Scripture Declares….

Only Virgin girls and or Widowed women have a Biblical Authority to take a Husband.

Scripture reveals that when a virgin girl has sex with a man, she becomes “Known” by that man.  She becomes “Joined” to the man as One Flesh.  Society should recognize said couple as man and wife.  Man’s failure to recognize them man and wife is not God’s fault.

 

Paul declares — “There is a difference between the wife and the virgin.  The unmarried woman cares about the things of the Lord…But she who is married cares about the things of the world.”  1 Corinthians 7:34

Question — who is the ‘unmarried’ according to Paul?  Answer — the Virgin.

A couple questions to ponder…..Please take these Polls……………..

 

Scripture reveals that only “Death” will separate the One Flesh Union.  Hence why Widows are the other category of women who have the Biblical authority to take a husband.

Paul admonishes the Corinthians that only ‘death’ will sever this one flesh union.  He writes —

 

“A wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is at liberty to be married…”  1 Corinthians 7:39

A more thorough explanation —

“For 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.  So 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.”  Romans 7:2-3

 

It is my assertion that if one applies the following Rubric to all Scripture pertaining to Sex and Marriage, one will find perfect balance and harmony.

Rubric —  When a Virgin girl has sex with a man, she becomes ‘joined’ to that man as one flesh.  She is now ‘known’ by the man.  Only Death can sever this union.

This is God’s Natural Law which is Universal.  It applies to all Generations.

 

The second part of the Rubric is:  Society (even Biblical ) should recognize said couple ‘man and wife’.  The non-virgin woman can only be with one man and it be righteous.  Sex with any other man would be Sexual Immorality.   

 

Apply this rubric to all Scripture pertaining to sex and marriage and you will find perfect harmony.

 

The Story of Jacob, Laban, Leah and Rachel is but one example.

 

 

If you have found this Blog and you are quickened by the Holy Spirit as to it’s message, I have 10 years of more information.  Please respond and I will open the rest of the Blog for you.

If you feel I am in error, please contact me and help me understand how I have misunderstood.

Sincerely.  In the Truth of His Word, Jeff

 

 

 

Advertisements
Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments

If you have read: ‘Scripture Declares’… please take this Poll:

If you “Disagree” please leave a comment and explain ‘why’.  Thank you.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

God Told Hosea To Do What?

Below is an article regarding Hosea and Gomer.  The author draws a few conclusions that I have not yet  studied in full detail.  I will BOLD the parts of this article in which I support 100% regarding the question as to whether Gomer was a harlot ‘prior’ to her marriage to Hosea.  Please study thoughtfully and carefully.

 

God Told Hosea To Do What?  By Edward Ridenour

In addition to the unfortunate Scriptural misinterpretation, by the church, in believing that the church is the bride of Christ, which influences false perceptions of Biblical marriage and fornication, there is another erred perception, which does the same. This horrific perception is that God in the book of Hosea had instructed the Prophet Hosea to marry (sexually intimate) a prostitute. In my view, those who believe this theory have seriously failed to consider God’s holy character and His Word. It is a theory that truly displays a lack of understanding in Biblical marriage and its sanctity, which He designed, as well as the consequences of its violation.

The church has used this prophetic book to support their perception of the church being the bride of Christ and that Christ is constantly forgiving the church for its sins, past and present, which Hosea symbolized by marrying Gomer and taking her back. This is based upon the interpretation that Hosea supposedly married a prostitute (Gomer) on Yahweh’s command and, then, she continued in her whoredom, which Hosea forgives, taking her back, works with her, and continued to be a husband to her, without any consequence.

This incorrect theory, then, is applied to the attitude of conduct, which they say should be displayed within a Christian marriage of a man and woman when one of them commits fornication against the other. The innocent spouse is to be like Hosea (Christ-like – forgiving), and take their fornicating spouse back if they repent, even though Gomer never showed any indication of repentance.

