109: Study On Divorce -2

Many Baptist churches take a no divorce stand, and many more take an easy come - easy go attitude. Both ends of the spectrum are propagated through spiritual laziness, biblical ignorance, and cowardice in church discipline. Spiritual laziness because they don't take the time to find out what the bible has to say about the matter; thereby drifting with whatever the world or their church seems to be doing. Biblical ignorance because they take a firm and fiery stand upon a few verses which seem to support their position on first glance, but they never dig through the whole bible dealing with the subject to find out how to set their few verses into a well-constructed biblical back drop. Because it is easier to ignore someone's divorce or to simply gossip about it, church discipline is often shunned; therefore, church proclamations about a divorce’s validity are rarely, if ever, heard. There are a minority of churches who may take some form of discipline, usually behind closed doors, but their biblical ignorance often takes them to the wrong outcome.

In introducing the topic of divorce, remarriage, and adultery, it is needful to give the general overview of our position. You will find the following quote taken from our articles of faith. Articles of faith declare what we believe and practice regarding a specific subject. As you read the article of faith below, take inventory of the practices of other churches that you may know.

Article 32. Divorce, Remarriage, and Adultery:

We believe cases of marital divorce, remarriage, and adultery require arduous biblical jurisprudence; therefore, we reject simplistic positions proliferated by spiritual laziness, biblical ignorance, and cowardice in church discipline. Believers married to one another are not to divorce. If a believing couple separate from each other, they are to come under the discipline of the church, beginning with counseling: they are not to divorce. Divorce between believers requires expulsion of the facilitating party or parties for rebelling against Christ and the teaching of the Apostles. For a couple where one spouse is a believer, and the other spouse does not know Christ, the believer is not to leave the marriage. However, if the unbelieving partner divorces his believing spouse, especially due to the spouse's newfound faith in Christ, the believer is not held accountable. In such case they are judged free of their non-believing spouse and thus would be considered single. Believers who rebel against scriptural admonition and marry a non-believer are to be removed from church fellowship via church discipline. Divorce can be used as disciplinary action by a spouse under limited situations, and usually in cases where the offending spouse would biblically come under capital punishment for his behavior, such as in adultery. Frivolous and treacherous divorces, divorces not supported in Scripture, which occur prior to salvation or in another church can impact potential church membership acceptance or privileges. Therefore, judgment upon the situation of a previous divorce regarding a candidate for church membership will be rendered prior to presenting him for church membership. If a person divorces for the sake of marrying someone else, the offending party is guilty of adultery.

The above position may in part seem too harsh and rigid by many fundamental, independent Baptist, while other parts may seem outright liberal to the same churches due to our condoning any divorce. In response to such criticism, consider this collection of notes as a challenge to the status quo of many so-called old-fashion Baptist clichés and a personal charge for you to examine your understanding of this critical issue. The following pages break down the study into two main approaches: A general overview for the novice; followed by a more detailed exposition of certain points of the argument.

An Overview of Basic Concepts

In “Defining the Marriage Covenant” section, the origin and nature of marriage covenants will be dealt with in detail. This section, however, is written as an introduction to broad principles often overlooked by many sermons.

I. WHAT GOD PERMITS LET NOT MAN FORBID

God did not seek counseling between the Old and New Testament and somehow change His mind regarding moral issues. The Old Testament books contain moral laws that are still as true today as they were thousands of years ago. Although ceremonial laws, also called symbolic laws, often came into conflict with each other, in exemplum - circumcision on the Sabbath, and though ceremonial laws were given specifically to the Jews as teaching aids concerning redemption through Christ, some of them shed light on moral issues. Leviticus 22:12, is such an example: “If the priest’s daughter also be married unto a stranger, she may not eat of an offering of the holy things.”

