In this video, we explore Paul’s rather cryptic discussion in Romans 7:1–6 of being freed from the law of a wife’s husband and how it does not mean what the mainstream church has taught for nearly 1,900 years. Rather “the law of her husband” relates back to Deuteronomy 24:1–4 where Paul ties this into the deeper meaning of Yeshua’s death on the cross and the saints’ spiritual marriage to him. This amazing truth behind the traditional message of the gospel will not only deepen your understanding and appreciation of the cross and the gospel message, but your love for Yeshua as well, along with the rich, interweaving of BibleTruth as it relates to YHVH’s plan of salvation. Prepare to be enlightened, amazed and edified all at the same time!
You can find our current Bible reading schedule for this year (ending 10/15/22), and next year’s Bible reading schedule (for 2022 and 2023) as well as the projected dates for the upcoming biblical festivals on the “Helpful Links” section on the right side of the blog’s front page. Sandi, Nathan’s wife and behind-the-scenes ministry partner, keeps these up to date for your blessing and convenience.
May your love for Yeshua soar to new heights after reading this!
After you read this article, I hope you will come away amazed saying, “Wow! I never knew this before….” May your love for the gospel message that you have heard since you were young be deepened and broadened, and may your childlike awe and wonder for YHVH’s plan of salvation for lost sinner, like you and me, come to a whole new level, and may your love for Yeshua the Messiah, our Master and King, and soon coming Bridegroom, soar into the stratosphere.
The purpose of my blog is to stir up the people of YHVH and their love for him, and hopefully spark a spiritual revival in each us that will spread like a wildfire far and wide for the glory of YHVH Elohim and the expansion of his kingdom. Amein.
Romans 7:1–6 —The Law of the Husband Explained
How many of us have read the first few verses of Romans chapter seven and assumed that somehow Paul is telling us that we are dead to the entire Torah-law—that we are no longer bound to it, that we no longer have to keep it? Is this what he is really saying? If so, does this mean that it’s now all right to violate the Torah’s prohibitions to steal, lie, murder, commit sexual sins, covet, worship idols, dishonor our parents, take YHVH’s name in vain and to have sex with animals? If not, then what is Paul really saying in this passage—one that is often used by many perhaps well-intended but misguided people in an attempt to prove that the Torah-law that YHVH Elohim gave to Moses and the children of Israel has been “done away with”?
To understand the truth of Romans 7:1–6 in its whole Bible context, let’s take a trip back into the Torah to understand what Paul is saying with regard to a specific law that has to do with the marriage covenant which he refers to here as “the law of her husband” (v. 2), and to which law a wife is dead (v. 4) if her husband dies, and then how this relates prophetically to Yeshua’s death on the cross and the saint. You about are to discover a deep truth pertaining to the gospel message that has been hidden in plain sight to most Christians for nearly two thousand years. This jaw-dropping revelation will expand your understanding of the gospel and Yeshua’s death on the cross and take it to a whole new level.
Here now is the specific law in the Torah to which Paul makes reference in Romans chapter seven. It is found in Deuteronomy 24:1–5 where we read,
1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her [The Stone Edition Tanach: found in her a matter of immorality; found her offensive in some respect] then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. 2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife. 3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; 4 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 YHVH: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which YHVH your Elohim giveth thee for an inheritance. [Emphasized sections are to be discussed.]
The word uncleanness or immorality is the Hebrew word ervah which according to The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament refers simply to “nakedness or the resulting shame therefrom.” Strong’s Expanded Concordance adds to this definition the following meaning: “an indecent thing or figuratively the idea of disgrace or blemish”. According to Strong’s Concordance, this word is used in a various ways in the Tanakh (Old Testament) with reference to shameful sexual exposure or nudity as in the case of unlawful cohabitation (Lev 18:6), or the shame resulting from Israel’s spiritual adultery (Lam 1:8); or any “indecent thing” that represents defilement or uncleanness resulting from the misuse of the physical body (e.g., uncleanness [due to not burying human excrement] in the military camp, or violation of any laws of sexual abstinence, or being in a state of impurity from sexual cohabitation or nocturnal emissions). With regard to Deuteronomy 24:1 Strong’s comments, “ervah appears to bear this emphasis on any violation of the laws of purity—if a groom is dissatisfied with his bride ‘because he hath found some uncleanness in her,’ he may divorce her. Obviously this evidence is not of previous cohabitation, since such a sin merits death (Deut 22:13ff).”
