Jesus' teaching on divorce

[callmejeanwong]

For I have more to say about Jesus' teaching on divorce, I open this new thread and move my previous post to here. (And I hope more people will chime in.)

In Matthew 5:32, Jesus establishes this law regarding divorce: '...everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery...'

The wife did nothing unchasted, and the divorce was not initiated by her, but the husband could make her commit adultery by divorcing her. In other words, a person can commit a sin when she herself does nothing wrong. By common sense, a law that can condemn an innocent person is an immoral law.

[callmejeanwong]

The followings (http://executableoutlines.com/matt/mt5_31.htm)are a typical teaching regarding Jesus? view on divorce, and I will offer my critiques along the way. I welcome your critiques on mine because I want to learn more about this very controversial topic.


The Treachery Of Divorce (5:31-32)

INTRODUCTION

......

3. In His sermon on the mount, Jesus addressed the issue of divorce...
a. As He taught His disciples concerning the righteousness of the
kingdom
b. In which He described the effects of divorcing one's spouse

[In this lesson, "The Treachery Of Divorce", we shall use Mt 5:31-32 as
our text. To understand Jesus' comments in their context, let's first
determine what was...]

I. THE "TRADITIONAL" INTERPRETATION

A. "WHOEVER DIVORCES HIS WIFE, LET HIM GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE" - Mt 5:31
1. This was the "traditional" interpretation of Deut 24:1-4;
handed down orally
2. In applying the Law, they had focused on the idea of giving
certificates of divorce
3. They concluded divorce was permissible as long as a
certificate of divorce was given

B. IS THIS WHAT THE LAW ACTUALLY SAID?
1. Please read Deut 24:1-4 carefully...
a. Verses 1-3 simply describe a particular situation
1) WHEN a man is displeased with his wife and gives her a
certificate a divorce and sends her out of the house...
2) WHEN she has left and becomes another man's wife...
3) IF her second husband detests her and gives her a bill
of divorcement and sends her out of his house, or if the
second husband dies...
b. It is in verse 4 that Moses actually commands what must not
be done
1) Which was: "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 to the Lord"
2) This passage is simply forbidding a man to remarry his
wife after she had been married to another - cf. Jer 3:1



Critique: Point B.1.b.2) is an incomplete summary of Deut 24:1-4. In fact, a man is forbidden to remarry his wife only after a series of events had happened. Sequentially speaking, the events are (1) ?a man takes a wife and marries her? (verse 1a); (2) ?he has found some indecency in her? (verse 1b); (3) ?she finds no favor in his eyes? and ?he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house? (verse 1c); (4) ?she?becomes another man?s wife? (verse 2); (5a or 5b) the latter husband?writes her a certificate of divorce?? or ?the latter husband dies?? (verse 3); (6) ?her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife?? (verse 4). As this series of events shows, the woman would not be married to another man if she was not divorced by the ex-husband; and she would not be divorced if she was not ?found some indecency in her?. Therefore, the woman?s indecency is the ultimate reason that her ex-husband is forbidden to remarry her. And therefore, the statement ?This passage is simply forbidding a man to remarry his wife after she had been married to another? is an incomplete, or even misleading, summary of Deut 24:1-4.


2. Note also Paul's understanding of the Law - cf. Ro 7:1-3
a. A woman was bound by the Law to her husband as long he
lived


Critique: Point 2.a. is an incomplete description of Paul?s understanding of the Law. It is true that, in Ro 7:1-3, Paul says that a woman is bound to her husband as long he lives. In other words, A is bound to B if B is A?s husband and B lives. However, it is unclear whether A is still bound to B if B lives but B is no longer A?s husband, and one possible way that B is no longer A?s husband is that B divorces A. In that passage, Paul does not discuss such possibility. In other words, Paul is silent on whether a woman is bound to her husband if he divorces her.

Paul does not discuss the issue of divorce in that passage because divorce is not the main point of that passage. The main point is that, when people convert to Christianity, they are "made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that [they] might be joined to?[Jesus]" (v. 4). The fact that a woman is bound to her husband as long he lives is an analogy to Paul?s argument that non-Christians are "bound" (v. 6) to the Law as long they have not died (v. 6) spiritually. If Paul intended to use that passage to explain the issue of a woman being divorced, then he would explain what happens when the Law ?divorces? non-Christians. Obviously Paul did not make such explanation in that passage. In fact, it is inconceivable that the Law would ?divorce? non-Christians at all: In Paul?s theology, non-Christians are always ?bound? by the Law.


b. If she married another while her first husband was still
living (implying a certificate of divorce was given), she
became an adulteress (i.e., defiled)!


Critique: When it is unclear whether a divorced woman is bound to her ex-husband, as explained previously, it is even less clear why she would become an adulteress if she remarries.


[So the scribes and Pharisees had interpreted the Law to permit divorce as long as a certificate of divorce was given to the wife. We have tried to point out that was not the case. What does Jesus say?]

II. JESUS' INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION

A. "WHOEVER DIVORCES HIS WIFE FOR ANY REASON EXCEPT SEXUAL
IMMORALITY CAUSES HER TO COMMIT ADULTERY" - Mt 5:32
1. The only acceptable grounds for divorcing a wife is SEXUAL
IMMORALITY
2. Otherwise, divorcing a wife "causes her to commit adultery"
3. How? By placing her in a position where she is likely to
remarry, in which she becomes an adulteress
4. This is what the Law implied in Deut 24:4 and Jer 3:1
a. That is why the first husband couldn't take her back
b. Even if her second husband had died!
c. Because the wife had become "defiled"!


Critiques: Point 4 is a wrong interpretation of Deut 24:4. The wife had become ?defiled? not because she was divorced but because she was found ?some indecency in her? (Deut 24:1a) before she was divorced. Her indecency was found out before she was handed a certificate of divorce (Deut 24:1b) and before her second husband died (Deut 24:3). Therefore, contrary to what Point 4 claims, Deut 24:1-4 do not imply that divorcing a wife can cause ?her to commit adultery?. When Point 4 is wrong, Point 3 becomes an unsubstantiated speculation on how a man can cause his wife to commit adultery by divorcing her. In short, it is still unclear how a man who ?divorces his wife? can cause ?her to commit adultery. Deut 24:1-4 have not offered a clear explanation. Neither has Jesus, at least not in Mt 5:31-32.

[callmejeanwong]

In Matthew 5:32, Jesus establishes this law regarding divorce: '...everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery...'

The wife did nothing unchasted, and the divorce was not initiated by her, but the husband could make her commit adultery by divorcing her. In other words, a person can commit a sin when she herself does nothing wrong. By common sense, a law that can condemn an innocent person is an immoral law.

I read an good comment on that before : "divorce " can be translated as "separate.., set apart ..." ( it means the husband set apart her w/o a divorce letter) ( The background is that Jesus was explaining why a divorce letter is necessary), "makes her commit adultery " means " otherwise she have to marry again without a divorce letter , .. she is still in a married status when she have another marriage ... "
I disagree that 'Jesus was explaining why a divorce letter is necessary'. In fact, it is traditional Jewish teaching quoted in Mt 5:31 that requires for 'a certificate of divorce' when a man 'sends his wife away'. Jesus mentions such teaching, but he then disagrees with that. That is why verse 32 starts with the word 'but', and then finishes with his view on divorce: ''everyone who divorces his wife...make her commit adultery''. The word "but" and his words afterward indicate that Jesus does not think divorce is permissible as long as a certificate of divorce is given out.

If, as you propose, Jesus is explaining why a divorce letter is necessary, then a paraphrase of Mt 5:31-32 would be like this: It was said, 'WHOEVER SENDS HIS WIFE AWAY, LET HIM GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE ', but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife without giving her the certificate...makes her commit adultery. My paraphrase shows that the word 'but' would not make sense if Jesus was explaining why a divorce letter was necessary. Therefore, I disagree with your interpretation of Mt 5:32.

[wonggk]

我對你的問題有點混亂，可否澄清一下，你想說的是不是下面的情況？

容許丈夫休妻 --> 妻子再嫁 --> 妻子犯姦淫


所以容許丈夫休妻的法律是不義

[callmejeanwong]

我對你的問題有點混亂，可否澄清一下，你想說的是不是下面的情況？

容許丈夫休妻 --> 妻子再嫁 --> 妻子犯姦淫


所以容許丈夫休妻的法律是不義

Not exactly. A law that permit a man divorce his wife is not immoral, but if the law states that '...everyone who divorces his wife...makes her commit adultery...' (Mt 5:32) even though she has done nothing wrong, then the law is immoral.

[wonggk]

Not exactly. A law that permit a man divorce his wife is not immoral, but if the law states that '...everyone who divorces his wife...makes her commit adultery...' (Mt 5:32) even though she has done nothing wrong, then the law is immoral.

那麼你是同意還是反對禁止離婚？

[callmejeanwong]

What I have written is not attempting to oppose or support the prohibition of divorce. I am only writing to argue that the divorce law proclaimed by Jesus seems immoral to me. I'm also trying to understand the rationales behind such a law, but I have not found anything relevant from Old Testament (i.e. Deut 24:1-4) or Jesus himself.

[wonggk]

What I have written is not attempting to oppose or support the prohibition of divorce. I am only writing to argue that the divorce law proclaimed by Jesus seems immoral to me. I'm also trying to understand the rationales behind such a law, but I have not found anything relevant from Old Testament (i.e. Deut 24:1-4) or Jesus himself.

There are some nested logic here:

1. The law declares that divorced women who remarry are immoral
2. The declaration [1] is itself immoral because it penalizes women who did nothing wrong.

So far, I basically agree with you, although I believe a contextual reading of this declaration can exonerate Jesus

But we have one more level of discussion here:

3: From [2], we may (but do not necessarily have to) conclude that divorced women who remarry are NOT immoral.

Assuming that we accept [3], the question becomes: If a law prohibits doing something that is not immoral, it this law necessarily immoral? The answer is no. (But the law could be immoral)

Consider the following example:

[1] Drinking soda in public is not immoral
[2] If there is a law prohibiting drinking soda in public, is that necessarily immoral? -- The answer is no. This law may be justified based on public health, or government's duty to keep public space clean. But this law could be immoral if it violates too much personal freedom, or becomes a tool for the government to control its people.

[callmejeanwong]

Consider the following example:

[1] Drinking soda in public is not immoral
[2] If there is a law prohibiting drinking soda in public, is that necessarily immoral? -- The answer is no. This law may be justified based on public health, or government's duty to keep public space clean. But this law could be immoral if it violates too much personal freedom, or becomes a tool for the government to control its people.

In your example, an immoral law, prohibiting drinking soda in public, could become moral because two new conditions, public health concerns and government duty, are introduced. But what are the new conditions in the bible that can make an immoral law, prohibiting innocent women remarry, moral. And I doubt people can find new conditions in Deut 24 (which does not involve with non-adulteress) or Ro 7 (whose focus is not on the issue of divorce).

[Timothy]

I disagree that 'Jesus was explaining why a divorce letter is necessary'. In fact, it is traditional Jewish teaching quoted in Mt 5:31 that requires for 'a certificate of divorce' when a man 'sends his wife away'. Jesus mentions such teaching, but he then disagrees with that. That is why verse 32 starts with the word 'but', and then finishes with his view on divorce: ''everyone who divorces his wife...make her commit adultery''. The word "but" and his words afterward indicate that Jesus does not think divorce is permissible as long as a certificate of divorce is given out.

