Microsoft Word - Master Jesus' Doc Div.doc

JESUS’ DOCTRINE OF

MARRIAGE

DIVORCE

REMARRIAGE

John D. Keller

Produced in association with:

Goose River Press, Waldoboro, Maine

Dedication

To the children of broken families and especially to

that little Amy and little Tommy who long to live

with their creation-marriage biological father or

mother; and by all of God’s love and righteousness

deserve and have the absolute right to have it so.

And to all the creation-marriage husbands and wives

who have been betrayed by a spouse, some who

have been divorced by the unfaithful spouse, and are

being faithful to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ by

remaining alone praying and waiting with great

long-suffering for the full repentance and return of

their departed beloved spouse.

What, therefore, God hath joined together, let not man put

asunder.

(Matt. 19:6)

CONTENTS

Chapters

1. WHO HATH GOD JOINED TOGETHER ? 9

2. FROM WHENCE COMETH POLYGAMY AND

DIVORCE? 43

3. DO CUSTOMS MATTER? 79

4. WHY DOES MOSES PERMIT POLYGAMY AND

DIVORCE? 111

5. WAS GOD A DIVORCE‘ ? 145

6. WHAT IS JESUS’ DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE,

DIVORCE, AND REMARRIAGE? 187

Abbreviations:

NSRB - New Scofield Reference Bible

ANET - Ancient Near East Texts

CU - Code of Ur Nammu

CE - Code of Eshnunna

CL - Code of Lipit-Ishtar

AJA - American Journal of Archaeology

CH - Code of Hammurabi

KDOTC - Keil and Delitzsch, Old Testament Commentary

ISBE - International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

JJS 17 - Journal of Jewish Studies

NT - New Testament

OT - Old Testament

LXX - Septuagint

KJV - King James Version

INTRODUCTION

God is not the author of confusion, but of peace. As men are

at peace with their understanding of God’s Law of Gravity, so they

should be at peace with God’s Doctrine of Marriage. Divorce must

be subject to the doctrine of marriage; it will be seen that marriage

supersedes the idea of divorce and in their struggle marriage

obliterates her foe: divorce.

The King James Version of the Bible is the source of this

dissertation. The hermeneutics of the author will be of the literal-

historical-cultural school. One important law of interpretation which

will not be violated is the law of "common sense". I join with

Edward W. Goodrich (Professor of Greek and Bible Multnomah

School of Bible): "If there ever was a place for common sense, it can

be found in the rules for interpreting the Bible." The Bible's

autograph languages may be referenced from time to time, and will

be given their honor.

Sola Gratia, salvation by Grace alone, is the truth that is

being contaminated by those who misinterpret the marriage doctrine.

(You might consider that statement rather out of place, but please

read on for it is the central theme of this dissertation.) If you do not

teach salvation by grace alone, you inevitable teach salvation by

works. The doctrine of works is always condemned by the God of

Salvation, “but though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other

gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him

be accursed, anathema.” We are assured that God's love for man is

long-suffering; He is not willing that any should perish, but that all

should come to repentance; therefore any teacher who promises man

salvation without repentance must be accursed. And since God's love

calls upon all men everywhere to repent, it must be understood that

God's doctrine of repentance, and God's doctrine of marriage apply to

all men, all religions, all societies, all political institutions, and all

nationalities. The first application of God’s matchless grace is to lead

a sinner to repentance: “Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness

[Grace, my comment] and forebearance and long-suffering, not

knowing that the goodness [Grace, my comment] of God leadeth thee

to repentance?” (Rom. 2:4). Repentance for one’s sin, and faith in

the shed blood of Christ will cleanse the sin of any man; therefore

there is hope that every marriage can be saved from the complexities

of marital sin, and His blood is the only salvation for marital sin—

providing repentance and departure of the marital sin has been

exercised.

In matters of controversy, the student will inevitability face a

crossroad. His progress will require a step of faith. That crossroad

will clearly be faced by each student of the marriage-divorce

controversy, and I believe that the inevitable intersection is the

"exception clause." This entire dissertation surrounds this one clause.

My prayer is that the reader will have the courage to study the entire

text, and then consider the true meaning of the exception clause. As

you will see the fate of marriage and perhaps the fate of mankind may

depend on your interpretation of those five words: "except it be for

fornication".

About The Author

John D. Keller is an independent fundamental Baptist; saved

in 1960 and married Janet in 1962. Graduated in 1969 from

Philadelphia College of the Bible and pastored two churches in

Maine; presently at Calvary Baptist Church, Madawaska, Maine since

1980. Our 44 years of marriage have brought us five children and ten

grandchildren.

[email protected]

CHAPTER ONE

Who Hath God Joined Together ?

Has God joined together all marriages? Has God joined

together the unsaved? Has God joined together the unbeliever with

the believer? Has God joined together the divorced and remarried?

Has God joined together the innocent partner in a new marriage? Has

God joined together the guilty partner in a new marriage? Has God

joined together partners of the same sex? Just who has God joined

together?

Regarding the last question: same sex unions, be assured that

God has nothing to do with such sin and debauchery. He has

declared such an act, same sex union, as a capital crime equal to if not

the same as bestiality; the word marriage cannot refer to

homosexuality, as it cannot refer to bestiality. As a man or a woman

cannot marry their, horse, dog, dolphin,

or any other beast, so they

cannot marry partners of the same sex. In God’s eyes homosexuality

is a godless sinful act that is fit for the punishment of a capital crime

in the nation of God that adhered to the death penalty:

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a

woman, both of them have committed an

abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their

blood shall be upon them. Lev. 20:10

Thus the Word of God has confirmed that the act of homosexuality is

a capital crime. The only salvation for such a crime is repentance

with the total cessation of the sin and faith in the forgiveness through

10 Chapter One Jesus’ Doctrine

the blood of Christ, or the death penalty—the death penalty will await

God’s final judgment day; then death may mean eternal death in the

fires of hell. The Bible equally condemns lesbianism (Rom. 1:26).

Thus if a woman lie with womankind, both of them have committed

an abomination: they shall surely be put to death.—I once read that

the definition of lesbianism is atheism.—The same death penalty was

deemed proper for bestiality:

And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put

to death: and ye shall slay the beast. And if a woman

approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou

shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely

be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Lev. 20:15,16

The Remaining Questions

The remaining initial questions will be answered throughout

this dissertation, and their answers will provide the solution to the

entire marriage-divorce-remarriage confusion. The dilemma is that

men refuse to permit God to rule marriage. Man has the idea that

man is the sovereign judge and ruler of marriage. But we shall see

that man is not the king of his own castle; he has no sovereign right

over his wife or family. It must be mentioned that the woman also

has no claim to sovereignty; she is also subject to the Creator of the

Single Pair. Marriage is literally the creative act of God, and man

cannot alter that act: an act where God created one man and one

woman and joined them together in a marriage. At this point in

creation, marriage was completely defined.

Two thousand years ago, when the Pharisees came baiting

Jesus with the inquiry, "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for

every cause?" the marriage-divorce-remarriage question was in the

eyes of that generation as murky and muddled as it is to the children

of the twenty-first century. Their question smacked of male

sovereignty, although it was intended to test Jesus' understanding of

the Law of Moses; but more than that, it actually raised the vital

subject: marriage. Divorce is a sub-article in the doctrine of

marriage, and Jesus clearly identified that fact. At the heart of Jesus'

answer were those profound words, “What, therefore, God hath

Who Hath God Joined Together? 11

joined together, let not man put asunder.” The only question man can

propose from this immortal statement is, Who hath God joined

together? To answer this question we will follow the Preacher Jesus’

guiding hand. He began his answer to the Pharisees question by

sounding the original Genesis marriage text.

Genesis 1:26, 27

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after

our likeness: and let them have dominion over the

fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over

the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every

creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God

created man in his own image, in the image of God

created he him; male and female created he them.

Gen. 1:26,27

"Have ye not read that he who 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." By these words Jesus drove His hearers and now you, the

reader, to the actual creation of man. Marriage is to be defined in the

context of first two chapters of Genesis. Jesus does not proceed

beyond the Genesis text to define marriage. Therefore we can

conclude that the definition of marriage can be defined within that

textual limit.

Jesus immediately introduces the person of the Creator God

as the engineer of marriage. He links marriage with the actual

creation of man, stating that the act of creating man male and female

is the basis of marriage. Some interesting comments surround this

text, with one author, Ziegler, stating that the male did not possess

complete sexual distinction without the creation of the female. Adam

was a male in simple potentiality, out of which state he passed, the

moment the woman stood by his side.

Much has been said regarding

the concluding statement of the Creator, "And God saw every thing

that he had made, and, behold, it was very good." It should be

pointed out that before He said it was very good at one point He

stated that something was not good in the primary creation of man.

12 Chapter One Jesus’ Doctrine

“And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone,”

man was not malformed, he was just not completely formed being

one. Ziegler's thoughts coincide with Laney's comment that the two

Hebrew terms male and female literally mean the piercer and the

pierced.

Would the male plug of an electrical extension cord have a

definition without the female receptor. Now if a male electrical

connector cannot be defined without its antithesis, can man be

defined without a woman? Some have suggested that man was

created androgynous (both male and female) but Kiel and Delitzsch

are correct and overthrow this theory by stating that God referred to

man with the pronoun them,

"male and female created he them."

The revelation which we must see here is not that God created man

androgynous, but that he created man married. The purpose of

removing a rib from Adam in the creation of the woman was not to

form a biologically compatible creature, for that could have been

accomplished with more dust; the purpose was to create kinship.

Isaksson, the author of this idea, concentrated on Genesis

chapter two. However, if we examine (Gen. 1:26) with his concept

we will discover the meaning of the text. The mystery of the

Godhead is suddenly revealed in this marvelous conversation: "Let us

make man in our image." These words have delighted the spiritual

mind since their inscription, but most commentators agree that we

have never savored their full flavor. However if we concentrate on

the kinship concept and meditate on the Triune God for a moment a

greater light shines through.

Man was created a single pair, apparently in contrast to the

animals. Kiel and Delitszch translate Genesis 1:20, "God said; Let

the waters swarm with swarms, with living beings, and let birds fly

above the earth in the face of the firmament." Their comment, "The

animals were created, not only in a rich variety of genera and species,

but in large numbers,

reflects the opinion that there were many

pairs of animals. That is in remarkable contrast to man, the Single

Pair. Before the Fall the animals only benefit would be in the rapid

advance of their numbers, but afterwards their advantage was in

marked contrast to the disadvantage of man.

Since man and beast were by creation herbivores (Gen.

1:29,30), we can confirm that there was no competition between them

since neither was the hunted; a remarkable contradiction to Darwin.

However after the Fall, man was immediately faced with the dangers

Who Hath God Joined Together? 13

of death from: fellow men, beasts, insects, storms, disease, even the

possibility of an accident. The odds favored man's extinction. The

initial survival of the many paired animals, on the other hand, was a

sure thing. Man, the Single Pair, was in a peculiar strait. Man lived

in fear of extinction until he could produce a sufficient population to

ensure his immediate survival. Man's only prospect for existence was

bundled in a single relation with the only other man, woman. This

relationship was the most delicate alliance in the history of the human

race. By faith Adam would build a relationship of hope between his

family and his God. It must be remembered that Adam walked away

from the tree with God's condemning words ringing in his head, "in

the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." The Apostle

tells us in Hebrews (2:15) that Adam lived out his days in the fear of

death. He would have to hope where he saw little hope. Could he

survive to procreate mankind? Would he have faith in the God of

Salvation. His fear would have to be conquered. It was imperative

that he find the faith which would permit him to cultivate his

marriage with love, peace, and promise. He would have to lead his

lady in a life of hope and faith. Conjugal love depends on security

and hope; thus seeking out the promise that the seed of the woman

would bruise the head of the serpent; Adam would have to learn to

pray. We do know that he and his wife prayed earnestly, for Eve's

testimony declares where she believed her first born came from, "I

have gotten a man from the Lord"; obviously an answer to prayer.

The creation-marriage, and the birth of Cain bring a bright

new meaning to the truth of man's creation as being in the image and

likeness of God. The Biblicist believes that God's image and likeness

is a united diversity, a tri-unity, a trinity—Father, Son, and Holy

Spirit. Many commentators have attempted to define this quality in

man; some calling it a trichotomy, (body, soul, and spirit), others

attribute it to personality (intellect, emotions, and will). The failure

of the traditional interpretation is that it has failed to see the woman

in the text. By placing the woman properly in the context a

wonderful truth bursts into bloom. God's image was an image of

kinship. The three persons of the Godhead were equally related and

were one. Jesus clearly revealed this:

That they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in me,

14 Chapter One Jesus’ Doctrine

and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; that

the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And

the glory which thou gavest me I have given them,

that they may be one, even as we are one.

(Jn. 17:21, 22).

When God removed a rib from Adam he did more than just create

another man, he created a man with the same genes, blood type, DNA

and physical characteristics. He created kinfolk. God's existence is

an eternal kinship. God's image and likeness would be an earthly

kinship; man's existence would be dependent on kinship. With the

birth of Cain man reached the ultimate kinship, family. Man was

created family. Trinity and Family are divine synonyms. God is a

family (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). Man is a family (father, son,

and mother).

Man and Woman - The Definition Excludes:

I am quite sorry to include this paragraph in this dissertation,

however considering the decline of human civilization that we are

witnessing in our so called modern age, I have no other choice but to

do so. The definition of man and woman excludes any person who

chooses to alter their natural born gender in attempt to become the

opposite sex: medically, psychologically, or by any other conceivable

method. Remember the word alter means to make different without

changing into something else

; a man will always be a man and a

woman will always be a woman—they say you can tell them by their

hands.

Genesis 2: 23, 24

And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and

flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman,

because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a

man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave

unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Gen. 2:23,24

The details of the first wedding were planned in heaven, and Gen.

Who Hath God Joined Together? 15

2:23,24 reveals that all went exactly as planned. God is love (1 Jn.

4:8b), and with this adhesive God bound the first couple, the single

pair. Jesus knew this binding love:

I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made

perfect in one; and that the world may know that

thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast

loved me. Jn. 17:23

Adam was taught love. First he was introduced to the agony of

aloneness; loneliness. He was permitted to explore the satisfaction of

nature. He is obviously befriended by the animal kingdom to whom

he affectionately awarded to each creature a name. His home was a

marvelous garden. The beauty of flora and fauna, the majesty of

nature, the friendship of every creature, and the companionship of the

triune God did not meet man’s most inner need. Even God concluded

that it was not good for man to be alone. The loneliness of man was

broken during the silence of his deep sleep. This is further evidence

that man is not saved by works, but by faith. Man’s heartfelt

emotions cried for fulfillment even in his sleep. Carl Laney hears a

song from Adam as he expresses his delight with the gift of the

woman; with sleepy eyes Adam beheld the most beautiful creature of

God's creation, and with ecstasy in his voice he declares literally:

This one at last

Bone - my bones!

Flesh - my flesh!

This one shall be called woman

Because out of man this one was taken.

The dawn of human love was born in marriage, a marked contrast to

the opinion of modern men who have been deceived to believe that

marriage is the end of love. Marriage owns love, marriage is the

instructor of love. Marriage was God's love gift to the lonely man.

Marriage made God's creation very good. Man was created married.

Man was created in love. It is no wonder that since the garden love

scene all creation has been filled with reports of the same; it seems as

though the famous English lover was in the Garden:

16 Chapter One Jesus’ Doctrine

What lady is that which doth enrich the hand of yonder knight?

O, she doth teach the torches to burn bright!

It seems she hangs upon the cheek of night

Like a rich jewel in an Ethiop's ear;

Beauty too rich for use, for earth too dear!

So shows a snowy dove romping with crows

As yonder lady o'er her fellows shows.

The measure done, I'll watch her place of stand,

And, touching hers, make blessed my rude hand.

Did my heart love till now? forswear it, sight!

For I ne'er saw true beauty till this night.

"I ne'er saw true beauty till this night", was the cry of the

romantic. The soul of Romeo saw the torches burn bright because of

the lady. She stood out as a dove among crows (this would have been

literally true in the case of Eve). Adam could have easily said,

amen! to William Shakespeare. The spectacular beauty of creation,

especially seen in the symmetry and color of the birds, insects, fish,

flowers, and sunsets ensures the knowledge that Adam was a creature

of excellent handsomeness. His song raises the woman to his equal.

Her silence speaks of a breath taking experience as she was

enraptured with her lover; Adam was irresistible. Her thoughts were

expressed by the Shulamite:

Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth.

Song of Sol. 1:2

Eve's passiveness speaks submission and permission. The male

announces his intentions with forwardness, the lady submits and

signals permission to her lover. Kiss is plural; it requires two players.

One alone cannot kiss. The act can only be accomplished with two

sets of lips. Each person’s lips must desire the others. Kiss is

irresistible. Each person is drawn by an energy of love which each

cannot resist. Kiss is promise. Each person promises admiration,

trust, faith, and sacrifice in the kiss. The drawing power of the kiss

has been quaintly explained by our English lover:

Love goes toward love as school-boys from their books

But love from love, toward school with heavy looks.

Who Hath God Joined Together? 17

The Loving God created man in love. Man was created a plurality of

being. He was created married. He was created kinfolk. He was

created family. He was created with the cement of love. He was

bound with the lady with this love cement. The twain “was” one.

Man was created a Single Pair. Where the animal’s dependence was

upon their numbers, man's survival was dependent on his love. His

love was victorious. The Single Pair could have joined with

Solomon:

I raised thee up under the apple tree. There thy

mother brought thee forth who bore thee. Set me as

seal upon thine heart, as a seal upon thine arm; for

love is strong as death. Song of Sol. 8:5,6

Leave His Father and Mother

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his

mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they

shall be one flesh. Gen. 2:24

Although these words initially appear to be those of Adam,

Laney points out that Matthew clearly explains that they are the

words of God: “Have ye not read that he who made them at the

beginning, made them male and female; and said, For this cause shall

a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and

they twain shall be one flesh.”

The reason they shall leave mother

and father is bound in the fact that they are male and female. G. von

Rad suggests that the drive behind Edenic love was bound in the

physical nature of the rib:

Whence comes this love 'strong as death' (Song 8:6),

and stronger than the tie to one's parents, whence

this inner clinging to each other, this drive towards

each other which does not rest until it again becomes

one flesh in the child?

It comes from the fact that God took woman from

man, that they actually were originally one flesh.

18 Chapter One Jesus’ Doctrine

Therefore they must come together again and thus

by destiny belong to each other. The recognition of

this narrative as etiological is theologically

important. Its point of departure, the thing to be

explained, is for the narrator something in existence,

and not something 'paradisal' and thus lost!

The creation of the woman removed a physical part of man, the loss

of which compels man to be rejoined with his missing being. While

visiting a nursing home, the author often witnessed to a elderly

gentleman who in his youth, lost a leg in an industrial accident. The

man was usually sad and melancholy since the early death of his dear

wife and only daughter. He was usually unresponsive to the Gospel,

however when it was suggested that his missing leg would be

returned to him in the resurrection, he was startled. He sat up at

attention as if he was preparing to take up arms and march into battle.

He yearned for his limb as he yearned for his wife, and daughter.

Adam yearned for his missing rib from the moment the heavenly

anesthetic wore off. Adam's missing rib caused his heart to explode

with affection, as his eyes beheld his lovely lady. His song begs her

love.

The Single Pair were created on the sixth day. God created

them male and female. God created them married. Creation married

Adam. Marriage is man. Marriage is the natural state of man. The

natural must be considered. The English word is derived from the

Latin nasci > natur > natura, to be born. As natural as it is to be

born, so is marriage. Chaucer said, “The day natural, bat is to seyn 24

houris,” (as 24 hours is natural to the day).

As the hours of a day

cannot change, marriage cannot change. Marriage was born on the

sixth day of creation and the truth of marriage is the same today. The

New Testament word for natural literally means the face of ones

birth, (the idea is that the natural is present from birth). It is no

wonder that God cursed the women and the men who changed their

natural use:

For this cause God gave them up unto vile

affections: for even their women did change the

natural use unto that which is against nature: And

likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the

Who Hath God Joined Together? 19

women, burned in their lust one to another; men

with men working that which is unseemly, and

receiving in themselves that recompense of their

error which was meet. Rom. 1:26,27

The natural is honorable, the unnatural disgraceful. The AIDS

epidemic is a fitting recompense for unnatural lust.

The familial relationship satisfies each member’s need for

security and fellowship, but it is prohibitive for the family to satisfy

mans sexual needs. Incest, consanguineous marriage, is forbidden.

Should kinfolk, by some unusual circumstance, find themselves in an

incestuous relationship, that relationship must be put asunder. Incest

is the most unnatural of all sexual acts. Other unnatural acts take

place outside of marriage, but incestuous marriage defiles marriage as

no other act can. The unnatural lust of women with women, and men

with men is cursed with the judgment of hell fire and earthly AIDS,

but the judgment of incest is immediate, it must be put asunder.

Marriage is a sexual union outside the family of kin.

This union is a totally different nature from that of

parents and children; hence marriage between

parents and children is entirely opposed to the

ordinance of God.

The tragedy of human history is that it seems to follow a Murphy's

Law: If man can do anything wrong, he will. Shortly after the Lord

God rescued Lot from the sodomites and the destruction of Sodom,

Lot gets drunk and commits incest with his two daughters. Today the

world continues this record of porn.

Sons depart to military duty or academic studies, daughters

the same, but no living departure should be as acute as the departure

to cleave unto a spouse. The nuclear family is the natural family. All

other unions are unnatural. Families are nuclear or they are not

families—the family includes adopted children. The nuclear family

can only be severed by the departure of the child in marriage; thus

permitting its members to join in a new family. Man never ceases to

be family. Those born through unnatural union like the leopard

cannot change their spots; although they can be adopted into a new

family—salvation and the new birth will make them completely the

20 Chapter One Jesus’ Doctrine

children of God. But the naturally born are seen to be with their

parents till the time of departure, marriage. This speaks of marriages

that last. Broken families do not permit their off-spring to depart

naturally. Natural families help produce sound marriages. Although

the departure of the son and daughter produce some trauma, the

presence of the parents and their approval of the new union

nevertheless speak of something wonderful.

Cleave Unto His Wife

There be three things which are too wonderful for me

Yea, four which I know not

The way of an eagle in the air

The way of a serpent upon a rock

The way of a ship in the midst of the sea

And the way of a man with a maid

Prov. 30: 18-19

Since Eden there would never be another as lonely as Adam,

the single man, and the moment his loneliness was removed creation

was complete. Creation is marriage. Marriage is a living organization

that was ordained by God. Marriage is an ordinance of God.

Marriage is an institution of God, ordained and instituted before the

fall. This ordinance requires man to leave and then to cleave. Many

have commented on the Greek proskollao, to cleave. The idea is to

bind together with glue. As a boy, the author learned the adhesive

strength of resin glue when joining wood projects together. At times,

after the glue had cured, attempts would be made to undo the glued

joints and divide the wood only to realize that the wood would freshly

break rather than permit the glued joint to separate. Contemplate this

while you consider the words of the Lord Jesus, "What God hath

joined (glued) together let not man put asunder."

Jesus the master of language exhausts all possible definitions

of the dimensions of marriage with a singular defining thought. He

expresses that definition mathematically. He claims that when man

was created he was created male and female and that plurality was

singular. And for this reason, the groom and the bride must leave

mother and father, because they must again be one.

Who Hath God Joined Together? 21

Have ye not read that he who made them at the

beginning, made them male and female; and said,

For this cause shall a man leave his 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. Matt. 19: 4-6

Jesus explicitly states that the man and the woman are not two, but

that they are one. One is the smallest indivisible particle. William J.

Hopewell makes this fitting comment:

One is the smallest indivisible unit that there is, so it

is impossible to divide the unit of one flesh once it

has been glued together. Man and woman are two

entities before marriage, but following marriage they

become an indivisible unit of one in marital status.

Thus they cannot be divided.

Hopewell goes on to enforce his comment:

Tertullian (200 A.D.) said, 'Again He [Jesus] said,

They shall be two in one flesh.... not three or four.

But if they marry a second time, or oftener, their

oneness no longer exists; there will not be two in

one flesh, on the contrary, many in one.'

The clarion call of marriage throughout eternity is, No more twain but

one. The consequent command that resounds back throughout

eternity is, Quod DEUS conjunxit, homo non-separet, (What,

therefore, God hath joined together, let not man put asunder). To

disobey God is violence. Adultery is violence. Divorce is violence.

Hatred is violence—Man was created in unity however this blessed

unity was broken when he and his woman ate the forbidden fruit;

leaving the vicarious sacrifice of the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ as

man’s only hope for unity and salvation.

Why do men commit vicious acts against man and God?

Violence speaks of disunity. Man is capable of violence by the nature

of his disunity. Jesus is the Prince of Peace because of his perfect

22 Chapter One Jesus’ Doctrine

unity. The foundation of monotheism was founded in the text: "Hear,

O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord" (Deut. 6:4). This attribute

of God, unity, is in contrast to the disunity of man, and man is fully

aware of his weakness. Driven by his inability to conquer his

disunity and be like God, man has determined to hate the Unified

God and His Son; man's supreme act of violence. Jesus pointed this

out, "And the light shineth in the darkness and the darkness

comprehended [overcame] it not." Jesus indicated that man’s act of

trying to overcome the light, actually consisted of an open hatred

against Him and God, "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated

me before it hated you", and "He that hateth me hateth my Father

also." During one particular confrontation, Jesus asked the mob,

"Why go ye about to kill me?" The Apostle states that all men were,

or are the "enemies of God" (Rom. 5:10). Marriage is a God

ordained unity, therefore any doctrine which propagates the unity of

marriage will be hated by the creature of disunity, man. It is natural

for man to hate, to war, to kill, for man is naturally violent.

Unity

Many factors are uniting to attack the unity of marriage and

the family. Pornography, the literature of prostitutes, is intended to

create in the imagination, the violence and gratification of instant sex.

Science in the latter half of the twentieth century has permitted the

propagation of porn with life-like electronic internet media. The

selfishness of man has feed on the bait of pornography, and has

strengthened itself in the violence of sex. The exploitation of man’s

selfishness is profitable; some say prostitution is the worlds oldest

business. The prostitute, however, cannot be blamed for man's selfish

nature.

Science has come to power in the twentieth century. The

question is, Has science exploited the selfishness of man? Has

science offered man a justification for his selfishness. Science is an

instrument of disunity. Its most famous trophy is the Atomic Bomb.

Its authority is rooted in its disunity. Science is the Paradox, its

greatest equation, E = mc

, has given us Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and

the fear of the destruction of mankind. Its concepts of disunity, and

its glory in the same, seem to have endless consequences. Vincent

Edward Smith, a philosopher-scientist, who survived World War II,

Who Hath God Joined Together? 23

wrote a delightful little book entitled, Footnotes for the Atom, in

which he chides modern man for abandoning philosophy/religion for

the strict science world model.

Modern physics has had no monopoly on the

empiriological method. Liberal economics took it

over and found men to be only atoms, closed off

from one another and mechanically united under the

state solely for the protection of property and the

preserving of public order, [Marxism, my comment].

Sociology, at least when it began, felt that social

and political affairs could be run off with the ease of

experiments in the physicist's laboratory.

Psychology got a later start than other empiriological

studies of human affairs, but it grew very rapidly to

the extremism that man is only a bundle of atomic

reflexes (behaviorism) or an aggregate of atomic

drives (Freudianism).

All of these views, which tend to copy the method of

empiriological physics, are powerless of themselves

to solve the pressing human problems which the

atomism of matter has heightened. They only

atomize men. On the social plane, atomism or

individualism cuts men off from one another.

"Bundle Theories" of man scatter his personality

into disorganized and warring atoms, differing from

matter only in complexity. The atomic bomb is

dangerous because of the atomic man. It is unity

that alone can organize.

Smith admits that pure science will increase man's power; but warns

that it will kill his love.

He continues, "It is already quite clear that

physics is atomizing matter and then atomizing the atoms. It aims to

explain all physical structures by smaller ones and then resorts to a

third particle, like the meson in the nucleus, to show how two others

are united. It is analytic even when it wants to synthesize. But where

does the division stop? The answer is nowhere: it just keeps going."

The killing of man's love is almost prophetic, as we look

24 Chapter One Jesus’ Doctrine

about our land. There is a twofold nature to mistreated love. Jesus

taught that the true lovers of the future would have their love wax

cold because of iniquity, and Paul predicts that the self-lovers would

wax hot. The latter predicted the perilous days ahead, when men

would be selfish (lovers of their own selves), without natural

affection, and beside other things trucebreakers. A.T. Robertson

identifies covenant breakers in Romans 1:31 with trucebreakers in II

Timothy 3:3. Therefore the prediction of II Timothy: "This know,

also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be

lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers,

disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection,

trucebreakers (those given to divorce).

The destruction of unity contributes to the progress of

physics, but when applied to the walk of man it has produced a

modern paganism. "Society has been atomized into individual units,

and pagans, seeking nothing but themselves."

Smith completes his

admonition with the judgment that Science is a false-messiah.

Existentialism is the religion of physics. It is the religion of the

individual atomic man. "Chiefly a Twentieth Century philosophy,

Existentialism centers on the analysis of individual existence and the

plight of the individual who must assume ultimate responsibility for

his acts of free will without any certain knowledge of what is right or

wrong or good or bad."

Selfishness is certainly a false-messiah.

When Judah, the son of Jacob, discovered that Tamar played the

prostitute, and that he was the father of his daughter-in-law's child, he

confessed that Tamar was more righteous than he (Gen. 38:12-26).

Like Tamar, science may be prostituting mankind with its offer of a

philosophy of selfishness.

Selfishness or Sacrifice

A comment from almost a generation ago may be worth

noting: A 1980 (AP) news article headline read, "Population Decline

Expected in Europe". A Dutch population specialist (Dirk J. van de

Haa) reports that a fertility rate of 2.1 per family is necessary to

maintain a constant population. He then states, “The statistics

recorded in Europe indicate that they will realize a population decline

should the present marriage practice continue.” Van de Haa claims

that the prime factor contributing to the present low fertility rate is

Who Hath God Joined Together? 25

individualism.

Marriage and family place heavy demands on

individuals, especially women, and tends to limit the

freedom of both partners, he observed.

For a couple, having children imposes limits

on opportunities and activities, in addition to the

direct costs, van de Haa said, At the same time, he

said, children's utility has declined. They are no

longer either expected or legally required to support

their parents in old age or help with family finances,

he said. The emotional satisfaction of parenthood

can be achieved most economically by having one or

perhaps two children.

Many sociologists consider the movement

toward greater self-fulfillment, available at a time

when fertility is relatively easily controlled, a major

factor. Cohabitation is increasingly accepted as

normal, and as many half of the men and women in

Northern Europe may never marry, he suggested.

Individualism of marriage partners is a form of marriage hatred.

Cohabitation without marriage is violence. The scientific generation

is viewing the intricate relationships of life through the prism of the

empiriological method. William Kirk Kilpatrick makes this

observation:

The words mother and father remind us of what a

family ought to be and that without one we are

incomplete. But this idea isn't a fashionable idea.

Autonomous individuals have a higher priority than

families in the social science world.

The social science world is one of unbridled selfishness. Eric Fromm

has aptly entitled his volume, Man for Himself, and then places this

crowning statement on the subject:

Modern science holds the doctrine that the most

powerful and legitimate drive in man is selfishness.

26 Chapter One Jesus’ Doctrine

It is no wonder that the epigraph to this volume reads;

Be ye lamps unto yourselves

Be your own reliance

Hold to the truth within yourselves

And to the only lamp

(Buddha)

It is fitting that Fromm should quote Buddha, since the psychologist-

scientist has chosen to embrace Eastern Mysticism in its quest to

define individualism. The Eastern Cults have relied on the inner

solitary light as the truth which man must seek as the rock of their

religion. Science required a prostitute to convey its message, and

Eastern Mysticism is that prostitute; included here is the New Age

movement, and the so called Individualistic Society. "It is in the age

of the individual that the revolt against marriage has risen to its

present irresistible tide." Will Durant made this statement in, The

Mansions of Philosophy, written in 1941. In the same year America

entered the Great War, she was in the mist of the new civil war, the

divorce war, the family war.

But Christ taught us to march to the tune of a different

drummer, the drummer: sacrifice. "This is my commandment that ye

love one another, as I have loved you. Greater love hath no man than

this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. Ye are my friends, if

ye do whatever I command you" (Jn. 15:12-14). Sacrifice is at the

heart of the Christian philosophy. Sacrifice is diametrically opposed

to the individualism of empiriological physics. The Apostle Peter is a

witness to the Christian doctrine of sacrifice:

For even hereunto were ye called, because Christ

also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye

should follow his steps; who did no sin, neither was

guile found in his mouth; who when he was reviled,

reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened

not, but committed himself to him that judgeth

righteously; who his own self bore our sins in his

own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins,

Who Hath God Joined Together? 27

should live unto righteousness; by whose stripes ye

were healed. 1 Peter 2:21-24

Sacrifice is the glue that bonds marriage and the family; selfishness

fractures that bond. When that splitting occurs: it is usually the new

twigs that have sprouted from our sides that suffer the greatest, those

twigs are our children.

The family glue may even reach the supper table. The author

had the pleasure of learning the power of a mother’s sacrifice as a

young lad. In the year 1949 my dad died at thirty-six years of age

leaving my mom, Helen Keller—for that is her name and to me she is

as famous as the historical lady—a mountain to climb; that mountain:

to raise us five children. For several years following we struggled,

and this struggle often reached the supper table. Mom was seen

eating the meanest portions of the meal. When we were fortunate

enough to have a whole chicken in the pot, (that means a chicken

including the yellow feet) mom would be seen reaching for the neck

portion, and the yellow-feet. Several years passed and one day we

saw more food on the table. It was this day that I saw my mom reach

into the pot and retrieve a whole chicken thigh. She proceeded to eat

the thigh with relish. It was at that moment that as a young lad I

began to blurt out, "Mom, I didn't know you liked ...", and I caught

himself and suddenly realized that mom sacrificed those many years

and now she was able to relax and enjoy a single meal. The author

was overcome with emotion and had to hold back the tears. It has

been fifty years since that night, and that moment still brings tears to

my eyes. Had mom chose to satisfy herself all those years, her

children could have perished. "Love seeketh not her own" (I Cor.

13:5).

It is noteworthy that among some so-called uncivilized tribes

as noted by Durant in The Mansions of Philosophy, some mothers

nurse their children for twelve years, and that among the New

Hebrides some mothers kill themselves to take care of their dead

child beyond the grave. But the greatest sacrifice the world will ever

know took place on an old rugged cross called Calvary. We should

love as He loved us. This is where the now disdained clause

originated, till death due us part. Again the Apostle declares,

"Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave

himself for it" (Eph. 5:25). The glue of marriage is sacrifice.

28 Chapter One Jesus’ Doctrine

Choice

W. Fisher-Hunter is wrong regarding the origin of marriage:

The idea that marriage is made in heaven is

false. The truth is, marriage is a divine institution

that pertains only to the earthly existence of

mankind (Matt. 22:30). As constituted in the

beginning it is a contract which one man and one

woman voluntarily enter into; nevertheless God will

hold them responsible in it.

He is partially correct by stating that marriages are made on earth,

however marriages are made in heaven and earth. Adam required the

Creator of the universe to intercede and find him a wife. Eve was

made on the earth, but who would deny that the first marriage was not

also made in heaven.

"For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and

shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is

a great mystery; but I speak concerning Christ and his church" (Eph.

5:31,32). The mystery is the awesome merging of the heavenly with

the earthly. The romance of this merging event gives birth to our

songs and poems. It has been said that the pure sexual act is 99%

spiritual (heavenly), and 1.0% physical (earthly). This mixture of

heavenly and earthly aroused in Adam the aggressiveness to bond to

the woman, exuberantly surrounding her with his masculinity. Her

attraction is both spiritual and physical. He senses her promise of

companionship as well as being attracted to her physically. Using

physical terms he claims the woman is his bone and flesh. Adam's

words speak of the woman as irresistible. Her silence speaks of

approval. She was created with the power of speech and could have

rejected Adams's advances, but passively and with a sense of delight

the woman joins the man and is not ashamed. She immediately

consents to his proposal, and in that sense (proposal/consent), I agree

that marriages are made on earth.

One major factor that must be established before any

Who Hath God Joined Together? 29

successful solution can be found to the marriage/divorce/remarriage

question that is addressed in the title of this chapter, "Who hath God

joined together?" Mr. Hunter is again incorrect with his assumption:

"Moreover, the idea that God is responsible for having united every

man and woman who are married is also untrue." Hunter admits by

his statement that God is responsible for uniting some marriages. My

question to Mr. Hunter is, "Which marriages has God not united?"

When discussing this issue we must not loose sight of the

element of choice. This element is a divine element which may be the

actual heavenly activity joining the partners in marriage. E. Neufeld

list two defined lines of marriage: (a) intention and, (b) actual

consummation.

Heth and Wedham list four lines: (a) consent and

intent, (b) ratification of parents, (c) ratification of public witnesses,

and (d) physical consummation.

Atkinson following Dunstan list

five marks of marriage: (a) the initiative of love, (b) vow of consent,

centrality of sacrifice.

Although all these points must be

considered, the definition of marriage can be summed up in three

points: (a) choice, (b) consent, and (c) a public wedding.

Creation dictates the aggressive nature of the male, the

passive yet thoughtful nature of the female. The Shulamite speaks,

"Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth." She anxiously awaits

her aggressor with a permissive spirit. Jacob approached the well,

rolled the stone away, and kissed Rachel. Consent must be won. The

man must be gentle, strong, romantic, and practical. When the

prerequisites have been satisfied the stage is set for the drama of love.

The verbs to have and to take have a special place in marriage. They

are terms of common law. The Baptist, when speaking to Herod said,

"It is not lawful for thee to have her." And the Apostle reported, "It is

commonly reported that there is fornication among you, and such

fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one

should have his father's wife." Abraham told his eldest servant, "Thou

shalt not take a wife unto my son of the daughters of the Canaanites,

among whom I dwell: but thou shalt go unto my country, and to my

kindred, and take a wife unto my son Isaac." Even our children's

nursery rhymes carry the thought of to take: The farmer takes a wife,

the farmer takes a wife, hi ho the dairy-o, the farmer takes a wife.

There is something very final about the idea of taking a wife.

Choice has been propitiated. Decision has been exercised. Contract

30 Chapter One Jesus’ Doctrine

has been negotiated. The wedding has been celebrated. What God

has instigated in marriage is the act of choice/consent. I will address

arrangement marriage, but for the moment we must realize that God

aggressively guards man's right to choose the bride, and the ladies

right of consent. This is the mystery of love. Add this concept to the

finality of man's word and vows especially in the Old Testament, and

one realizes the power of choice/consent. The definition of marriage

begins to take on this general meaning: God has joined together the

(never been married or widowed) man to the (never been married or

widowed) woman of his choice, and the woman to the man of her

consent, when celebrated with a public wedding; and forbid man to

put asunder that which He has joined together.

Consent

The man's choice is contingent upon the acceptance of the

lady. Both are contingent upon social interaction. To leave father

and mother, and to obey the command to honor father and mother,

implies that parental blessing will be sought by the pair. Note that

Heth and Wedham have included parental consent in their definition

of marriage, but as mentioned parental consent is bond up in the pair's

choice/consent. Nevertheless, should the pair make a choice/consent

which does not receive parental blessings the union is still defended

by the Creator who aggressively protects choice/consent. Some may

object to choice/consent claiming that social arrangement marriage

annuls it. It must be conceded that in a culture where the parents

arrange the marriage that the groom agrees to the custom and thereby

knowingly concedes his right of choice. Even where parental

arrangement is the norm, should the groom step out of line, his choice

is still a binding marriage. Samson ordered his parents to take him a

wife of the daughters of the Philistines; and they did so (Jud. 14).

Western culture understands parental blessing as a secondary

concern, whereas eastern culture looks upon it as a primary concern;

but keep in mind that both seek parental blessing. The parent in the

east is laboring to ensure the child's happiness, as is the western

parent, probably with the same energy and interest. Both customs

culminate in the wedding, regardless of eastern or western influence.

The wedding is a peculiar cultural custom. There are as many

different wedding ceremonies as there are different cultures. Custom

Who Hath God Joined Together? 31

precedes law. Customs are created by people. Groups of people

design a common practice which is acceptable by the many and that

practice is refined to an acceptable custom. The custom is protected

and cherished and becomes a tradition. Children in their games act

out particular customs which they will mature to experience in

actuality. The wedding is a common game among the young girls.

Regardless of the culture the custom is honored. Isaac was

overwhelmed with the joy of Rebekah, "And Isaac brought her into

his mother Sarah's tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife;

and he loved her." Here the public wedding consisted of the public

offering of the parental tent.

Wedding

Public testimony is a vital element to any social contract, and

marriage is a social contract. Marriage is a public social act, a

wedding. The strongest customs on earth are religious customs, and

the public wedding is the most universal custom; and I might say the

strongest of all customs at that. This is only fitting since marriages

are made in heaven and on earth. The details of the wedding custom

are not significant; the historical event is significant. The verbal and

written contract is complete in the public testimony. The wedding

event is climaxed in the conjugal act of physical consummation, the

private physical contract. Thus the physical consummation is totally

part of the wedding.

Marriage is a legal act, not based on the state, but based on

the law of creation. Jesus said, "from the beginning it was not so."

He was questioned regarding the meaning of the law of Moses, but

Jesus answers to the meaning of a higher law; the Law of Creation-

Marriage. More than the Sabbath Day was established in creation;

the common laws of God were created. Blackstone concludes that

common laws are doctrines "not set down in any written statute, but

depending upon immemorial usage for their support."

Marriage is

now universally under statute law, but one must confess that since

marriage is the oldest corporate act that it furnishes us with an

immemorial source of common law. Antiquity has produced several

ancient codes, and most, if not all, contain marriage regulations. But

prior to the written codes, marriage was controlled by the common

law of Creation. Christ invoked the creation-marriage code which

32 Chapter One Jesus’ Doctrine

was written in the epistle of the Creation: Adam and Eve—please

note I did not say Adam and Steve. The common law of marriage

was written in the creation and existence of the Single Pair. All that

Christ had to decree regarding the marriage doctrine was imbedded in

the Single Pair. "From the beginning it was not so".

The common corporate act of Eden was the basis of God's

relationship to Israel. "Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God; him shalt

thou serve, and to him shalt thou cleave" (Deut 10:20). "Turn, O

backsliding children, saith the Lord: for I am married unto you" (Jer.

3:14). "Thou shalt make no covenant with them, or with their gods"

(Ex. 23:32). The Israelites understood the terms of covenant because

those terms were marriage terms. This can be seen in the delightful

story of Ruth and her mother-in-law, Naomi. It cannot go unnoticed

that Ruth clave unto Naomi, not merely remaining her companion but

remaining a companion till death due her part; "Where thou diest,

will I die, and there will I be buried; the Lord do so to me, and more

also, if aught but death part thee and me" (Ruth 1:17). We find Ruth

understanding the covenant terms of marriage with keen accuracy:

cleaving till death do us part. Did this concept generate out of the

Genesis marriage? This author believes so. Is not this the idea Adam

had in mind when he proclaimed bone of my bones and flesh of my

flesh. The simple question is, "When would her bones and flesh

cease to be his?" Her flesh would be his flesh till death. Their

relationship was bound in blood; life is in the blood. Blood is

generated by the bone, therefore we are assured that Adam and Eve

were kinfolk. The Single Pair was family. The only way to cease

from being family is to cease in death. Till death do us part.

Therefore marriage is complete when: (a) the man makes a

choice, (b) the lady consents, and (c) the wedding is complete. For

centuries laws have regulated this act. Even in Eden there was a

condition placed on marriage; that it must be sought outside the

parental relationship; incest was forbidden. This was not the case of

the fornicator of Corinth, who had taken his fathers wife. The

condition was clearly commanded, that the pair would have to leave

father and mother. The Mosaic Law would clearly define the

forbidden degrees of marriage within the limits of family.

Before we leave the definition of the wedding let us consider

a discussion about of the act of physical consummation. Is it possible

that consummation may be delayed to a time beyond the wedding

Who Hath God Joined Together? 33

night? If so, is the wedding complete? Has there been a marriage?

There are many reasons that may cause the consummation to be

delayed, but nevertheless the public wedding is complete, and there

was a marriage. For whatever reason consummation in its normal

definition can be delayed if both parties previously agreed to its

absence. No one would deny the war veteran, or the lame the right to

marry. Where each party is in agreement the consummation could be

defined as the maximum possible physical expression that could be

corporately expressed. Delay on the other hand can be caused by

many human activities: perhaps a war departure, or some other

foreseen or unforeseen departure after the public wedding. Where

fraud or the unknowing inability to offer physical consummation

exists, most states permit annulment. The church has no doctrinal

position in these matters. Could the law be exercised in such

matters? Where fraud is the question, the law should be exercised,

unless repentance exists. Impotence on the other hand could be

overcome by love.

God's full doctrine of marriage existed in the Garden. Moses

did not define marriage; God did. Jesus said that Moses had to

compromise God's will regarding marriage, because man's heart

would not permit the creation doctrine of marriage. It actually

appears that had Moses codified the Creation-Marriage Law he would

have caused some men to kill their wives. The idea of hardness is all

inclusive, indicating that some men were prepared to commit the

violent act of wife-murder if they did not get their way in their

absolute will to expel (divorce) their wives. Even today, the courts

award divorce readily in fear that if they refuse the woman will be

subject to abuse and death. During the decades of the mid-twentieth

century the abuse of women was well documented. Strong laws were

promulgated to defend the women, and consequently today these laws

are still in the books. This in spite of the fact that the table of abuse

has in many cases turned and today women have become the violent

aggressors, recording many criminal cases of abuse against the man;

husband abuse. If this continues the state will most likely reverse the

laws that now support women.

God's will regarding marriage, preceded the State, Israel,

Moses, and the Church. The garden marriage fully expressed God's

will. "The idea that God's will is not to be obeyed is an idea quite

alien to Jewish thinking".

In Matthew's divorce logion, Jesus was

34 Chapter One Jesus’ Doctrine

answering two schools of thought. The conservative element granted

divorce for adultery, while the liberal permitted a man to put away his

wife for burning his soup, or even if he found a more beautiful

woman than his wife. It is in this context that Jesus teaches His

doctrine of indissoluble marriage. The foundation of His teaching

was the Garden marriage. Isaksson comments on the relevance of

God's will:

The distinction between the sphere of the law and a

sphere in which God's will is expressed but mankind

is not bound to try to obey it, is a distinction foreign

to the N.T... In other words, to make a distinction

like this is based on conditions derived from a

different period and a different environment than

those of the N.T.

The Old Testament saint believed that any revelation of God's will

had the binding force of law. Jesus called the Psalms God’s law in

(Jn. 12:34) when quoting (Ps. 82:6), "Is it not written in your law, I

said, Ye are gods." The Jews answered him likewise, “The people

answered him, “We have heard out of the law that Christ abideth

forever: and how sayest thou, the son of man must be lifted up;” a

reference to (Psalm 102:26, 27) being understood to be the Law of

God. Again in (Jn. 15:25) Jesus said, "But this cometh to pass, that

the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law: They hated me

without a cause", a reference to (Psa. 35:19, and 69:4). Merril F.

Unger in his dictionary defines the law of God as:

A term employed almost 200 times in the Bible and

signifying the revealed will of God with respect to

human conduct. It includes all the Divine

commands and precepts for regulating man's moral

life without and within.

Dr. H.L. Willmington in his Guide to the Bible lists a total of 613

commandments in the Old Testament which Israel believed consisted

of God's law. The Biblical term law has a broad range of

significance.

Creation-Marriage, therefore, is God's law; a law that was

Who Hath God Joined Together? 35

revealed in the very creation of man. It is a law of creation as is the

law of gravity, or the law of thermodynamics. By nature the Single

Pair's creation-marriage was indissoluble. God's revealed will was

that marriage is indissoluble. Indissoluble marriage is the law of

God. To change that law would require the same force required to

change the law of gravity, or the law of thermodynamics. It would

literally require God to dissolve heaven and earth and create a new

universe with different natural laws. This is the essence of Jesus'

words, "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"

(Matt. 5:18). Thus creation-marriage is with us today 6,000 years

since its inception; listen to these definitions from Black's Law

Dictionary:

Leave: Willful departure with intent to remain away,

and not merely a temporary absence with intention

of returning.

Join: To unite; to come together, to combine or unite

in time, effort, action, to enter into an alliance.

Marriage: As distinguished from the agreement to

marry and from the act of becoming married, the

civil status, condition or relation of one man and one

woman united in law for life, for the discharge to

each other and the community of the duties legally

incumbent on those whose association is founded on

the distinction of sex.

The wedding is interpreted by culture and custom and these dictate

the dreams and fears of the event. Youth of all cultures past, present

and future gather and will gather from society those activities that are

honored as wedding ceremonies. These customs are deeply ingrained

in our social mores. Likewise the creation-marriage wedding must be

embraced by all Bible believing pastors, teachers, evangelists; all of

the members of the Body of Christ. This is one of the most important

soul-winning doctrines neglected by the evangelist of our day.

Heresy will hinder both the soul-winner and the lost he was sent to

win.

36 Chapter One Jesus’ Doctrine

Heresy

Creation-marriage, indissoluble marriage, is an absolute

literal commandment. The majority of modern commentators flatly

reject this idea. Lost souls and most saved alike are repulsed by the

indissoluble union; their chorus: "Let us break their band asunder,

and cast away their cords from us." The scholar’s objections include

a form of semantic confusion. Edward G. Dobson, leads us to believe

that God approved of divorce by actually commanding divorce in the

Ezra text. Taking his lead from Jay E. Adams—although Dobson

does not acknowledge Adams—he goes on to persuade that since "the

Lord God threatened to divorce Israel, divorce is not an act of sin;

because God cannot sin."

Adams is bold when he persuades for

divorce claiming that, God is in our understanding a divorced person,

because He divorced Israel.

In this dissertation I will prove these

gentlemen wrong. We have not heard the last of the Adams/Dobson

doctrine, it is full of radical ideas which will be discussed in full. The

commandment of creation-marriage is foreign to their dissertations. I

have chosen to persuade for the commandment of permanency; they

for a false commandment of divorce.

The fundamental Bible believer embraces a grammatical-

historical, literal hermeneutics. We boldly claim the way of truth.

We spurn the allegoricalist and separate ourselves from the

modernist-liberal. Vain philosophy is far from our door. But dear

reader, are you prepared to measure marriage with the literal

grammatical-historical method? To teach the literal interpretation of

Edenic marriage to the Church of Christ is the most difficult task

facing the evangelists and pastors of our day. It is difficult because

the saints refuse to hear God's command. "Oh yes", they say, when

asked if they believe the literal teaching of Genesis. "Yes", the

Edenic marriage is a literal permanent indissoluble marriage. But

when this preacher translates this doctrine into a commandment for

modern man, they say, "No!" And then go on to philosophize the

truth away. Rigid rules or absolute commands have a way of

exposing the narrow minds of the Modernist-Liberal. They

immediately respond to the absolute with intolerance and rebellion.

Who Hath God Joined Together? 37

Immature children have a like reaction, always interpreting limits as

confinement rather than safety. Liberals like children demand

thoughts that permit them limitless activity. When confronted with an

absolute command, they resort to philosophy; thus paving the way to

liberalism which usually includes sinful conduct. Therefore when

confronted with the doctrine of creation-marriage man is faced with a

dilemma. The predicament is obvious. Creation-marriage is sound

doctrine. It is simple. It is unobjectionable. It is literally solid as

concrete. Therefore it leaves all men with one of two alternatives;

man must believe it or he must philosophize it away. The philosophy

used is as old as sin. It simply teaches that creation-marriage is true,

but is only an ideal. This simple philosophical maneuver has

succeeded throughout the history of man. It has succeeded as a most

fierce cruel weapon of Satan, a weapon designed to destroy the

children of men. Let us study the ideal deception of modern

philosophy.

Immanuel Kant—his first name should accord him no

spiritual honor since his only resemblance to our Immanuel ends

there—must be credited with the invention of the ideal scheme.

Perhaps he could qualify as one of the false-Christ’s who would come

in Jesus name? Kant's parent’s were members of the Pietist sect,

devoted to the strict teaching of New Testament principles, "The new

birth must always be preceded by the agonies of repentance and that

only a regenerated theologian could teach theology"

, is a sample of

their belief. Immanuel attended a strict school where as he said, he

was exposed to the fearful teachings of an everlasting hell as well as

solid Bible courses and was obligated to practice austere piety. Kant

later resented this heavy dose of piety and terror; "fear and

trembling," he said, overcame him when he recalled those days.

Note that resentment was the reaction of this lad to the rigor

of a strict disciplined Christian school. It is regrettable that after a

life as a philosopher, Kant at the age of sixty-nine in an attempt to

redeem his religious heritage entered into the field of theology. His

famous essays, Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone, have

made him famous to the world and infamous to Biblicists. He

preached the innate goodness of man, universal morality, morality

does not need divine revelation (Scripture), Christ was the most

godlike of men (the ideal man), and that it should not be necessary for

a Christian to believe in miracles or in the divinity of Christ.

38 Chapter One Jesus’ Doctrine

Reason was his god and savior, and reason gave him those glorified

ideas and ideals. His most notorious convert was the wicked, George

Wilhelm Friedreich Hegel.

Hegel was also born into a family steeped in piety. His godly

parents mortgaged their property to send George to study theology at

Turingen Seminary. After graduating, Hegel disappointed his parents

by refusing to enter the ministry. He later denied the virgin birth,

rejected miracles, pictured Christ as a crucified rebel, and he did not

mention the resurrection. His definition of God: "Pure reason,

incapable of any limitations is Deity itself,

certainly identifies him

with Kant. Hegel became a political idealist and invented "Dialectic

Logic". It is surprising that Hegel would have been read by anyone,

considering the remark of Schopenhauer:

The height of absurdity in serving up pure nonsense,

in stringing together senseless and extravagant

masses of words, such as had previously been

known only in madhouses, finally reached in Hegel,

and became the instrument of the most beautiful

mystification that has ever taken place, with a result

which will appear fabulous to posterity, and will

remain as a monument of German stupidity.

Nevertheless, after his death, two schools of Hegelian thought

evolved. The Hegelian Right with its contribution, Higher Criticism,

and the Hegelian Left with the political philosophy of the atheist, Carl

Marx.

Hegel concluded that the true essence of Christianity resides

in its great Ideas, not in the historical events that gave birth to them.

These great ideas, to the mystical idealist, are mere visions of hope,

unattainable but truly honorable goals. Targets higher then anyone

can reach; literally impossible dreams. The meaning of a standard

capable of existing only as a mental concept by virtue of its

unattainable perfection, ideals is the meaning the Liberals need so

they can escape the demands of absolute commands. The philosophy

of Kant and Hegel would not only produce Higher Criticism and

Marxism, but would go on to inspire Ritchl, Schleiermacher,

Troeltsch, Darwin, Fosdick and the spirit of Liberalism. Kenneth

Cauther makes this observation of Liberalism:

Who Hath God Joined Together? 39

Liberalism is a certain attitude toward all of life and

the world as one great process with God at work in it

to give purpose with man at the center in the image

of God. This divine deposit is to be developed to the

highest extent through the rule of love. When it is

widespread we will have a world brotherhood living

up to the highest ideal [emphasis mine] even as

Jesus did.

Idealism is the father of Liberalism. The Modernist-Liberal Church

has proposed this philosophy since its inception. Then

Evangelicalism embraced this false teaching; but today some

professed Fundamentalist have embraced this heresy, preaching and

teaching dissoluble-marriage. Ambrozic has clearly stated this

matter:

When Paul gives the Lord's teaching on

indissolubility of marriage, he is not offering advice;

neither is he counseling or exhorting his readers to

strive for a beautiful ideal. For him, Jesus' teaching

is God's will which must be obeyed.

The ambiguity of the debate is the fact that Jesus' teaching of

indissoluble marriage is almost a universally accepted conviction.