The exact meaning of ervah is of great controversy between scholars. In his commentary on this passage, Jewish Torah scholar Samson Raphael Hirsch says nothing about the subject, although he goes into great detail about the peripheral issues relating to divorce and remarriage, the legalities concerning the bill of divorcement (Heb. get), etc., but not the cause of the divorce in the first place (i.e., the biblical meaning of unclean thing). Likewise, a cursory search of the Mishna (the second century written compilation of the Jewish Oral Law and precursor to the Talmud) on the subject reveals dozens of pages of minute details regarding divorce and remarriage and various attendant subjects, but I could find no legal definitions regarding the meaning of ervah or had how a marriage could be dissolved because a man found ervah (whatever that may be) in his wife. The meaning of this word and what were indeed grounds for a man to “put his wife away” was a controversy that raged in the first century between the two main Pharisee camps as well (i.e., the Schools of Hillel and Shammai). Even Yeshua weighed in on this controversial subject in Matthew 5:31–32 siding with the more conservative school of Shammai. The meaning of his exact words have fueled theological debates among Christian scholars to this day with regard to what constitutes legal grounds for divorce among believers.
In the simple or literal (Heb. pashat) meaning of this text ervah may or may not be specifically referring to the loss of the bride’s virginity prior to consummation of her marriage with her new husband, since Deuteronomy 24:1 neither specifically states, nor implies that this is the first marriage for both of them. This is underscored by the Torah’s use of the Hebrew word ishah (wife or woman) in verse one as opposed to either the words bethulah or almah both of which lexically have stronger references to a virgin, youthful bride or young maiden as opposed to the more generic term ishah. Therefore, based on the generic meaning of the word ervah (as discussed above) there could be broader meanings as to why the husband was compelled to “put his wife away” (e.g., as for adultery). If this is the case, do we find any example of this elsewhere in Scripture which could give us additional insight into the Hebraic understanding into the meaning of ervah?
Deuteronomy 24:1, Write her a bill of divorcement. Divorce laws and a bill of divorcement (Heb. get)is the subject of this passage. This verse forms the basis of the divorce laws of the Torah and the actual get or bill of divorce, which was a written document that a husband gave to his wife because of some immoral activity on her part (The ArtScrollStone Edition Chumash, p. 1058). The subject of divorce and remarriage is a large subject and is beyond the scope of this present work, yet it is interesting to note that Moses himself, the one who YHVH used to pen the Torah, was very likely divorced and remarried. (We have discussed this subject in Parashat Yitro.) YHVH himself divorced Israel and gave her a get because of her unfaithfulness to him, though he never remarried. (See the teaching below.)
Deuteronomy 24:1–4, Natan’s Notes on the Biblical Reasons for Divorce
Divorce and remarriage is a highly controversial topic due to the emotional nature and its prevalence in society. Thus arriving at a balanced biblical perspective is not always easy. Those who advocate divorce and as well as those who are against it have their favorite scriptures that justify their position, while each side tends to overlooks the Scriptures that disagree with them. In this study, we will look at one aspect of divorce and the reasons that Scripture permitted it under certain circumstances. To be sure, this is a delicate subject that affects the lives of countless people.
Jeremiah 3:14, After YHVH divorced Israel (v. 8), he was still married to her. What’s going on here? Even though YHVH divorced Israel, he still considers himself married to her because he had made a covenantal vow with Israel, and vows can’t be broken (except by death or under very stringent requirements). Period.
Look at Hosea 1:2 cp. 3:1–3. Hosea’s actions toward Gomer, his adulterous wife, is an example of YHVH’s unfailing love for is Israel, who was his spiritual adulterous wife. Marriage is a covenant vow that when broken by adultery requires the death penalty for the offending party. Gomer committed adultery. Yet Hosea brought her back and redeemed her from adultery. He loved her unconditionally and laid his life down for her (as YHVH does for us, see Eph 5:28).
Deuteronomy 24:1 cannot be used as a justification for divorcing under just any circumstances. Only if the wife has committed or is committing sexual immorality (in Hebrew ervah) can her husband put her away. A bill of divorcement, in Hebrew called a get, must first be issued for the purposes of restoring the immoral woman. One cannot put their wife away for any reason. Even Yeshua confirmed this in Matthew 5:32. Ideally, according to the Torah and to Yeshua, some sexual immorality (in Hebrew ervah)has to have been committed for a man legally to divorce his wife according to the Torah-law. I inserted the word ideally because there are seldom ideal situations in life, and humans rarely live up to YHVH’s ideal moral and spiritual standards. As such, Yeshua admits that the Torah as administered by Moses allowed for divorce to occur, sadly, because of the hardness of human hearts (Matt 19:8). What does “hardness of heart” mean? Scripture doesn’t say. The following is simply my speculation on what this means. For example, I would not expect one to be required to stay married if several severe conditions existed such as physical abuse, criminality, drug addictions, abandonment, total dereliction of responsibilities or extreme heathenism. Such sins make it all but impossible for a righteous person to remain in such a spousal relationship. A spouse who is practicing such has violated their contractual marriage vows and thus there legally and technically is no marriage. A believer shouldn’t be forced to remain in such a relationship. Having said this, it is the saint’s duty, as much as possible, to vet out a prospective mate before marrying them to ensure that they have never been involved nor are currently involved in such activities. One should only marry an Elohim-fearing, commandment-keeping, born again faithful believer in Yeshua the Messiah, who has a long fruit-bearing track record of such a lifestyle. Again, this is Natan Lawrence speaking, not Scripture, but it is my best understanding of scriptural principles as they relate to marriage and divorce.
