|
|
| |
|
| by Erik Wait |
| |
 |
| |
Of the Reformed confessions cited throughout the previous chapters only the Second Helvetic Confession of Faith states anything concerning the place of single people (never married, lawfully divorced, or widowed). In Chapter 29 “Of Celibacy, Marriage and the Management of Domestic Affairs” it states:
“SINGLE PEOPLE. Those who have the gift of celibacy from heaven, so that from the heart or with their whole soul are pure and continent and are not aflame with passion, let them serve the Lord in that calling, as long as they feel endued with that divine gift; and let them not lift up themselves above others, but let them serve the Lord continuously in simplicity and humility (1 Corinthians 7:7 ff.). For such are more apt to attend to divine things than those who are distracted with the private affairs of a family. But if, again, the gift be taken away, and they feel a continual burning, let them call to mind the words of the apostle: ‘It is better to marry than to be aflame.’ (1 Corinthians 7:9).”
There are some misconceptions in this paragraph, which are common, concerning those who have the “gift of singleness” or “celibacy.” First, it states that the gift is given to those who “are not aflame with passion” and if they should later no longer have this gift that they ought to marry, citing the apostle Paul’s phrase, “It is better to marry than to be aflame.’ (1 Corinthians 7:9).
There is a common notion that those who are single for the Kingdom of God or have the gift of celibacy are those who have not sexual desire and therefore they do not have to battle the lust of the flesh because they have a special power from God. Those who think that this is what Paul is saying will then go on to state that if a single person does battle with lust then the solution is to get married. This understanding of Paul’s statement has two fundamental misconceptions.
First, it assumes that there is a woman available for every single man. This just is not the case. there isn’t a 1 to 1 ratio of single men and single women in the church and as one gets older the number of available singles is reduced.
Second, it also assumes that finding a wife only entails meeting two criteria: That she is a Christian (1 Corinthians 6:14), and that she hasn’t had an unlawful divorce (Matthew 5:32; 1 Corinthians 7:15). There is much more that is required in finding a suitable spouse. Choosing to marry requires wisdom for it would be better to remain single than to marry a person would only bring strife and grief to the home. A single man who strongly desires to get married would be better off remaining as he is than to marry a contentious woman who is like a dripping faucet (Proverbs 27:14-16). When seeking a soul-mate a wise man needs to find a Godly woman who is submissive to her Lord (Ephesians 5:22-24; 1 Peter 3:1-6) and knows how to keep house. He needs not just a woman, but an excellent wife (Proverbs 31:1-31). Likewise, a woman needs to find a man who be a Godly leader in the home and not abdicate his responsibilities but will live up to his calling to be like Christ to his wife and a Godly father to their children. (Ephesians 5:25-30; 6:4; 1 Peter 3:7-9)
Third, this understanding of Paul assumes that getting married will solve the problem of lust. If that were the case then there would be no such thing as adultery. There reality is there will be times in which one in the marriage is not available for sexual relations due to being away on business, being ill, pregnancy and so forth. Furthermore, a person battling with lust is not content in the state that he is whether he is married or single. The solution to lust then is learning and practicing self-control and learning to be content in the state that they are in, whether married to one person or single. (1 Corinthians 9:25; Galatians 5:19-25)
This is what Paul says concerning marriage:
“But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them to remain even as I. But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn.” (1 Corinthians 7:8-9)
Notice that in the second sentence he refer to “they.” Paul is not talking about an individual who is lusting, but a couple who desires to get married. Paul is talking about a Romeo and Juliet scenario in which someone is questioning whether or not they should allow their daughter to get married or whether they should marry this person that they love. He states that for the Kingdom of God it is better for a person to be solely devoted to the Lord and not have the responsibilities of also having to care for a spouse. But, if there is a couple who wants to get married it is better for them to do so than continue with the tension between them which might lead to being tempted to commit fornication. He is not saying that marriage solves the problem of lust. If marriage solved the problem of lust, then why did King David not only have a harem of hundreds of wives but then he also went and stole another man’s wife and commit adultery? (2 Samuel 11)
The gift of singleness and celibacy is not a supernatural spiritual state in which a person does not have to combat lust. Rather, it is the gift of being free from more earthly matters so that they can dedicate themselves to the Kingdom of God. Paul’s ultimate concern is the advancement of the Kingdom of God and for this reason he wants people to be free to serve if they can control themselves and thus be solely devoted to the Lord:
“But I want you to be free from concern. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord, but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the woman who is unmarried, and the virgin, is concerned about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world , how she may please her husband. And this I say for your own benefit; not to put a restraint upon you, but to promote what is seemly, and to secure undistracted devotion to the Lord.” (1 Corinthians 7:32-35)
In fact, there are some who purposely choose this route and follow in the footsteps of their Lord in this manner. Jesus Christ, who was not being married, taught that there are some who are not married for the sake of the Kingdom of God:
“Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.’” (Matthew 19:11-12)
The Greek word translated “eunuch” (“eunouchos”) is a compound word made up of two words - “eune” and “echein.” The word “eune” means “bed” and specifically refers to the marriage bed. The Greek word “echein” means “to have” or “to hold” and it can mean either “to be in charge of” or “to keep away from.” In this context “eunouchos” means “the one who keeps away from the marriage bed.” A eunuch, broadly speaking, is a non-procreating man.
The context of Jesus’ statement is within a teaching on marriage and divorce. Jesus states that the only lawful cause for divorce is infidelity and the only reason why Moses allowed for a certificate of divorce was because of the hardness of hearts. He then says that if anyone divorces for any other cause then they are committing adultery (Matthew 19:1-11). The disciples then responded by saying, “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.” Jesus then responds by essentially saying, “If you think having such stringent rules for divorce is difficult - and not everyone can accept this - trying remaining single for the Kingdom of God.” Jesus of course is the very person He is speaking of who is living the more difficult life.
The problem within the church today is that society has so distorted the covenant of marriage than in some ways many churches have overreacted by not only seeking to uphold and honor the holy rite of the marriage covenant, they have also denied or denigrated the legitimacy of the call to singleness for the Kingdom. Some churches will not allow a single man to serve as an elder and the single person within a church may be left to feel as a social oddball in a family-focused church. They are forgotten, ignored and left out of the inner sanctum of social circles within the church. Consequently single Christians can feel as if they do not belong and are not an important part of the social life of the church. Large home schooling families are honored (and rightly so) while singles and widows are not invited to social events. This is an extreme swing in the pendulum from Roman Catholicism. Rome prohibits ministers from getting married and so elevates the calling of celibacy that it denies the married man who has a God-given help-meet from using his gifts in the church to preach, teach and shepherd the flock.
It should also be noted that prolonged singleness is the exception to the rule of God’s design, “And God said, ‘It is NOT GOOD that man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him.” (Genesis 2:18) But marriage and singleness are a gift. The sole design and purpose for singleness is ministry in the kingdom. There is only one reason why God gives the gift of singleness and that is so that they may use their free time and energy to serve the Lord.
A person with the gift of singleness is not one who is single merely because of their circumstances, but of choice because it is his/her gift and they are content to be in that state as they serve the Lord. They must be able to find satisfaction and companionship in the work of God’s kingdom.
But let’s be honest, there are many other reasons why some Christians remain single. If their free time in singleness is not being used in ministry then they are keeping themselves free in order to remain unconstrained from responsibilities. Many people stay single so that they do not have to live a life of submission and self-sacrifice for another. Their reason for singleness is not according to God’s will. Some people don’t make them selves marryable. In other words, some men do not make themselves the type of man a woman wants to marry. A woman wants a gentleman, not a childish slob. A woman wants someone to be her provider and protector, but if a man can barely support himself and he acts unbecoming of a Christian man, then who would want to marry him? Likewise, if a woman wants to get married she needs to make herself a potential Proverbs 31 woman. Who wants to marry a busy body or a nag? Single people who want to get married need to read Scripture and become the type of person that the opposite sex wants to marry.
