Last week at our large group we had a fantastic speaker--she was talking about sex and sexual purity. One of her main points was that God places us in the context of community and that everything about our lives as Christians is supposed to bless the community that God has put us in--both those who are Christians and those who are not.
So the purpose of sexual purity is not simply to make ourselves as pure as we possibly can be. It's not just so that we feel holy and can feel good about ourselves befor God. Nor is purity intended to give us a position from which we can look around at everyone else's unholiness with disdain and scorn. The purpose of sexual purity is so that we will learn to look at others the way that Jesus sees them. The purpose of sexual purity is so that we will learn to see others not as sexual commodities but as image-bearers. The more we unhealthily indulge our sexual appetites outside of God's design, the more we feed the beast in us that wants to make others something that they are not.
Our purity, then, is to be a blessing to all those around us, not a curse, not something to beat others up with or to give us moral leverage on them. If as Christians we truly pursued purity and holiness in every area of our lives in this way, I wonder how different the world would be.
21 comments:
I'm not convinced sexual purity is Biblical, at least how you're using it.
What about concubinery and polygamy? They were rampant OT practices by godly men, and if you incorporate the OT "moral code", then you should incorporate them as well.
Then, your sexual purity idea falls apart.
royale, i'm starting to sense a pattern as to what posts you respond to...
Jesus' words about sexual purity are fairly straightforward and clear (anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery in his heart). That's the passage we asked her to speak on and it's the type of purity that our speaker/I'm talking about.
RE: OT polygamy. There's never any place in the OT that specifically affirms the practice. Godly men did it, to be sure, but in many cases their sexual decisions led to their own downfall and/or had serious other repurcussions: Abram with Hagar (see the entire Middle East debacle for those repurcussions), David and Bathsheeba, Solomon and his foreign wives. In each of these cases, the sexual behaviors and appetites caused problems. In fact, particularly in Solomon's situation, I think you can make a case for exactly what this post is about: all his wives did not help him to view women in a more holy and good way. They became more and more pawns--the more he had, the more he seemed to want.
So yeah, I'll throw them in the mix, they were pretty messed up with their marriages and sexual relationships and the repurcussions were pretty severe.
I'm critical, what can I say? ;)
re: polygamy and concubinery
That's a bit of an evidentiary bias, don't you think? There were many times where there was no problem about polygamy and concubinery.
I believe it was Jacob/ Israel who had 4 wives and there was no problem with that. He certainly had his own domestic problems, but it was more sibling rivalry than rivalry among his wives.
So, let's assume your reading of Solomon is correct, doesn't it show that one should be sexually responsible, and not necessarily prove that sex outside of marriage (i.e. concubinery and polygamy) is itself bad?
re: Jesus
I disagree. My reading is that Jesus wasn't referring to some sexual purity as (1) that would illogical, (2) it's not mentioned, (3) it is inconsistent with the OT, assuming of course we believe the OT literally happened. Point 2 is obviously shown from the rampant polygamy and concubinery of the OT.
The following is a mini-essay I wrote on this topic:
Conservatives frequently look at Jesus discussion about not even being tempted by your brother's wife to conclude that lust, or more generally sexual attraction itself, is bad.
I find this conclusion unreasonable.
First, let's define lust. I define lust by analogy to desire: covet: theft. The difference between desire and coveting is one of magnitude, defined by the ultimate action. Typical desire is necessary for any market economy or any society, thus it cannot itself be bad otherwise society would be break down. Desire, and particularly desire for what someone else has, leads people to work hard, save money, and buy the desired item.
However, coveting is the extreme desire, that leads to either theft or desire to steal.
Lust is the same way, similar to coveting in the above relationship: desire, lust, adultery.
Simple sexual attraction or desire cannot itself be bad, because it simply is biological. It is not thought, but rather the actions produced by chemicals - pheromones and neurotransmitters in the train. Biology itself cannot be sin. Aside from the impossibility of actually banning sexual desire, even if we did so, society would break down as people would no longer mate and produce offspring.