The liberal, moderate, and conservative commentators all agree that

this is the definite doctrine of Christ. Thus in order for the liberal and

moderate to think of a dissoluble union they must reach out to the

drug of idealism to permit their infraction. But when the

Fundamentalist Biblicist employs idealism to support his

compromise, one can only look down with sadness and despair.

While refusing to believe and teach the literal truth of the Garden

Wedding, the brethren have accepted the poison drug of idealism and

commit heresy. God has clearly posted his warning concerning this

danger: "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain

deceit, after the tradition of man, after the rudiments of the world, and

not after Christ." (Col. 2:8).

The leaven of idealism regarding creation-marriage is so

subtle that many of the current authors, both liberal and conservative,

40 Chapter One Jesus’ Doctrine

employ the idea in their writings:

P.E. Steel and C.H. Ryrie, Meant to Last,, (Victor,

Wheaton, Ill. 1983) "He forced them to view the

divine ideal in Genesis 2. (p. 88) "This is, without

question, the ideal that God declared in His Word..

(p. 88)

R.W. DeHaan, Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage

(Radio Bible Class, Grand Rapids, Mich. 1979)

"There are exceptional situations where steps less

than ideal are taken." (p. 7)

Edward G. Dobson, Fundamentalist Journal,

"God's ideal for the permanency of marriage has not

changed." (Oct. 1985, p.39) "In Luke 16:18 we find

the general teaching of Jesus that presents God's

ideal."; "In Luke 16 and Mark 10, Jesus is giving the

ideal." (Dec. 1985: p. 35) "Jesus encouraged God's

ideal for marriage," (Jan 1986 p. 39)

Guy Duty, Divorce and Remarriage, (Bethany

House, Minn. MN, 1967) "Jesus is reverting to the

original, gave affirmation to the Creator's intent and

purpose of marriage. The divine ideal of the New

Testament law has its basis in the original." (p. 69)

Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology (Dallas

Sem. Press, Dallas TX, 1948) "It was clearly taught

in the New Testament that, because of an advance in

the relationship between God and His saints, there

should be the most careful recognition of this more

exalted ideal of one wife and one husband." (7:234)

A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures In the New

Testament (Broadman, Nashville, TN, 1930) "The

present perfect active of ginomai to emphasize the

permanence of the divine ideal. (10:154) Bruce

quoted in Ibid. "How small the Pharisaic disputants

must have felt in presence of such holy teaching,

Who Hath God Joined Together? 41

which soars above the partisan view of

controversialists into the serene region of ideal,

universal, eternal truth." (Ibid. 10:54)

A command is not an ideal. Men who refuse to obey a command will

gladly believe in an ideal. The pulpits of our land are filled with

pastors who employ the heresy of philosophical idealism while

teaching the saints to compromise God's creation-marriage command.

The sermons of these pastors refuse to preach the command, they

employ the following terms: God's intention, God's plan, God's

desire, God's institution, God's principle, God's ordinance, and God's

ultimate desire. Their language betrays their stubborn refusal to teach

God's marriage command. One can understand the rebellion of the

Liberal-Modernist and the Evangelicals, but when the true Biblicist's

participates in this heresy one exclaims, "His coming draweth nigh",

for he said, "Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find

faith on the earth."

Marriage

We are now ready to define marriage. The definition of

which will answer the question, "Who hath God joined together"?

Creation-marriage is the axiom of all marriage. Creation-marriage

was the emotional/physical joining of one man and one woman

(monogamy) to form a new single unit. The two literally became

one. This unity was indissoluble and inseparable. It was literally an

act of creation. On the sixth day, male and female created He them.

Man was created married. Marriage requires the severance of the

familial union and the joining of the marriage union. Man was created

a plurality, a family.

Marriage has been manifested when one (never been

married or widowed) man, and one (never been

married or widowed) woman consent to and

complete a public wedding ceremony.

42 Chapter One Jesus’ Doctrine

Therefore God has joined together every man and woman

who meets the above definition—the only exemption would be

marriages of Jewish couples during the dispensation of the Law; there

both partners were required to be Jewish. Although God advises

against the believer marrying unbelievers He nevertheless will honor

such Church Age marriages as holy. Having said that, I now will add

that God has not joined together any divorced person to another,

during the lifetime of a divorced partner regardless of the conditions.

NO-REMARRIAGE-THIS-SIDE-OF-DEATH

CHAPTER TWO

From Whence Cometh Polygamy and Divorce?

Will Durant, the historian, wrote that man is a secret and

ravenous polygamist.

This certainly was not true of Adam when

created. He was very good: “And God saw everything that he had

made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the

morning were the sixth day” (Gen.1:31). Then, when did the change

occur? The answer to that question is at the heart of Bible doctrine.

Soon after the Fall man realized he was deep into sin. His tendencies

were no longer toward innocence but were prone to evil. Adam's

delight with Eve was beyond question. Even if God created a Jane, it

appears that Adam would have paid her no attention. He loved his

bride. The first family appeared idyllic.

Then Adam’s eldest son suddenly betrayed this serenity. It

is alarming that the first human death was the result of fratricide. If

Cain's jealousy could only be satisfied by murder, what would

appease his lust? Rape, or perhaps a new doctrine of marriage:

polygamy! Durant is correct when he portrays man as a ravenous

polygamist; for this is a common lust of natural man. Adam's

disobedience was transmitted to all his children, even to those who

oppress all outward acts of sin. The prophet Jeremiah revealed the

common trait of man: "The heart is deceitful above all things, and

desperately wicked; who can know it," (Jer. 17:9).God's command is

His absolute will. The nature of Eden spelled God's will to be life.

The murder of Adam's youngest son seriously defied God's absolute

will. God's will was so ingrained in nature that all of nature was

excited to vengeance when the shepherd boy, Abel, was murdered.

Cain would have been instantly consumed for his sin, for our God is a

consuming fire; but God often refrains from immediate judgment.

This is an important factor in the equation of human existence.

Should God at any time elect to judge the wickedness of man He

immediately would destroy every sinner; He certainly would have

destroyed Cain. But this would have reduced the human population

44 Chapter Two Jesus’ Doctrine

to two men. God generally permits the sinner to exist; we call this

God's permissive will. He permits sinners to live for a period of time.

In the other Garden, Jesus said, "Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray

to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve

legions of angels"? (Matt. 26:53). Should God choose judgment

rather than mercy, we would all die a fiery death. But man's

existence is always directly proportional to God's mercy to permit

man to exist. Whether there was one man on the earth or six billion

men.

Consequently God's merciful permission to man is to permit man

to exist; to modern man this means he is given three score and ten

years. We do not die immediately for our sin, we eventually die.

Along with our existence God permits our sin to co-exist; this is

directly related to our existence. Therefore Cain was permitted to

exist after committing a violent murder. But this permission was

complex. The nature of man also understands justice, and his justice

demands vengeance. Cain knew this and fears the hand of man, "It

shall come to pass that anyone that findeth me shall slay me." God

also knew the vengeance of man and forbid man to judge Cain.

God's permissive will is His voluntary act of grace, and His grace

abounds. God mercifully places a mark on Gain, and threatens the

man that would kill Cain with a sevenfold judgement. Here we find a

profound mystery. The mystery is that although God permits the

sinner to live he never permits him to sin. He never approves of his

sin. But the consequence in permitting the sinner to live means that

God must permit the sinners sin to go immediately unpunished. He

might even regulate, or mark the sin so that it does not destroy man.

When God permits man to exist he permits man's sin to exist, and

may regulate that sin so that it does not consume man, as he marked

Cain. Later in the drama of man God would establish capital

punishment and place its authority entirely in the hands of man.

Permit me to explain this with common terms. The history of

man is often studied by the articles he leaves behind as he camps

along the hills of life. Unfortunately these articles are, most likely,

litter and garbage. Man's existence is directly proportional to the

existence of litter. His acts of pleasure and war are even more

hazardous, the former produced AIDS, the latter an A-Bomb.

Pollution and death is caused by man's existence. Before Christ, God

permitted the Cain’s to exist by controlling their sin, he marked it,

From Whence Cometh Polygamy and Divorce? 45

and he set rules about it, seven fold judgements. But Christ marked a

new era. Rather than destroying all sinners and recreating a new

earth, God chose to bruise his Son. He permitted the sins of man to

destroy His Son on a bloody cross, so that man might be born again.

He also ushered in a new era whereby His will would again be

absolute as it was in the Creation. Therefore during the period of

history between the Fall and the Cross, God regulated sin or regulated

pollution. By permitting man to live, he permitted the pollution of

man to exist, however God did regulate and control the pollution.

God initially controlled sin by ordaining that man would be

regulated by his conscience, "And the eyes of them both were

opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig

leaves together, and made themselves aprons." Conscience was

designed to control the sin, sin that God hated. Conscience, the

trophy of man, was the weakest of all controls; it almost led to the

annihilation of mankind. "Who sometime were disobedient, when

once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the

ark was preparing, in which few, that is, eight souls, were saved by

water." Conscience led man into the deadly Flood-Judgment.

God also permitted man to govern man. Human government

had a twofold design, (1) it offered man the right to control his own

sin, and (2) it would prove to man that he could not govern sin out of

his life. Rather than using human government to humble his sin

nature, man used human government to inflame himself, "let us make

us a name." With a tower to heaven he believed he could rule the

universe. Although human government would be ordained through

out history, the judgment which destroyed the Tower of Babel

pronounced the sentence of death on the hope that human government

would provide man eternal salvation. But human government

controlled sin which existed because of the existence of man.

Although this failed nevertheless human government did control and

regulate the sins of men.

Man has proved that his nature is violent. “The earth also

was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence” (Gen.

6:11). As Jeremiah said, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and

desperately wicked; who can know it" (Jer. 17:9). The point is that

conscience, and human government (human laws), are band-aids on

the cancer of man’s depravity. Man labors to conceal his sin. Under

human government rather than clubbing his brother, man hid his evil

46 Chapter Two Jesus’ Doctrine

nature under his tongue, but Jesus saw his heart. "Whosoever shall

say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; but

whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."

Rather than sleeping with Bathsheba, man chose to imagine his way

into her bed, "Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath

committed adultery with her already in his heart." The garments of

man’s sin are filthy rags.

But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our

righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade

as a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, have

taken us away. Isa. 64:6

As men invented ways to avoid the outward act of sin he

actually covered his sin with sin. His hard heart would not repent,

rather he worked on his sin. The garments of sin were invisible

garments to God, but man believed in them because other men could

not see the real sin; the inner man. Rather than clubbing his younger

brother the eldest now used those four letter words (Raca, fool, etc.).

Rather than hate is wife he now used a new weapon: divorce

. Man's

nature was particularly violent on the domestic front. The ferocity of

man's nature in the home strained God's longsuffering. Jesus explains

God's reasoning, "Moses, because of the hardness of your heart,

suffered (permitted) you to put away your wives, but from the

beginning it was not so." Divorce was not an invention of heaven, it

was one of the manufactured garments of sin; it is of the earth,

nothing more then a feeble covering for the sin of man. As we shall

see its existence predates Moses.

Another garment of sin was polygamy

. Rather than commit

adultery, a man divorced his wife, and married his paramour. Rather

than raping the beautiful young maid, man invented polygamy; he

just married her. God permitted man to invent divorce and

polygamy. He permitted them to exist, as he permitted sinful man to

exist. These feeble coverings for sin are actually the sinful acts and

inventions of man. God did not invent divorce or polygamy. Latter

we will discuss why God chose to permit these sinful acts to exist in

the Mosaic Law; but first let us study the ancient laws of man. Laws

that preceded Moses.

From Whence Cometh Polygamy and Divorce? 47

The Antediluvian Society: (Gen. 4-6)

Creation-marriage is the doctrine of God throughout all ages.

Time and circumstance have no influence on its content and

application. After 4000 years of human history, Jesus clearly stated

this fact, "from the beginning it was not so." Idealism, divorce,

polygamy, the inventions of man did not alter Jesus' doctrine of

creation-marriage. Theologians refer to progressive revelation as

doctrine that is revealed throughout Scripture, but the revelation of

marriage was totally revealed in the Garden of Eden. As the human

population increased, God did increase the government of marriage.

Man's actions that surround marriage require us to study all of history

and all of the Bible; remember customs play a part in history.

The first marriage question that arises out of Scripture is:

Who did Cain marry? The only command that Cain was obligated to

follow regarding marriage was that he leave his mother and father—

remember Cain was expelled from his family when God said, “A

fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth—as we have

previously declared, Cain’s marriage to Eve was forbidden. At this

period of history his marriage to a daughter of Adam was not

forbidden. Incest was limited to a marriage or sexual act between

mother and son and father and daughter. "And the days of Adam

after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat

sons and daughters" (Gen. 5:5).

Surprisingly the next major objection to creation-marriage is

the question, What of Bible polygamy? Creation-marriage was

monogamy. In the seventh generation of Adam the Bible records the

first act of polygamy. The first recorded sin was the eating of the

forbidden fruit, the second was the murder of Abel, and the third was

the polygamy of Lamech. Man does appear to be a ravenous

polygamist. "And Lamech took unto him two wives", (Gen. 4:19). At

first glance this appears to be a simple matter of a man taking two

women in marriage; but a closer look will reveal several important

elements. Please note that polygamy is not a simple matter; this was

an entirely new doctrine regarding marriage and as we shall see, it

was the sinful invention of an evil man—need I say more. It is

absolutely void of any blessing or approval from our Holy God.

The statement of Lamech’s polygamy is introduced abruptly,

as to mark Lamech as was the murderer Cain marked. The tip off

48 Chapter Two Jesus’ Doctrine

regarding the character of Bible personages is found in their name:

Adam (adam, adamah, ground), Eve (hawah, life giver). Kiel and

Delitzsch point out that Lamech turned marriage into the lust of the

eye, and the lust of the flesh. "The names of the women [Lamech's

women] are indicative of sensual attractions: Adah: the adorned; and

Tillah: shady, tinkling.

The adorned reminds us of Jezebel who

while attempting to circumvent the judgement of God by painting her

face, only made it more appetizing to the man-eating dogs that ate it.

Shady was a trait of street prostitutes. It is noteworthy that tinkling is

mentioned by Isaiah when referring to the sensual women of his day,

"Moreover the Lord saith, Because the daughters of Zion are haughty,

and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and

mincing as they go, and making a tinkling with their feet; Therefore

the Lord will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters

of Zion" (Isa. 3:16-17). The uncommon record that a daughter was

born to Zilla is mentioned, Naamah: pleasant, lovely, graceful. Kiel-

Delitszch believe her name "reflects the worldly mind of the

Cainites." Perhaps she was the first beauty queen? Does her name

mean graceful in the sense of a belle figure? Most commentators

agree that the evidence suggests that Lamech was a lustful man; and

that lust drove his polygamy.

Henry Morris attributes to Lamech the leadership role of the

antediluvian rebellion against God; stating that he initiated his

rebellion against God with his polygamy. Further suggesting that the

sensuality of this society can be heard in the lyrics of Lamech's song;

a song which he sang in the presence of his wives. Morris notes that

although there were no paramours present, Lamech boasts to killing

two men is actually a warning to all to men. He warns them not to

seduce his women.

This is a fitting commentary on the moral tone

of this society; and when one reads the record in Genesis chapter six

of the days immediately preceding the Flood it is evident that

Lamech's fears were justified; “That the sons of God saw the

daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all

whom they chose;” (Gen. 6:2) we will fully discuss this text.

Regardless, the first polygamist was a killer. Scripture records his

confession, "Hear my voice ye wives of Lamech, and hearken unto

my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man

to my hurt." Jewish tradition believes that Tubal-Cain while guiding

his nearly blind father (Lamech) to shoot a beast of prey, while on a

From Whence Cometh Polygamy and Divorce? 49

hunt, that Lamech failed to reach, the target, and his shot mortally

wounded his grandfather, Cain. Lamech was so jubilant, and excited

about his deed that he began to clap his hands heavily, and in his

blind condition he failed to regard Tubal-Cain, accidentally striking

him in the head and killing him. His song was his celebration and

self-blessing.

And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah,

Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto

my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding,

and a young man to my hurt. If Cain shall be

avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and

sevenfold. Gen. 4:23-24

The survival of the human race was essential to both the

generation of Adam and Noah, and this depended on the hope of a

large human population; the larger the tribe, the larger the nation.

Along with numbers man needed power, and the sons of Lamech

were powerful. The record tells us that they were tent makers,

herdsmen (red meat eaters), inventors of musical instruments, and

metallurgists (metal weapons). This raises a question. Since

numbers of sons was power: Was it possible that Lamech was

cheating on the numbers, by committing bigamy? Polygamy is

nothing more than the sin of bigamy. Realizing that more than one

wife gave him the potential to have many sons, he must have

imagined he discovered the doctrine of marriage that would make

him the savior of the world: polygamy—a Satanic deception. Bible

history never fails to document the lives of men who resist the

knowledge of God.

Lamech reminds one of the Antichrist of the last day, "Who

opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is

worshiped so that he, as God, sitteth in the temple of God, showing

himself that he is the God" (II Thess. 2:4). The Cainites were an

ungodly sensual race; thus polygamy satisfied their lust and need for

power. It could also satisfy a man's need for at least one son, an heir,

as we shall soon see.

50 Chapter Two Jesus’ Doctrine

The Godly Antediluvians

And Adam knew his wife again; and she bore a son,

and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath

appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom

Gain slew. And to Seth, to him also there was a son;

and he called his name Enosh: then began men to

call upon the name of the Lord. Gen 4: 25,26

The next major event which affects our thesis is the birth of a

godly seed of Seth and his son Enosh; "who called upon the name of

the Lord." In Paul's letter to the Romans we are assured that

"Whosoever calleth upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." Here

again, most commentators, see the Sethites as a spiritual race who

found salvation by faith." Salvation is clearly visible in one of their

race, Enoch. The fact that he walked with God is mentioned twice,

perhaps for the reason that he walked with God for 300 years.—A

just cause for God to honor him by taking him to heaven via a secret

rapture.

But as the world turns, it remains a law of man's depravity

that the good of men is overcome by their evil, and this will continue

until the Lord returns to establish his kingdom—“thy kingdom

come." Man's battle between good and evil often takes the form of

war; and so we have the first recorded world war, a civil war. The

righteous nation of Seth was at war with his brother, the tribe of the

Cainites. The weapons of Cain were, lust, sensuality, polygamy, and

the power associated with eating red meat, metal weapons, violence,

and pride. Seth was equipped with his faith in God, creation-

marriage, peace, and love. Jesus was successful in his defense

against the darkness of evil, "it overcame him not." But this is not so

with Seth, although he could have had victory by putting his total

faith in the Seed of the woman, the promised redeemer. Eve believed

this when she announced, "For God hath appointed me another seed

instead of Abel." The protevangelium (Gen. 3:15) was the hope of

man, it was the message which was at the heart of God giving us the

Book. In this marvelous text we are given the hope of man, the seed

of the woman, and at the same time we are told of the enmity of the

woman, the serpent.

From Whence Cometh Polygamy and Divorce? 51

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman,

and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise

thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heal. Gen. 3:15

The battle of the ages began that day. It would now manifest itself in

the battle between Cain and Seth; this battle would be won by the

seed of the woman. But before the seed of the woman would enter

the scene man was to wait on him in faith. The vehicle which would

deliver this son to the world was marriage, creation-marriage. Early

in this battle, the serpent despised marriage, i.e. creation-marriage.

Thus the Serpent was bent against creation-marriage, the vehicle of

his destruction. His attempt was to corrupt marriage, thus Satan

influenced Lamech to choose two wives. If Satan could succeed in

corrupting marriage, he would have prevented the godly seed, The

Messiah, his destroyer. The corruption was to permit adultery and lust

to be called marriage. Rather than lust after another woman, the

married man could just marry the woman of his lust.

Satan was very successful in his early attempt to corrupt the

vehicle of the promised Messiah. The proverb was fitting before its

time, "Hell and destruction are never full; so the eyes of man are

never full" (Prov. 27:20). Immediately before the Flood, Satan nearly

succeeded in his effort to corrupt marriage. "And God looked upon

the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his

way upon the earth" (Gen. 6:12).

The Battle: (Gen. 6)

Some have speculated that the sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4

were fallen angels, who had sexual relations with the daughters of

men, resulting in the breed of beings referred to as giants.

I believe

this view can be refuted with what Jesus said, “For in the resurrection

they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of

God in heaven:” a clear reference to the asexual nature of the angels.

However Scofield correctly notes that, "The uniform Hebrew and

Christian interpretation of (Gen. 6:2) marks the breaking down of the

separation between the godly line of Seth, and the godless line of

Cain." This breaking down was a marriage breakdown; an attempt to

corrupt the generation of the godly seed.

The First World War was a marriage war. The Cainites with

52 Chapter Two Jesus’ Doctrine

their lust-marriage were attacking the Sethites the possessors of

creation-marriage. The true prize was to preserve the promised seed;

the loss of which would have doomed man to eternal suffering in the

fires of Hell. The Sethites were in possession of the prize. The

Canites were bent on its destruction; their weapon lust. The weapon

of the righteous was the preaching of the Word of God. Noah, a

Sethite, was a preacher of righteousness; Lamech, a Cainite was a

killer and a polygamist. The battle seems to be even until men began

to multiple on the face of the earth. This comment indicates that

there was a rapid population growth. Although it is speculation, but

this population explosion begs the question: Was it that the doctrine

of lust-marriage, polygamy, and the absence of birth control,

contributed to a rapid growth in population. And could it have been

that the concept of beauty, sensual beauty, contributed to a new breed

of fair women. This combination could have produced an imbalance

in favor of the Canites: (1) Plentiful number of daughters, (2) These

daughters were fair in the sense of sexy; (3) Sons which possessed

lustful physical appeal, giants of lust and power.

If the lust-marriage doctrine actually was the basis of the

antediluvian society, the final days of that age would read as follows:

And it came to pass, when Lamech's lust doctrine succeeded, the

Cainites increased in unusual numbers swarming the earth in swarms.

Their daughters held unusual physical appeal in a sensual sense they

were fair. When the Sethites, the sons of God, looked upon the

daughters of the Cainites: the text suggests that they stopped to look

at length. These tinkling, shady, lovely, pleasant, graceful, creatures

enjoyed this attention. Being trained in the ways of sex-appeal, these

daughters of men persuaded the Sethites to say that they were fair.

The sons of God were actually saying that these promiscuous sexy

females were good—the Hebrew word tohu here translated fair is

unanimously translated good in Scripture.

Please permit a short parenthesis here. In the midst of the

Garden, the Lord God planted the tree of knowledge of good, tohu,

and evil. When the Sethites who were godly priestly men called the

sensual women, tohu, they were confusing good and evil. The

prophet Ezekiel found the priests of Israel doing the same thing, "Her

priests have violated my law, and have profaned my holy things: they

have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have

they showed difference between the unclean and the clean" (Ezek.

From Whence Cometh Polygamy and Divorce? 53

22:26). And again Isaiah said, "Woe unto them who call evil good,

and good evil" (Isa. 5:20). God is not the author of confusion, and

therefore the seduction practiced by these beauty queens must be the

basis for the antediluvian confusion.

Immediately after proclaiming that the fair ones were good,

the Sethites were trapped. The lasciviousness of the pleasant females

further intoxicated the sons of God, and finally the sons of God

entered the seduction and "they took them wives of all whom they

choose." To add insult to injury, there is something suspicious about

the phrase, "all whom they chose." Could it be that the sons of God

actually took multiple wives, committing adultery and polygamy? If

so, then the story will continue as follows: Therefore the Sethites, fell

into apostasy inciting the anger of God, "My Spirit shall not always

strive with man." But God's anger did not deter the apostasy, the

Cainites and the Sethites continued in their lust actually creating

tyrants

in the land in those days. These tyrants or giants were

mighty gibbor men—men who believed they were messiahs. Isaiah

tells us that the true coming Messiah would be the El Gibbor, "The

Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace." These

gibbors were mighty Liberals, who had no limits but reason alone.

Their thoughts and imaginations were only evil continually, "And it

repented the Lord that he made man, and the Lord said, I will destroy

man."

There is a sense of urgency about God's decision. It appears

that the corruption had reached such a height that it was about to

overwhelm every man, woman, and child. But finally at nearly the

last moment God interceded; there were only eight righteous souls

remaining, souls which had not participated in the moral decline of

creation-marriage. These eight souls were separated from their

society by the preaching of their preacher, by a huge arc (a type of

Christ), and now they would be saved from the social corruption as

by water. The women who were saved from the swelling tide of

social corruption were important women indeed. One of these four

women would deliver the seed which would be the Savior of the

world. These eight souls were married couples; creation-marriage

couples. They were the only righteous souls on the earth.

Now this scenario is no more fabulous then the speculation

that the sons of God were fallen angels who had sexual intercourse

with earth’s fair women; and that these women bore giants, E.T's.

54 Chapter Two Jesus’ Doctrine

(extra terrestrial creatures), or A.L.F's. (alien life forms). To the

contrary, there are several facts which lend credence to the lust-

marriage view. History has duplicated the declension of a nation or

society through moral corruption and marriage corruption. Egypt

grew wicked in domestic violence and became notorious for its

practice of incest.

The moral decay of the Roman Empire is marked

in history as one of the underlying causes of its fall, and Greece can

boast of its invention of the word Lesbian, not to mention its

contribution to male homosexuality. There is one final statement that

may have some relationship to this matter. Jesus may have alluded to

an antediluvian polygamy.

And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be in

the days of the Son of Man. They did eat, they

drank, they married wives, they were given in

marriage, until the day Noah was entered the ark,

and the flood came, and destroyed them all.

Luke 17:26,27

Although the primary thought here is to reveal the serene state of the

society during the days that immediately preceded the judgment of

the Flood. Nevertheless, Jesus mentions that marrying and giving

wives in marriage was as frequent an eating and drinking. The

possibility that that society had an unusual preoccupation with

marriage may be enforced with the verses which immediately follow

this text:

Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did

eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted,

they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of

Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and

destroyed them all. Luke 17:28,29

Here again Jesus describes the tranquility which prevailed in Sodom

prior to its fiery judgment. The social sins prior to the Flood and the

fiery judgment of Sodom were abnormally bent on violence. The

sexual violence of Sodom remains the by-word of sexual debauchery.

Was the violence which preceded the Flood a sexual debauchery of

polygamy; lust-marriage? The reason Jesus choose to connect the

From Whence Cometh Polygamy and Divorce? 55

Flood with Sodom may have a relationship to the nature of sin that

prevailed prior to each judgment. Some may say that this again is

speculation, but the sins prior to the Flood were of an equal nature to

the sins prior to Sodom, the former was filled with the violence of

polygamy, the latter the violence homosexuality. Both acts infuriated

the Lord God who saw to it that both acts were annihilated. The

interesting point is that both judgments permitted a few righteous

souls to escape. The apparent reason to permit Noah, and Lot and

family to escape, is because they did not participate in the corruption.

Therefore the extent of the violence was just shy of totality—the

mystery of iniquity.

The final element that must be considered is that Jesus stated

that the same tranquility would prevail in the society which precedes

the coming of the Son of Man. This also enlists the state of the

society prior to the Son's return. Do we see massive homosexuality

in our land? Do we see a massive declension in creation-marriage?

The question is not, How many remain monogamous? but the

question is, How many believe in creation-marriage, indissoluble

marriage. As William A. Heth expresses it, "No-remarriage-this-

side-of-death." How many true believers believe in this doctrine of

marriage?

The irony of the free-love culture is that it breeds violence.

Note the words of the Sodomites:

And they said, Stand back, Stand back, And they

said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and

he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse

with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore

upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the

door." Gen. 19:9

The lust-marriagites of Noah's day were comparable: "The earth was

also corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence." The

Apostle Peter, conveys the same message as he also combines the

same two societies:

For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast

them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of

darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; And spared

56 Chapter Two Jesus’ Doctrine

not the old world, but saved Noah, the eight person,

a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood

upon the world of the ungodly; And, turning the

cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes,

condemned them with an overthrow, making them

an ensample unto those that after should live

ungodly. II Pet. 2:4-6

Billy Graham captured the thought to which I am laboring with

exceptionable simplicity, "If God does not judge our generation, He

will have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah."

If the lust-marriage scenario is correct our generation should

be witnessing a plague upon marriage. The modern Sethites, the

regenerated believers, should be troubled being contaminated with

the pollution of lust-marriage. We should see the sons of God

practicing marriage-divorce-remarriage polygamy as they are being

led by a world of lust and shame. As a matter of fact we should be

witnessing the fall of the pastors as well as the saints in the pew. And

churches teaching doctrines which will accommodate the spirit of

lust-marriage-divorce-lust-remarriage-polygamy, or to be teaching

that very doctrine. Dear reader, you are living in that day. "As it was

in the days of Noah", is a signpost which gives credence to the lust-

marriage scenario of Genesis six. Was polygamy the suffocating sin

of the antediluvians? Did marriage-divorce-remarriage-polygamy

flood the earth with corruption? Will this sin be the downfall of the

modern church? Will Durant, a secular writer, made this startling

comment of the world in the year 1941:

Year by year marriage comes later, separation

earlier; and fidelity finds few so simple as to do it

honor. Soon no man will go down the hill of life

with a woman who has climbed it with him, and a

divorceless marriage will be as rare as a maiden

bride.

The Basis of Human Law

The postdiluvian period was marked by a new economy.

Man proved he could not atone for his sins by trusting in his

From Whence Cometh Polygamy and Divorce? 57

innocence (Adam), or trusting in his conscience (Lamech), therefore

God changed His economy and permitted man, Noah, to test his

righteousness under a managed political system, human government.

After God blessed the only remaining men on the earth, the eight, He

offered them the power to rule man by man. The antediluvians were

forbidden to regulate or bring men to judgment—Cain was marked,

the avenger cursed—but now Noah was ordained a magistrate

complete with the power of capital punishment.

And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at

the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the

hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will

I require the life of man. Whosoever sheddeth man's

blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the

image of God made he man. Genesis 9:5,6

Capital punishment is not some invention of the state, it is a

commandment from God. Note that the commandment would

specifically destroy any future brother killers; all future Cains were

to be put to death by man.

This commandment was planted in the mind of the only holy

preacher, Noah, who survived under the dispensation of conscience.

The shock of this awesome responsibility forced man to organize his

mind to prepare for such and event. It compelled man, the new judge,

to judge himself. This new power summoned man to not only

organize his mind, but his entire life and every other man's life as

well.

It caused him to organize society. In order to control this

power, capital punishment, man would promulgate many lesser

punishments for lesser crimes before exercising the death penalty.

By organizing lesser regulations and punishments, man could prepare

men mentally to commit the act of capital punishment. It is one thing

to require capital punishment, and it is an entirely different thing to

find the man qualified to execute another man. Consequently capital

punishment is the father of human government. Note that God

prepared man to contemplate shedding the murderer’s blood by

requiring the capital punishment of any beast which would take the

life of man. Before beast or man was destroyed, it would of course

be necessary to prove guilt, thus the court and seat of judgment were

58 Chapter Two Jesus’ Doctrine

born. Regarding the dynamics of capital punishment and the Noahic

law, Luther wrote:

This is therefore the source [capital punishment], out

of which flows all civil rights and international law.

Now if God relinquishes to man the power over life

and death, actually he also grants power over that

which is less important: property, family, wife,

children, slaves, and farms. All these God wishes to

be subject to the powers of certain men in order that

they may punish the guilty.

Keil-Delitzsch agree:

This command [capital punishment] then laid the

foundation for all civil government, and formed a

necessary compliment to that unalterable

continuance of the order of nature which had been

promised to the human race for its further

development. If God on account of the innate

sinfulness of man would no more bring an

exterminating judgment upon the earthly creation, it

was necessary that by commands and authorities he

should erect a barrier against the supremacy of evil,

and thus lay the foundation for a well ordered civil

development of humanity, in accordance with the

words of the blessing, which are repeated in (Gen.

9:7), as showing the intention and goal of this new

historical beginning.

This is the truth found in America's historical documents:

When, in the course of human events, it becomes

necessary for one people to dissolve the political

bands which have connected them to another, and to

assume among the powers of the earth the separate

and equal station to which the laws of nature and of

nature's God entitle them ...

(Declaration of Independence)

From Whence Cometh Polygamy and Divorce? 59

When we refer to the term civilization we are making reference to

capital punishment since it is the source of all national and

international law. Walter Berns illustrates this in the introduction to

his volume on capital punishment, For Capital Punishment:

In the dark of a wild night a ship strikes a rock and

sinks. But one of its sailors clings desperately to a

piece of wreckage and is eventually cast up

exhausted on an unknown and deserted beach [Was

this land inhabited by savages?]. In the morning he

struggles to his feet and, rubbing his salt encrusted

eyes, looks around to learn where he is. The only

human evidence he sees is a gallows, "Thank God,"

he exclaims, "civilization".

The Ancient Law Codes and the Bible:

As with Adam, God now also commanded Noah and his

sons, to be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth. Violence was to be

controlled by the law of man. Therefore the son’s of Noah

promulgated laws; some of these documents still exist. We refer to

these writings as the ancient law codes. Archaeologists have

unearthed many fine legal documents inscribed in stone, brick,

papyrus, and vellum, of which we will sample and examine,

referencing the legal history of marriage, divorce, polygamy, incest

and other related matters. Leon J. Wood, has stated in his fine book,

A Survey of Israel's History, that the oldest actual written code of

laws is Sumerian. One would expect that these ancient codes would

reflect the man Noah, the preacher of righteousness. But shortly after

his deliverance Noah was found drunk and naked, so his

grandchildren became intoxicated with idolatry and were found

babbling at Babel. Their laws are invariably adjoined to the idol

gods—prior to his call we are told that the father of Abraham was an

idolater: “Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Your fathers dwelt on

the other side of the flood in old time, even Terah, the father of

Abraham, and the father of Nachor: and they served other gods.” Let

us now look into these ancient laws that preceded Moses.

60 Chapter Two Jesus’ Doctrine

Code of Ur Nammu (c. 2050 B.C.)

"Ur-Nammu was the founding ruler [king] of the Third

Dynasty of Ur, the builder of the best preserved ziggurat in ancient

Mesopotamia, whose reign inaugurated the last great period of

Sumerian literary

progress antedating Moses by 600 years. "The

text states that King Ur-Nammu was selected by the god Nanna to

rule over Ur and Sumer as his earthly representative."

He banished

malediction, violence, and strife from the land. Dealing with such

crimes as cattle rustling, (oxen-takers, sheep-takers, donkey-takers),

as well as weights and measures. The orphan, widow, and the poor

were protected from injustice. But the most interesting inscriptions to

our study are those regulations relating to marriage. They especially

expose the understanding of marriage as it existed in the mind of the

postdiluvians. Let us discover the state of creation-marriage in the

codes:

CU § 4 If the wife of a man, by employing her

charms, followed after another man and he slept

with her, they [the authorities] shall slay that

woman, but that male shall be set free.

Here we see that the Noachian code which instituted capital

punishment for murder had now been expanded to also include the

crime of adultery. Where King Ur Nammu's judgment lashes out at

the woman, Moses latter squares off at the male, and then includes

the female, the weaker sex:

And the man who committeth adultery with another

man's wife, even he who committeth adultery with

his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress

shall surely be put to death. Lev. 20:10

We can understand why God would condemn adultery as a capital

crime, but what caused the postdiluvians to aggressively promulgate

this law? Is there something inherent in adultery that in itself

generates the death judgment? Why did the postdiluvians prejudice

the female? We will discuss these questions shortly?

From Whence Cometh Polygamy and Divorce? 61

CU § 5 If a man proceeded by force, and deflowered

[lit.: "undeflowered"] a slave-woman of another

man, that man must pay five shekels of silver.

The rape of a slave was considered only a minor offense with a mere

monetary penalty. This however is not so strange when we consider

Moses:

And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is

a bondmaid (slave-woman), betrothed to an

husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given

her: she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to

death, because she was not free. Lev. 19:20

The male is this case was only required to offer a trespass offering. I

will discuss the Mosaic Law at length later.

CU § 6 If a man divorces his primary wife, he must

pay (her) one mina of silver.

The year is 2050 B.C. and it marks the world’s first record of a state

regulated divorce. There is one earlier document, a private legal

transaction (not a promulgated law); it is about 50 years younger.

These documents obviously reveal that the thought of divorce existed

in the mind of man from antiquity. The fact that (CU § 6) addresses

divorce is evidence that the act was considered an act of violence by

Ur Nammu. Authorities claim that the "If" condition, of (CU § 6) is

evidence of casuistically formulated law. This means that the code

deals with exceptional cases, and not with common daily ones.

The

State of Ur Nammu saw divorce as a form of unusual violence; thus

the law was casuistically formulated. What this author is interested in

is the fact that while the law views divorce as violence it does not

attempt to prohibit it, it merely regulates the act. Was the desire for

divorce so strong that Ur Nammu could only regulate the act. The

law could not say, Thou shalt not commit divorce. It could say, Thou

shalt not commit adultery. And since adultery was a capital crime

man was forced to invent a loophole in the law, and that loophole was

divorce and polygamy. Why did Ur Nammu refer to a man's

"primary wife?" Because Lamech-Marriage, polygamy, existed as a

62 Chapter Two Jesus’ Doctrine

common act in Ur Nammu. Now what lies behind this divorce-

polygamy passion. Let us look at this from two directions.

The first approach sees man viewing himself as a god, or

king. Every man has a deep inner self-conceit that he is a king. He

may loose this at one time or other, but he has entertained this

concept. The word king in English is obviously derived from the

word kin (kind, family, tribe, race, nation). The patriarch of a family

is a king of his kin. One obsession of the king is ownership. He

controls through ownership. This ownership concept spills over into

his family and the king begins to believe he owns his family. And that

ownership concept permits the king to certain rights, so he believes.

It has been debated whether the basis of Israelite marriage was one of

ownership. Millar Borrows in his exhaustive study, The Basis of

Israelite Marriage, argues against the concept of ownership, marriage

by purchase.

I agree with Burrows, nevertheless, it does appear that

ownership-marriage did play a part in the mind of the husband-king.

The very law code we are discussing is the law of King Ur Nammu.

It seems when the Lord God gave man the power of capital

punishment, man actually began to think he was a god. Man was

ordered to exercise the act of capital punishment collectively,

"Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed."

(Gen. 9:6a). Noah was not a god. But his grandchildren, who turned

to idolatry, invented their righteousness by calling on their idols who

ordained them king-gods: "Nanna selected Ur Nammu to rule over Ur

and Sumer as his earthly representative." And we were told that King

Ur Nammu banished violence from the land. Ur Nammu was a mini-

god, a king-god. The Pharaohs were believed to be gods.

This invention was easy to create since from the days of

Cain, man believed he had the power over life and death. Vengeance

is an act of God, not man; vengeance belongeth to the Lord, a

prohibition to human vengeance. But ever since the Serpent said,

"For God doth know that in the day ye eat there of, then your eyes

shall be opened, and ye shall be as │God│,

knowing good and

evil." Man has not ceased to believe in his own righteousness, his

own godliness apart from God. At times He believes he is God.

Sovereign. King. When God permitted Israel a king, He nevertheless

knew that a single man now could exempt himself from the power of

the law, and that man could indeed be sovereign over man. The

concept here is that the state could not execute the king because the

From Whence Cometh Polygamy and Divorce? 63

king was the state.

God can experience sovereignty with justice because of His

holiness. Man's sinfulness does not lend itself to sovereignty; it

inevitably results in the abuse of power. Man’s sovereignty rest in

his possessions. When people are assumed to be possessions of a

man's realm, it usually results in some degree of mishandling and

exploitation. Men continually develop what is commonly referred to

as turf, and the most common turf is in the home. The adage, "A man

is the king of his own castle", may not be true. It may mislead some

to think as if they were sovereign, or owners of their family, giving

them the idea that they dispose or divorce whom they choose. As we

saw in (CU § 6), the violence of divorce was common enough that Ur

Nammu penalized it with a mere mina of silver. Nevertheless he did

penalize the deed as a criminal act. Notice that the act is assumed to

be committed by the man. The ancient codes see divorce as an act of

the man, the woman the victim. The only explanation is sovereignty;

man assumed he was the sovereign king of his own castle. Divorce is

the act of a king banishing his subject, a subject that he owns.

The mention of a primary wife in (CU § 6) speaks of

polygamy. It must be assumed that the fine of one mina of silver was

reduced if the woman was a secondary or lesser wife.

Lamech-marriage, polygamy, revived in the post-diluvian world.

Will it flood the world again? The idea of ownership contributes to

the act of divorce, ownership also contributes to polygamy. Borrows

is correct by defining the basis of Israelite marriage as that of a

covenant relationship; typical of the Creators relationship with Israel.

But sin ruined this idea and that sin was the idea of husband-

sovereignty. Although marriage by purchase is not God's will, it

nevertheless played and plays a part in the customs of marriage from

antiquity. Man assumed that a wife was a mere possession, and he

had the right to buy as many as he could afford. If he had enough

money he could afford a harem, and since the king was the most

wealthy individual in the kingdom it was only fitting that he had the

most wives. Harems were the possession of the ancient kings. The

Lord God set the rules for Israel’s king, "Neither shall he multiply

wives to himself, that his heart turn not away", (Deut. 17:17).

Nevertheless we know David had eight wives named, and when he

took up residence in Jerusalem we are told that he took more wives

and concubines. Solomon of course had 700 wives and 300

64 Chapter Two Jesus’ Doctrine

concubines. But God commanded the king not to multiply wives.

The concept of ownership spilled over to other members of

the family as well, for even in the Mosaic Law we find legislation

which regulated the sale of a daughter, (Ex. 21:7-11). The father,

obviously poor, could offer the sale of his daughter to be a

maidservant. Keil-Delitszch see concubinage in this text and they

are probably correct. Polygamy, like divorce, both violent acts, were

not eradicated by God, for to eradicate divorce and polygamy would

have required the annihilation of mankind. The ownership of family

was assumed by others as well. The poor widows words to Elisha tell

how the creditors looked upon children, "Thy servant my husband is

dead and thou knowest that thy servant did fear the Lord: and the

creditor is come to take unto him my two sons to be bondmen",

(I Kings 4:1). The concept of sovereignty, ownership of property,

also supported the ownership of slaves, a common act of man.

Vengeance played a significant role in the motive of a man's

choice to divorce a wife. If a wife shamed herself in the eyes of her

husband, she often found herself under his judgement. Records

indicate that if a wife raised her voice in public to over-rule her

husband, and embarrassed him, then her husband had the social

approval to avenge his humiliation by divorcing his outspoken wife.

It appears that if the law legislated against divorce it would have been

responsible for the death of many women, since man’s anger may

have led him to the violence of wife-murder. Divorce obviously the

lesser of two evils. The Canadian Government reported that forty

percent of the murders in their country are related to violence in

marriage, leading various organizations to open halfway houses for

women to find refuge. The present laws in the United States, which

favor the woman, were laws which were designed to protect women

from domestic violence which was common in America during the

first half of the Twentieth Century. A live mother is better than a

dead one; therefore the judges of the land award divorce. This was

the same dynamic experienced by the ancients:

He, [Jesus], said unto them, Moses, because of the

hardness of your hearts [wife murderers] suffered

you to put away your wives, but from the beginning

it was not so. Matt. 19:8

From Whence Cometh Polygamy and Divorce? 65

It appears that adultery was a capital crime, and lesser

infractions were subject to the punishment of divorce; the next area of

concern is the realm of the false accusation or suspicious act. The

guilty must be punished, but the innocent must be set free.

CU § 11 If a man accused the wife of a man

of fornication, and the river (ordeal) proved her

innocent, then the man who had accused her must

pay one-third of a mina of silver.

In (CU § 4) the case is against the woman who slept with another

man. Here the woman is accused of fornication by a third party. The

ancient women were held to very strict standards of modesty: the act

of showing the under arms or other body extremities was thought

tantamount to adultery. In such cases the woman was subject to the

river ordeal, and if she passed the ordeal she was innocent. In Israel

there was a similar regulation, however here the woman was clearly

accused of adultery; her husband experiencing the spirit of jealousy.

The Hebrew priest would mix dust from the floor of the tabernacle

with water, have the woman drink it. If guilty the water would be a

curse causing her thigh to rot and her belly to swell. If innocent she

would go free and conceive.

In (CU § 12) the code protects the rights of a prospective

son-in-law: If a (prospective) son-in-law entered the house of his

(prospective) father-in-law, but his father-in-law later gave his

daughter to another man, he (the father-in-law) shall return to him

(the rejected son-in-law) two-fold the amount of bridal presents he

had brought.

Please note that Ur Nammu, was contemporary with

Abraham. So here we find the justice whereby Jacob was awarded the

increase of Laban's cattle. Remember the Patriarchs preceded Moses

and lived by the rule of these ancient laws as Jehovah God ordained

under Noah.

CU § 22 If a man's slave-woman, comparing herself

to her mistress, speaks insolently to her (or him), her

mouth shall be scoured with a quart of salt.

This final comment from Ur Nammu gives us a glimpse into the

responsibilities of Hagar. Although it was Ishmael who mocked,

66 Chapter Two Jesus’ Doctrine

nevertheless Sarai demanded their punishment; and rightly so

according to this law.

Code of Eshunna (c. 1925 B.C.)

This set of laws written in the Akkadian language have been

attributed to the Elamite King, Bilalama, of the kingdom of

Eshnunna. The Elamites conquered the city of Ur, but continued their

degree of civilization. Again in this code we find an idol-god,

Tishpak, bestowed the kingship to Bilalama. We will examine this

code with its marriage customs and the origin of divorce, and

polygamy.

CE § 25 If a man offers to serve in the house of

(his) father-in-law and his father-in-law takes him in

bondage but (nevertheless) gives his daughter [to

another man], then the father of the girl shall refund

the bride-money which he received twofold.

This law obviously resembles (CU § 12); notice here the prospective

son-in-law bonds himself to his father-in-law in labor, in an effort to

purchase the bride; Jacob and Laban.

CE § 26 If a man gives bride-money for

a(nother) man's daughter, but a second man seizes

her forcibly without asking the permission of her

father and her mother and deflowers her, it is a

capital offense and he shall die.

Very similar to (Deut. 22:25), this law does make one interesting

comment: "asking the permission of her father and her mother", an

obvious custom from antiquity, or perhaps from the beginning of

creation.

CE § 27 If a man takes a(nother) man's daughter

without asking the permission of her father and her

mother and concludes no formal marriage contract

with her father and her mother, though she may live

in his house for a year, she is not a "housewife".

From Whence Cometh Polygamy and Divorce? 67

This ancient code addresses the modern practice of cohabitation,

which here is not recognized as marriage, even though the couple

lived-in for one year. A formal contract was required. In the United

States cohabitation is being recognized, under certain conditions, as

marriage in some states by judges if the couple cohabit for a

relatively short period of time.

CE § 28 On the other hand, if he does conclude a

formal marriage contract with her father and her

mother and then takes her, she is a "housewife".

When she is caught with a(nother) man, she shall

die, she shall not get away alive.

This sequence to (CE § 27) indicates that the woman who cohabits

without a formal marriage contract is considered a prostitute,

however a formal contract will qualify her for to be a housewife.

Again here we see adultery considered as a capital crime.

CE § 29 If a man has been [made prisoner] during a

raid or an invasion or (if) he has been carried off

forcibly and stayed in a foreign country for a long

time, (and if) a second man has taken his wife and

she has born (him) a son—should he (i.e. the first

man) return, he shall get his wife back.

This particular law protects the rights of a married soldier-prisoner

whose wife, because of his long absence, has remarried. The

regulation makes no mention of a divorce, however the marriage is

considered legitimate providing the soldier-prisoner does not return.

The new marriage was annulled, even though a son was born to the

new husband.

CE § 30 If a man hates his town and his lord and

becomes a fugitive, (and) if a second man takes his

wife—should he (i.e., the first man) return, he shall

have no right to claim his wife.

This law permits remarriage to the abandoned wife. It annuls the

68 Chapter Two Jesus’ Doctrine

deserter’s marriage and denies him any further claims on his wife.

Some may see the elements of what is referred to as Pauline privilege

here (I Cor. 7:15). We will discuss this latter.

CE § 59 If a man divorces a wife after having made

her bear sons and takes another wife, he shall be

expelled from (his) house and whatever (property)

there is and he will go after him who will accept

him.

Although this regulation makes no provision for the mother of one

son, the mother of daughters, or the childless woman, it nevertheless

shields this mother from further violence. As we said, casuistically

formulated law, the (if - then) concept, admits to the fact that divorce

was inevitable. The codes attempt to control violence through

regulation, and divorce, a form of violence, is regulated by placing

penalties on the act. It is assumed that men will divorce their wives.

This assumption is based on the nature of man. In other words it is

unimaginable to men to think that all men will live their entire lives

married to the same woman—this is the product of what Jeremiah the

prophet called the deceitful heart of man (Jer. 17:9). The woman is

assumed to be a possession of the king-man. Generally divorce was

an instrument only permitted to the man. The ancient Semitic tribes,

including the Jews, believed that men had the right to repudiate their

wives at will. They practiced verbal or oral divorce merely by

saying, "I divorce you", three times. The king-man can depose of a

wife, and may procure a new one at will. The king-man becomes the

law; he becomes the judge and the jury. He executes the expulsion of

the woman. Even in our modern courts the judge simply permits the

decision of those suing; both spouses having equal rights.

The Code of Lipit-Ishtar CL (c. 1860 B.C.)

King Lipit-Ishtar was anointed by the idol-gods, Anu and

Enlil. He was commissioned to "establish justice in the land", and to

"bring well-being to the Sumerians and Akkadians", and to

"re-establish equitable family relations among his subjects".

King

Lipit-Ishtar refers to himself as the "humble shepherd of Nippur".

Regarding domestic regulations he writes, "I made the father support

From Whence Cometh Polygamy and Divorce? 69

the children and I made the children [support their] father; I made the

father stand by his children and I made the children stand by their

father; in the father's house".

The value of family was of special

concern to the government of Sumer. This writer recalls an incident

when some of the American public objected to remarks of their

vice-president, Daniel Quale, who stated that a single parent mother,

bearing children out of wed-lock, should not receive the honor of a

true family. It appears that Lipit-Ishtar would have agreed with the

American V.P. Although the extant of this code is fragmentary we

have these interesting remains which enlighten our study.

CL § 24 If the second wife whom he had married

bore him children, the dowry which she brought

from her father's house belongs to her children (but)

the children of (his) first wife and the children of

(his) second wife shall divide equally the property of

their father.

Note that, as divorce, polygamy is the assumption of this law. The

two actions that we have addressed in the title of this chapter have the

same inventor, man.

CL § 25 If a man married a wife and she bore him

children and those children are living, and a slave

also bore children for her master (but) the father

granted freedom to the slave and her children, the

children of the slave shall not divide the estate with

the children of their (former) master.

Here we find regulations addressing slaves, as in the social laws of

Moses, (compare Lev. 19:20, and Deut. 21:10-17). Regardless, it

speaks of the concubinage of slaves. It assumes that the slave-girl, as

a possession of the king-man, was obliged to provide her master

conjugal, and child bearing responsibilities. Where did the king-man

acquire this right? From himself. Man is a self appointed king.

CL § 26 If his first wife died and after her death he

takes his slave as a wife, [the children] of [his first]

70 Chapter Two Jesus’ Doctrine

wife [are his heirs]; the children which [the slave]

bore for her master shall be ... .

Abram took Hagar while Sarai was alive, for he believed his wife’s

womb was dead. The elements of both Abram's practice and (CL §

26) are essentially the same. The fragment teaches that Ishmael did

not have the rights of the true heir, Isaac.

CL § 27 If a man's wife has not borne him children

but a public harlot has borne him children, he shall

provide grain, oil and clothing for that harlot; the

children which the harlot has borne him shall be his

heirs, and as long as his wife lives the harlot shall

not live in the house with the wife.

This law has overtones of the Tamar incident in the life of Judah,

(Gen. 38). Tamar played the harlot, deceiving Judah, and was found

with his child. In Israel the penalty for Tamar, had she actually

played the harlot, would have been to be burned to death. However,

since Judah was her father-in-law, and she was only playing the

harlot so as to receive justice, Judah was obliged to confess, "she hath

been more righteous than I, because I gave her not to Shelah, my

son." Although it is reported that Judah "knew her again no more", it

does appear that along with her pardon Tamar was supported by

Judah for she was given a place the genealogy of Jesus, (Matt. 1:3)

where she appears as a wife of Judah.

CL § 28 If a man has turned his face away from

his first wife ... but she has not gone out of the

[house] his wife which he married as his favorite is a

second wife; he shall continue to support his first

wife.

This speaks of a live-in divorce—a form of bigamy—which actually

might be more just than divorce. Martin Luther said, "In regard to

divorce, it is still a subject of debate whether it should be allowed.

For my part, I have such a hatred of divorce that I prefer bigamy to

divorce."

Divorce with remarriage, if divorce is prohibited, as this

paper contends, amounts to simple bigamy.

From Whence Cometh Polygamy and Divorce? 71

CL § 29 If a son-in-law has entered the house of his

(prospective) father-in-law and he made his

betrothal and afterwards they made him go out (of

the house) and gave his wife to his companion; they

shall present to him the betrothal gifts he brought

and that wife may not marry his companion.

The story of Jacob and Laban surfaces again in this section of the

code as the son-in-law's rights were protected. God, of course,

protected Jacob.

CL § 30 If a young married man married a harlot

(from) the public square and the judges have ordered

him not visit her, but afterwards he neglected his

wife

Steele comments on the word neglect, stating that this word possibly

means divorce. So again here in the Code of Lipit Ishtar we see man

with what he believes his natural right in marriage, i.e. his right to

execute divorce, with the authority to remarry, and the right to

commit bigamy or polygamy; his sovereign right.

The Code of Hammurabi CH (c. 1700 B.C.)

This is the most celebrated of the ancient laws of the sons of

Noah prior to Moses. Although scholars and intellectuals have

honored this treatise with their recognition, it is nevertheless the

product of the idol-gods. Many of whom are mentioned in its

prologue and epilogue. Dagan (Dagon) the Semitic grain-god, the

pillars to whose temple Sampson pulled down; and Marduk

(Merodach) whom Jeremiah called down, "The word that the Lord

spoke against Babylon and against the land of the Chaldeans by

Jeremiah, the prophet: Declare among the nations, and publish, and

set up a standard; publish, and conceal not; say, Babylon is taken, Bel

is confounded, Merodach is broken in pieces; her idols are

confounded, her images are broken in pieces", (Jer. 50:1,2). This

same Hammurabi who experiences the defeat at the hand of Jehovah,

was the king-god who gave obeisance to the false idol-gods said:

72 Chapter Two Jesus’ Doctrine

The laws of justice, which Hammurabi, the efficient

king set up, and by which he caused the land to take

the right way and have good government.

I, Hammurabi, the perfect king, was not careless (or)

neglectful of the black-headed (people), whom Enlil

(storm-god) presented to me, (and) whose

shepherding Marduk had committed to me;

I sought out peaceful regions for them; I overcame

grievous difficulties; I caused light to rise on them.

The great gods called me, so I become the

beneficent shepherd whose scepter is righteous: By

the order of Shamash (sun-god), the great judge of

heaven and earth, (god of justice). May my justice

prevail in the land; by the word of Marduk, my lord,

may my statutes have no one to rescind them.

The Lord God did rescind Hammurabi and his idol-god; Babylon fell

in one hour, as will the future Babylon. Nevertheless we must keep

in mind that the Lord God ordained Noah and his sons to replenish

the earth and to rule it by man, i.e. human government with laws of

the land. Therefore the Code of Hammurabi is an ordained system of

human government as are the laws of Russia, China, Egypt, and

America. Let us examine Hammurabi's regulation of marriage.

CH § 128 If a seignior acquired a wife, but did not

draw up contracts for her, that woman is no wife.

The International Bible Encyclopedia states that, "though the Hebrew

wife and mother was treated with more consideration than her sister

on other lands, even in other Semitic countries, her position

nevertheless was one of inferiority and subjection. The marriage

relation from the standpoint of Hebrew legislation was looked upon

very largely as a business affair, a mere question of property. A wife

nevertheless, was, indeed, in most homes in Israel, the husband's

'most valued possession.' Frequently we find this belief regarding the

From Whence Cometh Polygamy and Divorce? 73

basis for Israelite and Semitic marriage." But as we have said, Millar

Borrows believes the basis for the Israelite marriage was the covenant

nature of their relationship with Jehovah. The covenant was

obviously a powerful force with the sons of Noah, as noted here in

(CH ' 128); a marriage contract was required.

