Divorce/Remarriage

[Ovedya]

I love the way Jesus dismantled that law! Took it right out of the book! No longer applicable now that He has fulfilled the Law.

And I guess heaven and earth passed away as well? Here is Jesus dismantling the law. Matthew 5:17-20

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

I realize Floatingaxe, you believe that the Pharisees making a statement is proof something is true, so you hold them in higher esteem than I do, but nevertheless, Jesus says that unless our righteousness exceeds theirs, meaning that we are doers of the word and not hearers only, we will in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Huh.....so youre still sacrificing animals, then ?

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

(Heb 7:12 KJV)

They were still sacrificing animals when this story took place. Anyway, I will explain my position in this matter as well. There were 3 types of laws.

1 Laws dealing with the Levitical Priesthood. They were never intended to continue forever, but only till Jesus went to the cross. They were temporal from the start.

2 Laws dealing with Israel's separation from the unclean gentile nations. This would be things like abstaining from certain meats, and the law of circumcision. Since the gentiles are no longer unclean through faith in Christ, these no longer apply. In reality, by not keeping them, we are acknowledging that the gentile and Jewish believers are one body.

3 Laws dealing with God's standard of holiness. These would include things like not stealing, killing, committing adultery, etc. They still apply.

In any event, something DID "change" in the law, did it not?

Your passage before did not make the distinction between these three supposed 'law's, that I recall.

So, did a 'jot or tiddle' pass from 'the law' or not, butero ?

I just gave you a Hebrews passage that said there WOULD be a change of law with the changing of the priesthood. Is scripture correct on this matter or not?

Jesus was speaking of the moral laws, and Hebrews was speaking of the fact that the Levitical Priesthood was no longer needed because of Jesus' one time sacrifice at Calvary. Not one jot or tittle of the moral law was changed, or Jesus lied. It is like the laws mentioned in Galatians. Paul was coming against the need for ceremonial laws of separation, not moral laws. If he was coming against the moral laws, he wouldn't have re-affirmed them in Corinthians. It is a matter of understanding which laws are being spoken of in each instance.

I just don't ever recall that Jesus specified which type of law it was that was changed. Coul dyou point out where Jesus made the distinctions like you are?

[Ovedya]

I just don't ever recall that Jesus specified which type of law it was that was changed. Coul dyou point out where Jesus made the distinctions like you are?

Neither did Paul in Galatians, but if it meant all laws, it would create contradictions, not only with Corinthians, but even in Galatians. He gives a list of sins of the flesh, and says those who commit them won't inherit the Kingdom of God. If all laws were done away with, there is no such thing as sin, because sin is the transgression of the law. This is one of those things I spent a lot of time on, going back and forth between the Old and New Testament, as well as the gospels and the Epistles to figure out. In addition, Hebrews would contradict Matthew, making Jesus out a liar.

I'm not saying that you're wrong. It's just that I don't see it that way. The Law of Moses served those functions that you mentioned, but it was integrated - meaning that all of the laws were equal, they were intertwined. James wrote that a violation of one law meant that you were guilty of breaking them all. So the nature of the offense - whether moral, legal, what have you, is almost inconsequantial (except, obviously for the payment of that offense, which was in some cases, death).

I don't believe that the law was "done away with" in Christ. I do believe that their practical applications have been nullified in Christ. That means that the practicing of the law no longer constitutes a man righteous, because Christ is the final sacrifice under the law. His sacrifice completed - fulfilled - the entire law. Now, therefore, in the New Testament age, the Old testament covenant with God's chosen people is fulfilled in Christ, and the law is also completed in Him. Therefore, to "keep the law" in the New Testment age - in the church - is a matter of keeping Christ. it is a matter of being one with Him for God's purpose, and for the carrying out of that purpose on the earth.

[firehill]

Butero:

"The reason why the Pharisees wanted Jesus to sentence her to die by stoning was to accuse him to the government.

And FoC says it had nothing to do with that, but was to 'tempt' Him into defying Moses...

Joh 8:4 they said to Him, Teacher, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

Joh 8:5 Now Moses in the Law commanded us that such should be stoned. You, then, what do you say?

Joh 8:6 They said this, tempting Him so that they might have reason to accuse Him.

Government

The Romans did not care whether Jesus broke Mosaic law.

They cared whether He broke ROMAN law.

He never picked up a stone against this adulteress, butero, so HE would not have been in defiance of any civil law of theirs...the JEWS who brought her to Him were the ones with stones.

They KNEW the law required her death (even if Roman law wouldnt allow for it) and tempted Him to defy Moses, just as they did at other times.

The Pharisees would have had Jesus if he had said to stone her or not to stone her. If he told them outright not to stone her, they would have accused Jesus among the followers of Moses. If Jesus had said to stone the woman, they would have accused him to the Roman government for starting a riot and breaking their laws. The way he handled it was the only way where no accusation could be made against him to anyone.

K, Butero this is pretty accurate. I only disagree with your last sentence.

Actualy, Jesus handled this by going even farther, pressing to the issue of their hearts and attitudes!

[firehill]

The Pharisees would have had Jesus if he had said to stone her or not to stone her. If he told them outright not to stone her, they would have accused Jesus among the followers of Moses. If Jesus had said to stone the woman, they would have accused him to the Roman government for starting a riot and breaking their laws. The way he handled it was the only way where no accusation could be made against him to anyone.

That is correct.

BUT, youre previous post tries to show that this is about Roman law, not Gods, and that is quite incorrect.

I really do not see how you can even try to use this as evidence, brother.

