Sunday, December 31, 2006

Jewish Resources for the Christian Mind

In my posts on biblical marriage, divorce, and remarriage I've learned of the importance of the Jewish bedrock of Christianity. Some of the OT is abrogated in the NT, e.g. circumcision, and dietary restrictions. However how we think and act as Christians are based on Judaic features. Here is a recent story on Jews in the nativity in Newsweek:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16116328/site/newsweek/

David Instone-Brewer had this interesting tidbit on Greco-Roman as opposed to Judaic marriages in the 1st century AD:

http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Brewer/MarriagePapyri/1Cor_7b.htm

  • In Greek contracts there was almost an expectation that the marriage would end in divorce rather than death. In Jewish contracts, especially Aramaic and Hebrew ones, there is an expectation that the marriage will end in death (as seen below).

Whose ideals of marriage do Christians aspire? The Greco-Roman world practiced serial monogamy, something that should ring familiar to Christians in the 21st century.

Jews kept a written record of rabbinical debate in the Talmud which was used by Instone-Brewer in his exegesis of Matthew 19 and Mark 10. Here is a complete works of the Talmud. The Gittin from which the word 'get' or a Jewish certificate of divorce is of keen interest in this discussion. The works of Philo and Josephus also recorded the rabbinical debate that involved Jesus as recorded by Matthew 19 and Mark 10.

Finally the Jewish Encyclopedia is an excellent resource. It has an interesting and critical discussion of Paul and Jesus from a non-believing perspective.

Saturday, December 30, 2006

Review of Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible III

In this post I will attempt to do justice to David Instone-Brewer's thesis that Jesus did NOT repudiate all the OT premises for Biblical divorce. In his book that I've been blogging about this in several posts he detailed the Jewish OT premises for righteous divorce. Key to these are Deuteronomy 24:1-4, Exodus 21:10-11, and Malachi 2:13-16. The partners in marriage are to avoid adultery, provide for the material well-being of each other, allow for conjugal rights, and keep marriage vows.

Jesus in Matthew 19 and Mark 10 seems to repudiate all grounds for divorce except for adultery in Matthew. Jesus was answering questions posed to him by the Pharisees regarding divorce. A reading of these passages seems straightforward, i.e. no divorce is possible. But it is important that these were abbreviated accounts. It seems difficult to know what those questions were. Matthew 19:3 perhaps gives a clue:

  • (NAS) Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?"

In some translations 'any reason' is translated as 'any matter'. These 'any matter' divorces were a topic of debate between two schools within the Pharisees, Hillel and Shammai. I've blogged on this before. This debate was documented by the Jewish historians, Josephus and Philo. I think it is significant that there are extra-scriptoral sources documenting that debate. That previous link is worth examining in that it is a Jewish site mentioning that:

  • "Jesus seems to have held the view of the school of Shammai (Matt. xix. 3-9)."

It also mentions that the Hillel school prevailed (hardly surprising) and the remarriage customs of the Jews. Instone-Brewer argues that Jesus was condemning the Hillel 'any matter' divorce. Anybody participating in the divorce was committing adultery. So it is not divorce in general that was condemned but specifically the Hillel version.

Another key point to Instone-Brewer's thesis is his digression into adultery vs. fornication in the Bible. Adultery is sexual relations with another married person. Fornication is with an umarried person. In the Gospel verses regarding divorce only adultery is mentioned.

I haven't quite made up my mind on Instone-Brewer's entire thesis. It is because it is so dramtically different from a cursory reading of the Matthew and Mark passages on divorce. There is no doubt however that 'any matter' divorces were highly debated topic among the Jews of the 1st century AD.

I think that if you want to examine this thesis in detail you must read his book. It is well documented with footnotes. He is open to criticisms which have been few in coming from highly conservative circles. I think it is because he stands alone in examining scripture in light of the historical context of the Rabbincal debate between the Hillels vs. the Shammais.



Sunday, December 24, 2006

Review of Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible II

God is against those who break marriage vows.

In the
last post, Exodus 21:10-11 and Deuteronomy 24:1-4 are cited for grounds for divorce in the OT. Also in the OT is Malachi 2:13-16 its teaching that God hates divorce. I've been to many Christian web site that explain this to be a prohibition of divorce. On page 54 of his book "Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible" Instone-Brewer emphasizes that Malachi was describing how God is against those who break marriage vows, verse 14:
  • 14 (NAS) "Yet you say, `For what reason?' Because the LORD has been a witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant.
Perhaps this is clearer in the God's Word translation:
  • 14 But you ask, "Why [aren't our offerings accepted]?" It is because the LORD is a witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been unfaithful. Yet, she is your companion, the wife of your marriage vows.
It is in verse 16 that God states that he hates divorce.
  • 16 (NAS) "For I hate divorce," says the LORD, the God of Israel, "and him who covers his garment with wrong," says the LORD of hosts. "So take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously."
It seems to follow that God is against those who break marriage vows, of which divorce is a natural outcome. That is He is against those who cause the divorce by NOT honoring marriage vows. It this aspect I am in agreement with Instone-Brewers thesis.

