Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: God wants you stuck with each other forever
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by IngoB: ken, the only way that you can insist on your reading as "plain" is by ignoring the rest of the NT, which is clear (in particular 1 Cor 7:10-11), by ignoring the context of the verse, in which Jesus is definitely gearing up to deliver a major change of teaching (explicitly contradicting Moses!), and finally by ignoring the historical context and the psychological reaction of the audience, by claiming that an audience of Pharisees and the disciples would be shocked by a reiteration of standard Pharisaic teaching.
OK. Why are we not referring to Matthew 19: quote: Matthew 19:3 The 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,[d] and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”
10 His disciples said to Him, “If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” [d] or fornication
Isn't the plain teaching in Matthew that when the cause of the divorce is adultery it is lawful to remarry?
-------------------- "Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Freddy: Isn't the plain teaching in Matthew that when the cause of the divorce is adultery it is lawful to remarry?
This is not the plain teaching of scripture at all. It is merely what one may consider the most obvious meaning of one verse, Matthew 19:9, if one reads it in complete isolation, and knows nothing else about scripture or Jewish history. If one knows scripture, then one firstly knows that other scripture - including other scripture directly involving Jesus - appears to be in contradiction with this, but in agreement with each other. And that though this is clearly a major teaching. At a minimum, this means that there is a serious problem here, even if one does not see it in that one verse alone. If one reads the context just preceding, then it is abundantly clear that Jesus is gearing up to a clear distinction from Moses based on principle. How can he then deliver what is basically nothing but Moses' teaching? Certainly a major faction of Pharisees did understand Moses in exactly that way. That would make Jesus incoherent, which we cannot allow. Also the reaction of the Pharisaic crowd and the disciples is also incoherent with Jesus simply reaffirming Shammaite teaching. The whole response becomes absurd then: how can one doubt that anyone would still like to marry under the supposed rules of Jesus, when plenty of Jews were already marrying under just those rules? Finally one can note that Matthew 19:9 itself uses porneia for the exception, but moicheia for the judgment of the actions. Only the latter is the specific Greek term reserved for adultery, the former could refer to different kinds of sexual misbehavior. An explicit distinction has been made by the sacred author here, so we must find out why.
All this is what I still consider plain reading of scripture. It's just not focusing on one verse ripped out of context and throwing away all one's knowledge. When it gets to resolving this issue, and to finding the real teaching there, then this is perhaps not as plain. But what is plain from scripture is that one cannot read Matthew 19:9 in what may appear most obvious. That just doesn't work, whatever may actually work...
-------------------- They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
I have already spewed up details of my own marriage breakdown on a recent thread so won't inflict them on this one. Prior to separation/divorce I was highly judgemental where failed couples were concerned. Having it happen to one's self is one heck of an object lesson in humility.
Humility is what Jesus is about , He is not about incarcerating people , against their will, into cast-iron institutions that have the potential to create anger and misery.
Having said that I'm still saddened when I see couples heading for divorce. Marriage has been around since the earliest civilisations and is therefore deeply embedded in our psyche .
-------------------- Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
The plain teaching in Matthew 19 is that the then popular, Hillelite, inverted, perverted interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1(*), no fault, no reason = any reason divorce (for men only of course), was evil, Godless, loveless.
Of course the divorce rights built in to Jewish and therefore Christian marriage aren't touched by this or anything else Jesus said: Exodus 21:10-11 (NLT) 10 If a man who has married a slave wife takes another wife for himself, he must not neglect the rights of the first wife to food, clothing, and sexual intimacy. 11 If he fails in any of these three obligations, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.
Affirmed, of course, by Paul.
(*) Deuteronomy 24:1 (NLT) Suppose a man marries a woman but she does not please him. Having discovered something wrong with her (a euphemism for "a cause of immorality," or, more literally, "a thing of nakedness.", i.e. she was soiled goods not sold on that basis), he writes her a letter of divorce, hands it to her, and sends her away from his house. [ 31. May 2012, 22:02: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
-------------------- Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by IngoB: quote: Originally posted by Freddy: Isn't the plain teaching in Matthew that when the cause of the divorce is adultery it is lawful to remarry?
This is not the plain teaching of scripture at all. It is merely what one may consider the most obvious meaning of one verse, Matthew 19:9, if one reads it in complete isolation, and knows nothing else about scripture or Jewish history.
I'm aware of the arguments that you raise here, and that this is why the RC policy is no divorce, period.
It is not a strong argument, though, in my opinion. It has clearly not been accepted in protestant Christianity.
The fact is that Jesus makes this statement in Matthew 5 and 19, as it is recorded. The fact that He leaves out the part about fornication in Mark 10 and Luke 16 does not mean that it is not assumed, since this was the accepted doctrine among many scholars.
I don't accept that this was an issue simply because the context demands that Jesus contradict the Pharisees' expectations.
The question put to Jesus, and Jesus' response, makes it clear that many people understood Moses to have taught that a man may simply give his wife a certificate of divorce. Jesus' clear refutation of that idea is what causes the disciples' response. It doesn't matter that this is in agreement with what many of the Pharisees thought.
Beyond that, though, it is clear throughout Scripture that adultery is what destroys marriage. So it is infidelity that releases the injured party from its bonds, allowing them to lawfully marry again.
-------------------- "Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Freddy: The question put to Jesus, and Jesus' response, makes it clear that many people understood Moses to have taught that a man may simply give his wife a certificate of divorce. Jesus' clear refutation of that idea is what causes the disciples' response. It doesn't matter that this is in agreement with what many of the Pharisees thought.
