Yet ANOTHER dead horse beating

[Poimen]

Poimen wrote:

But that's just it, the unbelieving spouse does not hold control over the other spouse's body in such cases. That is the freedom that being permitted to divorce and live as single brings. You are not bound to continue to live in the relationship in such cases.

That is simply not true. If they are not free to remarry then the spouse DOES hold control over the other's body.

There is no TRUE FREEDOM where such stipulations exist.

You are either free or you are bound.

The bondage the believer is freed from is remaining in and/or trying to salvage an active relationship with an unwilling spouse. They can be free of all legal and social connections with this individual because they are permitted to live as unmarried.

If however, they decide not to remain unmarried, they are instructed to reconcile with their spouse (proving the actual mystical union, if you will, is not dissolved in the eyes of God).

Then, if they marry another while their spouse lives Romans 7:3 comes back into play, and they become an adulterer.

[Poimen]

Except that it ignores the fact that an unmarried woman had no status in society at that time, and could be reduced to begging or prostitution to survive.

Let's see, since 1 Corinthians chapter seven is the passage in play at the moment...

Really??? No status?

In the culture and society of Corinth, a cosmopolitan city of it's day, and considered a little Rome?

A civilization in which women exercised the right of divorce from their husbands, ran households, businesses, etc.?

Sorry, I don't buy it.

[pastorables]

[
If however, they decide not to remain unmarried, they are instructed to reconcile with their spouse (proving the actual mystical union, if you will, is not dissolved in the eyes of God).

Why would a believer be instructed to reconcile with a spouse who has moved hundreds of miles away or has entered a second marriage? Wouldn't this be instructing someone to accomplish the impossible?

If impossible to reconcile, the believing spouse seems to indeed be held hostage to the marriage. The unbelieving spouse has moved on to enjoy the benefits of a new marriage, yet the believing spouse is not allowed the blessing of marital provision now? I'm not saying you are wrong, but it's hard for me to see the victory you promote in freedom from being able to live the blessing of marriage, and this due to the sin of the unbeliever.

I believe that divorce is sin and that God hates it as such. I have witnessed the emotional scars of this undesirable event in my extended family, as well as in the ministry. My struggle is being able to reconcile that God would intend for a believer's future to be perpetually tied up by the unbeliever's invisible cord regarding marital blessings. I am just thinking aloud and trying to reconcile these things in my heart.

Blessings,
pa

[pastorables]

Except that it ignores the fact that an unmarried woman had no status in society at that time, and could be reduced to begging or prostitution to survive.

Sorry, I don't buy it.

Could this explain Matthew 5:32 concerning a wife being caused to commit adultery?

But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

[one love]

"remain unmarried or be reconiciled" how can you take the free from bondage part to fit this theory and ignore the obvious to remain unmarried? It may seem unfair in your mind so it doesnt make sense but in actuallity it makes perfect sense. Marriage is forever unless one companion dies. I simply ask why would he say "remain unmarried or be reconciled"

[Poimen]

Could this explain Matthew 5:32 concerning a wife being caused to commit adultery?

But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

In Jewish culture of the day? Yes.

In a cosmopolitan Roman society like Corinth? No.

Interestingly the gospels thought to be written to Gentiles (Mark & Luke) while likewise speaking against divorce and remarriage do not contain the matthean exception clause. This is part of what I alluded to earlier when I mentioned the consensus of scripture not stating an exception to the rule regarding divorce.

Furthermore, Mark's gospel speaks of women putting away their husbands. Obviously not intended for a strictly Jewish audience or culture.

[pastorables]

Interestingly the gospels thought to be written to Gentiles (Mark & Luke) while likewise speaking against divorce and remarriage do not contain the matthean exception clause. This is part of what I alluded to earlier when I mentioned the consensus of scripture not stating an exception to the rule regarding divorce.

In your opinion then, why was an exception clause ever mentioned at all, especially in light of all the confusion over this particular issue?

If ones answer comes from the classic COGOP stance concerning the meaning of fornication, there could also be the argument from the other side as to why that particular definition wasn't included by the other writers as well, etc... It works both ways.

pa

[Poimen]

In your opinion then, why was an exception clause ever mentioned at all, especially in light of all the confusion over this particular issue?

Do you have a copy of the initial BDP report for the 2006 assembly, before the final; version? In it, under 4 views on Divorce and remarriage, section two deals with this position. In the initial document there was much more information regarding this view and the details of how the Greek construct of the Matthean exception, pointing to the fact that it is a strategic placement of the exception clause in order to permit divorce but not permitting remarriage.

I lost my copy of that version in a hard rive crash. You might also look for the book on the matter co-authored by William Heth, Bible and Koine Greek Professor at Taylor University in Upland, Indiana.

At any rate, I believe the exception is being given to permit grounds for divorce being acceptable. Jesus had just condemned divorce, which He said was not so from the beginning. If Christ had given no exception then divorce itself would have been utterly and completely condemned, period. Recognizing the sinfulness of man Christ permitted divorce in some circumstances as an act of mercy, recuperation, and understanding. But, as William Heth points out, the placement of the clause only permits for divorce, and not remarriage.

