Nr. 388: Marriage!

Nr. 388:

Marriage!

Here in Norway - especially in the dissenting part of Christianity - is about to open up Nicolaitans learn and be Bileamitter that accept remarriage of believers over a low shoe, only have one at a time as one is "married" to. We'll find out within Christianity "believer" and "preachers" who are spearheading this heresy. If one is truly converted, and bear fruit Mon Bible speaks of in his life when it is so groomed? It is important to warn against the ones we have in on us, like. «Pastor» Jan Hanvold who are divorced and re-married as believers when he said here on TV that he had good sex with his first two wives which he had with his third wife. To me appears Hanvold that totally disgusting!

Marriage in the Bible is a comprehensive and diverse topics. Especially because in the Bible itself facing several different marriage customs based on different norms for the conclusion, but also the dissolution of marriage. Cultural foundation and the basic norms of marriage practices are shifting through the Bible, and this is reflected in a gritty manner in the Bible itself. If we approach this issue from a purely descriptive method, so that we swipes biblical message of marriage based on biblical narrative unvarnished content, then we obviously get to wear serious with finding a normative attachment for a biblical teaching on marriage. We will quickly and clearly detect that there is a permanent problem related to marriage normative nature on the one hand, and life as it actually unfold on the other side. The Bible itself exhibits a diversity that gives us a clear picture, and let not the biblical personalities emerge as clear examples in this area. In several cases the opposite. I will thoroughly back to this, but too short to specify what I am aiming for, I will initially point to some of the most obvious biblical personalities such as Abraham, Jacob and David, along with a number of other personalities in the GT falls short in comparison the helbibelske marriage norm. Especially if we have to argue monogamy as a biblical norm, but also in terms of boundaries in relation to adultery. We also see that the books of Moses's law, social law, arising out of the sixth commandment ("You shall not commit adultery"), are greatly revised in Scripture itself. Bid (which bid) is never revised, but the law arising out of the bid will be revised in Scripture itself. Not least in the NT where Jesus on the one hand tightening 5 Mos. 24 its liberal ekteskapsjus in relation to divorce, while he on the other hand, criticized the legal sentencing relating to adultery (cf. Gen 3 20), which in Old Testament law was associated with the death penalty. Jesus tightens on one side into the basic marriage understanding, while on the other hand, changing the view of the way society reacts against adultery on (cf. Jn 8,7).

Marriage in the Bible therefore basically a diverse and ambiguous theme from cover to cover, both in terms of life as well as learn. This diversity is a perspective that the Bible itself never attempts to disguise, but on the contrary, reveals that human and social living conditions and challenges. Therefore, it would be a fallacious way to approach this issue from a purely descriptive method, if we are looking to understand the normative character of marriage in the Bible. And it is this that is my aim in this post here on Debate, namely to try to lay out what defines and constitutes a marriage from the Bible and explain one helbibelsk understanding of marriage.

The fact that we try to find such a focus is nonetheless important because it readily ascertainable biblical diversity is often misused in the theological and social debate. Bible's own ambiguity is used to turn the legs out from under a biblical norm as such. Referring to love as polygamy and what we would regard as grotesque laws of GT about different sexual practices. This is then used as an argument in the marriage debate as disqualifying the use of Scripture whatsoever. For example, when the death penalty for homosexual intercourse is expressed in 3 Mos. 20.13, when it says that known in a context where also heterosexual infidelity, and sexual intercourse with a menstruating woman is affected by the same judgment. And, based on these Biblical facts, it is therefore tempting to fall back on hermeneutics, an interpretation that ignores the complex and use a descriptive method to turn the normative to death. The temptation is very great to allow any further time be adding its own norms for the regulation of cohabitation, marriage definition, and such content determine what can be described as a marriage, when the Bible itself - at least a good part of the way - you can find such diversity . The challenge this represents, we must try to relate to. To discuss this we need to move something into the biblical concept of the world and I will be reviewing a few key and important concepts that can help us understand the overall and the overall message of the Bible on this issue.