Hosea and Jeremiah are dealt with in the same chapter (3) as Malachi. In Hosea God divorces Israel but as He was forced into it because of her faithlessness. It was Israel that broke the marriage vows. In Jeremiah 3:6 God warns Judah that she will suffer the same fate, i.e. put away with a certificate of divorce, because she broke her marriage vows. In Ezekiel 16 and 23 Judah is again presented as an unfaithful wife. Isaiah has a similar treatment. In the OT God is a divorce' i.e. 'husband divorces wife'. In this case it is justified as Israel was unfaithful and even so Judah who was spared the divorce because of God's mercy. Both sisters repeated broke marriage vows, so it was they that forced the divorce upon themselves.

In the Gospels the breakage of marriage vows it not mentioned as Biblical grounds for divorce. How much of the OT is renounced by Jesus in the NT grounds for divorce? This will be a future post.



Friday, December 22, 2006

Review of Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible I

I've mentioned David Instone-Brewer's book several times in previous blog posts. I had a chance to read it on a plane ride. I will go over the book's strengths and weaknesses in the next few posts. In summary he traces marriage, divorce, and remarriage starting from the OT through to the modern Christian church.

In the OT marriage is viewed as a contract between two parties by the Jews. He traces this concept from OT Bible verses and preserved documents from the late iron age. Breaking of that contract lead to loss of the dowry and divorce whereupon both parties were free to remarry. This is evident from Deuteronomy 24:1-4 which most Christians know well but also from Exodus 24:7-11 which describes the rights of a slave wife:

  • 7 "If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do. 8 "If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He does not have authority to sell her to a foreign people because of his unfairness to her. 9 "If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. 10 "If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights. 11 "If he will not do these three {things} for her, then she shall go out for nothing, without {payment of} money.


In this Exodus passage it is clear that the slave-wife is to receive the same amount of food, clothing, and love and she did before the other wife appears in the family otherwise she was to go free. Instone-Brewer thinks that these basic rights in a marriage were reiterated by Paul in 1 Corinthians 7. That will be a future post.

Most Christians accept that repeated unrepented adultery and some would accept abandonment as grounds for biblical divorce. The now question remains as to whether Exodus 24:10-11 and Deuteronomy 24:1-4 was renounced by Jesus as he was questioned by the Pharisees in Matthew19:3-9, and in Mark 10:2-12? That also will be a future post.

Much of Instone-Brewer's thoughts on divorce in the OT are here.

Tuesday, December 19, 2006

Instone-Brewer III

I just received David Instone-Brewer's book "Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible" in the mail. I've started in on it and should have it read by the New Year's. I realize in glancing over it that Instone-Brewer offers a synopsis of this book in a link I provided earlier. In reading that article I found that Instone-Brewer mentions a William Heth in the endnotes:

  • "See Gordon J. Wenham and William E. Heth, Jesus and Divorce, updated edition (Carlisle, Cumbria: Paternoster Press, 2002), though it is significant that Heth now supports the position presented in this article."

I looked up William Heth. He was a strong proponent of no remarriage under any circumstances after divorce until the death of the (former) spouse. See his book from 1985. So for what its worth, here is a convert from that doctrine.

Heth's mostly favorable review of Instone-Brewer's book is reprinted here.

Quickly, Instone-Brewer's exegesis of the NT on divorce and remarriage is based on the historical and rabbinical writings of the 1st century AD. From that he gained insights into the questions being pressed upon Jesus by the Pharisees on the question of divorce. His publication from Baylor University mentioned above concludes with this:

C O N C L U S I O N
  • If we understand the New Testament through the eyes of a first-century Jewish reader, we find Jesus and Paul in perfect agreement, while addressing different audiences. Both forbid divorce unless it is based on biblical grounds. Both affirm the biblical grounds which they were asked about—Jesus, the ground of adultery, and Paul, the grounds of neglect. Jesus took the opportunity to criticize many aspects of the Jewish theology of marriage that he disagreed with—including infertility as a ground for divorce, allowing polygamy, and compulsory divorce for adultery. Jesus taught forgiveness rather than hasty divorce, though he agreed that a hard-hearted partner who repeatedly broke marriage vows unrepentantly could be divorced. Paul’s emphasis was that marriages to unbelievers were sacred in God’s eyes and that no believer should cause a divorce by neglecting their obligations or by abandoning their spouse.
I'll comment on the book sometime after the New Year. In the meanwhile I'll try to answer any comments on any of the previous blogs.