Although they wouldn’t admit it, this Scripture is used by many, similar to the bride of Christ idea, to brow-beat the innocent spouse into taking the violating spouse back, condemning them as not being Christ-like if they don’t. Others use it as a justification in taking their fornicating spouse back. Anyone who has read my book “It’s Good For A Man Not To Touch A Woman” or my articles in this blog know the reason why this is a huge mistake.

I have already outlined my reasons for the church being in error in believing that the bride of Christ is the church and how applying that theory in the dealings of marriage and fornication is damnable. Now I will outline my reasons why the church is in total error in their interpretation of this Scripture and how it fosters a wrong perception, and must not be applied to Biblical marriage precepts.

I concede to the premise that the book of Hosea reveals God’s love, mercy, forgiveness, and redemption. This is evident, but must be put in a proper perspective.

The gist of the message and marriage to Gomer was mostly to prophesy God’s view of His relationship He and Israel have had within their union from the beginning to the present. It also points to the promises of hope for Israel in the near future, and to the redemption that would come, further out, to all men through the work of Jesus Christ – those circumcised in the heart by faith. Howbeit, until then, there was going to be horrendous judgment and punishment upon Israel and Judah for their wickedness. As one commentator described it “This picture is one of a loving husband who yearns desperately to have a faithful wife. Israel, however, will have none of it, and the consequences of its sins must play themselves out, although hope for the future is never lost.”

Isn’t it interesting that these aspects of judgment and punishment (consequences), which is no small percentage of the prophet’s message, never seem to get much attention by those who use Hosea to support the church as the bride of Christ, nor as an advocated mindset to be exercised by an innocent spouse as the rule when fornicated against by their unfaithful spouse. They only seem to hear what they want to hear and see what they want to see. This, along with a lack of knowledge, makes for some false doctrines and applications to life, particularly marriage and its violation.

Without writing a whole commentary on the book of Hosea, I will just point out some of the main points where errors in interpretation are vivid:

Firstly, the relationship that God had with Israel was not in the form of husband/wife. Actually, God’s wife according to Scripture was Jerusalem, which was in Judah at this time in history. Neither is the prophecy of Hosea an instruction on how to deal with an errant spouse. The marriage to Gomer only symbolized God’s marriage (connection, union) to Israel in His oneness with them through the covenant of the law. The oneness He initiates with the church today is through the covenant (redemption) of Jesus Christ. This relationship is not husband/wife either.

On this earth, marriage (the oneness generated by two, through sexual intimacy) between a man and woman depicts, most distinctly, the oneness connection that God’s people experience with Him. We are married (joined) to Him, yet not as His wife, but as His body, like a wife is to her husband. It is a holy connection. Once born again, the church (made up of each member) is connected to Him as His body through His Spirit, once born again, as is also the wife connected to her husband as his body once they are sexually intimate. However, if you have read my book or articles you will know that both of these unions can be fornicated.

The earthly marriage union illustrates, for the lack of a better word, our oneness with Christ. Both of these institutions of oneness are a mystery. That is because each union is enacted by God Himself and is not seen by the human eye nor implemented by man.

Secondly, to think that God would entreat a prophet to commit an abominable act of fornication by being sexually intimate with a prostitute is ridiculous. Only those who: 1) Have no respect for God’s holy and righteous character, i.e., “…to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither come it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin” (Jeremiah 32:35, KJV) and “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man” (James 1:13); 2) have no respect and knowledge to how horrific the sinful act of fornication is bodily and as idolatry could presume such an atrocity.

Should we believe that God would direct a holy man into committing this abomination (fornication) with a prostitute (see my previous articles or book) for the purpose of reproving the abominations of others? How could Hosea be the instrument for exposing and condemning the sin of Israel when He would be just as guilty as they? Where is the sense and wisdom in this, as the means for Israel to change? How does one marry a prostitute and then condemn her afterward for being a prostitute, considering it shameful?

