Posted on 03/02/2010 1:33:02 PM PST by NYer
While a student at the Franciscan University of Steubenville, I had the privilege of having Dr. Scott Hahn as one of my Scripture professors. One thing he taught us is to look out “rumble strips” in the Bible. Imagine yourself cruising along, when suddenly you feel seismic vibrations in your car and hear that annoying muffled sound—you’re fast approaching a toll booth and the rumble strips are telling you to slow down and pay attention. So it is with passages in scripture which seem to disrupt the otherwise smooth narrative of salvation history. They seem to be randomly inserted in the text and can be downright perplexing in terms of their purpose and point, yet if we stick to our belief that Scripture is inspired, then we cannot neglect even those passages that seem to be, well, rather uninspiring. Like the rumble strips, these passages beg to be noticed and insist that we slow-down our reading pace and take a careful look at where we are in the story and what lies ahead of us.
One such passage is the episode of Peter’s mother-in-law, found in the three Synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Peter’s mother-in-law appears suddenly and, having been healed and cooked up a meal, vanishes from our view. At first blush, it may seem that the episode simply recounts a typical stop on Jesus’ healing campaign. But I find myself asking: What is the significance of Peter’s mother-in-law? Why do the Evangelists pull her from anonymity when countless others are healed by Jesus yet go unmentioned? Why do the Evangelists neglect to give us her name and only describe her in terms of her relation to Peter? Could the episode of Peter’s mother-in-law facilitate some further understanding of the development of Peter’s relationship with Jesus?
I feel it is significant that, at the beginning of the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus is associated with possessions of Peter and only later in these Gospels is he portrayed in a fuller relationship with Peter himself. We need not begin our story about the primacy of Peter in typical fashion with those familiar verses of Matthew 16 and John 1:42 instead, we may be able to begin the story of Peter’s primacy with Jesus’ use of Peter’s property.
All three of the Synoptic Gospels include the account. The healing occurs toward the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry, right around the time he calls his first disciples. In Mark (Mk 1:29-31), the healing occurs after Jesus exorcises the unclean spirit, who is the first to declare of Jesus, “I know who you are, The Holy One of God” (Mk 1:24). According to Mark, immediately after Jesus’ identity as the Messiah is proclaimed by the spirit, he moves into Peter’s house where he performs his first recorded healing. After healing Peter’s mother-in-law, Jesus begins his main healing ministry in Galilee and begins teaching in the synagogues.
In Matthew (Mt 8:14-15), the healing occurs AFTER Jesus begins his healing ministry and after the Sermon on the Mount. In Mark, Jesus heals Peter’s mother-in-law BEFORE beginning his healing ministry.
In Matthew’s account, only Peter is mentioned as the owner of the house, whereas in Mark the house is said to belong to both Peter and Andrew. Also different in Matthew’s account is that, among the apostles, only by Peter is Jesus’ Messianic identity proclaimed: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Mt 16:16). Earlier in Matthew, some had called Jesus the “Son of David” (Mt 9:27), and two demons asked what the “Son of God” (Mt 8:29) wanted from them. However, according to Matthew, the first explicitly clear declaration of Jesus’ Messianic identity comes from Peter, and we can infer from Jesus’ subsequent reaction to Peter that this declaration was of an altogether different sort than the previous two.
In Luke (Lk 4:38-39), the healing occurs right after the proclamation of the Kingdom and the exorcising of the unclean spirit, who declares (just as it did in Mark), “I know who you are, the Holy One of God” (Lk 4:34). Curiously, the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law occurs BEFORE the calling of the first disciples, whereas it occurs AFTER the calling in Mark and Matthew. And finally, just as Mark does, Luke has Jesus proceed to teach in the synagogues.
Okay, so what? I want to suggest that Mark and Luke are interpretive keys to one another. In both Mark and Luke, we find Jesus associating with possessions of Peter: his house and, in Luke 5:3, his boat. In Mark, Christ’s healing ministry begins in Peter’s house and only afterwards does the healing ministry extend to the greater public. In Luke, Christ enters Peter’s house prior to calling the first disciples, which signals an association with Peter before an association with the others. In both accounts, immediately before and after associating with Peter’s home and performing a healing inside of it, Jesus is teaching in the synagogues.
