Marriage From The Beginning

MARRIAGE FROM THE BEGINNING
By Joe McClure, 70 Cherry Drive, Madison, WV 25130; Phone:304-369-4805; email: joedrema@gmail.com

Dear reader, please read this with your Bible open to the selected passages that we shall study in this book. I shall prove by God’s Word that the covenant of Jesus Christ forbids having a second spouse while the first one is living. The law of Christ does not teach that one may divorce and remarry, for any cause. This topic should be quite easy to understand, except for the vast amount of false teaching and generally the acceptance of this false doctrine by the masses. So, please bear with me in reading a vast amount of scriptures in your own search for the truth. If all would rightly understand how to divide the teaching of Jesus which dealt with the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ, it would be much easier to discuss this topic. The law of Moses was in existence during the days preceding the death of Christ, and it is on this thought that we begin this study.

CHAPTER 1.
Jesus KEPT THE LAW OF Moses
Text: Matthew 5.17-20

In the first part of our study, we find Jesus on the mountain overlooking the Sea of Galilee. Here he is giving instructions to his disciples, among which we find the 12 Apostles.
In context, Jesus has been teaching what is commonly referred to as the beatitudes or the blessings taught by Jesus.
Our study about marriage has its origin in the following text:

Matthew 5:17-20-- Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. [18] For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. [19] Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. [20] For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

In this text, the overall thought is to assure the listeners that Jesus has not come to teach anything that will cause them to go against the teachings of Moses and the prophets.
It may have appeared to the common man that the teachings of Jesus were different than the Law of Moses because they had not been taught the truth of the Law.
They had been taught the oral tradition of the elders, which in many cases distorted the true meaning of the Law.
On one occasion, we see Jesus speaking to the religious leaders of the day and we see that he was at odds with the common definition of righteousness by the Pharisees.

Mark 7:6-9-- He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. [7] Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. [8] For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. [9] And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

For this reason many thought that Jesus blasphemed the Law of Moses because he stood boldly against the respected teachers of the temple and the synagogues.
I want to pay attention to verses 17 and 18 first.

Matthew 5:17-18--Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. [18] For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

If Jesus did not come to destroy the law and the prophets, why did he come?

What was the purpose of the life of Jesus the Christ?
The purpose of Jesus, at the time of our text here in Matthew 5, that is during the days before his death, was to teach the Jews that they had been following the traditions of their fathers instead of the truth of the Law of Moses.
Regardless of which law was in effect, the purpose of Jesus was to teach the truth.
Notice what Jesus told Pilate just before his death.
John 18:37--Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
All of the other statements that a person could make about the purpose of Jesus centers around this single fact.
Notice what Jesus said about the truth in John 8.32.
John 8:32-- And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
If a person knows the truth that the gospel of Jesus Christ teaches, then they can be redeemed from their sins.
So, we might state that the mission of Jesus was to save those who are lost.
Luke 19:10-- For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.
The Apostle Paul said that Jesus came into the world to save sinners.
1 Timothy 1:15--This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
So, we could state that the purpose of Jesus was to save the lost or sinners.
It had been prophesied in connection with the coming of Christ that all nations would be saved. Under the government of the Law of Moses, this was not true. Those who were not of Jewish descent were not ministered to with the truth.
So, as Jesus looks forward in time to the event that happened on the 1st Day of Pentecost after his death, burial, and resurrection, he began to preach the kingdom of Christ.
Mark 1:14-15-- 14 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, 15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

We see in this passage the Jesus says that it is almost time for the coming of the kingdom of God.
In connection with the coming of the kingdom, he tells them to repent and believe the gospel.
So, we could say that the purpose of Jesus was to preach the coming of his kingdom.
Regardless of how you might state the mission of Jesus, it was his purpose to share his knowledge of the truth of God that has the power to save the lost and has the power to put them into a saved state in the kingdom of Jesus Christ.
In view of these thoughts, let us look at our text verse in Matthew 5.17-18.
Matthew 5:17-18--Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. [18] For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
If Jesus did not come to the earth to destroy the Law of Moses or the writings of the Prophets, and he came to fulfill, what did he come to fulfill?
Not a single thing of the Law of Moses would lose its power until Jesus fulfilled the law and what the prophets foretold of the coming Messiah and his kingdom.
The fulfilling of the ancient prophecies is another whole series of sermons that I have preached before, but for the sake of explanation, I want to notice what the Apostle Peter preached after the Day of Pentecost and the beginning of the church and kingdom of Christ.
Acts 3:18-26-- But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled. [19] Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; [20] And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: [21] Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. [22] For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. [23] And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people. [24] Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days. [25] Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. [26] Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.
The gospel was preached on the Day of Pentecost and Peter and the other apostles told them to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of their sins, and that they would receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
When they obeyed Peter and were baptized, they were actually obeying the Law and the prophets that foretold this day and the coming of a new covenant.
Jeremiah 31.31> 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.
That day came on the Day of Pentecost as recorded in Acts 2.
Paul said that his preaching was in perfect agreement with the Law of Moses.
Romans 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
How is this possible?
We no longer are under the Laws of the 10 commandments or any of the laws of the 1st covenant, but Paul said that the faith in Jesus Christ established the law.
As we have seen, a person could not be obedient to the 1st Covenant or Law of Moses after the establishment of the kingdom of Christ without being added to the church of Christ.
Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
Faith in the teachings of the Apostles regarding the gospel of Christ was the result or end of the law as far as the definition of what was right.
The Law of Moses, when obeyed by the Jews, would lead them to the point that they would accept Jesus as their Messiah, as the Christ.
Galatians 3.24--24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
So then, not one little word or letter or even the dot over the letter 'i', or the crossing of the letter 't' will be deleted or put away until everything has been fulfilled.
Now, turn back to the text that we are studying and we will look at verse 19 next.
Matthew 5.19--19. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
There is an error being made by some of the church of Christ preachers today. They are preaching that there were times in the teaching of Christ that he taught things that contradicted the Law of Moses.
By reading Matthew 5.19, we should be able to understand that Jesus is saying here that it is wrong to either break the Law of Moses and it is certainly wrong to teach other folks that they might break the commandments of the Law of Moses.
If our understanding of Matthew 5.19 is correct, then we should not be able to find any one single incidence of a time where Jesus spoke contrary to the Law of Moses.
If we can find a teaching of Jesus before he died on the cross that is contrary to the Law of Moses, then our understanding of Matthew 5.19 must not be correct.
I want to look briefly at some of the passages that critics quote that deny the truth of our understanding of Matthew 5.19. Most of them exist right here in the sermon on the mount.
For Jesus to state that these Jewish disciples were to keep the Law of Moses, would he then have continued to teach them to disobey that same law?
Our next verse states that the disciples of Christ that are with him that day must be more righteous than the scribes and the Pharisees.
Matthew 5.20--For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Why?
Why did they have to be more righteous than the scribes and Pharisees, who were regarded as the religious leaders of their day?
Jesus did not have any problem with the portion of the Law that they did teach correctly, but he condemned the scribes and Pharisees for being hypocritical. They went beyond their authority.
Matthew 23:23-28-- 23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. 24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. 25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. 26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also. 27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. 28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
You can see why Jesus wanted his disciples to be more righteous than the scribes and the Pharisees!
He did not want his disciples to just appear to be righteous, he wanted them to be righteous in their hearts.
1John 3:18-- My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.
As we return to our text, Jesus begins now to renounce the lies that had been preached about the law of God.
After he tells them what they have heard that the law of God says, then he will tell them what the truth of the law rightfully included.
The Pharisees were preaching many additions that had been made by man as truth.
Jesus is not going to disagree with the Law of Moses, but he is going to disagree with the teachings of the scribes and Pharisees on matters of tradition.
I want you to begin studying these sayings of Jesus and see if the teachings of Jesus agreed with the Law of Moses.
We will look at most of the scriptures left in this sermon on the mount, but I want to give you one good example before we leave the lesson for today.
Matthew 5.38-39--38. Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39. But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
This is something that most people believe that the Law of Moses taught; that is, that it was justified for a man to take vengeance upon his neighbor.
Let us look at this and see if the Jews were allowed to take and eye for an eye.
Does Jesus teach the Jews here to do something different than the Law of Moses commands?
We must go back to the law of Moses to see what it taught.
First of all, we see that God's law set up judges over the people to determine judgment in all cases.
Deuteronomy 16:18-19---Judges and officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates, which the LORD thy God giveth thee, throughout thy tribes: and they shall judge the people with just judgment. [19] Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons, neither take a gift: for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous.
According to the Law of Moses, they were to choose men to be judges and officers of the law to deal with any conflict or controversy between men.
Deuteronomy 25:1-3-- If there be a controversy between men, and they come unto judgment, that the judges may judge them; then they shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked. [2] And it shall be, if the wicked man be worthy to be beaten, that the judge shall cause him to lie down, and to be beaten before his face, according to his fault, by a certain number. [3] Forty stripes he may give him, and not exceed: lest, if he should exceed, and beat him above these with many stripes, then thy brother should seem vile unto thee.
It was not that there would not be any retribution at all, but if so, it would not be decided by the individual, but by the judges.
The Law of Moses forbade personal retaliation.
According to his wisdom, God did not want the judgment to rest in the hands of an individual, and we continue to see the wisdom of that today in our court system.
Now, let us go to the specific law that Jesus refers to about an eye for an eye.
The common understanding of the Law of Moses was misunderstood and all that Jesus is doing is returning them to the original truth.
Exodus 21:22-25--If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. [23] And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, [24] Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, [25] Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
So we see that Jesus is in agreement with the Law here. If the judges ruled an eye for eye, then the sentence was to be carried out.
The individual was not allowed to take an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth.
The individual was not instructed to take out his own vengeance, but rather go to the officers of the law.
Proverbs 20:22--Say not thou, I will recompense evil; but wait on the LORD, and he shall save thee.
This is just one of the examples that we will consider and at the end of the day, we will see that the fact stands that Jesus did not teach any of his disciples to disobey the law of Moses, nor did he disobey the law of Moses.

