Rescuing Modern Marriage

A Pastoral Handbook for

Rescuing Modern Marriage

J. Robert Hanson

Š 2011 Copyright J. Robert Hanson www.johnroberthanson.com

A Pastoral Handbook for

Rescuing Modern Marriage

J. Robert Hanson

Contents: The Planning of Marriage

7

Introduction Planning for Modern Marriages The Biblical Purpose of Marriage Companionship Procreation The Purity of the Marriage Covenant

The Definition of Marriage

31

Ethics for Modern Marriages The Biblical Definition of Marriage The Union in Marriage The Indissolubility in Marriage The Path of the Marriage Covenant

The Safeguard of Marriage

51

Honor for Modern Marriages The Biblical Honor of Marriage The Ethics of Morality The Ethics of the Marriage Covenant The Ethics of the Union in Marriage The Protection of the Marriage Covenant

Appendix 75

The Planning of Marriage

ESV – Genesis 2:18-25 18 Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” 19 Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field.

But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. 21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22 And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.

23 Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” 24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

Introduction As is the fashion of most western culture weddings, this one begins the traditional “15 minutes late.” Standing before friends and family, after the wedding party has entered, with the bride and groom smiling in

7

A Pastoral Handbook for Rescuing Modern Marriages

anticipation, the minister, peering nervously above the heads of the wedding party, begins.

“

We are gathered here in the sight of God and these witnesses to unite John and Jennifer in holy matrimony. As believers in Jesus Christ, they recognize that it was God who instituted marriage, and who said, ‘It is not good for man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.’ The God who made and redeemed them, also instituted this relationship they are about to enter.

”

Preaching before the usual congregation is one thing, but a wedding always means unknown guests who judge; and they are not as forgiving as the preacher’s normal “flock.” Mistakes and miscues are not an option—or so the speaker imagines. The minister now turns to look directly at the young couple before him.

“

John and Jennifer, the vows you are about to exchange are not to be taken without careful thought and prayer. For in them you are committing yourselves exclusively the one to the other for as long as you both shall live. This love is not to be diminished by difficult circumstances, and it is only to be dissolved by death.

”

After a short prayer, the officiator steps to the pulpit and begins with a reading from the Bible. He rehearses some words from a prepared text and then ventures back to face the excited couple. Quoting from a little prepared booklet he begins:

“

Marriage was ordained by God in Eden and confirmed in Cana of Galilee by the presence of the Lord Himself, and is declared by the Apostle Paul to be honorable among all men. It is therefore, not to be entered into unadvisedly or lightly; but reverently, soberly and in the fear of God.

”

8

The Planning of Marriage

These are lofty words repeated often in marriage ceremonies.

“Honorable among all men,” the minister ponders quietly within, “I hope I made this clear to them!” Looking confidently at the bride and groom, he gazes down again at the prepared booklet and moves to the next step. The officiator gently instructs the couple to take each other’s hand, he then looks into the eyes of the groom who is waiting anxiously to continue. They briefly hold each other’s gaze and the minister begins again with the vows of promise.

“

Do you John, take this woman whom you now hold by the hand, to be your true and wedded wife; and do you solemnly promise before God and these witnesses to love, cherish, honor and protect her: forsaking all others cleave to her, and her only, until death shall separate you?

”

“Until death shall separate you!” That is the vow the Apostle Paul reminds us of, and it is one that appears to be easily compromised and forgotten in modern society. The groom answers with an assured “I do” convincing the officiator that this young man is serious in his commitment to the woman. The minister looks at the bride.

“

Do you Jennifer, take this man whom you now hold by the hand, to be your true and wedded husband; and do you solemnly promise before God and these witnesses to love, cherish, honor and obey him: forsaking all others cleave to him, and him only, until death shall separate you?

”

This has all been rehearsed and discussed prior, there are no surprises and zero hesitation; she answers with a clear “I do.” The minister turns to the groom whose face has now become as radiant as the sun. The preacher reflects for just a moment, “I know I can trust this young man with the heart of this young lady.” The preacher begins the vows of personal commitment: 9

A Pastoral Handbook for Rescuing Modern Marriages

“

Repeat after me: I, John, take thee, Jennifer be my lawful and wedded wife, to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better or worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health until God by death do us part.

”

“Until God by death do us part!” These are strong words of commitment, fidelity, and finality. They are vows of personal trust and devotion. The minister turns to the bride.

“

Repeat after me: I, Jennifer, take thee, John be my lawful and wedded husband, to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better or worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health until God by death do us part.

”

They both agree! There has been no hesitation; both are committed to be devoted to one another for the duration of their lives. The minister breathes a short sigh of relief and pulls out two rings from his pocket.

The task of holding these items was weighing heavily on his mind and he’s silently thankful to be delivered of them! Handing the little circular object with the diamond to the groom he begins again with the ring vows. “John,” he says faintly so only the three can hear, “put this ring on Jen’s finger just before her knuckle; left hand.” The officiator’s voice rises to a normal volume:

“

John, repeat after me: with this ring, I thee wed, in the name of The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit.

”

The groom finishes the chorus with a crescendo, placing the ring on the bride’s finger and the whole event repeats itself, this time the bride toward the groom.

10

The Planning of Marriage

“

Jennifer, repeat after me: with this ring, I thee wed, in the name of The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit.

”

The three breathe a sigh of relief. Not so much at the depth of the commitments just made, they were ready for that. It was that the event thus far had gone without much of a problem. The wedding party is smiling, families and friends are rejoicing and the whole ceremony is closing in jubilant affirmation. Finishing up, the minister looks between the happy couple and, reaching out visually to the witnesses in attendance, reads again from the little prepared booklet:

“

For as much as John and Jennifer have consented together in holy wedlock, and have witnessed the same before God and these witnesses, and thereto have pledged their faithfulness each to the other, and have pledged the same by the giving and receiving each of a ring, by the authority invested in me as a minister of the gospel, I pronounce that they are husband and wife together, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Those that God has joined together, let no man put asunder!

”

---------

I have four children, two of which at this time are married. The first wedding I performed was the marriage of my son to his wonderful godly wife. The above account is the vows they exchanged to one another. In my case, when putting together the wedding exchanges, the field was pretty much wide open. The bride and groom did not have any special requirements for the vows, so I had the opportunity to come up with my own. And, since I had no guides or previous sermons on the subject, I searched the scriptures and perused godly information to find what was taught in the Bible about marriage and 11

A Pastoral Handbook for Rescuing Modern Marriages

the commitment of two people to that union. What exactly is God looking for in matrimony, I asked. Those ideas became my pastoral handbook for marriage.

Since officiating John and Jen’s wedding, I‘ve had the honor of doing the same several more times—one being my eldest daughter to my son-in-law (for whom I also thank God). In each case I’ve used the same vows of commitment, reviewing them with the engaged couples weeks in advance through counseling times. I do this to make sure everyone knows God’s purpose and definition for marriage, understanding the seriousness of the pledge. I’ve yet to be disappointed by any of the couples for whom I’ve performed this service. Each have been godly men and women desiring to live for Jesus, wanting to do His will. I must say, after a few years of officiating weddings, I highly doubt I would be too flexible in altering these vows unless the new oaths represented God’s purpose and definition of marriage as taught in the Bible.

The viewpoint of marriage in modern western civilization has changed over the years. There’s been a slow, almost imperceptible, makeover in regards to the meaning, purpose and definition of matrimony. To some, the alterations are a necessary adjustment and evolution to such an overworked tradition. But can western society honestly look at the condition of modern marriages and say modifications have been for the better?

Let me start with a few observations about modern marriage and see if we can agree as to why this ancient traditional institution, as defined in Genesis 2:24, is in trouble. Too many of today’s modern marriages need rescuing! Since the 1950’s, the divorce rate has accelerated, some present reports placing divided homes in America as high as 40 percent. According to a book called, “The Professional Bachelor” by Brett

12

The Planning of Marriage

Tate,1 every year nearly 45 billion dollars exchange hands as a result of divorce. From where I come from that’s a lot of money! Society talks about the oil industry as “big business.” We hear all the time about the evils of “big oil.” What I want to know is where are the cries of evil directed at “big divorce”? It seems to me that with the sum of 45 billion dollars a year changing hands, divorce should be considered an industry of big business too! It would appear that it pays to prey upon the weakness of men and women who are marginally committed to their wedding vows. Television and print ads are replete with lawyers offering special services and rates to those struggling to make their marriages work. TV sitcoms and serial television shows embrace the lifestyle of choosing cohabitation (living together out of wedlock) over the traditionally stable environment of marriage. Not only do modern marriages need rescuing, but also the very principles and ideologies of traditional marriage seem to be on life-support.

The ones suffering most from broken homes are the kids who seem lost in these domestic debacles. According to The Heritage Foundation2 over 1 million American children yearly suffer from the divorce of their parents. Modern academia and social strategists would have you believe there are no differences between children from broken homes than those living in traditional single marriage environments. There is an older study produced in 1988 by the Bureau of Justice Statistics3 that indicates this is not the case. Of the 25,000 incarcerated juveniles during that year, 72 percent of them came from broken homes. In fact, the yearly increasing population at the Juvenile Hall Detention Centers corresponds virtually equal to divorce statistics taken since the 1950’s.

This is more evidence that modern marriages need rescuing and the 1 “The Professional Bachelor: How to Exploit Her Inner Psycho: A Player’s Dating Guide”, Brett Tate, 2007, TPB Publishing, chapter 8. The author, J. Robert Hanson, does not recommend reading.

2 http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2000/06/The-Effects-of-Divorce-on-America 3 Statistics from the Los Angeles Times, 19 September, 1988. Cited in Amneus, The Garbage Generation, page 179

13

A Pastoral Handbook for Rescuing Modern Marriages

cultural trends and ideologies of our western civilization are woefully inadequate to adapt or help.

To find the remedy for rescuing modern marriage, there will need to be a return to the original purpose and definition of marriage as provided

by God at the beginning of creation and read about in the Bible. From a practical sense that means the church will need to be the safeguard of marriage even more today than witnessed in previous centuries.

Psychologist and sociologist may deride the suggestion of returning to the historical traditional viewpoints of marriage as a return to the stone ages; nevertheless the ills of society demonstrate a shattered system presently not working. These “modernist” have had 40 plus years of experimentation and it’s time to get back to the principles presented in the Garden of Eden—things that we know historically will work! When we read of Jesus answering the problem of broken homes in Mark 10,4 He quotes from Genesis 2:24. His answer tells me that every home is within the reach of healing if husband and wife will return to the same biblical principles presented to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.

Now, I know some will argue that these biblical ethics for marriage were given before the fall and failure of man. But the truth is, God has never changed the sanctity of His purpose and the definition of marriage! We read nowhere in the Bible of an updated codex for matrimony. Jesus Himself uses the Genesis 2 definition of marriage when dealing with marital crisis in Mark 10. If He used it why would it change for us? The Bible contains every truth of hope for rescuing modern marriage— both personally and ideologically. And, as our churches courageously speak the truth of marriage in love, we’ll begin to see the demise of a whole industry—the divorce industry: big divorce. Wouldn’t it be great 4 (NAS) Mark 10:6 “But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. 7 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, 8 and the two shall become one flesh; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 “what therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

14

The Planning of Marriage

if the nearly 45 billion dollars spent every year on divorces was never collected and kept in homes and households because of biblically stable marriages?

In this handbook, I’m not going to give you psychological insights or programs, only a call to return the basic principles about marriage that were established at creation and read about in the Bible. I‘ve always loved hearing Billy Graham, that great American evangelist, as he speaks to the world these simple words—the Bible says! Let’s see if the Bible, used as God’s handbook and counseling tool, can rescue modern marriages and begin a domestic social revolution. It just could be that the church, living as a safeguard for marriage, might change a world around it.

So, what does the Bible say about marriage? When God planned the union of male and female He didn’t create something that was designed to failure or manufacture hostilities. While marriage may seem like a declaration of war to some, it wasn’t intended as such. Marriage was designed to be a helping process for men and women to work together in God’s plans with agreement. While Adam was working alone in the Garden of Eden, giving names to the animals, it was noticed there was no one fit to be his helper—someone that would perfectly correspond to his need for companionship. And so planning for marriage finds a path. Let’s look at God’s plan for marriage.

