Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!seismo!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: garyh@crash.cts.com (Gary Hipp) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: divorce and remarriage Message-ID: Date: 6 Nov 90 03:01:42 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Crash TimeSharing, El Cajon, CA Lines: 39 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com writes: > > I have a question regarding divorce and remarriage in the Bible. I have to > lead a bible study on it and discovered a few things while preparing that > >He defended this as permitting divorce and remarriage. I thought this >indefensible in light of parallel passages (Mark 10:11, Luke 16:18, I >Cor. 7:39). The parallel passages do not contradict and cannot be used to disregard the Matthew passages in 5 and 19. The Matthew passages include "except for immorality (fornication)" which is commonly called the exception clause. Because it is not stated in Mark and Luke does not except it from the teaching. >The Catholic teaching -- that one cannot remarry until the other person >dies -- has been such since the Fathers of the Church wrote on the >subject, starting in the 4th century or so. Matthew 5:32 in particular >they explained as permitting a separation in the case of adultery, but >remarriage was forbidden. The separation was for unchastity (sexual sin), the result was the sin of adultry. I also know of the Catholic church as granting an annulment after some paperwork and ritual to just about anybody wishing to return to the "church" Then everything is supposed to be OK for remarriage, etc. Seems to be skirting the issue to me as I don't find the passage to read, "except for annulment." >That divorce/remarriage is so widespread in this country is due to the >Reformation; in places like Ireland it is still illegal, to the best of >my knowledge. Once the historical precedent was established, it's >obviously hard to break, especially in something that is not always >easy. > I don't believe you can blame it on the Reformation, but you can definately place it on just plain SIN and the historical precedent has long been set on that. garyh