Definition: Adultery vs. Fornication

[NetWatchR]

I agree it is all not really that big a deal in this discussion, but my concern is I think there is a bigger story that goes off topic, where are the children from these marriages, he had to have had more than three?

It is a mystery, and I'm afraid it will simply have to stay that way... until it's not. Every mystery is going to be unraveled in due time. For this one, I have no feelings either way. Never even thought about it. Maybe he had so many kids from so many foreign women that we are all really sons of Solomon and therefore Sons of David. Just threw that out there for fun.

 

[FollowingHim]

I think Solomon probably just had far too many children for the Bible to bother listing them. We're not told the names of his wives either, just that he had 1000 of them, and even that is such a conveniently precise number it's probably rounded up or down, probably had about 1000. Maybe he lost count.

Simple math: 2 per day = 730; 270 left to go (or 3/day for 270 days and 2/day for 95 days). "Thank you so much for stopping by. Same time next year?" Even I would get tired of that after the first year or ten.

You're missing a few factors that make the maths work a bit better. Again, this is R rated...
- He probably slept with a fair load more than 2 per night (2-3 might be the limit for sex of course, but more could have companionship & other contact). Song of Solomon keeps talking about the wife's "companions" and I assume that means they were organised into groups of friends who visited him together.
- If he were being pragmatic about it, he would have probably focussed on impregnating the ones that were not currently pregnant or breastfeeding a very young baby. So that gives you a window of only say 6 months every two years where that wife would have to be on the sex roster (other times she might be in companionship mode).
- If he was being really pragmatic he wouldn't need to have sex with them after they hit menopause, so that too could halve the number.
- He no doubt collected them over a period of time, so would have had far less than 1000 for most of his life.

So assuming half were pre-menopausal, and 3/4 of the time they were pregnant or breastfeeding, that leaves only 125 on the sex roster at any one time, with a 6 month window to impregnate them in until the next tranche were due. At 3 per night he'd get through them in 4 months, leaving 2 months worth to follow up on the ones who failed to conceive the first time. And that's with 1000, most of his life he had far less than that so the numbers would be more reasonable.

Ok, I'm a farmer at heart, I approach this whole thing like a breeding exercise, I'm thinking about how to get a dairy herd pregnant in a short window hence the cold, calculating nature of the strategy! But Solomon lived in an age where kings did have large harems, run by eunuchs (think of Esther's situation), and they probably did have management of them down to a fine art. So it mightn't have been that much different from this.

 

[NetWatchR]

You're missing a few factors that make the maths work a bit better. Again, this is R rated...
- He probably slept with a fair load more than 2 per night (2-3 might be the limit for sex of course, but more could have companionship & other contact). Song of Solomon keeps talking about the wife's "companions" and I assume that means they were organised into groups of friends who visited him together.

Actual, I was thinking this exact same thing, but wasn't going to be the first one to say it. Thanks for taking point.

The rest of what you said also makes sense. And there was the requirement back in Deut(?) that women had to remain separate (I forgot the actual terminology) for a week after their cycle. So really, each was only available for two weeks out of every 4. Hmmm....

But I would have to add some back in: I think that assuming 1/2 were menopausal is kind of high. Why? Why not. You assumed half were, I assume less... because I can. Also, just because they were menopausal, does not mean that they were no longer players. Same goes for those who were pregnant and/or breast feeding. Although there were restrictions on sexual activity for a duration after birth, not during pregnancy (that I recall). For some women, at least for a short period of time during their pregnancy, saying no to sex isn't an option the man gets. :shock:

EDIT
I just realized that your specific premise was for the purpose of impregnating the women. So, then, your assumptions are completely valid and I'm being silly. Besides, these are all assumptions about something that really is of no consequence. I doubt any of us will have to face the same "problem".

-- END OF LINE --

 

[andrew]

That site goes on to say some other quite interesting things about Solomon if you click around....

Back to the original tie-in between Solomon and the thread topic: It appears that Solomon was a bad man on several (many?) levels, but I don't think we can make an adultery charge stick without evidence that he took advantage of his position to appropriate someone else's wife (as, for instance, his dad did). And to the best of my knowledge we don't have that evidence. And I don't think it helps us understand the situation to expand the definition of adultery to include nebulous activities outside the scope of the original elements of the crime.

The real takeaway from Solomon that has biblical support is 'don't marry outside the faith, don't commit yourself to a woman that will turn you away from your God, because she will'. As a bonus, you could add 'she may even lead you so far off that path that you end up doing horrible things just to keep her happy'.

None of us is with 900+ women of having the kinds of issues Solomon did. It might be interesting in a different thread to explore ways we could apply the lessons learned about 'foreign women' to our own efforts to expand our families, or even our relationships with one wife. (Teaser: Does the modern abortion epidemic have anything to do with sacrificing children to the goal of material success? In what ways does legally-enforced monogamy force men to accumulate material rather than relational wealth? Etc.)

Back to adultery for a bit:

I find that it is very liberating to understand this from a poly perspective (or at least, from an andrew perspective), so here goes:

Think of the way an electrical ground works. If a building or power pole or whatever could be struck by lightning, we typically provide a ground to shunt that electrical current directly to ground so that the building or whatever doesn't get hurt. Running out of time, here, but there are ways to think about female beauty that make adulterous temptations of the type described by Jesus a non-issue—they simply 'go to ground'. More later. (Sorry, gotta run.)

 

[tship67]

It was not too long ago for many of us that we THOUGHT we "understood" the definition of adultery in the Bible to be "a spouse having sexual relations" with someone other than the spouse. We were raised with this teaching and heard it confirmed by countless Sunday sermons, thousand upon thousands of Christian books, and innumerable Christian radio broadcasts. As for me, I have one rule: SOLA SCRIPTURA. And Sola Scriptura leads me to believe that polygyny is not adultery.

We all got here by re-examining what we were taught in the light of the Word of God afresh. I don't accept the idea that the acceptance of polygyny is any kind of "alteration" or "restriction" of the definition of adultery simply because the Bible does not give us a Webster DEictionary-style list of definitions. We derive our understanding of polygyny from the raw data of Scripture. Nor do I accept that the definition of adultery having the one-flesh bond at its core is any kind of "expansion" or "revision" of the definition of adultery. ALL definitions of adultery that we all espouse are CONCLUSIONS drawn by inference from the raw data of Scripture, so I ask you who are skeptical of defining adultery as "the violation of the one flesh bond between a man and his wife" to think this through afresh.

