|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Divorce: The Authorized and Compleat® Argument
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
[Bear with me, this is going to be a long OP]
I have asked several people in the context of the +Robinson arguments [which I'm not proposing to continue here], why it is that the Episcopal Church which has its current collective knickers in a twist about homosexuclergy (thanks, Wood, for a great word) will ordain divorced and remarried bishops, without even conducting long, horrible inquiries into whether their divorces were based on the only ground arguably allowed by NT scripture (adultery) (the OT writers were clear that more causes were allowed to our OT forbears).
The answer I have heard is that the key difference is, if homosexuality is in fact a sin, then the non-celibate gay bishop in question is living a public life of sin, and asking that it be celebrated. Whereas the bishop who is divorced may say, I sinned a while back, but I'm in a good Christian marriage now and I'm sorry for what happened. The sin was in the past and is repented. (now, I realize that +Robinson is both non-celibately gay and divorced, and so he is not off the hook on this point)(and as I mentioned, I really don't want to talk about him anyway)(Really. Go somewhere else to do that).
But then I thought, this is a nonsensical distinction. The Gospels have Jesus several times indicating that those persons who divorce and then remarry (assuming that the one condition mentioned by Matthew (not Mark), adultery, is absent) are themselves committing adultery. Presumably, ongoing adultery, too. Every sexual act with the new spouse is adulterous and sinful.
Therefore, the remarried bishop is living in as flagrant and ongoing a sin, and is every bit as much asking the Church to celebrate it (assuming he remarried in the Church) as the gay bishop living with his partner is.
So, being an religioacademigeek, I went and looked for all the scriptural bases for Christian attitudes on divorce.
+++
The OT clearly shows that it was accepted under certain circumstances, and there was a procedure for it; other passages show it disapproved of or not thought of well.
In Genesis 2:24,
quote:
Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
According to one source I have read, "joined" here is the translation from the Hebrew word "dabaq" which means to "make a permanent alliance." Nobody knows whether this is a simple statement of practical truth or a theological "fact" meaning divorce isn't possible. There have been arguments on both sides (e.g., C.S. Lewis)
The writer of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 speaks of allowing a man to divorce for "uncleanness", and prohibits a woman so divorced from remarrying her first husband, but she can marry another:
quote:
1 When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, 2 when she has departed from his house, and goes and becomes another man's wife, 3 if the latter husband detests her and writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her as his wife, 4 then her former husband who divorced her must not take her back to be his wife after she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.
Ezra 10:1-16 and Nehemiah 13:23-30 tell of the forced divorce of foreign wives taken by Jews during the Babylonian captivity:
Ezra 10:10-11:
quote:
Then Ezra the priest stood up and said to them, "You have transgressed and have taken pagan wives, adding to the guilt of Israel. 11 Now therefore, make confession to the LORD God of your fathers, and do His will; separate yourselves from the peoples of the land, and from the pagan wives.
Malachi says that (2:14-16) divorce is very bad:
quote:
14 Yet you say, "For what reason?"
Because the LORD has been witness
Between you and the wife of your youth,
With whom you have dealt treacherously;
Yet she is your companion
And your wife by covenant.
15 But did He not make them one,
Having a remnant of the Spirit?
And why one?
He seeks godly offspring.
Therefore take heed to your spirit,
And let none deal treacherously with the
wife of his youth.
16 "For the LORD God of Israel says
That He hates divorce,
For it covers one's garment with
violence,"
Says the LORD of hosts.
"Therefore take heed to your spirit,
That you do not deal treacherously.
Mark is extremely clear that Jesus rejected divorce. This was later softened by the addition of the adultery exception in Matthew and Luke, some speculate, because Jesus' teaching was thought to be too hard.
Mark 10:2-12 admits of no valid grounds for divorce in what I find a very elegant passage.
quote:
2 The Pharisees came and asked Him, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" testing Him. 3 And He answered and said to them, "What did Moses command you?"
4 They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to dismiss her."
5 And Jesus answered and said to them, "Because of the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. 6 But from the beginning of the creation, God "made them male and female.'
7 "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh'; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." 10 In the house His disciples also asked Him again about the same matter. 11 So He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. 12 And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."
What is Jesus saying here? Is it (with his customary "you have said/but I say" didactic format) that divorce is not the ideal, but was in the past allowed because of human imperfection, and he is now saying that that doesn't apply anymore? It seems to me that this could be so.
Matthew and Luke have Jesus being more lenient on the subject. According to a religioustolerance.org article re: divorce, "by the first century CE, the law of divorce based on Deuteronomy 24:1 was being interpreted in many ways: the Shammai school taught that a man could only divorce his wife if she committed adultery; the Hillel school taught that the man could divorce her if he found anything disagreeable in her. Jesus here is making his views known; he agrees with the Shammai interpretation. He says that a wife's adultery is the only valid grounds for divorce."
Matthew 5:31-32 states quote:
31 Furthermore it has been said, "Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.' 32 But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery."
and later,
Matthew 19:3-9
quote:
3The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?"
4 And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning "made them male and female,' 5 and said, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."