If the clause had of followed the phrase regarding divorce and remarriage it would have permitted both divorce and remarriage for the cause of fornication. Since it comes in between the two parts of the it only permits for the part it follows and does not apply to the portion that follows after.
That is the basic concept underscoring Heth's explanation.

If ones answer comes from the classic COGOP stance concerning the meaning of fornication, there could also be the argument from the other side as to why that particular definition wasn't included by the other writers as well, etc... It works both ways.

I no longer limit fornication to the traditional COGOP explanation. I accept it for it's broader Scriptural meaning. Thus I conclude Christ is here permitting divorce from a spouse who is involved in other sexual activity outside of that strictly had with their spouse alone.

[Poimen]

[
If however, they decide not to remain unmarried, they are instructed to reconcile with their spouse (proving the actual mystical union, if you will, is not dissolved in the eyes of God).

Why would a believer be instructed to reconcile with a spouse who has moved hundreds of miles away or has entered a second marriage? Wouldn't this be instructing someone to accomplish the impossible?

My apologies if I was not thorough enough. They are commanded to reconcile, or to remain unmarried (at least as long as their spouse lives).

So, if they cannot reconcile they are not forced to. They are however commanded to be open to the possibility of reconciliation. If they cannot reconcile they are further instructed to remain unmarried.

Why? Could it be because in the teaching of Christ and the NT to remarry after divorce (while one's spouse lives) constitutes adultery?

[Shellie]

Sighhhh............

I'll tell ya what boys. Just send our way those whom you don't deem saved. Problem solved. That way, they won't spot or wrinkle your gown.

[pastorables]

My apologies if I was not thorough enough. They are commanded to reconcile, or to remain unmarried (at least as long as their spouse lives).

So, if they cannot reconcile they are not forced to. They are however commanded to be open to the possibility of reconciliation. If they cannot reconcile they are further instructed to remain unmarried.

Why? Could it be because in the teaching of Christ and the NT to remarry after divorce (while one's spouse lives) constitutes adultery?

Oh, you are plain and clear. Remember, I preached in COGOP for almost 20 years. Due to my own ignorance, the D & R issue has caused me to get myself in some very awkward situations, mostly due to making the subject into an exclusive sin. I have read the reports. They are very thorough, yet still left questions unanswered for me personally.

I am still trying to understand much regarding the issue of divorce and remarriage, but this one thing I do know. With all seriousness, if divorce and remarriage is as cut and dry as your understanding leads one to believe, the modern church should make this one issue top priority and we should begin hunting with the fervor of a Salem "witch hunt" to bring deliverance to all of these situations before masses end up in hell over this delicate issue.

God bless,
pa

[Pastorbps]

Shellie:
You named two exceptions which would make D&R acceptable – Married to an unbeliever and unfaithfulness. If you believe what you say about Fornication and “Being married to an unbeliever” then why did you accept the committee’s report which goes far beyond only those two limits? Shouldn’t you have opposed the report for being too liberal in its interpretations?
Bro. Gary said he had discussed it ad nauseam. Me too. However, I question the motivation for changing our stand on D&R. We talk about our love for those in this situation and how we don’t want to judge. We speak about how it is unreasonable to break up homes or to dissolve covenants. We do that as long as it applies to western (especially American) society. When it comes to Africa we change the rules. We’ll judge the polygamists as wrong. We’ll call on them to dissolve their covenant relationships with their 2nd through 10th wives even if children are involved. We love them but they have to change. They’re pagans for being polygamists. We may need to look closely in the mirror. We might see pagans are a lot closer to home. We’re just not as hard on ourselves. It might surprise you to know the Africans call us serial polygamists and consider us worse. They want to know how we can condemn them for taking new wives when Americans take new wives by disposing of the old ones. They think its terrible we would abandon our first spouses. Of course, the solution would be either to say we’re wrong or to accept polygamy. I wonder which one we’ll do? Oh what a tangled web we weave!

[paul]

We do that as long as it applies to western (especially American) society. When it comes to Africa we change the rules. We’ll judge the polygamists as wrong. We’ll call on them to dissolve their covenant relationships with their 2nd through 10th wives even if children are involved. We love them but they have to change. They’re pagans for being polygamists. We may need to look closely in the mirror. We might see pagans are a lot closer to home. We’re just not as hard on ourselves. It might surprise you to know the Africans call us serial polygamists and consider us worse. They want to know how we can condemn them for taking new wives when Americans take new wives by disposing of the old ones. They think its terrible we would abandon our first spouses. Of course, the solution would be either to say we’re wrong or to accept polygamy. I wonder which one we’ll do? Oh what a tangled web we weave!

Only if they want to be in leadership as a Pastor or Bishop Read paul's advice to Titus and Timothy.

[Pastorbps]

Paul:
Did you vote in favor of the Assembly report? It condemned polygamy. If you voted in favor of the report, why would you support a report you didn't agree with? Are you admitting the report wasn't correct? I mean no disrespect but by taking such a stand aren't you being rebellious? Why don't you just leave if you don't agree with the church? Seem harsh? Its what is being said to those who disagree with other parts of the report. Then again you may not be a member of the COGOP.

[scooter]

When I beat a dead horse I like to start at the end that stinks less so that by the time I get to the other end I've worked up such a frenzy that the smell just doesn't matter any more.