Planning for Modern Marriages Planning for a wedding is a major event! There are books devoted to scheduling, planning and financing. On the Internet you can find wedding counselors who promise a stress-free celebration. There are even so-called wedding coaches claiming to have a compassionate understanding of both bride and groom. These say they can create a 15

A Pastoral Handbook for Rescuing Modern Marriages

wedding planning process that is fun for both parties! Now let’s take a look at showbiz! Hollywood is always producing movies that express different aspects of arranging a wedding. The climax will lead to some sort of breakdown in wedding preparations that creates a recognizable tension, and then comes the resolve—they lived happily forever after.

We all laugh at romantic comedies of this type knowing just how stressful and complicated a wedding can be; we can relate.

With all the concentration that goes into this big day for bride and groom, how much actual thought was given beforehand in the planning of the couple’s modern marriage? The wedding is for a day, but marriage is for a lifetime. Rightfully, special emphasis is made on the careful preparation that goes into the big day, but our modern culture, by comparison, provides very little forethought in planning for the tangible marriage itself. It’s all supposed to just happen—happily forever after. Sadly, for too many in America, that is not the case.

The Bible is a great tool for understanding how to plan a modern marriage. And, if two people can agree with the Garden of Eden principles and ethics read about in the scriptures, a happy-enduring marriage is possible. There are really just two things to understand from the Bible when using it as a planning tool. When it comes to marriage, God provides a purpose and a definition. Gaining an understanding of these two things has proven to produce successful marriages in any civilization through all centuries.

The Biblical Purpose of Marriage We want to first look at the Biblical Purpose for Marriage. People like reasons for why they do things. It’s a rare person that asks after executing something successfully, “Why did I just do this?” Generally it’s failure that invites the query, “why did I leap without thinking this

16

The Planning of Marriage

through first?” Analysis after failing is a poor time to evaluate the “whys” and “reasons” of life in something so valuable as marriage. I’m not saying at the end appraisal shouldn’t be done; it’s just too much, too little, too late to quote the modern lyricist. Wise decisions require forethought, principles, and clarity of ethics. The ending of a hostile relationship is a difficult time to ask what’s the purpose of marriage. Searching for answers at the end generally leads to unwise, terrible and hurtful choices as the answers get forced into a negative ethical paradigm.

Discovering God’s plan for marriage beforehand prevents hostilities from ever becoming irreconcilable. The biblical purpose of marriage teaches that upholding your vows when difficulties arise—and they will arise—is a choice of clear ethics.

Fortunately for man, God likes to give reasons for doing things also.

When you are initially planning to spend a lifetime together, wisdom says, understand the depths of commitment. It’s true that no one has a full idea of what they’re getting into before they get married. That’s why it’s so necessary to know the purpose of marriage before you begin. I would dare say anyone taking marriage seriously does not enter into the covenant with the idea of failing. They don’t include in their vows an opt-out plan after six months; there are no promises of money-back guarantees added to saying “I do.” And anyone demanding a prenuptial agreement before wedding has not considered the biblical purpose of marriage as God sees it!

The commitment of marriage is for a lifetime. When Jesus says, “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate” He means until death do you part. Two flesh, male and female, becoming one in marriage is a serious principle and event that must be thought about carefully and prayerfully if an expectation of endurance is to be reached, but more on that later.

17

A Pastoral Handbook for Rescuing Modern Marriages

God provides a purpose for marriage that is reasonable, orderly, and well thought out—meaning, in practice it’s doable! This purpose biblically can be divided into two elements: Companionship and Procreation.

Companionship Compared to most things you can think of, companionship profoundly influences men or women more than we imagine. The idea of living alone can shock a soul or infinitely influence a life more than an individual may have the capacity to agree with! My grandfather and grandmother were so in love with one another—faithful companions all their marriage and most all of their living days! My grandmother passed away first. And after she passed, one of their neighbors told me that my grandfather said he wasn’t sure he wanted to live anymore.

A few weeks following that comment he too died of natural causes.

Sometimes I wonder if it was his broken heart and loneliness apart from my grandmother that made him give up. I mean, as a family we faithfully visited and kept up with him, but it was living without his life companion that worked enormous sorrow—seemed to slowly overwhelm him. That is just an illustration of how powerful the need in a man or woman is for companionship.

If we go back in time we discover there is a reason why men and women can’t stand the thought of spending their whole lives alone. Let me explain where the longing for companionship comes from. Of the all the things God says about His creation, of everything He made that He confirms is good, the first thing the Bible says is not good is for man to be alone!

(ESV) Genesis 2:18 Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.”

18

The Planning of Marriage

How powerful is it? At the end of each day of the creation process God says that what He accomplished was good! Seven times in Genesis 1 He notes of the things He did and made, “It is good”! When coming to Genesis 2, as God looks at man (a creation which was also confirmed as good earlier) from the wonder of His foreknowledge, being fully aware of all of what man’s needs would be, God comes to the conclusion something was not good—He says, “It is not good for man to be alone.”

God recognizes the concept that a man being alone is not healthy and He sees it will be devastating to the human psyche. There is something in man—something forged at the time of the foundation of the earth— which gives him a peculiar need for companionship that nothing else in God’s creation could satisfy. We can have fun in speculating why this essential is there, but that knowledge satisfies nothing as to the bottom line that the need for companionship truly exists.

The desire for a partner and the necessity to “not live alone” is in man’s genes. It’s somehow embedded, so to speak, in the DNA. This essential is so deep that God takes note of the complexities and decides He must do something by way of divine intervention to help. God miraculously resolves the issue by creating for man from man a perfect match that complements him—female. The man names this new being, woman.

Other animals in creation will not do. They are inadequate to entirely satisfy. No matter how often a lonely person says, “My dog is my best friend”, whether you choose to believe it or not, creatures were never designed to be on par with man! In the Garden of Eden, God created an opposite sex out of the rib of a man and she would be the perfect compliment for satisfying his need for companionship and intimacy— and this satisfaction works together in both directions, male and female.

Even more simply put, from the beginning God made opposite sexes as the perfect satisfaction in companionship for the reason of partnership and intimacy—that is the first element of the Purpose of Marriage.

19

A Pastoral Handbook for Rescuing Modern Marriages

Regardless of where a man or woman finds fulfillment presently, the Bible states He created them male and female and that completed union is God’s original design defined as marriage. And this essential need for fellowship has been in the DNA of men and women since the Garden of Eden!

This is why it is so difficult for a person to not have a life-mate.

Loneliness is a bitter companion. I’ve met very few people that actually have a gift for being single. Those individuals have an understanding of their calling and are perfectly content with that state. And then, there are those who have the life of singleness thrust upon them. Accepting this condition is most arduous and unnatural—a predicament I wish upon no one. The struggle in this state is to find God as satisfaction and discover His amazing grace. It’s difficult, but not impossible for with God all things are possible to them that believe!

This is why planning for marriage is imperative as it lasts a lifetime.

I’ve become convinced that if two individuals understood they ethically could not go out looking for a new spouse after a divorce, they would be much more inclined to keep their original covenant and commitment to marriage by working problems out in real humility. Realizing the truth of how God made us and accepting the ramification of why we are the way we are is the first step for rescuing and recovering broken homes. The need for companionship is one that is complex, deep as the soul of a human being, and is a result of the process of creation itself. Companionship must be satisfied through marriage before understanding the second element in God’s purpose for marriage—procreation.

Procreation This element seems to be the most difficult for our modern western culture to receive, much less agree with. So much of our contemporary 20

The Planning of Marriage

society’s image of marriage is based on an idealism of romance and individualism, that it becomes difficult to acknowledge the most basic and ethical of principles. That is, by God’s design, established in the Garden of Eden, marriage is meant to create children. When it gets down to it, if we’re willing to strip away the self-pleasure and egoism sometimes confused in companionship, procreation is actually an imperative command of God for marriage. Even before the fall of Adam and Eve we read a statement of blessing for the both of them in Genesis 1: (NAS) 28 God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply….”

God spoke directly to Adam and Eve on this topic and made more than just a suggestion. He told them to be fruitful and multiply. The process and mechanics for how this happens develops through the special union of marriage resulting from companionship and intimacy. You can’t just hop in the car and go to the corner grocery store and buy a child. There are no special warehouses that keep babies in stock so they never need to be backordered. We can biblically and ethically find no other manufacturer of children than a biological mother’s womb.

Modern western societies, influenced by a room full of smarter people than you and I, will disagree with these things saying we are ignorant zealots taking steps back into bondage. However, protests do not change the fact that the Bible teaches procreation is an element of the purpose of God for marriage. Demanding, or desiring, that procreation mean something different ethically is not ours to mess with or argue over. God could have blessed alternative ways or sources for procreation—the design was His to come up with. I’ve personally thought the ancient myth of storks bringing babies was cute. I’m sure I could get a few women who have suffered through childbirth to agree 21

A Pastoral Handbook for Rescuing Modern Marriages

with the concept if God would too. Instead, the blessing of God for procreation is childbirth through marriage. Man through science may develop alternatives, but marriage is God’s way for procreation.

There are several issues that people will take up in developing “Be fruitful and multiply”, all of which is not my position or intention to argue about. And, I am not saying that a childless marriage is out of the will of God! This topic is not the time for arguments about contraception.

Greater men than I have debated these issues; I do not intend to weigh in with my viewpoint and add to the conflict. The only reason to bring this topic up right now is to show that one of the elements in the purpose of marriage is having children—by design procreation naturally flows from the intimacy of a married couple; others with greater capacity than I can decide how many and how often.

I personally do not believe having babies is all marriage is about! There are many more ways that God uses married couples. However, if we are to be faithful and honest, it must be acknowledged that an important element to the purpose of marriage is the natural, God given ability to make children. In fact, there is an interesting verse in Malachi 2 further underscoring the reason why in marriage the two become one flesh.

(NIV) 15 “Has not [the LORD] made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his.

And why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth. 16 ‘I hate divorce,’ says the LORD God of Israel…”

The goal of marriage is creating a godly home! God is seeking a godly offspring to do His will in the next generation. This being the focus, marriage is the ideal, perfect institution for teaching and developing children to seek and desire to serve God. As statistics presented earlier demonstrate, a broken home is an epic way to defeat this purpose.

22

The Planning of Marriage

This does not mean every divided household will produce a delinquent child. Nor do I intend to infer divorced spouses are invalidated from serving God and teaching a godly seed—that is not the case! Please do not take my points to that extreme and produce a faulty premise. What is interesting about this verse in Malachi is that God blesses a united home in gaining a godly offspring for the subsequent generation—a sort of next generation heavenly plan for holiness so to speak!

I recently heard a report on the radio that indicated when father and mother both attend church regularly there is a 72% probability that the children will desire to be God’s servants. When just the father attends church faithfully the statistics drop to 53%. Shockingly, when only the mother goes to church on a regular basis, in 17% of these homes children grow up desiring to be God’s servant later on in life. This is why rescuing modern marriages is so important! It takes a godly mother and father to produce a godly seed. Godly marriages provide the means of future witnesses for Jesus!

Any two people, male and female, can make a kid. It takes the companionship of marriage to train, teach and develop a child who will serve the Lord. It’s not up to the village to raise children; it is the call of marriage to see it happen. Parents have the God given authority to train, teach and develop a child unless they abuse it; man and wife have the responsibility unless they abandon it. Then, and then only does it become the care of the church, or even state, to intervene. Apart from abuse, God gives the primary authority to a man and his wife to nurture and rear their children.

God’s purpose and plan for marriage includes the elements of companionship and procreation, to recognize God’s blessing in a society.

When God’s purpose in marriage is on display, what the culture sees is the Purity of the Marriage Covenant in action.

23

A Pastoral Handbook for Rescuing Modern Marriages

The Purity of the Marriage Covenant Before moving on, let me go back and present the main text to remind us again what it reads. We return to Genesis 2 where God works His divine intervention and resolves the problem of loneliness for Adam. We read from the English Standard Version (ESV) translation: 21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22 And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” 24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

I love the way verse 23 reads in the ESV, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.” The picture I get is while man is naming the animals he’s looking for something that is like him. Think how it must have gone: Dog, nope; cat, nope; elephant, nope; monkey, cousin? Who said that? Serpent, was that you? —Definitely nope!

What a relief to Adam when God presented Eve to him. In the ancient Hebrew language the words actually read like expressions of joyous astonishment at the sight of the woman. The man says, “At last! Now I have someone who looks like me!” Adam is excited at what God has created for him. She looks mostly like him; at least from the reflections he’s seen of himself in the river. Adam is genuinely astonished and joyful for what God has supplied to him as a companion. She looks good! However, a closer look determines there are ever so subtle and slight discrepancies between the two. These physiological differences between Adam and Eve had been divinely created in accordance with God’s plan for marriage and we know about this from learning the second element of God’s purpose for marriage, “be fruitful and multiply.”