So, in Mark and Luke we find Jesus moving quickly to the synagogues after having healed Peter’s mother-in-law. In Luke there is a sudden transition from the synagogues to the lake of Gennesaret (Lk 5:1-11). Here, having called the disciples, Jesus proceeds to teach…but from where? Given the choice of two empty boats, Jesus opts for Peter’s (Lk 5:3). So in the Lucan narrative we have the following parallel movements in Jesus’ ministry: (1) from the synagogue (4:31-37) to Peter’s house (4:38); (2) teaching in the synagogues (4:44) to teaching in Peter’s boat (5:1-4). I interpret this transition as indicating an authoritative move from traditional places of teaching (synagogues) to a new forum of teaching (spaces owned by Peter). Moreover the dynamic I see in Mark and Luke consists of Peter’s spaces becoming forums of healing (Mark) and teaching (Luke.
In Matthew, there is no affirmative declaration of Jesus’ identity as the Christ, but only adumbrations (Mt 4:3-6; 8:29; 9:27; 12:23; 14:33) until the dramatic moment when, from Peter alone, we have the full confession of Jesus as “The Christ”
If, as many scholars think, Matthew and Luke are based largely on Mark’s narrative, we find that the simple story in Mark about Peter’s house as the origin of Jesus’ healing ministry is developed by both Matthew and Luke into foreshadowing of Peter’s primacy among the apostles. In Luke, it points toward Jesus’ didactic mission, where Peter’s house, boat, and eventually Peter himself host the proclamation of the Kingdom (4:14-21). Matthew wants us to know that the house in which the healing of the mother-in-law occurred is specifically Peter’s. This draws attention to the early relationship between Jesus and Peter, which is further developed in Matthew 16-17 where the declaration of Jesus’ identity comes from Peter’s own mouth.
Bringing it all together, the Synoptic Gospels present Jesus moving his healing and teaching from the synagogues to Peter’s spaces (house and boat), and from Peter’s spaces to his family, before finally transferring these powers to all the apostles and chiefly to Peter whose faith and ministry is to be the foundation of the Church. I suspect that the account of Peter’s mother-in-law is like a rumble strip, strategically placed in our path in order to grab our attention and prompt us to pay attention to what lies ahead. The healing of Peter’s mother-in-law as narrated in the Synoptics may give us stronger scriptural ties between the primacy of Peter and the Church’s missions of healing and teaching.
While a student at the Franciscan University of Steubenville, I had the privilege of having Dr. Scott Hahn as one of my Scripture professors. One thing he taught us is to look out “rumble strips” in the Bible. Imagine yourself cruising along, when suddenly you feel seismic vibrations in your car and hear that annoying muffled sound—you’re fast approaching a toll booth and the rumble strips are telling you to slow down and pay attention. So it is with passages in scripture which seem to disrupt the otherwise smooth narrative of salvation history. They seem to be randomly inserted in the text and can be downright perplexing in terms of their purpose and point, yet if we stick to our belief that Scripture is inspired, then we cannot neglect even those passages that seem to be, well, rather uninspiring. Like the rumble strips, these passages beg to be noticed and insist that we slow-down our reading pace and take a careful look at where we are in the story and what lies ahead of us.
One such passage is the episode of Peter’s mother-in-law, found in the three Synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Peter’s mother-in-law appears suddenly and, having been healed and cooked up a meal, vanishes from our view. At first blush, it may seem that the episode simply recounts a typical stop on Jesus’ healing campaign. But I find myself asking: What is the significance of Peter’s mother-in-law? Why do the Evangelists pull her from anonymity when countless others are healed by Jesus yet go unmentioned? Why do the Evangelists neglect to give us her name and only describe her in terms of her relation to Peter? Could the episode of Peter’s mother-in-law facilitate some further understanding of the development of Peter’s relationship with Jesus?
I feel it is significant that, at the beginning of the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus is associated with possessions of Peter and only later in these Gospels is he portrayed in a fuller relationship with Peter himself. We need not begin our story about the primacy of Peter in typical fashion with those familiar verses of Matthew 16 and John 1:42 instead, we may be able to begin the story of Peter’s primacy with Jesus’ use of Peter’s property.