If, as you propose, Jesus is explaining why a divorce letter is necessary, then a paraphrase of Mt 5:31-32 would be like this: It was said, 'WHOEVER SENDS HIS WIFE AWAY, LET HIM GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE ', but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife without giving her the certificate...makes her commit adultery. My paraphrase shows that the word 'but' would not make sense if Jesus was explaining why a divorce letter was necessary. Therefore, I disagree with your interpretation of Mt 5:32.


I think the 'but' can possibly be interpreted in the following sense :

(Jewish Tradition) think that the legal document was used for allowing "divorce", but it is really used to rectify a disastrous consequence that the innocent woman and the man who married her will commit adultery ( => Death penalty in OT ? ) .....

The interpretation assums the translation "divorce" is not correct , but just "send away" is meant by Jesus where no "legal document" given out.


The main point of argument is on why God requires a "legal document" and Jesus clarifies that is not used to encourage divorce.

With this interpretation, OT do not forbid re-marraige after divorce though it is 'undesirable' and contrary to original plan.

Personally , it is contrary to what I usually heard, but I think this interpretation has some possibility and worth discussion .

[zhengzi]

Not exactly. A law that permit a man divorce his wife is not immoral, but if the law states that '...everyone who divorces his wife...makes her commit adultery...' (Mt 5:32) even though she has done nothing wrong, then the law is immoral.

Take a look of an article by 偉怡哥：
http://www.hkpec.org/pecm/art_detail.php?id_no=635

You assume Jesus was proposing a law, but from 偉怡哥's point of view, perhaps he wasn't: 在此處耶穌非要建立另一個法則，硬加於眾人身上，祂亦並非為人性.......提供出路，又或是置之四海皆準的「宇宙性原則」，相反地，作者引用祂的另一極端處理方式之解答，一種「反話式」（不合理）的回覆.......讓聽眾及讀者們重新思考........

[callmejeanwong]

from 偉怡哥's point of view, perhaps he wasn't: 在此處耶穌非要建立另一個法則，硬加於眾人身上...相反地，作者引用祂的另一極端處理方式之解答，一種「反話式」（不合理）的回覆.......讓聽眾及讀者們重新思考........

I agree with 偉怡哥 that 耶穌非要建立另一個法則，硬加於眾人身上, but I am not so sure what he means by '讓聽眾及讀者們重新思考'. What conclusions should Jesus' listeners reach after '重新思考'?

His article is quite difficult to understand at various places although I appreciate that it has many interesting and insightful points. Here I don't intend to critique his article. Instead, I will use some of his insights to understand Jesus' teachings in Matt 5, at the same time trying to resolve my objection to his teachings on divorce.

In Matthew 5, between verse 17 and the end of that chapter, Jesus is trying to convince his listeners that following Mosaic laws will not give people the kind of righteousness that will lead them to the kingdom of heaven. Instead, a new way to heaven is required. In Mat 5: 20, Jesus says, 'For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.' By that statement, Jesus declares that the kind of righteousness Pharisees teach people is not high enough to lead people to the kingdom of heaven because it is obtained by following Mosaic laws. Then citing specific Mosaic laws, 'You shall not murder' (v. 21), 'You will not commit adultery' (v. 27), 'let [the man] give [his wife] a certificate of divorce' (v. 31), 'You shall not make false vows' (v. 33), 'An eye for an eye' (v. 38), and 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy' (v. 43), Jesus is going to teach his listeners two lessons: (1) the level of righteousness obtained by following Mosaic laws are still far too low for entering the kingdom of heaven (that's why Jesus tell people to 'surpass' the righteousness of Pharisees in verse 20), and (2) higher level of righteousness cannot be obtained even by following a set of laws that are stricter than Mosaic laws.

The way that Jesus teaches his lessons is to derive a new set of laws from Mosaic laws so strict that no one can possibly follow them. Here are the laws, in paraphrase: 'Not only shall you not murder, you shall go to hell if you are even mad at others' (v. 22), 'Not only shall you not commit adultery, you shall tear out your right eye if your right eye looks at a woman with lust for her' (v. 29), 'It is true that you can give your wife a certificate of divorce if she is unfaithful, but you shall not divorce your wife even though she is terrible in every aspect, as long as she has not be unfaithful; if you divorce her, you shall commit adultery and make her an adulteress' (v. 32), 'Not only shall you not engage in excessive revenge (the true meaning of 'An eye for an eye'), you shall turn your left cheek to the person who has just slapped you on your right one' (v. 39), and 'Not only shall you love your neighbor, you shall love your enemies' (v. 44). And a summary of these incredibly strict laws is this: 'You shall be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect' (v. 48).

By taking Mosaic laws to such an extreme, Jesus shows his listeners that even Mosaic laws are not the strictest laws that can ever be enacted. (Note: Jesus is trying to make up some laws that are extremely strict; he does not claim that those laws are moral or good enough to lead people to heaven. If anything, a law like 'You shall not divorce your [faithful] wife...; if you divorce her...you make her an adulteress' is arguably immoral). If Mosaic laws are not really that strict, then the righteousness obtained by following Mosaic laws can't possibly be high enough to lead people to heaven. However, Jesus is not saying that the solution is then to enact an even more extreme version of Mosaic laws because, obviously, no one could possibly follow them either. Instead, by showing that following laws cannot lead to heaven, Jesus alludes to a new way that can give people the kind of righteousness that can lead people to the kingdom of heaven. In Matt 5, Jesus has not explained what that new way is, but, by the end of that chapter, he should at least have successfully convinced his listeners that a new way is required.

[callmejeanwong]

I think the 'but' can possibly be interpreted in the following sense :

(Jewish Tradition) think that the legal document was used for allowing "divorce", but [a divorce certificate] is really used to rectify a disastrous consequence that the innocent woman and the man who married her will commit adultery ( => Death penalty in OT ? )

As I explained in previous posts, a woman who remarries is judged to be committing adultery not because she was divorced by her first husband but because she was found sexual immorality in her by him. Moreover, there are no laws in OT declaring that a faithful woman, who is nevertheless divorced by her first husband but then remarries, will be judged to be committing adultery. Therefore, in contrast to what you claim, there are no disastrous consequences requiring the use of divorce certificates to rectify. And therefore, your interpretation of the "but" is still unsatisfactory to me.

Furthermore, your reply once again demonstrates a common misinterpretation of Jesus' words-"everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery". As I argued in my previous post, Jesus uses such an extreme law to show people that following laws can't lead to people to the kingdom of heaven; Jesus never claims that such law is a good law.

[zhengzi]

By taking Mosaic laws to such an extreme, Jesus shows his listeners that even Mosaic laws are not the strictest laws that can ever be enacted. (Note: Jesus is trying to make up some laws that are extremely strict; he does not claim that those laws are moral or good enough to lead people to heaven. If anything, a law like 'You shall not divorce your [faithful] wife...; if you divorce her...you make her an adulteress' is arguably immoral). If Mosaic laws are not really that strict, then the righteousness obtained by following Mosaic laws can't possibly be high enough to lead people to heaven. However, Jesus is not saying that the solution is then to enact an even more extreme version of Mosaic laws because, obviously, no one could possibly follow them either. Instead, by showing that following laws cannot lead to heaven, Jesus alludes to a new way that can give people the kind of righteousness that can lead people to the kingdom of heaven. In Matt 5, Jesus has not explained what that new way is, but, by the end of that chapter, he should at least have successfully convinced his listeners that a new way is required.

Interesting......do you mind if I forward it to 偉怡哥 for his reference?

[callmejeanwong]

Of course I don't mind. And I hope he will join our discussions.

[lengyowk]

?叫她作淫妇?，新译本翻译为?促使她犯奸淫。? 因为寡妇没有生计，通常都会改嫁，因此这里并非指责那妇人不道德，而是指责休妻的男人。

[Garlic]

耶穌論離婚

太 5:31 又 有 話 說 、 人 若 休 妻 、 就 當 給 他 休 書 。
5:32 只 是 我 告 訴 你 們 、 凡 休 妻 的 、 若 不 是 為 淫 亂 的 緣 故 、 就 是 叫 他 作 淫 婦 了 ． 人 若 娶 這 被 休 的 婦 人 、 也 是 犯 姦 淫 了 。

太19:3-9
19:3 有 法 利 賽 人 來 試 探 耶 穌 說 、 人 無 論 甚 麼 緣 故 、 都 可 以 休 妻 麼 。
19:4 耶 穌 回 答 說 、 那 起 初 造 人 的 、 是 造 男 造 女 、
19:5 並 且 說 、 『 因 此 、 人 要 離 開 父 母 、 與 妻 子 連 合 、 二 人 成 為 一 體 。 』 這 經 你 們 沒 有 念 過 麼 。
19:6 既 然 如 此 、 夫 妻 不 再 是 兩 個 人 、 乃 是 一 體 的 了 ． 所 以 　 神 配 合 的 、 人 不 可 分 開 。
19:7 法 利 賽 人 說 、 這 樣 、 摩 西 為 甚 麼 吩 咐 給 妻 子 休 書 、 就 可 以 休 他 呢 。
19:8 耶 穌 說 、 摩 西 因 為 你 們 的 心 硬 、 所 以 許 你 們 休 妻 ． 但 起 初 並 不 是 這 樣 。
19:9 我 告 訴 你 們 、 凡 休 妻 另 娶 的 、 若 不 是 為 淫 亂 的 緣 故 、 就 是 犯 姦 淫 了 、 有 人 娶 那 被 休 的 婦 人 、 也 是 犯 姦 淫 了 。

耶穌論離婚，主流教會按文字表面理解，著眼不可離婚，除耶穌豁免妻子犯姦淫的丈夫外。

寫休書為何？等於現今的離婚文件？
從前妻子從屬丈夫，女人從屬男人，不能想像沒男人的女人怎可生存，不單無以為生，連居住安全也不保。沒有休書而離去的妻子只能獨自生存無人敢問津，死路一條。休書是救命的。

「猶太教師根據申廿四1，一般准人休妻。但對於何為休妻的合法理由，則看法分歧.........複述..婚姻原意，指出摩西的休妻條例只是神容忍人的權宜之計。除非妻子不貞在先，不然的話，丈夫休妻再娶，或被休之妻另嫁，都是辜負原先配偶而犯了姦淫。」(證道出版社，聖經串珠註釋本pp.44,45)

可十2-12 更有常被信徒忽略的補充信息：
10:2 有 法 利 賽 人 來 問 他 說 、 人 休 妻 可 以 不 可 以 、 意 思 要 試 探 他 。
10:3 耶 穌 回 答 說 、 摩 西 吩 咐 你 們 的 是 甚 麼 。
10:4 他 們 說 、 摩 西 許 人 寫 了 休 書 便 可 以 休 妻 。
10:5 耶 穌 說 、 摩 西 因 為 你 們 的 心 硬 、 所 以 寫 這 條 例 給 你 們 。
10:6 但 從 起 初 創 造 的 時 候 、 　 神 造 人 是 造 男 造 女 。
10:7 因 此 人 要 離 開 父 母 、 與 妻 子 連 合 、 二 人 成 為 一 體 。
10:8 既 然 如 此 、 夫 妻 不 再 是 兩 個 人 、 乃 是 一 體 的 了 。
10:9 所 以 　 神 配 合 的 、 人 不 可 分 開 。
10:10 到 了 屋 裡 、 門 徒 就 問 他 這 事 。
10:11 耶 穌 對 他 們 說 、 凡 休 妻 另 娶 的 、 就 是 犯 姦 淫 、 辜 負 他 的 妻 子 ．
10:12 妻 子 若 離 棄 丈 夫 另 嫁 、 也 是 犯 姦 淫 了 。


