MARRIAGE and DIVORCE


by Herbert W. Armstrong
1973 edition

Part I
Part II
Part III
Part IV

PART III

Certain Passages Examined

I HAVE GIVEN YOU the TRUNK of the tree. But some, scrutinizing closely, technically, and exhaustively a few minor branches or twigs, and losing sight of the TRUNK, have reasoned that they see a minor branch or twig totally foreign to the TRUNK, and out of harmony with God's purpose.

So they classify the whole tree according to their much-involved analysis of the little branch. But the branches and twigs grow out of the TRUNK and the root structure, and of necessity are of the same classification.


Through Evolutionist's Eyes

How would an evolutionist view this question of divorce and remarriage? He sees NO GOD in the picture. He is aware of NO PURPOSE. He doesn't know HOW marriage got started. He doesn't know its PURPOSE or MEANING. He sees no CAUSE, so he deals with the EFFECT. If his marriage is unhappy, or he tires of his wife, he sees no reason against divorce and remarriage. He views the whole thing according to his present circumstance and desire. If divorced, and he sees a woman he wants to marry, WHY NOT?

I'm afraid some who DO believe in the existence of God view the question in the same way. If one feels he (or she) is the "injured party" to a broken marriage, he looks at the immediate DESIRE, he seeks to remedy his present situation.

But the CHURCH OF GOD cannot look at the question in that manner. It is GOD'S Church, and its members are, and must be, GOD'S PEOPLE! As Spirit-begotten children of GOD, our lives must be dedicated to God and obedience to His teachings and laws. We are given the breath of life to fulfill His PURPOSE, not to violate it.


"Bible Grounds" For Divorce?

We look, now, to some of the smaller branches and/or twigs of this divorce and remarriage question, where some think they have found "Bible grounds" for divorce and remarriage.

We will look, first, to Matthew 5:31-32 and Matthew 19:3-12.

The Matthew 5 passage is part of the so-called "Sermon on the Mount." Jesus had just corrected those who thought He came to abolish God's Law. He had firmly established God's Law.

"Think NOT that I am come to destroy the law," He had said. "I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven" (verses 17-19).

Then Jesus continued to "magnify the law and make it honorable" (Isa. 42:21) -- that is, enlarge upon it, make it more inclusive. Magnify it according to the SPIRIT, not merely the letter. Apply it in principle.

So He continued, "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment ...." Thus He made the commandment even MORE binding.

He continued: "Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart" (verses 27-28). He was not relaxing God's Law -- He was making it more binding, more inclusive. This was no "liberal" teaching, but the strictest kind of teaching.

Next He came to divorce and remarriage. Some think He became more "liberal" at this point. But He did not change His attitude here. Rather, He made the laws of UNBREAKABLE MARRIAGE even MORE BINDING. He was completely CONSISTENT with the context of what He was here teaching.

He said, "It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement ..." But now see Him make it MORE STRICT, not more liberal! Continue: "But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery" (verses 31-32).


The Greek Porneia

I have quoted this in context. Some, by resorting to the original Greek word for "fornication" -- porneia -- would take it completely out of context, and out of character, and have Jesus suddenly shift from a very strict law teacher, to a liberal, granting divorce and remarriage contrary to God's PURPOSE in marriage, and to the MEANING of marriage, and the plain LAWS regarding marriage.

First, "It hath been said, ..." in verse 31 is a citation from Deuteronomy 24:1. The rival schools in Jerusalem mis-used this scripture. Much technical argument is resorted to by some, in an effort to make that Old Testament passage justify divorce and remarriage now, TODAY. That does not apply here, because of Jesus' making it more strict BY following it with "But I say unto you." However, I reserve comment on Deuteronomy 24:1 for following pages, when it will be considered in depth.

For now, I will answer the arguments of those who put stress on the Greek porneia.

Since this same porneia is used in Matthew 19:3-12, I will consider these two passages together. In Matthew 19, He was answering trick questions by the Pharisees. The complete passage under consideration is as follows:

"The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?" ("for ANY cause" RSV and others.) They undoubtedly had Deuteronomy 24:1 in mind. Notice Jesus MORE STRICT TEACHING in answer: And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning, made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder" (Matt. 19:3-6). Notice, He said: "Have ye not read"? implying they should have known the answer, making their trick question ridiculous.

The Pharisees asked about the law respecting marriage. Is it lawful to put away (divorce) a wife for any cause? Although they probably were referring to Deuteronomy 24:1, Jesus ignored that, and went back straight to God's law and teaching at the Creation of man. It made no provision for unbinding what God had BOUND. Jesus here denied man any right to put asunder what God had BOUND as ONE! But the tricky Pharisees were not going to let Jesus ignore Deuteronomy 24:1. Continue the passage:


Their Trick Question

"They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?"

The Pharisees thought they had put Jesus where He had to contradict himself. He had answered, in what was LAWFUL, that marriage was BOUND by God, and the law denied man the right to unbind -- to sever a union and cut "ONE FLESH" in two. Now they referred directly to Deuteronomy 24:1. They asked, "WHY did Moses, [lawgiver,] command a written divorce and putting his wife away?" They thought they had Jesus backed into a corner. They thought they now were forcing Him to make an exception, and ALLOW divorce. And that is precisely what some seem to think today!

For Jesus to allow divorce and remarriage after verse 6 would directly contradict what He said in verse 6, or force Him to make an exception to that, as well as to such passages as I quoted in the preceding PART II. Yet after verse 6 Jesus could make NO EXCEPTION without directly contradicting Himself! And you know Jesus did not contradict Himself!

Jesus answered: "He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you [not "commanded you"] to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I SAY UNTO YOU ..." Jesus did not back down. He did not allow any exception, in GOD'S Law. He is enforcing it, now, just as in the beginning! What GOD has BOUND, stays bound -- FOR LIFE! No exceptions!

Moses did not "command" them to divorce their wives. The Authorized Version has been so construed by some, in Deuteronomy 24:1. The "then let him" in the AV is, in The Jewish Publication Society version, "that he [not 'then let him'] write her a bill of divorcement ..." The Revised Standard Version renders it "if ... and he [not then let him] write her a bill of divorce ..." The Moffatt translation renders it: "and IF he writes out a deed of divorce ..." Jesus' answer showed these latter three to be the correct meaning.

Moses did not command! God did not approve! God allowed them, because of the hardness of their hearts, to reject and put away their wives. GOD ALLOWS men to KILL, to COMMIT ADULTERY, to DO EVIL. God will ALLOW you to divorce and remarry, but you disobey Him if you do -- and what you sow you must also reap!


Deuteronomy 24 Voided By Jesus

"But," continued Jesus, "from the beginning it was not so." Jesus here reestablished GOD'S LAW as from the BEGINNING of man's creation! Once GOD has BOUND a marriage it is FOR LIFE. NO EXCEPTIONS!

Then what did His next words mean? Some claim they DID GIVE an exception. But DID THEY? If so Jesus here flagrantly contradicted Himself. Here were His next words:

"And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication [Greek: porneia], and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."

IF the "except it be for porneia" allows divorce of what GOD HAS BOUND, and remarriage to another, Jesus would have flatly contradicted Himself. Therefore the "except it be for porneia" CANNOT refer to divorce of one bound by God, and remarriage.

What is the meaning of the Greek porneia in this passage? The Church of God for 40 years has said it refers to an illicit sex act committed PRIOR to being bound in marriage, undisclosed to the husband until AFTER the marriage ceremony. The Church has maintained that, the husband having been unaware of it until after the marriage ceremony -- but GOD being fully aware of it, a fraud was committed. And God, knowing of this fraud DID NOT BIND them. The betrothed husband, then, putting away the woman NOT BOUND to him, did not put away or UNbind one to whom he had been BOUND by God for life. There simply was NO MARRIAGE. God did not bind them. The man is still single.

But, if the husband, on discovering the fraud, had compassion instead of "hardness of heart," accepted the woman anyway, on his acceptance GOD DID BIND the marriage.

Now some have contended that porneia here means ADULTERY.

This is simply NOT TRUE! God led His Church correctly, as I will show.


The Meaning of Porneia

The Greek word porneia has a broad range of meanings. It means sexual immorality in general, sexual intercourse by an unmarried person, harlotry. It includes sexual deviations, homosexuality, bestiality, sexual perversion. It is often used, especially its Hebrew equivalent, in the Old Testament for harlotry -- repeated multiple sex relations. One, however, thinks of a harlot most often as an unmarried woman selling her body as a "profession."

One argument used to twist porneia in Matthew 5 and Matthew 19 into meaning "adultery" (unfaithfulness to one bound in marriage) is the following:

God pictured Old Testament Israel as His WIFE. But she was unfaithful to Him. Unfaithfulness to a bound mate is adultery. Therefore Israel committed adultery. But Israel also committed something else -- committed HARLOTRY. Though married, she became a worse harlot than the professional in a business for which she charges. God said to her: "... thou hast played the harlot with many lovers .... Lift up thine eyes unto the high places, and see where thou hast not been lien with. In the ways hast thou sat for them ... and thou hast polluted the land with thy whoredoms and with thy wickedness" (Jer. 3:1-2). That is NOT mere adultery -- it is HARLOTRY -- WHOREDOMS, plural. In the Septuagint (Old Testament translated into Greek) this harlotry is called, properly, porneia.

So Israel sinned so greatly she did these TWO things -- (and much more) -- she was unfaithful to her husband -- she committed ADULTERY. (Heb., na-aph, commit adultery, apostates). But she also did something ELSE -- she not only forsook her husband, she went after MULTIPLE lovers -- and even where the professional prostitute charges for her services, God said Israel PAID her lovers (Ezek. 16:33). So, in addition to adultery, she committed harlotry -- (Heb., zanah, Jer. 3:1, 6, 8, commit fornication continually (be an, play the, harlot etc.) (Greek, porneia.)

Therefore, says the scripture twister, porneia means adultery in Matthew 5 and Matthew 19!


