Question about 1 Cor. 7:11

[Transmogrified]

I had a question about 1 Cor. 7:11...It seems the scripture gives the woman who departs from her husband two options: To stay unmarried or to be reconciled to her husband. The problem with me is that this seems that God is OK with the woman leaving her husband so long as she does not re marry. It seems to be very unfair to the husband because all she has to do is to choose the first option and she has no obligation to be reconciled to her husband if she chooses to not do so. Remember it does not say she should remain unmarried AND be reconciled, it says she can remain unmarried OR be reconciled. Why would God give her permission to leave him and no longer be required to be submissive to him when she was the one at fault for leaving him...? In other words, the husband suffers because of what she has done to him, and he has no recourse as long as she chooses to not be reconciled to him. There seems to be something missing in this picture, either in translation, or understanding, but I don't where the problem is.

[Transmogrified]

Your response didnt address or even acknowledge what I said. I said that I get the feeling you are saying that "God shouldn't have permitted ANY allowance for a woman to leave her husband under any circumstances and this allowance represents an injustice on his (Gods) part". Clearly the verse is speaking about leaving one's partner because it says so explicitly in the verse.... (speculation about divorce is just that speculation, you keep returning to divorce because you seem to have decided that is what is being discussed although the word is never mentioned and there is a more logical and harmonious reading).

I understand the word 'depart' can be used in the context of just leaving someone or someplace as shown in these few scriptures:

Acts 18:11 "After these things Paul departed from Athens, and came to Corinth."

Acts 1:4 "...that they should not depart from Jerusalem but wait for the promise of the Father..."

But it is also used in the sense of 'divorce.'

Matt. 19:6 and Mark 10:9 uses the same Greek word as above but is translated as 'put asunder' in context 'What therefore God hath joined together let not man 'put asunder.'

In Strongs Concordance the word is 5561 and is defined the following way:

1) To separate, divide, part, put asunder, to separate one's self from, to depart

a) To leave a husband or wife

1) of divorce

b) to depart, go away

So I am not saying the word 'depart' is used exclusively to mean divorce, but it seems apparent it can and has been used in other scriptures in reference to divorce.

I said that I get the feeling you are saying that "God shouldn't have permitted ANY allowance for a woman to leave her husband under any circumstances and this allowance represents an injustice on his (Gods) part".

/quote]

Its not whether I think God should or shouldn't have permitted an allowance....he can do whatever he wants to do, so the bigger question is not could he do something, but rather did he do something.

It might be something like I could say God could have created the heavens and the earth in one second. Its not that he couldn't have done it that way, the problem is that he didn't do it that way.

Clearly the verse is speaking about leaving one's partner because it says so explicitly in the verse.... (speculation about divorce is just that speculation, you keep returning to divorce because you seem to have decided that is what is being discussed although the word is never mentioned and there is a more logical and harmonious reading).

This is not just my problem, its every believers issue to get the understanding of what is being said here. I don't think it is entirely clear that the meaning of 'depart' can only mean to physically leave someone, especially when the word can be used either way and also it seems unclear that to 'remain unmarried' could mean to not marry anyone else.

To 'remain unattached' is basically saying the same thing as to 'remain unmarried' only in different words. The problem is not really in the word 'unmarried' or 'unattached' but rather when he says to 'remain' in a certain condition. You can't 'remain' in some condition if you are not in that condition to start with.

I also acknowledge that the woman is bound to her husband by the law as long as he lives, so I am not saying she is not married any longer, I am saying just the opposite that if she files divorce papers without just cause it doesn't nullify the marriage except in the sight of the law.

[Elijah John]

Hello Moderator-

I am not sure what rule I am not complying with or how the discussion is being derailed. It seems to me we are discussing what we think the scripture might be saying or not saying.

What would be the appropriate category to continue in?

Thank you- Gary

Moderator Clarification

Otseng's comment was not directed at you, but to SallyF. So..but in the future, any comment, challenge, objection or question to a moderator action should be made via the PM system, and not on the thread itself. Carry on..

Rules
C&A Guidelines


______________

Moderator clarifications do not count as a strike against any posters. They serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received and/or are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels a clarification of the rules is required.

[FWI]

[Replying to post 1 by Transmogrified]

Why would God give her permission to leave him and no longer be required to be submissive to him when she was the one at fault for leaving him...?

