IN ANY DISCUSSION OF DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE, IT MUST BE NOTED AND REMEMBERED THAT JESUS' POSITION AS ADDRESSED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT IS NOT ONLY DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF THE PHARISEES AND RELIGIOUS LEADERS OF HIS DAY, IT IS THE ONLY CORRECT POSITION. He came to fulfill the law. Matthew 5:17 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." (KJV) Fulfil is STRONG'S #4137 pleroo play-ro-o; from 4134; to make replete, i.e. (lit.) to cram (a net) , level up (a hollow), or (fig.) to furnish (or imbue, diffuse, influence), satisfy, execute (an office), finish (a period or task), verify (or coincide with a prediction), etc. --fill (up), fulfil, (be, make) full (come), fully preach, perfect, supply. THAYER'S definition as used in Matt. 5:17 -- universally and absolutely, to fulfil, i.e. to cause God's will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God's promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfillment. In the matter of Divorce and Remarriage, Jesus "perfected" the law which meant He corrected the stance that Moses took in Deut. 24:1-4 where Moses "allowed" rather than "commanded" divorce.

I do not disagree with your information quoted from Strong's in regard to the word "fulfil", but there is a problem with what you are saying here. You said "In the matter of Divorce and Remarriage, Jesus "perfected" the law which meant He corrected the stance that Moses took in Deut. 24:1-4 where Moses "allowed" rather than "commanded" divorce." -- The law as stated in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 was not a law that Moses wrote or allowed. Please note the following: Moses wrote down the law as God gave it to him to write down.

The law clearly was God's law, and Moses was used by God to write it down so we would have it today.----Please also look at this point, there are many references throughout the Bible like the following: Leviticus 11:46 This is the law of the beasts, and of the fowl, and of every living creature that moveth in the waters, and of every creature that creepeth upon the earth: Did the beasts write their own law or did God just refer to it as the law of the beasts? Leviticus 14:57 To teach when it is unclean, and when it is clean: this is the law of leprosy. Numbers 5:29 This is the law of jealousies, when a wife goeth aside to another instead of her husband, and is defiled;----The point is the different laws are named either for who wrote them down/or who God used to command His laws through or for what the law is in regard to. Please also note in:

There are many scriptures on many different subjects including this one. When responding to a letter I generally respond to the scriptures which the letter writer brings up within his/her letter, only bringing in other scriptures when needed and as space allows. Laura Lee

Let's look at those scriptures --

Take note here two points: 1. There is no exception clause. 2. Unlike Jewish law, either the man or woman could commit adultery. (It might also be noted that most Bible scholars contend that Mark wrote his epistle first having heard the words directly from the apostle Peter). Also see Luke 16:18, Jer. 3:1, 8, 14

EDITOR'S NOTE:

In both places Christ is the one who stated this exception along with the clear intent from the beginning. If you do not believe these to be exception clauses as you put it, then please explain to all, exactly what these are? Please also explain what fornication is, as explained by the Bible?

Have you heard of the Harmony of the Gospels? If not, it's where different writers will write of the same event, but some writers put in more detail than other writers and this concept is not just confined to the gospels. You will find this throughout the Bible, that is why when we study a given subject we need to take all the clear scriptures into account and many times this will explain more fully those which are not quite so clear. It is never a good idea to take one scripture and try to build an entire doctrine based on one verse. A particular subject should always be considered in context and in respect to all known scriptures on that subject.

Your second point speaks of Jewish law, which I didn't bring up at all, but since you stated your point as you did, let me show you something which comes directly from the Law of God. Leviticus 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

God always held both the man and the woman responsible for committing adultery. My advise on your point two would be, to be less concerned about Jewish Law and more concerned about God's Law. Laura Lee

In regard to your statement: "(It might also be noted that most Bible scholars contend that Mark wrote his epistle first having heard the words directly from the apostle Peter)." #1--Mark's book is well known by most serious Bible Students as the Gospel of Mark, not an Epistle. #2--"Bible Scholars?" If that can be proven from scripture that Mark heard "the words" as you state here from Peter first, then we need clear scripture that proves that, other wise its just that, contend, which equals "scholars opinion". #3--What are you referring to when you say "the words", the words specifically quoted by you Mark 10:1-12 or all the words that Mark wrote in his gospel called Mark?

Jesus' disciples walked with and were all taught by Him throughout His three and a half year ministry. For someone to make claim that certain disciples only heard certain words of Jesus from another disciple and not directly from Jesus Himself is a bit of a stretch and matters little as to what and how God inspired His writers to write what God wanted written down. Darwin Lee

TOMMY’S LETTER:

There is much more that could be said about this subject but let's chew on this for awhile.

Perhaps you'll decide to print this letter in your next newsletter. Whether you do or not, thanks for allowing me this opportunity.

Tommy West