Jesus never said ANYTHING about X!

Agree with your points Glenn, however, Jesus did cover a lot of topics including marriage and others you list him as, probably allegedly, not saying anything about.

Jesus said he came to set us free and to give his life a ransom — isn’t this the same as condemning and providing himself and his example as a solution to kidnapping and slavery?

Jesus didn’t say anything about hard drugs but he did accept something that might fit that description on the cross.

Jesus did teach about his light yoke and easy burden, and the yoke is a traditional symbol of taxation and slavery and oppression. You could take that as a ‘low tax’ teaching, except when you look into the topic of taxation you see that Jesus teaching was more about the abolition of taxation than its reduction.

Although the textual pedigree is dubious, there is a story of Jesus teaching that throwing stones to execute someone was a sin. At the time Jesus lived, the Jews de facto abolished the death penalty (including for murder), and Jesus used this as a rhetorical premise to argue for relief from litigation for and coercive means or enforcing liability for defamation in the Sermon on the Mount (Mat 5:21-26). This rhetorical strategy does not work if Jesus wants them to practice the death penalty for murder. The capital punishment of Jesus is used as a dramatic irony also: Jesus was not executed for murder, as per the law of Moses, but for insult, his body being in danger of the fire of gehenna, the burning rubbish dump outside the city gate, yet being rescued by Joseph of Arimathea. Peter takes Jesus’ death as a falsification of the propaganda that Tiberius sent Pilate to commend the good and punish those who do wrong in 1 Peter 2 — at least an implicit teaching against the practice of the death penalty. The wrongful execution of Jesus is not an aberrant exception to the ‘proper’ administration of justice but rather an object lesson in how it works: those who insult the powerful or challenge their state ideology get killed under colour of law, while those who murder and loot go unpunished most of the time and use the colour of law to murder their opponents. Jesus taught the rejection of coercion as a means of producing order or justice or of righting wrongs, and he taught another way of dealing with injustice and oppression and injuries: forgiveness and love and appeal to honour and shunning. Jesus provided, in Mat 18:15-20, an alternative procedure to state-court litigation and criminal prosecution of ‘offenders’ that has no ‘dragging to court’ (cf. James 2:6) and throwing in debtors’ prison (Luke 12:54-59; Mat 18:30), selling into debt-slavery (Mat 18:25), seizure of property (Mark 12:40). The greatest remedy it provides is to shun the offender.

Jesus did give teaching and himself as an example of child sacrifice, being the son and heir who was given by his father as a sacrifice.

Jesus actually DID say something about homosexuality through the Pauline Epistles. The entire Bible is His Word. Not just what is recorded as His speech during His earthly ministry in the Gospels. Jesus is the Word (John 1:1). And His Word is consistently expressed through Scripture from Genesis to Revelation.

Though of course Marcion majored on (some of) Paul’s letters so that just supports the analogy.

“Jesus was opposed to the practice of serial monogamy because it left vulnerable children and wives behind with no means of support: all because a man wanted a shiny new sexual partner. This is why Jesus advocates for the indisolubility of marriage.”

That’s false, if you look at the actual text, he opposes serial monogamy because in his view Genesis taught that God had ordained marriage as the union of one man and one women for life and the practise of serial monogamy was an attempt by human law to contradict what God had ordained. That is the reason he gives, not the ones you claim he held.

“This, right here touches on other “lifestyles” than what the pharisees were used to. The normal Jewish life was, turn 13, get married and move out, and have sex. Divorce the wife when you want and repeat.”

Actually in the passage you cite he was talking to the disciples not the Pharisees and your description of Jewish practice is false. Judaism was divided on divorce. The Hillel liberal school supported no fault divorce, the more conservative shammai school didn’t, neither did the essenes. Jesus in fact is simply siding with the shammai school in the debate on this issue.

“Jesus claims that this is immoral, and that there are other “lifestyles” that people can adopt. One is lifelong celibacy. Celibacy was seen as a sin (and often still is) in Jewish circles. Jesus, contrarily has no problem with it. Next we come to Eunuchs who were made so by men, which is a reference to castration. We know that castrated Eunuchs dressed as women, became transgender (this was a result of the horomone reduction when you remove a man’s testicles), and that these castrated men also engaged in sex with other males as the receptive partner.”

