The subject of divorce and remarriage has been the cause of much heated debate over the years in both the Church of God Sabbath-keeping movement as well as among the Sacred Name assemblies. According to the grace that has been given to me as one who has labored in the Word and in Doctrine (see I Tim. 5:17), I herein present a thumbnail sketch of my unique findings on this subject. Whether I have labored well I leave to the judgment of the body of Christ. So far the comments I've received have been favorable.

There have been many zealous commandment-keeping churches who have looked at Yeshua's statements on divorce and remarriage and concluded that He forbade remarriage altogether, or only allowed it for the cause of porneia (which they usually limit to adultery and/or fornication). In the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, we find porneia, being used to translate various words relating to wickedness, including Israel's adoption of the heathen, idolatrous practices of the surrounding nations. They went "a-whoring" after the nations, or "played the harlot" by trusting in strategic political alliances with Gentile nations. For this the word porneia is used. Porneia also refers to a range of illicit and perverse sexual activities. Hence, this will broaden our application of the conditions necessary to have a reason for putting away mentioned in Matt 5:32 and 19:6, ie. "except it be for fornication" (Gr. = porneia). A Brother or sister is not bound under such a situation to one who is perpetually backsliding into such porneia.

To limit porneia to only adultery or fornication would also make the Savior's comments contradict the very plain conditions for divorce listed in Exodus 21:10-11. It is the Torah-the teachings given to Moses by Yahweh which lays the foundation on this subject. This lesser Yahweh later became a man by shedding His glory and divinity (see Phil 2:6-7), and took the Name Yahoshua (or Yeshua). We prove elsewhere that it was the pre-existent Yeshua and not the Father who did the speaking and interacting with Adam, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, and all the prophets of Old. Therefore, the teachings there bearing on sexual and marital matters are as much the teaching of Yahoshua as that found in the four gospels! [Read Heb 4:2!]

I have been blessed with an understanding that breaks down and removes the seeming contradiction between Old and New Testament teaching, and which does no violence to the marriage law given by Yahweh, the Great Lawgiver. Interpretations which see the New Testament teaching as somehow superseding or canceling the Old, will be shown to be mere artificial contrivances designed to bring men and women back into bondage. Yahoshua Himself said that not one jot or tittle could be erased from the Law until the heavens and the earth pass away (Matt 5:18). Those called 'Great" in the Kingdom of Heaven will be those who have upheld the validity of "the least of these My Commandments." Lev. 26:15 labels the Statutes and Judgments found in the Pentateuch as "commandments".

Many believers have been relieved to learn of the sound wisdom and judgment of Yahweh on divorce and remarriage contained in the Old Covenant scriptures. Countless Sunday-observant Christians, weak in Torah knowledge, have been set free from the spirit of condemnation, fear, and bondage to reprobate, covenant-breaking spouses-ones with whom there was little or no prospect of reconciliation. They learned that Truth sets one free. Not free like the scribes and Pharisees, who used Deut. 24's law as license to put away their wives for any reason; but free rather to pursue their life in Christ anew, with a clean break from the past, with all its abuses, mistakes, and disappointments.

There are two very fundamental scriptures that the no-remarriage people need to get a handle on (due, perhaps, to a lack of compassion and love). The first is Gen. 2:18-"It is not good that the man should be alone." The second is I Cor. 7:2-"To avoid porneia (illicit sexual relations), let (allow and permit) every man have his own wife, and every woman to have her own husband." Thirdly, I John 5:3 says that the commandments of Yahweh are not grievous or burden-some. How religious zealots can so casually consign divorcees to an indefinite life of loneliness and a forced, obligatory celibacy, no matter what the circumstances, no matter who the abusive or negligent party was, is ultimately a matter of the heart-a lack of perception of the heart and law of Yahweh, Who Himself is a divorcee (Jer. 3:8). Furthermore, He is planning to remarry; yea, He is already espoused to the Church (II Cor. 11:2).

Having said this, no doubt there are certain adulterers and irresponsible Covenant-breakers among the called-out ones, for whom remarriage would be severely frowned upon by Yahweh until they have undergone genuine repentance and effort at reconciliation with The Father and with those they have hurt.

