Comments

There Are 36 Responses So Far. »

1. 1 Comment by Robert Borne on 11 June 2008:

   Yawn – our time here is brief – but longer time here for some, makes the brief sufficient unto the eternal.

   Quote: “While the Pentateuch forbids adultery, homosexuality, bestiality, incest, and the seduction of a virgin, it does not forbid an unmarried man to enjoy the favors of a woman and it takes polygyny for granted. In the Gospels, Jesus makes no mention of polygamy, but he is very hard on divorce.” (end quote)

   The entire piece sir is timely in my opinion, and especially from a sage or close to it, like you… paid for with time and approrpiate pain no doubt (if not extra stuff that shouldn’t have happened but does in an imperfect and free world) and your own will toward the direction of the divine in so far as will-?-abetted your osmosis. When we get there we are and so it always WAS. The present when in the divine changes the past for us. Doesn’t mean we don’t have human issues to deal with organically along the way, if we do…and we do, unless ‘Jesus.’

   Divorce is good if necessary due to monogomy if it is the lesser evil, and usually so much so it *isn’t the lesser evil (especially when considering children involved) the church took its stand against.

   polygamy works and if a mother wishes to leave which is rare she can. Even if she left the kids behind they would be cared for by the other mothers and the father. Is it best, polygamy, given the newer possibility in time of monogamy thanks to the west-?-All things considered, I’d put it at six of one, half-dozen of another if considering such formal unions are or should be about primarily the kids. They’re helpless and they’re innocent and the future. Why get married, otherwise?

   I’d call it a human sin to get married otherwise, if not For one’s kids. Why get married then? Who’s conning who?

   The most simple things are the most important. They work.

2. 2 Comment by Vance W. McGee on 11 June 2008:

   “I think it is safe to say that any ‘church’ that advocates divorce and remarriage on a regular basis has departed from Christian teaching on an important point.” Yes sir, and it is amazing how many “conservative” churches do this. I am a Bible and theology teacher at a Christian school (for boys) in Mississippi. 86% of our students come from homes where the parents have been divorced at least once. I have noticed that when a mother remarries, the situation (for the teenaged boy) is almost always worse than if she had remained a single mother. It doesn’t take too great an imagination to picture the pain and frustration a 14 year old boy goes through when he has a grown man in the house, not related to him by blood, telling him what to do from day to day. The boy’s mother then finds herself playing referee between the miffed stepfather and the angry 14 year old,
   while she is increasingly alienated from both. I realize that these are only pragmatic concerns. The theological reasons for remaining single after divorce are of course the best reasons. But the hypocrisy of the evangelical churches on this subject is overwhelming. The Focus on the Family crowd is fully against abortion and homosexuality (as they should be), but how often do you hear of evangelical churches refusing communion to divorced and re-married persons? We really need to tighten things up and obey Christ’s hard sayings in all areas, even when it might offend some of the elders and deacons and rich guys that are paying the pastors’ salaries.

3. 3 Comment by robert reavis on 11 June 2008:

   Dr. Fleming,
   Other than the Christian or Jewish traditions, are there any other “isms” of influence in the West that have upheld the dignity of marriage as a life long commitment between a man and a woman for the ends of procreation and education of children ?
   Racism, socialism, feminism, fascism, liberalism, conservativism, libertarianism, mormonism, atheism, deism, globalism, capitalism, etc. ?
   Certainly I understand the various departures within the traditon itself such as puritanism, jansenism, fundamentalism, etc. I often hear people say they are not religious, but they believe in the “value” of marriage, the “value” of raising a family, of being good citizens, so I wonder sometimes if this is just a vague belief from the cultural capital of the past, or if is grounded in some rational “natural law “that you have sometimes held with skepticism as being “self evident.”
   It seems to me of all the modern diseases that assail us, that the concept of “incompatibility” is the most corrosive, fundamental and deadly of all, with rare exceptions.

4. 4 Comment by Bill Wilder on 11 June 2008:

   Dr. Fleming,

   Thank you for your thoughts on these matters.

   Was homosexuality the “easiest” of these matters for the early church to resolve (i.e., with least controversy)? While not all these matters are clear, as you note, homosexuality seems to clearly be excluded both by express injunction and by the necessary implication of other teachings (such as on marriage.)

   I think you may overstate the Apostle Paul’s instruction in 1 Cor. 7. The context seems to indicate that his instruction has to do with “the present distress”; implying Paul was encouraging celibacy because of the saints suffering persecution and the though of a spouse (particularly for men their wives) suffering persecution might weaken or distract them. Perhaps Paul’s instruction was of general application, but I tend to think it may be more reflective of the particular circumstances.

   On a related point from 1 Cor. 5, I know you’d indicated previously that divorce was rare among the Greeks and perhaps did not become common until the 5 or 6th centuries. But in Chapter 5 Paul encourages the church to disfellowship a brother who was “living with his father’s wife.” This language implies to me that it was the father’s second wife. (That seems an awkward way to state “mother”, particularly since the Mosaic law separately condemned incest with a mother and with a father’s wife.) I suppose the second wife could have resulted from a widowing as likely as divorce, but it certainly raises the potential that the man had been divorced. I don’t know if you have any thoughts on that. The text doesn’t really admit of a firm conclusion.

   Does Hermas give any discussion to the Mosaic rule that if a man puts his wife away because of an impurity (impliedly moral impurity) and she marries another and her husband then dies, the first husband cannot take her to wife again? That would seem to contradict Hermas’ instruction that a man who puts away an adulterous wife should not remarry in order that he can receive her again.

   (Of course, I struggle somewhat with the Mosaic rule, which, while clearly seeking to fulfill the injunction “be ye holy for I am holy”, nonetheless seem to have a pragmatic element to account for men’s weaknesses and the temptations at the time–such as that a man while has relations with a slave girl who had not yet been given in marriage does not commit adultery, but is to pay compensation.)

   I hope those thoughts are not too random.

   Regards.

   P.S. For what it is worth, marriage, divorce and remarriage remain quite controversial among some churches. In mine, the elders would inquire about a subsequent marriage from one who wishes to become a member. Depending on the circumstances of that marriage, they may receive the person in fellowship (perhaps, for example, a person who divorced before becoming a Christian and then subsequently married a Christian or a Christian who was abandoned by an unbelieving spouse.) But a divorce and remarriage among a member would be deeply controversial (and likely intolerable) unless adultery were involved. So not everyone is lax today.

5. 5 Comment by TJF on 12 June 2008:

   A very brief response. Yes, I may well have overstated Paul’s position, but then I think he did, too. Paul often makes it clear that he is giving the best advice he can on matters that are not articles of Christian faith. I think many in the early Church thought the end was coming the day after tomorrow and, as you point out, in a time of persecution it does not seem terribly sensible to start a family. Eventually the early Church sorted these things out and began imposing different standards on clergy and laity, though even that statement is misleadingly simple. Clearly, a married man was eligible for office in the Church, though not a polygamist, and in time a priest or bishop could not marry, though he could assume office if he were married.

   Actually the Judaic tradition does not seem to have a very noble concept of marriage, despite the passage in Genesis. Early Greek and early Roman marriage was monogamous and divorce was nonexistent or rare. As both nations grew rich and cosmopolitan, divorce and other irregularities became common in the upper classes. Nonetheless, both Greek and Roman literatures offer far more touching portraits of marital happiness than the OT.

   Homosexuality and infanticide were excluded early on, and my best guess is that while a polygamist could become Christian, no Christian would have been permitted to take a second wife. Thus polygamy would have died out in a generation. Abortion was not uncommon in the ancient world, though it was viewed by many as more disgusting than the exposure of an infant, who would most probably be rescued.

   Marriage with a stepmother was regarded by Romans as disgusting and always prohibited by the Church. Divorce was common in the Greco-roman world by this time and even easier among the Jews.

6. 6 Comment by Theodore Van Oosbree on 12 June 2008:

   A few points:
   1. It is my understanding that polygamy was no longer common among the 1st century Jews (having withered away as it had among the Romans). Is this correct from your information?
   2. I have always regarded Christ’s teaching in Mark rules out polygamy because of its strong emphasis on the union of one man and one woman (as it was in the beginning!).
   3. I believe that the Church’s exegesis of the “fornication” exception in Mark is that it refers not to fornication by a spouse as a grounds for divorce but to the fact that putting away a concubine was not divorce in the sense that Christ forbade (i.e. the Greek word translated as fornication refers to relations with a concubine, not a wife).
   4. Loosen the strict marriage bond enjoined by the Church and its Katy bar the door! We have returned to the serial polygamy of the Romans (along with the rest of their vices!).

