Prof. Luck on Not Under Bondage

Prof. Luck in email correspondence gave me some feedback on the post Not Under Bondage.
Since I made a change in the table, I also changed a word of his reply to so that it would make sense. I have bolded that word and the Professor is aware of the change.
Luck's writing were very beneficial in clearing out the dead wood of the MDR landscape.  Luck's work can be found here: 
Divorce and Re-Marriage: Recovering the Biblical View


And his comments on my original post, Not Under Bondage are below:


" The material in the upper left quadrant is teaching derived from Christ (Verses 10-11)…most likely of the substance of Mark 10:11-12. Lower left quadrant in the teaching of Paul in regard to circumstances not covered by that teaching, namely in conditions of interfaith marriages where the unbeliever does not see severance of the marriage (Verses 12-13 with supporting rationale in 14 & 16).The - lower right- quadrant is Paul’s teaching regarding cases where the unbeliever does seek a divorce (verse 15).
.... In effect, Paul’s teaching here draws from Deut. 24:1, which Jesus addresses in Matt. 5:31-32 and was called upon by the Pharisees to explain in the event recorded in Matt. 19/Mark 10. Since the discussion in both places was with regard to the man’s rights to unilaterally divorce his wife, there is no direct discussion of a woman’s rights to be free of a marriage, but clearly the permission of Moses had that in view. 
The material in the upper left quadrant, being the general teaching of Jesus, does not enter into a discussion of allowable grounds for divorce, i.e., “fornication” of the wife, but I presume that Jesus’ teaching of the exception clause would have been known to Paul and his readers…that in regard to your #2. In regard to your #1, Jesus touches on a woman’s divorce without grounds in Matt. 5:32b and Mark 10:12, but discusses no exception to a woman’s initiating divorce in either place. Which is not to say that He would not have allowed it. Deut. 24:1 explicitly allows for the man to divorce her and assumes her freedom, not only from the marriage, but to remarry as well (Deut. 24:2-3). Also relevant as background for Paul’s teaching is Exodus 21:10-11, where a man is forced to free his wife if he presumes to diminish a first wife’s provisions in view of a second marital covenant. Divorce (unjustified) is complete diminishing and therefore is in the same category as the freeing of the wife in Ex. 21.
In 1 Cor. 7:10b-11a Paul presumes that the divorcing woman has no valid grounds. We know that by the word “reconciled.” That word always elsewhere presumes that the person to be reconciled is the offender. I think that Paul is saying there that an unjustified divorce has taken place, rather than a mere separation. I also think that Paul is advising the woman in the short run, rather than in the long. In other words, he speaks to a situation in which the possibility of restoration is still a reality. I don’t think that he would deny her a right to remarry if the husband refused to take her back…perhaps had assumed another marital relationship in the meanwhile. Such quick marriages-divorces-remarriages were very common in the Empire at that time.
In the lower left quadrant, I would suggest you substitute “shouldn’t” for “can’t,” as obviously her physical ability isn’t the issue, but the morality of it. (I have changed it-pierce)
In the upper right quadrant, your wording is a bit odd and perhaps misleading. It is highly unlikely that the departing unbelieving spouse would not have divorced the Christian. In the Empire, divorces were quite informal and “departing” would signify “divorcing.” Thus the freedom that Paul allows would either have involved 1) not attempting to force a continuing marriage—which would have been utterly unthinkable as well as unreasonable in the Empire, or 2) the right to remarry—which was assumed in non-Christian circles. In Christian circles, remember that Deut. 24:2-3 provides a right to remarry when unjustly divorced, and, in fact, the only marital obligation that a Jewish/Christian woman had was to remain monogamous to her husband while he had that status (cf. Rom. 7:2ff). Therefore, to be free from that is to be free to remarry. As far as the man was concerned, he always had the right to remarry…indeed in Jewish territories, and likely even in the remainder of the Empire, Jews were allowed to be polygynist husbands, and Jesus’ teaching with regard to “and marries another,” as being involved with adultery, is most likely simply a statement of the likely motive for his divorcing unjustly (cf. Ex. 21:10 as well). In Jesus’ day, a man could take a second wife without moral onus (except among the Essenes), and therefore it must be the divorce which preceded the remarriage wherein the sin of adultery obtained (see also the logic of Matt. 5:32b as condemning the man who marries a divorced woman as committing adultery insofar as he was complicit in her unjust divorce which prepared the way for their marriage. That this is most likely the correct interpretation is supported by the “celebrity case” of Herod Antipas, who encouraged Herodias to initiate a divorce of Philip in order to marry him.)"
-William F Luck 

Not Under Bondage

Whenever a Christian is married to a non-Christian that does not want to stay together, the Christian is allowed to divorce the non-Christian spouse.

