A Biblical Teaching And Information

[kristie]

This is a post I did and I felt I should save a copy of it here, as I ended up doing a teaching on the bible in this thread.

We are starting with a look at different bible versions writings and then going from there about the truth of God.

King James Version: 1Co 7:15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

Good News Bible: 1Co 7:15 However, if the one who is not a believer wishes to leave the Christian partner, let it be so. In such cases the Christian partner, whether husband or wife, is free to act. God has called you to live in peace.

Bible in Basic English: 1Co 7:15 But if the one who is not a Christian has a desire to go away, let it be so: the brother or the sister in such a position is not forced to do one thing or the other: but it is God's pleasure that we may be at peace with one another.

American Standard Version: 1Co 7:15 Yet if the unbelieving departeth, let him depart: the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us in peace.

Literal Translation Version: 1Co 7:15 But if the unbelieving one separates, let them be separated; the brother or the sister is not in bondage in such matters; but God has called us in peace.

Okay so we have leave, depart, desire to go away, separate, and all these terms mean to me in plain English that they just leave, separate, move out.

Then you get to this bible and look at the word used....

Contempory English Version: 1Co 7:15 If your husband or wife isn't a follower of the Lord and decides to divorce you, then you should agree to it. You are no longer bound to that person. After all, God chose you and wants you to live at peace.

Do the words leave, depart, desire to go away, separate mean the same thing as divorce to any of you?

Now this next verse in the same order.

KJV: 1Co 7:16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?

GNB: 1Co 7:16 How can you be sure, Christian wife, that you will not save your husband? Or how can you be sure, Christian husband, that you will not save your wife?

BBE: 1Co 7:16 For how may you be certain, O wife, that you will not be the cause of salvation to your husband? or you, O husband, that you may not do the same for your wife?

ASV: 1Co 7:16 For how knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? Or how knowest thou, O husband, whether thou shalt save thy wife?

LITV: 1Co 7:16 For what do you know, wife, whether you will save the husband? Or what do you know, husband, whether you will save the wife?

CEV: 1Co 7:16 And besides, how do you know if you will be able to save your husband or wife who isn't a follower?

Theresa and I have discussed this verse before, as she believed the way the KJV read that it was saying what the CEV was saying, that you should let them depart because how can you know that you will save them-negative emphasis on saving them. Or in other words, do not hold onto them to save them, because you might not. And she got this understanding of it because of the verse it followed, saying to let them go. I disagreed, it is not how my spirit interpreted the verse, I was getting the flip on it, that it was saying that we could be the one who leads them to Christ, and it was more in context to the verse before the last it followed, in context to the entire passage on the subject, not just the preceeding verse. But I just now looked up the verse, for the first time, in the scholars translation in my study bible; and it says:

Marriage to a nobeliever is not grounds for divorce. Such marriage leads to Christian influence for the children and hopes of leading the unbeliever to salvation in Christ. Such a marriage is acceptable in Gods eyes.

So that reaffirms to me that even the KJV is reading as, how can we know that we will not lead them to Christ, not vice versa. I can see the misunderstanding in the verse in KJV, because it leaves out the 'not' before save, but for me when it followed the point of we are to stay with a unbeliever because it makes our children holy, that had more emphasis to me, the positive emphasis, then the unbeliever wanting to leave and letting them. Overall, how it reads to me is that God does not want the marriage separated and is instructing His child not to do such a thing, not take accountability for such a thing, and is just saying if the unbeliever does such a thing, then to be at peace and He will not hold you accountable or bound, so you can be at peace...as we are to be as His children, non strifeful or participating in strife.

The Contempary English Version really twists the words though, I found that interesting. I am going to see how it reads on a couple of other things, I bet it uses the word divorce instead of fornication in the Matthew and Mark verses on marriage and divorce.

ISV, GNB and CEV have all changed the word fornication to adultery. But anyway, just a little biblical study information for those interested.

The Gospel of Christ and, in general, the Holy Bible are written with the inspiration of God. The Prophets and the Apostles have recorded in written form a portion of the oral teaching of the Old Testament in Hebrew and Aramaic as well as the New Testament in Greek. These are the original languages of the Holy Bible from' which all the translations have been derives. God's inspiration is confined to the original languages and utterances, not the many translations. There are 1,300 languages and dialects into which the Holy Bible, in its entirety or in portions, has been translated. Translations of the Bible are very necessary, but are not sufficient for formulating dogmas and doctrines of the Church, which requires reference to the original languages. The translations depend upon the genius and-knowledge of the translator in the selection of the proper words and phrases to render meaning as close as possible to the text of the original language. It is well-known that a new translation is more or less a new interpretation. This is obvious when the Bible is translated in the same language, but in different expressions and words. For instance, in the English language there are many translations and renderings with different words and phrases, which imply that one translation differs from the other.