7. 7 Comment by TJF on 12 June 2008:

   To Mr. Van Osbree: No, I think you are mistaken on several points. There are no census tables for First Century Judaea, but Jews did not renounce polygamy in Europe until the 12th century and even then it was under threat. In the Middle EAst, it has never been abandoned, causing trouble in Israel, where Western laws on marriage are in force and contested by Middle Eastern Jews. I agree with you on Christ’s teaching, but I don’t know why He was not more explicit, unless it was in the belief that his followers would renounce polygamy and there was no need to make an issue of it at the beginning. This would then explain Paul’s injunction not to appoint a presbyter, bishop, or deacon who had more than one wife.

   On 3, I don’t know about the Church’s exegesis of the exception in Matthew (not Mark), but since there is no mention of concubinage, it seems an unnecessary intrusion into the text. My point, as i think you know, is not to poke holes into the Church’s teaching or traditions, but to show how the Church clarified teachings that were either implicit in Our Lord’s teaching or even positively communicated to His disciples.

   As for #4, you are certainly correct in assessing what has happened in the post-Christian West, but I would point out that we in the barbarian West have only occasionally reached, in practice, the marital strictness of the Romans. (The lives of French monarchs from Clovis to Louis XV do not make edifying reading, apart from decent men like Louis VII, St. Louis, and Louis XVI.) It is true that after the Punic Wars, Roman aristocrats became increasingly loose in matters of divorce, but serial monogamy remained a largely upper-class vice. The chastity of women was always valued in Roman law, and, despite the wild tales of erotic excesses in Suetonius and the Scriptores Historiae Augustae, Roman law and custom would be a dream come true for us today.

8. 8 Comment by Theodore Van Oosbree on 12 June 2008:

   Dear Dr. Fleming:
   Thank you for your reply. The Romans seem to have been of two minds about marriage and chastity. The traditional Roman attititude was certainly commendable and remained publicly popular, as evidenced by public statuary of idealized, modestly dressed Roman matrons. Private art was another matter. The surviving art at Pompeii, for example, shows a widespread interest in erotic or pornographic portrayals of both men and women, not counting such art in the numerous brothels. Perhaps we have the intersection of two cultures here: the old Roman farmer/patriot culture meeting the new Imperial culture with its abundance of wealth and slaves. Idle hands do the devil’s work.

9. 9 Comment by TJF on 12 June 2008:

   For a bit of precision, we should note that Pompeii is not Rome or even terribly Roman. The area was originally Hellenic and then Campanian and thus it is difficult to extrapolate. They were certainly neither Puritans nor hypocrites but took a frank interest in the pleasures of the flesh. Roman pornography, even so, falls far short of what is available on the internet today. But, let us also remember, that in Catholic European towns, there were red light districts. The Church in preaching continence, chastity, and fidelity did not set out to become moral tyrant over society. That was left to the Puritans.

   I neglected to thank Vance McGee for his helpful comment. I think many churches have their priorities wrong. They devote an enormous amount of their resources to preventing pagans from doing what pagans do–homoerotic relations and infanticide–while ignoring the moral chaos that has overtaken Christian couples.

10. 10 Comment by Bill Wilder on 12 June 2008:

    Thank you, Dr. Fleming. Yes, there is likely some measure of exaggeration in Paul’s instruction in 1 Cor. 7 (both for practical reasons and, perhaps, for effect.)

    I think it is safe to say that any “church” that advocates divorce and remarriage on a regular basis has departed from Christian teaching on an important point.

    This statement is certainly correct and can be proven not simply by the early church, but by the teachings upheld into the 20th century.

    From the standpoint of the writings of the various church fathers on the subject, is there any discussion wherein a distinction is drawn between one who divorces and remarries prior to becoming a Christian (then being born again and becoming a “new creature” as Paul described it) and one who purported to divorce after becoming a Christian? I suppose the way to describe it would be is there any distinction in these writings between the “alien sinner” divorcing then becoming a Christian, and regulations upon Christians?

    There seems to be various bases in scripture for such a distinction (not necessarily persuasive to all, of course), but from what you present regarding marriage practices among Greeks and Romans it would seem that (at least apart from Jewish experience at the time) divorce was not common among the pagans to where that would have been a question in the early days of the church. If you have any thoughts on that matter, I would be interested.

    Warm regards.

