What is a Christian marriage?

[arunangelo]

Marriage is a covenant of love which unites husband and wife to form a family unit. This covenant is sealed by God. Therefore, no one can break this covenant. Furthermore, they are no longer two, but one flesh. (Matt. 19:6). The relationship between husband and wife therefore is stronger than that between a father and his son or between a mother and her daughter. Therefore, even if one divorces one’s spouse, he/she is still remains his/her spouse until death. Furthermore, it does not matter how bad one's spouse is, he/she is still that person's spouse; just as irrespective of how bad one's son is he is still that person's son. Therefore, we have to love our spouse just as Christ loves His Church (Ephesians 5:25) and forgive one another without any limit (Matthew 18:21-22); just as God forgives us. Because of our sinfulness there are always going to be stressful situations in a marriage. However, Jesus who came to heal us gives us strength and graces to live a Christian marriage. Therefore, when we follow Jesus by denying our very self and taking up our cross (Matt 19:11) we will find hope where there is hopeless, love where there is hate, peace where there is discord, and see the face of God in the pain and suffering of our spouse.

 

[follower of Christ]

He's baaaaack
Same old song and dance.

Heres the threads from before where we already dealt with your false marriage doctrines, A...
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=30221&p=351627#p351627
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=30243&p=351842#p351842
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=15624&p=175452#p175452
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=30497&p=353737#p353737
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=42205&st=0&sk=t&sd=a
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=20840&p=244103#p244103
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=23680&p=276755#p276755

Maybe read those instead of starting a new one every other month then disappearing again till the next hit ?



.

 

[follower of Christ]

Therefore, even if one divorces one’s spouse, he/she is still remains his/her spouse until death.

Same nonsense as last time. You really need to stop doing the hit and run posting and stick around to be refuted where you can SEE it, friend.

Scripture shows that divorce ENDS the marriage covenant, Im afraid.
Anyone care to look to Deut 24:1-4 where 'divorce' is defined for proof of that fact ? ;)



.

 

[follower of Christ]

Furthermore, it does not matter how bad one's spouse is, he/she is still that person's spouse; just as irrespective of how bad one's son is he is still that person's son.

Wrong.
My son is my son because of bloodlines.
My wife was taken as a wife by a vow.
Deut 24 shows very plainly that divorce DISSOLVES the marriage covenant....end of debate.
I hope you have better than this nonsense this time around.

 

[follower of Christ]

Therefore, we have to love our spouse just as Christ loves His Church (Ephesians 5:25) and forgive one another without any limit (Matthew 18:21-22); just as God forgives us.

One can FORGIVE the offender while dissolving the marriage covenant that the guilty party broke, Im afraid.
We dont keep letting the man who raped our wife into the house with us just because we forgive him.

Because of our sinfulness there are always going to be stressful situations in a marriage.

And when it becomes bloody and life-threatening ?
You folks always seem to stop short of the FACTS when presenting your case.

 

[follower of Christ]

What is putting away/divorce-When is a marriage dissolved
by william tipton

The Greek word rendered as "divorce" or "putting away" in our Bibles literally means to dismiss, let depart, let go, loose, put away, to set free, send away, set at liberty, and depart.
The Hebrew means to drive out, put away, be cast out, drive away, expel, and thrust out.

In the Bible putting away or divorce is to depart, to go away, be driven out, or sent away, a repudiation, an abandonment. It has nothing to do with a court of law, or a judge, or county records, or the official declaration "divorce granted."

Divorce occurs in scripture when a man or woman deserts or abandons the marriage with that intent, or has cast out their spouse with that intent.
A spouse may go on an extended trip for business or to visit family, and that is not a divorce/putting away because there is no intent to do so.
When there is intent to leave the marriage itself, or to cast out ones spouse, that is when 'putting away/divorce' occurs in Gods word.

This is proven as factual in the most amazing place and that is right dead in the middle of one of the greatest pet passages of the anti-remarriage camp....1 Cor 7:10-11, where this believing woman has departed from her believing husband and is deemed as 'agamos' by Paul....UNmarried. (see our study 'Unmarried' for more information)

What is made clear from ALL of scripture is that departing the marriage with the intent of no longer being married is considered 'divorce/putting away'. There is no such thing as 'legal separation' in Gods word where a spouse can just leave the marriage and choose to be absent from it indefinitely against the will of the other spouse.