Someone wrote"

"Wow, I've never disagreed with Tom before, so this is new territory, but I'm just not following the argument that Ex 21 abandonment is adultery. It certainly doesn't say that in the text, and it seems forced to me to impose that revised definition of adultery on the text. So my responses to the above would be: No, Solomon was not guilty of adultery. It's not odd that God specifically condemned David because he slept with another man's wife (textbook definition of adultery) and then had the husband murdered after the woman conceived a child (also a no-no, also specifically condemned for David). Solomon is specifically condemned for following after his foreign wives' gods, which makes sense, since God specifically said not to marry foreign women and warned what it would lead to. And Solomon is not specifically condemned for anything else with respect to his wives so I don't see the utility in speculating about what other things he may or may not have done wrong. I certainly don't see the utility of expanding the definition of adultery (a capital crime in God's economy) to include 'not providing for your wife' (the penalty for which is supposed to be that she can leave you)."


The definition of adultery I have put forth is grounded in the one-flesh definition of marriage. (See my book, "They Shall Be One Flesh.") RE: Exodus 21: The CONSEQUENCE to the man for violating the one flesh bond with his concubine is that she can leave the marriage. That's pretty weighty. What offense justifies dissolving the marriage in biblical law? Well, ADULTERY, of course. This is not about "utility" but understanding the NATURE of the circumstances addressed.

Revisit our favorite topic in Matthew 19: "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery." Wherein lies the adultery? Having sexual relations with a new wife? Nobody on this forum believes that. The divorce, the putting away, is crucial to the charge of adultery. In Matthew 19, Jesus is explicit that something else besides sexual relations constitutes adultery. In Matthew 19, It is the CESSATION of the one-flesh relationship with the first wife that constitutes the adultery. This is the SAME FACTUAL SITUATION described in Exodus 21, except in Matthew 19 Jesus explicitly DENOMINATES THE ACTION AS ADULTERY.

If the divorce or putting away is not crucial to the charge of adultery, then we must all re-examine what we believe relative to polygyny.

 

[andrew]

Sorry, Tom, but this just isn't doing it for me (I'm the 'someone' you were quoting, so I figure you're talking to me), and frankly, there's a looseness in your language that I don't associate with your usual level of scholarship.

RE: Exodus 21: The CONSEQUENCE to the man for violating the one flesh bond with his concubine is that she can leave the marriage. That's pretty weighty. What offense justifies dissolving the marriage in biblical law? Well, ADULTERY, of course.

That's just begging the question, isn't it? If I said "The CONSEQUENCE of trying to legally marry two wives is two years in the state jail, what offense justifies two years in state jail? Well, BURGLARY of course", I'd have about the same argument, and I would not have proved that bigamy is burglary. You can only get there by assuming that any set of facts that justifies dissolving the marriage is called adultery, which is the question we were trying to answer.

And is there really no difference between the rights and responsibilities of the husband and those of the wife? The only passages we have in scripture justifying the husband's putting away his wife are grounded in infidelity. The only passage we have in scripture justifying a concubine's leaving her master (which we extrapolate to cover wives) is grounded in a lack of maintenance, a kind of abandonment. Just because those two very different fact situations give the man and the woman a reciprocal remedy does not mean that they are the same offense.

Revisit our favorite topic in Matthew 19: "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery." Wherein lies the adultery? Having sexual relations with a new wife? Nobody on this forum believes that. The divorce, the putting away, is crucial to the charge of adultery. In Matthew 19, Jesus is explicit that something else besides sexual relations constitutes adultery. In Matthew 19, It is the CESSATION of the one-flesh relationship with the first wife that constitutes the adultery. This is the SAME FACTUAL SITUATION described in Exodus 21, except in Matthew 19 Jesus explicitly DENOMINATES THE ACTION AS ADULTERY.

If the divorce or putting away is not crucial to the charge of adultery, then we must all re-examine what we believe relative to polygyny.

Again, I'm concerned about this argument, because I know that you know that there are two elements of the offense in Matthew 19, and it is NOT THE SAME FACTUAL SITUATION as Exodus 21. While the divorce is indeed "crucial to the charge of adultery", so is the remarriage. Jesus doesn't say that the man commits adultery in the divorce, but in the divorce and remarriage.

So I'm not buying the abandonment = adultery argument, and I do not find that I am required to re-examine what I believe relative to polygyny. And I have an explanation of Mt 19 that I think will be of some help to the people here seeking to understand this that fits the facts, the language, and the vocabulary.

Our English word "adultery" is based on a Latin prefix and root that literally mean "to[ward] the other" (ad alter). It denotes a turning of the heart toward another. For the woman, that becomes manifest when she gives her body to another man, though there are obviously a lot of precursors in the run up to that event that would fit Jesus's teaching re committing adultery in one's heart.

For a man to want to add a second or third wife to his family is not adultery; I think we can stipulate that in this forum without developing it. And divorce is not adultery for the man by itself (notwithstanding your assertion above), when the man is divorcing a wife for her infidelity or even if he's divorcing her for a non-bible-sanctioned reason that is nevertheless grounded in some fault of hers or fault in the relationship. If it's just a divorce without a remarriage, it's just a divorce.

What makes it adultery for the husband according to Jesus is the divorce plus the remarriage—it takes both elements to constitute the crime. It is when I have allowed a woman to turn my head and heart in a way that causes me to forsake my responsibilities to my first wife (thus 'dealing treacherously' with her) that I commit adultery in the divorce + remarriage. Without the other woman turning me away from my existing wife and family, there is no adultery in the divorce.

 

[tship67]

Hello, Andrew:

Thank you for taking the time to consider what I have submitted in my post. I understand this is new territory for some of you, and established patterns of thinking have a powerful inertia all their own. Grasping this is going to require a nuts and bolts examination of Scripture to overcome time-honored misconceptions, in much the same way that we all had to undergo a kind of paradigm shift coming out of a monogamy-only mindset to an acceptance of polygyny-as-lawful. I understand this is not easy. But I submit to you also that once you see it, you will see that it is all so very obvious and plain, and you will wonder how you ever saw it any other way.

