bible-truths.com/forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Forum related how to's?  Post your questions to the membership.


.

Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down

Author Topic: Having Trouble Understanding the "Law"  (Read 17877 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

chrissiela

  • Guest
Having Trouble Understanding the "Law"
« Reply #40 on: May 27, 2006, 09:39:08 PM »

Quote
If a righteous person goes ahead and obeys this law of Moses and gives his wife a bill of divorcement then he will be committing adultery.


I think it's if he "puts her away" (without giving her a bill of divorcement) that adultery is committed.

Putting her away and giving her a bill of divorcement are two different things. Though we should do neither, except in the case of fornication/adultery or in the event an unbelieving wife/husband chooses to leave.

Though I think that the definition of fornication is also sometimes misunderstood.

I will look for the article that I read some time back about it on Mike's website and post a link.

Chrissie
Logged

chrissiela

  • Guest
Having Trouble Understanding the "Law"
« Reply #41 on: May 27, 2006, 09:43:18 PM »

Divorce is discussed here: What are the grounds of divorce?

and the The Law of Moses Vs the Law of the Spirit is discussed here: The Law Of Moses Versus The Law Of The Spirit: How The New Covenant Differs from the Old


here is part of that (it's a long article, so would be harder to find with just a link) :

Change #3 - Divorce and Remarriage

We now come to the third "you have heard that it was said..." Matt. 5:31: "It hath been said, whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement."

The previous two "changes of the law" (Heb. 7:12) have been dramatic. Will this change be any less so? Not likely. Before we examine this change, let's ask the question: what did the two previous changes have in common?

In the first change, being "angry with your brother without a cause" is elevated to the offense of murder.

In the second change, "looking on a woman to lust after her" has been elevated to the offense of adultery.

What they have in common is that they have both been dramatically changed from a "letter" law to a "spiritual" law. "Who hath made us able ministers of the new testament [covenant] NOT OF THE LETTER BUT OF THE SPIRIT, FOR THE LETTER KILLETH, BUT THE SPIRIT [The new covenant] GIVETH LIFE" (II Cor. 3:6).

Before we continue, let us take note that this change has nothing to do with the ten commandments, but only the statutes and judgments. There was no difference to Christ; it was all "the law of Moses."

Continuing on; "It hath been said, whosoever shall put away his wife, let him write her a bill of divorcement. But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife saving for the cause of fornication; causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced, commits adultery" (Matt. 5:31-32). So what "change also of the law" (Heb. 7:12) has been made here? Did Christ really say that "whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery"?

No he did not!! The changes made here are as monumental as the changes in the sixth and seventh commandments. This change is in fact simply expanding upon the changes made in the "thou shalt not commit adultery" commandment.

Christ is not banning divorce here, and he did not say "whosoever shall marry her that is divorced comitteth adultery."
The Greek word translated 'divorced' here in Matt. 5:32 is apaluo (Strong's #630). This is the same word which is properly translated 'put away' in the preceding verse.

The translators' mistake here has contributed to mountains of unnecessary misery over the past 400 plus years.

While it is true that a Christian couple would never seek to dissolve "that which God hath joined together", it is not true that Christ said "whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." What He did say was whosoever shall marry her that is put away (apoluo) committeth adultery.

There is a Greek word for divorce. It is apostasion (Strong's #647). It does not appear in Matt. 5:32. It does appear in Matt 5:31: "...let him give her a writing of divorcement (apostasion)." Under the law of Moses, a man was never to apoluo (#630) or 'put away' his wife without giving her apostasion; a bill of divorcement.

But men have never kept the law of Moses. Men were 'putting away' or apoluo their wives without a bill of divorcement or apostasion. Christ was stating the obvious when he pointed out that legally this "causes" the woman and the man she marries to commit adultery because she is not legally apostasion or divorced.

Why would Christ mention this? He certainly was not suggesting that this somehow complicated things for the Father to decide what was to be held accountable for whatever. He is not in any way excusing sinful actions on the part of either partner in the marriage. This was simply a legal statement. It is helpful to realize that before Sinai and the giving of the "law of Moses" the world was governed by the law of Hammurabi.

Under both laws the husband was the decision maker and wives were owned by their husbands.

Under both laws the husband could divorce his wife for many reasons besides fornication. "...if you have no delight in her, then you shall let her go..." (Deut. 21:14).