The translation of the Bible into the English language coincided with the invention of the printing press and the period of Reformation (15th -16th centuries). Before this time the use of Bible in the West was forbidden in any language other than Latin. The Latin translation, from the original Hebrew and Greek, was made by St. Jerome in the fourth century. It became the authoritative Bible for the Western Church and was 'known as the Vulgate. The reading of the Bible, even in the Latin, was forbidden the lay people without permission. This denial by the authorities of the Western Church was one of the main reasons for the Protestant Reformation. Therefore, the first act of the first reformer, Martin Luther, was the translation of the Bible into German in 1522, which translation was the main factor in the establishment of the German language. Before the Reformation and the printing press, various parts of the Bible had been translated into English from the Latin Vulgate. The Western Church was very strict in the use of Latin not only for the Bible, but also for the ritual worship of the Church, which was incomprehensible to the people. It should be noted that before the Reformation there was no complete translation of the Bible in English. The only translation in English from the Latin and not the original Greek language, covering only the New Testament and some parts of the Old, was that attributed to John Wycliffe of England. Despite the fact it was made with the knowledge of the authorities of the Church, its use was forbidden without special permission, according to the decision of the Synod of Oxford of 1407. The first translation of the Bible into English from the original languages, Hebrew and Greek, and the first which was printed was that of William Tyndale in c.1523. Before this translation the only printings of the Bible were the Vulgate (first printing, 1456), the Hebrew text of the Old Testament (1488), the text of the New Testament Greek by Erasmus (1516), with four revisions through 1535 and the literal translation of the Old Testament from Hebrew into Latin (1528). The translation of the New Testament into English from the original Greek text depended on the initiative of Tyndale (c. 1523), without the sponsorship or permission of the Bishop of London. Tyndale was denounced and forced to flee to Germany, where he probably met Martin Luther. Tyndale started to print the New Testament in English in Cologne, but was again forced to flee to another city, Worms.

In Worms he finally completed the printing of the English translation of the New Testament, in its entirety. This translation was reprinted many times in Holland. Copies of this translation reached England, where it aroused the anger of his enemies. Nevertheless, Tyndale continued his work and undertook to translate and print the books of the Old Testament. He first printed the five Books of Moses, the Pentateuch, in Antwerp in 1529-30. Over the next few years he printed the other books of the Old Testament. Tyndale later printed the New Testament and the Pentateuch together with marginal notes reflecting the Protestant views. This further incensed his enemies, who had him condemned as a heretic. He was burned at the stake in Holland in 1536. Tyndale's translation especially that of the New Testament from the original Greek, marked the beginning of many other English translations from the original Greek, using Tyndale's translation as a guide. Unfortunately, the original Greek New Testament edited by Erasmus in 1516, which was used by Tyndale for his English translation, contained many mistakes. Still, Tyndale's English translation of the Bible was a pioneer work and an independent effort. Much of his translation is used in the King James Version of 1611. Tyndale's English translation of the entire Bible was the basis for the many other English translations that followed. The subsequent English versions are Coverdale's Bible, 1535; Thomas Mathew's Bible, 1537; the Great Bible, 1539; the Geneva Bible, 1560, and the Bishop's Bible, 1568. Also the Rheims-Duae's in 1582 was translated from the Latin Vulgate. Within approximately 50 years from the time of Tyndale's first printed translations the above six translations were made. It must be noted, however, that none of these English translations was accepted as an authorized English version, because of general dissatisfaction with them and the many mistakes found in them. Therefore, after 30 years another attempt to translate the Bible anew into English was made by a conference in England, where a new version of the Bible was suggested to King James. King James was convinced of the need of a new English translation of the Bible. He appointed 54 scholars to undertake the task. These scholars used the Bishop's Bible of 1568 as a basis, but earlier English versions were also, taken into consideration, especially Tyndale's.

These 54 scholars, appointed to translate a new, original English version, failed because they used the earlier English translation which had many mistakes. Thus theirs was a new revision not a new translation. Regardless, this new version was received with great enthusiasm and happiness, and within a generation it displaced all other English translations. This new version became known as the King James Version, or the Authorized Version. This King James Version was printed in 1611, and has become the familiar form of the Bible for many English-speaking generations. The King James Version was the only version, that bore the royal authority and was "appointed to be read in churches." It is characterized as "the noblest monument of English prose.", The King James Version has played a prominent role in forming the personal character of the church and institutions of the English-speaking people.

Yet, even this King James Version was not well-received nor free of criticism by some. Nevertheless, it has prevailed through the centuries and is stiff held in great esteem today, both by preachers and lay people, despite its defects, which were, noted more clearly in the mid-nineteenth century, and more so today. The Greek and Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible possessed today were unknown to the 54 scholars of the King James Version. The manuscripts of the Bible which were found later pointed out more clearly the serious defects of the King James Version. This fact convinced the Church of England in 1870 to make a revision of the King James translation. This revision was published in 1881 (N.T.), 1885 (O.T.) and was known as the English Revised, Version of the Bible, which included the Apocrypha printed in 1895,. However, to its detriment, this committee of revisers included only Anglican scholars. This version was not accepted by the vast majority of local churches and people, who. cherished the King James Version.