7 They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?"
8 He said to them, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery."
According to Luke (16:18) Remarriage is not permitted, but divorce isn't, explicitly:
quote:
18Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced from her husband commits adultery.
Finally, Paul said in his first letter to the Corinthians 7:10-17 that separation is okay for those who choose to live a chaste life and that remarriage is permitted when a non-Christian spouse divorces a Christian one.
quote:
Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband. 11But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife.
12 But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. 13 And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. 15 But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace.
I read Paul as saying that Jesus (yet not I, but the Lord") rejects divorce, but Paul would say ("I, not the Lord") that the Christian whose unbeliever spouse has left may remarry.
++++++++++++++
Given all of this clarity on the subject (in contrast to other vexed issues), why do so many churches allow divorce/es to remarry in the Church, or will bless the Civil Unions of those who remarry/marry a divorced person? And why remarried/divorced bishops?
In my mind, the only acceptable justification has to be that Scripture, with Tradition and Reason (or with Tradition, Reason and Experience, if you're into four-legged stools) lead us to believe that divorce and remarriage is really okay after all. I say "okay", because allowing divorce/es a church marriage is certainly celebrating what Jesus said several times was adultery. And we do know how God felt about adultery. (See, e.g., Commandments 7, 10).
I'm not convinced that Scripture, Tradition and Reason support any such statement. On the other hand, the Catholic Church allows for annulments under several circumstances in which adultery is not an issue -- immaturity, non-consummation, mental defect, non-consent. I would personally say that a spouse should not have to tolerate abuse or cruelty. Is cruelty arguably a form of infidelity that would trigger the adultery exception?
I'm not here intending to criticise our divorced shipmates, and am not primarily interested in personal/anecdotal arguments about "why you've hurt my feelings because my divorce is justified". I personally have no idea whether remarriage after divorce is adultery. I'm interested in knowing how we are to understand the scriptural restrictions on divorce; and by what justification modern churches came to the decision to allow ordinary divorcees to remarry, given the clear voice of scripture on this issue.
I guess a sort of sidebar to all of this is my own personal suspicion that divorce is allowed because the Church at some point privately conceded that Jesus' teachings thereupon are impractical and further, that there are so very many divorcees these days, that the modern church can't afford to alienate them; whereas many Churches can afford (at least for the present) to hold the line on other forms of scripturtally and traditionally condemned sexual conduct because they apply to fewer persons. But that's just an unworthy personal suspicion.
What thinks anyone else about any of this?
[thought I'd get out an OP that long without one mistake?]
[ 08. January 2006, 21:58: Message edited by: Erin ]
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura.:
[Bear with me, this is going to be a long OP]
...
What thinks anyone else about any of this?
Wow. What an OP.
Divorce is a sin. I have no problem with that - I have always believed it. In fact when faced with it, I felt I might be abandoned by my family and my church because of it. That that did not happen is a tribute to love reaching to a higher level than the law.
Remarriage - I never dealt with whether this was a sin or not. It was never communicated to me that it would not be appropriate. Not my church, not the church my wife was from, not my family or friends. It is only in the last few years (not coindidentally after joining the Ship) has the argument really struck me.
I was again surprised when my current church ordained me as an elder in spite of my divorce and remarriage.
As you can imagine, it is not completely resolved in my mind. I am looking forward to seeing what others have to say as well.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
My understanding in Orthodoxy is that remarriage after divorce is granted as part of the economy of salvation. I believe it must be done after consultation with a priest and that the rite is different, I think maybe having a penitential aspect. I know other shipmates know much more about this than me. My understanding is also that the Orthodox Church does not view adultery as simply a physical sexual act, adultery can have a much more complex meaning.
This isn't an issue as far as the clergy go. Priests married before ordination cannot marry again, or marry after ordination and bishops can't be married at all.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Borzoi Wally Boy:
This isn't an issue as far as the clergy go. Priests married before ordination cannot marry again, or marry after ordination and bishops can't be married at all.
Well, it isn't an issue in the Orthodox Church, maybe. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I'm more interested in what you say about the Orthodox understanding of what "adultery" is. I'm sure it has something to do with Orthodox Tradition, and that Pops Gregorios will be around to explain it all shortly.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
Laura wrote:
quote:
I guess a sort of sidebar to all of this is my own personal suspicion that divorce is allowed because the Church at some point privately conceded that Jesus' teachings thereupon are impractical and further, that there are so very many divorcees these days, that the modern church can't afford to alienate them; whereas many Churches can afford (at least for the present) to hold the line on other forms of scripturtally and traditionally condemned sexual conduct because they apply to fewer persons. But that's just an unworthy personal suspicion.
It's one I've always shared. ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif) Divorce seems to be acceptable because it affects "people like us" while other things are not okay because they affect "people like them". And "we don't like them"
Tubbs
[ 11. March 2004, 19:47: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
From the Religious Tolerance website, the following is a good summary of the current scope of Christian views on the subject:
- 1. Neither divorce nor remarriage are allowed. (Conservative Protestant view)
2. Divorce is OK, but not remarriage. (Ditto)
3. Divorce is OK in cases of adultery or desertion; remarriage is OK. (Ditto)
4. Divorce is OK for many reasons; remarriage is OK. (Ditto)
5. Divorce is impossible unless the marriage can be proven to have never existed. (Roman Catholic)
6. Divorce is OK in cases of marriage breakdown; remarriage is OK. (Religious liberal and secular view).
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
Hopefully Pops or another more knowledgeable shipmate will be along to correct or add to what I said. In the meantime though...
