Divorce/Remarriage

[firehill]

Was the bible intentionally written?

Yes, so...your point?

[firehill]

I think the bible does interpret itself, but I do think that a knowledge of who is being spoken to and for what reason is crucial to understanding the context of what is being said many times.

Yes, agreed. Without such knowledge things can be entirely distorted from the author's intention.

[firehill]

Smalcald:

My point about historical criticism is the idea that the bible is a product of the time and place and prejudices of those who wrote the bible and to understand the bible we must understand these cultural boundaries makes the bible a human document.That is the essence of historical criticism at least what they do at the university level.

Moses law in Deuteronomy regarding divorce was a product of hard hearted men who were disposing of their wives and is an example of such a product and evenso yeilds much for us today.

Can you explain how gaining knowledge of it's cultural boundaries and utilizing those boundaries in interpretaion makes it a human document?

[Sherman]

Hello everyone,

I had read the posts up to when I posted my last one. I work off-line on replies and then pop in briefly to post my reply and then catch up on the other posts. After this post, I'll follow with a couple of replies to recent specific notes to me. For this post I would like to point out a couple of things concerning Mt.5:31&32.

First, I would like to point out the common Rabbinical practice/technique of simply recording key phrases and sentences that referenced lengthy discussions that were shared orally. Considering the expense and limitations on writing materials, this is completely understandable. This is very likely what we have in the Sermon on the Mount. Matthew recorded key phrases that would act as a kind of outline for orally sharing all that the Lord spoke on those given subjects. This helps us understand the brevity of this passage only taking about 15 minutes to read, though it was very likely an all day event.

Second, a key passage of the Sermon on the Mount that serves as a pivot in the theme and tone of the Sermon is Mt.5:17-20 which says

[followerofjesus]

Sherman doesn't scripture say something like divorce was granted due to the hardness of mans heart?

[Sherman]

Well Sherman you seem like a good guy and I will pray for you too. I really don't know whether we would end up in different places on this issue because I don't know what you believe about divorce, and I don't know why we have to "end up" anywhere as I believe the bible is relatively clear. Ending up would mean you start at one place and end up somewhere else. I do agree that we should not ignore all contexts, but the reason we would not ignore it would be to shed further light on the plain meaning, which must come first. My point about historical criticism is the idea that the bible is a product of the time and place and prejudices of those who wrote the bible and to understand the bible we must understand these cultural boundaries makes the bible a human document. That is the essence of historical criticism at least what they do at the university level. But yet we believe that the bible was given to us by God, and given to us today by God. For example, God guided the hand of Peter in writing 1Peter, God meant for Peter to write what he did, and he meant it for all believers throughout all of time.

I don't think the bible is this hugely complex document which God meant to be hard to understand. Most of the New Testament is simply sermons read aloud to the first Christians. I do agree that the bible can be read at many different levels. So indeed maybe you are going to a deeper level and that is good, but the deeper level should not contradict the simpler level.

But I am not done reading what you have to say as I enjoy discussion about what the bible is saying and you have had some interesting things to say.

Hey Smalcald,

Thanks for your gracious and peaceful reply. You seem like a good guy too, and I look forward to getting to know you better. I understand what you mean concerning historical criticism. Sadly, one of the assumptions often seen in historical critisicm is that the supernatural elements of the Bible are just myth and we must press through the "myth" to get to what "really" happened. It's a load of crock if you ask me. The Bible is the perfect and inerrant Word of God, miraculously delivered through imperfect human beings!

You've mentioned in a couple of posts concerning the Bible being written for the Laymen. That's not quite true, actually the Bible was written for Everyone, laymen and even those who think they know something We can all understand the Word, true. But that does not discount the fact that Jesus gave us gifts as in apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers. These people are gifts from the Lord, why? Because He has put something in them that is meant to be a blessing to the church and the world. Each of those ministries has special gifts to help equip the Body of Christ to do the works of the ministry. We are all called to be priests unto the Lord, but we're not all called to be a pastor or apostle. Of course, you know this; I suppose I just bring it up because I'm a teacher, and teachers are picky about every word, too picky for most!

We have so very much we can learn from eachother. That's why its important for us to honor and respect eachother as you do. If we humble ourselves, we can receive from eachother the various gifts that God has given each of us. Thanks again for your gracious reply and your open heart and mind!

Sincerely and in His service and yours,

P.S. I agree that the Bible as a whole is not a terribly complex puzzle that only the most enlightened can fathom. It is very simple really, Love God and Love your neighbor as yourself. Some parts though are pretty difficult; even Peter speaks of how some of the things Paul wrote are difficult to understand.

[Sherman]

Sherman doesn't scripture say something like divorce was granted due to the hardness of mans heart?

Followerofjesus, the Bible most certainly says that the reason Moses was inspired to legislate the bill of divorce was because of the hardness of heart. This is the universal reason that such legislation is and was needed. Jesus then also explains the cultural reason that Moses was inspired to legislate the bill of divorce, to stop the ancient near-eastern practice of men putting away their wives, causing them to commit adultery, and the men that marry them to commit adultery.

It's late though, so I'll have to write more on that maybe tomorrow if I can.

Blessings and good night!

[followerofjesus]

So you are in agreement that it should be granted on the basis of infidelity , or death?

[chapmac]

Sherman doesn\'t scripture say something like divorce was granted due to the hardness of mans heart?

The discussion in Matt 19, and by extention Mark 10, isnt just about any old divorce, but frivolous divorce.

In Exodus 21 we see a woman granted the right to leave her marriage based on her husbands denying her what he owes her as his wife.

But when we get to Deut 24:1-4, this isnt about anything shes done wrong, but for a ambigous \'uncleaness\' that he has determined in her...which is why the pharisees say \'for every cause\' when they inquire of Jesus.

The former is a right to leave from Gods word for lack of providing and doesnt seem to have to be of a hard heart.

The latter does seem to be of a hard heart because it is being done for no valid reason at all.

On those lines...

[url=http://www.theassemblyministries.com/page5.html]Do all who file divorce do so from

[GeneV]

Since I obviously do not appear to understand the historical/cultural/literary/contextual meaning of scripture. And the history books, biblical commentries, concordances, transalations Hebrew and Greek, including study Bibles I use appear to be errant I cannot further add anything useful to this debate.