Marriage between two believers is a vow with YHVH. Marriage between two unbelievers is something else. It is simply an agreement or contract between two people. Maybe YHVH is part of it, maybe he is not. It all depends on the vows and the situation.
Deuteronomy 24 is not a permission to divorce and to remarry. Rather it is a judgment because of sin. It must be viewed in this manner. YHVH’s Torah-laws, statutes and ordinances are for when things go well. The judgments of Torah, on the other hand, were for when things went wrong. A judgment was meted out because some Torah-law had been broken and now a solution to the problem had to be found or worked out within the framework of Torah. This is the situation Deuteronomy 24 is dealing with respect to the marriage covenant that has been violated. A get was a temporary legal measure to protect the adulterous woman from stoning, so that the marriage could be restored.
In the Torah, divorce was to be a temporary situation to bring the sinning wife to repentance and to restore YHVH’s perfect ideal of marriage—to restore order back into the home, to heal the family structure. If the sinning wife refuses to repent and remarries (Deut 24:2–3), and continues in her sin and she becomes divorced again or if her second husband dies, then this severs the marriage covenant permanently. This act on her part renders the marriage covenant null and void forever.
Again, a bill of divorcement or a get under the Torah was a temporary legal measure to protect the adulterous woman from stoning, so that the marriage could be restored. Matthew 1:19 demonstrates this. Joseph acted righteously in not putting Miriam (Mary), his pregnant betrothed wife, away, which could have resulted with her being stoned to death. By all outward appearances, she was guilty of adultery, but Joseph’s act of mercy was an example of his exercising mercy over judgment. It ended up that she was pregnant not by a man, but by the Spirit of Elohim resulting in the birth of Yeshua the Messiah. Thus Joseph’s act of mercy spared the Messiah from potential death.
In Malachi 2:10–17, YHVH addresses the issue of divorce. Here the prophet speaking for YHVH is discussing the treacherous nature and misuse of divorce, which is one of the reasons YHVH says he hates divorce (v. 16). This is because divorce often results in treacherous dealings between people (vv. 10–11, 14), it violates and profanes a sacred covenant (vv. 10), and it profanes the holy institution of marriage, which YHVH loves (v. 11), because it is often the result of adultery (vv. 11–12), and adultery leading to divorce often causes a man to leave the wife of his youth (v. 14) thus breaking the oneness of marriage (v. 15), and divorce covers one’s garments with violence (v. 16). Again, for these reasons, YHVH hates divorce, which is why he refers to it as “evil” and unjust (v. 17).
According to YHVH’s Torah standard, the righteous are to care for widows and orphans, not to create them as a result of the misuse of Torah’s laws regarding divorce.
In Matthew 5:32, Yeshua’s words fit into the above context. Only, ideally under the strictest standards of the Torah, for sexual immorality is divorce permissible. Otherwise divorce is unlawful, since the couple is legally still married and a bill of divorce (in Hebrew, called a get) is simply a temporary measure for the purpose of reconciling the couple and bringing the marriage back together.
In Matthew 19:3, when Yeshua mentions divorce “for just any reason,” he is referring to the Pharisaical schools of Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel of the time. The Pharisees that came to him asking the question were from School of Hillel. Yeshua is taking the Beit Shamai conservative position as was the case when John the Baptist took Herod to task for his adultery. Verse 8 shows that there is a provision for divorce but it is not YHVH’s perfect will. Rather it is a judgement and an indictment against carnal men.
Again, in 1 Corinthians 7:10–11, we see that the primary purpose of divorce is for reconciliation of the marriage, not so that one can justify themselves in getting out of a less than ideal marriage in order to fetch themselves another spouse. Divorce and remarriage, as millions of people will attest to, causes a shipload of unintended negative consequences on the lives of many people and often for generations to come. It is something to be avoided if at all possible.
Since 1998 our whole ministry has been dutifully and passionately devoted to preparing the disciples of Yeshua/Jesus for the end times leading up to his long-awaited second coming. Will YOU be the kind of person that King Yeshua wants to live with for eternity?
In the mean time and before that happens, the Bible predicts that hard times are coming both physically and spiritually—a type of refinement fire for every human. This will involve physical and economic privation that all of earth’s inhabitants will go through. Just read Matthew 24 and the Book of Revelation.
