Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Case against Kim Davis dismissed
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 728 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 82 of 103 (792292)
10-07-2016 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Faith
08-30-2016 5:41 AM


Secular law and religious policy on divorce itself is an example to look at Faith
quote:
[Faith]
She had the job before the Supreme Court put her in a corner regarding her Christian faith.
Yes this is a victory for religious freedom. Gay marriage is a violation of God's Law.
Look at the basic issue of divorce itself.
I have this book by a great scholar (he spends a lot of time on Aramaic and Greek words, and is respected on all sorts of textual critical and historical critical issues), but he did something different. He looked at contemporary applications of scripture by various religious communities and spent a few pages (though a small percentage of his overall massive work which otherwise was more historically oriented like typical scholars).
The issue of divorce is confusing but it seems that the New Testament prohibition was compromised by protestants for reasons involving secular realities (and the church policies were essentially an attempt to match doctrine with secular law).
quote:
Ulrich Luz Matthew 1-7
Continental Commentary
p.301
Fully two-thirds of the scholarly essays or books published on our text in the last twenty years (about 60!) come from Catholic pens and have the main or subsidiary purpose to declare it in harmony with Catholic marriage law. Thus with this text we enter an area of sensitive and controversial theology. It becomes less manifest from the literature that it could also put Protestant divorce practice into question.
p.303
Another thesis also must be examined critically. Frequently it is said that Jesus’ prohibition of divorce is not a sentence of law but a principle, a provocation, a bit of parenesis in form of a sentence of law, in analogy to 5:22,28-alienated language of law-which wanted to mediate a fundamental, incontrovertible ethical demand. The relevance of this thesis for the present debate concerning the laws of divorce of the various churches is considerable. Formally, v. 32 is an apodictic sentence of law which ends with a statement of guilt and not with a sentence of punishment. Matthew 5:22,28 shows that such sentences of law can be used parametrically; then the sentence of law intensifies the parenesis. But 5:32 has a different character from 5:22,28: in distinction from a word of abuse or a seductive look, the prohibition of divorce can be enforced and checked by law; that is shown in the community order of Qumran. Therefore all early Christian communities have drawn legal consequences from Jesus’ prohibition of divorce; Mark 10:11, through the addition of and marries another, specifies the time when the divorce is final and liable to judgment. Paul through his privilege, 1 Cor. 7:12-17, does not invalidate the prohibition of the Lord, but he came out with an opinion at the point where the community, standing under the command of the Lord, and the world intersect. In any case, Matthew clearly shows through his clause that he understands Jesus’ prohibition of divorce as an order valid in his community and precisely for this reason can formulate an exception. In view of this unanimous finding in early Christianity it seems problematic to charge him with making a law of an ethical demand of Jesus. (there was more to this paragraph mlm)
p.307
The history of influence mirrors the varying legal regulations of divorce in the different denominations. The basic position of the major confessional traditions is familiar; every pastor experiences its consequences. I would like to indicate only some main lines and limit myself to the position of the major churches.
A. The Catholic position, which provides for the possibility of a separation of table, bed, and living quarters with a remaining vinculum (bond) of the marriage, especially approaches the Matthean position, it seems to me. This is perhaps surprising, in view of the flood of Catholic literature which is probably an expression of its great uncertainty. Certainly there are differences. Matthewdoes not distinguish between the possible separation and the impossible divorce-when the marriage bond still exists.
Luz also pointed out that the fornication (he doesn’t use that word but instead the Greek word) issue is no longer the chief concern in the Catholic separation of table, bed, and living quarters, thus that is quite a difference since Matthew uses so few words while the Catholic rule system does broaden things out quite a bit in the effort of implementation.
quote:
p.308
But the decisive point, in which Matthew and the Catholic practice converge, lies in the prohibition to marry a divorced woman. With it agrees the no to a second marriage which the church fathers in general maintained with great decisiveness; not until the 4th century does a change take place in the East. Since then the tendency to put man and woman on an equal level, as far as the church is concerned, is important. Matthew 5:32 was formulated only as an address of the husband. In relation to the wife, it results from Matt. 5:32b that no woman may marry a divorced man. This means that Matt. 5:32, with the thoroughgoing equalization of man and woman, leads to the demand to marry neither divorced men nor divorced woman, i.e., to a form of divorce (only in the case of unchastely!) which is distinguished from the Jewish form principally by the fact that it does not include the possibility of a second marriage. In regard to content, if not terminology, this corresponds precisely to the separation of bed, table, and residence. Therefore, no legal ecclesiastical solution is as close to the Matthean one as the Catholic one. That becomes clear as soon as one takes v. 32b also into consideration.
This is only half of the page devoted to the Catholic position in this small section of the Luz commentary. Remember, this is just a sliver of the meat in his larger commentary.
quote:
308
b. In the Orthodox churches, divorce makes it possible to enter with repentance into a second marriage.
On page 308-309: In the Eastern Orthodox church, a divorcee is allowed to remarry not according to divine law but according to fairness and the prohibition to marry divorced persons is neglected with respect to the weakness of the human being though only some Greek fathers cautiously took this position in the first several centuries after Christ.)
Now, the interest protestant position and how it came to be.
quote:
c. The Orthodox position became alive anew in the churches of the Reformation, perhaps through the mediation of Erasmus. The Reformers also emphasize that a marriage is destroyed through adultery; therefore a divorce is possible. A factor which is essential for the further development and new contrast to the Eastern churches is the understanding of marriage by the Reformers as a secular thing. This understanding had different consequences: it led first of all to a great uncertainty over the question how the problem of divorce was to be solved as a problem of church law. The mixed ecclesiastical-secular courts of the Reformation period were a brief result. Already after a certain time, the legal competency for divorce became a secular matter alongside of which binding regulations of church law existed only in an initial stage. Theologically, the basic conviction that Jesus’ prohibition of divorce was not a law but an ethical demand, which must be well distinguished from civil law, corresponds to this development. This made it possible to minister openly in pastoral care, guided by love, and to take seriously the concrete situation of a marriage, but it led at the same time to the actual adoption of the church to secular marriage law or to the secular (sinful!) reality of marriage and to its proclamation of God’s grace in all situations without distinction. [66]
.
p.309
.
[66] Particularly in Luther, to whom divorce is such an abomination that he would prefer bigamy to it if necessary, it is striking
earlier than 66 note on 309 till p.310 ecclesiastical law of
quote:
p.309-310
The need in all confessional traditions is great. The immovable ecclesiastical law concerning divorce in Catholicism appears to many people as the opposite of the love and forgiveness of God. The lack of a practiced ecclesiastical law of divorce in Protestantism on the other hand leads to the fact that the individual pastor is left alone and must choose most of the time the way of least resistance, i.e. , the blessing of all that has happened. He experiences the reverse of Luther’s grandiose principal thesis that love by no means needs laws, and may ask himself or herself whether laws also could provide help to love so that it does not accept everything and remain silent in face of everything. For a protestant who experiences the ambiguity of his or her own church, it is moving to see how Catholic brothers or sisters who suffer under the situation in their church reach for the thesis that Jesus’ prohibition of divorce is not a sentence of law, i.e., for that problematical basic Protestant thesis in which the Protestant recognizes a reason for the predicament of his or her own church.
The history of influence of Matt. 5:32 in Catholic church law makes clear that the reference to the biblical text alone does not solve the problems. On the contrary: if the Catholic looks in a merely Biblicist way to the order of Matt. 5:32, then he or she can be quite satisfied with the continuation of the status quo in his or her own church. But does not a tension exist between the realization of Matt. 5:32 in the Catholic church and the center of the proclamation of Jesus, the unconditional love of God for the human being? Then one also ask critically about Matt. 5:32 as a possible source o this tension. Already in Jesus’ own absolute rejection of divorce and marriage of divorced persons there was an element of potential lovelessness. On the other hand, the Protestant who suffers under the indifference of his or her church, feels the clear ecclesiastical order of Matthew and the absoluteness of Jesus’ demand of life-long monogamy as a positive challenge for thought. The immovable pillars of divine order which in the Catholic church become a burden and compulsion for many people keep alive in the Protestant churches the urgent necessary question whether there are not orienting pointers set by God which the Christian can in no way neglect.
Thus the question is how the love of God for humans and the absolute demand of the indissolubility of marriage are related to each other. With Jesus both are present but not combined in systematic reflection. One might take up R. Pesch’s key word of free loyalty and formulate as follows: The question is for both confessions how the faithfulness in marriage demanded by God remains free without becoming relative.
The interesting observation of Luz was the "actual adoption of the church to secular marriage law or to the secular (sinful!) reality of marriage" comment in his analysis of how protestants came to accept divorce and remarriage.
It might offer a parallel to what should happen with same-sex marriage in general church policies. And it seems that policies of tolerance can lead to theological allowances (as happened with divorce).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Faith, posted 08-30-2016 5:41 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Faith, posted 05-05-2017 3:55 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 728 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 96 of 103 (870897)
01-26-2020 3:51 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Faith
05-05-2017 3:55 PM