But there was one major distinguishing feature between the law of Moses and the law of Hammurabi regarding the subject of divorce. The law of Hammurabi says simply "if a man wishes to separate from his wife... he shall give her the amount of her purchase money... and let her go" (Law 138). "...if her husband offer her release, she may go on her way..." (Law 141). "She shall take her dowry and go back to her father's house" (Law 142).

Under the law of Hammurabi women had very few legal rights or protections. Nowhere did Hammurabi require a husband to give his ex-wife a bill of divorcement. The door was wide open for a self-centered, jealous and spiteful ex-husband to deny the fact that he had divorced his wife.

The law of Moses on the other hand required the husband to give the wife a written and signed bill of divorcement. So while divorcing one's wife was a simple matter under the law of Moses [simply "if you have no delight in her" (Deut. 21:14)], the ex-wife at least had the added legal protection of being in possession of a document which proved she was legally free to "go and be another man's wife" (Deut. 24:2).

Now let's go to Matt. 19 and see how the KJV translators correct themselves regarding this Greek word apoluo - which is the same word translated 'divorce' in Matt. 5:32 - the Pharisees... came to him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? (Vs. 3).

Why would the Pharisees ask Christ this question "to tempt him"? Perhaps this was some time after the humiliation the Pharisees suffered when they brought an adulterous woman to Christ. Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act (John 8:4). The law says, If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die (Deut. 22:22).

The emphasis is on the man. The Pharisees had already admitted they had caught her "in the very act". If they were serious abut keeping the law, where was the man? Of course they weren't sincere about obeying God; they only wanted to rid themselves of their nemesis who was constantly revealing them for the hypocrites they were. A new tack had to be taken.

So in this case, with the allowances for divorce plainly and explicitly given in the law, the Pharisees, like so many so-called Christians today without the faith of or the spirit of Christ in them, were simply looking for a way around the spiritual new law. This spiritual law had never been given before -- certainly not by Moses. The Pharisees knew this and weren't about to miss a chance to point that out. This is not a new application of the law, this is not some fabled 'spirit of the law'; this is new law disannulling the old law (Heb. 7:18).

Our wise, all knowing Savior knew exactly what was taking place here. He knew that the Pharisees preferred their "own righteousness which is of the law" (Phil. 3:9) to the spiritual law which He was revealing.

So what do these statutes and judgments of "the Lord your God" have to say about divorce? What are the scriptures the Pharisees had on their side? Do these scriptures (yes, these are scriptures) actually say that a man can put away his wife for any reason or "every cause" (Matt. 19:3).

Well, as a matter of fact, they do: "When a man hath taken a wife and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness [ervah #6172] in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement [kerithuth #3748] and give it in her hand, and send her out [shalach #7971] of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife" (Deut. 24:1,2).

The "some uncleanness" is certainly not speaking of sexual fraud. The penalty for that was death. "...they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die..." (Deut. 22:21). Neither was it adultery. The penalty for adultery was also death (Deut. 22:22).

The Hebrew word translated "uncleanness" is ervah (Strong's #6172). It appears 40 times in the Old Testament. 37 times it is translated "nakedness". Its first appearance is typical of its use: "And Ham the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father..." (Gen. 9:22). Of the remaining 3 verses, it is translated shame. In Isa. 20:4: "So shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptians prisoners... even with their buttocks uncovered to the shame [or nakedness - ervah #6172] of Egypt."

In Deut. 23:14, we are given the meaning of this word to be applied here in Deut. 24:1. "For the Lord thy God walketh in the midst of the camp, to deliver thee and to give up thine enemies before thee: therefore shall thy camp be holy: that he see no unclean thing [or nakedness - ervah #6172] in thee, and turn away from thee" (Deut. 23:14).

The church of Laodicea is told that she thinks she is rich and has need of nothing, but in reality, she is "poor and blind and naked. I counsel you to buy of me... white raiment that you may be clothed and that the shame of your nakedness do not appear" (Rev. 3:17-18). Nakedness in scripture is a type of sin; not any particular sin but any sin. The white raiment is defined as "the righteousness of the saints" (Rev. 19:8). This is "Christ in us" (Gal. 2:20) covering any sin.

Clearly the Pharisees were right. Adultery and sexual fraud were punishable by death (Deut. 22:21 and 22) not "a bill of divorcement" and "she may go and be another man's wife". "Some uncleanness" really was all that the law of Moses required for divorcing one's wife.