「猶太教師對申廿四1提到的休妻理由(「有甚麼不合理的事」)，解釋上不能一致。拉比煞買認為這只限於有關淫亂的事；而拉比希列則將它解釋為任何令丈夫煩擾的事。在此耶穌不單要面對拉比學派之間的分歧，更要考慮指責他人離婚可能招惹的殺身之禍(見可六17-29，施洗約翰的先例).........凡休妻另娶就是辜負妻子這觀念，的猶太人所沒有的；耶穌左此提高了婦女的地位，規定作丈夫的忠於婚約。」(同上p.99)

統觀之，耶穌這些說話是有背景因素的，是被人找藉口攻擊時立足於當時條例來說的。可推想重點不在於絕對不准離婚，「人不可分開」，耶穌也沒依從，只著眼於當時男權至上社會惡待婦女，提出保護之法，同時堅持神的原意。可推想再婚是淫亂是權宜之說法，強烈反對危害婦女的休妻惡習。

耶穌立足於古時作出改革性和先進的論述，以耶穌這種精神，應用於今世代的話，教會應該怎樣？一概不應離婚？只准配偶犯姦淫時離婚？可能在耶穌的論述裡沒有直接指示吧，耶穌在當時有其有別於今時的重點，女性自立能力強的今時，耶穌在世，會否另有補充見解呢？

I think the principal is "better marriage and better life" and "consideration to the weak side". It is good to human-being, not only to God.

for reference:從愛到信仰 (http://www.s-h-c.org/forum/showthread.php?t=11217)

Garlic 2009/2/9

[callmejeanwong]

除非妻子不貞在先，不然的話，丈夫休妻再娶，或被休 之妻另嫁，都是辜負原先配偶而犯了姦淫。」(證道出版社，聖經串珠註釋本pp.44,45)

It is obviously immoral, or at least ridiculous, to claim that '丈夫休妻再娶，或被休 之妻另嫁，都是辜負原先配偶...'. When a woman is divorced for no faults on her own, how can she possibly '辜負' her ex-husband? And when another man loves that woman enough to marry her, how in the world can the words '辜負' be even remotely associated with him?


10:11 耶 穌 對 他 們 說 、 凡 休 妻 另 娶 的 、 就 是 犯 姦 淫 、 辜 負 他 的 妻 子 ．
10:12 妻 子 若 離 棄 丈 夫 另 嫁 、 也 是 犯 姦 淫 了 。

凡休妻另娶就是辜負妻子這觀念，的猶太人所沒有的；耶穌左此提高 了婦女的地位，規定作丈夫的忠於婚約。([證道出版社，聖經串珠註釋本]p.99)

If Mark 10:11 '提高 了婦女的地位', then v. 12 definitely lowers it.

People attempts various ways to justify verses like Mark 10:11 and Matthew 5:31-32 such as those quotes from 聖經串珠註釋本 or '這些說話是有背景因素的', '被人找藉口攻擊時立足..', '...提出保護之法，同時堅持神的原意', '再婚是淫亂是權宜之說法' from Garlic. Although all those rationales are well-intentioned and attempt to reconcile the dissonance between the great love of Jesus and the cruel treatments to innocent men and women, it is undeniable that Jesus did say those words and could negatively affect the lives of many if his words were interpreted literally.

Indeed, his words on the consequences or punishments for divorce should not be interpreted literally. After all, no one with common sense would literally interpret the consequences (which I will underline) of being angry or of cursing (Matthew 5:22 "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, `You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, `You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell). I doubt that any courts will take up such cases, or any courts have the capabilities to deliver such a punishment.

Similarly, very few Christians interpret Matthew 5:28 to its very literal sense and accept that they indeed commit adultery when they look at women with lust for them. (If you think you can accept that, it is most likely that you have been desensitized by church culture of the words 'commit adultery'. To re-sensitized yourself, try the word 'rape'. Do you accept that you literally rape a woman when you look at her with lust for her?) Even fewer Christians interpret the teachings of Matthew 5:29 and 30 literally: If you have met someone who has tear out his eye or cut off his hand because he had looked at women with lust for them, let me know.

If the consequences in Matthew 5:22-30 are not interpreted literally, then those in v.31-32 regarding divorce should not be interpreted literally.

If you think about it, nobody in Jesus' time would take his words literally either, given the facts that, first, it was the norm that men could divorce their wives for any reasons any time they desired, and second, no consequences set by the well-respected Pharisees would even come close to the severity that Jesus spoke of. Jesus had no status in his society, so nobody would care what he said of the consequences of divorce. If we, like people in Jesus' time, don't interpret those consequences literally, then the cruel treatments to divorced people mentioned in v. 31-32 will no longer need justifications. Rather, the severity of the consequences is just Jesus' way to convey his message that he really hopes that people don't divorce, be angry, curse, and look at women with lusts for them.

(A couple notes: First, I admit I did interpret those consequences literally in my previous posts, so I am here correcting myself, although it is still possible that some points in my previous posts can complement this post. Second, this post does not address the question of whether it is absolutely impermissible to divorce except the case of sexual immorality, just like I have not addressed whether it is absolutely impermissible to be angry, to curse, or to look at women with lusts. I doubt that Christians who absolutely oppose divorce (except sexual immorality) also absolutely oppose getting angry, cursing, or looking women with lusts.)

[Garlic]

Note:



統觀之，耶穌這些說話是有背景因素的，是被人找藉口攻擊時立足於當時條例來說的。可推想重點不在於絕對不准離婚，「人不可分開」，耶穌也沒依從，只著眼於當時男權至上社會惡待婦女，提出保護之法，同時堅持神的原意。可推想再婚是淫亂是權宜之說法，強烈反對危害婦女的休妻惡習。

耶穌立足於古時作出改革性和先進的論述，以耶穌這種精神，應用於今世代的話，教會應該怎樣？一概不應離婚？只准配偶犯姦淫時離婚？可能在耶穌的論述裡沒有直接指示吧，耶穌在當時有其有別於今時的重點，女性自立能力強的今時，耶穌在世，會否另有補充見解呢？

I think the principal is "better marriage and better life" and "consideration to the weak side". It is good to human-being, not only to God.



I think we may have new application nowaday.
If it is good to the couple, they may divorce and get marry with others again.

[lengyowk]

Indeed, his words on the consequences or punishments for divorce should not be interpreted literally.

If the consequences in Matthew 5:22-30 are not interpreted literally, then those in v.31-32 regarding divorce should not be interpreted literally.



我认为这并非字面（literally）或不字面解释的问题。

耶稣并非设立一条新的律法，判这样的妇人是淫妇。耶稣的语气是说，如果照你们对律法的解释那样去做，或仅仅做到律法的要求，而不去胜过文士和法利赛人的义，那就是促使她去犯奸淫了。这显然不合理，也非神的心意。

或许可以这样理解马太五31-32：

你们对摩西律法这样解释，认为人要休妻，给她休书就可以了。但我告诉你们，照你们的解释，休妻若不是为淫乱的缘故，就是促使他成为淫妇了。（可见你们这样解释并不合理，神设立这条例是让你们不那么容易休妻，因为你们心硬（见马太十九8）。另外你们也没有看到背后的精义，律法其实只是最低要求，你们要做到像天父完全一样（马太五48））

其他的经文也一样，耶稣尝试指出摩西律法背后的精神，以及当时流行的律法诠释的不合理。

[callmejeanwong]

或许可以这样理解马太五31-32：

你们对摩西律法这样解释，认为人要休妻，给她休书就可以了。但我告诉你们，照你们的解释，休妻若不是为淫乱的缘故，就是促使他成为淫妇了。（可见你们这样解释并不合理...

According to you, 法利赛人 '对摩西律法这样解释(explanation)': '人要休妻，给她休书就可以了'. And then you said that '照[法利赛人]的解释，休妻...促使他成为淫妇了'. I don't see how the explanation '人要休妻，给她休书就可以了' can lead to the conclusion that '休妻...促使他成为淫妇了'. Please explain. If your steps to the conclusion are not solid, the your ultimate conclusion that '耶稣尝试指出摩西律法背后的精神，以及当时流行的律法诠释的不合理' is not going to be well-supported.


我认为这并非字面（literally）或不字面解释的问题。

耶稣并非设立一条新的律法，判这样的妇人是淫妇。

In Matthew 5:32, Jesus does say, '...everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.' Unless you completely give up interpreting this verse, you are left only two ways to interpret it: literally or non-literally. If you interpret it literally, then Jesus is judging women who are divorced to be adulteresses. If you interpret it non-literally, then you can explore numerous other interpretations, but I don't think your interpretation is convincing so far. Whether you interpret v. 32 literally or not, your statement '这并非字面（literally）或不字面解释的问题' cannot be true.

[lengyowk]

I don't see how the explanation '人要休妻，给她休书就可以了' can lead to the conclusion that '休妻...促使他成为淫妇了'. Please explain.

之前的post有解释过，人要休妻，给她休书就可以了，会造成那女人无依无靠，通常都会改嫁，而根据当时的律法诠释，这就令那女人在那律法诠释下被判为淫妇了。

因为之前你的提问，所以我想指出，这段话并非是耶稣要判这样的女人为淫妇，而是指出当时的律法要这样判断。


[/QUOTE]In Matthew 5:32, Jesus does say, '...everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.' Unless you completely give up interpreting this verse, you are left only two ways to interpret it: literally or non-literally. If you interpret it literally, then Jesus is judging women who are divorced to be adulteresses. If you interpret it non-literally, then you can explore numerous other interpretations, but I don't think your interpretation is convincing so far. Whether you interpret v. 32 literally or not, your statement '这并非字面（literally）或不字面解释的问题' cannot be true.[/QUOTE]

写这句时也在想要如何表达。先说声抱歉，若是表达得不清楚的问题。
我认为不少人，包括你这里的诠释，都将字面（literally）弄得太狭窄，因为你说If you interpret it literally, then Jesus is judging women who are divorced to be adulteresses.

就是说，若要字面解释，则这里就一定是耶稣在判那女人犯奸淫。若不要这样解释，则就是非字面解释了。但字面解释也是要看上下文，看语境，看历史背景的。
我已在之前的post中提过，makes her commit adultery，是促使她犯奸淫，而非判她犯奸淫之意。我认为这是字面解释，但却没有你那个结论。

这就是为何我这样写。因为我们谈literally or non-literally，容易将两者对立。前者要普遍有效（如另一帖中的凡事谢恩），后者则完全自由。我不清楚你是否有这样的意思，但在这里这样写是想离开这概念去解释圣经。解释圣经就找最合理正确的解释，管他字面不字面呢？

（题外话说一句，我常想解经其实就是在字面和灵意，普遍和处境化中挣扎）

[Garlic]

[QUOTE=lengyowk;63874]之前的post有解释过，人要休妻，给她休书就可以了，会造成那女人无依无靠，通常都会改嫁，而根据当时的律法诠释，这就令那女人在那律法诠释下被判为淫妇了。

因为之前你的提问，所以我想指出，这段话并非是耶稣要判这样的女人为淫妇，而是指出当时的律法要这样判断。


...........

