Nature, Theology, Law, Prophets and Fulfillment

Nature, Theology, Law, Prophets and Fulfillment

Kenneth W. Billings

February 25, 2026

CHAPTER I

Church Hierarchy

Persons of eternity:

God created the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1.1). Col. 1:13-17 reveal to us that Jesus Christ performed the creation. He is also noted as our chief shepherd (I Peter 5). Gen. 1:2 in the Hebrew text tells us that the “ר֣וּחַ אֱלֹהִ֔ים” (Unicode/XML Leningrad Codex, Gen. 1.2) “r'uach eloh'im'”, according to reading the Hebrew from right to left and then giving my transliteration to English from left to right, “Spirit of God”, was hovering over the face of the waters. Within the first two verses of the Bible taken as a whole as to creating, all three of the holy persons of God are united in the work.

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. (The Holy Bible, KJV, John 1.1-2)

Also, see the Nicene Creed as to former thought on the deity of Christ.

All believers are subject to the authority of God and his written word. They must worship him in spirit and truth. (John 4.24) There is no cleric above the written word of God. We are subject to God (Gal. 1.10-12), the apostles and prophets of the early church as written in the Scriptures, and their testimonies, not later followers and ministers that were merely taught (1 Cor. 14.36), and formed denominations and many times erring doctrines, especially from Rome and centuries later.

Servants of God: elders, bishops, deacons, and gifted believers as kings and priests

Elders consist of wise men of God, text translators dividing the truth rightfully (2 Ti. 2.15), and others of Godly, profound intellect and effort throughout the world; some ordained in the local church (I Pet 5.1-5, Acts 15, 1 Ti. 5.1, 17, Titus 1.5).

Repentance acceptable, but official disqualification is necessary when reputation is stained

They are men who acknowledge true repentance, including the change of bad habits of repentant men who have fell and come back to the Lord, obeying God and walking in truth. Not all elders today are qualified to be chosen as leaders in a church due their past sins. They may have lost their quality of life and honor of avoiding evil to not be able to live as officials of the church because their reputations are stained, and they are no longer without reproach (Titus 1.5-9), but on the other hand, have learned how to discern between clean and unclean and have been restored from sins and impurity through repentance. They are restored men who seek a pure relationship with God and have a desire to bless God and his people.

Failure of repentance

However, old mockers, self-made authorities, Orthodox, Protestants and others, and their associates and followers of irreligious and social schizophrenia as Roman Catholicism have not truly repented and ceded to the authority of the written word. The house of God must at least be instituted with the will of obedience to the higher authority of God and his written word, which is easily accessible to anyone who has a bible and a desire to study it.

Local church and holy ministry

Men who understand the law (1 Ti. 1. 8-11) and are able to judge and weed the lawless: We must remember the public church is to be a pure setting with Godly ministers. God chose “… before the foundation of the world... ” (Eph. 1.4) that we Christians, his chosen, live holy and blameless before him in love, how much also our local church ministers. We relate to marriage and purity with the mystery of Christ and the church. God loved and provided for his people, and our ministers must have purity and nothing significant the church may rebuke or the public may slander upon . Local officials must be like Timothy, who was trained under the Apostle Paul (Phil. 4.9).

Repentant failed ministers and satellite ministries under local church supervision

Nevertheless, this would not prevent blatant offenders repentance and restoration (Ps. 23.3) if they discontinue and manifest their previous contradictions to Scriptures and hidden darkness to the church. However, due to previous, public stain, it would disallow their official capacity in the local church. Perhaps, if such repented and were restored, they could participate with the others and they could also still have public ministries outside the local church if their deeds did not contradict the doctrine of the local church.

God gives gifts; however, proper standing with the public and doctrine of God must be learned and maintained to qualify as an official

A believer of God does not lose his gifts if he falls into a sin, but he can lose his opportunity as an official of the local church. In this case, he must be under supervision after repentance to be considered a follower of Christ and member of the church. However, as we see in our apostasy today, there are some, even as misplaced ministers in a local church, who have not shown repentance and have not been open about their marital and sexual relationships. Some have philosophically and openly promoted defiled marriage to others. Without holy, personal and intellectual transparency, I don't see how such a one could be either a qualified church official or have a qualified public ministry outside and other than the local church. Repentance, holiness and transparency is a necessity.

Virgin and chaste marriage transparency of officials necessary

Christians everywhere and local church members have a duty to require sexual transparency and to know whether the ones speaking to them have true repentance and qualification in their lives. Chastity testimonies should be something a righteous man would want and desire to clarify to his audience so as to verbally reveal his virginity and eligibility for marriage, but hardly ever do you hear men give such testimonies of themselves in the heretical churches. Their absence of a pure testimony is a sign of their lacking character or they are covering a scandal. Their sin will find them out. (Nu. 32.23)

Know the background and reputation of purity of the woman you plan to date

Our whole evangelism system needs to be revised and restored. No one can be personally edified as to purity by a man living in fornication or adultery or condoning such acts. Second marriages can only be tolerated when the first wife was ineligible as in (Mt. 19.9) and the church gives a document of annulment. Divorce documentation has been a necessity since the second law of Moses (Dt. 24.1-3). Nevertheless, men who have participated in such fornication, cannot qualify for the office of deacon because of their reproach, even though they may later still be husbands of one wife. (1 Ti. 3.12)

Avoid fornication: a minister must have a testimony of purity

He must prove he is not living in fornication or remarriage. After a couple have sex and complete the physical part of the marriage bond (Ex. 22 and Dt. 22) but the female is not accepted by the male or vice versa, then, when the female departs and has sex with another man than the first, it is an act of fornication. So, to avoid (1 Cor. 7.2) this condemned (Gal. 5.19) predicament, a man should take a female virgin he has either chosen, seduced or raped for his wife. If he doesn't marry her, he leaves her in a condition that she can't legitimately marry anyone else.

Adultery is different from fornication, but still condemned

A Christian minister must prove he is not living in fornication or remarriage

Understanding the Bible today requires knowledge of how Jesus the Christ fulfilled—changed, repealed and reproved (Mt. 19.9) the second law (specifically, Dt. 24:1-3) of Moses, which redacted the first law. It requires experiencing revelation of new things and “fulfillment” even beyond the first law of Moses. There are basically three different eras to be compared the first law of Moses, the second, and the fulfillment era of the new covenant (New Testament). The fulfillment era is the active one we have available to us today.

18 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. (Mt. 5.18)

The Old Testament law gave direction to the people of God. People progressed and were given refinements as the law and time advanced. Although the OT law was not perfect. If it had been, Moses during the second law (Deuteronomy) would not have said,

15 The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; 16 According to all that thou desiredst of the LORD thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not. 17 And the LORD said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken. 18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.  (Dt. 18.15-18)

Spiritual progression: changes, spiritual growth and fulfillment of the law

Eventually, his commandments concerning remarriage were perfected through the “Prophet” (Dt. 15.15), the Lord Jesus Christ. Malachi foretold of his coming and moral reproof of infidelity: see Malachi 3:1-5. Fulfillment of the ten commandments and spiritual progress can be seen today through New Testament studies. Contrarily, beware, there are also false replacement teachings such as Islamic promotions, works of legalisms and anti-Christian doctrines instead of fulfillment replacement.

The Torah is a broad study. It can be considered the five books of the Old Testament law, and generally, the other writings and the fulfillment books of the New Testament. A safe comprehensive view may be obtained through the sixty-six books. The Jewish people have revived the Hebrew language although they are not Hebrew people. They have also molested and distorted Hebrew laws, especially concerning the Israelite prescription for race and demographics: intra-tribal marital, inheritance and anti-genocide law (Nu. 36.5-13). The made-up, Herzl matrilineal law and custom  (a form of Hebrew genocide) of the “Jewish” is not from the Torah; they have no required, continuous, Hebrew patrilineal, genealogical register and gene pool.

According to modern Israeli law and definition: “For the purpose of this Law, ‘Jew’ means a person who was born of a Jewish mother or has become converted to Judaism and who is not a member of another religion.” (Law of Return, 5710-1950, § 4B)

We Christians should make original bible language study one of our goals, especially Greek and Hebrew. Both languages were used by bible students before the coming of Jesus Christ. Deeper study would help us strengthen our witness for Jesus the Christ. One reason we have lost hegemony and influence is due to frauds, rejects and impostors gaining prestige through misrepresentation and the glory of the Hebrew language. Another is through the large number of atheists and anti-Christian media that support Herzl Zionism either through active support or passive distortion. Herzl himself was a reported atheist.

America's professors have been desensitized through opposition propaganda. Our educational and failed theological leaders, who are expected to be exact, precise and articulate, falsely portray the “Jewish” as Hebrews/Jews even in a presumed, genetically and theologically blurred manner. Christians should be able to detect their genealogical error. There are no Jews or Hebrew tribes in modern Israel. Matrilineal law of the Herzlists is evidence of that statement, it is in direct opposition to Hebrew patrilineal law. (Nu. 36.5-13)

The King David, “הַמֶּ֣לֶךְ דָּוִ֔ד” (Unicode/XML Leningrad Codex, 2 Sa. 7.18), transliterated, “ham'elek dahv'eed” (the accent mark giving emphasis for stress, loudness, or a higher pitch), is famous among Christians. He was a true Hebrew. Let us be like him and develop our bible studies. He loved the law:

1 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. 2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night. 3 And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper. (Ps. 1.1-3)

Let us not be misdirected in our theology or any other studies. Understanding the first and second law or generally the law, leads unto developing our understanding of the New Testament. We can begin with the NT, but we must be thorough and search the Scriptures, including the law. May we learn through our own research. May we Christians regain our theological knowledge renown and become the prominent lights in the dark world we live in through our revival of ancient language study and correct theology.

Apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers (Eph 4.11)

First of all, purity must be restored. Students of the Bible must gain Hebrew and Greek language skills. They must learn how to give precedence, without rebellion, to a biblical principle or law according to comparing the authority and righteousness of the eras. A new and more safe and spiritual rule of wedding ceremony is needed to prevent fornication and adultery. You can learn about this in chapter IV.

Prophets keep the people in line with sexual morality

The mainstream churches are following the minus the sexual morality commandments gospel proponents, those who tolerate and even promote sexual immorality. I would love to praise faithful men who lead. It is nice not to have to mention names many times and relate them to heresy, but sometimes it has to be done. Exposure and recognition of the “generals of immorality”—Hagin, Copeland, Oral Roberts—and those in similar adultery and fornication error must be made. Separation and shunning of such types is also expected. They took in big money and stood in the way of restoration. They led many

astray. With such a vast, perverted and anti-Christian, so-called Christian media, it would take a miracle for many just to recover from the myth and immorality damage. Samuel was not so (1 Samuel 12.3-5, KJV). Prophets keep the people in line with sexual morality and God's written word. John the Baptist was faithful, even unto death.

Christian pro-active work

A reformation and restoration of the church is necessary. Modern pagan and anti-Christian (including erring churches) media has almost silenced good Christian teaching and preaching. However, we can still have a voice. Setting your vision to the task can make change. The Manhattan Project changed the military status in the US. It became a world power. It required recruiting skilled people to think, design, build, test, and change former technology.

The true church has to be pro-active also. We must reach those who can hear so they join us, only without paid salaries as those of the Manhattan Project and the false and erring church. Working for God is not a salary career, it is not a denominational effort (1 Cor. 1.13), it is bringing light to the world. The apostles did not sell their spiritual material. The Apostle Paul was a tent maker (Acts 18.2-3). Early Christians didn't follow modern commercial/business gain schemes to increase their outreach.

Sadly, many American adulterous, so-called evangelists or preachers would seemingly be insulted or ashamed to work for their living without high-end financial gain. We see this as a deterioration of society. Remember how well Samuel faithfully restored Israel by looking and submitting unto God, and afterward his sons became judges and changed the spiritual environment from good to bad by taking bribes (1 Samuel 8.3). We must avoid such corruption and covetousness diversions. May God bless us, amen.

Cults influencing institutions, preachers and teachers

We must understand that theology, history (eschatology—future history) and science work together. Genealogy and genetics progress has been hindered by the UN and its influenced subsidiaries, including public schools. A big error that Christians make today is believing Zion Revisionist Theory and that the modern “Jewish” are the same people as the ancient Hebrews. False. The people occupying Israel and living in various other countries and claiming to be heirs of the land (Israel) are telling you a lie. Actually, the “Jewish” man who claims he is a genealogical Jew is a fraud. He hi-jacks the fame and continuous, patrilineal-genealogical integrity of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the lineage (Nu. 36.5-13) of the patriarchs. He overlooks his crime, seemingly always circumventing the law (Torah). All of the fraudulent, revisionists, such as Ben Gurion, people militarizing and wanting to be Hebrews/Jews but with less genealogical and genetic credentials than the non-violent rejects whom were put away from the Hebrew people in Ezra 10 (KJV), were unable to become or make themselves biologically Hebrew.

Remember, there are no Jewish with registry today (Ezra 2.61-63). Therefore, they are genealogically polluted as to Hebrew law, unclean, and not Hebrews/Jews. They have been against race and racial nationalism because they cannot biblically present themselves as a genealogical (Nu. 36, 5-13), Hebrew race, but rather, and just the opposite, as a race-mixing cult. To agree with Japhethic, Semitic or Hamitic nations seeking like-race demographics and dominant-race racial purity is not to their advantage. They have gathered anti-Christian political support in large numbers from their deceived audiences, some even white-skinned self-haters and hating their race out of existence, including many unlearned Christians. So, to give light and to be definitive about the Hebrew race and its sub-races (tribes), it is necessary to understand the criterion of patrilineal continuity of Hebrew descendancy. All Hebrew tribes have become extinct.

Dumitru Duduman lack of genealogical knowledge: extinction of the Hebrews and Jews

Therefore, the Jewish are as a mere Gentile, no more a legitimate Hebrew as the Apostle Paul than the most distant Gentile. Either you have continuous, Hebrew patrilineal pedigree or you don’t. I personally believe Dumitru Duduman erred when he stated, “The angel of the Lord also told me, 'I have blessed this country because of the Jewish people who are in this country.'” (Duduman, “The Message For America”) The Jewish are a cult just as the Mormons. The former err as to lack of required pedigree and patrilineal-genealogy (Nu. 36.5-13) credentials (which Jesus Christ/yeshua hamashiach possessed) and promote made-up Herzl Matrilinealism but nevertheless falsely claim they are Hebrews (fraud), which does not warrant a legitimate right to the land of Israel, and of course, they promote many other sins; the latter err as to heeding to Joseph Smith false writings, polygamy and other things relating to his teachings.

Regardless, God does not have a special cult he wants to save; he wants to save sinners. He blesses those who obey him, demonstrating their faith; he punishes those that promote heresy. Anti-Christian Zionist revisionism is myth, and heresy, as well as polygamy and adultery. Similarly, Kenneth Copeland attempted to make it look like his remarriage was in agreement with God through a conversation with Him, but it wasn't! (Copeland, “Delight in the Good Life”) Should you believe every prophet? Every pastor? Every man that mentions God or claims He or one of his angels spoke with him? Absolutely not! Did Pat Robertson deceive Benny Hinn? Benny said, “I trust God's voice”. (“Is Pat Robertson a false prophet?” (Robinson, 00:01:20-21)

144,000: past return of the Hebrew tribes after the time of Christ’s resurrection

We must let the Bible give us direction. If a prophet says to the contrary, it is not of God. Gordon Robertson, Pat's son recently, distinctly did not say that the ten tribes had already returned and misled his viewers about the timing of the past return of the Hebrew tribes as if they had not returned to the time of Christ and James 1:1. He falsely, implicitly, suggested a future pre-millenial coming, “There is a world-wide call… ” (“The 10 Lost Tribes Of Israel Explained” 00:01:37-39), even though all the Hebrew tribes eventually became extinct. Nevertheless, the ten tribes (part of the firstfruits) were found after the resurrection of Christ through the gospel. Since there is no Hebrew gene pool left, there is no possibility of a Hebrew tribal member today. We live in the day of the Gentiles (Luke 21.24) and post-firstfruits era.

It is impossible for the Jooish, a better term than “Jewish” because modern Judaism does not regard the genealogical law of Numbers 36:5-13 and Hebrew, ancient Judaism. They are unable to sacrifice as the ancient Hebrews, who are now extinct. They do not have a genetic gene pool to produce a Jew, let alone a Levite or Cohen/priest, who were necessary for Hebrew sacrifices.

They are not a pure people and never can be unless they repent of their unbelief and present faith in Jesus Christ. Even that could not make them Hebrew nor take them back to the time of the believing Hebrews, twelve tribes scattered and specifically addressed to by James the elder, who were God's chosen people (Galatians 6.15-16).

They are a misled Gentile (Ezra 2.61-63) cult, having lost or never had the Hebrew patrilineal pedigree, and have deceived many unlearned Christians. Gordon seems to be totally deceived as to not understanding the Hebrew requirement of patrilineal law, which the Jooish can never produce a patrilineal tribal member, including a Levite. Sacrifices were required to be offered through only the Levites in the temple complex, and never from rejects (Ezra 10) and non-Hebrews.

The gospels point toward a time of Jerusalem being populated by Gentiles. To me, that concept includes partial-Hebrew descendants failing patrilineal pedigree so as being not able to fulfill inheritance law (Nu. 36.5-13) nor able to be heirs of Israel. Remember the rejects of Ezra 10, who were put away. See Luke 21:24. Nevertheless, the impostors do have an anti-Christian platform and the potential to offer an AntiChrist.

Myth and delusion

Many docile people and unlearned Christians may have accepted overt, anti-Christians as a people they should honor, support or protect—horrible conclusion. The deceived have accepted Talmudist, erring prophecy rather than Christian prophecy. Our famous theologian and reformer Martin Luther warned of them. These people are no more special than the Watchtower people, who also deny the deity of Christ, who is God in the flesh, the “Son”, the flesh form of God.

The Joos, as I call them, have an artificial, genealogical and genetic history. They cannot produce a patrilineal Hebrew (Jew) from a Herzlist matrilineal non-Hebrew gene pool. Even though, they are a mixed-race Talmudic culture, not a Hebrew race. Notice the genealogical deterioration since the dispersion of Titus. Nevertheless, they are the same people who have slurred other nations for holding race sacred (Joshua 23.12-13).

Numbers 36:5-13: After the scattering of Babel, nations formed with their own languages. Abraham left Babel and a wicked family. God made him a father of many nations (Gen. 17.4-6). So, we see by the time that Numbers 36 had been written, God had established many nations and a Hebrew people that had descended from Abraham. They were a patrilineal race, which their patrilineal, genealogy is recorded in the Old and New Testament. In this chapter (36), God established the heirs of the land of Israel intra-racially, not just by race but by distinct tribes (sub-races) within the patrilineal Hebrew race. In Acts 2:11, we see the Jews and their proselytes still existed. So, the races through Shem, Japheth and Ham continued through sub-races. However, the Hebrew tribes (patrilineal, intra-racial groups) are no longer found (became extinct) sometime after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus (70 AD). There is no patrilineal, Hebrew gene pool today, so there can't be any Jews. God will still take ownership of his land eventually, but it is occupied by fraudulent, “Jewish” Gentiles (Luke 21.24) at the present.

Bishops

Overseers (1 Ti. 3.1-7) of the local church building officials must be blameless, men of good reputation among society within and without the local church. As chief, local church officials, they are responsible to on-target elders throughout the world (wise and approved men of God, the early ones were formerly mentioned at Jerusalem and directed the apostles (Acts 15). The bishop foremost must be very knowledgeable and subject to the Scriptures; not a man as a novice (1. Ti. 3.7) or someone publicly exposing his shame as one who condones uncleanness and defiled marriage, fornication (1 Ti. 1.10) and adultery/remarriage. I will go into this more later.

Mockery and distortion

Actually, the Roman Catholic Pope, who has been erringly been acclaimed by misled followers as the leader of the church, cannot be biblically categorized higher than a mere bishop. As to his doctrines and actions, he should be considered no more than a schizophrenic (1 Ti. 2.5) and erring official of his local church at the Vatican.

The sacraments-theology does not agree with the teachings of the original disciples. How many of his followers realize an infant can't make a theological decision! Will the baptized infant, who was not able to understand the ritual of baptism he was put through, accumulate the faith and courage to make a public confession of baptism as he grows older while he is discouraged to accept adult baptism and a cognizant ritual as John the Baptist and even Jesus Christ himself, who fulfilled all righteousness?

14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? 15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him. (Mt. 3. 14-15)

There is only one church and the Scriptures must be its authority. As to all failing denominations and religious organizations, many have explicitly denied church order (chapter V) and the concept of female submission. Through usurping and assuming positions designated for only men, women of the mainstream heresy have mocked God, the holy, local church, the idea and biblical requirement of submission, and the analogy of the mystery of Christ and the church as to marriage (Eph. 5.22-32).

Deacons (1 Ti. 3.8-13)

A deacon must be proven (1 Ti. 3.10), blameless, a man of good reputation among society and the church. A pure marriage is essential, local church officials must not be stained with promiscuity or remarriage: “husbands of one wife” (I Timothy 3.12).

Believers in Jesus Christ (our high priest) makes us as kings and priests

The messiah, having proven register and finite genealogy, the Son of God

We are a body called-out and have become transformed as kings and priests (Rev. 1.6, Ex. 19.6, 1 Peter 2.9), under our high priest, Jesus Christ. We are holy and saints (Ephesians 1.1), chosen by God (Eph. 1.4): bearing fruit of the Spirit: even the radiance upon a follower and submitter's face reveals God has given him peace and joy and it ministers to people. We are a people and a work of Jesus. Let us live in faith and reverence of our maker, implementing decency and order.

CHAPTER II

Bible Era Comparison

First law era: Genesis through Numbers

The modern “Jewish” are cult proselytes and do not recognize the mandate of God in Nu. 36:5-13. Those that trust God’s word and Christians that follow him do. The frauds circumvent and twist/molest the written Scriptures. Myth, deception and defilement will eventually bring great judgment upon the Earth. (Isaiah 24)

Second law era: Deuteronomy through Malachi

“DEUTERONOMION” (Brenton Septuagint, Dt.), my transliteration of the word “DEUTERONOMY” in the Greek text (Brenton Septuagint, Dt.), the fifth book of the bible, means generally “second law”, relating or similar to a “מִשְׁנֵה֙ תּוֹרַ֣ת מֹשֶׁ֔ה” (Unicode/XML Leningrad Codex, Joshua 8.32)—“copy of the law of Moses” (my trans.), according to reading the Hebrew from right to left and then giving my transliteration to English from left to right, “mishnay' tor'at mosh'ay”.

Evidently, the Hebrew translators of the Greek edition must have realized there were two dispensations of Moses' law. They did not refer to the book merely from the first two words as is used in the modern, Hebrew title, “אֵ֣לֶּה הַדְּבָרִ֗ים” (Unicode/XML Leningrad Codex, Dt. 1.1), according to reading the Hebrew from right to left and then giving my transliteration to English from left to right, “a'ylleh haddevar'im”, meaning “these are the words” (my trans.), but the book was seemingly given a title denoting its subsequent content, a copy of the law. (I discussed that in the former paragraph.) Greek texts are revealing of many things: therefore, relatively speaking, there must have been a first giving of a set of laws by Moses. We will take a look into how we can decipher the first giving of the law from the second through a study of a reproof and repeal of divorce and remarriage by Jesus Christ the Lord.

OT. remarriage is considered adultery in the fulfillment era, New Testament (Mt. 5.32, Mt. 19.9)

The modern “Jewish” recognize the second law era remarriage law of Dt. 24:1-3 because they don’t obediently take part of the formerly prophesied (Je. 31.31) , new covenant and believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God nor do they adhere to the NT, whereas Christians recognize the New Testament era reproof and rejection of remarriage (Mt. 19.9) by the Lord Jesus Christ. The latter hold remarriage as adultery (Mt. 5.32). It seems the NWO and anti-Christian elite have promoted the ill sexual effect of the modern “Jewish” and elite anti-Christianity upon civilization, and even many unlearned and myth-believing Christians have been deceived by not understanding the eras and eschatology, as I mentioned in chapter I, as well.

Third era: New Testament

The modern “Jewish” do not recognize the Lord Jesus Christ as the future prophet mentioned by Moses in the second law era (Dt. 18.15-19). Therefore, all of their study including the Talmud is in disbelief and not of faith. Some of their studies may seem very beautiful using great tools of language: Hebrew and Aramaic, but if you leave Jesus Christ out of the Bible, you cannot learn God’s will nor be able to follow him. A person who denies God’s Christ denies God himself. Remember, the modern Jewish are not the same genealogical and genetic people as the Old Testament Hebrews of true and ancient Judaism, and their cultist, Jewish Gentile (Luke 21.24) lack of Hebrew genealogical (Nu. 36.5-13) and racial values are evident. So is their disbelief.

The relative first dispensation of Old Testament law, marital purity and continuity

Genesis gives us a history of God's creation. Through it and other books of the bible we are given a chronological, ideological glimpse of the past, present and future. God's written word tells us what (and whom!) we need to know according to all time. “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.” (Psalm 90.2) We know history, and future expectations, even future history according to events that have not already passed but shall pass at a time in the future.

One event that passed was the coming of the expected prophet of God's people

The book of Exodus, separate from the book of Deuteronomy, relatively can be respected as a book of the first giving of the law. Genesis through Numbers preceded the giving of the book of Deuteronomy. Exodus explains the dowry responsibility of a man who takes the virginity of a girl (Ex. 22.16). Even if her father disallows the man to marry her, the man is still required to pay the dowry price (Ex. 22.17). The second giving of the law supplements the concept of the prerequisite of female virginity and sexual chastity for marriage (Dt. 22.13-21, 28, 29). However, as you will see later, Deuteronomy made some changes to the first law. Even later on, bringing in the new covenant, Jesus Christ made a greater difference upon both law eras.

Jesus clarified his changes and improvements of the way people were to live. He made it clear that the law would be fulfilled: “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.” (Mt. 5.18)

Now, let's look at the correcting and repeal of the divorce and remarriage law in the “second” giving of the law (Dt. 24.1-2)

1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. 2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife.  (Dt. 24.1-2)

The Pharisees, tempting the Lord Jesus, referred to the divorce law. Jesus answering, implied that particular giving of the law was not fulfilling God's intention of marital purity and continuity, referring to the previous and historical times written in Genesis: “… from the beginning… ”. (Mt. 19.8)

7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 8 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. (Mt. 19.7-8)

Fornication is different concept than adultery

Now, let’s go to Mt. 19:9. A defiled woman of immorality, for instance, Rahab the harlot, who became a woman of faith (Hebrews 11.31), wife of Salmon (Luke 3.32), and progenitor of Boaz (Mt. 1.5), patrilineal Hebrew and great-grandfather of King David and ancestor of the lineage of Joseph (Mt. 1.16, Luke 3.23), husband of Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ, seemingly was tolerated in the Old Testament in some cases as well as divorcees (Dt. 24.1-3) except if the husband decided it was not a clean relationship (Dt. 23.14). Nevertheless, a whore and woman of fornication was a valid reason for divorce (Matthew 19.9).

However, a formerly married woman could not remarry in the second law era without a writing of divorce—divorce papers (Dt. 24.1-3) or it would be considered adultery, a death-penalty offense. Although later as to New Testament spiritual progression and fulfillment of the law, the reproof of Jesus Christ was more strict as to the concept of adultery and condemned remarriage (another marriage of a woman after leaving a legitimate husband). Perhaps this increased moral fulfillment pertaining to the correction of infidelity in sexual relationships of a future era (the new covenant) is hinted in Malachi 3:1-5.

And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. (KJV, Mt. 19.9)

We know that a marriage of betrothal could be annulled due to female defilement, but the word “fornication”, which I transliterate “pornei'ai” (Westcott and Hort, Matt. 19.9), may have a different connotation than just from a betrothal defect, which seems to be the pertinent matter in this verse. Perhaps, it may also connote toward immorality in general and include a broad sense of sexual defilement.

Nevertheless, dissecting the verse, the first part of the compound predicate, whosoever “… shall put away…” (KJV, above in v. 9) or using a more modern term, “divorces” his wife, only legally and spiritually stops the current relationship of marital uncleanliness due to the fornication phrase—“… except it be for fornication… ” (KJV, Mt. 19. 9) or in other words, “except for immorality”—the offense (see Eph. 5:5), the lack of morality, divine and pure union structure and holiness (Eph. 5.22-33); it is the second part of the compound predicate that reveals the committing of adultery—and “… whoso marrieth her which is put away… ” (KJV, Mt. 19.9) or in my paraphrastic perception of the meaning of the earlier English language, “marries” a “divorced woman”.

Manuscript and text discernment

However, there is a great discrepancy here as to Mt. 19:9 (KJV): some earlier Greek texts do not say a “divorced woman”, but, according to my perception, transliteration and translation, say merely “a'llan”—“another woman” (Westcott and Hort, Mt. 19.9)—which I transliterate from part of the verse, “… gama'sai a'llan moicha'tai” (Westcott and Hort, Mt. 19.9).