But in case there is any doubt that the Pharisees were right in their understanding and that Christ wasn't really "changing the law", let's look at one more scripture. If you "seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to your wife; then thou shall bring her home to thine house; ...and be her husband and she shall be thy wife. And it shall be, if you have no delight in her, then you shall let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money..." (Deut. 21:11-14)

The reason given here to "let her go" (shalach #7971, the same word translated "send her out"-Deut. 24:1) is simply "you have no delight in her" or as the Pharisees put it "for every cause" (Matt. 19:3).

-----------------------
Blessings,
Chrissie
Logged

bobf

  • Guest
Having Trouble Understanding the "Law"
« Reply #42 on: May 28, 2006, 02:26:40 AM »

Quote from: chrissiela
Quote
If a righteous person goes ahead and obeys this law of Moses and gives his wife a bill of divorcement then he will be committing adultery.


I think it's if he "puts her away" (without giving her a bill of divorcement) that adultery is committed.

Putting her away and giving her a bill of divorcement are two different things. Though we should do neither, except in the case of fornication/adultery or in the event an unbelieving wife/husband chooses to leave.

Chrissie


I don't see it Chrissie.  Here is another passage.

Matthews 5:31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

So according to Moses a man can "put away" his wife by simply giving a bill of divorcement without any other cause.  According to Jesus a man can "put away" his wife only for fornication, otherwise its adultery.

EDIT... I had not seen your second reply to my post when I wrote this replay.  I'll go back and read it and maybe I will see what you are getting at.
Logged

chrissiela

  • Guest
Having Trouble Understanding the "Law"
« Reply #43 on: May 31, 2006, 12:25:35 PM »

Quote from: kittyhawk
Can someone please give me some information? In his email on the law Mike was talking about 1Cor. 14:34. I have never been able to find this "law" in the law of Moses. Some reading I have been doing says this was part of the oral law of the Jews. Does anyone have more information on this?

Thanks
Beverley


    1Co 14:34  Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.[/list:u]

    Will have to look at that.... but this is one that I've never really understood either.... and wondered why he would even refer to 'the law' to those who are no longer UNDER the law.

    My 'thinking' is that the Corinthians were 'yet carnal' and so  Paul (as he said he did) became 'as one under the law' to those who were still 'under the law'.

    But it would be nice to know exactly what 'law' he was referring to and I am not sure. Will try to look, but hopefully someone else will be able to point it out more quickly.

    Blessings,
    Chrissie
Logged

chrissiela

  • Guest
Having Trouble Understanding the "Law"
« Reply #44 on: May 31, 2006, 12:29:19 PM »

There is this:

Eph 5:23  For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

Eph 5:24  Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

But it doesn't say be 'silent in the church', nor do I see this as a 'law'  :?: ... so still not sure what 'law' is being referred to.

Chrissie
Logged

chrissiela

  • Guest
Having Trouble Understanding the "Law"
« Reply #45 on: May 31, 2006, 12:42:35 PM »

    1Co 14:34  Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but
they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.[/list:u]

the words "they are commanded" is in italics and not words that are taken from the text from which the translation originated, but were 'added'.

And we are indeed supposed to submit to our husbands, as is indicated in Ephesians. But he does refer to the law, saying 'as also saith the law', so it must be in the law somewhere??

Here are some other translations of the same verse:

    (CLV) Let the women in the ecclesias hush, for it is not permitted to them to speak, but let them be subject, according as the law, also is saying."

    (LITV)  Let your women be silent in the assemblies, for it is not allowed to them to speak, but to be in subjection, as also the Law says.

    (YLT)  Your women in the assemblies let them be silent, for it hath not been permitted to them to speak, but to be subject, as also the law saith;[/list:u]

    It is the same word (for submit yourselves) in:

    Eph 5:22  Wives,
submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

G5293
ὑποτάσσω
hupotassōhoop-ot-as'-so
From G5259 and G5021; to subordinate; reflexively to obey: - be under obedience (obedient), put under, subdue unto, (be, make) subject (to, unto), be (put) in subjection (to, under), submit self unto.

Chrissie
Logged

Daniel

  • Guest
Having Trouble Understanding the "Law"
« Reply #46 on: May 31, 2006, 03:25:53 PM »

Ever notice any connection to being silent, dumb, unable to speak, or mouths stopped in relation to the law Chrissie?

Ever look at Zechariah HUSBAND of Elizabeth?

He was not allowed to speak, its speaks elsewhere concerning the WOMAN being bound of the law of her HUSBAND (who was an OLD MAN)

See anything in that?

