Reset Password
Reset Link Sent
| Blogs > restlesspirit > My Blog |
|
more food for thought n the remarriage and marriage issue this is a bible gateway post i found rather interesting on the topic,, Matthew 19 - IVP New Testament Commentaries Resources » Commentaries » Matthew » Chapter 19 » exegesis View Matthew 19:1-12 [Previous chapter: Show all commentary sections for Matthew 18] [Previous commentary: Inverting the World's Values (Matthew 19:1-20:16)] [Show all commentary sections for Matthew 19] [Next commentary: The Kingdom Belongs to (Matthew 19:13-15)] [Next chapter: Show all commentary sections for Matthew 20] Grounds for Divorce in God's Law The hardhearted person who cannot forgive or live in proper relation to others in Christ's body (18:1-35) will also despise weaker people in society-in Jesus' day, these included wives (19:1-12; compare Mal 2:14-16) and (Mt 19:13-15). By contrast, Jesus, who is not hardhearted, remains unimpressed by worldly status (vv. 16-22). When we hold grudges against a genuinely repentant spouse and remain hardhearted toward her or him-whether or not we officially cast the person away-we hinder our own communication with God (1 Pet 3  -12) and ultimately can invite our own damnation (Mt 18:34-35).It is thus no coincidence that in Matthew Jesus' teaching on marital commitment directly follows his teaching on forgiveness (18:21-35), just as in Mark it follows a discussion of sinning against a "little one" (Mk 9:42-50; compare Mt 18 -9). The more intimate the relationship, the deeper the wounds of interpersonal friction sear; marriage without forgiveness and reconciliation would be difficult. Some of Jesus' contemporaries for this reason either emotionally neglected or divorced their wives; many of our contemporaries refuse to form close bonds of commitment to begin with. This passage provides a number of essential principles.Jesus Summons Us to Work Toward God's Ideals (19:1-6) God wants us to work for the purposes he intended for the world before it was marred by sin. Matthew introduces the setting of Jesus' debate in a manner similar to Mark 10:1, but again notes Jesus' healings (19:1-2). The religious elite, perhaps provoked again by Jesus' indisputable signs (compare 9:34; 12:14, 24; 14:36-15:1; 15:38; 16:1), try to lure him into a debate on the sorts of issues in which they had sharpened their own debating skills. The two main schools of Pharisaic teachers debated the meaning of Deuteronomy 24:1, in which a man finds "any matter of indecency" (my translation) in his wife and hence divorces her. The School of Shammai interpreted Deuteronomy 24 as indicating that a man could divorce his wife for the cause of unfaithfulness ("indecency"); the School of Hillel understood the passage to mean that a man could divorce his wife for any cause, even burning his toast ("any matter"-m. Gittin 9:10; Sipre Deut. 269.1.1). In practice both schools agreed that the law at least often granted the man a right to divorce, regrettable as divorce was (as in b. Sanhedrin 22a). Jesus, however, circumvents their whole argument based on Deuteronomy 24. The ultimate issue should not be the right to divorce, but God's original desire for husbands and wives to be one flesh (compare Belkin 1940:231); "one flesh" is the language of family ties and alliances (as in 2 Sam 5:1). The Genesis principle from which Jesus draws this application goes beyond opposing divorce; it opposes marital disharmony altogether. Indeed, the purpose of the Deuteronomy 24 law itself was probably "to check haste in divorce" (Gundry 1982:380), hence to provide some legal protection for the wife (Luck 1987:109; compare Coiner 1968:368-69). Jesus' call to follow and proclaim him comes first (Mt 10:34-39; 19:27-30), but one's relationship with a spouse must take priority over any other relationship but one's relationship with Christ. Although his opponents claim Scripture for their purposes, Jesus challenges their actual knowledge of Scripture by showing that they are proof texting rather than reading it in light of God's whole plan: Haven't you read . . . ? (v. 4; compare 12:3; 21:16, 42; 22:31). Some Pharisees might have considered Jesus "liberal" (as we would put it) in his interpretations, but his objection was not to Scripture but to human traditions of interpretation (15:2-9; compare 5:17-20; 8:4; 22:24, 32); here he even attributes a saying of the biblical narrator directly to God (19:4-5; J. Wenham 1977:2  .Some People Interpret the Bible in a Way That Treats Others Unjustly (19 -God sometimes allowed what was less than ideal because people's hard hearts made the ideal unattainable (for example, Ex 13:17; 1 Sam 12:12-13). To be able to exercise some restraint over human injustice, Moses' civil laws regulated some institutions rather than seeking to abolish them altogether: divorce, polygyny, the avengers of blood, and slavery (Keener 1992b:192-96). Jewish lawyers themselves recognized that God had allowed some behavior as a concession to human weakness (Daube 1959). Nevertheless, Jesus' opponents here assume that whatever the law addresses it permits (Mt 19 ). Jesus responds that Moses permitted this merely as a concession to Israel's hard hearts, implying that his questioners who exploit this concession also have hard hearts. Thus in Matthew (in contrast to Mark) the Pharisees even exploit Moses' concession as a command (Gundry 1982:380). American slaveholders were similarly sure that the practice of slavery in biblical times proved the Bible's approval of slavery (Sawyer 185, the same way Muslim slaveholders applied the Qur'an (Gordon 1989 i; B. Lewis 1990. Some husbands today twist biblical teachings to justify