Righteous Fighting

Christ Covenant Church

Righteous Fighting

November 27, 2022 • R. Scott Jarrett

Fighting or conflict is an inevitable part of life. It is, in many cases, the only way to resolve human problems. As a result the Bible is filled with examples of fighting. Jesus fought with Jews and Christians (Mar 8:11; Rev 2:16). Paul likewise, fought with Jews and Christians (Peter, Barnabas and other brothers in the church) (Act 9:28-29, 25:7-8; Gal 2:11-14; Act 15:1-2, 36-40). We must never therefore think of fighting as a bad thing – or that somehow fighting less, means we are better Christians (or mature). Rather what needs to be considered is, “Are we fighting righteously?”

Questions You Have Been Meaning To Ask About Evangelism and Love

December 15, 2024 • R. Scott Jarrett

1. Why was evangelism was so much easier in the 1st century? 1.1. Textual support for my question (Act 11:19-21) = Those doing the evangelism are not the apostles but the untrained laity of the Jerusalem church (Act 7:51-8:1). Given then their evangelistic success, what advantage did the laity of the early church possess that we do not have today? Why was it so much easier? 1.2. Unlike today, everybody was religious: it was considered axiomatic truth that the events of the natural world (our world) were influenced and impacted by the decisions and actions of supernatural beings (otherwise known as gods) who not only lived in a supernatural world but often had human children (sons) who lived among us. And this belief was not compartmentalized as it is oftentimes today. In the ancient world such beliefs impacted every aspect of daily civilian and government life (e.g.,): 1) kings (Caesars) were often revered as deity in human flesh, as the sons of the gods. 2) holidays, cities – even people’s children and homes were named after and/or dedicated to a patron deity. 3) national identity was theological rather than geographical. 4) the primary reason for all animal slaughter was propitiatory not dietary. 5) all government was viewed as divine and all service to the state a religious act (hence the reason Christians were accused of being atheists for their refusal to serve in government or the military). 6) victory in battle, economic success or good weather was viewed as not only favor from a particular deity or group of deities but a sign that they were the “god(s) on top.” 7) the manufacture and sale of idols for personal and public shrines (Act 17:16) was a vital economic industry providing a large tax revenue base to the state and income to many families (Act 19:23-29). 8) the most popular form of conversation taking place in the public square was not entertainment, sports or politics – but theology - most especially the subject of “who is the god on top?” (Act 17:17-21). 8) Most places associated with pleasure were also temples (prostitution, restaurants). In short, because of the surrounding society, the gods were very real and relevant removing that subject (the existence and need for God) as the first obstacle to overcome in evangelism. IOW: evangelistic conversations were about convincing people that Yhwh was the God on top (and the resurrection of His Son Jesus as the proof of His love for all humanity versus trying to convince people that Someone and something exists beyond the material world (Act 17:22-31). A simple testimony regarding the life, death, resurrection, rule and coming judgment of Jesus was -in most situations -all the knowledge required to be potent and effective (1Co 15:1-4). 1.3. Primitive technology and a large percentage of the population being illiterate also meant that less philosophical and theological competency was required to refute and remove people’s confusion or doubt (Act 28:17-23). Today is just the opposite. Because of our vast exposure to opposing worldviews and heresies associated with the Bible’s teaching and gospel, those functioning as effective evangelists are required to become effective apologists both philosophically and theologically (Act 17:22-23 = Confusion created by their access to many different religious views). 1.4. Such “information corruption” may be another sign that we are in the final years before Christ’s return. Jesus makes clear that in the end it will be like the days of Noah. Corruption will again have reached a tipping point making the possibility of finding salvation like finding a needle in a haystack, reducing the number of those saved to a small covenant family (Mat 24:37-38). 2. What does it mean when Jesus says that the first greatest commandment is to love God with all our heart, soul and mind, why do the first and second greatest commandment matter and what initial or internal way is there to assess whether or not we are fulfilling them? 2.1. What does it mean to love God w/all our heart, soul and mind (the 1st greatest commandment)? The answer is found in the phrase that connects the first to the second (Mat 22:37-39) “The second is like it” = IOW: The way we love in the second greatest commandment will be the same as the first. As such, whatever Jesus says is the way we love our neighbor (i.e., our covenant family – Lev 19:17 [“fellow countryman”]w/18 [“neighbor”]) is how also we are to love God – or what it means to love Him w/all our heart, soul and mind. So what is the answer – how are we told to love our covenant family? As ourselves. So then, loving God w/all your heart, soul and mind just means to love God in the same way as you love yourself. Both God and our covenant family are to be loved in the same way as we love ourselves. They are to be “our very heart.” 2.2. Why does it matter (why is important to have this kind of love for God and our covenant family)? (Mat 22:40 w/Mat 5:17-20) = Nobody gets to heaven who is unfaithful to love God and His people in the same way they love themselves. 