This
is part 7 of 8 in a series on what the bible says concerning divorce and
remarriage. For the other posts see here:
Marital Issues in Corinth, Part 6
Marital References by Paul Outside of Corinth, Part 7
The Biblical Perspective on Divorce and Remarriage, Part 8
Marital References by Paul Outside of Corinth, Part 7
The Biblical Perspective on Divorce and Remarriage, Part 8
There are a
couple of other relevant passages by Paul concerning divorce and/or remarriage,
or, are at least commonly used in discussion of the issue.
Romans 7:1-3 - Do you not know, brothers
and sisters in Christ - for I’m speaking to those who know the law (of Moses),
that the law rules over a person only as long as he lives? For the woman under
the authority of her husband is bound by the law (of Moses) to her husband as
long as he lives. If her husband dies, she is released from the law regarding
her husband. So then she will be considered an adulteress if she becomes
another man’s while her husband is living. But if the husband dies, she is free
from the law (of Moses) and will not be an adulteress if she becomes another
man’s.
There are a few
things that need to be mentioned first about this passage.
1)
“Law” refers to the Law of Moses throughout. This is
certainly the reference in verse 1 (those who know the Law) and there is little
valid justification for switching the reference within these verses[i].
2)
As in 1 Corinthians 7:17-24 (see previous post), Paul
is using a rhetorical device to make a point, here a point about the
relationship between the believer and the Law of Moses. This is no place for
Paul to establish case law. The general principle, to which there may be
exceptions, is given as analogy to draw the connection of the main point. Even
if one doesn’t realize it is a specific rhetorical device, some literary
sensitivity needs to be had in seeing that the subject isn’t really about
marriage at all.
3)
In the analogy,
the woman is not just “married”, as in many translations, but “under a man”.
This language comes straight from the Old Testament,[ii]
reflecting the era when the husband really did have “dominion” over his wife.
This is not simply an issue of gender roles, no matter what side you fall on.
Paul chooses the Old Testament language carefully to reflect his main point:
that of slavery or bondage to sin by being under
the Law.
Given this, it’s
important to note that the analogy that Paul uses is loose. On the marriage
side of the analogy, the wife is bound to the husband because the Law says so.
The death of the husband voids what the Law says regarding the obligations of
the wife to the husband. On the flip side, Paul pictures the Christian as
married to the Law-husband and it’s by virtue of the death of the Christian
(not the Law) via the death of Christ that the obligations are voided. So the
point of the analogy is that death has occurred. And because it has occurred,
we are free from the Law and married to Christ. And it’s because of this that
we are no longer servants of sin itself, which the Law only elucidated and
condemned, and free to serve God by his grace. This is simply the continuation
of the argument from 6:14 where, “Sin will not rule over you, for you are not
under Law but under grace.” This passage isn’t about the limitations of
divorce, but our relationship to God’s boundless grace in Jesus Christ.
1 Timothy 3:2, Titus 1:6 – … a faithful
husband …
How one
translates this clause in many ways already depends on how one reads it. Most
translations translate fairly rigidly or “literally” as “husband of one wife”.
The NIV gives some interpretive preference with “husband of but one wife”. The NLT actually follows
the translation adopted here with “He must be faithful to his wife”. A very
rigid translation would be “a one-woman man”[iii].
There are a few
ways this passage has been read. Many take “a one-woman man” to mean the guy
can’t be a polygamist. The problem with this is that polygamy was a very rare
problem in those days. A few take it to mean that the man who qualifies as an
elder can’t be single; but how Paul and Timothy got away with it we are left
wondering. More commonly, at least in conservative circles, this passage is
taken to mean that the man can’t have been divorced. That Paul doesn’t outright
use the word “divorce” should give caution to this interpretation, but there
are a couple of other considerations.
1)
The phrase is used in 1 Tim. 5:9 except completely
reversed and referring to widows[iv].
Given this context, it is hardly about divorce but whether the woman exhibited
faithfulness to her husband when he was alive.
2)
In addition, “wife of one husband” was a common epitaph
on gravestones of women, both Greco-Roman and Jewish, who were considered by
their husbands to be faithful – that among a culture where divorce rate was
significant.
No comments:
Post a Comment