Husband of one wife

It would seem that you are arguing that a divorced and remarried person can never attain genuine forgiveness.</font>[/QUOTE]Jesus called it adultery. Why? Because people are sleeping with people who are not their God-joined spouses. And every time one sleeps with someone who is not his spouse he is comitting adultery.

 

You're correct that this may be one of the few contextual/semantic clues outside the pericope in question. There are generally four interpretations:
That the woman cannot be enrolled if;
1. She has remarried after the death of a husband;
2. She was a woman who was divorced and then remarried and now widowed.
3. She was a woman who had been married to more than one man at a time.
4. She was a woman unfaithful and unchaste with regards to her spouse when alive.

1 is dismissed due to context (v. 14, Rom 7:2,3, et.al.)
2 would require Paul to list a qualifier (as he does for one stipulation of divorce carried over from Romans 7);
3 may be likely (Gill seems to think so), but I believe 4 is contextually likely since (once again) we're contextually talking about character, not status (with the exception of age, though that's harmonized by Paul's statement in v. 11.) However, one problem with #4 is that while the character qualifications may be continuous, the "one man wife" is a perfect participle. I don't see that as a necessary disqualifier since the literal translation of "After having been...." could refer to character, as well. I'm out of time to give any more explanation. I'll have to check back later. Sorry

 

It would seem that you are arguing that a divorced and remarried person can never attain genuine forgiveness.</font>[/QUOTE]Jesus called it adultery.</font>[/QUOTE] He said that marrying her was adultery. He didn't make it a perpetual sin like you seem to be attempting.

You will have to provide a scriptural case for this. Though Jesus and Paul limited the conditions neither contradicted the OT fact that divorce ends a marriage.

That's fine except for the fact that both Paul and Moses allow for remarriage and Jesus didn't specifically deny remarriage in all cases.

It is pretty apparent that the treshold for divorce among the Jews and especially the religious leaders had become pretty low. Jesus addressed that. His words with those of Paul and Moses must be considered together.

 

Where does Paul say that divorced people may remarry? 1 Cor. 7:11 is clear, and 7:27 should be interpreted in that light, i.e., talking about virgins or those who had been loosed from a wife through death. Jesus' obscure "exception clause" in Matthew 5 & 19, as it is not present in Mark and Luke, may only be for a Jewish case of infidelity before "marriage", just as Joseph was going to "divorce" or "put away" his betrothed "wife" Mary before even "marrying" her. Jesus may have been giving allowance for this situation and this situation only, saying that Joseph, e.g., could have "remarried" without sinning against God.

 

Unless "not under bondage" means something other than "not under bondage", a Christian may remarry after irreconcilably abandoned.

I don't frankly think that Jesus words are without authority because they aren't recorded in Mark or Luke. The concept is recorded twice in Matthew. There is no evidence of the limitation you have applied above from the text. It is conjecture that doesn't appear to be supported or even wholly consistent with other texts on divorce/marriage.

Further, if you accomplish limiting the scope of Jesus' words then you really don't help your case at all. It would leave the allowances of Moses and Paul as our guides. Moses was not very limiting. A woman only had to displease her husband. Paul uses some words that must be defined, the biggest: "pleased to dwell".

That phrase is distinct from whether the spouse separates or not. If they are pleased to dwell then the man is not to put them away and the woman is not to leave. But what does it mean? Does it mean they have to leave? Does it mean they have to abuse the Christian? Does it mean they have to live ungodly persistently with the Christian?

It is open to interpretation and while the kneejerk reaction might be to interpret as strictly as possible... that may be a restriction of a legitimate Christian liberty.

 

Wow, what a thread.

Regardless of what anyone here says, a church still has the autonomy to call a pastor whether he is married, divorced, widowed, or single.

Paid, I appreciate your input. I've learned from your posts. I've learned some things from others too, but particularly from you. I even learned some new words to impress my friends.

 

This has been an interesting thread. Good food for thought and consideration on both sides.

Three questions come to mind:

Can a single man serve as deacon or pastor since he is not married?

Since a person whose spouse has died no technically longer married - refer to question above.

In verse 1 Timothy 3:4 it says "He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect."

