the Law) should divorce the other.
We can assume that these Greek words “separate” or “dismiss/send away” were the only two ways a person sought a divorce in this Church, in Corinth, by the answers posed by Paul from the former arguments/questions.
Conclusion:
But do these Greek words mean anything more? Both the Greek words “separate” (in verse 15) and “dismiss/send away” (in verses 12-13) are used for both the man and the woman. So, we can see the use of these words is not ‘gender specific.’ Since Paul said in 1 Cor. 7:15a that the unbeliever may “separate” from the marriage, we can see that this was with no fault of the Christian themselves (no biblical implied reason for the unbeliever to separate from the marriage). So, it would be impossible (according to the Greek) to presume what the woman of 1 Cor 7:10 wished to separate from her husband for (sexual immorality or not). But for whatever the reason, she was told to either remain unmarried or reconcile back to him.
The Man
The husband is not to “dismiss/send away” 1 Cor. 7:11b his wife. The Greek word “send away” used here (and 1 Cor. 7:12-13) has a since of ‘dismiss’ or “remit” (remove) associated with it (as the word used in Mark 2:7, 10). The Greek word “send away” is also used in 1 Cor. 7:12-13 (not gender specific) indicating that these Christians may have thought they had Scriptural reason or support to “put away” or “send away” their spouse according to the Law of Ezra 10:2-3 (seen as spouse and children vs. 14). Since Paul uses the “send away” in 1 Cor. 7:11b in context with perhaps biblical implied permissions as well as 1 Cor. 7:12-13 we can assume Jesus is charging the man not to separate even if sexual immorality was done by his wife or for any thought biblical permission. Paul made it clear later, even if he could become loosed from his wife (1 Cor. 7:27) he was not to seek it!
When speaking about divorce next in verse 12-16, Paul is going to give instruction according to his judgment by having the Spirit (verse 40) based out of love and mercy.
1 Cor. 7:12a
The next set of instructions to “the rest”, is written to Christians (by Paul only) who are presently married expressly to “unbelievers.” This is an exception to the Lord’s general “Charge” that was previously given in verses 10-11. We can see by Rev. 2:24 and Romans 11:7 that when the word “rest” is used, it was used in the context of addressing a group of individuals out of the larger ‘general’ group aforementioned. So, in conclusion, Paul was not addressing believers who are married to other believers only, in verse 10-11, but he was addressing every believer who is married (either to a believing or unbelieving spouse). But now he is going to be addressing a smaller group of individuals out of the larger group.
Paul and the Apostles had the “authority” given to them, by Christ, to bind and loose doctrines/teachings for the Church to obey (among believers). Paul is not telling them to obey the Law but uses Law (all Scripture) as an examples for us to obey “as the Law also says” (1 Cor. 14:34).
Paul starts off addressing by saying “not the Lord but I…” he is going to continue on his address this thought till verse 16. That is what is proper for a Christian to do according to “God” who has called us Christians to live in “peace” (verse 15) with unbelievers (whenever possible).
1 Cor 7:12b-13
There were some Christians who thought they were suppose to put away their unbelieving spouses (apart from “sexual immorality”) according to the Law in Ezra 10:3 in polluting their holy seed with those who they were restricted to marry being also “unclean” (to correct their marriages to the 7 abominable nations forbidden by God in the Law, Nehemiah 13:23-31) (footnote 34). Believers now thought they were to separate from all non-believers Is. 52:11 and 2 Cor. 6:17 and not “touch” who would be “unclean” nor to remain married to them (to be in the world but not of the world).
1 Cor. 7:14
According to 1 Cor. 7:14 Paul was using their reasoning of them divorcing their spouses of 1 Cor. 7:12-13 of Ezra to show their “children” would have also been “unclean” Ezra 10:3, 11 (2 Cor. 6:17, Is. 52:11). But the Holy Spirit “sanctified” the spouses, now making their children “holy.” So the marriage that was at one time was “not lawful” according to the Law of Moses has now been made fully clean. They now have no further need to “put away” neither their spouse nor their children.
1 Cor. 7:15-16 “Not in bondage”
But there were also those of the ‘opposite’ side of the coin who were either trying to hinder divorce or teaching others to do so. There was no implied (nor suspected) sexual immorality in the marriage by the unbeliever, to warrant the divorce.
This is his personal instruction to the “rest” where he indicates this is “not” from the Lord but him only. The only ‘exception clause’ for a Christian to divorce is in “this case…”
Remember the spouse is now sanctified and the marriage is now permitted.
- But God desires mercy over judgment.
Suggesting they are bound to keep the marriage together in order to try and “save” them (verse 16). In which Paul answers you are “not in bondage…”
So, why does Paul say you are “not in bondage”?
“Since the negative (ou) is employed, the phrase “not under bondage” effectively means that bondage was NOT completed in the past and is NOT occurring at the present time. Thus, the “you are not now, nor have you ever been under bondage” interpretation is entirely consistent with the grammar of the phrase and not a forced interpretation of it. In 1 Corinthians 7:15, that which was completed in the past and continues to be the case in the present is that Christians are “called” (perfect tense) to peace.” Footnote 77
“Verse fifteen contains the so-called Pauline privilege and is believed to teach that the desertion of the unbelieving mate frees the believer to divorce and remarriage. However, the “not under bondage” cannot mean the marriage bond for a number of reasons. “Is not under bondage” is from the Greek dedoulotai. Dedoulotai is third person, singular, perfect tense, indicative mood, and passive voice. “Not in the past with the result continuing into the present time” is the meaning. Whatever “bondage” meant, it was a bondage that did not exist in the past regarding the believer.” Footnote 78
“Dedoulotai (rendered “under bondage”) is a perfect tense verb in the indicative mood and passive voice. It is difficult to render dedoulotai in our language because “there is no tense in English which notes the present state resultant upon a past action” (Machen’s Greek Grammar, p. 187). “Its basal significance is the progress of an act or state to a point of culmination and the existence of its finished product” (A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, Dana and Mantey, p. 200).
The perfect of douloo reaches back to that point in time when the unbeliever initiated the process of separating and states that from that time forward the believing spouse has not been enslaved so as to be in bondage now. Remember, the unbeliever is in the process either of sending his spouse away or departing himself. That process is in progress, but is yet incomplete. That being true, “not under bondage” cannot mean that the believer is released from the marriage bond so as to be free to remarry.” Footnote 79
“Paul is addressing the situation of a believer and unbeliever being married (vs. 12-16). Hence, there is immediate restriction and limit regarding an application of “not under bondage.” Also, remarriage is not even being discussed in the passage. “Not under bondage” is from the Greek dedoulotai. The grammar posture of dedoulotai is “3 person, singular, perfect tense, indicative mood, and passive voice” (Analytical Greek Lexicon, pg. 85). The perfect tense is, “…the tense is thus double; it implies a past action and affirms an existing result” (Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek, by Ernest Burton, pg. 37). If “bondage” means marriage, as some insist, Paul is saying the believer is not and has not ever been in bondage (married?). Paul has argued that the believer is bound (marriage bond) to the unbeliever (vs. 12, 13). Deo, the word for the marriage bond, is used 44 times (see Rom. 7: 2, I Cor. 7: 27, 39). However, deo is not used in verse 15. Also of interest in establishing the exact scenario of the verse, “depart” is chorizetai and is present tense (ibid., pg. 440).