God doesn't give the woman or man permission to leave a healthy marriage! As a matter of fact, God is very displeased with such an action. Where, the truth is that humans have free will, thus choice and it's the individual who makes these types of decisions. But, what happens when the marriage is not a healthy one? Paul gives a type of a principle in I Cor. 7:15: But, if the unbeliever departs, let him (he/she) depart; a brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases. However, it is the responsibility of the husband to do whatever he can to promote reconciliation. Unfortunately, this may not be possible, but the husband must try! Yet, there seems to be a concern in the usage of the term submission and how it may have been applied and can the husband look beyond such an understanding for the betterment of the marriage and the well-being of any children.

So, if a woman or man departs from the marriage home, stays unmarried and doesn't commit adultery there is still hope for a reconciliation, where in a divorce this probably wouldn't happen…As far as, what could be missing? It probably is not what isn't recorded. It may be that the couple has ceased to be as one unit. This, as well is not what God wants…

[JehovahsWitness]

To 'remain unattached' is basically saying the same thing as to 'remain unmarried' only in different words. The problem is not really in the word 'unmarried' or 'unattached' but rather when he says to 'remain' in a certain condition. You can't 'remain' in some condition if you are not in that condition to start with.

She is in that condition and it seems that the leaving is what got her into it. Since the only alternative to that condition is to return to her husband, she is evidently in the condition all the while being married. Lets not put a word to it and just accept the text as written.

{the status of a woman who has left the marritial home} is she must remain in {the status of a woman who has left the marritial home} or return to her husband. The woman in {the status of a woman who has left the marritial home} will remain married in the sight of God no matter what she does.

There! it's not the most elegant of texts but we haven't changed anything and we haven't imposed anything, including any sanctions or that she seek a civil divorce*, which would be going beyond scripture.

* she may well not seek a divorce but choose to live indefinitely as {the status of a woman who has left the marritial home}

You seem to be saying she must divorce before she becomes a woman that has left her husband, but that is not implicit in the text nor indeed is it logical. Paul opened by saying to married people don't leave your partners, if they do they have obviously changed the relationship in some essential way even though not divorce. They have entered into a different living arrangement, find any word for it you wish, but it is illogical to say nothing has changed. Reconciliation becomes necessariy, therefore whatever the status that requires reconciliation for a couple still married in the sight of God that is our famous {the status of a woman who has left the marritial home}.

A civil divorce is totally irrelevant as it has no bearing nor does it change the standing of the individual concerned. So to say that it is the (unscriptural) divorce that puts her into ]{the status of a woman who has left the marritial home} and that its the divorce that necessitates "reconciliation" , is incorrect. Civil procedures are not even a blip on the radar, they mean nothing when it comes to ones standing before God.



JW

[Transmogrified]

Hello again-

Either way one looks at this, whether just physically leaving or if it is a divorce, the ramifications are just beyond explanation at this point in my understanding.

I wouldn't want to say that filing an unjust divorce whether from the woman or the man doesn't even appear on God's radar.

Jesus did acknowledge the man who put away his wife without cause by saying :

Whoever puts away his wife saving for fornication causes her to commit fornication and whoever marries her that is put away commits adultery.

The unjust divorce is not only on God's radar here, it is the primary action that caused the enormous cascade of devastation that followed.

For example, say the man puts away his wife without cause...with one fell swoop of this man he has put her in world that can make it impossible for her to live above sin, and sin has consequences, and she was put in this scenario because of no other reason than the man filed an unjust divorce against her.

If she cannot contain she is in a world of hurt. She cannot re-marry without she commits adultery, and she cannot live above sin if she cannot contain.

There is no out for her unless the man marries someone else or he dies. It is as if the man has cast a spell of doom on her in which there is no escape.

Even if we take 1 Cor. 7:11 to mean physically leave, the ramifications end up very much the same if they cannot contain. And I don't want to make this appear like the ONLY reason a person gets married is to avoid fornication, but Paul specifically does say, it was God's provided way out. But now that way out is not an option if they are physically separated, whether it was a divorce or just leaving.

The devastation is worse with a faulty divorce than even with a legitimate one, in the sense that the one party is at least free to marry someone else, and they are not locked into a situation where there is no escape.