The apostle Paul (see 1 Corinthians 7:10-15) classifies the married believers into two categories: those that are forbidden to divorce and those that are not.  

Believers That Are Not Allowed Divorce

Believers That Are Allowed Divorce

And here is how the classifications works out in the scriptures:

Believers That are Not to Divorce	Believers That are Allowed to Divorce
1.  Christian woman not to depart from her husband.  If she does, she is not to view this separation as a divorce and then marry another man. 2.The Christian man married to believing wife is not to divorce her.	Please see 1 Timothy 5:8, which among other passages, supports the underlying assumption that a believer can indeed become an unbeliever.
1. Christian woman with Non-christian husband - if he is happy to live with her, she should not divorce him. 2.  Christian man with Non-christian Wife - if she is happy to live with him, he should not divorce her.	Christian man or woman married to non-christian -- if the non-christian spouse does not want to continue in the marriage, the Christian is not under enslavement not to divorce the Non-christian spouse.

My reply to Eric Margolis

I couldn't help but take notice of a recent column by Eric Margolis over at Lewrockwell.com.


In the above piece, Mr Margolis comes up with some amusing insights on the cartoonish Republican party.  But when he lumped creationists in with all of them, I couldn't help but fire off a little bit of talk back.   Here is my email to him:


Dear Mr Margolis,

I hate to break it to ya, but if you're trying to do the libertarian movement some good PR, you're failing.  

I was reading your latest Prohibitionist rant with great interest.  Because I too have share many of the same 

sentiments as yourself about all of this.  

But I'm a christian.  And yet I can spot all of those zion*sts evangelical types that you mention and know that I am not one of them and that they while quite large a group, do not represent all of the religious people in this country. 

Many deny the necessity of baptism that is clearly lined out in the new testament scriptures.  They have reduced

the bible teachings down to a caricature.  

And lumping all of us creationists in with the low IQ republicans did nothing but divide divide divide.  As far as that goes, the earth was not created ten thousand years ago.  It was more like six thousand years ago.  

Lastly, there are many of us that on one hand don't deny the reality of Adam and Eve and see that there is vast evidence for a world wide flood, yet we understand that Christ is not coming back to a recreated Israel.  He already came back in judgment upon Jerusalem in AD 70 and reigns today within the hearts of the faithful saints on earth.  

sincerely,

Perry Pierce

Lowell, MA

Corporate Science

Corporate Science never stops.  And why should it?  The siege style of warfare that they engage in and upon the truth has worked for quite some time.  Why stop now?


Corporate Science is all about making up studies in an attempt to make certain harmful things appear to be harmless and to make harmless things appear harmful.


Corporate Science is involved in Vaccines and smearing all doctors and parents that do not go along with  this nazi style medicine.  CS goes about trying to discredit all of the information regarding to substances such as aspartame, fluoride in drinking water,  or the serious health destroying effects of wireless internet (wi-fi) and cell phone use.


CS is also known as checkbook research.  Checkbook research is when companies pay for a study to be conducted where the subject in question gets the results that are needed.  Checkbook research is part of the whole cholesterol drug scam.


I can't trust scientific consensus any longer.   If 31,000 scientists have petitioned stating that they don't believe that global warming is man made, then they all can't agree on anything.  I'm not saying that I believe global warming is man made or is not.  My point is, there is no consensus.  But we're told all the time that "the evidence is clear."  And they do this about HIV=AIDS, saturated fat, vaccines, cell phones, fluoride, nutrasweet, CFL light bulbs, etc.


Its almost as if the catholic priests of the dark ages have become the new doctors and scientists of the modern era.  And to question their authority amounts to blasphemy.


But don't forget.  Doctors once claimed that smoking was safe. They also sold heroine cough medicine at the local drug store in the form of soft drinks.  Doctors were in the advertisements of the medical journals claiming smoking helped relieve stress.