All three of the Synoptic Gospels include the account. The healing occurs toward the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry, right around the time he calls his first disciples. In Mark (Mk 1:29-31), the healing occurs after Jesus exorcises the unclean spirit, who is the first to declare of Jesus, “I know who you are, The Holy One of God” (Mk 1:24). According to Mark, immediately after Jesus’ identity as the Messiah is proclaimed by the spirit, he moves into Peter’s house where he performs his first recorded healing. After healing Peter’s mother-in-law, Jesus begins his main healing ministry in Galilee and begins teaching in the synagogues.
In Matthew (Mt 8:14-15), the healing occurs AFTER Jesus begins his healing ministry and after the Sermon on the Mount. In Mark, Jesus heals Peter’s mother-in-law BEFORE beginning his healing ministry.
In Matthew’s account, only Peter is mentioned as the owner of the house, whereas in Mark the house is said to belong to both Peter and Andrew. Also different in Matthew’s account is that, among the apostles, only by Peter is Jesus’ Messianic identity proclaimed: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Mt 16:16). Earlier in Matthew, some had called Jesus the “Son of David” (Mt 9:27), and two demons asked what the “Son of God” (Mt 8:29) wanted from them. However, according to Matthew, the first explicitly clear declaration of Jesus’ Messianic identity comes from Peter, and we can infer from Jesus’ subsequent reaction to Peter that this declaration was of an altogether different sort than the previous two.
In Luke (Lk 4:38-39), the healing occurs right after the proclamation of the Kingdom and the exorcising of the unclean spirit, who declares (just as it did in Mark), “I know who you are, the Holy One of God” (Lk 4:34). Curiously, the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law occurs BEFORE the calling of the first disciples, whereas it occurs AFTER the calling in Mark and Matthew. And finally, just as Mark does, Luke has Jesus proceed to teach in the synagogues.
Okay, so what? I want to suggest that Mark and Luke are interpretive keys to one. In both Mark and Luke, we find Jesus associating with possessions of Peter: his house and, in Luke 5:3, his boat. In Mark, Christ’s healing ministry begins in Peter’s house and only afterwards does the healing ministry extend to the greater public. In Luke, Christ enters Peter’s house prior to calling the first disciples, which signals an association with Peter before an association with the others. In both accounts, immediately before and after associating with Peter’s home and performing a healing inside of it, Jesus is teaching in the synagogues.
So, in Mark and Luke we find Jesus moving quickly to the synagogues after having healed Peter’s mother-in-law. In Luke there is a sudden transition from the synagogues to the lake of Gennesaret (Lk 5:1-11). Here, having called the disciples, Jesus proceeds to teach…but from where? Given the choice of two empty boats, Jesus opts for Peter’s (Lk 5:3). So in the Lucan narrative we have the following parallel movements in Jesus’ ministry: (1) from the synagogue (4:31-37) to Peter’s house (4:38); (2) teaching in the synagogues (4:44) to teaching in Peter’s boat (5:1-4). I interpret this transition as indicating an authoritative move from traditional places of teaching (synagogues) to a new forum of teaching (spaces owned by Peter). Moreover the dynamic I see in Mark and Luke consists of Peter’s spaces becoming forums of healing (Mark) and teaching (Luke.
In Matthew, there is no affirmative declaration of Jesus’ identity as the Christ, but only adumbrations (Mt 4:3-6; 8:29; 9:27; 12:23; 14:33) until the dramatic moment when, from Peter alone, we have the full confession of Jesus as “The Christ”
If, as many scholars think, Matthew and Luke are based largely on Mark’s narrative, we find that the simple story in Mark about Peter’s house as the origin of Jesus’ healing ministry is developed by both Matthew and Luke into foreshadowing of Peter’s primacy among the apostles. In Luke, it points toward Jesus’ didactic mission, where Peter’s house, boat, and eventually Peter himself host the proclamation of the Kingdom (4:14-21). Matthew wants us to know that the house in which the healing of the mother-in-law occurred is specifically Peter’s. This draws attention to the early relationship between Jesus and Peter, which is further developed in Matthew 16-17 where the declaration of Jesus’ identity comes from Peter’s own mouth.