The dissatisfaction with the new English Revised Version led scholars in America to once again attempt to issue another English translation based on this English Revised Version. The American scholars, who cooperated with the English revisers, made amendments into the English Revised Version and published it in 1901., calling it the American Standard Version. Numerous other new English translations were published over the years. Among, those worthy of mention are: The New Testament by R. F. Weymouth, 1902; The New Testament, 1913, and The Old Testament, 1924, by J. Moffatt (complete Bible revised in 1935); The American Translation of the New Testament, by E. G. Goodspeed, 1923; the Old Testament by J. M. Powis Smith, 1935, the Apocrypha by Goodspeed, 1938; The Westminster Version of the Holy Scriptures by the Catholic Church, 1935; a Revised Catholic Version by R. A. Knox (New Testament, 1945, Old Testament, 1949), and The Basic English by S. H. Hooke (N. T.) 1945, O.T., 1949), and The New Translation of the Bible in Modern English, by the Church of Scotland (including only Protestant churches), 1947.

Between 1881 and 1901, when the English Revised Version (1881) and the American Standard Version (1901), there was an unhappy lack of agreement on an English translation acceptable to all. Therefore, the task of a new English translation was again undertaken by the International Council of Religious Education in 1937. This Council appointed a committee of scholars to study The American Standard Version for further revision. The committee studied this question for two years and concluded that there was need for a thorough revision of the American Version of 1901, using the Tyndale Version as well as the King James Version in light of today's knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek texts and their meaning, and also using present understanding of the English language. The Council thereupon authorized an English revision of the Bible.

A committee of 32 scholars was appointed to make the new revision in cooperation with an advisory board of 50 representatives of all the denominations which had agreed to its need. The committee was then divided into two groups, one for the Old Testament and the other for the New. Each group submitted its work for the scrutiny of the other, with each change being made by two-thirds vote of the entire committee. The work of the committee covered approximately 10 years. The new revision was unanimously adopted by the advisory board and participating Protestant denominations. The result of this great effort is the Revised Standard Version of the Bible (RSV). The New Testament was first printed in 1946. The complete Bible, Old and New Testaments, was authorized by vote of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America in 1951.

FINDING OF ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS OF ORIGINAL LANGUAGES

The Greek text of the New Testament used for the King James Version was that of Beza in 1589. Beza had two Greek manuscripts of great value of the fifth and sixth centuries, but he did not use them, because they were different from the Greek text made by Erasmus (1516-1535). The manuscripts used by Erasmus were from the tenth century on, and he made little use of them. The discovery of many ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, especially after 1931, provided the committee of scholars with important new sources, including the information which recent discoveries have provided for a better understanding of the vocabulary and idioms of the Greek New Testament language. Since 1870, when the official undertaking of the revision of the King James Version took place, an enormous number of papyri have been unearthed in Egypt, containing private letters, official reports, petitions, business accounts and various other records of the activities of the first centuries. These findings were thoroughly studied by Adolf Deissmann, and his results were published in 1895. His study proved that many of the Greek words of the New Testament were used in the everyday life of the people of the first centuries and were not special words which belonged to what was considered Biblical Greek. These discoveries provided the committee of scholars of the Revised Standard Version with valuable material not available to previous translators. Another factor promoting the decision to revise the King James Version was that its archaic form of expression of English was not clearly understood by contemporary people. The use of such words as "thou", "thee", "thy" and "thine" and the verb endings, "est", edst", "eth" and "th", made it difficult for most people to understand it. More than 300 words in the King James Version are misleading in light of today's understanding. This was one of the reasons that led the Council to revise the King James Version. It must be noted that the Revised Standard Version is not a new translation, nor is it a paraphrase of the English language; it is a revision of the King James Version.

The study of the original languages is imperative for the correct understanding of the meaning of the Bible. The knowledge of the original languages is also imperative, in order to translate the Scriptures into the vernacular. The knowledge of the original language is especially necessary for the doctrinal teaching of the Bible. The individual Christian is urged to read the Bible in his own language for his spiritual enrichment, but not to use the translation in arriving at personal conclusions. It is not the Bible itself that divides Christianity, but its interpretation based on personal premises. That is the weakness of the human element. This weakness of the human element is reflected in claims that the Holy Spirit has inspired the individual to interpret the Bible according to his own premise. This is where the fallacy lies - the claim that the Holy Spirit is the author of his own personal interpretation, a claim that all make. The mistake is even greater when the interpretation of the Bible depends upon the translations instead of the original Hebrew, and especially the New Testament Greek text.

A critical examination of the text of the original Hebrew and Greek languages of the Bible is indispensable, for through the centuries many words were added or omitted. This was especially so before the printing press, and there was only manual copying on rough lamb skin and papyrus. The scholarly study of the original languages is valuable aid in correcting the mistakes and reestablishing intact the original texts from which the translations should be made. The prime purpose of such a valuable work is not only to make the Bible free from any and all changes and mistakes, but even more to make the original context and meaning available for translations in many languages for reading by all Christians. The simple purpose of the Bible is to be read and known by all the peoples of the world in their own languages in its pure and true form in its original languages and in its many translations. (This is why I always look to the Scholarly study of the original languages and have that on hand).