Marriage

Before we look at the biblical concepts, it may be instructive to look critically at the Norwegian word marriage. The word marriage is in fact no Old Testament or biblical concept. We find no word in the Bible in Hebrew, which directly translates to marriage. The concept is not there. And in Greek has the word "gamos" that we recognize from our foreign monogamy, polygamy, endogamy, etc. "Gamo" its due importance has its equivalent in the Hebrew (misjteh) and first and foremost a celebration, a celebration , a feast, and therefore is also a word for wedding and wedding party, and again can be (indirectly) as a word on the outcome of a wedding party, namely a marriage. In other words, something distinctive word for marriage is not in Greek, using a fairly broad and general terms for party (wedding) to review the case.

The same phenomenon we have in French where the word for marriage and weddings are the same word, mariage. And the word for marriage is the same marriage. Both the English and the French word has joint roots in the latin verb maritio, meaning entwined. And when used on animals can be translated to mate. It depicts an image of marriage as a physical entity, the two encircleth apart.

Same word for marriage and weddings, we also find the Italian, matrimoni. The word denotes both also in Italian. And also this is reflected in slightly archaic English matrimony. As well does something like that to get in position to become the mother of Latin mater. And the most common word for marriage in Latin matrimonium, signifying a woman's marital status as married. This often unlike Concubinage as a woman one could lie with the Latin concubitus meaning intercourse, and was used for mistresses and concubines, unlike a true married woman. One who had civilian status in a matrimonium. An institution. The Norwegian word marriage consists of two words real and cabinets. According to Norwegian riksmål dictionary derived from this ancient oaths German Echten schop, by that we are so much wiser of it. But it is true that the word is the base word, and we understand this word as synonymous with what is true, original, genuine, contrary to what is a distortion, false, false. And the word is a noun closet ring of the word real, just like many other words substantiveres as priest-creation, accounting, jointly, adjacent cabinets, lazy cabinets, fidelity, etc. Such is the word marriage a substantivert form of what is original, genuine. The word marriage itself says not all the world. We can not find the word marriage in the Bible and in our surrounding world languages, we see a multitude of different concepts of the same coin. The most legal term in our language culture is perhaps the German term Ehe, which is the German word for marriage. It goes back to Middle High ewe and does a seed, custom, tradition, a right. The two words that best reproduces the old German word, the words "sit" (SED, standard) and "Recht" (right). Ehe in German thus carries basic meaning, the right conduct, and we may hear an echo on the institution of marriage as we speak in our language about "getting everything in order." Again, we can not find a biblical term for marriage. So what are we then find in the Bible that are relevant to what is called marriage? Is it possible to write a post about marriage in the Bible, when the term is so distant and obscure present? That's what I want to spend the rest of the space to watch. Therefore, I will no looking for an etymological dictionary definition of marriage, when we look in vain in the biblical writings. But I'm more looking for a semantic understanding of the biblical meaning relating to this Scandinavian word marriage.