Cannot Mean Adultery in This Context

The word "porneia" in Matthew 5 and Matthew 19 does not, and CANNOT mean in this context, adultery. Jesus was not describing unfaithfulness to a bound mate by the Greek porneia. Once BOUND, His teaching, consistent all the way through, is that there can be NO divorce and remarriage! If Jesus meant that adultery was the "Bible grounds" for divorce and remarriage, He would have used the word for adultery (Greek: moichea). The fact He used a different word than moichea, adultery, which has a DIFFERENT MEANING, in the same sentence, is evidence to any seeking TRUTH instead of selfish license, that porneia in Matthew 5 and 19 does not, and cannot mean "adultery."

I have shown that it CANNOT mean adultery. It CANNOT refer to breaking a bound marriage. Jesus could not say: "Whosoever shall put away his wife, save for the cause of unfaithfulness to a bound mate, causes her to be unfaithful to her bound mate." RIDICULOUS! Porneia does mean sexual intercourse of an UNmarried person, as well as perversion, harlotry, many things committed prior to marriage. That is the ONLY meaning consistent with the context. That is the ONLY MEANING consistent with God's PURPOSE in the marriage institution. That is the ONLY meaning CONSISTENT WITH GOD's LAW!

Some argue that Jeremiah 3 shows that porneia CAN mean adultery. It is plainly stated that Israel, here pictured by analogy as YHWH's "wife" committed adultery. It also portrays her as having committed whoredoms, and having played the harlot "with many lovers."

It is true that the Greek word (Septuagint) for whoredoms and harlotry is porneia. But they do not mean adultery. Adultery is unfaithfulness to a mate.

If a wife was unfaithful sexually with another than her husband once, her act properly would be called adultery. But no one God used in the writing of the Bible would ever have called that fornication -- or porneia. They would have used the Greek word moichea, which means unfaithfulness in marriage -- adultery. The only way porneia can be associated with moichea is when the same wife commits TWO things -- unfaithfulness to her husband, AND harlotry (multiple sexual relations with not a few but MANY others than her husband, or perversion, deviations, etc.).

Porneia and moichea ARE NOT SYNONYMOUS.


Two Different Sins

A woman might enter a liquor store, and commit two different crimes, robbery, and murder. That does not mean that robbery means the same thing as murder.

But in Matthew 5 and 19, porneia (fornication) cannot refer to any of those things within the scope of porneia committed after marriage, because once a wife is bound to her husband she is bound "so long as he lives" (Rom. 7:2). Her husband cannot put her away and marry another. (Also Gen. 2:24; Mark 10:6-9). If the husband commit adultery, "if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called" (not this other man's WIFE) but "AN ADULTERESS" (Rom. 7:3). She is still bound to her husband, no matter what he does.

Porneia can, and more often does mean fornication by an UNmarried person -- prior to marriage. THIS IS THE ONLY MEANING THAT FITS THE CONTEXT IN MATTHEW 5 AND 19, consistent with GOD'S LAW and all the other scriptures, and consistent with God's PURPOSE!

Notice these examples of fornication by the UNmarried, or with a meaning other than adultery: I Cor. 7:2; Gal. 5:19; Rev. 14:8; 17:2, 4; 18:3, 19:2; I Cor. 5:1.

In Jeremiah 3 (analyzed later), the wife committed BOTH adultery and harlotry. But that did not free the Husband (God) to marry another. Nor did it inbound the marriage. After the Bill of SEPARATION, (Jer. 3:8), God said the marriage was still BINDING ("... for I AM [present tense] married unto you" (Jer. 3:14). That God was the one who became CHRIST. He remained FAITHFUL regardless of adultery, and whoredoms. He later gave His life to pay for His "wife's" sins, so she may YET return to Him.

In both Matthew 5 and 19 porneia not only CAN, but must refer to PRE-marital sex or other fraud in the marriage.

Doesn't it, then, seem a little ridiculous for one to say that porneia in Matthew 5 and 19 COULD mean adultery? In these two passages, IT SIMPLY CAN not MEAN Adulatory!

God's Church can accept no such perversion of the holy Word of God!

In Matthew 19, Jesus had affirmed God's Law respecting marriage precisely as God made it "from the beginning." No DIVORCE and NO REMARRIAGE to another by one bound for life by God. When the Pharisees quoted from Deuteronomy 24, He went back "to the beginning." Adding, "And I say unto you" -- which phrase said He denied their argument about Deuteronomy 24 -- and was affirming God's Law as it was "from the beginning."

"And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication [porneia], and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery" (verse 9).

Thus "except it be for fornication [porneia]" of necessity MUST refer to an act or condition PRIOR to marriage -- prior to the marriage being BOUND by God. Once bound by God, the marriage remains BOUND for life!


What If Porneia After Marriage?

But some will argue every possible angle to get around God's Law. One might argue: "O.K. Porneia means sexual immorality in general. It means intercourse by an unmarried person, but it also means harlotry, repeated multiple sex acts, perversion, sexual deviations, bestiality. Now, suppose a husband or wife, any time after the bound marriage, commits bestiality, perversion, homosexuality, or harlotry. Israel did commit harlotry after marriage. Could not that be what Christ referred to, in Matthew 5 and 19?"

EMPHATICALLY NO!

A man's wife commits harlotry. Does that allow him to divorce her, and marry another? A woman's husband commits bestiality, or homosexuality, or perversion. May she not, then, be free to divorce him and marry another man?

The answer is NO!

God's wife, Israel, did commit harlotry. First, she left Him (I Sam. 8:4-9). God DID NOT LEAVE HER! Much later, after sending many prophets to plead with and warn Israel, many generations, God gave her a bill of SEPARATION, but not a divorce in the sense many think of divorce today -- as an instrument that ends or unbinds the marriage. (The separation, II Kings 17:18-24.) Israel's Husband later was born as Jesus Christ, who GAVE HIS LIFE in payment for Israel's sins, (Heb. 9:15) that He yet may present her to Himself a GLORIOUS wife, without spot or wrinkle (Eph. 5:22-27, 32).

God said, long after Israel's harlotries, and the divorce (legal separation) "Turn, O backsliding children, saith the Eternal; for I AM [present tense] MARRIED UNTO YOU ..." (Jer. 3:14). When He does marry redeemed Israel, she is His betrothed wife, prior to the New Testament marriage (Rev. 19:7).

Jesus was the God of the O.T. He set us an example, that we should follow His steps. His wife's porneia did not end, abolish, sever, finish the marriage that was BOUND at Sinai. God was still married to Israel (Jer. 3:14).

The woman bound to a husband is BOUND to him AS LONG AS HE LIVES (Rom. 7:2). Now suppose the husband commits porneia -- perhaps bestiality, perversion, intercourse with 50 other women. His wife gets a legal divorce from the state, and marries another man. Is she the second man's wife, in God's sight?

"So then, IF while her husband liveth, [even though he committed porneia] she be married to another man, she shall be called AN ADULTERESS (Rom. 7:3).

THUS SAITH THE LORD! And thus His Church must say.

If, in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9, Jesus meant porneia committed by a BOUND mate frees the innocent mate to divorce and marry another, you have a direct contradiction with Romans 7:3, and God's example with Israel.

Therefore, it is PROVED that the "except it be for porneia" in Matthew 5 and 19, CANNOT refer to porneia being committed by a BOUND partner. It MUST apply only to an act committed PRIOR to being bound in marriage by God. There is simply NO WAY we can honestly argue to get around GOD'S LAW!

WHAT, THEN, does "fornication" (porneia) mean as Jesus intended it here, and in Matthew 5:32?


The Example of Joseph and Mary

Notice, Jesus said, "Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication ..." Was she already his wife? I have explained clearly how it is IMPOSSIBLE she could be his BOUND wife -- else Jesus contradicted Himself. The law does not allow divorcing a bound wife and remarriage to another.

The Bible refers to a betrothed woman, prior to the marriage ceremony, as the wife; and the betrothed man, prior to the wedding ceremony, as the "husband." It was ancient Jewish custom to have a betrothal ceremony, corresponding to the modern Western custom of becoming ENGAGED. That betrothal ceremony was called the "erossin" ceremony. It was an agreement to marry between the two parties. To break it off was to break an agreement between two human individuals. But since God had not as yet bound them it was not breaking a bound marriage. The final wedding was called the "kiddushin" ceremony. Customarily, the espoused wife remained in her father's house until the kiddushin or wedding ceremony. Then the husband took her to his house.

As mentioned before, Jesus, in heaven, (John 14:1-3) is now preparing the "place," "room," meaning office, position, job, for us. This is the meaning of the "many mansions" or "rooms." Symbolically, He is preparing His "house" to which He will take us -- His Bride -- at the divine marriage of the Church to Christ.

Not long ago I performed a double wedding. One couple was Japanese, the other American. The Japanese young man, a journalist of some reputation in Japan, had been attending and had just graduated from Ambassador College. His bride had arrived in Pasadena from Japan a few months before the wedding, which did not take place until after graduation. He introduced her as "his wife."

After he asked if I would perform the ceremony, I called him to my office.

"Haven't you called the young lady your wife?" I asked.

"Yes," he replied.

"Well is she living with you -- are you living together?"

"Oh No!" he answered. I asked if there had been sex relations.

"Oh No! Not until after the wedding!" he replied, rather shocked at the question.

The example of Joseph and Mary, mother of Jesus, explains this custom. Notice:

"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused [betrothed] to Joseph, before they came together," -- prior to the kiddushin or BINDING ceremony she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily." Notice, this was PRIOR to the binding wedding. Yet the Spirit of God inspired Joseph to be called "her husband." He was minded to "put her away." This is not referring to the kind of "divorce" that would sever a marriage bound by God. Indeed, the word "divorce" never has the meaning, in the Bible, of dissolving what God has bound.

Now continue: "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: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 1:18-20).

