From the beginning, the Scriptures reveal that marriage is not defined by ceremonies, vows, or human institutions, but by the moment a woman—whether a virgin or a widow—has sexual relations with a man. This first act of intercourse is what God Himself considers the union of two souls into one flesh. The Bible consistently shows that it is only through this sexual bond that the woman becomes joined to the man, and she remains bound to him until his death. It is on this foundation—clear from the Scriptures—that we examine common questions about virgins, widows, and divorced women, and expose the distortions that have been introduced due to pressure from society.
Here we have gathered some of the most common questions about what the Bible really teaches regarding marriage, adultery, and divorce. Our goal is to clarify, based on Scripture, mistaken interpretations that have been propagated over time, often in direct contradiction to God’s commandments. All the answers follow the biblical perspective that preserves coherence between the Old and New Testaments.
Question: What about Rahab? She was a prostitute, yet she married and is part of Jesus’ lineage!
“Everything in the city they utterly destroyed with the edge of the sword — both men and women, young and old, as well as oxen, sheep, and donkeys” (Joshua 6:21). Rahab was a widow when she joined the Israelites. Joshua would never have allowed a Jew to marry a Gentile woman who was not a virgin unless she had converted and was a widow; only then would she be free to unite with another man, according to the Law of God.
Question: Didn’t Jesus come to forgive our sins?
Yes, practically all sins are forgiven when the soul repents and seeks Jesus, including adultery. However, once forgiven, the individual must leave the adulterous relationship they are in. This applies to all sins: the thief must stop stealing, the liar must stop lying, the profane must stop profaning, etc. Likewise, the adulterer cannot continue in the adulterous relationship and expect that the sin of adultery no longer exists.
As long as the woman’s first husband is alive, her soul is united to his. When he dies, his soul returns to God (Ecclesiastes 12:7), and only then is the woman’s soul free to unite with another man’s soul, if she wishes (Romans 7:3). God does not forgive sins in advance — only those already committed. If a person asks God for forgiveness in church, is forgiven, but that very night lies with someone who is not their spouse according to God, they have committed adultery again.
Question: Doesn’t the Bible say to the one who converts: “Behold, all things have become new”? Doesn’t that mean I can start from zero?
No. Passages referring to the new life of a converted person speak of how God expects them to live after having their sins forgiven, and do not mean that the consequences of their past errors have been erased.
Yes, the apostle Paul wrote in verse 17 of 2 Corinthians 5: “If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new,” as a conclusion to what he said two verses earlier (verse 15): “And He died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for Him who died for them and rose again.” This has absolutely nothing to do with God giving a woman permission to start her love life from zero, as so many worldly leaders teach.
Question: Doesn’t the Bible say that God overlooks the times of ignorance?
The phrase “times of ignorance” (Acts 17:30) was used by Paul while passing through Greece, addressing an idolatrous people who had never heard of the God of Israel, the Bible, or Jesus. No one reading this text was ignorant of these things before their conversion.
Moreover, this passage has to do with repentance and the forgiveness of sins. The Word does not even hint that there is no forgiveness for the sin of adultery. The problem is that many do not want only forgiveness for adultery already committed; they also want to continue in the adulterous relationship — and God does not accept this, whether man or woman.
Question: Why is nothing said about men? Don’t men commit adultery?
Yes, men also commit adultery, and the punishment in biblical times was the same for both. God, however, considers differently how adultery occurs for each. There is no connection between male virginity and the union between couples. It is the woman, not the man, who determines whether a relationship is adultery or not.
According to the Bible, a man, whether married or single, commits adultery whenever he has relations with a woman who is neither a virgin nor a widow. For example, if a 25-year-old virgin man lies with a 23-year-old woman who is not a virgin, the man commits adultery, for the woman, according to God, is another man’s wife (Matthew 5:32; Romans 7:3; Leviticus 20:10; Deuteronomy 22:22-24).
virgins, Widows and Non-virgins in War
Reference
Instruction
Numbers 31:17-18
Destroy all men and non-virgin women. virgins are kept alive.
Judges 21:11
Destroy all men and non-virgin women. virgins are kept alive.
Deuteronomy 20:13-14
Destroy all adult men. The females left are widows and virgins.
Question: So a divorced/separated woman cannot marry while her ex-husband is alive, but a man does not have to wait for his ex-wife to die?
No, he does not. By God’s law, a man who separates from his wife on biblical grounds (see Matthew 5:32) may marry a virgin or a widow. The reality, however, is that in almost all cases today, the man separates from his wife and marries a divorced/separated woman, and he is then in adultery, since, for God, his new wife belongs to another man.
Question: Since a man does not commit adultery when marrying virgins or widows, does that mean God accepts polygamy today?
No. Polygamy is not permitted in our day due to the gospel of Jesus and His stricter application of the Father’s Law. The letter of the Law, given since creation (τὸ γράμμα τοῦ νόμου – to grámma tou nómou), establishes that the soul of a woman is bound to only one man, but does not state that the soul of a man is bound to only one woman. That is why, in Scripture, adultery is always characterized as a sin against a woman’s husband. This is why God never said that the patriarchs and kings were adulterers, since their wives were virgins or widows when they married.
With the coming of the Messiah, however, we have received the full understanding of the Spirit of the Law (τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ νόμου – to pneûma tou nómou). Jesus, as the only spokesperson to come from heaven (John 3:13; John 12:48-50; Matthew 17:5), taught that all of God’s commandments are based on love and the good of His creatures. The letter of the Law is the expression; the Spirit of the Law is its essence.
In the case of adultery, even though the letter of the Law does not forbid a man from being with more than one woman, provided they are virgins or widows, the Spirit of the Law does not permit such practice. Why? Because today it would cause suffering and confusion for all involved — and loving your neighbor as yourself is the second greatest commandment (Leviticus 19:18; Matthew 22:39). In biblical times, this was something culturally accepted and expected; in our days, it is unacceptable in every respect.
Question: And if a separated couple decides to reconcile and restore the marriage, is that okay?
Yes, the couple may reconcile provided that:
The husband was in fact the wife’s first man, otherwise the marriage was not valid even before the separation.
The woman has not lain with another man during the period of separation (Deuteronomy 24:1-4; Jeremiah 3:1).
These answers reinforce that the biblical teaching on marriage and adultery is coherent and consistent from the beginning to the end of Scripture. By faithfully following what God has determined, we avoid doctrinal distortions and preserve the sanctity of the union established by Him.
This article refutes mistaken interpretations of Mark 10:11–12, which suggest that Jesus taught equality between men and women in adultery or that women could initiate divorce in the Jewish context.
QUESTION: Is Mark 10:11–12 proof that Jesus changed God’s law on divorce?
ANSWER: It is not proof — not even close. The most important point against the idea that in Mark 10:11–12 Jesus teaches that (1) a woman can also be a victim of adultery, and (2) that a woman can also divorce her husband, is the fact that such an understanding contradicts the general teaching of Scripture on this topic.
An essential principle in theological exegesis is that no doctrine should be built on the basis of a single verse. It is necessary to consider the entire biblical context, including what other inspired books and authors say. This is a fundamental principle to preserve the doctrinal integrity of Scripture and prevent isolated or distorted interpretations.
In other words, these two mistaken understandings drawn from this phrase in Mark are far too serious for us to claim that here Jesus changed everything God had taught on the subject since the patriarchs.
If this were truly a new instruction from the Messiah, it should appear elsewhere — and with greater clarity — especially in the Sermon on the Mount, where the topic of divorce was addressed. We would have something like: “You have heard that it was said to those of old: a man may leave his wife and marry another virgin or widow. But I say to you: if he leaves his wife to unite with another, he commits adultery against the first…”
But, obviously, this does not exist.
Exegesis of Mark 10:11–12
Mark 10 is highly contextual. The passage was written during a time when divorce took place with minimal rules and could be initiated by both sexes — something very different from the reality in the days of Moses or Samuel. Just consider the reason why John the Baptist was imprisoned. This was the Palestine of Herod, not that of the patriarchs.
At this time, the Jews were heavily influenced by the customs of Greco-Roman society, including in matters of marriage, physical appearance, female authority, etc.
The doctrine of divorce for any reason
The doctrine of divorce for any reason, taught by Rabbi Hillel, was the result of social pressure exerted on Jewish men, who, as is natural to fallen human beings, wanted to get rid of their wives to marry others who were more attractive, younger, or from wealthier families.
This mindset, unfortunately, is still alive today, including within churches, where men leave their wives to unite with others — almost always also women who are already divorced.
Three central linguistic points
The passage in Mark 10:11 contains three key words that help clarify the real meaning of the text:
και λεγει αυτοις Ος εαν απολυση την γυναικα αυτου και γαμηση αλλην μοιχαται ἐπ’αὐτήν
γυναικα (gynaika)
γυναίκα is the accusative singular of γυνή, a term which, in marital contexts like Mark 10:11, specifically refers to a married woman — not a woman in a general sense. This shows that Jesus’ answer is centered on the violation of the marriage covenant, not on new legitimate bonds with widows or virgins.
ἐπ’ (epí)
ἐπί is a preposition that normally means “upon,” “with,” “on top of,” “inside.” While some translations choose “against” in this verse, that is not the most common nuance of ἐπί — especially in light of the linguistic and theological context.