If you find a good coherent argument against biblical remarriage on the web please post the links in the comments section below. By coherent I mean something other than saying Mark 10:11-12 is a blanket statement against all divorce and remarriage. What does Mark say about remarriage for the innocent spouse? Nothing. I commented on this before.

Merry Christmas to all.

Monday, December 18, 2006

1 Corinthians 7 Douloo (to enslave) vs. Deo (to bind)

In my last post I left with verse 23 of 1 Co 7:
  • You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men.
When are we to become slaves (Greek doulos)? Only to Christ:

Ac 4:29, Ac 16:17, Ro 1:1,1Co 7:22,2Co 4:5,Ga 1:10,Eph 6:6,Php 1:1,Col 4:12,2Ti 2:24,Tit 1:1,Jas 1:1,1Pe 2:16 ,2Pe 1:1,Jude 1:1,Re 1:1,Re 22:6,Re 22:3,Re 15:3

Never in the NT is the relationship between the saved and Christ is called simply deo (bond). Never are we to become slaves of men as might become the case in my last post. Douloo (to enslave) is a much stronger verb than deo (to bind). In this case the use of this superlative is a very positive one as opposed to a very negative as Paul's use of douloo for bondage in 1 Co 7:15.

Paul's Choice of Greek in 1 Corinthians 7

In a previous post I commented on some people's issue with Paul's choice of Greek 'aphiemi' instead of 'apoulo' in 1 Co 7. Aphiemi is used in verses 11, 12, and 13 of 1 Co 7. These particular analyses claim that Paul was not referring to divorce in this chapter because of his choice of Greek aphiemi. This runs against Paul's use of the Greek 'agamos' or unmarried for the divorcing wife in verse 11. Also consider the number of synonyms of divorce we have in English.

Another common argument against remarriage for the Christian involved in the outcome of 1 Co 7:15-16 is Paul's choice of Greek 'douloo' (to enslave) in verse 15 instead of 'deo' (to bind) for the bond between husband and wife.
  • 15: (NAS) Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace.
i.e. some translations say 'no longer enslaved' as opposed to 'not under bondage'. Paul uses 'deo' in verses 27 and 39.
  • 27: Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife.
  • 39: A wife is bound as long as her husband lives; but if her husband is dead, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.

This is an analysis from one well know ministry:

  • "word rendered “bondage” (15) is the Greek term douloo, which means “to make a slave of.” Observe how the word is translated in Titus 2:3—”enslaved to much wine.” Biblically speaking, marriage is never viewed as slavery! The “bondage,” i.e., enslavement, does not refer to the marriage union. If the unbeliever departs, that is not the Christian’s responsibility. The brother or sister is not enslaved to maintain a togetherness (note the allusion of v. 5) at the expense of fidelity to the Lord."

In Titus 2:3 Paul's warning against too much wine should not be taken lightly as being enslaved to much wine is an indication of alcoholism. It's true that nowhere else does Paul refer to the husband/wife relationship as slavery.

From another well-known ministry:

  • "The word used for "bound" (douloo) in verse 15 is not the same word used in verse 39 where Paul says, "A wife is bound (deo) to her husband as long as he lives." Paul consistently uses deo when speaking of the legal aspect of being bound to one marriage partner (Romans 7:2; l Corinthians 7:39), or to one's betrothed (l Corinthians 7:27). But when he refers to a deserted spouse not being bound in l Corinthians 7:15, he chooses a different word (douloo) which we would expect him to do if he were not giving a deserted spouse the same freedom to remarry that he gives to a spouse whose partner has died (verse 39)."

When using a unique word Paul either wanted to trivialize or call attention to a superlative when describing the relationship in the Christian-unbeliever couple.

Consider the condition of a 1st century Roman slave:

My convicted choice is that slavery is much worse than the bonds of marriage. Paul was referring to a superlative situation and a very negative one.

Paul was referring to situation in which a spouse called to Christ had to deal with in a bad marriage with an unbeliever. I've commented on this before. As having witness this before, the bad marriage between a Christian and an unbeliever quickly deteriorates into a form of slavery for the believer. The Christian will do what it takes to avoid the sin of divorce and allow the unbeliever a free reign on household finances, gambling, inappropriate friendships, drugs, alcohol etc. Yes, it's a form of slavery that hopefully no Christian (or anyone else) will experience.