24

The Planning of Marriage

Let me read the whole passage in Genesis 1 from the New American Standard Bible (NAS) to show you what I’m saying: 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. 28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth…”

Male and female He created them. The Lord Jesus says this was done at the beginning, or at the origin (arche5) of creation.6 And God commanded immediately thereafter, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth!” The command was verbalized on the sixth day if we are to follow Jesus’ timetable of Mark 10. The specifics of how they were created on day six is enlarged upon in Genesis 2. They both were made

by God male and female. That is, with all the necessary accessories and attachments in place to start having babies as soon as God gave the word to go. The essential child producing body parts were not “add-on-packages” completed after the fall of man! All of the critical equipment for procreation was created while Adam and Eve were in their state of innocence. They did not have things included to heighten sexual awareness or arousal, we read of no part of the human body being modified after the fall for enhanced pleasure. Neither is any questionable use of the body mentioned before the fall—therefore there was no shame between them, for shame can only arise from a consciousness of sinful or irregular conduct. At this time, as they walked around the Garden of Eden in the cool of the day, they were naked and unaware of their nakedness. We never read of Adam being concerned about how he looked to Eve or visa versa. They were only conscious of the other person and God—we read of no self-consciousness, self-

5 W.E. Vine’s M.A., Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words published in 1940 and without copyright.

Beginning, Noun, 746, arche 6 (ESV) Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of creation, “God made them male and female.”

25

A Pastoral Handbook for Rescuing Modern Marriages

awareness, or self-examination until the discovery of the knowledge of Good and Evil.

I’ve heard some say that the light of God clothed them inwardly to without—similar to what was seen with Jesus upon the mount of transfiguration. However, in reading Genesis 2:25 you’ll notice the theory can only go as far as fun speculation as the verse is unable to withstand the scrutiny of scriptural exegesis. It appears the fact they were both naked and not ashamed is more connected to the lack of transgression. Adam and Eve, in their pre-fallen condition, had not the knowledge of nakedness so there was no need for covering up.

They were not perfect; they were in the state of innocence. There’s a big difference. Being perfect would have meant never to fail or to fall into sin—only Jesus was able to complete that mission.

But something went wrong to spoil this paradise God had created for them. A point came when their innocence was ripped away and their free and open companionship was jeopardized. They both violated the one command God told them not to do and in those moments of betrayal we read they noticed a dramatic change in their relationship to each other. The instant after they sinned: (ESV) Genesis 3:7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.

The innocence was gone—nakedness had become known and defined! They became aware of physical differences and started at once covering and hiding their own uniqueness from each other.

In a moment there was self-consciousness, self-awareness, and selfexamination and these caused them to behave in ways they found unnecessary in the past. Suddenly things that were never an issue became a big problem and the innocence that was lost could never be 26

The Planning of Marriage

recaptured—the original state had been destroyed. It wasn’t finances, or habits, or irreconcilable differences, or anything else modern married couples argue about—ultimately it was disobedience to God that caused problems with their relationship. There were areas of differences and they began hiding things from each other.

As long as there was innocence in their marriage they had nothing to hide, trust was at its premium, love was at its height. And all they were aware of was the other companion, God, and their responsibility of tending to the Garden of Eden. Sin destroyed the companionship and intimacy they once enjoyed together. They are now hiding, covering up, and keeping things secret from one another. They didn’t even wait for God to show up and give them proper help; they got the Singer’s sowing machine out and started working immediately sowing fig leaves to cover their uniqueness.

Were there other differences between them besides the physiological uniqueness before the fall? Past mentioning they were created male and female, not much is recorded. We can infer however, Adam didn’t want to live without Eve! Knowing God’s command Adam chose to overtly rebel against the prohibition. He followed his deceived wife, and it cost he and Eve dearly. Whether they personally understood it clearly or not, the first marriage was in big trouble and God intervened as the first marriage counselor with some tough, straightforward talk.

Did they work things out? Was God able to restore the open companionship and intimacy lost in the fall? If we go to Genesis 4, I believe we have an answer.

(ESV) 1 “Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, “I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD.”

27

A Pastoral Handbook for Rescuing Modern Marriages

Evidently the Lord helped them work through the issues of their uniqueness long enough to uncover their nakedness, expose themselves again to each other, figure out sexual relations, and make children. However, now there is a change. A relationship that was once effortless in the state of innocence must now be preserved by a commitment to the Purity of the Marriage Covenant. The innocence that Adam and Eve experienced in the Garden of Eden had been destroyed and a relationship that was once easy and natural was going to require devotion and dedication. Let me explain and illustrate the change. In 1 Corinthians 15:22 and Romans 5:17 Paul makes it very clear there were no pre-Adamic men or pre-fall children when he writes: (ESV) 1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

(ESV) Romans 5:17 For if, because of one man’s trespass [Adam], death reigned through that one man….

In the Bible there are no other recorded sinless or innocent individuals directly after Adam’s transgression. So we understand, and have to assume, that the actual procreation of children began after the fall of man. And yet the phrase “be fruitful and multiply” is the blessing spoken before man’s failure, very possibly during the events of the sixth day of creation. God gave the command through the mystery of His foreknowledge. Adam’s failure did not take God by surprise! He alone sees the end from the beginning and implies before the fall of a coming blessing—procreation.

Did Adam and his wife understand the plan before they disobeyed?

Whether they did or not is irrelevant, the practical accomplishment of the plan (sexual relations) becomes real only after their failure—they start having children and the fruitful, multiplying of humanity begins in earnest! What the devil intended for evil, God was already aware of and 28

The Planning of Marriage

had provided a solution in advance to His glory—through the Purity of the Marriage Covenant: (ESV) Genesis 2:24 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.”

Though the effortless innocence of Adam and Eve is forever gone because of the fall, a vow and commitment to the purity of marriage replaces it. And this marriage covenant that was written while still in the Garden of Eden before their failure is not directed at Adam and Eve alone, as Adam had no father or mother to leave in order to hold fast to his wife. The purpose and definition of marriage were established before the trespass of Adam and directed toward all humanity for use after the fall—this all happening through the mystery of God’s foreknowledge.

And it’s within the purity of the marriage covenant that God defines what marriage is. Jesus takes the time to quote it when explaining the arrangement to the doubters who questioned the sanctity of the union of marriage. He tells the troubled Pharisees: (ESV) Mark 10:6 “But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ 7 ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Commitment to matrimony, and ultimately commitment to the vows of marriage, keeps the elements of companionship and procreation as God’s purpose for marriage. It’s on this foundation we discover the meaning, or the definition of marriage for humankind. Western culture has attempted to alter the definition as God defines it, but God hasn’t changed it since the beginning of time—it’s highly unlikely He will do so anytime soon. The great German pastor, Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote: 29

A Pastoral Handbook for Rescuing Modern Marriages

“Even in the midst of the fallen, lost world, it makes a difference in God’s sight whether a man observes or violates the order of marriage and whether he acts justly or arbitrarily.7” Bonhoeffer’s order of marriage is the same understanding as what I’m calling the biblical purpose of marriage. Violating the order of marriage violates the purity of the marriage covenant; and God, back in the Garden of Eden, ordained this covenant. The commitment to the purity of the marriage covenant is meant to be the perspective for maintaining fidelity and union between a man and his wife, regardless of the state of their culture around them. So, planning a modern marriage then has a foundation, objective and goal. The foundation is companionship; the objective is procreation, with the goal being a godly home. Over a third of our lives are taken up with this pursuit and then the next third passing on that knowledge to our children.

Following God’s purpose for marriage means you know what you are doing because you realize the will of God for matrimony. You are not walking blindly into a marriage and expecting failure and infidelity.

Realizing this, we can now move to understanding the ethics behind the biblical definition of marriage.

7 Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Ethics, (New York: Simon & Schuster Inc., Touchstone Edition, 1995, p.139

30

The Definition of Marriage

ESV – Mark 10:2-8 2 And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” 3 He answered them, “What did Moses command you?” 4 They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away.” 5 And Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6 But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ 7 ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Ethics for Modern Marriages Oxford Dictionary8 defines ethics as moral principles that govern a person’s or group’s behavior. Can we apply ethics to marriage? I sure hope so! Regarding this topic, I’m not interested in producing debates on philosophy or religious ideologies. The only point I’m making in this section is that marriage by definition and design provides moral principles—ethics. It is the first institution established by God that does so. Marriage is a commitment to moral values based on a belief 8 http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_us1245026#m_en_us1245026

31

A Pastoral Handbook for Rescuing Modern Marriages

structure by which we ultimately see companionship and procreation flourish. Matrimony demands a high-level of fidelity to its definition.

Violation of that order destroys the necessary trust for a meaningful and purposeful marriage—hence; infidelity is the unethical behavior to the marriage covenant.

In a small sense, marriage creates in couples a belief about the best in each other—a trust, or sort of faith between two individuals. That faith is founded on a promise of fidelity and commitment! Compromise the ethics of marriage and you begin to destroy the faith shared between two people—since faith works by love. I understand this may sound a bit complicated to begin with, but if we take ethics out of marriage, then a marriage collapses. Ethics for modern marriages is paramount.

Determining what is ethical for marriage has been a topic vetted for centuries. There was once a question of ethics for marriage presented to the Lord Jesus; “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?”

The contemptuous Pharisees staged this well thought-out, calculated inquiry to encourage conflict with Jesus. In doing so they picked one of history’s most provocative and difficult questions to answer. This query has been complicated throughout all ages. It cuts right to the heart of many societal issues and was just as problematic in the times of Christ—as it is today—as it was in the years of Moses.

Please understand, their question to Jesus did not materialize from a vacuum. The Lord was the first to broach the subject when speaking to the multitudes in His “Sermon on the Mount.” He referenced divorce and remarriage (as He did many other issues at the same time) because it was a prevalent practice indulged upon in the first century Palestinian society. Jesus’ intent was not to start a dispute but to correct an erroneous ideology that had developed from a manipulated

32

The Definition of Marriage

and exploited Old Testament text—Deuteronomy 24. Specifically, in Matthew 5:31-32 Jesus is noted as saying: (ESV) 31 “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”

Jesus’ statement caused major waves among the Jewish religious leaders of the time. Contrary to what one of His contemporary, popular Rabbinical schools taught9, Jesus was implying that divorce is equal to adultery. Let me shorten it, “Whoever divorces his wife…makes her commit adultery”—the exception being the situation of infidelity. These are His uncomfortable words not mine—I’m just reading the news of what was reported He said! Not only was Jesus inferring that in the large majority of contemporary cases divorce was unacceptable, but He also goes a step further demanding the husband be responsible for producing an adulterer.

It was from this context the offended Pharisees asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” thinking they would trick Him on a technicality of contradicting the Mosaic Law as they taught it from Deuteronomy 24. They wanted to know if Jesus thought there were any ethical circumstances to which a man could divorce his wife. Why was this an issue in the first century Palestinian society? One would think that after centuries of discussing the Mosaic Law amongst themselves there would be a faithful and accurate consensus on the whole topic.

Evidently, this was not the case. In fact, if we look realistically at our twenty-first century western culture, there really is not much difference on the subject today. No doubt, if Jesus were to walk this earth right

9 The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Alfred Edersheim, 1883; Book IV, Chapter 22.

33

A Pastoral Handbook for Rescuing Modern Marriages

now we would find many religious leaders asking the same question as confronted Him then.

The Lord tells His contemporary inquisitors it’s an issue because of the hardness of their hearts! And then Jesus goes back to the beginning of creation to reiterate what God’s definition of marriage was originally.

Here is where we discover God’s ethics of marriage. The Lord isn’t going to argue the merits of the law and the issues for or against divorce as seen in Deuteronomy 24. That is a biblical legal sand pit that too many experts have spent way too long quarrelling over and never seem to get out of. Whole denominations were distinctly established because men did not care for some scholar’s answer to this one question, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” If ancient and contemporary theologians have not resolved the conflict, I certainly have no delusion that I am capable of bringing adequate answers to this issue either.

However, what I do want to offer are some simple principles that the Lord seems to remind everyone of in Mark 10 and let those ethics of marriage relieve the heart and conscious on this subject. “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” is a pretty direct question whether it was originally asked in pretense or not. I know of pastors refusing to bring up the topic in fear of splitting their congregations. For many years I mused quietly as to why the Lord responded to such a direct question with what seemed to me at the time, to be an oblique and fragile answer—that is, the reiteration of what God established as marriage at the beginning of time. It has always seemed to me a direct yes or no would have been much stronger a response and cancelled centuries of disputes.

