No I don't. To God be true.Do you think a person who is sure that such and such a course is fatal yet says nothing to warn others can do so with a clear conscience and God's blessing?
Andrew
What are the implications of remarriage being adultery?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Well, guys, I think Ive stirred up enough trouble here.
It wasnt intentional, and I hope it wasnt taken that way.
I do believe as Steve that 'time spent' has far less to say about this matter, or any other issue of study, but what is more important is the quality of that study.
Does a man simply look at a handful of pet passages that all 'seem' to say the same thing and then not go looking to see what the whole story is ?
Or does he sift thru the scriptures looking for every piece of information he can however unimportant it may seem ?
Something very important happened a couple years ago in my own studies.
Like most others I believed that when Moses gave Deut 24:1-4, a passage that absolutely critical in understanding divorce AND remarriage, that he gave this in a vacuum one day as a 'permission' to divorce and was giving very vague grounds for those divorces.
But something was not setting right with me about this because that absolutely DEFIES logic given Gods view of His HOLY covenant of marriage.
I always ask myself 'why' at every possible point in study....so my question was this.
WHY would Moses..KNOWING how holy marriage is to God, just up and give PERMISSION for divorce and then not even give any absolute grounds for it as we see in Exodus 21:10 or so for this woman not being provided for by her husband?
It was boggling my mind to think that God just woke Moses up one day and said 'hey, lets ALLOW easy divorce and dont give any specific reason so that men can throw out their wives for any number of reasons"
So I started looking even deeper to find out WHY God, thru Moses, would defile His own marriage covenant...it just makes NO sense whatsoever for God to one day just up and give permission to divorce like this.
So I started looking to see if there was anything PRE Deut on the matter to see if there were any more clues.
What I found for the most part was Exodus 21 and Lev 21 and altho I had read these previously, at those points in time I was not researching marriage doctrine so I passed right over them.
These passages are absolutely unbelievable because the show TWO things that change our viewpoint of Deut 24 entirely.
Firstly, putting away did NOT begin in Deut as MANY falsely teach.
Lev 21 give us conclusive PROOF that putting away began at least before Leviticus was given.
Leviticus seems to have been written in segments over a period of time, where Deut was given in speaches at the END of the 40 year journey thru the desert as this younger generation was about to enter the promise land.
So the priests being forbidden in the desert to take a woman put away from her husband presented to me that this hardhearted casting away was going on quite some time by the time Deut 24 was given...so Deut 24::1-4 isnt a 'permission' to divorce at all. It instead is a 'regulation' to what was already going on.
Now THAT makes perfect sense, is very logical, and makes it so God isnt PERMITTING divorce for some vague reasoning, but is actually trying to END these divorces by laying out strict rules for them.
The second thing was Exodus 21.
If God 'hates' the ending of marriage so much, why on earth would He just let this new wife just leave her marriage so easily over nonsupport or even diminished physical attention from her husband (duty of marriage) ?
If God feels about marriage as some folks believe then surely He shouldnt just allow ANY wife the ability to just walk out of her marriage so easily.
Now, some say its not about the divorce, but only if she remarries is God bent out of shape...but these folks preach falsehoods entirely because God HATETH putting away !...that is scriptural FACT !
The 'sin' is ALWAYS related directly to the putting away that God HATES...but then why isnt this woman being condemned if she leaves and even given very clear instruction that she CAN leave?
What this shows me is that while God DOES HATE putting away (forget remarriage at this point, He HATES putting away) He does hold His marriage covenant VERY holy and VERY seriously and when a man basicailly spits on it as the Hebrews were, then it seems that He takes enough offense at that to allow this woman to put away the marriage (that He normaly would hate) because the evil man has left her little choice but to do so....should she starve because of this animal of a man ?
Hitting on Deut 24:!-4 again we see something else that shows us a point that is alluded to in Lev 21, and that is, as we see also with Jesus words in the gospels, that remarriage after divorce is 'assumed'.
Deut 24 shows it quite clearly.... "she may go and be another man's wife"...clear enough.
Has GOD HImself changed here ? Did He for a moment lose His senses and start being 'ok' with remarriage after putting away ? Did He just stop caring about His marriage covenant ?