Exception phrase: female promiscuity prevents a legitimate marriage

Both texts, the English (KJV, Mt. 19.9) and the Greek (Westcott and Hort, Mt. 19.9), due to my perception and understanding of the exception phrase, “except it be for fornication” (KJV, Mt.19.9), imply a promiscuous woman can’t establish a legitimate and binding marriage. (If she were not unchaste, according to my view of the Greek phrase, “ma' epi' pornei'ai” (Westcott and Hort, Mt. 19.9),  and my transliteration and translation, “except for immorality”, the male would be guilty of adultery.)

Besides that issue, it seems the KJV text refers to a marriage with a divorcee, “whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery” (KJV, Mt. 19.9), whereas the Greek, Mt 19:9 text according to my perception, transliteration and translation refers to “another” woman—“a'llan” (Westcott and Hort, Mt. 19.9), a woman not necessarily a divorcee (Westcott and Hort, Mt. 19.9). See Mark 10:11 in the KJV.

Nevertheless, the KJV text generally agrees as to whoever should marry “… her that is divorced committeth adultery” (KJV, Mt. 5.32); and according to my perception of transliteration and translation of “… apolelume'nan gama'sai moicha'tai” (Westcott and Hort, Mt. 5.32), the Greek does so also.

A promiscuous woman cannot form a legitimate marriage: the man is not bound

 I suppose we can assume the first part of the compound predicate, “shall put away” (KJV, Mt. 19.9), in one sense, implies that it is proper to divorce a defiled woman of fornication even as Joseph was thinking about putting away Mary, the mother of Jesus (Mt. 1.19). The one who puts away or divorces would not even be prevented from marrying another.

However, the remedy and exception phrase of a case of betrothal could not be the same as a case wherein a defiled dowry wife (which required female virginity and chastity) who committed lesbianism or other form of sexual defilement. Then, it seems the man who divorces would not be tolerated to marry another due to the expiration of polygamy. See 1 Cor. 7:27 and Mark 10:11.

On the other hand, however, if fornication were expanded to mean such immorality it would not negate or nullify Jesus' explanation of betrothal marriage concerning divorce and marriage. The former case would have involved the woman in an act of defilement before consummation with the man who put her away, whereas the latter would not have.

Era change: remarriage is not permitted in the New Testament/Covenant

Remarriage (divorcing and marrying another man while the first husband is still alive) with a divorce paper was permitted in the Old Testament. However, the Lord Jesus Christ brought in the new covenant/testament and gave us better instruction concerning the way God wants people to live as individuals, communities and peoples. Christians are under grace, not under the law. The Scriptures had to be fulfilled concerning the new covenant that God said he shall make with his people: “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:” (Je. 31.31). Of course, this new covenant and change of the way how people were to live for God should have had an effect on the laws and customs of nations, which it did!

Notwithstanding, the apostasy has come about and perversion of the principles of the new covenant have been manifested in our decaying societies. Today in the USA, legalized adultery is manifest (Gal. 5.19) and the nation's negligence of sexual morality is just about equivalent to that of tolerating murder. We have suffered pseudo-philosophy from Machiavellian ethics to erring Protestant, Orthodox, or popish and anti-Christian, so-called morality. Nevertheless, Christians must strive to obey God even when government antagonizes against their good works.

Let's take a look at the old testament law:

When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. (Dt. 24.1)

Discerning between satisfaction and dissatisfaction: Note in verse 24:1, the woman spoken of who has an uncleanness (ervah: explained below) is not one of the dowry brides, women who were accepted by the husband with a price as not defiled and not allowed to be divorced (Dt. 22.13-19), which Christians should be like. The Lord expected holiness from his people. There was not supposed to be anything in the Hebrew camp/community that would displease God and cause him to turn away from the people instead of to bless them. Impliedly, from the context, one thing that could turn him away would be if he saw an “עֶרְוַ֣ת דָּבָ֔ר” (Unicode/XML Leningrad Codex, Dt. 23.15), according to reading the Hebrew from right to left and then giving my transliteration to English from left to right, “erv'at dav'ar”, something showing a nakedness, uncleanness (Dt. 24.1) or an occurrence of something contrary to holiness.

The late centuries have brought in neglect of biblical principles, passivity and tolerances of evil that destroy family values and building blocks. Dowry-bride law was a part of establishing chastity among the women of Israel. Strict punishment (the death penalty) enforced it, “… so shalt thou put evil away from among you.” (Dt. 22.21) Israel was commanded and expected to establish communities of clean women. An alleged defiled woman that did not have proof of her innocence could not pass the test!

Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you. (Dt. 22.21)

Also, according to these verses, these alleged unclean (Dt. 24.1-3) and dis-satisfactory women, under different circumstances of biblical law and not under as strict obligation as the dowry wives, who were expected to be clean and never divorced at the risk of capital punishment, could “remarry”, but eventually as time passed, divorce and remarriage law was repealed by the teaching of Jesus and was not permitted in the new covenant, as we saw in the Mt. 19:9 discussion. Polygamy also expired.

And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife (Dt. 24.2)

Now, look at the explanation concerning the divorce law and its reproof by the Lord Jesus Christ:

2And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. 3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? 4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. 5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. (Mark 10.2-5)

As you can see above in Mark 10, v. 4, they were referring to the law of Moses (Dt. 24.1-2) and v. 3 below:

 3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; (Dt. 24.3).

The Pharisees and the Jews had a problem with their women at that time, but if we go back to the beginning, as Jesus refers to in Mark 10:6, we see that Adam and Eve did not have any problem with uncleanness. Marriage was designed a unity that should not be broken. Divorce was not intended:

But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. (Mark 10.6)

Adam and Eve experienced a new dimension of their physical usefulness through having sex. Adam's intellect was opened due to the experiment: “And Adam knew Eve his wife… ” (Gen. 4.1). Their union was honorable, clean and  not defiled: “Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.” (He. 13.4) No one should break up a marital unity that is ordained of God. (However, note, later on after the law of Moses, there were refusals of marriage and inheritance due to miscegenation in Ezra 10. Hence, they were not considered legitimate marriages. The female ex-spouses and their children were even separated from the people. So, we’ve seen that miscegenation during the early Second Temple period and female promiscuity during the NT prevented legitimate marriage among the Hebrews as they endeavored to become Christians.)

Promiscuity threat: even Mary could not have married Joseph if the angel had not enlightened him

Notwithstanding, fornication (Mt. 19.9) gave reason to separate or divorce from the once unity. Impliedly Mary, the mother of Jesus, was untouched by a man until after the birth of Jesus. Did you ever wonder why the Bible says Joseph was “righteous” as to thinking about putting Mary away—divorcing? (Mt. 1.19) Even though Joseph was learned of the law, the angel of the Lord corrected (Mt. 1.20) his pre-meditative decision to separate from her. However, his intentions were based on marital purity and righteousness. It is righteous to divorce under the circumstances of a woman who has fornicated so as to prevent a whole family from being unclean, and it is wise to prevent such a circumstance.

You can learn biblical principles of marital unity and separation law at the introduction of my paper “Illusion”. We should understand that fornication is unclean and corrupts a whole family that does not do anything about it, by not divorcing and putting away the uncleanness. America's families have suffered greatly because of devastation and neglectful consequent uncleanliness (failure of divorce proceedings) due to ignorance, deception and heresy!

Every married man has a responsibility to keep his wife under every circumstance, except one: if his wife is unchaste, that is, if his wife has partaken in a sexual act with someone else—this is sexual defilement, secret (Nu. 5.29-31) or open, if not adultery, secret or open—(John 8.4). Then, and only then, is the husband lawfully (according to the Bible) to put away his wife, and to give her a bill of divorcement. Logically, if a woman, has committed a sin of fornication with someone, a bill of divorcement does not induce her to become unchaste—she has already committed the act which defiled her.

And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. (Mt. 19.9)

Adultery consists of two distinct acts: you don’t commit adultery by merely separating

If a man puts away his wife for any reason other than fornication, he causes her to commit adultery (Mt. 5.32). Fundamentally, from a synoptical viewpoint, there are two distinct acts, the one subsequent to the other, which constitute adultery. The first act is a sin of “putting away” because the Scripture says the husband “shall cleave unto his wife” (Gen. 2.24); and also, that no one should separate what God has yoked together (Mk. 10.9)—“one flesh” (Gen. 2.24). The second sinful act, “marry another”, is subsequent to the first. It also contradicts 1 Cor. 7:10, 11. The Lord Jesus explained that going beyond divorce to “marry another” constitutes adultery:

10 And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. 11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. 12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery. (Mark 10.10-12)

So, clearly, remarriage for any reason other than fornication is adultery and against the teaching of the Lord. Take for instance a case of betrothal. If a man had betrothed a wife and had not slept with her yet similarly as Joseph and Mary before the chaste birth of our Lord Jesus Christ, but then his woman fornicated, failing to keep chaste, would leave him in a predicament. Since he did not become a legitimate one flesh with her through the attempt of consummation, he was not committed (Mt. 19.9) to the marriage to her because she failed her chastity obligation. Remember, female lack of virginity in the OT. also prevented a marriage and concurred the death penalty (Dt. 22.21) for the female who attempted to get a husband through fraud. Hence, he was no longer bound to her or the betrothal knowing her moral, physical and spiritual deficit. He could lawfully divorce and annul the relationship without being obligated to a marriage. Marriage, different from fornication, is based on becoming one flesh through faith and purity as the example Adam and Eve gave us.

Female uncleanness that cannot be restored requires separation (2 Samuel 20.3)

However, if he was a man who had different circumstances and married through consummation, and if his wife erred (Nu. 5.12) later through committing adultery or some other horrible sexual act, he could lawfully divorce her so as not to defile his whole family by living with such an unclean woman.  However, he still would be obligated to remain single due to the New Testament concept of monogamy (1 Cor. 7.27) and the direction of the Apostle Paul.

Chaste re-uniting vs. abomination

Now, let's consider a chaste re-union in comparison with the matter of the defiled relationship of Dt. 24:4. If a woman is married to a man and she divorces him, of course they would be separated but hypothetically she could join back with him as long as she remains chaste. However, that re-uniting would be a “restoration” of the marriage; it would not be technically “remarrying” as in the sense of adultery, which is erringly permitted and occurs in the modern, heretical congregations.

Abomination of return of defiled wife

However, on the other hand, if the woman divorces her husband and remarries to another man, she becomes an adulteress. She would be a defiled woman (lacking purity as Eve, wife of Adam) even to her second man whether he recognizes it or not. Then, after becoming a remarried woman and no longer chaste, and not being satisfied with her consequent man, if she leaves him also and re-unites with her first man it would be an abomination:

Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance. (Dt. 24.4).

The stain of remarriage never leaves

If she became defiled by her second man and rejected him, she could rightfully break up the sinful relationship but certainly could not become undefiled by leaving him. Her unchastity would be a physical and spiritual disgrace that she would have to live with for the rest of her life. It would be impossible for her to restore her marriage with her first man. King David could not have sex with his defiled concubines (a fulfilled prophecy of Nathan the prophet) after the treachery of Absalom (2 Samuel 12.11, 2 Samuel 16.22); they lived as widows (2 Samuel 20.3). Even though she may go through a legal proceeding for marriage or not to be re-united with him, it would be in vain and would constitute an abomination.

Maintaining purity always pays off

Women must bear in mind to remain chaste and not get involved in affairs, becoming defiled. If a woman lives in an unhappy marriage and her husband leaves her, she should live single and keep her dignity. Perhaps in the future her husband and she may decide to live together again, which would be acceptable.

CHAPTER III

How The Law Determines

Whom the land of Israel belongs: (Nu. 36:5-13, KJV)

The ten lost tribes were found by God through the gospel: They were firstfruits. (James 1.1) The Assyrian captivity of the Hebrew tribes resulted in cultural change if not genealogical and subsequently genetic among the captured peoples. I believe we can correctly assume that the chosen of the lost tribes became (James 1.1) part of the firstfruits as well as the remainder (Judah and Benjamin) of the believing-in-Christ tribes of Israel through the gospel. Note, James did not say the “two” remaining tribes, no, he addressed the twelve tribes.

Today, in the general area the Assyrians may have taken their captives of Israel, Muslim and Kurdish ruled areas, there have no known tribes appeared who have maintained patrilineal-genealogy, which is required (Ezra 2.61-63). Perhaps the disconnected Israeli people were forced by their captors to change their Hebrew, patrilineal genealogical law or maybe they compromised on their own. Whatever the case may be, no patrilineal tribes with legitimate pedigree and register can be found. Without patrilineal law and genealogical register, no one can obtain genealogical inheritance! If a person can’t claim genealogical inheritance, he can’t claim genetic inheritance. The person must be born into it. Without a patrilineal father with pedigree and genealogical register that is impossible.  So, anyone, even if he becomes a Herzl Matrilinealist cult member and claims he loves the Hebrew law, cannot resume the former biology and pedigree of the ancient Hebrews.

Merely removing the foreskin of the penis (circumcision) cannot make a Philistine (1 Samuel 14.6) or “Jewish” person a Hebrew. A Jooish baptism (mikveh) cannot make a Hebrew. Ceremonies or religious tenets cannot change the genealogical and genetic state of being. There is no way a member of modern Judaism, a non-Hebrew (a person who lacks continuous, patrilineal descendancy), can make himself as a member of ancient Judaism and a Hebrew heir (Nu. 36.5-13) of Israel. Modern Joodaism/Judaism and matrilineal law is proof of the current, fraudulent possession of the state of Israel itself.

Israelite prescription for race and demographics

Even before the law of Moses, God had established the moral of racial exclusion and institution of homogeneity among the nations following the scattering at the Tower of Babel and eventually at the separation of Ishmael (Gen. 21.9-13), which implemented the calling of the people of God through Isaac. Intra-racial marriage and dispensational fulfillment:

Marriage, Hebrew identity, priesthood and posterity

Moses, earlier who did not marry a Hebrew (Nu. 12.1) when he joined with an Ethiopian woman, reproved himself later in Nu. 36 and commanded the children of Israel to follow strict patrilineal rules on both sides of the marriage intra-tribally (Nu. 36.5-13). Ezra followed this rule for male and female (Ezra 10.3). Also Ruth's marriage,  during the period of the judges, was not the norm and deviated on the matrilineal side even after the law (Nu. 36.5-13) was given. However, significantly, her marriage was patrilineal Hebrew on Boaz's (her husband) side and their posterity were still considered heirs. The Maccabees  (King James Version Apocrypha,1 Maccabees 2.1-4), after the second temple was built and over a hundred years and more before Christ, also recognized the Hebrew, patrilineal law as the rule to determine Abrahamic/Jacobic/Hebrew family and priesthood from Aaron “… throughout their generations” (Ex. 40.15).