So, what is lust? The equivalent of coveting. Lust is an intense attraction, so intense that it leads to either adultery or the desire of adultery. That is precisely what Jesus was talking about. For if you love your brother, you would block the mental thought and not even desire to commit adultery with this wife.
But banning all sexual thoughts is not what Jesus meant.
Royale, you've clearly skewered that poor straw man. He was absolutely no match for you. But I'm having trouble seeing how anything Alex said warrants your response. He never said involuntary sexual desire was sinful.
The other point of a moral code in the OT somehow condoning polygamy and concubinery is rather laughable. We might as well insist that the OT requires we support slavery, genocide, and yes - burning prostitutes alive. The point of reading the OT isn't: So and so did x, y, and z - therefore I should to. The point is the grand story of what God is doing with his people. The particular customs of the near east are more peripheral to the main thrust of the story. I'm sure you wouldn't want to make their comparably harsh customs normative for us!
None of us think sexual desire is in itself sinful. Take this passage from C. S. Lewis for instance - it seems to be the same sorta point you are making with the third post:
Poster after poster, film after film, novel after novel, associate the idea of sexual indulgence with the ideas of health, normality, youth, frankness, and good humour. Now this association is a lie. Like all powerful lies, it is based on a truth - the truth, acknowledged above, that sex in itself (apart from the excesses and obsessions that have grown round it) is 'normal' and 'healthy', and all the rest of it. The lie consists in the suggestion that any sexual act to which you are tempted at the moment is also healthy and normal. Now this, on any conceivable view, and quite apart from Christianity, must be nonsense. Surrender to all our desires obviously leads to impotence, disease, jealousies, lies, concealment, and everything that is the reverse of health, good humour, and frankness. For any happiness, even in this world, quite a lot of restraint is going to be necessary; so the claim made by every desire, when it is strong, to be healthy and reasonable, counts for nothing. Every sane and civilised man must have some set of principles by which he chooses to reject some of his desires and to permit others. One man does this on Christian principles, another on hygienic principles, another on sociological principles. The real conflict is not between Christianity and 'nature', but between Christian principles and other principles in the control of 'nature'. For 'nature' (in the sense of natural desire) will have to be controlled anyway, unless you are going to ruin your whole life. The Christian principles are, admittedly, stricter than the others; but then we think you will get help towards obeying them which you will not get towards obeying the others.
Same basic agreement with the thrust of Jesus' point about lust. We agree here. Where you disagree is whether this is intended to be limited to just a man and his wife. But lets read Jesus' words again:
And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”
Seems pretty straightforward to me. I can imagine you having a similar conversation with him:
And Royale came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to know young women regularly before he takes a wife?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God intends to build, let not man undermine.” They said to him, “Why then did the patriarchs take many wives and concubines?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart God allowed you to do so, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever knows a woman, except she be his wife, commits adultery.”
Thanks.
You are absolutely correct about the OT, in that it could be used by Christians to justify many things today. And it is, for the death penalty, warfare, scorched earth tactics of warfare, etc...
But still, you can't get over the fact that the patriarchs and men after God's own heart were rampantly doing both. If it's something that God "tolerated" - a point not made by you, but I can see it being relevant - then God will tolerate us to do it today.
re: Jesus
I don't see the relevance of the discussion of Jesus with the Pharisees.
what fun!
royale, I recommend you give polygamy a shot and then blog about it, I would certainly want to hear how it all goes.
regarding your interpretation of lust, I think you would make an excellent pharisee! this type of extracting and parsing is exactly what they did to the ten commandments, only they came to much more harsh conclusions in the opposite direction.
