My cure for the world's porno issues is the St. Benedict method.
Viewing Porn as Grounds for Divorce
- Thread starter presidente
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
R
No it doesn't! Let's quote it shall we?
1 Corinthians 7:12-13 But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him.
It seems to me that you ignoring the clause I have highlighted. What Paul is actually saying is that she doesn't have to divorce her unbelieving husband if he is willing to live with her. His whole line of reasoning only makes sense if divorce was allowed.
Again, I have already shown that 1 Cor 7 does allow a woman to divorce her husband, now let us explore your next claim "but if he departs, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled with her husband."
I can only guess this is reference to v11, now let look at that verse, 1 Corinthians 7:10 Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband. 11 But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife. Now, if your assertion is correct and this verse forbids women divorcing men under any circumstances then you have a huge issue because Paul also says, And a husband is not to divorce his wife and that is contrary to Jesus' teaching.
In Matt 19:9 Jesus permits a man to divorce his wife because of adultery, "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery." So, does Paul contradict Jesus, is does he simply mean that divorce is not desirable?
I think we have to go with the latter option, not just because he is contradicting Jesus, but because he would be contradicting himself, if he is saying 'you cannot get a divorce, but if you do' then he is making no sense!
Now, notice that Paul goes on to say: But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace. (1 cor 7:15) Here Paul says either a man or a woman who has had a divorce is 'free'!
So what?
Is Paul teaching about how we should live or is he illustrating his point by appealing to the law as an example? Notice the way he worded his example - it is clear that he had Jewish law in mind, not Roman, as he only cites the woman's condition.
1 Corinthians 7:12-13 But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him.
It seems to me that you ignoring the clause I have highlighted. What Paul is actually saying is that she doesn't have to divorce her unbelieving husband if he is willing to live with her. His whole line of reasoning only makes sense if divorce was allowed.
Again, I have already shown that 1 Cor 7 does allow a woman to divorce her husband, now let us explore your next claim "but if he departs, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled with her husband."
I can only guess this is reference to v11, now let look at that verse, 1 Corinthians 7:10 Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband. 11 But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife. Now, if your assertion is correct and this verse forbids women divorcing men under any circumstances then you have a huge issue because Paul also says, And a husband is not to divorce his wife and that is contrary to Jesus' teaching.
In Matt 19:9 Jesus permits a man to divorce his wife because of adultery, "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery." So, does Paul contradict Jesus, is does he simply mean that divorce is not desirable?
I think we have to go with the latter option, not just because he is contradicting Jesus, but because he would be contradicting himself, if he is saying 'you cannot get a divorce, but if you do' then he is making no sense!
Now, notice that Paul goes on to say: But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace. (1 cor 7:15) Here Paul says either a man or a woman who has had a divorce is 'free'!
So what?
Is Paul teaching about how we should live or is he illustrating his point by appealing to the law as an example? Notice the way he worded his example - it is clear that he had Jewish law in mind, not Roman, as he only cites the woman's condition.
The KJV, which is a formal equivalence translation says to let her not leave him. Divorce in English has to do with legal paperwork. I suspect the translators are overreaching in your translation.
Take a look at the passage. First of all, this is in the section where Paul says he does not have a commandment from the Lord, but he is giving his own advice. Second, the woman is not told she can initiate a divorce. The issue is abandonment by an unbeliever, not a believer willingly abandoning her husband. If the unbeliever is willing, she is to dwell with him. This certainly isn't a passage allowing a believing wife to leave her believing husband. Paul doesn't even advise that a believing wife is allowed to leave her unbelieving husband.
That's kind of like reading "Do not murder' and paraphrasing it as "Don't kill and eat people on Tuesdays." Your rephrasing of what it says is a lot looser. Paul doesn't say she doesn't have to divorce him. He says let her not leave him. This link which describes the Greek word in question would indicate that the KJV chooses the better translation when it says 'leave.'
Greek Lexicon :: G863 (KJV)
Simply mean that divorce is not desirable? Talk about understating in such a way as to take the teeth out of what it says.
One approach to hermeneutics is to let specific passages explain less specific ones. For example, there is a passage in the Old testament against cutting down fruit trees. But we see that one of the prophets instructed the armies of Israel invading a foreign land to cut down the trees. But if we look at other passages, we see the restriction against cutting down fruit trees during a war was about the trees in the land of Israel. The specific passage clarified the command.
