Why Marital-Cleanliness Transparency Is Needed Among Ministers
And Members Of The Church

I do not hate the Amish people but I love them enough to get resources in place to help my people., Jun 30, 2021, Eli Yoder

Eli Yoder left the Amish community and says he was saved afterward. He divorced a cultural marriage wife or wife of fornication. The 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.

A defiled woman of fornication as such, 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, 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 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 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.

9 “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”¹

⁹λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην μοιχᾶται.²

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, whoever “divorces” 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 amd 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” another woman. It seems to me, I suppose we can assume the first part of the compound predicate, "divorces", 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 I Cor. 7:27, 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.

Nevertheless, Eli Yoder never had a betrothal or chaste wife so his first marriage was not a biblical marriage to begin with according to his life history narration. His relationship with a woman of fornication prevented a biblical marriage with her, so putting her away was actually righteous so as to stop a fornication relationship, not putting away an unclean betrothal wife as may be inferred in Mt. 19:9. So, at this point of annulling the fornication, he was delivering himself and his former partner of a sin of immorality. Under such circumstances, he could not cause her to commit adultery (Mt. 5:32) because she was not a real wife, not joined by God to him. May she find enlightenment, contrition, hope and repentance, and peace, amen.

However, then, he eventually married another woman. Eli never explained his second marriage circumstances. In order for a man who calls himself a Christian to preach and expose the sexual sins of others, it is necessary to look into his second marriage to see whether it has been made under biblical principles (considering his first marriage may have been mere fornication and not a biblical marriage, which would have required a virgin or chaste widow for the spouse). So, I questioned Eli, and here is the gist of the questions:

In order for me to be able to verify a person as a faithful brother through marriage of a second wife, I would have to know some things about him: his first wife, second wife and himself. 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 rather than a mere cultural marriage. Second, was his second wife a virgin? If she was, then that would comply with Ex. 22 and Dt. 22. However, if she wasn't, what would make her any different than the case with the first wife, a woman of fornication? Third, has he any obligations to any former virgins. 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. 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. (See the KayyPeaa page.) 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.

Eli did not answer my questions. He was not transparent about his second marriage. Therefore, I have reason to challenge him and demand proof that he is not breaking any laws of the bible. However, as long as he remains silent, he is like the Amish bishops and deacons whom Eli scorns because they cover-up their sins. There isn't any difference in his silence and theirs.

Albeit, I believe he has had an experience with Jesus. He has been studying the bible and also exposing sins of the Amish community, especially sexual immorality and abuse. Around June 30, 2021, Eli Yoder made a video (above). I had made some comments to Eli. One of them was, “At about 6 minutes and 50 seconds you say you weren't sexually abused, but actually you were sexually abused when you married your first wife in fornication. Your divorce seems to have been legitimate. However, you haven't been transparent about your second marriage, so we are left in doubt about it. All morality is important, including approved marriages. On the other hand, you have done a good job on exposing many things that need to be ecclesiastically and legally addressed.” In order for his second wife to be biblically marriable, she would have to have been a virgin or chaste widow, not another wife of fornication. “But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;” (Ephesians 5:3 KJV) Also, Eli would have to have been obligation-free concerning any other virgins.

Then, one of the watchers and antagonists against me who commented on the video posts, Emmi B, replied,

How was he sexually abused when he was married? And, he doesn't keep it a secret regarding his second marriage...but through all of this , it is my understanding -- he was not a born again Christian -- Remember 'all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God"....none of us are perfect and we can't change the past .... but we can change the future :-)

Well, to answer her question, he admitted that his wife was not chaste and that in itself proves he should never have had sex with her. It was fornication according to him and fornication is a form of sexual immorality and abuse to one's body. The body is to be holy. It is a temple. So, I replied to her:

In order for me to be able to verify a person as a faithful brother through marriage of a second wife, I would have to know some things about him: his first wife, second wife and himself. 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 rather than a mere cultural marriage. Second, was his second wife a virgin? If she was, then that would comply with Ex. 22 and Dt. 22. However, if she wasn't, what would make her any different than the case with the first wife? Third, has he any obligations to any former virgins. If the answer is yes, and the former defiled virgin is still living, it would be considered polygamous by nature to remarry (marry again... considering a marriage bond has already been created), and would cause the former defiled virgin problems to restore her relationship with him. 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.

Then, seeming to be disturbed by what I said, Emmi B replied,

all those questions are none of your business as a total stranger to him!

I responded back formerly mispelling the name Meyer,

Purity is God's business and also a Christian's. Many wayward bishops and deacons would try to cover up immorality but it is my job and others to be transparent about pure marriage. If a person has a marriage that is not pure, he should not cover it up; he should resolve the problem even if it means divorce. Joel might disagree with me, Joyce Meyer would disagree but that merely shows me they don't really follow God and purity. In order for me to be able to verify a person as a faithful brother through marriage of a second wife, I would have to know some things about him: his first wife, second wife and himself. 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 rather than a mere cultural marriage. Second, was his second wife a virgin? If she was, then that would comply with Ex. 22 and Dt. 22. However, if she wasn't, what would make her any different than the case with the first wife? Third, has he any obligations to any former virgins. If the answer is yes, and the former defiled virgin is still living, it would be considered polygamous by nature to remarry (marry again... considering a marriage bond has already been created), and would cause the former defiled virgin problems to restore her relationship with him. 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. God gave us the law to correct murderers, fornicators, adulterers... any thing against sound doctrine. (I Timothy 1:8)

It seems she never intended to check and see if Exodus 22 and Deuteronomy 22, which I had mentioned, had anything to do with my reasoning and questioning of Eli Yoder. It is illusory to think marriage is instituted by mere contract! Marriage is a physical sex act between a virgin female and a male (Ex. 22:16, Dt. 22:13-21, 28, 29)--biblical revelation. 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 (I Cor. 7:27). 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. In an anti-Berean manner and distrust she replied,

do you really think I am going to read your comment -- especially without you sharing about your past history just as you expect Eli to share?

I have never been married and divorced. So, when I thought about what she said, it lit me up with anger at least a little bit. Then I thought it out and decided to continue to reach her despite her seemingly arrogant and hard attitude toward me. I said to her,

I live a clean life; have no wife or girlfriends. That's transparent... does not break any biblical laws. Can you say the same? As I said earlier, "A little leaven leavens the whole... all Christians must get rid of evil in their congregations. Background checks must be made to approve whether a marriage is biblical or not.”

A couple hours later she responded,

the only one who has walked this earth and has never broken any biblical law is Jesus .... everyone else is a sinner -- and has broken each of the Ten Commandments .... All have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God...

Evidently, Emmi B is ignoring present sin and seemingly okay-ing it by false justification that all have sinned at one time or another. However, my argument with Eli and her is concerning the present. Sin in the present must be repented of as well as sin of the past. God forgives sin through true contrition, confession and repentance, but he will judge (Hebrews 13:4) on-going sin. That is why church administrations, officers and the brotherhood have a duty to see that members are abiding within biblical laws, not man's hedonistic humanitarianism and irreligious dogma. Therefore, I replied to her,

Sounds like you are making an excuse. If you have a sin of immorality, you should repent of it and live without it.

She didn't tell me her personal circumstances but she never in the least replied directly back either. I hope Eli will see the need to be transparent and others also. Deceived Christians need to get out of the false church deception. Fornication can't become marriage in our modern, New Testament era. The female prerequisite for marriage has been (Ex. 22, Dt. 22) and still is virginity. In order for things to get better about abuse, it must start with the house of God and it must start with using the Old Testament law as our teacher and the supplement of the New Testament concerning discerning marriage validity or fornication/whoremongering: “8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; 9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a 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, which was committed to my trust.” (I Timothy 1, KJV) May God bless all who love him in sincerity, amen.