just curious
Okay, it seems that the love that dare not speak its name is once again sin of the month at signposts. But whenever the conversation starts about analysing 9 odd obscure verses in the bible and having arguments about the original greek and what it all meant, I am prompted to mention the elephant in the corner. And that is the sin which is clearly set out in the gospels in the words of Jesus, but which we seem much more willing to let people have a pass on.
31″It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery (Matt 5:31-32)
And I think it is time that I own up to the fact that I am an adulterer and have been for close on 9 years now (assuming I can’t take advantage of the loophole that I didn’t marry a divorced woman). Phew, what a relief to get that off my chest.
We seem to have a lot of divorced people in churches these days. But according to the above, anyone who later marries one of these poor divorced people commits adultery. I have heard some talk about forgiveness and redemption for divorced people which enables them to be absolved of their sin. However, this seems to me to be inconsistent with the nature of that sin. Being divorced is a state of being. You can’t just take it back. It is, in the language of discussions about sexual sin, a “lifestyle choice”. Even more, being remarried is a specific decision (according to the above) to engage in adultery.
And yet, many contemporary churches have few problems having people who are divorced and remarried (deliberately remaining in a sinful lifestyle) in membership. I know this because our church is one of them. And I wouldn’t for a moment like to suggest that divorce should be handled differently. Likewise I am not for a moment suggesting that divorce is fine and no problems - I think it is definitely sinful.
However, isn’t this inconsistent with the way that some other sins are approached. First, what do you think of this - are we just wilfully ignoring a few fairly significant statements by Jesus and preferring to pretend he didn’t say them? Secondly, if you want to justify forgiveness of divorce and remarriage, what makes that different in nature from same sex or pre-marriage relationships (if you think that they are different).
I was trying to frame this in a way that tries to avoid too much discussion of the topic that shall not be mentioned but I am finding it hard to avoid.
September 27th, 2006 at 4:45 pm
You should write Parliamentary questions, Lance….nicely put.
September 28th, 2006 at 8:31 am
I am ducking nothing.
If a person is violent to another and you are born in the image of God then what are they doing?
September 28th, 2006 at 10:51 am
It doesn’t change the fact that the bible doesn’t give that as an ‘out’ as a reason for divorce.
Jesus gives the reasons why divorce is adultery..and does not mention violence in a marriage as a reason for divorce.
You’re adding to the bible Homer….and frankly…I’m deeply shocked.
Are you even suggesting that the divorced person should remain in the church as an adulterer…in violation of 1 Cor 5?
September 28th, 2006 at 10:54 am
Sorry Lance but Jesus didn’t answer that question because it rarely arose ( like homosexuality) in Jewish society.
I am somewhat shocked you cannot see any similarity between adultery and violence within a marriage however
September 28th, 2006 at 11:07 am
Well Homer I for one applaud your willingness (at least in this instance) to consider the context when considering how to interpret the biblical text.
It is interesting that you leap to violence though as the only difference. What about people that “stay together for the kids” (or because the bible forbids divorce). I struggle with the idea that God would continue to consider this an expression of his view of “marriage”. It is obedience to the law in name only.
And of course, marriage is one of those things where both people have to be willing to work on it. Provided that they are, then the marriage can continue. But if one or other person is not willing to work on it (even if they do not leave the marriage) what can be done?
September 28th, 2006 at 11:11 am
“I am somewhat shocked you cannot see any similarity between adultery and violence within a marriage however.”
But the bible doesn’t give an out for violence within a marriage.
You can’t add to the bible your own little clauses and reasons for defying scripture.
The bible says divorce is adultery. That’s it.
I’m surprised that you as a conservative have trouble understanding the bible Homer.
September 28th, 2006 at 11:13 am
Homer, are you daring to suggest that we interpret the bible..according to the obvious realities of life?
Isn’t that the slippery slope….?
Won’t we be marrying our dogs next…?
Isn’t that the line you should be arguing as a true conservative?
September 28th, 2006 at 1:10 pm
you could well argue people could marry dogs Lance as you do not recognise the Law.
Jesus said many things that were unrecorded as John tells us.
Jesus is talking to the Pharisees. ( think about what role the Pharisees had with regard to divorce).
Whereas adultery and fornication were if not common place then they were found in not quite a few homes violence against the husband was not indeed not even the wife.
the Divorce laws were very lax at this time.
Where Jesus or god elsewhere in the bible is silent on a topic one is permitted to use one’s head to figure out a position that isn’t contradictory.
