AUDIO
Visit ThisIsYourBible.com
It is interesting to note how Rotherham's Emphasised Bible translates the expression "cheer up" in verse 5 as "rejoice with". This rendition to me emphasises the whole point of marriage namely that it foreshadows the glorious "marriage" of the multitudinous "Bride" of Christ to her betrothed (as highlighted in Rev 19:7-9) shortly after he returns. So this "year off" or what we might call the honeymoon period, was a period where the Jewish newly-wed couple were to in symbol, foreshadow that glorious Kingdom Age to come.
Nigel Morgan [Fawley UK] Comment added in 2016 Reply to Nigel
vv 10-12 This chapter is all about maintaining the dignity of poor people. Creditors have to stand outside without trespassing inside a debtor's house to obtain the pledge. The pledge will then be brought to the creditor. If the debtor is a poor man and the pledge is his coat, it must be returned at night - the poor man needs his coat to protect against the cold at night.
v19. The dropped sheaf belongs to poor people. Rather than experience the indignity of begging, poor people are entitled to pick up fallen sheaves for their own use. A compassionate owner of the harvest, aware of the poor people waiting at the boundary to pick up any fallen sheaves, would make certain that a few extra sheaves get dropped and left behind. His giving is invisible and the receiving by poor people is done without any dispute or indignity.
Bruce Bates [Forbes Australia] Comment added in 2022 Reply to Bruce
v. 1 - We were surprised, when we looked, how many times Jesus refers to this law, and related issues of adultery etc. Some of these passages are parallel, but not all. Matt.5:31-32, 19:7-9, Mark 10:4-12, Luke 16:18, 20:29-38.
Roger Sharpe [Derby Bass Street (UK)] Comment added in 2001 Reply to Roger
V.1 It seems that prior to this divorce decree, a man could put away his wife for anything that displeased him about her. This afforded the woman no protection as she was dependent upon her husband for livelihood. For this hardness of heart (Matt 19:8) Moses insisted that a written divorce decree be given to the spurned wife. This public declaration allowed her to re-marry, which, in turn, allowed her continued support.
In the time of Jesus there was a rabbinical debate as to the reason Moses granted divorce. Some argued that any reason would do, while others submitted it was for immorality of some kind. It was against this background that the Pharisees asked Jesus the challenging question of (Matt 19:3). Jesus refused to be drawn into the current debate but stated the divine ideal of marriage (Matt 19:4-6). When questioned about Moses' provision of divorce, Jesus explained the reason (Matt 19:7,8) (see paragraph above) but also re-iterated the divine ideal.
Jesus then made the controversial statement of (Matt 19:9). Some argue that in this so-called exceptive clause, Jesus was stating a law which allowed divorce under this particular circumstance. Others maintain that He was merely pointing out that divorce would leave an adulterous situation (if re-marriage would occur). Thus, staying married (or remaining single Matt 19:10-12) would continue to meet the divine ideal.
Michael Parry [Montreal (Can)] Comment added in 2004 Reply to Michael
24:1-2 Much dispute occurs about the way in which this provision under the law of Moses should be applied today. Suffice it to say that Jesus says that the provision was made because of the hardness of heart of the individual who sought to use its provision – Matt 19:8
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2009 Reply to Peter
“…her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled…”
When divorce first appeared in the Bible, the practice was already in existence. What God did through Moses was to regulate divorce in order to prevent its abuse. God acknowledged its existence and regulated it to prevent a bad situation from becoming worse. The fact that God did not lay down a specific law prohibiting divorce reveals His realistic approach to fallen human nature's failure. God shows His willingness to work redemptively on behalf of those who fail to live up to His ideal. Even though it was given because of the “hardness of heart” (Matt 19:8), it was, nonetheless, permitted and legal. A legal writ of divorce was probably prepared by the Scribes and perhaps also brought before a Magistrate.
The point of prohibiting the husband in remarrying his first wife was to discourage a hasty and frivolous divorce. If a divorce was too easy to obtain it could be abused. It was a custom with Israel’s neighbours to divorce, marry, divorce, and then remarry their first spouse after their legal “affair.” Such conduct was not conducive in strengthening a second marriage.
We know from verse 2 that the second marriage did not defile her and does not contradict verse 4. The remarriage of a divorced woman was not defiling, as so often claimed. Remarriage per se was not stigmatized as adulterous, nor was a remarried woman regarded as an adulteress. The Law did not require the divorced woman and her second husband be put to death. This consideration should lead us to exercise caution before stigmatizing remarriage as adulterous!
So, why was the former wife considered defiled? Well, it was the husband that declared his first wife unclean, and thus defiled as his excuse in divorcing her in the first place! Should this woman be divorced by her second husband or he died no permission was given for them to remarry each other. To break this law of the LORD was an “abomination.” This begs the question: Why was this Law considered an “abomination”? If the husband could easily remarry the same woman, divorce would become nothing more than a “legal” form of adultery. Later prophetic writings confirm this truth set forth by Moses (Jer 3:1). God wanted both marriage and divorce to be seen as serious, permanent issues. One could not be married or divorced casually, and then remarried to each other again; it had to be carefully thought out. It is interesting to note that the Law honouring marriage immediately follows this verse.
Without doubt, divorce is a violation of God’s original plan for mankind. Our respect for this fundamental principle demands that married couples seek to resolve marital conflicts, and if the situation becomes intolerable, separate as a purpose to provide opportunity to work towards a possible reconciliation. It is only when reconciliation is not possible that divorce and remarriage becomes permissible.
Addendum:
Verses 1-4 speak of giving a bill of divorcement, keriythuwth, # <3748>, “a cutting (of the matrimonial bond), i.e. divorce.” The husband was to give his wife the divorce and then “send her out of his house.” “Send” is, shalach, # <7971>, and means, “to send, or put away.” Some wrongly claim that to send, or put away are synonymous with divorce, but the fact that a wife can be put away without having been given a bill of divorcement clearly refutes that false teaching. There are many wives, even today, who are separated from their husbands, but not divorced.
In those days, only the men could put away their wives. The women were completely depended on the men for support. To send or put away their wives was very hard-hearted of them (Matt 19:8)! Giving the bill of divorcement is a merciful act allowed by God to dissolve the marriage so that the ex-spouse is free to marry another (verse 2). God, through Moses, made a provision for the women who were put away to dissolve their marriage by divorce so that they could re-marry and be supported.
Her latter, or present husband is referred to as iysh, # <376>, “a husband.” It is the same word as “Man” in Gen 2:23, referring to Adam from whose rib Eve was taken and she became his wife (Gen 2:24).
Her former, or ex-husband is referred to as baal, # <1167>, or ex “master, lord.” What a sharp contrast in these two words! Her first marriage had been absolutely dissolved. Otherwise, she would have committed adultery if she became another man’s wife, and both would have been stoned to death according to the Law (Lev 20:10; Deut 22:22; John 8:4-5)! No, God did not legalize sin by allowing for divorce!
Valerie Mello [in isolation, TN, USA] Comment added in 2012 Reply to Valerie
A reader writes: “While all scripture is given for our learning & God & Moses SUFFERED a bill of divorcement, it certainly was not right & Christ did NOT endorce it for the Jews or our times.”
My reply: Let me begin by saying the following is not intended to condone divorce, and Christ flatly denounced divorce for just "any cause," which the Pharisees and others were guilty of. Married couples especially those in Christadelphia must strive to make their marriage work because as couples their marriage ought to be a manifestation of Christ and his bride, but sometimes they do fail because of sinful flesh. It is something those responsible will have to give an account of at the judgment seat of Christ, and he will judge the situation since only he can because only he knows the thoughts and intents of the heart, not us. Divorce is not a sin. It is sin that leads to divorce. God would never give a law that was sinful, or as you put it, “not right,” not then, not now, nor would He give a law simply because He had to, which the word "suffered" is often interpreted to be. "Suffered" simply means He allowed it! It is # <2010>, epitrepo "to turn over (transfer), i.e. allow..."
The reader further writes regarding Deut 24:2:“…wife is in italics” - implying this word is not in the original text.
Reply: The ellipsis is merely supplied here. The context clearly reveals it is none other. It does not imply a girlfriend or concubine.
Reader: “Verse 1 IS uncleanness, verse 4 IS defiled. Now verse 4 says "AFTER THAT". After what? After verse 2, when she went to another (#312 -strange) man. She is NOT defiled in verse 1. A true marriage does not defile.
