Honoring Wedding Vows

[SedesGobhani]

Originally Posted by David

Yes a man is allowed to forgive his wife, Just as God will do with Isreal, just as it seems that Hosea did with his wife after she had dwelt with him for a while. Yes er to be honest in my situation VD was a worry, but in the end my wife didn't want to be forgiven, in fact didn't really see she had something to be forgiven, and although I may have asked God not to lay her sin to her charge, she left.

One of the biggest problems we have is that Jesus showed the Mosaic divorce law was only given for hardness of heart, but adultery, sex with another man other than your betrothed before mariage, homosexuality, etc, all of which would come under the umbrella pornea (fornication), were not included in the Mosaic divorce law, but infact were marriage ending in that the sinners died, even there though the injured party didn't have to accuse, or could follow righteous Joseph's example and put her away, or in fact God's example Isa50v1 I think.

So on one hand there is always forgiveness, and sometime sex is only sex, and is not as injurious to a marriage as say dishonesty, again not advocating a lower ideal than the one that God gives, but stating the only thing that prevents forgivness is our own minds, but if the unbeliever choses to leave because the law now allows it, there isn't anything the believer can do to stop divorce, well at least not in the UK.

D

Hi David;

De 24:1 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: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.

I wondered if what "uncleanness" meant in this case. I doubt it meant she was having her period. I think it probably meant she was not a virgin. I wondered if it meant if she committed adultery, &c. It isn't spelled out in great detail what is meant by that, which Jews were apparently taking advantage of any time they wanted to ditch their wives for any old reason

The father of a friend of mine has done a study of the original word typically translated "putting away" and "divorce", and explained that the translators have a bit hap-hazardly mixed them up. He insists there are two different meanings. I will ping him again to get that study and look into it, and if I find anything interesting I will of course post it.

In the readings a couple weeks ago this jumped out at me which I thought was interesting:

Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. (1Cor 7:27-28).

[David]

I too have done a study on divorce and putting away and divorce, and they mean the same thing they maybe different words, but are synonyms rather than meaning subtly different things. The word that God uses for putting away Israel for adultery in Isa50v1&2 is the same word that is used in Mal2v16. So i think we are looking at the same thing, but for different reasons, in Mal2v16 the man was shamed by their older wifes wrinkles, and divorced for a younger model, just showing how shallow and unloving these men were in the time of Malachi, whereas God had been merciful in not destroying Israel, he let her live.

Uncleaness, didn't mean that one was not a virgin, that was punished by stoning as was adultery, Deut 22v20-29, literally the word uncleanes is nakedness, therefore rightly nothing to do with menstration. I think it came to mean something that shamed the partner, though it came to mean anything, indeed as said earlier in the time of Malachi it meant the woman getting old, or even buring the cakes!

Nothing can be said about 1Cor7v27&28 except that it is really good advice, but as the in chapter 7 begins with questions, ch7v1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me:, one was should followers of Christ marry, which he answers,in terms of it is better not to, but marriage is also good to paraphrase, v10&11 tells the followers not to leave their partners, v12 seems to intimate at a subsidury question should a beliver leave an unbelivers, maybe from the Jews remembering the time of Nehemiah, but in v15 it seems to be different if the unbeliver leaves the beliver because of their belief, v15, pauls says they are not under bondage, what is this refering to, they were no in bondage unto sin since their baptism, so its not that, does it mean they are no longer under the bondage of that marriage, because Paul tells them to let the unbeliver depart, otherwise translated put assunder to the point of divorce. Certainly Robert Roberts though in such cases of separation the brother or sister was free to remarry to avoid fornication.

It seems ironic really at the moment I'm not really seeking to be other than I am, though I will admit a little, er envy for the companioship and the sharing of labours of the married, especially bringing up shildren, but, and it is a big but I think that others have found the burden of celibacy, or being a Eunuch for the Lord, difficult if not impossible to bear, just like the people who have got married, and have been blessed with a partner that has been willing to dwell with them.

D

[David]

Totally agree with you Peter, but talking of the principles that the law seems to write. Still above all is the virtue of mercy, if someone loved their spouse enough, and they asked for mercy, then it is a better thing to do to forgive rather than go to the law.