The Bible, the inspired word of God, is a living monument in that it goes above and beyond being just an historical document or just a classic piece of literature. It is the Revelation of God Himself and His Will. The Bible is a divine account of God's Design for the salvation of man; it is an account of the Incarnation of the Logos in the Person of Jesus Christ Who became flesh and dwelt among man. It was written to be read with reverence and faith. The Revelation and Message of the Bible should not be hidden or altered by words and phrases that have lost or changed their meaning over the years. The Bible was given to man so he might know the True God and His Revealed Truths, for without the Bible Christ would be unknown to man. God speaks to man through the Bible. Therefore, the written word in its original context is indispensable for belief in Christ and for living His Commandments.

But back to the Matthew scripture and the word fornication and adultery, the word used in the original Greek writing was (and I typically spell this wrong myself, which I should not do, because the definition of pornio is "monger" which is male prostitute, but that is the way I seen it spelled long ago by another minister, so I will use the correct spelling here) porneiva and translated into English, porneia, pronounced por-ni'-ah. Definition: fornication, Greek lexicon based on Thayer's and Smith's Bible Dictionary plus others; this is keyed to the large Kittel and the "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament."

Here is Matthew 19:9 in Greek symbol translated into English:

legw de umin oti oV an apolush thn gunaika autou mh epi porneia kai gamhsh allhn moicatai

Malachi alone tells us Gods direct and clear stand on divorce, period. So God does not want anyone to divorce period, even believers with unbelievers, and I am sure even unbelievers with unbelievers, no one. Divorce is of the devil, period, and we do not entertain nor acknowledge the devil. That is the nature of God, and I think people have to know the nature of God and consider the nature of God when interpreting the word as well. God does not contradict Himself ever, so when you get such a clear word as Malachi, you cannot justify in Matthew that you can do what He hates in Malachi. The discussion was about Moses, and what Moses allowed, and why Moses allowed it, and Jesus makes the comment that it was not always so, meaning God did not allow it for any reason, but Moses did back in Deut., because of fornication. Back in Deut., Moses law on divorce was a bride that was accused of not being a virgin by the new husband. A written letter of divorce was allowed because the bride was guaranteed by the father to be pure and a dowry was paid by the family of the bride. If she was truly not pure, then the dowry was forfeited (the husband got to keep it), but if he gave false witness against her, it had to be returned. The elders made the determination if she was pure or unpure and other laws fell into place then. Anyone who committed adultery was put to death in Deut. per the laws of Moses. So to say that adultery is cause in Matthew, that Moses allowed it for adultery, is a pure lie, Moses allowed it for the bride not being a virgin and because of the dowry settlement...because the husband hardened his heart and the family dowry was at stake. If the word adultery came into the Matthew scripture in anyway referenced to what Moses did or did not do, it would have to include that the adulterer was stoned to death. The word does not even fit into the Matthew context.

RSV Matthew scripture:

9: And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery."

I had to dig deeper into this one as we have yet another new word used in RSV bible.

Meriam Webster definition of unchastity was: not chaste : lacking in chastity, so I looked up chastity then returning: 1: the quality or state of being chaste: as a: abstention from unlawful sexual intercourse b: abstention from all sexual intercourse c: purity in conduct and intention d: restraint and simplicity in design or expression 2: personal integrity

and a further referral to Wikipedia.

From Wikipedia encyclopedia:

Chastity, in many religious and cultural contexts, is a virtue concerning the state of purity of the mind and body. The term is most often associated with refraining from sexual intimacy, especially outside of marriage. Chastity is often taken to be synonymous with virginity or abstention from all sexual activity; however, some consider sexually active married couples to be chaste if they have relations only with each other.

Due to the prohibitions of sexual intimacy outside of marriage in Abrahamic religions deriving from the Ten Commandments and Mosaic law, the term has become closely associated with premarital sexual abstinence in Western culture; however, in the context of religion, the term remains applicable to persons in all states, single or married, clerical or lay, and has implications beyond sexual temperance.

Chastity is one of the Seven holy virtues of Catholic teaching, opposing the deadly sin of lust.

Just for our other comparison:

RSV 1 Cor scripture:

15: But if the unbelieving partner desires to separate, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. For God has called us to peace.

16: Wife, how do you know whether you will save your husband? Husband, how do you know whether you will save your wife?

Remember RSV bible is supposed to be the most correct version in accordance with the original Hebrew and Greek bible.

 

[kristie]

Here is another teaching from someone named David & Heather Harrison that just came into my email box, right after I posted my teaching here. I subscribe to Glory of His Cross who we sponser and this is the first marriage divorce word I have ever seen come through the send outs...and again, right after I posted my own teaching here on the biblical word in Hebrew and Greek, so take that as confirmation! lol

BIBLICAL MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE

OLD TESTAMENT AND NEW TESTAMENT BASIC PRINCIPLES

"What therefore God has joined together,

let no man separate"

Malachi 2:13

"This is another thing you do: you cover the altar of the LORD with tears, with weeping and with groaning, because He no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favor from your hand.

14"Yet you say, 'For what reason?' Because the LORD has been a witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant.

15"But not one has done so who has a remnant of the Spirit And what did that one do while he was seeking a godly offspring? Take heed then to your spirit, and let no one deal treacherously against the wife of your youth.

