Divorce + remarriage = adultery

Huh?

Can you please point me to one or two respected, well known theologians who argue that v27-28 means it's ok to divorce and remarry. This is so far from any Christian interpretation of this passage that I would like to see some scholarly references.

Also, some scholarly references proving that being free from a wife means being divorce, as opposed to never married, please.

When I compare your acceptance of divorce against Jesus' strong condemnation, well ... I'm sure you understand.

Thank you
DD

[ January 04, 2002: Message edited by: Daniel Davidson ]

 

Probably not that you will agree with but when I have time, I will have to look it up again. It has been a while. Unfortunately I loaned out my best commentaries on 1 Corinthians and have not gotten them back yet. Start for now with Colin Brown, NIDNTT, s.v. "Separate," 3:537-540 and Brown, NIDNTT, s.v. "Redemption," 3:188. He says,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>D. Daube points out the lysis, "release," is a somewhat untechnical term for divorce (The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism, 1956, 363), as compared with Paul's use of chorizesthai of the wife who "separates" from her husband and aphienai of the husband who dismisses his wife, which corresponds to the Jewish usage (cf. 1 Cor. 7:10f; ...). Perhaps Paul was using a more general term which would cover not only formal divorce but speartion and even the death of the marriage partner. However, apolyo is used of divorce (Matt 5:31f. par Lk 16:18; Matt 19:3-9; par Mk 10:2-12). C. K. Barrett claims taht 1 Cor 7:27 "contains Paul's advice on what, in the present circumstnaces, it is a good thing for a man to do; but it is in no sense a strict ruling which all must obey" (The First Epistles to the Corinthians BNTC, 1968, 175). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

See also Jay Adams, Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the Bible, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980), esp. pp. 84ff where he says exactly what I am saying here (I didn't realize this until I looked at his book this morning). This whole book would be helpful.

Another book, a bit more sizeable, is Divorce and Remarriage: Four Christian Views, edited by H. Wayne House. It will give four different positions, each with a response.

Understand, I am not saying that your interpretation is invalid per se; I simply am unpersuaded that it is the right one.

The point is simply this: You appeal to Jesus strict teaching but you must realize that Paul gives an exception that Jesus did not give. So therefore, whatever Jesus did mean, it was not all inclusive since Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, gave another exception.

You talk of my "acceptance" of divorce. Why? I do not accept divorce. I seem to be one of the few who will maintain that divorce is never the best option, even in the case of adultery, and should not be pursued. I do not believe I will ever counsel someone to pursue a divorce unless under the most dire circumstances. My question is not about whether a couple should divorce or not.

Whether we like it or not, divorce is a reality and the question is, "What do we do when it is over."

There are a number of good books on this issue.

[ January 04, 2002: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Pastor Larry,
How many times do we hear from politicians that "I personally do not think this is the best option, but....?" We hear it in regard to just about any sin being considered but then there are always reasons to go ahead and support the sin in special cases. Then the special cases become more and more the norm. This approach is too weak when counseling people on issues as important as marriage, divorce and re-marriage.

God is Life. Every act of procreation between a man and woman involves an act of creation on God's part.

God looks on the heart, on the intention,

God has Himself shown marriage to be a covenantal relationship reflecting the life of our Triune God.

So being "open to life" is shown to us by God's own nature. And the scriptures do teach us that God looks for that right intention, that it is essential and that a marriage must glorify God from that right intention.

Many Catholics have marriages that are open to life. And I'm sure many non-Catholic Christians do too.
Pauline

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pauline:
How many times do we hear from politicians that "I personally do not think this is the best option, but....?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What is the relevance here? Did you mistake me for a politician?

If I considered divorce to be a sin in all cases, I would never support it. But then neither Christ nor Paul would have given an exception for it. Divorce can be a sin; it is apparently not always a sin.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Every act of procreation between a man and woman involves an act of creation on God's part. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Both wrong and irrelevant. (BTW, I disagree on theological grounds with this statement.)Most acts of procreation do not result in the creation of anything.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So being "open to life" is shown to us by God's own nature. And the scriptures do teach us that God looks for that right intention, that it is essential and that a marriage must glorify God from that right intention. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well now you are changing your tune just a bit. Before you said that a marriage must have the right intention to be valid. Now you appear to change it. I agree that marriage should have the right intention. However, it is not an invalid marriage without the right intention.