In reviewing Exodus 21, it seems rather clear to me that we DO have the exact same factual situation as Jesus describes in Matthew 19 . I am asserting the conclusion before the premises here, but since Jesus denominates the circumstance as adultery in Matthew 19, we must conclude that the situation described in Exodus 21 constitutes adultery. It is not logically required that Moses in Exodus 21 stop and say to us, “Oh, and by the way, the word that applies here is “adultery.”

In both Exodus 21 and in Matthew 19 we have the addition of a new wife and the putting away of the first wife as elements stipulated. These are the significant elements. How is this NOT the same factual circumstance? Let’s inspect each element in both passages in particular
Exodus 21: 10 IF HE TAKES ANOTHER WIFE, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and HER MARRIAGE RIGHTS.11 AND IF HE DOES NOT do these three for her, then she shall go out free, without paying money.

Matthew 19:9: …whoever DIVORCES HIS WIFE, except for sexual immorality, and MARRIES ANOTHER, commits adultery;
Exodus 21 stipulates taking another wife and Matthew19 stipulates marries another. Exodus 21 stipulates diminishing her marital rights (i.e. cohabitation) and Matthew 19 stipulates divorces his wife (which would, of course involve withholding all three rights named in Exodus 21). How is this NOT the same factual circumstance? In both passages we have the putting away of the first wife and the marriage to a second. I reassert the proposition of my initial post. We have the exact same scenario in Matthew 19 that we have in Exodus 21. This all seems rather clear and on its face to me in both passages. I think we can establish, even upon your premises, that it is adultery which is addressed in Exodus 21. I mean, we do have both elements in Exodus 21.

Since Jesus is expositing the Law to his listeners, and since there is no other passage in the Law that addresses this precise situation (unless I have overlooked something), I assert that Jesus is expositing precisely this passage in Exodus 21 to his listeners. And again, I point out that Jesus denominates this scenario specifically as adultery. Ergo, Exodus 21 address adultery, the violation of the marital bond—which bond is not violated by the addition of the second wife, but by the putting away.

Now, let me refine this a little further. I suspect that once you see this aspect of both passages clearly, the logic of your position will lead you to say, “Well, okay, it IS adultery in both passages, but we still have AND NEED both elements, BOTH the putting away and the remarriage to occur for there to be adultery.

As you can probably see, I have grappled with all of these questions for a very long time. John Murray argued in his little volume titled simply, “Divorce,” that we need both elements in coordination, for the charge of adultery to occur. I accepted that for a good long while because I have such a profound respect for John Murray both as an expositor and a linguistic scholar. But wouldn’t you know it, I couldn’t help questioning that proposition also.

But I wonder whether your disagreement here arises from different premises? As you know, I have written a whole book (well, almost a whole book) proposing the one-flesh nature and basis of marriage, “They Shall Be One Flesh.” The one-flesh nature and basis of marriage is the essential premise of my reasoning, not whether Exodus 21 and Matthew 19 both are dealing with adultery. (An important question to be sure, but it does not overturn my premises either way.)

But to continue: we are agreed here that polygyny, the taking of an additional wife, does not constitute adultery. This is not the offending element of the situation—neither in Exodus 21, nor in Matthew 19. The offending element of the situation is the divinding asunder of the one flesh bond with the first wife. Unless polygyny constitutes adultery, there is nothing else it can be. The bond-wife situation of Exodus 21 and the divorce of a (I assume) free wife situation in Matthew are specified circumstances because they are common scenarios of everyday life where men are tempted to divorce/put away their wives.

If you have not read my book, They Shall Be One Flesh, I urge you to consider my entire thesis there, and you may want to pay special attention to my analysis of William Luck Jr.'s commentary.

Well, running out of time here. The work-a-day world beckons. Always more to say, but this will have to suffice for now.

God bless you.
Tom

 

[andrew]

Correct on both counts—that is my understanding of a plain reading of Jesus's statement in Matthew 19:9. I can marry another woman as long as I am faithful (in the sense of continuing to be her provider/protector) to my first wife. And I can divorce my wife if she and I have run our relationship into the ground and not be guilty of adultery (and on my personal view I would not be guilty of adultery even if I remarry down the road). But if the reason I am putting away my first wife is so I can be with another woman without the 'hassle' of being faithful to my original obligations, then Jesus is saying we should think of that as a form of adultery.

 

[andrew]

Tom, I sincerely appreciate your patience, but I think we're coming to the point at which we'll have to agree to disagree.

I do not agree that this is analogous to grasping the idea of lawful polygyny, and I'm not sure how I feel about the implication that the reason we're seeing this differently is just because I haven't done the work necessary to see it clearly.

I accept Exodus 21 as some general support for the idea that the basic bargain between a man and woman in the institution of biblical marriage is that the man is obligated to protect and provide for the woman and her minor children for life and the woman is obligated to remain sexually faithful to the man (for reasons that have more to do with bloodlines ("Godly seed")and having to provide for other men's offspring more than with Victorian ideas of chastity). I reject the idea that Exodus 21 teaches anything specifically useful about divorce, let alone adultery.

I submit the following video as the best exposition I've heard to date of this otherwise weird little passage. It does full justice to the fact that the passage in question is addressing female servants and only indirectly the issue of marriage. And it sheds much-needed light on the passage by complete changing our understanding of what the "three things" are that a man must do or else his female servant will "go free without money".

I can't say I'm equally thrilled with everything that's said in the video, but if you stick to the basic math and basic exposition of the passage, I think it's pretty sound.

Female Servitude... Wait, What?

Finally, we're just not closing the gap on your exposition of Mt 19. You continue to assert that "since being interested in another woman all by itself is not adultery, it must be the breaking of the old bond that constitutes the adultery". I continue to assert, and will continue indefinitely to assert, that it takes both, per Jesus's express formula. Divorce in and of itself does not constitute adultery either.

In math terms this would look like:

Jesus:
new love interest + forsaking of old love interest = adultery

Tom:
new love interest ≠ adultery by itself => forsaking of old love interest = adultery by itself

Andrew:
new love interest ≠ adultery by itself
forsaking of old love interest ≠ adultery by itself
new love interest + forsaking of old love interest = adultery

Again, though, I'm ready to cut the cord between Exodus 21 and marriage altogether. It's about the rights of servant women, and I'm sorry I allowed myself to get drawn into comparing it to Matthew 19. It provides some illumination into the obligations of a husband in a polygamous marriage, but that's as far as I'm willing to take it. Strictly speaking it doesn't even apply to divorce, let alone adultery. It has to do with redemption rights ("free without money") and the various ways a servant girl would leave her term of servanthood.