He had not taken her "to him" yet. The wedding ceremony had not yet occurred. God had not yet BOUND them. The contracted agreement was merely between them at the time. Yet Joseph is called, in God's Word, "her husband," and Mary is called "thy wife."

But here is the point!

Joseph thought Mary had COMMITTED FORNICATION -- porneia -- prior to marriage. This is THE BIBLE EXPLANATION of Jesus' teaching, "except it be for fornication -- porneia." Joseph would have been FREE TO MARRY ANOTHER woman! God had not yet BOUND Joseph to Mary. This was, as Joseph supposed, a situation like Deuteronomy 22:13-14, 20-21. However, in Judah they were not stoning to death those guilty of such premarital fornication any more. He was not willing to make a public example of her, which would have brought an evil name upon her, but was minded to "put her away privately." But the angel prevented, and told Joseph Mary was the VIRGIN that was to conceive the Messiah, fulfilling Isaiah 7:14.

Joseph supposed his betrothed wife Mary had committed fornication (porneia). It was prior to the marriage. He understood GOD'S LAW. She was already called "his wife." According to Deuteronomy 22:13-14 and 20-21, HE WAS ALLOWED TO PUT AWAY HIS WIFE -- before consummating the marriage, upon discovery of fornication (before they came together) (Matt. 1:18) (before they were BOUND in the kiddushin ceremony) "for the cause of fornication [porneia], and marry another" (Matt. 5:32). This is what Joseph intended to do -- before the angel explained that Mary's conception was by means of the HOLY SPIRIT.

And this is precisely what Jesus meant by the clause "for the cause of fornication" in Matthew 5:32, and "except it be for fornication" in Matthew 19:9.

And that is precisely the reason that the clause "except it be for fornication" is found only in Matthew. Only Matthew explains the incident of Joseph thinking to put away Mary his betrothed.

When Jesus said these words, recorded in Matthew 5 and 19, He was very conscious of the fact that this very "exception clause" INVOLVED HIS OWN CONCEPTION AND BIRTH.


"Believing" Jews Understood Porneia

The "believing" Jews in Jerusalem understood the meaning of fornication (porneia). They knew Joseph was not the real father of Jesus. They hurled at Him this insult: "We be not born of fornication," implying that Jesus was born as a result of pre-marital intercourse.

Joseph had intended to apply the law, Jesus later mentioned in Matthew 5 and 19 -- putting away a wife for the cause of fornication.

Notice I Corinthians 7:2. Fornication (porneia) is prior to marriage.


Deuteronomy 22

This law is found in Deuteronomy 22:13-21: We examine it briefly.

"If a 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 [virgin]: then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: and the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her; and lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him; and they shall amerce [fine] him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days" (Deut. 22:13-19).

Notice this law. If the man falsely accused his wife of having committed fornication prior to marriage -- falsely trying to take advantage of the law freeing him (verses 20-21) from becoming bound, he is punished and fined. And God, knowing of his false claim, did bind the marriage. Now, once BOUND, what does the law state? It says: "He may not put her away all his days."


Once Bound, Always Bound

The LAW says plainly here, ONCE BOUND, it is BOUND FOR LIFE. The "fornication" claimed was PRIOR to marriage. THIS LAW SAYS PLAINLY THAT THE ONLY GROUNDS FOR PUTTING AWAY FOR THE CAUSE OF FORNICATION is PRE-marital fornication, and NOT POST- MARITAL FORNICATION INTERPRETED TO MEAN ADULTERY.

Those who try to interpret "fornication" in Matthew 5 and 19 as ADULTERY, are proved 100% WRONG!

But now, notice verses 20-21:

"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."

Notice several things here.

First, fornication -- sexual intercourse of an unmarried person, is a CAPITAL SIN, according to God's Law. Of course the seventh commandment against adultery includes all the forms of fornication or porneia. God's Law, however, does not take even one act of pre-marital sex lightly -- but a capital sin, imposing capital punishment.

Second, this law was written while Israel was ENCAMPED in the wilderness 40 years, and this death penalty of stoning to death was not carried out in Israel for any great length of time, as historic records show. By the time of the conception of Jesus, it certainly was no longer practiced. Nevertheless, for a man to reject, and "put away" his betrothed wife, on discovering a broken hymen after the marriage ceremony, was to "make a public example" of her -- which disgraced her, and set a stigma on her for life. In the case of Joseph, husband of Mary, he was not even minded to impose this on Mary.


Israel Custom

Third, notice this is speaking ONLY of a sex act PRIOR to the bound marriage. Israelitish custom was for the girl to remain in her FATHER'S house after the betrothal, and until the final marriage, when the husband took her to his own house. In this case of Deuteronomy 22:20-21, the girl's fornication had been in "her father's house." This was BEFORE the BOUND marriage.

Fourth, the position of the innocent husband, according to this law, is that the girl married him under false pretenses -- as a virgin. The husband had been deceived. He was the victim of FRAUD. God, knowing this, DID NOT at the moment of marriage BIND the man to the woman. This left the man FREE TO MARRY, if he refused to accept her as his wife, since God had NOT bound him to this woman. He simply remained an UNmarried single man.


The Principle Involved

Fifth, since, under the NEW covenant, God's Church must live according to the SPIRIT of the law, not merely the letter, the principle involved here is that if one party to a marriage is deceiving the other, either by qualifications, or intent, so that FRAUD is committed, the victim of the fraud is NOT BOUND by God, at the time of marriage. If he accepts her, however, he then is bound.

It must be stated, in this connection, that in the actual Scriptural examples of Deuteronomy 22:20-21, and Matthew 1:18-19, the guilty woman was put away, in Deuteronomy 22:20-21, at or immediately after the wedding night -- immediately upon the discovery of the non-virginity. And in Matthew 1:18-19, Joseph learned of Mary's pregnancy even prior to the wedding ceremony, and was intending to "put her away privately" at once, before the wedding.

Today there are many borderline cases. In some cases the fraud is not discovered by the defrauded one for perhaps several days.


Deuteronomy 24:1-4

Now continue in Matthew 19:3-12. The Pharisees tried to pin Jesus down on Deuteronomy 24:1-4. They completely misunderstood that passage. They said, "Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?"

But Moses DID NOT command them to give the writing of divorce, as Jesus plainly indicated, and other translations show. (Explained later). The Pharisees may have thought it meant putting asunder a BOUND marriage, and being free to MARRY AGAIN. That would have been contrary to GOD'S LAW!

There had been, in Jerusalem, two schools of thought on the divorce and remarriage question. These were the schools of Hillel and Shammai. The Hillel school was the far left liberal school. They interpreted Deuteronomy 24:1-3 to mean that divorce was permissible for "every" reason -- or ANY reason. If a woman burnt her husband's toast, he had grounds for divorce. If he didn't like her looks any more, he could divorce her.

But the Shammai school was more conservative. They allowed divorce and remarriage only on grounds of adultery or unchastity (after marriage, of course).

Actually, when the Pharisees came trying to trap Jesus, they were trying to make him answer which school He sided with. But Jesus sided with neither. He sided only with GOD -- and God's CHURCH must do the same. Yet both were basing their contention on their misunderstanding of this passage of Deuteronomy 24:1-4.

In Matthew 19:7 the Pharisees asked Jesus, "Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement ...?" Then in the parallel passage in Mark, "The Pharisees came to him and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses COMMAND you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away" (Mark 10:2-4).

They simply didn't understand the Scriptures. Moses DID NOT command them to put away their wives. What he COMMANDED was that the man who put away his wife under the circumstances of Deuteronomy 24:1-3 could not take her back.

Once again, Jesus answered: "... But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and cleave to his wife. And they twain shall be one flesh; so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder" (Mark 10:6-9). God did not give even ministers authority to "bind" or loose a marriage. What God bound man is not allowed to unbind. He continued: "And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery" (verses 11-12). Absolutely NO "except for the cause of" here!

We have now covered THE TRUNK OF THE TREE. There are a few fairly major "branches" on the subject, and a number of minor "branches" and "twigs." Some of these are of more or less doubtful translation and interpretation. Actually Jesus, in Matthew 5 and 19, and Mark 10, was clearing up the WHOLE TREE, so to speak.

When Jesus Christ said, "But I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and whoso maarieth her which is put away doth commit adultery" THAT WAS THE FINAL WORD!

THAT SETTLED IT!

And the case of Joseph and Mary adequately describes the "except it be for fornication." That is an "except" where God has never bound the marriage. There simply has not been any marriage in such a case. Whatever GOD has BOUND is bound for LIFE!


Major "Branches" -- Deuteronomy 24

But some have gone into this study exhaustively, searching and researching every major, minor branch, and tiny twig, to fortify their own reasonings and ideas.

We have covered the TRUNK of the tree with such passages as Genesis 2:24; Romans 7:1-3; I Corinthians 7:38; and Ephesians 5:31, beside Matthew 5:31-32; and 19:3-9 and Mark 10:2-12. Add Malachi 2:14-16, and you have a very solid and substantial "TRUNK" of this tree of marriage, divorce, and remarriage.

But the Pharisees, and many critics today, bring in some branches such as Deuteronomy 24:1-4, Jeremiah 3, Hosea, etc. Some of these are less clear, and some today even go to other sources, and even to nonrelevant reasonings and arguments to try to justify divorce and remarriage.


Real Meaning of Deuteronomy 24:1-4?

There are various contentions and arguments about the meaning of Deuteronomy 24:1-4. BUT THESE DO NOT CHANGE CHRIST'S FINAL WORD, which SETTLED the whole question.

Whatever this passage -- Deuteronomy 24:1-4 -- says, it is clear from Matthew 19:3-9 that it speaks of something MOSES ALLOWED, because of "the hardness of their hearts," while still encamped in the wilderness during the 40 years prior to entering the Promised Land -- something not allowed from Adam to Moses, then ALLOWED from Moses to Christ, but DIS-allowed by Christ from His time on.

