Quick answer- Because the divorce/remarriage controversy has been around a long time, has always been legal if not necessarily socially honorable, & Christ’s words are not as unambiguous as they seem at face value.
However, gay marriage is a boundary shift unprecedented in Western civilization.
That’s not a “Who’s right/Who’s wrong” answer. It’s just an explanation as to why there’s the discrepancy.
Since this is a seperate point, I didn’t want to lump this in with the above…
Two interesting scholarly examinations of what Jesus actually was talking about, in the context of the Greek words used & Jewish divorce law of the time.
You keep saying this like it totally invalidates Sampiro’s point. Go back, re-read Sampiro’s OP, and mentally add all the qualifiers you want about how divorce is OK if your spouse is an adulterer.
Done? Good. Now, answer the question, revised with all the “except for” and other disclaimers that you want. Here, I’ll make it easy for you and just ask the money question: If a person (a) divorces her spouse without any adultery on either side, (b) wants to marry someone else and (c) opposes gay marriage because it goes against traditional marriage – is that person a hypocrite?
I would say absolutely. The fact that there are a few exceptions to divorce doesn’t speak at all to the cases where those exceptions are not in play.
So- and I’m not being personal and really not trying to be snarky but asking a legitimate question- if
is ambiguous, in spite of seeming as straightforward as any direction can be*, then how can the Biblical references to homosexual sex be interpreted as clear condemnation? Especially since
1- the notion of same sex marriage was never addressed at all (though polygyny, the levirate [marrying a dead brother’s wife and raising the children as his heirs], concubinage [consentual and non-], and what relatives can be married [you can marry a niece but not an aunt] are addressed)
2- the notion of gays simply didn’t exist (you may have sex with partners of your own gender but chances are you’d still marry and procreate)
3- arsenokoites seems to have been a term Paul himself coined and thus only he could define
4- the habits of same sex rituals and prostitution and orgies as rites practiced by other religions were also being addressed
*And what is not ambiguous? When Jesus said “Lazareth come forth”, did Lazarus reply “as in come to you, or fall in behind three others… you know, fourth? Cause it’s hard to tell…”
The Jesus Seminar is not especially beloved by fundamentalists, but I’ll transcribe their view for reference purposes.
The Five Gospels, p. 88:
Jesus is reported to have spoken against divorce in at least three independent sources: Mark, Q (Luke 16:18, Matt 5:32) and Paul (1 Cor 7:10-11). Attestation is substantial; however, the report of what Jesus says varies. They then go on to compare the various versions.
From dictionary.com, attestation:
You showed that Jesus allowed exceptions for divorce in cases of adultery. He did not allow exceptions for getting remarried though. That is the point. Plus, your continued harping on this minor semantic quibble, to avoid discussing the real issue and point of the OP, is quite transparent.
The full passage is Matthew 19 (KJV)-
3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
Jesus allows divorce & remarriage for reason of adultery.
Paul in I Corinthians 7 expands that for reason of abandonment:
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. 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.* 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. 15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
(Italics mine for emphasis)
Paul says that Christians are not bound to spouses who abandons them and who are not pleased to dwell with them. “Not bound” implies a freedom to remarry.
Now, if a spouse is so abusive that the innocent party and the children are not safe, that is also abandonment, as is failure to provide for the family.
So, if a Christian is a victim of adultery, abuse or abandonment, divorce & remarriage are allowed by Jesus & Paul.
If a Christian is wrongly divorced, then reconciliation must be a priority. However, reconciliation is not always possible- perhaps because the other partner has gotten remarried or just has no desire to reconcile. And if the Christian has also remarried & had children, then you can’t just tear apart Family II to restore Family I.
I’m not saying that this is a good or desirable thing. Churches & married believers should make marital unity a major priority, BUT sometimes shit happens, eggs are scrambled and can’t be unscrambled. A minister who has divorced & remarried should be able to explain what happened. There are some prominent ministers who, from what I know, have impaired credibility because of their marital history.
John Hagee & Richard Roberts are among those. On the other hand, there is Robert Schuller the son, who AFAIK was simply abandoned by his wife who also left the kids with him.