Or....or does He TRULY believe His OWN words that 'it is not good for man to be alone' and realize that this woman should have RIGHT to remarry if she has been cast out by this man who cannot control his urges and his rage.
When we look at Lev 21 again and see that the priests are forbidden to take a woman put away, this also infers that taking these wives was probably NOT forbidden to the general population because if it were prohibited to ALL men, then we should see that commandment somewhere and then this prohibtion to the priests would seem somewhat redundant.....Deut 24 absolutely confirms the fact that these wives COULD remarry...that it was assumed if not outright permitted.
And then we come to the NT and try to harmonize this information in with every single detail about marriage that is in there.
We dont read 10 pet passages and believe we have found the truth. We 'rightly divide' the WHOLE word of God to see precisely what is being dealt with...what the context is....WHY someone is saying what they are and who they are talking to.
Anyway, instead of rambling on for another hour, Im going to leave this all at this last post and let the reader decide for themselves what they believe.
I encourage ALL of you readers who cross this to not take ANYones word for anything regardless of how insistant they are or how much sense things 'seem' to make on the surface.
MANY proclaim that Deut 24:1-4 is a 'permission' to divorce for some ambiguous reasoning and that is completely inconsistant with how our God feels about marriage.
So things are not always what they seem on the surface.
Be like those noble minded Bereans and see for YOURSELVES if these things are true or not.
This will be my last post here because I really dont want to disrupt this little forum any longer.
If anyone does wish to discuss the matter with me further, please hop over to the small debate forum I have set up for just that purpose.
God bless
wm
It wasnt intentional, and I hope it wasnt taken that way.
I do believe as Steve that 'time spent' has far less to say about this matter, or any other issue of study, but what is more important is the quality of that study.
Does a man simply look at a handful of pet passages that all 'seem' to say the same thing and then not go looking to see what the whole story is ?
Or does he sift thru the scriptures looking for every piece of information he can however unimportant it may seem ?
Something very important happened a couple years ago in my own studies.
Like most others I believed that when Moses gave Deut 24:1-4, a passage that absolutely critical in understanding divorce AND remarriage, that he gave this in a vacuum one day as a 'permission' to divorce and was giving very vague grounds for those divorces.
But something was not setting right with me about this because that absolutely DEFIES logic given Gods view of His HOLY covenant of marriage.
I always ask myself 'why' at every possible point in study....so my question was this.
WHY would Moses..KNOWING how holy marriage is to God, just up and give PERMISSION for divorce and then not even give any absolute grounds for it as we see in Exodus 21:10 or so for this woman not being provided for by her husband?
It was boggling my mind to think that God just woke Moses up one day and said 'hey, lets ALLOW easy divorce and dont give any specific reason so that men can throw out their wives for any number of reasons"
So I started looking even deeper to find out WHY God, thru Moses, would defile His own marriage covenant...it just makes NO sense whatsoever for God to one day just up and give permission to divorce like this.
So I started looking to see if there was anything PRE Deut on the matter to see if there were any more clues.
What I found for the most part was Exodus 21 and Lev 21 and altho I had read these previously, at those points in time I was not researching marriage doctrine so I passed right over them.
These passages are absolutely unbelievable because the show TWO things that change our viewpoint of Deut 24 entirely.
Firstly, putting away did NOT begin in Deut as MANY falsely teach.
Lev 21 give us conclusive PROOF that putting away began at least before Leviticus was given.
Leviticus seems to have been written in segments over a period of time, where Deut was given in speaches at the END of the 40 year journey thru the desert as this younger generation was about to enter the promise land.
So the priests being forbidden in the desert to take a woman put away from her husband presented to me that this hardhearted casting away was going on quite some time by the time Deut 24 was given...so Deut 24::1-4 isnt a 'permission' to divorce at all. It instead is a 'regulation' to what was already going on.
Now THAT makes perfect sense, is very logical, and makes it so God isnt PERMITTING divorce for some vague reasoning, but is actually trying to END these divorces by laying out strict rules for them.
The second thing was Exodus 21.