Only the families of the Levite priest were allowed portions of food offered in sacrifice to God. Regardless of the name, foreigners, strangers, or gentiles were not allowed to eat of the food that had been offered to God. Since the wife is one flesh with her husband, a priest’s daughter who married a gentile would no longer be allowed to eat of her father’s table – the food that had be offered unto God. What happened if her gentile husband died or divorced her? Would God recognize the divorce and accept her back into her father’s house to eat of the holy things, or would God view the woman to still be under the authority of her foreign husband, therefore keeping her from being as she was prior to her marriage? Leviticus 22:13 states, “But if the priest’s daughter be a widow, or divorced, and have no child, and is returned unto her father’s house, as in her youth, she shall eat of her father’s meat: but there shall no stranger eat thereof.” God not only recognized the divorce when it fulfilled the proper requirements, but returned the woman to her original state: single, under her father’s authority, and thus able to eat of the holy things.

II. JESUS DISTINGUISHED BETWEEN LIVING TOGETHER AND MARRIAGE

To the Samaritan woman at the well Jesus stated plainly that she consecutively had five different husbands (John 4:18). Jesus then poignantly mentioned that the man she was living with was not rightly her husband. Unlike the incestuous adultery of Herod with his brother Philip’s wife and unlike John stating Herod’s marriage was unlawful, Jesus did not negate the Samaritan woman’s marriages. Instead, His words reveal He did not equate the sequential marriages as merely being live-in relationships, because He highlighted the difference between her married life against her present condition of unlawful cohabitation with a man.

III. DIVORCE IS NOT INHERENTLY AN EVIL ACTION – GOD RECOGNIZES DIVORCE

God commanded divorce for Jews who were married to Gentiles (Ezra 10). God divorced His symbolic wife, the nation of Israel, because of her unfaithfulness (Jeremiah 3:8). When a husband married a second woman, he was to continue to provide and maintain marital relations with his first wife (polygamy). If he failed to continue provisions for his first wife, in effect abandoning her over the second wife, the first wife was able to seek a divorce from him (Exodus 21). In First Corinthians 7:28-29, a man having been divorced from a wife is advised to remain unmarried, but then told that it would not be a sin if he chose to remarry. Though the less informed may like to paint the Corinthian man as being a single man, never married, the Greek verb translated “loose” denotes the unbinding or untying of something having been bound together, making him a single man after divorce.

Vows made by married women verses those of a divorced woman are dealt with in the second half of these notes. It should be noted that God recognizes the right of a divorced woman to make contractual agreements on her own accord.

IV. RULES FOR DIVORCE DO NOT REGULATE SIN

The “hardness of your hearts” clause in Matthew 19:8 will be dealt with in detail in “The Teachings of Jesus on Divorce.” Some people who ignore the previous principle and believe divorce is inherently evil look at Matthew 19:8 as though God chose to regulate it by “suffering a bill of divorcement.” If their position of divorce being a sin by default was correct, then such begs the question, “would God regulate any other sin?” Because men’s hearts become hardened to commit rape, would God then permit rape under some situations? No! God doesn’t say, “If you are going to sin anyway, then sin this way.” The correct view is that God does not regulate sin of any kind. Divorce, as our previous principle infers, is not a sin in and of itself though it can be sin when used in violation of God’s laws on marriage. Again, God doesn’t give guidelines for sinning.

V. RULES FOR DIVORCE PRESCRIBE DISCIPLINE AGAINST THE GUILTY and PROTECT THE INNOCENT

Greater detail will be given later to explain that the rules of divorce were given to be used as an act of discipline and to keep men with hardened hearts from wrongfully stigmatizing innocent women. How could an innocent woman be stigmatized in the Jewish culture 2000 years ago? By a hardhearted man divorcing a woman for no just cause; making her out to be an adulteress, thereby even stigmatizing an innocent man who may subsequently marry her as if he were the villainous adulterer who caused the divorce.

Though it takes a little wisdom to wade through Matthew 19:8-10, it is this principle of protecting the innocent that the passage addresses. Sluggards often look at the passage and teach that the first husband causes the second husband to commit adultery. Thus the sluggard will conclude that the woman can never marry. The sluggard’s interpretation violates a basic principle: we cannot cause another person to sin. We sin when we are drawn by our own lusts and enticed by them (James 1:14 “But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.”). Instead, the Matthew 19 passage reinforces the theme that the husband is to be the covering and protector of a woman, not her exploiter and slanderer.