To get to the nature of the Marriage Covenant, I would like to begin our discussion with Romans 7. This passage is leaned on heavily by the "once married, always-married" proponents. But I will show they are misinterpreting it by ignoring "the Law of the Husband" referred to in verse 2, and by ignoring what the Torah has to say about conditions under which the marital bond is loosed.

The fact that Paul founded his whole argument on the Torah can be known by verse 1, and by the fact that "Paul, being a Hebrew, wrote in Hebrew." (Jerome, the highly respected Church historian and translator of the Latin Vulgate, made this statement in 420 A.D.). This being the case, the "law" he referred to in verse 1 would necessarily have been the Torah. The English translators invariably use the word "law" to translate "Torah" in the Old Testament. Hence, we have:

What a pity those being "overmuch righteous" (Eccles 7:16 warns against being so) on this subject NEVER VENTURE TO EXPLAIN WHAT 'THE LAW OF THE HUSBAND' IS; or, for that matter, tell us the Biblical definition of what a husband actually is. The answer to both of these questions may be found in Exodus 21:10-11:

You will not find a more good, just, or holy law anywhere in the scriptures (these adjectives are used by Paul to describe the entirety of the Torah in Rom 7:12). People who really down deep don't believe what Yahshua said in Matt. 4---"You shall live by every word which proceeds out of the mouth of Elohim"---would have us ignore Exodus 21 and the rest of the lawful and fair judgments of Yahweh. They deem them as irrelevant in today's culture, as not applicable in modern situations. At best they would relegate Exodus 21:10 to the very narrow case of a master taking to himself a second wife from among his maidservants.

But is that how Yahoshua and Paul used scripture? I don't think so. They always reasoned from the lesser literal case, to the larger spiritual application at hand. For example, in Luke 9 Christ said if the Pharisees allowed a man to loose his ox from a ditch on the Sabbath day, should not a daughter of Abraham (the greater case), bound for 18 years by a spirit of infirmity, be loosed therefrom on the Sabbath day. Using this same method of interpretive reasoning, we can logically assume that if a slave girl taken to become a man's second wife is now entitled to the full marital rights (food, clothing, and love) and privileges as the man's free-born first wife, and would be allowed to go free should her master-now-become-husband ever renege on his responsibilities towards her, then how much more should the original wife be permitted to divorce if she is defrauded of the duties of the husband. [Obviously, if the man becomes disabled, and cannot fulfill his role as provider, then the Torah provided for community responsibility. Such an exception in no way negates the pertinence of this law.]

Make no mistake, brethren, this is "The Law of the Husband" to which Paul refers in Rom 7:2. You will search in vain for a more concise, yet comprehensive delineation of the responsibilities that husbands have towards their wives anywhere else in the Torah. And when those responsibilities are not met, we have prima facie evidence of a lack of love, without which no marriage can long endure.

Nor should it endure, because the human spirit and personality is twisted and broken when compelled to endure unreciprocated love year-in and year out. That does not mean we don't exercise unconditional love which bears, endures, hopes, and believes all things over an extended period of time. But eventually, such an effort becomes an exercise in futility, a proverbial casting of one's pearls before swine, if no change is exhibited.

The Law of the Husband is pivotal in any discussion of other verses dealing with divorce and remarriage because it defines what a husband is! It is one who provides food, clothing, love, and sex to his woman. It also makes plain the fact that Marriage is a conditional covenant, based on obligations of service and love. If those conditions are not met, then the vows/agreements are null and void because of broken promises, which is the same as fraud.

Yahweh married ancient Israel on Mt. Sinai, when they agreed to obey Yahweh's commandments, statutes, and judgments. This Marriage Covenant was ratified with the sprinkling of blood over all the people in Exodus 24. Not here or anywhere else in the Bible do we find marriage presented as an unconditional covenant. To teach it as such is irrational and irresponsible in the extreme, and earns a disdain and disrespect from thinking people outside the Church that is justly deserved. It is bondage and cruelty to tell a woman who has suffered violence, verbal and emotional abuse, and/or financial irresponsibility from her husband year-in and year-out, who will not seek counseling to resolve his vices or his lack of natural concern or affection, that she must "stick it out" indefinitely. Oftentimes, without the leverage of separation and divorce as a possible option, the woman is stripped of the only valid and viable means she has left to bring the man to his senses.