If God 'hates' the ending of marriage so much, why on earth would He just let this new wife just leave her marriage so easily over nonsupport or even diminished physical attention from her husband (duty of marriage) ?
If God feels about marriage as some folks believe then surely He shouldnt just allow ANY wife the ability to just walk out of her marriage so easily.
Now, some say its not about the divorce, but only if she remarries is God bent out of shape...but these folks preach falsehoods entirely because God HATETH putting away !...that is scriptural FACT !
The 'sin' is ALWAYS related directly to the putting away that God HATES...but then why isnt this woman being condemned if she leaves and even given very clear instruction that she CAN leave?
What this shows me is that while God DOES HATE putting away (forget remarriage at this point, He HATES putting away) He does hold His marriage covenant VERY holy and VERY seriously and when a man basicailly spits on it as the Hebrews were, then it seems that He takes enough offense at that to allow this woman to put away the marriage (that He normaly would hate) because the evil man has left her little choice but to do so....should she starve because of this animal of a man ?
Hitting on Deut 24:!-4 again we see something else that shows us a point that is alluded to in Lev 21, and that is, as we see also with Jesus words in the gospels, that remarriage after divorce is 'assumed'.
Deut 24 shows it quite clearly.... "she may go and be another man's wife"...clear enough.
Has GOD HImself changed here ? Did He for a moment lose His senses and start being 'ok' with remarriage after putting away ? Did He just stop caring about His marriage covenant ?
Or....or does He TRULY believe His OWN words that 'it is not good for man to be alone' and realize that this woman should have RIGHT to remarry if she has been cast out by this man who cannot control his urges and his rage.
When we look at Lev 21 again and see that the priests are forbidden to take a woman put away, this also infers that taking these wives was probably NOT forbidden to the general population because if it were prohibited to ALL men, then we should see that commandment somewhere and then this prohibtion to the priests would seem somewhat redundant.....Deut 24 absolutely confirms the fact that these wives COULD remarry...that it was assumed if not outright permitted.
And then we come to the NT and try to harmonize this information in with every single detail about marriage that is in there.
We dont read 10 pet passages and believe we have found the truth. We 'rightly divide' the WHOLE word of God to see precisely what is being dealt with...what the context is....WHY someone is saying what they are and who they are talking to.
Anyway, instead of rambling on for another hour, Im going to leave this all at this last post and let the reader decide for themselves what they believe.
I encourage ALL of you readers who cross this to not take ANYones word for anything regardless of how insistant they are or how much sense things 'seem' to make on the surface.
MANY proclaim that Deut 24:1-4 is a 'permission' to divorce for some ambiguous reasoning and that is completely inconsistant with how our God feels about marriage.
So things are not always what they seem on the surface.
Be like those noble minded Bereans and see for YOURSELVES if these things are true or not.
This will be my last post here because I really dont want to disrupt this little forum any longer.
If anyone does wish to discuss the matter with me further, please hop over to the small debate forum I have set up for just that purpose.
God bless
wm
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hi FOC
You have spent so many words trying to reconcile the OT teaching with the NT. But Jesus tells us that the Deut 24 teaching on divorce is a thing of the past by his declaration 'But i say to you'.
So if you have some how reconciled OT teaching on divorce with NT teaching on divorce then, with respect
, there is no way you could be in agreement with what Jesus taught.
Andrew
You have spent so many words trying to reconcile the OT teaching with the NT. But Jesus tells us that the Deut 24 teaching on divorce is a thing of the past by his declaration 'But i say to you'.
And the Lord repeats it again here:Mat 5:31-32 KJV wrote: It hath been said, whoever shall put away his wife ... (32) But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife...
It is clear that Jesus is not instituting a new marriage law, nor affirming the Mosaic law, but rather repealing the 'hard hearted' Mosaic law that was 'not from the beginning'.Mat 19:8-9 KJV wrote: He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. (9) And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife...
