Whenever you write something that is original, you make it available for critique by people who cannot think differently than the way they have thought their whole lives. That is the nature of presenting something considered "new." A new way of thinking smacks against traditions and people struggle to reject it as a knee-jerk reaction to protecting their long held beliefs. It seems one must give a mountain of evidence in order to establish the new way of thinking, but in order to convince the masses to maintain the tradition, one does not need any evidence at all.
That's my assessment of modern scholars like John Day here, who have read and critiqued my book concerning the time references of the Primeval History in Genesis 1-11.
After assuming a false motive about why I argued the way I did (I don't care if modern origins views accord with Genesis or not--I came to my view through the study of ANE literature and the text itself), Day summarizes the chapters in the book, absent of the arguments given for them, and simply attempts to refute them by arguing that they are "unconvincing." No evidence is really offered other than Day's assumption that all of this is to be taken as literally as possible.
One example of this is that Day wants to counter my argument that the two seeds are represented in Genesis as Abel and Cain and then the subsequent lines of Cain and Seth, continuing on in the Bible to Abraham through Isaac and Jacob, i.e., Israel versus the nations. Instead, Day, in taking everything very literal and ignoring the obvious literary context, thinks this is about humans being at odds with literal snakes, a statement that would have no connection to anything else in Genesis, and would be merely an aetiology as to why humans don't like snakes. Of course, I'm not sure why this animal and not the human struggle against lions, wolves, or bears are explained, but this interpretation, as said before, simply ignores the immediate and larger literary argument being made throughout the book and the Hebrew Bible as a whole.
Day also argues that seeing the temple/sanctuaries in Genesis 1 and 2 is eisegesis, even though many scholars hold to this view. They simply are not reading these chapters correctly as Day does, who takes them as literally as possible.
What is lost on Day and other modern interpreters is that the ancients would be looking for the creation of sacred space/the temple in any creation account they read. They think in parallel terms of sacred space and created space, something that Day and his ilk simply miss by assuming the ancient reader is as literal as he is. Created/ordered space is sacred space, but because Day is ignorant of that fact, he assumes everyone who believes the cosmic temple view is simply eisegeting. And why are they eisegeting? Because Day doesn't assume the same things the ancient reader assumes, and therefore, unless it is explicitly stated, it isn't in the text. It may, in fact, be the problem with the Modernist's arrogance to assume that every ancient person read things as literally as he does in an effort to perpetuate the Enlightenment-oriented myth that the ancient scholar was stupid and the modern scholar a genius. He evidences this in his statement that the ancient author meant Genesis 1-11 to be read literally, but "we" can no longer do so.
Day offers very little argument, and instead, relies on his preconceived tradition of the literal reading of the text, as well as the assumption that he doesn't really need to make an argument, since most people already agree with him and read these texts literally.
Day's attempt to refute by incredulity, however, displays his inability to grapple with facts and refute them with evidence. That is why he simply ignores all of the evidence I provided to show that the ancient Near Eastern cognitive environment would not have understood these things the same way the modern reader would.
In the end, liberals and fundamentalists are largely two sides of the same coin. Neither liked this book for the same reasons. They think Genesis was intended by the ancient author to be read the way they have always read it. In other words, their understanding of the genre of Primeval History doesn't come from studying primeval histories and the ancient Near Eastern cognitive environment (Walton's term), but from assuming that everyone, including the ancient author, thinks like they do.
Monday, October 14, 2019
Does the Bible Consider All Humanity Valuable as the Image of God?
There is the other side of the image of God debate that is often not considered. In fact, whenever it is brought up, I find that evangelicals/fundamentalist reformed people tend to be caught off guard by it. They continually want to find value in general humanity by appealing to the image of God. As I have argued here before, the image of God is bound up with the role of the image that works with God together in the process of creation toward His goal of filling up the earth with covenant humanity. Those who seek to ground humanity's worth/value in their ontology are essentially advocating a Christless value to man, where Christ is not the source of man's value, but human nature, apart from Christ, itself.
The Bible presents a very different idea of people outside of Christ, that is, the idea that the wicked are less than truly human with no worth.
In a society that has lifted up self-esteem by telling everyone how unique and special they are in God’s eyes, the church has been scarcely influenced by the biblical model of the two seeds presented in Genesis, one which is described as the image of God, which is true humanity, and the other which are described as murderers and agents of chaos. It has sought to give worth to everyone by categorizing all people, in or outside of Christ, as God's images. But the Bible, in contrast to this idea, presents them as empty images, worthless humanity, irrational animals, dogs.
Humanity as a whole is simply not described as being of equal worth because it is not described as being equally human. By “human” I am not referring to one’s ontological makeup. Instead, what I mean by the term is that one is human in terms of his function as the image of God. In that sense, the worth of the human is the worth of his function. If he functions as an agent of life and creation, which is the role of the image of God, he has great worth derived from the One he images in his role and actions. If he functions as an agent of chaos, however, he has no worth derived from God, but rather has become a worthless person, as he has rejected his function, and therefore, the value of true humanity.
In essence, he becomes like an animal rather than a human, and in that regard, he has become something less than human, which essentially means, he has become something that is not human. He is a golem, a creature that was never meant to be, a lesser being that God uses to create His royal people.
It is important to understand that this is not some view of humanity that comes out of disdain for unbelievers. Instead, it is something that understands that only Christ is true humanity, and therefore, true humanity is only found in Him. If someone remains outside of Him, he is not true humanity. If Christ is the image of the invisible God, not an image, then only those united to Christ can truly be the image of God.
Hence, Peter speaks of apostate teachers who despise authority and insult angels as those who are ὡς ἄλογα ζῷα γεγεννημένα φυσικὰ εἰς ἅλωσιν καὶ φθορὰν “like irrational animals who are meant for destruction and corruption” (2 Pet 2:12). They are “stains and blemishes” (v. 13). “These men are waterless springs and mists driven by a storm, for whom the utter depths of darkness have been reserved” (v. 17). He ends by quoting two proverbs, both about animals returning to filth, a dog returning to vomit and a hog returning to the mire (v. 22). Jude, likewise, talks about these men as irrational animals in their thinking (v. 10). Wealthy fools are like animals who perish (Ps 49:12, 20).
Those outside of God’s people are considered “dogs” (Ps 22:16, 20; Matt 15:26; Rev 22:15), and Paul calls the Judaizers in an ironic twists, “dogs,” placing them outside the people of God for their rejection of the true gospel (Phil 3:2). A dog is considered a worthless animal, and those likened to it, worthless (2 Kings 8:13).
To the New Testament writers, everyone apart from Christ is evil, a chaotic agent, and as such, are described as destroyers. In Romans 3, Paul quotes numerous passages from the Old Testament that describe murderers.
