Reset Password
Reset Link Sent
| Blogs > UntamedJoy > Running With Pillows |
|
Please help with this question: Marriage at the Resurrection... As I've been studying Matthew and Mark and The Greatest Commandment, I've incidently come across the following scripture: (referenced in 3 books, Matthew, Mark, & Luke) "Teacher," they said, "Moses told us that if a man dies without having , his brother must marry the widow and have for him." What?? I shall be so grateful if someone can help me understand the context of this scripture. I understand the subsequent reply from Jesus, that at the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage...but I am thoroughly lost on the whole 'the brother must marry the widow' part.  Blessings.Genna |
|||
9/15/2007 12:53 pm |
The laws the Jews followed were not "crazy laws." They were indeed given by Moses, but for a reason ordained by The Lord. Just look at Mark 10:2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. 10:3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? 10:4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. 10:5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 10  For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;10:8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. 10:9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 10:10 And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. 10:11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. 10:12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery. These verses establish several things: 1) They show that Moses did indeed provide laws for divorce to the Jews but he did so because many times women were being "put away" without any options such as income, home, etc. so laws were made to protect them. By obligating a brother to take on the wife in marriage, women could survive. 2) The Lord intended permanent marriage for all people. 3) This was obviously a very important issue because the disciples asked him about as well later on 4) and Jesus reinforces that when 2 people are married, they are married for life. And marrying another, is indeed adultery. Later on Jesus provides an exception to divorce for adultery by a spouse, but that's it. So I think the issue is very, very clear. And even though we are under grace, as Christians we are to be examples by following the commandments and living a Christ-filled life. So we should still follow what our KING Jesus says even though we still sin. Praise The Lord our Father and our Savior Jesus Christ.
| ||
9/15/2007 10:24 am |
Don't worry about it. The jews had all kinds of crazy rules that they thought were from God...but they certainly were not. God's were the 10 commandments only (but that was too many too, for fallen people). A Christian is under grace, not law....so you can marry whoever you want to. You'll still be an adultress, but we all are anyway, due to thoughts alone !!! We're just covered by grace nowadays, which is a whole lot better. I struggled with this issue as a new, born-again Christian 25 years ago. We get hungup on these things because we want to be right and do right, but that's why we constantly have to catch ourself and remind ourself that we are not under the law ! PTL !!! What a great Savior !
| ||
|
Geena, in the story of Ruth, Boaz was only second in line to be able to redemee Ruth. The responsibility goes first to the next of kin, then on down the line if the ist can't/won't marry her. reread the book of Ruth. The more I read it the more beautiful it becomes.  Pat
| ||
|
Genna, that was tradition. It was to preserve the family name, especially in cases where the first husband died without any sons. As I understand it, any children born of the marriage to the brother would still be considered children of the deceased spouse. And I could be wrong on that, so that's subject to correction by those more knowledgeable than me! I know, sounds kind of creepy in this day and age, marrying an in-law, but was not at all back then. Hope that helps a bit! GBY! Cathy "For He must become greater; I must become less." John 3:30
|
×
×