Such a man obviously is not "pleased to dwell" (I Cor 7:13-14) with the woman he had promised to love and cherish. It would seem to be the case (for whatever reason) that "she finds no favor in his eyes" (Deut 24:1), or else he would behave himself like a loving husband is supposed to. The man who violates Exodus 21:11 may be brought, by his wife, before ecclesiastical elders endued with wisdom, and the woman may be granted a bill of divorce, accordingly, if the situation warrants.

Let us take a closer look at the much-maligned law in Deut. 24:

Is she committing adultery when she remarries? Absolutely not! So does the law allow remarriage? Of course! Why then, in Heaven's name, did a perfect Lawgiver, full of righteousness and glory, ever allow such a law as this to be put forth? Was it a compromise by Yahweh, to allow for the inevitable hardness of the human heart (Matt 19:7-8)? Is that what Yahshua meant when He said, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to put away your wives."?

The answer to the above is a surprising "yes". It is evident from both the Exodus 21 and Deut 24 passages, that the woman was inculpable in the matter under discussion. She had done nothing worthy of divorce. But in order to prevent her from having to live with a "husband" who did not really care about her, he was allowed, yea even "commanded" (Mark 10:3), to give her a bill of divorce. My deliberate opinion, having been a serious student of this subject for almost thirty years, is that Yahweh is saying He would rather see the woman free to pursue another marriage with a man who truly loves her, than to be stuck with an emotionally and psychologically depraved man. However, every avenue of counsel and effort should be exhausted over a long period of time to address the man's hardness of heart, or the woman's, as the case may be. But, in the end, the Deut. 24 law would act as an emotional safety valve, allowing for the lesser of two evils.

The Bill of Divorce proves that the woman was not responsible for the dissolution of the marriage, and was thus eligible for remarriage. If she had done anything sexually amiss, there were very serious consequences (even capital punishment) prescribed for infidelity.

A close look at Mark 10:2ff. will give us a hint as to why and how the Deut. 24 Law was being abused and misused by the Jewish men of Christ's day. The Pharisees came to Him (vs. 2) and asked Him,

Yahshua implies strongly in Matt 5:32 and Matt 19:9 that men were putting away their wives for reasons other than porneia, simply out of the hardness of their own hearts, ie. carnal reasons.

But in order to cover up their being carnal, hardhearted, and hard-to-please in marriage, they were also neglecting to issue the bill of divorce, causing the woman and her new husband to be committing adultery. The woman would be merely "put away" (Gr. = apoluo), not legally divorced. [I realize that this also implies that the Jewish religion of the time did not recognize a woman's right to initiate divorce]

Even though Deut 24:1-3 was a commandment, it was not a license or encouragement to put away, because the very fact that the man's, wife now had a bill of divorce permitting her to remarry, exonerated her of any guilt in the break up, in general. Further, it carried a stigma for the man himself, in that it pointed the finger back at him as being more interested in a mere matter of nakedness or other trivial offense, than in commitment and building up his house and his children. In no way was Yahweh promoting the hardness of heart, but rather sparing the woman from having to live with such hardheartedness.

How many bills of divorce could a man issue before he would be embarrassed to face the community at large, having declared over and over his carnality and that he was hard to please sexually and otherwise? To avoid this social stigma, it is probable that many of the religious hypocrites of Yahshua's day were neglecting to obey Deut 24's directive as evidenced by their calling it a permit or allowance, instead of what Christ called it, a solid demand of the Law.

The bill of divorce was a command because it formalized the break, thus barring the man from leaving his woman in marital/legal limbo the rest of her natural life. And this is the situation we find the Savior addressing---where spouses have been put away, but not legally divorced (Matt 5:32, 19:9, Mark 10.11-12, and Luke 16:18). If He is talking about any other situation other than this, then we make these statements to be false.

Notice, Yahshua says in Mark 10:11-12, "Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, commits adultery against her." But Matt 5:32 and 19:9 tell us the husband can put away and marry another, if she has committed porneia.Mark 10 cannot be made to contradict Exodus 21:10-11, because the scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35). Mark is speaking to a spouse who is putting away their mate for no lawful reason, so they can go and marry another. This interpretation fits the context of the passage, in which the doctors of the law wanted to justify putting away for any reason.