Does this mean a childless man is disqualified from service as a deacon or pastor?

Thanks.

 

Ian

It is different!

 

That's an understatement.

 

Unless "not under bondage" means something other than "not under bondage", a Christian may remarry after irreconcilably abandoned. </font>[/QUOTE]Obviously, “not under bondage” means “not under bondage” but what does “not under bondage” mean? Whereas one could conceivably interpret it as freedom to remarriage, it does not explicitly say so. It very well could be referring to the one believing party not being under the obligations of marriage. These obligations are personal fidelity and companionship to name two but they are moral, economic and sexual in nature. Earlier (vv. 3-4), ) Paul points out that a spouse is obligated to fulfill the sexual function for his wife or her husband. The term “not under bondage” may simply mean that the remaining spouse is relieved of the economic and sexual obligations of the covenant without implying remarriage at all. For one to stipulate this frees one for remarriage, he or she must bring some presupposition to the text and read it into it. Now, the question is whether one can sustain the presupposition.

The lynchpin that joins your whole argument together is missing so the parts never meet. You have never confronted and refuted the premise that Jesus in Matthew never permitted divorce on the basis of adultery (see my earlier posts). My premise, which you have not addressed and refuted, is that fornication does not refer to adultery but a heinous sexual perversion such as lesbianism or incest or bestiality. Jesus, in fact, opposed both schools of Jewish thought on divorce.

This is assuming that Paul is approving divorce, which you have assumed but not established. Paul is very plain on the situation with two believers (vv. 10-11). It is simply no divorce. If they should separate, they are to remain unmarried or be reconciled (v. 11). (Jay Adams says separation or putting away is divorce because mere separation as we know it was unknown during this era. When I asked Jay, who is a good Greek scholar having translated the entire NT, why the man is still invariably referred to as the woman’s husband after separation or divorce, he hesitated, stared me straight in the eye, and said, “I don’t know.” He didn’t like the implication of the question, I think.) There is no proviso for divorce upon grounds of adultery for believers. If a believer is commanded to remain unmarried when separated from another believer, what is the logic that compels one to assume that separation from an unbeliever frees one for remarriage? There is none.

Why do you have to take something simple and make it complicated and difficult? The phrase “pleased to dwell” simply means if the other party is willing to live with the believer.

Now, what is your definition of a Christian liberty? Any Christian liberty is the liberty to live godly, holy, righteous and upright lives pleasing to our Lord and Savior. It is not license to please ourselves and satisfy our desires. Paul specifically warns against the abuse of our liberty in Christ.

 

Hey guys, what kind of banners do you get on this thread. Here are the two presently appearing at the top of my screen.

Oops! Gotta be careful with that one--while highlighting it to copy and paste, my computer started going to the web site but I was able to close the screen before it finished loading.

 

What if "not under bondage" means what paidagogos said, or what if it simply means a believer doesn't need to follow his adulterous wife and her new spouse all over creation? If it means remarriage, then Paul's command in 1 Cor. 7:11 is contradictory and we must assume that Paul either intentionally or unknowingly contradicted himself within the space of 5 verses.

 

That's an understatement. </font>[/QUOTE]And you can say that again. In Greek?

 

BlueFalcon

I don't think that we have to go that far. Not being under bondage could simply mean that the marriage covenant was a form of bondage and that the person was released from that bondage.

Personally, I believe that Paul was stating that if released from marriage, one should remain single. However, I can see the logic in choosing to believe that a person can be released from bondage.

Indeed, I think they indicate that 50% of our churches are in this category (released from a marriage).

 

What if "not under bondage" means what paidagogos said, or what if it simply means a believer doesn't need to follow his adulterous wife and her new spouse all over creation? If it means remarriage, then Paul's command in 1 Cor. 7:11 is contradictory and we must assume that Paul either intentionally or unknowingly contradicted himself within the space of 5 verses. </font>[/QUOTE]Too many "if's" for me.

Just let "not under bondage" mean what it means rather trying to reinterpret it to mean something different than what it means. The plain reading doesn't contradict any other scripture and in fact is consistent with both Christ and Moses.

The only reason I can think of that one would insist on some other meaning is that they don't like the meaning expressed.