The biblical principle

Since Scripture exhibiting a certain problematic diversity in the things of marriage to do, it may be helpful to us first to ask about it in Scripture is something basic that stands as an enduring common denominator, and who thus reveals itself as normative. Can we find such a normative basis? What I find that the scriptural core of what we are talking about, it's basically teosentriske of anthropology (the study of humans). And this teosentriske principle of anthropology, and the meaning of dialectics it gives a sense of Scripture a consistently important for all human relationships, views on marriage, on society, on ethics, on ecclesiology (doctrine of the church) and finally also in eschatology. As we see in Scripture that marriage often reflects the time the stories have been to in terms of marriage and cohabitation ethics standards, then the scriptural basis for anthropology teosentriske an important key to see Scripture own inner polemic against deviant norms. We see this as gradually increasing controversy in the GT, but it is particularly evident in the NT and the early church's encounter with Hellenistic paganism, where Christian ethics on fundamental way are in opposition to this. What I mean by that anthropology teosentriske basis? The answer is found in the stories of the creation of man, with such a content of saturated pregnane that most are addressed in these texts. And Jesus himself takes this principle in their marriage teaching and his criticism of previous marriage practices (cf. Mark 10, Matthew 19). Therefore, we must begin here in Creation texts. The creation of man (Adam) begins with a heavenly rådslutning where we hear about a relationship with God. "Let us make man in our image (Heb.: tselem), after our likeness (Hebrews: demote)" (1MOS 1.26). This teosentriske relational perspective of the divine rådslutningssamtalen we initially just sign without interpretation. In the grammar is expressed a mysterious relationship to God. Where God speaks to himself. Furthermore, these words express that what is to be created, it should reflect God, image and likeness. And since that will be reflected in the relationships expressed pluralistic (our image, our likeness), it lies in the nature of things that it is in their relationship that man should depict God resemble God. Not primarily as an individual human being carries gudbilledligheten, but in relationship. Then comes the creation: "And God created man (Adam) in his own image, in the image of God created he him; Zach (Hebrews mean: male) and neqvah (Hebrews means female) created he them." It is not the two common words for man (Heb.: ish) and woman (Heb.: isah), but the two words that express the gender-specific difference between the sexes, Zach (male) and neqvah (female). This is sex specific word used to reject homosexual practice OT when it is in 3 Mos. 18.22 "You shall not lie with a Zach (male) as one lies with a woman (Heb.: isah)." And in 3 Mos 20.13 "When a man (Heb.: ish) lie with Zachar (male), as he lieth with a woman (Heb.: isah), both of them have done a disgusting act. " In the creation story is therefore expressed as the gender, the carrying gudbilledligheten in it, and this gudbilledligheten expressed in the relationship between the sexes. Unfortunately an underdeveloped perspective in most of the theological literature, this essential point that it is zacharog neqvah which together constitute the image of God in man. At this teosentriske principle also be important for the understanding of marriage, we will see when we turn to the other text in the creation narrative with direct relevance to our topic. It is 1MOS 2.24: "Therefore shall a man (Heb.: ish) leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife (Heb.: isah), and they shall be one flesh." This text is interesting in terms of marriage, because it reflects a context where families exist Tiled. We must remember that we are in the creation story, and the only two people we hear about are the prototypes of the human race, namely Adam and Eve. But here is assumed in the creation text a context where families exist Tiled with father, mother and children. And what will happen between the sexes is all of creation expressed in terms of violations and new. A man should break up in the form of this to leave their origin and establish a new relationship with a woman, and the two shall constitute a physical unit. What we are witnessing in this text? - We are witness to a covenant making. A public declaration that something new is created through departure from his father's and mother's house, and new businesses in their own family, saying that the man literally be klebeseg to his woman. This terminology to break up and stick to find in consultation with the covenant idea in several places in the Old Testament. In connection with the Sinai covenant, it is said, among other things 5Mos 10.20: "The Lord your God ... he should stick to / stick to." In Joshua 23, 6 and beyond exhorted the people of Israel to adhere to the covenant God gave to Moses, and so it comes in verse 8: "But the Lord your God, you shall stick / stick to you." It's the same word. We find it also in the same sense in 5Mos 11.22. And the prophet Jeremiah and the prophet Hosea used the word leaving / breaking the connection with the people of Israel consideration away from God's covenant (cf. Jer At 1.16 and 4.10).

