The Seriousness of the Sin of Remarriage after Divorce, part 9

This is a postscript to my article series “The Seriousness of the Sin of Remarriage after Divorce”.  After I wrote this series, I did some research on history of this issue.  I was particularly interested in the history of the issue in the Restoration Movement (or Stone-Campbell Movement) because I am a member of one of the congregations of the Christian Churches and Churches of Christ, which is one of the three groups of churches that sprung out of that movement.  Yet my congregation and every other one that I know of in the Christian Churches and Churches of Christ is an apostate congregation because they reject Jesus’ teaching on remarriage after divorce.  They don’t just allow adultery, but support it.

I had a feeling that, in the past, people took this issue very seriously and uncompromisingly, but I hadn’t seen any evidence to back it up.  Then I read an article on the history of this issue in the church, both generally and within the Restoration Movement.  The article is posted on a church of Christ (non-instrumental) website.  It would seem from the article that, though there were varying opinions within the Restoration Movement about the issue, some more and some less strict than mine, remarriage after divorce was generally regarded as adultery and anyone guilty of such was supposed to be put out of the church in accordance with I Corinthians 5.

I have also viewed some sermons and other materials from the church of Christ that seem to be favorable towards a literal, uncompromising interpretation of the passages on remarriage after divorce.  I don’t believe that there is anything wrong with using instruments in a church service, but I’d rather go without instruments than to be in a church where adultery is practiced within the four walls of the church and with the consent of the elders. 

But the other reason for this post is to examine one particular aspect of that I hadn’t really considered before.  Some in the Restoration Movement took a position which is even stricter than mine.  According to the article (referring to the “Disciples” branch of the Movement), “’If a person not yet a Christian divorces for other than adultery, remarries, and is then converted, can he enter the fellowship of the congregation?’ Except for two church spokesmen, the answer demanded that the current, and, in their opinion, unscriptural marriage be dissolved.”

I do not agree with this opinion.  Even though such a marriage is obviously unscriptural, it shouldn’t be dissolved without some other reason and such a dissolution certainly shouldn’t be a precondition of church membership.  I can see two reasons why people may think that this is case.

      1.    Because in the passages in the Gospels, the Greek verb “commit” is in a “continuous action” tense. 

      2.    Because it is called adultery, it cannot be a real marriage.

My understanding of the Greek is that is the verb tense that is used sometimes indicates a continuous action, but not always.  Furthermore, even if the intended meaning is that adultery is continuously committed after the joining in (re)marriage, there is no indication in Scripture that dissolving such a union is the proper remedy in such a situation.  Nothing indicates that such action would put a stop to the adultery.  If this were the case, then, for example, Matthew 5:32b would instead read something like, “Whoever is married to a woman who was put away by another husband is committing adultery.” 

At the beginning of this series of articles I wrote, “I take all these passages at face value without exception.  I am absolutely not saying anything more or anything less about the issue than what the New Testament clearly teaches.”  Every passage of Scripture on this subject calls the sinful joining in marriage by the name “marriage”.  If these were not marriages at all, then God wouldn’t confuse us by calling it by that name, just as He would not call it by the name “adultery” if that were not also the case.  It may be counterintuitive that both are true of the same union, but if that is what God says about it, that is what I believe it to be.  One of the sayings in the early Restoration Movement was, “Call Bible things by Bible names.”  A corollary to the idea that these aren’t really marriages is that the remarried can or should rejoin their previous spouse, something which is condemned even by the Law of Moses, which is much more lenient on this issue (see Deuteronomy 24:1-4).  Thus this doctrine may be even more dangerous in some ways than the idea of rejecting the whole teaching on remarriage altogether.

In conclusion, in the absence of sufficient evidence to prove that either (1) divorce or separation puts an end to an adulterous state brought on by a remarriage after divorce or that (2) remarriage after divorce under the prohibited conditions is not marriage at all, it should be assumed that all Scriptures concerning marriage should apply even to one which is adultery, which includes those which condemn divorce.  

The Seriousness of the Sin of Remarriage after Divorce, part 9

This is a postscript to my article series “The Seriousness of the Sin of Remarriage after Divorce”.  After I wrote this series, I did some research on history of this issue.  I was particularly interested in the history of the issue in the Restoration Movement (or Stone-Campbell Movement) because I am a member of one of the congregations of the Christian Churches and Churches of Christ, which is one of the three groups of churches that sprung out of that movement.  Yet my congregation and every other one that I know of in the Christian Churches and Churches of Christ is an apostate congregation because they reject Jesus’ teaching on remarriage after divorce.  They don’t just allow adultery, but support it.

I had a feeling that, in the past, people took this issue very seriously and uncompromisingly, but I hadn’t seen any evidence to back it up.  Then I read an article on the history of this issue in the church, both generally and within the Restoration Movement.  The article is posted on a church of Christ (non-instrumental) website.  It would seem from the article that, though there were varying opinions within the Restoration Movement about the issue, some more and some less strict than mine, remarriage after divorce was generally regarded as adultery and anyone guilty of such was supposed to be put out of the church in accordance with I Corinthians 5.

I have also viewed some sermons and other materials from the church of Christ that seem to be favorable towards a literal, uncompromising interpretation of the passages on remarriage after divorce.  I don’t believe that there is anything wrong with using instruments in a church service, but I’d rather go without instruments than to be in a church where adultery is practiced within the four walls of the church and with the consent of the elders. 

But the other reason for this post is to examine one particular aspect of that I hadn’t really considered before.  Some in the Restoration Movement took a position which is even stricter than mine.  According to the article (referring to the “Disciples” branch of the Movement), “’If a person not yet a Christian divorces for other than adultery, remarries, and is then converted, can he enter the fellowship of the congregation?’ Except for two church spokesmen, the answer demanded that the current, and, in their opinion, unscriptural marriage be dissolved.”

I do not agree with this opinion.  Even though such a marriage is obviously unscriptural, it shouldn’t be dissolved without some other reason and such a dissolution certainly shouldn’t be a precondition of church membership.  I can see two reasons why people may think that this is case.

      1.    Because in the passages in the Gospels, the Greek verb “commit” is in a “continuous action” tense. 

      2.    Because it is called adultery, it cannot be a real marriage.

My understanding of the Greek is that is the verb tense that is used sometimes indicates a continuous action, but not always.  Furthermore, even if the intended meaning is that adultery is continuously committed after the joining in (re)marriage, there is no indication in Scripture that dissolving such a union is the proper remedy in such a situation.  Nothing indicates that such action would put a stop to the adultery.  If this were the case, then, for example, Matthew 5:31-32 would instead read something like, “Whoever is married to a woman who was put away by another husband is committing adultery.” 

