SPLIT: Meaning of divorce in Matthew's Gospel

[Nimeniton]

Catechism:
“Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery”

What is the Catholic position on Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9. Here there is an exemption “porneia” as grounds for divorce.

The meaning of porneia in the Bible varies:

1. illicit sexual intercourse
   a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.
   b) sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18
   c) sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,12
2. metaph. the worship of idols
   a) of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols
   blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4202&t=KJV

**The online Jerusalem bible **interprets the word and verse as follows:except for the case of an illicit marriage Matthew 5:32 and the even looser translation I am not speaking of an illicit marriage Matthew 19:9

In my youth the translation from Knox’s translation of the vulgate was setting aside the matter of unfaithfulness matthew 5:32 and not for any unfaithfulness of hers Matthew 19:9.

This gives a very different interpretation of the word porneia and certainly does not give the impression of an illicit marriage.

Neither does the Douay-Rheims bible which states excepting for the cause of fornication Matthew 5:32 and except it be for fornication Matthew 19:9. Interestingly there is a note for Matthew19:9 which says [9] “Except it be”… In the case of fornication, that is, of adultery, the wife may be put away: but even then the husband cannot marry another as long as the wife is living. drbo.org/chapter/47019.htm. There are two interesting points here. He interprets** porneia** to mean adultery even though Matthew uses quite an explicit word for adultery in the same sentence moichaō. What is also interesting is his conclusion that the man can divorce under those circumstances yet not marry again. However, the verse is explicit in that the exemption is the only reason he can marry again.

The exemption seems to be very problematic to interpret. What is the current thinking as to its meaning?

 

[Jean_Anthony]

aaa

 

[jcrichton]

What is the Catholic position on Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9. Here there is an exemption “porneia” as grounds for divorce.

The meaning of porneia in the Bible varies:

1. illicit sexual intercourse
   a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.
   b) sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18
   c) sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,12
2. metaph. the worship of idols
   a) of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols
   blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4202&t=KJV

**The online Jerusalem bible **interprets the word and verse as follows:except for the case of an illicit marriage Matthew 5:32 and the even looser translation I am not speaking of an illicit marriage Matthew 19:9

In my youth the translation from Knox’s translation of the vulgate was setting aside the matter of unfaithfulness matthew 5:32 and not for any unfaithfulness of hers Matthew 19:9.

This gives a very different interpretation of the word porneia and certainly does not give the impression of an illicit marriage.

Neither does the Douay-Rheims bible which states excepting for the cause of fornication Matthew 5:32 and except it be for fornication Matthew 19:9. Interestingly there is a note for Matthew19:9 which says [9] “Except it be”… In the case of fornication, that is, of adultery, the wife may be put away: but even then the husband cannot marry another as long as the wife is living. drbo.org/chapter/47019.htm. There are two interesting points here. He interprets** porneia** to mean adultery even though Matthew uses quite an explicit word for adultery in the same sentence moichaō. What is also interesting is his conclusion that the man can divorce under those circumstances yet not marry again. However, the verse is explicit in that the exemption is the only reason he can marry again.

The exemption seems to be very problematic to interpret. What is the current thinking as to its meaning?

I think that the Church (Vatican) in an attempt to contain the contantly increasing divorce rate, even among Catholics, has chosen to ignore that Jesus did clarify that there is an exception to the “no divorce” mandate; I believe that once a spouse (the husband being most likely the one to commit adultery) commits adultery he/she has voided the marriage.since that particular spouse has rejected his/her vows to live in a Sacramental union in God.

Sadly, I keep hearing how even adultery is not a just cause for divorce–so the woman continues to be forced to live tied to a man that has long lost all respect for the Sacrament of marriage, for his wife, for his family, and for God!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Nimeniton]

I think that the Church (Vatican) in an attempt to contain the contantly increasing divorce rate, even among Catholics, has chosen to ignore that Jesus did clarify that there is an exception to the “no divorce” mandate; I believe that once a spouse (the husband being most likely the one to commit adultery) commits adultery he/she has voided the marriage.since that particular spouse has rejected his/her vows to live in a Sacramental union in God.

Sadly, I keep hearing how even adultery is not a just cause for divorce–so the woman continues to be forced to live tied to a man that has long lost all respect for the Sacrament of marriage, for his wife, for his family, and for God!

Maran atha!