What does this have a teosentrisk base for anthropology to do? - The answer should be clear. Wherever God is, with Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, with the people of Israel, with Christ, the Church, as God does it in the form of covenants. God's covenant God. He relates to us humans through covenants. And the relationship between man and woman should reflect the covenant God, with all that implies of promise, commitment, loyalty, love, sacrifice, and also the duration. Marriage is in a way all covenants mother and will be an image of God, as God is in his relationship with us. Thus admonished so strongly that man should love his wife as Christ loved the church (cf. Ephesians 5:25). Charter term (Heb.: berit) related to marriage is not something frequently occurring phenomenon in GT, and I almost thought I had to give up hope of finding the terms in the assembly where the issue of marriage and the word covenant forces. I came all the way to OT last book and the last chapter, before I found what I was looking for. It is the prophet Malachi 2.14, which says: "... she is your spouse and your wife that you've covenant." That word translated here as with the word "spouse" (Hebrews: Haverfordwest) is a hapax legomenon (a word occurring only once in the Bible) and it is well in excess interpretive translation to translate the word "spouse", for the word meaning "one share something with," a "partner," "a companion. "The word expresses a close relationship between the parties, and is suitable as well as a set of words between real people, but the word does not say anything about the status of this relationship. The same word can be used whether colleagues, brothers, as well as on real people. And the second word here, "wife" is just a translation of the word "woman" (Heb.: isah). The magic word that makes the translation is correct is just the word "covenant." We could translated it as: "... she is your partner and woman, as you have a covenant." It is the covenant that makes your partner to a spouse and the woman as wife. Pact is essential between the two, and it proclaims the prophet Malachi at this location.

The Old Testament begins with the story of creation to witness the signing covenant between man and woman, with the man who breaks up and stick to, adhere to his woman. And GT ends with the prophet Malachi that the first names this compound covenant. It's a beautiful perspective that the GT is framed for this reason the understanding of the relationship between man and woman that covenant. And when we read through the GT along we see that this covenant relationship that the Lord has made between man and woman is the same covenant relationship that God himself puts in - in relation to his chosen people. Covenant relationship between God and Israel is like the relationship between man and woman. And never is it more beautiful than expressed in Isaiah 54.5: "For your Maker is your husband, the Lord of hosts is his name." All adultery is either express breach of the covenant between man and woman, or a breach of the covenant with God. How to use the word fornication in Scripture. We raised the question whether there is a norm in Scripture is unchangeable regardless of the changing social circumstances of that marriage would otherwise occur in, and this fundamental norm, we have now put words on the basis of the creation narrative teosentriske perspective of anthropology. Two things are in fact immutable fixed. One is the polarity of the sexes between Zach (Heb.: male) and neqvah (Hebrews: female), which together constitute the image of God (cf. 1MOS 1.27). The second is understanding covenant between man and woman, who thus should reflect the covenant God in his relationship with faithful love (cf. 1MOS 2.24). The conclusion is therefore currently it; Marriage in the Bible are subject to these two conditions: 1) male-female, and 2) covenant. Only in this context can there be talk of marriage in the Biblical sense. And these two standards take alltidi Scripture regardless of other differences.