No actually if you look at the text, Jesus was actually addressing the disciples question which that “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.” In otherwords the question was about wether its permissible or morally good to “not marry” his response is that this is permissible only for enuchs that is people who are castrated, and so therefore incapable of having sex. He then distinguishes different kinds of enuchs. Those who have renounced sex for the kingdom of heaven and those who have either been born incapable of sex or who have been rendered that way by humans. These three groups are the only groups who are permitted to “not marry”
I am sure somewhere somehow some people believe that Jesus saying that Enuchs made by men are exempt from the requirement to not marry, means in fact he was saying that homosexuals should marry. Unfortunately it’s not remotely plausible.

What Jesus did say was that God created marriage as a union of one man and one women for life and that everyone who is capable of sexual relations is required to get married so defined unless they renounce sex altogether.

>That’s false, if you look at the actual text, he opposes serial monogamy because in his view >Genesis taught that God had ordained marriage as the union of one man and one women >for life and the practise of serial monogamy was an attempt by human law to contradict >what God had ordained. That is the reason he gives, not the ones you claim he held.

This part “as the union of one man and one women >for life”, and specifically this part
“one man and one woman” is false.

The SAME book Jesus quotes, Genesis, had writers that clearly, clearly, CLEARLY approved of polygamy. Just a few chapters later in Genesis we have the book talking about polygamous marriage in Genesis 4:19.

Not only that, but polygamous marriage was MANDATED by God in levitate marriage. It is not credible that Genesis meant only “one woman” when it clearly approved of polygamy. You can’t use Genesis, a book riddled with polygamy, to justify monogamy.

Jesus argues not for exclusivity in marriage, but the non-dissolving of marriage. In other words, marry as many people as you want, but don’t divorce any of them.

>Judaism was divided on divorce….

I agree. But there is a difference between what two different authorities say and what actually happened. Women did not have the rights now that they had then. Serial monogamy was a serious concern.

>his response is that this is permissible only for enuchs that is people who are castrated, >and so therefore incapable of having sex. He then distinguishes different kinds of >enuchs. Those who have renounced sex for the kingdom of heaven and those who have >either been born incapable of sex or who have been rendered that way by humans.

Wishful thinking and whitewashing. Eunuchs who were castrated engaged in cross dressing and transgenderism as well as homosexual sex. Castrated Eunuchs are not incapable of homosexual sex, they can be the receptive partner and often were. This is a reaction to the reduction of testosterone in the body because of the removal of the testes.

“Eunuchs born so” isn’t a reference to “those incapable of sex” it’s been directly linked to homosexuality with references to this phrase in the Talmud, as well as references to it by early church fathers. If you would like references I can provide them.

No, I’m sorry, eunuchs (both castrated and born so) are references to homosexuals, homosexual behavior, and transgenderism.

continued
Mat 19:
“I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
This ruling means exactly what it says: the one who divorces his wife except for sexual immorality and marries another woman commits adultery. It never says anything in justification of divorce on grounds of sexual immorality, or that following a divorce on such grounds that one is free to take another spouse without being guilty of adultery.

If you read the teaching of Jesus the theme is clear and the principle is stated explicitly: we cannot use the wrongs of others as a justification for doing evil against them. We must be perfect, never doing or permitting evil as a means of upholding good or right, regardless of due process of law and regardless of the guilt of the target and regardless of the safeguards afforded the accused and the guilty. Mat 5:38-39:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person.”
This is an explicit reference to the legally regulated and legally limited process of obtaining financial compensation for injuries by the force of the law. It obviously does not refer to unregulated private revenge.

The same principle applies and explains Jesus’s teachings on both divorcing an adulterous spouse and then using a divorce judgement to justify taking someone else, and taking legal action against a debtor and then using a court judgement against the judgement debtor to take his property by force or to put him in debtor’s prison.

The standard of conduct he requires is perfection and absolute prohibition on doing evil. The guilt of others is no justification for doing evil to any extent whatsoever. The only remedies allowed are those what are not evil, such as appeals to honour, enlistment of social but non-coercive vindication, and shunning (Mat 15:15-20)

Another example, not from Jesus but Paul, shows the standard of conduct as perfection is Romans 13:8-10
Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

The meaning is fairly clear: pay your debts, but when your debtor does not pay his debt to you, that cannot justify doing harm to him in order to force him to pay. The duty to do no harm to a neighbour is unconditional and absolute. Doing no harm to a neighbour is the sum of social obligation, in contrast to paying taxes or doing no harm to those whose debts to you are not overdue and unpaid.