 

What if "not under bondage" means what paidagogos said, or what if it simply means a believer doesn't need to follow his adulterous wife and her new spouse all over creation? If it means remarriage, then Paul's command in 1 Cor. 7:11 is contradictory and we must assume that Paul either intentionally or unknowingly contradicted himself within the space of 5 verses. </font>[/QUOTE]Too many "if's" for me.

Just let "not under bondage" mean what it means rather trying to reinterpret it to mean something different than what it means. The plain reading doesn't contradict any other scripture and in fact is consistent with both Christ and Moses.

The only reason I can think of that one would insist on some other meaning is that they don't like the meaning expressed. </font>[/QUOTE]Please allow me to point out that you have never established what it means? You are assuming that it means what you want it to mean? How do you know "not under bondage" means one is free for remarriage? You have presented no contextual arguments--in fact, you have presented no arguments at all, just your assertions. In context, "not under bondage" more likely refers to freeing of marital obligations rather than the right to remarry. Read the rest of the chapter without prejudice. Furthermore, it is not consistent with Christ and Moses’ teachings because you have misinterpreted and misapplied their sayings depending on the teachings to which you are referring.

 

The context of scripture in the OT when Moses commanded a bill of divorcement was for the purpose of freeing the woman and granting her the right to remarry. On another note, she was viewed as chattle and could not make a living on her own as well. Everything was done through her husband. Without a husband it is unlikely she oculd make a living. In many cases the woman could not legally divorce her husband. The husband held that power. If he did not wish to give her a divorce then they could not be divorced but he could kick her out of the home. A bill of divorcement provided for her a way to remarry and not be held under bondage by her husband.

 

I agree with Paidagogos that Jesus' point about marriage is that it was to be viewed as something indissoluble. One should not conceive of "reasons fora biblically sanctioned divorce". Marriage should be assumed to be permanent. As such He was making a statement about marriage in general and how we should think about it.

Jesus told the woman that the one with whom she lived was not her husband. So what does this mean for those who have suffered a marital split? I'm not convinced that it means that a man (or woman) living in a new marriage after divorce lives in continual adultery, able only to achieve true marriage again by returning to the original spouse.

 

What do you want me to establish and how would you recommend that I go about establishing it.

Contextually, the subject is marriage, singleness, divorce, and remarriage (explicitly so for widows). The specific topic that this applies to is the obligation of believers who are married to unbelievers who are "not pleased to dwell" with them. The believer should try to maintain the marriage. However if the unbeliever is unwilling then Paul declares that the believer is "not under bondage". If qualification of that liberty were needed then certainly it was incumbent upon the original Author to give it. But there is none. It says "not under bondage"... as in not bound in unqualified terms.

No. I am assuming that words mean what they mean in the context in which they are spoken... and that if qualification of "not under bondage" were required- it would have been given as God's Word is inerrant. It would certainly be an "error" if God meant to qualify "not under bondage" with "but don't remarry" and was somehow unable to do it.

] Because it doesn't forbid remarriage. The text doesn't list an exclusion of remarriage. We have no reason to suspect that there is a blank that needs to be filled in between the lines of this scripture.

If I tell my kid he can have any toy in Walmart, it is up to me to give a qualifier if I intend one. For instance, "any toy that costs less than $25 and does not require assembly." If I fail to do so and he chooses a $150 airplane that requires a union mechanic to construct... that's my error, not his. Since God makes no errors... I simply trust that He said what He meant.

I presented the text... it provides its own context. If you want to argue that God wasn't conservative enough then that's not an argument to have with me.

That is an artificial limitation that you have read into the text. Accusing me is fine but there is nothing in the context of that passage that suggests such a limitation... that is simply what you would like to have seen.

I just did a fairly intensive study of the whole chapter in preparation for about 5 or 6 SS lessons as I lead my class through 1 Corinthians. IOW's, I have done more than just read it "without prejudice".

I would recommend rather than you read it without prejudice. The text is as conservative and liberating as God wanted it to be without assuming that there are missing exceptions to the liberty granted those who divorce an unbelieving spouse.

Nope. I have just tried to let their words say what they say... without attempting to make them more conservative or liberal than what they are.

 

I agree with ya' and Jesus . . .