But it does show there was a difference between the law for some sexual sins and the mosaic divorce law which was given for hardness of heart.

But the acceptive clause in Matthew does agree with the marriage ending laws in the law of Moses, and is therefore consistent.

D

[SedesGobhani]

Originally Posted by David

I too have done a study on divorce and putting away and divorce, and they mean the same thing they maybe different words, but are synonyms rather than meaning subtly different things. The word that God uses for putting away Israel for adultery in Isa50v1&2 is the same word that is used in Mal2v16. So i think we are looking at the same thing, but for different reasons, in Mal2v16 the man was shamed by their older wifes wrinkles, and divorced for a younger model, just showing how shallow and unloving these men were in the time of Malachi, whereas God had been merciful in not destroying Israel, he let her live.

Uncleaness, didn't mean that one was not a virgin, that was punished by stoning as was adultery, Deut 22v20-29, literally the word uncleanes is nakedness, therefore rightly nothing to do with menstration. I think it came to mean something that shamed the partner, though it came to mean anything, indeed as said earlier in the time of Malachi it meant the woman getting old, or even buring the cakes!

Nothing can be said about 1Cor7v27&28 except that it is really good advice, but as the in chapter 7 begins with questions, ch7v1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me:, one was should followers of Christ marry, which he answers,in terms of it is better not to, but marriage is also good to paraphrase, v10&11 tells the followers not to leave their partners, v12 seems to intimate at a subsidury question should a beliver leave an unbelivers, maybe from the Jews remembering the time of Nehemiah, but in v15 it seems to be different if the unbeliver leaves the beliver because of their belief, v15, pauls says they are not under bondage, what is this refering to, they were no in bondage unto sin since their baptism, so its not that, does it mean they are no longer under the bondage of that marriage, because Paul tells them to let the unbeliver depart, otherwise translated put assunder to the point of divorce. Certainly Robert Roberts though in such cases of separation the brother or sister was free to remarry to avoid fornication.

It seems ironic really at the moment I'm not really seeking to be other than I am, though I will admit a little, er envy for the companioship and the sharing of labours of the married, especially bringing up shildren, but, and it is a big but I think that others have found the burden of celibacy, or being a Eunuch for the Lord, difficult if not impossible to bear, just like the people who have got married, and have been blessed with a partner that has been willing to dwell with them.

D

Hi David;

OK thanks - I guess I really won't know about the root words we are looking at until I get into it, but I have copied your point into a text file for when I examine that study. I appreciate your sharing of your viewpoint.

Regarding the "bondage" (that sounds so harsh as if it were slavery huh)... Regarding the "bonds" of marriage (that sounds nicer), I will give my current opinion, and you are welcome to just say you think I'm wrong, or correct me using scripture, or agree, or whatever... I believe that when God made the provision for divorce, even though he hates divorce, it was because he hated adultery even more. Although God hates divorce, the punishment for adultery was death. There can be no question that the divorce was the lesser of the two evils.

When a married person commits adultery, they have already broken the bonds. They have committed a sin much more evil than divorce. I believe then that it should be at the discretion of the victim to decide whether there is anything left to salvage, or whether the bonds are irreparable. Of course it is more honorable that he forgive his cheating spouse an infinite amount of times without even asking her whether she is remorseful and plans to repent. I mean, that is what Jesus teaches; mercy. Or so it seems. Agape love is loving your brother or sister, and sometimes it means doing the hard things. Sure we need to first cast out the beam that is in our own eye... but we need to use righteous judgment.

If Jesus said "except for fornication", then it must be that fornication justifies divorce. And the only way it can justify divorce, is if the bonds were already broken by the cheating spouse.

If it is true, then many families have been had their lives ruined, and many righteous and faithful brethren have been made pariahs, by brethren with strict, no, pharisee-like attitudes and man-made policies.

If the condition of "But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned" (speaking to him who is "loosed from a wife") includes those whose bonds have been broken by their unbelieving spouses departing, then what of those whose bonds have been broken by their possibly believing spouses committing the odious sin of adultery? Which as David suggests, is more of a sin against God than against the spouse? Are these brethren supposed to wait around 40 years and let their ex, who has been with possibly 2-3 or even 100 other men, jump back into bed with him? Is that what we are telling these brethren they have to do? Shouldn't that be left to the discretion of his own conscience, as to how forgiving he should be?