The great divide in the church also makes it difficult. Pentecostal and charismatic churches are loaded with single people whereas Reformed are small in number. If a single person wants to get married, the may have to look outside the walls of Presbyterianism.
The primary purpose and design for marriage is companionship. It is to solve the problem of loneliness, “And God said, ‘It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a HELP MEET for him.” (Genesis 2:18) The Hebrew word for “help meet” is “azar kenegedo”. It means “a helper suitable for him.” It has the idea of one who is opposite and yet has a note of similitude. The woman is not like the other creatures which Adam had named and were unsuitable, she is from Him and is also an image bearer of God. Yet, she is opposite in that she is not a male but rather is design to be complimentary to him. In short, if man were peanut butter the woman would be jelly as Jay Adams says,
“We might appropriately speak of Eve as Adam’s other half (not better half), which in the covenantal union of marriage makes a complete whole... As his counterpart the woman completes or fills our the man’s life, making him a larger person that he could have been alone, bringing into his frame of reference a new feminine dimension from which to view life that he could have known in no other way. Then, too, he also brings to his wife a masculine perspective than enlarges her life, making her a fuller, more complete person than she could have been apart from him.” [1]
Now we turn our focus from singleness to Marriage. The Second Helvetic Confession goes on to state concerning marriage:
“MARRIAGE. For marriage (which is the medicine of incontinency, and continency itself) was instituted by the Lord God himself, who blessed it most bountifully, and willed man and woman to cleave one to the other inseparable, and to live together in complete love and concord (Matthew 19:4 ff.). Whereupon we know that the apostle said: ‘Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled’ (Hebrews. 13:4). And again: ‘If a girl marries, she does not sin’ (1 Corinthians 7:28).”
The Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 24 “Of Marriage and Divorce” goes even further on this subject to define marriage, state its purpose and establi@#&*s boundaries:
“I. Marriage is to be between one man and one woman: neither is it lawful for any man to have more than one wife, nor for any woman to have more than one husband, at the same time.”
The Westminster Confession rightly defines a marriage as being between one man and one woman. Not between one man and multiple women and certainly not between two men or two women. The Second Helvetic Confession Chapter 29 likewise states, “We therefore condemn polygamy, and those who condemn second marriages.”
There are some today that see polygamy practiced in the Old Testament and conclude that such is lawful and that the marriage between one man and one woman is not the only allowable form of marriage in the Bible. They then conclude, “I have decided I don't just want to find a wife - I want an entire harem of wives! Why not? Many saints in the Old Testament were polygamous!”
Some even go on to assert that the Bible allows for all sorts of variations other than that found in Genesis 1-3 and Matthew 19:4 and therefore the church ought not to prohibit the marriage between a man and another man or between two women. Such a reading of the text tends to lend itself to trajectory hermeneutics in which a supposed line of trajectory is drawn from such observations to assert that we may then take this train of thought to include all sorts of activities and relationships even if they are explicitly prohibited in the Old and New Testaments.
There certainly is a trajectory in the Old and New Covenants, but not in the direction that these people, mostly liberation and gay theology proponents, assert. For example, Gay Theology apologists try to make their case for Gay Marriage on the fact that God recognizes many forms of marriage other than the “husband of one wife” scenario. Then based on a faulty trajectory hermeneutic, as well as a twisting of the relationships of Ruth and Naomi and Jonathan and David, they assert that homosexual marriages ought to be allowed as just one variable among many forms of marriage within the Bible.
However, this wrongful avocation polygamy, as well as homosexual marriage, is a based on a misunderstanding of the existence of polygamy in the Bible and its regulation in the Old Testament law of God. This is due to a misconceived idea that if the law regulated an act that such act was good because it was permitted within certain parameters. Also, it wrongfully asserts that if a person is blessed after committing a particular act then the Lord must have approved of such an act because of the act was good.
The first few chapters of Genesis are about the origins of the universe, of creation on earth, of mankind and the fall of mankind into sin and the subsequent curse of creation. Much of what is stated in the first three chapters is descriptive “such as such happened” but some of what is written is immediately prescriptive for all time “(“you are to do such and such”) or is the basis for later prescriptions in the Old Testament (“because God did such and such you are to so such and such.”). For example, the regulations concerning the Sabbath are based on what occurred during the creation week:
“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.” (Exodus 20:8-11)
Likewise, we read in Genesis a prescriptive statement concerning marriage:
“The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. The man said, ‘This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.’ For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.” (Genesis 2:22-24)
Notice that this text is prescriptive (“You shall do this”) not merely descriptive (“he did this”) and that this prescription is for all time. Because God took woman from man husbands and wives are to be a joining of one flesh. Just as God is one (Hebrew: “achad”) to two a husband and wife are to be one. (Matthew 19:4; 1 Corinthians 6:16; Ephesians 5:31) When this event occurred fathers and mothers were not yet in existence and yet based on what occurred future generations of sons were to leave their father and mother and cleave to their wife to form a new union and family.
In his original state before the fall man was declared to be good (Genesis 1:31). As the image-bearer of God mankind was free from sin and death, free from slavery and free to obey God continuously with knowledge, original righteous and holiness. (Genesis 1:27-28; Colossians 3:10) Had Adam not sinned against God, and we in him, his marriage and all of mankind would have progressed in order and orderliness.
The fall of mankind into sin brought him not only spiritual death in under the condemnation of sin but eventually he would die physically as well. Not only was he cursed but also all of creation would continue to fight him as he labored at the sweat of his brow (Genesis 3:17) and would groan until the completion of his redemption at the resurrection. (Romans 8:22). Where God had brought order out of chaos (Genesis 1:2) the fall into sin inserted disorder so that death reigned. (Romans 5:14)
Mankind was given a mandate, before and after the fall, to take dominion as His stewards over the earth by being fruitful. (Genesis 1:28; 8:17) But sin brought death and the disorder with the result that creation would resist him. Sin not only affected mankind as individuals but corporately as a society as well. The fall into brought slavery, polygamy and divorce, which God tolerated and permitted but regulated in His law. But the trajectory of the New Testament is to return to God’s original intent for man - freedom from slavery (of all kinds) and the one-man/one woman marriage for life. (Matthew 19:4-7)
One of the most common misconceptions perpetrated by pro-Gay Theology apologists, polygamists (such as Mormons) is the assertion that God instituted, ordained and gave approval of polygamist marriages as a good thing. The intention of these advocates to argue that it is not God’s will that marriage be defined strictly as a one man and a one woman relationship but rather that marriage can be defined a number of ways including between two men.
After the fall of mankind into sin many economic and social customs developed as a result of sin, which God later regulated amongst His people but did not explicitly prohibit. Two such practices were indentured servitude (slavery) and polygamy. Back then, as well as today in countries which have not been predominantly influenced by Christianity practice, polygamy was a sign of economic prowess.
In His Law the Lord placed boundaries on these institutions in order to protect the slave and the first wife to keep them from being abused but He did not outlaw an economic situation that had some benefit for the wives and slaves. In other words, polygamy existed but rather than immediately prohibiting it God allowed it within certain economic boundaries that protected the first wife from being neglected. Nowhere does God say that polygamy is “good” or give commands to take multiple wives. Rather He insisted that men not use women as they wished for she had certain rights (Exodus 21:10-11) and not even a war captive could be deprived of those rights. (Deuteronomy 21:10-14). So, while the law tolerated polygamy, according to God pre-fallen created order monogamy was the standard.
