Does anyone want to talk to me about today's gospel?

[TotallyUnheardOf]

Because - as divorced and remarried woman - I am struggling with it a bit.

We actually had a very useful sermon which helped a bit, but I really want to try to get past the feeling that a big giant National Lottery-style finger was going to come down through the cathedral ceiling around vv.31-32 and a booming voice announce " HERE is the adultress"! [cringe]

So, I don't have a problem with "if your right hand offends you, cut it off", because I can see how that works metaphorically on all sorts of levels. As an individual, it's not enough to say "I'm basically a good person (ahem... except for the bit where I raid the petty cash at work)", or whatever. We are meant to try to eradicate all bad behaviour - like cutting off the one sinful hand from a basically good body. And I can see how this might also works at the level of the body politic (in terms of our relationships with others in the family, community or whatever).

But the bit about divorce doesn't lend itself to being read metaphorically, does it?

Now, the point of view of our preacher today (one that I am sympathetic to in general) was that this whole passage is about how the new Law revises the old Law. So, Christ says "You have learnt how it was said to our ancestors [...]. But I say to you [...]", and the interpretation was that the Church has to be prepared to engage with new moral issues as they arise and not be stuck in a conservative "But it was said to our ancestors" kind of approach. Which is all well and good.

But it seems to me that the passage in Matthew is about the new Law being more (not less) stringent than the old Law. So are we ignoring the spirit of the passage if we say "Well, these rules were relevant in 1st-century Palestine but they are not relevant in 21st-century Britain"? Is that just a cop-out?

I'm interested in this as a general point, though the divorce issue got me thinking about it, because it touches me personally. (Incidentally, my divorce was almost entirely my own fault. I behaved very badly and very childishly towards my ex - not an affair or anything, I just 'went off him' and left and wasn't prepared to rethink or to work on it or anything. I can't regret that it happened, because if it hadn't I wouldn't have met my lovely dh or have my two wonderful children. But I regret very much indeed the pain that I caused my ex, and I would like very much to take that away from him. But I also believe that there is no sin which is unforgiveable, and I can't believe that the God I believe in would want me to be cast out of His Church because I (a) did this and (b) then remarried.) Is this passage contradicted by others in the Gospels where Christ revises the old Law in a more liberal way (thinking of the thing about working on the Sabbath and so on)?

Oh, and as an afterthought, I don't subscribe to the view that Christianity is inherently misogynistic, so I'm not wild about reading the passage as being about how religion oppresses women...

Any thoughts from wise people?

What book was it from?

If you truly repent of your sins and ask God for forgiveness then, from what I understand, you will be forgiven. Praying for healing in your ex may also be a good thing to do. You can't turn the clock back and we've all committed sin, you have to move on though, otherwise it will become destructive and will move you further away from God.

Ok just re read, Matthew.

Sorry, SiriusStar... it was Matthew 5:20-37,

X-posted!

Well our vicar did her sermon on the Gospel and the gist of it was that most laws are made in the context of the time and they place, what is okay in one time or place is not okay in another. Jesus recognised this and gave us new more universal rules to follow of loving God and loving your neighbour.

The being of 'more' not 'less' in the passage points to it being the intention in the heart not the act itself which is the root of any sin, it is not saying that any sin is enough to have a person cast out, a repentant sinner is always welcome in the church.

Adultery and divorce were used in that passage but we do need to put it in context of the time - a divorced woman was an outcast as women had no means of their own and no role beyond the family.

The Jews were so bound up by keeping to the many many laws that were around about what could and couldn't be done. Also about how to make sacrifices to make them right with God.
Legalistic tendencies were in abundance and so what I think is being said here is that there were people amongst the group Matthew was writing to (jews) that would stick to the law but not see the truth in it. For example
"I have been messaging a man on fbook but we haven't met or had sex or anything but I think I am in love with him."
This is corrosive for a marriage. It is divisive.

I think Jesus was trying to get them to see beyond the law and see the aim of the law which was to unite God's people with Him.

NT Wright has written some guides to the gospels. I always think knowing about who it was aimed at helps with better understanding. This "church" the gospel was aimed at may have had issues with people divorcing for little things and that it was causing big problems.