Now the BIG QUESTION becomes: Is this passage speaking of Moses allowing men to put away their wives after the marriage was BOUND by God -- after the wedding, and after the husband had accepted his wife and lived with her for some time -- or is it speaking of a man being ALLOWED to reject -- put away his wife immediately -- probably on the wedding night before being BOUND? In other words, is it speaking of allowing men to REJECT their betrothed wives before being bound, for a reason that had NOT been previously allowed, and which CHRIST did not allow from His time on?

Let me state here the Jewish Publication Society translation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 -- which is very close to the RSV.

"When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth her, then it come to pass, if she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly thing [literal translation 'matter of nakedness,' AV margin] in her, that he [not 'then let him,'] writeth her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house, and she departeth out of his house, and goeth and becometh another man's wife, and the latter husband hateth her, and writeth a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, who took her to be his wife; her former husband who 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, which the Lord God giveth thee for an inheritance."


Important Difference In Translation

The important difference in translation, from the AV, is that instead of "then let him write her a bill of divorcement" the JPS translation has "that he writeth her a bill of divorcement." Moffatt translation has "if he" which changes the meaning from being either permission or a command to write her a divorce. Virtually all other translations -- the RSV etc., give the sense of "if he" writes the bill of divorce. This harmonizes with Jesus' statement in Matthew 19 that Moses "suffered" them -- or allowed them to put away.

And, instead of "she may go and become another man's wife," the JPS and other translations imply a conditional "if" she go and become another man's wife. The AV "she may go" does not necessarily imply permission. Of course some would like to argue that this clause in the AV implies a divorced woman is free to marry another man. But the Hebrew implies, as the other translations render it, as meaning "she may decide to become another man's wife." The word may can mean permission, and it also can mean volition -- the decision of the woman, NOT permission. We could say: "She may or she may not decide to go." But God's Church assuredly cannot in spite of all positive scriptures DENYING such permission, use such a doubtful application to be grounds for disobeying so many other positive and clear passages which FORBID remarriage after divorce.

And anyway, Jesus said it was not so from the beginning, and is not so now. Under no circumstances can this be "Bible grounds" for a divorced person to marry a second mate, now.

The one thing that Moses did command in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is that, in the circumstances described in the passage, the first husband could not take her back.

Now just what does Deuteronomy 24:1-4 MEAN?

Regardless of its true meaning, it does not apply today. Jesus said that, whatever it means, it was not so from the beginning, and is not, now.

Keep in mind, according to Jesus in Matthew 19, this passage, alluded to by the Pharisees, speaks of something MOSES ALLOWED because of their "hardness of heart." It was while they were still in the wilderness, encamped, during the 40 years prior to entering the promised land. Whatever Moses allowed because of their selfish carnality, it was not legally allowable from Adam, nor by Jesus from His time on.

Is this passage saying that IF a man, bound by God in marriage to his wife, divorces her for any cause, that she is free to go and marry another man? And does it say that Moses allowed this second marriage -- and that it was bound by the living God? Does God change like that? Does it say that the divorce Moses either commanded or allowed UNbound -- cut off completely -- what God had bound for life in the first marriage? And does it say, therefore, that although the first husband still lived, the woman was no longer bound to him, but was now bound to the second man? And forbidden to get Rebound to husband number one?

Some would argue YES! Let's carry that hypothetical case a little further. Would that mean that if husband number two divorces her, or dies, that she is free to go to husband number three, and God would bind her as ONE FLESH to the third man? And to carry this principle further, would not this allow her to be divorced from husband number three, and get bound by GOD to husband number FOUR -- then number FIVE, and so on and on to as many husbands as she chose?

What did JESUS say?


Did Christ Change?

He said, "Whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery"! (Matt. 19:9.) Is Christ the SAME yesterday, today, and forever? Did He change between the time of Moses, and His appearance on earth?

What says the LAW OF GOD?

It says, "... the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth. For a woman which hath an husband IS BOUND by the law to her husband so long as he liveth .... So then IF, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an ADULTERESS" (Rom. 7:1-3). Did God CHANGE between Moses and Christ? This says that, once a woman is BOUND in marriage to a husband, (by God Himself) she is bound TO HIM as long as he lives. If she marries a second man, she shall not be called his wife -- she shall be called AN ADULTERESS. It IS NOT MARRIAGE recognized by God -- it is ADULTERY! She is still bound to her original husband -- she still IS HIS WIFE. Adultery can be forgiven. Still being bound as his wife, she most certainly may go back to him, where she belongs -- if she repents and he will take her back.

This is precisely the case of Christ (Old Testament God) and the children of Israel, married to Him. He says to Israel, "Only acknowledge your sins -- REPENT, RETURN UNTO ME, O Israel, for I AM MARRIED unto you (Jer. 3:13-14).

It becomes positively evident that Deuteronomy 24 is NOT speaking of UNbinding what God bound FOR LIFE, and leaving the wife free to marry another.

God is CONSISTENT -- the SAME yesterday, today, and forever.

Deuteronomy 24 is speaking of something MOSES, without altering God's Law, could ALLOW because of a condition he found among the people.


The "Uncleanness" What Was it?

It seems no two translations state the same specific thing the original husband (of Deuteronomy 24) found in the woman. The AV uses the expression, "some uncleanness." The original Hebrew word is "ervah". This Hebrew word is derived from a primitive root, arah defined to be (causative, make) bare, discover, make naked, uncover." The Hebrew word itself used, ervah means "nudity, literally (especially the vulva) or figuratively (disgrace, blemish): nakedness, shame, uncleanness."

Now the AV translates it "he hath found some uncleanness." The Moffatt rendering is "found her immodest in some way." Fenton translates it "found repulsive qualities in her." The JPS has "some unseemly thing." Another AV margin has "indecency."

Now the word "found" is from a Hebrew word meaning "to come forth, to appear, come to find." Or, to discover, in the sense of something unknown to him before.

The original Hebrew here does not name specifically the exact particular "repulsive," "uncleanness," shameful, or undesirable thing discovered. It does refer to discovering something in the female pubic region, unknown to the husband until disrobing on the wedding night. It does not refer to something discovered days, weeks, or years later.

In those days women's bodies, even to arms, legs, and neck-lines, were kept fully covered. Even today, in the Middle East, some women keep their faces veiled. Usually a woman's face was covered with a veil during a wedding ceremony.


The Case of Jacob and Leah

In the case of Jacob having served Laban seven years for Rachel, whom he loved, he did not discover that old Laban had tricked him by having his elder daughter Leah under the veil at the ceremony until after he had married her, thinking he was marrying Rachel. Undoubtedly, according to God's Law, as Christ explained it, in principle, in Matthew 5, and 19, and also Deuteronomy 22:13-21, Jacob could have rejected Leah on grounds of fraud, refusing to consummate the marriage sexually, and God would not have BOUND him to Leah. But he did not have that kind of "hardness of heart," he accepted her -- then served the scheming old Laban seven more years for Rachel.

Putting all this together, it begins to become very evident that what is described in Deuteronomy 24:1 is a man, after marriage upon disrobing on the wedding night, discovered something in the pubic region of the woman's body that he claimed was repulsive or undesirable to him in some way. He had no chance to know of this, before.

Apparently Moses discovered that men in camp were rejecting their new wives -- refusing to consummate the marriage -- not for any one specific thing that was repulsive, but something that they claimed was at least undesirable in some way. A man would REFUSE TO ACCEPT his new wife, reject her on the spot, give her a written bill of divorce (or "of cutting off") and send her away. Since the man had not known previously of the objectionable something, and the marriage was not sexually consummated, God never bound the marriage.

Apparently Moses learned that men of Israel more and more were rejecting wives on the wedding night for INSUFFICIENT CAUSE, because of their hardness of heart. Because of normally insufficient reason. Rejecting them for any reason that displeased them. That left the betrothed husband UNmarried, and free to marry some other woman. But it publicly disgraced and defiled the woman rejected. By a slight stretch of the imagination, knowing human nature and the selfishness and lustfulness of those who had such "hardness of heart," we may well assume that it was becoming a growing trend for men to marry two, three, or more women in this way, deciding after the marriage-night disrobing which female body pleased him the most. Then they would actually marry in a new ceremony whichever of those thus sampled they decided upon, accepting her and being BOUND to her.

Such a practice escalating was an ABOMINATION!

To put a stop to this promiscuous sampling to choose which wife would be accepted, Moses FORBADE remarrying and being bound to any who had entered into a marriage with another man, whether divorced from him or whether he died.

Thus, Moses put a complete stop to promiscuous sampling of several, then actually accepting a marriage to whichever woman pleased a man the most.

To put away a woman right after the wedding ceremony PUBLICLY, with a written bill of divorce that was a written "cutting off," exposed the woman to public disgrace. Thus she was defiled. Certainly to do that and then receive her back in marriage would be an abomination.

But, if Deuteronomy 24:1-4 were talking of a divorce from a BOUND wife after living with her for some time, she could not have married the second man called "her husband" -- it would have been ADULTERY -- and her husband could take her back, because he was married to her. Thus it is proved that this passage does not refer to divorce of a BOUND marriage, and freedom to remarry another.

Next, consider further. The statement that IF the woman, rejected after the first kiddushin ceremony, "goeth and becometh another man's wife ..." (Deut. 24:2) implies that the woman was free to marry this other man. This is further indication that she was rejected, not accepted and bound, after the kiddushin ceremony with the first betrothed "husband." The implication is that she BOUND to this second man, and that the first "marriage" was never sexually consummated and bound.

Next, (verses 3 and 4), IF the second and bound husband divorces her, or if he dies (severing that bound marriage), the first betrothed "husband" who rejected her, was not allowed to take her again, in another kiddushin ceremony to be his wife. I have PROVED, by Romans 7:1-3, and by I Corinthians 7:11, and by God's marriage to Israel, that if that first marriage had been BOUND, she would still be MARRIED to him -- still BOUND to him; and allowed to return to him. Therefore, to be consistent with all the Scriptures, the first was not a bound marriage. Whether the second marriage of the woman was, or was not bound, the first "husband" who rejected and cut her off could not take her back. And if the second "husband," like the first, defiled her by rejecting her and sending her away before consummating the marriage -- before it was bound -- neither could he take her back.