In the most widely used Bible in the world, the NIV (New International Version), for example, out of the 832 occurrences of ἐπί, only 35 are translated as “against”; in the rest, the idea expressed is “upon,” “on top of,” “inside,” “with.”
αὐτήν (autēn)
αὐτήν is the feminine singular accusative form of the pronoun αὐτός. In the biblical Greek (Koine) grammar of Mark 10:11, the word “αὐτήν” (autēn – her) does not specify which woman Jesus is referring to.
The grammatical ambiguity arises because there are two possible antecedents:
τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ (“his wife”) — the first woman
ἄλλην (“another [woman]”) — the second woman
Both are in the feminine, singular, accusative, and appear within the same sentence structure, which makes the reference of “αὐτήν” grammatically ambiguous.
Contextualized translation
Considering what is read in the original, the translation most consistent with the historical, linguistic, and doctrinal context would be:
“Whoever leaves his wife (γυναίκα) and marries another — that is, another γυναίκα, another woman who is already someone’s wife — commits adultery upon/inside/on top of/with (ἐπί) her.”
The idea is clear: the man who leaves his legitimate wife and unites with another woman who was also already another man’s wife (therefore, not a virgin) commits adultery with this new woman — a soul already joined to another man.
The true meaning of the verb “apolýō”
As for the idea that Mark 10:12 provides biblical support for a legal divorce initiated by a woman — and that she could thus marry another man — this is an anachronistic interpretation with no support in the original biblical context.
First, because in that very verse Jesus concludes the sentence by saying that if she unites with another man, the two commit adultery — exactly as He states in Matthew 5:32. But linguistically, the mistake comes from the true meaning of the verb translated as “divorce” in most Bibles: ἀπολύω (apolýō).
The translation as “divorce” reflects modern customs, but in biblical times, ἀπολύω simply meant: to release, to let go, to set free, to send away, among other physical or relational actions. In biblical usage, ἀπολύω does not carry a legal connotation — it is a verb expressing separation, without implying formal legal action.
In other words, Mark 10:12 simply states that if a woman leaves her husband and unites with another man while the first is still alive, she commits adultery — not because of legal issues, but because she breaks a covenant that is still in force.
Conclusion
The correct reading of Mark 10:11–12 preserves consistency with the rest of Scripture, which distinguishes between virgins and married women, and avoids introducing new doctrines based on a single poorly translated phrase.
The “certificate of divorce” mentioned in the Bible is often misunderstood as a divine authorization to dissolve marriages and allow new unions. This article clarifies the true meaning of [סֵפֶר כְּרִיתוּת (sefer keritut)] in Deuteronomy 24:1–4 and [βιβλίον ἀποστασίου (biblíon apostasíou)] in Matthew 5:31, refuting false teachings that suggest the dismissed woman is free to marry again. Based on Scripture, we show that this practice, tolerated by Moses due to the hardness of human hearts, was never a commandment from God. This analysis highlights that, according to God, marriage is a spiritual union binding the woman to her husband until his death, and the “certificate of divorce” does not dissolve this bond, keeping the woman bound while he lives.
QUESTION:What is the certificate of divorce mentioned in the Bible?
ANSWER: Let it be clear that, contrary to what most Jewish and Christian leaders teach, there is no divine instruction about such a “certificate of divorce” — much less the idea that the woman who receives it is free to enter a new marriage.
Moses mentions the “certificate of divorce” only as part of an illustration in Deuteronomy 24:1–4, with the purpose of leading to the real command contained in the passage: the prohibition for the first husband to lie again with his former wife if she has lain with another man (see Jeremiah 3:1). Incidentally, the first husband could even take her back — but could no longer have relations with her, as we see in the case of David and the concubines violated by Absalom (2 Samuel 20:3).
The main evidence that Moses is only illustrating a situation is the repetition of the conjunction כִּי (ki, “if”) in the text: If a man takes a wife… If he finds something indecent [עֶרְוָה, ervah, “nakedness”] in her… If the second husband dies… Moses builds a possible scenario as a rhetorical device.
Jesus made it clear that Moses did not forbid divorce, but that does not mean the passage is a formal authorization. In fact, there is no passage where Moses authorizes divorce. He merely took a passive stance in the face of the hardness of the people’s hearts — a people who had just come out of about 400 years of slavery.
This mistaken understanding of Deuteronomy 24 is very old. In the days of Jesus, Rabbi Hillel and his followers also extracted from this passage something that is not there: the idea that a man could send his wife away for any reason. (What does “nakedness” עֶרְוָה have to do with “any reason”?)
Jesus then corrected these errors:
1. He emphasized that πορνεία (porneía — something indecent) is the only acceptable reason. 2. He made it clear that Moses merely tolerated what they were doing to women because of the hardness of the hearts of the men of Israel. 3. In the Sermon on the Mount, when mentioning the “certificate of divorce” and concluding with the expression “But I say to you,” Jesus prohibited the use of this legal instrument for the separation of souls (Matthew 5:31–32).
NOTE: The Greek word πορνεία (porneía) is equivalent to the Hebrew עֶרְוָה (ervah). In Hebrew it meant “nakedness,” and in Greek it was broadened to “something indecent.” Porneía does not include adultery [μοιχεία (moicheía)] because in biblical times the penalty was death. In Matthew 5:32, Jesus used both words in the same sentence, indicating they are two different things.
It is important to stress that if Moses taught nothing about divorce, it is because God did not instruct him to do so — after all, Moses was faithful and spoke only what he heard from God.
The expression sefer keritut, which literally means “book of separation” or “certificate of divorce,” appears only once in the entire Torah — precisely in Deuteronomy 24:1–4. In other words, nowhere did Moses teach that men should use this certificate to send their wives away. This indicates it was an already existing practice, inherited from the period of captivity in Egypt. Moses merely mentioned something that was already done, but did not instruct it as a divine command. It is worth remembering that Moses himself, about forty years earlier, had lived in Egypt and certainly knew of this type of legal instrument.
Outside the Torah, the Tanakh also uses sefer keritut only twice — both metaphorically, referring to the relationship between God and Israel (Jeremiah 3:8 and Isaiah 50:1).
In these two symbolic uses, there is no indication that because God gave a “certificate of divorce” to Israel, the nation was free to join itself to other gods. On the contrary, spiritual betrayal is condemned throughout the text. In other words, not even symbolically does this “certificate of divorce” allow a new union for the woman.
Jesus also never recognized this certificate as something authorized by God to legalize the separation between souls. The two times it appears in the Gospels are in Matthew — and once in the parallel in Mark (Mark 10:4):
1. Matthew 19:7–8: the Pharisees mention it, and Jesus replies that Moses only permitted (epétrepsen) the use of the certificate because of the hardness of their hearts — meaning it was not God’s command. 2. Matthew 5:31–32, in the Sermon on the Mount, when Jesus says:
“It was said: ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for the cause of porneía, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”
Therefore, this so-called “certificate of divorce” was never a divine authorization, but merely something Moses tolerated in view of the people’s hardness of heart. No part of Scripture supports the idea that, by receiving this certificate, the woman would be spiritually released and free to unite with another man. This idea has no basis in the Word and is a myth. The clear and direct teaching of Jesus confirms this truth.
It is common knowledge that the first marriage took place right after the Creator made a female [נְקֵבָה (nᵉqēvāh)] to be the companion of the first human being, a male [זָכָר (zākhār)]. Male and female — these are the terms the Creator Himself used for both animals and human beings (Genesis 1:27). The account in Genesis says that this male, created in the image and likeness of God, observed that none of the females among the other creatures on earth resembled him. None attracted him, and he desired a companion. The expression in the original is [עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ (ʿēzer kᵉnegdô)], which means “a suitable helper.” And the Lord perceived Adam’s need and decided to create for him a female, the feminine version of his body: “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him” (Genesis 2:18). Eve was then made from Adam’s body.
The First Union According to the Bible
Thus, the first union of souls took place: without ceremony, without vows, without witnesses, without a feast, without registry, and without an officiant. God simply gave the woman to the man, and this was his reaction: “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man” (Genesis 2:23). Soon after, we read that Adam had relations [יָדַע (yāḏaʿ) — to know, to have sexual relations] with Eve, and she became pregnant. This same expression (to know), linked to pregnancy, is also later used with the union of Cain and his wife (Genesis 4:17). All the unions mentioned in the Bible consist simply of a man taking a virgin (or widow) for himself and having relations with her — almost always using the expression “to know” or “to go in to” — which confirms that the union indeed took place. In no biblical account is it said that there was any ceremony, whether religious or civil.
When Does the Union Take Place in God’s Eyes?
The central question is: When does God consider that a marriage has taken place? There are three possible options — one biblical and true, and two false and of human invention.
1. The Biblical Option
God considers a man and a woman married at the moment the virgin woman has her first consensual relation with him. If she has already had another man, the union can only take place if the previous man has died.
2. The False Relativist Option
God considers that the union takes place when the couple decides. In other words, the man or the woman may have as many sexual partners as they wish, but only on the day they decide that the relationship has become serious — perhaps because they will move in together — does God consider them as one flesh. In this case, it is the creature and not the Creator who decides when the soul of a man is joined to the soul of a woman. There is not the slightest biblical basis for this view.