So if you have some how reconciled OT teaching on divorce with NT teaching on divorce then, with respect
, there is no way you could be in agreement with what Jesus taught. Andrew
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Just a couple of observations:
For foc—
I never met anyone who ever claimed that the incidence of divorce in Israel began with Deuteronomy 24, so I am not sure whom you may be arguing against on that point. What I did say is that Deuteronomy gives the only case in the law of regulating divorce. Exodus 21 does not regulate divorce. It regulates slavery. If a man married, and then neglected a slave girl, she was to be released, both from the marriage and from the slavery. It may hint at sexual and financial abandonment as additional "grouds" for divorce (as David Instone-Brewer argues, in Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible), but the focus of the law there is not so much on the subject of divorce, generally, but of the rights of slaves.
It is true that the term translated "uncleanness," in Deuteronomy 24, is used a variety of ways in the Old Testament. It is significant, though, that its literal meaning is "a matter of nakedness (or nudity)." Among the ways the Old Testament uses the word is as a euphemism for unlawful sexual intercourse, which is often called "uncovering the nakedness (or nudity)" of someone (e.g., Lev.18L6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, etc.).
Therefore the most common usage of the term, in the writings earlier than Deuteronomy, was with reference to inappropriate sexual activity. This, I believe, would have been the first meaning to come to the mind of the readers of Deuteronomy, and, as a grounds for divorce, it would be agreeable with Jesus' statements in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9.
The fact that the term also was sometimes (less commonly) used non-literally, with reference to some generic defect, gave the Jewish rabbis a means of excusing divorce upon grounds more trivial than were part of the law's original intention.
In my opinion, Jesus never changed any part of the morality embodied in the law. It is therefore unlikely that God, in the Old Testament law (which Paul described as "holy, just and good") allowed, as morally acceptable behavior, that which was absolutely immoral in the eyes of Jesus.
agrogers—
I do not believe it is correct to say that Jesus abolished the Mosaic law on divorce. Six times, in Matthew 5, Jesus brings up examples of the law's teachings about morality, and follows with His own explanations—"But I say to you..." Actually, in none of the six cases does He abolish what the law said. He only clarified its meaning or ramifications.
The law, as they had heard, forbade murder and adultery. Jesus did not abolish nor alter these restrictions. He did, however, point out that God requires that the principles embodied in these laws be applied also to the hidden life of the heart as well as the external behavior (Matt.5:21-30).
Divorce had been permitted in the law, and Jesus explained that any divorce that was acquired without the grounds that the law originally intended was wrong, leading to adultery in the act of remarriage (Matt.5:31-32).
The law had required that people not defile the name of God, by breaking oaths taken in His name; but Jesus said you likewise defile the name of God when you take no oath, but break your unadorned words of "yes" or "no"—to the point of making oaths irrelevant and passe (Matt.5:37).
The law had directed the magistrates to exact precisely just punishment upon criminals ("an eye for an eye..." etc.); but Jesus said that His disciples, who were not magistrates, should not consider it to be their duty to act that way in their relationships with those who antagonize them, and that it would be more loving not to press for your rights in such matters (Matt.5:38-42).
The law had said to love one's neighbor. Though some scribes had seen in this an implicit right or duty to hate one's enemies, Jesus said that one's enemy is also his neighbor, and must therefore be loved and treated benevolently (Matt.5:43-48).
I honestly find no instance of Jesus abolishing any aspect of God's moral law, and no evidence that He intended to abrogate what Moses had taught on divorce. His teaching merely reaffirmed Moses' original intentions, over against the lax attitude of many of the rabbis.
In your quotations of the words of Jesus, you break off the quote at just the point where Jesus was about to do this very thing. You leave out the controlling clause: "except for the cause of fornication [Moses' "matter of nakedness"]." It seems that the inclusion of the whole statement brings out a different meaning from that which you are taking from the partial quotation.
For foc—
I never met anyone who ever claimed that the incidence of divorce in Israel began with Deuteronomy 24, so I am not sure whom you may be arguing against on that point. What I did say is that Deuteronomy gives the only case in the law of regulating divorce. Exodus 21 does not regulate divorce. It regulates slavery. If a man married, and then neglected a slave girl, she was to be released, both from the marriage and from the slavery. It may hint at sexual and financial abandonment as additional "grouds" for divorce (as David Instone-Brewer argues, in Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible), but the focus of the law there is not so much on the subject of divorce, generally, but of the rights of slaves.
