MARRIAGE, DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE - Preface

     The following message has been transcribed from taped
lectures so naturally it will be deficient in many respects; no
man's speaking vocabulary is equal to his reading or writing
vocabulary. However the essential things that deal with the Bible
doctrines of separation, marriage, divorce and remarriage are on
these tapes.
     There will be much opposition to the material contained
therein by apostate Fundamentalists who have been raised and
nurtured on the Roman Catholic idea of marriage: i.e., that a
CEREMONY is a marriage and a divorce is a decree from a court--
neither of which are true in any sense of the word. The Bible is
still by far the most radical Book ever printed and the AV (1611)
is quite able to correct the "original Greek" in these matters or
any other matter. Those who believe in "verbally inspired
originals" but do not believe in the Bible they are called to
preach will never be able to sort out truth from error regardless
of their educational qualifications. The AV text will always
throw more light on the truth than any unavailable, unread
unknowables. The truths given here are derived from believing the
text as it stands without referring to Greek or Hebrew for
anything, without taking any verse out of context, without
referring to any "more accurate translation," without referring
to any "qualified scholar," without adding or subtracting one
word from the AV text, and above all, without consulting any man
or any man's reputation as a teacher for any of the material
contained therein.
     We here deal with the word of God and the WORDS of God which
we profess to have, to be able to read, believe, teach and
practice. The teaching which follows is a teaching which I taught
in 1951 (two years after my conversion), 1961 (two years after my
partner deserted me), 1971 (one year before I married my present
wife), and 1980 (after eight years of happily married life). We
have never been guilty of altering the truth to suit anyone or to
line it up with their traditions or "historical positions" no
matter how holy and pious they might sound. Truth is truth. Facts
are stubborn things. Light rejected becomes lightning; you may
reject the following Biblical facts at your own peril: you will
take the risk, not the Bible believer.

Peter S. Ruckman

MARRIAGE, DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE

     Now this particular message deals with a subject that has
been requested by many pastors and teachers up and down the
United States, and by many of my friends in the ministry who are
not preachers or teachers. This message deals with the matters of
marriage, divorce, separation and remarriage.

     At the beginning, let me make a few observations which might
be necessary as a sort of preface to the sermon. The first of
these observations is that in this study, as in all other Bible
studies, we will never refer to the Greek or Hebrew to prove a
point. Our reason for doing this is that we've observed through
the years that every man who ever got a false teaching from the
Bible eventually had to change the King James text in order to
bolster his teaching. There is no way that a man can stand with
the King James text as it stands, where it stands in the context
in which the verse appears, and get tangled up in false doctrine.
If a man is ever found teaching false doctrine, believing and
using nothing but a King James Bible, he will be taking a text
out of context every time he approaches the threshold of heresy.
In short: for no reason are we going to pervert the word of God
to make it teach anything we believe. Our manner of practice has
been from our youth up to adjust our beliefs to what the Bible
says and never bother telling anybody what it teaches until first
of all we find out what it says. We are to believe what it says.
If what it says is contrary to our beliefs, our business is to
adjust our beliefs to what it says, not to adjust what it says to
our beliefs.

     Now I say that because the subject we are approaching is a
very delicate one; and I say that because when such a subject
like this is broached, the Pharisee's Union will immediately be
ready with the response. "Oh, this is a new modern teaching that
is meant to adapt itself to this age of lower standards." That
is, the Pharisees have their standards, and the violation of one
of their standards is almost an unpardonable sin.

     Let me also preface my remarks by saying two other things.
The first of these is that what I'm about to say (documented by
the word of God), I have taught from the word of God since 1952.
I was saved in 1949. It took me about three yearrs to get all
this Bible material together that I'm about to discuss. Not once
in my ministry from 1952 to 1980 have I ever varied in what I'm
about to say. Nor have I ever changed any verse to prove what I'm
about to say, nor have I ever had to. I never had to change one
verse to make it say what I'm about to teach. What I'm about to
teach is quite revolutionary in some Fundamental circles, and it
is not a justification of anybody's sins; it is Bible doctrine.
If you don't accept it, you're the sinner. Your problem will be
how to justify yourself at the Judgment Seat of Christ.

     The last thing I would like to say is that for some peculiar
reason, sins of sex hold some special fondness or favorite place
in the heart of Fundamentalists, so that many of them have some
funny idea that sins of sex are unforgivable sins. Now I'll show
you what I mean.

     If you talk to the average Fundamentalist today--take any
thirty-five at random--you would find this peculiar teaching. For
example; if a saved woman deserted a saved man and went off and
ran around the country living like the Devil for a while, and
then she stayed single or else ran around the country for a while
and then got married, then that saved man whom she deserted would
have to remain a perpetual eunuch until she was dead. Now if that
seems like a misrepresentation of the fact, it only seems like
that because I have, for the sake of a joke, reversed the
procedure. What the Pharisee actually teaches is that if a saved
woman has a man leave her, and he runs around the country and
goes off and marries somebody else, that that saved woman can
never remarry until her former husband is dead. Therefore, she
must remain a perpetual virgin. Now that's the teaching.

     Now this teaching is taught not only by Harold Sightler (a
fine Christian man who loves the Bible and professes to believe
it), but also by Dr. Theodore Epp, and by several famous radio
preachers. Many of these good, godly men are Spirit-filled men
whom God has used. If they had one thing wrong with their
beliefs, it would be simply this: they have the inability to see
where God has made allowance in His Book for other people besides
themselves when it comes to matters of mercy.

     So let me say before proceeding: (1) I never recommend
divorce to anybody. Now did you hear that? You finally got it in
print, didn't you? Now don't you go up and down this country and
say Pete Ruckman is trying to justify this and that, and trying
to give people an alibi to do this and that. I don't recommend
divorce to anybody, let alone a Christian couple. I recommend
people forgive and forget and compromise their "convictions" with
each other and try to get along and live together. That's always
best. (2) I thank God for every Christian man or woman who has
stayed happily married or kept the marriage ties together through
a period of thirty, forty, fifty, or sixty years. If you've only
had one ceremony and remained true to the woman that you took
that ceremony with, thank God for you. (You noticed I didn't say
marriage? You have to be careful with words, did you know that?
Some of our Fundamentalists are rather careless with words. Some
of them think a marriage is a marriage ceremony, did you know
that? That's a Roman Catholic teaching--that marriage is a
sacrament--and when you take the sacrament, that's when you're
joined. People are funny aren't they?) As I was saying, if you're
a woman and you've had one marriage ceremony and you've been true
to the man with whom you had that ceremony, thank God for you. I
mean that with all my heart. Some of my dearest and closest
friends in the ministry have only been through one marriage
ceremony. They never had two of them; they've never got divorce
papers; they're still living together as man and wife. I thank
God for every one of them. More power to them.