I think your argument might miss a couple key points. one is that the entire sermon on the mount which this passage comes from is filled with intentional, teaching hyperbole: gauge your eye out if it causes you to sin is a hyperbole but it is not a joke. it is a real thing to hate sin, and I don't think Jesus is laughing. so yes, it does require some interpretation but please don't go soft in the process about what Jesus couldn't possibly mean. it distracts from the point: to look at a woman lustfully is a sin, biological instinct or no.
which I think in some ways brings us to the point. Jesus goes up to a mount, just like Moses does, and from there he offers his new law. the old law has become so disfigured by the religious authorities that it's too cumbersome to be useful. only Jesus law is harder, not kinder and gentler than the big ten. Luther speculated that the point here is simple: Jesus is showing us that it is simply impossible to live by the law. it cannot be done. that to live like this is impossible is exactly what Jesus is doing. the law, Paul writes later, acts as a tutor to show us our need for grace. that's where Jesus' teaching on sexual purity leaves us: in desperate need of a savior because yes, even our biological make up has been damaged by the fall.
Royale -
If it's something that God "tolerated" then God will tolerate us to do it today.
Oh contrare! Remember Paul's speech to the Greeks on Mars Hill: "The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead."
You might as well say, since there exist people who do bad things without knowing any better, and they are judged less harshly for it, therefore I (who do know better) will be let off the hook as well. This point doesn't follow.
God may, in his unfathomable wisdom, decide to judge the Aztecs who sacrificed thousands of people in their diabolical temples with mercy due to their ignorance. If you start kidnapping people and cutting their hearts out while they are strapped to a table in your backyard, do you honestly think he should let you off the hook?
I don't see the relevance of the discussion of Jesus with the Pharisees.
You don't? Really? The issue is one of what sexual union was made for - for those two people, male and female to come together and become an inseparable organism. This is the pattern which he pushes. Against this is the notion that it is OK, for various reasons, to sever this union - to treat it as a temporary contract. Jesus tears this idea to shreds.
Here's more Lewis on the matter:
As a consequence, Christianity teaches that marriage is for life. There is, of course, a difference here between different Churches: some do not admit divorce at all; some allow it reluctantly in very special cases. It is a great pity that Christians should disagree about such a question; but for an ordinary layman the thing to notice is that Churches all agree with one another about marriage a great deal more than any of them agrees with the outside world. I mean, they all regard divorce as something like cutting up a living body, as a kind of surgical operation. Some of them think the operation so violent that it cannot be done at all; others admit it as a desperate remedy in extreme cases. They are all agreed that it is more like having both your legs cut off than it is like dissolving a business partnership or even deserting a regiment. What they all disagree with is the modern view that it is a simple readjustment of partners, to be made whenever people feel they are no longer in love with one another, or when
either of them falls in love with someone else.
Do you not see how the notion that man and woman were made for this permanent one-flesh relationship is inconsistent with the modern idea of "free love"? The logic seems fairly simple...
re: Pharisees
I believe wonders for oyarsa concurred on my interpretation of lust. Therefore, Wonders would also make a great Pharisee.
But it boggles my mind how you can turn a sin out of biology. That I find immensely unreasonable. I believe in Genesis, God said creation was good.
re: toleration by God
The discussion of Paul and Aztecs is irrelevant. Certainly, the Patriarchs and King David were not ignorant and certainly, they did polygamy and concubinery.
re: relevance of Jesus' discussion with Pharisees
I don't see how you can turn that quote into saying what a sexual union was made for. Besides, Jesus' quote re-hashes an OT verse, which itself must be read in light of concubinery and polygamy being allowed, at least not sinful.
If you want to say something akin to, lungs were made to breath clean air. Fine. But that does not mean that breathing unclean air is sinful. It's a statement of advice, not condemnation of sin.
Moreover, I find this at odds with Alex's response about biology being sinful. If our minds were made to have sexual attraction, but it still is sinful, but Wonders argument says that we must go with what we were made for, then they are at odds.
I believe wonders for oyarsa concurred on my interpretation of lust. Therefore, Wonders would also make a great Pharisee.
I'm sure I would, actually. ;-)
About instinct and sin - the ancients had a notion of what they called "the passions", which doesn't really have a one word translation for us, but roughly meant powerful irrational impulses, including both biological urges and intense emotions. The virtue of "temperance" was the ability and will to control the passions, rather than letting the passions control you. This has never been easy, and it takes hard work and practice.