Check the articles I linked above. They also consider Christ’s words in light of actual OT Biblical Law, Judaic rabbinical interpretation, AND the actual Greek words used. Christ actually may have been condemning the practice of putting away a wife w/o giving her a divorce certificate. There is a difference in the Greek between “putting away” and “divorce”.
While I know a lot of people here are convinced I just hate gays, I have studied as much as I could to see if there is some similar ambiguity in Leviticus, Romans & I Corinthians, and also some solid precedent in Israelite & Church history to OK gay relationships. One of my best friends is gay & I would love to say to her “Hey! It was all a tragic misunderstanding! The Bible is OK with it!” But so far, I can’t. I have read the main Biblical interpretations offered by the Gay Christian movement, and I just don’t find them convincing.
Btw, if anyone ever catches me using the Sodom/ite Biblical passages, unless I’m condemning gay gang rape or prostitution, then just whack me upside the head. That is a line of argument Christian Righties should abandon.
One quick observation, not intended to absolve anyone of hypocrisy, is that, according to Jesus’s recorded words. what He condemned was not ‘divorce’ in the broad-brush abstract usage but ‘putting away one’s wife’-- the unilateral easy divorce under Jewish Law available only to males and commonly abused in Jesus’s time as a socially acceptable way of ridding oneself of an aging no-longer-attractive wife in order to be able to marry a younger woman. How Jesus might have ruled on an abusive spouse, an abandoned spouse, etc., is possibly debatable – his broad policy was compassionate non-judgmental forgiveness, though he seems in the instant passage to be focused on the importance of marriage vows.
None of this excuses the Pharisaical “well, I can fit through this loophole, but you are held to the strict letter of the Law” attitude of much of the Religious Right. But I think it’s important to note that He was not laying down a broad legalistic stricture, but acting to combat a specific social injustice abetted by application of the Mosiac Law.
Cite? That’s a ridiculous statement. Remarriage is not addressed at all in this passage, he is talking about divorce and nothing else. And just before your quote, Paul is talking about how it is better to not get married at all. So for you to say that he is advocating getting married again after a divorce is ludicrous.
Cite? You just like to make this stuff up as you go, don’t you?
Also, another interesting point is raised by your quoting of this passage. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and agree that Jesus said it’s OK to remarry after divorce for adultery. Jesus said nothing about abandonment. Then Paul, who was obviously unaware of most of the fine points of Jesus’s teachings, says that divorce is OK for abandonment (but curiously doesn’t mention adultery.) So Jesus and Paul are in conflict here, as Paul seems to be granting permission for divorces that Jesus specifically banned. Normally, this can be hand-waived away by saying that Paul was inspired by God/Jesus/HS, so there is no contradiction. However, in this case, Paul *specifically says that he is writing his own personal opinion, * and did not get this command from God. This incredible fact not only reveals Paul as a liar in his letter to Timothy, it puts a rather interesting twist on the contradiction in Jesus and Paul’s teachings. Should we accept the personal, uninspired opinions that Paul came up with on his own to be more binding than a direct command given by Jesus? That’s what you are doing here. It would seem to me that it should be axiomatic in christianity to give precedence to Jesus when his commands conflict with others in the NT, but that curiously never seems to happen. Christians usually want to get Jesus on the cross as quickly as possible, so he doesn’t have a chance to open his mouth. But to go against the clear, unambiguous teachings of Jesus by listening to Paul, when Paul clearly states that he is talking out of his ass and not for God, is goofy. Just goes to show that you will believe whatever you want to believe.
If the spouse is not free to remarry, the spouse is to some degree still bound. Paul says the spouse is not bound. Therefore the spouse is free to remarry.
Jesus did not speak in a vacuum. He spoke in the context of addressing Torah Law which allowed divorce/remarriage to some extent and the rabbinical interpretation thereof. Btw, orthodox Christians hold that Jesus is just as much the Author of Torah Law & He is of the Sermon on the Mount. I’m awaiting the day when we finally have a fully red-letter Bible that includes the Old Testament.