Angel

In my early twenties, I use to go to a Catholic group held at Westminster RC cathedral in London UK. I remember a man who joined that group whose wife had left him for another man. He was extremely lonely and his sadness was tangible. He was asking why he could not marry another as these verses seemed to permit it.

 

[InternetWoman]

I believe the interpretation of the pornia clause is not that a couple is married and then one cheats on the other, but that the couple’s “marriage” is invalid because they are “shacking up” (to use a phrase from my youth). So since the marriage is invalid the restriction of no divorce does not apply.

 

[thistle]

What is the Catholic position on Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9. Here there is an exemption “porneia” as grounds for divorce.

The meaning of porneia in the Bible varies:

1. illicit sexual intercourse
   a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.
   b) sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18
   c) sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,12
2. metaph. the worship of idols
   a) of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols
   blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4202&t=KJV

**The online Jerusalem bible **interprets the word and verse as follows:except for the case of an illicit marriage Matthew 5:32 and the even looser translation I am not speaking of an illicit marriage Matthew 19:9

In my youth the translation from Knox’s translation of the vulgate was setting aside the matter of unfaithfulness matthew 5:32 and not for any unfaithfulness of hers Matthew 19:9.

This gives a very different interpretation of the word porneia and certainly does not give the impression of an illicit marriage.

Neither does the Douay-Rheims bible which states excepting for the cause of fornication Matthew 5:32 and except it be for fornication Matthew 19:9. Interestingly there is a note for Matthew19:9 which says [9] “Except it be”… In the case of fornication, that is, of adultery, the wife may be put away: but even then the husband cannot marry another as long as the wife is living. drbo.org/chapter/47019.htm. There are two interesting points here. He interprets** porneia** to mean adultery even though Matthew uses quite an explicit word for adultery in the same sentence moichaō. What is also interesting is his conclusion that the man can divorce under those circumstances yet not marry again. However, the verse is explicit in that the exemption is the only reason he can marry again.

The exemption seems to be very problematic to interpret. What is the current thinking as to its meaning?

D-R Bible, Haydock Commentary:

Matthew 5:

Ver. 32. Excepting the cause of fornication. A divorce or separation as to bed and board, may be permitted for some weighty causes in Christian marriages; but even then, he that marrieth her that is dismissed, commits adultery. As to this, there is no exception. The bond of marriage is perpetual; and what God hath joined, no power on earth can separate. See again Matthew xix. 9. (Witham) — The knot of marriage is so sacred a tie, that the separation of the parties cannot loosen it, it being not lawful for either of the parties to marry again upon a divorce. (St. Augustine, de bon. conjug. chap. vii.) (Bristow)

Matthew 19:

Ver. 9. And I say to you. It is worthy of remark, that in the parallel texts, St. Mark x. 2. and St. Luke xvi. 18. and St. Paul to Corinthians vii. 10. omit the exception of fornication; and also that St. Matthew himself omits it in the second part of the verse; and says absolutely, that he who shall marry her that is put away committeth adultery. It perhaps crept in here from chap. v. 32, where it is found in a phrase very similar to this, but which expresses a case widely different. Divorce is in no case admitted but in that of adultery. This is what Christ teaches in chap. v. 32, and to this the exception is referred, marked in the two texts. But in this very case the separated parties cannot contract a second marriage without again committing adultery, as we must infer, from a comparison of this text with the parallel texts of St. Mark and St. Luke. (Bible de Vence) — If we did not understand it in this manner, the case of the adulteress would be preferable to the case of her who should be put away without any crime of her own; as in this supposition, the former would be allowed to marry again, which the latter would not be allowed. (Tirinus) — St. Augustine is very explicit on this subject. See lib. 11. de adult conjug. chap. xxi. xxii. xxiv. — St. Jerome, in his high commendation of the noble matron, Fabiola, says of her: “that though she was the innocent party, for the unlawful act of marrying again, she did public penance.” (In Epitaph. Fabiolæ.) — This universally received doctrine of the Catholic Church was confirmed in the general council of Trent. (Session xxiv. canon 6.)

 

[jcrichton]

In my early twenties, I use to go to a Catholic group held at Westminster RC cathedral in London UK. I remember a man who joined that group whose wife had left him for another man. He was extremely lonely and his sadness was tangible. He was asking why he could not marry another as these verses seemed to permit it.