CH § 129 If the wife of a seignior has been caught

while lying with another man, they shall bind them

and throw them into the water. If the husband of the

woman wishes to spare his wife, then the king in

turn may spare his subject.

Moses commanded the death of both subjects.

CH § 130 If the seignior bound [raped] the

(betrothed) wife of another seignior, who had no

intercourse with a male and was still living in her

father's house, and he has lain in her bosom and they

have caught him, that seignior shall be put to death,

while that woman shall go free.

Almost identical to Moses in (Deut. 22:25-27) this law, as the

Mosaic, establishes the importance of catching the person, or as

Moses states, the act of "being found". This will be an important

item to consider when we exposit (John 8)—the woman taken in

adultery.

CH § 131 If a seignior's wife was accused by her

husband, but she was not caught while lying with

another man, she shall make affirmation by god and

return to her house.

CH § 130 If a finger was pointed at the wife of a

seignior because of another man, but she has not

been caught while lying with the other man, she

shall throw herself into the river for the sake of her

husband.

The ancient laws continually place the woman on the defensive. Of

74 Chapter Two Jesus’ Doctrine

course, if she was caught in the act the judgment was swift and final.

However if she was suspected of infidelity, she likewise was subject

to a proving process. As noted by Moses, when a man was caught in

the "spirit of jealousy" the woman was obliged to submit to the bitter

water ordeal, (Numb. 5:11-31). She would be forced to drink the

bitter water and if she was guilty her abdomen would swell and her

thigh would rot. Here we find a similar test, "thrown into the river."

In (CH § 133 - 135) Hammurabi deals with the wife of a

prisoner of war. The wife who had "sufficient to live on" was

required to remain in her home and wait for the return of her husband.

Had she insufficient provisions she was permitted to leave her home

and marry another. In the event her first husband returned home, she

was to return to him leaving any of the second husband’s children

with their father. Should she leave her home where she had sufficient

provision, she was to be "thrown into the river." In (CH § 136) we

find a law identical to (CE § 30) where the husband deserted the

village of his residence, here again he would be denied his wife upon

return.

CH § 137 If a seignior has made up his mind to

divorce a lay priestess, who bore him children, or a

hierodule [female temple slave (concubine)] who

provided him with children, they shall return her

dowry to that woman and also give her half of the

field, orchard and goods in order that she may rear

her children; after she has brought up her children,

from whatever was given to her children they shall

give her a portion corresponding to (that of) an

individual heir in order that the man of her choice

may marry her.

The comment, "If a seignior made up his mind", affirms that divorce

rests solely in the heart of man. His act is final. This squarely

contradicts the mandate of Jesus, "Let not man put asunder".

CH § 138 If a seignior wishes to divorce his wife

who did not bear him children, he shall give her

money to the full amount of her marriage-price and

he shall also make good to her the dowry which she

From Whence Cometh Polygamy and Divorce? 75

brought from her father's house and then he may

divorce her.

Childlessness was considered a failure of the marriage relationship

and was considered a breach of contract by the ancients. We should

be thankful that Abram loved Sarai even though she failed to

conceive. Had he hated her and put her away, as the codes provided,

the incarnation of the promised Seed would have failed.

CH § 141 If a seignior's wife, who was living in the

house of the seignior, has made up her mind to leave

in order that she may engage in business, thus

neglecting her house (and) humiliating her husband,

they shall prove it against her; and if her husband

has then decided on her divorce, he may divorce her,

with nothing to be given her as her divorce-

settlement upon her departure. If her husband has

not decided on her divorce, her husband may marry

another woman, with the former woman living in the

house of her husband like a maidservant.

CH § 142 If a woman so hated her husband that she

has declared, "You may not have me," her record

shall be investigated at her city council, and if she

was careful and was not at fault, even though her

husband has been going out and disparaging her

greatly, that woman, without incurring any blame at

all, may take her dowry and go off to her father's

house.

This is the first mention in the ancient codes of the woman's right to

initiate a separation—it would become a common practice among the

Gentiles; Jesus addresses the subject, "If a woman shall put away her

husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery", (Mk.

10:12). Jesus condemns the remarried woman as an adulterer. Jesus

simply states that any divorce with remarriage this side of death is

adultery.

In (CH § 143 - 145) Hammurabi addresses various

76 Chapter Two Jesus’ Doctrine

aspects of marriage, but in (CH § 154 - 158) deserve

mention:

CH § 154 If a seignior has had intercourse with his

daughter, they shall make that seignior leave the

city.

CH § 155 If a seignior chose a bride for his son and

his son had intercourse with her, but later he himself

has lain in her bosom and they caught him, they

shall bind that seignior and throw him into the water.

CH § 156 If a seignior chose a bride for his son and

his son did not have intercourse with her, but he

himself has lain in her bosom ... [he shall pay a fine,

and let her go to marry a man of her choice].

CH § 157 If a seignior has lain in the bosom of his

mother after (the death of) his father, they shall burn

both of them.

CH § 158 If a seignior after (the death of) his

father, has been caught in the bosom of his foster

mother who was the bearer of children, that seignior

shall be cut off from the parental home.

Incest, marriage within the forbidden degrees, is the subject of this

portion of the code. Notice that intercourse between father/daughter,

father/daughter-in-law, son/mother, and son/step-mother are the only

forbidden degrees of consanguinity mentioned in Hammurabi. The

most prohibitive act was the son/mother relationship, resulting in a

fiery death of both partners. It is no wonder that the Apostle should

cry out to the Church at Corinth regarding the man who had married

his stepmother, "Such fornication as is not so much as named among

the Gentiles".

Hammurabi goes on to list twenty other laws that regulate

marriage; most of which regulate the betrothal-gift, bride-price, or the

dowry. The terms are often used synonymously. Most dictionaries

define the dowry as both the gift the wife brings into marriage, and

From Whence Cometh Polygamy and Divorce? 77

the gift that the man gives to the bride.

The mohar, the payment of a sum to the father of the bride,

has created the impression in the mind of most commentators to

assume that ancient marriage was an economic transaction, a matter

of purchase and ownership.

The International Bible Encyclopedia

is an example of this view: "The marriage relation from the stand

point of Hebrew legislation was looked upon very largely as a

business affair, a mere question of property". As mentioned Borrows

disagrees, and he labors to show that marriage is older than sale, and

that the mohar was actually a compensation-gift. Regardless the

mohar was a binding element of the marriage covenant. The words

of Jehovah to Israel, "And I will betroth thee unto me forever; 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 the Lord", (Hosea 2:19,20). The

NSRB makes this fitting comment, "The grace of God is beautifully

set forth in the verb 'betroth', which signifies to woo a virgin. The

pledge that God made to Israel was forever—we will see the ancients

applying this concept even to the engagement period. Some may

question whether the mohar, or dowry is practiced today in the west,

and most would agree that it is not. Nevertheless, “diamonds are a

girl’s best friend.”

As mentioned in chapter one, man was created married.

Marriage is an act of creation, and that marriage was monogamous.

Creation-marriage is an ordinance of creation as is the horizon of the

earth. As the horizon of the earth was, is, and forever will be, so

creation-marriage was God's will, is God's will, and forever will be

God's will. The question then: "From whence cometh divorce and

polygamy", there is only one answer. Man.

As stated the ancient codes were the result of God's

commission to Noah and his sons to ensure human government.

They were corrupt by the nature of their idolatry, to which all the

codes were dedicated. This idolatry invariably led to immorality.

"Babylon was a sink of iniquity and a scandalous example of

luxurious laxity to all the ancient world. Even Alexander, who was

not above dying of drinking, was shocked by the morals of

Babylon".

Jehovah describes Babylon in the Book of Revelation as,

"MYSTERY BABYLON, THE GREAT MOTHER OF HARLOTS

78 Chapter Two Jesus’ Doctrine

AND ABOMINATION OF THE EARTH", (Rev. 17:5).

Every native woman is obliged, once in her

life, to sit in the temple of Venus, and have

intercourse with some stranger. And many

disdaining to mix with the rest, being proud on

account of their wealth, come in covered carriages,

and take up their station at the temple with a

numerous train of servants attending them. But the

far greater part do thus: many sit down in the temple

of Venus, wearing a crown of cord round their

heads; some are continually coming in, and others

are going out. Passages marked out in a straight line

lead in every direction through the women, along

which strangers pass and make their choice. When a

woman has once seated herself she must not return

home till some stranger has thrown a piece of silver

into her lap, and lain with her outside the temple.

He who throws the silver must say thus: "I beseech

the goddess Mylitta to favor thee": for the Assyrians

call Venus, Mylitta. The silver may be ever so

small, for such silver is accounted sacred. The

woman follows the first man that throws, and refuses

no one. But when she has had intercourse and has

absolved herself from her obligation to the goddess,

she returns home; and after that time, however great

a sum you may give her you will not gain possession

of her. Those that are endowed with beauty and

symmetry of shape are soon set free; but the

deformed are detained a long time, from inability to

satisfy the LAW, for some wait for a space of three

to four years.

CHAPTER THREE

Do Customs Matter?

Customs are related to costumes. What is accustomed, the

habitual practice, may well be thought of in terms of the fashion

(dress/costume) of the day; the accepted social behavior. By sheer

habitual practice some customs acquire the force of law or right.

Therefore the laws reflect the customs and conversely the customs

reflect the laws. There is a latent danger in all of this. When an

evil practice becomes an accepted custom it may become a

mandated law. The virgins of Babylon were required by law to be

spoiled by strangers in the temple of their gods.

After centuries of postdiluvian history, we hear this

comment on the sons and grandsons of Noah, "And Joshua said

unto all the people, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Your fathers

dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time, even Terah, the

father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor: and they served other

gods", (Joshua 24:2). Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord of Hosts; the

whole earth is full of his glory, (Isa. 6:3, Rev. 4:8). Let God be true

and every other god a liar. The other gods were unholy; immoral.

They were the weak imaginations of men. These gods were the

immoral imaginations of men ruling over the hearts of evil men.

Their work was to provide a conscience for sin. Their fruit was

evil. The attractive virgins were deflowered and released first; the

unlovely awaited their ritual fornication, some tarried at the temple

for years. Man legislated codes of laws to accommodate his evil

immoral nature. Hard-heartedness.

Any attempt by man to exist without a reliance upon

Jehovah, his God, will inevitably lead him to defeat. Should he

attempt to form a government of laws without a reliance upon

Jehovah God the Holy One he will rely on himself and

consequently his customs will eventually become law, and his law

will inevitably be a direct reflection of himself; immoral. What God

80 Chapter Three Jesus’ Doctrine

said of man is ever so true: “There is none righteous, no, not one.

For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God,” (Rom.

3:10, 23). The question is: How could unrighteous man formulate

righteous law? All forms of human government have failed to

generate righteous societies; all societies have failed to formulate

righteous laws. Noah and his sons were under a mandate to form a

human government based on the theocracy of Jehovah; but they

formed monarchies, kingdoms built on idolatry. One such early

monarchy was the kingdom of Nimrod. He was the el'gibbor; the

self proclaimed mighty one. Isaiah identified the true El'Gibbor as

the Lord Jesus Christ, "His name shall be called Pele Joez

El'Gibbor Abi As Sar Shalom", (Isa. 9:6). The Authorized Version

refers to Nimrod as, "the mighty hunter before the Lord", (Gen.

10:9), but the ancient proverb translates this as, “Nimrod the

mighty hunter against the Lord [the Antichrist].”

The name of

his city kingdom was Babel; that name would eventually reach the

city of the Apocalyptic Judgment.

The Origin of the Races and Customs

It was on the Plain of Shinar where the men of the whole

earth began to assemble. Here while speaking one language man

formed a compact and designed a universal custom. Each man was

to make brick and join them together as a symbol of universal unity

in the construction of a temple reaching to heaven. In their labor

was heard a chant, "Let us make a name, least we be scattered

abroad upon the face of the whole earth", (Gen. 11:4). Henry M.

Morris suggests that the initial motive for this project was to gain a

self accomplished spirituality, but the outcome was a degenerated

astrology. He goes on to explain that Virgo was placed in the

evening sky to declare the hope of the Promised Seed, (Gen. 3:15),

but Nimrod made her the seductive Queen of Heaven.

Noah's

sons had slipped into mass idolatry. As we all know, this temple

tower became an object of consternation to these worshippers, as

suddenly Jehovah the Triune God, judged the builders by

confounding their minds causing them to babble in divers

languages. Fear and confusion filled the Nimrodites; in madness

and hysteria they scattered themselves upon the face of the whole

earth.

Do Customs Matter? 81

The remarkable nature of this judgment is lodged in the

human tongue. The speech of man is regulated by his physiology.

It is interesting that the only serious theological discussion

regarding the origin of the varied races of men is found here at the

judgment of tongues; Tower of Babel. Keil and Delitszch

comment on Vitringa and Hofmann who believed that the tongue

event of Babel was caused when the omnipotent God changed

man's organs of speech, i.e., and anatomical change.

Although

they refute Vitringa and Hofmann, nevertheless they address the

thought of anatomical change.

Creation repudiates the concept of an evolution of anatomy.

However the varied anatomies of the human race indicate that some

change occurred to the children of Adam. The eight souls of the

ark were obviously of a single racial extract. A study of

antediluvian history fails to reveal any time where we might find

some event which led mankind into a world of diversity of races

with physical anatomical characteristics, like those we see today.

But if we examine the Babel Judgment in the light of anatomical

judgment the event does lend itself to the thought. It is without

question that the Lord God inflicted a psychological curse on man

in the Babel Judgment, but is it beyond the realm of reason that He

also cursed the physiology of man. The voice of the birds is

governed by their physiology: the caw of the crow is as expected as

the song of the canary. The bark of a dog is as expected as the me-

ow of the cat. The snappy high pitch voice of the Oriental is as

expected as the deep tones of the African. The anatomy of the

creature dictates the voice of the creature. The size of the neck,

nose cavities, lips, and tongue appear to contribute to the sound of

the man. A Chihuahua cannot make the sound of a St. Bernard.

The environment can only affect the cosmetic nature of man, "Look

not upon me, because I am black, because the sun hath looked upon

me", were the words of the Shulamite. The races are the result of a

curse, as the races curse the earth with their prejudice and hate,

their wars and their death. This writer believes that the races were

created as were the species of birds and the bees. The creation

which is the product of a judgment curse is nevertheless pure

creation. Thus the diversity of size, color, and language of the

human race that we witness today is the result of a judgment, the

Babel Judgment.

82 Chapter Three Jesus’ Doctrine

Hath God Joined the Black and White?

Some believe that the black race was born out of the sin of

Ham, seeing the nakedness of his father Noah. His curse determined

that he would be the servant of servants. As stated previously, the

races were created in judgment at the temple of Babel. Therefore

this author rejects this Hamite doctrine. All races are the result of a

curse, consequently all races are cursed, not just the blacks. "The

Phoenicians, along with the Carthaginians and the Egyptians, who all

belong to the family of Canaan, were subjugated by the Japhetic

Persians, Macedonians, and Romans: the remainder of the Hamitic

tribes either shared the same fate, or still sigh, like the Negroes,

beneath the yoke of the most crushing slavery.

Here Keil and

Delitzsch assign several nations to the list of Hamitic peoples; they

are not all black. Morris makes the following comment:

Unfortunately, there have been some interpreters

who have applied the Hamitic curse specifically to

the Negro peoples, using it to justify keeping the

black man in economic servitude or even slavery. It

is obvious, however, that the prophecy applies not

only to black Africans but also to all other

descendants of Ham (most of whom are not blacks),

and no more of the Hamitic peoples have

experienced such servitude during their history than

the non-Hamitic peoples.

If the races were formed at Babel, then the mixed racial marriage

takes on an altogether different hue. All skin color is the product of a

curse. Color, languages, and race are the product of a universal sin.

It is not the sin of one person, Ham; one tribe, the Hamites; one color,

the blacks. The Babel/Race doctrine includes the entire human

family. It places all mankind on a spectrum of color tones. Extreme

degrees of the spectrum reveal the curse in greater tones than lesser

tones, nevertheless all the races are included in the lines of color. To

permit the mixing of the lesser color tones while prohibiting the

extreme tones to mix would be insincere; hypocrisy. Race distinction

reveals the curse which was aggravated by sin. When a black and

Do Customs Matter? 83

white unite in marriage it personifies the curse. This is socially

embarrassing to those who have melted into the acceptable

background of the spectrum; some of these people have formed an

evil prejudice that is very strong.

Although mixed racial unions are perfectly legitimate, they

nevertheless will be unions that experience social tension, i.e. the

tension of societies own embarrassment which is a reminder of the

sin of all men at Babel. The loving couple will not personally know

the embarrassment; they will however wrestle with the

embarrassment of others. Those contemplating this union should be

warned of the burden of the mixed-racial marriage, for a pastor to do

otherwise would be irresponsible.

Abraham and Customs

As a lad, Abram must have stood in awe of the famous

ziggurats and other buildings of Ur, his home city. The well

organized society of ancient Ur would have also left a lasting

impression on this young man. Abram would have been influenced

by Ur-Nammu; Leon Wood states, "For even if the period [of Ur-

Nammu] began a few years after Abraham left for the promised land,

conditions would not have greatly changed in this length of time."

100

The departure of Abram, Terah, Lot, and Sarai from this beautiful

city at its zenith of glory, should be recorded among the miracles of

the Bible. The code of Ur-Nammu was ordering the peace which

contributed to the prosperity of Ur. The element which made the city

repulsive to Abram was its idolatry. It was dedicated to the idol-

gods. Abram's God was Jehovah Elohim the great Creator.

Abram began a faith relationship with Jehovah through the

ancient verbal message of Noah or perhaps the revelation of Jehovah

in His manifold creation.—H. Morris suggests, man may have

learned the truth of the Godhead from the stars—The Apostle tells us,

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are

clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his

eternal power and Godhead, so they are without excuse," (Rom.

1:20). Abram knew the Godhead, although his fathers did not, "And

Joshua said unto all the people, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel,

Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time, even

Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor; and they

84 Chapter Three Jesus’ Doctrine

served other gods", (Joshua 24:2). Abraham obeyed Jehovah:

Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred,

and from thy father's house, unto the land that I will

show thee; and I will make of thee a great nation,

and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and

thou shalt be a blessing. And I will bless them that

bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in

thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed.

Gen. 12:1-3

In leaving his country, Abram was promised with personal

blessings, and all the families of the earth were also promised a

special blessing. The latter would be blessed in a new dimension of

creation-marriage, (Jewish creation marriage)— throughout the

remainder of this dissertation creation-marriage will focus on Israel’s

guardianship of creation-marriage—after all Jesus was born of the

house and lineage of David, a Jew. It must be kept in mind that

although Abram left his country and forsook his idolatry, he did not

sever those customs and laws which comprised the spirit of Noah—

this was his reasonable obligation as a world citizen. Those customs

and laws which regulated violence as ordained by Jehovah through

Noah followed Abram and were practiced by all the Patriarchs. This

was not altered until Jehovah appeared to Moses on Mt. Sinai. We

shall see that the ancient codes and customs regulated the behavior of

Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And some of these codes impacted their

marriage practices.

Shortly after arriving in the Promised Land, Abram prepared

sacrificial offerings to Jehovah. This is the first recorded sacrifice to

Jehovah since Noah's at the subsiding of the flood. This is solid

evidence that Abram was walking with his God; nevertheless Abram

forsakes his new land for fear of a current drought. He sought refuge

in Egypt—some believe this was a lapse of faith—with his half-sister

and wife, Sarai. Fearing his life, because he assumed Sarai's beauty

would entice the Egyptians to kill him and take his wife, Abram hid

behind Sarai his half sister-wife. Although Abram was wrong to

initiate this scheme, he was correct about the sexual interests of the

Egyptians. Their art depicts their women wearing light pervious

clothing which was designed to reveal the female body. Their

Do Customs Matter? 85

obsession with the sexual delight of their beautiful women reached

the height of monomania in this account from Herodotus who records

the preoccupation with sex even entered the domain of the mortuary.

The wives of men of rank when they die are not

given at once to be embalmed, nor such women as

are very beautiful or greater regard than others, but

on the third or fourth day after their death (and not

before) they are delivered to the embalmers. They

do so about this matter in order that the embalmers

may not abuse their women [sexually], for they say

that one of them was taken once doing so to the

corpse of a woman lately dead, and his fellow-

craftsman gave information.

101

An interesting note was found in the March 14, 1988 issue of Time

magazine. A team of American biblical scholars deciphered the text

of the Genesis Apocryphon, a Dead Sea Scroll. Although only a few

dozen images have been developed, yet the scholar’s believe that they

shed light on the ancient customs of the Bible. "Most startling are

new passages that record in great detail the physical beauty of

Abraham's wife Sarah. These include descriptions of the contours of

Sarah's breasts".

Pharaoh did take Sarai to wife, however the Lord God

intervened and sent plagues upon him revealing that he had taken the

wife of another man. Abram was permitted to leave Egypt with his

half-sister-wife. It appears that adultery was regulated in Egypt,

nevertheless creation-marriage hand fallen on bad times in ancient

Egypt a place that was unusually corrupt. But before we investigate

this fact, let us follow Abram back to Canaan to the land which was

famous for its written alphabet and infamous for its sodomy.

Customs of the Fertility God and Goddess

Expelled from Egypt, Abraham, Sarah, and their nephew Lot

returned to the Land with a refreshed determination to trust Jehovah-

Elohim. Abraham would go on to grow in grace, while Lot would

grow in disgrace, nearly drowning in the corrupt customs of Canaan.

The religion of Canaan was at the heart of the matter:

86 Chapter Three Jesus’ Doctrine

Canaanitish culture was based on that of Babylonia,

and begins with the introduction and use of copper

and bronze. When Canaan became a Babylonian

province, it naturally shared in the civilization of the

ruling power. The religious beliefs and deities of

Babylonia were superimposed upon those of the

primitive Canaanite.

102

As mentioned, Abraham and Lot were natives of Babylon and

therefore would not be terribly startled by the customs of Canaan.

This explains why Lot could make Sodom his home; but there was

something in Canaan which was actually unnatural even to

Babylon—the custom of sexual perversion. One would think that the

custom of defiling all virgins through a religious temple rite was the

height of corruption, but Canaan would raise corruption to even

higher levels.

It may be stated without exaggeration that the

Canaanite religion was the most sexually perverted,

morally depraved, and blood thirsty of all ancient

history. It was for this reason that God ordered

Joshua to exterminate their very culture, citizens,

animals and cities. The head god of the Canaanite

religion was El. His wife was Asherah. He also

married his sisters, one of whom was Asterah.

103

Asterah was probably the epithet of Istar (Babylon), Asteroth

(Canaan), goddess of fertility.

104

As we study the ancients we are

impressed with the omnipresence of this female deity. She appears as

Astarte (Phoenicia), Isis (Egypt), Demeter (Greek), Aphrodite

(Greek), Ishtar (Assyrian), Venus (Roman), Artemis (Assyrian), and

Virgo. Henry Morris has this interesting comment:

Satan is notoriously a corruptor, rather than an

innovator. Hence it is probable that the system of

paganism, with its astrological emblems and

complex mythology and mysteries, represents a

primeval distortion of God's true revelation

Do Customs Matter? 87

concerning His creation and promised redemption of

the universe. Thus, the zodiac system of

constellations may originally have been devised by

the antediluvian Patriarchs as a means of indelibly

impressing the divine promises on the consciousness

of mankind through marking them on the very

heavens themselves. If so, the subsequent system of

astrology is a gross corruption of the original

evangelical significance of the heavenly bodies,

created originally to serve in part for signs and

seasons. The Virgin (Virgo), whose sign among the

stars once reminded men of the promised Seed of the

woman, began to assume the proportions of an

actual Queen of Heaven; and Leo, the great sidereal

lion at the other end of the Zodiac, became a

spiritual King of Heaven.

105

It is now believed that the origin for the identification of the

constellations was universal and not limited to Greek mythology as

was once thought.

The principal achievement of the science of

astronomy in the centuries during which the books

of the OT were written was the arrangement and

naming of the constellations, and there can be no

reasonable doubt that the same system was known to

the Hebrews as that which has been handed down to

us through the Greek astronomers.

106

Morris expands the constellation theory stating that Simiramis, the

wife of Nimrod, was the first false virgin, Virgo, the Queen of

Heaven. Nimrod was the first false lion, Leo, the King of Heaven.

The heavens were intended to declare the Glory of God. The

corruption of which caused the Apostle to cry out:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven

against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men,

who hold the truth in unrighteousness, because that

which may be known of God is manifest in them; for

88 Chapter Three Jesus’ Doctrine

God hath shown it unto them. For the invisible

things of him from the creation of the world are

clearly seen, being understood by the things that are

made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that

they are without excuse; because, when they knew

God, they glorified him not as God, neither were

thankful, but became vain in their imaginations, and

their foolish heart was darkened. Professing

themselves to be wise, they became fools, and

changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an

image made like corruptible man, and birds, and

four-footed beasts, and creeping things.

Wherefore, God also gave them up to uncleanness

through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor

their own bodies between themselves, who changed

the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served

the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed

forever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up

unto vile affections; for even their women did

change the natural use for that which is against

nature; and likewise also the men, leaving the

natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one

toward another, men with men working that which is

unseemly, and receiving in themselves that

recompense of their error which was meet.

(Rom. 1:18-27)

The consequence of false worship is wrong conduct, conversely the

result of true worship is moral or right conduct. The Apostle stated:

"Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the

Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that

Jesus is Lord, but by the Holy Spirit", (I Cor. 12:3). Jesus said, "God

is a Spirit, and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and

in truth", (Jn. 4:24). Again the Apostle adds, "For through him

[Jesus] we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father", (Eph.

2:22). The equation simply states that if you do not worship in the

true Spirit you will worship in the Evil spirit, and the natural desires

of the evil worshipper will be perverted.

Do Customs Matter? 89

Abraham was called out of Babylon by Jehovah God in order

to give mankind a new start. Man failed under Adam, and Noah, now

he would have a new leader and example. Abraham departed from

Babylon and entered the land of Canaan. The natives, however, were

thoroughly corrupted by the customs of Babylon, and God would

direct Abraham to establish the first literal kingdom of God on earth

in this Promised Land, Canaan. The Canaanites included the

Phoenicians, Jebusites, Amorites, and the Hittites, with such well

known cities as Gaza, Megiddo, Jericho, Sodom, Gomorrah, and

Jerusalem. Ham, who was cursed for looking upon the nakedness of

his father, was the father of these Canaanite tribes. It is not surprising

that his posterity is notably immoral. Asteroth was the supreme

goddess of Canaan and the counterpart of Baal. Her cult originated in

Babylon—Istar her Babylonian counterpart was known as the

morning and evening star. Abraham discovered the city of Asteroth-

Karnaim, a city dedicated to her worship. Some of the Canaanite

tribes have left few physical remains of their culture, but this is not so

of the Phoenicians:

Their religious ideas are important on account of the

influence they had on the Hebrews. Derived from

the Babylonians, one of the most corrupting

tendencies we notice was the ascription of sexual

characteristics to the chief deities of their pantheon,

such as Baal and Asteroth who was the great Nature-

goddess, the Magna Mater, queen of heaven (Jer.

7:18). She was commonly identified with Aphrodite

or Venus. Her worship was too often accompanied

with orgies of the most corrupt kind, as at Apheca.

107

The Encyclopedia Britannica gives us this description of the immoral

Phoenician mind:

The worship of the female along with the male

principle was a strongly marked feature of

Phoenician religion. The ghastly practice of

sacrificing human victims was resorted to in times of

great distress, or to avert national disaster. The god

90 Chapter Three Jesus’ Doctrine

who demanded these victims, and especially the

burning of children, seems to have been Milk, the

Molech or Moloch of the Old Testament. Another

horrible sacrifice was regularly demanded by

Phoenician religion: women sacrificed their virginity

at the shrines of Astarte in belief that they thus

propitiated the goddess and won her favor; licentious

rites were the natural accompaniment of the worship

of the reproductive powers of nature.

108

Babylon was apparently preoccupied with the female principle, while

the society of Canaan was preoccupied with the male principle.

Homosexuality with all it degrading acts was the accepted custom of

Sodom. Some commentators see the act of pederasty, as its

identifying sin.

109

The men of this infamous city had left the natural

use of the woman and burned in their sexual lust one with another:

Men with men doing that which is unseemly. Sodom’s pederasty and

other homosexual acts may have been out done by the Americans.

Reports have surfaced of acts of homosexual debauchery that are not

fitting to even record in this dissertation. Billy Graham is not far

from the truth when he exclaims that God will have to apologize to

Sodom, if he further delays the judgment of America.

Just a short note here: The homosexuals of Sodom were

violent, although homosexuals claim to be the children of free and

unlimited love. Recall the Sodom account: The angels arrive at Lot's

door to visit him. They refuse Lot's offer to lodge with him, telling

Lot that they prefer to sleep in the street. Lot knowing the sexual

perversion of the men of Sodom persuades the angels to abide with

him. After enjoying a feast with unleavened bread—a sign of

religious devotion—the angels prepare to retire for the night. A mob,

the men and boys of the city, gather outside Lot's door and demand to

know the angels, i.e. to know them sexually. Lot closes the door

behind him and begins to admonish the crowd, "I pray you, brethren,

do not so wickedly". He judges their homosexual wickedness. The

backsliding Lot then offers the Sodomites his two virgin daughters.

He declares, "Behold now, I have two daughters who have not known

man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them

as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing". The

homosexual mob then cry out in unison, "Stand back". Who are you,

Do Customs Matter? 91

Lot, to judge our homosexual custom as wickedness. Then they

threaten to kill him. Their custom was universally accepted as good.

Lot was threatened with death because he condemned their sinful

custom. The men were prepared to murder Lot. These homosexuals

were violent, unloving people who were killers—some believe this is

true of all homosexuals if they are legally denied to practice their

cursed custom; their wickedness. The angels then pull Lot into the

house and reveal to him that they were sent by Jehovah God to save

him and his family from the violence of Sodom. The men of the city

are instantly judged by the angels and afflicted with blindness both

small and great. Then after the safe escape of Lot, his wife, and his

two virgin daughters, Jehovah God burns the city to the ground

destroying all the perverted boys, girls, men, women, and all living

things. Did the evil custom reach to every soul of Sodom? The

account states that all the people of Sodom were united in their

judgment of Lot: "the men of the city, even the men of Sodom,

compassed the house round both old and young, all the people from

every quarter." God judged the entire city—He incinerated it. The

question that bids an answer, Did all the living creatures of Sodom

have AIDS? Think about it! —I observed an AIDS-Free

sympathizing American AIDS activist wearing a T-shirt that read,

“We All Have AIDS” (a reference to all Americans)—Are we the

next to be judged? Perhaps our enemies could use this for an apology

to nuke us.

The custom of Sodom had become a terrible weapon; a

Satanic attack upon the Seed of the woman. The success of the

Sodomites would have resulted in the destruction of man's power to

propagate, preventing the birth of the Savior, and causing the death of

man. Homosexuality is atheism and death. The United States of

America is failing to control the sin of homosexuality because the

government is protecting this evil custom by promulgating laws in its

defense. Had the U.S. Congress been the government of Sodom they

could have issued in the possible extinction of the human race. God

interceded to govern Sodom—he destroyed the city and its

inhabitants. The Sodomite generation melted in the fire of sulfur;

Will this American generation melt from the slim disease, the ugly

death of AIDS. The fiery annihilation of Sodom is God's opinion and

view of homosexuality. Our God is a consuming fire.

92 Chapter Three Jesus’ Doctrine

The sun was risen upon the earth when Lot entered

into Zoar. Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and

upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord

out of heaven. And he overthrew those cities, and

all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and

that which grew upon the ground. But his wife

looked behind him, and she became a pillar of salt.

And Abraham got up early in the morning to the

place where he stood before the Lord. And he

looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all

the land of the plain, and beheld, and, lo, the smoke

of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace.

And it came to pass, when God destroyed the cities

of the plain, that God remembered Abraham, and

sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when he

overthrew the cities in which Lot dwelt.

Gen. 19:23-29

Smoking in defeat, the weapon-custom, homosexuality, failed to

overcome the world. Satan was again defeated, as God gave men a

new start in Abraham. Lot is the example of the salvation that was

offered through the following of Abraham. The question might be

expanded, "Were all the Canaanites homosexuals?" If so, then the

annihilation of Sodom was only the beginning of God's judgment.

Later God would require the Israelites to exterminate the remainder

of the inhabitants of Canaan, and this He did. It is not beyond

comprehension that all the inhabitants of Canaan had contracted

AIDS, and that they were a threat to all mankind; therefore its

judgment was the righteous act of God in saving mankind.

Regardless, Sodom was gone, removed from the earth. Nothing

remained but the fall-out of their ashes from the smoke of their

furnace.

But this is not the end of the story. Babylon The Mother Of

Harlots, as we said, had propagated the doctrine of harlotry and

adultery throughout Canaan through the deity Asteroth. This female

devil had one preoccupation, harlotry and adultery. The dilemma of

Asteroth is that her desire can only be satiated on the earth, and since

she knows that the earth is temporal, she tries to satisfy her appetite

for sex before she will be judged in the Day of the Lord. God's Word

Do Customs Matter? 93

gives us some insight into her ways:

My son, keep thy father's commandment, and

forsake not the law of thy mother: bind them

continually upon thine heart, and tie them about thy

neck. When thou goest, it shall lead thee; when thou

sleepest, it shall keep thee; and when thou awakest,

it shall talk with thee. For the commandment is a

lamp; and the law is light; and reproofs of

instruction are the way of life: to keep thee from the

evil woman, from the flattery of the tongue of a

strange woman. Lust not after her beauty in thine

heart; neither let her take thee with her eyelids. For

by means of a whorish woman a man is brought to a

piece of bread: and the adulteress will hunt for the

precious life. Prov. 6:22-26

Proverbs chapter seven describes the "means of the whorish woman"

with a vivid description of the "the adulteress who hunts for the

precious life."

My son, keep my words, and lay up my

commandments with thee. Keep my

commandments, and live; and my law as the apple

of thine eye. Bind them upon thy fingers, write

them upon the table of thine heart. Say unto wisdom,

Thou art my sister; and call understanding thy

kinswoman: That they may keep thee from the

strange woman, from the stranger which flattereth

with her words. For at the window of my house I

looked through my casement, and beheld among the

simple ones, I discerned among the youths, a young

man void of understanding. Passing through the

street near her corner; and he went the way to her

house. In the twilight, in the evening, in the black

and dark night: and, behold, there met him a woman

with the attire of an harlot, and subtle of heart. She

is loud and stubborn; her feet abide not in her house:

now is she without, now in the streets, and lieth in

94 Chapter Three Jesus’ Doctrine

wait at every corner. So she caught him, and kissed

him, and with an impudent face said unto him, I

have peace offerings with me; this day have I payed

my vows. Therefore came I forth to meet thee,

diligently to seek thy face, and I have found thee. I

have decked my bed with coverings of tapestry, with

carved works, with fine linen of Egypt. I have

perfumed my bed with myrrh, aloes, cinnamon.

Come, let us take our fill of love until the morning:

let us solace ourselves with love. For the good-man

is not at home, he is gone on a long journey: he hath

taken a bag of money with him, and will come home

at the day appointed. With her much fair speech she

caused him to yield, with the flattering of her lips

she forced him. He goeth after her straight-way, as

an ox goeth to the slaughter, or as a fool to the

correction of the stocks; till a dart strike through his

liver; as a bird hasteneth to the snare, and knoweth

not that it is for his life. Hearken unto me now

therefore, O ye children, and attend unto the words

of my mouth. Let not thine heart decline to her

paths. For she hath cast down many wounded: yea,

many strong men have been slain by her. Her house

is the way to hell, going down to the chambers of

death. Prov. 7

The metaphor has a literal value which cannot be denied, as we watch

the cunning craftiness of this Asteroth, the strange woman of the

corner. I have always been intrigued by the religiosity of this whore.

She boasts of having peace offerings and of paying her vows on the

very day of her adultery—Was it the Sabbath? What was she trying

to say? It appears she thinks adultery is a religious act, an act which

in her eyes is holy. She seems to have the idea that she could commit

adultery and at the same time preserve her conviction that she was a

perpetual virgin. Asteroth’s worshipers praised her as "The Virgin",

"The Virgin Mother", and the "Holy Virgin." Regarding her title Will

Durant comments, "this merely meant that her amours were free from

all taint of wedlock." He continues: “In Babylon she was the goddess

of war as well as love, of prostitutes as well as mothers; she called

Do Customs Matter? 95

herself a compassionate courtesan.”

110

The concept which permits a man to commit adultery without

the taint of adultery is the fuel of hell, the philosophy of harlots. The

spirit of adultery amazingly promotes a claim of innocence and a

strange idea of rightness. The harlot of Proverbs calls her sin, love.

Knowing her time is limited she became aggressive, "So she caught

him, and kissed him, and with an impudent face said unto him: let us

take our fill of love until the morning. "Although she is dead wrong,

she is oblivious to the truth. She is a whore, who thinks she is a holy

virgin. The true virgin, however, would be a humble Jewess. A

young virgin who would forever ponder, in her heart, the miracle of

being overshadowed by the Holy Ghost, and then the joy of

delivering the world it’s Savior.

Abraham, Hagar, Ishmael, Rebecca, Jacob, and Custom

The lives of the Patriarchs often leave us with many

unanswered questions. Why were Abraham and Jacob permitted to

practice polygamy? Why did Jacob serve Laban so faithfully? The

answers to these questions are often found in the customs and laws

that existed during the lives of these men. It must be remembered

that the laws that Noah and his sons promulgated were ordained of

God. The customs which preceded those laws were often just as

binding to the ancient societies—this did not mean that these customs

and laws were perfect; they were as all law: weak. This would not

completely change with the Law of Moses as we shall see: the law

was weak because it brought the knowledge of sin—not the solution

for the redemption of sin. But until Moses the ancient codes would

prevail as the law of the land. As we stated from (CU § 6) divorce

and polygamy were accepted customs in Ur Nammu: "If a man

divorces his primary wife, he must pay her one mina of silver."

However the polygamy of Abraham and Jacob were produced by yet

other customs. These men were holy men, therefore it is no surprise

that there are no recorded divorces in their lives.

Recall (CU § 22), where the slave-woman who spoke

insolently to her mistress was penalized by having her mouth scoured

with salt, and (CL § 26) where the children of the true or first wife

become the rightful heirs of their father's estate even though their

96 Chapter Three Jesus’ Doctrine

father has had children by a slave-wife. The children of the slave-

wife are dis-inherited. These ancient laws shed some light on

Abraham’s conduct with Hagar, however the ancient customs reveal

even greater light.

In 1925 archaeologists discovered thousands of tablets in the

ancient city of Nuzi, or Nuzu. Cyrus Gordon states that these tablets

draw the most intimate picture we have of the ancient customs which

reflect the culture of Abraham.

111

Abraham complained to the Lord

God that he had no heir, save Eliezer, of Damascus. In the light of

the Nuzi texts we have support for Abraham's adoption of his house-

born slave son, Eliezer. Gordon states that at Nuzi adoption played a

significant role as the childless couple adopted an heir as an insurance

policy to support them in their golden years. The adopted heir would

look after them, repair their home, supply food, as well as mourn

their death, and prepare their grave.

112

The custom of adoption

secured Abraham an heir. He left his homeland and idolatry, but he

could not forsake what he believed to be acceptable customs and the

legal ideas of his world. Nuzi was located in northeastern

Mesopotamia, the homeland of Abraham.

Marital customs from Nuzu as well as the code of

Hammurabi provided that, if a man's wife had no

children, the son of a handmaid could be recognized

as the legal heir. Hagar's relationship to Abraham

and Sarah is typical of the customs that prevailed in

Mesopotamia.

113

Abraham may have justified acquiring an heir through the provisions

of the ancient codes and customs, but his failure to trust the Lord God

for a son from the bowels of his marriage to Sarah should be marked

as one of the greatest sins of mankind. The son of custom, Ishmael,

became the father of Islam. Later giving rise to the likes of

Mohammed, Kohmeni, Kadaffy, Hussein, and Arafat. What would

the world have been like without Ishmael, and Islam—One of the

most profound verses in the Bible for the twenty-first century must be

the prophesy regarding Ishmael: “And he will be a wild man; his

hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him;

and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.” Gen. 16:12.

God had promised Abraham greatness if he would walk by faith.

Do Customs Matter? 97

What would have been the greatness of the nation of Abraham, Israel,

without their natural Arabic adversary.

Abraham was apprehensive when Sarai drove out Hagar and

her son, and rightly so for the ancient custom forbid this act. Finegan

raises the custom to law when he states, "there was a legal basis for

this apprehension."

114

Abraham employed another custom when he

chose a wife for Isaac. This would be unacceptable in the west today,

however it must be noted that Isaac loved Rebecca. Not only did he

love the lady of his father's choosing, but he also expected his father

to acquire him a wife. And Abraham did just that. The price of the

Rebecca was paid in jewels of gold, jewels of silver, and garments.

Burrows debates the meaning of these gifts: on the one hand they

could have been a purchase price and on the other hand they could

have been compensatory to a family who was losing a daughter.

115

It should be pointed out that oriental women feel sorry for the

brides of America and the west because they are given away for

nothing. They take pride in their price, believing that the higher the

price the greater their self worth. It was also unlikely that the man

who invested good money in his bride would divorce her over a

whim.

116

Jacob's life suggests further interest in the ancient customs.

In Nuzu men sold themselves into slavery in order to

obtain, for instance, a wife. In other words, men who

knew that they would never have enough money to

pay the bride price for a wife of their own, held that

it was better to be a married slave than a free

bachelor. This nearly parallels the story of Jacob,

who worked so long (though not technically as a

slave) to win his bride from her father.

117

When Jacob awoke and found that he married Leah—the fellowship

of tenting together constituted marriage—he had reason to be angry

with Laban. Though the tenting ceremony was binding, Jacob was

permitted, by custom, more than one wife. Consequently he could

serve another seven years for Rachael. This was compounded by the

custom which permitted Jacob to father children by the handmaids of

both Leah and Rachael. Thus, Jacob became the husband of four

women. Perfectly acceptable with the custom of the day—remember

98 Chapter Three Jesus’ Doctrine

this took place before Moses.

Like Abraham, his first wife, Sarai was eventually blessed

with the promised seed, so Jacob’s first wife, Leah, gave birth to both

Levi and Judah. Leah was the mother of Israel's priests and the

mother of the promised seed, for "the scepter shall not depart from

Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and

unto him shall the gathering of the people be", (Gen. 49)—Shiloh , a

reference to Christ. The seed of the true Virgin was destined through

Leah. But some may object: Was not this marriage a matter of fraud?

That is a fact, for it was just that. Nevertheless Leah would give birth

to the serpent crusher—Most civil judges would award an annulment

to the victim of a fraudulent marriage, God here blesses the union.

Rachael's act of stealing her father's images appears as a theft

motivated by idolatry, but the Nuzu library reveals that her intention

was aimed at acquiring her father's estate. "The possession of the

household gods was tantamount to the title to an estate. Her brothers,

one of whom would have become the chief heir."

118

Rachael now

held the right to her father’s estate. At first glance her act smacked of

an angry daughter who recoiled from the agony of having to share her

husband with her older sister, but perhaps we see a form of ancient

justice in Rachel’s larceny.

Before we leave the land of Canaan we should take note of

the customs recorded in Genesis 38. The Roman Catholic Church

attempts to support their doctrine of birth control with the recorded

act of Onan; "And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it

came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled

it on the ground, least he should give seed to his brother. And the

thing which he did displeased the Lord: wherefore he slew him also,

(Gen. 38). The custom of levirate marriage was obviously common

to this society. It would be formally codified by Moses, however

here we see that it was known by Onan. Some may see polygamy in

the levirate custom, but a close examination will reveal that it fully

supported monogamy. Observe the devastating thought of Onan,

"and Onan knew that the seed should not be his." If the seed would

not have been his, then neither would Tamar have been his. The truth

of the matter is that the seed of Tamar was his brother Er's, as the

mother of the seed was Er's. Levirate marriage was not polygamy.

The last custom we will discuss in this section is found in the

Do Customs Matter? 99

judgment that Judah sentenced upon Tamar. When Judah learned

that his daughter-in-law was pregnant by harlotry he unleashes the

ultimate condemnation on the girl, "bring her forth, and let her be

burned." The ancient’s penalty for harlotry was a bitter form of

capital punishment.

Immunity

"L'etat c'est moi", a thought believed to be spoken by King

Louis XIV, seems to be the thought of Judah as he recoils from his

sin. The Divine Right of Kings, was in existence from antiquity past.

Judah a Patriarch was bound in the tribal setting. The father

tribesman was the civil authority by divine right. Noah was the

supreme court as would be the claim of the Pharaoh’s. Some believe

that the law cannot be illegal. Government immunity is a

requirement of human government. The King is the law. Immunity

is the birthstone of infallibility. The Judge of the court cannot judge

himself. Noah would judge Ham and sound the degree as a righteous

one, even though he was drunk. Human law has always been

weakened by spiritual wickedness in high places, and especially by

kings. The Pope’s claim to infallibility rests in his kingship. Yes,

Louis XIV was the state “The State Is Me”; L’etat c’est moi is what

he said.

A Theocracy was in place with the advent of the lawgiver,

Moses, and the following course of judges, however the arrival of a

king took on a threat to the peace of the Theocracy. The Lord God

warned the nation regarding the nature of a king and of the affect the

king would have upon the people. In Deuteronomy, God established

a standard for the king of Israel because He saw that when His people

secured the Promised Land they would willfully demand a king like

their neighbors. The cry the Lord God heard was a dreadful sound.

Departure was in the whine of His own children. A nation He

protected and blessed was now forsaking Him as their King. When

they turned from Him they turned to another, their king. They now

put their trust in the leader of their nation, a man. Since the man

would be over the people his very existence in that state was a cause

of concern. The initial regulation of the standard was to the people of

the king. They were to permit God to choose the king. The king was

not to multiply horses in an attempt to return to Egypt. Neither could

100 Chapter Three Jesus’ Doctrine

he multiple to himself gold or wives, for the multiplication of wives

would cause the king's heart to turn away from his God. The king

was to write a copy of the law and to read and keep the law all the

days of his life, that his heart be not lifted up above his brethren.

The king was caught in a dilemma. A man with his human

sinful nature was chosen to be the sovereign over the nation. The

people were subject to him. Their children were subject to him.

Their service was subject to him. Their material wealth was subject

to him. Their governors were subject to him. Their law-givers were

subject to him. Consequently the king believed that the law of the

land was subject to him. Although this was not the case, yet

unfortunately it was the case. King Louis the XIV believed he was

the law, "L'etat c'est moi." Even in the United States we support the

king with what we call: presidential immunity.

Egypt - The Danger Greater Than Bondage

The sexual deviants of Babylon, Canaan, and Sodom had a

sister deviant in Egypt. Previously we mentioned that the lust of

Egypt even reached to the coffin of a beautiful female corpse, but that

was not the only depravity of the Egyptians. The theme of this study

is investigating the methods that Satan employed in an attempt to

corrupt creation-marriage, and here in Egypt we find a new

contaminant. The purpose of which was to hinder and prevent the

seen of the woman from being born. For his birth marked the death

of the Serpent with a crushing head wound. The clue that leads us to

consider the evil nature of the Egyptian attack is found in the book of

Leviticus. Here Moses specifically names the abominations of the

Egyptians.

Joseph was welcomed to Egypt with open arms and a

gripping hand:

And it came to pass after these things, that his

[Joseph's] master’s wife cast her eyes upon Joseph;

and she said, Lie with me. But he refused, and said

unto his master's wife, Behold, my master wotteth

not what is with me in the house, and he hath

committed all that he hath to my hand; there is none

greater in this house than I; neither hath he kept back

Do Customs Matter? 101

anything from me but thee, because thou art his

wife, how then can I do this great wickedness, and

sin against God? And it came to pass, as she spoke

to Joseph day by day, that he hearkened not unto

her, to lie by her, or to be with her, and it came to

pass about his time, that Joseph went into the house

to do his business; and there was none of the men of

the house there within. And she caught him by his

garment, saying Lie with me: and he left his garment

in her hand, and fled, and got him out. Gen. 39:7-15

In Egypt, the land of artifacts, it is surprising that no ancient

code of laws has been uncovered, nevertheless we have evidence that

reveals the nature of its supreme court; since Pharaoh believed he was

the supreme court who protected the rights of his people. The rights

of the people are their customs. Therefore, knowledge of their

customs will reveal their laws, or the rights of the people, and book of

Leviticus indirectly reveals the accepted customs of Egypt. The

following is a list of certain customs that were practiced in the land of

the pharaohs:

1. They uncovered the nakedness of their fathers.

2. They uncovered the nakedness of their mothers.

3. They uncovered the nakedness of their step-mothers.

4. They uncovered the nakedness of their sisters.

5. They uncovered the nakedness of their step-sisters.

6. They uncovered the nakedness of their grand-children.

7. They uncovered the nakedness of their daughters-in-law.

8. They uncovered the nakedness of their aunts.

9. They uncovered the nakedness of their sisters-in-law.

10. They uncovered the nakedness of their step-children.

11. They uncovered the nakedness of their step-grandchild.

12. They approached a woman during her uncleanness.

13. They lay carnally with their neighbor's wives.

14. They burned their children to death in sacrificial worship.

15. Their men would sexually lay with other men.

16. They sexually laid with animals

(paraphrase - Lev. 18)

102 Chapter Three Jesus’ Doctrine

Uncovering the nakedness is a Hebrew idiom for sexual intercourse;

thus the customs of Egypt included incest of every kind,

homosexuality, and bestiality. The Lord God introduced this section

of Leviticus with these words:

And the Lord spoke unto Moses, saying, Speak unto

the children of Israel, and say unto them, I am the

Lord your God. After the doings of Egypt

[customs], wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do; and

after the doings of the land of Canaan, to which I

bring you, shall ye not do; neither shall ye walk in

their ordinances [laws]. Lev. 18:1-3

God then goes on to state the case exactly: "None of you shall

approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness:

I am the Lord." The peculiar custom of Egypt was incest, and sexual

perversion. From the language of Leviticus it appears that incest and

wife swapping was ordained as a right of an Egyptian. William J.

Hopewell and others commenting on (Deut. 24) make this

observation: "When Deuteronomy 24 was written, the Jewish people

had followed the terrible sin of the Egyptians in wife-swapping:"

119

perhaps the thirteenth item listed above refers to this custom.

Leviticus 18 closes with this admonition:

Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and mine

judgments, and shall not commit any of these

abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor

any stranger that sojourneth among you. For all

these abominations have the men of the land done,

who were before you, and the land is defiled.

Lev. 18:26-27

"After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt,

shall ye not do", the doings of the land were their customs, and as we

said, it appears that the listed items may have been the legal rights of

the citizens of Egypt. This is not surprising since America protects

the rights of the homosexual, the adulterer, and the abortionist. But,

unlike the U.S., it appears that Egypt ordained incest, and protected

the rights of their citizens to marry within the forbidden degrees of

Do Customs Matter? 103

consanguinity. In his volume, Folkways, William Graham Sumner

writes concerning the incest of the Egyptians:

In the Egyptians mythology Isis and Osiris

were sister and brother as well as wife and husband.

The kings of ancient Egypt married their sisters and

daughters. The doctrine of royal essence was very

exaggerated, and was applied with quantitative

exactitude. A princess could not be allowed to

transmit any of it [family wealth] away from the

possessor of the throne. There is said to be evidence

that Ramses II married two of his own daughters and

that Psammetik I married his daughter. Artaxerxes

married two of his daughters. The Ptolemies adopted

this practice. The family married in and in for

generations, especially brothers and sisters, although

sometimes of the half-blood. "Indicating the

Ptolemies by numbers according to the order of their

succession, the II married his niece and afterwards

his sister; IV his sister; VI and VII were brothers and

they consecutively married the same sister; VIII

married two of his own sisters consecutively; XII

and XIII were brothers and consecutively married

their sister, the famous Cleopatra.

120

Adolf Erman in his work, Life in Ancient Egypt, continues this

thought:

There existed also another custom foreign to our

ideas, the marriage with a sister; This became

common in Egypt during the Ptolemaic and Roman

periods. Most of the Ptolemics married their sisters,

and under the Emperor Commodus two-thirds of all

the citizens of Arsi had done the same. Marriage

with a sister shocks our moral sense, but seemed

most natural to the Egyptians, just as in modern

Egypt marriage with a cousin is considered to be

most sensible and right. The gods set an example in

point; the brothers of Osiris and Set having married

104 Chapter Three Jesus’ Doctrine

their sisters, Isis and Nehthys.

121

Water seeks its own level, as the people their leaders. It is not

surprising to find the Egyptians committing incest since it was the

practice of their gods and pharaohs. Will Durant commenting on the

morals of Egypt stated, "The government of the Pharaohs resembled

that of Napoleon, even to the incest." He goes on to say:

Very often the king married his own sister—

occasionally his own daughters—to preserve the

purity of the royal blood. It is difficult to say

whether this weakened the stock. Certainly Egypt

did not think so, after several thousand years of

experiment; the institution of sister-marriage spread

among the people, and as late as the second century

after Christ two-thirds of the citizens of Arsinoe

were found to be practicing the custom. The words

brother and sister, in Egyptian poetry, have the same

significance as lover and beloved among ourselves.

In addition to his sisters the Pharaoh had an

abundant harem, recruited not only from captive

women but from the daughters of the nobles and the

gifts of foreign potentates [Solomon's 1000 wives,

my comment]; so Amenhotep III received from a

prince of Naharina his eldest daughter and three

hundred select maidens. Some of the nobility

imitated this tiresome extravagance on a small scale,

adjusting their morals to their resources.

122

Satan would fail to corrupt the generation of the promised

seed through incest. The Lord God destroys the first-born males and

drowns their fathers in the Red Sea, he then prohibits his children to

re-enter the land of Egypt. The death custom of Sodom was

destroyed by sulfur-fire, and the death custom of Egypt by the

death-angel. God went one step further, he attached the death penalty

to anyone who would practice the customs of Egypt and Canaan: "For

whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls

that commit them shall be cut off from among their people;” to cut

Do Customs Matter? 105

off means to put to death. It is not surprising that Western

Civilization is built on the morals and customs of Moses. In the State

of Maine we find this list of forbidden degrees:

No man shall marry his mother, grandmother,

daughter, granddaughter, stepmother, grandfather's

wife, son's wife, grandson's wife, wife's

granddaughter, sister, brother's daughter, sister's

daughter, father's sister or mother's sister, (Marriage

Law, State of Maine, ' 31)

An interesting (AP) Moscow news release read, "Soviet paper blames

incest for infant deaths in village." In order to prevent paying

dowries the people of the Central Asian Republic of Turkmenia resort

to incest. The Russian medics attribute the high mortality rate here

on intermarriage within the bonds of consanguinity. "We are

powerless in the case of the death of a child of related parent."

The Apostle declared that the truth of God's will is known by

the heathen because it is revealed to them, "For the invisible things of

him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood

by the things that are made." Therefore it is not strange to learn of the

sexual inhibitions of some native tribes. "The Savages Dread Of

Incest", is the chapter title of Freud's book, Totem and Taboo. The

basis of the prohibition of the members of the totem was their dread

of incest. Sigmund Freud, a non-Biblicist, aptly confesses his

ignorance of the origin of their dread of incest:

This sternly maintained prohibition is very

remarkable. There is nothing to account for it in

anything that we have hitherto learned from the

conception of the totem or from any of its attributes;

that is, we do not understand how it happened to

enter the system of totemism.

Freud's comments go on to reveal the fear of these tribesmen: Among

the Battas of Sumatra these laws of avoidance affect all near

relationships. For instance, it would be most offensive for a Battan to

accompany his own sister to an evening party. A brother will feel

most uncomfortable in the company of his sister to an evening party.