Now, of course the Hebrews and mankind in general has perverted all this, but do the study yourself from Gods whole word and see if you find anything different. Even the writ of divorce was simply told by Moses to be put into her hand and then she was to be 'sent out'...there was no court, no lawyer, no final decree and surely no $2000 retainer.

In Deuteronomy 24 we see exactly what divorce is.

(KJV+) When3588 a man376 hath taken3947 a wife,802 and married1166 her, and it come to pass1961 that518 she find4672 no3808 favor2580 in his eyes,5869 because3588 he hath found4672 some1697 uncleanness6172 in her: then let him write3789 her a bill5612 of divorcement,3748 and give5414 it in her hand,3027 and send7971 her out of his house.4480, 1004

H3748
????????
kerîythûth
ker-ee-thooth'
From H3772; a cutting (of the matrimonial bond), that is, divorce: - divorce (-ment).

Which is derived from this word;

H3772
????
kârath
kaw-rath'
A primitive root; to cut (off, down or asunder); by implication to destroy or consume; specifically to covenant (that is, make an alliance or bargain, originally by cutting flesh and passing between the pieces): - be chewed, be con- [feder-] ate, covenant, cut (down, off), destroy, fail, feller, be freed, hew (down), make a league ([covenant]), X lose, perish, X utterly, X want.

Quite apparently divorce is a 'cutting' of the marriage bond that severes it entirely seeing that in that same passage the divorced wife is assumed to be remarrying another man and no prohibition is laid out for her in the matter.

Here are some of the definitions of the words from the greek. These conclusively show that the act of casting out a spouse is precisely what 'divorce' or 'putting away' is.

Chorizo here is the word used for Christs words in the gospels when He spoke about divorce and the act of putting away in Matthew 19 and Mark 10.
It is also used by Paul in 1 cor 7.

"Put Asunder"
G5563
??????
ch?riz?
kho-rid'-zo
From G5561; to place room between, that is, part; reflexively to go away: - depart, put asunder, separate.


"Put Away"
G630
??????
apolu?
ap-ol-oo'-o
From G575 and G3089; to free fully, that is, (literally) relieve, release, dismiss (reflexively depart), or (figuratively) let die, pardon, or (specifically) divorce: - (let) depart, dismiss, divorce, forgive, let go, loose, put (send) away, release, set at liberty.

"Divorcement"
G647
??????????
apostasion
ap-os-tas'-ee-on
Neuter of a (presumed) adjective from a derivative of G868; properly something separative, that is, (specifically) divorce: - (writing of) divorcement.

A marriage is 'dissolved' at divorce or putting away with the intent to end the marriage.
That is what the context of the whole of scriptures shows in the matter and what the definitions of the words agree upon.

 

[follower of Christ]

What is ''one flesh'' and what is it that God joins together?
By WmTipton

Assertions/Conclusions of this article

To show that ''one flesh'' is sexual relations between a man and a woman and not some 'bond' that cannot be broken as asserted by a few.

Supporting Evidence

To prove this we see that a husband and wife will become ''one flesh''..

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

Eph 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

Eph 5:31 "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."

We see that a husband and wife will be ''one flesh''.
to further understand what this ''one flesh'' is lets look to something outside the marriage union....

Do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her?
For "the two," He says, "shall become one flesh."
(1Co 6:16-)

Paul shows that even having sex with a harlot, one to whom we arent married, obviously, is the same as ''one flesh'' in marriage.
Paul even quotes God/Jesus when he states..."For "the two," He says, "shall become one flesh".

A man is also 'one flesh' or 'one body' with a harlot he is with (1 Cor 6:16) showing that 'one flesh' is not exclusive to the marriage union. So we see that ''one flesh'' is merely the sexual union between a man and a woman, married or not.
If anyone other than Jesus would understand what 'one flesh' was, it would be Moses. The man wrote the law, we can rest assured that he understood Gods intent from the beginning. That Moses were ever permitted to allow divorce/remarriage (as proven in Deut 24:1-4) shows absolutely that this perpetual 'one flesh' bond is nothing more than unscriptural nonsense. Moses had permitted a man to put away a wife just because she found no 'favor in his eyes''. She was permitted to REmarry.
*IF* 'one flesh' from the beginning were UNbreakable, then so it would be in Moses day, Moses would have KNOWN that if it were the case, and ongoing adultery would have been the crime of this woman put away and REmarried, as she most likely would have been.