So, what can you do to prepare physically for these economic woes that will affect everyone to one degree or another? This video gives you the biblical premise for “prepping” for hard times, and then some practical things YOU can do to prepare for them so that you will not be overturned spiritually OR physically by what the Bible prophesies is about to come upon earth and it’s inhabitants.
Never forget: “For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power, love and a sound mind,” (2 Timothy 1:7). “And we are more than conquerors through him who loved us,” (Romans 7:37). “If God be for us, who can be against us?” (Romans 7:31). But, at the same time, “If anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his own household, he has denied the faith and is worse than in unbeliever,” (1 Timothy 5:8).
Several people have had some questions about a tee-shirt I was wearing during a recent video I made with an embroidered thunderbird on it. One person expressed legitimate concern about my wearing an image of what they took to be an idol—something Scripture forbids. Actually, the thunderbird image is not an idol but, as far as I know, a non-religious, symbolic artistic depiction of heaven. Let me explain.
I purchased the tee shirt on my recent trip to Alaska. This was my fifth trip to that state. On the shirt is some native art from the Tlingit Indians picturing the mythical thunderbird, which is similar to an eagle. In my trips to Alaska, I have studied Tlingit art, talked to Tlingit natives and inquired about their beliefs and spiritual practices. The thunderbird (look it up oh Wikipedia), was not an object of worship but rather was a mythical creature (like sasquatch/Big Foot, the Loch Ness monster, the abominable snowman, the Phoenix bird, the biblical Leviathan and the unicorn, or the griffen or winged lion (which is a representation of the Cherubim in the throne room of Elohim). Moreover, the thunderbird (not an object of worship) represented the good powers of heaven, while in other native cultures the the great horned serpent represented the lower powers of darkness, hell or Satan (now that’s one tee shirt that I would never wear!).
Moreover, the Tlingit art (like all of the art of the coastal indigenous peoples of the NW Pacific coast including Canada, Washington state and Oregon—where I live) is a highly stylized art that looks pagan but is not. These are highly caricaturized pictures of animals such as whales, ravens, eagles and salmon that represented their nation, clans, subclans. My wearing a thunderbird is no different than wearing a stylized eagle, which is a patriotic representation of America, since the eagle symbolizes America. Since I am an artist, I like artistic things, and I like native art (as long as it’s not pagan), since it often represents natural elements in YHVH’s creation (such as wind, rain, fire, trees, mountains and sky, earth, etc.) in a stylized way. I rather think that YHVH was keen on symbolic art himself. For example, look at all of the implements in the Tabernacle of Moses. They are are symbolic of many things!!!! Since I am an outdoorsman and make my living working with trees and plants and have spent much time in the forests and mountains, I tend to like things that depict or symbolize natural elements or aspects of YHVH’s creation. After all, doesn’t Romans 1:20 tell us that by his creation, which points to him, we understand his invisible attributes?
One more thing. Even the Christian cross is a pagan symbol going back to sun god worship, but now is a symbol for Christianity. I tend to think that the cross symbol goes back, potentially, to the Paleo-Hebrew letter tav which may mean “sign of the covenant”. So we potentially have a good symbol that was taken over by the pagans and corrupted as part of their idolatry, then they crucified Yeshua on their altar to their sun god, and now it’s a Christian symbol. What came first, the chicken or the egg? You see, symbologies can be complicated, since our world is full of them, and many of our words we speak, clothes we wear, things we eat, cultural practices and traditions come out of ancient paganism. Whole books have been written about this, and some Torah-minded people in their search for truth tend to get overly hung-up on this and begin to get legalistic and start judging others on what they say or do. (Look at some of the extremists in the sacred names movement where you’re forbidden to say “Jesus” or even have a Bible that has “Jesus” or “God” or “Lord” in it. As one can see, we want to avoid any pagan symbology that is overtly pagan, but to avoid it all we’d have to live naked in the woods and speak our own invented language, right?
When I was living in Europe, I knew a man in my church who hated organ music because it reminded him of the Catholic Church that he came out of. Does that mean the organ and its music is an evil because it’s associated with Roman Catholicism? There was another man who criticized me for wearing a red carnation in the lapel of my suit because this happened to be the symbol of the French communist party. So now we can’t listen to organ music and have red carnations??!!! It goes on and on!
I pray that this addresses the issue satisfactorily.
Here are some other examples of Tlingit (as all as art from other Pacific Northwest coastal tribes, which is part of the native cultural tradition in the area where I live) artistic depictions of Pacific Northwest coastal animals. This art may not be your cup of tea, but I rather like some of it. Different strokes for different folks!
WhalesSome sealsA bearA raven and whalea fox or wolf?An eagleA salmon and a whale or two whales, not sure.Another whaleA beaver?Another ravenObviously a turtleAn otterA salmon