“This part “as the union of one man and one women >for life”, and specifically this part
“one man and one woman” is false.”

No, that’s not the case, Christopher. Go to the passage that Jesus used as the model of marriage: One man, one woman, coming together and forming a permanent union. So the “one man, one woman” part is absolutely correct. Just as God allowed divorce – something Jesus stated, so he allowed polygamy, but, to use your choice of words, this passage that Jesus cites as the model of marriage “clearly clearly” is monogamous and heterosexual.

“No, I’m sorry, eunuchs (both castrated and born so) are references to homosexuals, homosexual behavior, and transgenderism.”

The evidence for that is wanting. You don’t have (as far as evidence goes) the right to say it. But in any event, that’s not the issue here and it will not become the issue. This blog post is about 1) The faulty methodology of assuming that since Jesus doesn’t explicitly condemn something then it’s acceptable, and 2) the dubious belief that this shoddy principle, even if accepted, would mean that Jesus never advocated a heterosexual model of marriage.

Because of my past experience with you, I’m going to stipulate that if you’re going to continue commenting on this thread, you limit your comments to those subject areas. Alternatively, start a blog.

“Eunuchs born so” isn’t a reference to “those incapable of sex” it’s been directly linked to homosexuality with references to this phrase in the Talmud, as well as references to it by early church fathers. If you would like references I can provide them. No, I’m sorry, eunuchs (both castrated and born so) are references to homosexuals, homosexual behavior, and transgenderism.”

Sorry but that’s false as well, seeing you claimed that that the phrase “ being born a Enuch” is refers to homosexuals I’ll refer you to what the Talmud says:

“WHAT IS TERMED A PEZU’A? Our Rabbis taught: What is termed a pezu’a dakkah? A man both of whose stones were wounded or even only one of them; even though they were only punctured, crushed, or simply defective. Said R. Ishmael son of R. Johanan b. Beroka: I heard from the mouth of the Sages at the Vineyard at Jabneh that one having only one stone is a natural born eunuch and is, therefore, a fit person. How could it be said that such a person is a natural born eunuch! — Say rather, he is like a natural born eunuch and is, therefore, fit.
Is [a man whose stones are] punctured incapable of procreation? and a thorn pierced his stones, [his semen] issued like a thread of pus, and, [despite the accident], he begat children! — In that case, as a matter of fact, Samuel sent word to Rab, telling him, ‘Institute enquiries respecting the parentage of his children’.
Rab Judah stated in the name of Samuel: A man whose stones have been injured by a supernatural agency is regarded as a fit person. Said Raba: This is the reason why the Scriptural text reads, Who is wounded and not ‘the wounded
In a Baraitha it was taught: It was said in Scripture. He who is wounded … shall not enter3 and it was also said, A bastard shall not enter,’ as the latter is the result of human action, so is the former the result of human action”
Note what is said, the text is dealing with the command in Deuteronomy 23“No one who is emasculated or has his male organ cut off shall enter the assembly of the LORD. 2“No one of illegitimate birth shall enter the assembly of the LORD; none of his descendants, even to the tenth generation, shall enter the assembly of the LORD.”
The Rabbis here are determining who and who does not fall under this prohibition. Moreover define what they are talking about, a person who has damaged gentialia, particular damage gentialia that might prevent them procreating. And are asking if a person who it states explicitly that its refering to a person who has both or one testicle wounded. The text refers to a natural born enuch as one whose gentailia has been born with such an injury. If you read on in the Talmud, you’ll see rather detailed discussions of various different injuries to ones gentalia discussed and wether that does or does not count, to fall under the law. So its pretty clear what the phrase refers to.

Jesus in a debate with the Pharisees draws distinctions Pharisees drew about having damaged gentailia specifically damage that makes one incapable of procreation.
Finally its worth reiterating my point that, in context, when Jesus refered to Enuchs is was in answer to the question wether it was good to *not* marry. He lists eunichs as the group who are exempt from the prohibition to marry, as one group who can accept the suggestion “its better not to marry”.

So to suggest Jesus is actually saying homosexuals should marry is really stretching this passage.

