Nature, Theology, Law, Prophets and Fulfillment

Nature, Theology, Law, Prophets and Fulfillment

Kenneth W. Billings

February 25, 2026

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 stained 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 cognizances (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 OT. 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 (“Ex-pool attendant details relationship with Falwells” 00:02:39-41).

According to that, 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. (“Fornication And Adultery Difference”, 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 OT. 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 male executing the divorce 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 male doing the divorcing would not be tolerated to marry another due to the expiration of polygamy. He would have to remain single. 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 male executing the divorce, 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 debilitating, 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.

Cognizance factor: purity has no memory of defilement

Two people that join physically but are unclean cannot form a biblical marriage. They can become as one flesh but only in an unclean way. When a cognizant, married woman and a man other than her husband concur this realization of knowing each other in a defiled, pro-creative manner, the woman's mind no longer holds the intellectual purity of knowing only one, living, man anymore.

Penetration of the vagina is an accepted opinion that would determine such defilement; however, actually the issue of discernment of sexual cleanliness bears upon the consciousness of the individuals involved. (Dry sex—no penetration of the vagina but rubbing the external vulva—out of marriage would be filthy but not as intimate. However, it may be enough for a man to refuse a woman. Purity and cleanliness must be stressed.) Her life, psychological and physical state becomes divided (cognizant of two men) and unclean, leaving repentance and a life of sexual singleness as the only peaceful resolve.

“Free to marry” lie

No one is ever allowed to remarry. Remarriage is adultery. The divorced spouse is free to remain single.

Pat Robertson once wrote to me and attempted to falsely convince me of his erring theology. Either Pat didn't understand the verse under discussion and just blurted out something for an explanation or willfully misinterpreted it, I would like to think probably the former.

Realizing his fallacy (Robertson 167-68), I reproved, “I would like you to understand a very important point. On page 167 and 168 you stated that 'if an unbelieving spouse leaves a believer, the believer is not bound to the marriage relationship, but is free to remarry.5' That is a falsehood! It simply is not true. What such a situation does induce is the freedom for the believer to 'remain unmarried' mene'tow a'gamos (1 Cor 7:11, 15).”(Billings)

I want to go into this a little bit. Let’s look at the verses from the critical edition of Brooke Foss Westcott, Fenton John Anthony Hort, Ed text (1 Cor. 7.10-11). I will translate and transliterate parts of the verses:

Paul is strongly giving instructions to “those who have been married”—“ge-ga-may-ko'-seen”, my respective, translation and transliteration (Westcott and Hort, 1 Cor. 7.10), which I would add it translates as though they continue to exist as being married—the verb is a perfect participle. In my paraphrastic form, he says the message is not from himself, “but from the Lord”—“ouk ego' alla' ho ku'rios” (Westcott and Hort, v. 1 Cor. 7.10); “the wife from the husband is not to be separated”—“gunai'ka apo' andro's ma' choristha'nai” (Westcott and Hort, 1 Cor. 7.10), and if she be separated, let her either “abide unmarried”—“mene'to a'gamos” (Westcott and Hort, 1 Cor. 7.11) or “be joined back with the husband”—“to'i andri' katallanga'to….” (Westcott and Hort, 1 Cor. 7.11)

Thus, in case of a separation among the mates there are two choices:

(1) the woman must live separated without marrying anyone else: “mene'to a'gamos” (Westcott and Hort, 1 Cor. 7.11), or

(2) she may be reconciled to her husband, my paraphrastic translation: “be joined back with the husband”—“to'i andri' katallanga'to….” (Westcott and Hort, 1 Cor. 7.11) However, having wisdom and taking thought of the Deuteronomy abomination, there is a danger in separation, because if the woman subsequently commits adultery, then according to Dt. 24:4, she would forfeit her opportunity of reconciliation to her husband due to defilement. Then, after having been defiled, she would have to remain alone at least as long as her husband is alive.

