> General Discussions
Having Trouble Understanding the "Law"
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.
--- End quote ---
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
chrissiela:
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
bobf:
--- 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.
--- End quote ---
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
--- End quote ---
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.
chrissiela:
--- 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
--- End quote ---
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
chrissiela:
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
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version