The first recorded incident of polygamy is done by ungodly Lamech (Genesis 4:19). Later we see that Abraham and King David, in violation of the law, had multiple wives (2 Samuel 5:13). Polygamy was not considered a sin as was adultery, fornication or homosexuality but it does fall short of God created order and therefore it is not prohibited outright as are homosexuality, incest and bestiality (Leviticus 18:22-24) What is clear from Scripture is that polygamy causes many problems (which is why God placed some boundaries around it) as it creates competition between the wives. It also inhibits a father’s ability to rightly teach the multitude of children that would be produced from have a multiple wives at the same time. (Genesis 29:30; Exodus 21:9-10; Leviticus 18:18; Deuteronomy 21:15-17).
If polygamy was good there would be no reason to place any restrictions on it. In fact, what we see in the Bible is that multiplying wives causes many problems which is why God prohibited Kings and ruler in Israel from having multiple wives (Deuteronomy 17:17) and later when King David and Solomon violated this law and although God did not immediately judge them for it, we see the disastrous the results. (1 Kings 11:3) So, whereas a person who already who has multiple wives can become a Christian and join the church along with his wives, he may not hold a position of leadership. (Titus 1:5-7) But Christian men ought not seek to multiply wives for it goes against the created order and against the teaching of Jesus Christ. Even more so homosexuality goes against the created order and it is declared to be a sexual sin along with fornication and incest and those who commit live in this sin shall not inherit the Kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9)
One of the biggest misconceptions in the “God advocates diverse forms of marriage” argument is the assumption that if God allows and regulates a behavior that the behavior is good and promoted by God. But this is not how the law of God is written. There are many positive commandments in the law “Thou shalt do such and such,” many prohibitions, “Thou shalt NOT do such and such,” and there are a few fencing regulations which restrict undesirable behavior from getting out of hand or from causing further problems. These types of laws are not a promotion of that which is being restricted but rather they are an accommodation to the sinful tendencies of man. In a sense they are like the government saying, “Don’t drink too much wine, but if you do don’t get behind the wheel of a car and drive.” In other words, drunkenness is wrong but if you give drink too much you need to limit the other negative consequences that might result from it. Of course the problem is that some people take a restriction of an action “don’t drink and drive” as an avocation of the action or being equivalent to saying that it is “good.” For example, is divorce a good thing? Does God want divorce? No, and yet we see that the Law of God regulated it:
“When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house, and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man’s wife, and if the latter husband turns against her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her to be his wife, then her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance.” (Deuteronomy 24:1-4)
The Pharisees took this text and twisted it to give them a free ticket for divorce and they assumed God approved of it:
“Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?’ And He answered and said, ‘Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, AND the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.’ They said to Him, ‘Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?’ He said to them, ‘Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.’” (Matthew 19:3-9)
First, notice that Jesus appeals to Genesis 2:24 as the basis for the original order for marriage. Whatever the law allowed was a post-fall accommodation and not in accordance with the original intent and design for marriage. Second, notice that the certificate of divorce was an accommodation to the sinfulness of man. In essence, the regulation was putting a restriction on a sinful action, “Don’t drink and drive.” This is the same purpose for regulation of polygamy amongst the general population (Deuteronomy 21:15-17) Jesus in His teaching on marriage and divorce is restoring in the New Covenant God’s original intent for marriage - one man and one woman for life.
The law concerning divorce is not the only example of this sort of tolerance and restriction of an undesirable practice. God put many hedges and fences to restrict other behaviors as well. For example, man was created to be free: Free from sin, free from suffering, and free to be the head of his own home. But after the fall with the curse of the ground and the economic situations that would arise from various circumstances men often resorted to selling themselves into slavery in order to survive, selling their children into slavery in order to have food on the table or at times they became slaves due to being captives of war. Going into debt is a form of slavery that people often found themselves in. (Proverbs 22:7) So the restorative laws restricted the consequences of slavery and provided some freedoms by restricting who could be enslaved (Exodus 21:20, 26-27), how slaves could be treated (Exodus 21:20, 26-27), it provided that runaway slaves could be freed from oppressive masters (Deuteronomy 23:15-16) and it created the year of jubilee in which slaves would be freed from their debt. (Leviticus 25:23-28) If the person was a member of the covenant he was to be treated as a hired worker, not a slave (Leviticus 25:39-43) and he was to be freed after six years (Exodus 21:2, Deuteronomy 15:12) at which time he was to be liberally supplied with grain, wine and livestock (Deuteronomy 15:12-15) Every fiftieth year (the year of jubilee), all Hebrew slaves were to be freed, even those owned by foreigners (Leviticus 25:10, 47-54) In special cases, slaves could choose to remain with their masters if they felt it was in their best interests (Deuteronomy 15:16-17).
Although the situation and circumstances was a radically different than the slavery which took place in America, which was actually a form of man-stealing forbidden in the law and punishable by death. (Exodus 21:16; Deuteronomy 24:7), can anyone say that slavery is God’s desire for man? Would it not be best for each man to be the head of his own household and own his land? So what did the Lord do in His law to protect the slave? Did He prohibit slavery that would put many in a worse circumstance of having no means to provide for their family? No, He regulated it in order to protect the slave so that they might not be mistreated by their master (they couldn't be forced work on the Sabbath) and so that they might be included in the covenant (they received the sign of circumcision) and treated as part of the family, although not being the first in line for the inheritance. Slavery is a result of the fall of mankind into sin but “God gave regulations concerning slavery in His perfect, good and righteous Law.” The trajectory of the Old Testament, in contrast to forms of slavery in the surrounding nations, was away from the consequences of slavery by heavily restricting it and guarding the rights of slaves.
The New Testament recognizes slavery, as it was a common part of the Roman society. The apostle Paul exhorted slaves to not to take their freedom in Christ as a means to rebel against their masters but rather as an opportunity to serve them as they do the Lord in order to be a good witness for the gospel. (Ephesians 6:5-6; Colossians 3:22) But when Paul converted a runaway slave named Onesimus and his master Philemon to the faith, he appealed to the master to no longer treat Onesimus as a slave but rather as a brother in Christ for in Him we are all on equal footing. (Philemon 16; Galatians 3:28; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Colossians 4:1) So, like the Old Testament, the trajectory of the New Testament is away from slavery by teaching us that Christ has set us free from the slavery to sin and therefore we ought to do the same for others. The gospel of the New Testament establishes a trajectory away from slavery in order to restore man to his original state. Sin is the chief form of slavery from which Christ came to set us free. (Romans 6:6; 18; 1 Corinthians 7:23)
Another misconception of “God advocates diversity in marriage” argument is that if God did not immediately judge an wrong or foolish action that He is must be complacent about it. Or if the Lord blesses a person after they have committed an action this must mean that He approves of it. This is a misconception that the Lord must be blessing the person because of the action rather than despite the particular action. This sort of thinking leads one to answer Paul’s question, “Shall we go on sinning that grace may abound?” in the affirmative - “YES!” rather than as Paul did, “May it never be!” (Romans 6:1)
For example, the Lord blessed Abram (later named Abraham) even though he disobeyed the Lord by going to Egypt rather than remaining in the land he was promised (Genesis 12:1-8) and trusting God during a time of famine. (Genesis 9:10) Then because his wife was beautiful and he feared Pharaoh more than the Lord he told his wife to lie about her true identity of being his wife. (Genesis 9:11-12) The result was that the Pharaoh took his wife and gave Abram a large dowry because he thought Sarai (later named Sarah) was only his sister. It is only because the Lord intervened by sending the Pharaoh a plague that kept Sarai from being forced to commit adultery. (Genesis 9:18-20) What was the result of Abram’s deception and lack of faith?