At the beginning of this series of articles I wrote, “I take all these passages at face value without exception.  I am absolutely not saying anything more or anything less about the issue than what the New Testament clearly teaches.”  Every passage of Scripture on this subject calls the sinful joining in marriage by the name “marriage”.  If these were not marriages at all, then God wouldn’t confuse us by calling it by that name, just as He would not call it by the name “adultery” if that were not also the case.  It may be counterintuitive that both are true of the same union, but if that is what God says about it, that is what I believe it to be.  One of the sayings in the early Restoration Movement was, “Call Bible things by Bible names.”  A corollary to the idea that these aren’t really marriages is that the remarried can or should rejoin their previous spouse, something which is condemned even by the Law of Moses, which is much more lenient on this issue (see Deuteronomy 24:1-4).  Thus this doctrine may be even more dangerous in some ways than the idea of rejecting the whole teaching on remarriage altogether.

In conclusion, in the absence of sufficient evidence to prove that either (1) divorce or separation puts an end to an adulterous state brought on by a remarriage after divorce or that (2) remarriage after divorce under the prohibited conditions is not marriage at all, it should be assumed that all Scriptures concerning marriage should apply even to one which is adultery, which includes those which condemn divorce.  

The Seriousness of the Sin of Remarriage after Divorce, part 9

This is a postscript to my article series “The Seriousness of the Sin of Remarriage after Divorce”.  After I wrote this series, I did some research on history of this issue.  I was particularly interested in the history of the issue in the Restoration Movement (or Stone-Campbell Movement) because I am a member of one of the congregations of the Christian Churches and Churches of Christ, which is one of the three groups of churches that sprung out of that movement.  Yet my congregation and every other one that I know of in the Christian Churches and Churches of Christ is an apostate congregation because they reject Jesus’ teaching on remarriage after divorce.  They don’t just allow adultery, but support it.

I had a feeling that, in the past, people took this issue very seriously and uncompromisingly, but I hadn’t seen any evidence to back it up.  Then I read an article on the history of this issue in the church, both generally and within the Restoration Movement.  The article is posted on a church of Christ (non-instrumental) website.  It would seem from the article that, though there were varying opinions within the Restoration Movement about the issue, some more and some less strict than mine, remarriage after divorce was generally regarded as adultery and anyone guilty of such was supposed to be put out of the church in accordance with I Corinthians 5.

I have also viewed some sermons and other materials from the church of Christ that seem to be favorable towards a literal, uncompromising interpretation of the passages on remarriage after divorce.  I don’t believe that there is anything wrong with using instruments in a church service, but I’d rather go without instruments than to be in a church where adultery is practiced within the four walls of the church and with the consent of the elders. 

But the other reason for this post is to examine one particular aspect of that I hadn’t really considered before.  Some in the Restoration Movement took a position which is even stricter than mine.  According to the article (referring to the “Disciples” branch of the Movement), “’If a person not yet a Christian divorces for other than adultery, remarries, and is then converted, can he enter the fellowship of the congregation?’ Except for two church spokesmen, the answer demanded that the current, and, in their opinion, unscriptural marriage be dissolved.”

I do not agree with this opinion.  Even though such a marriage is obviously unscriptural, it shouldn’t be dissolved without some other reason and such a dissolution certainly shouldn’t be a precondition of church membership.  I can see two reasons why people may think that this is case.

      1.    Because in the passages in the Gospels, the Greek verb “commit” is in a “continuous action” tense. 

      2.    Because it is called adultery, it cannot be a real marriage.

My understanding of the Greek is that is the verb tense that is used sometimes indicates a continuous action, but not always.  Furthermore, even if the intended meaning is that adultery is continuously committed after the joining in (re)marriage, there is no indication in Scripture that dissolving such a union is the proper remedy in such a situation.  Nothing indicates that such action would put a stop to the adultery.  If this were the case, then, for example, Matthew 5:31 would instead read something like, “Whoever is married to a woman who was put away by another husband is committing adultery.” 

At the beginning of this series of articles I wrote, “I take all these passages at face value without exception.  I am absolutely not saying anything more or anything less about the issue than what the New Testament clearly teaches.”  Every passage of Scripture on this subject calls the sinful joining in marriage by the name “marriage”.  If these were not marriages at all, then God wouldn’t confuse us by calling it by that name, just as He would not call it by the name “adultery” if that were not also the case.  It may be counterintuitive that both are true of the same union, but if that is what God says about it, that is what I believe it to be.  One of the sayings in the early Restoration Movement was, “Call Bible things by Bible names.”  A corollary to the idea that these aren’t really marriages is that the remarried can or should rejoin their previous spouse, something which is condemned even by the Law of Moses, which is much more lenient on this issue (see Deuteronomy 24:1-4).  Thus this doctrine may be even more dangerous in some ways than the idea of rejecting the whole teaching on remarriage altogether.

In conclusion, in the absence of sufficient evidence to prove that either (1) divorce or separation puts an end to an adulterous state brought on by a remarriage after divorce or that (2) remarriage after divorce under the prohibited conditions is not marriage at all, it should be assumed that all Scriptures concerning marriage should apply even to one which is adultery, which includes those which condemn divorce.  

The Seriousness of the Sin of Remarriage after Divorce, part 7

This is a series of posts designed to convince people of the Biblical truth that remarriage after divorce is adultery and that the fact that the modern American Christian church has by-and-large rejected this teaching is proof that it is in a state of apostasy.  This article is the seventh in the series.  Click here to read the first article.

Already Married or Shot Gun Wedding?

What about a man and a woman who have already been living together or have already had sexual intercourse?  Break this down into two claims.  First one might claim that the man and woman are then really already married in God’s eyes.  This claim is false because there is nothing in the Bible to substantiate this and Jesus said, “…the man you now have is not your husband…” to the woman at the well (John 4:18).  Another variation would be to say that the man and the woman are not already married, but are obligated to be married because of what they have already done (i.e. a shot gun wedding doctrine).  Here is closest thing I could find about this:

Exodus 22:16-17 says,

If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (KJV) says,

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

(Both the 1984 and the 2011 NIV version of the above passage use the word “rapes” which I do not agree with.  But that interpretation is of no benefit for one arguing against me.) 

This argument is obviously false.  For one thing, a divorced woman is not a virgin. 

And again, we do not live under the laws of the Old Testament.  That laws against sexual acts in the Law of Moses carry over into the New Testament is something which may be indicated in Acts 15:29, 21:25.

Acts 15:28-29 says,

It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things…

Acts 21:25 says,

As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.