就是说，若要字面解释，则这里就一定是耶稣在判那女人犯奸淫。若不要这样解释，则就是非字面解释了。但字面解释也是要看上下文，看语境，看历史背景的。
我已在之前的post中提过，makes her commit adultery，是促使她犯奸淫，而非判她犯奸淫之意。我认为这是字面解释，但却没有你那个结论。

这就是为何我这样写。因为我们谈literally or non-literally，容易将两者对立。前者要普遍有效（如另一帖中的凡事谢恩），后者则完全自由。我不清楚你是否有这样的意思，但在这里这样写是想离开这概念去解释圣经。解释圣经就找最合理正确的解释，管他字面不字面呢？

QUOTE]

Thanks for ur information!
I post some of ur word on my blog (http://hk.myblog.yahoo.com/feather-cottage/article?mid=7371).

[callmejeanwong]

'叫她作淫妇'，新译本翻译为'促使她犯奸淫'。因为寡妇没有生计，通常都会改嫁，...

...通常都会改嫁，根据当时的律法诠释，这就令那女人在那律法诠释下被判为淫妇了。

No Mosaic law has ever declared that '改嫁' can '促使她犯奸淫'. Many people use Deut 24:4 to argue that there is such a law, so let's take a good look at that verse: 'her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled'. Note that v. 4 does not say that remarriage makes her commit adultery; it only says that she has been defiled. Can 'she has been defiled' mean 'she is made commit adultery'? No because committing adultery is punished by putting to death (Lev 20:10). In Deut 24:1-4, nothing about putting to death is mentioned; the only consequence of a woman being remarried is that she is not permitted to return to her former husband under any circumstances. I don't know at what point the woman is judged to have been defiled. If she is defiled once she remarries, then shouldn't she also be defiled once she is divorced by her first husband? Anyway, whenever she is defiled, not only is she not punished by putting to death, she can even remarry another man. That is yet another piece of evidence that 'she has been defiled' does not mean 'she is made commit adultery'. Therefore, Deut 24:4 does not support the notion that '改嫁' can '促使她犯奸淫', and I can't find other Mosaic laws supporting that notion. Consequently, there is no basis to the following claim:

...根据当时的律法诠释，这就令那女人在那律法诠释下被判为淫妇了。

As I have shown above, Mosaic laws cannot be interpreted to conclude that '改嫁' can '促使她犯奸淫'. Given the fact Jesus had to teach people not to divorce their wives easily, it is inconceivable that Pharisees had such high moral standards that they would judge remarried women and divorced men to be adulterers and adulteresses. Rather, Jesus is the only one who says '改嫁' can '促使她犯奸淫'. (Here I am assuming '改嫁', which is your interpretation, is the reason behind '促使她犯奸淫', although the bible says that being divorced alone is sufficient to be made commit adultery.)

若要字面解释...makes her commit adultery，是促使她犯奸淫，非判她犯奸淫之意。我认为这是字面解释...

Let me assume that '促使她犯奸淫' is the correct literal interpretation. Then here is my question: Why does Jesus declare such extremely harsh consequence for remarried women? Giving extremely harsh consequences to innocent people is such an immoral act that is impossible to reconcile with the great love of Jesus. Given the facts that, first, Jesus also gives out harsh consequences for getting angry, cursing, and looking at women with lusts for them, and second, nobody interprets those consequences literally (as I argued in previous post), the consequence of divorce, '促使她犯奸淫', should not be interpreted literally either. The harsh consequence is only used to emphasize his message: Don't divorce easily.

解释圣经就找最合理正确的解释，管他字面不 字面呢？

...通常都会改嫁，根据当时的律法诠释，这就令那女人在那律法诠释下被判为淫妇了。

Literal interpretation is an important part of interpreting the bible. When the literal interpretation is wrong, you reach a wrong interpretation '[改嫁]就令那女人在那律法诠释下被判为淫妇了' that was not even used by Pharisees. Although you are claiming that Jesus is not trying to treat divorced women harshly, you are supporting an invalid interpretation of Mosaic laws that can be used by others (http://executableoutlines.com/matt/mt5_31.htm) to oppose divorced women remarry.

[lengyowk]

Thank you for your reply.:)

No Mosaic law has ever declared that '改嫁' can '促使她犯奸淫'.

我并非谈到摩西律法，而是当时对律法的诠释，并犹太人一般的观念。犹太人会思想，?对呀，那女人和另一男人结婚了，不就是一种奸淫吗？?

重点是，耶稣在这里并非加入了一个当时人不会有的观念，判这样的女人犯奸淫。

[lengyowk]

哦，对了，若你还有回复，我礼拜天才能回你。
Have a nice weekend.:)

[callmejeanwong]

...而是当时对律法的诠释，并犹太人一般的观念。犹太人会思想，'对呀，那女人和另一男人结婚了，不就是一种奸淫吗？'

Where is the evidence that '犹太人会思想' in such a way? Where is the evidence that such thought is '犹太人一般的观念'?

If '改嫁' can '促使她犯奸淫' (太 5:32a) is '犹太人一般的观念', then how about '人 若 娶 這 被 休 的 婦 人 、 也 是 犯 姦 淫 了' (太 5:32b)? Is that also '犹太人一般的观念'?

[Garlic]

Where is the evidence that '犹太人会思想' in such a way? Where is the evidence that such thought is '犹太人一般的观念'?

If '改嫁' can '促使她犯奸淫' (太 5:32a) is '犹太人一般的观念', then how about '人 若 娶 這 被 休 的 婦 人 、 也 是 犯 姦 淫 了' (太 5:32b)? Is that also '犹太人一般的观念'?

Perhaps it come from commentary. Getting idea from those book is really needed. Different world, period and situation make a sentence having different meaning. Writers of complementary may study the culture of Israel and give a clear insight.

Looking forward for lengyowk's reply.

Great! I may study Bible here!:em2:

[lengyowk]

Where is the evidence that '犹太人会思想' in such a way? Where is the evidence that such thought is '犹太人一般的观念'?

If '改嫁' can '促使她犯奸淫' (太 5:32a) is '犹太人一般的观念', then how about '人 若 娶 這 被 休 的 婦 人 、 也 是 犯 姦 淫 了' (太 5:32b)? Is that also '犹太人一般的观念'?

好。
让我们假设当时犹太人没有这样的观念，对律法没有这样的诠释。

但这也不代表，这段经文指，耶稣认为女人离了婚就是奸淫。
而是，女人离了婚，改嫁了，才是奸淫。
（一些人认为，耶稣认为婚姻非常神圣，决不能随意再婚，他们也引用创二24和太十九1-9，认为神的心意原本如此，因此耶稣认为这样的再结合是奸淫）

这解释较合理因为：
1.它解释经文使用：促使她犯奸淫，叫她犯奸淫，makes her commit adultery（反过来说，你的literally解释要如何解释这里的makes,为何经文不直接she commit adultery？）
2.不会产生不合理，或你所说的immoral的解释，为何那女人被休了，不是她的错，她仍被认为是奸淫的？

另外，虽然经文中没有?改嫁?，但下文，32节可支持这看法。

还有，这解释也能吻合太十九9，可十11-12，路十六18。这些经文都没有将罪名归在那妇人身上，而是归在那休妻又再娶的人身上。

另外，想请问，
既然你认为这段经文literally看不合理，因此要non-literally来解释，
那为何his message must be: don't divorce too easily
but not: don't marry too easily,
and even: please divorce easily?
我们要如何从一段不合理的经文，去读出合理的诠释？基础和标准是什么呢？

[lengyowk]

Where is the evidence that '犹太人会思想' in such a way? Where is the evidence that such thought is '犹太人一般的观念'?


想再补充。

对不起，我没有你所要求的evidence，或许Garlic要失望了。:)

我会这样说，是因着对旧约和一些背景文献的阅读，而有的推想。自己觉得是合理的。

例如：
太十九1-9讨论离婚的问题。耶稣与法利赛人争论，耶稣引用创二24，指出神原本的心意，夫妻是二人成为一体。或许找不到法利赛人在诠释离婚律法时，提到创二24，但当耶稣引用时，他们就意识到耶稣讲得对，因着旧约经文也是他们熟悉和赞同的。这就是我说，耶稣指出旧约精义，指证他们诠释律法错误的意思了。
（当然，或许他们嘴上不愿意承认的确应该这样解释，碍于面子，而把耶稣钉在十字架上）

或许你仍无法同意当时犹太人会这样想，那我们就暂时假设耶稣带来一个全新的观念好了。
但我认为那仍然是指改嫁后返奸淫，原因如上帖所说。

谢谢你的回复，让我想了很多，也学习理清自己的观念。:)

[Garlic]

想再补充。

对不起，我没有你所要求的evidence，或许Garlic要失望了。:)

我会这样说，是因着对旧约和一些背景文献的阅读，而有的推想。自己觉得是合理的。

例如：
太十九1-9讨论离婚的问题。耶稣与法利赛人争论，耶稣引用创二24，指出神原本的心意，夫妻是二人成为一体。或许找不到法利赛人在诠释离婚律法时，提到创二24，但当耶稣引用时，他们就意识到耶稣讲得对，因着旧约经文也是他们熟悉和赞同的。这就是我说，耶稣指出旧约精义，指证他们诠释律法错误的意思了。
（当然，或许他们嘴上不愿意承认的确应该这样解释，碍于面子，而把耶稣钉在十字架上）

或许你仍无法同意当时犹太人会这样想，那我们就暂时假设耶稣带来一个全新的观念好了。
但我认为那仍然是指改嫁后返奸淫，原因如上帖所说。

谢谢你的回复，让我想了很多，也学习理清自己的观念。:)

I had similar idea before. I read the whole Bible and understand the situation. It is the way to understand other place in Bible also, e.g. the preverb of Jesus.

[callmejeanwong]

First, I have to point out that you have changed your interpretation back and forth. You used to claim this:

耶稣在这里并非...判[改嫁]的女人犯奸淫。

Now you claim this:

这段经文指，耶稣认为...女人离了婚，改嫁了，才是奸淫。

When you thought it was Pharisees and Jewish cultures who judge remarried women to be committing adultery, Jesus' words would not make himself look unreasonable and harsh. Now you change your mind and attribute such judgment to Jesus. That would make Jesus very harsh. That is why you change your argument and argue that what Jesus says in fact '没有将罪名归在那妇人身上'. But I will show that your argument has no solid basis.

...耶稣认为...女人离了婚，改嫁了，才是奸淫。

这解释较合理因为：
1....
2.不会产生不合理，或你所说的immoral的解释，为何那女人被休了，不是她的错，她仍被认为是奸淫的？
...
还有，这解释也能吻合太十九9，可十11-12，路十六18。这些经文都没有将罪名归在那妇人身上...