3. The Most Common False Option
God only considers that a union has taken place when a ceremony occurs. This option is not much different from the second, since in practice the only change is the addition of a third human being to the process, who may be a justice of the peace, a registry official, a priest, a pastor, etc. In this option, the couple may also have had multiple sexual partners in the past, but only now, standing before a leader, does God consider the two souls united.
The Absence of Ceremonies in Wedding Feasts
It should be noted that the Bible mentions four wedding feasts, but in none of the accounts is there any mention of a ceremony to formalize or bless the union. There is no teaching that a rite or external process is necessary for the union to be valid before God (Genesis 29:21–28; Judges 14:10–20; Esther 2:18; John 2:1–11). The confirmation of the union occurs when a virgin has consensual sexual relations with her first man (the consummation). The idea that God only unites the couple when they stand before a religious leader or a justice of the peace has no support in the Scriptures.
From the beginning, God forbade adultery, which refers to a woman having relations with more than one man. This is because a woman’s soul can only be joined to one man at a time here on earth. There is no limit to how many men a woman may have during her lifetime, but each new relationship can only occur if the previous one has ended by death, because only then has the man’s soul returned to God, from whom it came (Ecclesiastes 12:7). In other words, she must be a widow to unite with another man. This truth is easily confirmed in the Scriptures, as when King David sent for Abigail only after he heard of Nabal’s death (1 Samuel 25:39–40); when Boaz took Ruth as his wife because he knew her husband, Mahlon, had died (Ruth 4:13); and when Judah instructed his second son, Onan, to marry Tamar to raise offspring in the name of his deceased brother (Genesis 38:8). See also: Matthew 5:32; Romans 7:3.
Man and Woman: Differences in Adultery
Something clearly observable in the Scriptures is that there is no adultery against a woman, but only against a man. The idea taught by many churches — that by separating from a woman and marrying another virgin or widow, the man commits adultery against his ex-wife — has no support in the Bible, but rather in social conventions.
Proof of this is found in the many examples of servants of the Lord who went through multiple marriages with virgins and widows, without God’s reproval — including the example of Jacob, who had four wives, from whom came the twelve tribes of Israel and the Messiah Himself. It was never said that Jacob committed adultery with each new wife.
Another well-known example was David’s adultery. The prophet Nathan said nothing about there having been adultery against any woman of the king when he had relations with Bathsheba (2 Samuel 12:9), but only against Uriah, her husband. Remember that David was already married to Michal, Abigail, and Ahinoam (1 Samuel 25:42). In other words, adultery is always against a man and never against a woman.
Some leaders like to claim that God makes men and women equal in all things, but this does not reflect what is observed in the four thousand years covered by the Scriptures. There is simply not a single example in the Bible where God censured a man for committing adultery against his wife.
This does not mean that a man does not commit adultery, but that God considers the adultery of a man and a woman differently. The biblical punishment was the same for both (Leviticus 20:10; Deuteronomy 22:22–24), but there is no link between male virginity and marriage. It is the woman, not the man, who determines whether there is adultery or not. According to the Bible, a man commits adultery whenever he has relations with a woman who is neither a virgin nor a widow. For example, if a virgin man of 25 sleeps with a 23-year-old young woman who has already had another man, he commits adultery — because, according to God, that young woman is another man’s wife (Matthew 5:32; Romans 7:3; Numbers 5:12).
Levirate Marriage and the Preservation of Lineage
This principle — that a woman may only unite with another man after the death of the first — is also confirmed in the law of levirate marriage, given by God to preserve family property: “If brothers dwell together and one of them dies without having children, the wife of the deceased shall not marry a stranger outside the family. Her husband’s brother shall go in to her, take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her…” (Deuteronomy 25:5–10. See also Genesis 38:8; Ruth 1:12–13; Matthew 22:24). Note that this law was to be fulfilled even if the brother-in-law already had another wife. In the case of Boaz, he even offered Ruth to a closer relative, but the man refused, for he did not wish to acquire another wife and have to divide his inheritance: “On the day you buy the field from the hand of Naomi, you must also acquire Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of the dead, to raise up the name of the dead on his inheritance” (Ruth 4:5).
The Biblical Perspective on Marriage
The biblical view of marriage, as presented in the Scriptures, is clear and distinct from modern human traditions. God established marriage as a spiritual union sealed by consummation between a man and a virgin or widow, without the need for ceremonies, officiants, or external rites.
This does not mean that the Bible forbids ceremonies as part of weddings, but it should be clear that they are neither a requirement nor a confirmation that a union of souls has taken place according to God’s law.
The union is considered valid in God’s eyes only at the moment of consensual relations, reflecting the divine order that the woman be joined to only one man at a time until death dissolves that bond. The absence of ceremonies in the wedding feasts described in the Bible reinforces that the focus is on the intimate covenant and the divine purpose of continuing the lineage, not on human formalities.
Conclusion
In light of all these biblical accounts and principles, it becomes evident that God’s definition of marriage is rooted in His own design, not in human traditions or legal formalities. The Creator set the standard from the beginning: a marriage is sealed in His sight when a man unites in consensual relations with a woman who is free to marry — meaning she is either a virgin or a widow. While civil or religious ceremonies may serve as public declarations, they carry no weight in determining whether a union is valid before God. What matters is obedience to His order, respect for the sanctity of the marital bond, and faithfulness to His commandments, which remain unchanging regardless of cultural shifts or human opinion.
This truth becomes evident when we examine the beginning of humanity in the Garden of Eden. Adam, the first man, was given the task of tending a garden. What type of garden? The original Hebrew text does not specify, but there is compelling evidence that it was a fruit garden: “And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden… And out of the ground the Lord God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food” (Genesis 2:15).
We also read about Adam’s role in naming and caring for the animals, but nowhere does Scripture suggest that they were also “good for food,” like the trees.
ANIMAL CONSUMPTION IN GOD’S PLAN
This is not to say that eating meat is forbidden by God—had it been, there would be explicit instruction to that effect in the entire Scripture. However, it does tell us that the consumption of animal flesh was not part of humanity’s diet from the beginning.
God’s initial provision in the early phase of man seems to be entirely plant-based, emphasizing fruits and other forms of vegetation.
THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN CLEAN AND UNCLEAN ANIMALS
INTRODUCED IN NOAH’S TIME
While God eventually permitted humans to kill and eat animals, clear distinctions were established between animals that were suitable for consumption and those that were not.
This distinction is first implied in the instructions given to Noah before the flood: “Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate” (Genesis 7:2).
IMPLICIT KNOWLEDGE OF CLEAN ANIMALS
The fact that God did not explain to Noah how to distinguish between clean and unclean animals suggests that such knowledge was already ingrained in humanity, possibly from the very inception of creation.
This recognition of clean and unclean animals reflects a broader divine order and purpose, where certain creatures were set apart for specific roles or purposes within the natural and spiritual framework.
THE EARLY MEANING OF CLEAN ANIMALS
ASSOCIATED WITH SACRIFICE
Based on what has transpired so far in the Genesis narrative, we can safely assume that up to the flood, the distinction between clean and unclean animals was only related to their acceptability as sacrifices.
Abel’s offering of the firstborn of his flock highlights this principle. In the Hebrew text, the phrase “firstborn of his flock” (מִבְּכֹרוֹת צֹאנוֹ) uses the word “flock” (tzon, צֹאן), which typically refers to small domesticated animals such as sheep and goats. Thus, it is most likely that Abel offered a lamb or a young goat from his flock (Genesis 4:3-5).
NOAH’S SACRIFICES OF CLEAN ANIMALS
Similarly, when Noah exited the ark, he built an altar and sacrificed burnt offerings to the Lord using clean animals, which were specifically mentioned in God’s instructions before the flood (Genesis 8:20; 7:2).
This early emphasis on clean animals for sacrifice sets the foundation for understanding their unique role in worship and covenantal purity.
The Hebrew words used to describe these categories—tahor (טָהוֹר) and tamei (טָמֵא)—are not arbitrary. They are deeply connected to concepts of holiness and separation for the Lord:
טָמֵא (Tamei) Meaning: Unclean, impure. Usage: Refers to ritual, moral, or physical impurity. Often associated with animals, objects, or actions prohibited for consumption or worship. Example: “Nevertheless, these you shall not eat… they are unclean (tamei) to you” (Leviticus 11:4).
טָהוֹר (Tahor) Meaning: Clean, pure. Usage: Refers to animals, objects, or people suitable for consumption, worship, or ritual activities. Example: “You are to distinguish between the holy and the common, and between the unclean and the clean” (Leviticus 10:10).
These terms form the foundation of God’s dietary laws, which are later detailed in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. These chapters explicitly list animals deemed clean (permissible for food) and unclean (forbidden to eat), ensuring that God’s people remain distinct and holy.
GOD’S ADMONITIONS AGAINST EATING UNCLEAN MEATS
Throughout the Tanach (Old Testament), God repeatedly admonished His people for violating His dietary laws. Several passages specifically condemn the consumption of unclean animals, emphasizing that this practice was seen as a rebellion against God’s commandments:
“A people who provoke Me continually to My face… who eat the flesh of pigs, and whose pots hold broth of impure meat” (Isaiah 65:3-4).