“There is no one righteous, not even one, there is no one who understands, there is no one who seeks God. All have turned away, together they have become worthless; there is no one who shows kindness, not even one.” “Their throats are open graves, they deceive with their tongues, the poison of asps is under their lips.” “Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.” “Their feet are swift to shed blood, ruin and misery are in their paths, and the way of peace they have not known.” “There is no fear of God before their eyes.” (Rom 3:11-18)
In the midst of this description of fallen mankind, Paul states that they all together ἠχρεώθησαν “have become worthless.” They are worthless because they do not function as agents of life and creation, as men were made to, but rather as agents of death and chaos, like the line of Cain.
Jeremiah 2:5 states of the people who had committed apostasy that because they walked after ההבל “worthless” things, ויהבלו “they were worthless.” The word hebel means “empty of value,” and often describes idols/images in terms of what they can do for the people who worship through them (Jer 16:19). The Greek word in the New Testament is ἀχρεῖον. Those who claim to follow Christ, and yet, do not do the work of the image by preserving the lives of the people who represent Him, are called ἀχρεῖον “worthless” by Christ (Matt 25:30). Hosea tells us that apostate Israel had become worthless like a broken piece of pottery that no longer functioned for the purpose it had been created.
People who do not do their jobs in protecting others, like shepherds set in place to protect the sheep, are called האליל “good for nothing.” This term is used when the Psalmist argues that worshiping the gods of the nations is no good since are האליל “good for nothing” (1 Chron 16:26).
The problem is that evangelicals read these passages as limited to only a few really wicked people who are murderers, but Paul says that all of humanity outside of Christ are worthless murderers. The Bible says that all who go after worthless things, i.e., everyone outside of Christ, is worthless.
Value is derived from the proper function of the individual to do the job for which he was created. Hence, one who is the image of God by doing His life-giving work in the world and giving Him the glory as the Originator of it, is valuable, and we know that this only accomplished by those who are redeemed from their fallen estate in Christ, who is the image of the invisible God.
What this means is that all outside of Christ are not valuable in the eyes of God because they are not functioning as the image, the role for which they were made. They do not worship God, and therefore, pursue worthless things. They are, therefore, worthless, good for nothing, irrational animals purposed for disposal, inhuman dogs, i.e., the exact opposite of what most evangelicals will say of the wicked.
But why do most evangelicals believe otherwise? Because the religion of American Christianity isn’t Christianity at all, but an apostate religion, where all of humanity, not just Christ, is truly human and the image of God. It is the Enlightenment-produced religion of inclusivism that rejects the division of humanity into Christ and the devil, Christian and non-Christian, righteous and wicked, the image and the non-image, the valuable and the worthless.
But the remedy to this worthlessness that the church must adopt is not to ignore this awful fact by flattering an animalistic, fallen humanity by calling it truly human and the image of God, but instead to call it out of its worthlessness and into the eternal worth and value of Jesus Christ through the gospel. The bad news is that all men have become worthless in shunning the role of the image. The good news is that they may become free of their valueless state and become eternally valuable in being united to Christ. Unlike those who are called “dogs” outside the kingdom in the Book of Revelation, they will shine eternally like stars, elevated to partake in the very nature and life of God as those who represent God truly as an image should.
Saturday, October 5, 2019
Exodus 21:7-13 Is Not about Divorce
Many advocates of divorce via abandonment attempt to argue from Exodus 21:7-13 that God commands divorce in the case of abandonment. Here we have another casuistic law, of course, that seeks to do damage control for the victim. However, what is being commanded has nothing to do with divorce. This text is simply being misread.
“If a man sells his daughter as a female servant, she will not go out as the male servants do. If she does not please her master, who has designated her for himself, then he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to a foreign nation, because he has dealt deceitfully with her. If he designated her for his son, then he will deal with her according to the customary rights of daughters. If he takes another wife, he must not diminish the first one’s food, her clothing, or her marital rights. If he does not provide her with these three things, then she will go out free, without paying money."
First, even if one granted that this was telling a slave girl she could divorce her master husband (something not permitted in Israelite law), this text says nothing about remarriage. Second to this, however, the law does not prescribe divorce at all. In fact, it condemns it with a punishment.
These are actually a series of laws that deal with what to do with a slave girl in various situations. The first law is that if her master is not pleased with her, he must allow her to be redeemed (presumably by her father) instead of selling her to someone else.
The second law has to do with how he must treat her if he gives her to his son.
The third law, and the one taken out of context by divorce adovocates, is that if he takes away her food, clothing, and marital rights, she is to be set free without owing anymore debt or without needing to pay any money for the price of a slave.
In other words, the man has done a wicked thing in the protasis (we might call this the "clause of injustice"), where a crime is being committed against an individual, people, or land. He has essentially divorced his wife, but now wants to keep her in his household as a slave still, since she was originally his slave girl. God does not permit this. If he has divorced/abandoned her in terms of the marriage, then he has no more rights over her as a slave master. She is no longer a slave and is free to go.
In other words, the command is that she is free in terms of being a slave. The wicked man has already divorced her. This is not a command for her to divorce him (that's not even a possibility in Israelite law). It is a command that she is to be set free from slavery if he has abandoned their marriage, which is what those three things that she is being deprived of describe.
There is no comment that his divorcing her is acceptable. Everything in the text indicates that it is not. Hence, ironically, this law protects the once slave-girl, now wife, from divorce, and punishes divorce by causing the master to lose his slave as well.
Either way, this is a slavery law concerning what to do with a slave girl in the case that she is married and then divorced by a man who still wants to keep her as his slave. He can't.
Either way, this is a slavery law concerning what to do with a slave girl in the case that she is married and then divorced by a man who still wants to keep her as his slave. He can't.
Deuteronomy 24:1-4 in Its Biblical Contexts
It's always interesting when discussing the divorce and remarriage debate when someone goes back to the Old Testament to prove their case. If the OT law provided a solid basis to know how to proceed on the the matter, one wonders why the NT had to make any comment upon it at all. The Pharisees ask Jesus about it in their attempt to show His discontinuity with the Mosaic Law Code.Those who bring it up use it to show that Jesus has to be agreeing with the law, and therefore, cannot disallow divorce since it is commanded. The fact that Jesus seems to contradict the law leaves the interpreter with only four options.
1. The law commands that one can divorce. Hence, Jesus must be saying something that agrees with the command that one can get a divorce, even though He seems to clearly say something in discontuity with it. This must mean that we've misunderstood Jesus who was agreeing with it all along.
2. The law commands that one can get a divorce. Hence, Jesus contradicts the law and Jesus is wrong.
3. The commands that one can get a divorce, and Jesus now commands otherwise. Hence, He contradicts the law.
I'll argue for the fourth in a moment, but want to look over the other three options and argue that they are unfaithful to the biblical texts in question.
1. It is clear that Jesus is arguing against any kind of divorce or remarriage. The Pharisees understand Him this way, the disciples understand Him this way, Paul understands Him this way, the Church for the first 1500 years understood Him for the most part this way, the statements He makes can really only be understood this way. So it is clear that He does not allow for divorce or remarriage, as discussed many times on this blog in greater detail. So He is not in agreement with the idea. He even says in the text that Moses only permitted it because they were in rebellion against God. He's hardly in agreement with what is in rebellion against God. Hence, no one should go to the law to answer the question.
