“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
Dear Gene,
ReplyDeleteGrace and peace to you!
"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."
In 1 Corinthians 6:16, Paul writes that a man who goes to a prostitute becomes one flesh with her, citing Genesis 2:24. How would you say that bears on what you have written here?
Love in Christ,
JRY
O praise the Lord a thousand times! I was beginning to think that my posts were not being read by anyone.
ReplyDeleteShalom to you too brother JRY, and a great question that I will come back a little later and address. Right now Cess and I am getting ready to go meet with the brothers and sisters at the little church we are a part of--they are such a loving bunch. However I will say this, and as you well know, one can’t address a single verse anywhere in Scripture without looking at it in its context. Here it appears the context is verses 12 through 20, with verses 9 through 11 being a transition back into the broad area of sexual ethics, which the church at Corinth had mega-issues with.
Up front, let me say there is no comparison with what I have written without one being manufactured. Paul is dealing with two different subjects. But please allow me do some study on what 6:16 means in its context and get back with you.
Blessings,
Gene
Dear Gene,
ReplyDeleteI read every post of yours, and am thankful for your studying these things in the scriptures!
First, Gene, I would like to ask a bit of charity from you. You have phrased all your posts on this subject in very strong terms, insisting that anyone differing from your position is twisting the scriptures to serve unwholesome purposes. How about toning down the rhetoric a bit? We are fellow believers in Christ here, struggling together to understand the doctrines of the Savior, right?
Okay, to get back to the subject:
You have written,
"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."
This is a false statement, shown to be false by the statement of Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:39
1 Corinthians 7:39 A wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.
You see, the "one flesh" relationship between a man and wife CAN be undone in the eyes of God by at least one thing: the death of one party. In fact, if a married man tried to rob you, and you shot and killed him in self defense, you would have undone his "one flesh" relationship with his wife in the eyes of God.
Now, I know you were talking about divorce, not death. But in order to understand the Bible's doctrine of divorce correctly, you must recognize that the "one flesh" relationship is not permanent in the eyes of God, but temporary. Yes, He instituted the "one flesh" relationship to be a permanent one, but, because of sin, it has become subject to being undone. So, although a person SHOULD not undo the "one flesh" relationship, that does not mean that he CAN not undo it. Indeed, he can, by at least one means---death.
Could we see eye-to-eye on that and go from there?
Love in Christ,
JRY
Dear brother JRY,
ReplyDelete##1 Corinthians 7:39 A wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.##
In the first post on this topic I wrote “people are still married in God's eyes to their
>>living<< first spouses.” (emphasis added) This post is the third in this series...and I hope the last.
Perhaps I should have added “living” here or referenced vs 39 to clarify. Unfortunately if posts are not brief, folks don’t read the. And this one was starting to get a bit long anyway.
But you are absolutely correct in saying one is married until their spouse dies. And I might add that death of the spouse is the only provision for remarriage in Scripture that I am aware of. One is married to their spouse in God’s eyes until their spouse dies.
##if a married man tried to rob you, and you shot and killed him in self defense, you would have undone his "one flesh" relationship with his wife in the eyes of God.##
Yes, you are right in that God knows the days each of us will die, where, and by what method. If the robber dies in the act of robbery, or of old age in a retirement home, it is within God’s plan, and in your scenario he obviously planned the robber’s spouse to no longer be one flesh with her husband a bit early. She is free to remarry--hopefully better the next time since he must be a believer.
Blessings,
Gene
Dear Brother JRY,
ReplyDeleteThe review of First Corinthians has been a blessing. Thank you for asking me to take a look at verse 6:16.
As I paged back in the letter it became apparent that 6:12-20 is a continuation of 5:1-13 where Paul is addressing sexual ethics in the Corinth church. Paul addresses lawsuits among the members in 6:1-11 using the A-B-A format which we see frequently in Scripture, and is still somewhat prevalent in writings by people from the middle east today. He is dealing with church behavior as well as with individual behavior.
There was an ongoing incestuous sexual affair in the church which was bad enough in itself, but instead of the church grieving over the situation, it was behaving smug (5:2) over its misunderstood freedoms as Christians. It refused to monitor and judge its most sinful members (gosh that sounds familiar) and Paul was commanding them to take disciplinary action.
Most of the trouble originated in of the libertine (or hedonistic) wing of the Corinth church, mainly those converted from paganism instead of from Judaism. They did not understand the morality God expected of His people. One of the pagan religious functions was temple prostitution--in fact, the city of Corinth itself was well known for prostitution. It was not illegal. So a substantial number in the church, probably both men and women, were regularly visiting prostitutes and could see nothing wrong with it.
When Paul heard about what was taking place he was horrified, and his comments reflect his recoil from it. The Corinthians had slogans (“I have the right to do anything,” and “food for the stomach and the stomach for food, and God will destroy them both.”) that Paul repeated in 6:12-13, along with his counter responses to each slogan. The Corinthians were misapplying some of the slogans Paul likely used himself to teach them about Christianity.
Paul starts to conclude his remarks with the comment about their bodies being a member of Christ himself, and driving home his points with mentioning how preposterous it is to unite something as holy and pure as the body of Christ with something as repugnant as humans who sold themselves for non-committal sex.
So, in my understanding, the one flesh statement here in context stands alone with this discussion of Paul’s. If someone tries to use it to negate what both our Lord and Paul directly commanded elsewhere in Scripture regarding marriage and divorce, all I can say is heaven help them. And if they are functioning as shepherds of God’s people, heaven help the sheep.
Blessings,
Gene Pool
Dear Brother,
ReplyDeleteAre my pleas for a more charitable approach in your writing falling on deaf ears? Obviously you are firmly set on this certain interpretation---fine. But why, for those of us who understand this point differently, does it have to be that we are twisting scripture, fearful of losing support, leading the flock to hell, etc.? Where is this animosity coming from?
Love in Christ,
JRY