I want to illustrate something with some comments that you might have seen.
The first set is here from Jack @ Sigma Frame (emphasis added):
Why is this confusing rather than englightening? Because it is an oversimplification of a complex topic. It confuses because it simplifies. So this statement…
…reflects how misguided it is to try to simplify that which cannot be simplified. For example, consider the following:
The consequences of such an approach, Aubrey writes, are a neglect of a typological approach; an oversimplification of middle semantics, either by (a) discretely compartmentalising usages, or (b) too simplistic generalisations). The outcome of these consequences, in turn, is a dual failure of NT Greek grammars in both typology and paradigm.
I won’t post any more quotes, because that analysis is based on a 155 page thesis with 10 pages of academic references. But you can see the point quite easily.
Mike Aubrey also wrote “Active+Reflexive vs. Middle Voice: What’s the Difference?” which delves into this issue somewhat.
In English reflexive words are restricted, and ‘submit’ doesn’t translate from Greek into English in the middle voice (the English isn’t transitive, for one thing). Other words do, but this one does not. And, it’s worth noting again that the Greek word for submit doesn’t even adequately translate directly into modern English regardless of voice!
Hi Derek,
My recent posts about models explains the value of oversimplification — it imparts a general understanding of a topic that stimulates interest and allows greater understanding to be obtained. For example, I’m sure you learned that “God loves the whole world” before you learned about antinomianism, apostolicity, ecclesiology, eschatology, hermeneutics, inclusios, justification, middle voice, parousia, redemption, sacraments, salvation, sanctification, theodicy, transubstantiation, and so on. “God loves the whole world” becomes confusing when you try to explain damnation, suffering, and eschatology.
The second is from Sharkly here on this blog (emphasis added):
Both of these are answered in this comment:
Bridgman Point – the point at which a principle can no longer be dumbed-down any further, without sacrifice of its coherence, accuracy, salience, or context.
Simple and elegant.
”comment by Sharkly
I do want to be corrected if I’m wrong somewhere. But if your modus operandi is to twist the definitions of logical fallacies so you can try to pin them on me, keep that sort of dysfunctional turd flinging to yourself. Your most persuasive arguments are going to be the simple ones that people will easily recognize the truth of the moment you mention them. If you have to construct a Rube Goldberg machine to make your point, you’ll probably only lose credibility by employing such a contrived argument as your ideological defense. Like Occam’s razor teaches: The simplest explanation is usually the best one.”
i always like where supposedly ”simplicity sirz, please” ”argument”” guys ” like ”sparkly” make such novel and complex theologies out of something that is very clear in the Scriptures!
Such as these verses that too many ”genius” ”leader” chumps” in the sphere struggle with:
”Genesis 5:2 (Berean Standard Bible)
Male and female He created them, and He blessed them. And in the day they were created, He called them “man.””
”Mark 10:6-9 (Amplified Bible)
6 But from the beginning of creation God made them male and female. 7 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother [to establish a home with his wife], 8 and the two shall become one flesh; so that they are no longer two, but [are united as] one flesh. 9 Therefore, what God has united and joined together, man must not separate [by divorce].”
So therefore when ”geniuses” like”sparkly” &” jack” can’t figure out those things it automatically disqualifies(other than their other numerous disqualifications) them from the ”leadership” &” teacher” roles they covet!
Being “authentic” (another word like love, or ‘being a christian’) has lost its meaning. How many times have I heard in church, on the Internet, on podcasts “I put Jesus, God, or Holy Ghost before anything / I follow Jesus”
And then you see their actions, or abysmal married life, their children running out of the house away from them and God the second they turn 18
They will argue “free will” and then out comes the “we are all sinners saved by grace” comments
But at the same time condemming others (usually women) to the rest of their lives to live in shame if she kissed a boy before marriage or went to college to become a nurse or teacher, backed with “dont worry, if she repents, she will be in heaven with all of us praising Jesus for eternity! But until that day……we’ll watch, judge, condem, hate…”
For all this traditionalism purported by Red Pill Christians now, most of their wives have a job. Even traditional female jobs are frowned upon “she belongs in the home, raising the children (and she still is doing it wrong evidently, by most testimony) and having sex with me on demand, and use divorce game / threat if she does one thing wrong!”
