A. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 reads, “When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, when she has departed from his house, and goes and becomes another man’s wife, if the latter husband detests her and writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her as his wife, then her former husband who divorced her must not take her back to be his wife after she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.”

We need to understand several principles when dealing with questions such as these, relating to divorce and remarriage.

(1) Marriage between two truly converted Christian partners

Quoting from our booklet, “The Keys to Happy Marriages and Families,” page 2, “God wants our marriages to succeed. God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16)… Two truly converted married Christians (as long as both remain alive and converted throughout their marriage to each other) must never divorce and subsequently marry somebody else! Their marriage, which has been bound by God, is for life (1 Corinthians 7:10-11; Romans 7:1-3; Luke 16:18).”

From this it follows that Deuteronomy 24:1-4 would not be applicable today, IF the (first) “divorce” occurred, while both parties were and remained to be converted. The converted husband cannot unbind today a valid marriage to a converted wife by writing her a certificate of divorce (compare Matthew 19:7-9). In God’s eyes, such a “divorce” is not accepted, and husband and wife are still “bound” or married to each other (compare, again, 1 Corinthians 7:10-11). They can separate, but they cannot marry someone else. They either have to remain “single,” or they have to unite again and continue their marriage relationship.

(2) Marriage between a truly converted Christian and an “Unbeliever”

What about a situation, however, when the mate becomes or is an “unbeliever”? We continue quoting from our booklet:

“Even in such a case, divorce and subsequent remarriage is not Biblically permitted, unless the ‘unbelieving mate’ departs from the marriage, by not fulfilling his or her marriage duties, and the ‘unbeliever’ is no longer willing to live with the converted mate (cp. 1 Corinthians 7:12-16). Such total departure from the marriage by the ‘unbeliever’ can be seen in serious continuous violations of his or her marriage duties and responsibilities, such as the sinful practice of ‘sexual immorality’ (Matthew 5:31-32; 19:9). But even then, counseling with one of God’s ministers is highly recommended, with the goal to restore, rather than to sever, the marriage.”

Applying this principle to Deuteronomy 24:1-4, if husband and wife divorced because the wife is or became an unbeliever and departed from the marriage (which might be indicated, in principle, by the fact that the husband found “some uncleanness in her”), then the husband is free to remarry (The same would apply, of course, to a wife, that is, the wife would be free to remarry if the husband is an unbeliever and departs from the marriage.) It needs to be emphasized that this would only be the case, however, if the unbelieving mate is no longer pleased to dwell with the believer and departs from the marriage relationship. As long as the unbeliever is pleased to dwell with the believer, the believer cannot sever the marriage. (The only exception would be “fraud at the time of the marriage” — that is, when one partner conceals essential facts about him-or herself from his or her future mate. In such a case, God would not bind a marriage to begin with, and the deceived mate, upon discovery of the fraud, would be free to leave such a relationship. Such departure, though, has to occur immediately upon discovery of the fraud).

Further, the converted mate would only be free to remarry “in the Lord” (1 Corinthians 7:39), that is, to a “believer” (compare Ezrah 10:10-11 — that is, to someone who has truly repented of his or her sins of transgressing God’s Ten Commandments; who has believed in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ as payment for his or her sins; and who has become baptized as an outward sign of inner repentance). Unless the divorced wife, whose subsequent marriage has also ended (see under #4), comes to or returns to the faith as a true believer, the first husband could not remarry her.

(3) Marriage between two unconverted partners

But let us suppose that the divorce took place while both parties were still unconverted. As we came to understand in 1975, God looks at the status of the person when he or she is called into the truth. If a “divorced” person is called by God in that state of his or her divorce, he or she is not required to return to the former mate (who may not be converted and who may be remarried) –compare the principles described in 1 Corinthians 7:20-24. Rather, such a person, upon conversion, is free to marry a converted partner.

(4) Can the converted mate re-marry the (now) converted mate?

The question arises, however, in light of Deuteronomy 24:1-4, whether the converted husband is free to remarry the (now) converted wife (or vice versa), if the wife had been married in the meantime to another partner. Several Biblical principles suggest that he could remarry his first wife, if she is also free to marry, and that therefore, Deuteronomy 24:1-4 would not be applicable today in such cases:

The main principle is that God wants a marriage restored, rather than broken up. Using a spiritual parallel to this example, although God makes it clear that He, as a converted husband, would not receive back His first unconverted wife Israel, as long as she remains unconverted, “playing the harlot” (Jeremiah 3:1-5), He WILL marry her upon her repentance and conversion (since Christ will marry spiritual Israel upon His return). Some have suggested that Christ was only free to remarry His former wife, because He died — thereby bringing the marriage relationship to an end. However, Christ did state that He gave His first wife a bill of divorce. In addition, we need to understand that the concept of Christ, being married to ancient Israel, and going to marry spiritual Israel, is an analogy. One cannot carry an analogy too far, of course, since Christ made clear that in the resurrection, we will not marry or be given in marriage — literally. Also, not only Christ died, but we too, upon our conversion, “died” in a spiritual sense, and although we are already “betrothed” to Christ right now, Christ will only consummate our marriage with Him, when we are fully Spirit, like He is.

Still, the analogy shows us certain principles. Christ, Who is the same yesterday, today and forever, is willing to take back His unconverted wife and “marry” her again, upon her conversion, even though she married other men and played the harlot in the meantime. This would show, then, that a converted husband is free to remarry his converted wife, even though his wife was married to another man in the meantime, as long as the wife is also free to remarry her first husband (or vice versa).

(a) This is clearly the case when the second husband dies (Deuteronomy 24:3).
(b) This is also the case when the unconverted wife divorces from her second unconverted husband prior to her conversion (see under #3).
(c) This would NOT be the case, however, if the wife becomes converted, while married to her second unconverted husband (see under #3). With her conversion, God accepts her in the state in which she is, that is, as a woman married to her second husband. Unless the second husband dies or is an unbeliever who is not any longer pleased to dwell with his wife (see under #2), the wife would not be free to sever that
(second) marriage relationship to return to her first husband. This would be the case where Deuteronomy 24:1-4 would still apply today, in principle.

A: Leviticus 25:1-7 reads:

“(1) And the LORD spoke to Moses on Mount Sinai, saying, (2) ‘Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: “When you come into the land which I give you, then the land shall keep a sabbath to the LORD. (3) Six years you shall sow your field, and six years you shall prune your vineyard, and gather its fruit; (4) but in the seventh year there shall be a sabbath of solemn rest for the land, a sabbath to the LORD. You shall neither sow your field nor prune your vineyard. (5) What grows of its own accord of your harvest you shall not reap, nor gather the grapes of your untended vine, for it is a year of rest for the land. (6) And the sabbath produce of the land shall be food for you: for you, your male and female servants, your hired man, and the stranger who dwells with you, (7) for your livestock and the beasts that are in your land – all its produce shall be for food.”‘”

Many commentaries acknowledge the wisdom contained in these verses to let the land lie fallow every seventh year. The Broadman Bible Commentary states, “…there were also agricultural advantages in leaving a field fallow once in seven years, to alleviate the exhaustion of the soil…” Likewise, the Nelson Study Bible points out, “A sabbath to the LORD is the same phrase used for the weekly Sabbath (23:3). The people rested weekly from their work; the land was to rest every seventh year from its work. The principle of the land needing rest has been rediscovered in recent years and is practiced in various ways by farmers of many nations.”

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown agree, “This year of rest was to invigorate the productive powers of the land, as the weekly Sabbath was a refreshment to men and cattle. It commenced immediately after the feast of ingathering (i.e., feast of tabernacles), and it was calculated to teach the people, in a remarkable way, the reality of the presence and providential power of God.”

But, how are we to understand Leviticus 25: 5-7? Some claim that these verses teach that the owner of the land was in no way permitted to take for himself what grew in the seventh year (compare Broadman). This view has been correctly rejected by most commentaries, as it does not agree with the Biblical text. For instance, the Nelson Study Bible points out:

“Reaping and gathering for storage and selling were not permitted in the Sabbath year. However, harvesting for daily needs was permitted. Since the purpose of these laws was to promote social equality in Israel, anyone, regardless of social standing, was permitted to use anything that grew, wherever it grew. Even the wild beasts of the field are mentioned here, to emphasize that God would provide for every creature. Of course, Israel’s main provision during this time was the bumper crop produced the year before the Sabbath year (vv. 21,22).”

The Soncino Cumash concurs, pointing out, “In this year you must not think of yourself as the sole owner, but others have an equal right to its produce with you. That which grows on its own accord, without any effort on your part, is permitted.”

The Ryrie Study Bible also concurs, “Every seventh year the land was to have a sabbath, a rest. Whatever grew during the year was freely available to all alike (vv. 6-7). It was also a time of special instruction in the Law of God (cf. Deut. 31:10-13).”

So does The New Bible Commentary: Revised:

“In the law of the sabbath rest, the principle is applied to all human beings, whether free or bond, and also to the cattle (Ex. 20:10), to the ox, the ass, or any cattle, as beasts of burden (Dt. 5:14), as well as to the sojourner. Here it is extended to the land. Every seventh year the land is to have a sabbath of solemn rest… from sowing and reaping. The land is to be left untilled and that which grows of itself, called in v. 6 the sabbath of the land (i.e. what the sabbath of the land produces of itself), is to be food for all alike, for the owner and the servant, for the sojourner and the cattle. It is not the product of human industry and it is to be free to all. Furthermore, the promise is given that the yield of the sixth year, being ordered and blessed by God, will be sufficient (vv. 18-22) for this period of rest. It is the law of the manna on a larger scale (Ex. 16:22). This at least suggests that the sabbath increase (vv. 6,7) unlike the gleanings of the ordinary year which were assigned to the widow and orphan, will suffice for the actual needs of everyone (cf. Ex. 16:17f). According to Dt. 31:10 this year is not to be spent in idleness, but to be used for the teaching and training of Israel in the law of God.”

Levitcus 25:1-7 teaches us important lessons, including reliance on God and sharing our goods with others. Food growing by itself during the seventh year could be eaten by everyone. Applying these principles today, this would be like walking through the forest and finding wild berries that grow on their own accord. In some areas of the world, these could be freely plucked and eaten by the one who is hungry.

God warned His people not to neglect to obey His law regarding the land Sabbath. Ancient Israel and Judah refused to carry out God’s command to let the land rest every seventh year. God prophesied that Israel and Judah would go into captivity, if they were not to obey His laws. “Then the land shall enjoy its sabbaths as long as it lies desolate and you are in your enemies’ land; then the land shall rest and enjoy its sabbaths. As long as it lies desolate it shall rest – for the time it did not rest on your sabbaths when you dwelt in it.” (Leviticus 26:34-35).

Because of their disobedience of God’s laws, ancient Israel and Judah actually went into captivity. 2 Chronicles 36:20-21 states, “And those who escaped from the sword he carried away to Babylon…, to fulfill the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed her Sabbaths. As long as she lay desolate, she kept Sabbath…”

Today, the modern tribes of Israel and Judah do not obey their God, either, including God’s command to grant their land rest every seventh year. The prophecy in Leviticus 26 is dual. As it was fulfilled in the past, so it will be fulfilled again in the future. But, there is good news: Although modern Israel and Judah will have to go again into captivity, God will ultimately free them from it. At that time, the law of the sabbath of the land will be obeyed on a national level. The 50th chapter of Jeremiah speaks about this coming time. It is clearly a prophecy for the future, as verses 4, 5, and 20 show. Jeremiah 50:33-34 contains this promise:

“Thus says the LORD of hosts: ‘The children of Israel were oppressed, Along with the children of Judah; All who took them captive have held them fast; they have refused to let them go. Their Redeemer is strong; The LORD of hosts is His name. He will thoroughly plead their case, That He may give rest to the land, And disquiet the inhabitants of [modern] Babylon.'”

