A very helpful chart for those who keep referring to the biblical standard of marriage. Click on the chart to enlarge. Click on it again to enlarge again.
I try to credit the source of things when possible – I have searched for the origin of this chart without success. I have seen it in a variety of places.
And we’re not even gonna mention Saul requiring the foreskin of 100 men so David could marry his daughter!
25 Saul said, Say this to David, The king wants no dowry but a hundred foreskins of the Philistines, to avenge himself of the king’s enemies. But Saul thought to make David fall by the Philistines’ hands.
26 When his servants told David these words, it pleased [him] well to become the king’s son-in-law. Before the days expired,
27 David went, he and his men, and slew two hundred Philistine men, and brought their foreskins and gave them in full number to the king, that he might become the king’s son-in-law. And Saul gave him Michal his daughter as wife. 1 Samuel 18:25-27
…and, Brian,… don’t mention Jesus being against divorce… Blessings.
The NT records that Jesus said nothing about divorce (apostasion). He did, however, have a bit to say about “putting away” (separation=apoluo). Unfortunately our translators fail to distinguish between the two and mistranslate both terms as “divorce.” If we’re going to claim Jesus did or didn’t say something, we should at least get it right.
At least twelve different Greek lexicons state that apoluo means the same as divorce when used in the context of marriage, Ron. Blessings.
The thing about that chart is it reflects the importance of providing new generations of people – a prerequisite for a Nation or a people to continue.
And continue the people did which is why we have had the Old Testament recording their deeds handed down to us – unlike the Merkits for example about whom we know very little because they have long since ceased to exist as a people.
Now in a generation which is about as wicked as any ever recorded we have raised achieving sexual pleasure to the levels of idolatry and the murder the fruit of regular sexual intercourse, fully one quarter of conceptions in the “enlightened” land, in order that they not stand in the way of our “fulfillment” and chase for the carnal pleasures of this world.
And of course in the process are rewriting CHRISTIAN marriage to render it meaningless, the production of new generations now not a priority but something best leave for others to do lest they interfere with the pursuit of prosperity and the physical pleasures of this world.
This chart was produced as propaganda, as you well know, to undermine and shout down the few voices of sanity who like Jeremiah and the prophets of old are raising their voices to warn a wicked and profligate generation of the consequences of their sins and folly.
I don’t know, Andrei, the original purpose of the chart – as I mentioned, I cannot find the origin. Again, as I mentioned in my last comment – let’s not forget Jesus’ forbidding of divorce. Blessings.
Jesus did NOT forbid divorce (apostasion); he did, however, look askance at men who put away (apoluo) their wives and took another without first divorcing the first wife=setting her free to find a man to love her instead of treating her like baggage.
(The Church forbade divorce, not Jesus.)
This is an unusual interpretation, Ron. I don’t know where you find Jesus looking “askance at men” who merely put away their wives without making the effort of giving her a certificate of divorce – does not sound a very difficult teaching. Nor does your interpretation make any sense of the reaction of the disciples. It is rather the other way around. Jesus forbade divorce; the church allows it. Being honest about that still leaves open the question which is more appropriate? Blessings.
And let’s not mention the fact that Jewish tradition required rabbis to be married, and that the Talmud speaks of being unmarried as being unnatural.
And, after all that, let’s not mention the fact that Jesus was a rabbi who followed Jewish tradition so that the Pharisees would not find blame with him.
Just saying….
Since much of what is distasteful on the chart stems from the mosaic law, I think it would be well to pursue the exegetical direction Christ followed when faced with a question about marriage: “Moses permitted this due to the hardness of your hearts, but from the beginning (i.e., the institution of marriage in Eden) it was not so.”
Ha ha ha. Every time I hear the phrases ‘biblical marriage’ or ‘redefining marriage’, I will think of the chart.
June Butler
I agree with Andrei, though I wouldn’t speak so vehemently as in his final paragraph. We are all sinners, plank in eye etc.
The chart is very clever, but any chart, essay, blog, preach etc that fails to mention Jesus can not claim to represent Christianity.
Thanks, Jean. The chart is a good discussion starter – here and also on the Liturgy faceboook page. In both places Jesus has been brought up as part of the discussion, including in response to Andrei’s comment here. You are welcome/invited to add your point about Jesus’ understanding of marriage. Blessings.
Is it a coincidence that the first public miracle of Jesus took place at a wedding?
I think not.
And this passage is not in anyway ambiguous
Yes, Andrei. You are reinforcing my point to Ron. Blessings.
My understanding of Matthew 19 is that Jesus is concurring that it is better not to marry but that as it is accepted to do so once married it is adulterous to divorce and remarry unless the wife is unfaithful.
‘Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.’
Eunuchs in the context of people who voluntarily abstain from sexual relationships to devote their life to God.
An English Priest friend of mine, on a visit to Sydney, has put on his facebook page that he has discovered that he could not be ordained a priest in the dio of Sydney because he isnt married. We here a lot in England about the vagaries of Sydney Anglicanism ( diaconal celebration, abandonment of robes/liturgy, Dean Jenson’s protestant cathedral etc…..)but is this true? Where is it spelt out? Perry Butler Canterbury England
I do not know the answer to your question, Perry, but others might. I’m pretty sure he could not be ordained a priest in any case – I think they only have “presbyters”. A bishop in NZ altered the ordinal to ordain a Sydney-trained ordinand a “presbyter” at his request (bishops, of course, whatever else they do, are not to alter the ordinal). Blessings.
Oh the hearsay that circulates about Sydney!
Sydney has unmarried presbyters.
‘any chart, essay, blog, preach etc that fails to mention Jesus can not claim to represent Christianity’
Exactly. People are not quoting Jesus or using Jesus’ teachings to try to control or denigrate the lives of homosexuals- they are using obscure bits of scripture which they would not dream themselves of following in its entirity!
I suppose one mark that the Pharisees had against Jesus was that he never married anyone! Neither did he have any biological children! Was he, therefore, not a ‘true Jew’ (in their understanding)?