Does not the very passage I presented say

Joh 8:5 Now Moses in the Law commanded us that such should be stoned. You, then, what do you say?

You have been trying to prove with this pettiness that the law didnt require this womans death...THAT was the first point here.

The passage is quite clear that MOSAIC LAW prescribed DEATH for this woman.

Jesus' did not set her free using Mosiac law, as would be required IF there were something in the law to get her off the charge.

*IF* the law gave her a way to not be stoned, we can rest assured that Jesus WOULD have known and used it...unless you think He did not know the Law.

Yes it does say that, but it is a direct quote from the Pharisees. That was the argument they were presenting to Jesus, so this is hardly proof of your position.

Sure it is absolutely proof. It is simply your agenda that blinds you to the facts.

*IF* they were errant about what the law required, and this womans life was NOT required, surely our Lord would have KNOWN that fact and pointed out to them that their understanding of the law was erroneous.

IF Deut 24 or ANY other OT passage relieved this woman of her death sentence, Jesus Christ would have known it more than anyone.

You are simply grasping at straws, butero, and refusing to accept what is clear and what would be logically discerned from the text.

FoC, The woman's life was not required as the Lord did know and pointed out their attitudes and hearts!

[firehill]

Well, I'm always late for these things, so maybe this no longer applies in this discussion.

Isn't the entire law essentially completed and fulfilled by one single thing?

What is it?

The entire law can be kept by loving God with all our heart and our neighbor as ourself. That is because if we keep these two great commandments, we will automatically keep the rest. That being said, I am assuming the answer you are looking for is love.

Right. Love.

So how is the law fulfilled in an outward way, by the keeping of the commandments and practicing the things of the old law?

Seems to me that, in Christ, the keeping of the law is a spontaneous response to loving Christ. For you cannot love God without loving Christ, and you cannot love your neighbors or the saints in the church, without loving them with Christ. Only the love of God (Agape) can fulfill the law.

[Floatingaxe]

I love the way Jesus dismantled that law! Took it right out of the book! No longer applicable now that He has fulfilled the Law.

And I guess heaven and earth passed away as well? Here is Jesus dismantling the law. Matthew 5:17-20

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

I realize Floatingaxe, you believe that the Pharisees making a statement is proof something is true, so you hold them in higher esteem than I do, but nevertheless, Jesus says that unless our righteousness exceeds theirs, meaning that we are doers of the word and not hearers only, we will in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

I realize Floatingaxe, you believe that the Pharisees making a statement is proof something is true, so you hold them in higher esteem than I do,

What are you smoking, man? The Pharisees were the enemy of our Lord, and they are mine as well.

[firehill]

The Pharisees would have had Jesus if he had said to stone her or not to stone her. If he told them outright not to stone her, they would have accused Jesus among the followers of Moses. If Jesus had said to stone the woman, they would have accused him to the Roman government for starting a riot and breaking their laws. The way he handled it was the only way where no accusation could be made against him to anyone.

That is correct.

BUT, youre previous post tries to show that this is about Roman law, not Gods, and that is quite incorrect.

I really do not see how you can even try to use this as evidence, brother.

Does not the very passage I presented say

Joh 8:5 Now Moses in the Law commanded us that such should be stoned. You, then, what do you say?

You have been trying to prove with this pettiness that the law didnt require this womans death...THAT was the first point here.

The passage is quite clear that MOSAIC LAW prescribed DEATH for this woman.

Jesus' did not set her free using Mosiac law, as would be required IF there were something in the law to get her off the charge.

*IF* the law gave her a way to not be stoned, we can rest assured that Jesus WOULD have known and used it...unless you think He did not know the Law.

Yes it does say that, but it is a direct quote from the Pharisees. That was the argument they were presenting to Jesus, so this is hardly proof of your position.

Sure it is absolutely proof. It is simply your agenda that blinds you to the facts.

*IF* they were errant about what the law required, and this womans life was NOT required, surely our Lord would have KNOWN that fact and pointed out to them that their understanding of the law was erroneous.

IF Deut 24 or ANY other OT passage relieved this woman of her death sentence, Jesus Christ would have known it more than anyone.

You are simply grasping at straws, butero, and refusing to accept what is clear and what would be logically discerned from the text.

FoC, The woman's life was not required as the Lord did know and pointed out their attitudes and hearts!

Um, I think thats pretty much what I said at a point or two here.

Her life WOULD have been required under the law, but Jesus used THEIR own sin against them in their trying to tempt Him.

You're right. I was just interacting with what you said is all.

[Floatingaxe]

As I said before...so glad that Jesus came and freed us from that system! Yay, Jesus!

[kat8585]

The reason why I believe the new home should not be broken up if repentance should occur, is because to me, divorce itself is wrong. In Malachi, God says he hates "putting away." To me, that means he doesn't want divorce to take place, and though your husband clearly committed adultery, and it appears is still in adultery today, if he and his wife were to see the error of their ways and repent, they would need to commit their marriage to God and "Go and sin no more."

I believe in another post you said that 2 wrongs don't make a right. But why would this be wrong? It would be righting a wrong, since they aren't married in God's eyes anyway. It wouldn't be a divorce.

In my ex's case, I think he thinks it's become right and acceptable with the passage of time (4 years). I think deep in his heart he knows this is wrong, but he did admit to me once that he was "addicted" to her, and an observer of their affair told me he was "obsessed" with her, which are both sicknesses and a far cry from love. But even if they have been married for 20 years, they are still living in adultery in God's eyes and aren't married. Why would God let them think they have pulled it off?

[Floatingaxe]

They have pulled nothing off. "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord." It will end in tears for them both, mark my words.