Jesus allows no divorce for his followers why?

[Triumph]

Is this speculation? Because of the serious nature of this claim I cannot accept it without some evidence or some path to confirming it. I am aware that some groups and some individuals are in favor of rebellions and of driving the Romans out, and I am aware that the Romans are particularly odious and oppressive.

Are you referring to the occasional angry group of insurgents or to something more widespread and a general dismissal of all Roman life?

I don't understand how to confirm those things, but I can see how that might be important. Is there a book about this with some footnotes etc or a video with some bibliography? Paper? Thanks.

Joseph Caiaphas was the high priest of Jerusalem who sent Jesus to Pilate for his execution.
Jesus had become a Roman citizen, well known by the populace, or the Jews would not have had to present him to a Roman court instead of making him suffer the verdicts of their own religious court headed by Joseph Calaphas without Roman intervention. Rome at the time generally did not interfere with the religious practices of their conquered peoples as long as there was no threat to Roman rule. Apparently, they tolerated human and animal sacrifices to various Gods.
The high priests belonged to the Jewish priestly families that trace their paternal line back to Aaron, the first high priest of Israel in the Hebrew Bible and elder brother of Moses, through Zadok, a leading priest at the time of David and Solomon.
Only Pharisee Paul argued that Christians were Jews but note also that Paul claims he was a Roman citizen by birth, and Tarsus, where Paul was born, was a free city (Acts 21:39). The Emperor Pompey made Cilicia a Roman province in 64 BC, and its capital, Tarsus, was a free city from the time of Augustus. It is unknown how his parents became citizens of Rome although they could buy Roman citizenship, (Acts 22:28). The privileges of citizenship explain how Paul escaped flogging in Acts 22:25–27 and was able to appeal for a hearing before Emperor Nero in Acts 25:10–11. Because of his status of Roman citizenship, Paul never expected to be killed by Romans because they allowed the worship of many different Gods and Goddesses, tolerating the Jewish one. Because Paul claimed he was still a Pharisee and is known as a son of Abraham when in the Jewish temple, Paul did not expect Joseph Caiaphas to demand he die for leaving the temple religion.
You are aware from the OT stories that Hebrew/Jews were a religious/military nation that would start conflict even in peaceful areas to gain land, wealth and slaves? Most Jews owned slaves. They would kill people for having a different religion. Jews considered the other religions that Rome accepted as pagan and did not like paying taxes to support a government that allowed what they considered paganism as they considered that an affront to their Lord God. However, it seems like some Jewish governors appointed by Rome were content with the power and status bestowed upon them, but I do not think that reflected the attitudes of all the people they ruled. Jesus never asked his followers to kill anyone even those that had a different religion. But the Jews did. Not sure if this is what you are interested in researching but the Bible explains the beliefs and attitudes of Hebrew/Jews under Roman rule. Jews demand the death of innocent people to exalt their religious beliefs so they can stay in power.

 

[Triumph]

Who was in charge? Pilate. Washing his hands doesn't diminish his responsibility. It was Pilate's decision to crucify Jesus. That's where the buck stops.