The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod had a good description of the use of douloo vs. deo by Paul in 1 Co 7:15:

  • In 1 Cor. 7:15 the apostle uses the verb which he uses elsewhere to denote a state of slavery, not the weaker verb deo, which is not his word to express what it means to be under the ownership of someone else. The stronger expression "is not bound" suggests that the believing spouse is no longer tied to the obligation to preserve the marriage, since the unbelieving party has already withdrawn consent to maintain the union. Admittedly, Paul does not expressly state that the Christian may remarry. However, neither does he expressly forbid remarriage as he did explicitly in verse 11 of the Christian spouse who departs.... therefore, the Christian spouse is no longer bound, such a one is free to secure a civil divorce and remarry. [84]

Verse 4 shows how Paul views the marital bonds:
  • 1 Co 7:4 NAS he wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
It is a form of allegorical slavery as mentioned in Instone-Brewers analysis. This is all good and well in a relationship between believers. In a bad (as opposed to good) marriage between a Christian and an unbeliever there is no reciprocation from the latter. Slavery sets in. Paul tells us that the believer is free when that bond is broken in verse 15-16.

As a final note see verse 23 of 1 Co 7:
  • 23: you were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men

Greek for slave is doulos.

My comments on The Luthern Church - Missouri Synod's take on 1 Co 7:15

In a previous post the LC-MS position on the choices an abandoned believing spouse (1 Co 7:15) can take was mentioned:

". A spouse who has been willfully and definitively abandoned by his or her partner who
refuses to be reconciled and is unwilling to fulfill the obligations of the marriage
covenant despite persistent persuasion may seek a legal divorce, which in such a case
constitutes a public recognition of a marriage already broken, and remarry."

This is one step beyond what I would feel comfortable with. I think that the unbelieving spouse should file and pursue the civil divorce for the believer to remain righteous. Other than that I find the LC-MS position on divorce and remarriage to be very similar to what I've been posting on in the past few weeks.

Sunday, December 17, 2006

Divorce and Remarriage, The Views of The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod

The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod put a exegesis of the verses in the NT regarding divorce and remarriage on the web. It is about 30 pages in length and in depth study that considers the original Greek. Their conclusions are similar to what I've been converging on.

Page 17 Regarding Matthew 5:32:

"The status of the abandoned spouse who is not responsible for the final breakdown of marriage caused by divorce for reasons other than fornication, or by unchastity on the part of the offending spouse, is not expressly mentioned by Jesus in Matthew 5:32. Neither is there any direct prohibition of the remarriage of one who has not destroyed the union through divorce and unchastity."

Page 18 regarding Mt 5:32:

The participle here does not have an article and therefore is indefinite. [55] If the text read, "whoever marries the divorced woman" it would be clear that the reference is to the woman just mentioned, that is, the one wrongly put away. The indefinite use of the participle,
however, entails the possibility that Jesus had in mind a woman who herself was
responsible for obtaining a divorce for reasons other than porneia. [56]"

Page 23 on 1 Co 7:15

In 1 Cor. 7:15 the apostle uses the verb which he uses elsewhere to denote a state of slavery, not the weaker verb deo, which is not his word to express what it means to be under the ownership of someone else. The stronger expression "is not bound" suggests that the believing spouse is no longer tied to the obligation to preserve the marriage, since the unbelieving party has already withdrawn consent to maintain the union.
Admittedly, Paul does not expressly state that the Christian may remarry. However, neither does he expressly forbid remarriage as he did explicitly in verse 11 of the Christian spouse who departs....
The prospect of converting one's spouse is not certain, [83] although of course Paul does desire this. If, therefore, the Christian spouse is no longer bound, such a one is free to secure a civil divorce and remarry. [84]

Summary Statements On Page 25:

3. A person who divorces his/her spouse for any other cause than sexual unfaithfulness
and marries another commits adultery. Anyone who marries a person so discarding his
or her spouse commits adultery.

4. When a spouse commits fornication (i.e., is guilty of sexual unfaithfulness), which
breaks the unity of the marriage, the offended party who endures such unfaithfulness
has the right, though not the command, to obtain a legal divorce and remarry.

5. A spouse who has been willfully and definitively abandoned by his or her partner who
refuses to be reconciled and is unwilling to fulfill the obligations of the marriage
covenant despite persistent persuasion may seek a legal divorce, which in such a case
constitutes a public recognition of a marriage already broken, and remarry.

Saturday, December 16, 2006

More on 1 Corinthians 7:15 Answering Criticisms II

In the last post, I left off with a few answers regarding common arguments against remarriage for the Christian ex-spouse in the 1 Co 7:15-16 verses. Matt 5:32, and Luke 16:18 just do not answer the question of what is the abandoned Christian to do if the unbeliever initiates the divorce. Both are the 'husband divorces wife' cases. Furthermore there is some controversy in the translation of Mt 5:32. Link 1, Link 2, Link 3, Link 4, Link 5

Matthew 19:9 and Mark 10:11-12 are also used to justify prohibition of remarriage for the Christian involved in 1 Co 7:15-16. I commented already on Mark 10:11-12 and its silence on the abandoned innocent ex-spouse. Matthew 19:9 only address the 'husband divorces wife' case and doesn't address the innocent ex-wife and nor the case of 'wife divorces husband'.