David, thanks. My reasoning (actually John Piper’s – I’m not a big fan but he’s right sometimes) is as follows. Mathew includes the story of Joseph nearly divorcing Mary but says Joseph was just. If he had not included the exceptive clause he would make it look ad though Joseph was condemned and contradict himself. Elsewhere he lists porneia and mocheia together indicating he uses porneia for fornication. Also both Mathew and Luke say (absent NIV mistranslation of Mathew) that anyone who marries a divorced woman (no exceptions) commits adultery, regardless of whether she has been abandoned for another woman. And reading porneia as fornication eliminates contradiction between Mathew and Luke. After all why would Luke’s readers assume that a blanket statement contained a concealed exception? It make sense to me. In John Jesus is accused of being born of porneia which also fits. And Paul (like Luke) says nothing of an exception for adultery though he allows separation from unbelievers if they wish it.

Should have said moicheia not mocheia.

Fair enough. I’m not committed. But one then has to explain why Jesus uses porneia for the grounds of divorce and moicheia to describe remarriage. And why Luke and Paul don’t include the exceptive clause. The notion that their readers would have assumed one I find unpersuasive. But maybe we are wandering off topic. If so apologies to Glenn.

Giles,

Actually your explanation does seem possible as a way to explain why in Matthew there is reference to porneia while in Mark and Luke there is not.

In both cases Matthew has reason to refer to perneia:
In the Sermon on the Mount, it serves the rhetorical function of contrasting the woman’s innocence before her divorce and her guilt after remarrying. The man causes his wife to commit adultery, a species of porneia, while previously she was innocent of every kind of porneia.

In Mat 19 Jesus says exactly the same thing: that the one who divorces his wife not on the grounds of sexual immorality and then marries another is responsible for ‘to cause to commit adultery.’ This word moichaō in the New Testament always means to cause to commit adultery, and it is always used for the act of taking another person after a divorce or causing one’s wife to so take another man by way of divorcing her. A slightly different form of the word seems to be used for adultery in general: moicheuō which is defined as ‘to commit adultery with.’ Porneia obviously has a wide and general coverage of all kinds of sexual immorality. Jesus refers to it for two reasons in Mat 19: the issue at hand was the grounds for divorce, so he teaches that divorce not on grounds of porneia is a cause of porneia — this addressed the real issue of concern for those against any matter divorce policy in a legal and rhetorical way. However he also introduced teaching that went beyond the shammai school position:
1. Divorce itself was against God’s will: ‘what God has joined together, let no one separate.’ This applies regardless of cause, hence the follow up question/objection.
2. Divorce was itself for hardness of heart, i.e. spiritual adultery against God’s will in rejecting marriage as union and permanent loyalty.
3. Divorce without grounds of sexual immorality is to cause guilt of sexual immorality on taking another woman where previously she and he were innocent of sexual immorality.

The invalidity of divorce applies regardless of cause: it is against God’s will and it is spiritual adultery. Divorce on grounds other than sexual immorality therefore is not only invalid, but a cause of sexual immorality when it leads to remarriage.

There is a difference between separation and divorce also. In Mark the opponents of Jesus seem to take his position as against divorce entirely. The question of cause does not enter the discussion at all because it was not the only issue at stake. The issue at stake was whether divorce was lawful at all and so the answer that it was not, and that it was spiritual adultery, and that remarriage after divorce was actual adultery stands regardless of cause. But Jesus didn’t forbid separation, and neither did Paul.

The question of whether breaking an engagement with cause would be the permitted and whether the person could marry someone else is not discussed. You could argue that the two were not yet made one and so they would be free to re-marry.

Ah, I think I understand your position now. I went back over your comments. But I still have the problem that in Mathew 19 Jesus seems to say that remarriage isn’t adultery if the grounds for divorce is porneia. You seem to say it would be? Re betrothal it seems generally accepted that it was considered as binding as marriage.

Giles Jesus never ruled divorce legal for any cause and never ruled remarriage after divorce legal. He did give one ruling on the case where the cause was not sexual immortality, but that doesn’t govern other cases

Thanks David. I can see the argument. Jesus says remarriage is adultery in cases where porneia is not in view but not that it isn’t in other cases. I just can’t get around that the “except for porneia” clause seems to me to imply, even if it does not state, an exception. I’d be happier with the claim that remarriage after divorce for porneia is not adultery but is nevertheless prohibited. But I think it’s a fine difference between us. Your general reading of how our moral obligations work I am inclined to agree with.

Christopher, without warrant you introduced the claim (an unsubstantiated claim) about homosexuality and eunuchs. There was no good evidence for that claim, in spite of your assertion, and evidence has now been presented that shows you were wrong. Yes, people responded to you, and I told you not to derail this into a subject of your choosing. You don’t get to decide that because people have replied to you, you’ll do it anyway. No more. You shouldn’t have tried to derail this in the first place (especially into an area where you didn’t even know the source material to which you referred, as has now been shown). Don’t argue with me about it or I simply won’t allow you to comment here at all.