But these passages in Acts most definitely do not say that anything that is permitted under the Law of Moses is permitted for New Testament Christians!  And more to the point, it doesn’t say that an obligation (to marry) under Law of Moses is also a New Testament obligation.  Concerning sexual immorality, it is at most only saying that any sexual behavior that is prohibited under the Law of Moses is also prohibited for New Testament Christians.  The key word or phrase is “abstain” or “keep themselves from” (KJV).  It’s funny how some people would want part of Exodus 22:16-17 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29 to carry over into the New Testament, but they have no need to do so when it comes to paying 50 shekels of silver, getting the father’s permission, or that “he may not put her away all his days”.  Everybody always takes the more permissive part and ignores the rest.

Suppose the divorced woman and the man she is living with have children together.  Since the children belong to the father and since according to the Bible, the father is commanded to teach, discipline and take care of his children, then couldn’t the father marry the mother of his children so that he can obey these other biblical commandments?  No.  You could use the same argument to justify polyandry.  If the commandment against remarriage after divorce was not a moral absolute, then it would be a good argument.  But it is a moral absolute, so it isn’t a good argument.  It might be difficult for a father in this situation to fulfill the biblical commandments concerning parenthood without marrying the mother, but it is not impossible.

There are numerous other false exceptions such as physical abuse, alcoholism, etc.  This writing cannot address all of these issues, but suffice it to say that they are not scripturally supportable.  These are purely visceral arguments.  And remember that the issue of remarriage after divorce and the issue of what constitutes biblical grounds for divorce are two different issues.

Click here to read the conclusion of this series.

The Seriousness of the Sin of Remarriage after Divorce, part 5

This is a series of posts designed to convince people of the Biblical truth that remarriage after divorce is adultery and that the fact that the modern American Christian church has by-and-large rejected this teaching is proof that it is in a state of apostasy.  This article is the fifth in the series.  Click here to read the first article.

Real Exceptions to the Rule

Sure there are exceptions to the rule that remarriage after divorce is adultery.  But you cannot make up your own exceptions!  Only the ones mentioned in Scripture are acceptable.  If a man and a woman get a divorce and then he dies, then she is free to remarry (in the Lord) according to Romans 7:2-3 and I Corinthians 7:39. 

The second real exception is that a man can remarry if he divorced his wife because of her fornication.  I am assuming that Matthew 19:9 is a more complete version of the same statements found in Mark 10:11 and Luke 16:18. And (I repeat) note that sexual immorality and fornication are the most correct translations of the Greek word used here.

The third exception is not so obvious.  This is because, technically, the case of a man abandoned by his wife is not an exception to a commandment, but it is simply territory that was never covered by the commandment to begin with.  It is very important to note that this has nothing to do with I Corinthians 7:15 (this passage will be discussed in the next section).  The only statement in the New Testament about a man remarrying after divorce is in Matthew 19:9 (NKJV):

I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.

Focus on the “…who divorces his wife…” part for a minute. The verb divorce means to “put away” (in the King James Version) or “drive out”.  When a divorce occurs, it is sometimes the man who puts away his wife and sometimes it is the other way around.  Nothing is said in Scripture about a man remarrying after his wife put him away.   If a woman leaves her husband without his consent, then this could hardly be described as “he put away his wife”.  And if that happened, then how could it be said that “he causes her to commit adultery” (1984 NIV) or “makes her the victim of adultery” (Matthew 5:32, 2011 NIV)?  As with other exceptions, I am not saying that anyone in the situation could never sin by remarrying, but generally speaking, it is not sinful because the Bible does not address this specific case.

But it is always wrong for a woman remarry while the man she was married to is still alive.  All of that territory is covered by the commandments.  It doesn’t matter whether he was the one who put her away (Matthew 5:32, 19:9, and Luke 16:18) or vice versa (Mark 10:12, I Corinthians 7:10-11). Romans 7:2-3 and I Corinthians 7:39 also cover both cases and any other case that you might imagine (e.g. a mutual separation).  It doesn’t matter if the husband committed fornication because this exception is not mentioned.  As I said in the beginning, I take everything word in the Bible about this issue at face value.  Men and women are different.  This means you can’t generally interchange the words husband/man for wife/woman.  The resulting statement may not necessarily be true.  To assume otherwise would be to deny that women and men have different roles in marriage.

In the next two sections I will address in depth two false exceptions.

The Seriousness of the Sin of Remarriage after Divorce, part 4

This is a series of posts designed to convince people of the Biblical truth that remarriage after divorce is adultery and that the fact that the modern American Christian church has by-and-large rejected this teaching is proof that it is in a state of apostasy.  This article is the fourth in the series.  Click here to read the first article.

Old Testament or New Testament Church?

Deuteronomy 24:1-4 says:

If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, ² and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, ³ and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, ⁴ then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the Lord. Do not bring sin upon the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.

This seems to be saying that it is OK for a divorced woman to remarry as long as she does not return to a husband that she had before her last husband.  But if you want to use this or any other Old Testament passage to justify what Jesus calls adultery, you have just one problem in your argument.  We are not an Old Testament church under the old covenant, we are (at least supposed to be) a New Testament church under the new covenant.  If you want to use passages like these, then to be consistent, you must be circumcised, sacrifice animals for your sins, refrain from eating pork and shellfish and obey scores of other commandments.  Choose one or the other covenant.  You cannot build your own religion taking what parts of each Testament that you like and rejecting the rest.  Using Deuteronomy 24 to justify oneself is perhaps even more of foolish argument that the legalism one (Romans 3:20, Galatians 2:16-19).  Even someone with cursory knowledge of the Bible should reject it immediately.  But if need some verses to prove this, start by reading Romans 4:14, Galatians 3:11, 5:4, and Ephesians 2:15.  Then you can read the entire book of Hebrews.

There are passages in the New Testament which speak of “fulfilling the Law (of the Old Testament)” (Matthew 5:17-18, Romans 13:10, Galatians 5:14). These do not contradict the above passages.  The Old Testament has a “surface meaning” or “letter of the Law” and a deeper “spiritual meaning” or “spirit of the Law”. There is no contradiction, it is just that in some sense we fulfill the “spirit” of Law of Moses by loving God and our neighbor.  But the letter of the Law is not for us (Romans 7:6).  (And that does not mean that there are no moral absolutes or that the loving thing to do is to turn a blind eye to adultery!)