106 Chapter Three Jesus’ Doctrine

If either comes into the house the other prefers to leave. Nor will a

father remain alone in the house with his daughter any more than the

mother with her son. The Dutch missionary who reported these

customs added that unfortunately he had to consider them well

founded. It is assumed without question by these races that a man

and a woman left alone together will indulge in the most extreme

intimacy, and as they expect all kinds of punishments and evil

consequences from consanguineous intercourse, they do quite right to

avoid all temptations by means of such prohibitions.

Among the Akamba (or Wakamba) in British East

Africa, a law of avoidance is in force which one

would have expected to encounter more frequently.

A girl must carefully avoid her own father between

the time of her puberty and her marriage. She hides

herself if she meets him on the street and never

attempts to sit down next to him, behaving in this

way right up to her engagement. But after her

marriage no further obstacle is put in the way of her

social intercourse with her father.

The most widespread and strictest avoidance, which

is perhaps the most interesting one for civilized

races is that which restricts the social relations

between a man and his mother-in-law. It is quite

general in Australia, but it is also in force among the

Melanesian, Polynesian, and Negro races of Africa

as far as the traces of totemism and group

relationships reach, and probably further still.

On the Banks Islands these prohibitions are very

severe and painfully exact. A man will avoid the

proximity of his mother-in-law as she avoids his. If

they meet by chance on a path, the woman steps

aside and turns her back until he is passed, or he

does the same.

In Vanna Lava (Port Patterson) a man will not even

walk behind his mother-in-law along the beach until

Do Customs Matter? 107

the rising tide has washed away the trace of her

footsteps. But they may talk to each other at a

certain distance. It is quite out of the question that

he should ever pronounce the name of his mother-in-

law, or she his.

On the Solomon Islands, beginning with his

marriage, a man must neither see nor speak with his

mother-in-law. If he meets her he acts as if he did

not know her and runs away as fast as he can in

order to hide himself.

123

In the west today it appears that men have some peculiar propensity

which repels them from their mothers-in law, but perhaps that

repulsion is actually a secret attraction. Nevertheless, the Egyptians

were not inhibited with any fear of sex within the forbidden degrees.

In the end one must consider the cause of the fall of the

Egyptian Empire. A civilization which introduced the world to

medical procedures, the chemistry of dyes, cosmetics, and

embalming, they excelled in letters (hieroglyphics and demotic) as

well as inventing the paper to write on, constructed the pyramids and

sphinx, raised up the Pharaoh's, King Tut, and Cleopatra, and left

behind that mathematical solution ∏ (in Egypt 3.16), (today, after

4000 years: 3.14159265). It is difficult to precisely identify what

disease caused this nation to fall from brilliance, but we should not

eliminate the corruption of incest.

Did incest weaken the stock of Egypt? Were the Jewish

woman birthing as the women of Egypt proclaim, "The Hebrew

women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are

delivered before the midwives come in unto them," (Ex. 1:19). The

small family of Jacob had in a mere four hundred years threatened the

nation of Egypt with their numbers, "Behold, the people of the

children of Israel are more and mightier than we. Come on, Let us

deal wisely with them, lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that,

when there falleth out any war, they join also unto our enemies, and

fight against us, and so get them up out of the land," (Ex. 1:9,10). As

we mentioned the Lord God added to the affliction of Pharaoh, he

destroyed their first-born and their fathers. His judgment of Egypt

began on that first Passover, and it has never ceased, for the prophet

108 Chapter Three Jesus’ Doctrine

Ezekiel predicts, "It shall be the basest of the kingdoms, neither shall

it exalt itself any more above the nations; for I will diminish them,

that they shall no more rule over the nations," (Ezek. 29:15). This

judgment has never ceased and will never cease. Could the sin of

incest be the everlasting reason? Is the judgment of this nation bound

up in its genes? Could this custom (an accepted social practice), or

law (the protected right by a state sovereign) be the cause of such

judgment? Yes! A thousand times, Yes! Listen to the anger of the

Apostle when he discovered incest in the Church of Corinth:

In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are

gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of

our Lord Jesus Christ, To deliver such a one unto

Satan for the destruction of the flesh. I Cor. 5:4,5

This custom, incest, was practiced prior to the fall of the greatest of

ancient empires. Dear reader we are living during the fall of the

greatest civilization since Egypt, and that is not the most fearful

thing. The most fearful fall we are experiencing is the fall of the true

church, the true body of Christ. The church today has reached the

apostasy predicted by the Apostle:

Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our

Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together

unto him, that ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be

troubled, neither by spirit, nor by work, nor by letter

as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let

no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall

not come, except there come a falling away first ...

II Thess. 2:1-3a

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter

times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed

to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils.

(I Tim. 4:1)

This know also, that in the last days perilous times

shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own

selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers,

Do Customs Matter? 109

disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without

natural affection, trucebreakers [covenant breakers:

divorcers], false accusers, incontinent, fierce,

despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady,

high-minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of

God: having a form of godliness, but denying the

power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort

are they which creep into houses, and lead captive

silly women laden with sins, led away with divers

lusts. II Tim. 3: 1-6

Dear reader, we are at the cross-road. The battle has been drawn. Can

we stem this rising tide of evil custom, and permit another generation

the peace of living in a creation-marriage world? The Egyptian

customs were more dangerous than the bondage. Joseph escaped.

Will we?

110 Chapter Three Jesus’ Doctrine

CHAPTER FOUR

Why Does Moses Permit Polygamy and Divorce?

Noah and his son's were commissioned to promulgate laws,

but The Law came by Moses. Although the codes of the ancient

societies marked the advancement of civilization, the Law of Moses

was a masterpiece of ancient and modern jurisprudence. It has rightly

been said that if the tables of stone were preserved, they would have

become objects of worship today. But the fact of the matter is that

the Law of God actually became an object of worship in the form of a

religion. Not that it became Judaism, but that it became to some a

belief in a way of salvation, a salvation of good works. The loftiness

of the Law appeared to promise righteousness to the true follower.

But this the law could not do. The Apostle was clear on this point,

"Moreover, the law entered, that the offense might abound," (Rom.

5:20). Here Paul directly states, that the law's purpose was to

condemn man, not to justify man. This is at the heart of

understanding the Gospel and understanding the Bible as a whole.

Now we know that whatever things the law saith, it

saith to them who are under the law, that every

mouth may be stopped, and all the world may

become guilty before God. Therefore, by the deeds

of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his

sight; for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Rom.3:19,20

Some would say that Martin Luther was at the heart of the

Reformation, but the heart and soul of the Reformation was the cry,

Sola Gratia, by grace alone, i.e. faith alone in the finished work of

the Lord Jesus Christ. This is the central dynamic of the Gospel;

without this truth there would have been no Luther. The Law teaches

112 Chapter Four Jesus’ Doctrine

that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, and therefore

by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified. In spite of these

driving words, men secretly reach to the law for their righteousness.

The law proves a man unjust, but it has no power to regenerate him;

to justify him. There are just some things the Law cannot do; in that

light the Law is weak. When man expects the law to provide him a

system to obtain righteousness, he is barking up the wrong tree.

Every purpose of the Law is destined to prove to man that he is guilty

of sin—capital sin. This fact must be kept in mind when we approach

any element in the study of the Law; polygamy and divorce are

elements of the law.

For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet

offend in one point, he is guilty of all. James 2:10

For as many as are of the works of the law are under

the curse; for it is written, cursed is everyone that

continueth not in all things which are written in the

book of the law, to do them. Gal. 3:10b

To the non-Jew the Decalogue is the Law (the Ten Commandments),

but to the Jew the entire revelation of God is the Law. When

considering specific commandments the Law actually records 613.

124

Most scholars agree that the Law of Moses is divided into three

elements: a civil code, a religious code, and a moral code. The latter

is the distinctive feature of the Law. It reveals a righteous God, as

compared to the immoral idol-gods. The Gentile world establishes

their idyllic on the Ten Commandments, the Decalogue. Throughout

this dissertation all nations other than Israel are Gentile. The problem

is compounded because the church as a whole regarding marriage has

embraced the Gentile governments dictates of marriage-law. The

state promulgates laws regulating marriage, and the church foolishly

over-embraces those laws. This creates a problem. The problem is

that the church because of their belief in and embracement of

governmental marriage-laws is failing to regulate marriage according

to the dictates of the God of Creation. Regarding marriage, believers

often see the state and the church as the same law-giver. Believers

trust that they have certain God given rights which apparently seem

imbedded in some state regulations, but these are just the rights of the

Why Does Moses Permit Polygamy and Divorce? 113

sovereign man-king. And when the old legal philosophy is excited,

that obedience to the law is righteousness, some believers and some

churches practice legalism by employing the states marriage laws into

the churches marriage discussion, and practice. They use the law to

stop some mouths and to open others, but God said, that His Law was

intended to stop every mouth.

Please permit this parenthesis:(Marriage is not a Sacrament

Before we continue any further keep this very important fact in mind:

Marriage is not a Sacrament. Marriage in and of itself does not

impart Grace. Marriage is the right thing to do, but it does not impart

grace; the righteousness of Salvation. The word sacrament means an

act that acquires the Grace of God. The only way to acquire the

Grace of God is to put faith in the substitutionary blood sacrifice of

the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.)

As we continue keep this point in mind regarding the law.

There is another sub objective of the law, i.e., to temporarily control

sin. The concept of controlling sin ensures the existence of sin. The

law cannot eradicate sin. To do so would require the extermination

of mankind. The law cannot make even one man righteous, nor could

it eradicate one sin. The law is weak in that light. But before we

discuss this let us just consider these points.

The Mosaic Law Was A Marriage Covenant

Yes, Israel married Jehovah in the giving and acceptance of

the law. The Scriptures speak of Israel as the wife of Jehovah and

Jehovah as the husband of Israel.

Thus saith the Lord, The people who were left of the

sword found grace in the wilderness, even Israel,

when I went to cause him to rest. The Lord hath

appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved

thee with an everlasting love; therefore, with loving-

kindness have I drawn thee. Jer. 31:3

Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee,

behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread

my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness. Yea,

114 Chapter Four Jesus’ Doctrine

I swore unto thee, and entered into a covenant with

thee, saith the Lord God, and thou becamest mine.

Ezek. 16:8

The marriage ceremony took place in the wilderness of Sinai:

And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in

basins; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the

altar. And he took the book of the covenant, and

read in the audience of the people; and they said, All

that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient,

and Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the

people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant,

which the Lord hath made with you concerning all

these words. Ex. 24:6-8

It must be kept in mind that the law was unique to Israel and Jehovah.

It was literally their personal marriage contract. It was their intimate

exchange of vows. What the Law was to these two it could not be to

any other. This covenant was not made with any Gentile or any

church. We must remember that stubborn fact. Although the many

Gentiles want to share in the blessing of the Law, they nevertheless

do not want to share in the curses, and in the plagues of the Law.

Israel is the Chosen nation; His beloved nation. When Israel camped

before Sinai, she looked up to heaven and said, "I am Ruth, thine

handmaid, spread therefore thy skirt over thine handmaid; for thou

[Jehovah] art a near kinsman." And Jehovah returned, "I spread my

skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness. Yea, I swore unto thee,

and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord God, and thou

becamest mine." God was the courtesan, providing security for his

beloved:

Then a cloud covered the tent of the congregation,

and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. And

Moses was not able to enter into the tent of the

congregation, because the cloud abode thereon, and

the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. And

when the cloud was taken up from over the

tabernacle, the children of Israel went onward in all

Why Does Moses Permit Polygamy and Divorce? 115

their journeys; But if the cloud were not taken up,

then they journeyed not till the day that it was taken

up. For the cloud of the Lord was upon the

tabernacle by day, and fire was on it by night, in the

sight of all the house of Israel, throughout all their

journeys. Ex. 40:34-38

The quality of the Sinai marriage was as magnificent as you

would expect from the Creator, the Father of creation-marriage. It

was bound permanently. Inseparable.

Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God; him shalt thou

serve, and to him shalt thou cleave, and swear by his

name. For if ye shall diligently keep all these

commandments which I command you, to do them,

to love the Lord your God, to walk in all his ways,

and to cleave unto him. Deut. 11:22

Leaving Egypt and cleaving to Jehovah, Israel was married as she

confesses that she would keep the commandments. Moses was the

preacher who performed the ceremony:

And Moses came and told the people all the words

of the Lord, and all the ordinances; and all the

people answered with one voice, and said, All the

words which the Lord hath said will we do. Ex. 24:3

The courtship led the bride into the tabernacle of her lover where the

Shekinah Glory entered and the marriage was consummated. The

vehicle of the seed of the woman, creation-marriage was now in the

hands of the children of Abraham, the Jewish nation, Israel.

The Mosaic Law Established a Religious Sect

Judaism is bound in the Law. It was to be legally

administered by the Levitical priesthood, a requirement attainable by

a single nation, the Chosen Nation. Their marriage to Jehovah was

marked with the union of faith. The wedding ring of Israel was a

golden memorial, the Sabbath. Although marriage is not a sacrament,

116 Chapter Four Jesus’ Doctrine

the law raises Israelite marriage to the lofty heights only surpassed by

the Savior's standard. In Israel the marriages of priests were

regulated to a greater extent than other marriages. Abel Isaksson in

his volume, Marriage and Ministry in the New Temple, suggests that

the N.T. church should have a higher standard for marriage than

others because the church is a kingdom of priests in the new temple

age. Believers are the priests of the new temple, the body of Christ.

And like the Levitical priests they have a higher standard than the

world. Noting that Lev. 21:7 decrees that a priest must not marry a

harlot, a violated virgin or a divorced woman, Isaksson goes on to

state that Jesus' teaching on divorce in Matt. 19 was directly related to

his eschatological view of the new Temple in the kingdom age, and

the regulation of the priests of the new Temple: "Neither shall they

take for their wives a widow, nor her that is put away, but they shall

take maidens of the seed of the house of Israel, or a widow that had a

priest before," (Ezek. 44:22).

125

Although Isaksson is a fine scholar a disagreement with him

is here noted: Although the position of Levitical marriage and new

Temple priesthood marriage is a lofty standard, it does not reach the

height of perfection which Jesus reaches for all men: "What,

therefore, God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." This

preacher teaches that this rule of Jesus applies to all men of all time.

The Law regulated every aspect of Jewish life, including their

time. The Sabbath, the primary holy day, was followed with

numerous holy days, holy weeks, and holy years. Their clothing, diet,

and sacrifices were regulated. Their worship was to be exercised in a

tabernacle to be constructed in the most precise detail. However the

law could not transfer grace or righteousness; it could only transfer

guilt. Nevertheless the law was a religious code; it was the religious

creed of Israel.

The Law Was A Moral Code

From a moral standpoint the law surpassed the ancient codes

which fell away like the hoarfrost to the burning rising sun. David's

comments on the law of the Lord are fitting:

The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul;

the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise

Why Does Moses Permit Polygamy and Divorce? 117

simple. The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing

the heart; the commandment of the Lord is pure,

enlightening the eye. The fear of the Lord is clean,

enduring forever; the ordinances of the Lord are true

and righteous altogether. More to be desired are

they than gold, yea, than much fine gold; sweeter

also than honey and the honeycomb. Psa. 19:7-10

The reader may object: You dear writer have just said that the Law

could not make one righteous, yet David proclaims that the law of the

Lord is perfect, converting the soul. Let me explain: Taken as a

whole the law includes the three sections of the O.T., i.e. the books of

Moses (the Pentateuch: the first five book of the Bible referred to as

the books of the Law), the poetic books, and the historical books. To

understand the whole O.T. as the law of God is to understand Psa. 19.

Thus a true understanding of the entire O.T. will lead the believer to

the real Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world. To

understand one’s sin in light of a coming sacrificed Messiah Savior is

to have the experience of having one’s soul converted. What we are

talking about in this chapter is the Law of God, the Decalogue, the

Ten Commandments, as an instrument of death not of life. As Paul so

aptly wrote:

Now we know that what things soever the law saith,

it saith to them who are under the law: that every

mouth may be stopped, and all the world may

become guilty before God. Rom. 3:19

The moral beauty of the law led some to idolize it with their worship,

thus missing it's purpose: to reveal the true sacrifice, their Messiah.

Jehovah God created the Law to teach man his need for a Messiah, a

Savior who men could worship, and man could believe in with all his

heart to the converting and saving of his soul. But men missed the

point of the law. Realizing it's moral loftiness, and being unable to

worship two masters, they chose to worship the law and kill the

Messiah Savior. They could not accept the force of the law. A Jewish

man, the Apostle, Paul, came to understand the truth of the law, and

he fully learned its moral lesson: "I had not known sin but by the

law—that sin by the commandment might become exceedingly

118 Chapter Four Jesus’ Doctrine

sinful. For we know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold

under sin," (Rom. 7). A study of the ancient codes will lead the

reader to see the superior moral quality of God's law; David’s

conclusion was that the "Law of thy mouth (of God) is better unto me

than thousands of gold and silver," (Psa. 119:72). Unlike the

casuistic (if - then) nature of the ancient codes the Decalogue sets a

strong moral tone, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me; Thou

shalt not make unto thee any graven image; Thou shalt not take the

name of the Lord thy God in vain; Remember the Sabbath day, to

keep it holy; Honor thy father and thy mother; Thou shalt not kill;

Thou shalt not commit adultery; Thou shalt not steal; Thou shalt not

bear false witness; Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, wife,

manservant, maidservant, ox, ass, nor anything that is thy neighbors."

Where the ancient codes regulated the exceptional cases,

126

God's law

regulated the common daily ones.

The Mosaic Law Was a Civil Code, the Constitution of Israel

And Moses came and told the people all the words

of the Lord, and all the judgments; and all the people

answered with one voice, and said, all the words

which the Lord hath said will we do. And Moses

wrote all the words of the Lord, and rose up early in

the morning, and built an altar under the hill, and

twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of

Israel. And he sent young men to the children of

Israel, who offered burnt offerings, and sacrificed

peace offerings of oxen unto the Lord. And Moses

took half of the blood, and put it in basins; and half

of the blood he sprinkled on the altar. And he took

the book of the covenant, and read in the hearing of

the people; and they said, All that the Lord hath said

will we do, and be obedient. And Moses took the

blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said,

Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord

hath made with you concerning these words.

Ex. 24:3-8

Why Does Moses Permit Polygamy and Divorce? 119

The civil nature of the law has too often been overlooked.

Immediately after Jehovah stated the Ten Commandments he

regulates the slave-master relationship. The next law regulates

murder, and then lesser problems of a civil nature. The civil

regulations make up a large section of the law. One scholar who has

not missed the importance of the civil nature of the law is Leon

Wood. Noting the ceremony recorded in Exodus 24:3-8 where Moses

sprinkles the altar and the people with the sacrificial blood after

preaching all the words of the Lord, and hearing the people vow to do

all the words of the law, Wood sees in this sealing in blood of the

testimony of God and in the testimony of the people as the birth of

Israel as a legitimate nation.

127

This is a point of no small

significance. Wood describes the event by saying that Israel now

became a true nation, and again, Israel became God's chartered

nation. The law was the Constitution of Israel. The altar which

Moses erected to celebrate the union of Israel with her God was

composed of twelve pillars, to represent the twelve tribes of Israel.

The law was a moral dynamic, a religious dogma, and a civil

constitution. As a moral dynamic it extended to all peoples and

nations, but as a religious dogma and a civil constitution it was

wholly Israel's.

When Moses divided the blood of this sacrifice and sprinkled

it equally on the altar and on the people he beautifully depicted the

equality that exists in marriage. Isaksson makes this fitting comment:

"In the covenant relationship between Yahweh and Israel there was

no question of their being equal partners, nor was there in marriage

any question of man and woman being equal partners."

128

This

marriage was consummated when the Shekinal Glory entered the

Holy of Holies, and the marriage was made legal with the public

vows and signing of the covenant in blood. Marriage is a legal

agreement, and a physical agreement. The church can never be Israel

and Israel can never be the church.

The Law Is Weak

Sola Gratia is the cry of the preacher. Salvation is by grace

alone. The corrupt doctrine of works contaminates the purity of the

Gospel. The pollution of Legalism is at the heart of the heresy. It is

the leaven which the woman mixed with the meal to leaven the whole

120 Chapter Four Jesus’ Doctrine

lump. The fundamental Bible believing church has unitedly fought

this disease, and will continue to fight it—is my prayer to God.

When anyone is suspected of teaching works, he is identified and

publicly accused of propagating the lie. The faithful quickly applaud

the denunciation. But the most malicious nature of this evil is that

those who oppose it are often captured by its subtleness. It is here at

the junction of marriage that the believing church while accusing

others of Legalism become themselves unknowingly practitioners of

Legalism. The primary truth that all must come to understand about

the law is that the law is “weak.”

For there is verily a disannulling of the

commandment going before for the weakness

and unprofitableness thereof. For the law made

nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better

hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better

testament. Heb. 7:18,19;22

The law was weak because it could not say: Thou shalt not divorce.

It could not say that because it already said, "Thou shalt not kill." To

prohibit divorce would have “totally” revealed the heart of man.

Jesus amplified the law to reveal the heart of the man who called his

brother a fool, and the man who looked upon a woman with lust. But

for Moses to prohibit divorce would have caused a rebellion in the

heart of man that would have brought the nation to naught. The will

of man explodes with unbridled force when ordered to remain with a

wife he has determined to drive from his life. If he cannot kill her, he

must have the right to divorce her. Polygamy and divorce were both

concessions of a weak law; and as the ancient codes revealed man in

his heart was committed to polygamy and divorce.

The Law Permits Polygamy

What was true about the law and divorce was true about the

law and polygamy. It appears the heart of man was so hard and

stubborn that he could not be legislated away from his sin. As we

have shown from the ancient law codes man assumed he has certain

rights; rights that he believed were his birthright. If the sovereign

Why Does Moses Permit Polygamy and Divorce? 121

king-man wanted several wives, or if his primary wife could not

provide offspring or what ever he expected, he believed he had a

unalienable right to acquire more than one wife.

If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another

hated, and they have borne him children, both the

beloved and the hated, and if the first-born son be

hers that was hated; then it shall be, when he maketh

his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may

not make the son of the beloved first-born before the

son of the hated, which is indeed the first-born.

Deut. 21:15,16

Without any apology, the law acknowledges that polygamy was the

acceptable custom of all men, even at Sinai. This regulation

governing inheritance rights is relatively minor, but a major problem

when one considers the doctrine of creation-marriage—God only

created one wife for man. Notice that the man was permitted to

continue his hatred towards the wife of his first-born, although it

protected her honor in her child.

If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and

have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry

without the family unto a stranger; her husband's

brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him as

his wife, and perform the duty of an husband's

brother unto her. And it shall be, that the first-born

whom she beareth shall succeed in the name of his

brother who is dead, that his name be not put out of

Israel. Deut. 25:5,6

As mentioned regarding Onan in Genesis 38—liver, meaning a

husband's brother—levirate marriage was not polygamy. If the child

of this marriage belonged to the deceased brother, then the mother

also belonged to the brother. Most commentators agree that the

levirate custom or law did not interfere with the living brother's

existent marriage. In other words within these limits the brother-in-

law's marriage might co-exist with the prohibition of marriage with a

brother's wife; whereas, if the deceased brother had a son or children,

122 Chapter Four Jesus’ Doctrine

such a marriage was forbidden as prejudicial to the fraternal

relation.

129

The levirate however speaks well for procreation, on

which God obviously places a very high value.

Progressive spiritual development, or what is referred to in

the discipline of hermeneutics as progressive revelation, seems to

play a role in the man's understanding of marriage. Edersheim make

this observation:

Of course, against all this may be set the permission

of polygamy, which undoubtedly was in force at the

time of our Lord, and the ease with which divorce,

might be obtained. In reference to both these,

however, it must be remembered that they were

temporary concessions to "the hardness" of the

people’s heart. For, not only must the circumstances

of the times and the moral state of the Jewish and of

neighboring nations be taken into account, but there

were progressive stages of spiritual development. If

these had not been taken into account, the religion of

the Old Testament would have been unnatural and

an impossibility. Suffice it, that 'from the beginning

it was not so,' nor yet intended to be so in the end—

the intermediate period thus marking the gradual

progress from the perfectness of the idea to the

perfectness of it's realization.

130

As progression implies a growing knowledge base from premature to

mature, it appears that man’s understanding of creation-marriage had

reached such a low ebb that God had to gradually recover man from

his demise. Man's premature understanding of marriage includes the

following idea:

The Israelite matrimonial code is also formulated

entirely with regard to the husband's interests. Thus

the wife may not have liaisons outside marriage, but

the husband may do so, provided that he does not

thereby infringe another man's rights. As the

primary purpose of marriage is to maintain the man's

Why Does Moses Permit Polygamy and Divorce? 123

lineage through numerous offspring, polygamy is a

natural form of marriage.

131

If a man find a damsel who is a virgin, who is not

betrothed, and lay hold on her, and they be found;

then the man who 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

The law here assumes the right of the damsel's father to deny the

perpetrator the right of marriage which is mentioned in Exodus

22:16,17, however it makes no mention of the possibility that the

perpetrator was previously married. Actually it assumes that

possibility and the reflection is that the man would simply be

obligated to practice polygamy. It was not a capital crime for a

married man to deflower a virgin. The penalty for the seduction

simply required the seducer to marry the victim, and prohibited the

right to divorce the woman.

And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman who is

a bondmaid (slave girl) betrothed to an husband, and

not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall

be scourged; she shall not be put to death, because

she was not free. Lev. 19:20

Apparently the woman did not resist with a scream; her punishment,

scourging, while the perpetrator was obviously unpunished.

When thou goest to war against thine enemies, and

the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine

hands, and thou hast taken them captive, and seest

among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a

desire for her, that thou wouldest have her as thy

wife, then thou shalt bring her home to thine house;

and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails, and

she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off

her, and shall remain in thine house and bewail her

father and her mother a full month; and after that

124 Chapter Four Jesus’ Doctrine

thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and

she shall be thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have

no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go where

she will. But thou shalt not sell her at all for money;

thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because

thou hast humbled her. Deut. 21:10-14

Polygamy may or may not be involved here but it appears that this

law sheds a favorable light on the possibility of such.

As previously mentioned, Jehovah knew the heart of the

people would demand a king when they secured the Promised Land.

He also knew the propensities of man's hard heart, the ravenous

polygamist, to multiply wives. As previously explained: man's

insatiable sin nature could not be redeemed by the law, the law

simply attempted to control man in his sin, and as we pointed out

polygamy was tolerated within the realm of the law. Polygamy was a

sin, which was not directly acknowledged by the law. It seemed the

only conditions it required was that the polygamist chose an

unbetrothed wife, and that he faithfully support all his wives.

Among the unacknowledged sins which God

tolerated because of the hardness of Israel's heart

was polygamy, which encouraged licentiousness and

the tendency to sensual excesses, and to which but a

weak barrier had been presented by the warning that

had been given for the Israelitish kings against

taking many wives (Deut 17:17), opposed as such a

warning was to the notion so prevalent in the East

both in ancient and modern times, that a well-filled

harem is essential to a princely court.

132

An Israelite king would now advance an additional threat to

creation-marriage, in that he was in a new position to acquire wealth,

and the consequence of his wealth would increase his power to

support a multitude of wives. The Lord foresaw the king drunk with

wives, to the turning away of his heart:

But King Solomon loved many foreign women; in

addition to the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the

Why Does Moses Permit Polygamy and Divorce? 125

Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians, and

Hittites, of course the nations concerning which the

Lord said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go

in to them, neither shall they come in unto you; for

surely they will turn away your heart after their

gods. Solomon clave unto these in love. And he had

seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred

concubines; and his wives turned away his heart. For

it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his

wives turned away his heart after other gods, and his

heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, as was

the heart of David, his father. I Kings 11:1-4

What Is The Abomination of Deuteronomy 24:1-4

1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her,

and it come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes,

because he hath found some uncleanness in her; then

let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in

her hand, and send her out of his house.

2 And when she is departed out of his house, she

may go and be another man's wife.

3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a

bill of divorcement and giveth it in her hand, and

sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter’s

husband die, who took her to be his wife,

4 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 thy

God giveth thee for an inheritance. Deut. 24:1-4

Moses now reveals to us in the Law, and I might say without

apology, the idea of divorce. Here again it just appears as an act that

will occur and it is without a strict prohibition. Jesus said that Moses

permitted it so because the heart of man was so callous, that it

126 Chapter Four Jesus’ Doctrine

appears for God to permit man to exist He had to permit divorce to

exist. At Sinai, God taught us that to permit man’s existence He had

to permit the existence of polygamy and divorce. Jesus would

however abolish that permission for not only would he prohibit

polygamy and divorce, but He would also provide the power and

grace for man to live lovingly while under that prohibition; the man

could now experience the new birth in Christ. Jesus could do what

the Law in no wise could perform.

Now let us examine this text. The hermeneutical principal of

Historical Priority, must be honored when interpreting any text of

Scripture, to do otherwise is foolhardy. The reader who attempts to

understand this text by employing his New Testament ideas will fail

to comprehend its meaning. We have labored to show you the nature

of the ancient law codes, and the historical concepts of the ancient

Eastern peoples. From these codes we have explored the dynamics

that generated ancient thought regarding divorce and polygamy. It is

of the gravest danger for the reader and exegete to bring his

historical-cultural thoughts into the ancient records, and this is just

what many have done. Abel Isaksson aptly chides John Murry for,

"basing his interpretation (Deut. 24) on Christian assumptions,"

133

and Heth and Wedham join in chorus, "Murry, giving these verses an

interpretation based on New Testament assumptions, goes so far as to

say that the divorce is what is wrong here and bears the whole onus of

responsibility for the defilement that is sure to enter when the first

marriage is restored after the consummation of the second."

134

The O.T. divorce debate is centralized in the Deut. 24 text.

When all is said and done, the victor of this debate will emerge from

this ring of Scripture. While analyzing this text theologians speak of

it's protasis and the apodosis. The protasis is the subordinate clause,

and the apodosis is the main clause of a conditional sentence. The

former refers to the “if” of the proposal, while the latter refers to the

“then” of the condition, i.e., (condition/conclusion, or the if/then).

Verse 1 thru 3 of (Deut. 24:1-4) deal with certain if conditions, while

verse 4 deals with the then of the conditional statement. The majority

of commentators see divorce as the subject of this text; this is

incorrect. It is a remarriage text. The driving concern of the text is

found in (v. 4) which states that the abominable act is a prohibited

remarriage. When God said that the abomination would defile the

land, cause the land to sin, He uses the same language as he used in

Why Does Moses Permit Polygamy and Divorce? 127

Leviticus 18, the incest chapter.

Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things; for

in all these the nations are defiled, which I cast out

before you. And the land is defiled; therefore I do

visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself

vomiteth out her inhabitants. Ye shall therefore

keep my statutes and mine judgments, and shall not

commit any of these abominations; neither any of

your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth

amoung you: For all these abominations have the

men of the land done, who were before you, and the

land is defiled; That the land spew not you out also,

when ye defile it, as it spewed out the nations that

were before you. Lev. 18:24-28

The abomination is akin to the acts of incest listed in the Leviticus

text. Was the remarriage to a previous wife, who had herself

remarried, an act of incest? As we shall see the combined scholarship

of Isaksson, Yaron, Wenham, and Heth have collectively reached the

summit of understanding regarding the abomination. Therefore, since

the abomination is the primary object of this text, we will reveal this

truth before we discuss the meaning of the unclean thing or divorce.

The Abomination of Deuteronomy 24:4

As we noted there are three if conditions in this text: (1) If a

man found some uncleanness in his wife, and (2) If a man divorced

that wife, and (3) If that woman married another man, then that man

(the first husband) could not remarry that woman (his first wife)

because she was defiled. As mentioned the three if clauses are

subordinate, while the then clause is the main clause. And here the

main clause (the then clause) states that when the woman in question

meets the criteria of all the three subordinate conditions she is defiled

and it is then an abomination for her first husband to have her again.

Now divorce and remarriage are permitted in the law, save for this

one exception, id. est., the man could not marry a former divorced

wife who had been another man's after he put her away. However,

she was permitted to marry another. Heth and Wenham comment on

128 Chapter Four Jesus’ Doctrine

the general permission of divorce and remarriage within the law:

Why then does the Old Testament not ban divorce

altogether? We are just not told. It is true that in

ancient times divorce was expensive and infrequent;

perhaps it was thought that it would make for greater

social peace to allow divorce in a few cases rather

than to ban it altogether. The penalties for adultery

and divorce constantly reminded men and women

that under Old Testament law polygamy was

permitted, so a man could have sexual relations with

more than one woman perfectly legally. By

forbidding remarriage after divorce, Jesus

simultaneously forbade polygamy. The Old

Testament is therefore not inconsistent in both

allowing divorce and holding that a bond still

subsists between the original partners. If a

polygamous man could have relations with more

than one wife, so could a remarried divorcee.

135

As we simplify this text to the if-then interpretation we see a

similarity of this text with the Matthew 19 exception clause. In

Matthew divorce was forbidden except for one cause, and here we

find that remarriage is permitted except for one cause. The real

question of Deuteronomy 24 is not the meaning of some uncleanness,

but the meaning of defiled in (v. 4). Along with Murry, P.C. Craigie

forces his New Testament teaching into this text:

The language (defiled) suggests adultery (see Lev.

18:20) the sense is that the woman's remarriage after

the first divorce is similar to adultery in that the

woman cohabits with another man. However, if the

woman were than to remarry her first husband, after

divorcing the second, the analogy with adultery

would become even more complete; the woman

lives first with one man, then another, and finally

returns to the first.

136

Why Does Moses Permit Polygamy and Divorce? 129

Heth and Wenham continue to comment:

Yet in this statute the second marriage is regarded as

perfectly legal. It is the restoration of the first that is

prohibited (v. 4). Commentators advancing this

position seem to be reading New Testament ideas

back into the Old (cf. Matt. 5:32). The language

(defiled v. 4) is suggestive, but that it anticipates the

teaching of Jesus in the New Testament that

remarriage after divorce is adultery is by no means

certain.

137

The majority of the Deuteronomy 24 commentators labor the

unclean thing, “some uncleanness” (v. 1) in what seems as an endless

speculation; with very little discussion of (v. 4). This is done in their

attempt to prove that divorce was permitted in the law for infidelity,

or adultery as per their interpretation of the N.T., (Matt. 5 and 19).

But their interpretation is so wrong; it should go without saying, since

the law plainly required the death penalty for adultery, not divorce.

But in the discussion of Deut. 24 the defiled of (v. 4) and the

abomination has been given little mention. Dobson like Hopewell

suggest that the prohibition to remarry the defiled wife was aimed at

preventing the abominable custom of Egypt, that of wife swapping.

138

Their explanation is that Moses by requiring a bill of divorce was

placing a written legal requirement in the way of hasty divorces.

Some may contend that the custom of wife swapping was made easy

with the ancient custom of verbal divorce.

139

As it remains a custom

in Arabic lands today, the man had only to pronounce this verbal

statement over his wife three times: I __________ divorce

___________ my wife.

140

The proponents of the prevention doctrine teach that

the writing of the bill of divorce was intended to

cause the man to stop and think more about what he

was doing; thus a way of preventing hasty divorce.

But Yaron argues; "the Deuteronomic provision

would hardly serve to deter an angry husband intent

on divorcing his wife. The one thing he would want

at that moment is to be free of his wife for good.

130 Chapter Four Jesus’ Doctrine

Beside in biblical times the chief deterrent to divorce

was financial. Usually the husband forfeited the

dowry and sometimes had to make a divorce

payment as well."

141

Murry sees the defilement as a matter of "gross sexual immorality",

"gross abnormality", or "gross irregularity."

142

He struggles with the

meaning of the word defile because he labors to ensure that

remarriage as a whole is permissible:

It should be noted that it is only with reference to the

prohibited return to the first husband that the

defilement concerned is mentioned. The remarriage

on the part of the divorced woman is not expressly

stated to be defilement irrespective of return to the

first husband. For these considerations we are

required to exercise great caution before

stigmatizing the remarriage as adulterous.

143

Murry wrestles with his New Testament problem—that remarriage

after divorce is adultery—when he attempts to define the word

defiled. Here he is drifting aimlessly, as do the other "adultery

group" scholars, but there is hope on the horizon. The total truth of

the (Deut. 24:1-4) comes to light when with R. Yaron who sows the

seed of thought which when combined with Isaksson's contribution of

the new view of consanguinity, the kinfolk nature of Adam and Eve

in marriage, and with the final touch of Wenham, and Heth are all

combined; then the secret of the (v. 4) text is unlocked. Isaksson's

initial contribution:

To be someone's bone and flesh as a common

expression to denote kinship (see, for example, Gen.

29:14; Jdg. 9:2; II Sam. 5:1, I Chr. 11:1). Very

likely it is used here also in allusion not only to the

fact that woman was created from Adam's rib but

also to the consequence of this, viz. that man and

woman are closely related to each other. If we

accept the translation of "rib", the text says, strictly

speaking, only that woman was of man's bone but

Why Does Moses Permit Polygamy and Divorce? 131

not of his flesh. When the man nevertheless says

shortly afterwards, on seeing the woman, that she is

bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh, the

combination of these two words, "bone" and "flesh",

must have been chosen as a common expression for

kinship. What is to be explained in this context is,

of course, just how it could have come about that

man feels the attraction of forming a unity with his

wife more strongly than his affinity to his closest

relations—his father and his mother ...

With this background of the use of the word

to denote kinship, it is reasonable to translate it

[bone - flesh] in Gen. 2:24 also by the word

"relation", since in this context it is a question of

how the original relationship between man and

woman forms the explanation of man's strong desire

to cleave to his wife. Since man and woman were

originally of the same bone and flesh, a man leaves

his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, in

order that they may become one flesh, i.e., together

form a family.

144

Yaron, building on Isaksson saw in the defilement: the abomination

of incest:

It is submitted that Deuteronomy 24:1ff is to be

explained not in terms of adultery but by reference

to another sphere, namely to that of incest. This has

one immediate advantage; there is no need for

stigmatizing the (lawful) marriage of the divorcee as

an "implicit" crime. The second marriage puts the

wife finally beyond the reach of her first husband;

this—and nothing more—is expressed by her being

"defiled" (verse 4). More than that, the reference to

incest allows us, finally, also to arrive at the true

purpose of the law. Rules of incest, it is widely

held, are designed to protect the family and to

isolate, or insulate, existing socially approved

personal relationships from the disruptive influences

132 Chapter Four Jesus’ Doctrine

of sexual tension. Ordinarily, it is true, rules of

incest apply within the family group, and in this

point Deuteronomy 24:1ff is different; nevertheless

the basic aim is the same. We wish therefore to

submit that the prohibition expressed in verse 4 aims

at the protection of the second marriage. When the

divorcee has married another man, we have before

us the possibility of tension within the "triangle"

which has come into being. The first husband may

wish to get back his wife, having repented of

dismissing her, the wife may draw comparisons

between her two husbands unfavourable to the

second one, and may indulge in overtures disruptive

of the second marriage. Or, nothing of the kind may

have actually happened, but the second husband may

go through agonies of jealousy and apprehension,

making life a hell for the wife also. All these

possibilities are avoided once the reunion is

prevented. And it can be prevented effectively only

by outlawing it, by declaring it to 'evah, an

"abomination before the Lord." This, then, is the

very opposite of the approach taken by Matthew and

followed by the "adultery-group" of scholars. Not

only does Deuteronomy not object to the second

marriage, it takes effective steps to ensure its

stability and continuation.

145

Yaron viewed Deuteronomy as regulating the psychological

aspects of incest, but incest has a darker side. It was Gordon

Wenham who seized upon the opportunity offered by Yaron's insight,

and captured the analogy of Scripture. His initial thoughts were

expressed in his commentary on Leviticus published as part of The

International Commentary on the Old Testament. Wedham would

team up with William Heth and publish the marvelous scholarly

volume, Jesus and Divorce, and it would be in this book that the

bushel was finally removed from the light of (Deuteronomy 24:1-4).

As we watch Wenham open up the concepts of incest in Leviticus we

get a full view of the truth:

Why Does Moses Permit Polygamy and Divorce? 133

The Lord spoke to Moses as follows: Speak to the

Israelites and say to them, I am the Lord your God.

You must not behave as they do in the land of Egypt

where you have been living: and you must not

behave as they do in the land of Canaan, which I am

bringing you to; you must not follow their rules.

You must do my laws and keep my rules to follow

them; I am the Lord your God. You must keep my

rules and my laws; if a man does them, he will enjoy

life through them: I am the Lord.

(Wenham translation/Lev.18:1-5)

Wenham notes that the phrase, "I am the Lord your God", is almost

identical to the phrase which introduces the ten commandments in

(Ex. 20:2).

146

He points out Israel's familiarity with the heathen

customs, and notes that she is warned to avoid, and at the same time

she is taught what she was expected to imitate; quoting that standard

of Leviticus, "For I am the Lord your God: ye shall therefore sanctify

yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy (Lev. 11:44).

147

Wenham goes on to title verses 6-18 of Leviticus 18 the Forbidden

Unions:

No man among you may approach any of his close

relatives to have sexual intercourse: I am the Lord.

Do not have intercourse with your parents: she is

your mother: do not have intercourse with her. Do

not have intercourse with your father's wife; she is

one with your father. Do not have intercourse with

your sister, your father's daughter or your mother's

daughter, whether she belongs to local kindred or

distant kindred. Do not have intercourse with your

granddaughter, because she is one with you. Do not

have intercourse with your step-sister, if she belongs

to your father's kindred; she is your sister. Do not

have intercourse with your father's sister; she is your

father's relative. Do not have intercourse with your

mother's sister, because she is your mother's relative.

Do not uncover the nakedness of your uncle; you

shall not approach his wife; she is your aunt. Do not

134 Chapter Four Jesus’ Doctrine

have intercourse with your daughter-in-law; she is

your son's wife; do not have intercourse with her.

Do not have intercourse with your brother's wife;

she is one with your brother. Do not have

intercourse with a woman and her daughter; do not

take her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter to

have intercourse with her; they are relatives, it is

wickedness. Do not marry a woman as well as her

sister to distress her by having intercourse with her

while she is alive.

(Wenhan translation/ Lev. 18:6-18)

Here Wenham is quick to point out that "close relative" is literally

"flesh of his flesh."

148

Adam and Eve were a family. The family is

the building unit of mankind, and this unit was protected by the

prohibitions of certain sexual unions within the family. Wenham

makes this interesting comment on the forbidden degrees mentioned

in Leviticus 18:

There is one striking omission from this table.

Marriage with one's daughter is not proscribed. This

is probably because it was already accepted that

such a union was illicit (Gen. 19:30ff) [Lot and his

daughters]. It was forbidden both in the laws of

Hammurabi (LH 154) and in the Hittite laws (HL

195). In other words these regulations extend the

prohibition on incest already accepted in other parts

of the ancient Near East.

149

Wenham and Heth then go on to reach the summit of this

mountainous text:

Through her first marriage the woman entered into

the closest form of relationship with her husband;

divorce did not terminate this relationship; she still

counted as a very close relative. If a divorced

couple want to come together again, [the wife

having another marriage in the interim, my note] it

would be as bad as a man marrying his sister. That is

Why Does Moses Permit Polygamy and Divorce? 135

why it is described as 'an abomination before the

Lord' that 'causes the land to sin.'

150

In the final analysis this text might be translated: When a man

divorces his primary wife, he is permitted to marry again, except he

cannot remarry his former wife if she had remarried during the

interim of their separation. Thus we see a universal statement with an

exception clause—the divorcee may remarry with one exception: he

could not commit the abomination of incest. Fornication. The

marriage would have been a fornication-marriage. The marriage to

the first wife would be equal to a man marrying his own daughter.

Some Uncleanness; Some Indecency (èrwat

dabar)

When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and

it come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes,

because he hath found some uncleanness [some

indecency] in her; then let him write her a bill of

divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her

out of his house. Deut. 24:1

Heth and Wenham are correct when they say, "The

interpretation of 'some indecency' in verse one is not really that

important in this argument."

151

They follow Abel Isaksson, R.

Yaron, and P.C. Craigie; the last of whom they quote:

... strictly speaking, the legislation relates only to

particular cases of remarriage; the protasis [vv.1-3]

contains incidental information about marriage and

divorce, but does not specifically legislate on those

matters. The verses do not legislate divorce, but

treat it as a practice already known ...

152

It is interesting to note that Abel Isaksson was the earliest pioneer to

begin beating this drum. Other modern writers such as John

MacArthur, J. Carl Laney, Paul E. Steele, Charles C. Ryrie, David

Atkinson, John Murry, and as mentioned Heth, and Wenham all see

the protasis in vv. 1-3 and the apodosis in v.4. Murry points out that

the Septuagint "adopts this construction" and older commentators like

136 Chapter Four Jesus’ Doctrine

Keil, Delitzsch, Calvin, Driver, and Reider all favor the position that

(Deut. 24:1-4) be interpreted as a prohibition of the specified

remarriage.

153

The unclean or indecent thing is of little consequence to this

text, or to the subject of divorce. Divorce was an accepted custom for

all the reasons previously presented. With this said, it remains

disconcerting that God's Law did not legislate creation-marriage. But

can any law legislate virtue to man who’s heart is deceitful and

desperately wicked, and is not creation-marriage virtuous. The law

came by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ, (Jn. 1:17).

But for now let us complete the exposition of (Deut. 24:1-4).

When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and

it come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes,

because he hath found some uncleanness in her; then

let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in

her hand, and send her out of his house. Deut. 24:1

The "When" of this text has led some to believe that this was a

nuptial event, some revelation of the marriage bed. Although not

relating their comments to the wedding night, Chase and Edersheim

make the following comment:

In itself, therefore, the expression need not denote

more than something which is disgusting or

unwholesome; or even it would appear, some bodily

flaw which might cause disgust and aversion.

154

Alfred Edersheim alludes to the problem of

physical unpleasantness as being a cause of divorce:

"On the other hand, the wife could insist on being

divorced if her husband were a leper, or affected

with polypus.

155

Donald W. Shaner quotes Chase:

Chase agrees, however, that "some unseemly thing"

(Deut. 24:1) does not mean unchastitly (punishable

Why Does Moses Permit Polygamy and Divorce? 137

by death) but rather "some improper or indecent

behavior" or possibly some bodily flaw.

156

Regarding the timing of the "when" of the jealousy text we are sure:

If any man take a wife, and go in unto her and hate

her, and give occasions of speech against her, and

bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this

woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a

maid; 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. Deut. 22:13-15

On the nuptial eve, during the act of copulation, the man

found reason to deplore his bride. During his attempt to consummate

the marriage the man found a barrier. He sensed that his wife, who

obviously claimed to be a virgin, was not. In his mind he believed he

married a harlot. Therefore at that instant, before the conclusion of

the wedding day, the marriage was in a serious crisis. Is it possible

that the "when" of (Deut. 24:1) is a reference to the marriage night?

Could it be that the man saw some bodily flaw, physical disease, or

other physical unpleasantness which caused him to loath the woman

he married—“she find no favor in his eyes.”

The text in Ephesians is appropriate here:

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also

loved the church, and gave himself for it, that he

might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of

water by the word; that he might present it to

himself a glorious church, not having spot, or

wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy

and without blemish. Eph. 5:25-27

One final comment regarding the timing of the "when" of Deut. 24:1:

When a man hath taken a new wife, he shall not go

out to war, neither shall he be charged with any

138 Chapter Four Jesus’ Doctrine

business, but he shall be free at home one year, and

shall cheer up his wife whom he hath taken.

Deut. 24:5

Regarding the “When” of (v. 1) it is interesting that the

“When” of (v. 5) should be injected right in this place in the Bible.

Immediately after the so called “divorce text of the O.T. Deut 24. 1-4”

here in Deut. 24:5 we read another statement with the word when that

obviously means the wedding night. Also the idea of marriage in this

text is pregnant, i.e. great with love and joy.

Now let us go on to the meaning of the words some

uncleanness, some indecency, (èrwat

dabar). Most commentators

believe the term is used to identify a myriad of minor offences

(certainly not adultery); offences that triggered divorce; the definition

of which was amplified by N.T. times where we find the school of

Rabbi Hillel permitting divorce for "any cause." Here Edersheim

comments:

We know that it included every kind of impropriety,

such as going about with loose hair, spinning in the

street, familiarly talking with men, ill-treating her

husband's parents in his presence, brawling, that is,

'speaking to her husband so loudly that the neighbors

could hear her in the adjoining house' (Chethub, vii.

6), a general bad reputation, or the discovery of

fraud before marriage."

157

Others include: poor cooking, no sons, or anything else that

displeased her husband.

158

"They divorced them for the most

frivolous reasons: if she burnt his biscuits, or didn't season his food

right, or if he did not like her manners, or if she was a poor

housekeeper, even if he finds a woman more handsome than she."

159

Another mentions the "violation of the Law of Moses, or of Jewish

customs, such as the woman causing her husband to eat food on

which a tithe had not been paid; not setting apart the first dough;

appearing in public with disheveled hair; spinning and exposing her

arms in public; conversing indiscriminately with men; speaking

disrespectfully of her husband's parents in his presence; brawling in

the house; or spoiling a dish for him."

160

William J. Hopewell

Why Does Moses Permit Polygamy and Divorce? 139

agrees: "When Deuteronomy 24 was written, the Jewish people had

followed the terrible sin of the Egyptians in wife-swapping, putting

away their wives for the least cause, and had degenerated marriage to

a very primitive status."

There also existed another school of thought during N.T.

times, those of Rabbi Shammai: he believed that the indecency,

(èrwat

dabar), was unchastity: adultery. Many N.T. commentators

place Jesus on the side of Shammai, earning them Edersheim's

censure: "It is a serious mistake on the part of commentators to set the

teaching of Christ on this subject by the side of that of Shammai."

161

There is no question of what the Law taught regarding adultery. It

was not a matter of divorce. It was a capital crime: the death penalty.

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

And the man who committeth adultery with another

man's wife, even he who committeth adultery with

his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress

shall surely be put to death. Lev. 20:10

Edersheim exhorts NT commentators to remember the absolute

position of the Law concerning unchastity. By putting Jesus on the

side of Shammai they were misrepresenting the position of Jesus

regarding adultery and the law. Sexual intercourse on the part of the

woman with any man other than her husband was a capital crime: (1)

In the "law of jealousies", (Deut. 22:13) the woman was put to death

if she was found not to be a virgin on her wedding night; (2) If a

betrothed virgin was forced by another man to lay with him, and she

did not cry rape, both the man and the damsel were to be stoned to

death; (3) and the married adulteress and adulterer were to be put to

death. In the law adultery was always a capital crime. The èrwat

dabar could never mean adultery.

Edersheim goes on to say that èrwat

dabar was translated: "a

matter of shame, [literally nakedness]." Regarding this idea Abel

Isaksson presents this interesting comment regarding èrwat

dabar

(exposure or the nakedness of a thing):

140 Chapter Four Jesus’ Doctrine

This expression is usually interpreted to mean

something shameful or repulsive, without going into

any detail as to what it is that arouses the husband's

loathing for his wife. The expression occurs in

another passage in the O.T., viz. in Dt. 23.14. Verse

12 of chap. 23 mentions that there is to be a place

outside the camp at which all feces from the camp

are to be buried. This is to be done lest Yahweh,

when he walks through the camp, should find

(something exposed). It is clear that here dabar

stands for human excrement. It is accordingly an

euphemism. Yahweh must not see excrement lying

about exposed. The expression is similarly used as

an euphemism in Dt. 24:1 but here it does not stand

for human excrement but for the female pudendum

... [with reference the mention of the female token in

Dt.22] here means a cloth or garment of some kind,

as a covering for the female pudendum, which the

husband gave his wife at their marriage as a sign that

she was his (cf. for example, Ezek. 16:8: "And I

spread my skirt over you and covered your

nakedness", cf. Ru. 3.9). While Leviticus speaks of

uncovering the nakedness of a father (Lev. 18:7 f.,

20:11), Deuteronomy speaks of uncovering the skirt

of a father (23:1, 27:20). Thus here also

Deuteronomy avoids directly mentioning the

pudendum.

In Dt. 24.1 it cannot be a mater of some

other man having lifted the covering and exposed

the wife's pudendum. This would have been

tantamount to adultery and in that case there could

be no question of a new marriage for the wife, since

both parties would be stoned to death.

Probably it is a question here of the wife

having exposed herself voluntarily or involuntarily.

All other exposure of his wife's pudendum than that

which the husband himself is responsible for arouses

his loathing. That the husband's improper exposure

Why Does Moses Permit Polygamy and Divorce? 141

of himself in the presence of any other person of the

opposite sex than the woman he was married to

aroused the wife's contempt is clear from the story

of how Michal despised David when in his dance

before the ark of the Lord he accidentally exposed

himself to the crowd (2 Sam. 6:12-20). Michal

interpreted David's involuntary exposure of himself

as a deliberate exposure to the servant maids. But it

is only licentious people (2 Sam. 6:20) who expose

themselves in this way. No modest Israelite woman

will do so. The wife will no longer find grace in her

husband's eyes when he discovers her exposing her

nakedness. This is also clear from Ezek. 23:18, in

which it is said that the man's soul turns away from

the wife who exposes her nakedness.

162

Isaksson goes on to support this view with the translation of LXX and

the conservative rabbis. With reference to his comment that (èrwat

dabar) was used as a euphemism for human excrement it should be

pointed out that the Englishman's Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance

of the Old Testament lists 51 references to the word dabar, and in 49

of those references it means nakedness. Therefore the two remaining

uses belong to Deut. 24 and here:

Thou shalt have a place outside the camp, whither

thou shalt go abroad; and thou shalt have a paddle

upon thy weapon; and it shall be, when thou wilt

ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and

shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from

thee: for the Lord thy God walketh in the midst of

thy camp, to deliver thee and to give up thine

enemies before thee; therefore shall thy camp be

holy; that he see no unclean (dabar) thing in thee,

and turn away from thee. Deut. 23:12-14

Kiel and Delitzsch comment:

For the camp was to be kept holy, because Jehovah

walked in the midst of it, in order that he might not

142 Chapter Four Jesus’ Doctrine

see the nakedness of a thing, i.e., anything to be

ashamed of in the people, and turn away from thee.

There was nothing shameful in the excrement itself;

but want of reverence, which the people would

display through not removing it, would offend the

Lord and drive him out of the camp of Israel.

163

Exposed excrement, the èrwat

dabar the camp of Israel, would have

been the act which would have caused Jehovah to be offended, thus

driving him out of the camp. Likewise in Deut. 24:1 the èrwat

dabar,

unclean thing, would have caused the wife to find no favor in the eyes

of her husband.

As we said, the meaning of èrwat

dabar in the context of

Deut. 24:1 is of little consequence. Edersheim concludes:

And the Jewish law unquestionably allowed divorce

on almost any grounds; the difference being, not as

to what was lawful, but on what grounds a man

should put the Law in motion, and make use of the

absolute liberty which it accorded him.

164

One of the barriers against divorce in the OT was its financial

cost. Since a bride price, dowry, was essential to the contract, the

paramour had to literally count the cost of investing in and additional

wife. Perhaps the anticipation of wealth provoked the admonition to

Israel's future king, "Neither shall he multiply wives to himself,"

(Deut. 17:17). This remains a problem with divorced-remarried

polygamist in the West: they must pay alimony to their previous

wives, even though the law only permits one wife at a time. Multiple

wives is still expensive. Traditionally many believe that Moses was

erecting a barrier to the easy divorce of the day by requiring the man

to write a Bill of Divorce, but Heth and Wenham disagree:

Deuteronomy 24:1- 4 cannot be taken as evidence

that Moses sought to limit the husband's absolute

right to divorce his wife whenever he wished and for

whatever reason. Furthermore, this Deuteronomic

concession would hardly deter an angry husband

intent on divorcing his wife. When a man divorced

Why Does Moses Permit Polygamy and Divorce? 143

his wife, he would not want her to return to him.

Since the law accurately mirrors his feelings when

he is giving the divorce it can hardly have

discouraged him. Besides, ... probably the strongest

deterrent to divorce in Israel and all over the ancient

Near East was financial, since the husband had to

forfeit the dowry and may have been involved also

in other payments to his former wife.

165

These traditionalists also claim that the bill of divorce would have

listed the wives faults and along with the time required to write the

document would have in itself regulated hasty divorce.