I don't think that your statement '...改嫁了，才是奸淫' is really what you mean to say. You might mean to say that '改嫁了，促使她犯奸淫 (make her commit adultery)'. If you mean to say either of them, such a rule is still very '不合理' and immoral. When the woman is made commit adultery, even if that is not what she wants to do, she is still being judged as committing adultery. Therefore, in contrast to what you claim, and unlike 太十九9，可十11-12，路十六18, Matt 5:32a indeed '有将罪名归在那妇人身上'. If you don't think Matt 5:32a '有将罪名归在那妇人身上', then how about v. 32b, which says '..whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery'? Is that not
'将罪名归在' an innocent man? It would be inconsistent to use different interpretations on verses that are very closely related, both in terms of time and context.

[lengyowk]

First, I have to point out that you have changed your interpretation back and forth. You used to claim this:

Now you claim this:

When you thought it was Pharisees and Jewish cultures who judge remarried women to be committing adultery, Jesus' words would not make himself look unreasonable and harsh. Now you change your mind and attribute such judgment to Jesus. That would make Jesus very harsh. That is why you change your argument and argue that what Jesus says in fact '没有将罪名归在那妇人身上'. But I will show that your argument has no solid basis.

.

有这转换是因为，你无法同意当时的人会有这样的想法。我就说，假设真的没有这样的想法，也会是第二个解释，不是你的解释。


I don't think that your statement '...改嫁了，才是奸淫' is really what you mean to say. You might mean to say that '改嫁了，促使她犯奸淫 (make her commit adultery)'. If you mean to say either of them, such a rule is still very '不合理' and immoral. When the woman is made commit adultery, even if that is not what she wants to do, she is still being judged as committing adultery. Therefore, in contrast to what you claim, and unlike 太十九9，可十11-12，路十六18, Matt 5:32a indeed '有将罪名归在那妇人身上'. If you don't think Matt 5:32a '有将罪名归在那妇人身上', then how about v. 32b, which says '..whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery'? Is that not
'将罪名归在' an innocent man? It would be inconsistent to use different interpretations on verses that are very closely related, both in terms of time and context.

请照这思路想一下：
如果神的心意就是人不能离婚再娶，这样就是犯奸淫。那准许人给休书离婚的条规（rule），就是不合理的，因它造成那妇人无可避免地返奸淫。
所以，不合理的是那休妻的rule，并非那妇人犯了奸淫的事实。

你一直提到将罪名归在人身上，意思是说，本来那人不应该有罪，但却加给他罪名。但若认为离婚再娶本来就是犯奸淫，就不是将罪名加在他/她身上。

另外，你是否能解释你的literally的解释为何无需顾及，促使（makes）这字眼？

[callmejeanwong]

...而是，女人离了婚，改嫁了，才是奸淫。
（一些人认为，耶稣认为婚姻非常神圣，决不能随意再婚，他们也引用创二24和太十九1-9，认为神的心意原本如此，因此耶稣认为这样的再结合是奸淫）

Matt 19:1-9 cannot support the notion that '改嫁了，才是奸淫'. Verse 9 says, 'And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.' That is about a man who divorces his wife. It has nothing to do with a woman who is divorced not by her faults (Matt 5:32a) or a man who marries such a woman (Matt 5:32b). When a man who divorced his wife is judged to be committing adultery, as he is in Matt 19:9, a woman who is divorced not by her faults, as she is in Matt 5:32, does not have to be judged in the same way.


对不起，我没有你所要求的evidence，或许Garlic要失望了。

我会这样说，是因着对旧约和一些背景文献的阅读，而有的推想。自己觉得是合理的。

例如：

太十九1-9讨论离婚的问题。耶稣与法利赛人争论，耶稣引用创二24，指出神原本的心意，夫妻是二人成为一体。或许找不到法利赛人在诠释离婚律法时，提到创二24，但当耶稣引用时，他们就意识到耶稣讲得对，因着旧约经文也是他们熟悉和赞同的。这就是我说，耶稣指出旧约精义，指证他们诠释律法错误的意思了。
（当然，或许他们嘴上不愿意承认的确应该这样解释，碍于面子，而把耶稣钉在十字架上）

If you said, '我没有你所要求的evidence', then why do you say '自己觉得是合理的'?

What do you mean by '法利赛人在诠释离婚律法' and '指证他们诠释律法错误的意思'? What are Pharisees' interpretations regarding divorce? Where is your evidence? Why do you keep insisting that Pharisees think that '女人离了婚，改嫁了，才是奸淫'. If the law they taught Israelites were so tough, why were divorce so prevalent? Why would Jesus need to teach them not to divorce too hastily?

[lengyowk]

Matt 19:1-9 cannot support the notion that '改嫁了，才是奸淫'. Verse 9 says, 'And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.' That is about a man who divorces his wife. It has nothing to do with a woman who is divorced not by her faults (Matt 5:32a) or a man who marries such a woman (Matt 5:32b). When a man who divorced his wife is judged to be committing adultery, as he is in Matt 19:9, a woman who is divorced not by her faults, as she is in Matt 5:32, does not have to be judged in the same way.

Matt 19:1-9显示：休妻另娶，和娶被休妇人，都是奸淫，因此显示，神的心意认为，离婚再娶，是奸淫。
所以，这就支持了，在Matt 5:32a中，那妇人是要改嫁了才算是奸淫，而非，一离婚就是奸淫。

If you said, '我没有你所要求的evidence', then why do you say '自己觉得是合理的'?

What do you mean by '法利赛人在诠释离婚律法' and '指证他们诠释律法错误的意思'? What are Pharisees' interpretations regarding divorce? Where is your evidence? Why do you keep insisting that Pharisees think that '女人离了婚，改嫁了，才是奸淫'.

应该说我没有hard evidence.我无法举出一个第一手资料，引用某位拉比一字不漏的讲出，女人与男人这样结合是奸淫。

我猜想你也知道，法利赛人对离婚有许多争论。撒买学派认为要有充足理由，但希列学派认为任何理由都行。（只有男人休妻，女人不行，但实际情况也要看社会地位而定。）因此，他们没有一个所有人都一致的立场。这是举不出证据的原因。

但是，仍然可以很合理地推断，犹太人会认为那是奸淫，因为有旧约经文支持一夫一妻。

If the law they taught Israelites were so tough, why were divorce so prevalent? Why would Jesus need to teach them not to divorce too hastily?

今天离婚也很普遍，但基督徒不是大都认为不能离婚吗？

[callmejeanwong]

...神的心意就是人不能离婚再娶，这样就是犯奸淫...

From that statement, I infer that you're interpreting Matt 5:32 literally and arguing that women who are divorced are make to commit adultery. Therefore, I will reply you by quoting my previous post regarding why the consequence of being divorced should not be interpreted literally.

Indeed, his words on the consequences or punishments for divorce should not be interpreted literally. After all, no one with common sense would literally interpret the consequences (which I will underline) of being angry or of cursing (Matthew 5:22 "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, `You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, `You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell). I doubt that any courts will take up such cases, or any courts have the capabilities to deliver such a punishment.

Similarly, very few Christians interpret Matthew 5:28 to its very literal sense and accept that they indeed commit adultery when they look at women with lust for them. (If you think you can accept that, it is most likely that you have been desensitized by church culture of the words 'commit adultery'. To re-sensitized yourself, try the word 'rape'. Do you accept that you literally rape a woman when you look at her with lust for her?) Even fewer Christians interpret the teachings of Matthew 5:29 and 30 literally: If you have met someone who has tear out his eye or cut off his hand because he had looked at women with lust for them, let me know.

另外，你是否能解释你的literally的解释为何无需顾及，促使（makes）这字眼？

In contrast to what you claim, when I interpret Matt 5, I have always taken into account the word 'make'. In fact, that word makes my interpretation even stronger. In my interpretation, Jesus is making up some incredibly harsh consequences for violating his moral standards, so that he can emphasize his teaching. What consequences can be harsher than making a woman commit a sin that is not even under her control?

[lengyowk]

In contrast to what you claim, when I interpret Matt 5, I have always taken into account the word 'make'. In fact, that word makes my interpretation even stronger. In my interpretation, Jesus is making up some incredibly harsh consequences for violating his moral standards, so that he can emphasize his teaching. What consequences can be harsher than making a woman commit a sin that is not even under her control?

your literally interpretation is, the woman is guilty when she is divorced. right?
then why here is makes her commit aultery, but not she commit adultery?

This only makes sense when the literally interpretation is,
the woman is guilty when she is divorced and forced to remarry.

[callmejeanwong]

your literally interpretation is, the woman is guilty when she is divorced. right?

No, I don't interpret it that way, and I never did. My literal interpretation is very simple: I just need to take every word in Matt 5:32 literally. Therefore, my literal interpretation of Matt 5:32 is Matt 5:32, word by word: Everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

This only makes sense when the literally interpretation is, the woman is guilty when she is divorced and forced to remarry.

'Makes' may mean 'forces', as you argue. Whatever it means, the woman is still being judged to be committing a sin although she does nothing wrong. Isn't such judgment immoral?

[callmejeanwong]

我猜想你也知道，法利赛人对离婚有许多争论。撒买学派认为要有充足理由，但希列学派认为任何理由都行...但是，仍然可以很合理地推断，犹太人会认为那是奸淫，因为有旧约经文支持一夫一妻。

Let me assume you are right about 希列学派. All you can argue is that 希列学派 allows people divorce for any reasons, but you have no basis to claim that 希列学派 holds the view that remarriage can lead to adultery.

In addition, even if '旧约经文支持一夫一妻', that does not necessarily imply that Jews hold the view that remarriage can lead to adultery. All in all, your basis of attributing such a view to Jews or 希列学派 is very weak. I am glad that you admit you don't have 'hard evidence', but I am afraid that you don't have much evidence at all.

[Garlic]

No, I don't interpret it that way, and I never did. My literal interpretation is very simple: I just need to take every word in Matt 5:32 literally. Therefore, my literal interpretation of Matt 5:32 is Matt 5:32, word by word: Everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.



'Makes' may mean 'forces', as you argue. Whatever it means, the woman is still being judged to be committing a sin although she does nothing wrong. Isn't such judgment immoral?

"the woman is still being judged to be committing a sin although she does nothing wrong. Isn't such judgment immoral?"

But who is guity? I think Jesus point at the husband. Jesus tried to blame the husband and stopped them.

Pls read a book on this topic. I found similar point in some books.

PLs note that Jesus is talking to men face by face, not women.

[callmejeanwong]

"the woman is still being judged to be committing a sin although she does nothing wrong. Isn't such judgment immoral?"

But who is guity? I think Jesus point at the husband. Jesus tried to blame the husband.

Bible says the woman is guilty because it says 'makes HER commit adultery', and I'm going to reply you by quoting my previous post:

When the woman is made commit adultery, even if that is not what she wants to do, she is still being judged as committing adultery.

For example, if I make you eat a hamburger, then it is you and nobody else who eats a hamburger.

And if you don't think the woman is guilty, then how about the man in v. 32b, which says '..whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery'?

[Garlic]

Bible says the woman is guilty because it says 'makes HER commit adultery', and I'm going to reply you by quoting my previous post:



For example, if I make you eat a hamburger, then it is you and nobody else who eats a hamburger.

And if you don't think the woman is guilty, then how about the man in v. 32b, which says '..whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery'?