That really is self-contradictory nonsense, Freddy. You cannot claim that Jesus affirms the position of one of the two major groups of Pharisees. Many Jews may have understood that divorce is easy, following Hillel. Many Jews to the contrary understood that divorce was possible only because of adultery, following Shammai. Both positions can be - and were - defended from the OT, from Moses. Given that Pharisees were asking, this is quite likely the very context of the question. There would be nothing remarkable about Jesus siding with Shammai. There would be no reason for Jesus to set up an explicit and strong rejection of a teaching of Moses. The whole structure of this passage is unequivocally in the mode of the Sermon of the Mount, except with added drama providing even more oomph. Whatever happened here cannot have been "business as usual", but what you claim very much was business as usual.
Incidentally, I really like John Piper's analysis of the exception clause. I hadn't heard that one before, but it makes perfect sense to me.
quote: Originally posted by Freddy: Beyond that, though, it is clear throughout Scripture that adultery is what destroys marriage. So it is infidelity that releases the injured party from its bonds, allowing them to lawfully marry again.
Freddy, the NT speaks unequivocally and explicitly against remarriage, except possibly in Matt 19:9. You know that. So why do you speculate theologically against scripture? You must defend your position on Matt 19:9 first, or your case is already lost.
To repeat, I think Protestants should look towards the Orthodox. Their position is perhaps defensible as "pastoral accommodation".
-------------------- They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I think the protestant position actually is a form of pastoral accommodation (this may not be the best, but it is better than the alternatives,) with some pretty questionable biblical rationalisation thrown in.
Broken marriages are always a paradox, whether people continue to live within them or not. They do not signify any longer the mutual love of Christ for his church, and the church for Christ. A shell remains, the heart has been knocked out of it. That's the paradox at the heart of the pastoral accommodation. What is the cost of preserving the general indissoluble principle in individual cases? There are times when not only does the personal cost seem far too high, but in also the description of what is left as a marriage seems like a contradiction in terms. A miserable prison, an insoluble incompatibility; these seem more like the truth of it.
So I think that pastoral accommodation is not only right, but essential.
Remarriage is often described as a triumph of hope over experiences. The desire to bless and strengthen and support that hope (often born out of much wounding) seems to me to be redemptive in intent. I suppose there is a blessed inconsistency in that, also.
-------------------- Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Barnabas62: So I think that pastoral accommodation is not only right, but essential.
Sure. Yet the question is always how much "wiggle room" there is before accommodation becomes sin. I think there is no universal answer to that. And frankly, it seems to me that most of Protestantism has gone for "wiggle as much as you like" here, whereas scripture seems to be unusually tough about removing all wiggle room on this occasion. We do not usually get Jesus explicitly holding the line against His disciples. We do not usually get St Paul explicitly invoking the Lord's authority for an uncompromising statement.
quote: Originally posted by Barnabas62: Remarriage is often described as a triumph of hope over experiences.
Yet it is clearly a triumph of experiences over hope. This is really what I'm pointing to with referring to the Orthodox. They remarry in sackcloth and ashes. There is nothing "triumphant" for them, they do not celebrate failure. Adopt this attitude, and I may believe that in spite of scripture pulling no punches you may have the Lord's mercy on your side. He is a sucker for contrite hearts...
-------------------- They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Contrite hearts is right. Trading in for a new model is wrong. Endorsing the latter is not wise.
But it's a bit hard to figure what to do generally. Pastoral concern often means, for a period, encouraging couples at odds with one another to work at reconciliation. But you do get to the humpty-dumpty point. All the kings horses and all the kings men can't fix this one. One heart or another, or both, has got too hardened. Sometimes that just has to be recognised.
We love imperfectly. [ 01. June 2012, 11:14: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
-------------------- Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
This is worth a separate comment. The wiggle room thing bothers me too, even when I seem to be wiggling! Compassion seems to have its own gut-wrenching guidelines.
Not exactly germane, but poignant given my onboard name. The row between Paul and Barnabas, which was a big one, suggests that for Paul, Mark was a liability to the mission and the mission was vital, Barnabas was arguing "stick with him, he's made some mistakes but he'll learn". A good friend of mine in the church tells me that he values having an old softie like me around, even if my heart often rules my head. He reckons his head has often overruled his heart, with detrimental and regrettable results. He reckons we each need to hear each other, even if it makes things more difficult. There's something in that.
-------------------- Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
What's missing from this discussion is the observation that, in Jesus' day, divorce was especially devastating to women -- they couldn't initiate divorce, while men could divorce wives for any reason -- being bad cooks; being vaguely annoying; being less youthful and attractive than third cousin Moishe's pubescent daughter. And once divorced, women were damaged goods; unless they had the good fortune of a sympathetic father or brother who would take them back into the family fold, they were out of luck in a patriarchal culture; destined for lives of begging or prostitution. (And this scenario plays out every day today in places like the Middle East.)
In a more equitable society, and one where marriages are based on a sense of partnership/companionship rather than on patriarchal business transactions and inter-clan relationship massaging, the dynamics of a broken marriage are different. Certainly when minor children are involved, or when one party in the marriage has shouldered most of the financial responsibilities, it can still be a financially devastating and socially dislocating event, and something that both partners and their spiritual and other counsel would hope that they'd avoid; but in some cases divorce is a "least bad" option among many. And I find the RC party line not only excessively rigid, but unnecessarily punitive -- and a bit disingenuous (I know people who've gotten annulments or been denied same for reasons that, shall we say, have diminished whatever respect I've had for the pastoral/theological integrity and gravitas of their church leadership.) [ 01. June 2012, 12:23: Message edited by: LutheranChik ]
-------------------- Simul iustus et peccator http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard: and you're factually wrong of course IngoB. As you know.
Ha-ha-ha.
I am absorbing what IngoB said and trying to grasp that point of view. I half think that he must be joking, but I guess that his argument is the accepted view in Catholicism. I have never heard it before.
The best explanation that I had heard before was that Catholicism rejects Matthew's version on the basis that his mention of "except for fornication" in chapters 5 and 19 was a later addition, and that what Luke and Mark say takes precedence.