“Those who consecrate and purify themselves to go into the gardens, following one who is among those who eat the flesh of pigs, rats and other unclean things—they will meet their end together with the one they follow,” declares the Lord (Isaiah 66:17).
These rebukes highlight that eating unclean meat was not merely a dietary issue but a moral and spiritual failure. The act of consuming such food was linked to defiance against God’s instructions. By indulging in practices explicitly forbidden, the people demonstrated a disregard for holiness and obedience.
JESUS AND UNCLEAN MEAT
With the coming of Jesus, the rise of Christianity, and the writings of the New Testament, many have begun to question whether God no longer cares about obedience to His laws, including His rules on unclean foods. In reality, practically the entire Christian world will eat anything they want.
The fact, however, is that there is no prophecy in the Old Testament that says that the Messiah would cancel the law of unclean meat, or any other law of His Father (as some argue). Jesus clearly obeyed the Father’s ordinances in everything, including on this point. If Jesus had eaten pork, just as we know he ate fish (Luke 24:41-43) and lamb (Matthew 26:17-30), then we would have a clear teaching by example, but we know that this was not the case. We have no indication that Jesus and his disciples disobeyed these instructions given by God through the prophets.
ARGUMENTS REFUTED
FALSE ARGUMENT: “Jesus declared all food clean”
THE TRUTH:
Mark 7:1-23 is often quoted as evidence that Jesus abolished the dietary laws concerning unclean meat. However, a careful examination of the text reveals that this interpretation is unfounded. The commonly misquoted verse says: “’Because the food doesn’t go into his heart but into his stomach, and is expelled as waste.’ (By this he declared all foods clean)” (Mark 7:19).
THE CONTEXT: IT’S NOT ABOUT CLEAN AND UNCLEAN MEAT
First and foremost, the context of this passage has nothing to do with clean or unclean meat as outlined in Leviticus 11. Instead, it focuses on a debate between Jesus and the Pharisees about a Jewish tradition unrelated to the dietary laws. The Pharisees and scribes noticed that Jesus’ disciples did not perform the ceremonial handwashing before eating, known in Hebrew as netilat yadayim (נטילת ידיים). This ritual involves washing the hands with a blessing and is a traditional practice observed by the Jewish community to this day, particularly within orthodox circles.
The Pharisees’ concern was not about God’s dietary laws but about adherence to this man-made tradition. They viewed the disciples’ failure to perform the ritual as a violation of their customs, equating it with impurity.
JESUS’ RESPONSE: THE HEART MATTERS MORE
Jesus spends much of Mark 7 teaching that what truly defiles a person is not external practices or traditions but the condition of the heart. He emphasizes that spiritual impurity comes from within, from sinful thoughts and actions, rather than from failing to observe ceremonial rituals.
When Jesus explains that food does not defile a person because it goes into the digestive system and not the heart, He is not addressing the dietary laws but rather the ceremonial handwashing tradition. His focus is on internal purity rather than outward rituals.
A CLOSER LOOK AT MARK 7:19
Mark 7:19 is often misunderstood due to a non-existent parenthetical note that Bible publishers inserted in the text, stating, “By this, he declared all foods clean.” In the Greek text, the sentence only says: “οτι ουκ εισπορευεται αυτου εις την καρδιαν αλλ εις την κοιλιαν και εις τον αφεδρωνα εκπορευεται καθαριζον παντα τα βρωματα,” which translates literally as: “Because it enters not of him into the heart, but into the belly, and into the latrine goes out, cleansing all the foods.”
Reading: ” into the latrine goes out, cleansing all the foods” and translating as: “With this, he declared all foods clean” is a blatant attempt to manipulate the text to fit a common bias against God’s Law in seminaries and among Bible publishers.
What makes more sense is that the whole sentence is Jesus describing in the everyday parlance of the time the process of eating. The digestive system takes in food, extracts nutrients and beneficial components that the body needs (the clean part), and then expels the rest as waste. The phrase “cleansing or purifying all foods” probably refers to this natural process of separating useful nutrients from what will be discarded.
CONCLUSION ON THIS FALSE ARGUMENT
Mark 7:1-23 is not about abolishing God’s dietary laws but about rejecting human traditions that elevate external rituals over matters of the heart. Jesus taught that true defilement comes from within, not from failing to observe ceremonial handwashing. The claim that “Jesus declared all food clean” is a misinterpretation of the text, rooted in biases against God’s eternal laws. By carefully reading the context and original language, it becomes clear that Jesus upheld the Torah’s teachings and did not dismiss the dietary laws given by God.
FALSE ARGUMENT: “In a vision, God told the apostle Peter that we can now eat the flesh of any animal”
THE TRUTH:
Many people cite Peter’s vision in Acts 10 as evidence that God abolished the dietary laws concerning unclean animals. However, a closer examination of the context and purpose of the vision reveals that it had nothing to do with overturning the laws about clean and unclean meat. Instead, the vision was meant to teach Peter to accept Gentiles into God’s people, not to alter the dietary instructions given by God.
PETER’S VISION AND ITS PURPOSE
In Acts 10, Peter has a vision of a sheet descending from heaven, containing all kinds of animals, both clean and unclean, accompanied by a command to “kill and eat.” Peter’s immediate response is clear: “Surely not, Lord! I have never eaten anything impure or unclean” (Acts 10:14).
This reaction is significant for several reasons:
Peter’s Obedience to the Dietary Laws
This vision occurs after Jesus’ ascension and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. If Jesus had abolished the dietary laws during His ministry, Peter—a close disciple of Jesus—would have been aware of it and would not have objected so strongly. The fact that Peter refused to eat unclean animals demonstrates that he still observed the dietary laws and had no understanding that they had been abolished.
The Vision’s Real Message
The vision is repeated three times, emphasizing its importance, but its true meaning is clarified just a few verses later when Peter visits the house of Cornelius, a Gentile. Peter himself explains the vision’s meaning: “God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean” (Acts 10:28).
The vision was not about food at all but was a symbolic message. God used the imagery of clean and unclean animals to teach Peter that the barriers between Jews and Gentiles were being removed and that Gentiles could now be accepted into God’s covenant community.
LOGICAL INCONSISTENCIES WITH THE “FOOD LAW ABOLISHED” ARGUMENT
Claiming that Peter’s vision abolished the dietary laws ignores several critical points:
Peter’s Initial Resistance
If the dietary laws had already been abolished, Peter’s objection would make no sense. His words reflect his continued adherence to these laws, even after years of following Jesus.
No Scriptural Evidence of Abolishment
Nowhere in Acts 10 does the text explicitly state that the dietary laws were abolished. The focus is entirely on the inclusion of Gentiles, not a redefinition of clean and unclean food.
The Vision’s Symbolism
The vision’s purpose becomes evident in its application. When Peter realizes that God does not show favoritism but accepts people from every nation who fear Him and do what is right (Acts 10:34-35), it is clear that the vision was about breaking down prejudices, not dietary regulations.
Contradictions in Interpretation
If the vision were about abolishing dietary laws, it would contradict the broader context of Acts, where Jewish believers, including Peter, continued to observe the Torah’s instructions. Furthermore, the vision would lose its symbolic power if it were interpreted literally, as it would then only address dietary practices and not the more significant issue of Gentile inclusion.
CONCLUSION ON THIS FALSE ARGUMENT
Peter’s vision in Acts 10 was not about food but about people. God used the imagery of clean and unclean animals to convey a deeper spiritual truth: that the gospel was for all nations and that Gentiles were no longer to be considered impure or excluded from God’s people. To interpret this vision as a revocation of the dietary laws is to misunderstand both the context and the purpose of the passage.
The dietary instructions given by God in Leviticus 11 remain unchanged and were never the focus of this vision. Peter’s own actions and explanations confirm this. The real message of the vision is about breaking down barriers between people, not altering God’s eternal laws.
An old painting of butchers preparing meat according to the rules of the Bible for draining the blood of all clean animals, birds, and land animals as described in Leviticus 11.
FALSE ARGUMENT: “The Jerusalem council decided that Gentiles could eat anything as long as it’s not strangled and with blood”
THE TRUTH:
The Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) is often misinterpreted to suggest that Gentiles were given permission to disregard most of God’s commandments and only follow four basic requirements. However, a closer examination reveals that this council was not about abolishing God’s laws for Gentiles but about easing their initial participation in Messianic Jewish communities.
WHAT WAS THE JERUSALEM COUNCIL ABOUT?
The primary question addressed at the council was whether Gentiles needed to fully commit to the entire Torah—including circumcision—before being allowed to hear the gospel and participate in the meetings of the first Messianic congregations.
For centuries, Jewish tradition held that Gentiles must become fully observant of the Torah, including adopting practices like circumcision, observing the Sabbath, dietary laws, and other commandments, before a Jew could freely interact with them (See Matthew 10:5-6; John 4:9; Acts 10:28). The council’s decision marked a shift, recognizing that Gentiles could begin their journey of faith without immediately following all these laws.