Those who want to see you commenting, seemingly without end, on polygamy, can visit an old thread to see it. I think I was fairly generous to you then in giving you a platform, and there’s no need to simply reproduce that here. If, after commenting quite a few times, you’ve expressed yourself and not everybody agrees with you, live with it. (This is a pre-emptive warning not to return to your old form.)

But back on subject, your interpretation of Jesus’ use of Genesis is not plausible. The two shall become one. If you say that another one comes along and becomes one with them so actually “the three shall become one flesh”, then you may do so, but you’re stepping outside of the model in Genesis that Jesus quotes, and I think you can see that. I am not interested in your pretend outrage at me imposing my “culture.” This is the appeal that Jesus made, and Jesus is not a product of my culture. Jesus said, using Genesis, that there is a male and a female, and the two become one.

You might not like this model (I don’t know). You might for some reason think this isn’t the ideal. But that’s what is presented in the creation narrative, and that’s what Jesus appeals to. My culture is neither here nor there.

When it comes to Levirate marriage – as I have pointed out to you before (time fades the memory), a prima facie obligation to marry somebody under a specific set of circumstances in the first place does not mean that you have to do it even if you’re already married, and in the second place is a less than ideal situation. The woman’s husband has died, after all, and in a covenant context where descent is very important, the brother steps in when things go wrong. So you haven’t shown (no matter how many times you repeat yourself) that polygamy was mandated here, and you also would not have shown – even if you did provide evidence (which you didn’t) that this situation was on par with monogamy as an ideal.

So to reiterate: the Jewish creation story does indeed depict heterosexual monogamy as the model of marriage, and Jesus appeals to this model.

Side note: Contemporary Jewish scholarship, reflecting on the Hebrew Scripture, likewise view polygamy as tolerated in Scripture but not lauded. See “Legal aspects” at http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10949-monogamy

Christopher Bowers’ personal culture might be better, in your view, than Jewish or Christian culture, and maybe everyone should prefer your interpretation of Scripture to Jewish and Christian interpretations. But I doubt it.

Giles, the closer you look into the idea that Jesus is creating an exception the more it breaks down. Initially, when you look at it, it seems like the law of Moses gives grounds for divorce and permits remarriage after divorce. So if Jesus is going to change anything, his changes are to be expressed as such, so an exception on the basis of cause would seem to apply.

The problem with that is that Jesus gives a number of rulings and/or his rulings are expressed in a number of different ways. There are essentially 2 rulings, one that divorce and remarriage is adultery, and the other than divorce without cause of sexual immorality followed by remarriage is adultery. These rulings therefore cover both cases unless the exception is implied but not stated in the first. The idea that an exception can be implied is not that implausible, for example, divorce, followed by death of one spouse and remarriage of the other following the death of his former spouse, is not adultery. We have to imply this is not applicable to the ruling because it does not expressly state such an exception. It is not so implausible to suggest that it could be taken for granted that the divorce he is ruling on is divorce without adequate cause.

However, when you look into the teaching more carefully, you see other factors at work and a doctrinal basis for rejection of divorce and remarriage with or without adequate cause. There are two aspects: First the permanence of the union: its institution by God so that should not be overturned by human courts or husbands’ divorce certificates. Second, the teaching about responses to wrongdoing and what can be justified on the basis of the wrongdoing of others. This is where you see that the evil done by a spouse does not justify the other spouse taking someone else. For example, the woman divorced by her husband not for sexual immorality is innocent of sexual immorality, but becomes guilty of adultery if she remarries even though she was previously innocent. So, the innocent spouse has no right to remarry. It follows that divorce is not permitted on the grounds of the fault of the other spouse, hence the question whether divorce is lawful at all arises. Jesus never teaches that divorce is adultery. Divorce perhaps can be a wrong against an innocent spouse and a justified remedy against a guilty one. But the rulings of Jesus focus on the adultery of taking another person rather than the divorce itself.

The use of the references for the grounds of divorce can be fully explained as rhetoric — explaining that divorce not on grounds of sexual immorality is the cause of sexual immorality on taking someone else by either party, and as a teaching on the position of the innocent spouse — the woman divorced not on grounds of sexual immorality is innocent, and is wronged by her spouse, yet it still is not lawful for her to take someone else.

