Remarriage Issue

Since when was contradicting Jesus and calling Paul a liar and making a mockery of God “solid exegesis and sound hermeneutics”? Any exegesis or hermeneutic that does these things is neither solid nor sound!!! </font>[/QUOTE]Neither one of us has contradicted Jesus or called Paul a liar based on the fact that Jesus gave an exception for divorce in cases of adultery in Matt. 19:9 and the Holy Spirit lead Paul to instruct the Corinthians in 1 Cor. 7:15 that a believing Christian who has been abandoned by an unbelieving spouse is no longer bound (married) to that person. It is only when one carries a dogmatic presupposition and refuses to accept the plain reading of the texts involved that one arrives at the conclusion that there appears to be a contradiction.

Allowing our personal experiences and presuppositions to dictate the meaning of the Word is not solid exegesis nor sound hermeneutics. When we do this we set our selves up as a source of authority over the Word rather than allowing the Word to be the final authority over us.

 

[qutoe]If this is true, then both Jesus and Paul are liars!!![/quote]Paul is the one that said it. You need to think before you make these accusations.

Notice how you added to Scripture ... Bottom line Craig, there are some serious problems with your positions which leads you to have to add to Scripture to make it work. I refuse to do that. I understand there are weaknesses with my position. You need to understand that there are weaknesses with yours. You certainly have overstated the case, and used bad 'exegesis' (though I hesitate to call it that) in attempting to deal with 7:27-28.

I did none of those things, and you know it.

 

Anytime divorce is granted remarriage is implied.

So often adultery is not really understood in light of the context of the Jewish culture and in scripture. It is much broader than what we often make it out to be. In the strictest sense adultery is any deviation from God's plan. In the book of James he calls his readers adulteresses.

I cor. 7:25-40 is addressing widows and the unmarried. Verse 25 comes right out and says unmarried. But the overall context is the congregation which is made up of married and unmarried. Paul is saying if you are maried don't seek to be free but rather fulfill your responsibility. But if you are not married then you are better off not marrying for a number of reasons.

 

But which of the parties in the debate are guilty of doing this? Have you read all the posts in these two threads? I have said absolutely nothing about my personal experience and presuppositions. Instead, I have quoted, quoted, and quoted Scriptures that are in direct conflict with your interpretation. I am basing “my” interpretation exclusively on explicit Scriptures in the New Testament; you are basing your interpretations on ambiguities found in one of the most ambiguous chapters in the entire Bible. Indeed, much of 1 Cor. 7 is so ambiguous that it has been called a translator's nightmare.

The only question regarding the teaching of Jesus on marriage and divorce is whether or not the exception clause in Matthew 19:9 is genuine or an early scribal gloss. If it is genuine, there is only one justification for a divorce, i.e., one of the two parties committed adultery. If it is not genuine, but an early scribal gloss, there is no justification for a divorce. The Bible warns us of the dangers of marriage, and all of us who enter into marriage do so at our own risk. The Bible does not guarantee anything about marriage except that there will be problems. Even our marriage vows admit of this, and are worded to allow for it, and exclude the possibility of divorce on account of it—“until death do us part.” To some people a marriage vow is sacred and they therefore keep it; to others it is nothing more than a stupid mistake and they therefore break it. The word of God, however, stands.

And this is not just my interpretation; it is the interpretation of the entire Church for 1500 years, and the interpretations of nearly all evangelical scholars until the early 1960’s.

 

No, he did not. You are wrongly interpreting him to have said it. Paul never contradicted either Jesus or himself.

You did not do it personally, but your exegesis and hermeneutic does. You know very well that 1 Cor. 7 brings to the table of both the translator and the exegete immensely difficult problems. You also know that the verses that I quoted from the Gospels are remarkably clear and explicit. And yet your hermeneutic is to interpret the clear and explicit passages on the basis of the ambiguous passages, rather than to interpret the ambiguous passages on the basis of the clear and explicit passages. The consequence is that your exegesis makes Paul not only contradict himself, but also contradict Jesus.

The exegesis and hermeneutic that I applied does none of this, nor does it have any other problem other than it shows that the Bible teaches a doctrine that has become very unpopular since the early 1960’s.