It is true that the term translated "uncleanness," in Deuteronomy 24, is used a variety of ways in the Old Testament. It is significant, though, that its literal meaning is "a matter of nakedness (or nudity)." Among the ways the Old Testament uses the word is as a euphemism for unlawful sexual intercourse, which is often called "uncovering the nakedness (or nudity)" of someone (e.g., Lev.18L6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, etc.).
Therefore the most common usage of the term, in the writings earlier than Deuteronomy, was with reference to inappropriate sexual activity. This, I believe, would have been the first meaning to come to the mind of the readers of Deuteronomy, and, as a grounds for divorce, it would be agreeable with Jesus' statements in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9.
The fact that the term also was sometimes (less commonly) used non-literally, with reference to some generic defect, gave the Jewish rabbis a means of excusing divorce upon grounds more trivial than were part of the law's original intention.
In my opinion, Jesus never changed any part of the morality embodied in the law. It is therefore unlikely that God, in the Old Testament law (which Paul described as "holy, just and good") allowed, as morally acceptable behavior, that which was absolutely immoral in the eyes of Jesus.
agrogers—
I do not believe it is correct to say that Jesus abolished the Mosaic law on divorce. Six times, in Matthew 5, Jesus brings up examples of the law's teachings about morality, and follows with His own explanations—"But I say to you..." Actually, in none of the six cases does He abolish what the law said. He only clarified its meaning or ramifications.
The law, as they had heard, forbade murder and adultery. Jesus did not abolish nor alter these restrictions. He did, however, point out that God requires that the principles embodied in these laws be applied also to the hidden life of the heart as well as the external behavior (Matt.5:21-30).
Divorce had been permitted in the law, and Jesus explained that any divorce that was acquired without the grounds that the law originally intended was wrong, leading to adultery in the act of remarriage (Matt.5:31-32).
The law had required that people not defile the name of God, by breaking oaths taken in His name; but Jesus said you likewise defile the name of God when you take no oath, but break your unadorned words of "yes" or "no"—to the point of making oaths irrelevant and passe (Matt.5:37).
The law had directed the magistrates to exact precisely just punishment upon criminals ("an eye for an eye..." etc.); but Jesus said that His disciples, who were not magistrates, should not consider it to be their duty to act that way in their relationships with those who antagonize them, and that it would be more loving not to press for your rights in such matters (Matt.5:38-42).
The law had said to love one's neighbor. Though some scribes had seen in this an implicit right or duty to hate one's enemies, Jesus said that one's enemy is also his neighbor, and must therefore be loved and treated benevolently (Matt.5:43-48).
I honestly find no instance of Jesus abolishing any aspect of God's moral law, and no evidence that He intended to abrogate what Moses had taught on divorce. His teaching merely reaffirmed Moses' original intentions, over against the lax attitude of many of the rabbis.
In your quotations of the words of Jesus, you break off the quote at just the point where Jesus was about to do this very thing. You leave out the controlling clause: "except for the cause of fornication [Moses' "matter of nakedness"]." It seems that the inclusion of the whole statement brings out a different meaning from that which you are taking from the partial quotation.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
Thanks for your response Steve. I think i used the word repeal but abolish carries pretty much the same meaning.
1. Jesus stated that the divorce law was given because of 'hard hearts'. That was not said of the other five.
2. It was said that the divorce law was 'not so from the beginning'. That was not said of the other five.
Each time Jesus said 'But i say to you' he restored the command to its original intent. We agree on that. A cursory view would say that He raised the bar each time: not adultery but lust, not murder but hatred etc
However what you described Jesus did with respect to the divorce law is not a 'raising of the bar'. He is simply restating the very same OT principle: divorce only for immorality. I think that is instructive.
How do you reconcile Jesus comments that 'from the beginning it was not so'? That statement is made with respect to the Deu 24.1-4 passage. Doesn't that mean that the permission to divorce given by Moses was never originally intended? And can't we infer then that Jesus was not restoring the Deut 24 divorce principle but the 'from the beginning' divorce principle ... whatever that is?