This command restraining the former betrothed "husband" from taking her back was what Moses commanded, not as the Pharisees implied before Jesus, what is stated in verse 1. Such a command forced the men of Israel to "count the cost," before rejecting a woman after the marriage ceremony. It deterred impulsiveness. It blocked any ideas of sampling a number of disrobed female bodies, after wedding ceremonies, and then taking back the one he chose.


Time-Setting of Deuteronomy 24:1-4

It has already been shown that any argument that Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is speaking of a husband divorcing a bound wife, some time after the bound marriage is untenable.

Some have contended the phrase "and it come to pass" in verse 1 means that a period of time had transpired, after the marriage was bound.

I answer, with credit to the researches of Wilbur A. Berg:

1) The phrase "When a man taketh a wife" (JPS trans.) suggests a time of marriage setting.

2) There is no reason to assume it would take a long time -- after the wedding night -- for a husband to come to find, or discover some unseemly, repulsive blemish, or whatever, in his wife's pubic region. The entire indication is that it was found, and the rejection occurred immediately. If it were not discovered until a month, or a few years, they would have been bound. And it already has been shown how impossible it is that this passage is referring to divorce of a bound marriage, contrary to God's Law, and every other scripture covering such a case.

3) The woman would have been bound to her first husband if the phrase "then it cometh to pass" means "after a period of time." And if this were the case she would not be free to go and become another man's wife, but instead would become an adulteress. Also, if the first marriage was bound, Moses could not forbid her to return to the husband to whom she was bound for life (Rom. 7:13; I Cor. 7:11; Mal. 2:14-16). God's LAW does not change.

But the expression "it cometh to pass" means it "happens" or "occurs." The TIME of happening is indicated in this very verse: "... then it cometh to pass." Notice it: "WHEN a man taketh a wife, and marrieth her, then it cometh to pass ..." It is plainly saying the bill of separation came to pass THEN, when he married her. It does NOT say "When a man takes a wife and marries her, and after a long time it come to pass." The phrase "come to pass" means "happen," without indication of when, unless stated in the context. In Exodus 12:41 the precise time is stated: "... even the self same day it came to pass." And in verse 51: "And it came to pass the self same day, that ..."

4) If the bill of divorcement was given after the first couple had been bound in marriage for some time, and if the woman was allowed to re-marry, this would be totally contradictory to such clear scriptures as Mal. 2:16, Rom. 7:1-3, and I Cor. 7:11, which state or imply that a marriage is bound for life. In I Corinthians 7:11 a separated couple is instructed to reconcile, or remain unmarried. Advocating divorce and remarriage in the Old Testament would mean that God was teaching one thing then and another in the New Testament. But God says He changes NOT (Mal. 3:8, Heb. 13:8).


Additional Cases in Deuteronomy 22

Following the case already covered in Deuteronomy 22, are other examples of sex violations. We cover them briefly:

Some try to say that ADULTERY was grounds for divorce and re-marriage in the Old Testament. Here is a case of adultery:

"If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel" (Deut. 22:22).

No DIVORCE! No REMARRIAGE AFTER ADULTERY

JUST DEATH, FOR BOTH!

God looks on MARRIAGE as sacred! Marriage is HOLY! Marriage is intended -- FOR A REASON already explained -- to be PERMANENT.

Adultery is a capital SIN. It brings the DEATH penalty! Jesus paid that penalty for repentant believers! One wonders -- what is God going to do to this generation?


Further on Adultery

Numbers 5:11-31 clarifies the matter of adultery even further. If a woman committed adultery and was not caught in the act (the preceding paragraphs describe what was to be done if she was caught), but her husband suspected her of being unfaithful and became jealous, he was instructed to take her to the priest who had performed the procedures prescribed in these verses so that her guilt or innocence could be determined. Note that the husband was NOT told to divorce his wife because of her suspected adultery. Rather, the woman was set before God who, in effect, pronounced her death sentence by causing her thigh to rot and her belly to swell if she was guilty (verses 21 and 30). If she was innocent, she was completely exonerated and conceived seed (verse 28).

Therefore, summarizing the matter of adultery in the Old Testament, it is absolutely clear that adultery in the normal sense of the word was NEVER grounds for divorce once the marriage was bound.

What about even a betrothed person? Is even a betrothal serious in God's sight? Is the betrothal AGREEMENT, as yet unbound by God, sacred? Is it all right to violate it? NEXT CASE:

"If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband ..." Notice, in the Bible the betrothed man is already her HUSBAND! Prior to being BOUND in marriage. Even while she still is a virgin. But continue: "... and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbor's wife; so shalt thou put away evil from among you" (Deut. 22:23-24).

Notice, the betrothed but unmarried virgin is called her fiance's wife. Christians, today, are spiritually betrothed to Christ. Does He expect us to be FAITHFUL?

Did you ever wonder WHY we have so much promiscuous and widespread IMMORALITY today? If these laws of God had been strictly enforced, they surely would have "put away evil" from our modern society!! These scriptures are showing THE WAY -- GOD'S way -- to put down all our widespread evils of modern society! All this shows the WHY of God's apparent strictness in regard to marriage and divorce.

But now suppose the same type of case happens out in the open field, where no one would hear the girl cry out for help if she were raped:

"But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her, then the man only that lay with her shall die: but unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbor, and slayeth him, even so is this matter. For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her" (Deut. 22:25-27).

God looks on the heart, and the intent. The body of the girl here was either injured by raping, or it experienced the same as the city girl. But the city girl consented -- she did not cry out for help -- and the girl in the field is presumed to have cried for help, but none heard her. It was the intent of mind and heart God judged.

Now what about a case of ordinary fornication -- with a virgin? It would be presumed, in the following LAW OF GOD, that the girl consented, and did not scream out for help, since there is no mention of being out in the field.

"If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days" (Deut. 22:28-29). But even if not caught: Ex. 22:16: "And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife."

Some have tried to use verse 14 in Deut. 21:10-14 to prove divorce is allowed. This is explained as the same as Deut. 24:1 -- the woman was let go before a marriage was consummated. Nothing is said here about divorce and remarriage. This cannot be used to nullify God's law by saying that what He has bound in marriage as one flesh may be unbound with freedom to remarry.

As a young man, not knowing God's Laws, or God's Word, or His WAYS, it was my personal code of ethics that to break a girl's virginity (outside of marriage, that is), was as evil as committing murder. Young people don't look at it that way today.

All these scriptures show how SERIOUSLY God looks on MARRIAGE!

Marriage is a WONDERFUL BLESSING from God. People should work at it to make their marriages HAPPY. They should remember its main ingredient is LOVE, and love is outgoing concern for the good, welfare, and happiness of the other, not selfish lust or desire for how much one can GET out of the other.

Marriage CAN be happy.

I KNOW!

I was blessed with such a marriage for FIFTY YEARS!

Does GOD Believe in Divorce? Didn't He Divorce Israel?

Next, some who try to prove that God does allow divorce (of a bound marriage) and remarriage to a second husband, in a second bound marriage, turn to Jeremiah 3 and compare it to Deuteronomy 24:1-3.

First, we challenge anyone to show any scripture stating that God will bind any man or woman to a second mate while the first mate is still living! It is simply IMPOSSIBLE.

So we examine Jeremiah 3:

Notice, "THEY say, ..." (Jeremiah 3:1). Not God says -- or YHWH says. God is quoting what the people are saying -- but the people never did understand Deuteronomy 24:1-4! The Pharisees (Matt. 19) did not understand it. Neither do some who contend for divorce and remarriage today. The fact "they" were saying, without understanding, is the very REASON God referred to Deuteronomy 24:1-4 here -- to CORRECT their wrong concept.

But THEY -- people -- "say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man's, shall he return unto her again? Shall not that land be greatly polluted?" But what does God say? -- "but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith the Eternal" (Jer. 3:1).

The "THEY" -- the people who were saying this, completely misunderstood Deuteronomy 24:1-4. They thought they could never return to YHWH, their husband. But He is showing that Deuteronomy 24:1-4 does not apply: He says, "yet return again unto Me."

He says, you have not only gone off and married another -- you have done something much greater -- you have played the harlot with MANY lovers. Yet you are still BOUND to me. You CAN return -- if you repent. The case is altogether DIFFERENT!

Note these DIFFERENCES between Deuteronomy 24:14 and Jeremiah 3:

1) In Deuteronomy 24 the betrothed and UNbound "wife" was put away NOT for adultery after a bound marriage, but because of something discovered and SEEN in her naked body prior to first consummating marriage. She was rejected -- not even accepted as a wife. But in Jeremiah 3, God's bound wife committed both adultery and multiple harlotry, and was given a "bill of divorcement" (SEPARATION) much later, because she REFUSED to live with her husband, and because of this unfaithfulness to her BOUND Mate.

2) The Deuteronomy 24 marriage was rejected, NOT bound. The Jeremiah 3 marriage was bound at Mt. Sinai. In Deuteronomy 24 the husband rejected and sent away the wife before bound, while in Jeremiah 3 the bound wife rejected and left her Husband after being bound.

3) In Deuteronomy 24:4, the rejected and unbound "wife" (by betrothal only) was barred from returning to the betrothed "husband" who rejected her. In Jeremiah 3 the bound wife was bound to her Husband as long as she lived, and He pleaded with her to return -- and later He paid her penalty for her harlotry and sins in her stead by His own shed blood.

4) The Deuteronomy 24 rejected and unbound wife was free to marry, and became another man's WIFE, to whom she was bound. No committing adultery and harlotry. (Being bound to this second man, if he rejected her it would have been adultery to go back to the first man who refused to accept her). The Jeremiah 3 bound wife did NOT marry another, but committed adultery (unfaithful to her bound Husband), and also harlotry with MANY lovers.