“So Abram went up from Egypt to the Negev, he and his wife and all that belonged to him, and Lot with him. Now Abram was very rich in livestock, in silver and in gold.” (Genesis 13:1-2)
Should we conclude from this text that since Abram was blessed after he failed to remain in the Promised Land and then lied about his wife, which put her in great danger, that such an action was good and morally acceptable? Absolutely not! (Romans 6:1) Abram was blessed despite his lack of faith and disobedience because the Lord is gracious and merciful - not because Abram’s actions were justifiable.
Likewise, we later see the grandson of Abraham, Jacob, take advantage of his brother Esau’s need for food rather than lovingly give him something to eat. Esau in an exaggerated estimation of his hunger says, “I’m about to die” and so Jacob swindles him out of his birthright for a pottage of stew. Later, following the scheming plans of his mother, Jacob deceives his father by lying to the aged and near-blind man by dressing up as his hairy brother in order to get his father to bless him. (Genesis 27) So, Jacob received his brother’s birthright and blessing by the means of scheming and deception - a major theme in the life of Jacob as he himself is later schemed and deceived by Laban. (Genesis 29:23) Yet, this was all in accordance with the foreordination of God that the “older shall serve the younger.” (Genesis 25:23; Romans 9:6-13) But God chose to bless Jacob not because of he was a liar, but despite the fact that he was a schemer. This is called sovereign grace - The Lord blesses people who do not deserve it!
In this same way the Lord blessed David and Solomon even though they broke the prohibitions of kings having multiple wives:
“When you enter the land which the LORD your God gives you, and you possess it and live in it, and you say, `I will set a king over me like all the nations who are around me,' you shall surely set a king over you whom the LORD your God chooses, one from among your countrymen you shall set as king over yourselves; you may not put a foreigner over yourselves who is not your countryman. Moreover, he shall not multiply horses for himself, nor shall he cause the people to return to Egypt to multiply horses, since the LORD has said to you, `You shall never again return that way.' He shall not multiply wives for himself, or else his heart will turn away; nor shall he greatly increase silver and gold for himself.” (Deuteronomy 17:17)
It is abundantly clear that kings were prohibited from gathering for themselves a harem, as did pagan kings. Yet, David had eight wives, various concubines and many children from them. (1 Chronicles 3). Despite the fact that David violated this commandment of the Lord, not to mention that he committed adultery and murder (2 Samuel 11), he was blessed by God who made a special covenant with him and he was described as being, “a man after God’s own heart.”(1 Samuel 13:13-14; 2 Samuel 7)
This was also true of David’s son Solomon who was born in the marriage of David and Bathsheba following David’s sin. Solomon followed his father’s footsteps and took polygamy a step further for he had 700 official wives and 300 concubines. (1 Kings 11) Yet, Solomon’s reign was the highlight of Israel’s history as he was given more wisdom than any other man, he built a glorious temple for the Lord and they knew peace during his time like no other dynasty. (1 Kings 4:24; 5:12)
What are we to conclude then? Did God change His mind concerning the prohibition of kings having multiple wives? No, in fact the very warning that God gave concerning the kings having a harem of women came to pass, “or else his heart will turn away...” Solomon’s many wives brought idols into the house and for a time he fell away from the Lord, as does his son Rehoboam. Here is what the Bible tell us:
“Did not Solomon king of Israel sin regarding these things? Yet among the many nations there was no king like him, and he was loved by his God, and God made him king over all Israel; nevertheless the foreign women caused even him to sin.” (Nehemiah 13:26)
Solomon sinned by breaking His perfect, good and righteous Law which prohibited kings having multiple wives and intermarrying with pagan families. Yet, “...there was no king like him, and he was loved by his God.” God loved him not because of his sin but despite his sin.
It is absolutely ludicrous to assert that because God blessed men who were polygamous that therefore polygyny is a good and virtuous practice. God is patient, gracious and tolerant of us in that He is long-suffering. (1 Peter 3:20) He frequently overlooks our immaturity as a father overlooks a son’s repeated soiling of his pants. But there comes a time when children need to grow up and He calls His people to repent (1 Corinthians 3:1-3; Hebrews 5:12-6:2). The Lord has been patient with not only with His own people, but with the pagan nations as well, “While God has overlooked the times of human ignorance, now He commands all people everywhere to repent.” (Acts 17:30)
The New Testament has a trajectory away from slavery and polygamy is that He requires those who are to set an example to the flock to meet the highest standard, just as He did of the priests of the Old Testament. God requires that his under shepherds, the leaders of the church, provide an example of moral living and meet a criteria that every Christian man ought to seek. In both Testaments kings, elders and deacons are forbidden to have multiple wives:
“Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, hospitable, able to teach, not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, uncontentious, free from the love of money. He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?); and not a new convert, lest he become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil. And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he may not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.” (1 Timothy 3:2-7)
“For this reason I left you in Crete, that you might set in order what remains, and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, namely, if any man be above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. For the overseer must be above reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond or sordid gain.” (Titus 1:5-7)
In these two epistles we see 17 required moral qualifications of an elder stated both in the positive (what he is to be) as well as in the negative (what he is not to be). He must be above reproach, temperate, prudent, hospitable, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, gentle, uncontentious, not greedy, not accused of dissipation or rebellion, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, and self-controlled.
We also find various required spiritual gifts - the ability to teach, exhort, admonish and defend the faith. We also see that there is to be a certain level of spiritual maturity and knowledge of Biblical doctrine as he is not to be a new convert. He is also to demonstrate these qualifications in various spheres of life as he must be one who manages his own household well and he must have a good reputation with those outside the church.
Paul also gives us the reasons why a man to be considered for the office must not be a new convert, manage his household well and have a good reputation. If he does not manage his household well, how will he take care of the church of God? If he is a new convert without spiritual maturity, he may become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil.
The question at this point is, “What is Paul requiring when he says that the elder-shepherd is required to be ‘the husband of one wife’?” In order to understand what Paul actually means by “the husband of one wife” we need to look at the phrase “Mias gunaikos andra” in the Greek text. The Greek structure of the statement “the husband of one wife” in 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6 emphasizes the word “one.” This would not be expected if being married were required, but rather Paul would have written that a man must be “the husband of a wife” and it is clear that neither Jesus (the chief Shepherd) or the apostle Paul were married and yet apostles were also ruling elders as Peter referred to himself as a “fellow elder.” (1 Peter 5:1) There is no distinct word in Greek for our word “husband.” The word for “man” here is “aner” (not “anthropos”) - it is the word for a male individual. When this word is used in a context of marriage, it has the meaning of “husband.” The words “wife/woman”(gunaikos) and “husband/man” (aner) are used without the definite article in the Greek, which emphasizes character or nature. Therefore the structure of this passage could easily be translated “one wife’s husband” or “a one-wife sort of husband.”
When examining the qualifications of an elder, it is important to look at the overall idea of the passage as well as the specific grammar and construction. These qualities were meant to show that a leader in the church must be a godly man who mirrors Jesus Christ to the congregation. An elder-shepherd of the church is to act as an example, to the church and the community, of Christ-like living. This is seen in Paul’s first qualification, which is the key to all of the other specifications, “An overseer, then, must be above reproach.” The overarching moral qualification of which the rest in the litmus test are supportive of this qualification. All the other moral prerequisites emphasize that idea. An elder-shepherd must be above reproach in his personal life, his social life, his family life, his neighborhood, his business life, and his spiritual life.
