From: Trevor M Peterson (spedrson@juno.com)
Date: Thu Dec 04 1997 - 06:44:35 EST
On Wed, 3 Dec 1997 23:21:42 -0600 "Albert B. Collver, III"
<Collvera@sprynet.com> writes:
[snipped]
>The one-flesh union can only be dissolved by
>death.
>Even divorce does not separate the one-flesh union. Christ testifies
>to
>this... "Let man not put asunder..."
I realize how easy it is for this discussion to drift off of the purpose
of this list, but hopefully I'll be able to keep this question on topic.
Maybe this isn't the only passage that is taken to support the
indissolubility of marriage, but it's certainly the one I've heard most
often. I'm wondering though whether the language really indicates what
Mr. Collver seems to think it indicates. The construction quoted above
(from Matt 19:6, I presume) is MH + a present active imperative third
person singular from CWRIZW. Now, my question is whether this
construction indicates entirely the opposite of what Mr. Collver
suggests--namely, that if a man is commanded not to separate what God has
joined, Jesus is implicitly saying that it is in fact possible for a man
to do so. Otherwise, why would He issue a command against it? Instead,
I would expect an indicative to define the fact that man does not (and
cannot) separate the marriage bond.
Any thoughts?
Trevor Peterson
M.Div. Candidate
Capital Bible Seminary
Lanham, MD
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:36 EDT