Christianity Today new views on divorce

[Petals]

Just found this story on Yahoo...  it concerns new interpretations of Jesus' views on divorce explored by Christianity Today.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20071106/us_time/anevangelicalrethinkondivorce

I had no idea that both Paula White and Juanita Bynum were planning on divorcing their husbands.  What's goin' on with Christian leaders?   

[Bocephus]

I see that Paula's husband Randy is going to stay on as Pastor of the church.  Sad.

[mikesayen]

The web site is down.. but check this out.. this is what is not known...

The proper word used in Rom 7:2 could be translated “bound of law” instead of “bound by law.”  For the “by” is not in the original Greek.  Paul was not referring to a Law in Moses but the ‘Law of God’ from Geneses chapter 2, 3. 

Paul does not focus in Rom 7:1-2 or 1 Cor 7:39 on the covenant as to why she is ‘bound’ to her husband, or the marriage itself, but puts the focus on the “law” of her husband. 

“Law of the husband”
Paul also said in 1 Cor 7:39 (approximately one year before the book of Romans) when a woman marries a man she becomes “bound of law, 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.”  Paul was not teaching against polygamy as in Rom 7:1-6 but still Paul said a woman was “bound of law”.  Paul in explaining this further said in Rom 7:3b (which can be used in both circumstances) “but if dies the husband, free she is from the ‘law’, not being her an adulteress if she becomes wife to another man”.  Paul is not focusing on her being bound to the ‘husband’ but her being bound to the ‘law’ of him. 

Rom 7:2b “But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband...”

Paul says the reason the woman is bound to the “law of the husband” (Rom 7:2b) was stated earlier by him saying because she is “under-man” (in Greek Rom 7:2a).
   
“Law of-the”
Paul also used the words “law of-the” or “law of” to point something other than the Law of Moses as we might say the “law of Nature”, the “law of Gravity”, or the “law of Physics”.  This “law” is to be something of known unmovable parameters that binds us under a rule.  By Paul stating in Rom 7:1, the principle of law, Paul states anytime something falls “under” something else (in its entirety) if falls under a principle ‘law’ to it.

Paul used “law of the” to state a known fact or order according to God’s laws i.e. “another law”,  “law of the sin”,  “I find a law that is evil is present with me”,  “law of the mind”,  “law of the Spirit”,  “law of the sin and of the death”.   And so was used the “law of the husband” in Rom 7:2b. 

Though the “law of the husband” may not be a direct reference to the Law in Gen 3:16, but we can understand this is where it originates from by Paul stating the woman “under-man” Rom 7:2a as why she is bound “to” her “living husband”. 

Paul also uses the word “law” without speaking about the Law of Moses earlier when he said the Jews are not saved by the law of works but through the “law (of) faith”.   And Paul referenced the “Law of God” and the “Law of Christ” in 1 Cor 9:21 though he was not speaking about the “Law of Moses” either. 

Paul said “Law” in 1 Cor 14:34 where he was not referring to the ‘Law of Moses’ but a writing of Geneses from the Old Testament.  Paul also referenced “Law” when he was speaking about any writing in the Old Testament.  1 Cor 14:21 says “In the Law it has been written” (not from the 5 books of the Law of Moses but a scripture in the book of Isaiah ).  The entire Old Testament could also be referred as; “Scriptures”,  “the Law and the Prophets”, “the Ancestral Law” Acts 22:3, or “the Law of the Lord.”   

Paul used the marriage of a woman to a man, established by God through Adam and Eve, to compare to them how they are released from the Law of Moses.  Being that the Law from Adam and Eve they all knew, loved, and most importantly understood. 

The “law of the husband” was a play-on-words, which Paul used to show when you become “under” a “law” of something (as of The Law of Moses) the law “lords-over” you Rom 7:1, in which you “were held by,”  until a “death” frees you from ‘what’ you are bound to.

The woman commits adultery against the “law” of the husband if she were to marry another man while still married to her first husband Rom 7:3 or anytime (in general) she marries another man while a former husband of her is “still living” 1 Cor 7:39.  Rom 7:3b can be used in both circumstance, married or unmarried, through the “law”.

“Under-man, woman”
Rom 7:2 this sentence says in Greek, “The for (for the) under-man woman to the living man, having been (has been) bound (of) law.”

This sentence could better be translated: “For the woman who is under man (or under-husband) has been bound of law to the living husband.”

Paul says “under-man” woman “to” the “living man” in the same sentence in Rom 7:2 thus we can see Paul was making another point, something more than just ‘husband’ or ‘married’ as most biblical translations translated. 

Although a man is never under the “law” of his wife (put under her) he is said to also be “bound” 1 Cor 7:27 to her, as well.  Though they are both said to be “bound” to each other by scripture, only woman is said to be bound of “law”.


Paul gives three reasons a woman is “under-man”.  First this was the ‘design’ of God for she was made “for” man and “from man 1 Cor 11:8-9 putting man in general as the “head” of all women 1 Cor 11:3.  Secondly, Adam was made ‘first’ 1 Tim 2:13 then Eve showing an ‘order’ of creation.  And thirdly because of the ‘fall’ she was to be “submissive” to her husband 1 Cor 14:34 in ‘all’ things Eph 5:25.

