quote:

---

Brandon, I think the attempt to identify divorce as adulterous in an of itself is clever, but unsuccessful.

---

Thanks Greg, but I don’t think you were successful either. Here’s why.

quote:

---

The only way to see Jesus as doing what he did everywhere else -- viz. showing that both sides of a dilemma were sinful -- is if the "unchasity" (pornea) he is referring to had to do with the betrothal period.

---

So basically, your argument goes like this.

Jesus is talking to the Pharisees. On the one side we have a group which was liberal in their approach and one was conservative. By liberal what we mean is that some of those Pharisees thought there could have been ANY number of reasons for getting a divorce. And by conservative we mean that the some Pharisees believed that there was only one reason for divorce and that was unchasity or pornea or translated in the English it was adultery. So, the only way that Jesus could show that both sides of the dilemma were sinful and “doing what he did everywhere else,” is by bringing up unchasity, in the context of the betrothal period, which is the time of engagement.

Am I following you correctly? I think I am.

Opps! Problem! You are now a Pharisee.

Do you see what you just did? You just sided with the conservative side. Again, I will take my theological martial arts and use the force of your argument against you, grasshopper. Check this out.

What we REALLY have here is an anti-legalistic tone rather than this being the source for a NEW CHRISTIAN LEGALISM. What we REALLY see here is that Jesus sought to REPLACE the legalism of the Pharisees with a deeper NON-LEGALISTIC understanding. It goes like this.

THEOLOGICAL MARTIAL ARTS TIME!! Anybody ever remember that martial arts show called, “Ultra Man” or was this purely a Canadian thing? Hiiii-YOT!!

Jesus is questioned by his enemies. The anti-legalism of Jesus is evidenced in his refusal to become involved in the legalistic debate of his opponents. Everyone agrees that we have both schools of thinking here. And rather than joining one or the other school, that is, rather than Jesus saying, “Yes, I agree with the more liberal school, you can get divorced for any number of reasons, MEN!”, or Jesus saying, “MEN, I agree with the more conservative view, the only reason for getting a divorce is adultery,” Jesus BY-PASSES THESE QUESTIONS ALTOGETHER and returns the discussion to the question of the original intent of the Creator. You, Greg, have sided with the more conservative school on this question. This is not what Jesus was getting at. Jesus did NOT say, “I side with the conservative school, one cannot get a divorce except for adultery.” And this, essentially what you are saying to help you understand why Jesus was “doing what he did everywhere else,” Jesus doesn’t affirm the conservative side, nor does he affirm the liberal side. Had Jesus did this, his teaching would not have arisen above that of the Shammai and he would not have provoked such a response.

Digression: I placed an emphasis on men because it was a patriarchal society and women were second class and it seems that Jesus by his response does away with such prejudice as I will show. End digression.

IN CONTRAST to the shared presuppositions of both positions, namely, that Moses gave to husbands the right to divorce their wives (albeit under circumstances DIVORCE, for Jesus, via his response is NEVER in keeping with the will of God. It doesn’t carry a divine sanction—"Go a head and do it” making it into some law. Divorce is always tragic and sinful. But what Jesus makes concessions to is failed marriages, not adultery!

Now about the Matthew 5:31-32 verse, listen up Aaaalan. It is true that there is an absence of the adultery clause in Mark. What this in fact does is raise the question of the authenticity of its insertion in Matthew. That is, is this statement really reflecting Jesus own intention or is it something that Matthew wanted to add in? Whatever your response is, the absence of the clause in Mark indicates that Jesus’ intent in answering the Pharisees is not to set down a new legalism, but to appropriately place the question of divorce within its proper theological context—God’s design for marriage. ANY violation of the marriage bond is a breach of this design. In this way he stands opposed to the scribes’ position. Those were the guys who said that in certain circumstances the marital bond could be, or even SHOULD be broken. Ultimately, what this meant was that divorce in THESE CASES, was NOT a violation of the divine will. “Nooope,” says Jesus. Divorce is always a concession to and a declaration of human failure.

What should be understood, is the significance of the omission in Mark FORMS THE BASIS for understanding the presence of the adultery clause in Matthew. That is, the Matthew text ought not to be interpreted in such a way that it would put it IN CONFLICT with Mark. Hence, the adultery statement must not be interpreted as Jesus authorization of a new legalism.