2. Let's just get out of the way that Jesus was wrong. This is an ethical claim that one needs revelation to decide and the revelation we have presents Jesus as God and presents His teaching as infallible. If it's wrong about Jesus and His teaching then it cannot be known when and how often it's wrong in other things. In essence, if we are to know anything about the right and wrong of marriage and divorce, Jesus cannot be wrong. Hence, no one should go to the law to answer to the question.
3. This is also contradictory toward Matthew. Jesus agrees with the spirit of the law, so would He contradict the spirit of the law if it commanded divorce? This may be easy for a dispensationalist to argue, but it is not a faithful understanding of what is going on. Jesus, in Matthew, agrees with the moral spirit of the law, and hence, He is not contradicting it.
But with what does that leave the interpreter who wishes to be faithful to both texts?
The first thing we need to do is to understand the law within the context of the Mosaic Law Code, and in order to understand that, we must understand the nature of casuistic law. Casuistic law, or "case law," is an application of moral principles or laws to new or unusual sets of circumstances. In the biblical context, it is the application of the creation principle and the concept of justice that flows from it to a particular injustice done toward a person or family. Case law is not moral law. It is law that attempts to bring the most protection to the victim once an injustice has occurred. In other words, it is not teaching what the ultimate moral will of God is, but rather a concession on God's part to punish an unjust action only insofar as the victim is protected from further harm by the unjust act. When a harm has been done, and the only way to protect the victims of further harm is to execute the individual, the law prescribes that. When the criminal can protect the victim through further action on his part, the law will prescribe that. When the criminal can protect the victim through financial reparations, the law will prescribe that. It has nothing to do with the overall morality of the act, or whether God is OK with what the criminal did. In fact, the one doing the injustice is considered a criminal and liable to further act for that very reason. If he or she were not the criminal in God's eyes, he or she would have no obligation to act any further on the victim's behalf.
Hence, when the law says that one who kills another man's slave is to pay him twenty shekels of silver, it doesn't mean God has less value upon the life of a slave. It has nothing to do with whether murder is morally wrong in general. It has nothing to do with whether God is pleased or displeased with the act of killing a slave, and it has nothing to do with whether God will further punish the individual in this life or another for the act. The law only is concerned with economic justice in order to preserve the life of the person or family who lost the slave, and now may be in jeopardy without those extra hands.
Likewise, the law isn't saying that rape is OK when it prescribes for the rapist to marry and take care of the victim for her whole life or pay her father to take care of her. It is simply concerned about the physical well-being of the woman, who's life now is in jeopardy, since being raped in the culture would have lessened her prospects for marriage and financial stability. If she is not well off, and can't get married in this culture, it means she can either become a prostitute or beggar. This is a further injustice that results from the act that is now prevented by the law.
If she already has someone to take care of her, of course, because she has a fiance or husband, the rapist gets the death penalty.
This concept is very important to understand when reading the law concerning the specific issue in Deuteronomy 24:1-4, and the way that the Pharisees, versus the way Jesus read it, were reading it.
The text can be read both ways, and both of those ways need to be understood in light of what is said above. For instance, the NIV has the text read as follows:
If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the Lord. Do not bring sin upon the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.
We'll skip over the fact that it translates עֶרְוַת דָּבָר poorly, and incinuates a contradiction between this law and that in 22:13-21 and 23-24.
The man divorces his wife and gives her a certificate of divorce, another man marries and divorces her (or dies), and the law that is commanded is simply that the first man cannot remarry her. This is said to protect Israel from a corruption that God sees as an abomination. She is said to have been defiled by marrying a second husband, and therefore, cannot go back to her first.
This means that the law is here to protect the land of Israel, the people as a whole, from the corruption of this act. It treats the wife like a prostitute who becomes one flesh with another man because of his divorce of her. Although prostitution is allowed by the law in the case of a woman who is not under a federal head, in that it does not prohibit it in general, God forbids federal heads making their women prostitutes (Lev 19:29; 21:9). Interestingly enough, the law against this in Leviticus 19:29 also mentions that the land would be corrupted because of it. Men who do this to women under their headship are viewed as pimps. Women were not to do it if they were under a federal head (Deut 22:13-21). Hence, a woman made to do this because of divorce was not to be brought back under the federal head who caused it lest the land become a brothel.
What is interesting, however, is that this is read by the Pharisees and many today as a law that commands that one can get a divorce. This is much like reading the rapist laws as laws that command that one can rape, or the laws concerning the killing of slaves that one can kill slaves. What is being done in the protasis of these laws is seen as evil. It is unjust. It isn't right and it isn't God's will. God's will, now that this evil and injustice has been done, is to preserve further injury to the victim, individually or corporately, by prescribing what will stop this further injury from occurring.
Notice that this same misunderstanding is stated by the Pharisees, and they are corrected by Jesus.
“Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
1. The law commands that one can divorce. Hence, Jesus must be saying something that agrees with the command that one can get a divorce, even though He seems to clearly say something in discontuity with it. This must mean that we've misunderstood Jesus who was agreeing with it all along.
2. The law commands that one can get a divorce. Hence, Jesus contradicts the law and Jesus is wrong.
3. The commands that one can get a divorce, and Jesus now commands otherwise. Hence, He contradicts the law.
I'll argue for the fourth in a moment, but want to look over the other three options and argue that they are unfaithful to the biblical texts in question.
1. It is clear that Jesus is arguing against any kind of divorce or remarriage. The Pharisees understand Him this way, the disciples understand Him this way, Paul understands Him this way, the Church for the first 1500 years understood Him for the most part this way, the statements He makes can really only be understood this way. So it is clear that He does not allow for divorce or remarriage, as discussed many times on this blog in greater detail. So He is not in agreement with the idea. He even says in the text that Moses only permitted it because they were in rebellion against God. He's hardly in agreement with what is in rebellion against God. Hence, no one should go to the law to answer the question.
2. Let's just get out of the way that Jesus was wrong. This is an ethical claim that one needs revelation to decide and the revelation we have presents Jesus as God and presents His teaching as infallible. If it's wrong about Jesus and His teaching then it cannot be known when and how often it's wrong in other things. In essence, if we are to know anything about the right and wrong of marriage and divorce, Jesus cannot be wrong. Hence, no one should go to the law to answer to the question.
3. This is also contradictory toward Matthew. Jesus agrees with the spirit of the law, so would He contradict the spirit of the law if it commanded divorce? This may be easy for a dispensationalist to argue, but it is not a faithful understanding of what is going on. Jesus, in Matthew, agrees with the moral spirit of the law, and hence, He is not contradicting it.
But with what does that leave the interpreter who wishes to be faithful to both texts?