September 28th, 2006 at 1:51 pm
“Where Jesus or god elsewhere in the bible is silent on a topic one is permitted to use one’s head to figure out a position that isn’t contradictory.”
But Jesus is not silent.
“Mark 10
2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?”
3 “What did Moses command you?” he replied.
4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.”
5 “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied.
6 “But at the beginning of creation God `made them male and female.’
7 `For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,
8 and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one.
9 Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”
10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this.
11 He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.
12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”
Matthew 5
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 marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery. Matthew 19
3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator `made them male and female,’
5 and said, `For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?
6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”
7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.
9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
Luke 16
18 “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
1 Corinthians 7
10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband.
11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.
12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her.
13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him.”
The bible is clear that there is one ..and one only excuse for divorce.
“32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.”
There is no wiggle room around that…unless you…
- Add your own teaching to that which is expressly given by Jesus.
- Decide that scripture/Jesus are not authoritative in all circumstances.
- Are a conniving ultra-right Sydney Anglican nut job hypocrite.
- Are all of the above.
I reckon it’s option 4.
September 28th, 2006 at 2:34 pm
Lance are you just plain dyslexic have an inability to understnd the english language or merely like to live in ignorance?
September 28th, 2006 at 2:44 pm
Where is the teaching in scripture..that a divorce is permissible because one partner is violent?
Where?
September 28th, 2006 at 3:36 pm
The test that you apply to the situation of the homosexual is that only what is written in the bible is relevant.
So even though there is considerable doubt as to what is meant in passages such as 1 cor 6:9-11…and particularly the meaning to ‘malakoi’ and ‘arsenekoitai’…and the growing acceptance that its mid-20th century definition as ‘passive and active homosexual acts’ is problematic….you still adhere to a theology that homosexuals should be expelled from churches….AND….(adding some of your own extra non-biblical teaching) that they should be prosecuted in a public court..and allowed to go free without penalty.
Compare that with your position on divorcees..who are CLEARLY and UNAMBIGUOUSLY described by Jesus Himself as ‘adulterers’….and Jesus Himself says that the only….the ONLY wiggle-room is ‘except for marital unfaithfulness.’
Nobody is disagreeing with what the passage on divorce says. It says what it means …it means what it says.
There is no clause mentioned about a violent partner…….with all other passages clearing showing that the intention is for the husband and wife to remain together.
It could not be clearer. The question here is not about how the verse should be interpreted..but whether it should be discarded, because there is no argument whatsoever about how it should be interpreted. It is unambiguous, unlike the passages on homosexuality.
So….instead of continually ducking the issue…….can you explain Homer why you adopt a set of hard and fast rules on one part of the bible..but I must say..have an extremely liberal (and you call yourself a conservative..) position on the bible’s clear teaching against divorce and the people who get a divorce?
The problem is…your next answer to this will be hypocritical…because Homer you’ve already been shown to be the ultimate hypocrite…..
September 28th, 2006 at 3:54 pm
Lance, you cannot read.
I have already said my piece on divorce.
Read some more research on homosexuality and what the bible says.
comparing divorce to homosexuality is chalk and cheese.
September 28th, 2006 at 6:01 pm
rev - I am going to be attending the Novmeber Forge intensive inSydney and I wil be talking somemore to Pete (I think that’s his name) about getting you up here next year - I will send you an email tomorrow when I get back to work and we’l get it working - now stop being such a sook and thinking your not wanted - and BTW it’s the Central Coast…not Sydney…we’re much better than that backward bywater of a theological wasteland!
September 28th, 2006 at 6:08 pm
But your attitude to the moral teaching of scripture is what Lance is talking about Homer - on the one hand [homosexuaoity] you say what the bible says it all there is and yet on the other handv [divorce] you say there are circumstances when it would be ok.
You appear to be trying to say that beating your partner up is the same as unfaithfulness?
I’m not sure whay your attitude to divorce is not as black and white as your attitude to homosexuaoity - the bible does appear to be saying neithe is acceptable in any circumstance (except for unfaithfulness for divorce)
September 28th, 2006 at 6:13 pm
Greg,
The O/T is quite clear and the N/T is quite clear on homosexuality.
If the act of homosexuality is sinful it says it all really.
Jesus is addressing the issue of divorce at that time.
If Lance took a bit of time he might find out the reason thereof and the disgraceful state it had fallen into.