Now, fellow grasshoppers, this goes against the standard Protestant position held by John Earp. John’s position, it is maintain, is that in the case of adultery, divorce is permissible, that is, IT IS NOT TO BE VIEWED AS A VIOLATION of the intent of God, because it is allowed by Jesus. The problem is, is that this goes against the tone of the text. God’s design is the permanency of the marriage. Even in the case of adultery, the divine intention has been violated when the couple divorces. It remains a declaration of sin. A declaration of the irreparable destruction of the marital bond, but not a sanction of divine law, WHETHER THAT BE THE LAW OF MOSE OR THE LAW OF JESUS.

As a whole, Jesus is arguing for the reinstitution of the high regard for the law for the marital bond given in the design of the Creator. Divorce should always be viewed as a last resort and always in recognition that the divine design has not be actualized.

We are still left with the question of the divorce clause inserted into Matthew. Well, there are a few possibilities in response to this. It could be that the inclusion of the clause appears to move into the direction of indicating a new situation that adultery introduces into a difficult marital relationship. That would mean that the adulterer is the one to shoulder the greater responsibility for the failure of the marriage. That is, adultery constitutes the ULTIMATE breach of marital trust. In the face of adultery, it becomes much more difficult to stop the deterioration of the community of male and female. It adds a pessimistic note. As a GRAVE breach, it compounds the problem. It doesn’t make divorce inevitable, but it does increase its risk.

What this means is that the adulterer carries the greater blame for the marital failure. Jesus statement may introduce the concept of the so called, “innocent party” or more aptly labeled, “the more innocent party.” Both spouses carry the responsibility for the demise of the marriage, for each may have sinned against the other and have failed to achieve “community.” Yet, adultery of the one partner, increases the difficulty of reconciliation. For this reason, the partner who introduces the adultery into the mix, introduces additional problems into the relationship and must assume the burden of divorce. Though this clause adds an individualist tone to the processes that climaxes in divorce, there is the corporate dimension as well as the individual. What has happened is that it remains a declaration of the community of the married partners to reflect the divine reality. One or the other partner may carry the responsibility, but in the end divorce is a final statement, a final declaration that a husband and wife were not able to establish a community of male and female.

In the end, Jesus, rather than setting up a new legalism TO GIVE SANCTION TO divorce cases, emphasizes the violation of the divine design.

Ok. That’s that. On to some side bar issues, though still, highly important.

quote:

---

The only way to see Jesus as doing what he did everywhere else -- viz. showing that both sides of a dilemma were sinful -- is if the "unchasity" (pornea) he is referring to had to do with the betrothal period.

---

According to Greg, the exception clause had only to do with the betrothal period or engagement. Question. What is the betrothal period? Response: According to Jewish custom, it was an engagement period that was just as binding as marriage involving a legal contract that could only be broken by formal divorce or death. According to this understanding, Jesus was teaching that if the betrothal was unfaithful during the waiting period, then the partner divorced her Matthew 1:19. That is, it would have application only to the betrothal and NOT the actual marriage.

Problems: The most obvious one is that the Jesus and the Pharisees were not discussing betrothal but marriage Gen 2:24; Deut 24:1-4. Also, this view would not account for the absence of the exception in Mark and Luke, for both the Greeks and Romans as well as the Jews had such a betrothal period to which the exception might apply.

Adultery as Once or continual

Some scholars believe that the present tense of the verb moichao “commits adultery,” indicates that divorce and remarriage involves acts of repeated adultery and the only way to cease sinning and demonstrate genuine repentance is to end the “adulterous marriage.” While it is possible to interpret “moichao” this way, according to other scholars it is also possible that the present tense “commits adultery,” maybe used in an aoristic sense expressing the idea of a present fact without reference to progress. That is the aoristic present sets forth an event as now occurring. So interpreted, the adultery would involve one punctiliar action at the time of remarriage.

The context of the passage, which contains a succession of aorists, according to these scholars, and the prohibition against returning to one’s former spouse after a second marriage (Deut 24:1-4) would point in the direction of the second view. Some may object that a couple could then get married, commit adultery, confess it and go on their merry way. But it need not be viewed this way. We provoke the wrath of God when we sin willfully against the light of knowledge Heb 12:6-11.

