Jesus allows no divorce for his followers why?

[Clara Tea]

Those two reason why you gave is what I imagined up
It would be very hard not to marry again and to die alone because someone else is evil

Not sharing love and devotion seems like such a waste. After a bad marriage, many simply give up.

 

[PruePhillip]

A local rabbi also told me that it is a sin not to procreate.

I suggest that's a 'different' kind of 'sin', if you could call it a 'sin' at all.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

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

Without the prompting and Demands of the Jewish leaders, Rome would not have been involved at all.

The Jews were expecting a leader to lead them to their destiny and freedom through strength and power .
They did not recognise Jesus as having that profile.
They certainly were not expecting someone who would mess with their beliefs. and showed no political ambitions at all.

 

[Brickjectivity]

The link above cites numerous sections of the bible that say that Jews did kill Jesus

He opens by quoting Acts 2:22-23 which has two caveats. First the verse states that if some Jews did have Jesus killed that they did it in ignorance. Secondly it refers to all the prophecies about Israel: "The suffering servant" and "The Son" as if they are *also* about a man named Jesus. Therefore if it supports any conclusion it is that Israel's fate is mirroring Jesus fate.

What is said about Jesus is said about Israel. They share a fate. The Son = The Son. The Servant = The Servant. Jesus cannot be separated from the prophecies about Israel. Prophecies about Israel are applied to Jesus by Peter and by Paul. The two (Jesus and Israel) are tied by Peter in the same figure to the same prophecies.

The significance is: A discussion about why Jesus suffers is also a discussion about why Israel does. Any argument justifying Jesus is an argument justifying Israel. Does Jesus suffering prove that he was disobedient? No? Then it is arguing that neither has Israel suffered at the hand of Rome for wilful disobedience.

"There are several observations which are pertinent to our theme. First and foremost, the insistent refrain of all the speeches is that the Jews were responsible for Jesus' death." Wilson strains out the gnat but swallows the camel. Yes they constantly say the Jews are responsible, for the death of Jesus which is also the death of Israel; however as many times as they say that the Jews are responsible they say more times that it is for the good of the world.

In the gospels, in Acts and in the letters, the unjust death of Jesus is constantly attributed to ignorance which has significant implications in the law which S. G. Wilson does not treat. No murder (according to the law) can be expunged through sacrifice unless it has been done accidentally, in ignorance or by a murderer who is never found. The point is not an accusation but a denial that Israel has knowingly brought about its fate at the hands of the Romans, implying that its errors can be expunged, that it can rise again, that this is not the end threatened at Horeb (Deut 9:8). It refers to the story where the L-RD wants to wipe out every Israelite except Moses and start over with Moses. So the gospels are arguing that the Jews shall be preserved.

Paul states as much himself directly. (Romans 11:26). He says *All* Israel shall be saved and not only a remnant. When Israel has been in wilful sin then only a remnant is preserved, but Paul says that all Israel will be preserved. If the Jews were willing killers of Jesus Paul wouldn't say this, the gospels wouldn't say that Jesus was killed through ignorance. They would condemn rather than exonerate Israel. It would be an admission that Judaism failed, that everything was over.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Yes they constantly say the Jews are responsible, for the death of Jesus which is also the death of Israel; however as many times as they say that the Jews are responsible they say more times that it is for the good of the world

Good point. We can say that it was destined that Jesus was arrested and put on the cross.
Christianity evolved to make the death of Jesus the basis for "a new covenant", despite the fact that Jesus did not say that, neither in his lifetime did he do that.

 

[Shaul]

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

“Jews” didn’t kill him.

 

[Shaul]

It's important to understand that Jesus was a Jew, preaching. mostly, to other Jews.

As a Jew, he followed the Judaic laws and proscriptions. And he admonished his fellow Jews to do the same. But Jews both then and now are NOT evangelical. They did not and do not believe that any non-Jew needs to become a Jew to fulfill his or her place before God. Jesus would not have admonished any non-Jew to abide by any Jewish religious customs or proscriptions regarding marriage or divorce, or anything else. He even declared these as empty religious posturing among the Jews unless they were engage in accompanied by the requisite spiritual intention.

So no Christian, today, is being held to any Judaic religious standards regarding marriage or divorce (or diet, or worship, or anything else) from Jesus' perspective, as we are not Jews.

I believe the word you should have used is proselytizing not evangelical.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Good point. We can say that it was destined that Jesus was arrested and put on the cross.
Christianity evolved to make the death of Jesus the basis for "a new covenant", despite the fact that Jesus did not say that, neither in his lifetime did he do that.

It goes further than evolution. There are so many mysteries packed into the NT that we may as well be in an Indiana Jones film.

No one can find prophecies which say Jesus must suffer and die for the good of the world, but anyone can find the ones about Israel. All of the prophecies that are stated in the gospels to be about Jesus are only found in prophecies spoken about Israel, such that the gospels must be talking about Israel (at least in type if not directly) when they talk about Jesus. The two are inextricable. What happens to one happens to the other.