Daniel
Logged

mustardseed

  • Guest
Having Trouble Understanding the "Law"
« Reply #47 on: June 03, 2006, 06:08:53 PM »

The masses of Christianity (Babylon) are under the law. Just ask them. But what is the real purpose of the law?

Gal 3:23  But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
Gal 3:24  Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Gal 3:25  But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.


THe masses of Christianity is still under the school master because they have not come to that faith which takes them on to maturity. They desire to stay under the law. Speak to them of the things of the Spirit, and they call you a heretic.

Gal 4:1  Now I say, [That] the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;
Gal 4:2  But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.


So what does all of this mean to us who are mature?

Heb 7:12  For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

Heb 7:18  For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.

Heb 8:13  In that he saith, A new [covenant], he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old [is] ready to vanish away.
Logged

Beloved

  • Guest
Having Trouble Understanding the "Law"
« Reply #48 on: June 03, 2006, 10:04:12 PM »

This topic has gone all over the place where do I even start. ???  Hold on to your socks.

What is it with the 603 ???  I think you are referring to the 613 Mitzvot.

They even went so far as to tie 613 knots tied on their prayer shawls fringes.  There are 248 Positive and 365 Negative Commandments.

Give them a break...They added these mitzvots because they were so...o fearful of disobeying the Law that they put these extra hedges around the law with the thought of making it harder to break the Main ones.

Regarding the Food laws, it is well know that many these laws were probably helpful to Israel surviving at the time. Remember everthing that happened was God’s Perfect Will.

Eating Pork was associated with Trichinosis, Shrimp and other bottom dwellers and eat dead stuff as well as many of the animals and birds on the foods off limits list. These would be loaded with bacteria and would have killed people in the day of no refrigeration. There are many other health benefits and examples.

I was nearly knocked off my seat when at Johns Hopkins (an extremely  liberal institution) the School of Public Health and Hygeine stated that the institution of the Sabbath was The most significant health policy in history. Without it people throughout the world would have been worked like animal 7 days a week until till they dropped.  Even the animals got a break with these mizvot.   My God is Good.

Regarding Homosexuality and the Law.  Oh well here I go. I hope I do not shock anyone.

Sexuality is always Spiritual in the Bible. Christ is the Groom and yes some of you guys out there are going to be the Bride. Throughout the Bible, God’s use of Gender are very specific.  

Spiritual adultery occurs when the church becomes intimate with any one or any thing other than God.  Sex is a type / shadow. Remember Paul  said there is no male or female in heaven. Christ implied it when he was talking about the divorce laws concerning the women with seven husbands.

Homosexuality (male and female) in the physical would certainly be an abomination to God because it totally goes against God’s basic (spiritual) plan when he created sex.  All sex (outside marriage) is all about defilement of the Spirit

It would be like the elect engaging in similar activity (since they are the body, the first fruits and sons who spiritually represent males as individuals and collectively as a chaste bride).

Spiritually remember Christ is the husband and mankind will be the bride. The elect are His body and as part of the groom will help bring in the rest of the bridal party. Did any of you catch the phrase Cildren of the Bride chamber in Mark 2:19 and Luke 5:34?

(Mar 2:19 KJVR)  And Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the bridechamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them? as long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast.

(Mar 13:22 KJVR)  For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall show signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.

The elect (spiritual males ) however will however be virgins and know not women (spiritual females not physical)

(Rev 14:4 KJVR)  These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.

(Remember Peter was married and therefore was not a physical virgin, but as a new born spiritual male he is a new creature and with Christ in Him ....knows not any spiritual woman ).

It is hard to explain all of this in a post but I hope you see some of the points I am trying to make. I am presently writing a study on Genders in the Word and did not want to paste too much Scripture right now.

To Daniel  ( sorry I do not how to clip a quote from a post )

Ever look at Zechariah HUSBAND of Elizabeth?

He was not allowed to speak, its speaks elsewhere concerning the WOMAN being bound of the law of her HUSBAND (who was an OLD MAN)

See anything in that?


Yes and it too will seem weird but Zecharias not Zachariah was the spiritual woman and questioned his Spiritual Husband who was God and Zacharias was made dumb (basically told the women to keep quiet in the Church… this case it was the temple).

Really all of the “:spiritual womenâ€? in the old testament Job, various prophets etc shut their face holes when they realized exactly “Whoâ€? they were trying to converse with in the physical  

They were both “oldâ€? people Daniel. Old Elizabeth was also a “spiritual womanâ€? and both physically and spiritually barren.  