Most versions of Jesus's teaching on divorce and remarriage in the Gospels don't contain the 'exception clause' of 'except it be for fornication.'
The traditional interpretation doesn't allow for divorce and remarriage for Christians.
There are a variety of interpretations of the exception clause. One is that it refers to pre0marriage fornication where a woman has lost her virginity before marriage. The other is a more traditional Protestant interpretation that it is talking about a wider range of sexual immorality.
But both Jesus' teachings in the Gospel and the commandments of the Lord through Paul are a lot more restrictive than saying that divorce is 'undesirable.'
Get a better translation. He says let not the wife depart from her husband. Translating that as a 'divorce' is a huge leap.
A wife isn't supposed to dump her husband and move out. If a wife moves out and leaves her husband, he shouldn't remarry. She should reconcile with him. There is no big mysterious contradiction there.
Paul says he has no commandment of the Lord on this. Does it make sense for someone abandoned by an unbelieving spouse to chase him or her from place to place?
Take a look at the passage. First of all, this is in the section where Paul says he does not have a commandment from the Lord, but he is giving his own advice. Second, the woman is not told she can initiate a divorce. The issue is abandonment by an unbeliever, not a believer willingly abandoning her husband. If the unbeliever is willing, she is to dwell with him. This certainly isn't a passage allowing a believing wife to leave her believing husband. Paul doesn't even advise that a believing wife is allowed to leave her unbelieving husband.
That's kind of like reading "Do not murder' and paraphrasing it as "Don't kill and eat people on Tuesdays." Your rephrasing of what it says is a lot looser. Paul doesn't say she doesn't have to divorce him. He says let her not leave him. This link which describes the Greek word in question would indicate that the KJV chooses the better translation when it says 'leave.'
Greek Lexicon :: G863 (KJV)
Simply mean that divorce is not desirable? Talk about understating in such a way as to take the teeth out of what it says.
One approach to hermeneutics is to let specific passages explain less specific ones. For example, there is a passage in the Old testament against cutting down fruit trees. But we see that one of the prophets instructed the armies of Israel invading a foreign land to cut down the trees. But if we look at other passages, we see the restriction against cutting down fruit trees during a war was about the trees in the land of Israel. The specific passage clarified the command.
Most versions of Jesus's teaching on divorce and remarriage in the Gospels don't contain the 'exception clause' of 'except it be for fornication.'
The traditional interpretation doesn't allow for divorce and remarriage for Christians.
There are a variety of interpretations of the exception clause. One is that it refers to pre0marriage fornication where a woman has lost her virginity before marriage. The other is a more traditional Protestant interpretation that it is talking about a wider range of sexual immorality.
But both Jesus' teachings in the Gospel and the commandments of the Lord through Paul are a lot more restrictive than saying that divorce is 'undesirable.'
Get a better translation. He says let not the wife depart from her husband. Translating that as a 'divorce' is a huge leap.
A wife isn't supposed to dump her husband and move out. If a wife moves out and leaves her husband, he shouldn't remarry. She should reconcile with him. There is no big mysterious contradiction there.
Paul says he has no commandment of the Lord on this. Does it make sense for someone abandoned by an unbelieving spouse to chase him or her from place to place?
R
Not at all, I have quoted from the NKJV however I think a brief survey of my posts on this forum will demonstrate that I have more then a passing familiarity with both Greek and Hebrew and I am more then capable of properly interacting with the text of both the Old and New Testaments in their original languages.
R
Thanks for the reply 
Well Ok then, we will work in the KJV if you prefer
The version I quoted (NKJV) says:
1 Corinthians 7:12 But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. 13 And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him.
The AV reads: But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. 13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
For thoroughness sake let's also quote the Greek Τοῖς δὲ λοιποῖς λέγω ἐγὼ οὐχ ὁ κύριος· εἴ τις ἀδελφὸς γυναῖκα ἔχει ἄπιστον καὶ αὕτη συνευδοκεῖ οἰκεῖν μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ, μὴ ἀφιέτω αὐτήν· καὶ γυνὴ εἴ τις ἔχει ἄνδρα ἄπιστον καὶ οὗτος συνευδοκεῖ οἰκεῖν μετ᾽ αὐτῆς, μὴ ἀφιέτω τὸν ἄνδρα.
For now, simply note that it is the same word Paul uses for 'put her away' in v12 as he uses 'not leave him' in v13.
