New Testament teachings on divorce. Jesus quoted in the Gospels.

[Boojatta]

31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:

32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Source:
Matthew 5 (King James Version)

Does Senator John McCain consider Christianity to be a passing fad? Does he prefer the Old Testament formula: "let him give her a writing of divorcement"?

[virtualobserver]

1. well, McCain did fornicate, so I guess it's OK

[smoogatz]

12. I think it's if the wife fornicates.

That's the only acceptable cause for divorce in the NT.

[Duke Newcombe]

2. Crazy question: do you subscribe to His teachings on that?

What do you think of them?

Duke

[Boojatta]

3. Given the number of divorced women who have children, his analysis...

"whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery" might persuade some Christian men to avoid opportunities to enter into good marriages where they could also be fathers for children who have fathers in name only. For example, imagine a man who divorces an essentially blameless wife, and who was also -- throughout the marriage -- a bad husband, a bad father, and a bad citizen. Should single men refuse to consider marrying the ex-wife of such a man in order to keep open the option of reconciliation and remarriage for such a man and his ex-wife? I think not.

I suspect that Jesus had in mind a typical situation from his time and place and that he wouldn't want his few short words that I quoted above to be followed to the letter for all time. I think that he wanted people to focus on the spirit of what he was saying and to respect that spirit.

[Duke Newcombe]

4. Interesting analysis.

Thank you for the thoughtful answer.

Duke

[DeSwiss]

5. It is interesting point you raise...

...however, it should be considered in its historical context. Women at this time were essentially chattel. They were the property of their husbands. Marriage was more a means of wealth creation and retention within extended families, as well as a means to insure inheritors. So a woman's considerations were hardly at issue.

And yet this statement attributed to Jesus does not specifically address the issue of polygamy. In this time-frame, it was still the norm for a man of sufficient means to have more than one wife. And divorcement was generally the solution used to deal with the problems of infertility rather than adultery.

Prior to the "implied doctrine of heaven & hell," Jews had no concept of such a thing. A person's "immortality" as it were, was assured through his progeny. That is the "blessing" that Yahweh promised so often in the OT. "I will make of you a great nation."

As to its applicability to McCain, were we still living under the mores of that time, he could have easily married another woman -- thus keeping his other wife. And therefore under such a scenario, he would not be violating NT doctrine. But since later canonical law and then secular laws prohibited such multiple unions, we could say that he had no other choice.

But as far as I know, Jesus never spoke in favor of monogamy (including from the Apocryphal writings). In fact, I don't think he could have. It simply wasn't "on" to diss multiple marriages back then.

What has been my experience is that "Christians" today cherry-pick the parts from the bible that they like, as if they were at a family buffet restaurant. And then ignore the other stuff they don't like. One could say in fact that the various denominations are a means of filtering one's beliefs in a way that is to one's liking.

So if this applies to McCain in any way, then it would apply to everyone who believes in these myths.

[Boojatta]

6. Do you have any idea of what motivates this question to be asked?

But as far as I know, Jesus never spoke in favor of monogamy (including from the Apocryphal writings). In fact, I don't think he could have. It simply wasn't "on" to diss multiple marriages back then.

For the question that is referred to as "this question" in the title of this post, see the bolded text below:

18 Then come unto him the Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection; and they asked him, saying,

19 Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man's brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.

20 Now there were seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and dying left no seed.

21 And the second took her, and died, neither left he any seed: and the third likewise.

22 And the seven had her, and left no seed: last of all the woman died also.

23 In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife.

Source:
Mark 12 (King James Version)

[DeSwiss]

10. I am very familiar...

...with the motivation(s) behind the question (I was at one time, a studious PK). ;) This account of the myth is part of a series of other attempts wherein the Sanhedrin Council seeded agents and provocateurs among his followers in an attempt to trap him into making statements that would give them the justification for ending his ministry. One way or the other.

