For Class

While reading Romans chapter 7, I was first struck by the seeming contradiction in Paul's statements on what marriage should look like for believers. In 1 Corinthians, Paul gives no alternative to being married once you're married, even in the case of adultery (or so it seems), which is directly against the lessons of his teacher, Jesus. He even says that if you DO   get a divorce, then you are not permitted to marry again. Period. Of course, he does allow for reconciliation and remarriage between the husband and wife, which is, admittedly, a small concession. In Romans, however, Paul teaches that if a husband dies, the wife is free from the marriage bond and allowed to remarry. Why is there such an obvious discrepancy between Paul's teachings to the Romans, who he had not even met yet, and his teachings to the Corinthians?  Also, why does Paul only address the issue as it concerns men? Many bible scholars agree that in Romans Paul is referencing the Mosaic

In 1 Corinthians, Paul has a lot to say concerning men and women, sex, marriage and divorce. He begins chapter 7 by stating that "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman", but goes on to say that, because of the temptation of sexual immorality, "each man should have his own wife, and each wife her own husband". So, in this context it seems as though Paul is saying men and women should marry only to protect themselves from the sin of sexual immorality. This seems like a pretty bleak existence.  The question then, is this: According to Paul and the 1st Century Roman Empire, is there an acceptable reason to divorce one's spouse? The answer is not as cut and dried as one might think. In fact, and unsurprisingly, the two groups' opinions are split on the subject. It should be noted that Paul, as a disciple of Jesus, was taught that marriage is absolute . In Matthew 19:6 and 19:9 Jesus addresses a Pharisee who is badg