16 "For I hate divorce," says the LORD, the God of Israel, "and him who covers his garment with wrong," says the LORD of hosts. "So take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously."

17 You have wearied the LORD with your words Yet you say, "How have we wearied Him?" In that you say, "Everyone who does evil is good in the sight of the LORD, and He delights in them," or, "Where is the God of justice?"

God makes it clear that He does not approve of divorce. In fact, He says He hates it. If God hates something, shouldn't we avoid doing it at all costs?

It also says that the wife of his youth that he supposedly "divorced" is still his wife by covenant. That's because you cannot end this covenant that you have made before God, but you can only violate it repeatedly. God says that we are required to fulfill our vows to Him, and therefore since He is the one who joins us together, then He is the one we are vowing before.

Matthew 5:31

"It was said, 'WHOEVER SENDS HIS WIFE AWAY, LET HIM GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE';

32 but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

33 "Again, you have heard that the ancients were told, 'YOU SHALL NOT MAKE FALSE VOWS, BUT SHALL FULFILL YOUR VOWS TO THE LORD.'

34 "But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God,

35 or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is THE CITY OF THE GREAT KING.

36 "Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. 37 "But let your statement be, 'Yes, yes' or 'No, no'; anything beyond these is of evil.

Genesis 2:22

The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. 23 The man said, "This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man." 24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.

Matthew 19:6

"So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."

God's plan from the beginning was for one man, to be joined to one woman for a lifetime. Once you're joined and make a covenant before God, you're joined together and no man can separate you for any reason. You will find that virtually any civil court will offer to divorce you for virtually any reason and claim that you're free to remarry, but God says if you do you're committing adultery.

Romans 7:2-3

For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man.

4 Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God.

5 For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death.

6 But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

It clearly says here that we are bound until death, with no exceptions, and to divorce and remarry for any reason is adultery. It then compares the importance of the law of marriage being unbreakable except by death, to Christ's death on the cross being necessary for us to be freed from the law, and joined to Him.

Throughout the bible the marriage between a man and woman is compared to the marriage between Christ and the regenerated believer. The word "baptized" is actually a transliteration of the Greek word "baptizo" which means "to be immersed into" something else. The regenerate believer is actually immersed together with Christ, and become one with Him in order to receive the substitutive payment for our transgressions, just as God says a husband and wife are joined together to become one flesh.

Romans 6:3-11

Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death ? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; for he who has died is freed from sin. Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him. For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.

We are literally immersed into Christ's death and resurrection who is perfect, so that He could pay our sin debt, and we receive the benefit by being baptized (immersed) into Him. It is only by His death that we are released from the penalty of the law, just as we are only free of the law of marriage by the death of a spouse.

If death is not required to break the marriage bond, then Christ's death was not necessary to free us from the law. If that were the case, then Christ died needlessly. If there is no other way by which mankind can be saved, other that Christ's death and resurrection, then there is no way to break the marriage bond except through death.

I Corinthians 7:39

A wife is bound as long as her husband lives; but if her husband is dead, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.

God's word says that we are joined together until one spouse dies, and that remarriage is only an option after the death of a spouse. Therefore, If anyone remarries while their spouse is still alive, God says it's not a legitimate marriage in His eyes, but actually an adulterous relationship, and you will be judged as an adulterer if continue in your sin. Jesus Christ Himself made it very clear that marriage lasts a lifetime, and divorce and remarriage is adultery.

Matthew 5:32

but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery ; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Matthew 19:3

Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?"

4 And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,

5 and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'?

6 "So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."

7 They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?"

8 He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.

9 "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

10 The disciples said to Him, "If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry."

11 But He said to them, "Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given.

12 "For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it."

These two sections of scripture, make it clear that divorce and remarriage are adultery, with one exception which is immorality or unchastity. Many people misunderstand the exception clause that Jesus gives here, and try to use these verses to suggest that Jesus is allowing divorce if someone commits adultery. This cannot be true for many reasons.

First of all the word for "immorality" or "unchastity" is (Greek "porneia") and "adultery" is (Greek "moicheia"). Both words are used in the same verses and each have a distinct meaning (Matthew 5:32; 15:19; 19:19; Mark 7:21, 1 Cor.6:9, Gal.5:19, Heb.13:4). These two different words with two different meanings clearly describe two different acts. If Jesus meant adultery, He surely would have used the term for adultery -- " moichao." He was certainly not using terms carelessly, especially in disputing with legal experts. If he wanted to say that adultery is the exception, he would have used the proper word for adultery, rather than "immorality" which is a broad term that could mean different things in different contexts, which leads us to the second reason it isn't adultery.

The context of these verses are of the Pharisees (Jewish law experts) asking "why did Moses command…." referring to the Jewish Moseic Law, and Matthew himself being a Levite was writing this gospel primarily to the Jews. In that context it is clear that we need to refer back to the moseic Law in order to understand what is being taught here, yet many Christian teachers tear these verses out of context in order to create a loophole for divorce and remarriage.