This crazy idea is also like certain so-called ministries today where one spouse commits fornication against the other spouse, are taken back, and, then, set out to tell others that their marriage is now better than before. Anymore, to have a viable marriage ministry one must commit the sin of fornication beforehand. Then you are qualified to be a help to others. “Let us sin, so that grace may abound!” “Let’s all commit fornicated affairs so our marriages will be better!”   This is a sensual philosophy of the world being spewed out by the church, which even many unbelievers will not accept. Shouldn’t the ones who are faithful to their spouses be the ones who are true ministers of marriage, especially to unbelievers? Hosea was the true sinless minister. He represented and exemplified the true, righteous, and faithful God.

For God to direct Hosea to commit this defiling act would have been the most unrighteous thing for a righteous God to do. The holy prophet wouldn’t be so holy any longer, and would be just as worthy of condemnation. I ask… would the church be so ready to accept God commanding a prophet to commit homosexuality, instead of adultery, for the purpose of instruction? I don’t believe so! I would hope not!

The reason I made the claim as I just did is because Gomer was not a prostitute when Hosea married her. The book of Hosea itself makes this fact very clear for these reasons:

1) They, who make the claim that Gomer was a prostitute when Hosea married her, read Hosea 1:2&3 erringly. It is not saying to go take a wife that is already in the sin of whoredom, but to go take a wife among people who are and are the children of whoredoms (idolaters), who will later become a prostitute and have illegitimate children, as Israel had prostituted itself and produced illegitimate (idolatrous, lawless) children. For Israel “hath committed great whoredom, departing from the Lord.”

2) Verse three says, “So he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim…”  When one understands Biblical marriage, it is understood that if Gomer had had other men, she would not have been referred to as “the daughter of” her father, but as a man’s wife or a harlot. To identify her as “the daughter of” was to indicate that she was still a virgin under her father’s authority within his house. She had not yet known a man. It is this virgin that Hosea covenanted for and married (sexual intimacy).

3) Verse three is also backed up by Hosea 2:7 saying, “…I will go and return to my first husband…” Her first husband was Hosea to whom she would return. Otherwise, if Hosea wasn’t her first husband who would be? Who was her second, third, fourth… husbands? If you know Biblical marriage, like I have been teaching, you’ll know how to answer this. It speaks of her sexual intimacies as husbands and not through covenant, vows, or documents. It’s a similar situation as when Jesus encountered the woman at the well and said to her, “For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband…” (John 4:18). Just as God was the first for Israel and Israel the first for God, so was Hosea the first for Gomer and Gomer the first for Hosea.

4) Israel was not defiled when God chose and formed a nation of Him, “When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt” (Hosea 11:1). Israel was a young innocent child when God called (married) him out of Egypt, not a defiled fornicated one. Israel was unformed in Egypt and, then, formed and nurtured by God when called out and given His law. Israel, the nation, fornicated itself afterward; just as Gomer did. “I found Isreal like grapes in the wilderness; I saw your fathers as the first ripe in the fig tree at her first time: but they went to Baal-peor, and separated themselves unto that shame; and their abominations were according as they loved” (Hosea 9:10).

5) The first child Jezreel was Hosea’s son before Gomers adultery. He represented the righteous seed that was and would be sown in Israel. The other children Lo-ruhamah and Lo-ammi were children from her fornications. This is seen in Hosea 2:1-5, where he says, “Say ye [Jezreel] unto your brethren, Ammi; and to your sisters, Ruhamah. Plead with your mother, plead; for she is not my wife, neither am I her husband…for they be the children of whoredoms. For their mother hath played the harlot; she that conceived them hath done shamefully…”

Note: How could God say that Gomer conceived these children, Lo-ammi and Lo-ruhamah, shamefully and yet not declare the same concerning Jezreel, if she was a harlot before Hosea took her? Wouldn’t it have been just as shameful for him to have taken her as a harlot, also? Does a covenant or a marriage certificate, as some might say would make a difference, cause a harlot to not be a harlot anymore, Biblically? Do these procedures and documents wipe away all fornications (adutleries)? Does God’s Word depict such things? The reason there was no wrong with Hosea taking Gomer and bearing Jezreel is because, when he was conceived the union was a true marriage, not fornication.