The first thing we need to do is to understand the law within the context of the Mosaic Law Code, and in order to understand that, we must understand the nature of casuistic law. Casuistic law, or "case law," is an application of moral principles or laws to new or unusual sets of circumstances. In the biblical context, it is the application of the creation principle and the concept of justice that flows from it to a particular injustice done toward a person or family. Case law is not moral law. It is law that attempts to bring the most protection to the victim once an injustice has occurred. In other words, it is not teaching what the ultimate moral will of God is, but rather a concession on God's part to punish an unjust action only insofar as the victim is protected from further harm by the unjust act. When a harm has been done, and the only way to protect the victims of further harm is to execute the individual, the law prescribes that. When the criminal can protect the victim through further action on his part, the law will prescribe that. When the criminal can protect the victim through financial reparations, the law will prescribe that. It has nothing to do with the overall morality of the act, or whether God is OK with what the criminal did. In fact, the one doing the injustice is considered a criminal and liable to further act for that very reason. If he or she were not the criminal in God's eyes, he or she would have no obligation to act any further on the victim's behalf.
Hence, when the law says that one who kills another man's slave is to pay him twenty shekels of silver, it doesn't mean God has less value upon the life of a slave. It has nothing to do with whether murder is morally wrong in general. It has nothing to do with whether God is pleased or displeased with the act of killing a slave, and it has nothing to do with whether God will further punish the individual in this life or another for the act. The law only is concerned with economic justice in order to preserve the life of the person or family who lost the slave, and now may be in jeopardy without those extra hands.
Likewise, the law isn't saying that rape is OK when it prescribes for the rapist to marry and take care of the victim for her whole life or pay her father to take care of her. It is simply concerned about the physical well-being of the woman, who's life now is in jeopardy, since being raped in the culture would have lessened her prospects for marriage and financial stability. If she is not well off, and can't get married in this culture, it means she can either become a prostitute or beggar. This is a further injustice that results from the act that is now prevented by the law.
If she already has someone to take care of her, of course, because she has a fiance or husband, the rapist gets the death penalty.
This concept is very important to understand when reading the law concerning the specific issue in Deuteronomy 24:1-4, and the way that the Pharisees, versus the way Jesus read it, were reading it.
The text can be read both ways, and both of those ways need to be understood in light of what is said above. For instance, the NIV has the text read as follows:
If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the Lord. Do not bring sin upon the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.
We'll skip over the fact that it translates עֶרְוַת דָּבָר poorly, and incinuates a contradiction between this law and that in 22:13-21 and 23-24.
The man divorces his wife and gives her a certificate of divorce, another man marries and divorces her (or dies), and the law that is commanded is simply that the first man cannot remarry her. This is said to protect Israel from a corruption that God sees as an abomination. She is said to have been defiled by marrying a second husband, and therefore, cannot go back to her first.
This means that the law is here to protect the land of Israel, the people as a whole, from the corruption of this act. It treats the wife like a prostitute who becomes one flesh with another man because of his divorce of her. Although prostitution is allowed by the law in the case of a woman who is not under a federal head, in that it does not prohibit it in general, God forbids federal heads making their women prostitutes (Lev 19:29; 21:9). Interestingly enough, the law against this in Leviticus 19:29 also mentions that the land would be corrupted because of it. Men who do this to women under their headship are viewed as pimps. Women were not to do it if they were under a federal head (Deut 22:13-21). Hence, a woman made to do this because of divorce was not to be brought back under the federal head who caused it lest the land become a brothel.
What is interesting, however, is that this is read by the Pharisees and many today as a law that commands that one can get a divorce. This is much like reading the rapist laws as laws that command that one can rape, or the laws concerning the killing of slaves that one can kill slaves. What is being done in the protasis of these laws is seen as evil. It is unjust. It isn't right and it isn't God's will. God's will, now that this evil and injustice has been done, is to preserve further injury to the victim, individually or corporately, by prescribing what will stop this further injury from occurring.
Notice that this same misunderstanding is stated by the Pharisees, and they are corrected by Jesus.
“Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not meant to be this way from the beginning. (Matt 19:7-8)
The Pharisees use the word "command," as though the protasis was what Moses was commanding them to do. Jesus corrects this by saying that Moses "permitted" them, not in this law, but by not outlawing divorce and remarriage. In other words, there is no law in the Mosaic Law Code that forbids divorce and remarriage in general, but this is not because God is OK with divorce and remarriage. Saying that this law allows one to get a divorce and remarried is much like saying that the laws concerning rape and murder of a slave allow us to rape and murder. Um, no. They don't.
In Mark, this distinction is made by Jesus trapping them into thinking about whether Moses actually commanded them to do this at all or whether this was not what was being commanded at all. He asks, "What did Moses command you?" (10:3). They admit that he merely permitted it (v. 4), and Jesus even says, knowing what casuistic law is for, that Moses "wrote" them the command in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 because of their stubborness to do wrong in the area and do further harm if their injustice wasn't regulated further.
In fact, I would like to rename casuistic laws as "damage control laws." Damage has already been done. How does one prevent further damage along creational lines now that wrongs have been committed and chaos unleashed? In no way do these laws permit divorce and remarriage. They simply attempt to regulate these unjust situations from further damage. The great irony, therefore, is the fact that divorce and remarriage appear in the protasis of casuistic law assumes that it is an evil being done against a person, people, or land.
With that understanding, let's return to the fourth option in reconciling what Jesus teaches to this law.
What Jesus teaches is that there is to be no divorce or remarriage among His people. Moses did not prohibit it in the law because of the people's rebellion against God, but it was never the will of God that His people do this, as it is adultery. The spirit of the law in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is that the land not be defiled with pimping wives out through divorce and remarriage. This means that Jesus' teaching that prohibits divorce and remarriage is absolutely consistent with the spirit of the law. Whereas the law prohibited a specific type of remarriage to keep the land from being defiled, Jesus prohibits all remarriage (and all divorce) in order to keep the land, i.e., church, from becoming defiled. There is simply no contradiction between the two when one understands the point of the first in the context of the Mosaic Law Code.
The contrast between Moses and Jesus, therefore, is not that Moses commanded one thing and Jesus commanded another, but that Moses did not command against X because casuistic law assumes that people are going to do unjust things to one another, and acts accordingly. Jesus, however, now does teach against divorce and remarriage as a whole in accordance with God's will for marriage revealed at creation. Moses also did not command against polygamy and Jesus' teaching does. Moses also did not command against calling one's brother "brainless," and Jesus does. Jesus is now taking the spirit of the law, the principle of creation, and applying it fully to God's reign over His people in the kingdom. He is not making the concessions of casuistic law, nor is He addressing an issue that only comes up if one sins. Instead, He is arguing what ought to be done from now on, and this is how Christians need to approach the issue.
Wednesday, October 2, 2019
There's Nowhere to Run
Nothing like a creepy title to start off a post, but I kind of wanted that element here.