And I don't think it is just cured by saying, well God understands and is forgiving. If one party marries another without just cause, they put their selves into a condition where they are living in sin, and if they cannot contain with no recourse they are also living in sin.

So to even say something like separation is not ideal, but God allows it is almost impossible to conceive.

If God says you would be living in adultery if you re-married, he also is saying if you cannot contain you are living in sin. So I guess I am saying, why would God not allow someone to unjustly file a divorce against someone, and then allow someone to leave over some squabble that ends up with the same results?

Even if 'remain unmarried' just means to not marry someone else, it would seem if either one of them can not contain, then this would not be a valid option if it is putting one or the other into sin.

The difference in an unjust divorce is at least God says don't do it, but if we say leaving someone is permitted by God as a legitimate way out we are saying God is OK with it if you choose to live in sin.

And it does not work to just say, God will give you power to live above sin, when he specifically says 'to avoid fornication let every man have his own wife, and every woman to have her own husband.' It doesn't work if you are physically separated.

And he specifically said 'if THEY (both man and woman) cannot contain, then let them marry.

So it seems there is no way out provided to men and women if they live apart and cannot contain...and somehow I am to think God has given permission to either party to just leave as some kind of an acceptable 'out.'

Out of what? You may be 'out' of a relationship, but what you are now in is worse than before.

[marco]

It seems to be very unfair to the husband because all she has to do is to choose the first option and she has no obligation to be reconciled to her husband if she chooses to not do so. Remember it does not say she should remain unmarried AND be reconciled, it says she can remain unmarried OR be reconciled. Why would God give her permission to leave him and no longer be required to be submissive to him when she was the one at fault for leaving him...?

The commonest reason for a woman to leave her husband is abuse. She should be encouraged to leave and reconciliation should never be a requirement. Having left, she has adequate recourse in law to divorce him and then marry again, if she has the courage to try a second time.

Paul at times speaks misogynistically, imagining the woman must submit to the man and obey him, as is the case in Muslim marriages where indeed the husband has Allah's permission to beat a disobedient wife. In reading Scripture it is useful to ignore those parts that pertain to the mores of the 1st century and have no application in civilised households. Thus when Paul tells women to shut up in Church he can be ignored. In the same way your dilemma over this portion of Scripture is easily overcome by tearing the page out and forgetting it. It lacks common sense.

[JehovahsWitness]

Either way one looks at this, whether just physically leaving or if it is a divorce, the ramifications are just beyond explanation at this point in my understanding.

You explained it very well indeed, you're smart and one of the few people I have spoken to on this forum that has been able to take information and use it to come to some reasonable conclusions as to the ramifications of a stipulated action. That requires an ability to think in the abstract that is commendable.

You correctly saw that an unscriptural divorce doesn't end a marriage in the sight of God and that by Christian standards, (divorced or not) a woman (or a man ) that leaves their partner except on the grounds of fornication, must remain living outside of a sexual partnership or return to their marriage mate. Anything else is considered adultery.

My only point of contention is that you make a blanket condemnation of that which doesn't automatically carry a sanction.If there were indeed no circumstance under which a woman might justifiably flee her home, the bible would say any woman leaving her husband cannot inherit the kingdom. It does not say this.

If she cannot contain she is in a world of hurt. She cannot re-marry without she commits adultery, and she cannot live above sin if she cannot contain. There is no out for her unless the man marries someone else or he dies. It is as if the man has cast a spell of doom on her in which there is no escape.

Emphasis MINE

Yes, "a spell of doom" more commonly known as marriage!

(By... "she cannot contain" I take that to mean "cannot live without sex"). Yes, when one marries in the sight of God you "doom" yourself to living with that person until one of you dies ....thus the expression "Til death do us part". If (for whatever reason, including the man turns out to be abusive), a woman deems a sexless life is better than a life with the man she married that is her choice.

The difference in an unjust divorce is at least God says don't do it, but if we say leaving someone is permitted by God as a legitimate way out we are saying God is OK with it if you choose to live in sin.

There you've lost me. By "live in sin" do you mean have a sexual relationship with someone that is not your marriage mate? At no point and under no circjmstances is a Christian permitted to have sex with some other than their marriage partner, the bible calls that adultery and it his prohibited in scripture.