11. 11 Comment by NGPM on 13 June 2008:

    “I neglected to thank Vance McGee for his helpful comment. I think many churches have their priorities wrong. They devote an enormous amount of their resources to preventing pagans from doing what pagans do–homoerotic relations and infanticide–while ignoring the moral chaos that has overtaken Christian couples.”

    Question: do pagan societies that wish to survive to the next generation tolerate complete sexual license, notions of homoerotic “liberation,” rampant neglect of reproduction, etc. ad infinitum? Mr. McGee has an excellent point, and of course it all starts from contracteption (which, if permissible, logically justifies divorce, fornication, adultery, sodomy, beastiality and incest); but I don’t know if the level of decadence in post-Christian Occidental society has an historic parallel.

12. 12 Pingback by ADF Alliance Alert » Sex and Marriage in the Early Church on 13 June 2008:

    [...] Chronicles, Thomas Fleming begins what looks to be a series of posts on Sex and Marriage in the Early Church in an attempt to document the “time, reasoned debate, and inspiration” that formed the [...]

13. 13 Comment by Robert Borne on 14 June 2008:

    I personally believe I notice, that civilization which is culture in a fuller sense in all four directions is green. Not of the much more of necessity brutal desert. Whose cultures judaic/isalmic etc. with us today, wherever they yet reside are like time in a bottle. And the elixir is trouble. So it doesn’t surprise me that the more tender and thus perhaps loyal relationships between the genders began in Greco-roman civilizations, wherein one felt more or less secure and so the approximate equal to him or her.

    Of course as they grew more successful in their upper classes, troubles when they moved together out of the modest zone of the appropriately green, and enjoyed excesses then, instead of the other debilitating or extreme side of the coin as in a desert – dearth. ‘Interesting’ how dearth as well as excess seems to result in a greater barbarism? Hmm.

    You said it yourself TJF – ‘balance is everything.’

    The saying let’s keep it green doesn’t mean always new in my opinion but rather approximately balanced. As for St. Paul he took gnostic inspiration and hooked it to the practical without losing much of either in my opinion.

    Tell the truth or trump but get the trick said Mark Twain. I’d say St. Paul got both of them right? Got to if you’re really actually going to have a religion.

14. 14 Comment by Jack on 14 June 2008:

    “I think it is safe to say that any ‘church’ that advocates divorce and remarriage on a regular basis has departed from Christian teaching on an important point”

    They why don’t the conservative churches take a hard stance against the widespread fact of divorce, instead of quaking in their shoes at the 1% of the population that is gay and wants to be married? I know, a question like this is like shooting fish in a barrel, but it would sure be nice if the churches would notice the elephant in the room and say something about it.

15. 15 Comment by TJF on 15 June 2008:

    I suppose one question we have to ask is this: Does a Church or sect that on principle repudiates several fundamentals of Christian faith and the Christian moral code deserve to be regarded as Christian? For example, many (most) mainline Churches are flinchy on the nature of Christ and “prayerfully” acknowledge a woman’s right to choose to murder her unborn child. (I’ve just been looking at the Presbyterian Church USA’s websites). Can a Christian remain in such a body, e.g., the Evangelical Lutheran Church, Congregationalist, etc? I think one outcome of these readings is to draw a line around those Churches that maintain Christ’s teachings and the ancient tradition on matters of fundamental importance.

16. 16 Comment by TJF on 15 June 2008:

    As time went on, the Church’s complex teaching on marriage had to be clarified. When Gnostics and other heretics began unequivocally to condemn marriage as evil per se, as opposed to something good but perhaps not so holy as celibacy, the Fathers (perhaps because they were beginning to understand that the end was not so near as had been thought) came out more strongly in its defense. Clement of Alexandria (who died about 215) was a very strong defender of marriage as a good thing and treated marriage not merely as a convenient sexual union for the sake of fulfilling natural needs and desires but as as a spiritual union, sacred in its nature. Because of the sacred nature of matrimony, it should not be entered into a second time. Hippolytus of Rome, at about the same time, condemned Pope Callistus for his laxity in permitting twice and thrice married deacons to remain in the clergy. Despite his schismatic tendencies, he died within the Church and was not a Novatianist. This teaching was, nonetheless, too severe, and the Church in her wisdom and mercy, understood why there are many reason–not just sex–for a widow or widower to take a second spouse. Tertullian, as he was attracted to the rigorist heresy of the Montanists, although he claimed to take the middle road between catholic laxity and Gnostic puritanism, came to be sorry that he had ever been tempted into marriage–this, despite his earlier praise of his wife and marriage generally. This is one of the marks of heresy, that it poisons us to the good things that have been provided for us by a benevolent Creator and by Our Lord, whose first miracle was performed to give good cheer to a wedding. A Gnostic or a Montanist would have cursed the entire party.

