1. What is "sufficient to deduce"? The imagery is extensive and consistent throughout the Bible;and if you believe that marriage was instituted by God in Eden then later references to God's bride being the church are deliberate--not merely convenient.
2. The plain meaning of the text is that he cherished his servant. Simply because slavery was "harsh" in Roman times (was it ever "nice"?) doesn't mean that this was a romantic relationship. (In fact, such a reading would almost certainly have to mean that not only was this "romantic" but also pederastic/paedophilic; and that consequently Jesus had nothing bad to say about paedophilia!)
As human nature and history tells us, slavery does not preclude simple affection by default--no matter the social context. (Just as, ironically, the idea that the Centurion built them a synagogue would be dismissed under higher criticism to be inconsistent with the times. After all did they not hate the Romans and vice versa?).
We also cannot say that because Jesus did not upbraid the man right then and there for a clear "homosexual relationship" does not mean that he approved of any such thing.
3. I think you are a bit confused over the alternatives to marriage.
Marriage is not a "way for God to relate to us" it is a representation of his character (as is maleness and femaleness). And so, He designed a specific vehicle for the expression of sexuality that was perverted shortly via polygamy and homosexuality.
It doesn't mean that we can only understand God through marriage. However, we do know explicitly from the Bible that marriage (as he defined it) is one of His most powerful and important symbols.
4. All the "exegeses" I have studied based on these texts are tendentious, strained at best and soundly rejected not only by the majority of biblical scholars but by many revisionists as well.
Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 05/27/2009 - 09:49.
I'd say that was speculative at best to be honest.
2. The plain meaning of the text is that he cherished his servant. Simply because slavery was "harsh" in Roman times (was it ever "nice"?) doesn't mean that this was a romantic relationship. (In fact, such a reading would almost certainly have to mean that not only was this "romantic" but also pederastic/paedophilic; and that consequently Jesus had nothing bad to say about paedophilia!)
As human nature and history tells us, slavery does not preclude simple affection by default--no matter the social context. (Just as, ironically, the idea that the Centurion built them a synagogue would be dismissed under higher criticism to be inconsistent with the times. After all did they not hate the Romans and vice versa?).
We also cannot say that because Jesus did not upbraid the man right then and there for a clear "homosexual relationship" does not mean that he approved of any such thing.
3. I think you are a bit confused over the alternatives to marriage. Marriage is not a "way for God to relate to us" it is a representation of his character (as is maleness and femaleness). And so, He designed a specific vehicle for the expression of sexuality that was perverted shortly via polygamy and homosexuality.
It doesn't mean that we can only understand God through marriage. However, we do know explicitly from the Bible that marriage (as he defined it) is one of His most powerful and important symbols.
4. All the "exegeses" I have studied based on these texts are tendentious, strained at best and soundly rejected not only by the majority of biblical scholars but by many revisionists as well.