Earlier, some who claimed to be Hebrews, failed the patrilineal genealogy register at the time of Ezra and were penalized as to loss of holy official administration and Hebrew identity (Ezra 2.61-63). They claimed Hebrew lineage but without proof for at least a generation or so and were rejected, but the modern “Jewish” absolutely cannot claim matrilineal lineage for centuries and pass for a patrilineal, Hebrew! They have no one without a broken genealogical chain, and maybe not even a close ancestor with patrilineal, Hebrew Semitic DNA. Regardless of their genealogical distance, there are no registered Hebrews in the world, and the Martrilineal Herzlists cannot offer a sacrifice without a registered, Hebrew religious official according to the Hebrew Torah.

Beware of made-up religion

The modern “Jewish”/Herzl Matrilinealists, have no Hebrew register, identity, inheritance nor legitimate priesthood either. Anyone today can claim to be a Hebrew, and a rabbi, but no one has register to prove that he is a Hebrew. Beware of made-up religions!

Cult formation: disregarding Hebrew law and making up a different, non-genealogical religion

Contrarily, mere modern, immigrant proselytes who have no Hebrew patrilineal continuity and required, genealogical register cannot qualify genealogically even though they may contrive a non-Hebrew genealogical cult and rhetorically call themselves Jews. They can no more be Hebrews but nevertheless call themselves Jews than those of the time of the converts of the provinces of Persia (Esther 9.27, 28) and later, Antiochus Epiphanes IV himself, who is thought to be a prototype of the anti-Christ.

15 And as touching the Jews, whom he had judged not worthy so much as to be buried, but to be cast out with their children to be devoured of the fowls and wild beasts, he would make them all equals to the citizens of Athens: 16 And the holy temple, which before he had spoiled, he would garnish with goodly gifts, and restore all the holy vessels with many more, and out of his own revenue defray the charges belonging to the sacrifices: 17 Yea, and that also he would become a Jew himself, and go through all the world that was inhabited, and declare the power of God. (KJV Apocrypha, 2 Mac 9.15-17).

As time passed after the leadership of Moses, Israel committed many marital inter-racial sins after the exile to Babylon. The people who had inter-married were rebuked and the law was restored with the Covenant of Ezra (Ezra 10.3). God has guided and reproved his people throughout history, and rejected those who were not truly his. Spiritual development has occurred through dispensations; for instance, the giving of the law and the making of covenants. Eventually the New Covenant dispensation began (Jeremiah 31.31) and is fulfilling now. However, beware, as the apostasy and tolerance of myth and fake-Jews of our time makes the nations more lawless, many of the former Christian, Japhethic (white) nations are being flooded with non-white migrants.

Former homogeneity and Japhethic hegemony has been lost

Not long after the Herzl movement, Russia was taken over with a Communist government and the United States had lost its country to a foreign enterprise through the Federal Reserve Bank. All things were working together for the elite, anti-Christians, and the Japhethic peoples lost their centuries-long, world-wide hegemony. (At one time, Americans and Europeans rightfully thought race was sacred.) Previous to the disasters, Karl Marx had promoted his faction. Through a bought dinosaur, media, the global political emphasis sway waned from White racial genetics to anti-Christian religion (Herzl Matrilinealism) and racial diversity, a form of religious schizophrenia so to speak, over the last couple of centuries.

Genealogical-patrilineal descendancy of the Lord Jesus Christ

Yeshua hamashiach, Jesus the Anointed One or Salvation (Mt. 1.21) the Anointed One, had patrilineal register (Mt. 1.16, Luke 3.23). Finite genealogies, and my current explanations may help you understand some things about Biblical, patrilineal lineage and genetics, and even the fulfillment of the prophecy of Moses concerning the one—like himself, “… like unto me”—to come (Dt. 18.15).

Moses ruled Israel by the direction of God. The genealogy of the Lord Jesus Christ is patrilineal—he had legitimate pedigree and register (Matthew 1.1-17, Luke 3.23-38). He fulfilled the prophecy of the coming of a prophet like Moses genealogically through a Hebrew tribe: “נָבִ֨יא מִקִּרְבְּךָ֤ מֵאַחֶ֙יךָ֙” (Unicode/XML Leningrad Codex, Dt. 18.15), “... may-ah-h'ay-h'ah”—my transliteration and translation, “… from out of your brethren” (Dt. 18.15). The Hebrew brethren were from continuous, patrilineal families who followed the tribal inheritance and genealogical command of God (Nu. 36.5-13).

Continuous—no breaks in the generations—genealogical-patrilineal succession is both a Written Torah (the Old Testament) genealogical and genetic (biological) requirement! Jesus Christ, although begotten of God and born of a woman met the requirement of the register (Ezra 2.61-63) and genealogical-patrilineal pedigree through adoption of Joseph and birth of Mary. Non-Hebrew families (those without patrilineal Hebrew genealogy) were separated (Nehemiah 9.2, 13.3), and the tradition of Hebrew tribal supremacy stood in Israel until after 70 AD, when Titus dispersed the Hebrews.

Generational accounts that are not specifically identical but Scriptural

Matthew and Luke would probably note the patrilineal inheritance of Joseph as to comply with the law (Nu. 36.5-13), although their accounts may have at least Levirate differences. Equivalent tracing of uterine brothers may be very difficult. Thomas Aquinas has some good thoughts about the general subject. However, Levirate law and theological strategy must be taken in consideration of both genealogies of the two gospels, of which we can assume both not to be in exact historical order, but nevertheless to be correct (2 Timothy 2.15). Regardless, both synoptic genealogies lead to Joseph, who possessed patrilineal inheritance, obviously had required register, and was the husband of Mary, mother of our Lord.

Genealogical non-Hebrew rejects of the Ezra Congregation

Note the rejects at the congregation of Ezra could not meet the register requirements. The modern Jewish people are not Hebrew and do not possess these racial or genealogical qualities either. The state of Israel is currently in a process of transition, but the possibility of finding a person with proof of pedigree (documents of register) and of the Hebrew race is almost null. I do believe the Hebrews became extinct. It is genealogically (Nu. 36.5-13) impossible. To erase any doubt, anyone claiming to be a Jew who has been in a cult that has followed any marriage code other than Nu. 36:5-13, such as matrilineal law (Herzl Matrilinealism) and inter-racial marrying, automatically exposes his error.

You could search the world as far as you want, but whatever descendant you may find, in order for that descendant without continuous, patrilineal-descendancy and having a broken genealogical chain could not meet the registry requirement of Ezra 2:61-63 and would not be able to qualify as a member of a former Hebrew tribe, similarly as the “Jewish” can't. His anti-continuous, patrilineal, DNA test could not prove it, his legacy and Hebrew-like mannerisms could not prove it.

Hypothetically, if a descendant did arise that could meet the requirement of the registry, it would disqualify and expose the fraudulent, Jewish of modern Israel because they don't have proof of register and can't obtain it. They would have to kill or hide him so that it would not stir up controversy to their matrilineal-Hebrew myth and they would be found not to be worthy genealogical heirs of Hebrew inheritance, thus deserving to be rejected as the those at the Ezra congregation. Thus, the people living in modern Israel don’t have an inheritance or right to live there any more than the Palestinians do!

Post-Titus dispersion and lost identity of the Hebrews

After the dispersion of Titus, the remaining anti-Christian Hebrew people lost their fundamental cohesiveness, having been forewarned (Joshua 23.13), and eventually a heretical and genocidal, matrilineal form of law became known among a factional and biblically fraudulent group known today as the “Jewish” (mere Gentiles with a customized, non-proof of register, partial-Hebrew religion), who uplift their bible-contradicting, “oral” Torah commentary as religious authority. They are not a Hebrew people, nor are their God-in-the-flesh-denying and Jesus-denying factions and groups that even approve of only the written Torah. Regardless of their spiritual failures, they cannot make their rejected, anti-genealogical (Nu. 36.5-13), biological pedigree (lacking continuous patrilineal descendancy) meet the requirement of the register (Ezra 2.61-63).

Myth and powerful lobbies

They call those who oppose their mythological and made-up religion anti-Semites, and have pressured nations and their leaders to follow their lies and evil desires.

Female exceptions to the patrilineal law (Nu. 36.5-13, KJV)

Some non-Hebrew women were tolerated to be patrilineal wives in ancient Israel, but a woman married to a non-Hebrew (there are no Hebrews anywhere in the world today) man could not have an inheritance in Israel. Of course, the genealogical law was strictly kept after Ezra, the Maccabees, and early Christians, but the modern “Jewish” (a different people than ancient Israel, having a broken genealogical chain) cannot meet nor follow those requirements. That is why they merely “occupy” but are not and never will be able to be legitimate heirs of the land. Contrarily, they seem to be the rise of the anti-Christian elite and have developed a platform for a false and non-Hebrew messiah: their false and devised (Dt. 4.2) religion eschatologically tramples over faith of the firstfruits (James 1.1) and the fulfillment of the early church.

Mere Jewish, written Torah circumvention: evasion of the truth and tribal integrity

The Joos, a name that seems more appropriate to me and does not defraud the patrilineal, patriarchs and tribal integrity (Nu. 35.5-13), are very deceptive as to genealogy. As impostors, some misconstrue a reference of Deuteronomy 7:3, 4 as a defense to their lack of patrilineal pedigree and mandated (Ezra 2.61-63) register. However, those verses (Dt. 7.3, 4) are not verses specifically having to do with inheritance: “נַחֲלָה֙” (Unicode/XML Leningrad Codex, Nu. 36.7). I read it in the Hebrew from right to left and then give my transliteration to English from left to right, “na ha la'”.

As cult proselytes, similar but not as faithful as the Persian converts in Esther as to adopting another religion without attempting to change its tribal inheritance rules, and not having patrilineal descendancy like the Maccabees—many of them with Polish and other Gentile, genealogical backgrounds—they use distortion of the biblical genealogical rules to promote their irreligion. Herzl Matrilinealism is far different than Old Testament Judaism and the Hebrew religion before the New Testament. We can confirm that the Maccabees were Hebrew due to the fact they could officially offer sacrifices because they were in patrilineal tribal succession (“son of”). They were relatives of a member of the priesthood, v. 1, “… the son of Simeon, a priest of the sons of Joarib, from Jerusalem… ” (KJV Apocrypha, 1 Maccabees 2.1-4).

The “Jewish” sinful (Gal. 5.21), Purim drunkenness ritual is a great but relatively minor example of a violation of the written Torah compared to making up a matrilineal law that contradicts Nu. 36:5-13 and other patrilineal requirements.

Circumcision (Acts 15) and merely keeping just some of the ancient laws can’t make a person a Hebrew or Jew

There are infinite ways to circumvent the truth. Satan is a master at it. Circumcision was a criterion to consider for the ancient Jew. The “Jewish”, similarly as the proselytes of Esther, may observe a facade of Old Testament practices and this cutting operation, but that cannot make anyone of their cult a Hebrew or a Jew. Ritual cannot induce or change genealogy, genetics and biology so as to make a Polish Gentile a Jew and genealogical member of the ancient Hebrews.

Religious cult, not ancient Judaism

The modern “Jewish” have been Joodaized and followed a Talmudic cult, whereas Old Testament converts as the proselytes in Esther followed the true and patrilineal Hebrew religion at that time and were Judaized. The deciding criterion of a Hebrew tribal member is patrilineal law (Nu. 36.5-13), which if any of the ancestors of the modern Joos began with continuous, patrilineal law of he Hebrews, he and his posterity did not continue to follow it. The “Jewish” have collapsed genealogical chains (Ezra 2:61-63) at best and don’t have a Hebrew gene pool and register, and can't produce a Hebrew/Jew child. Hence, they are merely Herzl Matrilinealists.

Loss of genealogical, Hebrew identity

So, don't be deceived by all the modern government propaganda, biblical myth and circumvention. If any so-called “messianic Jews” were decent and on-target Christians, they would be glad to emphasize they came out of a false religion and cult. They would rejoice to call themselves a “Jewish” convert to Christianity and not misconstrue commanded genealogy law (Nu. 36.5-13), the effort of God, Moses, Ezra, Nehemiah and later great men of God but now extinct, faithful Hebrews and Jews.

The Covenant of Ezra

Ezra acted in fear of the commandment of the Lord and according to the Torah/law (Ezra 10.3), not his own agenda. Numbers 36:5-13 was the law pertaining to such matters of genealogy, tribal integrity and inheritance. A covenant was made. The faithful put away their non-Hebrew, illegitimate wives and children. “Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of my lord, and of those that tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law.” (Ezra 10.3) “All these had taken strange wives, and they put them away with their children.” (KJV Apocrypha, 1 Esdras 9.36).

Pollution of Hebrew genealogy and race: loss of inheritance and ministerial privileges

Today, in modern Israel, there cannot anyone be found with Hebrew patrilineal succession, no priests with the required genealogy and register, and the children of the occupiers of the land are no more eligible than those that were accounted “… as polluted, put from the priesthood” at the time of Ezra. (Ezra 2.62). They were deposed due to desecration: “יְגֹאֲל֖וּ” (Unicode/XML Leningrad Codex, Ezra 2.62), tranliterated “yegoah l'u”. They cannot produce a Hebrew messiah, which we know has already come—the Lord Jesus Christ, who had patrilineal succession (Matthew 1.1-17). The made-up matrilineal law of the “Jewish” can’t suffice and is 180 degrees from the required patrilineal law of Nu. 36:5-13.

Faith, patrilineal, genealogical, tribal integrity and fulfillment of the law

Let us abide in faith of the Lord Jesus Christ (Yeshua hamashiach) with respect to the requirement of Hebrew registry (Ezra 2.61-63, Mt 1.1-17, Luke 3.23-38). The author of the book of Ruth reveals to us its importance as to remembrance of patrilineal law: chapter 4, verses 18-22; so do other Hebrew genealogies within the Scriptures.

CHAPTER IV

Understanding The Basic Precepts Of Marriage

Marriage: my paper “Illusion Explained”

Scriptural and biblical revelation

It is illusory to think biblical marriage is instituted by mere contract or vow! Marriage is a physical sex act between a virgin female and a male (Ex. 22.16, Dt. 22.13-21, 28, 29)—biblical and written revelation. There must be evidence of the marriage agreement with the bridegroom and acceptance by the father of the girl.

Natural revelation of female marital eligibility

The virginity of a woman is proof of a woman's eligibility to marry—natural revelation. The male partner by either sharing or violating the virgin female's chastity becomes either a husband or a polygamist (although legally disallowed in many places), the latter sexual status is in contradiction to a new testament principle of monogamy (1 Cor. 7.27, 1 Ti. 3.12). Nature and God's written word, natural and biblical revelation, harmonize as to the enlightenment of the essence of marriage and encourage the continuance of a chaste relationship.