Church discipline in the modern day is an interesting topic. I once had a professor at Westminster who thought there was no need for it anymore because it didn't accomplish what it needed to in our modern culture. I obviously completely disagree. When I questioned him more about it, it was clear that he had a superficial understanding of what it was for. However, I do agree that many people placed under church discipline don't quite understand the gravity of it.
In former times, in small towns with one church, when one was excommunicated, he had nowhere else to go. Now, however, when churches are more plentiful than Starbuck's, he believes he can just go elsewhere and be no worse for the wear.
Case in point, we had some men we had to excommunicate for a rebellion they led against church leadership. They immediately left and when after repeated attempts to call them back to reconcile, their having refused to do so, we excommunicated them. However, I am sure not a single one of them thought anything of it. After all, they were in new churches now, and didn't perceive as their former church as having any authority over them.
Such is the sentiment of our modern day. The church has authority over me when I give it authority. Of course, that means I am in authority over the church. Christ doesn't grant it authority unless I say He does. This means that if I say a church does not have Christ's authority, it doesn't, at least not over me since I have run to another church.
It's actually an interesting form of ancient religion, where the gods all have their own spheres. Don't want to be under the gods of Egypt? Run to Assyria. Don't want to be under the gods of Philistia? Run to Babylon. The gods' hands can't reach past their boundaries.
Christ, of course, is Lord of all creation. He has no boundaries. His authority in one church extends to the other. What that means is that if you are under church discipline in one church, according to Christ, He is in agreement with the elders for their decision (as long as they are genuinely Christian elders making judgments on the Word of God). That means that anyone who is under discipline is not released from that discipline even if they run to another church.
Christ doesn't observe the boundary markers churches often set for themselves. This is often why, from the earliest times of the apostles, letters had to be given if one was coming to a new church from another. That new church needed to make sure that these people were not under discipline, lest they fall under that judgment themselves.
In essence, one is not released from the authority of one church simply by running to another. The authority of the one extends to wherever else he goes, simply because Christ's authority extends to every church that belongs to Him.
In short, the men we excommunicated are still under that judgment, even though they probably just brushed it off. Many of them are involved in leadership positions at other churches and in other organizations, some of which have been told and also brush it off. It's an amazing thing to see this boundary-filled Evangelicalism play out. It's also horrific to realize the implications of it.
In short, there is nowhere to run. No one gets away by simply taking off to another church when they are under discipline. The church that gave the judgment must be the one to release you of that judgment. Otherwise, the judgment persists and going to another church to escape it is futile. The Judge of all the earth is still there, and He was the One who made the decision through the elders at the last church. He will be at the next church, and the next one, and the next one. Running does nothing but display rebellion. It's reconciliation to Christ through the church that made the judgment or it's excommunication from the kingdom. People who try to take refuge elsewhere are fooling themselves. They are like the wicked in the Apocalypse who run under the rocks so that they may hide in them, but Christ is Lord of the rocks and caves as well, and they will be crushed by them. There's simply nowhere to run.
Church discipline in the modern day is an interesting topic. I once had a professor at Westminster who thought there was no need for it anymore because it didn't accomplish what it needed to in our modern culture. I obviously completely disagree. When I questioned him more about it, it was clear that he had a superficial understanding of what it was for. However, I do agree that many people placed under church discipline don't quite understand the gravity of it.
In former times, in small towns with one church, when one was excommunicated, he had nowhere else to go. Now, however, when churches are more plentiful than Starbuck's, he believes he can just go elsewhere and be no worse for the wear.
Case in point, we had some men we had to excommunicate for a rebellion they led against church leadership. They immediately left and when after repeated attempts to call them back to reconcile, their having refused to do so, we excommunicated them. However, I am sure not a single one of them thought anything of it. After all, they were in new churches now, and didn't perceive as their former church as having any authority over them.
Such is the sentiment of our modern day. The church has authority over me when I give it authority. Of course, that means I am in authority over the church. Christ doesn't grant it authority unless I say He does. This means that if I say a church does not have Christ's authority, it doesn't, at least not over me since I have run to another church.
It's actually an interesting form of ancient religion, where the gods all have their own spheres. Don't want to be under the gods of Egypt? Run to Assyria. Don't want to be under the gods of Philistia? Run to Babylon. The gods' hands can't reach past their boundaries.
Christ, of course, is Lord of all creation. He has no boundaries. His authority in one church extends to the other. What that means is that if you are under church discipline in one church, according to Christ, He is in agreement with the elders for their decision (as long as they are genuinely Christian elders making judgments on the Word of God). That means that anyone who is under discipline is not released from that discipline even if they run to another church.
Christ doesn't observe the boundary markers churches often set for themselves. This is often why, from the earliest times of the apostles, letters had to be given if one was coming to a new church from another. That new church needed to make sure that these people were not under discipline, lest they fall under that judgment themselves.
In essence, one is not released from the authority of one church simply by running to another. The authority of the one extends to wherever else he goes, simply because Christ's authority extends to every church that belongs to Him.
In short, the men we excommunicated are still under that judgment, even though they probably just brushed it off. Many of them are involved in leadership positions at other churches and in other organizations, some of which have been told and also brush it off. It's an amazing thing to see this boundary-filled Evangelicalism play out. It's also horrific to realize the implications of it.
In short, there is nowhere to run. No one gets away by simply taking off to another church when they are under discipline. The church that gave the judgment must be the one to release you of that judgment. Otherwise, the judgment persists and going to another church to escape it is futile. The Judge of all the earth is still there, and He was the One who made the decision through the elders at the last church. He will be at the next church, and the next one, and the next one. Running does nothing but display rebellion. It's reconciliation to Christ through the church that made the judgment or it's excommunication from the kingdom. People who try to take refuge elsewhere are fooling themselves. They are like the wicked in the Apocalypse who run under the rocks so that they may hide in them, but Christ is Lord of the rocks and caves as well, and they will be crushed by them. There's simply nowhere to run.
The Electric Daisy Carnival and the Perceived Impossibility for Pagan Worship in an Atheistic Society
I'm always amazed when I see Christians cringe at the pagan rituals of both ancient and modern cultures. In tribal religions, festivals are set around sexual dancing, sex, drinking, drugs, and music that puts the mind into a state of movement in the exaltation of impulse. Scantily clad women dance around to entice other participants. All of it, clothing, atmosphere, music, etc. is meant to heighten the desires of the flesh, so that the worship of pagan gods isn't just a worship of external deities, but of the self.
American Christians cringe at it, not because they are not involved in it themselves, but because the manifestation of pagan worship in other cultures is largely set around an idol, which is strange to us already, but is also just unfamiliar. In other words, they often are not disturbed by what should disturbe them, i.e., the elements and activity I just mentioned, but rather at the strangeness of the expression that is not their personal cultural expression. In this way, their disgust with pagan worship is often just xenophobic rather than based in good theology.
The problem with this is that this sort of superficial analysis causes them to be thougthless about their own pagan forms of worship, and therefore, they are completely uncritical toward what festivals they attend and why they attend them.