In Paul’s requirement of being a “one woman man” he is saying that an elder who is married must be a man who is utterly single-minded in his devotion to his one wife as an example to the flock just as Jesus Christ is single-minded in his devotion to His one wife - the Church. (Ephesians 5:25-30)
The fall of mankind into sin brought slavery, polygamy and divorce which God tolerated and permitted but regulated in His law. But the trajectory of the New Testament is to return to God’s original intent for man - freedom from slavery (of all kinds) and the one-man/one woman marriage for life. (Matthew 19:4-7) Ironically, the trajectory hermeneutics of liberalism takes us in the opposite direction - slavery to sin, a sky rocking divorce rate, polygamy and gay marriage.
At this point we return to the Westminster Confession of Faith chapter 24 which discusses the purpose of marriage:
“II. Marriage was ordained for the mutual help of husband and wife, for the increase of mankind with a legitimate issue, and of the Church with an holy seed; and for preventing of uncleanness.”
As the Confessions states, the purpose for (design) for marriage is for mutual help. But this help for each other is conducted in different ways as the man and the woman have different roles in the marriage according to God’s design. The wife by design is created for the husband:
“But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying, disgraces his head. But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying, disgraces her head; for she is one and the same with her whose head is shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake.” Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as the woman; and all things originate from God.” (1 Corinthians 11:7-9)
The wife is to glorify her husband as the husband is to glorify God. The purpose of this is to reflect the relationship of different persons of the Trinity. Jesus the Son glorifies the Father, “I glorified Thee on the earth, having accomplished the work which Thou hast given Me to do.” (John 17:4-5) The Holy Spirit glorifies the Son, “But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He will glorify Me; for He shall take of Mine, and shall disclose it to you.” (John 16:13-14) Just as God is the glory of man and the wife is the glory of the husband, so too the Spirit glorifies the Son and the Son glorifies the Father.
Likewise, the wife is economically (not ontologically) subordinate to the husband as the wife is to serve her husband as the church is supposed to serve Christ:
“Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. 24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.” (Ephesians 5:22-24)
The submission of the wife to the husband is not because he is smarter or stronger, but because he has been given the office by God. Wives are to respect the office even if the man’s action are not respectable. His office is not to be undermined. Even if the wife thinks she knows better about a particular situation he has the responsibility to lead and is accountable to God. If he seems to be slack in his duties, the wife ought not to not seek to assume his duties as this will only further his abdication of his responsibilities. He is accountable to God for his actions, not the wife. She is to pray for him and ask God to deal with him. This may require a great deal of faith on her part. The wife is not berate him but rather love him and win him by her actions. In fact, if he is a non-Christian he may be won by the actions of his wife:
“In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior. And let not your adornment be merely external - braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God. For in this way in former times the holy women also, who hoped in God, used to adorn themselves, being submissive to their own husbands. Thus Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, and you have become her children if you do what is right without being frightened by any fear.” (1 Peter 3:1-9)
This is the God’s design since Creation, not a mere cultural value of the first century church, “To the woman He said, ‘I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.’” (Genesis 3:16) The primary calling of the wife is in the area of taking dominion in the home, the foundation and bedrock of society and culture:
“She looks for wool and flax And works with her hands in delight.... She rises also while it is still night And gives food to her household And portions to her maidens. She considers a field and buys it; From her earnings she plants a vineyard.... She senses that her gain is good; Her lamp does not go out at night. She stretches out her hands to the distaff, And her hands grasp the spindle.... She is not afraid of the snow for her household, For all her household are clothed with scarlet. She makes coverings for herself; Her clothing is fine linen and purple.... She makes linen garments and sells them, And supplies belts to the tradesmen.... She looks well to the ways of her household, And does not eat the bread of idleness.” (Proverbs 31:13, 15-16, 18-19, 21-22, 24, 27,)
Of the 22 verses in Proverbs 31 9 of them refer directly to her work in the home. The home (not merely a house) is the environment in which she experiences satisfaction for her service to the Lord, it is where she shapes future generations, it is where she assists her husband in the work of the kingdom. This is why Paul says:
“Therefore, I want younger widows to get married, bear children, keep house, and give the enemy no occasion for reproach; 15 for some have already turned aside to follow Satan.” (1 Timothy 5:14-15)
The wife is not just to do a labor of “housework” (cooking, cleaning, etc.) but “homework”; creating a home environment for the family.
Not let us look at God’s design and plan for the Husband. The Husband is head of the wife and he is to treat her as if she is a part of himself:
“Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her; that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she should be holy and blameless. So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, because we are members of His body. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh. This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church. Nevertheless let each individual among you also love his own wife even as himself; and let the wife see to it that she respect her husband.” (Ephesians 5:25-33)
The husband’s mindset is to be such that he and his wife are a compound unity. They are “one” just as the church and Christ are one. They are to be “one” just as the church partakes of the “one loaf” which symbolizes the unity of Christ and the church and the unity and communion of all Christian with their savior Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 10:16-17) Jay Adams states:
“The marriage union is the closest, most intimate of all human relationships. Two persons may begin to think, act, fee as one. They are able to so interpenetrate one another’s lives that they become one, a functioning unit, Paul, [in Ephesians 5:28-31] says that the relationship is to be so intimate that whatever a man does (good or evil) for his wife, he also does for himself since the two have become one flesh (person.)” [2 ]
Therefore, the husband’s role is to honor the wife and treat her as a valuable and delicate piece of fine pottery:
“You husbands likewise, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with a weaker vessel, since she is a vessel, since she is a woman; and grant her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered. To sum up, let all harmonious, sympathetic, brotherly, kindhearted, and humble in spirit; not returning evil for evil, or insult for insult, but giving a blessing instead; for you were called for this very purpose that you might inherit a blessing.” (1 Peter 3:7-9)
All other husbandly duties flow from the Biblical truth of the covenantal union with the wife. The husband as protector, provider, leader, guardian, shepherd and so forth come from the necessity of being the head of the wife and the entire family.
The Westminster Confession goes on to state that not only is marriage for the mutual benefit and help of the husband and wife but also, “...for the increase of mankind with a legitimate issue, and of the Church with an holy seed...”
While the Lord may not bless all marriages with children of their own, He has designed marriage for the purpose of bringing into the world legitimate children, not bastards. Today the sexual ethics of society have become so debased that people not only commit fornication and adultery without guilt or shame but they also see no need to have children but rather live as DINKS (Double Income, No Kids) or they seek to have children not only outside of marriage, but outside the union of a man as women seek autonomy through artificial insemination. The height of feminism is to insist that she does not need a man, only his sperm, which she can withdraw from a bank almost as easily as taking money from an ATM. Furthermore, even many Christians delay or refuse to have children because they selfishly are afraid that such children might lower the desired standard of living.
On the other hand, those Christian marriages which rightly see children as a blessing of the Lord (Psalm 127:3-5; Proverbs 17:6) need to keep in mind that they are not called to merely breed like rabbits. Children in and of themselves are not a blessing. Rather it is having “holy seed” that is a blessing. Children who rebel and forsake the covenant are grievous and bring shame to their parents. (Proverbs 29:15) This means that Christian parents are given a serious and high calling not only to have children but to raise them as heirs of promise, as Christians, diligently seeking to teach them by word and example to follow the Lord all their days from morning until night. (Deuteronomy 6:7; Proverbs 22:6; Ephesians 6:4)
Then the Westminster Confession states concerning marriage and the bringing forth of children that it is “...for preventing of uncleanness.” Notice that the Confession uses the language of the purity laws (“cleanness”) of the Old Testament to refer to sin.
The purity laws which categories actions and things as either “clean” or “unclean” and intertwined with the moral laws of the Old Testament so that theologically the purity laws convey an ethical message. This is not to say that there is no distinction between the different types of commandments, only that in the Old Covenant the life of the believer was not to be divided but rather holistically devoted to obeying the law of God. These laws were a practical means of maintaining Israel as a morally holy people:
“You are therefore to make a distinction between the clean animal and the unclean, and between the unclean bird and the clean; and you shall not make yourselves detestable by animal or by bird or by anything that creeps on the ground, which I have separated for you as unclean. Thus you are to be holy to Me, for I the LORD am holy; and I have set you apart from the peoples to be Mine.” (Leviticus 20:25-26).