The once virgin female partner no longer has a justifiable opportunity to have sex with anyone else as long as her first male sex partner is alive and she did not officially marry him—to do so would commit fornication. In the case of the female's first man dying, she would have a justifiable opportunity to date or marry someone else because the marriage bond she created through first-time sex can no longer be valid if the man has deceased (Romans 7.1-3). Nevertheless, sexual experiences with men other than the first man (while he is living) defile the female and commence a degree of unchastity even if the first man were to die. In order for her to marry, such fornication would require all of the men of her promiscuity to be dead before she could have a clear account of no male cognizance of her, and it may be very hard to prove.

Marriage, unity and chastity: our need to understand pure marriage

Marriage, much different than fornication, is based upon the principle of unity, “one flesh” (Gen. 2.24) and chastity. Eve, the first woman (implicitly a virgin) on earth, is referenced as an authoritative example of a natural and pure woman, having an acceptable marriage with the male Adam through coitus, meeting the purity requirements of both the new and old covenants. She did not have an er v'at da v'ar, my transliteration for “nakedness of a matter”—“עֶרְוַ֣ת דָּבָ֔ר” (Unicode/XML Leningrad Codex, Dt.23:15) and correlate it with “uncleanness” (Dt. 23.14, Dt. 24.1) in the KJV, defilement or reason to be divorced.

When she married Adam, through having sex and uniting physically and spiritually, her intellect and mentality changed, she obtained and possessed a one-male cognizance. Of course, the male who became intimate with her was Adam, the only other human being on earth. Intellectually, he became more than co-existent, he became one with her. They were a clean and undefiled, marital entity, a united body, each became part of the other, one flesh (Gen. 2.24), and they fulfilled the marriage institution, social and psychological adherence and oneness commandment: “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)

Today, in order to preserve our God-given marital institution, we need to look at the cognizance factor and make background checks for males and females before marriage, looking and finding that neither have any previous sex experiences. Our erring, mainstream churches do not have pastors and teachers that understand and promote sexual purity. One teacher condones adultery and another unclean marriage with a defiled woman. Our colleges and universities are full of women partying at night.

The need for the study and emphasis of the eras of the biblical law has been evident. Islam, Eastern religions and other anti-Christian influences pervade the media. Due to our lack of moral and physical borders, our culture in America has deteriorated to the point the common person doesn't have a clear perception of the difference between adultery, fornication and pure marriage.

NWO hegemony has emasculated the male and masculated the female. We have fallen politically from Jeffersonism to Lincolnism to Reconstruction to Jim Crow to Babelist diversity and transgenderism. Instead of correcting and helping the abused, we are promoting abuse through common law marriage and fornication, whereas there should be deterrent and penalty.

Moses’ redaction of the first law (Dt. 24:1-3): divorce for non-dowry brides permitted

Now, on the other hand, divorce is a psychological-physical separation through commitment (1 Cor. 7.10, 11): when the act of divorce is put in writing it becomes a written contract and public notice (Dt. 24.2-3). In the Old Testament, divorce was permitted (Dt. 24.1-3) with some women, but not dowry brides (Dt. 22.19), and sexual immorality or adultery on their part would have earned the death penalty (Lev. 20.10). See Dt. 22.22-24).

The heart of the people of God had become hardened, and Moses gave a redaction (Dt. 24.1-3) of the first law including the Ten Commandments (Ex. 21). It is the book of Deuteronomy, meaning etymologically, “second law”, which I discussed more thoroughly in chapter II. Then, a man could actually divorce a woman due to something he perceived as naked or unclean (Dt. 24.1) in his view of female morality. An unclean or divorced woman who was given (written) by her ex-husband a book of divorcement was allowed to marry again. It was a contract: transliterated “bibli'on apastasi'ou” in the Greek (Brenton Septuagint, Dt. 24.3).  The words in Hebrew are “סֵ֤פֶר כְּרִיתֻת֙” (Tanach.us, 24.1)—transliterated, according to reading the Hebrew from right to left and then giving my transliteration to English from left to right, “s'ayfer keritut'”. (Note, sometimes the Greek and Hebrew texts may be numbered differently. For a couple of things, translators and editors don’t always have the same manuscripts, and people do things differently.)

However, later, the Lord Jesus Christ reproved the redaction of Moses and referred to the one-man purity of Eve (and even the one-woman cognizance—sexual purity of Adam). Thus, since Moses referred to the prophet to come, the Lord Jesus Christ (Dt. 18.15) and his authority, divorce (Mt. 19.9) may be permitted in some cases (1 Cor. 7.11, 15) but female defilement in marriage (fornication) or remarriage (adultery) was not tolerated in the New Testament.

So, considering the biblical facts concerning the essence of marriage and divorce, and the world-wide immoral sexual circumstances, there are probably many state unregistered (unpublished) marriages assuming or not the consummation/marital deposit had been followed with marital acceptance (more so than are revealed by statistics, or spoken of) and divorces. Subsequently, due to the disregard of biblical precepts, many unregistered and registered forbidden, some acts of fornication, others adultery, but legalized, marriages have resulted.

The concurrence of marriage in regard to choice or violation of a virgin

Today there are many questions concerning marriage. There are many different views stemming from social, legal, and religious philosophy. From a Christian perspective the biblical law of the Old Testament delineates the boundaries of marriage: the Apostle Paul wrote, “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?” (Rom. 7.1) Jesus, upholding the guidance of the law, said, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” (Mt. 5.17). Theological men (1 Cor. 13.11), not heretics, perverts and erring seminary children, use the law knowing it is not for the “… righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; 11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God…” (1 Ti. 1.9-11). The gospel, which was committed to the Apostle Paul’s trust, we have as a reference and written record in the Bible. We live in terrible times and must read the Bible and study it for ourselves.

Ancient Israel was subjected to the law and the prophets. The church is the Israel of God today (Gal. 6.16). Christians are subject now to both the New and Old Testaments. Monogamy (I Timothy 3.12) replaced polygamy (Exodus 21.10) in the early church, and celibacy was highly honored. Our world is very carnal during the apostasy and many people have been influenced by Hollywood and myth, even sexually. There are many defiled marriages today, and one of the reasons America is suffering from so many social problems is because Congress can't discern the necessity and transparency of pure marriage so as to legislate law to prohibit and penalize fornication and adultery. I am working on a second book to explain in detail.

The fallen country used to disallow adulterers to become citizens, and now after so much neglect of character and immorality is rampant. People need to learn that morality must come first and they don't have to have a sex partner, especially if it is biblically forbidden. The Apostle Paul even recommended singleness before marriage, although both avenues of life (marriage and singleness) can be gifts and blessed.

Marriage as a remedy for pre-marital sex in the Old Testament: rape

Sometimes people think of the concurrence of marriage only as the mutual consent of a male and female, but this perception may be an illusion if the female is not a virgin or a widow (1 Cor. 7)—marriage was also instituted to prevent unchastity in ancient Israel. God honors moral-sexual cleanliness, purity and unity in marriage. The Lord upheld the virginity of a woman so as if a male violated her chastity he was obligated to marry her since he completed the sexual bond with her, the physical part of the marriage unity that Adam and Eve accomplished, who the bible testifies they and the institution of marriage were undefiled.

We find that dowry bride law came into being through consent, seduction and even rape in the first and second law eras. These were marriages wherein virginity was rewarded and protected. The female virgin obtained through the marriage (unity of one flesh) a one-male cognizance as Eve, the wife of Adam. Jesus Christ referred to their honorable (Heb. 13.4) marital unity when he reproved the Pharisees. Chaste female marriages as these are what is expected of a female in our New Covenant era today.

Remedy for rape: required marriage and no divorce tolerated

The obedience, moral cleanliness, beauty, glory, purity, magnificence and innocence of virginity possesses perpetual oversight and protection from the Lord. According to Dt. 22:29, a male was commanded to marry (take for a wife) a girl if he raped her; and it was disclosed; and under the condition that she was not engaged to anyone. He was never able to divorce her. The virginity of a girl is more than a state of chastity before marriage—it is the undefiled housing of potential reproduction of life, significance of sexual purity—God honors its holiness and innocence; and he protected the virgin against impulsive divorce once having married. The Old Testament law states specifically, “… she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.” (Dt. 22.19).

Virgin rape within a Hebrew ethnic group invoked homogeneity law

According to the Old Testament, when rape of a virgin occurs, she is required to marry the rapist. Please acknowledge this rule did not violate the genetic, race prescription in Nu: 36:5-13. Also, note the intolerance of the attempted, inter-racial marriage of Dinah, and the sharing of posterity of Ishmael by Sarah. Racial and cultural homogeneity is expected to be preserved.

However, as to dowry brides of the Hebrew tribes, this type of sexual assault may have been considered a great loss to the female victim in an unwanted circumstance, but if the sexual aggressor was a boyfriend or someone that the father accepted as a good man but just couldn't handle his sexual appetite at the time, he may have been obligated to approve the marriage. Hebrew communities were close-knit with genealogical and homogeneous social conditions as to giving in marriage among the families of one another. Nevertheless, the father has the authority to finalize the decision as to marriage according to particular circumstances of seduction.

Incest

Of course, illegitimate rape such as incest would disallow marriage. Tamar, the lovely daughter of King David was raped by Amnon, her half-brother, and lived a secluded and devastated single life afterward. The put-away concubines of David, women whom Absalom defiled, lived as widows (2 Samuel 20.3). Such crimes defile the female, and the male-cognizance factor and defilement causes her to live without a husband, at least as long as the offender is alive.

Remedy for seduction of a virgin: required marriage

Seduction, as well as rape, instituted marriage: “And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.” (Ex. 22.16) One translation of the word “יְפַתֶּ֣ה” (Unicode/XML Leningrad Codex, Ex. 22.15), which I transliterate “yefat'ayh” (seduces), means that he speaks to her heart until she consents. Another translation is “to persuade.” Another means “to deceive.” The seduction of a virgin female who was not engaged to anyone determined that the male must marry the girl. Hypothetically, if a girl was induced to have intercourse by the male's promise to marry her, or without such promise she would not have consented to have permitted carnal knowledge with her; or not; is not relevant: the determining factor is that the virginity of the girl was violated through seduction (regardless of what the means of persuasion or enticement may have been).

Thus, according to particular circumstances (regardless of the fact whether there was enticement or not on the part of the female virgin), rape or seduction of a virgin was an act which instituted marriage. However, a girl was expected to scream, cry (Dt. 22.24) or complain—to avoid the silence of passivity—to prove that she did not consent to any immoral sexual aggression. The screaming would give evidence that she resisted rape at least to a degree.

Ancient Israel used to have a homogeneous, racial and cultural environment. The people were the police so to speak, and they had an inherent desire to keep their women, posterity and community clean and undefiled. Similarly, the USA used to be much more homogeneous, caring and defensive for its founding, white people and their women.

Remedy for sex through choice: required marriage

If a man took (chose) a virgin for a wife and hated her afterward (with dissatisfaction), he was not able to divorce her (Dt. 22.13-19). Just because a man didn't really like a woman he wanted to have sex with didn't give him the right to leave her once he had sex with her, he was obligated to marry her if the father desired and consented, and a married man that puts away his chaste wife causes her to commit adultery (Mt. 5:32). In the case of pre-marriage, if he doesn't marry a girl of first time sex with him, wherein he made a physical deposit in her so to speak, it may cause her to fornicate, which fornication is to be avoided (1 Cor. 7:2). As a remedy for situations as such and guarding the institution of chaste marriage, God's law prevented this and the man from just considering it a one-time stand (cheap sex) by requiring the man to marry her, and keep her without an opportunity for divorce regardless of what selfish excuse he could think up.

Female virginity and chastity is a prerequisite for marriage (Mt. 19.9, KJV)

On the other hand, if the girl was not a virgin (even though she pretended to be) and she did not have any proof of chastity, then the male was not obligated to remain married to her (Dt. 22.20-21). Cheap and unchaste women could not easily get over on a guy. If she wasn't a virgin with cloth-proof evidence of experiencing bleeding after lying with the male in bed, the marriage could easily be annulled. This concept of required female virginity and proof was carried over to the New Testament era; see Mt. 19:9, wherein the male was not obligated to marry but could divorce an unclean woman and even marry another woman without being imputed as committing adultery against the first woman. The defrauded man could marry another woman because the first sexual encounter with an unclean woman did not and could not establish a biblical marriage—it was an act of fornication, which is to be avoided (1 Cor. 7.2).

Righteous male bias from polygamy and the law era as to the male not having to be chaste for marriage

Chaste males are recommended for marriage. However, as mentioned above, a man is not imputed with marriage if he divorces a whore or woman found not to be a virgin. However, in my opinion, his fornication with an unclean woman could possibly be imputed to him as not being beyond reproof as to being a local church official, a minister of the house of the living God, a pillar and ground of the truth (1 Ti. 3:15).

The sexual immorality experience could cost his spiritual leadership endeavor for an office in the local church. Nevertheless, it seems a man would be given another chance to marry depending on the acceptance and vexation or lack thereof upon a future prospective virgin. Thus, the male has a given bias supporting marriage after defilement if it is not adultery-divorce (Mt. 5:32) whereas the woman does not.

It is very important for people to understand what the Bible teaches concerning marriage. The Apostle Paul speaks about the subject in 1 Cor., ch. 7; and in many of the other Scriptures. The principles apply for everyone. There is a need to be thorough in strengthening and armoring souls by means of teaching, exhorting, encouraging, proclaiming and declaring God's written word to be true and an authoritative source for the direction and well being of mankind. God's law is our teacher (1 Ti. 1.8-11), and we see how it is fulfilled through the new covenant apostles and prophets, and the acts of the early church.

Early Hebrew chaste women of the first law era: dowry

Abraham was a follower of God. He was a great beneficiary of God and founder of the Hebrew race, a chosen people that no longer exist today. No one in the world has Torah-required genealogical register. The Hebrews dissolved some time after the destruction of the temple and Titus. Nevertheless, their laws which were given by God and Moses, and the fulfillment of those teachings through Jesus Christ and the institution of the early church are the basis of holy civilization today.

First law era: dowry bride seduction and marriage

So what were the early Hebrew women like and what were the requirements of the first era law for marriage? Evidently, virgin women expected to be married and their fathers given a dowry price. The virgins who were not betrothed (formally engaged to the extent of being accepted as a wife but yet

having to await consummation) were able to meet men preferably of their same tribe (Nu. 36:5-13) and have conversations with them. They were able to make romantic decisions and implicitly were even at times “enticed” (Ex. 22:16) by men to go to bed. The verse tells us:

16 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. 17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.  (Ex. 22.16, 17)

Parental decision and formation of contract of marriage

However, the father of the girl was the one who decided whether a marriage was to be accepted. It seems he had the choice of determining his daughter's future (almost as if she were property) whether she agreed or not. If he did not give his daughter in marriage after a man had sex with her (taken her virginity), the rejected man was still responsible for his actions and had to pay money even though he could not get the woman he had sex with for a wife. Of course, this would leave the daughter in an unchaste condition, a very hard way for a woman to live. So, in such a religious, close-knit family and community under chastity-preserving laws (which we Japhethites should have today!), it would probably take an undesirable or seemingly worthless man to cause her father to commit his daughter to living unchaste and never able to marry as a virgin.