Thirdly, many regard what is said in Hosea 3:1 signals Hosea taking Gomer back to be his wife. Well, interpreting verse 1 as meaning this is not at all correct. I can only say, for one to draw such a conclusion originates from the misunderstanding of Biblical marriage, as well as not acknowledging factual declarations from the book of Hosea itself. This verse itself is rife with signaling that he does not take her back as a wife.

Here is what verse 1 says, “Then said the Lord unto me, Go yet, love a woman beloved of her friend, yet an adulteress, according to the love of the Lord toward the children of Israel , who look to other gods, and love flagons of wine.”

Here are the reasons to dispute those who say Hosea took Gomer back:

1) Gomer is referred to as an “adulteress” and not as his wife. Romans 7:2,3 says, “For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth…So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married [sexually intimate] to another man, she shall be called an adulteress…” This means she no longer bears the label or distinction as a wife, but now bears the distinction of “adulteress.” An adulteress is not a wife of one man, but of more than one and, therefore, a fornicator of marriage. The husband cannot take her back. I already indicated how that Hosea was her first husband. Hosea, her original husband, is now no longer her husband. Their holy marriage (union) had been defiled (made illegitimate) by her fornication (adultery) with her “lovers [sexual].” The “love” God entreats Hosea to now show is not sexual in nature. That is the perversion of our culture, adopted by the church.

2) Hosea was commanded to love her and care for her, even though she was no longer his wife, indicated by the title of “adulteress.” This estranged marital relationship between them, because of her fornicated affairs, is compared to the same relationship, which God had with Israel at this time. Israel’s fornication is declared in the latter part of verse 1 above saying, “…the children of Israel, who look to other gods, and love flagons of wine.” This means the relationship that Israel had with God has been put asunder through their idolatrous fornication, although not as a husband/wife, but as a God and His people. He still loved them, but it would be an estranged relationship. He would care for them, yet, they would not benefit from all that they had when they were His alone. They would be “…without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without an image, and without an ephod, and without teraphim” (Hosea 3:4).

3) Hosea emphatically stated that Gomer was not his wife saying, “Say ye unto your brethren, Ammi, and to your sisters, Ruhama, Plead with your mother, plead; for she is not my wife, neither am I her husband…” (Hosea 2:1-3). He is telling Jezreel, his blood son from Gomer when she was his wife, to tell his half brother and half sister that their mother, who had them by another man or other men through her adulteries, is now no longer his wife. He also declares that for her to save herself (“Plead with your mother, plead“), she must stop living in fornication, if she doesn’t want to face harsh judgment. The only answer when fornication is committed is to repent and live celibate. This is the only way to not commit fornication again.

4) For the Scripture to declare that Gomer would “go back to her first husband” and Hosea to declare that “she is not my wife and I am not her husband” indicates that she had been put-away by Hosea. Therefore, for God to instruct Hosea to take her back would be forcing him to commit a declared abomination of violating the forbidden law of not taking back a spouse who was remarried after being put-away. So, according to the church, God causes Hosea to defile his self twice with this whorish woman through acts that were an abomination before God. How pathetic.

He couldn’t take her again or he would fornicate himself with her. What Hosea actually did resembled the sacrifice of God caring for Israel at the present time, and yet not having them as a people or a nation that are His in a holy way. The covenant of Christ and His Spirit would eventually change this situation including both Jew and Gentile, declared in Hosea 2:14-23. This is the new and intended Israel – the descendants of Abraham by faith.

Therefore, in chapter 3:2 the love that is shown by Hosea to Gomer is to purchase her as a man would purchase a prostitute, providing for her needs, yet not joining himself to her in a sexual way as he did when he married her. Through this possession, she is to stay celibate and he also commits to staying celibate along with her in order to care for her. He sacrifices both his finances and his physical sexual needs for her well-being. This is the true love story of sacrifice that people should be writing about.