More civilized versions of the pagan festival seen in tribal religions in antiquity were the Roman festivals centered around the worship of Roman deities and the emperor. These festivals were filled with all of the same things: drinking, drugs, music, sexual dancing, sex, etc. They were just as pagan as the other, and yet, they were more acceptable to many Christians in their days simply because the Christians had grown up with them. It was just what the culture did. It was just what everyone did. Christians not only didn't cringe at them. They enjoyed them. Why? Because paganism, in short, is fun. It was the party of parties to attend. It was either that or be antisocial and miss out on the fun.
You may think that people went because they really loved their gods, but that is not why they went. In fact, the very fact that Christians, who did not worship these deities, loved going to them displays the fact that they were enjoyable. They were fun. Christians argued that it was fine to attend and enjoy the festivities as long as they didn't worship the false gods.
And yet, the apostles write so harshly condemning it. John argues in Revelation that those who partake in the festivals belong to the devil, even if they claim to be Christians, and are going to hell. Why such a stark contrast between what the apostles thought about it, and what the average Christian thought about it? Why would the apostles be so down on fun?
What I'm about to say may be a bit of a Debbie Downer to the mindless reader who simply doesn't ever think about it, nor does he want to. After all, I'm about to spoil the illusion that this type of "fun" is acceptable to God. It isn't.
The reasson why the apostles still condemned a more sanitized version of participating in the pagan festivals is because participating itself was the worship of another god, even when not paying respects to a particular deity. And this is important to understand. The ultimate goal of pagan worship is worshiping the devil by worshiping oneself and one's pleasures.
God will not be worshiped through paganism and the indulgence in the flesh. Hence, God cannot be worshiped by worshiping the self. Hence, God is not, and cannot, be worshiped by going to a pagan festival.
What does all of this have to do with us? We don't have pagan festivals, right? Do we have festivals, where the religion of our culture that is not Christianity is exalted in the revelry of sexual dancing, sex, drinking, drugs, and the music that sets the tone and lifts up the gods of our culture? Um, yes, we do. That's because the gods of our culture are ultimately the same as the gods of pagans. Paganism, as I have said many times before, is essentially the worship of self. Other gods are just brought in to be a means to do so. The real object of worship is the self and its pleasures. This is the devil's religion in our culture. It isn't Caesar worship in America. The beast is us. We've simply removed the middle man.
John, in Revelation, argues that whoever takes upon himself the mark of the beast will perish in the lake of fire with the beast, and it is clear throughout the book, that John is talking about, not only some acknowledgement of the beast, but also includes the participation in the festivals that are characterized by the things stated above. In fact, he even states them independently so that the reader will understand that no element of pagan worship can be sanitized simply by worshiping Jesus as the central deity. Jesus is not worshiped through paganism/the worship of self, and hence, anyone who participates in these things is worshiping the devil.
That's quite a radical take on parties, big or small, I know. I'm sure most Christians don't think about pagan parties that way at all, but it is the logical conclusion of what is happening. John's point with pagan religion isn't that it is Satan-worship because everyone is literally calling out to Satan and bowing down to a goat's head on the wall. He's arguing that it is Satan-worship because it is worship of the beast, and worship of the beast is via the means of worship of the self. We just happen to live in an atheistic culture where the beast isn't something other than the self. Our pantheon is made up of every American. Our polytheism exists in humanity and not in the unseen realm. Our idolatry is self satisfaction and pleasure, not external things made of metal and wood.
So when I see something like the Electric Daisy Carnival, or something like it, that is made up of all of the elements mentioned: scantily clad women, sexual dancing, sex, drugs. drinking, and the music that provides the atmosphere, and even explicitly in the words, that exalt the self and its pleasures, and then I see Christians who partake in it without any thought of what they are doing, I am reminded again that we have not left the first century and the battles the apostles waged with the average church member who ignorantly thought all of this was OK.
I'm reminded by it when people go to pagan parties in high school, or they go different events that contain these elements. I have to ask, "Why?" For fun? Fun in pagan pleasures is the religion of the devil. We not only worship antichrist, we become antichrist. Is Christ being exalted here? Are you exalting Christ by participating in the very things for which He was crucified? In participating in the world against which He is at odds?
It is the perceived neutrality of atheistic culture that lies to us and convinces us to think that these things can be sanitized if we are Christians. How is pagan worship sanitized? How is the exaltation of sexual provocation outside of marriage, either through a type of dancing or music or actual sex something that can be sanitized? God isn't worshiped through drugs. Don't confuse God being pleased with your being pleased by something.
This, of course, has ramifications for what music we listen to, what movies we watch, what conversations we partake in, and why.
I am continually disheartened by the lack of ethical thinking in the modern Christian generation. They allow the things they ought to condemn and condemn the things they ought to allow. Our remedy for all of this is true worship. Exalting God through the worship via the Word, prayer, and communion of the saints. This is what our festivals should look like, and we hold them every week. Sometimes we have special occasions where we celebrate holidays that ought to look more like the latter worship mentioned than the former. I am not advocating, then, for the abstaining from fun, but from the abstaining from paganism as fun. Let us redeem every holiday because we redeem every day in the worship of God. Let us not only condemn obvious Satan religion in explicit "isms," but also in the warping of our own Christianity. In the days of the Kings, there was Baal worship that was obviously evil, but there was also the worship of God on the high places, a more sanitized version of pagan worship where YHWH was the deity in view. And yet, it was just as Satanic as the other, perhaps moreso, because of its stealthy nature to disguise itself as acceptable to God.
Somehow, believers are always led astray by the idea that if they remove the middle man, and even replace God as the deity in view, it sanitizes their pagan worship.
Some of the saddest words in the Deuteronomistic History are, "but he did not take down the high places." As Christians, let us not only smash the idols of others, but our own.
American Christians cringe at it, not because they are not involved in it themselves, but because the manifestation of pagan worship in other cultures is largely set around an idol, which is strange to us already, but is also just unfamiliar. In other words, they often are not disturbed by what should disturbe them, i.e., the elements and activity I just mentioned, but rather at the strangeness of the expression that is not their personal cultural expression. In this way, their disgust with pagan worship is often just xenophobic rather than based in good theology.
The problem with this is that this sort of superficial analysis causes them to be thougthless about their own pagan forms of worship, and therefore, they are completely uncritical toward what festivals they attend and why they attend them.
More civilized versions of the pagan festival seen in tribal religions in antiquity were the Roman festivals centered around the worship of Roman deities and the emperor. These festivals were filled with all of the same things: drinking, drugs, music, sexual dancing, sex, etc. They were just as pagan as the other, and yet, they were more acceptable to many Christians in their days simply because the Christians had grown up with them. It was just what the culture did. It was just what everyone did. Christians not only didn't cringe at them. They enjoyed them. Why? Because paganism, in short, is fun. It was the party of parties to attend. It was either that or be antisocial and miss out on the fun.
