tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15405788.post4093340405910685399..comments2024-01-04T07:33:10.137-05:00Comments on Seldom Wrong, Never in Doubt: Where You'd Least Expect to Find It: Instone-Brewer on Divorce in NTJon A. Alfred E. Michael J. Wile E. SWNIDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04595651777890086293noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15405788.post-53804717796839668872007-04-09T16:05:00.000-04:002007-04-09T16:05:00.000-04:00I agree that Paul amplifies Jesus' teaching in 1 C...I agree that Paul amplifies Jesus' teaching in 1 Cor. 7, but I'm not convinced he actually extends it to allow Christians to divorce in cases of neglect. <BR/><BR/>Here's how I read his instructions: (1) a Christian should not divorce his/her Christian spouse (vv. 10 and 11b), (2) if (contrary to this teaching) a Christian wife has already divorced her husband, she should either remain unmarried or be reconciled to him (v. 11a), (3) for the sake of their children and the unbeliever, a Christian should not divorce his/her non-Christian spouse (vv. 12-14), (4) a Christian is free to remarry if his/her non-Christian spouse divorces her/him (v. 15), and (5) a Christian wife is free to remarry a Christian if her spouse dies (v. 39). <BR/><BR/>Nowhere in this passage does Paul introduce the notion of neglect as an additional justification for divorce. Nor does he even explicitly acknowledge that a Christian may justifiably divorce his/her spouse in cases of fornication. We have to infer that exception to the rule from his appeal to Christ's teaching on the subject (v. 10). <BR/><BR/>I'm not entirely confident that this interpretation is correct in all its particulars. (For instance, should the Greek terms for "separate" and "divorce" be understood as synonyms, as I've interpreted them, or do they more closely reflect our legal distinction between separation and divorce?) But I am fairly confident that Paul is not here introducing a new concept--the concept of neglect--as an additional justification for divorce. Likewise, I am confident that this interpretation is consistent with the distinction between "any-cause" (i.e., no-fault) and "serious-cause" divorce. The serious cause, for both Jesus (explicitly) and Paul (implicitly), would be fornication. <BR/><BR/>Having said that, I don't deny that (extreme) neglect may well be a legitimate cause for divorce, according to both Jesus and Paul. But if so, that's because it follows from the meaning of "fornication" in Matt. 5:32 and 19:9. I think there is good reason to believe that Jesus was using the term on those occasions in the metaphorical sense in which the OT writers used it to refer to Israel "forsaking" God (e.g., 2 Chron. 21:10b-11). In that case, his (and, implicitly, Paul's) teaching would allow a Christian to divorce a spouse who was guilty of (extreme) neglect, i.e., of forsaking him/her.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15405788.post-24740757365838661262007-04-07T21:47:00.000-04:002007-04-07T21:47:00.000-04:00In the context, sexual immorality is typical of th...In the context, sexual immorality is typical of the serious "cause" versus the trivial one of "any-cause" divorce. N.B. that Paul extends Jesus' teaching (explicity referring to what he has "from the Lord," that is to say Jesus' teaching, and what he doesn't) in 1 Cor 7.Jon A. Alfred E. Michael J. Wile E. SWNIDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04595651777890086293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15405788.post-22672298261648229292007-04-07T12:54:00.000-04:002007-04-07T12:54:00.000-04:00If neglect is justification for divorce, why is un...If neglect is justification for divorce, why is unchastity (lit., fornication) the only exception Jesus mentions in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com