I will close with these two Scripture verses:

“…therefore the people that doth not understand shall fall” (Hosea 4:14);

“Who is wise, and he shall understand these things? prudent, and he shall know them? for the ways of the Lord are right, and the just shall walk in them: but the transgressors shall fall therein” (Hosea 14:9).

There is forgiveness, but however, the sin of fornication produces consequences.

 

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Anything that is not ‘bold’ above does not necessarily mean that I disagree with Ridenour’s opinion.  I just haven’t had the time yet to fully study his opinion.

 

I simply post this article as just one more ‘proofs’ of the ridiculous belief/claim that a non-virgin girl/woman is eligible for a righteous marriage to a different man.  Anytime I challenge men and women who have violated the principle/law of the necessity of Virginity in marriage, their likely first response is to say arrogantly, “Well…..Hosea married a prostitute, so there, case closed.”

Gomer was indeed a virgin when Hosea ‘took’ her as his wife.    The passage Hosea 2:7 is proof of that.  The word ‘husband’ is simply a translation of ‘man’.  Using the word ‘husband’ is no great violation….but I can anticipate my brother coming back with the argument that verse 7 simply proves that Hosea was Gomer’s first husband — not that Gomer was not a virgin.  But the passage could easily and should read — I will go and return to my first man.  Meaning — her first lover.  The Scriptures tell us that when a virgin girl has sex with a man she becomes ‘known’ by that man*.  If I were to play the devils advocate and argue my brother’s pov, he would suggest the word ‘first’ has no consequence.  If we are to take “first husband’ literally, then we would have to conclude that Gomer took other husbands.  If Hosea was Gomer’s ‘first’ husband, then she would have had to take second, even third husbands.    But the Scriptures imply no such thing.  Gomer simply “whored” herself out — slept with other men — after Hosea.  She did not marry ‘ceremoniously’ other ‘husbands’ as my brother would have to INSIST is true in order for the passage to make any sense.

*”And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity.” Luke 2:36

“The woman was very beautiful, a virgin; no man had known her. She went down to the spring, filled her jar and came up again.” Genesis 24:16

 

For those who sleep at night with the comfort of believing Gomer was a non-virgin prior to her union to Hosea, as justification for their similar situation, are simply deceiving themselves and perverting the Character of God.

Their argument is “weak” at best, but yet these lovers of sin hold Gomer up as the standard for Christian Living.

Their second blasphemous attempt to justify their sin is to suggest the Woman at the Well was also not a virgin; and or had multiple marriages in which Jesus did not condone.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Broad Way — J.C. Ryle

I contemplate often, “How did I get here?”  So much had happened in 2002.  I can’t really place my finger on any one book that I read, or a particular passage of Scripture that I meditated on.  But I do remember reading a book with the writings of J.C. Ryle around that time.  I remember very vividly being moved to tears which inspired me to really examine myself after reading Ryle’s commentary on Matthew 7.  I will make a few more comments following the excerpt:

 

Our Lord gives us a general caution against the way of the many in religion. It is not enough to think as others think, and do as others do. It must not satisfy us to follow the fashion, and swim with the stream of those among whom we live. He tells us that the way that leads to everlasting life is “narrow,” and “few” travel in it. He tells us that the way that leads to everlasting destruction is “broad,” and full of travelers. “Many are those who enter in by it.”

These are fearful truths! They ought to raise great searchings of heart in the minds of all who hear them. “Which way am I going? By what road am I traveling?” In one or other of the two ways here described, every one of us may be found. May God give us an honest, self-inquiring spirit, and show us what we are!

We may well tremble and be afraid, if our religion is that of the multitude. If we can say no more than this, that “we go where others go, and worship where others worship, and hope we shall do as well as others at last,” we are literally pronouncing our own condemnation. What is this but being in the “broad way?” What is this but being in the road whose end is “destruction?” Our religion at present is not saving religion.