Just because the Old Testament generally seems to be stricter as to rules for living than New Testament that does not mean that it is on every subject.  Acts 17:30 says, “In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent…”

These things are explained even more fully in the context of some of the seven passages on remarriage after divorce.  Referring to Deuteronomy 24, the Pharisees said to Jesus, “Why then, did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?” (Matthew 19:7)  Jesus’ answered, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard.” (Matthew 19:8, Mark 10:5)  Therefore the escape clause of Deuteronomy 24 does not apply to us.  It is not that remarriage after divorce was any less dirty or degrading in the Old Testament era than it is now.  For Jesus says, “But it was not this way from the beginning.” (Matthew 19:8)  It has always been immoral, but the Israelites of the Old Testament could not receive it because their hearts were hard.  “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given… The one who can accept this should accept it.” (Matthew 19:11-12)  The Old Testament teaches that the hearts of the Israelites were hard as stone, but in the future their hearts would be replaced with hearts of flesh (Ezekiel 11:19).  Surely, Christ has fulfilled this passage in us (true believers) through the work of the Holy Spirit and we do not live by the inferior standard of Deuteronomy 24 which was preferred by the Pharisees.  By the power of Christ in us we can and must receive Jesus’ teaching and live by the higher standard.  Jesus says in Matthew 5:20,

For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

And I Timothy 1:9 says,

 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers…

Jesus also said to the Pharisees in Luke 16:15,

You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of others, but God knows your hearts. What people value highly is detestable in God’s sight.

Then he contrasts the transient nature of the Law with the gospel of the kingdom in Luke 16:16,

The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing their way into it.

Matthew 11:12-13 says,

From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been subjected to violence, and violent people have been raiding it.

This perfectly describes the situation.  Apostates and false converts have forced their way into positions of authority in the Church and have done violence to the institution of marriage by approving of adultery.  Their successors have largely followed suit because they were deceived by those who came before and continue to destroy what is left of the true Church.

Jesus continues in Luke 16:16,

It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law.

He may be talking about the “spirit of the law” concept mentioned earlier or the fact that He had to die on the cross to redeem us from the Law.  (Which would have been easier to do, the suffering of the cross or to move heaven and earth?)  Note that on the day of the crucifixion, the Sun was darkened (Luke 23:45) and afterward there was an earthquake (Matthew 27:54, 28:2).  Heaven and earth did not disappear, but they were at least moved.   All this talk of the inferiority and transient nature of the Law of Moses in Luke 16 builds up to the next verse (:18) which is the fourth of the seven passages condemning remarriage after divorce,

Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

The sixth and seventh of the passages are in Corinthians who were noted for being rebellious and sexually immoral.  They were the only ones who needed any further convincing than what was already written. 

The fifth passage is Romans 7:2-3, but it is given in a very matter-of-fact manner.  (Unlike the Corinthians, the audience Paul is addressing here generally already knew and believed Jesus’ teachings concerning marriage and sexual immorality.)  The context (verses 1-7) reveals that Paul is merely using the fact that marriage is binding until death to symbolically illustrate another fact.  This fact just so happens to be the very thing that I am trying to convince you of in this section of this article!  You see, just as it is impossible for someone to be bound by both the old covenant and the new covenant at the same time, so too it is impossible for a woman to be bound to two husbands at the same time.  It is not possible for the new covenant to take effect in your life until the old covenant is dead to you.  So too it is impossible (without committing adultery) for a woman to marry a husband if another man that she already married has not yet passed away.  If you aren't convinced that this is an absolute statement, then it follows that you will also not believe that what it represents is absolute.

God knew all of the objections that people would have to this teaching.  It is very clear that He purposefully put answers to these objections in very convenient places. 

And besides all of the negative consequences of disobeying God’s Word there are many positives to taking the right position on the issue.  A biblically correct Christian may be asked why they don’t date or won’t marry a divorcee.  Or if the biblically correct Christian is a divorcée they may be asked why they don’t date at all.  These situations are perfect witnessing opportunities.   It is a way for Christians to stand out from the hard-hearted majority and show that God loves them enough to spare them from the dirtiness of sexual immorality.  It demonstrates the power of God to transform lives and shows that what was not possible under the inferior Law of Moses is possible when one is under the blood of Christ which is superior.  But to deny Jesus’ teaching on the subject makes harder to show that you are any different than someone you are trying to witness to.  It denies the power of God which is actually grounds for dis-fellowship (2 Timothy 3:5).  It makes it impossible to prove that you should take any other commandment or teaching in the Bible seriously.  There are still some people left who think critically and are hungry for holiness and consistency.  But they are not finding it in the modern American Christian churches.  Instead of trying to find arguments against Jesus’ teaching and trying to justify adultery under a particular set of circumstances, we should be thanking Jesus for giving us this special blessing of holiness and the ability to accept it.

Click here to read the next article in the series.

The Seriousness of the Sin of Remarriage after Divorce, part 3

This is a series of posts designed to convince people of the Biblical truth that remarriage after divorce is adultery and that the fact that the modern American Christian church has by-and-large rejected this teaching is proof that it is in a state of apostasy.  This article is the third in the series.  Click here to read the first article.

Too Legalistic?

The preacher in my church once gave a sermon on legalism and defined it as “when you care more about rules (or commandments) than you care about people”.  Actually, loving people comes second to loving God (Matthew 22:36-40).  And I would consider legalism to include more than just that.  But for purposes of this discussion, I will use his definition.  I will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that I am absolutely not being legalistic at all.  The probability is greater that I am not a real person, but only a figment of your imagination than the probability that I am being legalistic on this issue.

Suppose a homosexual couple came to your church and asked if they could become members of your church and asked if their homosexual lifestyle would be accepted in the church.  The elders of the church might tell them “no” and they may quote scriptures about the sinfulness of homosexuality to back up their decision.    But the homosexual couple could say this: 

We have been “married” for years and over the years we adopted many children.  We fed, clothed and nurtured these children.  We gave these children a good education and taught them to be honest, responsible, caring and compassionate.  Some of them have already grown up and have become good, hardworking, taxpaying citizens.  It might have been better if they had both a mother and a father to raise them, but if we hadn’t adopted them, they may have had no parents at all.  We realize that the Bible talks about homosexuality as a sin in some places, but you have to take other parts of the Bible into consideration like the Golden Rule, “do not judge lest you be judged…” and things like that.  You are asking us to break up a family unit which has been helping children for many years.  You are legalistic.  You care about your rules more than you care about people.

What would you say to this?  The right answer is to still say “no”, but why?  Why isn’t this a legalistic position?  The answer is that there are commandments which are moral absolutes.  There are also some other commandments in the Bible which we are not to take as moral absolutes.  If we do, then we are being legalistic.  As an example (Luke 13:15), Jesus taught that it is not wrong to pull a donkey out of a pit on the Sabbath (Israel was under the Old Covenant at that time).  In the New Testament, there are a lot of commandments about women.  They should submit to their husbands (Ephesians 5:22), cover their heads when they pray or prophesy (1 Corinthians 11:5), not wear jewelry (1 Peter 3:3), and be silent in the church (1 Corinthians 14:35).  There is also a commandment not to have meals in the church (1 Corinthians 11:22).  These are not moral absolutes and they should not be taken as black and white.  There are ways that you could take these commandments too seriously and in a way that would be caring about the commandment more than you care about people.