CHAPTER V

Decency And Order, God’s Will, Gifts And Roles

Male teachers in the assembly

We are living in a time when male leadership and female subjection is not adhered to, even in the churches (assemblies). Due to a lack of godly discipline, some homes are desolated even before the children grow up. It is difficult for people to survive without being duped or afflicted by treacherous, avaricious, wanton, materialistic, overrunning, mixed worldly cultures.  I can help reveal God's plan how we Christians are to associate among ourselves and how we are to live in this world with respect to God's creative, functional and judicial attributes unto mankind.

Though I find the “charismatic faith” more acceptable than the some-gifts doctrine, there seems to be a dilemma concerning church order. God is a God of order; he is not the author of confusion (1 Cor. 14.33).

The Lord set the earth, sun, and stars in their place—astronomical order. He placed the church to announce the manifold wisdom of God unto the civil authorities—prophetic order (Eph. 3.10). He placed men under civil authority—civil order. He placed the man to be the head of the wife—marital order. He placed the master above the servant—economico-social order. In all God's creation there is an order, and a divine plan for mankind to follow without disorder and confusion.

The inspired written word of God, the Holy Bible, is the authoritative source of becoming order within the church; in this instance particularly, the assembly. It seems to me that since the church is a collective witness for Jesus, that it should have beauty of concordant pattern sparkling as a diamond. To the contrary, as I have surveyed the churches through my pilgrimage, I have found them in a sad, and wanting condition so many times. I hope that I do not sound as a harsh critic—because I love my brethren, and I desire the best for our spiritual family.

Unfortunately, it is among the some-gifts people (who some have erringly coined themselves as “cessationists”) as though one might glorify God for his creative power, and yet not attribute him fully for healing power in sickness. God is the same today as yesterday, and tomorrow: He is the Almighty One in any particular instant of time.

God’s emotional will vs. determinate will

God has good will toward man, desiring his creature to be in good health. How one shall consider God's emotional will has an effect on how one shall consider his predeterminate will. His emotional will is the desire he has for all men to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth (1 Ti. 2:4, KJV). God desires all good things for man: health, peace, wealth, prosperity, goodness, and eternal salvation. The elder expresses his desire for the beloved, “Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth.” (3 Jn., v. 2) If we believe God wishes mankind well—which he does—then we may pray in faith without wavering; whether we act in faith upon God's word or not, determines our destiny!

Immediate healing does not always occur (2 Ti. 4.20)

Hence, when God confirms to anyone that His grace is sufficient for him, and that His power is being perfected in his weakness, the matter is settled. I do not believe we can comprehend fully how great God's grace is; however, we may be certain that it is far greater than what we may imagine is good for us. Excellent physical health, wealth, education, and many good things may be enjoyed in life; but in a paradoxical manner, even when a Christian suffers the lack or loss of one or all these things, one may be used to demonstrate God's power being perfected in weakness. Whether health, or sickness, it is whether that we have been converted and saved eternally by God's grace that is most important, and his power rest upon us when we lack in this life.

Those who neglect God's emotional will for good unto mankind, and do not seek his blessing and gift of healing, and disallow those who would seek healing for the sick by the miraculous manners spoken of in the Scriptures err because healing is one of the ministries of the church (1 Cor. 12:5).

Dispensation of the gifts unto the transformation

Chapter 13 of 1 Corinthians depicts a time period from the dispensation of the gifts among the early church unto the transformation from the corrupt condition of our present, “vile body”, unto a lasting body without imperfection, “like unto his glorious body” (Phil. 3.21). Knowledge shall vanish away (1 Cor. 13.8). There is a contrast between “partial” knowledge, which exists now; and with “full” knowledge, whereas one shall know even as he has been known (1 Cor. 13.12). In order for the greater to become existent, the lesser must be annulled—that will happen when “that which is perfect” comes (1 Cor. 13.10).

If the dispensation of the gifts, even though they be from “part” (1 Cor. 13:9), existed from the early church era and will continue to exist until that which is perfect is come (an everlasting era in the future), how is it then, that people can say they believe in God and his power, and not believe that he is able to heal the sick through faith, and the gifts of his ministers when healing is mentioned as one of the gifts (1 Cor. 12.28), and when they can see that the longevity of the dispensation of the gifts includes our contemporary era? When they speak of God's creative power, they seem to be so thrilled with wonder, and then when the applying of faith to God's healing power in sickness is mentioned, where is their zeal? If God can do miraculous and marvelous creative works, he also is able to do miraculous healing works. If God has the power to create this universe, which he did according to the written word, it is also logical that he can heal disease of any sort because he is almighty, and nothing is impossible with God.

Disorder and mockery: Women generally have an obligation to teach only other women and children

Now, on the other hand, though I find faith in God's healing power in the charismatic churches, many times I've found disorder in the services. Women teach groups of men, women and children, which is contrary to the Scripture: “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence” (1 Ti. 2.12). It is fine for a woman to teach other women or children, but in the assembly women need to realize that they are expected to be taught; hence, women should be willing to be subject to male authority and teaching, and they should be willing to listen quietly (1 Ti. 2.11). If women have any questions concerning what is being taught, they should ask their husbands afterward at home (1 Cor. 14.34-35); see Eph. 5:22, Col. 3:18.

Rectification: men must commend themselves and not suffer a woman to teach

Retrospectively, in the churches where I have found a general regard for male leadership, which is God's will and commendable, I have generally found a deficiency as to a mature conception of the dimension of spiritual gifts: this should not be so. Yet, even so, that some of the more orderly—as to male teacher—churches are wanting in this spiritual area, allowing or condoning the usurping of authority of women as a replacement (because many women are bold or because of the lack of boldness of the men) will not fill the unwholesome gap. Men of God should recognize God's plan of assembly order, commending themselves, not suffering women to teach (1 Ti. 2.11, 1 Cor. 14.34).

Women must not teach men in the assembly (church gathering or meetings in houses similar as the disciples in the upper room)

There are many Christian women who disagree with this spiritual precept. How they choose to think is up to them. But what they may have to say, and how they may go about saying it is up to the elders of the church. (See the first chapter of this book.) Let the elders be minded that they have a leadership role, and a Scriptural outline to follow: 1 Cor., ch. 14. God's spiritual, and prophetic men are responsible for the order, and conduct of the assembly (1 Cor. 14.37). The apostolic rules of order are commands of God for the spiritually learned who willingly desire to obey God in a becoming manner.

But, if any person is not satisfied with the precept, such a one is not compelled to concede. The primary importance is that all believers gather together regardless of their differences of opinion in reference to church order according to becomingness (1 Cor. 14.38).

Personally, even if a woman is rude and overbearing in a rebellious, and insulting manner as by ignoring the God-given, dignity and authority of a man, to such an extent that she may openly mock me, I still do not hinder her from attending service because I know it is God's will for men and women to gather together in his name and to be fed and nourished by the presence of the Lord, and his word, and the other members of the body. However, I also know that there are other gatherings I can attend if things get too disgraceful.

Let me make the point that Paul says, “Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins: keep thyself pure. Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake and thine often infirmities. Some men’s sins are open beforehand, going before to judgment; and some men they follow after.” (Eph. 5.22-24). Also, “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord” (Col. 3.18).

In order for a person to serve the Lord piously, he must reverence Him. So it is in a becoming marital relationship—the wife reverences her husband (Eph. 5.33). As God would have us to worship himself with reverence and awe (Heb. 12.28), in a like holy manner let the wife reverence her husband as her ordained head of the household; and with shamefacedness (1 Ti. 2:9). Also, note 1 Pet. 3:1-7.

Now, it is a grievous matter when the whole assembly is so far out of control that responsible elders do not have command, and therefore, confusion, and disorder continually go on.

The early church had its problems concerning the developing, and implementing of the gifts. Throughout history, since that time, religious dogma has offered its unworthy substitute for the place, and standing of the Scriptures. Church order has been a problem for centuries, but no cultural ideas have ever successfully stamped out completely the simple, but spiritual Scriptures. God's written word has survived the ages. Denominational religion has offered its suggestions, ethics, and reputation, but the word of God piously discerns and exposes religious error. Church order is a latent expression awaiting to be sought, and applied by the elders, and body, through means of God's harmonious, holy, and inspiring word.

As for those advocates of dogmatic religion, no matter how beloved, knowledgeable or gracious they may be, I say their excuses are error and a waste of time. Their misinterpretation of the Scriptures is a hindrance to the purpose of the church. For instance, some of the erring teachers who do not concede to male leadership and the silence of women in the assembly misconstrue “there is neither male nor female” (Gal. 3.28) to support their thesis. Furthermore, they speak incorrectly to the effect that “they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law” (1 Cor. 14.34) does not have to do with this time or culture.

For reference: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal. 3.28). And, “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.” (1 Cor. 14.34).

The verse Gal. 3:28 declares the unity and equality which is in the liberty of faith in Jesus regardless of sexuality. Unity and equality result in deliverance from the bondage of the law, which was of a former covenant; however, the verse does not say that the God-given attributes which distinguish the sexes are abolished.

Both sexes are the workmanship of a divine Creator: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them” (Gen. 1.27). A creative attribute is intrinsic in the image of the creature, which reflects the likeness of God.

God said in the beginning, “And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.” (Gen. 2.18). The New Testament states, “Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.” (1 Cor. 11.9). A functional attribute of companionship as a helpmate for the man is inherent in the creation of the woman. A pastoral book reflects (1 Ti. 2:13) some of the details of God's creative order mentioned in the Old Testament.

God announced judgment and punishment upon the serpent, the woman, the ground, and the man (Gen. 3.14-19). The woman lost the degree of self-rule which she once possessed (although she formerly had a creative attribute to be a help meet and companion according to God's purpose); however, subsequent to the sin and fall of Eve and Adam, the woman also obtained a judicial attribute (1 Ti. 2.14). God announced to her, “I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee” (Gen. 3.16).

The Hebrew word “יִמְשָׁל” (Unicode/XML Leningrad Codex, Gen. 3:16), which I transliterate, “yim-shal”, means that the man shall have “dominion” or “power” over the woman, “rule over.” The same word (in an infinitive construct form) is used in Gen. 1:18 (Tanach.us) meaning “to rule over” the day and the night concerning the luminary prominence of the sun and the moon. The same word (in a participle form) is used in the prophetic utterance Micah 5:1 (Tanach.us), meaning “ruler” concerning the future authority of the Lord Jesus Christ over Israel, take note of Mt. 2:5.

Afterward, Eve was no longer sinless; the sorrow, loss and chastisement that sin brings materialized: Her freedom had diminished. The liberal status of our progenitors in relationship to God had been corrupted due to the fall, and their relationship (as to the aspect of authority between themselves) became affected. Also man still tills the ground today to survive—the earth still brings forth thorns and thistles; take note of the consequence of the fall (Gen. 3.18).

The curse still remains today; it will not include, but remain until: “the redemption of our body” (Rom. 8.18-23); “… there shall be no more curse” (Rev. 22.3); “when that which is perfect is come” (1 Cor. 13.10); “we shall also bear the image of the heavenly” (1 Cor. 15.49); “this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality... Death is swallowed up in victory” (1 Cor. 15.54); we “are as the angels of God in heaven” (Mt. 22.30).

Becoming converted, and saved through faith in Jesus does not take away all the evil, toil, affliction, and death that sin brought forth, not does it disannul God's judgment upon the serpent, woman, man, and the earth, even though we are “the sons of God by faith in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3.26), and even though we are “the Israel of God” (Gal. 6.16). Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden of Eden: the whole creation has never been the same since (Rom. 8.22).

No condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus

For now we should recognize: “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God” (Rom. 8.16). The gifts are a manifestation of the Spirit: “… the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal” (1 Cor. 12.7). The gifts are made known and real to us that they are of God, and God gives us the ability to acknowledge them, and the giver of the gifts—Himself—God's power is recognized by his children through the manifestation.

Also, we should realize that later we will be changed for the better: “For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God” (Rom. 8.19). The “manifestation” of the sons of God is when God will reveal to his children their glory in the day there will be no more curse, no more corruption, no more sin: when God will have given them a new body and their eternal reward in heaven.

However, the day of the “redemption of our body” (Rom. 8.23) has not manifested itself yet; it has not been realized by us yet because it will not come until a time in the future. Nevertheless, until that glorious time, sexuality, and its inherent, creative and judicial attributes continue to exist.

Also, in further reference to “there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3.28)—if the Apostle Paul had not believed that women have different attributes than men according to sound doctrine, then he would not have exhorted Titus, who was accompanying him at Jerusalem (Gal. 2.1): “that they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed” (Titus. 2.4-5). Also note Pr. 31:10-31. The career of homemaking is a God-given attribute of Christian women.

Likewise, in reference to the same verse, but not in contradiction to, if Paul had not believed in authority and submission in master-servant relationships: “there is neither bond nor free” (Gal. 3.28), then he would not have mentioned, “Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again; Not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things” (Tit. 2:9-10).

Now, on the other hand, the prophetic ministry is given to the church—males and females (1 Cor. 12.10). Any person, no matter what his or her sex, age, employment, social status, or nationality belongs to God if he or she has his spirit (Rom. 8.9, Gal. 3.28). Due to the fulfillment of the following prophecy, many have an inheritance among those that are sanctified.

And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit (Joel 2.28-29).

Not all have the same gifts (1 Cor. 12:27-31). The body consists of many individuals with various gifts: there is a spiritual manner in the way the gifts are developed and applied concerning the reverence of authority: “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” (1 Cor. 11.3).

Furthermore, worship service goes beyond the recognition of administrative rule. Appearance and conduct are important, “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” (1 Cor. 11.4). A man should not pray or prophesy with long hair, or wearing a hat, or any type of covering on his head. That does not mean that he must be bald.

But if a woman prays or prophesies with her head uncovered, that is, if she does not have long hair, or a veil of some type, or a scarf, hat, or covering, then she dishonours her head: for that is as disrespectful as if she were shaven (I Cor. 11.5-6, 15). “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” (1 Cor. 11.7).