Either way because the present tense, “commits adultery” can be used to argue in favor of both views? It will have to be decided on other grounds. Should sexual intercourse between married partners cease? Nope. 1 Cor 7:5. Should the marriage end in divorce? Nope. Mk 10:9; Matt 19:6. It may be that confessing the sin but continuing the marriage is the LEAST culpable course of action for the divorced and remarried Christian.


Brandon
"Mommy, I know now that the terms, 'I'll knock yo' teeth down yo' throat!' meant you'd love me in the special way you do everyday of my life."--Darwin Hobbs
www.darwinhobbs.com



Edited by - BBBCanada on 04/28/2003 2:08:14 PM

• For Roman Catholics, Holy Matrimony is a binding, ostensibly an unbreakable, contract. The man and the woman marry each other with the "church" (bishop or priest) standing as a witness to it. Hence, no divorce under any conditions - no divorce but annulment of the marriage contract if some canonical defect in it may be found which renders it null and void (as if it never took place).



• In Orthodoxy, Holy Matrimony is not a contract; it is the mysterious or mystical union of a man and woman - in imitation of Christ and the Church - in the presence of "the whole People of God" through her bishop or his presbyter. Divorce is likewise forbidden, but, as a concession to human weakness, it is allowed for adultery. Second and third marriages are permitted - not as a legal matter - out of mercy, a further concession to human weakness (e.g., after the death of a spouse). This Sacrament, as all Sacraments or Mysteries, is completed by the Eucharist, as St. Dionysius the Areopagite says.

quote:

---

dlw

In all these cases, the fact that we have fallen from God's ideal is given, the question is whether, given our fallenness, remarriage may be the lesser of the two evils.

---

quote:

---

Marriage

Marriage was not invented or instituted by Christ. The Lord, however, gave a very specific meaning and significance to human marriage. Following the Old Testament Law, but going beyond its formal precepts in his messianic perfection, Jesus taught the uniqueness of human marriage as the most perfect natural expression of God's love for men, and of his own love for the Church.

According to Christ, in order for the love of a man and woman to be that which God has: perfectly created it to be, it must be unique, indestructible, unending and divine. The Lord himself has not only given this teaching, but he also gives the power to fulfill it in the sacrament of Christian marriage in the Church.

In the sacrament of marriage, a man and a woman are given the possibility to become one spirit and one flesh in a way which no human love can provide by itself. In Christian marriage the Holy Spirit is given so that what is begun on earth does not "part in death" but is fulfilled and continues most perfectly in the Kingdom of God.

For centuries there was no particular ritual for marriage in the Church. The two Christians expressed their mutual love in the Church and received the blessing of God upon their union which was sealed in the holy eucharist of Christ. Through the Church's formal recognition of the couple's unity, and its incorporation into the Body of Christ, the marriage became Christian; that is, it became the created image of the divine love of God which is eternal, unique, indivisible and unending.

When a special ritual was developed in the Church for the sacrament of marriage, it was patterned af`ter the sacrament of baptismÄchrismation, The couple is addressed in a way similar to that of the individual in baptism. They confess their faith and their love of God. They are led into the Church in procession. They are prayed over and blessed. They listen toGod's Word. They are crowned with the crowns of God's glory to be his children and witnesses (martyrs) in this world, and heirs of the everlasting life of his Kingdom. They fulfill their marriage, as all sacraments are fulfilled, by their reception together of holy communion in the Church.

There is no "legalism" in the Orthodox sacrament of marriage. It is not a juridical contract. It contains no vows or oaths. It is, in essence, the "baptizing and confirming" of human love in God by Christ in the Holy Spirit. It is the deification of human love in the divine perfection and unity of the eternal Kingdom of God as revealed and given to man in the Church.

The Christian sacrament of marriage is obviously available only to those who belong to the Church; that is, only for baptized communicants. This remains the strict teaching and practice of the Orthodox Church today. Because of the tragedy of Christian disunity, however, an Orthodox may be married in the Church with a baptized non-Orthodox Christian on the condition that both members of the marriage sincerely work and pray for their full unity in Christ, without any coercion or forceful domination by either one over the other. An Orthodox Christian who enters the married state with a non-Orthodox Christian must have the sacramental prayers and blessings of the Church in order to remain a member of the Orthodox Church and a participant in the sacrament of holy communion.