If by "live in sin" you mean live a chaste life apart from ones marriage partner I contest that while far from ideal, it might depending on the circumstances be justifiable. In any case, since there is no condemnation of it nor any direct sanction, calling living apart from ones husband "living in sin" is taking a liberty with the text I dont see a justifiable.


JW

[Transmogrified]

My only point of contention is that you make a blanket condemnation of that which doesn't automatically carry a sanction.If there were indeed no circumstance under which a woman might justifiably flee her home, the bible would say any woman leaving her husband cannot inherit the kingdom. It does not say this.

The issue is partially based on the fact that no reason is given in scripture that justifies leaving your spouse. In absence of something stated, it is left in ambiguity as to what might seem justifiable to someone.

One woman might say her husband spoke harshly to her, another woman might say he never listens to what I say, while one man may say his wife is contentious, and another man may say his wife is manipulative. In light that nothing is specified as to what would justify someone leaving, then it is basically up for grabs and anyone could leave for almost any reason.

Its easy to assume the man must be beating his wife but if he wasn't, then what would be the next justifiable offense we could point to? Maybe the wife didn't do the dishes so the husband just decides to leave and says, 'I'll reconcile with you when you decide to do what I say."

The problem with this scenario is that it appears the one who leaves is the one who is to be reconciled to the one who stayed. In other words, the one who left, be it husband or wife, was considered to be the offender who is to be reconciled to the one who stayed, rather than the one who stayed being reconciled to the one who left.
So the scriptural narrative does not seem to be some tactic where each party holds a trump card that can played at any time to sort of hold the other person hostage or force them into compliance, but rather seems to be addressing up front that who has left is the one who needs to be corrected.

That is at least partially why I don't think this scripture can be used to justify a woman fleeing for her life, because if that was the case the man would be the one coming to the woman asking for forgiveness, not the woman being reconciled to the husband.

It appears that the one who leaves for any reason other than fornication, is the one who is being dealt with, not the other way around.

This is not to say a man has the right to beat his wife, and just because this scripture does not seem to be addressing this specific situation does not make it right.

When it says, 'wives obey your husbands in everything,' it is acknowledged she has no obligation to obey if he tells her to rob a bank because they are short on money, or any of a host of other things that would be obviously wrong. It is speaking in this framework with the understanding that the man derives his authority from Christ, and if the man is not subjected to Christ, then he has forfeited his rightful authority over her.

So what happens if the man is a wife beater? It seems she should call the police and have them take him away, rather than her to leave him. Of course there are contingencies where she might be in imminent danger and have to flee for her life, in the same sense if someone is trying to sneak into your house and kill you, you might have to take things into your own hands because it might take too long for the police to get there.

But in any of these type of cases, the woman would not be getting back to the husband to make it right with him...it would be the other way around, where he would be getting with his wife and making it right with her.

Can the woman still inherit the kingdom if she flees for her life? Well, it seems she would be just as much justified as if a man was to defend himself against someone who was trying to kill him. If he can still inherit the kingdom, then I think she could as well, but I don't think 1 Cor. 7:11 is what justifies her or him, because it seems to be addressing a different situation.

Transmogrified wrote:
If she cannot contain she is in a world of hurt. She cannot re-marry without she commits adultery, and she cannot live above sin if she cannot contain. There is no out for her unless the man marries someone else or he dies. It is as if the man has cast a spell of doom on her in which there is no escape.
Emphasis MINE

Yes, "a spell of doom" more commonly known as marriage!

Possibly there is a misunderstanding here. I was saying if a man puts away his wife except for fornication he is like casting a spell of doom upon her. The spell of doom I was referring to is not marriage, but rather the condition the woman gets put in because he put her away unjustly.

By that I mean that the man who has put her away and does not marry someone causes her to commit adultery through no fault of her own. This was the 'spell of doom' I was talking about, not marriage. She has been unjustly put away from her husband, meaning she is not living with him, which also means she is in a place where she can not legitimately marry someone else, but yet if she can not contain she is also living in sin.

By not being able to contain I mean the desire for sex does not just leave because the man puts her away...the problem is that because of what the man has unjustly done to her, she has no legitimate 'out' for her normal sexual desires. So the spell of doom is not marriage, but rather that Jesus said the actions of the man who puts her away CAUSES her to commit adultery....Adultery is sex outside the legitimate marital bonds, and if she has been 'put away' then she is no longer with him and is forced to find sexual fulfillment elsewhere and so this was the spell of doom I was talking about.