If the woman is the glory of the man, what has happened to the church and our society today? How many churches do you see where the women have long hair, or a covering? How many wives do you see who reverence their husband? Extravagance does not avail unto righteousness; women should dress in “modest apparel” (1 Ti. 2.9). Disregarding chastity of dress and showing too much of their body, many women excite men. Just take a look at the way women cut their hair short as a man's today. It is difficult to distinguish the difference between a man and a woman because of the way some men and women dress and wear their hair. It is an awful sight the way some people make themselves appear when they should be glorifying God in all things.

The way a woman of devotion serves God shows honor and respect of the angels, “For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels” (1 Cor. 11.10). The word “power” in Greek, according to my translation and transliteration is “ex-ou-see'-a” (Westcott and Hort, 1 Cor. 11.10), which means “authority.” It is written in the accusative case in the verse: I transliterate it, “exousi'an” (Westcott and Hort, 1 Cor. 11.10).

The woman should have respect of authority according to the creative attributes: the woman was created for the man (1 Cor. 11.9); and the woman is the glory of the man (1 Cor. 11.7). In this respect, she ought to be covered preferably with long hair (1 Cor. 11.5), or a covering of some other mode (1 Cor. 11.6). The woman should have reverence for her husband, men in general, God and angels when she is praying or prophesying.

Fullness of the gift of prophecy, ministerial appearance, and commandments of the Lord

CHAPTER VI

Second Law Era (Deuteronomy Through Malachi) And Fulfillment

Remedy for pre-marital sex by choice

The Hebrew community in the second law era were under holy, female virgin marriage law also as the first law era. Parents and their fellow neighbors agreed to take care of and guard their children in the same way: the protection of female virginity was upheld even as in the first law era. Further stipulations were made in case a man who had sex with a man's daughter and hated her afterward even to the extent that if he would make a false accusation (v. 14) and say that the daughter was not a virgin when he slept with her—to relieve himself of lifetime marriage and the responsibility of taking the virginity of a daughter of a man of the Hebrew community.

 13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, 14 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: 15 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: 16 And the damsel’s father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her; 17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.  (Dt. 22.13-17)

However, proof of hymen bleeding was demanded and acceptable as proof to the community (vv. 15-17). If after the elders of the community saw the bloody evidence or a cloth and found that the man was untruthful and had made false statements, they made him pay a price of money and gave it to the father of the former virgin for retribution of the slander (v. 19) of a virgin (a woman honoring God and chastity) of Israel (the whole religious environment). The man who took her virginity was also ordered to receive her as a wife under the condition that he could never divorce her. (v. 19)

18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him; 19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days. (Dt. 22. 18-19)

Sexual Folly: Female pretense of virginity and penalty for having been caught lying

However, in a case or situation wherein a man who had sex with a daughter of a man and found out that she was not was a virgin, and the girl's father could not make a credible case (having proof of vaginal blood on a garment or cloth) with the community (v. 20), the man was not responsible to be a husband to her. Actually, as a penalty of the treachery (folly) of the woman attempting to marry without proof of virginity, she would have been sentenced to death (capital punishment).

The community was expected to bring the girl out to the door of her father's house and stone her to death (v. 21). Implicitly, the beauty of expensive doors and luxury houses as people live in today were not available or considered in those days under such situations. This type of execution would seem traumatic today!

20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: 21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.  (Dt. 22.20-21)

So, we see that virginity was expected from dowry brides, and that there was strong penalty for unfaithful acts toward the man who attempted to escape marriage through slander and the death penalty for a woman who attempted to fake her chastity.

Second law era remedy of rape: dowry bride

Third and fulfillment of the law era (New Covenant era)

We find that dowry bride law came into being through consent, seduction and even rape in the first and second law eras. These were marriages wherein virginity was rewarded and protected. The female virgin obtained through the marriage (unity of one flesh) a one-male cognizance as Eve, the wife of Adam. Jesus Christ referred to their honorable (Heb. 13.4) marital unity when he reproved the Pharisees. Chaste female marriages as these are what is expected of a female in our New Covenant era today. Without parents and community guarding chastity and their daughters as those of the OT., fornication abounds and wickedness abounds.

Sexual purity and natural revelation

Eve, the first woman (implicitly a virgin) on earth, is referenced as an example of a natural and pure woman, having an acceptable marriage with the male Adam through coitus, meeting the purity requirements of both the new and old covenants. She did not have an uncleanness (Dt. 24.1), defilement or reason to be divorced. When she married Adam, through having sex and uniting physically and spiritually, her intellect and mentality changed, she obtained and possessed a one-male cognizance. Of course, the male who became intimate with her was Adam, the only other human being on earth. Intellectually, he became more than co-existent, he became one with her. They were a clean and undefiled, marital entity, a united body, each became part of the other, one flesh (Gen. 2.24), and they fulfilled the marriage institution, social and psychological adherence and oneness commandment: “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)

The Old Testament fortified this female virginity (zero male cognizance factor) and purity concept with law (biblical revelation). The natural (physical) and the spiritual (biblical) attest to the essence of marriage. However, the parent of a daughter, due to the circumstances, was given authority to approve or negate marriage. Regardless, the daughter was obligated to chastity either through life time marriage, or singleness (damage control) through the parent's decision. Unfaithful women, who attempted to deceive and work around chastity law, were judged as criminals to be executed with capital punishment.

As to male sexual enlightenment, Adam discovered and was awakened to Eve's purity, he “knew” her, experiencing her and a marriage bond physically and spiritually from virginity to a chaste wife, having a one-female cognizance. This is part of acceptable marriage, discovering the virginity and purity of a woman: natural revelation. During the old covenant, the male was eventually allowed several wives, having a two-or-more female cognizance (polygamy). However, this stopped and monogamy as in the beginning was restored in the new covenant.

Eventually, as time passed and further laws of the Old Testament were made, due to the hardness of the Hebrew people's hearts, remarriages (with women of more than a one-male cognizance factor) became acceptable according to the law of Moses (the second law, the redaction). Nevertheless, the Lord Jesus Christ reproved part (Dt. 24.1-3) of the second law of Moses, and remarriage (such as that of Hosea and Gomer) was no longer tolerated in the new covenant.

Furthermore, the defilement abomination and non-return law (Dt. 24.4) has never changed. The former female purity and chastity standard was renewed, and also established marriage for chaste widows, who were allowed to marry (being no longer married to a dead man, the widow's cognizance of a deceased husband did not impute liability upon her). The new covenant is a better covenant than the Old Testament: it is a fulfilling covenant, wherein God's desire for perfection of his people is apprehended.

The necessity for divorce

Divorce is a psychological-physical separation through commitment (1 Cor. 7.10-11): when the act of divorce is put in writing it becomes a public notice. Female fornication (Mt. 19.9), which I discussed in chapter II, gave reason to separate, annul or divorce from the once presumed unity. Every married man has a responsibility to keep his wife under every circumstance, except one: if his wife is unchaste, that is, if his wife has partaken in a sexual act with someone else before his marriage with her (and that man is still alive)—this is fornication. Then, and only then, is the husband lawfully (according to the Bible) to put away his wife, and to give her a bill of divorcement. In America, we hear the term annulment so as to indicate the lack of existence of a real marriage. Logically, if a woman, has committed a sin of fornication with someone, a bill of divorcement does not induce her to become unchaste—she has already committed the act which defiled her.

And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. (Mt. 19.9)

If a man puts away his wife for any reason other than fornication, he causes her to commit adultery (Mt. 5.32). Fundamentally, from a synoptical viewpoint, there are two distinct acts, the one subsequent to the other, which constitute adultery. The first act is a sin of “putting away” because the Scripture says the husband “shall cleave unto his wife” (Gen. 2:24); and also, that no one should separate what God has yoked together (Mk. 10:9)—“one flesh” (Gen. 2:24). The second sinful act, “marry another”, is subsequent to the first. It also contradicts 1 Cor. 7:10-11. The Lord Jesus explained that going beyond divorce so as to “marry another” constitutes adultery:

10 And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. 11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. 12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery. (Mark 10, 10-12)

So, clearly, remarriage is adultery and against the teaching of the Lord. It is an unauthorized breaking of a previously formed “one flesh” and unity. A defilement. A treachery. Adultery was a death penalty sin in the Old Covenant. The adulterer and adulteress both were sentenced to death. (Lev. 20.10) Even as there was a remedy and penalty for folly and defiled sex before marriage, there was also a remedy and penalty for female illicit sex after marriage.

So today, obviously a hidden defilement-act of the wife after marriage would make her unclean and unable to continue a former clean marriage. The former death penalty “put evil away” and eradicated the uncleanness of female folly of fornication (Dt. 22.21). However, in New Testament times, we are not under the extreme penalty of the Old Testament law but nevertheless the once pure but now defiled marriage after post-marriage female sexual defilement would also have to be dissolved. King David could not have sex with his defiled concubines (a fulfilled prophecy of Nathan the prophet) after the treachery of Absalom (2 Samuel 12.11,  2 Samuel 16.22); they lived as widows (2 Samuel 20.3). Marriage is based upon purity, not secret female promiscuity, open-defilement or remarriage.

Jealousy remedy

There is a remedy for jealousy of a husband. Once a woman secretly defiles herself after marriage, and if the husband becomes jealous, he must seek God how to deal with it.

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. (Nu. 5.29-31)

Whether secret immorality (Nu. 5.29-31), or open after-marriage defilement such as divorce and remarriage, the husband has a responsibility not to allow his former wife to return and make his home a curse and community an abomination (Dt. 24.4).

Nevertheless, a male is not under such chaste restrictions as a female concerning the penalty of fornication and illicit sex after marriage. Polygamy (Ex. 21.10) was legal in the Old Testament. Males could have several wives, but not females several husbands. Polygamy was not adultery but polyandry (a woman marrying more than one husband) would be. However, eventually, polygamy was replaced by monogamy.

Apostate ministry of sexual abomination

Hypothetically, if Becki Falwell was a former chaste wife to her husband Jerry, which I do not know whether she was or not, she was evidently committing open defilement, which was a death penalty sentence (Dt. 22.22). According to the third party, although it has not been admitted by the two of the Falwell family as far as I know, Giancarlo Granda implied that Jerry wanted to watch the sacrilege. He said Jerry said, “Just go for it”, implying that Jerry wanted to watch the abomination of his wife having sex with Granda (CNN, 00:02:39-41).

Becki was not committing an act of defilement that was secret. The law of jealousies was not needed to convict her, him or the church. However, after their alleged scandal was revealed, the church has a responsibility to convict them of their sin and to see they are separated from one another to avoid abomination similar to that of violating the law of no return of a defiled wife, which causes the land to sin (Dt. 24.4).

Such an act of profaning the institution of marriage and defiling the bodies of the individuals involved is horrible. Even if Jerry repented, with such a blatant stain upon his reputation, he could never righteously qualify to be an official of a local church. Biblically, even religious school administration must be under supervision of a qualified local church, a “... church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth”. Beware of churches, universities and seminaries that do not attempt justice, condemn and penalize sexual perversion and especially, abomination.

A believer must not commit fornication (verse 2, below) or remarry

Sexual immorality/fornication must be avoided: “Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.” (1 Cor. 7.2)

The Apostle Paul taught and admonished Christians to live sanctified lives, lives that are able to receive communion.

The believer is called unto peace (1 Cor. 7.15)

A believing woman cannot hold unto a man that continually fornicates, beats her up and refuses to repent (lacks remorse). She should not be joined with a homosexual, thief, continuous substance abuser or perpetual violator of God's laws (1 Ti. 1.8). I would have no objection for a woman separating without legal divorce from her man under those circumstances. Many times, passive women perpetuate and collaborate the sin of their mate by not setting a distance from him! For instance, a boxer does not leave his hands down and willfully let the other boxer beat him up: he tries to defend himself by blocking the blow. A woman can block the blow of her violent husband so to speak by implementing the municipal law to protect her, by getting a court order for protection against her husband. She would not be legally ending their marriage; she would merely be giving herself protection and her husband time to think things over and possibly repent from his wrongs. If the husband doesn't want to change and decides to divorce her, she wouldn't be at fault by letting him go.

No justification to sue for divorce: allow the rebelling, husband to do it (1 Cor. 7.10)

This message is to those who have married. It is a commandment for a woman not to be divorced. Of course, this is concerning clean marriage, not one that can’t be proven to be chaste as in Mt. 19:9, not one of female fornication or adultery, which should be annulled or dissolved. There are things that can be handled within the church and should not be taken before law courts. Although, on the other hand, there are some things the church can't handle such as murderers, rapists and other offenders of violence, and the Christian must seek help.

Marriage transparency is needed

There is a difference between fornication and adultery: Fornication is when a woman knows two men without a legitimate, biblical marriage; adultery is when a woman knows another man after a biblical marriage. (hesedken, 00:02:03)

A defiled woman of fornication, for instance, Rahab the harlot, who became a woman of faith (Hebrews 11.31), wife of Salmon (Luke 3.32), and progenitor of Boaz (Mt. 1.5), patrilineal Hebrew and great grandfather of King David and ancestor of the lineage of Joseph (Mt. 1.16, Luke 3.23), husband of Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ, seemingly was tolerated in the Old Testament in some cases as well as divorcees (Dt. 24.1-3) except if the husband decided it was not a clean relationship (Dt. 23), but nevertheless, fornication was a valid reason for divorce according to Matthew 19:9.

However, different from fornication, a formerly married woman could not remarry without a writing of divorce or it would be considered adultery, a death-penalty offense. Although later as to New Testament spiritual progression and fulfillment of the law, the reproof by Jesus Christ was stricter as to the concept of adultery and condemned remarriage (another marriage of a woman after leaving a legitimate husband even if she had a writing of divorcement). Perhaps this increased moral fulfillment pertaining to the correction of infidelity in sexual relationships of a future era is hinted in Malachi 3:1-5.

 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. (Mt. 19:9)

We know that betrothal could be annulled due to female defilement, but the word fornication (“immorality”) is not limited to betrothal. Nevertheless, the first part of the compound predicate, whosoever shall divorce or “shall put away” his wife, only legally and spiritually stops the current relationship of marital uncleanliness due to the fornication phrase—“except for immorality”—the offense (see Eph. 5:5), the lack of morality, divine and pure union structure and holiness (Eph.5.22-33); it is the second part of the compound predicate that reveals the committing of adultery—and “marries” a divorced woman (Mt. 19:9), or even “another woman”—also mentioned in chapter II.

It seems to me, I suppose we can assume the first part of the compound predicate, “shall put away”, in one sense implies that it is proper to put away a defiled woman of fornication even as Joseph was thinking about putting away Mary, the mother of Jesus. The divorcer would not even be prevented from marrying another. However, the remedy and exception phrase of a case of betrothal could not be the same as a case wherein a defiled dowry wife (which required female virginity and chastity) who committed lesbianism or other form of sexual defilement. Then, it seems the divorcer would not be tolerated to marry another due to the expiration of polygamy. See 1 Cor. 7:27 and Mark 10:11.