More on 1 Corinthians 7:15 - Answering the Criticisms I

Arguments abound on the web regarding the abandoned Christian spouse having to remain unmarried (agamos)) in the situation of 1 Co 7:15. My arguments for allowing remarriage are here (Link 1, Link 2, Link 3, Link 4, Link 5, Link 6) I have located a few of the typical arguments against remarriage:

The unbeliever (not the believer) may depart, since unsaved people will not follow the Word of God.(1 Cor. 7:15)

This does not mean that the believer may remarry. (Rom. 7:2; I Cor. 7:39; Luke 16:18; Matt. 5:32)

Romans 7:2 and 1 Co 7:39 do not apply as both refer to a married (Greek gamos) woman being bound to her husband, not to an abandoned and now unmarried, i.e. agamos Christian ex-spouse. In a more narrow sense neither address the problem of the abandoned Christian man. Using these verses is simply misapplying scripture.

Luke 16:18 and Matthew 5:32 again do not apply to the abandoned Christian spouse. Both verses refer to the sin of initiating a divorce. The Christian spouse in 1 Co 7:15 did not divorce the unbeliever, it is the that unbeliever that initiated that action. Using these verses in this situation is simply again a misapplication of scripture.

Another anti-remarriage argument:

What if the unbeliever initiates a separation? What should the Christian do? Let him go, the apostle says, the Christian is not enslaved to that mate, so that domestic proximity is absolutely required (15). “Divorce” is not under consideration here. The New Testament term for divorce is apoluo (literally, to loose away; cf. Mt. 5:31-32; 19:3,7-9; Mk. 10:2-4,11-12; Lk. 16:18), and that word is meticulously avoided in First Corinthians 7:10-15.

The author is referring to Paul's use of aphiemi instead of apolou for divorce in verse 11.

11: (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.

Why then does Paul call the woman in 1 Co 7:10-11 unmarried (
agamos)? In my previous posts (Link 1, Link 2, Link 3), it was clear unmarried meant previously married as opposed to widows and virgins/singles. Also how many synonyms do we have in English for 'divorce'?


Friday, December 15, 2006

Why does Paul offer differing instructions in verses 10-11 and in 15-16 in 1 Corinthians 7?

Brief Review - In previous posts I went through Paul's description of unmarried (Greek, agamos) in 1 Co 7. It was a class different from widow (chera), and virgins (parthenos). In using using unmarried (agamos) Paul was addressing the previously married people of Corinth. 1 Co 7 is the only place in the Bible where the word 'agamos' is used.

In a Dec 12 post I went through Paul's instructions to the unmarried. There are two conclusions

1) Paul allows for the agamos (unmarried) to remarry in verses 8-9.

2) Paul prohibits remarriage to the Christian divorced (agamos) woman who leaves her Christian husband in the Greco-Roman style divorce-by-separation.


In a Dec 13 post Paul's advice to the mixed (Christian-unbeliever) couple was to allow the unbeliever to divorce if s/he insists on doing so. I finished up with this:

Should this Christian unmarried person be able to remarry? The instructions in verse 11 do not apply as this was aimed at the Christian couple and not the mixed couple. Therefore verses 8-9 apply. This unmarried person is able to remarry.

Now why do some people suppose that this be contradictory to Christian thought and principles as it would make the marriage in a mixed couple seem less sanctified than the Christian couple? I would argue that this is not the point that Paul was making. Paul was looking at each divorced couple, the Christian and the mixed ones and the forces that will bring them back together. These forces are different for each set of couples. I'll post my thoughts in the future.


Both sets of couples the Christian in verses 10-11 and the mixed in verses 15-16 are divorced. The Christian however is bond to Christ as his slave. See the following verses:

Ac 4:29, Ac 16:17, Ro 1:1,1Co 7:22,2Co 4:5,Ga 1:10,Eph 6:6,Php 1:1,Col 4:12,2Ti 2:24,Tit 1:1,Jas 1:1,1Pe 2:16 ,2Pe 1:1,Jude 1:1,Re 1:1,Re 22:6,Re 22:3,Re 15:3

The Christian therefore is obligated to forgive and set aside bitterness. Eph 4:31 Reconciliation is a strong possibility with a divorced Christian couple.

Reconciliation is certainly possible with the unbeliever, but how long should the believer wait and press their case? There is the unequal yoke here. Paul warns against this in 2 Corinthians 6:14. The unbeliever especially in the atmosphere of Corinth had strong and tempting non-Christian forces acting upon them. Corinth had a reputation of hedonism and other vulgarities, this is very similar to modern society. One can reasonably assume that the unbeliever would drift away with these forces. In modern society other forces such as money, gambling, access to easy sex, and drugs can come to bear on the unbeliever. It is certainly reasonable for the Christian ex-spouse to attempt a reconciliation but it can be futile, hence Paul's lament in verse 16.