Paul is not allowing a second reason for divorce and remarriage, but is saying that the believer has not been reduced to slavery (meaning of dedoulotai, Thayer’ Greek-English Lexicon, pg. 158, see vs. 23).” Footnote 78
Paul did not say they are not “bound” to the unbeliever but is not in “bondage” (continued slavery). There is a difference between those who Paul said are “not in bondage” to the marriage, compared to those whom he said have been “loosed” or “free” to be able to marry again. Paul always gave permission to marry after addressing the groups or situations that were marriageable.
The believers “not” “have-been-in-bondage” for salvation of the unbeliever 1 Cor. 7:15 to possibly win them over in the marriage 1 Peter 3:1. Paul says for you do not know if you ‘will’ save them, so let them go.
If an unbeliever wishes to stay in a marriage even in “pretense” (not a proper heart) as Judah (Jer. 3:8-9) the Christian should still seek to remain in the marriage. .
On the contrary, Paul is not teaching the believer to “put them away” (the unbeliever) but commands them to remain married if possible.
It is important to note Paul is not telling the believer they are not in bondage ‘from’ the marriage but they are not in bondage ‘to’ the marriage.
A good number of respected Christian Theologians believes that although Paul gives the permission of separation for the believer, he is not giving permission for remarriage. Warren W. Wiersbe had this to say about 1 Cor. 7:15, “Does separation then give the Christian mate the right to divorce and remarriage? Paul did not say so” (Footnote 22).
Paul stats off 1 Cor. 7:15 by saying “If but…” By understanding Paul was giving a second part of the teaching of 1 Cor. 7:12-14 we can tell that the Jews ask Paul by letter (verse1) ‘what about this…?’ So, first of all, before giving the Church permission to divorce their unbelievers he wanted them to know two things. That Jesus charged man and woman not to divorce their spouse (verses 10-11). Then Paul says that if the unbelievers are willing to remain in the marriage do not divorce them (verse 12-13) for you do not have too since they are now sanctified (verse 14). Then only in the “case” (verse 15) does Paul give this permission. This pattern of speech was Paul answering a question to those who are ‘presently’ married in verse 15 but Paul had to make a progression first.
The Greek word in 1 Cor. 7:15a “separate” concerning the “unbeliever” is in the Greek present (conditional indicative).
“The indicative mood is, in general, the mood of assertion, or presentation of certainty. It is not correct to say that it is the mood of certainty or reality. This belongs to the presentation (i.e., the indicative may present something as being certain or real, though the speaker might not believe it).
“3. Conditional Indicative
This is the use of the indicative in the protasis of the conditional sentences. The conditional element is made explicit with the particle ei. the first class condition indicates the assumption of truth for the sake of argument, while the second class condition indicates the assumption of an untruth for the sake of argument.
(as…)
Matt 12:27 If I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out?
John 5:46 If you believe Moses, you would believe me.” Footnote (18)
Concerning the next “separate” word in Greek (verse 15b).
Then it goes on in 1 Cor. 7:15b Paul telling the believer to “let them be separate.” This Greek word is in the Permissive Imperative…
“4. Permissive Imperative (Imperative of Toleration)
The imperative is rarely used to connote permission or, better, toleration. This usage does not normally imply that some deed is optional or approved. It often views that act as a fait accompli. In such instances, the mood could almost be called “an imperative of resignation.”‘
(as…)
Matt 8:31-32 “If you cast us out, send us into the herd of swine.” And he said to them, “Go!”
1Cor 7:15 If the unbeliever departs, let him depart” Footnote (18).
By Paul saying “God has called us to peace” that is… all Christians are called to be at ‘peace’ with all men everywhere, if by our means to be possible. So, if the unbeliever wishes a separation from the marriage, then let them go.
Paul tells the believer to “separate” which is in a ‘command.’ The only thing Paul is allowing the believer to act on is the unbeliever’s actions and desires. Paul is not telling both the brother and sister (the believer) that you are allowed to divorce them when it becomes difficult or if they commit adultery.
God said to Israel “because of your transgressions your mother was sent away (divorced)” Is. 50:1.
God gave the Apostles the keys concerning doctrines in the Church Matt. 16:19 in what they ‘bound’ on earth shall be bound in heaven or what they ‘loose’ on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
The Law is fulfilled by our actions in loving one another and loving God. Paul is not giving permission of remarriage here, he is only giving the believer permission to divorce. Remain married, if you can with peace!
1 Cor. 7:17-24 a continuation of thought from verse 10-16.
The “But” in the beginning of the verse 17 would imply a continuation of thought. That is to remain in the situation God has called you (currently) in (stay).
(For those who are in all bad situations… “26a. Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses…And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.” Rom 8:26-28)
Paul does not give directions for remarriage in verse 10-16 but immediately says after this, “But as God has distributed to each one as the Lord has called (Rom. 8:28) each one, so let him walk. And so I ordain in all the churches.”
Paul makes it pain staking clear when a group of people are “allowed” to remarry “let them marry” verse 9, “not sin” verse 27-28, “let them marry” verse 36-37, “marry in the Lord” verse 39. Paul even says it is “good” to remain if the believer is given the option of remarriage or marrying, even when Paul thinks it best not too verse 1, verse 2-3, verse 26, verse 32-37, verse 38, and verse 40. But now he instructs them to remain “so let him walk” (principle of verse 17-24) because God has called you here or there “ordained” (though you may think it unfair).
God realized where you are and not only called you there, but will give you the strength to endure it. Except, that is, but if you can (without running away) become free from slavery to serve the Lord better than do it. Paul realized those of 1 Cor. 7:12-16 felt it was unfair or hard to stay in their situation. With the general principle; God called you right where you are at.
1 Cor. 7:25
“Now concerning virgins”
Paul is probably speaking to both the men and woman as “virgins” in verse 25-38 (Footnote 36) (men called “virgins” in Rev. 14:4).
Important Note:
“Let them marry” 1 Cor. 7:8-9 and 36 is not saying ‘let them marry each other’ but Paul is saying allow this group of people to ‘get married’ if they so desire.
1 Cor. 7:25-38
(1 Cor. 7:27-28)
Why does Paul calls those who were never married, “virgins?” Paul expected the highest sexual purity from Christians 1 Thess. 4:3-8 and 1 Cor. 6:9 upon coming to Christ. Paul was aware of the sexual immorality of Christians in this Church 1 Cor. 5:1-3. And one of the church members were told to ‘flee’ his sexual union with a harlot (an unbelieving sexually practicing woman) 1 Cor. 6:17.
Scripture would suggest that those Christians who have already become “one flesh” with another believer should marry. That is as long as the father does not refuse (Gen. 34, Ex. 22:16-17).
When addressing the question of “virgins,” Paul gives the general instruction for “mankind so to be” 1 Cor. 7:26b. Paul is going to give his judgment about all ‘singleness in general’ (1 Cor. 7:29-31). It is not surprising that Paul mentions the “men” for in most of the passages in his letters he addresses the “brethren” verse 1 and verse 29 when speaking to both the men and the women in the Church to obey. When Paul gives instruction to the “men” or “brethern” in the church, the church judged how that command was to be applied by direction or reason. As an example, the woman does not get circumcised so 1 Cor. 7:18 would not concern the women.
The reason Paul speaks to the widows in 1 Cor. 7:39-40 for there were some in the church who thought the women were still bound to the man, even after his death.
