Nature, Theology, Law, Prophets and Fulfillment

Nature, Theology, Law, Prophets and Fulfillment

Kenneth W. Billings

February 25, 2026

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. Cognizance factor and carnal knowledge of two living persons is division within the mind, body and soul, not purity. 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.

                                      Works Cited: Chapter I-IX

“Democracy, n.” The Oxford Universal Dictionary, 3rd ed., Oxford University Press, 1955.

“Ex-pool attendant details relationship with Falwells”, YouTube, uploaded by, CNN, Aug. 29, 2020,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXUgE4sEAXI&t=15s. 09:13

“Ezekiel 38 Genetics and Genealogy Study: Henry Gruver's Implied Biological Misinference”,

YouTube, uploaded by, hesedken, Oct. 3, 2012, https://www.youtube.com/watchv=iYQHljg1GjU. 0:40

“Fornication And Adultery Difference”, YouTube, uploaded by, hesedken, Oct. 15, 2025,

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/o2l39tM-CoU. 02:03

“Is Pat Robertson a false prophet? 'Mitt Romney will win the presidential election!'”, YouTube,

uploaded by, Larry Robinson, Nov. 9, 2012,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6xBo9EijIQ&t=73s. 1:30

“Israel in the New Testament - Part 1 – Matthew”, YouTube, uploaded by David Pawson

Official, 18 Feb. 2014, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uf8SukPc-a8. 1:03:33

“The 10 Lost Tribes Of Israel Explained”, YouTube,

uploaded by, The 700 Club, Apr. 5, 2024,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dGBs6g8GrU&t=2s. 2:25

Billings, Kenneth W. "Heresy Letter-pg 11", hesedken,

www.hesedken.com/clubsite/heres-11.html, Accessed 14 Jun. 2026.

Brenton, Lancelot C. L. The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament. Published in 1982 by

Zondervan, 1971.

Copeland, Kenneth, “Delight in the Good Life”, Kenneth Copeland Ministries, kcm.org,

Accessed on Jan. 18, 2013, https://www.kcm.org/real-help/article/delight-good-life

Duduman, Dumitru. “The Message For America”, Dreams and Visions From God , Hand of

Help, Inc., 1996 (First edition listed as 1994) Michael Boldea, Hand of Help Ministries

handofhelp.com, https://handofhelp.com/vision_1.php

Accessed Apr., 12, 2026

Farnsworth, Lawrence A. Dictators and Democrats. 1941, p. 68. Quoted in “Benito Mussolini,

Wikiquote, 15 Nov. 2008, en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini.

Hermas. The Shepherd of Hermas. Translated by J.B. Lightfoot, Early Christian Writings, 2001,

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/shepherd-lightfoot.html. Accessed 24 Sept. 2013

State of Israel. Law of Return (Amendment No. 2), 5730-1970. Passed by the Knesset on

2nd Adar Bet, 5730 (10 Mar. 1970). Knesset,

main.knesset.gov.il/EN/about/history/documents/kns7_return_eng.pdf.

Lincoln, Abraham. Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Volume 3 [Aug. 21, 1858-Mar. 4,

1860]. Rutgers University Press, 1953. University of Michigan Library Digital Collections.

https://name.umdl.umich.edu/lincoln3 Accessed April 26, 2026.

Lincoln, Abraham. Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Vol. 5 [Oct. 24, 1861-Dec. 12, 1862].

Rutgers University Press, 1953. University of Michigan Library Digital Collections,

quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/lincoln5. Accessed April 26, 2026.

Robertson, Pat. Answers to 200 of Life's Most Probing Questions. n.d.

The Apocrypha: King James Version. Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1995, p. 1 Mac 2:1–4.

The Greek New Testament. Edited by Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort,

Harper & Brothers, 1881. Perseus Digital Library, Tufts University,

http://data.perseus.org/texts/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0031.tlg001.perseus-grc1, Accessed 4 April

2026.

The Holy Bible: King James Version. Electronic ed. of the 1769 edition of the 1611 Authorized

Version., Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1995.

Unicode/XML Leningrad Codex: UXLC 2.5 (Build 27.6). Tanach.us Inc., Apr. 2026, tanach.us/.

Back To Source Page

Next chapter: https://hesedken.com/complete_book_by_chapters/chapter_3.xhtml

Free book page: https://hesedken.com/free_book.html

Alphabetical Index

Abomination of living with return divorced and remarried wife       

Dt. 24:4        9

Adam and Eve marital purity       

No uncleanness, no divorce       

Mark 10:6        7

Adultery       

explanation       

Mt. 5.32, Mt. 19.9        1

coming of the expected prophet: Jesus Christ       

Acts 3.18-24        2

correlation with Dt. 24:1-3       

divorce       

Mt. 19:9        6

defiled women living separated: as widows       

2 Samuel 20.3        10

different from the second giving of the law by Moses       

NT reproof and repeal by Jesus Christ       

first giving of the law        1

discrepancy between early Greek text       

Mt. 19:9 (KJV)        4

dissatisfactory women       

unclean       

Dt. 24.1-3        6

divorce       

Hardness of heart       

Mark 10.2-5        7

divorce and remarriage law       

Dt. 24:1-3        1

divorce papers necessary for remarriage in OT.       

Dt. 24.1-3        4

early Greek text, "another" woman, not particularly a divorcee as the KJV       

Mt 19:9        5

ervat davar       

matter of uncleanliness       

Dt. 23.15        6

Dt. 24.1        6

eternity: extends toward opposite directions       

God has been from everlasting and will continue for ever       

Psalm 90.2        2

Psalm 90.2        2

exception phrase allows divorce from woman of fornication       

Mt. 19.9        4

female promiscuity prevents a legitimate marriage       

Exception phrase (Mt. 19.9)        4

Female uncleanness that cannot be restored requires separation       

2 Samuel 20.3        9

form of fornication       

lesbianism        5

Jerusalem and Gentiles       

Luke 21.24        2

lack of virginity, folly of fornication and attempting to marry       

death penalty       

Dt. 22.21        6

legitimate marriage (Mt. 5.32, 19.9)       

A promiscuous woman cannot form a       

the man is not bound        5

my sermon, "Illusion"       

biblical principles of marital unity and separation law        8

no discrepancy between KJV and early Greek text       

Mt. 5.32        5

Open defilement       

adultery       

John 8.4        8

OT. divorce law       

Dt. 24.1        6

pertains to a female divorcee       

KJV, Mt. 19.9        5

pertains to another woman, not necessarily a divorcee as the KJV says       

Westcott and Hort, Mt. 19.9        5

prophesied new covenant       

Je. 31.31        6

protection of virginity among God's people       

Dt. 22.13-21, 28, 29        3

repeal of former, OT. divorce and remarriage law       

Mt. 19.7-8        3

secret defilement       

law of jealousies       

Nu. 5.29-31        8

thought of thinking Mary was a woman of fornication by Joseph was reproved by an angel       

Mt. 1.19        5

two distinct acts       

1 putting away, 2 marrying another       

Adultery        8

Adultery        8

Unbelief and theological failure of the "Jewish"       

Dt. 18.15-19        2

when to remain single       

1 Cor. 7.27        9

whoremongering condemned       

Eph. 5:5        4

woman       

another        4

Citations: Greek And Hebrew

Brenton Septuagint, Dt.        1

Unicode/XML Leningrad Codex, Joshua 8.32        1

Unicode/XML Leningrad Codex, Dt. 1.1        1

Westcott and Hort, Matt. 19.9        4

Westcott and Hort, Mt. 19.9        4

Westcott and Hort, Mt. 19.9        5

Westcott and Hort, Mt. 19.9        5

Westcott and Hort, Mt. 5.32        5

Unicode/XML Leningrad Codex, Dt. 23.15        6