You may think that people went because they really loved their gods, but that is not why they went. In fact, the very fact that Christians, who did not worship these deities, loved going to them displays the fact that they were enjoyable. They were fun. Christians argued that it was fine to attend and enjoy the festivities as long as they didn't worship the false gods.
And yet, the apostles write so harshly condemning it. John argues in Revelation that those who partake in the festivals belong to the devil, even if they claim to be Christians, and are going to hell. Why such a stark contrast between what the apostles thought about it, and what the average Christian thought about it? Why would the apostles be so down on fun?
What I'm about to say may be a bit of a Debbie Downer to the mindless reader who simply doesn't ever think about it, nor does he want to. After all, I'm about to spoil the illusion that this type of "fun" is acceptable to God. It isn't.
The reasson why the apostles still condemned a more sanitized version of participating in the pagan festivals is because participating itself was the worship of another god, even when not paying respects to a particular deity. And this is important to understand. The ultimate goal of pagan worship is worshiping the devil by worshiping oneself and one's pleasures.
God will not be worshiped through paganism and the indulgence in the flesh. Hence, God cannot be worshiped by worshiping the self. Hence, God is not, and cannot, be worshiped by going to a pagan festival.
What does all of this have to do with us? We don't have pagan festivals, right? Do we have festivals, where the religion of our culture that is not Christianity is exalted in the revelry of sexual dancing, sex, drinking, drugs, and the music that sets the tone and lifts up the gods of our culture? Um, yes, we do. That's because the gods of our culture are ultimately the same as the gods of pagans. Paganism, as I have said many times before, is essentially the worship of self. Other gods are just brought in to be a means to do so. The real object of worship is the self and its pleasures. This is the devil's religion in our culture. It isn't Caesar worship in America. The beast is us. We've simply removed the middle man.
John, in Revelation, argues that whoever takes upon himself the mark of the beast will perish in the lake of fire with the beast, and it is clear throughout the book, that John is talking about, not only some acknowledgement of the beast, but also includes the participation in the festivals that are characterized by the things stated above. In fact, he even states them independently so that the reader will understand that no element of pagan worship can be sanitized simply by worshiping Jesus as the central deity. Jesus is not worshiped through paganism/the worship of self, and hence, anyone who participates in these things is worshiping the devil.
That's quite a radical take on parties, big or small, I know. I'm sure most Christians don't think about pagan parties that way at all, but it is the logical conclusion of what is happening. John's point with pagan religion isn't that it is Satan-worship because everyone is literally calling out to Satan and bowing down to a goat's head on the wall. He's arguing that it is Satan-worship because it is worship of the beast, and worship of the beast is via the means of worship of the self. We just happen to live in an atheistic culture where the beast isn't something other than the self. Our pantheon is made up of every American. Our polytheism exists in humanity and not in the unseen realm. Our idolatry is self satisfaction and pleasure, not external things made of metal and wood.
So when I see something like the Electric Daisy Carnival, or something like it, that is made up of all of the elements mentioned: scantily clad women, sexual dancing, sex, drugs. drinking, and the music that provides the atmosphere, and even explicitly in the words, that exalt the self and its pleasures, and then I see Christians who partake in it without any thought of what they are doing, I am reminded again that we have not left the first century and the battles the apostles waged with the average church member who ignorantly thought all of this was OK.
I'm reminded by it when people go to pagan parties in high school, or they go different events that contain these elements. I have to ask, "Why?" For fun? Fun in pagan pleasures is the religion of the devil. We not only worship antichrist, we become antichrist. Is Christ being exalted here? Are you exalting Christ by participating in the very things for which He was crucified? In participating in the world against which He is at odds?
It is the perceived neutrality of atheistic culture that lies to us and convinces us to think that these things can be sanitized if we are Christians. How is pagan worship sanitized? How is the exaltation of sexual provocation outside of marriage, either through a type of dancing or music or actual sex something that can be sanitized? God isn't worshiped through drugs. Don't confuse God being pleased with your being pleased by something.
This, of course, has ramifications for what music we listen to, what movies we watch, what conversations we partake in, and why.
I am continually disheartened by the lack of ethical thinking in the modern Christian generation. They allow the things they ought to condemn and condemn the things they ought to allow. Our remedy for all of this is true worship. Exalting God through the worship via the Word, prayer, and communion of the saints. This is what our festivals should look like, and we hold them every week. Sometimes we have special occasions where we celebrate holidays that ought to look more like the latter worship mentioned than the former. I am not advocating, then, for the abstaining from fun, but from the abstaining from paganism as fun. Let us redeem every holiday because we redeem every day in the worship of God. Let us not only condemn obvious Satan religion in explicit "isms," but also in the warping of our own Christianity. In the days of the Kings, there was Baal worship that was obviously evil, but there was also the worship of God on the high places, a more sanitized version of pagan worship where YHWH was the deity in view. And yet, it was just as Satanic as the other, perhaps moreso, because of its stealthy nature to disguise itself as acceptable to God.
Somehow, believers are always led astray by the idea that if they remove the middle man, and even replace God as the deity in view, it sanitizes their pagan worship.
Some of the saddest words in the Deuteronomistic History are, "but he did not take down the high places." As Christians, let us not only smash the idols of others, but our own.
Saturday, September 21, 2019
John Murray's Argument that the Matthean Exception Is Adultery
Murray's argument contends that Jesus changed the law from requiring death for adultery to requiring divorce. Hence, if one is divorced, he is no longer bound by the one flesh union of his previous marriage. There are a few major problems with this view.
1. Paul states that the woman is bound as long as her husband lives in both texts that he mentions divorce and remarriage. This makes no sense if Jesus changed the penalty from death to divorce. He would have clearly said that a woman is bound until she is legally divorced or her husband divorces her and marries another.
2. If the penalty of adultery is no longer death, then what does this mean for single people who commit adultery with married men and women? No penalty?
3. The idea that Jesus changed the law is contrary to the entire argument in Matthew, where Jesus upholds not only the original moral law, but all of its implications as well. In fact, this is why He is arguing that divorce and remarriage are adultery (i.e., He is expanding the law of adultery, not limiting it like the Pharisees are). To read it as though He is contradicting Moses, rather than tracking with him, is a departure from covenantal hermeneutics. Hence, in 5:
4. The word is porneia, not moicheia. This does not mean that it cannot refer to adultery. It's just extremely odd and unusual to do so in a book (and the immediate context) where they have been distinguished.
5. The narrative is made incoherent by this interpretation. Jesus' statement is that since the two become one flesh, no one is to separate what God has joined together, i.e., no one is to divorce. This is made clear by the reaction of all parties in the conversation. The Pharisees counter Jesus' statement, not by arguing about the reason for divorce, but by arguing that Moses gave them a commandment that permitted it in the first place. If Jesus had just argued that one can get a divorce in the case of adultery, their countering that by saying Moses allowed for divorce in a particular situation makes no sense. Jesus could have just said, "Yes, I agree. Moses allowed you because of adultery." That's not what He says. He then responds by saying, Moses allowed you to get a divorce because of your stubborness, but it is not the will of God for it to be done. He then tells the disciples that te reason it is not the will of God is because one is committing adultery due the one flesh union if he or she divorces and marries another. That means porneia cannot refer to anything that would sever a legitimate marriage, since the narrative responses of the individuals involved clearly show that there is no legitimate dissolution of a legitmate marriage.