Why does Paul say a man is not to “seek” to be loosed 1 Cor. 7:27, when the Lord already taught that a man is not to “divorce” his wife 1 Cor. 7:11b?
Just as Paul did a pre-empha strike in 1 Cor 7:10-11 before he then gives the Christian brother or sister “permission” to leave in 1 Cor. 7:15, so too does Paul give the man the pre-empha strike in 1 Cor. 7:27a in telling him not to seek to be loosed before he gives him permission to marry again. Stating it is not a sin.
For only the man was the one who was given permission to “seek” to be loosed from his wife according to the Law (Deut. 24:1 “When a man…”). Paul seems to only be addressing the virgins compared to those who were already married … “There is a difference between a wife and a virgin.”
You must remember Paul was not addressing divorced people “Now concerning Virgins” verse 25. The reason Paul said 1 Cor. 7:27 were to imply the same principle of marriage that those “loosed” from a spouse (in general) is the same that goes for the “virgins.” Paul gives detailed instruction concerning virgins (1 Cor. 7:34-36) both men and woman because he was addressing how they can serve the Lord better (verse 36-38). “These are the ones who were not defiled with women, for they were virgins. These are the ones who follow the Lamb wherever He goes.” Rev. 14:4. This Church must have already understood when a divorced person (man or woman) was “loosed” verse 28.
Now we know by Jesus teaching (Gospel accounts) that only the woman who was put away improperly (Matt. 5:32b, 19:9b) commits adultery by marrying another. We can understand that the woman, who was divorced for sexual immorality by her husband, would be “loosed” as well to marry another.
If any command was addressed to all the people in the church, it was written and known in the letter in such a way that would have been obvious to those readers. For this church already understood all the Law of Moses if the man or woman would have been “loosed” according to scripture (Matt. 5:31-32 and 19:9). The common Jewish general understanding of scripture did not conflict each other, other than the understanding of the command (permission) by Moses why a man could release his wife. So, in order to understand what would “loose” or “bound” a man or a woman they would go to the understanding in the Law.
*In regards to those who thought a wife is free to be departed from her husband if he neglects her in “food, her clothing, and her marriage rights” Ex. 21:7, 10-11. This was given to those who were married to “slaves” who were considered “property” of their owner Ex. 21:20-21. Slaves (Lev. 19:20) were given special rights and laws concerning betrothal and marriage than that of a free woman (Deut. 22:23-24). Some of these laws help protect the slave from being abused by their husband’s in such matters Deut. 21:14 because he has “humbled her.” It says if a man marries a slave then later marries another woman, the woman who was given to him as a slave he is not to abuse her in marriage. Since the “free wife” was his “second” wife, it was thought that he would neglect the “unloved” one Deut. 21:15 purchased by his father as a ‘slave’. The free wife was not allowed to be divorced or let go if he neglected her in “food, clothing or marriage rites” this was only for the “slave.”
*Unfortunately some people teach that only during the “betrothal” or “engagement” period was a man allowed to “put away” a woman, according to the Law. That is incorrect. In Matt. 5:32 and Matt. 19:9 it is saying if a man puts away a woman (formerly his wife by Jesus saying they were “one flesh” which only happens after consummation) then remarries without knowledge of sexual immorality then he is guilty of ”adultery.” God became “one flesh” with Israel in Ez. 16:8 where He said it was “time” for her “love” and He “spread” His “skirt” over her “nakedness” and entered into a “covenant.” If a man put away or known by the Jews as divorced his wife for sexual immorality, he was free to marry another as God divorced Israel in Jer. 3:8-9 after she was clearly his wife by not only first becoming “betrothed” in the wilderness Jer. 2:2 but entering into the “covenant” of blood of Moses becoming her “husband” Ex. 24:7. Deut. 24:1 in the allowance of divorce said the man put the woman out of his “house.” The woman living under the husband’s roof indicated they were married in the full since of the word.
The basic rule of thumb for a passage addressed to “men” or “brethren” is: first, is it clearly talking to the men only (in context and or clear subject); or secondly, does it give immediate instructions to the woman directly after?
Paul gives the man instruction if “loosed” already (Greek; perfect) from his wife 1 Cor. 7:27b. That is, if he were already by Scripture, released for the bounds of his wife (as seen in Matt. 19:9a, death or any other biblical implied reason).
1 Cor. 7:10 says a woman is not to separate from her husband. She is told to “remain unmarried or reconcile.” The woman was not given the option of remarriage if she divorced her husband. But the man is given permission (verse 28a) due to Deut 24:1 (Matt. 19:9).
1 Cor. 7:27a now even though we know only the man was allowed to “seek” a divorce according to Scripture (initiate); the important thing to ‘note’ here is Paul is not teaching what “looses” a man from his wife. Paul is only giving further instructions that a man is not to seek to become loosed from his wife. And if you are “loosed” from your wife already (generally spoken: in possibly one or more ways) according to the clear understanding of the Law of Moses, then it would not be a sin if he were to marry again.
The Greek word for “loosed” would imply to become untied (or freed) from something that formerly tied you (such as shoe laces or chains). We will see later the woman is described to be “bound” of law 1 Cor. 7:39.
The “loosed” word in Greek in “are you loosed from a wife?” is in the verb, perfect, passive, indicative, singular, 2nd person.
Paul is clearly not suggesting the man has ‘permission’ to divorce his wife, but if the man was divorced already (including being loosed by her death) and fully free according to Scripture, then he can remarry. Paul says it is “not sin” when you are free to marry, but latter says it is “better” not to marry (verse 38) and that is why they are told not to “seek” it.
This “loosed” does not imply the way or reason the man was divorced from his wife, only that he was told do not “seek” after it. That is to pursue, based on his actions, for the desire to attain freedom from his wife. Because Paul is commanding the man not to seek a divorce, we hope any future divorces would have occurred only by an unbelieving wife.
By using the Law of Moses and Jesus teaching concerning that Law (Gospel accounts) the Church already knew when a man was loosed from his wife to be able to marry again. Especially not to commit adultery (Acts 15:29 any sexual immorality) against (Mark 10:11) your former spouse in remarriage.
Remember, this was not a new teaching concerning divorce or remarriage. But it was a judgment of Paul’s to those who were known to be marriageable (the Law) by Scripture already.
1 Cor. 7:26 says that it is “good” to “remain” as you are. Paul was focusing on the later that it is “good” if you are single (loosed or virgin) not to be marry because time being short here on earth (God doing a ‘short’ work here on the earth) also with their current troubles at hand.
Paul addresses that he thinks it is good for “man so to be” verse 26 speaking clearly of all mankind. Then he goes on to those who are married, “But those who marry will face…” Paul is going to do a good job to address the individual groups in this letter (men or women).
Paul addresses the men in verse 29b “those who have wives…” should act as if they did not. Paul is not saying that a woman should act as if she was not married, for she is subject to her husband and must obey him (as those who are slaves in verse 17-24 should not act as if they are not slaves to their owners). Paul was famous for going off on tangents that have something to do with what he just addressed but has a lesson in itself (as he did about circumcision and slavery to “remain” as you are 1 Cor. 7:17-24).
“Loosed” and “bound” are common Jewish terms that are found throughout Scripture and used in various ways. Matt. 18:16 when speaking about what may be “bound” or “loosed” here on earth and heaven. These words were known to be complete opposites but used together.