Reply: Uncleanness in verse 1 is # <6172>, ervah, “nudity… nakedness, shame, unclean (-ness).” Defiled in verse 4 is # <2930>, tame, “… to be contaminated… pronounce unclean.” Verse 4 is connected to verse 1 showing that if one is unclean, then one is defiled. It is not referring to the marriage; it is referring to a charge of an unfit condition brought against the wife. You ask, “After what?” concerning verse 4. My answer to that is after verse 1! Would God contradict Himself, or give permission to do something that would be defiling? The woman's remarriage was not defiling since she had married lawfully (verse 2). This law of prohibition in verse 4, if you will, concerned her first husband who divorced her in the first instance for some uncleanness (verse 1), and was, therefore, not permitted to take her back because of it! According to the Jewish Historian, Josephus, men divorced their wives, remarried and divorced for the dowries they received, and used any excuse to do so. It was "legal" adultery, and this whole concept of what they did was abominable in God's eyes and caused “the land to sin…” This latter part of verse 4 is so often over-looked.
Verse 2 does not say she went to an acher, "strange" man, but that "she may go and be another man's wife." In other words, it concerns a future marriage with a man whom she has not yet met.
Let me repeat: Her latter, or present husband is referred to as iysh, # <376>, “a husband.” It is the same word as “Man” in Gen 2:23, referring to Adam from whose rib Eve was taken and she became his wife (Gen 2:24).
Her former, or ex-husband is now referred to as baal, # <1167>, or ex “master, lord.” Her first marriage had been absolutely dissolved. Otherwise, she would have committed adultery if she became another man’s wife, and she would have been stoned to death according to the Law (Lev 20:10; Deut 22:22; John 8:4-5)! No, God did not legalize sin by allowing for divorce! The certificate of divorce had to be handed to the woman for her protection, that her former, or latter husband could not accuse her of adultery, which carried the death sentence, should she remarry. The certificate of divorce was clearly a humanitarian act that protected the women.
Why would God say in verse 2 that she may go and be another man's wife, and then in verse 4 say she has been defiled by remarrying? Does God give ordinances which then defile us? Absolutely not! Obviously, then, it cannot mean that.
Valerie Mello [in isolation, TN, USA] Comment added in 2012 Reply to Valerie
In the February issue of LOGOS Magazine, there is an article in it by Bro. Robert Roberts entitled, Understanding Romans Chapter 7. I recommend reading the article in its entirety. Robert Roberts acknowledges the passages as read in Rom 7 including vv. 1-4, as passages hard to be understood (2Pet 3:16). So then, if read vv. 1-4, as is, without its context, it would be a very simple and straight forward interpretation!
I quote: "There are statements in it that are only intelligible on a just apprehension of human nature in all its relations. Those who only grasp some of these, are baffled by some of those statements. It requires spiritual-mindedness to see their truth or understand them... The seventh chapter of Romans is particularly addressed 'to them that know the law {of Moses}' {v. 1}, because the argument to be employed was to hang on an illustration derived from the Law, and to relate to their position in reference to the Law. The first fact laid down is, that the jurisdiction of the Law over a man extended to the full term of his life. However long he might live, he could never reach an age when he would be free. 'The law hath dominion over a man so long as he liveth.' Death put an end to this dominion, for no law could reach dead men. This is illustrated by the case of a husband to whom a wife was bound so long as he lived, but at whose death she was free to be married to another. Her husband died really, and she died legally, to the law holding them in union as man and wife; and the woman was at liberty to form a new connection. Paul applies both features of the illustration to the case in hand: 'Ye, my brethren, are become dead to the Law.' How? 'By the body of Christ...'" (Highlight mine).
To understand these verses in their context according to those who know the Law, we need to understand the Law, and this takes us right back to Deut 24:1-4. We need to understand how Paul was transitioning them from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant.
Under the Old Covenant, Yahweh was Israel's (all 12 tribes) Husband (Isa 48:17, i.e. Redeemer/Husband; Isa 54:5). He divorced Israel, His bride (Jer 3:8), by this time - 10 tribes, but Yahweh did not divorce Judah and Benjamin, the remaining two tribes. Under the Law, God could not take back His divorced bride (Deut 24:4). We know Yahweh keeps His own Laws, and He could not take Israel back - hence, comes the New Covenant and Christ. Yahweh cannot die, so the law of the husband could only cease with the death of the redeemer/husband, Christ. Under the Law, the husband (Yahweh) could divorce his wife, but it is inconceivable that the wife would divorce the husband (Yahweh), and as with the spiritual, so it was with the natural. No Law was provided for the wife to divorce the husband!
Under Christ, their new husband, he could take back and make Israel his bride, and note in His New Covenant teachings, Christ re-iterated time and time again how he came to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel," i.e. the ten tribes to unite them all into him! Jerusalem was primarily the Kingdom of Yahudah (Judah) and Benjamin. Esther and Mordecai, Benjamites, saved natural Israel; the apostle Paul, a Benjamite, in his preaching as commissioned by Christ and through Christ, brought spiritual salvation to Israel (Rom 11:26).
But, I digress... According to the Law of the husband, Christ had to die. This opened the way for the 12 tribes, the House of Israel and the Kingdom of Yahudah (Judah) to be embraced together under the New Covenant as a bride under their new husband, the risen Christ.
Valerie Mello [in isolation, TN, USA] Comment added in 2016 Reply to Valerie
In light of continued disturbing information received on refusing fellowship to any divorced and remarried persons, or casting out those who would enter into the Kingdom, I feel compelled to write further on this topic. This issue was something the highly esteemed pioneer brethren Dr. John Thomas and Robert Roberts did not countenance and spoke against.
Let me begin by saying that these passages were not intended to be an “escape” clause. In its context, Deut 24:1-4 is not trying to define adultery as it is in trying to prohibit the mean treatment of the covenant partners who would be hated as a result of some uncleanness. It is the only significant law on divorce, which accounts for the debate among the Hebrews over the meaning of “… found some uncleanness in her,” an obscure Hebrew phrase, erwat dabar, which literally means "nakedness of a thing."
This was interpreted as a provision on behalf of the husband, and by so doing, the Pharisees presupposed that this Law was setting forth the right of the husband, and by identifying any kind of a problem with the wife, justified the husband putting her away. It was this aberrant teaching that Jesus intended to correct. It was not intended to annul the commandment, only its liberal Pharisaical school of Hillel’s interpretation of it. On the other hand, the conservative school of Shammai taught it was a man’s right to divorce, but limited it to a case of the wife committing something nearly equivalent to adultery. This school was also about the rights of men with little concern for the women.
Jesus did not come to abolish even the least of the Law, but meant to recover the Law in bringing out its fullness; nor did he come to make changes in it that would negate the least of its principles (Matt 5:18). His intent was solely to clarify the misunderstandings of these hard-hearted men who for “every cause,” (today it is known as “no fault”) divorced their spouses (Matt 19:3).
Would Jesus dare to forbid divorce what the Law allowed? Would he dare to say that a man who duly followed this Law in properly divorcing his wife and marrying another woman is in effect committing adultery? Would Jesus dare to teach that what the Law permitted and regulated is actually the sin of adultery? When we stop and think about what this involves, then Jesus’ prohibition of divorce and remarriage is nothing short of astounding! God would not have lowered His standard of righteousness in Moses’ day to accommodate sinful men.
Valerie Mello [in isolation, TN, USA] Comment added in 2017 Reply to Valerie
“When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her… after that she is defiled… and thou shalt not cause the land to sin.”
Not long after Adam and Eve sinned, Yahweh’s standard for marriage was violated and polygamy introduced (Gen 2:24; Gen 4:19). By the time of Moses, sending away, or divorcing their wives for just about anything was customary among the Israelites (cf. Deut 21:10-14; Exo 21:7-11). In Israel, only the husband was permitted to do this, and in many cases, it was because of the hardness of their hearts. It was for this reason the Law of Deut 24:1-4 was given.
Through the centuries, many debates ensued as to what some uncleanness is. The KJV 1611and NKJV have, “some uncleanness,” the NIV has, “something indecent,” the NLT has “something wrong,” the NLT and NASB have “some indecency,” the ISV has “something objectionable,” the NET has “something offensive,” and YLT has, “nakedness of anything.” None of the Bible translations are specific as to what it is and the Bible commentaries and Historians miss it altogether.
“Some uncleanness” in the Hebrew is ervah (# <6172>) dabar, (# <1696>) and occurs together in only one other place in Deut 23:13,14, where it is translated, “unclean thing.” Here it is used in a non-moral sense without any reference to defiling the land. The phrase literally means, “nakedness of a word/thing.” Uncleanness involved many different things. It could refer to forbidden marriages (Ezra 10:2,3,10,11; Neh 9:2; Neh 13:3,23-29, note v. 30). It involved marrying a close relative (Lev 18:6), or certain behaviours (Lev 18:7-20,25; Lev 20, note v. 22). What we need to look at are those behaviours that "cause the land to sin" - be defiled.
