SealedEternal said:
Absolutely. The Bible says that you are married to your husband for as long as you both shall live:
Matthew 19:4-6 And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, 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'? "So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."
1 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.
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.
A completely misrepresentation of scripture.
You may as well use Jesus' words to demand money from us because Jesus said to give to EVERYone who asks of us.=
The wife is bound by law until the husband is dead
(Romans 7:2-3, 1 Cor. 7:39)
By WmTipton
Assertions/Conclusions of this article
In this article we will show that the two passages in question speak of the ‘law of the husband’ and that even though these verses say that this law is until death, that is is not an unconditional law that cannot be ended before the death of the spouse. The law of the husband is intended to be until the death of one of the spouses, as God created it from the very first marriage, Adam and Eve, but it has never been without condition.
Supporting Evidence
In Romans Paul was speaking to
"those who know the law" (Romans 7:1)
The law reigned over a man all his days. Paul uses this analogy of marriage, the wife being bound to her husband all his days, to represent that it was the same.
What Paul didn’t state, and those knowing the law would know this, is that there was provision in the law for a husband to put away his wife while he was alive . (Deut 24:1-4 )
This shows conclusively that Paul was not laying out the whole scope of rules on marriage in Romans 7 but was using one aspect of it to explain our relationship to the law and to the new covenant.
This idea is presented again in 1 Corinthians 7:39. The wife is bound to the husband until his death.
We must ask ourselves one question here. ‘What law’ bound this woman to her husband for life?
Was it the Mosaic law? How then could any wife have been bound at all to her husband from Eve until the Law ?
It is cemented that it is not the Mosiac law when we find no actual law making this commandment.
So, is Paul lying when he says she is ‘bound by law’ to him until he is dead? By no means.
We are left with one conclusion. That this ‘law’ is an unwritten law of marriage and had to be put into place in the garden with Adam and Eve. It was set into place as a parameter to be accepted in all marriages from thence forth.
Now, we ask ourselves, why, if this law is for life, did Moses ever permit it to end while the former spouse lived?
We ask ourselves about the wife in Exodus 21:7-11 who was permitted to walk out on her marriage if her husband denied her the basics of marriage, food, clothing and conjugal duty.
Why, if this law that existed from the beginning, was Moses so determined to undermine its supposed finality by ever allowing men or women to end it this side of death? Was Moses a rogue prophet who defied Gods will in the matter and even added divorce proceedings to His law? Not at all.
Moses understood Gods intent, that marriage is for life, but Moses also knew Gods heart and that God wanted mercy over sacrifice and he knew the hearts of evil, hardhearted men who would treat their wives horribly as they wished.
And so Moses understood that this ‘law’ was not unconditional.
If it were unconditional, then it was that way in the beginning and Moses would make himself a heretic by ever going against it.
So we see that when Paul gives his words in 1 Corinthians 7:39, that this is not the whole picture. This ‘law’ that Jesus presents as being ‘from the beginning’ was never meant to be unconditional. Jesus’ very words ‘except for’ in Matthew 19 show conclusively that even He does not see it as being without condition.
Paul was asked some questions by the Corinthians as is made apparent in the beginning of chapter 7;
1 Corinthians 7:1 Now concerning the matters about which you wroteâ€
These believers had asked him some weighty questions about marriage, fornication, virgins, etc, to which he responded with what is written in this chapter.
They clearly had pondered the right of the believer to put away an unbeliever, to which Paul said “no, if the unbeliever is pleased along with the believer, the do not put them away, you might be the catalyst in their salvationâ€.
Paul is showing these believers who think they can just walk away from marriage that no, they cannot because it is for life.
But Pauls words also show condition. What if this unbeliever isn’t ‘pleased’ along with the believer, but is abusive, hateful, adulterating...then what does Pauls condition show?
Please see this page for more on that issue
Aslo see
THIS PAGE that shows conclusively that man CAN indeed 'put asunder' a marriage, thus the 'law of the husband" ("bound by law") is quite conditional.
When you’ve finished there, I believe you will see that there is condition in Pauls words. A condition that is perfectly harmonized with the heart of other scriptures such as Exodus 21 where the wife can leave over nonsupport, Jeremiah 3:8 where even God the Father issued a bill of divorce for harlotry, and Matthew 19 where Jesus shows that the same harlotry is just cause for ending this marriage.
Another point with Romans 7:1-4 or so is that at no time does this passage show that there was ever any divorce as permitted by Mosaic law. If we take it 'as written' it shows that this woman has only left her husband and gone to join with another. Without a divorce as presented by the law Paul speaks of, without the breaking of that marriage covenant, then of course she would be called an adulteress by joining herself to some man not her husband.
Pauls words in Romans 7 and 1 Corinthians 7 are true. They are just harmonized with the whole of Gods word. If we fail to harmonize correctly, then we end up with absurd teachings such as ones that say that we “cannot sin†because the literal reading of 1 John 3:9 would seem to show as much when taken alone and not properly harmonized with the whole.
Without ALL of the facts we can end up drawing very wrong conclusions from very CLEAR scripures, such as presented here:
The REST of the story...
We hope that this has been helpful in showing you the truth, dear reader, and how to harmonize the whole of Gods word so that you understand the whole truth.
====================
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.
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:''one flesh'' is sex, plain and simple.... as proven by 1 Corinthians 6:16Sex 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.
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