I think adultery can be seen not merely as an act of sexual infidelity, but as a witholding of oneself from the partner in a marriage and giving onself to something else. Examples I can think of would be an addiction to drugs or gambling, or excessive devotion to a career or other pursuit.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
I did some poking around, and determined that revised language for the CofE position on remarriage was in the works a few years ago -- in 1999, the House of Bishops, proposed new laws concerning remarriage, allowing that "...divorced persons may remarry if they meet at least twice with their parish clergy, who must seek the advice of the bishop; if each person has looked honestly at his or her first marriage, fully disclosing to the prospective partner the background that led to the divorce; if the children and spouse from the previous marriage are provided for; if the couple's new relationship was not responsible for the end of the previous marriage; and if neither the bride nor the groom has been divorced more than once."
Did this change ever go into effect?
Anyway, as to Wally's point, what do you think Jesus was talking about? Did he mean by adultery that your spouse was a workaholic? I suspect not. I suspect that "adultery" was understood in the common way, and that abandonment to play Civilization III for weeks on end doesn't count. The word in Matthew is porneia, usually understood to refer to habitual sexual immorality.
[ 11. March 2004, 20:17: Message edited by: Laura. ]
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
More poking around reveals that there are two different ways of understanding the impact of remarriage after divorce. The Catholic view is that the adultery is ongoing with each sexual act, because the former marriage is still operational. One protestant view is that the second marriage and subsequent sexual acts represent adultery, which is a sin, but also breaks the first marriage, freeing the wronged spouse. The sinning spouse is also, therefore, free, and bound to the second marriage. This seems a bit circular.
As to priests, I presume the Orthodox restriction against remarrieds becoming priests is from (in part) I Timothy 3:2, 12, re elders and deacons being "the husband of one wife". Some have read this against polygamy, but that's probably not so, because polygamy was not widely practiced at that time, but divorce was widespread among Jews and Gentiles alike.
[ 11. March 2004, 20:26: Message edited by: Laura. ]
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
I think the understanding of what adultery meant in Jesus' words is clear, and that is the standard. I think the broader meaning of adultery is what plays in to the economy aspect, i.e. why there can be exceptions in some cases for the laity. Should someone willingly withdraw themselves from a marriage, but there are other factors at work aside from sexual infidelity, the church will show compassion over strict adherence to the rules.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
First of all, Christian marriage, in theory and in practice, has not been an unchanging institution since Jesus spoke about it. Even our Orthodox brothers should admit aspects of an Orthodox marriage today don't enjoy the witness of two thousand years.
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Divorce is impossible unless the marriage can be proven to have never existed. (Roman Catholic)
I would consider this inaccurate. Perhaps when the Church controlled all legal aspects of marriage this may have been true. Now, one can file for divorce without recourse to the Church, and the Church may advocate doing so in cases of abuse.
However marriage remains a valid sacrament, and as long as the marriage remains valid in the eyes of the Church, "remarrying" would constitute adultery. If it can be shown that the marriage was for some reason invalid, an annulment can be granted and the man and woman couldn't commit adultery by marrying someone else.
A survey of the history of the sacramental nature of marriage will reveal that often there have been those opposed to considering marriage as a sacrament (Calvin and Luther come to mind among others). In the court of popular opinion it appears that this view is prevailing.
"I believe in the sanctity of marriage, really I do."-- Britney Spears
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
Ley, it should be clear that I'm talking not about the state at all in any of this. I'm talking about what the Churches hold, individually. The Catholic Church officially takes no notice of secular divorce. Nor do I imagine it should.
Back to the so-called adultery exception, I've just read something that makes an interesting point. Jesus' citation of the Mosaic exception is not for adultery (moiceia), but for fornication (porneia). The argument goes that, as fornication referred to sexual indiscretion before marriage, this exception referred to later-discovered sexual activity before marriage. Under Jewish law, if a husband found upon consummation that his wife had not been a virgin, he was allowed to put her away and try again -- this is what Joseph is thinking of doing with regard to Mary.
What Jesus is saying then, is if someone puts away his wife, except for fornication (porneia), he forces her to commit adultery (moiceia). He isn't saying you can put away your spouse for adultery, (moiceia), because you wouldn't have to -- adultery was at the time punishable by death -- and the wronged spouse would be free then to remarry.
So there arguably goes even that exception.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
Although I suppose you could say, as the law currently discourages stoning your adulterous husband or wife, a modern reading of Jesus would require that there be some sort of "out".
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
A few observations to start with...
quote:
Originally posted by Laura.:
According to a religioustolerance.org article re: divorce, "by the first century CE, the law of divorce based on Deuteronomy 24:1 was being interpreted in many ways: the Shammai school taught that a man could only divorce his wife if she committed adultery; the Hillel school taught that the man could divorce her if he found anything disagreeable in her. Jesus here is making his views known; he agrees with the Shammai interpretation. He says that a wife's adultery is the only valid grounds for divorce."