I'm just not sure whether it is correct to equate strictness with righteousness. Meaning, when we meet brethren who are very strict, possibly to the point of drawing man-made lines, saying don't cross this or I'll see to it you are disfellowshipped, there may be a tendency to consider them as being righteous, after all, they live up to a higher standard. (Of course they will never go through the same predicament.) Now I confess it is quite possible that you or someone else will say something (proven by scripture) that will turn my entire opinion. And if I am wrong, I certainly want to know ASAP so I can fix it. I like to try to make my decisions while still having an open mind.

God bless,
SG

[David]

When approaching God we all have to admit if the Lord counted iniquity who shall stand.

I tend to be quite happy with strictness as we percieve that word, and with brthren and sister who may appear less strict, if looked carefully, people tend to draw lines in a way that enables themto glorify God best, after all we had strict John the Baptist, and far less strict Iin the eyes of hte Jwish leaders) Jesus.

I think the problem comes when the severity of God which is there is not tempered by the goodness of God, which is also there.

Or on the other hand mercy comes to the point where decisions are not made.

I think looking at common ground, no-one puts forward that divorce should be a chosen path to follow, that the ideal is if a man and woman chose to marry that they have not sinned, to quote Paul, but both should do there hardest to love the other, as Christ loved the church, and as the church loves Christ. I am convinced that there is no problem in a marriage that cannot be solved given a willingness for both to listen to each other, and so it should be, as I am held as a child of God, despite the times I run off, and ignore the voice of my God call to me through his word, but still I am picked up when i fall flat on my face.

Yet, sometimes only ome person is willing to solve the problems, the other wants their freedom, and although I can say of myself whether I would find adultery easy or hard to forgive, it will not be the same for others. I might find celibacy easy or difficult, but that does't make it easy for another, not all can reman eunuch for the Kingdom of Godm yet one this one issue we deamns sometimes others do just that. As a consequence if they burn with lust, over something denied, they have already committed adultery in their heart, and if an adulterer cannot enter in to the kingdom of God, then such aperson who is denied marriage because it is classed as adultery, dies due because of adultery caused by lusting.

I think honesty open communication and a willingness to give something of yourself means that the marriage can grow become stronger and both become bigger rather than smaller. yet if one refuses to listen will not accept forgivness, will not accept that love is sacrifical, then problems become insoluble.

D

[Peter]

There has been some discussion of the ideals of marriage. Clearly the ideal is that a couple never separate and never have disagreements. Those same ideals would have an innocent partner forgiving say, an adulterous partner, and taking them back.
However sometimes we have to deal with realities. And a very common reality is that the adulterous party doesn't want to be forgiven nor go back to their husband or wife. They may have moved on and remarried. They may have left the truth. They may have no love at all for the partner they left. In that situation it is pointless talking about forgiveness. Well the victim can forgive the other party but it makes not one iota of difference.
In that situation we should not insist on the victime living their lives with the false idea that one day their ex-partner might come back. In kindness we should take the pressure off and let them get on with their lives - and if that means remarriage - so be it.

[SedesGobhani]

It's interesting to find what one of the "Pioneers" have written on this:

"Divorce is inadmissible according to the law of Christ, except in the case he mentions in Matthew 19:9. Where this case arises, and the parties are divorced, they are at liberty to marry again, both by human law and divine. Objection may be well meant, but it is without ground." ("The Christadelphian", March 1884, Cover Note).

If by "the parties", he meant the perpetrator as well as the victim of the adultery or unjustified divorce, then I suppose Bro Roberts was even more liberally minded about it than myself. I would tend to agree that the victim alone is free to remarry, but I would think that the perpetrator had no right to break the bond and I would think them ineligible for remarriage, being unfaithful and untrustworthy. Is she not living in adultery with a second husband, living in a state of unfaithfulness to the first? Are there scriptural guidelines that indicate where the fine line is to be drawn?

[David]

The teaching of our pioneer brethren is interesting, one of the best digests of their teacing on this subject in Bro Carter's booklet on Marriage and divorce. I was reading a website by I think the Berean's, though maybe not, so apologies if i have it wrong but it appears that they maintained this teaching, whilst Central fellowship hardened it attitude to what became, no possibility of remarriage, whether innocent or guilty party.