When you compare with the teaching of Jesus on litigation and debt enforcement you see exactly the same principle: the debt or wrong of the other party does not justify dragging him to court, handing him over to the officer, judging him, condemning him, seizing his property to pay the judgement debt, putting him in debtor’s prison or taking his life.

On reflection, if my position is right I think the logic would be that the dissolved marriage was null due to being founded on fraud, the husband having paid a bride price for a virgin bride. This would dishonour the father who accepted the bride price also, hence the Mosaic emphasis on the bride having “played the whore” from her father’s house. This reading (that the marriage is nullified due to fraud) would avoid having to say that everyone is married to the first person they had sex with.
But of course if you are right all this reasoning is void.

You may be right. I think John Piper’s position and yours are both viable. Our difference would come into play only in the case of someone who has married on the false promise that our bride was a virgin and who wished to dissolve their marriage. A rare case in Western culture though perhaps less so in more traditional societies. I won’t argue further as I don’t know you are wrong and you make a good case. Best Wishes
(note to Glenn, I accidentally put my email address in place of my name, if that breaches the rules I won’t complain if you delete it).

Chris said

The Talmud states that “born eunuchs” can be “cured” while “crushed” eunuchs cannot be. If we go with Matt’s assertion that “born eunuch” means physical deformity, that contradicts with the Talmud, which mentions “born eunuchs” and rules out deformities. (you can’t cure a physical deformity of the genitals in 200AD!)”

Sorry, but again I will have to refer you to the text of the Talmud, because the section your quoting from actually supports what I said above. Here is the passage your refering to in context:

“What are we to understand by A SARIS BY NATURE? — R. Isaac b. Joseph replied in the name of R. Johanan: Any man who has not experienced a moment [of life] in a state of fitness.1 How could this2 be ascertained? — Abaye replied: [By observing whether] when he urinates no arch is formed. What are the causes? — That the child’s mother baked at noon and drank strong beer.
R. Joseph said: It must have been such a saris of whom I heard Ammi saying. ‘He who is afflicted from birth’, and I did not know [at the time] to whom he was referring. But should we not take into consideration the possibility that he might have recovered in the meantime! — Since he suffered from affliction in his early as well as in his later life, no [possible interval of recovery] need be taken into consideration. R. Mari raised an objection: R. Hanina b. Antigonos stated, ‘It is to be examined three times in eighty days’! — Precautions are to be taken in respect of one limb; in respect of the entire body no such precautions need be taken.

Note what happens here, the Rabbis ask what a Saris (enuch) by nature is, and they answer the question who cannot produce fertile semen. They state one can tell if a person is a natural Enuch by examining there penis and seeing if it has irregular function. It is suggested this is caused by to the mother drinking while pregnant. This passage therefore defines a Enuch by birth and doesn’t define it as a homosexual. Its defined as a man whose penis doesn’t function to produce semen .i.e someone who cant reproduce.
What happens is that in the next passage is that, R Joseph suggests that while a person may have had some kind of affliction like this at birth, in time they may recover from it so a method is proposed to examine a mans gentalia periodically to check if he is still infertile.

Christopher, you are mistaken about my ideas on polygamy, they are not Glenn’s ideas. If you re-read what i have written you may understand more but I am not going to defend my position further here as per Glenn’s wishes.

Either something is immoral or it isn’t. Actually this is not always clearly the case. Examples are difficult without derailing the thread. But of more importance is my refutation of your other points.

Giles After all why would Luke’s readers assume that a blanket statement contained a concealed exception? Because they live in a high context society.

David none of this shows that the specific scenario in mind addressed by Jesus was that of ‘the case of a woman who pretends to be a virgin on her wedding night.’ Nor would it likely have been the case as this specific issue is already explicitly addressed in the law. This is a case of (sexual) fraud, the punishment of which was execution.

I should have said “if you believe Jesus did intend an exception for adultery (as opposed to fornication.

I have just had a thought on the polygamy issue. Apologies if someone has raised it but I couldn’t find it scrolling back along the thread. In saying remarriage after divorce is adultery doesn’t Jesus implicitly criticise polygamy? After all if you can have two wives then marrying a second wife after divorcing the first would no more be adultery than marrying her without divorcing the first.

bethyada and Giles, the issue of imposing the death penalty on adulterers and others guilty of sexual immorality was not an issue at the time because the death penalty for all offences was a) de facto abolished by an impossible standard of evidence and b) taken from the Jews by the Romans (although at the time it was already irrelevant). Jesus had no problem with the Jewish move against the death penalty, what they did de facto, he did de jure.