5) The Deuteronomy 24 "bill of divorcement" was a CUTTING OFF prior to being bound in marriage, caused by discovery of "unseemly thing", but in Jeremiah 3 the "bill of divorcement" was a legal SEPARATION because the bound wife REFUSED to return and because of unfaithfulness to a bound marriage that could not be inbound.

NEITHER "BILL OF DIVORCEMENT WAS A DIVORCE IN THE SENSE PEOPLE REGARD IT TODAY. NEITHER UNBOUND WHAT GOD HAD BOUND FOR LIFE!

There was NO SUCH DIVORCE in the Old Testament as people view it today!

Now let's UNDERSTAND Jeremiah 3:

God is saying that "THEY" say, if a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man's, he shall not return to her again! They probably supposed, as did the Jews of Jesus' day, that Deuteronomy 24:1-4 referred to putting away a bound wife. We have amply proved it is impossible to have meant that.

But God is showing that Israel has done much worse than being "married" to one other man. Israel has become a whore, played the harlot with MANY lovers -- yet He begs her to come back to Him.

He says "Lift up thine eyes unto the high places [places of pagan idolatrous worship], and see where thou hast not been lien with." He continues to describe the enormity and multiplicity of her sins. Even the rain was withheld because of her sins, but she refused to be ashamed.

Actually, Israel, YHWH's wife, was bound in the marriage covenant, called "the Old Covenant," which also set up Israel as God's kingdom, or nation, on earth. This "wife-nation" LEFT her Husband in the days of Samuel, described in I Samuel 8:1-9, (about the year 1095 B.C.). The wife refused to obey her Husband, and sought other "lovers" -- that is, false pagan gods. But He did not yet "put her away" in a bill of "separation." God gave Israel human kings. He remained a faithful, loving Husband. After the division into two Kingdoms, He continued to send prophets to PLEAD with His Wife to REPENT and RETURN to Him. But the Kingdom of Israel continued through nineteen kings and seven dynasties in the sins of Jereboam, often worse.

Finally, after this continuous pleading through many generations, God gave the northern Kingdom of Israel the Bill of Divorcement, or SEPARATION.

"Therefore the Eternal ... removed them out of His sight: there was none left but the tribe of Judah only ....So was Israel carried away out of their own land to Assyria unto this day" (II Ki. 17:18, 23). (721-718 B.C. -- 377 years after God's wife refused to live with, and "left Him.")

Then, after this, about 612 B.C., God said to Jeremiah, "Hast thou seen that which backsliding Israel hath done? she is gone up upon every high mountain and under every green tree, and there hath played the harlot. And I said after she had done all these things, Turn thou unto me. But she returned not. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it. And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery, I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce [SEPARATION; (721-718 B.C.)], yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also" (verses 6-8).

At that time -- after Israel had been removed from the land of Israel, God said through Jeremiah:

"The backsliding Israel hath justified herself more than treacherous Judah. Go and proclaim these words toward the north, and say, RETURN, thou backsliding Israel, saith the Eternal, and I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you: for I am merciful, saith the Eternal, and I will not keep anger for ever. Only acknowledge thine iniquity ... TURN, O backsliding children, saith the Eternal, FOR I AM [present tense] MARRIED UNTO YOU: ... (Jer. 3:11-14). Then follows the Prophesy of Israel's final return to Him, in the millennium.

So the "Bill of Divorce" did not end or unbind the bound MARRIAGE. AFTER He had given the "Bill of Divorce", God said, I AM MARRIED UNTO YOU.


I Corinthians 7:10-15 Explains

God, who married Israel at Mt. Sinai, was Spiritual. Israel, His wife, was carnal, an "unbeliever."

In I Corinthians 7:10, it is written: "And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord [who had been the YHWH married to Israel]. Let not the wife depart from her husband: but and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband ..." (to whom she is joined for life) "... and let not the husband put away his wife."

Those who try to interpret some O.T. passage to allow a man to divorce (unbind a marriage) his wife and marry another DISOBEY this command of the Lord!

Continue: "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away ....But if the unbelieving depart, let him [or her] depart. A brother or sister [in the Lord] is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace." (That is, a brother or sister is not under bondage to fight in strife to prevent the unconverted to remain -- or to continue the obligations of support.)

Paul was looking back on the examples of Jeremiah 3 and Hosea 2. The unbelieving wife did depart. He did not "put her away" until generations after she LEFT HIM -- refused to live with Him or obey Him -- until after He had PLEADED and PLEADED for her to return. He had done everything possible to make it a good marriage. He gave her every blessing. But she looked at other "lovers" (the gods of neighbor nations). She loved the ways of the world. She wanted to be like other nations, not God's holy nation (Ex. 19:6). She refused to live with Him -- left Him for multiple "lovers." Her relation with the others was NOT marriage but adultery and HARLOTRY.

Still He pleaded with her to RETURN, and, as in I Corinthians 7:11, be reconciled to her husband. If this were a case like Deuteronomy 24:1-4, He could not have taken her back.

God finally gave her a bill of SEPARATION, after exhausting every effort to reconcile the marriage -- but He did not UNbind the marriage. It was a legal separation. In such cases the believer is not under bondage to maintain the obligations of marriage -- support, etc., on the part of the husband.

But God will yet bring Israel (N.T.) back to Him, and re-marry her once she is cleansed.

Several more recent modern translations render the Hebrew "BAAL" in Jeremiah 3:14 as "master" or "lord." As, in Moffatt, "for it is I who am your lord." The Hebrew word can be rendered either way. Regardless of which way this "BAALI" is rendered, or even if verse 14 is applied to the millennium as one translation renders it, the meaning is the same. A bound marriage is bound for LIFE. And even after the legal separation of verse 8, the marriage was not unbound, for God still pleaded (verses 12-14) with Israel to return to Him.

Some might point out that in the analogy of Hosea 2:2 God says "She is not my wife, neither am I her husband." This is referring to the time after the official separation of Jeremiah 3:8. But I have pointed out that Israel had left her Husband (God) hundreds of years before, and had lived those years in whoredom with countless "lovers." Israel was not living with God as an obedient and loving wife lives with a husband. Finally God had driven Israel out of the promised land -- "out of His sight." They were not living AS husband and wife.

This passage in Hosea DOES NOT show that the marriage was dissolved or that either party was free to remarry another husband or wife. It does show that she had left His "bed-and-board" -- and it does show that He, setting the example for us, remained FAITHFUL to the marriage.

Also, in Malachi 2:11, is an indication that Judah did enter a second marriage. But her status is explained in Romans 7:3 "so then, if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called AN ADULTERESS." Not called his WIFE, but an ADULTERESS.

There is absolutely NOTHING in Jeremiah 3, Hosea 1-3, or Isaiah 50, or Deuteronomy 24 or 22, to show that a BOUND marriage, bound by God for life, can be UNbound, or that one bound may be free, by divorce, to remarry!

Here is the loving EXAMPLE the living Christ has set for us, that we should follow His steps! It is the perfect example of fidelity, patience, mercy, love that is willing to FORGIVE -- perfect outgoing concern -- an example of the PERMANENCY of marriage, even when one's mate has sinned more against one than any human has had to suffer. Through all this abuse on the part of His mate, He remained steadfast. He ENDURED. He still LOVED!

Do WE?

IF any want to follow this world's way of divorce, and to re-marry one you think may PLEASE YOU better, DO YOU?

"But think of how I have been wronged!" one says. "Think of how I am the injured party. Think of how I suffer!"

Yes, I know, and my heart goes out to you -- BUT THINK OF HOW GOD WAS WRONGED -- OF HOW HE WAS THE INJURED PARTY -- OF HOW HE SUFFERED -- OF HOW HE, GOING TO THE CROSS BECAUSE OF HIS WIFE'S SINS, TO PAY HER PENALTY FOR HER, MUST HAVE SUFFERED! But HE REMAINED FAITHFUL to His BOUND MARRIAGE! HE NEVER SOUGHT MARRIAGE TO ANOTHER!

He must have agreed with Paul -- or inspired Paul to write: "For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time not worthy to be compared with the GLORY which shall he revealed in us" (Rom. 8:18).

Christ suffered, endured, bled and died -- but He is NOW IN THAT GLORY, and on the THRONE OF GRACE, to help YOU endure and overcome, and SHARE THAT GLORY with Him! There will be no suffering then. Jesus did not say that road to GLORY is the soft, pleasant, EASY road -- but the hard, rough, difficult one.

IT'S YOUR CHOICE!

If there's been suffering, it's because God's LAWS were broken. Breaking God's law of marriage anew again, would only ADD to your suffering!


Hosea Confirms Truth

Some, attempting to justify divorce and re-marriage, try to read their contention into the book of Hosea. Especially the first two chapters, and chapter 4, verse 14.

But Hosea only confirms God's truth, in harmony with all other scriptures touching on the subject.

Remember, Hosea was one of the PROPHETS. His book primarily is a book of prophecy, not a treatise on marriage and divorce. The book as a whole deals with the TWO COVENANTS.

The Old Covenant, made between God and Israel at Mt. Sinai was, by analogy, (as in Jeremiah 3), a MARRIAGE Covenant by which the children of Israel became God's WIFE. Also it made Israel one of the nations (kingdoms) of the earth.

But something was wrong with that covenant. We read in Hebrews 8: "... if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. But finding fault with them [the people of Israel -- the WIFE], he saith, Behold the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a NEW COVENANT with the House of Israel and the House of Judah" (Heb. 8:7-8).

Once again, this brings us back to the MEANING and the VERY PURPOSE of marriage. Combined with it -- intertwined with it -- is the VERY PURPOSE for creating humans on this earth. Back to the TRUNK of the tree. This time, all the way back.