Bringing it all together, the Synoptic Gospels present Jesus moving his healing and teaching from the synagogues to Peter’s spaces (house and boat), and from Peter’s spaces to his family, before finally transferring these powers to all the apostles and chiefly to Peter whose faith and ministry is to be the foundation of the Church. I suspect that the account of Peter’s mother-in-law is like a rumble strip, strategically placed in our path in order to grab our attention and prompt us to pay attention to what lies ahead. The healing of Peter’s mother-in-law as narrated in the Synoptics may give us stronger scriptural ties between the primacy of Peter and the Church’s missions of healing and teaching.
Ping!
“you’re fast approaching a toll booth and the rumble strips are telling you to slow down and pay attention”
Actually, we call that “Driving by Braille” here in Texas - keeps you in your lane.
Colonel, USAFR
That was really interesting.
both times ...
Better twice than not at all. :)
And that’s why preists should be allowed to marry. Fact is most of the disciples had families ( including children and wives), certainly Paul did.
It is often easy to overlook the obvious-=-—Peter was married
Pure isogesis
I'd like to distinguish their comments from the vain babbling of mere fallible Men.
Me too that is why I pointed out that this is pure isogesis
Did what? Have a wife and children?
Would you like to tell us where you got that idea?
I’m afraid I must identify myself as one of the babblers. Oh, and a rabid Papist!
Didja, now ....
That, apparently, is your intepretation of Scripture.
So tell me: Do you believe yourself to be an infallible interpreter of Scripture or an inerrant arbiter of doctrine?
And it isn't.
Paul's kind of a strange case. There's a passage that indicates he thinks he has a right to have a wife (an odd thing to say if he actually did!), a passage that indicates he actually has a wife, and another passage that has him saying it's better to remain unmarried, "just as I am".
Something to ask the Boss about when you die, I guess.
Isogesis "Reading into the scriptures". . This merely means you start with a subject, and look for scriptures that pertain to it.
The author is looking desperately for scripture to support a tradition that lacks any biblical substance
Because he was a member of the Sanhedrin (when he was Saul the persecuter before the road to Damascus). The rules were very specific.
Learn some biblical context and history
If you think that's "isogesis," I gotta ask: have you ever actually read Acts?
I would ask if I actually cared one way or the other but I don’t so for me it is a nonissue
Why don't you go to "dictionary.com", look up "isogesis," and report back on your findings.
Scripture doesn't say that.
So I call it isogesis and you want to call it eisegesis either way it is terrible and misleading theology built out of whole cloth
Learn some courtesy.
Now ...
I Corinthians 7:
1Now concerning the thing whereof you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2But for fear of fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. 3Let the husband render the debt to his wife, and the wife also in like manner to the husband. 4The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband. And in like manner the husband also hath not power of his own body, but the wife. 5Defraud not one another, except, perhaps, by consent, for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer; and return together again, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency. 6But I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment. 7For I would that all men were even as myself: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that. 8But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I. 9But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt.
Someone asked about Paul; Paul was a Pharisee, ergo Paul was married, and probably a ‘good family man’ before Damascus.
Exegesis is defined as “reading out of the scripture.” Isogesis is defined as “reading into the scripture.” which is what this author didi,,
That's nice. I call it an interesting and insightful discussion of God's Holy Word.
But I'm not an infallible interpreter of Scripture.
Do you think you are an infallible interpreter of Scripture?
He said "healing and teaching" not "authority and infallibility".
You folks invent doctrines all the time; now you're even inventing words.
I would add that Paul also had Roman citizenship which perhaps was purchased and was well educated so evidently not from a poverty stricken family.
There would be little reason not to follow the usual practice of marriage even if he wasn’t married later in life.
IIRC, Peter’s boat appears more than once in the Gospels ...Matt 14, for example.
Interesting “ergo” there.
You counter explicit Scripture (1 Cor. 7) that explicitly states that Paul was not married with a deduction from the fact that Paul was a Pharisee, therefore/ergo he was married.
For someone who, I assume, claims to stick strictly with Scripture and not indulge in papist readings into Scripture
that’s a heckuva instance of reading something into Scripture that’s not there.
