Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!bcm!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: garyh@crash.cts.com (Gary Hipp) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: divorce and remarriage Message-ID: Date: 8 Nov 90 03:33:20 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Crash TimeSharing, El Cajon, CA Lines: 75 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: >In article , ta00est@unccvax.uncc.edu (elizabeth s tallant) writes: >> In article , jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com writes: >Um, let's get one thing straight. NT Greek has a word for "adultery" >(moicheia) and a word for "fornication" (porneia). Whoever wrote >the Gospel according to Matthew knew and used both words. Any satisfactory >account of this verse (which itself contains both words) has to explain at >least two things: > -- why is Matthew the only Gospel to contain an "exception clause"? > -- why does the "exception clause" talk about _fornication_ in the > context of divorce? If a wife had sex with someone else, that > was adultery, not fornication! Let me throw a little hitch into you popular engagement thesis. See if this makes sense. If you study out the word fornication (porneia) referred to in other versions as immorality, unchastity, etc., you will find that the word refers (contrary to popular belief that it is only sex before marriage) to any sin that is sexual including adultry. It is the "pork barrel of sexual sin" including homosexuality, bestiality, etc. So, Jesus is essentially saying that the divorce is not sinful if one of the parties has committed a sexual sin. Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that the acts contributing to the divorce were not sinful, just that the divorce itself isn't. (See Ezra 10:9-19) >The explanation which makes the most sense to me is this: > -- the Gospel according to Matthew was written to Jews (it contains > a much higher proportion of quotations from/allusions to the > Tenach than any of the other Gospels) > -- Jewish marriage customs of the time required a divorce to end > an engagement > -- so the exceptional condition where divorce is permitted is this: > man A is betrothed to woman B, > but A hasn't taken B into his household yet (she is still > living under the authority of her parents/guardians). > A discovers that B has had sex with man C. > In _this_ case, where Jewish custom spoke of a "marriage", but > it hadn't been consummated, it was permitted to break the > engagement. >This makes it clear how each of the different versions of the logion on >divorce could have _faithfully_ presented the intent of whatever it was >that Jesus said; the other Gospels, not being written to people who >required the same kind of legal procedure to end an engagement as to >end a marriage, didn't need this clarification. > >On this account, then, Jesus' teaching was something like "divorce and >remarriage from a consummated marriage is _out_". This is certainly a >hard saying. Frankly, it's frightening. I had one near-engagement that >went badly wrong. What if my next choice is as bad, but I don't find >out until too late? As far as Matt. being written to the Jews, I will agree, but must leave it at that. In both Matt.5:32 and Matt.19:9, Jesus is respectively 1. referring to an OT passage which is consistent with the rest of the Sermon on the Mount, and 2. responding to questioning by the Pharisees. In both instances, He was referring to Deut.24:1-4 and giving clarification on its meaning. By reference to this aspect of the Mosaic Law, marriage NOT ENGAGEMENT was definately the topic of discussion. The engagement thesis has lttle behind it but assumption. Hardly enough to determine doctrine. Back to the topic. Specifically to be defined was the word "indecency"(NASB) in 24:1. Ref. Matt19, the rabbis were divided on what the legitimate grounds ("for any cause at all"vs.3) being of the school of Shammai or followers of Hillel which allowed for divorce for many trivial reasons. Jesus' clarification was seen as a drastic tightening of Jewish Law as proved by the disciples reaction in vs.10. To quickly sum up, divorce is an option with grounds of sexual sin. Remarriage is also acceptable, but that is another subject. gary hipp