Obviously, followers of Pat’s misinterpretation distort the Scripture as he did: “free to remarry” (Robertson 167-68). The deceased now, great, pioneering, evangelical broadcaster, televangelist, and key political leader failed a very important mission: to teach as the apostles and prophets did (Eph. 2.19-20). According to my translation and transliteration, the Lord said to, “let her abide unmarried”—“mene'to a'gamos” (Westcott and Hort, 1 Cor. 7.11). She must live as a single that is restricted so as not to date or court, different and not as a chaste widow, who could marry again (1 Cor. 7:39). Now as to v. 15,

15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. (1 Cor. 7.15)

Christians are not obligated to call the police and have them to bring back the spouse who left. The police may not have the right to do so anyway. A marriage relationship is not in control of any one person. The one-flesh (Gen. 2.24) and submissive nature of a woman (Eph. 5:24)  symbolically portrayed as the church is to Jesus Christ narrative can be broken when a disobedient spouse rebels.

According to Paul’s thought (1 Cor. 7.12), we can differentiate between the Lord speaking (1 Cor. 7.10) and himself, nevertheless, the believer is “not under bondage in such cases” (1 Cor. 7.15). He or she is free to let the unhappy ex-mate leave. So, if he or she allows the departure without any anxiety and is at rest, which God “called us to peace” (1 Cor. 7.15), he or she has done nothing wrong. However, the strong announcement as to the Lord’s command in verses 10 and 11 must be obeyed: as explained above, the separated person (she) must abide unmarried, “mene'to a'gamos” (Westcott and Hort, 1 Cor. 7.11).

When people look unto men instead of the Scriptures, they are putting their eternity at risk! Perverts and leaders that are not concerned about the souls of others do not tell their associates that marital purity is a necessity, contrarily, they even lead them into fornication and adultery. To be safe, don't accept the message of unworthy ministers. Learn to respect only the Scriptures for marital-purity authority. To develop your understanding to a higher level than the norm, you may also have to look at varying texts. Nevertheless, the KJV and many other versions are good starters for English speaking people.

The perfect marriage ceremony

Concluding, make marriage pure and keep it that way

Marriage is an institution of God (Eph. 5.25) and monogamy is a divine, institution of the church. Both institutions are in process of fulfillment during a pure wedding. At least four people: Two guarantors and the marrying couple.

I would prescribe things to assure purity and be simple: One guarantor (the daughter's father or guardian) say, “I give this bride in respect of chastity according to Ex. 22 and Dt. 22” Another (the son's father or guardian) say, “I give this groom in respect of monogamy: I Cor. 7:27 and I Timothy. 3:12), and that he has no obligations to any former virgins. You will be joined together at consummation (Gen. 2.24).”

Or,

I would prescribe things to assure purity and be simple: One guarantor (the virgin daughter's father or guardian) say, “I give this bride in respect of chastity and that she is not as ‘the whore in her father’s house’ in Dt. 22:21.” Another (the son's father or guardian) say, “I give this groom in respect of monogamy: 1 Cor. 7:27 and 1 Ti. 3:12, and that he has no pre-marital sex obligations to any former virgins. You will be joined together at consummation (Gen. 2.24).”

However, in the case of a previous virgin consummation fulfilled as a one-night stand and remedy with continuation of no-promiscuity, the same guarantees and recognitions with an alternative declaration of marriage: “You have been joined together” (Gen. 2.24).

Old people wedding ceremony

This would require the love (Ephesians 5.25) and purity tenets as well. In case there was a former obligating issue(s) for the male, or fornication or adultery issue(s) for the female, the former sexual partner could not be alive else there would be an invalidating, cognizance factor. Also, both participants would have to be very wise to provide evidence of chastity because it would be very difficult for aged people to prove their sexual purity to one another.

Proper desire

Sometimes, obviously, by all the illegitimate, fornication and remarriages we see in erring so called church gatherings, it is trying to figure how to live without being tempted to date or be married. However, God gives peace to those wanting to serve him, so a desire for a mate is really not of importance under times one must be single or is in question of a prospect. Think toward good desires, not those that lead to sin. Sin and crime must be prevented at all costs.

Background checks are a necessity

Therefore, for a male, in the case he cannot be reconciled to a former virgin and realizes only the death of the former sex partner would set him free (Rom. 7.3) so he can marry someone else, it is much better to wait than to take things unjustly into his own hands by going against God's direction for marriage.

King David made a horrible decision and paid tremendously for it by trying to circumvent the adultery law and having the husband of Bathsheba killed (manslaughter). Also, nevertheless, it is good for the one that can't marry someone else to abide his (or her) discontinuation or separation and learn to love his current life and forced singleness, even as virgins willfully do.

