Comments on: Jesus vs. marriage http://thinkingreed.wordpress.com/2007/11/14/jesus-vs-marriage/ "Man is but a reed, the most feeble thing in nature, but he is a thinking reed" - Blaise Pascal Tue, 08 Dec 2009 23:52:45 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Adam http://thinkingreed.wordpress.com/2007/11/14/jesus-vs-marriage/#comment-18559 Adam Mon, 19 Nov 2007 05:10:45 +0000 http://thinkingreed.wordpress.com/2007/11/14/jesus-vs-marriage/#comment-18559 Try thinking of it this way--Jesus is saying something truly radical about the law (that is, not just levirate marriage, but marriage itself, understood as legal contract, and therefore a commandment of God): it's not eternal. Yes, this is apocalyptic, but boy oh boy what does it say about the age to come--the law does not apply in the resurrection, because it comes to an end. He doesn't say no love, he doesn't even say no sex--he says no marriage. What belongs to the new age is therefore not under the law. Now that's fun to consider. Try thinking of it this way–Jesus is saying something truly radical about the law (that is, not just levirate marriage, but marriage itself, understood as legal contract, and therefore a commandment of God): it’s not eternal. Yes, this is apocalyptic, but boy oh boy what does it say about the age to come–the law does not apply in the resurrection, because it comes to an end. He doesn’t say no love, he doesn’t even say no sex–he says no marriage. What belongs to the new age is therefore not under the law. Now that’s fun to consider.

]]> By: gaius sempronius gracchus http://thinkingreed.wordpress.com/2007/11/14/jesus-vs-marriage/#comment-18444 gaius sempronius gracchus Thu, 15 Nov 2007 11:15:14 +0000 http://thinkingreed.wordpress.com/2007/11/14/jesus-vs-marriage/#comment-18444 An opening to the view of Jesus as "apocalyptic prophet"? An opening to the view of Jesus as “apocalyptic prophet”?

]]> By: Lee http://thinkingreed.wordpress.com/2007/11/14/jesus-vs-marriage/#comment-18422 Lee Wed, 14 Nov 2007 23:37:52 +0000 http://thinkingreed.wordpress.com/2007/11/14/jesus-vs-marriage/#comment-18422 That's how I always read it too. But I had this moment of seeing it differently for some reason - like a gestalt shift. I really don't know what to make of it. Maybe it's the way Jesus contrasts "those who belong to this age" and "those who are considered worthy of a place in that age." It seems like this can be read as simple chronology (now vs. then) <i>or</i> a kind of distinction between two types of people. Dunno. That’s how I always read it too. But I had this moment of seeing it differently for some reason – like a gestalt shift. I really don’t know what to make of it. Maybe it’s the way Jesus contrasts “those who belong to this age” and “those who are considered worthy of a place in that age.” It seems like this can be read as simple chronology (now vs. then) or a kind of distinction between two types of people. Dunno.

]]> By: Jack Perry http://thinkingreed.wordpress.com/2007/11/14/jesus-vs-marriage/#comment-18421 Jack Perry Wed, 14 Nov 2007 23:32:01 +0000 http://thinkingreed.wordpress.com/2007/11/14/jesus-vs-marriage/#comment-18421 I've always understood it to mean only that marriage is not a phenomenon that persists beyond this age. That seems to harmonize with Jesus' intention in this passage: he refers to three men as children of the resurrection, and each of them was married, sometimes more than once. I see what you're getting at; I just think it's far too literal an emphasis on a term he used. Sort of like cutting off your hand, or plucking out your eye, when you commit sin. I’ve always understood it to mean only that marriage is not a phenomenon that persists beyond this age. That seems to harmonize with Jesus’ intention in this passage: he refers to three men as children of the resurrection, and each of them was married, sometimes more than once.

I see what you’re getting at; I just think it’s far too literal an emphasis on a term he used. Sort of like cutting off your hand, or plucking out your eye, when you commit sin.

]]>