They dont live live like this, and yet demand young men or men “seeking a wife” to live by this standard.
Jesus spoke in understandable and relatable parables. His disciples were hardly perfect (they LEFT their wives and families to follow him and left the local community / village to raise and care for them)
This incessent hairsplitting over the passive voice or middle Greek or post-Roman Hebrew means nothing to the common man…..or woman.
Again, the sphere proving again that this faith is for THEM and not you. Hence why men dont come. Nor even consider learning, its so beyong most to even consider now.
> they LEFT their wives and families to follow him
While leaving parents is a topic in the bible, because it was pretty unusual to leave the patriarchal fold, wives naturally followed their husbands, because living as a single mom wasn’t a real possibility in the ancient Levant. Getting left behind meant certain death and the epistles double down on how women are not to be abandoned under any circumstances except adultery.
If this has been depicted wrong by the Evangelical propaganda apparatus to you, it’s due to that kind of “Christianity” having not existed before 1830. It is based on gnostic revelation and a new way to interpret the bible.
Have no idea what you are talking about.
None of their wives or children are mentioned as “following Jesus as well”
No mention of them on the boat while fishing and Jesus walking on water. No mention of “the wives of the twelve ministered to the women / people / crowds that Jesus met”
No mention of them preparing the meals for them. No mention of any of them. Not even in passing. No mention of them preparing the passover meal / last supper for the 12. No mention of them at Mary and Marthas house. No mention of “and Peters wife asked of Jesus…”. No mention of their children. No mention of any of that.
Why? Because they were not there. They were back in Nazareth.
MR,
“Getting left behind meant certain death and the epistles double down on how women are not to be abandoned under any circumstances except adultery.”
Absolutely, but your observation contains a stronger prescription than you seem to realize.
The presumptive consequence (of adultery) is that the second husband takes on the obligations and duties of the first.
When Jesus gave the adultery “exception” it was in the case of a second marriage:
And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”
…and…
Whosoever shall divorce his wife, except for adultery, causes her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced commits adultery.
That second quote trips up many. A man merely divorcing his wife obviously does not make her an adulterer. Divorce—absent an actual affair—cannot be adultery, by definition.
So what is Jesus saying? This translation captures it:
But I say to you, that anyone who divorces his wife, except because of sexual immorality, makes her look as if she had committed adultery, and whoever marries her after she is divorced looks as if he is an adulterer.
When a man divorced his wife, everyone in that culture assumed she had committed adultery (thus eliminating the first husband’s obligation to his wife). According to Jesus, divorce implies that adultery took place, so a divorce is only permissible if adultery actually took place.
Adultery is when a wife cleaves to—physically selects—another man as her husband by becoming one with him. In committing adultery, she has implicitly divorced and remarried. Only in this case was it permissible for the original husband to give a divorce certificate under Mosaic Law.
Jesus doesn’t give an adultery “exception” for divorce outside the context of a new marriage. A man’s obligation to his wife cannot simply be rescinded for any other cause. Her care must, at minimum, be transferred to another man.
This is why, for example, Paul and Peter both tell Christian men that they cannot divorce their unbelieving wives, and must remain with them as long as their wives are willing to stay. Moreover, Paul is quite clear that if a wife leaves of her own free will, he is released from the obligation to provide for her. The cultural presumption is that she found another provider. (He still isn’t free to remarry until she dies, and he must take her back if she returns.)
To put this more clearly, Jesus never authorizes a man to divorce his wife unless another husband is in view. To wit:
“Getting left behind meant certain death and the epistles double down on how women are not to be abandoned under any circumstances except adultery.”
So much has been lost by thinking that adultery is just “having an affair” without any serious consequence, rather than a man claiming by marriage another man’s wife (and the divorce that is implied in this). In an affair, a man literally takes another man’s wife as his own. It is a kind of theft.
This is what happens when the church declares that only a church-solemnized marriage is marriage.
Peace,
DR
Pingback: Eschatology: The Sixty-Two Weeks - Derek L. Ramsey