One of the things I like most about Personal Bible study is that it is so unlike Public School learning. You don’t have to wait for those at the back of the class to move beyond the basics. Nor is their approval necessary to understand and grasp more complex things.
Well maybe you're not talking about what VV76 is talking about. He's wanting to negate a passage, and thus an entire book because he can't find a witness to it.
And right on cue, Zec would rather waste a lot of hot air and forum space attacking someone (me) for a straw man argument that exists only in his own imagination. If only your reading and comprehension were as advanced as your bloviating, you wouldn’t come to such outrageous conclusions and could save a lot of hot air, or at least be more considerate of the life of your keyboard and your own peace of mind.
For the record, the highlighted portion below is my (perhaps poor) attempt to find out where you’re coming from, not what I believe about the topic.
Perhaps I should have worded it a bit simpler, like;
Was it a single sourced event found only in Mark, or an account that is also recorded and witnessed in the other two synoptic gospels?
My position on scripture is to negate nothing. Scripture was written exactly as God intended. IF Marks account is secondhand and lacking a few of the details, and God preserved it that way, obviously He has a reason for it. Perhaps so that truth seekers will seek additional information found elsewhere about the conversation.
Where are my witnesses? Witnesses to what? I have pushed the sarcasm and humor to it's point of diminishing return in this thread so I'm not being either when I ask if you're wanting me to provide witnesses that something doesn't exist or isn't so?
Everything in Scripture is established by more than one witness. If your understanding of the passage is correct , then there will be additional scripture supporting it without any contradicting it.
If Marks version of this event is the only record of the event (Matthew and Luke’s accounts are of a separate event) then you have an account recorded at best by a second hand biographer perpetrating a conflicting interpretation when viewed in light of all scripture, which calls into question either the completeness of Marks account or the veracity of it.
On the other hand, if Marks account is the same event as recorded in Matthew and Luke, you have additional witnesses to the exact event and conversation. This however brings up the issue of the how comprehensive and verbatim Marks account is because Matthew’s account has several more pertinent details. As Matthew is the only eyewitness who personally recorded the conversation, I tend to believe that his is more likely to be an accurate rendering of the conversation. Mark and Luke were both second or third hand records of the conversation.
So, since you totally whiffed the soft pitch, allow me to present witnesses for you.
In the New Testament there are only 5 conversations about the issue of divorce. 4 by Christ and 1 by Paul quoting Christ. Matt 5:31,32, Matt 19:3-11, Mark 10:2-12, Luke 16:18 and 1 Cor 7:10,11.
Only 2 of the 5 mention the wife divorcing the husband, Mark 10:2-12 and 1 Cor 7:10,11. Of these two, Paul is quoting the conversation as recorded in Mark, not verbatim, but he has all the pertinent points.
In Mark the perspective is that a woman has the ability to divorce her husband without a command in opposition to this perspective, however,
if she does divorce her husband, and marries another, then she commits adultery.
In Pauls perspective, it is seen as a command of Christ that a woman shouldn’t divorce her husband, BUT,
if she does, she may either remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband.
SO, in Marks account, the ability of the woman to divorce her husband was presented by Christ as a unfortunate and unenviable event, but certainly not out of the question, exactly like history and Jewish culture confirms. And it definitely couldn’t be used to prove that a woman cant initiate divorce per scripture.
I think we are all in agreement that a wife cannot divorce a husband yes?
Worldly, yes. Biblically, no.
Answer: From the oft vaunted Mark 10:12 Overture, Incorrect. A woman was not restricted from divorcing her husband, only from marrying another after, OR divorcing her existing model to trade up to a better model.
It is my belief that the two passages in Matthew and Mark are companion or synoptic accounts. Both of them recording the conversation, but from two different eyewitnesses. Matthew obviously would have been present as a disciple but Mark was not. How did Mark come to compile and record the events that we know as the Gospel of Mark? The answer to this is Peter. John Mark traveled with Peter later in life and recorded stories from Peters messages. After Peter’s death, Mark compiled the stories from his notes and the rest is His story. However, as with one who is a recorder of history, rather than an eye witness there are some variables to the Gospel of Mark as an early presbyter and contemporary of the Apostles in the late first century records
The Fragment of Papias,
VI.
For information on these points, we can merely refer our readers to the books themselves; but now, to the extracts already made, we shall add, as being a matter of primary importance, a tradition regarding Mark who wrote the Gospel, which he [Papias] has given in the following words]: And the presbyter said this.