I never heard that about Herod, interesting. The case of Mary, the woman caught in adultery, Stephen and Paul seem to be cases of illegal killings. Joseph rejected an illegal honour killing of Mary because he was a just man. The woman caught in adultery was set up and staged for an illegal honour killing to try to get Jesus in trouble. Stephen died at the hands of an angry crowd. Paul was stoned illegally but survived — perhaps harassed out of the city by throwing stones as an insult rather than a killing?

Giles, actually I don’t know hardly anything about Herod, well not about his actual policies or approach to legal administration. Yes, I clean forgot about poor old John the Baptist! His demise was patently illegal and irregular, and if I remember John was the one holding Herod to the law of Moses rather than the other way around.

I also omitted the case of Jesus — he suffered capital punishment at the instigation of the Jewish authorities but at the hands of the Romans.

Christopher
How can Jesus’s reference to Eunuchs justify their lifestyle when it assumesthat they are not having sex? “Jesus compared “eunuchs who make themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of God” (= Christians who opt out of marriage and thus sexual relations to have more time and freedom to proclaim the gospel) with “eunuchs who have been born so from the womb” (= those who are such from birth, due to corporal malformation)4 and “eunuchs who were made eunuchs by people” (= men forcibly castrated).5 The analogy only works on the assumption that eunuchs do not have sexual relations”(gagnon). It is clear here that Jesus is using the word ” eunuch” as synonymous with celibacy. The context shows that the reason Jesus mentions these groups is that they are an exception to this teaching on marriage, why? Because they can’t marry!

Its Glenn’s house so it’s his rules but I would certainly be interested in a reply to my point, that to equate remarriage with adultery makes sense only if Jesus rejected polygamy, since the case of a man who takes a second wife without divorcing his first seems alike to the case of one who takes a second wife after divorcing the first.

David, you say “divorce and remarriage threaten this” (the obligation of mutual support). It seems to me the support of the ex wife if a distinct issue. In principle one could say the husband should support the ex wife even after divorce or provide her with a pay off sufficient to support her rather than prohibiting remarriage. As you say yourself Jesus’ focus is on the case of remarriage after divorce, not divorce itself. True the obligation to a second wife might be incompatible with the maintenance of the first, but not in the case of a man with a large income. A prohibition on divorce or a requirement to support the ex wife would make more sense if support is the issue. The adultery issue seems to me to focus on the question of sexual relations. Otherwise the objection would be injustice not adultery. However in the case of levirate marriage, in the absence of a prohibition on polygamy the command would appear to stand even in the case of a man already married and thus to be mandatory as Christopher says. So I’m not sure how to reconcile these observations though I incline to agree with you that levirate marriage is the exception that proves the rule.
As for lust in the heart I have always read it this way. It refers not to the case of a married man who looks on a woman and says “I would if I weren’t married” but the man who looks on the woman and says “I would if I could”. That is to say that he would have sex with her if he got the opportunity. In that case the only difference between adultery in practice and adultery in the heart is lack of opportunity, making them morally exact equivalents.

Giles,

Jesus clearly teaches against divorce in itself, what God has joined let not man separate. The Old Testament also teaches God hates divorce. This is the case whether or not a remarriage happens. However, the issue of cause is relevant here: divorce with adequate cause may be just, and without adequate cause must be unjust. In fact the early church said a man was required to divorce his wife if she is persistent in adultery. Is such a man required to provide ongoing financial support to his persistently adulterous wife who he has divorced? I would not think so, the point of the divorce is the withdrawal of support and relations for a particular end, that is to promote repentance and to try to stop the continuation of the sin. In fact this is the model of Christian response to serious and persistent sin generally: withdrawal of communion. This is a response to sin that is not itself an evil or the doing of harm to another. Paul taught about leaving and not being bound in such circumstances, so there must be a release from some obligations.

But then there is another teaching that applies even to the one who divorces with adequate cause or who is divorced without adequate cause, that is to say the innocent party: no remarriage while the spouse is alive, for that is a the doing of a separate sin. For the guilty spouse, it is an additional sin, for the innocent spouse it is a separate sin. The nature of that sin is adultery, which, you are right, focuses on the sexual conduct, although it does have financial aspects and raises issues of creating new financial and family obligations that are in danger of not being met should the relationship with the original spouse be restored.