I may come back to consider this verb in more detail later but for now I will just point out that if we take the phrase 'put her away' to mean 'divorce' which was a legal process then just as it is today then it is exegetically sound to understand it in the same way in v13 as well despite the wide semantic domain of the verb ἀφίημι
OK let's take a look
1 Corinthians 7:10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: 11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. 12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
later in your posts you will accuse me of performing trickery with the text to rob it of it's force. All i can say to that is that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones! Paul is not suggesting that what follows his merely his own advice, rather then inspired, God breathed scripture! No, he is saying in v10 that the Lord Jesus Christ addressed this situation in his ministry, then when it comes to v12 he is saying that Jesus never spoke to this situation because it wasn't relevant to the situation within Judaism, but he, Paul, is going to speak to it now because it is very relevant in the gentile church.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, those red letters are no more important then the black ones!
Isn't she? Let's read it again:
1 Corinthians 7:12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. 13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him
Clearly this is an action she is performing! That comes across even more strongly in the Greek text, where the verb is imperative and active!
Paul is saying, that if her unbelieving husband is willing to stay with her she cannot leave him him. Implicit in that instruction then is the fact that if he is unwilling to live with her then she is free to divorce him. It appears there was a problem in the church in Corinth that Paul is seeking to address - that people were under the impression that conversion dissolved all relationships one had as an unbeliever and Paul is saying, no that is not the case if your unbelieving spouse is willing to stay you have no right to leave them" again then, implicit in this command that Paul gives is the permission to leave them if they don't want to stay with you after your conversion (be you a man or a women)
Agreed - but that is irrelevant to the matter at hand! Unless you believe that one can be a Christian and continue in a type of sin that is a desertion of one's spouse, like the pursuit of pornography!
Yes he does!
Say's he who seems to imply that Paul is writing inspired scripture and giving the word of God on this matter!
Now, let's go back and examine the Greek as said we would
Let me begin by saying that I don't like 'light' resources like the blue letter bible - there lexicons are little more then this how the bible translates the word they do not take note of semantic domains, tense, voice etc and as such they often obscure more then clarify. If you are going to make a claim that a particular version of the bible is a better translation make sure you are able to back that up with more then an appeal to the strong's number!
The verb we are consider is: ἀφίημι (lemma) ἀφιέτω (form)
As we examine that form there are few things to note generally.
1 - This is a verb, so it is an action that is being performed
2 - It is present tense which means it is an action in the process of being performed
3 - it is in the imperative which can mean this is a command or intention - it is therefore not an expression of reality but possibility
4 - The active voice tells me the subject of the clause is the one performing the action - the only possible subject is the women so I know that this is an action the women is currently in the process of performing or is currently planning to perform.
Now I have got all that from consider the form of the verb before I come to examine the Lemma and get the actually meaning (semantic range) of the word - does your link do any of this leg work for you?
Now coming onto the lexicons we not that this verb has a range of meanings:
918 ἀφίημι (aphiēmi): vb.; ≡ Str 863; TDNT 1.509—1. LN 15.43 dismiss, have go away (Mt 13:36); 2. LN 15.48 depart from, leave (Mt 18:12; Jn 4:3; 1Ti 6:5 v.r.); 3. LN 85.45 leave behind, abandon (Mt 4:20); 4. LN 85.62 leave in a place, let remain (Mt 24:2); 5. LN 34.78 divorce (1Co 7:11, 13); 6. LN 40.8 forgive, pardon (Mt 6:12; Lk 23:34 v.r.); 7. LN 57.223 cancel a debt (Mt 18:27, 32); 8. LN 31.63 reject, refuse to listen to (Mk 7:8); 9. LN 68.43 stop, an activity implying complete cessation, forsake (Rev 2:4); 10. LN 13.37 stop, for a state to cease (Lk 4:39); 11. LN 13.140 allow, let, permit (Mt 7:4); 12. LN 90.50 produce, make, give (Mk 15:37); 13. LN 23.109 die, formally, send away the spirit (Mt 27:50+); 14. LN 33.137 that is not the issue (Mt 8:22; Lk 9:60+), see 2507 last (Swanson, J. (1997). Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Greek (New Testament) (electronic ed.))
ἀφίημι conveys the basic idea of an action which causes separation and means to send from one's self, to forsake, to hurl away, to put away, let alone, disregard, put off. It conveys the basic idea of an action which causes separation and refers to total detachment, total separation, from a previous location or condition. Looking beyond biblical usage to secular Greek literature of the time ἀφίημι was used to describe the voluntary release of a person or thing over which one has legal or actual control including the release of someone from the obligation of marriage, or debt, or even a religious vow.
Now, when we consider the semantic domain of Paul's topic - i.e. desertion by a spouse it becomes readily apparent that Paul is talking about the response of the woman to the decision of her unbelieving husband to stay with her. It that situation she is not to detach herself (abandon and completely separate herself) from him - she is not to get a divorce. In truth my friend, the NJKV is a very literal translation that does not obscure the meaning of the term by translating it consitntly across v 12-13
Indeed, and I am glad you have highlighted where you seem to be going wrong! If the Lord Jesus Christ says 'divorce is allowed in a certain situation' Paul cannot be forbidding divorce in all situations in 1 Cor 7 can he? hence when he says 'don't get a divorce' it isn't as simple as you are making out!
Indeed, so why does Paul enlarge upon that and provide the second clause of desertion in this text?
To what tradition do you refer here? Please cite your sources?
History demonstrates that actually the church has taken various positions on this matter. Prior to the Reformation the prevailing view was that marriage was a sacrament performed by God and therefore no grounds for divorce were recognised except on the basis of nullity. The reformers presented a different view of marriage, recognising certain legitimate grounds for divorce, such as adultery, desertion and cruelty and they allowed for remarriage after divorce since then this has been the mainstream view of protestant denominations with the exception of remarriage that is normally only allowed for the 'innocent party'
You put a lot of weight (and have reacted to) on one word that I have chosen to use and it seems you have missed the reason behind my use of it. Paul is saying that divorce is never not the automatic response of a converted person in regards to their unbelieving spouse, rather they should stay with them if their spouse is willing to remain but if their spouse leaves them then they are able to initiate a divorce so that they are free.
Well we have already seen that my translation is fine and that my skill in the original languages is adequate for me to properly research and translate myself.
I wonder why you are not actually responding to what I have said! I have noted that on this forum there is a tendency to respond to an approximation of what is being said rather then what one is actually saying!
No he doesn't say that - you are twisting the text! he simply says "Jesus said this (v10) now I am adding to that this (v12) when we consider what he says in 2 Tim 3:16-17 it is preposterous to think he is saying that his words here are not from the Lord! That is simply bad exegesis, or worse, eisegesis. So I finish with this, in your post you have levelled several accusations at me in regards to robbing texts of meaning and using bad translations - that is all pejorative nonsense as I think I have demonstrated.
The whole point is that what Paul says in v12-13 only makes any sense if desertion is a valid reason for divorce. if that isn't the case then there is no meaning, no necessity, to his writing of these verses.
Well Ok then, we will work in the KJV if you prefer
The version I quoted (NKJV) says:
1 Corinthians 7:12 But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. 13 And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him.
The AV reads: But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. 13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
For thoroughness sake let's also quote the Greek Τοῖς δὲ λοιποῖς λέγω ἐγὼ οὐχ ὁ κύριος· εἴ τις ἀδελφὸς γυναῖκα ἔχει ἄπιστον καὶ αὕτη συνευδοκεῖ οἰκεῖν μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ, μὴ ἀφιέτω αὐτήν· καὶ γυνὴ εἴ τις ἔχει ἄνδρα ἄπιστον καὶ οὗτος συνευδοκεῖ οἰκεῖν μετ᾽ αὐτῆς, μὴ ἀφιέτω τὸν ἄνδρα.
For now, simply note that it is the same word Paul uses for 'put her away' in v12 as he uses 'not leave him' in v13.
I may come back to consider this verb in more detail later but for now I will just point out that if we take the phrase 'put her away' to mean 'divorce' which was a legal process then just as it is today then it is exegetically sound to understand it in the same way in v13 as well despite the wide semantic domain of the verb ἀφίημι
OK let's take a look
1 Corinthians 7:10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: 11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. 12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
later in your posts you will accuse me of performing trickery with the text to rob it of it's force. All i can say to that is that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones! Paul is not suggesting that what follows his merely his own advice, rather then inspired, God breathed scripture! No, he is saying in v10 that the Lord Jesus Christ addressed this situation in his ministry, then when it comes to v12 he is saying that Jesus never spoke to this situation because it wasn't relevant to the situation within Judaism, but he, Paul, is going to speak to it now because it is very relevant in the gentile church.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, those red letters are no more important then the black ones!