FOUR INITIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR HARMONY
The council concluded that Gentiles could attend the congregational meetings as they were, provided they avoided the following practices (Acts 15:20):
Food Polluted by Idols: Avoid consuming food sacrificed to idols, as idolatry was deeply offensive to Jewish believers.
Sexual Immorality: Abstain from sexual sins, which were common in pagan practices.
Meat of Strangled Animals: Avoid eating animals that were killed improperly, as this retained blood, forbidden by God’s dietary laws.
Blood: Avoid consuming blood, a practice prohibited in the Torah (Leviticus 17:10-12).
These requirements were not a summary of all the laws Gentiles needed to follow. Instead, they served as a starting point to ensure peace and unity between Jewish and Gentile believers in mixed congregations.
WHAT THIS DECISION DID NOT MEAN
It is absurd to claim that these four requirements were the only laws Gentiles needed to obey to please God and receive salvation.
Were Gentiles free to violate the Ten Commandments?
Could they worship other gods, use God’s name in vain, steal, or murder? Of course not. Such a conclusion would contradict everything the Scriptures teach about God’s expectations for righteousness.
A Starting Point, Not an Endpoint:
The council addressed the immediate need to allow Gentiles to participate in Messianic Jewish gatherings. It was assumed they would grow in knowledge and obedience over time.
ACTS 15:21 PROVIDES CLARITY
The council’s decision is clarified in Acts 15:21: “For the law of Moses [the Torah] has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”
This verse demonstrates that the Gentiles would continue learning God’s laws as they attended the synagogue and heard the Torah. The council did not abolish God’s commandments but established a practical approach for Gentiles to begin their faith journey without overwhelming them.
CONTEXT FROM JESUS’ TEACHINGS
Jesus Himself emphasized the importance of God’s commandments. For instance, in Matthew 19:17 and Luke 11:28, and in the entire Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), Jesus affirmed the necessity of following God’s laws, such as not committing murder, adultery, loving our neighbors, and many others. These principles were foundational and would not have been dismissed by the apostles.
CONCLUSION ON THIS FALSE ARGUMENT
The Jerusalem Council did not declare that Gentiles could eat anything or ignore God’s commandments. It addressed a specific issue: how Gentiles could start participating in Messianic congregations without immediately adopting every aspect of the Torah. The four requirements were practical measures to promote harmony in mixed Jewish-Gentile communities.
The expectation was clear: Gentiles would grow in their understanding of God’s laws over time through the teaching of the Torah, which was read in the synagogues every Sabbath. To suggest otherwise misrepresents the council’s purpose and ignores the broader teachings of Scripture.
FALSE ARGUMENT: “The apostle Paul taught that Christ cancelled the need to obey God’s laws for salvation”
THE TRUTH:
Many Christian leaders, if not most, incorrectly teach that the apostle Paul opposed God’s Law and instructed Gentile converts to disregard His commandments. Some even suggest that obeying God’s laws could endanger salvation. This interpretation has led to significant theological confusion.
Scholars who disagree with this perspective have painstakingly worked to address the controversies surrounding Paul’s writings, attempting to demonstrate that his teachings have been misunderstood or taken out of context regarding the Law and salvation. However, our ministry holds a different position.
WHY EXPLAINING PAUL IS THE WRONG APPROACH
We believe it is unnecessary—and even offensive to the Lord—to go to great lengths to explain Paul’s stance on the Law. Doing so elevates Paul, a human being, to a status equal to or greater than the prophets of God, and even Jesus Himself.
Instead, the proper theological approach is to examine whether the Scriptures prior to Paul predicted or endorsed the idea that someone would come after Jesus to teach a message nullifying God’s laws. If such an important prophecy existed, we would have reason to accept Paul’s teachings on this matter as divinely sanctioned, and it would make sense to do our utmost to understand and live by it.
THE ABSENCE OF PROPHECIES ABOUT PAUL
The reality is that the Scriptures contain no prophecies about Paul—or any other figure—bringing a message that cancels God’s laws. The only individuals explicitly prophesied in the Old Testament who appear in the New Testament are:
John the Baptist: His role as the forerunner of the Messiah was foretold and confirmed by Jesus (e.g., Isaiah 40:3, Malachi 4:5-6, Matthew 11:14).
Judas Iscariot: Indirect references are found in passages like Psalms 41:9 and Psalms 69:25.
Joseph of Arimathea: Isaiah 53:9 indirectly alludes to him as the one who provided Jesus’ burial.
Beyond these individuals, no prophecies exist about anyone—least of all someone from Tarsus—being sent to nullify God’s commandments or teach that Gentiles could be saved without obedience to His eternal laws.
WHAT JESUS PROPHESIED TO COME AFTER HIS ASCENSION
Jesus made numerous prophecies about what would happen after His earthly ministry, including:
The destruction of the Temple (Matthew 24:2).
The persecution of His disciples (John 15:20, Matthew 10:22).
The spread of the Kingdom message to all nations (Matthew 24:14).
Yet, there is no mention of anyone from Tarsus—let alone Paul—being given authority to teach a new or contrary doctrine regarding salvation and obedience.
THE TRUE TEST OF PAUL’S WRITINGS
This does not mean we should dismiss Paul’s writings or those of Peter, John, or James. Instead, we must approach their writings with caution, ensuring that any interpretation aligns with the foundational Scriptures: the Law and the Prophets of the Old Testament, and the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels.
The problem lies not in the writings themselves, but in the interpretations that theologians and church leaders have imposed on them. Any interpretation of Paul’s teachings must be supported by:
The Old Testament: God’s Law as revealed through His prophets.
The Four Gospels: The words and actions of Jesus, who upheld the Law.
If an interpretation does not meet these criteria, it should not be accepted as truth.
CONCLUSION ON THIS FALSE ARGUMENT
The argument that Paul taught the cancellation of God’s laws, including dietary instructions, is not supported by Scripture. No prophecy foretells such a message, and Jesus Himself upheld the Law. Therefore, any teaching that claims otherwise must be scrutinized against the unchanging Word of God.
As followers of the Messiah, we are called to seek alignment with what has already been written and revealed by God, not to rely on interpretations that contradict His eternal commandments.
THE TEACHING OF JESUS, THROUGH WORDS AND EXAMPLE
The true disciple of Christ models their entire life after Him. He made it clear that if we love Him, we will be obedient to the Father and the Son. This is not a requirement for the faint-hearted but for those whose eyes are fixed on the Kingdom of God and who are ready to do whatever it takes to obtain eternal life—even if it brings opposition from friends, the church, and family. The commandments concerning hair and beard, tzitzit, circumcision, the Sabbath, and forbidden meats are ignored by almost all of Christianity, and those who refuse to follow the crowd will certainly face persecution, just as Jesus told us (Matthew 5:10). Obedience to God requires courage, but the reward is eternity.
THE FORBIDDEN MEATS ACCORDING TO GOD’S LAW
Four hooves of different animals, some split and some solid, illustrate the Bible law about clean and unclean animals according to Leviticus 11.
God’s dietary laws, outlined in the Torah, specifically define the animals that His people are permitted to eat and those they must avoid. These instructions emphasize holiness, obedience, and separation from practices that defile. Below is a detailed and descriptive list of the forbidden meats, with scriptural references.
LAND ANIMALS THAT DO NOT CHEW THE CUD OR HAVE SPLIT HOOVES
Animals are considered unclean if they lack one or both of these characteristics.
Examples of Forbidden Animals:
Camel (gamal, גָּמָל) – Chews the cud but does not have split hooves (Leviticus 11:4).
Horse (sus, סוּס) – Does not chew the cud and does not have split hooves.
Pig (chazir, חֲזִיר) – Has split hooves but does not chew the cud (Leviticus 11:7).
AQUATIC CREATURES WITHOUT FINS AND SCALES
Only fish with both fins and scales are permissible. Creatures that lack either are unclean.
Examples of Forbidden Creatures:
Catfish – Lacks scales.
Shellfish – Includes shrimp, crab, lobster, and clams.
Eels – Lacks fins and scales.
Squid and Octopus – Neither have fins nor scales (Leviticus 11:9-12).
BIRDS OF PREY, SCAVENGERS, AND OTHER FORBIDDEN BIRDS
The law specifies certain birds that must not be eaten, typically those associated with predatory or scavenging behaviors.
Examples of Forbidden Birds:
Eagle (nesher, נֶשֶׁר) (Leviticus 11:13).
Vulture (da’ah, דַּאָה) (Leviticus 11:14).
Raven (orev, עֹרֵב) (Leviticus 11:15).
Owl, Hawk, Cormorant, and others (Leviticus 11:16-19).
FLYING INSECTS THAT WALK ON ALL FOURS
Flying insects are generally unclean unless they have jointed legs for hopping.
Examples of Forbidden Insects:
Flies, mosquitoes, and beetles.
Grasshoppers and locusts, however, are exceptions and permitted (Leviticus 11:20-23).
ANIMALS THAT CRAWL ON THE GROUND
Any creature that moves along its belly or has multiple legs and crawls on the ground is unclean.
Examples of Forbidden Creatures:
Snakes.
Lizards.
Mice and moles (Leviticus 11:29-30, 11:41-42).
