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.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by Transmogrified]

And what if the husband is violent or abusive, should she be obliged to stay with him?

The bible holds marriage sacred and doesn't encourage frivolous separation but Paul is being realistic in accepting there are some situations that merit temporary or permanent seperation and this option should be available to either partner.

[Transmogrified]

It seems to me this is the common 'out' here is that the husband must be doing something wrong, hence a 'separation' would be in order. And we also have the sort of hobby horse word 'separation' seemingly meaning she just decides to leave him physically.

But Paul starts out with a commandment from the Lord that she is NOT to depart from her husband. This would seem a strange way of saying 'you can leave him if he is abusive.'

Im not trying to be overly 'nit picky' over words, but we all use words to communicate and it would seem like if Paul was giving her an 'out' because the husband was abusive he could of easily said something like 'Don't divorce your husband, but if he is abusive then its ok."

Jesus said the ONLY cause for divorce was fornication, so Paul is not here saying, yes fornication is the only just cause for divorce, but also you could divorce if he is abusive.

If anyone was NOT being dealt with in this setting, it was the husband. The only thing said about him was that he was not to put away his wife. Would we then conclude from this that Paul was saying to him...'Don't put away your wife unless she is abusive?' I am trying to stay within the bounds of what is being said, and not infer things into the text that are not there.

For one thing, he is telling the woman she is not to divorce her husband. This is evident by the wording that if she does 'depart' she is to 'remain unmarried.' A person does not become 'unmarried' by simply moving out of the house. And I know there are roadblocks either way you look at this so I am going to try to work through what I think he is saying.

The only way so far I can see for her to be considered 'unmarried' is that she files divorce papers without just cause and then in the sight of the law she would be considered 'unmarried,' although in the sight of God she is still married because there was no fornication involved. In other words, God would not have prohibited her from divorcing her husband if in fact she had just cause, which Jesus said the only valid reason for divorce was for fornication.

So we have to deal with both elements of what Paul is saying here. First he is saying she is to 'remain unmarried,' but then he says she could be reconciled to 'her husband.' So how is that she can both be 'unmarried' while also having a husband she can be reconciled to?

The thing I am thinking is that Paul is first referring to her legal status in that she filed for divorce unjustly so she is unmarried in the sight of the law, however because the divorce was not just, she is also given the option to be reconciled to her true husband in the sight of God because if there was no fornication she was still married to him no matter how many papers she filed.

The thing that I am trying to reconcile is the two options given to the woman. First, he says the Lord has commanded her to not divorce him, but then if she does, she is to remain in the state she was just forbidden to enter into.

In other words, she unjustly files divorce papers without just cause, and then Paul seems to be saying she can just remain in this unjust state forever if she wants to.

It then gives her the 'option' to be reconciled to her husband. This does not seem to be cohesive with a host of other scriptures saying the woman is to be obedient to her husband in all things and should submit to him.

How is that her disobedience puts her in this sort of special class of women that can pick and choose if they want to make it right with their husband or not?

[JehovahsWitness]

Jesus said the ONLY cause for divorce was fornication, so Paul is not here saying, yes fornication is the only just cause for divorce, but also you could divorce if he is abusive.

Who said anything about divorce? Separation isn't divorce. The Lord was quite clear, the only grounds for divorce is adultery. A separated woman (... and let's not be sexist about this the case would be the same if it were a man leaving his wife) is still married in the sight of God. So that is clear, however Jesus said nothing about separation, and although obviously it is not ideal for married people to live apart, there is nothing in scripture that prohibits the possibility, indeed Paul under inspiration said that at least temporarily (hopefully subject to an improved relations) this was permissible.

1 CORINTHIANS 7:10, 11

To the married people I give instructions, not I but the Lord, that a wife should not separate from her husband. But if she does separate, let her remain unmarried or else be reconciled with her husband; and a husband should not leave his wife.

DON'T DO IT. BUT IF YOU CAN'T HELP DOING IT....DO IT

Regarding the way Paul worded his instruction , we find John used similar structure when speaking about sin

1JOHN 2

My little children, I am writing you these things so that you may not commit a sin. And yet, if anyone does commit a sin, we have a helper with the Father, Jesus Christ, a righteous one..

So is John saying, "Go ahead and sin at will?" ... Is he indicating sins are agreeable to God? Or is he not rather conceding that despite not being what God wants, and therefore what we should scrupulously try and avoid, if, having done all in our power to avoid sin, it happens, we have an option for relief If Johns point is not lost on the reader, then why should Pauls.

A wife's place is with her husband and visa versa, but if extreme circumstances which cannot be avoided make this impossible, then they have an option to seek relief. God is a reasonable God, and Pauls instructions reflect this. Unless we want to go beyond scripture, there is no basis for imposing cohabitation on someone, or even a couple that no longer wishes to live together, and that is the end of it.

You might say "There should be a scripture that says no wife under any circumstances can leave her husband, and visa versa" ...but there isn't one. What do you want done about that? Make one up, or accept the reality of what is in the bible canon?

JW

[JehovahsWitness]

This does not seem to be cohesive with a host of other scriptures saying the woman is to be obedient to her husband in all things and should submit to him.

All submission to any humans is relative, no wife is obliged to obey her husband if he asks her to violate bible law and principle.

One bible principle that comes to mind is that her life belongs to God. If anyone says to her "I would like you to lie there so I can beat you to death" and she says "Yes my Lord, you are after all my husband." That would be wrong. Husbands do not have unlimited power over their wives: submission is not subjugation. If her life or the life of her children is under threat she is under obligation to do all she reasonably can to protect them, even if this means disobeying her husband. This may involve leaving the family home and seeking safety and protection from secular authorities. She may be disobeying to her husband, but would be her obeyjng to a higher authority Almighty God.