Deut 24:1-4 is actually one long sentence dealing with a hypothetical situation with its conclusion stated in v. 4. It is not a general discussion on divorce, but a hypothetical case given for divorce/ remarriage, divorce/death and the forbidden remarriage of the former spouse to the defiled and once hated wife. The conservative school of Shammai taught it only referred to adultery, while the liberal school of Hillel taught it could refer to anything no matter how trivial, like poor cooking. Christ corrected both schools of thought when he used the word, porneia, instead of moichao.
This Law deals with dishonouring one of Yahweh’s commands, and would have to be serious enough for the husband to now hate his wife (v. 3)! Lev 18 itemizes what defiles the land (cf. Lev 18:25,27,28). It refers to illicit sexual behaviours forbidden by Yahweh, and not all are directly punishable by death. We thus know this uncleanness is not about adultery, or any of the other behaviours, which were punishable by death (Lev 20:9-16; Deut 22:20-24). To claim that the wife was defiled because she was divorced and remarried and so could not return to her former husband because the land would then be defiled, or cause the land to sin, is a complete wresting of Scripture, which gave her permission to remarry (Deut 24:2)! Yahweh would not give permission to do anything that would defile anyone. It relates back to her former husband who divorced her for some uncleanness found out subsequent to their marriage that defiled her, then hated her for it, divorced her and, therefore, could not take her back again after he divorced her. If he did, this would be sin to him and cause the land to sin (v. 4). In this hypothetical case it is not specified what this uncleanness was and for good reason!
Some uncleanness in this text, therefore, encompasses varying aberrant sexual behaviours like pornography and not necessarily punishable by death. It is not without significance that Christ in addressing this text used the Greek word, porneia in both Matt 5:32 and Matt 19:9, and not moichao. Porneia involved any sexual impropriety and could include unfaithfulness, but not restricted to it. The term covers the widest possible circumstances. Christ knew this when he used the word, porneia when talking with the Pharisees. He did not change the Law in either adding or taking away from it (cf. Deut 4:2; Matt 5:18). What was removed was the curse of the Law. In John 12:49, we read: “For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.” “Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself [i.e. my own initiative]; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things” (John 8:28).
The Law did not embrace any loose interpretation to it, whatsoever. Christ reminded the Pharisees that this legal writ of divorce and remarriage was never Yahweh’s intention, though He gave the Law, let alone giving it a loose interpretation, as they did because of their hard-heartedness. How many other things recorded in the Bible are not the intended will of Yahweh for which regulations had to be introduced and enacted?
Valerie Mello [in isolation, TN, USA] Comment added in 2017 Reply to Valerie
The Rabbis during the days of Christ misused this Law, and it is being abused today too. This is human nature unchecked. Yahweh knew this, yet still provided this Law. It was not abrogated by Christ, nor did he absolve the protective rights given by the Father. The word Christ used for adultery did not limit it to marital infidelity, which is exactly in line with the Father's Law under the Old Covenant. The law of divorce was not just about divorce per se. It was brought about for protection from hard-hearted men who treated their women cruelly. This included abandonment, a form of cruelty, which the apostle Paul also addressed.
This fact, as to why divorce was given in the first place, is being completely ignored. It was not a license to divorce for any reason. The Mosaic laws of divorce and provision for protection were the other side of the coin of foundational values of home and family. If we do not diligently study what Moses and the Prophets had to say on this very issue, as given to them by Yahweh, Himself, we will neither understand, nor see the whole picture. Therefore, we will not believe what Christ and the apostle Paul truly taught (cf. Luke 16:31). We will just rationalize and compromise it away!
No matter how well intentioned, it is a grave mistake to force others into a mould of celibacy they were not meant to fit in; a talent not given them (Matt 19:10-12). It is a very dangerous and false teaching. Many have left the Truth as a result, and those responsible will be guilty of their blood (cf. Psa 51:14; Eze 3:18; 3:6-9). Still, I do believe that if those love the Truth sufficiently, they will keep the Truth and continue to run the race even if no one wants to fellowship them, and will not allow anyone to take away their crown (Rev 3:11). I would encourage them to stay in the Truth and not hide whatever talent they have been given, but use it (cf. Matt 25:18,24-30)!
Valerie Mello [in isolation, TN, USA] Comment added in 2017 Reply to Valerie
At the time of Christ, and even today, this was nearly the only passage being discussed in regards to divorce and remarriage, yet there were many other Laws God gave to protect women from these kind of hard-hearted, abusive men (cf. Exo 1:11,12; Exo 21:2-6,10,11; Num 30:9; Deut 22:13-21,28,29). God watched over the unloved women who found themselves in various precarious situations. This Law, as well as others God gave, shows the marriage bond is not insoluble and allowed for remarriage.
The Bible has much to say about the needs of protecting women and God gave Laws to this end to follow and obey, yet, we are to believe that these Moral Laws were done away in Christ; that there are no protective provisions for the wife against cruel, abusive, hard-hearted men, some who even attempt to kill their spouse! Oh, yes, she may separate, split up the family, and is responsible for herself and the children, and must deal with the hardships herself! S/he is never allowed to remarry despite the fact that Scripture says it is not good to be alone (Gen 2:18). How unloving, hard-hearted and cruel this stand is! This is nothing but of man’s devising. No, God is about LOVE, Christ is about LOVE, so much so that God sacrificed His Son in which the Son was a willing participant because of his love for his bride! They are the examples of what a true husband is all about and what husbands ought to be toward their wives (Eph 5:25; John 3:16; 1John 3:16). They did not and will not stand for any kind of cruelty, especially toward women – the weaker vessels (1Pet 3:7), while and at the same time leave us without any guidance.
God, our Father, gave protective Laws to His children because He knows about human weaknesses, and while issues differ today (eg. slavery), God reveals Himself, His mind, to us through them.The Moral Laws of God minus their judicial/civil commands are still applicable today. To believe, otherwise, is to believe that under God women had protective rights, but under Christ protective rights no longer exist! Such heresy can only exist among those who don the halo of a fanatical devotee of truth who make no allowances for human weaknesses. How unlike the God we serve!
The New Testament word for Law is nomos, # <3551>, “… law [of Moses…] also of the Gospel…” The word, Theonomy is Theos (God) and nomos (Law) - God is the Lawgiver, and His Word is His Law. We are ruled by Divine Law. The New Testament is as much God’s Law as the Old. The two are one harmonious union. But, it is as Christ said, if they don’t believe the writings of Moses and the prophets as given by God, neither will they believe him, Christ (Luke 16:31).
Valerie Mello [in isolation, TN, USA] Comment added in 2018 Reply to Valerie
Do vv. 1-3 fall under the Ceremonial or Civil Laws that relate to sacrificial offerings, festivals, regulations for priests, and regulations that govern personal behaviour with their prescribed punishments? No, they are not in either category, so what is left, but God’s Moral Law, and this has no expiry date.
Verse 4 is a Civil Law, the only restriction given. “Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin…” The prohibition was not against divorce and remarriage that had no civil prohibition or penalties attached to it.
The prohibition dealt with remarriage to the former husband, who divorced her for “some uncleanness.” It makes no sense for God to give permission for a divorce and remarriage under specific circumstances, and then brand the woman who lawfully remarried as defiled because of it! God is not the author of confusion (1Cor 14:33). The former husband is prohibited to take his former wife back, yet divorcing her in itself is not defiling, only her remarriage? Why would God allow a remarriage, and then proclaim it defiling?
The prohibition clearly involves the original couple not remarrying, and not from marrying another person. This begs the question, why? Being a Civil Law, Lev 8:1-30 sheds light on what defiled the woman. She either married a relative of her former husband, or a family member, or step-father, etc. defined by God as “uncleanness” that would cause the “land to sin,” or be "defiled" (Lev 18:24-28).
“Defiled,” # <2930> in Deut 24:4 is defined as “unclean,” in a "ceremonial or moral sense." Thus, reading her causing “the land to sin,” identified the gravity of the woman’s defilement. It was not the remarriage, but who she remarried that defiled her. It didn’t matter if the second husband divorced her or died, it was forbidden for the former husband to take back his former wife under their Civil Law. Being defiled, she defiles.
Deut 24:1-3 are case instructions: they are the conditions, the grounds and procedure for divorce (v. 1); the remarriage of the woman (v. 2); the divorce or the death of the second husband (v. 3). In v. 4, the word “not,” signals an actual Civil Law prohibition under which the land is caused to sin if disobeyed. Under Christ, this Civil Law no longer applies (Col 2:14), though in principle, it is not wise to remarry a former spouse where there is no evidence of repentance.
Valerie Mello [in isolation, TN, USA] Comment added in 2019 Reply to Valerie
We have in this chapter a law that allows a man to divorce his wife if he finds some "uncleanness" in her (Deut 24:1)
This law is so broad in its terms, finding favour, and "some blemish", that it led the students of the law in Jesus' day to ask the question:
..."Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?" (Mat 19:3 NKJV)
Jesus answers by reminding them that the overriding principle of marriage was established long before the law of moses, and it stipulated that a man was to leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife. This first principle obviously is being overlooked for one to consider divorce (Matt 19:4-6)
So the obvious question then is, why did the law say we could divorce?