Finally, in his book "Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible" David Instone-Brewer points out that Paul's 2nd sentence in verse 15 "For God has called us to peace" is very similar to the rabbinic phrase 'for the sake of peace', which means 'when the law fails, we follow a pragmatic solution. Paul was recognizing a situation that was not addressed in Jesus' teachings in the Gospels and was focused on the situation that must have become ever more frequent in Corinth as it is today.

Next I'll comment on common arguments that appear on the web against remarriage in verses 15-16. I think that many fail based on logic, but I will be respectful. Also there are questions to Paul's choice of Greek words. I will discuss this in a few posts.

Thursday, December 14, 2006

More on 1 Corinthians 7:15 - The expectation to remarry in the 1st century AD

In a previous post I argued that the unmarried Christian man or woman from the outcome of 1 Corinthians 7:15-16 is allowed to re-marry.

We must realize that the Christian couple in 1 Co 7:10-11 verses and the mixed couple in verses 15-16 are both divorced. Paul was writing to a mostly Greco-Roman audience whose law allowed for a unilateral divorce-by-separation. This is a very modern sounding divorce as it seems at least to me that most contemporary ones are unilateral.

The Right to Remarry in the 1st Century. Paul specifically denied remarriage for the agamos Christian woman in verse 11. This is because the right to remarry is implied by the secular forces of the time as it is now. He is silent for the agamos (unmarried) Christian spouse in verses 15-16, since verses 8-9 now apply.

David Instone-Brewer has examined Greco-Roman and Jewish Law (link 1, link 2) of the 1st century AD. The right to remarry is explicitly stated in the divorce documents in both societies. A 71 AD Jewish document stated "you are free to become the wife of any Jewish man you wish." Greco-Roman legal documents had a similar statement.

Roman Law expected remarriage:

"The Lex Julia allowed widows a term of one year (vacatio) from the death of a husband, and divorced women a term (vacatio) of six months from the time of the divorce, within which periods they were not subject to the penalties of the lex: the Lex Papia extended these periods respectively to two years, and a year and six months."

From a university course:

"Requires remarriage: women must remarry after death of husband (one year grace period), divorce (6 mo. grace period) (later extended to 2 years and 1 1/2 years by The Papio-Poppaean Law)"

While this law applied usually to the upper classes only it laid the down the prevalent culture of remarriage after divorce. For Paul to prevent remarriage he therefore must forbid it as he does in verse 11. It even appears that Paul gives the husband discretion to judge the situation in that verse:

11: (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.

The modal verb 'must' applies to the divorced woman, whereas 'should' applies to the man. This seems to check out in all translations of that Bible verse.

In an upcoming post I examine the reasons that Paul allowed for remarriage for the Christian in verses 15-16. From a previous post:

"
Now why do some people suppose that this be contradictory to Christian thought and principles as it would make the marriage in a mixed couple seem less sanctified than the Christian couple? I would argue that this is not the point that Paul was making. Paul was looking at each divorced couple, the Christian and the mixed ones and the forces that will bring them back together. These forces are different for each set of couples. I'll post my thoughts in the future."


OpinionJournal - Sexual freedom is damaging to students

An OpinionJournal article on how sexual freedom has damaged mostly young women.

"Heather continues: "I want to spend more time with him, and do stuff like go shopping or see a movie. That would make it a friendship for me. But he says no, because if we do those things, then in his opinion we'd have a relationship--and that's more than he wants. And I'm confused, because it seems like I don't get the 'friend' part, but he still gets the 'benefits.'" It finally dawns on her: "I'm really unhappy about that. It's hard to be with him and then go home and be alone."

Does the Passive Voice in Matthew 5:32 Add Confusion to its Translation to English?

See previous posts on this topic. Link1, Link 2

As someone who does a lot of scientific and technical writing I was always taught to avoid the passive voice as it may add to confusion as to who is doing what in an experiment or project. There are several schools of thought on this here are a few Link 1, Link 2, Link 3.

I don't know enough about Biblical Greek grammar to know if this is an issue in Matthew 5:32. Any comments?

Another Translation of Matthew 5:32

In my post yesterday, I commented on an alternative translation of Mt 5:32. At least one other English translation indicates the same:

Mt 5:32 GWT: But I can guarantee that any man who divorces his wife for any reason other than unfaithfulness makes her look as though she has committed adultery. Whoever marries a woman divorced in this way makes himself look as though he has committed adultery. (GOD'S WORD®)

I haven't heard of the translation called God's Word but I will certainly look into it more. This is a very similar translation to Rev. Ward's in yesterday's post. The God's Word team were good enough to post their translation on the web. The difference in translation between say the KJV, NAS, and RSV with GWT, and Rev. Ward's has to do with the B-Greek passive voice for 'to commit adultery' in the first sentence.

