Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Without getting too specific about which ritual, I think that one reason certain things are not done is that they were to be done at the temple, but there is no temple right now.
In Acts 18:21 we read "But bade them farewell, saying, I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem...". That feast I suppose being one of the three pilgrimage feasts.
If I missed your point and my post here makes no sense, please accept my apologies.
That's a very short road to go down Mojo. You know God liked His Word and that He really required them. If He didn't then He has a lot of explaining to do to all of the Israelites and other nations He unjustly punished for no good reason.
I'm punting, because this game could go on forever. I'm not arguing specifics, just general principles and spirit of the matter. Adultery, coveting, and sacrifice are all affirmed by Yeshua. That can't be denied.
Should we continue this game and maybe go into overtime by asking the question if whether or not Yrshua was bring extreme and absurd to prove a greater point about the dogmatic ritualism or arrogance of the scribes and Pharisees? Zec, did Yeshua REALLY want us to pluck out our eyes and cut off our hands? Sometimes He made statements to prove a larger principle.
That's why I punted....this could go on a long time.
Matthew 5:27 KJV
[27] Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
Jesus did not say “the law says, but I say...” he says “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old”. Jesus is clarifying the meaning, and how it had been taught to them, not changing it.
In regards to the sacrifice of bulls and goats for sin, Jesus fulfilled the law. He said that he came to fulfill the law not to change it.
The ceremonial part of the law ceased because it is fulfilled in Christ Jesus. Those things were a type and shadow of Christ.
The moral law still does its’ work in being the mirror held up before us to show us our sin.
Romans 3:19 KJV
[19] Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
In Hebrews it speaks of a change in the law being necessary, but i think the change refered to there, isn’t in the law itself, but the fulfillment of it.
Hebrews 7:12 KJV
[12] For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
The discussion wasn't about if there was a change to the law at some point but if Yeshua had to follow the law it was moved to another thread so not to derail this one agsin.
Not sure why you are trying to draw some sort of fine line here. It if it is immoral then it is a sin. And we are not supposed to do it. That it is possible to sin is not a revelation, but we are trying to determine what we should do to avoid this. And staying married seems to be the answer.
You could argue that the women who did not sin (her husband divorced her) should get a second chance if she has a legit divorce, but a plain reading of "whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." seems to preclude that so that seems like a dead end. Where are you trying to go?
I get that these are a hard verses like Matthew 5:48 ("be perfect"), but that does not mean we mean we change what Jesus is saying ("When he said perfect he did not really mean perfect, but rather..."). No, rather we ackowledge his words and humbly admit when we fall short and do our best to change and not sin going forward to the best of our ability.
Plain reading says divorce is only acceptable in cases of porneia such as homosexuality, beastiality, incest, idolatry, and harlotry. Not moicheia (adultery), so plain meaning says your stuck with a cheating wife. Plain meaning also says that marriage after divorce is adultery for all involved, period. It never says that if your wife or husband commits porneia that your allowed to remarry.
No, if I understand what you are trying to say, that is a legalistic reading, not a plain reading.
The whole point of the exception clause is for a cheating wife. A plain reading of Matthew "everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery," indicates that you are not stuck with a cheating wife. I even told you why Matthew has it and the other gospels don't: because Matthew has this very situation in it and the author wants to be clear on the morality.
Change is probably the wrong word. Focus may be better.
In my opinion this is important.
When Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life" it was like he was saying "I am the living embodiment of the law.". For example when Jesus's disciples were gathering on the Sabbath and Jesus was questioned his final response was "I am Lord of the Sabbath". In effect "I am the Law".
As it says in Colossians 2:17 and in Hebrews that the things before were a "shadow" of the things that were to come. A shadow is not as clear as the reality.
Truly Jesus came to fulfill the law, that is he himself is its fullest and clearest expression. It is no longer a shadow. It is in focus now. Spotlight on Jesus.
You can look at the shadow if you want, but the clearest expression of it is Jesus.
Without getting too specific about which ritual, I think that one reason certain things are not done is that they were to be done at the temple, but there is no temple right now.
The discussion wasn't about if there was a change to the law at some point but if Yeshua had to follow the law it was moved to another thread so not to derail this one agsin.
How come no one has pointed out that only God (the lawgiver) can change the law; but Jesus IS God?
Furthermore it is not simply change but "You must not add to or subtract from what I command you," and yet "a new command I give you, love one another".
How come no one has pointed out that only God (the lawgiver) can change the law; but Jesus IS God?
Furthermore it is not simply change but "You must not add to or subtract from what I command you," and yet "a new command I give you, love one another".
I believe the Law as established by God never changes but is revealed in a deeper meaning as one is ready to hear it. The Son of God came so that we could reinterpret the Law based on Love. Same Law, different interpretation, as time and life would allow it.
I believe the Law as established by God never changes but is revealed in a deeper meaning as one is ready to hear it. The Son of God came so that we could reinterpret the Law based on Love. Same Law, different interpretation, as time and life would allow it.
How come no one has pointed out that only God (the lawgiver) can change the law; but Jesus IS God?
Furthermore it is not simply change but "You must not add to or subtract from what I command you," and yet "a new command I give you, love one another".
I like this point you make. It actually makes a lot of sense. It is a possibility we should consider.
My only retort would be similar to @Cap and @steve. I don't see an additional law, but, just as Yeshua had to do often, he is redirecting them back to the intents behind the laws, not the dogmatic observance. God gave these laws out of love for his people so that they might live long and prosper (Spock anyone?). Since they had missed it by implication the first 1,000 years, Yeshua is reminding them that following the laws was a love proposition, not a ritualistic proposition.
To bring this back to David, He was the son of David...."Create in me a clean heart..." "You do not delight in sacrifice....a broken spirit...contrite heart, you will not despise..."
Well one counter argument is that it wasn't an addition to the covenant because Christ had created a new covenant with them.
On the other hand, the Good News of the Kingdom was itself for the new covenant. Any 'changes' could simply be modifications of the old law for the new.
I know this is an Old thread but I was reading the commentary of Augustine on the subject. He alludes to non punishment of David for adultery was self punishment but also manifested that manifested as a type of generational curse that manifested in Solomon being a slave to His desire for strange women. Has anyone come across anything else like this belief in the early church fathers.Isaac of Nineveh attributes the punish of David as the rebellion in his own House by Absalom. Salvian The Presbyter attributes the punishment as the death of Davids son but I haven't found other commentary on it yet.
Second in response to
How come no one has pointed out that only God (the lawgiver) can change the law; but Jesus IS God?
Furthermore it is not simply change but "You must not add to or subtract from what I command you," and yet "a new command I give you, love one another".
It wasn't a new command.
Leviticus 19:18
You are not to take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am Adonai.
This is not a Torah vs No Torah thing. Its a false teaching because of a bad translation thing. The teaching that Yeshua added a new command is a false teaching. The translation of kainos as new in this verse makes Yeshua a liar.
I’m not sure entirely about this, but regarding the John 13:34 passage I’d definitely have to agree with you, specifically because the same writer states 2x in 1 & 2 John that this commandment was since the beginning.
, but I’ll wait til we can sit down together to do this if you want. 