-------------------- "Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomOfTarsus
Shipmate
# 3053
|
Posted
I don't know, Martin; and further, it's important that we see that in certain respects the lot of us here aren't that far apart - we agree that marriage is serious, and only grave circumstances should allow it to be dissolved. I liked the article you originally posted and then Piper's analysis makes sense from a different standpoint.
That standpoint is that Jesus often set up impossible situations to point out that we cannot keep the law by our own efforts; we can't "earn" our salvation. So here, we see a very high standard set, by Piper's analysis and the RC position.
Then too , I see a couple of different viewpoints on the thread. The viewpoint of a pastor, "What do you do with the couple...", and what I've often perceived as two different outlooks on all manners of sin.
It is natural, when in a painful marriage situation, to be looking for a way out. And there are bad situations where, as I've noted, separation may be absolutely necessary. But again, the attitude should be "separate to save, if at all possible." The love of God is always seeking new ways to meet it's objective; Christ's love sanctifies his Bride so that He may present it to Himself glorious, without spot or blemish (Eph. 5 25 etc).
You can either be looking for a way out, and a way to justify it; or be looking for a way to continue to love, tough, creative, sanctifying love. As I've said, marriage is not primarily to make us happy, but to sanctify us, to make us more like Jesus. If we are to love our neighbor, and even our enemy, how much more so the one who has shared our bed?
Blessings,
Tom
ETA: no Freddy, they do not take it as a later addition, see Piper's analysis in IngoB's later link. [ 01. June 2012, 14:09: Message edited by: TomOfTarsus ]
-------------------- By grace are ye saved through faith... not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath ... ordained that we should walk in them.
Posts: 1570 | From: Pittsburgh, PA USA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
kankucho
Shipmate
# 14318
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by cliffdweller: Because I am a pastor, every single job I have interviewed for in the 23 years since my divorce, I've been asked that question. Every single time. Jobs I've gotten, jobs I haven't gotten (and, of course, I'll never know if that's why). Which means, for 23 years, I'm constantly having to re-recite yet again the narrative, the details of his sin and mine, the betrayal that I have worked hard to forgive and let go of, but every few years has to be resurrected and re-dissected yet again. Over and over and over again.
That's a shame. In 23 years, have you not come up with an interview-friendly way of saying "that's none of your damn business"? Perhaps something like, "a lot of water has passed under the bridge since then (next question, please)"?
Particularly in view of the long time involved, I can only perceive such interrogation as an unwarranted act of prurience.
-------------------- "We are a way for the cosmos to know itself" – Dr. Carl Sagan Kankucho Bird Blues
Posts: 1262 | From: Kuon-ganjo, E17 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Freddy: quote: Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard: and you're factually wrong of course IngoB. As you know.
Ha-ha-ha.
I am absorbing what IngoB said and trying to grasp that point of view. I half think that he must be joking, but I guess that his argument is the accepted view in Catholicism. I have never heard it before.
The best explanation that I had heard before was that Catholicism rejects Matthew's version on the basis that his mention of "except for fornication" in chapters 5 and 19 was a later addition, and that what Luke and Mark say takes precedence.
John Piper's explanation makes the most sense to me. Scholars usually assume Luke and Matthew used Mark as a source. Matthew altered Mark's account for a reason. Porneia is usually not translated adultery. What's so hard to understand?
-------------------- Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible. -Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
I'd always understood porneia to encompass any kind of sex outside marriage, including pre-marital fornication and bestiality, but also of course including adultery.
-------------------- "Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bartolomeo
Musical Engineer
# 8352
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Barnabas62: Contrite hearts is right. Trading in for a new model is wrong. Endorsing the latter is not wise.
But it's a bit hard to figure what to do generally. Pastoral concern often means, for a period, encouraging couples at odds with one another to work at reconciliation. But you do get to the humpty-dumpty point. All the kings horses and all the kings men can't fix this one. One heart or another, or both, has got too hardened. Sometimes that just has to be recognised.
I agree with this in the context of a true pastoral relationship where someone is trying to decide whether to proceed with divorce. The only thing to watch is that pastors aren't necessarily perfect judges of whether reconciliation is still possible or worthwhile (as when the cost of reconciliation is giving up one's faith, values, etc).
Once a decision is made a more supportive approach might be called for.
-------------------- "Individual talent is too sporadic and unpredictable to be allowed any important part in the organization society" --Stuart Chase
Posts: 1291 | From: the American Midwest | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Bartolomeo: quote: Originally posted by Barnabas62: Contrite hearts is right. Trading in for a new model is wrong. Endorsing the latter is not wise.
But it's a bit hard to figure what to do generally. Pastoral concern often means, for a period, encouraging couples at odds with one another to work at reconciliation. But you do get to the humpty-dumpty point. All the kings horses and all the kings men can't fix this one. One heart or another, or both, has got too hardened. Sometimes that just has to be recognised.
I agree with this in the context of a true pastoral relationship where someone is trying to decide whether to proceed with divorce. The only thing to watch is that pastors aren't necessarily perfect judges of whether reconciliation is still possible or worthwhile (as when the cost of reconciliation is giving up one's faith, values, etc).
Once a decision is made a more supportive approach might be called for.
Absolutely. Support means recognising where the responsibility for difficult decisions lies - and that is not with the supporters. I've lived through a few of these situations with others and the worst thing any of can do is "take over". Even, and I've experienced this, where one partner or another wants you to do just that. You can't live other folks' lives for them. [ 01. June 2012, 15:56: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
-------------------- Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Freddy: I am absorbing what IngoB said and trying to grasp that point of view. I half think that he must be joking, but I guess that his argument is the accepted view in Catholicism. I have never heard it before.