Are we naive enough to think that Moses was sentencing an innocent woman to hell by permitting her to REmarry ?
All he had to have done *IF* one flesh were perpetual was tell the INNOCENT they couldnt remarry so as to not be in 'adultery' as some suppose today.
But he didnt.

Because Moses understood that this one flesh is not continued perpetually when a divorce has happened.
If the divorce is scriptural, then the bond is broken, ended....no adultery is committed when one REmarries.
Just as in Jesus exception. He narrowed the allowance by showing that a legitimate breach of covenant must be present, but He did not change the definition of divorce, nor did HE disallow remarriage in the case where fornication has happened. Adultery is committed now when a spouse is put away for any reason short of legitimate breach of covenant, and we then remarry.

2.0
This section is to cover some points made by a couple doctrines Ive crossed.

Lets look at Joseph and Mary now.
Firstly we know that Jesus was not illegitimate. He was born to two lawfully married people. The Jews accepted this and called Joseph Jesus' father (many not knowing any different).

*IF* marriage was not valid without consummation....the two being ''one flesh'' as it were, then Joseph and Mary wouldnt be ''married'' and Jesus would have been illegitimate....without a lawful earthly father.

Joseph had not yet been with Mary before Jesus was born, yet WAS said to be her ''husband'' and she his ''wife'' or espoused (betrothed) wife. He was going to put Mary away when he found her with child, showing that she was indeed his ''lawful'' wife....if she werent his wife he could have just left her obviously.

What bound Joseph to Mary was not sex, as is blindingly apparent, since they had had no sexual union at that point, but what DID bind them was they were joined in matrimony, Gods holy marital covenant.

So when we look at ''one flesh'', we can clearly see that because of 1 Cor. 6:16 that ''one flesh'' is sexual relations between a man and a woman, married or not.
And since we know that we arent married to the harlot just because we make ourselves ''one flesh'' with her, that this ''one flesh'' is NOT any tie that is unbreakable.

There is no such thing as breaking the ''one flesh'' union, otherwise 1 Cor. 6:16 would show that every person who has had sex with someone they werent married to is permanently ''one flesh'' with them for life...and we know that isnt the case based on the context of 1 Cor. 6.


Conclusions:

1. ''one flesh'' is sex, plain and simple.... as proven by 1 Corinthians 6:16.

2. Sex is not the tie that binds, the covenant is...as proven by Joseph and Mary.
What binds a man and woman for life is the marriage covenant..... which we know is a conditional covenant, for Jesus has said ''except''.
*IF* ‘’one flesh’’ is what makes a man and wife ‘’married’’ (as some see it), then Joseph and Mary were NOT married and our Lord was born illegitimate.
Proof that is not the case is in Luke 3:23, Luke 4:24, John 1:45, John 6:42. Jesus WAS Josephs ‘’son’’ as far as being born into a LAWFUL, binding marriage covenant.

3.0
Below is a quote from John Gill concerning his own views of 1 Corinthians 6:16.
Commentators can help us shed light on a verse, but never take their words as gospel truth, they are fallible men like you and me.

1Co 6:16 -
What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot,
.... Not in marriage, but in carnal copulation, and unclean embraces, is one body with her

for two
("saith he", Adam, or Moses, or God, or the scripture, or as R. Sol. Jarchi says, the Holy Spirit, Gen_2:24)

shall be one flesh;
what is originally said of copulation in lawful marriage, in which man and wife, legally coupled together, become one flesh, is applied to the unlawful copulation of a man with an harlot, by which act they also become one body, one flesh; and which is made use of by the apostle, to deter the members of Christ from the commission of this sin, which makes a member of Christ one body and flesh with an harlot, than which nothing is more monstrous and detestable.
The apostle here directs to the true sense of the phrase in Genesis, "and they shall be one flesh"; that is, man and wife shall only have carnal knowledge of, and copulation with each other.
-J. Gill

 

[follower of Christ]

"Let not man Put Asunder" vs "let the unbeliever depart"
Jesus versus Paul ?
By WmTipton


Assertions/Conclusions of this Article

Here we will show that not only can one put asunder a marriage (that its possible), but Paul even gives instruction to do just that in certain cases. These seemingly different statements ("Let not man Put Asunder" vs "let the unbeliever depart")are actually about the same exact thing...putting asunder/Chorizo...as proven very conclusively by the greek.


Supporting Evidence

1.0
There is an errant teaching out there that claims that when Jesus said 'let not man put asunder' regarding marriage, that He 'meant' man CANNOT put asunder.