Out of curiosity I checked out the God's Word translation of Lk 16:18:

Lk 16:18 Any man who divorces his wife to marry another woman is committing
adultery. The man who marries a woman divorced in this way is committing
adultery.


It still up to debate as to the divorced woman in the 2nd sentence is the same divorced woman in the first sentence. If so she is still 'radioactive'.

On the other hand, one could take the second sentence to mean that the woman divorced her husband as the man did in the first sentence. That would make Lk 16:18 nearly identical to Mk 10:11-12.

The GWT translation of previously discussed 1 Co 7 verses doesn't change much:

10 I pass this command along (not really I, but the Lord): A wife shouldn’t
leave her husband. 11If she does, she should stay single or make up with her
husband. Likewise, a husband should not divorce his wife.


15 But if the unbelieving partners leave, let them go. Under these circumstances a Christian
man or Christian woman is not bound by a marriage vow . God has called
you to live in peace. 16How do you as a wife know whether you will save your
husband? How do you as a husband know whether you will save your wife?

Wednesday, December 13, 2006

The 'Radioactive' Woman in Matthew 5:32 a Possible Explanation

In Matthew 5:32 we have a curious situation in the first clause. The 'put away' or innocent divorced wife commits adultery. No mention of adultery is made of the divorcing husband.

Mt 5:32 but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

The 2nd clause states that who ever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. This is what I call the 'radioactive' woman in previous posts. Anyone who marries her commits adultery. She appears to be marked. Is she comparable to Luke's 16:18 divorced (radioactive) woman.

Lu 16:18 "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.

I commented on the possibility that Luke's 'radioactive' woman is Paul's divorcing Christian wife in 1 Co 7:10-11 on a Dec 12 post.

Some of you may have noticed that I haven't commented on Matthew's 5:32 'radioactive' woman. I struggled with this since she appears to be innocent and no sin is mention by Jesus on the divorcing man's part.

I surfed for a great while through the web for an explanation. This a message in a Biblical Greek forum for scholars:

http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-archives/html4/1997-10/21548.html

A Rev. Powers has an alternative explanation for Mt 5:32 based on what I believe to be sound b-Greek principles:

So the meaning of Mt 5:32 is:

"But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife other than on the ground
of sexual misbehaviour (i.e., the ground stated by Moses in Deut 24:1)
causes her to be given that stigma, that is, to be regarded as an
adulteress; and whoever were to marry her would similarly be made out to be
an adulterer."

Jesus is not condemning the wife or a second husband, but the first husband
who put his innocent wife into this situation.

Rev Dr B. Ward Powers Phone (International): 61-2-9799-7501
10 Grosvenor Crescent Phone (Australia): (02) 9799-7501
SUMMER HILL NSW 2130 email: bwpowers at eagles.bbs.net.au
AUSTRALIA.

If this is true than it makes much more sense than most translations.

So no the 'radioactive' woman in Mt 5:32 is not equivalent to my hypothesis of Luke's 16:18.

The unmarried (agamos) in 1 Corinthians 7:15-16

In previous posts Paul's meaning of unmarried or Greek agamos was found to be a distinct class apart from virgins and widows. The agamos therefore are the previously married people. In verses 10-11 this is clearly the case as Paul refers to the divorced wife in verse 11 as required to remain in the unmarried (agamos) state.

1 Corinthians 7:12-16 are verses aimed at the Christian-unbeliever couple (mixed). In verse 15:

15: Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace.

Paul instructs in the Holy Spirit that the Christian spouse is not to prevent the unbeliever from divorcing them for the sake of keeping the peace. Some modern Christians take leaving to be a form of legal separation, however this was unknown in the Greco-Roman world. The acting of leaving is considered to be a divorce-by-separation.

In verse 16 a lament is expressed by Paul that waiting for the unbelieving spouse to come to the light can be futile:

16: For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?

In what state should the Christian consider themselves in after the events of verse 15 unfold? There is only one possible state, unmarried or agamos.

Should this Christian unmarried person be able to remarry? The instructions in verse 11 do not apply as this was aimed at the Christian couple and not the mixed couple. Therefore verses 8-9 apply. This unmarried person is able to remarry.

Now why do some people suppose that this be contradictory to Christian thought and principles as it would make the marriage in a mixed couple seem less sanctified than the Christian couple? I would argue that this is not the point that Paul was making. Paul was looking at each divorced couple, the Christian and the mixed ones and the forces that will bring them back together. These forces are different for each set of couples. I'll post my thoughts in the future.