CHAPTER 2.
LAW OF MOSES, OR THE LAW OF CHRIST?
There is a school of thought in existence today that teaches that Jesus contradicted the teachings of the Law of Moses during his Sermon on the Mount.
For centuries, the church of Christ taught that, by rightly dividing the Word of truth that the church must understand which side of the cross of Christ that the scripture was spoken.
For many centuries, our brethren taught that those things that Jesus taught in the days, before his death on the cross, agreed with the Law of Moses, and those things taught by Jesus and his Apostles after he arose from the dead were included in the Law of Christ.
In this chapter, I hope to examine some of the teachings that we find in the Sermon on the Mount, contained partly in Matthew 5, and put them to a test.
We wish to examine these sayings of Jesus and see if we can prove which school of thought is true.
As we continue our study, I want you to ask yourself this question--Should the church of Christ obey everything that Jesus taught during his ministry on earth?
We will begin our study today in Matthew 5.21.
Matthew 5.21-26à 21. Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: 22. But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. 23. Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; 24. Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. 25. Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. 26. Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.
I want you to notice in the passage two important parts.
· In verse 21, Jesus said, 'Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time'.
· In verse 22, Jesus said, 'But I say unto you'.

By using the word "But", preachers and teachers today are saying that Jesus is giving his future law to the church of Christ in this and all of the other passages like this one from the sermon on the mount.
They say that in the first part, Jesus is saying that they have heard a teaching from the Law of Moses.
Then they say that Jesus in the 2nd part is in disagreement with the Law of Moses on the subject under consideration.
Further, they say that Jesus goes on to teach them the better way of the coming law of the church.
Today I hope to show you the discrepancy of this line of reasoning, with several examples. Our chosen text of Matthew 5.21 speaks of killing.
Matthew 5:21--Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
The Law of Moses does teach that it was wrong to murder.
The commandment not to murder was one of the 10 Commandments given to Moses.
Exodus 20:13--Thou shalt not kill.
If a man violated this law, he was in danger of the judgment.
The word 'judgment' could mean the final, eternal judgment of God, but I believe that Jesus is simply referring to the judgment of the Sanhedrin Court, the Jewish system of punishing the one found guilty.
Leviticus 24:17-- And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death.
So, we have now seen the law of God regarding murder and the judgment for the violation of that law.
But, there was more to be considered than simply bringing a person to judgment for killing another person.
Numbers 35:16-34--And if he smite him with an instrument of iron, so that he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death. [17] And if he smite him with throwing a stone, wherewith he may die, and he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death. [18] Or if he smite him with an hand weapon of wood, wherewith he may die, and he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death. [19] The revenger of blood himself shall slay the murderer: when he meeteth him, he shall slay him. [20] But if he thrust him of hatred, or hurl at him by laying of wait, that he die; [21] Or in enmity smite him with his hand, that he die: he that smote him shall surely be put to death; for he is a murderer: the revenger of blood shall slay the murderer, when he meeteth him. [22] But if he thrust him suddenly without enmity, or have cast upon him any thing without laying of wait, [23] Or with any stone, wherewith a man may die, seeing him not, and cast it upon him, that he die, and was not his enemy, neither sought his harm: [24] Then the congregation shall judge between the slayer and the revenger of blood according to these judgments: [25] And the congregation shall deliver the slayer out of the hand of the revenger of blood, and the congregation shall restore him to the city of his refuge, whither he was fled: and he shall abide in it unto the death of the high priest, which was anointed with the holy oil. [26] But if the slayer shall at any time come without the border of the city of his refuge, whither he was fled; [27] And the revenger of blood find him without the borders of the city of his refuge, and the revenger of blood kill the slayer; he shall not be guilty of blood: [28] Because he should have remained in the city of his refuge until the death of the high priest: but after the death of the high priest the slayer shall return into the land of his possession. [29] So these things shall be for a statute of judgment unto you throughout your generations in all your dwellings. [30] Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death by the mouth of witnesses: but one witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die. [31] Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death: but he shall be surely put to death. [32] And ye shall take no satisfaction for him that is fled to the city of his refuge, that he should come again to dwell in the land, until the death of the priest. [33] So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are: for blood it defileth the land: and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it. [34] Defile not therefore the land which ye shall inhabit, wherein I dwell: for I the LORD dwell among the children of Israel.
This is just a portion of God’s law dealing with killing, and as you see, this passage deals with murder. This law demands that the blood of the murderer be shed to cleanse the land of the blood of the one who was murdered.
The Law of Moses also required at least 2 witnesses to the murder in order to convict.
There were other cases, in which a person might be killed, and not be described as ‘murder’.
THE ACCIDENTAL DEATH:
The Law of Moses would not bring the judgment of death upon a person if he accidentally killed his neighbor, or if there were not at least 2 witnesses to the killing.
LAW OF MOSES ALLOWED KILLING:
SENTENCE OF DEATH BY THE COURT:
We see that killing was allowed under the law, if the person was guilty of certain offenses that carried with it the death penalty. The law did not allow for the taking of innocent blood.
SENTENCE OF DEATH BY God:
The Hebrew nation was told by God time and again to go out and kill the enemy of the offending nations.
The people were supposed to stone various offenders of the Law of Moses until they were dead.
Legal killing was not only allowed, but also commanded. What was forbidden was the taking of the law into one’s own hands. The individual was commanded to not kill. The sentence of death could only be carried out after the courts ruled on the evidence.
Leviticus 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I [am] the LORD.
The murderer was to be killed, but this was not innocent blood.
Deuteronomy 19:10-13-- That innocent blood be not shed in thy land, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance, and so blood be upon thee. [11] But if any man hate his neighbour, and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him, and smite him mortally that he die, and fleeth into one of these cities: [12] Then the elders of his city shall send and fetch him thence, and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die. [13] Thine eye shall not pity him, but thou shalt put away the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, that it may go well with thee.
So we see what the Law of Moses taught regarding those who committed murder.
Jesus was in total agreement with the Law of Moses in regard to the law that forbade the murder of an innocent person.
Jesus recognized it as one of the commandments of the Law of Moses specifically in his discussion with the rich young ruler.
Matthew 19:16-19-- And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? [17] And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. [18] He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, [19] Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Does it appear from this passage that Jesus was in disagreement with the Law of Moses regarding murder?
If such were the case, then Jesus would not have given the same law to his Apostles to teach to the church of Christ.
The point that I am trying to prove is the false premise of the rule that our brethren are using in the church of Christ today regarding the Sermon on the Mount.
If the rule will not work here in this passage, then how can we trust the rule for the rest of the passages?
The law regarding murder was also one of the Laws of Christ to the Church of Christ because it is one of the laws given to the church of Christ by the Apostles.
The Apostle Paul lists murder as one of the works of the flesh.
Galatians 5:19-21--- Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, [20] Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, [21] Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Now look at the 'but I say unto you' from Jesus in our text passage in Matthew 5.22ff.
Matthew 5.22. But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. 23. Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; 24. Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. 25. Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. 26. Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.
**** Are these things contradictory to the Law of Moses regarding murder and are these things law to the church of Christ today?
Is this statement, by Jesus, that says, ' whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire' in agreement or disagreement with the Law of Moses?
We have already seen that Jesus taught all men to keep the commandment regarding murder.
Now, notice that Jesus is not contradicting the Law of Moses, but is merely stating some additional causes of a person being in danger of judgment.
Jesus states that they knew that if they murdered someone, they were in danger of the judgment, and if they were angry with their brother without just cause, they were in danger of the judgment also.
**These other things that Jesus has to say do not set aside the Law of Moses, nor do they disagree with the law regarding murder.
*Jesus is telling them some additional things that might fall into the same loose category as murder.
Lets look at each of them:
· Angry with brother without a cause
We see in the OT that even though murder was forbidden, it was also forbidden to just imagine evil against one another in their hearts.
Zechariah 8:17-- And let none of you imagine evil in your hearts against his neighbour; and love no false oath: for all these are things that I hate, saith the LORD.
***Is Jesus teaching some new law to the church here or is he just reminding the disciples of an existing teaching of God's law?
Jesus is teaching them from the law and the prophets that, not only is the physical act condemned, but the thoughts of a man's heart can also cause him to appear before the council.
The act of murder begins with a thought.
Notice this passage from the Old Testament.
Proverbs 6:12-19-- A naughty person, a wicked man, walketh with a froward mouth. [13] He winketh with his eyes, he speaketh with his feet, he teacheth with his fingers; [14] Frowardness is in his heart, he deviseth mischief continually; he soweth discord. [15] Therefore shall his calamity come suddenly; suddenly shall he be broken without remedy. [16] These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: [17] A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, [18] An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, [19] A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
Some of our brethren teach that Jesus is giving new law here and that he is teaching his disciples that it is a sin to be angry with their brother. If so, this contradicts what the Apostle Paul said.
Ephesians 4:26-27-- Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath: [27] Neither give place to the devil.
As the Lord said, by the Apostle Paul, we are allowed to be angry. However, we are not to allow our anger to take us on a course of sin.
If a man were angry with his brother without a cause, he would have violated the law of the OT that commanded compassion and mercy and love.
To be angry without a cause would be equal to hating your brother.
Leviticus 19:17-18-- Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. [18] Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.
The Law of Moses already taught that they were not to bear a grudge, but rather they were to love and forgive the trespasses of their neighbors.
***This agrees with the teaching of Jesus in our text verse of Matthew 5.23-24.
Matthew 5.23-24--23. Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; 24. Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.
** This was in total agreement with the Law of Moses.
Leviticus 6:2-6-- 2 If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against the Lord, and lie unto his neighbour in that which was delivered him to keep, or in fellowship, or in a thing taken away by violence, or hath deceived his neighbour; 3 Or have found that which was lost, and lieth concerning it, and sweareth falsely; in any of all these that a man doeth, sinning therein: 4 Then it shall be, because he hath sinned, and is guilty, that he shall restore that which he took violently away, or the thing which he hath deceitfully gotten, or that which was delivered him to keep, or the lost thing which he found, 5 Or all that about which he hath sworn falsely; he shall even restore it in the principal, and shall add the fifth part more thereto, and give it unto him to whom it appertaineth, in the day of his trespass offering. 6 And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the Lord, a ram without blemish out of the flock, with thy estimation, for a trespass offering, unto the priest:
So, we see that to be angry without a cause can mean that we refuse to forgive or to make any attempt at reconciliation with the brother that we are supposed to love.
If you say 'Raca' to your brother, you will be in danger of the council. Jesus uses the word 'Raca' in this verse and it is found nowhere else in the writings about Jesus or in the writings of his Apostles. The word 'Raca' means 'empty one; worthless'. It is thought to be Chaldean in origin or possibly from the Hebrew word 'reyq' which means empty; worthless; vain fellow or man. The Hebrew word 'reyq' is found 10 times in the Old Testament.
The point that Jesus is making is that a man should not use slanderous words against his brother.
First, Jesus says to not be angry without a cause.
There is no reason to stay angry with your brother if you can resolve your differences and you should make an effort to reason out the differences. If you cannot resolve your anger by reasoning with your brother, then you are to forgive him anyway.
Next, Jesus says that you are not to bite at your brother with your tongue.
We find no new law here as we see that Jesus is teaching from the Psalms.
Psalm 15:1-4--LORD, who shall abide in thy tabernacle? who shall dwell in thy holy hill? [2] He that walketh uprightly, and worketh righteousness, and speaketh the truth in his heart. [3] He that backbiteth not with his tongue, nor doeth evil to his neighbour, nor taketh up a reproach against his neighbour. [4] In whose eyes a vile person is contemned; but he honoureth them that fear the LORD. He that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not.
If you call your brother a 'fool', you shall be in danger of hell fire.
The Greek word used by Jesus for 'fool' is 'moros', which means 'dull; stupid; blockhead; absurd; fool; foolish; and foolishness'.
The same condemnation of the law that commanded one not to slander, which we have already considered in the study of 'Raca', applies here as well.
We need to keep in mind all that Jesus has already said.
Jesus said that if they were angry without a cause, they would be in danger of judgment; if they said 'Raca' to their brother, they were in danger of the council and now Jesus uses that word 'but' again.
But if they were to say 'Thou fool', they would be in danger of eternal damnation in the fires of hell.
I am not sure exactly what Jesus is referring to with this statement.
Here is what I do know about what Jesus said; and that is that his statement about the fool is true and agreeable with the Law of Moses.
What is puzzling about the statement is that Jesus called the Pharisees fools after making this statement in his sermon on the mount.
Matthew 23:17-19-- Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold? [18] And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty. [19] Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?
What does this teach us about Matthew 5.22?
First, we know that it was not sinful for Jesus to call the Pharisees fools. Jesus uses the same word ‘moros’ in both passages. We must seek for some agreement of thought between the two passages in question.
Let us notice some of the things that the OT says about fools.
Proverbs 14:2-7-- He that walketh in his uprightness feareth the LORD: but he that is perverse in his ways despiseth him. [3] In the mouth of the foolish is a rod of pride: but the lips of the wise shall preserve them. [4] Where no oxen are, the crib is clean: but much increase is by the strength of the ox. [5] A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies. [6] A scorner seeketh wisdom, and findeth it not: but knowledge is easy unto him that understandeth. [7] Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge.
As the OT Scriptures describe the difference between a foolish and a wise man, it does not appear that it was sinful to identify the fool, but the sin was to persist in the relationship once that it became evident that he had no respect for God or his law. These fools were brothers and they were not to be fellowshipped as brethren once they made it known that they scorned God and his laws.
Proverbs 9:6-8-- Forsake the foolish, and live; and go in the way of understanding. [7] He that reproveth a scorner getteth to himself shame: and he that rebuketh a wicked man getteth himself a blot. [8] Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee.
As I have already stated, I am not sure what Jesus refers to here exactly, but the context may suggest something to us. The clue may be found in Proverbs 9.8, written above, or he may have reference to slander. In either case, one might end up before the courts.
In the context of this verse, Jesus is reminding them of how the Law and the Prophets teach them to not speak evil and to not slander one another. It may be that Jesus refers to a person who judges his brother as a fool without just cause.
This would be the highest form of slander.
Do not offer your gift on the altar until you are reconciled with your brother.
We have looked at this already in the sense that they were to reconcile themselves to their brothers before bringing the trespass offering to the priest in the tabernacle or temple.
Agree with your adversary quickly.
Very quickly we can see 2 things in these verses that do not appear to belong to the kingdom of Christ or to the law of Christ to the church of Christ today.
· We no longer have a Council of 70 elders that rule over the church.
· We no longer bring gifts to the altar.
This fact does not contradict the law against murder, but God knows that all sin begins with the first initial desire in the heart.
Murder originates with an evil desire in your heart against your brother.
Jesus speaks of judgment, the council, and hell fire and in that order.
We have seen that judgment came upon those who defied the Law of Moses, and we understand what hell fire means, but what concerns me in this passage is the mention made of the council and the bringing of the gifts to the altar.
Whether we understand all that Jesus is referring to from the law and the prophets, we can see that he is not giving law to the future church of Christ here in this passage. We no longer bring trespass offerings to the temple.
It is true that the Apostles do teach some of the same principles that are found in the Law of Moses, but that is not sufficient evidence to state that Jesus is teaching new law to the church here in the Sermon on the Mount.
Christ is our sin offering once and for all.
When we sin, we are not in danger of the council of the Sanhedrin court, but rather we are subject to reproof from the church, our brethren, who are commanded to reprove, rebuke, and exhort us and if we fail to heed the teachings of the Apostles to have no company or fellowship with us.
This chapter of our study has established the rule that just because Jesus said, 'But I say unto you' does not mean that he is giving a new law that is contrary to what had already been written in the law and the prophets.