Isn't she? Let's read it again:
1 Corinthians 7:12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. 13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him
Clearly this is an action she is performing! That comes across even more strongly in the Greek text, where the verb is imperative and active!
Paul is saying, that if her unbelieving husband is willing to stay with her she cannot leave him him. Implicit in that instruction then is the fact that if he is unwilling to live with her then she is free to divorce him. It appears there was a problem in the church in Corinth that Paul is seeking to address - that people were under the impression that conversion dissolved all relationships one had as an unbeliever and Paul is saying, no that is not the case if your unbelieving spouse is willing to stay you have no right to leave them" again then, implicit in this command that Paul gives is the permission to leave them if they don't want to stay with you after your conversion (be you a man or a women)
Agreed - but that is irrelevant to the matter at hand! Unless you believe that one can be a Christian and continue in a type of sin that is a desertion of one's spouse, like the pursuit of pornography!
Yes he does!
Say's he who seems to imply that Paul is writing inspired scripture and giving the word of God on this matter!
Now, let's go back and examine the Greek as said we would
Let me begin by saying that I don't like 'light' resources like the blue letter bible - there lexicons are little more then this how the bible translates the word they do not take note of semantic domains, tense, voice etc and as such they often obscure more then clarify. If you are going to make a claim that a particular version of the bible is a better translation make sure you are able to back that up with more then an appeal to the strong's number!
The verb we are consider is: ἀφίημι (lemma) ἀφιέτω (form)
As we examine that form there are few things to note generally.
1 - This is a verb, so it is an action that is being performed
2 - It is present tense which means it is an action in the process of being performed
3 - it is in the imperative which can mean this is a command or intention - it is therefore not an expression of reality but possibility
4 - The active voice tells me the subject of the clause is the one performing the action - the only possible subject is the women so I know that this is an action the women is currently in the process of performing or is currently planning to perform.
Now I have got all that from consider the form of the verb before I come to examine the Lemma and get the actually meaning (semantic range) of the word - does your link do any of this leg work for you?
Now coming onto the lexicons we not that this verb has a range of meanings:
918 ἀφίημι (aphiēmi): vb.; ≡ Str 863; TDNT 1.509—1. LN 15.43 dismiss, have go away (Mt 13:36); 2. LN 15.48 depart from, leave (Mt 18:12; Jn 4:3; 1Ti 6:5 v.r.); 3. LN 85.45 leave behind, abandon (Mt 4:20); 4. LN 85.62 leave in a place, let remain (Mt 24:2); 5. LN 34.78 divorce (1Co 7:11, 13); 6. LN 40.8 forgive, pardon (Mt 6:12; Lk 23:34 v.r.); 7. LN 57.223 cancel a debt (Mt 18:27, 32); 8. LN 31.63 reject, refuse to listen to (Mk 7:8); 9. LN 68.43 stop, an activity implying complete cessation, forsake (Rev 2:4); 10. LN 13.37 stop, for a state to cease (Lk 4:39); 11. LN 13.140 allow, let, permit (Mt 7:4); 12. LN 90.50 produce, make, give (Mk 15:37); 13. LN 23.109 die, formally, send away the spirit (Mt 27:50+); 14. LN 33.137 that is not the issue (Mt 8:22; Lk 9:60+), see 2507 last (Swanson, J. (1997). Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Greek (New Testament) (electronic ed.))
ἀφίημι conveys the basic idea of an action which causes separation and means to send from one's self, to forsake, to hurl away, to put away, let alone, disregard, put off. It conveys the basic idea of an action which causes separation and refers to total detachment, total separation, from a previous location or condition. Looking beyond biblical usage to secular Greek literature of the time ἀφίημι was used to describe the voluntary release of a person or thing over which one has legal or actual control including the release of someone from the obligation of marriage, or debt, or even a religious vow.
Now, when we consider the semantic domain of Paul's topic - i.e. desertion by a spouse it becomes readily apparent that Paul is talking about the response of the woman to the decision of her unbelieving husband to stay with her. It that situation she is not to detach herself (abandon and completely separate herself) from him - she is not to get a divorce. In truth my friend, the NJKV is a very literal translation that does not obscure the meaning of the term by translating it consitntly across v 12-13
Indeed, and I am glad you have highlighted where you seem to be going wrong! If the Lord Jesus Christ says 'divorce is allowed in a certain situation' Paul cannot be forbidding divorce in all situations in 1 Cor 7 can he? hence when he says 'don't get a divorce' it isn't as simple as you are making out!