Likewise, Matt 5:32 must not be interpreted so as to do away with Deut 24 or Exodus 21, because we are not to think that Yahshua came to do away with any portion of the Law (Matt 5:19), except the sacrificial code that was added because of transgressions of the moral portion (Gal 3:19). It would be easy, if we are not careful, to take the last part of v. 32, where it says "and whoever marries her that has been put away commits adultery," as meaning the wife is unconditionally bound to her hard-hearted man, who has put her away for a reason besides porneia.

It must be pointed out that in v. 32 the word "divorced" in the KJV is a deliberate mistranslation of the Greek word apoluo, which was just translated "put away" earlier in the same verse, as well as in the previous verse! Apoluo is not the Greek word for divorce. That word is apostasion.All three times this word occurs in the New Testament, it refers to the legal document of Deut 24:1.

The only way to harmonize the four gospel passages above with the Torah passages, is to conclude that Yahoshua is talking about the man putting a woman away apart from the cause of porneia, and /or neglecting to give her a bill of divorce as required by the law, leaving her not free to remarry.

Luke 16:17 says "it is easier for the heavens and the earth to pass away, than for one tittle of the law (Torah) to fail." That included Exodus 21:11 and Deut 24:1-4, which fall under the category of the immutable judgments of Yahweh, which are the undergirding of His very throne (Ps. 97:2)."righteousness and judgment are the foundation of His throne"). They are good, just and holy laws for a holy people, Israel and the Church (Lev 19:2, I Pet 1:16). These two laws serve there purpose, which is to protect the island of the innocent and lovingly shield and free the unloved.

Paul clearly debunks the "no-remarriage" policy in I Cor 7. If, as some people think, the only two categories of people who can marry are widows and virgins, then he would have said that, and could have saved a lot of space and time. Instead, he says the "unmarried and widows" (v. 8) may marry (v. 9). He doesn't address virgins until vs. 25.

Verse 27 is most interesting, because if, as some try to say, the only way to be "loosed from a wife" is via death, then why didn't Paul use the term "widow", instead of "loosed from a wife." The simple fact is that he is not addressing widows in vs. 27, because he has already addressed them fully in verses 8-9. If "loosed from a wife" meant a widow, then verses 27-28 would be redundant, a duplication of what he said in verses 8-9.

Therefore, "loosed from a wife" has to mean "legally divorced". As a matter of fact the word "loosed" islelusai, and is used in Matt 18 by the Savior when speaking of the apostles authority to bind and loose. It means "free from legal obligation to serve." Paul tells those in a binding marriage: "Seek not to be loosed." You are not to try to get a divorce from one who is trying to keep the marriage together, and who is pleased to dwell with you.

When I Cor 7:39 and Rom 7:2 declare that a wife is bound by the Law (Torah) to her husband so long as he lives, it is talking about a man who is fulfilling the basic Torah requirements that make him a husband. Why do we insist on calling men husbands who are not fulfilling The Law of the Husband? "Husband" is a sacred office and title shared by Yahoshua in His role toward Israel and the Church. [see Eph. 5, Hosea 2:16, Jer. 3:20] One is not entitled to the appellation "husband" simply because one has made a vow to another to love, provide, and cherish. It is the one who loves in deed and in truth (I John 3:18) who we call "Husband". So likewise, it is only those wise virgins who follow the Lamb wherever He goes, who get to go into the Wedding Supper and become the Bride of Christ.

However, it must be noted in the story of Cain's murder of his brother Abel---where Yahweh Himself directly meted out the punishment---that Yahweh never did strip Cain of his office of father and husband! We should be equally reluctant to deprive a man of these roles, and reluctant to tolerate a woman who abuses the world's court system to get her way, without first letting the elders in the Church judge the situation.

The passage in Matt 5, 19, Mk 10, Lk 16, I Cor 7, and Rom 7 which talk about husbands, are not even talking about men who have abandoned the home, or who come home drunk several times a month, who dissipate their income on betting and personal habits and luxuries while children's needs go unmet, who indulge in sports and foul habits while neglecting their own offspring and wife. And I will go so far as to say that a man whose heart is so bound up with covetousness, lovelessness, and/or unconquered, inordinate lusts is in danger of gehenna fire, let alone worthy of losing his family. These things undermine the very purpose of the relationship, which is to model love and godly character to a new generation---to bring about a seed of Elohim (Mal. 2:15). This is true no matter how good a provider he is. The obligation of "conjugal dues" is more than just sex. It is the expression of and deeds of love, kindness, affection, thoughtfulness, gentleness, faithfulness, and outgoing concern displayed throughout any given week, and month to month.