So how do we know when a commandment is a moral absolute and when we must be careful not to take it too legalistically?  First, we must realize that it is God, not us, who decides which commandments are moral absolutes and which are not.  Second, we must realize that, for each commandment, the answer to this question lies in the Bible.  In order to get a correct answer, you must throw away any preconceived ideas that come from what just seems right to you (Proverbs 14:12), what you have always been taught (Jeremiah 9:5, 14), or what the majority of so-called Christians believe (Matthew 7:14).  That last reason is an especially flimsy one since the position of the majority of self-professing Christians in this country on many issues (including remarriage after divorce) has changed in the not too distant past and most likely will continue to change in the future.  You should instead answer this question by paying attention to how the commandment is worded, the context in which it is found, and what else the Bible has to say about the subject.  Ask yourself, “What is the purpose of this commandment?” and “What will happen to someone who disobeys it?”  Then find the answer to these questions in the Bible, and not by relying on preconceived, manmade, visceral ideas.

Returning to the example of the homosexual couple, consider those two questions.  Romans 1 clearly teaches that homosexuality is dirty and degrading.  I Corinthians 6:9-10 teaches that homosexuals will not inherit into the Kingdom of God.  There is only one other place for them to go.  That is why you can say unequivocally that it is unacceptable to accept an unrepentant homosexual couple into the membership of the church.  When someone’s eternal salvation is at stake, this far outweighs all other considerations.  This is why the other circumstances that were passionately appealed to by the hypothetical homosexual couple should be disregarded as completely irrelevant.  How else would you know that this is the right thing to do?

But Jesus does not just say, “if you are divorced, then don’t remarry”.  He calls it adultery.  This is one of the sins listed in I Corinthians 6:9-10 right along with homosexuality.  Anyone who does it is in the same boat as the homosexual.  Does it make any sense to say, “I will help someone to commit adultery because I care more about them more than I care about the commandment”?  How foolish! 

What I have written so far should be enough to convince you.  But I have mountains of more evidence to prove my point.  There is another sin which Jesus also calls adultery.  Matthew 5:27-28 says,

You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Does it make any sense to say, “I am going to give some guy some pornography or help him to get his jollies looking at some other man’s wife because I care about him more than I care about keeping this commandment?”  Then why should the other kind of adultery be any different?  Why is it that remarriage after divorce is the only form of sexual immorality that is not considered dirty and degrading? 

I have heard some people say that they threw away their computers in order to overcome their addiction to internet pornography.  Is this too extreme?  Were they being legalistic?  I would hope that anyone reading this would not think so.  But just in case you do, I quote the verses following the commandment against lusting after women.  Matthew 5:29 says,

If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 

If that verse doesn’t convince you that Jesus is talking about a “black and white” issue, not subject to arguments against legalism, then nothing that Jesus could have said would convince you.  There is no stronger warning against sin anywhere in the Bible.  The verse indicates that one should take extreme measures to avoid the aforementioned activity and nothing in the Bible says this more clearly, strongly or urgently as this verse.  But Jesus doesn’t stop with eyes.  Matthew 5:30 says,

And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

Verse 29 clearly goes with verse 28.  But what does verse 30 go with?  Read the next two verses!

It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

When you are reading Matthew chapter 5 you might immediately forget verse 30 while you are reading verses 31 and 32.  You might think that God wants you to mentally place an impenetrable wall between verses 30 and 31 so that nothing on one side of the wall has anything to do with what is on the other side of the wall.  If this is what you believe, then ask yourself, “Do I believe this because it is an application of a reasonable hermeneutic, or do I just not want to believe what Jesus is saying?”  Matthew chapter 5 is the first portion of a sermon preached by Jesus—the Sermon on the Mount to be exact.  It is not just a random collection of wise sayings or weak platitudes put in some random order.

We have the expression “to take one’s hand in marriage”.  In verses 33-37 Jesus tells us not to take oaths, something that is done by raising one’s right hand (c.f. Genesis 24:2-3).  The next thing Jesus commands starts out like this:

       If anyone slaps you on the right cheek...

First an extreme warning against sins committed with the hand, and then three sins in a row that are committed with the hand!  Notice that Jesus did not say, “…if your hands cause you to stumble…”  The expression is not “May I have your hands in marriage”.  And when you take an oath you raise your right hand, not both hands!  In every case, the hand is singular, not plural.  Yet there are many other places in the Bible where it explicitly mentions sins that are committed with both hands (Numbers 24:10, Deuteronomy 21:7, Judges 14:9, 2 Kings 19:18, 2 Kings 22:17, 2 Chronicles 32:19, 2 Chronicles 34:25, etc).  Even though this paragraph is definitely the weakest of all my arguments, it is very hard to believe that this is just a coincidence.  But I’m not done.  So far I have only examined the context of the first of the seven passages condemning remarriage after divorce.  There are still mountains of more evidence in the other six!

At the beginning of Matthew chapter 18, Jesus speaks of the value of children.  Jesus values them very highly.  When someone sins against a child it does more harm to them than to an adult.  That is why Jesus levies such a harsh statement against those who do it.  Everybody knows that divorce harms children.  But nobody talks about the damage done by remarriage after divorce.  Do you really think that a child of a divorced parent who remarries outside God’s boundaries won’t be more prone to commit sexual immorality because of it?  What if a child asked you about one the seven passages?  How would you explain it without nullifying the whole of Scripture?  You may teach your children that marriage is sacred, but if your actions don’t match your words, it probably won’t do any good at all.  And everybody talks about how bad it is for a homosexual couple to have joint custody of children as opposed to a “one man, one woman” household.  But there is more than one way for a child to have two dads.  Is one really that much more unhealthy than the other?  Better to have only a single parent than two adulterous ones.

After the verse about it being better to have a millstone put around your neck than to cause a child to sin, Jesus makes statements about it being better to remove body parts to avoid sinning than to be cast into hell similar to the statements in chapter 5 verses 29 and 30.  Then at almost the beginning of the very next chapter (Matthew 19:3-12) there is the second of the seven New Testament passages which condemn remarriage after divorce.  Then Jesus immediately returns to talking about the value of children (Matthew 19:13-15), which completes the circuit tying it back to the beginning of the previous chapter.  It is very clear that three ideas are tied together: remarriage after divorce is a sin, causing children to sin is a sin, and the idea that a sin can be so bad that one should prefer to remove his own body parts rather than to commit that sin.

In Mark 9:42-10:16 there is the same sequence.  First there is the commandment about causing children to sin and the millstone around the man’s neck.  Second there are the “body parts” verses.  Third, there is the commandment against remarriage after divorce.  And fourth Jesus ties it all together by returning to talk about the value of children.  The only difference is that these verses are even closer together than in Matthew 18-19.  There are only a couple of other verses in between. Mark 9:49-50 says,

Everyone will be salted with fire.  Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? Have salt among yourselves, and be at peace with each other.