17. 17 Comment by Mike Ezzo on 16 June 2008:

    Thank you, Dr. Fleming, for such clarity of thought, and insight. It is of immense aid. When we see “put away” (referring to one’s wife) in The Bible, is the meaning closer to separation, or divorce?

    As for Nicholas’ question (11), the pagans I live amongst don’t really tolerate sexual liberation, but the reasons are natural-law-type reasons; not Christian (i.e., because it is a sin). Homosexuality is never discussed. There has not yet surfaced, however, an incentive strong enough to encourage reproduction. Apparently non-existence of one’s progeny is not enough.

18. 18 Comment by TJF on 16 June 2008:

    Since marriage in the ancient world–Greek, Roman, Judaic–was largely a private matter among the involved families, divorce was not a question of legal regulation but more like an agreement to end a partnership. The big issue was always, as in the business case, the distribution of assets. In divorce, this meant the dowry. Of course, there are cases when women left husbands for reasons good and will and then returned, but Our Lord and the Fathers are talking about divorce, even though Hermas holds out the possibility that an erring wife will return to her husband.

    One thing I want to emphasize is this: Though the exact rules will change over time–rules on consanguinity, divorce, remarriage after bereavement or abandonment–and though kings and nobles will always try to bend and often break the rules, the basic spirit remains the same. Christian marriage is conceived of as an irrevocable union of one man and one woman. The first serious attack against the institution of marriage was not “same-sex” civil unions or even no-fault divorce laws but the legalization of divorce for any but the most serious reasons–consanguinity (you find out you have married your sister), adultery, life-threatening abuse, non-support.

19. 19 Comment by Edward on 16 June 2008:

    Isn’t the Christian concept of marriage directly opposed to individualism? I would think so, and that is why America and the rest of the West have so many divorces. People still think that, despite all the offspring that they have produced and the marriage vows they made before friends, family, and clergy, they’re still completely ‘free’ (in a libertarian sense) to somehow dissolve these relationships once they do not desire to continue them. They think that as long as they are not ‘harming’ anybody in a literal and physical sense, divorce (and anything else) should be fine. A philosophy of individualism cannot mount any counter to this, in fact, it supports it totally.

20. 20 Comment by NGPM on 16 June 2008:

    @17: Thank you for your comment. Exactly what I suspected, although it is interesting that the slippery slope of contraception to mass orgy of abandon of natural law holds true in the West but not in Asia. Perhaps it is an illustration of Japanese selective syncretism (the practice contraception being more or less invisible it is easier to justify). As an Occidental myself I would like to ascribe it to the fact that we think more (even too much), but most people I know nowadays (and living in the West, most people I know are white) are incapable of thinking.

    @18: Dr. Fleming, would you happen to know anything about the Orthodox practice of allowing up to a third marriage while the first spouse is still living? I mean of course in a traditional sense; I seriously doubt they recognised dissolution of a sacramentally valid marriage but I have always puzzled as to how to square it with the general principle of irrevocability. (I don’t mean this as an invective, because obviously in practice it is probably far less objectionable than the “annulling” of twenty-year marriages that produced three children because the young couple was too immature to “consent.”)

21. 21 Comment by PcH on 16 June 2008:

    Can a Christian remain in such a body, e.g., the Evangelical Lutheran Church, Congregationalist, etc? I think one outcome of these readings is to draw a line around those Churches that maintain Christ’s teachings and the ancient tradition on matters of fundamental importance.

    This is the same question the Reformers asked. The answer is always “no.” All human institutions ultimately fail, but there will always be a Church of a remnant of real believers in Christ.

22. 22 Comment by TJF on 16 June 2008:

    The traditional Orthodox position on remarriage was, I believe, that only two were allowed and that was in the case of bereavement. Perhaps one of our Orthodox friends could enlighten us. As to individualism, absolutely, marriage is a contradiction. As David Hume observed, man born in a family is compelled to maintain society.