God created a PERFECT earth. We don't know how long ago. We read of angels here before the creation of man. At the original creation, the angels shouted for JOY (Job 38:7). The earth was BEAUTIFUL! The Government of God ruled the angels who first populated the earth. Their earthly king was a super arch-angel -- a Cherub named Lucifer (Isa. 14:12-15). He, too, had been created PERFECT, (Ezek. 28:12), sealing up the sum of wisdom, perfection and beauty. He had previously been over the very throne of God (Ezek. 28:14 and Ex. 25:17-20) and was trained and experienced in the administration of the Government of God over the UNIVERSE. As long as God's Government was administered, the earth was filled with PEACE, happiness and joy.

It is written, "GOD IS LOVE." God's Law -- the basic Law of God's Government over the entire universe -- is LOVE. And LOVE is the fulfilling of that Law.

Love is a WAY of life. It is GOD'S way. It is, as I have written so many times, the way of "GIVE." It is an outgoing concern toward the one loved. It is the WAY of serving, sharing, helping, giving. Toward God, it is manifested in submission, obedience, worship of Him who IS Love -- the way of humility, belief in, reliance on, and the confidence which is living FAITH. It is the GOD-centered WAY.

There are only TWO general WAYS of life -- two divergent philosophies. The other is the way of "GET." It is the way of SELF-centeredness, of vanity that lifts SELF above all -- even above God. Therefore it resents any authority over self. It is the way of rebellion, lust and greed. It is unconcern for the welfare of others, jealousy, envy, resentment, hatred. It is the way of COMPETITION and STRIFE and WAR.

The Government of God is based on the LAW of God. You don't know of any national government on earth without any LAW. All government is based on law, and the administration and enforcement of that law. Government regulates the way people live in relation to one another.

As long as Lucifer administered GOD's GOVERNMENT -- regulating the way inhabitants lived in relation to God and to one another, all was PEACE, HAPPINESS, JOY, PROSPERITY.

But Lucifer came to reason that he or anyone could enjoy life more living the SELF-CENTERED way. Most people today seem to feel that Satan, the former Lucifer, was right. So he sold his idea to the angels under his jurisdiction. They rebelled with him. They swooped as an invading army, to lay siege on God's throne in heaven (Isa. 14:13-14; Jude 6; II Pet. 2:4). But they miscalculated God's Power and Authority. They were cast back down to earth.

This universal rebellion against God, against His Law, was Universal SIN. It brought universal destruction to the whole earth. The earth became dark, chaotic, waste and empty (Gen. 1:2).

God had endowed Lucifer and his angels with free moral agency -- He allowed them the power of free choice. God did not abolish His principle of allowing freedom of choice. But now He decided on a course to PROVE, once and for all, that the way Lucifer (now Satan) had chosen was WRONG -- against the interest of those who chose that way. He mapped out a 7-thousand-year program.

In seven days, a type of His 7,000 years, God renewed the face of the earth (Ps. 104:30). He brought LIGHT to replace the darkness caused by Satan's way. He produced BEAUTY instead of ugliness and decay. He created, out of material from the ground, animals, fishes, birds -- each after its own kind. Then He created His crowning Masterpiece -- He made MAN after His OWN kind -- the GOD KIND. Man was made of the material dust of the ground, but of the same form and shape as God -- and having MIND power as does God. Only man's mind was mortal and confined, of itself, to receiving MATERIAL knowledge. God put in MAN a spirit -- spirit essence which imparted the power of intellect and physical comprehension. Also for man God made available His OWN Spirit, flowing from His very Person, which could enter into man, impart to him the presence of GOD'S life -- eternal life -- and comprehension of spiritual knowledge.

Upon creating man, His last act on the sixth day of that first week, God began revealing to the man and woman necessary basic knowledge, including knowledge of HIS WAY of life -- knowledge of His Law. But Satan, though disqualified, must remain in office until a successor has qualified and been inducted into office.

Now what was God's PURPOSE? WHY was man created? WHAT was God going to demonstrate over the seven thousand-year allotment?

He was going to PROVE, by allowing man to CHOOSE, through seven millenniums of human EXPERIENCE that Satan's WAY causes only discontent, unhappiness, dissatisfaction, sorrow, pain, anguish, poverty, degeneration of mind, fear and worry, frustration and DEATH. And proving that GOD'S WAY brings PEACE, contentment, happiness, joy, deep satisfaction, comfort, security, prosperity, great vigor and expansion of mind and joy-producing knowledge, assurance for the present and future.

God purposed to DEMONSTRATE this truth so completely and conclusively to the holy angels there could NEVER be any doubt or temptation to repeat Lucifer's decision, as well as to make it demonstrated once and for all time to those who shall be heirs to His salvation, entering His Kingdom.

Again, WHY was man created? What is God's PURPOSE for man? As explained before, God is reproducing Himself! His PURPOSE is to beget divine children for HIS OWN FAMILY.

God (Hebrew, Elohim), is a FAMILY of divine Persons. Jesus, who was the God of the Old Testament, came in human form to REVEAL THE FATHER. His Message -- His Gospel, was the KINGDOM of God -- the revelation that God is a FAMILY of divine Persons. That Family has a HEAD -- the Father. Jesus is His Son. The Church -- plus the Prophets -- are to become His divine WIFE -- all children of God the Father.

God created man mortal, human, composed of MATERIAL sustains. The PURPOSE was that we learn, in this human life, HOW TO LIVE GOD'S WAY-the way the divine Creating-Ruling Family lives -- according to GOD'S LAW, the way of LOVE.

Since we are to live for ever AS MEMBERS OF THE DIVINE FAMILY, ruling the Universe, God bequeathed to humans something He gave to NO OTHER kind of life -- FAMILY life. FOR THIS PURPOSE, He made us MALE and FEMALE. And for that reason, He ordained the MARRIAGE institution, to prepare us to live in a marriage of LOVE -- and to the end that we learn the sacredness and the PERMANENCY of marriage, which shall remain PERMANENT for all eternity, in God's Kingdom -- His divine FAMILY.

God well knew that, being mortal and human, we would make mistakes. Through the very SPIRIT IN MAN, which imparts the wonderful power of intellect to the physical brain, Satan is able to communicate. Satan is the Prince of the Power of the Air. Radio and television communicate through the air.

The spirit in each human is, unless we ourselves determine to jam it or reject its impulses, tuned in on Satan's wavelength. He does not broadcast in words, in concrete thoughts, or in sounds. The ear does not hear, nor the eye see what the devil communicates. He broadcasts in ATTITUDES -- in IMPULSES -- in THOUGHT SUGGESTIONS. He injects attitudes and impulses of vanity, or rebellion, or envy, of resentment, of fear and worry, of discouragement.

When most people feel such moods coming over them, they do not realize the source of their feelings.

Adam and Eve, first, were taught and instructed by their Creator. But God ALLOWED Satan to get his impulses and attitudes into Eve's mind. She was deceived into making the wrong choice. Your Bible says ALL NATIONS have been DECEIVED, and by this Satan (Rev. 12:9). But, just as God first made His own revelation of TRUTH available to Adam and Eve, so He has made HIS WORD available -- if humans will seek it and believe it.

Because God KNEW humans would sin, under Satan's sway, His Plan called for the sacrifice of Christ to redeem humans from sin. God grants REPENTANCE, when humans really want to turn to the RIGHT WAY.

God chose the descendants of Abraham, the Children of Israel. WHY THEM? First, they were Abraham's children, and Abraham made the choice to OBEY and BELIEVE God. Second, they were poor slaves when He called them. He wanted to prove what He could make out of even downtrodden slaves, IF only they would BELIEVE Him and OBEY.

WHY did He MARRY Israel? Again, to DEMONSTRATE what that experiment did, that unfaithfulness in marriage leads only to evil results. He allowed Israel, as the "WIFE", under Satan's sway, to demonstrate the unhappiness, suffering and wretchedness that results from going Satan's way.

Israel, from the start, was a SELF-centered wife. She was actuated by the WAY OF "GET".

God proposed marriage (Ex. 19:7-8; 24:3, 7) and the people accepted and glibly promised obedience. God had promised, upon faithful obedience to HIS WAY -- HIS LAW -- the WAY OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD -- to give them every material national benefit. They would become the most prosperous, the most powerful, and the happiest nation on earth.

Upon Israel's PROMISE, unproved by performance, God entered into covenant relationship with Israel. Immediately God began showing His love -- working MIRACLES on their behalf. By miracles, He had, before the marriage, forced Pharaoh to free them from bondage -- to let them go. He had started them on their exodus out of Egypt. He performed miracle after miracle in their behalf -- getting them across the Red Sea, miraculously giving them water, raining food down from heaven.

But His wife was on the GETTING way. She grumbled, griped and criticized.

After 40 years in the wilderness under Moses -- 40 years of partial obedience -- not yet going after other gods (lovers) -- 40 years of complaining and griping -- they entered the Promised Land under Joshua.

"And the people served the Eternal all the days of Joshua, and ... of the elders that outlived Joshua" -- that is, God's "Wife" did not leave Him and seek after other gods (lovers) -- 45 years. But they disobeyed Him in many ways -- especially in failing to drive out a number of small nations as God commanded. But then the honeymoon was over. "... there arose another generation after them, which knew not the Eternal, ... And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the Eternal, and served Baalim: and they forsook the Eternal ... and followed other gods, of the gods of the people that were around them" (Judges 2:7-12).

Under the Judges they obeyed only part of the time (when they were in deep trouble and needed a champion to deliver them). Most of this period they were seeking after the many gods (lovers) of neighbor nations. This covered a period of approximately another 300 years.

Then it was Israel, as the Eternal's WIFE, who said she was not pleased to remain with Him as her Husband (Ruler) any longer (I Sam. 8:1-9). She left Him who had been FAITHFUL -- who had given her ALL and received none. She sought many lovers in harlotry (idolatry, which is spiritual adultery and harlotry).

But God purposed to demonstrate to doubting, unbelieving, disobedient mortals that He meant marriage to be a matter of outgoing LOVE -- a matter of PERMANENCY and of FAITHFULNESS. Despite a Satan-swayed sinning wife, God gave a perfect demonstration of GOD'S WAY -- as it WILL BE in the Kingdom of God.