Jesus spoke among men. Jesus lived in the men-oriented society. Jesus was trapped. So he must spoke cleverly. If Jesus said husband was wrong directly, Jesus is against their traditiion n law. Jesus spoke clever words among the men who agree to divorce on every reason.
U see? Jesus was against them indeed. Jesus said men were wrong in another words that men could not argue. (I think they used to get marry with other again after divorce.)

[callmejeanwong]

Jesus spoke among men. Jesus lived in the men-oriented society. Jesus trapped. So he must spoke cleverly. If Jesus said husband was wrong directly, Jesus is against their traditiion n law. Jesus spoke clever words among the men who agree to divorce on every reason.
U see? Jesus was against them indeed. Jesus said men were wrong in another words that men could not argue. (I think they used to get marry with other again after divorce.)

You still haven't answered whether the man is guilty when v. 32b says '..whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery'.

[callmejeanwong]

Pls read a book on this topic. I found similar point in some books.

Which books are you talking about? What points are they making? What evidence do they provide? Why are you convinced by them?

If you found similar points in those books supporting your view, you also find some points in my posts supporting my view. Why are you convinced by them but not me?

[lengyowk]

No, I don't interpret it that way, and I never did. My literal interpretation is very simple: I just need to take every word in Matt 5:32 literally. Therefore, my literal interpretation of Matt 5:32 is Matt 5:32, word by word: Everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.



'Makes' may mean 'forces', as you argue. Whatever it means, the woman is still being judged to be committing a sin although she does nothing wrong. Isn't such judgment immoral?

为避免混乱，其他的暂不回应。
我不明白。
你的意思是，你并不认为，字面的解释是，那妇人一离了婚就犯了奸淫。
而是那妇人离婚了，不管后来发生什么事，包括我所认为的改嫁，才犯了奸淫，对吗？

照你后面那句话， makes may mean forces, 代表并不反对这里是指改嫁。对吧？

[callmejeanwong]

为避免混乱，其他的暂不回应。
我不明白。
你的意思是，你并不认为，字面的解释是，那妇人一离了婚就犯了奸淫。
而是那妇人离婚了，不管后来发生什么事，包括我所认为的改嫁，才犯了奸淫，对吗？

Both interpretations are possible. I don't really care which one is correct because they both lead to the consequence of judging an innocent person to be committing a sin.


照你后面那句话， makes may mean forces, 代表并不反对这里是指改嫁。对吧？

I don't understand what you are asking.

[callmejeanwong]

No, I don't interpret it that way, and I never did.

I was wrong to make that statement. If I have to interpret v. 32 literally, I will say that v. 32 says that a woman commits adultery (or she is made commit adultery) when she is divorced. (But I also accept your interpretation that a woman is made commit adultery only after she remarries. The time of her being judged to be committing adultery is not important. What is important is that she's ultimately be judged in that way.)

However, whether she commits adultery herself or she is made commit adultery, she is still the one who is committing adultery. (For example, if I made you eat a hamburger against your will, it is still you who eat the burger.)

Perhaps you will argue that, if the woman is made commit adultery, she is not technically guilty of committing adultery (although I would not agree). But if you carefully read the context, i.e. v. 32b, you can see that the man who marries that woman is also judged to be committing adultery. If the woman was not guilty of committing adultery, how would the man be judged that way?

[callmejeanwong]

Matt 19:1-9显示：休妻另娶，和娶被休妇人，都是奸淫，因此显示，神的心意认为，离婚再娶，是奸淫。所以，这就支持了，在Matt 5:32a中，那妇人是要改嫁了才算是奸淫，而非，一离婚就是奸淫。

It is true to say that 'Matt 19:1-9显示：休妻另娶...是奸淫' because Matt 19:9 says 'whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery'.

It is false to say that 'Matt 19:1-9显示：...娶被休妇人..是奸淫' because Matt 19:1-9 have never mentioned that the man marries a divorced woman. It only says that the man marries another woman. (Please also note that the ultimate reason that the man is judged to be committing adultery is that he divorced his former wife.)

Therefore, you have no basis to claim that '[Matt 19:1-9]支持了，在Matt 5:32a中，那妇人是要改嫁了才算是奸淫'. In summary, Matt 19:1-9 cannot be used to support the notion that remarriage after being divorced is committing adultery.

Let me summarize your efforts of interpreting Matt 5:32 that remarriage after being divorced is committing adultery: Matt 19:1-9 do not support your view, and you don't have evidence to claim that Pharisees' interpretation of the law supports your view. Therefore, your argument is not well-supported.

[lengyowk]

I don't understand what you are asking.

和上面的问题一样。

It is false to say that 'Matt 19:1-9显示：...娶被休妇人..是奸淫' because Matt 19:1-9 have never mentioned that the man marries a divorced woman. It only says that the man marries another woman. (Please also note that the ultimate reason that the man is judged to be committing adultery is that he divorced his former wife.).

哈哈，原来中文和合本和英文译本有很大不同。
和合本是
凡 休 妻 另 娶 的 ， 若 不 是 为 淫 乱 的 缘 故 ， 就 是 犯 奸 淫 了 ； 有 人 娶 那 被 休 的 妇 人 ， 也 是 犯 奸 淫 了 。

我猜想英文译本才是对的，因为新译本和英文译本的翻译是一样的。这或许是经文鉴别（textual criticism）的问题。

Therefore, you have no basis to claim that '[Matt 19:1-9]支持了，在Matt 5:32a中，那妇人是要改嫁了才算是奸淫'. In summary, Matt 19:1-9 cannot be used to support the notion that remarriage after being divorced is committing adultery.

Let me summarize your efforts of interpreting Matt 5:32 that remarriage after being divorced is committing adultery: Matt 19:1-9 do not support your view, and you don't have evidence to claim that Pharisees' interpretation of the law supports your view. Therefore, your argument is not well-supported.

其实之前的帖已提过了其他的平行经文。现在抄录英文译本（我用的是ESV）。

Mark 10:11-12
And he said to them, "?Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her," "and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.?

Luke 16:18
Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.

所以，我认为说那妇人是改嫁后才犯奸淫，是Matt 5:32a的literally interpretation.

I was wrong to make that statement. If I have to interpret v. 32 literally, I will say that v. 32 says that a woman commits adultery (or she is made commit adultery) when she is divorced. (But I also accept your interpretation that a woman is made commit adultery only after she remarries. The time of her being judged to be committing adultery is not important. What is important is that she's ultimately be judged in that way.)

However, whether she commits adultery herself or she is made commit adultery, she is still the one who is committing adultery. (For example, if I made you eat a hamburger against your will, it is still you who eat the burger.)

Perhaps you will argue that, if the woman is made commit adultery, she is not technically guilty of committing adultery (although I would not agree). But if you carefully read the context, i.e. v. 32b, you can see that the man who marries that woman is also judged to be committing adultery. If the woman was not guilty of committing adultery, how would the man be judged that way?

了解了，谢谢你的澄清。
你并不反对说是改嫁，只是最终那妇人还是犯奸淫。

我想举个例：
若耶稣在这里是说
凡休妻的，如果不是因她不贞，就是促使她犯偷窃的罪；因为她没有钱一人独自去生活，所以只好偷钱。
应该很明显的，耶稣是在讲那休妻的条规不合理。
换在这里也是一样。

你认为当时犹太人不会认为这样的女人是犯奸淫，因此耶稣在这里外加了一个条规，完全是全新的，犹太人完全不晓得也不认同的，（我不同意这点，但先假设的确如此）就是耶稣新加了一个条规，判这女人有罪。

我想说的是，就算如此，耶稣也是在指责休妻的条规。因为对于耶稣来讲，那女人做这样的事的确是犯奸淫（这有上面两节平行经文，其实还有Matt 5:32b支持），就像我们认为偷窃是罪一样。

再举一例，再将耶稣所说的话修改：
凡休妻的，如果不是因她不贞，就是促使她犯同性恋的罪，和同性结婚；因为她没有钱一人独自去生活，又没其他男人会要被休的妇人，所以他只好和同性结婚。

一位反对同性恋的人可以质问耶稣，同性恋不是罪，你为什么判罚那妇人犯了同性恋？又不是她的错，她是被休的，被逼的。

耶稣大概会回答：我讲这句话是叫你们不要休妻，指出休妻的毛病。我真的认为同性恋是罪啊！你们不能强迫我认为同性恋不是罪吧！

无论如何，谢谢你和我讨论。:) 也谢谢Garlic.:)

[callmejeanwong]

...对于耶稣来讲，那女人做这样的事[i.e. remarry after being divorced]的确是犯奸淫（这有上面两节平行经文，其实还有Matt 5:32b支持），就像我们认为偷窃是罪一样。

Stealing is a sin because one's possession is taken away without permission, but what reasons do Jesus have to judge remarriage after being divorced to be a sin?

I had asked a similar question like that even before you were willing to assume that, if Matt 5:32 is interpreted literally, '对于耶稣来讲，那女人做这样的事[i.e. remarry after being divorced]的确是犯奸淫':
Why does Jesus declare such extremely harsh consequence for remarried women?

I hope you're not going to give the following quote as the reason.

耶稣是在讲那休妻的条规不合理

Even if the main point that Jesus is trying to make is that '休妻的条规不合理', is it then moral for Jesus to sacrifice the integrity of women and judge them to be committing adultery even though they do nothing wrong?

[Garlic]

Even if the main point that Jesus is trying to make is that '休妻的条规不合理', is it then moral for Jesus to sacrifice the integrity of women and judge them to be committing adultery even though they do nothing wrong?

Therefore the following makes sense. (Sorry, I haven't further info/resource :p )

Jesus spoke among men. Jesus lived in the men-oriented society. Jesus was trapped. So he must spoke cleverly. If Jesus said husband was wrong directly, Jesus is against their traditiion n law. Jesus spoke clever words among the men who agree to divorce on every reason.
U see? Jesus was against them indeed. Jesus said men were wrong in another words that men could not argue. (I think they used to get marry with other again after divorce.)

[lengyowk]

but what reasons do Jesus have to judge remarriage after being divorced to be a sin?

is it then moral for Jesus to sacrifice the integrity of women and judge them to be committing adultery even though they do nothing wrong?

It seems that we can't reach agreement on the point in your question. In my point of view, i think i already answer this question in my example about homosexual in the last post. But may be you think that is not reasonable.

So, i think it would be useless to continue the discussion.

Anyway, Thank you for discuss with me.:)

[callmejeanwong]

In my point of view, i think i already answer this question in my example about homosexual in the last post. But may be you think that is not reasonable.

You are right. I think your example of homosexuality is not reasonable. The following is how you used homosexuality, as well as stealing, to compare with remarriage after being divorced.


凡休妻的，如果不是因她不贞，就是促使她犯偷窃的罪...
凡休妻的，如果不是因她不贞，就是促使她犯同性恋的罪，和同性结婚...


对于耶稣来讲，那女人做这样的事[i.e. remarry after being divorced for no faults of her own]的确是犯奸淫

You argue that remarriage after divorce is committing adultery, and your analogies equate remarriage with stealing and homosexuality. However, they are not all equivalent because stealing is commonly viewed as a sin, homosexuality is not as commonly viewed as a sin, and remarriage after divorce is rarely viewed as a sin. Using stealing and homosexuality to be analogies to remarriage cannot justify your judgment that remarriage is a sin.


