Non-canonical Books:
Contradiction of Non-acceptance of a Defiled Wife (Dt. 24:4)

Note: Passive Infidelity and Negligence of Chastity Promotion

Mandate 4 contradicts Dt. 24:4 by erroneously promoting tolerance of defilement. See this site and my John Piper reproof on abomination.

Early Century Egalitarianism Failure Exposed

⁴ 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. ¹

The way treachery of a marital situation is resolved may not be implemented according to post-early church heresy nor gainsaying and man-made, egalitarian, philosophy of the modern, heretical congregations. It is not an equal matter for a 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. The men could have many wives. However, if they became defiled, the innocent man could no longer have clean sex with them. 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; 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).

In our modern day, due to the 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 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, 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 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.

Taken from the webpage http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/shepherd-lightfoot.html on Sept. 24, 2013

In 1[29]:4, the translation uses the word “adultery”, but in 1[29]:5 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 we look at the situation as that, and certainly not think of it as an instance of betrothal fornication as mention 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” (1[29]:4). Therefore, this circumstance 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, 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.”

Now, a big question arises in 1[29]:7 as to repentance of the said “adulteress” (as mentioned above) 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, 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 (I Cor. 6:15) the uniting with a harlot, not having chastity. God forbid! Even though the word “repent” is mentioned in 1[29]:7, would not have the woman of Dt. 24:4 also have repented before she wanted to come back to her former husband?

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 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 or fornication, but she 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. 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 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, 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 obligation), 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 stand against marital defilement and uncleanness as well as nudity and nakedness. God did not annul or negate his holy law against nakedness and he did not annul or negate Dt. 24.4.

We must not stop here as to wondering about the truthfulness and authority of the writing. In 1[29]:8, 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 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. 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 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.

Links:

Purity and Male-partner Cognizance Factor

(Updated: July 29, 2025)