And one day it dawned upon me just how insidious this whole question from the Pharisees really was—whether they realized it or

34

The Definition of Marriage

not. To even bring the query up strikes at changing God’s scriptural definition and the purpose of marriage as presented in Genesis 1:27-28 and 2:24.

(ESV) 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. 28 And God blessed them.

And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the….”

(ESV) 2:24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

Let’s think for a moment about the importance of definitions. In some of his dialogues, Socrates proposes a principle that has been called the Priority of Definition. It goes something like this: unless one can provide a definition of a thing—unless one can specify what it is—one is in no position to say anything authoritative about that thing. The Pharisees looked for the Lord to provide a definition of marriage expecting that when He failed His teachings would collapse from His lack of authority on the subject. They expected an exegesis on Deuteronomy 24—a topic that they believed they had mastered and were more than capable of discussing with Him. Remember, what they were targeting was the Lord’s authoritative ethical statement on marriage as spoken in His “Sermon on the Mount.”

Jesus had an affect upon the general populace who heard it. Few men before Him had spoken about the subject with such practical insight and clarity. At large, the “Sermon on the Mount” had weakened the authority of the Pharisees. In it, and in regards to His topic about the ethics of marriage, Jesus had claimed a knowledge and understanding of the Mosaic Law found in Deuteronomy 24 and as such the Pharisees demanded an explanation for His general contrariness to their opinions on the subject.

35

A Pastoral Handbook for Rescuing Modern Marriages

Going back to Socrates, one of the central features of the principle of the Priority of Definition is that when a person makes a claim to knowledge of some thing or other, he is implicitly claiming to know the definition of that concept. The Pharisees themselves claimed to be experts of the Mosaic Law on this subject. To minimize the stigma behind divorce they had redefined marriage in a way to make the concept both acceptable and lawful.10 Now, let’s apply Socrates’ principle of the Priority of Definition: to make a claim to the knowledge of some concept is to claim that one knows the definition of that concept.

The Pharisees had their definition of marriage and the question “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” They simply looked for the Lord’s definition of marriage in response.

Frightfully to them, the whole conversation went another direction and proved just opposite! The Lord revealed that either they had allowed their definition of marriage to become unclear and unfocused; or they were exposed to be in direct disobedience to God’s instructions on the subject—pick one. This can be the only explanation for their ignorance about the scriptures. They had become so weighted down by the particulars of the Mosaic Law in Deuteronomy 24 they had forgotten or neglected the spirit and foundation of the Law found in Genesis 2:24.

That is what Jesus fundamentally brought them back to recognize—He presented them with a little perspective. It was a wise, bold answer the Lord gave.

Could it be that this is the insight and direction needed for our western culture today? Let’s look again at what God says the definition of marriage is.

10 The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Alfred Edersheim, 1883; Book II, Chapter 2

36

The Definition of Marriage

The Biblical Definition of Marriage After the purpose of marriage is established, we come to the definition.

I understand that generally the more suitable way of logic is to give a definition first and then bring out the purpose of a thing. I’ve reversed the order, as that seems to be what God chose to do at the beginning of creation. His definition of marriage flows from the purpose of marriage. God saw the need of man—“It is not good that the man should be alone.” He established the purpose of companionship and intimacy—“I will make him a helper fit for him.” And then God gave the ethics of marriage for the definition. Let me read the sequence in which Jesus presents His answer to the Pharisees—“male and female he created them.” “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” Here we see the biblical order as man’s need, God’s purpose, and finally, God’s definition of marriage.

The purpose of marriage needed ethics for relationships. Otherwise the need of man for companionship would lead to wherever selfsatisfaction and personal gratification was found. Imagine the chaos if humankind was left to become intimate with whoever desire dictated. Jealousy, anger, rage, revenge, murder, social injustices unimaginable would dominate every aspect of society without the order provided by the ethics of marriage. Marriage is God’s safeguard for a secure, protected, and socialized civilization. If you want to see the degeneration of a culture, change the definition of marriage to match society’s passions.

This is why modern western civilization finds itself at odds with the biblical definition of marriage. It has deigned to regulate God out of the picture, or at least into the background. While I don’t believe there has been a total breakdown in American society, there are evidences wreckage is on the way. A society that ignores God must first change

37

A Pastoral Handbook for Rescuing Modern Marriages

His oldest and most established institution solidifying ethics and morality—marriage. If you don’t like it, redefine it! If we omit God we can successfully redefine what truth and ethics are. Now we can allow all types of things to satisfy our wants and cravings—marriage can be what we want it to be! That’s why this issue of redefining marriage is so important to an immoral community.

I’m suggesting that the question, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” is the ultra-tiny kernel of breakdown to start a society on a trend toward social self-indulgence. Let me ask: If it is lawful for a man to divorce His wife, how many times is it lawful to do it? Twice? Sixteen times? Where do you stop? Let me ask the converse: If it is not lawful for a man to divorce his wife, why not just cheat and sleep around? Or, why marry at all? How many times is sex permitted before marriage? Twice?

Sixteen times? Where do you stop? See how insidious the question is?

There is always going to be this follow-up inquiry to see exactly where actions and behaviors finally become unethical.

My original query of “why can’t there be a yes or no answer to the question”, only creates more problems. The Lord, however, answers their query uncompromisingly and goes right after the real issue—how do you define marriage? That is why He gives more than just a yes or no answer. In defining marriage Jesus says: (ESV) Mark 10:6 “But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ 7 ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

To be clear; in this passage we find the biblical definition of marriage!

Change this meaning and you alter the heart and soul of what God says marriage is. From this definition there are two elements central 38

The Definition of Marriage

to creating the ethics of marriage: The Union of Marriage and the Indissolubility of Marriage.

The Union of Marriage The first element is the Union of Marriage. This is the forefront of defining marriage biblically. I’ll be real simple in my preliminary statement: marriage is a commitment and covenant between a man and a woman with the result of the two people becoming one flesh! This is what Paul the Apostle taught about marriage when writing to the Ephesians: (ESV) Ephesians 5:31-32 “‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ 32 This mystery is profound…”

How does the union of “two flesh becoming one flesh” happen? There are no clear verses mechanically describing in specific detail how it happens, we are only left to speculation. However, there is a verse that implies what is possibly going on behind the proverbial curtain. We’ve read Malachi 2 from the viewpoint of Procreation. Now we read it from an examination of the Union of Marriage.

(NIV) 15 “Has not [the LORD] made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his.

And why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring.”

Theologians seemed to be in agreement that the thought of this verse points to the Lord Himself uniting male and female into one flesh in marriage. There is some mysterious divine intervention happening here, whether acknowledged by man or not, that makes this union into one flesh occur.

Taking what we learn from Paul about marriage, I’m going to suggest there are three building blocks creating this mysterious Union in Marriage.

First, a man must leave his father and mother; second, he is joined to 39

A Pastoral Handbook for Rescuing Modern Marriages

his wife; and third, the two become one flesh. Let’s call this the Leave, Cleave, and Unite building blocks defining the union of marriage. Break apart anyone of these blocks and it’s difficult to biblically define a relationship as the union of marriage—or, the state of being married.

Without all of these blocks the relationship is just two people living together, or a “one-night stand” depending on duration.

Leave The first building block noted in the passage is “a man shall leave his father and mother.” Why is this even a subject in regards to marriage?

Without addressing the psychological ramifications of this action, married life is all about a new identity between two people—leaving father and mother is the first step of commitment to the process. The word used for “leave”, whether it’s in the ancient Hebrew from Genesis 2:24, or the Greek language used in Mark 10 or Ephesians 5, translates close to the same thing—forsaking. When a wedding gets to the part of saying the marriage vows, generally this thought is portrayed as “forsaking all others.”

According to Kenneth Wuest11 the ancient Greek word used for leave is a compound word and a very strong one—kataleipo. The simple verb leipo translates, “to leave.” The prefixed preposition kata is used to intensify the already existing idea of the verb. Using our modern vernacular as an illustration, kata puts the word leaving on steroids.

Together the word literally translates “to leave behind, to depart from, to forsake.” Kataleipo implies the idea of leaving something with the sense of abandoning it with finality. This word is not like leaving an item someplace to retrieve it later—like you might leave a book on a shelf picking it up later to start again where you left off reading. The idea

11 Word Studies in the Greek New Testament, Kenneth Wuest, Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1953, Vol. 1, p. 196197

40

The Definition of Marriage

in Ephesians 5 speaks of leaving something with the choice of never coming back or returning to it!

In the context of a commitment to marriage the idea is the shift of a man’s fidelity and devotion from his parents to his wife. I used to be able to get my son to do anything for me at any time if I needed help.

You can forget that since he got married—he’s his own man now, as he should be! I take a lot of comfort in knowing I raised him to care for his wife, Jennifer, and their children with the diligence, devotion, and care that the Bible teaches. Same with my son-in-law, I have complete confidence Benjamin will forever and always cherish my daughter. From the start Ben instilled in me that confidence by discussing his intentions and interest in seeing and courting my eldest daughter, Anna.

By design, setup at the beginning of creation, the relationship between husband and wife is more intimate than any other—even than the bond between parents and children. A married man considers all other relationships subordinate to the one he shares with his wife. This is by divine intervention—the way it ought to be. A man choosing to leave behind a former lifestyle, and never returning defines the depth of commitment he is making to the wife. This commitment of leaving is the first building block in the Union in Marriage.

Cleave The second building block is found in the phrase, “and shall be joined to his wife.” As much as the man leaving father and mother is a shift from the past, to be joined to his wife is a look to the future! Again, the word for joined in the ancient Hebrew of Genesis 2:24, and the Greek language of Mark 10 and Ephesians 5 is virtually the same in meaning— cleave. Kenneth Wuest12 writes that in the Greek the word cleave or 12 Word Studies in the Greek New Testament, Kenneth Wuest, Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1953, Vol. 1, p. 196197

41

A Pastoral Handbook for Rescuing Modern Marriages

proskollao means, “to glue, to join one’s self, to cleave close to, to stick to.”

He says the verb includes the initial act of joining one’s self to another and then remaining joined. The idea is of two objects glued together to make one inseparable object. And this new object is forever viewed as one piece, never two. You absolutely cannot break the one object back into the two original states—they are inseparably one piece!

From this we establish that the second definition of marriage is a man joined to his wife, a man glued with his woman, a male cleaving to his female! The joining of anything else but male and female is only a form of cohabitation—it is not marriage as defined by the Bible and accepted throughout history. In my simplest of words, marriage is male and female cleaving by covenant to each other.

Again, Kenneth Wuest13 writes that the word appears in a 6 A.D. manuscript in which “a man makes certain dispositions with regard to the wife who had been joined to him.” Let me put the same idea another way.

Cleaving to a wife is the disposition, or behavioral tendency forming the covenant of marriage. You cannot cleave to someone to whom you have not made a covenant with! Cleaving implies covenant. Two people may live together and get along quite well; they even may have children together. But since there has been no covenant and commitment— meaning either one is free to leave the other at any time—by definition they are not married! Therefore, no matter how long they’ve been together, they cannot say they are cleaving to one another—there has been no promise or vow before God, witnesses or individually to each other. A man cleaving to his wife is a man who has made an enduring promise of covenant.

13 Word Studies in the Greek New Testament, Kenneth Wuest, Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1953, Vol. 1, p. 196197

42

The Definition of Marriage

The Union in Marriage is a covenant with ethical consequences. Just living together avoids the ethical consequences. Joining and cleaving means two people, male and female, have ethically made a choice for an inseparable union with each other and the two will not return to their original state. The covenant is what makes cleaving the second building block of the Union of Marriage.

Unite The last building block I’ve called Unite and used the phrase “and the two shall become one flesh” for the description. How the mechanics of this “uniting of two into one flesh” happens is a mystery. Paul himself tells us this when he writes in verses 31 and 32, “and the two shall become one flesh.’ This mystery is profound….” The fact is, Unite does happen and is ethically a significant aspect for the sanctity of marriage. In the marriage covenant there is a physical intimacy enjoyed by a husband and wife that no other has the right to enter. The author of Hebrews sees this and cautions everyone that the marriage bed is to be undefiled.14 The writer then warns that God will personally judge all individuals who violate the sanctity of the marriage bed. This is where I find people want to tinker with the definition of marriage. They want to enjoy sexual relations without the ethical consequences. However, Hebrews 13 teaches sex outside of marriage is ethically wrong and God labels it as sexual immorality or adultery.