According to the Orthodox teaching, only one marriage can contain the perfect meaning and significance which Christ has given to this reality. Thus, the Orthodox Christian tradition encourages widows and widowers to remain faithful to their spouses who are dead to this world but alive in Christ. The Orthodox tradition also, by the same principle, considers temporary "living together," casual sexual relations, sexual relations with many different people, sexual relations between members of thie same sex, and the breakdown of marriages in separation and divorce, all as contrary to the human perfection revealed by God in Christ. Through penance, however, and with the sincere confession of sins and the genuine promise of a good life together, the Orthodox Church does have a service of second marriage for those who have not been able to fulfill the ideal conditions of marriage as taught by Christ. It is the practice of the Church as well not to exclude members of second marriages from the sacrament of holy communion if they desire sincerely to be in eucharistic fellowship with God, and if they fulfill all other conditions for participation in the life of the Church.

Because of the realization of the need for Christ in every aspect of human life, and because, as well, it is the firm Christian conviction that nothing should, or even can, be done perfectly without Christ or without his presence and power in the Church by the Holy Spirit, two Christians cannot begin to live together and to share each other's life in total unityÄÄspiritually, physically, intellectually, socially, economically without first placing that unity into the eternity of the Kingdom of God through the sacrament of marriage in the Church.

According to the Orthodox teaching as expressed in the sacramental rite of marriage, the creation of children, and the care and love for them within the context of the family, is the normal fulfillment of the love of a man and woman in Christ. In this way, marriage is the human expression of the creative and caring love of God, the perfect Love of the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity which overflows in the creation and care for the world. This conviction that human love, imitative of divine love, should overflow itself in the creation and care for others does not mean that the procreation of children is in itself the sole purpose of marriage and the unique and exclusive justification and legitimization of its existence. Neither does it mean that a childless couple cannot live a truly Christian life together. It does mean, however, that the conscious choice hy a married couple not to have a family for reasons of personal comfort and accommodation, the desire for luxury and freedom, the fear of responsibility, the refusal of sharing material possessions, the hatred of children, etc., is not Christian, and can in no way be considered as consonant with the biblical, moral and sacramental teachings and experience of the Orthodox Church about the meaning of life, love and marriage.

---

quote:

---

If so, than is the first sin (divorce) ever really forgiven? It would seem as though it was not. If the divorce is repented of from the heart and subsequently forgiven, than doesn't it follow that that person has been washed clean from that sin? If they are washed clean, they have a fresh, new start, right?

If the person has sincerely repented and been forgiven, than the stain of their divorce must be lifted. Otherwise it's only partial forgiveness.

---

quote:

---

The starkest, BIGGEST difference between any idea of monogamous homosexual "marriages" (that's sacrilege to use such words) and the sacrament of marriage as instituted by God is that the former can only imitate a contract, while the later is ontologically unique and God-spoken.

---

b>"Homosexuality is due to Sin."

YES.

"For some people they cannot change..."

That may be; but it is irrelevant. Moreso, it is FALSE. The Spirit does change us -- the Bible says so. But don't look for a "former homosexual to change in the direction of a non-homosexual. Look instead for them to change in a straight line towards what they will be "when He appears." That's what I think. And I get that idea both from the Bible and my walk with Jesus.


DLW "for some people they cannot change ... so the sacrament of marriage may be adapted for them."

PoW NOT SUFFICIENT. MORE IS NEEDED. SOMEONE HAS TO DIE ON THE CROSS. SOMEONE WITHOUT SIN HAS TO ASSUME AS HIS OWN FLESH THE FALLEN HUMANITY OF US ALL, AND BY THE DIVINITY OF HIS PERSON DIVINIZE HUMANITY. AND THEN THE SPIRIT HAS TO BE THE PATH FOR THAT "NEW LIFE" TO BE SHARED WITH US.

Anything else is just putting bandaids on cancer.


.


DLW I, unlike the RCC and ECC, do not elevate Church tradition to the level of Scripture.

PoW But you do, don't you, attempt to "read" tradition as if it were scripture. "HOLY TRADITION" is a living thing. (As per above) There can always be another Eccumenical Council, and more cannons.