 

I see that you have posted clear and explicit Scripture from the Bible to support this statement.

 

No, he did not.</font>[/QUOTE]No, actually he did. It is right in v. 28. We can debate about who specifically he is talking about. But there is no debate a bout whether or not he said.

I may be, but you certainly haven't used sound exegesis to demonstrate that yet.

I agree ... but you may be wrongly interpreting the matter; you may be mixing contexts. There are a lot of possibilities. YOu have already plainly denied his teaching that it is better to marry than burn, and you denied it based on your own additions, something I reject. I do not think it is good exegesis to add words to Scripture to make it fit our position.

No, I simply disagree with you about the exegesis.

I do, which is why I am saying you should not be so dogmatic about it.

I disagree that it is that clear. Those verses exist alongside the context of Scripture. There is a lot of contextual issues even in those "clear passages."

I disagree, obviously. I think your explanation is weak and inconsistent. I think it ignores the plain words of the text. There are simply a whole lot of very capable exegetes who have shown the weaknesses of your position. You would be wise not to be so dogmatic. Your interpretation certainly is a valid possibility. But so is mine ... and I find the weaknesses of mine as a whole are less troubling than the weaknesses of yours as a whole.

Christ did give a clear exception to when divorce is possible. In light of the OT teaching, remarriage was clearly possible after divorce. IN the event of adultery, an OT person was executed and thus remarriage was possible for them. There are just a lot of things that your position is not able to deal with, IMO.

 

So, according to your implication, I can't marry my girlfriend and have intercourse with her, but I can have intercourse with my ex-wife, who, btw, is remarried. That makes no scriptural sense. Paul wasn't lying when he said it is better to marry then burn with passion. I am a healthy unmarried male, who desires to one day be in an intimate relationship. I plan on marrying the person I'm dating, assuming she's crazy enough to want to be with me .

 

I see that you have posted clear and explicit Scripture from the Bible to support this statement. </font>[/QUOTE]That comes from a study of the historical and extrabiblical material. Often the letters are like a one sided telephone conversation. It takes the historical part to understand the total picture which the Bible often does not give. The correct interpretation is given in light of its historical context.

 

gb93433, your statement that remarriage is implied when divorce is the issue is a product of your theology, not a scriptural position.

The O.T. regulations on divorce were completely done away with by Christ. All of them. It no longer matters what Israel was permitted to do.

Note that Christ said divorce (let alone remarriage) was the product of a hard heart.

Do not forget that the O.T. law was to govern an entire nation made up of unbelievers and believers.

The N.T. law that Christ introduced is strictly for believers. No believer has the right to ever have a hard heart.

The issue the majority position must wrestle with is this, if Jesus meant to give an exception to adultery, why didn't he say so? He said sexual immorality. It is quite the jump to say that he must be talking about adultery, when adultery is but a subset of sexual immorality.

 

Johnv, you promised to have your wife for better or for worse to two different women. Why would a third change things?

 

But it clearly shows as wrong the idea that God never permits divorced people to remarry. He does.

He did say exactly that. He said that divorce and remarriage were possible in the case of sexual immorality. If he said the larger (sexual immorality), he certainly included the smaller (adultery).

 

Larry, he permitted it because the nation of Israel (who the law was given to) had hard hearts. That is the explicit reason.

Would you not agree that the nation was primarily unbelievers?

As to what Christ said, that isn't what he said.

He said that divorce (except for one reason which is debatable as to its exact meaning) was forbidden.

Also, if one marries a divorcee, adultery is committed again.

He did NOT say that remarriage was permitted. That is reading into the text Larry.

 

Jesus did not come to abolish the law but to fulfil it. Are you a dispensationalist? If you go back to the time of Moses you will see the reason for a bill of divorcement. It was so that the innocent party could remarry instead of being held hostage.

There have been many who have taken your position and have either been divorced or had a child who was divorced and then rethought their theology. If your theology does not work in your home then it does not work.

If you were to read Jesus words in the gospels he did address the issue of divorce. The fatc reamins there are believrs who develop hard hearts. Believers murder people too. Read the letters to the churches and see what believers do.