The divorce thing has always seemed to stick out like a sore thumb. A lot of the stuff that we read seems obscure but would ahve made perfect sense to people at the time.

WHat I do know is that Jesus put an end to the old law. To the sacrificing to make it right so that we can be reunited with God, so that we live through grace and not works. For me it is the spirit of the law, the purpose of Jesus. The Good news.

If you haven't already, check out Rob Bell's DVD "The god's aren't angry" It has opened up this whole area for me. Also Hebrews discusses the new and old priesthood.

I love Rob Bell Sirius, have you watched all his Nooma stuff? I'm using it for my seekers course atm and it's great.

TUO, we had this today too and dh was preaching. He made the congregation snigger (and some tut) when he said 'if I kept to what the letter of Jesus said here I would be talking to you in a much higher voice So yep, totally agree with you about the chopping off bodily members bit being somewhat (well all) metaphorical, but also highlighting the seriousness of sin and the rubbish that can stack up in our lives. Seems to me that Jesus was always pointing towards a path which makes life a whole lot Nicer, rather than a whole lot more filled with rules 'n stuff.

Now the divorce bit. Hmm. I actually like what Jesus says here in the context of the situation. Blokes could just sign a scrap of paper to get rid of the wife if they fancied another woman, and what would happen to their wife? An outcast, without means, shamed. Sometimes they would go out into the desert to die, sometimes they would sit on the streets begging. But here comes Jesus saying 'you can't do that, stop oppressing women you great oafs' etc. He puts in place moral law which says men have to be faithful and not turn the ex into an outcast, he changes stuff round, he totally screws with their way of doing stuff, and all to the good. Now that's why we have to contextualise it. Jesus was freeing women, saving them from disgrace/misery/death. Now obviously women don't face this through divorce. I guess we have to look at the spirit of what Jesus says all the way through - it's about freedom, not oppression, and follow the path he is pointing to.

This doesn't really make it easier, but it gives some context. I love Jesus and love that he was so blinking radical. :)

I don't know the answer to the question for now, but for me it doesn't really seem a huge issue, it's one of those things followers of Jesus may not agree on but doesn't exactly form central doctrine so doesn't exactly matter to the extent some would say.

You need have no guilt, TUO. You are freed, a new creation. Forgiveness is full and amazing and profound. You can totally live in that, where you are, now, with the family you have been given. :)

Thank you all, but especially Sirius and MHD. The context makes it make a lot more sense. I didn't know that Matthew was writing for a Jewish audience (maybe I should have done; maybe I once did, but had forgotten), and that does make a lot more comprehensible. Sirius - love your FB example, that makes so much sense in the context too. I think it's the suddenness of the very literal divorce example, following from the very metaphorical chopping-off-of-members examples (and at your dh, MHD), that makes it harder to process somehow.

MHD, your last sentence brought a tear to my eye. I hadn't really got as far as putting it into so many words, but - yes - the thought that it would be awful if somehow my immature selfishness of 20 years ago invalidated the wonderful family that I have now was in the back of my mind.

God bless you all.

[Slightly irrelevantly, I am smiling at the fact that the author of a commentary on the gospels signs him/herself 'NT'!

He is NT Wright academically for his books; for the last seven years he was pastorally Tom Wright, or Bishop Tom (of Durham).

Sorry, coming to this thread late. Just wanted to say I agree with earlier posters about looking at the historical context and the fact that no sin is unforgiven if confessed. Also wanted to add that Matthew was writing for a Jewish audience that were saying they (Matthew and the other disciples) weren't following their beliefs by believing in Jesus and therefore matthew was trying to say that 'you Pharisees and Jews believe this well, we take it even further and believe this'. Hope that makes sense, trying to type and put DD to bed!!

Thanks DandyDan and Knackerelli. Feeling much better (and feel I understand much better) now.

DandyDan - I have always published with a middle initial (as in Totally U. Heardof) and get irrationally annoyed if editors/publishers try to take it away and call me Totally Heardof. It doesn't make any difference, I know. My 'real' name in every other situation is Totally Heardof. But I do like that U. to be there in print.