There is something that happens when two unite in marriage that brings the flesh of two individuals into one flesh. Whether the uniting is a result of physical intimacy or of the soul is a debate many have undertaken for ages. However, please be aware that while this uniting is sacredly reserved for marriage, the act of physical intimacy producing 14 Hebrews 13:4 (ESV) “Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous.”

43

A Pastoral Handbook for Rescuing Modern Marriages

one flesh alone does not make a marriage. Paul writes in his rebuke to the Corinthians: (ESV) 1 Corinthians 6:16 “Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, ‘The two will become one flesh.’”

The two becoming one flesh is not reserved to only the institution of marriage. Paul is saying, whoever you’ve have sex with; you’ve become one flesh with that person. However, the purity and sanctity behind the two becoming one flesh is reserved to only marriage. Simply put, when sex happens outside of marriage it is not sanctified and the violators fall into the personal judging of God. Physical intimacy is a key part of the sanctity of marriage and must be held in the highest of honor with all fidelity. The ethics of the marriage covenant demands trustworthiness to the definition of marriage. And while it takes all three building blocks for creating the Union of Marriage, the final building block of Unite is the finishing act of consummation of the marriage vows.

Summarizing the Union in Marriage In summary, the first element that brings about the ethics of marriage is the Union of Marriage as defined by the three building blocks. Paul the Apostle in Ephesians 5 and Jesus in Mark 10 gives the definition of marriage using these three building blocks: Leave, Cleave and Unite. It takes all three building blocks to define the Union of Marriage—leave out one of the three and it’s difficult to name the union as marriage—it’s only cohabitation and must be therefore defined some other way.

Another way to remember the definition of the first element for the union of marriage is by their actions: commitment, covenant and consummation. It takes all three actions to become one flesh in the union of marriage!

44

The Definition of Marriage

The Indissolubility in Marriage The second element that brings about the ethics of marriage is “The Indissolubility of Marriage.” We read in Mark 10 Jesus says clearly and strongly, “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

When a man and woman wed, they are joined together for life. If you say someone other than God can separate the two, you compromise and change the definition of marriage. And when God says, as He does in Malachi 2, that He has “made them one…in flesh and spirit they are His”; this arrangement dates back to the Garden of Eden.

This union is a law or principle of life in effect for all humankind regardless of race, religion or national culture. There is no bias or prejudice with the institution of marriage—it was created before any divisions or separations were established on earth. Therefore marriage is a divine earthly institution with heavenly ramifications! It was designed for use on this earth even before Adam sinned and needed salvation— marriage predates the fall of Adam. In fact, salvation itself did nothing to alter the law or principle of marriage. Adam and Eve were husband and wife before the fall and after. Neither sin nor salvation changed their marital status—marriage is a principle of life! And, since God created this principle of life, there is only one thing that can dissolve that oneness and union of the marriage bond—God by means of death. Paul the Apostle explains this in Romans 7: (ESV) 2 For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband.

The law Paul references is the union of the marriage covenant established in the Garden of Eden. He’s saying it dissolves only at the death of a spouse. At that point alone is a surviving spouse free to remarry. That means the union of a man and woman cannot be 45

A Pastoral Handbook for Rescuing Modern Marriages

dissolved by a piece of paper, a certificate of divorce, or even by the action of infidelity. Jesus says, “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

Though a marriage fails, spouses live separated, or even divorced from one another; before God, since no man can break that union, they are still one flesh. You will search the scriptures in vain for a process to separate the one flesh back into two individual parts—other than by death. Not even salvation in Christ with the start of a spiritual life can dissolve or nullify the special union God ordained. Saved or not, a man and woman in marriage become one flesh! A person that was married before salvation is still one flesh with the spouse of their youth! To imply anything else cheapens the dignity of marriage as a divine earthly institution. A person may even become one with another individual despoiling the first union, but that does not dissolve what God joined together as Jesus says, “let no man separate.”

To summarize the ethics of modern marriage (which really is the same for marriage of all times): it matters how you define marriage and what you do with that definition! Because marriage by definition demands fidelity of commitment, covenant and consummation, and is by creation ordained of God insoluble, to be dissolved only by Him; it is ethical (having moral principle) by nature.

The Path of the Marriage Covenant I’ve reached my goal of presenting the two biblical aspects of planning for a modern marriage. Understanding God’s purpose and definition for marriage provides the foundation for being successful. If two people can agree to these Garden of Eden principles, then there is really only one thing more to do—get on the Path of the Marriage Covenant.

46

The Definition of Marriage

I want to quickly note there is a difference in my mind between living on the path of marriage and living on the path of the marriage covenant. On the path of marriage anything can happen. There are trials, disruptions, heartaches, disillusions along with joys, happiness and contentment. On the path of the marriage covenant there is only one thing—ethical fidelity.

Dennis Rainey, who is a well-known Christian speaker with a group called FamilyLife, was recently noted as saying: “For the past two years I have had a growing concern that the Christian community has passively watched the ‘dumbing down’ of the marriage covenant. Marriage has become little more than an upgraded social contract between two people—not a holy covenant between a man and a woman and their God for a lifetime.”

I’m not sure I could agree anymore with his assessment than I already do! The Marriage Covenant is a lifetime promise to the path of marriage.

The Marriage Covenant looks at the difficulties and trials in married life and says defiantly; “Do your worst!” It never gives up, it never surrenders to the pressures of society. Modern western civilization, with all its sophistication and so-called advancements, has successfully “dumbed down” the Marriage Covenant almost to the point of irrelevance.

Another popular Bible scholar, R. C. Sproul of the Renewing Your Mind radio program, noted: “The rise and fall of marriage in a society acts as a barometer by which to measure the godliness of that culture…” “Living by covenants is God’s method to anchor our lives and provide security against the prevailing cultural disintegration.”

I completely agree with his assessment. In fact, so powerful and effective has the process of cultural disintegration been working that 47

A Pastoral Handbook for Rescuing Modern Marriages

the safeguard of marriage itself, the church of Jesus Christ, seems to have become blinded to the unethical developments of the diluted Marriage Covenant. I heard a recent report on the radio that surveyed one thousand church attending people with the question, “Have you engaged in sex outside of marriage?” Of those responding to the survey, 33% of Christian men and 27% of Christian women had engaged in at least one sexual affair while married. Now for the most staggering statistic: of these answering the questions a whopping 76% said such behavior was morally acceptable. Engaging in sex outside of marriage is pure adultery! And, that it would be acceptable to any in the church is the dumbing down of the Marriage Covenant at work!

The Path of the Marriage Covenant is one of commitment and fidelity.

If ethics in marriage has any meaning, modern western civilization has defaced it! Sexual relations outside of marriage will not dissolve the union of one flesh in marriage, but it will defile, despoil and devalue the purpose and definition of God’s special one-flesh union reserved only for marriage.

I knew a man years ago that said after his first two weeks of marriage, “I hope this works out.” He began his marriage in a compromised position. “I hope this works” is not the words of man on the Path of the Marriage Covenant. He eventually had two lovely children, precious little girls, and within ten years time cheated on his wife and left the family for another younger woman he’d met at work. From the outset he defrauded his wife and the Marriage Covenant. He said in his vows he would cleave to her (I was there as a witness and heard him) and then he undermined that covenant and destroyed his family. It took ten years before he was faithless to his covenant—he, however, violated the promise to his wife and devastated two lovely little girls.

48

The Definition of Marriage

God is very interested in what happens with a Marriage Covenant. For the man who cheats on his wife, God specifically says: (ESV) Malachi 2:14 “…the LORD was witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant.”

God holds the man who cheats on the wife of his youth as one He will personally judge for the unfaithfulness. This individual falls directly into the category of Hebrews 13:4: “for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous.” A man may somehow think and feel that after a ruinous affair moving on is best for all parties involved in a loveless marriage, but that is not how God views the situation. So now, one might ask, “How do you stay on the Path of the Marriage Covenant?” For the answer we continue with Malachi: (ESV) Malachi 2:15 …So guard yourselves in your spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your youth.

This paradigm of fidelity is an interesting choice—“guard yourselves in you spirit.” One would think it should say, “guard your flesh” since it’s the lust of the flesh that’s mostly affected in the action of infidelity or immorality. Instead, the imperative is guard yourself in your spirit. The word for guard in the ancient Hebrew language is “shamar” which translates also as the word hedge. A deeper nuanced meaning of this passage is that a man is called to put a hedge of protection around the commitment in marriage, the very spirit and breath of his life. The thought is to guard the heart, emotions, and affections so they are never faithless to the wife of your youth.

The Marriage Covenant is reaching deeper than what is achieved in the flesh. The path of the Marriage Covenant is a secret passage for two

49

A Pastoral Handbook for Rescuing Modern Marriages

that have become one. The choice is to place an impenetrable hedge around it and the path of marriage will never end in failure!

To hold fast in the ethics of marriage is to become unmovable in the purpose and definition of marriage. Allow nothing to dumb down the way God created marriage from the beginning of time. To those who guard marriage as the sacred institution it is, they will experience the blessing of God for their fidelity!

50

The Safeguard of Marriage

New International Version – Hebrews 10:4 4 “Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.”

Honor for Modern Marriages Marriage is under a tremendous assault in American culture.

Special interest groups pressing freethinking social agendas place enormous pressure on politicians and educators in attempts to revise the definitions of many time-honored tenets established for centuries—marriage is at the forefront of these campaigns. Media and entertainment conglomerates, propagating reworked ethics, continually violate this institution that was once considered dignified and honorable. In the not-so-distant past, a man and woman sleeping together out of wedlock were once considered “morally wrong.” Today’s “liberated” television programs present a different view. “Living together first” has become a required preamble to a marriage commitment and is deemed morally acceptable if not advisable. I’ve read bloggers comment that this way of thinking is both enlightened and progressive; anything else is a return to the Dark Ages of intellectual thought. Like it or not, it’s these ideals that aggravate religious fundamentalist nations 51

A Pastoral Handbook for Rescuing Modern Marriages

against the decadence of western culture and expression. I’m not pointing this out as an excuse and justification for violent aggressions; extremism is never justifiable for taking the lives of fellow human beings. I present this to show just how far western society has morphed in so short a time.

The vanguard principle of this cultural transformation is marriage and its definition. If a society can successfully redefine what marriage is then just about anything is open to alteration. When the honor traditionally bestowed to marriage can be diluted, a society can easily cast off the constraints of a “righteous” Sovereign. The reasoning is easy enough to follow; the special bond between a man and woman is critical to the very fiber of morality and social order.

In America, the makeover of marriage has weakened and jeopardized matrimony as God instituted back at the beginning of creation.

Biblically, marriage is the first institution devised by God with standards and morals. Nations could come and go, rulers would rise and fall, even civilizations could demonstrate decency or decadence, but what has never changed throughout centuries is the expectation of fidelity and trust embedded into the marriage vow. And, until recently, the main safeguard for the dignity and honor of this sacred institution has been the church.

The writer of Hebrews informs the reader “Marriage should be honored by all!” This principle is not limited to believers in Christ. Neither is it restricted to only those practicing the institution of marriage. “Honored by all” means that every individual witnessing this ancient practice must hold it in reverence as ordained and initiated by the Wise Creator. The contest for holding this reality as valid is the struggle of the church.

God’s household has always been and is called to be the pillar and

52

The Safeguard of Marriage

foundation of the truth of God.15 For people who read the Bible, it’s not like hearing these distortions on marriage comes as a great surprise. The Apostle Paul warned Timothy this would happen in the last days when he wrote that there would be: 1 Timothy 4:3 “men who forbid marriage….”

Men tinkering with and forbidding this time-honored institution was never what was in question. Paul was pointing out it was going to happen as sure as the sun rises each morning. What is surprising to some is how quickly churches in modern western culture have joined in to compromise the meaning of marriage as defined in Genesis 2:24: 24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.

Regarding marriage, the safeguard for its honor is found in the church.

