I stated that a precept was not a commandment. Since then a weak attempt has been made to correct me to state otherwise. I decline from stating otherwise because I know different. Although a precept is used synonymously with a commandment and/or used of a commandment, the two words are not identical and do not mean entirely the same thing. I am not resorting to a dictionary to define scripture here, but I mean to stand true to the word of God and I pray that the truth be found in me to declare it in faith, doubting nothing.

 

No Contradictions and No Exceptions to the Exceptions 

When Jesus asked the Pharisees what Moses (not God, but Moses) commanded them, they offered Jesus Moses' precept. That is what Jesus called it: a precept. One of the most awesome things about Jesus is the fact that Jesus ALWAYS says what He means and always MEANS what He says. So you can be rest assured that this response is exactly what Christ expected the Pharisees to answer him with. Precepts are used of commandments and scripture will not, I am reminded, contradict itself.  

The Holy Spirit teaches us all things. I will not contend with those who would embrace those precepts of Moses as direct commandments from God. The Ten Commandments are not called the "Ten Precepts" for reason. God did not command men to divorce their wives in Deuteronomy 24:1- 5. God suffered it, so Moses suffered it also. A careful view of 1 Corinthians 7 will reveal just what Paul spoke by permission and just what he spoke by commandment. To the diligent reader there is also a blessing in this knowledge but I leave it for the reader to learn what the full context of 1 Corinthians 7 is saying with respect to permissions. May the Lord Jesus open both your eyes and your hearts in the event that they are closing.

 To continue... 

Any literal "EXCEPTIONS" will be highlighted. Any scriptures not having any exceptions of any kind will be examined in depth and in context. Scripture that has already examined here and proven not to contradict Deuteronomy 24:1-5 will be referenced.

 "But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." (Matthew 5:31)

Literal exception: * "saving for the cause of fornication" is proven not to conflict with Deuteronomy 24:1-5, but actually supports and verifies this scripture. "And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart , let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife." (1 Corinthians 7:10-11)

Literal exception: * "But and if she depart" is proven not to conflict with Deuteronomy 24:1-5. This scripture does not refer to an unclean, unbelieving wife departing from a believing and sanctified husband. If it did, there would be little that anyone would be able to do about it except to pray.

The sanctified husband is not under bondage in such cases. A departing wife leaving a sanctified husband should not marry another but and if she would insist on divorcement it will be upon her own head. Both 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 and Deuteronomy 24:1-5 make it abundantly clear that it is better for the UNMARRIED to marry than for them to burn.

Yes, even those UNMARRIED who have received a bill of divorcement as illustrated in the scripture may marry EXCEPT they have that "proper gift" of celibacy which Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians 7 (in which case they should not have married in the first place). I would recommend getting one's priorities in order before marrying again but in either case, the lawfully divorced spouse is permitted to marry as it is written.  

If the believing spouse chooses to depart from her husband I would find it difficult to understand how she could marry yet again while she is still that husband's wife through some failure to comply with the precept in Deuteronomy 24: 1 -4. What. Has she also put herself away??? According to scripture a spouse who has been "put away" [separated] without a bill of divorcement is still married to the spouse that put them away.

 

UNMARRIED literally means,�?NOT MARRIED". 1 Corinthians 7 plainly states to "let her remain unmarried or to be reconciled to her husband." Perhaps she got a divorcement while she was saved. Perhaps there was no uncleanness in her and she still got forcibly divorced:  This is TREACHERY. Deuteronomy 24 does not say she is free to marry, but 1 Corinthians 7:9 says that she is. Oh yes, Deuteronomy 24:1-5 was indeed written for the hardness of hearts. It deals with the case of an unclean (fornicating) wife. Woe to the one who deals treacherously with the wife of his youth and divorces without cause! But and IF she puts HERSELF away and departs she is STILL MARRIED and the scripture says so. If she joins to another man, while she is still married to her husband (due to the hardness of her heart) she is a fornicator and an adulterer: in other words, UNCLEAN.

No, she cannot be reconciled to a husband that she does not have! If she were unmarried she would not have a husband to be reconciled to. So at what point does she cease to be his wife if she is no longer married to him? As Deuteronomy 24: 1-5 clearly illustrates, there is a profound difference between a "former husband" and a "husband". Now these terms are scriptural. What is the solution to this literal conundrum?

The answer is in Deuteronomy 24:1-2 which provides the solution to the entire puzzle:

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 when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. 

Do we say that God made a mistake and changed His mind about this scripture? Do we say that because this scripture was written to the Jews only that it does not apply to the Gentiles grafted into the Branch of David? Do we say that we shouldn't believe everything we read so this is one of those scriptures that just isn't the inspired word of God? Do we exclude it because we don't like it? Do we say Moses put words in God's mouth? GOD FORBID. CASE IN POINT: She's going to burn. It is better to marry than to burn. In either case she is unclean and she needs to get saved. Perhaps the Lord will give her a second chance to get it right. Perhaps not. Even so, what God has put together let not man put asunder. Jesus answered those Pharisees perfectly. They were making a merchandise of marriages in much the same way family court lawyers do today: Divorce for every cause.