The School of Hillel did, indeed, teach that a man could divorce his wife for a wide range of reasons, including failing in her domestic duties, for example. Rabbi Akiba went further and said that a man could divorce his wife if he found another woman fairer than his wife.
This makes the account as given in Mark rather odd, as Jesus is asked whether divorce is permissible. In first century Judaism this doesn't seem to have been an issue; the issue was on what grounds divorce was persmissible.
quote:
Originally posted by Laura.:
Mark is extremely clear that Jesus rejected divorce. This was later softened by the addition of the adultery exception in Matthew and Luke, some speculate, because Jesus' teaching was thought to be too hard.
I agree that Mark is quite clear, and the exception in Matthew is likely to be a later addition (there is no exception in Luke ![[Confused]](confused.gif) ). It is unlikely that Mark dropped from the saying of Jesus an exception originally there, as it would make the saying harder to accept and more likely to be rejected.
quote:
Originally posted by Laura.:
Anyway, as to Wally's point, what do you think Jesus was talking about? Did he mean by adultery that your spouse was a workaholic? I suspect not. I suspect that "adultery" was understood in the common way, and that abandonment to play Civilization III for weeks on end doesn't count. The word in Matthew is porneia, usually understood to refer to habitual sexual immorality.
There is much debate on the meaning of porneia. It suggests sexual immorality of some sort, but exactly what is unclear. It seems to be different from simply adultery which in Greek is moicheia. That the two can be distinguished is suggested by the fact that the two words are used alongside each other in the list in Mark 7:21-22. It has been suggested that it means incest, but this would make the exception almost meaningless as an incestuous marriage wouldn't have been regarded as a marriage and the question of divorce wouldn't have arisen. There may be a conflict between Judaic and Roman pratice here, however.
quote:
Originally posted by Laura.:
He isn't saying you can put away your spouse for adultery, (moiceia), because you wouldn't have to -- adultery was at the time punishable by death -- and the wronged spouse would be free then to remarry.
The death penalty for adultery had probably ceased to be practiced by this point. Joseph found that Mary had, it seemed, been unfaithful. His reaction was to put her away (divorce), not stoning.
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura.:
Ley, it should be clear that I'm talking not about the state at all in any of this. I'm talking about what the Churches hold, individually. The Catholic Church officially takes no notice of secular divorce. Nor do I imagine it should.
I'm guessing that someone with an anullment would also have to secure a secular divorce to marry in the Church.
Likewise I bet protestants require previously married people to have a secular divorce before they marry again.
Given that very few religious organizations have divorce ceremonies, I think the role of secular divorce is important. When does one cease to be married, after divorce or right before you say "I do" again?
WRT to fornication, again, I think that the anachronistic suggestion that today's proscription against "sexual indiscretion before marriage" has an unbroken Jewish or Christian history is overly simplistic.
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
Regarding the "one flesh" idea, the implication seems to be of something like a blood tie, as between a child and its parents or between siblings. The tie of child to parents is replaced by an equally binding tie to a spouse, and one which cannot be broken as a child-parent bond cannot be broken, except by death. However, it is unclear in what sense God can be said to join together in marriage. In Judaism, as in Christianity, it is the two parties who bind themselves to each other. Marriage can be seen as a civil action, not requiring the sanction of God.
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JohnBoot
BOOTED
# 3566
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura.:
1. Neither divorce nor remarriage are allowed. (Conservative Protestant view)
2. Divorce is OK, but not remarriage. (Ditto)
I'll reveal my ignorance of Protestantism: what Protestant denominations uphold either (1) or (2)?
Posts: 789 | From: Detroit | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emma Louise
Storm in a teapot
# 3571
|
Posted
Chapelead - taking you up on that idea, a step-parent who was there for most of your cildhood may be a very *real* parent but not flesh and blood... *thinking*
Im curious too when to define the "ending" of a marriage... when the heart strays/ is absent, seperate rooms, when one leaves, when the divorce papers come through. It can take 5yrs legally if both parties arent happy... but if we stick to a "one flesh" idea, then 5years seperate living isnt very one flesh.
Maybe seperating the communion isnt ideal but happens...
Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I find 1st Corinthians 7 awesomely balanced, fair, merciful and honest: Paul faithfully extrapolating from the intent of the law, the definitive basis for Christian marriage law. It seems to cover all contingencies.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saviour Tortoise
Shipmate
# 4660
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
I'm guessing that someone with an anullment would also have to secure a secular divorce to marry in the Church.
Likewise I bet protestants require previously married people to have a secular divorce before they marry again.
Given that very few religious organizations have divorce ceremonies, I think the role of secular divorce is important. When does one cease to be married, after divorce or right before you say "I do" again?
I think this is an interesting point. It has always seemed to me that churches which allow remarriage after divorce should have some ceremony by which the couple are divorsed. I'm making no judgement as to whether they should allow remarriage or not. But if they do, then the couple must be freed/absolved/somethinged from the vows they made in the name of God the first time around. Otherwise, they are breaking those vows publicly with the encouragement of the church and this seems like a bad idea.