Indeed, so why does Paul enlarge upon that and provide the second clause of desertion in this text?
To what tradition do you refer here? Please cite your sources?
History demonstrates that actually the church has taken various positions on this matter. Prior to the Reformation the prevailing view was that marriage was a sacrament performed by God and therefore no grounds for divorce were recognised except on the basis of nullity. The reformers presented a different view of marriage, recognising certain legitimate grounds for divorce, such as adultery, desertion and cruelty and they allowed for remarriage after divorce since then this has been the mainstream view of protestant denominations with the exception of remarriage that is normally only allowed for the 'innocent party'
You put a lot of weight (and have reacted to) on one word that I have chosen to use and it seems you have missed the reason behind my use of it. Paul is saying that divorce is never not the automatic response of a converted person in regards to their unbelieving spouse, rather they should stay with them if their spouse is willing to remain but if their spouse leaves them then they are able to initiate a divorce so that they are free.
Well we have already seen that my translation is fine and that my skill in the original languages is adequate for me to properly research and translate myself.
I wonder why you are not actually responding to what I have said! I have noted that on this forum there is a tendency to respond to an approximation of what is being said rather then what one is actually saying!
No he doesn't say that - you are twisting the text! he simply says "Jesus said this (v10) now I am adding to that this (v12) when we consider what he says in 2 Tim 3:16-17 it is preposterous to think he is saying that his words here are not from the Lord! That is simply bad exegesis, or worse, eisegesis. So I finish with this, in your post you have levelled several accusations at me in regards to robbing texts of meaning and using bad translations - that is all pejorative nonsense as I think I have demonstrated.
The whole point is that what Paul says in v12-13 only makes any sense if desertion is a valid reason for divorce. if that isn't the case then there is no meaning, no necessity, to his writing of these verses.
The KJV does use different words here. But 'put away' refers to sending the wife away. In the context of the Old Testament, a man who put away his wife was to 'give her a writing of divorcement'. So 'put away' does not refer to the legal act of getting a divorce. That's the deonation of the English word 'divorce.' Consistently, Paul talks about leaving. He doesn't bring up the legal issues.
Generally, I do like the NKJV. And it is more on the formal equivalence side, which is better, IMO, for Bible study as opposed to easy reading. But I still see this as a bad translation. I don't see where any of the material you have presented address this objection of mine or presents a case for the NKJV doing a good job in this case.
Trickery? No, I haven't accused you of that. But I think you have had a tendency to understate what texts mean in an extreme way on at least a couple of occasions.
Hezekiah's opponent stood outside of the city and said that the other gods could not defend Jerusalem. Would you take the words of that man, speaking against God as God's word to quote to teach people about God? Or do you consider it an inspired account that contains a man's opinion?
Isaiah 36,
[SUP]18 [/SUP]Beware lest Hezekiah persuade you, saying, “The Lord will deliver us.” Has any one of the gods of the nations delivered its land from the hand of the king of Assyria? [SUP]19 [/SUP]Where are the gods of Hamath and Arpad? Where are the gods of Sepharvaim? Indeed, have they delivered Samaria from my hand?
(NKJV)
We don't quote this stuff to talk about God's power except to show what an unbelieving heathen said, and then to demonstrate how God proved him wrong. Are you going to tell people to worship the Devil based on what the Devil said in Matthew 4?
In I Corinthians 7, we have a bit different situation because we have a man who is holy, an apostle of the Lord, but still relating an opinion and letting us know that it is that and not a commandment of the Lord. It would be dangers to go out on a limb a bit on what Paul says, and do something that contradicts what he actually says in the Lord's command.
I've read the interpretation that Paul was familiar with the body of knowledge included in the Gospels. Paul got his knowledge of the Gospel by revelation. He could have had three years of visions of Jesus teaching when he was in the desert. We don't know. But I Corinthians 14, in the same book, also relates 'commandments of the Lord.' It seems just as likely that the Lord gave commandments about how prophets are to speak, and how their words are to be judge, instructions on tongues, interpretation, women and church order after the ascension rather than during his (presumably) three and a half hears of ministry on earth.
Assuming Paul is referring to the sermon on the mount or the interaction in Matthew 19 or some other section of the Gospels is just that, an assumption. And none of these passages say if a wife departs to let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. We might derive that conclusion from what Jesus said in those passages, but we don't read Jesus saying that.