23. 23 Comment by T. Chan on 16 June 2008:

    Re: the Orthodox position on remarriage, these are links to some articles I have read in the past…

    http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/liturgics/athenagoras_remarriage.htm
    http://bekkos.wordpress.com/2008/05/12/mothers-day-reflections/
    http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7101.asp

24. 24 Comment by Thomas Miller on 17 June 2008:

    I hope no one on this thread is implying that contraception is necessarily evil. Who here would be upset if contraceptive use really took off in India or Mexico, and their populations subsequently began to plummet? Not me.

25. 25 Comment by Kirt Higdon on 18 June 2008:

    #24 – If no one has so far, let me be the first. Yes contraception is intrinsically evil – I adhere 100% to the teachings of the Catholic Church on that. Any population decreasing, let alone plummeting, saddens me. India is known for its coercive contraceptive and sterilization programs, although not as bad as China in that regard. Mexico and much of the rest of Latin America has adopted contraception as it has been exported from the US by International Planned Parenthood. In fact, contraception and abortion could be described as IPP’s final solution to the Catholic problem.

26. 26 Comment by Wendy on 18 June 2008:

    I received a copy of your article this morning. (Someone printed it off and gave it to me.) I find it interesting that only men commented on your article, and no questions were brought to light in regard to women. Why did you point out that casual sexual relationships for men were acceptable in the OT? Why not for women? We say that God doesn’t have a double standard, yet women are viewed as harlots if they don’t maintain their virginity, while as long as men don’t engage in homosexuality, bestiality, incest, adultery, and seducing a virgin, then he is in the clear. This non-marital, consensual, and non-adulterous rationalization is quite hypocritical. So, the youth of today is not really doing anything wrong because they fall into this category? Or should I point out atleast the young men? Exactly who is it okay for these young men to be having sex with? Who are these women labeled in scripture, if they aren’t prostitutes, married, or virgins? Are they deemed fit for anyone to marry later on and if so, why/how? And in the NT, adultery is only contingent on the women, yet all through-out history, as I studied in college, men have been the leading majority (notice I said the majority and not the only) in committing adultry, until relatively recently. (Especially here in the West.) This is where I see a root for feminism, this double standard. If this double standard is truly acceptable to God, and Christ is our example, then technically Christ can be a fornicator to His bride, but His bride must be a virgin. That to me is a horrible thought, and very hard to deal with.

    Looking forward to a response.

    A sister in Christ

27. 27 Comment by Bill Wilder on 18 June 2008:

    Wendy @ 26

    I think you read too literally into the fact that the injunctions of Lev 18 were written to men. The injunctions condemn illicit relations (incest, adultery, sex without fulfilling the obligations associated with it.) That it is directed to men merely recognizes the fact that men are predominantly the initiators of relations with women. (Recognizing that Solomon in Proverbs wrote of the seducing woman.)

    I also do not think there is toleration in law for fornication or adultery. It is true that there are examples of leaders in Israel committing fornication (Judah having relations with his daughter-in-law Tamar in the guise of a prostitute, Samson visiting a prostitute.) But I don’t think there’s anything in the revelation to indicate divine approval of that conduct. Absolom was condemned for violating his father’s concubines.

    And, in any event, a view of events in the OT must take into account the observation made both by our Lord in Matthew 19 and the Apostle Paul in Romans 1, that God in times past overlooked such wrongdoing in anticipation of the Redeemer. (Due to the “hardening of your hearts” of Israel as stated by our Lord in Mt. 19.)

    I don’t think there is any such double standard in the revelation. For example, the Levitical law forbade a man who put away his wife for uncleanness from taking her as wife again if she subsequently married and her second husband died. (That provides a warning against unjustly dismissing a wife, in my view.) If the perhaps apocryphal account at the beginning of John 8 is any indication, our Lord certainly didn’t hold a double standard. While what he wrote in the sand was a mystery, I think it is a reasonable conclusion that he referred to the Levitical requirement of stoning both man and woman caught in the act of adultery and the Jews brought only the woman.

    Certainly, our Lord’s admonitions in the sermon on the Mount hold no such double standard, instructing that a man who lusts after a woman commits adultery with her. (I suppose one could have different interpretations of the degree intended by “lusting.”) The Apostolic epistles also contain no such double standard (Paul in Romans 1 refers to both the abuse of sexual relations by men and women.)

    I don’t think there is more than modern cultural bias to support an assertion of any “double standard” in revelation or Christian tradition regarding the obligation for sexual purity among men and women. If culturally we place a greater onus on women, it is only because of the woman’s role as bearer and nurturer of children carries a great appearance of defilement than adultery by the man. But that’s a cultural/natural conclusion as opposed to one enjoined by revelation.

