In Reply to: Re: The way I see it posted by Thinker on February 04, 2010 at 16:48:27:
There was/is some job of the Holy Spirit...to remind the apostles/disciples of Jesus told them...John 14:26...I don't think He/She (whatever the preference...some scholar's view I posted some time ago here...) has failed the job (further John 8:31,32, John 16:7,8, 13)...not at all, inspite of all the odds.It's kind of convenient to argue for later generations, that we can't know exactly what He meant and said...Qumran e.g. confirms the masoretic text...more or less...I came to believe/think...the Isaiahscroll of Qumran equals pretty much the much later masoretic text...meaning the Jews were very faithful in the transcription.The NT in turn goes along very well with the OT...especially the messianic prophecies show us, that at that time there had to appear the promised Messiah...so why not take Him by the Word we have?...meaning the Holy spirit saw to it, that we got the text we need.Did you know, that in the persecution...especially also in northern Africa...the elders/bishops were deeply upset and in tears to hand to the persecutors the scrolls they had.Besides the nature of papyrus or pergament/leather scrolls to last not too long, this was an additional problem, to preserve the text.It's therefore rather surprising...how little the differences rather matter.
Just consider how old P52 is...you don't even have something as old as that of the then contemporary Greek or Roman philosophers etc.the scripts of them are much younger...people should really consider that, before they criticise Bible/NT-transcription/preserving.
I also came to think over the years, that the older Alexandrinic text is actually better...it's the shorter type...some KJV only proponents want to tell us, that we would miss something, if taken as a basis.I don't agree ...though the Textus receptus of Erasmus or some form/type of the majority text-corpus happens to be the text of the reformation...but so what?...it just shows, that God can use that as well.I came to that conclusion last year, while following a discourse and studying about it myself in the books I have at my disposal on a swiss webside/board I favour...the verse was 1.Cor. 11:24...this is my body, which is broken for you...it's the majority/longer text version...other older versions just have something like this is my body, for you The problem is, according to prophecy, His bones shouldn't have/were not broken...but that's what the Greek word amounts to there...
so you got some problem, which the shorter version/older just doesn't let you get into...even in Matthew 19:9 there is an "extension"
Back to Matthew 5:32...For me a general rule in exegesis is that an interpretation of just one or two verses should not contradict the rest what is being said in the general counsel.Consider in comparison 1.Cor.7:10,11...there might be reasons, why a believing woman might want to leave, may be to protect herself or her children...whatever...bottom line though is...she should remain unmarried.
One of the first theological books I got after TF in the mid-nineties was a definition book of biblical terms...the section about marriage I read up and down and sideways...even then it was said...that one would kind of slam the door shut for reconciliation, if one would remarry while the ex-mate was still alive....so most people resort to constructing an exception-clause, by making the ex appear unbelieving...to jive with 1.Cor 7 or having committed fornication (at least in mind) to "get the help" of Matthew.But I don't think, that it says that there at all...
Some interpret 5:32 parektos (excluded) or rather Mt. 19:9 mae epi as: not mentioning/talking now about fornication,... see the use of parektos in 2. Cor.11:28...so Jesus wouldn't say then anything else then in the parallel-scripture/verses of Luke and Mark...
or even if He wanted to say except...then the positioning of the the subclause/sentence..except for the cause of fornication after putting away the wife...it could IMO at the maximum justify putting away for some time to work out reconciliation...if possible...
Because she that has fornicated in (within marriage) has kind of broken/harmed the marriage...so that the following clause-logic is not working...what is broken is already broken and may be for her remarrying then would brake it even more???doubtful...but I think that is not necessary to imply here...because 1.Cor.7:10,11 already puts a stop to any further hopes and expectations...Another favourite is for some 1.Cor 7:27,28...but reading /comprehending it in the overall meaning of the Bible, it shouldn't IMO refer to someone divorced....the section is rather about the unmarried.
Last not least I want to share what I think shared before here: the wonderful story of Marie Rubens, the wonderful saintly mother of the painter Rubens...I first read of it about 15 years ago or so, in summary on a devotional calendar-leaflet.