[ January 04, 2002: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Pastor Larry,

If intention is not important in a marriage:

Then is it a marriage if a practicing homosexual marries a woman, without letting her know of his "other" life? She is thinking they have a real marriage, he never intended to be faithful. Would you consider this a marriage?

Politicians are famous for that approach but it isn't limited just to them. It's fairly common in our society today.

Pauline

[ January 04, 2002: Message edited by: Pauline ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pauline:
If intention is not important in a marriage:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I did not say that intention was not important. I said that intention does not determine the validity of a marriage.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Then is it a marriage if a practicing homosexual marries a woman, without letting her know of his "other" life? She is thinking they have a real marriage, he never intended to be faithful. Would you consider this a marriage?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If in the eyes of the legitimate state, they are married, then yes they are married. It may be a bad marriage, but it is nonetheless a marriage. It would take a divorce for it to be ended.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by trying2understand:
It has been suggested that in a divorce/remarriage situation it is better to remain in the second marriage because to divorce is a sin, even though Scripture tells us that whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

So since both are sins which is the better sin? Divorce or adultery?

Here is a radical idea. How about simply choosing not to sin. That is, remain married but live as "brother and sister". I believe even the Apostle Paul has something to say in that regard.

I also remember something about adulterers not entering Heaven. Which is worse? A few cold showers or an eternity separated from God?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And how many people do you know live as brother and sister yet they are married? And just how happy are they and any children they have? How long does that usually last?

 

Pastor Larry,
But God's plan is that a man leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife. and they shall be one flesh. Gn 2,24. That's a clear type of relationship, which puts all other types of relationships in perspective.
This verse is quoted by St. Paul in Ep 5 too.

This is also a clear cut description of marriage in God's eyes. And certainly requires a clear cut intention. God looks on the heart, on the intention.
Pauline

 

wishtolearn,
I've personally only known two couples who lived together as brother and sister. And a third couple that I got to know very well and suspect that in their later years that is how they were living. These latter people were among the most Christlike that I've ever know and had a wonderful impact on my life and the lives of many others. They live for the Lord, to pray and to do good to others.

The one couple still had children at home. It worked out very well for them and their children. They are a dear family. As in many of these cases, it eventually worked out for them to have their marriage blessed by the Church.

The final couple had only grown children, his and hers -- no children together. After living as brother and sister for a few years they decided to separate so that one of them could give more time and energy to serving our Lord.

They all seemed at peace about it.

Pauline

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pauline:
But God's plan is that a man leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife. and they shall be one flesh. Gn 2,24. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did I say something that makes you think I disagree with this? I think this is fundamental to marriage, overlooked by far too many people.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This is also a clear cut description of marriage in God's eyes. And certainly requires a clear cut intention. God looks on the heart, on the intention.
Pauline<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with this as well ... but intent does not form a marriage. A couple who is engaged has a good intent but they are not married. A couple where one of the partners is cheating has lost the intent but they are still married. I think you are confusing a couple of things here. I am not arguing that intent should not be there; it most certianly should be. But intent does not make a couple married any more than lack of intent dissolves the marriage.

 

Matthew 5:32 "But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."

Would the reason for the "saving for the cause of fornication" mean that this is a legal "out" of the marriage or is it saying that this woman has already comitted adultery?

I have always considered it an "out" for the faithful spouse.

 

Tuor,
If you go back in this thread and read the posts, you'll find that probably the word translated "fornication" there, did not mean fornication as we mean the word. But rather that it meant an improper marriage, or rather -- not really a marriage at all according to their understanding in that day.

You still find this idea of valid and invalid marriages in the Catholic Church today. Pastor Larry and I discussed it some.

If God looks on the heart, on the intention, and if one member of the couple married without ever intending to obey Gn 2,24 and Ep 5,31 --then is it really a marriage? An important consideration.

Pauline

 

The NIV uses marital unfaithfulness for fornication.

The NASB and RVS use unchastity.

From these translations I got the idea that it meant someone who has commited adultery.