L: “When God joins two together, they are now ONE. What GOD joins, man CANNOT separateâ€

What we will show briefly in this article that there IS an occurance in scripture where it is shown absolutely that man can indeed 'put asunder' what God has joined together.
See 'put asunder' in each of these passages?

So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate(G5563-CHORIZO)."
(Mat 19:6 EMTV)

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

Bear in mind that, in the context these are in, Jesus and the pharisees are discussing putting away of a wife there in BOTH of those passages. The context of 'put asunder' is putting away of a marriage/wife, nothing less.
Jesus is CLEARLY discussing not putting asunder of this 'one flesh' that is being spoken of there.

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

G5563
??????
ch?riz?
Thayer Definition:
1) to separate, divide, part, put asunder, to separate one’s self from, to depart
1a) to leave a husband or wife
1a) of divorce
1b) to depart, go away

That word 'put asunder' is the EXACT same word for "depart" in 1 cor 7:11

(1Co 7:11) But and if she depart(G5563), let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

...in other words, Paul has just said this woman has done the exact thing that some claim that Jesus said men CANNOT do....'put asunder'.

Notice Paul makes no claim that she 'cannot' put asunder (depart), but clearly presents that IF she DOES do so, then this is the situation....she is to remain "agamos" (literally "UNmarried").
*IF* putting asunder were IMPOSSIBLE for man to do...then why doesnt Paul REstate (*IF* that were Jesus actual meaning) this fact ?
WHY does he simply say *IF* she puts asunder then ...... ?
*IF* no man can put asunder, then Paul makes absolutely no sense here whatsoever. He should have simply stated that it was impossible to do so.
The word in question pretty much just means to "place room between", "depart" or to "separate"...its not some magical phrase that Jesus used to make a marriage bond unbreakable...

What I find striking is that Paul could have used a number of other choices in demonstrating that this woman had left her husband...but chose the one word that was used in rendering Jesus' words about putting asunder.
Was it coincedence or intentional? Was Paul literally reaching out and using the one word that would make it clear that putting asunder IS indeed possible?
We wont know until that day, for sure...but we do know now that regardless of what some say, that Paul has shown that man CAN 'put asunder'....that is factual.
Certainly a call to reconcile is made to the believers...but this doesnt negate what is clearly presented in Gods word....man CAN indeed put asunder (separate) by Pauls own words.


2.0
Now that its been established that man can indeed ‘put asunder’ (chorizo) a marriage, we move on to something even more astounding. Clear instruction for the believer to actually allow the unbelieving spouse to ‘put asunder’ the marriage.

Heres a very remarkable passage that blows L’s statement above, that man CANNOT separate right out of the water. And not only that, it is our very own Paul giving INSTRUCTION for this believer to let it be so.

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

Remember “chorizoâ€G5563 our word from above ? Can you guess what greek word ‘depart’ there is rendered from ?
You got it...the very same ‘chorizo’ (put asunder from Jesus’ statement ‘let not man put asunderâ€) is right there in Paul own instruction to let the unbeliever do.

So we not only see absolute proof that man CAN put asunder a marriage, but we now have Paul even telling the believer to let the unbeliever do so !
This hardly sounds like a ‘cannot’ situation to me.

Now, of course this is not our Lords desire for marriage that it would ever have to be ended, but clearly He had enought forsight to show Paul to let the believer do EXACTLY what He Himself had told man not to do.

Why?
Because Jesus knows that no matter what we do as believers, there will always be unbelieving spouses who will not honor the covenant of marriage.


3.0

As we can see here in this passage, the believing wife who has departed (chorizo) her believing husband is considered 'agamos'.....'unmarried'.

(1Co 7:10 KJV) And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart(chorizo)from her husband:
(1Co 7:11 KJV) But and if she depart(chorizo), let her remain unmarried(agamos), or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

Logically carrying this 'agamos' over to this passage where this unbeliever also has departed the marriage its quite easy to conclude that this person would also be deemed as 'agamos' (unmarried)

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

in the former case where both are believers there is commandment to remain UNmarried or reconcile.
In the latter case tho, where one is unequally yoked, Paul clearly states that he is speaking, not the Lord, in this matter.
To these Paul gives concession not given to those who are equally yoked with another believer.
"BUT to the REST"....to these who are unequally yoked, Paul says quite plainly that they are not in bondage to that union where it has been put asunder.