In Jewish marriage there was a betrothal period which was similar to an engagement, except that it was far more binding than what we are familiar with. They were considered husband and wife at the time of betrothal, even though the marriage hadn't been consummated yet. The man could give her a writ of divorce during the betrothal, if he found her not to be a virgin, but could not divorce her for any other reason. This was because a clause of the marriage contract had not been fulfilled, in that the girl was not a virgin, as the man was led to believe when the contract was drawn up. The husband is the one who is being wronged in this case, because he has fulfilled his obligations. The girl and her father are the ones acting unjustly here by asserting that she was a virgin when she wasn't.

This law is covered in:

Deut. 22:13-21

"If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and {then} turns against her, and charges her with shameful deeds and publicly defames her, and says, 'I took this woman, {but} when I came near her, I did not find her a virgin,' then the girl's father and her mother shall take and bring out the {evidence} of the girl's virginity to the elders of the city at the gate. "The girl's father shall say to the elders, 'I gave my daughter to this man for a wife, but he turned against her; and behold, he has charged her with shameful deeds, saying, "I did not find your daughter a virgin." But this is the evidence of my daughter's virginity.' And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city. "So the elders of that city shall take the man and chastise him, and they shall fine him a hundred {shekels} of silver and give it to the girl's father, because he publicly defamed a virgin of Israel. And she shall remain his wife; he cannot divorce her all his days. "But if this charge is true, that the girl was not found a virgin, then they shall bring out the girl to the doorway of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death because she has committed an act of folly in Israel by playing the harlot in her father's house; thus you shall purge the evil from among you.

This is the only "divorce" that is allowed anywhere in the Bible, and you'll notice that it is before the consummation of the marriage, or immediately after. Many people try to use the immorality clause to suggest that God tolerates divorce, but this was specific to the Jews, and only before the consummation or immediately after. Once a couple was betrothed, they were considered husband and wife, and they needed a bill of divorcement in order to depart from one another. One example of this is regarding Mary and Joseph. Scripture says Mary was Joseph's wife (Matthew 1:20,24, Luke 2:5). But at the same time, she was betrothed to him:

Matthew 1:18-19

"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly.

Deuteronomy 22:23-24 is another passage that defines a "betrothed virgin" as a "neighbor's wife" :

Deuteronomy 22:23-24

"If there is a girl who is a virgin engaged to a man, and {another} man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them to death; the girl, because she did not cry out in the city, and the man, because he has violated his neighbor's wife. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you.

Many false teachers will claim that Jesus can't be talking about the betrothal period because He refers to them as husband and wife, and the betrothal is only an engagement and therefore Jesus wasn't referring to it. As you can see they were husband and wife from the moment they were betrothed, and couldn't divorce for any other reason except if unchastity was found.

Deuteronomy 22:19 says that if she was innocent of his claims, "she shall remain his wife; he cannot divorce her all his days." The law of no divorce until death do you part was in effect, except for this one very limited exception.

Interestingly, it is this exception that God uses to divorce Israel during their betrothal. The Jewish people would reap what they had sown, by being hard hearted and dealing treacherously with their wives, they would be divorced from God for their harlotry.

Hosea 2:19

"I will betroth you to Me forever;

Yes, I will betroth you to Me in righteousness and in justice,

In lovingkindness and in compassion,

20 And I will betroth you to Me in faithfulness. Then you will know the LORD.

Jeremiah 3:1

God says, "If a husband divorces his wife And she goes from him And belongs to another man, Will he still return to her? Will not that land be completely polluted? But you are a harlot with many lovers; Yet you turn to Me," declares the LORD.

8 "And I saw that for all the adulteries of faithless Israel, I had sent her away and given her a writ of divorce, yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear; but she went and was a harlot also.

The third reason that the exception clause cannot be for adultery is that it would defy common sense. Adultery cannot be both the sin and the justification for not being in sin at the same time. In other words, if divorce and remarriage is adultery, and adultery is the justification for divorce and remarriage, then any divorce and remarriage automatically becomes legal. It is obvious that Jesus Christ would not make such an error in reasoning.

The fourth reason that this cannot be referring to adultery in the consummated marriage, is that Jesus specifically says in verse 8 that this was never God's plan, and that's why the two Gospels that were written primarily to the Gentiles do not offer any exception. The Gospel of Luke was written primarily to the Greeks, and Mark was written primarily to the Romans. It is absurd to suggest that Mark and Luke would be so careless as to miss such important information as whether or not Jesus taught that "adultery" is grounds for divorce in their gospels, knowing that the audience of their day didn't necessarily have the ability to read Matthew's gospel along with theirs as we do today. The reason Mark and Luke do not mention the exceptive clause is they were addressing a predominately Gentile audience while Matthew was addressing a Jewish one. Then why do so many Gentile Pastors refer only to Matthew, and totally ignore Mark and Luke when teaching on marriage?

Mark 10:11

And He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; 12 and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery."

Notice that if divorce itself nullified the marriage, then if "single" or "unmarried" status was obtained through divorce, it certainly would not have been adultery for such people to then go on to marry someone else. But Jesus teaches otherwise. Since remarriage after divorce is adulterous, therefore divorce does not nullify a marriage.