(By... "she cannot contain" I take that to mean "cannot live without sex"). Yes, when one marries in the sight of God you "doom" yourself to living with that person until one of you dies ....thus the expression "Til death do us part". If (for whatever reason, including the man turns out to be abusive), a woman deems a sexless life is better than a life with the man she married that is her choice.

The problem here is a woman may or may not have the option to live a sexless life. Paul said IF they (both man and woman) can not contain, then let them marry, for it is better to marry than to burn.

What if the woman, or man, can not contain, and yet they are forbidden to get married because it would be adultery? Paul does not put this out there like you can just choose to live without sex or not. It says 'not all men can receive this..' and also Paul says it would be better to be single than to be married IF you can contain...but both sides of the coin says some people can and some people cannot. Its not that one is bad and the other is good, he said every man his proper gift of God, one of them after this manner and the one after the other.

So this is what I am struggling with. The situation is bad whether someone chooses to unjustly leave or to unjustly get a divorce. But the proposed 'remedy' seems worse than the problem in that it leaves both parties in the lurch sexually if they cannot contain. What that means is similar to jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire. In other words, if you re-marry you are committing adultery, and if you can't contain you are also living in sin.

And saying you can't contain doesn't always mean you go out and commit adultery with someone. Not being able to contain was the condition that was present BEFORE someone gets married, as Paul said, 'If you can't contain, its better to marry.' The remedy he gives for this condition was 'to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and every woman have her own husband.' But the bridge is out on this road if someone is put away unjustly and they have no option to marry anyone else, hence out of the frying pan into the fire.

[JehovahsWitness]

The problem with this scenario is that it appears the one who leaves is the one who is to be reconciled to the one who stayed. In other words, the one who left, be it husband or wife, was considered to be the offender who is to be reconciled to the one who stayed, rather than the one who stayed being reconciled to the one who left.

Regarding "the leaver" being initiator of reconciliation, its true, since she left it is for her to return. To go from the simple logic of the linguistics to the conclusion that whoever leaves must be at fault is a jump in logic which is not justified again because if it were God would have closed that "loophole" and said so.. You seem to habitually so focus on a particular word or word structure (something we have to be careful with since the text was originally Greek not English and sometimes there are subtle differences between the languages) at the cost of the whole.

We know there is no fixed sanction for a woman that leaves her husband, that's not open for debate its a fact. This implies there is no fixed culpability. It could be the woman's fault, it could be the man's fault. (in most cases It a bit of both) It might be justified it might be unjustified.

The balanced scriptural view must be that we know its not ideal, its not what God originally purposed for man and wife but we cannot in a blanket way identify who is responsible for this less than ideal situation and which of the two must modify their behaviour to find a workable solution. We cannot go beyond scripture and to call the leaver the "offender" when they may simply be exercising a right open to them in scripture. If the bible said, "She who leaves her husband must be put outside the congregation or reconcile" we'd have no issue, but it does not and it seems to me you are saying "Yes well it doesnt say that but we should treat/view her as if it did" Can you see why I have an issue with that?

I think it's reasonable to assume God must have his reasons, and since we Jehovah's Witnesses are one of the few religions that apply scripture to the letter in this regard, we are careful not to add letters that are not there. One has no right, even if on assumes God has been somewhat lax or has left "an out" when there should not be one. It is what it is.






JW

[JehovahsWitness]

The issue is partially based on the fact that no reason is given in scripture that justifies leaving your spouse. In absence of something stated, it is left in ambiguity as to what might seem justifiable to someone.

That is true, but I didn't write the bible, and I can't make something be in it that isn't there.

God dignified us with common sense and in the absence if that we have (or at least we JWs have) appointed elders (overseers) that can counsel couples and if necessary impose sanctions within their power, but even they cannot go beyond what is written.

Obviously leaving ones partner for frivolous reasons violates a number of bible principles which may carry consequence but they have no right to force people to live together or expulse someone from the congregation if they make that choice. If a person has treated their spouse unfairly but their actions cannot scripturally be the bases for expulsion they will be judged by the Great lawgiver Jehovah (YHWH) in the end. The congregation must continue to treat that person as their brother or their sister and leave the rest to God.