abusing their wives (see, for example, Alsdurf and Alsdurf 1989). And some churches use Jesus' words in this very passage-words that may have been meant to protect an innocent Jewish wife from being wrongfully divorced by her husband (Kysar and Kysar 1978:43; France 1985:280; M. Davies 1993:54)-to batter innocent parties in divorces. Human nature has changed very little in two millennia.An Exception for the Innocent Party (19:9) God's ideal was always that we should avoid divorce; the preservation of a marriage depends on both wills, however, and one partner can sometimes end a marriage unilaterally against the other's will (see comment on 1:19). Roman law permitted either party to divorce the other; Jewish law permitted the husband to divorce the wife, regardless of the wife's wishes (Keener 1991a:51). Matthew mentions an exception to the general rule about divorce: except for marital unfaithfulness, or literally (and more ambiguously) except for porneia, sexual immorality. The NIV probably rightly interprets the sense for this context, which provides a specific exception for those already married. When Matthew speaks of this exception, his readers very probably would have understood this as a legal charge (as in Quint. 7.4.11; Suet. Julius 6, 74), hence as referring to unfaithfulness; thus, for example, the wife's adultery exempted the husband from returning her funds to her (Safrai 1974-1976b 90). Jewish and Roman law both required divorce for these grounds (Safrai 1974-1976b62; see comment on 1:19). Matthew's audience would thus probably interpret these words in line with the typical meaning of "infidelity," namely, sexual unfaithfulness to the marriage, as grounds for divorce. Mark and Luke probably could assume such an exception without explicitly stating it (Carson 1984:41. As France puts it (1985:124): To repudiate a wife after she had committed adultery was therefore simply the recognition that the marriage had already been terminated by the creation of a new union. . . . The Matthaean exceptive clause is . . . making explicit what any Jewish reader would have taken for granted when Jesus made the apparently unqualified pronouncements of Mark 10:9-12.I believe that most other views of porneia in this text fail to treat Matthew's specific cultural setting adequately (taking into account the "charge") beyond their own proposal. Most of these views also give porneia ("immorality," "infidelity") a more restricted meaning than it normally bears unless explicitly qualified, which it is not here (as noted by many commentators, such as Hagner 1993:124). They also miss how such a term (used in its unqualified, general sense) would function in a usual legal context (see above). Most views other than the infidelity view imply that Matthew permits divorce only when the original marriage is not valid, but divorce was unnecessary in the case of invalid marriages; further, such marriages were not common enough to warrant Matthew's mention. "Except for infidelity" may modify Jesus' statement about divorce rather than remarriage (Heth and Wenham 1984:117; G. Wenham 1984 and 1986; compare against this position Murray 1953:39-43), but if it does, it does so precisely because in Jesus' graphic statement it is the validity of the divorce that is in question. No one permitted remarriage if a divorce was invalid, but a valid divorce by definition included the right to remarry, as is attested by ancient divorce contracts (see, for example, m. Gittin 9:3; CPJ 2:10-12, 144; Carmon 1973:90-91, 200-201) and the very meaning of the term (besides sources in Keener 1991a, see, for example, Jos. Ant. 4.253; Blomberg 1992:111). Jesus' point is at any rate not to break up second and third marriages (even for guilty parties)-as if the hyperbolic element in his graphic statement might be missed-but to underline in no uncertain terms the sanctity of marriage and our solemn responsibility to preserve it when this is at all possible. Thus most conservative Christian writers acknowledge some cases where divorce and remarriage are permitted (for example, Dobson 1986:68; Adams 1980:86-87). Remaining Single Is Sometimes the Price of Following Jesus (19:10-12) The disciples are concerned about the danger of marrying without an escape clause, and Jesus responds to their question (Carson 1984:418-19; France 1985:282). Parents arranged marriages, and in Galilee at least prospective spouses could not spend time alone until after the wedding (Safrai 1974-1976b 56-57; Finkelstein 1962:1:45). Then, more so than today, marriage partners could not know in advance how their spouse would turn out. To marry without the possibility of divorce in a painful marriage seemed worse than not marrying at all! Responding to this objection, Jesus replied that some would indeed be better off not marrying; perhaps because of the intensity of their calling, it would be difficult for them to find a compatible spouse who would share their commitment (this is not only an ancient situation).Jesus' remark about celibacy is graphic and would certainly seize the attention of Jewish listeners; Jewish people did not allow eunuchs into the covenant (Deut 23:1; though compare Is 56:4-5; Tannehill 1975:136-37). Although some sectarians in the wilderness may have preferred celibacy, mainstream Jewish society regarded marriage and childbearing as solemn responsibilities (Keener 1991a 2-7. A metaphor of such shame and sacrifice testifies to the value of the kingdom of God for which anyone would pay such a price (Tannehill 1975:138-40). By embracing both shame and temporary self-control, Joseph to a lesser extent models the nature of this demand. Compare 1.corth 7..I find this interesting, I know this will rattle some feathers as ive already seen it in chat but, IF Gods true will is no divorce,, then it is better to remain single IF there is no clear direction from God to marry. At least that is my feeling.. |
