Mark 10:11 - the interpretation, please (Jesus Christ, translation, church, eternal)

[angellous_evangellous]

St. Webster's aside, I wonder how difficult this is to understand:

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

Because you're isolating "and remarries another" as conditional to divorce, which is not required by the syntax of the phrase. The verb "divorce" is closer to the demonstrative pronoun and therefore receives the emphasis... if it were a prohibition against remarriage only, remarriage would appear first.

Your interpretation would appear in Greek like this:

The one who remarries after divorcing his wife commits adultery against her.

Therefore, you can see that your interpretation is much more specific than it appears in the NT.

[Big_TJ]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

Yes, give a dictionary to a fool and he'll always come up with the wrong conclusions.

Remarriage is adultery. Divorce is adultery. Neither one of them are "sexual relations with someone to whom one is not married," because the adultery is being committed against the woman who is being put away and not the woman that the man is remarrying. Strict definitions are useless because they are being refined and re-applied by Christ.

If you prefer us not having further dialogue on this you may say so. However, I do not think there is any reason for you to be rude.

Now, are your ascertions (re: divorce is adultery and remarrige is adultery) just based on your personal opinion or is there some reference that can back this up? Because, if the definition of the word does not substantiate this view, I would really like to know where I can research this.

[Big_TJ]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

That was exactly my point. Exactly.

Perhaps, then, Christ did not have a literal meaning of "adultery" in mind for divorce and remarriage. More analogies (similar uses of the word adultery as not meaning "sexual intercourse...") are in the OT to essentially mean "sin." But you've already missed both of those points more than once.

Ok. so, are you saying that "Divorce is adutery metaphorically? Or "Re-marry is adultery metaphorically"? I am really trying hard to understand what you mean by "divorce is adultery."

[Big_TJ]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

In the other thread, MidnightBlue conceded:



Of course, I know that I am correct - inasmuch as one can be in these things - but knowing Bill's patristic references would be helpful.

Patristic references are not always correct.

Rejection of Pascal's Wager: Reliability of Patristic References to Jewish Christianity

Therefore, the mere fact that they have an interpretation of scripture does not make the interpretation automatically correct!

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by Big_TJ

Ok. so, are you saying that "Divorce is adutery metaphorically? Or "Re-marry is adultery metaphorically"? I am really trying hard to understand what you mean by "divorce is adultery."

I am merely interpreting the text as simply as possible within the syntax of the teachings of Christ, and then pulling in comparative texts as a peripheral or minor point to sustain the interpretation.

This is the way that I am reading the text:

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

It should be interpreted thusly:

"Whoever puts away his wife commits adultery against her"

and

"Whoever marries another commits adultery against her"

It should not be read as saying that remarriage is adultery and divorce alone is not, because that would isolate...

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

"and remarries another" as conditional to divorce, which is not required by the syntax of the phrase. The verb "divorce" is closer to the demonstrative pronoun and therefore receives the emphasis... if it were a prohibition against remarriage only, remarriage would appear first.

Your interpretation would appear in Greek like this:

The one who remarries after divorcing his wife commits adultery against her.

Therefore, you can see that your interpretation is much more specific than it appears in the NT.

So we have some issues with using a strict definition of adultery as "sexual intercourse..."

1) If Jesus is talking about remarriage only, then he is calling sex between two married persons "adultery" - which clearly is not the definition of adultery

2) Jesus applies a metaphorical definition of adultery to "looking at a woman" - again not the definition of adultery

3) Adultery is used to describe idolatry, marrying foreign women, [ again not the definition of adultery] ... and other sins in the OT, which is how I suspect that it is being used here (a general reference to sin) -

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by Big_TJ

Patristic references are not always correct.

Rejection of Pascal's Wager: Reliability of Patristic References to Jewish Christianity

Therefore, the mere fact that they have an interpretation of scripture does not make the interpretation automatically correct!

I never said that they would be... I already know that my interpretation is correct. I just thought that the patristic references would be helpful... and never implied that they would be infallible.