Do you treat the quote I gave from Isaiah 36 in exactly the same way as the LORD's response to it? Do you treat the words of the Devil the same way as Christ's rebuke of the Devil?
Huh? Do you not see the word 'not' in that verse? Let her NOT leave him. It's a command not to do something, not an action she is performing. It's an action she is not to perform.
No, it doesn't say that. She lets him depart. She doesn't divorce him. He leaves. You are making the Christian here do something active, when the command doesn't allow the Christian to do the leaving (which you interpret as divorcing.)
Again, no he doesn't. It's obvious in the text. The believer let's the unbeliever depart. The believer is not to leave the unbeliever... based on Paul's advice about which Paul says he has no commandment of the Lord.
You've got this conservative-sounding handle, but this comes off as a really loosey-goosey liberal interpretation of the text.
Paul is talking about letting the unbeliever depart. If the unbeliever picks up a Playboy magazine at the grocery store, that's not the same as leaving his wife. The Grecco-Roman world was rather perverted. I'd be surprised if they didn't have some sort of entertainment that involved naked women walking or dancing around. Their pottery and statues had much more extreme and nasty stuff than that about sexuality. If looking at a woman with lust were grounds for divorcing an unbeliever, don't you think the issue would have been specifically mentioned?
If the believing wife leaves the house because her unbelieving husband looked at a woman with lust, she's the one departing. He's not 'deserting' her by looking at porn. He's looking at porn. She's the one leaving him. You seem to be redefining 'depart'.
That's liberal loose approach to scripture that's so prevalent these days.
"He never spends any time with me. He's already 'departed' from me in his heart by treating me like this. Paul says to let the unbeliever depart, and if he were a real believer, he'd spend more time with me instead of working 60 hours weeks to pay the mortgage." So she leaves him, because she redefined 'depart' and she redefined 'unbelieving.'
Or the husband can say, "She departed from me in her heart when she rationed me down to sex once a week. Only an unbeliever would do that. She's abandoned me in her heart. I'm out the door."
Usually it's over something more severe, like no sex, or porn addiction or something along those lines.
It's like the Pharisees arguing that you don't have to provide for your parents if you promise everything to God. I was at a college campus about 8 years ago. Brother Jed was there. He's a campus preacher known for calling his listeners fornicators. He asked "Who had sex today?" I could have raised my hand, but I didn't so as not to get accused of anything. I was already married at the time." A red-headed orthodox Jew standing next to me raised his hand. So I struck up a conversation, hoping his own admission of guilt could be a tool to move into a discussion of the Gospel. But he sure was a Pharisee in how he argued his case. He'd slept with his girlfriend. I asked him if his religion allowed sex before marriage. No. But he'd done up a marriage contract with her without legally marrying by state law, one he could easily get out of. I asked about a bride price. He indicated she wasn't a virgin, so it wasn't an issue. He had all these legalistic bases covered, but didn't seem to have much intention for her to really be his wife, or at least that my impression.
I think of that sort of Pharisaical legal wrangling when I read some of the interpretations of Paul's opinion in this passage. If following Paul's advice is going out on a limb, following it in a way that contradicts Christ is the limb breaking. Redefining 'depart' to mean things other than depart are like putting a piano on a twig. And the kids are standing there below the piano, as the parents argue their way to divorce.
Generally, I do like the NKJV. And it is more on the formal equivalence side, which is better, IMO, for Bible study as opposed to easy reading. But I still see this as a bad translation. I don't see where any of the material you have presented address this objection of mine or presents a case for the NKJV doing a good job in this case.
Trickery? No, I haven't accused you of that. But I think you have had a tendency to understate what texts mean in an extreme way on at least a couple of occasions.
Hezekiah's opponent stood outside of the city and said that the other gods could not defend Jerusalem. Would you take the words of that man, speaking against God as God's word to quote to teach people about God? Or do you consider it an inspired account that contains a man's opinion?
Isaiah 36,
[SUP]18 [/SUP]Beware lest Hezekiah persuade you, saying, “The Lord will deliver us.” Has any one of the gods of the nations delivered its land from the hand of the king of Assyria? [SUP]19 [/SUP]Where are the gods of Hamath and Arpad? Where are the gods of Sepharvaim? Indeed, have they delivered Samaria from my hand?
(NKJV)
We don't quote this stuff to talk about God's power except to show what an unbelieving heathen said, and then to demonstrate how God proved him wrong. Are you going to tell people to worship the Devil based on what the Devil said in Matthew 4?