Building marriage and community

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, 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)

Keeping marital unity in faithfulness

Once the marriage is established and the one flesh becomes a narrative instead of the way a single person might live, the couple needs to maintain a love relationship and tweak it when problems arise when both members don't fully agree how to deal with them. They must remember their gift (1 Cor. 7:7) and blessing from the Lord and that they have a hierarchy to follow: “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).

Loving and caring is a pleasant mode of living

Marriage can not only get out of hand between husband and wife, but with the children. Therefore, love must be the means to teach and direct (Titus 2.4, KJV) the wife and children.

Whipping a child may be permitted according to the theology of some; however, if this is the case, it should be done in love and to prevent the young one from doing something that could hurt himself or herself much more. Nevertheless, it should never be done in a hateful or brutal way.

In my opinion, after a young one is old enough to understand through talking and listening, then the parental dependence on the obedience or failure thereof should not invoke punishment through physical means such as whipping. The same goes for anyone in the family of age to understand, that includes the wife. So, wife-beating and abuse is never acceptable, and divorce can easily be prevented and should never be necessary.

Remember, dowry brides (chaste women) in the first, second and fulfillment of the law eras were never to be divorced. The only thing that could destroy that pure and loyal relationship and institution was unfaithfulness and betrayal or assault from an enemy of purity—adulterer (when separation may be necessary: physical acts brought harsh repercussions as mentioned in Leviticus 20:10, whereas those of the mental type as mentioned in Mt. 5:28 did not physically involve another person).

Therefore, when reward or lack of reward (2 Cor. 5.10) is necessary, as God will judge us, it should be noticeable through love. Terror of the Lord (2 Cor. 5.11) is also noticed among Christians and a child should have the respect and proper fear not to displease his parent, knowing there will be a cost for not doing something right. A child can recognize love, and on the other hand, disappointment or a disciplinary rule (perhaps only temporary) of the parent demonstrating loss to the child. So with the wife. Discipline and future obedience can be taught and expected through reason, gentleness and love. Enabling of sin or discouragement of righteousness should be avoided.

The Christian community

The community must be built upon knowledge and virtue. Christian friends are members and they should have a respect for God's love and needed discipline. When children of good parents seek a mate of equal yoke, it should be easy for a relationship to be established through the parents (men who are able to be qualified guarantors) of both children if they decide to marry. Love can be multiplied through husband and wife, and community.

Need for Bible study

Therefore, our men and women should be knowledgeable of God's law even as the mother of seven (King James Version Apocrypha, 2 Maccabees 7.20-23), who realized the peace of Hebrew apartheid (racial and cultural dominance), and was mentioned in regard of her respect for God’s laws. (You can see online texts if you don’t have one.) She taught her children how not to be defiled and how to obey God in the second law era that she lived in.

Great and faithful people in the second-law era became Christians at the time of Jesus and learned things of higher and fulfilling moral standard of the New Covenant. They realized the great change that the Lord Jesus Christ brought even upon the fulfillment of observance of days and cleansing as to edible foods and eating habits (Romans 14.4-6). We must not be anti-social toward our greater family and white (Japhethic) peoples but rather able to give them hope in salvation and homogeneity so as they may be able to live in a Christian culture of their own and not be intruded upon by other races and cultures, especially due to they are anti-Christian when they reject the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God.

Sanctification and warring chaos

There are many people who call themselves Christians but are not living sanctified lives. They live in fornication and sexual uncleanliness. A man that marries an unchaste woman commits such uncleanliness and experiences defilement. God cannot sanctify fornication.

In order to resolve this problem in a sanctified manner, the husband should separate from the unclean woman and annul his illegitimate marriage. The woman should not date or marry anyone else after the annulment.