Biological impulses make good servants, but terrible masters.
The discussion of Paul and Aztecs is irrelevant. Certainly, the Patriarchs and King David were not ignorant and certainly, they did polygamy and concubinery.
An awfully short and terse answer to a fairly involved argument. I'm not entirely convinced you are making an effort to understand my point.
I don't see how you can turn that quote into saying what a sexual union was made for. Besides, Jesus' quote re-hashes an OT verse, which itself must be read in light of concubinery and polygamy being allowed, at least not sinful.
Interesting. Could you answer this question in depth, then: why did Jesus say that divorce was wrong, despite Moses making provisions for it in the law?
royale,
not to double-team you here, but is it really that hard to understand that our biological nature has been tainted by sin. Yes, creation was originally good. And yes, sex is good. But my biological impulses have been tainted by sin--you don't have to be a Christian to see that, just look around at how jacked up our culture is. Cancer is a biological process gone awry, I don't think that any of us would want to affirm or call that good. Our sexual impulse is also a biological process gone awry-- something that was originally good that has been marred by the Fall. Even if you blow off the fall as a fairy-tale, I don't think it's that hard to understand our sexual impulses as something orginially good that has gone wrong somehow.
Royale, I find your attempts at trying to somehow gut the NT's sexual ethic which is abundantly consistent and clear across Jesus, Paul and the rest of the NT by way of citing concubines is a bit silly. If you don't like the NT sexual ethic (and there's plenty who don't, and it would seem that there's plenty of other stuff that you don't like in the NT) then just don't bother with Christianity at all. But trying to somehow create a defensible Biblical position for sexual acts and appetites at will from king David's concubines is a pretty far reach--and requires ignoring most of the commands about sexuality in the NT.
Wonders,
To be honest, I'm not sure what exactly was your point. Your point was that people were unrepetent and ignorant? Were the Patriarchs and King David?
Alex,
Hmmm, you see Christianity incompatible with what I'm proposing? Some would say Christianity is incompatible with pork-eating, warfare, death penalty, and many other things, and have Biblical verses to support them. But yet, others say no. It's all about interpretation, of which you cannot possibly say you hold a monopoly.
Sexual norms is no different.
My point - the Bible collectively is not so coherent about sex. Absolutely not. If you want to import the "OT moral code", then you must deal with polygamy and concubinery as practiced unrepetently by people who God blessed and favored. The NT must be read in light of this, something that I don't think you are overlooking.
If there is any coherence to the Biblical notions on sexu, the perhpas monogamy and sexual responsbility, the latter being a societal construct.
But you're right, I won't even bother adopting in my life YOUR version of Christianity, simply because, it is yours and not mine. Nor would I expect you to adopt mine.
But I won't be so presumption to say that I speak for all Christianity.
correction - middle paragraph....The NT must be read in light of this, something that I THINK YOU ARE OVERLOOKING.
Since you dragged Paul into it, the following are two mini-essays I wrote showing that Paul does not necessarily support your case.
The first is about reading Paul generally, the second deals with "flee fornication," as it is commonly espoused by conservatives.
The Apostle Paul
Here are my thoughts on Paul and why I don't think Paul's writings should blindly be assumed to lay the framework of a moral system in the modern era.
In each of Paul's letters, he was in crisis mode and certainly did not intend to lay down a moral code for all time. Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Romans - each one was responding to a specific crisis for that specific time. The church at Corinth was using temple prostitutes, the Galatians thought they had to be Jewish, some of the churches wanted to replace Paul, etc...
When people are in crisis, they over-compensate, which Paul did, as evidenced by his self-contradictions. Furthermore, Paul believed the end of time would occur immediately, which just compounded the immediacy of the crisis.If Paul believed his letters would read 2000 years later, glueing his letters together, he would have written something very, very different.
The modern equivalent would be to take the airplane security measures immediately after the next plane crisis, such as the whole liquid explosive scare, and to use that guideline for 2000 years, long after airplanes and Al Qaeda have disappeared.