These purity laws, even those without any seemingly any inherent moral value such as not wearing blended fabrics (Leviticus 18:19), convey to Israel the concept of holiness. They served as theological and moral object lessons establishing Israel with an identity of a “separated” people.
The cultural distinctions conveyed an ethical message such that, although the ethnic division is ended in the New Covenant (Galatians 3:28) along with the food laws (Acts 10:15; 11:9; Romans 14:14), the moral association of “clean” with that of holiness and devotion to the Lord remains. This is clearly seen in the New Covenant sacrament of baptism (“you were washed” 1 Corinthians 6:11) and the status of covenant children being declared “clean.” (1 Corinthians 7:14) So, while the abolition of the food laws conveys the message of a breaking down of the ethnic barrier between Jews and Gentiles in Christ the principle that God’s people are to be a separate (holy) from the world remains.
Laws concerning sexual emissions encouraged restraint and sexual self-control (e.g. avoiding sex during menstruation) and would rightly stigmatize violators such as prostitutes as social outcasts. The laws prohibiting homosexual intercourse would then be seen in this manner as well. Rather than promoting life through the joining of the penis and the vagina, the act of male-to-male sex inserts the seed of the man into the anus - an orifice out of which comes dead matter and waste. This prohibition was both a matter of cleanliness and morality as the New Testament clearly teaches that homosexual sex is an act of unrighteousness, not merely a ceremonial uncleanness. (1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10)
Uncleanness is used metaphorically of deviations of morality hints also that there is a symbolic connection between ceremonial and ethical uncleanness. In the Pentateuch, rape (Genesis 34:5, 13, 27), adultery (Leviticus 18:20; Numbers 5:19), bestiality (Leviticus 18:23), and homosexuality (Leviticus 20:13) are all the various sins for which God judged the Canaanites (Leviticus 18:24-26). Immoral acts such as remarriage to a first husband after divorce and remarriage to a second husband (Deuteronomy 24:4), consultation with mediums (19:31), sacrificing one’s children to Molech (20:3), and murder (Numbers 35:33-34) are all spoken of as acts of “uncleanness” (tam'), which conveys the symbolic tie between ceremonial and ethical uncleanness.
This tie between the purity laws and morality is drawn closer together in the poetic books and the prophets. The language of ritual purity is used for ethical purity, such that a person with a skin disease being analogous to a sinner. (Psalm 51:7 cf. Lamentations 4:13, 15).
In the same way various prophets, such as Isaiah and Ezekiel, use the language of “clean” and “unclean” with ethical connotations. For example, Ezekiel states that transgressions defiled Israel (Ezekiel 14:11), so that Israel is “unclean of name” because it has a reputation for (ethical) impurity (Ezekiel 22:5). Moreover, Ezekiel compares Israel's wicked deeds with that of the uncleanness of a menstruating woman (Ezekiel 36:17) and adds that the exile was due to Israel's (moral) uncleanness and transgressions (Ezekiel 39:24). Likewise, Isaiah states that he and his people have “unclean lips,” because they are sinful. (Isaiah 6:5) Later he states that no one who is morally unclean will travel on God’s highway of holiness into the kingdom of God (Isaiah 35:8). This language is borrowed by the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:9 when he states that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God. Hence while the various sexual prohibitions in Leviticus 18 and 20 might belong to the purity laws, Paul clearly is in line with the prophets who see sexual impurity (fornication, adultery and homosexuality) as ethical violations of God’s holiness.
The theological-ethical message that is conveyed in both testaments is that just as physical uncleanness can come from within (natural bodily functions) and from without (contaminating things), in an analogous way sin comes both from perverse human nature within and temptations without. Therefore, the sexual prohibitions in the New Testament regarding fornication, adultery and homosexuality are conveying very strongly that such actions, regardless of their other associated circumstances, are unrighteous, in error, contrary to nature and sinful.
Another argument used to classifying homosexuality as a defunct purity law and not a sin is that according to Jesus and Paul in the New Testament “there is nothing impure in itself” but rather the manner in which an act is done is solely determinative as to whether or not it is a sin - not whether it is on a list of “thou shalt nots” in the Bible. The argument then states that though Paul calls homosexuality a sin and NOT a purity law, he is only arguing against a particular type of homosexual sex - one done as part of an overall life of rebellion against the one true God. The problem with this argument is that if you actually read the text that is being cited you will find that Paul is specifically referring to the food laws and not unlawful sex acts:
“But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. For it is written, ‘As I love says the Lord, every knee shall bow to Me, and every tongue shall give praise to God.’ So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God. Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this--not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother’s way. I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. For if because of food your brother is hurt, you are no longer walking according to love. Do not destroy with your food him for whom Christ died. Therefore do not let what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil.” (Romans 14:10-16)
It is clear from the context that when Paul states that, “I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself” he is not using “nothing” to include every imaginable sex act. Rather he has a very specific category of “things” in mind - namely food and those things which distinguished Jew from Gentile. He says the same thing in his first epistle to the Corinthians
“Now concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge makes arrogant, but love edifies.... But food will not commend us to God; we are neither the worse if we do not eat, nor the better if we do eat.” (1 Corinthians 8:1, 8)
What are the “things” in verse 1? The rest of the chapter tells us - it is food that has been has been sacrificed to dumb idols (vs. 8:4) and is being sold in the market. Likewise, the context of the “nothing is unclean in itself” is specifically referring to food and not unlawful sex acts (fornication, adultery, incest and homosexuality) which he condemns elsewhere.
In fact, in his epistle to the Colossians he specifically states that laws to abstain from certain foods are not to be followed for they are not helpful in fighting true sin - fleshly indulgences (i.e. immoral sex acts):
“Therefore let no one act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day- things which were a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ. Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind, and not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God. If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, so you submit yourself to decrees, such as, ‘Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!’ (which all refer to things destined to perish with the using) - in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.” (Colossians 2:16-23)
While the purity laws have been assimilated by the one sacrament of baptism and the food laws are no longer binding (Colossians 2:16-23), the New Testament did not do away with the moral laws of the Old Testament. In fact, it endorses, upholds and enforces them. The language of the purity laws is now used of sinful acts such that to be violate God’s moral law is be “impure” and “unclean.” The commandment to love is fulfilled by obeying God’s law from the heart, in faith and for God’s glory. The summary of the law, to love God and neighbor, which is found in the law does not do away with the law. For if it did it would be a self-refuting commandment. A person who hates God’s moral law and yet says he knows God is a liar. The gospel calls us to repent of our sin, to renew our minds by His Word, deny ourselves, pick up our cross and follow Christ Fornication, adultery and homosexual sex acts are contrary to God’s created order in Genesis chapter 1-2 and those who persist in this sin shall not inherit the Kingdom of God. Instead, they will be given over to a spirit of delusion who will darken their minds as they are given more and more over to their depravity.
In contrast to sexual sin which brings impurity and uncleanness, Paul uses the language of the purity laws to state that the union of a husband and wife is no unclean, “Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge.” (Hebrews 13:4)
Having discussed the roles of the husband and the wife, their mutual edification, the Westminster Confession goes to address the boundaries of marriage:
“III. It is lawful for all sorts of people to marry, who are able with judgment to give their consent. Yet it is the duty of Christians to marry only in the Lord. And therefore such as profess the true reformed religion should not marry with infidels, papists, or other idolaters: neither should such as are godly be unequally yoked, by marrying with such as are notoriously wicked in their life, or maintain damnable heresies.”