Sanctification requires faith and repentance of a former sin

The Apostle Paul delivered Christians to be killed before his conversion. He was not as a wicked murderer killing, knowing his actions are wrong, for reason of insanity, vocal demonic influence, pleasure, gain and out of selfish rage; he thought he was obeying God by continuing in the former covenant and law (Old Testament teachings) so as to abolish anything contradicting the commandments he knew to be correct. His non-acceptance of Jesus and defiance of the New Covenant coming into effect eventually led to his meeting the Lord (Acts 9.1-17) in a divine and miraculous experience on the road to Damascus: “light shined about him” (v. 3), he “heard a voice” (v. 4), and “was three days without sight” (v. 9), saw a vision (v. 12), arose being blind, and received his sight back (v. 18) through the laying of hands upon him by a Christian named Ananias. This led to him receiving the Holy Ghost (v. 17), and he was baptized (v. 18).  Paul is a great example of a man experiencing conviction and complete repentance—a 180 degree turn-around. As you may read in the book Acts of the Apostles (KJV), he experienced a great revelation of Christ, and after going into Arabia and returning into Damascus, studying the Scriptures for three and a half years (Gal. 1.15:18), he became a great Christian apostle, prophet and teacher.

After his spiritual re-birth, the Apostle Paul never condoned his former sins of ignorance, such as blasphemy (1 Ti. 1.13), as the modern, defilement preachers tolerate remarriage and unclean marriage. His life proved his repentance. He proved his realization that remarriage was no longer valid in the New Covenant, the fulfillment era, as it was in the Old Covenant, second law era (Dt. 24.1-3). You may see his theological change in thought due to the reproof of Jesus Christ as to the Old Testament law, especially in his own instruction to the Corinthians (1 Cor., chapter 7).

He served God in love of Christians and self-denial even at the cost of suffering from his previous associates, the Pharisees. Let all who name Christ live Godly lives and let not fornication or defilement be named once among you, including the abomination and uncleanness mentioned in Dt. 24:4.

 “For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,”  (Mark 7:21).

 “But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;” (Ephesians 5.3)

 “And lest, when I come again, my God will humble me among you, and that I shall bewail many which have sinned already, and have not repented of the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness which they have committed.” (2 Corinthians 12.21)

Don't even associate or eat with people who ignore God's commandments and live in uncleanness such as many heretics have condoned and promoted.

“But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.” (1 Corinthians 5.11)

If you have been misled, get healed from this perversion. The next one of these monstrous, deceivers ask you for a donation, instead of supplying him money to pay the bills on his mansion and promoting his sexual devastation upon innocent victims among others, send him a rebuke such as, “Get behind me Satan; get behind me fake.” Have no more association with the works of darkness. Thank you.

Polygamy: former covenant

Men used to be able to own or possess more than one wife. “If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.” (Exodus 21.10) The Hebrews could purchase daughters from one another. If the purchased Hebrew woman became a wife to the purchaser or his son, she was provided food, raiment and marriage duties (sex and having children) in the case that her husband took another wife. She wasn't allowed to be disregarded as to the necessities and natural blessings of life.

Multiplication of children and family growth was encouraged and expected in the Old Covenant. For instance, God explicitly encouraged polygamy when he gave king David his master’s wives. However, singleness (without carefulness for a wife) and spiritual concern became more important in the New Covenant. Other than celibacy, such as the way the Apostle Paul lived (1 Cor. 7.7-8), monogamy and one wife became the rule for deacons (1 Ti. 3.12).

Polygamy is not adultery and was even encouraged by God

God gave King David Saul’s wives. The king of Israel, David, one of God's great men of the Old Testament, was a holy man, preciously beloved of the Lord. He had several wives: this was a common characteristic (Ex. 21.10) among some of the spiritual leaders of the Old Testament.

The Lord was with David and blessed him in the days of his innocence (even as a polygamist); but when the valiant, young leader committed adultery (lying with another's wife) with Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah, it was accounted as sin unto him. David had despised the commandment of the Lord and had done evil in His sight. The prophet of the Lord said,

 7 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; 8 And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things. (2 Sa. 12.7-9)

Notice, the Lord gave him his master’s wives (v. 8). Polygamy was a gift from God in the Old Testament, first and second law eras. This changed in the following, fulfillment era of the NT.

Monogamy was instituted by the church in the New Covenant

The spiritual leaders of the New Testament had one wife at most, and those, such as the Apostle Paul, chose to live single lives.

One wife requirement of a deacon

“Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.” (1 Ti. 3.12) Polygamy was a practice during the eras of the first and second law (Deuteronomy). However, at the time of the reproof of the redaction (Deuteronomy 24.1-3) of Moses by the Lord Jesus, he referred to the monogamy of Adam and Eve (Mark 10.6) as an original, good and acceptable example of marriage, which consisted of unity, purity and integrity. Hence, it seems followers of Jesus and teachers of the church recognized a monogamous and better way for their men to exemplify the restoration of the monogamous institution of marriage and fulfillment of the law in their personal lives. None of the early church officials were noted as having more than one wife, nor as antagonists against the reproof against polygamy.

The deacon is a servant/minister of the local church and relatively under the theological authority of the overseer. Marriage is related to the mystery of Christ and the church. God loved and provided for the church with purity. The office of a deacon is for a family man, seemingly not a bachelor or even a married man without children. A deacon must be married, “ruling their children and their own houses well” (1 Ti. 3.12), and not a polygamist or remarried—he would be without disqualifying immorality complaint from even outside the church if he were a virgin before his marriage. So, in my opinion, as to a case similar to a man marrying a woman and divorcing her due to her immorality (Mt. 19:9), the deacon  must not be a man of a previous sexual experience even if it was not marriage. Church officials must be without reproach (1 Ti. 3:7) from those who do not know God as well as those within the church.

He must have a well-controlled family including a clean (not defiled) wife and orderly children. Society looks upon such men and their close relatives for an example how their own families should live. Ministers of the church are as stars in the dark sky, they give light and direction to those who can’t see spiritually.

The terrible, unclean condition of our churches today

The best way that I can think of to establish clean churches is to ask impure ministers to resign, and then re-fill their positions with Godly men with qualifications and who honor God and his local community church standards. Of course as the rejects and heretics err so as to continue their own way, they nor their followers will not probably take heed and repent, so we Christians may have to start fresh with new officials, members and a new local building, homes or tent. (The first gatherings of the apostles were in homes. Oh, by the way, Christians must never go into debt (Dt. 15.6) to build a church, nor get involved in interest-earning schemes.)

We must establish pure ministers and communities that seek marital purity in order to raise the children to be sexually clean, so as they can have ministerial and parental example to honorably marry and have the sexual cleanliness attribute themselves to serve as ministers in the house of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Ti. 3.15). We can give background checks for males and females.

Celibacy (1 Cor. 7.1, 7.7, 32-38)

“For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.” (1 Cor. 7.7)

 “But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:” (1 Cor. 7.32)

The Shepherd of Hermas: righteous gender bias

The Shepherd of Hermas (a non-canonical book) reveals contradiction of non-acceptance of a defiled wife (Dt. 24.4), passive infidelity and negligence of chastity promotion. (Hermas, Mand. 4, 1[29]:4-8)

Mandate 4, 1[29]:4-8 contradicts Dt. 24:4 by erroneously promoting tolerance of defilement. It is abomination and causes the land to sin. The non-return law was not reproved by Jesus Christ as the former three verses (so, we can accept it as valid today) and exposes early century egalitarianism and marital defilement:

“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 way treachery of a marital situation is resolved may not be implemented according to post-early church heresy nor gainsaying and man-made, philosophy of the modern, heretical congregations. It is not an equal matter for a defiled female helpmate as it is with a man to be restored to a family relationship. The Biblical perspective upon divorce and re-uniting upon defiled circumstances is gender-biased.

For instance, in the Old Testament, males were allowed to be polygamous (Ex. 21.10). The men could have many wives, even if the women were previously divorced and remarried (Dt. 24.1-3). However, if one of them became defiled afterward and during the marriage, the innocent man could no longer have clean sex with her. King David could not go to bed 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).

Nevertheless, women were not allowed to be polygamous as men; in fact, the woman would have been considered an adulteress if she married another man at the same time her first husband was living, and both the male and the married female would have been condemned to death for even having sex with one another (Dt. 22:22).

Non-acceptance of return defiled-wife (Dt. 24.4)

In our modern day, due to the biblical gender bias, men who have fornicated or committed adultery and repented may perhaps be re-united with a former, clean wife, but on the other hand, a defiled, former chaste wife would not be acceptable to a clean man and family. He would have to put her away for the sake of cleanliness of marital morality (no nakedness or uncleanness, Dt. 23.14), but remain single. In Mt. 19:9, Jesus Christ himself implied that the one who suffers for the sake of immorality has the right to divorce and put his unclean woman away. Logically, there would also be no condemnation toward a man putting away an adulterous (and unclean) wife either. Both, a woman of betrothal fornication as mentioned in Mt. 19:9, and a woman of secret (Nu. 5:29-31) defilement and especially much more, a woman who has openly remarried similar to the case of Dt. 24:4, and then left and returned to a former husband would defile the whole home and land if not divorced/put away. The women who lived as widows of David (2 Samuel 20.3) were victims, they received a more amicable separation (passive divorce) than women who willfully self-afflicted themselves with adultery and received the death penalty (complete and permanent separation).

The Shepherd of Hermas, Translated by J. B. Lightfoot, Mandate 4

1[29]:4 I say to him, “Sir, permit me to ask thee a few more questions” “Say on,” saith he. “Sir,” say I, “if a man who has a wife that is faithful in the Lord detect her in adultery, doth the husband sin in living with her?”

1[29]:5 “So long as he is ignorant,” saith he, “he sinneth not; but if the husband know of her sin, and the wife repent not, but continue in her fornication, and her husband live with her, he makes himself responsible for her sin and an accomplice in her adultery.”

1[29]:6 “What then, Sir,” say I, “shall the husband do, if the wife continue in this case?” “Let him divorce her,” saith he, “and let the husband abide alone: but if after divorcing his wife he shall marry another, he likewise committeth adultery.”

1[29]:7 “If then, Sir,” say I, “after the wife is divorced, she repent and desire to return to her own husband, shall she not be received?”

1[29]:8 “Certainly,” saith he, “if the husband receiveth her not, he sinneth and bringeth great sin upon himself; nay, one who hath sinned and repented must be received, yet not often; for there is but one repentance for the servants of God. For the sake of her repentance therefore the husband ought not to marry. This is the manner of acting enjoined on husband and wife. (Hermas, Mand. 4, 1[29]:4-8)

In 1[29]:4 (Hermas, Mand. 4), the translation uses the word “adultery”, but in 1[29]:5 (Hermas, Mand. 4) it seems the word “fornication” is used as a synonym and an expansion of the word adultery, going beyond but including specific adultery. However, if a married woman has sex with a man, it is specifically post-marital defilement, so we can look at the situation as that, and certainly not think of it as an instance of betrothal fornication as mentioned in Mt. 19:9. Concluding such, we must assume the wife was formerly chaste and had consummation with the husband at one time, and then, later had a sexual affair with someone, committing the mentioned “adultery” in 1[29]:4, (Hermas, Mand. 4). Therefore, this circumstance in our era of fulfillment of the law, no longer in the second era (Dt. 24.1-3), would leave the betrayed husband with no opportunity to marry another as a man could who betrothed a defiled woman as mentioned in Mt. 19:9, a situation wherein a clean marriage could not be established in the first place.

However, as to 1[29]:5 (Hermas, Mand. 4), in the case of the man being cognizant of his wife's affair and still living with her, his passivity is rightfully not condoned but condemned, “... he makes himself responsible for her sin and an accomplice in her adultery.” (1[29]:5, Hermas, Mand. 4)

Now, a big question arises in 1[29]:7 (Hermas, Mand. 4) as to repentance of the said “adulteress”, as mentioned above (1[29]:4-5, Hermas, Mand. 4), and her wanting to return to the husband. This situation is similar to the remarried woman of Dt. 24:4 returning to her former husband and both the husband and the wife making an abomination and causing the land to sin. It seems the question should have been answered as such and not have gone any further. Although in Jeremiah 3:1, God shows his erring people that he has greater ability to forgive and accept than his sinful people did, and Jesus Christ himself taught that fornication (not having chastity—Mt. 19.9) was a valid reason for a man to put away a woman he wanted to have as a wife. The Apostle Paul makes the sexual and physical cleanliness virtue clear by denouncing (1 Cor. 6.15) the uniting with a harlot, not having chastity. God forbid! Even though the word “repent” is mentioned in 1[29]:7 (Hermas, Mand. 4), would not have the woman of Dt. 24:4 also have repented before she wanted to come back to her former husband? Change of heart cannot restore a sexual, physical catastrophe, especially when is it forbidden by biblical law.

So now, back to the verse in Jer. 3:1, it is reinforcing the idea of pollution concerning a woman's defilement and her moral ineligibility to return to a husband afterward. This example demonstrates how filthy (after being defiled due to chasing after other gods) the people of God were in his eyes. Nevertheless, He is still pleading unto them to repent and return to Him. Repentance, forgiveness and acceptance unto God should always be a goal or at least on the mind of a sinner. His sinful people were not reprobate as a homosexual corrupted and given over by God to a point beyond the ability to repent (Romans 1.28) and He could still reach them, if only they would listen.

Nevertheless, the hope that God's call for his people to come unto him should never be misconstrued so as to destroy or make void his law and commandments. If a married woman has been defiled, she should seek forgiveness and acceptance from God of course, and recovery from her defilement act of adultery or fornication, but she absolutely must not go back and make the situation worse through returning to a former husband (Dt. 24.4). This would pollute the whole house, the husband, the children and the defiled woman. It would cause the land to sin, it would give rise for the community to err in other ways. She should not be like the heathen of Africa and South America, who do not understand God's sanctity laws and pollute their families, communities and land through polyandry and fornication. God's marital law, sexual purity and its fulfillment must be obeyed.

Therefore, it seems singleness after marriage is the only resolve once post-marriage female defilement occurs. God can still accept the repentance of a single, defiled woman, but if she ignores His law of sanctity and non-return restoration (Dt 24.4), she would not be truly repenting. Adultery and fornication has its costs, and damage control is necessary for reason of family sanctity. Considering such, we must conclude a defiled post-marriage wife must repent and turn to God, but remain single.

My friend, do not learn the ways of the heathen (Jer. 10). Do not accept the allowance-heresy of the return of a defiled wife to a husband (misconstrued as “forgiveness grounds”), or any other uncleanness. We live in a depraved world and must meet people that are heretics and do not have Christian cultures. There are many erring ministers and deviates among the so-called Christian religions that attempt to deceive even the elect Christian! We must be forgiving but stand against marital defilement and uncleanness as well as nudity and nakedness. God did not annul or negate his holy thought against nakedness (Gen. 3.7-21, Dt. 23) and he did not annul or negate the law of Moses, Dt. 24.4.

Understanding the law and prophets

We must not stop here as to wondering about the truthfulness and authority of the post-early church writing. In 1[29]:8 (Hermas, Mand. 4), let's look at this part closely, “For the sake of her repentance therefore the husband ought not to marry.” In Mt. 19:9, Jesus Christ seemingly would allow a man to marry another who found a brothel wife to be defiled and he would not be committing the sin of adultery against her. However, that was the only exception he gave. He did not give an exception for a man married to a dowry or chaste wife to marry another—remarry, even though his first marriage wife became defiled, and whether she repented or not from her defilement sin. He explained that as adultery (Mt. 19:9).

Neither did Jesus say that the disappointed husband of a post-marriage defiled wife must allow her to return if she repents. He reproved Moses and Dt. 24:1-3, but he did not repeal Dt. 24:4. I think we may see and accept that a man has a responsibility and obligation not to receive a woman guilty as mentioned of the return-defilement (Dt. 24:4). It could not produce a clean marriage nor should we condone post-marriage immorality but we should be without sexual uncleanliness as King David (2 Samuel 20.3), and even think to avoid any form of immorality similarly as that in which Jesus did not condone the marriage and defilement with a rejected betrothal wife (Mt. 19:9).

                                      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_7.xhtml

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

Alphabetical Index

Cognizance factor: purity has no memory of defilement        15

early sexual immorality discussion       

The Shepherd of Hermas        26

law of jealousies       

Nu. 5.29-31        5

non-return of defiled wife       

Dt. 24.4        5

non-virgin penalized with death for attempting to marry as a dowry wife       

forbidden sexual fraud in Israel       

Dt. 22.20-21        2

penalty for making false accusation against virgin after marriage       

divorce was not permitted ever       

Dt. 22. 18-19        1

Polygamy       

God encouraged it in the OT., not in the NT       

Ex. 21.10        23

Rahab the harlot became a woman of faith       

Hebrews 11.31        7

rape       

Marriage remedy       

Dt. 22.28-29        2

repentance of uncleanness, fornication and lasciviousness       

2 Corinthians 12.21        22

second law era       

proof (cloth) of female virginity and bleeding to satisfy purity concept for marriage       

Dt. 22.13-17        1

The perfect marriage ceremony        17

“Free to marry” lie        15

Citations: Greek And Hebrew

Westcott and Hort, 1 Cor. 7.11        16

Westcott and Hort, 1 Cor. 7.11        17