I was moved to tears by such saintliness.What admirable character and that's what I think Christ has in mind too about erring husbands or wives (reg. fornication/adultery)....my 2 cents...
The forefathers of Rubens had been for two
centuries denizens of Antwerp, members of
that important class who, as manufacturers,
tradesmen, mechanics, formed in those times
the substance of the population in the numer-
PARENTAGE AND CHILDHOOD. II
ous and prosperous cities of Brabant and Flan-
ders, and who often played a controlling part
in politics. The grandfather of the painter was
the first who lifted the family to a higher rank ;
for, being prosperous and aspiring, he gave his
only child and son, John, the best education to
be had, sending him finally to Italy, then the
chief seat of learning, where he took, in Rome,
the degree of Doctor of Laws in his twenty-
fourth year. On his return to Antwerp he
married Marie Pypelincx, a lady of good po-
sition, distinguished alike for beauty, for in-
telligence, for elevation of character. In 1561
he became councillor and alderman (tchevin) of
Antwerp, a post which he held till 1568. This
was the period of the terrible blood-council of
Alva. Egmont and Horn were beheaded in
1568; and on the 6th of June, Van Straellen,
burgomaster of Antwerp, was executed at Vil-
vorde. John Rubens held the next place in
the municipal government, and being de-
nounced, thought it prudent to go into exile
with his family at Cologne, where he arrived to-
wards the end of the year.
At that time Cologne was not only the fa-
vorite asylum for Flemish refugees, but here
for awhile also resided the second wife of the
12 THE LIFE OF RUBENS.
great Prince of Orange, Anne of Saxony.
Anne had quarreled with and separated from
her husband, and was then making appeals to
Alva to get relieved from confiscation those
estates of the Prince of Orange which had been
apportioned as her dower. For conducting her
affairs she employed as one of her agents John
Rubens, who soon obtained her full confidence,
accompanied her on various journeys into Ger-
many, and for whom she took a passionate
fancy, which ended in criminal intercourse.
This being discovered by the Nassau family,
John Rubens was, on one of his journeys,
seized and closely imprisoned in the Castle of
Dillemburg in the Duchy of Nassau.
For three weeks his wife heard nothing from
or of him. At last, in the midst of her grow-
ing anxiety, came a rumor of her husband's
arrest, imprisonment, and danger, and right
upon that, letters from himself. With death
hanging over him, that being there the legal
penalty for adultery, he wrote to his wife,
confessing his guilt and imploring her pardon.
Here is the answer she sent to her husband.
Seldom does a biographical seeker chance upon
a treasure like this :
"I could not have thought that you would
PARENTAGE AND CHILDHOOD. 13
impute to me so much resentment. How could
I push severity to the point of paining you
when you are in such affliction that I would
give my life to relieve you from it. Even had
this misfortune not been preceded by a long af-
fection, ought I to show so much hatred as not
to be able to pardon a fault against me, a fault
which is small in comparison with those which
I commit every day, and which make me im-
plore the clemency of Heaven on this condi-
tion : forgive me my trespasses as I forgive
those that trespass against me. Be then assured
that I have entirely forgiven you : and would
to Heaven that your deliverance depended on
this, for then we should soon be happy again.
Alas ! it is not what your letter announces that
afflicts me. I could scarcely read it : I thought
my heart would break. I am so distressed I
hardly know what I write. This sad news so
overwhelms me it is with difficulty I can bear it.
If there is no more pity in this world to whom
shall I apply ? I will implore Heaven with
tears and groans, and hope that God will grant
my prayer by touching the hearts of these gen-
tlemen, so that they may spare us, may have
compassion on us ; otherwise they will kill me
as well as you. My soul is so linked to yours
14 THE LIFE OF RUBENS.
that you cannot suffer a pain without my suf-
fering as much as you. I believe that if these
good lords saw my tears they would have pity
on me even if they were of stone ; and when
all other means fail, I will go to them, although
you write me not to do so." The noble wo-
man concludes with these words : " Don't
write again, your unworthy Jiusband, for all is
forgiven. Your faithful wife,
"MARIE RUBENS."
Is it to be wondered at that this woman's
son grew to be a great man ?
from: