Marriage Misunderstandings Explained Pastor David Ministries Ezekiel 34:10, 23 www.pastordavidministries.com Revised January 2026 In the Bible, the relationship between the church and Jesus Christ is spiritually portrayed as a marriage. ( Rev.19:7-8 ; 2Cor.11:2 ; Ez.16:8 ) The church is the wife (bride) and Jesus Christ is the husband. (In those days people were considered to be married from the point of the engagement. The wedding celebration and consumma- tion usually took place about a year later.) Right now, in this life, we (people who are saved) are in the period of engagement. The wedding will take place when we get to heaven. It is very important that the relationship between a man and his wife be understood correctly so that people don ’ t misunderstand or disregard the church ’ s proper relationship to Jesus Christ. In the last 50 years alone there has been an enormous change in the way people, in the US, handle their marriages. The essence of what forms or begins a true marriage is a mutual wedding “ vow”, like a “ pledge”, “promise”, “ covenant”, “contract” or “ testament”, between a man and a woman to stay united, “ till death do they part”. From the beginning of a marriage there is an invisible inner seal or bond between a man and his wife, within their spirits, simi- lar to the seal of the Holy Spirit in a believer, at the moment of salvation. Son.8:6 “ Set me as a seal upon thine heart, as a seal upon thine arm: for love is strong as death; ... ” KJV (also: Eph.1:13 ; 4:30 ) Once marriage vows are exchanged , God takes it into account and considers them to be married all lifelong until one of them dies. ( Rom.7:2 ) (See article listed below on: Salvation.) Only in modern times have there been certificates of marriage ( and divorce) writ- ten by the secular (non-religious) governments. In Bible times there was no mention of such a thing. In the book of Ruth there wasn't even a wedding ceremony. Boaz went to the gates of the city where the city elders regularly gathered and he simply told them that he was going to take Ruth to be his wife. (Ruth chapter4) (In those days, most people couldn't even read and write. Paper wasn't even invented until 104 AD in China and didn't reach Europe until the tenth century. Before that, they usually wrote on ani- mal skins or papyrus plants pressed into strips, both of which were very expensive and bulky. Occasionally, they wrote on stones, metal plates or clay tablets. Not only that, but paper itself was very expensive until the beginning of the 19 th century.) 1 The only thing that could possibly be interpreted as a “certificate of marriage” in Bible times was the “tokens of virginity” ( Deut. 22:14-20 ), which was probably some sort of cloth with the evidence of the bride's virginity and witness signatures of people who were probably standing outside the wedding chamber on her wedding night wait- ing for the evidence of the brides virginity on the designated cloth. (Notice the non- involvement of the government.) Certificates of divorce, however, were mentioned in the Bible. ( Deut. 24:1 ) But, these were written by the husband, not by the government. The husband probably wrote it on an animal skin and placed it directly into the wife's hand. There was no paper in those days. It was also understood that those divorces were merely declara- tions of separation and did not end the marriage..... Even the US government, last century, considered a divorce to be nothing more than a declaration of separation, more like a modern “legal separation”. Last century, the US government did not con- sider a divorce to end a marriage. Those Biblical divorce certificates probably also included some sort of explanation of the wife's bad behavior, which caused the sepa- ration. In modern times, they do marriage and divorce registrations with the government much in the same way that they register the sale (ownership exchange) of real estate or automobiles. In the modern ownership registrations the certificates themselves are not what constitute true ownership, because those papers can be falsified, lost or sto- len. They merely help to make it more difficult for a thief to rob the true owner of his rightful property. True change of ownership is made when two parties come to a mutu- al agreement on the terms of a sale and then those terms are transacted correctly and honestly . Then, and only then, does true ownership change hands. And, it always happens that true change of ownership occurs at a different time and place than the registration of the sale. Similarly, a governmental certificate of marriage or divorce does not constitute nor dissolve a marriage. It merely registers what is supposed to have already taken place (marriage vows exchanged). Don't forget that marriage registrations can be falsified too. Every year there are people from other countries who get false US marriage certificates so that they can obtain residency and permission to work in the US.Spiritually speaking, those false marriages are like people who are only Christians by name. They only know Jesus Christ from far away, the same way that some one can know any famous person. But they don ’ t have a personal spiritual relationship with Jesus Christ and therefore aren ’ t saved. ( Mat.13:24-30,36-43 ) (See article listed below on: Salvation.) A true marriage, once made, is considered by God to be equally as permanent as any other family relationship. God takes wedding vows seriously. Num.30:2 “ If a man vow a vow unto the LORD, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth. ” Deut. 2 23:21 “ When thou shalt vow a vow unto the LORD thy God, thou shalt not slack to pay it: for the LORD thy God will surely require it of thee; and it would be sin in thee. ” KJV Breaking a vow is the same as breaking a contract. However, in modern times, in the US, breaking a marriage vow (contract) is treated very lightly as though it doesn’t really matter. Divorces have become an epidemic. Isn’t breaking a contract supposed to be a serious crime? So, what’s the purpose of a contract if people are just going to break it as though it really doesn’t mean anything? Only in modern times have marriages been based on personal feelings like ‘fall- ing in love’. The fact is that most people who ‘fall in love’ ‘fall out of love’ just as easily as they ‘fell in love’ to begin with. When something as important as a life-long commit- ment to marriage is based on such a changeable and whimsical thing as current ‘feel- ings’, it ends up being very unstable, and easily broken. The old-fashioned time-tested custom of parental selection for life partners is much more stable. The glue that holds a relationship together must be based on things like responsibility, commitment, hones- ty, character development and self-control. The 1971 film ‘Fiddler on the Roof’ por- trays this concept very clearly. Those marriages practically never ended in divorce. Yet another aspect of marriage is the age of the two persons involved. In most places the government establishes regulations about the minimum age of the individu- als involved. It’s the same way in Christian salvation. Baptisms for entrance into the Christian church are not supposed to be done for small children. The correct teaching from the Bible is that each person must make their own decision as an adult whether or not they believe in Jesus Christ. And likewise, marriage is not supposed to be for chil- dren. Keep in mind that there are some places in the world where child marriages are a regular part of their customs. However, most of those practices have been discontinued within the last century due to the influence of Christianity. Even as late as Gandhi, child marriages were still in practice in India. Gandhi and his wife were married at 13 years of age. In some cases, parents of babies still in their mother’s womb made marriage commitments with other friends who likewise had a child which was soon to be born. In the Muslim culture it has always been a common practice for a man to take an under-aged girl as a wife. Their prophet Mohammed himself married a 9 year old girl. He wanted to marry her at 6, but her father insisted on waiting until she was 9. So,.... what age does the Bible say marriages should start at? Ezek. 16:7-8 “I have caused thee to multiply as the bud of the field, and thou hast increased and wax- en great , and thou art come to excellent ornaments: thy breasts are fashioned, and thine hair is grown, whereas thou wast naked and bare. 8- Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness: yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord GOD, and thou becamest mine.” The phrase 3 “waxen great” means to “enlarge” or become adult. (In old English “waxen” means to increase.) Also the phrases “thy breasts are fashioned” and “thine hair is grown” refer to adult body parts. It is not saying that only women with large breasts can get marri- ed, but rather, a woman must have a completely developed adult body in order to get married. Well, what age is that? It doesn’t say. That age would be different for different people. Obviously, it is a decision that must be made by the girl’s parents. All family relationships are permanent. Try to i magine the government writing someone a certificate of divorce for your brother. W ould an “ official ” piece of paper from the government mean that your brother is no longer your brother? Certainly not! Could he ever be your ex-brother? Certainly not! Could he ever be just an acquain- tance? Certainly not! Could he ever be your cousin? Certainly not! The government would be over-stepping its bounds by writing such papers. That is as out of place as the government making an official declaration that the earth is flat, not round. They have no business making any such declaration. Concerning family matters, the US government is always butting-in where they don't belong, and messing things up. Only in the last few centuries has the government been involved in marriage re- gistration. The original purpose of those governmental registrations of marriage and divorce has been lost and forgotten. The government does not have the authority to make or unmake any family relationship. Why does the government even have to be involved in marriage registration, anyway? The US government is always butting-in where they don't belong, deliberately messing things up. Most people in our modern culture don’t even know what the original purpose of those registrations was. Nor do they understand that there are people in the govern- ment who are intentionally trying to destroy marriage all together. Nor do they know who and why those people are so intent on ruining marriages. In modern times, those registrations only confuse people about the true nature of morality and marriage. People think that the government seal on a piece of paper makes it acceptable to renege on a marriage vow (contract). But quite to the contrary, a ny secular government claiming to have the authority to annul (invalidate) a marriage vow is rebelling against God Himself. Even the US government itself last century considered a divorce to be nothing more than a declaration of separation, similar to a modern “legal separation”. Governments change from generation to generation, but people faithful to following the Word of God should understand an error when they see it. Am I saying that people should disobey the government? Not at all. Those laws have changed in the past, and could change correctly in the future. Faithful Christians need to influence the government to keep them on track for what is good and right. The churches especially need to be a positive influence. But unfortunately, most 4 churches just follow along with the errors of non-Christian government officials, who are lead by Satan. In the Bible, a certificate of divorce was to be written by the husband, not by the government. A good example of a justifiable divorce involving God Himself is found in Jer. 3:8 , when God says to the nation of Israel: “ ...... whereby backsliding Israel com- mitted adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; ..... ” But notice that immediately after this, (vs. 3: 14 ) God says: “ Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you. ” Here we see that God considers Himself to be still married to them even after He had given them a bill of divorce. The divorce is nothing more than a declaration of separation. Also notice that in some churches a divorced man is considered disqualified from church leadership because, they say that he does not have his house in order. 1Tim 3:5 “For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?” This type of doctrine would disqualify God from being God, because God is divorced. This way of thinking was only in practice before divorce became an epidemic in America. Now that the divorce epidemic has been continuing for long-term, qualified men on the first marriage are exceedingly scarce in America. So,... who is going to be a church leader if they can’t find any qualified man on his first marriage? The fact that God considers Himself “married” to them indicates their true salva- tion. It is inappropriate to imagine that they are only saved by name and not in truth. (Some churches teach that the spiritual divorce indicates that they were never really saved to begin with.) A woman who was never really married to begin with cannot commit adultery against a husband she doesn't really have. This passage also shows that the main purpose of the divorce (declaration of separation) is to discipline the wife hoping to get her to repent of her hard-hearted disobedience and return to her one and only true husband. ( Mark 10:2-12 ) (Notice – before 1964 it was very difficult for women to get jobs with reasonable pay. Back then, it was very rare that women could get a well paying job and live inde- pendently from male supervision, which means that when a man sent a wife out of his house, it was normally a heavy punishment.) (See article listed below on: The Role Of Women Throughout History.) The phrase “see article” means to “see article”. It’s amazing how people have questions and those questions have been answered in the designated article, and I tell them to “see article”, yet they don’t see the article which would answer their questions. This also shows that the government forcing men to pay alimony to a rebellious wife is extremely unjustifiable and contrary to the Word of God. Rebellious wives need to be punished...... not rewarded, so that they can sit like queens sponging off their husbands for the rest of their lives without ever having to work. The US government is always butting-in where they don't belong, deliberately trying to destroy marriages and families. (The word “deliberately ” indicates that the average American citizen doesn't know that the US government is full of bad people with bad intentions, intent on des- 5 troying marriage altogether.) (See article listed below on: Wolves in Sheep's Clothing.) In some states they have already stopped alimony because of its obvious injustice. But, child-support is always so much money that is works like a combination of alimony and child-support together. (See article listed below on: Fatherhood.) Another example of how a marriage is still binding after a separation (divorce) is found in Mat.5:32 “... .whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. ” Adultery is an act committed by two people, of which at least one must be a married person. Any man, whether previously married or not, who marries a divorced woman is marrying someone who God considers to be another man's wife! It is adultery! (See article listed below on: Correct Divorce.) 1Cor.6:9,10 “ Know ye (y'all) not that the un- righteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers , nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind (men with men, women with women) , Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. ” Rest assured, the day is coming when the US government will fall, (like the twin towers, Bush's 9-11 ) due to this type of wicked corruption. (See article listed below on: The New World Order was Prophesied in the Bible.) After the US government falls, (like the twin towers , Bush's 9-11 ) what value will those official pieces of paper stating “ divorce ” have? When the government that wrote out those official divorce (separa- tion) certificates no longer exists, how will those people perceive their marital status? Governments come and go and change from one generation to the next, but the Word of God continues for eternity . Jesus said: Mat.24:35 “ Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. ” Mat 7:21 “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Fa- ther who is in heaven.” Last century, even the US government did not accept that a divorce ended the marriage. Back then, a divorce was the same as a modern “legal separation”. In the original Greek language of the NT, a common grammatical form is “aorist”, which is not used in English grammar. But, a good English dictionary might give a definition like: ” aorist – an inflectional form of a verb typically denoting simple occur- rence of an action without reference to its completeness, duration, or repetition .” In other words, in Greek they use additional inflectional forms not used in English, and the term “aorist” indicates that none of those additional inflectional forms apply, in that case. An example of an additional inflectional form used in English would be adding “-ing”, “-ed” or “-s” on the end of a verb. (talk ing , talk ed , talk s ) However, this is an over-simplification of the meaning of “aorist”. Don’t forget, this grammar form “aorist” doesn’t exist in English. In English, most of the time we are accustomed to talking in past, present or future tense. But, “aorist” is the absence of time. The closest formation in English to “aorist” would be the “present perfect” form, 6 which uses two verbs in a row, the first in present tense, and the second as past participle, in this case “ have ” and “ had ”. Example: John 4:18 “For thou hasthad five husbands” . In modern English we would say, “for you havehad five husbands”. In Greek, the term “ have had ” is written with only one “aorist” word. ( ἔσχες ) The concept of a wife having an “ex-husband” did not exist back then, kind of like how we have no concept of having an “ex-brother”. Is it possible to have an “ex-brother”? NO! To explain,.... suppose that instead of talking about her husbands, he was talking about her brothers. In English we would simply say, “for you have five brothers”. Ob- viously, the time factor is irrelevant, unless any of her brothers had previously died. Then, we would use past tense, “for you had five brothers”. It is well understood that as long as the brothers are still alive, the sister-brother relationship never ends. (The possibility of having an “ex-brother” did/does not exist.) Therefore, the time factor would be irrelevant. So, in Greek those irrelevant time situations would get the “aorist” grammar form. ( ἔσχες ) But, in English we don’t think of it that way. We think of the word “have” to include the idea of “now”, which is present tense. But, in the case of brothers, there exists the concept of “time past” along with “time present”. This is why they translated it: “For thou hast had ......” , “For you have had ......”, which implies something that started in the past and has continued up until the present. So, in English we are accustomed to using two words, whereas in Greek they use just one word. ( ἔσχες ) The problem, in this case, is that the term “ have had ” also implies, in English, the idea that the past marriages have been terminated by a divorce. Years ago, when people made their wedding vows, they used to say, “till death do we part”. Only in modern times do people think of marriages as terminated when they get a paper stat- ing divorce from the government. Back then, marriage was considered equally as per- manent as any other family relationship, which is how it was perceived in the Bible. So, when Jesus was speaking in John 4:18 , he used the “aorist” word for “ have ” ( ἔσχες ), which was not past, present or future, just the same as if he was talking about her brothers. In English, we would say: “For you have five brothers”. It was possible to have a dead brother, but not an “ex-brother”. Likewise, it was possible to have a dead husband, but not an “ex-husband”. (See article listed below on: Correct Divorce.) A divorce does not end the marriage. The translation using “ have had ” is definitely legitimate, in terms of a general translation of this Greek word. But, in English when someone says “you have had five brothers”, the listener will automatically understand that not all the brothers are still alive. But, concerning marriage, due to modern customs, this form of speaking implies something that Jesus was NOT saying. Back in those days, they did not believe that the previous marriages were terminated, except by death. Modern government regis- tration of marriages and divorces did not exist back then. In the Bible, a divorce was written by the husband, not by the government...... and it would be better understood using the modern translation “seperation”, not “divorce”. Jesus was definitely saying that she had been previously married five times...... and now she has five husbands, 7 not five ex-husbands. Yet another example is to try imagining a person who is just learning English, and they haven’t learned yet how to say the words am , is , are , was , were yet. Instead of saying “You have been married five times” or “You were married five times”, they simply say “You marry five times”, which sounds strange to us, yet it’s still understand- able. In some languages, like Hebrew, they don’t even have any word for am , is , are , was , were . So, this sentence “You marry five times” makes perfect sense to them. And there is no reference to past, present or future, just like in the Greek sentence aorist form used in John 4:18 . They had no concept of a woman having ex-husbands. Just like how we have no concept of an ex-mother or an ex-father or an ex-brother. What does this mean? In modern times, everyone who has been married more than once is married to more than one person, at the same time. The government has no business butting-in where they don’t belong and writing pieces of paper that claim they have the authority to end a marriage. So, the modern concept of marriage and divorce has been corrupted, which will cause horrible consequences, as all corruption eventually does. Eventually, it will be like the Titanic, which some day will hit an ice- berg and sink. And, all the people who insist on following that corruption will not have access to a lifeboat to save themselves. And, in most cases, they won’t want a life boat, be- cause after they get off the life boat, they will have to deal with changes that they don’t like. So, they would rather go down with the ship. You must reject this corruption, now! You must reject the corruption and start following Jesus Christ, now! Believe in Jesus Christ, don’t wait until it’s too late. (See article listed below on: Salvation.) And you Christians, stop following wolves in sheep’s clothing, who are leaders of your church. Before the last half century, it was included in the wedding vows that the wife was to obey her husband. In practice, this has been forgotten, disregarded , rejected or corrupted. The obedience of a wife to her husband touches on the very foundation of true faithful Christian life. The church must obey her spiritual husband Jesus Christ to do God's will. Eph 5:22-24 “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.” Titus2:4,5 “ That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed ” ( also: Col.3:18 ) God considers it to be blas- phemy to disregard this. 8 Mat 7:21 “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the king- dom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.” Among those few cases of Christians who want to believe that they are obedient to God on this issue, the understanding of what it actually means in real life for a wife to obey her hus- band has been so badly changed, twisted and corrupted in our modern culture that they cannot distinguish what obedience really is. Some people even joke about it say- ing things like: “the husband is the head, but the wife is the neck that turns the head” ....... BLASPHEMY !!! ( Titus 2:4,5 “ That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, ........ keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed ” ) One of the best examples of how a wife should obey her husband is how employ- ees should obey their bosses at work. Everyone likes a job where the boss treats them reasonably and respectfully. But, if the wives from those modern churches that think they are obedient to their husbands went to work and obeyed their bosses the same way they obey their husbands, they would all lose their jobs. All of those women would get fired! And if those husbands bossed their wives around like a typical good and respectful boss at work, those wives would probably go to church and complain crying that their husband is being a horrible tyrant. Then, those churches that teach male leadership in the home would most likely be against the husband and say that he should treat her as an equal and make com- promises with his wife. (Notice – in the Bible a compromising Christian is called “luke- warm”. See article listed below on: The Lukewarm Church.) They can't figure it out that in so doing they are also demanding that Christ, as the spiritual husband of the church is supposed to compromise on God's will. Mat 7:21 “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.” People who compromise on God’s will won't enter into the kingdom of heaven. The best of them are lukewarm Christians. First of all..... what they are calling “compromise” is not “compromise” at all. A “compromise” involves two sides. Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines “compromise” as: “ settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual con- cessions ” But, this thing which they call “compromise” is one-sided. The word “mutual” does not apply. They are just asking the husband to step down as the leader of the marriage. It is a “surrender” not a “compromise”. The word “compromise” is used because when people hear that word, they automatically think that any person who won’t “compromise” is labeled as the bad-guy. This is modern psychology, which Christians ought to recognize as irrational, crazy, anti-Christian, and even satanic. (See article listed below on: The Consequences of Using Incorrect Terminology. ) Also, notice that the word “compromise” can be used two different ways. Sup- posedly, they intend it to be like a “mutual arbitration”. But in reality, it’s a decrease of quality, like a restaurant that changes their food, making it inferior to save on money. A “compromising” Christian is someone who waters-down the gospel by only half-way following Jesus Christ. They only do God’s will when they feel like it. Jesus said to the 9 Lukewarm church: Rev 3:16 “So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue (spew - vomit) thee out of my mouth.” Husbands are not supposed to make “compromises” any more than an employer should be expected to make “compromises” with employees. It is an inappropriate