6. This means that porneia must refer to something other than a legitimate union, and therefore, refers either to the dissolution of the betrothment due to the bride's whoring or the dissolution of a marriage founded on an illegitimate sexual union (such as Herod's with Herodias). I would argue the latter, since if it is the former, Jesus would have had to change the law from death to divorce, as Murray argues with adultery.
7. If Murray were right, and the penalty for adultery is divorce, which frees the individual to marry again, then why is one who marries a divorced woman committing adultery? And why does John refer to Herodias as the wife of Philip even after she has divorced him and married Herod? She took the self penalty of divorcing him and so her new marriage should be the only one she has.
8. If the penalty for adultery has changed from death to divorce, then any adulterer can just leave his or her spouse as a self-inflicted penalty (one I'm sure they're really broken up about), and go on committing adultery with his or her lover, whether married or not. After all, the penalty has already been paid. No death for adultery anymore, and he or she is already divorced. Murray wants to make it only permissable for the innocent party, but if divorce is death that ends the covenant then neither is still bound. He can't have it both ways.
9. Murray's idea essentially argues that there is no more earthly penalty for adultery except divorce. This is good news for everyone engaged in premarital adultery, as they are not yet bound in their future covenant. It is great news for everyone who has already paid the price in divorce for their adulteries. They can continue to commit adultery until the cows come home now.
10. The New Testament parallel to the death in the law is not a lesser punishment, but a greater one. It means that the adulterer is damned spiritually as well as possibly receiving the civil punishment of death. Murray has made it less than rather than more.
11. If there is any exception to the rule that only death separates the union, then Paul's analogy in Romans 7 is incoherent and false. Only death frees one from the law in the same way that only death frees one from the marriage union. If something else can break that covenant union, then death is not the only thing and the analogy is false.
12. As a final note, Murray's position isn't the Church's position on the subject, including the historic Reformed position. The Reformed position admitted what the earlier church had concluded (no remarriage while the spouse lives even if divorced), but that the spouse should technically be dead if the government was faithful in executing God's civil laws. If the spouse was still alive, it was the magistrate's fault for not doing his job. Hence, one is free to remarry because the spouse should be dead, even though he or she isn't. Yes, it is a dumb argument, but at least it shows that they too saw the clear teaching that while a spouse lives, remarriage is not permitted. That has been the clear understanding of these passages for 2000 years.
1. Paul states that the woman is bound as long as her husband lives in both texts that he mentions divorce and remarriage. This makes no sense if Jesus changed the penalty from death to divorce. He would have clearly said that a woman is bound until she is legally divorced or her husband divorces her and marries another.
2. If the penalty of adultery is no longer death, then what does this mean for single people who commit adultery with married men and women? No penalty?
3. The idea that Jesus changed the law is contrary to the entire argument in Matthew, where Jesus upholds not only the original moral law, but all of its implications as well. In fact, this is why He is arguing that divorce and remarriage are adultery (i.e., He is expanding the law of adultery, not limiting it like the Pharisees are). To read it as though He is contradicting Moses, rather than tracking with him, is a departure from covenantal hermeneutics. Hence, in 5:
4. The word is porneia, not moicheia. This does not mean that it cannot refer to adultery. It's just extremely odd and unusual to do so in a book (and the immediate context) where they have been distinguished.
5. The narrative is made incoherent by this interpretation. Jesus' statement is that since the two become one flesh, no one is to separate what God has joined together, i.e., no one is to divorce. This is made clear by the reaction of all parties in the conversation. The Pharisees counter Jesus' statement, not by arguing about the reason for divorce, but by arguing that Moses gave them a commandment that permitted it in the first place. If Jesus had just argued that one can get a divorce in the case of adultery, their countering that by saying Moses allowed for divorce in a particular situation makes no sense. Jesus could have just said, "Yes, I agree. Moses allowed you because of adultery." That's not what He says. He then responds by saying, Moses allowed you to get a divorce because of your stubborness, but it is not the will of God for it to be done. He then tells the disciples that te reason it is not the will of God is because one is committing adultery due the one flesh union if he or she divorces and marries another. That means porneia cannot refer to anything that would sever a legitimate marriage, since the narrative responses of the individuals involved clearly show that there is no legitimate dissolution of a legitmate marriage.
6. This means that porneia must refer to something other than a legitimate union, and therefore, refers either to the dissolution of the betrothment due to the bride's whoring or the dissolution of a marriage founded on an illegitimate sexual union (such as Herod's with Herodias). I would argue the latter, since if it is the former, Jesus would have had to change the law from death to divorce, as Murray argues with adultery.
7. If Murray were right, and the penalty for adultery is divorce, which frees the individual to marry again, then why is one who marries a divorced woman committing adultery? And why does John refer to Herodias as the wife of Philip even after she has divorced him and married Herod? She took the self penalty of divorcing him and so her new marriage should be the only one she has.
8. If the penalty for adultery has changed from death to divorce, then any adulterer can just leave his or her spouse as a self-inflicted penalty (one I'm sure they're really broken up about), and go on committing adultery with his or her lover, whether married or not. After all, the penalty has already been paid. No death for adultery anymore, and he or she is already divorced. Murray wants to make it only permissable for the innocent party, but if divorce is death that ends the covenant then neither is still bound. He can't have it both ways.
9. Murray's idea essentially argues that there is no more earthly penalty for adultery except divorce. This is good news for everyone engaged in premarital adultery, as they are not yet bound in their future covenant. It is great news for everyone who has already paid the price in divorce for their adulteries. They can continue to commit adultery until the cows come home now.
10. The New Testament parallel to the death in the law is not a lesser punishment, but a greater one. It means that the adulterer is damned spiritually as well as possibly receiving the civil punishment of death. Murray has made it less than rather than more.
11. If there is any exception to the rule that only death separates the union, then Paul's analogy in Romans 7 is incoherent and false. Only death frees one from the law in the same way that only death frees one from the marriage union. If something else can break that covenant union, then death is not the only thing and the analogy is false.
12. As a final note, Murray's position isn't the Church's position on the subject, including the historic Reformed position. The Reformed position admitted what the earlier church had concluded (no remarriage while the spouse lives even if divorced), but that the spouse should technically be dead if the government was faithful in executing God's civil laws. If the spouse was still alive, it was the magistrate's fault for not doing his job. Hence, one is free to remarry because the spouse should be dead, even though he or she isn't. Yes, it is a dumb argument, but at least it shows that they too saw the clear teaching that while a spouse lives, remarriage is not permitted. That has been the clear understanding of these passages for 2000 years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)