Various differences in GT about marriage

There are two factors in GT that ran us in the eye when it comes to different norms for marriage. One is the relationship between monogamy and polygamy, and the second is the relationship between endogamy and exogamy, (ie to marry within their people, ethnic group, or outside its people, ethnic group). All these kinds of relationships we find well represented in the GT, and it is these forms of different norms that are often used in marriage debate to dissolve the church's traditional norms surrounding marriage. Abraham lived in a polygamous relationship with Sarah and Hagar. It was Sara who had Hagar as servant, and gave Hagar to Abraham and Hagar as revised their status from servant to the concubine. When she could give birth to Abraham right heirs. That there were sexual relations between them is something the Bible does not hide the (cf. 1MOS 16). But marriage status may be in order. And the same applies to the patriarch Jacob. He had wives Rachel and Leah, and maids Bilhah and Zilpah. He had sexual intercourse with all four. The interesting thing about these texts is that the norm for that James should be able to sleep with Bilhah and Zilpah, servant girls to Rachel and Leah, is that Bilhah and Zilpah get upgraded its status as concubines. They are also wives of Jacob, Jacob women. In other words, there was no question of sexual exploitation of slaves, although these were part of the marital status. It is quite clear from 1MOS 30.4 and 30.9. Even in this primitive culture was great degree of dignity, where sexual intercourse presumed marital status. The examples of polygamy in the Old Testament are many, but we should not take this time. However, we can state that we can not find any prohibition against polygamy in the marriage custom that was in the patriarchs. We must also remember that this was long before the writing does none of the Biblical canon had begun. But we are all in the story of Abraham, one important criterion for marriage, a norm that page was differently emphasized in Israel. And there is the requirement of endogamy. It is the requirement to marry within their own ethnic group. When Abraham to find a wife for Isaac, it should not be a Canaanite, but one of their own people. In 1MOS 24.3 f we encounter this for the first time. It says: "I will make you swear by the LORD, who made heaven and earth, that thou shalt not take a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell. But to my country and to my family, you go and get a wife for my son Isaac. "Same thing repeated in verses 37 and 38 of the same chapter. In the relationship between Esau and Jacob, we see that Esau perish, because he took wives from other genera. He first married two hettit girls (1MOS 26.34), later it was a bit mixed drops of the harem to Esau when he mingled with lineage after Ishmael (cf. 1MOS 28.9). Here we have probably the real reason why Abraham-the promise was continued through Jacob and not through Esau. We must not let ourselves be blinded for a lot of lentil soup that Jacob sold to his starving brother. When we get to 28 1MOS history repeat itself again with Isaac to Jacob, to the stories of the patriarchs often repeats itself. Also James going to Mesopotamia to find a wife among his own people. And we know the long struggle to reach the love of Rachel. The point now is that we can ascertain the norm endogamy which was basic emphasis in the history of the patriarchs. Polygamy, polygamy, however, was not debated.