One common misconception existing today, throughout all of North America, is that the husband usually initiates lawsuits for divorcement. No, they are not. A "healthy" majority of these are in fact, initiated by wives and this percentage is increasing. A wife demanding a divorce must be complied with. It is only a matter of time and money.

 

In my country, if both parties fail to agree on a "no fault" divorce settlement the matter consequently becomes a civil suit. As long as a spouse can demonstrate that they have lived "separate and apart" for a period of one year or more, divorcement is practically always granted. Yet Jesus said, " What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." Mark 10:9

 

Now there are some who would tell me that Caesar has the right to come between a man and his wife because God put him there. Any spouse who refuses to comply with divorce proceedings in a court of Caesar will still be divorced under civil law against their wishes, despite any objections. None of this is done in accordance with Deuteronomy 24: 1-4.

Frankly, I don't believe Caesar truly has the "right" to put marriages asunder. The party demanding a divorcement is in fact, "hard of heart" and likely in transgression. Why?

 

Well, what does Bible scripture say about believers taking believers before magistrates?

 

1 Corinthians 6

1 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? 2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? 4 If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. 5 I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? 6 But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers. 7 Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded? 8 Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren.

It would appear then that "marriage", for the true believer, is a matter of church business rather than that of the civil law courts. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

Continuing with the Presentation in Faith:

"And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife."  (1 Corinthians 7:10-11)

Firstly, Paul declares that this is really a commandment from the Lord: that she should not depart. I admit that this does sound rather harsh to me. What if her husband is an abuser? Well, there seems to be some allowance made for an exception to this commandment too: Paul states,  "But and if...".

Now please notice that Paul does not exactly say that the wife sins if she abandons her husband. If she departs, she is either supposed to remain unmarried.  [I assume that this means she is to not marry another man but that would be saying that she is not married; or, perhaps it means she has either left her beloved husband among the dearly departed�?No, that will not work either. Or, perhaps she is actually already unlawfully divorced by means of civil suit -- which thing God does not necessarily recognize.] Or be reconciled to her husband. [Not "former husband", but �?U>husband”].

I believe the reason that this scripture does not conflict or contradict Deuteronomy 24 is because the wife in this example is not a fornicating and unclean, unbeliever. She can leave her husband and remain separate for as long as she wishes but in God's eyes she is STILL married to her spouse. In this case she would be still able to reconcile.

But "unmarried" really means what it says. If it referred to the betrothed wife of a husband we are still dealing with a contradiction in terminology: "UNMARRIED WIFE" -  not “betrothed�?or "espoused" or "virgin", but "unmarried"... ummm... I don't think so... "Unmarried", in this context, can only mean DIVORCED. Why should she remain divorced?

It is possible that she departed with a lawful divorcement. There is no other way that a wife can suddenly become "unmarried" unless her husband is dead - which is clearly not the case here. If her husband was not a believer she might have been wiser to let him do the departing if she planned on becoming eligible - she would then be free of bondage if she did so... but she did not. The departing in this case was her own, so the only recourse for her is to remain unmarried or to reconcile with her husband. This can only mean that she remained clean and joined unto no other man. In this case she would also still be in a position to reconcile. Test this:   

"And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the [Christian] wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his [Christian] wife."  (1 Cor. 7:10-11)

Now try substituting the word "fornicating" in those square brackets and see what you come up with. It is evident that Paul was addressing the Church of Corinth. I might also add that 1 Corinthians 7:10 through 11 is a commandment from God. Try the inverse too... Apply it to the husband. I do believe this scripture was written for the believers.

Fornicators don't care about God's commandments. These covenant breakers continue to do what they will and they will continue to fornicate until they either repent or die in their sins. 1 Corinthians 7 is clearly written to the church and not to fornicators who have yet to repent, to wash, and to make clean. It is important to keep in mind just who is doing the departing. True believers are not under bondage to the unsaved if the unsaved depart BUT what of the Christian wife who departs? I would think she would need a little guidance and direction? I believe that this is exactly what the Apostle Paul is addressing in 1Corinthians 7:10-11. Deuteronomy 24: 1-4 is about the unsaved departing. Verse 5 is about a law-abiding husband taking a "new wife" as opposed to a former wife, following very explicit instructions NOT to marry his former wife if she has given herself to a latter husband:

 

 

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. 2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. 3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;  4 Her former husband , which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance. 5 When a man hath taken a new wife, he shall not go out to war, neither shall he be charged with any business: but he shall be free at home one year and shall cheer up his wife which he hath taken.

We can ignore Deuteronomy 24 all we wish but we cannot exclude it from the word of God. This scripture stands as solid today as it did the day that it was written. So far it has not contradicted any of the scriptures presented and I maintain that it will not contradict any of the scripture following. Receive it in faith, and Jesus will open your eyes just as He did for me. Remember that not one jot or tittle of it shall be removed. God's law remains.