On the ______ day of the week _______ in the

month ________ in the year _______ from the

beginning of the world, according to the common

computation in the province of ________, I,

_______ the son of _______ by whatever name I

may be known, of the town of ______ with the

entire consent of mind and without any constraint,

have divorced, dismissed, and expelled thee,

________ daughter of _______ by whatever name

thou art called, of the town of _______ so as to be

free at thine own disposal, to marry whomsoever

thou pleasest, without hindrance from anyone, from

this day forever. Thou art therefore free for anyone

(who would marry thee). Let this be thy bill of

divorce from me, a writing of separation and

expulsion according to the law of Moses and Israel.

Witness_____________, the Son of __________________,

Obviously the woman's faults were not documented in all divorce

bills as evidenced here. To the contrary the bill leads one to believe

that divorce was rather simple, and if anything the bill made it a

greater reality and seems to ensure the idea of permanency. Men like

Jay Adams become ecstatic with the revelation that divorce was legal.

They then violently drive the O.T. concepts into the NT. Dwelling on

the word, divorce, as found in the bill he attempts to convey the

144 Chapter Four Jesus’ Doctrine

message that the marriage was forever put asunder:" kerithuth >

karath> (1)to cut off; hew down; is used for hewing down timber (I

Kings 5:18); (2) amputation (Lev. 22:24); (3) decapitation (I Sam.

17:51). It indicates severing of what was once a living union."

166

The following statement is typical of Jay Adams: "Contrary to some

opinions, the concept of divorce is biblical." He goes on to say,

"Divorce, for some persons, under some circumstances is altogether

proper and not the object of God's hatred.

167

But as we have seen, regardless of those who like Adams

labor to declare that divorce is a tool to put marriage asunder, we

have proved that divorce is impotent in its determination to defeat

creation-marriage. Adams is incorrect, for he failed to regard the

main clause of the text, the abomination. A man could not return to

his divorced wife if she in fact had been married to another during the

interim of their separation. To do so would be an abomination. She

was kinfolk. She was through marriage equal to his sister, or his

daughter. The words to divorce, to cut off, to hew down, to amputate,

or to decapitate, contrary to Jay Adams do not, and cannot put

asunder the marriage bond which was created in the garden,

creation-marriage. The law could not separate what God hath joined

together; therefore the only thing the law could do was permit man to

legally separate from the woman he was bound to, permanently.

Thus the law permitted polygamy and divorce because the

heart of man was so totally evil that man could not conceive of a

marriage that was permanent. We read the words of the disciples—

who after walking with and becoming followers of Jesus for some

time—as proof that even believers cannot easily accept the doctrine

of permanency:

His disciples say unto him, If the case of a man be so

with his wife, it is not good to marry. Matt. 19:10

CHAPTER FIVE

Was God A Divorce´ ?

As we descend Mount Sinai we must wade through the

serpent filled swamps of the wilderness of Sin before we reach the

Promised Land. The next major mountain in the story of the Law

will find us in Galilee where Jesus defines the true nature of the law

in His Sermon of the Mount (to look with lust upon a woman is

adultery). Come along as we join with the band of Israel who carry

the cherished cargo, the marriage doctrine. This would be the

vehicle of the one who would preach that creation-marriage sermon

(Matt. 19). As we trek along, we will keep our eyes on the progress

of the vehicle of love. Will the serpent’s venom poison her?

As we stated earlier, Jehovah was married to Israel. The Law

was a marriage contract with His beloved lady. He loved her. In His

Song of Songs He composes her sonnet of sonnets, and pledges His

love, "Set me as a seal upon thine arm; for love is strong as death,"

(Song 8:6). His love was everlasting. We will see throughout this

treatise that as Israel deserted Him, He wooed her return, always

keeping the door of reconciliation open. His perfect love required

Him to discipline her, but He never forsook her. We shall see that

although Israel was the blessed chosen nation, and the wife of

Jehovah, she nevertheless was given to marital apostasy.

As God and Moses were planning salvation worship in the

heights of Sinai, Satan and Israel were committing fornication with a

golden calf at its base; in nakedness and sensual dance, the nation

worshiped in the customs of Egyptian idolatry.

168

The fertility cult

would represent idolatry throughout their desert journey, and each

time the nation strays into idolatry she will experience fornication,

i.e., physical and spiritual fornication. Some may object to that

thought; they may change their minds as we proceed.

146 Chapter Five Jesus’ Doctrine

To The Plains of Moab

The news of Israel's Red Sea victory terrified Balak (name

meaning destroyer), a Moabite king, as he watches the nation of

Israel march across the Plains of Moab. Realizing his foe was the

Mighty God of the Jews and His prophet Moses, Balak chooses to

hire his own prophet, Balaam, whom he ordered to curse the children

of Israel. Initially Balaam failed, but then conceived a demonic

scheme to defile the children of God in hopes of requiring Jehovah to

curse His people. Balaam apparently knew that it was prohibitive for

Israel to have, i.e., to have as a wife, the daughters of Moab, or of any

other nation. Israel was under a special regulation of Jewish-

creation-marriage, they were required to marry solely within the tribe

of Israel.

For thou shalt worship no other gods; for the Lord,

whose name is jealous, is a jealous God; lest thou

make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land,

and they go a whoring after their gods, and do

sacrifice unto their gods; and one call thee, and thou

eat of his sacrifice; and thou take of their daughters

unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after

their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after

their gods. Ex. 34:14-16

With this idea as a concept of deception Balaam convinced Balak to

arrange for the daughters of Moab to play the harlot with the children

of Israel on its Plains of Moab. These women were experts in the sin

of licentiousness, and the prostitution of idolatry.

And the Israel abode in Shittim, and the people

began to commit whoredom with the daughters of

Moab. And they called the people unto the

sacrifices of their gods; and the people did eat, and

bowed down to their gods. And Israel joined

himself unto Baalpeor; and the anger of the Lord

was kindled against Israel. And the Lord said unto

Moses, take all the heads of the people, and hang

Was God a Divorce´ ? 147

them up before the Lord against the sun, that the

fierce anger of the Lord may be turned away from

Israel. Num. 25:1-4

The worship of Baalpeor was known to be attended by women and

virgins who prostituted themselves to this Moabitish Priapus

169

, the

god of fertility. Archaeological discoveries have revealed that the

devotees of Baal practiced prostitution as a part of their worship.

This sordid practice was adopted by the Israelites.

170

In the Book of

Revelation (2:14,15) it is revealed that this fornication was associated

with the doctrine of the Nicolaitans. Although some see

Nicolaitanism as clerical hierarchy, others see it as a licentious sect

advocating complete and free love. So, the daughters of Moab

prepared their licentious worship which required the participation of

the standing men of Israel. The Moabite harlot decked her bed with

tapestry and perfumed it with aloes. She whispered her offer of

lust/love to the interested Jewish males who swarmed the desert floor.

The army of Israel soon fell into the idolatry of sexual and spiritual

fornication. This was the plan of Balaam to curse Israel. Revelation

states that it is Balaam who cast this stumbling block before the

children of Israel.

But to the surprise of Balaam, the children of Israel were not

consumed. Jehovah's anger was kindled and He began cursing the

people with a plague, and ordering Moses to "hang up" the heads of

those guilty of fornication. This hanging consisted in a form of

crucifixion which was practiced by the ancients. Keil and Delitzsch

suggest that a thousand men were crucified and the remainder

perished in the plague. But suddenly a miracle occurred which

averted this judgment of death. A mediator was raised in Israel who

interceded in behalf of God and the people. Phinehas, the son of the

high priest, upon seeing a young Israeli soldier return from Baalpeor

with a temple prostitute whom he took into his tent in the sight of

Moses and in the sight of all the congregation, became overcome with

a holy rage, took a javelin in his hand, then running into the tent he

executed both the man and the woman, thrusting them through with

his spear of death. This act was immediately honored by Jehovah

who turned away the plague of death; He praised Phinehas for his act

of atonement. Another assault on creation-marriage had failed.

148 Chapter Five Jesus’ Doctrine

The Promised Land

A beam of hope springs out of Jericho. Here in this heathen

fortress abides the harlot of the city, Rahab. The miracle of Jericho

was more than the fall of it's walls. It was the conversion of it's

harlot—the LXX translates the Hebrew word, harlot, as porne. The

fear of Jehovah and his captain, Joshua, drove the harlot, Rahab, to

her knees in repentance for her sinful life. She thrust her life into the

hands of this gallant soldier-savior and finds atonement for her soul.

She is born-again, converted from harlotry to become the great

grand-mother of the promised Seed. What a miracle. The power of

God's men is always salvation, and when that salvation is the

salvation of his enemies, Oh, so Great Salvation!

So with the opening of the Book of Joshua—Rahab’s

conversion—creation-marriage appeared healthy and promising,

unfortunately this was for a moment. By the time Israel reaches the

end of the Book of Judges we will find Israel at the lowest moral state

in their recorded history. Shortly after the death of Joshua we read:

And the children of Israel dwelt among the

Canaanites, Hittites, and Amorites, and Perizzites,

and Hivites, and Jebusites: and they took their

daughters to be their wives, and gave their daughter

to their sons, and served their gods. And the

children of Israel did evil in the sight of the Lord,

and forgot the Lord their God, and served Baalim

and the groves. Jud. 3:3-7

Although polygamy was practiced in Israel, as pointed out it was

limited by its cost, however it appears that this barrier and whatever

others that previously existed were now somewhat removed. It was

during this period were we find perhaps its holiest man practicing a

brand of polygamy which was previously without record. Gideon,

who otherwise had an impeccable and courageous life, had "many

wives." Of the exact number of wives, we do not know. We do know

he had seventy sons, with no mention of the number of daughters.

Perhaps the fate of these men was spawned by the sin of the father.

Beside the many wives Gideon had a concubine, and by this maid he

Was God a Divorce´ ? 149

begot a son, Abimelech. Keil and Delitzsch refer to him as Gideon's

bastard son.

171

It was this son, Abimelech, who murdered all but one

of his brothers. Plurality of wives proves to be a plurality of trouble.

Sampson, the thirteenth judge, violated Israel's special

marriage code by choosing a bride over his fathers wish, and

choosing that woman from the ungodly Philistines. Fortunately,

Jehovah oversaw the entire affair and redeemed Sampson by

inflicting judgment upon Philistia via Sampson's anger. It would be

good if we could end the declension of Israel as recorded in Judges

right here. We cannot. Chapter nineteen opens a cesspool with a

reeking stench.

Here in (Jud.19) a traveling Levite, attempting to embrace

ritual purity, refuses to lodge in the Jebusite city of Jebus, choosing

rather to board in Gibeah, a city belonging to Benjamin. The Levite

was returning to his home in Mount Ephraim, with his wayward

concubine—concubinage was the invention of man's polygamist

nature. One might wonder as to what was his actual fear—what

would the Jebusites inflict upon him and his concubine. Perhaps he

feared that history might repeat itself, i.e., the impurity of the

Sodomite attack on Lot. Well, his worst fear of heathen violence was

realized in the home of his brethren. Finding lodging with an old

man, also of Mount Ephraim, he settled in for the night. The old man

washed his visitors feet and prepared a meal and drink for this friend

from his home state. But suddenly the peace is disturbed:

Now as they were making their hearts merry,

behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial,

[Sodomites], beset the house round about, and beat

at the door, and spoke to the master of the house, the

old man, saying, Bring forth the man who come into

thine house, that we may know him. Jud. 19:22

To say the least, history repeated itself, as these worthless fellows,

sodomites, employed the very words of the men who attacked Lot. A

similar compromise is offered to these homosexuals, i.e., the old

man's daughter and the concubine were offered to appease their

desire. The record then reveals that in their anger the homosexuals

accepted the offer of the strange concubine, abusing her throughout

the night. By "knowing her", a reference to sexual knowledge, they

150 Chapter Five Jesus’ Doctrine

abused her until she died. In anger the Levite took a knife and

divided her dead body into twelve pieces, as they divided butchered

animals. He then sent a portion of this divided body to each of the

twelve tribes of Israel. The outcome was a civil war; the eleven tribes

of Israel battle Benjamin. The war was vicious against Benjamin as

Israel turned its rage on their brethren as they did upon the

Canaanites, destroying man, woman, child, and livestock. The tribe

was nearly annihilated. At the last moment Israel turned away its

wrath permitting a remnant to live. Creation-marriage in the tribe of

Benjamin was saved.

The Book of Samuel opens with another sad story. Here the

priest Eli fails as a father, his son's, Hophni and Phinehas, taught and

practiced heathen doctrine of the worst type. Although unsaved,

"they knew not the lord", they performed the sacrificial rites of the

temple. Not only desecrating their offerings by intruding into the

priests office, they offered unacceptable sacrifices to Jehovah. But

their most notorious act was their propagation of the doctrine of

temple prostitution. Hophni and Phinehas committed sexual acts with

the women who assembled at the door of the tabernacle of the

congregation. Did they actually commit fornication in the compound

of the tabernacle?

During this period of gloom another ray of hope shines into

this dark valley, that of Ruth the Moabitess. This beautiful story is

actually heightened by the background of all this sin. This love story

is a picture poem of the day that the Son of God would offer his Holy

Life as a ransom for his friends; you and me. It is a poem of

marriage; the levirate marriage; the intricate emotions of the

Kinsman-Redeemer relationship. The delicate nature and timing of

this event is revealed in an air of suspense and intimacy. Isakkson

saw the private nature of "the covering of the nakedness"; here the

KJV translates this as, "the spreading of the skirt", (Ruth 3:9). Boaz

in his love spread his skirt over Ruth in claiming his bride. Jehovah

in his love affair with Israel did the same: "Now when I passed by

the, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and

I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness; yea, I sware

unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord God,

and thou becamest mine", (Ezek. 16:8). Boaz, after redeeming Ruth,

marries her and brings her into the Hall of Creation-Marriage, the hall

of the grandmothers of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, (Matt. 1).

Was God a Divorce´ ? 151

The Kings of Israel

Putting the Israeli kings in charge of the creation-marriage

was asking the fox to guard the hen-house, nevertheless these kings

are in command of the vehicle. Initially all appeared well, as Saul was

satisfied with one wife and one concubine. But this was short lived.

David the holiest of all the Israeli kings begins a violation of

creation-marriage which would form the leading doctrine of the

future kings. The interesting impact of David's acts also affected his

children, all future Israeli children, and surprisingly the children of

God throughout two millennia of church history. David's sin with

Bathsheba has provided an apology for many thousands of marital

infidelity cases throughout history; a false apology. The real problem

began when the sons of Samuel departed from walking with the Lord:

And it came to pass, when Samuel was old, that he

made his sons judges over Israel. Now the name of

his first-born was Joel; and the name of his second,

Abijah; they were judges in Beersheba. And his

sons walked not in his ways, but turned aside after

lucre and took bribes, and perverted judgment. Then

all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together,

and came to Samuel unto Ramah, and said unto him,

Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy

ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the

nations. But the thing displeased Samuel, when they

said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed

unto the Lord. I Sam. 8:1-3

Although the iniquity of Samuel's children was only an excuse for the

coveting Jewish nation, it nevertheless did open the door for the

demand for a king.

Israel was a theocracy. The position of another king, beside

the King of Kings, Jehovah, in the theocracy would create one special

problem. It was necessary to ensure a temporal sovereignty for the

king that would ensure the kings authority among the people.

Sovereignty would ensure the king the privilege of being the

administrator of the law; the Judge of the land. The problem with this

152 Chapter Five Jesus’ Doctrine

is that the king could not judge himself with the law. By requesting a

king the people willed that God provide them with a man that could

live—during his lifetime that is—above the sword of the law. The

law could not execute the king. Most people and most marriage

counselors do not take this into account when applying the outcome

of David's sin to the church today. Although Jehovah provided the

nation with a lifetime king sovereign, He did not do this for the good

of the people but in response to their murmuring; a thing which He

hates.

And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the

voice of the people in all that they say unto thee; for

they have not rejected thee; but they have rejected

me, that I should not reign over them. I Sam. 8:7

God can be the only sovereign, for the sovereign must be righteous.

God reigns in righteousness:

The Lord reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the

Lord is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath

girded himself: the world also is established, that it

cannot be moved. Thy throne is established of old:

thou art from everlasting. The floods have lifted up,

O Lord, the floods have lifted up their voice; the

floods lift their waves. The Lord on high is mightier

than the noise of many waters, yea, than the mighty

waves of the sea. Thy testimonies are sure: holiness

becometh thine house, O Lord, forever. Psa. 93

For a thousand years Israel experienced the rule of the true sovereign,

Jehovah. The special problem of a human king would now affect

their understanding of sovereignty. The seasoning of their

understanding caused them to believe in a sovereign as a righteous

leader. Their faith in the government, a theocracy, was based on the

holiness of Jehovah. Israel failed to realize that an earthly sovereign

could not meet the standard in which they believed. They simply took

their understanding of the Holy Sovereign and applied it to sinful

man. This was impossible. Nevertheless these earthly kings were

given a temporal position above the law, and this led to their

Was God a Divorce´ ? 153

downfall.

As mentioned, Saul had one wife and a concubine. David on

the other hand had eight wives before he entered Jerusalem, however

after the victory over this city we are told, "David took him more

concubines and wives out of Jerusalem, after he was come from

Hebron; and there were yet sons and daughters born to David", (II

Sam. 5:13). Keil and Delitzsch count nineteen sons and numerous

daughters being born to David.

172

But the real tragedy of David is his

desire to take another man’s wife, and the violence in manifesting

that desire. Adultery. Probably the worlds most infamous recorded

act of adultery.

And it came to pass at eventide, that David arose

from his bed, and walked upon the roof he saw a

woman washing herself, and the woman was very

beautiful to look upon. And David sent and inquired

about the woman. And one said, Is not this

Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah,

the Hittite? And David sent messengers, and took

her. And she came in unto him, and he lay with her;

for she was purified from her uncleanness. And she

returned unto her house. II Sam. 11:2-4

There appears to be two connected sins here. First, Bathsheba baths

her naked body in a location that permitted the king to see her

physical beauty. The act of a beautiful woman bathing is perhaps the

most difficult temptation for a man to resist—what woman ever

bathed in a location where a man could view her naked body? The

second sin is that of the king who permitted his eyes to be full of the

lusty beauty. David was no Job: "I made a covenant with my eyes.

Why then should I think upon a maid?" (Job 31:1). That look formed

into lust then conceived the sin of adultery, and deception which

brought forth death. The deception, a failed attempt to orchestrate a

lie which would have had Uriah raise a son which was not his own—

one of the greatest fears of all men—gave David one final evil

choice: murder Uriah. It almost appears that Uriah knew that

Bathsheba was with child of the king; the reason for his refusal to

return to his bed although the king made every arrangement to

persuade him. Whatever the reason we know God had intervened in

154 Chapter Five Jesus’ Doctrine

the heart of Uriah to prevent David in his lie. Even if Uriah knew the

truth, would he be able to prevail in convicting King David of

committing a capital crime; a crime punishable by death. Regardless,

God left David the choice to repent. David chose murder.

And when the wife of Uriah heard that Uriah, her

husband, was dead, she mourned for her husband.

And when the mourning was past, David sent and

fetched her to his house, and she became his wife,

and bore him a son. But the thing that David had

done displeased the Lord. II Sam. 11

The marriage of Bathsheba to David is in stinging contrast to the

penalty of the law which required the funeral and burial of both. How

could this be reconciled with the law? That is a good question. Did

David conjecture that since polygamy was suffered to exist, and since

Bathsheba was now a widow that he had the right to marry her? This

is probably exactly what he reasoned; after all Bathsheba was now

truly a widow. This would make the marriage legal. He was not

convicted of adultery or murder, so he assumed he was legal; and as

we have said the king was the state and believed to be beyond the

reproach of the law: inculpable.

Nathan put a wrinkle in his rationality, by revealing that his

sin was found out. Then David finally reaches into his heart of hearts

and musters his last spark of honor. He cries out, "I have sinned

against the Lord." Like the publican's cry, "Oh, God be merciful to

me a sinner!" and went down to his house justified; here David was

told he would not die. He would go on to reveal his confession in

Psa. 32, and 51; there can remain no doubt of his full confession.

Against thee, and thee only, have I sinned, and done

this evil in thy sight, that thou mightest be justified

when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.

Behold, I was shaped in iniquity and in sin did my

mother conceive me. Purge me with hyssop, and I

shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than

snow. Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all

mine iniquities. Create in me a clean heart, O God,

and renew a right spirit within me. Psa. 51:4ff

Was God a Divorce´ ? 155

Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not

iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile. I

acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity

have I not hidden. I said, I will confess my

transgressions unto the Lord, and thou forgavest the

iniquity of my sin. Psa. 32:2ff

The language of these Psalms reveal that David had knowledge of the

vicarious atonement of the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. David

found repentance and redemption—“not knowing that the goodness

of God leadeth thee to repentance.” Is it here that David was truly

born-again; I believe this is just what took place; David got saved; he

was born-again. There is, however, no record of Bathsheba's

penitence, nevertheless later we do see her in need of comfort. Their

son of adultery would die the death of the law for each of them; not

atoning for their souls, but for their lives.

The final element which weighed in David's forgiveness and

maintenance must be seen in the covenant of (II Sam. 7:12-16).

David was a chosen vessel. He was promised, unconditionally, a son

upon whom God would establish His kingdom forever. Although

David has other sons, he did not have any sons of promise. With the

death of his son by adultery, and with the pure confession of David, it

appears that God chose to expose his doctrine of Grace on this

penitent. The force of Grace is to prove where sin abounds Grace

will much more abound. So in other words, God was forgiving and

restoring David on the basis of his un-merited favor, Grace. He was

forgiving David because David truly repented. On that basis God

wanted to forgive David; and that He did. This is the element which

Satan just can't comprehend. It is beyond his capacity to think of

such a thought. He assumes that since his own judgment is

everlasting and forever final, that the Lord God must judge all beings

according to the standard which was applied to him. Therefore he

believed by trapping the soldiers of Israel to commit fornication and

adultery on the Plains of Moab, and by tempting David to commit

adultery, Satan could now require God to curse Israel and David

forever. But God wanted to forgive David because David believed in

the Lord Jesus Christ the only begotten Son of God. This is the total

idea of grace; and Satan is Satan because he is ignorant of the

156 Chapter Five Jesus’ Doctrine

Matchless Grace of God. David knew the Son of God:

The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right

hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Psa. 110:1

And David comforted Bathsheba, his wife, and

went in unto her, and lay with her; and she bore a

son, and he called his name Solomon; and the Lord

loved him. And he sent word by the hand of Nathan,

the prophet; and he called his name Jedidiah

[beloved of the Lord], because of the Lord.

II Sam. 12:24,25

Several interesting comments can be gleaned from this text: (1)

Bathsheba is distressed by the death of the son of adultery; was she

distressed by her sin? (2) God blesses the widow/marriage with the

birth of a son, Solomon, [peaceful], (3) Jehovah has a special love for

the child and gives him a personal nickname, Jedidiah, [beloved of

the Lord], and (4) the special phrase, "because of the Lord." The

Lord is telling us that the entire David/Bathsheba restoration was a

matter of God doing something for His Beloved Son. He was freely

exercising his Grace because of the loving sacrifice of His only

begotten Son, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

With this said, let us not loose sight of the total corruption

and death which the worlds most published sin of adultery produced.

After all the Scripture cannot be broken, "Then when lust hath

conceived, it bringeth forth sin; and sin, when it is finished, bringeth

forth death," (James 1:15). David committed adultery and murder

and was forgiven; God did not require the death penalty for the king.

But his murder and lust conceived more that his own sin; it also

produced sin in his family. Amnon, the elder son of David, saw a

chance to explore his lust and follow in his father’s footsteps—

children always learn the lessons our own acts teach them. Tamar,

Amnon's step-sister, was an especially beautiful virgin, and Amnon

had an un-natural lust/love for her. He was literally sick with lust

over his sister. With some help from a cousin, Amnon, manages to

lure Tamar to his bed. Here he viciously rapes the innocent and

lovely virgin, Tamar. Shortly thereafter Absalom avenges his sister,

Was God a Divorce´ ? 157

he kills Amnon. Absalom continues his rebellion against his father,

even threatening the throne. Forming a schism against the king he

enters Jerusalem, and defiles the king’s concubines. Setting up a tent

on the top of the king’s palace, he enters the tent of his father's

concubines in the sight of all Israel. In the sad end of Absalom, we

find him caught by the hair hanging in an oak, and struggling to get

free when he is found. Joab, the captain of David’s army, manages to

reach the site in time to thrust three staves through the heart of

Absolam. One act of adultery and now David is faced with three

murders, one rape, and the death of a child. Yes, David was forgiven,

but when lust is conceived it bringeth forth death. This is the law of

sin.

Now just how do we interpret David’s adultery/murder?

Consider the following facts: (1) David was a sovereign King

believed to be legally inculpable, (2) David fully repented, i.e., he

confessed his sin and discontinued his sin; and he was fully forgiven

of his sin. (3) He lived during a period that permitted polygamy—as

previously explained. (4) Bathsheba was now a widow and free to

take another husband. (5) Therefore David’s marriage to Bathsheba

was legitimate under those conditions. (5) This means that David’s

future intercourse with Bathsheba was not a continuous act of

adultery; under the permission of polygamy Bathsheba did not have

another living husband. Think this through. These elements are not

found in the act of remarriage today. In most cases of divorce and

remarriage that I have counseled both partners are alive and therefore

any remarriage for them is an act of continuous adultery—The act of

having sexual relations with another during the lifetime of a

previously married partner is adultery. No one is inculpable of the

law.

Modern adultery is no less subject to this law: "Be not

deceived, God is not mocked, for whatever a man soweth, that shall

he also reap," (Gal. 6:7). The real question facing modern man as we

will see later is: Since marriage is permanent until death do us part,

can a man have more than one living wife this side of death, during

the Christian age of monogamy? The age of Grace will reveal some

interesting facts supporting creation-marriage. "For the Law (of

divorce) was given by Moses, but Grace and Truth (permanency-

marriage) came by Jesus Christ," (Jn.1:17). The day of Grace and

Truth would be radically different from the age of law. It had a

158 Chapter Five Jesus’ Doctrine

superior priest, and a superior doctrine. We should expect that its

teachings will sharply contrast the doctrines of Deuteronomy.

Modern adultery and remarriage may be dancing to the wrong pipe

and drummer. It must be noted that David committed adultery once.

Modern adultery-remarriage is either continuously illegal adultery or

what has been dressed as a false legal adultery—double-speak.

Augustine referred to this continuous adultery as "Adulterous

Marriage."

173

Adulterous-marriage is what this paper refers to as

legal adultery—which of course is being satirical.

But King Solomon loved many foreign women; in

addition to the daughters of Pharaoh, women of the

Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians, and

Hittites, of the nations concerning which the Lord

said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to

them, neither shall they come in unto you; for surely

they will turn away your heart after their gods.

Solomon clave unto these in love. And he had seven

hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred

concubines; and his wives turned away his heart.

I Kings 11:1-3

"Like father, like son." David's life of polygamy and adultery would

bear fruit in the beloved son, Solomon. Although these wives and

concubines were the common gifts, peace offerings of foreign kings,

nevertheless many of them were bedded by Solomon. We are clearly

told that Solomon sinned:

Did not Solomon, king of Israel, sin by these things?

Yet among many nations was their not a king like

him, who was beloved of his God, and God made

him king over all Israel; nevertheless, even him did

foreign women cause to sin. Neh. 13:26

Solomon stresses the doctrine of creation-marriage with what might

be termed as a man drunk with marriage. But marriage was ordained

in the act of creation therefore even this outrageous indulgence of

polygamy could not destroy that which God had foreordained. Men

continue to labor to all possible extremes in their effort to up-root the

Was God a Divorce´ ? 159

creation doctrine. Some attempt to corrupt creation-marriage with

multiple divorce and multiple remarriage; others by homosexuality,

bestiality, trans-sexuality, and prostitution—all to no avail.

Did God Practice Divorce?

Jehovah was married to Israel, His beloved. We are clearly told that

He was her husband:

For thy Maker is thine husband; the Lord of hosts is

his name; and thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel;

The God of the whole earth shall he be called. For

the Lord hath called thee like a woman forsaken and

grieved in spirit, and a wife of youth [Mal. 2:14],

when thou wast refused, saith thy God. For a small

moment have I forsaken thee, but with great mercies

will I gather thee. Isa. 54: 5-7

God married Israel on the foothills of Mount Sinai. In her youth she

was a slave in the kingdom of Pharaoh, where her infant sons were

persecuted. One of those infants, Moses, led the children of Israel to

the altar where she married Jehovah; she became one with Him—a

type of creation-marriage. Later Israel’s conduct as a wife became

disgraceful, and illegal. The law set certain conditions on the

marriage relationship: (1) Adultery; a capital crime, (2) Certain acts

could result in divorce with a prohibition to any future reconciliation

of the original marriage. Israel committed adultery and those certain

acts; yet, Jehovah never put her asunder. His perfect love required

Him to chasten her, but he never put her asunder. He created the

institution of creation-marriage and He was bound to her forever, by

choice. Let us follow this marriage.

The Queen of Sheba did not believe all she heard of

Solomon’s splendor, so she decided to go to Jerusalem, and after

viewing this glorious kingdom she exclaims: "I believed not the

words until I came, and mine eyes had seen it; and, behold, the half

was not told me: thy wisdom and prosperity exceedeth the fame

which I heard." But this glory was short lived. As this queen was in

awe of the kingdom, Solomon was in awe of his wives. Bowing to

160 Chapter Five Jesus’ Doctrine

their every desire; bowing to their gods. Solomon joined in the

corruption of the gods of his wives: Ashtoreth, Milcom, Chemosh,

and Molech. The worship of the former included licentious ritual

prostitution and to the latter was attributed the debauchery of burning

children alive in sacrifice. The apostasy of Solomon provoked the

anger of Jehovah:

And the Lord was angry with Solomon, because his

heart was turned from the Lord God of Israel, who

had appeared unto him twice ... Wherefore the Lord

said ... I will surely rend the kingdom away from

thee, and will give it to thy servant.

Notwithstanding, in thy days I will not do it, for

David thy father's sake: but I will rend it out of the

hand of thy son. Howbeit, I will give one tribe to

thy son, for David my servant's sake, and for

Jerusalem's sake which I have chosen. I Kings 11:9ff

Shortly after Solomon's death his kingdom was divided. Rebelling

against Rehoboram, Solomon's son the king, the people elected

Jeroboam, the servant of Solomon, to be their king. Rehoboram was

able to maintain the city of Jerusalem as his base, while Jeroboam

headed north down and away from the promised city. Fearing that by

returning up to Jerusalem, Israel would return to Jehovah, Jeroboam

desperately invents a cult religion for Israel:

Whereupon the king took counsel, and made two

calves of gold, and said unto them, It is too much for

you to go up to Jerusalem; behold thy gods, O Israel,

which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. And

he set the one in Bethel, and the other put he in Dan.

And this thing became a sin; for the people went to

worship before the one, even unto Dan. And he

made an use of high places, and made priests of the

lowest of the people, which were not of the sons of

Levi. I Kings 12

This apostasy, the adultery of idolatry, would continue for about two

centuries before Israel, the Northern Kingdom, would be brought into

Was God a Divorce´ ? 161

captivity and slavery by the Assyrian nation. During this time,

Rehoboam, the son of Solomon was king of Judah, the Southern

Kingdom. Although a step above their northern brethren, they lasted

350 years before apostasy, the adultery of idolatry, caused their

collapse and captivity, being captured and imprisoned by mighty

Babylon. The prophets continually refer to the religious apostasy of

Israel and Judah as spiritual adultery and spiritual fornication.

Physical adultery was punishable by death. The Lord God was

married to the twelve tribes of Israel: "Turn, O backsliding children,

saith the Lord; for I am married unto you; and I will take you one of a

city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion," (Jer. 3:14). It

must be remembered that although Israel and Judah committed many

crimes against their marriage with Jehovah, He nevertheless was ever

faithful to them. Malachi speaks firmly regarding Jehovah God’s

commitment to the nation as their Husband:

For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons

of Jacob are not consumed. Mal. 3:6

Both Israel and Judah had committed the capital crime of

adultery. Both kingdoms could have been annihilated from the earth

for their sin, but God makes no mention of their utter destruction. He

does however use a few metaphors to describe His anger. The

prophets, as with Jesus, were masters at the use of figurative

language, metaphors, similes, hyperboles, and other figures of

speech. Hebrew poetry is based on comparative thoughts rather than

rhyme: "The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want ... Yea, though I

walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil."

Here in the middle of this viscous apostasy, Jehovah chooses a few

appropriate metaphors. None of which threaten Israel, or Judah with

total separation (divorce as understood by man), or death; to which

they deserved.

They 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 the land be greatly

polluted? But thou has played the harlot with many

lovers; yet return again to me, saith the Lord. Jer.3:1

162 Chapter Five Jesus’ Doctrine

The illustration here is that Israel was put away (divorced) by her

captivity, figuratively given a bill of divorce. She had committed

adultery with a foreign god, and God put her away. She then went

and became the wife of another god, another man. Then in reference

to (Deut 24:1-4) Jehovah annuls the "abomination" and pleads for the

return of His harlot wife. We see here strong evidence that the

thought (divorce-remarriage) of (Deut. 24:1-4) was not God's will.

God says, "they say," indicating that He did not say it. But the

primary concern of the Jeremiah verse is the fact that God accused

the nation of committing adultery, this was certainly not the some

uncleanness, or some indecency or (Deut. 24:1). Adultery was a

capital crime. In the Jeremiah text adultery is only a matter of

divorce. This text certainly does not refer to a direct translation of the

law. It is an illustration of the position of Israel in the eyes of God at

this time, a metaphor. A metaphor cannot be translated literally: "It is

raining cats and dogs"; when interpreting this metaphor we must

translate the entire context of the metaphor as one. In other words we

cannot say, "It is raining cats and rain." The divorce for adultery

metaphor was symbolic language of the captivity of Israel.

Captivity, divorce, was the judgment of Israel for adultery. To add an

additional rebuke to those who see a literal application of the (Deut.

24:1-4) text in (Jer. 3:1) God goes on to says, even though you have

been defiled by another during our separation, return to me. In (Jer.

3:1) the abomination is annulled. Their reunion was holiness. Why?

In spite of Israel's adultery and harlotry, and in spite of her symbolic

divorce, she was married to Jehovah in creation-marriage.

The sword of the law is absent from this text. The adulterer

and adulteress were not executed, but were graciously offered a

pardon. The text is bursting with mercy, and reason: Jehovah argues

that He is married to Israel. He is the faithful Husband. And this

marriage is a creation-marriage. Jeremiah labors to portray the first

love of Israel, her apostasy, her metaphorical divorce, and her offer of

reconciliation:

Go and cry in the hearing of Jerusalem, saying, Thus

saith the Lord, I remember thee, the kindness of thy

youth, the love of thine espousals, when thou

wentest after me in the wilderness, in a land that was

not sown. Israel was holiness unto the Lord, and the

Was God a Divorce´ ? 163

first fruits of his increase; all that devour him shall

offend; evil shall come upon them, saith the Lord.

Hear ye the word of the lord, O house of Jacob, and

all the families of the house of Israel. Jer. 2:2-4

The allusion here is to the betrothal period when Israel was rescued

from the armies of Pharaoh and was romanced by Jehovah God on

the sands of the wilderness. She there became His wife.

Thus saith the Lord, What iniquity have your fathers

found in me, that they are gone far from me, and

have walked after vanity, and are become vain?

Neither said they, Where is the Lord who brought us

up out of the land of Egypt, who led us through the

wilderness, through a land of deserts and of pits,

through a land of drought, and of the shadow of

death, through a land that no man passed through,

and where no man dwelt? And I brought you into a

plentiful country, to eat its fruit and its goodness, but

when ye entered, ye defiled my land, and made mine

heritage an abomination. The priests said not,

Where is the Lord? And they that handle the law

knew me not. The rulers also transgressed against

me, and the prophets prophesied by Baal, and

walked after things that do not profit. Jer. 2:5-8

Here the Northern Kingdom is indicted for adultery, i.e., their

apostasy into the idolatry of Baalism. The prophesying by Baal was

akin to being married to another.

Wherefore, I will yet plead with you, saith the Lord,

and with your children's children will I plead. For

pass over the coasts of Kittim, and see; and send

unto Kedar, and consider diligently, and see if there

be such a thing. Hath a nation changed their gods,

which are yet no gods? But my people have

changed their glory for that which doth not profit.

Be appalled, O ye heavens, at this, and be horribly

afraid, be ye very desolate, saith the Lord. For my

164 Chapter Five Jesus’ Doctrine

people have committed two evils: they have

forsaken me, the fountain of living waters, and

hewed out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no

water. Jer. 2:9-13

The forsaking of God by Israel, the fountain of living waters, and her

adultery were acts of marital violence, but her marrying Baal, the

hewed out (man-made) cistern, was a second and more violent evil.

This act under the law would have prohibited any further

reconciliation. She became the wife of another after a divorce from

her first husband. Thus according to the law she was now defiled to

her original Husband, Jehovah God:

Is Israel a servant? Is he a home-born slave? Why

is he spoiled? The young lions roared upon him, and

yelled, and they made his land waste; his cities are

burned without inhabitant. Also the children of

Memphis and Tahpanhes have broken the crown of

thy head. Hast thou not procured this unto thyself,

in that thou hast forsaken the Lord, thy God, when

he led thee by the way? And now what hast thou to

do in the way of Egypt, to drink the waters of

Shilhor? Or what hast thou to do in the way of

Assyria, to drink the waters of the river? Thine own

wickedness shall correct thee, and thy backslidings

shall reprove thee; know, therefore, and see that it is

an evil thing and bitter, that thou hast forsaken the

Lord, thy God, and that my fear is not in thee, saith

the Lord God of hosts. Jer. 2:14-19

The desolation of Israel is a direct reference to a type of divorce. It

was a divorce which was self inflicted. God permitted her to exercise

her free evil will. He permitted the divorce for which she sued. He

gave her the bill of divorce, she requested. In this sense God never

divorced her.

For of old I have broken thy yoke, and burst thy

bands; and thou saidst, I will not transgress, when

upon every high hill and under every green tree thou

Was God a Divorce´ ? 165

wanderest, playing the harlot. Yet I had planted thee

a noble vine, wholly a right seed. How, then art

thou turned into the degenerate plant of a strange

vine unto me, saith the Lord God. How canst thou

say, I am not polluted, I have not gone after Baalim?

See thy way in the valley, know what thou hast

done; thou art a swift dromedary traversing her

ways, a wild ass used to the wilderness that snuffeth

up the wind at her pleasure; in her occasion who can

turn her away? All they that seek her will not weary

themselves; in her month they shall find her.

Withhold thy foot from being unshod and thy throat

from thirst; but thou saidst, There is no hope. No;

for I have loved strangers, and after them will I go.

As the thief is ashamed when he is found, so is the

house of Israel ashamed; they, their kings, their

princes, and their priests, and their prophets, Saying

to a tree, Thou art my father; and to a stone, Thou

hast brought me forth; for they have turned their

back unto me, and not their face, but in the time of

their trouble they will say, Arise, and save us. But

where are thy gods that thou hast made? Let them

arise, if they trouble; for according to the number of

thy cities are thy gods, O Judah. Why will ye plead

with me? Ye all have transgressed against me, saith

the Lord. In vain have I smitten your children; they

received no correction. Your own sword hath

devoured your prophets, like a destroying lion.

Jer. 2:20-30

The nation has been plainly caught in the bed of adultery, and that

with her lover, Baalim. Furthermore, she claims that her adulterous

marriage is not “polluted.” In her imagination her adultery was a

holy religious experience. But God tells her, "For though thou wash

thee with lye, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked

before me, saith the Lord God.

O generation, see the word of the Lord. Have I

been a wilderness unto Israel? A land of darkness?

166 Chapter Five Jesus’ Doctrine

Why do my people say, We are lords; we will come

no more unto thee? Can a maid forget her

ornaments, or a bride her attire? Yet my people

have forgotten me days without number. Why

trimmest thou thy way to seek love? Therefore hast

thou also taught the wicked ones thy ways. Also in

thy skirts is found the blood of the souls of the poor

innocents; I have not found it by secret search, but

upon all these. Yet thou sayest, Because I am

innocent, surely his anger shall turn from me.

Behold, I will plead with thee, because thou sayest, I

have not sinned. Why gaddest thou about so much

to change thy way? Thou also wast ashamed of

Assyria. Yea, thou shalt go forth from him, and thine

hands upon thine head; for the Lord hath rejected thy

confidences, and thou shalt not prosper in them.

Jer. 2:31-37

Her apostasy was preceded by fornication, she trimmed her ways to

"seek love." She left her wedding gown behind.

They 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 thou hast played the harlot with many

lovers; yet return again to me, saith the Lord. Lift

up thine eyes unto the high places, and see where

thou hast not been lain with. In the ways hast thou

sat for them, as the Arabian in the wilderness; and

thou hast polluted the land with thy harlotry and

with thy wickedness. Therefore, the showers have

been withheld, and there hath been no latter rain;

and thou refusedst to be ashamed. Wilt thou not

from this time cry unto me, My Father, thou art the

guide of my youth? [see Mal. 2:14 "wife of thy

youth"] Will he reserve his anger forever? Will he

keep it to the end? Behold, thou hast spoken and

done evil things as thou couldest. Jer. 3:1-6

Was God a Divorce´ ? 167

Israel had been metaphorically divorced and remarried. Now God

says, "They say", regarding the abomination of (Deut. 24:1-4). It was

not his will. The "They" of the verse refers to Moses as the author of

the permissive section of the law. For Israel in her marriage to

Jehovah, the abomination did not exist. It did not exist because her

marriage was eternal; it was permanent creation-marriage. He was

the Guide of her youth; in her youth she was his bride.

The Lord said also unto me in the days of Josiah, the

king, Hast thou seen that which backsliding Israel

hath done? She is gone up upon 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, yet her

treacherous sister, Judah, feared not, but went and

played the harlot also. And it came to pass through

the lightness of her harlotry, that she defiled the

land, and committed adultery with stones and with

trees. And yet for all this her treacherous sister,

Judah, hath not turned unto me with her whole heart,

but feignedly, saith the Lord. And the Lord said

unto me, The backsliding Israel hath justified herself

more than treacherous Judah. Jer. 3: 6-11

Judah, the southern kingdom, is indicted for adultery. The entire

nation is equally guilty of capital crimes and of those "certain acts"

which caused her to be metaphorically divorced, entering into further

liaisons that prohibited her return to her husband, Jehovah (Deut. 24:4

the abomination). It is said here that God, "had put her away, and

given her a bill of divorce." Her putting away, and bill of divorce

was her captivity and destruction by Assyria. These were temporary

chastenings, not permanent judgments as the law permitted under

divorce. Had God actually wrote a bill of divorcement He would

have had no further authority over His wife. She would have been

permitted to be wife of another. But she was never so permitted. This

is evidence that Jehovah never endorsed (Deut. 24:1-4) as a legal

168 Chapter Five Jesus’ Doctrine

divorce procedure.

Go and proclaim these words toward the north, and

say, Return thou backsliding Israel, saith the Lord,

and I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you; for

I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep

anger forever. Only acknowledge thine iniquity, that

thou hast transgressed against the Lord, thy God,

and hast scattered thy ways to the strangers under

every green tree, and ye have not obeyed my voice,

saith the Lord. Turn, O backsliding children, saith

the Lord; for I am married unto you

Jer. 3:12-14a

Her acts of adultery and uncleanness reaped neither divorce,

execution, nor the abomination of (Deut. 24:1-4). Jehovah, her

Husband, pleaded for her return. After her adultery, and uncleanness,

Jehovah speaks, "I am married unto you." The metaphor of divorce

is only a gentle rebuke to the temporary captivity with which He

chastised His beloved wife, Israel. God did not practice divorce at

all. God was not a divorce´. He was forever married to Israel.

Some may argue, that since God employs a metaphor of

divorce in which he actually offers Israel a "bill of divorce", then

divorce is not a sin, because God certainly cannot sin. Please

remember, as we explained, divorce was the practice of men; men

with hard sinful hearts. A custom which was known and accepted by

sinful man as a right which he attributed to his concept of self

sovereignty. Jehovah, by employing the custom of divorce as a

metaphor, was merely using a teaching tool. As a master of

pedagogy, He was taking the people from the known to the unknown.

Because God used a teaching metaphor, does not mean that He

literally committed the metaphor. As we said, Israel had committed

spiritual adultery. The metaphor of adultery would be complete only

with the death of Israel. God did not subject Israel to the law, and

stone them to death. Neither did he literally divorce his beloved wife,

His companion.

Turn, O backsliding children, saith the Lord; for I

am married unto you. Jer.3:14

Was God a Divorce´ ? 169

Mr. Jay E. Adams, in his most unusual style, has come on

with the doctrine that God practiced divorce and therefore Christians

have the right to practice divorce within the limits of God's use. "If

God Himself became involved in divorce proceedings with Israel, it

is surely wrong to condemn any and all divorce out of hand."

174

Edward G. Dobson, parrots Adam’s:

If the act of divorce is sin, then why would God

utilize this as an analogy of His relationship to

Israel? Further, why would God threaten Israel with

a bill of divorcement? Since God cannot sin, then

the answer to these questions is that the act of

divorce is not an act of sin.

175

It is remarkable that these writers deny God the use of the metaphor,

where even secular writers could see the possibility of permitting

such use. Don't we all use figures of speech while not endorsing their

picture. What parent hasn't said something to the effect to their child,

"I'll skin you alive." Do we accuse these parents of threatening to

flail their children. Although more conservative, John MacArthur

also follows their school of thought:

So even God divorced. And that's important,

because God does not do things that aren't right.

God doesn't give us living illustrations of His own

behavior that we can't follow. That's why it grieves

me that people will say, There are no grounds for

divorce

176

Is MacArthur sure of this? A careful study will reveal that God is not

divorced. And that is important. There are no grounds for divorce of

creation-marriage, which is the foundation of the covenant marriage

of God with Israel. MacArthur goes on to accuse God of divorce:

"Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will

make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and

with the house of Judah." Do you know what He's

going to do? He's going to get married again—to

170 Chapter Five Jesus’ Doctrine

Israel. Verse 32 says, "Not according to the

covenant that I made with their father in the day that

I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land

of Egypt, which, my covenant, they broke, although

I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord." Now

that affirms that God was no longer their husband,

doesn't it? But He will remarry them and make a

new covenant.

177

No, this does not affirm that God was no longer the Husband of

Israel. The metaphor does not literally mean that the event was a

historical fact. Jehovah told us that "my covenant, they broke,

although I was a husband unto them, saith the Lord." His use of

divorce, putting away, and the bill of divorce were metaphors

intended to chasten Israel to re-think there waywardness. The idea

that God divorced and remarried Israel after she was the wife of

another is to accuse God of committing the sin of abomination (Deut.

24:1-4). To defend this conclusion with pseudo scholarship is

unfortunate. The idea that God divorced Israel and remarried her is

totally unacceptable. Keil and Delitzsch agree, making the following

comment:

In this view Jerome translates the reception anew of

the people being given under the figure of a new

marriage. This acceptation is not suitable to the

[text], for this, even if taken prophetically, cannot

refer to a renewal of marriage which is to take place

in the future. The [text] can be referred only to the

marriage of Israel at the conclusion of the covenant

on Sinai, and must be translated accordingly: I am

your husband, or: I have wedded you to me. This is

demanded by the [text] for the summons to repent

cannot give as its motive some future act of God, but

must point to that covenant relationship founded in

the past, which, though suspended for a time

, was

not wholly broken up.

178

The use of the metaphor is seen again in the vision of Isaiah,

and the life of Hosea:

Was God a Divorce´ ? 171

Thus saith the Lord: Where is the bill of your

mother's divorcement, whom I have put away? Or

which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you?

Behold, for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves,

and for your transgressions is your mother put away.

Isa. 50:1

The only bill of divorce was the captivity of Israel and Judah which

of course, God did not write. They could not produce a bill of

divorce, Jehovah never divorced His bride. Did God literally sell

Israel to their creditors? No. The nation sold herself, figuratively, to

her creditors: Assyria, and Babylon. Did God literally divorce Israel?

No. The nation divorced herself from Jehovah through her

transgressions. Jehovah God “temporarily” suspended his

everlasting covenant with Israel.

Hosea carried the divorce metaphor into a literal illustration,

and that of his own married life:

The beginning of the word of the Lord by Hosea.

And the Lord said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a

wife of harlotry and children of harlotry; for the land

hath committed great harlotry, departing from the

Lord. So he went and took Gomer... who conceived

and bore him a son, Jezreel for yet a little while, and

I will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of

Jehu, and will cause to cease the kingdom of the

house of Israel. And she conceived again, and bore a

daughter, Lohruhamah ... Now when she had

weaned Loruhamah, she conceived, and bore a son,

Loammi. Hosea 1:1-9

The prophet was to make the divorce metaphor a literal visual aid.

Before the days of photography, Jehovah's prophets often used their

lives as pictures when preaching God's message. Some may argue

whether the marriage of the prophet with an adulterous woman,

which is twice commanded by God, is to be regarded as a marriage

that was actually consummated, or merely as an internal occurrence,

172 Chapter Five Jesus’ Doctrine

or as a parabolical representation

179

, but this writer believes that the

powerful force of a prophet who literally lives with a wife of harlotry

serves as the perfect picture of Israel, the harlot wife of Jehovah.

This is an overwhelming picture of the truth of God's unthinkable

marriage to Israel; as was Hosea’s marriage to Gomer. The simple

language of the text supports the actual consummation view which

seems a fitting message from Jehovah to his sinful wife. Further the

children of that marriage certainly appear to be literally born, and are

given names which suggest judgment for the purpose of conveying

God's message: Jezreel, (scattered), the judgment of the northern

kingdom; Loruhamah, (unpitied), no mercy to the northern kingdom;

Loammi, (not my people), you are not my people, and I will not be

your God.

The one unmistakable theme throughout the book of Hosea is

that this adulterous wife in not judged; divorced or put to death. She

is not totally destroyed. She is not stoned to death. But she is wooed

as a virgin. Chapter one begins by portraying Israel in the wife of the

prophet as a harlot and her offspring as children of judgment.

Remarkably it ends with a beautiful scene of complete restoration:

Yet, the number of the children of Israel shall be like

the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor

numbered; and it shall come to pass that, 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. Then shall the children of Judah and

the children of Israel be gathered together, and

appoint themselves one head, and they shall come up

out of the land; for great shall be the day of Jezreel.

Hosea 1:10,11

It must be pointed out that although the judgment of Israel would be

severe, as noted in the meaning of the names of Hosea's children,

there is also an unconditional promise of complete and full restoration

for both the northern kingdom, Israel, and the southern kingdom,

Judah. The putting away in the divorce metaphor was figurative for a

temporary chastisement of Ephraim, the northern kingdom, and her

adulterous sister Judah. It certainly was not the finality of legal

marital divorce as practiced by the ancients, the west, and the church

Was God a Divorce´ ? 173

today. Alexander MacLaren makes these fitting comments regarding

the chastening of Israel found in Hosea:

I must begin by explaining what, in my judgment,

this text does not mean. First, it is not what it is

often taken to be, a threatening of God's abandoning

of the idolatrous nation ... the very fact Hosea was

prophesying to call Ephraim from his sin showed

that God had not let Ephraim alone, but was wooing

him by His prophet, and seeking to win him back by

the words of his mouth. God was doing all that He

could do, rising early and sending His messenger

and calling to Ephraim: 'Turn ye! Turn ye! Why will

ye die?' For Hosea, in the very act of pleading with

Israel on God's behalf, to have declared that God had

abandoned it, and ceased to plead, would have been

a palpable absurdity and contradiction.

180

Chapter two begins with Hosea speaking to Gomer of divorce

and chastisement. As we shall see this was only a metaphoric

divorce, a temporary punishment.

Plead with your mother, plead; for she is not my

wife, neither am I her husband. Let her, therefore,

put away her harlotry out of her sight, and her

adulteries from between her breasts. Hosea 2:2

In (v. 19) the prophet then begins to drift into a direct discourse with

Israel, as is customary of biblical prophecy. Jehovah becomes

completely personified in the spirit of the prophet, and Jehovah

speaks to His nation. In a spirit of jealousy God, declaring that

although the nation had apostatized to the point of calling Jehovah,

Baali, they would be restored and call him Ishi, my husband. And

then he drifts into a beautiful song which Jehovah sings to His lady,

speaking to her with the language of love:

And I will betroth [woo as a virgin] thee unto me

forever; yea, I will betroth thee unto me in

righteousness, and in justice, and in loving-kindness,

174 Chapter Five Jesus’ Doctrine

and in mercies. I will even betroth thee unto me in

faithfulness; and thou shalt know the Lord. And it

shall come to pass in that day, I will hear, saith the

Lord, I will hear the heavens, and they shall hear the

earth; And the earth shall hear the grain, and the

wine, and the oil; and they shall hear Jezreel. And I

will sow her unto me in the earth; and I will have

mercy upon her that had not obtained mercy; and I

will say to them who were not my people, Thou art

my people, and they shall say, Thou art my God.

Hosea 2:19ff

The chastening, putting away of Ephraim, was certainly not divorce.

Keil and Delitzsch agree:

But as God the Lord has no pleasure in the death of

the sinner, but that he should turn and live, He

would not exterminate the rebellious tribes [Israel]

of the people of His possession from the earth, or put

them away for ever from His face, but would

humble them deeply by severe and long-continued

chastisement... Consequently, even in the book of

Hosea, promises go side by side with threatenings

and announcements of punishment, and that not

merely as the general hope of better days, kept

continually before the corrected nation by the all-

pitying love of Jehovah, which forgives even

faithlessness, and seeks out that which has gone

astray, but in the form of a very distinct

announcement of the eventual restoration of the

nation, when corrected by punishment, and returning

in sorrow and repentance to the Lord it’s God, and to

David it’s king (ch. iii.5)—an announcement

founded upon the inviolable character of the divine

covenant of grace, and rising up to the thought that

the Lord will also redeem from hell and save from

death, yea, will destroy both death and hell (ch.

xiii.14). Because Jehovah had married Israel in His

covenant of grace, but Israel, like an unfaithful wife,

Was God a Divorce´ ? 175

had broken the covenant with its God, and gone a

whoring after idols, God, by virtue of the holiness of

His love, must punish its unfaithfulness and

apostasy. His love, however, would not destroy, but

would save that which was lost. This love bursts out

in the flame of holy wrath, which burns in all the

threatening and reproachful addresses of Hosea.

181

In chapter three Hosea is asked to take the wife back whom he had

divorced and to love her in spite of the fact that she had committed

adultery:

Then said the Lord unto me, Go yet, love a woman

beloved of her friend, yet and adulteress, according

to the love of the Lord toward the children of Israel,

who look to other gods and love cakes of raisins.

Hos. 3:1

Initially Hosea secretly supplies Gomer will all her needs. She

unwittingly believes she is being sponsored by her lovers. Then

Hosea removes his support, leaving her to be caught in a society

without any wealth but the flesh of her life. She is reduced to a slave

and is auctioned for a price. As Jehovah remained the husband of

Israel even though she committed adultery, so Hosea purchases her

from the auction block and restores Gomer to the full status of a

beloved wife:

So, I bought [redeemed] her for myself for fifteen

pieces of silver, and for an homer of barley, and an

half homer of barley. And I said unto her, Thou

shalt abide for me many days; thou shalt not play the

harlot, and thou shalt not be for another man; so will

I also be for thee. Hos. 3:2-3

The book then drifts back to a full dissertation between Jehovah and

Israel. The tender and amiable language of the book speaks of the

love Jehovah has for his adulterous wife. A wife who did not deserve

His affection, but as Keil and Delitzsch comment, "by pointing out

the unfaithfulness which Israel has displayed towards its God from

176 Chapter Five Jesus’ Doctrine

the very earliest times, the prophet shows that it has deserved nothing

but destruction from off the face of the earth."

182

But to the contrary,

God's love faileth not:

I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I

will redeem them from death. O death, I will be thy

plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction;

repentance shall be hidden from my eyes.