We have tended to emphasize the rampant lawlessness prophesied for the last generation before Christ returns---men being lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, unholy, unthankful, without natural affection, covenant-breakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of good people and things, traitors, high-minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God (II Tim 3:1-5). But then we turn right around and insist that spouses "stick it out" with these very kinds of people, no matter how unwilling they are to change or seek help.

I've been in evangelistic ministry on the road for over fifteen years, and I've seen children and wives lose their lives because the pastor hadn't the courage or the discernment to tell the woman the hard decisions she needed to make in order to protect herself and ensure the safety of her children. As Dr. James Dobson has said, there are women who "Love too much." In Springfield, Missouri I once heard of an Adventist woman who lost her life along with her two small children to a deranged church---going father who should have been recognized as demon-oppressed long before the murder-suicide came about.

I have also seen women who've stuck it out so long with mean, abusive men that their own personalities became depraved because of the perceived need to continuously use false coping mechanisms, such as lying and deceit. Woefully unsatisfied emotional needs lead to grossly distorted perceptions of reality and an inability to trust or believe in anyone, including Yahweh the Father. They themselves wanted spiritual leadership and devotion, but instead they found themselves the victim of the axiom "Evil communications (companionships) corrupt good manners."(I Cor 15:33)

"What fellowship can the righteous (spouse) have with the unrighteous." (II Cor 6:14) The example of the believing spouse is supposed to sanctify and draw the unbelieving spouse toward righteousness (I Cor 7:14). If that does not come about, there is a problem. Either the believer is not exemplifying the love of Christ, or the unbeliever is refusing to be sanctified and affected by that love.

Now at the same time we have had "lawlessness abounding, and the love of many waxing cold," and the wholesale degeneration of character, commitment, and the institution of marriage, we have ignored another trend among the religious folks to set up extra-Biblical, super-righteous standards that make life miserable or cheat believers out of legitimate enjoyment. Many prospective believers have been turned off and away from The Faith by unreasonable, unwarranted claims on their life, all done in the name of the Bible. Prohibition against even the moderate use of wine and alcoholic beverages, prohibitions against dancing and romantic music for even married couples, teaching that our Savior's parents had an "immaculate" marital relationship and that married couples should limit intercourse to once every 3 months [Sister Ellen G. White of 7' Day Adventist fame taught the forgoing.]

But over-strictness was prophesied for the latter days by the Apostle Paul in I Tim 4:1-2:

This consignment of divorcees to a perpetual life of living alone, unmated, is part and parcel of what the Spirit had in mind when He used the phrase "forbidding to marry." The Sabbatarian churches have largely taught that this refers to the Catholic Church's teaching forbidding priests and nuns from marrying. But that is hardly unique to the end-times, dating as it does to pre-Christian pagan religions. No doubt this interpretation was a convenient diversion of attention away from the horrifying fruits of Herbert Armstrong's own No-remarriage policy (discontinued in 1974). If you were living happily with a second mate and new children, they regarded it as adultery, no matter what the circumstances were in the first marriage. Therefore, they made you separate with your second mate before you could attend their church!

This teaching caused much emotional devastation in the homes of new converts. What a mountain of misery Herbert Armstrong and the Church of God 7th Day have inflicted on divorcees with this stubborn, fleshly, misguided pursuit of righteousness. The fruits of this diabolical teaching failed to move the church's leadership to relent, until finally Ken Westby (in 1974) led 40 ministers in revolt against dictatorial, oppressive policies such as this. Elder Raymond Cole refused to budge on the old D & R teaching, and left the Worldwide Church of God at that time.

I do not hesitate in stereotyping every person I've ever tried to talk to who holds this doctrine of devils as being extremely stubborn, self-righteous, implacable to reason and scriptural evidence, and difficult to get along with. These same people, who would not think of interpreting the New Testament to do away with Yahweh's Sabbaths, do not hesitate to claim that the Savior did away with Deut 24:1-4 and Exodus 21:10-11.

Their unthinking stubbornness is borne of Pharisaical self-righteousness. For they bind upon divorcees "heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, but they themselves will not move them with one of their little fingers." (Matt 23:4) May Yahweh forgive them, for they know not what they do.