We can presume the Church had adequate knowledge, filled by this letter, to know who was free to marry or not. They just wanted to know “if” they should get married.
1 Cor 7:39 Widow
Paul said (approximately written one year BEFORE he also said this in Romans 7:2) that the woman is, “bound of law, as long as her husband lives; but if her husband is dead, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.”
With Deut. 24:1 being an “if” “then” type of teaching where the Jews were able to understand the “permission” Matt. 19:2-6 of Moses. The Jews were also able to understand Deut. 25:5-10 allowed the “widow” to remarry. Thus the “Law of the husband” Romans 7:2b allowed the widow, by Law, to marry again and be “free” after his death. This type of extraction from the story type of Law was an ‘implied’ type of teaching. This is what Paul was referring to when he said the woman is “bound” to her husband as long as he lives but is “free” Romans 7:3 from the “Law” when he dies.
Now he is going to address those who were trying to limit the widow from remarrying. Paul was handling issues concerning either those who were for once side of an issue (as 1 Cor. 7:12-14) or those of the opposite side of the coin (as 1 Cor. 7:15-16). Paul is explaining how the woman is bound to her husband in the first place, to be able to explain how she becomes free after he sleeps (as Rom. 7:2-3).
This may seem quite elementary that the widow was allowed to remarry but it was not so to them. Although the “virgin” and the “widow” were already given permission to marry 1 Cor. 7:8-9 “better to marry then to burn with passion.” Paul still felt responsible to explain why against these previous notions found in this church. First of all, the virgin was also told it would not be a sin to marry verse 28. So, some of the basic principles of marriage were already seen to be in question. And now he goes against what others were saying about the widows as well.
Jesus previously said, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die” John 11:25-26. So, some in the church, were seem to be here, believed that when a woman’s husband “sleeps” Greek Strong’s Number 2837, she may still be bound to remain unmarried. But to dispute this, Paul said the woman is “bound of law” as long as the husband lives. That way they could see that although the husband “lives” and does not die, she is released upon by his physical death by the rule of “law” (Romans 7:1 “or do you not know brethren”).
So, what would this mean to the Christian reading it, as it is? First of all, the Jew would have understood that as “the law of Moses” was a law that they were bound to for life, they would have also understood that “the law of the husband” would have meant something similarly (Rom. 7:2b). The Jews clearly understood, though the Law (all Scripture) that the wife was not allowed to be married to more than one husband, at the same time (Rom. 7:3) or she will be called “an Adulteress”).
Paul said “Law” in 1 Cor. 14:34 where he was not referring to the ‘Law of Moses’ but a writing of Geneses from the Old Testament. Paul also referenced “Law” when he was speaking about any writing in the Old Testament. 1 Cor. 14:21 says “In the Law it has been written” (book of Isaiah). The entire Old Testament could also be referred as; “Scriptures,” “the Law and the Prophets,” “the Ancestral Law” Acts. 22:3, or “the Law of the Lord.”
So, they, seeking to know if the woman is still bound to the man after he “sleeps” would have referred to this principle. But Paul makes it clear, that the law is only in effect as long as the individual is alive but after he sleeps, she is free to marry another (1 Cor. 7:39b “to whom she wishes”).
Woman “bound of law” is also clearly understood in Rom 7:1 as being the “law of the husband” having “dominion” or “lords over” the woman “as long as lives.” The woman is bound to the law of her husband (the application of law). Rom. 7:1-4 focuses on the limitations of the woman who is bound to the “law” of her husband in the marriage (called an “adulteress”), while 1 Cor. 7:39 main focus is in her “liberty” after his death.
So the “law” in 1 Cor. 7:39 Paul is explaining the concept of the ‘law of dominion’ or “the law of the husband” Deut. 25:5-10. The woman falls under the authority (Gen. 3:16) of her husband that would hold her to her husband, as long as he was living.
We can see that the woman is no longer is under the ‘authority’ of her husband when she has become “divorced” or a widow (Num. 30:8-9).
“As long as lives” was a very strong blanket statement to be an all inclusive – no matter what – (no exceptions). As it says in Scripture, “not to forsake the Levite as long as you live…” Deut. 12:19. Saul said to Jonathan in anger, “For as long as the son of Jesse lives…” 1 Sam. 20:31. Or when, Hannah “lent” her son Samuel to the Lord “as long as he lives” 1 Sam. 1:28.
We know Paul was addressing the ‘Christian’ women who are married to the ‘Christian’ men by using the Greek word “sleeps” of the husband in 1 Cor. 7:39, and marry “in the Lord.”
Paul used the language (bound of/by law) to also explain her freedom to marry another when he (her husband) dies in the body (“free”).
Rom. 7:2b and 1 Cor. 7:39 say she is bound of “law” to him “as long as he lives.” It could be also translated 1 Cor. 7:39 “the wife is held (captive) by (“held by” Rom. 7:6) the law of the husband as long as he lives, but if he sleeps she is free (no longer held by the law of her husband) to marry another, in the Lord.”
As Paul said the Jews of the Church (Rom. 7:1a “for knowing Law I speak”) the Corinthian Church, being comprised of both Jews and Gentiles, would also have understood the concept of the “law” of the husband.
When the believer was told that you do not “die” but “sleep” in the Lord, the woman might have felt still bound to him in some fashion or guilty if she married another outside of his family (possibly what others were imposing on the women in the Church).
The Jews Religious leaders, trying to trap Jesus, asked in the “resurrection” who would the wife be married to in heaven, since she was married to several brothers (Matt. 22:28). In which Jesus replied they neither marry nor are given to marriage in heaven but will be like the angels. So, the Christians understood, at this point, that they are not going to still be bound to their spouse in heaven.
1 Cor. 7:39 was written primarily for the Jewish believer. For in the Law of Moses (Deut. 25:5-10) it was required for the first born male child to have a “kinsman redeemer” (Book of Ruth) to raise a child in his name for the inheritance, land, and name to carry on. But if the nearest relative (brother) did not want to do his duty, it was considered a shame and a disgrace (verse 7). We even see a story of this in Gen. 38 where Judah had his oldest son Er but because he died without producing a hair it was required for one of Judah’s other sons (in birth order) to fulfill their duty. That is why; last of all, Judah’s (her father-in-law) seed was taken in trickery (38:26). It could be presumed that she never did marry another for it said he never knew her again.
Scripture never refers to a man as a “widow” when speaking of remarriage. They may have had concern about this law and/or her responsibilities (what if her husband died but his younger brother was not a believer?). That was probably why Paul gave her permission in verse 39b to marry “to whom she wishes,” but as long as she married only in the “Lord.”
(1 Cor. 7:1) The Church questioned everyone getting married… in which Paul responded with a permission to marry (“let them marry”): the “loosed man,” the “virgin,” and now finally the “widow.”
The “free” word in Greek 1 Cor. 7:39, is used in other scriptures as another word that would be the opposite of “bound” or “slave.” Thus, it says in the Greek, a man was “bound” to his wife in verse 27, and now Paul says the woman is “bound” in verse 39a.
Further it was said, “Do not let a widow under sixty years old be taken into the number, and not unless she has been the wife of one man” 1 Tim. 5:9. The “has been” in Greek shows that it was speaking about the total of men she married before in her life time. For, as I mentioned before; she would have needed to be guilty of sexual immorality (either inside the marriage or when she married her new husband) if she was divorced and married another.