Luke 16:15

And He said to them, "You are those who justify yourselves in the sight of men, but God knows your hearts; for that which is highly esteemed among men is detestable in the sight of God.

16"The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John; since that time the gospel of the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it.

17"But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to fail.

18"Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.

The second half of verse 18 speaks of a woman who did not take the active part in divorcing her husband, but rather was the one divorced by her husband, just like in Matthew 5:32 , which says that he "makes her commit adultery" by divorcing her. There is no distinction between who left who, as far as adultery is concerned. Some teach that the "innocent" party can remarry, but they are contradicting our Lord and Savior, and causing others to commit adultery. There is no provision anywhere in the Bible for either party to remarry without committing adultery.

Jesus also teaches in Luke 16:18 that a man that marries a divorced woman is living in adultery. Even if he had never been married himself, because he's guilty of marrying another mans wife, even if the other man divorced her. Some people claim that Deut. 24 shows that God tolerates divorce, but it is in fact regulating the practice that had been instituted in Deuteronomy 22:13-21.

Deuteronomy 24: 1-4

"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 indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts {it} in her hand and sends her out from his house, and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man's {wife,} and if the latter husband turns against her and writes her a certificate of divorce and 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 sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since 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 gives you as an inheritance.

The wording here is almost identical to Deuteronomy 22. The man found indecency (immorality) in her during the betrothal period. It has to be during the betrothal period because that's the only time he would be allowed under the law to give a writ of divorce. There is no new grounds for divorce offered here, but these verses are simply regulating an existing practice. He was therefore allowed to divorce her, since that was just grounds. She then became betrothed to another man. If that man gave her a writ, or died, the first man can't remarry her.

This new regulation states that a man is not required to have the woman stoned to death as Deut. 22 commanded, but could give her a writ of divorce instead. It also says that if he does divorce her legally, and she becomes another man's wife, he cannot change his mind and take her back later. He had the right to give her a writ under Jewish law, because he assumed she was a virgin, but found indecency in her. He still could have married her when he found out she was indecent, but chose to reject her. The principle being taught here is that if he rejected her then when he found her to be indecent, then he has no right to accept her later on, after she was with another man. The real meaning is prophetic, and reveals that God is not going to take Israel back for her immorality. God uses this type in the New Testament as well. Now that He is no longer bound to Israel, His elect is called the bride of Christ. He can justly be joined to us, because of Israel's immorality. Jesus Christ's marriage to the Church is explained in Ephesians 5:22-33, among other places.

Ephesians 5:22

Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord.

23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body.

24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her,

Ephesians 5:32

This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church. God uses the institution of marriage to teach principles about our relationship to Him throughout the Bible. He rightly divorced Israel during the betrothal period for immorality, and is now preparing a marriage with the Church. It's amazing that some people who believe once saved always saved, don't believe in once married always married.

As gentiles, we don't have a betrothal period, and therefore we have no provision for giving a writ of divorce. The good news is that Christ can't give us one either. Think about what kind of a bride He's getting. A bunch of wretched, lowlife, sinners like us. Yet, he is totally committed, and will be absolutely faithful to His rather unattractive bride. He expects us to do the same, even though that may be difficult in some cases.

It seems absolutely clear. No divorce and definitely no remarriage, but some people claim that I Corinthians 7 offers some exceptions to God's absolute command. We'll look at the verses that are most often twisted to suggest that Paul changed the law regarding marriage and divorce from what Jesus had said earlier. This table shows how Paul covers all four possible scenarios in both genders so that there is no situation left out.

Category

Men

Women

Vs. 8-9 Spouses died "Unmarried"

(Widowers) Widows

Vs 10-11 Married considering divorce Wife Husband

Vs. 12 Married with non-Christian spouse any brother

has a wife that is an unbeliever And the woman

who has an unbelieving husband

Vs. 25-28 Virgins if you (masculine) marry, you have not sinned; if a virgin (feminine) marries,

she has not sinned.

As you can see, this is an organized, and all inclusive message. How then can people use these verses to show that Paul was undoing the teachings of Jesus Christ, and the teachings of himself as well? It is partly because of the misunderstanding of terms. One of these terms that Paul often uses is a Greek word which is translated as "unmarried" and people assign whatever meaning to this word, that fits their doctrine. We'll look at these controversial verses now.

I Corinthians 7:6

But this I say by way of concession, not of command.

7 Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that.

8 But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. 9 But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

This teaching is directed at the widowers and widows. The word "unmarried" or (Greek "agamas") here is the proper word of that day for widower. It's a broad term that means unmarried, or "one who is in a negative state of marriage", but those who try to pervert God's word assign specific meanings to this word in order to make the verses fit their doctrine. In this verse, the word is in the male sense, and in the context of being with widows, it would be understood to mean widowers.

There are some who try to claim that this word always means divorced people, which cannot be true for several reasons. First, there is a word for divorced in Greek, but Paul never uses it in this chapter, because God doesn't recognize divorce other than the Jews in the betrothal period. The word "unmarried" can be confusing because it's so broad, and refers to different groups of people in different contexts. This is primarily a translation problem since English people see "unmarried" in these different verses and assume they're all referring to one specific group.