VI. TWO CONDITIONS IN THE LAW WHERE DIVORCE COULD NOT OCCUR PREVENT THE EXPLOITATION OF WOMEN

The principle “rules for divorce being for the protection of the innocent” also translates into protecting women from exploitation. The only two rules where divorce could never occur for any reason are anchored upon this principle. In Deuteronomy 22:13-19, if a husband hates his wife and thus intentionally accuses her of immorality falsely and an investigation reveals she is guiltless of his charge, he could never divorce her. In Deuteronomy 22:28-29, if a single guy fornicates with a single woman and they are discovered, he will marry her and never be able to divorce her. Both of these rules do not regulate sin. Instead, they prescribe a punishment and deterrent for exploiting women, reinforcing the moral that a man is to protect the honor of his woman, not degrade her reputation for his self satisfaction. If divorce is never the option for anyone, as some religious sects hold, then God would not have prescribe the punishment for wrongfully tarnishing a woman’s honor as being “you can never divorce her.” The fact that God uses a “you can never divorce” clause as punishment indicates He validates divorce in other situations.

VII. THERE ARE THREE CONDITIONS IN THE LAW WHERE REMARRIAGE COULD NOT OCCUR

One of the circumstances where remarriage of a divorced woman is strictly prohibited is also designed to lessen the exploitation of women. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 states that a man who divorces a wife can never take her back, regardless of the circumstance, after she married someone else. Wife swapping back and forth, as well as many Hollywood marriage circles, could not exist under God’s rule.

Leviticus 21:1,7 states that the Levite Priests could not marry a woman divorced from her husband, though he could divorce a wife under specific rules, and he could marry a widow.

Leviticus 21:13-14 states that the Levite High Priest could marry only a virgin from his own tribe. Both mandates to the Levite priests were given due to symbolic reasons, foreshadowing Christ.

VIII. RESTRICTIONS ARE NOT NECESSARILY BIBLICAL

Colossians 2:23 states that there are restrictions one can place upon themselves or upon other church members which appear to be wise and upright in character, which things indeed have a show of wisdom regarding worship. However, the verse points out that such restriction can be folly masquerading as wisdom. It is obvious by our statement of faith that we believe some divorces do limit a person’s ability to minister. However, that is not to say that every type of divorce makes such restrictions. Many independent Baptist place restrictions upon the divorced in ministering which appear to be wise, yet are unbiblical. Lumping and associating all divorces into one or two categories instead of diligently exploring the finer points of Scripture causes the error. Lazy or sloppy bible study is often the root problem on such topics, but it is rarely detected because the preaching or the practice of their position does indeed have a false show of wisdom. The following half of this study will focus on the details of marriage, divorce, and adultery, hopefully strengthening your skill to rightly judge this matter.

Detailed Study

I. Defining the Marriage Covenant

The spirit of a bible believer should be for reconciliation in marriage. However, what responses are allowed when dissolution of a relationship is forced upon us against our will? Are you allowed to remarry after your spouse dies? Are there instances where divorce would cause people to be promptly kicked out of church fellowship? How do you know? How much of your doctrines on marriage and divorce are merely founded upon old-fashioned, sounds good from the pulpit, fundamental Baptist's "accepted teachings"?

It is not wise to blindly take a verse at face value when confronting a complex subject like marriage and divorce. When Jesus said, "except ye eat of my flesh," many people who heard him in their own language took his words at face value and thought he was teaching cannibalism! Religious leaders sometimes make the same errors as did the religious people hearing Jesus. Always take a look at the verses in their context, both their immediate context and in other areas of the bible where the subject is touched upon. Always find out what the historical setting was at the time of the writing, and come to grips with what the passage meant to its original hearers.