If in our church, it is acceptable for people to change sex partners as much as they want as long as they have good intentions in the eyes of the elders, get counseling, and sign a worthless piece of paper before each one, then how are we any different than rest of world?  Like salt, the church is supposed to preserve things.  Marriage is one of those things.  But as it stands, we may as well be condoning cohabitation without marriage.  The salt has lost its saltiness.  As long as we are not following God’s Word, there will be at best a reluctant uneasiness, not real peace with one another.  This is because words like “till death do you part” and “and long as the both of you shall live” don’t mean anything at all anymore.  So why would you take anything else that anybody says seriously?

Despite that Luke was a doctor, there aren’t any verses about removing body parts in his gospel.  But immediately after Jesus’ teaching in Luke 16:18 against remarriage after divorce, there is a parable about a man being tormented in Hades because he would not repent.  This is not exactly what you would expect as a follow up to a non-“black and white” commandment like women should be silent in the church or women should not wear jewelry.  Immediately after this parable, there in Luke 17:2 is again teaching about the millstone around the neck and causing children to sin.  This is too much to be coincidence.  Note that Luke’s gospel does not include anything about divorce itself being sinful—only remarriage after divorce.  Thus there is nothing in Luke to connect Luke 17:2 to a commandment against divorce, only remarriage after divorce!

To summarize, the following facts are true:

1.      According to both Jesus and the apostle Paul, remarriage after divorce is adultery and adulterers cannot inherit the Kingdom of God.

2.      There are exactly three passages in the Bible which speak of it being more profitable to remove parts of your body than to have your whole body cast into hell because the parts of your body cause you to sin. 

3.      These three passages are the clearest, strongest and most urgent warnings against sin in the entire Bible.  They clearly indicate that Jesus is speaking of sins that one should go to extreme measures in order to avoid.

4.      A commandment against remarriage after divorce appears within the context of all three of these passages.  This is not true of any other commandment.

5.      Matthew 18-19, Mark 9-10 are probably referring to the same incident (and possibly also Luke 16-17), but Matthew 5 was definitely a different occasion.  Thus the three passages represent at least two instances in which Jesus condemned remarriage after divorce and gave the heaviest of all biblical warnings in the same breath.

6.      A very harsh warning against causing children to sin appears in each of the three synoptic gospels.

7.      Every time this harsh warning appears, there is always a commandment against remarriage after divorce within its context (sometimes before and sometimes after).  But there is not always a commandment against divorce itself.

8.      Every time a gospel writer records Jesus condemning remarriage after divorce, there always a warning about damnation within its context.  Such juxtaposition is recorded in four places which represent at least two occurrences.

9.      If you look up the non-“black and white” commandments which I mentioned earlier (or any others you might find) you will never find within their contexts even an implicit reference to damnation (such as a warning about sinners not entering the Kingdom of God), much less the word “hell”, “Hades” or the like.

Given these facts, read the last few words of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16:27-31:

“He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’

“Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’

“‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

You have even more than Moses and the prophets.  You have gospel of the New Testament.  If this isn’t good enough to convince you that remarriage after divorce is a “black and white” sin, then nothing that Jesus (the One who rose from the dead) could have said would have been good enough to convince you.  This legalism argument is nothing but a visceral reaction (i.e. gut feeling) against the truth.  

Click here to continue reading.

The Seriousness of the Sin of Remarriage after Divorce, part 2

This is a series of posts designed to convince people of the Biblical truth that remarriage after divorce is adultery and that the fact that the modern American Christian church has by-and-large rejected this teaching is proof that it is in a state of apostasy.  This article is the second in the series.  Click here to read the first article.

The Unforgiving Position on the Issue

Suppose a young teenage girl committed promiscuity and got pregnant as a result.  Suppose the young girl completely repented of the sin of promiscuity and was completely forgiven of it by God.  Would that mean that it is not a sin for the girl to have an abortion?  An abortion advocate (such as Obama) might argue that the girl would have to endure months of embarrassment, shame, labor pains, and fears and worries about how she is going to take care of the baby.  How can you punish the young girl with these things if she has been forgiven by God?  I would hope that no one reading this would fall for this argument.  The purpose of forbidding an abortion is not to punish young girls for committing promiscuity.  The purpose is to uphold the sanctity of life which is a moral absolute.  Forbidding an abortion does not in any way take away the forgiveness that the young girl received when she repented—not even a little bit.  Just because you have been forgiven of a sin, that doesn’t mean that you have now have a license to commit another, even if it supposedly alleviates some of the consequences of the first sin.  There are moral absolutes.

Now suppose a woman commits a sin against her husband which leads to a divorce.  Then suppose the woman repents of this sin and is completely forgiven of it by God.  Is it then acceptable for the woman to marry another man (while the husband she was divorced from is still living)?  No, it isn’t according the Scriptures.  The purpose of the commandment not to remarry is not to punish the woman for the sin that she committed and it does not take away the forgiveness she received when she repented—not even a little bit.  The purpose is to uphold the sanctity of marriage, to keep oneself sexually pure in God’s eyes refraining from that which is dirty and degrading.  Remarriage after divorce is called adultery several times in the Scriptures above which is a form of sexual immorality.  Is there any other form of sexual immorality which not dirty and degrading?  Why this one exception?

To further illustrate this point, suppose that a woman became pregnant by rape.  Suppose that she did absolutely nothing wrong that led to the pregnancy.  Is it then acceptable for her to murder her own baby?  I would hope that no one reading this would think so.  Even though the woman did nothing wrong, the murder of an innocent baby is still a murder which is absolutely wrong in all cases.  Similarly, even though a woman may have done everything that she could to keep a marriage together and committed no sin at all to cause the divorce, it is still wrong for her to marry another man while her husband that she was divorced from is still living.  This is because sexual immorality, as God defines it, is always wrong without exception.

Matthew 23:4 says of the scribes and the Pharisees, “They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.”  I suppose some people may conclude from this verse that Jesus never asks anyone to give up anything that is difficult to give up as a precondition of becoming one His followers.  This axiom is blown out of the water by Jesus’ discourse with the rich young ruler (Matthew 19:21).  Jesus doesn’t ask everyone to sell all of their possessions and give the money to poor before they can follow Him.  But any claim can be disproven with just one counterexample.  See also Matthew 16:24 and Luke 14:33.  Jesus does not ask everyone to give up marriage as a precondition of following Him.  But if He can ask a certain man to give up everything he has in order to follow Him, then there is no inconsistency in the premise that He requires certain people to remain unmarried for the rest of their life in order to follow Him.  This point is actually expounded on in the very context of some of the seven passages.  Matthew 19:10-12 (KJV) says,

His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Like many Christians today, the disciples had a hard time accepting this teaching. That is why they say "[then] it is not good to marry." When Jesus brings up the subject of eunuchs, He is not changing the subject, but is rather continuing to prove His original point. If God allowed to men to become eunuchs (from birth or by the hands of men) then what does a divorcée have to complain about? If some even made themselves eunuchs (or "denounced marriage" as the NIV says) for sake of the kingdom of heaven, then it follows that this was God's will for those particular men. So why is it so hard to believe that it is not God's will for a divorcée to remarry?