We will go with syvmilssteg and look at another important teks also refers to endogamy as the preferred norm. For there is intermarriage (exogamy) being emphasized as the reason for King Solomon's apostasy. Not polygamy, that he had a thousand wives in his harem. In 1 Kings 11 we read: "But King Solomon loved many foreign women besides Pharaoh's daughter, Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians, and Hittites, women of the nations which the Lord had spoken and said to the children of Israel, Ye shall not give you the team with them and they with you. Otherwise they knew to turn their hearts to their gods. - The Solomon clung to, and he loved them. He had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines. These wives of his bent his mind, "etc. It is the prohibition of mixed marriages as it is shown here for, so we find it in 5Mos 7.3 and 4, and which are repeated such in Ezra 9.14. But we also opposite examples of mixed marriages has been a blessing. We see for example in the story of Joseph in Egypt who marries avgudsprestens daughter, Asenath. We see it as Boaz marries Ruth the Moabitess, and the story of Queen Esther, who saves his people through their intermarriage with the Persian king Ahasuerus. So the picture of this norm is not entirely clear in the Scriptures, but just ambiguous. Our question is still; defending GT polygamy? And the answer to that is that until a certain time polygamy remains one uproblematisert cohabitation. But as I argued very beginning, so we can not create a Biblical marriage ethics by pure descriptive reading of Scripture. Polygamy is in fact no norm because of practice, beyond what we might call the common law. Polygamy never made requiring anywhere. But controversy nor against it until a certain time. We need to put polygamy in a context of economic character revelation. And what we see is that the prophet hear are fairly strong criticism of polygamy, based on an understanding of monotheism. Prophets time embrace a message in a new way reveal God's will for marriage. Just the message of the Lord of Israel one husband, and Israel as the Lord's bride is one starting point for this. This is the message we find in Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Amos, Isaiah, and not least by the prophet Hosea who in person to illustrate Israel's relationship with the Lord. Hosea was as familiar to marry a whore and call her Lo-ishti {, (Hebrews meaning: not-my-wife.) (Cf. At 2.2). In Israel, we see why the Prophet currently growing criticism of polygamy as an expression of paganism and a shift toward monogamy as the current norm. This shift has just a theological, teosentrisk and monotheistic basis of the relationship between God and his people. In this context it is interesting to look at the word in Hebrew as in our translations and translated the word husband. Just as there is no separate word for marriage, there is no separate word for husband. One can use the common word for man (henr.: ish), or as we sometimes see the word (henr.: Ba'al),. The most common meaning of the word Baal master or owner, but we also know that this was the name of the Canaanite storm and fertility god. We also know that Baal worship in Israel was the idolatry which the prophets rebuked, partly because of the religious prostitution, it brought with it. Baal worship is especially criticized by the prophets Jeremiah and Hosea. The point of mentioning the name Ba'alher, is about the triple meaning it gets into the ears of the people of Scripture. One meaning is the idol and idolatry in the Canaanite religion. The second is the word for husband. And the third is the word, where it is used of the Lord. In monotheistic and therefore monogamous direction pulls this word when the prophet Jeremiah to 31.31 f: "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It should not be like the covenant which I created with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand and led them out of Egypt, my covenant which they broke, though I was their husband (Heb.: Ba'al) says the Lord. "Here the word for husband standing as a word in the conflict between a polytheistic idolatry of Baal on one side, and a monotheistic cult of the Jewish faith in the other. This was indeed important for the understanding of marriage monogamous character. Much more could be said about marriage in the Old Testament. Among other things, how Decalogue (the Ten Commandments) the preservation of family life bordering intervention from outside, especially in the form of the catechism is ninth and tenth commandment (cf. 2Mos 20:17). Or this with the obligations of an unmarried brother to marry his brother's childless widow, if he is unmarried (cf. 5Mos 25). And we could have taken out a number of other conditions. This, too, that a spouse is a gift, or as it really is, a grace / mercy of God (cf. Prov. 18.22 and 19.4). Or the role of marriage, to bring children into the world and take part in God's continuing creation (cf. 1MOS 1.28). Only one thing remains to be mentioned at the end of GT and that is that the Law of Moses liberal ekteskapsjus in relation to divorce, as expressed in 5Mos 24, where a man can write a certificate of divorce if he no longer finds his wife pleases. The marriage understanding is already using a GT, and in particular with the prophet Malachi strong criticism. In Malachi 2.16 states: "I hate divorce, says the Lord God." But we'll stop here with GT and make a preliminary conclusion. The norm in GT for marriage is in the creation narratives of gender, the harmony and understanding. Secondly, there is a clear affirmation of endogamy as mandated primary norm, with some happy exceptions (Joseph, Boaz and Esther as an example), and that there is a normative shift away from polygamous marriages in the direction of monogamy in prophet time, in theological polemic against polytheism and idolatry, particularly fertility god Baal. We also see a tightening of allegiance understanding in relation to marriage indissoluble, the prophet Malachi. In all this we see a shift where a teosentrisk base for anthropology is the cause. Man shall in their relationship resemble God.