[Big_TJ]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

I am merely interpreting the text as simply as possible within the syntax of the teachings of Christ, and then pulling in comparative texts as a peripheral or minor point to sustain the interpretation.

This is the way that I am reading the text:



It should not be read as saying that remarriage is adultery and divorce alone is not, because that would isolate...



So we have some issues with using a strict definition of adultery as "sexual intercourse..."

1) If Jesus is talking about remarriage only, then he is calling sex between two married persons "adultery" - which clearly is not the definition of adultery

2) Jesus applies a metaphorical definition of adultery to "looking at a woman" - again not the definition of adultery

3) Adultery is used to describe idolatry, marrying foreign women, [ again not the definition of adultery] ... and other sins in the OT, which is how I suspect that it is being used here (a general reference to sin) -

Actually, I do not have an issue with the strict definition of the word. I have interest in this discussion because of some discussions that we are having here at work.

All I want to know is, if I say to someone who is divorces her husband (let say the husband become start beating her) and decide to dedicate the remainder of her life to the church, would I be correct to say that she commits adultery (break one of the 10 commandments) or is it that she commit "something similiar to adultery (which is that she commits adultery metaphorically speaking)"?

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by Big_TJ

All I want to know is, if I say to someone who is divorces her husband (let say the husband become start beating her) and decide to dedicate the remainder of her life to the church, would I be correct to say that she commits adultery (break one of the 10 commandments) or is it that she commit "something similiar to adultery (which is that she commits adultery metaphorically speaking)"?

Now application of that verse is difficult, and I don't think that interpretation and application are the same thing.

According to my reading, I do think that Jesus says that a man who divorces commits adultery and the man who remarries commits adultery. If we want to apply the interpretation strictly, it applies to men only and not to women. The simple reason for this is because - if I recall correctly - Jewish women could not divorce under Jewish law during this time period.

For application purposes, I would say that a woman who has divorced her husband for reasons other than his sexual infidelity sins but I would not describe it as adultery. The same thing goes for a divorced woman who remarries... obviously. (But keep in mind that one can repent from sin...)

This is an exceptionally difficult verse to apply to the church, especially because Paul encourages young people to marry rather than burn with passion. IMHO, a biblically minded Christian can divorce, repent of that divorce, and remarry someone else with God's blessing.

[Big_TJ]

According to my reading, I do think that Jesus says that a man who divorces commits adultery and the man who remarries commits adultery. If we want to apply the interpretation strictly, it applies to men only and not to women. The simple reason for this is because - if I recall correctly - Jewish women could not divorce under Jewish law during this time period.

This is not really correct, since verse 11 speaks about the man who divorce, while verse 12 speaks about the woman who divorce.

For application purposes, I would say that a woman who has divorced her husband for reasons other than his sexual infidelity sins but I would not describe it as adultery. The same thing goes for a divorced woman who remarries... obviously. (But keep in mind that one can repent from sin...)

Again, this would not be correct (see first note).

This is an exceptionally difficult verse to apply to the church, especially because Paul encourages young people to marry rather than burn with passion. IMHO, a biblically minded Christian can divorce, repent of that divorce, and remarry someone else with God's blessing.

Fair enough.

I am not one that is great on the English language (I am actually an Accountant; figures is my speciality, but I was having a discussion with my girlfriend on your interpretation on the structure of the sentence and the interpretation (she is actually a final year student pursuing a Bachelors in Reading and Lingustics).

She is of the opinion that
1) this is not a Compound sentence, since there are not two distinct parts (neither part can stand on its own)
2 ) the "second " part of the sentence, "starting after the conjunction and is completely depend on the first part of the sentence and should not be isolated. This is mainly because there is only one "subject" in the sentence, and that the section after the "and" is not merely given further information about

3) Both verbs "divorces" and "re-marries" receives equal emphasis due to the total dependency of the "second" part of the sentence on the "first" part.
4) There is no reason, linguistically, why we should have the "second" section (the section after the and) depending only on the pronoun of the "first" part.

In essence, the interpretation should not be as you stated, but should be as it is widely accepted (i.e. that it is the person who ''divorces and remarries" that commits adultery).

Thoughts, please.