Finally, Paul was a revolutionary egalitarian. To hold his ideas 2000 years ago as a moral constant would violate the spirit of Paul.
Flee Fornication
As for the whole "flee fornification" clause in Corinthians, I am not convinced that it stands for what conservatives says it does for a number of reasons.
1. On reading of Paul, generally
As Paul was in crisis mode in his Epistles, his oration style matched that of educated Romans of his day, and that his spirit was revolutionary and not tradition, one should not read Paul's instructions to someone else as literally applicable to people 2000 years later.
If anything, all we can tell that the spark was bad, i.e., whatever caused the outburst from Paul was bad. But, we must be skeptical of the remedy, since Paul did not intend the remedy to apply without the spark.
2. Cohabitation was the martial norm and not condemned
To say that cohabitation today is akin to fornication employs a modern, 21st century definition of fornication. Employing a 1st century Roman definition, we get a very different conclusion.
In Roman culture, marriage was far more simpler than it is now. All the modern marriage rituals were created around 1000 AD. Prior to that, including the early Christian era, cohabitation was considered a bona fide marriage. If people wanted to get married, they started living together and having sex. If they wanted a divorce, they moved out of the same household. That was it.
There was no ceremony. When people divorced, they just moved to a different home. Thus, what we would consider fornication was in fact marriage to them. Thus, our understanding of "fornication" was precisely their definition of "marriage." Thus, fornication, as contemplated by Paul, was something very, very different.
If Paul considered cohabitation to be a form of sexual immorality, then it would have been chastised. But as I wrote, "fornication" could not have included cohabitation.
Applying these principles today, what Paul's real concern is monogamy, commitment, stability, and loving thy brother.
3. The purpose of the sexual instructions in 1st Corinthians is obsolete - temple prositution
The city of Corinth was rampant with sexual practices mixed with pagan worship. The practice was so widespread, that some Christian church members themselves were continuing the practice. This threatened the very existence of the church at Corinth itself. Thus, if Paul didn't say something very big and major, the church would have been destroyed.
Furthermore, the latin root for "fornication" was associated with prostitution, particularly temple prostitution. Thus, in combination with #2 above, means that in the common mind "flee fornication" did not mean no sex outside of marriage, but particularly do not go to temple prostitutes.
4. The text is not a theological statement
One thing conservatives overlook is that Paul does not say that fornication is a sin. Rather, "flee fornication" is advice and not a theological statement.
Flee fornification is not the same thing as "fornication is a sin against God/people". It implies a reason that Paul thought fornifaciton was bad, either generally or specifically in Corinth, but that does not mean that fornication was a sin.
Rather, it's advice to a church being torn apart by temple prostitution.
5. Alternative interpretations are that Paul is saying "do not let your sexual urges control you" or "be respectful to another's spouse." I find these equally plausible.
I have no idea which is "correct" being that I cannot go back in time and interview Paul. But neither does anyone else.
To be honest, I'm not sure what exactly was your point. Your point was that people were unrepetent and ignorant? Were the Patriarchs and King David?
Yes Royale - my point was that the patriarchs were unrepentant and ignorant. *rolls eyes* Sheesh...
Help me out here, man - if we're going to have this discussion you need to try to understand my argument and consider it before you just fire back. I'll try again...
Paul distinguishes times of ignorance with the time of God's full revelation in Christ. He points out that God overlooked many of mans evils before this, but now that this decisive revelation has taken place we are called to change the way we've been thinking and doing things.
You are trying to defend modern sexual norms on the basis of David and other's behavior in the OT. I countered both that you would never do this with say, David's attitudes toward violence, nor Judah's attitude toward prostitution. You insisted that if those great men got away with things, we will to. I countered that we are living with revelation they did not - namely Christ Jesus - which should guide our thinking and leaves us with less excuse.
Were they ignorant and unrepentant? Ignorant of the full revelation of God's purposes in Christ? Indeed they were. Did they repent of customs they did not understand to be imperfect? Indeed they did not. Does that mean I am slandering them or diminishing my admiration for them? Not at all. Does this mean I am saying their behavior including their customs should not be used as an excuse to sideline the clear teaching of Jesus? Indeed I am.