I'm not aware of any "officially approved" RC exegesis of this verse, and I would not like my opinion to be mistaken for it. The RCC considers the typical Protestant position on this to be wrong, that is official.
I'm also very much not joking...
quote: Originally posted by Freddy: The best explanation that I had heard before was that Catholicism rejects Matthew's version on the basis that his mention of "except for fornication" in chapters 5 and 19 was a later addition, and that what Luke and Mark say takes precedence.
I have never heard that explanation before as "Catholic"! Seriously.
One of the most common "Catholic" explanations in my experience is along the lines of Piper's explanations, basically saying that the initial porneia concerns some kind of inherently illicit union, for example, an incestuous one. What was new about Piper's idea (for me) was to relate this to the marriage of Joseph and Mary instead, i.e., Matthew defends the reaction of Joseph that only he reports. I find that quite ingenious.
quote: Originally posted by Matt Black: I'd always understood porneia to encompass any kind of sex outside marriage, including pre-marital fornication and bestiality, but also of course including adultery.
Not wrong, but the point is that here Matthew explicitly contrasts porneia with moicheia. It could be that this is about including more reasons for divorce than just adultery. Note though that this is getting pretty, uhmm, "special" if this is about a woman who is already married. She can't fornicate any more, and so beyond adultery we are really looking at much less likely sexual misbehaviour (like bestiality, as you mentioned). To me this seems a bit too "laywer-precise". The alternative that the contrast is intended to refer to some problem with the marriage process itself (fornication during betrothal, as Piper speculates, or illicit unions, as I've more often heard) seems quite good to me. Add to that the fact that nowhere else in the NT do we get this exception, and I think the case is strong.
-------------------- They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by TomOfTarsus: ETA: no Freddy, they do not take it as a later addition, see Piper's analysis in IngoB's later link.
Yes, evidently not. But what I had heard before is what Beeswax said.
Piper's analysis was helpful in understanding Ingo's point of view. And I'm guessing that this is the more orthodox Catholic view.
-------------------- "Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
IngoB thyat last post is stuff that simply isn't in the Bible. You are making it up, or whoever taught it was.
Its just not there. There is no attempt in the whole New Testament to make the kind of precise legalistic nitpicking rules about adultery and fornication that you have just gone on about, any more than there is the slightest hint of this imaginary weird state of being divorced but not allowed to marry. Its just not there. You are straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.
And as for saying read the whgole of it and not just a few passages taken out of contet that is EXACTLY what you are doing.
What mention there is of divorce in the NT is pretty consistent. Its bad. Its wrong. You shoudln;t do it. It is almost always a sin to divorce, though there are extreme situations in which it is allowable. Though the NT does not go anywhere near defining what those situations are. If a man divorces his wife in any other coircumstances than one of those rare situqtions then he forces her to commit adultery. That's all pretty clear.
What the NT does not say, and what the churches (or the Western churches) have added to it, is this novel idea that there is such a thing as divorce that does not permit remarriage. In effect they have been saying noit just that divorce is wrong - which it is of course and the Bible is clear on that - but that doivorce doesn't really exist. So that someone who is divorced must carry on pretending to be married, even if their spose has dumped them and gone off and married someone else and is never coming back. Tha tbiut of cloud-cuckoo-land is not in the Bible, it was added later. And it goes too far. It t is beyond what we have the Scriptural authority to require of people.
Which is pretty much what David Instone-Brewer realised when he was researching this stuff.
-------------------- Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by IngoB: quote: Originally posted by Freddy: The question put to Jesus, and Jesus' response, makes it clear that many people understood Moses to have taught that a man may simply give his wife a certificate of divorce. Jesus' clear refutation of that idea is what causes the disciples' response. It doesn't matter that this is in agreement with what many of the Pharisees thought.
That really is self-contradictory nonsense, Freddy. You cannot claim that Jesus affirms the position of one of the two major groups of Pharisees.
I'm trying to think how this could be self-contradictory nonsense simply because Jesus sided with a known position. That would not make it "business as usual." The context clearly shows that the dominant understanding of Moses' words was that a man could simply give his wife a certificate of divorce. quote: Originally posted by IngoB: quote: Originally posted by Freddy: Beyond that, though, it is clear throughout Scripture that adultery is what destroys marriage. So it is infidelity that releases the injured party from its bonds, allowing them to lawfully marry again.
Freddy, the NT speaks unequivocally and explicitly against remarriage, except possibly in Matt 19:9. You know that.
Why leave out Matthew 5? quote: Matthew 5:31 “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[e] causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.
The interesting thing here is that this anticipates the discussion in Matthew 19 and makes it clear what understanding Jesus is refuting. He refutes the teaching of Moses allowing divorce for any number of reasons and limits it to adultery.
What amazes me, though, about the position that adultery, or "porneia", is not grounds for divorce and remarriage, is that it loses sight of the point of the law in the first place.
The whole point is to prevent adultery and preserve marriage. The result of breaking the law about divorce is adultery. So if adultery has already taken place the law's effect has already been enacted.
Saying that the injured party is not free to divorce and remarry on pain of being labelled an adulterer is like charging an innocent person with arson when someone else has already burned down the house. quote: Originally posted by IngoB: So why do you speculate theologically against scripture?
Scripture explicitly recognizes that adultery destroys marriage.
The Lord says in Isaiah: quote: Isaiah 50:1 Thus says the LORD: “Where is the certificate of your mother’s divorce, Whom I have put away?"
God put her away because of her "adulteries" and He will then "marry" another.
He says the same in Jeremiah and Hosea: quote: Jeremiah 3:8 Then I saw that for all the causes for which backsliding Israel had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a certificate of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but went and played the harlot also.
Hosea 2:2 “Bring charges against your mother, bring charges; For she is not My wife, nor am I her Husband! Let her put away her harlotries from her sight,"
The pattern is that adultery is grounds to lawfully end the marriage, and Jesus recognizes this explicitly in Matthew.
