Orthodox Church drawing converts from other branches of the faith

cantonrep.com ^ | Saturday, September 25, 2004 | CHARITA M. GOSHAY

[Kolokotronis]

I agree with your statement of what the Church teaches with regard to marriage, but the Greek in +Paul doesn't really go into that. The reason I mentioned what I understand to be the actual meaning of the Greek is to point out that difference between the active Greek word and the passive English translation may be telling. In the first instance the wife departs from her husband, in the second, she is separated from him. Actually the passive would seem, at first blush, to support the Church's position, but perhaps the active voice better explains the Church's attitude on compassionate correction in the face of sin which has destroyed a spiritual union.

[kosta50]

Actually the passive would seem, at first blush, to support the Church's position, but perhaps the active voice better explains the Church's attitude on compassionate correction in the face of sin which has destroyed a spiritual union.

I would ask you to elaborate on this because it is not exactly clear to me how you came to that conclusion. What you are saying is that the wife departs from versus separated from somehow brings compassion into the first and not into the second?

I think the comapssion is the way of life for the Church regardless of grammar. The sinners are seen as sick, fallen, who are in need of spiritual healing and medicine regardless of the sin.

The difference between spiritual and legalistic breakage of the bond is pronounced and clear. When we say "divorce" it means legal devorce. There is nothing in the NT to support this. In Mt 5:32 Jesus dismisses the OT Jewish practice of giving a certificate of divorce because the Church does not recognize legal divorce. The only legal divorce is death of one spouse as far as the Churhc is concerned.

[Kolokotronis]

"I would ask you to elaborate on this because it is not exactly clear to me how you came to that conclusion. What you are saying is that the wife departs from versus separated from somehow brings compassion into the first and not into the second?"

Well, at various points along this thread there has been discussion of the innocent/guilty spouse issue. What I am saying is that if the verb in question is active, it could imply that the wife has committed the sin, thus is in need of reconcilliation with the Church and this would be in accord with the Church's position on Divorce and re marriage. If the verb is passive, then the wife has been separated from her husband, something has acted upon her to make her leave...her husband's actions? Compassionate correction wouldn't be needed for an innocent spouse. Her sin? Then compassionate correction is in order? On the other hand, I may be reading more into this verb than is there, which is why I said the difference may, in this context, be insignificant.

[kosta50]

I may be reading more into this verb than is there, which is why I said the difference may, in this context, be insignificant

I can't be the judge of that, but I can repeat what the Church is teaching, which is not necessarily semantic: the wife, even though she is innocent, is committing adultery by re-marrying (Mark 10:11-12). It is not what caused the separation, it is the fact that no one on earth has the authority to dissolve a marriage, and by remarrying one is engaging in adultery. The Church gives in to someone re-marrying out of pcompassion because it is better for them to be with someone then to fornicate (that is, if not being married is not an option).

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

I'm going to take your Posts in reverse order, because I need to reference my response to your second Post in order to answer your first. Thanks for your forbearance.

Your second Post (#260):

I think in Mark 10:11-12 ~~ "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."

In order to harmonize the Gospels (because of course the Gospels cannot contradict -- God Forbid!!), we must understand that some of the Gospels provide a "summary" of which the other Gospels provide greater detail. For example the reference you provide in Mark should be regarded as a Summary of the teaching in Matthew 5:32, which does elucidate a Biblical Exception in the case of Divorce:

But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

This passage is especially important, because herein Jesus Christ presumes it as a given that the Divorced Spouse will eventually Re-Marry (obviously, if the Divorced Spouse remained Celibate, there would be NO "commission of adultery" to even consider!!).

Jesus Christ herein teaches that such a Re-Marriage after Divorce DOES constitute Adultery -- except in such case as the Divorce was granted for reason of Unchastity. Obviously, in such a case, it can only be deduced that a Divorce granted for reason of Adultery is Biblically Valid, and VOIDS the original contract as being a Fraud -- thus assigning no Moral Liability to the Victim Party, as though the Contract never existed.

But then he says "if indeed she is separated (choriste) let her remain unmarried (agamos)." (1 Cor 7:11) This is perfectly consistent with the Christian concept of marriage (not Judaic), that what God has united man cannot separate. Therefore, once married, only death breaks that bond. There is no opposite of marriage -- there is no divorce -- only separation. And a separated person who gets married is committing adultery.

No, Kosta. Paul is not here referring to a Biblically-Valid Divorce (Greek apostasion, as taught by Christ) but rather to the Pagan Roman tradition of divorce-by-separation.

Paul instructs his Greco-Roman readers that the Pagan Roman tradition of divorce-by-separation is a false and illegitimate practice, and gives them in 1 Corinthian 7:10-11 these Two teachings (Three, counting 1 Cor. 7:15):

• You should not Separate from your Unbelieving Spouse (1 Cor. 7:10)
• If you disobey this instruction, and do Separate, it is not a Biblically-Valid Divorce (as stipulated by Christ in Matthew 5:32, a Divorce is only Valid for reason of Adultery); You must remain Single. (1 Cor. 7:11)
• If, however, your UnBelieving Spouse abandons you, you are "not under bondage". (1 Corinthians 7:15) BECAUSE the Apostle Paul's language here, "not under bondage", is the same as his language for a Believer whose Spouse has died -- "not under bondage" -- it may therefore be argued that a Bishop has Authority to grant a Valid Divorce and Re-Marriage to a Believer whose UnBelieving Spouse has utterly and irreconcilably Abandoned her, even without a probative charge of Adultery. However, of course, since this is justified by only a single Scripture which is not perfectly explicit, great care must be taken by the Bishop and only on a case-by-case basis.

ALL THAT SAID, however, it does not change the fact that a Divorce granted for Reason of Adultery is absolutely Valid and appropriate under Biblical Law, according to the teachings of the Old Covenant and Jesus Christ Himself in Matthew 5:32, the Commsiion of Adultery dissolving the Marital Contract as a Fraud which is therefore NULL and VOID, as though it never existed.

God Himself speaks of Divorcing Israel in Jeremiah 3 and Hosea 2, for reason of her Adultery; if it is not therefore appropriate for the Church to grant a Biblically-Valid Divorce for reason of Adultery, then how could God have Divorced Israel? Shall the Law-Giving Father and the Law-Keeping Son not be the perfect Examplars of the Law of God?

Divorce granted for Reason of Adultery is Biblically-Valid, Moral, Appropriate, Legitimate, Just, and Right. It is a REAL Divorce, nothing imaginary about it, and it is Biblically-Valid and assigns no Moral Liability to the Victim Party whatsoever; for Adultery VOIDS the Marriage Contract as though it had never existed. If it were not so, then how could God have Divorced Israel? Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? (Genesis 18:25)

Best, OP