"They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?" (Mat 19:7)
And the answer to this is, because the law had already said something else, that had in practice, brought out the very worst in human nature. Take a look at this, just a couple of chapters earlier:
"If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: ... But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you." (Deu 22:13-14, 20-21)
This is a hard law. Which of us, reading this, can say that we have no sin in this regard, and that we know of no-one who has sinned in this regard. If we were this husband, would we have put our wife out to public disgrace like this, and perhaps death?
It is a hard law, and whatever man would hold his wife accountable to such a law, would be a harsh man indeed.
And it is for the hardness of the men's hearts, that another law was given, the one in our chapter. A man could divorce his wife instead of putting her to open shame and having her stoned for "playing the harlot" out of wedlock.
But this is not the way it needed to be. Put yourself back into the shoes of that man. You marry a woman you think is a virgin, and then find that she is not. What would you do? Well, you could discuss the situation, and then forgive her. You could suggest that, her knowing you to be a merciful man, a loving man, that she could have told you this earlier. You might remark that you are not pristine yourself, and that you would be glad if she accepted you for what you are, warts and all.
Jesus knew that this was the right way to go about things, not least because of the example of his step-father Joseph. Here we have a complete worked example of a man working through in his mind which of these laws he was going to choose to use:
"Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily." (Mat 1:19)
The reference to being a "just man" refers to his heart not being hard. He didn't want to go through with the law in Deuteronomy 22, to make of her a public example, and to cause her death. The reference "put her away privily" shows what the law in Deuteronomy 24 was for. It was designed to allow a man a way out, so that he would cancel his marriage without fuss, without the public spectacle, and leaving the woman free to re-marry.
So notice that the new testament comments that it would have been unjust to put her to an open shame. It shows that what was desired in the law was for a man to be forgiving, and to consider the life of the one he loves. It shows that the law was designed to present this second option, and that a just man would go for that rather than the first.
But then the angel speaks to Joseph and tells him of the third way, the even better way:
"But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife ... Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:" (Mat 1:20, 24 KJV)
This was Jesus' example, the one he had grown up knowing about. It showed what the hard way was, what the just option was, and finally what love would motivate you to do. When the Pharisees came to Jesus and asked him about divorce, this is what Jesus was thinking about.
And so the final part of his answer. If it was not for the hardness of the husbands who could not forgive their wives, it was necessary for this second law to be created. If all men had been as loving as his step-father, then there would need to be no divorce law at all:
"He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so." (Mat 19:8)
Rob de Jongh [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2009 Reply to Rob
24:2 The provision here is what God is referring to – Jer 3:3– when He is speaking about the relationship of Israel. To Him.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2017 Reply to Peter
24:2 It is the man, not the woman, who has a problem with the relationship spoken of here. So, not surprisingly, the woman is free to marry. But notice -:4 – the first husband cannot take her back to be his wife. He suffers the consequences of his hard hearted actions.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2023 Reply to Peter
V.4 We are told in this verse that if the woman be not defiled by another man, she may be received back again. Although divorced, Israel has not married again. For two thousand years the nation has been without true religion, yet neither has it gone into apostasy.
John Wilson [Toronto West (Can)] Comment added in 2004 Reply to John
24:4 The way that these marriage issues are detailed here actually have a relevance to the whole nation in terms of their worship. The prophet –Jer 3:1 – associated causing the land to be polluted with the words here.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2018 Reply to Peter
v.5 - What do we think to this as a principle of living then? Does anyone know anyone who has done it?
Peter [UK] Comment added in 2002 Reply to Peter
“When a man hath taken a new wife, he shall not go out to war, neither shall he be charged with any business: but he shall be free at home one year, and shall cheer up his wife which he hath taken.”
This Law is often referred to as a “miscellaneous law,” but it is anything but that! This Law was God’s way of honouring and blessing the marriage covenant in an effort to preserve the sanctity of marriage. Newly married men were exempt from military and other state services for one year so they could stay at home, grow in their love one to another, procreate, and be happy with one another.
This Law contained the provision for strengthening marriages and guard against divorce. Provision was made for the preservation of their love, and fitly follows after the Law concerning divorce. It is very important to prevent divorce and that love be kept up between the husband and wife. God wants couples to love one another, enjoy one another, be happy with one another, and stay with one another (1Pet 3:7). To do this they must continue to build their relationship. If anything, this Law was a compassionate law.
Valerie Mello [in isolation, TN, USA] Comment added in 2012 Reply to Valerie
24:5 The instruction given here regarding the man who has recently married makes clear that the provision found in 20:7 is not simply an offer to that man that he may, if he wishes, not go to battle. Here it is clearly a command making it clear that the provision in 20:7 is actually a command. Further the extent of the consequences of the marriage extend beyond going to war.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2024 Reply to Peter
V.6 Corn was ground daily. The upper millstone lay snugly on top of the lower millstone. There was a small aperture in the top stone in which to pour the corn to be ground. If one of these stones were to be taken as a pledge, the owner would be deprived of his daily food supply.
V.7 Kidnapping carried the death penalty under the Law. In modern western law, convicted kidnappers are given jail terms.
Vs.10-13 Kindness, consideration, and respect for the dignity are shown to the borrower. A poor man’s cloak was the only covering that he would have for the night.
Vs.14,15 In the Ancient Near East hired servants were paid at the end of each day (Matt 20:2). To withhold payment would present hardship for a servant and his family.
V.16 See Eze 18:14-20.
Michael Parry [Montreal (Can)] Comment added in 2009 Reply to Michael
Charles Link, Jr. [Moorestown, (NJ, USA)] Comment added in 2009 Reply to Charles
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2019 Reply to Peter
Apart from Yahweh's demonstration (Exo 4:6), Miriam's was the first recorded incident of leprosy (Num 12:10). For her to be recovered and to be accepted back into the community, she first had to be separated (Num 12:14,15). The reminder of Miriam concerning leprosy and Israel (vs.8,9), conveyed the need for separation and cleansing before being received back into the community.
The same procedure applies to someone who has greatly erred in the ecclesia of Christ. Sometimes a separation is needed from the offending party for him/her to re-consider his/her responsibility in the offending matter, to seek forgiveness (cleansing), and be received back into fellowship (community).
Michael Parry [Montreal (Can)] Comment added in 2005 Reply to Michael
24:8-9 Whereas leprosy may be seen as a condition that chances upon a man when we read the laws regarding cleansing in Leviticus when comment about leprosy here which is then developed into ‘remember Miriam’ causes us to appreciate that leprosy stands for sin. The leprosy that came upon Miriam was an outward manifestation of what was going on in her heart. Leprosy, therefore, was to remind Israel that mankind were sinners.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2008 Reply to Peter
24:8 The call to “remember the plague of “leprosy” does not indicate that this human condition is worse than any other event that could happen to Israel. It is one event which required careful observance of what the priest said and did in order that one could be ceremonial clean. In like manner everything that God taught should be observed so carefully.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2022 Reply to Peter
24:10-11 Human society would teach that a man had a right to collect the pledge. However, out of respect to the debtor, the one to whom the debt was owed had to rely on the integrity of the one in debt. The inference is that if the debtor did not bring the pledge out then the one waiting for the pledge would just have to accept that the pledge was not going to be handed over.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2006 Reply to Peter
24:12 In saying that the one who has taken a pledge of a debtor should not 'sleep with his pledge' the requirements of Exo 22:26 are being re-stated.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2004 Reply to Peter
24:13 Observing the requirements of the law would be “righteousness unto thee” which explains why Jesus – Matt 5:20 – told the disciples that their righteousness was to exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees. They sought the praise of men. The disciples “righteousness” was to be done in secret.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2013 Reply to Peter
24:15 The principle behind this verse is that we should have total integrity. We do not wait to pay our bills until the final demand arrives. We should not put off until tomorrow what we should do today.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2007 Reply to Peter
24:15 It was normal for hired servants to be paid at the end of each day (Matt 20:8). For a master to defraud the labourer of his hire, or to withhold his wages for the night was contrary to the law (Lev 19:13). It could, or would have put the worker and his family to a very difficult time. The hired servant was for the most part both poor and needy.
John Wilson [Toronto West (Can)] Comment added in 2007 Reply to John
24:15 'lest ... unto the Lord' is a fundamental principle, that God will intervene for the oppressed wronged by a brother. Though the intervention may not be immediate. This principle passes into New Testament use – James 5:4
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2010 Reply to Peter
The principle of v15 is very hard to apply in today's society. The norm in business is to pay within 30 or 60 day terms. Business theory will tell you to leave off paying your creditors as long as possible, and obtain money from you debtors as soon as possible so that you can trade with the cash you have in hand. But applying God's principles is the wisest course of action in the end. We should be careful, where possible, not to be influenced by the worlds way of doing business which leads to the poverty and misery we can see around us.