Israel, as a nation, once held the responsibility and failed miserably to uphold it. There were many laws, ordinances, and precepts given to the Israeli for displaying the virtues of marriage. And while the gentile nations surrounding Israel practiced abominations in regards to matrimony, God’s people were given specific guidelines to see they did not do the same. Through the nation Israel this sacred institution was to be properly displayed to the surrounding nations and held in honor with fidelity. When Jesus came, while living among the Jews, He saw just the contrary. I pointed out earlier that He expressed His concerns when answering a group of men questioning His ethics on marriage— they asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” Jesus replied: (ESV) Mark 10:6 “But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ 7 ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer 15 1 Timothy 3:15

53

A Pastoral Handbook for Rescuing Modern Marriages

two but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

What do you suppose Jesus sees at present as He looks at today’s modern-day churches? Would Jesus challenge our pastors and teachers with the same directness as He confronted the Pharisees of the Jewish religion? Defining the sanctity of marriage and delineating how the church should hold this institution in honor are difficult questions to answer. Bible scholars and theologians have argued over these issues for centuries. Since the reformation it has proved impossible to gain a consensus on specifics. And it is not in my capacity to determine laws and ways of how to resolve what churches should do to agree about this subject. Nor is it in any way my intent or desire to make anyone feel guilty or condemn for choices made or the way others are counseled.

However, the Safeguard of Marriage must take place to insure the honor of the biblical purpose and definition of marriage remains reliable.

The Biblical Honor of Marriage The writer of Hebrews gives a straightforward assessment of how serious God is about humanity having the proper perspective of marriage: (NAS) Hebrews 10:4 Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge.

Marriage is not up for the experimentations of social domestic partnerships or lewd inventions of impurity. It’s noted that “Marriage is to be held in honor” as an institution without making light of the seriousness of the commitment, covenant and consummation in matrimony. Vowing before God is a definitive act. When a couple wed, choosing to make up silly declarations of dedication, or exchanging 54

The Safeguard of Marriage

comical and trite promises in attempts to be humorous, only confuses the seriousness of this ancient union and marriage will be held in disrepute instead of honor.

I’m not saying there’s no room for out-of-the-ordinary situations to take place during a wedding. I know couples having great marriages that added some unique aspect of a pledge reflecting their personalities into their wedding ceremony. They recognized the seriousness of the commitment and added nuanced insights all the while upholding the dignity of this institution. When thinking about where and how to perform a ceremony, remember that marriage is to be held in honor among all, and a flippant indifference to matrimony may not be the best way to display this dignified institution that God holds so precious and dear.

A wedding is the highest illustration representing the coming union of Christ and His church. The Bible uses marriage as a perfect portrait of the nobility and dignity to that relationship. For example, we’re told as Christ loves and cares for the church, so are men called to love their wives with the deepest of commitment and devotion. And since there is no greater representation of God’s love then Jesus expending His life for His bride, marriage is that perfect display of pure charity through a husband’s self-sacrifice.

It’s when a society no longer wants to be reminded of God’s sacrifice for the world, that marriage comes under incredible assault. This institution reminds dissenters of what they strive to ignore—God is real, alive and conscious of humanity’s actions. Changing the biblical definition of marriage is the final act to liberating a society from the values God set at the beginning of creation. When this begins to happen within a culture, the church is given the assignment of preserving the sanctity and honor of marriage—they are the safeguards of marriage!

55

A Pastoral Handbook for Rescuing Modern Marriages

If God’s household cannot agree to holding marriage in distinction, how can it be expected those without the church will recognize as tenable God’s ancient definition? It’s essential that a church fellowship holds these principles as foundational, or eventually purity in that congregation will fail. All church order, in the context of marriage, rests upon the imperative definition of Genesis 2:24 which is quoted again in Ephesians 5:30.

Even when this definition is unchanging and solid, practical conditions and situations can come up that will divide and weaken church fellowships if they are left uncorrected or ignored. Unmanaged problems and circumstances, by default, eventually give way to an unspoken redefining of marriage within a church.

There are very difficult and emotional issues that arise. They are concerns that press, not only upon spiritual health, but also the psychological needs of individuals. Personally, as a man with a pastoral ministry, I’ve never enjoy working through these problems with others, nor do I find a desire in thrusting my opinion upon a situation. I’m glad I have the Bible that answers firsthand many of these matters. Over my years of being involved in a pastoral ministry I’ve discovered three reoccurring and difficult topics. While I do believe it’s not up to any one individual to judge and condemn others, I’m drawn to acknowledge that a fellowship must collectively unite behind scriptural principles and instructions to maintain holiness and purity. When a church remains silent or ignores unethical behavior in the Marriage Covenant, it falls in danger of compromising the biblical definition of marriage. So, here are the three most common issues my fellowship has faced over the years when dealing with the danger of redefining marriage in the church.

56

The Safeguard of Marriage

The Ethics of Morality (NIV) 1 Corinthians 5:1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father’s wife. 2 And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this?

Sadly, immorality is a problem that finds its way too often into a fellowship. Churches, especially with overwhelming numbers of young people, can become vulnerable to this concern. For a pastoral ministry, there is a fine balance of always warning about the insidious nature of this particular sin and sounding like a prude. I personally tend to err on the side of being a prude. The ethics of morality in relationships is imperative for a church desiring purity. The principles of virtuous behavior must be upheld for a church to be a safeguard of the marriage institution; it cannot turn a blind eye to immorality in a congregation.

From his writings we learn Paul had heard reports that a problem of immorality developed in one of the churches he had personally planted. In fact, somehow he had gathered information that this particular fellowship was proud of the whole situation—in truth their ethics of morality for marriage had modified. While I’m not really sure how this church in Corinth had convinced itself that allowing an immoral person to continue in fellowship was an outstanding idea, I know exactly how Paul commands them to deal with the issue. He tells them they should “… put out of… fellowship the man who did this”.

While that may sound cold and callous, Paul’s quick and decisive action is the ideal cure for Corinth’s compromise—it is the only remedy for this situation. Once before Paul had addressed this issue with the Corinthians:

57

A Pastoral Handbook for Rescuing Modern Marriages

9 “I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people” Yet, somehow the Corinthians imagined this type of behavior was tolerable among professing Christians within a church fellowship. They couldn’t be more wrong! The book of first Corinthians never tells us they encouraged the defiling behavior—but it never reveals they confronted it either! Most likely (and I admit this is completely conjecture on my part), the church fellowship didn’t want to deal with the problem and ignored or excused it.

I’ve heard about this course of action happening in churches of our time period. The whole situation is like the proverbial “elephant in the room.” No one confirms the huge animal exists, that way no one has to deal with the mess it makes removing it from an area. It’s much easier to say, “We don’t dig into the private lives of our people.” To an extent that’s true. We assume believers desire purity and holiness, we think the best about every brother or sister, and we are not the ethic’s morality police!

However, when immoral issues become recognized and collective purity is at stake, it becomes the care of the fellowship to confront the problem and to not pretend the issue does not exist. In fact, in his writing to Corinth Paul instructs the Corinthians just how far they needed to take the whole situation to demonstrate seriousness: 11 “But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.”

Let me simplify this simple instruction even more. Paul is actually writing not to associate or even eat with a so-called brother that lives an immoral life. In context, his mandate is not regulated to only the church fellowship’s times of gathering, but also any relationship 58

The Safeguard of Marriage

with the immoral person on an individual basis. The action Paul is commanding the church to do in cases of immorality is to expel the individual immediately: 13 “…Expel the wicked man from among you.”

Dealing with the issue of immorality must be done instantly, concisely and without compromise—this is the most merciful action a church can take in this circumstance. Paul is so animated in his actions that he takes the most unusual position and command of all his writings—he instructs the Corinthians: 4 When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, 5 hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.

Never before and never again do we read of Paul displaying such incredible decisive judgment upon a so-called brother! This man’s immorality was a condition so serious that special prayer was made to hand the so-called brother over to Satan. When I read this I can’t help but wonder if such a solemn prayer would have been necessary had the Corinthian church dealt more responsively with the situation in the first place.

As a man with a pastoral ministry, I would have been devastated had Paul required such a prayer from the church fellowship I attend. Dealing with the issue of immorality is very important to guarding the definition of marriage. Seeing this behavior among unbelievers is one thing. To allow immorality by a so-called brother and not judge it is another. Paul writes:

59

A Pastoral Handbook for Rescuing Modern Marriages

12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?

Of coarse the answer to the second rhetorical question is a resounding, yes! Ethics of morality in relationships must be preserved with the highest fidelity. For the church to be a safeguard of honor for marriage it must hold resolutely the purpose and definition of marriage. Allowing an immoral union that belongs only within the sanctity of marriage compromises, confuses and weakens those ethics.

The Ethics of the Marriage Covenant 1 Corinthians 7 (NIV) 10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. 12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him.

At times there are difficult situations that arise in a marriage. When issues become insurmountable a major problem develops. Our modern culture refers to this crisis as irreconcilable differences and offers divorce as an option out of the difficulties—American society calls this action no-fault divorce. It’s this premise that gives strength and makes divorce the 45 billion dollar a year industry it is! Opting out of the Marriage Covenant has never been easier. As I mentioned earlier, it’s big business or “Big Divorce” at work.

Sadly, this inclination weighs too heavily upon churches with modern western influences. The unrestrained use of divorce in American society has created serious disarray in the body of Christ gravely weakening the ethics of the Marriage Covenant. According to one research 60

The Safeguard of Marriage

organization called the Barna Group, statistics16 show one third (33%) of all marriages in America end in divorce—having a Christian background and attending church is no exception. The report goes on to indicate of those professing to be “born again Christians” the divorce numbers remained virtually unchanged (32%). I believe this reveals just how heavily influenced modern Christianity is by western culture’s view of divorce. When the professing church reflects almost zero difference than the world in the amount of divorces taking place, you know something is wrong! The ethics of the Marriage Covenant is in serious trouble.

It appears that instead of Christians influencing the modern cultural viewpoint of marriage, the church is adding to the problem in significant numbers. Without trying to sound like an alarmist, it seems like the body of Christ, at least in countries and areas of western civilization, may be loosing the ability to be the safeguard of honor for marriage. With divorce so prevalent and readily accepted in society, how is the church to deal with such dominant issues?

To handle the problem I think we need to first ask another question.

How does an independent church fellowship begin to make a difference in the community? In writing to the Corinthians, Paul acknowledges that difficulties will arise in marriages and he gives guidelines for a church’s position on such complicated issues—these are ethics for the Marriage Covenant.

There are a myriad of complexities at work in every martial problem.

Still, Paul makes it clear that when a breakdown of marriage vows comes into play and the ethics of the Marriage Covenant is compromised, church order must be upheld. There are situations where 16 The Barna Group of Ventura, California; (www.barna.org); http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/15familykids/42-new-marriage-and-divorce-statistics-released?q=divorce+church

61

A Pastoral Handbook for Rescuing Modern Marriages

the wedding oaths of endurance and patience become stretched and a peaceful cohabitation is impossible. When communication fails in a marriage, eventually things end up in hostilities. And when it is not good for a husband, wife or children to live in this type of antagonistic environment—something must change.

In this topic, what I don’t want to do is get tied-up in why this happens or attempt to fix it. There are Christian marriage counselors that have specific gifts and ministries to help a couple discover how to reconcile their problems with one another. We also find the Bible is fully equipped with definite instructions for the healing of marriages. Interestingly, in reading 1 Corinthians 7, Paul does not seem too eager to advance any specifics in ways of reconciliation, nor does he bestow any insights into dealing with the crisis. In fact, he seems to offer no counsel whatsoever on how to maintain a happy, fulfilling marriage. What Paul does do is acknowledge that problems can develop so severely that two people will reach a point of separation. This chapter presents information about how a church fellowship must look at this situation for the preservation of church order and purity.

In 1 Corinthians 7 there are two different topics at work and the goal of both is to provide for a peaceful resolution that protects the honor of marriage and the ethics of the Marriage Covenant. The two topics are: what to do if problems develop between believers, and what to do if an unbelieving spouse is involved.

First of all, if problems develop in a marriage between believers Paul writes: 10 “…A wife must not separate from her husband. 11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.”

62

The Safeguard of Marriage

At all times the ethics of the Marriage Covenant must be preserved!

For the wife in a troubled marriage, the idea in verse 11 is, if separating she must remain unmarried. In the Greek language unmarried is the same thought as “as if she were single.” For a husband in the same state, he is commanded not to divorce his wife! Before going on, I must clarify one thing about these verses. You will notice that only the man is told he cannot seek a divorce. For believers, Paul is honoring the law of Deuteronomy 24 that states: (NAS) 1 “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, …”

Under the Law of Moses only the man can write a certificate of divorce, there is no provision of the same for a wife. (To judge the fairness of the Law is beyond the scope of our topic and will only be distracting at this point.) Paul is aiming at the man who has the power in this situation and he is saying, if you are married believers, divorce is not an option—“a husband must not divorce his wife.” Simply put, if problems in a marriage progress to the point of separation, both believing spouses are not free to divorce.