 

[andrew]

As long as we're just comparing personal views, I've got one more thing to share in the way of clarification. And of course I'm open to anything else you've got.

I think if you're divorcing your wife not because of your turning away from her to another woman, and not because of any infidelity on her part, but just because y'all are both sick and tired of each other, then technically the problem is that you're putting her in the position of committing adultery with some future mate (cf. Mt 5:32). She hasn't cheated on you yet, so your kicking her out instead of solving the problem means that the first time she sleeps with another guy will be the first time she has truly broken your spiritual bond. And it's your fault. Something like that. I do not think that a non-adulterous, non-turning-away divorce where the man puts his wife away because of problems in the marriage means that sometime down the road when he tries again then he is committing adultery. He would not have been committing adultery if he had stayed married, he is not committing adultery now.

FWIW, that is consistent with Paul's word to women in his letter to the Corinthians (if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband) and Moses's word to men in Deuteronomy (that a woman that has remarried cannot return to her first husband if something happens to the remarriage relationship). We of all people ought to understand that there is something about a woman's being with another man that is not equivalent to a man's being with another woman, so we ought to be very careful about these word choices and how they apply differently to the different genders.

Meanwhile, I think we're officially off somewhere picking nits, or at least I feel like I am. Divorce is bad/wrong/undesirable/tragic in any event, and we can all agree on that. While we're trying to pin down exactly how bad it is and exactly where to draw certain lines, men and women are filing for divorce in droves in every state in the Union. Whatever the exact criminal charge is, and whoever is the perp or the victim, God hates divorce, and as the heads of our households it is up to us men to make sure that doesn't happen, first in our own homes, and then wherever we can be of service helping others with their relationships. We can let God judge those who fail.

There is Grace through the work of Salvation if one finds themselves to have broken the marriage laws, as any biblical law, and asks for forgiveness.

AMEN!

 

[andrew]

Again, AMEN!!

 

[tship67]

OK, Andrew, we can in brotherly bonds agree to disagree. You probably know from past discussions that I am a strong proponent of understanding the Bible AS A UNIT. The biblical teachings on marriage, divorce, remarriage, adultery, fornication, hierarchy, polygyny, etc. are a coherent unit. I thought I'd throw out another article I put together last year to you for more to chew on.

FOUR MAJOR COMMON FALSEHOODS REGARDING MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE
By Tom Shipley
Copyright 2013 by Tom Shipley

I have lately been musing over the condition of the Church today as it relates to patriarchy and issues of marriage, and attempting to crystallize in succinct, summary form what, in my view, are the chief falsehoods and misconceptions ensnaring Christians in false doctrine. This list could be very, very long, indeed, but here are what I believe are four of the most critical falsehoods in the Church. These relate mainly to the subject of DIVORCE and what is the proper understanding of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and Matthew 19:8-9. Let us first examine the passages in question:

Deuteronomy 24: 1-4
24 “When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness (the literal Hebrew is “nakedness of a thing”) in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, 2 when she has departed from his house, and goes and becomes another man’s wife, 3 if the latter husband detests her and writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her as his wife, 4 then her former husband who divorced her must not take her back to be his wife after she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.

Matthew 19: 1-12
Now it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these sayings, that He departed from Galilee and came to the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. 2 And great multitudes followed Him, and He healed them there.3 The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?”4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”7 They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?”8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, PERMITTED you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”10 His disciples said to Him, “If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”11 But He said to them, “All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given: 12 For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.”

Here are four of the most common falsehoods regarding these passages:

FALSEHOOD #1: “Deuteronomy 24 permits LENIENT, MORALLY ILLEGITIMATE divorce.”

FALSEHOOD #2: “Deuteronomy 24 does not permit divorce AT ALL.”

FALSEHOOD #3: “The “NAKEDNESS of a thing” or “matter of NAKEDNESS” (translated “uncleanness” in both the KJV and NKJV I have used above) cannot be inclusive of adultery, but must refer to something other than adultery, because adultery incurs the death penalty, not divorce.”

FALSEHOOD #4: “The ‘hardness of heart’ Jesus spoke of in Matthew 19:8 refers to the hard heartedness of men seeking to divorce their wives for illegitimate reasons.”

There are hardly two other passages in the Bible that have been the object of so much disagreement and-let’s face it-shoddy exposition. It is time for a little sanity here.

I. Let us begin with the easiest point to refute (#2) and the one which is clear and unambiguous in Matthew 19, namely,--Deuteronomy 24 does PERMIT divorce. How do we know this is the proper interpretation of Deuteronomy 24? Because Jesus said so explicitly! No honest exposition of Jesus’ words in Matthew 19 can lead to any other conclusion. Those who deny that Deuteronomy 24 permits divorce rely very heavily upon linguistic analysis—which is why I, for the sake of argument, have adopted the NKJV translation above which is favorable to their position. Read the passage above again and note that verses 1-3 are stated as factual circumstances with the commandment coming in verse 4 prohibiting remarriage to the wife if there has been an intervening marriage on her part with another man.

EVEN IF we accept the rendering of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 as translated above in the NKJV, we NEVERTHELESS have it on the highest authority possible, on the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God, that Deuteronomy 24 PERMITS divorce. It cannot be overemphasized that this is plainly stated. In other words, the scenario in Deuteronomy 24:1-3 is not to be construed as MERE DESCRIPTION. Mere description is a very different thing than permission. PERMISSION goes way beyond mere DESCRIPTION. The situation described in verses 1-3 is enumerated because it is understood to be NORMATIVE. If Moses is MERELY describing a divorce scenario (presumably morally unlawful divorce if we are to believe some commentators) then Moses cannot possibly be PERMITTING anything in verse 1. But Jesus says precisely that Moses IS PERMITTING divorce there. There is no rational denial of this point. I think we can take this point as established beyond any doubt or question whatsoever.

It remains to be shown whether that permission is universal in all cases (the Pharisees position, it would seem) or whether this permission is conditional, OR WHETHER IT INVOLVES A “CONCESSION TO SIN,” as so many expositors claim. But let us here bow first to the declaration of Scripture that divorce is permitted, and establish the rest below.