Rob de Jongh [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2010 Reply to Rob
24:15 hat a man’s “hire” was to be paid at the end of the day is the basis for what the wise man is inspired to say – Prov 3:28.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2015 Reply to Peter
:16 Every man is responsible for his own sins. Some have seen a problem when comparing this verse with the way that God visits iniquity to the 'third and fourth generation' (Exodus 20:5 etc). There is no contradiction. The Exodus reference to the generation which died in Egypt because of their rebellion (Eze 20:8) and the fourth generation is that which fell in the wilderness because of their rebellion (Eze 20:21).
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2003 Reply to Peter
24:16 This law of personal responsibility for one’s own sins is the basis for the comment in Prov 5:22 and was appealed to by Amaziah – 2Chron 25:4
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2012 Reply to Peter
REMEMBER AND GIVE
On remembering that they were slaves in Egypt, Israel were given a responsibility to have compassion on those who were in the same situation as they had been in. God said, "Do not deprive the alien or the fatherless of justice, or take the cloak of the widow as a pledge. Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the LORD God redeemed you from there. That is why I command you to do this." (Deut 24:17-18) And when Israel harvested their crops they were to leave some and not go back and check the harvest a second time in order that the poor could find something to eat. "Leave what remains for the alien, the fatherless and the widow. Remember that you were slaves in Egypt. That is why I command you to do this." (v.21,22)
We were not slaves in Egypt, but we were sinners, separated, or alienated, from the promises of God, without God as our father and without Christ as our husband. When we remember this and think about the sad, hopeless state we were in before we were brought to God, it should fill us with compassion for those in the same position.
Let us give those who are alienated from God, who do not have the LORD as their father, and are not in a relationship with Christ, the same blessings of hope we have been given. Remember and Give.
Robert Prins [Auckland - Pakuranga - (NZ)] Comment added in 2007 Reply to Robert
24:17 whilst we may behave well towards our friends and family we may be less concerned to show right behaviour to those who are not family. Just as God provides for both godly and ungodly people –Matt 5:45 - so should we not be partial in the way we treat others.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2016 Reply to Peter
24:18 There are four occasions in Deuteronomy (15:15 16:12 24:18 22) when Israel were told to remember that they were bondmen in Egypt. The fact that they were bondmen was to help them to appreciate that they had to keep the ordinances of the Lord.
Likewise we should appreciate that we were bondmen to sin and, now being redeemed, we should serve our redeemer.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2002 Reply to Peter
1. Deut 24:18 - we are all slaves in bondage to sin in a world of sin, but we can be redeemed through the shed blood of Jesus.
2. Deut 24:19;James 1:27;Psa 41:1 - pure religion cares for the most vulnerable members of society.
Charles Link, Jr. [Moorestown, (NJ, USA)] Comment added in 2013 Reply to Charles
v.19 - 21 This provision forced the Israelite to be conscious of the needs of the disadvantaged in the community. What practical things we can find in our own communal lives to forces this point into our consciousness?
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2001 Reply to Peter
The law of gleaning (Deut 24:19-22) was a wonderful provision for the stranger, the fatherless and the widow. God didn't decree communism, but He did encourage a welfare state.
David Simpson [Worcester (UK)] Comment added in 2004 Reply to David
24:19 An example of this requirement of the law being kept – and exceeded – is seen in the way in which Boaz considered the needs of Ruth as can be seen in Ruth 2:16
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2014 Reply to Peter
24:21 Notice the connection – take care of the stranger. This is exactly what Israel was. We likewise should remember that we were once strangers from God’s promises so should be willing to share them with others who are strangers from those promises.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2021 Reply to Peter
24:22 Having been in bondage Israel should have appreciated the circumstances of others in the same position. We, likewise, should be able to empathise with those not in Christ who have problems and do not see the real reason. We should try and be supportive, not condemnatory.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2011 Reply to Peter
4:1 Whilst we probably would not think to describe a woman's hair as like 'goat's hair' we should not let our western attitude mould our thoughts. Goat's hair was used in the construction of the coverings in the tabernacle Exo 26:7
The things of God are lovely to those who love Him but to the world's eyes they are unappealing.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2004 Reply to Peter
V.1-5 The King commends the beauty of the Bride, listing seven points of beauty.
EYES
|
|
HAIR
|
|
TEETH
|
|
LIPS
|
|
TEMPLES
|
|
NECK
|
|
brEASTS
|
John Wilson [Toronto West (Can)] Comment added in 2004 Reply to John
The 5th Song runs from Song 3:6-4:7. The first part is a conversation among the bride's companions, then she speaks of the beauty of her Beloved in Song 3:11. The King then rejoices over His bride in Song 4:1-7. He declares her to be perfect - obviously a symbol of the saints who have passed the Judgment Seat, and who will share the kingdom with King Jesus.
David Simpson [Worcester (UK)] Comment added in 2005 Reply to David
4:2 The bearing of twins – something that shepherds seek for in their sheep – is a metaphor here for fruitfulness.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2010 Reply to Peter
Charles Link, Jr. [Moorestown, (NJ, USA)] Comment added in 2013 Reply to Charles
1. Song 4:1 - the bridegrooms praise of the bride (Prov 31:10).
2. Song 4:3 - "thy lips are like a thread of scarlet" (Gen 38:28-30;Josh 2:18).
3. Song 4:3 - "piece of pomegranate" - the inner red pulp (sacrifice) and white (righteousness) fruit seeds relating to the members of the multitudinous bride of Christ can be seen in the inner beauty of the fruit (Rev 7:14;19:8).
4. Song 4:5 - the bride is fully developed and matured. Two breasts perhaps relate to the old and new covenants or the two families of Jew and Gentile, additionally we have the concept of the milk of the word (1Pet 2:2) feeding and nourishing spiritually, spiritual nutriment is from those of like precious faith in fellowship with Christ.
5. Song 4:6 - "Until the day break" - pointing to the future day of glory, the day of the marriage.
6. Song 4:6 - "myrrh"<4753> - signifies bitterness and may be symbolic of sacrificial death (Song 1:13;Matt 2:11;John 19:39-40;1Tim 1:15).
7. Song 4:6 - "frankincense"<3828> - is the symbol of prayer (Lev 6:15;Psa 141:2;Rev 5:8;8:3;Luke 1:10).
8. Song 4:7;Eph 5:27 - "there is no spot in thee" - every sin has been purged away.
9. Song 4:8 - "Lebanon"(<3844> means "white") was originally promised to people of Israel (Gen 15:18).
10. Song 4:8 - "Amana"<549> same as <548>.
11. Song 4:9 - Christ is the elder brother of the multitudinous bride.
12. Song 4:11 - the garments of the bride are white and pure (Rev 19:8;7:14).
13. Song 4:12 - "inclosed"(<5274> barred, shut) is my sister thus speaking of the state of virginity before marriage - this refers to the purity of the ecclesial bride but also is a literal lesson for us that we are to be virginal entering into marriage and faithful to our spouse.
14. Song 4:15 - "a well of living waters" (John 4:14;7:37-39).
15. Song 4:16 - "Awake, O north wind; and come, thou south; blow upon my garden" (Eze 38:15).
16. Song 4:16 - "Let my beloved come into his garden" - the bride prays for the Messiah to come.
Charles Link, Jr. [Moorestown, (NJ, USA)] Comment added in 2013 Reply to Charles
4:1-7 Faithful individuals like Abraham are counted righteous – Gen 15:6 – and as such God views them differently from the way he sees those who do not have faith. In like manner here the bridegroom describes his bridge in an idealistic way. Not that she is not like that but that she has these qualities because she has “faith” and so is counted to have these qualities. It is striking that some of the qualities of her appearance echo descriptions of elements of the tabernacle and associated worship. The bridge has those characteristics because the things of God are her prime focus. Does that describe you and I?
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2021 Reply to Peter
4:1-5 do we think that Jesus might describe us like this now? We should be able to answer “yes” for this is the bridegroom describing his bride and that bridegroom is Christ and we are the bride.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2022 Reply to Peter
4:1-5 When speaking of a woman “fair” might be taken to indicate attractive physical appearance. However that is not the focus here. It is the qualities she has which reflect aspects of worship in the tabernacle. Do we look for the physical attractiveness of the spiritual mind in a partner?
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2023 Reply to Peter
4:2 Usually many sheep bear only one lamb, some bear twins. However there are some sheep every year which bear no young at all. This pattern marks fruitfulness. 2Pet 1:8 tells us that we need to adhere to godly qualities if we do not want to be barren or unfruitful in God’s eyes.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2019 Reply to Peter
4:3 The ‘comely’ speech is not just a pleasant voice. The comeliness is seen in the words that are used. How do we think the Father views the words that we use?