2.3. The initial and internal way to assess our whether or not we love God and our covenant family as ourselves is by considering these two groups with respect to this universal truth: As human beings we possess the ability to betray others and live with it (including those we may have great affection for). We do not however possess that ability in relation to self – or those that we choose to love in the same way as we love ourselves. It is impossible to betray yourself – or those you love as yourself - and live with it. 2.4. Why? B/C This is how God has hard-wired us (Eph 5:29 “no one ever hated [betrayed] his own flesh but nourishes it and cherishes it”). The context of this verse is our universal truth – or the main point of our discussion: loving others as our self. Paul reveals this as the key to covenant fidelity – or Christ-like love for our wives (Eph 5:28) = This then is what is meant in v25 when it says Christ “gave Himself for her” meaning His bride, the church. He loved her in the same way He loved Himself – giving Him the power to be faithful in the most severe test: dying for her. Hence the reason then we can’t live with ourselves if we are not true to ourselves or those we love in the same way we love ourself. We can’t betray ourselves. It is an ontological impossibility created by God for our preservation and those we would place in that category. Which means five things: 1) As much as we may not want to always admit it, our actions do reveal our true self (or what we truly love) since once more we can’t betray (be unfaithful or untrue) to ourselves and live with ourselves. Those kinds of things – those actions that are not true to who we are, that betray our true self, are unsustainable – which means they won’t last long. They are unlivable – which means we would choose suicide over them – as demonstrated by Judas (Mat 27:3-5). 2) This is the reason we will be judged according to our deeds. Betrayal will never be among the deeds of those who truly love God and their covenant family as themselves (since again, they couldn’t live with that – we can’t live w/betraying ourselves). 3) Repentance (biblically defined) is what happens when we have fallen into behavior that is not – or no longer, our true self – i.e., when we have chosen to love God and His people in the same way as ourselves. 4) This is also what it means to deny (or die to) self - another requirement to getting to heaven (Mat 16:23). Living for self means that self is the only one I love in that way. It is therefore a selfish love. The moment however you attach God and God’s people to that, your love has changed. It is impossible to be selfish or guilty of betrayal since I cannot be selfish or betray myself or those who are now in the same category (they are myself, to betray them is to betray me). The key thing not to miss is that we are (again) all hard-wired to love self – which means it is not something we can remove. The only way then to change that (to make it something other than selfish and damning) is to add God and His people to this category, to love them as I love myself, to believe (and therefore truly feel) that to betray them would mean betraying myself. 5) You now know why people go apostate or can’t seem to stay the course of faithfulness toward God and their covenant family (or covenant wives). The root cause is a refusal to put those people in that place, to love them in the same way they love themselves. If that had happened, betrayal would have been impossible. This is what Jesus is talking about in (Mat 24:11) = The increase in lawlessness that marks the end of the world will cause people to stop loving God and His people as themselves causing them also to eventually betray and apostasize (v10). Given the larger context, this is also what (I believe) John is talking about in (1Jo 2:19 w/9-11) Consider also (1Jo 3:14-16) = Our love for one another is to be the same as Christ’s for the church – which according to Paul in Eph 5 means loving them in the same way we love ourselves, These verses confirm that this is the kind of love John is also demanding when he speaks of loving the brethren in his letter. 2.5. The question then is this: which category of “others” does God and your covenant family fit in? Can you betray them (in any way) and live with it or would betraying them be like betraying yourself? Unless they fit into the latter category (betraying them wb betraying self)) then you have not even begun to love those two groups (God and your covenant family) in the way God requires in order to get to heaven. If you love them as yourself then the thought of betraying them would be the equivalent of committing suicide. You couldn’t live with it. We can’t live with betraying ourselves. 2.6. Two other ways of posing this question: 1) if God let you into heaven – though you knew you were unfaithful to Him and/or your covenant family, could you live with yourself? 2) would you give into temptation more if there were no consequences for betraying God or a member of your covenant family? (e.g., men): if you could cheat on your wife w/o punishment from God, the church or your wife would things change in your marriage? Would removing the external consequences be enough for you to do it and still be able to live with yourself? If your answer is “yes” to both (or one of the two) then once more you have failed to grasp what it is that God requires when it comes to love and getting to heaven – which guarantees that you will never be able to sustain any faithfulness you may in the present possess-because this (according to God) is the pre-requisite to all that: you must love them as yourself. Otherwise what you do – especially in hard times, will become unsustainable. 2.7. This btw is what distinguishes the lasting (and last) soil from the others presented by Jesus in His parable of the soils – (Mat 13:20-23) “soil…sown on the rocky places” and “soil…sown among the thorns” = These kinds of Christians are initially happy about their choice to follow God (they “immediately [receive the word] with joy”) but because they do not love God and their covenant family in the same way they love themselves – b/c betraying those two groups is not the same as betraying themselves, then end up betraying them (“immediately [falling] away”) when things get tough or temptations come. This is in contrast to the “good soil” whose loyalty to God and their covenant family perseveres through the tough and tempting times (they keep producing fruit). Why? Because unlike the others, they love God and their covenant family in the same way as they love themselves. For them, to betray either God or their covenant family would be the same as betraying themselves – an impossibility based on the way that God has wired us. 2.8. Questions (then) to ponder this week: How do you love God and your covenant family? Could you betray them and live with it?