A: Leviticus 19:17 states, “You shall not hate your brother in your heart. You shall surely rebuke your neighbor, and not bear sin because of him.” Other translations render this, “…so that you do not share in his guilt,” or, “participate in his sin.”

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible, ed. 1961, make the following insightful comments regarding this passage:

“Instead of cherishing latent feelings of malice or meditating purposes of revenge against a person who has committed an insult or injury against them, God’s people were taught to remonstrate with the offender and endeavor, by calm and kindly reason, to bring him to a sense of his fault.”

A similar admonition can be found in Jude 20-21: “But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life. And on some have compassion, making a distinction; but others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire, hating even the garment defiled by the flesh.”

When we perceive that a brother or a sister may be going astray, we might be in a position to help them. We should normally not do so, however, in front of others, but rather, we should speak to them alone (compare Matthew 18:15). At the same time, we ourselves must be “spiritual,” that is, we ourselves must be very close to God, before we can and should offer advice. Notice Galatians 6:1-2:

“Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted. Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.”

If we “rebuke,” or better, “reason” with a brother or a sister regarding a perceived sin or a trespass, and we are guilty of the same (compare Romans 2:21-23), or of worse things (compare Matthew 7:1-5), our advice will be of no value to our brother or sister. We need to first consider our own spiritual condition very carefully, before we proceed, with humility and gentleness, to give others advice as to how to overcome their sins.

The specific term, “Ancient of Days,” is used in Daniel 7:9, 13, and 22. As with the term “Yahweh” (see the Q&A in our Update of November 29), it seems to be referring to both the Father and Jesus Christ.

In Daniel 7:9-14, we read that “thrones were put in place, And the Ancient of Days was seated…And behold, One like the Son of Man, Coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, And they brought Him near before Him. Then to Him was given dominion…”

This passage identifies the Ancient of Days as the Father, and the “One like the Son of Man” as Jesus Christ, appearing before the Father in heaven after His resurrection. However, Daniel 7:21-22, when speaking of the “Ancient of Days,” seems to be talking about the returning Christ:

“…and the same horn was making war against the saints, and prevailing against them, until the Ancient of Days CAME, and a judgment was made in favor of the saints of the Most High, and the time came for the saints to possess the kingdom.”

Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, under #6268, defines the word for “Ancient,” “at-teek,” also as “venerable.” The concept of being “ancient of days,” or “venerable,” applies both to the Father and to the Son. Note that Christ is described, in His glorified outward appearance, in the same way as the Father (Compare Daniel 7:9 with Revelation 1:14). Christ said that he who has seen the Son has seen the Father (John 12:45;14:9; compare Colossians 1:15). They are both God; They look alike;They have both lived since eternity; and They will both live forever. Truly, then, the expression “Ancient of Days” would accurately describe what the Father and the Son are.

We read in Psalm 90:1-2,4, “LORD (“Yahweh”), You have been our dwelling place in all generations, Before the mountains were brought forth, Or ever You had formed the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, you are God… For a thousand years in Your sight Are like yesterday when it is passed, And like a watch in the night.”

In 2 Peter 3:8, this last passage is quoted, as follows, “But, behold, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” Peter goes on to explain, in verse 9, that the “Lord is not slack concerning His promise [to return to this earth], as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us [especially referring to us Church members], not willing that any [of us] should perish but that all [called by God into His church] should come to repentance.”