He had scorned them publicly for their false piety. Their loud ostentatious praying, their adulteration of the Temple by allowing money-changers to do business there. And contrary to the other Rabbis, he spoke mostly about the aspects from their beliefs that were in-keeping with OT tales and stories which dealt with issues of human kindness, forgiveness and humility, rather than righteous retribution and strict adherence to law. He was the Populist with a new and invigorating message, to their dull Establishment droning about laws and rules that they themselves failed to adhere to.

The parable's subject matter illustrates not only how the law worked (7 dead brothers, 1 infertile wife(?) and how this method supported the retention of the dowry from that initial marriage - and not noted is the fact that in all likelihood she was a cousin to all those husbands), but also it reinforces the fact that they believed that children (preferably sons) was the means by which one achieved immortality -- through their progeny. As the verse above states, "the Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection," reflects the underlying belief then held by the Hebrews. So in advancing the idea(s) about a hereafter, he was both "adding to" the narrative as well as "undermining" the existing one, along with long-held beliefs and interpretations as had been advanced by the Rabbis that preceded him.

The basic problem for the Sanhedrin was that they could not refute what he preached because the issues he spoke to did not conflict directly with "The Law." Only a differing interpretation of it. What he advanced was "new stuff" that they had no ready-made answers for. What he preached was supportable within their overall beliefs of the time (which included more than just the beliefs found in the Torah). They could only disagree with his interpretations -- which is something that was routinely done between the Pharisees and Sadducees themselves. And it is also why they needed to "catch" him making a mistake. A mistake like claiming to be the son of their god - a blasphemy, punishable by death.

The questioner, in raising the point of "the resurrection" was using Jesus' own language and concept in an attempt to trap him. Not having any background or understanding of such a thing as a life after death, they used the existing social structure that passed wives down the line from their deceased brothers as a ploy to undermine the whole concept of the resurrection. They assume that the "life-in-the-hereafter" that Jesus spoke of, would be more or less similar to the one that they knew. Why else would they be asking questions pertaining to the "disposition of property" (the wife), in the hereafter? Apparently, the idea that she would not belong to any of them, never entered into their thinking. Because such an idea on its face, would be foolish at the time.

[jimmyfungus]

7. Mr. McCain Goes to Divorce Court

Jesus was condemning the hypocrisy of the religious leaders of his time. Many of them would divorce their wives on religious technicalities and still parade around like they were righteous and holy. To me Jesus is basicly saying, when you enter in a covenant, like marriage, you should fulfill your promise... And clearly Jesus is singling marriage out as a very special promise in the eyes of God as well.

However, most of the politicians in America would have to resign their posts if they were held to this standard. Ronald Reagan, and Bob Dole had divorces as well, and the American public didn't really hold it against them. John McCain isn't really running as a Christian, though he is courting "Christian" support, and our country isn't a theocracy, so it is not a test for religious office.

I think the point really being raised is how come the media and the public give more slack to Republican candidates on the issue of "family values"?


____________________________________________

spiritual food:
http://spiritual-political-self-help.blogspot.com/

[Boojatta]

8. Welcome to Democratic Underground!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

9. I once heard a sermon on that

explaining that in those days, a divorced wife would literally be out on the streets, since her family of origin wouldn't take her back. Prostitution was likely to be her only alternative to starvation. Therefore, it was inhumane for a man to divorce his wife.

[Boojatta]

11. How do you explain this part...

"and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery"?

Presumably Jesus intended to recommend neither prostitution nor starvation.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

13. Sometimes "I don't know" is an answer

:shrug:

[Igel]

14. A lot of Xians consider tradition and thinking to trump Jesus.

For those that accept the idea, that's fine. They can't then be held accountable for what the NT says.

Many that would object to the harsh way I phrased it would still object to abiding by Paul in the NT. The vast majority would figure that listening to Moses is a waste of time, unless he says what they already believe.

I left my old church for a number of reasons. The final straw was when the pastor recommended Bible study, but issued a warning. The only legitimate reason for Bible study, he said, was to substantiate what he said; to use it to question what he said was wrong. I left the hall and haven't been back. (Of course, having moved from that town in '91, this hasn't been a real problem.)