Lay theologians

[swbohler]

Rev. Stoffregen the Exegete,

And yet our Lord Himself quotes these verses when asked about divorce (which necessarily presupposes marriage) in Matthew 19 and Mark 10.  And He then adds "what God has joined together, let man not seperate" -- another reference to marriage.  Jesus clearly sees the words of Genesis 2 as speaking of marriage.  But I suppose you fancy yourself a better exegete than He.

[swbohler]

Rev. Austin,

janielou was the one who introduced the topic of marriage into this discussion.  Is she one of your "usual folks"?  Personally, I find her more "unique" than "usual".

[Steven Tibbetts]

I don't see a single word about marriage there -- just "leaving" and "holding fast". It is just as much a passage about living together as it is marriage.

What comes to mind is the account of Jesus and the man born blind in John 9.  Especially the conclusion:

Jesus said, "For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind."

Some of the Pharisees near him heard this, and they said to him, "Are we also blind?"

Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, 'We see,' your guilt remains."

A blessed Nativity to you all, Steven+

[Brian Stoffregen]

Rev. Stoffregen the Exegete,

And yet our Lord Himself quotes these verses when asked about divorce (which necessarily presupposes marriage) in Matthew 19 and Mark 10.  And He then adds "what God has joined together, let man not seperate" -- another reference to marriage.  Jesus clearly sees the words of Genesis 2 as speaking of marriage.  But I suppose you fancy yourself a better exegete than He.

If I were exegeting Matthew 19 or Mark 10, I might have different things to say. But even there, I repeat, there was no state license, there was no authorized official. Yes, it was "marriage" as they defined it in the first century, which is not exactly the same way we define it in the 21st. You haven't stated whether you and your church would recognize a marriage that had no state license. Do you use a 1st century understanding of marriage or a 21st century understanding?

[swbohler]

Rev. Stoffregen the Exegete,

The words which you claim say nothing about marriage clearly do (as Jesus' words in Matthew and Mark show).  So now you try to evade that truth by somehow pretending that what God says in His Word in Genesis is not the same as what God says in His Word in Matthew and Mark.  Do you think two seperate Gods spoke in these places?  As far as your dodge (that the marriage Jesus speaks of in Matthew and Mark is not the same as our marriages today because we have state liceneses and they did not), that is just plain foolishness -- in both cases the marriages are recognized by the state, even if the legal requirements may be different in these two instances.

[George Erdner]

Rev. Stoffregen the Exegete,

And yet our Lord Himself quotes these verses when asked about divorce (which necessarily presupposes marriage) in Matthew 19 and Mark 10.  And He then adds "what God has joined together, let man not seperate" -- another reference to marriage.  Jesus clearly sees the words of Genesis 2 as speaking of marriage.  But I suppose you fancy yourself a better exegete than He.

If I were exegeting Matthew 19 or Mark 10, I might have different things to say. But even there, I repeat, there was no state license, there was no authorized official. Yes, it was "marriage" as they defined it in the first century, which is not exactly the same way we define it in the 21st. You haven't stated whether you and your church would recognize a marriage that had no state license. Do you use a 1st century understanding of marriage or a 21st century understanding?

Everyone drink a Lutheran beverage.

[grabau14]

Amen to that Mr. Erdner!  Christmas Eve festivities are over, children opened a gift.  Just opened a Guinness.  Now, to read the instructions for the Wii.

Christmass Day service tomorrow (weather permitting), and a chance to sing "Of the Father's Love Begotten."

Merry Christmass to all, and to all, a good night.

[James Gustafson]

Rev. Stoffregen the Exegete,

And yet our Lord Himself quotes these verses when asked about divorce (which necessarily presupposes marriage) in Matthew 19 and Mark 10.  And He then adds "what God has joined together, let man not separate" -- another reference to marriage.  Jesus clearly sees the words of Genesis 2 as speaking of marriage.  But I suppose you fancy yourself a better exegete than He.