Three Strikes And You Are Out

October 13, 2024 • R. Scott Jarrett • Titus 3:10–11

If we are to accurately discern Paul’s point (in Tit 3:10-11), we must first determine what’s going on in the letter as a whole. Why? Because context always determines meaning (e.g., reading comprehension [larger picture det’s individual parts]). 1. What’s going on? (What is the context or backstory of the letter?) 1.1. This is a pastoral epistle. It was written to Paul’s church-planting partner and pastor, Titus in regard to those churches he and Titus had started in the various cities on the island of Crete. Titus was tasked with establishing two things in each of the churches: 1) order (sound doctrine and behavior), 2) authority (ordained pastors/elders) (Tit 1:4-5) “set in order what remains” [Grk., epidiorthaoh] = To straighten out what is still out of line (i.e., what persists in going its own direction) – which implies that there were people in these churches who were not believing or acting the way they should; “and appoint [elders]” = Anoint/ordain (same word translated “anoint” in Heb 8:3). Titus needed to deputize qualified men with (Jesus’) divine authority as a means to establishing order/dealing with those out of line (Joh 20:21-23). 1.2. Beyond the obvious, these two tasks were necessary due to the fact that the Cretans were known for causing dissension in relation to established things – most especially things related to order and authority (Tit 1:12) = Part of a poem written by the Greek poet (or “prophet”) Epimenides. The reason for his accusation? The doubt Cretans were causing among those devout to the Greek religion and its chief god, Zeus by their divisive claim that his tomb resided on one of their mountains (i.e., that Zeus was not immortal)[1]. 1.3. Their proclivity for contention and dissension in relation to religious authorities and doctrine was also being felt in the churches. Hence the reason Paul makes apologetics a required skill for those serving as “God’s steward” (Tit 1:7 [Grk., theos oikonomos] = Compound word: God + house + law – Literally, the law man in God’s house; the church’s sheriff [bishop]). As it re: to apologetics - (Tit 1:9-11) “rebellious men” [Grk., anupotaktos] = People not submitted to authority in temper or teaching (hence Paul’s charge to Titus in 2:15 [“let no one disregard you” -i.e., ignore/discount your authority] and emphasis on submission to authorities in 3:1-2); “empty talkers” [Grk., mataiologos] = People whose teaching was against -or calling into question that of God’s sheriffs/bishops (elders/overseers) (v11 “teaching things they should not teach”) though what they said lacked the necessary knowledge, coherency or evidence to be considered “sound doctrine” (Tit 2:1). According to Paul, “many” of the Cretan Christians fit this profile and needed to be “silenced (literally, their mouths shut) because they were “upsetting whole families” = Their questioning of the church’s authority and their doctrine was encouraging doubt, dissension and division in the congregation. IOW: it was threatening the unity of the church and trust in her leadership. 1.4. Two likely reasons so many in Crete were this way: 1) arrogance or thinking more highly of their intellect and ability than they should. Hence the reason for Paul’s universal call to be “sensible” (Tit 2:2, 3 w/5, 6 [Grk., sophron] = To place a moderate estimate on oneself in re: to intellect/understanding, ability/expertise) and his urging of “bondslaves” to “not [be] argumentative” (9 [Grk., antilego] = To dispute, be contrary, not listen). 2) self-interest. Claiming the tomb of Zeus resided on their island, was for the Cretans, a way to make a lot of easy money off the curious. IOW: it wasn’t because they actually believed it – or could support it with evidence, but it served their financial (self) interest. Hence the reason for Epimenides’ accusation that the Cretans were not only “liars” but also “lazy gluttons.” This too is why Paul says those upsetting households (upsetting the unity of the church and trust in her leadership) were doing it for “the sake of sordid gain” (literally, gain that is for selfish or shameful reasons). 1.5. Why such attitudes and actions needed to be stifled in the Cretan churches was not only because of its threat to the unity of the church and the trust of her leadership, but also its hindrance to one of the church’s most important missions, the producing of good deeds (mentioned 4x in the letter: 2:14, 3:1, 3:8, 3:14). 1.6. How divisive people hinder the church’s ability to produce good deeds: the division and distrust they create in the church means less people willing to work together or follow the leaders’ direction. As a result, less good deeds are accomplished for the kingdom. In addition, where such division and distrust exists, what also exists is more internal conflict and fighting – or unnecessary distractions that consume resources which could have been used to advance the kingdom (produce good deeds). Hence the reason for Paul’s instruction in verse 9 (after his mention of good deeds) (Tit 3:8-9). 