That said, these too are human, and what is important is wat the bible teaches, and I belive what is taught especially in matthew 5, address to the disciples, whilst all other discussions are with the pharasees, and centre on the law of divorce in the Torah.

Therefore Matt 5 is what Jesus taught his dieciples. That said if forgiveness is sort that is the better way.

The pioneers also seemed to teach that remarriage was allowable for desertion by an unbeliever, but not for the believer to leave.

Certainly I have read that some brethren believe that becaue Matthew was written to the jews, then the teaching on divorce in Matthew is only applicable to the Jews, but I don't think just because Matthew has a Jewish bent, that we can start selecting parts of the bible we take as being important to us now, as all scripture is given by inspiration and is profitable.

Also written in a pmaphlet on divorce from America, and i have not read this anywhere else, except this pamphlet, which doesn't give any indication of grounding for the statement, but says that the exceptive clause in Matt 5 was inseted by a jewish scholar, to water down the teaching of Jesus to make it more manageable. If anyone knows any evidence for this, which a google search has failed to show, including a fairly anti-divorce article on wikipedia, which acknowledged the exceptive clause, but that Augustus of Hippo (I believe) didn't agree with he exceptive clause, and not that it was not in the original scrpiture, and it was only really used during the reformation by the protestants. Although I was told once by a Catholic that in my case they would allow an anullment, which is really playing at words!

So what has the different articles posted taught.

First no-one says that divorce should be looked for, other than fornication, even then if the sinner seeks forgivness, then that is the best thing to do.

That it appears that the teaching of scripture does allow, but not advise remarriage for a few restricted reasons, other than that people need to learn to show greater love. Scripture appears to advise that the state you find yourself in, married, unmarried, widowed or divorced it is better to stay as you are, but this is spoken as wisdom and not by command.

In the end it is good for brethren to dwell in unity.

D

[SedesGobhani]

Originally Posted by David

The teaching of our pioneer brethren is interesting, one of the best digests of their teacing on this subject in Bro Carter's booklet on Marriage and divorce. I was reading a website by I think the Berean's, though maybe not, so apologies if i have it wrong but it appears that they maintained this teaching, whilst Central fellowship hardened it attitude to what became, no possibility of remarriage, whether innocent or guilty party.

That said, these too are human, and what is important is wat the bible teaches, and I belive what is taught especially in matthew 5, address to the disciples, whilst all other discussions are with the pharasees, and centre on the law of divorce in the Torah.

Therefore Matt 5 is what Jesus taught his dieciples. That said if forgiveness is sort that is the better way.

The pioneers also seemed to teach that remarriage was allowable for desertion by an unbeliever, but not for the believer to leave.

Certainly I have read that some brethren believe that becaue Matthew was written to the jews, then the teaching on divorce in Matthew is only applicable to the Jews, but I don't think just because Matthew has a Jewish bent, that we can start selecting parts of the bible we take as being important to us now, as all scripture is given by inspiration and is profitable.

Also written in a pmaphlet on divorce from America, and i have not read this anywhere else, except this pamphlet, which doesn't give any indication of grounding for the statement, but says that the exceptive clause in Matt 5 was inseted by a jewish scholar, to water down the teaching of Jesus to make it more manageable. If anyone knows any evidence for this, which a google search has failed to show, including a fairly anti-divorce article on wikipedia, which acknowledged the exceptive clause, but that Augustus of Hippo (I believe) didn't agree with he exceptive clause, and not that it was not in the original scrpiture, and it was only really used during the reformation by the protestants. Although I was told once by a Catholic that in my case they would allow an anullment, which is really playing at words!

So what has the different articles posted taught.

First no-one says that divorce should be looked for, other than fornication, even then if the sinner seeks forgivness, then that is the best thing to do.

That it appears that the teaching of scripture does allow, but not advise remarriage for a few restricted reasons, other than that people need to learn to show greater love. Scripture appears to advise that the state you find yourself in, married, unmarried, widowed or divorced it is better to stay as you are, but this is spoken as wisdom and not by command.

In the end it is good for brethren to dwell in unity.

