1 Cor. 7:10-11

[Lux]

It's been a while since I last posted. I've been quite busy. But I've not forgotten about this forum. I've been reading you guys' posts from time to time. There were many conversations I found interesting, but just couldn't find the time to participate. It turned out, my newly found world-view is not a phase (so far) as many of my disbeliever friends teased me. I'll try to join discussions here and there as I can; could still be sporadic though.

Now going into the topic ...

1 Cor. 7
10 To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband 11 (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband)—and that the husband should not divorce his wife.

Does this mean divorce and remarriage are sins? How is it wrong to leave, for instance, an abusive spouse (physically or emotionally) and find someone who'd truly appreciate you? Or even due to simply growing apart ... When the marriage is not working out — even after considerable effort (counseling and all that) —, should we not have another chance?


I post this under Christianity, because the verses are from the New Testament. But if anyone has any "religious perspective" on the issue, I welcome it.

I said "religious perspective" since secular perspective in most modern cultures agrees with no-fault divorce law. I was a divorcee and have been remarried for a long happy ten years now. I still believe it was right to end the first marriage — if you ask my ex, she'd say the same. Both my ex and I were unhappy and quarreled all the time for the last three years of our marriage.

However I read 1 Cor. 7 just the other day ...
Was I not supposed to get a divorce since neither my ex nor I had an affair? Was I not supposed to remarry, either? ... Am I living a sinful life under the Christian perspective?

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Not a Christian, but: If sin is defined as 'missing the mark', promising to stay until death do us part and not not doing that, forever reason, is missing a mark. Choosing a lesser evil over a greater one might be acceptable for the Lord? The leased we could do is to try and learn from our sin and try to do better next time.

 

[Namaste Jesus]

1 Cor. 7
10 To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband 11 (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband)—and that the husband should not divorce his wife.

Please note, at no time in these 2 verses is sin mentioned. What is being described here is what should ideally happen. Note the word 'Should'. In other words, one should make every effort to make marriage work and when this fails, seperate, but one should then remain unmarried. If passions should make this too impossible, I refer you back to 1 Cor 7.9 9 but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

 

[Thomas]

I post this under Christianity, because the verses are from the New Testament. But if anyone has any "religious perspective" on the issue, I welcome it.

Well I think NJ's hit the nail on the head. St Paul is quite explicit here that he's giving his advice, he's not laying down the law. Paul thought the end of days was nigh, and it appears he was also at ease with the celibate state. This must have been an issue before his conversion, as it is assumed that a young man will take a wife, and I think it was almost conditional for a rabbi, but I'm probably wrong on that point.

The view of divorce is founded on Matthew 19/Mark 10 "What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder" (Matthew 19:6, Mark 10:9).

Interestingly, Paul says: "But to them that are married, not I but the Lord commandeth, that the wife depart not from her husband. And if she depart, that she remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband. And let not the husband put away his wife. For to the rest I speak, not the Lord."

I read this to mean this 'rule', which differs from the rule of Moses, was instituted by Christ (as referred to above) and St Paul is speaking of the Gospel he received from the Church, from Ananias or another, who instructed him in the teachings of Christ after his sojourn in the desert (possibly as long as 14 years) following his epiphany on the road to Damascus.

This letter was written around 53-57AD. And it means that by then, a proto Mark and perhaps a proto Matthew was in existence and being used by the Church in teaching.

 

[Lux]

NJ, Thomas, thanks for your replies. I need to go back and re-read Matthew and Mark too, and think it over ... then I may ask you guys more questions later.

I have a busy weekend and the following week ahead, so could take a week or two.

I do appreciate both of your input!