     Now shall we see what the Bible says about marriage,
divorce, separation and remarriage? The classic chapter for this
is 1 Corinthians, chapter 7; which deals with these matters. If
you'll turn to 1 Corinthians, chapter 7, you will find the
following things apparent. In verses 1 to 2, it is good for a man
to say single. "Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto
me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to
avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every
woman have her own husband."

     In verse 7, Paul says as far as he was concerned, it would
be good for a man to stay single. "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."

     Condition: verse 9, if you can't stay single, get married.
It is better to marry than to burn. "But if they cannot contain,
let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn."

     Now this much is clear. That isn't all. In 1 Corinthians 7,
verse 7, you read that certain men have a gift for staying
single, and some don't. "For I would that all men were even as I
myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this
matter, and another after that."

     This corroborates what the Lord Jesus Christ himself said in
Matthew 19:11. "But he said unto them, All men cannot receive
this saying, save they to whom it is given." Also in verse 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."

     So the first admonition is for a person to stay single. Paul
not only gives this advice to young men who haven't been married;
but also he says in 1 Corinthians 7:8, "I say therefore to the
unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as
I." And again to the widow in verse 40, "But she is happier if
she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the
Spirit of God."

     That is, she is happier staying single. Now that rule is
clear. There couldn't be any argument about that rule. That rule
is, it's better to stay single if you can; but if you can't, it
is perfectly proper to get married. That much is clear.

     Now what is not so clear about it (comparing scripture with
scripture) is that the Bible defines marriage as a physical
matter in 1 Corinthians 7:9. "But if they cannot contain, let
them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn." Did you
notice that? There are some Fundamentalists who seem to ignore
that. The marriage has to do with man and woman coming together
lest they "burn" incontinently in the matter of lust. How do we
know this? Look at the context--1 Corinthians 7:5, "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." Now if
there's any doubt in your mind about the physicalness of
marriage, notice, in the verse I quoted back in Matthew 19:12,
the Holy Spirit's comment on His own writing. "For there are some
eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb (physical!);
and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men (Why,
that's physical!): and there be eunuchs which have made
themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake." (Why, a
eunuch is a man who doesn't bear children. The whole thing is
physical.)

     Now that's very important to notice, because Christ said
that a marriage is where "flesh joins flesh." Matthew 19:5, "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."
Moses said that a marriage is where "flesh joins flesh." Genesis
2:23-24: "And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh
of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out
of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother,
and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."
Paul said that's where "flesh joins flesh." Ephesians 5:31, "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." Then Paul
makes this remarkable statement in 1 Corinthians 6, verse 16,
"What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one
body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh." So at this place
the twentieth century "historic Fundamentalists" part company
with the Bible. In the Bible, a marriageis where flesh joins
flesh to make one body. That fact is incontestable. You can't do
anything about it. This explains why "fornication" is warned
against in 1 Corinthians 6:18. "Flee fornication. Every sin that
a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth
fornication sinneth against his own body." And this thoroughly
explains what Jesus Christ said in 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."

     So here we have the root of the problem, and this problem
evidently forms a great subconscious burden to the modern
fundamentalist Pharisees who think that their outward conduct
justifies their theological opinions.

     Doesn't it ever occur to you to be rather strange that when
Jesus Christ spoke about these matters, He spoke about these
matters suddenly, without warning, to the Pharisees? The warning
is in Matthew, chapter 19, but look at this sudden eruption in
Luke 16. Right in the middle of Luke 16, in talking about the law
and the prophets and John, Christ suddenly says in Luke 16:18,
"Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another,
committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her thatis put away
from her husband committeth adultery." The context was this, Luke
16:15, "And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify
yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that
which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of
God." Don't you find that significant about "God knowing the
hearts" in view of the fact that the same Saviour who spoke to
the same crowd about the same matter said, in another place, "But
I say unto you, That whosoever looketh upon a woman to lust after
her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."
Matthew 5:28.

     What's the context of that one? Why it's the righteousness
of 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." Now these facts (which are Biblical doctrinal truths
constituting sound doctrine) are going to be laid down before we
can erect any sort of a structure or framework that deals with
marriage, divorce, separation, and remarriage. For the apostate
Fundamentalist who has itching ears and has turned away from
sound doctrine, we're going to say, "Run on, sonny, before you
get hit in the traffic." (And we say that with charity, of
course!)

     The Bible believer must face something. He must face the
fact that in God's sight: (1) A marriage is not necessarily a
marriage ceremony. (2) A marriage ceremony is not necessarily
marriage. (3) Marriage in the Bible is a physical affair where
flesh joins flesh. (4) Fornication with a whore constitutes that
much of marriage, flesh joining flesh.

     Therefore, if a man lived a life of fornication and only had
one marriage ceremony, he could pass off as only "having one
wife" whereas he had fifty; and that's what the Pharisees were
doing. The Lord knew it; that's why He said what He said, and it
was said to the Pharisees.

     Don't you know that bunch got upset when Paul wrote down
that fornication was "flesh joining flesh?" Don't you know when
they brought that woman to Jesus Christ in John, chapter 8,
somebody like to had a conniption fit? Did you know that to this
day the Westcott and Hort Greek text and Nestle's Greek text have
omitted the first nine verses of John, chapter 8? Why? It deals
with sex. You know what happened there. The Pharisees (that's the
bunch we're dealing with here) brought a woman to Christ and
said, "This woman was caught in the act." That is, she was caught
in the act of adultery. Then they said, "Moses in the law said to
take such a one and stone them, but what sayest thou?"