If I were exegeting Matthew 19 or Mark 10, I might have different things to say. But even there, I repeat, there was no state license, there was no authorized official. Yes, it was "marriage" as they defined it in the first century, which is not exactly the same way we define it in the 21st. You haven't stated whether you and your church would recognize a marriage that had no state license. Do you use a 1st century understanding of marriage or a 21st century understanding?

You argue that the state's definition of marriage is better than Scriptures?   And you called yourself an exegete in the same thought process?  

As for me, no, I don't recognize every marriage that the state gives a license for and neither should the church.  And lots of immigrants right here in the US don't have marriage licenses, approved by the state or otherwise, to show their marriage status, but they moved here to America with their spouses anyway and both the church and the state still recognize their marriages as valid.  Or are you suggesting that we only care about us 21st century European heritage Americans who get married in America?  Could we get any more ethnocentric?  I don’t think so.

Maybe it would be time well spent if you worshiped a little with some of our Oromo Lutheran brothers and sisters... Maybe you wouldn't be quite so European/American exclusive in your exegesis outlook next time.

[janielou13]

Keen observation, SW,,,,,, all we only children are unique, and we never loose the gift.

Picking up the observation of eurocentric hermeneutic of Scripture, take Scripture seriously enough to read it in context,,,, the traditional marriage (and place of women in civil and religious society) I described was pretty much, with slight regional variatiions on the theme, the way of things in Our Lord's time as well as St Paul's and in the Classical and Semitic world as well,,,,,, still is in some parts of Europe and most of Arabia and the pre modern Orient.

Best to brush up on your American social and political history, SW,,,, the subordination of women is all over the place, enshrined in law, custom, and religious practice.  Easy example is that a slave in the ante bellum South had more standing than the white lady living in the big house.

Present day morphs of same are the ongoing issues of the role of women in religious (and civic) life,,,, Islamic, Jewish, Christian same thing, same agruements from sacred texts out of context and repristinations of premodern culture.  Most are more subtle and insidious than the occasional honor killings in immigrant Muslim communities,,,, but it's just a matter of degree, not kind.

That's why it is wsdom for the topic of this thread or not, to accept Scripture and reality as they really are, and not impose eurocentric or any number of other gospels on them.  Shorter version, time to get Moses off our backs.

 

 

[swbohler]

Seriously, janielou -- the slave had more standing than the plantation owner's wife?     It's arguments like that which make the rest of your comments suspect. 

[James Gustafson]

That's why it is wisdom for the topic of this thread or not, to accept Scripture and reality as they really are, and not impose eurocentric or any number of other gospels on them.  Shorter version, time to get Moses off our backs.

I can't imagine anyone arguing that the oppression of women throughout human history hasn't been a continuous and ongoing product of human society since time immemorial and much to it's shame.  With that in mind though, I question why you blame Moses (I assume Moses is used here to represents all Abraham, OT and NT Scriptural norms for societal rules).  Why would we blame Moses for the societal abuses of women?  Oppression of women occurred and continues to occur in every society from pre-Moses and every society since Moses, and every Society that never heard of Moses too.  It's not like female infants are valued highly in Buddhist and Hindu societies and the introduction of Moses to those societies reversed that, it's not like brides were not awarded like valued prizes to warriors in native American and meso-american societies, with similar treatment being known across the entire globe an through all of society to some degree or another.  Rather, it appears that human society itself is to blame for this injustice, human sinful nature of the strong to supress the weak.  It therefore seems just the opposite conclussion is true then, that your accusation is backwards.  That Scirptural norms have gone a long way toward attempting to rectify that natural condition of sin which makes society think the oppression of women is the natural order of things, that's it's the Christian society that attempts to reverse the trend.  That the very idea of equality and value of women are espoused regularly and repeatedly in the very texts that you want to blame for causing the problem is in fact the primary tool that should be used to reverse such conditions in society.  If it wasn't for the scripture verses that demand the equality and fair treatement of women then the treatment of women in society would be be even worse than it is now, not better without Moses.       

[Richard Johnson]

After all, if it hadn't been for Shiphrah and Puah, there'd have been no Moses.