The strange thing to me is that Mark and Luke do not contradict Matthew, they just don't mention the details. So why do mental gymnastics to nullify the obvious teaching in Matthew?
-------------------- "Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
What is the argument about? Ingo has granted (with, in my opinion, entirely appropriate skepticism) the possibility of the Church granting remarriages for pastoral reasons.
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Tom, believe me, I know. As grievous sinner and sinned against by life, I know.
To IngoB I don't exist, which is interesting. He's still wrong. I don't mean his entire traditional argument in this instance, even though it is, but as a matter of fact of which he will be WELL aware but NEVER acknowledge. That's part of what he brings to the party. Arrogance which evokes mine.
His heterodoxy and my heteropraxis are a bad combination. We do so bring out the worst in each other. I can't respect his lack of Petrine respect in his Petrine supremacy and so it iterates.
If the only thing ever said on the subject in the NT was, Matthew 5:31-32 (NIV) Divorce 31 “It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
Even that would be open to interpretation and we can do that here in the light of Jesus' penchant for being hyperbolic in a highly culturally constrained environment. Being conservative I would still probably have to desert my wife. In fact I could not have married her. And for a time I couldn't.
But it is FAR from the only mention of divorce and remarriage in the NT. Which cannot be considered without the OT and Jesus' milieu. What happened in the West (and the East) after that is neither here nor there. Unless the Spirit writes the law of the Medes and the Persians in stone.
Not hearts. And not the law of Love.
How do we reconcile Matthew 5 and THEN Matthew 19 ? And then that which IngoB can't admit ?
This is ALL about disposition, as ALWAYS. What we bring to the party. If we can be grown up about this and admit all of our biases, our prejudices, our traditions, our inculturation and start again by including being open about our epistemologies then may be we can get the shape of this object. Some can't possibly do that as they own it all.
Whatsoever is not of faith is sin, so we must be careful with each other. We must respect each other. Which on this issue is going to be difficult. Especially with some people.
Can we be grown up about this ? Acquit ourselves as adult Christians ? See what emerges ?
What Spirit are we sinners going to bring to this ? Which Christ ?
And in answer to the OP, it's till death one way or the other. Marriages die.
-------------------- Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Zach82: What is the argument about? Ingo has granted (with, in my opinion, entirely appropriate skepticism) the possibility of the Church granting remarriages for pastoral reasons.
It's about Matthew's exception clauses in chapters 5 and 19. Ingo seems to have reservations about what they mean exactly.
-------------------- "Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by ken: IngoB thyat last post is stuff that simply isn't in the Bible. You are making it up, or whoever taught it was. Its just not there.
How on earth can you claim that it is "just not there"? Matthew clearly and deliberately distinguishes "porneia" and "mocheia". It's there in plain sight. It's just in the very words of scripture. What that means one can argue about. You answer, apparently, "nothing". I consider that unlikely.
quote: Originally posted by ken: And as for saying read the whgole of it and not just a few passages taken out of contet that is EXACTLY what you are doing.
This is discussed in multiple places in the NT. None of them admits any exception. Only Matthew does. (Freddy is right, in two verses not one. Thanks. Two verses which are basically identical and which both contain the distinction between "porneia" and "mocheia". No accident, that.)
quote: Originally posted by ken: What the NT does not say, and what the churches (or the Western churches) have added to it, is this novel idea that there is such a thing as divorce that does not permit remarriage.
The novelty comes straight from Christ: "To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband) - and that the husband should not divorce his wife." (1 Cor 7:10-11) What are you to do if you separate (though you shouldn't)? Repeat after St Paul, it's just what the RCC says you should do.
quote: Originally posted by ken: So that someone who is divorced must carry on pretending to be married, even if their spose has dumped them and gone off and married someone else and is never coming back. Tha tbiut of cloud-cuckoo-land is not in the Bible, it was added later.
I get the pain of that. Really, I do. And as I've indicated, I see some chance of arguing for the Orthodox accommodation.
quote: Originally posted by Freddy: The context clearly shows that the dominant understanding of Moses' words was that a man could simply give his wife a certificate of divorce.
The context shows nothing of that sort. Rather, your position could only survive if that were so. But we know that historically it was not so. Rather, one of the two dominant Pharisaic factions (the Shammaites) then was precisely teaching what you would like to declare as the "surprising" teaching of Jesus. Furthermore, the very question asked of Jesus very likely is a direct reference to their conflict with the Hillelites. So the context is one where these well-known, opposing positions - which are followed by many - are on the table. You may just barely get away with pretending that the disciples were banking on Jesus siding with Hillel. But you are still left with the fact that Shammai certainly did not see the need to argue against Moses. So why would Jesus in coming to the same conclusion? It really makes no sense.
quote: Originally posted by Freddy: Why leave out Matthew 5? ... The interesting thing here is that this anticipates the discussion in Matthew 19 and makes it clear what understanding Jesus is refuting. He refutes the teaching of Moses allowing divorce for any number of reasons and limits it to adultery.
You are quite correct, my bad. Matthew says essentially the same thing twice in parallel verses. Of course, your interpretation of limiting divorce to adultery is also explicitly wrong for Matt 5, because Matthew consistently distinguishes porneia (the exception clause) from moicheia (the proper word for adultery). Whatever Matthew is doing, he's definitely not limiting divorce to adultery - for then he would have used moicheia in all three cases.
(Just out of curiosity, do you actually hold that the only legitimate reason for divorce is adultery? And do you think that a divorced woman is free to remarry?)
quote: Originally posted by Freddy: Saying that the injured party is not free to divorce and remarry on pain of being labelled an adulterer is like charging an innocent person with arson when someone else has already burned down the house.
