In Reply to: Re: Very important PDF-file of Dr. Leslie Mc Fall on divorce posted by OT2 on January 08, 2009 at 10:00:57:
Dear OT2...due to my focussing on the "indian thread" with CB, I was overlooking unwillingly your response in tunnelvision-like manner, so here is my chance to respond today...I believe the solution for this dilemma is in the different Greek words I find in the basic Greek texts I use, for one the Nestle Aland based interlinear version (NA is disputed of course among different translators, many preferring the Textus receptus etc.) & some other Bibles with key words explained.
Referencepoint for "good" Jews, regarding remarriage is, as Paul explains in Romans 7:2,3...if the mate/spouse died....the other possibility under the mosaic law, letter of divorce, Jesus disputed Himself, saying, that people with a hardened heart would do that...
Almost or even a decade ago, I read the exegesis of an American scholar, the book-title I could render later, if that is relevant, who discussed 1.Cor.7:27, explaining, that that would explain/allow remarriage...but that is taken out of context, plus the word for being loose from the woman is there lelysai, which is not the same as in Romans 7:2 kataergaetai...however the word for the state of being bound is the same!
In 1.Corinthians 7:15 it talks about not being bound/in bonds like a slave: dedoulootai....so since the words don't match, one should be super careful of lumping the situations all in one exegesis-pot, as apparently many do nowadays...one exegesis law/point of view also is for many, that "weaker" statements don't "bend" anyway the meaning/importance of "heavier" ones.
Another key is in 1.Corinthians 7:10,11 ...at other places Paul argues, how advantageous it is to be unmarried, free in service, but he realises, that that is not everybodies calling, he even says something similar for the widows....however once married, he explains in those two verses, one should not seperate.....
also choorizo in Mt. 19:6 (not to put asunder) happens to be the same as in 1. Cor. 7:11... if she depart....
also to put away in Mt. 19:7 is rendered as apolysai (apolyoo), which I can't find relevantly appearing in the Pauline letters.. ...he uses rather the words in the beginning....
Jesus however uses the words apolysae in Mt.19:9 and in Mt.5:32....so in case of some porneia....whatever that means exactly, you can seperate may be from your mate, but I think together with 1.Cor. 7:11 there should still be the hope of repentance & therewith the chance of reconciliation....anything else, I figure, would lead to heavy contradictions which cannot really be, according to 1.Cor. 14:33
Also consider Maleachi 2:15,16....God hates putting away...the wife of his youth
I have a book with the relevant quotes of the early churchfathers regarding marriage/divorce, none is really in favour of remarriage, while the first mate is still alive, except for some odd nobody....the dispute/difference is "only", whether you can separate at all, whether that is already breaking the marriage, being divorce....therewith unlawful or whether adultery/remarriage is breaking the marriage...
My opinion is, that Paul expresses/explains it in 1. Cor.7:11...if the husband is e.g. unbelieving, abusive or whatever...& she seperated to protect herself &/or children, then that might be totally ok, as long as she remains otherwise faithful in regards to the marriage as a whole, as a bond/unit...same should basically be true for a man in splits from his wife, for whatever a bit mysterious (to me) reason...she should stay/remain unmarried o r !!!! be reconciled with her husband....that is not possible, if you marry again....a Christian should be willing to forgive....so, if someone seems to think to have a reason to permanently split from the mate, how can one face the Lord, especially if someone remarries...the road of reconciliation is blocked.
Someone on a Swiss website therefore argues: God can forgive sins and mistakes in our following the Lord, but he cannot forgive a condition....I interpret that as to mean living in the situation/condition of being in a second marriage etc.... & if you want/permit, it's a permanent sinful state, like nonstop stealing....
I think being one is both sexually/carnally, but also mentally, spiritually....So I am not so sure, that one time with a whore makes you to be married to her (even if Paul could be interpreted as wanting to say that)[amazing the situation between Judah and Tamar Genesis 38]...however it is not the solution for the carnal desires/needs either, the admonition to flee fornication is a present one for the Corinthians....Paul does warn the Corinthians about becoming one with whores, because first of all as the spiritual bride we should be married to Jesus, us the body...him the head of the church etc.,....therefore the proper sex should be within a wholesome, christian/legal marriage...everything else would be fornication...it's not that that couldn't be forgiven IMO in the age of grace, but it also sheds a bad light on the christian community, having a false libertinism, a false sense of freedom.....there is space to repent, as is also evident from Revelation 2:20 onwards...
Also consider the bewilderment/shock of the disciples, when Jesus tells them His stance on marriage: "If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry." Mt. 19:10
If Jesus meant easy remarriage, as it is now the understanding...I don't think the disciples would have been shocked.Jesus kind of tightened up the loose attitudes even at that time....it's not such easy living for Christ business...also His stance strenghtened the position of the woman at His time.
Last not least the warnings in 1.Cor. 6:9 are really shocking, they sobered me up some time ago...nowadays I reason, what do I love more: the Lord or some carnal desire for some fleshly bondage...if I don't find it explicitly expressed in the Word : remarriage, then I / one should be utterly careful, as one could miss His kingdom in consequence....
Pardon me pls. for the little arrangement of the train of thoughts...