We have no reason to be discouraged and cast down, if the religion we profess is not popular, and few agree with us. We must remember the words of our Lord Jesus Christ in this passage: “The gate is narrow.” Repentance, and faith in Christ, and holiness of life, have never been fashionable. The true flock of Christ has always been small. It must not move us to find that we are reckoned singular, and peculiar, and bigoted, and narrow-minded. This is “the narrow way.” Surely it is better to enter into life eternal with a few, than to go to “destruction” with a great company.

In the last place, the Lord Jesus gives us a general warning against false teachers in the church. We are to “beware of false prophets.” The connection between this passage and the preceding one is striking. Would we keep clear of this “broad way?” We must beware of false prophets. They will arise. They began in the days of the apostles. Even then the seeds of error were sown. They have appeared continually ever since. We must be prepared for them, and be on our guard.

This is a warning which is much needed. There are thousands who seem ready to believe anything in religion if they hear it from an ordained minister. They forget that clergymen may err as much as laymen. They are not infallible. Their teaching must be weighed in the balance of Holy Scripture. They are to be followed and believed, so long as their doctrine agrees with the Bible, but not a minute longer. We are to try them “by their fruits.” Sound doctrine and holy living are the marks of true prophets. Let us remember this. Our minister’s mistakes will not excuse our own. “If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the ditch.”

What is the best safe-guard against false teaching? Beyond all doubt the regular study of the word of God, with prayer for the teaching of the Holy Spirit. The Bible was given to be a lamp to our feet and a light to our path. (Psalm. 119:105.) The man who reads it aright will never be allowed greatly to err. It is neglect of the Bible which makes so many a prey to the first false teacher whom they hear. They would have us believe that “they are not learned, and do not pretend to have decided opinions.” The plain truth is that they are lazy and idle about reading the Bible, and do not like the trouble of thinking for themselves. Nothing supplies false prophets with followers so much as spiritual sloth under a cloak of humility.

May we all bear in mind our Lord’s warning! The world, the devil, and the flesh, are not the only dangers in the way of the Christian. There remains another yet, and that is the “false prophet,” the wolf in sheep’s clothing. Happy is he who prays over his Bible and knows the difference between truth and error in religion! There is a difference, and we are meant to know it, and use our knowledge.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Not under Bondage

What Is the Meaning of “Not under Bondage” (1 Cor. 7:15)?

In First Corinthians 7:15, Paul affirms that if an unbelieving spouse abandons his/her Christian companion, the Christian is “not under bondage.” Some allege that this provides an additional cause for divorce – other than fornication (Mt. 5:32; 19:9). But is there real evidence for this position?

“Would you address First Corinthians 7:15? Does desertion by a non-believing spouse grant the abandoned Christian the right of remarriage?”  First Corinthians, chapter 7, the apostle Paul responds to a number of questions that had been submitted to him by various members of the church at Corinth (cf. 1 Cor. 7:1). Some of these questions had to do with the relationship of a believer who is married to an unbeliever.

For example, should the Christian leave the unbeliever? Paul’s answer was in the negative – not if the unbeliever is content to keep on dwelling with the Christian (7:12-13). The “sanctified” environment of a home in which the influence of the gospel is found could lead to the conversion of the unbelieving partner (7:14; cf. 1 Pet. 3:1).

But what if the unbeliever should not be content to remain with the Christian, and he “departs” (chorizetai, literally “separates himself”)? What should the Christian do? Paul says that the child of God “is not under bondage” in such cases (7:15).

Some have argued that First Corinthians 7:15 provides a second cause for divorce (in addition to the “fornication” of Matthew 5:32; 19:9), and so, by implication, expands Jesus’ teaching, and authorizes a subsequent remarriage on the ground of “desertion” by an unbelieving mate. This view is commonly called the “Pauline privilege.”