This is a general statement. For we know that further down the “young widow” was told to marry (Deut. 25:5-10 Matt. 22:28).
This “wife of one man”1 Tim 5:9 was speaking of those who abused marriage and/or divorce purity guidelines by scripture. Such as the woman at the “well” John 4:18 who was said, by Jesus, to have been married to “five” husbands. Jesus point was this woman was not only living an immoral lifestyle, living with a man outside of wedlock, but that her entire life has been immoral with her many marriages.
1 Tim. 5:9-10 was standards for a ‘widow’ to receive funds, due to her godly living and pure lifestyle both currently in her walk and in her former marriage (why she needs the financial support instead of from her mother and father).
Paul mentions “law” twice concerning the authority of a man to his wife, in this letter. Both were originating from Gen. 3:16; 1 Cor. 14:34 and 1 Cor. 7:39 (from Deut. 25:5-10).
The questions the Church had for Paul were from the primarily Gentile perspective and culture. That is in how to properly use the Scripture to fulfill all righteousness in the Church today (as we still try to do).
Paul always gave permission to marry after addressing the groups or situations that were marriageable.
So, Paul tried to make it very clear without any possible further confusion which group of people would be allowed or not allowed to marry again. That is, so no further argument may occur. They would have understood every possible angle concerning divorce and remarriage at this point (1 Cor. 7:10-11a “woman”, verse 11b “man”, verse 12b “man”, verse 13 “woman”, verse 15 “brother or sister,” verse 25 “virgin”, verse 27-28 “man” and “virgin,” verse 33 (he), 34-35 “virgin” or “married woman,” verse 39 “woman”).
Chapter 7 The Cure 4 Divorce
Biblical Permissions
Jesus did not give “permission” for a man to divorce his wife for sexual immorality in Matt. 19:9 but only acknowledged that if a man did he would not be guilty of adultery if he were to marry another. For what those under the Law of Moses were unable to do having a carnal mind and not being able to be subject to the “law of God” Rom. 8:7; we are now able to accomplish the righteous requirements of the Law (Romans 8:4) in the “Spirit.”
New Heart
Jesus said Moses, because of the “hardness of your hearts”, permitted you to divorce your wives Matt. 19:8. But we have been given a “new heart” Eze. 36:26 and no longer live in the hardheartedness of sin, but to obey Christ in all righteousness, forgiveness, love, and mercy. Your heart should cry out to your unfaithful wife that you divorced as the Lord God’s Jer. 3:12 “return back sliding Israel…for I am merciful’, says the Lord.” God remained married to His wayward wife Judah who returned, even if in pretense (Jer. 3:9).
“Be Holy”
We are commanded to be Holy as God is Holy. Jer. 3:8, 9 He gives us His example of staying married when His wife Judah was unfaithful to Him. God only divorcing Israel when she was unfaithful and separated from the marriage permanently (as 1 Cor. 7:15a). We are not to follow the Law of Moses, which gives us “permission” to put away our wives, but Christ alone. If we put ourselves under one part of the Law of Moses that does not involve love, but disobey others, it says, “cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them” Gal. 3:10. We are commanded to walk according to the Spirit and not according to allowances in the “letter” of the Law which only brings forth “death.” Obey the will of God on all matters, and do not separate apart, as long as the husband or wife is willing to work out the differences, from what He has joined together Matt. 19:6.
Christ commanded the man to love his wife as He did the Church and gave His life for it Eph. 5:25. If a man loved his wife he would not hurt her in any way, either “physiologically or physically” Footnote (31).
Law
Though we “were made dead to the law (Law of Moses)” and are “not under law” any longer; we are “not without law to God” but “in-the-law of Christ.” That is the “law of liberty.” For living in the Spirit we fulfill the “righteousness of the law” that is the “law of God.” We do not destroy the law through our “faith,” but rather “we establish the Law” Rom. 3:31.
Paul was not blind to the sexual immorality in the Church (1 Cor. 5:1-5 man with father’s wife, 1 Cor. 6:17 Christian man with harlot or 1 Cor. 7:1-3 because of “fornication”). But Paul expected every Christian to live a godly life with all purity and holiness 1 Thess. 4:3-8. For whoever rejects this does not reject man “but God,” who has given this authority to the Apostles, by His “Holy Spirit.”
God has given us strength to walk in the newness of life and that not to put away our wives due to the hardness of our hearts but to return back to the design of marriage “in the beginning.” This is the heart of the Lord God and the true teachings of Jesus Matt. 19:2-8.
We are to “test” all things through the Doctrines the Apostles gave (Epistles), the Scriptures written formerly in the Old Testament, and Jesus. If situations are not directly related to specific direction or doctrines given then I presume to test it by the heart of these teachings but Paul felt confident that the Corinthians had all they needed giving a detailed instruction by this letter both to the men and the women (1 Cor. chapter 7). We are to submit to one another and God in “love,” then and only then, will we fulfill the righteous requirements in Law of God through Christ Jesus and His Spirit.
It is interesting to note Solomon was born by King David with the wife of “Uriah,” and Herodias was “the wife of Philip” Mark 6:18. In the improper taking of a wife from another the bible still spoke of the first spouse as the husband or wife of. As David said even in darkness You are there.
Let the Spirit to lead us into all truth in these matters, Amen.
Bibliography
Footnote (1) (This page uses content from the English-language version of Wikipedia. The original article was at Divorce. The list of authors can be seen in the page history. As with Psychology Wiki, the text of Wikipedia is available under the GNU Free Documentation License.)
http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Divorce#Causes_of_divorce Retrieved September 1, 2010
“Christains Classics Ethereal Library” Subtitle under “ANF05. Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Caius, Novatian, Appendix by Schaff, Philip” http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.v.xii.iv.xcii.html?highlight=wife#highlight Retrieved September 1, 2010
Footnote (2)
“Why I will not remarry
SO LONG AS WE BOTH SHALL LIVE
as compiled by a Christian divorcee” Subtitle under “Quotes from the early church fathers ON DIVORCE” Bercot, David. Encyclopedia of Early Church Fathers: from the website “Why I will not remarry SO LONG AS WE BOTH SHALL LIVE” as compiled by a Christian divorcee under author written as “biyn.org Know the Truth” http://www.biyn.org/divorce/mdr-bf.pdf Retrived September 1, 2010. I believe may be referenced from the book “A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs” Edited By: David Bercot By: David W. Bercot, ed. Hendrickson Publishers 1998
“Reversing the Marriage Implosion” by Bob Reccord, under the subtitle “It’s a Covenant, not a Contract!” http://www.sermoncentral.com/articleb.asp?article=Bob-Reccord-Reversing-Marriage-Implosion&ac=true Retrieved September 1, 2010.
Footnote (3) “The Quick Reference Guide to: Marriage and Family Counseling” Pgs. 88-90. Dr. Tim Clinton and Dr. John Trent. Published by Baker Books, trademark 2009 by Tim Clinton and John Trent
Proverbs 5:15-19 it tells the men to let your wife satisfy you at all times and “always be enraptured with her love.” There is a growing group of Christians fighting the ‘contract marriages’ and instituting ‘covenant marriages’ back to marriages fighting the ‘no fault’ divorce laws making the divorce more legally difficult and under only certain allowances. www.covenantmarriages.com Retrieved September 1, 2010.
Wikipedia Encyclopedia “Get (divorce document)” subtitle under “Refusal to provide a get”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Get_%28divorce_document%29 Retrieved September 1, 2010.