1.7. THE TAKEAWAY (with respect to what’s going on): Because of the arrogance and selfishness that characterized the Cretan population many of the male members in the cities’ various churches were by their attitude and actions guilty of being divisive or sowing seeds of dissension and doubt in relation to the church’s teaching and leadership. 2. What’s the point? (What is Paul ordering the churches to do when he says, “reject a factious man after a first and second warning”?) 2.1. Based on what’s going on (the context of the letter), the person identified as “factious” must be related to those who are guilty of being divisive – or sowing seeds of dissension and doubt in the congregation. 2.2. This understanding not only fits within the semantic range of the word’s meaning (Grk., hairesis/hairetikos [heresy/heretic]) but how it is most commonly used in the NT. Though we tend to associate this word with false teaching or teachers, rarely (if ever) does it carry this limited connotation. Its emphasis is instead on the disposition of those people or things with which it is identified. IOW: they (or it) is said to be hairesis/hairetikos -not because they are necessarily wrong (i.e., they or their teaching is false), but because their attitude or actions are viewed as divisive or sowing seeds of dissension and doubt in relation to the teaching and leadership of those accusing them. In short, because they are not “getting with the program” of the religious community currently in power or to whom they belong.[2] 2.3. Some biblical examples to drive this home (i.e., in the bible hairesis/hairetikos are terms referring to those who are divisive to the teaching and leadership of the church [and not as its modern use suggests, terms devoted strictly to identifying false teaching and teachers]): 1) hairesis is used to identify Christians (Act 24:5, 14, 28:22 “sect” = Paul and Christians were obviously not false teachers but did teach what was divisive to the beliefs and leadership of the Jewish religion [e.g., that Jesus was Messiah and God]). 2) hairetikos is used to identify those who were contentious to the teaching and leadership in Corinth (1Co 11:16-19 “factions” = Those in Corinth condoning long hair on men though it stood against the teaching of the churches and her bishops/sheriffs [“we…nor the churches of God”]). 3) hairesis is never used when identifying Scripture’s biggest forms of false teaching (circumcision needed for salvation – Gal 5:2; resurrection already happened – 2Ti 2:18; okay for Christians to partake of the table of idols/demons – 1Co 10:21; we are saved by faith alone – Jam 2:24; Jesus is not the son of God – 1Jo 4:3). 2.4. Given the context of Titus and these terms’ most common use in Scripture, it is safe to conclude that what Paul means by “factious man” is indeed a person who is guilty of being divisive – or potentially sowing seeds of dissension and doubt in relation to the church’s teaching or leadership. Consider Paul’s words to the Roman church as further reinforcement (Rom 16:17-19) = According to Paul, these kinds of people are a real threat to collective obedience and the innocence of the church. They are the bad apples that spoil the whole batch.[3] 2.5. Is this sin different than insurrection? Yes, but not by much. Persons guilty of insurrection have claimed that those functioning as the anointed shepherds (bishops/sheriffs) have sinfully possessed their office, or carry out the duties of their office in a way that is sinful – or are teaching what is sinful or condemned by God. In addition, they make these claims without bringing the necessary evidence to the church’s courts to support it. The result of their actions is often division, dissension and doubt in the congregation (Num 16:1-3; Mat 12:22-32; 1Ti 5:19). Those guilty of being factious, are (as discussed) also guilty of being divisive against the leadership and their teaching - or sowing seeds of dissension and doubt in the congregation but never by such actions, accusing the church’s anointed shepherds (pastors) of being sinful in their office or teaching. This then is the distinction that makes the difference between insurrection and faction. Both are divisive but only one (insurrection) crosses the line of accusing the church’s anointed men of sin. That line however is a fine one. Change a few things said by the accuser, and the crime goes from faction to insurrection. 2.6. Considering the serious nature of being factious (a few degrees less than the worst sin of all, insurrection) helps us to understand Paul’s serious penal prescription (v10) “Reject a factious man after a first and second warning.” Those committing insurrection get one strike, its lesser cousin, three (the third offense will result in a declaration of apostasy). 