In I Corinthians 7, we have a bit different situation because we have a man who is holy, an apostle of the Lord, but still relating an opinion and letting us know that it is that and not a commandment of the Lord. It would be dangers to go out on a limb a bit on what Paul says, and do something that contradicts what he actually says in the Lord's command.
I've read the interpretation that Paul was familiar with the body of knowledge included in the Gospels. Paul got his knowledge of the Gospel by revelation. He could have had three years of visions of Jesus teaching when he was in the desert. We don't know. But I Corinthians 14, in the same book, also relates 'commandments of the Lord.' It seems just as likely that the Lord gave commandments about how prophets are to speak, and how their words are to be judge, instructions on tongues, interpretation, women and church order after the ascension rather than during his (presumably) three and a half hears of ministry on earth.
Assuming Paul is referring to the sermon on the mount or the interaction in Matthew 19 or some other section of the Gospels is just that, an assumption. And none of these passages say if a wife departs to let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. We might derive that conclusion from what Jesus said in those passages, but we don't read Jesus saying that.
Do you treat the quote I gave from Isaiah 36 in exactly the same way as the LORD's response to it? Do you treat the words of the Devil the same way as Christ's rebuke of the Devil?
Huh? Do you not see the word 'not' in that verse? Let her NOT leave him. It's a command not to do something, not an action she is performing. It's an action she is not to perform.
No, it doesn't say that. She lets him depart. She doesn't divorce him. He leaves. You are making the Christian here do something active, when the command doesn't allow the Christian to do the leaving (which you interpret as divorcing.)
Again, no he doesn't. It's obvious in the text. The believer let's the unbeliever depart. The believer is not to leave the unbeliever... based on Paul's advice about which Paul says he has no commandment of the Lord.
You've got this conservative-sounding handle, but this comes off as a really loosey-goosey liberal interpretation of the text.
Paul is talking about letting the unbeliever depart. If the unbeliever picks up a Playboy magazine at the grocery store, that's not the same as leaving his wife. The Grecco-Roman world was rather perverted. I'd be surprised if they didn't have some sort of entertainment that involved naked women walking or dancing around. Their pottery and statues had much more extreme and nasty stuff than that about sexuality. If looking at a woman with lust were grounds for divorcing an unbeliever, don't you think the issue would have been specifically mentioned?
If the believing wife leaves the house because her unbelieving husband looked at a woman with lust, she's the one departing. He's not 'deserting' her by looking at porn. He's looking at porn. She's the one leaving him. You seem to be redefining 'depart'.
That's liberal loose approach to scripture that's so prevalent these days.
"He never spends any time with me. He's already 'departed' from me in his heart by treating me like this. Paul says to let the unbeliever depart, and if he were a real believer, he'd spend more time with me instead of working 60 hours weeks to pay the mortgage." So she leaves him, because she redefined 'depart' and she redefined 'unbelieving.'
Or the husband can say, "She departed from me in her heart when she rationed me down to sex once a week. Only an unbeliever would do that. She's abandoned me in her heart. I'm out the door."
Usually it's over something more severe, like no sex, or porn addiction or something along those lines.
It's like the Pharisees arguing that you don't have to provide for your parents if you promise everything to God. I was at a college campus about 8 years ago. Brother Jed was there. He's a campus preacher known for calling his listeners fornicators. He asked "Who had sex today?" I could have raised my hand, but I didn't so as not to get accused of anything. I was already married at the time." A red-headed orthodox Jew standing next to me raised his hand. So I struck up a conversation, hoping his own admission of guilt could be a tool to move into a discussion of the Gospel. But he sure was a Pharisee in how he argued his case. He'd slept with his girlfriend. I asked him if his religion allowed sex before marriage. No. But he'd done up a marriage contract with her without legally marrying by state law, one he could easily get out of. I asked about a bride price. He indicated she wasn't a virgin, so it wasn't an issue. He had all these legalistic bases covered, but didn't seem to have much intention for her to really be his wife, or at least that my impression.
I think of that sort of Pharisaical legal wrangling when I read some of the interpretations of Paul's opinion in this passage. If following Paul's advice is going out on a limb, following it in a way that contradicts Christ is the limb breaking. Redefining 'depart' to mean things other than depart are like putting a piano on a twig. And the kids are standing there below the piano, as the parents argue their way to divorce.