Exactly–we have lost respect for God (cirvumvention of the Commandments and humble obedience to God’s Will); yet, by embracing social wisdom/practices we destroy what little peace and harmony Doctrinal Teaching may bring us; until our disposable mentality changes (if it ever does) we will be forced to feel the Church’s strong stance against divorce and other Doctrines difficult to accept–specially when Scriptures may provide a passage or two that seems to support our desires…

I can see the conundrum faced by the Church: be stern while serving God and lose those who wish to divorce and remarry; be laxed and millions will dictate doctrine in libertine fashion then blame the Church for their failures…

I do not envy the responsibility of the chair of Peter nor the suffering of the well-intended Believer that gets caught up in worst storms of life’s experience!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I believe the interpretation of the pornia clause is not that a couple is married and then one cheats on the other, but that the couple’s “marriage” is invalid because they are “shacking up” (to use a phrase from my youth). So since the marriage is invalid the restriction of no divorce does not apply.

…that’s why I would love to see an e-Bible that would offer both the original text (Aramaic/Hebrew/Greek) along with its actual translation… I think that not knowing the actual language causes us to lose much of the vernacular value of the language…

Ex #1
Did Jesus mean: ‘no divorce, with the exception of adultery…’

Ex #2
Did Jesus mean: ‘no divorce, unless the union iexists in a state of fornication…’

Ex #1 clearly denotes an exception clause; Ex #2 demostrates that since no actual marriage existed the Believers can separate and marry someone else.

Regardless of the situation, I think that if we stick to the Golden Rule (Love Yahweh God above all, with all your heart and mind and your neighbor as yourself) our lives and our relationships would truly acquire perfection… the more we stray from the observance of the Golden Rule the more hopelessness, strife, and chaos tends to dominate our existence!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Nimeniton]

Exactly–we have lost respect for God (cirvumvention of the Commandments and humble obedience to God’s Will); yet, by embracing social wisdom/practices we destroy what little peace and harmony Doctrinal Teaching may bring us; until our disposable mentality changes (if it ever does) we will be forced to feel the Church’s strong stance against divorce and other Doctrines difficult to accept–specially when Scriptures may provide a passage or two that seems to support our desires…

I can see the conundrum faced by the Church: be stern while serving God and lose those who wish to divorce and remarry; be laxed and millions will dictate doctrine in libertine fashion then blame the Church for their failures…

I do not envy the responsibility of the chair of Peter nor the suffering of the well-intended Believer that gets caught up in worst storms of life’s experience!

Maran atha!

Angel

As far as I recall he was following the church’s commandment. After all it was the wife who effected the separation. His sadness came from the difficulty this caused him. . St Paul seemed to understand this when he said, “But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion” 1 Corinthians 7:9. and even Christ when encouraging the state of eunochhood for the sake of the kingdom of God said, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given". Matthew 19.11. So obviously it is not given to everybody to refrain from all sexual activity.

So we have an interesting dilemma. Eunochhood is the desired state. But if that means you will burn with passion then it is better that you marry. Now presumably if you marry then it is because you feel that you cannot live without sex. So if your spouse separates and divorces you, you cannot remarry as it is forbidden so you are left to burn with passion. And St Paul says it is better to marry than to burn. So it is a catch 22 situation.

 

[Nimeniton]

D-R Bible, Haydock Commentary:

Matthew 5:

Ver. 32. Excepting the cause of fornication. A divorce or separation as to bed and board, may be permitted for some weighty causes in Christian marriages; but even then, he that marrieth her that is dismissed, commits adultery. As to this, there is no exception. The bond of marriage is perpetual; and what God hath joined, no power on earth can separate. See again Matthew xix. 9. (Witham) — The knot of marriage is so sacred a tie, that the separation of the parties cannot loosen it, it being not lawful for either of the parties to marry again upon a divorce. (St. Augustine, de bon. conjug. chap. vii.) (Bristow)

That still allows for polygamy for which there are many examples in the Old Testament. lamech, David, Solomon, Abraham etc. In fact not only is it not condemned but God even seems to encourage it.

‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. 8 I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah.* And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more**…’ *
2 Samuel 12:8

Given the situation in the Old testament one wonders where the idea of celibacy comes from. My own theory is that the idea originated from the east, possibly Buddhism. Buddhism certainly got as far as Afganistan. Anyway, it is all very interesting.