“When a man hath taken a wife and married her…” Studylight.org http://studylight.org/com/geb/view.cgi?book=de&chapter=24&verse=1 Retrieved September 1, 2010. “The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible”, Commentaries subtitle under “Deuteronomy 24:1”
Footnote (4) “Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible” Jay E. Adams, pg 68. Publisher Zondervan (June 2, 1986)
Footnote (5) The Teachings of Jesus on Divorce — (Matthew 5:32b) Teaching in the Sermon on the Sin of Conspiratorial Adultery
By: William Luck
http://bible.org/article/teachings-jesus-divorce Retrieved September 1, 2010.
Footnote (6) 1242 pg. 424 “The Complete Word Study Dictionary, For a Deeper Understanding of the Word” New Testament 1992 by AMG International, Inc. Revised edition, 1993 General Editor Spiros Zodhites, Th.D. (based on the lexicon of Edward Robinson) .
Footnote (7) The Stone edition “Torah” pg. 1059 commentary on Deut 24:4.
Footnote (8) http://www.biyn.org/divorce/deu24.html Retrieved September 1, 2010. biyn.org/divorce “love worketh no ill to his neighbor,” “Shall he return to her again?”
Footnote (10) What God Hath Joined Together, Chapter 3. “GOD’S MARRIAGE TO ISRAEL” page 10 http://www.familyradio.com/graphical/literature/joined/joined_03.html Retrieved September 1, 2010.
Footnote (11) “navigating the Bible II” Deuteronomy » Chapter 24 http://bible.ort.org/books/pentd2.asp?ACTION=displaypage&BOOK=5&CHAPTER=24
Footnote (12) Brian Schwertley “The Sermon on the Mount, Chapter 17
The Third Antithesis: Christ’s Teaching on Divorce”
Footnote (13) www.beavertonchurchofchrist.net Mark Dunagan/Beaverton Church of Christ http://www.ch-of-christ.beaverton.or.us/Deuteronomy_24.htm “Deuteronomy 24:1-4”
Footnote (18) “Mood” subtitle under “A. The Indicative Mood” and “D. The Imperative Mood” http://www.bcbsr.com/greek/gmood.html Retrieved September 1, 2010.
Footnote (20) Paul later says in 1 Tim. 2:11-13 that ALL women are to be “silent” in the church and to be “submissive” due to the Design of order “Adam was formed first then Eve.” We know 1 Tim. 2:13 is referring to ALL women by Paul saying in 1 Cor. 11:3 that man (in general) is the “head” of “every” women for she was made in the “glory” of man verse 7. Paul also stated later repeating the idea of 1 Tim. 11:13 of Adam and Eve in 1 Cor. 11:9 by saying the man was not made “for” the woman but woman was made “for the man.”
Footnote (21) “Chapter III Divorce and Remarriage Texts in Jesus’ Teaching”. From Tennessee Bible College web site: http://www.tn-biblecollege.edu/remarriage-ch3.shtml
Footnote (22) Warren W. Wiersbe “Be Wise,” A New Testament Study 1 Corinthans, pgs. 78, 80, 1982 Warren W. Wiersbe, Victor trademark, the bible teacher’s teacher, David c Cook
Footnote (29) “Romans the Crossway Classic Commentaries” Hodge by Alister McGrath and J. I. Packer, p. 197 Published by Crossway Books 1993 Watermark
Footnote (30) I read this scripture used in Rubel Shelly’s book “Divorce & Remarriage a Redemptive Theology” in regards to Paul giving instruction to the Church. Thanks Rubel.
Footnote (31) Bruce Waltke, Professor of Old Testament
Footnote (33) According to Matt. 5:32 if the woman divorced her husband, and he did not commit sexual immorality in the marriage, she would also be guilty of “causing” her husband to commit adultery by putting his flesh in a line of temptation. Even if the ex-husband were to marry another committing “adultery” against her first Matt. 19:9 this does not give the woman permission to marry another or then release her from the Law of her husband (1 Cor. 7:39). Jesus stated the innocent woman is not given permission to remarry (Matt. 5:32a). A remarried man will be judged according to his own “adultery” if he remarries, independently of his wives actions; and likewise the woman.
Footnote (34) In Ezra chap. 9-10 the Jews were told to divorce only those to whom the Lord previously spoke to them about separating from the Land of Israel when the Jews finally took it over by war. God told them not to marry these so you will not worship their Gods Neh. 13:23-27, of 1 Kings 11:2 and Deut. 7:1-4 (the lands that they went into possess “the promises land” Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and the Jebusites – which you see are of the same of Ezra 9:1, but of the other lands (not given of the promises land they were allowed to inter-marry Joshua 1:2-5). But in other Laws of Moses the Jews were allowed to marry Gentiles (apart from the groups previously spoken about in Ezra 9:1, like those women taken in war elsewhere Deut. 21:10-13 they were allowed to marry them and keep the people alive Deut. 21:11 if the territory took the peace offering but if not all men and women who knew a man were to die that were of the “cities that were very far from you” verse 15 but of the people of the given promise land were all to die both men and women verse 16. Some of those who not have known a man intimately Numbers 31:17-18 of these were Midianite virgins (Exodus 2:16-21 Moses marrying a Midianite thought the women of Midianite caused Gods wrath on Israel Num. 31:16 from the story of Num. 25:5-6). This is not those of Ezra 9:1 (the people of those lands, Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Jebusites, Ammonites, Moabites, Egyptians, and Amorites), though it was better to marry one of their own people Lev. 21:13 and the story in Judges 14:3, Gen. 34:14 (of their women to those who are not circumcised) but Jacob sons said, “on this condition…if you become one as we are, if every male of you is circumcised.”
Footnote (35) There was still great fear and concern of being expelled from the Synagogue by doing what was improper according to the Pharisees/Religious leaders (as the man born blind and how his parents responded). But a (thought) good Jewish man would possibly marry a woman who was divorced without being brought to “public shame” for adultery. The people thinking the “Get” or “Writ” spoke of her “innocence” and her right to remarry Matt. 19:4-5. Why would a divorced woman want to confess her adultery anyways since it would only make it harder for her to get married again? Therefore, marrying an approved divorced woman (not publicly ashamed for adultery) by the Religious leaders was in fact adulterous to the Law of Moses (Matt. 19:9).
Footnote (36) The reason Paul later only calls the woman a “virgin” or a “wife” in vs 34 and not the man in verse 32 is because Paul just said some of the men he is now speaking to are those who have been “loosed” from a former wife (men are called “virgins” in Rev. 14:4). Paul is clearly speaking about a person’s own ‘virginity’ vs 37 in having your “own” control over yourself and not the control over someone else, so it seems likely verse 36 would be speaking of your own virginity, as well. Some Bible Versions suggest “virgins” of 25 and 36-37 Paul was speaking to both the men and the women.
“As noted, the principal difficulty involves the phrase “THN PARQENON AUTOU.” In
this regard, an Emphatic Diaglott footnote says: “Parthenos, commonly translated
virgin, has been rendered as meaning also a state of virginity or celibacy.” Dr.
