Drew said:
[
I have no secrets here.....
My position is much more aligned with the first alternative. I am "legitimately trying to present that ''porneia'' includes the thoughts of a man based on Jesus internalizing sin..." I most definitely do not agree that the claim that "divorce and remarriage is never permissible." So I do believe that divorce and remarriage is permissible for fornication. What's more, I am inclined to think that it is permissible for other reasons as well - reasons other than the traditional "big two" - fornication and desertion
Then I apologize for allowing the first post you made to set the tone of this discussion.
It did sound like you were building a strawman with your line of quesioning.
Ive seen this type of tactic many times, so I just assumed you were doing the same.
Please overlook much of my ''tone'' in the last few posts.
The word porneia does mean literal sexual sin.
But the issue is that it also alludes to idolatry as well, so it is ''possible'' that Jesus was including other items as well.
Personally I dont buy the idea of divorcing over the thoughts of a person. There isnt anything in scripture to back that idea.
BUT.....we do have the desertion issue where it is shown that the person is no longer bound to the deserter.
Taking that as simply as possible..knowing that ''one flesh'' is sex (1 Corin 6:16) and not some unbreakable bond...and also accepting the fact that marriage is NOT an UNconditional covenant (by Jesus own words ''except" and also Paul stating that the believer isnt bound to the deserter... we start to see a fuller picture of what is being said)
I have to watch every word in this debates as some like a poster here will jump at any chance, valid or not, to take those words and use them for their own purpose.
Something Ive learned to reciprocate.
However, I am open to being convinced that the exception clause really only refers to the betrothal period as Delicate is contending.
Good luck with that one.
It takes too much reading between the lines and completely dismissing what Jewish betrothal is.....marriage....to do so.
On top of the apparent error that IF betrothal werent marriage, then Joseph would not have been seen as Jesus father....and the Jews would have surely been able to prove Him not the messiah in the eyes of the masses.
I hit on many of the absurdites of this doctrine on my site on this issue of betrothal.
It only takes a few moments of study to find the many errors.
I will say, however, that I do not think it is likely that her arguments will be convincing to me. The only reason I say this is that one particular scholar I am aware of (and am inclined to respect) does not hold the view that Delicate does.
I have heard so many variations of this doctrine and that is what caused me to really start studying it last year.
I guess one advantage I have is that I have been thru the NT more than most scholars have over the last half decade or so (200+ times and counting) so that I am able to immediately tie in one thought from one passage to any others pertaining to a topic most of the time.
After reading it so many times, and tying it in with Jewish customs and their history, lots of things Jesus says are made much more clear than what they seem at first glance.
I really wish I could express the importance of MUCH study to folks BEFORE they start playing teacher. Its always very easy to tell who has and who hasnt.
I had one woman blow up on me on Christianforums.com because she could not respond to even the simplest of questions pertaining to the bible..... yet was very adamant about this anti-remarraige doctrine.
She gave her motivations away when I found that she had put away a husband over this doctrine......so if she finds out shes wrong now, it means she put him away without just cause and that she was duped to begin with....something not many are willing to deal with.
I am in agreement with you on the desertion thing for sure.
Not being ''bound'' to that person shows me that we are ''free'' of them and that union.
Jesus in the exception clause is talking to a group of Jewish men who had been permitted for centuries to divorce ''for any cause''.
In my understanding Jesus is basically telling them that they were permitted to divorce because Moses had determined that thier hardheartedness might even cause them to kill a wife.....something that study shows happened.
Moses chose the lesser of two evils....unjustified divorce.
Jesus returns this to the way it should have been....ONLY for an actual breaking of the covenant....something easily defined in the OT in passages like Deut 22 (sexual sin in this case)
But there are also passages in the OT where it is shown that man MUST provide for his wife.....this idea is repeated very well in the NT too..
1Ti 5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
Is letting a wife starve a valid reason for divorce as well?
Only the Lord knows.
Surely lets not jump at the first opportunity...but IF the woman is going to die, then she should separate.
At the end of the day, my position is probably more liberal than yours (strangely enough, since you seem to have thought I was coming from a more restrictive position). My general thoughts are that "moral codes" and "laws" do not work in prescribing human behaviour - we must ultimately go with Jesus' words from Matthew 22:
My apologies.....I really thought your ''liberal'' position was just to build a strawman here.
As you know by now, I think that the exception clause is so "loose" as to be almost useless - almost anyone can claim it. That does not sit well with me - I cannot believe that divorce and remarriage is OK in all situations.
If we keep it narrowed to the actual meaning of the word porneia, that is a start.
If we accept that anything WORSE that porneia is also just cause (attempted murder of a spouse, abuse, etc), then I think we are in line with the ''spirit'' of the law, especially given the passage I just quoted....
1Ti 5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
So I think that each case of divorce and remarriage cannot be settled by applying "rules", but needs to be looked at from the issue of the call to be loving - what is the most loving thing to do. This position will no doubt inspire much disagreement, possibly from yourself, and most certainly from Delicate, if not others.
I do think we need rules, Jesus and Paul gave those rules for a reason.
But I do think that there is a lot of scripture (such as 1 Tim 5:8) to show that there is much more to this picture than many want to see.
We have become rules lawyers, straining at a gnat, pushing the precise letter of the law as WE want to see it, then defiling the passage you quoted about love.
I read one article where the man said there is nothing in scripture that allows a wife who is being savagely beaten and raped by her husband the right to leave him.
He then quotes all these passages about CHRISTIANS enduring persecution from the WORLD as his arguement.
He obviously believes it is ok to defile Gods holy union of marriage with abuse.
Id rather take my chances with a forgiving God rather than these heartless animals we call men sometimes.
I hope this clarifies things.
It does.
Thanks for clarifying