Re: Secular law and religious policy on divorce itself is an example to look at Faith
Faith
I quoted an authoritative New Testament scholar who happens to be a Protestant preacher. The English translation of his German Mathew commentary was quoted.
He said remarried Christians are in violation of the New Testament but Protestants adopted the tolerant secular law as to make remarriage theologically and morally sound
You accept Luzs historical observation of Protestant theological doctrinal development or not. That was a question but I don't know how to get question key to work. Phone issues.
I just read a post on divorce we were discussing in the Catholic thread that is actively being used.
See our exchange there but please read my post 82 in this thread. I don't know what you think of the New Testament commands either. Your comments on Matthew chapter 5 verses 32 to 34 have never been presented.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Faith, posted 05-05-2017 3:55 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Phat, posted 01-26-2020 11:13 AM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 728 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 101 of 103 (870930)
01-26-2020 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Phat
01-26-2020 11:13 AM


Re: Secular law and religious policy on divorce itself is an example to look at Faith
Phat
I am going to have trouble with the response due to my inability to quote easily on my phone.
First
I felt the need to point out that Ulrich Luz was a Protestant preacher or else his admission to the fact that the Roman Catholic Church being faithful to the position of Jesus in Greek Gospel of Matthew WOULD BE misunderstood.
He was and is an authority on the New Testament regardless.
Second issue
I am going to prefer the folks OF ALL TIMES AND PLACES who respect the ancient scribes and accurately attempt to get to the actual intent of the scribes words and text. The modern scholar lacks proximity to the ancient scribe for sure but so do ALL LIVING HUMANS. Yes it does include us all. Church going Protestants included.
Third issue
The issue is not divorce alone. The big SIN is remarriage. There is also the question of whether non virgins will be regarded by Matthews Jesus as essentially the same thing morally as a previously married person. I wish there would be honesty about the morally sinful New Testament view of remarriage so the REAL debate can actually begin on the issue of fornication possibly being seen as an act that the New Testament sees as essentially the same thing as marriage and that would make most actual marriages as very much against the New Testament commands.
Afterthought I have to add. I don't mean to short circuit debate by saying that I strongly feel the New Testament is very much against remarriage theologically and morally when the relevant issue is discussed in the text.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Phat, posted 01-26-2020 11:13 AM Phat has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024