G. R. Berry gives the interlinear reading as follows: “behaves unseemly to
virginity his.” This would mean that the “virgin” referred to is not that of
some other person, but is one’s own virginity. Some English versions convey this
understanding. J. N. Darby’s translation is: “But if any one think that he
behaves unseemly to his virginity, . . . let him do what he will, he does not
sin.” (See also the Bible by J. B. Rotherham.) Such a rendering fits both the
Greek text and Paul’s earlier words encouraging singleness.-1 Cor. 7:29-35.”
http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/archives/96-11/0591.html Retrived September 1, 2010, “1Cor. 7:38 – Give PARTHENOS in marriage,” by Wes Williams
Also, the “Believer’s Bible Commentary” by William MacDonald, John Nelson Darby, Thomas Nelson, Inc. year 1995, pg. 1771 says the the word virgin from 1 Cor. 7:25-37 “can be used to apply to either” (man/woman), pg. 1769 “but about his own virginity.”
Also, my Interlinear Bible in its earlier version used the word virgin to mean a persons own “virginity” but then in its later version changes it to mean the woman exclusive. All this means to say that this is a controversial point that many Greek translators say both reasons have validity.
Footnote (37) According to the Law in Matt. 19:9b it says to the woman that no matter what, if a divorce was done by an improper biblical action (apart from sexual immorality) then she and her new husband would be guilty of committing adultery if they were to marry (Matt. 5:32). Regardless if her former husband married already or not (Luke 16:8a and Matt. 19:9a). Although Matt. 19:9b dose not seem to state it was only after the man married another necessarily (in secession) in Matt. 19:9a – Matt. 19:9b, but this rule is perceived that ‘no matter what’ if either former spouse marries another (improper divorce) both will be guilty of “adultery” against the other if they were to marry again. Meaning, i.e. if the man put away the woman improperly or the woman put away the man improperly both would still “bound” to one another until the death of their former spouse then. That is why the disciples, not only after seeing the stipulation for a man divorcing his wife but the consequences thereafter said, ‘if such is the case with man and his wife, is it better not to marry?’
Footnote (38) Tennessee Bible College, “Chapter III Divorce and Remarriage Texts in Jesus’ Teaching,” Concerning I believe On the Position of Words in the Sentence, see A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, A. T. Robertson, MA., D.D., LL.D., Litt.D., p. 417. http://tn-biblecollege.edu/remarriage-ch3.shtml
Footnote (39) Although, there is controversy over what is the proper translation of 1 Cor. 7:33-34 I believe the KJV and the NKJV have it correct, though this may go against other texts also used. One of the reasons is the “unmarried” (both men and women in conclusion verse 35) says that they are told this in order to serve the Lord “without distraction”. If the translation of 1 Cor. 7:33 was talking about the man, from having his interests “divided,” then this point would not need to be repeated again in verse 35. Also, in the other translations it says the “unmarried” and “virgin” can marry again. According to the Greek word (1 Cor. 7:8-9, 25-37) “unmarried,” this would also include the meaning of a virgin as well. So, there would be no need to say “virgin” in verse 34. Also, between the word “unmarried” and “virgin” from the NIV translation of 1 Cor. 7:34 “and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit.” It should be the Greek interpretation “and” and not an “or” for a better translation of the text used here it seems to me.
“32 But I would have * (5750) (5719) you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth (5719) for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please (5692) the Lord: 33 But he that is married (5660) careth (5719) for the things that are of the world, how he may please (5692) his wife. 34 There is difference (divided) also between (5769) a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for (5719) the things of the Lord, that she may be (5753) holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married (5660) careth (5719) for the things of the world, how she may please (5692) her husband. 35 And this I speak (5719) for your own profit (5723); not that I may cast (5632) a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction. “
Bible translation from with some modifying to assist the reader in my points viewed. http://studylight.org/desk/?query=1co+7:33&t=str&st=1&new=1&sr=1&sc=1&l=en
If you look at the sentence structures in verse 32 through 34 there are very close similarities that may help us understand what Paul was saying in verse 33. “The unmarried cares for the things of the Lord” used in both 32 and 34; and “The but having married cares for the things of the world, how to please (wife or husband)” (roughly translated to show their similarities in sentence structure).
Robertson’s NT Word Studies
“7:34 {And there is a difference also between the wife and the virgin} (kai memeristai kai he gune kai he parqenos). But the text here is very uncertain, almost hopelessly so”.
John Gill’s Bible Commentary
“Ver. 34. There is difference also between a wife and a virgin , etc.] The word memeristai , translated �there is difference�, stands in some copies at the end of the last verse, and in the Vulgate Latin and Ethiopic versions, by which it is rendered, �and is divided�; referring to the married man, whose thoughts are distracted with the cares of the world, and his mind divided between the Lord and his wife, between the things that please the one, and those that please the other; so that he cannot attend upon the Lord without distraction, as the unmarried person may; (see Corinthians 7:35)”.
Both commentaries can be found in http://www.godrules.net/para/1cor/parallel1cor7-34.htm titled “PARALLEL BIBLE – 1 Corinthians 7:34” containing both different translations and commentaries.
Footnote (40) Therefore, we know the woman was not able to “seek” to “loose” herself from her husband, otherwise she would not have been told to remain unmarried (compared to the man in verse 28 which was said it was not a “sin” if he remarried).
Footnote (41) Barclay, “Matthew 5:31-32 Commentary” 11/12/2010
http://www.preceptaustin.org/matthew_531-32.htm
Footnote (42) “Servants’ News, May 1997, recovered November 14, 2010, “Marriage & Divorce: part 2”, under the subtitle A Time to Think About Divorce, by —Norman S. Edwards.
http://www.servantsnews.com/sn9705/s70501.htm
Footnote (49) “Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament,” 1st Thessalonians Chapter 4, Analysis of the Chapter, subtitle Verse 15. Studylight.org.
http://studylight.org/com/bnn/view.cgi?book=1th&chapter=4&verse=15#1Th4_15
Footnote (50) “Christian Marriage Preaching and Teaching Biblical Marriage” Retrieved Nov 15, 2010.
Member’s Lounge: Can a Woman Divorce Her Husband?
Posted by: Pastor Don Milton on Jun 22, 2007 – 12:41 AM |
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owners.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest (c) 1997-2010 by ChristianMarriage.com
http://www.christianmarriage.com/home/index.php?file=article&name=News&sid=121
Footnote (51) See Will Durant, The Story of Civilization: Caesar and Christ (New York, 1944), p. 396. Retrieved November 21, 2001 from the book “
| THE MARRIAGE COVENANT: A BIBLICAL STUDY ON MARRIAGE, DIVORCE, AND REMARRIAGE |
“ by Samuele Bacchiocchi, Ph. D., Andrews University, Chapter 6 Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible, subtitle: Exclusion of Polygamists.
http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/books/marriage/4.html
Footnote (60) “The Complete Word Study Dictionary, For a Deeper Understanding of the Word,” New Testament, Edited by Spiros Zodhiates Th.D., Word Study Series, AMG Publishers Chattanooga, TN 37422, U.S.A., 1992 By AMG International, Inc. Revised edition, 1993, Managing Editor Warren Baker, D.R.E., Associate Editor Rev. George Hadjiantoniou, PH.D.,
Footnote (61) “Robertson’s Word Pictures of the New Testament,” Our library, Commentary, 1 Corinthians 7:11, From the Website Bible Study Tools Growing Deeper In the Word.
http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/robertsons-word-pictures/1-corinthians/1-corinthians-7-11.html
Footnote (65) “PRESENT ACTIVE INDICATIVE” subtitle
| Parsing Present Active Indicative Verbs |
|
© 2002-10 William L. Pasieczny - All Rights Reserved. Received December 09, 2010.
http://www.wicketgate.com/ats/nt501/02beta/present_active_indicative.htm
Footnote (70) Bible Explore.com“PARALLEL BIBLE – 1 Corinthians 7:10,” Robertson’s NT Word Studies,
http://www.godrules.net/para/1cor/parallel1cor7-10.htm
Footnote (71) US ALS, “Divorce Statistics – Divorce Rates,” subtitle “The recent 2002 CENSUS BUREAU DIVORCE STATISTICS suggest that 50% of all married couples in US will be seeking a DIVORCE ATTORNEY.”