Examine the following progression which shows how prophecies about Jesus operate. They are about Israel, every time:

• [1Ki 8:51 NIV] 51 for they are your people and your inheritance, whom you brought out of Egypt, out of that iron-smelting furnace.
• [Hos 11:1 NIV] 1 "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.
• [Mat 2:15 NIV] 15 where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son."

Conversely, events in the gospels always reflect events in Israel: When Israel is crucified in History --> Jesus is crucified in the gospels. Israel humbles itself --> Jesus rides on a colt (riding a colt is a sign of peace or pacification as opposed to riding a war horse). What remains is to determine what events in Israel are being discussed not whether they are being discussed. They are. When Jesus picks his twelve disciples, this implies something about Israel, too. When one disciple betrays and is lost, it is replaced; for there will always be twelve. There is a lot to unpack. It is a new experience, like studying an entirely new thing. What you read changes beneath your finger.

The NT writer of Hebrews writes "The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word..." Which is around this time understood to be Israel: the radiance of God's glory, both Son and Suffering Servant and the keeper and distributor of the canon. What is said about Jesus in Hebrews is about Israel. You cannot separate them. If it doesn't happen to Israel it doesn't happen to Jesus, and if it does then it also does.

 

[Shaul]

Without the prompting and Demands of the Jewish leaders, Rome would not have been involved at all.

The Jews were expecting a leader to lead them to their destiny and freedom through strength and power .
They did not recognise Jesus as having that profile.
They certainly were not expecting someone who would mess with their beliefs. and showed no political ambitions at all.

The Jews did not kill Jesus. The Christian Scriptures are clear. Jesus is claimed to have laid down his life of his own volition. According to the Christian New Testament the sinful nature of all mankind is the reason for his death, not “the Jews”.

 

[Lain]

The Jews did not kill Jesus. The Christian Scriptures are clear. Jesus is claimed to have laid down his life of his own volition. According to the Christian New Testament the sinful nature of all mankind is the reason for his death, not “the Jews”.

It's quite possible for a multitude of things to be the cause of something, or to see an event or object as caused by a multitude of things. Which in fact is what is presented.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Jesus is claimed to have laid down his life of his own volition..

You mean, he purposely got himself arrested?

 

[Shaul]

It's quite possible for a multitude of things to be the cause of something, or to see an event or object as caused by a multitude of things. Which in fact is what is presented.

The Christian Gospels are clear that there was one and one cause only for Jesus’ death, human sin.

 

[Shaul]

You mean, he purposely got himself arrested?

According to the Gospels Jesus allowed the arrest to happen and could have escaped anytime he wished.

 

[Lain]

The Christian Gospels are clear that there was one and one cause only for Jesus’ death, human sin.

So you say, or rather recite.

 

[Shadow11]

Well he was in Israel which was occupied by Rome so it was either the Romans or the Jews there were no other people. They both had a hand in it.Pinning it on the Jews seems stupid it was all planned by God Jesus knew what he was going to do and what would happen. It would of had to of happened the same way no matter what people would of been involved or we wouldn't be talking about it.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The Jews did not kill Jesus. The Christian Scriptures are clear. Jesus is claimed to have laid down his life of his own volition. According to the Christian New Testament the sinful nature of all mankind is the reason for his death, not “the Jews”.

Knowing that is going to happen, does not exonerated those that caused it to be done or those that did it.
And of course the Christian scriptures was written after the event.
I find substitutary theology unconvincing.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Well he was in Israel which was occupied by Rome so it was either the Romans or the Jews there were no other people. They both had a hand in it.Pinning it on the Jews seems stupid it was all planned by God Jesus knew what he was going to do and what would happen. It would of had to of happened the same way no matter what people would of been involved or we wouldn't be talking about it.

God is aware of every murderers intentions, however that does not absolve them of their crime. God does not cause them to act the way that they do, any more than he did for the Jews and Romans involved.

 

[muhammad_isa]

According to the Gospels Jesus allowed the arrest to happen and could have escaped anytime he wished.

I would expect that to be the case.
However, that would be because G-d [the Father], had already informed him of what was going to happen regards his arrest.

It doesn't follow that he purposely aggravated anybody.

 

[PureX]

I believe the word you should have used is proselytizing not evangelical.

Whichever. The point being that Jesus would not have admonished anyone to become a Jew, or to follow religious Jewish proscriptions about marriage, divorce, or any other aspect of Judaic religiosity. Nor did Jesus choose to start his own alternative religion. So all this stuff about Christians not being allowed to divorce is unfounded, and self-inflicted.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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

There is a verse in the Torah that allows for divorce under certain circumstances. Deuteronomy 24:1 “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 indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house,

However, as we say, there is no Torah without oral Torah. The verse must be interpreted. In the day of Jesus, the interpretation was not yet fully worked out, so there was disagreement. Rabbi Shammai too a very narrow, very strict understanding, that a man may divorce his wife only for very serious moral offenses. Rabbi Hillel took a very broad view that little things are indicative of larger issues, thus a man can divorce his wife "if she burns the toast." Keep in mind that BOTH of these views are interpreting Deuteronomy 24:1

Jesus is pretty much a Hillel man right down the line, EXCEPT when it comes to divorce. In the case of divorce, Jesus takes the position of Shammai.

Judaism utlimately went the way of Hillel.