We are all guilty of Americanizing bible passages, interpreting in the context of what we know as Americans. Some of the explanations I have touched upon in these notes may appear off center. I used to think so concerning some of them. Though having personal feelings very much against any divorce, I had to acknowledge that I had to rethink my views apart from feeling to make teaching on the subject defendable under heavy scrutiny. It is so easy to come up with a good sounding view on this subject based upon several passages, but see that view crumble when a myriad of other verses and situations are tested against that view. However, it can be tempting to still hold onto our views when they seem to be more hard-lined, though not Biblically accurate. After reading these notes, if you disagree, please share your argument with me. The only reason why I have come to some of the following conclusions is because I was honest enough to be willing to change my position when shown that my original view did not take all scripture on the subject into consideration.

A. THE CAUSE OF MARRIAGE

Genesis 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

It is incorrect to say that one gender can find through a quantitative addition, a solution to a qualitative problem. Merely adding "another half" is not the scope that marriage was intended to encompass. To infer that man is incomplete without a woman is to affirm that he is less than adequate without a woman. Jesus was not married, neither was the Apostle Paul. Therefore, marriage is not a re-uniting of flesh (rib of Adam), as some commentators view. Marriage is not a union of two spirits; we are still two distinct souls after marriage. The marriage does not continue throughout eternity. Also, marriage is not a yoking of an inferior being to a superior being.

The crucial part of Genesis 2:24 says, "a man." The Hebrew term used here, 'ish, is not the same as that used to signify humankind (e.g., Gen 1:26). Neither is it the term used to convey the maleness of "man” (as in Gen 1:17). Instead, it is a word that connotes an individual male. The emphasis is on a given male as a distinct person. The male leaves the authority of his parents to establish his own authority. The dynamic here does not require an explicit reversal of the clause to tell us that the woman leaves her father and mother. The reason the man must be free of an encumbering relationship to his parents is so that his wife may be unhampered by inappropriate authority. The woman cannot have two "heads" of leadership. It would be inaccurate to suggest that a man is necessarily a dependent until he gets married. Jacob was independent of his father before he married; he was away from home and was entirely on his own. The text of this scripture is teaching that if the cord has not been previously cut by the time the marriage is contracted, it must be cut at that time.

B. THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE

i. A COVENANT OF COMPANIONSHIP

The parties of the marriage covenant are equal, not unequal. Eve was not created to be a slave but rather a suitable helper. She was to be a help to Adam. Neither partner is a slave to the other. The Hebrew word used in regards to a wife is not the same as the word used with slavery. The word used between a master and a woman of inferior status is baali. It is found in Leviticus 19:20. Baali implies "master." In contrast, the word ishi implies a status of equality. The term used in Genesis with regards to marriage is ishi. Both man and wife are equal human beings consumated under a covenant together.

None of this should be construed as denying the biblical teaching that within the marriage relationship, the husband is endowed with the qualities necessary for and has the responsibility to be the leader of the team. Even in teams of horses, there is a lead horse. The fact that the man is the leader of the unit, the "head" as compared to the "body," does not make him higher in personhood. Nor does it mean that his wife is less than an equal in terms of partnership. For many married couples, this concept is admittedly difficult to grasp. They are equal partners, yet different in role responsibilities. The husband is the final authority in family decisions, but it is a very unwise husband who hastily casts aside input from his wife.

ii. MAN'S RESPONSIBILITY

Men like to think of themselves as the "providers." In marriage, a man does not merely provide the bread and butter.

a. Presence

A corollary to the responsibility of provision is presence. If the husband is responsible to provide nourishment and security - including sexual relations and a chance to bear offspring - his continuing presence would be required. This does not mean that he cannot be away from the home for valid reasons. It does mean that he cannot willfully desert his wife and remain innocent from failing to provide. The implications of this provision are also important to the question of divorce. In many countries, a husband's divorce of his wife is a legal way of desertion, but to bible believers such is nothing less than a form of breaching the requirement to provide for his wife. God particularly hates this type of divorce, especially when the man went into the marriage with this avenue of escape in mind (see Malachi 2:16). It defrauds the women of what the marriage covenant is intended to secure. Christians are to uphold their covenants, not breach them.

b. Physical Security

Part of the marriage covenant entails physical protection. The covenant is between two equals. Although parents may have arranged the marriage, the woman still had a choice to veto the decision (see Genesis 24:57-58). As a covenant between two equals, the question regarding physical abuse is questioned as being a justification for divorce. In response to the question of physical abuse between equal partners, notice the provision that God gave concerning physical abuse between a superior and a subordinate.