This direction sustains the ethics of the Marriage Covenant. The husband/wife are left with one of two options: either work things out (of which Paul leaves out specifics on what to do) or remain in a single state—there is no third opt-out plan from Paul. As I’ve mentioned earlier, there is only one condition that separates the union of one flesh in marriage. Paul makes that very clear on behalf of the wife in the last verse of the 1 Corinthians 7: 39 A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord.

63

A Pastoral Handbook for Rescuing Modern Marriages

There are all types of situations that can happen that may require a separation between a husband and wife. The instance of a violent spouse demands the quick action of separation for the safety of all in a home—generally a wife and children. Or there may be an incapacitated husband or wife that needs serious medical care that requires permanent outside help. These are situations that come up, are very complicated, and place a strain on marriage. However, even in these most difficult of circumstances, the union in marriage is not compromised and the ethics of the Marriage Covenant is to remain in tact. Paul is writing these things so that the honor of marriage is held on to through church order.

Right after these thoughts on marriage between believers comes the second topic of what to do if an unbelieving spouse is involved. Paul again gives specific direction: 12 “…If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him.”

If an unbelieving spouse desires to stay with the believer, it is Paul’s opinion that they stay together and not divorce—they are keeping the ethics of the Marriage Covenant. No one in the church should condemn or omit the believer from fellowship. It is an opportunity to see the grace of God in action. Who knows how the believing spouse will affect the rest of the family—especially when children are involved?

Knowing this truth doesn’t make living together any easier. No doubt things will be difficult in this type of union. However, the Bible is full of amazing instructions of ways to behave to win a spouse to the Redeemer. Miracles can happen when a husband or wife lives with their unbelieving spouse as the Bible teaches. Peter writes, in regards to helping a wife in her marriage to a husband that is unbelieving: 64

The Safeguard of Marriage

(NAS) 1 Peter 3:1 “…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, 2 as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior.”

There are some difficult words in these verses for our 21st century culture; nevertheless they are still true and applicable today if a person is interested in saving their marriage and winning the spouse over to Christ.

However, let’s be frank, there might be occasions where an unbelieving husband or wife cannot live together with a believer. Paul gives help establishing church order in this situation.

15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace.

Living in peace is the goal of handling a breakdown of marriage vows.

In every situation reconciliation has to be sought and the goal of dwelling together is most valuable and honorable. But if things happen and conflict develops, living in peace is the calling of God. The believer is not to be judged or suspended from fellowship for the departure of an unbelieving spouse.

However, it must be restated that even if an unbelieving husband/wife leaves and divorces, the special union of the two becoming one flesh is not nullified by a departure, or a piece of paper from a man or the state government. And there are no scriptures teaching that acts of infidelity breaks asunder the union of one flesh in marriage.17 Divorce may separate two people in location, but only God can break asunder the special union of marriage—the ethics of the Marriage Covenant is still in affect—union of one flesh has not been broken. Again, there is only 17 Matthew 19:9 and the so-called “exception clause” perspective will be taken up in the appendix.

65

A Pastoral Handbook for Rescuing Modern Marriages

one biblical condition for freedom to become involved in developing a new intimate relationship with an opposite sex: 1 Corinthians 7:39 A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives.

But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord.

In summation, obviously Paul’s number one priority is for marriages to stay together and work through problems and issues. That must be done within the ethics of the Marriage Covenant. For believers, if two people are walking with Jesus in the light, there is no reason why they cannot find a way to humbly live together. For those with an unbelieving spouse, God can do miracles if we trust him and obey His will in difficult matters.

The Ethics of the Union in Marriage (NAS) Ephesians 5: 31 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.

32 This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.”

History is replete with stories about men having multiple spouses.

There are even biblical accounts of a few characters, well respected in Israeli history, which practiced polygamy. And though there are no written consequences in the Law of Moses for such an arrangement, I think it must be recognized that the multiplying of unions was not God’s intention and plan for marriage. We can easily locate many passages outside the context of the Mosaic Law that offer warnings of consequence to multiplying marriages. There are also concrete examples of men experiencing problems that developed from multiple wives or concubines. In the Bible, polygamy finds it’s first recognition 66

The Safeguard of Marriage

with the murderer Lamech, great-great grandson of Adam’s first son Cain. From that point on individuals with multiple unions flourished and have existed up to our present day.

In contrast, western culture has maintained the value of monogamy as the acceptable social norm. The word monogamy comes from the Greek words monos which means one or alone, and gamos which means marriage. This translation from the Greek language is interesting as it establishes monogamy as a marriage relationship in contrast to the modern day practice of cohabitating, or living together. However, not content with this traditional translation, modern western civilization has seen fit to further define monogamy. According to some academics, a person can either practice serial monogamy, referring to a series of short or long-term relationships or, full monogamy, which they call a singleunion marriage lasting for the duration of an individual’s life. By the academic’s own definition it doesn’t take rocket science to conclude both polygamy and serial monogamy practice multiple marriages with full monogamy embracing their so-called single-union marriage.

Interestingly, by the time the Lord Jesus walked this earth the subject of polygamy does not come up as an issue. For the most part, ancient Roman civilization was not a fan of the polygamist though the practice seemed to be tolerated on occasion.18 However, the topic of multiple unions (the academic’s serial monogamy) does exist and Jesus sees fit to restate the definition of marriage when addressing the subject of divorce and remarriage. As I indicated earlier, the Lord is noted as saying in Mark’s gospel: (ESV) Mark 10:6 “But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ 7 ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer 18 The Works of Flavius Josephus, The War of the Jews, Book I, 28.4

67

A Pastoral Handbook for Rescuing Modern Marriages

two but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

A man and his wife—the two becoming one flesh—is God’s arrangement for marriage; this is the divine principle, or the standard and ethics of the union in marriage. Every time we see a violation of this arrangement in the Old Testament we discover grief and heartache.

Failure and despair famously happened with Abraham, Jacob, King David and King Solomon because they had multiple unions.

We learn from reading Mark 10 Jesus points out that from beginning of creation, marriage’s union of one flesh is recognized as the union created through marriage. I mentioned earlier that marriage is a divine earthly institution in which the two become one. And, according to the teachings of Christ (Mark 10:9), that does not change or dissolve until a spouse dies. Recognizing the importance of the union in marriage (“the two shall become one flesh”) is the cornerstone in defining marriage.

So what about western culture’s academic’s idea of what is called serial monogamy? Is it congruent to God’s definition of marriage? I think the answers can be simple though tough to hear. To be very clear let’s take it step-by-step. In the union of marriage, the two become one flesh— this is a biblical fact! Becoming one flesh with another person while a first spouse is still alive despoils the Marriage Covenant and the ethics of the union that happens by marriage.

I understand the emotions that come into play over this topic. I’ve also heard opinions from many different angles. Nonetheless the complexity of circumstances does not change the reality—multiple unions despoil the union of one flesh with the first spouse. Becoming one flesh with a new spouse does not nullify, or dissolve the union with a prior spouse.

That is why Jesus clearly says, “So they are no longer two but one flesh.

What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” Only an 68

The Safeguard of Marriage

act of God can separate the union in marriage. That is the ethics of the union in marriage—as I’ve heard it said, “one wife for life.”

What then is the state of those who have had multiple marriages?

As we read that the polygamists of the Old Testament personally found grace in the eyes of the Lord, someone with multiple marriages discovers the same as they learn to walk with God in humility as Abraham, Jacob and even David did. Whatever accountabilities are currently required because of multiple marriages, those responsibilities need to be tended to on a personal level.

It is imperative, however, that a church recognize the importance of ethics of the union in marriage or it risks weakening the definition of marriage as established in Genesis 2:24. I am not talking about stigmatizing believers who have had multiple marriages. As I remember, Jesus in John 4 had an amazing conversation with a woman who had many marriages. What I am referring to is the church’s call for safeguarding of the honor of marriage! These are just biblical facts— and these facts do not judge a man’s present emotional state or faithfulness to God and a present wife. The definition of marriage demands fidelity to the ethics of the union in marriage.

The Protection of the Marriage Covenant Marriages need rescuing in our modern society. The church is in the perfect position to make a difference in a progressively amoral civilization. I understand there are pressures that weigh heavily for compromise, but defending the definition of marriage will preserve the honor of marriage. How best is this definition defended? The protection the Marriage Covenant begins with the leadership in a church fellowship. If Elders and leading deacons cannot be examples and attest to the truths found in the scriptures, than nothing of substance can be

69

A Pastoral Handbook for Rescuing Modern Marriages

conveyed. For this Paul gives a few instructions for church order on the topic of single-union marriages and leadership of a church.

According to Paul, men who are church leading elders, and deacons with a gift of leadership, have to meet one of many following standards.

(To go into an explanation of why only men are leaders in a church is beyond our discussion) Paul writes to Timothy and Titus respectively: 1 Timothy 3:2 “An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife…. 12 Deacons must be husbands of only one wife….”

Titus 1:5 “…appoint elders in every city as I directed you, 6 namely, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife….”

According to Paul, church order requires that anyone who enjoys a role of leadership within a fellowship is to be the husband of one wife. Few commentators will dispute that, “the husband of one wife” literally means “a one-woman man.” In communicating to Timothy and Titus about church order, Paul is instructing them that a man who is more than a one-woman man would need to be excluded from the role of leading a fellowship. This is nothing personal against this individual; the person in question could be a very capable leader and godly man.

The simple fact is, any man who has repeated his wedding vows of commitment and covenant multiple times cannot be an elder or deacon leading the church and making decisions. We must protect the Marriage Covenant. The reason for Paul’s concern about this situation is the possibility reproach could be placed upon a church having a leader who has multiple marriages. This becomes an issue when faithfully defining marriage as the two becoming one flesh. He, in fact, is joined to more than one woman at the same time and it is impossible for someone in this state to defend in action the Marriage Covenant as they have already despoiled the definition.

70

The Safeguard of Marriage

I’ve read plenty of Bible expositors saying Paul is speaking about the character resulting from “faithfulness to a present spouse” and that action of present fidelity reveals the godly life necessary for being an elder/deacon with a gift of leadership. They ask, “why would a man be penalized from being an elder or leading deacon if his first spouse cheated on him and he is faithful to the present wife while displaying currently godly character?” That is a fine question to ask if eldership and leadership were only about individuals! While the lists of qualifications consist of personal characteristics, the responsibility goes much deeper than one man and his fidelity to a present wife of multiple marriages.

Leading a fellowship is about Christ being seen in His church—not a man’s personal life and the qualifications for any ministry he may enjoy.

Leadership of a church is a particular gift and calling (Romans 12:8) differing from others gifts within the church; and therefore has very high standards linked to it—protection of the Marriage Covenant being one. And, how can a remarried married man clearly gudie and counsel someone desiring divorce and remarriage.

With leadership of a church, a one-woman man is an example and testament to God’s definition of marriage. It’s impossible in action to confirm that truth if a church leader has had multiple marriages.

His fault or not, sadly, at least one marriage has ended in failure. Any believer in a fellowship should be able to point to an elder or deacon with a gift of leadership and say, “this is what the union of Christ and His bride looks like”—that cannot happen when a man has multiple marriages.

A man with multiple marriages may be a leader of different ministries within a church; he just cannot be a leader of a church. Leading a church is about more than one man’s faithfulness to a present wife.

Leadership is an example to God’s people in totality. The phrase “Husband of one wife” is not only an attribute of fidelity, but also the 71

A Pastoral Handbook for Rescuing Modern Marriages

needed example of the honor of marriage to a world that devalues the same. The men in the leadership of a church are called to be the highest examples of the purpose and definition of marriage to the culture they live in—to be beyond reproach. How else could a church fellowship preach to a society “marriage should be held in honor by all” if the leaders do not exhibit that truth?

Does that mean anyone who has had multiple marriages cannot be involved in God’s house? Or, that they are of lesser value than others?

Absolutely not! We’re not talking about the value of gift but the qualifications of a function—leadership of the church! Paul never places a higher value on the leaders of a church. Reading 1 Corinthians 12 tells us this right away.19 Every resource of grace and opportunity of service is available to everyone in the church who is walking with Jesus Christ. But, when it comes to the special service of leading a church fellowship, Paul sets as the order for leadership men who are in one-woman marriages. As difficult and unfair as it may seem to some, a person with multiple marriages must dismiss himself from leading a church for reasons of testimony to Jesus. God is forgiving of the past but aware of the present.