2.7. That what Paul means by “reject” is to “declare apostate” is supported by the only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn after considering two things: 1) the nature of the warnings themselves: they represent some form of official/legal notice issued by the church’s leadership. The entire Bible was written for the purpose of establishing policy with respect to doctrine, discipleship and discipline - or law and justice for God’s covenant community, hence the reason it was not written until such communities existed. As such, these warnings must be viewed through this ecclesiological lens. They represent some form of official/legal notice (e.g., written document) issued by the church’s leadership (describing the crime and identifying the guilty party) which when accepted by the congregation, is admissible as evidence in her courts unto judgment. That Paul does indeed view these warnings in this way is supported also by his words in (1:13) = This is in reference to those being factious (see again, vv10-12) and therefore sheds light on their official nature. The word “severely” modifying the imperative, “reprove them” is used only one other place in the NT and carries legal connotations (2Co 13:10 “severe in my use of authority” = Authority used in court to prosecute the guilty based on the evidence possessed – vv1-2). 2) the nature of the factious man after a third offense: he is apostate. (11) “perverted” (Grk., ekstrepho = Turned inside out, warped, changed for the worse, corrupt; See similar in Deu 32:20 [LXX]: Same word used to speak of the apostate first generation)… self-condemned” (Grk., autokatakritos = Self-damned - which is what apostate refers to – a person who has by their actions, chosen to damn themselves to hell). 2.8. The only reasonable CONCLUSION (based on the above two considerations: the nature of the warnings themselves and the nature of the factious man after the third offense): Apostasy is to be declared against anyone guilty of being factious three times as evidenced by official/legal notices issued by the church’s leadership and accepted by her courts.[4] CLOSING CONTEMPLATION: What can we do to avoid being factious? 1) check you ego (Rom 13:3; e.g., young marriage or baptism), 2) trust God w/your leaders (Do you believe 1Pe 3:5? Then why not Tit 2:15?), 3) be self-suspicious (Mat 16:21-23; e.g., personal fears or instability) [1] The Cretans were such famous “liars” that a derivation of their name came to mean this very thing (Grk., Kreitizein = To lie). [2] Second century bishop of Antioch, Ignatius, uses the term (hairetikos) to refer to those in the church who were disobedient to the bishop’s teaching. [3] William Barclay’s comments on Titus 3:10 agree. A factious (hairetikos) man is “a man who has decided that he is right and everybody else is wrong. Paul’s warning is a warning against the man who has made his own ideas the test and standard of all truth.” (Commentary on the Book of Titus) [4] ****These verses have nothing to do with those guilty of capital crimes.

Divorce, Remarriage, and Sexual Fraud

October 20, 2024 • R. Scott Jarrett • Deuteronomy 24:1–4, Deuteronomy 22:13–21, Jeremiah 3:1, Matthew 5:32, Matthew 19:9

1. Like the ancient societies around them, divorce was already an axiomatic (or unquestioned) part of Jewish society when God adopted them as His people. Hence the reason there is no place in Scripture which establishes divorce but only case laws which regulate it. 1.1. (Deu 24:1-4 “When a man takes a wife…and he writes her a certificate of divorce” [1]) = Not establishing divorce but regulating what already existed as part of Israelite society. Other examples of axiomatic and inalienable practices that were a part of Israel (just as they were every other ancient society): 1) marriage = Not establishing marriage but regulating what already existed in Israelite society. (Exo 21:7-10) 2) slavery (Exo 21:1-2 “If you buy a Hebrew slave…”) = Not establishing slavery but regulating what already existed in Israelite society. 3) war (Num 10:9 “When you go to war…”) = Not establishing war but regulating what already existed in Israelite society. 1.2. The POINT NOT TO MISS: Divorce was the long-established axiomatic default for dealing with unfaithfulness in marriage - not something established later as an additional option. “Although there are not multiple instances of divorce recorded in the Pentateuch, we must assume that divorce was as prevalent in Israel then as in other ancient Near Eastern societies. Several passages speak about divorce, but none of them condemns or even discourages it… It is assumed in these passages that divorce happens, and no comment is made whether divorce itself is desirable or not.”– David Instone-Brewer (Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible: The Social and Literary Context) 2. Under the Old Testament, God allowed divorce for almost any reason, whereas under the New Covenant, sexual immorality became the only allowable reason. 2.1. Allowance for almost any reason: 1) Under the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen 21:9-14 “sent her away” = divorced her). 2) Under the Old Covenant (Exo 21:11 = Notice divorce is allowable for more than sexual abandonment/sexual immorality; Deu 24:1 w/Mat 19:1-3 = The Pharisees understood divorce (or the phrase, “some indecency”) to allow for (v3) “any reason at all.” Notice that in (v8) Jesus does not correct their understanding but rather confirms it by explaining why Moses “permitted”(allowed) such large parameters (Mat 19:7-8). Priests were the only exception (Mal 2:14-16 “hates”[2]). 2.2. Under the New Covenant, Jesus confirms not only the Law’s continuing necessity but fills it up to its fullest measure and meaning – or the meaning and measure God originally intended (As it re: continuing necessity - Mat 5:18-20; As it re: filling up to its fullest measure and meaning - Mat 5:17 “fulfill” = Confirm [LXX- 1Ki 1:14]; Fill up in measure and meaning). Hence the reason (then) for sexual immorality becoming the only valid reason for divorce. Jesus is filling up the measure/meaning of marriage to what it was intended to be “from the beginning” (v8). (Mat 19:4-6 [Gen 2:24]) = Per God’s design, when a husband and wife enter into a marriage covenant, they create a new family (v5 = Family by covenant or the covenant ratifying act of sexual activity in marriage). This new family/covenant relationship is meant to be permanent (v6, “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate”). Why (then) is divorce allowed for sexual immorality (v9,)? Because in the case of sexual immorality, the marriage has already been broken. All sexual acts are covenant ratifying acts, making all sexual activity outside an existing marriage an attempt to replace that marriage w/another (1Co 6:16). The divorce is therefore simply the legal notice that such has taken place (i.e., the current marriage has been broken by the attempt to replace it through marriage covenant ratifying acts w/another) and per the request of the innocent party, that marriage will not be re-consummated. This however is the only time a divorce functions this way since no other act by a spouse breaks the marriage covenant. Hence why Jesus can say that divorce for any other reason makes each party guilty of adultery. Because without the prior covenant-breaking act of sexual immorality, both parties are still bound in marriage (i.e., their divorce is not recognized by God). As a result, any sexual act (including those in a new marriage) becomes adultery in relation to their still existing first marriage. 2.3. That Jesus’ actions (re: divorce) were never meant to be an override of God’s Law (Deu 4:2) but rather a restoration (a filling up) to its originally intended meaning (to its fullest meaning and measure) is supported by the following: 1) (Mat 5:31-32) “It was said…but I say to you” = According to David Daube (The New Testament & Rabbinic Judaism) this was an ancient rabbinic way to indicate a correction was about to applied to a prior (and inaccurate) understanding of Scripture. 2) (Deu 24:4) = Defilement of the land due to remarriage to the former spouse only makes sense in the context of sexual immorality, meaning this was the reason for the first husband’s divorce. IOW: the phrase, “since she has been defiled” refers not to the fact that she was married to someone else after their divorce, but rather that the second marriage was the result of her adultery w/the new husband while still married to the former. The toleration of sexual immorality (which is what the former husband would be doing through remarrying or re-consummating marriage to his former adulteress wife), is a major reason God removed the land’s former occupants (Lev 18:1-23 w/24-28 = Toleration of adultery is viewed as a crime not only against God but the land itself). Deuteronomy 24:4’s allusion to passages like Leviticus 18 helps us to confirm adultery as the intended focus of God’s instruction regarding divorce.[3] 3) This is also how Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is used by God in (Jer 3:1) = Notice, God paraphrases Deuteronomy 24:1-4 as a threat to unfaithful Judah (See 2:1). However, those identified as Judah’s new husbands prohibiting her return to God (should He enact the divorce) are seen as one and the same as those she is currently guilty of “harlot[ry]” (sexual immorality) with (her “lovers.”). In support then of the previous point and the argument as a whole, God also understands the phrase, “some indecency” in Deuteronomy 24:1 as a reference to sexual immorality. This is its fullest -or most accurate meaning and (once more) the reason God prohibits remarriage in the text.[4] And as mentioned in previous studies, this interpretation was hidden from previous generations (Mat 19:8 - “hardness of heart” = Inability to understand produced by stubbornness or immaturity) as God’s means of leading them and preserving His purposes (e.g., Gen 21:9-14; Exo 21:7 w/10-11; also possibly, Neh 13:1-3). 3. God’s authorization of His people to kill those guilty of sexual immorality in marriage does not therefore replace the axiomatic practice (or default) of divorce but rather becomes the new and additional option offered to the offended party. 3.1. One of the purposes of case law in any society – ancient or modern, is not only to regulate what already exists (i.e., divorce – e.g., Deu 24:1-4), but authorize the offer of new and additional options. Authorization is especially necessary when those other options involve capital punishment, as is the case with adultery. God’s law authorizes His people to treat sexual immorality in marriage the same way as sexual immorality outside of marriage as an additional option offered to the offended party (Lev 20:10) = The emphasis in carrying out the death sentence (“you shall surely put them to death”[5]) is to reassure those involved that they possess God’s full authorization and backing (similar to Mat 18:18-20). Hence the reason for the phrase that follows in verses 11 and 12 also dealing with adultery, “their bloodguiltiness shall be upon them.” IOW: Though you are the one putting them to death, you are not the one I will hold responsible for their death. Their blood is on their hands (not yours). 3.2. Why is the same reassurance (of authorization) not given in Deuteronomy 22:21-30 where we also find capital punishment for sexual immorality? Because as the name “Deuteronomy” indicates, what is found in its pages are simply a second giving of the laws (already established and authorized) in the previous books of the Pentateuch (e.g., Leviticus 20:10ff). 3.3. In Matthew 1:18-18, Jesus’ adopted father Joseph is the offended bridegroom of Deuteronomy 22:13-21 proving the existence of two options in the case of sexual immorality in marriage: 1) (Deu 22:13-21) = The offended husband paid the high bride-price to marry a virgin (up to fifty shekels [v29] equivalent to $25-30k today or roughly 7 yrs of servitude [think Jacob w/Leah and Rachel]), only to find evidence that she is not virgin. The only way for the offended husband to receive a refund (get the bride-price back), is to return his wife to her father’s house w/evidence that overrides that of her father. Fining the offended husband double the virgin bride-price (along w/chastisement) was meant to deter cases that waste the courts resources (i.e., cases w/o the necessary evidence). To get the refund however, requires that the girl also be charged with “harlotry” (i.e., prostitution) with a punishment of stoning (death). 2) (Mat 1:18-19) = Joseph pays the high bride-price to marry a virgin (Mary), only to find evidence that she is not a virgin (i.e., she is pregnant). He is in the predicament of the man in Deuteronomy 22. Being a “righteous man” means that Joseph will follow the Law’s prescription for justice. He chooses to divorce her[6]. If stoning were the only option (if Deuteronomy 22 were teaching death as the only prescription or punishment for dealing with this crime), then Joseph’s choice to divorce her would be unrighteous. He would be guilty of obstructing justice and subsequently not a righteous man. CONCLUSION: Divorce (the default) - or the additional option of death were both available as punishment (or for securing justice) against those guilty of sexual immorality in marriage. In Joseph’s specific case, the crime of sexual fraud. Commenting on Deuteronomy 22:13-21, Gary North writes, “If he has not been informed of her status [i.e., the girl is not a virgin], he can break the marriage through divorce, including divorce by execution, ‘because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house’ (Deu 22:21). He does not have to have her executed, for Joseph decided to put Mary away quietly for her perceived unfaithfulness (Mat 1:19), but in a biblical commonwealth, the bridegroom would have the [other] legal option of requiring her death.” (“Defrauding The Bridegroom” in Tools Of Dominion)[7] 3.4. As additional support that death was not the only recourse for punishing those guilty of sexual immorality in marriage (i.e., that divorce was the first and other option) consider (Lev 21:7) = The phrase “nor shall they take” does not exist in the original Hebrew. The sentence is an elliptical construction where the second statement functions to give further clarity to the first. A more accurate translation would therefore be, “They [the priest] shall not take [in marriage] a woman profaned by adultery, nor shall they take a woman divorced from her husband; for he is holy to God.” As such the phrase “profaned by harlotry” means “a woman divorced from her husband” (because of her harlotry in her previous marriage)[8]. The prohibition against priests marrying this kind of a woman only makes sense if divorce existed as punishment for sexual immorality in marriage. If death was God’s only prescription for justice, then the prohibition becomes nonsensical since no such women would exist (they would all be dead!). Important to note also is the proximity of this verse to (Lev 20:10). If this previous injunction were prescribing death as the only option for adultery, then the level of incoherency becomes even greater with respect to God’s priestly prohibition. 3.5. The POINT (then) NOT TO MISS: When dealing w/sexual immorality in marriage today, there are two options afforded to the offended spouse: divorce or death (by excommunication) (1Co 5:1-13) (versus automatic excommunication w/the option also of divorce). 4. Deuteronomy 22:13-21 therefore expands what constitutes sexual immorality in marriage to include sexual fraud. 4.1. As discussed, all sexual activity is viewed by God as a covenant ratifying act – or as an attempt to create or confirm a marriage covenant (1Co 6:16; Hos 2:1-3, 6-7). What therefore makes an action sexually immoral (harlotry) is that action took place without the intent or ability to create or confirm a marriage covenant as is the case in adultery (sexual acts w/those bound in marriage to someone else), prostitution (sexual acts for pleasure only), perversion (sexual acts w/strange people or things – e.g., homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, incest) (Lev 18:6-18, 23, 20:11-16). 4.2. Pre-marital sexual activity therefore does not in and of itself constitute harlotry (i.e., prostitution). If neither the man nor the woman were betrothed or married to someone else – and consenting, then they have the ability to confirm the marriage covenant their acts were essentially attempting to create. The prescription for justice in these situations is the man must pay her father the maximum bride price for virgins and the two shall be considered legally married without the possibility of future divorce. In other words, should either party be guilty of sexual immorality in the future, death will be the only option or prescription for justice. As an additional deterrent to this pre-marital activity, the father reserves the right to refuse though the bride-price must still be paid (Exo 22:16-17). 4.3. How this relates to Deuteronomy 22:13-21 and the issue of sexual fraud? Based on the evidence provided by her new husband (or lack thereof on the part of her father), the girl had participated in sexual activity prior to her betrothal/marriage to her new husband yet never reported such activity to her father. Had she done so – and her father had refused their marriage, the current situation would have been avoided (i.e., she would not be considered guilty of harlotry). She would also not have been sold as a virgin, but at the discounted price of a concubine (a nonvirgin or virgin without a dowry or inheritance from her father). Her refusal to deal with the premarital matter- and allow herself to be sold as a virgin makes her guilty of fraud -and sexual immorality in marriage (“harlotry”), once her new husband consummates the marriage in intercourse. Why? Because her premarital act no longer possesses the ability to form a marriage covenant. Through the sexual activity of her new marital state, she has forfeited any possibility pursuing marriage with respect to her former act. As such, it can only be viewed as an act done for pleasure alone – i.e., prostitution (harlotry). Hence the reason, the girl’s charge of “harlotry” is communicated as the instrument of her sexual fraud. In other words, she is (only) now a harlot “because she has committed an act of folly in Israel (a reference to defaming the reputation of virgins in Israel)[9] by playing the harlot in her father’s house.” 4.4. The POINT NOT TO MISS: the girl’s prior sexual act does not become harlotry until two things happen: 1) she refuses to pursue marriage with her former suitor by telling her father and instead allows herself to be sold as a virgin. 2) she participates in sexual activity with her new husband (i.e., the marriage is consummated in sexual intercourse). 4.5. Sexual fraud is therefore another form of sexual immorality. Per the context and proper understanding of Deuteronomy 22:13-21 the definition of this crime is as follows: the expected and biblically sanctioned sexual intimacy promised to a spouse cannot be achieved due to outstanding sexual perversion in the other spouse of which they were aware but did not share. [1] “This is the only place in the Law where a ‘divorce certificate’ is mentioned.” David Instone-Brewer (“Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and the origin of the Jewish Divorce Certificate”) [2] Gordon Hugenberger makes a strong case that “hate” refers to divorce for reasons other than sexual immorality. See Marriage As A Covenant: Biblical Law and Ethics as Developed from Malachi [3] See also Hugenberger (ibid, p.184) [4] At the very least, Jeremiah 3:1 confirms that under the New Covenant, we can never remarry a spouse we divorced for sexual immorality. Remarriage would only be possible to those unlawfully divorced who have not been sexually active (according to Jesus [Mat 5:32, 19:9], this too constitutes adultery since all unlawful divorces are not recognized by God – i.e., the divorced couple are still married in God’s eyes). [5] The word “surely” does not exist in the passage. Rather, the action is repeated, “(they) shall be put to death, (they) shall put to death.” Per Durham University, “Textual repetition in the Old Testament serves to foreground [make most important] a claim…as a reliable witness to the God of Israel.” [6] “It was considered very suspect if a man refused to divorce his unfaithful wife, which is why Joseph is described as righteous for wanting to divorce Mary, who appeared to be unfaithful (Mat 1:19).” D. Instone-Brewer (Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible: The social and Literary Context) [7] “Marriage in the ANE was contractual. If either partner broke the contract, the innocent partner could opt for a divorce…Exact parallels to these practices are found in the Pentateuch.” D. Instone-Brewer (ibid) [8] Even the word translated “profaned” implies divorce for sexual immorality (Heb., halal = Adjective commonly used to communicate those defiled by divorce due to sexual immorality). [9] See North, Tools Of Dominion