The marriage Jesus wants to protect is the total relationship of becoming one flesh. Adultery is just one of the threats and sins against this. Desertion and cruelty are also threats and sins against this. The adultery aspect focuses on the sexual aspect of the obligations one flesh entails, with a focus on remarriage. Failure to provide financial support is not adultery in the teaching of Jesus but dishonour (Mark 7:10-12)

Giles, I guess you need to go back to the original understanding of adultery. It is the offence of a man against another man in having relations with his wife. It is also the offence of the woman against her husband by having relations with another man. Thus the victim of adultery is the husband. This narrow understanding makes sense in the social and legal context, for the law is the dealing with matters sufficiently serious to disturb the peace and create conflicts. The main conflict is the husband’s jealous rage against his wife and the one who had relations with her.

Taking an unmarried woman as an additional wife does not create the conflict of this seriousness and so the law did not address it as adultery. Taking your brother’s widow is extremely remote from adultery in this sense.

Jesus approach to the law is to extend it beyond the mere administration of external conflicts by way of resort to coercion. He does two things: he removes the resort to coercion. Conflicts must be avoided or dealt with by self-control as the principal motivation and appeal to honour as the back up, and by forgiveness of the one who has neither self-control nor honour. The second thing he does is to address the underlying causes of conflict rather than just when they cross into more serious threats to external peace. Hence he calls us back to a higher standard of conduct but not backed by coercion.

The teaching of Jesus clearly is in favour of monogamy and defining taking an additional wife as adultery is probably correct even if not actually discussed in those terms.

First I would like to apologize to Glenn if I’m in some way violating the blog policy. I will keep my responses as terse and short as possible and try not to be longwinded.

1. Levirate marriage required you to marry your brother’s widow EVEN IF you were married. This was polygamy REQUIRED by God. Our idea that it wasn’t required if the male was married is ridiculous. Judaism had no problem with polygamy for another two thousand years. Ashkenazi Jews didn’t ban it until the year AD. 1000, and the Torah was complete around 1250 BC. Polygamy is still legal for Yemeni and Kararite Jews, by the way. The story of Onan also makes no sense unless Onan was already married. It details that Onan didn’t want to have children because they would be “his brother’s” this only makes sense if Onan was already married. Everyone needs to stop assuming that Jews in the Torah era had a problem with polygamy or thought it was “sinful” or “not ideal”.
If you don’t believe me, will you listen to Jews?

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/558598/jewish/Does-Jewish-Law-Forbid-Polygamy.htm

2. Jesus had not problem with Levirate marriage or Polygamy. Polygamy was a resultant (required) state because of the obligations of Levirate marriage. Jesus had not problem with Levirate marriage because he upheld the tradition of Levirate marriage in Mark 12:18, Matt 22:23, and Luke 20:27. In these passages, attested to in ALL THREE Gospels, Jesus doesn’t revoke the requirement of Levirate Marriage, but instead upholds it, and teaches that after death the ressurection transfigures us into non-sexed angelic beings. The Sadducess expected him to deny the custom of Levirate marriage. He had no problem with it.

Giles said:
>“the two become one”. That phrase doesn’t persuade me by itself. It seems to reiterate >the “one flesh” of Genesis which didn’t prevent Moses from acknowledging polygamy (eg >Deut 21:15).

This is the nail on the head. Just because two people become one doesn’t mean that they can only have a union with those two. It is a statment of permanency not one of singularity. The people who wrote “two flesh become one” also believed in polygamy. They could not possibly have disliked polygamy, the assertion that they did is anachronistic. Culture and sexual law in Torah time (1250 BC) does not match our culture and sexual laws today.
David Hillary said:
>The teaching of Jesus clearly is in favour of monogamy and defining taking an additional >wife as adultery is probably correct even if not actually discussed in those terms.

This is your fundamental problem. You assume that a Jew in 1250 BC agrees with you that taking a second wife constitutes adultery. To them it didn’t. This is what is called “cultural appropriation”, you take another’s culture as if it is speaking for your own, it isn’t. Jews had their own culture and in that culture polygamy was not immoral. Adultery was having sex outside of a marriage bond to someone you aren’t married to. If you marry the second woman, that is not adultery. You are having sex with two people, both of which you are married to, no adultery is occuring.

The blog design is superlative too. Love the stained glass heading.