Hosea 13:14

I will heal their backsliding, I will love them freely;

for mine anger is turned away from him. I will be as

the dew unto Israel; he shall grow like the lily, and

cast forth his roots like Lebanon. His branches shall

spread, and his beauty shall be like the olive tree,

and his fragrance like Lebanon. Hosea 14:4-6

Hosea did not practice divorce. God did not practice divorce. It does

appear that Hosea put Gomer away in the beginning of chapter two:

"Say ye unto your brethren, Ammi; and to your sisters, Ruhamah.

Plead with your mother, plead; for she is not my wife, neither am I

her husband." In chapter three however he immediately takes her

back on the command of God: "Then saith the Lord unto me, go yet,

love a woman beloved of her friend, yet an adulteress, according to

the love of the Lord toward the children of Israel... So, I bought

[redeemed] her for myself for fifteen pieces of silver." God's divorce

scenario certainly did not match the scenario of (Deut. 24), and it did

not match the judgment of (Deut. 22:22), i.e., death for adultery. But

putting that aside for a moment and conceding that the metaphor met

the divorce criteria, we can say that: Yes, Hosea was metaphorically

divorced. And metaphorically it rains cats and dogs. But please dear

reader don't teach anyone that use of the metaphor means that cats

and dogs fall from the sky, or that you are going to report the woman

down the street to the police because she said she was going to “skin

her children alive.” As a loving mother metaphorically skins her

children alive, so God metaphorically divorced his beloved wife. But

to accuse Him of committing literal divorce is to accuse the loving

mother of murder because she metaphorically skinned her children

alive. Hosea was not a divorce´. God was not a divorce´ : "For the

Was God a Divorce´ ? 177

Lord, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away [divorce]"

(Mal. 2:16). Metaphors are figures of speech, and are used to permit

the speaker the liberty to drive home his thought by creating a picture

of the idea. God is not a divorce´, and it does not rain cats and dogs.

Ezra, Nehemiah, and Malachi

One common denominator of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Malachi

was the doctrine of Jewish-Creation-Marriage. As we said earlier,

the vehicle of the Messiah was in the hands of the administrators of

Jewish marriage. The contemporaneousness of Ezra, the scribe,

Nehemiah, the governor, and Malachi, the prophet, is without

question. Ezra and Nehemiah are co-workers in their ministry,

causing the ancients to refer to their writings as a single volume:

Ezra-Nehemiah. Some scholars even believe that Ezra was Malachi,

although this is not true, it nevertheless reveals the context linking the

messages of these men.

183

These three prophets were equally perplexed with the

conduct of the Jewish remnant returning to Jerusalem. While in

Babylon the children of Israel learned the custom of the heathen—

divorce with remarriage, and marriage with the heathen. The latter

prohibition was to ensure that the Messiah was Jewish, the seed of

David. In God's wisdom He saw a Jewish child as the only hope for

the world. Consequently, when these prophets found divorce,

remarriage, and heathen-remarriage in the ranks of Israel, they began

barking. Ezra pulled his hair out, Nehemiah pulled out the hair of the

offenders, and Malachi warns the guilty that God will "cut off" those

who divorced their Jewish wives and married the daughters of the

heathen. Some see the marriage account of Ezra and Malachi as one,

nevertheless there is ample evidence that they describe two separate

accounts of marital apostasy in Israel. But the one cohesive element

is Jewish-marital corruption. On the one hand Jewish men were found

to have married heathen women and some had illegitimate (non-

Jewish) children by them; and on the other some had divorced their

Jewish wives and had taken up home-making with heathen wives.

While Ezra was in prayer, distressed about the problem of the

mixed marriages, some of which produced offspring, Shecaniah

offered a remarkable solution, "Now, therefore, let us make a

covenant with our God to put away all the wives, and such as are

178 Chapter Five Jesus’ Doctrine

born of them, according to the counsel of my lord, and of those who

tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according

to the law." The Jewish Publication Societies translation of the Holy

Scriptures according to the Masoretic Text translates the phrase

"according to the counsel of my lord" as "as according to the counsel

of my LORD", indicating that Shecaniah was, for the moment at

least, a prophet. Kiel and Delitzsch agree making this statement

regarding the phrase:

Instead of, according to the counsel of my Lord, De

Wette, Bertheau, and others, following the

paraphrase in the LXX. and 1 Esdras, read,

according to the counsel of my lord, i.e., of Ezra.

But this paraphrase being of no critical authority,

there is no sufficient reason for the alteration. For

Shecaniah to call Ezra my lord sounds strange, since

usually this title was only given by servants to their

master, or subjects to their sovereign, and Shecaniah

afterwards addresses him simply as thou. Besides,

Ezra had given no advice at all in this matter, and

still less had he come to any resolution about it with

the God-fearing members of the community.

184

The solution included the putting away of both the strange women

and their children. Keil and Delitzsch comment, "Separation from

women who already have children is far more grievous than parting

with childless wives."

185

The repentance suggested by Shecaniah

was referred to as evangelical repentance or true repentance by the

puritan preacher, John Colquhoun

186

(1748-1827), that all repentance

must depart from all ungodliness or it is not repentance;

consequently, repentance needs no adjectives.

The putting away of these woman and their children appears

to be a simple matter of divorce, after all the act of "putting away"

refers to divorce. The comment made by Shecaniah, "and of those

who tremble at the commandment of our God, and let it be done

according to the law," means that the act is proscribed in the law. But

you may ask where? He cannot be referencing (Deut. 24), for as we

explained there is no commandment there. The only commandment

he could be referring to is (Deut. 7:1-11):

Was God a Divorce´ ? 179

When the Lord thy God shall bring thee into the land

where thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out

many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the

Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites,

and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites,

seven nations greater and mightier than thou, and

when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before

thee, thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy

them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor

show mercy unto them. Neither shalt thou make

marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not

give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take

unto thy son. For they will turn away thy son from

following me, that they may serve other gods; so

will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you,

and destroy thee suddenly. But thus shall ye deal

with them: ye shall destroy their altars, and break

down their images, and cut down their idols, and

burn their carved images with fire. For thou art an

holy people unto the Lord thy God; the Lord thy

God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto

himself, above all people who are upon the face of

the earth. The Lord did not set his love upon you,

nor choose you, because ye were more in number

than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people.

But because the Lord loved you, and because he

would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your

fathers, hath the Lord brought you out with a mighty

hand, and redeemed you out of the house of

bondage, from the hand of Pharaoh, king of Egypt.

Know, therefore, that the Lord thy God, he is God,

the faithful God, who keepeth covenant and mercy

with them who love him and keep his

commandments to a thousand generations, and

repayeth them who hate him to their face, to destroy

them; he will not be slack to him who hateth him; he

will repay him to his face. Thou shalt, therefore,

keep the commandments, and the statutes, and the

180 Chapter Five Jesus’ Doctrine

ordinances, which I command thee this day, to do

them. Deut. 7:1- 11

Israel was to "utterly destroy" their heathen neighbors, being

forbidden to make any covenant with them especially a marriage

covenant. Some have reasonably concluded that if the only

relationship the Israelite’s were permitted to have with these seven

heathen nations was that of annihilator, then all other relationships

were void; consequently, the heathen marriages of Ezra would be

considered "unreal marriages." Heth and Wenham note, "As early as

1890, George Rawlinson observed:”

It is quite clear that [Ezra] read the Law as

absolutely prohibitive of mixed marriages (Ezra ix.

10-14)—i.e. as not only forbidding their inception,

but their continuance. Strictly speaking, he probably

looked upon them as unreal marriages, and so as no

better than ordinary illicit connections. For the evils

which flow from such unions, those who make them,

and not those who break them, are responsible.

187

They go on to explain the meaning of the Hebrew words employed by

Ezra:

In Ezra's eyes this was not a question of breaking up

legitimate marriages but of nullifying those which

were contrary to the law. This is further suggested

by the two Hebrew words Ezra chose to describe

these 'marriages' (nasa and yasab*)

188

and the

'divorce´ terminology he employs.

189

Ezra was a

scribe skilled in the law of Moses' (Ezra 7:6). He

studied, practiced and taught it in Israel (v. 10). Yet

he employs out-of-the-ordinary terminology to

describe the 'marrying' ('taking') and the 'divorcing'

('sending away') of these women. Furthermore, how

could these Israelites have made a covenant with

God (Ezra 10:3) to put away their legal 'wives' if it is

true that Scripture portrays marriage as a covenant

made between husband and wife in the presence of

Was God a Divorce´ ? 181

God? Ezra's prayer seems to indicate further that

'intermarriage' had not yet actually taken place (cf.

Ezra 9:2 with 9:14).

190

John MacArthur agrees, "There's a sense here in which God doesn't

even recognize these marriages."

191

The concept of "unreal

marriages" sounds a note with Agustine's "adulterous marriages,"

192

which we will address later. As for now, "unreal marriages" are a

distinct possibility, and if so, Heth and Wenham are correct, "For the

evils which flow from such unions, those who make them, and not

those who break them, are responsible." It must be noted that

although the separation of the wives with children is especially

difficult, it nevertheless was the fruit of true repentance.

The concept of "unreal marriages" is simple. A marriage

within the forbidden degrees would be "unreal"; or a matter of

incestuous or consanguineous marriage. A marriage to a previously

divorced wife who had another husband during the interim was

"unreal" or an abomination. Therefore a marriage to a person who

was to be annihilated would have been an "unreal" marriage, or an

abomination. Augustine refers to marriages built on adultery as

"unreal" or "adulterous marriages." In each case the shame of sin

belongs to him who unites such marriages not to him who puts them

asunder. These "unreal" marriages simply are not joined together by

God, and they should be put away. Since these "unreal" marriages

were never marriages their disunion cannot legally meet the

definition of divorce; however, the term divorce would be appropriate

in the common meaning of the act. But to justify the act of divorce

on the basis of the Ezra text is wrong. Technically there was no

divorce in Ezra, it was legal abandonment, legal separation.

Ezra's prayer is answered and the Israelites including clergy

separate from their foreign wives and children. Lanely, referencing

Wright, places Ezra in Jerusalem with the mixed marriage problem in

458 B.C.

193

, and he places Nehemiah in Jerusalem facing the same

problem in 444 B.C.,

194

just a mere fourteen years later. Laney

states, "Unfortunately, the temptation to intermarry continued to

plague the restoration community."

195

As mentioned, Nehemiah

rather than yank his hair out, chose to yank the hair out of those who

defied God's law of separation. It apparently worked, for Nehemiah

states that, "I cleansed them from all foreigners." We are not told

182 Chapter Five Jesus’ Doctrine

how he cleansed the defiled lot, perhaps he used the Ezra formula, a

logical rather than a legal divorce. It should be noted that the mixed

marriages of Nehemiah included defiled foreign children, and since

he cleansed them from all foreigners, we can assume that the defiled

children were put away with their mothers.

Providing that he is in fact not Ezra

196

, Malachi brings us the

final saga of the Israelite propensity toward "unreal" marriage in his

writings. Surprisingly, Malachi's account is of particular interest, for

it unexpectedly reads like a NT text. It is for this reason that some

object to the traditional understanding of the text:

Have we not all one father? Hath not one God

created us? Why do we deal treacherously, every

man against his brother, by profaning the covenant

of our fathers? Judah hath dealt treacherously, and

an abomination is committed in Israel and in

Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of

the Lord which he loved, and hath married the

daughter of a foreign god. The Lord will cut off the

man that doeth this, the master and the scholar, out

of the tabernacles of Jacob, and him that offereth an

offering unto the Lord of hosts. And this have ye

done again, covering the altar of the Lord with tears,

with weeping, and with crying out, insomuch that he

regardeth not the offering any more, or receiveth it

with good will at your hand.

Yet ye say, Why? Because the Lord hath been

witness between thee and the wife of thy youth,

against whom thou hast dealt treacherously; yet is

she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.

And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of

the spirit. And why one? That he might seek a

godly seed. Therefore, take heed to your spirit, and

let none deal treacherously against the wife of his

youth. For the Lord, the God of Israel, saith that he

hateth putting away; for one covereth violence with

his garment, saith the Lord of hosts; therefore, take

heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.

Was God a Divorce´ ? 183

Mal. 2: 10-16

Able Isaksson, for one, labors to explain this text metaphorically or

what is referred to as the cultic interpretation. Here Israel's marriage

to the daughter foreign god is explained by Isaksson to be a symbolic

description of Israel's embracement of idolatry. He makes a point of

the obscurity of the text and that he believes v.15 is corrupt.

197

But

regardless of this one obscure text the entire treatise of Malachi has a

literal format referring directly to Jacob, Easu, Levi, God's covenant

with Israel, God's immutability, the sudden coming of the Forerunner,

the people robbing God of tithes, he rebukes adulterers, and predicts

the coming Day of the Lord.

Most commentators agree that in this text for a Jewish man to

act "treacherously" meant that he divorced the wife of his youth, and

married a younger foreign woman. This traitorous act of no longer

cleaving to their wives was being committed by many Israelites,

priests included, and is fiercely attached by Malachi. He explains the

reason for his anger. God had chosen the nation to be a holy nation; a

nation which would be a blessing to all other peoples; a nation that

married Jehovah in holy covenant. The chosen covenant nation which

would be the progenitors of the holy seed, the Infant Son of

Bethlehem. By departing from the wives of their youth and marrying

foreign women the nation was breaking their covenant marriage with

Jehovah, falling into idolatry, and corrupting Jewish creation

marriage, the ultimate hope of mankind; that would bring forth the

victorious “seed of the woman” Gen. 3:15 the Messiah the Savior of

mankind.

Isaksson, disbelieves that Israel understood monogamous

marriage at this time, but the text betrays his belief. Even though he

believes the text to be corrupt he has severe problems with the

question in v.15, "And did he not make one?" Most commentators

see this as a reference to (Gen. 2:24), "Therefore shall a man leave his

father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall

be one flesh." This combined with v.16, "For the Lord, the God of

Israel saith that he hateth putting away," drive home the truth of

monogamy, the single pair.

An interesting comment regarding the question of: "Whom

hath God joined together?", is answered here; He hath joined

together all "real" marriages. In v.14 we are told that God was a

184 Chapter Five Jesus’ Doctrine

witness between the marriage which these Jews had contracted with

the wives of their youth; these earlier wives were their true wives.

Their first marriage was a covenant between the Jewish man and a

Jewish woman, and witnessed by God. Keil and Delitzsch make this

comment regarding the sacredness of the marriage ceremony:

The words, "because Jehovah was a witness between

thee and the wife of thy youth," cannot be

understood as Ges., Umbreit, and Koehler assume,

in accordance with ch. iii.5, as signifying that

Jehovah had interposed between them as an

avenging witness; for in that case דיצה

 would

necessarily be construed with ב but they refer to the

fact that the marriage took place before the face of

God, or with looking up to God; and the objection

that nothing is known of any religious benediction at

the marriage, or of any mutual vow of fidelity, is

merely an argumentum a silentio, which proves

nothing. If the marriage was a b

rith ' Elohim (a

covenant of God), as described in Prov. ii.17 [Who

forsaketh the guide of her youth, and forgetteth the

covenant of her God], it was also concluded before

the face of God, and God was a witness to the

marriage. With the expression "wife of thy youth"

the prophet appeals to the heart of the husband,

pointing to the love of his youth with which the

marriage had been entered into; and so also in the

circumstantial clause, through which he brings to the

light the faithless treatment of the wife in putting her

away; "Yet she was thy companion, who shared thy

joy and sorrow, and the wife of thy covenant, with

whom thou didst make a covenant for life."

198

The exasperating thing about these blessed marriages was that the

Jewish men mentioned had dealt treacherously with their wives,

divorcing them. The pleasing thing about these divorced wives was

the fact that God saw the divorcees as still married, “yet is she thy

companion, and the wife of thy covenant.” That divorce was not

recognized by the Lord God.

Was God a Divorce´ ? 185

The next statement of the text presents a most startling

element to those who hold a divorce view, "for the Lord, the God of

Israel, saith he hateth putting away." At the mention of the God of

Israel hating divorce, the commentators start a flurry of quick

reflections. But what has been said is said, The God of Israel hates

divorce! Throughout this treatise we have laid the explanation for this

cry. Slowly, layer by layer the flesh has been removed from the

breast of God and now His heart is fully revealed to the eyes of the

world. God cries out, "I love creation-marriage, I hate divorce." As

a mother bear closing in to revenge an assault on her cubs, the God of

these Israelite divorced women was raging with fury to establish

justice. The treacherous act of divorcing these women caused the

altar of Israel to catch the tears and the voices of these weeping

women. Their cries caused God to condemn their Jewish husbands,

"I will cut off (kill) the man that doeth this, the master and the

scholar." God continues His indictment, He accuses these men of

wearing blood stained garments, "for one covereth violence with his

garment." His cries will not stop until He intercedes, He will send a

special messenger (the Baptist) to correct the problem of "adulterous

and unreal marriages", divorce and remarriage. The nation had fallen

into the decay of sin causing it to threaten the only hope of mankind,

creation-marriage and Bethlehem. God would now intercede:

Ye have wearied the Lord with your words. Yet ye

say, In what way have we wearied him? When ye

say, Every one that doeth evil is good in the sight of

the Lord, and he delighted in them; or, Where is the

God of justice? Behold, I will send my messenger,

and he shall prepare the way before me; and the

Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his

temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom

ye delight in; behold, he shall come, saith the Lord

of hosts. But who may abide the day of his coming?

And who shall stand when he appeareth? For he is

like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap. And he

shall sit like a refiner and purifier of silver; and he

shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them like

gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an

offering in righteousness. Then shall the offering of

186 Chapter Five Jesus’ Doctrine

Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the Lord, as in

the days of old, and as in former years. And I will

come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift

witness against the sorcerers, and against the

adulterers, and against false swearers, and against

those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the

widow, and the fatherless, and that turn aside the

sojourner from his right, and fear not me, saith the

Lord of hosts. For I am the Lord, I change not;

therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

Mal. 2:17-3:6

God was angry with divorce. He hateth putting away. He will

answer their query, "Where is the God of Justice?" He will send His

messenger, who shall prepare the way before Him, and then He, the

Lord, shall suddenly come. The prophet could not see the Day of

Grace for the Day of the Lord. Nevertheless, God's anger would

reveal itself universally. He was angry will all men, everywhere.

Then He sent John the Baptist to make his path straight. One of the

primary ways of the Lord was creation-marriage. John the Baptist

was sent to make the way of creation-marriage straight. His sermon:

"Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Here Malachi cries

against adultery. His cries were provoked by those who dealt

treacherously divorcing their wives. Malachi calls on his hearers to

repent; to return to the ordinance of the Lord, the ordinance of

creation-marriage: "Even from the days of your fathers ye are gone

away from mine ordinances, and have not kept them. Return unto me

[Repent], and I will return unto you, saith the Lord of hosts."

God sent John the Baptist to restore, among other things,

creation-marriage. In his effort to do just that he was required to

place his bloodied head and tongue on a platter of silver which was

his final sermon against divorce, and remarriage: the incest of Herod.

The marriage covenant is a natural symbol of God's

covenants, especially His covenant with the nation He married, Israel.

For a man to break his marriage covenant is diametrically opposed to

the nature of God. He would never break his covenant with Jacob:

"For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not

consumed. God was not a divorce´? A thousand times, NO!

CHAPTER SIX

What Is Jesus’ Doctrine Of Marriage, Divorce, and

Remarriage?

It is a delight to consider the theme of marriage in the

N.T. Like its O.T. counterpart the N.T. doctrine of marriage

endorses and demonstrates the sound doctrine of creation-

marriage, and like the O.T. where marriage is used typically for

Jehovah’s marriage to Israel, so the N.T. speaks of the union of

Christ and His Church as the ultimate marriage; raising marriage

as the final eternal state, while fully defending its original

meaning—Again this treatise does not teach sacramental

marriage; the act by which grace is acquired. In the doctrine of

salvation by Grace we learn that our eternal security, is directly

proportional to our union with Christ; the Scriptures refer to this

union as a marriage. Our Salvation is by Grace through Faith,

not of Works, lest any man should boast; it is permanent,

inseparable, and indissoluble; just as Creation-Marriage. Divorce

is non-existent and incomprehensible to creation-marriage;

therefore remarriage after divorce is even more non-existent, and

more incomprehensible—if that is possible. Thus any union of

the married after divorce of a living partner is adultery. There is

no salvation in the act of adultery. Permit me to explain. By

permitting remarriage after divorce the church is condoning the

continual act of adultery—that is to permit willful sin. There is

no forgiveness for willful sin but a certain fearful judgement

(Heb. 10:26,27). To teach that adultery on the part of the married

is a license for divorce and remarriage is to teach that the first

marriage is dissolved by adultery. The exact doctrine one thus

teaches is that the original married adulterer is a dead partner—

that is the Westminister Confession. Thus the Law of Moses has

been exercised and the believer is living under the doctrine of the

188 Chapter Six Jesus’ Doctrine

Works of the Law. Thus the church that teaches a doctrine that

permits divorce and remarriage is teaching legalism and has

applied the doctrine of works for salvation, i.e. there is salvation

for those who continuously continue in the sin of adultery. The

problem here is that the original married adulterer is living thus

the church is permitting the remarried innocent partner to commit

willful adultery under their false doctrine of remarriage; a

doctrine they claim is Biblical. Mixing the doctrine of the Works

of the Law with the Doctrine of Grace inevitably leads to

teaching only the doctrine of works; i.e. you can work on your

sin; where as the doctrine of Grace declares that you must repent

of your sin—this is an altogether different doctrine. Under the

doctrine of Grace the innocent partner must extend to the guilty

partner the offer of Grace, i.e. to offer the opportunity of

repentance and restoration of the marriage till death does them

part.

As we learned in the close of the O.T. creation-marriage

reigned viable in spite of the onslaught of four millennia of

adversity: viable as the vehicle to provide the support for the

incarnation of the Messiah, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. It

was also the vehicle to introduce us to His Witness, John the

Baptist. Matthew opens the N.T. with the genealogy of Jesus

Christ the Son of David, and then proceeds to a magnificent

account of the betrothal of Joseph and Mary. It is magnificent in

that Matthew is moved by the Holy Ghost to reveal what he

apparently understands as some very important facts concerning

the birth of Christ. Matthew has something to say that none of

the other N.T. writers seem to consider important, if in fact they

were aware of the knowledge. So here in his first chapter

Matthew sets his pen to the revelation of the mystery of the

virgin birth, the incarnation of Christ. He then introduces us to a

peculiar question regarding an act of fornication (premarital

intercourse) and its required penalty, the act of divorce at the

time of Christ. All of this is included in the revelation of the

virgin birth of Christ. So dear reader, we cannot be accused of

forcing these issues into Matthew, for he, himself, has taken the

bold offensive in the teaching of the doctrine of marriage,

divorce, and remarriage in the N.T. This fact is very important to

our discussion.

What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage? 189

Matthew 1:18-19

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise:

When as his mother Mary was espoused to

Joseph, before they came together, she was

found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then

Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not

willing to make her a public example, was

minded to put her away privily.

Matt. 1:18,19

As Matthew begins his account of the virgin birth he

strikes at a very perplexing moment in the life of Joseph.

Unknown to Joseph, the virgin birth at that moment undoubtedly

created in his mind the crisis of shame, for Joseph felt the

conviction and need to bring a judicial judgment against his

betrothed spouse, Mary. Matthew specifically notes that the birth

of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was

espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found

with child. We can narrow this down to the fact that Joseph either

noticed, or was informed that Mary was pregnant. Of course,

Mary knew that the Holy Ghost came upon her, and the power of

the Highest overshadowed her, and that behold she conceived in

her womb, and would bring forth a son. But, apparently Joseph

did not have this knowledge. The Scripture is silent as to Mary’s

thoughts or words at this moment, however Joseph is being

moved by thoughts and emotions that are devastating—It should

be noted here that Mary was one who “pondered” the deep things

of God in her heart. She waited for God the Holy Spirit to

inform Joseph. This faithful pondering woman is a tribute to the

life of faith; she certainly was one of the hero’s of faith recorded

in Scripture.

This revelation to the reader must be considered vital to the

doctrine of Christ and the subject of creation-marriage. We are

clearly told that Joseph was a just man. This of course means that

Joseph was slow to anger, and was willing to investigate the matter,

and come to a reasonable decision as to his action. His immediate

thought was that Mary had committed a special act of fornication.

190 Chapter Six Jesus’ Doctrine

This idea is certainly supplied with Joseph’s first assessment, i.e. he

thought Mary had committed an act of fornication and it required that

he “put her away,” that is divorce her as per the Jewish legal custom

at that time. The revelation here is that Joseph was living under a

Jewish betrothal-matrimonial custom that legally regarded Mary his

espoused fiancée, in equal status as his legal wife. In this case her

being with child out of wedlock, before they came together to

consummate the marriage, constituted an illegal act of premarital

sexual intercourse, a special case of fornication. The specific

definition of fornication in this case is reserved to the Jewish

betrothed couple. In the event that an espoused fiancée was found to

have committed fornication the espoused fiancé (the male) was

expected to put the woman away publicly, i.e. divorce her in the

public square. Matthew obviously understood the options of his

cultural setting. He is specific and clear in his revelation. Here in

chapter one and verse eighteen Matthew introduces the subject of

divorce. This is remarkable to Matthew. Keep this in mind as we

study divorce in the N.T. Edersheim makes the following comment:

According, their betrothal must have been of the

simplest, and the dowry settled the smallest possible.

Whichever of the two modes of betrothal may have

been adopted: in the presence of witnesses—either

by solemn word of mouth, in due prescribed

formality, with the added pledge of a piece of

money, however small, or of money's worth for use;

or else by writing (the so-called Shitre Erusin)—

there would be no sumptuous feast to follow; and

the ceremony would conclude with some such

benediction as that afterwards in use: 'Blessed art

Thou, O Lord our God, King of the World, Who

hath sanctified us by His commandments, and

enjoined us about incest, and forbidden the

betrothed, but allowed us those wedded by Chuppah

(the marriage-baldachino) and betrothal. Blessed art

Thou, Who sanctifiest Israel by Chuppah and

betrothal'—the whole being perhaps concluded by a

benediction over the statutory cup of wine, which

was tasted in turn by the betrothed. From that

What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage? 191

moment Mary was the betrothed wife of Joseph;

their relationship as sacred, as if they had already

been wedded. Any breach of it would be treated as

adultery; nor could the band be dissolved except, as

after marriage, by regular divorce.

199

Before leaving this text make note of this interesting

benediction which makes a peculiar mention of incest: "Blessed art

Thou, O Lord our God, King of the World, Who hath sanctified us by

His commandments, and enjoined [warned] us about incest, and

forbidden the betrothed." Incest was a paramount concern of the N.T.

marriage codes.

John the Baptist: Marriage and Divorce

Jesus and Divorce is the title of the treatise of Heth and

Wenham regarding the teaching of the N.T. and divorce. A correct

understanding of divorce in the N.T. must rely on Jesus’ teaching on

the subject. Heth and Wenham defend the “Early Church View” of

divorce and remarriage, concluding that Jesus taught a no-

remarriage-this-side-of-death doctrine of divorce and remarriage. As

these authors have said, the teaching of Jesus and divorce is most

vital; but for a moment let us consider how the subject of marriage,

divorce, and remarriage impact the ministry of John the Baptist.

Prior to Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, John the Baptist

preached a fiery marriage message. Malachi’s prophecy declared that

John would be sent to prepare the way of the Lord. Then Malachi

goes on to say that John would be a swift witness against sinners, and

he specifically mentions adulterers (Mal. 3:5). John certainly

fulfilled this prophecy as we follow his ministry. As a matter of fact

it appears that his discourse on adultery-incest was his greatest

sermon. Matthew chooses to reveal the fullness of John’s sermon in

chapter fourteen of his Gospel.

The O.T. closes with this promise, “Behold, I will send my

messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me,” (Mal. 3:1a).

Creation-marriage has its place in the Lord’s way, and the

Messenger preparing the Lord’s way defended creation-marriage with

his life. Malachi has his own dissertation on marriage, divorce, and

remarriage as we have previously observed. Luke commences the

192 Chapter Six Jesus’ Doctrine

life of the Baptist with this statement, “There was, in the days of

Herod, the king of Judea, a certain priest named Zacharias,”

(Lk.1:5a). Zacharias was the father of John the Baptist. Herod and

his family played a significant role in the lives of Jesus and the

Baptist. The Herod mentioned here (Lk. 1) is Herod the Great, Herod

I. Edersheim reports that Herod the Great had ten wives and many

sons. His wife Malthake, a Samaritan, was the mother of Herod

Archelaus, and Herod Antipas. Another wife, Cleopatra of

Jerusalem, bore Herod Philip.

200

These are the major personages of

Herod I who will stage their warfare against creation-marriage, John,

and our Lord. Herod the Great was the bloody tyrant who slew the

children of Bethlehem after the birth of Jesus. Here in (Matt. 14:1-11)

the subjects of our study are Herod Antipas and Herod Philip, sons of

the same father. Antipas ordered the bloody decapitation of the

Baptist.

Another interesting note here is that the two controversial

rabbi’s of the Gospel era, Hillel and Shammai lived and taught in

Jerusalem during the reign of Herod I. These two rabbis would

inspire two schools of biblical interpretation that forms the sequel to

our N.T. discussion of divorce; they held opposing views: “Both gave

their names to ‘schools’, whose direction was generally different—

not infrequently, it seems, chiefly for the sake of opposition.”

Edersheim honors Hillel as the “representative Jewish reformer,” and

places him presiding over the meeting of the Sanhedrin which, in

answer to Herod the Great’s inquiry, pointed to Bethlehem as the

birthplace of the Messiah. Later we find the schools of these rabbis

leading a controversy over the, so called, rightful cause for divorce.

Edersheim also reports that some “falsely” represented Hillel as he

whose principles closely resemble the teaching of Jesus, or, according

to certain writers, were its source.

201

However, we will learn that

Hillel’s followers would be opposed to Jesus’ strict teaching

concerning divorce. On the other hand to some it was Jesus who

actually was on the side of Shammai, the opponent of Hillel.

Nevertheless, we will see that Jesus agrees with neither; Jesus’

teaching would be revolutionary to Hillel and Shammai, and this

should be of no surprise since Jesus’ teaching on divorce and

remarriage was so revolutionary that His own disciples became irate

and said, “If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to

marry.” So we can certainly conclude that divorce and remarriage

What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage? 193

were important topics to the political and religious leaders of the

Gospel era, and we will see that John and Jesus were deeply involved

in these issues.

Luke goes on to tell us that the priest Zacharias had a wife of

the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. They were both

righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and

ordinances of the Lord, blameless (Lk. 1:5,6). Their marriage was a

creation-marriage. Elisabeth was barren. Then, while attending to

the altar, an angel appeared to Zacharias telling him that he and his

aged wife would bare a son, and call his name John, i.e. the Baptist.

This son would turn the hearts of the fathers toward their children—

could it be at that time that the modern divorce-broken-family-

syndrome had John turning the hearts of divorced fathers and mothers

toward their children? While yet in the womb, John leaps for joy at

the very presence of Mary who was with child, the child Jesus. From

the womb John can prove he loved his Savior. He was a dedicated

soldier. He was a devoted preacher. He was John the Baptist, the

preacher of repentance and the Gospel, the defender of creation-

marriage. His message of repentance was simple, “Repent for the

Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.” To John repentance was the first step

in making the way of the Lord straight. To John repentance was the

first step in dealing with any and all the sins of the people. All the

marriage sins of his day were relegated to that first step, repentance.

If John were to address the marriage sins of the world today he would

again preach repentance. The first word John preached was

“Repent.” The first word Jesus preached was “Repent.” Today this

must also be the first step for everyone involved in a marriage sin.

This is the only way of Salvation by Grace. Sola Gratia. Now let us

return to preaching of the Baptist and the power of his last sermon:

1 At that time Herod the tetrarch heard of the fame

of Jesus,

2 And said unto his servants, This is John the

Baptist; he is risen from the dead; and therefore

mighty works do shew forth themselves in him.

3 For Herod had laid hold on John, and bound him,

and put him in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother

Philip's wife.

4 For John said unto him, It is not lawful for thee to

194 Chapter Six Jesus’ Doctrine

have her.

5 And when he would have put him to death, he

feared the multitude, because they counted him as a

prophet.

6 But when Herod's birthday was kept, the daughter

of Herodias danced before them, and pleased Herod.

7 Whereupon he promised with an oath to give her

whatsoever she would ask.

8 And she, being before instructed of her mother,

said, Give me here John Baptist's head in a charger.

9 And the king was sorry: nevertheless for the oath's

sake, and them which sat with him at meat, he

commanded it to be given her.

10 And he sent, and beheaded John in the prison.

11 And his head was brought in a charger, and

given to the damsel: and she brought it to her

mother. Matt. 14:1-11

John’s last and greatest sermon was aimed at the marriage sin of the

political ruler of his time, Herod Antipas. We must not loose site of

the fact that John and Jesus were one in their doctrine and teaching.

Jesus testified to this when he was preaching his landmark sermon, Ye

Must Be Born-Again, to the Pharisee, Nicodemus: “Verily, verily, I

say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have

seen; and ye receive not our witness” (Jn.3:11). John was the sharp

sword witness of his Lord, and his last sermon cut to the heart of

Herod Antipas and Herodias. Antipas’ half brother by his father,

Herod Philip was previously married to Herodias. She became

disenchanted with Philip because he was disinherited by his father

Herod the Great. The following is a excerpt from the N.T.

commentator R.C.H. Lenski:

This Philip was disinherited through the treachery of

his mother and lived privately in Rome with

Herodias and their daughter Salome. Herod Antipas

was a son of Herod the Great and the Samaritan

Malthake and thus a half-uncle of Herodias, and was

married to the daughter of Aretas, King of Arabia

Petrea. While he was on a visit to Rome, Antipas

What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage? 195

and Herodias eloped, and the wife of Antipas, not

waiting to be divorced, returned to her father, and a

war followed between Aretas and Herod Antipas.

Matt. 14:4 “For John said unto him, It is not

lawful for thee to have her.” Herod’s crime [his

marriage] was a public outrage. The woman

Herodias had first married her own father’s brother

and then had run away and lived with the half-

brother of her husband, who thus was also her half-

uncle and already had a wife. Two marriages were

disrupted, and the new union was not a marriage. It

was plain adultery and within the forbidden degrees

of consanguinity [my emphasis]. Josephus charges

Herodias with the intention of confounding her

country’s institutions. No wonder John raised his

voice although Herod was his ruler.” To have her” =

to have as a wife.

202

The editor and translator of The Works of Flavius Josephus, William

Whiston makes the following comment regarding the Baptist’s

accusation of Herod:

Nor was it, as I agree with Grotius and others of the

learned, Philip the tetrarch, but this Herod-Philip,

whose wife Herod [Antipas] the tetrarch had

married, and in that her first husbands lifetime, and

when her first husband has issue by her; for which

adulterous and incestuous marriage John the Baptist

justly reproved Herod [Antipas] the tetrarch; and for

which reproof Salome, the daughter of Herodias by

her first husband Herod-Philip, who was still alive,

occasioned him to be unjustly beheaded.

203

So now we have Matthew describing another case of “special

fornication” regarding marriage, i.e. incest. This is remarkable to say

the least. Matthew reports two cases of porneia (fornication) in

marriage and both cases required divorce to conclude them. John’s

sermon was so cutting that the only alternative for the King and his

illegal wife was to repent or silence the tongue of John the Baptist;

196 Chapter Six Jesus’ Doctrine

and what better way to silence his tongue then to decapitate the

preacher; cutting off his head with his tongue in his mouth. What a

successful preacher was the Baptist; like Churchill declared to Hitler

while referring to England, “Some chicken, Some neck,” we can

likewise say, Some preacher, Some head. Like I said, John the

Baptist was a defender of creation-marriage; he literally defended

the doctrine with his bloody head on a platter offered to the primary

recipient of his sermon, Herodias. I find it an interesting point that

this man John was a man whose sermons would drive him to advance

upon every sin of all men. His assault was relentless. But regardless

of his ubiquitous attack one particular sin would fail to yield to him

without a death-to-death fight. John was called upon to confront this

sin head-on—no pun intended.

John was consumed with conviction. His eyes blared. His

mind was set for the attack. He formulated the exact phrase he

needed and cried out, “It is not lawful for thee to have her.” “It is not

lawful for thee to have her.” “It is not lawful for thee to have her.”

John’s last sermon was his best. He was a seasoned preacher.

Fearless. He calculated his offensive thrust. His aim was perfect. He

fires his shot heard round the world: Herod commits incest! Herod

commits incest! Herod commits incest! He divided Herod’s soul and

spirit, and Herodias’ bone and marrow. Herod was wounded, but

Herodias was mortally wounded. She was now heart dead—dead

hardened. Breathing a fiery rage, she now has one burning desire, the

death of the Baptist. John called for Herod to repudiate Herodias. He

was crying out to Herod, “It is unlawful to have her”—Put Put her

away—“It is unlawful to have her”—Put her away—“It is unlawful to

have her”—Divorce her. This is Matthew’s second dissertation on

divorce.

But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? yea, I

say unto you, and more than a prophet. For this is

he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my

messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy

way before thee. Verily I say unto you, Among

them that are born of women there hath not risen a

greater than John the Baptist: Matt. 11: 9 ff

Yes, Herod it is unlawful for you to have your brother Philip’s wife.

What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage? 197

John had two verses in mind: Lev. 18:16 Thou shalt not uncover the

nakedness of thy brother's wife: it is thy brother's nakedness, and

Lev.20:21 And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean

thing: he hath uncovered his brother's nakedness. Both of these

verses speak of incest, sexual intercourse within the forbidden

degrees. That is sexual intercourse between blood relatives,

consanguineous marriage if you will—another special case of

porneia, fornication.

Before we leave the last sermon and martyrdom of the

Baptist we must note the geography of this event, for it will play a

vital role in Matthew’s third dissertation of divorce. Edersheim

makes the following comment regarding the geographic location of

John’s last public preaching:

There is no necessity for supposing that John and the

disciples of Jesus baptized at, or quite close to, the

same place. On the contrary, such immediate

juxtaposition seems, for obvious reasons, unlikely.

Jesus was within the boundaries of the province of

Judea, while John baptized at Aenon (the springs),

near Salim. The latter site has not been identified.

But the oldest tradition, which places it a few miles

to the south of Bethshean (Scythopolis), on the

border of Samaria and Galilee, has this in its favour,

that it locates the scene of John’s last public work

close to the seat of Herod Antipas, into whose power

the Baptist was so soon to be delivered.

204

Another element in the martyrdom of John noted by

Edersheim was the intrigue of the Pharisees and the influence they

exerted on Herod Antipas. The Pharisees certainly knew the threat

John posed to Herod Antipas and Herodias; did they actually help

create the crisis that led to John’s death? Edersheim believes that is

just what happened.

Besides, the Pharisees may have used

Antipas as their tool, and worked upon his wretched

superstition to effect their own purposes. And this is

198 Chapter Six Jesus’ Doctrine

what we suppose to have been the case. The

reference to the Pharisaic spying and to their

comparisons between the influence of Jesus and

John, which led to the withdrawal of Christ into

Galilee, seems to imply that the Pharisees had

something to do with the imprisonment of John.

Their connection with Herod appears even more

clearly in the attempt to induce Christ’s departure

from Galilee, on pretext of Herod’s machinations. It

will be remembered that the Lord unmasked their

hypocrisy by bidding them go back to Herod,

showing that He fully knew that real danger

threatened Him, not from the Tetrarch, but from the

leaders of the party [Pharisaic] in Jerusalem

(Lk.13:31-33). Our inference therefore is that

Pharisaic intrigue had a very large share in giving

effect to Herod’s fear of the Baptist and of his

reproofs.

205

The next question we face is that after John’s death, were the

Pharisees trying to likewise have Jesus incarcerated in the prison of

Antipas? When we open (Matt.19) Jesus is found again in the coasts

of Judea beyond Jordan. It was here that the Pharisees tempt Jesus to

discuss the subject of divorce. They knew that Jesus and John

preached the same message concerning creation-marriage. Were

they trying to get Jesus to make a public statement on divorce in

order to excite the wrath of Herod and Herodias? Edersheim makes

this fitting comment:

Accordingly, when these Pharisees again

encountered Jesus, now on his journey to Judea, they

resumed the subject precisely where it had been

broken off when they had last met Him, only now

with the object of ‘tempting Him.’ Perhaps it may

also have been in the hope that, by getting Christ to

commit Himself against divorce in Perea—the

territory of Herod—they might enlist against Him,

as formerly against the Baptist, the implacable

hatred of Herodias.

206

What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage? 199

Edersheim is focused. Yes, the Pharisaic intrigue played a role in the

life of John and Jesus. The Pharisees were certainly aware of Herod

Antipas’ authority and control over John and Jesus; and as he points

out Jesus knew His real threat was not Herod but the Pharisee and the

leaders at Jerusalem. Edersheim does us a fine service here. Luke

points this out:

31 The same day there came certain of the Pharisees,

saying unto him, Get thee out, and depart hence: for

Herod will kill thee.

32 And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox,

Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and

tomorrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.

33 Nevertheless I must walk to day, and tomorrow,

and the day following: for it cannot be that a prophet

perish out of Jerusalem.

34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the

prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee;

how often would I have gathered thy children

together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her

wings, and ye would not!

35 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate: and

verily I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until the

time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he that

cometh in the name of the Lord. Luke 13:31-33

The Baptists Final Hour

I see it as fitting that we honor John with a short eulogy; I

feel it is no burden of the reader to contemplate the tribute Edersheim

pays to The Baptist in this finely crafted account of his final hour:

It was early spring, shortly before the Passover, the

anniversary of the date of Herod the Great and of the

accession of (his son) Herod Antipas to the

Tetrarchy. A fit time for a Belshazzar-feast, when

such an one as Herod would gather to a grand

banquet his lords, and the military authorities, and

200 Chapter Six Jesus’ Doctrine

the chief men of Galilee. It is evening, and the

castle-palace is brilliantly lit up. The noise of music

and the shouts of revelry come across the slope into

the citadel, and fall into the deep dungeon where

waits the prisoner of Christ. And now the merriment

in the great banqueting-hall has reached its utmost

height. The king has nothing further to offer his

satiated quests, no fresh excitement. So let it be the

sensuous stimulus of dubious dances, and, to

complete it, let the dancer be the fair young daughter

of the king's wife, the very descendant of the

Asmonaean priest-princes! To viler depth of coarse

familiarity even a Herod could not have descended.

She has come, and she has danced, this

princely maiden, out of whom all maidenhood and

all princeliness have been brazed by a degenerate

mother, wretched offspring of the once noble

Maccabees. And she has done her best in that

wretched exhibition, and pleased Herod and them

that sat at meat with him. And now, amidst the

general plaudits, she shall have her reward—and the

king swears it to her with loud voice, that all around

hear it—even to the half of his kingdom. The

maiden steals out of the banquet-hall to ask her

mother what it shall be. Can there be doubt or

hesitation in the mind of Herodias? If there was one

object she had at heart, which these ten months she

had in vain sought to attain: it was the death of John

the Baptist. She remembered it all only too well—

her stormy, reckless past. The daughter of

Aristobulus, the ill-fated Asmonaean princess

Mariamme (I.), she had been married to her

half-uncle, Herod Philip, the son of Herod the Great

and of Mariamme (II.), the daughter of the

High-Priest (Boethos). At one time it seemed as if

Herod Philip would have been sole heir of his

father's dominions. But the old tyrant had changed

his testament, and Philip was left with great wealth,

What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage? 201

but as a private person living in Jerusalem. This

little suited the woman's ambition. It was when his

half-brother, Herod Antipas, came on a visit to him

at Jerusalem that an intrigue began between the

Tetrarch and his brother's wife. It was agreed that,

after the return of Antipas from his impending

journey to Rome, he would repudiate his wife, the

daughter of Aretas, king of Arabia, and wed

Herodias. But Aretas' daughter heard of the plot,

and having obtained her husband's consent to go to

Machaerus, she fled thence to her father. This, of

course, led to enmity between Antipas and Aretas.

Nevertheless, the adulterous marriage with Herodias

followed. In a few sentences the story may be

carried to its termination. The woman proved the

curse and ruin of Antipas. First came the murder of

the Baptist, which sent a shrill of horror through the

people, and to which all the later misfortunes of

Herod were attributed. Then followed a war with

Aretas, in which the Tetrarch was worsted. And,

last of all, his wife's ambition led him to Rome to

solicit the title of King, lately given to Agrippa, the

brother of Herodias. Antipas not only failed, but

was deprived of his dominions, and banished to

Lyons in Gaul. The pride of the woman in refusing

favours from the Emperor, and her faithfulness to

her husband in his fallen fortunes, are the only

redeeming points in her history. As for Salome, who

was first married to her uncle, Philip the Tetrarch.

Legend has it, that her death was retributive, being

in consequence of a fall on the ice.

Such was the woman who had these many

months sought with the vengefulness and

determination of a Jezebel, to rid herself of the hated

person, who alone had dared publicly denounce her

sin, and whose words held her weak husband in awe.

The opportunity had now come for obtaining from

the vacillating monarch what her entreaties could

202 Chapter Six Jesus’ Doctrine

never have secured. As the Gospel puts it,

'instigated' by her mother, the damsel hesitated not.

We can readily fill in the outlined picture of what

followed. It only needed the mother's whispered

suggestion, and still flushed from her dance, Salome

re-entered the banqueting-hall. 'With haste,' as if no

time were to be lost, she went up to the king: 'I

would that thou forthwith give me in a charger, the

head of John the Baptist!' Silence must have fallen

on the assembly. Even into their hearts such a

demand from the lips of little more than a child must

have struck horror. They all knew John to be a

righteous and holy man. Wicked as they were, in

their superstition, if not religiousness, few, if any of

them, would have willingly lent himself to such

work. And they all knew, also, why Salome, or

rather Herodias, had made this demand. What

would Herod do? 'The king was exceedingly sorry.’

For months he had striven against this. His

conscience, fear of the people, inward horror at the

deed, all would have kept him from it. But he had

sworn to the maiden, who now stood before him,

claiming that the pledge be redeemed, and every eye

in the assembly was now fixed upon him.

Unfaithful to his God, to his conscience, to truth and

righteousness; not ashamed of any crime or sin, he

would yet be faithful to his half-drunken oath, and

appear honorable and true before such companions!

It has been but the contest of a moment.

‘Straightway’ the king gives the order to one of the

body-guards. The maiden hath withdrawn to await

the result with her mother. The guardsman has left

the banqueting-hall. Out into the cold spring night,

up that slope, and into the deep dungeon. As its

door opens, the noise of revelry comes with the light

of the torch which the man bears. No time for

preparation is given, nor needed. A few minutes

more, and the gory head of the Baptist is brought to

What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage? 203

the maiden in a charger, and she gives the ghastly

dish to her mother.

It is all over! As the pale morning light

streams into the keep, the faithful disciples, who had

been told of it, come reverently to bear the headless

body to the burying. They go forth forever from that

accursed place, which is so soon to become a mass

of shapeless ruins. They go to tell it to Jesus, and

henceforth to remain with Him. We can imagine

what welcome awaited them. But the people ever

afterwards cursed the tyrant, and looked for those

judgments of God to follow, which were so soon to

descend on him. And he himself was ever

afterwards restless, wretched, and full of

apprehensions. He could scarcely believe that the

Baptist was really dead, and when the fame of Jesus

reached him, and those around suggested that this

was Elijah, a prophet, or as one of them, Herod's

mind, amidst its strange perplexities, still reverted to

the man whom he had murdered. It was a new

anxiety, perhaps, even so, a new hope; and as

formerly he had often and gladly heard the Baptist,

so now he would fain have seen Jesus. He would

see Him; but not now. In that dark night of betrayal,

he, who at the bidding of the child of an adulteress,

had murdered the Forerunner, might, with the

approbation of a Pilate, have rescued Him whose

faithful witness John had been. But night was to

merge into yet darker night. For it was the time and

the power of the Evil One. And yet: Jehovah

reigneth.

207

Could there be any doubt that John would receive the Savior's highest

accolade, "Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of

women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist." We

might say that John gave his life for the true doctrine of creation-

marriage.

204 Chapter Six Jesus’ Doctrine

Jesus and the Doctrine of Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage

Now when Jesus had heard that John was cast into

prison, he departed into Galilee; Matt. 4:12

Lenski aptly points out that Jesus’ departure into Galilee was

not for fear of Herod Antipas, but rather that Jesus retired to Galilee,

correctly noting that Galilee was also the territory of Anitpas. Jesus

was going to take over where His Witness left off. He would now

begin His preaching. Again, His first sermon was one of repentance;

for His first word—like the Baptist—was Repent! “Repent for the

kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

In prison John had time to contemplate his actions. The

fortress prison was exceedingly strong by nature, impregnable.

Josephus describes even its natural position as unassailable. John was

incarcerated in a dungeon, well guarded. Although John began to

question his Lord—“ Art thou he that should come, or do we look for

another”—we must note that John never questioned his sermon to

Herod and Herodias; for which he offered his bloody head to the god

of incest on an altar, the dinner table, of the god-king Herod Antipas.

One should not be startled with Herod’s remarks when he heard of

Jesus and His preaching: At that time Herod the tetrarch heard of the

fame of Jesus, And said unto his servants, “This is John the Baptist;

he is risen from the dead” (Matt.14:1,2). To Herod, Jesus and John

were one. They both preached the same sermon on marriage.

Sermon On The Mount

While John was in prison for accusing Herod Antipas and

Herodias of being unlawfully wed, Jesus, the Evangelist, was

preaching His first sermon, "Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at

hand." It must be noted that later when John requested that Jesus

provide him with credentials, Jesus noted among other things "that

the poor had the Gospel preached to them." Matthew then records the

sermon of Jesus that He preached on a mountain near Capernaum

from which we have entitled “The Sermon On the Mount.” This

writer is convinced that the Gospel is preached in this sermon. The

act of faith is to believe the truth about God, man, and sin; the truth

that God is Holy, and that man is a sinner. The truth is that God is

What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage? 205

Omniscient. He knows everything about every man—Jesus said unto

her, “Thou hast well said, I have no husband: For thou hast had five

husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that

saidst thou truly” (Jn. 4:17,18)—He is a righteous God, He is love;

He is truth, and God is merciful; the truth necessary to every man;

man the sinner.

During this sermon Jesus was literally present with his

hearers and each word of it was drawn from every feature of his

voice, his face, his eyes, and his heart. He concluded by giving each

one of his hearers an invitation: “Enter ye in at the strait gate: for

wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and

many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and

narrow is the way [I am the Way], which leadeth unto life [I am Life],

and few there be that find it,” and “Therefore whosoever heareth

these sayings of ‘mine,’

and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise

man, which built his house upon a rock” [I am the Rock], (Matt.

7:13,14; 24). In preaching the Gospel the preacher must preach

repentance and I believe that the “Sermon on the Mount” preaches

repentance like no other:

Ye have heard that it was said by 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. And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out,

and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that

one of thy members should perish, and not that thy

whole body should be cast into hell. Matt. 5:27-29

The Sermon on the Mount preaches the Gospel with

simplicity and power. Every word is intended to evangelize the heart

of man. Man is given one narrow gate in which to pass, "Repent!

Repent! Repent! The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand. The first word

of the sermon honors this idea, "Blessed are the poor in spirit [the

penitent] for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." The second word of

the sermon is the same, "Blessed are they that mourn [the penitent];

for they shall be comforted." The third word again repeats the call for

repentance, "Blessed are the meek [the penitent]; for they shall inherit

the earth. The forth word is the same, "Blessed are they who hunger

206 Chapter Six Jesus’ Doctrine

and thirst after righteousness [the penitent]; for they shall be filled."

Jesus drove this hope to the penitent as the introduction to His sermon

because He was about to draw his sword and pierce the heart of every

man who ever took a breath of earth’s air.

The content of the sermon have led some to believe that the

chronological order in which Matthew has placed it is misleading.

208

Noting that the disciples had been called prior to the sermon, "And

seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was

seated, his disciples came unto him." By the end of the sermon we

see a multitude following Him, "When he was come down from the

mountain, great multitudes followed him." Nevertheless, the idea

that the sermon initially addresses the disciples has led some to see

the sermon as a Christian Code of Ethics. But to view Jesus as a

moralist is to miss his entire raison d'etre. It is a terrible theological

error to place Jesus on the side of the moralist. Jesus taught men to

repent. The need for repentance teaches the doctrine of total

depravity:

There is none righteous, no, not one; there is none

that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after

God. They are all gone out of the way, they are

together become unprofitable; there is none that

doeth good, no not one. Their throat is an open

sepulcher: with their tongues they have used deceit;

the poison of asps is under their lips: whose mouth

is full of cursing and bitterness. Their feet are swift

to shed blood; Destruction and misery are in their

ways; and the way of peace have they not known.

There is no fear of God before their eyes. Now we

know that whatever things the law saith, it saith to

them who are under the law, that every mouth may

be stopped, and all the world may become guilty

before God. Therefore, by the deeds of the law there

shall no flesh be justified in his sight; for by the law

is the knowledge of sin. For all have sinned and

come short of the glory of God. (Rom. 3:10ff)

This writer contends that the Sermon on the Mount teaches man his

depravity by the complete exposition of the Law, and that the sermon

What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage? 207

preaches the Gospel to all men. His young disciples were in great

need to understand the Gospel. The multitude had the same need.

Jesus the Evangelist would preach the Gospel to the poor. All are

poor.

Jesus clearly declares that he is not come to destroy the law,

but came to fulfill it. With that said, one would think that He had

made His point, but He goes on: "For verily I say unto you, Till

heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no way pass from

the law, till all be fulfilled." Without apology the Preacher warns His

audience that He would use every jot and tittle of the Law to convict

them of sin, and to pierce their hearts asunder. He would drive the

spike of the law into the deepest secret of man. Jesus was a preacher

who was not willing that any should perish, but that all should come

to repentance. He then immediately preached repentance as no man

had ever preached:

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old, Thou

shalt not kill and whosoever shall kill shall be in

danger of judgment; but I say unto you that

whosoever is angry with his brother, without a

cause, shall be in danger of judgment; and

whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in

danger of the council; but whosoever shall say, Thou

fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

(Matt. 5: 21,22)

Today, men make the same assumption, i.e. men are not

sinners unless they have killed someone. This seems to be their only

criteria for qualifying as a sinner. Well if that is the case, Jesus was

to prove that all men are murderers. The Sixth Commandment now

takes on an entirely new meaning. If a man is angry with his brother,

and curses his brother, Jesus convicts the man of murder. He teaches

that any form of anger, Raca to fool [both four letter words], is

murder. The object of His thought was to deprive anyone of his

listeners, disciple or stranger, to escape the accusation and guilt of

murder. All men were murderers; there is none righteous no not

one. The cry of Jesus grew louder and louder: "Repent for the

kingdom of heaven is at hand."

208 Chapter Six Jesus’ Doctrine

Again, Jesus perceived that man believed he was innocent of

breaking the Seventh Commandment, adultery, i.e. innocent because

he never actually had physical intercourse with a woman other than

his wife. Men believe that since they have not committed actual

physical adultery they are not adulterers. This idea is true today. The

moralist relishes in his righteousness with the thought that he has

never laid carnally with any woman other than his wife. But Jesus

destroys the moralist’s self-righteousness. He drove every jot and

tittle of the Law into the heart of man. Jesus was not willing that any

should perish, but that all should come unto repentance; therefore he

drove men to repentance, as a shepherd drives his sheep from danger.

It is as if He thought, since you believe that you are righteous in that

ye have not laid carnally with other than thy wife, I will prove to you

that you all have laid carnally with other than your wife; you are all

adulterers:

27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old

time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a

woman to lust after her hath committed adultery

with her already in his heart.

29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and

cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one

of thy members should perish, and not that thy

whole body should be cast into hell.

30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and

cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one

of thy members should perish, and not that thy

whole body should be cast into hell.

31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his

wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:

32 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.

Matt. 5:27-32

For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and

sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to

What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage? 209

the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the

joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts

and intents of the heart. Neither is there any creature

that is not manifest in his sight, but all things are

naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom

we have to do. Heb. 4:12,13

The striking accusation is that if a man only with his eye looks upon a

woman to lust after her—to contemplate even the smallest mental

initiative to think of seeing through the clothing, undressing the

woman, touching the woman sexually, or of proceeding into sexual

contact with the woman—that man is guilty of committing adultery.