Peter applies the term “Lord” in his second letter to Jesus Christ (compare 2 Peter 1:8, 11,14, 16; 2:20; 3:18). In quoting from Psalm 90, he identifies the “LORD” (“Yahweh”) in that passage with Jesus Christ as well. Christ is described in Psalm 90 as God, existing “from everlasting to everlasting.” Paul describes Christ, in Hebrews 13:8, as “the same yesterday, today, and forever.” Christ identifies Himself in Revelation 1:8 as “the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End… who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” This same description (“…Who was and is and is to come”) is applied, in Revelation 4:8, to the Father.

God is a Family, totally united in purpose and goal, truly “one.” God consists presently of two Beings, the Father and the Son. They are both God, “venerable,” worthy of worship. They are both called “Yahweh,” existing and having existed for all eternity, and they are apparently also both referred to as “Ancient of Days.”

Both are correct.

In most cases, when using the expression, “the LORD” [“Yahweh” in the Hebrew, basically meaning “The Eternal” or “The Everliving One”], the Old Testament refers to the One Who later became known as the Son, Jesus Christ. There are statements, however, which use the expression “Yahweh” for the One Who later became known as “the Father.” This also proves that both the Father and Jesus Christ have always been God beings, and that the Old Testament teaches that there is more than just one God being.

Notice Jeremiah 23:5-6, which uses the term “Yahweh” for both God beings in the same context:

“‘Behold, the days are coming,’ says the LORD [Yahweh], ‘That I will raise to David a Branch of righteousness; A King shall reign and prosper, And execute judgment and righteousness in the earth. In His days Judah will be saved, And Israel will dwell safely; Now this is His name by which He will be called: THE LORD [Yahweh] OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.'”

We see, then, that the LORD (Yahweh) will raise a “Branch of righteousness,” to be also called the “LORD” (Yahweh). It is the Father who raises Jesus Christ. Both are called here LORD or Yahweh.

We find a similar statement in Zechariah 4:8-9. We are quoting from the New King James Bible, as it conveys the intended meaning more clearly:

“Moreover the word of the LORD [Yahweh] came to me, saying: ‘The hands of Zerubbabel Have laid the foundation of this temple; His hands shall also finish it. Then you will know That the LORD [Yahweh] of hosts has sent Me [i.e., Yahweh] to you.'”

We see, here, that the LORD [Yahweh, i.e. Christ] speaks to Zechariah and tells him that He [Christ] was sent by the LORD [Yahweh, i.e., the Father]. In other words, the LORD sends the LORD. The expression “Yahweh” applies to both God beings.

This is not a reference to a human messenger or an angel, conveying the “word of the LORD,” while the LORD is speaking about Himself. Notice that the New King James Bible capitalizes the word “Me” in “…the LORD of hosts has sent Me to you.” They convey the intended meaning that the word “Me” refers to one of the two God beings, and not to a human or angelic messenger.

You may also want to check, for further proof, Zechariah 6:12-15, in the New King James Bible. In that passage, the LORD (Yahweh, i.e. the Father) speaks about the LORD (Yahweh, i.e., Jesus Christ), the “MAN whose name is the BRANCH.”

It is true that in most cases, the expression LORD or Yahweh is used for Jesus Christ. Notice, for instance, Hebrews 1:10-12. In that passage, God the Father (vv. 1, 5) says to the Son, Jesus Christ (v. 10): “‘You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth…'” This is a quote from Psalm 102:12-15, speaking about Yahweh. Paul, in the Book of Hebrews, applies this Psalm, and the term LORD or Yahweh, to Jesus Christ.

There are a few statements in the Old Testament, however, which use the expression LORD or Yahweh to describe God the Father. For further evidence, notice Micah 5:2-4, referring to the Father, when using the term, LORD or Yahweh. Notice, too, Psalms 2:2, 7, 11, likewise referring to the Father as the LORD (Yahweh), and to Christ as “His Anointed,” or “My Son.” Finally, notice Psalm 110:1, which is quoted by Christ in Matthew 22:42-45, which also refers to the Father as the “LORD” (Yahweh), while referring to Christ as “Lord” (“adon” in the Hebrew, meaning “Lord, sir, master.”).