II. Let us proceed now to the next easiest falsehood to refute, #3 above, namely that the “uncleanness” mentioned in Deuteronomy 24:1 as the occasion and the offense to the husband motivating his divorce action, “cannot include adultery because the Law of Moses specifies the death penalty for adultery.”

It is sufficient to refute this claim by examining Jeremiah 3:8, Isaiah 50:1 and Matthew 1:18-19.

Then I saw that for all the causes for which backsliding Israel had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a certificate of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but went and played the harlot also. –Jeremiah 3:8, NKJV

Thus says the LORD:
“Where is the certificate of your mother’s divorce,
Whom I have put away?
Or which of My creditors is it to whom I have sold you?
For your iniquities you have sold yourselves,
And for your transgressions your mother has been put away.—Isaiah 50:1, NKJV

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. 19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly.—Matthew 1:18-19

In Jeremiah 3:8 and Isaiah 50:1, we have Yahweh, metaphorically as husband, divorcing his wife Israel for adultery, and in Matthew 1:18-19 we have Joseph intending to put away (divorce) Mary for presumably playing the whore during her betrothal period, which situation is addressed under the Law of Moses calling for the death penalty. The Holy Spirit tells us in this passage that Joseph was a “just man” in this intent, something which could not be said of him if he was intending to circumvent an absolute requirement of the Law requiring him to hand Mary over to the death penalty. Compassionate and loving, maybe, but not “just,” if the death penalty were an absolute requirement of the law.

These passages, especially considered in the aggregate, prove that the death penalty was not the ONLY specified penalty for adultery under the Law of Moses but rather the MAXIMUM penalty. It will not suffice to resort to the subversive argument that the Jeremiah and Isaiah passages are “only” allegorical. The allegories of adultery and divorce are meant to allegorize the respective character of sin and holiness which they exemplify and apply to the situation of Israel’s idolatry and God’s punishment of exiling Israel to Assyria which is metaphorically characterized as a divorce. (We may want to consult the book of Hosea on this point also, and Yahweh’s passing over of the death penalty for David’s adultery with Bathsheba and murder of Uriah.)

It is also relevant that the list of prohibited sexual relations in Leviticus 18, commonly called the incest chapter, uses the phrase, “Thou shalt not uncover the NAKEDNESS of…” and then lists numerous prohibited sexual relations as abominations. It is the same Hebrew word for nakedness that appears in Deuteronomy 24:1. There is clearly an affinity of verbal expression here in characterizing the prohibitions in the two passages as dealing with “nakedness.” The use of the word “nakedness” in Leviticus 18 to denominate sexual misconduct certainly creates a strong presumption that it is referring to sexual misconduct in Deuteronomy 24.

So, to enumerate, what have we seen so far? We have established conclusively that 1) divorce is allowed or permitted under the Law of God (to some extent not established yet in this exposition) and 2) that the “nakedness of a thing” in Deuteronomy 24:1 is inclusive of AT LEAST adultery, and maybe covers broader ground than adultery.

III. Let us now turn to the next falsehood, #1 above, the claim that the Law of God in Deuteronomy 24 permits lenient and, indeed, morally unjustifiable divorce as a matter of civil polity, and that this provision in Deuteronomy 24:1 is a “concession to sin.” This is how the contenders for this position interpret Jesus’ words in Matthew 19:8, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives.”
This is where context is important. Remember: the precise question the Pharisees are putting to Jesus is, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for ANY reason?” The Pharisees assume (correctly) that some divorce is permitted under the Law of Moses (which is to say, the Law of God). They want to know Jesus’ view of the EXTENT of this permission. Let us read Jesus’ words again:

And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”7 They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?”8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”—Matthew 19-4-9

So, Jesus’ answer to the Pharisees specific question is clearly, NO. It is NOT lawful for a man to put away his wife for any reason whatsoever. The lawfulness of divorce under the Law of God (and the Law of God includes BOTH Genesis 1 and Deuteronomy 24) is conditional. The antecedent condition must be fornication. The Greek word in the biblical text is porneia, (GK.: π ο ρ ν ε ι α) properly translated as fornication or sexual immorality. Note well, that this concept ALSO is inclusive of adultery, but is not limited to adultery, though adultery would certainly be in real-world circumstances the most common occurrence of fornication. So Jesus is here interpreting the meaning of “nakedness of a thing” in Deuteronomy 24:1 as fornication.

So to enumerate and summarize what we have learned thus far: We have established conclusively that 1) divorce is allowed or permitted under the Law of God and 2) that the “nakedness of a thing” in Deuteronomy 24:1 is inclusive of adultery and 3) that the valid lawful ground for a man to divorce his wife is restricted to fornication on the part of the wife, which usually occurs in the form of adultery; 4) The meaning of the Hebrew phrase “nakedness of a thing” in Deuteronomy 24:1 is, therefore, co-extensive with the Greek porneia, and the English word, fornication.

IV. Finally we come to our fourth falsehood, namely: “The ‘hardness of heart’ Jesus spoke of in Matthew 19:8 refers to the hard heartedness of men seeking to divorce their wives for illegitimate reasons, and God made a concession to sin by allowing this sin in the precepts of His law.”

The ground that we have covered thus far is sufficient to undo this erroneous and fallacious interpretation of Jesus’ words. Jesus MUST be saying, in effect, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts (MANIFESTED IN FORNICATION) permitted you to put away your wives.” Hardhearted men commit adultery with other men’s wives, and hardhearted women commit fornication, usually adultery, against their husbands. Jesus is interpreting the Law of God here, and the precise passage the Pharisees question Jesus about is Deuteronomy 24. When Jesus says, except for fornication, he is establishing the definition of “nakedness of a thing” in Deuteronomy 24:1, and declaring that divorce is allowed as a punitive measure against this hardness of heart manifested through fornication.

 

[tship67]

Andrew wrote:
"I do not agree that this is analogous to grasping the idea of lawful polygyny, and I'm not sure how I feel about the implication that the reason we're seeing this differently is just because I haven't done the work necessary to see it clearly."

