[Biblemat] Jewish Criticism of the Law

[Robert Waters]

Greetings to all,

I recently came across some material in *Christian Classics Ethereal Library
* that contained *Jewish Criticism of the Law of Christ,* which, with my
comments, may serve to be enlightening.

Of course, the Jews do not believe Christ was God's divine Son and they are
always going to avoid saying anything that would tend to give Him any
credibility, but to the contrary.  The Jewish author discusses the
traditional MDR position, which is that unless a divorce is for fornication
adultery is committed in a subsequent marriage, and shows the absurdities of
the teaching.

You may or may not know that more and more people are learning that Jesus
was not saying, contrary to the Law, "divorced" people (those who have
received a "bill of divorcement") commit adultery if they marry another.
(See first article on the following page:
http://www.totalhealth.bz/marriage-divorce-remarriage.htm .)  He was dealing
with the Jewish practice of men "putting away" their wives while NOT giving
the "*bill of divorcement*" as commanded by Moses (Deut. 24:1-4), which is a
practice of Jewish men to this day.  The only "evidence" that *apoluo* means
divorce, as we understand it and as defined by Moses, is the "word" of men
who are *scholars *that are so often revered by those who seek to teach
and/or defend tradition.

What I would like to ask this Jewish teacher is: *Why did the Pharisees not
charge Jesus with teaching contrary to the Law if indeed he did as assumed
today by many?  *Would this not have been a great opportunity for them to
have succeeded in causing Jesus a real problem, which is what they were
seeking to do?

Is it not evident that our traditional teaching on MDR is allowing the
enemies of Christ a victory, which must mean we need to reexamine our
teaching.

Below my signature is the article (and link).  I have no idea what the
numbers represent.

Brotherly,
Robert Waters
www.TotalHealth.bz <http://www.totalhealth.bz/>

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf09.xvi.ii.vii.xxiv.html

*24. Jewish Criticism of the Law of Christ.*

But perhaps some Jewish man of those who dare to oppose the teaching of our
Saviour will say, that when Jesus said, 511"Whosoever shall put away his own
wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an
adulteress,"62286228    Matt. v. 32.  He also gave permission to put away a
wife like as well as Moses did, who was said by Him to have given laws for
the hardness of heart of the people, and will hold that the saying, "Because
he found in her an unseemly thing,"62296229    Deut. xxiv. 1.  is to be
reckoned as the same as fornication on account of which with good cause a
wife could be cast away from her husband.  But to him it must be said that,
if she who committed adultery was according to the law to be stoned, clearly
it is not in this sense that the unseemly thing is to be understood.  For it
is not necessary for adultery or any such great indecency to write a bill of
divorcement and give it into the hands of the wife; but indeed perhaps Moses
called every sin an unseemly thing, on the discovery of which by the husband
in the wife, as not finding favour in the eyes of her husband, the bill of
divorcement is written, and the wife is sent away from the house of her
husband; "but from the beginning it hath not been so."62306230    Matt. xix.
8.  After this our Saviour says, not at all permitting the dissolution of
marriages for any other sin than fornication alone, when detected in the
wife, "Whosoever shall put away his own wife, saving for the cause of
fornication, maketh her an adulteress."62316231    Matt. v. 32.   But it
might be a subject for inquiry if on this account He hinders any one putting
away a wife, unless she be caught in fornication, for any other reason, as
for example for poisoning, or for the destruction during the absence of her
husband from home of an infant born to them, or for any form of murder
whatsoever.  And further, if she were found despoiling and pillaging the
house of her husband, though she was not guilty of fornication, one might
ask if he would with reason cast away such an one, seeing that the Saviour
forbids any one to put away his own wife saving for the cause of
fornication.  In either case there appears to be something monstrous,
whether it be really monstrous, I do not know; for to endure sins of such
heinousness which seem to be worse than adultery or fornication, will appear
to be irrational; but again on the other hand to act contrary to the design
of the teaching of the Saviour, every one would acknowledge to be impious.  I
wonder therefore why He did not say, Let no one put away his own wife saving
for the cause of fornication, but says, "Whosoever shall put away his own
wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an
adulteress."62326232    Matt. v. 32.   For confessedly he who puts away his
wife when she is not a fornicator, makes her an adulteress, so far as it
lies with him, for if, "when the husband is living she shall be called an
adulteress if she be joined to another man;"62336233    Rom. vii. 3. and
when by putting her away, he gives to her the excuse of a second marriage,
very plainly in this way he makes her an adulteress.  But as to whether her
being caught in the act of poisoning or committing murder, furnishes any
defence of his dismissal of her, you can inquire yourselves; for the husband
can also in other ways than by putting her away cause his own wife to commit
adultery; as, for example, allowing her to do what she wishes beyond what is
fitting, and stooping to friendship with what men she wishes, for often from
the simplicity of husbands such false steps happen to wives; but whether
there is a ground of defence or not for such husbands in the case of such
false steps, you will inquire carefully, and deliver your opinion also in
regard to the difficult questions raised by us on the passage.  And even he
who withholds himself from his wife makes her oftentimes to be an adulteress
when he does not satisfy her desires, even though he does so under the
appearance of greater gravity and self-control.  And perhaps this man is
more culpable who, so far as it rests with him, makes her an adulteress when
he does not satisfy her desires than he who, for other reason than
fornication, has sent her away,-for poisoning or murder or any of the most
grievous sins.  But as a woman is an adulteress, even though she seem to be
married to a man, while the former husband is still living, so also the man
who seems to marry her who has been put away, does not so much marry her as
commit adultery with her according to the declaration of our Saviour.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.biblematters.net/pipermail/biblemat/attachments/20071229/bc651f5f/attachment-0001.html