...耶稣大概会回答：我讲这句话是叫你们不要休妻，指出休妻的毛病。我真的认为同性恋是罪啊！你们不能强迫我认 为同性恋不是罪吧


Suppose I declare a law that women who remarry after being divorced should be beheaded. Can I defend the morality of my law by saying '我讲这句话是叫你们不要改嫁，指出改嫁的毛病。我真的认为改嫁是罪啊！你们不能强迫我认 为改嫁不是罪吧; therefore, all those women should be beheaded'?

[nkcwong]

?叫她作淫妇?，新译本翻译为?促使她犯奸淫。? 因为寡妇没有生计，通常都会改嫁，因此这里并非指责那妇人不道德，而是指责休妻的男人。


It is obviously immoral, or at least ridiculous, to claim that '丈夫休妻再娶，或被休 之妻另嫁，都是辜負原先配偶...'. When a woman is divorced for no faults on her own, how can she possibly '辜負' her ex-husband? And when another man loves that woman enough to marry her, how in the world can the words '辜負' be even remotely associated with him?

我不是主修神學的，只是業餘涉獵一下，說錯了兩位請不要見怪。

可不可以這樣理解呢？

姦淫有兩種理解﹕
（1）道德責任上的。就是A的一方有婚外情，那麼A方就是犯姦淫，但B方因為自己並沒有不忠，所以B方道德上並沒有犯姦淫。

（2）聖經所指的「姦淫」不單指道德上的，而是整個婚姻盟約的關係，若A方犯姦淫，整個盟約破壞了，B方也受沾污了，二人已經不再是成為一體。從這意義理解，耶穌的要求就並不是不道德，因為道德責任不是祂在這段關注的，而是整個婚姻盟約是否聖潔﹕「只 是 我 告 訴 你 們 、 凡 休 妻 的 、 若 不 是 為 淫 亂 的 緣 故 、 就 是 叫 他 作 淫 婦 了 ． 人 若 娶 這 被 休 的 婦 人 、 也 是 犯 姦 淫 了 。 」 其實「罪」也有污染的意義，不一定是限於道德上的錯誤。

時下社會對「姦淫」的看法主要是（1），很少會考慮（2）的，也許這樣分開兩種意義的「姦淫」會清楚一點吧，perhaps？

[callmejeanwong]

（2）聖經所指的「姦淫」不單指道德上的，而是整個婚姻盟約的關係，若A方犯姦淫，整個盟約破壞了，B方也受沾污了，二人已經不再是成為一體。從這意義理解，耶穌的要求就並不是不道德，因為道德責任不是祂在這段關注的，而是整個婚姻盟約是否聖潔﹕「只 是 我 告 訴 你 們 、 凡 休 妻 的 、 若 不 是 為 淫 亂 的 緣 故 、 就 是 叫 他 作 淫 婦 了 ． 人 若 娶 這 被 休 的 婦 人 、 也 是 犯 姦 淫 了 。」

In your interpretation, the concept 'committing adultery' is equivalent to (or at least very similar to) the concept '使婚姻盟約不聖潔'. Such an interpretation is inconsistent with common usage or even biblical usage of those concepts. For example, in Old Testament, I think the relationship between Israelite and Yahweh was sometimes symbolized by '婚姻盟約'. When Israelite turned to other gods, Yahweh said that his people were adulteresses and committing adultery. If your interpretation were correct, then it could imply that, using your wordings, '若Isrealite犯姦淫，整個盟約破壞了，Yahweh也受沾污了'. That would be a very unreasonable statement and show that your interpretation leads to a very odd usage of the concept 'committing adultery'. In short, that shows your interpretation is probably wrong.

[nkcwong]

In your interpretation, the concept 'committing adultery' is equivalent to (or at least very similar to) the concept '使婚姻盟約不聖潔'. Such an interpretation is inconsistent with common usage or even biblical usage of those concepts. For example, in Old Testament, I think the relationship between Israelite and Yahweh was sometimes symbolized by '婚姻盟約'. When Israelite turned to other gods, Yahweh said that his people were adulteresses and committing adultery. If your interpretation were correct, then it could imply that, using your wordings, '若Isrealite犯姦淫，整個盟約破壞了，Yahweh也受沾污了'. That would be a very unreasonable statement and show that your interpretation leads to a very odd usage of the concept 'committing adultery'. In short, that shows your interpretation is probably wrong.


相信這裡牽涉一些深入的神學問題。

上帝本性是聖潔的，相信這大前提沒有太大爭議。但既然上帝不是不吃人間煙火的上帝，為何祂與人打交道的時候不可以被人的罪沾污呢？我不相信人的罪污會影響神的聖潔本性，但上帝的榮耀，難道不會受祂創造的人的成敗毀譽所影響嗎？個仔在外邊鉤三搭四，做老豆的都會有點丟臉，不是嗎？作為贖罪祭的耶穌，上帝不是將人的罪污歸到（imputed to）祂身上嗎？所以若以色列拜偶像，為何不會沾污上帝與人的盟約，為何上帝不會蒙羞？

當然，在婚姻關係上，男女是成為一體，但人神之間很難說是同樣性質的關係。但「被染污」的概念還可以是說得通得。Just my opinion。:)

[callmejeanwong]

Jesus spoke among men. Jesus lived in the men-oriented society. Jesus was trapped. So he must spoke cleverly. If Jesus said husband was wrong directly, Jesus is against their traditiion n law. Jesus spoke clever words among the men who agree to divorce on every reason.
U see? Jesus was against them indeed. Jesus said men were wrong in another words that men could not argue. (I think they used to get marry with other again after divorce.)

I don't understand everything you were saying in the quote. Could you please explain and support your points clearly? I sincerely would like to respond to your points.

[callmejeanwong]

所以若以色列拜偶像，為何不會沾污上帝與人的盟約，為何上帝不會蒙羞？

It seems you are relating the concept 'committing adultery' to the concept '蒙羞'. Then are you interpreting 「只 是 我 告 訴 你 們 、 凡 休 妻 的 、 若 不 是 為 淫 亂 的 緣 故 、 就 是 叫 他 作 淫 婦 了 ． 人 若 娶 這 被 休 的 婦 人 、 也 是 犯 姦 淫 了 」 as 「只 是 我 告 訴 你 們 、 凡 休 妻 的 、 若 不 是 為 淫 亂 的 緣 故 、 就 是 叫 他 蒙 羞 了 ． 人 若 娶 這 被 休 的 婦 人 、 也 是 蒙 羞 了 」? If so, I think you are watering down the seriousness of the concept '犯 姦 淫'? What evidence do you have to claim that Jesus is using that watering-down version of the concept? Even if Jesus is really using that version of the concept, it is still unreasonable for Jesus to promote the idea that '人 若 娶 這 被 休 的 婦 人 、 也 是 蒙 羞 了'. The woman does nothing wrong and the man who marries her does nothing wrong. Why should he be judged '蒙 羞'? If Jesus wants to teach people not to divorce, just say so. Why would he need to promote the idea that a woman is 蒙 羞 when she is divorced for no faults on her own?

[nkcwong]

It seems you are relating the concept 'committing adultery' to the concept '蒙羞'. Then are you interpreting 「只 是 我 告 訴 你 們 、 凡 休 妻 的 、 若 不 是 為 淫 亂 的 緣 故 、 就 是 叫 他 作 淫 婦 了 ． 人 若 娶 這 被 休 的 婦 人 、 也 是 犯 姦 淫 了 」 as 「只 是 我 告 訴 你 們 、 凡 休 妻 的 、 若 不 是 為 淫 亂 的 緣 故 、 就 是 叫 他 蒙 羞 了 ． 人 若 娶 這 被 休 的 婦 人 、 也 是 蒙 羞 了 」? If so, I think you are watering down the seriousness of the concept '犯 姦 淫'? What evidence do you have to claim that Jesus is using that watering-down version of the concept? Even if Jesus is really using that version of the concept, it is still unreasonable for Jesus to promote the idea that '人 若 娶 這 被 休 的 婦 人 、 也 是 蒙 羞 了'. The woman does nothing wrong and the man who marries her does nothing wrong. Why should he be judged '蒙 羞'? If Jesus wants to teach people not to divorce, just say so. Why would he need to promote the idea that a woman is 蒙 羞 when she is divorced for no faults on her own?

I'm not saying that the idea of '蒙 羞' is synonymous with '犯 姦 淫' or '淫亂'. I'm using that term to suggest that even a party who is not morally responsible for wrongful actions could be "tainted" from the perspective of "pollution" and "purity"--concepts that are deeply bound up with the Christian idea of sin.

The wife who is divorced by her husband through no fault of her own is definitely not morally responsible for adultery. Rather, it is her adulterous husband that is morally responsible. However, since according to Jesus' understanding, a marriage covenant does not end until one party dies, there remains a standing covenant between her and her ex-husband. So if she remarries--and in those times a woman is often driven by such circumstances to remarry, she commits adultery even though her ex-husband is to be blamed. So even though she is not morally responsible for committing adultery, she is "tainted" by her violation of a "sacred" marriage covenant, which is adultery in another sense. (One must not forget that there were times when God ordered the Israelites to kill everyone including women and children after they conquered a "pagan" city--as barbaric as it may sound. Even though women and children might not have been morally responsible, they were "tainted" in the eyes of the Lord.)

(Needless to say, the husband is wrong on two counts. He is not only morally the adulterer, but is also the one to be blamed for breaking the sacred covenant in the first place.)

[callmejeanwong]

One must not forget that there were times when God ordered the Israelites to kill everyone including women and children after they conquered a "pagan" city--as barbaric as it may sound. Even though women and children might not have been morally responsible, they were "tainted" in the eyes of the Lord.

In Old Testament, Yahweh ordered the massacre of innocent women and children because they were 'tainted' in his eye. That sounds quite barbaric, as you brought up. In New Testament, Jesus declares that a woman who is divorced through no fault of her is an adulteress because she is 'tainted' in his eye. Don't you think that is also quite barbaric? I don't call that barbaric; I call that immoral.