But I repeat my question. You seem fond of writing essays. Could you answer this question in some depth: why did Jesus say that divorce was wrong, despite Moses making provisions for it in the law?
In Roman culture, marriage was far more simpler than it is now. All the modern marriage rituals were created around 1000 AD. Prior to that, including the early Christian era, cohabitation was considered a bona fide marriage. If people wanted to get married, they started living together and having sex. If they wanted a divorce, they moved out of the same household. That was it.
Interesting. So the man didn't need to ask the woman's father for her hand in marriage? There were no dowries or bride prices? There were no state records determining whether children were illegitimate? Methinks your historical knowledge is a wee bit shaky here...
And no one (I think) is suggesting that two people who have cohabbitated for 10 years with children are doing the same thing as a couple hooking up at a college party. But the question is still open about how to shape our customs around what we know to be true as the people of God.
If you answer my question about Jesus on divorce, I think we will get closer to the heart of the matter.
re: Roman marriages
There may have been those things. But the formality of a wedding ceremony is a modern (i.e., 1000 AD) invention and was not part of Roman culture.
re: Moses and Jesus
I don't have the slightest clue what Jesus meant, nor what Moses meant. Partly, because I think Moses could very well have been a legendary character. Or maybe not. But I doubt he actually wrote the OT law.
But that is another topic.
As for Jesus, I've heard a lot of wide variety of ideas of what Jesus did and didn't do.
Marriage and divorce has always been closely tied to economics. In those days, it was life and death. Few, if any, actually loved their spouses.
If I can come up with anything that I think is Biblically and historically coherent, it would be that Jesus is saying love those who you were not forced to love (i.e., your wives).
Now, let's assume that divorce for cause was Jesus' standard, but we must keep in mind, that standard arose when marriage was not based on love, but crass economics. Should that divorce standard change when our standard for marriage changed, as it did in the 18th century? I can see arguments both ways.
But really, I don't have the foggiest clue and I'm convinced that no one else does either.
However, I still don't see how a discussion of divorce defines sexual morality or immorality of those not even within marriage.
Actually, the more I think about it, the less the coherence the statement makes.
Divorce "for cause" and if acceptable causes are adultery and sexual immorality. Let's assume your definition of sexual immorality is the modern definition of fornication.
But using it like that creates a redundancy. If fornication were an acceptable "cause" for divorce then it would make adultery redundant.
Now, I think there are two options to make the sentence coherent:
1. fornication is an acceptable cause if you marry someone and find out later that they committed fornication. thus, a pre-marriage adultery.
2. adultery is gender specific, for instance having sex with another man's wife; and NOT having sex with another woman's husband.
Otherwise, there would be no cause for divorce becasue there would be no marriage. #2 allows for some forms of sexual immorality within a marriage that is not considered adultery.
Personally, I think #2 is more consistent with the rest of Jesus' statements, notably the adultery in the mind part. It's also consistent with what I've been saying all along about the patriarchs, polygamy, and concubinery. But, 2 reservations:
a. I'm comfortable with saying the statement is beyond my comprehension, if not incoherent itself. Similarly, that Biblical instruction on sex is incoherent.
b. Since the statement does not define "sexual immorality," who really knows what it means. It could be bestiality, or anything.
ps - I don't bear any ill-will for this, nor do I want you to think I'm "attacking" your religion.
I consider these conversations as more sparring.
I remember a while back Alex posted something about not wanting to second-guess established Christian tradition. I have the exact opposite opinion. From my life experiences, I must. Not to prove it wrong, but because I seek truth.
But really, I don't have the foggiest clue and I'm convinced that no one else does either. ... I'm comfortable with saying the statement is beyond my comprehension, if not incoherent itself. Similarly, that Biblical instruction on sex is incoherent.