As I said in beginning, I am not adding anything to or taking anything away from what the Bible plainly says about remarriage after divorce.

Click here to continue to the next article in the series.

The Seriousness of the Sin of Remarriage after Divorce, part 1

This is a series of posts designed to convince people of the Biblical truth that remarriage after divorce is adultery and that the fact that the modern American Christian church has by-and-large rejected this teaching is proof that it is in a state of apostasy.  This article is the first in the series.

Introduction

I got into a discussion with the elders of my church about the sin of remarriage after divorce.  It is adultery. 

Whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.  If a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.  For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband.  So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man. If she does depart (from her husband), let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. A wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.

Whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.

If you disagree with this, you are not disagreeing with me, but God.  Everything in the above two paragraphs is word-for-word from Jesus and the apostle Paul in the New Testament.  (Matthew 5:30-31, 19:9, Mark 10:11-12, Luke 16:18, Romans 7:2-3, I Corinthians 7:10-11, 39 NKJV)  I take all these passages at face value without exception.  I am absolutely not saying anything more or anything less about the issue than what the New Testament clearly teaches.

The purpose of this article is to refute arguments which water down these Scriptures.  I categorize these arguments into three main catagories.  First, some have said that my position is an unforgiving one.  Second, they said this is not a “black and white” issue (in other words, I am being too legalistic).  Third, the Old Testament teachings uphold remarriage after divorce in some cases and we should regard these passages as applicable for us today.  Finally, I will address some other false arguments about exceptions to the rule.  

I want to be clear that I am not addressing the issue of when it is acceptable for someone to divorce their spouse or what to do if your spouse abandons you.  These are important questions, some of the Scriptures that I have quoted above are relevant to these issues, and they are somewhat related to the current topic, but they are outside the scope of what I want to talk about in this writing.  Just because someone may have biblical grounds for divorce, that doesn’t mean that they can remarry without sinning.  These are two distinct issues.

Note that, in this writing, all Scripture quotations come from the 2011 NIV unless otherwise noted.  Note that there are some slight differences between the 1984 NIV and the 2011 NIV.  For purposes of this discussion, the only one which I can see that is of any importance is that the term “marital unfaithfulness” is used in the 1984 version but is not used in the 2011 version.  In this respect, the 2011 version is more correct and actually in more in agreement with older versions, especially KJV and NKJV.  The Greek word is pornea, which obviously refers to fornication or sexual immorality.

Click here to continue reading.

The Only Other Remedy

For many Christians, Valentine’s Day is a special occasion in which fondness for one’s spouse or potential spouse is especially expressed. But for others, it is a painful time. The apostle Paul actually says that it is better not to get married seven times in 1 Corinthians 7 (vs. 1, 8, 27, 28, 32, 38, and 40). But in this chapter he recommends marriage for those who can’t control themselves (vs. 9, 36) so as to avoid fornication (vs. 2).

But this is not to say that a Christian should always marry when in this condition (not being able to control oneself with respect to a particular person). There are several cases in which marriage would be in violation of God’s Word. Christians should never marry non-Christians (I Corinthians 7:39, II Corinthians 6:14). And they should not even entertain the idea that they might later persuade the non-Christian to become a Christian. You don’t know that this is going to happen and it would just encourage the non-Christian to get baptized for the wrong reasons, leading to a false conversion. If someone is a fornicator, covetous, an idolater, filthy-mouthed, a drunkard, or an extortioner and yet claims to be a believer, then you shouldn’t even eat with such a person! (I Corinthians 5:11). The Bible also says that remarriage after divorce is adultery (Mark 10:11, 12, Luke 16:18) except in certain cases (Matthew 5:32, Matthew 19:9, and possibly I Corinthians 7:15). It also seems logical that one should not marry someone who takes an opposing position on an issue that one feels strongly about, such as abortion. There are also times when God may be leading two people to two different geographic locations at some future time, so things just can’t work out, but in the mean time there is temptation. Other times the romantic feelings one has just aren’t felt by the other person. Sometimes the young are too young to marry or their parents don’t approve.

So what is one to do when one finds oneself in one of these situations—not able to control oneself and not able to stop having impure thoughts about the other person when Paul’s recommendation of marriage can’t be followed because it is forbidden by other scriptures or scriptural principles? Jesus said:

You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.

Matthew 5:27-30 (ESV)

Don’t fool yourself. If marriage is not an option in this situation then the only other remedy is to stay away from the person whose presence causes you to sin. You may have to start going to a different church, quit your job, or even move away. Everyone else may think that this is a foolish overreaction, but such is often the case when a Christian does the right (1 Corinthians 2:14, 3:19).

This is a hard to decision to make and it should be done with great care. It is a sad thing when a great friendship has to come to an end because of something like this, but what must be done must be done. It is often no one’s fault. In this case, telling the other person that this is the way it has to be should be done so that there is no impression that you are laying blame for the situation. Whatever the case may be, you should be careful to make clear that the reason is the avoidance of sin and not to hurt the other person.

These situations are made worse when you put off talking about the important issues mentioned above (2nd paragraph). They are also made worse when tempting situations aren’t avoided and by engaging in things that lead to fornication or cause impure thoughts. I recommend the book I Kissed Dating Goodbye by Joshua Harris.

This is an unpleasant topic, but I hope that someone will benefit by reading it.

5 Reasons to Not Obtain a State Marriage License

by Pastor Matt Trewhella

Every year thousands of Christians amble down to their local county courthouse and obtain a marriage license from the State in order to marry their future spouse. They do this unquestioningly. They do it because their pastor has told them to go get one, and besides, "everybody else gets one." This pamphlet attempts to answer the question - why should we not get one?

1. The definition of a "license" demands that we not obtain one to marry. Black’s Law Dictionary defines "license" as, "The permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission, would be illegal." We need to ask ourselves- why should it be illegal to marry without the State’s permission? More importantly, why should we need the State’s permission to participate in something which God instituted (Gen. 2:18-24)? We should not need the State’s permission to marry nor should we grovel before state officials to seek it. What if you apply and the State says "no"? You must understand that the authority to license implies the power to prohibit. A license by definition "confers a right" to do something. The State cannot grant the right to marry. It is a God-given right.