He then emphasizes his ocular comment by saying, “If thy eye offend

thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee; for it is profitable for thee that

one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body

should be cast into hell.” Jesus accused every man who has ever

looked upon a woman with sinful pleasure (lust) of committing

adultery with that woman. That man broke the Seventh

Commandment, Thou shalt not commit adultery—Is any exempt?

Jesus intended to convict all; His purpose of course was to call all

men to repentance. He did just that.

Adultery is the primary cause of marital dissension; although

the complaints on legal suits often evade mentioning it. It is the most

common breach of the marriage covenant. The Law of Moses

protected the marriage covenant in the case of adultery. The adulterer

and adulteress were to put to death. It was that simple. When the

death penalty was no longer practiced—the State of Israel having lost

its authority, or because of apostasy—men employed the death

penalty in a different way, excommunication; in other words divorce.

To the human mind this was equal to capital punishment. Many

believe that life in prison is equal to the death penalty since society

has eternally excommunicated the social violator. Some

denominations actually teach that in the case of infidelity in the

marriage bond: the innocent partner has the right to put to death the

offender by executing a divorce, or suing for the divorce. They

actually teach that divorce is a form of death:

Adultery or fornication, committed after a contract

[engagement], being detected before marriage,

210 Chapter Six Jesus’ Doctrine

giveth just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve

that contract. In the case of adultery after marriage,

it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a

divorce, and after the divorce to marry another, as if

the offending party were dead.

209

One must ask: Does this death-divorce doctrine preach Sola Gratia?

Certainly not! If your doctrine of divorce puts the sinning partner

outside the realm of God’s Grace, i.e. that the marriage can never be

saved, reconciled, you are teaching a doctrine that is anathema to the

Gospel of Christ. As we will see the analogy of marriage in the N.T.

is likened to the Salvation of Jehovah God. If you believe that

divorce can end any creation-marriage, i.e. any-first-marriage-this-

side-of-death, then you have a conflicting belief with the Gospel of

Salvation taught by the Lord Jesus Christ. The Salvation of God is by

grace through faith and not of works. Our marriage to Christ is a

great mystery (Eph.5); it is an analogy of our salvation by grace to

God and His Son Jesus Christ. Oh, so Great Salvation! The very

meaning of the word Salvation teaches perfect safety. Should we

commit some sin and depart from the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ

for a time, we can be assured that He will never leave us or forsake

us. He will never divorce you or me. He will never divorce any

believer and no man shall pluck us out of His hand. He will wait

your return, or may let you sleep, i.e. permit you to die. The Apostle

Paul counseled the innocent partner to peacefully wait for the return

of the sinning partner: “For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou

shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou

shalt save thy wife?” If any creation-marriage can be put asunder

then the Salvation of God; Christ’s marriage to the believer (“For we

are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones”) can be put

asunder. That divorce doctrine equates that the Salvation of God can

be lost because of sinful works and if that is the case you are

confessing to a doctrine that you obviously gained your Salvation—

your marriage to Christ—by good works. If one believes they can

loose Salvation by evil works, then you believe that you can gain

Salvation by good works. You cannot have it both ways: “What

therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” Only

Legalism teaches divorce. The foundation of divorce is the Law. The

What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage? 211

foundation of permanency-marriage is Grace; it completely

contradicts the Law to the minutest degree.

As the Sermon pointed out, man practiced secret hatred—a

system of avoidance—rather than exercise his desire to kill his

brother he found ways to raise “cain” rather than act like Cain, i.e. he

now cursed his brother. In the thoughts of his heart and a decision of

his will, he actually violently killed his brother. The same is true of

committing adultery. The act of looking upon a woman with lust was

an evil propensity toward adultery. The heart of man is laden with

adultery. The eye is full of adultery—merchants employing the

visual power of TV and photographic print will use the sensual

female figure to sell almost anything in our modern world—The

system of avoidance that surrounded murder was intricate; that same

system encircled adultery, and was intricately even more creative.

Here again Jesus proves that even though a man avoided physical

adultery, his lustful look was the act of adultery; all men are

adulterers. Adultery is a capital crime.

Matthew 5:31,32 Divorce Text

It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his

wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 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.

Matt. 5:31,32

Before we exposit this text one must at least honor the

context of these verses with the previous four verses:

Ye have heard that it was said by 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. And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out,

and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that

one of thy members should perish, and not that thy

whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right

212 Chapter Six Jesus’ Doctrine

hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for

it is profitable for thee that one of thy members

should perish, and not that thy whole body should be

cast into hell. It hath been said, Whosoever shall put

away his wife, let him give her a writing of

divorcement: 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. Matt. 5:27-32

So the context of the famous divorce text in the Sermon On The

Mount is literally connected to the pericope on murder and adultery.

This fact must play a significant role in this matter. Another point to

mention before we reach into the truths of the text is to note that the

writer is Matthew. Please note that Matthew is the only writer of the

N.T. who offers the most controversial “exception clause” into the

dialogue. Therefore there are no other sources to reference the

exception clause in Scripture then those already mentioned in

Matthew—The exception clauses belong exclusively to Matthew.

Does Matthew count as his own witness to the exception clause? Is

the reader willing to consider this thought? I personally believe that

the exception clause even though used twice by Matthew is a single

obscure text, i.e. a single text without reference. Therefore any effort

at exegesis must honor the rules of hermeneutics for interpreting

obscure texts: (1) The principal for the preference of the clearest

interpretation, (2) The principal of the unity of the sense of Scripture,

(3) The principal of the analogy of the faith.

210

The modern student

must be circumspect here to avoid carrying his contemporary

understanding of civil legal divorce into this obscure text. So dear

reader, please stop for a moment and remember that Scripture

interprets Scripture (scriptura sacra sui ipsius intrepres).

The person that holds to a non-permanency-marriage

doctrine must address another important consideration which is

referred to as the Premium of Adultery—this means that the exception

clause offers a loop hole in the otherwise permanency doctrine that

gives the advantage to the spouse who wants to terminate the

marriage, i.e. that spouse can simply commit adultery with the person

they want to remarry, and cause the innocent mate to sue for a

What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage? 213

divorce on the only (supposed) permitted grounds for divorce

(adultery)—this very idea has entered into the mind of several people

that I have personally counseled. I find it incredible that here in the

middle of Jesus’ severe denunciation of murder and adultery that the

modern interpreter finds adultery to be an advantage to the person

who desires to terminate a marriage covenant. I ask you dear reader

one simple question: “Did Jesus permit and offer any exception

clause for murder, or for any other crime?” Thou shalt not commit

adultery; Thou shalt not kill; are the words of God. I’m certain that

Jesus never taught such a corrupt doctrine: The Premium of Adultery.

He was teaching men the full meaning of the Law of Moses. He

explicitly stated, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the

prophets: I am come not to destroy the law, but to fulfill.” So I am

certain that what Matthew recorded was not a premium to commit

adultery; it certainly means something else.

During the time of our Lord the Jewish courts according to

Edersheim would, "unquestionably allow divorce on almost any

grounds." Explaining the difference between Christ and the two

rabbi’s of the day, Shammai the conservative, i.e., divorce for

unchastity, and Hillel the liberal, i.e., divorce for every cause,

Edersheim writes:

And the Jewish Law unquestionably allowed divorce

on almost any grounds; the difference being, not as

to what was lawful, but on what grounds a man

should set the Law in motion, and make use of the

absolute liberty which it accorded him. Hence, it is a

serious mistake on the part of Commentators

[Christian] to set the teaching of Christ on this

subject by the side of that of Shammai.

But the School of Hillel proceeded on different

principles. It took the words, 'matter of shame' in

the widest possible sense, and declared it sufficient

ground for divorce if a woman had spoiled her

husband’s dinner. Rabbi Akiba thought, that the

words, 'if she find no favour in his eyes,' implied that

it was sufficient if a man had found another woman

more attractive than his wife. All agreed that moral

214 Chapter Six Jesus’ Doctrine

blame made divorce a duty, and that in such cases a

woman should not be taken back; according to the

Mishnah, if they transgressed against the Law of

Moses or of Israel. The former is explained as

implying a breach of the laws of tithing, of setting

apart the first of the dough, and of purification. The

latter is explained as referring to such offences as

that of going in public with uncovered head, of

spinning in the public streets, or entering into talk

with men, to which others add, that of brawling, or

of disrespectfully speaking of her husband's parents

in his presence. A troublesome, or quarrelsome wife

might certainly be sent away; and ill repute, or

childlessness (during ten years) were also regarded

as valid grounds of divorce.

211

On the other hand the conservative rabbi, Shammai, set

unchastity or adultery as the only legal ground to secure a divorce; for

which Moses of course required the stoning to death of both guilty

partners. But the Law required every capital offense to be witnessed,

"One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for

any sin, in any sin that he sinneth; at the mouth of two witnesses, or

at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established,"

(Deut. 19:15). Therefore in order to execute the penalty of the Law

the husband, or his acquaintance would have to literally catch his

wife in the act. This would prove almost impossible. Sexual relations

of the married are a private act, and adultery is even more private and

secretive. The intrigue of privacy and mystery that surround adultery

are the very elements that make up the definition of adultery.

Without the secrecy element adultery would not be possible.

Therefore it would be near impossible to prove the act of adultery

was actually committed. Stoning for adultery was most likely very

uncommon, however adultery was probably more common.

In (John 8:1-11) the scribes and Pharisees claimed that the

woman they arrested was taken in adultery. If this was true where

was her male counterpart, the adulterer. They failed to meet the

criteria of the Law, and consequently Jesus threw the case out of

court. First of all they wanted to stone the woman without a trial.

They did not present the two witnesses. But the real problem with

What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage? 215

their story was that the adulterer was missing. The case against the

woman could not be proven without the male counterpart. The real

possibility was that the woman had a reputation for adultery, but

these men could not prove it. That was exactly what the dilemma of

adultery was all about. The reason for the dilemma of adultery is that

a man whose wife secretly committed adultery may have conceived

child by adultery. The man then would have a wife who was with

child of another man, the adulterer. Without this knowledge the

innocent husband would be required to raise this child even to calling

it his own. The elements of adultery, or even the suspicion of

adultery have the gravest consequences for the man. A woman,

however, never has this total fear. She knows the man, or possible

men that impregnated her. The mystery of iniquity is that a woman

could conceive a child by adultery and her husband probably would

never know. The woman alone can guarantee the knowledge of the

father, i.e. before the day of DNA testing. When the man is

distressed with doubt of his wife's fidelity, he is overcome with what

the Scripture refers to as the spirit of jealousy. Today this same spirit

of jealousy may enter into a marriage relationship; for which moderns

have no solution, save DNA testing; certainly a difficult test for the

jealous husband to obtain. The ancients however had a remedy.

During the period of the tabernacle God provided a test for

the woman who was suspected of adultery; and if she was with child

the husband could be assured that he was the father. The test was to

ensure her innocence in the event her husband brought false

accusation against her. Like the river ordeal of the ancient codes the

Law of Moses provided a similar examination:

11 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

12 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto

them, If any man's wife go aside, and commit a

trespass against him,

13 And a man lie with her carnally, and it be hid

from the eyes of her husband, and be kept close, and

she be defiled, and there be no witness against her,

neither she be taken with the manner;

14 And the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and

he be jealous of his wife, and she be defiled: or if the

216 Chapter Six Jesus’ Doctrine

spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous

of his wife, and she be not defiled:

15 Then shall the man bring his wife unto the priest,

and he shall bring her offering for her, the tenth part

of an ephah of barley meal; he shall pour no oil upon

it, nor put frankincense thereon; for it is an offering

of jealousy, an offering of memorial, bringing

iniquity to remembrance.

16 And the priest shall bring her near, and set her

before the LORD:

17 And the priest shall take holy water in an earthen

vessel; and of the dust that is in the floor of the

tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the

water:

18 And the priest shall set the woman before the

LORD, and uncover the woman's head, and put the

offering of memorial in her hands, which is the

jealousy offering: and the priest shall have in his

hand the bitter water that causeth the curse:

19 And the priest shall charge her by an oath, and

say unto the woman, If no man have lain with thee,

and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness with

another instead of thy husband, be thou free from

this bitter water that causeth the curse:

20 But if thou hast gone aside to another instead of

thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man

have lain with thee beside thine husband:

21 Then the priest shall charge the woman with an

oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the

woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath

among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy

thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell;

22 And this water that causeth the curse shall go

into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy

thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen.

23 And the priest shall write these curses in a book,

and he shall blot them out with the bitter water:

24 And he shall cause the woman to drink the bitter

water that causeth the curse: and the water that

What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage? 217

causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become

bitter.

25 Then the priest shall take the jealousy offering

out of the woman's hand, and shall wave the offering

before the LORD, and offer it upon the altar:

26 And the priest shall take an handful of the

offering, even the memorial thereof, and burn it

upon the altar, and afterward shall cause the woman

to drink the water.

27 And when he hath made her to drink the water,

then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and

have done trespass against her husband, that the

water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and

become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her

thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse

among her people.

28 And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean;

then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed.

29 This is the law of jealousies, when a wife goeth

aside to another instead of her husband, and is

defiled;

30 Or when the spirit of jealousy cometh upon him,

and he be jealous over his wife, and shall set the

woman before the LORD, and the priest shall

execute upon her all this law.

31 Then shall the man be guiltless from iniquity,

and this woman shall bear her iniquity.

(Numb. 5:11-31)

The dilemma that surrounds adultery is manifest in this law. One

would wonder if the law was ever exercised, not just because of the

required dust from the floor of the tabernacle, but also for the

intricate difficulty of the law. In all probability just the inquisition

would bring out the truth: the accused would either plead her

innocence, or if guilty she would confess her sin. This all contributed

to the problems associated with adultery, problems for the guilty, the

innocent, the suspected, and for the jealous one.

There is no divorce provision in the Law for adultery. If

adultery was committed the only solution of the Law was death. The

218 Chapter Six Jesus’ Doctrine

(èrwat dabar) the unclean thing, certainly was not adultery, or for that

fact it was not even the suspicion of adultery as noted.

The myriad of offences which permitted divorce were in all

actuality nothing more than what Edersheim said, "The Jewish Law

unquestionably allowed divorce on almost any grounds (except

adultery); the difference being, not as to what was lawful, but on what

grounds a man should set the Law in motion, and make use of the

absolute liberty which it accorded him." Was it possible that because

of man's design of adultery avoidance he created a grocery list of

reasons to set the law in motion—In other words he was using his

divorce privilege to actually commit adultery “legally”, i.e. these

minor offences became a Premium of Offences to Commit Adultery;

so he could divorce his wife instead of committing the act of adultery

with the woman he was lusting.

As stated here Rabbi Akiba permitted divorce if a man

found a woman more attractive than his wife. If this was the case

men did not have to worry about committing adultery. If he lusted

after another woman he only had to divorce his wife—perhaps for

some trivial matter—and marry the woman he wanted to take by

adultery. He could do this even if he was coveting another man's

wife. Herod Antipas was accused of exactly this act, although there

is evidence that Herodias had motives of her own to enter into the

incestuous adulterous relationship. The surprising thing was that man

actually believed he had solved the problem of the prohibition of

committing adultery by promulgating laws that permitted divorce for

every cause. Certainly if a man suspected his wife of committing

adultery, he only had to apply this interpretation of the Law, and

divorce his wife for the suspicion of adultery. But it appears that the

Lord Jesus Christ was about to challenge all their permissiveness, and

drive the spear of repentance deep into their heart of hearts. He was

about to divide to the bone and marrow, and to the soul and spirit. He

was about to reveal to each man that the sin of adultery was much

more extensive than any had imagined:

It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his

wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement; but I

say unto you that whosoever shall put away his wife,

except for the cause of fornication, causeth her to

What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage? 219

commit adultery; and whosoever shall marry her that

is divorced committeth adultery.

Matt. 5:31,32

Here Jesus clearly cuts the liberal divorce school off at the pass. By

making marriage a permanent contract, except for Matthew’s

understanding of fornication, Jesus forbids the putting away of any

woman for any matter, whatsoever. Dear reader please read this

treatise Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage

completely: the knowledge of Matthew’s understanding of

fornication is absolutely critical to understanding the doctrine of

divorce and the argument of this book. I believe that the two

definitions of the word fornication that is given by Matthew are the

only possible

definitions of the word found in Matthew’s two

divorce logions.

The latest figures claim that sixty percent of modern

American marriages are destined to the divorce court. Those suing

for divorce customarily charge their spouse with irreconcilably

differences, or cruel and abusive treatment among other things,

although adultery is probably the principal cause. The difficulty of

suing for adultery has been stated, the secrecy of sin makes it difficult

to prove. On the other hand the suspicion of adultery, jealousy,

according to Solomon "is as cruel as the grave," (Song 8:6). Jealousy

may reflect: (1) the evil suspicion of the husband, or (2) the unproven

knowledge of the truth. If adultery has been committed and the

dreaded fear is true, the innocent partner tastes of death. If adultery

did not exist, the suspected innocent partner suffers a measure of

death; yes, jealousy is a cruel as the grave. Adultery is the primary

evil of marriage, the primary cause of divorce. But you will not read

this on most divorce complaints.

And so it was in the time of Christ. The Rabbi Hillel

permitted divorce for every cause, but he does not mention jealousy.

The "law of jealousy" was no longer an option, if in fact it was ever

practiced. If a man believed he had the right to put away his wife

when his eye beheld a woman who was more pleasing to him, he

certainly would divorce a wife who he suspected of infidelity. Here

in (Matt. 5:31,32) we hear Jesus say (apart from the exception clause

which we will address in the Matt. 19 logion), that divorce is

forbidden, and that any remarriage following divorce is adultery. In

220 Chapter Six Jesus’ Doctrine

this Sermon Jesus is teaching that the depravity of the heart of man.

He cites the Sixth Commandment, "Thou shalt not kill", then he

aggressively reveals the heart of man as a killer. He continues with

the Seventh Commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery", and

now proves that all men are guilty of adultery, “Whosoever looketh

on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already

in his heart.” In the past the Jews understood the Law and they

committed their adultery behind the cloak of the permissive divorce

laws of the rabbis. Now Jesus strips these hypocrites naked, divorce

with remarriage is adultery. He forbid divorce, save for the

Matthew’s exception clause.

The modern understanding of the exception clause in (Matt.

5:32) does not harmonize with the context of the Sermon, and this

disparity has led some, to even go as far as, to suspect the text. This

lack of harmony is caused by the student attempting to read his

modern understanding of civil divorce into the N.T. text. There are

two possible harmonies in understanding the exception clause; I have

been developing those options since the first word of this book.

Stuart L.Tyson wrote a little book, The teaching of our Lord as to the

Indissolubility of Marriage, where he sternly defends the doctrine of

permanency-marriage. He argues to defend the teaching of Jesus

regarding marriage. He understands Jesus to teach the absolute

permanency of marriage this side of death; and this fact causes him to

struggle with the exception clause in both (Matt. 5:32;19:9). His

sincere and rigorous effort to harmonize the divorce texts with the

teaching of Jesus drives him to suspect those very texts. He obviously

is attempting to interpret the exception clause with a modern view of

civil divorce. Donald W. Shaner quotes Tyson:

Tyson does not see how the statements of Matthew

attributed to Jesus (5:32; 19:9) can be brought into

accord with the previously mentioned biblical

authors. "...if Christ really uttered these words [the

exception clause], so far from elevating the

conception of marriage, He has not raised it one whit

higher than the level of Moses, whereas the very

purpose of His previous words [Matt. 5] is to

contrast His teaching with that of Moses!" And to

Mark's question, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce

What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage? 221

his wife?," requiring a direct Yes or No, Matthew

adds "for every cause?," presupposing his

acceptance of the Deuteronomic Law, but asking

him to decide for either the strict or liberal view of

certain Rabbis. Jesus, by including the exception of

adultery, seems to accept the view of Shammai,

rather than abrogating the Mosaic law. If so, it is

difficult to understand the disciples' protest (vs. 10),

since it was merely a reaffirmation of a Jewish

doctrine accepted by a large segment of the

population. The only conclusion is that the

exception clause is an interpolation due to a Jewish-

Christian compiler or editor.

In Matt. 5:32 Jesus also simply confirms the

Old Testament teaching; this is contradictory to the

structure of the verse which has Christ saying, "But

I say unto you," in contrast to the Mosaic law in the

preceding verse. The second half of the verse, "and

whosoever shall marry her that hath been put away

committeth adultery," is almost verbatim with the

last portion of Luke 16:18. The anarthrous participle

απoλελυμεvηv, occurring in both Gospels, denotes

"... any woman divorced for any cause whatever."

Luke is consistent, but the only way to harmonize

Matthew is to place the exception clause also in the

second half of the verse 32, or to eliminate it from

the first.

212

Tyson wrote this is 1909 when marriage was relatively sound in our

country. He had so much difficulty with the exception clauses of

Matthew that he believed that Jesus, whose teaching of marriage was

ablaze with the doctrine of permanency, certainly could not have

spoken them. I am very surprised that today most scholars, pastors,

students, and confessed Bible believers seem to have no difficulty

with the apparent blatant contradiction of the divorce texts and Jesus’

teaching on permanency-marriage. Tyson was not a

fundamentalist—he was a southern Episcopalian—nevertheless even

in 1909 this gentleman was having serious trouble thinking through

222 Chapter Six Jesus’ Doctrine

these texts. It is just remarkable today that from student to scholar

our generation does not at least admit to the difficulty and

contradiction of the modern interpretation that the exception clause

permits man to put asunder that which God joined together.

Matthew’s text is absolutely an obscure text, and if our generation

does not make that admission then this writer suspects not the

Matthean text, but I suspect the honesty of the modern students,

pastors, and scholars—I adamantly suspect our generation of

prophets. In order to understand the exception clauses one must put

himself completely back into the exact time of the record of the N.T.

When any honest person considers exactly what Matthew understood

about exceptions and his use of the word fornication as he himself

admits in his writings then the student, pastor, and scholar will

understand the text in its fullness.

The major context of (Matt. 5:32) declares that Jesus was

sternly objecting to the Jew’s understanding of the Law. He was

explicitly teaching the true meaning of the terms, kill, adultery, and to

forswear. In each case His teaching is unambiguous and without any

exceptions. Yet, in the discussion of adultery there seems to be an

unusual contradictory statement. A statement that on initial

examination appears to challenge the entire context of the pericope,

i.e., His objection to the Jew’s understanding of the Law of Adultery,

—adultery could only be committed if the physical act took place—

in other words to the Jews the act of thinking adultery was no crime;

yet Jesus clearly states that to think adultery is a crime. Since, to

some, the modern interpretation of the exception clause permits

divorce for adultery this fact absolutely qualifies the exception clause

to be defined as an obscure text: murder is murder, and adultery is

adultery. When Jesus describes murder there is no question, no

exception to his dialogue; the same is true of adultery, and to

forswear. So the evidence that the exception clause is an obscure text

cannot be denied. The context must dictate the meaning of the

obscure text; like it or not. As the Reformers argued with Rome,

“Scripture must interpret Scripture.” Rome was not the exclusive

interpreter of Scripture. The modern interpretation of the State civil

marriage and divorce laws cannot dictate the interpretation of the

exception clause to the Church. Before we directly tackle the

exception clause in Matt. 19:9 we must first gather the other Scripture

data on the subject.

What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage? 223

Mark 10:1-12

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. Mark 10:11,12

In Mark, Jesus reiterates the prohibition of divorce; whereas

in (Matt.) Jesus charged the man who divorced his wife with causing

his wife to commit adultery, and likewise He charged the man who

married a divorced woman with committing adultery. Here in (Mark

10) He charged the man who divorces his wife and remarries with

adultery and likewise He charges any woman who would do the same

with adultery. There is no question that apart from Matthew’s

exception clauses Jesus clearly prohibited divorce—this writer

believes that Jesus forbid divorce in Matthew as well; a thought that

embraces the teaching that Jesus is consistent.

It is of extreme interest to this writer that an apology has been

developed to permit Mark to make this very obvious editing

regarding the woman. The argument states that Mark was writing

with the Gentile-Christians in mind, since the Gentiles permitted the

woman the right to sue for divorce—an act quite foreign to the Jew.

Since the commentators are swift to apologize for Mark my questions

is: Why not give Matthew some space in his understanding of

fornication in the divorce texts?

Luke 16:18

Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth

another, committeth adultery; and whosoever

marrieth her that is put away from her husband,

committeth adultery.

So again here we have, without the exception clause, the absolute

prohibition of divorce. Jesus was adamant, He forbid divorce. Jesus

absolutely taught that marriage is permanent. We will now enter that

224 Chapter Six Jesus’ Doctrine

famous battlefield (Matthew 5:32; 19:9), the Gettysburg of the

Divorce-War. Let us proceed by examining the entire battlefield.

Romans 7:1-3 A Case For Permanency

Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that

know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over

a man as long as he liveth?

2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound

by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if

the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of

her husband.

3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be

married to another man, she shall be called an

adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free

from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though

she be married to another man. Rom. 7:1-3

Our conscience is pricked with these words. They are so clear. The

thought of permanency is so profound and so simple. This verse has

created great difficulty for the "not permanency" camp. It clearly

teaches permanency, causing the "not permanency" camp to cry,

"But, But, But." The "permanency camp" realizes that this text is an

illustration to explain a Christian's relation to the Law. As a widow is

free from the law of her husband and free to remarry, so the Christian

is no longer bound by the Law, but is free to marry another, i.e.

Christ. The "not permanency" camp cries that this text is just an

illustration, it is not a divorce text. They cry that the societies of the

Biblical text understood a doctrine of marriage that permitted divorce.

Nevertheless, the illustrator, Paul, chose to dissolve marriage only by

death, and that point must be addressed. From this verse it can be

argued that Paul personally believed in a "permanency-marriage"

doctrine; and as we shall see Paul believed in absolute permanency,

as did Christ. This is a difficult thought to those looking for license

to divorce; so as for the "not permanency" camp we see them

laboring to convert Paul to their false doctrine. They cry that the

Jews according to the law practiced divorce and remarriage as

expounded in (Deut. 24:1-4) but this text was thoroughly discussed in

Chapter 4 of this book—dear reader please keep in mind that Jesus

What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage? 225

rejected the Deuteronomy text and relegated it to a mere concession

of Moses. Can any reader be sure that Paul wrote this text with the

understanding that he was only making a general illustration of

binding and loosening elements of the law? I believe that Paul’s

other writings combined with this text, will prove that creation-

marriage, permanency marriage, was his view of sound doctrine. The

next text in our discovery is found in I Corinthians.

I Corinthians 5:1-5 Fornication Means Incest

1 It is reported commonly that there is fornication

among you, and such fornication as is not so much

as named among the Gentiles, that one should have

his father's wife.

2 And ye are puffed up, and have not rather

mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be

taken away from among you.

3 For I verily, as absent in body, but present in

spirit, have judged already, as though I were present,

concerning him that hath so done this deed,

4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are

gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of

our Lord Jesus Christ,

5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the

destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved

in the day of the Lord Jesus. I Cor. 5:1-5

The Unlawful Marriage school, the incest view, has the right

to claim this as a proof text in support of their understanding of

porneia. The Corinthian church obviously did not get the message of

Acts 15 and 21; reasoning that since they were not under the law they

were free from all aspects of the law. The interpretation of porneia in

this context is not disputed. A man in the church had married his

father’s wife—the man’s stepmother. It is only probable to assume

that his father was dead. This was a clear violation of the Jerusalem

Decree where fornication (incestuous marriage) was forbidden. Paul

is alarmed. His distress is exasperated by the fact that the entire

church had not only approved the unlawful marriage, but they were

glorying in it, i.e. they were puffed up (literally proud of it).

226 Chapter Six Jesus’ Doctrine

Consequently Paul lashes out with his most severe N.T. censure, "In

the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and

my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such an

one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be

saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

The professed believer, the fornicator, violated Leviticus 18:8

The nakedness of thy father’s wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy

father’s nakedness. Paul’s doctrine is without question; he saw this

marriage as a fornication-marriage that must be put away. This was

an unlawful marriage and Paul screamed it must be put away (divorce

was immediate). So here in Corinth divorce was permitted for the

exception, incest. Let us continue to follow Paul as he continues

teaching his doctrine of creation-marriage.

I Corinthian 6:15-18 Permanency and the Body Of Christ

15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of

Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and

make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.

16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to

an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be

one flesh.

17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is

without the body; but he that committeth fornication

sinneth against his own body. I Cor. 6:15-18

This text suggests that the Corinthian church was perhaps as corrupt

as any church in history. Heth and Wenham commenting on I

Corinthians 7:2 (Nevertheless to avoid fornication), see a reference to

I Corinthians six: "As Fee suggests, the 'because of immoralities'

(nevertheless, to avoid fornication, KJV) in verse 2 is probably a

direct reference back to 6:12-20 where men, in all probability

married, were going to the house of prostitutes (and possibly even at

the suggestion of their ascetic wives?).

213

A doctrine existed in the

Corinthian Church that permitted their men to have free sexual

relations with the many prostitutes of that city. Paul cries out against

this immorality, declaring that the believer’s body—contrary to the

Corinthian opinion—experienced salvation in Christ equally as his

What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage? 227

spirit. The body is for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. The body

will experience redemption (resurrection). A believer's body is a

member of Christ's body; it is a temple. By having sexual union with

harlots, a believer was taking the members of Christ and uniting them

to the harlot. In (I Cor. 6:18) Paul exhorts them to flee this kind of

fornication. The union of Christ’s body with a harlot is absolutely

forbidden, because he that is joined to a harlot is one with a harlot,

"For two, saith he, shall be one flesh." We should be one spirit and

one flesh with Christ. Fornication is a sin against oneself.

Fornication is a sin with oneself. Fornication should not be

committed in the temple of God, and your body is the temple of God

the Holy Spirit. You are no longer own your body, it has been bought

(redeemed) by another. Bought with a price, the precious blood of

the Lamb of God, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, who taketh away

the sin of the world.

The Erasmian's draw an unusual conclusion from this text.

Removing this text from the context of the Corinthian practice of a

free permission to visit the brothel, they conclude that when a married

person unites with a harlot something beside fornication has taken

place. With the act of fornication their creation-marriage died,

because their act created a new union. They reason that since

fornication required them to unite with another, this could only be

accomplished by dissolving the original union. This idea should be

stricken from the record—to believe this is to deny the power of the

Gospel that unites the believer to Christ forever. The text does not

honor the thought of dissolution of marriage. It is shear conjecture.

Note that in spite of their sin, Paul indicates that all is well. He

reaches in to salvage them, wholly. For this they have been aptly

chided, and called on to repent; being offered complete Christian

restoration: for after he chided them he proclaims that they have been

“bought with a price,” brought means they are redeemed.

Contrary to the Erasmian's who see the dissolution of

marriage in this text, the text clearly supports the permanency of

marriage even in the event of fornication, i.e., in this case their unions

with harlots. Paul clearly extends complete salvation to these sinning

Corinthians. "You are bought with a price; therefore glorify God in

your body and in your spirit, which are God's." There is absolutely

no mention of these men losing their wives, or salvation in this text.

Their wives are for some reason unusually silent. Was it in fact that

228 Chapter Six Jesus’ Doctrine

because they were ascetic they were refraining from conjugal

reciprocation; did they believed abstinence was holiness? Well,

chapter seven seems to answer that question in the affirmative.

Nevertheless, chapter six is a victory for the permanency camp.

I Corinthians 7 Marriage’s Moving Chapter

As we proceed to view the battle field at Gettysburg, Matt.

5:32; 19:9, we must first pass “marriages moving chapter.” Here in I

Cor. 7 we will find another field in this battleground of the "not

permanency" camp. These forty verses are intertwined into a strong

rope anchoring the text to the doctrine of permanency. There is but

one possible thread that seems to give some hope to the "not

permanency" group: verse 15. But before we discuss that verse let us

examine each preceding verse of this chapter:

Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto

me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

I Cor. 7:1

Paul begins his answer to their question—note the discussion

of (I Cor.6)—by stating his primary position on marriage: “It is good

for a man not to touch a woman.” Paul's voluntary celibacy is his

primary platform and verses (7,8,25,26,40) reflect that. He appears to

directly reference (Matthew 19:11,12) the eunuch reference: “All

men cannot receive this saying, except they to whom it is given.”

Paul was one who made himself a eunuch for the kingdoms sake. He

was able to receive the saying of Jesus. We will see that this chapter

resounds the permanency view of Matthew 19: 4-6. Gordon Fee

understands that the "to touch" is a reference to marriage. The word

in classical Greek literature, and in the Greek O.T., is a figurative

expression for sexual intercourse. The question the church obviously

presented: Is it good for a man to abstain from sexual relations with a

woman.'

214

Therefore the real question of the text is not fornication

but it is a question of marriage. In other words Paul is saying that

although he advises that men practice celibacy, nevertheless, because

of strong sexual passions that they evidence, "it is better to marry

then to burn," (v.9).

What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage? 229

It also seems that there was a spirit of asceticism in the

Corinthian church: some women were ascetic while their husbands

were not, and vise versa. As stated in chapter 6 some ascetic women

appeared to permit their husbands to visit the brothel.

Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man

have his own wife, and let every woman have her

own husband. I Cor. 7:2

Paul will address several parties throughout this chapter.

Here he simply permits marriage and enforces conjugal liberty in

monogamous marriage: "own wife and own husband." This implies

full conjugal rights and a right to full sexual satisfaction of the

marriage bed. Paul's is forced to explain:

3 Let the husband render unto the wife due

benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the

husband.

4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the

husband: and likewise also the husband hath not

power of his own body, but the wife.

5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with

consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to

fasting and prayer; and come together again, that

Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

I Cor. 7:3-5

Paul, a single man, has a marvelous grasp of marital relations

and a full understanding of copulation. Full sexual satisfaction of the

marriage partners is their right. He clearly teaches that sexual

satisfaction is in the power of each other partner. Impotence may not

be the problem of the partner diagnosed with the malady. Paul goes

as far as to make sexual satisfaction a moral right; he admonishes the

partners not to defraud one another. The only room Paul provides for

avoiding a partner is a period of fasting created by the burden to pray.

Certainly one cannot fast for a long period of time. But if a partner

determines to fast the abstinence from conjugal rights is permitted

during the fast. Fasting in the Scriptures meant to go without eating,

not a mere abstinence of certain foods; it was the abstinence of all

230 Chapter Six Jesus’ Doctrine

food—I believe that the act of fasting is only dictated by the urgency

to pray; in other words the only reason a man or woman fasts is

because they are too busy praying—The period of fasting here was

obviously a relatively short, other wise Paul states that there is no

room for asceticism in marriage.

Paul moves away from the married for a moment, and now

addresses the unmarried and widows:

6 But I speak this by permission, and not of

commandment.

7 For I would that all men were even as I myself.

But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after

this manner, and another after that.

8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is

good for them if they abide even as I.

9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is

better to marry than to burn. I Cor. 7:6-9

Paul, in this parenthetical note, states that what he is about to

say is not a commandment; but as you will see a few moments later

he speaks by commandment. Paul obviously sees celibacy as a

voluntary or as a special gift from God as in Matthew 19:11,12. He

then gives his personal testimony, that he is one who has been given a

special grace, he is celibate, but he goes on to permit others to marry.

This is a marriage text. Paul stresses his personal belief that celibacy

is his preference for all men. He then defines the eligible for

marriage as the unmarried and the widows. Note here that Paul

specifically sees unmarried people as never-been-married-people or

those with a dead partner. But, Paul does not stop there. He

recommends marriage over burning in sexual desire; for if burning is

not cooled, it will foster fornication. Paul will now reverse his role as

a guidance counselor and speak as a prophet of the living God:

10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but

the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her

husband:

11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried,

or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the

husband put away his wife. I Cor. 7:10-11

What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage? 231

This text solidly embraces permanency. Note: This is not

Paul’s command, it is the actual command of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Paul explicitly tells us this: “And unto the married I command, yet

not I, but the Lord.” Paul makes no exceptions for divorce. He

interprets the Gospel texts of Jesus perfectly; he is in perfect

agreement with the Lord Jesus Christ. I see this text as a clear

repudiation of remarriage after divorce or during the life of a living

partner, regardless of any condition—Absolutely without Exception.

Even if as some writers believe, that depart refers to divorce then

there is again an unmistakable command not to remarry.

215

The word

depart here could mean to separate without divorce; regardless, the

idea of permanency-marriage is the focus of this text. The husband is

commanded by God not to put away (divorce) his wife. It is as if

Paul is exclaiming Jesus’ permanency doctrine that he preached to the

Pharisees and His disciples: “What therefore God hath joined

together, let not man put asunder.” Paul certainly knew and

understood what Jesus taught as Paul himself now teaches the same

doctrine of permanency-creation-marriage here in Corinth. The

other important doctrine here is the doctrine of reconciliation that

must remain a permanent option for this N.T. marriage scenario;

reconciliation speaks of Salvation by Grace Alone. Therefore we can

conclude that Jesus, Mark, Luke, and Paul are in complete agreement,

the only obscure text belongs to Matthew and we have labored at this

entire dissertation to show that Matthew is also in full agreement with

all the other writers of the sacred page—providing you understand

Matthew’s meaning of fornication. Let us go on to the city of boots;

the battle draweth nigh.

12 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.

13 And the woman which hath an husband that

believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with

her, let her not leave him

14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the

wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the

232 Chapter Six Jesus’ Doctrine

husband: else were your children unclean; but now

are they holy

. ICor.7:12-14

The question of the mixed marriage, the believer with the

unbeliever surfaced in Corinth. Paul only instructs the believer. His

primary instruction is that the believer should not put away the

unbeliever. He does indicate that if the unbeliever is pleased to

remain in the union, then that union is holy, or sanctified. The

believer is commanded to stay with the marriage; it is the unbeliever

who is not commanded. The unbeliever appears to have the right to

control the outcome of the marriage. Paul gives the unbeliever the

right of choice. If the unbeliever is pleased to remain, then he/she

may do as he/she pleases. The choice is entirely with the unbeliever.

The believer must permit the unbeliever the choice. Mixed marriages

are holy in these circumstances; thus the children are not unclean but

holy

15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A

brother or a sister is not under bondage in such

cases: but God hath called us to peace. I Cor. 7:15

The believer must permit the unbeliever the choice. This

coincides with I Cor. 5:12 "For what have I to do to judge them also

that are outside?" The believer, like Paul, cannot judge them that are

"outside." The unbeliever has the freedom to make the choice; and

since the unbeliever has the free choice to depart, the believer then

has the responsibility to permit that departure, peacefully. As we said

earlier, marriage has always invoked the man's sense of sovereignty

and ownership; his sense of authority. A believer might even argue

that the unbeliever does not have the right to depart based on Jesus

command, "Let not man put asunder," and "They twain shall be one

flesh." Although this is so, it is nevertheless true that God permits

man the right to choose—even if the choice is sinful or leads to his

destruction—“For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord

shall be saved." This right of choice must be extended to the

unbelieving partner regarding their marriage. The doctrine of

marriage and the doctrine of Salvation are very similar.

What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage? 233

The Scriptures are clear in teaching that the believer is not

under bondage to force the unbeliever to stay. He/she must not

thwart that free choice. The unbeliever must be permitted to leave in

peace. In God-speed if you will. The believer is not bound to force

the unbeliever to remain, however the believer is bound to permit the

unbeliever to leave in peace with the hope of a future restoration;

always restoration and reconciliation, the mark of Salvation. The

Christian must extend to the unbeliever the invitation to return to the

marriage bond and must remain unmarried as taught in (v. 10,11) thus

permitting the indissoluble union to physically reunite. To the

believer this is the true essence of love. As with the grace of God, he

waits for the return of all unbelievers; and for wayward believers.

God keeps the door of His heart ready to open; all we have to do is

come and knock. We as pastors must teach our dear people to do the

same for the lost husband or wife. The believing partner must keep

the door of his/her heart ready to open and must keep the literal door

of his/her home ready to open. Hope must not be abandoned; hope

that the lost partner will find true repentance and faith upon their

return and be saved. What better words can be said then these:

For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt

save thy husband? Or how knowest thou, O man

whether thou shalt save thy wife? I Cor. 7:16

The extension of love to the departed is intended to bring the

loved one to salvation, "thou shalt save thy husband, or thy wife." I

find this statement very interesting since the salvation of the departed

loved one is now the target of the believers love. He/she must pray

for the departed love one to be saved. The question this verse raises

is, When do we stop? When do we stop praying for them to return to

the Lord, and to us? This verse indicates that the believer permitted

the unbeliever to leave in peace, and with the condition that when

they return it implies the hope that they will also accept Christ as

their own personal Savior, and thus be saved. You never stop praying

for your loved ones until your, or their dying day. Therefore this

verse states that unless the unbelieving spouse returns there is to be

no remarriage for the believer this-side-of-death. Again, this verse

speaks for permanency; even if that partner is never heard from again,

or even if the believer has no knowledge of whether they are dead or

234 Chapter Six Jesus’ Doctrine

alive. This is the complete translation of Ephesians 5:25: Husbands

love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave

himself for it.—That verse could just as well read: Wives love your

husbands, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for

it.

In verses (17-26) Paul introduces a parenthetical statement

regarding the need for men to be content with their personal calling.

He mentions those called in circumcision, out of circumcision,

servants, and freemen. He speaks of virgins and then leads up to his

proposition again that celibacy is recommended but not required:

27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be

loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a

wife.

28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and

if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless

such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.

I Cor. 7:27-28

Paul's concept of the times in which he lived was that of

"distress", and in this state it was better for a man to remain

unmarried. Paul repeats his appeal for men to be content with their

calling: Let every man, wherein, he is called, there abide with God.

If you are bound in marriage to a wife, seek not to be loosed; if your

loosed from a wife, seek not a wife. Paul is using common language

to make a point. To be bound to a wife simply means to be married,

and to be loosed from a wife means the person is single or a widow. It

means this and nothing more. From this chapter we have shown that

the unmarried are people who have never been married, or widows

(ers). In each case where a believing married person realized the

departure of a living mate, that believer was ordered to remain

unmarried or be reconciled. An of course as Paul opened the chapter

with his it is better to marry than to burn he now continues that

theme with if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned.

Heth and Wenham note that the best interpretation of virgins

in the context under discussion (v. 25-38) is that of J.K. Elliott.

"He demonstrates that these virgins are engaged

couples. In the rest of the NT 'virgin' is commonly

What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage? 235

used of a betrothed girl (Lk. 1:27, Matt. 1:18, 23;

25:1-13; II Cor. 11:2), and throughout verses 25-38

Paul addresses the men and his special notations are

to the women (cf. vv. 28b,34). The question these

engaged couples ask Paul is whether or not to fulfill

their promises of marriage in view of the present

distress. So when Paul says in verse 28, 'But if you

should marry, you have not sinned', he is not

speaking to divorced individuals as a good number

of Erasmians suppose. He is speaking to those who

are bound by a promise of marriage (= engaged) in

verse 27. It is to this group that Paul says, 'But if

you should marry, you have not sinned' (v28a).

216

37 Nevertheless he that standeth steadfast in his

heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his

own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he

will keep his virgin, doeth well. I Cor. 7:37

Following Elliott, this verse simple states that the male who

is engaged does well if he breaks the engagement and remains a

virgin. There is a sight hint here of the idea of a father having the

oversight of his virgin daughter, but this idea does not harmonize well

with the context. However, if that is what Paul is stating it does not

diminish from the proposition of this thesis and perhaps should be

discussed in another forum. Paul continues:

38 So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth

well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth

better. I Cor. 7:38

Paul's conclusion regarding the engaged: Yes you can marry,

but if you remain single it is "better." Paul now returns to the others

who are loosed: widows:

The wife is bound by the law as long as her

husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is

at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in

the Lord. I Cor. 7:39

236 Chapter Six Jesus’ Doctrine

Paul repeats what he said in Romans 7:2. The point that is

very interesting to this writer is that in both cases Paul does not even

hint at any other event that could loose the marriage bond; absolutely

no exceptions. Paul teaches a permanency doctrine which is equal to

his Lord. This fact reinforces the doctrine that states: "no-

remarriage-this-side-of-death." Paul gives the approval of

remarriage after the death of a partner. Here he appropriately chooses

the death of the husband. It seems that antiquity even declares that

women outlived the men. Consequently, the church as a social unit

had to manage widows, to which the NT attests. Again the widows

were admonished to remain single, and as a matter of fact they were

looked upon as worldly if they did remarry: "But the younger widows

refuse; for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they

will marry, having damnation, because they have cast off their first

faith," (I Tim. 5:11,12). Nevertheless, widows were permitted to

marry, however this is to be "only in the Lord."

Another principal teaching in the marriage doctrine of the

church is that marriage like other partnerships is to be between two

believers. A partnership between a believer and an unbeliever is

unequal: Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers; for

what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what

communion hath light with darkness (II Cor. 6:14).

In I Corinthians 7:39 Paul initiated that doctrine. He

permitted widows to remarry only in the Lord. This careful

instruction compounded with the regulations of widows gives

credence to the position that the NT does not make any remarriage

provision for those who believe in divorce. Before leaving these texts

let us exposit (I Tim. 3:2):

The Husband of One Wife

A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of

one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given

to hospitality, apt to teach; I Tim. 3:2

Some divorce scholars have difficulty with this text. Since

they believe in divorce—to them marriage is not permanent—they

see the rejected bishop candidate here as a man who remarried after a

What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage? 237

divorce; i.e. more than one living wife. They interpret remarriage

after divorce to mean that the man is the husband of more than one

living wife. Some fundamental churches penalizes these men,

permitting them to be church members, but denying them any

significant position of leadership. But if you follow the treatise of

permanency-marriage and consequently absolutely deny any

remarriage-this-side-of-death you understand this text to mean

something very different. The only second marriage permitted in

Scripture is that of a widow or widower. Therefore this text is

denying the office of bishop to a man who widowed and then

remarried. If the widow in (I Tim. 5:11,12) was penalized for her

remarriage, i.e. “having damnation”, should God not penalize the

bishop/elder candidate; a pastor or deacon (Tit. 1:6), if they should

remarry after widowhood.

Ephesians 5:21-32 The Mount Everest of Marriage

As we continue to study the Gettysburg battlefield we must

observe this mountain peak. Douglas B. MacCorkle has written a

splendid commentary on Ephesians titled, God’s Special Secret. This

special secret is fully revealed in (Eph. 5:32), “This is a great mystery

but I speak concerning Christ and the church.” God’s love affair with

man culminates in his special gift of grace, i.e. permission to enter

into the life of the trinity through Christ and become one with the

Godhead in the body of Christ, His Church.

217

The beauty of this

love affair is highlighted by the analogy of what we know about

permanent-creation-marriage. God choose to explain the church by

taking us pedagogically—taking us from the known to the

unknown—by first taking us to what we know, permanent-creation-

marriage, then onto his new doctrine of the union of Christ and the

believer, the Church; as a marriage, literally the twain becoming one

indivisible in Christ: “Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even

the law of commandments contained in ordinances, to make in

himself of twain one new man, so making peace; and that he might

reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross” Eph 2:15ff. This

analogy of the body of Christ is the grandest truth we will ever know

about marriage. Ephesians has been called the Alps of the New

Testament, and its teaching elevates marriage to shine as from the

world’s highest peak. This truth is so fundamental to the teaching of

238 Chapter Six Jesus’ Doctrine

Christ, and to our Salvation that it cannot but receive our adoration,

and deepest conviction to understand, document, protect, and

propagate. Oh, the unsearchable riches of Christ.

In the first three chapters of Ephesians Paul labors to explain

the position of the believer specifically using the terms in Christ. I

like to explain the preposition “in” by envisioning a box. The

believer is in the box. Paul emphatically states that the believer is in

the box forever, literally in heavenly places in Christ. Permanently.

This is an extremely important theological truth. This is the doctrine

of grace; Sola Gratia. To be one with Christ is to be in the box; “And

gave Him to be the head over all things to the church, which is his

body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all” (Eph. 1:22,23). The

believer joined in one (married) to Christ is the Church; His body.

Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of

God. Eph. 5:21

MacCorkle notes that a strong debate has raged over whether

this verse goes with what went before in 5:3-19 (especially 5:18,19)

or what comes after, i.e. the subject of marriage. His response is

simple, i.e. “This is indeed a transitional verse looking both ways.” I

believe he is certainly correct. Therefore the doctrine of permanent-

heaven-marriage begins with some practical applications of

permanent-creation-marriage. Perhaps to the chagrin of the

chauvinist type the admonition begins with: “submitting yourselves

one to another in the fear of God.” In marriage we are to submit to

each other. Paul clearly establishes the authority, i.e. the common

denominator, “in the fear of God.” The omnipotent sovereign

Everlasting God is a powerful force to reckon with, leaving no room

for insubordination. I find this verse leveling to both the husband and

the wife, and superior to what ever follows as some believe the word

“submit” only refers to the wife. Please note verse 21 precedes verse

22 which requires the husband to submit to his wife and the wife to

submit to her husband.

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands,

as unto the Lord. Eph. 5:22

Again, MacCorkle catches the spirit of the submission text

What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage? 239

with his English version of the original Greek text: “For example, the

wives are to keep submitting themselves to their own husbands in the

Lord.” He also expounds Gen. 3:16, “thy desire shall be to thy

husband, and he shall rule over thee;” stating that Paul is only

applying the Genesis marriage doctrine to having the husband rule

and administer the home. This is God’s will for the wife. The level

of subordination called for here is lower than the one previous. In a

godly manner the wife is to submit to the husband as she submits to

the Lord. MacCorkle argues that this must be a voluntary

submission; i.e. that as the Lord loves her and she submits to His care

for her, the wife is commanded to submit to her husband who cares

for her. Should her husband require her to perform an act outside of

God’s will, we must note here that she is told to submit to her

husband as she would submit to her benevolent Lord. Therefore

should her husband’s command be without the Lord’s benevolence,

she is free to follow the Lord; whatever that will mean to her

husband. This verse certainly requires the husband’s command to be

benevolent. MacCorkle makes an interesting comment: “To their

own husbands,” may seem an unnecessary statement, but only to the

naive. The track record of world-lings in this regard is an open one—

certainly some words to contemplate. The idea of the husbands

benevolence will go without saying for the husband will be

commanded by God to love his wife in benevolence to the very point

of dying for her if necessary.

For the husband is the head of the wife, even as

Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour

of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto

Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in

every thing. Eph. 5:23, 24

The wife’s subordination is further clarified. The husband is

the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church. This

can be supported by I Cor. 11:3, “But I would have you know, that

the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the

man; and the head of Christ is God.” Christ to the church is Savior.

The church submits to its benevolent Savior. Likewise the wife is to

be subject to her own husband when he treats her as his church,

because he is her savior-type here on the earth. Benevolence is

240 Chapter Six Jesus’ Doctrine

written all over the definition of a husband that is to be obeyed.

Certainly if the husband’s commands are driven from a benevolent

heart as from the Lord then of course she is expected to obey her

husband in every thing. MacCorkle makes another fitting comment:

“No sane person would suggest that wives be as Jezebel (I Kings

21:15, 23) or Herodias” (Mk. 6:19ff).

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also

loved the church, and gave himself for it; Eph. 5:25

We now come to the clincher in the submission debate. Paul

now rolls out his big gun of submission and fires a round squarely

into the heart of every husband. Paul now defines the submission

necessary of the husband. As Christ hung on a bloody cross and died,

dying for his beloved wife, the church, every husband is commanded

to submit to God and to love his wife as Christ loved the church and

if need be, be ready give himself in death for her. This is the

matchless definition of love. Only God can define love for God is

Love. The ramification of this kind of love on the marriage bond is

infinite. MacCorkle states, “Godly loving of his wife is put in the

imperative form, a direct commandment of the Lord.” The point here

is not that the husband should just take a bullet for his wife but that

he should wear himself to the point of death for his wife if necessary;

that of course does not void the former, the bullet. Now dear reader it

also means that the forsaken believing spouse must wear themselves

out till death, if necessary, waiting for their departed love one to

return. This is biting the real bullet of death for your beloved spouse.

Oh so great love as He loved us; this is the actual Matchless Grace of

God. What a wonderful testimony of a believing spouse. What a

sacrifice!

This verse makes the analogy complete. Christ’s work in

establishing his wife the church contains the full definition of

Salvation by Grace; Sola Gratia. His remarkable work of

redemption was fully displayed in His love for his wife the church.

The Scripture states: “For when we were yet without strength, in due

time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man

will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare

to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we

were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now

What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage? 241

justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For

if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of

his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life

(Rom. 5:6-10).” The union of Christ with His church was sealed in

blood; a permanent marriage. The believer is literally in Christ and

Christ is in the believer. The believer is literally the body of Christ:

“And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head

over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him

that filleth all in all (Eph.1:22,23).”

Dear reader lean forward for a moment and listen. Salvation

means the eternal deliverance from all evil, i.e. the power and penalty

of sin, and to be one with Christ and God. The believer is delivered

from death both temporal and eternal. The believer becomes the body

of Christ, who rose from the dead and now lives forever. Christ’s

body will never die. He that hath the Son hath life. That means

every believer has security for eternity—Eternal Security. Marriage

is therefore a picture of eternal security. “What therefore God hath

joined together, let not man put asunder.” Marriage like the salvation

of the church is permanent, the gates of Hell shall not prevail against

it. The Doctrine of Eternal Security is identified with permanent-

creation-marriage. Permanent-heaven-marriage is the doctrine of

Christ and His Church; therefore as we have taught all creation-

marriages are inseparable, indissoluble, and permanent. Thus there is

no-remarriage-this-side-of-death because once married the couple is

bound until death due them part; they have become one flesh on this

earth till death due them part. Divorce of a marriage is an

impossibility. So then while both partners live on this earth there is

no other marriage for them; remarriage during the lifetime of a

married partner is adultery. The analogy that God makes between

marriage and the church dictates that as salvation is permanent and

sure, so to marriage is permanent and sure. Therefore the preacher

who promotes the doctrine of divorce is at the very same time

teaching that a believer can loose his salvation; thus teaching that

Christ will divorce the believer if He so wishes. That is a false

doctrine. The primary problem with the one who teaches that

salvation can be lost is that at the same time he is confessing to the

doctrine that a man can gain or work for his salvation. By teaching

that salvation is gained by man, than one teaches that it can be lost by

man. This is the false doctrine of works; the opposite of sola fide.

242 Chapter Six Jesus’ Doctrine

This is the only possible way to establish divorce, i.e. by teaching

works for salvation. But our salvation is sure: “He that hath the Son

hath life”, and “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they

follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never

perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.” Does this

sound like Jesus will divorce one of his sheep if He so wishes.

Therefore marriage is binding even in the event of adultery.

Remember that Jesus took on the church while we were yet sinners,

and reconciled us while we were enemies. Love is at heart of the

matter. The innocent partner must provide the way for the

adulterer—or any other marriage breaking sin of the partner—and

permit the door of repentance to remain open as the way for the

departed spouse to return to full marital union. Thus marriage is a

picture of salvation. (I certainly am not advocating sacramentalism).

If one does not provide the way of return and repentance for the

separated spouse then one certainly does not preach Christ and His

Gospel. For the Gospel is always open to the sinner, and that offer is

until death does us part. The only time that God’s offer of salvation

is removed from the spouse—For God so loved the world that He

gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him should

not perish but have everlasting life—is when the spouse is dead.

Jesus by equating His marriage with His church to human marriage

declares that marriage on the earth is eternal—eternal as a measure of

the time one lives on the earth. And that since a man establishes his

salvation by faith—without the deeds of the flesh—then the door and

way of faith in the marriage of earthly wedded couples must be kept

open for their guilty partner during their lifetime. If you have

followed my argument I have said: To believe in divorce is to believe

in works for salvation. By divorcing a spouse you are saying that the

failed spouse lost the salvation of the marriage, and is to be accursed.

This concept terribly fails to meet the analogy of marriage that God

teaches us in Eph. 5.