In Christ there is no distinction between Jew or Gentile, slave or free, black of white, rich or poor. We are all equal under the blood of Jesus Christ and descendants of Abraham by faith. (Galatians 3:28-29) In the Old Covenant in order for a Jew to lawfully marry a Gentile they had to come under the law and if male become circumcised. Now in the New Covenant such distinctions no longer exist hence, “It is lawful for all sorts of people to marry, who are able with judgment to give their consent.” But there is still one provision - a Christian is not to marry a non-Christian as Paul states:
“Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? Or what agreement has the temple of God with Idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said; “I will dwell in them and walk among them; and I will be there God, and they shall be My people. Therefore, come out from their midst and be separate,” says the Lord. ‘And I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughter to Me,’” says the Lord Almighty.” (2 Corinthians 7:14-18)
Paul is not giving the church a new law but is applying an Old Covenant law to a New Covenant context. The body of Christ is not to be joined to a harlot (1 Corinthians 6:15) and neither is a Christian to marry an unbeliever who by their very nature is an idolater. This was the sin of Solomon who accumulated pagan wives who then brought into Israel their idols and in order to appease them he built temples for them. (1 Kings 11:1-8) Rather a Christian is to marry, “only in the Lord.” (1 Corinthians 7:39)
But it is not enough that the person calls himself a Christian. We should not marry a Mormon, a Jehovah’s Witness but rather “such as profess the true reformed religion.” This would include “infidels,” those who have wandered from the faith and are not in good standing with the church, or “papists” which is a slang term for Roman Catholics. Unfortunately there have been many evangelicals and otherwise professing Confessional Protestants who have blurred the distinctions between the Reformed Faith and Roman Catholicism to the extent that they see Roman Catholics to be within the covenant, Rome is within the true church and therefore it is lawful to marry a Roman Catholics. There are several reasons why this ought not to be done.
First, according to the teachings of Rome, the faithful Roman Catholic woman may be allowed by the Roman church to marry a non-Romanist so long as the children are baptized, educated and raised as Roman Catholics as there are “...obligations assumed by the Catholic party concerning the baptism and education of the children in the Catholic Church.” [3] The protestant therefore would either have to determine never to have children or he would have to agree to sin by abdicating his right and responsibility to raise his children according to the truth (Deuteronomy 6:7; Proverbs 22:6; Ephesians 6:4) and allow his children to be taught a heretical lie concerning the authority of Scripture, the sufficiency of Christ’s atoning work and the nature of the sacraments. In essence, the Pope would become the teaching authority and undermine his role as father to his children. While there may be allowable minor differences in theological views between a husband and wife (such millennial views in eschatology) the wife should not contradict her husband when he is teaching the children.
Second, even the most united family in regards to doctrine and issues of faith are challenged in their pursuit of unity and peace within the home. But if core doctrines and issues of faith separate a husband and wife, how can they walk together? Paul tells us that we are to “...keep living by that same standard to which we have attained.” (Philippians 3:16) Unless two are in agreement how can they walk together, how can they be of one mind? (Amos 3:3)
Third, as the Westminster Confession goes on to state, we should not marry “idolaters” or those who “maintain damnable heresies.” While I do not deny that there are legitimate and sincere Christians within the church of Rome, that there are those who call themselves “Roman Catholic” who are among the elect, and that the Roman Catholic Church is part of the visible “Historic Church” (as are many Liberal Protestant Denominations that preach a false gospel), I would argue that Rome does indeed advocate idolatrous worship of Mary, the saints and the veneration of icons. Likewise, their understanding of grace is confused with Aristotelian metaphysics and consequently the doctrine of justification as an ontological process which is obtained through faith and meritorious works is indeed a Gospel different than that taught by the Apostle Paul. It is not the Pharisaical false-gospel that insisted that Gentiles be circumcised and come under the Mosaic economy (Acts 15:1). Nevertheless what is proclaimed by Rome is “another gospel.” (Galatians 1:8-9) Therefore, the wise and God fearing Historic Protestant or evangelical who desires to remain faithful to the Scriptures ought not to intermarry with one whose allegiance is to the Bishop of Rome.
The final section of the Westminster Confession 34 goes to define the degrees of familial relation in which a person may marry:
“IV. Marriage ought not to be within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity forbidden by the Word. Nor can such incestuous marriages ever be made lawful by any law of man or consent of parties, so as those persons may live together as man and wife. The man may not marry any of his wife’s kindred, nearer in blood then he may of his own: nor the woman of her husband's kindred, nearer in blood than of her own.”
The primary supporting text for this portion of the Westminster Confession is found within the “Holiness Code” of Leviticus chapter 18. The Lord commanded the people that neither they nor the alien within their midst were to “uncover the nakedness of” (have sex with) any of their blood relatives (v. 6) including their mother (v. 7), father’s wife (v.8; cf. 1 Corinthians 5), sister (v.9), granddaughter (v. 10), step-sister (v. 11), aunt or uncle (v. 12-14), daughter-in-law (v. 15) brother’s wife (v. 16), a mother along with her daughter (v.17), step-daughter (v.18) a woman and her sister (v.19) a woman during her menstrual period (v.20), their neighbor’s wife (v.21), nor commit a homosexual sex act (v. 22), or commit bestiality (v. 23).
All of the restrictions are an application of the 7th commandment they remain binding in the New Covenant. Since only God may reveal to His people what is lawful and what is not, we may not on our own initiative choose which laws from the Old Testament are required to be obeyed. Unless the Lord himself has revealed to His people that the above laws are no longer binding, faithful Christians are required to uphold the law in the same way that Jesus did and taught His disciples. In fact, Jesus taught that those who do away with the law and teach others to do so shall be the least in the Kingdom:
“Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:19)
The New Covenant does not directly or by implication abrogate, nullify or make obsolete the moral laws found within Leviticus chapters 18-20. In fact, the very heart of this passage is central to the ethics of Christ’s Kingdom for the two Great Commandments (Matthew 22:36-39) is found in Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18:
“You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the LORD.”
Likewise, the apostle Paul upholds this same section of the law in his Epistle to the Corinthians. when he chastises the church for tolerating such things as fornication, incest and men having sex with other men warning them that those who does such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 5:1; 6:9-10)
In fact the law required that anyone who committed any of these sex acts were to be removed from the covenant community:
“For whoever does any of these abominations, those persons who do so shall be cut off from among their people. Thus you are to keep My charge, that you do not practice any of the abominable customs which have been practiced before you, so as not to defile yourselves with them; I am the LORD your God.' " (Leviticus 18:29-30)
The apostle Paul applies this text to the church at Corinth when he tells them that they are to cast the man who is having sex with his father’ wife out of the church for Paul has turned him over to Satan:
“I have decided to delver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough? Clean out the leaven, that you may be a new lamp, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed. Let us therefore celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters; for then you would have to go out of the world. But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he should be an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler - not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside, God judges. Remove the wicked man from among yourselves.” (1 Corinthians 5:5-13)
Some may object to laws regarding not marrying within “degrees of consanguinity or affinity forbidden by the Word” since it is obvious that if all people came from Adam and Eve then their offspring must have married each other. The Bible explicitly states that Adam and Eve “had other sons and daughters.” (Genesis 5:4) In fact, Adam lived 930 years, thus he had plenty time to have plenty of children and give birth to many variations of the genetic code within him. One of the primary problem of incest is that as the human race continued after the fall the effects of the curse furthered the effects of the fall such that while there are many people before the Great Flood of Noah’s time lived almost a thousand years, afterward the life span of the average human is less than a century. Incest at this stage of history causes birth defects whereas earlier it did not. Consequently the moral indecency of incest is not just that it is within the family but that it is a serious sin that leads to much suffering and death. Hereditary diseases such as hemophilia are a result of inbreeding. The law is not only a moral boundary for acceptable behavior but it also protects us from its consequences. Likewise, fornication, adultery and homosexual acts are not only morally objectionable but they naturally leads to all sorts of venereal diseases and death.