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2009 Reply to Peter
4:3 The bride is speaking of the groom when she says his speech is “comely”. This is how Christ is described – Psa 45:2 – when we read of grace in his lips. Do we make ourselves attractive to Christ by our speech?
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2018 Reply to Peter
4:3 We might not think that there is anything particularly significant in the phrase thread of scarlet” but the only mentions of a scarlet thread elsewhere in scripture relate to the deliverance of Rahab – Josh 2:18 – and two occasions – Gen 38:28,30 – concerning the birth of the twins to Tamar. This use in Genesis 38 sets the scene for the deliverance of Rahab as the men who went to deliver Rahab can be traced back to these two sons on Tamar.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2024 Reply to Peter
Consider these links with Proverbs 5 and 7
4:5 | Two breasts | Prov 5:19 |
4:11 | Lips drop as an honeycomb | Prov 5:3 |
4:14 | Cinnamon | Prov 7:17 |
4:14 | Myrrh Aloes | Prov 7:17 |
Whilst the bridegroom can view the bridge in loving terms Proverbs shows us that the harlot can portray the same characteristics. We might think we are Godly but it may be that our life belies what we claim.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2002 Reply to Peter
V.5 Compare this description with that of the virtuous woman (wisdom) of Prov 5:19.
V.11 From virtuous lips and tongue one would expect to emanate agreeable words (Prov 16:24). One should be cautioned that the words from an evil, flattering woman can also be sweet (Prov 5:3).
Michael Parry [Montreal (Can)] Comment added in 2009 Reply to Michael
4:5 The way in which the woman is described by the bride groom echoes the sentiments of Prov 5:19 where the young man is to be faithful to his wife.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2012 Reply to Peter
4:6 The day break when there are no shadows is the likeness of the resurrection morning. Thus the woman sees the final consummation of her love at the resurrection.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2013 Reply to Peter
4:6 The similarity of language here to Song 2:7 is striking. Both passages look to the time of the resurrection
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2017 Reply to Peter
4:7 In speaking of the bride as having ‘no spot’ we see words which Paul uses – Eph 5:27 – when speaking of the believers as the bride of Christ.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2011 Reply to Peter
4:7 Doubtless we would all say that we see no fault in Jesus. But do we feel the same way about his teaching as given in the New Testament letters? For example do we pay our dues without complaining? – Rom 13:7
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2020 Reply to Peter
Peter [UK] Comment added in 2002 Reply to Peter
4:8 Mount Hermon is here styled ‘Amana’ and ‘Shenir’ these are two alternative names for Hermon and are what other nations called Hermon . Shenir is the name that the Amorites used Deut 3:9. Amana is related to the river that the Syrians spoke of 2Kin 5:12. The bride is to be associated with gentiles as well as Jews. So we see the call of the gentiles to the marriage.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2006 Reply to Peter
V.8 The Amorite name for Mt. Hermon is Senir. But here we see Hermon and Senir listed as two distinct mountains. It is probable that Senir pertains to a certain part of the Hermon range. If we consider the context of Eze 27:5, Senir would be placed towards Lebanon.
Amana could be associated with either the River Abana or Mt. Amanus in northern Syria.
Michael Parry [Montreal (Can)] Comment added in 2008 Reply to Michael
A PERFECT brIDE
One of the terms that the lover in the Song of Songs uses as he speaks to his beloved is to call her, “My Bride.” (Song 4:8,9,10,12). The term, “My Bride” is a very beautiful one, especially when we begin to understand the implications behind the Hebrew word that is used.
The word translated Bride comes from the Hebrew word meaning “perfect” or “to make perfect.” There are two aspects to this. Firstly, when God created Adam, he also created Eve to be his suitable helper and to make up for the parts that Adam lacked. Together, Adam and Eve made “one flesh.” They were joined together by God to be complete and perfect.
The second aspect is shown in the way Christ loves the church, his bride. “Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.” (Eph 5:25-27). We, as the bride of Christ, are being made perfect by him.
We also read that by Christ’s sacrifice, “he has made perfect for ever those who are being made holy.” (Heb 10:14).
So as husbands and wives, let’s complete each other and strive for perfection together. And let’s also grow in godliness under the guidance of Jesus Christ to be part of the perfected bride when he returns.
Robert Prins [Auckland - Pakuranga - (NZ)] Comment added in 2024 Reply to Robert
Vs.9,10,12 show that the husband's wife is also considered his sister. Abraham claimed Sarah to be his sister to the King of Gerar (Gen 20:2) (she was literally his half-sister Gen 20:12). Isaac also claimed the same status for Rebekah, also in Gerar (Gen 26:7,9). Jacob married two sisters (Leah and Rachel) who figured prominently in the development of the twelve tribes. Thus, the patriarchs of the early ecclesia had sister/wife involvements.
Marriages in the first century ecclesia (and beyond) clearly involved sister/wife relationships (1Cor 9:5). The relationship of husband and wife mirror Christ and His ecclesia. The fact that the wife is also a sister would indicate that the ecclesia is also a sister to Christ.
Michael Parry [Montreal (Can)] Comment added in 2004 Reply to Michael
v.11 The use of the 'honeycomb' in Scripture is interesting. Consider these uses.
Psalm 19:10 The Word of God is like an honeycomb
Proverbs 5:3 The strange woman is like an honeycomb
Proverbs 16:24 Pleasant words are like an honeycomb
here The bride is like a honeycomb
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2001 Reply to Peter
4:11 In speaking of the smell of the garments of the bride we see a contrast with Isaac – Gen 27:27 – where he was aiming to deceive. Our Bride Groom cannot be deceived.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2007 Reply to Peter
4:11 The garments that smell of Lebanon is echoed in repentant Israel – Hos 14:6 – indicating the odour of redemption.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2008 Reply to Peter
4:11 The tongue of the bride is seen in stark contrast to the wicked person as described in Psa 10:7 where the poison of asps is under the tongue
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2016 Reply to Peter
v. 16 - Gardens go right through Scripture, from start to finish - Eden - Gen.2:8-9, Ahab's herb garden - 1Kings 21:2, Royal Gardens in various places - 2Kings 21:18, Esther 1:5, The garden of Joseph of Arimathea - John 19:41, The garden of Gethsemane - John 18:1. See also Isa.5:1-7, Song 4:12, 5:1, 6:2,11. Beware because Israel was an empty vine - Hos.10:1 - don't be like that.
Roger Sharpe [Derby Bass Street (UK)] Comment added in 2001 Reply to Roger
:14 Myrrh and Aloes occur rarely together in Scripture - Psalm 45:8 Proverbs 7:17 and John 19:39. The link with Psalm 45 - a Psalm of the resurrection - shows that here we are looking at the bride prospectively in the kingdom, having been raised from the dead.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2003 Reply to Peter
In Psa 37:7-8 we read of those who love the Lord, being hidden under the shadow of His wings. In v9 that it is here that the rivers of life may be found. In Jer 2:13 we read of Israel forsaking God, the fountain of living water, and turning instead to idols.
This water we read of in Song 4:15 is the same living water. Here we find it shut up in the garden which is used to describe the beloved woman. She had that water of life within her. Eze 16:9 has the same water. Here it was used to give life to a young baby girl, passed by on the road and taken pity on by the one who became her husband. She is described as being "polluted in (her) own blood". She is an abandoned baby, cast into a field without even having her navel tied, or her body washed or swaddled (v4). The rest of the chapter describes her as she becomes the same beautiful woman described here in Songs (Eze 16:7-14). In v8-9 she is washed clean and becomes her husband's. The covenant they entered is described by the action of the husband, who spread his skirt over her and covered her nakedness; the same action as hiding under his wings.
God is the husband, and His people Israel are the girl. The marriage covenant was them declaring to Him "all the things you command we will do" at Sinai when they became His people. During the rest of the chapter we see how they turned away from him, and "forsook the fountain of living waters", rather than keeping them within the garden.
Israel is but an example on a national scale of those who belong to God. We may all hide under the shadow of His wings. We may all have our nakedness covered, our sins washed away by the living waters. We may all enter into a covenant with Him. We may all love Him as best we are able. In Heb 10:16-22 we have described in exactly the same terms as in Ezekiel 16 the way in which we may draw near to God through Christ.
The natural feelings we are born with are all designed by God to teach us something about him, when we direct them in a proper manner. The intense feeling of Love, pity, and tenderness we can feel for a spouse is there primarily to demonstrate how God feels for those who Love and serve Him. It is when we realise this that we can fully comprehend how impossible it is for God to leave or forsake us. It is impossible for God to condemn us once we have His Love and remain in it. We may well know the verses which tell us what the gospel is, but it's not until we start thinking of God in these terms that we can really feel pitied, loved, and saved by Him. The links from the Song of Solomon to the passages speaking of God's love are too numerous for us to avoid, and we ought to think of the song in this way if we are at all able.