Jesus and Marriage

We now come to the NT. For a Christian church falling all norms in place with NT. And it is the Lord Jesus himself who must have the final word on these things in the church. Apostolic exhortation in the Epistles does not anything normatively new to, or subtracts anything from that which is determined by Jesus. There is a wide range of wedding and bridal metaphors in the Gospels. We see it in parables and in the life of Jesus. Among other things, his first during which, according to the apostle John relates to a wedding, and as the church's tradition of interpretation stands as a sign of Christ's presence in the Christian marriage. And this wedding and brudemetaforikken is a further elaboration of the mysterious relationship between God and his people, as we see the traces of the Old Testament, in the creation of texts and the prophets. While this wedding and brudemetaforikken has an eschatological view with regard to the big party in the kingdom of God accomplished, as in Biblical terminology is called the Lamb's wedding. We will not pondering this mystery, but it also belongs to our understanding of the relationship between man and woman in marriage here on earth. The relationship that is dissolved by death, and that does not last into heaven, will still be an image of the great relationship with God our Creator and Redeemer. Marriage as currently belong to, should be an image of the eternal things. Apart from the extensive mysterious substance in the Gospels and elsewhere in the NT about wedding metaphor, so we are left with two particular synoptic texts in Mark 10 and Matthew 5 and 8 basic verse about the same thing in Matthew 19 We can say that Jesus clarifies the church's understanding of marriage about ten verses in the Bible, because the verses we talk overlap in content and meaning. With ten verses turn Jesus Christian marriage Ethics firm, and he does so mainly by pointing GT. We do not even look up all the places, but stick to Matthew 19.5-9, "he said, Have you not read that the Creator from the beginning made them male and female and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh. ' So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let man not separate. "They asked him," Why then did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce before he can send her away? "He replied," Because of your hardness of heart, has Moses permitted you to divorce your wives. But from the beginning it was not so. I say to you, whoever divorces his wife for any reason other than fornication, and marries another woman commits adultery. " The premise for what Jesus says here is the question of divorce, where Jesus vehemently against Moses. In addition sharpens Jesus a little into the creation story using a umissforståelig numerals found in the Septuagint, but not in the Hebrew masoretteksten, when he says that "... the two shall become one flesh." Tall word two are not in the Hebrew, only numbers one word. But to quote the Septuagint, Jesus confirms the doctrine development that already occurred in the GT towards monogamy. And in Jesus' mouth is no longer any doubt. Marriage is between two, one man and one woman. In other words unequivocally monogamous. Jesus quotes the Old Testament here and therefore the words to leave ... and hold / adhere to ..., as an expression of covenant ceremony. And then he adds the genuine words that bear the master's stamp: "What God has joined together, should not people separate" (Matthew 19.6, Mark 10.9). Here we understand that Jesus did not look at marriage alone as a social, human arrangement of social life, but as ordained by God in creation as something inviolable, because God has joined man and woman together. God ordained man. No one has ever been so categorically that Jesus at this point. But as he has given the Church the norm which we call the heterosexual, monogamous, lifelong marriage settlement. It is the basic norm of marriage NT. Jesus did not leave any other standard than this. And remarriage of the question as long as the spouse lives. NT's view on divorce is principally related to what constitutes marriage, namely the covenant and sexual union between one man and one woman. Listen, that sexual infidelity is therefore in itself a real adultery, because it violates the unit to be faithful unifying between real people. Hor is itself a covenant violations and marriage are violated in their intention. Therefore Jesus allows divorce, as confirmation of the covenant violation, for fornication. But he does not allow remarriage if one is reached in this situation. Those who have come in such a situation has a biblical right to live alone, separated from her unfaithful spouse, or reconcile and renew the covenant through penalty (cf. 1 Cor 7.11).

Paul is the most likely to teach about marriage. He is totally in line with Jesus' teaching on divorce and marriage relationship. But he also goes somewhat further in its guidance. Paul mentions one reason for divorce is interesting. He speaks of the right to divorce where the spouses do not share the faith (1Kor12 0.7 to 17). It is a variation of endogamy which says that the best is that the spouses are of the same faith, the same kind. But here we must pay close attention to what Paul writes. The Christian party in the marriage is given no right to file for divorce. It is the infidel party granted a right to leave their Christian spouse. Then the Christians passively allow it. Does not Paul here also the norm that is not authorized by Jesus? No, we do not see it that way. For Paul, a Christ-rooted norm in that here he writes. Main Worm is in fact real, the Christian should not divorce, even if the other is disbelief. It would be wrong. On the contrary, the Christian struggle to take care of too unbelief husband or wife, because in a way also sanctifies the unbelieving party. It is incredibly strong words about what advantage an unbeliever have to be married to a Christian. Competent saints. But - as we meet here is where a Christian faces a spouse who is incredulous and would break the marriage settlement, when carrying the unbelieving party responsible for the breach, and the Christian can not be blamed for it.