DEAD OR DECAYING ANIMALS
Even from clean animals, any carcass that has died on its own or was torn by predators is forbidden to eat.
Reference: Leviticus 11:39-40, Exodus 22:31.
CROSS-SPECIES BREEDING
While not directly dietary, crossbreeding of species is forbidden, implying care in food production practices.
Reference: Leviticus 19:19.
These instructions demonstrate God’s desire for His people to be distinct, honoring Him even in their dietary choices. By adhering to these laws, His followers show obedience and respect for the sanctity of His commands.
For most believers, the greatest obstacle to keeping the Sabbath is employment. Food, transportation, and technology can be adjusted with preparation, but work commitments strike at the core of a person’s livelihood and identity. In ancient Israel this was rarely an issue because the entire nation stopped for the Sabbath; businesses, courts, and markets were closed by default. Community-wide Sabbath breaking was unusual and often tied to periods of national disobedience or exile (see Nehemiah 13:15–22). Today, however, most of us live in societies where the seventh day is a normal workday, making this the single hardest commandment to apply.
Moving from Principles to Practice
Throughout this series we’ve stressed that the Sabbath commandment is part of God’s holy and eternal Law, not an isolated rule. The same principles of preparation, holiness, and necessity apply here, but the stakes are higher. Choosing to keep the Sabbath may affect income, career paths, or business models. Yet Scripture consistently presents Sabbath-keeping as a test of loyalty and trust in God’s provision — a weekly opportunity to show where our ultimate allegiance lies.
Four Common Work Situations
In this article we’ll consider four major categories where Sabbath conflicts arise:
Regular Employment — working for someone else in retail, manufacturing, or similar jobs.
Self-Employment — running your own store or home business.
First Responders and Health Care — police, firefighters, doctors, nurses, caregivers, and similar roles.
Military Service — both conscripted and career military.
Each situation calls for discernment, preparation, and courage, but the biblical foundation is the same: “Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God” (Exodus 20:9–10).
Regular Employment
For believers in regular employment—retail, manufacturing, service industries, or similar jobs—the biggest challenge is that work schedules are usually set by someone else. In ancient Israel this problem barely existed because the entire nation observed the Sabbath, but in modern economies Saturday is often a peak workday. The first step for a Sabbath-keeper is to make your convictions known early and do everything possible to arrange your workweek around the Sabbath.
If you’re looking for a new job, mention your Sabbath observance during the interview phase rather than in your résumé. This avoids being screened out before you’ve had a chance to explain your commitment and also gives you a chance to highlight your flexibility to work on other days. Many employers value employees who will work Sundays or less desirable shifts in exchange for having Saturdays free. If you’re already employed, ask respectfully to be excused from Sabbath hours, offering to adjust your schedule, work holidays, or make up hours on other days.
Approach your employer with honesty and humility, but also firmness. The Sabbath is not a preference but a commandment. Employers are more likely to accommodate a clear, respectful request than a vague or hesitant one. Remember that preparation during the week is your responsibility—finish projects ahead of time, leave your workspace organized, and make sure your absence on the Sabbath doesn’t burden coworkers unnecessarily. By showing integrity and reliability, you strengthen your case and demonstrate that Sabbath-keeping produces—not hinders—a better worker.
If your employer absolutely refuses to adjust your schedule, prayerfully consider your options. Some Sabbath-keepers have taken pay cuts, changed departments, or even switched careers to obey God’s commandment. While such decisions are difficult, the Sabbath is designed as a weekly test of faith, trusting that God’s provision is greater than what you lose by obeying Him.
Self-Employment
For those who are self-employed—running a home business, freelance service, or a storefront—the Sabbath test looks different but is just as real. Instead of an employer setting your hours, you set them yourself, which means you must intentionally close down during the sacred hours. In ancient Israel, merchants who tried to sell on the Sabbath were rebuked (Nehemiah 13:15–22). The principle still applies today: even if customers expect your services on the weekend, God expects you to sanctify the seventh day.
If you are planning to start a business, think carefully about how it will affect your ability to keep the Sabbath. Some industries lend themselves easily to closing on the seventh day; others depend on weekend sales or deadlines. Choose a business that allows you and your employees to keep the Sabbath free from work. Build Sabbath closure into your business plan and customer communications from the start. By setting expectations early, you train your clients to respect your boundaries.
If your business already operates on the Sabbath, you must make the necessary changes to close on the holy day—even if it costs revenue. Scripture warns that profiting from Sabbath labor undermines obedience just as much as doing the work yourself. Partnerships can complicate this issue: even if an unbelieving partner runs the business on the Sabbath, you still profit from that labor, and God does not accept this arrangement. To honor God, a Sabbath-keeper should remove himself from any system where his income depends on Sabbath work.
While these decisions can be costly, they also create a powerful testimony. Customers and colleagues will see your integrity and consistency. By closing your business on the Sabbath, you proclaim through your actions that your ultimate trust is in God’s provision rather than in constant production.
First Responders and Health Care
There is a widespread misconception that working as a first responder or in a health-related field is automatically permissible on the Sabbath. This idea usually stems from the fact that Jesus healed people on the Sabbath (see Matthew 12:9–13; Mark 3:1–5; Luke 13:10–17). Yet a closer look shows that Jesus did not leave His home on the Sabbath with the intention of running a “healing clinic.” His healings were spontaneous acts of mercy, not a career pattern of scheduled work. There has never been a case of Jesus getting paid for the healings. His example teaches us to help those in genuine need even on the Sabbath, but it does not cancel the fourth commandment or make health care and emergency work a permanent exception.
In our modern world there is rarely a shortage of non–Sabbath-keeping personnel willing to fill these roles. Hospitals, clinics, and emergency services run 24/7 staffed largely by people who do not observe the Sabbath. This abundance removes the justification for a child of God to knowingly take a job that requires regular Sabbath work. Even though it may sound noble, no vocation—even one centered on helping people—supersedes God’s command to rest on the seventh day. We cannot claim, “Serving people is more important to God than keeping His Law,” when God Himself has defined holiness and rest for us.
This does not mean a Sabbath-keeper can never act to save life or relieve suffering on the Sabbath. As Jesus taught, “It is lawful to do good on the Sabbath” (Matthew 12:12). If an unexpected emergency arises—an accident, a sick neighbor, or a crisis in your own home—you should act to protect life and health. But that is very different from securing a career position that obligates you to work every Sabbath. In rare cases where no other person is available, you may find yourself stepping in temporarily to cover a critical need, but such situations should be exceptions, not norms, and you should avoid charging for your services during those hours.
The guiding principle is to distinguish between spontaneous acts of mercy and regular employment. Mercy aligns with the Sabbath’s spirit; preplanned, profit-driven labor undermines it. As much as possible, Sabbath-keepers in health care or emergency fields should negotiate schedules that respect the Sabbath, seek out roles or shifts that do not violate the commandment, and trust God’s provision as they do so.
Military Service
Military service presents a unique challenge for Sabbath-keepers because it often involves mandatory duty under government authority. Scripture provides examples of God’s people facing this tension. The Israelite army, for instance, marched for seven days around Jericho, which means they did not rest on the seventh day (Joshua 6:1-5), and Nehemiah describes guards posted at the city gates on the Sabbath to enforce its sanctity (Nehemiah 13:15-22). These examples show that in times of national defense or crisis, duties may extend into the Sabbath — but they also highlight that such situations were exceptions tied to collective survival, not to personal career choices.
For those who are conscripted, the environment is not voluntary. You are placed under orders, and your ability to choose your schedule is extremely limited. In this case, a Sabbath-keeper should still make respectful requests to superiors to be relieved from Sabbath duty whenever possible, explaining that the Sabbath is a deeply held conviction. Even if the request is not granted, just by making the effort honors God and can lead to unexpected favor. Above all, maintain a humble attitude and a consistent witness.
For those considering a career in the military, the situation is different. A career position is a personal choice, much like any other profession. Accepting a role that you know will regularly violate the Sabbath is incompatible with the command to keep it holy. Just as with other fields, the guiding principle is to seek assignments or positions where your Sabbath observance can be honored. If in one area keeping the Sabbath is not possible, prayerfully reconsider a different career path, trusting that God will open doors in other directions.
In both conscripted and voluntary service, the key is to honor God wherever you are. Uphold the Sabbath to the fullest extent possible without rebellion, showing respect for authority while quietly living out your convictions. By doing so, you demonstrate that your allegiance to God’s Law is not conditional on convenience but rooted in faithfulness.
Conclusion: Living the Sabbath as a Way of Life
With this article we complete our series on the Sabbath. From its foundations in creation to its practical expression in food, transportation, technology, and work, we’ve seen that the fourth commandment is not an isolated rule but a living rhythm woven into God’s eternal Law. Keeping the Sabbath is more than avoiding certain activities; it is about preparing in advance, ceasing from ordinary labor, and sanctifying time for God. It’s about learning to trust His provision, shaping your week around His priorities, and modeling His rest in a restless world.
No matter your circumstances—whether you are employed, self-employed, caring for family, or serving in a complex environment—the Sabbath remains a weekly invitation to step out of the cycle of production and into the freedom of God’s presence. As you apply these principles, you’ll discover that the Sabbath is not a burden but a delight, a sign of loyalty and a source of strength. It trains your heart to trust God not only one day a week but every day and in every area of life.
The issue of technology on the Sabbath is primarily linked with entertainment. Once a person begins keeping the Sabbath, one of the first challenges is deciding what to do with all the free time that naturally opens up. Those who attend Sabbath-keeping churches or groups may fill some of that time with organized activities, but even they must eventually face moments when it seems “there is nothing to do.” This is especially true for children, teenagers, and young adults, but even older adults can struggle with this new rhythm of time.
Another reason technology is so challenging is the pressure to stay connected nowadays. The constant stream of news, messages, and updates is a recent phenomenon, made possible by the internet and the proliferation of personal devices. Breaking this habit takes willingness and effort. But the Sabbath provides the perfect opportunity to do so—a weekly invitation to disconnect from digital distractions and reconnect with the Creator.
This principle is not limited to the Sabbath alone; every day a child of God should be mindful of the trap of constant connection and distraction. The Psalms are full of encouragement to meditate on God and His Law day and night (Psalm 1:2; Psalm 92:2; Psalm 119:97-99; Psalm 119:148), promising joy, stability, and eternal life to those who do. The difference on the seventh day is that God Himself rested and commanded us to imitate Him (Exodus 20:11) — making this the one day each week when disconnecting from the secular world is not only helpful but divinely appointed.
Watching Sports and Secular Entertainment
The Sabbath is set apart as holy time, and our minds should be filled with things that reflect that holiness. For this reason, watching sports, secular movies, or entertainment series should not be done on the Sabbath. Such content is disconnected from the spiritual benefit the day is meant to bring. Scripture calls us, “You shall be holy, for I am holy” (Leviticus 11:44–45; echoed in 1 Peter 1:16), reminding us that holiness involves separation from what is common. The Sabbath provides a weekly opportunity to turn our attention from the world’s distractions and fill it instead with worship, rest, uplifting conversation, and activities that refresh the soul and honor God.
Practicing Sports and Fitness on the Sabbath
Just as watching secular sports draws our attention to competition and entertainment, actively participating in sports or fitness routines on the Sabbath also shifts the focus away from rest and holiness. Going to the gym, training for athletic goals, or playing sports, belongs to the ordinary weekday rhythm of our labor and self-improvement. In fact, physical exercise by its very nature stands in contrast to the Sabbath’s call to cease from exertion and embrace true rest. The Sabbath invites us to lay aside even our self-directed pursuits of performance and discipline so we can find refreshment in God. By stepping back from workouts, practices, or matches, we honor the day as sacred and make space for spiritual renewal.
Physical Activities That Fit the Sabbath
This does not mean the Sabbath must be spent indoors or inactive. Light, peaceful outdoor walks, unhurried time in nature, or gentle play with children can be a beautiful way to honor the day. Activities that restore rather than compete, that deepen relationships rather than distract, and that turn our attention toward God’s creation rather than human achievement, all harmonize with the Sabbath’s spirit of rest and holiness.
Good Sabbath Practices for Technology
Ideally, all unnecessary connection to the secular world should stop during the Sabbath. This does not mean we become rigid or joyless, but that we deliberately step back from the digital noise to honor the day as holy.
Children should not rely on internet-connected devices to fill their Sabbath hours. Instead, encourage physical activities, books or media devoted to holy and uplifting content. This is where a community of believers is especially helpful, as it provides other children to play with and wholesome activities to share.
Teenagers should be mature enough to understand the difference between the Sabbath and other days when it comes to technology. Parents can guide them by preparing activities in advance and explaining the “why” behind these boundaries.
Access to news and secular updates should be eliminated on the Sabbath. Checking headlines or scrolling social media can quickly pull the mind back into weekday concerns and break the atmosphere of rest and holiness.
Plan ahead: Download needed materials, print biblical study guides, or queue up appropriate content before sundown so you’re not scrambling for material during the Sabbath hours.
Set devices aside: Turn off notifications, use airplane mode, or put devices in a designated basket during Sabbath hours to signal the shift in focus.
The goal is not to demonize technology but to use it appropriately on this special day. Ask yourself the same question we introduced earlier: “Is it necessary today?” and “Does this help me rest and honor God?” Over time, practicing these habits will help you and your family experience the Sabbath as a delight rather than a struggle.
In the previous article we explored food on the Sabbath—how preparation, planning, and the Rule of Necessity can transform a potential source of stress into a time of peace. Now we turn to another area of modern life where these same principles are urgently needed: transportation. In today’s world, cars, buses, planes, and ride-sharing apps make travel easy and convenient. Yet the fourth commandment calls us to pause, plan, and cease from ordinary labor. Understanding how this applies to travel can help believers avoid unnecessary work, protect the holiness of the day, and maintain its true spirit of rest.
Why Transportation Matters
Transportation is not a new issue. In ancient times, travel was tied to work—hauling goods, tending animals, or going to market. Rabbinic Judaism developed detailed rules about travel distances on the Sabbath, which is why many observant Jews historically lived close to synagogues to walk to services. Today, Christians face similar questions about traveling to church on the Sabbath, visiting family, attending Bible studies, or performing acts of mercy, such as hospital or prison visits. This article will help you understand how the biblical principles of preparation and necessity apply to travel, enabling you to make wise, faith-filled decisions about when and how to travel on the Sabbath.
Sabbath and Church Attendance
One of the most common reasons believers travel on the Sabbath is to attend church services. This is understandable—gathering with other believers for worship and study can be uplifting. Yet it’s important to remember what we established back in article 5A os this series: going to church on the Sabbath is not part of the fourth commandment (Read article). The commandment is to cease from work, keep the day holy, and rest. Nothing in the text says, “You shall go to a service” or “You shall travel to a particular place of worship” on the Sabbath.
Jesus Himself attended synagogue on the Sabbath (Luke 4:16), but He never taught this as a requirement for His followers. His practice shows that gathering is permitted and can be beneficial, but it does not establish a rule or ritual. The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27), and its core is rest and holiness, not travel or attendance at an institution.
For modern Christians, this means that attending a Sabbath-keeping church is optional but not obligatory. If you find joy and spiritual growth in meeting with other believers on the seventh day, you are free to do so. If travel to a church creates stress, breaks the rhythm of rest, or forces you to drive long distances every week, you are equally free to stay home, study Scripture, pray, and spend the day with family. The key is to avoid making travel to church into an automatic routine that undermines the very rest and holiness you’re seeking to preserve.
Whenever possible, plan ahead so that if you do attend a service, it requires minimal travel and preparation. This might mean attending a local fellowship closer to home, organizing a home Bible study, or connecting with believers during non-Sabbath hours. By keeping your focus on holiness and rest rather than tradition or expectation, you align your Sabbath practice with God’s commandment rather than man-made requirements.
General Guidance on Travel
The same principles of Preparation Day and the Rule of Necessity apply directly to transportation. In general, Sabbath travel should be avoided or minimized, especially for long distances. The fourth commandment calls us to stop our ordinary labor and to allow others under our influence to do the same. When we make a habit of traveling far every Sabbath, we risk turning God’s rest day into another day of stress, fatigue, and logistical planning.
When traveling long distances, plan ahead so your travel is completed before the Sabbath begins and after it ends. For example, if you’re visiting family who live far away, try to arrive before sundown on Friday and leave after sunset on Saturday. This creates a peaceful atmosphere and avoids rushing or last-minute preparation. If you know you will need to travel for a legitimate reason during the Sabbath, prepare your vehicle in advance—fuel it, handle maintenance, and plan your route beforehand.
At the same time, Scripture shows that acts of mercy are permitted on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:11-12). Visiting someone in the hospital, comforting the sick, or ministering to the imprisoned may require travel. In such cases, keep the trip as simple as possible, avoid turning it into a social outing, and remain mindful of the Sabbath’s sacred hours. By treating travel as an exception rather than the norm, you preserve the Sabbath’s holiness and restfulness.
Personal Vehicles vs. Public Transport
Driving Personal Vehicles
Using your own car or motorcycle on the Sabbath is not inherently forbidden. In fact, it may be necessary for short trips to visit family, attend a Bible study, or carry out acts of mercy. However, it should be approached with caution. Driving always carries the risk of breakdowns or accidents that could force you—or others—to perform work that could have been avoided. In addition, fueling, maintenance, and long-distance travel all increase weekday-style stress and labor. Whenever possible, keep Sabbath travel by personal vehicle short, prepare your car in advance (fuel and maintenance), and plan your routes to minimize disruption of the sacred hours.
Taxis and Rideshare Services
By contrast, services such as Uber, Lyft, and taxis involve hiring someone to work exclusively for you on the Sabbath, which violates the fourth commandment’s prohibition against making others work on your behalf (Exodus 20:10). This is similar to using food delivery services. Even if it seems like a minor or occasional indulgence, it undermines the Sabbath’s intent and sends mixed signals about your convictions. The consistent biblical pattern is to plan ahead so you don’t need to put someone else to work for you during sacred hours.