CHAPTER 3.
If you have been wondering what all of this has to do with divorce and remarriage, or the law of Christ concerning marriage, please consider that you should not ever make a decision upon the meaning of a passage of scriptures without studying the surrounding context. I contend that you cannot understand which sayings of Jesus apply to your life today until you have learned to rightly divide the word of truth.
Now, we come to one of the passages in question that speak about ‘putting away’.
Matthew 5:27-32-- Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: [28] But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. [29] And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. [30] And if thy right hand offend thee, cut if off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. [31] It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: [32] But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
We established in our last chapter that just because Jesus says the word 'but' does not mean that he is giving us new law. Hopefully, I can shed some more light on that thought here.
In our last chapter, we saw that Jesus was teaching about some related matters that were in the Law of Moses.
As we consider these teachings of Jesus, one rule must guide our search for understanding what he meant.
The rule is found in Matthew 5.17-19, where he told them not to break the very least of the Laws of Moses and to not teach anyone else to break them. There he said that he came to fulfill the law instead of abolishing it.
To be righteous, let us allow Jesus to say what he means to say and not what we want him to say.
To be righteous, we must not array the scriptures of Matthew 5.17-19 against Matthew 5.27-32 and cause Jesus to contradict himself.
To get around this, the false teachers tell us that Jesus was not teaching anything contrary to the Law of Moses publicly, but was instead teaching his disciples things that would not come into effect until the Day of Pentecost.
This cannot be the case because of the multitude of disciples present to hear the Sermon on the Mount and Jesus taught the same teaching in Matthew 19.9 to the Pharisees.
At any rate, to make such a statement violates Matthew 5.17-19 where Jesus told his disciples that they should not only obey the Law of Moses, but in addition they should not teach anyone else to break the Law of Moses.
As we consider this passage on marriage and divorce, Jesus begins by telling them what had commonly been heard in their learning of the Jewish law and that was the 7th of the 10 commandments given on Mt. Sinai to Moses.
The Lord did not expound to Moses on the 7th Commandment as he did about making graven images or keeping the Sabbath day Holy.
He just simply said, 'Thou shalt not commit adultery.'

BUT I SAY UNTO YOU

MATTHEW 5.28--[28] But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
So let us consider now the nature of the 'but I say unto you' of Jesus in Matthew 5.28.
In this phrase, there are two words that we want to keep in mind as we study for the meaning.
One is 'looketh on' and the other is 'to lust'.
Since Jesus is discussing the 7th Commandment of the 10 Commandments given to Moses on Mt. Sinai, we must turn in the Bible to read the Law of Moses as it was originally given.

Exodus 20:14-17-- Thou shalt not commit adultery. [15] Thou shalt not steal. [16] Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. [17] Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
Here in the Law of Moses, we see that it is commanded specifically not to commit adultery. It is the 7th Commandment.
The exact words of Jesus, as he used them here in Matthew 5.28, are not found here in this passage, but the meaning is found in that passage.
As we saw in our last lesson, when Jesus quoted the Law of Moses and then went on to say 'But I say unto you', he was giving more information that related to that commandment.
In verse 28, Jesus was expounding upon the total process that happens when one sins. The sin under consideration, found in verse 28 is the sin of coveting the neighbor's wife.
Jesus refers to the situation where a man looks on a woman to lust after her.
When a man does look at a woman and lust after her, he is coveting or desiring to have his neighbor's wife.
When a man covet's his neighbor's wife, he is wanting to have sex with his neighbor's wife.
The meaning of the word 'covet' is 'to delight in'.

DAVID

In addition to being a sin, for him to covet his neighbor's wife, the danger is in the next step.
This is what happened to David.
2 Samuel 11:2 And it came to pass in an eveningtide, that David arose from off his bed, and walked upon the roof of the king's house: and from the roof he saw a woman washing herself; and the woman was very beautiful to look upon.
We know what happened next after King David saw the beauty of Bathsheba.
He first committed adultery in his heart and then committed the physical act of sin.
Notice the faithful servant of Job.
Job did not commit adultery in his heart.
He is telling all of the things that he had done good in his service to God and then he tells all of the things that he was sure that he had NOT done against the law of God.
Job 31:1 I made a covenant with mine eyes; why then should I think upon a maid?
In the beginning of this particular passage, Job says that since he already had a wife, what reason or purpose would there be in looking upon another to desire her.
Then a few scriptures later, he points out that he has not coveted his neighbor's wife to lie with her, but he says that if he has, then the judges can condemn him and punish him.
Job 31:9-12-- If mine heart have been deceived by a woman, or if I have laid wait at my neighbour's door; [10] Then let my wife grind unto another, and let others bow down upon her. [11] For this is an heinous crime; yea, it is an iniquity to be punished by the judges. [12] For it is a fire that consumeth to destruction, and would root out all mine increase.
Job understood that if he lusted after his neighbor's wife that it would light a fire that would bring him to destruction.
The rule that we use to determine if we are subject to a law is to study the scriptures and see if the Apostles taught it to the church of Christ.
We can see that the Apostles, also made the same point that Jesus makes here in Matthew 5.27-28, to the church.
It is against the law of Christ to covet or to commit adultery, as well as a lot of other things that were sins during the time of the 1st Covenant.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11-- Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, [10] Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. [11] And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
When the same sin, identified in the Law of Christ, existed in the Law of Moses, and we can learn about those sins from our study of the Old Testament scriptures.
We have seen that the first step in committing adultery is to lust after a woman.
The sin of lust is condemned in the law of Christ as much as in the Law of Moses.
James 1:14-16--But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. [15] Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. [16] Do not err, my beloved brethren.
So the law of Christ teaches us that when we lust after something that is unlawful, that we are in extreme danger of violating the law of Christ by continuing on and giving in to that lust.
There are 2 steps in lust and 3 if we are overcome by lust.
The first is the enticement or the temptation to disobey the laws of God. In this first step, we are just tested.
The 2nd step is our immediate rejection of that temptation or we begin to consider how good it might be to do the sin, or how pleasurable it might be if we did it, or how good it might feel. This is the conception of lust that James talks about; this is when we begin to covet the sinful thing.
If we continue on with our fantasy to its completion, it brings spiritual death to us because we have rejected God. If we do not repent, we then will be lost eternally.
In the Old Testament, King Solomon wrote that the escape from adultery is to always keep the law of God ever present in the heart.
God tells us how to keep our heart from lusting after our neighbor's wife.
Proverbs 6:20-33-- My son, keep thy father's commandment, and forsake not the law of thy mother: [21] Bind them continually upon thine heart, and tie them about thy neck. [22] When thou goest, it shall lead thee; when thou sleepest, it shall keep thee; and when thou awakest, it shall talk with thee. [23] For the commandment is a lamp; and the law is light; and reproofs of instruction are the way of life: [24] To keep thee from the evil woman, from the flattery of the tongue of a strange woman. [25] Lust not after her beauty in thine heart; neither let her take thee with her eyelids. [26] For by means of a whorish woman a man is brought to a piece of bread: and the adulteress will hunt for the precious life. [27] Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned? [28] Can one go upon hot coals, and his feet not be burned? [29] So he that goeth in to his neighbour's wife; whosoever toucheth her shall not be innocent. [30] Men do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry; [31] But if he be found, he shall restore sevenfold; he shall give all the substance of his house. [32] But whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding: he that doeth it destroyeth his own soul. [33] A wound and dishonour shall he get; and his reproach shall not be wiped away.
This is the type of wisdom that Jesus is imparting to his disciples about the law regarding adultery.
He is simply showing them that adultery is a sin, but lust is the first sin of adultery.
Jesus is not teaching new law in this passage regarding adultery.
He is teaching the fulness of the Law of Moses so that they will understand it better.
PLUCK OUT YOUR EYE-CUT OFF YOUR HAND
Notice what Jesus tells them next.
Matthew 5:29-30-- And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. [30] And if thy right hand offend thee, cut if off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

He tells them that it would be better to punch out the eye or cut off the hand that causes the sin in their life than to lose their souls.
· When teaching the word of God, there are some people that will tell you that the commandment of the Lord is just too hard for them to do.
It appears to me that Jesus is telling them that the sin starts with the eye and is completed with the hand.
The lust of the eyes and flesh is also condemned in the law of Christ.
1 John 2:16-17-- For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. [17] And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.
Man could have avoided all sins against the covenant of God from the beginning of time to the end of time if humanity were able to put away the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life.
In the beginning Eve sinned because of the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life.
Genesis 3:6-- And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
Now consider the recommendation of Jesus to those who could not control their eyes desire to sin or the sinful action of the hand.
We have read the account of Matthew and there is a similar occasion recorded by Matthew which also mentions the foot.
Jesus used this same teaching to his disciples on another occasion. On the occasion recorded in chapter 18, Jesus had told them to not offend one of the least of those who were believers in Christ.
Matthew 18. 5-9---5. And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. 6. But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. 7. Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh! 8. Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. 9. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.
I want you to notice that in this account, Jesus said 'woe to that man by whom the offence cometh! Wherefore if thy hand or foot offend thee, cut them off.
It appears here that the hand, the foot, and eye represent the cause of the offences rather than the actual limbs being cut off.
Should you and I, as members of the church of Christ, pluck out our eyes or cut off our hands so that we could stop lusting and sinning?
It is an obvious statement that it would be better to maim our body and go to Heaven than it would be to keep the eye, hand, or foot and go to hell.
From the books of the Old Testament there is no such commandment ever given as a specific commandment, nor in the New Testament.
If Jesus is teaching a lesson here that a person should put away from himself those things, people, or associations that might cause him to stumble; if this is what Jesus is actually teaching in figurative speech, we can see this in the OT.
In the OT we find that the congregation was supposed to stone to death certain sinners who were an abomination to God, such as adulterers and adulteresses, idolaters, such as the time that all of Baal's prophets were killed.
One particular instance that teaches this principle in part can be found in Deuteronomy 13.
The chapter begins by saying that if a prophet or a dreamer of dreams gives a sign and it comes to pass and then tells them to worship false gods, that prophet or dreamer shall be put to death.
In that chapter, if they heard of one of the cities that had quit serving God to worship Baal, and upon searching, it was found to be true, they were to smite them with the sword, to kill all in the city and all the cattle.
I want to read you part of Deuteronomy 13 that illustrates the principle that Jesus teaches here in our text about cutting off a hand or foot or plucking out of the eye.
Deuteronomy 13.6-11-- 6. If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; 7. Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; 8. Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: 9. But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. 10. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. 11. And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you.
I want you to notice who the person was supposed to kill by stoning.
v Brother
v Step-Brother
v Son
v Daughter
v Wife
v Closest Friend
Moses said not to pity the person guilty of enticing secretly another to worship false gods and to not spare or hide the person.
There were many things then, just as there are now that a person could do with the eyes, the hands, the feet, or the tongue that would cause a person to lose his soul.
These people were not the right eye, hand, or foot, but were the closest people to the person that was offended by an enticement to sin; so here we see that they were commanded to put away from themselves those who blasphemed the Word of God.
I do believe that Jesus is speaking in a figurative way here, since we find no evidence in the Law of Moses to indicate that a person was to pluck out their right eye, or to cut off their hand.
We cannot say that this is new law to the church.
The Apostles in the New Testament never taught it.
The word 'offend' refers to 'an occasion or cause of stumbling'.
If we take this passage in the figurative sense, we can see how it would agree with the Law of Moses.
· We should always take a scripture in the literal sense unless it makes no sense that way.
We should consider the context of the passage here and the purpose of the teaching of Jesus. What was the point that Jesus was teaching?
· Jesus is discussing the 7th commandment given and expounding on that law.
He is warning of the dangers that lead up to the actual act of adultery.
· I believe that Jesus is saying to his disciples that they need to do whatever it takes to stop them from sinning.
Was it necessary for them to pluck our their eyes or cut off their hands to prevent them from sinning?
The right eye and the hand is referred to by Jesus here as 'one of thy members’, and so could rightly refer to a person of the congregation that was bringing sin upon Israel and causing others to sin.
This agrees with another statement made by Jesus.
Matthew 16:26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
In the New Testament, Paul refers to the church of Christ as the body of Christ and members in particular.
I Corinthians 12.26-27--26. And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it. [27] Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
The congregation of the Hebrew children was supposed to be one body or nation serving God just like the church of Christ.
Now, as we get ready to study the next passage about divorce, let us keep in mind what we have already learned in this lesson.
Jesus teaches his disciples about the necessity of keeping oneself from sin and the temptations of fleshly lust.
Matthew 5.31-32--[31] It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: [32] But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

We shall see that Jesus is not teaching any new law regarding marriage and divorce to the church of Christ in this passage.
We shall see that no Apostle ever commanded a man to give his wife a writing of divorcement.
We shall prove that Jesus continues to honor his dedication to keep the Law of Moses and to teach the Law of Moses until it was fulfilled, that is until his death, burial, and resurrection and the coming of his church on the Day of Pentecost.
We have already studied the 7th Commandment that was given to Moses to not commit adultery, or to break the marriage ties by having illicit sex with someone other than the mate.

LAW OF DIVORCE IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
Now we will look at the law concerning divorce.
Moses gave the law regarding divorce in Deuteronomy 24.
Deuteronomy 24:1-4-- 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. 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; 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.
Verse 4 of the divorce law says that if she goes to another man, she is defiled to the point that her husband cannot take her back.
With this condemnation, verse 2 is a little confusing in the wording. If we do not understand the entire passage, we will read this part that says 'she may go and be another man's wife' and take the word 'may' as approval on God's part.
God would not approve of her going in to another man than her husband and then say that she was defiled in verse 4. To interpret this passage in this manner is forcing a contradiction on the scriptures.

In the Literal Bible with Strong's definitions, the 2nd verse reads like this: And if she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man's.
The New King James Bible, which is a new widely, accepted version of the Bible reads almost exactly the same way as the literal words read.
[ New King James]
Deuteronomy 24:2 "when she has departed from his house, and goes and becomes another man's wife,
This reading is also found in the Revised Standard and several other newer versions of the scriptures.
By going back to the original language, we can see that verse 2 does not actually disagree with verse 4 at all.
God is not saying that he approves of her going to live with another man.
God has provided a means of divorce so that if she does defile herself by going to live with another man, she will not be stoned to death for the sin of adultery. This law was given because of the hardness of their hearts.
Even without looking at the original Hebrew language, we can still see in the law of divorce in Deuteronomy 24 that a writing of divorcement was allowed by the 1st husband for some uncleanness and because she did not find favour in his eyes.
The Law of Moses does not allow a man to divorce his wife for the cause of fornication, and neither does Matthew 5.32, nor Matthew 19.9.
The Law of Moses does not approve of the separated wife taking a 2nd husband. She is defiled if she does marry again after the divorce.
The Law of Moses does not approve of the 2nd marriage of the wife that is given a divorce, but does not consider her sin one worthy of death.
The Law of Moses does not allow a man to divorce his wife for the cause of adultery.
Consider with me the passage that proves these statements to be true.


Deut. 22:13-22-- 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. [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. [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. [22] If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.
If a man marries a woman and finds that she is not a virgin and it can be proved to be so, then she is guilty of a vile crime in Israel and is to be stoned to death.
In verse 22, we see that if a man is caught sleeping with a married woman, both the man and the woman shall die for their evil sin of adultery.
Matthew 5:[32] But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
There are a couple of ways of seeing that what Jesus said was the Law of Moses.
We have seen that the woman who was found not a virgin when married was stoned to death and how that the adulterer and adulteress were stoned to death.
If the wife is guilty of fornication, the husband will put her away by death and thus she would not be alive to commit fornication.
We have seen in Deuteronomy 24.1-4 the same thing that Jesus says here.
If the husband gives her a writing of divorcement because she finds no favour in his eyes and for some uncleanness, and she goes and becomes another man's wife, she is defiled.
Jesus said that whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
We can understand this passage better if we notice the punctuation used in the writing.
That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: {notice the colon here}
and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
We might also note that in the Law of Moses found in Deuteronomy 24, it was the man who could put away, not the woman. We note that in Matthew 5.32, it was the man only who could put away.
According to the Law of Moses, we could rightly say it this way: Whosoever shall put away his wife causeth her to commit adultery unless he is putting her away because she has committed fornication and in such a case he will not cause her to commit adultery because she will be stoned to death.
We find no such law regarding the death penalty for fornication in the Law of Christ, which is shown in Romans 7 and I Corinthians 7 and in Ephesians 5.
We find that the law of Christ condemns adultery and fornication and says that they are unrighteous and cannot enter the kingdom of Heaven.
So then, if a man or woman has divorced their mate and married again, the Law of Christ condemns them as guilty of adultery.
CHAPTER 4.
FROM THE BEGINNING IT WAS NOT SO
· In the beginning of time, God created man, male and female created he them.
· God intended for a man to have one wife and live with her until one of them died.
God first created Adam from the dust of the earth and saw that there was no animal suited to be a mate for him, so God caused Adam to go into a deep sleep and took a rib from Adam and created his wife and Adam called her Eve, the mother of all living.
Adam said that she was bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh.
Adam could have no more denied Eve than he could have denied himself, as she was of him literally.
God did not create two wives for Adam, nor did he create other women so that Adam could change wives if he got tired of Eve or mad at her. The same is true of Adam. God did not create 2 men so that Eve could cheat on Adam.
They were truly one flesh.
Genesis 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
We have no record of God's law regarding marriage being defiled until Lamech, who took two wives. This happened 6 generations after Adam and Eve.
Genesis 4:19-- And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.
The men of those early days lived 800-900 years old.
I don't know for sure, but I do know that over 1,000 years passed before we have a record of anyone that took 2 wives.
By the time of Noah, the earth was so corrupt and immoral that God had to destroy all but the 8 souls saved by the ark.
The people became so wicked in their adulteries and other sins that God was sorry that he had made mankind.
Genesis 6.2-6—2-- That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 3. And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 4. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. 5. And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6. And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
This covers the period that is called the Anti-diluvium Period before the great flood.
God never intended for man to be sexually immoral and he punished them severely.
Today, the divorce rate is at an all time high percentage and there is a good explanation for the cause of it.
A hundred years ago, divorce in the United States was something that was only heard of among the most degenerate and wicked people.
Today, divorce is not unheard of among the members of those who call themselves Christians.
Ministers and elders of the church are supportive of divorced couples and have separate programs that help them find a suitable mate, so that they can remarry.
Long gone is the pretense that to remarry after a divorce is sinful or in violation of the will of God.
The putting away of one husband or wife and the taking of another is not new in the history of the world. As we see in the Old Testament scriptures, adultery and homosexuality was common at certain periods of man's history.
Only when man, as a society, returns to the will of God do we see the return to the one man and one woman becoming and staying one flesh as in the very beginning.

Just as we have noticed the passages in the book of Genesis, we see that Jesus taught the same truth that Moses revealed in his discussion with the Pharisees as recorded in the gospel of Matthew.
Matthew 19:4-6--= 4) And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5.) And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6) Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Where did Jesus expect that they had read this?
We have already noted this passage from Genesis 2.24 exactly as Jesus refers to it in this passage in Matthew.
PATRIARCHAL LAW:
Jesus refers the Pharisees back to the original law of marriage given in the beginning to the Patriarchs.
Jesus points out to them a commandment that man must not break apart or divorce the man or woman who have been joined together by God.
Mark gives almost the exact same account in Mark 10.
Mark 10.1-6-- 1. And he arose from thence, and cometh into the coasts of Judaea by the farther side of Jordan: and the people resort unto him again; and, as he was wont, he taught them again. 2. And 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. 6. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8. And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. 9. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
I want you to consider some main points that will cause you to question men's teaching on this subject today.
Pharisees asked him a question that he answers in both Matthew 19 and in Mark 10.
Jesus is discussing the then current marriage law of God in existent at that time; not some future laws of prophesy.
Why do the scriptures point out that the question that the Pharisees asked of Jesus was a temptation? How were they tempting him with such a question?
The temptation is: The Pharisees thought that they could get Jesus to say something contrary to the Mosaic Law. If they could get him to teach a marriage law that was contrary or offensive the Mosaic Law, they could accuse him of blaspheming the Law of Moses and use that against him.
· What did the Pharisees ask Jesus? They said,
'is it lawful' or in effect they were saying 'is the law of Moses regarding divorce lawful according to the way you view divorce and remarriage?'
Jesus asked them, 'What did Moses command YOU?'
Here we see that they are still talking about what the Mosaic Law taught about divorce, and to the Pharisees specifically in this passage.
What did the Pharisees think that Moses' Law commanded?
'And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.'
Notice that they do not reveal all of what Moses commanded here.
· In just a little while I will show you exactly what Moses commanded, but it is important that we understand the mind of the Pharisee and what he thought the Law taught.
Who is Jesus speaking to in Mark 10.5, where it says that Jesus answered them and then gives his answer?
He was speaking to the Pharisees.
Is he referring to some future law to the Church of Christ or is he simply answering a question posed to him about the Mosaic Law regarding divorce?
Mark 10. 5. And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
What about the next verse? Is he still talking to the Jew about his Law of Moses?
Here he reminds them of the Patriarchal Law given in the very beginning with the first marriage of Adam and Eve and that applies to all times and is for all marriages.
Mark 10. 6. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8. And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. 9. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
I want you to notice that Jesus does not offend the Law of Moses here. He does not teach a new doctrine here.
He reminds them of the original intent of God in the Garden of Eden and during the Anti-Diluvium Age and the law that God established in the book of Genesis from the very beginning.
This was a law that they recognized as well as the Mosaic Law.
**Now I want you to follow with me as we enter the Christian Age and see what the Apostle Paul had to say about marriage.
Romans 7.1-6-- 1. Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? 2. For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. 3. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. 4. Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. 5. For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. 6. But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter
Who is Paul speaking to in this writing?
Unlike the gospel of Matthew or Mark, which are historical writings that record the various conversations that took place, this is an epistle or letter to the church of Christ. To find out who he is writing to we must go back to the very first chapter.
Romans 1.6-7à6. Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ: 7. To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Paul writes his letter to all of the Christians that are in Rome. There were both Jewish Christians there and Gentile Christians and Gentiles who had converted to Judaism and then obeyed the gospel there. Rome had a population of Jews who had moved there when the Roman Empire took over Palestine. At this writing of Paul, they are still in power and will be for the duration of the writing of all of the New Testament.
What law is Paul referring to?
He is referring to the law of Moses. (for I speak to them that know the law,) In the chapter before this in Romans 6.14-23, Paul pointed out to them that they were no longer bound to obey the law of Moses, but they were not made free from their obligation to be righteous and live moral lives.
What does the Apostle Paul say that the Mosaic Law taught concerning marriage?
Romans 7.2-4à[2.] For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. 3. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
This is the Mosaic Law that Jesus was discussing with the Pharisees in Matthew 19.9 and Mark 10.1-6, and with his disciples in Matthew 5.32.
Did the Apostle Paul believe that under the Law of Moses that a woman could have a husband and be married to another man?
Romans 7.3. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress:
Paul continues on with his teaching to show a figure of the marriage bond representing the legal right to no longer be committed to the Law of Moses and thus allowing them to become committed to the Law of Christ.
Israel was married to the Law of Moses until their death or the death of the Law of Moses.
When Jesus died on the cross of Calvary, he fulfilled the law and the prophets and the Law of Moses was completed.

Colossians 2.10-14--10. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: 11. In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12. Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. 13. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 14. Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
If the Jewish person had forsaken their obedience to the Law of Moses before Jesus died on the cross of Calvary, they would have been committing spiritual adultery.
But, once their husband, the Mosaic Law, died, they could marry a new bridegroom, Jesus Christ.
Romans 7.4-6--4. Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. 5. For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. 6. But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter

Therefore, we see the Apostle Paul using the figure of a perfect marriage and one corrupted and defiled by taking a second husband to point out to the Jews in Rome that their first husband was dead and they could safely be married to Jesus without being an adulteress.
The Apostle Paul did not believe that the law taught that a woman could be married to a second husband after she was put away without committing adultery.
He recognized that marriage to a second husband was only possible if the first husband were dead.
No other reason, except death, is given and we must recognize the inspiration of Paul in this matter. He was an ardent student of Judaism himself, having studying it in school and a disciple of Judaism until he was converted. ( Acts 9.1-19; Acts 22.1-16; Romans 11.1; II Corinthians 12.22; Phil. 3.3-6)
Now that we have seen Paul's understanding of the Law of Moses regarding marriage and he was qualified to do so, let us go back once more to see if we can find agreement between what Paul says and what Jesus has to say about it.
We have already seen in Mark 10 that Jesus is having a discussion with the Pharisees, but that is not the passage that the false teachers turn to and quote.
Look at Matthew 19.
Matthew 19.1-9--1. And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan; 2. And great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there. 3. The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 4. And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5. And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6. Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 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. 9. 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.
Who came tempting Jesus about the law?
Verse 3 says the Pharisees, were the most devout students of the Mosaic Law.
What question do they ask here?
They said, “Is it lawful to put away a wife for every cause?”
Jesus does not teach contrary to the Law of Moses with his answer. He answers by asking them a question at the first. He said, have ye not read [Gen. 2.24] that they are one flesh and that man should not divide or divorce that which God has put together?
The phrase 'joined together' in the Greek means 'yoked together in marriage'.
Matthew 19.7. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
The Pharisees understood the marriage law which had been from the beginning and they had read Genesis 2 and knew its meaning.
Remember that they are tempting him to give a new law that would be contrary to the Mosaic Law and thus would have grounds to convict him of blasphemy.
Keep in your minds here that Jesus is now getting ready to answer in response to a question of the Law of Moses.
Matthew 19. 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.
· Again he reminds them of the original law of God regarding marriage in Genesis 2. In this period, which preceded His death, Jesus NEVER taught anything contrary to the Mosaic Law.
What was the 'hardness of heart' that Jesus refers to?
Under the Mosaic Law, if he did not like his wife for her cooking, or clothes she wore, or her weight, he could put her out of his house without any divorce and to support herself and her children, she would most likely go and live with another man. When she did that, he had a legal right to accuse her of adultery and have her stoned to death and then he could remarry the woman he has had his eye on without sin.
What the bill of divorcement did was to prevent the injustice of stoning her to death for something that she was forced into and gives her the legal right to take another husband, but not the moral right.
Now is the time to look at that law in the Old Testament.
Deuteronomy 24.1-4 [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. [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; [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.
Verse 4 of the divorce law says that if she goes to another man, she is defiled and an abomination to the Lord.
We saw this in our last lesson on this, that verse 2 seems to contradict verse 4, but if we read it in the literal interpretation of the Greek, we see that God is saying that she may go and be another man's wife in the sense that she might marry again.
The literal translation of Deuteronomy 24.2 says 'And if she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man's.'
God does not approve of her going to live with another man.
God provides a legal way to prevent her death if she chooses to defile herself with another man.
Nowhere does the Law of Moses allow a man to divorce his wife for the cause of fornication. See Deuteronomy 22.13-21 and you will see that the one guilty of fornication was stoned to death.
The Law of Moses does not allow a man to divorce his wife for the cause of adultery. She must be stoned to death.(Deuteronomy 22.22)
Now we come to the scripture that is misused and misinterpreted by most of the church leaders of our day.
Matthew 19.9. 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.
Jesus and Paul are in complete agreement with one another in their understanding of the Law of Marriage from the beginning and as it relates to being righteous as a Jew living under the 1st Covenant or Mosaic Law.
Keep in mind that we have shown that Jesus is answering a question about the Law of Moses that has been put to him by the Pharisees. They asked him why then did Moses give a writing of the bill of divorcement. And we see the answer of Jesus, ending with Matthew 19.9. When he says, 'And I say unto you', the you is the Pharisees. (Matthew 19.3,7)
Did the Law of Moses allow a man to divorce his wife for the cause of fornication? NO. [Deuteronomy 22.13-21].
She was to be stoned to death, so the husband would then be free to choose another wife. Keep this in mind as you read.
Did the Law of Moses allow a man to divorce his wife for the cause of adultery, which some today call fornication?
NO! See Deuteronomy 22.22.
If we keep this in mind we can read this passage as 'Whosoever shall put away his wife (divorce his wife), except for fornication (and you and I both know that divorce is not allowed for fornication, but the death sentence), and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and whoso marrieth her which is put away (divorced) doth commit adultery.
Since we, the Pharisees, Jesus, and Paul all understand that fornication or adultery in the marriage frees the man to remarry because of the death of the guilty partner, then we can just read it this way: Anybody that divorces his wife and marries another woman committeth adultery. The man that marries the divorced woman is also guilty of committing adultery.
Let us see how close I am in correctly interpreting what Jesus said.
I want to go back to Mark 10 for a moment.
Mark 10.10-12 [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.
Here we find complete agreement with Deuteronomy 24.1-4 and Paul's understanding of the Law of Moses in Romans 7.1-4 and with Luke's account of what Jesus had to say to the Pharisees on one occasion when they derided him.
He continues to insist that his teachings are in agreement with the Mosaic Law.
Notice how Jesus prefaces his statement concerning putting away in Luke 16:
Luke 16.17-18--17. And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail. 18. Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
Now that we have seen what the Law of Moses taught and how Jesus explains that law to the Pharisees and his disciples in one place, let us look at how Jesus explains the law of marriage and divorce to his disciples here in Matthew 19.
Matthew 19.9. 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. 10. His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. 11. But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. 12. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
Now that we have correctly interpreted what Jesus had to say to the Pharisees, we shall see what the disciples had to say, who were standing by and listening.
Matthew 19.11--If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
If you will think about this logically, the disciples would never, never, never have said such a thing IF the false doctrine about this passage were true.
Why is it not good to marry?
Because you can only have one wife for life until death parts you, regardless of whether you get along with her or not.
If you make a bad choice without a lot of prayer, and study on the matter, so that it will not be an unequal yoke, then you are just stuck with her, or you will have to live the rest of your life single and celibate.
We shall see that this is exactly what Jesus was saying.
Matthew 19.12……….there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
To be righteous, if you happen to find yourself in a marriage that you cannot bear and she leaves you for some reason, then you may have to live a celibate life, that of a eunuch for the sake of God's kingdom.
CHAPTER 5.
Now, it is time to move to the writings of the New Testament or 2nd Covenant, or the Law of Christ and see if it differs from these teachings regarding the Old Testament.
I Corinthians 7.10-11 [10.] And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: 11. But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
Here, we see the Apostle Paul writing to the church of Christ in Corinth.
He has much to say about marriage in this chapter and we will not deal with all of them today.
Before we leave this lesson on marriage, we need to look at this passage to see the law of Christ regarding the law regarding marriages today.
The Apostles began to teach the law of Christ on the Day of Pentecost as prophesied by the prophet Isaiah.
Isaiah 2.2-3- 2. And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. 3. And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.
We know that this refers to the church established on the Day of Pentecost because of the part of this passage that says that 'all nations shall flow unto it'.
All nations did not follow the Mosaic Law, nor look to Jerusalem for spiritual understanding of God's will.
However, a few years after Pentecost, the Gentile nations were preached the gospel of Jesus Christ and many obeyed the gospel.
We see here that in the Lord's house that the people will learn His ways and His paths and His Law and His Word.
We know that the times of the church of Christ was in the last days from what the writer of Hebrews says.
Hebrews 1.1-3 [1.] God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2. Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; 3. Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
We see then that the teachings of Christ to the world were to flow from Jerusalem to all nations and that did not happen during the times preceding the death of Christ.
He told his disciples in those days to only go to the house of Israel with the teaching concerning the coming kingdom.
But, after his resurrection, he commanded his disciples to teach all nations.
Matthew 28.18-20—[18.] And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
Did Jesus command the Apostles to teach that it was righteous and Godly and Holy for a man to divorce his wife and marry again before she died or a woman to divorce her husband and marry again before he died?
Not in any place can we find any such teaching by the Apostles.
But we can find what Paul taught to the church of Christ in Corinth. The husband must not put away his wife.
Now, direct your study to the writings in the New Testament that deal primarily with marriage law in the law of Christ.
Study 1 Corinthians 7; and for a parallel about marriage which can teach us how to treat our wives, turn and read Ephesians 5.


VERSES 1-7
1 Cor. 7:1-7
Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. [2] Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. [3] Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. [4] The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. [5] Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. [6] But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. [7] 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.
Definitions for verses 1-7 are as follows, which I hope to prove by this study.
Touch a woman=to attach oneself to a woman to set her emotions on fire
Render=deliver; perform; give away; yield
Benevolence=conjugal duty
Power=to control or exercise authority over
Defraud=keep back by fraud; to deprive
Incontinency=lack of self-restraint or control
Come together=cohabit conjugally
Proper=pertaining to one's self; one's own
Gift=deliverance from passion
By Permission=by fellow knowledge; Paul understood the passions of the flesh by experience and was speaking what he knew to be true.
It is better to marry than to commit fornication because of a failure to exhibit control over one's sexual passions of the flesh, and once married, the husband and wife should fulfill those desires of their mate with the exception of an agreed upon period for pray and personal worship.
They are not to use sexual blackmail in the bedroom.
The period of fasting and prayer should not be any longer than can be endured by each mate; and if it is too long, Satan will come tempting them to go to a man or woman outside of their marriage to find this gratification.
Even though I am not going to spend a lot of time today on the first part of this chapter, we must notice one portion specifically for later reference.
I want you to pay particular attention to what Paul says in verse 4.
[4] The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.

Who has the power over the body of the wife?
Who has the power over the body of the husband?
When we get down to v.15, we will notice that Paul says that they are not in bondage once the unbelieving mate deserts them.
Once the unbeliever departs, the body of the Christian is no longer under the power of the unbeliever.
In other words, the unbeliever can no longer demand the submission of the body of the Christian.
The law of Christ frees them from that duty once the unbeliever departs from them.
They cannot be bound by that part of the law of Christ unless they are reconciled to one another. (verses 10-11)
VERSE 8
1 Corinthians 7:8-- I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
Since the widows would be unmarried, Paul is referring to those who have never been married in his address to the 'unmarried'.
Unmarried means without ever having had nuptials or a wedding.
VERSE 9
Verse 9-[9] But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
Contain=self restraint
To burn=to be ignited with sexual passions

In other words, Paul is saying that it is better to marry than to commit the sin of fornication, even though it is better to stay single if one is in complete control of their passions.

VERSES 10-11
GENERAL LAW

Verses 10-11-[10] And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: [11] But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
The Lord can refer to either God the Father or God the Son, or even to one in authority.
We see this same Greek word that Paul uses for the 'Lord' in I Corinthians 7.10 used by Jesus in Matthew 11.25 to refer to God the Father.
Matthew 11:25-- At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.
We see the same Greek word used by Jesus to refer to himself as Lord of the Sabbath day.
Matthew 12:8-- For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.
So, when men say that the Apostle Paul is referring to Matthew 19.9 and what Jesus had to say about marriage, we discover that Paul could have been referring to:
Divine revelation from God
What Jesus said and had been revealed to Paul by the Holy Spirit
What God had to say about marriage in the beginning as revealed in the scriptures in Genesis 2.24. Genesis 2.24- Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
As a side note here on Genesis 2.24, which is the universal law regulating all marriages, as we saw early on in the lesson, I want to notice how permanent God set up the marriage covenant to be. This law from God is true regardless of how men acted down through the ages.
Notice in Genesis 2.24 that a man is to 'cleave' unto his wife. Let us briefly examine the meaning of this word in the original Hebrew writing.
TO CLEAVE, CLING
--Strong's Number: 1692;Transliterated: dabaq
Text: "to cling, cleave, keep close." Used in modern Hebrew in the sense of "to stick to, adhere to," dabaq yields the noun form for "glue" and also the more abstract ideas of "loyalty, devotion."
Occurring just over 60 times in the Hebrew Old Testament, this term is found very early in the text, in Gen. 2:24: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."
This usage reflects the basic meaning of one object's (person's) being joined to another. In this sense, Eleazar's hand "cleaved" to the sword as he struck down the Philistines (2 Sam. 23:10). Jeremiah's linen waistcloth "clung" to his loins, symbolic of Israel's "clinging" to God (Jer. 13:11).
We can get a sense of the meaning given 'dabaq' in how it is used by Joshua.
Joshua 22:5-- But take diligent heed to do the commandment and the law, which Moses the servant of the LORD charged you, to love the LORD your God, and to walk in all his ways, and to keep his commandments, and to cleave unto him, and to serve him with all your heart and with all your soul.
We can see the permanence of the word in the account of the sin of Gehazi, the servant of Elisha.
2 Kings 5:27-- The leprosy therefore of Naaman shall cleave unto thee, and unto thy seed for ever. And he went out from his presence a leper as white as snow.
So then, we can see from Genesis 2.24 that the marriage covenant was permanent and unbreakable.
Text Verse 11
[11] But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife
Some men want to say that this says that if she divorces him that she should stay single.
The word for depart is 'chorizo' which means 'to put some room between'. Depending upon the context and the case of the article preceding it, this word 'chorizo' can even mean 'come'.
When Jesus used the phrase 'put away' in reference to the law of Deuteronomy 24.1-4; he used a totally different Greek word that is used in I Corinthians 7.11 for depart.
Jesus used the word ' apoluo'- Pronounced ap-ol-oo'-o; from GSN0575 {apo-meaning off} and GSN3089 {to loosen, break up, destroy}
'Apoluo' means to free fully, i.e. (literally) relieve, release, dismiss (reflexively, depart), or (figuratively) let die, pardon or (specially) divorce:
In the King James Version this word 'apoluo' is translated as the following words--(let) depart, dismiss, divorce, forgive, let go, loose, put (send) away, release, set at liberty.
It is possible, of course, that Paul's letter would have been read to those that had divorced their wives or husbands and they would have seen the admonition to be reconciled with their mates.
Even though this could have been the case, we do not need to interpret the word 'depart' here as divorce.
GENERAL AND GUIDING LAW OF MARRIAGE
So what is Paul teaching us in I Corinthians 7.10-11?
I wish to examine 7 key points of this general rule given by God.
We can tell for sure that this is a commandment. Paul said 'I command'.
We can tell for sure that this is a commandment to those who are married from verse 10. Paul said, 'unto the married I command'.
Paul said for the wife to not depart from her husband.
Paul said for the husband to not put away his wife.
It is interesting to note that the words that Paul used here that are translated into English as 'put away' is also translated 'leave' and 'put away' in the following verses to the situation of the unbelieving mate. The Greek word used for 'put away' and 'leave' is 'aphiemi'; pronounced af-ee'-ay-mee; from GSN0575 {apo=off} and hiemi (to send; an intensive form of eimi, to go); to send forth, in various applications (as follow): The meaning of this word 'aphiemi' is one that must be determined by the context and the sense and tense of the word and any articles that go with it. In the King James Version, we see this as true as we look at the various meanings that this word has:--cry, forgive, forsake, lay aside, leave, let (alone, be, go, have), omit, put (send) away, remit, suffer, yield up. It is interesting to note that the word 'aphiemi' is never interpreted as 'divorce'.
Paul said that if the wife does leave the husband to remain unmarried.
Paul commanded the woman to not divorce her husband and marry someone else.
Paul commanded the wife to stay without a mate unless she can be reconciled to her husband.
I want to make a point here about the way that Paul leads into this verse. Notice that he told the married to stay together as husband and wife in verse 10. This agrees with what he said earlier in verses 3-5 about who has the power over the body and giving one another their due benevolence.
Notice that Paul says, 'But and if she depart' and by saying this he shows us that he is not in agreement with the separation.
He is showing his awareness of the possibility of separation among married couples and here he warns them to be reconciled rather than to divorce and take another husband or wife.


Text verses 12-16

1 Corinthians 7:12-16-- But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. [13] And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. [14] For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. [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. [16] For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?
A brother could have a wife who was an idolater and worshipped the false gods. Paul is addressing the Christians at Corinth and it is very probable that most of these believers were formerly idolaters. Corinth is a Greek city and noted at that time for its great temples to the various false gods and the accepted worship of the city was what we call idolatry. It was infamous for its immorality. It has been referred to as the Paris of the Roman Empire.
So then, a brother or sister could very well find themselves in a situation where their wife or husband had not obeyed the gospel yet and were unbelievers.
We would call these unbelievers atheists, infidels, or heathens. They did not believe in God or Jesus as the Son of God.
Paul makes it clear that he is teaching them that they can fellowship this idolater or infidel in the case of marriage if the unbeliever is pleased to stay in the relationship.
If he had not made this clear they might have put them away due to other teaching that they had received about the fellowship with the world and how that God has no fellowship with idols and that they were not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers.
II Corinthians 6.14-14. Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
So then the Christian can stay with the unbeliever if the unbeliever chooses to continue the relationship after his or her mate has obeyed the gospel of Christ and thus went against the religious belief of the unbeliever who may still be worshipping at the temple of the false gods.
The word used for 'put away' and 'leave' in the Greek does not mean divorce, but simply a separation or a leaving from the marital relationship.
VERSE 14
[14] For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

Now in verse 14, Paul tells them that the unbeliever is sanctified in the marriage with the Christian and the children of that marriage are clean.
What is Paul getting at here?
Those who had read and been taught from the scriptures would have been aware Holy scriptures that show us that it is not wise to be bound in a relationship with those who disobey the laws of God.
We see this admonition in both the Old and New Testaments.
Proverbs 13:20 He that walketh with wise men shall be wise: but a companion of fools shall be destroyed.
We have already looked at the unequal yoke with unbelievers in II Corinthians 6.4. Here we see another statement by the Apostle Paul.
Evil associations have the capacity to corrupt us.
1 Corinthians 15:33-34-- Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners. [34] Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame.
There is also a commandment forbidding us to allow the false teacher in our house to declare a teaching against Christ.
2 John 1:9-11-- Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. [10] If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: [11] For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.
What Paul is saying here is that in this situation, where the Christian is in a marriage with an unbeliever that these commandments do not condemn their situation and that to stay in the marriage is considered a Holy action by God.
We can deduce this meaning from another passage where Paul uses the same word 'sanctified' in his writings to Timothy.
Here Paul says that there is nothing wrong in eating meat if the Christian first offers thanks for his food.
1 Timothy 4:4-5-- For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: [5] For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
The meat would not be eternally saved, but it was considered an approved action by God if they offered thanksgiving for the meat.
The children of such a marriage before one of them became a Christian would have been under the idolatrous influence and would have been encouraged to worship false gods themselves.
The children of this mixed marriage are not unclean, but sanctified children.
The Jews considered mixed marriages to be sinful, as they were under the Mosaic Law, and any children from such a union as illegitimate.
They are under the influence now of the Holy Spirit by their association with the Christian mother or father. There is nothing unrighteous in having children with an unbeliever.
So in this case of the marriage of the Christian to an unbeliever, the marriage is sanctified by the word of God.
We should not infer from this passage that the children would have been doomed or lost while in the infant state in the marriage of two unbelievers.
Matthew 19.13-14- 13. Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. 14. But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
Instead of the marriage being an unholy union between an evil companion and a Christian; between one who has not the doctrine of Christ and a Christian; this marriage is considered a Holy union, sanctified by God's word.

VERSE 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.
Here we have one of the major verses of contention in the Law of Christ to the church.
Satan has taken the opportunity here to teach a lie to the church.
False teachers state that in this case that it okay for the Christian to remarry if deserted by the unbeliever. They use the phrase 'not under bondage' to support this doctrine.
Let us back up a little in our text here.
In verses 11 and 12, we see the GENERAL commandment given to all married people. They are commanded by the Lord to not put away their mates and if they are separated for any reason to seek reconciliation. They are to stay celibate during this period of separation and to not seek another marriage partner.
Now we see part of Paul's SPECIFIC or explicit commandments that are derived from the rule of the GENERAL commandment of the Lord.
The GENERAL commandment of verses 10 and 11 must rule all other commandments that relate to it; that is the married couples.
If the unbeliever departs, the Christian is not under bondage in such cases.
Does this imply that the Christian is free to remarry if the unbeliever departs?
I think not.
Let us see if we can make sense of what many of our brethren have interpreted in a fashion that contradicts all of the other teachings regarding marriage.
We have already seen that God sanctified and recognized the union of the unbeliever and the Christian.
To dissolve that marriage would require the husband to put away his wife or the wife to leave her husband.
So the commandment here is to the Christian who has had their unbelieving mate depart. The unbeliever in this case has walked out on the Christian.
Paul says that they are not under bondage if that happens.
We should not only keep in mind the General commandment to the married in verses 10-11, but also the original commandment that ruled all marriage covenants in Genesis 2.24 and that is repeated by Jesus in Matthew 19.4-6.
Matthew 19:4-6-- And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, [5] And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? [6] Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Does God only give his laws to the church or does God hold all men responsible to his moral laws, whether they subscribe to them or not?
Let's see. Read especially the highlighted parts of this passage in Romans 1.
Romans 1:18-32-- For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; [19] Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. [20] For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: [21] Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. [22] Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, [23] And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. {IDOLATERS}
[24] Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: [25] Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. [26] For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: [27] And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. [28] And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; [29] Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, [30] Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, [31] Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: [32] Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
I think that we can see that this divinely inspired passage is addressed to the idolaters who did not believe in God anymore.
The sinners outside of the church were subject to the wrath of God and his judgment even though they did not recognize the authority of God.
They must repent and come in obedience to the gospel of Jesus Christ in order to be reconciled to God.
Therefore, we can make a convincing case from the scriptures that the sinner and the Christian both are equally responsible to God's law of marriage from the beginning, which Jesus said banned the dissolution of that which God had put together.
Paul's teaching to the married in verses 10-11 of our text agrees with that teaching, even though it does not address the specific case of the unbeliever.
Even though this is true, Paul could not have taught contrary to that law in I Corinthians 7.15.
If 'not under bondage' does not mean free to remarry, what could it mean?
Most commentators concur that Paul did not make it clear what he meant, and many take advantage of this to teach that he must have meant that they were free to remarry.
We must interpret this passage in view of the context of this passage. I cautioned you at the beginning of this section to remember Paul's teaching in I Corinthians 7.3-5.
The husband, hath not power over his own body and the wife has not power over her own body.
Paul is talking about the sexual desires of the body here.
He tells them to render due benevolence to each other and to not withhold themselves from one another unless it was to fast and pray.
So, if the unbelieving husband left the Christian wife and then came back along anytime he wanted his wife, would she be in bondage to this commandment?
What about the other laws regulating marriage found in Ephesians 5.22-29?
Ephesians 5:22-29-- Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. [23] For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. [24] Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. [25] Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; [26] That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, [27] That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. [28] So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. [29] For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
Paul points out that he has reference primarily to the relations that exist between Jesus Christ and His church, but it has a secondary application to marriages.
Seeing how this ideal picture of marriage represents the concept of Christ and the church, then this shows us the ideal picture of marriage.
Would the woman be in bondage to obey her husband after that he has departed?
Would she be subject to her husband in every thing?
Is the husband still in bondage to the unbelieving wife who has departed, to provide for her, to nourish her, cherish her, and love her?
Does God expect the husband to support financially the unbelieving wife who left him?
Titus 2.5; Col. 3.18-19; and I Peter 3.1,7 teach these principles and more to the husband and wife.
Are they still in bondage to obey these Laws of Christ to the husband and wife if the unbelieving mate departs?
This is the view that agrees with the permanence of marriage as God intended, rather than interpreting 'not under bondage' to mean 'free to remarry without sin'.
VERSES 32-34
Notice verse 32-34 of our text.
1 Corinthians 7:32-34-- 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: [33] But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife. [34] There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.
We see then in this portion of scripture that to not have a husband or wife, especially an unbelieving mate would greatly enhance their abilities to serve the Lord without the added concern of making the marriage work as it should.
She is no longer under bondage to please her husband.
Even though the Christian will have to live a celibate life after the departure of the unbelieving mate, they are totally free of the responsibilities of that marriage bound upon them by the marriage Law of Christ. The absence of the unbelieving mate would prevent them from being obeyed in most cases anyway and God does not expect it of us.

VERSES 25-28
[25] Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful. [26] I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be. [27] Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. [28] But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.

Here Paul gives his judgment concerning the unmarried virgins. Some would distort this passage as well to mean that verse 27 and 28 teach that if a man is loosed from a wife in the context of divorce that he does not sin if he marries.
The Greek words 'luo' and 'lusis' used here for the words 'loosed' have various meanings that depend on the context to determine their meanings. They are translated in various places as a permanent loosing and in other places as a temporary loosening. So here, we have to interpret this passage so it makes sense in its context and does not contradict other passages regarding marriage.
Again, they do damage to the context of Paul's writing.
He begins this section 'concerning virgins'.
An accepted rule of Bible interpretation in all cases is that we are to take the most obvious meaning of a passage rather than an obscure one, unless the simplest meaning contradicts some other plainly taught truth.
The false teacher is quick to use this rule to support doctrines that he supports, but tosses it out the window in cases where it is not in his favor.
He tells them that it is better to not be married in verse 26. Concerning virgins, it is better in the present distress for the man to be a virgin or not married. He quickly says that if a man is married that he should not seek to be separated from his wife, but if he is a virgin or without a wife that it was Paul's judgment, based on the current distress in Corinth, that it would be better to not marry. Then he says that if the male virgin or the female virgin do marry that they are not sinning.
This passage must agree with the General command given that the man must not put away his wife nor the wife her husband.
To say that a man could divorce his wife and marry again without sin would directly contradict that which Paul said that was a commandment from the Lord in verses 10-11.
Paul dealt with the widower and the widows in verses 7 and 8 and here he deals with the other segment of the unmarried.

VERSE 39
1 Corinthians 7:39--- The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.
Finally, here at the end of Paul's teaching of the marriage laws of Christ, he makes a statement that agrees with that which he made near the beginning in verses 10-11.
Paul is writing to both Jew and Gentile in the Corinthian congregation and he has reference to the law of Christ regarding marriage.
The woman, if she does marry, needs to keep in mind that she will be bound to the law of Christ regarding marriage to her husband as long as he is alive.
When he is dead, she is free to marry again if she marries in the Lord.
As plain as the Apostles are on many key subjects that are too numerous to mention, if God had wanted us to practice divorce and remarriage, why not say so in plain simple language that there could never be any dispute over?
Only death has the power to break a fleshly tie.


MARRIAGE IS A COVENANT
The prophet Malachi said that the marriage is a covenant between the man and the woman in Malachi 2:14-- Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.
ONE FLESH
Paul said that when they become married that they become one flesh, just as the marriage law in the beginning in Genesis 2.24 teaches.
Ephesians 5:29-31-- For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: [30] For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. [31] For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
We saw how this joining is to be permanent then just as it is to be permanent now.
The greatest lesson for seeing God's law regarding marriage is the parallel that Paul draws between marriage in the flesh and the marriage of Christ and the church.
WE DO NOT SEE IN CHRISTS MARRIAGE LAW ANY APPROVAL FOR DIVORCE OR A SUBSEQUENT REMARRIAGE AS ACTION ON THE PART OF THE Christian ANYWHERE IN THESE SCRIPTURES.
REPENTANCE
Briefly, I want to address the false doctrine that teaches that those who have 2 living mates at the point of baptism have no responsibility to leave the 2nd mate. They teach that baptism forgives all of their sins.
When we obey the gospel, we are pardoned of all of our sins if we have repented.
Acts 2:38-- Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
In Corinth, would God have forgiven those who came to be baptized if they had refused to repent of drunkenness or idolatry (worshipping the false gods of Corinth) or any other sin?
Could they say they had repented and then continued on in the idol temples or in their drunkenness?
1 Corinthians 6:9-11-- Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, [10] Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. [11] And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
As you can see, as long as a person is unrepentant of these sins and continues in them, they cannot inherit the kingdom of God, they will not be added to the church of Christ.

The same preachers who are teaching that an adulterer does not have to repent , at the same time will insist on repentance for these other sins, such as homosexuality and drunkenness.
If a prostitute comes to Christ, she must give up fornication. If a homosexual wishes to become a Christian, he must repent of his fornication.

I heard a good illustration regarding this. A sinner stole a man's car, the watch lying in the car, and the wife sitting in the car. When he became a Christian, he gave back the man's car and his watch, but kept his wife.
We can see how wrong such an argument is forced to become.
Under all dispensations of time, God's marriage law has remained the same regarding the permanence of the marriage covenant for all men, whether they subscribe to God's law or not.
God's law from the beginning taught the one flesh and it was hundreds of years before this was violated. When the law was added because of the transgression of God's law to the Jews on Mt. Sinai, the law taught that if the woman be married to another while her husband liveth, she shall be called an adulteress and the same was true for the man; it was a life-long covenant. Now, we have seen the same law taught by inspiration by the Apostle Paul and adultery is condemned throughout the New Testament teachings. They cannot inherit the kingdom of God.
Divorce and remarriage is evil and is of the Devil and those who teach this doctrine and those who accept it and fellowship adulterers shall face the wrath of God in judgment.
We see how serious that God is about this point in His teaching regarding church fellowship.
1 Corinthians 5:9-11-- I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: [10] Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. [11] 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.
In our study, we have seen the Law of God revealed about marriage. It is not a popular understanding and it is not commonly held among our brethren.
It has not always been so and we hope and pray that they will have their hearts opened to the truth of God's Word.