Jesus decided to be killed, he laid down his own life, to save others from fighting and Pilot did not agree with it but was resigned to accept it. Pilot's greatest responsibility was to the majority of people he ruled. Think about it, had Pilot refused to allow Jesus to be killed, then a war would break out between the Jews and Romans causing Jews, Romans and Christians to be killed and that would probably include innocent children. The person that demanded Jesus to die was not Pilot it was the Jewish High Priest that refused to accept the innocence of Jesus and demanded the Jewish people to agree Jesus is to die. There would have been NO death of Jesus on the cross if the Jews had not demanded it.
If war broke out, then central Rome would hear of it and would not be favorable to any new religious sect that caused conflict in their lands, resulting in the death of Romans, so it would be possible if not probable that Rome would send more troops and would demand all Jews and all Christians to die to end any future religious conflict for the safety of Roman citizens and security of Roman land holdings. Both Jesus and Pilot would see this strategy and neither wanted a war.
There's the possibility that Jesus would have been killed in the conflict anyway if Pilot refused to agree to his death, no matter how hard the Romans fought to save him. If Jesus was going to fight to save his life then he would have called his men to arms to prevent it, but Jesus did not do that and Jesus had thousands of people that loved him, willing to try to save his life. The Jews gambled that Pilot would not want a war to save Jesus, the life of just one man, so Jews won the gamble and Jews are the reason Jesus died not Pilot that wanted Jesus to live.
Accept the truth, the Jews are responsible for the death sentence of Jesus not the Romans that desired to set him free.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Joseph Caiaphas was the high priest of Jerusalem who sent Jesus to Pilate for his execution.
Jesus had become a Roman citizen, well known by the populace, or the Jews would not have had to present him to a Roman court instead of making him suffer the verdicts of their own religious court headed by Joseph Calaphas without Roman intervention. Rome at the time generally did not interfere with the religious practices of their conquered peoples as long as there was no threat to Roman rule. Apparently, they tolerated human and animal sacrifices to various Gods.
The high priests belonged to the Jewish priestly families that trace their paternal line back to Aaron, the first high priest of Israel in the Hebrew Bible and elder brother of Moses, through Zadok, a leading priest at the time of David and Solomon.
Only Pharisee Paul argued that Christians were Jews but note also that Paul claims he was a Roman citizen by birth, and Tarsus, where Paul was born, was a free city (Acts 21:39). The Emperor Pompey made Cilicia a Roman province in 64 BC, and its capital, Tarsus, was a free city from the time of Augustus. It is unknown how his parents became citizens of Rome although they could buy Roman citizenship, (Acts 22:28). The privileges of citizenship explain how Paul escaped flogging in Acts 22:25–27 and was able to appeal for a hearing before Emperor Nero in Acts 25:10–11. Because of his status of Roman citizenship, Paul never expected to be killed by Romans because they allowed the worship of many different Gods and Goddesses, tolerating the Jewish one. Because Paul claimed he was still a Pharisee and is known as a son of Abraham when in the Jewish temple, Paul did not expect Joseph Caiaphas to demand he die for leaving the temple religion.
You are aware from the OT stories that Hebrew/Jews were a religious/military nation that would start conflict even in peaceful areas to gain land, wealth and slaves? Most Jews owned slaves. They would kill people for having a different religion. Jews considered the other religions that Rome accepted as pagan and did not like paying taxes to support a government that allowed what they considered paganism as they considered that an affront to their Lord God. However, it seems like some Jewish governors appointed by Rome were content with the power and status bestowed upon them, but I do not think that reflected the attitudes of all the people they ruled. Jesus never asked his followers to kill anyone even those that had a different religion. But the Jews did. Not sure if this is what you are interested in researching but the Bible explains the beliefs and attitudes of Hebrew/Jews under Roman rule. Jews demand the death of innocent people to exalt their religious beliefs so they can stay in power.

It is entirely constructed from views of the protestant canon. This pits your view of scripture against no archeological evidence and doesn't consult any references about Jewish proceedings other than that view and includes assumptions about scripture or your conclusions about scripture. It is a speculative view which could have some relevance. It shows me what you think about the canon but does not give me any foundation for confirming your ideas. For example you haven't confirmed "Most Jews owned slaves. They would kill people for having a different religion." Its simply a repeated claim. What you've posted is your framework or your approach to studying scripture. Frameworks and approaches tend to change over time as people learn more. A models get tweaked and changes, and a small change changes everything else and the framework someone begins with is not what they end with.

