It is also yet another example of morality changing with the times, morality evolving.
I don't see relativistic morality. I see Moses making accomodations for the divorce seeking Israelites because of thier hardness of heart.
Does the divine wish that a man and woman not divorce change? Is it now God's heart that there should be infidelity and divorce? No.
So don't see a relativistic eroding or evolving of the standard of morality ordained by God. As one commentator put it "Divorce belongs to man. Marriage without divorce belongs to God." His standard has not changed.
I don't think this is good example to argue for moral relativism.
The material attributed to Moses, according to the Bible, was given to Moses by God herself. Yet here is an example of a later version changing what supposedly God prescribed into something proscribed.
This is really another discussion I think. But if I were an Israelite woman I would be absolutely appreciative that Moses made this accomodation.
A divorce woman had to go back to her family. Generally speaking she was not in great social shape. Now if some wishy washy husband decided that on a particular lonely night he wanted his divorced wife to come home again, this amendment made that impossible.
It like this: The authorities of Israel could say to the fickle husband
"Oh no Mr. If you sent your wife away in divorce you have to give her a certificate. And that certificate is her defense against you, on any given lonely evening, insisting that she come home to you again. The certificate proves that gone is gone. She does NOT have to come back to your house."
I would take this as God's love and care for many of jilted Hebrew woman. And the hard hearted man cannot yo-yo the woman back again and again at whim.
But my focus has been on the gay marriage matter.
The passage itself has far more to do with commitment and fidelity than with male-female. At the time it was written the only social marriage contract in practice IN THAT community was marriage between a man and woman.
I will agree with you and Ringo that the specifics of the conversation was around marriage and divorce. That was the main subject matter.
But as a by product, Christ touched on the creation of male and female for the cause of yoking together in marriage.
It does not make sense to me that the Triune God would create them male and female yet ordain that in marriage two males become one flesh and/ or two females yoke together as one flesh.
The coupling that God sanctioned from the beginning of creation was the uniting of a man with a woman. The discussion may have been prompted by a question on divorce. The details of Christ's reply reveal God's purpose in making them male and female - ie. to couple the opposite sexes together in marriage.
The passage deals with long term commitment; that once a contract is made the parties should try to fulfill that contract.
It is about divorce. not marriage.
This portion is about marriage -
"But from the beginning of creation, He made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leve his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife. And the two shall be one flesh. So then they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has yoked together, let man not separate."
What has God yoked togther that man is not to separate:
1.) The joining of a man with his father ?
2.) The joining of a man with his mother?
3.) The joining of a man with another man ?
4.) The joining of a woman with another woman?
5.) The joining of a man with a beast ?
6.) The joinig of a man with a tree ?
7.) The joining of one male man with one female woman, to start a new family unit ?
I choose # 7.
Taking the one short mention of man and woman out of the context of the whole passage is a best, misleading.
Trying to find ground anywhere in that passage for the yoking of a man with man or a woman with a woman is misleading.
If God has joined together a man and a man or a woman and a woman in a long term committed monogamous relationship, I imagine God will smile upon it and rejoice in their bond.
If man invents an experiement to try to improve upon God's ordination I think not only God will frown upon it. But eventually humans will also frown upon it.
Gays right now are too happy. But let some social experimentation take place. Then gay marriage will be followed by painful gay divorces. Who gets the cat? Who gets the car. This was the WRONG partner, etc. etc. All the heartachs that the heterosexuals have gone through in thier divorces will become the headaches of the gay experimentors.
Now God surely looks down and loves all men and woman. God desires all men to be saved and to come to the full knowledge of the truth. His smile may be related to that fact that Jesus Christ has also died for them upon the cross for their salvation.
He is the Friend of Sinners - straight and gay, heterosexual and homsexual. I think His smile is upon creatures who He created and longs to reconcile.
He does not smile on our sins and our rebellious experiments against nature and nature's God.
That's the way I see it. You can have a different opinion.
If reading this passage makes a single person rather fearful of getting married. Then he has rightly understood the passage. It should put a sober fear in the single man.
But this is also not the last word in the Bible. And provisions for errors, transgressions, mistakes, sins, offenses, are also dealt with in God's full salvation. Forgiveness can be had for our many many failures.
That's the experience of my "Christian Club" anyway. We have people from all walks of life, and yes some who have the gay orientation too. We have divorcees too.
We just need to come to Christ just as we are and confess our need for Him and His saving work.
"If we confess our sins He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. And the blood of Jesus Christ God's Son cleanses us from every sin."
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