If the church is going to recognise divorse it should have the honesty to do it properly and make it part of the life of the church. At the moment those churches which allow remarriage seem to get involved with the nice bit, the wedding, and ignore the tricky bit, the divorse. Doesn't seem right some how.
--------------------
Baptised not Lobotomised
Posts: 745 | From: Bath, UK | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
Let's look a little closer at this passage:
quote:
Mark 10
11 So He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. 12 And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."
So possibly, if a woman divorces her husband she cannot remarry, but he can (and, of course, vice versa).
Is who divorces whom important? Opinions please.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saviour Tortoise:
It has always seemed to me that churches which allow remarriage after divorce should have some ceremony by which the couple are divorsed.
The Orthodox Church doesn't have a ceremony for divorce, because a divorce is a sin. Always, no matter what the grounds are, it is a sin. Having a ceremony in which one sins, formally, before the whole church, just isn't something we're going to do.
However, the Orthodox Church recognizes that, because we are fallen, the ideal of one marriage for life is not going to be possible for some of us. That reality has to be dealt with.
It's normal for someone to be excommunicate for a period of time after a divorce is finalized. On the approval of a bishop, the person can be readmitted to communion through the Sacrament of Confession.
As for remarriage, we have a separate rite for second marriage, which is penitential in character, making it clear that the second marriage is permitted as a concession to human weakness and frailty.
Further, a second (or third) marriage requires the permission of the bishop. (Fourth marriages are not permitted.)
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
JohnBoot
BOOTED
# 3566
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josefina:
Further, a second (or third) marriage requires the permission of the bishop. (Fourth marriages are not permitted.)
Well, I'll bite. Why is a second and a third marriage okay but a fourth is not? How about a fifth? Who made up this rule?
Posts: 789 | From: Detroit | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Here we go again. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jlg
What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
quote:
Originally posted by Laura.:
Ley, it should be clear that I'm talking not about the state at all in any of this. I'm talking about what the Churches hold, individually. The Catholic Church officially takes no notice of secular divorce. Nor do I imagine it should.
I'm guessing that someone with an anullment would also have to secure a secular divorce to marry in the Church.
Likewise I bet protestants require previously married people to have a secular divorce before they marry again.
I'm sure they do, but that would be because they don't want to create a situation where someone is breaking the civil law by entering into bigamy. And in the US at least, doesn't the priest/minister/JP sign the marriage certificate? If I'm correct about this, it's an unfortunate side effect of the delegation of enacting a civil legal function to church officials. (But that's another, though related, subject.)
quote:
Given that very few religious organizations have divorce ceremonies, I think the role of secular divorce is important. When does one cease to be married, after divorce or right before you say "I do" again?
As Saviour Tortoise has already pointed out, it would be a lot cleaner and clearer if churches which accepted grounds for dissolving marriage vows (annulment, divorce, whatever they want to call it) had some sort of formal process and/or ceremony.
Of course, there would still be the problem of deciding how to deal with the marriage/divorce/annulments of potential partners which took place under the auspices of civil authorities and/or other church authorities with different policies, so there would still be problems at the day-to-day level with the laity. But it seems to me that it would make things a lot clearer at the bishop level.
Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jlg
What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JohnBoot:
quote:
Originally posted by josefina:
Further, a second (or third) marriage requires the permission of the bishop. (Fourth marriages are not permitted.)
Well, I'll bite. Why is a second and a third marriage okay but a fourth is not? How about a fifth? Who made up this rule?
As a (divorced and remarried RC) friend of my father's used to say, "You're allowed to make one mistake, but you're expected to learn from it and not make it again."
Perhaps the Orthodox Fathers, in their wisdom, realized that they needed to give themselves a bit of wiggle room to accommodate the really slow learners?
Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Katie H. L.
Shipmate
# 1996
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Let's look a little closer at this passage:
quote:
Mark 10
11 So He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. 12 And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."
So possibly, if a woman divorces her husband she cannot remarry, but he can (and, of course, vice versa).
Is who divorces whom important? Opinions please.
Well, whenever I look at Jesus' statements on divorce (which I agree, seem pretty unambigous), I notice that they don't mention two people agreeing mutually to divorce. Such situations were perhaps rare or even non-existent in those days.
Are two people who really tried but failed to work it out less sinful than the man who dumps his wife of 30 years for somebody younger, or the wife who disappears with another man because he has rock-hard abs? To me they are less sinful, but would it make any difference to Jesus? Should it make any difference to the church?
--------------------
Katie L. just using her middle initial for a while.
Posts: 606 | From: San Francisco, USA | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PataLeBon
Shipmate
# 5452
|
Posted
I'm not sure what the policy of my current diocese is, but I do know what the policy of my old one was.
In Oklahoma, in the Episcopal Church, first marriages are allowed (obviously). Second marriages are allowed IF the couple goes to see a therapist chosen by the Church to make sure that whatever issues caused the first marriage to fail have been resolved, and the Bishop must give his permission.