Tuesday, December 12, 2006

Paul's instructions to the Unmarried (Agamos) in 1 Corinthians 7

Starting with verses 7 and 8 Paul wishes that the the unmarried (agamos) and widows (chera) could remain as he is, i.e. single (NASB):

1 Co 7:7 Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that.

7:8 But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I.

In verse 9, he says the unmarried and widows should marry should they desire to:

7:9 But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Now in verses 10-11 he prohibits remarriage for the agamos (unmarried) in the following situation:

7:10 But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband 11: (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.

The unmarried person here is the departing (or divorcing) wife. We can tell that she is divorcing her husband because Paul calls her state unmarried in verse 11. This is the state in which she is required to stay so that she can reconcile with her husband. Her husband in turn should not divorce her. See how this dovetails into Luke's 16:18 in a previous post.

The woman is apparently using a Greco-Roman style divorce-by-separation. This is a form of unilateral divorce, a very modern sounding concept.
  • So Paul allows the unmarried (agamos) to marry in verse 9 but turns around and takes away the right in verse 11 to the divorced/unmarried woman in verse 11.
In verse 12 it is apparent as to why this is so.

12: But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her.

Verse 12 begins Paul's instructions through the Holy Spirit with the Christian-unbeliever couple. So verses 10-11 are aimed at the Christian couple in which Luke's 16:18 passage would apply. This is what Paul means by "I say, not the Lord."

Two Conclusions:

1) Paul allows for the agamos (unmarried) to remarry in verses 8-9.

2) Paul prohibits remarriage to the Christian divorced (agamos) woman who leaves her Christian husband in the Greco-Roman style divorce-by-separation.

  • Who are the agamos (unmarried) who are allowed to remarry? That is a future post.

Meaning of Unmarried in 1 Corinthians 7

Paul uses the word 'unmarried' (Greek agamos) 4 times in Corinthians. In verses 8, 11, 32, and 34.

Who are the 'unmarried'? Paul uses the Greek words 'chera', 'agamos', and 'parthenos' for widow, unmarried, and virgin respectively.

Also notable is that 'agamos' only appears in 1 Corinthians 7 in the NT. The meaning of agamos has been debated, here's a forum on biblical Greek and a thread that starts with the debate. Please read the entire thread and not just the first message. Agamos is literally unmarried. Greek 'gamos' means married. The a- is a proto-Indo-European negating prefix directly equal to the English un-.

Now to keep to eloquent language Paul could have used agamos to mean widow (chera), or virgin (parthenos) in 1 Co 7 in some verses but this is not the case. Note their usage in 1 Co 7:8 and 34.


8: But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I.


34: and his interests are divided. The woman who is unmarried, and the virgin, is concerned about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how she may please her husband.

Paul means to say the 'agamos' is not the widow, and not the virgin.

  • Agamos is the unmarried, i.e. the previously married or divorced persons. In the next post I'll examine Paul's instructions to the unmarried (agamos) in 1 Co 7.

Monday, December 11, 2006

Exegesis of 1 Cor 7

Paul's 1 Corinthians 7 was his answers regarding marriage, divorce and remarriage to questions posed by mostly gentile Christians in that Greco-Roman city. It is important to keep in mind that it was written possibly before the appearance of the first Gospel (probably Mark). See yesterday's post. Paul therefore had on hand a proto-Gospel or at least an extensive knowledge of Jesus' teachings.

Two web postings stand out in terms of their analysis of 1 Corinthians 7, they are David Robinson's and David Instone-Brewer's (link 1 and link 2) exegesis. Robinson's approach is one purely taken in how a modern Christian would read that chapter and Instone-Brewer's is one that considers the original Greek, historical documents, and the predominate Greco-Roman culture of the time.

Briefly the chapter can be broken up into the following:

Verses 1-9 are general instructions on how Christians should view marriage. Note verse 4 with its strong allegory to slavery (NASB).

1 Co 7:4: The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.

This is important to keep in mind.

Verses 10-11 are instructions to Christians whose marriage appears to be in trouble.

1 Co 7:10: But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband 11: (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.

There is a clear instruction for the Christian wife not to remarry and the husband should not divorce. (see how this dovetails into Luke 16:18, the Gospel for the Christians, 12/12/06)

Verses 12-16 are aimed at mixed marriages, i.e. Christian-unbeliever.

12: But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her.

13: And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away.

14: For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.

15: Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace.

16: For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?

Verses 12-16 are in Paul's word (Holy Spirit) rather than Jesus'.

Verses 17-24 are to remind Corinthians to that they are maintain their place in society when they are called to God. Verses 25-38 are to virgins and 39-40 are for widows.

More to come tomorrow.