denial of correct authority that would cause chaos in the work-place and destroy most businesses, just as it has already caused chaos in many marriages and ruined most marriages, in the US. (See article listed below on: The Consequences of “Women's Liberation” also “The Role Of Women Throughout History”.) In real life, when husbands “compromise”, it ends up merely to be a “surrender” of his leadership. And, in real life, as soon as he steps down as leader, the wife takes over. This type of “compromise” is a fraud/deception. Just as in a business partner- ship, either the one partner takes the lead or the other partner takes the lead. The idea that both partners share the lead equally is unrealistic, impossible and irrational. Tech- nically, both partners have equal authority, but in practical reality one of them must take the lead while the other follows. Otherwise, they will have nothing but conflict, stalemates, deadlocks and irresolvable battles. The Bible says in 1Cor.11:3 “ .... the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man;.... ” Men have ordained authority by God over women . It also says in Eph.5:22-25 “ Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the savior of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; ...” KJV Notice that the husband is supposed to love his wife so much that he would be ready to lay down his own life to protect her, if necessary. Only this type of man is worthy to be the head and boss of his wife. God asks both the husband and the wife to make a personal sacrifice. They both need to be unselfish. The husband must direct his wife in a truly unselfish loving man- ner and the wife must unselfishly submit herself to her husband's leadership. If this is put into practice, marriages today would have love, peace and harmony. This is God's short simple recipe for happy marriage that works! (See article listed below on: The Virtues of the Spirit.) God created the nature of the female to be the happiest and most secure under the authority and protection of a loving and mature husband. However, many times there are other negative factors involved which cause ne- gative results. Most of the time, in the modern society, one or (usually) both of the spouses lack maturity. Due to the lack of correct discipline from fathers during child- hood, many people have grown up into adulthood and yet still act childish. (See article listed below on: Fatherhood. ) Some adults don't grow up until later on in life and other adults never grow up at all. If an adult, especially a husband, is not capable of growing up on his own, then progress is impossible without outside intervention/help from somebody else. 10 It is not reasonable for a wife to accept a childish spoiled brat husband for a lead- er. It should also be noted that every woman is responsible to verify, over a period of time (recommended one year), the quality of character of the man she intends to mar- ry. If she knows he is a spoiled brat before she marries him, then she is equally as re- sponsible for the disastrous results...... and has no right to complain afterwards. Jesus Christ said to his wife (bride), the church of the Laodiceans: Rev.3:19 “ As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten : be zealous therefore, and repent. ” KJV The word “ chasten ” (παιδευω) in the original NT language more specifically means “ to dis- cipline as a child ” . It literally uses the Greek word for “ child ” as a verb, which is not done in English. “As many as I love, I rebuke and “child” : be zealous therefore, and repent.” In those days, it was understood that it is appropriate for an adult who mis- behaves like a child, to be disciplined like a child. It was probably most common at that time to discipline children with a “rod” or “scourge”. Pro 13:24 “He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes (early ).” Pro 22:15 “Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.'' Pro 23:13,14 “Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod , he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod , and shalt deliver his soul from hell.” Jesus Christ himself made a “scourge of small cords”. John 2:15 “And when he (Jesus) had made a scourge of small cords , he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and over- threw the tables;” (also: Mat. 20:19 ; John 19:1 ) Also, the same word for “ chasten ” (παιδευω) was used in Luke 23:16,22 just be- fore they “ scourged ” Jesus. Luke 18:33 “And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again.” Therefore, the English word “ scourge ” would be a good translation of what Jesus Christ said to his disobedient wife: “ As many as I love, I rebuke and “scourge ” : be zealous therefore, and repent. ” Thus, it can be said that Jesus Christ, as a husband, is going to strip his wife naked , as it says in Rev. 3:17 , and then whip her with a “ scourge ” (whip or belt of some sort). Since the word “child” is used, a translation using “spank” might also be acceptable: “As many as I love, I rebuke and “spank” : be zealous therefore, and repent.” The purpose of the whipping is to get the wife to repent, change her disobedient conduct and return to fellowship with her one and only true husband. (See article listed below on: The Lukewarm Church.) (Also see article listed below on: Domestic Discipline.) The idea that it is wrong to use bodily punishment on delinquent adults is char- acteristic only of our present century. For thousands of years it was