D

http://morechristlike.com/except-for...-matthew-19-9/

I suppose we shall have to consult the oldest of the manuscripts to verify.

SG

[David]

Looking at the words used in the online bible, admitedly not saying I am a skilled translator, doesn't seem to go in favour of this translation, niether does it make any difference to Matt5v32, except if it true, bring up another problem of contrdiction.

D

[Peter]

First no-one says that divorce should be looked for, other than fornication, even then if the sinner seeks forgivness, then that is the best thing to do.

How often do parties who have committed adultery and /or left the truth seek forgiveness? 10%? 50% 90% ?

Forgiveness can only play a role when it is sought!

The Matt 5 passage frees up victims of adultery to remarry.

I say again don't impose guilt on them where there should be none.

To suggest people stay single may be imposing too great a burden on your brother or sister. Especially when singles I know report that they seem to be ignored and forgotten in the ecclesia. The very people who want these people to remain single aren;t prepared to befriend them,

I say Let people work out their own conscience toward God without applying pressure.
Even in a situation where some guilty party may want to come back from adultery, the victim should not be pressed to take them back - it may be that love died and trust when the adultery occurred. Let the person decide for themselves and be answerable to the Lord.

[BDW]

Even in a situation where some guilty party may want to come back from adultery, the victim should not be pressed to take them back - it may be that love died and trust when the adultery occurred. Let the person decide for themselves and be answerable to the Lord.

So that ruptured relationship should just be dropped and left then?

[Peter]

Dear BDW
I am not saying that at all.
The point of my post was to suggest that other members of the ecclesia not apply any pressure. Matters of the heart are very tricky things.

I say let the person decide for themselves what is best for them based on their faith.

Also these matters should be left alone if it isn't against the law of Christ.

Rom 14:4 Who are you to judge another's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.

[Peter]

Dear BDW

Another thought on this.

Why should you have a say (beyond whether it is right or wrong) about who this person is married to?
This is almost like telling a person what colour they should paint their lounge room.

Of course you can say something - but the question is - Does it help or hinder?

Personally I think Christians of all persuasions go beyond their jurisdiction in too many areas.

[David]

To speak personally, I did forgive my ex- after adultery, and by forgiveness, that needs to allow her trust in all things as before, and so using the same mechanisms she started her second affair, and yes you might call me foolish, but in the end to trust someone is a decision we choose to make. This is the road I took, but I know that not everyone can take the same path, and unless you have ever been there it is difficult to say how they will behave, and how they will feel. There is a whole world of difference between theory and action.

Yet I have asked God not to lay this sin to her charge, is it possible to forgive someone who chooses a life that indicates lack of repentance.

Can anyone say how they would feel if their adulterous spouse came back after years, where hopefully you have grown, and are a different person.

It is easy to say accept them back, would you say yes if they had caught AIDS, or some such.

It seems that the majority of translations, including some like NASV use the recieved text, include the exceptive clause in both Matthew readings.

There are few who try to change this, as Matthre is seen to be a contradiction to Luke and Mark, and it always appears that way round never Luke and Mark is contradicting Matthew, and seek a reason why it is left out.

First Mat 19, mark and Luke are in fact addressing pharasees and there attitude to their use of the Mosaic divorce law which Jesus says was for hardness of heart. That is agreed by all, but the rule for what to do with pornea or sexual immorality was not dealt with in the Mosaic law on divorce, but under laws to put away evil from Israel to quote Deut22v22.

Then the only teaching on this by Jesus to his followers is n Matthew5v22, which allows remarriage after fornication.

Therefore it seems against scriptural teaching to exclude those from the table of the Lord who have tried to save their marraige, only to be left, if they remarry, or condemn them to their lusts, and loneliness if they choose to keep peace in the ecclessia.


D

[Peter]

Note that Joseph was going to put Mary away because she had become pregnant. However he did it in a respectful and kind way. However God informed Joseph what was going on and he changed his mind. But note there was not one hint of condemnation in God's treatment of Joseph.
That is the attitude the members of ecclesias should take.

My experience over the years has been this - many people will vent their theoretical positions quite strongly - until such time as they or a member of their family is confronted by the issue - and then attitudes quickly change.