In closing I like to think of the law is like the spiritual Fig Leafs and  The Lamb is the Robe of Righteousness. Stop arguing with these fools and stay dressed.

The ELECT    It's a Spitual BOY


Beloved
Logged

Daniel

  • Guest
Having Trouble Understanding the "Law"
« Reply #49 on: June 04, 2006, 01:06:43 AM »

Beloved good post,

I'll often "ask questions" to stimulate thought leaving room for another to come in and add. Its a blessing when that happens. I'm not the preachy type, its just my way :lol:  Thanks for adding to the thread. I saw the very thing you caught in Elizabeth and her hub, Dumb unable to speak, even as a woman under the law of her husband.  

You wrote,

The ELECT It's a Spitual BOY

I agree a renewed youth   :lol:

Filled days of an Old man. The exchange (at the same time) between a child and a Son. The Second Child "in His Stead "being Christ in you. :D

Daniel
Logged

Becky

  • Guest
Having Trouble Understanding the "Law"
« Reply #50 on: June 05, 2006, 10:26:46 AM »

BELOVED,
Thanks for sharing... that is how i am beginning to see sex in the bible and it is nice to have some other examples and verses to look at as i continue to study..
 one question:


I'm confused about the physical sin being sin if it was meant to be a spiritual sin... where can i look for those answers>?
Logged

worm

  • Guest
Having Trouble Understanding the "Law"
« Reply #51 on: June 05, 2006, 11:47:25 AM »

Quote from: Beloved
What is it with the 603 ???  I think you are referring to the 613 Mitzvot.

They even went so far as to tie 613 knots tied on their prayer shawls fringes.  There are 248 Positive and 365 Negative Commandments.

yes...Origen...ask your Jewish friend when referring to "law"...does he mean the Torah (Books of Moses) or the Talmud?

in the Talmud (devised by Rabbis) you'll find all kinds of "laws"

on the topic of the Law vs Jesus...He completed the Law in all its fullness...it was Him (as Jahweh) who gave the Law in the first place.
Also, everything He said which is recorded in the NT is Law :wink:
Logged

Beloved

  • Guest
Having Trouble Understanding the "Law"
« Reply #52 on: June 06, 2006, 12:32:26 AM »

Quote from: Becky
BELOVED,
Thanks for sharing... that is how i am beginning to see sex in the bible and it is nice to have some other examples and verses to look at as i continue to study..
 one question:


I'm confused about the physical sin being sin if it was meant to be a spiritual sin... where can i look for those answers>?


Start in Genesis.

Eating the apple was not the sin, it was the disobedience. Before she ate Eve committed the three sins listed in 1 John 2:16

(1Jo 2:16 KJVR)  
For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

Christ counteracted these same three things when He was tempted in the Wilderness. His only weapon was the Word. "It is written" Though it happened in the physical this too was spiritual This was also a spiritual lesson on how we are to deal with these three deeds of the mind.

Christ is the First fruit and in.. Perfect Obedience... the Fruit.. was put back on ..the tree (the cross). The elect as His body are there too.

(Rom 8:1 KJVR)  
There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

(Rom 8:4 KJVR)  
That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
If Christ is our head and we do the Will of the Father then the first three commandments are automatic, since God loves and will save All of mankind,  thenwe can finally love are enemy as well as our friends. Now the remaining seven commandments no longer have any meaning to us.

The elect as the spiritual Body still has the physical flesh to contend with, we need to mortify and keep it under control. When we don't we have an advocate who will forgive our sins when we repent. Everything in the physical starts to beome more and more meaninless. "The flesh profith nothing"

(Rom 8:5 KJVR)
 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

(Rom 8:6 KJVR)
 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

All of the sins in the Buble are like this, David and Bathsheb ( the adultery, lies, murder etc) Anaisis and his wife (attempting to hold something back from God). The list goes on.......

(Gal 5:16 KJVR)
 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh
.

This following scrioture only makes sence from our present perspective.
(
1Co 15:46 KJVR)  
Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
From God'd perspective it is always spiritual

Speaking of the Flesh and Spirit, I think I am becoming a BT Forum junkie.

Becky I don't know if this helped or not.
 
Beloved

Logged

rocky

  • Guest
oops
« Reply #53 on: June 08, 2006, 11:01:58 AM »

oops
Logged

Becky

  • Guest
Having Trouble Understanding the "Law"
« Reply #54 on: June 08, 2006, 11:07:22 AM »

thanks again beloved!  I am learning more now in genesis
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Up
 

Page created in 0.036 seconds with 17 queries.