considered normal to punish delinquent men physically and publicly. The Word of God agrees with this custom. Deut. 25:1-3 “ If there be a controversy between men, and they come unto judgment, that the judges may judge them; then they shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked. And it shall be, if the wicked man be worthy to be beaten, that the judge shall cause him to lie down, and to be beaten before his face, according to 11 his fault, by a certain number. Forty stripes he may give him, and not exceed.... ” KJV Prov.26:3 “ ....a rod for the fool's back. ” Lev.19:20 “ .... she shall be scourged; ” Psa.89:31,32 “ If they break my statutes, and keep not my commandments; Then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes. ” KJV ( Also: Prov. 19:29 Neh. 13:25 Prov. 20:30 ) However, in most cultures women were not disci- plineed publicly. They were usually disciplined privately at home by their husbands..... or parents, if an adult daughter was not married. In those days, men were held re- sponsible for the misconduct of their wives and adult unmarried daughters. Back then, it was very rare that women could get a well paying job and live independently from male supervision. (See article listed below on: The Role Of Women Throughout History.) In the case of wives, God himself established from the beginning that physical pain should be a normal and regular part of a woman's marital life Gen.3:16 “Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow ( עצּבון =pain) and thy conception; in sorrow ( עצּבון =pain) thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy hus- band, and he shall rule over thee.” KJ V (God designed intercourse so that when it is performed in a natural normal manner, it is painful for the wife, but not for the husband, which is the most advisable way that it should be performed.) Also, notice how God established from the very beginning in the garden of Eden that the husband shall “ rule over ” his wife. All through history the term “ rule over ” has always (except in this last century) meant not only the authority to give orders , but also the authority to apply punishment in the case of disobedience. Without the ability to apply punishment, it is impossible for anyone to “ rule over ” anyone else. Without discipline the supposed subordinate would just disrespectfully tell the supposed leader to get lost. The word “ desire ” im- plies that women crave having their husbands “ rule over ” them. As long as, it is done in a loving, mature, just and respectful manner . Every leader should be a good and unselfish leader! No wife wants a childish tyrant brat husband for a leader. This “old law” of nature used to be common knowledge and in regular practice for a long time. (See article on: Domestic Discipline.) However, in modern times it has been suppressed by an abundance of contrary satanist communist propaganda, so much so that most of our modern generation doesn’t even know of its previous exis- tence. Male leadership in a marriage is kind of like Einstein’s famous formulas in phy- sics. You know: E=mc 2 . But, in this case: love + male leadership + discipline = happy marriage . (Notice – don’t mistake the word “love” for the commonly misused word thrown around in many modern songs, as simply meaning selfish desire. For a better understanding about true “love” see my article on: The Virtues of the Spirit.) This formula is not complete without (Eph. 5:22-25) . The husband must act in a truly loving way to his wife and the wife must be submissive to her husband’s leadership. It must also be stated that it is the responsibility of women to verify that their pro- spective husband is of virtuous character over an extended period of time before they 12 marry him. (recommended period of one year demonstrating virtuous conduct.) (See article listed below on: The Virtues of the Spirit.) Any woman who is negligent in veri- fying the virtues of her husband before she marries him is equally as responsible for the disastrous results that follow, and would have no right to complain about his lack of virtue afterwards. Here are two quotes from American history books referring to the practice of husbands physically disciplining their wives before “women's liberation” in the US. In Howard Zinn’s “A People’s History of the United States” he says in chapter 6: “ The husband’s control over the wife’s person extended to the right of giving her chastisement. ....But he was not entitled to inflict permanent injury or death on his wife...... ” . (On-line at: http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinnint6.html .) In “American Legal History, Law in the Morning of America”, William Blackstone is quoted from his commentaries on law, saying: “ By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law....... The husband also (by the old law) might give his wife moderate correction. For as he is to answer for her misbehaviour, the law thought it reasonable to intrust him with this power of restraining her, by domestic chastise- ment , in the same moderation that a man is allowed to correct his servants (slaves) or children; for whom the master or parent is also liable in some cases to answer. But this power of correction was confined within reasonable bounds, and the husband was prohibited from using any violence to his wife.... ”. (This quote was taken from Black- stone’s Commentaries on law and is on-line at numerous places.) Notice that they did not consider “ domestic cha