Rob de Jongh [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2004 Reply to Rob
4:15 “living waters” are associated in Scripture with blessing – Jer 2:13, Zech 14:8, John 4:10
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2014 Reply to Peter
4:16 The south wind brings heat – Luke 12:55– so we see the request that the summer would come to ripen the crops.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2015 Reply to Peter
BURNING SCROLLS
The campaign in Ephesus brought about a number of converts who had to make a massive turn-around in their lives. They were people who had practiced sorcery and it seems that they had been very devoted to their evil practice because the value of their scrolls came to fifty thousand drachmas (50000 days pay, or 137 years pay).
When they devoted themselves to Christ and repented of their past acts they brought their scrolls together and burned them publicly. This meant that there was no turning back to their old way of life - even if they had wanted to. They could not get their old books back and could not afford the money to buy them back. They were committed to a new and Godly Christian life. What they did was a great step of faith, but one that will be rewarded at the return of Christ.
In the same way there must be no turning back to our old way of life once we have committed ourselves to Christ. Just as the sorcerers burnt all their scrolls, so we too must remove every temptation from our lives that might drag us back to where we came from. So let us burn the ties and temptations from our old way of life and dedicate ourselves in faith, wholly and completely, to our Lord Jesus Christ.
Robert Prins [Auckland - Pakuranga - (NZ)] Comment added in 2002 Reply to Robert
18:8 We read that Crispus who was the chief ruler of the synagogue believed. Later in 18:17 we see that Sosthenes was the chief ruler. Was Crispus forced to resign his role because of his new belief?
You can also see some historical consistency. We read in 18:2 that Claudius had expelled all the Jews from Rome indicating they were out of favour ion the empire. This may explain the total disregard that Gallo, the deputy had for the Jews when they brought Paul to the judgement seat.
19:1-3 These men who were baptized into the baptism of John were probably disciples of Apollos who first began his preaching in Ephesus 18: 24 preaching the baptism of John.
Alex Browning [Kitchener-Waterloo] Comment added in 2009 Reply to Alex
Acts 19:27 Ephesus was the city of the great goddess Diana (Artemis) and all the world worshipped her. It is very interesting that in 431 AD atthe Council of Ephesus that Mary was officially confirmed as the Mother of God in the Catholic Church and all other teaching that she was anything less was banned by the Pope and the Emperor. This started the official worshipping of Mary by Catholics. Seems Demetrius had nothing to worry about, Diana of the Ephesians continues to be great and the sale of artifacts of Mary continues to be strong.
Alex Browning [Kitchener-Waterloo] Comment added in 2015 Reply to Alex
18:26 Aquila and Priscilla show an example of a Christ like home. They quietly and privately correct Apollos, they also showed hospitality to Paul, Silas, and Timothy. Acts 18:1; 5
John Wilson [Toronto West (Can)] Comment added in 2004 Reply to John
Spare a minute to look at Aquila and his wife Priscilla. Here in Acts 18:1,2 Paul met them in Corinth, as they had recently been forced to leave Rome. In 1Cor 16:19 this couple were with Paul (probably in Ephesus, see 1Cor 16:8). They sent their love to the Corinthians. And they also had a church, or ecclesia, meeting in their house. Then when Paul wrote to the Romans they had gone back to Rome, and once again had a church in their house (Rom 16:3-5). What a lovely hospitable couple they were!
David Simpson [Worcester (UK)] Comment added in 2006 Reply to David
18:21 Acknowledging that our actions are determined by the Lord's will is seen in King David. 2Samuel 15:25,26 and restated by his son Solomon Proverbs 19:21 Jeremiah draws the attention of those who would speak falsely to the fact that Yahweh determines actions. Lamentations 3:37 This clear Old Testament concept then passes into New Testament use being seen first in the Lord Luke 22:42 And then in the apostles Acts 18:21 Romans 1:10 15:32 1Corinthians 4:19 16:7 Hebrews 6:3
19 v.3 The mention of individuals who had been baptised of John show that John Baptist's message went further than just the borders of the land of Israel. So we might conclude that the preaching of Jesus was known of in the Roman world outside Jerusalem as well before the Apostles began their preaching.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2001 Reply to Peter
18:3 Paul was entitled to 'live of the gospel' (1Cor 9:14) however this little comment about him being a tentmaker and practising that craft shows that he supported himself as far as he could.
19:21 The detail of journeyings mentioned here helps us to date the writing of the letter to the Romans Rom 15:25 refers to this time.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2004 Reply to Peter
18:3 We can draw a comparison between Peter and Paul. Peter was a fisherman and became a fisher of men. Paul was a tentmaker and became a builder of tabernacles for the Gentiles.
John Wilson [Toronto West (Can)] Comment added in 2005 Reply to John
18:3 Paul worked to pay his way. It would have been reasonable for others to pay his way as he was fully occupied in the work of the Lord (1Cor 9:7-9). But, he declined (1Cor 9:15).
19:5 This confirms the necessity to be baptized in Jesus in order to be part of Him and His work. After baptism the disciples preached in the synagogue. Their topic was the kingdom of God (19:8). Thus, we see the two elements of the gospel that must be understood for salvation, namely: The kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 8:12).
19:19 The value of the sorcery scrolls which were burned is stated at fifty thousand drachmas. (The Greek drachma was a silver coin having the same value as the Roman denarius, also a silver coin that had the image of Caesar stamped on one side (Luke 20:24). One denarius was the daily wage given to labourers and Roman soldiers (Matt 20:2). Thus, the precious ointment which was used to anoint the Lord Jesus was worth about one year's wages (John 12:5). And so, by the same calculation, the sorcerers scrolls were worth about 140 years' wages.
Michael Parry [Montreal (Can)] Comment added in 2009 Reply to Michael
18:4 The gospel is something that is logical. It can be reasoned from Scripture. This is a significant element of the way that the preaching of the gospel is presented in Acts.
<1256>
Acts 17:2 reasoned
Acts 17:17 disputed
Acts 18:4 reasoned
Acts 18:19 reasoned
Acts 19:8 disputing
Acts 19:9 disputing
Acts 20:7 preached
Acts 20:9 preaching
Acts 24:12 disputing
Acts 24:25 reasoned
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2013 Reply to Peter
18 v.5,6 - Here is Paul acting out the role of the watchman for Israel - Eze. 33:1-5. Yet again they heard the sound of the trumpet but took not warning. Paul was acting in accordance with Eze.33:6, and therefore says 'Your blood be upon your own heads - I am clean'.
Peter [UK] Comment added in 2001 Reply to Peter
18:5 The encouragement of other is most valuable. We can be willing to do a work but sometimes need the encouragement of others to stimulate us to do the work. Now whilst we are not suggesting that Paul lacked motivation we do notice that the arrival of others to help in the work caused meant the work was expanded.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2009 Reply to Peter
Acts 18:6 'Your blood be upon your own heads' was a pretty mean phrase. Consider these passages: Lev 20:9,11,12, 2Sam 1:16, Eze 18:13
Peter [UK] Comment added in 2004 Reply to Peter
18:6 ‘Your blood be upon your own head’ quotes Lev 20:9
19:1 This chapter marks the beginning of Paul’s third missionary journey, as it is called.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2006 Reply to Peter
18:6 It might seem strange to say that the Jews ‘opposed themselves’ but in reality that is what happens when one opposes the gospel message. The only person to suffer is the one who opposes – he rejects the offer of eternal life.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2008 Reply to Peter
Acts 18:6 In saying 'from henceforth I will go to the gentiles' Paul is not saying that he will never preach to the Jews. In every city Paul first appealed to the Jews and when they rejected the word of God he spoke the message to gentiles. In fact it is a recurring phrase in Acts (13:46, 22:21, 26:17. 28:28)
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2003 Reply to Peter
18:6 The Jews had entered into a covenant with God. The covenant required them to do all that God had said unto them. Paul presented the gospel message to them, consequently as it was God’s word the Jews were obligated to respond to is by accepting the message. Because they did not then the judgment that they were responsible for their own death followed because that was the agreement that Israel had made with God.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2023 Reply to Peter
18:8 Crispus was one of the two people that Paul baptised in Corinth – 1Cor 1:14. Probably an indication that he was one of the very first baptisms in Corinth.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2012 Reply to Peter
18:17 Whether Sosthenes was baptised at this time or not we do not know. Probably not, though we know he became a brother – 1Cor 1:1 –As leader of the synagogue he as supposed to represent the Jews but, as a consequence of the preaching – and maybe the beating also – became a brother.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2018 Reply to Peter
Wes Booker [South Austin Texas USA] Comment added in 2013 Reply to Wes
18:20 I suppose it was always the case the when Paul had been with an ecclesia that the believers wanted him to stay longer with them. After all, they may have reasoned, he was a free agent and could decide for himself what he did. It must have been an appealing idea to stay with believers who were supportive rather than move on to an unknown environment. However Paul seems to have put the work of preaching first before his own comfort. Are we so dedicated?
