Steve wrote:Andrew, I am sorry I have not weighed in on your original question (which may have been addressed to me).
No problems. I struggle to keep up with it to.
Steve wrote:I confess, I have a hard time even finding the time to read all of these threads running concurrently on the divorce topic. This is mostly because foc is posting nearly identical, endless, repetitious posts on more than one thread simultaneously. My inability to take the time to read, again and again, his oft-repeated ideas keeps me from being able to interact meaningfully on all of the threads, so that your important question just got lost in the confusion.
He is quite a character - bless his soul. He and Sozo on another forum have given me endless pleasure with their discussions. I still laugh hearterly at what i can remember!
Steve wrote:I am of the opinion that Jesus is not describing the woman's remarrying after her husband's remarriage, and is taking the two cases separately, not chronologically.
Yea, i thought this must have been how you handled it. Thank you for articulating it here. It does seem to me to be the weaker of the two interpretations. Why do most people divorce? Usually so they can marry someone else. So i expect that is what the man had in mind and would have pursued it quickly. The woman, now 'damaged goods', would find it harder to find a new husband. So i think the logical chronology would be 'man marries immediately' and 'woman marries some time later'. But on the other hand, your view could be right too.
If my view is true, then it kills two birds with one stone. Neither abandonment nor adultery frees an innocent person to remarry. This is what i would expect if a blood covenant is only terminated by the death of one of the covenanting parties (which is as i understand it) - aka 1 Cor 7 and Rom 7.
Steve wrote:My point is admittedly weakened by its dependence upon such an assumption, but I do not think it to be improbable.
I appreciate your frankness and is a good example for those of us less studied
Steve wrote:Without this assumption in place, it would seem necessary to reach the conclusion (as some have) that the man may justly remarry if his divorce was upon the grounds of fornication, but the woman, however innocent, must never remarry while her husband lives.
I dont quite follow that one.
For me the key pharse is 'from the beginning it was not so'. Jesus was restoring things to their original intent - before Deut 24, before multiple wives, back to the Garden of Eden.
Adam and Eve are the example of the first marriage - joined together supernaturally by God since Eve and Adam were literally one flesh. There was nothing Eve could do to seperate herself from Adam. She was Adam's own flesh - literally. So, when God joins man and woman in marriage today and they become one flesh (similarly to Adam and Eve), there is nothing anyone can do to separate that ... apart from dying.
I think this would be better translated:
Mat 19:6 AGR Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, man cannot put asunder.
This Greek word is actually translated 'cannot' in Luk 16:26, Gal 5:17, Heb 4:15 and Heb 12:27. But i am sure there is a reason the translators didn't use it here
Wish i knew why.
Hmm, i have covered way too much territory here. Sorry.
Andrew