To get married a third time would take almost an act of God, as it again takes the Bishop's approval which is almost never given. Anything beyond that...Nope, not in the Church.
--------------------
That's between you and your god. Oh, wait a minute. You are your god. That's a problem. - Jack O'Neill (Stargate SG1)
Posts: 1907 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
I forgot to mention, the rite of second marriage is used in the Orthodox church for any second marriage -- that is, if you've been married before, whether you were divorced or widowed, you'd get the rite of second marriage the second time around.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
My older brother managed to have his third marriage blessed by the church in a church. Still not sure how he managed it. Maybe because the first two were garden weddings. Who knows.
And here am I, still stuck with the same old Sig Other. And I didn't get so much as a toaster.
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Katie H. L.
Shipmate
# 1996
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josefina:
I forgot to mention, the rite of second marriage is used in the Orthodox church for any second marriage -- that is, if you've been married before, whether you were divorced or widowed, you'd get the rite of second marriage the second time around.
So, even if your spouse died you are only allowed to marry again as a concession to human frailty? Why is that?
--------------------
Katie L. just using her middle initial for a while.
Posts: 606 | From: San Francisco, USA | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Katie L.:
Well, whenever I look at Jesus' statements on divorce (which I agree, seem pretty unambigous), I notice that they don't mention two people agreeing mutually to divorce. Such situations were perhaps rare or even non-existent in those days.
Presumably Jesus didn't mention such a scenario because it would not have made sense to his listeners – there simply was no ‘divorce by mutual consent’ per se .
In Judaism a man could divorce his wife, but a woman could not divorce her husband (the most she could do was ask for a divorce). In Roman society men and women could divorce each other. Herodias seems to have divorced her first husband, Philip, in order to marry Herod. Possibly she was taking advantage of Roman ideas, or perhaps it was a case someone in a position of power doing what they liked (and dealing effectively with that meddlesome John the Baptist when he told them off).
Mark’s account is again noticeable with regard to this point. He describes the situation where a woman divorces her husband. This may well indicate the growing effect of Roman society on the early church by the time he wrote his gospel.
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Genie
Shipmate
# 3282
|
Posted
1Timothy:11-12
"As for younger widows, do not put them on such a list. For when their sensual desires overcome their dedication to Christ, they want to marry. Thus they bring judgment on themselves, because they have broken their first pledge."
St Paul seemed to be of the opinion that a widow or a widower should remain faithful to the marriage even after bereavement. As to how this sits with his encouragement of younger widows to remarry in order to avoid the temptation to gossip, I am unsure.
--------------------
Alleluia, Christ is risen!
Posts: 762 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dorothea
Goodwife and low church mystic
# 4398
|
Posted
Divorce is no light matter but to view a subsequent marriage as adultery is too harsh(IMO). I have have three reasons for holding this view. 1) I find arguments that Jesus' apparent position on adultery perhaps needs to be seen in the light of his specific history and culture persuasive (does that make me a cultural relativist?) 2) people make mistakes (even about important things). 3) We are forgiven for our sins past and present, so long as we are sincere in our repentence.
Of course such a position could leave the sanctity of marriage open to abuse, however, marriage and life long commitment are serious undertakings and I think the church does its best to uphold them. But we now live in a different society than Jesus did. Notions of personal fulfilment and quality of life have changed (no one has to live as battered wife, a bullied husband, or to passively accept being misunderstood and lonely for 20 years or more any longer). These days "So long as we both shall live" is perhaps best viewed as an achievable ideal rather than an absolute rule.
I think the debate is less about scripture and tradition and more about reason and experience and knowledge of people and the realities of life. Does that disempower the Church? Possibly, but one of the things I most dislike about the Church is its notion of authority over its members. Perhaps that why, although my iconography is Catholic my intellectual position is liberal Protestant.
--------------------
Protestant head? Catholic Heart?
http://joansbitsandpieces.blogspot.com/
Posts: 1581 | From: Notlob City Limits | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
[Potential Pile of Crap Alert]
Given the symbolic power of divorce as a concept in the OT (e.g. in Hosea), could it be that Jesus isn't just talking about actual divorce, but about the whole relationship between God and Israel?
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dorothea
Goodwife and low church mystic
# 4398
|
Posted
Dyfig wrote:
quote:
Given the symbolic power of divorce as a concept in the OT (e.g. in Hosea), could it be that Jesus isn't just talking about actual divorce, but about the whole relationship between God and Israel?
How do you work that one out?
J
--------------------
Protestant head? Catholic Heart?
http://joansbitsandpieces.blogspot.com/
Posts: 1581 | From: Notlob City Limits | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
St. Paul certainly pointed to the fact that the one was iconic of the other. Dyfrig has a point, but I suspect it is a "both/and" rather than an "either/or" point.
Ian
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
Given the symbolic power of divorce as a concept in the OT (e.g. in Hosea), could it be that Jesus isn't just talking about actual divorce, but about the whole relationship between God and Israel?
Yes, but the implication is that he was speaking about divorce, but was also speaking about the relationship of God to his people. Everything he said still, presumably, applies to ‘ordinary’ divorce.