Exodus 21:26-27 And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake.

The protection from physical abuse is not only embraced in the man's part of the covenant, but the laws concerning indentured servitude yield additional emphasis against his physical abuse. The distant context found in slavery laws was given to protect the well being of a subordinate, the servant. Surely, an equal partner of a covenant, the wife, would not have less protection from physical abuse than a slave!

Slaves were protected from their masters. Note that the abuse in question is not a simple slap or a raised voice, but a serious attack. If the eye and tooth reference is a Hebrew merism, it implies damage from the most important, the eye, to the least important, the tooth. The text also points to lasting physical damage sustained by a slave. The abuse that caused freedom also caused lasting damage. So, are we unreasonable to credit the wife as having more value, and thus at least the same protection as compared to a slave?

c. Emotional Security

Deuteronomy 22:16-19 “And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her; And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him; And they shall amerce (fine) him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.”

What a man did with a woman would impact the woman's lasting reputation. A man was to protect her reputation. Deuteronomy 22:19 was given to govern the circumstance where a man publicly attacked a wife's reputation. The public nature of the process is important. After all, the husband has made a public statement about his wife's loyalty and purity. It is only fitting that the truth be a matter of public record, derived through a priest, not through a politician - that it be done by the hand of the omniscient God, not by the word of humans who err. Tragically, this facet of emotional security is one of the first rules ignored in treacherous divorces.

d. Birthrights Protected For Eldest Son

Deuteronomy 21:15-17 "If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn: But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his."

A man's firstborn son is to receive double inheritance compared to the child's other siblings. If a man has more than one wife, and his firstborn belongs to the wife the man has come to hate, the firstborn cannot be penalized. The double inheritance cannot be given to the child birthed by the more loved wife. This would also be true in a step mother situation. The actual first born son receives the double inheritance, though he is a step child.

iii. WOMAN'S RESPONSIBILITIES

a. Monogamous

	Numbers 5:19 "And the priest shall charge her by an oath, and say unto the woman, If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness with another instead of thy husband, be thou free from this bitter water that causeth the curse:"
	Leviticus 20:10 "And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death." (If America went back to this law - you wouldn't have adultery as we have it today).
	Deut 22:22-23-26 "If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel. If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you. But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die: But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:" (Side note: contrary to modern feminist who claim "date rape" telling the woman to comply with a man's demands and call the cops afterward, God's rules do relegate women to act with a victim mentality -they were to fight back).
	Malachi 2:15 "And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth."

The woman was to be Monogamous to her husband. The reasons for this are logical. Purity of children (Malachi 2:15) is one reason. How awful it would be not to know identity of a child's father. Another reason is conflicting authority. A woman with more than one husband would have more than one head, more than one leader. She would obey one and despise the other or love one and hate the other (Matthew 6:24).

b. Non-abusive

The husband is also protected from her physical abuse. The concept of no physical abuse is reciprocal when viewed through the nature of the covenant. The covenant is between two equals who are of more value than a master and slave relationship.

c. Presence (Exodus 21:1, 21:8, Deuteronomy 24)

A woman could not leave her husband unless she was given a writ of divorcement. These laws protected the woman from being wrongly stigmatized as an adulterer because the process was made a matter of public record. After the legal process was given by God, it was slowly perverted. By the time Christ arrived, the writ of divorcement no longer protected the woman's interest but rather became a whip used to ridicule and use the woman as a commodity.

Under the section “New Testament Teaching,” the points we have listed concerning the marriage covenant rules are revisited and explained further. The section “Letters from Apostles” also details new commands regarding: (a) marriages between two believers and (b) marriages when one partner becomes a Christian and the other does not become a believer.