The Lord indicates why this makes sense in his interpretation of Genesis, cf. Matt 19:6.
quote: Originally posted by Zach82: What is the argument about? Ingo has granted (with, in my opinion, entirely appropriate skepticism) the possibility of the Church granting remarriages for pastoral reasons.
I would like to think that I expressed myself even more carefully than that. But yes, I see the possibility that something like the Orthodox position is viable concerning scripture, and may provide the best "pastoral" solution. That also is the only thinkable compromise between the denominations.
-------------------- They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
The Episcopal Church requires permission from one's bishop to remarry. I doubt they tend to be very strict about it, but clearly some Protestants have had the idea. [ 01. June 2012, 18:15: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by IngoB: quote: Originally posted by ken: What the NT does not say, and what the churches (or the Western churches) have added to it, is this novel idea that there is such a thing as divorce that does not permit remarriage.
The novelty comes straight from Christ: "To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband) - and that the husband should not divorce his wife." (1 Cor 7:10-11) What are you to do if you separate (though you shouldn't)? Repeat after St Paul, it's just what the RCC says you should do.
Sorry Ingo, that is a truly horrible bit of cherry-picking. Paul is not saying that a person should never get divorced under any circumstances, he is speaking to a very specific context (namely that it is not grounds for divorce if you become a Christian and your spouse doesn't).
-------------------- Rent my holiday home in the South of France
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard: To IngoB I don't exist, which is interesting.
You continue to call me a liar to my face. I do not take kindly to that.
-------------------- They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by IngoB: (Just out of curiosity, do you actually hold that the only legitimate reason for divorce is adultery? And do you think that a divorced woman is free to remarry?)
Yes and yes. The "injured party" is free to remarry in the church, whether male or female. These are the rules we follow in my denomination.
-------------------- "Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by IngoB: quote: Originally posted by Freddy: The context clearly shows that the dominant understanding of Moses' words was that a man could simply give his wife a certificate of divorce.
The context shows nothing of that sort.
Yes it does. Even more so in Matthew 5 where Jesus specifically refutes what "has been said." If it wasn't the dominant understanding why would He be correcting it? quote: Originally posted by IngoB: Of course, your interpretation of limiting divorce to adultery is also explicitly wrong for Matt 5, because Matthew consistently distinguishes porneia (the exception clause) from moicheia (the proper word for adultery). Whatever Matthew is doing, he's definitely not limiting divorce to adultery - for then he would have used moicheia in all three cases.
I'm not sure why the distinction between these two words is meaningful. I hear what you are saying, but can't see that it bears on the argument. Sex is sex, and illicit sex is a category that is almost universally understood.
-------------------- "Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Freddy: ... illicit sex is a category that is almost universally understood.
That depends on what the meaning of "is" is.
--Tom Clune
-------------------- This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by la vie en rouge: Sorry Ingo, that is a truly horrible bit of cherry-picking. Paul is not saying that a person should never get divorced under any circumstances, he is speaking to a very specific context (namely that it is not grounds for divorce if you become a Christian and your spouse doesn't).
1 Cor 7:1-7: General discussion of continence vs. marriage. 1 Cor 7:8-9: "To the unmarried and the widows..." 1 Cor 7:10-11: "To the married..." 1 Cor 7:12-15: "To the rest ... if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever ... If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever ..." St Paul is clearly going through the different possible cases after discussing continence and marriage in general. He first addresses the continent. Then he addresses the Christian married, as is explicit in his very words, as well as simply by the context of listing the various cases. Next he makes an implicit distinction between Christian and non-Christian marriages, by calling those who are married to an unbeliever "the rest", i.e., neither continent nor (sacramentally) married. And incidentally, what St Paul is telling the Christian part of these "rest of couples" is exactly what he told the Christian couples: namely to not divorce! It is only if the unbeliever breaks up the (non-sacramental) marriage, then the Christian may be considered as free again.
I have no idea how you come to your interpretation that St Paul is talking to the spouses of unbelievers in 1 Cor 7:10-11. That is not there in the text, at all.
-------------------- They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by IngoB: quote: Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard: To IngoB I don't exist, which is interesting.
You continue to call me a liar to my face. I do not take kindly to that.
Spotted it, IngoB
quote: Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
He's still wrong. I don't mean his entire traditional argument in this instance, even though it is, but as a matter of fact of which he will be WELL aware but NEVER acknowledge. That's part of what he brings to the party. Arrogance which evokes mine.
You called him a liar, Martin. "He WILL be aware, but will NEVER acknowledge".
You don't get to do that, here. That's a C3 offence. If that's your view, take it to Hell. But leave it out, here.
Barnabas62 Purgatory Host [ 01. June 2012, 19:06: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
-------------------- Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Freddy: quote: Originally posted by IngoB: (Just out of curiosity, do you actually hold that the only legitimate reason for divorce is adultery? And do you think that a divorced woman is free to remarry?)
Yes and yes. The "injured party" is free to remarry in the church, whether male or female. These are the rules we follow in my denomination.
So for example domestic violence would not count as a reason for divorce in your church? And I take it that you extend the exception clause to the woman, though that appears not to be what Matthew is saying?
quote: Originally posted by Freddy: Yes it does. Even more so in Matthew 5 where Jesus specifically refutes what "has been said." If it wasn't the dominant understanding why would He be correcting it?
No, it doesn't. Jesus is not quoting any scriptural reason whatsoever for divorce in Matt 5:31 itself. And just before that we had him discussing adultery. There are three possibilities: 1. He is not mentioning a cause, because he wants to talk about the Hillel-type of easy divorce. 2. He is not mentioning a cause, because he has just talked at length about adultery, and thus is considering a Shammai-type of adultery-only divorce. 3. He's not mentioning a cause, because he wants to talk about the concept of divorce in general. At best then this is ambiguous. I think 2. and 3., which support my interpretation, are both more likely than 1.