[Crossposted with IanB]
[ 12. March 2004, 09:12: Message edited by: Chapelhead ]
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
phudfan
Shipmate
# 4740
|
Posted
I live under grace - not under law. If divorce is a sin, it is no greater a sin than looking at someone lustfully, or bearing false witness. Should churches only have ministers who promise they're going to stop sinning from now on? What about the laity? Are they allowed a couple of sins a week? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Ok, I believe God wants us to strive to be Holy, which means avoiding (what we believe to be) sin. But we will still sin. Surely attitude of heart is more important, and there is only one who can accurately judge that, so shouldn't we leave it to him.
Apologies for being rather simplistic, but I'm left a bit mystified by a lot of this thread.
--------------------
"It's funny how, things work out, when you're lonely and your life is full of doubt"
Posts: 365 | From: Lancashire | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by phudfan:
I live under grace - not under law. If divorce is a sin, it is no greater a sin than looking at someone lustfully, or bearing false witness.
To some extent I agree with you; divorce is not greater than, worse than or, in many respects, different from many other things we can do. On the other hand the existence of other sins does not mean that we should never discuss divorce (if divorce is regarded as a sin).
I believe that the teaching of Jesus in the six ‘antitheses’ in Matthew 5 could be summarised as
Absolutely no anger in your heart.
Absolutely no lusting after someone not your partner.
Absolutely no divorce.
Absolutely no swearing of oaths.
Absolutely no taking of revenge.
Love your enemy – absolutely.
All equally important.
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dorothea
Goodwife and low church mystic
# 4398
|
Posted
And all incredibly difficult.
(Forgive me father for I have sinned)
J
[ 12. March 2004, 10:13: Message edited by: dorothea ]
Posts: 1581 | From: Notlob City Limits | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
The idea (my own, to be honest, hence the Pile of Crap Alert) is this: one of the models of the relationship between God and Israel is that of a marriage. NOw, if Jesus is saying things about divorce, is he also (for those to have ears to hear) saying things about the God-Israel relationship? Is he suggesting that God and Israel cannot "divorce" as easily as a marriage can end? Is he suggesting that God could end his relationship with Israel if there is adultery? Is he saying that it would be "adulterous" for God to be in relationship with anyone else after that "divorce"? Ok, a rather eccentric expansion of NT Wright's theory about story-telling and use of symbols, so take it apart if you want.
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
phudfan
Shipmate
# 4740
|
Posted
Chapelhead said quote:
I believe that the teaching of Jesus in the six ‘antitheses’ in Matthew 5 could be summarised as
Absolutely no anger in your heart.
Absolutely no lusting after someone not your partner.
Absolutely no divorce.
Absolutely no swearing of oaths.
Absolutely no taking of revenge.
Love your enemy – absolutely.
All equally important.
I agree completely that these are all equally important, and they are things that I believe that, as Christians, we should strive to achieve. They are though, I believe, unachievable, unless you're Jesus (especially that last one!).
I'm not saying we shouldn't discuss divorce. I think its incredibly important to discuss our attitudes, prejudices and also our interpretations of scripture. What I am saying is that a) I'm not sure divorce is a sin, and b) if it is, why are those who have committed that 'sin' treated differently, in some cases, to those who have committed less visible sins?
--------------------
"It's funny how, things work out, when you're lonely and your life is full of doubt"
Posts: 365 | From: Lancashire | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
Given the symbolic power of divorce as a concept in the OT (e.g. in Hosea), could it be that Jesus isn't just talking about actual divorce, but about the whole relationship between God and Israel?
Of course he is, quite explicitly. But he is also talking about marriage.
The spiritual reality principle is incarnated in human life. The material (biological, social, and political) reality is illuminated and made holy by the spiritual.
And Jesus's words can mean more than one thing at at time. (After all, if we can be allusive I bet he can)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
I_am_not_Job
Shipmate
# 3634
|
Posted
I think it's interesting that Jesu shalf addresses adultery elsewhere - in the woman at the well. She's had 5 husbands and the 5th is not even married to her. Jesus says repent and go and sin no more. Does he mean - make it official and marry the guy or does he mean go be celebate and split up, and by the way the others were bad too?
--------------------
Hope for everything; expect nothing
Posts: 988 | From: London | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
There are some very good books by David Instone-Brewer (of Tyndale House in Cambridge) on this. A short Grove Booklet Divorce and Remarriage in the 1st and 21st Century (which I've read) and a longer book Divorce And Remarriage in the Bible - The social and literary context (which I bought the other week but haven't read all of yet). There is also a lot of stuff online which you can get to from that link.
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
The School of Hillel did, indeed, teach that a man could divorce his wife for a wide range of reasons, including failing in her domestic duties, for example. Rabbi Akiba went further and said that a man could divorce his wife if he found another woman fairer than his wife.
This makes the account as given in Mark rather odd, as Jesus is asked whether divorce is permissible. In first century Judaism this doesn't seem to have been an issue; the issue was on what grounds divorce was permissible.
Yes - the link & book I mentioned above try to put Jesus's words in the Rabbinical context.