On the other hand, however, if fornication were expanded to mean such immorality it would not negate or nullify Jesus' explanation of betrothal marriage concerning divorce and marriage. The former case would have involved the woman in an act of defilement before consummation with the divorcer, whereas the latter would not have.

Second wife occurrences in the USA

First of all, was his first wife a virgin? If she wasn't a virgin and she wasn't a chaste widow, then I can't say his marriage to her was a legitimate, biblical marriage but rather a mere unclean, cultural marriage. Second, was his second wife a virgin? If she was, then as to eligibility, that would comply within the range of acceptable circumstances as to marriage within Ex. 22:16 and Dt. 22:13-21, 28, 29. However, if she wasn't a virgin nor chaste widow, what would make her any different from the case with the first wife, a woman of fornication?

Male obligation and former pre-marital physical bond

Third, has he any obligations to any former virgins as to having made a physical deposit and pre-marital bond. If the answer is yes, and the former defiled virgin is still living, it would cause the former defiled virgin problems to restore her relationship with him. It may cause her to fornicate similarly as a man that divorces a chaste wife causes her to commit adultery (Mt. 5:32). The dowry-bride laws (Ex. 22:16  and Dt. 22:13-21, 28, 29), previously mentioned, prevented such devastation and required marriage. Once a marriage bond through physical deposit has already been created, if it is not completed, it leaves the former virgin unable to marry another man. All these questions pertain to determining whether a second marriage is biblically legitimate in a worldly and cultural environment. A Christian has to determine these things.

Background checks

Female virgins are wonderful women who can offer chastity to a man, a requirement for marriage. However, some female virgins are more wise than others.  If she does not qualify his background, a virgin female can still end up in an unwanted situation by aiding her want-to-be-husband male to promote fornication (1 Cor. 7:2) through former negligent conduct and leaving a pre-maritally bonded girl (Ex. 22, Dt. 22). The parent or guardian of the female is responsible to have a trust relationship with his daughter so as to be able to give her to a man in faith, knowing she is chaste.

However, the parent of the virgin is not as likely to have this trust relationship with the male she is to be given to. There are men who may not be legally married but have in their life time had sex with a female virgin. In these cases, the male would still be obligated to the first female virgin, especially if he had two or more female virgin experiences, whom he joined in coitus. Then, the delusional, male presumed groom-to-be really should be trying to resolve his responsibility with his first virgin and her chastity (to re-unite and legally marry as long as the female had not become defiled by another man), and if he doesn't, realize he must remain single in order to prevent another marital obligation to another woman while through first time sex his former maritally-bonded woman is alive and in need of marital completion.

Apostate and deceptive times

Christians and others have been deterred and misled. We live in the apostasy and have lost the great protection of dowry and community living (homogeneous conditions), which guarded marriage (monogamy) and other Biblical institutions.

So if a virgin female thinks everything is alright concerning marriage merely due to her own sexual purity, she better beware because she also has a responsibility not to become intrusive to a once-virgin seeking chastity and marital completion/restoration with the presumptuously presumed groom-to-be of the present virgin.

Promiscuous wife failure

Another hypothetical situation to think about, having no interference to restoration as the former case, is the male who has legally but not legitimately married according to the Bible. If the male who has never had sex with a female virgin or chaste widow but knew (committed fornication or adultery) and married an unchaste woman or whore (1 Cor. 6.15) and then after righteous consideration decides to legally divorce (annul), and wants to marry a virgin, I don't see that the male would be obligated to the unchaste woman (Dt. 22.20, 21, Mt. 19.9). However, it really would be a matter to mess up the mind of the female virgin, and she would be putting herself in a position to be compared with a past sexual love of the male.

Women in the Old Testament were wives of polygamous men and had to think about the competitor wives of their husband. However, polygamy was replaced with monogamy in the New Testament. Hopefully, more males will be concerned about purity and keep their virginity. It would be great if the female virgins had a great number of males to be given (parental authority) to without having to worry about former male sex activity.

Purity of non-return law maintained (Dt. 24.4)

Chastity and transparency

The Lord Jesus Christ did not accept a woman who did not have virginity who married a man to be a legitimate wife (Mt. 19.9). The man who married such a woman could divorce her and marry another woman if he desired and would not be imputed as an adulterer because of the ineligibility of the unchaste woman to be a biblical wife. Chastity and transparency is required in marriage. Jesus referred to the sexual cleanliness of Adam and Eve and those who followed their straight course after human reproduction began in the world, “... from the beginning... . (Mt. 19.8)

Nevertheless, as you see in verses Dt. 24:1-3, Moses, through his redaction of the law, made the book of Deuteronomy (which etymologically means second law), and a different biblical guideline for the Hebrews to follow even up unto the times of Malachi. Jesus particularly referred to these verses:

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.  (Mt. 19.8)

Divorce was not a practice of the Hebrews as Exodus 22:16 demonstrates. So does even Dt. 22:13-21, 28, 29. Dowry wives could never be divorced. A man could marry many women during the first two law eras (polygamy was not an issue) but he could not divorce a dowry wife. As we can notice in the following chapter and verse (Dt. 23.14), Moses goes into the subject of holiness and the prevention of a matter of uncleanliness (I discussed this in chapter II), which was a righteous thing and the Lord Jesus did not reprove him on this part. Then, Moses continues to Dt. 24:1-3, this is where the Lord disagreed and reproved him.

Bible era comparison: Christian vs. modern “Jewish”

The first law era was Genesis through Numbers. The modern “Jewish” are cult proselytes and do not have the genealogical ability to honor the mandate of God in Nu. 36:5-13. Christians, different than the Hebrews also, are not required to. The former circumvent and twist/molest the written Scriptures, claiming a matrilineal law. This was discussed in chapter I. Disregard of God’s commandments and changing his laws bring a curse upon the world. Disregarding God’s sexual and marital commandments has been a plague to nations. Defilement will eventually bring great judgment (Isa. 24) upon the Earth.

The second law era was Deuteronomy through Malachi. The modern “Jewish” recognize the second law era remarriage law of Dt. 24:1-3, and remarry without regarding the commandments of Jesus Christ. However, Christians recognize the New Testament era reproof and rejection of remarriage by the Lord Jesus Christ (Mt. 5.32, Mt. 19.9). The latter hold remarriage as adultery. It seems the NWO and anti-Christian elite have followed and promoted the ill sexual effect upon civilization of the modern “Jewish”, and even many Christians have been deceived and deluded by not understanding the commandments, eras and eschatology as well.

The New Testament is the third era, following the end of the second law era. It is a fulfillment of the law era. The modern “Jewish” do not recognize the Lord Jesus Christ as the future prophet (Dt. 18.15-19) mentioned by Moses in the second law era. Therefore, all of their study including the Talmud is in disbelief and not of faith. Some of their studies may seem very beautiful using great tools of language: Hebrew and Aramaic, but if you leave Jesus Christ out of the Bible, you cannot follow God. You cannot become a full, new creature (Gal. 6.15-16). Remember, the modern Jewish are not the same genealogical (Nu. 36.5-13) and genetic people as the Old Testament Hebrews, and their cultist, “Jewish”-Gentile (Luke 21.24) lack of Hebrew genealogical-racial values are evident.

Dt. 24:4 declares a return divorced and remarried wife is an abomination before the Lord

Thou shalt not cause the land to sin

Such a return marriage of a defiled woman would destroy the community. It would destroy the lives of the children. Many children reflect the dehabilitating, curse of their erring parent of defilement through uncountable attempts of recovery from drunkenness, eventual body chemistry change with drug and alcohol addiction, and a way of finding temporary peace that does not fulfill.

Other manifestations of biblical ignorance and traumatic sin appear. Serial killers and warmongers at one time did not have the desire to kill. Thieves at one time did not have the desire to steal. Bad habits are learned. The sexual defilement psychological and marital destruction effect throws the child from an acceptable life he once knew.

Such afflicted children with some proper guidance may have avoided and never fell into such consequential horrors such as inflicting evil upon others. Perhaps, they could have developed into lawyers, scientists or even local church officials instead, but those victims without any good and reliable parental examples and help are very susceptible to divert from the proper way.

Nevertheless, they bear accountability in heaven for their negligence to overcome and make amends, self-afflictions, wrongs to themselves, family and society. The land and community become haunted with guilt of abomination without repentance and separation of the return defiled-wife. The US, in its beginning, had laws that forbade adultery.

It seems the perpetrators of defilement many times attempt their adventure of lust and family destruction without regard for others, and have no remorse for their deeds and assault against the institution of God (Ephesians 5:25). They completely ignore that the marriage institution is related to the mystery of Christ and the church. They smite the righteous endeavor of a faithful marriage by taking advantage of the vulnerable and driving their fleshly desire dagger into the lives not only of a parent who needed encouragement but also an innocent family. Their wounds affect several generations and extend unto many people.

Unfortunately, the unlearned and perverted of the confused, heretical church lack the qualified leadership and moral ability to help or edify themselves, let alone the state. Consequentially, the state does not have the biblical and intellectual, status quo ability to be effective when a democracy of perverted people elect perverted officials to penalize the perpetrators of defilement. They are so perverted and afar from the right way, they don’t know how to explain perversion, let alone penalize it. The remaining individual, and victim, is left alone to the Scriptures for direction. God help us.

King David of Israel could no longer sleep with his defiled concubines

King David could not have sex with his defiled concubines (a fulfilled prophecy of Nathan the prophet) after the treachery of Absalom (2 Samuel 12.11, 2 Samuel 16.22); they lived as widows (2 Samuel 20.3). A woman who divorces her husband and remarries to another man becomes an adulteress (Mark 10:12). She would be a defiled woman even to her second man whether he recognizes it or not. Then, after becoming a remarried woman and no longer chaste, and not being satisfied with her consequent man, if she leaves him also and re-unites with her first man it would be an abomination.

Defilement destroys marriage

If she became defiled by her second man and rejected him, she certainly could not become undefiled by leaving him. She could properly stop a defiled relationship by separating from him, but she could never restore her chastity. Her unchastity—a state of defilement that she should have been taught to avoid (Titus 2:3-5)—would be a physical and spiritual disgrace that she would have to live with for the rest of her life. It would be impossible for her to restore her marriage with her first man. Even though she may vainly go through a legal proceeding for marriage or not to be re-united with him, it would constitute an abomination and cause the land to sin (Dt. 24.4).

Defiled women properly live as widows (without any bed partner)

King David could not have sex with his defiled concubines (a fulfilled prophecy of Nathan the prophet) after the treachery of Absalom (2 Samuel 12.11, 2 Samuel 16.22); they lived as widows (2 Samuel 20.3).

Two ways at looking at living together without promiscuity

There are different ways of looking at living together. Today, many people live together and sin because they are not intending to be husband and wife for God but are promiscuous. They are merely satisfying their fleshly desires. They may not even have been virgins before their relationship, and that would definitely cause a problem or reason to annul a marriage for the female (Mt. 19.9, Mt. 5.32), and bring reproach so as to prevent the male from becoming an official of a local church.

Non-promiscuity

However, on the other hand, Adam and Eve lived together. They did not sin. As a matter in fact, Jesus Christ referred to their marriage as an example for all. For one, they were pure, both were virgins. They never divorced. Their marital lives were transparent and approved of God.

Legitimacy and remedy of marrying a virgin after a one night stand

Regardless, when the law of Moses came into effect, couples who possessed eligibility to marry and who lay down/slept or lived together were expected to make a public covenant of marriage by the male parent of the girl publicly permitting and officiating the wedlock. The groom was never allowed to divorce her. (Dt. 22.19) So, a chaste female who had no other sexual relationships with any other men and lived together with a man through a one night/day stand was demanded and given the opportunity to legitimatize it.

Christian marriages must be based on purity and transparency as Jesus demonstrated in Mt. 19:9. The women are required to be virgins as the dowry wives and the husband must never divorce her under her chaste circumstances.

Jesus Christ reproved the remarriage law but not the prevention of abomination law

Women who were not virgins could even marry under the redaction of Moses (Dt. 24.1-3) and to depart from that contract of wedlock required a document to be in writing and given to the girl. However, she could not make her former family an abomination by returning to an ex-husband after marrying another man. (Dt. 24.4)

Old Testament pre-marital sex remedy: rules so as to take a chaste wife after sleeping with her

Women under the Old Testament law were under the subjection of the male parent so as to give her to the man she slept with. They were dowry wives. Before they were given in marriage, they had to be virgins before they slept with the man, whether he raped, seduced or consented with her to have sex. Women that were not virgins and slept with a man and claimed that she was previously chaste but lied and was found guilty before a court were put to death for folly, at least in a case of consent. Chastity was a requirement for marriage whether a woman slept with a man (Mt. 19.9) before or after a marriage ceremony.

So, it seems, it is not the act of living together that makes a continuous sin (although the first sex encounter may have begun with a sin), it is the process of choosing a sexual relationship without reverence toward God and fulfilling his purity laws as the dowry wives and their marriages. We have many married people today living together in fornication or adultery, disregarding chastity, and purity, but nevertheless they are merely legally, not biblically, married. God will judge such. (Hebrews 13.4) State laws and biblical laws are not the same thing. Marriage must be established upon the premise of virgin purity and God's written word.

Don't listen to men; let the Scriptures be your guide

Christians are following a myth if they think many of the former well-knowns were on target with the Scripture as to the aspect of biblical marriage. Adultery is a ground for annulment and divorce. However, forgiveness and non-defilement must be part of making things right afterward: it causes the land to sin when a man sleeps with his adulterous wife. People have to forgive if they want to be forgiven, but a man should never accept an unclean or defiled wife back. It would be an abomination.  (Dt. 24.4)

King David could not sleep with his former concubines after Absalom slept with them. Adultery was a death penalty sin in the Old Covenant. The adulterer and adulteress both were sentenced to death. (Lev. 20.10) Even as there was a remedy and penalty for folly and before marriage, there was also a remedy and penalty for female illicit sex after marriage. So today, obviously a hidden defilement-act of the wife after marriage would make her unclean and unable to continue a former clean marriage.

The former death penalty “put evil away” and eradicated the uncleanness of female folly of fornication (Dt. 22.21). However, in New Testament times, we are not under the extreme penalty of the Old Testament law but nevertheless the once pure but now defiled marriage after post-marriage female sexual defilement would also have to be dissolved. King David could not have sex with his defiled concubines (a fulfilled prophecy of Nathan the prophet) after the treachery of Absalom (2 Samuel 12.11, 2 Samuel 16.22); they lived as widows (2 Samuel 20.3). Marriage is based upon purity, not secret female promiscuity, open-defilement or remarriage.