	I Pet 3:1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
	Eph 5:22/33 22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. vs33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.
	I Corinthians Chapter 7

Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. And unto the married [believers] I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife? But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches. Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather.
For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant. Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men. Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God. Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful. I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be. Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you. But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none; And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not; And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away. But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife. There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband. And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction. But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry. Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well. So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better. The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord. But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.

C. BLESSINGS FOR KEEPING THE COVENANT

Psalm 127:3-5 Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward. As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth. Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate.

Psalm 127:3-5 encapsulates the blessings of marriage. The fruit of the womb is God's reward to a married couple. Children that are raised in the fear and admonition of the Lord will later bring manifold happiness to the man and his wife. Aside from children, a marriage can be the closest thing to paradise on this side of heaven. The depth of trust, confidence, and well being that is generated in a God honoring marriage is fathomless.

D. FAILURES IN THE COVENANT

Contrariwise to the blessings of marriage, a turbulent marriage can seem like a living nightmare. Proverbs 21:9 teaches that it is better to dwell in the corner of the housetop than with a brawling woman in a wide house. Proverbs 11:29 teaches that a man that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind.

In poetical prose, Proverbs 14:1 shows a contrast between the wise woman and the foolish woman when it observes that every wise woman builds her house: but the foolish plucks it down with her hands. Many marital problems revolve around such things as financial pressure, child discipline, and family goals. Solomon taught that the little foxes spoil the tender grapes: everyday problems place pressure on a marriage. In marriage, disharmony usually doesn't appear because of a cataclysmic circumstance. Disharmony surfaces through little every day problems that slowly gnaw away at the vine of marriage. Christians can work through those problems with Christ at the helm of the ship, casting self-pride over board.

Instead of throwing pride over board, many believers go over board with self pride. Only by pride cometh contention: but with the well advised is wisdom (Proverbs 13:10). None can guarantee the actions of another individual. However, we should endeavor to learn how to approach others, especially those of our household, to ease tension. According to New Testament theology, marriage is a ministry. How well we minister might be limited by how far we are willing to gear our responses to our spouse's need. Such self control for the betterment of our spouse is an antithesis to self pride. Marriage between believers should never dissolve. If believers divorce, either one or both parties, depending upon the situation, are in rebellion against God and their covenant (discussed later). Between two Christ honoring believers, there is no such thing as irreconcilable differences causing divorce.

E. RECIPROCITY OF COMMITMENT

It appears that only two of the responsibilities were reciprocal: presence and no physical abuse. Although it was unwise for kings to multiply wives unto themselves, polygamy for the man was not prohibited nor called a sin. When dealing with David's sin of taking another man's wife, God said that He gave David his several wives, and seemingly would have given him another wife - but not the wife of another man. It should be mentioned, however, unlike Islamic teaching, polygamy is not proscribed to men in the Jewish or Christian religions (No, Mormons are not Christians). Monogamy is rightly pushed as the ideal standard.

2 Samuel 12:8 “And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.”

Some commentators try to show men having more than one wife as being totally sinful. Those commentators usually point to the first man to have two wives and show that he was an evil man. However the obverse could be said since good men such as Abraham had more than one wife. The twelve sons that made the twelve tribes of Israel were the result of a polygamous marriage. Second Samuel 12:8 also causes them to stumble, because God declares that it was He that gave David multiple wives. There were rules regarding multiple wives and breaking them may invoke the death penalty: Leviticus 20:14, "And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you. " The lesson to learn from this verse is that anyone who wants a mother-in-law for a wife is asking to get burned.

The general rule of "one man, one woman, one life time" has been and always will be valid (I have a tee shirt with that slogan on it). However, knowing that polygamy on the man's part was not pronounced to be sin and not considered adultery is essential to a proper hermeneutical study of marriage covenants.

Continued in Part 2

	Cause and Effect Safe Sex? Making Marriage Work Comprehensive Divorce Study Marriage: Contents


	Site Navigation Tips View or Post to Christian Parent's Blog