I think its fair to say that he thinks that the later early church (IYSWIM) read the practices of their own time back into the Gospel accounts so that some things which became church teaching (in at least some parts of the church) are not supported by Jesus's words.
In particular he'd say that there is no hint at all of a ban on remarriage after a valid divorce - the concept would have been meaningless as in a Jewish context a divorce was (and is) nothing more nor less than clearance to remarry.
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
quote:
Originally posted by Laura.:
Mark is extremely clear that Jesus rejected divorce. This was later softened by the addition of the adultery exception in Matthew and Luke, some speculate, because Jesus' teaching was thought to be too hard.
I agree that Mark is quite clear, and the exception in Matthew is likely to be a later addition (there is no exception in Luke ). It is unlikely that Mark dropped from the saying of Jesus an exception originally there, as it would make the saying harder to accept and more likely to be rejected.
It's odd how the fiercest of inerrantists assume that Matthew has been tampered with here ![[Smile]](smile.gif) (Not that I think either of you are inerrantists). You could as well say that Matthew is quite clear, and Mark dropped the reference because it woudl have been obvious.
quote:
The death penalty for adultery had probably ceased to be practiced by this point. Joseph found that Mary had, it seemed, been unfaithful. His reaction was to put her away (divorce), not stoning.
Yes that was another argument at the time - some rabbis held that an adulterous wife must be divorced - that it was immoral to continue to live with her. There was also apparently argument about the legality of remarrying one's divorced ex-spouse - most rabbis found that that was not permitted.
I really would recommend reading Dr. Instone-Brewer's book. His summary on the website starts:
quote:
The purpose of this book is to understand the meaning of the New Testament teaching on divorce and remarriage as it would be understood by its original readers. This is as close as historical research can get to the elusive 'authorial intent'.
The conclusions, in brief, are:
- Jesus and Paul both condemned divorce without a valid ground, and discouraged divorce even for valid grounds.
- Jesus and Paul both affirmed the Old Testament grounds for divorce.
- The Old Testament allowed divorce for adultery and for neglect or abuse.
- Jesus and Paul condemned remarriage after an invalid divorce, but not after a valid divorce.
These conclusions are very different from the traditional church interpretation of the New Testament texts, which concluded that divorce with remarriage was not allowed on any grounds, and that separation was only allowed in the case of adultery, and possibly desertion by an non-believing spouse. The reason for this difference is that the background knowledge and assumptions of a first century reader were already forgotten by the second century, so that the texts were misunderstood even by the Early Church Fathers.
In order to understand the New Testament through the eyes of a first century reader, the historical context and literary background needs to be understood in great detail.
(I have to declare an interest - (a) I am divorced (though clearly within the Matthean exceptions) and (b) David is an old friend of mine, we used to be in the same class at school, and he was one of the two people most implicated in my own conversion - so I am naturally disposed to favour his arguments!)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by I_am_not_Job:
I think it's interesting that Jesu shalf addresses adultery elsewhere - in the woman at the well. She's had 5 husbands and the 5th is not even married to her. Jesus says repent and go and sin no more. Does he mean - make it official and marry the guy or does he mean go be celebate and split up, and by the way the others were bad too?
Actually Jesus did not say anything about her marital status after he said that she had had five husbands and was now living with a man who was not her husband. Here is the relevant Bible passage.
What fascinates me about this passage is that although Jesus knew about the irregularities of her sex life, she was the very first person to whom he revealed himself to be the Messiah.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So possibly, if a woman divorces her husband she cannot remarry, but he can (and, of course, vice versa).
Is who divorces whom important? Opinions please.
I believe that in Jesus's day the Jewish law allowed a man to divorce his wife, but did not allow a wife to divorce her husband.
Nowadays, of course, divorce is carried out under civil law. Either partner can divorce the other. Jewish religious law still gives special status to the man, however. A divorced Jewish man is always free to remarry. A divorced Jewish woman must obtain a get from her ex-husband before she can re-marry with Jewish ceremonies. My Jewish friends have told me about men who refuse to give their ex-wives a get unless they agree to greatly reduced child-support payments. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif) Many rabbis have spoken out against this, but it's still part of Jewish law.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Ken:
quote:
It's odd how the fiercest of inerrantists assume that Matthew has been tampered with here (Not that I think either of you are inerrantists). You could as well say that Matthew is quite clear, and Mark dropped the reference because it woudl have been obvious.
To be honest, I don't think that inerrancy has anything to do with it. I think that the suspicion is that Matthew has watered down the sterner Markan teaching because:
a) Mark is earlier, and therefore more likely to be authentic.
b) Matthew is more concerned to uphold the Torah (witness Jesus' comments in Matthew 5 about not one jot or tittle of the law passing away) and, therefore, makes Jesus' teaching on divorce closer to conservative Rabbinic orthodoxy, rather than the counsel of perfection found in Mark.
E.P. Sanders considers that the Markan prohibition is Dominical whereas the Matthean prohibition is, as it were, merely Matthean and thinks it highly unlikely that the early Church would have invented the Markan prohibition - compared to Jewish and Roman practice of the period it is astonishingly hawkish.
I find this approach plausible, but am open to correction from those better informed than myself.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
