Reefs on the narrow road—Gene’s ship hits a few

I stand amazed at scriptural interpretations of some who are looked to for religious guidance these days.  No wonder our society is on the wide road to hell.  Recently I was at GotQuestions.org, a religious website I have a degree of respect for, and found this:

“Some understand 1 Corinthians 7:15 as another “exception,” allowing remarriage if an unbelieving spouse divorces a believer. However, the context does not mention remarriage, but only says a believer is not bound to continue a marriage if an unbelieving spouse wants to leave” (emphasis is mine). 

What a miserable interpretation!  I have to ask, does anyone ever consider context any more?...and look up words and terms in a lexicon?  In this chapter, Paul is discussing the subject of husbands and wives satisfying their partners sexual needs, specifically the husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband.  The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.  Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time.   

The word translated bound is douloo, which means give one’s self wholly to one's needs and service.  An example of what Paul is describing would be if a husband abandoned his home and spouse, caroused around behaving like an unmarried man, and later returned to his wife expecting his sexual needs to be fulfilled.  In this scenario his wife is not obligated (bound) to fulfill them.  And the same if the wife left and then came back for sexual fulfillment.  It has nothing to do with divorce, and for sure it does not provide for remarriage.  Just the removal of the obligation for sexual activity with a wayward spouse. 

And while on the subject of divorce, would you not consider the apostle Paul to be a qualified interpreter of what Jesus said and meant on various subjects?  Well, here is what the Lord personally instructed him to command us regarding divorce: 

To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband.  But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband.  And a husband must not divorce his wife (1 Cor. 7:10-11).

I have to ask, how can anyone read those words and then come up with a marriage escape clause a few verses later?!!!  There are two clearly stated options, (1) separate or (2) reconcile.  Nowhere does Paul say anything about divorce being an option.  And nowhere in the Bible is there provision for divorce and remarriage.  If someone comes up with a biblical reason for divorce from 1 Corinthians 7, they are manufacturing that reason—also known as twisting Scripture.

I hope this is the last on this subject for a while.  Needless to say, ol’ Gene’s ship has hit several reefs (some hidden) in putting forth his understanding of Scripture as related to marriage—it goes opposite the flow of our pagan culture.  But please understand, my intentions are not to alienate.  I am convinced that God intends for people to marry and be one as long as they both shall live.  And after they have become “one flesh,” it’s done.  Marriage may be undone in the eyes of the world, but there is no undoing it in the eyes of God.  Our Lord meant it when he said what God has joined together let no man separate.  If someone does separate the union, they not only sin against their spouse and family, they sin against God.

Gene Pool                

Escorted through the gates of hell

Back when I worked for a paycheck I worked with a group of corporate attorneys.  I vividly recall a meeting with all of management where the chief attorney made a statement that got everyone’s attention big-time.  The subject of the meeting was handling and disposition of toxic waste, and the following of government regulations.  He said that there was personal jail time for anyone caught intentionally disregarding the regulations—that the government had gotten serious on the matter and was no longer simply levying fines on corporations.  Someone in the audience asked if there would be personal representation by the corporate legal staff, to which the answer was yes.  The chief attorney went on to say that he had represented people in the past—represented them all the way to the jail cell.  His point was, if found guilty, there was little that could be done about it, even with a high-powered lawyer by our side.

Which brings up the reason for this blog post.  The last post about the marriage escape clause has generated some less than complementary emails. (And some complements too.)  But as I think about it, we humans, the created, want to have our way when it comes to running our lives, regardless what the Creator intends.  We even go so far as to manipulate the Creator’s instructions (Scripture) to come to conclusions that suit ourselves, totally ignoring those instructions that condemn.  And we love religious leaders who support our waywardness…invariably out of fear of alienating the masses that fuel the system.  When this happens, it brings back memories of that chief attorney escorting his clients to jail, except in our case our religious leaders are escorting their flocks all the way through the gates of hell.

But nothing is new under the sun.  Jesus was facing the same situation with religious leaders 2,000 years ago.  They benefited by leading the people in what Moses permitted regardless of what God intended.  Their catering to human desires and tradition brought them on a collision course with our Lord.  Are we being led on a collision course too?  I think so. 

Gene Pool             

        

The marriage escape clause – a delusion or truth

“If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”   Wow, what a startling statement made by Jesus’ disciples. They were in shock by what they had just heard him say.  What is it he could have said that would have produced such a reaction?  Have you ever wondered? 

Ol’ Gene can’t imagine what it would be like not married to Cess, his beautiful bride of over half a century.  But the disciples of Jesus in Matthew 19 actually said it would is better not to marry if certain conditions were true.  Have you ever thought about what those conditions might be?  It has to be important…no, more important than important.  It has to be monumental since marriage is one of the things God ordained of humans in Genesis.  So what was it that was so shocking?

Looking back in previous verses, Jesus was responding to religious leaders about marriage and divorce, and how God intended it to be.  At first glance, his response appears straightforward.  He mentioned that famous marriage escape clause so many have used over the centuries to divorce their spouses with, “anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality.”  But that’s certainly not shocking or monumental.  We have been taught (and generally accepted) that to be true.  But wait, let’s remember we are not looking at what Jesus actually said, but rather someone’s translation of what he said.  In the original Greek the word translated sexual immorality is porneia.  And porneia is a word with several meanings, only one of which is sexual immorality.  Translators of our Bibles had to pick one of the meanings so they choose sexual immorality.  But another equally viable word they could have chosen is “incest,” marriage between close relatives.  That choice would have been supported with Jesus’ listeners since in Leviticus (Torah) incest is considered to be an illegal marriage—a marriage not recognized by God as legitimate.  It would have also been in-line with the trapping questions that were presented to Jesus by religious leaders.  Remember that John the Baptist had been recently executed for speaking publically against King Herod’s incestuous marriage.    

Hmmm.  Now there’s a thought.  So Jesus could have been saying “if a man divorces his wife for any reason other than discovering she is a relative,” that would surely shock the disciples.  It would mean there are no biblical grounds for a divorce at all—and that “what God has joined together, let no one separate” is not a contradiction.  Even if one’s spouse was out cheating on him, he could not divorce her and be in right-standing before God.  That could easily have resulted in his disciples saying “if this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”

O dear!  Do you realize the ramifications of the incest interpretation?  It would mean the escape clause has not been an escape clause after all.  And that all the divorces in the past 2,000 years are null and void.  People are still married in God's eyes to their living first spouses.  Maybe that is why Jesus went on to say “not everyone can accept this word.”  

We had better stop dwelling on this subject else we end up as shocked as the disciples.

Until next time,

Gene Pool