 

[Hawkins]

Title question
But why did he do this? I skipped to the Gospels in my bible read through which is exciting but some things Jesus did I didn't like, this is one

Overall he seems nice, but Jews kill him even though he acts like their leader they always wanted? I don't like Peter he is too pushy sometimes

That makes a difference between the formal Law and a covenant such as the Mosaic covenant. Law is a set of laws designed for the judgment of both humans and angels. So originally under the formal Law (within the same set of Law applied serving the final judgment of both angels and humans), humans are designed in a one wife one husband no divorce manner. However under Law all humans are dead, they won't be able to keep Law to pass the final judgment as 2/3 angels do. Covenants are thus in place with a justification made by Jesus' self-sacrifice at some point. So to a certain extent, Mosaic covenant means "you can't keep the original set of Law, thus a set of Mosaic Law is made within a covenant, that you can keep this set of Mosaic Law instead". Moses made the Mosaic Law more practically for the Jews to keep.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Jesus decided to be killed, he laid down his own life, to save others from fighting and Pilot did not agree with it but was resigned to accept it. Pilot's greatest responsibility was to the majority of people he ruled. Think about it, had Pilot refused to allow Jesus to be killed, then a war would break out between the Jews and Romans causing Jews, Romans and Christians to be killed and that would probably include innocent children. The person that demanded Jesus to die was not Pilot it was the Jewish High Priest that refused to accept the innocence of Jesus and demanded the Jewish people to agree Jesus is to die. There would have been NO death of Jesus on the cross if the Jews had not demanded it.
If war broke out, then central Rome would hear of it and would not be favorable to any new religious sect that caused conflict in their lands, resulting in the death of Romans, so it would be possible if not probable that Rome would send more troops and would demand all Jews and all Christians to die to end any future religious conflict for the safety of Roman citizens and security of Roman land holdings. Both Jesus and Pilot would see this strategy and neither wanted a war.
There's the possibility that Jesus would have been killed in the conflict anyway if Pilot refused to agree to his death, no matter how hard the Romans fought to save him. If Jesus was going to fight to save his life then he would have called his men to arms to prevent it, but Jesus did not do that and Jesus had thousands of people that loved him, willing to try to save his life. The Jews gambled that Pilot would not want a war to save Jesus, the life of just one man, so Jews won the gamble and Jews are the reason Jesus died not Pilot that wanted Jesus to live.
Accept the truth, the Jews are responsible for the death sentence of Jesus not the Romans that desired to set him free.

No, sir. The Romans are responsible. Which leads me to the question, why exactly is it so important to you that the Jews are to blame? The answers that come to mind are not flattering to you, sir.

 

[Muffled]

No, sir. The Romans are responsible. Which leads me to the question, why exactly is it so important to you that the Jews are to blame? The answers that come to mind are not flattering to you, sir.

I believe they don't get off that easy and neither do the Romans. The temple was destroyed and the people dispersed and the Roman empire crumbled.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I believe they don't get off that easy and neither do the Romans. The temple was destroyed and the people dispersed and the Roman empire crumbled.

The temple was destroyed almost 40 years later. It obviously has no relationship.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Title question
But why did he do this? I skipped to the Gospels in my bible read through which is exciting but some things Jesus did I didn't like, this is one

Overall he seems nice, but Jews kill him even though he acts like their leader they always wanted? I don't like Peter he is too pushy sometimes

Like abortion, some like to ban things they never will experience.

 

[Muffled]

The temple was destroyed almost 40 years later. It obviously has no relationship.

I believe that is obvious in the eyes of a person who does not wish to believe it. The fact is that 40 days or years can be a trial period. The people of Israel were forty years in the desert and Jesus was tempted by the devil forty days in the wilderness.

The there is the prediction by Jesus that the temple would be destroyed because Jerusalem did not understand the visitation of God.

 

[Muffled]

Like abortion, some like to ban things they never will experience.

I believe I have never experienced taking poison and am quite happy with that and believe I never should. There are things a person should never experience. I did bear my child in my previous life as a woman.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I believe that is obvious in the eyes of a person who does not wish to believe it. The fact is that 40 days or years can be a trial period. The people of Israel were forty years in the desert and Jesus was tempted by the devil forty days in the wilderness.