I am essentially describing my OWN spiritual journey and progression of thought with my suggestion and, yes, suggesting the possibility to you that you may not have explored this avenue of thought completely. I certainly had not (though I thought i had) and, as I pointed out, was content to stand on the authority of John Murray for many years. You ARE where I WAS on this particular issue. I began to focus on this issue particularly and found in the long run that I did not find Murray's or my own logic convincing, and certainly not CONCLUSIVE.

Andrew wrote:
" I reject the idea that Exodus 21 teaches anything specifically useful about divorce, let alone adultery."

But we certainly have MARRIAGE in Exodus 21, do we not? And we certainly have the DISSOLUTION of the marriage addressed, no? It addresses both the forsaking of the wife on the one hand (de facto divorce), and her right to go out (divorce) on the other hand in such a situation. I'm not sure what you mean by the qualifier "useful" in your statement. It certainly seems useful to me in understanding a lot about marriage, divorce and polygyny.

I watched the rabbi's video you referenced and did not find anything there new or particularly relevant to our precise point of discussion.

Andrew wrote:
"Finally, we're just not closing the gap on your exposition of Mt 19. You continue to assert that "since being interested in another woman all by itself is not adultery, it must be the breaking of the old bond that constitutes the adultery". I continue to assert, and will continue indefinitely to assert, that it takes both, per Jesus's express formula. Divorce in and of itself does not constitute adultery either. "

Actually, you are apparently quoting someone else here, or maybe paraphrasing me, which is fine. I will assent to the referenced proposition. I assert that you are entangled in an a priori assumption as your premise at this point. As I suggested before, the scenarios of forsaking a servant wife, and divorcing a first wife for a new wife are addressed because they were common occurrences. In Matthew 19, Jesus is saying that this occurence is adultery. Note what basis Jesus appeals to: Jesus references the one flesh pronouncement in Genesis and that what God has joined together, no man should divide apart. The one flesh element is the key element, not taking a second wife, which is a perfectly lawful element of the scenario. Ergo, the adultery has its source in the divorce by itself.



Andrew wrote:
"Again, though, I'm ready to cut the cord between Exodus 21 and marriage altogether. It's about the rights of servant women, and I'm sorry I allowed myself to get drawn into comparing it to Matthew 19. It provides some illumination into the obligations of a husband in a polygamous marriage, but that's as far as I'm willing to take it. Strictly speaking it doesn't even apply to divorce, let alone adultery. It has to do with redemption rights ("free without money") and the various ways a servant girl would leave her term of servanthood.[/quote]

There is no way to rationally cut the cord between marriage and Exodus 21 since marriage is the context. Yes, we are dealing with a law on servants here--married female servants. And redemption rights--of married female servants. The whole reason the servant wife does not go out free like the men servants is precisely because she is married to her master. I'm the one who brought up Matthew 19 because the two passages ARE relevant to one another.

The scenario in Matthew 19 has BOTH elements addressed in Exodus 21, the putting away of the first wife and marriage to a second, and Jesus denominates the scenario as adultery. This does not resolve whether BOTH elements together are essential to constitute adultery, but it does conclusively prove that adultery is in view both in Exodus 21 and Matthew 19. That, I believe, is a logically inescapable conclusion. So, my old adherence to the John Murray position is gone. Hope this lends some additional clarity to my viewpoint.

 

[andrew]

Tom, your first post I love. It's the kind of stuff that attracted me to your writing in the first place. Instead of finding the 'hardness of heart' in the divorce, you're locating it in the fornication that was the proximate cause of the divorce. The old interpretation had God compromising with or 'winking at' sin (I don't see any way around that); yours has God providing a merciful remedy for hard-hearted sin ('merciful' compared to execution of the adulteress or the pain of a guy that has to choose between living with his unfaithful wife or seeing her executed). Brilliant.

This other thing is completely the opposite. I am genuinely baffled by your flippant dismissal of two serious logical points. I get that you believe that you are correct in your beliefs, but I feel that you're not even trying, here. I'm going to try one last time to get my points across in the clearest terms I can come up with, then I'm anticipating you'll have something to say about that, and then I think we can move on. That's my plan, anyway.

But we certainly have MARRIAGE in Exodus 21, do we not? And we certainly have the DISSOLUTION of the marriage addressed, no? It addresses both the forsaking of the wife on the one hand (de facto divorce), and her right to go out (divorce) on the other hand in such a situation. I'm not sure what you mean by the qualifier "useful" in your statement. It certainly seems useful to me in understanding a lot about marriage, divorce and polygyny.

I watched the rabbi's video you referenced and did not find anything there new or particularly relevant to our precise point of discussion.

Coming from a guy that has suggested that I'm the one that's "entangled in an a priori assumption", I find this odd.

No, Tom, I do not agree that in Exodus 21 we have a marriage, except tangentially, or a divorce, at all. And the whole point of the video was to demonstrate an alternative exposition of Ex 21 that does a better job of fitting the text if one doesn't bring a priori assumptions to it. To say that you didn't find anything relevant in the video is just weird. Argue with it if you will, but irrelevant? Hardly.

Exodus 21 comprises six verses re male servants, five verses re female servants, and 25 verses re murder, manslaughter, mayhem, kidnapping, and other fun stuff. The two sets of verses re servants appear parallel, in that they both treat of when the term of service is up and how they "go out". The male does his six years and walks free, unless he chooses to stay (for reasons spelled out in the text). The female's situation is different in several ways, but the bottom line is that she does not go out free (same word used for both male and female) unless her master has failed to do some other things. But if those things don't happen, then she is a free woman, same as the male.

I'm not going to rehearse the text or the contents of the video. I am going to make a couple of points not made in the video.

First, the English translation is misleading. The word translated 'betrothed' is a generic word for agreement or appointment, the word translated 'duties of marriage' is a generic word for cohabitation, including sex, presumably. The word translated 'wife' does not even appear in the Hebrew, but is supplied by the English translators. So a reasonable alternate rendering of the passage would be:

And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.

If she please not her master, who hath contracted her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if he have contracted her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him another; her food, her clothing, and her cohabitation, shall he not diminish.

And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.

