Skip to main content
added 135 characters in body
Source Link

When looking back at King Henry VIII, we see a problem that had been purely contrived.

This is remarkable considering the fact that more than 30 (probably mainly catholic) experts had been consulted and principally came to the same conclusion (see Foxe's Book of Martyrs). Theology in those days must have been abysmal, but we cannot blame those who were not part of the Catholic Church, because they had just gotten their Bibles and were fed on spiritual crumps.

Thankfully we have now fully realized and widely accepted that death indeed terminates any marriage, and that it definitely allows remarriage. The Levirate Law might be descriptive for Gentiles, but it is certainly not the contrary of being prescriptive as claimed by many.

The 600+ Old Covenant Laws still function as principles, especially when it comes to topics such as 'incest', a matter we would certainly also not reverse from the negative command into a positive command just because Jesus abolished the condemnation of the Old Covenant Law.

In the same manner, we cannot reverse a positive command (Marry the -former- wife of your deceased brother! - Levirate Law) into a negative command (Do not marry her!). This would be a prime example of legalism - adding stuff to the Bible that is based on tradition of man.

In short, if God commanded to marry the -former- wife of a deseased brother, we have at least the freedom to do the same, although probably not anymore the obligation to do so.

Lev 18:18 And you shall not take a woman as a rival wife to her sister, uncovering her nakedness -WHILE- her sister is still alive.

When looking back at King Henry VIII, we see a problem that had been purely contrived.

This is remarkable considering the fact that more than 30 (probably mainly catholic) experts had been consulted and principally came to the same conclusion (see Foxe's Book of Martyrs). Theology in those days must have been abysmal, but we cannot blame those who were not part of the Catholic Church, because they had just gotten their Bibles and were fed on spiritual crumps.

Thankfully we have now fully realized and widely accepted that death indeed terminates any marriage, and that it definitely allows remarriage. The Levirate Law might be descriptive for Gentiles, but it is certainly not the contrary of being prescriptive as claimed by many.

The 600+ Old Covenant Laws still function as principles, especially when it comes to topics such as 'incest', a matter we would certainly also not reverse from the negative command into a positive command just because Jesus abolished the condemnation of the Old Covenant Law.

In the same manner, we cannot reverse a positive command (Marry the -former- wife of your deceased brother! - Levirate Law) into a negative command (Do not marry her!). This would be a prime example of legalism - adding stuff to the Bible that is based on tradition of man.

In short, if God commanded to marry the -former- wife of a deseased brother, we have at least the freedom to do the same, although probably not anymore the obligation to do so.

When looking back at King Henry VIII, we see a problem that had been purely contrived.

This is remarkable considering the fact that more than 30 (probably mainly catholic) experts had been consulted and principally came to the same conclusion (see Foxe's Book of Martyrs). Theology in those days must have been abysmal, but we cannot blame those who were not part of the Catholic Church, because they had just gotten their Bibles and were fed on spiritual crumps.

Thankfully we have now fully realized and widely accepted that death indeed terminates any marriage, and that it definitely allows remarriage. The Levirate Law might be descriptive for Gentiles, but it is certainly not the contrary of being prescriptive as claimed by many.

The 600+ Old Covenant Laws still function as principles, especially when it comes to topics such as 'incest', a matter we would certainly also not reverse from the negative command into a positive command just because Jesus abolished the condemnation of the Old Covenant Law.

In the same manner, we cannot reverse a positive command (Marry the -former- wife of your deceased brother! - Levirate Law) into a negative command (Do not marry her!). This would be a prime example of legalism - adding stuff to the Bible that is based on tradition of man.

In short, if God commanded to marry the -former- wife of a deseased brother, we have at least the freedom to do the same, although probably not anymore the obligation to do so.

Lev 18:18 And you shall not take a woman as a rival wife to her sister, uncovering her nakedness -WHILE- her sister is still alive.

Source Link

When looking back at King Henry VIII, we see a problem that had been purely contrived.

This is remarkable considering the fact that more than 30 (probably mainly catholic) experts had been consulted and principally came to the same conclusion (see Foxe's Book of Martyrs). Theology in those days must have been abysmal, but we cannot blame those who were not part of the Catholic Church, because they had just gotten their Bibles and were fed on spiritual crumps.

Thankfully we have now fully realized and widely accepted that death indeed terminates any marriage, and that it definitely allows remarriage. The Levirate Law might be descriptive for Gentiles, but it is certainly not the contrary of being prescriptive as claimed by many.

The 600+ Old Covenant Laws still function as principles, especially when it comes to topics such as 'incest', a matter we would certainly also not reverse from the negative command into a positive command just because Jesus abolished the condemnation of the Old Covenant Law.

In the same manner, we cannot reverse a positive command (Marry the -former- wife of your deceased brother! - Levirate Law) into a negative command (Do not marry her!). This would be a prime example of legalism - adding stuff to the Bible that is based on tradition of man.

In short, if God commanded to marry the -former- wife of a deseased brother, we have at least the freedom to do the same, although probably not anymore the obligation to do so.