 

[Nate13]

The explanation for the verse is that it is not excluding getting a divorce in the case of adultery but rather he is specifically singling out that case in saying divorce is even not allowed in the case of adultery. Its important to look at Matthew 19:10-12 right after Jesus talks about divorce. We see his apostles first words after hearing his teaching.

"The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”

11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” "
Matthew 19:10-12

From the disciples words we can see that this teaching came on hard. So hard in fact that they ask if it is better that no one marries. Jesus responds by giving another hard teaching and saying those who can accept this should accept it.

I’d also point out that we see a reference here to celibacy. “and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.” There is a curious background to this idea of being a eunuch for a kingdom. Men who were charged with protecting the queen and being near her at all times in kingdoms back then would be castrated “for the kingdom” so that there would not have to be any worry that they would try to do anything with the queen. We see that this also exists in the Kingdom of Heaven where by men “choose” to live as eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom and their bride “the Church”.

 

[InternetWoman]

…that’s why I would love to see an e-Bible that would offer both the original text (Aramaic/Hebrew/Greek) along with its actual translation… I think that not knowing the actual language causes us to lose much of the vernacular value of the language…

Ex #1
Did Jesus mean: ‘no divorce, with the exception of adultery…’

Ex #2
Did Jesus mean: ‘no divorce, unless the union iexists in a state of fornication…’

Ex #1 clearly denotes an exception clause; Ex #2 demostrates that since no actual marriage existed the Believers can separate and marry someone else.

Regardless of the situation, I think that if we stick to the Golden Rule (Love Yahweh God above all, with all your heart and mind and your neighbor as yourself) our lives and our relationships would truly acquire perfection… the more we stray from the observance of the Golden Rule the more hopelessness, strife, and chaos tends to dominate our existence!

Maran atha!

Angel

Actually no written text is self-explanatory, there will always be room for mistranslation and misunderstanding. That is why “sola scriptura” is not only unbiblical it is unworkable. It takes a living magestrium to correctly interpret God’s word.

 

[jcrichton]

As far as I recall he was following the church’s commandment. After all it was the wife who effected the separation. His sadness came from the difficulty this caused him. . St Paul seemed to understand this when he said, “But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion” 1 Corinthians 7:9. and even Christ when encouraging the state of eunochhood for the sake of the kingdom of God said, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given". Matthew 19.11. So obviously it is not given to everybody to refrain from all sexual activity.

So we have an interesting dilemma. Eunochhood is the desired state. But if that means you will burn with passion then it is better that you marry. Now presumably if you marry then it is because you feel that you cannot live without sex. So if your spouse separates and divorces you, you cannot remarry as it is forbidden so you are left to burn with passion. And St Paul says it is better to marry than to burn. So it is a catch 22 situation.

Yes, but note that St. Paul is speaking of virgins… it is a given that any sex before marriage is forbidden (today’s term is fornication) hence St. Paul, in a fatherly tone, asks the Believers, who have been spoused yet remained unmarried (virgin), that they should serve Christ as he (celibate); since young people are usually short on wisdom and patience, St. Paul admonishes that, though it is optimum to serve the Jesus Christ without the added responsibility of the married life, rather than giving into the passions of the flesh they should marry and serve the Lord in that limited capacity.

The problem we face in society is that sex and other non-spiritual activities are promoted as a “must-do-under-penalty-of-death-life-experience” (“use it or lose it,” “just do it!” “so many “x” so little time,” “one is not enough,” “you have not lived till…” “rock and roll 4ever,” “s/he still a virgin…”); even Catholics have been embracing hollowood’s version of “love” and “spiritualism” to such extreems that divorce and other culture-of-death values have been not only accepted but embraced and celebrated as the norm to which the Church should navigate.

Society comes up with an idea (say… “it’s better for the children to have two separate parents than to live in a marriage that is not working”) and even “Catholics” claim it as their motto… granted on the surface it seems plausible… but have you noticed how many broken children those divorces have created?

An unhappy marriage is never the answer, but rejecting God’s Command will always lead us to more pain, more anguish, and less love and happiness!

We must turn to God not away from Him if we truly desire to fulfill our lives (in all aspects).

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

That still allows for polygamy for which there are many examples in the Old Testament. lamech, David, Solomon, Abraham etc. In fact not only is it not condemned but God even seems to encourage it.

‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. 8 I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah.** And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more**…’
2 Samuel 12:8

Given the situation in the Old testament one wonders where the idea of celibacy comes from. My own theory is that the idea originated from the east, possibly Buddhism. Buddhism certainly got as far as Afganistan. Anyway, it is all very interesting.