My neighbor is a family lawyer and he tells me the most divorce is in the most fundamental churches. I knew that from the courses I took in seminary.

My step father in law was divorced from his wife. She would not reconcile nor would she get divorced. The SBC church they attended did nothing to push the issue. This went on for about 14 years. He finally gave her an ultimatum and she would not reconcile so he divorced her.

 

The only exception for "divorce" was for "fornication," or "porneia" referring to illicit sex before marriage. Otherwise the Bible never condones divorce under any conditions. It equates divorce and remmariage to living in a state of adultery. Jesus could not have made it any plainer in this text as well as the parallel texts in Luke and in Mark. If you marry a divorced person you commit adultery. That is plain speech.

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.

Then what does this verse mean, and how was it applicable? For that we need an understanding of Jewish customs of the day, as it is illustrated in the lives of Joseph and Mary in Matthew chapter one.

Matthew 1:18-19 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.

Notice that Mary and Joseph were only espoused or engaged at this time. They were NOT married. Yet their engagement ties were so strong that they were considered as man and wife, even though the marriage was not consummated, and they were both virgins. It was during this time that if the "husband" found his bride-to-be, or "wife" immoral, or "for the cause of fornication," that he had the right to "divorce" her. The engagement would be broken off. They would be separated before they were even married. That is the only type of divorce the Bible allows. This is what Jesus was referring to in Mat.5:32. This is what Joseph was referring to when he was "not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily."

Matthew 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
--Notice it was the angel of the Lord that reassured Joseph that his wife to be, had not committed fornication, and that he should not fear to "take unto thee Mary thy wife." He was espoused, and yet Mary was already called his wife. Joseph had been thinking of divorce.

Matthew 19:4-6 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Jesus minces no words. What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. There is no room for divorce--ever! You don't make vows before man and before God, and wake up the next morning and say: "Oops, I think I made a mistake." Marriage is "til death do us part."

Paul explains in Romans 7 that we are bound to the law of marriage until the death of our spouse. Then we are free to remarry. Only the death of our spouse can free us from the marriage bond.

In certain cases (such as abusive husbands), I believe the passages in 1Cor.7 give permission for the believing spouse to "depart" or separate, but not to divorce. God never sanctioned divorced. People can live separated without being divorced. They can also pray that God will change lives, that reconciliation may be possible. You put yourself into that marriage. You are the one that must work it out.
If divorce is not an option, it is quite evident that remarriage is totally out of the question. Remarriage is living in a state of adultery.
DHK

 

Jesus said,

Matt. 5:31. "It was said, 'WHOEVER SENDS HIS WIFE AWAY, LET HIM GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE';
32. but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Matt. 19:8. He *said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.
9. "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

Mark 10:11. And He *said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her;
12. and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery."

Luke 16:18. "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.
Paul said,

1 Cor. 7:8. But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I.
9. But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
10. But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband
11. (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.

Anything else that Paul said, as ambiguous as it may be in the minds of some readers, must be interpreted in such a manner that it is in perfect harmony with the above verses.

(All Scripture quotes from the NASB, 1995)

 

Licentious teaching and preaching results in licentious living, more children, larger congregations, and more expensive cars for the pastors. Tickle of ears, lie a little, distort the Scriptures, and do whatever it takes to make the people feel good about themselves, come to “church,” and bless the pastor in the offerings.

Preaching hell, fire, and brimstone results in sanctified living, happy children with two parents, Christian congregations, and a pastor who is blessed by God. Teach the word of God, always tell the truth, rightly divide the word of truth, and do whatever it takes to be in perfect obedience to God.

 

Yes, that is what I believe the Scripture teaches. She needs to be content in being single. Being single is not such a bad thing. In fact Paul said:

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

Paul used to be a member of the Sanhedrin, a requirement of which was marriage. We therefore believe that he was married, and somehow widowed. Thus Paul says, "It is good for them if they abide even as I" (single).
His reasoning (he gives later on), was that a single person is not encumbered with the cares of this world as a married person must be; for a married person's time is consumed in taking care and providing for their family.
A single person has more time to devote to the Lord's work.
DHK

 

Amen!