The there is the prediction by Jesus that the temple would be destroyed because Jerusalem did not understand the visitation of God.

Forty years is a trial period? Oh please. This is just your desperate attempt to make something that happened 40 years later related to Jesus death.

 

[Mark La Buda]

Title question
But why did he do this? I skipped to the Gospels in my bible read through which is exciting but some things Jesus did I didn't like, this is one

Overall he seems nice, but Jews kill him even though he acts like their leader they always wanted? I don't like Peter he is too pushy sometimes

God Almighty instituted the marriage arrangement. Jesus explained it-even quoting the account in Genesis. Consider Genesis 2:22-24; Matthew 5:32; 19:6-9. It should be apparent to all that divorcing has been irreparably destructive to any human society.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Jews kill him even though he acts like their leader they always wanted? I don't like Peter he is too pushy sometimes

We didn't kill him.

He didn't act like the messiah.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Accept the truth, the Jews are responsible for the death sentence of Jesus..

No .. an elite group of Jews maybe, but not "the Jews".
Jesus was known as "the King of the Jews".

 

[Truthseeker]

Title question
But why did he do this? I skipped to the Gospels in my bible read through which is exciting but some things Jesus did I didn't like, this is one

Overall he seems nice, but Jews kill him even though he acts like their leader they always wanted? I don't like Peter he is too pushy sometimes

He did allow divorce.

31 “It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’[a] 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
New International version


31 “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
Revised Standard Version

 

[IndigoChild5559]

He did allow divorce.

But he only allowed divorce for adultery. If a wife was beaten by her husband, she was stuck with him. How ethical is this teaching?

 

[muhammad_isa]

But he only allowed divorce for adultery. If a wife was beaten by her husband, she was stuck with him. How ethical is this teaching?

That is the interpretation of the Catholic church..
They take the words that Jesus is reported to have said in a literal sense..

Jesus also said that a person commits adultery when they have impure sexual thoughts
about another .. does that count for grounds of divorce, too?

 

[Truthseeker]

But he only allowed divorce for adultery. If a wife was beaten by her husband, she was stuck with him. How ethical is this teaching?

It is all a matter of progressing on this issue. Under Moses, the husband could make up a divorce paper and divorce when he pleased, which Jesus noted was done because of the hardness of the heart of the Jews part. Any Prophet of the past only went as far as the people of that time could accept. It is not a matter of Jesus being unethical, in my opinion, but the attitude of their followers being unethical, and Jesus only could do so much with them. Slavery was never done away with under Jesus and Muhammad, either, for the same reason.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In cases of adultery divorce is permitted. I think that’s about the only time. Why? Possibly because divorce destroys the family, the family was the basic unit that kept society together. That’s just my guess.

But Jesus was big into destroying families:

34 “Do not think that I have come to bring[a] peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace but a sword! 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, 36 and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household.[c]

37 “Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy[d] of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 10:34-37 - New English Translation

Not Peace, but a Sword - “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace but a sword! For I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, and a man’s enemies will be the...

www.biblegateway.com

 

[Soapy]

The Jews didn't kill Jesus and he acted nothing like the leader they want.

The Jews DID configure the DEATH of Jesus Christ.

Under Roman law, they could not just kill him (which is murder*) . The only way of getting rid of him was to stone him, which was a Religious Death, allowed to them by the Romans.

The Jews could find no lawful reason (Goodness knows they tried!) to stone him so they resorted to getting the Romans to rid them of him for them by accusing him of Sedition. This is a threat against the Roman ruler, the Caesar, and the penalty for that was DEATH.

Death by ‘hanging someone from a Tree’ was, to the Jews, a humiliation beyond all other humiliations, and the Romans knew that, so it wasn’t an accident of choice that they used that method.

*((By the way, murder is unlawful killing in any, except barbaric, society.))