DIVORCE STATISTICS SOURCES: U.S. Census Bureau, National Center for Health Statistics, Americans for Divorce Reform, American Association for Single People, Institute for Equality in Marriage, Ameristat, U.S. Divorce Statistics, Public Agenda.
DISCLAIMER: The law will vary depending on your state, jurisdiction and the specifics of your case. The information provided by USAttorneyLegalServices.com is intended for educational purposes only. The content on this site should NOT be considered professional legal advice or a substitute for professional legal advice. For such services, we recommend getting a free initial consultation by a licensed Attorney in your state.
Copyright © 2006 USAttorneyLegalServices.com – Divorce Statistics – All Rights Reserved.
http://www.usattorneylegalservices.com/divorce-statistics.html
Footnote (77) “WE CAN CORRECTLY UNDERSTAND 1 CORINTHIANS 7 (Questions Concerning Marriage) Joe R. Price,” Grammar, on 1 Cor. 7:15.
http://www.bibleanswer.com/1cor7_1.htm
Footnote (78) Both from, “A Study of I Corinthians Chapter Seven,” Commandments for the married.
http://www.bibletruths.net/Archives/BTAR172.htm
Footnote (79) “May the Believer Deserted By an Unbeliever Remarry?” Truth Magazine, TruthMagazine.com, Jerry R. Earnhart, Canby, Oregon, Retrieved Jan, 7, 2011.
http://truthmagazine.com/archives/volume34/GOT034010.html
Footnote (81) “John Wesley’s Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible,” Commentary on Deut. 24 “verse 4”, Studylight.org retrieved Jan. 3, 2011. http://studylight.org/com/wen/view.cgi?book=de&chapter=24&verse=4#De24_4
Footnote (82) “[B-Greek] 1 Cor. 7:11 “EAN DE KAI CWRISQH,” by Iver Larsen, iver_larsen at sil.org, Sat Feb 8 14:38:00 EST 200, retrieved Jan, 11, 2011.
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/2003-February/024540.html
Footnote (83) “A Contextual Study of Matthew 19:1-9,” “With Harmonization From Mark 10:1-12, Matthew 5:32, Luke 16:18, and 1 Corinthians 7:1-16
[All Scripture references are from the New King James Version, unless otherwise noted.],” By Steven C. Harper
http://www.mentaldivorce.com/mdrstudies/AContextualStudyOfMatthew19.ht
Footnote (84) “3853. Paraggelló,” copyright © 1987, 2011 by Helps Ministries, Inc.
For complete text and additional resources visit:
TheDiscoveryBible.com
http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/3853.htm
Footnote (89) “The Wiersbe Bible Commentary: The Complete old Testament” By Warren W. Wiersbe, pg 354, Chapter Nine, Deuteronomy 21;15-25;19, Disputes and Decisions. Published by David C. Cook, c2007WarrenW. Wiersbe. Printed inItaly, Second Edition 2007. “The Bible Expositoin Commentary by Victor books r trademark.
Footnote (90) “Romans; Righteousness from Heaven” by R. Kent hughes, “15 Freedom in Christ” Romans 7;1-25, pg. 138. Copyright c 1991 by R. kent hughes, Published by Crossway Books,
Footnote (99) I thank Rudy Shelby because of reading his book “Divorce & Remarriage a Redemptive Theology.” To truly interpret Matt. 5:32b, you must go to what the Law was saying (Deut. 24;1-4).
Footnote (100) Vol. 10 Quick notes simplified Bible Commentary Series; Acts through 2 Corinthians, what about Church?” pg. 132. 2008 by Barbour Publishing, Inc. by Peter Barnes and Dr. Mark Strauss both being the contributing Editors along with C. Robert Deffinbaugh.
Footnote (202) “Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and the Issue of Divorce,” J. Carl Laney, Professor of Biblical Literature, Western Conservative Baptist Seminary, Portland, Oregon, Bibliotheca Sacra 149 (Jan. 1992): 3-15 [Copyright © 1992 Dallas Theological Seminary; cited with permission; digitally prepared for use at Gordon College], Retrieved June 3, 2011. http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/OTeSources/05-Deuteronomy/Text/Articles/Laney-Dt24-BS.htm
(The Cure 4 Divorce – title was by Stratton Wells)
And help from a word by a friend, Adam (knowingly or unknowingly, I am not sure).
Thanks Jim for letting me stay at your house while I was behind in rent.
Love you all brothers and sisters, Michael.
/
The woman … “Forsakes the companion of her youth; and forgets the covenant of her God” Proverbs 2:17 who commits adultery against her husband. God says to the man He no longer looks at them as two but one, “yet she is your companion and your wife by covenant” Malachi 2:14 and 15. Therefore, “God hates divorce.”
Other teachings on the matter:
* Being born again does not nullify the former marriage covenant.
*The Law of Moses is to convict others of their moral downfalls and convict man of sin. We died to the Law, not to be judged by the Law, in order for us to be free from sin and now to be able to walk in righteousness. We are “under grace” but this does not mean we can walk in sin and be “blameless.” We will be judged by our actions to see whether it was done in the flesh or in the Spirit to give God glory when He appears. Walk in light.
*What about those who say they can remarry because of the “liberty” they have in Christ Gal. 5:1
“I say then: Walk in the Spirit and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you (your former flesh) wish” Galatians 5:16-17.
Your own desires will let you know if you are truly in Christ or still in your “earthly nature.” For “those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires” Gal. 5:24. So, if you (those in theGalatiansChurch) are truly in Christ you have already “crucified the flesh” and its “passions and desires” and will NOT walk in them any further.
When we put to death the flesh and were “buried in Christ,” we are made alive by the same Spirit that rose Jesus from the dead “giving life to our mortal bodies.” “Therefore it is no longer us who lives but Christ in us.”
When Paul says “so that you do not do the things that you wish” in Gal. 5:17 this was not a direct reflection to his quote in Rom. 7:14-15 “For what I will to do, that I do not practice: but what I hate, that I do.”
What Paul is saying in Galatians is that if you wish to walk in the Spirit and in the “liberty” of Christ Gal. 5:1 it will not be the very same actions that the flesh desires to do. That is how you (and others) will know if what you do is from the Spirit of God or your flesh.
Paul told them they are not in bondage to the Law, but Paul was worried that those who he said was “called to liberty” would use this liberty “as an opportunity for the flesh” Gal. 5:13. Paul wanted them to know the “flesh” and the “Spirit” do not walk hand-in-hand and never will be. On the contrary Paul says, “but if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law” verse 17-18 for you will not do those things “you” desired to do in the flesh.
“God will not be mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. For he who sows to the flesh will of the flesh reap corruption but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life” Gal. 6:7-8.
questions: mikesayen@hotmail.com