Royale, this really is mystifying, and more than a little bit maddening as far as debate is concerned. Jesus was asked a direct question, and gave a direct answer, with theological reinforcement. Put rather abrasively, if there is no prospect of understanding what Jesus is saying, then why the Hell are we having this or any discussion? What's the point of words and conversation if we can't have at least some confidence that there is real meaning and communication?
I don't mind you disagreeing, but you need to back up your opinions with well thought out arguments and seriously wrestle with what is right there in front of us in the text. I have no patience for "who knows what it means - it is all so mysterious and we are all just guessing." If that's the case, then we need to find better things to do with our time.
Here is a statement that I consider first base for any Biblical discussion:
The authors and people depicted in the Bible have wise insights that we can use for the benefit of our lives. They have things they desperately want to teach us, and it is possible with hard work and study to understand and connect with what they are saying at a deep level. We should acknowledge that our own cultural blinders and biases may be a hindrance, but this need only inspire us to work harder and more honestly toward our very achievable goal.
If you can't agree to this or something like it, then I really don't see the point of going further.
Sure, I'd agree with that.
But I think you missed my point.
It's about humility and having the guts to say - you know, maybe we just don't know.
I am mystified by the Bible. I admit that there are contradictions that can't be rectified by saying "context." I am quite comfortable with saying that I don't understand the Bible, as I've read interpretations that came to the opposite conclusion. If anything, it's taught me humility and to appreciate the wide variety of Biblical interpretation and Christian thought.
Speaking of context, I am undumbfounded by fundamentalists who spend years trying the Bible, including its original tongues, but refuse to acknowledge the original literary context in which it is written.
Take Paul - his writings should be compared to other 1st century epistles and oratory style.
Take the Gospels - they should be compared to other first century biographies.
Take Daniel/ Revelation - they should be compared to other ancient apocalyptic writings.
Now, add to that all the transcriptional errors caused by centuries of handwriting copies, translational errors, and the like, and what emerges is a book that is quite mysterious to say the least, if not contradictory and/ or erroneous in part.
In that quote, there is something I'd particularly emphasized - it is hard, very hard. With that, I stand in awe.
Speaking of context, I am undumbfounded by fundamentalists who spend years trying the Bible, including its original tongues, but refuse to acknowledge the original literary context in which it is written.
You forgot to take Genesis and compare it to other creation myths of the time. You're not going to get too much disagreement on me as far as trying to understand the context in which the Bible was written. Feel free to pop over to my Bible blogging project if you have time, and judge for yourself how much of a fundamentalist I am. :-)
But frankly, a lot of appeals to context are not really that. Quite often they are an attempt to justify the view of the critic, and the so-called context is a tool (built no doubt with selective historical anecdotes) to create a mirror image of the critics own views. This really did become rather laughable in historical Jesus studies where Jesus in his historical context just coincidentally happened to be saying whatever the critic happened to believe.
Anyway, if there is some reassurance that you do indeed think we can get at the meaning of passages in the Bible with work, let's go back to the above passage. I really think its very important to the question at hand, and I don't think it is ultimately that difficult to understand (though doubtless there are nuances that I'm missing).
And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?”
This is pretty straightforward. They may have a lot of reasons behind the question, but the question itself is as direct as can be.
He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
A very direct, but theologically rich answer. The answer is "no". On what grounds? Jesus appeals to the original intent of creation itself - that man is made male and female. When those two are joined together in marriage (no talk of ceremonies other than leaving your own parents) they become in effect a single organism. This is God's intention, and to then treat it as something that can be separated is to set oneself up against the creator.
They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?”
They then point out an inconsistency. Moses allowed for the man to divorce his wife if he chose.
He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”
Jesus explains that this was only a concession to their weakness - it is actually a long way from the original intention of the creator for his people. This original intention involves a man and woman becoming not two, but one. It is only by adultery, uniting oneself sexually to someone other than the one you are truly united to, that this can be separated (and in the law of Moses it was a capitol offense). Now that the two are one, only death can separate what is a single organism - death by natural cause, or death by adultery.
The point isn't wispy or mysterious. This is a direct answer and teaching, explaining how the creation story in Genesis applies to our lives.
Post a Comment