In addition, if you would like, please respond to some statements in my previous post:

...it is still unreasonable for Jesus to promote the idea that '人 若 娶 這 被休 的 婦 人 、 也 是 蒙 羞 了'. The woman does nothing wrong and the man who marries her does nothing wrong. Why should he be judged '蒙 羞'? If Jesus wants to teach people not to divorce, just say so. Why would he need to promote the idea that a woman is 蒙 羞 when she is divorced for no faults on her own? [Notes: the words '蒙 羞' can be substituted by 'tainted']

[Garlic]

初信時聽過身為主日學老師的團友帶查經時發問：兩個人的婚姻關係是何時開始的？

(1)登記結婚時？(2)婚禮一開始時？(3)宣誓時？(4)拍拖時？(5)協商結婚時？(6)訂婚時？(7)婚書上簽名時？(8)發生性關係時？(9)甚麼其他時候呢？

不如請大家先作答。:em1:

請踴躍投票

[wonggk]

初信時聽過身為主日學老師的團友帶查經時發問：兩個人的婚姻關係是何時開始的？

(1)登記結婚時？(2)婚禮一開始時？(3)宣誓時？(4)拍拖時？(5)協商結婚時？(6)訂婚時？(7)甚麼其他時候呢？

不如請大家先作答。:em1:

請踴躍投票，希望等到一些意見後繼續

How about first sexual encounter? (as one of the option)

[Garlic]

How about first sexual encounter? (as one of the option)

Thanks! 請繼續踴躍投票！:welcome:

[rseric]

開始拍拖的那一刻。

我已經經歴離婚與再婚。:p

[Garlic]

剛增加了選項，多多支持投票！

[Daniel_Cheung]

剛增加了選項，多多支持投票！

找不到你的投票條目在哪裡。你意思是，只是在這裡表達出來？

[clement]

舉行婚禮

解釋：實際上，進入婚姻是一個漸進過程，不能具體分出什麼時候開始。

那麼，唯有找一個象徵性的場合，作為象徵性的開端（symbolic institution），所以我選擇「舉行婚禮」，至於是哪一部分，我不認為太重要，所以不選了。

如果真的要選，我選( 9) 接受社群祝福，被社群接納為夫妻。

　

[zhengzi]

初信時聽過身為主日學老師的團友帶查經時發問：兩個人的婚姻關係是何時開始的？

(1)登記結婚時？(2)婚禮一開始時？(3)宣誓時？(4)拍拖時？(5)協商結婚時？(6)訂婚時？(7)婚書上簽名時？(8)發生性關係時？(9)甚麼其他時候呢？

不如請大家先作答。:em1:

請踴躍投票

依speech-act theory，應該是宣誓時吧。

[Garlic]

http://www.s-h-c.org/forum/showthread.php?p=65578#post65578

#61-68 已另開thread，請移玉步。

[nkcwong]

若看現時普遍法律上容許離婚的理由，跟基督徒對聖經的傳統詮釋--就是一方犯姦淫--相差很遠，以下是例子﹕

Grounds for divorce are:

* natural impotence at the time of the marriage and continuing thereafter
* bigamy (also a ground for annulment)
* adultery
* wilfully desertion or absence from the petitioner for the space of one year
* habitual drunkenness for the space of 2 years
* gross and confirmed habits caused by the excessive use of addictive drugs for the space of 2 years
* threatening the life of the other by poison or other means showing malice
* extreme and repeated physical or mental cruelty
* conviction of a felony or other infamous crime
* infecting the other spouse with a communicable venereal disease.
* irreconcilable differences


http://www.divorcenet.com/states/illinois/ilfaq_04

[Garlic]

其實從耶穌口中，看清楚字眼，耶穌沒有明顯地說犯姦淫可以離婚(當時流行這樣，法利賽人來為難耶穌)，所以有教會不認為配偶犯姦淫或移情別戀而無辜的一方是可以再婚的，耶穌沒有說一方犯姦淫婚約就終止，祂重提上帝的原意。

太 5:31 又 有 話 說 、 人 若 休 妻 、 就 當 給 他 休 書 。
5:32 只 是 我 告 訴 你 們 、 凡 休 妻 的 、 若 不 是 為 淫 亂 的 緣 故 、 就 是 叫 他 作 淫 婦 了 ． 人 若 娶 這 被 休 的 婦 人 、 也 是 犯 姦 淫 了 。

太19:3-9
19:3 有 法 利 賽 人 來 試 探 耶 穌 說 、 人 無 論 甚 麼 緣 故 、 都 可 以 休 妻 麼 。
19:4 耶 穌 回 答 說 、 那 起 初 造 人 的 、 是 造 男 造 女 、
19:5 並 且 說 、 『 因 此 、 人 要 離 開 父 母 、 與 妻 子 連 合 、 二 人 成 為 一 體 。 』 這 經 你 們 沒 有 念 過 麼 。
19:6 既 然 如 此 、 夫 妻 不 再 是 兩 個 人 、 乃 是 一 體 的 了 ． 所 以 　 神 配 合 的 、 人 不 可 分 開 。
19:7 法 利 賽 人 說 、 這 樣 、 摩 西 為 甚 麼 吩 咐 給 妻 子 休 書 、 就 可 以 休 他 呢 。
19:8 耶 穌 說 、 摩 西 因 為 你 們 的 心 硬 、 所 以 許 你 們 休 妻 ． 但 起 初 並 不 是 這 樣 。
19:9 我 告 訴 你 們 、 凡 休 妻 另 娶 的 、 若 不 是 為 淫 亂 的 緣 故 、 就 是 犯 姦 淫 了 、 有 人 娶 那 被 休 的 婦 人 、 也 是 犯 姦 淫 了 。

參閱 婚姻關係是何時開始的？ (http://www.s-h-c.org/forum/showthread.php?t=11713)

[Garlic]

香港華人基督教聯會教育部講座
探討性文化道德與教會的衝擊

第 2326 期 (2009 年 3 月 22 日) ◎ 要聞

http://www.christianweekly.net/4DACTION/W4D_CWREAD/18200/11/BACK 今期基督教週報引用聖經

蒲牧師引用馬太福音十九章三節至九節，法利賽人以休妻的問題來試探耶穌。耶穌以聖經記載來解答，上帝配合的婚姻，人不可分開；而在摩西時代，由於體貼人的軟弱，就允許休妻。蒲牧師以此例引伸到教會處理文化與道德的問題應該從聖經中尋解決。

.............另一講員鄭守定牧師認為.............

他向會眾講述聖經對婚姻的定義，就是成全上帝創造的美意，成為彼此的幫助以及繁殖下一代管理世界。他也不約而同引用馬太福音十九章的經文，第六節「既然如此，夫妻不再是兩個人，乃是一體的了，所以上帝配合的、人不可分開。」說明上帝配合的婚姻，不可以分開。

[lengyowk]

太五38，43一开始给人的印象是旧约是教导以牙还牙的。但最近读诗篇和箴言时发现一些教导要以善恶的例子，以前都没注意到。其实诗篇多处提及不要嫉妒恶人，箴二十四29，甚至指出不要以恶报恶，和耶稣言论一样，可见耶稣批评的是当时犹太人的诠释和观念，并非旧约。

还有箴二十五21，也被保罗引用，要对仇敌好。而原来出二十三4-5，王下六21-23也有对仇敌好的例子。

和之前的讨论有点关系，所以贴在这里。

[Garlic]

「以牙还牙」在神學上有人解釋為限制了當時人們報復/懲罰為犯事的相若程度，人不能任意極大地報復，在當時是進步的。當然現代人可以進一步質疑為何不准報復，這岔開了。

這樣看，要將經文放在當時處境和面對的情況來理解。

[Garlic]

參閱 婚姻關係是何時開始的？ (http://www.s-h-c.org/forum/showthread.php?t=11713)

將寫在上link的重點quote過來，方便後來看的人：(只為多方探討，我覺得迷惑，其實許多許多離婚的人都很辛苦，背負極重。)

上帝的婚姻關係觀

接續我在第一帖所言，帶查經的導師是跟我們說題外話，她問完之後沒多說，只說神眼中婚姻關係開始於發生性關係。她只說了這句，我們(只得兩位組員，導師特別帶領我們兩人)沒追問。

我一直放在心上，現在回想起來，找出一些經文，大家一併看，得出甚麼見解？

徒手釋經法第一招：單單仔細看相關經文多遍，慢慢讀，慢慢想，不翻參考書。不highlight任何字了，平衡考慮。

太 5:31 又 有 話 說 、 人 若 休 妻 、 就 當 給 他 休 書 。
5:32 只 是 我 告 訴 你 們 、 凡 休 妻 的 、 若 不 是 為 淫 亂 的 緣 故 、 就 是 叫 他 作 淫 婦 了 ． 人 若 娶 這 被 休 的 婦 人 、 也 是 犯 姦 淫 了 。

太19:3-9
19:3 有 法 利 賽 人 來 試 探 耶 穌 說 、 人 無 論 甚 麼 緣 故 、 都 可 以 休 妻 麼 。
19:4 耶 穌 回 答 說 、 那 起 初 造 人 的 、 是 造 男 造 女 、
19:5 並 且 說 、 『 因 此 、 人 要 離 開 父 母 、 與 妻 子 連 合 、 二 人 成 為 一 體 。 』 這 經 你 們 沒 有 念 過 麼 。
19:6 既 然 如 此 、 夫 妻 不 再 是 兩 個 人 、 乃 是 一 體 的 了 ． 所 以 　 神 配 合 的 、 人 不 可 分 開 。
19:7 法 利 賽 人 說 、 這 樣 、 摩 西 為 甚 麼 吩 咐 給 妻 子 休 書 、 就 可 以 休 他 呢 。
19:8 耶 穌 說 、 摩 西 因 為 你 們 的 心 硬 、 所 以 許 你 們 休 妻 ． 但 起 初 並 不 是 這 樣 。
19:9 我 告 訴 你 們 、 凡 休 妻 另 娶 的 、 若 不 是 為 淫 亂 的 緣 故 、 就 是 犯 姦 淫 了 、 有 人 娶 那 被 休 的 婦 人 、 也 是 犯 姦 淫 了 。

林前 6:16 豈 不 知 與 娼 妓 聯 合 的 、 便 是 與 他 成 為 一 體 麼 ． 因 為 主 說 、 『 二 人 要 成 為 一 體 。 』

林前 7:39 丈 夫 活 著 的 時 候 、 妻 子 是 被 約 束 的 ． 丈 夫 若 死 了 、 妻 子 就 可 以 自 由 、 隨 意 再 嫁 ． 只 是 要 嫁 這 在 主 裡 面 的 人 。



再想：婚姻關係止於何時？神的婚姻關係完結觀為何？

如果純按文字解釋，解得通嗎？

綜合經文，可否推論神眼中婚姻是與性關係掛鉤的，二人成為一體不是虛泛的詞，是二人緊密聯盟關係，是一開始了直至死亡。神沒有預設休書機制可終止盟約，二人身心靈相交的關係是神聖的，容不得第三者，第三者關係視為淫亂。

我在靈恩運動中學過的，為人做釋放祈禱時需處理其性關係，如果以前混亂性關係，需特別仔細祈禱斬斷他與前度性伴侶的關聯，以免靈裡受牽連，身不由己。

基督教慣常被看為哲理，其實是「神化」的、有超自然因素的「宗教」，有些神秘是難以理解和猜透的吧。

我所知，在法律上，性關係也是婚姻關係的重要考慮，如註冊結婚了，行了婚禮，盟誓了，同生活，而後來從未發生性關係，當事人如能證明，能在法律上宣告婚姻無效。

鬧過新聞，我也有朋友因能證明是處女，即時分開，法律上宣告婚姻無效。(她的個案不詳述)

wonggk答案中似帶法律觀點。:p

[lengyowk]

「以牙还牙」在神學上有人解釋為限制了當時人們報復/懲罰為犯事的相若程度，人不能任意極大地報復，在當時是進步的。當然現代人可以進一步質疑為何不准報復，這岔開了。

這樣看，要將經文放在當時處境和面對的情況來理解。

这基本上是对的，但以善待恶的思想就更不相同了。其实，总不能对所有人，在所有情况都以善待恶，总需要以牙还牙的法律。

另一点有趣的是，今天的以色列人对待巴勒斯坦人是否仍是以牙还牙？明显的他们以超越报复的程度了。