Paul’s desire is that the church remains the safeguard for the honor of marriage and portrays protection of the Marriage Covenant. Rescuing Modern Marriage is no easy task. To see this happen in a society bent on just the opposite, it will take pastors, teachers and leaders willing to recognize God’s purpose and definition for marriage. In doing so the 19 (NAS) 1 Corinthians 12:22 On the contrary, it is much truer that the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary; 23 and those members of the body which we deem less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor, and our less presentable members become much more presentable, 24 whereas our more presentable members have no need of it. But God has so composed the body, giving more abundant honor to that member which lacked, 25 so that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another.

72

The Safeguard of Marriage

church will be a safeguard for marriage and witness the renewing of God’s blessing for marriage in a needy society.

73

A Pastoral Handbook for Rescuing Modern Marriages

74

Appendix

There are a few things that are important that I felt would have been distracting if presented with the regular theme; these I have chosen to offer in an appendix.

The Issue of the So-called “Exception Clause” There is one probable problematic passage to address, its one verse in the parallel passage to Mark 10. When considered on it’s own, apart from the compatibility of others scriptures, the passage is often very confusing. Matthew 19:9 reads: 9 “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

This verse has become famously known as “the exception clause.” Some have meant this verse to mean that the case of immortality allows a divorcee to remarry. They teach that the act of fornication makes null and void the union and oneness defining marriage. And since the bond of one flesh no longer can be claimed, the individual is free to remarry— hence “the exception clause.” Let me mention two things that can be overlooked when discussing this issue.

75

A Pastoral Handbook for Rescuing Modern Marriages

First, as this is the only passage that adds an “exception” to divorce for immorality, it must seriously be considered that there may be other explanatory elements involved that are not characteristic or privy to our modern western culture. Diligent study reveals historical variables that provide for a compatible meaning with the rest of scripture. Mark, who was writing to a largely Roman population, did not add “the exception clause” in his version, as it was not necessary to those he was intending to read his Gospel—mostly gentiles. However, Matthew is much different. He was writing with the purpose of reaching Jewish readers and his addition of “except for immorality” would be needed to demonstrate an understanding of how immorality relates to the Mosaic Law. Second, the Law of Moses had very definite and specific penalties for dealing with sexual immorality and those violating the vows of the sacred covenant of marriage. In this instance, one caught in the act of immorality should have received the commensurate penalty under the law. If we are to believe the whole bible, then Deuteronomy 22:22 must be carried out as written: 22 “If a man is found lying with a married woman, then both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman; thus you shall purge the evil from Israel.”

Again the same devastating punishment was required to be performed in Leviticus 20: 10 “If there is a man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, one who commits adultery with his friend’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.”

Matthew added the so-called exception clause as an acknowledgement of understanding the intricacies of the Mosaic Law thereby satisfying his 76

Appendix

intended Jewish readers. So how would a Jewish examiner of scriptures, familiar with Old Testament law, understand this passage in Matthew’s gospel when reading it? First, infidelity would be the only occasion permitted for divorce—but never is remarriage legitimized. Second, after the full implementation of the Law of Moses the married individual would be free to remarry.

Under the law, the penalty of death is exacted upon the unfaithful spouse and that death would separate their union of one flesh as noted in Romans 7. How do you divorce someone who is dead? You can’t!

You can only divorce as long as the adulterer lives. And, as long as the unfaithful spouse is alive, though divorced, remarriage is prohibited under the law because both are still one flesh—otherwise they devalue and despoil the original God ordained union of marriage as presented to man back in the Garden of Eden. It is only after the execution of the spouse that one is free to remarry.

Whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality (according to the Law that is the only reason for divorce), and marries another woman commits adultery! From Matthew’s perspective he’s showing the Jewish reader that divorce is wrong, except in the case of infidelity, and to remarry is labeled adultery—you’ve despoiled the union of one flesh.

Matthew is not teaching that remarriage is sometimes all right. The scriptures are all consistent and remarriage is only permitted after the death of a spouse—only then, according to the law, is one free.

Does the one who was cheated on have the right to remarry? Infidelity is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for a terrible marriage! The union and bond of marriage may be despoiled because of unfaithfulness, but never does the scriptures teach marriage is dissolved by any human act before the death of a spouse. In fact, just the opposite is the truth. Only God by death can separate two people joined together as one. Isn’t 77

A Pastoral Handbook for Rescuing Modern Marriages

that what commitment, covenant and consummation are all about?

Shouldn’t that be part of every wedding vow? This is God’s definition of marriage—“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.”

It is a brilliantly conceived tradition that God setup as a divine earthly institution. As difficult as this subject is, since the two flesh have become one, there is only one separation allowed for in the most difficult of situations—unfaithfulness, and that was for the hard of heart. But, being well aware of God’s definition of marriage, take comfort in knowing that He throws every bit of His grace into making marriages work! Rescuing modern marriages is what God is all about. He is the great preserver and healer. As difficult as this truth appears, God has a way to recover the most difficult of marriages! But we must first, in true faithfulness, acknowledge the importance of the purpose and definition of marriage to keep it dignified and sacred before we can begin the healing process.

The Issue of Multiple Unions Let me make a point that can be somewhat difficult to receive. I’ve included in the appendix this topic as it can be very easily pointed out as my opinion on a subject. I accept that and offer this insight as a suggestion to a bigger issue. And, in doing such let it be known I’m not dogmatic and I remain conversational and open about this topic.

As I pointed out earlier, western culture, for the most part, looks unfavorably at polygamy (multiple marriages simultaneously)—as well it should! The arrangement of choice for matrimony in western civilization, dating back the Roman Empire, is monogamy. I also noted that according to some academics, a person can either practice what they call serial monogamy, referring to a series of short or long-term relationships or, full monogamy, which they define as single-union marriage lasting for the duration of an individual’s life.

78

Appendix

Now I must ask the question, what is the uniqueness between the polygamist and the serial monogamist? The difference between the two is just a matter of the timing of a divorce. The fact is, both live in the same area of multiple unions. I’ve spoken with the serial monogamist and in their minds they stand much more righteous than the polygamist by the fact they have only one spouse at a time (staying closer to the western ideology). But, if you’ve talked with someone who lives in a culture practicing polygamy, you know the polygamist takes pride in the fact they’ve remain faithful to all the covenants they’ve made with each of their wives.

Through all this, nonetheless, the complexity of situation does not change the reality—both have had multiple unions. In fact, Paul is even more emphatic as he quotes Genesis 2:25 when writing Ephesians 5: (NAS) 31 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”

Wife in the Greek is gunaika, a singular feminine noun. If this verse were to mean multiple unions it would read gunaikas, the plural feminine noun. That being the case, the passage would read “a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wives,” implying multiple unions.

Instead Paul recognizes the importance of a monogamous marriage— to add more unions, polygamy or serial monogamy, defrauds this biblical definition of marriage.

I understand all too well the difficulty of hearing these things in a culture where serial monogamy is accepted. However, when we read in the Old Testament of the example of Hosea, a man who was faithful to his wife though she cheated on him, we realize the pain of infidelity is not something new and unique to western culture. Though the pain of

79

A Pastoral Handbook for Rescuing Modern Marriages

his wife’s adultery was tremendous, he remained faithfully devoted to her and his wedding vows. He was a one-woman man!

The Issue of One Wife at a Time According to Paul in 1 Timothy 3, church order requires that anyone who enjoys a role of leadership within a fellowship is to be the husband of one wife. I’ve heard some add, “at the present time husband of one wife” so confusing the verse. The addition of this phrase takes aim at the polygamist while supporting a serial monogamist. So we must ask, if polygamy is Paul’s meaning in this passage, why do some believe it’s necessary to add that expression when it does not appear in the Greek translations?

In his service to the Sanhedrin, no doubt, Paul personally knew the priests and leaders of the Jewish religion. And while these leaders were more then happy to let Herod the Great have his nine wives20, polygamy was discouraged and never mentioned or practiced by the Israeli kohen priests. Therefore, as it wasn’t an issue of the day, it seems highly unlikely Paul had the polygamist relationship in mind when writing.

However, what Paul had witnessed firsthand among the Jewish leadership was the practice of serial monogamy in abundance.

Gamaliel, his mentor and instructor at the Academy of Hillel, would have taught Paul that multiple marriages were acceptable if done sequentially (one marriage ending by divorce before another begins).

This practice is more likely what Paul has in mind when writing husband of one wife. What has been historically questioned about these verses is, “Did Paul mean to exclude into the leadership of a church serially

20 The Works of Flavius Josephus, The War of the Jews, Book I, 28.4

80

Appendix

monogamous men?” Or, was he speaking exclusively about polygamy when writing husband of one wife?

If context and culture help to determine the exegesis of a passage, we must concluded husband of one wife means one wife for life.

The Issue Concerning Widows In the Bible there are two things reserved for only single-union married couples. Paul says the first one concerns a man who is leading a church and the second deals with a woman who is a widow. We’re only going to look at Paul’s second concern found in 1 Timothy 5: 9 “A widow is to be put on the list only if she is not less than sixty years old, having been the wife of one man…”

Caregiving in western culture is very different than the hardships that were presented to the first century church—case in point: the care of widows. There were not institutions offering special help like we see today21. There were no retirement programs or elderly social communities, no preferred housing for senior citizens or unique discounts for meals. In fact, I seriously question if the Roman Empire had any type of social security program at all as we find in our contemporary societies. And while our western civilization does a good job in caring for their seniors, in the first century older parents depended solely upon family members to offer relief.

The Christian church was the great exception to this rule. We don’t have to read very far into the book of Acts to find that widows were cared for with great concern. And, when a lack of care was discovered, the apostles sprang immediately into action to resolve the matter. In fact,

21 Expositor’s Bible, The Pastoral Epistles, p.159-160

81

A Pastoral Handbook for Rescuing Modern Marriages

later on Paul will take up the same concerns as the Jerusalem church had years earlier.

There is no doubt that our western civilization offers a far superior care for the elderly than first century Rome. But that care can be no excuse for the modern church to neglect responsibility for the needs of older believers. Paul developed guidelines for church order in caring for the elderly that are just as true for today as when he penned them. While it’s up to families to hold the burden of such care, Paul makes a point to Timothy that a fellowship also has responsibilities towards their widows. There are certain qualifications that should be recognized and understood for special considerations in the church. Among those Paul mentions certain concerns for a specific type of widow. Paul writes of them to Timothy: (NAS) Timothy 5:9 “A widow is to be put on the list only if she…[has] been the wife of one man,” Frankly, this is a difficult verse to discern. There are obvious cultural issues that are unknown to us in the case of this so-called list that certain widows were recorded upon. The Greek word for list is katalego.

We get the English word catalog from the Greek meaning. Evidently, there were widows who were catalogued, numbered on a list, which received recognition in a certain way. One of the unique qualifications for finding your way on to this list was a widow had to be a one-man woman.22 Simply put, a widow who was at least sixty years of age and was in a single-union marriage relationship was placed on this list.23 What this list was exactly has come under great scrutiny over the centuries. And, it is beyond the capacity of this writing to determine 22 Many Greek experts conclude the same phraseology is used here as in the requirement for an elder in 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:5.

23 There are other qualifications that are not relevant to our topic so I’m omitting them here.

82

Appendix

what men have argued over for years. Generally there are three ideas circulated. The first thought is that this list refers to the widows who were set apart for receiving church assistance.24 The second group speculates there was a list of deaconess’ used in the church.25 The final group sets apart a qualified widow for ecclesiastical duties that focus upon teaching young women, tending to the sick and helping children.26 Whatever the list was, one of the requirements for being on it was that a widow must have maintained a single-union marriage lifestyle. For this the Lord recognizes her in a special way—so how much also should the churches of God acknowledge the devotion of their widows in the same state. We have an amazing example of God honoring just such a woman in the gospel of Luke 2: 36 And there was a prophetess, Anna the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was advanced in years and had lived with her husband seven years after her marriage, 37 and then as a widow to the age of eighty-four.

She never left the temple, serving night and day with fastings and prayers.

38 At that very moment she came up and began giving thanks to God, and continued to speak of Him [Jesus] to all those who were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem.

Anna was a woman who the Lord seems to have taken special note of. She exhibited a life of godliness, service and prayer. Anna’s life was a great illustration of the definition of marriage as revealed in Genesis 2:24.

24 Clark’s People Commentary, George Clark, P. 408 25 Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament, John Wesley, P. 544 26 The Greek New Testament Vol. III, Henry Alford. P. 347

83