Some may argue that there were saints in the Old Testament that practiced incest and therefore it is lawful or as well. In fact, Abraham’s wife was also his half-sister, being the daughter of his father but not his mother. (Genesis 20:12) God’s patience, long-suffering and tolerance of the sin of his children should not be taken as an endorsement of their behavior. Neither should the fact that He blesses his sinful children be seen as an approval of all their behavior. The very nature of grace is that God gives favor to those who do not deserve it. It is absolutely foolish to think that God’s grace and long-suffering towards people who do such things means that He is ambivalent and in favor of our sin. (2 Peter 3:3-9)
The Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 24 goes on to teach regarding breaking and engagement, a betrothal and a marriage vow:
“V. Adultery or fornication committed after a contract, being detected before marriage, gives just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract. In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce and, after the divorce, to marry another, as if the offending party were dead.”
The manner in which people get married has varied from culture to culture and form time to time. In the times of the Bible marriages were often arranged by the parents just as they are today in India and other eastern countries. Sometimes before the marriage the couple were betrothed which entailed a marriage contract in which the two were legally bound but they had not made their vows or consummated the marriage as William Hendriksen states:
“First, there was the betrothal. This was considered more binding that ‘engagement’ with us. The terms of the marriage are accepted in the presence of witnesses and God’s blessing is pronounced upon the union. From this day groom and bride and groom are legally husband and wife...” [4]
While there is a later finality to the marriage process the bride is immediately legally declared, forensically, to be the wife of the husband. In the same fashion the Christian in the church is declared to be a part of the bride now and there will be a time in which there is a final declaration when the groom receives the bride and the great wedding feast takes place (Matthew 22:1-14). This later event in which the marriage is finalized is synonymous with the occasion of the resurrection of the adopted sons. (Romans 8:23) Hendriksen goes on to state, “The Church is betrothed to Christ. Christ has paid the dowry for her. He has bought the one who is essentially - is to be eschatologically - His bride.” [5]
The Westminster Confession states that if there should be a breech of contract during this betrothal or engagement period that the innocent party may lawfully dissolve the contract. We see an example of this in the Gospels when Joseph discovers that his betrothed is pregnant but because He did not know that this was a virgin pregnancy from the Holy Spirit that he sought to quietly dissolve the contract:
“Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly. But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, ‘Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.’” (Matthew 1:18-21)
Here it is important to note that a marriage is a familial contract. It is not within the jurisdiction of the state to issue licenses nor is it within the jurisdiction of the church to declare marriage a sacrament. While the state ought to defend the Biblical definition of marriage and the church ought to teach and support Biblical marriages, the responsibility to arrange and conduct marriages falls within the realm of the family. A marriage is the legal binding of two people, a man and a woman, from two families to form a new family unit win which they leave their parents and cleave to one another (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:4; Ephesians 5:31). This forms a legal and familial bridge between two families with the result that the two sets of parents become “in-laws.”
The Westminster Confession goes on to state the Biblical grounds for a divorce after the marriage has been finalized:
VI. Although the corruption of man be such as is apt to study arguments unduly to put asunder those whom God has joined together in marriage: yet, nothing but adultery, or such willful desertion as can no way be remedied by the Church, or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage: wherein, a public and orderly course of proceeding is to be observed; and the persons concerned in it not left to their own wills, and discretion, in their own case.
In short, the Bible teaches that there are only two grounds for divorce - adultery and abandonment. However, it cannot be said that a the act of adultery can be a justifiable means for a divorce without further qualifications. If a spouse commits adultery, confesses the sin and repents (changes thoughts AND actions) then the other spouse is required to forgive the offending party. (Leviticus 19:18; Matthew 6:9-15; Mark 11:25-26; Ephesians 4:32) This forgiveness entails not bringing up again the offense to the other person, not bringing it up to God nor to oneself. The result of the process of true forgiveness is reconciliation. As Jay Adams states, “Forgiveness is a means to an end - a new and better relationship with those from whom we have become estranged” [6] If then the offended party has forgiven the spouse’s sin with the result that there has been reconciliation, on what grounds do they seek a divorce? I would argue that divorce is allowable in the case of adultery only if the spouse has not repented of their behavior and continues to be unfaithful to the marriage. While we are to forgive an offending brother “seventy times seven” (Matthew 18:22) the fact that a person keeps committing the same sin repeatedly gives evidence that there has been no true repentance.
In the case of abandonment the primary example in Scripture is one in which one spouse has become a Christian and the non-believing spouse decides to leave the marriage. The Apostle Paul states that the Christian spouse is to remain with the non-Christian as long as they are willing to remain in the marriage so that the positive influence of the Gospel in the Christian’s life may convert the unbelieving spouse. However, if the unbeliever wants to leave the marriage the Christian is free to let them leave and then like a widow remarry but “only in the Lord.” (1 Corinthians 7:13-16; 39)
There are times in which there is difficulty in knowing how to apply the principles as to what constitutes “abandonment.” Does it have to meet the exact details as set out by Paul? May a Christian only divorce an abandoning unbeliever? Or is the case he is presenting only an example of a principle that may be applied in multiple circumstances?
For example, if a husband fails to uphold his marital vows to love, honor and cherish his wife by refusing to support the wife and provide for his children, using the marriage as a convenience for sexual favors, such that he becomes worse than an unbeliever (1 Timothy 5:8), is this a justification for divorce? There are wives whose husbands abandon the church, refuse to submit to the elders, are lazy in refusing to work to support the family, demand that the wife both work in and out of the home to bring income into the home and yet call themselves “Christian.” While he may remain in the house and demand sex from his wife he only wants the benefits of marriage and yet not the responsibilities. One might argue that in essence the husband has abandoned the marriage by virtue of his actions for he is no longer acting as a husband, but rather as a pimp. He has become a slave master rather than a reflection of Christ and is objectively an apostate form the faith. His actions have proven his claim to faith to be dead. (James 2:17) While we ought not to play fast and loose with the law of God we also ought to recognize the principle of the commandment and recognize that it may have multiple applications within the complex web of sin in the church.
Study Questions for Applying This Lesson
(1) If you are an adult single, are you content in your current state? Are you using your freedom from the earthly concerns of marriage to further the Kingdom of God?
(2) If you are a single man and desire to be married, are you preparing yourself (financially and in Christian knowledge and maturity) for marriage? A man, before marriage, is called to demonstrate two things: A pattern of obedience and responsibility. Only then is he ready to establish a new home.
(3) If you are a husband, are you answering your call to love your wife as Christ loved the church by laying aside your selfishness and living sacrificially for your wife and children?
(4) If you are a wife, are seeking to be a help-meet to your husband in his calling, submitting to him as the church is to submit to Christ?
(5) If you are a single woman are you seeking to become the manager of a home? Are you learning how to become a Proverbs 31 wife? Or are you spending your time being a busy-body in the church, in the neighborhood and on the internet?
|
| | |
| End Notes |
| |
[1] Jay Adams, Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in The Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980), pg. 16
[2] Jay Adams, Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in The Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980), pg. 17
[3] Catechism of the Catholic Church (Mahwah, New Jersey; Paulist Press, 1994), section 1635, pg. 408
[4] William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary: Galatians and Ephesians (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 252.
[5] William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary: Galatians and Ephesians (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 252.
[6] Jay Adam, From Forgiven to Forgiving (Calvary Press, 1994), pg. 68
|
| |
|