2. When you marry with a marriage license, you grant the State jurisdiction over your marriage. When you marry with a marriage license, your marriage is a creature of the State. It is a corporation of the State! Therefore, they have jurisdiction over your marriage including the fruit of your marriage. What is the fruit of your marriage? Your children and every piece of property you own. There is plenty of case law in American jurisprudence which declares this to be true.

In 1993, parents were upset here in Wisconsin because a test was being administered to their children in the government schools which was very invasive of the family’s privacy. When parents complained, they were shocked by the school bureaucrats who informed them that their children were required to take the test by law and that they would have to take the test because they (the government school) had jurisdiction over their children. When parents asked the bureaucrats what gave them jurisdiction, the bureaucrats answered, "your marriage license and their birth certificates." Judicially, and in increasing fashion, practically, your state marriage license has far-reaching implications.

3. When you marry with a marriage license, you place yourself under a body of law which is immoral. By obtaining a marriage license, you place yourself under the jurisdiction of Family Court which is governed by unbiblical and immoral laws. Under these laws, you can divorce for any reason. Often, the courts side with the spouse who is in rebellion to God, and castigates the spouse who remains faithful by ordering him or her not to speak about the Bible or other matters of faith when present with the children.

As a minister, I cannot in good conscience perform a marriage which would place people under this immoral body of laws. I also cannot marry someone with a marriage license because to do so I have to act as an agent of the State! I would have to sign the marriage license, and I would have to mail it into the State. Given the State’s demand to usurp the place of God and family regarding marriage, and given it’s unbiblical, immoral laws to govern marriage, it would be an act of treason for me to do so.

4. The marriage license invades and removes God-given parental authority. When you read the Bible, you see that God intended for children to have their father’s blessing regarding whom they married. Daughters were to be given in marriage by their fathers (Dt. 22:16; Ex. 22:17; I Cor. 7:38). We have a vestige of this in our culture today in that the father takes his daughter to the front of the altar and the minister asks, "Who gives this woman to be married to this man?"

Historically, there was no requirement to obtain a marriage license in colonial America. When you read the laws of the colonies and then the states, you see only two requirements for marriage. First, you had to obtain your parents permission to marry, and second, you had to post public notice of the marriage 5-15 days before the ceremony.

Notice you had to obtain your parents permission. Back then you saw godly government displayed in that the State recognized the parent’s authority by demanding that the parent’s permission be obtained. Today, the all-encompassing ungodly State demands that their permission be obtained to marry.

By issuing marriage licenses, the State is saying, "You don’t need your parent’s permission, you need our permission." If parents are opposed to their child marrying a certain person and refuse to give their permission, the child can do an end run around the parent’s authority by obtaining the State’s permission, and marry anyway. This is an invasion and removal of God-given parental authority by the State.

5. When you marry with a marriage license, you are like a polygamist. From the State’s point of view, when you marry with a marriage license, you are not just marrying your spouse, but you are also marrying the State.
The most blatant declaration of this fact that I have ever found is a brochure entitled "With This Ring I Thee Wed." It is found in county courthouses across Ohio where people go to obtain their marriage licenses. It is published by the Ohio State Bar Association. The opening paragraph under the subtitle "Marriage Vows" states, "Actually, when you repeat your marriage vows you enter into a legal contract. There are three parties to that contract. 1.You; 2. Your husband or wife, as the case may be; and 3. the State of Ohio."

See, the State and the lawyers know that when you marry with a marriage license, you are not just marrying your spouse, you are marrying the State! You are like a polygamist! You are not just making a vow to your spouse, but you are making a vow to the State and your spouse. You are also giving undue jurisdiction to the State.

When Does the State Have Jurisdiction Over a Marriage?

God intended the State to have jurisdiction over a marriage for two reasons - 1) in the case of divorce, and 2) when crimes are committed i.e., adultery, bigamy, etc. Unfortunately, the State now allows divorce for any reason, and it does not prosecute for adultery.

In either case, divorce or crime, a marriage license is not necessary for the courts to determine whether a marriage existed or not. What are needed are witnesses. This is why you have a best man and a maid of honor. They should sign the marriage certificate in your family Bible, and the wedding day guest book should be kept.

Marriage was instituted by God, therefore it is a God-given right. According to Scripture, it is to be governed by the family, and the State only has jurisdiction in the cases of divorce or crime.

History of Marriage Licenses in America

George Washington was married without a marriage license. Abraham Lincoln was married without a marriage license. So, how did we come to this place in America where marriage licenses are issued?
Historically, all the states in America had laws outlawing the marriage of blacks and whites. In the mid-1800’s, certain states began allowing interracial marriages or miscegenation as long as those marrying received a license from the state. In other words they had to receive permission to do an act which without such permission would have been illegal.
Blacks Law Dictionary points to this historical fact when it defines "marriage license" as, "A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry." "Intermarry" is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as, "Miscegenation; mixed or interracial marriages."
Give the State an inch and they will take 100 miles (or as one elderly woman once said to me "10,000 miles.") Not long after these licenses were issued, some states began requiring all people who marry to obtain a marriage license. In 1923, the Federal Government established the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act (they later established the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act). By 1929, every state in the Union had adopted marriage license laws.

What Should We Do?

Christian couples should not be marrying with State marriage licenses, nor should ministers be marrying people with State marriage licenses. Some have said to me, "If someone is married without a marriage license, then they aren’t really married." Given the fact that states may soon legalize same-sex marriages, we need to ask ourselves, "If a man and a man marry with a State marriage license, and a man and woman marry without a State marriage license - who’s really married? Is it the two men with a marriage license, or the man and woman without a marriage license? In reality, this contention that people are not really married unless they obtain a marriage license simply reveals how Statist we are in our thinking. We need to think biblically.

You should not have to obtain a license from the State to marry someone anymore than you should have to obtain a license from the State to be a parent, which some in academic and legislative circles are currently pushing to be made law.

When I marry a couple, I always buy them a Family Bible which contains birth and death records, and a marriage certificate. We record the marriage in the Family Bible. What’s recorded in a Family Bible will stand up as legal evidence in any court of law in America. Both George Washington and Abraham Lincoln were married without a marriage license. They simply recorded their marriages in their Family Bibles. So should we.

Pastor Trewhella has been marrying couples without marriage licenses for ten years. Many other pastors also refuse to marry couples with State marriage licenses.

This pamphlet is not comprehensive in scope. Rather, the purpose of this pamphlet is to make you think and give you a starting point to do further study of your own. If you would like an audio sermon regarding this matter, just send a gift of at least five dollars in cash to: Mercy Seat Christian Church 10240 W. National Ave. PMB #129 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53227.
www.mercyseat.net