28. 28 Comment by Wendy on 18 June 2008:

    Dear Bill, thanks for your reply. I still have some questions that didn’t get answered in the first comment. And I still have more. As you stated for Judah having relations with his d-in-l, he cried out that she should be stoned. He was livid against her sexual involvement, yet where were those crying out for the stones to be placed on him? What about the concubine who was handed over and all night long raped, then dumped at the husbands door? She was treated like scum. Or am I missing something here? David commited adultry, then murder, yet it appears to me that only the murder was the great atrocity. She payed for it by going through 9 months of carrying the child, then suffered the child’s death. I’ve heard sermons that the adultry was all her fault for bathing, not that I am condoning nakedness in any public viewing, and also because she (apparently) didn’t fight engaging in sexual relations with David. Also, if a woman is raped in the city, she is guitly if she doesn’t cry out. David’s daughter who was raped apparently never married, why? The woman caught in adulrty, taken to Christ to be stoned, why did no one drag the man in for equal justice?

29. 29 Comment by TJF on 18 June 2008:

    I do not pretend to speak for God or the Church. I am simply describing an historical evolution, from a moral tradition that approves polygamy and does not appear to condemn a man’s non-adulterous and not-unnatural sexual habits. If Wendy were to read what I have written carefully including “I am far from suggesting that the early Church’s teachings are not divinely revealed or should be modified, only that they took a bit of time, reasoned debate, and inspiration to become clear to everyone,” she would understand what this conversation is and is not about.” Far from advocating or excusing any nonmarital sex, I am trying to show when and how early Christians formed their point of view, which is different from much of what is found in the OT but also a refinement–not a rejection or contradiction–on the apparently harsh pronouncements found in Paul’s epistles.

    I would say we should also beware of the feminist delusion that what is sauce for the goose is always sauce for the gander. This is true in many cases, but not in all. Husbands and wives have similar but not the same set of responsibilities. A man cannot nurse his children; a wife cannot in most cases find to defend the household. Even in moral questions, there are distinctions. Take the case of adultery. Though a wife’s adultery is not more immoral, in the simple fact, than a husband’s, the fact remains that an adulterous wife can impose a spurious child on her husband and children and her immorality does more grave damage to the family. A mother’s purity is an essential part of her position. Adultery is a grave sin in either case, but the effects are not necessarily the same.

    Finally, I have to say that we may be making too much of sex. Most of the deadly sins have nothing to do with sex. What about pride and envy and anger? I remember going to a Disciples of Christ church with a friend. The pastor went on and on about how sinful other denominations were, how the women dressed lewdly etc. He was about 75 pounds overweight but did not mention gluttony, and although he was wearing shoes almost as expensive as Jerry Falwell’s and a flashy sportjacket and his fingers were incrusted with gaudy rings, his own vanity–and, I should add, wretched taste–had to be passed over in silence.

    I hope that Wendy will join this discussion, which is only one part of a longer discussion of the evolution of early Christian thought on important topics.

30. 30 Comment by TJF on 18 June 2008:

    I have deleted an irrelevant piece of hysteria on the population question and the sane, though equally irrelevant response. In response to Bill and Wendy, I think you are both trying to pound a square peg (Christian teachings on sex and marriage) into a round hole (the Old Testament). We know that our Lord reversed the Pentateuch on divorce, and we also know that the early Church reversed the same religious tradition on polygamy. Then why try to force texts into a different mold. A bit like filling old wine skins with new wine?

    As I have observed before more than once, Our Lord, in leaving his disciples, did not tell them that all the answers to their questions would be found in the Old Testament, but he promised to send the Holy Ghost who would remind them of what He had taught and make everything clear. That is why we are studying the early Church. Naturally we find anticipations, especially in the prophets; and, inevitably, we can try to read orthodox Christian teaching back into contexts where it does not quite fit, but to what end? There are many passages in the OT which, if taken literally and in the wrong spirit, could encourage us to become polygamous, put aside wives for no good reason, or kill people because we think God wants us to. These monsters on television who support Israel, even when Israel is persecuting Christians, are all the proof we need that it is to the institution created by the Holy Ghost, that is, the Christian Church, and not to any private reading of Scriptures that we must turn for truth.