The links I provided discuss His words & the context of Jewish Law.
Please read them if you want to continue this discussion with me.
Polycarp made a very good summary of the points in the above articles.
Also, orthodox Christians believes that Paul & the other Apostles were appointed by Jesus to continue the application & interpretation of His message to humanity. His teachings are just as authoritative to us as Jesus’s red-letter words.
Revenant Threshold asks:
Sorry. I overlooked this in the discussion. Long-story short- No. Paul is making a case for Christian singleness. Much Jewish thought emphasized marriage & family to such an extent that Paul felt the need to say that singleness & celibacy were also valid options.
Also, Paul is encouraging married couples to be considerate of each other. One spouse does not have the right to force another into sex, BUT also one spouse does not have the right to deny the other sexual satisfaction. The mate who is constantly pressuring the other & the mate who is constantly denying the other are both wrong & they need to work it out with compassion towards each other.
Well I read this and :rolleyes: . I’m disappointed, usually a fundie can tell me why Jesus meant the opposite of what he actually said in less than 3500 words.
BTW, his entire premise is based upon an imagined difference between “divorce” and “put away,” a premise which is completely destroyed by even the most cursory reading of Mark 10. Oddly enough, he quotes liberally from Matthew and Luke but avoids quoting from Mark 10. Wonder why that might be.
To quote the parts in question;
Now, I can certainly understand saying that singleness and celibacy were simply being singled out for praise as not the only option from some of the other parts of this section (from about 17 onwards). But the cites I quote here make it seem very much to me that Paul isn’t just saying “Hey, you’re praising married life, but being single is a good thing, too!”. He’s specifically saying that marriage is not a good thing, but since most of us are quite affected by our lusts, to be married is better than the alternative. That, as I understand it, if we are not beset by those lusts, it is better than we don’t marry.
Again, to quote the text;
It seems to me that your use of “constantly pressuring” is not considered the only valid way to be wrong; the single reason why the partner may be denied sexual satisfaction is for a time only and so that that time may be devoted to God. Denying it for reasons other than that does not appear to be part of the concession by Paul.
The problem I have with this is in why Paul specifically says it there must be no deprivation apart from when there is mutual consent. Were he accepting of deprivation when just one partner consents, why would he bring that particular point up? I do find i’m concerned that this could be used to support marital rape, and indeed i’m not certain how it can be read otherwise.
Verse 11 clearly states a woman who departs should be reconciled or remain unmarried. Verse 12 has nothing to do with your point, since it is considering the case, I suspect, of one half of a married couple converting to Christianity. (Or getting married, I assume.) It is liberal in the sense that it doesn’t try to force conversion or divorce. But it also says that if a nonbelieving wife departs, it is as if they never got married. For her, clearly the church had no influence. For him, I suspect the reason was to get more married Christian couples.
I doubt this exception has much relevance today, though I suppose it says remarriage is fine if you got stuck with a Jew or an atheist.
Everyone knows that homosexual marriage is a threat to hetero marriage, because of…well something . They also know that divorce is not a threat because of… well something else.
It makes no sense.Sorry .does not compute.
For whatever it’s worth, I’ve never gotten that feeling, or that you hate anyone else. You don’t come across as judgmental, just devout. (And of course as wrong;))
Thanks. And of course!
I wrote a response last night & a power surge knocked the system off before I could post!
I Corinthians 7- RSV:
Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: ‘It is well for a man not to touch a woman.’ 2But because of cases of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5Do not deprive one another except perhaps by agreement for a set time, to devote yourselves to prayer, and then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6This I say by way of concession, not of command. 7I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has a particular gift from God, one having one kind and another a different kind.
Whether one believes in the Divine inspiration of the Bible or not, each part is not meant to be taken as isolated from a larger context. Moses sets down Torah. Judges and Prophets and Scribes interpret & apply it to new situations. They add their own writings, building on Torah with The Prophets and The Writings. Then Jesus comes to launch a New Covenant, which does not abolish, but completes Torah & Prophets & Writings. And then Paul and the other Apostles take on the task of interpreting & applying JC’s teachings to more new situations. It’s a 1600 year long conversation.
