I’m afraid any hypothetical “feud” between godspell and myself consists of my fruitless attempts to correct his prejudices and misapprehensions. As of late however Robert seems to have taken over this role. Never has a baton been passed with more relief. My goal is to clarify my own position not to convince anyone of anything.
More evidence Jesus believed marriage continued in Kingdom,
First: lets begin with a premise in one of Barts recent posts
** you do not have permission to see this link **
[I don’t exactly agree with the the emphasis Bart places on different phrases below, but I think it is accurate enough]
Jesus taught an apocalyptic ethics. People should behave now in ways that reveal what life will be like then, in the kingdom.
In the kingdom there will be no war, and so Jesus’ followers should be peace makers now. In the kingdom there will be no oppression, and so Jesus’ followers should fight injustice now. In the kingdom there will be no hatred, and so Jesus’ followers should love everyone – even their enemies – now. In the kingdom there will be no sickness, so Jesus’ followers should heal the sick now. In the kingdom there will be no more demons, so Jesus’ followers should cast out demons now. And on and on.
If this the case then we should be able to insert between
. . . work to alleviate suffering now. . . . And on. . .
the following
. . . work to alleviate suffering now. In the kingdom there will be no marriage, so Jesus’ followers should get divorced or at least live celibate now. And on. . .
but of course Jesus teaches no such thing, just the opposite Mark 10:2 . . , so if we accept Bart’s premise it may give us pause to ask why we cant find any incident of Jesus recommending divorce.
Second: if we accept that the Kingdom is coming soon (within the lifetime of some of his married followers) this absolute prohibition on divorce makes no sense, otherwise he should say something more like “you cannot divorce now, however the moment the Kingdom arrives you must either divorce or live separately”
Third: getting to where Jesus references Green of Eden i.e. Gen 1:27 and 2:26, It seems reasonable for Jesus to have understood the Kingdom as a re-establishment of the Green of Eden, as others since have likewise. He says within same biblical passage
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
This appears to be a description of how Jesus understood God’s design of creation prior to any introduction of sin ( Gen 3 tree of knowledge story, No indication that they only “become one flesh” because they ate some kind of fruit). And Though Jesus does not explicitly mention Gen 1:28, I am sure he was aware that God blessed the man and woman explicitly to multiply and fill the earth.
sure that is valid point Jesus makes no explicit comment on the latter,
but maybe this could be implicit recommendation especially if we posit he sees Kingdom as return to Eden (but I’d have to work on that)
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
and argument is cumulative
FWIW, I’ve never thought of the Kingdom’s arrival as necessitating divorce, but rather the transformational change that takes place in the Kingdom dissolves familial relations. Now, that is just my intuition, but I think it points up that a coherent view the breaking in of the Kingdom doesn’t have to imply divorce per se.
yes I am trying to challenge this concept
Kingdom’s arrival . . . transformational change that takes place in the Kingdom dissolves familial relations.
thanks to Robert for bringing up this earlier, I think it speaks against that idea
Robert said
Mark 10,28-31
Peter began to say to him, “Look, we have left everything and followed you.” Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields, for my sake and for the sake of the good news, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this age—houses, brothers and sisters, mothers and children, and fields with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and the last will be first.”
of course this introduces some complications I cant explain
a)’this age’ where we have given up familial relations
b) later time but i guess still ‘this age’ when we receive back 100fold the same familial relations
c) ‘age to come’ when we gain eternal life
This is all begging the question of why Jesus said no one should get divorced. And we can be pretty sure he did say that, since it was after all a well-established Jewish tradition, and there’s no reason for anyone to put those words in his mouth.
Jesus doesn’t know when the Kingdom is coming. He is well aware that while both husband and wife may claim the right to end a marriage under Jewish law, this seeming equity always favors the more financially secure partner, usually the husband. And there’s the children to consider.
But more to the point, he doesn’t really know exactly when the Kingdom is coming. Soon, yes–but how soon? And in any event, divorce is often followed by remarriage–again, usually the husband, marrying a younger woman. While the wife is left to her own devices.
So he is preaching the imminent end of marriage, but marriage is an established and necessary state in the world that exists now, and might go on existing for years, even decades. In this instance he does not wish people to live as if the Kingdom is already here. He’s making an exception to that rule. In this world, if you’re married, you stay married, and do right by your partner. What God has put together let no man put asunder–when the Kingdom comes, then the marriage will not be terminated so much as annulled. It will be as if the marriage never existed. So there will be no marriage or divorce.
This begs another question–do married couples continue having marital relations? He says nothing to the contrary.
So this is all just imagining how he was thinking it out, but if this is correct, it reveals a certain earthy pragmatism to Jesus. He knows that in this world, people need helpmates, they need parents–and they may also need sex. And to him, sex in itself isn’t sinful. It’s all the baggage comes with it.
godspell said
This is all begging the question . . He is well aware that while both husband and wife may claim the ri . . . seeming equity always favors the more financially secure partner,So he is preaching the imminent end of marriage, . . . He’s making an exception to that rule. . .. it reveals a certain earthy pragmatism to Jesus. He knows that in this world, people need helpmates,
it seems to me
you’re trying hard to rationalize something that isn’t meant to be rational.
[you remember that?]
No, I am not against your rationalizing an opposing view,
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)