-------------------- They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by IngoB: So for example domestic violence would not count as a reason for divorce in your church?
That's right. Domestic violence is a reason for separation, according to our rules, not divorce.
However, in extreme situations all bets are off. quote: Originally posted by IngoB: And I take it that you extend the exception clause to the woman, though that appears not to be what Matthew is saying?
Yes. We take all of these statements as applying equally to men and women even though the original is written as if spoken to men. quote: Originally posted by IngoB: quote: Originally posted by Freddy: Yes it does. Even more so in Matthew 5 where Jesus specifically refutes what "has been said." If it wasn't the dominant understanding why would He be correcting it?
No, it doesn't. Jesus is not quoting any scriptural reason whatsoever for divorce in Matt 5:31 itself.
Yes He is. When He says "Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce" He's paraphrasing Deuteronomy 24: quote: Deuteronomy 24:1 “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,.."
This is also what the Pharisees refer to in Matthew 19: quote: Matthew 19:7 They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?”
The clear expectation is that this is the norm, but Jesus says differently.
-------------------- "Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Freddy: The clear expectation is that this is the norm, but Jesus says differently.
I'm not sure whether you are aware of it, but Dt 24:1 is of course precisely the occasion of the debate between the Hillelites and the Shammaites. What is translated there as "some indecency" in our English is erwat dabar, or "nakedness anything/matter". According to the Hillelites, this is to be understood as nakedness (standing for sexual scandal, including adultery) or anything else that is disagreeable. According to the Shammaites, this is to be understood as a nakedness confirmed by witnesses (because in Dt 19:15 dabar is used to indicate the criminal matter which must be established by two or three witnesses).
So a reference to Dt 24:1 is nothing but a reference to the Hillel-Shammai controversy. And it remains the case that you claim for Jesus the position of Shammai. Except that Shammai would insist that the sexual scandal be confirmed independently by witnesses before it can count as a reason for divorce, i.e., if there is a difference at all then Jesus would be less tough than Shammai.
As now repeated several times, this makes no sense in context. What makes sense is that Jesus is even tougher against divorce than Shammai. What makes sense is that he goes beyond the entire discussion of Dt 24:1 by returning to Gen 2:24. It is really hard to see how your "plain reading" of allowing divorce for adultery could work. Since good alternatives to this "plain reading" exist, they must get preference.
-------------------- They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bartolomeo
Musical Engineer
# 8352
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Freddy: quote: Originally posted by IngoB: So for example domestic violence would not count as a reason for divorce in your church?
That's right. Domestic violence is a reason for separation, according to our rules, not divorce.
However, in extreme situations all bets are off.
Freddy, are you suggesting that there is such a thing as "mild to moderate" domestic violence, and that such violence should not be seen as grounds for divorce?
-------------------- "Individual talent is too sporadic and unpredictable to be allowed any important part in the organization society" --Stuart Chase
Posts: 1291 | From: the American Midwest | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Bartolomeo: quote: Originally posted by Freddy: quote: Originally posted by IngoB: So for example domestic violence would not count as a reason for divorce in your church?
That's right. Domestic violence is a reason for separation, according to our rules, not divorce.
However, in extreme situations all bets are off.
Freddy, are you suggesting that there is such a thing as "mild to moderate" domestic violence, and that such violence should not be seen as grounds for divorce?
I've been a pastor for thirty years and I've only ever run into one case of domestic violence. As it was extreme, no one questioned the right of the wife to divorce and she was later remarried in the church.
But my reasoning is not about what I think is just and fair. We go by what Jesus said.
-------------------- "Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by IngoB: quote: Originally posted by Freddy: The clear expectation is that this is the norm, but Jesus says differently.
I'm not sure whether you are aware of it, but Dt 24:1 is of course precisely the occasion of the debate between the Hillelites and the Shammaites....So a reference to Dt 24:1 is nothing but a reference to the Hillel-Shammai controversy.
Yes I am aware that the controversy rests on that passage. But I'm also aware that the way that Jesus refers to it indicates a clear position.
Jesus refutes the understanding that a certificate of divorce could be given for any reason, while saying that Moses granted it because of the hardness of their hearts.
So Jesus is clearly changing what Moses said, not simply picking sides in a controversy.
-------------------- "Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Freddy: I've been a pastor for thirty years and I've only ever run into one case of domestic violence.
Wow. Either you have an exceptionally well-behaved congregation, or you're not paying attention.
-------------------- When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion. - C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Interestinglly, the only thing that my ex didn't do was commit adultery! When I came to live here and started going to the parish church, I explained that I was divorced and would quite understand if I was refused communion, but the Vicar at the timesaid that, goodnss no, I was most welcome as a communicant. Whether I could have re-married there, I don't know, as the situation didn't arise. [ 02. June 2012, 06:13: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]
-------------------- I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Freddy: Jesus refutes the understanding that a certificate of divorce could be given for any reason, while saying that Moses granted it because of the hardness of their hearts. So Jesus is clearly changing what Moses said, not simply picking sides in a controversy.
I'll try one more time, then I will give up.
The position "that a certificate of divorce could be given for any reason" is just one main interpretation of what Moses said in Dt 24:1, that of Hillel. The other main interpretation of what Moses said in Dt 24:1, that of Shammai, is "that a certificate of divorce only could be given for sexual scandal (in particular adultery)".
That was the state of play on what Moses said, those were the major factions of interpretation.
If you now claim that Jesus said "that a certificate of divorce only could be given for sexual scandal (in particular adultery)", then it is explicitly and definitely not true that "Jesus is clearly changing what Moses said". Because he is explicitly and definitely confirming Shammai, which was one of the two leading interpretations of what Moses said concerning the topic, at the time.