JW

[Transmogrified]

I used to think this was talking about the wife leaving her husband but not a divorce.

The phrase “let her remain unmarried� is what caused me to look closer at this.

If she had just left him and not divorced him it would seem Paul would not have told her to remain unmarried, when she was obviously married if only a separation had occurred.

The somewhat common view seems to be that ‘remaining unmarried’ means that she is not to get married again to someone else, but ‘remaining unmarried’ must mean that somewhere along the long line was once married but now is not., and that’s why I think it is referring to a divorce although not a justifiable one because she was forbidden by God to do it... If it was a justifiable divorce there would have been fornication involved and God would not have forbidden her from doing it.

It’s seems the only way to reconcile the wording is that she filed an unjust divorce proceedings, so in the sight of the law she was unmarried, but then when he tells her she could be reconciled to her husband I think Paul is harking back to her true husband in the sight of God.

So in the sight of the law she was unmarried, but in the sight of God she was still married because there was no fornication involved and the divorce was not valid but in the sight of God she still had a husband.

I don’t think the comparison between God saying don’t sin but if you do we have an advocate... because God is nowhere condoning a person that he could stay in sin if he wanted to.

When God forbid her from leaving her husband, he did not say she should make it right... it appears from the text she can leave him in disobedience to Gods command, but then she is instructed that she can remain in that forbidden state if she wants to and choose to not make it right with her husband if she doesn’t want to reconcile.

This does not seem God providing a way “out� but rather giving her permission to continue this way if she wants to... Which does not seem right to me that God would actually allow her to stay in the condition of being unmarried and not require her to make it right with her husband.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 1 by Transmogrified]

Are you talking about a Christians or non-christians. If you are speaking of a non-christian there are no rules. Why would they be bound by the word of God? Christians are bound by verse 10 which is mentioned several different places throughout Scripture. "To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband." But marriage in Paul's day was in the same state as it is today in which most divorce filings 80% are initiated by women.

[SallyF]

Who said anything about divorce? Separation isn't divorce. The Lord was quite clear ...
JW

Never, in my experience, has anyone ever demonstrated that "the Lord" had anything whatsoever to do with the biblical writings.


This and countless other confusions and contradictions - with which this site is replete - can only be shown to be human.

One cannot then legitimately instruct others as to what "the Lord" was clear about.

We need to first demonstrate that "the Lord" was involved.

[JehovahsWitness]

LET HER REMAIN UNMARRIED

Whether Paul was suggesting divorce or not, essentially it comes to the same thing, namely she cannot remarry.

As to the ambiguity introduced by "remain unmarried", one defintion of marriage is "an intimate or close union" so strictly speaking a legally married woman (or man) that leaves that "an intimate union" to live elsewher is "unmarried" ie (s)he is now livjng a single life whether justifiably so or not. (The opposite is also true as in a couple in a sexual relationship are "married" in its most basic sense, although that union is not recognized by God and their intimacies considered biblically to be illegitimate).

Further, a good the rule of thumb (for sincere bible students that want truth not to further their own argument at any price) is, if a text is ambiguous , look to what the writer said elsewhere and choose the reading that best harmonizes with the whole. In thus case, Paul has said "A wife is bound as long as her husband is alive. But if her husband should fall asleep in death, she is free to be married" (7:39), so he explicitly states that only death can dissolve the marriage. In the light of this which of the two readings of "remain unmarried" harmonizes best with the whole? Remain "unmarried" but seek a divorced ie seek an unscriptural divorce that contradicts what I have written about the permanence of the martital bond ...or remain "without any of the privileges of matrimony... "remain unmarried"...ellipses "to anyone else" ie remain living as a single person?

It’s seems the only way to reconcile the wording is.....

I have provided an alternative which reconciciles the wording. There is no need to suggest Paul is sanctioning that which he in the same letter forbade, ie (unscriptural) divorce.


NOTE: I'm not sure why you are speaking about a "she" Paul is not speaking about a specific case, he is providing guidelines on marriage and singleness for the entire congregagetion. As to seeking a legal divorce he makes no comment on that, a woman is free to do as she pleases but he is clear that whatever she does, scripturally (and in the eyes of the congregation) she cannot remarry.


JW

[SallyF]

I don’t think the comparison between God saying …

Welcome to the forum, Transmogrified …!

Your question may be better posted in the Theology, Doctrine and Dogma sub-forum, because there, folks believe (or perhaps pretend to believe) that they are dealing with the "Word of God".

In this sub-forum there are those of us who will point out to you that the biblical version of "God" - that is the mythological Jehovah/Yahweh/Whatever and his variations and additions - is NEVER shown to exist outside the imaginations of believers and the pages of human-written "scripture", and not a soul EVER demonstrates that so much as a verse of so-called "scripture" emanated from any version of "God".

So when you present a phrase like: "God saying", we will ask you to demonstrate that YOUR version of "God" exists and that it really did say what you are claiming it said.

If someone offered: "Krishna saying", we would, of course, ask the same thing.

Because of a complete, total and utter lack of evidence that we know of that ANY version of "God" exists outside the minds of human believers and the human writings, we generally regard ALL versions of "God" as make-believe until demonstrated otherwise.

For me, my door is WIDE open for the presentation of good, hard evidence of any sort whatsoever.