The principle of under-man is also shown in the Greek word “(under-) submission (appointed, set)” Eph 5:23-25 and Col 3:18 using the premise of the “head”.   

“Under man” is taking from the understanding of underneath man.  This was to express her general or specific position to the man in obedience unto (to establish the “lords over” rule in Rom 7:1b).  This was taken from Paul’s concept when he said sin “lords over” a man while “under law”.   As “under law” and “under grace” is being used in Rom 6:15, so was “under-man” being used to fall in line with these two types of concepts.

The “under” word in Greek is also used in the first part of the word “under-officers”  or “ministers”  to show submission to another.  The ‘under’ was to establish order, position, or rank in these usages.  Under was nothing more than to say under something else. 

Widow
Rom 7:2b and 1 Cor 7:39 says she is still bound of law to him “as long as he lives”.  “As long as lives” was a very strong statement and a blanket statement to be an all inclusive - no matter what as long as the person lives (with no exceptions).  As said when Hannah “lent” her son Samuel to the Lord “as long as he lives” .  Both of these scriptures when talking about freedom of a husband to marry another do not say she is bound as long as married to him, or if she was put away.  Some may argue that 1 Cor 7:39 Paul is stating not how long she is bound to the law of her husband (until he ‘sleeps’) but in the context of Rom 7:2b this is not talking about her freedom as a widow to marry another but how long until she can marry another without it being “adultery”.

Further it was said, “Do not let a widow under sixty years old be taken into the number, and not unless she has been the wife of one man” 1 Tim 5:9.  The “has been” in Greek shows that she has only been married to one man in her life ever (unlike Duet 24:3); unless she was a true widow before she married another man again Deut 25:5-10 (Matt 22:28).  1 Tim 5:9-10 were standards for a ‘widow’ to receive funds living a godly and pure life.  Again Paul only said the women “widow” is allowed to remarry (if formerly married) 1 Cor 7:8-9, 10-11a, 39-40, and 1 Tim 5:14.  The bible never called a man a “widow” when speaking of remarriage rites.

[BAH-BLAH]

This is great.

the TIME article says EXPLICITLY that the idea that the church is sending abused women home to stay in abuse is a decades AGO problem thats virtually nonexistent now. yet to read the evangelical feminists its happening everyday. believe this, if TIME found ANY evidence they would not miss the chance to blast the church

But worse, digging around a little i found a blog article by  Rev. Dr. Marie M. Fortune
She, in the first paragraph, being a good evangelical feminist, says "its good news to women" meaning lots of women are still being held in abuse by the church.....but then she turns right around in the second paragraph and quotes the Baptist Convention saying the exact opposite. This woman will go forth and still make the case that this problem is widespread, even after she herself contradicts herself. have they NO shame? have they no sense of reality?

Evangelicals Rethink Divorce?
December 3, 2007 - 11:14am | Filed under: Domestic Violence | News
 
A recent article in TIME Magazine highlighted an article in Christianity Today describing a shift among some evangelicals to more openness about divorce. This would be welcome news to many evangelical Christian battered women who often feel that they are forced to choose between their church and their safety when it comes to divorce.

In the article, British biblical scholar David Instone-Brewer argues that in both Hebrew and Christian scriptures, divorce is allowed for adultery, emotional and sexual neglect, abandonment, and abuse. Dean Russel Moore of the Southern Baptist Southern Seminary even says that any woman in an abusive marriage should “leave that situation” and that a majority of pastors will probably accept remarriage.

[dallasapple]

I would say if divorce is SOO horrible..People who have ever been divorced shouldnt run around talking about how "happilly married" they are to their second spouse..They definately shouldnt be giving advice.

right?

Especially when you take TWO people who are on their second marriage.

ESPECIALLY if they are whining and complaining about wanting to be "happy".

Seems like they would have learned the "first time"..That marriage is NOT about happiness.Its about God.

God and the marital union.NOT about the people in it being "happy".


And THEN on top of THAT encourage YOUNG people to get married ..!!!WHY WAIT!

Its SICK!

Love

Dallas

[Thankfulldad]

Seems like they would have learned the "first time"..That marriage is NOT about happiness.Its about God.

God and the marital union.NOT about the people in it being "happy".

Hi Dallas...

And guess what; I have to believe that when God is "dead center" in the marital union...wether it is a first, second, third, forth or one-hundreth marriage.  It will be happy

[chosenone]

Seems like they would have learned the "first time"..That marriage is NOT about happiness.Its about God.

God and the marital union.NOT about the people in it being "happy".

Hi Dallas...

And guess what; I have to believe that when God is "dead center" in the marital union...wether it is a first, second, third, forth or one-hundreth marriage.  It will be happy

 

 amen I am in a second marriage that is VERY godly blessed and happy. God is at the centre.No one wants to get divorced but sadly for some of us our spouses  couldnt be faithful, or committed other serious sexual sins. However God gives us wonderful new beginnings and second chances ........................ ....thats what I LOVE about Him.