     Now the idea behind this thing was, if He said, "Don't stone
her," He'd make a liar out of Moses, and then they'd get Him; and
if He said, "Do stone her," then the people would think, "Well,
what about that! There He is a friend of publicans and sinners,
forgiving and having mercy on sinners, having a sinner killed."
But Christ stooped down and wrote something on the ground, and
when He got done writing, they all left. Why'd they leave? Well,
as sure as you live and breathe, He wrote Leciticus 20, verse 10,
on the ground. Did you ever read Leviticus 20, verse 10? Now stop
and think a minute. They brought that woman and they said, "We
caught this woman in the act." All right, gentlemen, if you
caught the woman in the act, where was the man? How'd he get
away, and how were you left with just the woman? Leviticus 20:10
says, "And the man that committeth adultery with another man's
wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife,
the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death."
Moses didn't write, "Stone the woman." He said, "Stone the man
and the woman." Now how do you suppose those Pharisees caught the
woman without catching the man? The Bible's an interesting book,
isn't it? It certainly does throw a lot of light on "Christian
Education" wouldn't you say? You know why they didn't catch that
man? Because it was a setup. He was probably one of them. It was
a frameup. Then they, being convicted by their consciences, left,
and the oldest left first. He had more to do with cooking up the
plot!

     All right, marriage in the Bible is a physical affair. The
first marriage has no preacher, no ring, no ceremony, no license.
Once you say this, the modern apostate Fundamentalist will say,
"Oh, then you approve of common law marriage." (See how they
think?) The modern apostate Fundamentalist, trained at a
Christian school, is unbalanced. He's afraid of the Bible. When
you start along these lines, his mind will begin to hop and skip
and jump like a scared jackrabbit with a pack of hounds at his
heels, trying to find some way or alibi or excuse or reason to
reject what's coming. So once you say what I just said, he'll put
that in. This brings up an important question: "So what?" If
that's what the Bible says about it (and that's what it says),
and if those are the Biblical facts (and they are), then what
does your opinion about it amount to? I'll answer you:
"Absolutely nothing." Nobody said they were in favor of common
law marriage. The laws of the state (Rom. 13:1-5) are to be
obeyed. Nobody said anything about "shacking up" with someone and
calling that a marriage. Paul said that if a man is saved, he
should be willing to live honestly before men, manifesting a good
conscience openly in the sight of all men. There are other verses
that take care of that thing which some of you folks are troubled
about.

     But this brings us to the great hangup of the modern
apostate Fundamentalist. The hangup may be described as this:
Whenever he finds a truth, he gets so anxious to get that tyruth
across and to enforce it that he's willing to pervert the word of
God to get it across. That is, the big thing today among apostate
Fundamentalists is their ministries, not the Book. If it comes to
the sacrifice of a standard that's been used in building a
ministry or the word of God, they'll sacrifice the word of God
every time. The important thing in many "Bible-believing" schools
and colleges is not the Bible; it's the college. The most
important thing in many "Bible-believing" churches is not the
Bible; it's the church. Have you noticed that?

     So these fellows (in order to maintain only one marriage and
one spouse throughout a lifetime--which is a good standard), will
pervert the word of God to prove it, just like they pervert the
word of God to try to keep short haircuts on their congregation.
To them the Bible is a tool for attaining means or ends; it is
not an end within itself. To them the Bible is not the supreme,
absolute, infallible authority and judge and guide of their
lives; the Bible is a tool whereby they carry out their purposes
and plans which become the authoritative guide. You got it? (Do
you see what we mean, jellybean?)

     All right, we have established here the Bible truth that
marriage, in the word of God, is primarily a matter of flesh
joining flesh, which is manifest by two important Biblical facts
that constitute sound doctrine. When speaking of marriage, Christ
likens it to eunuchs who cannot have children physically, and
Paul likens it to joining your body to a harlot. With this in
mind, let us begin in Matthew 19, verses 4-6. "And he answered
and said unto them, Have you not read that He which made them at
the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause
shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his
wife: and they twain (That's two.) shall be one flesh? Wherefore
they are no more twain (That's two.), but one flesh. What
therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." Now
because this quotation is repeated during marriage ceremonies,
some "historic Fundamentalists" have a funny idea that when two
people are standing at an altar, God is joining them together.
Can you imagine anything more sick than that? I wonder where you
could have got that from? Why, the context was Adam and Eve, in
verse 4. Now, how do you explain these apostate Fundamentalists
doing the same thing to the word of God that a Campbellite or a
Catholic priest does? Taking the verse slap out of context to
where it has nothing to do with the context at all; isn't that a
peculiar thing? The context was Adam and Eve. She was taken from
his body. It was a body, physical, flesh and bone contact, and
God did it.

     Now is there any Fundamentalist present who is apostate
enough to tell me that when two unsaved people get married at an
altar that God is joining them together? Okay, let's try this
one. Is there any preacher listening to my voice who thinks that
when a saved woman marries an unsaved man that God is joining
them together when they take the vows? You wouldn't go that far,
would you?

     You see when the modern "historic Fundamentalist" takes his
"historic" stand on "divorce and remarriage," he puts himself at
cross currents, not only to one or two verses, but the entire
teaching of marriage in the word of God. You couldn't look into
the face of a saved woman and tell her it was God who joined her
to her husband, if he were an unsaved man, because He commanded
her not to join her body to that man, and she did it.

     Now, Matthew 19:7-8: "They say unto Him, Why did Moses then
command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 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." Well, what is this business here? Why did Moses
command to give a writing of divorcement? Where's that found?
Isn't it strange how an apostate Fundamentalist will come right
down there and say, "Only one marriage, only one wife, for a
lifetime," and then refuse to find out where the divorcement came
from under Moses and just dismiss it? I'd like to know how you
saved people are going to dismiss it when it's spoken of in
Romans 7! You say it was the Old Testament law; well you'd better
look again at Romans 7, verse 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? 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." Now do you see the mess these fellows got themselves
into? When they threw out the cross references to Matthew 19,
verses 7 and 8 on the grounds that all that was "Old Testament"
(therefore the law was past), and you could no longer have a
writing of divorcement for anything, you were told that the very
place where Christ was referring to applies to a man and a woman
in a Gentile church in the Body of Christ. (Romans 7, verses 1 to
3.) In view of that, don't you think you'd better go back and see
what it said? Let's do it, shall we? After all, Paul said in
Romans, chapter 7, "I I speak to them that know the law." Since
the modern apostate Fundamentalist (who teaches that a woman has
two or three "living husbands," or a man has two or three "living
wives") doesn't know the law, then surely we're in a better
position to expound Romans 7 than he is. Shall we try it?
Deuteronomy 24:1, "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." Now this is what the Pharisees were referring to in
Matthew 19 (which Christ discussed in Matthew 19 and to which
Paul referred in Romans 7). This is why this passage is never
looked up nor referred to by "Fundamentalists." The only man who
referred to it was Theodore Epp, who went back here and picked up
the passage and tried to convince his listeners that this
referred to a man who was engaged and who hadn't got married yet,
so when they first got married, he found out that his woman was
not a virgin. But that's not found anywhere in the passage.

     Let's look at the passage. Deuteronomy 24:1, "When a man
hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she
find no favour in his eyes, (Because why?) because he hath found
some uncleanness in her...." Why there wasn't any statement about
her not being a "virgin," or having stepped out with another man.
It said "some uncleanness." that means anything he didn't life.
How do you know? Because the New Testament passage said that's
what it was. The New Testament passage said, "Moses because of
the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives"
(Matt. 19:8). In Matthew 19:3, "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?" Now look at that! The bill of
divorcement spoken of in Matthew 19:7, "They say unto him, Why
did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to
put her away?" is the bill of divorcement in Deuteronomy 24:1,
"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." The "every cause" of Matthew 19:3 is the "some
uncleanness" of Deuteronomy 24:1; yet Theodore Epp threw out both
references, and pulled the verse out of context to prove one
marriage and then tried to prove it only had reference to a
fellow being engaged and marrying a woman who had already been
laid with. Why Theodore Epp, you old Bible twisting Campbellite,
you! You ought to be ashamed of yourself, son! The very idea of
trying to make that word of God line up with your private
interpretation taught by the Roman Catholic church.

     Now many apostate Fundamentalists have borrowed this private
interpetation of Theodore Epp's, and they have written tracts all
over this country trying to prove that the only cause for a "bill
of divorcement" in the time of Moses was the fact that if a man
was engaged to a woman and found out that she wasn't a "virgin,"
he could get rid of her. There isn't a teaching in the Church of
Christ or the Seventh-day Adventist or the Charismatics that does
any more dishonor to sound doctrine than that.

     In the very context you just read in Deuteronomy 24, you'll
find that in verse 3, a man can give his wife a bill of
divorcement because he doesn't like her. "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;" Those
Pharisees knew that when they asked the question of Jesus Christ
and said, "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every
cause?" Now this goes to show the length to which some "godly,"
dedicated Fundamentalist will go in order to teach an unsound,
nonbiblical heresy. In Deuteronomy 24, verses 1 to 3, it is
plainly not fornication or adultery because one bill of
divorcement is given because the man hates his wife, verse 3.

     So when Christ says, "except for fornication," in Matthew,
chapter 19, He is setting up a new precedent that is not in
Deuteronomy 24, verses 1 to 4, and all understand Him. You say,
"How do you know they understand Him that way?" Look at Matthew
19:10. Having said the only reason a man can get rid of his wife
is because of fornication, His disciples say, "His disciples say
unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not
good to marry." Now notice how the Jews of Christ's day
understood the Bible much better than Dr. DeHaan, C.I. Scofield,
Charlie Fuller, Robert Sumner, Theodore Epp, John R. Rice, Oliver
Greene, or Harold Sightler. Notice how they understood perfectly
and exactly what Jesus Christ is talking about. They don't make
any mistakes about it. They ask, "Is it lawful for a man to put
away his wife for every cause?" Now that's clear; that is, if you
don't have an ulterior motive in mind or a self-righteous,
Pharisaical attitude towards those who have been less fortunate
in marriage than you've been. That's just as plain as the nose on
your face. You'd better read it right. You say, "Or what?" Or
else your Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, will fix your wagon,
here and later. You have no business persecuting the saints on
the basis of a lie.

     You say, why have you gone to this much backgrokund? Because
the bigt stumbling block to "the historic Fundamentalist
position" is Romans, chapter 7. (We'll see about that when we get
there.) There isn't any way a man can understand Romans 7,
without understanding the law, because Romans 7:1 said that it
was written to them that knew the law. Why, my stars, people, if
Paul said, "Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know
the law,)..." don't you know that the man who reads that had sure
better see what the law says so he can know what he's talking
about? Theodore Epp is absolutely wrong on these matters, and he
is teaching an unsound, unblibcal heresy that comes from
perverting the word of God from the context. We would expect him
to do this because he and Christian Weiss have been altering the
King James text on almost every broadcast, every week for better
than twenty years. We should not be surprised that thesemodern
apostates and Fundamentalists have fixed up a lying doctrine that
lines up with the Roman Catholic church, and it has nothing to do
with sound doctrine.

     Now in Matthew 19, these facts are clear: (1) Marriage is a
flesh plus flesh, physical affair, which is found in verse 5,
verse 6, and verse 12. "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? Wherefore they are no more twain, but
one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man
put asunder...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." (2) In the Old Testament, a man
could put away his wife for any cause. Matthew, chapter 19, verse
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?" and Deuteronomy, chapter 24, verse 1 and verse 3, "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...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." That's
clear. New Testament grounds for divorce, (where you can give
your wife a bill of divorcement and put her away) are
fornication. 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." Why did he say "fornication?" First
Corinthians 6:16,18, "What? know ye not that he which is joined
to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one
flesh...Flee fornication." Could anything be any clearer than
that? If a man's wife steps out on him and joins her body to the
body of another man, flesh has left flesh and joined flesh, and
that man can give her a bill of divorcement and "put her away"
according to Jesus Christ. (I wouldn't ask your opinion about
that if you thought you were the fourth member of the Trinity.If
you were both Houses of Congress or the United Nations, I
wouldn't bother to ask you for the time of day when it came to
that. Why take an opinion when you have the revelation of God?
When a man takes a man's opinion when the revelation has spoken
contrary, he's taking a demon's opinion instead of God's
opinion.)

     The Bible is an interesting book, isn't it? All right, now
back in Matthew 19:9, look at this. "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." Notice the
remarriage in the same context with the legitimate divorce. The
only remarriage that is considered illegitimate is where the
grounds of divorce are illegitimate. Where the bill of
divorcement was for the right thing--fornication--the remarriage
was allowed. It is in the context. As a matter of fact, it's
right in the middle of the verse.

     Now the amazing thing about the legitimate grounds for
divorce is that everywhere they are mentioned, a remarriage is
mentioned in the context. For example: In the case of widowhood,
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"--remarriage. That
one was in the case of death. Now look at this one. 1 Corinthians
7:27, "Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art
thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife." "Art thou loosed from
a wife," notice he didn't say what grounds, just "loosed." (You
want some "Greek," boy, look up that one. These apostate
Fundamentalists always change the King James Bible with the Greek
trying to prove a point. Boy, honey, let's see you find that word
"loosed" in 1 Corinthians 7:27 in the Greek. That'll make your
hair stand on end.) That's a man who has been divorced, but I
wouldn't go to the Greek to prove it. I don't have to. Why waste
time with "the Greek" when you've got it in your own language?
Verse 28, "But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a
virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have
trouble inthe flesh: but I spare you." Notice a remarriage in all
three contexts. A man says, "But..." We're not through, we're not
through. Now that we have established basics, we are ready for
Romans 7.

     We've established a basis for sound Bible doctrine. Let it
first of all be said, emphatically, that it is sound doctrine for
people to live holy, justly, righteously, unblameably before God.
It is sound doctrine that the marriage bed is undefiled and
honorable in all, Hebrews 13:4. Let us establish sound doctrine
in that if an unsaved man wants to stay with a saved person, then
let them stay and stick together. 1 Corinthians 7:12-13 says,
"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. And the woman which hath an husband
that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let
her not leave him." Let us never forget when dealing with matters
of divorce and remarriage, that we have to teach sound doctrine
from the word of God and not the hallucinations of some "historic
position" that teaches Roman Catholic rubbish.

     A marriage ceremony in the Bible is not a marriage. Marriage
is flesh joining flesh and divorce is flesh leaving flesh; and
where flesh leaves flesh, those are scriptural grounds for
divorce according to Jesus Christ. Now watch it carefully. Romans
7:1, "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?" Then follows the classic case.

     First of all, I'll read it like an apostate Fundamentalist
teaching a Roman Catholic "sacrament," and then I will read it as
it reads in the word of God. First of all the false reading. Are
you ready?

     "For the woman which had a husband she was married to, is
bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the
man she was married to be dead, she is loosed from the law of her
husband. So then if while the man she was married to liveth, she
gets divorced and marries another man, she shall be called an
adulteress; but if the man she was married to be dead, she is
free from the law so she is no adulteress though she get a
divorce and marry another man."

     You say, "No Bible reads that way." But that is the way a
Pharisee reads it. They have a divorce read into verse 2, but
they can't read it into verse 3. Isn't that a strange thing? "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. 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." Now what do you suppose led these people to believe
that this woman had any divorce, let alone a legal one? Aren't
people weird? Here's a man who said this woman here has "three
living husbands" or "two living husbands," or this man over here
has "two living wives"--according to what? Romans 7, verses 2 and
3? Why, bless your heard, you never read about a divorce in
Romans 7:2,3. You say, "Well, it says she's married to the other
fellow." You sure walked into it blindfaced, didn't you? You
thought the marriage was the ceremony. Now here we've reached the
heart of the matter. The interpretation, given by Theodore Epp to
Matthew 19, is circulated all over this country. This foul,
unholy, unscriptural doctrine is accepted by the Roman Catholic
church in Romans 7 to mean that if you were ever married, you
could never marry again as long as the person you were married to
was still around somewhere. How do they do this?

     They take this for granted by saying, "If she be married to
another man, she had to get a divorce from her first husband."
State law requires it, doesn't it? Otherwise she's guilty of
bigamy. Why, you never read anything about a divorce in Romans,
chapteer 7, verses 1, 2, and 3. Look at it. "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? For the woman
which hath a 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. 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." Where did you
define a divorce in there? You see that word "loosed" at the end
of verse 2? That's a divorce. But that's if the man is dead. You
never read in verse 3, "so while her former husband lives, she
got a divorce and gets married again, she's an adulteress." You
read, "while the man she's married to is alive and they're still
married, then if she gets another fellow, she's an adulteress."
That's what you read. You just didn't believe what hyou read.
Let's get the correct reading. "For the woman which hath an
husband (Present tense, married to him now) is bound by the law
to her husband (the man that's true to her, to whom she is
married) so long as he liveth; but if the husband (the man she is
married to legally and righteously) be dead, she is loosed
(divorced) from the law of her husband. (She can get remarried.)
So then if, while her husband (not the fellow "she was divorced
from," it is her husband--the man she is married to legally and
righteously) liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be
called an adulteress..." She's guilty of what? Adultery; and
that's why she's called an "adulteress," because she is. Now do
you see that thing right there? Go back now and look at
Leviticus, chapter 20. I mean he wrote to them "that know the
law," Leviticus, chapter 20, verse 10, "And the man that
committeth adultery with another man's wife (Not a divorced woman
legally divorced and "put away"--it is another man's wife), even
he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the
adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death." Now
how much plainer can you get it? Unless you have an ulterior
motive in mind in setting yourself up as "holier than thou," and
putting some Christians into a body of "second class citizens"
beneath you, as something inferior to you because they've had sex
problems you haven't had.

     I'll tell you, Brethren, some of the biggest Fundamental
leaders in this country are the biggest, self-righteous sinners
that ever lied about the Bible. And don't you think some unsaved
folks can't spot it. Some of you Christians may have a hard time
spotting it, but believe me, some of the unsaved people are not
so easily fooled.

     Now you take this business right there--this thing in Romans
7. That woman isn't divorced. That man isn't divorced. That man
is true to his wife. He hasn't stepped out on her; she's stepped
out on him, and in doing that, she's committed two things: (1)
the act of fornication--which gives her husband a legal right to
give her a bill of divorcement; (2) she's committed adultery, in
stepping out on him. She's an adulteress. For the time being
(until her husband gives the bill of divorcement and puts her
away), in the eyes of God, she has two men at the same time.

     Christ says to that woman in John 4, "For thou hast had five
husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband..." Now
this shows you the difference between speaking about it
practically, and speaking about it legally, You see, practically
(openly), the woman has two husbands. She's shacking up with both
of them. In the eyes of the law she'd be guilty of bigamy, if she
had papers to go with both of them. If she only had papers to go
with one of them, she's an adulteress--stepping out on her
husband. In the eyes of God, she's swapped husbands; and her
flesh has left flesh to join flesh with another man, and her
husband, bless your heart, is single--he is "loosed." And if he's
"loosed," there's a remarriage that I just read you in 1
Corinthians, chapter 7 verses 27, 28.

     All right, now let's look at 1 Corinthians, chapter 7. (We
have found her two legal, scriptural grounds for divorce. These
grounds of divorce are given by God in the holy scriptures, and
sound doctrine must allow for their teaching. You see, these dumb
Fundamentalists--you have to keep repeating yourself because
they're harebrained, they're scatterbrained--they have a
persecution complex. They're sensitive; they're touchy; they're
emotionally upset; they're disturbed. Once you start pulling out
this hard, fast, straight, King James truth, they get as rattled
as a woman looking for a new pair of shoes. They start saying,
"Ruckman's doing this, and Ruckman's doing that, and..." Shut
your mouth until you know better. We're dealing here with sound
doctrine; and if you're not apostate, you better search the
scriptures and see "if these things be so," and you'd better
believe what you read, and you'd better teach it. You'd better
preach it, and you'd better practice it. If you're not going to,
go on and be a fool--it's your neck and not mine.)

     In 1 Corinthians, chapter 7, we have another ground for
divorce--Death, which looses the other party and makes him (or
her) single and available for remarriage, verse 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." Then we also find Desertion, which
looses one party and makes them single and available for
remarriage, verse 15. "But if the unbelieving depart, let him
depart. A brother or a sister is not underr bondage in such
cases: but God hath called us to peace." Do you understand that?
A man said, "Well, I thought that death was the only grounds."
You got that from the Roman Catholic church.

     I was talking with one of the brethren one time--quite
naturally he'd been taught what he was trying to give me by some
teacher at Tennessee Temple. This teacher at Tennessee Temple (he
was a typical apostate) corrected the King James Bible about
three times a class--typical. He said this, "I believe a bishop
is only to have 'one wife.' A man can't be a pastor unless he has
one wife, and if he has any former wife living anywhere, he's got
more than one wife."

     I said, "Do you really believe that?"

     He said, "Yes, I do."

     I said, "In plainer words, you'd interpret 1 Timothy 3:2 as
the bishop must only be married once, right?"

     He said, "Right."

     I said, "You don't believe that."

     He said, "Sure I do."

     I said, "I'm going to pin you right down. Are you trying to
say that being the husband of one wife means that a man, to be a
minister, should only have gone through one marriage ceremony
with a wedding ring? Is that what you're saying?"

     He said, "Yes, except in the case of death."

     I said, "Hold the phone a minute, man. If the fellow
remarried after death, it would be two marriages and two rings
and two certificates; you said one."

     Do you see the mess people get into? That fellow had four
years of Christian education, and he actually thought he had a
brain in his head. Aren't people strange?

     After that man had just said all that, I called to his
attention that Bob Jones, Senior, had been married twice. He
liked to have flipped. If the verse meant "only married once," it
didn't say only married twice. If it said only married once, it
didn't say any exceptions. You got the exception from Romans,
chapter 7, and Romans, chapter 7 wasn't talking about that!
Romans 7 was talking about a woman stepping out on her husband,
while he was alive! Boy, if people aren't weird! If they don't
get themselves in a mess messing with that King James Text!

     Why 1 Timothy, chapter 3, verses 1 and 2, says, "This is a
true saying, If aman desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a
good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one
wife, vigilant, sobert, of good behaviour, given to hospitality,
apt to teach." First Timothy, chapter 3, verse 1, can't mean
"only married once." That would disqualify a thousand ministers
from the ministry. It has to mean he's faithful to the one wife
he's got. If he's scripturally and legally divorced and
remarried, he has only one wife. If he's true to her, that's the
only wife he's got. Any other interpretation of that passage is
immoral and is trying to give a man an alibi for sin; because if
it means "only married once," it means the bishop, as long as he
doesn't get divorced papers from his wife or vice versa, can have
as many women to shack up with as he wants to. That is the
Pharisaical, Roman Catholic interpretation of Romans 7, and 1
Timothy 3, and it is to allow a leeway for immorality, as long as
the "sacrament" is left inviolate. You see? As long as the church
ceremony was preserved as the great thing.

     First Corinthians 7, verses 8-10 says, "I say therefore to
the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even
as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is
better to marry than to burn. And unto the married I command, yet
not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband."
That is a commandment. The wife is told not to depart from her
husband. That is the directive will of God. Verse 11, "But (This
is the permissive will of God--second choice.) and if she depart,
let her remain unmarried (not join her body up to the body of
another man), or (if she is going to join her body up to a man)
be reconciled to her husband." (Her body is to come back and join
his body.) Now is that clear? Do you see why we spent this time
in background work in Matthew, chapter 19, and Deuteronomy,
chapter 24? Why, you had to! If you didn't, these monkeys would
get to 1 Corinthians, chapter 7, verse 11, and say that it means
as long as the woman doesn't go through another marriage ceremony
and another ring, see, that the guy is bound to her forever after
she leaves.

     You see how the old Pharisee thinks? He always has in mind
the ceremonial observance of a legal ritual. The last part of
verse 11 says, "...and let not the husband put away his wife."
That's why I don't recommend divorce. I recommend you stay with
your husband, verse 10. I recommend you don't leave your wife,
verse 12; and that you don't "put her away," verse 11.

     But what happens if they leave you for good? Verse 15, "But
if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother (a saved
man) or a sister (a saved woman) is not under bondage in such
cases: but God hath called us to peace." Where the other party
departs and deserts the believing party, the believing party is
not bound to the party that leaves. You say, "Well, what about a
case where a Christian person departs from a brother or sister?"
You're not given that specific thing in the word of God, because
it is taken for granted that they won't. By the same token,
you're told in verse 10 that the application was to anybody--
verses 10 and 11 could have meant saved or unsaved. So when you
get to 1 Corinthians 7:15, you've got a case that can apply
either way. The important thing is that the one who is left
single is a brother, a believing man, or a sister, a saved woman.
They are not under bondage; they are not bound to the party that
departed.

     Now one can see throughout all this study how much legal
Pharisaism has crept into interpretation of the Bible by the
apostate Fundamentalists who follow the Roman Catholic position.

     For example: I was out in California one time, right after
my wife had deserted me, sitting at a table with a bunch of
pastors and their wives. There fell a hush over the dinner table,
and I knew a bomb was about to drop. A young preacher sitting
right across from me suddenly said to me, "Do you think a man who
is divorced should be a minister and go on in the ministry?"

     I prayed real quick and asked the Lord to give me a
"nugget," and I said, "What did you say?" (Of course while they
take time to ask you again, the Lord has time to give you
something.)

     He said, "Do you think a man that's been divorced should be
a minister?"

     I said, "Well, I'll put it this way. Suppose you and your
wife don't get along. (She was sitting right there beside him at
the table when I said that, and she turned beet red, and his eyes
shifted.) and just suppose some day your wife decides she's tired
of the ministry, and she's tired of you, and she just quits and
leaves. Now, have you been called to preach?"

     He said, "Yes."

     I said, "Has your wife been called to preach?"

     He said, "No."

     I said, "Well, are you going to quit then just because she
quits?"

     He said, "Well, I hadn't thought about it that way."

     I said, "Well, think about it; please pass the salt."

     There's a lot of wild things going on. Do you know what
these Pharisees would have you think? (Now let me just show you
the implication. Let me talk real plain for a while.) Do you
realize (you men that I'm talking to) that if your wife left you,
and then she didn't have another marriage ceremony (she just ran
around with various men through a period of eight or nine years,
but nobody wanted her anyway after she left, you know those
things happen), do you realize that according to eighty percent
of the Fundamental leaders in the Body of Christ, that you, as a
man, would be condemned to be a perpetual eunuch with no sex life
for the rest of your life? Now you need to think about that. I
mean really think about that. Do you realize that if you were
twenty-two years old, and your wife left you and never got
another marriage ceremony performed (like we had happen here with
a fellow named Troy Hardy), that as far as eighty percent of the
leaders are concerned, beginning at twenty-two, your sex life
would be over until you were dead? Now you talk about "binding
hard burdens and grievous to be borne upon me," what do you think
about that?

     Let's eliminate things: (1) You couldn't run around with
single women, in their eyes, that would be fornication. (2) You
couldn't fool around with married women, because in their eyes,
that would be adultery. (3) You couldn't go around and just get a
professional hustler, that would be whoremongering, Hebrews,
chapter 13. (4) You couldn't practice self satisfaction with self
abuse; that would be lasciviousness or unclean practices defiling
body and spirit. What could you do? According to Theodore Epp,
for example, or Sightler or a dozen other leaders in
Fundamentalism? I'll tell you what you could do. You could play
tiddlywinks and play marbles.

     Now that's the kind of a mess an apostate gets into when he
sets himself up as a judge of the word of God, or as a judge of
the brethren.

     Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7:27, "Art thou bound unto a
wife?..." Okay, answer. "...seek not to be loosed." That's clear.
Here's a man telling you, "Well, you've got 'two living
husbands,' so you ought to divorce your second husband and go
back to your first one." You should? Don't you know that the law
forbade that? I mean, "I speak to them that know the law,"
Romans, chapter 7, verses 1 and 2. Do you know what the law said
about your first husband? Deuteronomy 24:2, 3, and 4. "And when
she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's
wife. 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; 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." Now
isn't that something? Why, in Deuteronomy, chapter 24, verses 1
to 4, that second marriage after a divorce is so scriptural and
so complete and so thorough, that in that case, if the second
husband dies, the woman can't go back. Isn't that something? Paul
says, "I speak to them that know the law," talking to Gentile
Christians in Rome in the Body of Christ in the church age.

     Folks say, "Ruckman, how long did it take to find all this
out?" Well, I wrote the Bible Believer's Commentary on Matthew in
1959. It wasn't published until 1970. I've got on tapes what I
taught about marriage and divorce from 1960 to 1980. I've always
taught three grounds for divorce. That is, there are three things
that loose a body from another body and causes that person to be
single. One: Fornication, with a remarriage in the context. Two:
Desertion, with a remarriage in the context. Three: Death, with a
remarriage in the context.

     I'm told in 1 Corinthians 7:27 that if I'm loosed froma
wife, I'm "not to seek a wife," but if I remarry, "I have not
sinned," 1 Corinthians chapter 7, verse 28. Now do you know what
these self-righteous hypocrites do when they get to 1 Corinthians
7:28? (I mean the manipulations of the mind in trying to avoid
the truth are fantastic. If you wonder why I go into such
detailed matters, and why I'm so negative and critical in my
examination, it's because I have to follow the maneuverrs of the
truth-jumping mind that seeks to dodge the truth. When a fellow
gets hung up on these things because of personal prejudice or
personal pride, his mind becomes unhinged and goes off like a
rocket without a stabilizer.) You know what these fellows do with
the passage? They'll try to tell you that the marrying, in verse
28, is getting married the first time, and the first half of the
verrse refers to a male getting married, while the second half of
the verse refers to a female getting married; and this is proved
by the fact that it says that if a virgin marry, she hath not
sinned.

     Tell me something. If the first half of the verse is not a
reference to verse 27, (a remarriage with a statement on a first
marriage) to a person who's never been married, why would Paul
say if a man marries, he hasn't sinned? What would be the point
of saying that if it was a first marriage? Is there anybody in
God's universe who would think that the first marriage was a sin?
Christ recommended it, and Paul said it was "honourable in all,"
and Paul just told them it was all right in 1 Corinthians,
chapter 7, verses 2 and 9. Haven't we got us some winners?

     Now this shows you the length that a "Bible-believing"
Fundamentalist will go to get around the truth. If what you read
here is true (if a man is loosed from a wife for any of the
reasons given before), if that man is loosed and single, then
that man has a right to remarry if verse 28 goes with verse 27.
"Art thou bopund unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou
loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. 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." Notice, "seek not a wife. But--" Look at that disjunctive
conjunction--two of them. "Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not
a wife. But and if thou marry,"--why, it's a reference to a man
who has been loosed from a wife. "Horrors," says the Pharisee,
"How can we avoid that?" That rascal hits upon the capital idea
in verse 28 that the vow of verse 28 is not a reference to
anybody in verse 27, but is a reference to the first marriage of
a man and to the first marriage of a woman. This would meazn that
Paul (in the middle of a discourse on being loosed from wives and
getting married) suddenly says, "If a man marries he hasn't
sinned." Why you cockeyed nut, there isn't anybody who ever lived
who didn't know it was all right to get married, if they'd never
been married before. Who didn't know that? The man who needed to
be told it was all right to marry (because a lot of people would
be convinced it would be a sin to get married, if he did get
married) would obviously be the man who had been loosed from a
wife--verse 27.

     And there stands the Biblical picture of divorce, marriage,
and remarriage. It's clear in the AV (1611). Only by approaching
that Bible with the Pharisaical attitude of a sacramental bigot,
with the emphasis laid on the legal ritual of the ceremony, can a
man arrive at the interpretation being taught by eighty percent
of the Fundamentalists in America today. It's taught to produce a
"first class Christian" and a "second class Christian" who is a
little bit lower down the scale spiritually than the high and
mighty folks who weren't caught in the act, or were fortunate
enough never to have committed the act.

     I go up and down this country, and I find a common problem.
Do you know what it is? It's the problem of what to do with the
spiritual people in your church who have been married more than
once and yet are more spiritual than the people who have only
been married once. Do you kinow what constitutes a real problem?
Here's a couple who have had the misfortune to have been through
a divorce which is a bad thing and a tragic thing. (I don't
recommend it.) They're remarried, and they're happily established
in a Christian home. They love the Lord, and they're willing to
atone for their sins. They've made it up to God and each other,
and they win souls, love God, love the church, and they're
faithful in attendance. They believe the Book, and they are
equipped to teach. What do you do with them? Why it's simple. You
say they have "two living wives" or husbands, and you put them on
a back sea (like Theodore Epp). Then you let the couple that's
only been married once for thirty years (and gripe about
everything and want to run the church and lie about the
attendance and mishandle the funds behind your back) have the
class or put them in as a trustee, right? You know what I mean,
jellybean? That's the problem we have.

     Now I'll sum it up. I teach (have always taught, and will
always teach, until the Lord shows me otherwise) there are three
grounds of divorce: death, desertion, and fornication. In all
three cases--death, desertion, and fornication--the party who is
left alone is single, and as a single person, they are capable of
remarriage.

     The remarriage is warned against because of trouble in the
flesh. The remarriage is advised against, and they are told they
would be happier if they would stay single. They are told that if
they get remarried, they will not have sinned, but they will have
"trouble in the flesh." They are given the added caution that
they can marry only a person in the Lord--a Christian person.

     That's my teaching. That was my teaching in 1955, '56, '57,
'58. I taught that in 1959, 1960, '61 and '62, and I taught that
in '63, '64, '65, '66, '67, and I taught that in '68, '69, '70,
'71, '72, '73, '74; that's what I taught in '75, 1976, 1977 and
that's what I'm teaching now (1980).

     Several years back, the Indiana Fellowship of youth
directors and camp directors got together to invite me to their
camp where I'd been going for a number of years, and they took a
vote on it. (I had pastored one church as a single man for twelve
years; you don't hear them talk about that. I not only pastored,
I raised my children by myself. You don't hear them talk about
that. Maybe God will give them that opportunity some day. Some of
these, you know, strong, spiritual fellows--too bad they missed
that blessing!) Anyway these preachers got together and said,
"Since Brother Ruckman has remarried, how do you feel about
having him back?" They took a vote and in the vote it came out to
about something like seventy percent that said, "Don't bring him
back," and thirty percent that said, "Bring him back." When it
was all over, the man in charge of the youth camp that year said,
"I'm going to honor and respect the majority; we'll not have
Brother Ruckman back." He said, "However, I want to have you
fellows know that I think some of you are a bunch of hypocrites.
Some of you fellows have fellows swap around in your pulpits and
trade pulpits with preachers who are in the same situation, and I
never heard you open your mouth about it." Then he got
righteously indignant, and he said to these pastors, "The worst
thing is this. The worst thing is you fellows had Brother
Ruckman's book (Matthew) that told you what he believed about
marriage, divorce, separation, and remarriage, and you read it,
and you had him come in and preach to our kids two years before
he got remarried, knowing what he taught and believed and
preached. He hasn't changed--you fellows have."

     I believe that's about all that needs to be said about it,
and that's all I'm going to say about it. There's no need to get
personal.

     After all, the Bible is clear, and you fellows who teach
otherwise are wrong, and you are dead wrong, and you will never
be right until you repent and straighten out. In the meantime (at
least in that department of Christian theology), you'll be living
like the Devil. If you can live with your own conscience on it,
do it. I'm not going to worry about it; the Lord's been too good
to me to pick a fight. I'm enjoying my ministry that God has
given me, and I'm enjoying it more today than I ever have before
in my life. By the grace of God, I'll continue to do so. If you
have taught otherwise about these matters than what you heard
here today (scripture with scripture), you're not teaching the
truth, and that isn't because I teach it; it's because the Book
says it. You've heard what the Book says in the context in which
it says it, without distortion and without perversion. You know
it, and I know it, and if there's a doubt in your mind, go back
over a tape of this message and play it through again, carefully
and slowly.

     Truth, boys and girls, can stand on its own two feet without
a prop. The One who wrote the Book and preserved it will do the
rest of the exposition.

     AMEN, AMEN, AND AMEN

            ../