Just sayin’
Ah, yes, nice bait and switch and deductive reading into Scripture.
No one has any problem with a man who was married who’s spouse has died being a priest. Would you like to know why not?
Because marriage ends when one spouse dies.
Period.
So whether Paul was once married (which you can claim only by deduction from (1) Roman citizenship ergo (2) not poor (3) ergo, if not poor, probably married
or not.
Really
doesn’t
matter.
And to arrive at a conclusion that really doesn’t matter you sold your sola scriptura soul for a mess of pottage. You made an three-link-chain of inferences to arrive at the claim that Paul was once married.
Sounds like reading a heckuva lot into Scripture.
See, Catholics do not dispute that bishops were married. But what we do say that historical research indicates is that (1) if married and widowed, the Church recommended that a bishop not remarry and preferred widowed and unremarried men for bishops because that showed discipline and maturity [Peter Brown, Oxford and Princeton history professor’s argument in _History of Private Life_], which is what the epistles to Titus and Timothy are saying when they state a bishop should be a husband of one wife, not remarry if widowed
and
(2) if a married bishop’s wife is living, the bishop is expected to abstain from marital relations with her after ordination.
That’s the origin of priestly celibacy. At first it was not celibacy at all (celibacy means “unmarried”) but continence, either (a) continence because one was unmarried and therefore not screwing around or (b) because, if married, one pledged to abstain within marriage. That’s evident in the earliest legislation of the Church that has survived.
But since married priests (after priests received delegated authority from bishops and became central in sacramental ministry) so often failed to live up to their pledge of continence (b), celibacy (just don’t marry) was made mandatory (a) in the 1000s.
There is zero explicit NT evidence of any of the apostles both being married _and_ sexually active. Indeed, there’s zero evidence that any of the known apostles who were married had living spouses after being chosen apostles. Even the Peter’s mother-in-law story could have taken place after Peter’s wife died. He’d still conceivably be taking care of his mother-in-law as a widower. His wife is NEVER mentioned. Did you catch that? Peter’s wife is never actually mentioned in Scripture. We deduce he had a wife because his mother-in-law is explicitly mentioned. And that’s a legitimate deduction. But his wife herself is NEVER mentioned. Was she alive? Maybe. Maybe not. That Paul ever had a wife is a three-link-chain fanciful deduction that runs against very clear and explicit evidence to the contrary.
There’s no evidence that any of the apostles, qua apostles, as they went around after Jesus’s ascension proclaiming the gospel, were “actively” married, that their wives were still alive or, if alive, that they were sexually active (one would hardly expect them to mention the latter—one doesn’t brag about that openly). “Husband of one wife” actually fits better with widowers.
The least you could do is quote the scripture correctly.
For it is better to marry than to be BURN.
The meaning of the particular verb here is to be consumed with a lustful passion.
thank you exactly. Too many Christians no so little about Paul
Eisegesis is how I always thought it was spelled.
I know this might be a case of spelling variation, but have you ever noticed how often the anti-Catholics here can’t spell words they fixate on or properly describe ideas or docrines they fixate on?
Indeed he was ... but Jesus was not.
Ultimately, as Arrogant Bustard noted earlier on - "the vain babbling of mere fallible Men". We call that YOPIOS.
???
Well ... not according to Paul who wrote: "To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I am. (1Corinthians7)
Doesn’t eliminate the possibility of being a widower.
But, on a different note, it doesn’t matter if Paul had 16 ex-wives and 10,000 children or none at all.
It’s trivia and a distraction.
You bet it matters! Paul was not the first apostle to conclude that celibacy is, in some sense, "better" than marriage. After Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19 on divorce and remarriage, the disciples exclaimed, "If such is the case between a man and his wife, it is better not to marry" (Matt 19:10). This remark prompted Jesus’ teaching on the value of celibacy "for the sake of the kingdom":
"Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it" (Matt. 19:11–12).
It is important to note that the priestly celibacy is not a Catholic dogma or doctrine. In fact, for Eastern Rite Catholics, married priests are the norm, just as they are for Orthodox and Oriental Christians. My pastor's great grandfather was a married priest; he, on the other hand, chose celibacy. The tradition in the Western or Latin-Rite Church has been for priests as well as bishops to take vows of celibacy, a rule that has been firmly in place since the early Middle Ages. Even today, though, exceptions are made. For example, there are married Latin-Rite priests who are converts from Lutheranism and Episcopalianism.