Physical abuse is not addressed as it rarely happened in Jewish society hence we have to think it through.
given that the act already gives what the attacker thinks of God, it isn’t hard to view it
September 28th, 2006 at 6:50 pm
Homer how can you say this “…Physical abuse is not addressed as it rarely happened in Jewish society hence we have to think it through…”
What evidence do you have for that?
In Exodus physical abuse is actually addressed by the Lord in relation to “servants” and “maids”. Why would God have addressed this if it wasn’t happening or going to happen? I don’t think it’s a long shot to think it couldn’t have happened in a marriage situation in the time of the Mosaic Law.
Where is your proof that it was a rarity in marriage in these times?
“…And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye’s sake. And if he smite out his manservant’s tooth, or his maidservant’s tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth’s sake…”
Exodus 21.18-27
Sorry Homer, I have to take Lance and Greg’s side on this. You appear to be contradicting yourself.
WIGGY
September 28th, 2006 at 7:31 pm
Wiggy,
The passage merely backs up what I am saying. ( by the way I was addressing physical abuse in marriage).
Physical abuse is a no-no. It doesn’t address marriage but the emphasis is clear.
As for Jewish social mores. It regularly comes up in any reading I have done on the subject.
Jesus was primarily addressing the lax divorce laws that the pharisees approved of and had introduced.
As I have stated. A person who physical abuses another has already made their statement concerning God just like they would if they engaged in adultery.
September 28th, 2006 at 7:39 pm
“comparing divorce to homosexuality is chalk and cheese.”
Which is chalk and which is cheese?
Are you now suggesting one is a ‘greater sin’ (assuming for a moment that homosexuality is sinful) than the other?
September 28th, 2006 at 8:28 pm
I do agree with you Homer re physical abuse in marriage, don’t get me wrong on that. The actual word used for “fornication” (as per Jesus words in Matthew 19.9 “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication) is Greek “Porneia”. From what I have read, “Porneia” includes not only lewd sexual conduct such as bestiality, adultery etc but any form of grossly out of proportion behaviour. This of course would include physical abuse. But I was unsure of your statement, that’s all.
Homer Yes, you are correct in that the Pharisees were advocating divorce for pretty much anything. Dinner too cold? Divorce. Socks not dry? Divorce. Sex not quite up to standard? Divorce.
Jesus was countering this mindset that was actually based on the Mosaic Law.
WIGGY
September 29th, 2006 at 8:16 am
Actually Wiggy I did not bring up the law as I thought it was a given.
People who argue that divorce cannot be given for physical abuse are in the invidious position of saying in effect God has one law outside marriage and an another inside marriage.
Your comment re Matthew is entirely correct however I must admit I had not thought that completely through.
So Can I offer my thanks for that thought.
Lance,
you often bring up the red herring of saying people say Homosexuality is a greater sin without giving any proof.
I have often said fornication and adultery are far more dandergous to society than homosexuality.
September 29th, 2006 at 12:54 pm
How is homosexuality dangerous to society?
September 29th, 2006 at 1:09 pm
Becasue if martians invade us at the time of a gay pride parade, their going to think the whole wold carries on like that. Then the rest of us will be robbed frome ever knowing any cool matians, becasue they will run away back to mars. … Unless of course their gay, then they’ll go back and get the rest of the planet and we’ll be overrun by gay martians.
This is clearly a no win situation for earth.
September 29th, 2006 at 1:29 pm
And people wonder why I don’t go to church any more… (although I feel the stirring again to visit another wanky church and report on it)
September 29th, 2006 at 3:56 pm
exactly the same way fornication and adultery are Lance
September 29th, 2006 at 4:53 pm
how are fornication and adultery Lance? Lance are you going to sit there at your computer and allow this illiterate Sydney Anglican to call you fornicatoin and adultery?
September 29th, 2006 at 5:10 pm
ROFL!!
someone should donate EP a carefully placed comma!
(and no, I’m speaking purely in grammatical terms)
but, please, someone reassure me that this is the only place that someone brings gay martians into a biblical discussion??
way too hypothetical for my brain ..
September 30th, 2006 at 8:42 am
How dare you.
I’m no commaunist!
September 30th, 2006 at 1:06 pm
The alternative to being a comma-unist is to come to a full stop.
(I don’t want to bring your colon or even your semi-colon into this discussion)
although of course, if you come to a full stop, youget to use a capital next time. Is that some sort of grammatical prosperity doctrine?
September 30th, 2006 at 4:00 pm
You’ll defintely come to a full stop Homer if you start wearing a dipthong!