Andrew
I fully agree with that in five out of the six times. However he treated divorce differently.Actually, in none of the six cases does He abolish what the law said. He only clarified its meaning or ramifications.
1. Jesus stated that the divorce law was given because of 'hard hearts'. That was not said of the other five.
2. It was said that the divorce law was 'not so from the beginning'. That was not said of the other five.
Each time Jesus said 'But i say to you' he restored the command to its original intent. We agree on that. A cursory view would say that He raised the bar each time: not adultery but lust, not murder but hatred etc
However what you described Jesus did with respect to the divorce law is not a 'raising of the bar'. He is simply restating the very same OT principle: divorce only for immorality. I think that is instructive.
How do you reconcile Jesus comments that 'from the beginning it was not so'? That statement is made with respect to the Deu 24.1-4 passage. Doesn't that mean that the permission to divorce given by Moses was never originally intended? And can't we infer then that Jesus was not restoring the Deut 24 divorce principle but the 'from the beginning' divorce principle ... whatever that is?
Andrew
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
I am now fast getting out of my depth... but i would suggest that this was not Moses 'moral' law but Moses 'civil' law.Steve wrote:I honestly find no instance of Jesus abolishing any aspect of God's moral law
A moral law is not given because someone has a hard heart - but because it is right regardless of the state of man's heart (re the 10 Commandments). But i believe civil laws are made all the time to accommodate such hard heartedness.
One of the best examples is:
Do you think this command regarding marriage and divorce is part of God's moral law too? I wouldn't think so. If we did then there would be resaon to require the girl in our youth group who was raped by her boyfriend to get married and never divorce under any circumstances.Deu 22:28-29 NKJV "If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, (29) then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.
But if we dont think it is a moral law to be adhered to today, then why do we make De 24 a moral law to be adhered to. And that especially when Jesus said that such a law was not 'from the beginning' and that it was given for man's hard heartedness?
Andrew
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hi Andrew,
You wrote:
However what you described Jesus did with respect to the divorce law is not a 'raising of the bar'. He is simply restating the very same OT principle: divorce only for immorality. I think that is instructive.
Yes, Jesus raised the bar, but not necessarily above the original intention of the law, but above the place that popular rabbinic teaching had placed it. Wrongful anger and lust were condemned in the Old Testament as well as the New, though this was not properly emphasized by the rabbis. They had lowered the bar on every issue (e.g., allowing divorce for causes much more frivolous than the law intended; advocating hatred of enemies).
I believe that Jesus simply placed the bar back up to its proper position. Jesus said that His disciples' righteousness must "exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees," but He did not say that it must exceed the righteousness of the law itself. In fact, Paul said that the righteous requirements of the law are the very standard we live up to when we walk in the Spirit (Rom.8:4).
You wrote:
How do you reconcile Jesus comments that 'from the beginning it was not so'? That statement is made with respect to the Deu 24.1-4 passage. Doesn't that mean that the permission to divorce given by Moses was never originally intended? And can't we infer then that Jesus was not restoring the Deut 24 divorce principle but the 'from the beginning' divorce principle ... whatever that is?
I believe that Deuteronomy presents God's law, not merely Moses's. If all divorce and remarriage, in God's sight, is equivalent to "adultery," I cannot believe that the perfect law of God would have given permission to do it, no matter how hard the hearts of the Israelites (He gave no similar permission, despite their hard hearts, to murder, blaspheme, commit adultery, or even break the Sabbath). I believe that Jesus is saying, essentially:
"While it is true that divorce was specifically permitted under the law, it was not to be done 'for every cause,' but only in the case of fornication. There would have been no divorce at all, had there been no fall (since it was not part of God's original intention for marriage), and had man's fallen heart not been so hardened by sinfulness. When contemplating the subject of divorce, it would be appropriate to consider the permanence of marriage that was God's original intention, and not to ever divorce for any cause less than fornication. Frivolous divorce is covenant-breaking, and remarriage in such cases is nothing less than adultery." (my paraphrase)
You wrote:
However what you described Jesus did with respect to the divorce law is not a 'raising of the bar'. He is simply restating the very same OT principle: divorce only for immorality. I think that is instructive.