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2014 Reply to Peter
18:24-25 The mention of Apollos and his understanding of the gospel because of John’s baptism is an indication of the far reaching impact that John’s short period of preaching had.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2015 Reply to Peter
QUIET INSTRUCTION
Apollos was a powerful speaker. He had taught many people about Jesus even though he only knew of the baptism of John. Apollos happened to arrive and begin to teach in the same synagogue that Aquila and Priscilla were attending.
Aquila and Priscilla were also believers in Jesus, but they had a more thorough understanding about Jesus than that which Apollos had. They could have entered into a debate with Apollos right then and there as he taught the people in the synagogue, but Aquila and Priscilla chose not to. If they had done so they may well have put many of the listeners off as they wondered whether even Christians could agree among themselves At the same time they would have pulled into disrepute the character and authority of Apollos in any teaching he did there later on.
Instead, Aquila and Priscilla did a very wise thing. "They invited him to their home and explained to him the word of God more adequately." (Acts 18:26) In this way Apollos did not lose face in front of those he was teaching, but understood the message even better, and those he taught would have benefited even more from his lessons.
So let's follow the example of Aquila and Priscilla and open our homes in private to those who need encouragement, reproof or instruction. In this way no one needs to lose face and the word of God can spread more effectively.
Robert Prins [Auckland - Pakuranga - (NZ)] Comment added in 2010 Reply to Robert
18:26 Apollos, having a limited knowledge of the gospel, was bold in his preaching. He must have known that those who preached about Jesus suffered persecution in the Roman world – nevertheless he preached. His conviction produced actions. Is the same true of ourselves?
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2016 Reply to Peter
19:6 Here we have Divine confirmation that Paul was an apostle because it was only through the laying on of the hands of the apostles that the holy spirit was conferred – Acts 8:18
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2010 Reply to Peter
ch.18 - This time in Paul's work must have been very rewarding. For 18 months he is working and getting a response in Corinth and then he moved on and got a further great response in Ephesus.
19:7 We often lament that we are not able to be effective in our preaching because we are few in numbers. However the example of Ephesus is a salutary warning against such an attitude. 12 men 'turned the world upside down' with God's help. Do we believe that God is working when we go out preaching? Can he save by few as well as many?
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2002 Reply to Peter
19:7 These 12 men must have been faithfully remembering the words of John the Baptist for some 20 years. What a joy it must have been to them to understand that the one that John had spoken about had come and salvation was available through his name
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2007 Reply to Peter
Acts 19:8 First Principles>Kingdom of God>Gospel concerns God's Kingdom
The Gospel preached by Jesus and the Apostles concerns the Kingdom of God.
1. Examples of teaching concerning the Kingdom of God
Matt 4:23, Mark 1:14, Luke 8:1, Acts 8:12, Acts 19:8, Acts 20:25, Acts 28:31
For more about the Gospel concerning God's Kingdom, go to Matt 4:23
Roger Turner [Lichfield (UK)] Comment added in 2009 Reply to Roger
19:9 Notice that when the opposition to the preaching got so great that it was clear that no benefit would be served by continuing Paul not only left the area of disputing but separated his fellow believers from the unhealthy environment. We need to appreciate that when we find ourselves in unhelpful environments there may well come a time when, for our own spiritual sanity, we remove ourselves from the problematical environment.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2019 Reply to Peter
19:10,26,27 Notice the twofold use of ‘all Asia’ which finds a sad reflection in 2Tim 1:15 where Paul says that all the brethren have turned away from him in Asia.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2011 Reply to Peter
19:19-20 When we read in Acts 6:7 that the word of God increased we understand that it was the words of scripture grew – the increase of the number of believers is mentioned later in the same verse. So when here we read of the word of God growing we see a stark contrast between the burning of books and the increasing of the written word of God.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2020 Reply to Peter
19:19-20 When we read in Acts 6:7 that the word of God increased we understand that it was the words of scripture grew – the increase of the number of believers is mentioned later in the same verse. So when here we read of the word of God growing we see a stark contrast between the burning of books and the increasing of the written word of God.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2021 Reply to Peter
19:19 Here is another occasion when God shows his supremacy over witchcraft. An earlier one is Simon – 8:13.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2022 Reply to Peter
19:21 Although Paul was the great apostle to the Gentiles, he always looked for every opportunity to speak to the Jews. There must have been a synagogue at Rome for him to be so anxious to go there. From Acts 2:10 we know that there were strangers at Rome who came to Jerusalem at Pentecost. These may have had some effect in Paul's decision which, although it was guided by the Holy Spirit, nevertheless was taken by Paul. From Acts 28:17 we know that there was a body of Jews there when Paul eventually got there.
John Wilson [Toronto West (Can)] Comment added in 2006 Reply to John
19:23-41 There are similarities between the gathering in the theatre and the events at Babel, but in Ephesus unity and confusion were present together. It was said that “all Asia and the world” (Acts 19:27) worshipped Diana and at Shinar “the whole earth” (Gen. 11:1) came together. The people rushed “with one accord into the theatre” (Acts 19:29) and of those at Babel God said: “the people is one” (Gen. 11:6). In the city there was “confusion” (Acts 19:29), in the theatre “the assembly was confused” (Acts 19:32), and at Babel God did “confound the language” (Gen. 11:9). The people spoke with “one voice” (Acts 19:34) and at Babel they were “of one language, and of one speech” (Gen. 11:1). Intriguingly, given these links with Babel, depictions of the goddess Diana often had her with a tower on her head (e.g. see Hislop’s The Two Babylons, p. 29).
Nigel Bernard [Pembroke Dock UK] Comment added in 2020 Reply to Nigel
19:24 Diana was the Roman goddess of fertility that became synonymous with the Greek goddess Artemis. Other Greek and Roman versions were Aphrodite and Venus.
Throughout the ages other nations had versions of this fertility goddess:
Canaanites - Ashtaroth
Egyptians - Astarte
Moabites - Qudshu
Babylonians and Assyrians - Ashtar
Eostre (note the similarity to earlier names) is the Anglo-Saxon goddess of the dawn (i.e. fertility). The term Easter comes from her name. Thus, we should consider the pagan origins of fertility rites; bunnies; eggs etc. at that time of year and avoid involvement in its rituals.
Michael Parry [Montreal (Can)] Comment added in 2004 Reply to Michael
19:30 Whilst Paul was willing to enter and speak to the multitude we should realise that he was in fear of his life – 2Cor 1:8. Despite that he was still willing to speak to the people!
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2017 Reply to Peter
19:34 were the “Jews” that put Alexander up as spokesman brethren or just Jews? Whilst the record does not make it clear we can imagine why the Jews would take the opportunity to oppose the worship of Dianna as the Law of Moses forbade the making of idols and this uproar would have provided them with an opportunity to speak against idol worship.
Peter Forbes [Mountsorrel (UK)] Comment added in 2024 Reply to Peter
“But if ye enquire anything concerning other matters, it shall be determined in a lawful assembly... and when he had thus spoken, he dismissed the assembly.”
Assembly is the Greek word, ekklesia, # <1577>, and defined by Strong’s Concordance as a “... religious congregation (Jewish synagogue...), assembly, church.” There is no basis for the Biblical use of the word, “church.” Ekklesia simply means an assembly of called out ones. It is not a church, but an assembly or congregation used in regard to a group of people that meet together for a common purpose. Here it refers to a civil assembly of the local townspeople of Ephesus, which included idol makers! The context of the passage tells us who is meeting. In most places in the New Testament, it refers to a local assembly of believers in Christ (Acts 20:28). There is no grammatical reason to translate assembly as read here and in other passages, for the word church! We may easily conclude from this that the “body of Christ” (1Cor 12:27; Eph 4:12) and “ekklesia” are two different bodies. The “body of Christ” is made up of believers only.
The Greeks understood ekklesia to simply mean, “An assembly of citizens summoned by the crier, the legislative assembly.” It is never identified as a church. The word church today may refer to a building, or a denomination of any “Christian” assembly, regardless of doctrine or practice. The New Testament does not support this idea. The Roman, Orthodox, and Protestant churches are the result of Nicolaitan philosophy being to enslave the congregation by controlling their access to God. “Niko” means to conquer, and “laos” the people. In other words, the Nicolaitan philosophy was to put a difference between clergy and laity, which Christ hates (Rev 2:6)!
Valerie Mello [in isolation, TN, USA] Comment added in 2013 Reply to Valerie