**********************
Agreed. I've always thought that the choice to become a religious celibate after the death of one's husband or wife is particularly appealing.
“I have no idea what you’re talking about, so here’s a bunny with a pancake on its head.”
You’re missing the point. His wife had died when he was called by Christ.
He remained celibate after that.
Teaching the commandments of men that contrary to the God's commandments was one of the identifiers of the apostate.
and I don't believe in the idea of sola scripture.
#47 post Quote from Catholic Encyclopedia.
There is no such word as “isogesis”; I believe the word you are searching for is “eisegesis” (documented as of 1892AD) as compared to “exegesis” (documented as of 1619AD).
Applying approved hermeneutical principles to a text (particle, word, grammar, sentence, local context, larger context, whole document, historical context, cultural context) to explain, to interpret what the passage says is _exegesis_, from ek or ex (out of) and hegeisthai (to lead). Its focus is on what is said, not particularly on current application.
The process of eisegesis is quite opposite. It is reading _into_ the text one’s own ideas, trying to make the text or selected portions into a pretext for supporting a one’s theory(s). This is what the writer of the article has done, and he has twisted Scripture in an amazing way. Peter himself warned about this (2 Pe 3:15-17 regarding the kind of wresting Paul’s epistles by the unlearned and unstable).
It is hoped this will bring a sense of admission of error and apology regarding the non-word “isogesis.” Actually, if there _were_ such a word, it would mean iso (the same as or equivalent to) + hegeisthai (to lead); or, an interpretation which is inerrantly and infallibly equal to or the same as the Scripture quoted. Is this what is meant?
Actually, the author (as well as several responders) ought to have been deafened by some very primary “rumble strips.” They are:
1. The incredible exegetic errors of interpreting Mt 16:13-28, esp. v. 18 as appointing Peter as head of the church. In fact, this is true _eisegesis_ - reading into Scripture what you want it to say. At that point, Peter was still an unregenerated “believer” who was still a child of Satan (v. 23). Peter was not converted (Lk 22:32)until much later, after the crucifixion and resurrection (Jn 21:15-19). He continued to make errors, until he and 129 others were invested with the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost, where the local Jerusalem Body of Christ was instituted by the Lord.
2. The Lord Jesus Christ authorized all the disciples to “bind and loose” when converted (Mt 18:3) and constituted as the church (Mt. 18:17-18) — not just Peter.
3. The pastor/chief elder of the very first church was not Peter, but James (Jacob) (Acts 15:13+, Gal 1:19), the son of Mary, (half)brother of Jesus.
4. Nowhere in Holy Scripture is there a catholic (universal, invisible, temporal, global) church (singular) exhorted — this is a pure _eisegetical_ invention of the apostate religion, the state church and its descendants. There are only local churches mentioned, each one a/the local Body of Christ when it is assembled (including the one in Heaven, whose members as yet have no bodies). Therefore, there cannot be a global denominational church with one ecclesiastical head, governing all as a “vicar”.
5. Doctrines and dogmas that require reference to this or that of the “patristics” or councils of the “early church” (read state-authorized, already apostate mixed-multitude) for their authority, and cannot stand on the inerrant, infallible, verbal, plenary, preserved Word of God only — are less than valueless — they are “traditions of men” and not of God.
THESE are just a few of the “rumble strips” the author ignores, regardless of his theological indoctrination. They are a spiritual alerts that cannot/do not enter the natural man’s reasonings as logical or meaningful (1 Co 2:14 in context).
With regard —
What you quote is exactly what I wrote, except that your author misuses the term celibacy. He meant “the law of continence was generally recognized.” Since a lot of people misuse the term “celibacy” in this way, it’s understandable. That’s why I was careful to make the distinction.
You, on the other hand, apparently think that because he uses the term “celibacy” to mean continence, he contradicts me. But the content of the laws he describes from the 4th century is EXACTLY what I said it was.
So he confirms my argument.
Simply matching up words is not smart. You have to make sure that words are being used in the same way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.