31. 31 Comment by Bill Wilder on 18 June 2008:

    “Finally, I have to say that we may be making too much of sex. Most of the deadly sins have nothing to do with sex. What about pride and envy and anger?”

    Dr. Fleming, this is a good point, though I know we’re drawing you afield. Proverbs 6:16-17 recounts seven thing God hates without mentioning sex/licentious conduct. That doesn’t mean it’s acceptable, of course, but as you indicate helps establish proper perspective and avoid hobbies.

    Re: the OT, it is true that our Lord promised the Comforter would come and lead the disciples into truth. It is also true however that, as Paul stated in Romans, that through comfort and assurance of the scriptures (meaning OT scriptures) we might have hope (in Christ revealed in the OT, I think being the most direct application.) A proper understanding of them is necessary, of course, including the limitations of what is being presented in them. (My real point to Wendy being that the recounting the acts of men in the OT should not necessarily be taken as approval, but simply that the events happened.)

32. 32 Comment by Wendy on 18 June 2008:

    I appreciate the reply. Though wonder why only my comments to the population topic was delited. I appreciate your stance on the importance of purity for the wife in the marriage and I understand your thoughts as to why there is a detrament to the potential of a child being conceived from that sin. I still wonder how the same sin of the husband, producing offspring from adultry would not be as detramental to the family? Still causing a fragmentation within the family, and bringing in an intrudor so to say to the family dynamics. God says that the sins of the father are passed down to the 3rd and 4th generation. Yes, I would agree with you about the other sins that are easily looked over or justified as glutony, anger, pride, etc. I guess some are more easily disguised as strong artibutes of character like “self-confidence” and others excused because they have been labeled with a disease. (I would like to add the worship at the throne of modern medicine.) As far as Israel then, He says He will bless those who bless them and curse those who curse them. May we distinguish the Israeli government from His chosen people? I’m really not tying to give a hard time hear. I really appreciate the dialog.

33. 33 Comment by Wendy on 18 June 2008:

    Bill,
    Thank you for all your input. I really appreciate all your points, and the spirit behind your replies.
    Wendy

34. 34 Comment by TJF on 19 June 2008:

    Bill has made several excellent points, for which I thank him. I do not at all mean to dismiss the Scriptures of the OT as unimportant only to stipulate that they must be read through the lens of the Gospels and epistles and clarified by the consistent teaching of the early Church.

35. 35 Comment by CCH on 19 June 2008:

    I would like to reply to Wendy’s comments.

    It is clear from the Gospels that Jesus puts a very high premium, in both words and actions, on the protection of the weak.

    In ancient Palestine my guess is that a man could abandon his wife and still make it in society without much penalty, whereas a woman would become an outcast unless she was very wealthy. Jesus’ words in the sermon on the mount on adultery and divorce set up accountability for men, and, as continued by Paul, the NT takes this accountability to a new level.

    The worldly scenario changed in the 20th century once women could more easily enter the workforce and make it on their own economically in society without a husband. Once the economic changes occurred, women in modern society started acting exactly like the men Jesus criticized in ancient society and started committing more adultery and getting spurious divorces.

    While I acknowledge the Old Testament standards, I also acknowledge the presentation of the Last Judgment in various forms, particularly by the Gospels (Pope Benedict just wrote a beautiful encyclical focusing on the Last Judgment). And fortunately, we do not have to rely on fragile Kings, corrupt judges, and vain, false prophet preachers to bring justice to the world. Because we have God’s justice.

    And being a man with a wife and two children, I can tell you that I sure wouldn’t want to have to go before the Lord having abandoned my children, broken my family by adultery, or left them through divorce. From various passages in the Gospel on the severity of doing anything that harms children, and Paul’s statement about taking care of one’s family, I would quake in my boots at such a propsect.

    So, Wendy, I think you may rest comforted that God will judge with the greatest of severity any man that goes around taking the thorn out of various women’s eyes while he neglects the children in his own life and the logs in his own eyes. He commits a double sin – both ‘judging’ in the negative sense and harming children. It’s makes my shiver to imagine the prospects. And if such a man flips back through the bible and considers himself “in the clear”, it makes me shiver all the more deeply.

    I by no means think Dr. Fleming was committing the sin of negative judging in his article; he was simply writing a piece on these topics with a helpful historical focus.

36. 36 Comment by Bill Wilder on 19 June 2008:

    “he was simply writing a piece on these topics with a helpful historical focus.”

    Agreed. It should be an interesting discussion.