Mark having become the interpreter of Peter,
wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them.
For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. [This is what is related by Papias regarding Mark; but with regard to Matthew he has made the following statements]: Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could. [The same person uses proofs from the First Epistle of John, and from the Epistle of Peter in like manner. And he also gives another story of a woman who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is to be fount in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.]
Also Irenaeus confirms this
Irenaeus Against Heresies 3 Chapter 1
Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.
After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.
So, everything in the Gospel of Mark is true, and factual, and is sourced from an eyewitness. However, you cant use Marks account to create an accurate chronological life of Christ, and to say that he was privy to the entire conversation in question is a stretch when you compare the two.
The interesting thing to me is that Mark records some specific details that Matthew omits and Matthew records some details that Mark doesnt record. (Probably because Peter doesnt include them in his message for whatever reason)
My main point with all of this is that neither were intended to be read alone or independent of the other because both passages have information that the other is lacking. Another great example of this is the Olivet discourse, but that’s another subject. To read the one without the other is doing each passage a disservice and calls into question the conclusions reached if they havent utilized all available content.
For example;
- Both record the location as being in Judea beyond Jordan,
- Both record the Pharisees as the questioners initially
- Only Matthew records that the context of the question was divorce for every cause
- Both record Christs statements about male and female, leaving father and mother and the Twain shall be one flesh, and what God hath joined, let not man put asunder. However, the order of this and Moses’ mention is inverted
- The conversation about Moses is mostly verbatim, with a few small variations. Probably insignificant to the conversation here.
But then you get to the interesting part,
- In Matthews account, there is a caveat to the phrase, whosoever shall put away his wife except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery. In Marks account, as well as Luke’s and Pauls, this caveat is missing entirely. They simply read that a man cannot divorce his wife and marry another or its adultery.
This is not insignificant, and IMO this is neither a mistake or error but if you don’t understand the Hebrew culture in which it is given, or you attempt to approach this “simply” instead of realizing that it is a little bit more complicated than it seems, then by default, this must be a contradiction. You cannot have The man cannot divorce his wife and marry another or its adultery, AND The man cant divorce his wife EXCEPT for the sin of adultery. You cannot have both. .. . . . UNLESS there is such a thing as justifiable divorce.
- Marks account has the information about the wife divorcing her husband, and marrying another which Matthew does not have, and
- Marks account shows that this portion of the conversation happens privately, just among the disciples in a house.
So . . . The primary take away from both accounts re this thread, is that both accounts are totally accurate even if incomplete individually, and they must be understood as asked and answered through the context of “for every cause”
While this approach may create great personal anguish for some due to personal preferences or baggage, any other approach that I am aware of fosters major discrepancies and conflicts within the Scriptures and is impossible to reconcile with Hebrew history and culture. (Not that they are the litmus test, but they are also not insignificant.)
Conclusion:
Divorce by either party for anything other than adultery/covenant breaking is unjustifiable and results in adultery if the divorcer marries another. In comparison, I can find nowhere in Scripture where the victim of this unjust divorce is prevented from marrying another, provided that they have a writing of divorcement. In fact, I find multiple witnesses to the contrary. 4 witnesses (1 positive Deut. 24:1,2,[you may do this] 2 negative witness Isaiah 50:1, Ezekiel 16, [you may not because though I have put you away, it was for adultery/ or there is no writing of divorceent] and confirmation by Job 31:9-12 [if I commit adultery, my wife may go “bow” before another]EDIT: Just thought of one more. 1 Cor 7:15.
Divorce by either party for adultery/covenant breaking is justifiable and leaves the divorcer unbound to marry again.
That being said, though they could do so justifiably, God hates divorce and examples reconciliation with a woman that most of us would say good riddance to. Can you give a writing of divorce for adultery? Sure. Two witnesses. Should you divorce for adultery? Nope. At least Five witnesses.
If this helps someone, great! If you disagree and have a reasoned logical, Scriptural approach, that I can question and examine to my satisfaction, without grandstanding, I’d be grateful to hear it. If you disagree because you would rather err on the side of caution, I can totally understand and respect that. If you disagree simply because you’d prefer chattel, and consequently approach Scripture from that perspective, I really could care less what you think you think.
More importantly, if you disagree with my conclusions, but it is because you are actively examining everything in a search for truth, and you’re not there yet or will never be there, I’m cool with that and we’ll just have to see where the Spirit leads each of us. We’ll simply have to agree to disagree. Just don’t think that a lack of consensus on your part equals a prohibition on mine.