As to David's comment about forgiveness -it's one thing to forgive and so not hold any bitterness against that person - but it is a completely different thing to accept that person back into an intimate relationship with yourself. As I said the issue of love is a tricky thing. Trust is a big issue. Respect is another.
Also just think if one partner in a marriage commits adultery and maybe part of the reason for that may have been that in the end the couple did not really like each other. The liberty that Christ gives in this case could be seen as an act of mercy.

Let's stop looking at this issue in a legalistic frame of mind - rather lets consider that we are dealing with people. The people ultimately are more important than the relationship. Let's look after people rather than the idea of the ideal marriage. Forcing a couple who have been split by adultery back into some relationship they don't want can never be ideal. It would be a travesty.

[BDW]

Hmm..

I do see what you are saying Peter. Two people "in the Truth" should easily be able to live together though whether love remains or not. The adultery case is probably a little more difficult here and I do agree that no-one should force their opinions on the individuals. It's the individuals that will have to live with the decision.

In regard to Joseph - they weren't married yet so I don't think this case is really applicable.

I think we do need to bear in mind with all this the fairly clear words of Malachi, "I hate divorce," says the LORD God of Israel, "and the one who is guilty of violence," says the LORD who rules over all. "Pay attention to your conscience, and do not be unfaithful."

[David]

But we must read the words of Malchi in context, because if we don't we convict God of doing something he hates when he divorced Israel in Isa50v1.

If we look at Malachi in the context of the Mosaic divorce law, they were using old age as being grounds of uncleaness, and the Lord hates putting away under this context, but it was never written that God hates stoning for adultery, which is what the law states, the only comment on this is given be jesus, niether do I condemn you go and sin no more.

Which brings us to Joseph, the betrothal contract was as binding as the wedding vows, and in deed the betrothal contract was a wedding contract, without the wedding, and in Jewish eyes, based on their interpreation of the law, divorce was required to get out of the contract, indeed the word put away here is the same as used in Matt5, and 19 etc. Where he was a just man, because the public example at the time was stoning, and he being a righteous man saw that mercy rejoiceth against mercy

[Peter]

My responses have been targeted at those who think a brother or sister who has been left a single person by their spouse should somehow for the sake of the ecclesia remain single.
What I have been saying is that love is a two edged sword. The ecclesia should be happy for a brother or sister to find comanionship and happiness by remarrying if their partner has committed adultery and/or moved on to another relationship.OK if the victime wanted to go down that path that would be a beautiful thing - if they can handle it. However their should be no implied pressure that this should be the reflex response.
I've also pointed out that very often these singles get forgotten by the very people who insist they stay single. Is this laying an unnecessary burden on them?
Let's face facts. God allows divorce and remarriage. OK. He doesn't like people splitting up but as I said sometimes it is the very best thing for the couple - as they have reached a point in their marriage where it simply doesn't work. Sometimes when that situation is reached one or both commit adultery as they seek love. By allowing divorce and remarriage God is acting mercifully.
And Yes! They are answerable to the Lord for their actions. But please let the Lord decide. This is the message of John 8.
Even in very obvious cases of sin the Lord shows a tender but firm hand.

In my own case my wife has moved onto another long term relationship in another place. She doesn't want to be associated with Christadelphians or any Christians any more. She is not coming back. OK it was hard emotionally when we split after many many years of marriage. We tried our hardest at that marriage.
Now on two grounds I have permission by God to remarry. The only thing that will stop me I suppose is if God decides not to grant me another wife.
But I have confidence in his love.

By the way My ex and I are on good terms. There is no question of a lack of forgiveness.

[Peter]

By the way it is a beautiful thing that we Christadelphians in 2010 can express thoughts that aren't harsh and legalistic. I am quite proud of the brotherhood in its maturity in 2010. Christadelphians I feel have progressed from at times being redneck fundamentalists spoiling for an argument to people who have seen the love and grace of God in their lives and now speak with balance and wisdom. The brotherhood I feel is grasping now the true spirit of the gospels (albeit not in every place).What do you think?
PS I know some may feel this represents a falling away of standards. But one has to ask what is the standard we should aspire to - and the answer is Christ himself. And sure in some quarters there has been a failure of faith and a turn towards worldliness. But the antidote to that is not legalism.