I don't need to revise the text to believe what I believe the passage teaches. I am merely showing how translation choices affect our understanding of what is being discussed. I believe however you translate it, the logic of it goes like this:

I just told you how long you can hold men as servants and how they are freed, and now I'm going to explain the situation for women servants. First off, there will be no 'flipping' of Hebrew daughters into other markets for profit. If you buy this girl, we're assuming that it's a permanent relationship, and if you decide you don't want her after all, you should let her family buy her back. If you keep her, then whether it's for yourself or for one of your sons, she's a full member of the family, and gets treated right, and if you bring in additional women you will not make her the Cinderella of the group, that does all the work while the other women get to go to the ball. You will take care of her as an equal to any other women you acquire. If you don't do that, and if her family hasn't bought her back, then and only then she walks out a free woman, no longer your woman, without the payment of money for her freedom.

Marriage only enters into it as much as we read it into the situation or as much as we understand Hebrew laws of servanthood and concubinage and are comfortable using the word 'marriage' where rights and responsibilities overlap.

Now you can load that passage up with whatever freight you want/need it to carry, or you can just let it say what it says, but there is nothing in the text that requires that we understand this as anything other than a teaching about the rights of female servants, and there are context clues that suggest that it is only about the rights of female servants. The critical text in verse 11, that says that if a master fails to do whatever it is he was supposed to do then the woman goes free, tracks exactly with the language of verse 2 with respect to men, and suggests that it is addressing servants in both cases. (NB - I am not saying that the language is word for word identical. One word is the same in both verses and the difference between "go out free for nothing" and "go out free without money" is negligible. Free is as free does.)

"Finally, we're just not closing the gap on your exposition of Mt 19. You continue to assert that "since being interested in another woman all by itself is not adultery, it must be the breaking of the old bond that constitutes the adultery". I continue to assert, and will continue indefinitely to assert, that it takes both, per Jesus's express formula. Divorce in and of itself does not constitute adultery either. "

Actually, you are apparently quoting someone else here, or maybe paraphrasing me, which is fine.

My bad. I should have used single quotes and was in fact paraphrasing your argument. I did not mean to suggest that you said that word for word, as the quotation marks indicate. The error was typographical, not logical.

I assert that you are entangled in an a priori assumption as your premise at this point. As I suggested before, the scenarios of forsaking a servant wife, and divorcing a first wife for a new wife are addressed because they were common occurrences. In Matthew 19, Jesus is saying that this occurence is adultery. Note what basis Jesus appeals to: Jesus references the one flesh pronouncement in Genesis and that what God has joined together, no man should divide apart. The one flesh element is the key element, not taking a second wife, which is a perfectly lawful element of the scenario. Ergo, the adultery has its source in the divorce by itself.

The only thing I'm entangled in is a respect for accuracy, and I remain convinced that if Jesus (or any legislative authority) says "if you do these two things then you are guilty of this third thing", then it takes both elements to constitute the crime. Why mention the "marries another" bit at all if it has nothing to do with the topic being discussed? It seems to me that you're accusing Jesus of a kind of Tourette's, where random stuff comes out in his teaching that isn't actually pertinent to what he's talking about. If Jesus meant "divorce = adultery", then surely he could have just said that, right? But that's not what he said. He said "whoever puts away his wife (except for fornication) and marries another commits adultery". My only a priori assumption is that Jesus meant exactly what he said, and not something other than what he actually said.

Tom, I hope and believe that you're taking all this in the "friends sharpening each other" sense in which it's offered. Your teaching has been a huge influence on me, and I have the utmost respect for your exegetical chops.

If you can think of anything you haven't already said here, bring it on and I'll see if I can think of anything new to contribute. Otherwise, I rest my case.

 

[tship67]

Hey, Andrew:

Yes, certainly this is friends sharpening friends. I am doing this on the fly, but thought I'd jump in here quickly. The rabbi in the video certainly portrayed the Exodus 21 scenario as marriage. And off the top of my head I can't think of any commentators who understand the passage any other way except for some who do so to deny the plain teaching of the passage relative to polygyny.

Okay, you DO qualify it by saying "except tangentially," which appears to me to function in your thesis as a kind of heurism--a heurism being a logical device to put the brakes on the logical inference of something.

A comparison might help here: monogamy-only commentators, not liking the logical inference of the allegories in the Bible where Yahweh portrays himself as a polygynist, refer to such allegories as "ONLY" metaphors, or "ONLY" allegories. Their intent is to blunt the force of the logic of the metaphors, to downplay and negate their logical significance. On close examination, their logic is a non-sequitur. These metaphors or allegories logically validate polygyny. It seems someone somewhere suckered you in with the "only tengentially" heurism regarding Exodus 21. Tangential or not, the significance of the MARRIAGE aspect of Exodus 21, is that the marriage results in the servant-wife not going out free as the menservants do. Or to put it in other words, even if the marriage aspect is tangential or secondary to the main focus of the passage, its SIGNIFICANCE remains remains the same.

On another point, your rendering of Exodus 21 works for me. It remains essentially the same as what we have in the KJV, NKJV, etc.

In any event, I saw little or nothing to quibble with in the rabbi's video that I can recall. Maybe I was too distracted getting myself out the door to work and should view it in a more relaxed frame of mind. Anyhow, doing the same thing here again today. Always more to say and not enough time to say it all.

God bless you.
Tom

 

[tship67]

Hi, Andrew:

Since my last post, I've had a little more time to actually sit down and analyze what you have said in a more relaxed mode and believe I see something very significant.

But first let me digress to your question on a pertinent point. You asked me, "Why mention the "marries another" bit at all if it has nothing to do with the topic being discussed?" The answer is that it has everything to do with the topic being discussed because it is (and was then) the most common scenario in real life. That's relevant enough to satisfy me.

After carefully reviewing your argumentation, it appears to me that we are coming to different conclusions about Matthew 19 based upon two different methods of interpretation here, two distinct hermeneutical approaches. I do now, as always, insist on interpreting SPECIFIC passages of Scripture with reference to the immediate context AND ALSO IN THE OVERALL CONTEXT OF SCRIPTURE, and not in what some call a “reductionist” approach, where passages of Scripture are interpreted IN ISOLATION FROM THE BALANCE OF SCRIPTURE.

An example of the pitfall of the reductionist interpretive method concerns Deuteronomy 17:17 where, speaking of the king, it is commanded that he shall not "multiply wives" unto himself. This injunction, taken literally, seems pretty straightforward: polygyny is forbidden to the kings-- until you reckon with the fact that there are other passages allowing polygyny and the one regarding king David where the LORD specifically takes credit for giving David his multiple wives and would have given him even more. The “reductionist” method takes Deuteronomy 17:17 on its own and says, “You see, the kings of Israel were prohibited from taking multiple wives. Therefore, polygyny is unlawful, at least for the kings.” The unspoken result of this reductionist method is, of course, the proposal of contradictions in Scripture.

The holistic approach says, “Not so fast. Since we have passages allowing polygyny, and God Himself establishing it for His servant David, then we must be missing something here.” What is missing, of course, are TWO things: first the immediate context has other prohibitions which seem to indicate that what is in view are the official functions of the king as the Head of State, not his store of gold and silver in his personal bank account, not his personal horse breeding business, and not his personal home.

So a sound hermeneutic suggests rather loudly that we may be dealing with the ancient practice of treaty marriages and not polygyny at all (the Shipley thesis). The second thing missing is, of course the overall context of Scripture already mentioned with passages allowing polygyny—and in some situations mandating it. Deuteronomy 17:17 is NOT meant to be understood strictly LITERALLY, nor strictly in isolation from the balance of Scripture. We need relevant clues both from the immediate context and RELEVANT PASSAGES FROM OTHER PLACES IN SCRIPTURE to properly understand Deuteronomy 17:17. If strict literalism and reductionist hermeneutics are valid, then the passage must truly be interpreted as a mandate of monogamy upon the kings. The hermeneutical method determines the conclusion. It is essential to grasp this.

It appears to me that you have applied a reductionist hermeneutic to Matthew 19:9. In approaching this passage holistically with both the immediate context and the overall context of Scripture in mind, the first question I ask myself is whether there are any other examples in Scripture where this “divorce PLUS subsequent marriage = adultery” proposition is either explicitly enunciated or a logically necessary deduction. I can think of none. This fact makes me eye the proposition with suspicion right there. I feel a lot more comfortable if I know an interpretation of a passage has corroborating evidence from other passages. So, this proposition fails my initial hermeneutical test.

The second test of an interpretation of course, involves the immediate context. So I ask myself, Is there anything in the immediate context to help me definitively distinguish whether Christ is simply REFERRING TO A COMMON FACTUAL SITUATION (divorcing a first no-longer-wanted wife to marry a second one) and calling the result adultery, or whether there is SOMETHING about the situation that logically requires BOTH elements to create adultery. I ask myself whether there is any indication in the immediate context in addition to verse 9 that ties the accusation to the COORDINATION of the two things, or is there any indication in the immediate context that ties the accusation of adultery to one element specifically?

The answer is yes: the BASIS upon which Christ condemns the practice named is explicitly spelled out in verses 4-6 where the one flesh bond is upheld as something not to be violated. Now (applying my holistic interpretive method), in the broader context of Scripture, we have Malachi’s condemnation of divorce as “treachery,” a very strong condemnation, certainly congruent with the concept of adultery, since FEMALE ADULTERY AGAINST A HUSBAND IS LABELED “TREACHERY” elsewhere in Scripture. Malachi does not even mention remarriage. The treachery is committed in the act of divorce/putting away. This certainly ties divorce very closely to adultery: both adultery and divorce are called treachery in Scripture. I can find no example where taking an additional wife comes under any kind of condemnation in any context. The coordination-of-the-two-elements to constitute adultery has no apparent precedent either in the Old or New Testament.

I find myself back to my observation in my previous post. I believe you have fallen prey to an a priorism re Matthew 19:9, the result apparently of the application of a reductionist interpretive approach to that passage. There is certainly no conclusive aspect to the passage which tells us that Christ is NOT referencing the common divorce-remarriage scenario. This must be ASSUMED.

This is the process of analysis I went through years ago revisiting this subject matter with John Murray's book, "Divorce" in hand where Murray argues for the coordination of both elements position. After carefully examining Murray's argumentation--which is based mainly on LINGUISTIC considerations, not LOGICAL considerations--I came to the conclusion that Murray's thesis could not be conclusively established on linguistic grounds alone. No surprise there. When all is said and done, linguistic scholars usually wind up grappling with the same LOGICAL problems that mystify everyone else. I have long been fond of pointing out that linguistic analysis is subject to the law of diminishing returns.

In any event, I believe that fundamentally different hermeneutical approaches are the underlying dynamic leading us to divergent conclusions regarding Matthew 19:9. I would ask you, have you approached the passage self-consciously having an eagle-eye on the basic hermeneutic you are applying? Are you CONSCIOUS of that hermeneutic when examining Matthew 19? Again, this is autobiographical in a way. I went through this whole self-questioning and answer process with myself analyzing Murray, and it resulted in me concluding that I was inadvertently falling into a reductionist methodology, which pitfall I always TRY to be aware of when studying Scripture.

God bless you.
Tom

 

[andrew]

Tom, I'm basically done here. I've given the matter prayerful consideration last night and this morning, and I have three choices: (a) I can repeat myself, (b) I can start to explore my theories about what's wrong with your approach or pov that keeps you from just admitting I'm right (tit for tat), or (c) I can just retire from the field. I choose (c).

I'm not interested in spending a lot of time defending myself or my methods; I think what I've submitted so far speaks for itself. I will say two things. First, I am completely aware of the hermenuetics that guide my inquiry, and I think I made that plain as we went along. Second, with regard to the use of the terms "heurism" and "reductionist", in the immortal words of Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

That said, I don't see any advantage or profit in thrashing it all out. We've both made our cases and can let the jury decide.

 

[pebble]

Sirs, you have given us a lot more to chew on. Thanks.

 

[tship67]

Andrew: yeah three rounds is enough for me, too. I almost never get into these kind of back and forth discussions anymore. Partly, I guess I've just lost my youthful enthusiasm to encroaching old age, and partly due to severe time constraints. I've had a rare lull in work and business the last couple weeks and thought I'd use the time to check in on what's being discussed. When people try to engage me in discussion or debate these days, I usually just go and get stored material and forward it.

Went back and checked the definition: you're right, I'm using the wrong word. In any event, there's a word for what i was describing and somehow I can't retrieve it out of the old memory files.

In any event, I hope our discussion stimulates everyone into diligent and prayerful study of Scripture.

 

[andrew]

In any event, I hope our discussion stimulates everyone into diligent and prayerful study of Scripture.

Amen, brother! On that you and I agree 100%!