Quote:
Originally Posted by christianyouth  ...
Another answer though, for the people who believe that divorce in some scenarios is biblical, would be that many of the epistles assume that their recipients know certain things. In Acts, every time someone responds, it doesn't have to include language that implies irresistible grace, because we have the Epistles that point that out very clearly. So in 1 Cor. it may not have been necessary for Paul to lay out the obvious reasons for divorce. If it was, like the other view on divorce here teaches, taught in the Law and then reaffirmed by Jesus, we could say that the audience had knowledge of it, and didn't need to be reminded by Paul.
Not sure which answer is right, yet.  |
I think this is a very important hermeneutical point. The Bible is not written as a thesis on systematic theology, with all the doctrines conveniently organized.
This is a point the Christianity Today article I cited above makes, and is very critical to his analysis on abandonment including abuse; that is, that when Paul mentioned abandonment, he already knew about the other grounds, and wanted to make sure that abandonment was a type of neglect, when neglect per se was already covered.