Yes, Jesus raised the bar, but not necessarily above the original intention of the law, but above the place that popular rabbinic teaching had placed it. Wrongful anger and lust were condemned in the Old Testament as well as the New, though this was not properly emphasized by the rabbis. They had lowered the bar on every issue (e.g., allowing divorce for causes much more frivolous than the law intended; advocating hatred of enemies).
I believe that Jesus simply placed the bar back up to its proper position. Jesus said that His disciples' righteousness must "exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees," but He did not say that it must exceed the righteousness of the law itself. In fact, Paul said that the righteous requirements of the law are the very standard we live up to when we walk in the Spirit (Rom.8:4).
You wrote:
How do you reconcile Jesus comments that 'from the beginning it was not so'? That statement is made with respect to the Deu 24.1-4 passage. Doesn't that mean that the permission to divorce given by Moses was never originally intended? And can't we infer then that Jesus was not restoring the Deut 24 divorce principle but the 'from the beginning' divorce principle ... whatever that is?
I believe that Deuteronomy presents God's law, not merely Moses's. If all divorce and remarriage, in God's sight, is equivalent to "adultery," I cannot believe that the perfect law of God would have given permission to do it, no matter how hard the hearts of the Israelites (He gave no similar permission, despite their hard hearts, to murder, blaspheme, commit adultery, or even break the Sabbath). I believe that Jesus is saying, essentially:
"While it is true that divorce was specifically permitted under the law, it was not to be done 'for every cause,' but only in the case of fornication. There would have been no divorce at all, had there been no fall (since it was not part of God's original intention for marriage), and had man's fallen heart not been so hardened by sinfulness. When contemplating the subject of divorce, it would be appropriate to consider the permanence of marriage that was God's original intention, and not to ever divorce for any cause less than fornication. Frivolous divorce is covenant-breaking, and remarriage in such cases is nothing less than adultery." (my paraphrase)
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
Thanks for these comments Steve. Are you making the same mistake that the Pharisees made in turning something that was never a law into a law?Steve wrote:I believe that Deuteronomy presents God's law, not merely Moses's. If all divorce and remarriage, in God's sight, is equivalent to "adultery," I cannot believe that the perfect law of God would have given permission to do it, no matter how hard the hearts of the Israelites (He gave no similar permission, despite their hard hearts, to murder, blaspheme, commit adultery, or even break the Sabbath).
There is no command in Deut 24.1-3. It simply describes a situation where a man divorces his wife. There is no command to give a 'certificate of divorce'. Just a statement that it happened.
The only command in this passage is found in v4 regarding the remarriage.
I understand that you draw from v1-3 that God's law sanctioned the divorce. But it really does not do that at all. It simply describes what hard hearted people were doing. It does not sanction what they are doing.
This might seem like splitting hairs, but i dont think it is because...
This is identical in style to the rape passage in De 22.28. There it describes a scenario that may take place in a style similar to De 24's divorce. But God's law is certainly not permitting or sanctioning rape. Then in 22.29, just as in 24.4, a command is given describing the subsequent actions if this situation arises.
So, i would suggest that God's perfect law has never sanctioned divorce or sanctioned rape. It was always wrong. However, both happened so legislation was needed to protect the parties involved. So there was no 'permission to do it'. Just regulations governing what happened after someone did it. Moses may have permitted it. But there is no evidence that God's law sanctioned it that i can see.
Of course there is an obvious catch to this which i am sure you are thinking of. Jesus uses both the words 'permitted' and 'commanded' in reference to this passage. My response to that is that in a general sense Moses commanded all that is written in Deuteronomy. But with respect to Deut 24.1-3 we know there is no explicit 'command' found there ... thus he only permitted divorce.
Andrew
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
I didn't say that divorce was commanded—only permitted. I felt this was a safe thing to say, because that's what Jesus said. It is true that the wording of Deuteronomy is such that one could not tell from the passage alone whether the law is permitting or merely describing the act of divorcing, and of (the wife's) remarrying. This leaves us to go only with Jesus' interpretation. Since He said that Moses permitted divorce, it seems like this is how the law should be understood.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve