Did Paul outright defy Christ on 'putting asunder' ?

[_foc]

This is one of my studies at our website.
I stumbled upon the greek here when I was looking at a related study and it really blew me away given the understanding some have of 'let not man put asunder (CHORIZO)"
Feel free to critique it as you see fit


==========================================
"Put Asunder"/"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.

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 separate”

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

G5563
χωρίζω
chōrizō
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

Jesus' words were rendered as such here in these two passages regarding marriage ...

(Mat 19:6) Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder(G5563).

(Mar 10:9) What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder(G5563).

Bearing 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.

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 “chorizo”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 asunder”) 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.

[_foc]

I wondered about this for a while because of course even tho Jesus said 'let not man put asunder' we see men doing just that.
But having Christs own apostle literally tell the believer to ALLOW this without a fight, that really says a lot on the matter.

Based on the context of 'putting asunder' in matt 19, its quite easy to determine that its the ending of a marriage that is being discussed there and that this 'put asunder' is speaking of exactly that.

If we play no games with the texts in 1 Corinthians 7 where Paul uses CHORIZO for this unbeliever simply leaving (Paul does not say if its for adultery, abuse or just running off with some teenage girl without any cause to abandon his marriage) then we see that Paul has permitted in this case precisely what Christ has seemingly disallowed...the cutting asunder of a marriage, ie "ending" it as shown by the context of Matt 19 where they speak about 'divorcement' and Christ shows 'only for harlotry'.

Christ shows us that it is not Gods will that we should END marriage.
Paul shows us clearly that it is possible to do so, and in cases where we are unequally yoked, if that marriage has ended because our UNbelieving spouse wants to run off with someone else, we are not in slavery to that union. A freed slave has no master....no husband.

In 1 Cor 7:10-11 where a believing spouse has abandoned their marriage to a believer, Paul tells them to 'remain UNmarried or reconcile".

The things that stand out here are that he says 'remain UNmarried' instead of saying something like 'dont commit adultery' as some seem to teach.
This shows me, in agreement with Deut 24, that remarriage IS possible, even if its not desired because this first marriage 'should' be reconciled.

I believe that 1 Cor 7:10-11 is also a 'test' of sorts concerning this person who abandons the marriage.
A true believer will heed the Lords command and Pauls instruction in 1 Cor 7:10-11 and return to that spouse who is also a believer. The true believer will work out the differences with their believing spouse and make that marriage work however they need to (we are assuming that BOTH are true believers because Paul deals with the UNequally yoked person starting in verse 7:12).
7:10-11 is a really good test that shows us clearly if this person is truly a follower of Christ.
If my wife claims to be a christian, yet abandons our marriage for NO cause at all, then refuses to return, based on the fruits she is presenting Id have to determine that she was a makebeliever, not a true one.

Of course, I understand that some wont agree with my understanding in the matter, but thats fine, my views arent threatened by anyone disagreeing

[Guest]

Paul's statements in I Cor 7:27,28 also seem relevant to this discussion:

Have you been bound to a wife? Do not seek to be loosed.

The idea seems to be that if you have been married, do not seek to be divorced.

Have you been loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife.

If you have been divorced from a wife, do not seek remarriage.

But note especially the next sentence:

But if you marry, you have not sinned.

Now Paul was completely familiar with the teachings of Jesus. He sometimes said, "The Lord said this" and "This is what I say, and not the Lord." So it seems that Paul did not understand our Lord as having taught that remarriage is adultery. For clearly adultery is sin. But Paul in the above passage seems quite clear in saying that if you been loosed from a wife and remarry, you have not sinned.

[_foc]

I agree Paidion.
When it is understood what Jesus is really saying in the gospels, that He is simply condemning these frivolous divorces and showing the extent of the offense, I think that Pauls words in 1 cor 7 come into perfect harmony...even tho Paul clearly permitted 'putting asunder' where Christ said 'let NOT man' do so.

Jesus intent CANNOT be that no man 'can' put asunder, else Paul finds himself to be quite a heretic for standing directly in opposition to Jesus' teachings.