Public Transportation
Buses, trains, and ferries differ from taxis and rideshares because they operate on fixed schedules, independent of your use. Using public transportation on the Sabbath may therefore be permissible, especially if it enables you to attend a gathering of believers or perform an act of mercy without driving. Whenever possible, purchase tickets or passes in advance to avoid handling money on the Sabbath. Keep trips simple, avoid unnecessary stops, and maintain a reverent mindset while traveling to preserve the day’s holiness.
In the previous article we introduced two guiding habits for Sabbath-keeping—preparing ahead of time and pausing to ask whether something is necessary—and we looked at how to live the Sabbath in a mixed household. Now we turn to one of the first practical areas where these principles matter most: food.
As soon as believers decide to keep the Sabbath, questions about meals arise. Should I cook? Can I use my oven or microwave? What about going out to eat or getting food delivered?Because eating is such a routine part of daily life, it’s an area where confusion quickly develops. In this article, we’ll look at what Scripture says, how ancient Israelites would have understood it, and how these principles translate into modern times.
Food and the Sabbath: Beyond the Fire
Rabbinic Focus on Fire
Among all the Sabbath regulations in rabbinic Judaism, the prohibition against kindling a fire in Exodus 35:3 is a key rule. Many Orthodox Jewish authorities forbid lighting or extinguishing a flame, operating heat-generating appliances, or using electrical devices such as flipping a light switch, pressing an elevator button, or turning on a phone, based on this biblical passage. They consider these activities variations of kindling a fire, thus prohibiting them on the Sabbath. While these rules may initially seem to reflect a desire to honor God, such strict interpretations can bind people to man-made rules rather than freeing them to delight in God’s day. These are in fact the types of teachings Jesus heavily condemned when addressing the religious leaders, as seen in his words: “Woe to you experts in the law, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them” (Luke 11:46).
The 4th Commandment: Labor vs. Rest, Not Fire
By contrast, Genesis 2 and Exodus 20 present the Sabbath as a day to cease from labor. Genesis 2:2–3 shows God ceasing from His creative work and sanctifying the seventh day. Exodus 20:8–11 commands Israel to remember the Sabbath and do no work. The focus is not on the means (fire, tools, or animals) but on the act of labor. In the ancient world, making a fire required considerable effort: gathering wood, striking sparks, and maintaining the heat. Moses could have mentioned other labor-intensive tasks to illustrate the same point, but fire was probably used because it was a common temptation to work on the seventh day (Numbers 15:32-36). The commandment, however, emphasizes stopping everyday labor, not prohibiting the use of fire itself. In Hebrew, שָׁבַת (shavat) means “to cease,” and this verb underlies the name שַׁבָּת (Shabbat).
A Common-Sense Approach to Food
Seen through this lens, the Sabbath calls believers today to prepare food in advance and minimize strenuous activity during its sacred hours. Cooking elaborate meals, preparing food from scratch, or engaging in other labor-intensive kitchen work should be done beforehand, not on the Sabbath. However, using modern appliances that involve minimal effort—such as a stove, oven, microwave, or blender—is consistent with the spirit of the Sabbath when used to prepare a simple meal or warm up a pre-cooked dish. The issue is not merely flipping a switch or pressing a button but using the kitchen in a way that results in regular weekday work on the holy Sabbath, which should be devoted primarily to rest.
Eating Out on the Sabbath
One of the most common mistakes among modern Sabbath-keepers is going out to eat on the Sabbath. While it may feel like a form of rest—after all, you’re not cooking—the fourth commandment explicitly forbids causing others to work on your behalf: “You shall not do any work, you, your son or daughter, your male or female servant, your animals, or any foreigner residing in your towns” (Exodus 20:10). When you eat at a restaurant, you compel the staff to cook, serve, clean, and handle money, making them work for you on the Sabbath. Even when traveling or on special occasions, this practice undermines the purpose of the day. Planning meals in advance and bringing simple, ready-to-eat food ensures you can still eat well without asking others to labor on your behalf.
Using Food Delivery Services
The same principle applies to food delivery services such as Uber Eats, DoorDash, or similar apps. While the convenience may be tempting, especially if you’re tired or traveling, placing an order requires someone else to shop, prepare, transport, and deliver food to your door—all labor performed on your behalf during sacred hours. This runs directly against the spirit of the Sabbath and the command not to make others work for you. A better approach is to plan ahead: pack food for your trip, prepare meals the day before, or keep non-perishable items on hand for emergencies. By doing so, you show respect both for God’s commandment and for the dignity of those who would otherwise be working for you.
In the previous article we explored the foundations of Sabbath observance—its holiness, its rest, and its timing. Now we turn to applying those principles in real life. For many believers, the challenge is not agreeing with the Sabbath commandment but knowing how to live it out in a modern household, workplace, and culture. This article begins that journey by highlighting two core habits that make Sabbath-keeping possible: preparing ahead of time and learning to pause before acting. Together, these habits form the bridge between biblical principles and daily practice.
The Preparation Day
One of the best ways to experience the Sabbath as a delight rather than a burden is to prepare in advance. In Scripture, the sixth day is referred to as “the preparation day” (Luke 23:54) because God’s people were instructed to gather and prepare twice as much so that everything would be ready for the Sabbath (Exodus 16:22-23). In Hebrew this day is known as יוֹם הַהֲכָנָה (yom ha’hachanah) — “the day of preparation.” The same principle still applies today: by preparing beforehand, you free yourself and your household from unnecessary work once the Sabbath begins.
Practical Ways to Prepare
This preparation can be simple and flexible, adapted to your household’s rhythm. For example, clean the house—or at least key rooms—before sunset so no one feels pressured to do chores during the sacred hours. Finish laundry, pay bills, or handle errands ahead of time. Plan meals so you’re not scrambling to cook on the Sabbath. Set aside a container to hold dirty dishes until after the Sabbath, or, if you have a dishwasher, make sure it is empty so dishes can be loaded but not run. Some families even choose to use disposable dishes on the Sabbath to minimize clutter in the kitchen. The goal is to enter the Sabbath hours with as little unfinished business as possible, creating an atmosphere of peace and rest for everyone in the home.
The Rule of Necessity
A second practical habit for Sabbath living is what we’ll call the Rule of Necessity. Whenever you’re uncertain about an activity—especially something outside your normal Sabbath routine—ask yourself: “Is it necessary that I do this today, or can it wait until after the Sabbath?” Most of the time you’ll realize the task can wait. This one question helps slow down your week, encourages preparation before sundown, and preserves the sacred hours for rest, holiness, and drawing closer to God. At the same time, it’s important to remember that some things truly cannot wait—acts of mercy, emergencies, and urgent needs of family members. By using this rule thoughtfully, you honor the command to cease from labor without turning the Sabbath into a burden.
Applying the Rule of Necessity
The Rule of Necessity is simple but powerful because it works in almost any situation. Imagine you receive a letter or package on the Sabbath: in most cases you can leave it unopened until after the sacred hours. Or you notice an object that rolled under the furniture—unless it’s a hazard, it can wait. A dirty spot on the floor? Mopping can usually wait too. Even phone calls and text messages can be evaluated with the same question: “Is this necessary today?”Non-urgent conversations, appointments, or errands can be postponed to another time, freeing your mind from weekday concerns and helping you stay focused on God.
This approach doesn’t mean ignoring genuine needs. If something threatens health, safety, or the well-being of your household—like cleaning up a dangerous spill, caring for a sick child, or responding to an emergency—then it’s appropriate to act. But by training yourself to pause and ask the question, you begin to separate what’s truly essential from what is merely habitual. Over time, the Rule of Necessity turns the Sabbath from a list of dos and don’ts into a rhythm of thoughtful choices that create an atmosphere of rest and holiness.
Living the Sabbath in a Mixed Household
For many believers, one of the greatest challenges is not understanding the Sabbath but keeping it in a home where others do not. Most of our readers, who are not from Sabbath-keeping backgrounds, are often the only person in their family trying to observe the Sabbath. In such situations, it’s easy to feel tension, guilt, or frustration when a spouse, parent, or other adults in the house do not share the same convictions.
The first principle is to lead by example rather than force. The Sabbath is a gift and a sign, not a weapon. Trying to compel an unwilling spouse or adult child to observe the Sabbath can breed resentment and undermine your witness. Instead, model its joy and peace. When your family sees you calmer, happier, and more focused during the Sabbath hours, they are more likely to respect your practice and perhaps even join you over time.
The second principle is consideration. Where possible, adjust your preparation so that your Sabbath-keeping does not place extra burdens on others in your home. For example, plan meals so your spouse or other family members are not pressured to change their eating habits because of the Sabbath. Explain kindly but clearly which activities you’re personally refraining from, while also being willing to accommodate some of their needs. This willingness to adjust to family habits is especially helpful in avoiding conflict at the beginning of your Sabbath-keeping journey.
At the same time, be careful not to become too flexible or accommodating. While it’s important to maintain peace in the home, excessive compromise can slowly distance you from keeping the Sabbath properly and create household patterns that are difficult to change later. Strive for a balance between honoring God’s commandment and showing patience with your family.
Finally, you may not be able to control the noise level, activities, or schedule of others in your household, but you can still sanctify your own time—turning off your phone, setting aside your work, and keeping your attitude gentle and patient. Over time, the rhythm of your life will speak louder than any argument, showing that the Sabbath is not a restriction but a delight.