I am not preaching sacramental marriage—the Roman

Catholic doctrine of receiving grace through marriage—I am teaching

that marriage is a type or a picture of salvation. Some do not seem to

understand the complications caused by sin in a marriage. The guilty

spouse who believes in non-permanency marriage may have found in

their eyes a more attractive person, and after some time was found

guilty of adultery. That spouse may see their “salvation” in this

What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage? 243

situation as: divorce with remarriage to the person of adultery. But

according to permanency marriage the only thing that spouse has

accomplished is to make-believe that their adultery is a holy. Their

adultery is continually adultery and the children of adultery are

always bastard-children. If the spouse had any children by their first

spouse, those children are holy and that spouse is the true parent of

those children forever. But the children of adultery are unholy.

Adulterous-marriage is all too common in our evil world today; as

stated’ some people just don’t understand the complications of

divorce with remarriage.

The other side of the coin here is that if an innocent spouse

sues for divorce they deny the guilty partner the promise of full

marital reconciliation upon repentance; then it’s as if that person is

denying salvation to the guilty; since marriage is a picture of

salvation. The most degrading event occurs when the innocent

partner sues by the false doctrine of divorce and then the innocent

partner remarries under the law of man. The debauchery here is that

the new marriage is adultery, and any children born to this marriage

are unholy.

So the solution to any marital problem can only be solved

with true repentance, forgiveness, and reconciliation. But if the

unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under

bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. For what

knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how

knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife? If an

innocent spouse denies their partner the opportunity of repentance

with full marital reconciliation, then the analogy of the church and

marriage has failed.

The greatest sin in the marriage discussion is actually caused

by the false teachers who are leading millions into darkness and

apostasy. Let me explain. When a pastor counsels a person away

from permanency-marriage and pontificates that their marriage can be

put asunder, for what he decides is a so called legitimate reason, and

approves remarriage he is leading that person into apostasy. Any act

of sexual intercourse for a married person with someone other than

their living spouse is adultery. Divorce in other words for a married

couple is impossible. By advising toward divorce with remarriage

the false teacher is leading his hearers into apostasy, the falling away

from the truth. The Scriptures declare that the latter day apostasy will

244 Chapter Six Jesus’ Doctrine

be marked by marriage divorcers (covenant breakers, trucebreakers):

“This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For

men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud,

blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without

natural affection, trucebreakers [given to marital divorce, my

comment] II Tim. 3:3).”

So these false teachers enter the world of apostates

themselves. Notice what they have managed to pull off—a

vernacular term meaning to deceive. They take a clean holy vessel—

a spouse who never committed adultery—and have led that spouse

directly into and adulterous union and have accomplished even a

greater feat; they have called the unholy act of adultery, holy

matrimony. It is as if they are saying to the spouse, Go, the church

blesses your holy-adultery. The crime here is enlarged since now the

spouse is trapped into the bonds of sin without the immediate

opportunity to repent and be saved, repent and be forgiven. This is

apostasy. The Pharisees asked, “Why did Moses then command to

give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away,” did they realize

what they said. The word divorcement is apostasion. The “writing of

divorcement” can be referred to as a Writing of Apostasy

Salvation sola gratia assures sinners that by repentance and

faith they are saved; “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and

that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any

man should boast.” The false teacher’s doctrine slaps sola gratia in

the face. By teaching holy-adultery they have created an act whereby

the sinner is at liberty to willfully sin and live comfortably—

especially in the church—in a state of mind whereby they believe

they are righteous. This is an affront to the Gospel—excluding the

sin of adulterous-remarriage from the act of repentance—now the

sinner cannot be forgiven because they do not know they are living in

sin. It is the same as teaching a homosexual that he/she has been born

as such. This is debauchery and apostasy; for certain. “Woe unto

them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light,

and light for darkness” (Isa. 5:20a).

That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the

washing of water by the word, that he might present

it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or

What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage? 245

wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy

and without blemish. Eph. 5:26,27

The husband is also called upon not only to prepare to die for

his spouse but to live for her. He is to labor with her to make her

beautiful and glorious, i.e. without the blemish of any sin. He must

be determined to teach her, or assure that she is taught the truth of the

Scriptures that she may be spiritually clean not having any spot or

wrinkle of sin. She can only be glorious if she is steeped in the

Word. The couple should have a living dialogue with the Scriptures.

So ought men to love their wives as their own

bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For

no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth

and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: For

we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his

bones. Eph. 5:28-30

The man is again commanded to love his wife. The Lord

expects men to love their wives as they love themselves. Most men

savor food, and consequently most men love to nourish themselves

with good food. American men generally prefer beef to fish; so the

landscape is littered with burger and steak restaurants. One might say

men love grilled steak and hate boiled fish. The man’s appetite is

addressed here as proof that he nourisheth himself, because he loveth

himself. We might go one step further and say that because man

loveth himself he cheriseth a grilled medium rare filet mignon, and he

hateth boiled fish. Men are very happy and with joy eat the steak.

This is the joy he should have in loving his wife, cherishing his wife

as Christ cherisheth His church. Then Paul expands his teaching on

the doctrine of permanency-marriage, stating that believers are

members of Christ’s body, flesh, and of His bones. We, the

believers, “are” one with Christ; as Adam said, “This is now bone of

my bones, and flesh of my flesh.”

For this cause shall a man leave his father and

mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they

246 Chapter Six Jesus’ Doctrine

two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but

I speak concerning Christ and the church.

Eph. 5:31,32

Here we find creation-marriage glorified in the doctrine of

the body of Christ, the church. This is marriage; “a man shall

cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” This speaks of

permanency and the permanency of the church is spelled Eternal

Security. Creation-Marriage is permanent, and Heaven-Marriage

is permanent. Salvation, the blessing of the church, is a heavenly

marriage with Christ, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord

Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in

heavenly places in Christ” (Eph. 1:3). As is heavenly-marriage, so

is creation-marriage they are both permanent, otherwise God

would not have compared them. Paul concludes the matter, “This

is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the

church”—what more can I say.

Now the purpose and labor of this entire dissertation was to

set the record straight. Matthew’s exception clause alone belongs to

Matthew. The exception clause of Matthew is an obscure text, or as

Peter declares of some Scriptures “things hard to be understood”

(2 Pet. 3:16). The true church and believer in our day must “admit”

that Matthew is a difficult “obscure” text. The difficulty of

Matthew’s obscure text must be subject to the analogy of the faith,

i.e. it must harmonize with the Scriptures. The primary difficulty with

this obscure text observed in Matt. 5:32 is that at the moment of its

record Jesus was rebuking Israel’s leaders for failing to understand

the Ten Commandments. His teaching was radically opposed to their

assumptions regarding murder and adultery. A moment of hatred with

a foul word toward your brother was murder. To look on a woman

with lust was now adultery. Radical. So His teaching on divorce must

have been radical, just as radical as the teaching of divorce as seen in

the Gospel of Mark, Luke and in the writings of the Apostle Paul.

For any believer to understand otherwise is to be down-right

dishonest. I believe that anyone, believing saint or lost sinner, who

fails to admit that Matthew’s exception clause on its immediate

appearance in both cases when considering just some of the context

(Matt. 5 “But I say unto you,” and Matt. 19 “Let not man put

What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage? 247

asunder”) contradicts Christ’s teaching and contradicts the entire

Bible regarding the subject of marriage. This does not mean that

Matthew’s text is spurious; it simply means that it is obscure and

difficult to understand. Just be careful dear reader that you do not

wrest with it to your own destruction; “As also in all his epistles,

speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to be

understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they

do also other scriptures, unto their own destruction” (II Pet. 3:16).

With that said, I will conclude this dissertation by permitting

Scripture to interpret Scripture and for that matter I will permit

Matthew to interpret Matthew and dissolve the doubts regarding the

meaning of “except it be for fornication.” Let’s go on to the final

battle.

Matthew 19—The Gettysburg of the Divorce War

As we pointed out the geography of (Matt. 19) may be as

important as the text itself. As Gettysburg, the city of boots, was

located central to the Civil War, so Perea, the geography of (Matt. 19)

was central to the Divorce War. Pennsylvania was at the

geographical separation of north and south. The site provided for the

full expression of both armies. It permitted both ideologies to fully

vent themselves, as likewise does the location of the Matthew logion:

And it came to pass that, when Jesus had finished

these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came

into the coasts of Judea beyond Jordan; (Matt. 19:1)

Edersheim makes this notable comment:

"Accordingly, when these Pharisees again

encountered Jesus, now on his journey to Judea, they

resumed the subject precisely where it had been

broken off when they had last met Him, only now

with the object of 'tempting Him.' Perhaps it may

also have been in the hope that, by getting Christ to

commit Himself against divorce in Perea (the

territory of Herod) they might enlist against Him, as

248 Chapter Six Jesus’ Doctrine

formerly against the Baptist, the implacable hatred

of Herodias.

218

Edersheim introduces the implacable hatred of Herodias into

his interpretation of the Matthew divorce logion, a consideration

which has been received indifferently by modern scholars. He goes

on to state that many commentators of his era believed that this was

the case, specifically mentioning Meyer as a proponent of this view.

Heth and Wenham give honor to the thought:

It is of interest that Tertullian set Jesus' prohibition

of divorce in the context of John's denunciation of

Herod's unlawful and adulterous marriage with

Herodias (Against Marcion 4.34). J.C. Laney also

feels this historical incident is important to consider:

John the Baptist's denunciation of the 'unlawful'

(Matt. 14:4; Mk. 6:18) union of Herod Antipas with

the former wife of his brother Philip fits well with

Jesus' confrontation with the Pharisees. Perhaps the

test with which the Pharisees confronted Jesus

(Matt. 19:3) was related to Herod's situation rather

than simply to the rabbinic debate.

219

Some honor has been given to the geography of the text, but most

draw away in favor of the Hillel-Shammai debate. But is the text a

rabbinic debate? It was certainly an element of the debate that cannot

be questioned, but the geography of the debate weighs the balance in

favor of the Herodias view, and the preaching of the Forerunner.

Jesus did not immediately answer or remark on the beheading of

John, but now He opens the door to Herod's palace and preaches

John's message, "It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife,"

(Mk. 6:18). Is that in fact what Jesus was doing?

Let us now consider this element in the explanation of the

dissertation of Jesus regarding divorce. As stated each of the divorce

statements prohibit divorce and remarriage, except for the exception

clause. Consequently the exception clause has become the crux

interpretum (the primary cross, perplexing problem, or puzzle of the

interpretation) of all Scripture regarding divorce. Creating such a

dynamic impact that it seems shelves and shelves of books and tracts

What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage? 249

have been written to discuss the problem; with positions ranging from

its meaning to be adultery to the possibility that it is an interpolation.

Certainly Matthew’s exception qualifies as an obscure text. This

book has not been entered into without much serious study, and labor,

(it was over thirty years in the making).

With this in mind we are then forced to choose our

hermeneutics. Regardless of your scholarship you must make a

choice. If your system believes in the analogy of the faith—this rule

states that there is a harmony of Scripture—then you must apply this

rule to Matthew’s obscure exception clause. Scripture must be used

to interpret Scripture. Peter said it this way, "Knowing this first, that

no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation," (II Pet.

1:20). The NSRB makes this comment, "Any private interpretation"

might read "its own interpretation"; i.e. not isolated from what the

Scripture states elsewhere.

220

It is the exception clause that must be

interpreted with the analogy of the Scripture in mind. Since the word

porneia has the potential of being interpreted in many ways the

understanding of that word must be generated by the context

surrounding the word. Perea surrounds the text. John was killed in

Perea. There his headless corpse was buried, nevertheless his tongue

continued to preach. Could the Pharisees succeed in arousing the

semi-cooled implacable wrath of Herodias?

John the Baptist was sacrificed on the altar of incest. John's

cries were bold against the king of the land. His call was as of a

clarion: You Herod are corrupting marriage and I am going to make

an example of you. He was willing to do whatever was necessary to

make his message known to all mankind. He was even willing to

have his throat severed through and have his head delivered to the

king on a silver platter to make his message known. Now in Perea,

Jesus raises the screaming cries of John to Herod and Herodias,

Repent of your sin, for it is not lawful for you to have her. J. Carl

Laney agrees:

The geographical and historical background is

crucial to our understanding of this encounter

between Christ and the Pharisees. Jesus had

concluded His Galilean ministry and was now

beginning His journey through Perea to Jerusalem

for the Passover and His own crucifixion. Traveling

250 Chapter Six Jesus’ Doctrine

through Perea in the spring of A.D. 33, Jesus was

approached by some Pharisees who sought to stump

Him with a theological test question. Notice that the

Pharisees were not asking the question to learn but

only to "test" Jesus. They actually wanted to get

Him into trouble.

221

Heth and Wenham artfully resurrect the scholarship of the

early church, showing that until Erasmus the church believed in the

permanency of marriage. In their volume they take a no-remarriage-

this-side-of-death view, which is constructed on the writings of the

early church fathers. Regarding the meaning of the exception clause,

Heth and Wenham labor to explain all the present schools of thought

on the subject and then say, “Considering the brevity of Jesus’

recorded remarks about divorce, the quantity of literature that they

have generated is truly remarkable. This survey [their book Jesus

and Divorce, my comment] has tried to present the current scholarly

theories as fairly as possible, to show their strengths and weaknesses,

so that the reader can decide for himself or herself which is the most

probable view.”

As stated, as it appears Jesus absolutely prohibited divorce

except for the exception clause. Therefore if the exception clause did

not exist, the Scriptures would overwhelmingly teach us that divorce

was absolutely prohibited by the Lord Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, we

are not ashamed to address those words: “saving for the cause of

fornication, and except it be for fornication.” However, it brings to

mind those admonitions: “As also in all his epistles, speaking in them

of these things, in which are some things hard to be understood,

which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the

other scriptures, unto their own destruction” (II Pet. 3:16). So

keeping this in mind we shall exposit the most wrestled text in the

history of Christianity. Let us continue to explore the context of those

disputed words: saving for, and except for.

Matthew 19:2

And great multitudes followed him; and he healed

them there. Matt. 19:2

What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage? 251

In Perea, great multitudes are gathered about Jesus, and of

course that includes the Pharisees. The fame of Jesus was peaking.

We can imagine the applause of the multitude as they see the miracles

of healing. The Glory of the Savior was shining through, provoking

the poor to praise and the Pharisees to outrage. That rage was a

cunningly devised plot against the Lord of Glory. Their design was

simple. Now that Jesus was in Perea, they would simple align Jesus

with the Forerunner and deliver Him to the fury of Herodias, the

Mad-One. Jesus knew their plot and was not fearful to enter it, as we

shall see.

Matthew 19:3

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? Matt. 19:3

The question “for every cause” is the bait of a trap. It raised

the theological controversy of Shammai, and Hillel. But this was not

just a simple honest doctrinal inquiry. It was a deliberate testing; the

setting of a trap. As said, one important element in this inquiry was

its geography. Was the real purpose of the question to draw the Lord

Jesus into the jaws of Herod and Herodias? After all, divorce was the

initial sin of Herod Antipas. He put away his wife, the daughter of

Aretas, King of Arabia. John attacked the incestuous marriage of

Herod. John preached against the sin of Herod’s divorce. The

Herod-Herodias snare is a reasonable interpretation of this incident.

The Pharisees knew that Jesus did not agree with either one of the

rabbis. They knew that Jesus, as John, taught a revolutionary

doctrine of marriage—revolutionary to their own liberalism—

however it was nothing more than the old fashion doctrine of

permanency creation-marriage. Some scholars put Jesus on the side

of Shammai; but this is wrong since Shammai did not teach

permanency. Jesus’ teaching was radical, so radical in fact that his

own disciples were outraged with Him; as we shall see.

252 Chapter Six Jesus’ Doctrine

Matthew 19:4-6

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. 19:4-6

Permanency-Marriage was the doctrine of Jesus. The

answer to the question of the Pharisee's was quick and simple: the

marriage bond is permanent. Man cannot divide that which is

indivisible. The words above declare that Jesus believed and taught

the doctrine of permanency-marriage and that is indisputable.

Therefore before any interpreter teaches that Jesus did not teach

permanency, they must be absolutely sure they can prove their claim.

For this reason the Early Church View understood the exception

clause to permit a separation of the marriage partners without any

right to remarry; "no-remarriage-this-side-of-death." Another

monumental consequence of the twain becoming one flesh, and

Jesus’ prohibition of remarriage is the truth that Jesus taught that

marriage is monogamous; he absolutely repudiated polygamy.

Matthew 14:6 Early Church View

222

Heth and Wenham realizing that pastors and laymen would

not have the time or the resources to examine the extensive literature

surrounding the divorce debate therefore theycompleted that task and

have established a standard explanation of all the early church

literature in their volume, Jesus and Divorce. Establishing the Early

Church View as their foundation they go on to examine the church

Fathers, "namely those Christian theologians who wrote in the first

five centuries of the Christian era."

223

One influencing observation is

that the early father's shared unanimity in their understanding of the

divorce texts. These authors then summarize the fathers as teaching a

doctrine of no-remarriage-this-side-of-death.

224

What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage? 253

Their comprehensive study—it possibly could be described

as the most comprehensive study of this subject that was ever

written—contends that in the first five centuries all Greek writers and

all Latin writers except one agree that remarriage following divorce

for any reason is adulterous. The marriage bond was seen to unite

both parties until the death of one of them. When a marriage partner

was guilty of unchastity, usually understood to mean adultery, the

other was expected to separate—separation without divorce—without

the right to remarry. Even in the case of I Corinthians 7:15, the so-

called Pauline privilege, which later Catholics interpreted to permit a

believer deserted by an unbeliever to remarry, the early church

fathers said that the deserted Christian had no right to remarry.

225

Heth and Wenham commence the third chapter of their

dissertation with this sentence:

The early Christian writer’s interpretation of the

divorce texts remained the standard view on the

church in the West until the sixteenth century when

Erasmus suggested a different view that was adopted

by Protestant theologians.

226

It is of utmost importance that one understands that Erasmus

was a man who shunned sound doctrine in spite of the serious

warnings of the Apostle: “For the time will come when they will not

endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to

themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away

their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables” (2 Ti. 4:3,4).

Again Heth and Wenham quote V.N. Olsen who writes in his study of

the interpretation of the New Testament divorce texts from Erasmus

to Milton:

In his interpretation of the New Testament logia on

divorce Erasmus reveals himself as a Christian

theologian who seeks to solve an ethical problem

within Church and society by finding a solution [to

permit divorce with remarriage, my comment] based

on Scripture and centered in Christ. No

ecclesiastical institution should stand between the

needy [i.e., the divorced needy who wish to remarry,

254 Chapter Six Jesus’ Doctrine

my comment] and the Good Samaritan [the Church

should not stop Erasmus the heretic, my comment].

Erasmus appears not as an academic theorist but as a

Christian pragmatist who is devoted to his Master in

service for his fellow men.

227

The overwhelming thrust of Heth and Wenham is to reveal

that the Erasmian view "flatly contradicts the patristic interpretation."

This is a very important observation. Has the Erasmian view been

dogmatized by the spirit of compromise? Modern Protestant scholars

embrace the Erasmian view as the Roman church embraces the

doctrine of the papacy and the mass. Heth and Wenham go on to

exposit the teaching of the following Fathers: Hermas, Justin Martyr,

Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, Irenaeus, Clement of

Alexandria, Origen, and Tertullian. They go on to list the others who

agree to the doctrine no-remarriage-this-side-of-death, Basil of

Ancyra, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory Nazianzus, Apollinaris of

Laodicea, Theodore of Mopsuestia, John Chrosostom, Theodoret,

Epiphanius, Ambrose, Innocent I, Pelagius, Jerome, Leo the Great,

and Augustine. "In all, twenty-five individual writers and two early

councils forbid remarriage after divorce."

228

They also point out that

the early church fathers debated many doctrines but regarding no-

remarriage-this-side-of death there was no debate; they all agreed. In

general the early church fathers take the following position: (1) the

heart of their doctrine saw marriage as organically indissoluble—

permanent; (2) if infidelity interrupts the marriage bond the faithful

partner could separate from the infidel—the innocent to wait for the

infidel to repent, but the innocent partner could not remarry (3)

remarriage was only permitted to the widow or widower, and then

sometimes reluctantly; (4) the remarriage of a separated partner to

another, while their original marriage partner was alive, was

considered adultery; (5) they understood the "exception clause" to

apply only to the first part of the conditional clause, and that it did not

apply to remarriage; (6) the repentance of the guilty partner was the

only hope of the innocent partner to establish any marriage

relationship, and that repentance was taken seriously:

Whoever has committed adultery will be excluded

from the sacraments for fifteen years: he must weep

What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage? 255

for four years [outside the door of the church during

the service], then he must listen for five years [in the

vestibule], be prostrated [among the full

congregation] for two years without receiving

communion.

229

Some of these penalties seem exceptionally harsh to

our age partly because discipline has virtually

disappeared in many parts of the modern church.

Excommunication, however, was a regular feature of

the New Testament church for various sins (cf.

Matt. 18:15-18; IICor. 2:5-11; II Thess. 3:14)

including sexual offences (1Cor. 5:1-13). We do not

know how long such a sentence would have lasted,

though presumably it could not have been revoked

until the offender showed signs of repentance (cf. 2

Cor.7:7-13; 2 Tim. 2:24-6).

230

Matthew 19:7,8

They say unto him, Why did Moses then command

to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her

away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the

hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away

your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

Matt. 19:7,8

This text has been discussed at length in earlier chapters of

this book. Jesus explains that the writing of divorcement was not an

ordinance of law it was a Mosaic concession to the awful hardness of

man’s heart. Jesus throws their exhibit out of court forever.

Matthew 19:9 and The Exception Clauses

But I say unto you that whosoever shall put

away his wife, except for the cause of fornication,

causeth her to commit adultery; and whosoever shall

marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Matthew 5:32

256 Chapter Six Jesus’ Doctrine

And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his

wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry

another, committeth adultery; and whosoever

marrieth her who is put away doth commit adultery.

Matthew 19:9

As noted the exception clause is common only to Matthew;

therefore I see it as one comment, i.e. one witness. The three other

N.T. writers who discuss the subject of marriage and divorce—Mark,

Luke, and Paul—preach the doctrine of permanency-marriage with

no divorce-remarriage option. This in itself, beside the fact that the

tremendous weight of the literature it has spawned, qualify Matthew’s

texts to be tagged an obscure text. With this in mind—noting that we

have earlier eliminated (Deut. 24:1-4) as a possible reference—we

must ask ourselves the following question; since no other author

permits us to cross reference Matthew, does Matthew himself

interpret his own words of the obscure text? As the honest student

proposes this question to Matthew he will find that Matthew clearly

answers the query himself. He actually gives us two causes that can

be interpreted as fornication. Two separate meanings of porneia that

could explain his obscure text. We will exposit the definitions as

they appear chronologically. They have been given the theological

titles of: (1) The Betrothal View, (2) The Unlawful Marriage View.

Betrothal View: Fornication

I have fully explained this view at the beginning of this

chapter in my exposition of (Matthew 1:18,19). Joseph, while

engaged to Mary, found her with child. On the surface this appeared

to Joseph as an illegitimate child. His exact thought was that Mary

committed an act of premarital sex, i.e. she committed a special act of

fornication. His immediate reaction was to put her away, divorce her.

This required a public act of repudiation—divorce was public—and

Joseph could not bring himself to commit such a public act. So he

decided to privately divorce Mary. The Scripture clearly tells us that

Joseph was a “just man.” He had the perfect legal right to put his

betrothed (engaged wife) away; it was the accepted legal custom at

that specific time in Jewish history. At that moment he thought she

What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage? 257

had committed betrothal fornication. This is one of Matthew’s own

answers to the question as to the meaning of fornication. Therefore if

we rewrite the text in question it would read:

But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away

his wife, saving for the cause of betrothal

fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and

whosoever shall marry her that is divorced

committeth adultery. Matthew 5:32

And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his

wife, except it be for betrothal fornication

, and shall

marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso

marrieth her which is put away doth commit

adultery. Matthew 19:9

The Unlawful Marriage Incest View: Fornication

The Book of Leviticus is the ruling text of this view. As

mentioned under the discussion of John the Baptist we found John in

his sermon accused Herod of committing incest, i.e. being unlawfully

wedded to Herodias according to Levitical law. Thus the Unlawful

Marriage View may be referred to as the Incest View. In Chapter

Three of this dissertation we have explored the abominable custom of

the Egyptians—Incest. We noted from (Lev.18:1-18) that Jehovah

God specifically threatened the death penalty—to be cut off from

among their people—to any Israelite who committed the

abominations of the Egyptians. Marriage within the forbidden

degrees of (Lev. 18:1-18) was absolutely prohibited. Lev. 18:16

specifically prohibits a man to marry his brother’s wife; this was the

very act that John accused Herod Antipas of committing. World

governments today have similar definitions of incest and prohibit

marriage within the forbidden degrees. This being the case we now

might interpret Matthew to read:

But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away

his wife, saving for the cause of incest,

causeth her

to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her

that is divorced committeth adultery. Matthew 5:32

258 Chapter Six Jesus’ Doctrine

And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his

wife, except it be for incest

, and shall marry another,

committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which

is put away doth commit adultery.

Matthew 19:9

The primary argument against both these views from divorce

scholars is that both of them are remote interpretations of the word

porneia. So be it, I say, Matthew has spoken and no other biblical

writer has; and beside that Matthew has explained himself. Therefore

we can conclude that remarriage this side of death is adultery. This is

exactly what Augustine referred to as “Adulterous-Marriage.”

Acts Chapters 15 and 21 Further Support For the Unlawful

Marriage View (Incest)

Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them,

which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

But that we write unto them, that they abstain from

pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from

things strangled, and from blood.

Acts 15:19,20

That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and

from blood, and from things strangled, and from

fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye

shall do well. Fare ye well.

Acts 15:29

As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have

written and concluded that they observe no such

thing, save only that they keep themselves from

things offered to idols, and from blood, and from

strangled, and from fornication. Acts 21:25

As we continue into the N.T. some scholars find the above

texts to be the next major reference in the incest view of porneia. As

we explore these texts, known as the Jerusalem Decree, we notice

some of the nomenclature of the priesthood. We should not be

What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage? 259

surprised to find that scholars see these texts as a clear reference to

(Lev. 17,18). Although Heth and Wenham do not embrace the

Unlawful Marriage View—also known as the Rabbinic View—they

nevertheless gives it some respect.

[Leaving the idea of mixed marriages—Jews with

heathen, Heth and Wenham go on with this

consideration: my comment.] This is not impossible,

but another view may offer greater possibilities of

being the correct one [a reference to the Incest View,

my comment]. In the light of the almost unanimous

scholarly consensus that “porneia” in Acts 15:20, 29

and 21:25 denotes intercourse with close of kin

[within the forbidden degrees—incest, my

comment], that no great problem exists in lining up a

moral regulation with several ceremonial

restrictions, and that the four things prohibited by

the decree [pollutions from idols, from fornication,

from things strangled, and from blood - my

comment] are the same four prohibited by the

holiness Code of Leviticus 17-18 for both Israelites

and strangers among them, it seems that the rabbinic

[incest] variation of the unlawful marriage view has

a better chance of being the correct one. On this

view, Gentiles who had ‘married’ within the

categories forbidden by Leviticus 18:6-18, upon

becoming Christians, found themselves in a double-

bind: caught by Jesus’ absolute prohibition of

divorce. Matthew solves their dilemma by inserting

the clauses which indicated such unions were in fact

non-marriages. They did not fall under Jesus’

absolute prohibition of divorce where a valid

marriage is concerned.

231

I see this commentary as a remarkable discussion that certainly places

the Unlawful Marriage Incest View interpretation of the exception

clauses as viable.

260 Chapter Six Jesus’ Doctrine

Matthew 19:10-12

10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man

be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive

this saying, save they to whom it is given.

12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born

from their mother's womb: and there are some

eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and

there be eunuchs, which have made themselves

eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is

able to receive it, let him receive it. Matt. 19:10-12

I find this outburst of the disciples almost hostile. I believe it

was driven by their conviction that they believed that marriage

certainly was not permanent; that all men, even a disciple, had the

right to put away a wife and remarry, i.e. at least for some causes.

But they now understood Jesus to absolutely forbid divorce. He was

also absolutely declaring that marriage is permanent until death do-

you-part. One must note that all of Jesus’ disciples strenuously

objected; almost to the point of threatening a departure with Christ

over this issue. “If the case of a man be so, it is not good to marry.”

The disciples were divided against Him; but, Jesus quickly puts them

in their place.

He gives them the door. Go from me if ye will, he cries. All

men cannot receive this saying, save them to whom it is given. Here

the Savior strikes back with another exception clause; save them to

whom it is given. Please note that all the disciples are silent. They

now had to evaluate their hearts. They certainly knew that the arguing

Pharisees were not among the given. So in plain English they shut up,

in fear of perhaps being counted among the unsaved ones. They must

have pondered what they perceived as His awful words “What

therefore God hath joined together let not man put asunder.” Their

silence is louder then a shrilling scream.

What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage? 261

Matthew 19:13-15

Then were there brought unto him little children,

that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and

the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, Suffer

little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me:

for of such is the kingdom of heaven. And he laid

his hands on them, and departed thence.

Matt. 19:13-15

Some may object to including the little children in the

marriage-divorce pericope; but I say it is fitting and should be

included. What is the bottom line of the divorce controversy? Is it

not the children; the orphans of divorced-broken families. Don’t

these orphans have any rights? Well, Jesus said that they sure do

have rights. “Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto

me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. And he laid his hands on

them, and departed thence.” Yes, He laid his hand on them. He

touched them. Marriages are to be built on Christ. What God hath

joined together. The most powerful evangelistic tool in the hand of

God is a saved mother and father; and I might add a saved

grandmother and grandfather. The heart of a true believing parent

prays fervently for its child; presenting the Gospel with great care so

as to ensure that their child truly gets every opportunity to get saved;

to have his or her own experience of repentance and faith in the Lord

Jesus Christ. This is difficult to provide to the child of a broken-

family.

In the dedication of this book you will read that I have

honored the faithful spouse who is awaiting the return of a departed

sinful spouse; in all actuality dying for the beloved departed one. I

believe that is what it means to give your life for your wife—to wear

yourself out till death if necessary for your departed spouse. These

faithful men and women are offering the Grace of God to their

unfaithful and abusive mates to the Glory of God, waiting lovingly

for their reconciliation in this lifetime if possible. The second person I

honored are the children of divorce; especially that little Amy or

Tommy who wish they could live with their creation-marriage

biological father or mother and have all his or her love; not being

262 Chapter Six Jesus’ Doctrine

required to share it with alien children or an alien parent. These

children have rights to.

Conclusion

Well, after this lengthy discussion of divorce we have finally

reached the end of the road. The immense volume of literature which

this subject has generated raises a serious question: Why all this

literature? The answer is simple: Because the weight of Scripture,

conscience, and nature teach man that marriage is permanent, i.e. a

literal band of God. The literature is the result of man’s feeble

attempt to break God’s bands asunder (Psa.2:3), and God said, “Let

not man put asunder;” nevertheless man believes he has found an

exception clause to rend God’s prohibition, His band. But as I have

labored to reveal, the exception clause in the hands of man has

become a deception-clause. This single fact has created the massive

volume of historical literature on the subject of divorce. Divorce is

not even a possibility; it is non-existent in the teaching of Christ

regarding marriage. You can be assured dear believer, as God said,

“I hate putting away” (Mal.2:16), be assured that Christ will never

divorce me, and he will never divorce you. Jesus just does not teach

divorce; to Him it is a mere imagination, and the invention of the

Prince of Darkness, the Devil. But Christ is the Prince of Light and

He has faithfully promised each believer an eternal union with God

the Father through Him and this union is indissoluble and eternally

permanent.

These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to

heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify

thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee As thou

hast given him power over all flesh, that he should

give eternal life [He will never take it back, my

comment] to as many as thou hast given him. And

this is life eternal, that they might know thee the

only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast

sent. (Jn. 17:1-3)

Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also

which shall believe on me through their word; That

What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage? 263

they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I

in thee, that they also may be one in us [as in

marriage: they twain shall be one, my comment]:

that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

And the glory which thou gavest me I have given

them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in

them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect

in one [marriage a type of the believer in the body of

Christ, my comment]; and that the world may know

that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou

hast loved me. Father, I will that they also, whom

thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that

they may behold my glory, which thou hast given

me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the

world. Jn.17:20-24

We have eternal life, eternal security, in Christ, "For God so

loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever

believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life; For he

that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; He that hath the Son

hath life. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow

me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish,

neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which

gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them

out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one. The great mystery

of being one with Christ, is salvation. Oh how great salvation! Our

heavenly marriage to Christ is everlasting. And dear born-again

reader, if you in some way believe that you have departed from Christ

and his doctrine, be assured that if you repent and return to Him, He

will receive you with open arms for Jesus said, Come unto me, all ye

that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. He is a

faithful husband that is still waiting by homes door since the day you

left him. He is ready to receive you back into his arms.

And dear reader if you have never found repentance and faith

unto eternal life I invite you today to turn from sin to God and come

unto Jesus the only true God and Savior and believe in Him for your

salvation which he purchased with His own precious blood on the old

rugged cross. I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these

things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and

264 Chapter Six Jesus’ Doctrine

the bright and morning star. And the Spirit and the bride say, Come.

And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come.

And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. Jesus

promises you eternal life, that is absolute everlasting life, and Jesus

is not a liar, His word is sure and everlasting; heaven and earth shall

pass away but His word endureth forever, and so will you if you trust

in Him. He will never divorce you, for that I am sure.

As I have been laboring: the most important subject in the

divorce debate is the subject of Salvation by Grace. The sinning

partner must be offered salvation; the fornicator of (I Cor. 5)

eventually repented and was received back into the church of Corinth

(II Cor. 2). Marriage is an illustration of Salvation. Salvation is

permanent, and for that reason Marriage is permanent. Divorced

from Christ cannot be; so divorce does not fit into the married

person’s life. Therefore if divorce is forbidden then the Deuteronomic

abomination cannot be committed today; all other liaisons of a

married spouse are adulterous. Keep that in mind if you should so

seek reunion with a divorced creation-marriage spouse. Furthermore

the concept of the abomination has been over-ruled to the

permanency believer since Jehovah God himself told His sinning

wife Israel to return to Him (Jer.3:1). The reason God could justly

take Israel back as His wife in purity was only because God never

endorsed, and never will endorse divorce. The divorce that Israel

experienced was only an illustration. Jehovah God hateth putting

away; He hateth divorce. Creation-Marriage is a type or picture of

Salvation it speaks of eternal life with eternal security; for by Grace

are ye saved by faith.

Final Comment:

Consider the possibility of the judgment of Western

Civilization, likened to the Judgment of the Flood and Sodom; and

the violence of measure today would be man’s violent treatment of

God’s ordained command regarding creation-marriage; then as we

look about our once Christian America—especially the Bible

believing church—and the other Christian countries of the West, the

state of creation-marriage is quickly collapsing, thus we can say the

next Date of Judgment draweth swiftly nigh. Yes, as mentioned in the

“Introduction” of this book, “The fate of marriage and perhaps the

What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage? 265

fate of mankind may depend on your interpretation of those five

words: “except it be for fornication.”

“Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in

sincerity. Amen.”

End Notes 267

. Ynet News.Com: singles – Brit Jew Marries Dolphin,

Dec. 29, 2005 Joe Kot

2. C.F Kiel; F. Delitzsch, quoting Zeigler, Old Testament

Commentary (Eerdmans; Grand Rapids, Mich.) v. 1:p. 88;

Abel Isaksson, Marriage and Ministry in the New Temple

(trans. N. Tomkinson with J. Gray; Lund: Gleerup, 1965) p.

144,45; Isaksson argues against androgyneity.

3. J. Carl Laney, The Divorce Myth (Minn. Mn; Bethany

House, 1981) p. 16

4.C.F.Kiel; F. Delitzsch, Old Testament Commentary

(Eerdmans; Grand Rapids, Mi) v.1:p. 65

5. Abel Isaksson, Marriage and Ministry in the New Temple

(trans. N. Tomkinson with J. Gray; Lund: Gleerup, 1965) p.

20; This idea of kinship is a strong support for the doctrine

of indissolubility. Heth, Wedham, Laney, Steele, and Ryrie

lean in Isaksson's direction. Gen. 2; Lev. 18; and Deut. 24

are pertinent to kinship.

6. C.F. Kiel, F. Delitzch, Old Testament Commentary

(Eerdmans; Grand Rapids, Mich.) 1:60

7. J. Carl Laney, The Divorce Myth (Bethany House, Mn,

1981) p. 18

8. W. Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet (Act I, scene V)

9. Ibid. (Act II, scene II)

10. J. Carl Laney, The Divorce Myth (Bethany House, Minn.

MN, 1981) p. 18

11. D. Atkinson, G. von Rad in, To Have and to Hold

(Eerdmans; Grand Rapids, MI) p. 77

12. Chaucer in, Compact Ed. Oxford Eng. Dict., (Oxford

Univ. Press 1984) p. 1899

13. C.F. Kiel, F. Delitzsch, Old Testament Comm.

(Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Mich.) p. 1:60

14. W.J. Hopewell, Jr., Marriage and Divorce, (Niles &

Phipps; Birmington, NY 1976) p. 3,4

268 End Notes

15. V. E. Smith, Footnotes for the Atom, (Bruce,

Milwaukee, 1951) p. 63, 64

16. Ibid. p. 16

17. Ibid. p. 27

18. Ibid. p. 67

19. Ibid. p. 40

20. Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 10th ED.

(Merriam Webster, 1994)

21. Bangor Daily News (Bangor Maine; May 16, 1987) Dirk

J. van de Haas, "Population Decline in Europe.

22. W. A. Kilpatrick, Pyschological Seduction, (Thomas

Nelson, Nashville 1983) p. 126

23.. W. Fisher-Hunter, The Divorce Problem, (MacNeish;

Waynesboro, Penn. 1952) p. 11

24. W.A. Heths, G. Wedham, E. Neufeld in, Jesus and

Divorce, (Hodder/Stoughton, London 1984) p. 103

25. Ibid. p. 103, 104

26. D. Atkinson, To Have and to Hold, (Eerdmans; Grand

Rapids Michigan) p. 94

27. Ency. Brittanica (1960) 6:123

28. A. Isaksson, Marriage and Ministry in the New Temple,

(Lund; Gleeup, 1965) p. 86

29. Ibid. p. 87

30. E. G. Dobson, What the Bible Really Teaches About

Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage, (Flemming H. Revell,

Old Tappan, N.J. 1986) p. 42-47

31. J.E. Adams, Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage,

(Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. Co. Phillipsburg N.J.

1980) p. 24

32. Ency. Brittanica (1960) 17:919

33. Will and Ariel Durant; T.M. Green in, The Story of

Civilization (Simon and Schuster, NY,NY 1967) 10:532

End Notes 269

34. Ibid. p. 10:546

35. Ibid. p. 11:645

36. Ibid. p. 11:645 (Schopenhauer in)

37. Renald E. Showers, What On Earth Is God Doing?,

(Loizeaux, Neptune, N.J., 1973) p. 79

38. G.W. Dollar; Kenneth Cauther in, A History of

Fundamentalism, (BJU Press, Greenville, S.C. 1973) p. 91

39. Aloysius M. Ambrozic, "Indissolubility of Marriage in

the N.T.; Law or Ideal?", Studia Canonica (6; 1972) p. 285

40.W. Durant, The Mansions of Philosophy, (Garden City

Pub. Co., N.Y., N.Y., 1941) p. 226

41. Keil-Delitzsch, Old Testament Commentary (Eerdmans

Pub. Co., Grand Rapids, MI) 1:118

42. H.M. Morris, The Genesis Record, (Baker, Grand

Rapids, MI) p. 148

43. H. Polano, The Talmud, (Frederick Warne, London,

5636) p. 18

44. NSRB, (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, NY, 1967 p. 11

45. Keil-Delitzsch, O.T. Commentary (Eerdmans, Grand

Rapids, MI) 1:137

46. W.G. Sumner, Folkways (Boston, 1906) p. 485; Adolf

Erman, Life in Ancient Egypt, (Dover Pub. New York, NY,

1894, reprint 1971)

47. W. Durant, The Mansions of Philosophy, (Garden City

Pub. Co. N.Y., N.Y. 1941) p. 221,222

48. Keil-Delitzsch, O.T. Comm., 1:153

49. Ibid. 1:153

50. Walter Berns, For Capital Punishment, (Basic Books,

N.Y., 1979) p. 3

51. James B. Prichard, The Ancient Near East,

Supplementary Texts and Pictures, (Princeton University

270 End Notes

Press, Princeton, N.J. 1969) p. 87

52. Leon Wood, A History of Israel's History, (Zondervan,

Grand Rapids, MI, 1980) p. 40

53. Jack Finegan, Light from the Ancient Past, (Princeton

University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1959) p.52

54. Prichard, ANET supplement 1969, (Princeton, 1969) p.

55. Ibid. p. 88

56. Hans Jochen Boecker, Law and the Administration of

Justice in the Old Testament and Ancient East, (Ausburg

Pub. House, Minn. MN, 1980) p. 58

57. Burrows, Millar, The Basis of Israelite Marriage,

(American Oriental Society, New Haven, CN, 1938)

58. NSRB, Gen. 3:5

59. Prichard, ANET Supplement 1969, (Princeton) p. 88

60. Ibid. p. 88

61. Ibid. p. 89

62. Leon Wood, A History of Israel's History (Zondervan,

Grand Rapids, MI, 1980) p. 149

63. Albrecht Goetze, The Laws of Eshnunna, (Iraq and

American Oriental Research/Jane Dows Nies Fund, New

Haven, CT, 1956) p. 75

64. Ibid. p. 76

65. Ibid. p. 76

66. Ibid. p. 76-77

67. Ibid. p. 83

68. Ibid. p. 84

69. Ibid. p. 142

70. Francis Rue Steele, American Journal of Archaeology,

vol. LII, (George Banta Pub. Co., Menahsa, Wisconsin,

1948) p. 434

End Notes 271

71. Ibid. p. 441

72. Ibid. p. 441

73. Ibid. p. 441

74. Ibid. p. 441

75. Ibid. p. 442

76. Ibid. p. 442

77. Donald W. Shaner, A Christian View of Divorce,

(Leiden, E.J. Brill, 1969) p. 49

78. Steele, AJA vol. LII p. 442,443

79. Ibid. p. 443

80. James B. Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts

(Princeton U. Press, Princeton, NJ, 1955) p. 177, 178

81. Ibid. p. 171

82. Ibid. p. 171

83. Ibid. p. 171

84. Ibid. p. 171

85. Ibid. p. 171

86. Ibid. p. 171

87. Ibid. p. 172

88. Ibid. p. 172

89. Ibid. p. 172

90.Ibid. p. 172

91. Millar Burrows, The Basis of Israelite Marriage

(American Oriental Series v. 5), (American Oriental

Society, New Haven, CT, 1938) p. 1

92. Unger, Gordon, C.H. in Archaeology and the Old

Testament (1954) p. 121

93. Durant, W., The Story of Civilization, (Simon and

Schuster, NY, 1954) Vol. I, p. 245

272 End Notes

94. The Compact Edition Oxford English Dictionary,

(Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford,1917) Vol. I:631

95.

K.D.OTC, p. 1:166

96.

Morris, The Genesis Record, p. 271

97.

K.D.OTC, p. 1:174

98.

K.D.OTC, p. 1:158

99.

Morris, Genesis, p. 238

100.

Leon Wood, A Survey of Israel's History, (Zondervan,

Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1970) p. 39

101.

Herodotus, The Harvard Classics, (Collier, NY, 1937)

p. 33:44

102.

ISBE, p. 1:268

103.

H.L. Willmington, Willmington's Guide to the Bible, p.

931

104.

ISBE, p. 1:268

105.

Morris, Genesis, p. 265, 271

106.

ISBE, p. 1:309

107.

ISBE, p. 4:2398*

108.

Encyclopaedia Brittannica, p. 17:768,769

109.

K.D.OTC p. *look up reference to pederasty in the

account of Sodom

110.

Durant, History, p. 1:235

111.

Gordon, Cyrus, The Living Past, (John Day, N.Y.,

1941) p. 156

112.

Ibid. p. 159

113.

Schultz, Samuel, The Old Testament Speaks, (John

Day, N.Y. 1941) p. 33

114.

Finegan, Jack, Light From the Ancient Past,

(Princeton, N.J., 1946) p. 67

End Notes 273

115. Borrows, Millar, The Basis of Israelite Marriage,

(Amer. Oriental Society, Conn., 1938)

116.

Gordon, Living Past, p. 170

117.

Ibid. p. 162

118.

Ibid. p. 178

119.

Hopewell, W. J., Marriage & Divorce, (N.J., 1976) p.

120.

Sumner, W.G., Folkways, (Ginn, Boston, 1906) p.

485,486

121.

Erman, Adolf, Life in Ancient Egypt, (Macmillan,

N.Y., 1894) p. 153,154

122.

Durant, Story, p. 1:164, 954

123.

Freud, Sigmund, Totem and Taboo, (Vintage, N.Y.,

1960) p. 7,16,18

124. Willmington, H.L., Guide to the Bible,

(Tyndale, Wheaton, 1981) p. 940

125. Isaksson, Abel, Marriage and Ministry, (Lund,

Copenhagen, 1965) p. 35

126. Boecker, Hans Jochen; Law and the

Administration of Justice in the Old Testament and

Ancient East, (Augsburg, Minn. 1980) p. 58

127. Wood, Leon; A Survey of Israels History

(Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1970) p. 145

128. Isaksson, A., Marriage, (Lund, Copenhagen) p.

129. K.D.OTC p. 3:424

130. Edersheim; Sketches, p. 142

131. Isaksson, Marriage, p. 35

132. KDOTC, p. II Sam. 11

133.Isaksson, Marriage, p. 22

274 End Notes

134. Heth and Wenham, Jesus and Divorce, (Hodder

and Stoughton, London, 1984) p. 107

135. Ibid. p. 111

136. Heth and Wedham (quote Craigie), Ibid. p. 108

137. Ibid. p. 108

138. Dobson, Edward G., What the Bible Really

Teaches About Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage,

(Revell, Old Tappan, N.J. 1986) p. 39

139. Adams, Jay, Marriage, Divorce, and

Remarriage, p.29

140. Ibid. p. 29

141. Thompson, J.A., JJS 17, p. 5; quote Deut.

(London, 1974) p. 244, The sort of payments may

be gauged from extra-biblical sources, e.g., Laws of

Eshnuna 59, Hammurabi 137ff, Middle Assyrian

Laws A 37f.

142. Murry, John, Divorce, p. 13

143. Ibid. p. 13

144. Isaksson, Marriage, p. *

145. Yaron, R., Journal of Jewish Studies 17, (1966)

p. 8-9

146. Wenham, Gordon J., The Book Of Leviticus,

The New International Bible Commentary,

(Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1979) p. 250.

147. Ibid. p. 251

148. Ibid. p. 253

149. Ibid. p. 254

150. Heth and Wenham, Jesus and Divorce, p. 110

151. Ibid. p. 107

End Notes 275

152. Ibid. p. 107

153. Murry, John; Divorce (Presbyterian and

Reformed, Phillipsburg, N.J., 1961) p. 15

154. Chase, Frederic Henry; What Did Christ Teach

About Divorce, (Society for Promoting Christian

Knowledge, New York, 1921) p. 9

155. Edersheim; Sketches, p. 158

156. Shaner, Donald W., A Christian View of

Divorce, (Leiden E.J. Brill, 1969) p. 16

157. Ibid. 157-158

158. Hopewell, Marriage and Divorce, p. 2

159. Duty, Guy; Divorce and Remarriage, (Bethany,

Minn., 1967) p. 22

160. Dobson, Edward G.; What the Bible Really

Says About Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage,

(Revell, N.J., 1986) p. 35

161. Edersheim, Life and Times, p. 2:332

162. Isaksson, Marriage and Ministry, p. 25-27

163. KDOTC, p. 3:415

164. Edersheim, Life and Times, p. 2:333

165. Heth and Wenham, Jesus and Divorce, p. 108

166. Atkinson, David, To Have and To Hold,

(Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1979) p. 103

167. Adams, Jay E., Marriage, Divorce, and

Remarriage, (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing

Co. , Phillipsburg, PA) p. 23

276 End Notes

168. Wycliffe Bible Commentary, Ex. 32

169. KDOTC, Num. 25:1-5

170. Wycliffe Bible Commentary, Num. 25:1-5

171. KDOTC, Jud. 9:1

172. KDOTC, II Sam. 5:13ff

173. Augistine, Adulterous Marriages, (translated by

C.T.Huegelmeyer) Fathers of the Church, 1955, N.Y.,

M.M., Maryknoll

174. Adams, Jay, E., Marriage, Divorce, and

Remarriage, (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing,

Phillipsburg, N.J., 1980) p. 24

175. Dobson, Edward G., What The Bible Really

Teaches About Divorce, (Revell, Old Tappan, NJ,

1986) p. 43

176. MacArthur, John, John MacArthur's Bible Studies

on Divorce, (Moody Press, Chicago, 1985) p. 46

177. Ibid. p. 46

178. KDOTC, p 8:90

179. KDOTC, Hosea 1:1

180. MacLaren, Alexander, Expositions of the

Scriptures, (Baker Books, Grand Rapids, MI) Hosea

4:17.

181. KDOTC, Hosea, introduction, p. 22

182. KDOTC, Hoses, introduction, p. 25

183. KDOTC, Malachi, introduction,

"The Targumist,

Johnathan, ... has given the statement that Ezra the scribe is

the prophetic author of our book, as a conjecture founded

upon the spirit and contents of the prophecy. The notion that

Malachi is only an official name is therefore met with in

End Notes 277

many fathers, and has been vigorously defended in the most

recent times by Hengsterberg, who follows the lead of

Vitringa, whilst Ewald lays it down as an established truth."

184. KDOTC; Ezra 10:3

185. Ibid. Ezra 10:44

186. Colqhoun, John, Repentance, (Banner of Truth

Trust, London, 1826, 1965)

187. Quoting Heth and Wenham, Jesus and

Divorce, p. 163 (note 27) G. Rawlinson, Ezra

and Nehemiah: Their Lives and Times (New

York: Randolph, [1890]) 42. Cr. The Oxford

Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha (eds H.G.

May and B.M. Metzger; New York: Oxford

Univ. Press, 1965) 584 n. at Ezra 10:2).

188. Quoting Ibid. p. 163 (note 28) Though Ezra

knows of and uses the 'normal' Hebrew verb

for 'to marry' (laqah, cf. Ezra 2:61), he uses

other terms when he says they 'took' (nasa in

9:2, 12; 10:44) some of the daughters of th

land, or 'gave a dwelling to' (yasab* in 10:2,

10, 14, ,17-18) 'foreign women'. The former

verb is used elsewhere in the OT of 'to take as

a wife' in Ruth 1:4; 2 Chr. 11:31; 13:21; 24:3;

the three instances in Ezra, and Neh. 13:25.

Each of these references has foreign women,

multiple wives and/or concubines as the

object. The latter term is used only in Ezra

and Nehemiah (13:24, 27) and the accusative

is always foreign women. The LXX uses

kathizo* (to sit down, settle, live) to translate

this word, and kathizo* is never used to

translate any of the 'usual' words for marriage

(i.e., laqah, baal*, or nasa).

189. Quoting Ibid. p.163 (note 29) Ezra uses yasa*

(of 'putting away' wives and children in 10:3,

19 in the Hiphil; cf. Qal in Deut. 24:2), and

278 End Notes

elsewhere in the OT garas* is used passively

only of divorced women in Lev. 21:7, 14;

22:13; Num. 30:9; and Ezek. 44:22 (BDB, p.

176); and salah* means to 'send away, dismiss'

(= divorce) with acc. of wife in Deut. 22:19,

29; 24:1, 3,4; Jer. 3:1, 8; Mal. 2:16 (all piel),

and fig. in Isa. 50:1 (Paul). W.R. Eichhorst

('Ezra's Ethics on Intermariage and Divorce',

Grace Journal 10:3 [1969] 23) thinks that

Ezra also carried out this divorce action

'according to the law' (10:3) and followed

Deut. 24: 1-4. This not only misunderstands

Deut. 24: 1-4, but it fails to see that 'the law'

according to which they should 'put away'

their women refers to that law in 9:1-2, 10-12

and 14 which Ezra was confessing: 'shall we

again break Thy commandments and

intermarry with the people who commit these

abominations'. the law in view is Deut. 7:3

and exod. 34:16, not Deut. 24: 1-4.

190. Ibid. p. 163

191. MacArthur, John; John MacArthur's Bible

Studies on Divorce, (Matt. 19:1-12), (Moody

Press, Chicago 1983) p. 44

192. Augustine, Saint, Adulterous Marriages,

Translated by Charles T. Huegelmeyer, M.M.

Maryknoll, New York 1955)

193. Lanely, Carl, The Divorce Myth, (Bethany

House Pub. Minn. Minn. 1981) quoting( J.

Staffold Wright, The Date of Ezra's Coming to

Jerusalem (London: The tyndale Press, 1948)

pp. 23-28) p. 36193.193.193.

194. Ibid. p. 39

195. Ibid. p. 39

196. KDOTC, Introduction to Malachi, 10:423

End Notes 279

197. Isaksson, Abel, Marriage and Ministry, p. 27

198. KDOTC; Mal. 2:13-16

199. Edersheim, A., Life and Times of

Jesus(MacDonald, MacLean, Virginia) Bk.II p.149-

150

200. Ibid. Bk. II:126

201. Ibid. Bk. II:129

202. Lenski, R.C.H. New Testament Commentary,

(Augsburg Pub. House, Minn. MN 1943) Matt. 14::3,4

203. Flavius Josheph, William Whiston,

translator/editor, Works of Flavius Josephus (Reprint

1974, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI) vol. IV

p. 19; Antiq. XVIII 5.1

204. Edersheim, A. (1883). Life and Times of Jesus,

(MacDonlad, MacLean, Virginia) p. Bk.III 393

205.Ibid. Bk. III p. 658

206. Ibid. Bk. IV p. 332

207. Ibid. Bk. III p. 671-675

208. Lenski, N.T. Comm.; Matt. 5:1

209.The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church,

(1915); Ch. XXIV Sec. V

210. Ramm, Bernard, Protestant Biblical

Interpretation (W.A. Wilde, Boston, 1956 p.120-128

211. Edersheim, Life and Times, p. Bk. IV: 334

212. Shaner, D.W., A Christian View of Divorce

(Leiden E.J. Brill 1969) p. 11,12

213. Ibid. p. 146 quoting Fee

214. Ibid. p. 145 quoting Fee

215. Ibid. p. 137

280 End Notes

216. Ibid. p. 147

217. MacCorkle, Douglas God’s Special Secret (MBM

Books, Cocoa Beach, FL 1993

218. Edersheim, Life and Times, ("So, according to

many commentators. See Meyer) ) Bk. IV: 332

219. Heth; Wehham; Jesus and Divorce, p. 157,8

220. NSRB; comment on II Pet. 1:20 p.1339

221. J. Carl Laney; The Divorce Myth, (Bethany

House, Minn. Minn. 1981) p. 53

222. Heth, Wenham, Jesus and Divorce: The reader

should refer to this work as the modern foundation of

the divorce debate. Heth and Wenham lay out all the

elements of the ancient and modern controversy on the

divorce texts. They side with the primary concept of

the Early Church View, which Heth refers to as “no-

remarriage-this-side-of-death.”

223. Ibid, p. 19

224. Ibid. p 21 ; Heth and Wenham acknowledge that

the early church father's had the advantage of living

and learning in an era where the ancient languages

were their common tongue. Therefore their

understanding of the (Matt. 5:32;19:9) texts may have

been more clear to them. After stating that there were

long debates among the fathers about some doctrines,

but regarding divorce and remarriage this was not so:

"In contrast, on the subject of divorce and remarriage

there was practically no dispute in the early church: for

the first five centuries there was virtual unanimity on

this issue from one end of the Roman empire to the

other

225. Ibid. p. 22

226. Ibid. p. 73

End Notes 281

227. Ibid. p. 75

228. Ibid. p. 38

229. Ibid. p. 42 Heth and Wenhan quoting Stromata

230. Ibid. p. 44

231. Ibid. p. 167