Torah in the beginning sets forth marital sex & family as a Divine gift, created as “good”. Human history shows how badly we’ve messed it up. But it is still “good”. However, as Paul notes, not everyone is called to that, and that is also “good” and can be God’s Will just as much as marriage & family are- especially in perilous times. Even in Old Testament days, during some times of worship, military service, and especially when entering the Divine Presence, people were called to temporarily abstain.
Re abuse of spousal rights & marital rape:
3The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
Paul says spousal rights are mutual. Thus, there can be no right to marital rape. Incidentally, Jewish rabbinic law allows the wife to demand sex from her husband but NOT vice versa. This is brought up in the movie YENTL.
And yes, I will admit that selfish & evil men in “Christian” societies have abused the concept of marital rights to justify raping their wives. There is no principle so true or holy that selfish & evil people can’t twist it to their own advantage.
However, as there is no right to spousal rape, there is also no right to constantly deny a spouse. That actually may yet be another Biblical ground for divorce.
Just further proof of the science-based hatred of religion - even the electricity’s against you! 
I see what you’re getting at, and I wouldn’t be suprised to learn that elsewhere in the Bible or in other writings there’s information which goes along with this to create a complete whole, to the extent that there can be completeness. I’m sure you have greater knowledge of these things than I do. So if I could aks, taking that into account, what does Paul mean here by “sexual immorality”? And when he says that he concedes, rather than commands, what is that being conceded and surely that he is conceded it implies that it is a necessary evil?
Actually, by my reading, Paul says that spousal rights are mutual in terms of being able to say yes to sex - that is, that each partner has the right to sex from the other person - but he does not appear to say that each partner has the right to turn down sex. The rights should be gifted to the other person; that includes the right to say no.
I’m still not seeing though where you’re getting “constantly” from this, unless you’re taking it from elsewhere. Paul makes no provisions for occasional, rare denials. He sets out the specific occasion when denial is acceptable.
Moreover, it is pretty clear that he considers marriage to be a literal giving up of the rights of oneself over to the partner; that each partner has authority over the other’s body, and moreover that that partner no longer does. A person’s selection as to whether to have sex or not is, it would seem, entirely within the hands of the other partner, according to Paul; since denying of a partner is wrong unless under the situation he sets out, and since each partner does not have the authority to say no and indeed is motivated to say yes, then it would seem very much as though there is a right to spousal rape - or rather that it is a situation in which no wrong has been done. A partner turning it down would be taking back authority over their body, a wrong, and would be not fulfilling conjugal rights unless it’s for a time of prayer, also a wrong.
Taking the most liberal Christian view, “sexual immorality” would be sex outside of a committed & permitted relationship. Thus, committed sexual relationships with children, relatives & people married to other people would still be immoral as would casual non-committed sex with a non-related adult.
Taking a conservative Jewish & Christian view, it’s just plain “sex outside of marriage”.
I think you’re over-thinking here. Just because Paul doesn’t give any other legitimate reasons a spouse could legitimately withhold sex does not mean there aren’t any. The Bible does not operate on a “If it’s not commanded, it’s forbidden” or “If it’s not forbidden, it’s commanded” basis.
Thanks.
This likewise seems a good reason for you yourself not to assume that there are such reasons, and certainly suggesting only “constant” denial is a bad thing doesn’t seem supported.
The problem with Paul’s language and with the fluidity of it here is that it also suggests fluidity in other areas. He uses “except perhaps” (though I note the perhaps is not present in the version I was using), suggesting that his example is only one example of many valid points. But just as this fluidity can be applied to the reasons behind, it can also be applied to the method, and that this deprivation is something agreed on by both parties is also affected by this problem. IOW, accepting that Paul may have other valid examples in mind means also accepting he may not have considered mutual agreement to always be valid, either.
Moreover, given that Paul’s reasoning for why not depriving a partner is important is so that Satan may have less of a chance to tempt you, and his given acceptable reason is for prayer, I rather suspect that his understanding of acceptable reasons for deprivation would be quite conservative, both in number and in reason.