4.0
Another point of interest is in verse 7:11 where it says 'let her remain unmarried or reconcile to her husband" the actual greek means 'let her remain unmarried or to the man let her be being conciliated"
It is often pushed that the use of 'her husband' there means that she is still married to the man, but that is not proven from the actual Greek at all. The greek word for 'man' is also used for 'husband'.
Paul used 'agamos' to describe this woman for a reason.

 

[follower of Christ]

“Unmarriedâ€
1 Corinthians 7

Assertions/Conclusions of this Article

Here we show conclusively that this unmarried woman in 1 Cor 7:10-11 is in the same exact marital state that the widower is in verse 7:8, which is a person who is not currently under the law of marriage...ie 'single', 'unwedded'

Supporting Evidence

1.0

The word 'agamos' (agamos/agamois) appears 4 times in the NT and in each instance its in this chapter. We’re going to compare what Paul says about widows and unmarried virgins to this woman in 1 Cor 7:11 to see if she is deemed as ‘unmarried’ in the same manner.

I say therefore to the unmarried (agamois) and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
(1Co 7:8)

But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried (agamos), or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
(1Co 7:11)

But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried (agamos) careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:
(1Co 7:32)

There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried (agamos) woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.
(1Co 7:34)

I added the ACTUAL word after each occurance in parenthesis.
Here is the word we are looking at;
"unmarried" in the passages above is;

G22
agamos
Thayer Definition:
1) unmarried, unwedded, single

Strongs;
G22
agamos
ag'-am-os
From G1 (as a negative particle) and G1062; unmarried: - unmarried.

The root word is the exact same in all four occurrences above. There is one character change that seems only to show some small difference in verse 7:8 for the male widower, but the intent that this person is ‘unmarried’ or not currently under the ‘law’ of marriage is precisely the same. That character difference does not alter the intent of the root word ‘unmarried’.

Lets look at verses 32-33.

"But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried (agamos) careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he (aresE) may please the Lord: But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he (aresE) may please his wife.
(1Co 7:32-33)

“AresE†- "he should be pleasing"

There we find the same “agamos†as in verse 11 where this woman as left her husband and is called UNmarried by Paul.

Do you see how Paul uses the word agamos (not agamois) and then refers to this person as "HE" and shows that he is going to be pleasing to his "wife"
Now *IF* agamos was restricted to the woman, how can a person who is agamos be pleasing to their "wife" ?
The word agamos is used in verse 11 to speak about the woman. In verse 32 it is speaking about the man.
What we see is that verse 8, while it may mean widowers, it doesnt keep this woman in verse 11 from literally being "unmarried" after putting asunder her husband by leaving him. She IS 'agamos' by Pauls own words

If you get the interlinear bible software in the links above, you can check this material out yourself.
In verse :7:11 agamos is in the feminine form....but in verse 7:32, its exactly the same and yet it is shown as being in the masculine form.
This definitely tends to show that the context plays a part in the gender of this word.

There is pretty much no way around this matter. Paul absolutely chose a word that means ‘unmarried’ to describe this woman in 7:11 there. In comparing its usage in the other passages there we see conclusively that, like these others, she is ‘unmarried’ and not currently under the ‘law’ of her husband.

In understanding this fact, we also understand that in 7:39, that Paul is simply laying out the general ‘law’ of marriage. That it is intended for life....and based on the facts from the whole, that it is not an unconditional law in the least. It CAN be put asunder by man even though that is not Gods will for marriage.

2.0

As we can see here in this passage, the believing wife who has departed (chorizo) her believing husband is considered 'agamos'.....'unmarried'.

(1Co 7:10 KJV) And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart(chorizo)from her husband:
(1Co 7:11 KJV) But and if she depart(chorizo), let her remain unmarried(agamos), or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

Logically carrying this 'agamos' over to this passage where this unbeliever also has departed the marriage its quite easy to conclude that this person would also be deemed as 'agamos' (unmarried)

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

in the former case where both are believers there is commandment to remain UNmarried or reconcile.
In the latter case tho, where one is unequally yoked, Paul clearly states that he is speaking, not the Lord, in this matter.
To these Paul gives concession not given to those who are equally yoked with another believer.
"BUT to the REST"....to these who are unequally yoked, Paul says quite plainly that they are not in bondage to that union where it has been put asunder.

 

[Blazin Bones]

FoC has offer plenty of information to digest and other threads for this discussion. Therefore I will lock this thread.