DLW Traditions change over time and they change based on our increasing knowledge of the world around us.

PoW I hope that THAT is not the only thing that Holy Tradition is about. I hope that Christ sent His Spirit, and did not only leave us to our own rational divics and fortuitous (after the Eutruscan god Fortuna) occurances of "change" and noticible things in the world around us.

Again, the very NATURE of Marriage, that God SPOKE it into being by his WORD has not changed!


DLW ...the potential for us to learn more about our natural surroundings and our physiology makes it so that the previous understandings that underly how we set out our past traditions must necessary fallible.

PoW A "Humanist" with a belief in the power and veracity of Rationalism would say the same thing. Join the French Enlightenment! (Get what I'm saying?)


DLW I hold out the constitutionality of homosexuality as one of those understandings.

PoW Carefully consider what I'm going to say. THIS IS SOLELY BASED ON YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF A CONJUNCTION OF YOUR "FACTS" AND YOUR HAVING (seemingly) ACCEPTED RATIONALISM AS MEANS AND HUMANISM AS SUBSTANCE.


.

DLW I don't see how a marriage between constitutional homosexuals cannot also be sacramental? You dismiss this as a possibility right off the bat. I am not so sure.

PoW FIRST YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS SACRAMENTAL ABOUT MARRIAGE. MOST PROTESTANT CHURCHES ONLY RECOGNIZE TWO SACRAMENTS: COMMUNION AND BAPTISM -- AND THEN TO VARYING DEGREES.

CAN "SIN" BE SACRAMENTAL? (no way, no way, no way, no way, )

CAN HOMOSEXUALS PRACTICE CHRISTIAN LOVE? SURE. SAME AS HABITUAL HOTHEADS. REPENTANCE IS A "REBAPTISM." TAKING OUT THE GARBAGE CLEANES THE KITCHEN AND GETS US READY FOR SERVICE AND CHRISTIAN LOFE. ALL OF US.

.

DLW It is not God that got it wrong, but we the Church with our fallible answers to the Problem of Ecclesiastical order that got it wrong. What is especially wrong is to conflate one's groups answers to this problem with the will of God.

PoW BUT THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE DOING HERE: "conflating your answers to this problem with the will of God."


AND IF THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE DOING, THEN "NO," YOU REALLY DO, DEEP DOWN, FEEL THAT "GOD THE SPIRIT GOT IT WRONG."



Edited by - PotOnWheel on 04/29/2003 1:00:18 PM

quote:

---

DLW Do you accept the scientific facts I developed in my posting on the link on homosexuality?

PoW No details of how and to what degree homosexuality is developed (and as you point out stemming from the fall) bears on the matter of the Spirit's witness in Scritpure and in the living (not frozen) tradition of the Church (more on that later). The Church witnesses to what God has done in marriage. What you wrote above on marriage was a bit weak -- marriage is far more than an accomodation. To begin there in understanding it is to eventually fail. The quote on Orthodox doctrine of marriage above is worth another look. (In Orthodoxy, Holy Matrimony is not a contract; it is the mysterious or mystical union of a man and woman - in imitation of Christ and the Church - in the presence of "the whole People of God" through her bishop or his presbyter.)

---

quote:

---

DLW The problem of ecclesiastical order includes making judgment calls regarding which aspects of the sinfulness of the world around us do we take as given and which ones do we seek to change.

PoW Now I'm going to make you pause. There are many IDEAS about Ecclesiology and "ecclesiastical order." The RCC, due to its adoption of the Filoque is heavily "Christocentric. (The Filoque subserves the Spirit to Christ, and not just to the Fathe as the sole source of the Trinity.) As a result you have the "Pope." Organizational structure is legitimized as telling the Spirit what to do. (Read Met. John Zizioulas on "Pneumatologically conditioned Christology" as the Biblical view of Ecclessiology.)

It seems to me, DLW, that you are about to put yourself and any others who join you in the papal seat, to choose by yourselves what is right based on what you yourselves see at one moment and think about it at one moment. Hypocritical, it seems.

---

quote:

---

That’s a tougher question, but the same mercy that Jesus uses to understand our hearts and motives is the same mercy we must use. Everyone has a story, if only someone would care enough to understand and listen.

---