…but we must not stay within the confines of the Old Testament (some of which still confounds me: Salomon’s 1000 wives and concubines)… as Christians we must walk into the New Testament and the new (which is truly the old) form of worship (St. John 4:23-24); this new economy demands that we regress to the values that existed from the beginning and that man’s weakness caused to become laxed (it was not so from the beginning: one man married to one woman and the two would be one: St. Matthew 19:3-12).

…inserting modals from other religions does not apply since the Jews, as many other societies, seldom, if not ever, sought/adopted foreign philosophies. Still, Jesus remained celibate throughout His earthly existence–as did many who served Yahweh God with great zelousness.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I’d also point out that we see a reference here to celibacy. “and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.” There is a curious background to this idea of being a eunuch for a kingdom. Men who were charged with protecting the queen and being near her at all times in kingdoms back then would be castrated “for the kingdom” so that there would not have to be any worry that they would try to do anything with the queen. We see that this also exists in the Kingdom of Heaven where by men “choose” to live as eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom and their bride “the Church”.

I concur, Nate!

This is why it puzzles me to hear people (“Catholics”) speaking against celibacy as though it is a damaging force in a man’s/woman’s life; the choice to serve Yahweh God in a chaste manner means that the person desires to surrender his/her life totally to God; St. Paul puts it this way: “wether we live or we die, we do it all for the Lord.”

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Actually no written text is self-explanatory, there will always be room for mistranslation and misunderstanding. That is why “sola scriptura” is not only unbiblical it is unworkable. It takes a living magestrium to correctly interpret God’s word.

…I concur! But I think that having a comprehensive source would take away much of the argument that we continue to have… I remember one example where some were claiming that the salutaion of the Angel Gabriel to the Virgin could not be fully translated with the expression: “full of Grace.”

The supposedly excuse was that our language (English) could not readily translate the complexity of the original text (Arameic/Hebrew/Greek–don’t remember the actual language); yet, to me, it seemed a thinly vailed attempt to minimize the Virgin’s status as the *accepted *rendering (highly favored), in my estimation, is far less dignify and complex than “full of Grace.”

Interestingly enough, I’ve listen to (perhaps Father Mitch Pacua, EWTN’s Live & Threshold of Hope) an explanation that the form (full of grace) is found only twice in Scriptures–how weak does that makes “highly favored?”

One more argument that I suspect might be put to rest is the rock/cephas/kephas issue…

Yet, as you said, more may really not be best since it might only give rise to further linguistic argumentation.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Nimeniton]

An unhappy marriage is never the answer, but rejecting God’s Command will always lead us to more pain, more anguish, and less love and happiness!

We must turn to God not away from Him if we truly desire to fulfill our lives (in all aspects).

Maran atha!

Angel

This statement seems a denial of reality. People with unhappy first marriages do sometimes learn from their mistakes and have second happy marriages. Unless you mean they will go to hell.

 

[Nimeniton]

Yes, but note that St. Paul is speaking of virgins… it is a given that any sex before marriage is forbidden (today’s term is fornication) hence St. Paul, in a fatherly tone, asks the Believers, who have been spoused yet remained unmarried (virgin), that they should serve Christ as he (celibate); since young people are usually short on wisdom and patience, l

Whether virgins or not. St Paul recognises that not all can practice celibacy and that is if some do not marry they will burn. Now it is obvious that the divorced may burn especially the divorced who are young. So what was Paul worried about. Obviously the burning would lead to sexual misdemeanors such as masturbation, fornication, homosexuality and even bestiality. (By the way St Paul addresses this to the unmarried and widows. I am sure some widows can be very old indeed. So to say that this is addressed to only the young and virgins is stretching the point. The widows certainly were not virgins and also some of the unmarried may not have been)!

But I say to the unmarried, and to the* widows:** It is good for them if they so continue, even as I. [9] But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt.* 1 Cor 7:8-10

I can personally vouch that if one does not burn (I had an orchiectomy to slow the spread of prostate cancer) one has no interest in sex and for that matter in marriage. Although I do seem to have developed an interest in shopping which I never had before!!

Anyway back to the young ( and old) who have been divorced and who will burn. Which is better that they have a second marriage or that they burn with unspeakable sexual practices?

