For you readers to show what I have already stated. Methinks some have responded to the article and my posts and almost seem to be pretending like evidence wasnt provided that absolutely was.
“Unmarried”1 Corinthians 7Assertions/Conclusions of this ArticleHere 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 Evidence1.0The 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;
G22agamosThayer Definition:1) unmarried, unwedded, singleStrongs;G22agamosag'-am-osFrom 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 wordsIf 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.
2.0As 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.====================
"Remain Unmarried or reconcile” vs "not in bondage" by Wm Tipton
Assertions/Conclusions of this ArticleWe will show briefly that the commandment of the Lord to ‘remain unmarried or reconcile’ is NOT a blanket commandment in all marital situations where a breaking of the marriage is taking place, but is instead directed to two believers who have left their marriage without just cause, and that Paul also had no commandment for those marriages that weren’t equally yoked, didnt given the same instruction to these who were married to an unbeliever, not having any commandment from the Lord in the matter, and then also offered a concession not given to those who were equally yoked to another believer who had left their marriage for whatever frivolous reason.
Supporting EvidenceFirstly lets look at the actual passages
"And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. (1Co 7:10-11 KJV)
vs
"But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. (1Co 7:12- * KJV)
1.0"Remain Unmarried or reconcile” "And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord,It doesn’t take a rocket scientist or brain surgeon or even a biblical scholar to look at that passage as a whole to see that Paul is speaking to two groups there. The first being those where obviously both the husband and the wife are both listening since Paul addresses both of them therein.This idea is made absolute by Pauls making a clear distinction in his next words in saying “BUT TO THE REST SPEAK I, NOT THE LORD” where he shows clearly that he is now speaking to ‘the rest’ of married couples who do not fall into whatever category as the first group fell. These are defined as being those who are married to someone who ‘believeth not’ which we understand as as ‘unequally yoked’ marriage.Notice that Paul makes it very clear that to these who ARENT married to someone who ‘believeth not’ that he isnt speaking, but the Lord is giving commandment to these.Easy enough concept to see, to understand and to accept for those reading and being honest enough to let the words say what they simply state. To these who arent married to someone who ‘believed not’, these are married to someone who instead is a believer. They cannot be anything else or otherwise Pauls words “BUT TO THE REST” when he speaks to the rest who are married make no logical sense whatsoever.These in verses 7:10-11 MUST be those who are NOT married to someone who ‘believeth not’ but MUST be to those marriages where the person being spoken to is married to a believer. Being honest with ourselves, we accept the targets of these words to be those marriages where both persons are a believer...ie ‘equally yoked’.To these, Paul shows that the Lord has given commandment if they depart to remain unmarried (ARAMOC/agamos/single/unwed) or reconcile with the man she left”This makes logical sense and harmonizes quite well with Gods whole word and is even completely logical even if we set scripture aside for a moment. These are two people who have compatible beliefs who, for whatever reason, have left their marriage who, as christians, should be quite interested in working together as ALL believers in Christ should be doing in order to be in harmony with one another. BOTH of these persons, as followers of Jesus Christ, having entered a marital covenant and having set it aside for whatever frivolous reasonings, should be willing to work together to reunite what they created together previously and set aside without just cause.The Lord has commanded these two believers to remain unmarried or reconcile this marriage cast away without just cause (as historical evidence of Corinth is quite capable of showing. That area was not exactly morally sound).
2.0"not in bondage""But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not,Now we move on ‘to the rest’....to those marriages where Paul is addressing the believer who is married to one who ‘believeth not’.This is the greek for the ‘rest’...
G3062Thayer Definition:1) remaining, the rest1a) the rest of any number or class under consideration1b) with a certain distinction and contrast, the rest, who are not of a specific class or number1c) the rest of the things that remain
These ‘rest’ are those that remain of the groups under consideration, which are clearly those whoare ‘married’. This ‘rest’ are those who are married to unbelievers, clearly indicating that the groups being spoken to in verses 7:10-11 are those who are believers married to believers...in other words, equally yoked.Since the ‘rest’ are those who are Unequally yoked, logically there is no way that that Paul is speaking to ‘the rest’ in verses 7:10-11 then turning right around and addressing ‘the rest’ again starting in verse 7:12. To ‘the rest’ who are clearly believers unequally yoked to unbelievers Paul has no commandment of the Lord but is clearly speaking his own mind in the matter. Believing that Paul may not be speaking by direct commandment, we still accept that he is speaking by inspiration of the Holy Spirit and thus his words are ‘law’ for these married to an unbelieving spouse.Firstly we notice that Pauls words offer a more conditional tone. “IF a brother has a wife who is pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away”. If this brother is married to an unbelieving wife who wants to live in peace with him, then he should not put her away. This church had asked questions of Paul and based on Pauls response its easy to determine that they must have believed that if they became born again, that somehow they were defiled by being with an unbelieving husband.Paul lets them know in this passage that that isnt the case. The unbelieving spouse is sanctified by the believer (in a physical or spiritual ‘cleaness’ type of manner, not meaning a free ride to heaven without repentance or anything like that). These clearly were under the impression that it might be ok to just walk out of a marriage if they became saved, yet their spouse did not. Paul straightens out this erroneous viewpoint and lets them know that if the the unbeliever is mutually ‘pleased’ along with the believer and wants to remain in the marriage, then they arent to put them away, and may even be key to their spouses salvation.Paul then goes on to give concession not given to the two believers above. First there was no commandment at all from the Lord to these as with the equally yoked marriage, but Paul now tells these that if the unbeliever wishes to depart the marriage that the believer isnt in bondage to this marriage.Instead of repeating other studies here, please see this page for more on this point.
READERS SEE->Click->>> [url="http://studies.assembly-ministries.org/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=20]Does the bible permit putting away a spouse for abuse?[/url]Now, these folks will casually leave out that Paul gives instruction to TWO different married groups there and try to apply 1 Cor 7:10-11 to ALL marriages, but this makes Pauls statement of ‘BUT TO THE REST” and everything that follows completely illogical and unable to be harmonized with the whole properly.And the reason they need to pull this deceptive tactic is because they like what the Lord has commanded in verses 7:10-11, but they arent too happy with Pauls concession in 7:12 and after. It completely destroys these false teachings of theirs that Paul offers this idea that the believer might not be forced to remain bound in marriage to an unbeliever in whatever circumstance, and so they force the text to give instruction to a group of people, those unequally yoked, that Paul CLEARLY says he has no word from the Lord to.Thankfully, you readers are quite capable of seeing the wording used for yourself and seeing what is actually presented by Gods whole word....