|||
|
Hi Restless I appreciate your post above, but in a lot of ways I think we are treating the matter of marriage - re-marriage in a very theoretical way. I miss we do find out when one is married. I tried to make a string on that subject quite some time ago, but it ended up in people writing of getting the official papers. But what is it that makes us married in the eyes of God?? Blessings Mogens I Can Explain It To You, But I Can’t Understand It For You Good News For Christian Man ABP "REVELATION"
| ||
|
I think all of this marriage - re-marriage miss compassion. The compassion of Christ. Abraham interceded for a whole city "if there where found just 50 - 25 - 10 - 5 righteous people there... And God granted him... Jesus told the woman at the well, she have had 6 (?, doesn't matter here) men already, and the one she had now was not the one of her own. And then he told her to "go and sin no more". When have any of us ever interceded for a person who where already divorced? The permission to divorce where given to them because of their hard hearts. All of the theoretical writings above presupposes adultery or a person who wants some "young flesh"/"got tired of the old model" But there is much more to life than those circumstances. Giving a promise to someone on the background of now, and assessing what is now to be what will be the circumstances of the future. That's quite human. The scary part is to admit the circumstances of now probably won't be the circumstances of the future. Things change. So I have to give a promise to someone about circumstances that I am not at all in control of. When I read the theoretical part above, I do not at all find any part, that was a part of why my former wife and I got divorced. That doesn't mean I/we do have any excuse for how it ended. Bible tells us Jesus is well known to the life of a human being, because He tried it Himself. He has compassion for us. He has compassion for me and my former wife. So where is our compassion in this? Or do we really think we should continue to judge and tell others they have failed in a way that is not forgiveable?? And think we have failed in a way that is not forgiveable?? May I remind you all of, we where created to live together with a (one) spouse, instead of living alone? The unity between a man and a wife (marriage) is making them both complete. No one of them are "incorrect" without the other one. And no one of them are "less important" in that unity than the other one. Both of them are - one by one - an image on a part of God. And united in a marriage they become an other image on God. An image on witness God do exist. Blessings Mogens I Can Explain It To You, But I Can’t Understand It For You Good News For Christian Man ABP "REVELATION"
| ||
|
some pretty harsh conditions,, better to stay single i think.. It seems to me above thoughts comes from an understanding of we have to be guaranteed everything before we dare to make a decision. Like life is a part of an insurance company... When I take a decision, I take it from out of all the facts I know and can control at the time I make the decision. It's called fair play. I can - as a billionaire - promise you to give you US 1.000.000 per year just for your living and your amusement. I am able at the time I promise it to you. (I would like to). Later on in live I experience to go bankrupt. So I am not able anymore to give you that money. But I gave you a promise, that I expected to keep. What to do? I have to tell you I am no longer able to keep my own promise. And I need your forgiveness. What went wrong? My expectations of life based on a sound assessment of the situation when I gave the promise was eventually changed to the worse. Is it an excuse for, I am not able anymore to keep my promise? No. God gave us a life that He wanted to become the Adventure of Our Lives, and He expected us to become well calculated risk takers. - But taking a risk opens up for failures... He never gave us any promise of we would become a success. He gave us the opportunity to become a success in the way of getting to know Him (and that's the beginning of wisdom) and He gave us the promise He would never forsake us. He gave us the opportunity to go out to do it the very best we can - that's what He expects of us - and the opportunity to come back and tell we blew it. The opportunity to be forgiven. To get a new start. To try our very best again - including our new lessons learned - and maybe this time succeed in doing His will. Just because I blew it last time, shalt not keep me from the path of the Adventure of My Life. Blessings Mogens I Can Explain It To You, But I Can’t Understand It For You Good News For Christian Man ABP "REVELATION"
| ||
|
You are talking of the advise of Paul. I am talking of how we originally where created to be. Two very different things. Blessings Mogens I Can Explain It To You, But I Can’t Understand It For You Good News For Christian Man ABP "REVELATION"
| ||
|
Agreed. That makes two of us. I think we can transfer that attitude to all parts of our lives. Do we then end up not daring to do anything or do we end up taking well calculated risks? Being together - to socialise - do always contain the risk of getting disappointed. Or to disappoint others. - Or the risk of finding out this was the best add in our lives. Blessings Mogens I Can Explain It To You, But I Can’t Understand It For You Good News For Christian Man ABP "REVELATION"
|
|