Even after pleading with her to repent and return through many generations, after sending prophet after prophet to plead with His harlot wife to mend her ways and return, God finally "let her go" -- He made the separation legal -- but it was not a divorce that UNbound the marriage bound at Sinai. He said, "Return unto me, O Israel, for I AM MARRIED to you."

God was the faithful HUSBAND, setting the example, showing us how a husband should perform even with a wife more unfaithful and having sunken down lower in degradation than any individual wife I know of. And He showed us that, NO MATTER what the provocation or the abuse or the offense, a husband OUGHT to remain steadfast -- that marriage should be based on LOVE of the outgoing kind, and FAITHFULNESS in marriage must remain that, through thick and thin.


WHY The NEW Covenant

Now WHY the NEW Covenant?

How will it be DIFFERENT from the Old?

The FAULT with the Old was the matter of HUMAN UNfaithfulness. God says: For this is the Covenant that I will make with the House of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people" (Heb. 8:10).

God will not start pouring out blessing and benefits on the mere glib promise of faithfulness on our part. The NEW Covenant will be made only with those who have REPENTED, BELIEVED, received God's Holy Spirit, have been LED by His Spirit, who have GROWN spiritually in grace and Christ's knowledge, and in spiritual character, who have OVERCOME their faults, sins and wrong ways -- who have REPENTED after every mis-step, cried out to God to help them overcome, relied on Him through temptations to put within them HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS. It will be made with a people who have PROVED, through their Christian lifetime, that they DON'T WANT to sin -- to be unfaithful -- who have really hungered after God's righteousness, striven, crying out to God for help, to overcome, and to be FAITHFUL and ENDURING, no matter what the odds.

This time, Christ says, PROVE your faithfulness, if you want to enter into the NEW Covenant marriage relationship with me. PROVE you would be FAITHFUL by the way you handle your human marriage NOW. Become of ONE MIND and ONE SPIRIT with GOD as you are one flesh in human marriage.

What about those who wrest God's Word to allow divorce and re-marriage now? They shall have HAD their marriages -- and in them THEIR SOLE REWARD. They shall have been unfaithful to the spiritual BETROTHAL that every Christian enters into upon spiritual conversion, and receiving God's Holy Spirit.

Again, with the Apostle Paul, I say, I reckon the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be COMPARED with the GLORY we shall inherit, if faithful!


What Hosea DOES Say

Now back to the Prophecy of Hosea.

To use Hosea 4:14 to claim that adultery becomes a lawful and permissible reason for divorce and remarriage is to take it entirely out of context. The corrective marginal rendering completely reverses the meaning -- "Shall I NOT punish ..." This corrected meaning brings it back into context and harmony with the whole prophecy and other scriptures. We will treat with that in its context.

First, notice the TIME of the prophecy -- chapter one, verse 1. It is shortly (perhaps fifty or a hundred years) prior to the final defeat of Israel and their removal to the land of Assyria as slaves.

The PURPOSE of the book of Hosea is NOT to teach that divorce and remarriage (UNFAITHFULNESS) is legal and right in God's sight, but precisely the opposite. It describes with utter disapproval Israel's harlotries and unfaithfulness, and gives the PROPHECY of the NEW Covenant and the millennium, with Israel redeemed, and the requirement of FAITHFULNESS to the New Testament betrothal, NOW (Hosea 2:19).

At the beginning (Hosea 1:2) the prophet is told to take a whore for a wife. He marries Gomer. She, and her children, will represent, by analogy, the harlotries of God's wife, Israel.

Gomer bears him a son, and God instructs Hosea to call him Jezreel, for God will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu, and will bring about the end of the northern kingdom of Israel. This happened, 721-718 B.C.

As recorded earlier, Israel left her Husband -- He did not leave her (Judges 2:7-13 and I Sam. 8). He continued to send prophet after prophet to plead with Israel to repent, and return to God and HIS WAYS. Now, after the division into the TWO NATIONS, Israel and Judah, God PUT ISRAEL AWAY, out of His sight (II Kings 17:18, 22-23). This was the divorce that was a LEGAL SEPARATION. However, after this "divorce" (Jer. 3:8), God said emphatically, "Turn, O backsliding children, saith the Eternal, [YHWH], for I AM MARRIED UNTO YOU (Jer. 3:14). The divorce did not UNbind the bound MARRIAGE!

Neither did God use this divorce to free Himself, (the injured Husband), to marry another! God remained FAITHFUL, He was still married -- BOUND -- to Israel!

Now Gomer bore another child -- a daughter, named Loruhama, meaning, "No mercy, or, not having obtained mercy" for God was not going to have mercy longer upon the Kingdom of Israel. Up to this point, Israel STILL could have received the Birthright promise made originally to Abraham -- could have become the most prosperous, the wealthiest, most powerful nation on earth, with PEACE. But now it was to be withheld for 2520 years (Lev. 26:14-18). God would have mercy no longer. "I will utterly take them [House of Israel] away" (verse 6). Utterly SEPARATED -- but still bound in marriage!

But, at that time, God would still have mercy on the Kingdom of Judah (verse 7).

Gomer had another son, Loammi (meaning "not my people.") "You are NOT my people, and I will not be your God" (verse 9).

"BUT" coming to verse 10, skipping over 3,000 years, "in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God" -- speaking of the time when Israel's Husband shall have died (His death ending the Sinai marriage) and to pay the penalty of Israel's sins, and New Testament Israel -- the Church of God, repentant, redeemed "... shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together" (verse 11).

As Dr. Clint C. Zimmerman has written,

"The scene shifts again at Hosea 2:2, and we find the words, 'for she is not my wife, neither am I her husband' which gives rise to the question, 'Has Hosea divorced Gomer, and has God divorced Israel?'

"Jeremiah 3 and I Corinthians 7 have already answered the question. This separation is not a matter of dissolving a bound marriage. Both separations occur because the wives are not pleased to dwell with their husband, and prove it by repeated adulteries. They depart, and the Husbands are no longer 'under bondage' or obligation to provide food, drink, clothing -- the necessities of life (Hosea 2:9). Yes, the husbands are not even required to give proper spiritual instruction any longer -- their wives may go into idolatry without any deterrent (Hosea 2:13). Normal husbandly protection, provision and instruction is no longer incumbent. But they are still married, still able to reconcile, for Gomer one day will return to Hosea (verse 7). Deuteronomy 24:4 would not allow for such return." (So it is NOT the law governing the situation of Jeremiah 3 and Hosea.)

Continuing the Dr. Zimmerman paper: "It is impossible to make the human analogy of Hosea and Gomer fit the final anti-typical marriage of Christ and the Church."

Actually, Hosea departs from the analogy at that point, and Hosea becomes the prophet, giving the future as a "thus saith the LORD."

Dr. Zimmerman's paper continues, "The wife is finally able to call her spouse 'My husband' where heretofore her only concept of Him had been as a hard taskmaster 'Baali' (verse 16).

"Now the picture moves forward to the end of the age -- 'in that day' of a new covenant. The book of Hosea is here concerned with end-time prophecy, not Hosea's own literal marriage."

Here is the prophecy for our day.

"And in that day will I make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of heaven ... and will make them to lie down safely. And I will BETROTH thee unto me for ever; yea, I will BETROTH thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in loving kindness, and in mercies. I will even BETROTH thee unto me in FAITHFULNESS: and thou shalt know that I am the Eternal ... and I will have mercy upon her that had not obtained mercy; and I will say to them which were not my people, Thou art my people, and they shall say, Thou art my God."

In chapter 3, Hosea returns to the Old Testament scene.

"Go yet, love a woman beloved of her friend, yet an adulteress, according to the love of the Eternal toward the children of Israel."

Then he says to her -- a prophecy of God to Israel at the time Hosea wrote: "For the children of Israel shall abide many days without a king" -- which they did after their capture and exile into captivity, after 718 B.C. Again the prophecy carries over some 3,000 years to a time just future to our day: "Afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the Eternal their God, and David [resurrected] their king, and shall fear [obey] the Eternal with His goodness, in the latter days" (chapter 3).

Now chapter 4: There is NO TRUTH in the land (setting: Hosea's lifetime). The Eternal has a controversy with the people of Israel. There is no knowledge of God. But much bloodshed. They have forgotten the Law of God (verse 6). God will forget their children in later generations. "... and I will punish them for their ways" (verse 9). "The spirit of whoredoms hath caused them to err" (verse 12). It continues describing Israel's sins. "... Therefore your daughters shall commit whoredom, and your spouses shall commit adultery" (verse 13). "Shall I not" [margin] "punish your daughters when they commit whoredom, and your sons when they commit adultery?" asks God.

This is the verse supposed to allow divorce and remarriage NOW! The Authorized Version has "I will not punish your daughters." The marginal rendering corrects it. To say this justifies and makes right whoredom and adultery would be completely out of context, and all that goes before and after. Even if God stopped punishing them (correcting them) that would not make their sins righteous.

No, there is nothing in the book of Hosea that contradicts the LAW OF GOD on MARRIAGE. Once a marriage is bound by God, it is BOUND FOR LIFE. There are no exceptions.


God HATES "Putting Away"

In Malachi 2:16 it is stated that God HATES "putting away." But some will cite Jeremiah 3:8, where God gave Israel a divorce. First, it has been explained that was merely a LEGAL SEPARATION, not a divorce as people think of divorce today -- not an UNbinding of a bound marriage. For after this, God said to Israel, "I AM MARRIED unto you" (Jer. 3:14).

Even so, God HATED this separation which an unbelieving, rebellious wife insisted on. For more than 600 years, after Israel, the wife, had left Him, God had patiently sent prophet after prophet to plead with the wife to return to Him. Yes, He HATED "putting away." The second chapter of Malachi is another example of how God DEMANDS FAITHFULNESS TO THE MARRIAGE COVENANT.