 

[jcrichton]

This statement seems a denial of reality. People with unhappy first marriages do sometimes learn from their mistakes and have second happy marriages. Unless you mean they will go to hell.

Not denying reality… simply observing that when I love God above all and my neighbor as myself I will be the optimum that I can be… lust, envy, hatred, loneliness, self-esteem… life is totally different…

Still, we are finite… so we will make mistakes… the difference is that we ought not to celebrate mistakes as a freedom to be/do…

i.e: there have been many movies created by hollowood and its satellites promoting the idea that teens should not get pregnant or become parents (too young to be a mom/dad, etc.)… there are even public announcements denouncing pregnacy (not going to let pregnancy ruin my life–or something to that effect)… even our present Commander in Chief proudly announced on national television that he would not “punish his daugters” with carrying a pregnancy to term… none of these seem to understand that promoting sex, especially amongst teens (always at earlier and earlier ages), is the root of STDs and undesired pregnancy… even merchants as Kmart use the “sex thing” to sell their products to young teens… the problem lies not in being responsible for our actions… the problem is being sexaully active outside of marriage and with multiple people!

…one more example: There’s a little trend about “though shall not bully…” unrealistic portrayal, for a few seconds on screan (or quite obtuse renderings, if an actual movie), is supposed to counter the hundreds/thousands of programs where bullying is not only celebrated but placed on the “top cool” pedestal–don’t know if such thing actually exists!

While it is true that some people do grow beyond their errors… I suggest to you that the number of happy marriages continue to drop because there are less and less people willing to sacrifice their ego and willing to ignore hollowood’s call to that egoistical state of being where just-do-it-or-die replaces reason and even love.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Whether virgins or not. St Paul recognises that not all can practice celibacy and that is if some do not marry they will burn. Now it is obvious that the divorced may burn especially the divorced who are young. So what was Paul worried about. Obviously the burning would lead to sexual misdemeanors such as masturbation, fornication, homosexuality and even bestiality. (By the way St Paul addresses this to the unmarried and widows. I am sure some widows can be very old indeed. So to say that this is addressed to only the young and virgins is stretching the point. The widows certainly were not virgins and also some of the unmarried may not have been)!

But I say to the unmarried, and to the* widows:*** It is good for them if they so continue, even as I. [9] But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt. 1 Cor 7:8-10

You are correct; I targeted only a portion of the audience… but to suggest that St. Paul would be teaching that Christians can get married multiple times would place him in direct opposition to Christ’s Teachings.

Christians are called to a Sacramental Marriage where the man and the woman are united in Yahweh God.

The more we rely on ourselves and social pressures the more we ignore God’s Commandments… it is not that we cannot control our sexual impulses… it is that many of us refuse to aplly self-control in most aspects of our lives… so we fail–some of us quite miserably… but instead of seeking God and relying on His Wisdom we look upon Him and His Commandments as a hinderance to “our rights” and “our liberty.”

I can personally vouch that if one does not burn (I had an orchiectomy to slow the spread of prostate cancer) one has no interest in sex and for that matter in marriage. Although I do seem to have developed an interest in shopping which I never had before!!

Anyway back to the young ( and old) who have been divorced and who will burn. Which is better that they have a second marriage or that they burn with unspeakable sexual practices?

I suggest to you that it is all mental… have you ever heard of a single person in all of history where he/she had died because they did not have sex? The fact of the matter is that there’s no such phenomenon! The other fact is that it is a conscious and willfull act… an while it is true that some of us can become addicted… it is as with any addiction: the less we willfully seek to stop it, the more we will revel in it!

ie: I walk through a place where there are girls/women/ladies about… they may not show much interest… take the same walk with a girl/woman/lady by my side and interst peeks–sometimes to the extreme of psychological challanges to my escort… we have been conditioned by the cultural values with which we have been bombarded as children…

As St. Paul puts it: “it is a spiritual warfare!”

What the young Christians should do is not rush into marriage–if they have gotten married, not rush out of the marriage; if they have divorced, give themselves to the service of the Lord–there’s more in life that brings fulfillment than the sweat and passion of a few minutes of sexual pleasure!

…again, it is conditioning… have you ever heard in the news that someone went crazy (mental illness or drug abuse) and gave all of their money to the needy or went about town helping others? …it is not fashionable to care for the needy… but it is quite fashionable to commit all sorts of scandalous acts that would propel one to the front pages or the “fifteen minutes!”

Maran atha!

Angel