And if you are trying to claim that the difference between Jesus and Shammai was that Jesus restricted this to adultery only, then you run into the problem that the Greek in Matthew is exactly the wrong way around for this to be true. Because Matthew uses porneia, a more general term for sexual misconduct, in the exception clause, whereas he uses moicheia, the specific term for adultery, in the judgement. If Matthew makes this distinction, and he explicitly does, then in order for Jesus to restrict divorce to adultery only vs. Shammai, he would have had to say moicheia in the exception clause. But he said porneia, and that once more would be a perfect match to what Shammai said. (Unless you go "Catholic" and claim that porneia is here supposed to specifically indicate illicit unions, fornication during betrothal, or the like. But then no more divorce for adultery.)
In a nutshell, the position you attribute to Jesus is one of the two leading interpretations of Moses' words among the Jews in his time, that of Shammai. The escape route to being more specific than Shammai is ruled out explicitly by Matthew's choice of terms. You do have a problem.
-------------------- They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
No I don't. That's pure projection. And you do not like 'it' anyway. It's what you bring to our party IngoB. Consistently. And I don't like 'it' either. But hey, you can't choose your family can you ? Not that you accept me at all as at least your equal brother in Christ of course. Though I must count you my superior despite your superiority.
Your legalistic approach to I Corinthians 7 is a start.
-------------------- Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by IngoB: If you now claim that Jesus said "that a certificate of divorce only could be given for sexual scandal (in particular adultery)", then it is explicitly and definitely not true that "Jesus is clearly changing what Moses said". Because he is explicitly and definitely confirming Shammai, which was one of the two leading interpretations of what Moses said concerning the topic, at the time.
I'm starting to think that you believe that the Shammai/Hillel controversy is a significant factor here. So significant that it nullifies what Matthew quotes Jesus as saying.
When I say that Jesus is clearly changing Moses' rules it is because this is what Matthew quotes Jesus as saying: quote: Matthew 5:31 “Furthermore it has been said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I say to you..."
Matthew 19:8 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..."
I realize that you see Shammai/Hillel as the only relevant factor here, but surely Jesus' words must count for something.
Jesus follows both of these comments about Moses with His statement that includes the "exception clause." I'm not clear whether you think that this simply didn't happen or whether the insertion of "porneia" instead of the usual word for adultery somehow nullifies the statement.
Are you sure that our understanding of Shammai/Hillel and how it interacts with Jesus' conversation here is correct?
-------------------- "Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure: quote: Originally posted by Freddy: I've been a pastor for thirty years and I've only ever run into one case of domestic violence.
Wow. Either you have an exceptionally well-behaved congregation, or you're not paying attention.
I'm sure that there have been plenty of things that haven't come to my attention or the attention of the pastors I've worked with. I'm just saying what I have run into.
So I see and hear a lot about domestic violence in various media, but haven't experienced it in my congregations. It hasn't really come up as a cause for divorce, except in the one flagrant case.
One difficulty about this as a cause for divorce is that almost everyone I know who divorced their spouse felt that they were in some sense a victim. People do treat each other badly. But it is hard to judge at what point criticism and stupidity become abuse severe enough to warrant disregarding Jesus' words, severing all ties to the person, and marrying another.
-------------------- "Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
Some churches seem obsessed by sex and marriage. As far as I am aware, the Orthodox churches give you three gos at marriage.
I read somewhere that monogomy was unnatural, especially for males of the species.
-------------------- sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Freddy: I'm starting to think that you believe that the Shammai/Hillel controversy is a significant factor here. So significant that it nullifies what Matthew quotes Jesus as saying.
Nullify? I'm doing nothing but trying to determine what this exception clause might mean! You seem to think that this is clear. That is definitely not the case, and I'm bringing in the Shammai/Hillel background because it can help resolve exegetical ambiguity in scripture there.
quote: Originally posted by Freddy: I realize that you see Shammai/Hillel as the only relevant factor here, but surely Jesus' words must count for something.
My whole argument is based on saying that Jesus' words must mean something: they must break the mold of Jewish scripture interpretation, or this piece of scripture becomes incoherent. Therefore, we cannot allow an interpretation of the exception clause which in every detail is nothing but a straight repetition of one of the two leading Jewish scripture interpretations. Given that one can interpret the exception clause differently, one must. That is an argument which puts Jesus' words - and their challenge - at the centre stage throughout.
quote: Originally posted by Freddy: Jesus follows both of these comments about Moses with His statement that includes the "exception clause." I'm not clear whether you think that this simply didn't happen or whether the insertion of "porneia" instead of the usual word for adultery somehow nullifies the statement.
Of course it happened. And porneia does not "nullify the statement". It however nullifies your interpretation of the statement. Because it means, given the Shammai/Hillel context and given that Matthew specifically distinguishes porneia from moicheia, that Jesus cannot have simply allowed "divorce for adultery " there. Whatever is going on in these verses, it is not that.
quote: Originally posted by Freddy: Are you sure that our understanding of Shammai/Hillel and how it interacts with Jesus' conversation here is correct?
No, I am not sure at all what the precise interaction is. There could be a lot more subtlety here still. I think these verses are just overloaded with meaning and subtexts from the Pharisaic tradition, making them incredibly difficult to get right. However, I'm completely sure that "straight reading" typically given to the exception clause cannot work. That just renders this whole passage incoherent. One way or the other, one must avoid Jesus simply parroting Shammai.
-------------------- They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote: I read somewhere that monogomy was unnatural, especially for males of the species.
You can find more or less anything quoted somewhere if you look hard enough, Sebby. The questions are, was it a properly conducted investigation, what was it looking at, and how did it analyse its findings. Popular magazines and newspapers are awash with junk on popular topics like this. I'm not saying yours was, just that we would need to know where this insight came from to comment on it any further.
-------------------- Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|