Paul introduces this tutorial no new norm in the church, he maintains norm that divorce is a violation of God's will. But he does what the church must always venture in the face of life, namely to apply the norm. Paul's apostolic guidance in this area is therefore to be considered as used and derived norms from Jesus' teaching on marriage. In the New Testament we find many warnings against fornication and adultery (cf. 1Cor 6.15 ff and Hebrews 13.4, etc.). In particular, we refer to the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments) in the Gospels (Mark 10.19, etc.) And so we see Epistles, where adultery is repeated constantly downloading directories along with other sins. (Cf. Gal 5.19 f, etc.) The texts concerning homosexual relationships fits into the same general rejection on the basis of the norms we have already seen. In relation to homosexual relationships, it is interesting that Paul in Romans 1.27, 6.9 and 1 Corinthians 1 Timothy 1.10 where it is mentioned that he uses terminological equivalent concepts in Greek that corresponds to the Hebrew word pair Zach (Heb.: male ) and neqvah Heb.: female). Paul does not use the common words for man (in Greek: anær / andros) and woman (in Greek: gynæ / gynaika) when he admonishes against homosexual behavior, but he uses the concepts of Arsa (Greek: male / male) and thælys (Greek : female / female) to put the ban into its creation theological context. This is strikingly evident. And if we translate this from terminology would Rooms 1.27 read as follows: "Likewise also the men leaving the natural use of the female sex, burned in their lust for one another. Male Sex Drive shameful fornication with male gender, ... "The point is that this conflicts with the creation norm, Paul believes everyone can read off of nature, and therefore also hold events responsible for this area from the natural law (cf. Rom 1:20). Marriage in the NT is far from exhausted with what we have said so far, but I also need to round this by briefly mentioning the Christian marriage as a sign of the relationship between Christ and the Church (Ephesians 5:32). A sacrament, we read in the Latin edition, the Vulgate. A mystery we read in the original Greek. And this places a special responsibility on the Christian Church to realize and proclaim the love that should - ideally - be enforced after Christ's own example in marriage. Therefore, a Christian does not enter marriage when it can be a burden, but also see the cross forgiveness and love in the community around the burdens of good and bad days.

Attempt

It is increasingly argued that the Bible speaks into a different culture and context than the one we live in now, and likewise reflects other times and cultures that we can not easily be compared. This must have an impact on our understanding, not to mention the use of these texts in our time, it is claimed. We can say we partially agree with this argument, but not as a general disqualification of the Bible as norms for marriage. Biblical view of cohabitation between a man and a woman based on permanent sizes, Zach (Heb.: male) and neqvah (Hebrews: female) ogpakt (Hebrews: berit). Biblical revelation household develops an understanding of this to be a reflection of the relationship between God and his people, and provide marriage and man's own ethos of a theological grounding in God. Bible moves in slow steps away from a tacit acceptance of polygamous marriages, towards monogamy as the original expression of the will of God, and Christ committed his church on this. At the same Jesus marriage indissoluble and lifelong character. On the basis of this norm rejected all other forms of cohabitation as a violation of God's commandments and condemned in the NT as adultery. Marriage was created in paradise and Jesus adds the norm for the Church's teaching on marriage in paradise level. Is not Jesus as utopian? Even Jesus' disciples thought this was too demanding (cf. Matt 19:10). Well, we can think and feel what we want about it. Jesus said his. He who calls his people to be renewed after the image of his Creator (cf. Colossians 3:10).

By Day Øivind Østereng

Related links: http://the-heavenly-blog.janchristensen.net/2012/05/nr-304-marriage-divorce-and-remarriage.html http://the-heavenly-blog.janchristensen.net/2012/09/nr-376-remarriage-any-problem-no-it-is.html