Secondly, If these verses were all referring to divorced people, then there is an obvious contradiction. Verse 8 is telling the unmarried to feel free to marry, and verse 10 is telling them to remain unmarried. Thirdly, if these are all divorced people then Paul forgot the widowers. He covered every other group in both genders, but missed widowers, and taught about the divorced twice, and contradicted himself in the process.

I Corinthians 7:10-11

But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife. Here Paul is giving his teaching in regard to the married. This says that we should not separate for any reason, but if we do, we must seek to reconcile with our spouse, and if we are unable, we are still forbidden to remarry. It is clear, and offers no provision for divorce and remarriage.

The "unmarried" here is in the female sense, and is saying that the woman who left her husband can't remarry. Those who try to twist the Word of God, try to say that the unmarried person is no longer bound to her husband, and therefore is free to remarry, but this contradicts the clear wording that says she is forbidden to remarry.

1 Corinthians 7:12

But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him , he must not divorce her.

13 And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away.

I Corinthians 7:15

Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace.

These verses specifically state that the Christian can never leave their spouse even if he or she is an unbeliever. Verse 12 is translated divorce, but is actually "aphiemi" in the Greek which means "send away". If the unbeliever consents to live with you, you must stay together no matter what, but if the unbeliever leaves, you are not bound to live together. Paul offers this provision with the understanding that we cannot force unbelievers to respect God's laws. In other words, if an unbeliever insists on leaving, you can't chain them to the wall in order to keep God's command, but for the sake of peace, you must allow them to leave.

Those who try to legitimize adultery claim that "bound" means the marriage bond. That's another example of twisting a broad term to fit a pre-conceived doctrine. The Greek word here is "douloo" which means "enslaved" and the context here is "consents to live with" , so the proper understanding here is that the believer is not enslaved to live with the unbeliever, if the unbeliever chooses to leave. There is no mention of the marriage bond anywhere in this verse or Chapter for that matter, except vs. 39 which says you can't break it. The word for bound in verse 39 is the Greek word "deo" which has a much different meaning, and refers to the bondage of the law. It is definitely adding to the text to suggest that there is any provision for divorce and remarriage here, and you would of course be in contradiction to the numerous other verses already covered.

I Corinthians 7:25

Now concerning virgins I have no command of the Lord, but I give an opinion as one who by the mercy of the Lord is trustworthy.

26 I think then that this is good in view of the present distress, that it is good for a man to remain as he is.

27 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife.

28 But if you marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Yet such will have trouble in this life, and I am trying to spare you.

The last group Paul's covering here is virgins. He establishes in verse 26 that the virgins he's speaking to are men. He tells them that it is good to remain as they are because of distress, but if they marry they have not sinned. He then covers the female virgins, and says the same applies to them. This is a parenthetical statement, where the references to the male and female virgins is broken up by verses 26 and 27 which are a reference to the virgins as well as anyone else, that staying in whatever state of marriage they are in, is wise in his opinion because of the distressful situation of that day.

Some false teachers claim that those released from a wife are the divorced, and that Paul is saying that they are free to remarry, which cannot be true for a couple of reasons. First of all, that would be an obvious contradiction to the many verses that say this would be adultery. Those who have been released from a wife must be widowers, because the Bible clearly teaches elsewhere that the only way to be released from a wife is by her death.

Secondly, they are misapplying the structure of Paul's statement, which is clearly referring to virgins, and saying that they are free to marry, even though Paul says it is his opinion that it is not wise to do so.

Last of all, verse 39 is absolutely clear, and those who try to twist the other verses have an obvious problem. You're bound until death. The only provision anywhere in the Bible, is after your spouse dies. Anything else is adultery.

I Corinthians 7:39

A wife is bound as long as her husband lives; but if her husband is dead, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.

This doctrine is perverted in so many different ways in so-called Christian Churches, because people don't want to accept what the Lord has said. In our society of widespread divorce and adultery, no one wants to hear the truth, and pastors twist God's word to attract congregations, because few people today are willing to accept sound doctrine. It is equally the fault of the congregations because they accumulate such teachers to avoid dealing with their sin. The Bible said that would be so.

I Timothy 4:1

But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron

II Timothy 4:3

For the time will come when they (Christians) will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires;" 4 and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.

Jude 1:4

For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

They've seared their own conscience to the point that they will contradict the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ, and yet call Him their Lord and Savior, while they promote licentiousness. They hypocritically rebuke others such as homosexuals, while they themselves live in adultery. What does God's word say about those who contradict our Lord?

I Timothy 6:3-5

If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain.

Matthew 5:18-19

"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

The sad part about it is that those who fall for these false teachers, will not inherit the kingdom as a result.

Hebrews 13:4

Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge.

I Corinthians 6:9-10

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

Proverbs 30:5

Every word of God is tested;

He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him.

6 Do not add to His words

Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.

20 This is the way of an adulterous woman:

She eats and wipes her mouth,

And says, "I have done no wrong."

"Scripture taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE®, Copyright © 1960,1962,1963,1968,1971,1972,1973,1975,1977,1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission."