A critical examination of the book What God Hath Joined regarding marriage, divorce, and Christianity

Preface
Jesus told the adulteress in John 8, Neither do I condemn thee. Yet how easy it is for us to be just like those Pharisees when we think we have an important point to make, to stand before a brother or sister with hearts set on judgement and condemnation, but yet somehow convince ourselves we are being helpful by sharing truth. Such is the book What God Hath Joined where I discovered error built upon error in subtle steps. This text shares my findings so it may aid others in their critical examination of this topic. Although I spent ~60 hours to be accurate, careful, and pensive about the topic and my own biases, my rationale could be flawed in places, so remember Acts 17:11 and search the Scriptures for yourself. Regarding marriage and divorce the strongest points of teaching I observed in this book are: Marriage is between one man and one woman. Marriage union starts at the point of the formal wedding ceremony. Marriage union can never be broken by any means except death. The authors discount texts such as Ezekiel 16:38, which mention breaking wedlock, as neither meaning breaking nor wedlock, and likewise 1Cor 6:15-16 joining is taught to not actually mean what it says. Unlike the thief on the cross, the authors wrongly teach that the salvation condition of people with regard to this one topic is irrelevant throughout their lives. They teach that a re-married person who is subsequently saved cannot enter the kingdom of Heaven unless they again get divorced after being saved. Only Jews are included in the exception clause in Matthew 19:9 under very specific conditions, even though this is never taught by Jesus, is not supported by other scholars, and they cite no research or authority other than each other and their own reasoning. The authors claim that the Greek word for fornication changes its meaning when combined with the Greek word for adultery. If this were true we must conclude that every translation of the Bible from the KJV to the ESV has incorrectly rendered these verses. They teach that although some conditions for separation are permitted, re-marriage is never permitted, regardless of the person's salvation condition, even if unsaved and later saved. The bondage addressed in 1Cor 7:15 has nothing to do with marriage. The authors assert that, whether they realise it or not, a couple where at least one spouse was previously married and divorced is living in a perpetual state of adultery and the only solution to this is separation. The existence of children or other conditions is not irrelevant. Since the Bible teaches that adulterers shall not inherit the kingdom of God, the lesson taught is that by remaining married such a couple are sacrificing their inheritance in Christ. 1

As with Satan's work from the beginning, most of what is taught is true. The lie is subtle and often difficult to discern. Satan tempted Eve and got her to misrepresent what God had said,1 and no doubt that played a part in his ability to further manipulate her, building upon her error. The Bible teaches that adulterers will not inherit the kingdom of Heaven. One of the author of this book specifically includes converted Believers in the list of people under the condemnation of such adultery, leading to the obvious conclusion that a Believer who falls into their definition of living in perpetual adultery will lose their salvation unless they separate from their family before they physically die or the Lord comes again. No exceptions are made regarding when salvation occurred, whether marital unfaithfulness was involved, nor whether children are involved. Neither is any teaching referenced in the Bible where a married couple with children (or even without) are instructed to separate. Neither is a passage cited that commands a man to divorce his current wife, for although Jesus teaches against divorce, the reverse is not true: He is not ever quoted as teaching that divorce is proper under any circumstances, as these authors are teaching. Did Jesus ever indicate that it was possible for multiple marriages to all be considered as marriages between people called husband and wife? Yes, He did, in John chapter 4.
Jesus said to the woman at the well, Thou has had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband.

Jesus referred to all five of the men as husbands, and to be sure nobody would ever misinterpret this passage He added that her current relationship was not a valid marriage. Jesus could have said, You have had one husband and the other six have not been your husband, which would appear to better fit the teachings about marriage found in Matthew 19, Mark 10, and Luke 16. He used the same word for husband when He said, he whom thou now hast is not thy husband so nobody can argue a shift of meaning in the Greek. And can anyone seriously contend that, at this woman's relatively young age (she was fetching water, after all), all five (or at least four) of the husbands had died? If each husband had died even just ten years after getting married the woman would have been fetching water at the age of at least 65. This is ridiculous of course. The only reasonable and obvious conclusion is that Jesus acknowledged the validity of her marriage (adultery is not marriage) in all five cases. The original Greek and Hebrew text is rarely discussed in this book, and when it is the authors ignore (or discredit) time-honoured scholars and instead rely on unnamed sources (or personal opinion) in interpretation. In fact, very few sources are cited throughout the chapters I examined.

1 Eve added the words, neither shall ye touch it, which it is not recorded God had said. I have heard a speaker preach this topic as if Eve was revealing something God had actually said. He forgot that if the Bible doesn't say that God said it, then we stand on very dangerous ground to claim that He did. Fortunately, that brother received my query about this with gladness, so the error was curtailed from continuing to be taught. How many others are like him and never have anyone stand up to tell them they are teaching error?

Jesus said if a man looks at a woman with desire he has committed adultery with her already in his heart (Matthew 5:28). All men are guilty of this in the same way as we have all failed to love God with all our hearts, minds, soul, and strength. So if we follow the legalistic interpretation taught in this book, then every husband and wife are doomed, and we can readily understand why the apostles suggested in Matthew 19:10 that it would be better for all men to remain celibate. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? As I read the book I noticed a large number of quotations from and references to Mr. Darby. I sometimes use Darby's Bible translation as a cross-reference, but I have noticed that he flips between using the Wescott-Hort Greek text2 and the Textus Receptus.3 For example, see Romans 8:1 where Darby follows Wescott-Hort in leaving out the last part of the verse, versus Luke 5:5 where he follows the Textus Receptus in using the singular net rather than nets. Although Darby is quoted more often than anyone else I noted in these writings, on the topic of marriage and divorce he is not quoted. Darby said Matthew 19 re-establishes the true character of the indissoluble bond of marriage. I call it indissoluble, for the exception of the case of unfaithfulness, is not one; the guilty person had already broken the bond. It was no longer man and woman one flesh. I am not promoting Darby's point of view, just saying it is odd that his view opposes the writers of this book yet they so often quote him. Satan himself quoted Psalm 91 (Matthew 4:6), but he misapplied it. That is precisely the problem (and the danger) with this book. They have the scripture right, but have bent it to suit their purposes. I have examined topics of this book in depth, looking at myself and my motives as I have done so, and have gone back over my writings here more times than I can count, to do my utmost to be sure that I am not twisting God's Truth in order to suit myself, to represent truthfully what God may give. The word of God is infinitely deep, however, so I could very well be wrong on some or many points. Thus, take it all with a reminder of Acts 17:11 and be noble.

2 Westcott-Hort Greek text is the basis of the ESV, NIV, NASV, GNT, NCSB, NLT, CEV, NCV. 3 Textus Receptus Greek text is the basis for the AV (KJV, NKJV, KJ21, etc.), YLT, LITV, Darby, Wycliffe, DRA.

Relevant Old Testament teachings on marriage and divorce

Here is an encapsulated of Old Testament scriptures regarding marriage and divorce, collected here to help in considering them as a cohesive teaching. Since the original and literal intent is something both the book and I endeavour to contemplate, I will quote using Young's Literal Translation. There are three references in the Old Testament to the Hebrew kerythth ker-eethooth' From H3772; a cutting (of the matrimonial bond) that is divorce: - divorce (-ment) (from Strong's lexicon of Hebrew). The OT texts are Deuteronomy 24, Jeremiah 3, and Isaiah 50.
When a man doth take a wife, and hath married her, and it hath been, if she doth not find grace in his eyes (for he hath found in her nakedness of anything), and he hath written for her a writing of divorce, and given [it] into her hand, and sent her out of his house, and she hath gone out of his house, and hath gone and been another man's, and the latter man hath hated her, and written for her a writing of divorce, and given [it] into her hand, and sent her out of his house, or when the latter man dieth, who hath taken her to himself for a wife: Her former husband who sent her away is not able to turn back to take her to be to him for a wife, after that she hath become defiled; for an abomination it [is] before Jehovah, and thou dost not cause the land to sin which Jehovah thy God is giving to thee -- an inheritance. (Deuteronomy 24:1-4) Saying, `Lo, one sendeth away his wife, And she hath gone from him, And she hath been to another man, Doth he turn back unto her again? Greatly defiled is not that land? And thou hast committed whoredom with many lovers, And turn again to Me, an affirmation of Jehovah. Lift thine eyes to the high places, and see, Where hast thou not been lain with? On the ways thou hast sat for them, As an Arab in a wilderness, And thou defilest the land, By thy fornications, and by thy wickedness. And withheld are showers, and gathered rain hath not been. The forehead of a whorish woman thou hast, Thou hast refused to be ashamed. Hast thou not henceforth called to Me, My father, Thou [art] the leader of my youth? Doth He keep to the age? watch for ever? Lo, these things thou hast spoken, And thou dost the evil things, and prevailest. And Jehovah saith unto me, in the days of Josiah the king, `Hast thou seen that which backsliding Israel hath done? She is going on every high mountain, and unto the place of every green tree, and committeth fornication there. And I say, after her doing all these, Unto Me thou dost turn back, and she hath not turned back, and see [it] doth her treacherous sister Judah. And I see when (for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery) I have sent her away, and I give the bill of her divorce unto her, that treacherous Judah her sister hath not feared, and goeth and committeth fornication -- she also. (Jeremiah 3:1-8) Thus said Jehovah: `Where [is] this -- the bill of your mother's divorce, Whom I sent away? Or to which of My creditors have I sold you? Lo, for your iniquities ye have been sold, And for your transgressions Hath your mother been sent away. (Isaiah 50:1)

Notice that in Jeremiah 3:8 we have an OT example of the use of adultery and fornication (or harlotry), two different Hebrew words, being used in the same context and referring to different aspects of the same action. Israel is sent away for her adultery, and Judah her sister commits 4

fornication also. The also ties together the adultery and fornication as being points of view of the same act. This is worth noting because the authors of the book say this is not rational when they consider the NT. To support Young's choice of fornication in Jer 3:8, the AV (KJV) translates this same Hebrew word as fornication in 1Chr 21:11, Isa 23:17, and Eze 16:26. There is also one more passage that is often used with divorce, Malachi 2:16, which says:
For [I] hate sending away, said Jehovah, God of Israel, And He [who] hath covered violence with his clothing, said Jehovah of Hosts, And ye have been watchful over your spirit, And ye do not deal treacherously.

The word used for sending away (or putting away in the AV) is translated divorces in some versions and is generally thought to mean that, although it is a different Hebrew word than is used in the prior texts: shaw-lakh' A primitive root; to send away for or out (in a great variety of applications): - any wise appoint bring (on the way) cast (away out) conduct earnestly forsake give (up) grow long lay leave let depart (down go loose) push away put (away forth in out) reach forth send (away forth out) set shoot (forth out) sow spread stretch forth (out). I notice is that there is no legal ramification in Strong's definition, it is dealing only with the action of casting someone away, but whether there is actually any difference between this concept and divorce I do not feel sufficiently knowledgeable to say.

Relevant New Testament teachings on marriage and divorce

`Every one who is sending away his wife, and marrying another, doth commit adultery; and every one who is marrying her sent away from a husband doth commit adultery. (Matthew 5:32) And the Pharisees came near to him, tempting him, and saying to him, `Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?' And he answering said to them, `Did ye not read, that He who made them , from the beginning a male and a female made them, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and cleave to his wife, and they shall be--the two--for one flesh? so that they are no more two, but one flesh; what therefore God did join together, let no man put asunder.' They say to him, `Why then did Moses command to give a roll of divorce, and to put her away?' He saith to them--`Moses for your stiffness of heart did suffer you to put away your wives, but from the beginning it hath not been so. `And I say to you, that, whoever may put away his wife, if not for whoredom, and may marry another, doth commit adultery; and he who did marry her that hath been put away, doth commit adultery.' (Matthew 19:3-9) and he saith to them, `Whoever may put away his wife, and may marry another, doth commit adultery against her; and if a woman may put away her husband, and is married to another, she committeth adultery.' (Mark 10:11-12) `Every one who is sending away his wife, and marrying another, doth commit adultery; and every one who is marrying her sent away from a husband doth commit adultery. (Luke 16:18)

and because of the whoredom let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her proper husband (I Cor. 7:2) and if they have not continence--let them marry, for it is better to marry than to burn; and to the married I announce--not I, but the Lord--let not a wife separate from a husband: but and if she may separate, let her remain unmarried, or to the husband let her be reconciled, and let not a husband send away a wife. (I Cor. 7:9-11) And, if the unbelieving doth separate himself--let him separate himself: the brother or the sister is not under servitude in such cases , and in peace hath God called us (I Cor. 7:15) each, in that in which he was called, brethren, in this let him remain with God. (I Cor. 7:24) Hast thou been bound to a wife? seek not to be loosed; hast thou been loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. (I Cor. 7:27) A wife hath been bound by law as long time as her husband may live, and if her husband may sleep, she is free to be married to whom she will--only in the Lord; (I Cor. 7:39) And the Spirit expressly speaketh, that in latter times shall certain fall away from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and teachings of demons, in hypocrisy speaking lies, being seared in their own conscience, forbidding to marry... (I Timothy 4:1-3a) honourable is the marriage in all, and the bed undefiled, and whoremongers and adulterers God shall judge. (Hebrews 13:4)

Chapter 1, Introduction to Divorce and Remarriage by John M. Riddle

Page 19 quotes Romans 7:2, For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to husband... He then concludes, Marriage is made binding by God and only He, through death, can sever that bond. But Romans 7:2 does not say that. It does not say the woman is bound by God, it says the woman is bound by the law. Paul could be referring to God's law or civil law in these verses, both make sense. We should not blithely exchange the words the law to mean by God. If we took all the places where we read the law and tried replacing it with, by God we would quickly see how foolish a thing that is to do. Please try it, as I did, to verify this if you have any doubt. Look-up the usage of the Greek words for the law here and you will find it in Luke 2:23 & 24, John 19:7, Acts 18:15, 22:3, and 24:6, many times in Romans, etc.. Looking at Luke, John, and Acts reveals that every time the law is qualified the law of the Lord, our law, your law, perfect (i.e., God's) ... law, and our law. Which law we are talking about may alter the understanding. Consider both civil law and Divine Law as it would pertain to a Believer who was saved after having had a divorce or fell into the group covered by the exclusion clause of Matthew 19. Divine Law as it exists in this dispensation of Grace offers liberation, not condemnation. The Old Testament Law held us condemned, which is why we had to die with Christ, as God planned since the foundation of the world. Paul mentions this in verses 6:3-4, then amplifies it in these first few verses of chapter 7, summing up his marriage metaphor in verse 7:4, ye also are become dead to the law... that ye should be married to another. Paul triumphantly concludes in verse 8:1, Therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus.4 Can anything separate us from the love of God? Only one thing: Therefore I say to you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven to men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven to men. Andwhoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whoever speaketh against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. (Matthew 12:31-32) Looking at this text in the light of civil law I see a definite set of boundaries, which is of course the function of all law. The rule of civil divorce was well known then as it is now. Verses 2 and 3 clearly state that the woman in question has a legally-binding marriage. If the couple gets a legal divorce, the woman would no longer be legally called wife and the man no longer legally be called husband. Therefore, in the light of civil law, this text is describing polygamy (which is certainly no less believable than the man who had sex with his father's wife in I Corinthians 5).

4 The WH text does not have the who walk after... ending as the TR does. See Darby, ESV, ASV, etc., but it is in verse 8:4 in both Greek texts, and therefore does not seem to change verse 1 fundamentally in either case.

Furthermore, Paul is addressing Jewish Believers: verse 1 starts, Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law). So an unsaved unbeliever, not knowing Old Testament Law, could neither be placed in a group called brethren nor them that know the law. So this verse does not apply to those who are saved after having had a divorce. When we are saved, we die to the law and are raised again in Christ, washed of all sin in His blood. Mr. Riddle says on page 19, Marriage is made binding by God and only He, through death, can sever that bond. This is true of all marriages, of saved or unsaved, post-salvation or pre-salvation. By saying pre-salvation (rather than unsaved) Mr. Riddle is specifically saying that people who divorced and re-married prior to their salvation are still in a state of condemnation. This flatly contradicts Romans 8:1 and too many other Scriptures to count, as well as the provision of 1Cor. 7:15. If the contradictions weren't enough, it bothers me that he has put a limitation on God. If God placed such a self-imposed limit on Himself there would probably be a verse that said exactly that. Mr. Riddle has attempted in his own humanity to summarise God's intent for marriage in fewer words than the Creator himself and thereby has erred. I Corinthians 7:39 Page 21 quotes I Corinthians 7:39, the wife is bound by law as long as her husband liveth, but the author ignores the key words, bound by law and focuses singularly on the death aspect. We cannot dissect Scripture that way. Think of my brief dissertation on law above: Which law are we talking about here? I find it remarkable that he quotes the entire verse except for the final conclusion: only in the Lord. Why do you suppose he omitted this conclusion? Did he miss reading it? Did he think it was not important? I cannot bring myself to think any of these things, but am certain that in such a carefully written piece Mr. Riddle made a conscious decision to leave these words out. Consider what he left out and why: These last four words tell us that the woman may only remarry if the person is a member of the Body of Christ. So we are talking about Believers here, not unbelievers. But wait a minute, right in this very section and throughout his thesis Mr. Riddle says the conclusions he is drawing all apply equally to unbelievers and Believers. How can we apply this to unbelievers? Now we see why he left it out: he subtracted from Scripture to better support his argument. God says not to do that (Deuteronomy 4:2 & 12:32, Jeremiah 23:36, Revelation 22:19). Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 On pages 24-26 Mr. Riddle argues that the word used for fornication in these passages (Greek: porneia) is not the same word as used for adultery (Greek: moichao) and, therefore, Jesus did not make an exception where a wife had been unfaithful.

He goes on to say there are two major camps of thinking about this, but he does not provide any references. He begins presenting the case for the first major camp. He references a single source W. E. Vine's Expository Dictionary and immediately discredits him (and naturally, by association, any others who may be in this camp). He goes on to present the argument that fornication only means pre-marital sex. For this argument he does not even mention one single name, but we are supposed to believe it is a major camp, meaning, lots of people think this way. Mr. Riddle completely avoids quoting probably the two most widely used Greek lexicons published by Dr. James Strong and Dr. Robert Young. Strong's Lexicon of Greek says that the Greek word for porneia means harlotry (including adultery and incest). In Robert Young's Literal Translation he renders the word in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 as whoredom. On what authority does he make this claim that fornication has an otherwise undocumented meaning? We are expected to rely on the Bible teaching of Mr. Riddle who: 1. is a former pension fund manager with no stated formal or even informal education in Greek or Hebrew studies 2. cites no sources in support of his conclusions 3. ignores and contradicts the trusted works of Dr. Strong and Dr. Young 4. discredits W.E. Vine twice, yet also says Vine's Dictionary is excellent even though he never cites it once positively 5. is effectively personally claiming to have discovered a Greek meaning that other scholars missed, since he cites no sources I am compelled to take the nobler stand of a Berean (Acts 17:11). I Corinthians 7:27-28 Mr. Riddle says the word loosed in this verse does not mean divorce. He uses Darby's translation of this verse wherein he uses the word free rather than loosed as support for his argument. Even though I find little fault in the overall conclusion here, I again criticise Mr. Riddle because to make his point he is attacking the use of the word loosed and ignores the great men whose work we have come to trust in studying the Greek and Hebrew of Scriptures: Strong's lexicon says the Greek word lusis comes from luo, which means to loosen (literally or figuratively): break (up) destroy dissolve (un-)loose, melt, put off, that is (specifically) divorce.

Robert Young's Literal Translation uses the word loosed and also clarifies its application by adding the word been before it: hast thou been loosed from a wife? That does not support Mr. Riddle's conclusion. What else can been loosed mean but divorced? When I look in Vine's Dictionary I read, of divorce and it specifically refers to this same verse, I Corinthians 7:27. So, again, I am supposed to believe Mr. Riddle in contradiction to these scholars? I would quote to Mr. Riddle from I Corinthians 14:36 (from Darby's translation even):
Did the word of God go out from you, or did it come to you only?

Chapter 2, Is Marriage Creational or Christian? by James D. McColl

I like this article mostly, but did find some faults and things worth noting. On page 29 Mr. McColl contradicts Mr. Banks (on page 39) and Mr. Wilson (on page 113) when he argues that Herod took Herodias when she was still married to his brother. I agree with Mr. McColl's interpretation, but point out that in this same book Msrs. Banks and Wilson incorrectly5 teach that Herodias was divorced from Herod's brother but their union was still improper in spite of this. In quoting John the Baptist on page 30, Mr. McColl (like Mr. Banks) ignores Leviticus 18:16 and 20:21. As a 40-year veteran full-time worker and one who is even recognised as clergy by the Australian government, I presume that he is well versed in the Bible and ignored these verses because his argument was aimed at adultery and these verses do not mention adultery. Furthermore, he mentions Leviticus 20:1-19 on the last page of his thesis, so he must have read verse 21 at some time. Leviticus addresses the specific sin of taking one's brother's wife. In verse 20:21 the Hebrew word used means unclean or incest. Obviously, incest and adultery are not the same thing and incest is the law being broken in Matthew 14. Therefore, only one page into his argument, Mr. McColl has already manipulated the Scriptures in order to lend more weight to his argument. In my estimation, that already discredits the rest of his material, but I will continue nonetheless. On the bottom of page 30 he, like Mr. Banks, asserts a personal opinion: There appears little doubt that Adam and Eve were 'one flesh' before they came together physically. He says this and then does not follow it with his reasoning. Appears? Is it or isn't it? If it is, why? If not, why is he teaching it? Then he says, It is significant that Adam calls Eve his wife four times before they came together. Why is it significant? And where is he counting this? I don't see a single time that Adam calls Eve his wife. I wonder if he means Isha or Eve (Hebrew chavvh)? If so, I only see
5 Their claim is faulty because it adds to the text of Matthew 14, which says nothing about Herodias being divorced.

10

each of those once. Yet even if it was four times, why is four significant? He does not offer a conclusion, so I am compelled to wonder if he muddying the waters to merely seem analytical. On page 33 he says, Clearly, neither 1 Corinthians 6:18 nor 7:10,11 indicate that fornication breaks the marriage bond. I Corinthians 6:18 says, Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. Nothing is said about the marriage bond, which Mr. McColl specifically said on page 31 is the flesh, not the body.
I Corinthians 7:10,11 says, And unto the married I command, not I,but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to husband: and let not the husband put away wife. Nothing is said here about fornication.

While it is true that neither of those verses indicate that fornication breaks the marriage bond, it is meaningless to say this since neither of them say anything with regard to fornication in relation to marriage. He could also truthfully declare that neither verse gives any indication that a person should not go fishing on Saturdays. A negative assertion like this is meaningless. Mr. McColl then says that these two verses do not advance the argument for the 'exception clause' (in Matthew 19:9). What is his point? He presents these verses without introduction, as if their use should immediately be apparent to the reader, but they neither advance nor detract from Matthew 19:9 any more than the fishing example I gave. Flee fornication does not take any strength from Matthew 19:9 and both of these verses address the man whereas the the fornicator addressed in Matthew 19:9 is the woman. The way this paragraph ends sounds like he has silenced opposition, but he hasn't made any point at all. The rest of this section is mainly a nice memorial of Ruth and Boaz, but he concludes with, We contend that..., as if he has proven a point, but he really has contributed no further argument to advance the topic of Marriage and its union, which is the title given that section on page 29. Section 3, Marriage and its violation, contributes nothing to his central topic, which is, Is Marriage Creational or Christian. Why does he quote an Australian law in a Bible study? On page 37 he says, For this reason marriage is called 'matrimony'. I'd really like to understand what he means by that. All I can find of the definition of this word is that it stems from the Latin for mother. I wish he would complete his thoughts more. Some of my arguments against his work may be due only to incomplete thoughts. On page 38 Mr. McColl defines fornication as sexual immorality. This is a natural conclusion from the text of I Corinthians 7:2, but goes flatly against what Mr. Riddle and Mr. Banks teach.

11

Chapter 3, The Lord's Teaching on Divorce by William M. Banks

This is the written by one of the two editors of the book. I criticise his work, as with the others, with awareness of his level of education as evidenced by his broad vocabulary and impressive (albeit secular) credentials as a former senior worker of some type in academia (perhaps an educator, but he does not say), international lecturer, author, and frequent publisher. To deflect people who might disagree with him, at the outset Mr. Banks says that many today raise questions on this important subject ... not out of a true desire to learn the truth but rather merely to raise issues for pointless debate. This immediately caught my attention as an obvious political manoeuvre to silence anyone who would disagree by casting doubt on their credibility before the veracity of their words even has a chance to be considered. Why else would he say this in his opening remarks when it has nothing to do with his thesis? Herodias and Philip: husband and wife On page 39 Mr. Banks adds to the Holy Scriptures in laying down his first argument. He argues that although Herod had married his brother's divorced wife, the woman was still his brother's wife.6 However, the Bible narrative does not say Herod's brother divorced his wife. Matthew 14:3 says, For Herod had laid hold on John, and bound him, and put in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife. Not, his brother Philip's former wife or such similar language. I look for deeper truth, but I refuse to inject words into scripture that are not there. The text says Herod had taken and married a woman who was the wife of (i.e., legally married to) his brother. Look at Deuteronomy 24, a chapter which Mr. Bank's refers to often in his work, and you will see text such as, the former husband may not take her again to be his wife. The Bible teaches that once divorced a woman is no longer a man's wife. Because of this error, and building upon it, Mr. Banks ignores or misses John the Baptist's point of law in Matthew 14:4 where he is quoted saying, It is not lawful for thee to have her. Was John referring to Deuteronomy, as Mr. Banks asserts, or Leviticus?
Leviticus 18:16 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it is thy brother's nakedness. Leviticus 20:21 And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless.

Leviticus specifically forbids incest.7 It is not addressing adultery. This is the more sensible law to which John the Baptist would have referred. I conclude that Mr. Banks chose Deuteronomy and did not even mention Leviticus to avoid weakening his argument.
6 His position is reiterated by Mr. Wilson on page 113, where specific reference is made to this text on page 39. 7 Webster's 1913 Dictionary definition for incest: sexual relations between closely related persons, usually taken as first cousins or closer.

12

Hidden meanings to Fornication and Adultery that clarify Jesus's instructions? On the bottom of page 40 he says, Clearly this (union) was true of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2 before any physical consummation of the union had taken place. Genesis 2:24 is a conclusion that is timeless! It is a pronouncement, not an event. The sentence begins with therefore: in English that marks it as a conclusion. If we look at the Hebrew word kane throughout Genesis we see that it is translated as thus, therefore, and it was so, and true, always indicating a conclusion, not a sequence. Mr. Banks teaches that verse 2:24 is a conclusion and thereby proves that the one-flesh event begins at the moment of completion of the marriage ceremony. Even Mr. Currie's writing at the top of page 61 in this very book points out this error. On page 43 Mr. Banks says, clearly a vital distinction is intended when (porneia) and (moicheia) are both used in the same context. Mr. Banks is dramatically promoting another personal opinion, citing no sources, arriving at this conclusion with no reason given, and ignoring the text of Jeremiah 3:8 (as mentioned earlier) which has the two Hebrew words for adultery and fornication in the same context and ties them together with the word also demonstrating that they are slightly different points of view regarding the same general act. Would Mr. Banks also argue, without citing any sources nor providing any reasons, that only Greek, and not Hebrew, make this distinction when the two words are used in the same context? He is clutching at straws to make his point! Consider: Do people not use redundant words to emphasize? Do people not use subtly different words to more fully describe something? Of course they do! I do it all the time, my wife accuses me of repeating myself, but I am often just offering subtly different ways of considering a topic. Mr. Banks argues against himself and demonstrates my point by referring to I Corinthians 6:9 neither whoremongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites,... Why does Paul uses effeminate and sodomites8 both in the same verse? Aren't they both referring to homosexuals? The ESV combines the two and just says, nor men who practice homosexuality, and for the other two terms it uses sexually immoral and adulterers (who are also sexually immoral). He then draws the same conclusion as Mr. Riddle, saying, Fornication is pre-marital sexual infidelity and adultery is post-marital sexual infidelity but then goes further to say, The Lord only ever used the word porneia to mean pre-marital infidelity and [in] Chapter 19 it is clear that the only exception the Lord had in mind was immorality of the betrothed partner during (or prior to) the [one year] betrothal period. If he were correct, this would mean that in I Corinthians 6:9 Paul is saying that once a Jew (not a Gentile) has had pre-marital sex during (or prior to) the betrothal period, they cannot be forgiven; in other words, they cannot be saved. So Mr. Banks has added a new unforgivable sin to the text of Matthew 12:31.

8 Or abusers of themselves in the AV (KJV).

13

With adultery, idolatry, thievery, and all the rest in the list it is clear that Paul is referring to unrepentant people who continue in those sins, especially when he concludes using the past-tense saying, such were some of you. How can a Jew continue in the sin of having pre-marital sex during the one-year betrothal period? Would that ever happen more than once? No, if Mr. Banks's definition and application of porneia were correct then Paul would have used fornication alone in this verse. Matthew 5:32 Mr. Banks, as did Mr. Riddle, further errs in his interpretation of 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

They both conclude that the woman mentioned at the end must be the same woman mentioned at the beginning, but is this necessarily so? The English her that is divorced is one Greek verb meaning to divorce. Darby has it this way: whosoever marries one that is put away.... From the Greek words it looks like, who marries divorced commits adultery. Remember that a woman could be divorced for burning a meal, Deuteronomy only says she find no favour in his eyes. The common thread in this verse is the divorce, not the woman. Assuming it is the same woman both times helps their argument, so I cannot help but wonder if (given all other evidence) Mr. Banks and Mr. Riddle rejected the other possibility. Mr. Banks also wrongly argues that the text could not mean that a man is allowed to put away a wife for adultery otherwise he will cause her to commit adultery. He says this is a tautology (a needless repetition). He says, How could she be 'caused' to commit something she was already committing? This is an ignorant or misleading question that deflects attention from the text. Look at what the Bible says: And I say to you, that, whoever may put away his wife, if not for whoredom, and may marry another, doth commit adultery (YLT). I see no needless repetition there, do you? If the wife is already a prostitute, adulteress, etc. then putting her away does not create the problem, it already exists; but if the man divorces her without grounds of sexual immorality, then he makes her into something she was not (an adulteress), and the fault lies with his actions, not hers. Either way, a wife that is put away from her husband is an adulteress, and the distinction I see drawn is: who is to blame? Whose is the sin? A question that arose for me: What if a woman is put away by a husband without the cause of fornication (however you define it) and she does not get married again? If she is not with another man, how has she been caused to commit adultery? I don't see a qualifier in the text, such as, If she gets remarried she has committed adultery. I can't think of any explanation, so it might mean that this text assumes she gets married again, but I do not like to add to Scripture, thus, I recommend taking it at face value. 14

Then we add in the final part: whosoever marries one that is divorced committeth adultery. So whether divorced for either cause, a divorced woman is an adulteress and a man who marries her is committing adultery. It seems Jesus is instructing to never marry a divorced woman. When I compare this to Mark 10:11-12, I see the focus shifts between who is doing the committing of adultery: the husband, the wife, or the next person who marries either of them. Unless Jesus says in a specific case that we caused another's sin (as in Matt 5:32), Scripture seems consistently to teach the opposite.9 Does Matthew apply to non-Jews? Mr. Banks then says, It is well nigh universally agreed that Matthew is written with a Jewish audience in mind and with a dispensational setting. He does not explain what he means by dispensational setting, and regarding the Jewish audience I am offended by the implication that a part of scripture is somehow irrelevant or less relevant to me because I am not a Jew, especially regarding a topic as universal and timeless as marriage that the Holy Spirit caused to be recorded for us all. Furthermore, I am quite bothered by this well nigh universally language. Let your Yes be Yes, and the No, No. (James 5:12) If you are not sure, with such a delicate topic as this, then don't teach it. Next Mr. Banks concludes, The Jewish betrothal period is undoubtedly the background to which the Lord alludes. Then he goes on to say, It appears that the Jewish betrothal period... He has the nerve to disclose his uncertainty (well nigh) followed by certainty (undoubtedly) followed by uncertainty (appears). What is an earnest student to conclude from such vacillation? He makes statements about Jewish ceremony that he says can be gleaned from chapter 1 of Matthew's gospel. Reading over verses 18 to 25 I cannot see any mention of a one-year betrothal period, sexual relations, a formal wedding ceremony, nor support for any of his claims. He must be using sources that he is not citing, which leaves the reader adrift in uncertainty. After laying this liquid foundation, Mr. Banks declares, it is clear ... but this is political positioning to manipulate the reader into accepting his damning conclusion: Remarriage in these circumstances10 leads to a state of perpetual adultery whether for believer, professing believer11 or unbeliever. The state of perpetual adultery could only be changed by living separate lives. Saying a converted, born-again Believer has an unforgivable sin at the moment of conversion is adding to God's pure word. Can he cite a verse that backs his advice to divorce?

9 E.g., in Ezekiel 33:11-16 if you warn someone of their sin and they refuse to repent, the consequences are not your fault. 10 I presume he means while the first marriage partner is alive that is stated just before this sentence. He uses the plural circumstances, but prior to this one circumstance is an opposite argument of when remarriage is permitted, so his full meaning is, not surprisingly, unclear. 11 In other words, a person professing belief in Jesus Christ. So the authors are including people who were saved before a divorce or subsequent to a divorce, as well as those saved subsequent to a divorce.

15

Suffer the children Unlike saint Paul in 1Cor 7:6, Mr. Banks gives no indication that he (not God) has determined that to have any hope of inheriting the kingdom of God every re-married person must separate (in this case merely a euphemism for divorce). By using the Bible for support, although errant, he points the finger of blame at God. But God does not say, get a divorce, separate, leave your wife. Only Mr. Banks is saying that. As Christians we are called to judge him (1Cor 6:2-5). Further down he writes, little children are those who suffer most as a result of marriage breakup ... Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me... but just above that he taught the destruction of the family, that subjecting children to harm was necessary for reconciliation with God. Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, wicked servant. (Luke 19:22) How close can a man come to God and still miss Him? Like Judas kissing Jesus's cheek. If Peter could be used of Satan in Matthew 16:23, then it seems the same is true of Mr. William M. Banks as writer of this chapter and editor of the entire book. He carries the responsibility for his own work plus that of the entire book, and being a self-proclaimed senior academic no less. Poor, deceived man. William MacDonald writes the following on this topic:
God hates divorce (Mal. 2:16), that is, unscriptural divorce. He does not hate all divorce because He speaks of Himself as having divorced Israel (Jer. 3:8). This was because the nation forsook Him to worship idols. Israel was unfaithful. In Matthew 5:31, 32 and 19:9, Jesus taught that divorce was forbidden except when one of the partners had been guilty of sexual immorality. In Mark 10:11, 12 and Luke 16:18, the exception clause is omitted. The discrepancy is probably best explained as that neither Mark nor Luke record the entire saying.

Therefore, even though divorce is not the ideal, it is permitted in the case where one's partner has been unfaithful. Jesus allows divorce in this case, but He does not command it.
In the section, The disciples' reaction (vv 10-12) Mr. Banks says, It is clear from this section that the disciples were unambiguous in accepting the restrictions the Lord was placing on married people. He likes to declare that things are clear while leaving me puzzled. Like a politician, declaring something is true when it is not may fool some people, but it does not make it true. My Bible says that the disciples asked him a question in verse 10 and Jesus's answer is in verses 11-12. There is no mention of the disciples reaction after Jesus speaks, so how does he discern that the disciples had a single clearly defined (unambiguous) interpretation about it? Maybe they did, but the Bible doesn't say this. Mr. Banks has added to the Holy Scriptures. Moving on to look at Mark chapter 10, he asserts that Mark 10 and Matthew 19 are not the same discourse, saying there are vital distinctions between the two, but fails to prove this. Both accounts 16

have Jesus leaving Galilee, they both state that Jesus cometh into the coasts of Juda and both proceed to describe the same scene. One account says, he arose ... and cometh into the coasts of Juda by the farther side of Jordan, and the other says, he departed ... and came into the coasts of Juda beyond Jordan. The matter with the children is almost word-for-word verbatim. The Jamieson Fausset & Brown commentary specifically says both Mark 10 and Matthew 19 are Jesus's final departure from Galilee. William MacDonald says that Matthew 19, Mark 10, and Luke 16 are all the same event (see above, found on page 1221 of his commentary). So Mr. Banks, citing no sources, is teaching us on his own authority that these seemingly parallel passages are actually entirely separate events that just happen to sound the same. Why is he teaching this? What is the point and how does it relate to his central theme of divorce? I could not figure it out. On page 45 he says that the language of Deuteronomy 24 is not a 'command' and then says, Genesis 2. The command was clear! 'Leave ... cleave ... be one flesh'! Political double-talk again. How can be one flesh possibly be a command? Young's Literal Translation renders Genesis 2:24 as, therefore doth a man leave his father and his mother, and hath cleaved unto his wife, and they have become one flesh. That is a statement of fact, not a command. Teaching that Deuteronomy is not a command is also flawed because in Mark 10:5 Jesus said, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept (or command) whereas in Matthew 19:8 he used the word suffer (or permit). Remembering that Jesus did not give this discourse in Greek, it is possible that there was not a perfect match for the Hebrew word and that its definition lies somewhere between command and permission, or perhaps both are applicable. My only decision about the difference of wording is that Jesus uses both command and permission about the same topic, it is literally what the Bible says, and I believe it. I sure wouldn't teach anyone on my own authority that one is intended and the other is an error! If the Bible says it, it is true! Our understanding is not required for it to be true! For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. (1Cor 13:12) He then finds some reason to get excited about the word house being mentioned in Mark 10:10 when it is not in Matthew 19:10. He says This ... session ... takes place in the house! but says no more about it. So what? They both continue with the story of the little children, so which one came before or after the other is uncertain and irrelevant as far as I can tell. On the bottom of page 46 Mr. Banks says, Remarriage is totally prohibited for married people while the marriage partner is still living. The language is unambiguous .... Read Mark 10 for yourself and tell me if you see anywhere that it says with unambiguous certainty anything at all about the marriage partner still living. He's making this up, hoping readers won't verify his claims. If you take Mark 10:1-12 by itself, which is what Mr. Banks is asserting with his statement, there is no way you can truthfully say what he does. Indeed, if we only had Mark chapter 10 and nothing

17

else about marriage, we would have no reason to conclude that death has any impact upon it. Death is simply not mentioned here, so his conclusion is simply not supported by the text he cites. Authorship On page 47 Mr. Banks says (of Matthew), There is no mention of this in the Jewish setting. Mark is addressing a different audience. In his final paragraph on page 50, Mr. Banks says, Luke (a Gentile) is writing for a Gentile audience hence there is no exception clause. Mark is addressing? Luke is writing? Excuse me? Mark is not addressing anybody! The speaker in all cases is Jesus and the author of the entire book, from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21 is the Holy Spirit. Splitting Scripture up like this would be a nightmare and cause much contention within the Body of Christ. Dispensations are one thing, but Mr. Banks wants to further separate the Dispensation of Grace into that which is for Jews and that which is for Gentiles. To that I say: Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today, and for ever. On that Solid Rock I stand. There is no room for debate.

Chapter 5, The One Flesh Relationship by Brian Currie

Mr. Currie is the editor of Assembly Testimony magazine, so I thought I should evaluate his work. This article had some much better sections than the others, but I still found errors. I do not feel as confident as Mr. Currie about his definition of adultery near the bottom of page 61. Only one reference in the AV translation that is not supported by other translations does not strike me as a strong argument, but let's use it and see what happens. Mr. Currie quotes the AV rendering women that break wedlock as the definition of adultery, but quickly adds that breaking wedlock does not actually mean breaking wedlock. He uses the word wedlock on page 63 as a definition of the marriage union. I personally do not have any better definition or reasoning for the word adultery, but such weak reasoning like this is embarrassing exegesis. Better to say nothing at all. I was grateful that Mr. Currie noted (on the bottom of page 62) that the literal words in Scripture must be carefully considered (re: 1Cor. 6:16 body versus flesh), but sadly he did not follow his own advice on the next page. He argues that the one flesh event happens at the moment a woman is called wife, in order to prove that physical union and the one-flesh moment are not the same. I have no proof whether or not this is so, and neither does Mr. Currie. He says the one-flesh union is apparent from the word wife in Genesis 2:25. However, the Hebrew word used for wife in verse 25 is the same Hebrew word (ish-shaw') used for Woman in verses 22 & 23. In fact, all through chapter 3 woman and wife are all ish-shaw'. Further, verse

18

2:25 does not specifically mention the one-flesh union, and since v2:24 is a timeless proclamation, I feel he has left us with nothing definite about Genesis 2:25. Next he cites Genesis 24:67 to prove his point:
Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah's tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife: and he loved her...

He says this proves Rebekah was his wife before consummation. He does not explain why, so I must assume he believes the verbs are chronologically sequential (which may not be true) and that loved is the consummation. But neither the English nor the Hebrew seem to support this. There are four verbs and only the first three could refer to consummation: brought (H0935), took (H3947), or loved (H0157). The last one (was comforted) has nothing to do with consummation in English or Hebrew. Now let's look at his second citation, Ruth 4:13:
So Boaz took Ruth, and she was his wife: and when he went in unto her, the LORD gave her conception, and she bare a son

We have four verbs: took, went in unto her, (Yehovah) gave her, and bore (i.e., to give birth). Obviously the last two don't have anything to do with consummation, so it is either took (H3947) or went (H0935). Notice that these two verbs Strong's numbers H3947 and H0935 are also in the Genesis text. Here are both verses with the Strong's numbers replacing the English words they represent:
Genesis 24:67 And Isaac H0935 his mother Sarah's tent, and H3947 Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her: and Isaac was comforted after his mother's death. Ruth 4:13 So Boaz H3947 Ruth, and she was his wife: H0935, the LORD gave her conception, and she bare a son.

Notice that the word order is swapped. If H0935 (went in unto her) means they consummated their marriage in Ruth, wouldn't it be the same in Genesis? What is consistent is the wording where the woman/wife (ish-shaw') is mentioned: they both say took [Rebekah or Ruth] and she became/was his wife Hebrew: law-kakh' [name] ish-shaw'. The same Hebrew wording both times. So although I am not a Hebrew expert, logic tells me that H3947 seems to be connected with becoming wife and H0935 (if anything) has to do with consummation. If so, then consummation is before wife in Genesis 24:67 and after wife in Ruth 4:13. However, does this prove anything? No, because I am using English linguistics to analyse ancient Hebrew, plus the one-flesh union is not specifically mentioned anywhere in these texts. Mr. Currie has put a lot of effort into proving nothing. If his subject were trivial I would ignore him.

19

On the bottom of page 64 and top of 65 Mr. Currie supports an argument that one body and one flesh are different concepts, and for support he says it, is made very clear by the punctuation in the Newberry Bible. The contrast between the two expressions is thus being emphasized. I like my Newberry Bible, and Thomas Newberry was certainly an amazing man to have put it all together, but he does not have the same authority as Jesus. What Thomas Newberry added can no doubt be very helpful (though most of it is still as mysterious as the Greek or Hebrew to me, quite honestly), but helpful as it may be it is added commentary, not scriptural truth, not part of the original text. This (page 65) is as far as I've read in Mr. Currie's article.

Conclusion
I have tried my utmost to be responsible in standing firmly on God's Word and not my opinion, conjecture, or faulty logic. One cannot prove something by proving a negative. If I know a car is not red, that is all I know. I cannot know what colour it actually is. Likewise, if I say, I like that blue shirt, one cannot assume that blue is my favourite colour nor anything about my taste in shirts. In fact, one cannot even presume to know for certain that I like the colour blue at all. What I said was limited in scope, and therefore the certain conclusions one can draw from it in are likewise narrow in scope. The One-flesh Marriage Union The Bible texts are not clear exactly when the union takes place. That is fine with me; it is God's prerogative since it is entirely His work. It is tempting to place the one-flesh union before consummation since Isaac and Boaz are both types of the Christ, but remember that Jesus said that after the resurrection they are neither male nor female and are not given in marriage, so we really can't say how things will be. From my own experience, I have an opinion on what I believe is the truth, but that is not Biblical Truth. My feelings can easily deceive; they are not hard, factual science (knowledge) as is the Bible. The permanence of marriage My understanding of the permanence of marriage has been enriched in this study. Until going through this study I accepted that God hates divorce, anyone saved after divorce had his divorce put at the foot of the cross, and anyone divorced while saved had let Christ down, much like disobeying any of God's commands.

20

After this study, I still believe that when we are saved all of our prior sins are placed at the foot of the cross. For those of us saved later in life (teen-age or later), the moment of salvation is a dramatic experience, we know we were saved and there is no reason to ever doubt this (although we do when shaken by Satan's many subtle works in the world, such as are found in this book, but I pray earnestly may not be found in my writings here). Regarding the marriage promise: putting the Bible aside for a moment, the promise made is until death do us part. I have always taken that promise very seriously, taught my children to, and feel critical of those who do not. However, Jesus and Paul explained things aren't always black-andwhite. The possible factors I have identified in the marriage and divorce question that need to be considered are at least these: Salvation: Three conditions saved at the time of divorce, saved after divorce, unsaved throughout one's life. Salvation: Three states husband, wife, or both (e.g., husband is saved, wife is saved, or both are saved). Divorce: Possible instigators: Man chose to leave, wife chose to leave. Divorce: Possible mitigating circumstances include at least these four: man had adulterous affair, woman had adulterous affair, man abandons wife, wife abandons husband. Children are involved: yes or no (I agree with the authors of these articles that Jesus considered them and we must also).

Trying to sort out the combination of these factors is a huge job. It is not well-suited to being analysed logically, but considering this does help to grasp what a complex topic this is, and how trying to explain it any differently than Jesus Himself did is treading on dangerous ground. I sincerely believe this book should be destroyed. Even if well-intentioned, the work is careless and/or biased and/or for other reasons has come out just plain wrong. This will cause great suffering.
My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation. (Jas 3:1)

James was writing to Believers (brethren), warning them of the consequences of being careless in teaching wrong doctrine. We all know how good intentions can easily open the door for Satan, even for an apostle in the very presence of God manifest in the flesh.
But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. (Matt. 16:23 AV) Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;Forbidding to marry... (1Tim 4:1-3a) (end)

21