The theory certainly is not a new one; it was advocated by Chrysostom (c. A.D. 347-407), one of the so-called “church fathers.” It became a part of Roman Catholic Canon law, and was defended by Martin Luther. This view, we are convinced, is unwarranted and constitutes a compromise of the Lord’s teaching on divorce and remarriage.

A Look at the Context

First of all, this theory reads into the context that which simply is not there. Here are the facts. Some of the Corinthian saints had been influenced by a proto-Gnostic philosophy which asserted that sexual relations were intrinsically evil. These brethren, therefore, wanted to know the following:

  1. Should a Christian husband and wife separate from (chorizo) or leave (aphiemi) each other (10-11)? Paul’s answer was, No; but should a separation occur, celibacy should be maintained, or else reconciliation effected.
  2. Should a Christian leave his unbelieving spouse? Again, Paul’s response was, No; not if the unbeliever is willing to remain with the believer (12-13).
  3. What if the unbeliever initiates a separation? What should the Christian do? Let him go, the apostle says, the Christian is not enslaved to that spouse, so that domestic proximity is absolutely required (15). “Divorce” is not under consideration here. The New Testament term for divorce is apoluo (literally, to loose away; cf. Mt. 5:31-32; 19:3,7-9; Mk. 10:2-4,11-12; Lk. 16:18), and that word is meticulously avoided in First Corinthians 7:10-15.

In the second place, Paul makes it clear that the general theme under consideration in this context had not been comprehensively dealt with by the Lord. The Lord had taught concerning some matters – “not I, but the Lord” (v. 10), but not with reference to other matters – “say I, not the Lord” (v. 12). However, regarding divorce, Christ had spoken comprehensively (note the “whosoever” and “every one” (Mt. 5:31-32; 19:9). Thus, the subject being reviewed in First Corinthians 7:10-15 was not that of divorce.

Thirdly, the word rendered “bondage” (15) is the Greek term douloo, which means “to make a slave of.” Observe how the word is translated in Titus 2:3 – “enslaved to much wine.” Biblically speaking, marriage is never viewed as slavery! The “bondage,” i.e., enslavement, does not refer to the marriage union. If the unbeliever departs, that is not the Christian’s responsibility. The brother or sister is not enslaved to maintain togetherness” (note the allusion of v. 5) at the expense of fidelity to the Lord.

Interestingly, douloo (under bondage) in verse 15 is, in the Greek Testament, a perfect tense form, dedoulotai. The perfect tense denotes a present state resulting from past action. Its force here is this: “was not bound [past action], and is not bound [present state].” The sense of the verse thus is:

Yet if (assuming such should occur) the unbeliever separates himself, let him separate himself: the brother or sister was not [before the departure] and is not [now that the departure has occurred] enslaved ….

Whatever the “bondage” is, therefore, the Christian was not in it, even before the disgruntled spouse left. But the saint was married (and is) to him; hence, the bondage is not the marriage!

Let the reader substitute the word “marriage” for “bondage,” giving the full force to the perfect tense (i.e., “has not been married, and is not married”) and the fallacy of viewing the bondage as the marriage itself will be apparent.

First Corinthians 7:15 does not expand upon the Savior’s teaching with reference to divorce and remarriage, as much as some wish that it were so.

For those who want to believe that Paul does indeed affirm that the marriage has been broken, please ask yourself the following questions:

a)    Why does Paul in verse 11 tell the departing spouse to ‘remain single’, and or ‘reconcile’ with her husband…  But then contradicts himself in verse 15?

b)     Why would Paul say only “death” can sever the marital bond?  But then say ‘separation’ does the same thing?

c)     Why did Jesus say Divorce is NOT permitted, but then His Apostles give all kinds of exceptions?

Finally, the Word of Yahweh does not contradict.  Jesus tells us Divorce is not possible; Jesus and Paul tell us only “death” can sever the marital bond.  Why does the church insist on telling us that Jesus and Paul didn’t mean what they said???

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment