FAM:Marriage, Divorce & Remarriage  by Peter S. Ruckman

   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
