The serious and sometimes satirical reflections of a priest, poet, and pilgrim —
who knowing he has not obtained the goal, presses on in a Godward direction.
Why is it that the people who want to insist that Adam and Eve present us with the sole, divinely ordained pattern for human marriage, do not similarly insist that all follow the sole, divinely ordained diet God specified for human nutrition (Genesis 1:29)?
TSH
“a clear-sighted companion.... If you are passionate about the vitality of today’s church, I encourage you to accompany him on his mystagogical excursion into the liturgical landscape. You will rediscover a familiar place rife with fresh provisions planted by the God who longs to feed our deepest hungers and hopes.” —Jay Koyle, chair, Faith, Worship and Ministry of The Anglican Church of Canada
Your words are yours but I reserve the right to cite them or refer to them in other contexts
I will not post comments that are irrelevant or offensive.Note that Blogger limits comments to 4,096 characters.
Posts
11 comments:
Leviticism.
Because vegetarians are never condemned in the scripture - after the flood God allows meat to be eaten, not that eating vegetables is bad. However, scripture condemns and forbids homosexuality very clearly. Adam and Eve is never added to or taken.
Rev. AJ.
No doubt a major contributing factor!
Rev AJ, I have no idea what is meant by the last sentence.
Scripture also allowed polygamy after the flood, and never condemned it explicitly. Also strongly condemned and forbade the eating of meat with blood still in it, which the apostles also forbid to Gentiles, yet who is troubled about that today?
Scripture does not condemn all same-sex actions, and does not forbid same-sex marriage.
The issue here is the dependency on Genesis 1 and 2 as if something recorded there must hold true for all time. It doesn't, even within Scripture -- how much more in the real world!
And to think it's only a story...but an engaging story that serves us well for its inclusion in the Scriptures. Still, we ought not to get carried away.
Indeed so, Mimi; and on Jesus' authority it has to do with the indissolubility of marriage, not as a prohibition on same-sex marriage!
"However, scripture condemns and forbids homosexuality very clearly."
Not in the minds of many folk equally well versed in scripture.
Probably because, unlike the dietary restrictions, Christ Himself re-iterated the archetype of Adam and Eve thousands of years later.
David, Jesus made no reference to any "archetype." That's reading into his words something for which there is no evidence. In particular, given the other things he had to say about marriage (few though they be) it is very unlikely he intended anything about archetypes, and rather what he says he intended, a clear statement on the indissolubility of marriage. Do you take him at his word on that -- from your writing elsewhere you seem to lay great stock in the various things that can bring about an end to marriage, only one of which (adultery) was mentioned by Jesus -- the other being a modern legal invention with no foundation in Scripture at all (non-consummation). Do you believe that divorce should only be permitted in the case of adultery (of the wife) as Jesus teaches, as this is the actual topic he is teaching about, not some "archetype" limiting all marriages to a male and a female?
The Pharisaic concern in raising the issue was not about the causes of divorce per se, but the causes of divorce under which re-marriage was permissible. Christ's answer indicates that he knew their agenda: 'But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.' (Matt. 5:32)
A qualified concession towards human intransigence did not warrant an unqualified change to the indissolubility of marriage. The converse accident fallacy: 'a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter'.
All Christ did was to explain the qualification behind the concession and uphold the general rule that pre-dated it: 'it was not so from the beginning'.
As you say, it was: 'a clear statement on the indissolubility of marriage' The statement was predicated upon the unrevoked design intent for sexual union expressed in the Genesis account.
You simply limit this design intent to permanence alone.
There is still a specifically reiterated Genesis account that Christ referenced regarding the divine design intent of marriage, when compared to Genesis dietary precedents.
David, all else aside for the moment as irrelevant, the problem I have is your unsupported assertion that there is an element of "design intent" either in Genesis or in Jesus' use of it. Genesis 1 records that God made "a male and a female" and Jesus mentions this, as well as the citation from Genesis 2 that Adam and Eve become one flesh as part of his midrash that when two become one they are not to be divided. He does not teach that all men and women must so join (rather the contrary) and neither does he say anything to restrict such joining to pairs of men and women. His sole concern is the indissolubility of marriage. I am not placing any "limit" on his statement other than what he himself says. It is you who read a "design intent" into the text, as if it placed a limit on who could "join" to become one flesh. Neither Genesis nor Jesus place such a limit on who might join together as one, though Jesus qualifies and limits the reasons for ending such a joining -- in particular where the exclusivity of the compact has been violated via adultery.
You have not answered my question concerning allowance for divorce only in the case of adultery by the wife. Do you believe this should be the case at present, and if not, why?
Post a Comment